Christopher Strunk, Obama lawsuit, QUO WARRANTO DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION, May 25, 2009, 5/27/09 final memorandum of law, Memorial Day

Here is an update from Christopher Strunk on his Quo Warranto:

“On this weekend of Memorial Day in remembrance of my ancestors who fought in the Revolution for Independence from Britain, and from whom I inherit from my Great Grandfather John Quigley Strunk, Freemason Grandfather Moses Strunk and Father Earl Henry Strunk the obligation to remember my great uncles John and Charles Strunk who as soldiers served the USA and Pennsylvania died in the war to end all wars; and therefore as a courtesy WE attach the DRAFT of the NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION OF QUO WARRANTO DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND DECISION ON QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION  IN RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AS TO ALLEGED POTUS:  BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IN ESSE
 
and
 
The DRAFT of the AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION OF QUO WARRANTO DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND DECISION ON QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION  IN RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AS TO THE CORPORATE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ALLEGED: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IN ESSE
 
Such is ready for filing without the addition of various dates in the context with the Exhibits, that will only be attached when the final Memorandum of Law which I am working on when ready is withheld until Wednesday 5/27/09 when the email of the PDF is sent to you all.
 
I would not entertain  an intervention from anyone; and even if  attorney John D. Hemenway’s injury were remanded to district, because the cowboy DJ Robertson acted with questionable impetuousness when he even failed to admit the pro hac vice motion counsel, even the Hollister case is still a matter to find the wet signatures on file there.
 
I appear as the only “interested party” with standing in the Quo Warranto matter and as such oppose any other intervention.
 
Best regards to you all for you have provided me with instruction by your actions to date and we are all grateful accordingly.
 
Chris Strunk”

View the draft:

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=121761372bd24521&mt=application%2Fpdf

12 responses to “Christopher Strunk, Obama lawsuit, QUO WARRANTO DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION, May 25, 2009, 5/27/09 final memorandum of law, Memorial Day

  1. truthbetold11

    Keep the fight going?

  2. http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/05/please-get-this-straight-aka-obama.html

    Please get this straight:

    Hawaiian officials have not validated AKA OBAMA’s place of birth. What they have said is that they “have the original document” on file. They haven’t offered a clue as to what information is in that document nor have they said what kind of birth certificate is on file; a conventional birth certificate issued by a hospital with a doctor’s signature or the kind of birth certificate issued by Hawaii on the basis of an affidavit? The Hawaiian officials are not part of a cover-up. They can not legally validate what is on that document without a court order or permission from “our” Chicago con-man.

    Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii. Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it. All a person had to do was file a false statement and Hawaii took them at their word.

    One could not just say “My kid was born in Des Moines but I want him to have a Hawaiian birth record”. But if you lied no investigation was conducted to validate your claim and the Hawaiian birth record was issued no questions asked.

    Knowledge of this practice was wide spread and there are probably thousands of people who obtained Hawaiian birth records between 1911 and 1972 through the process of affidavits and witnesses rather than hospitals and delivery doctors.

    One high profile example of the Hawaiian birth certificate policy is the former Emperor of China. Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866 to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, China, but by 1904 he had a Hawaiian birth certificate and was officially a citizen of the United States. The wording on Sun Yat-sen’s Hawaiian birth certificate reveals that at age 18 he “made application for a Certificate of Birth. And that it appears from his affidavit and the evidence submitted by witnesses that he was born in the Hawaiian Islands.” Appears? It also appears that AKA Obama was born in Hawaii. Does the AKA Obama birth certificate on file with the State of Hawaii have language similar to the birth certificate of SunYat-sen?

    The only way to know where AKA OBAMA was actually born is to view AKA OBAMA’s original birth certificate on file in Hawaii to see what kind of birth certificate it is, and to examine what corroborating evidence supports what it says about AKA OBAMA’s alleged place of birth. If the birth was in a hospital, as AKA OBAMA has maintained, such evidence would be the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor who delivered him.
    The records of hospitals in Hawaii have been searched and there is no record of Stanley Ann Obama ever having given birth to a child. In a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya Soetoro told reporters her half-brother Sen. Barack Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu. After it was concluded that Obama and his mother were never there in February 2008, Maya told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children. Obama and Mom were never there.

