Main Menu

Tag Archives | Christopher Earl Strunk

Strunk revisits the passport issue in a motion

Birther Report reports Chris Strunk’s latest 231 page motion to reargue Strunk et al v. United States Department of State et al (other named plaintiffs are the CIA, Eric Holder, the New York State Board of Elections, Barack Hussein Obama, II, US Copyright Office). The case was filed June 10, and dismissed June 16, 2014.

I left the following comment at Birther Report (assuming that they are correct in that somewhere in that massive filing is something about Ann Dunham’s passport records):

I find myself in the unusual position of having some sympathy with Chris Strunk on the passport question. I filed my own FOIA around the same time that Stunk filed his and was waiting for my results while his earlier lawsuit was ongoing. It appears that my response got delayed due to the lawsuit, and when I got a response, it was the same that Strunk got. I appealed and got a little more, but I still believe that there is a passport issuance card on microfilm that to date hasn’t been released. We know for a fact that Dunham had a passport that the State Department hasn’t released (either because they don’t have it or because they just haven’t released it).

GAO documents make it clear that routine passport applications were destroyed in the 1980′s to save storage space; however, the government’s argument for allowing the destruction was that a permanent record of the passports issued was retained on microfilm. There is a Dunham passport that SHOULD be on microfilm, but hasn’t been released.

I personally think that the birthers have so pissed off the State Department that any request in this area gets dumped into a black hole. They certainly gave me the runaround for over a year on a request that usually takes a couple of months at the most.

For the record, I have no reason to think that there is anything in this unreleased passport file (including the first passport issued to Ann Dunham) that helps the birthers. Indeed, I think it hurts the "born in Kenya" theory by showing that Dunham had no US Passport prior to her trip to Indonesia.

My first FOIA for Dunham’s passport records was in 2009, and I didn’t get a response until 2011. My follow-up request submitted in January of 2012 is still awaiting a response.

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses, except Michael Shrimpton

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.

imageThe 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. Continue Reading →

Strunk denied do-over

Hey birthers! The 2012 Presidential Election is over!

Now that I have that off my chest, back to the straightforward report. Christopher-Earl: Strunk applied to the King’s County New York Supreme Court to re-argue his case, Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections et al.

Strunk alleges new evidence, but Judge Arthur M. Schack replied that something that’s been that way since 1976 doesn’t qualify as new. You can read background in my previous articles on the case, and this decision here.

What is interesting is that Judge Schack, in clarifying his previous ruling, declares people like Obama born in the United States are natural born citizens. He wrote:

…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.

Strunk hit with staggering $177,000 legal sanction

I’m going to have this thing overturned and I’m not going to pay a dime.

The New York Daily News reports that the amount of legal sanctions to be imposed on persistent New York litigator Christopher-Earl : Strunk is $177,000, by far the largest birther penalty imposed to date. Strunk is also barred from suing a long list of individuals in the New York Court System.

Prior to this, the birther sanctions record was held by Orly Taitz at $20,000 and $4,000, and seconded by $10,565.23 against the Liberty Legal Foundation and a distant third by Linda Jordan at a reduced amount of $3,500.

Strunk, who lives on a modest retirement income from Social Security has, according to prior court filings, no assets of note.

Read more:

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:

Continue Reading →

Leftover news: Strunk withdraws, US responds

In leftover news from yesterday, Christopher-Earl: Strunk filed a handwritten note on a printed email with the Circuit Court of Appeals in DC, withdrawing his appeal in his FOIA lawsuit. He cites financial limitations. Strunk also faces an unknown amount of sanctions from previous lawsuits in New York. He says the the government has probably destroyed all the documents he wants anyway. The Court dismissed the appeal following his request.

In the case of Grinols v. Electoral College, Orly Taitz’ attempt to rewrite the 2012 election in California, the US Government moved last Friday to dismiss the complaint as to the Federal Defendants (the California State defendants previously filed a motion to dismiss). The US Attorney notes that while named in the lawsuit, President Obama does not appear to have been served with the complaint, and as such is not a party to the lawsuit.

Read the Government’s brief: Continue Reading →

333333 44444
5555555
6666666