NY – Strunk v NYSBOE – Notice of Appeal
In true ‘Strunk’ fashion… Expect more sanctions…
Strunk v NYSBOE – Notice of Appeal with Attachments
NY – Strunk v XXXX – Affidavit in Response to Order to show cause
Strunk was ordered by the Judge to explain at a hearing why he should not be sanctions. Strunk, apparently insists otherwise as his ‘affidavit in response to order to show cause’ implies. A hilarious attempt at best but it does not present a very good foundation as to why sanctions should not be ordered…
NY – Strunk v BOE – Dismissed and hearing for sanctions
[Update: OCR'ed text added for good fun. No spell checking attempted]
Dr Conspiracy reports on a devastating blow against Strunk whose hilarious filings finally may have come to catch up with him…
It’s a match between Orly’s crazy arguments and Strunk’s right now. Strunk is facing the prospect of sanctions for his frivolous filings and he is not happy. But rather than defend himself against the charges, he engages in more frivolous ‘reasoning’. But first a hilarious quote from the Judge
Plaintiff STRUNK cannot wish into existence an interpretation that he chooses for the natural born citizen clause. There is no arguable legal basis for the proposition that both parents of the President must have been born on U.S. soil.
Keyes v Obama Meets Strunk v Rest of the World
Strunk is pro-se plaintiff in countless filings against the United States and other entities. He has several filings in DC
| 1 | STRUNK, CHRISTOPHER EARL | dcdce | 1:2009cv01249 | 07/07/2009 | 890 | |
| STRUNK v. NEW YORK PROVINCE OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS et al | ||||||
| 2 | STRUNK, CHRISTOPHER EARL | dcdce | 1:2009cv01295 | 07/13/2009 | 441 | |
| STRUNK v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS et al | ||||||
| 3 | STRUNK, CHRISTOPHER EARL | dcdce | 1:2008cv02234 | 12/29/2008 | 895 | |
| STRUNK v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE | ||||||
Here he references Strunk v Department of State. See also here.
Background
The case involves a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of State. Strunk requested that the Department of State releases a variety of files and document relating to Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Obama’s mother and Barack Obama. In reply to his various FOIA requests, the DOS informed that entry/exit information is not maintained by the DOS but rather by the Department of Homeland Services. Furthermore, as to the request related to Stanley Ann Dunham, since she was deceased, the DOS provided Strunk with the available information and denied the request with respect to Barack Obama, unless Strunk would obtain a release from Obama. In a second amended complaint, Strunk added the DHS. In his motion in response to the DOS motion to partial dismiss, Strunk raised the Quo Warranto statute and also mentioned the possibility that he would ask for recusal of Judge Leon. Observing that assuming that Quo Warranto is even applicable in case of a duly elected, sitting President, the DOS points out that Strunk does not meet statutory requirements for requesting a Quo Warranto.
The statutes give authority only to the Attorney General or to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to institute proceedings, on their own volition or “on the relation of a third person.” D.C. Code § 16-3502. The one narrow exception, allowing private parties to directly “apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued,” is limited to “interested person[s]” (as opposed to merely “third persons”), and it only applies when “the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested.” Id. § 16-3503.
On June 19, Judge Leon accepted the motion to stay discovery until further order of the Court and nothing has happened since then.
Strunk v US – Doct 25 – REPLY to opposition to motion to Stay Discovery
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:08-CV-02234 (RJL)
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY
The myriad reasons justifying the entry of a stay of discovery are adequately set forth in Defendants’ June 8, 2009 consolidated filing [Dkt. #20].
Strunk v US – Doc 20 – Reply in Support of Partial Motion to Dismiss
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:08-CV-02234 (RJL)
DEFENDANTS’ CONSOLIDATED (1) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT; (2) OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR NON-FOIA RELIEF; AND (3) MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY
Rather than attempt to defend his asserted (but false) entitlement to private passport and travel records relating to President Barack Obama, Plaintiff Christopher Strunk has responded to Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #16] by requesting that his entire Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case be set aside, at least temporarily, in favor of jury proceedings regarding the President’s authority to hold his office, with concomitant discovery on a wide range of issues, apparently to be heard by a three-judge panel under color of 28 U.S.C. § 2284. Pl.’s Opp’n/Cross-Mot. [Dkt. #19]. None of these requests have merit. As to the underlying Motion to Dismiss, Strunk concedes the solitary relevant issue by admitting that, in submitting his FOIA requests for the President’s personal records, he failed to comply with agency privacy regulations, and therefore has not exhausted his claims for such records. Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss should therefore be granted. Moreover, Defendants hereby (1) oppose Strunk’s myriad requests for relief, all of which are meritless and fall well beyond the scope of the FOIA complaint in this action; and (2) request immediate entry of a stay of discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss.
