Has another birther been handed his hat by the federal courts and doesn’t know when to quit? Not this time. The appellant is none other than your own Dr. Conspiracy.
Today I received a response to my Freedom of Information Act request for records of passports issued to Stanley Ann Dunham. What did I get? In a word, I got Strunk. I receive the same 6 documents that Christopher Strunk received–all passport applications dated 1967 or later.
I am filing an appeal. I know from an 1981 GAO report (see page 30) that the Department of State microfilmed “passport issue cards.” I think the response I received after waiting 22 months is incomplete.
What a total and utter disappointment!
Which Doctor are you- black is white or white is black? Would the good Doctor come out of the shadows long enough to tell the truth in the full sunlight instead of spreading disinformation for the the Bluebloods’ Step-in Fetch-it?
I doubt it!
It isn’t often that such blatant racism is put on display.
In Esse
The laundry called. Your sheets are ready for pickup. 😉
The Doc has told much truths but your ‘argument’ or ‘claim’ could benefit from some clearer language.
Just trying to help you along…
In esse, that appears to be a reliable observation. But perhaps Strunk did not really mean it that way…
Then again, I googled the term and I may have been wrong
I have attempted to read through Mr. Strunk’s filings in the past and I have had the same response to those as I have had to his current post.
I have no idea what he’s talking about. 😕
Ditto…
[jtx is banned, but I thought I would let this one through, Doc.]
This is really funny!!! The ” good doctor” is getting the same treatment as those he & his Flying Monkey buddies have been doing by attempting to regularly castigate others seeking valid information that should be public – and he doesn’t like it!!!
Wah!.Wah! Wah!! Dry those phony tears of indignation; no one else feels your pain!! What goes around comes around farmhand!
The phrase “step and fetch it” is considered a racial slur by most blacks. The connotation is of a subservient black man doing the bidding of his white master. The black actor Lincoln Theodore Perry’s stage name, “Stepin Fetchit,” is a variation of “step and fetch it.” A Ferris State University essay has this to say:
Fetchit became identified in the popular imagination as a dialect-speaking, slump-shouldered, slack-jawed character who walked, talked, and apparently thought in slow motion…Fetchit was the embodiment of the nitwit Black man…In Black communities, Stepin Fetchit remains a synonym for a bowing and scraping Black man.
http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/coon/
A more recent flap over the use of the phrase is here:
http://www.postonpolitics.com/2010/06/hometown-democracy-leader-says-shes-sorry-for-step-fetch-it-e-mail/
It isn’t difficult to surmise what the odious Mr. Strunk had in mind.
Doc
The link to the GAO report seems to be broken.
As a 10 year old white kid in a racially mixed school I always had great respect for Stepin Fetchit. I always interpreted his act as just that, an act for the ‘massas’ that were behaving like asses. He was always able to carry out massivly effective passive resistance to their nefarious schemes.
Maybe I over interpreted it and read into the film stuff the writers weren’t trying to convey, and I understand why my black comrades would object to him having to resort to self humiliation to accomplish his goals. If the entire black community were to take up the Stepin Fetchit persona, we would be living in a circus. However, white guys take on essentially the same role; think of Laurel and Hardy, Martin and Lewis, Rowan and Martin, etc.
I don’t think it is fair to totally reject the portrayal as objectionable or racist. It also serves as a caricature that people like me can see as a ridiculous solution to interracial behavior.
Now I have to go see if there is any info about what Perry thought of his act.
I agree that there is more than one way to look at the characters Stepin Fetchit played. He actually took the name from a comedy group he belonged to, called “Step and Fetch It,” which itself apparently was an ironic take on the master-slave dynamic.
However, in the context of Strunk’s note it is clearly intended to be a racial slur.
What an idiot. Comparing a printed stamp with an embossed seal. I’d like to see her try to use a rubber stamp to get an embossed impression…. or try to get an ink impression from the embossing press, LOL.
Should we clue her in about the differences between manual embossing seals and machine embossers?
Nah ………………………… This conspiracy is too good to miss.
I agree with you. I found an authentic Kenya BC (Obama’s?).
Hope this helps.
She seems very obsessed with one conspiracy. No wonder the DOH and Hawaii got tired of it.
Slartibartfast come back here where you belong. You have no business here. If your father finds out he’s gonna be very upset. Now get you behind home now. 🙂
… which brings to mind a very good example: polarik’s recent discovery that EVERY historical photograph of obama is fake.
I can’t believe you’re acknowledging this raving lunatic.
It’s important to engage even the raving lunatics (to make it clear to anyone reading that they ARE raving lunatics…)
I’ll be back before too long… (‘too long’ was the reason I’ve been absent – I was spending too long writing blog posts. My posts here don’t tend to be thousand word essays.) I’ll even respond to your last post to me…
I understand that but IMO some lunatics are WAAAAAAAAY over the edge into total loony land.
For the simple reason that w/o a reply they will proclaim victory to their followers. It’s true that their point would have zero relevance in a court of law, but as was seen on 11/2 the court of public opinion is of equal or higher significance.
In some ways I think that makes them MORE dangerous…
Sef,
Good point.
O.K. Uncle.
I guess I just get tired of these lunatics but you are right.
At least you know you can’t post when there are no comments allowed – unlike Mario’s blog where your post either waits until Mario composes his reply or gets circular filed…
You guys are great alittle coffee and you can go for days. Or is it that banned energy drink?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42235272/NOM-for-FAC-w-Summons-and-FIRST-AMENDED-COMPLAINT-Strunk-v-Paterson-Et-Al-w-Exhibits-NYS-29642-08
Well, right off the bat we can see the problem with this filing as
” 2. That I am of sound mind, make this statement without reservation or intent
of deception or connivance in the matter of my own, my family and associates’ well
being safety and rights. ” is obviously false.
Sef ; “WE can see the problem”
Sef not to get personal but you ought to have that WE problem looked after
Speaking of problems, have you had the ‘in esse’ problem looked after?
I’m curious. Why do you list a mail drop (Wilkinson Mail Box Rentals) as your “place for suffrage?” Are you actually claiming that is your residence address?
Mr. Strunk, in esse
Could you please give us an update on Strunk v Patterson? I believe there was a hearing this past week in Kings County, NY.
It was adjourned to 1/11/11.
It’s unclear if any of the defendants have been served, as the court docket does not show appearances for any defendants.
Can you imagine this nut case with a carry permit in Brooklyn. He sees enemies everywhere in the shadows & would be a danger to the community & himself.
@Chris Strunk: I went to your sorry website, and read your vile attacks on the Jesuits. I am Jewish, and graduated from a Jesuit college. I never heard one anti-semitic remark there.
I have my degree because of the Jesuits. If not for them, I would not be well educated. The best asthma care ever, was at Georgetown in DC. I cannot say enough good things about the Jesuits.
You are a sorry, ignorant, little bigot.
Aren’t you running late for your Stormfront circle jerk?
Barack Obama is going to appear on Mythbusters.
It would be fun to see Adam and Jamie quickly go through the birther myths.
I loved their ‘wave’ experiment at the Rally to Restore Sanity – I don’t know that Adam and Jamie busting all of the birther myths would convince any birthers, but I’m sure it would stir up the birther anthill in an amusing way…
Yeah, the wave one was probably the most fun to do of their experiments during the Rally. It really struck the senses to realize how long it took for the wave to go from the front to where we were standing…and then how much further back it went. The double-wave from both ends was pretty cool. The 2nd most fun was the simultaneous jump attempts, followed by the “cheek pop”…but I don’t think the cheek pop translated as well for folks watching on TV as it did in the crowd.
I checked the Danae COLB but the image is of poor quality and the seal doesn’t show up at all. The COLB that was posted here a while back is a better image. The seal is visible and to me matches the one on the Obama COLB. The outer ring consists of two rows of dimples on both. I posted some images at TheFogbow. http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2603&start=25#p190424
This is another case of birthers finding a conspiracy in the most trivial of minutia.
I fixed it, but you may still need to right-click/Save Link As to read it.
Frankly, I don’t have a clue what you mean, or perhaps you don’t have a clue what I meant. You are mistaken if you think I had you in mind when I wrote “Has another birther been handed his hat by the federal courts and doesn’t know when to quit?” I was referring to folks like Taitz, Kerchner and Berg. The comment doesn’t apply to your lawsuit.
There is a difference between indignation and disappointment.
Doc,
I don’t believe you are allowed to request S.A.D.’s passport. This is from a link you provided on another thread:
Third-Party Requests
Third party requests must include one of the following:
1. Notarized consent from the owner of the passport records,
2. Proof of guardianship,
3. Death certificate, or
4. Court order signed by a judge of competent jurisdiction requesting the Department of State to release passport records.
The only exception to this requirement is when the owner of the passport records was born 100 years or more ago.
What am I missing?
Also, would the passport renewal of SAD from 1968 that Strunk obtained have been copied from microfilm? I am wondering if all the disposable passport records were not microfilmed first and then retained for 15 years, and then the copies of the microfilm retained for 100 years.
Microfilmed passport records reduce storage burdens. The
full benefits of microfilming are not being achieved by retaining *
both the original records and microfilm copies for 15 years.
Since microfilm copies can be substituted for original documents
in the Federal courts, there has been little reason to maintain
original records after being microfilmed, although law enforcement
and passport fraud investigations are facilitated when
original documents are available during the period a passport is
valid– currently 5 years.
To reduce the costly burdens of records storage, the Passport
Office should adjust passport records retention schedules. All
passport records dated from 1925 to the first half of 1978 except
for permanent vital records should be placed on 15-year retention
schedules. This would immediately reduce records holdings at the
GSA records center…
When these recommendations were made, everything on microfilm, both original microfilm and microfilm copies were being stored from stored. Does this recommendation
“adjust the retention schedule from 100 years to 15 years
for disposable passport records originating from 1925 to
the first half of 1978”
Ignore this for now. I was formulating a question and never got back to it. In part, I wanted to know when the 15 year retention period begins, but I’ll have to get back to it some other time.
The requirement for a death certificate is waived for a person who is publicly known as deceased.
The retention period begins when the document is created/received.
Why would having a retention period for 15 years make any sense for records already in existence for more than 15 years? Even if the recommendations were implemented in 1981 (how do we know when they were implemented), it would have been automatic destruction for all disposable records from 1925-1966. Why give a 15 year retention period for those years? The GAO report shows that microfilming began in 1978. SAD’s renewal application was before that of course. If the copy of the renewal application given to Strunk was from microfilm, I was wondering if the old files were not microfilmed before destruction. It would seem that the passport application referenced in the renewal application that Strunk received would have been available also. If not, then the original application must have been available and the recommendations were not carried out. If the recommendations were carried out, the old records would have been the first to go. How, then would Strunk have received a copy of a record from a time when no microfilming was done?
I told you that I believe you are being treated as an annoying birther. Your request has not been fully complied with, no reason given. The only reason why Strunk was answered at all was because he went to court. Was the same person responsible for your FOIA request as Strunk?
To the extent that I am the only one who has the courage to speak freely with my full identitification and none of you have, you all remain merely an occult curiosity. Thanks for the amusement I have had a few days of down time and am recharging my batteries for the next go around. By the way I like Orly she is a friend and has a good heart.
I really do not care in the short run where Soebarkah was born ONLY that he has many allegiances that are at work and not accounted for in conflict with the US Consititution, which many here especially the Brits chimming don’t give a damn about.
The fact of Soebarkah’s natural British foreign exchange student Father BHO Sr., alone is sufficient for any living being (in esse) to demand clarification on NBC from the insipidly stupid members of the SCOTUS when presented an actual case and controversy
If I have anything to do with it, I will give all of SCOTUS a very long prison sentence for their treason, as it is clear and only equally matched by that of Freemason / Knight of Malta ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI’s choice of matched bookends Soebarkah and McCain.
Together the SCOTUS stooges with all the papal Knights and Dames of the Gov alphabet soup are twisted globalists that have sought to bring about the NAU and to create global regionalism that subsumes U.S. national sovereignty in service of the feudal Oligarchy and in keeping with that quest the Former National Security Adviser to President Carter every effort is expressed by Zbig’s view of regionalism at Mikhail Gorbachev’s October 1995 State of the World Forum, now being implemented quote:
“We cannot leap into world government in one quick step…The precondition for eventual globalization — genuine globalization — is progressive regionalization.”
As with any passport the original is possessed by the named user not the government. However, applications are with the government and form the basis to issue a duplicate passport when necessary. When I sought the 1965 passport application along with those application prior to that and which there such application. I was told the dog ate the papers before 1980 and that the GSA backed up a forklift and put selected records into the dumpster. Hey I am from Brooklyn want to buy a Bridge?
My suggestion as to security of government documents, if your government really wants to keep your nation’s top secrets classified, is to have such documents kept in the same place that Soebarkah’s college transcripts and birth certificate are kept.
If you really live in Brooklyn, why are you registered to vote at a mail drop address? Did you lie about your physical address on your voter registration form?
Yeah Chris you obviously must know more than the Supreme Court about the law… not. Tell me how many years have you been a lawyer? How many years have you sat on a judicial bench what’s your jurisdiction? Before you call any of the Supremes stupid because they don’t give you your way I’d like to see your qualifications and bonafides.
Orly has a good heart? You’re joking. She hates foreigners while being one herself and I’m curious why you work with someone who comes from a place of little authority over say the Department of Health in Hawaii. Who is this Soebarkah character? I assume you’re talking about President Obama, where has he ever referred to himself as “Soebarkah”?
What is the point of getting the college transcripts? They won’t show anything in regards to eligibility and it seems obvious you’re on a fool’s errand. It’s easy for you to armchair quarterback and call the SCOTUS traitors because they didn’t give you your demented, twisted way. If anything you birthers are in the occult worshipping Kothulu
Lay off the nose candy so early in the day Bob you will get a stroke
One more thing Doc. The Department of State may never have given the approval for the recommendations or maybe did so only partially. See below form the report:
AGENCY COMMENTS
The Department of State did not directly address any of the
foregoing recommendations. The Department commented that the
storage of passport records has been a subject of continuing discussion
between the Department and the General Services Administration.
The lack of agreement has been predicated on the
inability to arrive at a mutually satisfactory determination of
what records are disposable. We are of the opinion that in view
of the volume of records and the financial burden to the U.S.
Government to store these records, it is important that some
resolution be made.
The Department also felt that the conclusions reached in the
report on the use of microfilm copies for legal purposes was misleading.
The Department stated that while microfilmed copies are
admissible evidence as to the facts recorded on the applications,
32
they are inadmissible for the purposes of proving that an
individual being prosecuted is the person who subscribed and swore
to the truth of the facts reflected in the application. We are
aware of this problem and it was for this reason we recommended
that the passport applications be retained for the validity period
of the passport, thereby making the original applications available
for a period in which most ca.-,es of passport fraud would be
detected.
Sorry Chris but the Lindsay Lohan seems to be your forte. It’s obvious you were on some copious amounts of narcotics before you wrote your latest missive on your website
While I post under the pseudonym ‘Slartibartfast’ I have, on several occasions, mentioned that my name is Kevin Kesseler and that I’m a mathematical biologist (you can look up my scant publication history if you choose). While most of the people posting here are anonymous, several who claim to be lawyers display what appears to be the sort of detailed knowledge of the law and ability to predict and interpret the outcome of legal proceedings that one would expect from lawyers and Doc has shown an understanding of record keeping that solidly establishes his bona fides for the expertise he claims, in my opinion. In my field (science) the quality of an argument is not judged by who proposed it, but on it’s merits. No one in the birther movement has produced any sort of argument for the president’s ineligibility that passes the smell test, let alone one that would be accepted by a sitting judge. If you want to display courage, then admit that you have no evidence to impeach a certified copy of President Obama’s birth information (which the Hawaii DOH has acknowledged having) and you will never be able to obtain such evidence even if you had access to all of President Obama’s records.
It is clear that you are apologizing for something but you have not been specific yet, would you care to share your pain with the readers?
At least Doctor Conspiracy seems to be curious about the passing parade, how about you fella?
I’m sorry that every one here has to suffer your nonsense. It’s obviously the outcome of a mispent youth. Do you have anything besides insults Chris or did you waste all your brain cells when you came and crapped on the floor?
I remain curious about the fact that you are using a mail drop address for voter registration purposes. Do you care to explain it? Are you aware of the fact that the law requires you to register to vote where your actual residence is located?
Kevin have you considered the minimal possibility that with your entire lab experience some of those chemicals in the lab dishes you have cooked up or have been pumped into the dead creatures in jars have deadened your olfactory system?
It seems You and the Secret Service base the NBC argument upon the 14th amendment that in fact has nothing to do with the NBC matter.
Soebarkah’s natural father was a British Citizen at birth making then little BHO a dual citizen at best.
A dual citizen at birth is not a natural-born Citizen because of a conflict with allegiance of the parent who would raise the infant, and beyond that simple fact there is the underlying reason to be born on US territory ONLY, and for the simple fact that even with two citizen parents merely to be born overseas in a foreign land as McCain was is enough to be deemed not a NBC.
If that is not even acceptable as a passing curiosity for the Courts to be interested in righting my personal injury inflicted in 2008 by clarifying then rhetorically I ask why do we have the Courts in the first place other than to process statutory paper?
Stick to the Article 2 Sec 1 clause 5 mandate the 14th amendment does not apply. Just think this therapy session is free and we all come away with something to talk about.
Who is Rickey and when did he know it? Follow the Money trail Rickey!
So how do you square that with several candidates who had dual citizenship at birth based on their parents like Dukakis. Or Vice President Agnew? There is no disqualification for dual citizenship at birth. How do you square your logic with someone who takes dual citizenship as an adult like Thomas Jefferson and gets himself involved in other countries’ affairs? The Supreme Court has already solved this situation years ago. Its not their fault you don’t understand case law.
Misha have you studied the Holocaust and role of the Jesuits in the SS?
Check out the encyclical Caritas Veritate and the role of collective subsidiarity being pushed by Soebarkah (who uses the Dhimmitude organizing principle) that is based upon the Cuban Jesuit reduction model. The key to understanding all this is that as with Islam “There is no salvation outside the church”
.
Re: Jesuits – Coptic Jews?
From: Eric Phelps View Contact
To: Christopher Strunk
——————————————————————————–

Chris, I have seen this before. Loyola was not a Jew, but Laynez was indeed a Jew. Jews were formally banned from the Order in 1593, which banishment lasted until the lifting of the statute in 1946.
Brother Eric
—– Original Message —–
From: Christopher Strunk
To: Eric Phelps
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:12 PM
Subject: Jesuits – Coptic Jews?
Eric I thought you should know the comments that surfaced when Dr. Conspiracy carried a few of my comments within a very prickly Georgetown pro-Obama crowd. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/12/another-appeal-filed/#comment-80008
Misha one of the bloggers said
”
misha December 5, 2010 at 6:01 pm misha(Quote) #
Chris Strunk: not to get personal but you ought to have that WE problem looked after
@Chris Strunk: I went to your sorry website, and read your vile attacks on the Jesuits. I am Jewish, and graduated from a Jesuit college. I never heard one anti-semitic remark there.
I have my degree because of the Jesuits. If not for them, I would not be well educated. The best asthma care ever, was at Georgetown in DC. I cannot say enough good things about the Jesuits.
You are a sorry, ignorant, little bigot.”
Being curious about the Misha piece above I googled jesuit and coptic and came up with
The first Jesuits were crypto Jews
The first Jesuits were crypto‑Jews. Ignatius Loyola himself was a crypto‑Jew of the Occult. Cabala. A crypto‑Jew is a Jew who converts to another religion …
http://www.israelect.com/reference/…/Ignatius_Loyola.htm – Cached – Similar
There have been 8 Presidents who have had dual citizenship at birth, at least. This isn’t even counting those who might have…
1. Ulysseus S. Grant
2. Chester A. Arthur
3. Theodore Roosevelt
4. William Howard Taft
5. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
6. Harry S. Truman
7. Lyndon B. Johnson
8. Leslie Lynch King (aka Gerald R. Ford)
There are 12 other Presidents who might have it, but have yet to be proven.
Thank you Hugenots for this lovely assertation.
Yeah, but they’re white, so it doen’t matter.
Spiro Agnew was born in Baltimore, Maryland. with both His parents at the time of his birth were then US Citizens. Theodore Spiros Agnew, a Greek immigrant (naturalized citizen) who shortened his name from Anagnostopoulos (Αναγνωστόπουλος) when he moved to the USA,[3][4] and Margaret (Carter) Akers, a native of Virginia. Ms. Akers was a widow, with two children from her first marriage, when she married Mr. Agnew.
My experieince with naturalized citizens is that they actually know more about the founding documents and requirements of citizenship than natural-born citizens do and in fact renouce alll other allegiances, and because naturalized citizens had the benefit of a required civics education. I believe the present fools’ system should require an oath renouncing alll other allegiance upon gradutation.
I am not so sure about the Islamic crowd amongst us though there is not a lie that would be told that would put them in the timeout box..
George Romney Sr. was born in Mexico to two US Citizens and when challenged resigned from his candidacy. Chester Arthur was born in Canada to two US Citizens parents and used his brothers BC to pass for NBC in an outrageous cover-up.
So what you are telling me is that we are subjects of men not sovereign people guaranteed inalienable rigths by God? Where is the beef Bob Ross?
What I do know is that by commiting a crime(s) that theoretically becomes a habitiual act after 2008 does not amend the US Constitution.
Since I do computer modeling of biological systems, my ‘lab’ is a virtual one and thus devoid of toxic chemicals. I would suggest the deadening of your olfactory apparatus has to do with the odor of what you’ve been shoveling for the last two years…
Well, people who are familiar with Constitutional law seem to disagree with you (since you seem to discount anonymity, I’ll cite Vince Treacy, a lawyer in the DC area and occasional poster on this site, as my source). If the 14th amendment had ‘nothing to do with the NBC matter’, could you tell me who the first African-Americans eligible for the presidency were? You know, just apply your superior understanding of the topic to President Lincoln’s act of emancipation and the ensuing events and explain the citizenship circumstances that would apply to the first black man eligible to be elected president.
And where is the citation of law saying that dual citizenship has any bearing on natural born status? If this is such a well-known thing why didn’t thousands of experts and millions of ordinary people (not to mention John McCain and Hillary Clinton) raise the issue when a person who openly admitted his dual citizenship at birth announced he was running for the presidency. For that matter, where are the people working to have Spiro Agnew declared ineligible for being a Greek citizen at birth? Where in the Constitution or US law does it say that foreign citizenship affects NBC status in any way? What is the plan for when Kim Jong-Il declares that every child born with US citizenship is also born with North Korean citizenship? Will we have to dissolve the presidency for lack of any eligible candidates?
Just so you know, incomprehensible ramblings with no supporting citations of law are not very persuasive.
No personal injury was inflicted on you by the election of President Obama. He was vetted by the process in place (if you think that it was insufficient, then you should work to get legislation requiring a more rigorous process enacted but I should warn you that you can’t make it retroactive and that a certified copy of President Obama’s COLB (and maybe another statement by the Hawaii DOH) is the extent of what you will be able to ask for (Constitutionally speaking).
Do you really believe that your barely comprehensible (at best) ramblings constitute any sort of rational argument? Don’t worry though, I’m sure your theories will fit the facts perfectly if you just add a few more epicycles…
Um… don’t you mean 9?
Agnew was a Greek citizen at birth. Greece recognizes the children of Citizens as citizens at birth. So this would mean Agnew had dual citizenship and “dual allegiances” according to you at birth. This would mean your theory is null. About Chester A. Arthur, you have the rantings of a political foe who never proved his allegation. Do you have any proof that Arthur used his brother’s BC? Where is the beef you asked? Apparently not in any of your posts. There was no crime committed in 2008 no matter how much you dream it to be so. Unlike in the land of Alice in Wonderland just saying something doesn’t make it so.
What kind of despicable, mentally challenged traitor thinks foreign laws trump the sovereign authority of our nation especially regarding the citizenship of anyone born under the jurisdiction of the U.S.?
Who is funding these birther seditionists who want to overturn our legal and democratic elections and undermine and destroy our government and the authority of our Constitution?
Al Qaeda? The Taliban?
And just what “personal injury” did you suffer exactly? What, did you trip and fall on your head or something? …While that would explain your ramblings somewhat, I still fail to see how in any way you suffered any “personal injury” that is concrete and how in any way Obama is the cause of your supposed “injury”… instead of being self-inflicted.
I assume that the injury he is referring to is the trauma of a black, moderate Democrat being elected president since any trauma he suffered due to his belief that the president is liberal/progressive/socialist/communist/fascist/ineligible is merely a product of his imagination…
As for : dunstvangeet December 6, 2010 at 4:27 pm dunstvangeet(Quote) # There have been 8 Presidents who have had dual citizenship at birth, at least. This isn’t even counting those who might have. Except for the cover-up done by Arthur there is no evidence that any of those listed were not NBC that requires that at the time of birth both parents are US Citizens whether Naturalized or NBC and that the birth place in within the USA or territories.
One of the intersting battles was conducted in 1964 when AU H2O ran and had been born in the USA territory that became Arizona.
WHERE IS THE BEEF FOLKS? As the saying goes: if ifs and buts were apples and nuts our stomachs would soon be full.
1. Ulysseus S. Grant – Hiram Ulysses Grant was born in Point Pleasant, Ohio on April 27, 1822 to Jesse Root Grant (1794–1873), a tanner, and Hannah Simpson Grant (1798–1883), both Pennsylvania natives. The Grant family trace their ancestry back to Matthew Grant who landed in Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630.
2. Chester A. Arthur – was the son of Irish-born preacher William Arthur (born in Cullybackey, Ballymena, County Antrim) and Vermont-born Malvina Stone Arthur. Malvina’s grandfather, Uriah Stone, fought for the Continental Army during the American Revolution and named his son, Malvina’s father, George Washington Stone. Malvina’s mother was part Native American.:4 At the time of the birth of the future president, Arthur’s father was an Irish subject of the United Kingdom of Scottish descent, who naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843.
Arthur’s restored ancestral home from the late 18th Century is in County Antrim in Northern Ireland. An interpretive center at the cottage tells the story of the Arthur family, and provides visitors with demonstrations of life in Ireland over the last 200 years.
Most official references list Arthur as having been born in Fairfield in Franklin County, Vermont on October 5, 1829. However, some time in the 1870s Arthur changed it to 1830 to make himself seem a year younger.:5 His father had initially migrated to Dunham, Lower Canada, where he and his wife at one point owned a farm about 15 miles (24 km) north of the U.S. border.:4 There has long been speculation that the future president was actually born in Canada and that the family moved to Fairfield later. If Arthur had been born in Canada, some believe that he would not have been a natural-born citizen (interpreting the law to mean that to be a natural-born citizen one must be born on U.S. territory) and would thus have been constitutionally ineligible to serve as vice president or president. During the 1880 U.S. presidential election a New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, was hired to explore rumors of Arthur’s foreign birth. Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old. When that story failed to take root Hinman came forth with a new story that Arthur was born in Canada. This claim also fell on deaf ears.:202–203 In any case, Arthur’s father was not naturalized until some years after his birth, resulting in Arthur having dual citizenship.
3. Theodore Roosevelt – t was born on October 27, 1858, in a four-story brownstone at 28 East 20th Street,[8] in the modern-day Gramercy section of New York City, the second of four children of Theodore Roosevelt, Sr. (1831–1878) and Martha “Mittie” Bulloch (1835–1884).
4. William Howard Taft – was born on September 15, 1857, near Cincinnati, Ohio. His mother, Louisa Torrey, was a graduate of Mount Holyoke College. His father, Alphonso Taft, was the son of Peter Rawson Taft, a descendant of Robert Taft I, the first Taft in America, who settled in Colonial Massachusetts.
5. Franklin Delano Roosevelt – was born on January 30, 1882, in the Hudson Valley town of Hyde Park, New York. His father, James Roosevelt, and his mother, Sara Ann Delano, were each from wealthy old New York families, of Dutch and French ancestry respectively. Franklin was their only child. His paternal grandmother, Mary Rebecca Aspinwall, was a first cousin of Elizabeth Monroe, wife of the fifth U.S. President, James Monroe. His maternal grandfather Warren Delano II, a descendant of Mayflower passengers Richard Warren, Isaac Allerton, Degory Priest, and Francis Cooke, during a period of twelve years in China made more than a million dollars in the tea trade in Macau, Canton, and Hong Kong, but upon returning to the United States, he lost it all in the Panic of 1857. In 1860, he returned to China and made a fortune in the notorious but highly profitable opium trade supplying opium-based medication to the U. S. War Department during the American Civil War, although not exclusively.
