Generally I have trouble deciphering C-in-e, but this paragraph is strangely lucid. It explains a lot. A LOT.

237 pages of exhibits to a 4 page motion (Unless I'm reading this wrong)?

Combined Memorandum for NOM w Affidavit to Reargue the NOM for...

Uploaded by: Chris Strunk — Notice of Motion to Reargue the NOM for Leave to File FAC Affidavit in Support of Motion to Reargue the NOM for Leave to F...

He filed something.

It says 'Final'.

Why don't I believe him?

FINAL Petition for Writ 0f Cert 10A695 030911

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50411336/FINA ... 695-030911

Is this like the furniture store that has the perpetual FINAL SALE - GOING OUT OF BUSINESS! sign on the front all the time?

We have a western wear store here that has literally been "going out of business" since I was 15 years old.

FINAL Petition for Writ 0f Cert 10A695 030911

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50411336/FINA ... 695-030911

That is one steaming pile of incoherence, flecked here and there with little nuggets of crazy.

The DOS establishes that it looked for responsive records in the systems of records most likely to contain Ms. Dunham's passport applications, using several variations of the subject's name as search terms, for the time period set forth in plaintiff s request. Its failure to locate a document to which another responsive record referred does not render its search inadequate. No agency is required to produce records that it does not possess. See Rothschild v. Dep't of Energy, 6 F. Supp. 2d 38, 40 (D.D.C. 1998) (concluding that plaintiff who identified two responsive documents which may be in the agency's possession but were not released merely "demonstrates that the government's search was not perfect," however "[p]erfection ... is not the standard"); Jones v. Fed Bureau of Investigation, 41 F.3d 238,249 (6th Cir. 1994) (finding that the court cannot order an agency "to make amends for any documents destroyed prior to the request").

The Court concludes that the DOS has conducted a reasonable and adequate search for responsive records, notwithstanding the agency's lack of success in locating the particular documents plaintiff sought. Accordingly, defendants' motion [for summary judgment] will be granted in part with respect to plaintiff's FOIA request to the DOS.

No. 10A695
Title:
H. William Van Allen, Christopher Earl Strunk, and John-Joseph Forjone, Applicants
v.
Thomas J. Spargo, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4323)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan 8 2011 Application (10A695) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 11, 2011 to March 12, 2011, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Jan 11 2011 Application (10A695) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file [highlight]until March 14, 2011[/highlight].


~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
H. William Van Allen 351 North Road
Hurley, NY 12247
Party name: H. William Van Allen, Christopher Earl Strunk, and John-Joseph Forjone

Strunk filed something that is going to cause an Inquest of the Supreme Court to see if they're complicit in misprision of usurperation or sumptin'.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52468035/Stru ... 170-040511

If this is the wrong thread, lemme know. I don't follow Strunk much.

i
No. ___-_____
In The Supreme Court of the United States
IN RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK IN ESSE PETITIONER WITH SCOTUS
RULE 20 FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF PROHIBITION
WITH QUO WARRANTO INQUEST

_______________________________________________________________________________

OF CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS Jr., DE FACTO JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN, DE FACTO JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, DE FACTO SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES NEAL KATYAL AND DE FACTO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ERIC HOLDER, IN THE ABSENCE OF VOLUNTARY RECUSAL FROM HEARING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN SCOTUS NO. 10-1170, AND OR THAT EACH IS CHALLENGED IN QUO WARRANTO TO PROVIDE PROOF OF AUTHORITY TO SERVE BY THE VOID AB INITIO ACTS OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II RATHER THAN JOSEPH R. BIDEN WHO MUST SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE.

Will this one count as a case on the Scorecard. It is like shooting fish in a barrel I know but it is a new filing. Where is Tes when we need her?

No. 10-1170
Title:
H. William Van Allen, Christopher Earl Strunk, and John-Joseph Forjone, Petitioners
v.
Thomas J. Spargo, et al.
Docketed: March 25, 2011
Linked with 10A695
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4323)
Decision Date: August 27, 2010
Rehearing Denied: October 13, 2010

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan 8 2011 Application (10A695) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 11, 2011 to March 12, 2011, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Jan 11 2011 Application (10A695) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until March 14, 2011.
Mar 10 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 25, 2011)
Mar 21 2011 Waiver of right of respondents Thomas J. Spargo, et al. to respond filed.
Mar 25 2011 Waiver of right of respondents City of New York, et al. to respond filed.
Mar 29 2011 Waiver of right of respondents New York State Board of Elections and its Commissioners to respond filed.


~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
[highlight]Attorneys for Petitioners:
H. William Van Allen[/highlight] 351 North Road
Hurley, NY 12247
Party name: H. William Van Allen, Christopher Earl Strunk, and John-Joseph Forjone

Attorneys for Respondents:
Paul Michael Collins New York State Board of Elections (518) 473-5088
Counsel of Record 40 Steuben Street
Albany, NY 12207
Party name: New York State Board of Elections and its Commissioners

Denise A. Hartman Office of the New York State Solicitor General (518) 474-7201
Counsel of Record The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Party name: Thomas J. Spargo, et al.

Leonard J. Koerner Corporation Counsel for the City of New York (212) 788-1034
Counsel of Record NYC Law Department
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
lkoerner@law.nyc.gov
Party name: City of New York, et al.

[highlight]Attorneys for Petitioners:
H. William Van Allen[/highlight] 351 North Road
Hurley, NY 12247
Party name: H. William Van Allen, Christopher Earl Strunk, and John-Joseph Forjone

Christopher Earl Strunk, pro se, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant Strunk.

H. William Van Allen, pro se, Hurley, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant Van Allen.

John-Joseph Forjone, pro se, Clarendon, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant Forjone.

Pro Se Appellants of the AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting
[highlight]c/o[/highlight] H. William Van Allen, Pro Se
Christopher Earl Strunk, Pro Se
351 North Rd., Hurley NY 12443

VAN ALLEN v. CUOMO

H. William VAN ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andrew CUOMO, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York, The New York State Board of Elections, Neil W. Kelleher, Commissioner of New York State Board of Elections, Douglas Kellner, Commissioner of New York State Board of Elections, Evelyn J. Aquila, Commissioner of New York State Board of Elections, Helena Moses Donohue, Commissioner of New York State Board of Elections, Defendants-Appellees, The Ulster County Board of Elections, John Parete, as Commissioner of Elections of Ulster County, Thomas F. Turco, as Commissioner of Elections of Ulster County, Defendants.

Docket No. 07-3118-cv.

Argued June 18, 2010. -- September 17, 2010
Before McLAUGHLIN, CALABRESI, and LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.

H. William Van Allen, pro se, Hurly, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

I think someone posted this transcript in another thread but for completeness I am linking it here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/64744734/COPY ... -6500-2011

Strunk claims this is copyright protected. I thought public records cannot be under copyright?

GeorgetownJD left a comment

Records of public court proceedings are not copyright-able.

09 / 18 / 2011

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.

09 / 27 / 2011