STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

User avatar
realist
Posts: 33698
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #1 by realist » Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:31 pm

United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit






Court of Appeals Docket #: 12-5414


Docketed: 12/28/2012


Nature of Suit: 2895 Freedom of Information Act of 1974


Christopher Strunk v. DOS, et al


Appeal From: United States District Court for the District of Columbia


[highlight]Fee Status: IFP[/highlight]





Case Type Information:


1) Civil US


2) United States


3) Originating Court Information:





District: 0090-1 : 1:08-cv-02234-RJL


Lead: 1:08-cv-02234-RJL


Trial Judge: Richard J. Leon, U.S. District Judge


Date Filed: 12/29/2008





Date Order/Judgment: 11/21/2012


Date NOA Filed: 12/26/2012








12/28/2012 US CIVIL CASE docketed. [12-5414]





12/28/2012 [link]NOTICE OF APPEAL,http://www.scribd.com/doc/119824968/DC-Strunk-FOIA-2012-12-28-Strunk-v-DOS-Notice-of-Appeal-of-Decisions[/link] filed [1413363] by Christopher Earl Strunk seeking review of a decision by the U.S. District Court in 1:08-cv-02234-RJL. Assigned USCA Case Number [12-5414]





01/07/2013 CLERK'S ORDER filed [1413705] directing party to file initial submissions: APPELLANT docketing statement due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT certificate as to parties, etc. due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT statement of issues due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT underlying decision due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT deferred appendix statement due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT notice of appearance due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT transcript status report due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT procedural motions due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT dispositive motions due 02/21/2013, Failure to respond shall result in dismissal of the case for lack of prosecution; directing party to file initial submissions: APPELLEE certificate as to parties, etc. due 02/06/2013. APPELLEE entry of appearance due 02/06/2013. APPELLEE procedural motions due 02/06/2013. APPELLEE dispositive motions due 02/21/2013; The Clerk is directed to mail this order to appellant by certified mail, return receipt requested and by 1st class mail. [12-5414]





01/07/2013 FIRST CLASS MAIL SENT [1413708] of order [1413705-2] to appellant [12-5414]





01/07/2013 CERTIFIED MAIL SENT [1413710] with return receipt requested [Receipt No.7007-0710-0004-7197-0385] of order [1413705-2]. Certified Mail Receipt due 02/06/2013 from Christopher Earl Strunk. [12-5414]










ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 20145
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #2 by bob » Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:52 pm

[highlight]Fee Status: IFP[/highlight]

Interesting. Do you know if Strunk was granted IFP status in the district court?








For the noobs: "IFP" stands for [/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/In_forma_pauperis]in forma pauperis. It means that, due to Strunk's poverty, he's not required to pay the filing fee.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

Circumspect
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 12:47 pm

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #3 by Circumspect » Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:55 pm

It must be referring to his poverty of character.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 33698
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #4 by realist » Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:58 pm

[highlight]Fee Status: IFP[/highlight]

Interesting. Do you know if Strunk was granted IFP status in the district court?








For the noobs: "IFP" stands for [/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/In_forma_pauperis]in forma pauperis. It means that, due to Strunk's poverty, he's not required to pay the filing fee.

I can't remember, bob.





I do know that on his Scribd page just a couple of days ago he was asking for $$. I was surprised when I saw the IFP designation.


ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27698
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #5 by SueDB » Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:07 pm

[highlight]Fee Status: IFP[/highlight]

Interesting. Do you know if Strunk was granted IFP status in the district court?








For the noobs: "IFP" stands for [/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/In_forma_pauperis]in forma pauperis. It means that, due to Strunk's poverty, he's not required to pay the filing fee.

I can't remember, bob.





I do know that on his Scribd page just a couple of days ago he was asking for $$. I was surprised when I saw the IFP designation.

If the courts would quit sanctioning him, he'd have the money. :- :- :-


“Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounding yourself with assholes.”
? William Gibson

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #6 by A Legal Lohengrin » Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:10 pm

[highlight]Fee Status: IFP[/highlight]

Interesting. Do you know if Strunk was granted IFP status in the district court?








For the noobs: "IFP" stands for [/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/In_forma_pauperis]in forma pauperis. It means that, due to Strunk's poverty, he's not required to pay the filing fee.

Well, the first time I saw him in Indiana, his suit, more wrinkles than fabric, could have qualified for IFP status by itself.





He seems to have had it dry cleaned since, though.



AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #7 by AnitaMaria » Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:14 pm

Per realist's post [link]here,http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=478&p=460601&hilit=lamberth#p460601[/link], Judge Lamberth recently denied leave to file an appeal IFP in his qui tam/quo warranto case:

ORDER denying 12 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on December 12, 2012. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 12/12/2012)TEXT OF ORDER: "Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby DENIED. This case is frivolous, and any appeal from the Court’s ruling in this case would be frivolous and not taken in good faith.”




User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 39057
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #8 by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:18 pm

Next: Motion for summary affirmance.Lots of incoherent gibberish.Granted.



User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #9 by esseff44 » Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:22 pm

I was under the impression that judges didn't allow plaintiff's to file IFP unless they had some kind of standing or legitimate issue. What's that rule again?



User avatar
bob
Posts: 20145
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #10 by bob » Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:31 pm

I was under the impression that judges didn't allow plaintiff's to file IFP unless they had some kind of standing or legitimate issue. What's that rule again?

[/break1]law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1915]28 USC sec. 1915. AM's post, ante, shows what a court should do.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6978
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #11 by Piffle » Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:44 pm

If the courts would quit sanctioning him, he'd have the money. :- :- :-

Exactly. He's broke because his bank account got Schacked.



AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #12 by AnitaMaria » Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:42 pm

[link]OBC,http://obamaballotchallenge.com/the-never-ending-strunk-war-on-obama-strunk-v-u-s-department-of-state[/link] has posted the entire docket from the District Court in this case. Docket entry #3

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)




User avatar
Highlands
Posts: 3600
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:19 am
Location: 3rd Rock From the Sun

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #13 by Highlands » Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:47 pm

I thought that this loon had to ask permission to file his incoherent rants? :-?


If you took out all of the blood vessels in your body and lined them up, you would be dead. #science

ducktape
Posts: 5334
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:09 pm

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #14 by ducktape » Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:01 am

I thought that this loon had to ask permission to file his incoherent rants? :-?

Uh, that order seems to be awhile ago. Somehow, I doubt it's till valid.



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27698
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #15 by SueDB » Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:03 am

I thought that this loon had to ask permission to file his incoherent rants? :-?

Uh, that order seems to be awhile ago. Somehow, I doubt it's till valid.

Just look to Orly's cases. They judges never do what they say. They always pussy out when the going gets sanctionable. :( :(


“Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounding yourself with assholes.”
? William Gibson

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #16 by A Legal Lohengrin » Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:06 am

I thought that this loon had to ask permission to file his incoherent rants? :-?

Only in the New York state court system. For some reason (perhaps that very reason) he is filing his incoherent rants in a D.C. federal court that has no jurisdiction or ability whatsoever to do anything to the state court.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 20145
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #17 by bob » Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:06 pm

Only in the New York state court system. For some reason (perhaps that very reason) he is filing his incoherent rants in a D.C. federal court that has no jurisdiction or ability whatsoever to do anything to the state court.

I think that is exactly why Strunk has recently switched the DC federal courts (in his other case): because he knows his continued paper terrorism in New York state courts will get him sanctioned.





I'm confused a bit by this "fiat" IFP order. The whole point of granting IFP is because someone has said this case is not frivolous. Pre-approval is an invitation to frivolity.





The case posted by OBC, however, looks to be Strunk original FOIA request in the district court, which was in fact not frivolous because Obama's mother's records were available.





I would submit this appeal is frivolous because Strunk got what he was entitled to, and there's no good faith basis to appeal what he was denied.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 33698
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #18 by realist » Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:54 am

No Docs, but...Docket Update...

