Poor Strunk…

Case dismissed on the grounds that it’s incomprehensible gibberish.

06/16/2014 4 MEMORANDUM ORDER: It is ordered that the plaintiffs’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus and 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction Hearing are DENIED; and it is further ordered that the plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 06/13/14. (tb, ) Modified on 6/16/2014 (tb, ). (Entered: 06/16/2014)


NY – Strunk v Paterson – Memorandum in opposition to motions for renewal



– against – DAVID PATERSON, et al.,


Index No. 29642108
Justice David I. Schmidt


Attorney General of the State of New York

120 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, New York 10271 (212) 416-8567

JOSHUA PEPPER Assistant Attorney General of Counsel

Continue reading

MD – Taitz v Colvin – Orly pretty confused

Orly has been making some pretty outrageous claims about the Maryland case. The Defendant is asking for additional time because the attorney on the case is retiring. Orly immediately raises the rhetoric but fails to understand the Judge’s past ruling

01/13/2014 22 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to the Second Amended Complaint by Carolyn Colvin Responses due by 1/30/2014 (Loucks, Allen) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
Orly ‘claims’ that
Department of Justice [sic] is asking Judge Hollander for additional time yet again to make up a third story about the fraud of the century. See pleadings below. When one tells the truth, it is the same story all the time. When one lies, he has to make up new stories every time he is caught in another lie.

All the Department of Justice did was to ask for additional time to respond to Orly’s claim that the search was incomplete. There is no new story, there are no lies.

It was proven time and again that the Social Security administration is hiding the application for a Social Security number REDACTED, which was assigned to Harry Bounel and later fraudulently used by Obama. :^o

Orly’s poor reading abilities may have caused her to believe that there is such an application but the facts so far show that there are no such records found. Orly is accusing the Justice Department of lying but all she has is a failed understanding of what was found.

Obama failed E-verify and SSNVS and was rejected by the Obamacare, as they also could not verify his identy.

From this Orly jumps to a conclusion that somehow Obama is using someone else’s SSN, even though there is no supporting evidence. The failure in e-verify never suggested that President Obama was not using valid SSN.

Now a new attorney was brought to handle this case and he is telling the judge that they will submit a third version of the story. :^o

That is not what the motion states.

Current attorney was an acting US Attorney for Maryland with a staff of 70 attorneys and 70 support staff. They want additional time until February 7. These people should be fighting the fraud in the White House, instead all of these resources are used to fight one civil rights attorney, [-X who is trying to restore the sanity, rule of law in the White House and stop usurpation of the presidency.

Orly may believe that she is a ‘civil rights’ attorney or trying to restore sanity and rule of law, but there is not much to support her position here.

So far Judge Ellen Hollander was the only judge (federal or state) who showed some decency and integrity and common sense and denied the prior motion to dismiss by the Feds

No Orly, she denied your motion for summary judgment and approved the motion to dismiss. Hint: Plaintiff is Orly, defendant is the acting Commissioner of Social Security.

12/13/2013 19 ORDER granting Defendant’s 7 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice and with leave to amend; denying Plaintiff’s 9 Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice; setting deadline for Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 12/13/13. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 12/16/13) (Entered: 12/16/2013)

How clueless can one be? And really, who is “lying” here? A fascinating mindset, to say the least.

Orly’s reading abilities are quite poor, her legal successes are of similar quality and quantity.

The Court explained in its ruling in details, the failures by Orly

One of her biggest failures is the flawed belief that President Obama’s SSN was stolen and that it belonged to Harrison J Bounel.

So be prepared for months of more entertainment.

NY – Strunk v NY State Board of Elections – Defining NBC…

The judge in the case once again denies another frivolous filing by our friend Strunk and reconfirming the simple facts of Natural Born: Birth on soil.

Primarily, plaintiff STRUNK attempts to revisit this Court’s dismissal of his complaint. With respect to plaintiff’s argument that this Court misapprehended his argument that President Obama is not a “natural-born” citizen, plaintiff STRUNK contends that this Court construed plaintiff’s definition of that term to require that both of the President’s parents be natives of the Untied States, when he was arguing that both parents must have been United States citizens. This is of no moment because this Court dismissed the complaint based upon lack of standing and collateral estoppel. Further, as to the merits of this argument, the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:

There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702

Thus, anyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen, irrespective of parentage.

DC – Taitz v Colvin (Astrue)…

From the Fogbow:

The DOJ is finally expressing frustration with Taitz’s continued violation of the redacting rules. I’ll bet it’s still much easier for Judge Lamberth to simply dismiss the case…again…than to sanction her ass for her willful and repeated violations.

Hilarious note:

Defendant has not sought sanctions for Plaintiff’s past violations out of respect for the Court’s time and mindful that collateral motions practice is generally disfavored. Defendant has noted the Court’s statement in its June 7, 2013 Order that it “has declined to previously impose sanctions because the defendant has not sought them,” and, in light of Plaintiff’s continued disregard for the Rules, will consider whether to file such a motion.

2013-11-04 54 0 MOTION to Strike 52 MOTION for Reconsideration re 51 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by CAROLYN W. COLVIN (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 11/04/2013)2013-11-04 55 0 Memorandum in opposition to re 52 MOTION for Reconsideration re 51 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, filed by CAROLYN W. COLVIN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 11/04/2013)