Birther Mario Apuzzo left two comments at his blog concerning the report by “Intrepid Reporter” that was published on this blog on Monday. Rather than deal with Mario’s less than friendly comment system with the stupid CAPCHA and no preview or edit function I thought I would reply here instead.
The comments were left on this article that is a long defense Apuzzo wrote of Mr. Strunk over the weekend. Strunk emailed the blog post to all the attorneys in the case and apparently Judge Schack allowed it to be accepted into the record without objection. According to “Intrepid Reporter” Judge Schack also asked plaintiff Strunk if Mr. Apuzzo was admitted to practice in the state of New York. Mr. Strunk replied he did not know. (Apparently, Apuzzo has had no success in finding other attorneys to sponsor him or in being admitted to practice in jurisdictions outside of his own. His most recent such failure was in Pennsylvania. There is no indication he tried to be admitted in New York or was already licensed there. ) Apuzzo wrote:
Here is living proof of how intellectually dishonest the Obots are. Over at RC Radio Blog, run by Reality Check, we learn that a “reporter” was at the Chris Strunk hearing before Judge Schack in the New York State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, N.Y., on May 7, 2012, at 2:30 PM EDT. The reporter’s report may be read here:
First, thanks for the link to our article, Mario! You are speaking about intellectual dishonesty as someone who has twisted the truth on cases such as Minor v Happersett and Wong Kim Ark for three years now. The report on this blog was written by a citizen who attended the hearing and represents that persons best recollection of what transpired.
The only real issue before the Court was for Chris Strunk to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for filing what the Court said was a frivolous argument regarding his definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Strunk argued in his case that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who are “citizens” of that country.
Sorry but this a complete over-simplification of the purposes of the hearing. This hearing had several purposes. Quoting Judge Schack:
Therefore, the Court will examine the conduct of plaintiff STRUNK in a hearing, pursuant to 22NYCRR § 130-1.1, to determine if plaintiff STRUNK engaged in frivolous conduct, and to allow plaintiff STRUNK a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Further, 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.
22NYCRR § 130-1.1 defines frivolous conduct:
(c) For purposes of this Part, conduct is frivolous if:
(1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law;
(2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or
(3) it asserts material factual statements that are false.
Judge Schack clearly spelled out that Mr. Strunk was using the court to push his wild conspiracy theories about the Catholic Church and the Order of the Jesuits in particular and was dragging in President Obama and a multitude of other parties into his delusions. He had brought two previous similar cases and was told his actions were also frivolous. This hearing afforded Mr. Strunk one last opportunity to make amends for his abuse of the courts, which should not be wasting precious time addressing such nonsense. As the the report of the hearing posted here demonstrated Mr. Strunk not only continued to push his crazy legal theories but showed complete lack of respect for Judge Schack and the State of New York whom he represents. Judge Schack demonstrated great patience in not finding Strunk in contempt.
I stated in my article in defense of Mr. Strunk: “As to Strunk’s legal arguments as to what is a “natural born Citizen,” Judge Schack did not correctly state Strunk’s legal position and by doing so actually created a straw man argument. He stated. . .
“Plaintiff STRUNK’S complaint, as well as his opposition to defendants’
motions to dismiss, alleges that the correct interpretation of the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution requires a natural born citizen to have been born on United States soil and have two United States born parents. . . . There is no arguable legal basis for the proposition that both parents of the President must have been born on U.S. soil. This assertion is as frivolous as the multitude of alleged allegations outlined above.”
Yes, Mario, those of us who follow your Birther craziness picked up on the fact that Judge Schack possibly misquoted Strunk’s crazy theory on natural born citizenship. Why didn’t you mention Strunk’s other claims and flaws in his case that Judge Schack had to address:
- That Obama practices sharia law.
- That Obama is a Muslim.
