You are on page 1of 506

16- 0413-OP

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
__________________________________________________________________

In re: Christopher Earl Strunk, Christopher Blaise Garvey,
and Harold William Van Allen,
Petitioners.
__________________________________________________________________
NOTICE UNDER FRAP 35 TO RECONSIDER EN BANC FOR A MORE
DEFINITE DECISION TO DISMISS INCLUDING THE ALTERNATIVE
TO TRANSFER THE PETITION TO THE CO-EQUAL SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES ON NON MILITARY MATTERS
__________________________________________________________________
PETITION WITH 28 USC §1651 FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND
INJUNCTION EQUITY RELIEF IN THE MATTER OF THE NEW YORK
REPUBLICAN PARTY POTUS PRIMARY ON APRIL 19, 2016 AND
NATIONAL GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016; PURSUANT TO
THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANDATE BY THE DE-FACTO
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, UNDER THE:
HAGUE CONVENTION, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE,
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, AND
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
__________________________________________________________________
Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris,
in propria persona Petitioner Movant
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue - PMB 102
Brooklyn, New York Zip code excepted [11217]
Ph: 718-414-3760; Email: suretynomore@gmail.com
 

PETITIONERS
Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris, in propria persona
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue - PMB 102
Brooklyn, New York Zip code excepted [11217]
Ph: 718-414-3760; Email: suretynomore@gmail.com
Christopher Blaise Garvey in esse, in propria persona
16 Nicoll Avenue
Amityville, New York 11701
Ph: 631-598-0752; Email: chrisgarveyl@verizon.net
Harold William Van Allen in esse, in propria persona
351 North Road
Hurley New York 12443
Ph: 845-389-4366; Email: hvanallen@hvc.rr.com

PARTIES IN INTEREST
Roger J. Bernstein, Esq.
535 Fifth Avenue, 35th Floor
New York, New York 10017
Brian L. Quail, Esq. and Kimberly Galvin, Esq.
for New York State Board of Elections
40 North Pearl Street, 5th Floor
Albany, New York 12207
Grant M. Lally, Esq.
Lally & Misir, LLP
for Ted Cruz
220 Old Country Road
Mineola, New York 11501
Marco Rubio
P.O. Box 558701
Miami Florida 33255 8701

 

JINDAL FOR PRESIDENT
P.O.BOX 5101
BATON ROUGE, LA 70821-5101
Barack Hussein Obama II
President of the United States'
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington DC 20500
THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
310 First Street SE
Washington DC 20003
202-863-8600
DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT
725 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK, New York 10022
Organization of American States Commission
17th Street and Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, D.C., 20006-4499
United States of America
Main Telephone: 1 (202) 370 5000
Permanent Court of Arbitration
International Bureau
Peace Palace
Carnegieplein 2
2517 KJ The Hague
Tel: 0031-(0)70-3024165
Fax: 0031-(0)70-3024167 Email: bureau@pca-cpa.org

ii 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
NOTICE TO RECONSIDER EN BANC

1

Introduction

1

Petition Relief Sought

8

Facts in Support of Motion for Reconsideration En Banc

11

Conclusion

14

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP)
Rule 35
Statutes
28 USC §1651
28 USC §2201
10 U.S. Code § 932 - Art. 132. Frauds against the United States
10 U.S. Code § 907 - Art. 107. False official statements
10 U.S. Code § 881 - Art. 81. Conspiracy
10 U.S. Code § 878 - Art. 78. Accessory after the fact
10 U.S. Code § 877 - Art. 77. Principals
12 USC 95(a): 50 USC App. 5(b) still a National Emergency of Executive Order
2039 and 2040 by authorization of Congress by 12 USC 95(b)
The Emergency Powers Act of Sept. 14, 1976 PL 94-412 90 Stat. 1255, expressly
retained 12 USC §95(a) with 50 USC Appendix §5(b)
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 17011707), EBRA remains the law of the land over banking and commerce
internationally cited by the Congressional Research Service Report to Congress
98-505 “National Emergency Powers” update September 18, 2001.
US Constitution
U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 (A2S1C5)
U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10
iii 
 

Cases
The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon 11 U.S. 116 (1812) ..............................9
Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393
Minor v.Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875)
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032
Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 210 (1935)
Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 319-20 (1958), or (2) impose an undue
burden on the ability of litigants to protect their federal rights, see, e.g., Felder v.
Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 138 (1988)
Treaties
Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV) of October 18, 1907,
especially Section III Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State
Articles 42 through 56
International Covenant of Civil And Political Rights (ICCPR) especially Articles 2
and 25
Other Sources
The Law of Nations, by Emer de Vattel (b. 25 April 1714 - d. 28 December 1767)
was published in 1758
Original Draft of the Declaration of Independence
PETITION and APPENDIX annexed with pages APX - 001 through APX - 434
Exhibit 1: Docketing 16--0413 and Order to Dismiss .......................................1
Exhibit 2: Korman v NYS BOE etal. Appeal 2016-00374 Order to uphold.........11
Exhibit 3: Article "...Ted Cruz "PROBABLY AN UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN"........12
Exhibit 4: Article "On the Victory of Dr. Seselj against the Word:..."...............12

iv 
 

NOTICE UNDER FRAP 35 TO RECONSIDER EN BANC FOR A MORE
DEFINITE DECISION TO DISMISS INCLUDING THE ALTERNATIVE
TO TRANSFER THE PETITION TO THE CO-EQUAL SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES ON NON MILITARY MATTERS
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE That the honorable judges of this Court: Charles E.
“Chip” Erdmann (Chief Judge.); Scott W. Stucky; Margaret A. Ryan; Kevin A.
Ohlson; William H. Darden; Walter T. Cox III; Eugene R. Sullivan; Susan J.
Crawford; H.F. "Sparky" Gierke; Andrew S. Effron; James E. Baker, are petitioned
with FRAP 35 to reconsider en banc the sua sponte Order to dismiss done without
attribution and without clarification of the decision (see Exhibit 1) at least requires
under 18 USC §2382 an order alternative with the Petition transfer to the co-equal
Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on non military matters.
INTRODUCTION
That the Undersigned Petitioner, Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris, a
member of the "pre-1933" Private National Citizen of the United States of America
posterity political class, is the beneficiary agent and attorney-in-fact in propria
persona (Strunk) for the registered Public US Citizen "CHRISTOPHER E.
STRUNK" (STRUNK) having exhausted remedies below with time as the essence
with imminent irreparable harm based upon the fraud and conspiracy damage to
individual fundamental personal rights and as the ONLY opportunity for active
service members to choose their commander-in-chief who must be constitutionally


 

eligible; and therefore, gives notice under Federal Rules for this Court en banc to
reconsider the 24 March 2016 sua sponte Order issued by the Clerk that adds
further infringement and insult despite the letter of the law under the National
Emergencies or during a time of war, is in error without any: (1) attribution and
(2) decision explaining the dismissal of Petitioners' application for equity relief
with use of 28 USC §1651 for Writ of Mandamus and Injunction Equity relief
submitted in the matter of the New York Republican Party Primary for Office of
President of the United States (POTUS) on April 19, 2016 (see APX - 093), and
as applies at the National General Election on November 8, 2016 with the New
York State Board of Elections actual fraudulent invention of the term "Born a
Citizen" versus the express term of art "natural born Citizen" (NBC) for candidate
eligibility contradicts the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, quote:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen. or a Citizen of the United States,
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office
of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not
have attained to the age of thirty five Years, and has been fourteen Years a
Resident within the United States."
That this Petition, 16-0413, was filed pursuant to pre-existing and current
National Emergency Mandates (see APX - 280) by the resident De-Facto
Commander-In-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama II, under: The Emergency Banking
Relief Act of 9 March 1933 (48 Stat. 1) (EBRA) that brought inland jurisdiction of
The Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, CH. 106, 40 STAT. 411

 

(TWEA) by operation of Executive Orders: 2039

(1)

of 6 March 1933 and 2040

(2)

of 9 March 1933, e.g. 12 USC §95(a): 50 USC App. §5(b), still a National
Emergency of the Executive by perpetual authorization of Congress with 12 USC
§95(b)(3); and that with four other Emergencies (see APX- 298) are still in effect (4),

                                                            
1

Executive Order 2039 created the perpetual private trusts on March 6, 1933 mandated :
"...the Secretary of the Treasury. with the approval of the President and under such
regulations as he may prescribe. is authorized and empowered (a) to permit any or· all of
such banking institutions to perform any or all of the usual banking functions, (b) to
direct, require or-permit the issuance of clearing house certificates or other evidences of
claims against assets of banking institutions , and {c) to authorize and direct the creation
in such banking institutions of special trust accounts for the receipt of new deposits
which shall be subject to withdrawal on demand without any restriction or limitation and
shall be kept separately in cash or on deposit in Federal Reserve Banks or invested-in
obligations of the United States." (emphasis added by Petitioners) 

2

Executive Order 2040 created the perpetual temporary Military Government on March 9, 1933
mandated : "...in view of such continuing national emergency and by virtue of the authority
vested in me by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6 , 1917 (40 Stat. L 411), as amended by the
act of March 9, 1933, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and declare that all the terms and
provisions of said Proclamation of March 6, 1933, and the regulations and orders issued there
under are hereby continued in full force and effect until further proclamation by the
President..." (emphasis added by Petitioners)
3

That 12 USC §95(a): 50 USC App. §5(b) with Executive Orders 2039 and 2040 as the law of
the land approved by Congress under 12 USC §95(b) and as for all current and related
"...actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken,
promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the
Treasury since March 4. 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by section 95a of this title,
are approved and confirmed." (emphasis added by Petitioners)

4

See APX - 296, quote: The purpose of the TWEA was to "define, regulate and punish trading
with the enemy." Section 5(b) of the original act gave the President power to regulate or prohibit
transactions in foreign exchange and currency, and transfers of credit or property with any
foreign country or the resident of any foreign country during war. This section has been amended
four times. In 1933 Section 5(b) was amended to provide that its authorities could be used in
time of a national emergency declared by the President;6 previously, the grants of power could
be used only during wartime. President Roosevelt cited the emergency authority of 5(b) to
declare a bank holiday during the depression. The national emergency declared by Roosevelt is
still in effect today. (emphasis added by Petitioners)

 

WE are according to the US Senate Report 93-549 as to the temporary military
government under a continual national emergency occupation, stated:
"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared
national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially
proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national
emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the
national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950,
during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared
buy President Nixon on March 23, 1970 and August 15, 1971;
"These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These
hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers,
ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American
citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast .range of powers,
taken together,. confer enough authority to rule the country without
reference to normal Constitutional process"
"Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the - President may: seize
property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities;
assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all
transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private
enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the
lives of all American citizens..."
and when combined with The Emergency Powers Act of Sept. 14, 1976 PL 94412 (90 Stat. 1255) that expressly retained 12 USC §95(a) with 50 USC
Appendix §5(b) at Section 502(a)(1) (see APX - 286), with The International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1701-1707) enacted on
December 28, 1977 requires the repeal of 12 USC § 95(a) amended 50 USC App.
§5(b) as to any new emergency proclamations unless specified (see APX - 292);
as both enactments ensure that the EBRA remains the law of the land over
banking and international commerce cited by Maryland Journal of International

 

Law Vol. 3 Issue 2 Article 11 "Amendments to the Trading With the Enemy Act"
(see APX - 296), and Congressional Research Service Report to Congress 98-505
“National Emergency Powers” update September 18, 2001 (see APX - 300); and
thereby maintains and further triggers the emergency occupation of the territories
of the United States of America with use of the Laws of War: Laws and Customs
of War on Land (Hague IV) of October 18, 1907, Section III Military Authority
Over the Territory of the Hostile State Articles 42 thru 56 (see APX - 420); and
this serves as Petitioners' complaint that invokes the Uniform Code of Military
Justice for: 10 U.S. Code § 932 - Art. 132. Frauds against the United States

(5)

;

                                                            
5

10 U.S. Code § 932 - Art. 132. Frauds against the United States
Any person subject to this chapter—
(1)who, knowing it to be false or fraudulent—
(A) makes any claim against the United States or any officer thereof; or
(B) presents to any person in the civil or military service thereof, for approval or payment,
any claim against the United States or any officer thereof;
(2) who, for the purpose of obtaining the approval, allowance, or payment of any claim against
the United States or any officer thereof—
(A) makes or uses any writing or other paper knowing it to contain any false or fraudulent
statements; (B) makes any oath to any fact or to any writing or other paper knowing the
oath to be false; or (C) forges or counterfeits any signature upon any writing or other paper,
or uses any such signature knowing it to be forged or counterfeited;
(3) who, having charge, possession, custody or control of any money, or other property of the
United States, furnished or intended for the armed forces thereof, knowingly delivers to any
person having authority to receive it, any amount thereof less than that for which he receives a
certificate or receipt; or
(4) who, being authorized to make or deliver any paper certifying the receipt of any property
of the United States furnished or intended for the armed forces thereof, makes or delivers to
any person such writing without having full knowledge of the truth of the statements therein
contained and with intent to defraud the United States; shall, upon conviction, be punished as
a court-martial may direct. (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 75.)

 

10 U.S. Code § 907 - Art. 107. False official statements (6); 10 U.S. Code § 881 Art. 81. Conspiracy (7); 10 U.S. Code § 878 - Art. 78. Accessory after the fact (8);
10 U.S. Code § 877 - Art. 77. Principals

(9)

; and related law, includes as notice

under the International Covenant of Civil And Political Rights (ICCPR)
especially Articles 2 and 25 (10), and based upon the use of the Constitution of the
                                                            
6

10 U.S. Code § 907 - Art. 107. False official statements-. Any person subject to this chapter
who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official
document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be
false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 71.) 
7

10 U.S. Code § 881 - Art. 81. Conspiracy. (a) Any person subject to this chapter who
conspires with any other person to commit an offense under this chapter shall, if one or more of
the conspirators does an act to effect the object of the conspiracy, be punished as a court-martial
may direct. (b) Any person subject to this chapter who conspires with any other person to
commit an offense under the law of war, and who knowingly does an overt act to effect the
object of the conspiracy, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by
death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct, and, if
death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a courtmartial or military commission may direct.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 66; Pub. L. 109–
366, § 4(b), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2631.)
8

10 U.S. Code § 878 - Art. 78. Accessory after the fact

Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter
has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his
apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 65.) 
9

10 U.S. Code § 877 - Art. 77. Principals - Any person punishable under this chapter who—
(1) commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or
procures its commission; or (2) causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him
would be punishable by this chapter; is a principal. (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 65.)

10

ICCPR PART II Article 2:
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals
within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant,
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to
the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional
processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures
as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

 

United States of America with the Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10 (11) express terms
for use of the construction interpretation with the polar star and Four-corners
Rules (12) using definitions of The Law of Nations, by Emer de Vattel (b. 25 April

                                                                                                                                                                                                

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated
shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons
acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto
determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other
competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities
of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
Article 25
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned
in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen
representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal
and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will
of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
see http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx 2/12
11

U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10: "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies
committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations." (emphasis by Petitioners)
12

Four Corners Rule requires to interpret the meaning and understanding of the provisions
contained in a document by considering the overall meaning and intention of that document, and
that in such an interpretation of document, the external factors will not influence the meaning.
But the meaning of a sentence or clause is influenced by the document as a whole that
under "four corners rule", intention of parties, especially that ofgrantor, is to be gathered from
instrument as a whole and not from isolated parts thereof. Davis v. Andrews,Tex.Civ.App., 361 S
.W.2d 419, 423 and construction per se for interpretation of statute, regulation, court decision or
other legal authority is the process, or the art, of determining the sense, real meaning, or proper
explanation of obscure, complex or ambiguous terms or provisions in a statute, written… …
Black's law dictionary; and whereas, pursuant to the polar star rule — is the principle that a
written document which is ambiguous is to be construed according to the intent of the maker,
grantor, or devisor as gathered from the four corners of the instrument. Hanks v McDanell, 307
Ky 243, 210 SW2d 784, 17 ALR2d 1 … Ballentine's law dictionary

 

1714 - d. 28 December 1767) was published in 1758

(13)

, and we include the

Original Table of Contents and Sections that apply (APX - 328 thru APX - 405);
and Dr. Benjamin Franklin on December 9th of 1775 wrote in French to Vattel’s
editor, C.G.F. Dumas, by translation stated:
“ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of
Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state
make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that
copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our
congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface,
and have entertained a high and just esteem for their
author.” http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0172
PETITION RELIEF SOUGHT:
A. Declaratory Judgment:
(1) on the jurisdictional status of the State's Court in regards to the continuing
National Emergency and obligation to enforce the letter and intent of the U.S.
Constitution especially A2S1C5 eligibility mandates;
(2) that during a national emergency all public officers of all branches of State
and Local Government / territory(s) including the Federal and State courts are a
defacto martial bodies by operation of law are under the POTUS Commander                                                            
13

Emer de Vattel (b. 25 April 1714 - d. 28 December 1767) was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat,
and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political
philosophy. He was born in Couvet in Neuchatel, Switzerland in 1714 and died in 1767 of
edema. He was largely influenced in his philosophy by Gottfried Leibniz and Christian Wolff
and strove to integrate their ideas into the legal and political system. He is most famous for his
1758 work Le Droit des gens; OU, Principes de Ia loi naturelle appliques a Ia conduite et aux
affaires des nations et des souverains (in English, The Law of Nations or the Principles of
Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns).

 

in-chief until the emergency(s) are terminated, and only at which time become
dejure civil bodies;
(3) the Framers of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution used
The Law of Nations in its framing and proper use as an International
declaration as consistently used by Justice John Marshall, i.e. The Schooner
Exchange v. McFaddon 11 U.S. 116 (1812) applies herein should be revisited;
(4) the Framers used "The Law of Nations" in US Constitution Article 1
Section 8 Clause 10 with intent to use the internationally unanimously accepted
Publication to be the basis for use in defining terms within the construction of
the Constitution that are within the polar star and four corners rule;
(5) that "natural born Citizen" means a person born in the United States of
U.S. Citizen parents, and the term is not the same as a statutory naturalized
citizen that would include "born a Citizen";
(6) that during a continuing National Emergency the Hague Convention
Section III Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State Articles 42
through 56 apply, and that the NYS BOE failed to adhere to the requirement
not to arbitrarily and capriciously change any law;
(7) that as the law of the land notwithstanding a National Emergency the
ICCPR Articles 2 and 25 apply and that the NYS BOE failed to adhere to the
requirement not to arbitrarily and capriciously change any law;

 

(8) that based upon the evidence and facts Petitioners as a result of the actual
fraud perpetrated by the NYS BOE and its agents were denied their 1st thru
14th Amendment rights to be protected by the State and Federal authorities;
B. Mandamus of the NYS Board of Elections to use "natural born Citizen" in its
instruction for running for Office of POTUS not the term "Born a Citizen";
C. Mandamus of the NYS Supreme Court Appellate Division for the 2nd JD to
expedite its hearing of the Appeal 14-10459 in Strunk v Paterson Etal to proceed
in its review using the finding that the NYS BOE has wrongly used "Born a
Citizen" and is mandated to use "natural born Citizen".
D. Mandamus of the NYS BOE to strike Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal,
and or any other person from the party and or General Election Ballot who is not
eligible for the Office of POTUS who is not a "natural born Citizen" as defined by
the Law of Nations who must be born in the United States of US Citizen parents.
E. That the NYS BOE is ordered to expedite the Absentee Military Ballot for the
Party Primaries and General Election without ineligible POTUS Candidates.
F. That based upon the foregoing findings the Respondents and De-facto
Commander-in-chief with a foreign alien student father is not a natural born
Citizen, and as such actions heretofore had by Barack Hussein Obama II Etal are to
be referred to the US Army Provost General for investigation under the UCMJ.

10 
 

Facts in Support of Motion for Reconsideration En Banc
1.

That Strunk has discussed the intention to file this motion with his fellow

Petitioners and each has been served accordingly with the content of this notice.
2.

That Strunk on 18 March 2016 traveled to Washington DC to file the

Original and five copies of the Petition with the Clerk of the USCA for the Armed
Forces located at 450 "E" Street NW; and
3.

That the Clerk there accepted the application stamped my own copy and told

me that the Judge(s) assigned will be given the Petition for review; and
4.

However, the Clerk told Strunk to send an additional two copies, and that

were thereafter Mr. Van Allen sent them for delivery on Tuesday; and
5.

On 22 March 2016, Mr. Van Allen called the Clerk to confirm delivery of

the two copies and was told that the two were sent to the Pentagon for review.
6.

On Wednesday 23 March 2016, there was an expedited oral argument

hearing of the appeal of the Petitioners in Korman and Gallo v NYS BOE and Ted
Cruz from the Order shown at APX -001, and to no avail the Appellate panel on a
statutory technicality denied relief from the Order below and issued its decision
and order (see Exhibit 2); and NYS Appeals Court review is not contemplated.
7.

That time is of the essence with the 25 March 2016 deadline being reached

for any request for an absentee ballot, and that ballots, pending printing, are to be
mailed before the 19 April 2016 Primary, and that there is an immediate need to
11 
 

expedite this motion for the relief sought above and or now to include transfer of
the Petition to the co-equal SCOTUS on non-military matters.
8.

On the 25 March 2016 the Clerk notified Petitioners by Email of the sua

sponte Order to Docket and dismiss shown as Exhibit 1;
9.

That on 27 March 2016, the Post and Email published an interview entitled

NALC Lead Attorney: Documents Obtained From Canada on Ted Cruz
“PROBABLY AN UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN” (see Exhibit 3) with Attorney
Stephen Pidgeon of the North American Law Center (NALC) who had published
the Proposed Bill of Impeachment of the Commander-in-chief shown at APX -422;
10. Further, would be fruitless and moronic to expect any timely justice and
relief for herein Petition from the so-called International Court of Justice in the
Hague as setup by the United Nations, and such is sadly evidenced by the decade
plus ordeal announced 31 March 2016 :On the Victory of Dr. Seselj against the
World: Disloyalty must be Punished and Restitution Provided by Dr. Jonathan
Levy, member International Criminal Court Bar (see Exhibit 4).
11. Further, it would be fruitless to expect any timely justice and or relief for
herein Petition from the slightly better oxymoronic Permanent Court of Arbitration
(PCA) as an international organization based in the Peace Palace, The Hague, the
Netherlands; for it is not a court, does not have permanent judges, and should not
be confused with the International Court of Justice, a separate institution also in the
12 
 

Peace Palace. The PCA is a permanent bureaucracy that assists temporary tribunals
to resolve disputes among states (and similar entities), intergovernmental
organizations, or even private parties arising out of international agreements. The
cases span a range of legal issues involving territorial and maritime boundaries,
sovereignty, human rights, international investment, and international and regional
trade and of which issues raised herein under the Hague Convention and
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights as apply.
12. Furthermore, it would be academic to expect any effective justice from the
Organization of American States Commission in Washington DC since the exploits
of Air America, Iran-Contra and Reagan silenced their jurisdiction, and although
instructive as a record on human rights violations reported to Congress, Executive
and Judiciary, that culture is only motivated by wealth, sex, drugs and rock-n-roll.
13. That no court has gone to the merits of the use of the term of art "naturalborn Citizen" and as such the matter is ripe and must be heard in order to prevent
social turmoil and anarchy that involve 18 USC 2381 through 18 USC 2389, and
14. The self interest of this Court is to handle this Petition under Article 142 of
the UCMJ that provides each judge “shall be appointed from civilian life.” To
underscore the civilian nature of the Court, the statute provides that a person may
not be appointed as a judge of the Court within seven years after retirement from
active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.
13 
 

15. Further, Undersigned asks this Court state where else would the active duty
service men and women seek to have a ballot reflect a constitutional choice for
their own commander-in-chief as their sole opportunity to speak out and uphold
their constitutional oath than here?
16. Furthermore, the honorable judges of this Court are hereby notified of their
duty to investigate and act upon 18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of
the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon
as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some
judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a
particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both. (June 25, 1948,
ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept.
13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing and Petition with exhibits annexed, Strunk seeks the
above referenced relief from this court as he has expended remedies below against
the fraud and conspiracy, has damage to fundamental personal rights and vote
property as a postliminy issue seeks recovery relief, and because time is of the
essence with irreparable harm Petitioners are entitled to the above relief sought
along with different and other relief the court deems necessary.
I have read the foregoing and that time is of the essence with irreparable
harm; and know the contents thereof apply to me by misapplication and
administration of laws and that the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to
14 
 

- - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - --

--- - - - - - - - -- -- - - - ------------ - - - - -

the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those
matters I believe it to be true, am available for testimony. The grounds of my
beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows:

3rd

parties, books and records, and personal knowledge .

.!Jdl

Christopher Earl Strunk in esse
Sui juris beneficiary agent and private
National Citizen of the United States
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice

ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss.
COUNTY OF KINGS

)

BEFORE ME, on this day personally appeared Christopher Earl Strunk known to
me to be the person described herein NOTICE TO RECONSIDER EN BANC
FOR A MORE DEFINITE DECISION TO DISMISS INCLUDING THE
ALTERNATIVE TO TRANSFER THE PETITION TO THE CO-EQUAL
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ON NON MILITARY
MATTERS_and who solemnly affirmed under the penalties of perjury that every
statement given above was the whole truth to the best of his knowledge.

Subscribed and Affirmed before me on this£

· ~x~

1

day of March, 2016

Notary Public

cc: Christopher Blaise Garvey
Harold William Van Allen
Clo/ of the Organization of American States Commission Washington DC
Clerk of the Permanent Court of Arbitration The Hague Netherlands
15

16- 0413-OP
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
__________________________________________________________________

In re: Christopher Earl Strunk, Christopher Blaise Garvey,
and Harold William Van Allen,
Petitioners.
__________________________________________________________________
NOTICE UNDER FRAP 35 TO RECONSIDER EN BANC FOR A MORE
DEFINITE DECISION TO DISMISS INCLUDING THE ALTERNATIVE
TO TRANSFER THE PETITION TO THE CO-EQUAL SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES ON NON MILITARY MATTERS
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Exhibit 1

United States Court of Appeals
for the Armed Forces
Washington, D.C.

In re
Christopher E.
Strunk,

USCA Dkt. No. 16-0413

DOCKETING NOTICE
Christopher B.
Garvey,

and

and

ORDER

Harold W.
Van Allen,
Petitioners

Notice is hereby given that a petition under 28 USC §1651 for writ of
mandamus and injunction equity relief in the matter of the New York Republican
Party POTUS Primary on April 19, 2016, and the National General Election on
November 8, 2016, was filed under Rule 27(a) on March 18, 2016, and placed on
the docket this 24th day of March, 2016. On consideration thereof, it is, by the
Court this 24th day of March, 2016,
ORDERED:
That said petition is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
For the Court,

/s/ William A. DeCicco
Clerk of the Court

cc:

Petitioners (Pro Se)

16- 0413-OP
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
__________________________________________________________________

In re: Christopher Earl Strunk, Christopher Blaise Garvey,
and Harold William Van Allen,
Petitioners.
__________________________________________________________________
NOTICE UNDER FRAP 35 TO RECONSIDER EN BANC FOR A MORE
DEFINITE DECISION TO DISMISS INCLUDING THE ALTERNATIVE
TO TRANSFER THE PETITION TO THE CO-EQUAL SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES ON NON MILITARY MATTERS
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Exhibit 2

Matter of Korman v New York State Bd. of Elections
2016 NY Slip Op 02133
Decided on March 24, 2016
Appellate Division, Third Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law
§ 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the
Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: March 24, 2016
522647 
[*1]In the Matter of BARRY KORMAN et al., Appellants, 
v
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Respondent, and RAFAEL EDWARD
("TED") CRUZ, Respondent.

Calendar Date: March 23, 2016 
Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Rose, Lynch and Aarons, JJ. 
Roger J. Bernstein, New York City, and Eisner & Associates, PC, New York City
(Benjamin N. Dictor of counsel), for appellants.
Daniel M. Sullivan, New York City, and Lally & Misir, LLP, Mineola (Grant M.
Lally of counsel), for Rafael Edward ("Ted") Cruz, respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Weinstein, J.), entered March 7, 2016

in Albany County, which dismissed petitioners' application, in a proceeding pursuant to
Election Law § 16­102, to declare invalid the certificate of designation naming
respondent Rafael Edward ("Ted") Cruz as a Republican Party candidate for the office
of President of the United States
in the April 19, 2016 presidential primary election.
On January 26, 2016, respondent Rafael Edward ("Ted") Cruz filed three letters
with respondent New York State Board of Elections, which the Board deemed to
constitute a certificate of designation, seeking to have his name placed on the ballot for
the April 19, 2016 presidential primary election as a Republican Party candidate for the
office of President of the United States (see Election Law § 2­122­b [3] [b]). Three
weeks later, petitioners each filed a general objection and specifications to Cruz's
certificate of designation, asserting that Cruz is not eligible to be a candidate for the
office of President of the United States because he is not a natural born citizen of the
United States as required by the US Constitution (see US Const, art II, § 1 [5]; Election
Law § 6­122). Thereafter, on February 26, 2016, petitioners commenced this
[*2]proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16­102 seeking to declare invalid Cruz's
certificate of designation on the basis that Cruz is a natural born citizen of Canada and
not the United States [FN1]. In the interim, the Board determined that petitioners'
objections were invalid, reasoning, as is relevant herein, that the objections raised
issues that were beyond the ministerial purview of the Board and that they were not
timely filed (see Election Law § 6­154 [2]). Respondents each answered the petition
and asserted, among other defenses, that petitioners lacked standing to maintain this
proceeding — with the Board asserting that petitioners' lack of standing was due to
their failure to file timely objections. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding,
among other things, that petitioners failed to file their objections in a timely manner and
that such failure deprived the court of jurisdiction over the proceeding. Petitioners
appeal.
We affirm. "It is well settled that a court's jurisdiction to intervene in election
matters is limited to the powers expressly conferred by statute" (Matter of Scaringe v
Ackerman, 119 AD2d 327, 328 [1986], affd on op below 68 NY2d 885 [1986] [internal

quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Hoerger v Spota, 109 AD3d
564, 565 [2013], affd 21 NY3d 549 [2013]; Matter of New York State Comm. of the
Independence Party v New York State Bd. of Elections, 87 AD3d 806, 809 [2011], lv
denied 17 NY3d 706 [2011]). Election Law § 16­102 confers standing to contest a
certificate of designation by way of a judicial proceeding on, among others, "a person
who shall have filed objections, as provided in" the applicable provision of the Election
Law (Election Law § 16­102 [1] [emphasis added]). Election Law § 6­154 — the
provision by which petitioners filed their objections to Cruz's certificate of designation
— provides, in pertinent part, that written objections to a certificate of designation can
be filed by any voter registered to vote for such public office and requires that general
objections "shall be filed . . . within three days after the filing" of the certificate of
designation (Election Law § 6­154 [2]). After the filing of general objections within the
prescribed time period, Election Law § 6­154 mandates that "specifications of the
grounds of the objections shall be filed within six days thereafter" and dictates that, if
such specifications are not timely filed, "the objection shall be null and void" (Election
Law § 6­154 [2]). Failure to comply with these constraints deprives a petitioner of
standing to maintain a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16­102 (1) (see Matter of
Bennett v Justin, 77 AD2d 960, 961 [1980], affd on op below 51 NY2d 722 [1980];
Mackay v Johnson, 20 Misc 3d 1136[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51748[U], *4 [Sup Ct,
Nassau County 2008], affd 54 AD3d 428 [2008]; Matter of Village of Herkimer
Republican Party, 119 Misc 2d 801, 806 [Sup Ct, Herkimer County 1983]; see also
Matter of Green v Mahr, 231 AD2d 480, 480 [1996]).
Here, with Cruz having filed his certificate of designation on January 26, 2016,
petitioners had until January 29, 2016 to file their general objections and until February
4, 2016 to file their specifications (see Election Law § 6­154 [2]; see also Election Law
§ 1­106 [1]). It is undisputed that petitioners did not file their general objections and
specifications until February 17, 2016, thus failing to comply with the prescribed time
frame set forth in Election Law § 6­154 (2). As a result, petitioners have failed to meet
a condition precedent to standing — namely, that they file objections in compliance
with Election Law § 6­154 (2) (see Election Law § 16­102 [1]; Matter of Bennett v
Justin, 77 AD2d at 961; see also Matter of Bush v Salerno, 51 NY2d 95, 97­[*3]98
[1980]; Matter of Breitenstein v Turco, 254 AD2d 566, 567 [1998]). Under these

circumstances, we are simply unable to relax the mandatory filing requirements of
Election Law § 6­154 (2) or excuse petitioners' noncompliance therewith. Accordingly,
we find no reason to disturb Supreme Court's determination. Our holding renders
petitioners' remaining contentions academic.
Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Rose, Lynch and Aarons, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
Footnotes
Footnote 1: This proceeding was originally commenced in New York County, but it
was transferred to Albany County. In addition, the initial petition only named the Board
as a respondent; however, petitioners amended the petition, with Supreme Court's
permission, to name Cruz as an additional respondent. 

