Rough translation:

Christopher Strunk filed a FOIA suit against the Department of State. He later amended it to add Deparment of Homeland Security. The government filed a motion requesting additional time under the Rules to file an answer to the complaint. The Court granted the motion, extending the time to respond. Strunk wants the Court to reconsider its Order granting additional time.

Then there is something about amending the complaint to add Department of Homeland Security as a defendant; unclear how this relates to the Order. Something about respondeat superior, which is a principle of tort law whereby an employer is responsible for the malfeaseance of an employee who is acting within the scope of employment; unclear how this relates to anything.

If anyone can translate para 5, please jump in.

More about DHS. Strunk isn’t happy that the government’s rationale for requesting an extension of time to answer is to allow DOS and DHS to file a joint Answer. Strunk contends there is no authority for this, somehow this relates to the OIG report about its investigation into last year’s breach of passport records — What I gather is that Strunk is not happy about redactions pursuant to 5 USC 552, which were made to prevent disclosure where the vulnerabilities in the DOS system are/were and avoid further breaches.

Then Strunk argues that the amendments to his complaint are not really amendments, they are supplements, thus his amended complaint is not really an amended complaint.

Next, despite the fact that no responsive pleading has yet been filed, Strunk wants a subpoena issued with transactional immunity — unclear the legal basis for this.

Something about Orly Taitz’s evidence; plus Strunk wants to be reimbursed for an invoice that Orly sent to him for her legal services.

Finishes with a request under Rule 59 to alter or amend a judgment — odd, because there has been no judgment in this case. Then a long prayer for relief — odd because this purports to be a sur-reply, which is simply a brief.

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Department of State hereby opposes Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt.
#10] of the Court’s Order granting the Department an extension of time in which to file an
answer. See Minute Order, Jan. 28, 2009. For the reasons set forth in the Department’s initial
motion for an extension, the additional time granted by the Court is warranted. In addition,
Plaintiff has now filed an Amended Complaint [Dkt. #9], which seeks to add the United States
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) as a defendant in this action. This document, which
was sent to counsel on January 5, 2009, was not docketed until February 11, 2009, and no
summons appears to have been issued to or received by DHS. (The government opposes
Plaintiff’s informal letter request that he be excused from the service requirements of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4. See Mot. for Recons. Ex. at 5 (Strunk Ltr. to Court, Jan. 5, 2009).)1 When – and if – DHS is formally served, the government submits that it will advance the interests of judicial
efficiency for DHS and the Department of State to respond to the Amended Complaint jointly.
Additional time is also necessary for these agencies to investigate and prepare responses to
Plaintiff’s various allegations.2 Finally, Plaintiff’s motion does not comply with LCvR 7(m),
which imposes a duty to confer with opposing counsel before the filing of nondispositive
motions.
Dated: February 19, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL F. HERTZ
Acting Assistant Attorney General
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO (D.C. Bar No. 418925)
Deputy Branch Director
/s/ Brigham J. Bowen
BRIGHAM J. BOWEN (D.C. Bar No. 981555)
Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883, 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 514-6289
brigham.bowen@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendant

1 Plaintiff contends that his Amended Complaint qualifies as a “supplement” pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Mot. for Recons. Ex. at 5. It does not. Most obviously, the Amended
Complaint adds far more than mere factual allegations occurring “after the date of the pleading
to be supplemented” – among other things, it adds a new defendant (DHS). In any event, even if
it did qualify, Rule 15(d) does not excuse litigants from the service requirements of Rule 4. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) (a court may permit a party to “serve a supplemental pleading”) (emphasis
added).

2 Plaintiff has submitted three requests of which counsel is aware: two to the Department
of State and one to DHS. The Department of State has provided a partial final response and is
currently conducting a search for other responsive documents, and DHS has completed its search
and provided a partial final response to Plaintiff (DHS has also requested additional
documentation from Plaintiff as to some categories of requested documents).

Boiled to its essence: Strunk filed a FOIA suit vs. Department of State. ...

NOM for FAC w Summons and FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Strunk v Paterson Et Al w Exhibits NYS 29642-08

the document tags:

Jesuits
SMOM

Strunk? wtf? Isn't this supposed to be called Strunk in esse?

Fixed the first post.

Paging Dr. Levy to the tinfoil courtesy phone. Paging Dr. Levy....

Sorry I am busy asking the EU Commission to probe the Pope's gold

If I read this correctly our boy in Esse© is filing a motion to file an amended complaint in Strunk v Patterson that was dismissed more than a year ago?

It's captioned with the x642 case number, which the Birther Scorecard(tm) has its status as "unclear." (The trial court denied a motion for a protective order a year ago.)

He filed something. But I don't think it's birfer related. Or related to anything.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44657105/Appe ... 822-112910

That NYC not only controls the vote in the state legislature but also sucks the political oxygen out of the rest of the state
to impose unfair portions of shared mandates on real property owners of the other state Home-rule subdivisions, on to...

The Vatican planned to issue new rules Thursday designed to make its financial transactions more transparent after a money laundering probe resulted in the seizure of 23 million euros ($30.21 million) from a Vatican account.

Strunk in Esse© should be pleased:
Pope to Issue New Bank Norms Amid Laundering Probe

I just checked the New York State online docket.

Case no. x642 is still "active." (Really? No activity for a year, but no periodic docket sweep?)

S-in-e's latest filing, however, has triggered a 11/30/10 court date.

So should certain lawyers perenially suing the Vatican. (cough cough)

Maybe now it'll be easier for them to get the money.

If, of course, they ever get a judgment.