SUPPORTS ACTION BY PLAINTIFFS IN BARNETT VS. OBAMA
The attached letter was sent to counsels and the DC District Judge this afternoon by regular mail.
FROM: Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue – #281
Brooklyn, New York 11238
Telephone: (845) 901-6767
Email: uncasvotes2@yahoo.com
TO: Honorable David O. Carter
Judge, United States District Court
Central District of California, Southern Division
411 West Fourth Street, Courtroom 9D
Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516
Re: Barnett, et a1 v. Obama, et al, Case No. 8:09-cv-00082
Subject: Request for permission to transfer with the 28 USC §1407
Multidistrict matter Strunk v US DOS et al. DCD 08-cv-2234
(RJL) with demand for Quo Warranto inquest of Barack
Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro).
The Honorable Judge Carter,
I am the Plaintiff, Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse, in the related Case and make this statement under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC 1746. Declarant is self-represented in the above civil action on-going in Washington District of Columbia before U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon. Judge Leon ordered a stay of discovery pending a decision on my Quo Warranto demand for an inquest of multi-allegiance facts associated with the August 4, 1961 birth of Barack Hussein Obama Jr., a.k.a. Barry Soetoro (the Usurper). That I duly fired the Usurper on January 22, 2009 because the Usurper is unqualified to act with my power of attorney as the Usurper has more than one allegiance at birth by his own admission; and therefore, with dual allegiance is ineligible to hold the office of President according to U.S. Constitution Article II Section 2 Clause 5, because the Usurper is not a natural-born-citizen without two U.S. Citizen parents on August 4, 1961. Of further prima facie importance to the inquest are facts filed before this Court for verification that prove the Usurper is not even a native-born-citizen either, and thereby triggers review of facts as to Usurper’s naturalized citizen status also if proper allegiance filing is absent upon entry into Hawaii as a citizen of Indonesia.
I am familiar with the facts associated with the referenced cases as each are related and subject to consolidation here as an urgent matter of National Security before this Court and that the U.S. Government has argued that any Quo Warranto be done in Washington District of Columbia and I urge herein applies with a Multi-district Judicial Panel accordingly. A copy of this request has been sent to Counsels and Court in both cases. Respectfully yours,
Date: October 7th, 2009
/s/ Christopher-Earl: Strunk
Brooklyn New York
RE: “A quo warranto MAY be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the …
[Snip]
————
Mr. Charlton replies:Denis, see article on the 7th Circuit ruling at this site.
Sorry, he never got back to me through that email address.
Dear Post & Email:
Let all plaintiffs decide to make this a truly national multi-district quo warranto by combining the “Barnett” case with the “Kerchner” case and the two District of Columbia USDC cases — “Strunk” as well as case on appeal at the DC Circuit in “Hollister”.
Add to this the possibility of a Title 28 USC 2284 special three judge district court panel by relating the quo warranto to the national reapportionment census challenging the authority of each and every sitting congress person who collectively failed to diligently fulfill their constitutional duty and thereby sanctioned/allowed the admission of the state electoral college “votes” in December 2008 / January 2009.
I believe the litigation negotiations have already begun.
Hmmm. this is interesting. Judge Carter may not rule on the Motion to Dismiss (MTD) because he wants the case kept at home-(in his court). If he wanted to get rid of it, he could have ruled either way, and an immediate “Notice Of Appeal” would have been filed by either losing party I’m sure. Because Orly’s Stay for Discovery was denied, the Judge realizes also that the Defence could “appeal” that decision if he rules for her. Keep this in mind, any decision he makes positively for her can be appealed which can take a whole year off a case. Judge Carter knows this,… so he is moving carefully and strategically to get the most out of what discovery has been granted. Summary Judgement means a Judge’s ruling on the whole case without a Trial and these dates have been solidified with the memo from the court yesterday. Quo Warranto may come into play here as he is entertaining this as it is a process that may elliminate the need for discovery. Very interesting indeed…
Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing — December 7, 2009, at 8:30 a.m.
File Motion for Summary Judgment — November 16, 2009
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment — November 26, 2009… Read More
Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment — November 30, 2009
Strunk is asking a multi district judicial panel under what
provision?
The quo warranto that he is arguing does not mean anything, the wording in it uses the word “may”, not must or shall. It is not mandatory. And per CA election code, of which there are many alleged violations, Judge Carter has proper jurisdiction to hear the matter. This people are misreading the DC code and putting words into it that are NOT there.
A quo warranto MAY be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
Key word is MAY, not shall or must. So it may also be proper to be filed elsewhere as Dr. Taitz has done. People need to read the words before jumping to erroneous conclusions.
Thanks, John. I’ve sent him the request for clarification.
I’m not understanding this – is there a typo here, perhaps the word “applies,” or am I just reading it wrong?
“I am familiar with the facts associated with the referenced cases as each are related and subject to consolidation here as an urgent matter of National Security before this Court and that the U.S. Government has argued that any Quo Warranto be done in Washington District of Columbia and I urge herein applies with a Multi-district Judicial Panel accordingly.”
Thanks in advance for any help!
————
Mr. Charlton replies: Alex, write Mr. Strunk, via his email, and ask him to send a correction. I think he mean “I urge herein that an application be made with a multi-distric Judicial Panel accordingly”. Mr. Strunk is famous for fililng 4 or 5 actions in the last year, on the eligibility question; his letter merits publication for that fact alone.