    Which is most likely?
    AKA Obama is hiding a conventional birth certificate issued by a hospital and signed by a doctor?
    AKA Obama is hiding a birth certificate attested to by witnesses with no hospital or doctor mentioned?

    The Certification of Live Birth that was published on AKA OBAMA’s campaign web site is not a Birth Certificate. It is easy to tell the difference between the two types of documents. It is very likely that the COLB used by AKA OBAMA’s campaign is a fraudulent document. Several forensic document examiners have carefully scrutinized the COLB and declared it suspicious or an obvious forgery. The best evidence presented so far is from Ron Polarik, PhD.

    Dr. Polarik writes: “There are laws on the books in Hawaii and the Federal Statutes that clearly spell out exactly what constitutes forgery, and in both Hawaii State Law and the Federal Statutes, the act of altering an official government document — even if it is just a facsimile of that document — constitutes forgery. The bogus COLB that Obama created is also considered to be a “false identification document, a felony forgery.” Dr. Polarik’s evidence is preserved online. There is also a YouTube video summary of the evidence.

    Forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, a Former Federal Examiner with a long history of expert testimony in state and federal courts, has testified in an affidavit that states, in part:

    After reviewing Dr. Polarik’s analysis, Sandra Lines says, “I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Dr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.” Sandra Ramsey Lines summary is posted at U. S. Law Blog.

    FULL ARTICLE HERE:
    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html

  3. There must be some way to nail a person
    who so blatantly believes they’re above the law.
    Great summary Aristotle the Hun.

  4. DOCUMENT DROP: The truth about ObamACORN

    They thought it would go away. They were wrong. Obama and the Left thought ACORN’s scandalous racket was a dead issue. But whistleblowers, investigative bloggers, and talk radio continue to press for transparency and taxpayer accountability. Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King has renewed efforts for congressional hearings into the financial structure of the massive, publicly subsidized activist group and its non-profit affiliates. Judicial Watch sheds light on ACORN’s partnership with the Census. Keep an eye on ACORN’s propaganda role in the Obama push for a government health care takeover. And Glenn Beck spotlights the left-wing strategy session to rescue ACORN……..

    READ MORE:

    http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/29/document-drop-the-truth-about-obamacorn/

  5. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs admits to Obama Administration’s part in publishing fake COLB.

    Why is the media ignoring a direct link to the Certificate of Live Birth posted on the Internet by the White House through one of their proxies? This is not only a criminal act against the United States, but also constitutes a conspiracy directed by Barack Obama himself!

    The media has also neglected to report on the Citizen Grand Jury indictments for treason on Obama. (Much in the same way that they still refuse to expose the Obama link to terrorists in Somalia through his cousin Raila Odinga.)

    Thankfully, some folks in Hollywood are finally starting to speak out. John Voight’s speech last night was brilliant.

    Obama is a clear and present danger to our country and we do not have the luxury of time to stop him from doing even more damage than he already has. We need to make every effort to wake up our family members, friends and co-workers to what is already an alarming record of lies and betrayals on the part of Obama before it is too late.

  6. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    ————————————x
    )
    Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse, )
    )
    Plaintiff, )
    )
    v. ) Civil Action No.: 08-2234 (RJL)
    )
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, and )
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND )
    SECURITY, )
    )
    Defendants. )
    )
    ————————————x

    PLAINTIFF’S CONSOLIDATED (1) RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY WITH (2) REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION OF QUO WARRANTO DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND DECISION ON QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION AS TO THE CORPORATE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ALLEGED: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IN ESSE