6. Harry S. Truman – was born on May 8, 1884 in Lamar, Missouri, the oldest child of John Anderson Truman (1851–1914) and Martha Ellen Young Truman (1852–1947). His parents chose the name Harry after his mother’s brother, Harrison Young (1846–1916), Harry’s uncle. His parents chose “S” as his “middle name” in an attempt to please both of Harry’s grandfathers, Anderson Shipp Truman and Solomon Young.
7. Lyndon B. Johnson – was born near Stonewall, Texas, on August 27, 1908, in a small farmhouse on the Pedernales River. His parents, Samuel Ealy Johnson, Jr. and Rebekah Baines, had three girls and two boys: Johnson and his brother, Sam Houston Johnson (1914–1978), and sisters Rebekah (1910–1978), Josefa (1912–1961), and Lucia (1916–1997). The nearby small town of Johnson City, Texas was named after Johnson’s father’s cousin, James Polk Johnson, whose forebears had moved west from Georgia. The Johnsons were originally of Scots-Irish and English royal ancestry.
8. Leslie Lynch King (aka Gerald R. Ford) – Ford was born Leslie Lynch King, Jr., on July 14, 1913, at 3202 Woolworth Avenue in Omaha, Nebraska, where his parents lived with his paternal grandparents. His father was Leslie Lynch King, Sr., a wool trader and son of prominent banker Charles Henry King and Martha King. His mother was the former Dorothy Ayer Gardner. Dorothy separated from King Sr. just sixteen days after her son’s birth. She took her son with her to the Oak Park, Illinois home of her sister Tannisse and her husband, Clarence Haskins James. From there she moved to the home of her parents, Levi Addison Gardner and his wife, the former Adele Augusta Ayer, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Dorothy and Leslie King divorced in December 1913; she gained full custody of their son. Ford’s paternal grandfather Charles Henry King paid child support until shortly before his death in 1930.
Leslie Lynch King, Jr. (later known as Gerald R. Ford) in 1916
Gerald Ford later said his biological father had a history of hitting his mother.James M. Cannon, a member of the Ford administration, wrote in a Ford biography that the Kings’ separation and divorce were sparked when, a few days after Ford’s birth, Leslie King threatened Dorothy with a butcher knife and threatened to kill her, Ford, and Ford’s nursemaid. Ford later told confidantes that his father had first hit his mother on their honeymoon for smiling at another man.[6]
After two and a half years with her parents, on February 1, 1916 Dorothy King married Gerald Rudolff Ford, a salesman in a family owned paint and varnish company. They then called her son Gerald Rudolff Ford, Jr. The future president was never formally adopted, however, and he did not legally change his name until December 3, 1935; he also used a more conventional spelling of his middle name.[7] He was raised in Grand Rapids with his three half-brothers by his mother’s second marriage: Thomas Gardner Ford (1918–1995), Richard Addison Ford (born 1924), and James Francis Ford (1927–2001).
Now you’re just throwing in caveats and moving the goalposts. Originally you said it was because he had dual citizenship at birth. Now you’re shifting back to the non-existent two US Citizen rule that does not exist.
So Chris what happens to children born from rape and the mother doesn’t know the father’s name? My uncle Art was born this way. My grandmother was raped by a native american and on the birth certificate she made up the father’s name because she never knew it. Would you be claiming that children born from rape are not considered NBC?
That on November 4, 2008, I voted for the electors representing the Republican Party Presidential Candidate John Sidney McCain III (McCain), and that based upon information and belief that Defendant McCain was alleged to be a natural-born Citizen and whom subsequently did not obtain sufficient votes to win the winner take all Electoral College from New York; and thereafter McCain was discovered not to be a natural-born U.S. Citizen after all by a 18 USC 1001 fraud upon the US Senate. Any injury as defined with 42 USC 1983 1985(3) and 1986 as a matter of denial of my right to have duly qualified candidates on the ballot that by conspiracy and cover-up was denied is the cause underlying my injury. That Soebarkah, McCain and Roger Calero are not NBC. That as an equal protection matter the NYS BOE has a fiduciary obligation under state law and regulations to treat every Certificate for ballot access with a standard of equal language that was not done.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42235272/NOM-for-FAC-w-Summons-and-FIRST-AMENDED-COMPLAINT-Strunk-v-Paterson-Et-Al-w-Exhibits-NYS-29642-08#about
I am not playing a game my friend, I am heart attack serious! You don’t like the sheep disturbing your slumber do you?
As for the law in regards to a single mother that does not apply to any of the persons being discussed. The Child as long as the mother is a US Citizen is automatically a NBC when born in the USA or territories.
If SAD were not married to BHO Sr. and Soebarkah were named Barry Dunham born somewhere in the USA or territories because he would not be born in KENYA because SAD would not be married or have a reason to go there then Barry Dunham would be a NBC. But that is not the case is it Bob!
Now Barry Dunham wrote a boook or atleast Bill Ayers wrote a book because Barry couldn’t get his shit together and the book was called “Dreams from my Father” Barry’s allegiance is made quite clear from the words ring as to his allegiance that is not to the USA or its territories.
Two US Citizen parents with a child born in the USA or territories with an additional caveat with the McCarran Walter Act of 1952 that if outside the country for a certain length of time that the person must re-establish allegiance with an oath – that is the controlling legal authority for Barack Hussien Obama then and Soebarkah now.
There never has been a candidate for office in the U.S. named Soebarkah.
That must be why idiot birthers will always be losers since they are incapable of grasping very simple facts.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! !
This fool actually thinks people give a rat’s behind about his irrelevant, delusional ramblings!
This pathological liar just can’t stop himself from looking like an idiot.
Whatever Barack Obama wrote in his book is not a issue for presidential eligibility, but rather a consideration for voters.
I know that you used a mail drop address to register to vote, and your unwillingness to answer my questions leads me to believe that you have something to hide. Are you even a legal resident of New York State?
If anyone else here is curious about what I am talking about. Mr. Strunk has claimed in his various legal filings that his “suffrage address” is 593 Vanderbilt Avenue, #281, Brooklyn, NY 11238. Now, that sounds like an address for an apartment building or a condo, but if you go to Google Maps and take a look at the street view for the address, you’ll see that it is a three-story brick building and the entire first floor is taken up by Wilkinson Mail Box Rentals. There is no apartment 281 – it is the number of the mail box which Mr. Strunk is renting.
New York State law requires that a voter must provide the Board of Elections with his or her actual residence address. There is a separate space on the registration form to list a voter’s mailing address if it is different than the residence address. But the rule which establishes a voter’s district and polling place is the residence address, not the mailing address.
The basis of his lawsuit is that he was disenfranchised in 2008 because two supposedly ineligible candidates were on the ballot for President in New York State. The question I have is whether Mr. Strunk was legally registered to vote in New York State. I imagine that this is a question which the defendants in his lawsuit may be interested in. It hasn’t escaped my notice that the Board of Elections is one of the defendants.
Why did you stop at Gerald Ford? Wasn’t President Reagan born in Ireland?
Rickey,
If his home address is located in the same polling area as the mailbox address, is there really a problem?
His assumed words found on the internet:
I Christopher Earl Strunk am a Vietnam Era Veteran, born in Manhattan, resident in Brooklyn…*
*You can google for the link of this statement yourself; the site may be offensive to some commenters.
Sorry, I fail to see anywhere in the statues you quote that your supposed “injury” is defined. Nor have you been able to answer the particularized harm you suffered as a result.
Sorry, but there is no law or “right” in the constitution that protects your hurt feelings or gives you redress if you didn’t get the pony you wanted for Christmas. Same thing here with your fruitless and fanciful whine that you didn’t like the candidates on your ballot.
You only can claim “distrust” that certain candidates on the ballot were “valid” in your eyes. However, you have no actual evidence backed up by law that indicates Obama or McCain as ineligible for office.
You simply have no redress here and you have not been “injured” any any real way. Pouting and stomping your feet doesn’t count for beans.
Charo –
I think Rickey’s whole point here can be summed up with the following:
Well, considering that the birthers arguments all go based on not trusting government documents nor government officials….why should Strunk be taken at his word?
Just because Strunk says those things about himself and his background, where is the evidence as proof to back it up?
If the only address he’s provided to date turns out to be a mere PO Box – then NO – it is not clear that he even resides in the vicinity of that PO Box. Local residency isn’t required for many PO Boxes. Therefore, an individual or business from out of state can get a “local” PO box – but have no actual residence or physical office location within that district or state whatsoever at all…
I think if the issue comes up in the law suit, he’s probably good to go.
So in other words you don’t want to answer a perfectly valid question because according to your logic there’s no way to determine if the father was a US Citizen. If we were to follow your illogic then you would say that child would not be eligible for president because of something out of his control. The fact is, yes the child would be NBC by virtue of being born on US soil. But if we were to push this further if the single mother rule you just claimed applied then by all intents and measures Ann Dunham was single because Barack Obama Sr was already married in his own country and so his marriage to Stanley Ann Dunham was illegal. Meaning Dunham would have been a single mother and the father’s citizenship wouldn’t matter… See how you talk yourself in circles? Its no wonder sheep get skittish when you’re around.
Nice try with the immigration and naturalization act but that only applies to immigrants not to children born inside the country. Besides most of the McCarran Walter act was overturned by the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 so I don’t see what the relevance to the conversation is.
Funny.
Mr. Strunk states: That on November 4, 2008, I voted for the electors representing the Republican Party Presidential Candidate John Sidney McCain III (McCain), and that based upon information and belief that Defendant McCain was alleged to be a natural-born Citizen and whom subsequently did not obtain sufficient votes to win the winner take all Electoral College from New York; and thereafter McCain was discovered not to be a natural-born U.S. Citizen after all by a 18 USC 1001 fraud upon the US Senate.
Response: Mr. Strunk voted for Sen. McCain and thereafter discovered that Sen. McCain was not a natural born citizen. “Thereafter” is the critical word. That’s Mr. Strunk’s claim.
Sen. McCain was born in Panama. Anyone who wanted to could find that out. Because there were questions about whether he was a “natural born citizen” because he was born outside the United States Congress passed a resolution declaring him to be eligible. The idea that someone who is the child of an American on active military duty and is born outside the United States is not a “natural born citizen” is ludicrous.
Mr. Strunk is free, of course, to argue that the children of Americans serving this country abroad are to be regarded as second-class citizens. It’s just hard to believe that there is even one vote for this proposition in Congress or on the Supreme Court.
Sen. McCain never made a secret of where he was born or where he served. Everyone in Arizona knew, because it was part of his stock stump speech. In fact, in his first campaign, facing three other Republicans in the primary, and with the challenge that he was a carpetbagger, Sen. McCain pointed out that until that time the place he had resided longest was in the Hanoi Hilton.
In any event, President Obama, for whom Mr. Strunk did not vote, carried New York’s electors. Mr. Strunk, not having voted for them, can’t complain now that a Hawaiian won.
If you know his DOB you can go to the NYS BOE website to determine his registration.
If he actually maintains his legal residence in the same district where he is registered to vote, it likely is a “no harm, no foul” situation. However, we do not know that to be the case.
He may actually reside in a different district, or even a different state. All we know for sure is that he does not reside at the address which he claims to be his “place of suffrage” – nor has he ever lived there. The significance is that for purposes of his New York lawsuit, his Vanderbilt Avenue address is the basis for venue in Kings County Supreme Court. If he doesn’t actually live in Brooklyn, there is no basis for his lawsuit being filed in Kings County. And if he is not a legal resident of New York State, his entire lawsuit goes away because he had no business voting in New York in the first place. So it is far from clear that this is a meaningless discrepancy.
I don’t doubt that he lived in Brooklyn at one time. He probably lived in Brooklyn when he first registered to vote, but if he relocated to another district or to another state he was bound by election law to notify the Board of Elections of the move.
Another oddity is that the telephone number which Mr. Strunk lists on his pleadings has the area code 845. The area code for Brooklyn is 718. Area code 845 is for the counties of Putnam, Dutchess, Rockland, Orange, Sullivan and Ulster, all located a considerable distance from Brooklyn. Mr. Stunk’s number is probably a cell phone, but even so it is curious that he does not have a number with a New York metro area code.
You need the DOB and the voter’s Zip Code.
Right, but you already have the ZIP code from his address.
IOW, he could be in BIIIIIG trouble. He had better come clean about his real domicile.
Strunk’s phone # is a cell phone based in Kingston, NY. He could have gotten a pay-as-you go phone & used the Kingston ZIP when he registered it. So this is a dead end.
No question, the cell phone number proves nothing. It’s just a curious oddity. But I place calls to cell phone owners in the New York metro area every day of the week, and I have never known someone who lives in the city to have a cell phone with the 845 area code. There’s always a first time, of course.
The Koch brothers?
The Koch suckers?
Goldwater was most definitely and uncontroversially NBC because he was born on US soil (Arizona Territory was undeniably U.S. soil). Yes, the question was asked at the time, and answered, and the answer was accepted by supporters and opponents alike. There was no ‘battle’, there was a brief public debate, Constitutional experts agreed on the answer, and the public embraced that answer.
Yes, I know. Its strange but there really was a time, not so long ago that people actually accepted the decision of the umpire with grace and got on with the real game.
On the other hand, Goldwater had a much more legitimate claim to NBC than McCain who was not born on U.S. soil, by any stretch of the imagination. Congress retroactively declared the Canal Zone to be equivalent to U.S. soil for the purposes of citizenship, but didn’t even make it retroactive to the year of McCain’s birth.
In 2008, Congress unanimously passed a (non-binding) resolution declaring McCain to be a NBC and therefore eligible to be President, thus signaling that they would not challenge based on this when the Electoral College votes were counted. They essentially said that the retroactive law (from 1934 wasn’t it?) should have covered those in McCain’s situation and Congress would not stand in his way.
If you want to b*tch and moan about Constitutional end-runs, this would be a more fruitful windmill to tilt at (but of course you won’t have any success there, either).
To clarify. I see that this (McCain’s eligibility ) is part of your claims. I am suggesting that you address Congress willful end run around the Constitution by announcing that they would ignore the NBC requirement for McCain.
> Who is funding these birther seditionists who want to overturn our legal and democratic elections and undermine and destroy our government and the authority of our Constitution?
Actually, I’m beginning to see a discomforting pattern in the different battlefields the birthers are fighting on:
1. Lakin case: The “broken chain of command” theory that basically says “if the president is allegedly not eligible, soldiers are free to disobey any command”
2. NBC argument: Attempt to redefine important aspects of the Constitution by making up contrived arguments why some words don’t mean what they obviously mean but rather had a “hidden” meaning that somehow escaped everyone for 200+ years, only to be rediscovered today.
3. Orly/Berg/Apuzzo: Stupid cases that were designed to fail before even reaching the “on the merits” phase to paint the judicial system as corrupt and treacherous.
(In fact, I could probably write up a better “I want to see his BC” lawsuit in one afternoon than all of the birther attorneys combined, so it can’t be that hard.)
All of this seems like a pattern to either justify a military coup (including a partial suspension or redefinition of Constitutional rights) or to weaken the US in the face of upcoming threats from the outside (terrorism, North Korea etc.).
It’s just too many things that fly in the face of “constitutional order” and “strong united country” to be a coincidence.
Or am *I* being paranoid now? 😉
You know as much about grammar as you do about the law:
Nothing.
So you don’t want to touch the question yet spout on about stuff you know even less about. I see. We know that in your limited mindset that a child born of rape would probably be determined by you to not be NBC. But I digress. Let’s move forward to what you described. Barack Obama Senior was already married in Kenya and so his married to Stanley Ann Dunham was rather illegitimate. So if we applied your reasoning Junior would have been considered NBC anyway by virtue of his mother not being properly married. It would be the same as her being a single mother. The fact is by virtue of Obama Jr being born in America he is NBC. You do know most of the McCarran Walter Act was overturned by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
First, “full identification” consists of something like a passport or a driver’s license, not a Latin infinitive plunked willy nilly into a name.
Second, Orly Taitz is a paranoid bigot and incompetent lawyer.
First, there is no one named “Soebarkah.”
Second, you are lying.
Third, there is no such word as “chimming.”
Wrong.
Also, someone who is unable to grasp that “in esse” is not now and never has been part of a human being’s legal name has some nerve calling the members of the Supreme Court “insipidly stupid.” I don’t like some of them, and think at least one never should have been confirmed, but none of them are either insipid or dumb.
You have no legal enforcement powers. Also, anyone who thinks that Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democrat, had anything to do with John McCain’s political career is out of his mind.
Anti-Catholicism wasn’t pretty when Maria Monk published her lies, and it’s even uglier now.
Also, giving a quote without context is useless.
You were told nothing about a dog or a forklift, so kindly stop spreading falsehoods.
As for being from Brooklyn, a post office box is proof of nothing except the ability to rent one.
The President’s college transcripts are kept at, respectively, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School. His birth certificate is in Honolulu (and also on line, where anyone can view it). Why would any of these places store top secret classified documents?
Dr. Conspiracy, Thanks for the opportunity to check out the integrity of your bloggers.
I just spoke with Orly today about the Col. Lakin trial at Ft. Meade MD starting 12/14/ thru 12/15; I hope to be there and were those of you to clear security I also would welcome a continued conversation.
I notice that both super detectives Rickey and Sef found my address which I provided them and as such may I take the opportunity to ask for donations to help defray the $900 printing and mailing costs in our latest 2nd Circuit Appeal case involving equity in the reimbursement of HAVA expenses to New York state subdivisions and real propery land owners see http://www.scribd.com/doc/44657105/Appellants-Brief-and-Appendix-Forjone-v-California-10-822-112910.
Those that wish may send a check to Christopher Earl Strunk 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -281 Brooklyn New York 11238, where my able staff will gladly accept the mailing and process the donation accordingly. Anyone may phone me at 631-745-6402 or as Rickey and Sef cite the 845-901-6767 network number which ever. But the most convenient for me as I am out of pocket and on the road most of the time is the 845 area code number as we are able to collect the best data using that phone system.
As for the list of attorneys representing the Appellees therein 10-822 they are:
1. WAN J. KIM, U.S.A.G Civil Rights Div. U.S. DOJ Rm 7254—NWB 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20530 – 03101230000109580045
2. ANDREW M. CUOMO Attorney General of the State of New York; The Capitol Albany, New York 12224-0341 – 03101230000109580038
3. David W. Kloss , Esq. Kloss & Stenger 69 Delaware Ave Ste 1003 Buffalo, NY 14202 – 03101230000109580052
4. Jeremy A. Colby , Esq. Webster Szanyi, LLP 1400 Liberty Bldg. Buffalo, NY 14202 – 03101230000109580182
5. Joseph F. Reina , Esq. Erie County Dept. of Law 69 Delaware Ave. – Ste 300 Buffalo, NY 14202 – 03101230000109580175
6. Stephen M. Sorrels , Esq. Feldman, Kiefer & Herman, LLP 110 Pearl Street – Suite 400 Buffalo, NY 14202 – 03101230000109580137
7. Aven Rennie, Esq. McGavern, McGavern & Grimm, LLP 1100 Rand Building 14 Lafayette Square Buffalo,, NY 14203 – 03100480000184267318
8. Michael E. Davis , Esq. Monroe Cty Dept. of Law 39 West Main St., Rm 307 Rochester, NY 14614 – 03101230000109580212
9. Michael P. McCarthv Esq. Onondaga Cty Dept of Law John H. Mulroy Civic Cntr 421 Montgomery St., FL 10 Syracuse, NY 13202 – 03100480000184267387
10. Thomas Simeti , Esq. Rockland Cty, Dept. of Law 11 New Hempstead Road New City, NY 10956 – 03100480000184267301
11. KIMBERLY GALVIN, ESQ., Special Counsel Attorney for The N.Y.S. Bd. of Elections 40 Steuben St, Albany, NY 12207 – 03101230000109580090
12. Carol Fumanti Arcuri, Esq. Office of Westchester Cty Attorney 148 Martine Ave. Fl 6 – Rm 600 White Plains, NY 10601 – 03101230000109580205
13. Aaron J. Marcus , Esq. Broome Cty Atty’s Office 44 Hawley Street POB 1766 Binghamton, NY 13902 – 03100480000184267332
14. Michael G. Reinhardt, Esq. Ontario County Attorney’s Office 27 North Main Street -4th Floor Canandaigua, NY 14424-1447 – 03100480000184267349
15. John V. Hartwell , Esq. Jefferson County Attorney’s Office 175 Arsenal Street Watertown, NY 13601 – 03101230000109580021
16. Alan R. Peterman, Esq. Hiscock & Barclay, LLP One Park Place 300 South State Street P.O. Box 4878 Syracuse, NY 13221-4878 – 03100480000184267356
17. Tina M. Wayland-Smith , Esq. Campanie & Wayland-Smith PLLC 60 East State Street Sherrill, NY 13461 – 03101230000109580199
18. Francine A. Chavez , Esq. NM Attorney General’s Office P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, NM 87504 – 03101230000109580083
19. Jason T. Contreras, AAG / Amanda J. Cochran-McCall, AAG Of Atty Gen 300 West 15th St, 11th Fl Austin, Texas 78701 – 03101230000109580120
20. Diana L. Varela , Esq. Assistant Attorney General Attorney for State of Arizona 1275 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926 – 03082040000121737800
21. Thomas J. Cawley, Esq. Sullivan County Dept of Law County Gov Center 100 North St , POB 5012 Monticello, NY 12701 – 03101230000109580076
22. Joshua J. Hicks Sr. Deputy Attorney General Civil Division 100 North Carson Street Carson City, NV. 89701-4717 – 03101230000109580069
23. Eric J. Wilson , Esq. Assistant Attorney General the State of Oregon Dept. of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, Oregon 97301-4096 – 03100480000184267325
24. Edmund G. Brown Atty General Office of Atty General 1300 “I” Street P.O.B 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-255 26 – 03082040000121737817
25. Andrew G. Tarantino, Jr. Esq. Ast Cty Atty- Suffolk Cty Atty’s Of . 100 Vet Mem Hgwy POB 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788-0099 – 03101230000109580106
26. Ester Miller, Esq., Assist Cty Atty. Nassau County Attorney’s Office 1 West Street Mineola, NY 11501 – 03101230000109580113
For more than 15 years I have been satified in using the cour system to provide a near as possible public record of arguments on both sides of issues and am gratified in many of the new acquaintences I have gained in the process, especially the various Justices and Judges who are dedicated and thoughtful public servants unlike the majority of the SCOTUS.nowadays.
As for the thrashing about by Rickey and Sef, Sherlock Holmes had many rules of thumb that do not start from the premise that everyone is a criminal especially since I have no less than 35 Federal cases since 1999 and countless State level civil cases – to be considered a criminal first is a snipe hunt very much like that carried out by Phil Berg.
Doyle said:
In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason backward.
We must look for consistency. Where there is a want of it we must suspect deception.
When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains however, improbable, must be truth.
Just remember to make the check payable to Christopher Earl Strunk in esse. Thanks in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.
My best regards.
Doc.;
Have any of the keyboard lawyers offered to represent you in case you have to file suit against the State Dept for your FOIA?
I think you should extend an olive branch to Orly and I’m sure she’ll offer to help.
“I think you should extend an olive branch to Orly and I’m sure she’ll offer to help.”
No one needs an incompetent and deranged dentist or attorney any more than they need another hole in the head.
I have seen allot of negative energy in my time but you stretch the envelope. It never fails that when you think you have seen the biggest sour puss there comes another one. Have you tried magnets under your bed or on your helmut?
I think Glenn Beck is stretching the envelope. The man is an anti-semite, who never has come clean about his alleged rape and murder in 1990.
SHOW US YOUR RECORDS BECK!!
The key to understanding Beck is the Kangaroo. 20th Century FOX that workered with the Nazis to develope propaganda and like IBM were instrumental in bringing about the Holocaust. There is a bigger story If you are interested.
Beck was on my email list starting in November 2008; and even used my stuff especially when he referred to “The only difference between the Jesuits and Al Qaeda is that you can call the Jesuits” statement in December 2009. He rapidly changed that and now has a Jesuit on his show.
He was the first to PU on my attack of Social Justice when I intervened into the Acorn Case here in EDNY and like Darrell Issa they both freaked out when I connected the dots to instrumental funding done by the Catholic Chuch under the watchful masonic eye of Paul VI.
Beck no longer takes my emails because he knows I know what he is up to; and in short that is to push the Caritas Veritate encyclical as BHO is doing.
Murdock is a Knight of St. Gregory and is working very closely to bring about not only race war but a 4th Reich.
What an absurd, bigoted, ridiculous excuse for a post.
It’s called schizophrenia.
A useful metaphor I suppose just like the fly paper you got stuck on Brunhilda.
Allot is, in fact, a word – it just isn’t the word that he meant to use 😉 It’s pretty pathetic when someone misspells the non-word they meant to use. Mr. Strunk has certainly provided more than his allotment of illiterate birther crap.
It’s common among conservatives. See “refudiate.”
Here one fish for the seals!
“How to Get a Certified Raised Seal Birth Certificate
By Sophie Levant, eHow Contributor
Certified birth certificate copies, also called authorized copies, contain the complete details of a person’s birth AND bear the raised seal of the state. Certified birth certificate copies are not public records and only a few eligible parties may obtain them. A certified birth certificate is the version you will need to apply for a passport or driver’s license, as well as for use in legal proceedings and other official matters.”
http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/somebody-please-blow-the-whistle-in-hawaii/
That was interesting Chris.
Not sure exactly how you think that makes your case, or how it’s at all relevant to anything….. but it is interesting.
Here’s a quote from the obamasgarden article referenced by Chris, that nearly made me spit my coffee over my monitor, I was laughing so hard.
“”Embossing (paper), the raising of paper and other non-metal products.”
Obama’s seal is not raised, it is impressed into the back of the COLB. It seems a little thing, but it is a legal thing.]”
I wonder how that miserable excuse for a blogger thinks a raised seal is made, if not by impressing into the back of the page. Perhaps by sucking? ROFLMAO!!!
I am in the midst of obtaining my own BC for the FBI FOIA requirement because I want all the info on my father; especially the contact report taken when I was 4 years old (during the McCarthy era) when I answered a knock at the door of three FBI agents who wanted to grill my father on his contacts.
Point taken. I meant it’s not the correct word. Of course, it doesn’t change the fact that he’s a racist lunatic.
Aaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnndddd……
So what does that have to do with Obama?
Why do you believe everything has to do with Soebarkah?
Not sure who this Soebarkah guy is, but I’m pretty sure a blog about Obama Conspiracy Theories, should have stuff about Obama in it.
Better yet what do you think this has to do with Obama? :
any knowledge of the homicide of Lt. Quarles Harris, who whistle blew info re breakin and stealing from Obama’s passport files at State. Former employees of John Brennan’s Baltimore Consulting Firm were implicated, but DOS gave a whitewashed, blacked out report of its investigation. Looks like a fascist secret police action. No follow up by DC police on “bullet in the head” wipe out.
Well I’m pretty sure your conspiracy delusions have nothing to do with Obama in reality, but I’m pretty sure in your own little delusional world he’s the cause of all that is wrong.
How sure are you Daniel?
I’d stake my pension on it.
MS Levant is poorly informed and imprecise in the preceding statement.
Thanks I will pas that on to the Lemmings surrounding the HI Capitol.
How much of my time is that worth?
Lemmings are native to arctic regions only, there are none in Hawaii in the wild.
Exactly what relevance do you think a reference to a small arctic rodent like the Lemming has to anything?
Of your professional time?
Probably about 200-300 years worth, on retainer.
I suspect your time might cost more, but you asked what it would be worth… so….
So I guess they left because of global warming and swam to HI seeking rebirth
Hey how about a donation referenced above?
I just occasionally lose control of my inner grammarian – besides, the fact that he didn’t know what ‘allot’ meant or that ‘alot’ isn’t a word only accentuates his lack of eloquence. Not that any of that has any bearing on the racist lunatic thing…
I liked that part too. I can’t even comprehend the lack of critical thinking skills required to make such a statement… I wonder if Mr. Strunk is even capable of understanding what is wrong with this statement (my guess is that his confirmation bias is far to strong for that).
Can you provide a verifiable guarantee the money won’t be used to fund birther delusions?
THANKS that was generous!!
Hi Sven. I see you got a new IP address.
No, no offers.
Try coffee in a bag it clears the liver
Well they don’t swim very well, and don’t travel far, so I’m not sure how you think they’d get to Hawaii, or why they would choose to travel to an isolated archipelago, instead of just going south….
You still haven’t explained why you would choose to use the Lemming as a metaphor, or what it’s supposed to represent. You do love to obfuscate, don’t you.
Guranteed for use with http://www.scribd.com/doc/44657105/Appellants-Brief-and-Appendix-Forjone-v-California-10-822-112910
However as you are aware unless you provide it in barter which is fine with me $$ are fungible
Because I would have never jumped onto the HI issue it goes nowhere
Who is this person? I think you are confused about LEIutenant Quarles Harris, a small time criminal and the son of a mother with your talent for spelling that was not a member of the military. Was your misrepresentation lying or ignorance on your part?