12-29-2008 – STRUNK v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE – Docket
U.S. District Court
District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-02234-RJL
|
STRUNK v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Assigned to: Judge Richard J. Leon
Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act |
Date Filed: 12/29/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant |
| Plaintiff | ||
| CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK | represented by | CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK 593 Vanderbilt Avenue Apartment 281 Brooklyn, NY 11238 (845) 901-6767 PRO SE |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE | represented by | Brigham John Bowen U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington , DC 20530 (202) 514-6289 Fax: (202) 616-8460 Email: brigham.bowen@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Wynne Patrick Kelly |
| Defendant | ||
| U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY | represented by | Brigham John Bowen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 12/29/2008 | 1 | COMPLAINT against U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Filing fee $ 0.00) filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf, ) (Entered: 01/03/2009) |
| 12/29/2008 | SUMMONS Not Issued as to U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (jf, ) (Entered: 01/03/2009) | |
| 12/29/2008 | 2 | MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK (jf, ) (Entered: 01/03/2009) |
| 12/29/2008 | FIAT ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy on 12/23/08. “Leave to file without prepayment of cost granted” (jf, ) (Entered: 01/03/2009) | |
| 01/02/2009 | 4 | SUMMONS Returned Executed U.S. Attorney served on 12/31/2008, answer due 1/30/2009. (tg, ) (Entered: 01/05/2009) |
| 01/05/2009 | 3 | NOTICE of Appearance by Wynne Patrick Kelly on behalf of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Kelly, Wynne) (Entered: 01/05/2009) |
| 01/13/2009 | 5 | SUMMONS Returned Executed U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE served on 1/9/2009, answer due 2/9/2009. (jf, ) (Entered: 01/14/2009) |
| 01/26/2009 | 6 | RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. Date of Service Upon Attorney General 1/8/09. (jf, ) (Entered: 01/26/2009) |
| 01/27/2009 | 7 | First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s complaint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kelly, Wynne) (Entered: 01/27/2009) |
| 01/28/2009 | ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE answer due 3/31/2009. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 1/28/09. (lcrjl2) (Entered: 01/28/2009) | |
| 01/28/2009 | Set/Reset Deadlines: US Department of State Answer due by 3/31/2009, (kc) (Entered: 01/28/2009) | |
| 02/02/2009 | 8 | NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Brigham John Bowen on behalf of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Substituting for attorney Wynne Patrick Kelly (Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 02/02/2009) |
| 02/10/2009 | 9 | AMENDED COMPLAINT against U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (received on 2/10/09 )(jf, ) (Entered: 02/11/2009) |
| 02/13/2009 | 10 | MOTION for Reconsideration re ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE answer due 3/31/2009 by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) “Leave to file granted” by Judge Richard J. Leon(jf, ) (Entered: 02/13/2009) |
| 02/19/2009 | 11 | Memorandum in opposition to re 10 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 02/19/2009) |
| 02/22/2009 | ORDER denying 10 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 02/22/09. (lcrjl2) (Entered: 02/22/2009) | |
| 02/27/2009 | SUMMONS (4) Issued as to U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (jf, ) (Entered: 03/03/2009) | |
| 03/05/2009 | Leave to File Denied by Richard J. Leon. Plaintiff’s Surreply Declaration in support of plaintiff’s notice of motion for reconsideration of the order granting defendant’s first motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. (jf) (Entered: 03/06/2009) | |
| 03/12/2009 | 12 | SUMMONS Returned Executed U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE served on 3/10/2009, answer due 4/9/2009; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY served on 3/10/2009, answer due 4/9/2009, RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the US Attorney, served on 3/10/2009, answer due 4/9/2009 (jf, ) (Entered: 03/12/2009) |
| 03/19/2009 | Leave to File Denied by Judge Richard J. Leon. Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion for Recusal. (jf) (Entered: 03/19/2009) | |
