Main Menu

Powell v. Obama

Powell v. Obama (US District Court for the Southern District of Texas) is not an eligibility case and I won’t be adding it to the docket or tracking it, but I wanted to mention it for the purpose of comparing it to actual eligibility cases.

While I do not know the details, it appears that Dr. Powell (PhD) has undergone some involuntary psychiatric treatment including some periods of institutional commitment, medication and restraint. He believes that New Mexico governor Bill Richardson is criminally responsible for some of the things that have befallen him, and that President Obama is also criminally responsible for what Governor Richardson has done.

Some of the things Powell believes are not so far removed from what you might see from Orly Taitz in her web site comments or from other birther lawsuits and blogs. For example this from Powell:

I accuse Barack Obama of encouraging the criminal silence of Brian Williams, NBC News Anchor, in the matter of public information given to him, Brian Williams, by Shane Allen, who had received the information from me, the Plaintiff. (Page 1)

Compare this with birther claims that the media, in collusion with, or under threats by, the Obama administration is not publicizing their claims and their cases.

Powell claims:

I accuse Barack Obama of keeping from the American people that on my own moral authority I expelled him, for cause, from the Presidency effective July Fourth 2012.

Compare this with “indictments” brought by “citizen grand juries” against President Obama, or the “Concerned Citizen” on the Taitz blog who said he was going to walk up to the White House, make a citizens arrest and haul Obama off to jail.Powell goes on to say:

I accuse Barack Obama from suppressing public information [I assume regarding Powell’s lawsuit against President Bush] the knowledge of which is vital to the well-being or more than three hundred million United States citizens.

Birthers also claim Obama is keeping vital documents (his kindergarten records and his college financial aid forms) hidden from the public, that are of vital interest to the survival of the country.

Powell says:

I accuse Barack Obama of having the mental-competency monitor call my wife, to extract a promise from her, to secure my freedom, I would behave myself.

One might compare this to other things Obama obviously didn’t do like give Marine One helicopter plans to Iran (since that too happened before he became president).

Powell said:

I accuse Barack Obama of quashing my 20 October 2000 letter to USA TODAY containing this sentence: “No one among among the New Mexico officials state or federal has ever come forward to dispute my documented declaration that Tom Udall and his armies, led by Bill Richardson, tried to murder me.”

Birthers use similar logic, saying no one has come forward saying that they remember Obama’s birth in Hawaii. Powell’s belief that someone is out to murder him parallels the belief by some birthers that FEMA is about to carry all the patriots off to internment camps.

Powell goes on:

I accuse Barack Obama of sabotaging my 1 October 2004 United District Court Pro Se Civil Action, POWELL VERSUS BUSH, which would have led to the instantaneous resignations of all the members of the George W. Bush presidential administration before the 2004 presidential election.

Compare this with an affidavit filed by Orly Taitz in Rhodes v. MacDonald that AG Eric Holder was sabotaging her case by meeting with the judge (something that actually did not happen) and compare it to crank theories that a sitting US president can be removed through a lawsuits. Birthers seem to think their own personal angst at not having a birth certificate carries the same government-shattering import that Powell attaches to his own lawsuit.

I suspect that with a little more research, closer examples from birthers to Powell could be located. I won’t belabor the point further except to say that I never fully appreciated how crazy the anti-Obama lawsuits sound until I read a lawsuit by a certified mental patient and had a model to go by.

30 Responses to Powell v. Obama

  1. avatar
    Kevin Bell November 10, 2009 at 12:31 am #

    ” I won’t belabor the point further except to say that I never fully appreciated how crazy the anti-Obama lawsuits sound until I read a lawsuit by a certified mental patient and had a model to go by.”

    Quote of the Month.

  2. avatar
    realist November 10, 2009 at 1:01 am #

    Dr. C: Fantastic job of comparing lunacy to lunacy.

  3. avatar
    Lupin November 10, 2009 at 1:41 am #

    Has there ever been any doubt that the birthers are either lunatics, or swindlers?

  4. avatar
    Benji Franklin November 10, 2009 at 2:21 am #

    Dear Lupin,

    No, nor is there any doubt that the birthers are lunatic swindlers of lunatics either!