Return to Decision List

16- 0413-OP
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
__________________________________________________________________

In re: Christopher Earl Strunk, Christopher Blaise Garvey,
and Harold William Van Allen,
Petitioners.
__________________________________________________________________
NOTICE UNDER FRAP 35 TO RECONSIDER EN BANC FOR A MORE
DEFINITE DECISION TO DISMISS INCLUDING THE ALTERNATIVE
TO TRANSFER THE PETITION TO THE CO-EQUAL SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES ON NON MILITARY MATTERS
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Exhibit 3

ABOUT US/COPYRIGHT POLICY

PLACE AN AD

DONATE

CONTACT US

Articles By Month

NALC Lead Attorney: Documents Obtained From Canada on Ted Cruz

“PROBABLY AN UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN”

Tweet

by Sharon Rondeau
(Mar.  27,  2016)  —  At  approximately  6:21  p.m.
EDT,  North  American  Law  Center  (NALC)  lead
attorney Stephen Pidgeon stated on the TNALC
radio  show  that  NALC  has  obtained
“intelligence”  and  documentation  from  Canada
showing  that  presidential  candidate  Sen.  Ted
Cruz was strictly a Canadian citizen throughout
his life.
Pidgeon theorized that Cruz’s candidacy, which
he  characterized  as  “illegal”  and  “fraudulent,”
has  been  endorsed  by  Jeb  Bush  and  other
“establishment”  figures  to  further  the  “New
World  Order”  takeover  of  the  United  States. 
Pidgeon  believes  that  “international  puppets”
are  dictating  who  controls  the  United  States,
beginning with Bill Clinton, who began a pattern
of what Pidgeon called “looting.”
Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to a
Cuban  father  and  American  mother.    He  now
claims  to  be  a  “natural  born  Citizen,”  as  is
required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the
Constituion for the president.
Also raised on the show was Cruz’s supporters’
claim,  including  that  of  commentator  Glenn
Beck,  that  Cruz  has  been  “anointed”  to  be  the
next president of the United States.

Atty. Stephen Pidgeon

Pidgeon  said  that  Cruz,  although  having  presented  himself  as  a  “Christian  constitutionalist,”  is
actually “an operative working for the Bush cabal” and the North American Union.
He is “probably an undocumented alien,” Pidgeon said at 6:29 p.m.
Pidgeon suspects that Cruz is attempting to secure “just enough delegates” to deny the Republican
nomination to Donald Trump, who is leading Cruz by more than 200 delegates.
Pidgeon  called  Barack  Hussein  Obama,  who  he  would  like  the  House  of  Representatives  to
impeach,  a  usurper  to  the  office  of  the  president.    Since  2007,  many  Americans  have  questioned
Obama’s constitutional eligibility, as no U.S. hospital has claimed to be Obama’s birthplace.
A four­year criminal investigation has shown that Obama’s only publicly­available documentation is
fraudulent.  The lead investigator of that probe, Mike Zullo, has been researching Cruz’s responses
to media questions and citizenship laws as a private citizen and found Cruz to be “deceptive.”
Despite  numerous  requests,  Cruz  has  refused  to  release  documentation  showing  that  he  was
registered by his mother or both parents as a U.S. citizen born abroad.  Zullo has pointed out that
Cruz’s story has changed over time as to his citizenship status, with Cruz telling a Univision reporter
in 2013 that he was undoubtedly a U.S. citizen.  In January of this year, Cruz told CNN’s Dana Bash
that he is a “natural born Citizen.”
A number of lawsuits and ballot challenges have been filed accusing Cruz of seeking the office as
an ineligible candidate, with one slated for a hearing at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
The  Post  &  Email  has  attempted  to  obtain  a  certified  copy  of  Cruz’s  birth  certificate,  citizenship
renunciation application, and naturalization record(s) of his father or both parents but been denied
for “privacy” reasons by the Canadian government.
Tags: Atty. Stephen Pidgeon, Barack Hussein Obama, Canadian government, Cruz's eligibility,

Search in site...

16- 0413-OP
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
__________________________________________________________________

In re: Christopher Earl Strunk, Christopher Blaise Garvey,
and Harold William Van Allen,
Petitioners.
__________________________________________________________________
NOTICE UNDER FRAP 35 TO RECONSIDER EN BANC FOR A MORE
DEFINITE DECISION TO DISMISS INCLUDING THE ALTERNATIVE
TO TRANSFER THE PETITION TO THE CO-EQUAL SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES ON NON MILITARY MATTERS
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Exhibit 4

RT
Serb Lobby
Times
Washington Post
Poetry
Serb Lobby
TV
Web
Balkanist
Expat Serbia
General Draža Mihailović
Heroes of Serbia
Meet the Serbs
Serbia's Ambassador to the World
Serbian Blog
Srebrenica historical project
Transconflict
Trek for Truth
Wild Rooster
Great British Serbs
No categories

On the Victory of Dr. Seselj against the World: Disloyalty must
be Punished and Restitution Provided
March 31, 2016
 
By Dr. Jonathan Levy, member International Criminal Court Bar
Dr. Vojislav Seselj has just won Serbia’s greatest victory of the 21st Century by taking on the entire
United Nations, European Union and NATO legal apparatus and winning a stunning victory virtually
singlehanded. This is a victory for all Serbs and anti­globalists worldwide. Dr. Seselj joins the ranks of
other world class leaders like Putin and Trump who are upsetting the elite globalist order in favor of the
people not oligarchs.

I have always maintained that Dr. Seselj was innocent of these politically motivated allegations. Now
there must be a political reckoning in Serbia against those who were disloyal to Serbia’s greatest
contemporary patriot and also economic restitution to Dr. Seselj and his family.
First and foremost, those who once swore false loyalty to Dr. Seselj must be punished. This mean you,
Prime Minister Vucic and President Nikolic. I remember sitting in Dr. Seselj’s office in Zemun in 2007,
admiring the patriot artwork while Mr. Vucic extolled the virtues of his leader. Little did I know at the
time I was looking into the face of a betrayer.
These “gentlemen” thought they had sold Dr. Seselj to the highest bidder and now they must be
dispossessed of their ill­gotten gains. It was betrayal in exchange for becoming the EU puppet masters of
once proud Serbia. These men are lower than the Nazi collaborator Milan Nedić who did Hitler’s bidding
in World War Two. Vucic and Nikolic have gradually turned Serbia into a floor mat for the EU and its
Germany bound refugee rabble. The borders of Serbia were effectively done away with, Muslims were
pandered to even as they build their strength and mass their jihadists in Bosnia, Albania, and Kosovo
with Saudi money and backing.
Second, Dr. Seselj and his family have suffered great privation. Assets have been seized by the United
States and EU. These must be returned with interest. Restitution must be paid by the UN in the form of
millions of Euros to Dr. Seselj, his family, his legal team and the Serbian Radical Party. The UN charade
has been exposed, justice has begun and payment of restitution while it can never restore the years lost to
Dr. Seselj, his family and Serbia, must be swiftly paid.
A new age is dawning in the Balkans. The banner of the Serbian Radical Party can again be held high.
Migrants will no longer desecrate Serbia, open borders will be ended and the government will soon
change for the better. The EU and CIA lackeys are now the ones who must hide in shame. God bless Dr.
Seselj and God bless Serbia!
The author is an international lawyer and political science professor who has long supported Dr. Seselj
in his struggle.
 Opinion Politics World

16- 0413-OP
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
__________________________________________________________________

In re: Christopher Earl Strunk, Christopher Blaise Garvey,
and Harold William Van Allen,
Petitioners.
__________________________________________________________________
NOTICE UNDER FRAP 35 TO RECONSIDER EN BANC FOR A MORE
DEFINITE DECISION TO DISMISS INCLUDING THE ALTERNATIVE
TO TRANSFER THE PETITION TO THE CO-EQUAL SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES ON NON MILITARY MATTERS
__________________________________________________________________
PETITION WITH 28 USC §1651 FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND
INJUNCTION EQUITY RELIEF IN THE MATTER OF THE NEW YORK
REPUBLICAN PARTY POTUS PRIMARY ON APRIL 19, 2016 AND
NATIONAL GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016; PURSUANT TO
THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANDATE BY THE DE-FACTO
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, UNDER THE:
HAGUE CONVENTION, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE,
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, AND
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
__________________________________________________________________
Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris,
in propria persona Petitioner Movant
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue - PMB 102
Brooklyn, New York Zip code excepted [11217]
Ph: 718-414-3760; Email: suretynomore@gmail.com
 

PARTIES IN INTEREST
Roger J. Bernstein, Esq.
535 Fifth Avenue, 35th Floor
New York, New York 10017
Brian L. Quail, Esq. and Kimberly Galvin, Esq.
for New York State Board of Elections
40 North Pearl Street, 5th Floor
Albany, New York 12207
Grant M. Lally, Esq.
Lally & Misir, LLP
for Ted Cruz
220 Old Country Road
Mineola, New York 11501
Marco Rubio
P.O. Box 558701
Miami Florida 33255 8701
JINDAL FOR PRESIDENT
P.O.BOX 5101
BATON ROUGE, LA 70821-5101
Barack Hussein Obama II
President of the United States'
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington DC 20500

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction

1

Relief Sought

7

Petitioners

10

Issues Presented:

25

A The New York State Board of Elections illegally changed the eligibility of a
candidate for President of the United States (POTUS) without benefit of any law
B To be a "natural-born Citizen" under the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1
Clause 5 (A2S1C5) a person must be born in the United States of US Citizen
Parents pursuant to the definition in The Law of Nations Book I Section 212
C Notwithstanding a write-in vote as a speech issue, all US Citizens registered to
vote and who vote for office of POTUS have a personal right and are entitled to an
accurate ballot, must rely on the government to guarantee that all candidates are
eligible to protect against infringement and or taking of a Citizen's vote property
D. Notwithstanding whether we have a National Emergency defacto martial
process or have a dejure civilian due process, a Citizen is entitled to postliminy
relief for return of personal right property guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
E The Armed Forces Absentee Ballot for both the Primaries and General Election
must use only candidates who are "natural-born Citizens" have a write-in choice
F. The State Courts' decision imposes an undue burden on litigants Federal rights
Conclusion

27

Statutes
28 USC §1651
28 USC §2201
10 U.S. Code § 932 - Art. 132. Frauds against the United States
10 U.S. Code § 907 - Art. 107. False official statements
10 U.S. Code § 881 - Art. 81. Conspiracy
10 U.S. Code § 878 - Art. 78. Accessory after the fact
10 U.S. Code § 877 - Art. 77. Principals
ii

12 USC 95(a): 50 USC App. 5(b) still a National Emergency of Executive Order
2039 and 2040 by authorization of Congress by 12 USC 95(b)
The Emergency Powers Act of Sept. 14, 1976 PL 94-412 90 Stat. 1255, expressly
retained 12 USC §95(a) with 50 USC Appendix §5(b)
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 17011707), EBRA remains the law of the land over banking and commerce
internationally cited by the Congressional Research Service Report to Congress
98-505 “National Emergency Powers” update September 18, 2001.
US Constitution
U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 (A2S1C5)
U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10
Cases
Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393
Minor v.Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875)
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032
Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 210 (1935)
Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 319-20 (1958), or (2) impose an undue
burden on the ability of litigants to protect their federal rights, see, e.g., Felder v.
Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 138 (1988)
Treaties
Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV) of October 18, 1907,
especially Section III Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State
Articles 42 through 56
International Covenant of Civil And Political Rights (ICCPR) especially Articles 2
and 25
Other Sources
The Law of Nations, by Emer de Vattel (b. 25 April 1714 - d. 28 December 1767)
was published in 1758
Original Draft of the Declaration of Independence
APPENDIX annexed with pages APX - 001 through APX - 434
iii

INTRODUCTION
This petition with use of 28 USC §1651 for Writ of Mandamus and Injunction
Equity relief

(1)

is submitted in the matter of the New York Republican Party

Primary for Office of President of the United States (POTUS) on April 19, 2016
(see APX - 093) and as applies at the National General Election on November 8,
2016 with the New York State Board of Elections actual fraudulent invention of
the term "Born a Citizen" versus the express term of art "Natural born Citizen" for
candidate eligibility in contradiction to the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1
Clause 5

(2)

(see APX - 095); and that this petition is filed herein pursuant to pre-

existing and current National Emergency Mandates (see APX - 280) by the
resident De-Facto Commander-In-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama II, under: The
Emergency Banking Relief Act of 9 March 1933 (48 Stat. 1) (EBRA) that brought
inland jurisdiction of The Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, CH.

1

28 U.S. Code § 1651 - Writs:
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs
necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and
principles of law.
(b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which
has jurisdiction.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 944; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 90, 63 Stat. 102.)
2

U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, quote: "No Person except a natural born
Citizen. or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be
eligible to the Office of President ; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the age of thirty five Years, and has been fourteen Years a Resident within
the United States."
1

106, 40 STAT. 411 (TWEA) by operation of Executive Orders: 2039 (3) of 6 March
1933 and 2040 (4) of 9 March 1933, e.g. 12 USC §95(a): 50 USC App. §5(b), still a
National Emergency of the Executive by perpetual authorization of Congress with
12 USC §95(b)(5); and that with four other Emergencies (see APX- 298) are still in
effect

(6)

, WE are according to the US Senate Report 93-549 as to the temporary

military government under a continual national emergency occupation; stated:

3

Executive Order 2039 created the perpetual private trusts on March 6, 1933 mandated :
"...the Secretary of the Treasury. with the approval of the President and under such
regulations as he may prescribe. is authorized and empowered (a) to permit any or· all of
such banking institutions to perform any or all of the usual banking functions, (b) \o
direct, require or-permit the issuance of clearing house certificates or other evidences of
claims against assets of banking institutions , and {c) to authorize and direct the creation
in such banking institutions of special trust accounts for the receipt of new deposits
which shall be subject to withdrawal on demand without any restriction or limitation and
shall be kept separately in cash or on deposit in Federal Reserve Banks or invested-in
obligations of the United States." (emphasis added by Petitioners)

4

Executive Order 2040 created the perpetual temporary Military Government on March 9, 1933
mandated : "...in view of such continuing national emergency and by virtue of the
authority vested in me by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6 , 1917 (40 Stat. L 411), as
amended by the act of March 9, 1933, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and declare that
all the terms and provisions of said Proclamation of March 6, 1933, and the regulations
and orders issued thereunder are hereby continued in full force and effect until further
proclamation by the President..." (emphasis added by Petitioners)
5

That 12 USC §95(a): 50 USC App. §5(b) with Executive Orders 2039 and 2040 as the law of
the land approved by Congress under 12 USC §95(b) and as for all current and related
"...actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore orhereafter taken,
promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the
Treasury since March 4. 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by section 95a of this title,
are approved and confirmed." (emphasis added by Petitioners)
6

See APX - 296, quote: The purpose of the TWEA was to "define, regulate and punish trading
with the enemy." Section 5(b) of the original act gave the President power to regulate or prohibit
transactions in foreign exchange and currency, and transfers of credit or property with any
foreign country or the resident of any foreign country during war. This section has been amended
four times. In 1933 Section 5(b) was amended to provide that its authorities could be used in
time of a national emergency declared by the President;6 previously, the grants of power could
2

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared
national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially
proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national
emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the
national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950,
during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared
buy President Nixon on March 23, 1970 and August 15, 1971;
"These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These
hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers,
ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American
citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast .range of powers,
taken together,. confer enough authority to rule the country without
reference to normal Constitutional process"
"Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the - President may: seize
property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities;
assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all
transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private
enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the
lives of all American citizens..."
and when combined with The Emergency Powers Act of Sept. 14, 1976 PL 94-412
90 Stat. 1255, that expressly retained 12 USC §95(a) with 50 USC Appendix §5(b)
at Section 502(a)(1) (see APX - 286), with The International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1701-1707) enacted on December 28, 1977
requires that the 12 USC § 95(a) amended 50 USC App. §5(b) be repealed as to
new emergency proclamations unless specified (see APX - 292), both enactments
make sure the EBRA remains the law of the land over banking and international

be used only during wartime. President Roosevelt cited the emergency authority of 5(b) to
declare a bank holiday during the depression. The national emergency declared by Roosevelt is
still in effect today. (emphasis added by Petitioners)
3

commerce cited by Maryland Journal of International Law Vol. 3 Issue 2 Article
11 "Amendments to the Trading With the Enemy Act" (see APX - 296), and the
Congressional Research Service Report to Congress 98-505 “National Emergency
Powers” update September 18, 2001 (see APX - 300); and thereby maintains and
further triggers the emergency occupation of the territories of the United States of
America with use of the Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague
IV) of October 18, 1907,

especially Section III Military Authority Over the

Territory of the Hostile State Articles 42 through 56 (see APX - 420); and this
serves as Petitioners' complaint that invokes the Uniform Code of Military Justice
for: 10 U.S. Code § 932 - Art. 132. Frauds against the United States
7

(7)

, 10 U.S.

10 U.S. Code § 932 - Art. 132. Frauds against the United States
Any person subject to this chapter—
(1)who, knowing it to be false or fraudulent—
(A) makes any claim against the United States or any officer thereof; or
(B) presents to any person in the civil or military service thereof, for approval or payment,
any claim against the United States or any officer thereof;
(2) who, for the purpose of obtaining the approval, allowance, or payment of any claim against
the United States or any officer thereof—
(A) makes or uses any writing or other paper knowing it to contain any false or fraudulent
statements; (B) makes any oath to any fact or to any writing or other paper knowing the
oath to be false; or (C) forges or counterfeits any signature upon any writing or other paper,
or uses any such signature knowing it to be forged or counterfeited;
(3) who, having charge, possession, custody or control of any money, or other property of the
United States, furnished or intended for the armed forces thereof, knowingly delivers to any
person having authority to receive it, any amount thereof less than that for which he receives a
certificate or receipt; or
(4) who, being authorized to make or deliver any paper certifying the receipt of any property
of the United States furnished or intended for the armed forces thereof, makes or delivers to
any person such writing without having full knowledge of the truth of the statements therein
contained and with intent to defraud the United States; shall, upon conviction, be punished as
a court-martial may direct.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 75.)
4

Code § 907 - Art. 107. False official statements

(8)

, 10 U.S. Code § 881 - Art. 81.

Conspiracy (9), 10 U.S. Code § 878 - Art. 78. Accessory after the fact
Code § 877 - Art. 77. Principals

(11)

(10)

, 10 U.S.

and related law, includes as notice under the

International Covenant of Civil And Political Rights (ICCPR) especially Articles 2

8

10 U.S. Code § 907 - Art. 107. False official statements

Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return,
regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false
official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 71.)
9

10 U.S. Code § 881 - Art. 81. Conspiracy
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who conspires with any other person to commit an
offense under this chapter shall, if one or more of the conspirators does an act to effect the
object of the conspiracy, be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who conspires with any other person to commit an
offense under the law of war, and who knowingly does an overt act to effect the object of the
conspiracy, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such
other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct, and, if death does not
result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial or
military commission may direct.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 66; Pub. L. 109–366, § 4(b), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2631.)
10

10 U.S. Code § 878 - Art. 78. Accessory after the fact

Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter
has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his
apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 65.)
11

10 U.S. Code § 877 - Art. 77. Principals
Any person punishable under this chapter who—
(1) commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or
procures its commission; or
(2) causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him would be punishable by this
chapter; is a principal.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 65.)
5

and 25

(12)

, and based upon the use of the Constitution of the United States of

America with the Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10

(13)

express terms for use of the

construction interpretation with the polar star and Four-corners Rules

(14)

using

12

ICCPR PART II
Article 2
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals
within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant,
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to
the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional
processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures
as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated
shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons
acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto
determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other
competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities
of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
Article 25
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned
in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen
representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal
and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will
of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
see http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx 2/12
13

U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10: "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies
committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations." (emphasis by Petitioners)
14

Four Corners Rule requires to interpret the meaning and understanding of the provisions
contained in a document by considering the overall meaning and intention of that document, and
that in such an interpretation of document, the external factors will not influence the meaning.
But the meaning of a sentence or clause is influenced by the document as a whole that
under "four corners rule", intention of parties, especially that ofgrantor, is to be gathered from
instrument as a whole and not from isolated parts thereof. Davis v. Andrews,Tex.Civ.App., 361 S
6

definitions of The Law of Nations, by Emer de Vattel (b. 25 April 1714 - d. 28
December 1767) was published in 1758

(15)

, and we include the Original Table of

Contents and Sections that apply (APX - 328 thru APX - 405).

RELIEF SOUGHT:
A. Declaratory Judgment:
(1) on the jurisdictional status of the State's Court in regards to the continuing
National Emergency and obligation to enforce the letter and intent of the U.S.
Constitution especially A2S1C5 eligibility mandates;
(2) that during a national emergency all public officers of all branches of State
and Local Government / territory(s) including the Federal and State courts are a
defacto martial bodies by operation of law are under the POTUS Commander-

.W.2d 419, 423 and construction per se for interpretation of statute, regulation, court decision or
other legal authority is the process, or the art, of determining the sense, real meaning, or proper
explanation of obscure, complex or ambiguous terms or provisions in a statute, written… …
Black's law dictionary; and whereas, pursuant to the polar star rule — is the principle that a
written document which is ambiguous is to be construed according to the intent of the maker,
grantor, or devisor as gathered from the four corners of the instrument. Hanks v McDanell, 307
Ky 243, 210 SW2d 784, 17 ALR2d 1 … Ballentine's law dictionary
15

Emer de Vattel (b. 25 April 1714 - d. 28 December 1767) was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat,
and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political
philosophy. He was born in Couvet in Neuchatel, Switzerland in 1714 and died in 1767 of
edema. He was largely influenced in his philosophy by Gottfried Leibniz and Christian Wolff
and strove to integrate their ideas into the legal and political system. He is most famous for his
1758 work Le Droit des gens; OU, Principes de Ia loi naturelle appliques a Ia conduite et aux
affaires des nations et des souverains (in English, The Law of Nations or the Principles of
Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns). This work
was his claim to fame and won him enough prestige to be appointed as a councilor to the court of
King Augustus III of Saxony.
7

in-chief until the emergency(s) are terminated, and only at which time become
dejure civil bodies;
(3) the Framers of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution used
The Laws of Nations in its framing and proper use as an International
declaration;
(4) the Framers used "The Law of Nations" in US Constitution Article 1
Section 8 Clause 10 with intent to use the internationally unanimously accepted
Publication to be the basis for use in defining terms within the construction of
the Constitution that are within the polar star and four corners rule;
(5) that "natural born Citizen" means a person born in the United States of US
Citizens parents, and the term is not the same as a statutory naturalized citizen
that would include "born a Citizen";
(6) that during a continuing National Emergency the Hague Convention
Section III Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State Articles 42
through 56 apply, and that the NYS BOE failed to adhere to the requirement
not to arbitrarily and capriciously change any law;
(7) that as the law of the land notwithstanding a National Emergency the
ICCPR Articles 2 and 25 apply and that the NYS BOE failed to adhere to the
requirement not to arbitrarily and capriciously change any law;

8

(8) that based upon the evidence and facts Petitioners as a result of the actual
fraud perpetrated by the NYS BOE and its agents were denied their 1st thru
14th Amendment rights to be protected by the State and Federal authorities;
B. Mandamus of the NYS Board of Elections to use "natural Born Citizen" in its
instruction for running for Office of POTUS not the term "Born a Citizen";
C. Mandamus of the NYS Supreme Court Appellate Division for the 2nd JD to
expedite its hearing of the Appeal 14-10459 in Strunk v Paterson Etal to proceed
in its review using the finding that the NYS BOE has wrongly used "Born a
Citizen" and is mandated to use "natural born Citizen".
D. Mandamus of the NYS BOE to strike Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal
and or any other person from the party and or General Election Ballot who is not
eligible for the Office of POTUS who is not a "natural born Citizen" as defined by
the Law of Nations who must be born in the United States of US Citizen parents.
E. That the NYS BOE is ordered to expedite the Absentee Military Ballot for the
Party Primaries and General Election without ineligible POTUS Candidates.
F. That based upon the foregoing findings the Respondents and De-facto
Commander-in-chief with a foreign alien student father is not a Natural Born
Citizen, and as such actions heretofore had by Barack Hussein Obama II Etal are to
be referred to the US Army Provost General for investigation under the UCMJ.

9

Petitioners
1.

Petitioner Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris (Strunk), in propria

persona, with place for service c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue - PMB 102 Brooklyn,
New

York

Zip

code

excepted

[11217]

Ph:

718-414-3760;

Email:

suretynomore@gmail.com, (hereinafter among the "Petitioners"); and
2.

That Strunk is a Vietnam Era Veteran having served honorably in the United

States Air Force with rank of E-5 from December 7, 1966 thru December 6, 1972.
3.

Strunk has a Public U.S. Citizen registration to vote in New York's General

Election scheduled for 8 November 2016 for the advisory selection of Electors for
a candidate eligible for Office of POTUS and Vice President and is an enrolled
member of the Republican Party entitled to vote at the Republican Primary
Election on 19 April 2016.
4.

Strunk to no avail starting in October 2008 challenged the NYS BOE,

various State Official and Candidate(s) and their agents to provide a true and
complete ballot for any POTUS candidate be eligible for the Office of POTUS and
whereas Barack Hussein Obama II was and is not eligible to be on the ballot at the
2008 General Election.
5.

That Strunk to no avail starting in August 22, 2011 challenged the NYS

BOE, various State Official and Candidate(s) and their agents to provide a true and
complete ballot for any POTUS candidate be eligible for the Office of POTUS and
10

whereas Barack Hussein Obama II, Rick Santorum was and is not eligible to be on
the ballot at the party primaries and or at the 2012 General Election.; and that on
11 April 2012 Strunk was barred from further challenges in New York State court
without first obtaining permission from the Court to do so (see APX - 068).
6.

That unlike the other Petitioners, Strunk is a member of a political class of

"pre-1933" Private National Citizens of the United States of America protected by
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment when on January 21, 2014, at 4:22 AM in
WASHINGTON D.C. 20220, Strunk became a non combatant with a Treaty of
Peace duly registered with the Secretary of the Treasury during the ongoing time
of war and or emergency defined under the EBRA amended TWEA and as such is
no longer an enemy or ally of the enemy pursuant to the definition of 50 USC App.
Section 2(c) as 'Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be
natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war,
other than citizens of the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing
business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States or the
successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include
within the term “enemy.”';
7.

That Strunk on January 6, 2014 pursuant to the January 21, 2014 in

anticipation

of the registration cited above, Strunk filed an Amicus motion

demanding "Civilian due Process of Law" in the Appeal Case Strunk v NYS BOE
11

etal in the NYS Appellate Division for the 2nd JD (see APX - 314 w/o exhibits
herewith), and in response on 4 March 2014 (the 81st Anniversary of the FDR
inauguration and declaration of emergency occupation of the USA) the Appellate
four-judge panel issued its DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION M170416 denying provision "for civilian due process of law" on appeals from the NYS
Supreme Court (see APX - 313); and confirms de-facto martial due process under
the continuing national emergency occupation, that also explains why all
governmental bodies fly a fringed flag indoors pursuant to US Army Regulations
840-10. However, raises a question of why an un-fringed flag is flown out-of-doors
in contradiction to Hague Convention Article 23 Clause 7 (see APX -418).
8.

That Strunk to no avail on February 26, 2016 filed the Motion for

permission to intervene in Article 78 Petition Korman and Gallo v NYS BOE Etal.
NYS SC Albany Index No.: 707-16 (see APX - 066) to challenge the NYS BOE,
various State Officials and Candidate(s) and their agents to provide a true and
complete ballot for any POTUS candidate be eligible for the Office of POTUS and
whereas as a result of the NYS BOE fraud as to eligibility using "Born a Citizen"
rather than the term of Art " natural born Citizen" and meaning that Barack
Hussein Obama II, Rick Santorum were and are not eligible to be on the ballot at
the party primaries and or at the 2008, 2012, 2016 General Election.
9.

That Strunk's contention for the last 8 years is that the French version of
12

The Law of Nations (1758) was the only primary universally accepted international
reference document used before and after the death of Vattel in 1767. That it was
translated into English and other languages

(16)

, and according to the French

speaking diplomat Dr. Benjamin Franklin and the French University erudite
Thomas Jefferson and attorney John Adams were able to translate French into
English as three of the five man committee who wrote the Declaration of
Independence, and used the French version of The Law of Nations (The Question:
is an original translation plagiarism?),

and according to Franklin who on

December 9th of 1775, wrote in French to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, quote
from an English translation of his letter stated:
“ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your
edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of
a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.
has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now
sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the
hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much
pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just
esteem for their author.”
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0172
and further, Strunk contends The Law of Nations was used in the conduct of ALL
governments from the time of the Articles of Confederation until the adoption of
16

Vattel's Law of Nations was translated into English in 1760, based on the French original of
1758. A Dublin translation of 1787 does not include notes from the original nor posthumous
notes added to the 1773 French edition. Several other English editions were based on the edition
of 1760. However, , an English edition from 1793 includes Vattel's later thoughts, as did the
London 1797 edition, The 1797 edition has a detailed table of contents and margin titles for
subsections..
13

the U.S. Constitution in 1788 by New York. Further, it was discovered at George
Washington's Mount Vernon Library that he had two copies

(17)

, and according to

public records were used throughout the 19th century, and in anticipation of the
Union Army occupation of the South in 1863 used The Law of Nations to create
the Liber Code for the Commander-in-chief Abraham Lincoln, and thereafter was
used to write the Hague Convention starting with the 1899 Philippine occupation
under the Military Government of William Taft; and thereafter, was used for
drafting the Geneva treaty series in the twentieth century onward - the Law of
Nations is the pivotal current reference then and today.
10. In search of proof of the Law of Nations use, on 22 September 2008 Strunk
received a fax copy of historical document from Garvey (with an historical library)
entitled "The Writing of the Declaration of Independence" that is a letter to James
Madison from Thomas Jefferson (see APX - 406), and the letter replication
accompanies "Jefferson's Original Draft of the Declaration" (see APX - 408).
Jefferson first deals with charges of plagiarism leveled by Timothy Pickering and
others in which Thomas Jefferson corrects "a very careless and faulty statement "

17

Two notable copies of The Law of Nations owned by the New York Society Library have
been associated with US President George Washington. One copy had been borrowed by
Washington on 8 October 1789, along with a copy of Vol. 12 of the Commons Debates,
containing transcripts from Great Britain's House of Commons. When the staff of the
Washington museum at Mount Vernon heard about the overdue books, they were unable to
locate them, but purchased a second copy of the de Vattel work for US$12,000. This identical
copy was ceremoniously "returned" 221 years late on 20 May 2010. The library waived the
unpaid late-fees.
14

by John Adams of the circumstances attending the drafting of the Declaration. In
so far as Jefferson wrote the Declaration and kept copious notes to refresh his
memory, this undoubtedly is the correct and final word upon the subject. A
sensational charge of want of originality, which has been brought against the
famous document, may here be noticed. Jefferson declares that while drafting it he
consulted "neither book nor pamphlet," but that he did not consider it his business
to "invent new ideas altogether." Richard Henry Lee, one of the signers of the
Declaration, who was most vociferous in charging plagiarism, is revealed in
Randall's authorities "Life of Jefferson" as having been responsible himself for the
introduction of nearly all the alleged plagiarizations (The Question: is an original
translation plagiarism?).
11. Of importance in the Original Draft is shown at APX - 408 reveals that it
had 25% more text than the final Declaration of Independence, and that the parts
of the Declaration as originally written were struck out by Congress, are enclosed
in brackets, and the amendments are indicated at the bottom of the page. That those
members of the Congress associated with Charles Carroll (a very wealthy slave
trader family from Maryland whose cousin Fr. John Carroll S.J. went to school in
France with Jefferson and was a close associate of Dr. Franklin- was the first
Bishop of the Americas who founded Georgetown University with slave trade
money and with his family and associates provided the seven hills real property to
15

build Washington District of Columbia); all had threatened that Maryland would
not sign the Declaration were both King George and slavery per se to be
eliminated, and were the fledgling nation to receive Carroll Family funding the
framers may have one or the other choice but not both. These are the reasons for
eliminating 25% of the language and will allow the reader to understand what the
importance of using the Laws of Nations in the matter of "Piracies" at U.S.
Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10 means as shown in the bracketed
indictment taken out of the original at APX - 411 states quote:
"[He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow-citizens, with the
allurements for forfeiture and confiscation of our property.
He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most
sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never
offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another
hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This
piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the
Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where
men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for
suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable
commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of
distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among
us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering
the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes
committed against the liberties of one people with crimes which he urges
them to commit against the lives of another.]"
12.