| 03/19/2009 | 13 | RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. Date of Service Upon Attorney General 5/13/09. (jf, ) (Entered: 03/20/2009) |
| 03/25/2009 | 14 | Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 03/25/2009) |
| 04/02/2009 | ORDER granting 14 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 04/02/09. (lcrjl2) (Entered: 04/02/2009) | |
| 04/09/2009 | 15 | Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 9 Amended Complaint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 04/09/2009) |
| 04/16/2009 | MINUTE ORDER granting 15 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise to Respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Answer or Response due 4/23/2009. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 04/16/09. (lcrjl2) (Entered: 04/16/2009) | |
| 04/17/2009 | Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer or response due by 4/23/2009, (kc) (Entered: 04/17/2009) | |
| 04/23/2009 | 16 | MOTION to Dismiss (Partial) by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Oct. 16, 2008 FOIA Request), # 2 Exhibit B (Nov. 22, 2008 FOIA Request), # 3 Exhibit C (Dec. 25, 2008 FOIA Request), # 4 Exhibit D (1st DOS Ltr., Jan. 12, 2009), # 5 Exhibit E (2nd DOS Ltr., Jan. 12, 2009), # 6 Exhibit F (Pl.’s Decl., Nov. 22, 2009), # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 04/23/2009) |
| 04/23/2009 | 17 | ANSWER to 9 Amended Complaint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. Related document: 9 Amended Complaint filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK.(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 04/23/2009) |
| 04/28/2009 | 18 | ORDERED that, on or before June 1, 2009, the plaintiff shall file his opposition or response to the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss. If the plaintiff fails to respond timely, the Court may grant the defendants’ motion as conceded. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 4/27/09. (kc) (Entered: 04/28/2009) |
| 06/01/2009 | 19 | Memorandum in opposition to re 16 MOTION to Dismiss (Partial) filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(jf, ) (Entered: 06/05/2009) |
| 06/01/2009 | DEMAND for Trial by Jury by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (See Docket Entry 19 to view document) (jf, ) (Entered: 06/05/2009) | |
| 06/08/2009 | 20 | REPLY to opposition to motion re 16 MOTION to Dismiss (Partial) MOTION to Dismiss (Partial) filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 06/08/2009) |
| 06/09/2009 | 21 | MOTION to Stay Discovery by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 06/09/2009) |
| 06/09/2009 | 22 | RESPONSE re Jury Demand : Opposition to Jury Demand filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 06/09/2009) |
| 06/15/2009 | 23 | Memorandum in opposition to re 21 MOTION to Stay Discovery filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (jf, ) (Entered: 06/16/2009) |
| 06/15/2009 | 24 | REPLY to Defendants’ Reponse to Plaintiff’s notice of cross motion of quo warranto demand for jury trial re Jury Demand filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (jf, ) (Entered: 06/16/2009) |
| 06/19/2009 | 25 | REPLY to opposition to motion re 21 MOTION to Stay Discovery filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 06/19/2009) |
| 06/19/2009 | 26 | MINUTE ORDER granting 21 Motion to Stay Discovery. No Discovery shall take place until further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 06/19/09. (lcrjl2) (Entered: 06/19/2009) |
Investigative Report – Questionable use of Social Security Numbers
Dr Orly’s ‘questionable Social Security numbers‘ arguments seems to have made it into the Court Records, at least until the Court rejected the motion filed as “SUR-REPLY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT ” as found in Strunk v U.S. Department of State Civil Action No.: 08-2234 (RJL)
Strunk argues that the Department of Homeland Security failed to address the matter of abusive use of SSN. Since this is not a matter of a FOIA, and I doubt that the plaintiff has any standing as to how the DHS responds to such reports, it seems that the complaint has no relevance. Nevertheless, curious by the ‘report’ I decided to do some investigative work, which did not involve more than analyzing the list related to Stanley A Dunham/Sutoru and show that these involve two individuals, Barack Obama’s grandfather Stanley Amour Dunham and Barack Obama’s mother Stanley Ann Dunham, who later in life changed her name to Stanley Ann Sutoro. So far nothing really suspicious. I will attempt a more in-depth analysis of the various entries for ‘Barack Obama’. Remember that these records include any and all addresses at which a person has lived during his life-time and thus undoubtable includes a lot of ‘duplicate’ records.
