Christopher Earl Strunk has a lawsuit in progress, at which he would like Michael Shrimpton to testify. The whole convoluted business can be found in a new lawsuit against the Department of State mostly (plus some others).
According to the complaint in an “Intent to file” motion in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (1:2014cv00995), Strunk sent Michael Shrimpton a round-trip plane ticket for the US so that he might testify for Strunk, but when Shrimpton applied for a visa to visit the US, it was denied. This suit wants that denial reversed. Of course, every visa denial comes with a reason, and in this case it was because Shrimpton was not able to convince the US Consul in London that if the US let Shrimpton in, that he would return home when the visa period ended. Someone seeking a non-immigrant visa to the US has to show significant ties to their home community.
The short paragraph preceding probably does not convey every nuance of the 132-page filing, and the interested reader can supplement my summary with the original complaint linked above; however, readers may want to consider first donning a pair of Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive sunglasses. Also one may reference the Department of State discussion of Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, under which Shrimpton’s visa was denied. It is possible that the US Consul was concerned that Shrimpton had been convicted of sex-related criminal misdemeanor charges which Shrimpton is currently appealing, as well as pending criminal charges that he falsely notified the British government of an impending nuclear terrorist attack in 2012.
The Shrimpton testimony seems dubious at best. This is what Strunk wants him to testify to, from an affidavit from Shrimpton (which appears as Exhibit 4 beginning on page 38 of Strunk’s complaint):
20. To the best of my knowledge and belief the DNA test was done and Senator Obama’s claim to be the son of Stanley Ann Dunham could not be supported. I cannot say to the court that either the CIA or DIA came back to me and said so in terms. I would not expect them to and it would be contrary to good intelligence practice. I would however expect to be told if my advice had led to either agency wasting time or resources, not to mention the cost of a good lunch.
21. The outcome of the DNA test, as I understood it to be, was consistent with what I knew of then Senator Obama’s background. It was my understanding then, and still is, that he was born in Mombasa in what was then the Kenyan Protectorate, on or about August 4th (sic) 1960. So far as I know that is the internal view of both MI5 and MI6. The President’s claimed father was known to British intelligence in 1960 due to his connection with the Mau Mau terrorist organization. There is evidence that Stanley Ann Dunham went to Kenya in 1960 (sic), that is to say she cannot have been the mother, assuming the intelligence about the birth in Mombasa to be correct.
Objection, your honor: Hearsay, calls for a conclusion on the part of the witness, irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial.
In general, the Shrimpton Affidavit is given as expert testimony, and the section above is the only place he asserts personal knowledge of fact. His factual testimony is that he told the CIA to test Obama’s DNA, and the fact that they didn’t get back to him means they must have tested the DNA and found that it didn’t match.