No, the judge dismissed the case. Strunk (the plaintiff) then sought an order permitting him to amend the complaint, and the judge denied that motion. Strunk, who is not a lawyer and is representing himself, doesn't seem to understand what is going on.
Ummmm you sure about that, it looks like it is a dismissal of the order to show cause by the Defendant.
Please tell me more, because I am not interested in false hopes.
No, the judge dismissed the case. Strunk (the plaintiff) then sought an order permitting him to amend the complaint, and the judge denied that motion. Strunk, who is not a lawyer and is representing himself, doesn’t seem to understand what is going on.
Chris Strunk said...
I am awaiting the entered order from the NYS AG and with it I will file for reconsideration within ten days for Justice Schmidt to review cure to the procedural matters accordingly.
Procedural matters:
In the NYS CPLR 3215 (c) as to the matter raised by the court in regards to failure to file a motion for default would be subject to “unless sufficient cause [is] shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.”
Crossing the “sufficient cause” hurdle along with the CPLR 306-b service ordered by the Court with the attached CPLR 307 service upon the state; and as for the referenced “vague” portions of the verified complaint and or the proposed FAC I have within ten days to cure the vagueness after the order of entry is had with a more definite statement with CPLR 3024.
In regards to particularity, CPLR 3016 (b) and the vagueness referenced by the court in re the cause of action for “sediton treason and conspiracy” as not being a civil action, I regard each as part of the proximate cause of injury as part of a scheme to defraud that has a 6 year statutory limit with CPLR 213(8) “an action based upon fraud; the time within which the action must be commenced shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued (from collusion in re NBC on or about December 2005) or two years from the time the plaintiff or the person under who plaintiff claims discovered the fraud (DOS FOIA release July 29 2010), or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.”
The court question as to why a new complaint could not be filed is now under consideration.
However, my motion for reconsideration will include a reworked Amended Complaint as welll as the Amended Summons.
January 18, 2011 3:55 PM