02-22-2009 – Strunk v US State Department – Dkt 12 – Motion to reconsider denied
Motion to reconsider denied
02-13-2009 – Strunk v US State Department – Dkt 10 – MOTION for Reconsideration re ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, )
Defendant.
Civil Action No.: 08-2234 (RJL)
SUR-REPLY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT
Read More…
02-09-2009 – Strunk v US State Department – FOIA Response US Customs and Border Protection
The following was found as exhibit 15 in:
strunk_dec_reply_in_support_of_nom_for_reconsideration_with_exhibits_dcd_08-2234-cv_022209 (Exhibit 15)
The US Customs and Border Protection has responded stating that Strunk has no FOIA access to these records without Obama’s permissions, and that no records exist before 1982 regarding entry/exit data.
Did Dr Orly assist in Strunk v US State Department ?
26302 La Paz ste 211
Mission Viejo CA 92691
Statement of Services Performed
Following is the record of time spent by Orly Taitz, ESQ
11.21.08 Review FOIA request 1.00h
12.03.08. Review Petition for Writ of Mandamus 3.5 h
12.03.08. Review motion for rehearing petition for a Writ of Mandamus 1.5 h
12.03.08. Review Exhibits A through G 1.25h
01 .01.09. DC district case 08-cv-2234 2.5 h
02.01.09. Conference call with attorney Mr. John D. Hemingway and Mr. Strunk 2.25h
02.01 review Petition for reconsideration of order for time extension 1.5h
02.02.09 FOIA State department Response 0.5 h
Attorney’s rate is $375 ph.
02-10-2009 – Strunk v US Department of State – Dkt 09 – Supplement amended verified complaint and petition for Writ under FOIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, and
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND : SECURITY,
Defendants.
Case No.: 08-cv-2234 (RJL)
SUPPLEMENT AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS UNDER F.O.I.A.
11-02-2008 – US Supreme Court – Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus Supporting Documents
Christopher Earl Strunk’s Declaration under SCOTUS Rule 22 in Support of Application to the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsberg for an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus under SCOTUS Rule 21 for a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ and Rule 23 Injunctive Relief with as of right a direct Emergency Appeal taken from 2nd Circuit Judge Robert A. Katzmann’s DENIAL of the Emergency Motion for a Panel to rehear THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS in the Original Proceeding in Second Circuit case 08-5422-OP, with a request for a Temporary Restraining Order under 28 USC §1651 of the New York Electoral College pending issuance of an order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia of records demanded of the U.S. Department of State under the Verified Complaint and Petition for Writ of Mandamus under F.O.I.A., and a Writ of Mandamus for remand for preliminary hearing under FRCvP 65(b) in EDNY 08-CV-4289 with October 28, 2008 Civil Judgment from the Memorandum and Order of
District Judge Allyne R. Ross
Read More…
11-03-2008 – Strunk v NY State Board of Elections – Declaration is support of Motion to Extend time
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Christopher Earl Strunk,
Plaintiff
v.
New York State Board of Elections, Deputy Director Todd D. Valentine, Deputy Director Stanley lalen, and Lorraine A. Cortez-Vazquez, Secretary of the State of New York, each in their official and individual capacity.
Defendants.
and
The New York State Attorney General, The United States Department of State, The United States Attorney General.
Parties- in-interest.
Case no.: 08-cv-4289
STRUNK DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION FOR REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN APPEAL
Strunk lawsuits
Strunk, whose website contains some bizarre accusations about Barack Obama filed four separate cases. I will be trying to figure out a timeline as well as the arguments presented.
State
NYS Supreme Court Kings County Index no.: 29641-08 - article 78 challenging individual NY electors and state office actions by OSC with decision reserved for before December 15, 2008 which may require removals and vacancies to be filled in the NY Electoral College.
NYS Supreme Court Kings County Index no.: 29642-08 – challenging NYS SOS et al breach of due diligence of Obama’s eligibility and 42 USC 1983 /. 1985 state action civil rights violation in re obama’s eligibility malfeasance and sedition. As proposed OSC for TRO was declined in re expedited discovery in re US DOS travel records with a reference by the State Justice that the request at state level is collaterally estopped because it is now before the federal courts with my intent to go to the SCOTUS.