That Strunk contends that the Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10 reference to

"Piracies" when the Law of Nations is searched is only found in a single location,
e.g. the Law Of Nations Book III Table of Contents shown at APX - 373, for § 196
16

"Acquisition of movable property of the Chapter XIII Of Acquisitions by War, and
particularly of Conquests." There at APX - 377 in part states as to "piracies" quote:
"...At present it would be in vain to claim a ship taken by the Barbary
corsairs, and sold to a third party, or retaken from the captors; though it is
very improperly that the piracies of those barbarians can be considered as
acts of regular war. We here speak of the external right: the internal right
and the obligations of conscience undoubtedly require that we should restore
to a third party the property we recover from an enemy who had despoiled
him of it in an unjust war,—provided he can recognise that property, and
will defray the expenses we have incurred in recovering it. Grotius quotes
many instances of sovereigns and commanders who have generously
restored such booty, even without requiring any thing for their trouble or
expense.* But such conduct is pursued only in cases where the booty has
been recently taken. It would be an impracticable task, scrupulously to seek
out the proprietors of what has been captured a long time back: and
moreover they have, no doubt, relinquished all their right to things
which they had no longer any hope of recovering. Such is the usual mode
of thinking with respect to captures in war, which are soon given up as
irrecoverably lost. " (emphasis by Strunk)
13. That Strunk contends that Congress must search and use the entirety of the
Law of Nations in order to follow its instructions at Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10
must include the definitions of Citizen / Property / Booty / Prize / Sea / restore /
among both just and unjust war definitions only are found at the Law of Nations
Book I starting at Tables of Contents APX - 328 thru APX - 333; and of course
Petitioners contend that Chapter XVII How a Nation may separate itself from the
State of which it is a Member, or renounce its Allegiance to its Sovereign when it is
not protected at APX - 334 applies through APX - 341 not least of which are
Sections 211 through 256 accordingly through APX - 361.
17

14. That Petitioners focus herein on the definitions of

Citizen, Native,

Naturalized, Children born in a foreign country as apply to Ted Cruz the Canadian
as apply to foreign alien resident Marco Rubio (anchor baby) plus given the
questionable birth location of Barry Soetoro, he however has been proven to be an
Indonesian who has sealed his records; we offer the definitions that follow from:
CHAPTER XIX : Of our Native Country, and several Things that relate to it.
§211. What is our country. The whole of the countries possessed by a nation
and subject to its laws, forms, as we have already said, its territory, and is
the common country of all the individuals of the nation. We have been
obliged to anticipate the definition of the term, native country (§122),
because our subject led us to treat of the love of our country,—a virtue so
excellent and so necessary in a state. Supposing then this definition already
known, it remains that we should explain several things that have a relation
to this subject, and answer the questions that naturally arise from it.
§212. Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society:
bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they
equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens,
are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society
cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the
citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and
succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in
consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as
matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his
children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is
therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their
tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years
of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the
society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country,
it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if
he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and
not his country. <102>

18

§213. Inhabitants. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are
foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the
society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state, while
they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them
protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They
enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The
perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual
residence.
These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the
society, without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow
the condition of their fathers; and as the state has given to these the right
of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.
§214. Naturalisation. A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant
to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the
political society. This is called naturalisation. There are some states in
which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens,—
for example, that of holding public offices,—and where, consequently, he
has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalisation. It is here a
regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In
other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalise a single
person, without the concurrence of the nation represented by its deputies.
Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single
circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a
foreigner.
§215. Children of citizens, born in a foreign country. It is asked, whether the
children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have
decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be
followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their
fathers, and enter into all their rights (§212); the place of birth produces no
change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking
from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for civil or political
laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the
father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he
has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another
society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members
of it also.
19

§216. Children born at sea. As to children born at sea, if they are born in
those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the
country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction
between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our
extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children
are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its
territories; for it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its
territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its
jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received
custom, this jurisdiction is <103> preserved over the vessels, even in parts of
the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a
nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born
in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth
took place in a port belonging to their own nation: for the port is more
particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on
board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose
that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle
elsewhere.
§217. Children born in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister
at a foreign court. For the same reasons also, children born out of the
country in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign
court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his
family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its
jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
§218. Settlement. Settlement is a fixed residence in any place with an
intention of always staying there. A man does not then establish his
settlement in any place, unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of
fixing there, either tacitly, or by an express declaration. However, this
declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not
transfer his settlement elsewhere. In this sense, a person who stops at a place
upon business, even though he stay a long time, has only a simple habitation
there, but has no settlement. Thus the envoy of a foreign prince has not his
settlement at the court where he resides.
The natural or original settlement is that which we acquire by birth, in the
place where our father has his; and we are considered as retaining it, till we
have abandoned it, in order to chuse another. The acquired settlement
(adscititium) is that where we settle by our own choice.
20

15. That Strunk alleges based upon information and belief that the de-facto
Commander-in-chief will never get impeached by the present absolutely corrupt
Congress for anything that he has done but is nevertheless has committed a
multitude of high crimes as outlined by Stephen Pidgeon Esq. of the North
American Law Center, and who has for the past year transmitted and served upon
all levels of government officials their Articles of Impeachment of Barack Hussein
Obama (II) (see APX - 422); and that based upon a plethora of criminal evidence
is worthy of further investigation by the US Army Provost General for crimes
committed during the ongoing National Emergency Occupation whereby the
Commander-in-Chief

has authority over all government bodies and agents

accordingly.
16. That from August 22,. 2011, Strunk and Van Allen worked with Kevin
Richard Powell to produce a series of investigative reports with sworn affidavits of
experts in several published articles (see APX - 247 thru APX - 278) with
evidence and proof of misprision of Treason and felonies done by the NYS Board
of Elections and their agents Principals with the Internet Archives at Alexandrina
Egypt and the Presidio in San Francisco in association with the Global Crisis
Group created by George Soros with Zbigniew Kaimierz Brzezinski among a very
long list of other unsavory characters including those associated with the Muslin
Brotherhood.
21

17. Petitioner Christopher Blaise Garvey in esse, in propria persona (Garvey)
with place for service at 16 Nicoll Avenue Amityville, New York 11701 Ph: 631598-0752; Email: chrisgarveyl@verizon.net (hereinafter among the "Petitioners");
and
18. That Garvey is a currently qualified Merchant Mariner Master of Steam,
Motor, or Auxiliary Sail Vessels of Not More than 100 Gross Tons (Domestic
Tonnage) Upon Inland Waters, Authorized to engage in Commercial Assistance
Towing, and is in good standing pending license renewal.
19. Garvey has a Public U.S. Citizen registration to vote in New York's General
Election scheduled for 8 November 2016 for the advisory selection of Electors for
a candidate eligible for Office of POTUS / Vice President and is now an enrolled
member of the Green Party not entitled to vote at the Republican Primary Election
on 19 April 2016.
20. Garvey to no avail in February 2012, as a then enrolled member of the
Republican Party, filed the Article 78 Petition in State court (see APX - 225) to
challenge the NYS BOE, various State Official and Candidate(s) and their agents
to provide a true and complete ballot for any POTUS candidate be eligible for the
Office of POTUS and whereas Barack Hussein Obama II, Rick Santorum and Mitt
Romney were and are not eligible to be on the ballot at the 2012 and for now at the
2016 General Election Ballot.
22

21. Petitioner Harold William Van Allen in esse, in propria persona
(Van Allen) with place for service at 351 North Road Hurley New York 12443 Ph:
845-389-4366; Email: hvanallen@hvc.rr.com; and
22. That Van Allen is a service related disabled Vietnam Era Veteran having
served honorably in the United States Navy with rank of O-2 from June 1972
through June 1978.
23. That Van Allen starting in August 22, 2011 challenged the NYS BOE,
various State Official and Candidate(s) and their agents to provide a true and
complete ballot for any POTUS candidate be eligible for the Office of POTUS be
based upon the AS21C5 eligibility rather than the NYS BOE fraudulent invented
term "Born a Citizen" filed for intervention in the Case Strunk v Paterson Etal.
NYSSC Kings Index No.: 29642-08, and was denied (see APX - 173);
24. That Van Allen in February 2012 challenged the NYS BOE, with objections
to Barack Hussein Obama II, and Rick Santorum who were and are not eligible to
be on the ballot at the party primaries and or at the 2012 General Election and or
that of 2016 (see APX -115);
25. That Van Allen having been denied intervention in the case Strunk v
Paterson Etal. filed an Article 78 Petition Van Allen v NYS BOE NYSSC Albany
Index No.: 1787-12 challenging the fraudulent use of "Born a Citizen" rather than
"natural born Citizen" was denied relief there too with the Order (see APX - 217).
23

26. Then on February 2014 based upon the decision of July 9, 2012 in the
Article 78 Petition Van Allen v NYS BOE NYSSC Albany Index No.: 1787-12
Van Allen filed a Motion to renew the Motion to Intervene in Strunk v Paterson
Etal. (see APX - 169).
27. That based upon the denial of the Motion to Renew in the case Strunk v
Paterson Etal. NYSSC Kings Index No.: 29642-08 Strunk and Van Allen filed an
Appeal to the New York State Appellate Division of the 2nd JD from the Order
and that since the summer of 2015 remains in limbo awaiting a scheduling for oral
argument on the intervention as of right into the only venue for which the Born a
Citizen versus Natural Born Citizen has standing to be heard for Van Allen.
28. Petitioners contend that Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz was born December 22,
1970 to Rafael Cruz who was born in Cuba, of his father from the Canary
Islands in Spain. Ted Cruz's mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware, and is of
three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian ancestry and had a prior marriage to a
British subject and lived in England . His father left Cuba in 1957 to attend
the University of Texas and obtained political asylum in the United States after his
four-year student visa expired. Rafael Cruz earned Canadian citizenship in
1973 and ultimately became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005. His mother earned
an undergraduate degree from Rice University in the 1950s. Eleanor and Rafael
Cruz divorced in 1997. Ted Cruz is NOT a natural born Citizen.
24

Issues Presented:
A The New York State Board of Elections illegally changed the eligibility of a
candidate for President of the United States (POTUS) without benefit of any law
B To be a "natural-born Citizen" under the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1
Clause 5 a person must be born in the United States of US Citizen Parents pursuant
to the definition in The Law of Nations Book I Section 212
C Notwithstanding a write-in vote as a speech issue, all US Citizens registered to
vote and who vote for office of POTUS have a personal right and are entitled to an
accurate ballot, must rely on the government to guarantee that all candidates are
eligible to protect against infringement and or taking of a Citizen's vote property
D. Notwithstanding whether we have a National Emergency defacto martial
process or have a dejure civilian due process, a Citizen is entitled to postliminy
relief for return of personal right property guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
E The Armed Forces Absentee Ballot for both the Primaries and General Election
must use only candidates who are "natural-born Citizens" have a write-in choice
F. The State Courts' decision imposes an undue burden on litigants Federal rights.
That the adequate and independent state ground doctrine states that when a litigant
petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of a state court which
rests upon both federal and non-federal (state) law, the U.S. Supreme Court does
25

not have jurisdiction over the case if the state ground is (1) “adequate” to support
the judgment, and (2) “independent” of federal law. See Michigan v. Long, 463
U.S. 1032, 1038 (1983) (“It is, of course, incumbent upon this Court to ascertain
for itself whether the asserted non-federal ground independently and adequately
supports the judgment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Fox Film Corp. v.
Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 210 (1935) (“[W]here the judgment of a state court rests
upon two grounds, one of which is federal and the other non-federal in character,
our jurisdiction fails if the non-federal ground is independent of the federal ground
and adequate to support the judgment.”); Murdock v. City of Memphis, ("[W]hither
there exist other matters in the record actually decided by the State court which are
sufficient to maintain the judgment of that court, notwithstanding the error in
deciding the Federal question. In [that case] the court would not be justified in
reversing the judgment of the State court.").
The “adequacy” prong primarily focuses on state court dismissals of federal
claims on state procedural grounds, as procedural requirements are by definition
logically antecedent. Antecedent state-law grounds (i.e., state rules of procedure)
are adequate to support a judgment unless they (1) are arbitrary, unforeseen, or
otherwise deprive the litigant of a reasonable opportunity to be heard, see,
e.g., Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 319-20 (1958), or (2) impose an undue

26

burden on the ability of litigants to protect their federal rights, see, e.g., Felder v.
Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 138 (1988).
The “independence” prong focuses on decisions where the state and federal
rules are not clearly distinct. If it is not "apparent from the four corners” of the
opinion that the judgment rests on an independent state law rule, then, unless it is
“necessary or desirable” to obtain clarification from the state court itself, the
Supreme Court will presume that the decision rested in part on federal law, thereby
rendering it reviewable. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040 & n.6.
Furthermore, when federal law limits the states’ ability to change the definition of
state-created legal interests, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the state
court’s characterization of the law both before and after the change. For example,
the U.S. Supreme Court routinely reviews state court determinations of state
property law to determine whether a litigant has been deprived of “property”
within the meaning of the Due Process clause.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing and exhibits annexed, Petitioners having not sought this
relief from this court before and have expended their remedies below against the
fraud and conspiracy, have damage to their fundamental personal rights, and
because time is of the essence with irreparable harm Petitioners are entitled to the
above relief sought along with different and other relief the court deems necessary.
27

PETITION VERIFICATION AFFIDAVIT
STATEOFNEWYORK

1c. •tvvS

)

) ss.

COUNTY OF ~,.E.W YORK)

Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say under
penalty of perjury:
I have read the foregoing Petition and Appendix Pages 1 thru 434 filed under 28
USC §1651 and related law for a writ of mandamus of the NYS BOE and its agents
to comply with the United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 as to
eligibility inherent in the New York State Legislature and or its public officer agents
instructions to each prospective candidate seeking the office of POTUS, to be
eligible shall be a "natural-born Citizen" rather than merely "Born a Citizen", at least
35 years of ages and 14 years resident by the respective 19 April 2016 Primary and
November 8, 2016 New York State General Election; and that Petitioner is
individually associated herein with Christopher Blaise Garvey and Harold William
Van Allen since 2003 in election law matters to seek equity relief and am a material
witness to events of this mandamus of the New York State Board of Elections and its
agents to publish the true and correct eligibility instructions - at the webpage entitled
"Running for Office" as defined by The Law of Nations for each POTUS candidate
selected at a Party Convention or otherwise for the New York State 2016 General
Election for Office POTUS shall be a "natural-born Citizen". And this affirmation is
in support of remand for criminal investigation by the US Army provost for the
arbitrary and collusive illegal use of "Born a Citizen" in conspiracy with foreign
enemy agents in Egypt, as a willful misprision of treason to aid and abet the enemies
of the United States under this continuing set of National Emergencies with
infringement of my personal rights otherwise to be protected by those public officers
directly under the authority of the de facto Commander-in-chief POTUS, the usurper,
and that time is of the essence with irreparable harm; and know the contents thereof
apply to me by misapplication and administration of laws and that the same is true to
my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on
information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true, am available for
testimony. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information
and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and r rds, and persona
ledge.

_ __,_-.,/""
Christopher Earl Strunk
Subscribed and Sworn to before me
This ___lh!~day of March 20 16

, \ • ){ l:fa,

0 \_>-··- _--. __ --7-OJ / -... ~ ----.. ~--

.

Notary Public

KAMAL P. SONI
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01806089949
Qualified in Kings County
Commission Expires March 31,2019

-

.; -;-:_--

nc~

PETITION VERIFICATION AFFIDAVIT
STATEOFNEWYORK )

) ss.
COUNTY OF NEW YORK)

Accordingly, I, Harold William Van Allen, being duly sworn, depose and say under
penalty of perjury:
I have read the foregoing Petition and Appendix Pages 1 thru 434 filed under 28
USC § 1651 and related law for a writ of mandamus of the NYS BOE and its agents
to comply with the United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 as to
eligibility inherent in the New York State Legislature and or its public officer agents
instructions to each prospective candidate seeking the office of POTUS, to be
eligible shall be a "natural-born Citizen" rather than merely "Born a Citizen", at least
35 years of ages and 14 years resident by the respective 19 April 2016 Primary and
November 8, 2016 New York State General Election; and that Petitioner is
individually associated herein with Christopher Blaise Garvey and Christopher Earl
Strunk since 2003 in election law matters to seek equity relief and am a material
witness to events of this mandamus of the New York State Board of Elections and its
agents to publish the true and correct eligibility instructions as at the webpage entitled
"Running for Office" as defined by The Law of Nations for each POTUS candidate
selected at a Party Convention or otherwise for the New York State 2016 General
Election for Office POTUS shall be a "natural-born Citizen". And this affirmation is
in support of remand for criminal investigation by the US Army provost for the
arbitrary and collusive illegal use of "Born a Citizen" in conspiracy with foreign
enemy agents in Egypt, as a willful misprision of treason to aid and abet the enemies
of the United States under this continuing set of National Emergencies with
infringement of my personal rights otherwise to be protected by those public officers
directly under the authority of the de facto Commander-in-chiefPOTUS, the usurper,
and that time is of the essence with irreparable harm; and know the contents thereof
apply to me by misapplication and administration of laws and that the same is true to
my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on
information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true, am available for
testimony. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information
and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, d personal knowledge.
....

-

APPENDIX FOR PETITION WITH 28 USC §1651 FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND INJUNCTION EQUITY RELIEF IN THE MATTER OF
THE NEW YORK REPUBLICAN PARTY POTUS PRIMARY ON APRIL 19,
2016 AND NATIONAL GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016;
PURSUANT TO THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANDATE BY THE DEFACTO COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, UNDER
THE: HAGUE CONVENTION, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE,
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, AND
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DATE

EXHIBIT

PAGE

7-Mar-16

DECISION AND ORDER NYSSC Albany Index No.: 707-16

3-Mar-16

HEARING TRANSCRIPT NYSSC Albany Index No.: 707-16

2-Mar-16

Strunk Judicial Notice to Court

11-Mar-16

NOTICE OF APPEAL from denial of Intervention NYSSC
Albany Index no,: 707-16

APX -056

2-Mar-16

DECISION AND ORDER denying intervention NYSSC
Albany Index no,: 707-16

APX -058

11-Mar-16

PRE-CALENDAR STATEMENT

26-Feb-16

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE for Notice of Appeal

26-Feb-16

Court System Case Detail NYSSC Albany Index No.: 707-16

APX -066

26-Feb-16

STRUNK AFFIDAVIT in support of Intervention NYSSC
Albany Index no,: 707-16

APX -067

11-Apr-12

DECISION AND ORDER in Strunk v NYS BOE et al NYSSC
Kings Index No.: 6500-2011

APX -068

22-Feb-16

KORMAN AND GALLO ARTICLE 78 PETITION NYSSC
Albany Index no,: 707-16

APX -076

18-Aug-15

NYS Board of Elections CALLENDAR FOR THE APRIL 19,
2016 PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY

APX -093

18-Aug-15

NYS Board of Elections WEBSITE Instructions for RUNNING
FOR OFFICE

APX -095

11-Mar-16

HW VAN ALLEN FOIL request for the 2012 POTUS
Objection DETERMINATIONS

APX -102

APX -001
APX -016
APX -051

APX -061
APX -065

DATE

EXHIBIT

PAGE

3-Feb-12

CE STRUNK COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR PUBLIC
HEARING re BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

APX - 103

23-Feb-12

CE STRUNK GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO CANDIDATE
RICK SANTORUM

APX - 106

28-Feb-12

NYS BOE DETERMINATION re RICK SANTORUM

10-Feb-12

CE STRUNK GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE OBAMA
FOR AMERICA FILING

APX - 109

28-Feb-12

NYS BOE DETERMINATION re OBAMA FOR AMERICA
FILING

APX - 114

21-Feb-12

HW VAN ALLEN GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO
CANDIDATE RICK SANTORUM

APX - 115

23-Feb-12

NYS BOE DETERMINATION re RICK SANTORUM

10-Feb-12

HW VAN ALLEN GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE
OBAMA FOR AMERICA FILING

APX - 117

28-Feb-12

NYS BOE DETERMINATION re OBAMA FOR AMERICA
FILING

APX - 119

16-Feb-12

CB GARVEY GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE MITT
ROMNEY FILING

APX - 120

28-Feb-12

NYS BOE DETERMINATION re MITT ROMNEY FILING

13-Feb-12

CB GARVEY GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE OBAMA
FOR AMERICA FILING

APX - 139

28-Feb-12

NYS BOE DETERMINATION re OBAMA FOR AMERICA
FILING

APX - 143

25-Feb-12

CB GARVEY GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE RICK
SANTORUM FILING

APX - 144

28-Feb-12

NYS BOE DETERMINATION re RICK SANTORUM
FILING

APX - 154

6-Mar-12

ORDER denying Art 78 hearing re NYSSC Nassau Index no,:
2764-12

APX - 155

17-Feb-12

NYS BOE unofficial OBJECTION REPORT

28-Feb-12

TRANSCRIPT of the NYS BOE Commissioners meeting re
ballot access

APX - 108

APX - 116

APX - 138

APX - 156
APX - 158

DATE

EXHIBIT

PAGE

12-Mar-14

HW VAN ALLEN NOTICE of MOTION TO RENEW
INTERVENTION NYSSC Kings Index No.: 29642-08

APX -169

2-Mar-12

CB GARVEY ARTICLE 78 PETITION NYSSC Nassau Index
No.: 2764-12

APX -225

20-Sep-11

PUBLISHED ARTICLE "STATUTE IN NEW YORK LAW DEFINES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"

APX -247

5-Oct-11

PUBLISHED ARTICLE "New York State BOE Website
Cover-up"

APX -259

24-Oct-11

PUBLISHED ARTICLE "The Internet Archive & NYS BOE
Cover-up Widens"

APX -267

11-Mar-16

FEDERAL REGISTER SEARCH for "Continuation of the
National Emergency" 24 listed

APX -280

10-Mar-16

50 USC 1621: Declaration of national emergency by President;
publication Federal Register

APX -285

10-Mar-16

PUBLIC LAW by 94th Congress 94-412- September 14, 1976
90 STATUTE 1255

APX -286

10-Mar-16

PUBLIC LAW by 95th Congress 95-223- December 28, 1977
91 STATUTE 1625

APX -291

10-Mar-16

Maryland Journal of International Law Volume 3 Issue 2
Article 11 - Amendments to the Trading With the Enemy Act

APX -296

10-Mar-16

CRS Report for Congress Order Code 98-505 GOV - "National
Emergency Powers" Updated September 18, 2001

APX - 300

4-Mar-14

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION M170416 - NYSSC
Appellate Division 2nd JD re STRUNK v NYS BOE etal

APX - 313

6-Jan-14

CE STRUNK NOTICE OF MOTION re demand for 'Civilian
Due Process of Law" re STRUNK v NYS BOE etal.

APX - 314

10-Mar-16

LAW OF NATIONS (1758) - TABLE OF CONTENTS for
Book 1 through chapter XXII

APX - 328

10-Mar-16

LAW OF NATIONS (1758) - Book I Chapter XVII : Section
200 through Section 256

APX - 334

10-Mar-16

LAW OF NATIONS (1758) - TABLE OF CONTENTS Book 1
Chap. XXIII thru Book III Chap XIV

APX - 362

DATE

EXHIBIT

PAGE

10-Mar-16

LAW OF NATIONS (1758) - Book III Chapter XIII : Section
193 through Section 237

10-Mar-16

LAW OF NATIONS (1758) - TABLE OF CONTENTS Book
III Chap. XVI thru Book IV Chap IX

APX - 401

10-Mar-16

ORIGINAL DRAFT OF THE DECLARATION OF
INDEPENDENCE of June 1776

APX - 406

10-Mar-16

Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV);
October 18, 1907

APX - 414

10-Mar-16

North American Law Center Proposed Bill Of Impeachment of
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II

APX - 422

APX - 374

STATEOFNEWYORK
SUPREME COURT

COUNTY OF ALBANY

BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO,
Petitioners,

DECISION AND ORDER
IndexNo.:
707-16
01-16-120014
RJI No.:

-againstNEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS and
RAFAEL EDWARD ("TED") CRUZ,
Respondents.
(Supreme Court, Albany County All Purpose Term)
APPEARANCES:
Roger J. Bernstein, Esq.
Attorney for Petitioners
53 5 5111 A venue, 35Ul Floor
New York, New York 10017

Brian L. Quail, Esq. and Kimberly Galvin, Esq.
Allorneysfor Re~pondent Nel-v York State Board ofE!ections
40 North Pearl Street. sm Floor
Albany, New York 12207
Lally & Misir, LLP
Allorneysfor Respondent Ted Cruz
By: Grant M. Lally, Esq.
220 Old Country Road
Mineola, New York 11501

David A. Weinstein, J.:
This proceeding arises out of a petition filed by two New York State registered voters,
Barry Korman and William Gallo, who seek an order directing respondent New York State
Board of Elections ("BOE" or the "Board") "not to designate" Senator Rafael Edward ("Ted")
Cruz as a candidate in the Republican presidential primary, scheduled to take place on April 19,
2016.
The petition, brought by Order to Show Cause, was filed under Election Law § 6-122.
That provisi•:::>n states:

"A person shall not be destgnated or nominated for a public office or party position who
(1) is not a citizen of the state ofNew York; (2) is ineligible to be elected to such office
or position; or (3) who, if elected will not at the time of commencement of the tem1 of
such office or position, meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications thereof or, with

APX - 001

respe·ct to judicial office, who will not meet such qualifications within thirty days of the
commencement of the term of such office.''
Petitioners contend that Senator Cruz is not eligible for the presidency because he is not a
"natural born citizen" of the United States, as required by Article Il, Section 1, Clause 5 of the
United States Constitution.' Specifically, they argue that Cruz is ineligible because he was
"naturally born" on Canadian soiL as a citizen of Canada and, so petitioners maintain, cannot
therefore be a natural born citizen ofthis country (see Bernstein Aff. of2117/ 16

,I 5).

The JBOE responded to the petition by filing a verified answer along with the afJirmation
of its deputy counsel and various supporting documents. The answer raised four objections in
point of law:: ( l) the Board has acted in compliance with all relevant federal and state statutes and
regulations; (2) the petition fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted; (3) the petition
failed to join Senator Cruz. who is a necessary party; and (4) the petitioners failed to"timely
make or serve objections.'' The Board's supporting affirmation states that Senator Cruz' letter
seeking placement on the ballot for the New York State Republican primary was filed on January
26, and the petitioners· objections were received by the Board on February 17, 2016 (Quail Aff.
~~ 4-5).

Subsequent to the service of the Board's answer, petitioners filed a Verified Amended
Petition, in accordance with a Court order issued on February 29, 2016, adding Senator Cruz as a
respondent 2
Senator Cruz has submitted the affidavit of counsel and a memorandum of law in
response to 1the petition. lie echoes the Board's contention that the objections submitted by
petitioners were untimely. and argues as well that the petitioners failed to name certain necessary
parties. the Supremacy Clause bars state courts from construing federal constitutional law in this
context, and the question of Senator Cruz' eligibility for the presidency is a "political question,"
to be resolved by the political branches of government, and not by the cow"ls.

'The relevant portion ofthis clause provides: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or
a Citizen of the United States. at the time of the Adoption of tills Constitution, shall be eligible to
the 0 ffice of President . . .•·
2

Because the legal battle before me is joined primarily by petitioners and Cruz, all
references to "respondent" below are to the Senator, while references to ·'respondents" are to
both Cruz and the BOE.

APX 2- 002

Oral argument was heard on the procedural objections to the petition on March 3. For
reasons set ti:>rth below, I fmd that the objections to Senator Cruz' participation in the New York
State Republ.ican primary were not timely ftled. Further, petitioners' arguments against
application of the time bar to this case rw1 headlong into the strict construction given by New
York courts to the Election Law procedural requirements for an eligibility challenge can be
brought, and I see no legal doctrine among those advanced by petitioners which would allow me
to dispense with such requirements in this case. Therefore, I must dismiss the petition, and do
not reach either respondents' remaining arguments or the substantive issues underlying this
proceeding.
Discussion
States have ..broad authority, absent valid congressional legislation, to establish rules
regulating the manner of conducting both primary and final elections·· (Maf!er ofFriedman v

Cuomo, 39 NY2d 81, 84 [1976] [citations omitted]). This Court's authority to intervene in
electoral matters. however, is "limited to the powers expressly conferred by statute" (see Malter

o.fScaringe v Ackerman. 119 AD2d 327, 328 [3d Dept 1986]). In particular. my jurisdiction to
address the substantive issues in this case is subject to the procedural requirements ofthe
Election Law.
Under Election Law§ 16-102, a challenge to a candidate's designation may be filed by a
person "who shall have filed objections, as provided by this chapter." The process for submitting
such objections is set forth in Election Law§ 6-154. Respondents contend that petitioners did
not comply with this provision's requirement that a voter's objection to a candidate ·'shall be
filed with the officer or board with whom the original petition or certificate is filed within three
days after the filing of the petition or certificate to which objection is made. or within three days
after the last day to file such a certificate, if no such certificate is filed ... :· (Eiec. Law § 6154[2]). Specifically. respondents argue that the petitioners' objections were not filed within
these deadlines. The relevant chronology is as follows:
Senattor Cruz submitted paperwork to secure a place on the New York primary ballot
under a cover letter dated January 10,2016 (Quail Aff. Ex. A). The submission was filed with
the Board on January 26 (id.). No notice of such filing was posted on the BOE"s website, for
Cruz or any other Republican candidate, and the parties agree that no such posting was required

by law. For reasons not explained, however, the BOE did post information on the filings of the
3

APX - 003

candidates im the Democratic primary, as they were received.
Kom1an and Gallo both submitted identically worded general and specific objections with
the Board, which were sent to the Board by Federal Express on February 16, 2016, and were filed
with the Board the following day (see Bernstein Aff. of2/29/l6, Ex. C). ln their general
objections, Korman and Gallo stated their opposition "to the certificate of designation filed with
tbe Board of Elections'' and ·'purport[ing] to name'· Ted Cruz as a candidate for president (id. ).
The specific objection fleshed this out in detail, asserting: ''Rafael Edward Cruz is not eligible to
run for President of the United States because he is not a natural born citizen of the United States
as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires. Instead, Cruz is a natural born
citizen ofCatnada" (id. ). The objections go on to state that. at the time the Constitution was
adopted, a ..natural born citizen.. of any country was understood to be one ·'born within the
boundaries of that country" (id. ). and Cruz was only born a citizen due to a "later naturalization
statute" enacted by Congress, which gave him US citizenship because his mother was a citizen.
This. the objectors argued, did not meet the ConstitutionaJ eligibility criteria for the presidency.
On February 23, the Board issued a Determination on each objection. which read in its
entirety as follows:
"After an examination of the specific objections of[objector] to the designating
certificate of the Republican Party purporting to nominate delegates for TED CRUZ as a
candidate for the office of the President of the United States, and the matter having been
considered by the Commissioners of the State Board of Elections on February 23, 2016.
the State Board finds that the objection raises issues which are beyond the ministerial
scop1e of the State Board to determine and such o~jection is made in the incorrect venue.
as no direct election for President of the United States occurs via election day ballots.
Rather, the April 19, 2016 Presidential Primary is the ballot access process which
provides for the election of delegates to a national party convention or a national pruty
convention or a national party conference in 2016. Further, the objection was received
after the deadline set in statute, as it was postmarked on February 16, 20 16 and received
on February 17, 2016. February 4, 2016 was the last day to file specific objections?