So then the answer is “no”, you can’t provide a verifiable guarantee that the funds won’t be used to fund birther delusions.
In that case, I’ll pass. However, I did get an email this morning from a rich Nigerian widow who I’m sure would love to invest in your “case”. I’m sure she’s every bit as reliable and trustworthy as you.
Ahhhhh, I see the problem. You have bought into the fallacy that Lemmings jump over a cliff. I didn’t think there was anyone left who actually believed that fallacy any more.
Are you somehow not aware that whole idea was made up by Disney, and is in no way any part of the ethology of the Lemming?
Kind of makes it hard to believe much of anything you say….
Its been fun
I think you may have misquoted another misquote 😉 I never typed those words or referred to that name.
Yeah I didn’t think you’d have the guts to admit an error of fact or reference. That would entail some degree of professionalism and ethics on your part.
“Lt. Quarles Harris”
He wasn’t a lieutenant. That’s yet another idiotic piece of birther fiction in a very long list of birther stupidity.
From Barackryphal.com:
First of all, as anyone who’s made even the most cursory attempt to check their facts knows, the individual in question was not “Lt.” He was not an officer at all, military or police. This error was first made by the Washington Times (thus illustrating how attentively the Times checks its facts), and has been regularly repeated since then, including in two WorldNetDaily articles.
No, his name was “Leiutenant Quarles Harris Jr.” He’s listed, with that nontraditional spelling of his first name, in the Social Security Death Index, where it also gives his birthdate in 1983 and his date of death, which was April 18, 2008.
Harris was shot and killed that day in Washington D.C. From WJLA, Channel 7:
Officers responding to a report of gunfire in the 2800 block of 12th Street, NE, found the body of 24-year-old Leiutenant Quarles Harris, Jr in a vehicle. Police say he had been shot several times.
And from a WJLA follow-up report:
Police stopped [Harris] and found 20 credit cards and eight completed passport applications. According to court documents, Leiutenant Harris told police he and someone inside the State Department were taking information off passport applications, which they used to get fraudulent credit cards. Another conspirator, inside the Postal Service, intercepted the cards before they could get to the actual people.
Leiutenant Harris was in court for that case three days before his murder. “He felt like he was going to do jail time. He was willing to do jail time.”…
Police are investigating the murder, while State Department Diplomatic Security, Secret Service and the Postal Inspector are all investigating the fraud case. The only comment from law enforcement was that it’s an ongoing investigation.
Leiutant Harris’ murder comes after a spat of violence in the fifth ward. There were five homicides in a four day period.
You can read the actual criminal complaint filed against Harris here, wherein he was charged with credit card fraud.
You may notice something absent from both these articles and the complaint: any mention of the passport breach of the records of Clinton, McCain and Obama that broke in March 2008. It’s absent for the simple reason that it’s not related. At all.
In the case of the candidates’ passport breach, three contract employees for the State Department improperly looked at the passport files of Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama. Two employees worked for Stanley Inc., and the third worked for Analysis Corp.*
In the case of Mr. Harris, he was charged with a credit card fraud scheme that he said involved a State Department employee who fed him passport information that Harris used to apply for credit cards, and a Postal Service employee who intercepted the cards before they were delivered. As I noted above, when he was arrested, Harris was found with 19 different credit cards (plus two duplicates) and 8 passport applications, none of which were in his name. None of the documents were said to be in the names of any Presidential candidates (who would be rather poorly chosen marks in an identity theft scheme).
Were the two cases related? No. There are no common facts or players between them. The Washington Times reported in November 2008 on precisely this question:
Mr. Harris was fatally shot in Northeast Washington in April. Police at the time said they had no information linking his shooting to his involvement in the passport case.
The breach came to light in March around the same time The Times first reported that three State Department contract employees were being investigated for improperly accessing the passport data of presidential candidates Sens. Barack Obama, John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
[State Department spokesman Sean] McCormack said the cases are not related.
Harris had indeed provided help to federal investigators, but it was with regard to his crimes, not the breach of the candidates’ passport files. As noted in his criminal complaint, right after his arrest, at the police station, Harris was questioned by agents of the U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Department of State, and U.S. Postal Service.** As best I can tell, the only assistance provided to federal investigators by Harris was through this post-arrest interrogation.
Where, then, did the notion that the two cases were related originate? It was probably inevitable that conspiracy theorists would try to connect the two, but they were dealt an assist by the Washington Times article about Harris’ death. In that article, the Times mentioned the paper’s previous coverage of the Presidential passport breach, but drew no direct connection between the two. Readers, however, appear to have interpreted the mention of the passport breach as evidence of a connection between the two cases.
Conspiracists have been further emboldened by even more inaccurate reporting on the subject, such as that by Bob Unruh at WorldNetDaily. Unruh simply out-and-out falsely reports that Harris was a “key witness” in the breach investigation, based on Unruh’s own misreading of the Washington Times article, which he cites as his only source for the connection.
So there you have it. Leiutenant Quarles Harris Jr. was a credit card fraudster and an identity thief, but he had no connections whatsoever with the breaching of the Presidential candidates’ passport files, and the only assistance he provided to federal investigators was on his criminal case, not the breach-related misconduct.
* Analysis Corp.’s President and CEO is John O. Brennan, an advisor to Obama during his campaign and administration. Birthers have yet another conspiracy theory about his supposed involvement in the passport breach, but that it wholly unrelated to Mr. Harris, and thus irrelevant to this post.
** To preempt the obvious and inevitable conspiracist response, among the roles of the U.S. Secret Service is to investigate credit card fraud.
source: http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/
Sorry, I was quoting Mr. Strunk – I’m not sure how your name ended up on it (maybe I quoted you quoting him accidentally). Just another error of fact which he’s too much of a coward to respond to…
That’s what I was talking about – thanks Will.
No harm no foul.
Maybe he’s too busy trying to entice the Lemmings to jump, and is frustrated by their blank stares.
Brave sir robin ran away he bravely ran away….
And he still hasn’t explained why he uses a mail drop as his address for voter registration purposes. He also pointedly refused to answer when I asked him if he currently is a legal resident of New York State.
And you’re too ignorant to know that “LEUITENANT” was Mr. Harris’s legal first name. Why do you continue to spread lies that were debunked months ago?
And you’re too ignorant to know that “LEIUTENANT” was Mr. Harris’s legal first name. Why do you continue to spread lies that were debunked months ago?
Here’s your hat, what’s your hurry?
I can gurantee that anything I do is not based upon any delusion; and therefore, no amount of money I spend is wasted- nor would your donation be wasted either.
Thanks for the info on Harris. I took the opportunity to paste in an email I got and I figured correctly that you folks would quickly debunk or confirm it. The Harris passport and credit card fraud is interesting to say the least. Fordham’s John Brennan is not immune for his own circle of fraud though is he?
Unilke many at this website I have an outside life to live and am not plugged into an IV
No, you just waste your time and the Court’s resources filing incomprehensible lawsuits filled with your own garbled version of English grammar. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Aww did poor wittle chrissy’s feelings get hurt? It just seems funny the moment you can’t answer questions you run away and then come back. You still haven’t answered anything put to you. If nothing you did was based on delusion you guys would have won a case by now.
So Chris Strunk admits he posts claims that he has no idea whether it is true or not.
Any lie as long as it makes Obama look bad, huh? That’s the birther way.
What? You don’t have a drip in your PO Box?
It is interesting you bring up the Reagan Issue. There is a myth that the Semitic tribal Diaspora from the mid-east also went to the British Isles, with a reference in the Bible and according to my friend Bob Dornan and others all the Presidents including the usurper BHO (who considers himself genetically in the tradition of the Pilgrim Society is also an Irishman) are from a specific County of Ireland. I have not confirmed that claim, but the struggle for control of the thrown of Jerusalem remains with King Juan Carlos who presently occupies that seat; and is busy planning for the Mediterranean Union in which there are five Catholic and five Islamic states.
Reagan was born a catholic in the US of two citizen parents and although he was a progressive FDR Demoncrat, he realized it was easier to become a Republican TR progressive because there always seems to be a perpetual vacuum to be filled. Ronald Wilson Reagan was born in an apartment on the second floor of a commercial building in Tampico, Illinois, on February 6, 1911, to John Edward “Jack” Reagan and Nelle Wilson Reagan. Reagan’s father was of Irish Catholic ancestry, while his mother had Scots-English ancestors.
While Governor of CA Mr. Reagan approved Taxpayer dollars to be used for abortion, as Pres. he gave amnesty to illegals, he destroyed our Monroe Doctrine, he stupidly gave sovereign recognition to the Vatican on January 10, 1984 in exchange for membership in the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.
I am here at this website seeking a donation of money and or your time. I am willing to discuss my complaint as to the Usurper only (I have a right to use that term because I did fire BHO within 72 hrs of the offer of the oath), and the fact that the Usurper’s natural father was a British foreign exchange student with a temporary visa; and therefore, BHO Jr. was born of a US citizen minor aged mother and a majority aged British subject that means BHO Jr. was born a British Subject no matter where he was born. The only way I get off of that issue is if the USURPER marches into court with a DNA sample proving otherwise; and until then BUSH IV remains a Blue-blood Pilgrim Society Step-in Fetch-it stooge white boy from Ireland just like all the other Bushes and Reagan too. .
The McCarran Walter Act of 1952 is instructive as to both allegiance and what it takes to become a naturalized citizen that is different from a NBC. The SCOTUS has never heard the NBC issue and as long as the majority remain the insipid papal stooges the entire SCOTUS has absolutely no credibility. Nothing that any of you do or say about me or anyone else does not change that fact. Four legs good two legs bad, right?
I am humble enough to know my limits where others fail
Every madman guarantees that anything he does is not based on any delusion. Would you take the word of a thief that he would not steal your stuff? Would you take the word of a known forger that he won’t try to copy your driver’s license? Would you trust a convicted pedophile to look after your children?
If not, then why would you expect us to take your word that what you do is not based on delusion?
And for the anal oriented clucks I meant a double negative as to most of you.
Not much free time between appointments with your analyst, eh?
This sentence also makes no sense. Please do try again, and this time in English
Just one more reason you simply cannot trust him. AS if we were lacking reasons…
Are you tied to a chair in a corner of a white room or something like that? I can have someone untie you if you give me the coordinates.
You dance divinely.
So now you’re trying to tell us that the reference wasn’t some incorrect information that you actually believed…. You’re trying to tell us that you were just using us to help you verify something…….
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Really, Chris, If you’re going to outright lie about something, you should try to at least make it sound plausible. Why not just admit you were wrong and you were caught promoting a falsehood without due diligence to verify it beforehand?
Or will you try to tell us you didn’t really believe that Lemmings run over cliffs to commit suicide….. you were just using use to verify the story….
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Nope, I’m just on my lunch break from work.
You see, unlike you, I am a professional who works for a living.
Tue, December 7, 2010 11:17:05 AMFW: Another appeal filed | Obama Conspiracy Theories
From: Bill Van Allen View Contact
To: Christopher Strunk
——————————————————————————–
From: Jjnjck7@aol.com [mailto:Jjnjck7@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 9:29 AM
To: hvanallen@hvc.rr.com
Subject: Re: Another appeal filed | Obama Conspiracy Theories
Bill: I wonder if Chris has any knowledge of the homicide of Lt. Quarles Harris, who whistle blew info re breakin and stealing from Obama’s passport files at State. Former employees of John Brennan’s Baltimore Consulting Firm were implicated, but DOS gave a whitewashed, blacked out report of its investigation. Looks like a fascist secret police action. No follow up by DC police on “bullet in the head” wipe out.
Jack
Yes we all know that you received the email, blah, blah…
The point was you made a factual reference that was completely wrong, because you cannot seem to practice due diligence, and now you’re trying to weasel out from under it by pretending you were using us to fact check.
Nice try, “councilor”
That was up to you not me I figure you have time on your hands to do this nonsense
You call this work? What cases have you done?
Back in 2006 we sued all the counties in NY along with the various border States; We did not have enough money to serve the summons and complaint on the 58 state subdivisions so I just sent out single fax invitation asking each to waive service of the Summons and complaint. Thereafter to our surprise amajority did waive service and I saved easily $1000 in the process.
In 2010 the Judge who had left the huge pile of pelading sit in his in box freaked out and said I had not served them and dismissed the case for lack of service despite the fact that each had voluntarily waived service. Anyway as we speak I am getting a pacer update on appellees that continue to join the appeal case at 2nd circuit.
Case Selection Page
Case No./Title
Opening Date
Last Docket Entry
Originating Case No./Origin
10-822
Forjone v. The State of California
03/09/2010
12/08/2010 15:39:49
06-cv-1002
NDNY (SYRACUSE)
Note:
* Click on Case No. to get Case Summary
* Click on Short Title to get Case Query
* Click on Originating Case No. to get Case Summary for Originating Case
General Docket
Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 10-822
Docketed: 03/09/2010
Nature of Suit: 3440 CIVIL RIGHTS-Other
Forjone v. The State of California
Appeal From: NDNY (SYRACUSE)
Fee Status: Paid
Case Type Information:
1) Civil
2) Private
3) –
Originating Court Information:
District: 0206-5 : 06-cv-1002
Trial Judge: Lawrence E. Kahn, U.S. District Judge
Trial Judge: Randolph F. Treece, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Date Filed: 08/17/2006
Date Order/Judgment:
Date NOA Filed:
Date Rec’d COA:
02/19/2010
03/08/2010
03/09/2010
12/06/2010
78
SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, on behalf of Appellee The State of Texas, informing Court of proposed due date 03/31/2011, RECEIVED. Service date 12/06/2010 by CM/ECF.[160517] [10-822]
12/07/2010
81
SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, on behalf of Appellee County of Sullivan, informing Court of proposed due date 03/31/2011, RECEIVED. Service date 12/07/2010 by US mail, CM/ECF.[161660] [10-822]
12/07/2010
83
SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, on behalf of Appellee County of Monroe, informing Court of proposed due date 03/31/2011, RECEIVED. Service date 12/07/2010 by US mail, CM/ECF.[161912] [10-822]
12/08/2010
85
SO-ORDERED SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, setting Appellee County of Monroe Brief due as 03/31/2011, FILED.[162148] [10-822]
12/08/2010
86
SO-ORDERED SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, setting Appellee County of Sullivan Brief due as 03/31/2011, FILED.[162163] [10-822]
12/08/2010
87
SO-ORDERED SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, setting Appellee County of Columbia Brief due as 03/31/2011, FILED.[162166] [10-822]
12/08/2010
88
SO-ORDERED SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, setting Appellee The State of Texas Brief due as 03/31/2011, FILED.[162172] [10-822]
12/08/2010
89
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS ADDITIONAL COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellee The United States Department of Justice by the Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., FILED. Service date 12/08/2010 by CM/ECF. [162538] [10-822]
12/08/2010
90
ATTORNEY, Mark Lenard Gross for The United States Department of Justice by the Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., in case 10-822 , [89], ADDED.[162565] [10-822]
12/08/2010
91
SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, on behalf of Appellee County of Erie, informing Court of proposed due date 03/31/2010, RECEIVED. Service date 12/08/2010 by CM/ECF.[162808] [10-822]
Even us non-professionals have fun too; even though we do it as a labor of love without pay
Fixed it for you.
You do know most of the McCarran Walter Act was repealed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 right?
Yes but it is the legal controlling authority on August 4, 1961
Your lack of professionalism is borne out by your won-lost record in both state and Federal courts.
So do you actually have a legal residence in New York State? It’s a simple question which shouldn’t be difficult to answer.
You will learn as you get older that it is not if you win or lose but how you play the game. Think of me as the itching powder.
Do you have a OCD issue?
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of “burden of proof”?
Did I bring up the subject of Harris, or you?
Did I mistakenly assume the person’s first name was actually a military rank., or did you?
Did I attempt to weasel when confronted with the error, or did you?
You are proving yourself to be a very dishonest person…. but we knew that anyways.
Reagan was never a Catholic, you chucklehead. He was baptized into the Disciples of Christ and was not much of a churchgoer as an adult.
I did not assume anything other than to bait the hook that you are hung on.
You are giving him waaaaayyyyy too much slack.
Strunk knows this canard is false. Waving this email like it is the first time he has ever heard of it, is total BS. Repeating it here like it is fact and then claiming he was ‘just using us to get information’ is total 100% BS.
He wasn’t isn’t using us to get an opinion on Harris, he is using us to satisfy his pathological need for attention.
Which seemingly doesn’t include knowing that Harris was never in the military, which five minutes’ research would have clearly shown, or that “in esse” is the infinitive of the Latin verb “to be,” not part of one’s name.
All protestants are just unhappy Catholics, and in the end he submitted knowing there is no salvation outside of that church.
What do gay chickens have to do with anything?
“You call this work?”
No, I call it a symptom of your illness. I, however, do work.
“What cases have you done”
Well there is one thing we do have in common. Neither one of us are Lawyers.
Unlike you, however, I don’t try to talk about things I am ignorant of, and I don’t continually embarrass myself in court.
So you are afflicted with religious bigotry, as well as racial prejudice….. Why am I not surprised?
…and now you’re trying to tell us that it was all a trap, that you were just baiting the hook…..
Puh-leese.
http://winace.courageunfettered.com/pics/backpedaling.gif
Poe said if you want to understand the world stand on the highest point of the tallest mountain and spin around as fast as you can and that is what it is alll about. But then on the other hand the only applicable thing that Woody Allen ever said was that just showing up and being on time is what over 90% of life is about.
A particular view of history based upon copious amounts of fact that has no bigotry involved. I am not part of your collective world view I have my own howver, limited you seem to think it is. I am supported by history how about you? As for the histroy of the Council of Trent / inquisition battle with the reformation do you think that the war is called off?. Caritas Veritate says you are wrong. I question the doctrine not the individual.
I’m Jewish, you schmuck.
You do realize that Poe died days after being found wandering on the streets in delirium. Although there was no formal diagnosis, most experts believe he died insane.
In any case, he clearly had no idea what he was doing, and so it certainly is appropriate that you quote him.
If the Saracens had won the Crusades, there would not have been the Holocaust.
So……….
You’re telling us that there is no salvation outside the RC Church; not stating it as a belief, mind you, but as if it was a fact…
And now you’re trying to tell us that you have history and fact on your side to prove it, even though you can’t even prove your God exists, let alone that your particular sect of Christianity is the right one….
And you claim that’s not bigotry? Do you have any idea whatsoever what the definition of religious bigotry is?
For that matter, do you have any idea whatsoever what the definition of fact, or history, or evidence is?
I thought not.
The more you speak, the more you show yourself to be a complete moron.
I don’t think you intended that as it came out.
But really, I couldn’t agree more that you are not part of the real world. You are definately in a world all your own.
But none of this has to do with Obama so this makes you just sound idiotic. I know enough about immigration and citizenship laws because of friends who have had foreign spouses. McCarran Walter was designed for those attempting to immigrate to the US or seek Citizenship in the US. It has nothing to do with those born citizens. It also expanded citizenship to include US territories upon birth. This is what makes your position sound ridiculous. Your whole part about having to reestablishing allegiance through an oath only would have applied to Foreign Nationals (those who were born outside the country) this would have applied only to Barack Obama’s father and not his mother and not himself.
When Stanley Ann Dunham remarried and moved to Indonesia in 1967 the new law was in effect. So your application of McCarran Walter has no basis in reality here.
Ellid that isn’t the half of it. I did a cross reference on Lt Quarles Harris and Chris Strunk and came across an older Post and Email entry where Quarles Harris came up on a post and email article that another commenter mentioned. So this isn’t the first time Chris Strunk heard about Quarles Harris.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/11/21/were-stanley-ann-dunham-obama-soetoros-passport-applications-really-destroyed/
Scroll down to an entry from Birdy:
Monday, November 22, 2010 at 1:04 PM
“Perhaps they can not find them because Lt. Quarles Harris had them destroyed on Obama’s orders. Lt. Quarles Harris was killed shortly after his intrusion into the passport records was made public. As they say, dead men tell no tales.”
So Strunk was aware of this BS before he got that email.
Not only that but Strunk shows his own bigotry in something we talked about earlier this week.
Chris Strunk says:
Tuesday, November 23, 2010 at 4:55 PM
“The Blue bloods’ Step-in Fetch-it radical Muslim not only is implementing Shariah Law but has fundamentally transformed the Federal relationship with each state of the several states to such a degree there is not further reason to remain in the Union until such time Soebarkah is put on trial along with the traitors who put him in office.”
There’s that derogatory phrase “Step-in Fetch-it” again.
Lets go back even further to some more BS from Chris Strunk himself
From Strunk’s own filing Christopher Earl Strunk v. US Department of State:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35643600/STRUNK-v-U-S-DOS-FOIA-PLAINTIFF-DECLARATION-IN-OPPOSITION-TO-DEFENDANT%E2%80%99S-MOTION-FOR-SUMMARY-JUDGMENT-TO-DISMISS-35612613
Page 11 point number 19:
“19. That Plaintiff filed with the Court the evidence of the pattern of concealment by Barack Hussein Obama as the discovery of the conspiracy reported by NewsMax in the press on January 12, 2009, with the theft of the DOS Data Disks containing the Obama passport data from the National Archives believed to be associated with the April 2008 assassination of the material witness Federal Officer Quarles Harris Jr”
This was uploaded August 10, 2010. So this makes you a liar Strunk. You were referring to Quarles as an officer well before the supposed December email you received.
So Chris considering that this Reference to Quarles as an officer appeared in your filing:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35643600/STRUNK-v-U-S-DOS-FOIA-PLAINTIFF-DECLARATION-IN-OPPOSITION-TO-DEFENDANT%E2%80%99S-MOTION-FOR-SUMMARY-JUDGMENT-TO-DISMISS-35612613
On page 11 point number 19 well before the December email would you like to try explaining again why you posted false information without bothering to verify the claim?
Are you starting to wish you’d just left and stayed away?
I applaud those of you trying to communicate with Strunk as if he were rational. I wouldn’t have the patience for the layers of grand delusions and bigotry he spouts.
Hey if it weren’t for people like Mr. Strunk, I wouldn’t have this neat blog.
— tomorrow is another day
“A wet bird never flies at night.”
– Sig Sakowitz
Don’t worry, I doubt my needling will drive Mr. Strunk away – he’s not nearly as interesting (or literate) as Mario anyway…
The problem for you Chris Skunk, is that I rehired Obama within 72 hours after you fired him. So he is still President.
Furthermore, Now that I have referred to you as “Chris Skunk” in writing, and you have not refuted it, it is now & forever your legal name. You should write it like this:
@Chris ® © IN EssE 666
You can practice typing it while wearing your gold-fringed undies.
100% wrong.
I also note that you have consistently refused to respond to my comments about your atrocious grammar and your erroneous assumption that tacking “in esse” to your name is necessary for the garbage you call legal pleadings to be valid. Could it be that you realize there is no defense for such butchery of the English language?
And I’m a Unitarian Universalist who finds the mere idea of conversion risible.
Is THAT where it came from? A friend of mine quoted that a couple of years ago and we’ve been trying to figure out where he read it ever since!
The very idea of playing harps with your ilk for all eternity is enough to send anyone away from the church.
Are you saying his name is really Biggus Dickus?
Sig Sakowitz was a radio talk show host in Chicago. Funny bird.
Me too!
Probably Chris in esse would love to play hire-and-fire-ping-pong with you two. 😉
“Now he’s president… now he’s not… now he’s president… wait, at what second did he sign that treaty again? …”
And his wife, Incontinentia Buttox…..
Dr. Conspiracy seems content to allow me connect BHO to the RCC / Islam Luciferians, or at least hoven’t been banned yet..
The Saracens through Salahadin the Kurd (not an Arab) were not only (out of control at times) an invention of the RCC but were doing the bidding of the Pope from the time of Mohamed who dictated the (Pope’s) Koran while under the sway of the Augustinians.
There are presently more than 40 Islamic Cardinals in the RCC and together are one with Lucifer. Moreover, all are diametrically opposed to the existence of the USA borders language and culture defense of individual rights and liberty under a sovereign nation that until Reagan would stand opposed to the infallibility of the Pope’s total Temporal and Spiritual Utopian power.
The Inquisition’s war against the Protestants and heretics including the Jews and free thinkers (individuals who claim to have a right of choice) was the cause of the most recent holocaust that Rome carried out against the Orthodox Christians and Jews, and that was continuous from before Hadrian forward until the gathering clouds today of the renewed Caliphate with BHO leading the Saracens charge for the Pope against the orthodox Christians and Jews – and by the way except for the liberal Catholics (labeled obstinate heretics by the dicta of the RCC). I do not consider Catholics to be Christians. Catholics per se along their creation Islam are one with Luciferian occult practice of IHS.
The 1535 Council of Trent mandate given to the Militia of the Pope to slay all heretics and restore temporal and spiritual control to the infallibility of the Pontifex Maximus.
Chris I’m still waiting for you to explain why you lied about the Quarles Harris thing and why you failed to vet the claim in your filings back in August when you used it on page 11 point 19? Comments?
Now Bob Ross is an attorney who makes the big bucks on the misfortune of others using the big advantage that his lobbists afford in manipulation fo the Community Reinvestment Act and the various HUD stooges put there over the years.
So Bob would you care to comment on George Tenet’s Step-in Fetch-it John Brennan. I certainly I am not going to Quarles or Harris you with that matter in which I was truly curious why News Max carried the story the way it did.
The John Brennan piece is real and up front and in your face. Brennan like a good little Jesuit Coadjutor refers to Jerusalem as Al-Quds. Brennan is a pile of camel dung in service of KIng Juan Carlos and the office of the inquisition a traitor if there ever was one
I remember the day of JFK’s assassination as if yesterday and alll the comlaints of he being a Knight of Columbus devote Catholic. to which he declared that no longer would any other oath ge in the way of his oath to uphold the US Constitution as a matter of allegiance unlike the majority stooges on the SCOTUS.
The JFK text of the Speech to Congress :
The very word secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society. And we are as a people, inherently and historically opposed to secret societies. To secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh the dangers, which are cited to justify it. Even today, there’s little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger, that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent it is in my control. And no official of my administration whether his rank is high or low civilian or military should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to with hold from the press and the public or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they need to know. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covet means for expanding its sphere of influence on infiltration, instead of invasion on subversion, instead of election on intimidation, instead of free choice on guerrillas by night, instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into a building of a tightly knit highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned no rumor is printed. No secret is revealed. No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding. And from that understanding, comes support or opposition, and both are necessary. This administration intends to be candid about its errors. For as a wise man once said “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors. And we expect you to point them out when we miss them. Without debate, without criticism no administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution. Not primarily to amuse and entertain not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental not to simply ‘give the public what it wants’ this means greater coverage and analysis of international news for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. And it means that government at all levels must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security. And so it is to the printing press to the recorder of man’s deeds the keeper of his conscious. The courier of his news. That we look for strength and assistance. Confident, that with your help man will be what he was born to be FREE and INDEPENDENT.
http://theotherthomasotter.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/john-f-kennedy-the-very-word-secrecy-is-repugnant-in-a-free-and-open-society/
What does this have to do with the McCarran Walter Act that you obviously didn’t read, had no idea about, and when corrected changed the subject. So now you want to talk about the CRA? The CRA is a popular boogeyman for you guys. You know the same CRA that was in place for years and years and didn’t cause any problems. Most of the bad housing loans came from those outside of CRA control. If you don’t like that you don’t have to take my word for it:
CRA loans were safer than any of the home loans out there as they were backed by the Fed. The problem came from Bankers using accounting schemes and other tricks to try to hide bad debt, trick home owners, etc. FDIC Chair Sheila Blair stated blaming the CRA is scapegoating: http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/archives/2008/chairman/spdec1708.html
then there’s fed governor Randall Krozner who said: the claim that “the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending” was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm
There’s also economist Luci Ellis:
http://www.bis.org/publ/work259.pdf?noframes=1
Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan
http://www.occ.gov/ftp/release/2008-136.htm
But lets get to your other points:
Why do you use such a racially charged term such as “step-in and fetch-it”? As for Newsmax they are known for distorting the facts.
Yeah you don’t want to get into Quarles Harris because you are proven to be a liar who doesn’t bother vetting his sources before using them. It doesn’t matter how bad the information is as long as it can try to make Obama look bad.
The fact is you used the Quarles Harris story in your brief in August. You posted the claim again this week and when asked about it you acted like someone just emailed you about it this last week and you were trying to vet it here. You already knew the story back in August. This makes you a liar.
How about a donation Bob to recirculate all the government money you get?
Ok it’s obvious that when your parents locked you in the closet for hours on end, they should have remembered to remove the moth balls.
