Strunk in Esse©

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15614
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: 26810
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: 8186
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.

Post Reply

Return to “Orly Taitz”