Main Menu

Strunk sanctions appeal: brief due today

Christopher-Earl: Strunk is a conspiracy theorist, and a passionate one whose beliefs have led him to take to the courts. In one particular case, Strunk v. NY State Board of Elections, he ran into trouble in the form of sanctions.

While federal defendants cannot recover legal fees in the cases they defend, state defendants and individuals may. We saw this with an award of almost $13,000 in Washington State of Jordan v. Reed (being appealed). However, with no less than 9 law firms defending an array of defendants from Boehner to Brzezinski to the Jesuits in the Strunk case, anticipated costs could far surpass anything in Jordan (I haven’t seen a number yet). The court also ordered that Strunk not be allowed to file more lawsuits in New York against a long list of defendants.

Today is the deadline for Strunk to file his brief in an appeal of the trial court’s decision and sanctions order. The documents in the case (below) have some high comedic moments as they romp over the conspiracy landscape, of which Manchurian Candidate Soebarkah (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, Barack Hussein Obama II, and Steve Dunham) is just one small part.

Documents in Strunk V. NY SBOE:

2012-05-23 – STRUNK – Notice of Appeal With Attachments by Jack Ryan

, ,

12 Responses to Strunk sanctions appeal: brief due today

  1. avatar
    SueDB March 8, 2013 at 10:55 am #

    So, what is going to be next for Mr. InEsse after another epic fail here?

  2. avatar
    Norbrook March 8, 2013 at 11:10 am #

    Given the “normal billing hours” and the amount of time it had to have taken to wade through Strunk’s filing, along with drafting the motions, I’d say that in Esse is looking at well into six-figures for costs.

  3. avatar
    The Magic M March 8, 2013 at 11:25 am #

    > state defendants and individuals may

    And since the Strunk was so kind as to sue just about everyone as an individual and not in their official capacity… 🙂

  4. avatar
    Thinker March 8, 2013 at 11:31 am #

    Based on his in forma pauperis filing in his FOIA appeal in federal court, he doesn’t have much money in income or wealth. He’ll spend the next several years filing more conspiracy-laden nonsense trying to get out of paying these legal fees, but he’ll probably never pay a cent. The prohibition against filing new lawsuits against the defendants, though, will stop this paper terrorist from filing new lawsuits. It’s a shame that he was able to abuse the system and the defendants for so long with impunity. Judges need to crack down on these lunatics harder and faster.

  5. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 8, 2013 at 11:41 am #

    Of course. it could be argued that due to a typo, Strunk can still sue the Democratic party of New York state.

  6. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 8, 2013 at 12:25 pm #

    Poor Mr Strunk. In his “pleadings” he makes one cursory reference to another case he has lost and as a result, he is hit by collateral estoppel and a threat of sanctions.

    Whereas Orly is able to sue the same people all over the United States with the same crimes (yes, I know, these aren’t criminal cases, but neither Orly nor Strunk take that into account) and shamelessly flaunts her +- 100 losses in other venues and cases (particularly Georgia and Indiana) WITH IMPUNITY.

    One day, Strunk is going to wake up from his Orlyphoria and notice how he was discriminated against by the courts versus the treatment they bestowed on the Mouldy Queen of Birferobijan. That will be a rude awakening. It will probably be the day when he will stop blaming the Jesuits and start blaming the Joos.

  7. avatar
    Andrew Morris March 8, 2013 at 12:50 pm #

    I suspect that Orly is going to be hammered very soon. The latest junk subpoenas on members of the House Judiciary Committee are totally harrassment and also (because she cannot actually have taken law degree exams) are trying to use the subpoena power to make people fill in her “disclosure” form. And she says they’ll be in contempt if they don’t, which is somewhere between wrong, untrue and a lie, because only the judge can find someone in contempt. And as she probably messed up service again…Anyway, the hope has to be that Judge England dismisses everything with prejudice, awards costs to the individual and state defendants, hits her with major sanctions for abuse, and bars her from bringing further cases.

  8. avatar
    Kiwiwriter March 8, 2013 at 1:00 pm #

    That was easily the funniest and most entertaining judicial decision I have ever read. It was extremely caustic, and painted a devastating picture of Mr. Strunk, his paranoia, and inability to write a coherent document.

    I see that he also sued the Socialist Workers Party…I’m sure all 300 of them will be delighted to know that they are off the hook.

  9. avatar
    Rickey March 8, 2013 at 1:30 pm #

    A docket search suggests that Strunk began playing attorney in 1997, when he started filing lawsuits on behalf of a business which he apparently owns.

    [Redacted unrelated personal details. Doc]

    His political vendettas began in 2002 when he and fellow birther H. William Van Allen filed a lawsuit against the New York State Democratic Committee, Republican Committee and Independence Party Committee. It is unclear what that was about. He and Van Allen sued the New York State Board of Elections in 2004, a suit which was dismissed in short order.

    Then the birther lawsuits started in 2008. Believe it or not, he actually has one case pending which he filed AFTER he was sanctioned:

    CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK IN ESSE V. BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK HAKEEM JEFFRIES, GRACE MENG, FELIX ORTIZ, BILL DEBLASIO, WALTER COOPER, KEITH L. T. WRIGHT, CHRISTINE QUINN, WILLIAM THOMPSON, SCOTT STRINGER, EMILY GISKE, ANNE MARIE ANZALONE, ARCHIE SPIGNER, GEORGE GRESHAM, RUBEN DIAZ JR., KEN JENKINS, MARIO CILENTO, GERALD D. JENNINGS, BYRON BROWN, ROBERT DUFFY, JOSEPH MORELLE, . SCOTT ADAMS, STEPHANIE MINER, STEVE BELLONE, IRENE STEIN, SHEILA COMAR, KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND,

    Note that this time he sued the New York City Board of Elections rather than the New York State Board of Elections. A Motion to Dismiss is pending a decision.

    The sanctions may well bankrupt him, but there also needs to be an order prohibiting him from filing any lawsuits anywhere in New York State without the approval of a judge.

  10. avatar
    J.D. Sue March 8, 2013 at 1:52 pm #

    Andrew Morris: Anyway, the hope has to be that Judge England dismisses everything with prejudice, awards costs to the individual and state defendants, hits her with major sanctions for abuse, and bars her from bringing further cases.


    My hope is that he thoroughly questions her in court about her disclosure demands. If she believes that members of Congress are defendants in the case, and if she believes that the U.S. Attorney is representing them (albeit poorly, according to Taitz), then she should explain how she took it upon herself to bypass counsel and directly contact the purported defendants and demand that they waive attorney-client privilege, admit her facts, and admit her legal conclusions. It is hard to imagine more outrageous offensive attorney misconduct.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 8, 2013 at 5:13 pm #

    Orly will be disbarred. Any day now. 🙁

    J.D. Sue: . It is hard to imagine more outrageous offensive attorney misconduct.

  12. avatar
    Reality Check March 12, 2013 at 12:17 pm #

    I have not seen anything from Strunk. I wonder if he made the deadline?