Strunk in Esse©

Paul Pieniezny · **Posted:** Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:53 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Videotapes of Strunk reveal what appears to be a calm, cordial, sane person. Put him anywhere near a court, or give him legal papers to look at or touch, and he turns into a gibbering idiot. Bizarre.

He is not the only birther with those symptons. I suggest paranoid schizophrenia.

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:34 pm

Speaking of gibbering, he knows jack s*** about the law of copyright. Although I'll admit that he is "creative" about the arguments he presented to the court. Doesn't make them copyrightable but it does make for highly entertaining reading.

Piffle · **Posted:** Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:11 pm

Strunk is creative in about the same way that a buck rabbit is creative.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

Quote:

Chris Strunk left a comment

Can you find it in the "records of the public court" YET? You Jesuit trained co-adjutors are a real HOOT! Having spoken wiyth several of the Defendants Attorneys who are "upset" with the WORD-SALAD assembled by the transcribed phonetic funnel of the court reporter who admits there requires a challenge review period until it is "officialy" in the court record.

The wording of that court entry states generally

Quote:

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 10/21/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/31/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/29/2011. (Paddock, Denise) (Entered: 09/30/2011

That does not mean you get to correct your "word salad." If you and/or those defense attorneys wish to challenge the accuracy of the transcript for substantive errors, there is a method for doing so. [I've not read it... have no opinion as to its word salad-ness or any inaccuracies.]

Yes, Chris, there is a review period for transcripts for material to be "redacted."

I am absolutely amazed at how court reporters are continually blamed by birthers and attorneys for the "word salad" the birther and attorneys spew in court. So many incompetents out there.

Most people (certainly lay people and sometimes even trained advocates), when reading a deposition or court transcript, are quite surprised with what they actually said. I'm sure Strunk thinks of himself as a great legal orator. It's difficult to be humbled when reality strikes.

Strunk posted that transcript as a

Quote:

Stenographic Transcript record of the 8-22-11 Hearing of NYSSC Kings Index 6500-2011

That makes it a public record of the proceedings of that hearing. The fact he paid for it or that the official release after the prescribed period of redaction is pending does not make it copyright protected.

verbalobe · **Posted:** Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:13 pm

realist wrote:

That does not mean you get to correct your "word salad." If you and/or those defense attorneys wish to challenge the accuracy of the transcript for substantive errors, there is a method for doing so. [I've not read it... have no opinion as to its word salad-ness or any inaccuracies.

I read it. Most of it.

There are quite a few highly questionable sections, where it appears whole words are missing and possibly entire clauses; sentences appear without a verb, subject, or object; sentence fragments pile on complete non-sequiturs; answers have nothing to do with the question; whole paragraphs go by without a scintilla of sense; etc. This court reporter or her equipment is clearly faulty.

Oh... one other thing. These phenomena seem to be confined to sections of the transcript preceded by the notation "STRUNK:" The sections marked with the notation "COURT:" appear to have made it through unscathed.

Is "STRUNK" some arcane court-reportese for "illegible" or "my tape machine busted," as in "Your Honor, can we have a brief recess, my steno box is STRUNK and I need to fetch my spare from the supply closet," or "Oh dear, the microphone was STRUNK the whole time and I didn't know it, I'm never getting hired back here again."

Just let me know, I'll add it to the birther lexicon. :twisted:

June bug · **Posted:** Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:31 pm

verbie!

The only thing better would be a cartoon version!!

ZekeB · **Posted:** Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:30 am

Piffle wrote:

Strunk is creative in about the same way that a buck rabbit is creative.

I haven't seen a buck rabbit since I was about age 10. I need to have another look.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

Quote:

There are quite a few highly questionable sections, where it appears whole words are missing and possibly entire clauses; sentences appear without a verb, subject, or object; sentence fragments pile on complete non-sequiturs; answers have nothing to do with the question; whole paragraphs go by without a scintilla of sense; etc. This court reporter or her equipment is clearly faulty.

Oh... one other thing. These phenomena seem to be confined to sections of the transcript preceded by the notation "STRUNK:" The sections marked with the notation "COURT:" appear to have made it through unscathed.

I think that should say it all.

Quote:

Is "STRUNK" some arcane court-reportese for "illegible" or "my tape machine busted," as in "Your Honor, can we have a brief recess, my steno box is STRUNK and I need to fetch my spare from the supply closet," or "Oh dear, the microphone was STRUNK the whole time and I didn't know it, I'm never getting hired back here again."