Federal
EDNY 08-cv-4289 Judge Allyne R. Ross (dismissed with prejudice) regarding state action election violation and 5 USC 552 request of US DOS, now seeking to either find money to file appeal matter in re FOIA for Obama’s mother’s travel records from 1960 through 1963 from US DOS that are in statutory violation.
October 20, 2008: Filed restraining order to prevent general election
October 22, 2008: Order to show cause
October 28, 2008: Dismissed for lack of standing, failure to state a claim and frivolous.
2nd Circuit 08-5422-OP Judge Katzman Original proceeding for writ of mandamus seeking a Judicial Subpoena Duces Tecum of US DOS records requested under FOIA and remand to EDNY 08-cv-4289 (denied) 11/14/08 now on direct appeal under SCOTUS Rule 22 for application of extraordinary writ to be submitted this evening to Justice Ginsberg who should have it Monday.
November 26, 2008, in the 08-5422-OP original proceeding Judge Katzmann ordered that: “the emergency motion for panel reconsideration of the Court’s November 14, 2008 order denying a writ of mandamus and for a TRO of the NY Electoral College pending issuanceby the District Court for the District of Columbia of records requested under the Freedom of
Information Act is DENIED”
October 17, 2008 Filed the FOIA request of the U.S. Department of State for travel records
November 10, 2008 Filed 2nd Circuit 08-5422-OP for writ of mandamus to obtain judicial subpoena of public travel records from the United States Department of State under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. subsection 552
November 14, 2008, Circuit Judge Katzman denied petition 08-5422-OP without comment;
November 17, 2008, in light of the denial from 2 Circuit for a Judicial Subpoena Duces Tecum I filed a proposed Order to Show Cause for a TRO and Stay in the New York State Supreme Court in the County of Kings Strunk versus Paterson et al. with Index no.:
29642/08, that on November 19, 2008 the Honorable Justice David I. Schmidt declined to sign due to collateral estoppel because Circuit Judge Katzman had denied me the same relief there in Federal Court, see R22 –A- 445 thru 450.
The State cases remain active as do the concurrent jurisdictional efforts at Federal level.
Strunk Comments on Nov-20-2008
As you are aware I am always one not to leave any stone unturned and as with this proposed order for a Judicial Subpoena Duces Tecum and related stay in the NYS-SC Kings County 29642-08, has been declined by Justice Schmidt this afternoon, and at his direction was faxed to my attention, see attached pdf file.
Justice Schmidt declined to sign on the basis that the Second Circuit in the original proceeding 08-5422-OP has already ruled on this issue, and accordingly Justice Schmidt believes any further state court action is collaterally estopped thereby.
I don’t agree with the decision,but because that may end up in a long struggle in 2nd Department Appellate which will burn time, I am moving on the original concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of the 08-5422-OP, despite the fact that the substantive matter was only heard by a single Judge not a three judge panel as is required and as a flaw seems to be repeated over and over again.
As of Tomorrow I will appeal my 2nd Circuit denial in 08-5422-OP to the United States Supreme Court first with the attention of Justice Ginsberg (of Brooklyn) with the requested alternate Justice Roberts (of Buffalo). I will send by Friday at 5 PM by two-day mail my motion for relief there with an original and two copies with a single copy to the Solicitor General.
Phil Berg seems impressed
From: Phil J. Berg
Subject: RE: Your Monday 11-17-08 Application
To: “‘Christopher Strunk’”
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 2:20 AM
Hi Christopher,
Great Job! As for Ann Dunham, I would have listed her a/k/a’s as Ann Dunham a/k/a Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Obama a/k/a Stanley Ann Obama a/k/a Stanley Ann Dunham Obama a/k/a Ann Dunham Obama.
It is believed she was using the name “Ann Dunham Obama” and “Ann Obama” at the time of Obama’s birth.
Hope it helps. Good luck, let us know what happens.
Respectfully,
Lisa Liberi
Assistant to Philip J. Berg
10-28-2008 – Strunk v NY State Board of Elections – Case Dismissed
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,
Plaintiff,
-against-
New York State Board of Elections: Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN and LORRAINE
A. CORTEZ- VAZQUEZ. Secretary of the State of New York, each in their official and individual capacity (1).
Defendants.
08-CV-4289 (ARR)(LB)
