Today is the day set by New York judge Arthur Schack where the cost of being a birther may be learned. The case of Christopher-Earl Strunk v New York State Board of Elections and a list of co-defendants that fills a full page was dismissed April 11 and in that order Judge Schack wrote:
…STRUNK’s instant action is frivolous. … STRUNK [pictured right] alleges baseless claims about defendants which are fanciful, fantastic, delusional and irrational. It is a waste of judicial resources for the Court to spend time on the instant action. Moreover the Court will conduct a hearing to give plaintiff STRUNK a reasonable opportunity to be heard … as to whether or not the Court should award costs and/or impose sanctions upon plaintiff STRUNK for his frivolous conduct. At the hearing, an opportunity will be given to counsel for defendants to present detailed records of costs incurred by their clients in the instant action.
Strunk’s complaint and filings are lengthy to say the least and defense counsel must have at least read them. It’s likely that the same defense counsels are representing multiple defendants, such as the members of the new York State Board of elections, Obama, Biden and Obama for America, the Vatican defendants, the McCain-Palin campaign funds and the members of the Brzezinski family. But the miscellaneous plaintiffs have to be added: Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, George Soros, Roger Calero, the Socialist Workers Party and the New York State Republican Committee AND MORE. That has to amount to quite a bit of money. Multiplied by the number of defendants, legal costs could be staggering.
I’m not going to predict what the Court will do, nor will I advocate what it should do. While I believe Strunk to be sincere, his conspiracism does not operate in a vacuum; he causes trouble for innocent bystanders. Actions have consequences, and to date it seems like birthers have had it pretty easy in the consequence department (with a $20,000 sanction against Orly Taitz the only significant exception1).
See also my article: “Birthers waste millions in taxpayer dollars.”
Read more:
- Strunk: Answer to order Decision
- Apuzzo: The New York State Court Should Not Sanction Pro Se Plaintiff, Christopher Earl Strunk, for His "Natural Born Citizen" Litigation
- First-person report of the hearing
1Costs were assessed against plaintiff Carol Greenberg amounting to $600, that was paid by someone else. See my article: “Take responsibility for your actions.”
Don’t know if you’ve seen Strunk’s written response or not, but it’s here for those who wish to read it http://www.scribd.com/doc/92290786/Strunk-Aff-Response-to-4-11-12-Decision-and-OSC-NYSSC-Index-6500-2011
Much like his other pleadings, it’s a doozie.
I think costs were also assessed to Harold Sorensen in Alabama this year, although Obama’s attorney took pity on Sorensen and said he would not try to collect if Sorensen stopped his birhter activities and refrained from writing negatively about the proceedings on the internet.
A fat lot of good that offer by Obama’s attorney in LA did – Sorensen is now trying to have the Judge investigated. To use an old British expression, Sorensen is taking the piss out of the ruling, and I think that somebody needs to move to reinstate the sanctions against him.
Thanks for reminding me. I added a link to this in the article. I had seen it but due to its length, I didn’t read very far.
Dr. C, there is more North Carolina birther candidate news: It now appears that there is a race in which both of the Republican primary candidates have gone birther.
So far, I’ve only seen Orly write on her blog thatshe “heard” this was happening. I don’t know that I’d damn Sorensen on something Orly is posting as hearsay.
Maybe this isn’t confined to cranks, probably many pro se litigants have this problem:
He thinks that he can avoid sanctions by simply restating his entire case.
And since he’s already lost said case, that’s futile at best and offensive to the court at worst.
Instead, as I understand it, he should’ve focused simply on why he believed he was bringing his case in good faith. Heck, he could even have thrown Apuzzo under the bus by claiming “I relied on the findings of a lawyer I believed to be a Constitutional law expert” or suchlike.
Pleadings in a “show cause” hearing for sanctions should better be “I’m sorry, I didn’t know better, but I meant well” and not “I know you didn’t agree with me first time around, but I AM RIGHT G-DAMMIT!!!”.
The only pitiful thing is that, IMO, Strunk is one of the lesser evils in the birther scene, he is truly deluded, unlike Apuzzo or Van Irion or Corsi or Arpaio. Those people would deserve to suffer the consequences, not the poor fools who too blindly followed them.
Apuzzo posted a lengthy piece over the weekend about why he doesn’t believe Strunk should be sanctioned. Several of the Birther blogs picked it up, and I posted a link to it on the earlier Strunk post here on Doc’s blog. I wonder if Apuzzo was advising Strunk at any point behind the scenes.
Offf topic – Anybody know why Fogbow is down?
I remember when my own Republican Congressman Mike Castle, when asked at a public meeting somewhere in southern Delaware (I think it was in Rehoboth), told a bunch of Birthers that he thought they were full of it (of course, he put it much more politely). He got heckled and booed for that.
If only every Republican politician had the courage to tell fringe conspiracy theorists that they were wrong.