- That the Jesuit Order is behind a conspiracy to rule the world
- That the Senate committed fraud when it passed Resolution 511 opining that John McCain was eligible
- That other co-conspirators included but are not limited to The Roman Catholic Church, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Carlyle Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, Kirkland and Ellis, LLP, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU, George Soros, and Halliburton.
- That Strunk claimed he was personally injured because McCain failed to challenge Obama’s eligibility and he had voted for McCain
- That Strunk claims that he “fired” Obama within 72 hours of him taking office
- That Cindy McCain was part of the Catholic conspiracy because is a Budweiser distributor and everyone knows the Busch family is Catholic.
- That Strunk had previously filed similar cases that had been found to be frivolous in both the United States District Court in the EasternDistrict of New York and before another judge in Kings County, NY.
I wrote the above article because I could not just back and see such injustice carried out against Mr. Strunk. At his show cause hearing, Mr. Strunk took my article and provided a copy to all of the parties’ attorneys and even had it admitted into the Court record as an amicus brief on his behalf.
I stated in my article that Strunk did not argue that a “natural born Citizen” child has to be born to “two United States born parents” or that “both parents . . . must have been born on U.S. soil.” This argument is strictly a creation of Judge Schack. Rather, I explained that Strunk argued that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States to “citizen” parents. I explained that “citizen” parents means “natural born Citizen” or “citizen of the United States” by naturalization at birth or after birth. This definition of a “citizen” does not mean that the child’s parents have to be born in the United States, for it includes as “citizen” parents persons who are not born in the United States but naturalize to become U.S. citizens after their birth. At the hearing, Strunk again told Judge Schack that he misstated his definition of a “natural born Citizen.” But it all fell on deaf ears, with Judge Schack continuing to talk about the six presidents whose parents were not born in the United States.
There is no mention in the Obot report of how Judge Schack did not define Strunk’s “citizen parent” properly and that Strunk never said that it meant that the parent had to be born in the United States. Rather, what the report does is just give some words that are part of the argument but not the actual argument. The reporter states:
“Strunk began an elaborate and mainly indecipherable diatribe about ‘strawman arguments’ Judge Schack supposedly made in his Decision and Order. Something about ‘you took x argument and made it y argument when my main argument was x argument.’ Yes, he was saying ‘x argument and y argument.’”
Judge Schack may have not correctly stated Strunk’s nonsense theory as to who is a natural born citizen in his decision. However, Apuzzo implied that this was the only reason Judge Schack found Strunk’s case to be frivolous and without merit. The passage to which Mr. Apuzzo and Mr. Strunk take offense was Judge Schack’s recollection of oral arguments that Strunk made at a hearing on August 22, 2011. For one, we do not know whether or not Strunk even correctly stated his arguments at that hearing. Judge Schack then listed cases where arguments that McCain and/or Obama were not natural born citizens for various reasons have been rejected.
The reporter adds more:
“The Judge wanted to wrap this up in the next 15 minutes.He started off ‘About your argument of two citizen parents..’” Strunk yelled, ‘That’s not my argument, it’s yours! I have nothing else to say.’ He was so angry that when he sat down again, the keys hanging from his belt actually jingled on the chair.”
The reporter presents these smatterings of Strunk’s argument before Judge Schack without actually stating what the issue is to make it look like he covered the issue when in truth he did not and not to give away what Strunk’s argument is. Notice how the reporter feigns not to know what Strunk was talking about. The Obots know quite well that the “birthers” do not maintain that the parents of the child have to be born in the United States, but rather they maintain that the parents can be either “natural born Citizens,” born “citizens of the United States,” or even “citizens of the United States” by naturalization after birth.
“Intrepid Reporter” was reporting exactly what occurred at the hearing. Neither Judge Schack nor Strunk went into further discussion on the definition of natural born citizen (except Strunk did at the end bemoan how the term originated in the state of New York and had something to do with copper mining).