3

The BOE's Verified Answer makes clear that this deadline was calculated as follows:
the general objections were due on January 29 (tltree days after the filing of Cruz' submission).
and the specific objections were due six days from that deadline, or February 4 . The Board's
determination made no reference to the deadline for general objections, although under its
calculations, they were clearly untimely. Petitioners do not raise this omission, and as noted the
lmtimeliness of both the general and specific objections has been raised with specificity in the
Board' s answer and by Senator Cruz. Even had petitioners raised the issue, it does not appear
that the Board's failure to mention the deadline for general objections in its administrative
4

APX - 004

Addi1tionally, no proof of service of the objections was provided as required by statute.
for the reasons cited herein, the objection is determined to be invalid and the designating
certificate retains its presumption of validity."
Petitioners submitted a second round of objections, following the initiation of this
proceeding. That step was apparently prompted by the Board's posting on its website of a list of
all the Republican candidates. indicating that each had submitted his candidate "petitions" on
F'ebruary 24~ (see Bernstein Aff. of 2/29116 Ex. H). Peti6oners filed the same general and
specific objections as they had before, mailing them to the Board on February 29, so that they
were received for filing on March 1 (id. Ex. I). The record does not reflect that any response to
these objec6ons was made by the Board.
Petitioners make several arguments for the timeliness oftheir objections. First, they
claim that the three-day deadline is not jurisdictional. and that the Court has discretion to waive
it. They cite a number of reasons why this is warranted in this case, including what they deem to
be the unfair and misleading nature of the Board's disclosure (i.e., posting the date of the
Democratic candidates' submissions on-line while keeping information regarding the Republican
candidates only on

paper)~

the futility of such filing, since the Board could not, given its

ministerial wle, address the objections; and what petitioners contend to be the ''liberal
construction" required of the Election Law. Second. they claim, via their parsing of the statutory
language, that objections are timely so long as they are made within three days of the last day on
which the ce:rtificate under challenge could legally have been filed, which occurred on February
16,2016. Alternatively, they contend that the clock for filing objections actually began to tick on
F'ebruary 24, the date on which the BOE website indicated that the Cruz candidate petitions had
been filed, and that their second set of objections was timely filed if counted from that date.
I address each of these arguments, in tum, below.
The _premise underlying the first argument - that the three-day deadline is discretionary-

determination absolves petitioners of their failure to meet the deadline, since the time limitations
of the statut«'! crumot be altered (see Matter of Breitenstein v Turco, 254 AD2d 566 [3d Dept
1998]lcourt''s extension of deadline for specific objections was a nullity, and objections filed in
compliance therewith were untimely]).
4

As discussed infra, this statement regarding the date of filing appears inaccurate. Since
it was first revealed in the petitioners' submissions in response to the BOE's answer. the Board
bas not addressed this issue.

5

APX - 005

is without support in the caselaw. In particular, the Third Department has held, in an opinion
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that failure to submit objections within tllis period is a bar to a
later suit challenging a candidate's eligibility (see Mafler ofBennett v Justin. 77 AD2d 960 (Jd
Dept 19801, a.ffd 51 NY2d 722 [1980]).
Petitioners contend that Bennet/ is ambiguous in tllis regard, but a reading of the decision
does not support that view. ln Bennett, the Third Department dismissed two of the petitioners on
the ground that they were not enrolled in the party whose primary was at issue. The Court then
stated the folllowing:
··The designating petition at issue herein was filed on July 25, 1980. Objections must be
filed within tlu·ee days after the filing of the petition to which objection is made. The
time starts to run from the date of tiling of the petition and not the last day on which
petitions may be filed. No objections herein were filed until after July 28. 1980 and thus
they were untimely. Moreover, objectors .. failed to deliver or mail a duplicate copy of
the specifications to the candidate, as required by the rules of the Board of Elections.
FailUire to comply with the rules of the board has been held to be a fatal defect. Thus,
objectors ... lack standing" (id at 961 [citations, internal quotation marks and ellipses
omitted]).
Petitioners' protestations to the contrary. I find no ambiguity in this language. While the
term "fatal dlefect'' refers specifically to the Board's rules, and thus to the failure to mail a
duplicate copy of tl1e objections. the Court clearly held the petition "w1timely'' as well, stated that
general objections "must'' be filed within three days, and presented petitioners· failure to comply
with this time frame as one of the bases for dismissal. It is unclear why, moreover, failure to
comply with the Board's rules would be fatal to a challenge petition, but failure to comply with
the procedures mandated by statute would not be. Nowhere did the Third Department - or U1e
Court of Appeals in adopting the Appellate Division ruling - intimate that the three-day period
was flexible , subject to exceptions or enforced only in the Court's discretion. Rather. such
caselaw as exists on this question confirms the reading that a petitioner's failure to meet this
deadline deprives the Court of jw·isdiction to address his or her objections (see Matter of Green v
Mahr. 23 1 AD2d 480. 480 [2d Dept 1996] [when petitioner filed no general objection. and the

specifications she filed challenging designating petition "were filed more than three days'' after it
was filed, p1etitioner "was not a proper objector"]~ Mackay v Johnson, 20 Mise 3d 1136[A) [Sup
Ct, Nassau Cty 2008], a.ffd 54 AD3d 428 [2d Dept 2008] [because individual "did not file an
objection to [candidate's] designating petition within three days of the filing of the petition. [she]

6

APX - 006

is without standing to bring this proceed ing"]) .
Petitioners note that the statute provides that the failure to make timely specific
objections renders them ''null and void." but contains no similar language regarding general
objections (see Elec. Law § 6-154[21). On this basis, they contend that the failure to timely file
general objections is not a jurisdictional detect (see Pet. Mem. of Law at 7-9). Such a reading is
at odds with the caselaw cited above, and inconsistent with the exceedingly strict construction
given by the courts to Election Law procedural requirements governing objections to candidate
petitions. Indeed. highly technical defects in the filing of objections have repeatedly been found
to

constitute an absolute bar to suit (see e.g Matter of Maniscalco v Power, 3 NY2d 918 [1957]

[eligibility challenge invalid when not served on first person named on the Committee on
Vacanciesl: Maller of Raimone v Sanchez, 253 AD2d 506 (2d Dept 1998] [absence of postmark
on envelope containing objections was ''fatal defect"]; lvfaller c~('Sgambati v New York City Bd of

Elections, 224 AD2d 564 [2d Dept 1996] fobjections dismissed for failul'e to include "addresses
of the candidates being objected to"]: Matter o.fZogby v Longo, 154 AD2d 889 14th Dept 1989]
[objections invalid for failure to serve copy on candidate and file certificate of service]). The
statutes and rules at issue in these cases did not spell out that failure to comply with the
procedures at issue rendered the objections ··null and void,'' but the Court still fow1d the legal
challenges al issue barred by such infirmities.
Further. an entirely plausible alternative explanation presents itselffor the inclusion of the
''null and void" language only in regard to specific objections. Specific objections are required
only once a general

o~jection

has been timely filed, and the clock for filing the former begins to

tick with the' submission of the latter. The import of the statutory language is to clarify that both
components must be filed within the statutory deadline before the objections may be considered:
that is, even if a general objection is timely, that objection is rendered a nullity i f the
specifications are filed more than six days later. Such a reading is far more consistent with the
statutory language and the caselaw than petitioner•s alternati ve - that the three-day period is
"discretionary," and only the six-day deadline is jurisdictional.
Petitioners also contend that the provisions of the Election Law must be "liberally
construed," so that it should not be read to raise technical barriers to eligibility challenges. But
the law evinces no such intent. While there are two potentially relevant sections of the Election

Law that require liberality in construction, neither is of assistance to petitioners.
7

APX - 007

Article 6 of the Election Law includes language mandating that it be "liberally construed,
not inconsistent with substantial compliance thereto and the prevention of fraud" (see Election
Law § 6-134[1 0 J). But that provision is aimed at "all rules relating to the validity and
submission o,{petitions, (Governor's Approval Memorandum, Chapter 709 of the Laws of 1996
[emphasis added]; see also Association of the Bar ofthe City of New York, Committee on
Election Law, Memorandum in Support of S. 7856-a of 1996 at 4 [provision of bill ·'expand[s]
the provision .. . for liberal construction ... to apply to the entire section of the Election Law
prescribing the rules governing the preparation and filing of petitions''] [emphasis added). It was
enacted as part of legislation ''to make ballot access simpler and fairer for candidates in politicalparty primary elections. . ." (Mem. in Support, S. 7856-A of 1996; see also Governor's
Approval Memorandum, supra [noting that New York's ballot access laws "have generated
frequent, costly and time-consuming legal challenges"]). In short, the legislative history makes
clear that this language, while not intended to prevent challenges to improper candidates, was
inserted to ease the process for getting on the ballot, not to facilitate challenges to eligibility.
The second such provision. in Election Law§ 16-100, states in regard to the Supreme
Court's juris:diction to "summarily determine any question of law or fact as to any subject"
arising under the Election Law. that such jurisdiction "shall be construed liberalJy" (Election Law

§ 16-1 00[ 1]') The caselaw is clear, however, that this statutory admonition is not intended to
waive or soften the deadlines and other procedural requirements ofthe Election law. Thus, in
Matter ofBreiienstein v Turco (254 AD2d 566 [3d Dept 1998]), petitioners were granted an
extension of time beyond the six-day statutory period to file additional speciJic objections to a
nominating petition, and met the extended deadline. Yet the Third Department still held these
objections to be untimely. Noting the ·'liberal construction" mandate of section 16-100, the
Court nonetheless fow1d that in a special proceeding under Article 16 "a party may seek relief
only in the torm and to the extent that Election Law article 16 expressly permits" 5 (id. at 567).

5

Breitenstein noted the "null and void" language regarding the six-day deadline for
specitlc obj(~ctions in its holding. It made clear, however, that its holding applied more broadly
to other filing periods set forth in the Election Law, reasoning that "relaxing the mandatory filing
requirements would not only render the various deadlines set forth in the Election Law utterly
meaningless. but wouJd also interject confusion and inequality into a process where the
Legislature plainly intended stability and uniformity to prevail" (254 AD2d at 567 [citation
omitted]).

8

APX - 008

Because no provision is made in the article to extend the time for filing specific objections, the
petitioners were time-barred from raising them, liberal construction notwithstanding (;d.; see also

Matter

~(Cuillinan

v Ahern. 212 AD2d 103, 107 [4th Dept 1995] [while the Legislature

mandated liberal construction of Article 16, ·•[a]t the same time. the Legislature recognized that
such judicial review would only be effective if it was achieved exped itiously," and this goal "is
further reflected in the time constraints" of Article 16]; Matter ofSpencer, 71 AD2d 1062 [4th
Dept 1979] [liberal construction does not relieve the Court of obligation to dismiss petition
suffering from a ''fatal defect"]).
The Election Law is strewn with numerous procedural pitfalls that can prevent a court
from hearing a meritorious challenge. But the caselaw cited above makes clear that they are to
be enforced :strictly. This approach is in line with a key purpose of the Election Law: to avoid
''costly delays and interruptions in the election process" (see lvfaUer of Village ofHerkimer

Republican Party, 119 Mise 2d 801, 804 [Sup Cl, Herkimer Cty 1983]). In sum, there is no
apparent authority to support the argument that principles of liberal construction should relieve
the petitioners of the technical requirements of the Jaw.
Having found that the three-day time limit is not discretionary, r consider petitioners'
arguments that the deadline was, in fact, met in this case, or alternatively, that it should not apply
based on principles of estoppeL or because filing timely objections would have been futile.
There are two bases for the contention that petitioners' objections were submitted within
the three-day period- neither of which is supported by the statutory language or the record.
First, petitioners assert that the three days can be measured from the last date on which a
candidate's certificate was allowed to be filed - in this case, February 16 (see Pet. Mem. of Law
at 10). This ignores the specific language of the statute, which provides that the deadline is
calculated in this manner only if"no such certificate was filed." While petitioners' counsel
maintains that the statute' s phrasing is ambiguous in this regard, reading the provision in the way
petitioners request would leave no role to play for the deadline from actual filing - since the later
deadline would always apply - as well as leave the phrase " if no such certificate was filed" an
orphan. Thi1s reading was, in any case, rejected in Bennett, wh ich stated definitively: '·The time
[for general objections] starts to run from the date of filing of the petition and not the last day on
which the p•;!tition may be filed'' (77 AD2d at 961 ).

Equally unavailing is the claim that the three-day period should run from febmary 24,
9

APX - 009

2016. That contention is based on a printout of the Board's website for February 29, which lists
February 24 as the "received date" for petitions for every Republican candidate. As a result of
this posting, petitioners refiled their objections by sendi ng them to the Board on February 29, and
now claim that the second set of objections is timely.
Assuming that these objections are properly before me- although they post-date the filing
of the petition and are not addressed therein - I find that they cannot undo the bar created by the
late filing of the first set. The precise meaning of the infonnation displayed on the website is not
clear from the record. It appears, though, that the website now lists the same default information
for all Republican candidates. This information is directly contradicted as to Senator Cruz by the
Board's submission in this case; it indicates that each candidate filed petitions eight days after the
deadline~

and their petitions are all listed as ''0" pages long. In any event, the Board' s

submission states unequivocally that the Cruz letter seeking access was filed on .January 26. and
Senator Cruz presented a copy ofhis submission file-stamped on that date. Petitioners submitted
their objections thereto, and the Board made a determination thereon -all before this new date
was listed. Thus, even asswning that the February 24 date is anything but a website error, it has
no meaning, as the time for submission of objections cannot be extended, nor are petitioners
entitled to a second bite at the apple once the initial three-day period has expired (see Marter of
Breitenstein, supra).
As to petitioners' argument that the disclosure on the BOE website was misleading
because it initially li sted only one party's subm issions, petitioners acknowledge that there is no
legal requirement that the BOE give notice via the Internet at all. Korman and Gallo contend,
however, that in making a web posting of the date on which the Democratic candidates
certificates were ftled, the Board led potential objectors to believe the same would be done for
the

Republi<~an

candidates. That argument is unconvincing, on several grounds.

First, 1n two prior cases objectors have sought to escape the impact of technical defects in
their submis.s ions on the ground that they were the result of the Board's purportedly misleading
disclosure. In both cases, the courts declined to excuse the error on such basis (see Matter of
Young v Thalmann. 286 AD2d 550 [3d Dept 200 I] [rejecting argument that petition should not
be dismissed for failure to meet service requirements in local rule, and that rule should be
waived, because Board did not follow ''usual procedure" of providing copy of rule to petitioners

at time obje,~tions were

tiled]~

Matter ofHayon v Carrion, 41 Mise 3d 356 [Sup Ct, Kings Cty
10

APX - 010

2013] [rejecting argument that failure to file objections alleging fraud should be excused,
because petitioners were "misled'' by statement in the Board' s rules that Supreme Court, not the
Board, was appropriate forum for determining allegations of fi-aud]).
Second, petitioners make no allegation that the information regarding Cruz' submission
was unavailable to them. As respondent points out - and petitioner does not dispute- petitioners
could have fcJund out if the certificate had been filed on any given day via any local BOE office
(Resp. Mem,. of Law at 6). 6
Third, petitioners do not set forth any legal doctrine that would allow for waiver of the
statutory deadlines on the basis of this record. In their memorandum of law, Kom1an and Gallo
intimate that they are relying on principles of estoppel (see Pet. Mem. of Law.~ 2 l"The Board is
estopped from raising this issue by its arbitrary failure to provide any statewide notice of the
Republican candidates' filings for the primary ballot even while providing statewide notice of the
Democratic candidates ' filings ... "1). But estoppel is "not available against a governmental
agency in the exercise of its governmental functions and respondent may not be estopped by the
erroneous acts of its admin istrative employees" (see Matter ofDear v New York State & Local
Retirement~0;s.,

115 AD3d 1141. 1143 [3d Dept 20141, /v denied23 NY3d 905 (2014] [internal

quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]). While an exception to this principle is made
upon a showing that petitioner reasonably relied on the agency's "fraud, misrepresentation,
deception or similar affirmative misconduct" (see Jvfaller ofAtlantic States Legal Found.. Inc. v

New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 11 9 AD3d 1172, 1173 [3d Dept 20 14]), there has
been no such showing here. For one thing. there is no allegation that the Board made any
misleading s.tatements at all regarding the status of Cruz' filing or the rules for making
objections. At most, petitioners assert that they were lulled by the postings regarding Secretary
Clinton and Senator Sanders into believing that - contrary to general practice - the BOE would
post information about Senator Cruz on-line, although there was no announcement by the Board
that this would be done. In addition, there is no evidence of reliance set forth in petitioners'
papers, and 1the record calls into question whether such reliance was even possible. Petitioners'
submission states that the Democratic petitions were received between February 1 (for Senator

6

Indeed, one individual did file a timely objection to Cruz' candidacy. but he is not a party
to this proce:eding (see Resp. Mem. of Law at 2).

11

APX - 011

Sanders) and. February 4 (for Senator Clinton) (see Bernstein Aff. of2/29/ 16 ~ 8 & Ex. G).
Senator Cruz' designating certificate was filed on January 26 - six days before the first
Democratic candidate's filing was reflected on-line. Thus, the deadline for timely objections had
expired before the information regarding the Democratic office-seekers had ever been posted.

In the absence of any affirmative misrepresentation by the Board, or any evidence of
reliance by petitioners on the Board's statements, petitioners cannot succeed on their estoppel
argument (see Matter ofHayon. 41 Mise Jd at 358 [rejecting estoppel argument against BOE
because petittioner failed to show affirmative misrepresentation]).
Petitiioners also contend that the objection requirement should be waived in this case,
because submitting an objection would have been "futile." That is because the Board has stated
m its determination on petitioners' objection that it will only rule on ministerial issues, and did
not consider the legal definition of natural born citizenship to be within its purview (see
Bernstein A iff. of 2/29/16, Ex. A ["the State Board finds that the objection raises issues which are
beyond the ministerial scope of the State Board to detennine . .." 1). According to petitioners.
this is in kce:ping with the Court of Appeals' holding that where the validity of the objection
cannot be de~termined on the face of the petition, such matters ''are to be detem1ined in Court
proceedings only'' (see Schwartz v Heffernan, 304 NY 474. 480 11952]). Since the Board said
that it was without power to rule on the objection, petitioners argue, it would have been futile to
place it for the Board's consideration, and thus it was unnecessary for them to object at the
administrative level.
Whe·n a party is required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to commencing suit, he
or she need not do so '·when resort to an administrative remedy would be futile" (see Watergate

11 Apartmenls ,. Buffalo Sewer Authority. 46 NY2d 52. 57 [ 1978J). Exhaustion is "futile;·
however, only when the agency has already rejected the argument in question (see Lehigh

Portland Cement Co. v New York State Dept. ofEnvtl. Conservation, 87 NY2d 136, 141-142
l1995l [exhaustion futile when it involves challenge to a "long-standing agency position," but
not when "a.gency had not passed on the issue"]). Resort to administrative remedies is not
excused merely because "the contention is made that the administrative body lacked power over
the subject matter•· New York fnst. for Educ. of Blind v United Fedn. o,(Teachers' Comm. for

NY lnst. for Educ. of Blind, 83 AD2d 390, 403 [1st Dept 1981 ], affd 57 NY2d 982 [1982)).
The futility doctrine has never been applied to the process for challenging candidates
12

APX - 012

under the Election Law. and adopting it here would upend settled law. The upshot of finding that
the filing of objections with the Board can be excused as "futile'' would not simply be to allow
petitioners to avoid the timeliness requirements in such cases~ it would be to waive the objection
requirement altogether. But that outcome would be at odds with the established principle that the
filing of objections is a jurisdjctional prerequisite to suit (see Matrer of Nicolai v Kelleher, 45
AD3d 960 [2d Dept 2007] [individuals' failure to tile objections ''deprives them of standing to
maintain this proceeding'']; see also Marter of Hayon, 41 Mise 3d at 358 [City Board of
Elections rule that Board did not have authority to consider tiaud claims did not excuse petitioner
from filing an objection regarding such claim before proceeding into Court]).
MorE:over, to the extent that futility could be a reason not to submit objections in some
instance, I would sOil find it inapplicable here. Petitioners make no showing that the BOE had
ever addressed the issue of its authority to rule on a candidate· s constitutional eligibility for the
presidency in response to an objection, or even said that it would refrain from interpreting a
constitutional provision. 7 Instead, Korman and Gallo point to the general propositions set forth
in Schwartz regarding the allocation of authority between the Board and the cow-ts as the ground
for their futility argument. and the position taken by the Board in this case. Schwartz, however.
addressed the Board' s inability to adjudicate factual matters outside the record, and did not
specifically 1::onsider its authority to rule on disputed legal questions. Absent some evidence that
the position taken by the Board in tills instance pre-dated the current dispute, petitioners cannot
plead f-utility on a mere assumption about how the BOE would address an issue that it had never
before considered. And rather than ensuring the expeditious treatment of cases required by the
E lection Law, adoption of this doctrine would lead to litigation over side issues as to whether the
filing of objections is necessary in particular cases. Such an outcome is unsupported by any
authority construing the Election Law, and would be inconsistent with its aim that eligibility
challenges be resolved expeditiously.
In sum, despite the many arguments proiTered by petitioners, none can get them around
the irnmovalble object standing in the way of this petition: their failure to have filed objections
within the statutory deadline. Indeed, each argument they advance- that the time period for

7

The Board noted at the March 3 hearing that it believed it had the authority to determine
a presidential candidate's eligibility based on age, but viewed the question of natural born
citizenship as entailing legal interpretation beyond its purview.

13

APX - 013

general objeetions is discretionary rather than jurisdictional; that there is no need to make
objections if they are futile; and that the time limitations of the Election Law can give way if the
BOE acted in a manner that might mislead a petitioner - is made in the absence of a single case
so holding.
Finally. petitioners put forward what is essentially an equitable argument for the exercise
of the Courf'sjurisdiction: the voters ofNew York ''have a compelling interest in exercising
their fundrunental right to vote for candidates that meet the qualifications for public office and
not for canditdates that are ineligible" (Pet. Mem. ofLaw, 1). To the extent that petitioners can
be understood to say that the Court should rule notwithstru1ding the technical infirmities in the
petition. because of the importance of this issue, I find no legal basis to do so for the reasons set

f011h above. Moreover, were I to address the substantive questions underlying this case
notwithstanding the apparent procedural bar of petitioners' untimely objections, and rest
jurisdiction o n a series of exceedingly thin legal reeds that have never been adopted by any court
in this State. it would as likely create chaos and uncertainty as provide clarity.

In sum, for all of the reasons set forth above, the petitioners' failure to submit timely
objections deprives this Court of jurisdiction over the petition, and it is hereby dismissed. I need
not, therefore, address respondents' alternative arguments for dismissal.

ENTER

Dated: Alb<:my, New York
March 7. 20 L6
David A. Weinstein
Acting Supreme Court Justice
Papers Considered:

1.

Petitioners' Order to Show Cause, dated February 18, 2016, Affirmation of Roger J.
Bernstein, Esq., and supporting papers annexed thereto;

2.

Respondent Board of Elections letter to the Court, dated February 26, 2016:

3.

The Courrs Order dated February 26, 2016;

14

APX - 014

4.

Respondent New York State Board of Elections' Verified Answer, dated February 26,
2016. Affirmation of Brian L. Quail, Esq., with Exhibits A through C annexed thereto:

5.

Petitioners' Amended Verified Petition. dated February 26,2016. with Exhibit A armexed
thereto;

6.

Petitioners' Memorandum of Law, dated February 29. 2016, Affirmation of Roger J.
Bernstein. Esq .. with Exhibits A through J annexed thereto;

7.

Respondent Ted Cruz' Answer, dated March 2, 2016:

8.

Respondent Ted Cruz' Reply Memorandum, dated March 2. 2016, with Exhibits A
through G annexed

9.

thereto~

and

Petit·[oners ' Reply Memorandum ofLaw. dated March 3. 2016.

15

APX - 015

2

1

1

STATE OF NEW YORK

2

SUPREME COURT

COUNTY OF ALBANY

3
4

2

Board of Electiors
40 North Pearl Street , 5th Floor
Albany , NY 12207

4

BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO ,

-against -

BY : Kimberly Galvin , Esq . and Brian L . Quail , Esq .
Attorneys for Respondent , NYS Boa r d of Elections

5

Petitioners ,
Index No . 707-16
RJI No . 01 - 16- 120014

7

7

Lally & Misir , LLP
220 Old Country Road , n2
Mineola , New York 11501

6

APX - 016

8

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

8

BY :

9

and RAFAEL EDWARD (" TED" ) CRUZ ,

9

Also present : Dr . John Vafai and Anna Andreescu

10

GRANT M. LALLY , ESQ .

Attorney for Respondent Cruz

10
Respondents .

11

11
- ORAL ARGUMENT -

12
BEFORE :
14

HON . DAVID A . WEINSTEIN
Acting Supreme Courc Justice

15
16

12

Suzanne T . Harringcon , Sr . Court Reporter

13

13

14

15
Transcript of the Proceedings held on the

16

17

record on March 3 , 2016 , at the Albany Coun c y Cou r thouse ,

17

18

Albany , New York .

18

19

r-,

A-P-P-E-A-R-A-N-C-E-5 (Continued) :

3

5
6

1

19

20

A-P-P-E -A- R-A-N - C-E- 5:

20

21

21

22

Roger J . Bernstein, Esq .
535 5th Avenue , 35ch floor
New York , NY 10017

23

Also Present :

23

24

Attorney for Petitioners

Judith Hancock, Esq .

25

22

24
25

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518} 285-8739

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

3

P- R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

1

THE COURT :

2

Let ' s go on the record .

We ' re

1

MR . LALLY :

Thank you .

2

THE COURT :

And for the Board of

3

here today for a proceeding on the Electoral Law in

3

4

the matter of Korman and Gallo versus the New York

4

5

State Board of Elections and Rafael Edward "Ted"

5

name is Kimberly Galvin .

6

Cruz , index number 707 - 16 .

Can counsel for the

6

the New York State Board of Elections .

7

parties introduce themselves , starting with the

7

8

petitioner?

8

APX - 017

MR . BERNSTEIN :

9

Good afternoon , your

10

Honor .

I ' m Roger Bernstein .

Appreciate the Court

11

having us here .

12

Honor, and your right .

13

a colleague in my office who ' s played an

14

instrumental role in preparing our papers .

Elections?
MS . GALVIN :

MR . QUAIL :

Thank you, your Honor .

My

I ' m one of the counsel for

I ' m Brian Quail , also

representing the Board of Elections .
THE COURT :

9

Good afternoon .

So as I

10

indicated to the parties , I don ' t -- it ' s not

11

generally my practice to have an allocated amount of

12

time .

13

particular issues to both parties and ask them some

And, if

14

questions .

15

I may, Mr . Gallo and his wife are here as well , the

15

16

petitioners .

16

At the end of the proceeding I will give you

17

whatever opportunity you wish to cover any

18

additional issues that you think would be helpful to

19

do orally .

17
18

Judith Hancock is to my left, your

THE COURT :

Judith Hancock is a lawyer ,

Good afternoon .

And for the

respondents , let 's start with Senator Cruz .
MR . LALLY :

19

Good afternoon , your Honor .

What I would prefer to do is direct

Everyone will have a chance to respond .

20

I ' m Grant Lally of Lally and Misir, 220 Old

21

Road Mineola , New York appearing for Senator

Cr~z .

21

if you coulc just tell me your arguments .

22

Together with me today is Dr . John Vafai and

An~a

22

to me that they may have shifted in some of the

23

Andreescu .

23

reply papers .

24

your arguments as to why the timing of the

25

objections should not preclude you from bringing

24
25

THE COURT :

Thank you very much .

afternoon .
SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

Cou~try

Gooc

20

So let me just start with Mr . Bernstein ,
It seems

I think it would be helpful to set up

SUZANNE T. HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

I
1

I

this case .

2

MR . BERNSTEIN :

3

to be any shift in the arguments .

6

5

1

I d i dn ' t intend for there

2
3

The papers

objection, they did not say so .
THE COURT :

What is then the consequence ,

if that were the case , of not filing within three
days'?

submitted this morning were a summary of the
5

MF. . BERNSTEIN :

want to address that

APX - 018

5

arguments submitted previously, your Honor .

6

believe the best place to start with t h is analysis

6

very specifically , because it leaves the Court with

7

is the text of Section 6-154 itself .

7

the discretion as to determining that consequence ,

8

is aware , there ' s a differen t iation between the

8

and what we know is that the Election Law requires

9

three day objection rule and the six day specific

9

the Court tc make a liberal interpretation of the

10

So I

As your Honor

objection rule .

I

10

Election Law, and that informs what the consequence

11

may be .

I ' m going to answer the question , but --

11

The three day rule for specific

12

objections , the Legislature said that not

13

that renders the specifications , the t h ree day

13

~pologi7.e

14

specification , null and void .

14

i nterpretation apply here where the time period is

15

Legislature made no such determination as to the

15

actually to try to remove someone from the ballot?

16

initial general objection time limit .

16

follo~ing

However , the

12

THE COURT :

I

just want to ask you , and I

for the interruption , but does the liberal

MR . BERNSTEIN :

It applies in the context

17

of this case for a particular reason .

Election Law cited in our papers , which I believe

18

Electi ons has made it very clear that it ' s not going

19

from memory are in Section 1- 104 , there ' s also

19

to get involved with these objections .

20

the Legislature said very specifically that it would

20

t he Court in its papers -- it has told in its own

21

be a fatal defect not to provide the filings

21

decision on February 23rd , that this is outside its

22

referred to in that section, and they ' re numerous ,

22

jurisdiction .

23

but the point is that if the Legislature would have

23

correctly said it is not in a position to decide .

24

wanted the Courts to cease their involvement , they

24

think that goes back to 1952 when the Court of

25

wou l d have said .

25

Appeals made the ruling that questions of law are

17
18

Furthermore, in other sections of the

And in the case o( Lhe Lhree day

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

The Board of

It has told

This is a question of law that it has

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SSNIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

I

7

1

for the Courts and not for the Board of Elections .
So what is the purpose of those time

2

1

Elections , and it ' s an extremely well established

2

part of administrative law , affirmed more than once

3

by the Court of Appeals , that an administrative

4

procedure need not be exhausted when to do so would

3

frames?

4

of Elections has a job to do .

5

of the more traditional procedures , petiti ons of

5

be futile .

6

hundreds of thousands of pages are filed with the

6

that the objection process is devoid of

7

Board of Elections .

7

significance .

8

APX - 019

9

Those time frames are there when the Board

8

For example , in some

I ' m sure your Honor is somewhat familiar
with them; 20 signatures per page , the pages must be

8

9

The Board of El ections has demonstrated

It would be futile because they ' re not
going to rule on it , so it is a little short of - - I

10

in the perfect order, they must be stapled

10

don ' t want to use words that are harsh , but it ' s a

11

correctly, all the signatures have to be checkec .

11

little short of , shall we say, a difficult exercise

12

The witnesses have to be the right witnesses .

12

to say that you have to be kicked out of Court for

13

That ' s a procedure that could be time consuming

13

something that we ' re not going to look at , I don ' t

14

therefore , the statute requires that a certain

14

find that to be appropriate , especially in a

15

schedule be followed .

15

situation where the Constitutional issues of being

16

qualified to be on the balloc are at stake .

16

~nrl

But in the context of a pure question of
law , and given the Court ' s discretion that ' s been

17

18

afforded, there ' s no reason -- there ' s no reason for

18

consequence in this case should not be dismissal .

19

that three day time period to have any negative

19

As I said, the Legislature did not provide for a

20

consequence .

20

negative consequence here .

21

ought to be weighed , given that the Legislature has

21

suggests that there should not be a negative

22

given your Honor room to make a decision , what are

22

consequence , but it ' s a pure question of law .

23

the factors we should weigh?

23

Some of the Courts some other day can deal

This is an

24

with the significance of a three day objection issue

administrative proceeding before the Board of

25

when a factual issue has been represented to the

17

24
25

And when we look at the factors that

First of all, futility .