    I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse, declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746 as follows:
    1. That I make this Special-Appearance as Declarant in the Plaintiff’s consolidated (1) response in opposition to Defendants motion for stay of discovery and (2) reply to defendants’ response to plaintiff’s notice of cross motion of quo warranto demand for jury trial and decision on question of first impression as to the corporate office of the President of the united States (POTUS) alleged: Barack Hussein Obama in esse.
    2. The first order of business is stated by the Defendants’ Counsel in the summary of the Background of their Memorandum with reference to the D.C. Circuit action by Plaintiff / Petitioner in the matter of the Recusal of Judge Leon in this proceeding that effects the yet-to-be-filed census-related action, See In re: Strunk, No. 08-5503, Motion for Restoration of the Petition for Mandamus (May 12, 2009), and in which the Petitioner filing anticipates the Court’s response to that action, takes precedence over any matter before it.
    3. The underlying Recusal matter with 28 U.S.C. §455 is dispositive, alleges that the Judge is a Jesuit paid teacher at Georgetown University that was and is responsible for the creation and operation of the Defendant Department of State Foreign Service whose review of this FOIA matter for exit / egress documents of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. in the context of whether or not Barack Hussein Obama in esse is eligible to be qualified for POTUS, and in which the court appears in conflict with impartiality.
    4. This Recusal matter must be addressed first as it applies to this and related matters in that Barack Hussein Obama is a usurper, and is not protected under FOIA as to his Official Use Passport issued when he became a U.S. Senator and that it replaced a private passport that Declarant contends was Indonesian, Canadian or British origin not of the USA because he had traveled to Indonesia in 1981 and Pakistan which was not possible with a USA Passport.
    5. If the Court decides to proceed without a Recusal, then it must create a 28 U.S.C. §2284 three Judge panel related to the Quo Warranto demand, in that Usurper actions are void ab initio and disastrously affecting the entire nation exponentially as a matter of irreparable harm, and in that context, beyond the Usurpers overreaching of 13 U.S.C. §195 in the ongoing Census using the Acorn syndicalism organization, is wrongly acting to allot the 435 House seats with use of tourists to affect the statewide and nationwide reapportionment – this matter will not go away, and must be solved now not later because the Usurper’s actions alleged void ab initio compile injury – the Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 “Natural-born-citizen” interpretation must be accomplished by a Article III court now not later.
    6. Then the Defendants Counsel alleges that I am somehow part of a conspiracy because I challenge Barack Hussein Obama in esse as a usurper based upon conspiratorial allegations rather than facts, which I vigorously oppose as untrue and preposterous and when he footnote that I am to be dismissed as a kook just as Judge Robertson and others had done because somehow facts don’t count before this or any other court for the purpose of gaining discovery to prove my injury, preposterously allege it an impossibility for me to be injured.
    7. Were the Hollister Case filed by Attorney Berg in bad faith as Judge Robertson alleged and in dismissal threatened extreme sanctions against Washington D.C. Attorney John D. Hemenway, he remarkably backed off sanctions because to pursue sanctions would mandate the process of discovery which the Judge did not want to provide (in my belief because that Judge was in the tank for the Usurper), and as a result no court has ever dealt with any merits in any case and no plaintiff has ever been given standing to challenge the eligibility of the usurper; that is until now under this FOIA matter that must be resolved with discovery under my demand for a Quo Warranto jury review, in that Plaintiff is absolutely entitled as a party-in-interest injured directly herein by the Usurper who directs the actions of Defendants that are void ab initio.
    8. That use of 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) applies to the Defendants who are in conspiracy with the Usurper to seize POTUS as a heinous act that is proven by the conflict of facts admitted to by the Usurper:
    a) That he admits his father is a British Citizen at his Birth on August 4, 1961;
    b) That he voted to support the opinion of the U.S. Senate in Resolution 511, that in order to be a natural-born Citizen to be eligible for POTUS, the person must have two Citizen Parents at the birth of the person.
    c) That Barack Hussein Obama Jr. by the fact of the marriage between Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. at the time of his birth on August 4, 1961, notwithstanding where the birth occurred, renders Barack Hussein Obama Jr. ineligible for POTUS.
    Is a matter of conflicting facts that must be put before a jury and absolutely not a conspiracy in any form as applies to Plaintiff’s underlying intent in the FOIA matter.
    9. As for the frustration of Plaintiff’s effort to gain permission from the malicious Barack Hussein Obama et al. for access to FOIA Documents given his conspiratorial intent to usurp the office of POTUS, clearly Plaintiff is to be given consideration by the Court under the doctrine of frustration of effort and is not to be held responsible for the impossibility of a reasonable reply by Barack Hussein Obama as such in the context of the crime being perpetrated.
    10. However, notwithstanding whether or not the Usurper would give any permission for private information, Plaintiff contends the Official Passport when the Usurper was U.S. Senator mandates the release of information including the date of issuance, what passport it replaced, the specifics of documents used for issuance if any existed and from what country, is an a official public action with information due to any citizen is not private matter.
    11. The decades long pattern shows Barack Hussein Obama is a serial liar whose affirmation to the Illinois Attorney licensing Board even alleged he never used any other name, which is a parsed lie to eliminate reference to Barry Soetoro whose record of foreign student financing and scrapes with law involving his youthful exuberance prevents exposure, is one lie that had it been properly cross checked by the Illinois Court System would have resulted in serious punishment.
    12. There must not be a stay on the discovery of facts which would resolve the request for the legitimately available public information as to the Usurper’s official public record as a U.S. Senator whose actions were in conspiracy to cover-up and conceal public access to official public documents associated with his Official Passport as U.S. Senator; there is no privacy privilege short of national security, and even then must be determined in camera with Plaintiff.
    13. On May 26, 2009 when the U.S. Attorney of Washington D.C. received my demand for a Quo Warranto proceeding, he promptly resigned on May 29, 2009 as an abdication by silence; and when combined with the refusal by the Attorney General’s office to act, is therefore the lead statutory matter controlling the FOIA request before this Court to resolve, and in that Plaintiff is directly a third party-in-interest with standing in the matter.
    14. Barack Hussein Obama in esse has been repeatedly served with notice of this matter and maliciously refuses to respond with intent to frustrate my efforts to resolve my injury.
    Wherefore, Plaintiff as of right demands discovery that would support the presentation of facts to a Quo Warranto statutory proceeding by this District Court with a jury trial on the issues of fact and a 28 U.S.C. §2284 three judge panel decision on the question of first impression that supercedes this FOIA request, the Court must deny Defendants Motion for a stay of discovery, and order a preliminary hearing in this matter;
    Dated: June 12th , 2009
    Brooklyn New York /s/ Christopher-Earl : Strunk
    _____________________________
    593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281
    Brooklyn, New York;
    Email: uncasvotes2@yahoo.com,
    Cell-845-901-6767
    Christopher-Earl: Strunk ©in esse