But this latest diatribe of yours does a lot to explain why people should not take you seriously on any political issue. You are certifiably insane.
Strunk – You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the mere freedom of being allowed to post your conspiracy theories on an open forum and people believing what you post.
Just because you write something here doesn’t in any way imply consent by Dr. C or anyone else that we share or agree with your notions.
You seem to see bogeymen in the shadows everywhere. It must suck to live such a fearful life, where everything is some dark, vast conspiracy of people out to get you….
Just for the record, I feel you are entitled to your opinions, but all of your claims and conspiracy stuff just sounds like utter crazy talk to me. You like to connect dots that don’t exist.
Daniel I gave you a chance to recirculate the Government money you get.
You service as a camp guard while amusing yourself between the rounds to punch the various clocks reflect on this :
http://theotherthomasotter.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/john-f-kennedy-the-very-word-secrecy-is-repugnant-in-a-free-and-open-society/
Why would I donate to you? It will just go to waste and doing things that are completely unproductive and will do nothing to benefit the rest of society. How about you donate your money to me at least I’ll do something productive with it or at least give it to people who need it more than you do and don’t have to go about begging people on the internet for it
Same goes for you G flect on this if you haven’t already:
http://theotherthomasotter.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/john-f-kennedy-the-very-word-secrecy-is-repugnant-in-a-free-and-open-society/
So why are you being so secretive about the children you’re hiding in the dungeon of your parents’ basement Chris?
I already recirculate money by shopping at local businesses. I certainly don’t have to send money to a mentally unstable person who actually takes his delusions into court the way you do.
Your abuse of the memory of JFK to support your hatred, bigotry, and racism, and to prop up your delusional view of the world is morally and ethically repugnant. you are sick, and you seriously need professional help.
He still hasn’t addressed his lie about the email being the reason he posted the information about Quarles and didn’t bother to vet it considering it was in his brief back in August
How did I come to the attention of you anyway Bob? Something I did worked to pull you away from your body count as you pull the gold teeth from the American corpse.
The nice thing about the simple case I filed starting November 22, 2008 is that even with my marginal literacy I was the only one to try to find out where SAD was on August 4, 1961 and with reason the DOS, Brennan and others yet to be named understood what I was and am doing and reacted accordingly to cover-up and carry on a conspiracy.
I think you and Daniel also protest too much and need to reflect on the words that JFK spoke to Congress as they apply more than ever today:
http://theotherthomasotter.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/john-f-kennedy-the-very-word-secrecy-is-repugnant-in-a-free-and-open-society/
Or his ironic error using the fallacy of lemmings running over a cliff to try to convince people he does his homework.
But then, really, it’s not like we expect honesty or integrity out of Strunk.
JFK never intended his words to be prostituted out to delusional, ethically challenged individual like you, who not only entirely missed what he was saying, but now try to whore his words in order to commit false witness on another President, whose only crime is that he’s black, WE understand that you cannot bring yourself to accept a black president, but JFK would have, with joy and celebration, because it meant his words meant something to people who were not at all like you.
As Judge Leon properly pointed out that a FOIA case is about the FOIA nothing else.
The real full faith and credit question raised in my FAC in Strunk v Paterson case NYS 29642-08 is whether or not a HI COLB is acceptable as NBC proof for the NYS BOE or anywhere else – as you all may remember Chiang Kai-shek had a HI COLB too.
Dr. Conspiracy has allot of numbs to deal with here.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/early-lead/2010/12/luke_scott_on_ted_nugent_hunti.html
Posted at 9:51 AM ET, 12/ 8/2010
Luke Scott on Ted Nugent, hunting, baseball and Obama’s birth certificate
By Cindy Boren
Baltimore Orioles outfielder Luke Scott swung by baseball’s winter meetings in Florida and did a lengthy interview with David Brown of Yahoo’s Big League Stew, an interview so lengthy that parts of it are probably going to generate some controversy.
Not the part about wanting to meet Ted Nugent. Or the parts about other baseball players. Or the parts about the problems he sees in America and the solutions to those problems. Probably not the part about his love of hunting or his views on the Second Amendment, either. Scott believes that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States and is quite vocal on the topic. Yeah, that’d be the part.
David Brown: You don’t think that Obama wasn’t born in the United States, do you?
Luke Scott: He was not born here.
DB: [Sighs].
LS: That’s my belief. I was born here. If someone accuses me of not being born here, I can go — within 10 minutes — to my filing cabinet and I can pick up my real birth certificate and I can go, “See? Look! Here it is. Here it is.” The man has dodged everything. He dodges questions, he doesn’t answer anything. And why? Because he’s hiding something.
You know what? People who have bad intentions, people that are deceivers or are not of honor and integrity — that’s how they act. I’ve seen it in every — it doesn’t matter what level. It can be in politics, it can be in business, it can be in sports, it can be in the construction field. Doesn’t matter. It’s all the same attitude. It’s the same thing.
People who tell the truth, they’re very easy to … their actions prove it. Something as simple providing a birth certificate. Come on. If you’re born here, there’s plenty of documents. But you know what? There’s no documentation of him. No legal documentation of him. There’s been lie after lie after lie exposed, but people put it under the carpet. Hence, the problem we have in this country.
LS: There needs to be accountability for the truth. I don’t care if you’re the President of the United States, you need to be held accountable. If you’re involved in treacherous acts, or you’re saying things that are against, or are selling out our country, you should be brought to trial.
I mean, no one’s above the law. There’s a lot of people that fought for their country and that’s not something to be taken lightly. They gave their life, everything they had, they gave their lives, to give us what we have. That’s why I’m so passionate about my beliefs — because someone died. They gave their life, their blood was spilled, so I had an opportunity to chase a dream and play baseball for a living.
For me, that’s not something, “Oh, thank you.” No. “THANK YOU.” Let me honor you for that by actions by sticking up for what you fought for and passing it on to the next generation and doing my part.
2010
12
08
09
51
By Cindy Boren | December 8, 2010; 9:51 AM ET
Categories: MLB
You came here you made false statements, I corrected the record. No matter how much you keep trying to deflect from the original conversation I’ll ask you again. Why did you lie about Quarles Harris and the McCarrin Act? You didn’t find anything out about where Stanley Ann Dunham though that was not already known. That she was in Hawaii. But back to why I won’t donate to you. I do not associate with future terrorists who will try to overthrow the government when they don’t get their way. I believe this is where you and your ilk are headed. I will not be apart of that.
Actually no it wasn’t Chiang Kai-Shek. You’re thinking Sun Yat-Sen and it wasn’t a HI COLB it was a Republic of Hawaii Certificate of Hawaiian Birth back in 1904 before Hawaii even became a state. Nice try though
You may read the record above, In any event you are caught with lack of a full understanding of the proceeding from which you cherry pick a quote, the other day I received an email (as if I were an expeert of something as you know I am not) and that I threw onto this blog.
As for your charge of perjury I invite you to join me in the court arena or if you so desire by make a Complaint to Brigham Bowen (the address and phone number is on line) of the DOJ. I would welcome an opportunity to get you in front of a Judge whether that is in State or Federal court.
You still have an opportunity to provide a generous donation in lieu of what it would cost you in the proposed vexation and harrasment that you now perpetuate.
See Bob you really are paying attention aren’t you!
33. That Defendant SOEBARKAH and or his agent(s) as part of the scheme to defraud placed an image of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (COLB) on the Internet, which in Hawaii per se is issued for all birth’s registered by the State of Hawaii whether the human being is born there or not, and as a prima facia fact means the Hawaii issued COLB does not prove “natural born” citizenship or birth in Hawaii, only a long form document would.
34. A COLB per se is sufficient proof of citizenship if not part of a scheme to defraud; however, a COLB issued to those who are “naturalized” in Hawaii is of questionable legal issue contrary to U.S. Constitution Article 1 §8 Clause 4, Article I §9 Clause 1, Article 1 §10 Clause 1, and as a matter of first impression conflicts with the full faith and credit clause.
Apparently more than you because you fail to vet any of the information you post. It’s obvious you believe anything that reflects badly on the president no matter how ludicrous it sounds and fail to vet your information.
It’s too bad Jack Chick is anti-Catholic, because this is exactly the sort of ridiculous mess that one reads in those hideous little comics his followers strew about airports and post offices.
Yeah you received an email but you’ve been passing that claim around since August. Why is it you waited until now to Vet the Quarles Harris claim? Is it because you believed it because it looked negative towards Obama? You still ignored why you lied about McCarran Warren.
What would be the point of me filing a claim against you? I haven’t been harmed in any way by you to which to seek relief just as its pointless for you to file a claim against Obama because you haven’t been harmed in a way to which you can seek relief. It’s not that hard really.
So why are you still lying?
Point 33. You haven’t proven this is the case in fact it is the opposite as Dr Fukino said that Obama placed a scan of his valid birth certificate on his campaign website. I’d say you have a very weak case when the person charged with verifying vital records verifies Obama’s certificate.
The second part is a lie. There has been no proof that the state of Hawaii issues birth certificates to those born outside of Hawaii saying that they were born in Hawaii. Besides that law wasn’t in place until about 20 years after Obama was born.
1. Sun Yat-Sen and Chiang Kai-Shek were two separate people, you numbskull. NEITHER had a birth certificate from the STATE of Hawaii.
2. Luke Scott is an idiot.
3. If you care so much about high government officials being subject to the rule of law, then I expect you are now in full support of former Vice President Cheney’s indictment by Nigeria.
4. You still haven’t replied to my comments about your poor grammar and use of Latin infinitives as part of your personal name.
HI like PR has an open door policy to this day. and were both USA Territories in 1904 and as such anyone actually born there with proof provided with a long form BC would be eligible for Pres / VP but not with proof provided by a COLB.
Chiang Kai-shek (October 31, 1887 – April 5, 1975) was an influential member of the nationalist party Kuomintang (KMT) and Sun Yat-sen’s close ally. He became the Commandant of Kuomintang’s Whampoa Military Academy and took Sun’s place in the party when the latter died in 1925. In 1928, Chiang led the Northern Expedition to unify the country, becoming China’s overall leader. He served as chairman of the National Military Council of the Nationalist Government of the Republic of China (ROC) from 1928 to 1948. Chiang led China in the Second Sino-Japanese War, during which the Nationalist Government’s power severely weakened, but his prominence grew.
Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866 to a Hakka family in the village of Cuiheng, Xiangshan (later Zhongshan) county, Guangzhou prefecture, Guangdong province (26 km or 16 miles north of Macau), in the Empire of the Great Qing of China.
As a child, Sun Yat-sen listened to many stories about the Taiping Rebellion from an old Taiping soldier named Lai han-ying (賴漢英). After receiving a few years of local school, at age thirteen, Sun went to live with his elder brother, Sun Mei, in Honolulu. Sun Mei, who was fifteen years Sun Yat-sen’s senior, had emigrated to the Hawaiian Islands as a laborer and had become a prosperous merchant. Though Sun Mei was not always supportive of Sun’s later revolutionary activities, he supported his brother financially, allowing Sun to give up his professional career. Sun Yat-sen studied at the Ê»Iolani School where he learned English, mathematics and science. Originally unable to speak the English language, Sun Yat-sen picked up the language so quickly that he received a prize for outstanding achievement from King David KalÄkaua. While at Ê»Iolani, he befriended Tong Phong, who later founded the First Chinese-American Bank. After attending Iolani School, from which he graduated in 1882,[9] Sun enrolled in Oahu College (now Punahou School) for further studies for one semester.[10] He was soon sent home to China as his brother was becoming afraid that Sun Yat-sen was about to embrace Christianity, which he did, but he returned to Hawaii at least twice, in 1900 and 1901. In March 1904, he obtained a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, issued by the Territory of Hawaii, stating he was born on November 24, 1870 in Kula, Maui.
You apparently have no idea what a ridiculous statement that is.
By the way, are you a legal resident of New York State?
When in commission of a crime the benefit of the elements used in the crime may not be used as a defense; is my broad use of clean and hands with the Poisonous fruit doctrine .
Unclean hands, sometimes clean hands doctrine or dirty hands doctrine is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with “unclean hands”. The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as “those seeking equity must do equity” or “equity must come with clean hands”.
Well I have to go and feed the lions.
Good. Jump in the cage with them.
You forget the part where you actually have to show that a crime was committed before you can have those elements declared as benefit of the crime.
You are a waste of air.
Misha, really….. that was unkind and uncalled for.
What did those poor lions ever do to you?
As far as I recall, and I recall quite well, passing off someone else’s work as your own, without attribution, is illegal, Chris.
Do you consider yourself above the moral and legal oblication to atribute? Do you consider it hypocritical to commit an offence while accusing Obama of committing an offence?
Or is breaking the law only OK for you.
P.S. In anticipation of your weaselling, “fair use” does not remove the requirement to attribute; but you already knew that, right?
Sun Yat-sen might have been pertinent to the discussion if you had proven that President Obama was born anywhere else besides Honolulu.
Wow every day with more posts from Strunks crazy town.
And i always love how Birthers most stunning example of Birth certificate fraud in Hawaii was the Territory of Hawaii in 1890.
And then state that Hawaii of the 1960’s was exactly the same.
Apparently Hawaii is such a magical place that time doesn’t even go by in Hawaii.
You have yet to show that the territory of hawaii is comparable to the state of Hawaii as usual Chris you try to divert the laws you tell about McCarran Walter with that of Quarles Harris. After long last have you no sense of decency sir?
Clean your hand first.
Thank you, that was an excellent speech by JFK.
I’m not sure what relevant point you are trying to make with it. I think just about everyone agrees with the premise and statements he makes in the speech. It stresses the importance of freedom of the press to inform and engage the public and to help keep government accountable and free from propaganda. It stresses the need for government openness and honesty but clearly carves out an exception for protecting secrets for the purpose of national security.
Those are definitely American values and shared values. The difference between you and I on this is I fail to see any connection between this speech and the conspiracies you see or the court cases you pursue. I definitely agree that there is a lot of corruption and ineptitude in all levels of government (as there is throughout the private sector and society as a whole). But I don’t see the vast conspiracies that you do.
> Apparently Hawaii is such a magical place that time doesn’t even go by in Hawaii.
In birtherland, Hawaii is a pretty devilish place full of sneaky criminal foreign-looking foreigners who tricked the mainland into making them a state despite still wanting their old kingdom back and being China’s secret communist flagpost in the US – or something.
It’s fascinating how quickly after the 1960’s some people are back to labeling their fellow citizens some sort of “second class Americans”.
http://theotherthomasotter.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/john-f-kennedy-the-very-word-secrecy-is-repugnant-in-a-free-and-open-society/#comment-37718
Today I received an anonymous donation of $100 by postal money order #18438129854 – thankyou for your kind donation and attentiveness to this matter in exposing the treason in our midst,
That we must all face the truth together that BHO and Glenn Beck work along with Knight of St. Gregory Murdock to bring about the 4th Reich. The twisted empire that emerges under the Usurper defender acts to work with Al Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood and to save the shrine of the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini in Jerusalem from demolition. see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/middleeast/25jerusalem.html
The Istanbul Grand Lodge member Soebarkah is evil incarnate and a traitor with foreign allegiances.
My efforts here seem to be effective to raise funds. Thanks for the opportunity Dr. Conspiracy.
Just send your donations to Chris Strunk 593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281 Brooklyn New York 11238.
God Bless you all, and I wish that you all may have a prosperous new year and cheerful family gathering at Christmas and Hanukkah. .
Wow… well, I have no idea what would make you think that BHO and Glenn Beck would be teamed up together on anything… but thanks for the laugh. LOL! I have no idea who this fictional Istanbul Grand Lodge member Soebarkah character is either.
Maybe you would have more success writing a fictional spy novel or something. That would probably be a more productive and lucrative use of your time than the frivolous lawsuit stuff.
Well, thank you and same to you and your family.
Wow, delusional campaigns must really be slow if a $100 dollar donation rates that kind of an announcement.
But it’s not really surprising, since most people insane enough to believe your ramblings are either too heavily medicated to post a money order, or have to save their money to buy that same maedication.
Chris donating to yourself doesn’t count as an outside donation. You really are delusional.
OBAMA’S MUSLIM ADVISOR SUPPORTS GULEN MOVEMENT | The Last Crusade
Jun 15, 2010 … The first woman to wear a veil in the White House has endorsed the Gulen movement which seeks to restore the Ottoman Empire and to establish …
thelastcrusade.org/…/obama’s-muslim-advisor-supports-gulen-movement/ – Cachedâ–ºFethullah Gulen | President Obama Meets Turkish School’s Award …
Oct 27, 2010 … The latest came from the United States where the President hosted students who have won national since competitions.
http://www.fethullah-gulen.org/news/obama-turkish-schools.html – Cached[PDF] OBAMA’S MUSLIM ADVISOR SUPPORTS GULEN MOVEMENT
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
Jun 15, 2010 … Dalia Mogahed, President Barack Obama’s Muslim advisor, said: “I think the Gülen movement offers people a model of what is possible if a …
http://www.calvarypo.org/HANDS/0784.pdfWhite House Muslim Advisor Supports Islamist Gülen Movement …
Jun 15, 2010 … Obama the fanatic Muslim appointed this typical Muslim women who is not shy of expressing her wicked islamic ideas supporting islamic Gulen …
http://www.faithfreedom.org/…/white-house-muslim-advisor-supports-islamist-gulen-movement/ – CachedFethullah Gülen’s Web Site – Gülen Movement an Inspiration for all …
Jun 14, 2009 … Dalia Mogahed, appointed by US President Barack Obama and the … Gülen Movement an Inspiration for all, Says Obama’s Muslim Advisor Mogahed …
http://www.fethullahgulen.org/…/3355-gulen-movement-an-inspiration-for-all-says-obamas-muslim-advisor-mogahed.html?... – CachedWhite House Muslim Advisor Supports Islamist Gülen Movement
Jun 15, 2010 … Dalia Mogahed, President Barack Obama’s Muslim advisor, said: “I think the Gülen movement offers people a model of what is possible if a …
http://www.aim.org/…/white-house-muslim-advisor-supports-islamist-gulen-movement/ – Cached
Glenn Beck and BHO are masons along with Zbig pushing one world govenment along with the Gulen Movement for the Pope’s encyclical mandate with Caritas Veritate
Exclusive: Obama Administration turns Blind Eye to Muslim Foreign …
Apr 9, 2010 … In one of his directives to his followers, Gulen proclaimed that in order to reach … So, J. Mason and Joseph K., how much time have YOU spent …. you get your stories from ONLY Fox News: Glenn Beck and Bill O’Riley. …
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.5944/pub_detail.asp – CachedPress 4 TRUTH Video Blog: Fethullah Gulen schools infiltrating the …
Apr 9, 2009 … [As you will see below, even Jackie Mason doesn’t think this is funny! …… GLENN BECK. NEAL BOORTZ. MORNING SEDITION [for the lefties] …
pressing4truth.blogspot.com/…/fethullah-gulen-schools-infiltrating-us.html – CachedPress 4 TRUTH Video Blog: TH Daily – Nov 19 – Glenn Beck, Michael …
Nov 19, 2008 … Glenn Beck: 5 Questions: Glenn’s New Sweater ….. [As you will see below, even Jackie Mason doesn’t think this is funny! …
pressing4truth.blogspot.com/…/th-daily-nov-19-glenn-beck-michael.html – CachedRight Truth:
Apr 27, 2010 … Mr. Fuller submitted a petition in favor of Gulen’s application for ….. an enemies list that included people like Glenn Beck and Ron Paul. …
righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2010/04/page/2/Nevval Sevindi – Contemporary Islamic Conversations: M. Fethullah …
Nevval Sevindi – Contemporary Islamic Conversations: M. Fethullah Gulen on Turkey, Islam, … Alexander Zaitchik – Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the. …
http://www.shopping.com/xPO-Book_Contemporary_Islamic_Conversations_M_Fethullah_Gulen_on_Turkey_Islam_and_the_West_Nevval_Sevindi_...
After looking up 593 Vanderbilt Avenue, I’m inclined to believe that “in esse” must be code for “less than desirable area with empty lots and dirty gutters.”
http://americanfolklore.net/folklore/2010/07/brer_rabbit_meets_a_tar_baby.html
“I’ve got you this time, Brer Rabbit,” said Brer Fox, jumping up and shaking off the dust. “You’ve sassed me for the very last time. Now I wonder what I should do with you?”
Brer Rabbit’s eyes got very large. “Oh please Brer Fox, whatever you do, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.”
“Maybe I should roast you over a fire and eat you,” mused Brer Fox. “No, that’s too much trouble. Maybe I’ll hang you instead.”
“Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please,” said Brer Rabbit. “Only please, Brer Fox, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.”
“If I’m going to hang you, I’ll need some string,” said Brer Fox. “And I don’t have any string handy. But the stream’s not far away, so maybe I’ll drown you instead.”
“Drown me! Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please,” said Brer Rabbit. “Only please, Brer Fox, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.”
“The briar patch, eh?” said Brer Fox. “What a wonderful idea! You’ll be torn into little pieces!”
Grabbing up the tar-covered rabbit, Brer Fox swung him around and around and then flung him head over heels into the briar patch. Brer Rabbit let out such a scream as he fell that all of Brer Fox’s fur stood straight up. Brer Rabbit fell into the briar bushes with a crash and a mighty thump. Then there was silence.
Brer Fox cocked one ear toward the briar patch, listening for whimpers of pain. But he heard nothing. Brer Fox cocked the other ear toward the briar patch, listening for Brer Rabbit’s death rattle. He heard nothing.
Then Brer Fox heard someone calling his name. He turned around and looked up the hill. Brer Rabbit was sitting on a log combing the tar out of his fur with a wood chip and looking smug.
“I was bred and born in the briar patch, Brer Fox,” he called. “Born and bred in the briar patch.”
And Brer Rabbit skipped away as merry as a cricket while Brer Fox ground his teeth in rage and went home.
I became interested starting in 2001 in this area since the Knights of Malta gave the Air rights over the LI Railroad yards to the BHO insiders who are now actively working with the Russian Mafia. The research served welll in the Case I did back in 2007 against the Federasl Reserve, HUD et al.. In that regard should give you a better look at the reasons for my interest in vacant lots and dirty gutters and whether or not Brooklyn should regainb Home-rule from the Il Duce presently robbing the store for the corporatists.
Contrast this to the attempt by Walter O’Malley to gain air rights from the progressive Knight of Malta stooge Robert Moses who in effect force the Dodgers to go to LA and demoralize Brooklyn in what became a corproate takeover under the Wagner administration who also when he got a big piece of Con Ed stock gave away alll our power plants too. Some background :
Atlantic Yards Report: If Walter O’Malley sold out Brooklyn (as …
Mar 10, 2010 … Is the Atlantic Yards site is the same place Dodgers owner Walter O’Malley … Had O’Malley crushed Brooklyn’s spirit? The answer is no. …
atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/…/if-walter-omalley-sold-out-brooklyn-as.html – CachedAtlantic Yards Report: Brooklyn Historical Society exhibit …
Sep 20, 2010… Atlantic Yards arena would be situated on the “same site” Brooklyn Dodgers owner Walter O’Malley sought for a successor to Ebbets Field. …
atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/…/brooklyn-historical-society-exhibit.html – Cached
First of all, I have no idea what your crazy posts on Dalia Mogahed and the Gulan Movement have to do with anything that was asked of you or is a topid of this website.
No wonder you are so paranoid – all of the sources you cite are either nutty or right wing propaganda ones – never anything credible. So those are the garbage sources that fill your head with such unfounded fears… LOL!
Can’t seem to find any references to the stories you post on any mainstream sites, but Wikipedia does have entries on both:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BClen_movement
Here’s a good summary excerpt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalia_Mogahed
So, in other words, all you are demonstrating is that you are an Islamaphobe and trying to gin up controversy. Looking at what I read, much ado about nothing and your articles are nothing but a bunch of alarmist pap.
Where you go from this to connections of BHO and Glenn Beck and the mason, etc conspiracy claims you are trying to tie together… well, it just boggles the mind!
Well, your nonsense has given me a good laugh …only for how utterly preposterous it all sounds.
http://pontificateofpopebenedictxvi.blogspot.com/2009/07/caritas-in-veritate-charity-in-truth.html
The Jesuit utopian model in Cuba works on a subsidiarity principle of the collective rather than the individual.
The collective comes around and looks in your refrigerator to see if you are hoarding food and if found is taken and redistributed. That is what Soebarkah is all about redistribution in Fr. Luigi Taparelli’s Social Justice model dicta advanced to a fine art with Caritas in Veritate . WHAT DO YOU HAVE IN YOUR WALLET? Guess he has all you sheep herded together.
Yeah such wild redistribution that’s why he’s giving republicans what they want with his tax deal. Give it a rest. This is not your blog to post wild irrelevant conspiracy theories and then beg for donations.
What makes you think that the Country club republicans are any different than the limo Dems and that both are not keeping BHO there for further Blueblood enrichment using the Usurper Step-in Fetch-it? Master-servant or in this case Master slave is more like it.
Hey Bob what do you know about the Order of the Coif?
70. That starting no later than 1988 Defendant Obama’s actions as an aspiring attorney in conjunction with attorneys and Social Justice activists entered into a conspiracy with others to use the campaign organization entities to effect control over the suffrage process and from 1996 Defendant Obama entry as a candidate for the State Legislature, and for national office in 2000 for U.S. House, 2004 for the U.S. Senate and from no later than 2004 conspired with attorneys who were associated with his various campaign committees to circumvent Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 express eligibility mandate that he be a natural-born-citizen.
71. That to further the conspiracy on February 2, 2006 the Editor of the Chicago-Kent Law School Law Review, Sarah P. Herlihy, published a memorandum with approved edits of 11-23-05 entitled AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE at Vol. 81: 275 and with a special footnote designating the author has a J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2005 and that the author would like to thank Professor Graeme Dinwoodie, and the 2004–2005 Globalization and Its Effect on Domestic Law Seminar Class for their valuable comments and insights on this Note.
72. That in the memorandum, Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about globalization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.
73. That in the Conclusion shown on page 26 Ms. Herlihy as a proponent for the elimination of the Natural Born Citizen clause requirement argues in support of globalization writes quote:
“Ultimately, the emotional reasons to oppose a constitutional amendment abolishing the natural born citizen requirement for presidential eligibility will prevail over the rational reasons because the rational reasons derive, in large part, from the increase in globalization. The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstandings about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization. Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans’ subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement. Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts. Whether it is because of fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith in the decisions of the Founding Fathers, Americans want to find a way to avoid changing the natural born citizen provision to allow naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency. Ultimately, Americans will rely on the perceived negative effects of globalization, or rather their perceptions of globalization’s negative effects, to justify their decision to allow emotion to prevail over reason. “
74. That according to Sarah P. Herlihy’s resume on line with the International Law firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLP in Chicago after Ms. Herlihy was the Law Clerk to the Honorable Michael M. Mihm, United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, 2005 – 2006 she has been employed by the firm and in the resume she is listed with receiving the award of the Order of the Coif whose various members of the Society are traced throughout the Obama support network working in the conspiracy with the Defendants.
75. That a Principal of Kirtland & Ellis LLP, Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., is Member of finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin. http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm …itemID=7845 (towards bottom of the page)
76. In addition to members of the firm making donations to the Obama campaign , Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the ” Illinois Venture Capital Association’s lifetime achievement award for service to the private equity/venture capital community” presented by Sen. Barack Obama.
77. That Kirtland & Ellis LLP is a global firm with powerful international clients listed on the website.
78. According to the Defendant Obama’s published biography, in late 1988, Obama entered Harvard Law School. He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year, and president of the journal in his second year. During his summers, he returned to Chicago, where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990. After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago. Obama’s election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review gained national media attention and led to a publishing contract and advance for a book about race relations, which evolved into a personal memoir. The manuscript was published in mid-1995 as Dreams from My Father with the cover page shown as Exhibit 2.
79. In 1991, Obama accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School to work on his first book, and alleges He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 teaching constitutional law. In fact, Obama’s teaching career at Chicago applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct. The other professors hated him because He was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to a full professor, Obama had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if He was, He would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (Publication is requirement).
80. From April to October 1992, Obama directed Illinois’s Project Vote, a voter registration drive with a staff of ten and 700 volunteers associated with ACORN and related “Social Justice” organizations in part funded by the Catholic Church; and it achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state, and led to Crain’s Chicago Business naming Obama to its 1993 list of “40 under Forty” powers to be.
81. In 1993, Obama joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 13-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development (in partnership with Syrian Antoin “Tony” Rezko, born July 1955, is a political fundraiser, restaurateur, and real estate developer / slumlord in Chicago, Illinois, convicted on several counts of fraud and bribery in 2008 and who is involved in fundraising for Obama), where Obama was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002.