SUZANNE T. HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

So there are a number of reasons why the

The futility doctrine

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518! 285-8739

10

9

1

Board of Elections that people have to l ook at

1

but there ' s nothing put up there about the

2

petitions and so forth, but we don ' t have that here .

2

Republican filings .

3

There ' s a further aspect of the particular

3

THE COURT :

If your position is that they

APX - 020

4

case before your Honor that should inform the

4

5

Court ' s discretion in this particular situation, and

5

6

that is the disparate treatment that the Board has

6

cannot act in an arbitrary manner under Article 78 .

7

given to Republican and Democratic filings in this

7

An administrative agency, as a matter of law, cannot

8

case .

8

be arbitrary and capricious in how it handles its

9

proceedings , especially not when it deals with the

I ' m sure your Honor has seen in our papers

9

don ' t have to file , why is that relevant?
MR . BERNSTEIN :

Because once they do , they

10

that it is not our position that the Board of

10

voting public .

11

Elections has to put everything up on the internet .

11

the position that the public is entitled to rely

12

It ' s not our position that they have to scan

12

upon , then it can ' t turn around and say , don ' t rely

13

anything .

13

on what we do .

14

having moved into the modern age , they have a

14

THE COURT :

15

website visible from Tonawanda to Montauk for people

15

MR . BERNSTEIN :

16

who are not going to travel to Albany .

And on that ,

16

is that on February 24th , the Board of Elections put

17

they tell the voters of the State , this document has

17

up on its website that it had received on that day

18

been filed with us , the Democratic petitions have

18

the filing of Senator Cruz to be on the ballot .

19

been filed with us .

19

Now, they want to tell your Honor it was actually

20

filed on January 26th .

20

But the Board of Elections does now ,

For no viable reason -- and it ' s a one --

If an administrative agency takes

And if I may -Go ahead .
What ' s even more striking

We could argue forever which

21

it ' s not even a full sentence , I don ' t think-- I

21

day i t was filed upon , but what we ' re talking about

22

think it just says filing and the date ; but it is no

22

is the right of the public to rely upon the public

23

effort to put up on that website -- no burden -- the

23

statements to the Board of Elections .

24

filing of the date ; Secretary Cli nton has filed on

24

25

Lhis date , Senator Sanders has filed on this date;

25

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

These are hard working folks that have a
big job to do , no one is pointing a critical finger .
SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

12

11

1

What we ' re saying is they cannot treat the

1

three day thing was just sort of stuck in the middle

2

Republicans and Democrats differently for this

2

of the decision , it wasn't -- they didn ' t apply the

3

purpose and allow Democratic voters the opportunity

3

fatal defect concept there .

4

to object to filings and effectively make it

5

impossible for a Republican voter to meet the very

5

where the three day rule has ever been the subject

6

tiny three day deadline that has no significance to

6

of a dismissal ruling .

7

them .

7

8

APX - 021

9

THE COURT :

But certainly, your

Honor , that is the only case that they can cite

Can I ask -- so I actually

understand the argument -- is it your position that

As I pointed out in our papers , the case

8

cited by the Board of Elections, never said that

9

three day rule would require dismissal .

I think the

10

your clients actually relied on these postings or

10

11

just that they ' re inhe rent ly misleading?

11

because they didn ' t have the following

12

circumstances .

13

in the statute between the three day pnrtion and the

14

six day specification portion .

12

MR . BERNSTEIN :

Both , both .

13

it ' s inhAr•ntly misleading .

14

myself , relied upon it .

15

THE COURT :

Okay .

First,

Secondly, their agent ,

Let me just ask you -- there

Bennett case from 1980 is not controlling here

They didn ' t analyze the difference

I don ' t believe I need to say for your

15

16

are a whole series of cases that are cited in the

16

Honor exactly what those are .

17

respondents -- in Senator Cruz's brief that seem to

17

has that .

18

apply very stringent ru les .

18

situation where the Board of Elections gave

19

Bennett case which includes , among several things , a

19

different treatment to one party than the other

20

failure to meet the three day rule as a fatal

20

arbitrarily .

21

defect .

21

with a question of law .

22

In particular, a

Why don ' t - MR . BERNSTEIN :

Actually what the Bennett

22

I think your Honor

The Bennett case was not dealing with a

And the Bennett case was not dealing

so - - and finally they were not dealing

23

case said, as I read it , as a fatal defect was not

23

with a question of constitutional eligibility to be

24

sending a copy of the objections to the candidate by

24

on the primary ballot .

25

the prescribed--under the rules of the Board - - the

25

reasons would be very sufficient grounds for the

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

So I think any of those four

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285 - 8739

14

13

1

Appellate Courts in the state not to reach the

1

2

conclusion urged by the r espondents that your Honor

2

3

should cut this proceeding off, close i t down and

3

same website that he ' s referencing, there was a

4

not look at the merits .

4

political presidential primary calendar that did

5

specifically l ist the dates ; so any simple inquiry

5

So I ' m very-- in the order of what ' s

i n order to grant transparency .
However , I would point out that on the

APX - 022

6

important in this case , we should be looking at the

6

would have lead Mr . Bernstein to realize which

7

Constitutional issues and -- and because your Honor

7

letters had been filed on which date .

8

has the discretion under Section 6-154 not to

8

9

dismiss the case , the Court should not dismiss it .

9

why don ' t I first give you an opportunity to respond

10

to whatever you wish that was said by Mr . Bernstein .

10

THE COURT :

I will give you a chance to

THE COURT :

Okay, thank you .

Mr . Lally,

11

speak further , Mr . Bernstein, but let me just hear

11

12

first -- before I go to the other side, I neglected

12

A couple things I wanted to address as to the points

13

to mPnt ion -- if anyone has

13

raised by counocl .

14

please make sure the sound is off on those .

14

the Election Law liberally ; yes , in the 2010

15

Lally, I ' ll give you a chance to respond, but let me

15

amendment in the Election Law that was definitely

16

ask the Board of Elections , as a fact ual matter, if

16

inserted,

17

it ' s accurate that the Democratic and Republ i can

17

objections .

18

postings were different , and if there ' s any reason

18

19

you want to indicate for that .

19

burden backwards .

20

MS . GALVIN :

20

the ballot to be applied liberally , and objections

21

to be dealt with strictly .

22

mischaracterization of what the liberality rule
ac tually is.

elect~onic

dcvicco ,
Mr .

That is true, your Honor .

MR . LALLY :

b~t

Sure .

Thank you , your Honor .

When he talked about r.onstruing

it wasn 't inserted to interpret

It was the opposite , actually .

He has the

It was to allow people access to

21

The petitions were posted on the website.

22

letters for Republican ballot access were not .

23

the gentleman stated, it ' s the ordinary course of

23

24

business that we receive petitions for various

24

And the other issue to address -- the

25

electi ons , and we were in the habit of posting them

25

question you just put to the Board and that Mr .

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

The
As

So I think that was a

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

15

16

1

Be r nstein had raised; the Republican and Democratic

1

electi on cycles prior to the amendment to the

2

elect i on-- the primary election processes are under

2

Election Law -- t hey did have to file names of

3

two completely separate and different sections of

3

de l egates who will be elected in particu lar

4

law .

4

districts .

The Republican parties here in New York

5

5

The Democratic party has chosen basically

APX - 023

6

chose one particular course of selecting their

6

plan A, the Republican parties chose plan B.

7

delegates .

7

was enacted by the Legislature in 2015 , so we ' re

a

course .

8

talking

9

2015 , the Election Law was amended .

10
11

The Democratic party chose a di fferent

And in consultation with the Legislature in
So there ' s

actually nothing similar between the two processes .
The Democratic parties has -- and I

9

abo~t

That

two whole different sections of law .

THE COURT :

Let me as k you on that ; is it

10

your positicn that something in those distinctions

11

lead to these different postings or j u st that

12

attached as one of the exhibits , I believe it ' s t he

12

there ' s a rational basis for trea t i ng them

13

last one on my memorandum, it lays out the

13

diffP.rP.nt.ly?

14

particular standards , the particular burdens , the

14

15

filing requirements , and they ' re different for the

15

did what , but I can say these are not the same

16

two parties .

16

thing, and I wanted the Court to be advised of that .

17

So to say that treating one party the same

17

MR . LAL LY:

THE COURT :

I can ' t speak to why the Board

Can you talk to the - -

18

as the other party is somehow arbitrary and

18

essential ly the futility argument that the

19

capricious , these are two separate sections of law .

19

Petitioner ' s make that the Board -- since the Board

20

The Democratic party sel ection is under Election Law

20

takes the position t hat it ' s not going to inte r pret

21

Section 2-122-a .

21

this Constitutional iss ue , there ' s no real l y purpose

22

process is under 2- 122- b , two completely different

22

in filing t hese objecti ons , and it would have been

23

areas of l aw .

23

futile to have done so in a timely manner?

24

25

The Republican party selecti on

The Republican party-- Republican
candidates , for example , do not -- although in prior
SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

24

25

MR . LALLY :

Judge , that goes to -- I laid

it out in my reply, in my memorandum to the order La

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
COURT REPORTER
(516) 285- 8739

S~NIOR

17

1

Republican plan , the Republican plan as enacted by

hurdles , several major hurdles that the petitioners

2

the Legislature as requested by the Republican party

here have to overcome .

3

and enacted by the Legisla ture then chosen by the

4

Republican party , does not actually have the

5

delegates selected on primary day .

6

some ways is a beauty contest .

1

show cause .

2
3

There ' s several laye rs - - several

The first hurdle , and it ' s been talked

4

5

about, is they filed 19 days late .

6

has very strict deadlines .

7

They ' re time barred , that ' s it .

The Election Law

They filed late .

7

I mean we have statutes of lLmitations, we

8

APX - 024

9

18

have time limits in the state .

These, by

The primary in

The delegates are actually appointed

B

pursuant to a correlation of how the votes are cast

9

on primary day, but the actual delegates are

10

interpretation of multiple courts, have been deemed

10

appointed by the Republican state Committee .

11

to be strict deadlines that must be met .

So that ' s

11

the legal entity that's appointing the delegates ,

12

the first one, they ' re out of the box if they don ' t

12

some of the delegates .

13

file .

13

And I have an opinion of Justice Lally,

14

The rest of the delegates

~rP.

That ' s

actually

appointed by individual state committee members

15

Nassau County Supreme Court , which was affirmed by

15

sitting in convention in each of the congressional

16

the Second Department citing the Bennett case .

That

16

distr icts .

17

was only a couple years ago .

I think it lays it out

17

assembly district .

18

very clearly, if you don ' t meet three day objection

18

Each congressional district can contain

19

fili ng deadline, you're out of the box .

19

anywhere from 4 to 15 -- overlap 4 to 15 assembly

20

have standing to go in court later on .

20

districts , so you ' re going to have essentially--

21

you may have 27 Congressional districts, you ' ll have

22

27 meetings in New York State of the individual

23

states comnlittees who overlap those congressional

24

districts and they will be

25

authority who ' s appointing Republicans .

THE COURT :

21

22

You don ' t

That's the Independent party ' s

case?
MR . LALLY :

23

Yes , the Independent party

24

case .

So that ' s clear .

Secondly, there ' s a

25

necessary party issue here .

If you review the

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

The committee members are selected by

they are the legal

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

20

19

1

a~d

Let me stop you for a second .

1

delegates ,

2

In order for the commitlee to be a necessary pa=ty,

2

to the 2015

3

you either have to have the potential that they have

3

actually play that role .

4

to be negatively impacted by this proceeding or they

4

5

have to be necessary to provide relief .

What ' s the

5

candidates get on the ballot in two ways

6

argument that they ' re one of those two?

I'm not

6

generally get on the ballot in two ways ; either they

7

sure I understand .

7

file petitions, which are sheets signed by voters

8

who are registered in a particular party or

9

nominating papers signed by any voter who hasn ' t

THE COURT :

8

APX - 025

9

MR . LALLY :

The legal authority who's

actually doing the appointing is the state committee

only in t he Republican party pursuant

~lection

Law does the Republican party

Most candidates in New York State

10

or its members in these regional conventions .

10

previously signed a petition , that meets the

11

They ' re the ones doing the appointing, so certainly

11

requisite number of signatures of people for that

12

this impacts their rights and responsibilities as

12

district .

13

thP.

13

lPgal

14

authority .
THE COURT :

Does that mean there's a

So you file petitions -- or in the case of

14

the Supreme Court , judicial delegates are selected

15

necessary party issue the committee- men also have ,

15

in the normal election process .

16

or committee persons , always have to be joined in a

16

delegates then meet in judicial convention , then

17

proceeding whenever there is any action to try to

17

nominate the Supreme Court Justices .

18

strike anyone f rom the primary ballot for any

18

19

reason?

19

have a role in any of those elections because

This isn ' t the same issue?

Those judicial

so the Republican state committee does not

20

MR . LALLY :

No .

20

they ' re not part of that selection process .

21

THE COURT :

Wouldn ' t the same issue come

21

plenty of cases , your Honor, where a Republican

22

state committee does have a role .

23

the granting of Wilson Pakula .

24

was passed, I believe in 1952 if my memory serves me

25

-- and that ' s an academic memory

22
23

up in any case?
MR . LALLY :

Your Honor, that is an

24

excellent question .

25

is because only for the selection of presidential

The answer is no .

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(5181 285-8739

The reason

There ' s

For instance , in

Wilson Pakula law

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

but what that

22

21

1

authorizes is one party to authorize by the vote of

2

that executive committee to authorize people

3

enrolled in other parties to run in a party ' s

4

primary .
THE COURT :

5

Let me just ask you a

6

question .

7

of the primary that are affiliated with Senator

8

Cruz?

Is there a set list of delegates as part

APX - 026

9

MR . LALLY :

They ' re not , at this point .

10

THE COURT :

So there ' s no issue about

11

delegates being -- your argument is solely as to the

12

committee?

11

MR. LALLY :

That ' s correct .

14

THE COURT :

Let me give Mr . Bernstein a

THE COURT :

1

1qas that apparent before

has the issue of Constitutional challenge to

2

you

3

the eligibility of a presidential candidate ever

4

come up previously?

Or has the Board of Elections

5

ever previously taken the position that it ' s not--

6

that it ' s not capable of interpreting this issue?
MR . BERNSTEIN :

7

No and yes .

To my

8

knowledge , having read quite a few of the cases , I

9

don ' t believe that they ' ve specifically dealt with

10

Federal constitutional questions as to candidate

11

eligibility, but they ' ve deale with many questions

12

as to a candidate's eligi bility .
There arc ~ large number of cases in which

14

the Board of Elections has taken the position that

15

it ' s not empowered or capable -- I mean legally

16

capable of interpreting the law , and it goes back to

Yes, but I want -- I first

17

the 1952 case , which I ' m goes to mis-cite the name

18

want to come back to the quest ion asked of Mr . Lally

18

of it if I don ' t look at my papers .

19

about the futility arguments .

20

very apparent is there was no answer to the question

21

about the futility argument .

15

chance .

16

what ' s been said about the necessary party issue?

17

22

Mr . Bernstein , do you want to respond to

MR . BERNSTEIN :

The point that was

No counsel for the respondents has ever

23

contended , today or i n any papers , that it would not

24

be futile to have the Board of Elections look at

25

those objections .
SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

THE COURT :

19

The Schwartz case?

MR . BERNSTEIN :

20

Yes , the Schwartz case ,

21

exactly .

22

recognized very specifically that the functions of

23

so back in 1952 , the Court of Appeals

the Board of Elections as an administrative agency

24

are ministerial, but that ' s why it would be futile ,

25

and no one here has disagreed with that argument .
SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

24

23

1

THE COURT :

So any time that somebody

1

for example , your Honor, the candidate were to put

raises an issue with the Board that ' s not a

2

down I 'm 27 years old

3

ministerial issue , that requires some fact finding

3

4

or whatever it may be , they don ' t have to go

5

the objection process because it would be futile to

5

6

do so?

6

they ' ve told the Court it ' s a pure question of law,

7

whether or not that person is disqualified from

2

7

MR . BERNSTEIN :

th~ough

THE COURT :

That ' s a question I had coming

up.

There are issues before

MR . BERNSTEIN :

Okay .

The Board --

APX - 027

8

the Board that might not require fact finding .

For

8

running for president .

9

e xample, there 's been candidates that have put down

9

in every case where a question of law arises , pure

So far that we ' ve now seen

10

an address on their petiti on which discloses the

10

question of law , the Board has declined to consider

11

relevant fact on which they can make a legal ruling,

11

it .

12

but that ' s an unusual type of --

12

13

THE C()(JR'I' :

I ' m trying to understand ,

In any event , in this case there ' s been no

13

fact finding by the Board, and there was no

14

because the Schwartz case differentiates betweer the

14

potential for fact finding by the Board, so

15

Board of Eleccions and the Court .

The Board of

15

16

Elections has a ministerial role , but does that

16

17

is that relevant to the question about futility ,

17

18

excusing the need to make an objection?

18

the birth certificate ; but they said we 're not going

19

to look at it .

19

That would have to mean that every time

THE COURT :

They rejected the objection as

untimely .

MR. BERNSTEIN :

Right .

And we did attach

Your Honor , actually you could come

20

there's no-- a decision is not ministerial, there ' s

20

up with a large number of woulds and shoulds and

21

no need to make the objection .

21

maybe could haves for the Board to rethink how it

22

position?

22

may handle any of these questions.

23

MR . BERNSTEIN :

Is that your

Let me narrow this down .

24

When there ' s a pure issue of law , as we have here,

25

then the objection process is clearly futile .
SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

If

23
...--.._

But where we stand in this case is that

24

the Board has said, we ' re not going to consider it .

25

so if we want to rewrite the whole procedure for the
SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

26

25

1

Board, that ' s appropriate for another day , about how

1

Is your position that the committee ' s role is

2

it may handle facts that become apparent in one way

2

entirely ministerial and mechanical and actual

3

or another , but we ' re not really in that case .

3

members of the committee don ' t actually play any

4

We ' re really in che case where they ' ve said, we

4

role?

5

won ' t look at it .

5

6

change that , can we?

7

THE COURT :

We're stuck with that .

We can ' t

I understand your position in

APX - 028

8

this regard .

9

necessary party issue, and tell me why the committee

Let me then ask you to return to the

They ' ve set the

rules and they don ' t know who the candidates are

7

going to be , they don ' t know what the vote is going

8

to be ; but of necessity they had to set up a formula

9

beforehand , so that they would know how to allocate

persons are not necessary parties .

10

11

MR . BERNSTEIN :

11

For the simple

Correct .

6

10

Sure .

MR . BERNSTEIN :

the delegates .
That ' s a rule that they have adopted .

No

12

reason that they already set up their allocation

12

one is asking for that rule to be changed .

13

formulas .

13

only-- all of the cases cited by Mr . Lally, and in

14

formula .

14

particular the case of Regan v . - - I ' m not sure I

15

Exhibit F.

15

will get the right case --

Mr. Lally said there ' s a corrcl"tion by
It ' s an exhibit to our papers , it ' s

16

17
18

I ' m going to start, but I ' m not goi ng to
finish .

" If a candidate receives more than 50

16

THE COURT :

17

MR . BERNSTEIN :

The

The Regan case, okay .
Yes .

In that case the

percent or only one candidate receives 20 percen: or

18

19

more of the vote , that candidate receives all three

19

Republican State Committee .

20

delegates .

Otherwise , if at least two presidential

20

change any rule in the Republican State Committee .

21

contenders receive 20 percent or more of the votes ,

21

Nothing abou: this case involved changing the rules

22

the candidate with the most votes receives two

22

of the committees .

23

delegates , and the candidate with the second most

23

Instead, it ' s a mathematical formula .

24

votes receives one delegate ."

24

drop out a candidate , you add a candidate , they

25

THE COURT :

25

apply the rules accordingly .

Let me just stop you there .

SUZANNE T. HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
{518) 285- 8739

petitioner ' s sought to change Rule 18 of the
We ' re not seeking to

This argument about

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
!518) 285- 8739

You

27

28

1

necessary party falls into the category of a red

1

the notion that the Board is ministerial and that it

2

herring .

2

doesn ' t engage in fact findi ng on issues of

3

interpretation of law, the applications of law to

4

those sort of situations is true .

THE COURT :

3

Let me just stop you there for

APX - 029

4

a second .

5

asking more for factual issues from the Board,

5

6

because I understand your position is to take more

6

Mr . Quail , so I understand correctly ; it ' s not the

7

of a back seat in this , but if you want to respond

7

position of the Board that you don ' t have the

8

to any of the arguments , feel free to .

8

authority tc rule on the eligibility of a candidate

9

for president .

9

I wanted to ask the Board again , and I ' m

But I want to understand if, in

TEE COURT :

Let me just ask you though ,

10

particular, Mr . Bernstein has correctly has

10

11

characterized your position , that you believe it is

11

obvious on its face without getting into the

12

within your purview, if I ' m recalling correctly , to

12

details .

13

reject a presidential candidate on the grounds that

14

on their face , for example , they ' re under 35 ; but

14

the Board would have the authority to rule on that

15

you would not do so if it involves a question of

15

issue?

16

legal interpretation -- or am I mis - stating it?

16

But the problem here is not that it ' s in a

17

presidential election or federal election, it ' s that
it doesn ' t fall within the ministerial

17

MR . QUAIL :

Your Honor, the issue of at

It would have to be something that is

If there were something the commissioners

were to discern is obvious on its face , you believe

18

what exact point a qualification issue is so

18

19

manifest and apparent on its face that it doesn ' t

19

20

require any fact finding and therefore falls within

20

think of a couple times a state or county board has

21

the ministerial purview of the Board really is a

21

ruled on eligibility based on age , for example .

22

very fact specific inquiry .

22

23

And if the commissioners are actually

MR . QUAIL :

THE COURT :

Yes, your Honor .

But I can

All right, thank you .

So Mr .

23

Lally, let me first give you a chance to respond to

24

approached with it, it ' s difficult to say precisely

24

anything Mr . Bernstein said, then I want to address

25

how they would come down .

25

the whole practicality political question issue .

The general substance ,

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

29

30

Judge , if I could just give an

1

determi nation and that determination is before the

2

additional answer to what the Board had sai d , I know

2

Board , it speaks for itsel f .

3

of an instance where the Board invalidated petitions

3

exhibit .

4

that were obviously fraudulent .

For example , I know

4

I just want to add, there ' s two additional

5

in 2014 someone submitted a petition for Congress , I

5

issues which I know were mentioned in my papers , the

6

think i t was 800 or 900 pages long , witnessed by the

6

federal preemption and federal political question .

7

candidate .

7

MR . LALLY :

1

8

APX - 030

9

The first page, your Honor , was original .
The second was a xe r ox copy of the first and the

THE COURT :

It ' s attached as an

So let me ask you -- I know

8

you said you didn ' t have a ful l chance to see the

9

reply, but I would have asked the same quest i on as

10

third was a xerox copy of the first and 800 pages

10

was raised in the reply; which is that state courts

11

xeroxed off of one ten signature sheet .

11

all the t i me interpret issues of federal law .

12

I know that the Board disqualified that .

13

I bel ieve i t was American Sove r eign ty Party .

14

petition was submitted that year .

15
16

17

12

Their 1983 claim, for example , is brought

13

from the state court .

14

of Federal Constitution Law .

to give the Court that additional information of

15

them in the reply brief .

which I was aware .

16

THE COURT :

The

So I just wanted

Do you have anything to

It requires an interpretation

So what exactly

There ' s a long list of

can you explain what

17

your position is in terms of where the limits are on

18

respond in terms of what Mr . Bernstein said or

18

this Court ' s ability to rule on the question of the

19

should we move on to the

19

meaning of the Constitutional information?

20

MR . LALLY :

Regarding the futility?

20

MR . LALLY :

Your Honor, in the shape of

21

THE COURT :

Yes .

21

the Federal preemption doctrine -- I will repeat it

22

MR . LALLY :

Obviously the Board looks at

22

for all parties here ; under the United States

23

the petitions that come in ; there are good

23

Constitution, the supremacy clause of the United

24

petitions , bad petitions , obvious issues to more

24

States Con stitution says that the laws of the United

25

complex legal issues , and they ' ve rendered a

25

States

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

I Hill paraphrase - - are the supreme law
S~ZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

32

31

1

of the land , and anything in state law or in the

1

that is contrary to -- and I had it sent to me and I

2

constitutions of any states notwithstanding .

2

can give it to the Court -- but I had about a ten

3

page documer.t of the various birther suits that have

3

That has been interpreted and applied by

APX - 031

4

the Federal Government , by the Federal Court , tc

4

been submitted to federal district courts by state

5

mean the state courts cannot regulate in certain

5

courts concerning not only Senator Cruz -- and this

6

areas , and certainly cannot act in ways that are

6

is early in the process for him; but there were

7

contrary to Federal Law and clearly stated Federal

7

scores of cases and complaints and objections filed

8

policy .

8

against Senator John McCain, who was 2008 Republican

9

nominee .

9

And there are areas of jurisdictional

10

competence where state legislatures and state courts

10

11

may not intrude .

11

military, he served this country honorably .

12

United States v . AZ which concerned Arizona ' s

12

born in Panama in the canal zone , which those

13

attempts to essentially adopt its own immigration

13

nhjA~rnrA

14

policy within the State of Arizona .

14

United States and therefore he should not be allowed

15

to run for president .

15

Recently there was a case of

The Federal Government sued Arizona to

He was a senator, he was an admiral in the
He was

thought was nutside the territory of the

THE COURT :

So is the preemption issue

16

enjoin those practices , and the United States

16

17

federal trial courts and subsequently the United

17

here-- I mean the provision we're talking about is

18

States Supreme Court ruled that Arizona was acting

18

the provision of the United States Constitution --

19

in an unconsti tutional manner because the area of

19

does the preemption issue here have to do because

20

Immigration and Nationality Law are the exclusive

20

it's a matter of immigration

21

purview of the Federal Government .

21

immigration , naturalization ; is that what it comes

22

down to?

22

And I think this case is actually quite

23

similar in that what the petitioners here are asking

23

24

you -- this Court to do is make a ruling on the

24

the Petitioners are asking this Court is do is make

25

meaning of federal statutes, and to act in a way

25

a state court ruling in one state on what ' s the

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

MR. LALLY :

of construction of

Yes, your Honor, because what

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

33

l

federal law .

2

Certainly at the t ime that Senator

34

1

and make a ruling contrary to what is the plain

Cruz was born , the federal la w when Senator Cruz was

2

language of the statute and is the application by

3

born is clear .

3

the Federal Government , by an executive branch of

4

Government -- the Federal Government has determined

5

through statements and policy positions of different

5

string of federal court cases which have ruled that

6

agencies of the Federal Government .

6

this is not a matter for state courts ; that this is

7

purely a federal issue .

7

And more than that, the American

And I have attached the implementation of
I

the Federal Government ; and contrary to a long

APX - 032

8

that by the United States Department of State .

9

have attached the interpretation -- an application

9

10

of that law by th e United States Department of the

10

only a matter for the Federal Government, it ' s not

ll

Census -- by the United States Department of

ll

even a matter for the Federal District Courts .

12

Commerce , Bureau of the Census .

12

a matter for the United States Congress and for the

13

THE COURT :

13

Electoral College .

I ' m sure Mr . Bernstein will

And under its political question doctrine ,

8

the courts have ruled consistently that this is not

It ' s

14

say it ' s not a question of immigration laws , because

14

And they ' ve c ited to a case in whi c h the

15

it ' s a question of who was a natural born citizen .

15

court -- and I will paraphrase -- basically told a

16

A different -- a natural born citizen being a

16

petitioner that was seeking to have a presidential

17

Constitutional provision , wh ich is distinct from the

17

candidate disqualified as president ; told him, look

18

citizen provisions of the fed eral law .

18

if you have a complaint , take it to the United

19

respond to that?

19

States Congress, because they may determine the

20

qualifications of the President of the United
States .

20

MR . LALLY :

Thank you .

How do you

The federal law at

21

the time in 1970 , at the time that Senator Cruz was

21

22

born , was crystal clear .

22

23

language is black letter and plain .

24

American citizen .

25

interpretation or have this Court start to examine

He was born -- the
He was born an

So they ' re seeking to find an

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

THE COURT :

I will ask Mr . Bernstein that

23

question about some of the practical problems of

24

wha t he ' s suggesting .

25

LhaL Court suggested is the statute of the electoral

But let me ask you , if what

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

36

35

1

college meeting at that point , you would then

1

must apply federal law .

2

potentially have their objectors following the

2

that you can ' t examine a federal question .

3

presidenti al e lection ; then that's the time to

3

means is that you must decide a federal question

4

disqualify a candidate?

4

consisten tly with federal law .

5

THE COURT :

5

MR . LALLY :

I did not make a ripeness

Preemption doesn ' t mean
What it

That ' s all it means .

Is there no concern raised

APX - 033

6

question , in part because I thought there was more

6

here about the fact that t he quintessential federal

7

than ample issues rendering this petition invalid

7

issue is immigration and nationality would be

8

and subject to dismissa l , but there is certainly a

8

decided by a state court?

9

question of ripeness as to whether this is the time

9

10
11

12
13

and place to be filing .
THE COURT :

Let me ask Mr. Bernstein if

you want to respond to anything and -MR . BERNSTEIN :

So your Honor, the first

MR. BERNSTEIN :

That ' s not a

10

quintessential federal issue .

11

federal issue , like any othe r federal issue like the

12

FELA, Federal Employer Liability Act , or innumerable

13

social security cases that the state courts have

It ' s a garden variety

14

thing we have to do is separate the different

14

decided .

15

constitutional questions .

15

certainly there's noth i ng so recondite or arcane

16

questions are not overlapping issues, and

16

17

unfortunately confounded in our adversary ' s

17

18

presentation .

18

19

non-argument because this Court ' s responsibility in

19

vs . Board of Education, the State Court of Delaware ,

20

this case is to apply federal law .

20

a chief justice cites -- a very distinguished

21

Judge -- cited the responsibility of the s tate

21

Supremacy and political

But the supremacy argument is a

The supremacy clause, as enumerable cases

I don ' t have all the examples at hand, but

THE COURT :

In terms of deciding who is a

citizen or not -MR. BERNSTEIN :

Well , your Honor, in Brown

22

have held and as I think your Honor recognizes ,

22

courts in interpreting the 14th amendment of the

23

requires all the courts of the United States ,

23

Constitution, which is as profound as you can get in

24

Federal and State, to apply federal law .

It ' s been

24

Federal Law --

25

the law since Lhe Civil War, LhaL every state court

25

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

THE COURT :

Not to press the issue , but I

SJZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

38

37

1

guess the question is not whether it ' s profound or

1

Court in Manhattan, i s that they ' ve had to deal with

2

not , but whether it ' s a matter that falls within the

2

these issues .

3

purview of the Federal Government and --

3

verse , but it ' s clear enough that adoption, for

4

example , has been regulated in different ways at

MR . BERNSTEIN :

There ' s no doctrine that

As I said , I don ' t have chapter and

APX - 034

5

said that the nature of the federa l statute moves

5

different times by the federal immigration laws .

6

the state courts out of the way .

6

And adoption, of course , is a quintessential state

7

political question doctrine .

7

matter .

8

never said that there are categories of federal

8

9

questions that are too complex or difficult or

9

10

There ' s a separate

The Supreme Court has

federal for state courts to decide .

11

THE COURT :

Let's take this a step

applying the l aw just because o f t he federal statute

11

involved .

12

Alabama , where the Alabama court re f used to apply
the federal law concerning railroad liability .

further .

13

I have the authority to ultimatel y rule on this

13

14

question .

14

15

There will be issues-- there ' s a question

Supreme Court has never excused state courts from

10

12

Let ' s say I was to , after today, rule that

So I j ust go back to the point , the

The case I cited to your Honor in

The Supreme Court said , the State Court

15

may not refuse to decide a question of federal law

16

about whether or not it ' s common law defin i tion of

16

because it ' s a question of federal law .

17

citizen, statutory definition .

17

exactly what they said .

18

another case where the state court would interpret

18

a moment

19

the question of who is a citizen of the United

19

20

States and interpret the immigration laws , but

20

21

MR . BERNSTEIN :

I can ' t thin k of

Wel l , that's not always

THE COURT :

21

MR . BERNSTEIN :

22

THE COURT :

I want to go onto the --

I want to ask you a broader

23

cite chapter and verse , bu t I believe it ' s come up

23

24

in family law litigation, divorces, tax obligations .