A year later he lost the primary challenge for Joe Biden’s open Senate seat to national punchline Christine O’Donnell. I don’t really think the Birther heckling incident is to blame though. Castle just lost because he was seen as a RINO who *gasp* cooperated with Democrats. One thing I learned in 2010 is that if a Republican cooperates with a Democrat, that Republican is a traitor, but if a Democrat doesn’t cooperate with a Republican, that Democrat is “ramming through legislation”.
Strunk has enough problems on his own, he does not need the ‘help’ from Mario. Mario is upset because another judge denied his ‘arguments’ that NBC requires two citizen parents.
Mario has no choice and also whines about him being denied Pro Hac Vice status in PA..
Mario forgets to point out that the court in fact had ruled his complaint frivolous and never retracted that designation. Surely Mario must remember the filing of the motion to deny PHV filed by the defendants?
Mario’s arguments continue to shredded at John Woodman’s blog. Hilarious…
Back up
No, but I do know the owner is aware and is working on it.
The law is a complicated thing. I can’t imagine most people acting as their own attorney would do very well, unless they were themselves trained in the law.
NPR show This American Life did an entire show about people representing themselves, appropriately titled “pro se”. You can listen to it online here. Act Two is my favorite part. It’s the story about a guy named Jorge Cruz who was in an Albany criminal court on drug charges. He decided to forgo the public defender and act as his own attorney. He ended up winning the case. Host Ira Glass interviews the experienced prosecutor who lost. The prosecutor attributes Cruz’s victory, in part, to Cruz doing things that no lawyer would ever do.
I posted a comment that was so insightful and amazing that it went down in honor of the post. 😀
PS…also have some swampland you might be interested in. hehehe
I’m of two minds about this. Strunk or “;Strunk” as he styles himself, should be sanctioned but (1) it’s most assuredly not collectible and (2) it would only encourage him.
I prefer the sanction of such nutbars being deemed vexatious litigants and barred from further abuse of the courts. That’s extreme, and should not be used lightly. They did it to the filth known as Andrew Martin-Trigona.
It happens.
Speaking of down, this web site was down this morning, but is back up.
http://webofdeception.com/
I don’t even know how to characterize it.
ahh, another website using the 1996 school of web design heh
The decisions is here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/92326856/NY-2012-04-11-Strunk-v-NYBOE-Et-Al-Decision-and-Order
No monetary fine but he is banned from bringing this again, pretty much as a vexatious litigant.
Roma,
Not quite, the fun part kicks off in one minute from now when Strunkie has to stand up in court in Brooklyn and explain why he should not have to payy all the costs of the defendants due to his “frivolous conduct”.
Considering just how many people he pulled into this pile of poo it could end up being a serious chunk of change
That’s the original decision, Strunk is now responding to the order to show cause. Hearing today. Reality Check Radio has a ‘reporter’ on the ground.
Good. Stupidity has a price. Pay up birther bigots.
There are some things that are pretty easy to do yourself with a little help from legal guidebooks. Nolo Press has a series of very well constructed books. However, even they say that a case could get to the point where one would be best served hiring an attorney.
I remember seeing the standard list of discovery items for one particular type of action. It occurs to me that an untrained pro se defendant could just check off everything (there are no limits) even if it has nothing to do with the action – just to possibly claim that they weren’t given the information needed to defend themselves. Of course if it got to that, a judge could possibly rule that it was excessive and only designed to inconvenience the plaintiff rather than provide information needed by the defense.
It is past time for something like this to start happening. These birthers have clogged up courts and cost already over strained resources. These people have had their try and they have lost, over 120 times. It is now becoming more of a joke than anything else.
If there was some evidence about the invalidity of the president to hold office it would have come out way before now. Birthers keep changing what they say, making stuff up as they keep losing. First he wasn’t born here, now it he must have 2 citizen parents.
This BS needs to stop and making them pay for wasting the court’s time is a good way to start.
According to early reports from RC Radio, there were a total of 11 yes ELEVEN lawyers in attandance for this one….One assumes the lengthy time being taken is due to the big numbers being added up and justified….. 😎
As has been pointed out elsewhere, Strunk even once represented himself in a personal injury lawsuit in Kings County (Brooklyn) Supreme Court. That was sheer insanity. A personal injury attorney would have handled it on a contingent fee basis, and an insurance defense attorney can run rings around pro se plaintiffs. A pro se personal injury plaintiff needs to know how to line up expert medical witnesses, get certified records into court, know the nuances of tort law, etc.
In the grand scheme of things, that’s not a lot of cases, less than one per state per year on average. There is something quintessentially American about a well-meaning but ill-informed crank having his day in court. However, when someone keeps doing it again and again, like Strunk and Taitz, I think some sanctions are appropriate.
I was actually next door when this started, but, sadly, I couldn’t stay for the hearing. I met RuhRoh, and I think she sat through it. Any reports?
