Skip to main content
  1. News
  2. Politics
  3. Nonpartisan

James David Manning threatens to sue Examiner.com + Rebuttal examiner

See also

On December 5th, it was reported by this column that "Dr." James David Manning had alleged that Miriam Carey, the woman shot by White House security after breaking through a barricade and injuring two officers, was likely ordered killed by President Obama to cover up the fact that she was the mother of Obama's love-child.

In response to this article, Manning has conceded that he does not have "absolute documented proof" to support his conspiracy theory, but is threatening to sue Examiner.com and myself anyway.

"Michael Ross, who is a National Political Rebuttal writer for the Examiner.com has posted up a flat out lie about James David Manning," he claims (and yes, he is talking about himself in the third person). "He starts his article that he wrote on the 5th of December that 'James David Manning has sufficiently that he is more than psychotic enough to replace Rick Wiles.' He goes on to state that the Carey family has asked for more investigation into the Fall shooting, but an attorney for the family has flatly denied that a paternity test has been requested.

"And so its regarding the issue of Miriam Carey, who I have stated that the possible child that Miriam Carey left behind in that shoot-out there in Washington, D.C. could be an Obama love-child. I don't have absolute documented proof. What I do have absolute documented proof of, and Mr. Michael Ross -- and I want to put the Examiner.com on notice that unless they retract this statement that there was not a call for a paternity test, I will bring a suit against the Examiner.com because I do have documented evidence that I talk with Valerie Carey, who is the sister of slain, slaughtered, assassinated Miriam Carey, there in Washington, D.C., who did ask me to aid in the getting a petition signed with enough signatures to present to Attorney General Eric Holder asking for the full and complete investigation into the death of her sister Miriam Carey, there in front of the Capitol Hill building.

"I've got documented proof of our conversation -- Valerie Carey asked me in the midst of that conversation if -- stated that they needed a paternity test, because they did not know who the father was -- she did not say that Obama was the father, but did state that a paternity test -- the family was requesting a paternity test.

"Now, unless Mr. Michael Ross is willing to retract this statement of calling me a liar -- stated that he talked with an attorney for the family, who flatly denied that a paternity test is being called for, I will sue the Examiner.com. I will sue them.

"Mr. Ross, you're on notice. Either you retract and reprint and restore the fact that I did talk with Valerie Carey, we did discuss the things, I was truthful in everything I said about the paternity test, about the signing of the petition, about there'd been no autopsy, there'd been no official notification, and that Valerie Carey was not sure who was her niece's father. Either you retract, or I will sue."

Well isn't that cute. . .

Mr. Manning, since I now know that you are reading this, I will address you directly: You are not going to sue, and this was nothing more than a gamble that either I or Examiner.com could be bullied into silence by the mere threat of a lawsuit.

I know you are not going to sue because you have no case.

If anything, all you have sufficed to do is provide me with the potential grounds for a defamation counter-suit.

Here are some necessary amendments to your response.

#1. "Now, unless Mr. Michael Ross is willing to retract this statement of calling me a liar--"

You were never called a liar (until now). You were called "psychotic" and an "imbecile", and your conspiracy theories were derided as being so unhinged that even Political Rebuttal regulars like Erik Rush and Alex Jones had so far kept their distance from you, but nowhere in the entire article were you ever called, by name, a liar.

I have often said, however, that if somebody answers a question that nobody asked, chances are they're lying. So I thank you, Mr. Manning, for answering the question about your integrity that was never asked.

#2: "I was truthful in everything I said [...] about the signing of the petition, about there'd been no autopsy, there'd been no official notification-"

These were never even mentioned in the article. The article was exclusively about your conspiracy theories. Which, by your own admission, are not based on actual facts.

#3. "--stated that he talked with an attorney for the family--"

I never once said that I spoke with the attorney. I still know that the attorney has denied your claims, however, because the response was posted publicly and can be viewed here.

You will notice, Mr. Manning, not only that it refers to you by name, but that it asks that you contact him directly if you have any questions about the death or the Carey family, and also states that the Carey family "-has called for the DOJ to investigate the Shooting Death of Miriam Carey."

On three accounts, Mr. Manning, you are now confirmed to be at least one of three things:

  1. Incredibly careless.
  2. Incredibly stupid.
  3. A liar.

Which brings us to what you repeatedly refer to as your "documented proof" -- your personal conversation with Valerie Casey. The existence of this conversation has never been flatly denied, but it will now be called into question based on the attorney's request that you contact him instead of the Carey family, and on your repeated failure to show any actual documentation.

If you can produce proof that such a conversation occurred, either in the form of a video or audio log, this article will be amended to note that you have done so. Your own repeated insistence that such proof exists, however, is not sufficient.

As for my reporting on your suggestion that Obama may be the father of Miriam Carey's daughter and subsequent insistence that "No one has come to the aid of this slaughtered woman, which means they are protecting something that they feel is far more important, and that's the hardcore, incontrovertible evidence and that which is being protected is Barack Hussein Obama," those are nonnegotiable.

Neither of these claims were based on actual fact. It is not even accurate to call them conspiracy theories. They are conspiracy hypothesis at best, and yet even that label does not do them justice.

What they truly are are twisted fantasies tailored to people whose hatred of Obama runs so deep that even accusing him of being the Antichrist is not enough to satisfy them, the immaturity of which is only matched by your now apparent belief that the legal system is a plaything with which to punish anyone who dares to cross you.

Advertisement

News

  • Mt. Everest avalanche
    Disaster strikes Mt. Everest as at least 12 people were killed in an avalanche
    Video
    Watch Video
  • Most Earthlike planet discovered
    The Kepler telescope has discovered the most Earthlike, possibly habitable planet yet
    Space News
  • Easter crosses create debate
    Easter crosses spark a debate of separation of church and state in Ohio
    Headlines
  • Chelsea Clinton is preggers
    Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton is pregnant with her first child
    Headlines
  • Stanley Cup playoffs
    The battle for Lord Stanley's Cup is on, don't miss a minute of playoff action
    Sports
  • Ukraine discussed amongst U.S., E.U., Russia
    The U.S., E.U. and Russia agree on ways to diffuse the tension in Ukraine
    Video
    Watch Video

Related Videos:

User login

Log in
Sign in with your email and password. Or reset your password.
Write for us
Interested in becoming an Examiner and sharing your experience and passion? We're always looking for quality writers. Find out more about Examiner.com and apply today!