STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34433
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#1

Post by realist » Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:11 pm

Since we've not had a real Friday Smackdown, I think this may qualify. Plus ya gotta check out the Proposed Amended Complaint... talk about ratcheting up the krazee. :shock:





This is an old case, but recently Strunk moved to file an Amended Complaint (which is 494 pages!! with exhibits... presented here without exhibits, for obvious reasons). You can see from the docket entry his zibits were apparently much like Orly's are... mostly illegible. :lol:





You can also feel how pissed Judge Lamberth was at this attempt. It's palpable in his comments in the docket. Such as reopening and unsealing sua sponte, the entire file and documents.


:-bd





Perhaps Orly will file another with him soon. He seems "fed up"... finally!! \ :D /





U.S. District Court


District of Columbia (Washington, DC)


CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:10-cv-00486-RCL





STRUNK v. OBAMA et al


Assigned to: Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth


Demand: $22,000,000


Cause: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights





Date Filed: 03/24/2010


Date Terminated: 01/06/2011


Jury Demand: Plaintiff


Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions


Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant







03/24/2010 [link]1,[/link] COMPLAINT against FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, JOHN AND JAN DOE(S), BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA, OBAMA VICTORY FUND, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616028454) filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1 - 10, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(zrdj) (Entered: 03/25/2010)





03/24/2010 SUMMONS Not Issued as to FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, JOHN AND JAN DOE(S), BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA, OBAMA VICTORY FUND, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, XYZ ENTITIES (zrdj) (Entered: 03/25/2010)





03/24/2010 2 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. Case related to Case No. 10-151. (zrdj) (Entered: 03/25/2010)





10/28/2010 3 Judicial NOTICE by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK ("Let this be filed" by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 10/28/10)(zrdj) (Entered: 11/03/2010)





01/06/2011 [link]4,[/link] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (This document is un-SEALED pursuant to 6 Memorandum and Order)Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 1/5/11.(zrje) Modified on 8/1/2012 (rdj). (Entered: 01/06/2011)





08/01/2012 [link]5,[/link] MOTION for Leave to File an Amended Complaint by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK (Attachments: # [link]1,[/link] Proposed Amended Complaint(Note: Portions of these exhibits are illegible on ECF.))(zrdj) (Treated as Motion per Court's 6 Memorandum and Order) (Entered: 08/01/2012)





08/01/2012 6 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Denying 5 Motion for Leave to file Amended Complaint ; The entire file in this case is hereby UNSEALED, sua sponte, and the Court's prior order shall be filed on the public record as an attachment to this order. The proposed Amended Complaint is frivolous. Plaintiff has no more standing now than he had in 2011, and plaintiff has set forth no proper basis for this Court to require the President of the United States - as the only named party herein- to appear and defend against this frivolous action... Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 7/31/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Court's prior order) (zrdj) (Entered: 08/01/2012)





08/01/2012 ***Case Unsealed pursuant to 6 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER filed 8/1/2012. (zrdj) (Entered: 08/01/2012)





08/01/2012 7 ORDER unsealing entire case and all documents. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 8/1/12. (jeb, ) (Entered: 08/02/2012)





For your Friday evening and perhaps Saturday/weekend reading pleasure.





Enjoy!! :-bd




Edit: Actually working on the download of the zibits... in pieces. They contain transcripts and a lot of Orders entered against him, etc. It may be a while, however... Patience Grasshoppers. :D




ADDING TRANSCRIPTS AND ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS HERE SO AS TO KEEP THE PLEADINGS DOWNLOADED IN ONE *CONVENIENT* PLACE.





Please continue to check back here periodically for updates. \ :D /





NY - Strunk - [link]2012-05-07 - TRANSCRIPT of Hearing,[/link]





NY - Strunk - [link]2011-08-22 - TRANSCRIPT of Hearing,[/link]





NY - Strunk v Pattesron - [link]2008-11-03 - TRANSCRIPT of Hearing,[/link]




ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34433
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#2

Post by realist » Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:20 pm

The gravamen of this action is that Strunk, as a registered voter enrolled in the New YorkState Republican Party in the 2008 election cycle and remaining so in the 2012 cycle, [highlight]wrongfullysuffers from pains and penalties punishment injury stripping individual civil rights and libertywith damages imposed by the Federal and State Courts in New York; and that the injury toStrunk is directly caused by Barack Hussein Obama II (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. BarackHussein Obama Soebarkah, a.k.a. Barack Obama and hereinafter known as "'DefendanC) bymalicious spoliation and concealment of evidence of misprision of a felony, sedition and treasoninvolved with his ineligibility to hold the office of President of the United States[/highlight] (POTUS); =))And that Plaintiff by the nature of his particular injury has determined that BarackHussein Obama II has usurped the POTUS, and that all his actions are void ab initio, therebyentitling that Ex-relator Strunk standing with Qui Tam provisions intends to recover for the USAall the payments, reimbursements provided to Barack Hussein Obama II by the U.S. Departmentof the Treasury and related agencies since 2008 through the present with punitive damages.You're a day late and a dollar ( and a few brain cells) short, Chris. Berg tried this crap long ago. Yeah, didn't work for him either. :P