82. Obama served from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. He served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1999.
83. Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois’s 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.
84. Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998, defeating Republican Yesse Yehudah in the general election, and was reelected again in 2002.
85. In 2000, Obama lost a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives to four-term incumbent Bobby Rush by a margin of two to one.
86. That Defendant Obama, his agents and committees for his election to POTUS used various campaign fund raising entities including Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund to solicit and obtain both domestic and foreign donations violating the 42 USC §1971 administered by the FEC.
87. That on February 26, 2010 according to the FEC on the matter under review MUR # 6127 fined Obama for America and Martin H. Nesbitt in his official capacity as treasurer (associate of Chicago billionaire Penny S. Pritzker who “lost” $400 plus million of depositor’s money in the sub-prime mortgage scandal); Barack Obama; Obama Victory Fund and Andrew Tobias, in his official capacity as treasurer; Democratic National Committee and Andrew Tobias, in his official capacity as treasurer; VIDA Fitness; Urban Salons, Inc. doing business as Bang Salon Spa; David von Storch; and Saul Ewing, LLP.
Shouldn’t you be out working in the fields Chris? Enough with your racist BS. Why did you lie about Quarles Harris and the McCarran Walter Act?
So why did you lie about Quarles Harris and the McCarran Walter Act?
Bob Ross you have your Coif on backwards?
I’ll ask you again since you keep deflecting from it. Why did you lie about Quarles Harris and the McCarran Walter Act?
http://www.orderofthecoif.org/
When backwards is like a hoodie too. Right? Do you have eye holes in yours?
I knows you guys do not like WND but I do:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=237733
Have got to go and feed the lions again
I’m not even going to bother commenting on the rest of Strunk’s post, which is nothing but a mismash of totally made up stuff combined with a scattering of actual dates, names and events and trying to see connections that simply don’t exist.
However the excerpts in the paragraph he quoted above from “Conclusion shown on page 26 Ms. Herlihy” struck me as quite odd and laughable!
To say that it is logical to ignore rational thought in favor of emotional biases (and use examples of “fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith”)…
…well that is the complete OPPOSITE of being logical.
The only irony here is that it is the Birthers and people like Strunk who are trying to “ignore rational thought in favor of emotional biases, such as “fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith” in an attempt to change The Constitution.
But such motivations are anything BUT logical. (and they most certainly are not rational either).
Deflection again why did you lie about Quarles Harris and the McCarran Walter Act?
I read your WND article. News that is several days old and quite frankly, much ado about nothing. A new administration is taking over in HI, so positions of government that are tied to political appointments are changing hands. Where is the news in that? *yawn*…
But since you seem to think it is newsworthy enough to report here and I had the courtesy to read your article, then I ask you to read the following coverage of this issue at these links:
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=14709
http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2010/12/dispatches-from-birtherstan-8-december-2010.html
You’re still around? I thought you got into the lion cage the last time.
Christians to the lions, round two. C’mon, the tabloids need a juicy story.
Why does it not surprise me that you’re a fan of World Nut Daily.
Do you ever read any journalistic sources for your news?
So you have an attraction to barnyard animals, too.
I’m going to have a nice bowl of “Knights of Malt’-o-Meal” before going to bed…
THey do not like me I leave a sour taste
If there were any more deflection detections by you your Coif would lift you out of your throne
What are you Peewee Herman? I say you are deflecting then you accuse me of deflecting. I caught you on obvious lies and misreading of McCarran Walter. I then caught you on Quarles Harris a story you didn’t bother to vet for months and even included in your brief saying he was a “federal officer” when he wasn’t. You then started throwing out a list of random conspiracy theories which had nothing to do with what we were talking about. So yes it was deflection on your part. As usual you show why people can’t take birthers seriously. When you get caught in obvious lies you try to change the subject and start going on and on with unintelligent rantings.
Chris there’s a reason why you fail in court.
For them to know that they would have had to “sample” you. What parts are you missing?
The point of the exercise is that the HI COLB does not show where someone is born (other than as a corproate person) and there is no rebuttable presumption that there is.
Just as Sun got his 1904 born in Kulu Maui COLB from the Territotry of HI BHO got his born in Honolulu Oahu in 1961 from the State of Hawaii that as a matter of law means HI certiifes the person was born aline somewhere in the world not HI. The real point of interest is that BHO sr on a student visa was of majority age a Bristish Subject who passed that allegiance on to BHO’s nowithstanding the fact that by mariage to a minor SAD there would also be a US Citizenship also for a dual citizenship issue making BHO jr ineligible for POTUS.
You folks can posture all you want but I have the facts and history on my side and you 5% who are profiteering on the ongoing monstrosity will probably be hunted down by angry mobs when the full impact of the looting operation kicks in next spring.
You better hope that I get my day in court. Iit is the only peaceful solution that I see.
Which is why you keep winning in all your court proceedings, right?
Oh wait….
So you’re saying that if birthers keep failing pitifully at trying to get the court to aquiesce to their delusional demands, that someday they will resort to armed insurrection to overthrow the government?
Say, Chris, have you ever wondered just how terrorism starts? Where it comes from? How terrorists go from dissidents to killers? Seems you’ve just found your answer.
YOu should probably sign up for those flying lessons now, it takes awhile and you wouldn’t want to be late for your terrorist debut.
As for Zbig’s use of the magic mulatto to quell the expected outrage and anger in the Black community as the feudal Oligarchs planned take down of the economy is done to satisfy the bond holders through massive cuts in living standard that puts 95 % of the USA population into a third world status, the Oligarchs did not want a white man like the jack in the box stooge McCain traitor extraordinaire making those cuts and setting off riots like happened in LA in 1991 and here in Bed Sty in the 1970’s when NYC went under the knife.
I have lived in the Black community for 15 years and know that when push comes to shove there will be a knowledge of protest in a way that white folks were trained not to do. I still live in the 57th AD and understand the ongoing tremors in my community.
If for nothing else than to say that BHO is a spoiled narcissistic brat who never had any hard times, always had a silver spoon in his mouth all his life and does not know anything about hardship in the black community or elsewhere when there is absolutely on a per capita basis more impoverished “white” people than black people however better organized.
The Oligarchs want a mulatto spoiled dope head white boy raised by white people to be their Step-in Fetch-it and that the air head BHO whose Neurolinguistic training in rehab and then at Harvard not to far from the Noam Chomsky crowd at MIT is able to swoon 80% of the fools and nearly 90% of the blacks into giving up their remaining freedoms.
When you see the magic mulatto drag out Bill the junkyard dog (the first black president who could prevent blacks from rioting) to explain reality then you know that BHO is not long for this world as you would have it.
How about a reality check Dr Conspiracy to discuss this issue on a new thread; this one is old now
Whether you play the markets or whatever “professional” do anything for money or for your master kick that you are on, perhaps per chance, and I doubt you have not come to grips with why the Blueblood Oligarches have put this magic mulatto in office for you to swoon over, you have a safe place to go to count your ill gotten gains as a keeper of the camps along with the Jesuits’ capo Misha
You can keep repeating that Dual citizenship makes one ineligible all you want but the fact remains Obama wasn’t a dual citizen as an adult. Thomas Jefferson was a citizen of France and the US when he ran for President. Spiro Agnew was VP and was a citizen of Greece and the US. To be VP you have to meet the qualifications as President. So this goes to show that no you don’t have facts and history on your side and you continue having to make stuff up. So now are you threatening revolution if you don’t get your day in court? You do know the courts can’t grant you relief and only congress can right?
Oh, Chris! When you write like that, all forceful and manly-like, the only posture i could ever assume is fully erect! And you know what, Chris? I read what you wrote to my dog, and even HE wants to hump your leg. Please Chris, when that angry mob is at my doorstep this spring, won’t you please, for the love we shared, tell those brutes to “JUST LET ARTHUR ALONE!” Oh, and Chris dear, I KNOW you’ll get your day in court; in fact, I bet your insanity hearing is just around corner. Merry Xmas you big Jingle Bell!
Arthur you crack me up. Arthur where is your chimney located?
I am just seeking a declaratory Judgment in court the rest will be left to congress under the 25th Amendment and related law. I actually take the position that aside from the scheme to defraud that will be heard in State Court the Jesuit coadjutor Biden is a lot more competent to be president and is eligible.
You can’t get a declaratory judgment. Once again the courts can’t give you remedy. Why is everyone of you birthers seem to be entirely incompetent when it comes to the law?
The case in which you have not seen yet has not been unsealed nor may I speak of it
The case that exists only in your imagination. Once again the courts can’t give you remedy. What’s stopping you from trying your little revolution now? Sounds like you’re a little chicken
That made completely no sense at all. I mean grammatically it made no sense, aside from the raving part.
How can you possibley expect to argue your cases in fromt of the SCOTUS, when you cannot even put together a proper sentence?
I guess you also conveniently missed the part where I have declared, several times, that I am a conservative. I did not vote for Obama, nor am I likely to. The fact that I don’t fall for your delusional rantings and fantasies of religious armageddon does not mean I am in love with the present, duly elected President of the United States of America.
I simply abhor people, like yourself, who seek to denythe citizens of this country our Constitutional rights.
The fact that you are oibvioulsy certifiably insane does allow me some pity for you, however. Well a lot of pity, actually. Still I cannot allow you to spit on the Constitution unchallenged.
THe money has been paid back in march and stands as a rtestiment to the treason within the court system. The word treason is pretty well defined in the Constitution and at a certain point remedy will have a life of its own when all the shenanegans are fully exposed including the appologies from your quarter.
When the Confederacy broke with the union the most interesting provision in its constitution was that if a the majority of any state legislature votes to remove a Federal employee then that employee is banished from the state.
A Big statist such as yourself better take notes on what is happening because the events are uncontrollable. The derogatory term birther is beneath your intelligence and will only come back to haunt you fella.
Chris Strunk:
You drag out the Sun Yat-Sen birth certificate as evidence that Hawaii as a matter of law would issue documents certifying Hawaiian birth to people known to have been born somewhere else.
How you could prove this would be simple and not so easy, to use a Ronald Reagan formulation.
The simple part is, you’d need to show that between Hawaii’s becoming a U.S. territory in 1898 and March 1904, when Sun’s birth certificate was issued, the territorial legislature passed a law giving people born elsewhere a right to a birth certifcate falsely proclaiminng birth in Hawaii.
The not-so-easy part is that you’d probably have to travel to Hawaii and pore through the legislature’s sessions laws passed from 1898-1904, or find someone in Hawaii you absolutely trust, to pay to do this for you.
If you can’t show that such a law was on the books of the Terrotory of Hawaii during that time span, Sun’s birth certificate was surely obtained against the law, not in conformity with the law –and its relevance to Obama’s birth records is an absolute zero.
J.D. Reed
Man, I just heard cheesy Hollywood oppressive atmosphere music when you said that.
Just for some background here, how many b movies do you watch in a day, round figure…..?
“Some day, you’ll see! You’ll all see!! And then you’ll all be sorry you laughed at Chris Strunk!!!! YOU”LL ALL BE SORRY THEN BUT IT WILL BE TO LATE!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!”
Why do all madmen sound the same?
An honest mistake. It’s all the whiney clucking sounds coming out of his mouth…..
Now are you a British conservative? The republican party and democratic party are one at the top. and will not continue much longe when the bottom falls out. The original constitution or the living constitution? I dare say you have a real slanted view of what limited government was allowed by the original constitution and feel quite content in infringing speech and the right to redress of greviances. I again think you protest tooo much in your alleged defense of the constitution that you now wrap yourself in like a dead fish at market.
What do you think Washington or John Jay would say to your idiotic statement?
Hey Chris, tell us about Kingston. I had some ancestors there when it was part of New Netherland.
The pot heads like you still hangout west of Kingston in Woodstock. That much I know.
A long form birth certifcate costs $15 and will close all further questions.
How many of you birthers out there will allow Chris to speak for you?
What money are you speaking of? So what a minute you’re accusing judges of treason and yet want to put your case through their court system? Yeah that makes a lot of sense. If they’re all on the take why bother going through them? You’re speaking of armed revolution that would make you the traitor you’re just too much of a chickensh*t to follow through with your fantasies.
You’re right should we start calling you rebs? Traitors? Seditionists? You may not be aware of this but state legislatures don’t have the right to remove federal officials from office.
John Reed? I am pulling together my law memorandum on just that issue due on 1/11/11 . The other side has until say 7/11 to respond against my motion for my First Amended Complaint. The law as you point out is crucial and from what I have seen already will convince the State Court enough to raise a prima facie case to order the individual Soebarkah respond. If it were a matter of just providing a long form BC showing the doctors and multiple sigs including that of the actual mother it would have been done already.
George Washington would have put down your rebellion
To correct your impression, I have never been in either place & I only sampled the stuff once some 40-odd years ago with no memorable effects.
You really are living in a fantasy world. There is no Soebarkah and I don’t get how the state court has the power to make fictional characters in Chris Strunk’s imagination to comply.
I am accusing certain judges of treason including at least 4 of the SCOTUS. All this will work itself out like a deep splinter. None of the Judges I have had to date falll into that category. I innoculated Judge Leon he is on a short leash.
I said the Constitution of the Confederacy. Have you read it? The Jesuit coadjutor Jefferson Davis aside, the South actually had meritorious issues and the states who have resolved to leave the Union to date do also.
You, obviously, are not a native of Atlanta.
Events turn on ideas and compelling events in history (not the so-called masses) that according to HG Wells if not fully understood and mastered be ther in the future to bite us all..
Never even passed through. Is that where you hail from?
Which has nothing to do with the way you delude yourself in thinking the courts can give you relief
4 judges? Wow you need to lay off your drugs. What were their supposed offenses? There’s nothing to work out. Unlike in the land of Alice in Wonderland you just saying it does not make it so. What did Judge Leon do to make you cry?
You are quite right the Federal Courts per se are a consumer fraud.
No, It’s just that the ability of the U.S. Army to wage war have progressed a bit since Gen. Sherman’s time.
Lets not get into the Uniform Commercial Code
Well if the federal courts are a consumer fraud then you should be in good company since you yourself are a fraud
Sherman’s son workered for TR who when he suggested to re-innact the march to the sea nearly split the union again if TR had not backed off
There are not enough troops as you suggest to deal with 300,000,000 persons when they get out of hand.And HW destroyed alll our nuetron bombs
His brain, and his finger tips.
What’s the difference between Chris Strunk and a reptile?
One is hatched from eggs, eats insects and sleeps under a rock.
The other is a reptile.
What is wrong with eggs, bugs and my bomb shelter? Works for me.
Why am I not surprised?
The Battle between the Dutch Protestants and Catholic King Charles II is a good place to start the discussion about Kingston which is about Charles II and the Brits not the Dutch.
The city of Kingston was first called Esopus after a local Esopus tribe, then Wiltwijck (sometimes anglicized to Wiltwyck). Settled in 1651, it was one of the three large Hudson River settlements in New Netherland, the other two being Beverwyck, now Albany, and New Amsterdam, now New York City. In 1777, Kingston became the first capital of New York. During the summer of 1777, when the New York State constitution was written, New York City was occupied by British troops and Albany (then the second largest settlement in New York) was under threat of attack. Ironically, the British never reached Albany, being stopped at Saratoga, but they did reach Kingston.
Shortly after the Battle of Saratoga, the city was burned by British troops moving up the Hudson River from New York City, disembarking at the mouth of the Rondout Creek on the formation the Dutch had named Ponck Hockie.Contrary to popular belief there wasn’t a large conflict between the townsfolk and the British invaders. This is because the denizens of Kingston knew of the oncoming fleet. The city had been evacuated by the time the British arrived, residents and the government having removed to Hurley, New York, which the British did not attack.
I too get Wikipedia on my computer thang.
But you confuse New Netherland with New York though. The Jesuits came in with the Govenor that Charles II sent over and have not left yet. The problem with Wiki is that it is loaded with errors but is a good first start.
Got to go collect eggs and bugs befoer the sun goes down. Chow!
LOL! Yeah, good luck with that. Well, other than wasting courts time with frivolous lawsuits and going on hate and bigotry driven rants woven together by incorporating far-fetched paranoid conspiracies, you are merely harmless and wasting time.
Yes, you hold a lot of views that I consider antiquated, offensive and delusional…and you’ve made some crazy pseudo-threats, but I think you are just an angry, scared and unhappy person who uses this as a way to vent your frustrations at a world that is beyond your control and doesn’t make sense to you. I don’t say that as an attack on you, just my observational assessment of you.
I think it is unlikely that you would actually take up arms against the government or do any physical harm to anyone, even though emotionally, you might wish you could at times. I view you as a fellow human being, even though we obviously have very little in common on how we see the world. In the end, your lawsuits and efforts, as always, will go nowhere and the world and the presidency will continue on as it has. I think some part of you is fully aware of that, but feels that just by filing and ranting, you are at least accomplishing something and fairly harmlessly applying an outlet to your frustrations.
Actually, I’ve been more entertained than truly offended. Your stuff is so out there, that I mostly just get a chuckle at the preposterous of it all. I’m saddened that you are driven by such bigoted hate and distrust of the modern world, but I bear you no ill will.
As a fan of history, yes, I have fully read the Constitution of the Confederacy. With your posts, it is clear that you hold racist views and a desire for a mythical past that you view as more pure and where white people have some God-ordained superiority. I guess that would make you feel more comfortable and secure about yourself… At least you are fairly open about your beliefs and don’t hide from them. The wonderful freedoms of this country means that your rights to believe, worship and even hold on to whatever prejudices you want are protected. Where you get close to crossing the line is you wish to impose your worldview on the rest of the country and would happily take away other’s rights and freedoms. Fortunately, you have no realistic chance of success at this.
Change happens. The world and this country will continue to move forward and adapt to the challenges of the 21st century and society overall will continue its long, slow march towards a more progressive and inclusive future. I’m sorry that makes folks like you completely distressed, but it is a consistent long-term pattern born out by history and while there might be setbacks, it is unlikely to be stopped.
There is no going back to the 17th, 18th, 19th, or even 20th centuries as you folks would like. Those days are long gone and are not coming back. Those things and views from the past you seem to pine for belong to a pre-industrial, primitive technology era and have no place in the modern world.
Not only does Mr. Wrong Grammar think that “in esse” is part of his name, he seems unable to understand that a birth certificate stating that someone was born in Honolulu means that yes, the person referenced on the birth certificate was born in Honolulu.
*rolls eyes*
Bon Appetit!
Learn Italian and Spanish. You’re not even close.
However, your premise exists only in some vacuum of your own imagination that could never play out that way in reality and falls apart easily.
To think that neutron bombing of ourselves by our own government would ever make sense as a defense strategy against an uprising is utterly stupid. You might believe in some scorched-earth zero-sum “Planet of the Apes” fantasy solution. But it makes no practical sense in reality.
Nor is your uprising scenario realistic in any fashion.
For one, I’m assuming your 300 Million people is meant to represent the entire US population rising up against the “government:.
To assume the entire populace would get out of hand all at once and rise up together all on the same side of any issue is woefully naive.
First, you need to remove all of the children, infirm and others unable or unwilling to fight from any population equation from your “uprising”.
Second, our “government” and our military are comprised of people – and ones from that same population pool you cite. So, your uprising can only include that portion of people that are not part of the population that they are rising against.
Third, the population is very diverse and consists of people with viewpoints across the spectrum. Therefore, even of that remaining portion that is not part of the “government/military” that they are fighting against that are of sufficient age, desire and capability to fight … well, let’s just say that they will not all be on “your side” of things….and leave it at that.
Finally, your fantasy scenario requires that remaining smaller segment of the population to all rise up together at the exact same time… instead of in small isolated fits and starts that are easy to put down.
Those are just the problems with your numbers. …the situation gets much worse for you once logistics, training, capabilities, resources, tactics, etc… have to be factored in.
At most, you folks could instigate a few messy riots before being fully put down and squashed.
Orly Taitz, Pam Barnett, and CDR Kerchner plan/will to be at LTC Lakin’s CM this coming Tuesday,
Will anyone out there quietly viewing as a member of the Chris Strunk POTUS/CINC nbc-eligibility enforcement view point – be attending the Tuesday military court hearing?
From the safeguardourconstitution website:
Click below for the full press release.
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/press-release/kerchertoattend.html
VISIT OUR WEBSITE FOR THE LATEST ON THE COUNTDOWN TO TERRY’S COURT MARTIAL.
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/tlawsummary.html
Check back on Sunday afternoon for specific information about where to gather during the court martial.
// Margaret Hemenway
// http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com
I believe Chris will be traveling that day and he will not be able to attend the hearing.
That’s a polite way of saying he is being committed.
Why not? I’m sure you know as much about it as you do the Constitution, si it’ll be a very short conversation.
That is, until it devolves into anoth one of you’re insane ramblings.
Here’s hoping your 1/11/11 “case” is just as suiccessful as all your other birther failures to date.
The Uniform Commercial Code?
*laughs uncontrollably*
G,
I applaud your posts.
Thank you. 🙂
Ellid: both of my degrees are from schools in Buffalo. When I lived there, I was active in the Unitarian church. They were also the anti-war center.
i’d have preferred larry, curly and moe but……… the results should be similar.
I am proud to say all three Stooges were Jewish.
SUNY?
Not surprising about the anti-war work at the UU society 🙂
marx brothers too. but we’ve got george carlin and anton lavey so i guess it balances out.
Anton LaVey was Jewish. The family name was Levey, and he changed it to LaVey. His grandfather was Levy.
“Anton Szandor LaVey (April 11, 1930 – October 29, 1997), born Howard Stanton Levey.” Read on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_LaVey
ha!!!!
i thought i was going for an easy simple joke but…… color me wrong.
i still get carlin tho.
So what does Strunk know, and when did he know it?
currently, not much and not now.
do you think this will change?
APPEAL, PROSE-NP, TYPE-I
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
Case: 1:09-cv-01295-RJL
Case in other court: 10-05092
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
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 305-9343
Email: wynne.p.kelly@usdoj.gov
TERMINATED: 02/02/2009
LEAD ATTORNEY
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)
10/21/2009 27 Letter from Christopher Earl Strunk. “Leave to file granted” by Judge Richard J. Leon (jf, ) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
11/19/2009 28 MEMORANDUM by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A – Strunk Nov. 4, 2009 Judicial Notice, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B – Strunk Nov. 10, 2009 Judicial Notice, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
02/19/2010 29 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Allen v. Dept of Homeland Security, No. CV-09-373 (D. Ariz. February 1, 2010))(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
03/16/2010 30 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 3/15/10. (kc) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
03/16/2010 31 ORDER, For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants’ partial motion to dismiss 16 is GRANTED, and plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED IN PART to the extent that plaintiff seeks of information pertaining to Barack Hussein Obama; it is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for mandamus relief and for an other relief not available under the Freedom of Information Act,including all forms of relief requested in his “Notice of Cross Motion of Quo Warranto Demand for Jury Trial and Decision on Question of First Impression in Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as to Alleged POTUS : Barack Hussein Obama in Esse” and supporting documents 19 , are DENIED; it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ request for a stay of discovery is GRANTED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that, not later than May 3, 2010, the parties shall file a joint porposed schedule to govern future porceedings in this action. SO ORDERED Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 3/15/10. (see order.) (kc ) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
03/24/2010 32 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to 31 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,, by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. Fee Status: IFP. Parties have been notified. (jf, ) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
03/24/2010 33 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Fee was not paid because it was filed In Forma Pauperis re 32 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. (jf, ) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
04/02/2010 USCA Case Number 10-5092 for 32 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (jf, ) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
05/03/2010 34 NOTICE : Joint Proposed Schedule by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE re 31 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,, (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 05/03/2010)
05/04/2010 35 MOTION for Order of the Department of State to release the FOIA requested information of Stanley-Ann Dunham by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (jf, ) (Entered: 05/06/2010)
05/05/2010 MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties’ joint proposed schedule 34 , it is hereby ORDERED that defendants shall file their motion for summary judgment not later than July 29, 2010, that plaintiff shall file his opposition or other response to the motion not later than August 26, 2010, and that defendants shall file their reply not later than September 16, 2010. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 5/5/10. (lcrjl2) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
05/05/2010 Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants Summary Judgment motions due by 7/29/2010. Plaintiff’s Opposition due by 8/26/2010. Defendants Reply due by 9/16/2010. (kc ) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
05/20/2010 36 Memorandum in opposition to re 35 MOTION for Order filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
07/29/2010 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Dorothy Pullo, # 2 Declaration of Alex Galovich, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
08/09/2010 38 ORDER, Ordered that the plaintiff shall file his opposition or other response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment no later than August 26, 2010. If plaintiff does not respond by that date, the Court may treat the motion as conceded and dismiss the case or enter judgment for the defendants. Defendants’ reply, if, any, is due no later than September 16, 2010. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 8/6/10. (see order) (kc ) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
08/25/2010 39 Memorandum in opposition to re 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. “Let this be filed” Judge Richard J. Leon (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(jf, ) (Entered: 08/25/2010)
08/26/2010 40 SUPPLEMENTAL Declaration to re 39 Memorandum in opposition to re 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(jf, ) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
08/30/2010 41 SUPPLEMENTAL to 39 Memorandum in opposition to re 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. “Let this be filed” Judge Richard J. Leon (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Affidavit of Philip Hans Jacobsen, # 3 Letter to Judge Richard J. Leon)(jf, ) (Entered: 08/31/2010)
09/16/2010 42 REPLY to opposition to motion re 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 09/16/2010)
09/23/2010 43 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Surreply, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(jf, ) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
09/27/2010 44 Memorandum in opposition to re 43 MOTION for Leave to File filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 09/27/2010)
09/28/2010 MINUTE ORDER granting 43 Motion for Leave to File Surreply. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 9/28/10. (lcrjl2) (Entered: 09/28/2010)
09/28/2010 45 SURREPLY to re 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (znmw, ) (Entered: 09/29/2010)
The surreply is hilarious. Expect motion for summary judgment any time now.
And there are some parts missing
USCA-DCC “Strunk” dockets summary
Case No./Title Opening Date Party Last Docket Entry Originating Case No./Origin
08-5503
In re: Christopher Earl Strunk 12/03/2008 Christopher Earl Strunk 06/24/2009 12:09:48 –
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
09-5322
In re: Christopher Strunk 09/17/2009 Christopher Earl Strunk 11/25/2009 14:52:03 1:08-cv-2234
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
10-5077
In re: Christopher Strunk 03/24/2010 Christopher Earl Strunk 04/22/2010 14:46:29 1:09-cv-01295-RJL
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
10-5082
Christopher Strunk v. Department of Commerce, et al 03/26/2010 Christopher Earl Strunk 12/02/2010 16:49:16 1:09-cv-01295-RJL
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
10-5091
Christopher Strunk v. NY Prov. of the Soc. of Jesus, et al 03/31/2010 Christopher Earl Strunk 12/02/2010 16:50:24 1:09-cv-01249-RJL
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
10-5092
Christopher Strunk v. Department of State, et al 03/31/2010 Christopher Earl Strunk 11/24/2010 15:54:44 1:08-cv-02234-RJL
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
To the extent that Col Lakin has been denied competent counsel and the right to call witnesses to confront his accuser, yesterday Col Lakin copped a plea of guilty except as to the BHO BC matter. To refresh the role of dual allegiance and what being a British citizen at birth means in re NBC for the intellectual toadstools on this blog, the following works:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Educating The Really Really Confused About “Nbc-gate”…
Posted in Uncategorized on April 26, 2010 by naturalborncitizen
It looks like Nbc-Gate is hitting top volume. I’ve witnessed some very desperate blogging propaganda trying to stop the bleeding as the nation finally wakes up to the fact that President Obama was a British citizen at the time of his birth. Having been born with dual nationality, he was born with a recognized allegiance to a foreign nation. I have explained previously in great detail why this disqualifies him from being President.
That report was closely followed by a historical discovery of Sharon Rondeau at the Post & Email which highlighted the legal opinion of lifelong Democrat Breckenridge Long – an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who later served as Secretary of State as well as U.S. ambassador to Italy under FDR – who, in an article written for the Chicago Legal News, argued that a “native born citizen” of the US who is also born to a British father is not a “natural born citizen” by stating – in 1916 – about Presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes:
“It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but if he had the right to elect, he must have had something to choose between. He was native born because he was born in this country, and he is now a native born citizen because he is now a citizen of this country; but, had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would not have had the right to choose between this country and England; he would have had nothing to choose between; he would have owed his sole allegiance to the government of the United States, and there would have been no possible question, whether he found himself in the United States or in any other country in the world, that he would be called upon to show allegiance to any Government but that of the United States.”
There you have a lifelong Democrat politician – who served at a high level of Government service – making the argument that President Obama would not be eligible to the office of President despite his place of birth. Is the former Democrat Secretary of State now to be retroactively attacked as a wing nut birther?