All this shows that Strunk’s argument was absolutely not frivolous and that he should not be sanctioned for making his “natural born Citizen” argument. But yet, the Obots feign that they just do not understand what Strunk is talking about. Hopefully, Judge Schack will read my “amicus brief” before he gives his final decision. There is still time for the Court to do justice for Mr. Strunk.
I hardly think that someone who was witnessing Strunk’s ramblings for the first time could be blamed for not researching things that were not presented by Strunk at his own hearing. We know your argument well, Mario. We also know that any theory that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen is nonsense.1 Your argument here is analogous to accusing Judge Schack of saying that Strunk said unicorns are pink with purple spots when he actually said they are purple with pink spots. Both misstatements have equivalent relevance to this case being frivolous. It is the fact that the plaintiff believes in unicorns and not the color that counts. Judge Schack cited a litany of reasons that he dismissed Strunk’s case:
- Lack of standing
- Failure to state a cause of action
- Failure to plead fraud with particularity
- Lack of jurisdiction
- Preclusion by collateral estoppel (a legal term that means once an issue has been litigated and decided it does not need to be litigated again)1
Mr. Apuzzo attempts to make it appear that Judge Schack zeroed in on Strunk’s theory of who is a natural born citizen to declare the case frivolous and sanction Strunk. This is a complete misinterpretation of Judge Schack’s ruling. First, no matter what Strunk argued on August 22, 2011 we know it is nonsense.1 Secondly, there were a long list of other flaws in this ridiculous lawsuit that lead Schack to his decision. I am sure Judge Schack will give Apuzzo’s opus every bit of the consideration it deserves and will go forth with imposing costs upon Mr. Strunk. We hope that Judge Schack is serious and that the sanctions will send a message to other pro se litigants and attorneys with nothing else productive to do and dissuade them from abusing the courts for political purposes. We would not be sad if Mr. Apuzzo or Ms Taitz could be next.
1Allen v. Obama et al, No. C20121317 (Ariz. Pima County Super. Ct. Mar. 7, 2012) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2012 ballot; finding that Obama is a ”natural born citizen” under Wong Kim Ark; and expressly rejecting argument that Minor v. Happersett holds otherwise), appeal filed (Ariz. App. Ct. 2d Div. Mar. 8, 2012); Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents”) transfer denied 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010); Farrar v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALlHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen”), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211398 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), recons. denied (Mar. 14, 2012), appeal denied, No. S12D1180 (Ga. Apr. 11, 2012); Freeman v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 103 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); Galasso v Obama, No. STE 04588-12 (N.J. Office of Admin Law Apr. 10, 2012) (initial decision rejecting challenge to Obama’s 2012 nominating position and finding that, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency per Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark), decision adopted as final (N.J. Sec’y of State Apr. 12, 2012); Jackson v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 104 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); Kesler v. Obama, No. 2012-162 (Ind. Election Comm’n Feb. 24, 2012) (denying objection seeking to keep Obama off 2012 ballot on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”); Powell v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216823-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211528 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1077 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012); Purpura et al v. Obama, No. STE 04534-12 (N.J. Office of Admin Law Apr. 10, 2012) (initial decision rejecting challenge to Obama’s 2012 nominating position and finding that, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency per Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark), decision adopted as final (N.J. Sec’y of State Apr. 12, 2012); Strunk v. N.Y. Bd. of Elections et al, No. 006500/2011 (N.Y. King County Supr. Ct. Apr. 12, 2012) (dismissing complaint challenging, among other things, President Obama’s eligibility to his office; expressly rejecting the birther claim that Obama is ineligible on the basis of his father’s citizenship as frivolous, and issuing a show cause order as to why sanctions should not be imposed upon plaintiff); Swensson v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216218-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen”), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1076 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012); Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3: 12cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order dismissing complaint) (dismissing in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that “[i]t is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” and that plaintiff’s contentions otherwise are “without merit”), appeal pending, No. 12-1124 (4th Cir. filed Jan. 30, 2012); Welden v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215137-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1059 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012).