    Benji Franklin

  5. avatar
    Benji Franklin November 10, 2009 at 2:36 am #

    Dear Doc,

    Some of the paired perspectives of Birther Lunacy are jarringly disconnected. My favorite is a George Carlinesque observation. Almost every controlling legal authority in the U.S. has been simultaneously motivated to treasonously conspire to place and keep in the Presidency, SOMEBODY NOBODY REALLY KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT!

    Benji Franklin

  6. avatar
    wendy November 10, 2009 at 2:49 am #

    NM was the core for the restraining order issue of some woman against David Letterman, as I recall. One issue in America is that anyone can file a lawsuit, despite the obvious lunacy factors involved. The standards for court ordered evaluation are normally the person must show imminent danger to either himself or someone else. THOSE records would not be public documents.
    Reminds me of the commentary the other day concerning Kirk Kerkorian and his “inability” to produce a birth certificate. Pure bewilderment .. WHY WOULD KERKORIAN BE EXPECTED TO SHOW HIS?
    still biding my time, waiting on Orly’s deadline.

  7. avatar
    MsDaisy November 10, 2009 at 7:35 am #

    Has anyone seen her latest “Motion for reconsideration” that is posted on her website? Not just delusional, but a long winded delusion.

    And I’d like to know why they (the Birthers) continually demand to see Obama’s long form birth certificate and all his birthing records to prove he was born in Hawaii, when they turn around and say it doesn’t matter where he was born because his father was not a citizen. So if they say it doesn’t matter why do they continually demand to see it?

  8. avatar
    kimba November 10, 2009 at 8:36 am #

    They want to see it because they think there is some embarrassing secret that might be revealed. What they think that secret could be, I don’t know.

    Read Orly’s motion. Seems to me it was just a “venting” session for Orly, plus it gave her a vehicle to put Larry Sinclair’s affidavit in the record with his outrageous claims of crack cocaine use, homosexuality and accusation of murder. Really, what is with these people that they throw out a death certificate of someone who died of multiple gunshot wounds who has some link to Obama in a six degrees of separation sort of way and then just says “see, mmm, uhhmmmm”. Sickening.

  9. avatar
    Catbit November 10, 2009 at 9:03 am #

    I wonder how long before the Powell v Obama lawsuit is submitted as hard evidence of conspiracy in Orly’s upcoming RICO suit – or perhaps a new ‘Dosie’

  10. avatar
    mommybrain November 10, 2009 at 9:44 am #

    …and compare it to crank theories that a sitting US president can be removed through a lawsuits

    Gee, where’d they ever get the idea it’s OK to sue a sitting President for anything you wish, Miss Paula Jones? I must say, I was shocked that the Paula Jones suit was allowed to go forward.

    I was at a restaurant one night in Pasadena when Miss Jones sauntered in with her entourage. She was politely booed but they stayed anyway.

  11. avatar
    misha November 10, 2009 at 10:15 am #

    My favorite Carlins:

    When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say?
    Just how happy are clams?
    Why does it take the cake, but not the pie?

  12. avatar
    Black Lion November 10, 2009 at 11:01 am #

    From moonbat Orly’s world of drivel….She is after George Soros…Somehow this will affect her appeal with Judge Carter…Don’t ask me how…

    Very strange, I got this from Soros foundation today, as I need to file Motion for reconsideration with Carter. (Moldova, is a former Soviet republic, where I was born)”

    Entrenching Impunity: Moldova’s Response to Police Violence During the April 2009 Post-Election Demonstrations
    Date:
    October 2009
    Source:
    Soros Foundation – Moldova
    Moldovan police beat and otherwise ill-treated at least 300 peaceful protesters of the nearly 700 they detained following the parliamentary elections in April, according to this report released by the Soros Foundation–Moldova. In at least 100 cases, the ill treatment took place inside police commissariats.

    Entrenching Impunity: Moldova’s Response to Police Violence During the April 2009 Post-Election Demonstrations documents personal accounts of people who suffered beatings, sleep deprivation and verbal abuse at the hands of police after the April demonstrations. This report is the most extensive collection of information available to date on the number of individuals police apprehended during the April events.