The historical dam is breaking as more and more evidence surfaces proving Obama is not eligible. A reader of this blog who has asked to remain anonymous recently provided further historical proof that Obama is not eligible to be president. The New Englander And Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845) states:
The expression citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.
That is serious on point historical research. At the time of his birth, Obama owed allegiance to Great Britain. That is not disputed, it is admitted by the President himself. And this admission is the true problem Obama faces should this issue ever make its way to the Supreme Court. Obama owed allegiance to great Britain when he was born.
In a previous article, I highlighted the opinion of Alexander Porter Morse, taken from the Albany Law Review article entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT”:
“If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.”
It’s a rather clear testimony to the fact that simply being “native born” does not mean that one is “natural born” but “accuracy and intelligent discussion” are not the goals of propaganda. A fraudulent blogger who shall remain nameless attempted to justify Obama’s eligibility with the following lie:
“Some people have confused Alexander Morse’s paper on child born (abroad) to two US citizens being natural born citizens as a necessary requirement. Of course, anyone familiar with Alexander Morse realizes that he never held such a position…”
It appears the liar has selectively failed to read the quote above as well as Mr. Morse’s letter to the Albany Law Journal of December 18th, 1884, which states:
It seems to the undersigned, aside from judicial sanction, that the children of aliens born in the United States are, to use the language of Judge Cooley in another connection, ” subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only in a much qualified sense; ” until they take some steps submitting themselves to the jurisdiction…
This letter was written in 1884 – before Wong Kim Ark was decided. His article quoted above, was written in 1904 – after Wong Kim Ark. The historical evidence proves that Morse held the same point of view before and after Wong Kim Ark. The article and the letter both indicate clearly that Morse would not have agreed Obama was eligible.
History, what a concept.
Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
Pidgeon & Donofrio GP
I am preparing my law memorandum for my NOM for FAC in the NYS Supreme Court Case due by 1/11/11 in Strunk v Paterson 29642-08. I will be using the following since it was featured in the Albany Law School review and New York has a set of election laws that apply differently to the 2008 General Election than as done by other states. Each state ONLY has jurisdiction over the 2008 election held within and in which I was injured by a scheme to defraud by BHO, McCain and Roger Calero and as permitted by the breach of fiduciary duty by the SOS and BOE.
NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT
By ALEXANDER PORTER MORSE (ALBANY LAW JOURNAL VOL. 66 (1904-1905)
As a wide-spread interest attaches to the discussion of the meaning and scope of the constitutional provision in respect to eligibility for the office of president of the United States, I submit some views in this relation which may be opportune.
The question is often asked: Are children of citizens of the United States born at sea or in foreign territory, other than the offspring of American ambassadors or ministers plenipotentiary, natural-born citizens of the United States, within the purview of the constitutional provision? After some consideration of the history of the times, of the relation of the provision to the subject-matter and of the acts of congress relating to citizenship, it seems clear to the undersigned that such persons are natural-born, that is, citizens by origin; and that, if otherwise qualified, they are eligible to the office of president. In respect to the citizenship of children of American parentage, wherever born, the principle of ius sanguinis seems to be the American principle; that is to say, the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance, is recognized, which is modern, as distinguished from the ancient, and at one time, common-law principle of jus soli. If the provision was as sometimes inaccurately cited, namely, that the president must be “a native-born citizen,” there might be no question as to its meaning. But the framers generally used precise language; and the etymology actually employed makes the meaning definite. Its correspondent in English law, “natural-born subject,” appears in constitutional history and parliamentary enactments; and there it includes all children born out of the king’s allegiance whose fathers were natural-born subjects; and the children of such children (i. e., children whose grandfathers by the father’s side were natural-born subjects), though their mothers were aliens, are now deemed to be natural-born subjects themselves to all intents and purposes, unless their said ancestors were attainted or banished beyond sea for high treason, or were at the birth of such children in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, immigration was anticipated and provisions for naturalization would immediately follow the establishment of the government. Those resident in the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted were made citizens. Thereafter the president must be taken from the natural-born citizens. If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “ native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.
The earliest act of congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization (March 26, 1790) contained the following clause: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born at sea or out of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.” The draft of this act has been credited to Mr. Jefferson, although his authorship has been questioned; and his reputed relationship to it may be ascribed to the fact that he was the author of the original naturalization acts in the Constitution of Virginia, and was an ardent supporter of a wise system of naturalization laws before and after he became President. But whoever drew the act followed closely the various parliamentary statutes of Great Britain; and its language in this relation indicates that the first congress entertained and declared the opinion that children of American parentage, wherever born, were within the constitutional designation, “natural-born citizens.” The act is declaratory; but the reason that such children are natural born remains; that is, their American citizenship is natural—the result of parentage—and is not artificial or acquired by compliance with legislative requirements. The second act of naturalization (January 29, 1795), which was reported and probably drawn by Mr. Madison, chairman of a select House committee, enacted “That the children of persons duly naturalized dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” As carried forward in the Revised Statutes, the provision reads: “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.” This provision, as its terms express, is declaratory; it is not the statute that constitutes children of American parentage citizens; it is the fact of American descent, the jus sanguinis, that makes them citizens at the moment of birth—a fact which, for sufficient and convenient reasons, the legislative power of the State recognizes and announces to the world.
If there was ambiguity, the rights and privileges of children of American parents dependent upon constitutional guarantee would demand recognition; and constitutional guaranties in favor of such persons might not be restricted or denied by congress.
To return to the constitutional requirement in respect to eligibility for the office of president, let us inquire what was the obvious purpose and intent of the limitation? Plainly, it was inserted in order to exclude “aliens” by birth and blood from that high office, upon considerations which naturally had much weight at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. It was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory. Where it was said in the old books that an alien is one born out of the king’s or State’s dominions or allegiance, this must be of the limits understood with some restrictions. A forced or restricted construction of the constitutional phrase under consideration would be out of harmony with modern conceptions of political status, and might produce startling results. It remains to be decided whether a child of domiciled Chinese parents, born in the United States, is eligible, if otherwise qualified, to the office of president and to all the privileges of the Constitution. And it would be a strange conclusion, in another aspect, if the child of American parents, born in China, should be denied correspondent rights and privileges in the United States.
A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.
Our conclusion is that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” within the constitutional requirement; and, as such, if possessed of the other qualifications, would be eligible for the office of president of the United States.
WASHINGTON, D.C., March, 1904
.
Hey Chris: there have been improvements since thorazine. Look into it.
Hi Chris – You mention A. P. Morse’s 1904 law review article. what do you think about his 1881 thesis “A Thesis on Citizenship”
” In the law of nations, ” citizen” is a term applicable to every member of the civil society, every individual who belongs to the nation.
This character is acquired in various ways, according to the laws of each state. In many states birth is sufficient to confer it; so that the child of an alien is a citizen from the fact of having been born within the territorial limits and the jurisdiction.2‘
And in footnote 2, he writes:
” It is so in England and in the United States [but the births must be ” within the jurisdiction”‘].”
He also says,
“The Constitution does not make the citizens (it is, in fact, made by them) ; it only recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign-born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.”
He is saying there are only two types of citizens (those natural-born in the country) and those who are foreign-born?
Dr. Conspiracy I am reading the blog from last year in re NBC for use in my MOL.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/alexander-hamilton-on-presidential-eligibility/
In regards to the New York state reference to the person born to those parents in transit fails to take into account the difference of state jurisdiction of tourists before under the articles of Confederation and afterward when states gave up the right to determine citizenship per se with US Const. Article 1 Section 9: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
And the argument follows that in the matter of any state to have a claim of full and complete jurisdiction over a foreign person is prohibited by US Const Article 1 Section 10. ” No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; ….” Because to grant citizenship to foreigners would first require entering into an alliance or conferation with a foreign state for the state to claim full and complete jurisdiction without the consent of the foreign state whose subject or citizen is transient there and whose offspring are of dual allegiance also. The so-called “anchor-baby” issue is front and center herein and is discussed by the SCOTUS with Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1940) . The articles of confederation ( http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article2)
Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the united States, or either of them
Article IX. The united States in congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article — of sending and receiving ambassadors — entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever — of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated — of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace — appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.
That prior to the Articles of Confederation and US Cons, on April 20, 1777 New York ratified the state constitution ( http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ny01.asp#1 ) and claimed the right to naturalize foreigners:
XLII. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that it shall be in the discretion of the legislature to naturalize all such persons, and in such manner, as they shall think proper: Provided, All such of the persons so to be by them naturalized, as being born in parts beyond sea, and out of the United States of America, shall come to settle in and become subjects of this State, shall take an oath of allegiance to this State, and abjure and renounce all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and State in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil.
By order.
LEONARD GANSEVOORT,
President pro tempore.
Misha you would know from what I hear.
I hear barnyard animals become skittish when you are around.
The Constitution does not “Make” citizens Congress reconizes aliens in re INA now and McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 for BHO in 1961.The only competent argument must rotate around what full and complete jurisdiction is and whether a state may have such over a foreign subject transient therein a state of the several states or territories outside of the INA (1965) or McCarran Walter Act of 1952.
The People of New York ratified their constitution on April 20, 1777 and therein claimed the right to naturalize aliens (see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ny01.asp#1) at
XLII. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that it shall be in the discretion of the legislature to naturalize all such persons, and in such manner, as they shall think proper: Provided, All such of the persons so to be by them naturalized, as being born in parts beyond sea, and out of the United States of America, shall come to settle in and become subjects of this State, shall take an oath of allegiance to this State, and abjure and renounce all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and State in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil.(14)
By order.
LEONARD GANSEVOORT,
President pro tempore.
When the US Articles of Confederation (AOC) (http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article2) were enacted there was an overlap as to “vagabonds” and or transients that was then eliminated by the present US Constitution .
At AOC Article IV “The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the united States, or either of them.
Then in 1789 state jurisdiction was further restricted :
Article 1 Section 9: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
and as to any state having complete and full jurisdiction over a foreign subject transient therein is further restricted by Article 1 Section 10: “Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;” To gain full and complete jurisdiction over a foreign subject in transit the state would have to have a separate agreement with the foreign nation which is prohibited.
Hawaii does not have any power to grant citizenship separate from that provided under Congress whether that was in 1904 as a US territory as applies to Sun yet sen or for BHO in 1961 as a State. To claim otherwise is pure foolishness.
The COLB merely certifies that HI certifies that a person was born alive not where that person was born. To do otherwise would be a violation of the US Constitution as applies to Article 1 Sections 9 and 10 as well as Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 as to Congressional rules for naturalization.
They better I am a meat eater; however, unlike Misha who grazes with the herd
My attempts to respond have been blocked by the administrator
Will you run with an insanity plea at your trial or take your chances?
Zing.
In short States do not have full and complete jruisdiction over any tourist or transient from a foreign nation any longer unlike when New York ratified the April 20, 1777 Consitituion which claimed the right to naturalize foreigners see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ny01.asp#1:
XLII. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that it shall be in the discretion of the legislature to naturalize all such persons, and in such manner, as they shall think proper: Provided, All such of the persons so to be by them naturalized, as being born in parts beyond sea, and out of the United States of America, shall come to settle in and become subjects of this State, shall take an oath of allegiance to this State, and abjure and renounce all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and State in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil.(14)
By order.
LEONARD GANSEVOORT,
President pro tempore.
Under the US Articles of Confederation http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article2 article IV “The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the united States, or either of them.” all that changed and now since 1789 under the US Const is even more restrictive as with Aricle 1 Section 9 Section. 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” and Article 1 Section Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; which a state would have to do to be granted full and complete jurisdiction separate from Congress. BHO is not a NBC because Hawaii did not have fulll and complete jurisdiction over him at birth even were it in Hawaiii because the Father is a British subject.
The laws of a foreign country do not govern a US State, and certainly can not put any limit on the jurisdiction of a State.
The US Constitution and treaty between the US and Britain do restrict the state of Hawaii
MOreover were BHO sr. to want to take BHO jr. back to Kenya with him SAD of minority age would be hard pressed to stop that in 1961
Who cares what the Articles of Confederation said -irrelevant to today’s law. Those were thrown out and replaced by The Constitution.
Doesn’t matter. Read the opinion of Perkins v. Elg. No action of a parent can ever affect the status of a minor child.
Chris, maybe you should check the UFP “Articles of Federation”. They have equal relevance.
this thread still alive??
Chris Strunk is quickly becoming an authority on american political history. Chris may be very abusive at times but he amazingly thinks outside the fence line of this US Animal Farm and he leads the political pundits and other media sources.
You are very lucky to have him posting on this thread.
Alexander Hamilton had nbc issues too.
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/02/28/does-john-mccain-have-an-alexander-hamilton-problem-a-constitutional-challenge-may-loom-over-mccains-eligibility-for-president/
Did John McCain Have an Alexander Hamilton Problem? A Constitutional Challenge May Loom Over McCain’s Eligibility for President
— and of course this lack of certainty now almost two or three years later allows the following linked “what if” to still be in play as a fitting resolution to the nbc status of BO
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/farah-obamas-grandmother-was-really-his-mother
Morse, of course, was just trumpeting the position of the Wong Kim Ark dissent a few years earlier that was rejected by the court. I guess some people are sore losers. His argument doesn’t even make sense. First, there is no evidence that the 1790 Act was declaratory and he offers none. Second, he admits the act was modeled on English statutes yet somehow concludes that means we adopted a rule different from England. The actual evidence is that Congress thought they needed to provide for children of foreign born citizens like the English had done which clearly implies we had adopted a jus soli rule like England or there would have been no need to make such provision. Duh.
LOL! Ah, such satire.
Strunk is quickly becoming an “authority” of google search and simple cut/pate from Wikipedia. Kudos. That rises to the level of talent one can expect from anyone who is at least 10 years old these days.
To be an actual “authority” of history…one has to have a proper understanding of the context of what they are talking about. On that note, Strunk is merely still a novice and suffers from conspiracy-confirmation bias, which blinds him from actually comprehending both history and the reality of the world we live in.
Lucky? That’s a matter of opinion. Entertained. Certainly. Learning anything of real value from his posts…er….not so much.
Whoever said there had to be full and complete jurisdiction over someone? Another argument rejected by the courts.
What lack of certainty? Ann Dunham gave birth to Barack Obama (the younger) in Hawaii in 1961. There is no uncertainty about that, whatsoever. None.
The only way a state has full and complete jurisdiction over a tourist (temporarily) is when arrrested but even then there must be notification to the foreign embassy involved.
And when sent to prison only then may the tourist when released be sent home
The only way a state has full and complete jurisdiction over a tourist (temporarily) is when arrrested but even then there must be notification to the foreign embassy involved.
And when sent to prison only then may the tourist when released be sent home
I learned a long time ago that utopians don’t undertsand anything except the tip of a bayonet. But then you have to discount my Vietnam era experience – after all what does anyone who served in the military know – they have been brainwashed right? I relish the day when – read my mind!
Utopians? Really? Where? LOL! What utter rubbish. Yes, before you waste more time cutting and pasting internet definitions, I fully understand and know what the concept of utopia is.
You do realize that such idealized concepts are nothing but pure fiction, don’t you? (oh, why did I even bother to ask you that…you’ll already consistently demonstrated that you can’t tell the difference between fiction and reality…*sigh*)
So I don’t know where you find these “utopians” of yours… I’ve never met one in reality.
And if you really are a Viet Nam era vet, I thank you for your past service to this country, but I don’t see the relevance that has to any of your other statements…
…except that suddenly you are making some sort of “bayonet” veiled threat. …so I guess your military experience is supposed to what…convince us you are out to physically harm someone?
*yawn*. Stop wasting your time with your hollow, keyboard commando fantasies. You are no threat to anyone, nor should you aspire to be.
Oh, really? What kind of ‘authority’ considers the Articles of Confederation to have any relevance to any discussion we are having here?
Well, Christians are Utopians. Maybe that’s what he means. Or maybe just the 19th century Shakers. Or maybe he’s talking about the Plymouth colony.
.
First, you have to show that having “full and complete jurisdiction” is relevant to the conversation. Such argument has not been made with respect to natural born status but has been made with respect to the 14th Amendment. It was rejected by the supreme court.
“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
“The words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,” and the converse of the words “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” as habitually used in the naturalization acts.”
Well, I don’t buy the classification of Christians as Utopians any more or less than anybody else in terms of viewing it as nothing more than a conceptual notion of an ideal. I may have heard people espouse what could be considered “utopian” desires, but never met anyone that actually finds the concept realistic or likely. …Although maybe you are simply referring to some people’s concepts of Heaven or an after-life as being “utopian” in their interpretation. …but still, that is then dealing with matters beyond life or the realities of this world…
Anyways, since Strunk struggles so much differentiating between fact & fiction – maybe he’s actually referring to “actual Utopians” from the island of Utopia. LOL!
…After all, I believe that was the origin of the word – a name for a fictional island in a book by Thomas Moore, written around 5 centuries ago.
Knowing Strunk, he very well could be referring to this island. I’m just waiting for his next post where he rails against the Atlanteans and the continent of Mu and warns us of to beware of the Lilliputians and the Brobdingnag plotting against this country… 😉
In Strunk world, any country could give any person legal immunity in the US, just by ensuring that the USA doesn’t have “full and complete jurisdiction” over them.
I believe the United Federation of Planets has a Charter rather than Articles of Federation. I would note, however, that the Federation Charter has the full force of law in any conversation with Trekkers…
I meant it more in the context that if only everyone were to profess Christianity (and the same franchise of course), then we would all live in heaven on earth, there would be no wars, etc, etc, etc. Or even in the context of the thousand year peace after the Apocalypse..
Suddenly, I hear John Lennon’s “Imagine” playing… 😉
But still that is in the context of wishful idealism. Gosh, who doesn’t wish things could be like that. My point is still that I’ve never run into anyone, Christian or otherwise who doesn’t view that in the realm of idealized wishfulness as opposed to actual realistic possibility.
the Dual citizen question is the only question I raise and that when minor BHO jr in the custody of BHO sr is addressed by the case raised; although the SCOTUS DECISION supports the fact that BHO sr could have removed BHO jr to Kenya at will as he was a majority aged parent and SAD was not, at best BHO jr is a dual citizen at birth meaning he is not eligible for POTUS. Turn Blue UTOPIANS!!!
We or put it a little differently. I am discussing the NBC issue of dual citizenship gained because of BHO sr being a British subject. Just because BHO jr may be a “native-born” citizen does not make him a “Natural-born” citizen and never will. The bloggers on this website are intellectually disingenuous, bankrupt and continually prove unworthy with exception of course – there is an exception. Perkins v. Elg proves my point re NBC
FYI
Non of the Utopian arguments change the matter of DUAL CITIZENSHIP regarding NBC eligibility, nor does it change the matter of two illegal alien parents (tourists at will) as to the status of the child as a so-called anchor baby. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to alien parents is a United States citizen, and that the child’s citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents’ origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship “and to return to the United States to assume its duties.” Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in the Brooklyn section of New York City in 1907 to two Swedish parents (The father was also a naturalized US Citizen) who had arrived in the United States some time prior to 1906; her father was naturalized in 1906. In 1911, her mother took the four-year-old to Sweden; her father went to Sweden in 1922, and in 1934 made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had “voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.”
Look whether there was a conspiracy between all the parties is irrelevant. I am looking at the public record. SAD was duly married to BHO sr. as confirmed by the Divorce papers issued March 20, 1964 – when Stanley Ann Dunham Obama divorced Barack Hussein Obama in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii. Who ever was the DNA donor is too complicated a question when you get a bunch of UTOPIANS alone in a room they are all screwing each other and the pooch too. Sloppy tenths!
Stick to the facts of the public record. I am not trying to find out who was the cuckold or whether SAD was the sister they were all barn yard animals as far as I can tell and still are – the CIA would not expect employing anyone different.than a Utopian barn yard animal anyway – the CIA continues to be one of the most twisted organizations going..
Again there was a argument between Dr. Apuzzo and I as to the difference between Native and Natural – born. He believes there is no difference and I contend there is a big difference supported by the record. In that he lost with his argument I contend there is a difference that is discussed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) and must be combined with the development of state citizenship before the constitution and the various treaty arrangements including that of The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 is an international treaty that defines a framework for diplomatic relations between independent countries. It specifies the privileges of a diplomatic mission that enable diplomats to perform their function without fear of coercion or harassment by the host country. This forms the legal basis for diplomatic immunity. Its articles are considered a cornerstone of modern international relations along with the Consular treaty and the Vienna The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties concerning the international law on treaties between states adopted on 22 May 1969 all of which together must be used to address what full and complete jurisdiction is notwithstanding the Jesuits’ 14th amendment provision that was narrowly tailored when dual allegiance and dual citizenship are concerned, and pushes aside Dr. Apuzzo’s definition and underlying use of Natural-born Citizen versus native-born citizen.
Look even if BHO were to march into court with his DNA sample to compare to all the barnyard animals involved then that is fine but the public record is what we are speaking about and either paperwork counts or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t then we all are in deep trouble including the UTOPIANS who want to wed there faviorite dog and produce hunine offspring. Four legs good two legs bad.
Please, please, please, seek professional help from a mental health practitioner.
UTOPIAN apologist are you?
Dr. Conspiracy as a UTOPIAN is not willing to put forth the record in full because he needs the obfuscation to buy time for his precious Step-in Fetch-it to dismantle our children’s future. Within 12 months as BHO and his cronies destroy the international reserve currency it will come down to who has the most food and layers of protection in the world this Jackanapes is dragging us towards . The word is Normalcy Bias in your case James.
I don’t even know what that means, but no. I’m seriously concerned for your mental state, as far as it is evidenced by your posts.
The normalcy bias refers to an extreme mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of the government to include the populace in its disaster preparations. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred that it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.
Jackanapes – a : an impudent or conceited fellow b : a saucy or mischievous child
As for the jackanapes being a closet queen and narcissist do I need to go further?
Unfortunately, those who suffer from paranoid delusions, like Mr. Strunk, often find it comforting to explain why no one else shares their delusion, by resorting to various coping measure that mesh with their own delusions.
Believing that everyone else (those who don’t see the sky falling) are all suffering from normalcy bias, is a classic example.
And extremely;y ironic as well.
You may be facing some disaster, but I am not. Please take responsibility for your own state.
Tell me something. You sit around all day eating, clipping coupons, and reading tea leaves while collecting a big pension from the government, do you think that the 1965 passport application exists contrary to the DOS suggestion it doesn’t or do you think the DOS and BHO are doing a cover-up?.What would be at stake in releasing the 1965 passport application record? You are the professed blooming genious.
The GSA and NARA reps declare it had did nothing in regards to destroying records. Do I get the records or a reason for their destruction in the end run? What does Daniel declare other than I am full of shit which I take care of once a day unlike you?
genius as you can see I am so far away from your level I use an o too
So how many cans of Spam do you have stored at your “suffrage address?” Or do you actually live somewhere other than Brooklyn?
…you’re on your own planet?
Utopian, hardly. I am a Christian and as such believe that humans have an essential flaw in their nature that prevents perfection on earth.
Anyone can predict the future. Being right is the tricky part.
— the discussion on this thread has helped Chris Strunk with shaping/refining legal arguments in at least three and possibly four of his active trial/district, appellate, and SCOTUS cases.
thank you.
So, is he getting out on Wednesday?
— the natural born citizen party will seek ballot access in all 50 united states for the 2012 presidential election cycle. A private primary election process similar to that once used by Perot’s United We Stand organization will nominate the nbcp presidential candidate. Also, in several states nbcp may use the existing/available primary electon nomination process to nominate its presidential candidate — once nbcp has demostrated required nbcp state party ballot access status.
Got a web site yet?
Well, dang-nabbit, natural born citizen party dude, count me in. In fact, I’d be glad to put myself forward as your vice-presidential candidate, and I’d even like to contribute to the platform. Let’s see, here are some planks I’m sure you and the other party member have considered:
No. 1) President must be natural born!!! No exceptions, unless he doesn’t look colored (e.g. John McCain).
No. 2) No presidents who is smarter than we is.
No. 3) If I say “potato” than you say it like me! Same goes for tomato.
No. 4) No short-form birth certificates or salad forks!
No. 5) No one who’s traveled outside of God’s country (US of A)!
No. 6) Replace Department of Education with Institute for Creation Science.
No. 7) All country music made after death of Hank Williams is crap!
No. 8 ) False teeth free to everyone over 15!
No. 9) All government buildings shall have at least 1 spittoon for every 10 employees.
No. 10) Build the dang fence! I’m tired of your dog pooping in my yard!
in due course
Once the nbc issue is finally granted cert by SCOTUS then formally kickoff the project (and the national website) with paying people say Chris Strunk to travel the country organizing state presidential delegate nominating committees using the individual state election laws and state constitutions and filing the required campaign finance and general election ballot access paper work as well as supervising the inevitable ballot access litigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5Mr5eCF2U
Organizing the homeless?
I got it: organizing feral cats, for shelter and kibble.
yes, this movie link thread detour is becoming interesting — who else liked the Capra made “Mr. Smith goes to Washington”?
http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1789722905/
Thanks, Misha–I enjoyed the clip from “Blazing Saddles.”
So, you are planning to start in 2124 or never, whichever comes first?
Dr Conspiracy is a philosopher!
Perfection happens at death cause you can not get better at that point.
That will prove to be the sticking point.
The only birther cases currently on the SCOTUS docket are Taitz v. MacDonald and Hollister v. Soetoro.
SCOTUS has already decided to deny cert on Orly’s case, as evidenced by the fact that the case was distributed to conference without requesting a response from the respondent. Cert will be formally denied when the Court’s weekly orders are released on January 10.
The government’s response on Hollister v. Soetoro is due on December 23. By this time next week the docket will show that the government has waived its right to respond. None of the nine justices will call for a response, meaning that sometime during the first or second week of January it will be “dead filed” and distributed for a conference in February. Once a case is dead filed, denial of cert is a mere formaility.
— cert petition granted on any related case, especially a Strunk case while not directly focused on nbc would be enough to kick off the nbc campaign.
“– the natural born citizen party will seek ballot access in all 50 united states for the 2012 presidential election cycle. A private primary election process similar to that once used by Perot’s United We Stand organization will nominate the nbcp presidential candidate. ”
I fully expect that this party will show all of the legal finesse of Orly and Mario.
What exactly will be the platform of the natural born citizen party?
in due course:
Orly got about 500,000 votes with a state and federal court system and the CA SOS / AG Soros paid machines working against her — not too bad for her first at-bat.
Next some of us hope that she will challenge for US Senate from CA.
Also, suggest that you go look at say “Forjone v CA” or “Barnett v Dunn” not to mention Loeber v Spargo for insight into credible election related projects challenging the overthrow of the US constitution and the republic.
Wishful thinking at best. Strunk got his FOIA request, motion to dismiss will be granted anytime soon.
If Strunk takes it to SCOTUS, expect a quick denial.
Hahahaha. Orly has the ‘midas tough’ she is guaranteed to mess up again… Orly did not even manage to get the Republican vote…
If wooden teeth were good enough for our President and Patriot, then I’d say ‘wooden teeth’ for all
Perfection? I think you mean decomposition.
…and if you think that death is the best that life gets…than I feel really sorry for how miserable your life must be to feel that way. Do try to take some time to enjoy life while you are here, before it is too late. Otherwise, all you have done is wasted your time. Sad.
Ironic, considering that the only people seeking to overthrow the US Constitution, and the Republic, are the Birthers and their ilk, such as the “Natural Born Citizen Party”…
Curious though, I have to wonder how often has a single issue party, a “one trick pony” as it were, managed to win a federal or state election? And that is aside from the whole nutcase aspect.
Maybe that is a question you should be asking yourselves?
Of course, if you were capable of asking yourselves those kind of questions, and giving yourselves honest and reasonable answers, you wouldn’t be birthers….
LOL! Yeah…and what are the chances of that in reality…so, your back to pretty much never being able to kick off your campaign then.
Just what is Strunk’s track record in court so far… yeah, that’s right. Merely failed frivolous lawsuits going nowhere.
LMAO! You cite “Barnett v Dunn” as a “credible election related” project? Seriously??? Yeah, so tell me just how did that work out again? Oh yeah, it utterly failed. Repeatedly.
What are you, the patron saint of hopelessly delusional lost causes? Or do you just need to be part of EPIC FAIL in your life?
At first it was:
And now:
Man, those goal posts move quickly nowadays.
Of course, Texas could come up with the “original Birth Certificate” law, deny the President ballot access and then his campaign would take it to court. Since he would have standing (direct injury), is justiciable (Hawaii’s BC can be argued on the Full Faith and Credit clause) and the injury can be redress (order Texas to accept it), it would likely be Cert would be accepted (if Texas chose to appeal, since they would lose in the courts). Even if an SOS were to deny ballot access on the two citizen parent theory (nee BS), Obama would suffer injury and the SCOTUS could accept the cert, and then, most likely, rule Obama is a natural born citizen.
