STRUNK CHRISTOPHER-EARL vs. NYS BOARD OF ELECTIONS (006500/2011) Updated


016 04/12/2012 PLAINT Other Reliefs No Decided: 18-JUN-12
MOTION DEEMED MOOT
Before Justice: SCHACK
Short Form Order
06/18/2012

At least the state failed in its bid to impose sanctions.

In opposing respondent’s motion to dismiss, petitioner maintains that he brings this proceeding “to protect[] his personal intangible vote property in this 2012 election cycle” ‘(Petitioner’s Response in Opposition, ~ 23). However, the allegedly faulty instruction given by the SBOE regarding the Natural Born Citizen Clause in no way denies petitioner his right to vote in the 2012 general election. Petitioner, who is not an enrolled member of the Democratic party, remains free to support and vote for a candidate of his choosing (see Berg v Obama, 586 F3d 234,239-240 [3d Cir 2009]; Hollander v McCain, 566 F Supp2d 63,69-70 [D NH 2008]; see also Crist v Comm ‘n on Presidential Debates, 262 F3d 193, 195 [2d Cir 2001]). And it is clear that petitioner’s interest in compelling the SBOE to adopt his interpretation of the Natural Born Citizen Clause and to use his preferred terminology in its publications is in no “way different from that of the public at large” (Society of Plastics, 77 NY2d at 773-774). As such, petitioner’s interest is far too generalized and unparticularized to support standing under the facts and circumstances of this case (see Berg at 240 [collecting authorities]).

In view of petitioner’s lack of standing to maintain the instant proceeding, there is no reason to consider respondent’s additional contentions that this proceeding is barred by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel based upon prior litigation undertaken by Christopher-Earl Strunk, an alleged privy of petitioner, and that the petition is non-justiciable insofar as the Electoral College is the sole and exclusive forum in which objections to the selection of a President may be determined.

Finally, the branch of respondent’s motion seeking the imposition of monetary and nonmonetary sanctions is denied. While respondent’s counsel refers to “repetitive” and “numerous vexatious and harassing lawsuits” commenced by petitioner, nothing in the record confirms this assertion. And the mere fact that a trial court of coordinate jurisdiction rejected similar claims advanced by an alleged privy of petitioner does not render the instant petition frivolous within the meaning of Part 130 of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge.

OBC: Van Allen vs. NYS Board Of Elections dismissed

Thanks for any help!

Plaintiff's right to vote is not affected by the board's language, and that plaintiff lacks standing to force a change.

Van Allen is all pissy that the New York Elections Board uses the phrase "born a citizen" and then Van Allen botches the Constitutional phrase by writing "natural-born Citizen."

De minimus. What is at stake here is nothing less than a citizen's fundamental right to correct disagreeable verbiage in a government pamphlet or web page.

Face it Stern, there's a world of different between being born a citizen (totally incorrect) and being a natural born citizen. Forget about that hypercharged hyphen; this is a serious Constitutional issue. The courts must intervene. Heads must roll.

De minimus.

He knows his Apuzzo, and he know's this is a fundamental weakness in the putz's "every punctuation mark and capitalization tells a story" theory.

Inigo Montoya: You are using de Vattel's Defense against me, ah?
Man in Black: I thought it fitting considering the volcanic terrain.
Inigo: Naturally, you must suspect me to attack with Lujan-Defenders of Wildlife?
Man in Black: Naturally, but I find that Keyes cancels out Lujan. Don’t you?
Inigo: Unless the enemy has studied his Apuzzo… which I have.

ORDER on Strunk v New York State Board of Elections 10/26/2012
App Div, 2d Dept 2012 NYSlipOp 89129(U) Motion

STRUNK v NYSBOE (APPEAL of Dismissal and Sanctions Order)

DRAFT 12- PENDING -OP

________________________________________________

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________________________________________________________________
In re Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in essea private U.S. Citizen beneficiary
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
____________________________________________________________________
Christopher-Earl: Strunk© in esse private U.S. Citizen secured beneficiary withinjury in re the criminal usurpation of the office of POTUS by Barack Obama’s ineligibility under U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and related law in etitioner’s Original Proceeding for writ of mandamus FRAP Rule 21 Order of:P
A. Congress to show cause why it should not hold the $43 Trillion Dollar theft byBarack Obama et al. since 2003 null and void under the 14th Amendment Section 4;

B. Congress to show cause why under the 12th, 20th, 25th amendments and U.S.Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 (A2S1C5) Barack Hussein Obama II should be eligible to take the oath of office of POTUS January 20, 2013;

There's a dismissal notice (at least I think that's what it is) buried among the blank exhibits. It's Exhibit 5 on page 86, cunningly arranged between exhibits H and I. Exhibits I to Z inclusive are just blank pages.

That the Court at this point must admit that Declarant has a unique view and experience in regards to the role of the Jesuits in the present chain of events ongoing in the world today [...]