Strunk v. US Dept. of State and Homeland Security – Amended Verified Complaint and Petition in Re FOIA [Obama’s eligibility]
In five days, Barack Hussein Obama Jr. will be crowned sworn in as The ONE Abraham Lincoln redux President of the United States. With the help of the MSM, ACORN, Oprah, electronic communications, and a massive financial campaign (including but not limited, to foreign donations, over-limit donations, and falsely-identified donors) , Obama bought was duly elected our next POTUS.
Many of you are filled with Hope and believe that Obama will Change the way things are done in Washington and that he will work tirelessly on your behalf to improve the quality of your lives. I do not share this belief, but I would not mind being proved wrong.
There are others who believe that, whatever his intentions, Barack Obama is not eligible to be POTUS because he has not demonstrated that he is a “natual-born citizen.” This belief is strengthened by Obama’s refusal to show a genuine long-form birth certificate which would put the issue to rest.
The result has been, and continues to be, a series of legal challenges demanding that he be declared ineligible and provide proof. Three of these challenges have been dismissed by the Supreme Court, but more are coming.
One law suit claims that any member of any branch of the armed forces will be harmed if a “usurper” were to order them into battle. Another claims that a candidate was irreparably harmed by the presence of an “ineligible” candidate during the election. No doubt there are others working their way through the courts, seeking clarification of this and other issues.
I have just stumbled upon a case that some of you may already know about. Mr. Christopher Earl Strunk, in November of 2008, petitioned the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under the Freedom of Information Act. He sought details about Stanley Ann Dunham/Obama/Soetoro and all forms of the names she used; about an “impostor” who is using her social security number, while “residing in New York;” and about Barrack/Barry Obama/Sotero
Neither department answered his requests nor explained why there was no response. As a private citizen and a voter, Mr. Strunk claims that he was legally entitled to information that would have/might have influenced his decisions during the election. The inability to make an informed vote, therefore, affects Mr. Strunks’ ability to influence the outcome of the election and policies of the government.
Mr. Strunk also claims that there is legal precedance for “standing” and “injury.” It is a claim he is now pursuing through the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
I shall watch its progress eagerly and report back here when something occurs.
Link to Document: http://www.scribd.com/doc/9997554/Strunk-v-US-Dept-of-State-and-Homeland-Security-Amended-Verified-Complaint-and-Petition-in-Re-Foia-Usdc