Just let me know, I'll add it to the birther lexicon. :twisted:

bob · **Posted:** Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:59 am

Strunk at Donofrio's:

Chris Strunk wrote:

OSC not signed — Strunk v NYS-BOE regarding emergency injunction to correct NYS-BOE website natural born citizen v “born citizen” nbc US constitutional eligibility of candidates running for the office of POTUS 2012

The order to show cause submitted by Mr. Strunk which Justice Schack declined to sign after extended argument this afternoon. Justice Schack’s handwritten statement is on page 4. It reads:

Quote:

10/25/11 The Court declines to sign this OSC. This issue is not ripe until candidates file nominating petitions for public office for President of U.S. in several months. Further, the Court will [not] stop fund-raising by any candidate because candidates have a right to raise money pursuant to statute and the First Amendment. The issue of candidate qualification is subject to Court action after nominating petitions are submitted and candidates are challenged in Court.

the application on Tuesday at Part 27 is where the Justice turne purple and refused to read the application, outrageously barred a stenographic transcript despite the presence of a court reporter, but instead granted the State’s oral application for a third extension of time to answer the underlying complaint despite Plaintiff’s objection; and then the Court denied Plaintiff’s oral application to file a first amended complaint to the extent that the State still has not answered six months after effect of service and even denied an opportunity to appeal until the law clerk instructed the court otherwise.

If this were anymore ripe it would be a new life form!

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:02 pm

Whadda surprise.

When is this buffoon going to be declared a vexatious litigant?

mimi · **Posted:** Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:30 pm

Strunk© wrote this on his scribd page. I don't know what it means.

Quote:

The State attorney turned down a settlement - merely change the BOE Website citizenship qualification from "Born a Citizen" to "Natural Born Citizen" and the case except for expenses would go away - in front of six high powered attorneys there in amazement all shook their heads yes! Six attorneys flown in from wherever at $750 per hour costs defendants $200k plus to date. Left with Long faces!

Quote:

the Justice refused to read the application, barred a transcript despite the presence of court reporter, instead granted the State’s oral application for a third extension of time to answer the complaint despite Plaintiff’s objection; denied Plaintiff’s oral application for first amended complaint since the State has not answered - even denied appeal until the law clerk told the court otherwise.

http://www.scribd.com/Chris%20Strunk

scribd doesn't date the comments, but I think those are new.

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:10 pm

I don't speak or read Strunkalese, otherwise I would offer to translate that.

mimi · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:07 pm

Pixel Patriot is Kevin Richard Powell of Duluth, Georgia.

His affidavit for one of Chris Strunk's piles...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/69764208/Kevi ... -Affidavit

His other stuff. Some of it was just uploaded.

http://www.scribd.com/PixelPatriot

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

!	realist wrote:
	Post Deleted and Moved

mimi · **Posted:** Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:49 pm

idunno where to post this.

Quote:

NYS Ct of Appeals 2012 NYSlipOp 68320 Strunk v Paterson Van Allen Motion Direct Appeal POTUS Candidate Ballot Access Natural Born Citizen

page 2 of 2:

http://www.scribd.com/billvanallen/d/86 ... rn-Citizen

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23525

CPLR 5601

Quote:

I. APPEALS AS OF RIGHT
A. Individual Jurisdictional Predicates
An appeal as of right must meet one of the following statutory jurisdictional predicates
(CPLR 5601) or it is subject to dismissal upon motion or by the Court sua sponte (see,
22 NYCRR 500.10).

[...]

mimi · **Posted:** Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:45 pm

Strunk in Esse© filed something. He's a bore though. Just a courtroom gadfly.

Quote:

Strunk NOM for Supplement With Aff and Exhibits MOL NYS 6500-2011

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, affirmed April 10, 2012 with exhibits annexed and memorandum of law, Plaintiff will move with CPLR §3025(b) in support of the notice of motion for presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint filed March 22, 2011 that by request for leave of the court having previously denied at the October 25, 2011 hearing for the right to file a first amended complaint; with the motion return date on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at 9:45 a.m. in Part 27, Courtroom 479 before the Justice Arthur M. Schack at 360 Adams Street Brooklyn New York 11201, or at a time designated by the court or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/88904148/Stru ... -6500-2011

Stunk is just a yawn.

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:24 pm

Bork, bork, bork.

verbalobe · **Posted:** Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:39 pm

I think this filing is improved by the insertion of a few more, er, colons.