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34433
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#3

Post by realist » Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:31 pm

The Arpaio gambit... :lol: ( He also tries the Taitz gambit) :roll: The Third Federal issue to be heard: Is Barack Hussein Obama II eligible as a natural-born Citizen to the office of POTUS, [highlight]as now suspected as a result of the investigation by Sheriff Arpaio, guilty of spoliation and willful concealment as a high crime meant to personally injure Plaintiff[/highlight], and as Strunk noticed to the Albany County District Attorney and the New York State Board of Elections on February 3, 2012 to no avail (see Exhibit M) depends on this Court?The Fourth Federal issue to be heard: Is Barack Hussein Obama II eligible as a natural bomCitizen to the of1ice of POTUS [highlight]when bom outside of the United States as now suspected as a result of the investigation by Sheriff Arpaio[/highlight] :^o and by spoliation and concealment meant to further injure Plaintiff?


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Roboe
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:59 am

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#4

Post by Roboe » Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:50 pm

Was slightly curious as to why I was suddenly seeing documents dated 2010 showing up on Jack Ryan's twitter feed, now I know why.





I wonder, with the harsh language by Judge Lamberth, if the Court might move to dish out something Sua Sponte...





Edit: Especially as it's the same old, tried and previously smacked down legalese crap. I was annoyed that Strunk even had the nerve to lambast "the usurper" for using Wong Kim Ark, since "it's misreading the law". :roll:



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34433
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#5

Post by realist » Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:56 pm

Was slightly curious as to why I was suddenly seeing documents dated 2010 showing up on Jack Ryan's twitter feed, now I know why.





I wonder, with the harsh language by Judge Lamberth, if the Court might move to dish out something Sua Sponte...





Edit: Especially as it's the same old, tried and previously smacked down legalese crap. I was annoyed that Strunk even had the nerve to lambast "the usurper" for using Wong Kim Ark, since "it's misreading the law". :roll:There's lotsa crunchy goodies in some of the documents in this previously-sealed case, Roboe... more coming. Lotsa "stuff" we did not know re Strunk/sanctions, etc. Adding as fast as I can. \ :D /


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34433
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#6

Post by realist » Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:09 pm

13 7. As judicial notice to this Court, were this proposed amendment by motion denied


without affording relief to Strunk's injury under the NBC Federal issue an original proceeding


would ensue in a challenge that would be find the SCOTUS and [highlight]would necessitate the recusal of Justices John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan for cause, as all have a conflict of interest from hearing this matter[/highlight]; and notwithstanding the fact that Justice Roberts has a real and complete subservience to the Holy See, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and their Praetorian Guard Jesuit General Adolph Nicholas's twist of his vulnerability regarding his own adopted children; :shock: thereby only leaves 6 Justices to hear my or Defendant Obama's direct appeal. :bwaha:


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34433
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#7

Post by realist » Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:15 pm

VERIFICATION


STATE OF NEW YORK )


) ss.


COUNTY OF KINGS )





Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, by special-appearance being duly sworn,


depose and say under penalty of perjury:





1. That I am the Ex-Relator, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, with place for service at 593


Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238.





2. That may four basic particular injuries are personal and have been caused directly by


Barack Hussein Obama II and or his agents by malice to usurp POTUS and wrongfully exercises


authority over my denial of grant of power of attorney consent given to administer the United


States of America Inc.





3. I duly fired Barack Hussein Obama for cause on January 23, 2009 after he took the oath of office by timely return of the offer of contract wishing no contract thereby revoked power of attorney due to his failure to prove eligibility as a natural born citizen and have been wrongly punished in the exercise of my duly and liberty otherwise to be protected by the US Constitution. =))





4. That Respondent Obama in esse usurps the office of POTUS and presumably wishes to


have a Quo Warranto forum to prove his eligibility to be able to return to office if elected.





