Strunk in Esse©

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15887
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Strunk in Esse©

#701

Post by Reality Check » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:10 am

Wonder what became of Strunk's son? I always felt sorry for him. He may be an adult know. Hopefully he got out.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27355
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Strunk in Esse©

#702

Post by bob » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:30 am

Strunk recently filed ... something in N.D.N.Y. :yawn:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8593
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Strunk in Esse©

#703

Post by Northland10 » Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:35 am

bob wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:30 am
Strunk recently filed ... something in N.D.N.Y. :yawn:
He filed in February, tried for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction in March, the various defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and now the judge will decide from the pleadings (as from your link).

Strunk's sidekick, Harold William Van Allen attempted to file letters and other documents which were quickly stricken because he is not a party. He then filed a document "notice of intent to file a motion to intervene":
TEXT ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENT: Notice of Intent to File Motion to Intervene at Dkt. No. 44. Pursuant to the verbal Order of the Hon. David N. Hurd, USDJ Notice of Intent to File Motion to Intervene at Dkt. No. 44 , filed by Non-party Harold William Van Allen is ordered stricken from the docket. Non-party Harold William Van Allen has filed with the Court a document entitled Notice of Intent to File Motion to Intervene. Broadly stated, the putative intervenor seeks to join this action as a co-plaintiff because he is a recent convert to the Roman Catholic Church. Upon review of the filing in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, which governs intervention in federal court, the putative intervenors submissions fail to demonstrate that intervention is warranted. See, e.g., Dorsett v. Cty. of Nassau, 289 F.R.D. 54, 70 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (The putative intervenor has the burden of showing a right to intervene.). Accordingly, the request will be denied and Notice of Intent to File Motion to Intervene Dkt. No. 44 shall be stricken from the docket and not considered by the Court. So Ordered by the Hon. David N. Hurd, USDJ. [Copy of this text order served on the pro se plaintiff by regular mail to: Christopher Earl Strunk, Post Office Box 70, Corinth, NY 12822. (ptm) (Entered: 07/10/2019)


North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27355
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Strunk in Esse©

#704

Post by bob » Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:19 pm

I think this case was dismissed, but Allen was trying to ex parte zombie revive it.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27355
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Strunk in Esse©

#705

Post by bob » Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Northland10 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:35 am
bob wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:30 am
Strunk recently filed ... something in N.D.N.Y. :yawn:
He filed in February, tried for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction in March, the various defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and now the judge will decide from the pleadings (as from your link).
Sit down: Dismissed.

Basically, as expected, e.g.:
N.D.N.Y. wrote:Whatever tenuous grip Strunk's factual allegations might have held on observable reality seems to end there.

* * *

Strunk’s complaint—which juxtaposes some kind of general harm to New York residents from fluoridated water and microwave radiation with a passing attempt to vindicate fetal rights under the umbrella of a federal civil conspiracy statute—appears to be both factually and legally frivolous.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8593
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Strunk in Esse©

#706

Post by Northland10 » Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:11 pm

bob wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Sit down: Dismissed.
:swoon:
bob wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:26 pm
Basically, as expected, e.g.:
N.D.N.Y. wrote:Whatever tenuous grip Strunk's factual allegations might have held on observable reality seems to end there.
I tend to disagree with the court. The cat knocked him off the table of observable reality right about the time he stated the claim of laundering crypto currency.

On a side note, I saw a Twombly and a Lujan.


North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 8206
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Strunk in Esse©

#707

Post by RoadScholar » Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:15 pm

Strunk is channeling Brig. General Jack D. Ripper?! :shock:


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13006
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Strunk in Esse©

#708

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:08 am

Sounds like Strunk got slapped down quite solidly and deservedly. For a for real lawyer he seems to have a problem with coming up with real cause of action and actual things you can sue for.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27355
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Strunk in Esse©

#709

Post by bob » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:54 am

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:08 am
For a for real lawyer he seems to have a problem with coming up with real cause of action and actual things you can sue for.
:lol:

The court explained that pro se litigants should be indulged, but vexatious ones get a bit less slack. Then the court listed a small fraction of Strunk's prior wasting of judicial resources, and concluded he was entitled to very little slack indeed.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13006
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Strunk in Esse©

#710

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:05 am

bob wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:54 am
Notorial Dissent wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:08 am
For a for real lawyer he seems to have a problem with coming up with real cause of action and actual things you can sue for.
:lol:

The court explained that pro se litigants should be indulged, but vexatious ones get a bit less slack. Then the court listed a small fraction of Strunk's prior wasting of judicial resources, and concluded he was entitled to very little slack indeed.
I think the referring to him as "pro se" was the bestest slap down of all. You'd think though that unless he got his degree from the same diploma mill Orbly did that he'd at least know the basic requirements and be able to at least pretend to competence.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7374
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Strunk in Esse©

#711

Post by Sam the Centipede » Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:27 am

bob wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:54 am
Notorial Dissent wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:08 am
For a for real lawyer he seems to have a problem with coming up with real cause of action and actual things you can sue for.
:lol:

The court explained that pro se litigants should be indulged, but vexatious ones get a bit less slack. Then the court listed a small fraction of Strunk's prior wasting of judicial resources, and concluded he was entitled to very little slack indeed.
It amusies me to see the stylistic and other tics in these slapdowns as courts try to drive a stake through the heart of such cases – they definitely don't want them to bounce back! It starts with the nod to the court's duty to be more accommodating of pro se parties, "yes, we know we must be kind to idiots." The court doesn't ever review the submitted materials, no, it carefully reviews them. (I guess that trope probably applies to non-pro-se-vex-lit cases too, but I ain't no lawyah). I like the bit where the court sez "look, we know you're an annoying idiot, and we're allowed to know that even though we're not normally supposed to look outside the docket."



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13006
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Strunk in Esse©

#712

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:46 pm

And it, of course, ALL went right over Stunk's head. He raises oblivious to whole new realms of incompetence. I will admit I 'm looking forward to his excuses this time around. I will say I think he has started to plumb new depths of lowness.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Post Reply

Return to “Orly Taitz”