As best I understand it, they were still at it at 5 PM. To get breaking news, you might look at the Fogbow thread here (you must sign-up to see this content):
http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=478&p=374438&hilit=strunk#p374438
the Reality Check Radio article here:
http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/report-from-the-strunk-sanctions-hearing-in-brooklyn-ny
Or listen to the Reality Check Radio program tomorrow night at 9 PM.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/rcr
Wouldn’t that be a “no-no” if Apuzzo weren’t admitted to practice law in New York?
As I understand it, Judge Schack has given the defendants 30 days to submit their costs, so he obviously intends to award them. I don’t know if he also is going to order Strunk to pay attorney fees.
See first-hand account of the hearing:
http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/report-from-the-strunk-sanctions-hearing-in-brooklyn-ny/
Attorneys have 30 days to submit costs.
Well, I guess it’s no big secret that I was the “Intrepid Observer”!
It took awhile to get home, walk the doggie and then to type up the report.
Meeting AskESQ was an unexpected benefit of the trip!
Strunk is mentally ill. Whether he lost in Vietnam (he self identifies as a Vietnam Vet) or at some other point, who knows. His campaign webpage states in part when he was running for public office that the Vatican is trying to exterminate the entire Black race through abortion. Snippet (http://www.strunk.ws/page15/page15.html):
“A genocidal disaster is going on here in this community and elsewhere. I contend and have publicly litigated the issue alleging that the black community here has been targeted with genocide by the Vatican Holy See and its’ business component with the Sovereignty Military Order of Malta (SMOM), that conspire with Saudi investors enriched by OPEC gouging, want to gobble up the valuable real estate on which the Black Community here reside.
I am therefore proclaiming that there is a violation of the Proxmire Act of 1988 with acts of genocide using abortion to target the black community for extinction in a similar way as the SMOM and the Bush and Clinton family have targeted community living arrangements there in Texas, recently alleging, as if a CIA cointelpro operation, that somehow children in a pseudo Mormon Klan have been molested; which this week has been found by a court to be untrue.”
He needs help.
should read “lost it in Vietnam”
If Strunk subpoenas your IP address in a defamation lawsuit, I’ll give it to him.
It was a very fine report too, very evocative.
The first draft of this story included a quotation of a parable of Jesus, where he points out that someone who builds a tower would do well to figure out the cost ahead of time to see if he has enough money to complete the project, because if he starts and doesn’t finish, people will make fun of him.
I omitted the story because at least so far, it doesn’t apply to Mr. Strunk. However other birthers whine when they are faced with consequences and say how terribly unfair it is. One wrote:
I say that when bringing a lawsuit, even one to “uphold the Constitution”, there is still the responsibility to get the facts and know the law first — or else there may be consequences.
Thanks! I definitely have a new level of respect for court reporters after attempting to make notes during the hearing. 😉
“It’s never frivolous if you are trying to uphold the constitution.”
Wrapping yourself in the American flag is not a universal standard of righteousness.
The U.S. Constitution is not a sacred document.
Respecting its intent also means understanding it can and will be amended.
Right. Idea #34,781 that Birfoons never recognize: the Founders built the Constitution to be amendable.
I don’t believe that Charo has anything to worry about. Strunk is a public figure (he has run for public office at least once) so it isn’t defamation unless Charo knows or should have known that what she says about him isn’t true.
Actually, Strunk self-identifies as a Vietnam-era Vet. That designation indicates that he was in the service during the Vietnam War but he never served in a combat zone.
It isn’t necessary to have actually served in-country, but the general rule is that you have to have received the Vietnam Service Medal to be considered a Vietnam Vet. That includes sailors who served on ships in the South China Sea contiguous to Vietnam.
Excellent report! It sound like Strunk put on quite a show. I am also impressed with the restraint shown by Judge Schack.
I cleaned up the article a bit and added a link to the Decision and Order by Judge Schack.
The same link still works. http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/report-from-the-strunk-sanctions-hearing-in-brooklyn-ny
A big tip of the RC Radio cap to “Intrepid Reporter” for taking the time to attend. From the description this could have been one of the more entertaining Birther events except for the maybe the near riot at Orly’s NH ballot challenge hearing.
Several folks asked whether the amount of fees in this case was mentioned at the hearing. It was not. However, Mario Apuzzo is reporting on his blog that the fees for representing the Brzezinski defendants total $80,000 to date.
Their attorney did bring a statement of fees to the hearing and said he had served it on Strunk, so I assume Strunk must have shared the information with Apuzzo.
Saw a newism on TFB: “Money can’t buy her the luv and attention of teh Peeples.
But she will need some if she ever gets strunked.” — MrBrown
Suggested definition: strunked: to have your pockets emptied as a result of a frivolous court case.
I’m too lazy to find the post regarding the “Cost of Birther Suits”, but Chris Strunk is now reporting at ORYR that he is facing a half million on fees as sanctions.
Considering that only a few of the attorneys at the show cause hearing 5/7 brought or even indicated they would bring a statement of fees, a half million is a very low estimate.
Good. The higher, the better.