VERDICT: OBAMA IS GUILTY! THE OBAMA/COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY MOCK TRIAL IS OVER!

GOD BLESS REV. DAVID MANNING OF ATLAH FOR HIS COURAGE AND HIS EFFORTS TO RESCUE THE COUNTRY OF HIS BIRTH, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

BY HIS ACTIONS, AS A CONSTITUTIONALIST AND A MAN OF CONSCIENCE, HE HAS TAKEN A GIANT STEP TO SHED LIGHT ABOUT OUR GOVERNMENT'S LIES AND SECRETS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, AND ON THE COMPLICITY OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY TO PERPETUATE THE LIES.

IT IS A DARK DAY FOR YOU, COLUMBIA AND A WORSE DAY FOR BARRY SOETORO.



http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/verdict-of-guilty-in-obama-trial/

Imagine if this trial were to be tried in a real court! The evidence of the biggest fraud so overwhelming, meted against the American people, would erupt into a punishment like no other in our history.

A sitting president would be tried for treason, for international fraud, for lies, for secrets,
and imprisoned to await his death.

From the US Constitution:

Section 3: Treason

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war".

Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.^{[citation needed]} Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort, which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695. In Cramer v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that "every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses." In Haupt v. United States, however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

References

1. ^ United States Reports, Vol. 56, page 272
2. ^ Epstein, Lee; Walker, Thomas G. (2007). Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Institutional Powers and Constraints (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. ISBN 9781933116815., at 451.
3. ^ staff (n.d.). "Judges of the United States Courts - Delahay, Mark W.". Federal Judicial Center. http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=598. Retrieved 2009-07-02.
4. ^ staff (n.d.). "Judges of the United States Courts - English, George Washington". Federal Judicial Center. http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=709. Retrieved 2009-07-02.
5. ^ staff (n.d.). "Judges of the United States Courts - Kent, Samuel B.". Federal Judicial Center. http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1261. Retrieved 2009-07-02.
6. ^ 2 U.S. 419 (Full text of the decision at Findlaw.com)
7. ^ "The Federalist Papers : No. 78". http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed78.htm. Retrieved 2006-10-28.
8. ^ "The Federalist Papers : No. 78". http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed78.htm. Retrieved 2006-10-28.
9. ^ "The Federalist Papers : No. 78". http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed78.htm. Retrieved 2006-10-28.
10. ^ "The Federalist Papers : No. 78". http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed78.htm. Retrieved 2006-10-28.
11. ^ "The Federalist Papers : No. 78". http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed78.htm. Retrieved 2006-10-28.
12. ^ "The Federalist Papers : No. 78". http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed78.htm. Retrieved 2006-10-28.
13. ^ U.S. Constitution, Art. I, sec. 3