    Peaceful demonstrations to protest the outcomes of the parliamentary elections in April turned violent when a small number of demonstrators began throwing stones at police. Authorities made little effort to control rogue elements in the crowd; by the evening of April 7 they started a horrible campaign of mass arrests, which lasted a few days.

    The report also offers recommendations for the new government to end impunity and restore confidence in the justice system. They include creating a truly independent public commission to continue investigations into the events in April, make public recommendations for reforms, and promote accountability.

    The report, in English and Romanian, is available below. A Russian version is available from the Soros Foundation Moldova at http://www.soros.md.

  13. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 10, 2009 at 2:04 pm #

    Just to clarify: both witnesses claimed Orly tried to convince them to lie about other things than the assertions in their underlying affidavits. Sinclair was upset because Orly wanted him to try to link the deaths of two other, additional individuals to Obama, including to claim that one death was a homicide when he knew that circumstances pointed to a different cause. (I think a drug overdose, but my memory is imperfect there).

    Smith was upset because Orly asked him to vouch not only for the Kenyan birth-certificate he tried to sell on eBay, but ALSO the photo of the other (inconsistent) certificate that had been shown to be a copy of the Australian guy’s certificate, lifted from a geneology site; AND because Orly wanted Smith to claim that Kreep had tried to buy the certificate from him in order to suppress it.

    Orly might deny having urged the witnesses to say those things, but I think there’s a record of her referencing 3 homicides at the September hearing when she tried to introduce Smith’s testimony — and she does not address those assertions at all in her reconsideration paperwork. So there really isn’t a denial.

    If a lawyer summons a witness to testify that the sky is blue, and the witness claims that he was also asked to testify that pigs fly and fish have wheels — then it’s not a denial when the lawyer reasserts that the witness could testify as to the blueness of the sky.

  14. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 10, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

    Clarification/correction to my above remark:

    The Sinclair affidavit re perjury is here:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19805846/LARRY-SINCLAIR-AFFIDAVIT-19784205090915LWSAffidavitRe

    He claims Orly asked him to testify that THREE members of Obama’s church were murdered; Sinclair says that wasn’t true and that one of decedents (Spencer) died of AIDS.

  15. avatar
    thisoldhippie November 10, 2009 at 2:23 pm #

    I loved the way she said she couldn’t file a RICO complaint until the judge let her get evidence. That’s just a fishing expedition.

  16. avatar
    misha November 10, 2009 at 2:32 pm #

    Dear Ms.Taitz:

    My cat has a message for you: “Four legs good; two legs bad.” He also told me he wants you to go back to Moldova, or Tel Aviv. He’ll help you pack. He and Toonces will fly the plane.

    Thank you for listening.

  17. avatar
    MsDaisy November 10, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    The whole Birther movement is nothing but a fishing expedition. And the more stupid comments you read the more absurd it gets. Any idiot can make up and post the most outrageous line of BS his little Birther brain can concoct, swear to it and by God Orly will take it to court and try to prove it. Collectively they don’t have the brainpower of a peanut. They do not have one iota of any kind of real evidence for any of their million different claims, and every time they are smacked down, turned away or laughed at it because of Obama’s thugs or the person in question is corrupt. It’s frightening to think of the level of insanity that is walking around loose in society.

    Hay, maybe we can have some fun and plant her a few clues about Obama’s secret twin brother. I mean for God Sakes, have you looked at some of the “so far out it doesn’t even qualify for left field” stuff she has people researching on her website?

  18. avatar
    Whatever4 November 10, 2009 at 5:11 pm #

    I like the twin theory. There IS a check box on the older forms (the Nordyke Twins) for single, twin, triplet. That opens up a huge number of fictional possibilities.

  19. avatar
    Det. Cliff Hanger November 10, 2009 at 5:34 pm #

    Let’s not forget the VP’s son had Sinclair arrested and then dropped the charges. Sinclair would have said anything to divert attention from himself after it became clear Carter was working for Obama.

