Posted by By GeorgeM at 3 August, at 21 : 43 PM
Print
How about Terry Lakin, Chris?
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: UNSEALED – QUO Warranto, Conspiracy and False Claim Case
10-cv- 486 (RCL) Strunk v Obama et al.
From: Chris Strunk
Date: Fri, August 03, 2012 1:33 pm
To:
Up until August 1 2012 I have been restrained from posting the matter that I filed back on March 24, 2010 now can be seen at:
I am seeking a fellow plaintiff who is an commissioned military officer(s) who has been injured by BHO’s fraudulent acts to spoliate conceal and participate in the misprision of felonies, sedition and treason. I intend to file a NOM to re-argue by August 11, 2012 – please call at 845-901-6767.
On August 1, 2012 Chief Judge Lamberth ordered the unsealing and dismissal of the Quo Warranto, Conspiracy, False Claim Act case filed by Strunk March 24, 2010, who at that time was not issued any summons, and when by a motion to unseal and release the summons was dismissed without prejudice on January 5, 2011 for supposed lack of standing without showing a specific injury related to his challenge to the usurper who is not eligible for POTUS because BHO is NOT NBC born in the US of two US Citizen parents. Since then transactions prove BHO has maliciously acted to conceal spoliate and participant in the misprision of felony, sedition and treason thereby injuring Strunk.That as a result of the January 5, 2011 dismissal without prejudice Strunk filed a case in NYS Supreme Court Brooklyn on March 22, 2011 against a scheme to defraud that was then dismissed through the star chamber order of Justice Arthur Schack JCS who sanctioned Strunk with a pain and penalties bar from further civil action with costs and in which serves as the basis for the injury with which to file a NOM to renew in the case before Judge Lamberth with a proposed amended Complaint eliminating defendant and adding transaction subsequent to the dismissal without prejudice that meet the requirements for standing release of the Summonses and unsealing.That Strunk is seeking to file a NOM to re-argue with a supplement to the proposed amended complaint attached herewith with additional Plaintiff(s) who are commissioned military officers having been injured because they have challenged the eligibility of the usurper and as such were also sanctioned and suffered a pain and penalties injury like Strunk.That although being a commissioned officer does not give the person any special standing the fact of the defendant’s intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) upon Strunk and other plaintiffs is a tort under common law that the defendant becomes liable for when the defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous (1) there was a pattern of conduct, not just an isolated incident; (2) the plaintiff was vulnerable and the Defendant(s) knew it; (3) the Defendant(s) was in a position of power; (4) epithets “birther”, ”frivolous”, “delusion” were used and (5) the Defendant(s) owed the plaintiff a fiduciary duty.
That although Strunk was just an enlisted member of the military he nevertheless is an Eagle Scout with a Lifetime Oath and can show a patten of service and devotion to the People of the State of New York and as such has suffered IIED in a way that is similar to that of any commissioned officer(s) in the United States military that took the following oath of office when appointed by Congress to the U.S. active military branch quote :
“I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, cases are still active– need your help NOW!
Support the Florida and Other Ballot Challenges!
Constitution Action Fund
Even if you don’t donate, at least click and read the above.
What is the Article II Legal Defense Fund? Find out.
Only a natural born Citizen can legally be President of the USA. ”Obama” is not either.
Subscribe free to ObamaBallotChallenge.com. Please forward. We’re also on Facebook
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, cases are still active– need your help NOW!
Support the Florida and Other Ballot Challenges!
Constitution Action Fund
Even if you don’t donate, at least click and read the above.
What is the Article II Legal Defense Fund? Find out.
Only a natural born Citizen can legally be President of the USA. ”Obama” is not either.
Subscribe free to ObamaBallotChallenge.com. Please forward. We’re also on Facebook
Ballot News Blog, New York News
While preparing your legal resumes your Cover letters are not essays about your professional life, so keep it short and sweet.
Legal CV, 10 months ago
Adding another plaintiff after the case has been dismissed is like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped.
Precedent is against this quo warranto/False Claims Act tack. And res judicata is working against Strunk.
But please — send him some money!
Jonathan, 10 months ago
George,
I wonder why, and how, Chief Justice Lamberth dismisses this case [entirely] as frivolous (I know, he “da Judge”) ? Unless, also, it’s because it includes most of the ‘players’ in Washington and had been amended so many times as to lose any resemblance to a simple request for issuance of a writ of quo warranto? Only thing hopeful about this case when originally presented here was it being filed it in the “proper” court.
What is it about so many plaintiffs that they have to muddy the waters so badly in these eligibility cases? I was turned on to the powers of the quo warranto approach by Leo Donofrio’s Natural Born Citizen blog. He was, in turn, made aware of this approach by the Judge (Carter, I believe) in a California case in 2008, when the Judge informed him of the proper jurisdiction being the DC Court, not his court.
Accordingly, the old English common law allowed anyone to inquire, legally, why someone in a position of authority had the power and right to hold that position. Leo, as opposed to so many ‘jurists’ made no deal over ‘standing’, so I think that’s a fraudulent issue in Strunk’s case, for the quo warranto portion but maybe not all the other issues he brought.
Leo has written quite a bit about this approach to the Obama dilemma, and I offer these links for the basis of my thoughts.
The following is his take on why QW is the only way to go to completely unwind the mess “he” has wrought. (and probably create another in the process, but so what?)
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/
Another series presents reasonings why the SCOTUS is not right for quo warranto. (But, would seem to be a good place for “what is the definition of Nbc?)
Interestingly, it appears that at this time (2009), Leo had not yet made the observation that Obama’s father was pointedly described as “not a US citizen” on that questionable COLB. Being born of ‘parents’ is also a requirement of Nbc, but escaped mention in his explanation of Nbc. I remember a later blog wherein he calls the hoopla over Obama’s place of birth a ‘distraction’, because the birthplace of his father rendered him ineligible.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/
As you may have surmised, it is possible to stroll through all his blogs, given the access at the top of them. Very interesting reads.
Pete
Pete Bennett, 10 months ago