24

MR . BERNSTEIN :

25

My understanding , actually from the Clerk of the

25

THE COURT :

(518) 285-8739

Let me ask you

about --

been the case .

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER

And I can -- if you give me

That ' s okay .

22

I believe it ' s come up , and I can ' t

That ' s

question , which is that ultimately -The McKnett case .

In your brief , you go through

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

40

39

1

each of these different doctrines, the preemption,

1

the issue that Mr . Gallo retained me for, the

2

supremacy .

2

purpose of getting these issues clarified;

3

doctrines , but there ' s a broader concern -- a

3

4

concern I have of where this all leads .

4

Republican voter in New York should be able to go to

5

the polls knowing that they're voting for a

5

It doesn ' t fall within any of these

Right now you are making a challenge to a

Because every voter in New York, every

APX - 035

6

candidate in a primary in a particular state .

6

candidate who's actually eligible for candidacy of

7

Whether or not that challenge is successful here or

7

President of the United States, and not one whose

8

in other states -- because what happens with the

8

competency to be president is called into disrepute

9

challenge if essentially there ' s not going to be a

9

if he's president ;

10
11

determination of eligibility or not eligibility<
It will be a determination of eligibility
State

But to be more specific about the issue of

10
11

the different states making rulings on this

12

question, there's a very practical answer to that .

12

in this case, not eligible in this case .

13

delegates count in this state, not in this state .

13

There ' s a expedited appeal process in New York for

14

Why shouldn ' t I be concerned that if I ultimately

14

all Election Law cases .

15

were to grant this petition, it doesn ' t actually

15

The Supreme Court has demonstrated by the

16

clarify the issue or provide a road map for

16

Montana vs . u . s . Department of Commerce case that I

17

clarifying the issue for the elections, but instead

17

cited, has expedited the briefing of Election Law

18

would just create chaos?

18

cases .

19

MR . BERNSTEIN :

19

always better to read it , if I may .

Well , first of all , it

In that case they said that because -- it ' s

20

would clarify the issue because if your Honor

20

THE COURT:

21

addresses the legal issues and spelled it out one

21

MR . BERNSTEIN :

22

way or the other way, either the argument I make or

22

do a table of cases .

23

Mr . Lally makes, I ' m sure your Honor would make it

23

us today is political in the same sense that Baker

24

quite clear in a written decision, for once

24

v . Carr was

25

addressing the issues , that would absolutely clarify

25

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

MS . HANCOCK :

Which page are you on?
Sorry, I didn ' t have time

Here we are .

The case before

Give him the page .

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

41

42

The case before us today

1

resolve the issue before votes are cast .

2

is political, in the same sense that Baker v . Carr

2

about the opposite situation , if the question is

3

was political .

3

reserved until the electors meet here in the

4

was to expedite briefing -- on the bottom of page

4

Capitol .

5

13 - - open quote , in view of the importance of the

5

moment, I ' m sure your Honor is aware there ' s no

6

issues and its significance in this year ' s

6

Electoral College in the United States .

7

Congressional and Presidential elections .

7

MR . BERNSTEIN :

1

And what the Supreme Court did there

Let ' s talk

I think -- if I could digress for a

The electors meet over at the State

APX - 036

8

There ' s no question that it is the role of

8

Capitol , and the legislators call that our mini

9

the United States Supreme Court to establish uniform

9

electoral college because they meet there and they

There ' s no

10

sign lists of names of electors that are Democratic

11

or Republican .

10

law on constitutional questions .

11

question in my mind .

12

rule on the merits of this case, the Appellate

12

13

process will expeditiously resolve and settle the

13

in

14

question of whether or not Senator Cruz is

14

meeting in the Sistine Chapel ready to discuss the

15

ineligible or eligible to be president of the United

15

qualifications for the leadership of the Church .

16

States .

16

But if this Court proceeds to

They don ' t consider eligibility .

There is no college of electors that meets
W~shington.

This is not the College of

Cardin~l5

These are lists of paper that come to

17

Washington in the month of December after an

18

election, and then their lists are opened and

19

counted .

20

have looked at this question of what would happen if

21

you waited until after the national election and

Because the New York State

22

then decided to look at these kinds of issues .

23

Legislature has given your Honor that responsibility

23

24

under the Election Law .

24

Donohue , it's D-o-n-o- h- u- e, that ' s in our papers .

25

Legislature has wisely said, this is the time to

25

That case was before Judge Mishler in the Eastern

17

18

THE COURT :

Why isn ' t this an issue just

to be raised in Federal Court?

19

MR . BERNSTEIN :

20

THE COURT :

I ' m sorry?

Why is this not an issue to be

21

raised in federal court?

22

MR . BERNSTEIN :

The New York State

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

That ' s all that happens .

But the courts

A very important case we cited called

SUZANNE T. HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

44

43

1

District .

2
3

The plaintiffs, I think they were the

1

a president-elect , rather, on the grounds of

Independence Party, said there is so much fraud in

2

ineligibility .

the President Carter election in New York State ,

3

change the facts around .

that we should throw it out and do it over again .

4

Democrat becomes president-elect in November and a

Let ' s posi t for a moment , let ' s just
Let ' s posit that a

APX - 037

5

And the Judge said, I have the power as a

5

Congress with a Democratic maj ority in both houses .

6

Court of Equity to throw out the New York elections

6

Is the party going to reject the candidate, the

7

and have it done over again .

7

selected candidate of its own party on the grounds

8

amount of disrup tion that would cause in the

8

of ineligibility to be president?

9

presidential selection process, the Court wil l

9

position to do that .

refrain from exercising its power to do that .

10

THE COURT :

10

11

THE COURT:

But because of the

You don ' t think that granting

They're not in a

Well , one potential

11

argument -- and I just raise it to play Devil ' s

12

your application here wouldn ' t cause disruption in

12

advocate , is that -- just as in whether or not the

13

the presidential selection process?

13

political question doctrine applies here plus the

No , because if we had a

14

political question ; sometimes the remedy is in the

15

rapid decision that we ' re entitled to get, before

15

political process .

16

people vote -- before more people vote

16

MR . BERNSTEIN :

17
18
19

20

21
22

MR . BERNSTEIN :

The answer to the

17

political question doct ri ne is this is a legal

because obviously the nomination process is long

18

doctrine .

under way .

19

case is that in that case Congress had redistricted

the other way or raise concern in the other

20

the districts amongst different states .

direction?

21

said to Congress , you didn ' t do it right, the

22

districts aren ' t equal .

THE COURT :

Well , not before people vote,

So doesn ' t the case you just cited c •J t

MR . BERNSTEIN :

Well , what that case --

The interesting thing about the Montana

And Montana

And they went to court and the case --

23

what really happens if we waited, t here would be no

23

24

remedy at al l .

24

this is the case I was talking about -- went to the

25

the electors rejecting a candidate on the grounds --

25

Supreme Court, and the argument was this is up to

I ' m unable to imagine, your Honor ,

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285 - 8739

45

46

1

to determine who is a natural born citizen, so it ' s

no , it ' s a legal question of interpreting the

2

not a political question for that reason .

Constitution .

3

1

Congress to do the districting .

2
3

Supreme Court said

There ' s

It ' s not a question that has ever been

APX - 038

4

We are in the same position here .

5

no competency i n a legislative body to determine the

5

could just go a little further here on political

6

meaning of the qualifications for being president .

6

question, because I think your Honor is focusing on

7

In particular, there is no competency to determine

7

that .

8

the legal meaning of natural born citizen .

8

9

can pass resolutions , but it has always been the

9

10

function of the Courts to determine questions of

10

Congress or to the electors .

11

law .

11

commitment of it to the electoral college because

12

the Constitution does not have the words electoral
col l Pge

Congress

This , your Honor , would be asking to

12

committed to a legislative body to decide .

And if I

There ' s no , as they say, textual
commitment in the Constitution of this question to
There should be no

13

repeal Marbury v. Madison , if you were not to

11

14

adjudicate the question of law here .

Because under

14

The Constitution contemplates --as I said ,

15

the political question doctrine -- I will return to

15

the electors meet in several states, and they send a

16

your Honor ' s point -- when do the political question

16

list of votes to Washington .

17

doctrines not apply?

17

in that scenario whether someone i s qualified or

18

policy?

18

not?

19

when legal standards exist .

When there ' s no issue of

When there ' s no issue of competency , and

Who ' s going to decide

It ' s not even a political question .

19

Legal standards for addressing this

20

in it.

If the Court were to rule tha t this could

20

only be decided in the vote counting process , in the

21

question have existed for centuries , literally

21

electoral process , nobody would ever decide the

22

centuries .

22

question of whether or not a candidate was

23

Un ited States v . Wong Kim Ark others are referred to

23

qualified .

24

in Luria v . United States .

24

25

cases .

Many of them are referred to in the

We have cited these

Your Honor unquestionably has the competency
SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

25

Now maybe we could be more practical about
this .

In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the
SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

47

48

1

plaintiff, Miss Lindsey, came along and said, I want

1

THE COURT :

2

to be on the ballot and run for president .

2

MR . BERNSTEIN :

3

a little hard to understand, but she was 27 years

3

THE COURT :

old, said I belong on the ballot .

And it ' s

Well the Court

16-154?

That deals with --

No, 16 --

I understand, but the language

on eligibility --

5

had no difficulty in saying , you don ' t meet one of

5

6

the qual i fications .

6

The Supreme Court , your Honor , is vested with

7

should not be on the ballot .

7

jurisdictior. to summarily determine any question of

In that case it upheld the

8

law or fact arising as to any subject set forth in

decision of the Board of Election , had made that

9

th i s article .

THE COURT :

8

APX - 039

9

10

We can rule right now that you

determination .

10

MR . BERNSTEIN :

MR . BERNSTEIN :

It ' s 16-100 , I ' m sorry .

And one of the subjects set forth in

the article is under 6- 122 .

That was California law,

11

12

whatever California law allocated responsibilities

12

the Board of Elections process is not appropriately

13

to the Board of Elections .

13

followed,

14

of the decision was not based upon the Board of

14

authority tc rule on this question .

15

Elections .

15

MR . BERNSTEIN :

11

17

They interpreted the Constitution .
THE COURT :

16

But New York law allocates for

the Board of Elections --

18

MR . BERNSTEIN :

19

THE COURT :

20
21

But your Honor , the part

No, I don ' t agree .

So tell me why you don ' t agree

with that .
MR . BERNSTEIN :

Because Election Law

THE COURT :

So your position is even if

that the Court would stil l have the

I am not saying the Board

16

of Elections process was inappropriately followed .

17

They followed the Schwartz case and said, we can ' t

18

decide this case .

19

Election

20

is a decision that must be made by the Courts .

21

La~ ,

Our position is under the

and particularly Section 16-100 , this

THE COURT :

I just want to understand your

22

16- 100, I believe it is , gives the Court -- and I

22

reading of 16-100 is that there ' s a process in terms

23

won ' t say it verbatim, the power to determine any

23

of the Board of Elections determining eligibility .

24

question of law or fact arising out of the Election

24

Is it your

25

Law -- not 16 -- just a second .

25

going back Lo some degree , there are issues we

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

~osition

that under 16- 100, the Court

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

50

49

1

talked about , that the Court has a l ways had some

1

2

type of inherent authority under 16-100 to make a

2

And this is regarding the federal jurisdictional

3

decision on -- any decision other than the Election

3

issue .

Law .

4

which specifically allocate the power to make the

Are there certain things allocated to the

MR . LALLY :

Sure , Judge, a couple things .

There are several places in the Constitution

APX - 040

5

Board of Elections , and if they ' re not appropriately

5

determination for qualifications and -- to the

6

proper for the Board of Elections , then the Court is

6

federal government , to the Congress , and politically

7

without the power to decide them?

7

to the bodies of the electoral college and the

a

MR . BERNSTEIN :

8

United States Congress - - first of all , Mr .

9

Bernstein is right , the electoral college does not

9

I think where your

question could be appropriately addressed would be

10

deferring to administrative procedures .

11

10

meet at one college .

administrative agency acts within its competency and

11

colleges in the state legislative Capitol .

12

makes certain decisions , those cannot always be

12

13

second guessed by the Court .

13

to -- and this goes to the ripeness issue, but if he

14

wishes to make a challenge -- if Senator Cruz is to

11

THE COURT :

When an

And your position is this is

It meets at 50 separate

I would submit if Mr . Bernstein wishes

15

not such a case , because this is not a matter that ' s

15

win New York State in this November , and the

16

within the competency of the Board of Elections?

16

electors are then going to meet here in Albany, that

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

MR . BERNSTEIN :

That ' s correct .

That the

Board of Elections -- that ' s the Board ' s position .
THE COURT :

Well , let me give you -- you

have gone for a long time , Mr . Bernstein .
MR . BERNSTEIN :

I don ' t want to finish

I ' m not concl uded on the electoral college -THE COURT :

I will give you an opportunity

17

would be the time for him to make that kind of

18

challenge .

20

state court , but ought to be in federal court ,

21

because this is the more appropriate venue if he

22

wants to .

23

I ' m saying is this is clearly not the t i me or place .

24

to finish any point , but you said a lot of things .

24

25

I want to give Mr . Lally the opportunity to respond .

25

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

Frankly, I would suggest it not be done in

19

And I ' m not conceding that point , what

THE COURT :

Thi s is the point in time?

The nation already voted, everyone already selected
SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285 - 8739

51

1

the president .

2

chaos it could result in .

3

I

raised issues about the potential

MR . LALLY :

Your Honor , the 20th amendment

52

1

phenomenon .

I think it ' s called a birther

2

phenomenon .

This phenomenon has occurred for

3

several presidential cycles , the eligibility for

4

was passed specifically for the purpose of dealing

5

with i ssues of presidential qualifications .

6

U. S . Constituti on speaks to the question of whether

6

hundreds of courts , and the administrative bodies

7

a p r esident is capabl e o f staying in office .

7

across the United States .

8

cases and these claims - - these objections are

9

dismissed for the reasoning that we set forth

8

APX - 041

9

Those issues have been contemplated ,
anticipated and are actually written into the

10

Constitution .

11
12
13

The

So it isn ' t the role of us here ,

president is challenged across the country .
5

It ' s legally invalid, has been ruled on by

And consistently these

10

certainly on the substantive federal question ,

prior to a party primary vote for president , to be

11

preemption doctrine , and political questions issues .

making those determinations .

12

THE COURT :

13

on standing grounds .

THE COURT :

The 20th amendment deals with

A

lot of these are dismissed

Also in this case there is --

14

the issue if there is a vacancy in the Office of the

14

the Election Law gives the voters standing to

15

President for some reason .

15

challenge the e ligibility of the candidate

16

issue of dealing with the appropriate time to

16

17

challenge eligibility .

17

is replete with cases where they simply say that

18

this is not -- you do not have standing to make this

18

It doesn ' t deal with the

I t isn ' t a motion that eligibility -- that

MR . LALLY :

Understood, but the case law

19

we should go through an entire electoral process ,

19

challenge to the political institutions

20

then at the end of that have a determination on the

20

determinatio~s .

21

eligibility .

21

elected, their federal functions are they ' re acting

22

problems with that .

22

in a federal capacity .

23

capital , they may cast their votes in the state ' s

24

capital , but they ' re federal officials for that

25

particular purpose and they ' re not bound - - they are

I think you could see some of the

23

MR . BERNSTEIN :

24

MR . LALLY :

25

Your Honor --

Your Honor , I understand , but

again this is not occurring in isolation , this
SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

And the electors , when they ' re

They may meet in the state ' s

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

53

1

independent elected officials when they ' re selected .
And history is replete with examples cf

2

54

1

the votes of that state .

2

it ' s ac t ually a felony for an elector to not vote as

3

directed by the election in that state .

And in some of the states

APX - 042

3

electors being elected pledged to one candidate , who

4

then when they vote for another candidate -- Ronald

5

Reagan received an elector in 1976 although he was

5

States specifically controlli ng how their electors

6

not a candidate on the ballot for election, but the

6

vote, and yet those electors are supposed to stand

7

elector choose to vote for him .

7

up and say, you know what , I just realized that the

8

individuals .

8

candidate I ' m supposed to vote for can ' t be

9

particular presidential candidate .

9

president .

11

They ' re not bound to vote for any

THE COURT :

10

They ' re independent

Anything else you wish to

respond to of what Mr . Bernstein said?
MR . LALLY :

12

No, I think I have covered the

So we have virtually half of the United

10

Nhat am I going to do?
THE COURT :

We have talked about potential

11

remedies .

We ' re not dealing with a general

12

election , we ' re dealing a party primary .

Each party

13

issues, and I don ' t know if you had any other

13

is capable of having a process to evaluate

14

questions , your Honor .

14

eligibility to ensure that candidate for that

15

party ' s office is not ineligible for office , with

counsel for the Board of Elections if they have

16

all the risks that entails .

17

anything else to say .

17

18

list of questions I want to make sure they ' re all

18

process here, why i s this now the time?

19

addressed here .

19

it an issue for the party to assess the potential

20

Bernstein .

20

eligibility, and then the potential challenge could

21

be made late= on by a voter once the party has

22

nominated the person for office?

THE COURT :

15
16

21

Let me ask Mr . Bernstein and

Then I want

I have a long

Why don ' t you go ahead , Mr .

You had something else?
MR . BERNSTEIN :

My colleague at the bar

Why, if we're dealing with a primary
Why isn ' t

22

misspoke , your Honor , as to who ' s bound .

23

20 states -- we gave your Honor an appendix -- in

23

24

which the electors are bound by la w to vote for the

24

are parties that hold private caucuses in some of

25

party that they were selected by in accordance with

25

the States of the Union; in this case , Wyoming .

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

There are

~he

MR . BERNSTEIN :

Here ' s the answer .

SUZANNE T. HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

There

In

56

55

1

the majority of the states, the parties have yielded

1

2

to the states the respons i bility of running an

2

3

election , the primary election under rules set by

3

vote is wasted because they voted for an ineligible

4

the states .

4

candidate , isn't your argument on the back end that

5

there ' s no further process to address ineligibility?

5

The Republican party in New York State,

won ' t vote for him, thinking he's disqualified .
THE COURT :

When you say essentially their

APX - 043

6

were it so advised, could say we don't want our

6

So if they discern that there 's no ultimate remedy,

7

primary to be run by the state.

7

then it ' s only in the theoretical sense that they ' re

8

caucus , private caucus , and therefore we can set

8

voting for someone ineligible

9

rules as we wish .

9

10

We'll have a

But in New York State when they ceded

10

MR . BERNSTEIN :
THE COURT :

No , it ' s not --

So you think at some point --

11

control of the primary process to the Legislature ,

11

is there a point down the road in which there ' s a

12

the Legislature was empowered to set rules .

12

potential that the votes would be determined for a

13

its rules is, we will not let New York ' s votcr3 go

13

candidace that would be unable to serve?

14

to an election, be it primary or general, and be

14

15

offered the opportunity to vote for an ineligible

15

that potential , your Hono r .

16

candidate .

16

last eight years, if you vote for a candidate for

17

miscast and useless ballots .

17

president whose eligibility and qualifications for

18

president are called into question, and your

19

candidate is weakened in office because of

18

One of

We ' re protecting our voters from a

If I could just elaborate or that point ,

MR . BERNSTEIN :

Well certainly there is
We've seen over the

19

there ' s several interests here .

20

voter who ' s -- to stick with our case, a voter who

20

legitimacy questions repeated l y -- they are foreign

21

supports Mr . Rubio will be adversely affected if Mr .

21

born , they did not qualify under the Constitution,

22

Cruz is on the ballot yet ineligible , because

22

maybe they should step aside in favor of the

23

inevitably Mr . Rubio would have been the second

23

vice- president .

24

choice of a Cruz voter .

24

25

adversely affected because some people will vote

For example , a

Mr . Cruz ' s voters are

SUZANNE T. HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

25

I recognize, your Honor , what you're
saying , which is there's a possibility that you'll
SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

57

And i f your

58

THE COURT :

1

So let ' s just --are there

1

votes for an ineligible candidate .

2

Honor didn ' t take that candidate off t he ballot ,

2

3

nobody migh t take them off the ballot .

3

MR . BERNSTEIN :

4

THE COURT :

5

MR . BERNSTEIN :

That ' s not a

good basis to make a ruling .
The Court has to apply the law as the

5

other points you wish to raise?
Overall , you mean?

Yes .
Well , I may be repeating

APX - 044

6

Legislature prepared it , wrote it and said , you have

6

myself slightly .

7

to make this decision now .

7

this case are the Republican voters of the State of

8

reasons to make the decision now .

8

New York who are approaching a primary April 19th of

9

will know thac the candidate they voted for is

9

this year .

10

eligible .

11

vote .

12
13

There are very good
Clarity; people

Every voter has a fundamental right to

10

The people who are interested in

Under the Election Law, this Court is very

11

wel l empowered to make the decision we ' re asking it

should be allowed to vote for ineligible candidates .

12

to make , and the decision can be quickly reviewed

I can ' t think of one .

13

throughout the Appellate process , and t hat ' s the

14

normal way these things are done .

There ' s no compelling reason why voters

In fact , I can ' t think of why Mr . Cruz

14

The point I would like to make is this .

15

doesn ' t welcome your Honor deciding this quest i on,

15

16

because if they think they ' re right about the issue ,

16

If this was a question of age -- if, for example --

17

they should welcome a decision clarifying this .

17

your Honor knows , of course , that Thomas Jefferson

16

It ' s very hard to imagine why Respondent Cruz is

18

was merely 30 years old when he wrote the

19

opposing this .

19

Declaration of Independence -- 32 , I stand

20

resolved .

20

corrected, our historian is here to my left .

21
22

23

It ' s in his interest to get it

THE COURT :

Well that ' s obviously not a

question that the Court has to address in this case .
MR . BERNSTEIN :

Of course not , but it goes

21

We could at least have a candidate with a

22

high level of capability come forward and say, I ' m

23

ready to run for president, I have had lots of

24

to-- I ' m not saying you do , but it goes to the

24

political experience , law school education,

25

significance of what we ' re doing .

25

whatever ; and steps up and says , I have got a big

SUZANNE T. HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

60

59

1

following in my party, soundings familiar with t h is

1

one after

2

case , but I happen to be only 33 years old .

2

disclosed on the website on the 26th that petitions

3

had been accepted ---

Does anybody t hi nk that the Court should

3
4

let that go by?

5

qua l ified .

6

in New York vote for someone that ' s not qualified,

6

including a weekend, which made it time l y .

7

by law, to be president?

7

still your argument that the clock began to run

8

again?

They don ' t refrain

9

I understand that argument .

10

from enforcing it , even if practical problems ensue .

10

11

In the Montana case I referred to , they had to go

11

One we already addressed, which is the three day --

12

back and redo the districts after the Supreme Court

12

we don ' t have to go over this again .

13

addressed the ques t ion .

13

issue does r.ot apply to the obj ections filed .

Should the Court sit back and let voters

That means the opposite of what the Courts

8

APX - 045

9

We know that person is not

the second one was after the -- it was

do .

The Court s enforce the l aw .

There ' s nothing different

about natural born -15
16

THE COURT :
think

4

ME . BERNSTEIN :

5

THE COURT :

14
Let me just -- because I

I want to give you t he opportunity and Mr .

Actually --

It was five days later ,

Can you explain that?

MR . BERNSTEIN :

Is it

Because I ' m not sure

There are three arguments .

The three day

Tte second argument , chronologically

15

before we get to the one your Honor articulated, is

16

that a portion of Section 6-154 opens up a second

17

Lally the opportunity to close , which I think is

17

period a t the end of the filing time for

18

where you ' re headi ng .

18

certificates of designation; and it says , no

I was part way through --

19

certifi cate -- it says that "an objection can be

J ust to address any techn i cal

20

fi l ed within three days a f ter the end of the period

21

quest i ons , then you can sum up any questions I have

21

for the cancidate to file certificates of

22

for the parties .

22

designation , if no certi fica t e has been filed ," then

23

Mr . Bernstein , there was a second filing made that

23

it goes on .

24

was made five days later, I think on the 29th?

24

25

There ' s two sets of objections filed .

25

19

MR . BERNSTEIN :

20

THE COURT :

Are you still making the argument ,

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(5181 285-8739

The second

That ' s in our papers .

THE COURT :

Right , but in this case I

didn ' t see the application of that , because Lhe one
SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

62

61

1

that was filed seemed to apply --

1

voters , as rr.uch as to the Democratic voters ; and

2

MR . BERNSTEIN :

2

therefore we f iled objections in a timely manner and

3

that -- those were filed after this case was fi l ed .

3

We filed it i n t hat time

frame .
THE COURT :

4

But doesn ' t the law say that

I could refile this case .

4

It ' s not a

5

it ' s three days from the time of the certificate

5

completely clear situation , and I don 't maintain

6

that the designation is filed , or i f no certificate

6

that it is , but I maintain that we have

7

is filed , then the end of the period?

7

substantially complied with every obligation we can ,

8

given what the Board of Elections has done .

MR . BERNSTEIN :

8

But you see the ambiguity

APX - 046

is in the comma i n the statute , and it seems to

9

10

modify what comes after it as much as what comes

10

11

before it .

11

12

had -- I don ' t know if you have to really reach this

12

understandir.g .

13

point .

13

before made reference to checking wi th the Board of

Your argument

14

Elections .

15

is that the statute can be read to mean three days

15

El ections , telephone them every 21 to 22 days to

16

from either the end of the period or the time of the

16

find out whether or not a cer tificate had been

17

certificate of designation is filed?

17

filed , even though they ' re putting it up on the

18

website for the other party, you know

9

I ' d suggest to yo ur Honor that if you

I hope you don ' t .
THE COURT :

14

I understand .

18

MR . BERNSTEIN :

19

THE COURT :

20

Precisely .

That ' s the way you read the

statute?
MR . BERNSTEIN :

22

THE COURT :

23

MR . BERNSTEIN :

Precisely .

Tell me about the third .
The third is that we

MR . BERNSTEIN :

23

That ' s the correct

I must say, your Honor , Mr . Lally

You would have to call the Board of

THE COURT :

But you acknowl edge they

could - MR . BERNSTEIN :

21
22

I just want to understand your

argument .

19
20

21

THE COURT :

-- put it up on their

website?
THE COURT :

But you acknowledge -- if I

24

relied upon the Board of Elections ' public

24

understand correctl y , your position is t hat it was

25

statements that they finally made to the Republican

25

misleading because Lhey didn ' t--

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

63

1

MR . BERNSTEIN :

2

THE COURT :

Correct .

64

1

If they wished to , under the

vote .

2

That the most important things that

3

la w, they can have a situation where you have to

3

control this case , and which I believe the Court

4

call , both parties have to call --

4

should address are the merits , because I think it ' s

5

MR . BERNSTEIN :

5

very easy to say if a candidate -- an issue arose as

6

both parties , then we couldn ' t--

6

to whether or not a candidate for president had been

7

a resident of New York for 14 years or less , or

THE COURT :

7

Right , if they did it for

Wha t do you say to Mr . Lally ' s

APX - 047

8

argument that there are differences -- that the two

8

whether they 're really 35 or younger, that wou ld not

9

parties are subject to entirely different --

9

be at all surprising that the Court would address

MR . BERNSTEIN :

10

That has nothing to do

10

that .

11

with the public notice , that has nothing to do with

11

12

the kind of thing they file to get on the ballot ,

12

different is that natural born citizen sounds

13

but nothing to do with the public .

13

recondite, it doesn ' t sound obvious .

14

answer to that argument .

14

duration of residency or citizenship , those are

15

matters that are quintessential for the Courts to
address as legal questions .

THE COURT :

15

That ' s the

Let me keep going through and

16

make sure I have addressed all the issues that 1

16

17

wanted to .

17

18

is there anything you want to say in closing?

19

So I will ask you then, Mr . Bernstein ,

MR . BERNSTEIN :

You know, in many ways I

What superficially makes this case

But whether

They ' ve been entrusted to your Honor on

18

the federal level by Marbury v . Madison , which helps

19

us understand what a political question is not .

20

have addressed these points already, the overriding

20

They ' ve been entrusted to your Honor by the

21

factor in this case is that the voters of the

21

Legislature , 6-1 . 22 to decide and 16-100 .

22

Republican party who are exercising their final

22

would be a disservice to my clients and to the

23

right to vote need clarity when they cast their

23

Republican voters of the State of New York if your

24

votes when they go to the voting block to cast their

24

Honor were not to decide the fundamental issue in

25

voles , they know that they ' re not wasting their

25

front of you .

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

And i t

65

THE COURT :

1

Thank you very much , Mr .

Let me just turn to the Board of

66

1

state court which does not have jurisdiction to make

2

these determinations , and it ' s been done in

3

contravention of express clauses in the United

2

Bernstein .

3

Elections , because I left you out .

4

essentially your role in this is to take a back seat

5

when there are two candidates, two parties arguing .

5

decision-making power to other branches , not even

6

Is there anything else you wish to add , anything

6

the Judiciary .

7

else you wish to say in regard to this proceeding?

7

in progress .

APX - 048

8

MS . GALVIN :

9

THE COURT :

As I understand,

No , your Honor .

States Constitution which allocate this

9

This should not disrupt this election .

The candidate -- the Republican party

8

Mr . Lally , I will give you the

But at this point , the election is

nominee for President of the United States isn ' t

10

last word so you can close with whatever you wish,

10

11

whatever points you wish to address .

11

to be selected when the Republican party meets

12

sometime in May to actually select the delegates .

MR . LALLY :

12
13

try to keep it brief .

Thank you, your Honor .

I will

This election , we ' re in the
The horse is out

going to be selected in this election, isn ' t going

The Republican nominee for president will

13

14

middle of a presidential election .

14

be selected this summer in Cleveland when the

15

of the barn, there ' s been millions of votes cast in

15

Republican

16

the presidential primaries in the United States .

16

from all 50 states , Puerto Rico and the Virgin

17

Islands all meet to select a candidate for President
of the United States .

Senator Cruz has , at this point , won four

17

Na~ional

Convention meets when de l egates

18

of those primaries ; Alaska , Iowa , Texas and

18

19

Oklahoma , and come very, very close in several other

19

And, your Honor, with all due respect to

20

primaries .

20

this Court , the state courts of New York ought not

21

now for the Republican nomination .

21

to interfere in this process .

22

track .

23

other states, they ' ve been dismissed , they have not
interfered with the elections in any other state .

22

He ' s one of the two top contenders right

This application , this petition to this

23

Court is late .

The petitioners don ' t have standing .

24

It has been done without including necessary

24

25

parties , it ' s been done in the wrong forum, in a

25

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285 - 8739

This process is on

These objections have been made in dozens of

Senator Ted Cruz is a sitting United
SUZANNE T. HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285 - 8739

67

1

States senator .

APX - 049

1

I appreciate -- you have done an excellent job in

2

States, the Senate has exclusive authority to

2

responding to my questions .

3

determine the qualifications of its members .

3

some sense of the timing of this so the parties know

4

have not seen fit to question his qualifications ,

4

what to expect .

5

and there are other bodies that have been empowered

5

6

to review the qualifications of a president-elect or

6

ruling on this portion of the case , which may be the

7

President of the United States , should that

7

last portion of the case or may not, depending on

a

situation arise .

8

what the ruling is on the appropriate questions and

9

authority of this Court to rule on this by Monday, I

9

Were he not a citizen of the Un ited

68

Ttey

With all due respect , the most fundamental

I just want to give

I would anticipate that I will have a

10

issues and the easiest for this Court to determine ,

10

11

the Election Law has very strict rules .

11

12

petitions here were filed nearly three weeks late .

12

out tomorrow .

13

They have a three day objection rule .

13

expediting it to that degree , but I will have a

ruling to the parties , I expect , early on Monday .

The

They blew it .

14

They didn't just blow it close, they blew it by a

14

15

mile .

15

The Election Law is to be strictly

16

~onday

morning .

I don ' t think that I'll have a decision
I know there was some interest in

I f the case continues to go forward before

16

we reach the substantive issue of natural born

17

citizen, I will set up -- or I will contact the

17

construed and applied as to objectors .

18

that yes , the ballot access should be liberally

18

parties on Monday morning to set up a briefing

19

applied .

19

schedule which I believe would lead to an oral

20

be President of the United States and clearly

20

argument again following the Friday of the same week

21

qualified to be on the ballot in November for

21

of the decision .