  20. avatar
    Det. Cliff Hanger November 10, 2009 at 5:48 pm #

    Why is one of the defendant’s son harassing and intimidating a witness?

    Sen. Joe Biden’s son, Delaware Attorney General Joe Biden, III, made a big splash last June from afar when his office interrupted a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. in order to execute an arrest warrant against Larry Sinclair issued months earlier through a grand jury sealed indictment. As Sinclair was wrapping up his press conference where he laid out sex and drug allegations against Sen. Barack Obama, D.C. police, acting on an extradition order obtained by AG Biden, handcuffed Sinclair and took him into custody. He was held in a D.C. jail for days before Biden had him extradited to Delaware. This past week, Biden dropped felony charges against Sinclair without any fanfare. At the time of his initial arrest, the Wilmington News-Journal trumped up the arrest in a big news story. Sinclair complained that the newspaper reported facts in its original news story which never appeared in police or court documents. The newspaper’s report today was very brief and referred to Sinclair as an “anti-Obama” blogger, making no mention of the connection of the Attorney General’s son to Sen. Obama’s vice presidential running mate, Sen. Joe Biden.

  21. avatar
    thisoldhippie November 10, 2009 at 7:31 pm #

    Wonder if she can get herself off….no pun intended!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/22373193/Mustang-Orly

  22. avatar
    misha November 10, 2009 at 7:53 pm #

    “But, I vas goingk to the Vhite House to arrest da Kenyan, so I haff a good reason.”

  23. avatar
    Rickey November 10, 2009 at 11:40 pm #

    You should try to get your facts straight.

    Larry Sinclair wasn’t arrested “last June.” He was arrested in June 2008, after having been indicted in Delaware for theft on February 5, 2008. At the time of the indictment Obama wasn’t the Democratic nominee, and in fact it was far from clear that he would be the Democratic nominee. And it was even less clear that Joe Biden would become the Democratic vice-presidential nominee. The Delaware charges against Sinclair were dropped on August 28, 2008, so what Carter “working for Obama” has to do with this is a mystery to me.

    Sinclair and Smith are two peas in a pod. They could regale each other with stories about their respective forgery convictions.

  24. avatar
    Chilidog November 12, 2009 at 2:02 pm #

    here is a nice nuisance suit agains GW Bush

    http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/4:2006cv00442/139089/1/

    be patient, it’s a little slow to open.

  25. avatar
    Vince Treacy November 12, 2009 at 4:59 pm #

    There is a new case today in Indiana. The case is Ankeny and Kruse v. Governor of Indiana, in the Court of Appeals of Indiana:

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    The trial court dismissed the claim and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

    The Court discussed the merits of the claim that a natural born citizen must be born in the United States to two United States citizens. It relied on U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, ruling that all persons born in the United States are natural born citizens.

  26. avatar
    Rita November 12, 2009 at 5:23 pm #

    Wow, talk about a stake through the heart. Granted, this is a Court of Appeals opinion and not Supreme Court precedent, but it is pretty strongly conclusive of the issue. Kudos to Dr. C and this site as well; I was nodding along while I was reading it, as the decision followed the same logical thinking based on the available case law that Dr. C has graciously provided us with.

  27. avatar
    Vince Treacy November 12, 2009 at 5:42 pm #

    Dr. C should sit down, relax, and read this one slowly, with relish and enjoyment.

  28. avatar
    ballantine November 12, 2009 at 5:43 pm #

    Very well done. Actually seems to hold that natural born citizen under Art. II is defined in accordance with the common law using the same quotes from Wong and Minor pointed out repeatedly on this blog. Unfortunely, it’s only a state appeals court but still not a good day for birthers. The precedents are piling up.

  29. avatar
    ballantine November 12, 2009 at 6:00 pm #

    Well written opinion. States that it doesn’t matter that the Wong court never declared Wong a natural born citizen. Even dismisses the Chester A. Arthur claim. Dimisses Vattel and Bingham to they are inconsitant with Wong. Great stuff.

  30. avatar
    SFJeff November 12, 2009 at 6:02 pm #

    Quoted because its relevant: “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation’s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”