Court of Appeals Docket #: 12-5414 Docketed: 12/28/2012 Nature of Suit: 2895 Freedom of Information Act of 1974 Christopher Strunk v. DOS, et al Appeal From: United States District Court for the District of Columbia Fee Status: IFP 01/07/2013 CLERK'S ORDER filed [1413705] directing party to file initial submissions: APPELLANT docketing statement due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT certificate as to parties, etc. due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT statement of issues due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT underlying decision due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT deferred appendix statement due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT notice of appearance due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT transcript status report due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT procedural motions due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT dispositive motions due 02/21/2013, Failure to respond shall result in dismissal of the case for lack of prosecution; directing party to file initial submissions: APPELLEE certificate as to parties, etc. due 02/06/2013. APPELLEE entry of appearance due 02/06/2013. APPELLEE procedural motions due 02/06/2013. APPELLEE dispositive motions due 02/21/2013; The Clerk is directed to mail this order to appellant by certified mail, return receipt requested and by 1st class mail. [12-5414] 01/07/2013 FIRST CLASS MAIL SENT [1413708] of order [1413705-2] to appellant [12-5414] 01/07/2013 CERTIFIED MAIL SENT [1413710] with return receipt requested [Receipt No.7007-0710-0004-7197-0385] of order [1413705-2]. Certified Mail Receipt due 02/06/2013 from Christopher Earl Strunk. [12-5414] 01/11/2013 CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT [1415005] RECEIVED from "illegible" for order [1413710-2] sent to Appellant Christopher Earl Strunk [12-5414] 01/18/2013 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE filed [1416304] by Jeffrey E. Sandberg and co-counsel Mark B. Stern on behalf of Appellees DHS and DOS. [12-5414] (Sandberg, Jeffrey) 01/18/2013 CORRECTED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE filed [1416305] by Jeffrey E. Sandberg and co-counsel Mark B. Stern on behalf of Appellees DHS and DOS. [12-5414] (Sandberg, Jeffrey) [highlight]02/06/2013 CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS AND RELATED CASES FILED [1419157] by DHS and DOS [Service Date: 02/06/2013 ] [12-5414] (Sandberg, Jeffrey)[/highlight]



ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 10741
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #19 by RTH10260 » Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:43 am

No Docs, but...Docket Update...

Court of Appeals Docket #: 12-5414 Docketed: 12/28/2012 Nature of Suit: 2895 Freedom of Information Act of 1974 Christopher Strunk v. DOS, et al Appeal From: United States District Court for the District of Columbia Fee Status: IFP .....

Did Strunk forget to file his part in time?[sekrit]DEEEEFAULT!!!!![/sekrit]



User avatar
realist
Posts: 33698
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #20 by realist » Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:58 pm

Docket Update... [sekrit]I think. :lol:[/sekrit]\








Appeal from Strunk v. U.S. Dept. of State, 693 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D.D.C. Cir. 2010) (FOIA case seeking records from various agencies relating to Obama and his mother) (granting motion to dismiss to extent Strunk sought information relating to Obama; denying Strunk’s request for mandamus relief and for quo warranto action; granting stay of discovery) mandamus denied, No. 08-5503 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 8, 2009), mandamus denied, No. 09-5322 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 25, 2009), appeal dismissed, No. 10-5092, (D.C. Cir. Aug. 26, 2010); see also Strunk v. U.S. Dept. of State, 770 F.Supp.2d 10 (D.D.C. 2011) (granting summary judgment as to Department of State; finding that agency had “demonstrated full compliance with the FOIA”; determining that CBP had not yet demonstrated that its search for responsive records was adequate); 845 F. Supp. 2d 38, 47 (D.D.C. 2012) (finding that CBP demonstrated its search for responsive records was adequate and reasonable and that it properly withheld information under FOIA Exemption 6; however, CBP had not demonstrated that it properly withheld information under Exemption 7(E)); 2012 WL 577763 (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2012) (ordering CPB to file renewed motion for summary judgment with respect to the information withheld under Exemption 7(E)); --- F. Supp. ----, 2012 WL 5875653 (D.D.C. Nov. 21, 2012) (finding that CBP properly has withheld information from the one-page document containing travel information about Stanley Ann Dunham and granting summary judgment on that issue; further finding that since all agencies had demonstrated compliance with the FOIA and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, final judgment in favor of defendants was proper) …………..





02/11/2013 MOTION filed [1420574] by Christopher Earl Strunk to dismiss case (Response to Motion served by mail due on 02/22/2013) [Service Date: 02/06/2013 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [12-5414]





02/14/2013 CLERK'S ORDER filed [1420669] granting motion to dismiss case [1420574-2], dismissing case voluntarily, issuing mandate [12-5414]





02/14/2013 MANDATE ISSUED to Clerk, District Court [12-5414]




FULL DOCKET in case missed prior stuff …………





12/28/2012 US CIVIL CASE docketed. [12-5414]





12/28/2012 29 pg, 1.04 MB


NOTICE OF APPEAL filed [1413363] by Christopher Earl Strunk seeking review of a decision by the U.S. District Court in 1:08-cv-02234-RJL. Assigned USCA Case Number [12-5414]