22

President of the United States , and I would ask this

22

23

Court to please dismiss this petition .

23

then it will be up to the Appellate courts at that

24

point to -- go ahead, Mr . Bernstein .

25

question?

24
25

The rule is

would hope

Senator Ted Cruz is clearly qualified to

THE COURT :

Thank you both .

three of you very much .

I thank all

This has been a huge help .

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285- 8739

If not, and I dismiss the case , obviously

SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739

You have a

70

69

MR . BERNSTEIN :

1

If I could ask the

1

C E R T I F I C A T I 0 N

2

Court ' s indulgence, i wil l be away the first half

2

3

the week , so if your Hono r we re to make oral

3

4

argument on Monday and have simultaneous briefings

4

Reporter for the Onified Court System, Third Judicial

5

submit ted on Friday, if that 1oorks for your Honor .

5

District of the State of New York , do hereby certify that

6

I attended and reported the foregoing proceedings ; that

7

it is a true and accurate transcript of the proceedings

a

therein to the best of my knowledge and ability .

THE COURT :

6

I will take that under

APX - 050

7

consideration .

I just wanted to give the parties

a

some sense of the timing of this .

9

in talking about hypotheticals .

10

MR . BERNSTEIN :

11

THE COURT :

12

schedule .

9

10

The reason

It's good to know your

11

12

Okay .
MR . BERNSTEIN :

13

There ' s no sense

Sure .

The reason I --

13

having looked at this issue and briefs that Mr . Cruz

14

15

has previously filed, it ' s clear that simultaneous

15

16

briefings could be helpful .

16

14

17

THE COURT :

la

under consideration .

19

to raise?

20

day .

21

I, Suzanne Harrington , an Official Court

I

will take those suggestions

Anything else any party needs

Thank you all very much .

Have a great

Dated : 3-14-16
1a
19
20

(Whereupon the proceedings in the

21

22

above-entitled matter were concluded for

22

23

the day.)

23

24

24

25

25
SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 2a5-a739

SUZANNE T. HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
{5laJ 285- 8739

G,
...

~~

iI

strunk Intervention • Korman.v. Board of Elections,, Index No. 707~16
4 m1111agea

wad. Mr 2. 2018 811:16 PM
Good anen-t,

Attached plea8e find a Decision and,Older algned 11; Han. David A. W81nataln adlt8sslng yru mellen lei' 1-e
to I~ In the aiiCWe matter.

Best,
Kelll

Itlll A Demoyela
Sedew1 IDHon. Dad!. A. We!n....tn

.A.:tiDg SaptEiiht Court Jtutlu
P.0. 11m< 7344. Capital St.iti011

Alban,,"""' y Cllk 12224
P: 516.2J42.37C6
F: 518,242.S708

AeliD& Sup•- Court~
P.O. llolL' 7344. <Apitol St.iti011

Albany, New Yslm4
P: 516.2J42.370$

APX - 051

Gmail- strunk Intervention- Kaman v. Board of Elections, Index No. 707-16

3/S'2016

F: 518.242.3708
Kdesnoye@nycourts.gov

~

Strunk Intervention in Korman v. Board of Elections - Decision and Order.3.2.16.pdf
51 0K

Christopher Strunk <suretynomore@gmail.com>
Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:11 PM
To: Kelli Desnoyers <kdesnoye@nycourts.gov>
Cc: Roger Bernstein <rbernstein@~blaw.com>, ben@eisnerassociates.com, tvalentine@elections.state.ny.us
Bee: bill vanallen <hvanallen@hvc.rr.corn>, pamelabarnett <pamelabarnett@hushmail.com>, michael
<michael@mshrimpton. co. uk>, jrtc <j rtc@optonl in e. net>, Michael Volin <m ike@wheresobamasbirthcertificate. com>,
TWEETY <TWEETY@fastmail.us>, rbpbchurch <rbpbchurch@comcast.net>, Francisco Pohole
<unpopularwisdom@gmail.com>, Dimitry Recio <deltawolf32@gmail.com>
Thank you for getting back to me so promptly.
As the court has treated me as less than a friend as was my minimal request. I will await the courts decision
based upon the outcome of the hearing tomorrow. One way or another I must exhaust my remedies to protect
my rights (under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights to assure a true un-corrupted ballot at the
April 19, 2016 election; and thus accordingly, in that I have redress available under the Hague Convention during
the present national emergency for which the court operates under, as such I must go to the next level at the
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
I am delivering proper judicial notice to all the parties herein for a hard copy hand delivered by another regarding
the following:

NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL:
As a friend of this Court FYI you may be interested in some background on the "Born a Citizen" vs "natural born
Citizen" issue that I am prepared to reference in court tomorrow:

NBC and the NYS RPL sec 18 see http:l/pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/09/statute-in-new-york-state-law-defines.
html
NYS BOE Website re BAC rather than NBC see: http:l/pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/10/new-york-state-boewebsite-cover-up. html
NYS BOE bad faith fraud see: http:l/pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/10/intemet-archive-nys-boe-cover-up.html
Underlying cases:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/72199261Nan-AIIen-NOM-to-lntervene-in-Strunk-v-Paterson-NYSSC-Index-2964208-w-AFF-Exhibits-MOL-and-Amended-Summons-w-Supplement-to-the-Complaint-with-Piai
https://www.scribd.com/doc/83697963/0SC-w-Garvey-v-NYS-BOE-NYCPLR-Article-78-w-Exhibits-NYS-SC-CtyNassau-l ndex-12-002764
I am prepared to go to the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces under the present national emergency in
which the Court including Justice Weinstein is under direct authority of the Commander-in-chief to deliver
martial due process rather than civil due process; and therefor the Court is subject to the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) under the terms and conditions of occupation defined by the Hague Convention during the

APX - 052

https:l/mail.google.com/mailnui=2&ik=a479fd9275&view= pt&secrch=sent&th= 153388ab291bfa77&si ml= 153388ab291bfa77&si ml= 153392c17e30b94f&siml=15...

215

Gmail- strunk Intervention- Kaman v. Board of Elections, Index No. 707-16

3/S'2016

emergency occupation, that requires that no law may be arbitrarily changed without proper due process-eg
natural born Citizen to Born a citizen.
The requirement to use the requirements of NBC rather than the 14th amendment and or Naturalization statutes
for Born a Citizen" to proceed, is covered under the Hague convention during the present national emergency
and or otherwise be seen as part of a collusive action under bad faith and fraud requiring equity review.
Also of note is that the Appellate Second Division on March 4, 2014 (81st anniversary of the inauguration of FDR)
four judge panel found it was unable to provide " for Civilian due process of Law" see attached rather than
martial due process required under the ongoing national emergency declared by the POTUS Commander-in-chief
with respect to 12 USC 95a: 50 USC App. Sb
[Quoted text hidden]

http://associationforsovereignhomerulewithin.org/i ndex. html
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
315 Flatbush Avenue- #102 Brooklyn NY 11217
suretynomore@gmail.com 718-414-3760
mcHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© as POTUS will Retum the REPUBLIC to We the
People who are only those ·pre-1933" Private National Citizens of the
United States of America ... Versus ... The EMPIRE of 12 USC 95 with 50 USC App.
5(b) under the Executive Order 2040 time of war or emergency using the
SURETY INDENTURE SERF to pay the Debt for the Creditor.

2 attachments

tj

NYS Appellate Panel denial of civil due process of law.pdf
56K

fj

Strunk Intervention in Korman v. Board ... ctions- Decision and Order.3.2.16.pdf
989K

Christopher Strunk <suretynomore@gmail.com>
To: policy@donaldtrump.com, sforbes@forbes.com

Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:51 PM

[Quoted text hidden]

2 attachments

fj

NYS Appellate Panel denial of civil due process of law.pdf
56K

fj

Strunk Intervention in Korman v. Board •.. ctions - Decision and Order.3.2.16.pdf
989K

APX - 053

https:l/mail.google.com/mailnui=2&ik=a479fd9275&view= pt&secrch=sent&th= 153388ab291bfa77&si ml= 153388ab291bfa77&si ml= 153392c17e30b94f&siml=15...

315

3/S'2016

Gmail- strunk Intervention- Kaman v. Board of Elections, Index No. 707-16

Christopher Strunk <suretynomore@gmail.com>
To: bill vanallen <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com>

Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:46 PM

Han. David A. Weinstein
Acting Supreme Court Justice
P.O. Box 7344, Capitol Station
Albany, New York 12224

JUDICIAL NOTICE in regards to BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO VS NYS BOARD OF ELEITION and RAFAEL
EDWARD {"TED"} CRUZ NYSSC Albany Index No.: 0707-2916

I am a party-in-interest to the use of EL 6-122 in defense ofthe enforcement of the letter and intent of the Legislature in
the April 19, 2016 and General Election of November 8, 2016.

There is one active case on appeal that effects this case herein in which I am a party in Strunk v Paterson 10459-2014 with
Motions in the Second Appellate Division with an order for Expedited Calendar Advancement to the Attorney General see
attached.
[Quoted text hidden]

http://associationforsovereignhomerulewithin.org/i ndex. html
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
315 Flatbush Avenue- #102 Brooklyn NY 11217
suretynomore@gmail.com 718-414-3760
mcHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© as POlUS will Return the REPUBLIC to We the
People who are only those ·pre-1933" Private National Citizens of the
United States of America ... Versus ... The EMPIRE of 12 USC 95 with 50 USC App.
5(b) under the Executive Order 2040 time of war or emergency using the
SURETY INDENTURE SERF to pay the Debt for the Creditor.

APX - 054

https:l/mail.google.com/mailnui=2&ik=a479fd9275&view= pt&secrch=sent&th= 153388ab291bfa77&si ml= 153388ab291bfa77&si ml= 153392c17e30b94f&siml=15...

415

3/S'2016

~

Gmail- strunk Intervention- Kaman v. Board of Elections, Index No. 707-16

Strunk Intervention in Korman v. Board of Elections - Decision and Order.3.2.16.pdf
51 0K

APX - 055

https:l/mail.google.com/mailnui=2&ik=a479fd9275&view= pt&secrch=sent&th= 153388ab291bfa77&si ml= 153388ab291bfa77&si ml= 153392c17e30b94f&siml=15...

&5

Bruce A. Hidley
Albany County Clerk
County Courthouse, Room 128
16 Eagle Street
Albany, NY 12207-1077
Phone: (518) 487-5100 Fax: (518) 487-5 099
Email: www.albanycounty.com/clerk

Receipt
Receipt

Da~e :

03/11/2016 03 : 08 : 57 PM

RECEIPT # 20160031197
Recording Clerk : SP
Cash Drawe r : COUNTERl
Rec ' d Frm : KORMAN & GALLO VS NYS BOE
707 - 16
Docket for Case# : 707-16
DOC : NOTICE OF APPEAL
Recordi:1g Fees

$65.00

DOCUMENT TOTAL: ---->

$65 . 00

Rece~pt

Summary

TOTAL RECEIPT :

---->

$65 . 00

TOTAL

---->

$65 . 00

---->

$0 . 00

RECEIV~D :

CASH BACK :
PAYMENTS
Check # 2032 ->

$65 . 00

NATIONAL BORN CITIZEN PARTY

APX - 056

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ALBANY

Index No.: 0707-2016

----x
RJl No.: 01-16-120014

BARRYKORMANand~L~GALLO

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Petitioners,
-againstNEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
RAFAEL EDWARD ("TED") CRUZ,
Respondents.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------lll
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris in propria persona, the
beneficiary agent for Public US Citizen CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK hereby appeals to the
Appellate Division ofthe Supreme Cou:rtofthe State ofNew York, Third Judicial Department, from each
and every part ofthe decision denying the motion to intervene (attached}, ofthe New York State Supreme
Court for the County of Albany All Purposes Term of David A. Weinstein, A.J.S.C., dated March 2, 2016
and entered by the Clerk of the Court hereby.

Dated:

March·~

Re~~ffi Uy sub:ttOO~ ~

2016
Brooklyn, New York
C ·
· er Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris Beneficiary Agent for
Public US Citizen CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
c/o 315 FJatbush Avenue, PMB 102
Brooklyn New York Zipcode excepted [11217]
Ph: 718-414-3 760 Email: suretynomore@gmail.com
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice

Attached: Decision and Order, Preliminary Appellant Statement
Cc:
Roger J. Bernstein, Esq.
535 Fifth Avenue, 35th Floor

Grant M. Lally, Esq.
Lally & Mjsir, LLP
220 Old Country Road
Mineola, New York 11501

New York, New York 10017
Brian L. Quail, Esq. and Kimberly Galvin, Esq.
40 North Pearl Street, 5th Floor
Albany, New York 12207

Marco Rubio
P.O. Box 558701
Miami Florida 33255 8701

APX - 057

STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT

COUNTY OF ALBANY

BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO,
Petitioners,
DECISION AND ORDER
Index No.:
707-16
RllNo.:
01-16-120014

-againstNEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS and
RAFAEL EDWARD ("TED") CRUZ,
Respondents.
(Supreme Court, Albany County All Purpose Term)
APPEARANCES:
Christopher Earl Strunk
Movant Pro Se
315 Flatbush A venue, PMB 102
Brooklyn, New York 11217
David A. Weinstein, J.:

This proceeding was commenced under the New York Election Law by petitioners Barry
Korman and William Gallo on February 22, 2016. Petitioners seek an order directing the New
York State Board of Elections not to designate Senator Rafael Edward ("Ted") Cruz as a
candidate for president of the United States on the ballot for the Republican primary election to
take place on April 19, 2016, on the grow1d that he is not a "natural born citizen," and therefore
unable to meet the constitutional qualifications for the presidency. By Amended Verified
Petition dated February 26, petitioners added Senator Cruz as a respondent. Briefing has been
scheduled on various procedural matters, and a hearing is to take place before the Court on
March 3 at 2:30p.m.
Movant prose Christopher Earl Strunk now seeks leave to intervene in this matter,
claiming among other things that he is a registered voter and enrolled member of the Republican
party, as well as "Executor for the Express Deed in Trust to the United States of America, duly
recorded by the Superior Court of Georgia on April 29, 2014 ... with the duty, inter alia, to
certify any candidate seeking the Office of POTUS" (Aff. in Supp. ~ 7). By joining this
proceeding as a party, he further seeks the opportunity to challenge the eligibility not only of
Senator Cruz, but also of Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal to compete in the

APX - 058

Republican primary 1 (see id.

1 16).

As an initial matter, Mr. Strunk - who has been a frequent visitor to the Courthouse on
matters related to particular individuals' eligibility for the presidency - is barred by order of
Justice Arthur Schack of Kings County Supreme Court from suing the Board of Elections
without ''prior approval of the appropriate ... Judge'' (see Strunk v New York State Bd. of
Elections, 35 Mise 3d 1208[A] [Sup Ct, Kings Cty 2012]) . It appears from his papers that

Stnmk believes that a law clerk's request that he make this application in writing meets this
requirement. lt does not. No judge has granted him the requisite leave. But 1 need not delve into
this issue, since I fmd that the motion must be denied in any case.
Strunk cites CPLR 7802(d) as the basis for his motion. That provision concerns Article
78 proceedings, while the present petition was filed w1der the Election Law, and is therefore
governed by the CPLR (see Matter of Fink v Salerno, 105 AD2d 489, 490 [3d Dept 1984], lv
dismissed 63 NY2d 907[1984] [applying CPLR 1013 to Election Law intervention motion]).

Intervention is, in any event, not warranted under either standard.
For one thing, CPLR 1014 requires that a party seeking intervention submit a proposed
pleading. None is included with the present motion. That omission. alone, requires that the
motion be denied (see Matter ofZehnder v State ofNe..,v York, 266 AD2d 224 [2d Dept 1999]).
Further, in determining whether to permit intervention in the exercise of the Court's discretion, I
must consider whether or not intervention would ..unduly delay'' the proceeding. That is
certainly the case here, where one stated purpose of the proposed intervention is to bring in
additional parties, who would then need to appear and make their own submissions and
arguments. Undoubtedly, the parties to this case would also raise procedural challenges to
Strunk's participation, as there is no indication in his papers that he has filed any objections with
the Board of Elections to the candidates he would challenge. This would significantly hamper
the ability of the court system to address the petition in advance of the looming primary date.
Nor would granting the motion be of any apparent benefit to the Court's consideration of
this matter. To the extent movant seeks to intervene as a registered Republican Party voter, that
interest is already represented among petitioners. To the extent he wishes to challenge other
candidates, there is no reason to fold such issues into this proceeding.

1

Governor Jindal, who is no longer seeking the Republican nomination, is not among
those listed as having submitted candidate petitions on the New York Board of Elections website
{see http://www.elections.ny.gov:8080/reports/rwservlet?cmdkey=whofUed).

APX - 059

Accordingly, the motion to intervene is hereby denied. Mr. Strunk is cautioned that any
further filings by him in this case without prior leave and adequate legal basis will result in the
imposition of costs or other sanction.

In light of petitioner' s prose status, this Decision & Order is being transmitted to counsel
for petitioners for filing and service. A copy thereof shall be provided to all parties, and to
movant, via electronic mail.
Dated: Albany, New York
March 2, 2016
David A. Weinstein
Acting Supreme Court Justice
Distribution List:
Roger J. Bernstein, Esq.
535 5th A venue, 35th Floor
New York, New York 10017
Brian L. Quail, Esq. and Kimberly Galvin, Esq.
40 North Pearl Street, 51h Floor
Albany, New York 12207
Grant M. Lally, Esq.
Lally & Misir, LLP
220 Old Country Road
Mineola, New York 11501

APX - 060

PRE-CALENDAR STATEMENT
State of New York
Supreme Court -Appellate Division
Third Judicial Department

1. Case Title:
Set forth the full case title as it appears on the order or judgment appealed from. If there are
more than two case titles, please use Case Title Addendum .

State of New York

Supreme Court

Court

Coun~of

Albany

BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO

County Index No.:
RJI No.:
Date of
Commencement:

-against-

0707-2016
01-16-120014
23 February 2016

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
RAFAEL EDWARD ("TED") CRUZ,

2. Parties Involved:
Set forth the full names of the original parties and any change in parties. If you need more
space for parties, please use Additional Parties Addendum .
Party Name
(e.g., John Doe)
BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO
New York State Board of Elections
RAFAEL EDWARD ("TED") CRUZ
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK

Revised: January 2014

Original Status
(e.g., Defendant)
Petitioners
Respondent
Respondent
Petitioner Intervener

APX - 061

Appellate Status
(e.g., Appellant)
Appellee
Appellee
Appellee
Appellant

3. Counsel for Appellant(s}:
Set forth the name, address, e-mail address, telephone number and facsimi le telephone
number of counsel for appellant(s). If you need more space for counsel for appellant(s),
please use Counsel for Appellant(s) Addendum .
1

Christopher Ear. Strunk in esse Sui juris in propria persona

Name
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue PMB 102 Brooklyn NY 11217

Address

E-mail address

Ph 718-414-3760 Email suretynomore@gmail.com

Telephone
Fax

4. Counsel for Respondent(s) and Counsel for Other Parties:
Set forth the name, address, e-mail address, telephone number and facsimile telephone
number of counsel for respondent(s) and for each other party. If you need more space for
counsel for respondent(s) or counsel for other parties, please use Counsel for Respondent(s)
or Other Parties Addendum .

Name
Address

Roger J. Bernstein, Esq. Attorney for Petitioners 535 Fifth Avenue, 35th Floor New York, New York 10017 Tel: (212) 748-480(
Fax: 646 964 6633 reerAsteiA@rjelew.eeffl
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS Brian L. Quail, Esq. and Kimberly Galvin, Esq. 40 North Pearl Street, 5th Floor
Albany, New York 12207 518-474-6220
Cruz for President Grant Nl. Lally, Esq. Lally & MISir, LLP 220 Old

E-mail address
Telephone

Fax

2

APX - 062

country Roaa Mineola, New York 11501

5. Court, Judge and County:
Ide ntify the court, judge or justice, and the county from which the appeal is taken.
the New York State Supreme Court for the County of Albany All Purposes
Term of Davia A We i-nstein, z:. J S C ,
6. Nature and Object of Action or Proceeding:
Concisely set forth the nature and object of the underlying action or proceeding.
Strunk should have been granted permission to intervene under CPLR 7802 (d) as a necessary party because the NYS B~ illegally
chnaged the eligibility requirements for a candidate running of the office of POTUS and not raised by Petitioners
That Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz along with Bobby Jindal must be barred from the Republican Primary Ballot for each at
best is o1lly a 11atUJ alized "bo11 1a Citize11" 110l a "11alUJ al b01 11 Citizel !" acco1 dil 19 to Sods' 11a!UJ al lavo a1 1d tl le defil 1ilio1 1s
mandated to be used by Congress at the US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 reference mandated use of The Law of Nations

7. Appellate lssue(s):
Set forth a clear and concise statement of the issue(s) to be raised on the appeal, the grounds
for reversal or modification to be advanced and the specific relief sought on the appeal. If you
need more space to state appellate issue(s), please use Appellate Issues Addendum .
That actual fraud per se by NYS BOE bipartisan collusion added to their claim that they have no discretion to bar ballot access as to
eligibility per se is outside of the statutory law thereby requires equity review and relief as time is of the essence with irreparable harm

8. Additional Information:
Please set forth any information you deem relevant to the determination of whether the matter
is appropriate for a Civil Appeals Settlement Program (CASP) conference. If you need more
space to state appellate issue(s), please use Additional Information Addendum .

Revised: January 2014

3

APX - 063

9. Other Related Matters:
Indicate if there is another related action or proceeding , identifying and briefly describing
same.
Appeal 2014 10459 2nd Appellant Division active awaiting a calendar for oral argument in the matter of H Van Allen
Intervention as of right denied in the Case 29642-2008 in Kings County Supreme Strunk v Paterson

regarding

NYS BOE illegal changing POTUS candidate qualifications from Natiural Citizen to Born a Citizen

Submitted

b:~

s~-~-

Signature
Print Name:
Attorney for:

CH-7 ttS' '16J1.fuvl tAt(.L cfr,t.,lfA..Yc
lr-l

Date:

fJLo I'J;L! A t1rnSO/...JA

f\1 !ttf,.C t-1

tr,
>

~'/?

10. Attachments

Check

1. Copy of order or judgment appealed from

·---

2. Copy of opinion or decision.

)(

attached
does not exist

3. Copy of notice of appeal or order granting leave to appeal.
....[
·'1 "l
t .
"
Attach copies, not or ,g, ..:..::.

attached

File this original form with attachments when original notice of appeal is filed in the office where the
judgment or order of court of original instance is entered.
A copy of this document must be served upon all counsel and pro se parties.

The Civil Appeals Settlement Program (CASP) functions independently of the appeals function
of the Appellate Division, Third Department with the intent to assist the parties in
pragmatically resolving their disputes by agreement. The progress of and communications in
matters in CASP are not shared with the Court as part of the appeal and play no role in the
Court's resolution of an appeal. The communications and opinions expressed at a CASP
conference are considered confidential and may not be communicated to the Court as part of
the merits of an appeal. The consideration of an appellate matter by CASP does not excuse
compliance with any Appellate Division, Third Department rule concerning the timely
perfection of the appeal.

Revised: January 2014

4

APX - 064
.._.....;.···

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ALBANY

Index No.: 0707-2016
RJI No.: 01-16-120014

--------------------------------------X

Hon. David A Weinstein, AJSC

BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO

Petitioners,
-against-

AFFIDAVJT OF SERVICE

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,

RAFAEL EDWARD ("TED") CRUZ,
Respondents.

----------------------------------------x
STATEOFNEWYORK )
tAb;~

} ss

COUNTY OF DTITCQFSS)

I, Harold William Van Allen, a1Tmn under penalty of perj ury that:

am over 21 years of age and not a party to this action.

1.

That I

2.

My place for service is at 351 North Road Hurley New York 12443.

3.

On March 11 , 20 16, Christopher Earl Strunk provided me with bjs Notice of Appeal with Decision & Order and
Preliminary Appeal Statement signed March 11 , 20 16, for service upon tbe P etitioners and Respondents by the United
States Postal Service (USPS) delivery.

4.

On March I I, 2016, Affinnant placed a bound copy of the subject motion papers in an envelope addressed to each
recipient with proper postage for delivery by the USPS with tracking (attached) upon:

Roger J. Bernstein, Esq.
535 Fifth Avenue, 35th Floor
New York, New York 10017

Lally & Misir, LI .P
220 Old Country Road
Mineola, New York 11501

Brian L. Quail, Esq. and Kimberly Galvin, Esq.
40 North Pearl Street, 5th Floor
Albany, New York 12207

P.O. Box 558701
Miami Florida 33255 8701

Marco Rubio

Grant M. L ally, Esq.

Subscribed and Sworn to before me
On this~ day of March 2016
' l i William Van Allen

~fh.-~?'A
~ary
Pubhc ,
j
OOAEEN MEYER
Not1ry Public, State of NeW York

No. 01ME6287439
Qualified in Ulster County
My Commission Expires Aug. 12, 2017

APX - 065

Service List:
Roger J. Bernstein, Esq.
Attorney for Petitioners
535 Fifth Avenue, 35th Floor
New York, New York 10017
Tel: (212) 748-4800
Fax: (646) 964-6633
rbernstein@rjblaw.com
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS
Attn: Executive Directors, Todd Valentine and Robert A. Brehm
Suite 5
40 North Pearl Street
Albany New York 12207
518-474-6220
Cruz for President
P.O. Box 25376
Houston, TX 77265
Marco Rubio
P.O. Box 558701
Miami Florida 33255 8701
JINDAL FOR PRESIDENT
P.O.BOX 5101
BATON ROUGE, LA 70821

2

APX - 066

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ALBANY
Index No.: 0707-2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
:
Hon. David A Weinstein, AJSC
BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO
:
:
Petitioners,
:
:
-against: AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
:
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
:
NOTICE OF MOTION for
:
Respondents.
:
CPLR §7802(d) -Intervention
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Citizen" eligibility for office of POTUS rather than merely being a naturalized "born a Citizen"
as presently used as the fraudulent instruction in bad-faith that is contrary to the letter and intent
of Election Law 6-122 and related requirements; and
4. In that the Petitioners have relied wrongly upon such fraud, have objected only to Ted
Cruz's ballot access (see Exhibit 2 without exhibits), must be afforded an opportunity along with
those members of the Republican Party as a class also having objected to Marco Rubio as well as
Ted Cruz who are both ineligible with Bobby Jindal to the Office of POTUS (see Exhibit 3),and
5. As such Marco Rubio, along with Bobby Jindal with non citizen parents must be barred
from the Republican Primary Ballot for each at best is only a naturalized "born a Citizen" not a

STATE OF NEW YORK )
} ss
COUNTY OF KINGS )

"natural born Citizen" according to Gods' natural law and that Ted Cruz may not even be a

I, Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris (Strunk), the beneficiary agent for Public US Citizen

naturalized US Citizen at all as required of being born within the United States of Citizen parents
from whom each would inherit citizenship status as a matter of blood not by the law of men; and

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK (STRUNK) swear under penalty of perjury that:

6. That Respondents ultra vires acts violate the International Covenant of Civil and

1. STRUNK is duly registered to vote and enrolled as a member of the Republican Party as
a party in interest to the Republican Primary for choosing Candidates for President of the United

Political Rights, related law and Legislative intent that must be sanctioned under equity review.
7. That Strunk is the Executor for the Express Deed in Trust to the United States of

States (POTUS) on April 19, 2016,
2. On February 25, 2016, in compliance with the April 11, 2012 Order of Arthur M. Schack
JSC (see Exhibit 1), Strunk sought permission to apply as an intervener under CPLR 7802 (d)
and related law from Edward Shapiro, Esq., the Law Clerk to the Hon. David A Weinstein

America, duly recorded by the Superior Court of Georgia on April 29, 2014 at 11:20 PM at BPA
Book 32 Pages 719 thru 734 (see Exhibit 4), with the duty, inter alia, to certify any candidate
seeking the Office of POTUS;
8. Therein Exhibit 4 expresses in keeping with God's natural law, not the law of men, that

AJSC, subject to CPLR rules and who granted permission to appear to petition the Court on
Tuesday March 1, 2016 at 10 AM at the Courthouse at 16 Eagle Street Albany New York.
3. That Strunk seeks relief from CPLR §7803 (1)(2)(3)(4) damage caused by Respondents
am seeking a declaratory judgment with mandamus of the Respondents to adhere to the US
Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 mandate that any POTUS candidate meet "natural-born

on July 4, 1776 with the Declaration of Independence the founders, beforehand being the
subjects of the King, were thereby naturalized to be Citizens of the new republic in adoption of
Greco Roman principles of governance, as expressed in the international publication entitled The
Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel published in 1758, and released themselves and their Posterity
forever from the surety indentures to the King and or any person(s); and

3

4

9. Therein Exhibit 4 expresses that with the New York Ratification of the US Constitution
on July 26 1788 the People of New York demanded governance only by those who are natural

therefore, this prima facie evidence by operation of law proves that Ted Cruz was born wholly a
Citizen of Canada and Subject of the Queen- is not a US Citizen at birth and or by any US law.

born Citizens - not those who were merely naturalized.

15. That on or about May 14, 2014 the Minister with authority certified that "RAFAEL

10. That The Law of Nations publication based upon the 1758 volume was used to draft the
Declaration of Independence starting in 1775

(1)

, is the primary reference source used by the

EDWARD CRUZ" formally renounced Canadian citizenship and pursuant to the Citizenship Act
ceased to be a citizen (see Exhibit 6); and with such evidence shown as Exhibit 5, thereby

Framers starting in 1787 during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and New York

proves that Ted Cruz had been a Canadian citizen at birth until renunciation, was and is not a US

and is the mandated authority in the US Constitution at Article 1 Section 8 for the duties of

Citizen unless he has since been properly naturalized by the US Secretary of State, and would

Congress to use as shown by use of the proper noun "The Law of Nations".

mean he is not even a citizen and has fraudulently been posing as a Public elected official in the

11. The 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment like the Declaration of Independence is a

United States just like the present defacto POTUS Indonesian usurper being protected by the
agents of the Central Intelligence Agency along with the actual covert German

naturalization enactment to make foreign resident aliens naturalized citizens.
12. That without the statutory benefit of the 14th Amendment ratification Marco Rubio,
Bobby Jindal just like Wong Kim Ark would merely be resident foreign aliens subject to the
plenary authority of Congressional statutes for naturalization.

DeutscherVerteidigiungsDienst intelligence organization (2) gumming up the works since 1945.
16. This relief has not been requested, that time is of the essence and poses irreparable harm.
WHEREFORE, not to belabor the point, Strunk prays of the Court for an order granting
intervention as an essential party in interest herein, and a further order

13. That Ted Cruz was never able to use the benefit of the naturalization process associated

x

with the enactment of the 14th Amendment, and in fact may be an illegal alien unless he were to

any POTUS candidate meet "natural-born Citizen" eligibility for office of POTUS rather than

submit proof that he has met the requirements of naturalization under the plenary authority of

merely being a naturalized "born a Citizen" and find that Respondents present use of "Born a

Congressional statutes for naturalization.

Citizen" is a fraudulent instruction in bad-faith that is contrary to the letter and intent of

14. That Ted Cruz's Mother and Father were both Canadian citizens and subjects of the
Queen of Great Britain and the Commonwealth because the Canadian voting records show that
both were registered to vote in Canada before and after Ted Cruz was born (see Exhibit 5); and
Benjamin Franklin letter--- On December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F.
Dumas, “ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us
in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law
of Nations. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly,
that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who
are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their
author.” http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0172

That Respondents adhere to the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 mandate that

Election Law 6-122 and related requirements under Article 12 and elsewhere.
x

That the Petitioners have relied wrongly upon such fraud, are afforded an opportunity along
with those members of the Republican Party as a class that also objected to Marco Rubio as

1

well as Ted Cruz who are both ineligible along with Bobby Jindal to the Office of POTUS
According to the lifetime intelligence work of my British associate Barrister Michael Shrimpton
whose book Spyhunter: The Secret History of German Intelligence (2014) and also available as an
ebook version exposure of the actual covert German DeutscherVerteidigiungsDienst intelligence
organisation in existence since 1945.
2

5

6

APX - 067

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ALBANY
Index No.: 0707-2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
:
Hon. David A Weinstein, AJSC
BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO
:
:
Petitioners,
:
:
-against: AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
:
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
:
NOTICE OF MOTION for
:
Respondents.
:
CPLR §7802(d) -Intervention
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Exhibit 1

APX - 068

Auy for Pcu:r Peterson
NYNY

John ll Oiler, "-"!-

MotSIIall Bcil. F~..q.