Come on, folks… at least they’ve mostly figured out that their only avenue is Congress and the electorate.
Natural born citizen party — you shouldn’t wait for SCOTUS to reject you, use Lakin’s defeat as your launching point. Seriously. Courts have no jurisdiction, neither does the Executive Branch. Good luck in convincing everyone else. (You do know that Perot’s sucessor got 0.4% of the vote in 2000, right?)
I am not sure “natural born citizen party” is the best choice of a name for a party. Every time I see the name here, it sounds more like it just replaces a the first word of ________ Citizen Party with “natural born.” I am not stating this is the commenter’s intent or feeling, but only that it comes off sounding that way.
Credible? Loeber v. Spargo was dismissed and the dismissal was upheld on appeal by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in August. When are you planning on filing your cert petition? It looks like Forjone v. California was dismissed by the District Court last February. As for Barnett v. Dunn, I realize that poor Pam Barnett has to rely upon Orly for legal guidance, so I’ll just leave it at that,
For those who might find it amusing, Strunk and John-Joseph Forjone are co-chairmen of something called The Ad Hoc NYS People for Bottom-up Suffrage and Intrastate/Interstate HAVA Funds Distribution Equity Nationwide. You can’t make this stuff up. (HAVA is the Help America Vote Act)
Strunk, Forjone and H. William van Allen are vexatious litigants who would have been disbarred by now if they were attorneys.
Got any WINNING cases to point at? Or at least ones that don’t conclude “The claims in the amended complaint were barely comprehensible, and the only portions of the claims that could be intelligibly discerned from it were alleged violations of the New York State Constitution, not federal law.” http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=in%20fco%2020100827067.xml&docbase=cslwar3-2007-curr
Chris Skunk confuses memories of his own mother’s barnyard brothel behavior and somehow projects it on the President’s family.
I know that Chris Skunk can type and hit the “post” button, but I am not convinced he is human.
But from reading his sick, racist drivel, I am sure that he doesn’t have a soul.
I think he’s desperately trying to get banned from here so he can go back to his birther minions and show them he was so “successful” over here that he was banned for it.
Barnett v Dunn
10/25/2010
Eastern District of California – Live System (Sacramento)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:10-cv-02216-FCD-DAD
MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd: MOTION HEARING held on 10/25/2010 re 12 MOTION filed by Pamela Barnett, 15 Amended Notice of 11 Cross-Motion filed by Pamela Barnett, 11 Cross-Motion for Three Judge Panel filed by Pamela Barnett. The Motions are taken under submission and the court will F & Rs to the District Court. Plaintiffs Counsel Pro Se present. Defendants Counsel Brian Hildreth, Anthony O’Brien, Yoshiori Himel and Via Telephone James Harman present. Court Reporter/CD Number: 1 of 1. (Callen, V) Modified on 10/25/2010 (Callen, V). (Entered: 10/25/2010)
Yes we are aware that birthers can cut-and-paste.
Do you actually have a point to that post?
1. Isn’t the case a little irrelevant by now?
2. Yeah, look at the history of the case – its been shot down dead every prior step of the way. Are you really that deluded to think it is going anywhere but dead again?
LMAO! What a joke. You just make yourself foolish pining your hopes on clearly obvious EPIC FAIL quests.
more movie trailers, this from over 50 years ago set in Honolulu
http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/index.jsp?cid=200539
Here’s a better one, from 1961 — http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/index.jsp?cid=215468
Wait. It keeps coming back from the dead and it ate that nice Jewish dentist lady’s brian…
OH. MY. GOD. IT’S A ZOMBIE CASE!!! RUN!!!!!
— it will be interesting in the very near future to have a restored DOJ/FBI compare the activities of communist cells based in in Honolulu of more than fifty years ago with modern day Hawaii based vital record POTUS/CINC vetting fiasco.
That’s true. Here is a picture of my handlers and contacts.
Hahaha…
Such a sore loser and always hoping things will go ‘better’ in the future. Has history not taught you that the issue is totally dead?
In the mean time, in their haste to remove our duly elected President, some have elected people who are both ignorant of science as well as law and have come to reject the scientific evidence supporting the fact of evolution as well as global warming.
Ignorance is not limited to a single topic…
That’s the nice thing about nutbag conspiracy theories. When one completely fails, you can just make up another one.
It doesn’t take courage to do foolish things, like use your full id on the internet, or pretend Obama isn’t eligible in a court room.
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – The American Form of Government
that’s the nice thing about wars of civilization, the victors write the history — let’s see if nbcp successfully defends the American Form of Government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGL8CiUtXF0
and this nbc link is nicely written:
The Natural Born Presidency
http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/
Read the above essay and post. Does Terry Lakin now have ground for a Quo Warranto action is civilian court to challenge the eligibility of the President and Commander in Chief? Yes, I think so. He was stymied by the military legal system from getting to the merits in his court martial and has be deprived of his career, income, retirement benefits, and his sacred honor. Terry Lakin has now been very significantly economically damaged by actions done to him by a chain of command and convening court martial lead by an ineligible and illegal President and Commander in Chief. The very authority of that court martial goes directly back to the office of the President and Commander in Chief. The current occupant of that office illegally holds it and has not conclusively proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is eligible to be the Commander in Chief and President. About 2/3 the people have doubts and questions about Obama’s eligibility per the polls. If Terry Lakin wishes to, he could retain some civilian attorneys and bring a Quo Warranto action against Obama in the District Court in Washington DC. JMHO.
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org
What a ridiculously naive analysis. Are you really stupid enough to believe that crap?
I think that convicted felon Lakin is of no further use in pursing the eligibility argument but that some birthers will not believe that he is for a long, long time (and some have already thrown him under the bus…). I wonder which of our analyses will turn out to be more accurate…
No
And for some reasons?
1. I do not recall Lakin being elected President, therefore, he does not have status of an “interested person” required to institute Quo Warrento without the AG’s persmission (see Taitz v. Obama and Newman V. United States ex rel Frizzell).
2. Self inflicted injury cause by Terry Lakin refusing orders is not sufficient “injury” to create standing, especially since the “injury” must be the office in question, the President of the United States. Since President Obama did not install himself in office previously held by Lakin, there is no usurping of an office Lakin may have had a particular interest in.
3. President Obama legally holds the office.
Interesting enough, in reading the blog, I noticed the mention of Title 18, § 2388. (Activities affecting armed forces during war) and started wondering if that. or § 2387, (Activities affecting armed forces generally), could be used against Jensen or Ms. Hemenway (or possibly even Taitz)?
Taitz, Berg, Apuzzo and the rest are nothing more than malcontents, who have fleeced the gullible into contributing to their scenario, made from whole cloth.
They have ruined the careers of several people, just like Roy Cohen and his cronies did. That seems to be a theme with conservatives. Just like Cheney and his coterie fabricated WMDs, so Halliburton and the rest of Cheney’s coterie could get their paws on Iraq’s oil, in a repeat exactly 50 years later, of the CIA coup against Iran.
Take your garbage, and put it the landfill where it belongs.
No, you are not thinking when you say this, as it is obviously false. Another commenter addressed this in detail, but I just marvel at folks spouting opinions that have no basis in fact or law and somehow think they are being clever.
No, and in addition to the very good reasons already given you here are two more.
1. Lakin disobeyed legal orders. The President’s eligibility to hold the office is not relvant to whether those orders were legal on the face of it. This has been pointed out to you many times, by legal experts, and by judicial ruling. There is nothing a Quo Warranto action can do to change the fact of Lakin’s guilt, even if, by some miracle of a twisted fate, it turns out the birthers are right.
2. Quo Warranto is not a fishing expedition. Nor is any actionable case, for that matter. You have to be able to show a reasonable possibility, by way of evidence, that some offense was committed. No court is going to allow you to bring any such action against anyone on the off chance that discovery might turn up something wrong. Birthers don’t have any substantive, objective evidence. All you have is a big steaming pile of shoulda/woulda/coulda which isn’t actionable.
— natural born citizen Strunk should return to his native NYC soon after having breathed the air in Washington DC for a few hours today — with no doubt a few creative thoughts on Lakin’s litigation civil / criminal appeal options.
As Ed Koch once said, “I can explain this to you. I can’t comprehend it for you.”
— and sometimes in the (POTUS/CINC quo warranto court) USDC-DC sealed cases take a while to percolate especially when the CIA and DOS are involved
http://forum.concen.org/showthread.php?tid=32303
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202447177364&Federal_Judge_Approves__Million_Settlement_in_CIA_Suit
With this statement, I can only figure he/she is:
1. Drunk
2. Babbling away with no care of what he is saying
3. Successfully demonstrating that poo is a better choice for an intelligent discussion.
So a Quo Warrento against the President will take 16 years? Alrighty then…
If this one’s “NBC Party” were to come to power, I do not think they could protect us against the menacing countries like, Santa Lucia.
Where is his birth certificate?
The word on the street is that Mario Apuzzo Esq. has some free time on his hands.
http://www.justice-denied.net/Bivens_Justice.htm
Apparently you didn’t actually read that link you posted…
“A Bivens claim can be based on conspiracy of federal agents by showing:
(1) the existence of an express or implied agreement among the defendants to deprive someone of constitutional rights, and
(2) an actual deprivation of those constitutional rights resulting from the agreement.”
Did you notice the part about “showing”?
That’s a kinda legul term whut means ya hafta have sum kinda evudince that sumthin’ actully happened.
Or for you non-rednecks out there…
The poster has failed to recognize that his post fails to be relevant to his cause, because he has nothing at all to show that any crime or deprivation has actually taken place.
Until the Birthers can actually show that President Obama is not eligible, or at least provide some smattering of evidence that show it is likely he is not, they cannot even begin to bring any action against him for conspiring to conceal it, or deprive anyone else.
Another EPIC fail by the birther who would have his own political party.
http://www.terrylakinactionfund.com/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/40642864/Citizen-Suits-and-Qui-Tam-Actions-Private-Enforcement-of-Public-Policy-1996
“My husband is going to prison because of Barack Obama’s birth certificate.”
Here is Obama’s birth certificate:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
If your crowd refuses to accept that, it is simply a sign of clinical insanity.
Where is your proof this benefits the LTC?
So far, you’ve been only a troll. Put up or STFU.
What happened to your voice, troll?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37959050/Plaintiff-s-MOL-w-NOM-for-SURREPLY-w-Declaration-and-Proposed-Order-08-Cv-2234
Seriously, are you an idiot? Do you have any idea of what you’re doing and where and why?
I think you’re high.
No, just nuts.
He’s just shotgunning links at random now, with no intention of any reasonable discourse.
Probably just another birther troll desperately trying to be banned so he can go back to his hovel and crow about how he “pwnd” us.
So very sad.
The site lists no actual names, no registration information, no real people, nothing to show that it’s anything but a scam to rip off money from gullible birthers.
I wish the scammers much success 😉
1:08-cv-02234-RJL STRUNK v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Richard J. Leon, presiding
Date filed: 12/29/2008
Date of last filing: 09/28/2010
APPEAL, PROSE-NP, TYPE-I
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
Case: 1:09-cv-01295-RJL
Case in other court: 10-05092
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
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 305-9343
Email: wynne.p.kelly@usdoj.gov
TERMINATED: 02/02/2009
LEAD ATTORNEY
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)
10/21/2009 27
Letter from Christopher Earl Strunk. “Leave to file granted” by Judge Richard J. Leon (jf, ) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
11/19/2009 28
MEMORANDUM by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A – Strunk Nov. 4, 2009 Judicial Notice, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B – Strunk Nov. 10, 2009 Judicial Notice, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
02/19/2010 29
NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Allen v. Dept of Homeland Security, No. CV-09-373 (D. Ariz. February 1, 2010))(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
03/16/2010 30
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 3/15/10. (kc) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
03/16/2010 31
ORDER, For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants’ partial motion to dismiss 16 is GRANTED, and plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED IN PART to the extent that plaintiff seeks of information pertaining to Barack Hussein Obama; it is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for mandamus relief and for an other relief not available under the Freedom of Information Act,including all forms of relief requested in his “Notice of Cross Motion of Quo Warranto Demand for Jury Trial and Decision on Question of First Impression in Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as to Alleged POTUS : Barack Hussein Obama in Esse” and supporting documents 19 , are DENIED; it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ request for a stay of discovery is GRANTED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that, not later than May 3, 2010, the parties shall file a joint porposed schedule to govern future porceedings in this action. SO ORDERED Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 3/15/10. (see order.) (kc ) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
03/24/2010 32
NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to 31 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,, by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. Fee Status: IFP. Parties have been notified. (jf, ) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
03/24/2010 33
Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Fee was not paid because it was filed In Forma Pauperis re 32 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. (jf, ) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
04/02/2010 USCA Case Number 10-5092 for 32 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (jf, ) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
05/03/2010 34
NOTICE : Joint Proposed Schedule by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE re 31 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,, (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 05/03/2010)
05/04/2010 35
MOTION for Order of the Department of State to release the FOIA requested information of Stanley-Ann Dunham by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (jf, ) (Entered: 05/06/2010)
05/05/2010 MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties’ joint proposed schedule 34 , it is hereby ORDERED that defendants shall file their motion for summary judgment not later than July 29, 2010, that plaintiff shall file his opposition or other response to the motion not later than August 26, 2010, and that defendants shall file their reply not later than September 16, 2010. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 5/5/10. (lcrjl2) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
05/05/2010 Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants Summary Judgment motions due by 7/29/2010. Plaintiff’s Opposition due by 8/26/2010. Defendants Reply due by 9/16/2010. (kc ) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
05/20/2010 36
Memorandum in opposition to re 35 MOTION for Order filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
07/29/2010 37
MOTION for Summary Judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Dorothy Pullo, # 2 Declaration of Alex Galovich, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
08/09/2010 38
ORDER, Ordered that the plaintiff shall file his opposition or other response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment no later than August 26, 2010. If plaintiff does not respond by that date, the Court may treat the motion as conceded and dismiss the case or enter judgment for the defendants. Defendants’ reply, if, any, is due no later than September 16, 2010. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 8/6/10. (see order) (kc ) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
08/25/2010 39
Memorandum in opposition to re 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. “Let this be filed” Judge Richard J. Leon (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(jf, ) (Entered: 08/25/2010)
08/26/2010 40
SUPPLEMENTAL Declaration to re 39 Memorandum in opposition to re 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(jf, ) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
08/30/2010 41
SUPPLEMENTAL to 39 Memorandum in opposition to re 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. “Let this be filed” Judge Richard J. Leon (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Affidavit of Philip Hans Jacobsen, # 3 Letter to Judge Richard J. Leon)(jf, ) (Entered: 08/31/2010)
09/16/2010 42
REPLY to opposition to motion re 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 09/16/2010)
09/23/2010 43
MOTION for Leave to File Surreply by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Surreply, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(jf, ) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
09/27/2010 44
Memorandum in opposition to re 43 MOTION for Leave to File filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 09/27/2010)
09/28/2010 MINUTE ORDER granting 43 Motion for Leave to File Surreply. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 9/28/10. (lcrjl2) (Entered: 09/28/2010)
09/28/2010 45
SURREPLY to re 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (znmw, ) (Entered: 09/29/2010)
Doc, isn’t this close to spam?
Are Strunk and nbcp the same?
Snore.
An important message to NBCP: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HBTFORb4rP8/TOAK0RP3UbI/AAAAAAAAEks/kPBZ7X3jm4s/s1600/bill-murray-you-suck.jpg
I’m starting to think so myself. They both seem to be really into pumping Chris Strunk up
It’s looked like that to me since about one quarter of the way into this correspondence.
http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/few-good-men/trailer
They are out in force today. Over on CAAFLog there is a troll called ‘terminu’ really crapping the nest on the Lakin followup post.
fyi — Chris Strunk will be back online Monday afternoon
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/the-navy-commander-versus-col-obot/
fyi – When the idiot strunk is inevitably thrown in jail for stupidity let us know. Otherwise no one cares.
Here is the complete scoop on Chris Strunk.
Oh good, the stupid was getting kinda thin around here without him.
*waaaaah* So, the disgruntled unhappy little birthers, like Dr. Kate decide to take their anger out against Dwight Sullivan simply because they are too obtuse and clueless to have seen that this case and its results were fairly obvious and straightforward from the get go.
They simply can’t handle that everything Sullivan predicted all along happened just as he (and the rest of the reality based community) said it would.
I’d love to hear Sullivan’s view on this “scuffle” that Dr. Kate claims happened between Kerchner and him. Dr. Kate’s view of reality has been batting ZERO so far…so I put ZERO credence to anything she says.
Sullivan talked about the scuffle (he got in Kerchner’s face for being disrespectful) on Reality Check’s radio show from day 2 of the trial (I think), so it really did happen – given her account of the rest of the trial, I wouldn’t expect anything else Dr. Kate said about the scuffle to be correct…
Are you Chris’s personal secretary now?
December 19, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Dwight Sullivan says:
Dr. Kate got more wrong than right — though I did engage in an unwise confrontation with CDR Kerchner and when I returned to my seat, I did say to Phil Cave that I was embarrassed and ashamed at my own behavior. So here’s Dr. Kate’s account, with corrections in brackets:
Col. Sullivan, of the blog CAAFlog and an Army Reserve officer [wrong; USMCR}, sat in the courtroom with his citizenship manual [wrong; MCM] and dishonestly argued that the 14th amendment allowed Obama to be a natural born citizen’. [wrong; not “dishonestly”] I am sure many of you have seen his derogatory posts ridiculing Lakin, the Article II Constitutionalists, and the entire question of Hussein’s ineligibility. It was quite something to sit next to him as he and his partner Phil Cave guffawed at the entire proceedings [wrong; neither Phil nor I guffawed; unlike the birthers, we did not express any approval or disapproval during court-martial proceedings], especially when it came to attacking Lakin.
As he pointlessly argued his case for a 14th amendment citizen being a natural born citizen [RIGHT — it was pointless to discuss the issue with the birthers and I regret having done so], Commander (Ret.) Charles Kerchner leaned over and suggested he was being intellectually dishonest [true]. Suddenly, Sullivan lost his cool [I regret to admit, also true; I take exception too easily to challenges to my integrity], climbed over me and others sitting next to him [wrong; I went in front of them because they were in the row and I couldn’t get to the aisle without going in front of them], yelling at Kerchner, “SIR. SIR.” [probably true; I’m not sure I yelled, but I probably did.} His aggressive behavior would have trampled anyone in his way [my behavior would have trampled somone? Uhm, no. I wouldn’t have either].
Sullivan confronted Kerchner toe to toe, and face to face [true], pointing and yelling about the accusation of his ‘honesty’ and intellect’ being questioned. Fingers flying, red faces, and the Commander did not back down. Instead, in a delicious exchange where Kerchner sited fact after fact–of course based on his extensive research–to the red faced obot Sullivan [not true; I took exception to CDR Kerchner questioning my honesty. He responded, “I didn’t question your honesty. I said you were being intellectually dishonest,” or words to that effect. At that point, I realized that there was no sense speaking with someone who would say something like, “I didn’t question your honesty. I said you were being intellectually dishonest.” Also at that point, I realized I was acting like an ass and that such behavior was far from appropriate in a courtroom. CDR Kerchner didn’t cite any facts during the encounter.]…
Several military members in the court room moved over to the confrontation, eying the aggressive Sullivan. [I have no idea whether that’s true or not.]
…and when the question was asked by Kerchner in a forceful Naval Commanders voice two times in a row, “Do you or do you not believe he [Obama] is a natural born citizen?”, literally, Sullivan’s knees collapsed, [uhm, no, my knees neither literally nor figuratively collapsed. Again, realizing that I was behaving like an ass and not wishing to continue to do so, I turned around and walked away] his shoulders slumped [I can’t say for sure, but I doubt it], and he turned [true], rushed [wrong] away without answering the question and ran back to his seat [I walked back to my seat without answering the question, having decided that it was best for me not to debate with birthers]. He was visibly shaking, his pen uncontrollable, and was muttering something about being so embarrassed’…[I’m sure I shook my head because I was disappointed with myself; my pen certainly wasn’t uncontrollable, and I told Phil Cave that I was embarrassed about and ashamed of my behavior — and I remain so.]
To which I and my compatriot, sitting next to him, thoroughly agreed that this kind of intellectual dishonesty is endangering the Nation’, tsk tsk.
Perhaps he learned his lesson to NEVER go up against a Navy Commander with the experience of Charles Kerchner!!!
Col Sullivan proved only one thing: he can’t handle the truth.
[Uhm, no; I learned once again that my temper is too short, that I should ignore challenges to my integrity from those I do not respect; and that I would have either fought a lot of duels had I been a military officer in the first half of the nineteenth century or I would have died in one].
http://www.caaflog.com/2010/12/17/okay-one-more-lakin-post/#comments
Majority Will – Thanks for providing Sullivan’s account to set the record straight.
1:08-cv-02234-RJL STRUNK v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Richard J. Leon, presiding
Date filed: 12/29/2008
Date of last filing: 09/28/2010
Deadlines/Hearings
Doc.
No. Deadline/Hearing Event
Filed Due/Set Satisfied Terminated
Answer
04/17/2009 04/23/2009
1
Answer due
12/29/2008 04/23/2009
Summary Judgment Motions DDL 05/05/2010 07/29/2010
Resp to Motion for Summary Jgm 05/05/2010 08/26/2010
38
Response Deadline
08/09/2010 08/26/2010
Reply to Motion for Sum Jgm
05/05/2010 09/16/2010
38
Reply Deadline
08/09/2010 09/16/2010
Why post old information? The deadline was 3 months ago
FOIA USDC-DC 08-2234 deadline/hearing page — the judge (Leon) has the case fully briefed in his court and as you observe its been three months since the return date — and of course the judge could very well take another two years to decide the motions regarding SAD’s destroyed passport documents even with requests to the chief judge (Lamberth) of the district court and / or mandamus appeal to USCA-DCC.
— yet another tiny but still very interesting election law case regarding candidate eligibility is being assisted by Chris Strunk in Arizona — i.e. candidate eligibility documentation.
http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles/2010/06/17/news/doc4c1909a1a6081564774019.txt
It looks like the ship has sailed on that one. Alma Vildosola has been sworn in as Justice of Peace.
http://cochise.az.gov/cochise_justice_court_2.aspx?id=736
If I wanted assistance in a lawsuit, Chris Strunk is the last person I would call upon, given his track record of dismissal after dismissal.
Wow. You must be really proud of your ability to side with failure at every turn! Why do you keep bragging about how much Strunk’s positions fail and lose? I guess your goal is to always waste time pursing things where you FAIL, eh?
What a joke. When you send a link to a headline which reads:
“Judge rules incumbent meets requirements to run as Justice of the Peace candidate”
…well, it just shows your side lost…YET AGAIN.
Try reading the article. It doesn’t do you any favors. Here, let me help you with some quick higlights that sum it all up:
When are you silly fools going to learn that you have to have actual evidence to support your claims when you go to court?
As the judge reminded you, mere rumors and hearsay will never cut it.
That is why you & Strunk always FAIL.
So whats in it for you after all the fellating you do for Chris?
— Chris Strunk will be in the nation’s capitol Washington, DC again later today.
Is panhandling more lucartive there?
I got confirmation in the mail today that my appeal was received. Let us hope that the Appeals Review Panel works faster than the regular FOIA mechanism, or Barack Obama may well not be president by the time I get the information.
Well, at least you got confirmation. That is a slow step forward. Merry Christmas from the government, I guess! 😉
You mean he’ll be Fuhrer by then?
Sorry, had a birther moment there. Must be too much eggnog
status of yet another two year old FOIA case
see:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/143199.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35942239/Unanswered-FOIA-Request-for-Stanley-Ann-Obama-Dunham-Consultate-Passport-Records
FOIA Case # 2000900535 pending
filed 1/2/2009
Pam Barnett — USDOS FOIA
DOS FOIA reply ref #
SAD passport and consolar records SAD
FYI
After attending a local Republican Club Christmas party I have spent the last week working on my expected law memorandum in opposition to the NYS AG MTD and opposition due say 5 days before the 1/11/11 return to my NOM for First Amended Complaint. During the party I spoke with a district leader there who was doing work in New York state Surrogate Court where my attention is focused in the matter of the BHO ineligibility for POTUS. It is my belief now substantiated that the blood and soil attributes of inheritence that also solve the Natural-born Citizen issue now before Justice Schmidt in 29642-08 Supreme in Kings
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42235272/NOM-for-FAC-w-Summons-and-FIRST-AMENDED-COMPLAINT-Strunk-v-Paterson-Et-Al-w-Exhibits-NYS-29642-08
In my search for the difference between Native versus Natural born I duelled with vociferous obots on Obama Conspiracies “another-appeal-file” for ideas and found some:
I will be using the Albany Law School review and the fact that New York has a set of election laws that apply differently to the 2008 General Election than as done by other states. Each state ONLY has jurisdiction over the 2008 election held within and in which I was injured by a scheme to defraud by BHO, McCain and Roger Calero and as permitted by the breach of fiduciary duty by the SOS and BOE. The below discussion is not new but crucial for my argument when viewed in the context of the COLB from HI that the Bluebloods Soebarkah hangs his hat on.
My argument in part is that
no matter where BHO was born the HI COLB does not prove NBC status;
Whereas. whether Hawaii was a territory or a state it issued a COLB certifying that the named person was born alive no matter where that may have been as evidenced by the COLB.
For instance Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866 to a Hakka family in the village of Cuiheng, Xiangshan (later Zhongshan) county, Guangzhou prefecture, Guangdong province (26 km or 16 miles north of Macau), in the Empire of the Great Qing of China. At age thirteen, Sun went to live with his elder brother, Sun Mei, in Honolulu. Sun Mei, who was fifteen years Sun Yat-sen’s senior, had emigrated to the Hawaiian Islands as a laborer and had become a prosperous merchant. Though Sun Mei was not always supportive of Sun’s later revolutionary activities, he supported his brother financially, allowing Sun to give up his professional career. Sun Yat-sen studied at the Iolani School where he learned English, mathematics and science. Originally unable to speak the English language, Sun Yat-sen picked up the language so quickly that he received a prize for outstanding achievement from King David KalÄkaua. While at Iolani, he befriended Tong Phong, who later founded the First Chinese-American Bank. After attending Iolani School, from which he graduated in 1882, Sun enrolled in Oahu College (now Punahou School) for further studies for one semester. He was soon sent home to China as his brother was becoming afraid that Sun Yat-sen was about to embrace Christianity, which he did, but he returned to Hawaii at least twice, in 1900 and 1901. In March 1904, he obtained a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, issued by the Territory of Hawaii, stating he was born on November 24, 1870 in Kula, Maui.
As you are aware by now the BHO HI COLB alleges he also was alive at birth on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu Oahu just like Sun was born on November 24, 1870 in Kula, Maui. The HI law use remains the same in meaning and intent.
HI like PR has an open door policy to this day; and were both USA Territories in 1904 and as such anyone actually born there with proof provided with a long form BC would be eligible for Pres / VP but not with proof provided by a COLB.
That there is a difference between native born citizen and natural born citizen – one requires two parents who are citizens and the other requires at least one parent be a citizen.
and
BHO dual allegiance and dual citizenship at birth alone is more than sufficient to prove BHO ineligible.
in reference to USCTn Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 has come a SCOTUS citation quoted on free republic2 – message / 44519 and therein discovered a saving virtue to my relation with Andy Martin, Esq. who does not like any pro se non attorney in his way nor my argument on the Jesuits’ occult control over BHO and McCain through Zbig to implement Caritas in Veritate. Andy’s gang found a SCOTUS gem of significance, which as a surrogate court matter, right up my alley here in New York State Court too:
MCCREERY’S LESSEE V. SOMERVILLE, 22 U. S. 354 (1824) http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/354/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
McCreery’s Lessee v. Somerville, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 354 354 (1824)
McCreery’s Lessee v. Somerville
22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 354
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF MARYLAND
Syllabus
The statute of 11 and 12 William III, c. 6, which is in force in Maryland, removes the common law disability of claiming title through an alien ancestor, but does not apply to a living alien ancestor, so as to create a title by heirship, where none would exist by the common law, if the ancestor were a natural born subject or citizen. Thus, where A died seized of lands in Maryland, leaving no heirs except B., a brother, who was an alien, and had never been naturalized as a citizen of the United States, and three nieces, the daughters of the said B, who were native citizens of the United States; it was held that they could not claim title by inheritance through B, their father, he being an alien and still living.