    cc: listing of service to follow

    Brigham John Bowen, AUSA
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530

    Barack Hussein Obama in esse
    c/o The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington, DC 20500

  7. PRESS RELEASE

    New Yorker Chris Strunk is speaking with Sandra Schulte on MNN about his current presidential FOIA case and demand for a Quo Warranto jury trial in Washington D.C. on the facts of Barack Hussein Obama’s “Dual Citizenship” at his birth on August 4, 1961 in conflict with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 mandate that BHO is not a “natural-born-citizen” with a British Citizen Father and an American Citizen Mother makes BHO ineligible to be qualified for President; BHO was fired by Strunk on January 23, 2009, and therefore BHO is a Usurper whose actions are void ab initio, and that once the District Court jury hears the facts under the Quo Warranto statute, then a three judge panel interpret the Clause as a matter first impression must be removed from office. For questions or to contact Chris Strunk (cestrunck@yahoo.com) and see below:

    PART #1: 6-05-09 Guest Chris Strunk on Speak Up

    PART #2: 6-05-09 Guest Chris Strunk on Speak Up

    OTHER SHOWS:

    http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=oneeagle48&view=videos

    6-26-08: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF27VLWbppA

    1:08-cv-02234-RJL STRUNK v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
    Richard J. Leon, presiding
    Date filed: 12/29/2008
    Date of last filing: 06/15/2009

  8. I was just wondering if there was any update / change of status for this action?

    VR

    KP

  9. It has been awhile since I have posted to this website. I have been busy tracking down the information on Barry Soetoro a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama that proves that he is not a natural born citizen, and therefore, not eligible to be President under U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 Clause 5. Barack Hussein Obama is a Usurper doing grave damage to our National Security and our children’s future.