01/07/2013 2 pg, 47.18 KB


CLERK'S ORDER filed [1413705] directing party to file initial submissions: APPELLANT docketing statement due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT certificate as to parties, etc. due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT statement of issues due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT underlying decision due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT deferred appendix statement due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT notice of appearance due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT transcript status report due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT procedural motions due 02/06/2013. APPELLANT dispositive motions due 02/21/2013, Failure to respond shall result in dismissal of the case for lack of prosecution; directing party to file initial submissions: APPELLEE certificate as to parties, etc. due 02/06/2013. APPELLEE entry of appearance due 02/06/2013. APPELLEE procedural motions due 02/06/2013. APPELLEE dispositive motions due 02/21/2013; The Clerk is directed to mail this order to appellant by certified mail, return receipt requested and by 1st class mail. [12-5414]





01/07/2013 FIRST CLASS MAIL SENT [1413708] of order [1413705-2] to appellant [12-5414]





01/07/2013 CERTIFIED MAIL SENT [1413710] with return receipt requested [Receipt No.7007-0710-0004-7197-0385] of order [1413705-2]. Certified Mail Receipt due 02/06/2013 from Christopher Earl Strunk. [12-5414]





01/11/2013 CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT [1415005] RECEIVED from "illegible" for order [1413710-2] sent to Appellant Christopher Earl Strunk [12-5414]





01/18/2013 2 pg, 15.92 KB


ENTRY OF APPEARANCE filed [1416304] by Jeffrey E. Sandberg and co-counsel Mark B. Stern on behalf of Appellees DHS and DOS. [12-5414] (Sandberg, Jeffrey)





01/18/2013 2 pg, 15.79 KB


CORRECTED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE filed [1416305] by Jeffrey E. Sandberg and co-counsel Mark B. Stern on behalf of Appellees DHS and DOS. [12-5414] (Sandberg, Jeffrey)





02/06/2013 5 pg, 13.83 KB


CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS AND RELATED CASES FILED [1419157] by DHS and DOS [Service Date: 02/06/2013 ] [12-5414] (Sandberg, Jeffrey)





02/11/2013 2 pg, 126.52 KB


[link]MOTION,http://www.scribd.com/doc/126297869/DC-Strunk-Appeal-2013-02-11-Motion-to-Dismiss[/link] filed [1420574] by Christopher Earl Strunk to dismiss case (Response to Motion served by mail due on 02/22/2013) [Service Date: 02/06/2013 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [12-5414]





02/14/2013 1 pg, 38.17 KB


[link]CLERK'S ORDER,http://www.scribd.com/doc/126297857/DC-Strunk-Appeal-2013-02-14-OrDER-Dismissing-Appeal[/link] filed [1420669] granting motion to dismiss case [1420574-2], dismissing case voluntarily, issuing mandate [12-5414]




coupla links shortly


ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #21 by A Legal Lohengrin » Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:09 pm

02/06/2013 5 pg, 13.83 KB CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS AND RELATED CASES FILED [1419157] by DHS and DOS [Service Date: 02/06/2013 ] [12-5414] (Sandberg, Jeffrey)

Looks like he skedaddled right after that was filed. I can't imagine which "related cases" could have sent him running so fast. :-



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27698
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #22 by SueDB » Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:15 pm

Mebbe he has been reading Ms. Jordan's sniveling rants.


“Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounding yourself with assholes.”
? William Gibson

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
bob
Posts: 20145
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #23 by bob » Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:23 pm

Mebbe he has been reading Ms. Jordan's sniveling rants.

Signs point toward this being correct: The cost of paper and postage hasn't stopped him before.He also whines that he suspects the documents have been destroyed anyway, so what's point?What's the point, indeed.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27698
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #24 by SueDB » Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:32 pm

Mebbe he has been reading Ms. Jordan's sniveling rants.

Signs point toward this being correct: The cost of paper and postage hasn't stopped him before.He also whines that he suspects the documents have been destroyed anyway, so what's point?What's the point, indeed.

Trying to take a last swipe at someone....anyone....Bueller??????asshole


“Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounding yourself with assholes.”
? William Gibson

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 13561
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

STRUNK v DOS (FOIA) APPEAL

Post #25 by Reality Check » Tue Feb 19, 2013 8:20 pm

Maybe Strunk has a large debt as a result of fees that were awarded by Judge Schack in NY last year. We never heard how that was settled did we?


Peace & Love & Light!

Rick Skalsky


Return to “Miscellaneous”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Treblig and 3 guests