The case agreed stated that William McCreery was seized and possessed of a tract of land in Baltimore County, in the State of Maryland, called Clover Hill and died possessed thereof about 1 March, 1814. He had previously executed an instrument of writing purporting to be his last will and testament, by which he devised the above tract of land to those under whom the defendant, Somerville, claimed; but it was witnessed by two persons only, and was therefore inoperative to pass lands in Maryland, the laws of which require three witnesses to a will for that purpose. W. McCreery left at his death no children, but a brother, Ralph McCreery, a native of Ireland, who is still living and who has not been naturalized, and three nieces, Letitia Barwell, Jane McCreery, and Isabella McCreery, the latter being the lessor of the plaintiff, who are the daughters of the said Ralph, and native born citizens of the United States. The devisees under the will applied by petition to the Legislature of Maryland to confirm the will, and the legislature, accordingly, without the knowledge or consent of the lessor of the plaintiff, passed an act for that purpose; saving, nevertheless, the rights of all persons claiming title to the lands devised, by conveyance from any of the heirs of W. McCreery. The action was brought to recover an undivided third part of Clover Hill.
Upon this case, judgment was rendered by the court below for the defendant, and the cause was brought by writ of error to this Court.
MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court.
The title of the lessor of the plaintiff to recover in this case depends upon the question whether she can claim as one of the coheirs of her deceased uncle, her father being an alien and alive at the commencement of the present suit. It is perfectly clear that at common law her title is invalid, for no person can claim lands by descent through an alien, since he has no inheritable blood. But the statute of 11 and 12 Wm. III, ch. 6, is admitted to be in force in Maryland, and that statute, beyond all controversy, removes the disability of claiming title by descent, through an alien ancestor. The only point, therefore, is whether the statute applies to the case of a living alien ancestor, so as to create a title by heirship where none would exist by the common law, if the ancestor were a natural born subject.
We have not been able to find any case in England in which this question has been presented for judicial decision. In the case of Palmer v. Downer, 2 Mass. 179, in the State of Massachusetts, the facts brought it directly before the court, but it does not appear to have attracted any particular attention, either from the bar or the bench. It may then be considered as a question of new impression, and is to be settled by ascertaining the true construction of the statute of William.
That act is entitled
“An act to enable his Majesty’s natural been subjects to inherit the estate of their ancestors, either lineal or collateral, notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens.”
The title is not unimportant, and manifests an intention merely to remove the disability of alienage. It proceeds to enact
“That all and every person or persons, being the King’s natural born subject or subjects within any of the King’s realms or dominions, should and might, thereafter, inherit and be inheritable, as heir or heirs, to any honors, &c., lands, &c., and make their pedigrees and titles, by descent, from any of their ancestors, lineal or collateral, although the father and mother, or father or mother, or other ancestor, of such person or persons by, from, through, or under whom he, she, or they should or might make or derive their title or pedigree were or was or should be born out of the King’s allegiance and out of his Majesty’s realms and dominions as freely, fully, and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if such father and mother, or father or mother, or other ancestor or ancestors, by, from, through, or under whom he, she, or they should or might make or derive their title or pedigree, had been naturalized, or natural born subjects.”
In construing this enactment, it ought not to escape observation that the language is precisely such as Parliament might have used if the intention were confined to the mere removal of the disability of alienage. It declares that persons might lawfully inherit and be inheritable as heirs, and make their titles and pedigrees, by descent, from any of their ancestors, although their parents were born out of the realm; plainly supposing that they might take as heirs by descent, but for the circumstance of the alienage of the intermediate ancestors, through whom they must claim. It speaks of such intermediate ancestors, as persons who were or should be born out of the realm, and it enables the party to take, as heir, as effectually as if such ancestors had been natural born subjects. Now this language imports no more than a removal of the defect, for want of inheritable blood. It does not, in terms, create a right of heirship, where the common law, independently of alienage, prohibits it; it puts the party in the same situation, and none other, that he would be in, if his parents were not aliens. If his parents were natural born subjects, and capable to take as heirs of the deceased ancestor, it is clear that he could not inherit by descent through them, as they would intercept the title, as nearer heirs. The only cases in which he could inherit, living his parents, are those where the common law has prohibited the parents from taking, although they have inheritable blood. Such are the cases of a descent from brother to brother, and from a nephew to an uncle, where the common law has disabled the parents of the deceased brother or nephew from taking the estate by descent, upon the ground that inheritances cannot lineally ascend. 2 Bl.Comm. 208, 212, and Christian’s Note.
If the legislature had intended, not only to create inheritable blood, but also to create absolute heirship, some explanatory language would have been used. The statute would have declared, not only that the party should make title by descent; in the same manner as if his parents were natural born subjects, but that he should be deemed the heir, whether his parents were living or dead. No such explanation is given or hinted at, and if we are to insert it, it is by expounding the language beyond its obvious meaning and limitations. We do not feel at liberty to adopt this mode of interpretation in a case where no legislative intention can be fairly inferred beyond the ordinary import of the words.
This construction is not impugned by the explanatory act, afterwards passed in 25 Geo. II, ch. 39. It seems that inconveniences were apprehended, in case persons should be held by the statute of William, to gain a future capacity to inherit, who did not exist at the death of the persons last seized. The statute of Geo. II therefore, after reciting the act of William, declares, that it shall not be construed to give any right or title to any persons to inherit as heirs, &c., by enabling any such persons to claim, or derive their pedigree, through any alien ancestor, unless the persons so claiming
“were, or shall be, in being, and capable to take the same estate as heir or heirs, &c., by virtue of the said statute, at the death of the person who shall last die seized,” and to whom they shall claim to be heir or heirs.
Then follows a proviso,
“That in case the person or persons who shall be in being, and capable to take, at the death of the ancestor, so dying seized, &c., and upon whom the descent shall be cast, by virtue of this act, or of the said recited act, shall happen to be a daughter or daughters of an alien, and that the alien father or mother, through whom such descent shall be derived by such daughter or daughters, shall afterwards have a son born within any of his Majesty’s realms or dominions, the descent, so cast upon such daughter or daughters, shall be divested in favor of such son, and such son shall inherit and take the estate, in like manner as is allowed by the common law of this realm, in cases of the birth of a nearer heir.”
Then follows a provision for the case of the subsequent birth of a daughter, who is enabled to take as a coheir with the other
daughters. It has been argued that this proviso includes the cases of all children born after the descent cast in the lifetime of their alien parents, and therefore supposes the descent may be cast, notwithstanding their parents are living. Admitting this to be the true construction of the proviso, and that it is not restrained to posthumous children, the case of the plaintiff is not aided by it, for the clause, that the son shall take, in like manner as is allowed by the common law, in cases of the birth of a nearer heir, shows that Parliament had in view cases where the children might, at common law, take as heirs, although their parents were living; and yet the common law divested the title, so cast by descent, upon the birth of a nearer heir. For instance, if lands are given to a son, who dies, leaving a sister his heir, if the parents have, at any distance of time afterwards, another son, the common law divests the descent upon the sister in favor of such son, and he is entitled to take the estate as heir to his brother. 2 Bl.Comm. 208, Christian’s Note, 5 Co.Litt. 11, Doct. & Stud. 11 Dialog. c. 7.
We think, then, that this proviso does not shake the construction, already given by us, to the statute of William. For here the case of after-born children is expressly provided for, which would otherwise be excluded by the declaratory clause of the statute, and if it was contemplated that the act of William created a new title, by heirship, independently of alienage in the parents, beyond the rules of the common law, the natural presumption is that the declaratory clause would, in some manner, have expressed that intention. So far from affirming a new title, by heirship, it asserts that the true construction of that statute excludes all persons who were not in being at the time of the descent cast, and then “capable to take the estate as heir or heirs, &c., by virtue of the said statute of William,” and we have already seen, that the terms of that statute give no other capacity than would exist if the parents were natural born subjects. The exception, then, of after-born children, out of the declaratory clause of the act of George II, carries no implication that the legislature was dealing with any other cases except those where, if the alien parents were living at the time of the descent cast, the children were capable of taking, as heirs at common law, in their own right, independently of the alienage. Mr. Justice Blackstone, in his learned Commentaries, 2 Bl.Comm. 251, gives no explanation of these statutes, which extends them beyond such cases, and his omission to notice the larger construction, now contended for by the plaintiff, would be somewhat remarkable if that had been deemed the true interpretation of the statutes.
In the absence of all authority, we do not feel ourselves at liberty to derogate from the general doctrine of the common law as to descents, by incorporating into the statute of William a case which is not within its terms, and is not called for by any clear legislative policy.
Judgment affirmed with costs.
Your humble servant takes note nearly two hundred years later: That in light of the above discovery, the ad hoc use of the so-called “anchor-bay” ruse, other than when one parent is a US Citizen makes that anchor-baby a native born citizen only not a Natural born citizen, is a ruse when applied to a child born here to two alien parents and needs to be heard in federal court. Any further argument in light of the Vienna Convention treaties as the law of the land since 1961 must be used and applied to the full and complete jurisdiction clause definition of the 14th amendment.
Whereas, only the federal government by way of a Customs Officer certification to legalize entry of a documented Tourist or undocumented tourist at will, gives the Feds full and complete jurisdiction under the provisions of the Vienna Convention treaties of 1961, 1964 and 1969 only. There remains an absolute requirement to notify the tourist’s native nation of the status of such Federal jurisdiction when the tourist is apprehended for the return of the tourist. When any respective State arrests a tourist at will the state must notify the Feds and the native’s nation before trial, and after due process for the tourist and time served must the State must release and return such tourist whether documented or at will to the custody of the Feds for processing back to the native’s nation.
There is nothing in the 14th amendment that supports a native-born ad hoc creation of a “Anchor-baby” status when boths parents are tourists at will or documented, and as further defined in 8 USC 1401 and related law, an anchor baby without at least one US citizen parent as such is not supported by law.
— update on Pam Barnett’s SAD passport FOIA — Pam did get a similar (same?) reponse as this blog’s moderator (i.e. Strunk FOIA response) Pam will post her FOIA response regarding SAD passport etc from DOS FOIA next week. Pam has not filed her administrative FOIA appeal yet.
Let’s hope these cases are just as successful as your last one ROFLMAO.
How could you have been injured when you weren’t legally registered to vote? Using a mail drop as your “suffrage address” is illegal, you know.
The only thing your note makes clear is that you have entirely too much time on your hands.
Only in Chris Strunk’s strange little world could Macreery’s Lessee v Somerville be regarded as a discovery!
When did this definition change? The founding generation used these terms interchangeably.
James Kent, “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States” (Commentaries on American Law, 1826).
James Kent was appointed by John Jay to the New York Chancery.
St. George Tucker, “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” (View of the Constitution, 1803).
St. George Tucker was a Revolutionary War hero, wounded at the battle of Yorktown. He was appointed by President Madison to United States District Court judge.
Williams Rawle, “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” (View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 1829).
Rawle was appointed by President Washington to be the United States District Attorney for Pennsylvania.
James Iredell, “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” (North Carolina debates on the Constitution, July 30, 1788).
James Iredell was appointed to the United States Supreme Court by President Washington.
Even Mario doesn’t agree with you.
“Under natural law and the law of nations, the words “native” and “natural-born citizen” mean the same thing.”
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=4707078045561681569
Only if you are schizophrenic.
Still flogging a dead horse I see, Strunk. Sorry, but your Sun Yet Sen stuff is completely irrelevant to Obama’s 1961 birth in the US State of HI.
Furthermore, you continue to totally fail to understand that if someone was born outside of the state of HI, any HI birth certificate they obtained would list their actual place of birth and NOT list it as HI.
Let’s try this with some examples, since you seem to be so slow on the uptake on this:
Someone born in the state of CA who went to HI and got a birth certificate in HI would have CA listed as the place of their birth, not HI.
If someone was born in a foreign country, such as France or Kenya or Russia and then moved to HI and registered their birth certificate… guess what it would list as place of birth…
HINT – it would list that foreign country. It would NOT list a place in HI as the place of birth.
Finally, the COLB or “short form” for Barack Obama answers this question completely – it lists his place of birth as HONOLULU, HI. Translation for you: that means he was born in Honolulu, HI. NOT anywhere else. The “short form” takes all of its fields of data from the “long form” that folks like you whine about. As place of birth is clearly listed on the COLB, it is the EXACT SAME data for those fields of info as would be on the “long form”.
Hence, you’re entire premise on that aspect is full of holes, as you have no real way around the fact that his HI COLB clearly states the place of birth – HONOLULU, HI.
All the rest of your nonsense of trying to parse between native born and natural born is just that…nonsense without support of law.
fyi Chris Strunk was back in Washington DC today.
see also
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/25/us/25hawaii.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama-birthers-20101224,0,3744847.story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Abercrombie
public notice:
Neil Abercrombie’s press release throwing down a verbal nbc related constitutional POTUS/CINC eligibility gauntlet in Honolulu — just a few days after the annual December 7th Pearl Harbor Day service in remembrance of the WWII attack by the Empire of Japan. — it now looks like Judge Schmidt (NYSSC Kings Cty), the NYS OAG (Joel Graber) and natural born citizen Christopher Earl Strunk will have lots to discuss at the January 11th 2011 hearing in Brooklyn, NY regarding certifying the 2008 presidential ballot in NYS.
You need a hobby. Thank heaven I don’t have to work with you.
— there just are so many nbc / HI based ultimate challenge related news and views reports on a slow news night in December two years after to the 2008 POTUS/CINC election, but this one seems to better capture Abercrombie’s cognitive moment and of course the conspiracy on both sides of the issue and fact
http://www.newser.com/story/108241/hawaiian-governors-big-goal-torpedoing-birther-conspiracy.html
You mean facts, like the one’s you consistently choose to ignore? Like the fact that only Congress can validate and verify the eligibility of an elected POTUS? LIke the fact that your birther conspiracy is no different, and no more valid than the flat earthers, the chem trailers, the holocaust deniers, and the moon hoax believers.
Yours is just the nutbag conspiracy theory du jour. IIn a couple of years, or less, you and your birther whacko buddies will be on some other ridiculous conspiracy train.
LOL! …You are 2 years too late on that one. That ship has long sailed.
Can I assume that you understand that in NY state “Supreme Courts” are not supreme?
The nomination process, including the primary elections and the nominating conventions, were never specified in the Constitution, and were instead developed by the states and the political parties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election
Abercrombie could consider sending the HI SOS to appear in Kings Cty NYSSC, Brooklyn NY on January 11, 2011 to help resolve much of this eligibility issue.
NYS ratification of the US Constitution regarding natural born citizen signed in Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County NY
see:
http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ny.html
New York’s Ratification
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York, July 26, 1788. New York was the eleventh state to do so. The assent of Virginia and of New York was seen as essential to the success of the Constitution, and though they were tenth and eleventh to ratify, it is generally agreed that until they both ratified, succes was in doubt. New York’s ratification message is the longest by far, and includes a declaration of rights and many suggested changes to the Constitution. The following text is taken from the Library of Congress’s copy of Elliot’s Debates.
——————————————————————————–
We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the 17th day of September, in the year 1787, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, — Do declare and make known, —
…
That no persons, except natural-born citizens, or such as were citizens on or before the 4th day of July, 1776, or such as held commissions under the United States during the war, and have at any time since the 4th day of July, 1776, become citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be freeholders, shall be eligible to the places of President, Vice-President, or members of either house of the Congress of the United States.
…
You do realize that NBC is not a requirement to be a member of Congress, don’t you?
The only office still in play after 200 years of amendments from the original NYS ratification is POTUS / Electoral College indirect election via the various individual states — in this case slates of POTUS Electoral College delegates from NYS.
Oh, they have just got the memo that Vattel requires only one blood relative. Now they are going to go past him and claim that the Founders made it more restrictive perhaps because they, unlike the Prussian, did not consider women to be property at law. Whatever gets Obama out of the right category.
I would tend to agree that there is some difference between these 2 terms & would offer the following distinction. To the extent that natural-born citizens can refer to people born outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. the terms are different. When referring to someone born within U.S. jurisdiction the terms are equivalent. If no one can be born out of U.S. jurisdiction & be a natural-born citizen, then the terms are equivalent. IOW natural-born must be a superset of native-born for the terms to be different. The cases that are quoted wherein the terms are used interchangeably refer to persons who are, at least, native-born.
On this subject are there any words in the English language which are entirely synonymous with no difference in either their denotation or connotation? If so, why? If not, this would tend to imply a difference, at least in connotation, of the 2 terms.
Which, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with verifying POTUS eligibility.
I use to think that the framers used the term “natural born” with the most expansive meaning. That they incorporated both English Common Law and English Statutory Law to define “natural born” Now I’m not so sure.
First, there is Hamilton’s draft constitution, which he presented to James Madison near the end of the Constitutional Convention. It doesn’t include the natural born terminology, but says the President had to be born a citizen. This implies that Hamilton’s understanding of the Presidential eligibility clause of the Constitution, contained the more restrictive definition. Otherwise, why change it in his draft?
Second, there is Madison’s speech saying that place of birth is the determining factor in allegiance. This suggests that if he was concerned about foreigners becoming President, then he might have wanted to limit the office to citizens born in the country. And in that case, the definition of natural born would be only jus soli.
Yes, I think I agree with that definition, although there is the McCain problem. I think a more reasonable definition is the distinction between natural-born & naturalized. Natural-born are granted their citizenship by the Constitution & naturalized are granted theirs via a Congressional act. A further distinction is that Congressional action cannot remove natural-born citizenship whereas it can with naturalized. In this sense, since an act of Congress was necessary for McCain to obtain citizenship he is not NBC. Whether anyone else agrees with this definition, we shall see…
FWIW, I agree with this analysis.
However, I also feel that McCain should be eligible. I do not think that he should be ‘punished’ because of the status of his parents serving the country at an overseas post.
U.S. Embassies are considered U.S. Soil for all purposes. U.S. Military posts should not be considered U.S. Soil in general, it would have too many political consequences. However, for the purposes of natural born citizenship on the children born there of U.S. Military personnel (and perhaps officially posted civilian citizens), it should so.
Philosophically speaking, I wouldn’t have a problem accepting someone with McCain’s history being elected President. But for that matter, I wouldn’t have a problem with a naturalized citizen being President. The concerns the founders had, don’t strike me as nearly so important today.
regarding McCain from FAC Strunk v Paterson motion to be argued before NYSSC Judge Schmidt Jan 11, 2011.
Strunk v. Paterson et al. NYS Supreme Court County of Kings 29642-08
First Amended Complaint Page 10 of 22
26. That on Defendant John Sidney McCain III individually with place of
business located at Washington Office: 241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510was born in Colon Hospital, Colon Panama according to the
Panama Canal Health Department not in the Panama Canal Zone (see Exhibit D);
and that according to the Hay-Banau-Varilla Treaty of November 18, 1903 that has
26 articles (see Exhibit E) in which the two pertinent to the status of the city of
Colon under that Treaty refer to the Convention for the Construction of a Ship
Canal says that the Colon Panama, the birth city cited on McCain’s 1936 long form
birth certificate where he was witnessed being born, and where his parents resided,
Colon, Republic de Panama, is not part of the Canal Zone, quote:
ARTICLE I The United States guarantees and will maintain the
independence of the Republic of Panama.
ARTICLE II The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in
perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under
water for the construction maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection
of said Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the distance of five miles
on each side of the center line of the route of the Canal to be constructed; the
said zone beginning in the Caribbean Sea three marine miles from mean low
water mark and extending to and across the Isthmus of Panama into the
Pacific ocean to a distance of three marine miles from mean low water mark
WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE CITIES OF PANAMA AND COLON and
the harbors adjacent to said cities, WHICH ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE ZONE ABOVE DESCRIBED, SHALL NOT BE
INCLUDED WITHIN THIS GRANT…” (Emphasis by Plaintiff)
and therefore, Defendant McCain is not a natural-born Citizen and not eligible for
the Presidency with the U.S. Constitution Article II Section one Clause 5 as
mandated by the Defendant NYS BOE.
The exhibit is a fake.
For more details, see:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/john-mccains-fake-birth-certificate/
and also regarding ROGER CALERO from FAC Strunk v Paterson motion to be argued before NYSSC Judge Schmidt Jan 11, 2011.
Strunk v. Paterson et al. NYS Supreme Court County of Kings 29642-08
First Amended Complaint Page 13 of 22
42. That Defendant ROGER CALERO was born in Nicaragua in 1969. He and his family
fled via Los Angeles, California in 1985. Calero is now a permanent resident alien (holding a green card) since 1990. While in Los Angeles, Calero joined a socialist movement and helped mobilize support against Proposition 187 in the early 90s, and is presumed to have filed a certification for ballot access through the respective Defendant Socialist Worker’s Party Committee as shown on Exhibit A, but is not a natural-born U.S. Citizen with the U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 Clause 5 as mandated by the Defendant NYS BOE.
43. That on November 30, 2007, Defendant SOEBARKAH affirmed an affidavit for the
Arizona Secretary of State to gain ballot access in the Arizona 2008 Presidential Preference Election Ballot, and likewise on October 9th 2007, Defendant McCain affirmed an affidavit for the Arizona Secretary of State to gain ballot access in the Arizona 2008 Presidential Preference Election Ballot and that both affirmations were duly filed with the AZ Secretary of State who provided a certified copy of each respective filed affidavit (see Exhibit I); with each individually affirming that “
““I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that all the information in this Nomination Paper
is true, that as to these and all other qualifications, I am qualified to hold the office
that I seek, having fulfilled the United States constitutional requirements for
holding said office. I further swear (or affirm) that I have fulfilled Arizona’s
statutory requirement for placing my name on the Presidential Preference Election
ballot.”
44. That according to the Help America to Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) section 213 (a) (1)
(A) the Arizona Secretary of State (located at the Office of the Secretary of State of Arizona Strunk v. Paterson et al. NYS Supreme Court County of Kings 29642-08
First Amended Complaint Page 14 of 22 1700 West Washington Street, 7th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007-2888), and the New York Secretary of State Defendant LORRAINE A. CORTEZ-VAZQUEZ (located at the Department of State One Commerce Plaza 99 Washington Ave, Albany, NY 12231-0001) are both Federal officers who each serve as an unpaid employee of the United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC), a Federal employee and respective state employee.
Exhibit D has two attachments one an ALLEGED Long form BC 77914-103 and the other a COLB with Birth registration No. 170027. The key to the obvious lack of integrity is the comparison of the two and as a so-called “vital records” person Dr. Conspiracy your disengenous bias as a OBOTnik should have asked ‘ was there a “index” confirmation done’ on the registration? Time will tell won’t it.
Like the SOS of AZ required and reported on the Certs at Exhibit I so will the Republic of Panama provide the certification of the Index.
You folks here are transparent and full of baloney – getting those government paychecks on time.
The only question of note is whether or not BHO has dual citizenship at birth, and in which case according to the SCOTUS in the above cited case of 1824 he is; and if so he is not ELIGIBLE for POTUS fools!
No matter where Soebarkah’s DNA came from, his father BHO Sr. in marriage with SAD at the time of the BHO jr. birth where ever that may be, I do not care, renders BHO jr. with dual allegiance and multiple citizenship.
I am not a birther I am all about dual citizenship and so far there is not a blabber mouth among you who can refute the facts presented. You all measured by the repetitive crap spit out here are entirely without integrity – again with exceptions noted.
When the blade falls the recipient faces up not down.
Chris Strunk:
You folks here are transparent and full of baloney – getting those government paychecks on time.
What do you mean by this comment, exactly?
The only question of note is whether or not JSM was born in Colon Panama- my friend. Everything else is wishing for rainbows and blue skies.
The reason the constitution was in writing was so that the principles would not be lost by the thrust of egos over time. If the NBC issue was important then it absolutely is important now- especially since we are sooooo intangled in foreign intrigue.
Hamilton’s own situation to note as he was slandered as a Anglophile on top of the fact that he was married to a Rothschild and was working with the Jesuits’ Bank of England through Hamilton’s Bank of New York that was not chartered until he became the Sec of Treas – buit not before then becuase New York would not have it from 1783 until then.
So Gorefan what about Continental Coal’s Gore do you finfd endearing in the matter of truth and transparency? Do you feel alll warm and cuddily with the arabic zero that sits there now?
Excpe t for the givernment paid agents of corproate selectiveness how are any of you able to sleep at night knowing of what this character is doing?
It is bad enough that about 600 criminals run everything in Washington and the military industrial / media complex squashes alll descent – so the collective has assimulated most of you I understand that – But are there no questions remaining to be asked out there other than I am the problem?
The government along with the country club set controlling the Republican and Democratic parties along with the military / medi complex have a bunch invested in dismantling this country and the nature of the national military that use to be the nature of the state military. See US DOS Publication 7277 of Sept 1961 – http://www.getusout.org/resources/dos_7277_print.htm
The media is gov and media are owned by the international crowd that own the pedigree of Soebarkah who if you rememebr campaigned on making the Afghan situation alll that it could be for the SMOM’s Zbig dope crowd and needed a big tent dope head to do it.
Do any of you out there have any doubts at this point in the role of the Vatican in running our government and the UN?
This is quite the inane statement. Almost all organization, from corporations to governments, needs to set up a structure for the governance of the organizations. To ensure there are no misunderstandings and everybody is clear what the structure or rules are we put them in writing. We call them constitutions, by-laws, covenants, etc. The early United States did the same when there first structure, found in the Articles of Confederation, was found wanting. It is obvious, they expected the Constitution may need to be altered or rewritten over time to respond to changes in the community over time. And how do we know it was obvious to them, because they created a manner to amend it.
If they felt all of their opinions were for all time and “golden,” why bother having it amended? As a testament to their work, we have only amended a limited number of times, which I do appreciate.
wikipedia called. it seems their dictionary definition of projection ran barking off somewhere.
sorry pal, but until you can bribe or blackmail a judge into ruling in your favor, you’re just another blabbering birfer barking repetitive crap for a hobby …
The truth has nothing to do with judges you have it alll wrong- haven’t you figuted that out by now? If it were not for the internet we wouldn’t ever be talking and now the wizards want to tax it and shut down speech. We will se, but unbtil then the truth stands on its own. BHO has dual allegiance at birth – FACT! The Federal courts are clerks for processing winners and losers in the economy thats all. The State Courts ar alittle different and time will tell in that regard. The Justice in New York actually run for re-election they have feet of clay.
In my experience the older the Federal judge and the closer to death that judge gets the closer to justice that judge will dispense with decisions that coordinate with the truth.
I believe that no Federal judge should be appointed who is younger than 65 years.
No, you’re a hardcore birther, quite possibly criminally insane and not very bright.
Your deranged quest is a fool’s errand and can only end badly for you.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! !
Holy crap, you’re an idiot.
Novus ordo seclorum ! ! Oooh, scary.
This has to be the stupidest delusion you’ve ever. So how is it your experience of losing has made you come up with this theory?
You too are just a clerk collecting on the misery of others Bob.
If misery refers to your inability to win much of any relevant cases then you should not confuse your misery with the misery of others who may very well enjoy your track record? Look Mr Strunk, I personally am fascinated by your submissions to the Court and the progress they fail to make. However, your submissions have helped at least to get the Dunham and Soetoro records released, although you may believe that some parts have been hidden.
So far, there is nothing really in these records that would qualify as a ‘smoking gun’ but we need people who keep the Government honest. Of course, once the Government has provided the relevant data, and the data fails to support our beliefs, we should not necessarily insist that the Government has somehow hidden data, when the alternative of us having been wrong in our beliefs is another valid conclusion based on the data?
That’s what I believe is so fascinating about your cases…
Yes. However, he also is a natural born US citizen. FACT!
The confusion about the meaning of allegiance, and jurisdiction is fascinating but when studied in its proper context, it is simple: By virtue of his birth on US soil, Obama was born under full jurisdiction and owing allegiance to this nation and thus a natural born citizen. Only if he had been born to invading military, or ambassador parents, would he have been not under full jurisdiction and allegiance.
The fact that under international law, President Obama also had a secondary citizenship is of no relevance here.
FACT
No, Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) is right and you seem to get more stupid with every idiotic, deranged post. It’s like a train wreck that won’t stop.
My comment still stands. I find it hilarious you accuse me of collecting on the misery of others. I’m not the one who has a website which begs people for donations. I’m not the one complaining about a massive government conspiracy while collecting money from Social Security and relying on the government like you are. I don’t beg people on the internet for money so I can be an unproductive member of society and file random briefs in court when I know the court cannot give the remedy that is being sought after. I have something to ask you Chris, can I have some of my money back that’s going towards you sitting around all day?
There is no evidence whatever that McCain was born in Colon. [Clumsy fake birth certificates cut and pasted on the kitchen table don’t count.]
That particular delusion is outside the scope of this blog. The Vatican is off topic unless you assert that Barack Obama was born there.
For the record, while I am retired, I do not draw Social Security or receive any other government entitlement, nor a government paycheck.