    The Usurper has a dual allegiance at his birth to Stanley Ann Dunham and Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (British Citizen), which alone makes the Usurper ineligible. As such last year I filed three court cases here in New York and since last fall in December am seeking all the exit egress information under the Freedom of Information Act in Washington DC; and now challenge the Usurper’s authority to serve as President in that he is ineligible, and must appear with my demand for a Quo Warranto for an Inquest before Judge Richard J. Leon in the Washington District of Columbia U.S.D.C. case STRUNK V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND HOMELAND SECURITY 1:08-cv-02234-RJL in re the FOIA challenge; and further, since July I now also have two related cases 1:09-cv-01249-RJL (Strunk v New York Province of the Society of Jesus et al. in re the Logan Act, and 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Strunk v US Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census et al. in re the 2010 Census.

    It should concern the reader that every act that the Usurper does is illegal and must be challenged as being void ab initio.

    Based upon what I have obtained and learned so far, beyond the fact that he has a dual allegiance at his Birth, is that it appears now that the Usurper, Barry Soetoro, has as many a four allegiances: British, Kenyan, Indonesian and USA (and maybe even from Canada); and because I have seen a copy of his Birth Certificate, He was in fact born in Kenya at the Coastal Hospital in Mombasa on August 4, 1961 – not Hawaii.

    The copy of the actual long form birth certificate was obtained in Kenya by an investigator in February, and that is filed along with the record of the Birth obtained by a Hawaiian Attorney in the divorce case between Dunham and Obama in 1964, and both documents await verification in the case Barnett et al. v Obama 09-cv-000082 in CACD before Judge David O. Carter.

    In addition to the three cases in Washington D.C. District, I have an Original Proceeding challenging the District judge for having a conflict of interest with the appearance impropriety in that he is a paid employee of the Jesuits at Georgetown University, and in that Georgetown University controls the U.S. Department of State and its foreign service who are defendants in the FOIA case, such fact is a matter that must go to his recusal along with an investigation of the Clerk’s office who have interfered with due process, before any decision may be made by him in the matter of the Quo Warranto demand in 08-cv-2234 that takes precedence.

    I am interested in cleaning ALL the Progressives out of the Republican Party here in New York along with the need to register all members of the Knights of Malta such as is Pataki, Giuliani and others now seeking public office under the Republican banner. They serve one master, the Vatican, whose objectives are not that of the People of New York.

    I am on Social Security and work part time for an attorney and a such would appreciate any donation in the way of stamps or a couple of dollars sent in the mail so that I may defray the cost of copying and mailing, which in the long run are the real court costs that burden due process; especially in that I have to mail copies of everything to as many as ten attorneys each time I produce court paper. If you are interested in helping defray such costs please send stamps and or cash to:

    Chris Strunk

    593 Vanderbilt Avenue – #281

    Brooklyn, New York 11238

    Thank you for your consideration and if you want me to keep you on my case update mailing list please provide an address or email accordingly and I will keep you informed.

    Best Regards

    Chris Strunk

    chris@strunk.ws

  10. Thanks Chris.

  11. You have me somewhat confused about your Georgetown U. comments and paragraph concerning the Pope, etc.

    Just a thought: Focus on Barack/Barry first. Other issues brought up at the same time, no matter how “closely related” because it either dilutes the original message OR will give detractors opportunity to call you a kook.

    Just my $0.02 worth; I am sure you will do as you see fit. I wish you well in your action with Barry/Barack.

  12. The Judge in ALL my DC cases is a paid employee of the Jesuits at Georgetown. The Defendants are under the control of Georgetown as to the DOS and DHS and certainly the Usurper is a product of the SMOM and Jesuits especially starting in 1985 with his employment with the Gamaliel Foundation (GF), established by Fr. Gregory Galluzzo, S.J. in Chicago.

    The Jesuit role in the Usurpers antics being unchecked by anyone goes directly to the temporal power sought by the Vatican, which in the end may only be implimented by a military dictator as a result of the Usurper driving everyone into his arms soon.

    I am not going to allow that scenario to play out without a fight. You are free to call me anything you want that is your right along with the comensurate right to be wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s