[highlight]5. I hereby give my permission for a sealed Quo Warranto inquest on the issue of facts.[/highlight]





6. I have read the above Amended Complaint with Demand for an in camera inquest on the


injury and damages after a Declaratory Decision and Order is issued on the question of Strunk's


innocence of wrongdoing and aver that the complaint with Exhibit A through Z are in support of


the Plaintiffs efforts nonetheless has a dispute on the facts to be issues before the court as well


as to the source of Qui Tam reimbursement for damages and injuries, and I know its contents; the facts stated in the Complaint herein are true to my own personal knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rct parties, books and records, and personal knowledge. except as to those stated upon information and belief, which 1 believe to be true.Of course, we all knew Chris fired Obama, but it's still funny every time I read it. :lol:


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Roboe
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:59 am

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#8

Post by Roboe » Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:45 pm

3. I duly fired Barack Hussein Obama for cause on January 23, 2009 after he took the oath of office by timely return of the offer of contract wishing no contract thereby revoked power of attorney due to his failure to prove eligibility as a natural born citizen and have been wrongly punished in the exercise of my duly and liberty otherwise to be protected by the US Constitution.... aaaand breathe.Too late on a friday night to bother with Strunk and his legal theories, I'll give it a go tomorrow instead ;)



User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#9

Post by Piffle » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:16 pm

Nobody delivers batshit quite like our boy Strunk. He's a one-man steamshovel.





I'll give him half a point for claiming that Judge Lamberth is empowered to grant an exception to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine* in order to slam the New York state court that sanctioned him. He's dead wrong, of course, but AFAIK this is a new principle unique to birferlaw.





OTOH, I'm deducting a half-point for the prosaic assertion that his sanctions in New York amount to a concrete injury supporting standing. Geez, even Orly has come up with that one before. :P (Remember when she went on a roll cackling that the sanctions imposed by Judge Land were injuries establishing her right to sue?)





___


*To oversimplify, Rooker-Feldman holds that U.S. federal courts below the Supreme Court may not sit in the nature of appeals courts to reconsider state court decisions.



User avatar
Princess foofypants
Posts: 2993
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:31 pm

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#10

Post by Princess foofypants » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:58 pm

He does get special points for mentioning the Praetorian Guard!



User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4179
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#11

Post by nbc » Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:04 pm

Wikipedia describesIn 2005 the Supreme Court revisited the doctrine in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280. The Court affirmed that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was statutory (based on the certiorari jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1257), and not constitutional, holding that it applies only in cases "brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments."So does Strunk deserve a bit more credit?
Edit: Nope, I should have read more carefully. This is exactly a case in which Rooker applies.



User avatar
vic
Posts: 3579
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley
Occupation: Web developer

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#12

Post by vic » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:42 pm

It might be old, but it's a gift that keeps on giving. I keep finding new favorite parts. The one that made me have to post, was from the 2011 hearing, when Strunk objected to the PHV for Mr. Phillips, because"he should have familiarized himself with the Rules of your Honor and the Court"



User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7344
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#13

Post by raicha » Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:07 am

Does anyone have a quick answer: why was this sealed to begin with?



User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4179
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#14

Post by nbc » Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:51 am

Does anyone have a quick answer: why was this sealed to begin with?Qui Tam. Unlike Orly at least Strunk understands that it should be filed under seal. Phil Berg went wrong there as well.



Roboe
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:59 am

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#15

Post by Roboe » Sat Aug 04, 2012 6:01 am

That hearing in May was absolutely brilliant. It opens up with an Amicus brief by the Putz and sort of goes downhill from there :mrgreen:The judge had some fantastic parting words for Stunk though.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34433
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#16

Post by realist » Sat Aug 04, 2012 8:27 am

Considering Judge Lamberth's remarks in the docket posted above, this should make his day...





From [link]OBC,http://obamaballotchallenge.com/unseale ... bama-et-al[/link]





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:


[/break1]scribd.com/doc/101963433/2010-Cv-00486-RCL-STRUNK-v-OBAMA-Et-Al-Jan-2011-Unsealed-Order-With-NOM-for-Proposed-Amended-Comolaint] ... -Comolaint


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.OBC asks... "How about Terry Lakin, Chris?" {SMILIES_PATH}/pray.gif





And yeah, there's more Strunk nuttiness at the link.





That although being a commissioned officer does not give the person any special standing the fact of the defendant’s [highlight]intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) upon Strunk and other plaintiffs is a tort under common law[/highlight] 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 :-bd (5) [highlight]the Defendant(s) owed the plaintiff a fiduciary duty.[/highlight]That although Strunk was just an enlisted member of the military [highlight]he nevertheless is an Eagle Scout with a Lifetime Oath[/highlight] =)) 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 :So Strunk's new (winning) strategy appears to be to enlist the cooperation of a commissioned officer (or officers, active or retired, I suppose) who, like Chris, do not have standing, that that somehow gives them standing... or sumpin'. ](*,)





Reading Strunk makes my head hurt. ?(


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#17

Post by Piffle » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:45 am

Reading Strunk makes my head hurt. ?(^^^^ This.