Quote:

PLEASE TAKE: NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, affirmed April 10, 2012: with exhibits annexed and: memorandum: of law, Plaintiff will: move with CPLR §3025(b) in support of the: notice of motion for presentment: of evidence of forgery: and spoliation as supplement: to the complaint filed March 22, 2011: that by request: for leave of the court having: previously denied at the October 25, 2011: hearing for the right: to file a first: amended complaint; with the motion return: date on Tuesday, April 24, 2012: at 9:45 a.m. in Part: 27, Courtroom 479 before: the Arthur-M: Schack (Justice) in esse: at 360 Street: Adams Borough: Brooklyn York: New City in esse: 11201, or at a time: designated by the court or as soon: thereafter as counsel can be: heard.

BillTheCat · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1428

Not sure if this is new, but he posted this on ORYR:

Quote:

Chris Strunk said...[Reply]
My November 22, 2008 FOIA case before Judge Leon in Washington DC continues as a long saga:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/91578422/Strunk-Response-to-Defendants-NOM-to-Renew-Summary-Judgment-w-Exhibits-USDC-DC-08-cv-2234

Chris Strunk

Piffle · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:17 pm

Strunk seems to think that he has ample evidentiary support to defeat the MSJ by submitting a bundle of bad from Sherff Joe's vigilantes.

In Esse wrote:

...the Sheriff’s COLD CASE POSSE, as an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate fraud and crimes committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an affirmation in 2008...

So there you have it: Cold Case Posse findings are BETTER than a lousy affidavit! Under the doctrine of posse corsitatus, they're official binding prestidigitations of an authority with competent jurisdiction. Anywhere!

Foggy · **Posted:** Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:23 am

Piffle wrote:

So there you have it: Cold Case Posse findings are BETTER than a lousy affidavit!

And one of the best things about the Cold Cuts Posse is that you don't even have to know what they investigated:

Quote:

... an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate fraud and crimes committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an affirmation in 2008 ...

Uhh, no, that wasn't what they looked at. They looked at the 2010 long-form and the Selective Service record. Neither had anything at all to do with the 2008 campaign.

I know, I know. De minniemouse.

mimi · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2012 12:03 am

I didn't know the Court did this?

There's more. Does he have to pay costs? There's a hearing on May 7.

Anyway, Strunk reacted to the ruling by filing more insane drivel.

Like this:

Quote:

STRUNK DULY FIRED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA GIVES STANDING WITH INJURY

8. Despite the transcript account of the ipse dixit activities of Arthur M. Schack atthe motion hearing of August 22, 2011, the Court properly recognizes that Plaintiff had duly fired Barack Hussein Obama within 72 hours of his dual offer of contract by oath on January 20 & 21, 2009; and as such, Plaintiff is the only person in the country to have done such firing and suffers a specific particular personal injury as a result different than any other person in the USA in that Defendant Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah personally has injured Plaintiff; and that as a private person Strunk’s transaction with Soebarkah by proper notice is a simple contract matter,and as such Barack Hussein Obama’s disregard of Strunk’s notice bar him from action and underlies the basis of individual action by Plaintiff with this Complaint.

I didn't read much. Stunks reponse is the first 27 pages. Then the Court's Decision, 49 pages.

Quote:

Strunk Aff Response to 4-11-12 Decision and OSC NYSSC Index 6500-2011
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse response to the Decision dismissing the complaint filed March 22, 2011 by the Decision and Order by Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. entered on April 12, 2012 and that Plaintiff appear on May 7, 2012 to show cause why he should not be sanctioned and levied defendants’ costs for litigation; and therein unreasonably alleging Plaintiff case filing and appearance on August 22, 2011 is as if frivolous conduct, alleges issue preclusion by collateral estoppel and as if a prior decision existed barred by res judicata ( ); and notwithstanding such, further alleged plaintiff lacks standing and suffers no particular injury different than general anyway. (Less)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/92290786/Stru ... -6500-2011

mimi · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2012 12:27 am

Doc C posted about the Court's decision.

He pointed out this part:

Quote:

Plaintiff STRUNK cannot wish into existence an interpretation that he chooses for the natural born citizen clause. There is no arguable legal basis for the proposition that both parents of the President must have been born on U.S. soil.

More from Doc here:

www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/05/judge-g ... runk-suit/

BillTheCat · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1428

Wow, what a smack down...so, this guy is insane I take it from his "writings"? Yikes. :shock:

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Strunk in Esse©

Who is online