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

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#18

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:35 am

Wikipedia describesIn 2005 the Supreme Court revisited the doctrine in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280. The Court affirmed that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was statutory (based on the certiorari jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1257), and not constitutional, holding that it applies only in cases "brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments."So does Strunk deserve a bit more credit?
Edit: Nope, I should have read more carefully. This is exactly a case in which Rooker applies.
The Article III courts (other than the Supreme Court) have no jurisdiction at all not granted by statute. So as long as Congress doesn't expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts to include reviewing state court decisions (a move which itself would be of questionable constitutionality at least according to some thinkers), federal courts just can't do that. Strunk, of course, cites no statute which would even arguably confer such jurisdiction, other than BUT I SAY SO WAAAAAH!Rooker-Feldman exists to prevent people like Strunk, state court LOSERS (with a great big capital L branded on their forehead) from relitigating in federal court.



User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7646
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#19

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:56 am

Considering Judge Lamberth's remarks in the docket posted above, this should make his day...





From [link]OBC,http://obamaballotchallenge.com/unseale ... bama-et-al[/link]





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:


[/break1]scribd.com/doc/101963433/2010-Cv-00486-RCL-STRUNK-v-OBAMA-Et-Al-Jan-2011-Unsealed-Order-With-NOM-for-Proposed-Amended-Comolaint] ... -Comolaint


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.Stupid as he is, I doubt that even Lakin is idiotic enough to want to be added as a plaintiff to a dismissed lawsuit.





How does that work, anyway? One adds parties to a suit by amending the complaint, and when a complaint has been dismissed it cannot be amended. ](*,)








Oh wait, this is a birther we're talking about. Orly does it all the time.


"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#20

Post by Piffle » Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:44 pm

How does that work, anyway? One adds parties to a suit by amending the complaint, and when a complaint has been dismissed it cannot be amended. ](*,) Oh wait, this is a birther we're talking about. Orly does it all the time.At Birferlaw, the finality of orders is subject to the rule against perpetuities. That is, one is free to amend a complaint throughout his/her natural life plus 21 years (or up to 90 years, depending upon jurisdiction). Thus, it is possible that Strunk's as-yet-unborn widow might amend the complaint in this suit after the turn of the 22nd century. In jurisdictions not recognizing the rule, no time limit is imposed.Also note that a judgment of dismissal against an incompetent is voidable and any time limit is tolled pending Strunk's return to sanity. If ever.You're welcome. :D



LaLawyer
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:04 pm

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#21

Post by LaLawyer » Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:00 pm

How does that work, anyway? One adds parties to a suit by amending the complaint, and when a complaint has been dismissed it cannot be amended. ](*,) Oh wait, this is a birther we're talking about. Orly does it all the time.At Birferlaw, the finality of orders is subject to the rule against perpetuities. That is, one is free to amend a complaint throughout his/her natural life plus 21 years (or up to 90 years, depending upon jurisdiction). Thus, it is possible that Strunk's as-yet-unborn widow might amend the complaint in this suit after the turn of the 22nd century. In jurisdictions not recognizing the rule, no time limit is imposed.Also note that a judgment of dismissal against an incompetent is voidable and any time limit is tolled pending Strunk's return to sanity. If ever.You're welcome. :D Though if I remember my civil law property correctly, it doesn't allow for perpetuities at all. That may be why they haven't filed suit in Louisiana.



User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14506
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#22

Post by ZekeB » Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:48 pm

Ya gotta love BB's snark. ;)


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

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

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#23

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:51 pm

Also note that a judgment of dismissal against an incompetent is voidable and any time limit is tolled pending Strunk's return to sanity. If ever.That presents a bit of a Catch-22, as so sane person would want to do what Strunk is doing anyway!



User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#24

Post by Piffle » Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:07 pm

Though if I remember my civil law property correctly, it doesn't allow for perpetuities at all. That may be why they haven't filed suit in Louisiana. --> I'll gladly trust you on that. All I know about Louisiana law is that on every third page of every law book I own, there's a footnote that begins, "Except in Louisiana where...".Ya gotta love BB's snark. ;)Indeed you do. She da best. :xo



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

STRUNK v OBAMA (OLD 2010 CASE REOPENED) BRIEFLY :)

#25

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:21 pm

Ya gotta love BB's snark. ;)Snark? I thought she was merely describing a species of Orlylaw known as birferlaw.



Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”