WiUJe Fon ~ li11111\gll<r Ll.l'

McGui"' Woods, l.LP

l\uy for Gcotl:le Soros

Auy for rhe Brl.t.?:inskis:

NYNY

NYNY

1\rthw M. '-><lwc~. J .

Thomas J. Gony. Esq.
Harris ll<nch. PLLC Any for Presidcnl Obama.
VP Biden Otxlma ror America
Olxuna Vicrory Fund, Nnncy Pelosi
Md Pettny Pritt.Jcer

Uniondale NY
If the cumpluint in thl ~ ncti\111 \WS a 111(1\' it "3CrifJ1, h would be c-ntfllt'd 7"hrJ Mun.chur,un
I ·,mJid"'" \ 1,•<1> lhr I"Ju Vt•tct C~~<lr•. f>rn >< plaomiO <I J RI~1fii11 11:R·I!ARI. S"IRIINK btu•~•
lhl!i oi~li~m ,,y,.1inst nume:nlusdelenJ.:mrs, fnt:.lit.i.t lng f~r~"'ldcnl 13Ak.ACK OBt\MA, Viu: 11MuJ.:.nJ
JOSFI'IllliDEN. ~._..,:llor JOl-IN MCCAIN. Spc-Jk•-r e>flh< ll<>lbC ~fllcpre>cn lnli>es lOili-."
BOUlNER. fumoto JJou,.,ofRepre!>:olallve> ~pc:.l.cr NANCY PELOSI. Ol'"""'ur ANDRE"\\
CUOMO. Ali•""'Y <;mend I!RIC

DanielS. Reich. Esq.

Rabinowit7. Boudin. Sllllldard. Krinsky & l.ieberman. PC
Atty for 1hc: Soc.::inlist Workers and Roger Calero
NYNY

SCJ INiliDI;RMAN. Comp4n>llcrTIIOMAS 01 NAPOI I the Nt;W YORKS II\ I L llOAIID 01
ELECTIONS. billlt1no11c> PE rER VETF.RSPN. WNNY PRIT£Kim. OJ·OKGF SORIJS nnd 11>
New Yotk Sta.Jt political ~ies.. Thlrtcct'\ m•''jufl"'f ~ pendins bu(ucc. thl'" ( tlVri

Rotn C. Tobin. Esq.
C:oplin and Orysd;ole

Plniuu fi'STRliNK'~ t:OnlflluiniiS ll ramb1tll&, f~Jny· fh< p:i£.:: \'W'UIIiun (>n "hinhcr"

Any for John McCain Ill
~ oontmnl.ng

ISU prulix pllf'UgUpl'l.... in at limes n .stream Qf "ons.:iousnt:-5$. Plaintifl's crntn.l
1.dlcgution is 1h.d dc=fendnnt'> President OBAMA and Sq]a1or McCAIN, des-pile not bcin~ •oatuttll
bont" citi?.en.~ of the tlniu.:d Stutes AC\.-arclln!l. 11• plnintilf~ in1aprt_hstimt of Anic:lt II. Scx:tion 1.
t "'1CIBuse5 ol the U.S. Cott.\titution. cru~agrd wfl1t thca.ui;:t.uncc ufot.ncr dt:fl"'lda.nlS ih an
c:QOilSi'\'e ca,nsplCbC)'.OQ bchatr uf the Rvman c·••lhul1' Chu,f\.:h to dc:froud lhc Am~..-ncan f>OOI' Ic
a00tt5lllp control of lhc Prt$1dt'nc:) tn 2008 Mo.q ••I' f'L:untilT ~"'TRUNK's c.r•mpluint 1& ll h:ngt.lw
vitnolic. ba:.<ll'$$ diatribe- uJ;Jiir~Jt1 d~fcndo.inl'i. but mmt ~.-sptd;dly eg;unst tbt Vntic:UJ, the Rom m
C.at11oJ1e Churdt. otnd punl"-uhuly lht Soci....oty c•f Jc:su..: (llteJe:wlt Order).

NYNY

Thomas W. Kirby. l:.sq.
Wiley Rein. LLP
Ally for John A. Bohner

l'l.alt11itrS'rRllNK Alh:ges ...C\IC'n CQI~ or octlon• hrtuch Of'iUltC CQMIJtuuonal iidut.:l.&ty dul)' b)'
1hc N~W YOilK S r 1\Tii BOA ll D Of fiUlCllOI\'S and p<ohli< ollie<r J<fc-..Janls; dcmul of
C!({U:&I f'R)lCC-tron fiH \'OIC"I (.'XflOO'lU.Iiml n( :l Ct'tl'l"tCI btlllol: cknio.l O( 'u~ti\'t: do"C process (or
voter CXJ)IXUIIUJII of !l COnftl bJIIOt: intcrfe~nce with the right 1011 re:rublitw! form of
~t.t't'C..111111C.'Ill b} Ihe 1\~t Jc:suit deti.!Jhl~nts 11ml det~t:.nr F.A 0. SCIIWAK.Z. JR., "'' ho "ere oll
ntcwbcn uf the New York Cll,)' C~tmp.t1.~t feniUICC" B<mrd: irul!rfCnmc:t" "'i1h rtiJ&intit1'• ctcctlon
(llillCh1$t!; ij sctw:-mt: '" Ucfm.ult rhaimirr tlf lt ~m.abh: e'tpt.:t:.LIItlun f'lsu~ceuNI pwrttCIJXUIOUID
ihc ~uiTrnge (W'W:tss.; and. • "-Chdne h_y 1111 tlefcndanr.s (r'lr U!lJUSI enrkhrnt:nl
l»lntntirfn.-qm.-st!\ "d«lu.mtor)' ludwnem und u prt!flm.nary injunttlon .a.plll:.'i:t dcf~,.-ndanls.
Ultlu~lug; <IUOIOIII~ di<: Nl IV YORKs f'A m BOARD OP bf.E.CnoNh from JliiUiiiG
P'n:$Jdi:nlial a mdhJat,t:;> on 1h.= 1;(-tl\(lll'(•r 2,()12 uqlc.s.o. thl.1) provide: pf"UV(of diyib,lh)·., J)UrsiJlln' t••
Artic;lr.o_ II, Section I, ClauseS of the U. S. Constiunlon; on:lcri.ng 1.bm1his elir:,ibiJity ccttiticatioQ
be !iUbmiU.:d IU the C"oun fi>r proof\)( 4..'UmpliAn«~ rujomir~ the Jesuihr frmn mtcriCring_ with tro.
.:.012 tJicctiun3', unJcung c:cproi1t.'\l dtlti,:O'"ct)' ltt dth~rnuuc Un~ !iCUpc: ufWuu11~ca. •IIC!gctl to 00
ffijlrt th,oo $.12hillhul; tllld~ ,,rckrin~ ajwy trinl for n-unhi\e trtble J.n.ll\Oi;.o.
V'ariou~ tkfencLUIL"- or g.roup.'4 nf \ltfcndllms, 1111 n.·p~nl«< h)' OOUit.~l pre.\l.:nl clC'\•c:n molimt'i.
todiS;JniS.S:.tud f..\t.c rnutiutt tl•tiJuul llU uUumcy pr11 J~· vic.·* fot this th."tiun. I be t:h:VC'n

fDdlvidWiJ d...·fcndtl1lts or gte.1.1p5 of dt:fc~~nb i~ m chn•ll!llO:I;,icnJ ofJJt:r 11( nting their 1nution:.
'" disnm:s: defcnd:Ulb l'rcsideru BARAC K OBAMA. Vi« r~ollcnl JOSWIIBIDI1N. OI!AMA
I'Oit 1\MPRICA and 1hc OIIAMA VIC"WK V 1'11Nl>; d<f<noiM" MCCAIN VICTORY 200~.
\1CCAIN·PAliN VICTORY 200K und Smtlor J()IIN MC"C"AIN: dcfcndllm• MARK
l.IIVI:.l.fi'<SKI nnd IAN BRJ'.bZJN~K I: dcfendllnl Kcpi\:>CuiOtlvc NI\Nt'V l<l· I OSI: dcfcndillll

<iEORGEiSOROS; dcfcodiUlt> "Ill€ SOCIALIST WORKCRS PAR fY w1~ ROO~R o·At.hRO.
d<fl"11<lanl Sp<akor JOliN BOEJ INE~ dclondanl 7.»1GNIEW DRZE71NSKl, Jefcn.l.nc- ~Oli o.:
JOSEPB ,\. O"H AHh. SJ- l"ulbcr JOSePH P. I'ARKE.S. SJ. 11nd FRFJ)t-:H I< ._ .\ 0 .
SCHWARZ. JR.: dcfcnduut I'ENNY PRITZKITR; .tnd dcfcndtun PETI:R G PP.TERSFN I he
dcvc:.n motions •o djsmi!'S as$CO: pl11mliff SlRUNK ltti.!b 'w.ndlng: pl,•mti(l'")(f(UNI\. [o,!l~ tr,
stute:. c(ajm UJXlD wiucb n:lic(I:Wl bl: tmnlcd; pauu\litl S I RUNK (1llbUO pl~ fnu.w.l "i1h
.. c:titoppellfom
particuhuity: 1he: acuon h.ti'holoU51 p111fn1irT'S I'RliNK i~ bllm:d hy cnllaU"r.\1
f!UJ'PoUin.g thi!t a.!'tion: und. the t~1un lac._$ bolh persnnnl and subj~.:c~ mn.ttc:r jun1Chc;lu.m in UUs
_ll.1i on~

1h~: nmliotl cu a.J.mh ~'-•WM:l Pf"" ;,.,. t VI\.T fr1r the in~tMt ll4;.tion, bj cnutt.M:l it•r ~fc.ndrulb
\I('(' AIN VlCfnR \' 200~. M("f"AIN·I'AliN VI('lORY lOOM un.l Stnnlvr JOliN MCCAIN.
(Ill' rodd fi l'hilliJ'IS, 1 ~ •• 11111CII\~r in ll,tlOdSW.A\lio~ (l("""lh 1hc: Ca.lif1'fOIH .md l)tstriC1 n(
rntumbia hUB. is f&nlllh:,J

SlrrmA "'/1(1/t.'r'Mm. iii ul.., lnJa Nt1.lq6A:UO~. on the gtOutlll'i ~~r wllulcmJ estoppel. fullun.o fu j\,itt
~

pMtlts cUlJ lud\a.

Tht ch:vrn mmion.s co disntiss nre aU gr.:antcc.l uod plaintifTSTRUNK'l•Mr.:un et~nl pbtitn i.i
dimtr.std with PtTJUtfice. IIi~ clear thin phlintlrTSlfUJNK~ llt(k.;..sumding.; (nits"' snue a cb"uu
upon "'luch tclitf~" be ,l,.'ltlnlcd: fnll!e h) plc.ud tmud with I)O.~ iculnn ty~ und. i~ bourcd by
coli.J.tk.-rul ~ioppel. Alsu.thu<~ C'oun 1u.c1.... ~ubject maucr Jun.sdictil•n tutd ptr~onAJ Jttrisdl...·bon
''''a m.ost ifl\\)1 lilt, Jc(l'n.JaiU!J,
Funhcnnort', plrnntiiTSTRUNK•Jt in..,.cont ncti\·m i~ (rivolou!i. ;\5 will he expl~in((). plnitlllfT
S I RUNK.a~l lc:ges basc-lt"fis cb5ims. obout dd~11t.lwtt5 whic.nnro fauciful, filnla>1ic. delu:ctiuna.l n1KI
frrahQru.\1, his o '"11514' ofjudicial fQOUl'\X.) fl.tr 1lu: t'oun If' .sp:.nd time Pn \he insli:U11 uc:rion
M<l"-"'',.· ll\e C<owt "1iloondu.:1u herui ng 10 ~,. pl>inliffSTRtlNK a ltOS<lnol>l< OJlll<lflunll)
In be heard, pllnunntco 22NYC'RR § f10·l . l. ~ lO\\hcthcror Ol)tthc: C.t)UR.shtmld U\\rfU\1 CQ:\.1~
nnd!or tmpw.o: SIJUctimt,. upon pl••inlifTSTRUNK for hb: fnn,Juw' culkluel. At UK' IM:J~tring.wl
'lf'POn\1011)' ,~yj)l b-,:. ¥iVcn In wunScl (i'r d.:.f1.-rultU1~ lv p~nl lft:f:.~.ilt:IJ 1\."C\•f\1)

hy th~,..; ,. clltnt.s in the inMutu 3Ction.

or C4.t$b lntUrrt~.>

I hcrctUrc .. phwdJJrSl RlfNk. wllo IS ltu' o 1tm11~t1 IIJ tJK: \.'UUT1huu5\.!S u( Nc'' Yurl. 15 dlJUU,._.d
from C:tlfl111lC'l'lntg l'uluro litigation m lh .... NC\\ v.t(k. ~tate: I '"if\N (\!Lin Sy~fet"'l a~ln$1: 1ht.
NbW V() ~ K STAT!, BOARD 0~ llLEC TIONS,JAMeS A. WI\ I SHI C•~CIIaor l lOII\oLAS
'' · KI!II.NI!R/C.,·CIIair. llVEI YN J AQI III.A

CoonniS!>J,,fll.:r, c'lR.fOOR'" v

rm·nn~.sC>Ntc ~~"nn'l..._....,~\~~~er-. lA·rut.Y Oto:cll)r ll Jno n
VAl hNIINF•• ~~nd llq>UI.)IIlin."\JWSII\NLY .lALEN;ANil~llW CI I()~IC).I:RIC

SC"HNiliDIZRMAN. n IUMAS P I)INI\J'OI.I •nd Rl m I NOEMl COLON, ln their f!Ricinl 101d
ondivl~11111 co.podty. l·t<lhct JOSI'.I'II A ; )'1(1\RI·.• sJ•• Folh<t JOSI·PI I P YARKI''>. ~J.;
fREDERICK A. 0 . SC:liWARL JR.; Pl!TllR G. PCfcRSr.N. 7JllGNIJ'i W KAIMI.hlU
BRLI:.ZINSKJ; MARK llllZEZINSKJ; JOSEI'I I R. Ill DEN. JR.: JlARAC.. tl. 01!1\Mil,
l-IANCY rEI.OSI; lh< DF.OMCRAl lC STATF. COMMrn·t=:l! OF TilE ~"TATE Of NEW
YORK; lh< SrATI!COMMiil"Ff!UPTIU7 WORK!Nti l'AMIUI!.S PARlY 0~ NhW YOI<~
STATli; 110\oER CALERO. tl>< SOCIA UST WORK~RS PARTY: IAN J. flRZGl.INSKI:
JOliN S IDNEY MCCAIN Ill: JOHI< ,\. BUhiiNI·R; the NEW YORI: S rA1., R t. PIJlli.ICI\~
SIATFC<IMMI ITbf~lh<NEW YORI' SrAI t CI)MMITil'.E Of 1111' INDl:.l1 hNIJbN<"I··
PAK fV,;h< 'll\fb COMM11"1"1Zf: OF Tllr t 'ONSI(R.Vi\TIVE PARTY OF NI-\1 Y()RK
Sl i1 ll); l'liNNY S. I<RJ17J(£R: Or:.OROl SOilOS; 0/IAMA YOR AAIEJUCA; </llAMA
1'/t TORr f UN/); Mit AIN VK7"0RY :ZIHI/1: 01/d IffY ",1/N-/'A/JN Vlr'IDRI" 1/H~'I: wi<hout
pnHr rtpprn..-111 oftJ1c 'l,ppi'Oprinlc Admin odtativ~: Ju.hcc ur Judr.:

Funtwr. phaittliff S f It liNk. cnw.-tl"'"es 110 <'Onsohd.llt the l ll'iUutl 1\Cliun Wlth a )lmilw- •hln.ber"'
IICHun fill:d by him.$.1n#rl vi'/Jh'f\11/J t!t ul ludell Nu. 29642108. io 1hto: KIQijS (1lUH1y~l~il
Flcctiwl l'an, t-..·Jf;~ Jlbtle«: n.wld Schmidt. MW1)' f\( lhi! dufi!OO:uU!·oppo...c
tcon'iOhdatitlfl

bcatll.)c.Stnmk vPo~trwm 1'1 rll.lnd~.\ Nt'. 19ft-t2/0it ttodt3posed c.uc.

rtw. ~r('l\5-rtu"lti4~n Co cao~li"lttle til's actiJ)I\ \\'l1h .\'mmk 1' ruu•n"'" ~~ u/, l!ldex. Nn 21.,1>(1.1.2/tUt tt
.J.t:rucd. fl<lfcndisnll wh•' Qp~~ J11ahl1H 1·s c.nm~motiuu.,l\' oom,'C.I Justiec Schmidt \St~pc»!C,t ul

fJhatutifrS11tlJNK. f)lc"iuusly t.'\Jffiml."fli:..:JJ simiJur ..ction.s in fht. l lnlltd $1£\t~ Oi,lrict ( 1.•urt ri•·
lh&: t-.usti!'Ol 1)~1rklc~f'le\\ Yofl. and ll\isC"o~ the Su)'lf~mot.Counu l

APX - 069

Nru~

the Suue of New York. Kings Count)·. In Strunk~· J'V~w )'ork Stall! Baurd of/:.'Jcctum¥, t!l aL,
lnde.• No. 08-CV4289 (US DiMCt. EDI'IY. Oct. 28,2008. Ross.J.), theCoun dismissed the
11ction because of pla.inUfrs l:tck of ~tanding, failure 10 swre a claim and frivolousness. In that
action. plruntifTSTRUNK oeeused the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF EI.ECTIONS of
"mi$itpplicution and misadminislration of stale law in preparution for lhc November 4. 2008
PrcsidentW GeocmJ Election" by. among olher things. in 1 51 of1he <.'Omplaint. of*fui l~ to
obtain and !l."'C'nnin that Barmck HIJ.SSCin Obama i$ B oaturnJ citizen. olhcr'\\ise contmry to
L'nited Sttues Con.sthution Anicle 2 Second I Cluuse 5 (sicj"' and demanded '"Oefendnnls ore to
provide proof that Bamlcl. llussein Obama is a natuml born citizen and if not 1\i.s electoi"S ~to
be striclen from the ballot (sic)." Judge Ross, :u JXll.'" 6 of her de<ision. held "the coun finds th31
portions ofpJajntifl's aOidavil rise to lhc le\''CI of the irrational'" and. in footnote 6. Judge Ross
cilt-d two prior 2008 F.as1em Oistric:t cases filed by plaintiff STRUNK in which "the court has
detcnnincd that pon:ions of plnin1irrs complaint$ have contained a11egations thttt have risen 10 the
irration:tl."

My Kings County S1,1preme Court colleogue. Justice Schmidt. in Slru11k '' Pa1~rson. fl al. lndcx
No. 29642/08, asci!OO above, disposed oftha1m•uer, on MiliCh 14. 2011. by denying all of
plaintiffs motions and noting that the .suuute oflimitations cxpin:d to join

l'el0>1, Jolrn Sidn·~ McComlll; John A ll,l<hntr; llilhtty t linton:

Richonl Durb.n!U\d othw>~. l•icj
n~en. tn, 28 ofthc<omplaint, pl:linJIO"SIII.UN,_alk~ 11\Jt Pn:.,t.Jcul OUAMA '.-.r Jus
llt,ttnt(!}a" J).:Ui urthO:!iChcnlC IQ tkfntud placed lm ifni~'(: nffftmailrm Ct.-rtilic-.Ui<m ofl.i\i~ liinh
" i~COUJJ unlhCI Jnta~~
nnd IU u primu rude filet u.rons. the

lla\\·ll.il i.ssbw.l tOLIJ dt\!.·~ bot pN\it nmural t>oru• chU..msh.1p urbir1h m Hzt\'lili~ onl) -alomz
/firm dc'L1umcru V.'ilUid [sic.l"

Plau1dfl's WIQbrcd vut c:oru;pintcy lmplic:ucs dt,7.e:~ of PQlltic;aJ nnd adig~ou.' figufi-"""5, iiS we: IIIIi
tlk: :mos f1lt"'idCT~I i.a' cundidalo from bcl lh major partiQ,. with nv~"t'Vu.·• t:absu.rd aJicgaJion.:...
·1 hey r:mgc from dllin\ing thdt :10 .19WlciBtt: urI he lnr_ge hm lirm ofKirt.:laud tt:nd tJhs.. I..LI'
ITL1MCm\lnJtd the CU11$pimc)' lJeeUU.'iC !!he: WWIC' iS lOW n:Vit'W Jrtide oboUI. tbCt U. S.
('Oll~'litulion's muunal bona C:tli7t.."n n."rqUt.n:mcnt fOt tbc office uft•rc~l(fCnt 10 the a~ion lhui
l!llttJtf j_!~; a~e"'o'C'.n1h ttnlut} A.D. inveolinn of the Vatican furt.her, phsintill'S'ffi.UNK nllcg,cs, ill "
129 ofrhc \!omplaint. Ul#t he:

necessary parties Preside-nt OBAMA and Senmor MCCArN. Further. Justice Sclumdt
denit.·'<l plrtintiff an oj)p()rtunil,y tO file affidavit~ of SL"TVice mmc pro lutte and to umend the

complainL
rllcrL pl .ain~iffS"I RUNK. eight days later. on M11rch 22. 2011 . commenced the
~o id ab

illSUlnl action by filing the in.'i'IMI "·crificd complaint. Pln.intifTSTRUNK's romplaint recites
numerous bascle::..,;; nJicgation..-. nbout President OBAMA. These allegations nre familiar 10 anyone
wbo follows the ·binher" mo"·cme-nt: President OBAMA is not a "natunll·born" citizen of the
Uni1cd Stnt.cs; lhc l)rcsld(.-nl is a mdical Muslim; the President's I lnwaiian Certificate of Live
Birth does not prove lh.at he was born in llowu.ii: and. J>rcsident OBAMA is aetually a citizen of
Indonesia, the United Kingdom. Kenya, or all of the abo''"-· For example. Plain tifT STRUNK
ollcgC>. in, 24 oftbe comploint.that Pt<Sidcnt OBAMA:

is n Madrasah u·Jined rodical Sunni Muslim by birth right ••• proctices

inil.io - o..serious probltfnl fstcj

oomrluinJ WM\<d Lbe U\,.c:ru-Jnn.tl trut- but: iffdev.mtl'ttc.t into plwnt.ifrs ntmblin~ ~tram 11)
t.lO~cmu~.

Vke l'tl..--sldcm BrD£N lnC\\ thiU P~idc:m OllAMA was "not ditD"'hlc tn nm far president
bcctu."Uh-c i~ nota 1\murni·Boru Citt1cn v. 1th 11 8rttlsh Subj~c' F1n~r with 1.1. ~tudent 'Yi~a
h11wcv,-r in furth•TIIllCe ofCFR !Council "" Furei!!H l<•loli<•MIIul"ign policy inltiath..,. in 1M
ml~_.,._,t >opportell Sucb•h tp..,.idenl 0 131\MA1.. o MU<Iim (.<icJ."

Sharioh law ... with tbe fulllnowledge and blessing ofDcfcndMI>:
rC"tcr G. l)ctcrson: Zbignit:w Bro:zinski; his sons Mark and lun; Penny

AIM'. PlatnairT STRUNK di:r;c~ in th~ complaint, th~n·ScMtor ORAMA ...

S. Pritzkcr, George Soros: Jesuits Pothers: Joseph P. O'lllltC. Joseph
Apnl 2.0ct8 "''l-->1Jt1050rship oJ'$c:nn(e Rt~tutlot\ 51 I Th!SresQI\ed urmnunoU."ity tt\ul ~u~tfll(lr
MCCAIN. IJotn in 19J6 i.n Pan:un~ \\rhil c his rather wns on ar:tlvt duty tn the Unit~ Stftl~
~.IV)' ut t.:clCo S.C.In Ntavul Afr Station. i!ict tuuural hom citl-ten or the- Unil~o.-<1 Stat~. rhis

P. l,arkes: Brennan Center Exccuti\'t Fnxleriek A. 0 . Schwan. Jr.:

n:.501Ulinn puiiiJ n:SI qucsttoos about Senator MCCAIN'S cli~ribllity tt• run fin President
Ho,,c,"ef, rlalruiO'STRUNK 11Jit-ges. in ~ 43 uf &he comp!aiuL thlll ~cn1te Rc.\OiuUun 511 ·a~
portofthc:schem~ to d.:tr:uul"' tuld Ito. fru ud upon C'on~uand the P«•plt" of thc$Cwrul Mat~
nod t•-ni1orie. eootrary 1t1 the fn<u." l"ben. ~lainti!TSTRVI"K. i.o f 4-1 urlhoc.•mpirunt. clte•
Scunt~ Rcsohtlion ~1 J's te.x1 ns eviclcrM."C that Prcs.idd\t OBAM1' conuc<.ft:!. LMI tbt: definition ol
rutCumt born chit.f'11~hip for l'l"'$1drnt ~quit~ hath pJUt!lltil. ortt (.-:indicLm: he U.S. chi?.enS ul
birth. FUJ1J'"'· tJ1c """'PIIlim

anJ Sew\ olt to lnttmatiun~d

Monettu~

t-und .:CinditJ~lNifily v. ith 1\'JSOJ (lr

the dullar reserve cum:t.IC'y Stltl\1.~. wtd cuilapse ufOiC II'Yillg ~ndttnb ol

ulloges lh:U JOI IN MCCAIN .uld ROGER CALERO, pr<Sid.:nti•lc<U>di~at< ol the SOCIALIST
WORKI RS PARTY. \\ere Ohio incftgilll<. liketb<n·Senau•r ()fiAMA. lor l'resldc'lll beenus< ol
lhc:ir roilurc tOttUlllify under i.hc UlthrmJ tJUtnl'ih/.01 fl:qUirt nt~nl til

l'l•mtill"SfRVNK.ln • IJQ nfthc comphtlol, ullcg1.-. that Jcf<nclruu OEORGI.i

riA!tltl0'> •11<6N inJury, m 1 ~ 7 \)I lhc~>•lnplaln~ h "(tJh•l "" N'"''mhcr ~.11}()8, l'l•lutllf."' H
vic1im oJ the i4::hcme h:t dcti'lnKI. vol.e\1 fnr thctlccto~ n..~n1iug
Md:tlln , no1 •• ttiJUu1tl
bom 11$. citixco • 1-unhc:r, -i n ~ 49 ufthc '-'OO'IJllaint, •a., pan of lhc: scheme todcfntod. PlauuiO
Vt•ted for c~lndidnlll' Mt(uln. despite tbi: \ract Ihell his ~ife i1 n n~ ck\·otod £(ontnn Co.t.huJiC'
who.5c: twu som. Y.crot•t.h..ct!ll.'CI b) Jesuit pric::~~~b.." PloinJifTnJicgC't. in 4J Sl oflhc compl41nt.,. tha\
Scnamr MCC.:AIN, WitS hom in Colon I fospiln.l. Colon.l,anama. Whlcb Y.'ISS not in the PUMma
C.utal/..onc. 1 urt11cr. ptnlntiff nll\!J:."t'S.. in ..- 51 ttfl~ compluinl, thn' ut:rordinu m ttk:-Novc:rnber
18, I<l(l) llny-Bunnu Vwillo Trtoly. b) ,..hicb the Voilll<l Sidles obtained the Cao11l/vne.
Sttt:IJOI r..1CeAIN isoot-a narurnl--bon\ cilih.""n.

ofl:.gypt .. We e:moot IUry,c:r lh111 the Jesuits in Cairo tn::1t<d 1hc MusJim Brotbcrhood '" 192",
th< ,.,..,. yc:ur the Or~cr c""ncd Opm D<!t in Spain (Slc]." FUJ1J..,r. plointl!fSlRUNK. in 1 145 nl
the oomplaint.Ues<> lhol 'O<Ii:nclanb Prit.zlccr~nd 5.J•o• hoYI: roanagcJ o cru.:icll role for the
Vntknn Statt u.~a memberofthe-CFR and high lt:\el F~Utnry ttnd in oonjuoctioo with ..:.Jug
Juan CJrl~ ~the King c•f Jerusalem) ICI cnoutc glolx:tl rtQiorwlismlh:llliUkllltlC$ n.uional
"'"'l.!IO\'erci~l)' ufthc USA und the l'cftplc ofNtw Yur\ :s:wtc to the lfetrimcut \JI'plll.mllh 1u1d
thnst< simiJll.Tiy -Sll'W\.I:d lsfoV

l'l;tlntin'S fRUNK.. in his fin:d twenty ~cs uf1JI~ compll:,iltl. All~o 1h11.1 the m~ive
oonsptrll\-")' to dcfmud Am~:riron \'()teN \.."U ~f'P':IIUlcd b) ln111~f\.'tts ufiudi.,.nlunls. ollhe bche->4
ofU1• Roman C•tbolic Church11!ld e.~~Uy tho Jo;ull$, "ilh dl• 11m orb<illllif•~~ul the
Apocal>'l"" thtu"gh the dtstru<tioo oftl)e AI Aqsa MO"'l"~

plomiiiTSTRUNK: lacks \1allding; faii..U to 51nl< a claim up<lo wiuch relt~f c:un h< grllnled: faik:d
(I I rlt.-&.1 (rauJ \vill1 pwrticuterity; and, l$ b.:uwd by co11ateml i:)t(lpptl. Fortht."£, t,ktJi..-ndanls at¥\K

in Jeru.sal~mnnd tt'H: re--building u ni!'A Jew•~h Ten1plt: un thm sue. Amon~ tht> C4llilies li1Jt1
l'lcunurf~'l'RliNK lruplu:ot-:•, tn Ius aiJ ~~t..*d •••vn"J''m~l' o.re: 1hc \1as1im 6mthurh()()f..l.

1hat dle Cour1 I~»CU both ptTSOnal and su bj«l mntiC'f jurisdictioo and the- imttmt c-:~mplainl1.s
frihih)U$ l'fnmtifT. in rc!ipc>n~. filtXI M ~ffidttvh in npptlS-ition to the mmions to di~niss ond
""'"t:d tO con!ill.llid!Jic the instant wion with Strunk~· f'uu•t'-'Un, 111 ul. tudcx'Nu. 29642/08.

lhc CurlylcUmup; 1he t'l-1{; Hn11ibunnn· ~irk lmW nnd Ellis,ll?; ftOd. thr: Hrem1:u1 (~nh:r Mr
Justice ul NYU. ftlfe!'AIIhlplr. in • Ql ufaJtc: t't1111plaim. p1D.uuiO"STR.UN..:: \"lUI~

El~en dtftnd;ln'3 or grou~ nfckofcnd:n•t~ lik.-d

On

Aug:uo~;L ~ ~Ot 1. I held pru) a.rg.um~u on

mntlon.s to di~mil!oS. ctf£Uing Utllt

the ~ru '"illl l'U...,fJtct to~ lhn1tot:D tn.!o1MI

mt>ti""". At the he&ring. plolntilTS1 RLINK ngNtd whh the t...,un """ P""i<k:n1 OBAMA, wit'>
lht' .ft'ICBfit' uf hi~ lons·form JWwtulun binh certifiCill.C,. WU!- boro

in I lunolult,_ liuWill1 (tr. p l3 I Ho""'"'· pwintilTSTRUNK. ul tr, 1'1' 30 • J I. UfllU•'<~
lluu a "t1JllWUI born cnil:ot.: cligJbk 1u nm tor P1esidcnr ol tbc UniteJ .Sttuc:s. pursuam lo Anu:tr
J1, Section I, Cl111,111C' 5 ufth.: t r.s. Cu~ilutioll. o•c:an.tthat ooLunly lhc: ca.rtdiWue ts n~tuml helm~
hut both of the can..fiilill:e'5 Jt.l.rtn ~ lite natutaJ bom.

.mtt ,'AJ.ious Suu«=s' Curuaitutions tbtU ~tllrtrng 110 htter tMn January lf)Oc•
TI1e follnwln~ txthnngc- t11
.!iUUg.httn ll.'iOfTllhC. cxeculhc: brunch ur guvcnmtent usiug Burack

1~ onllllrgUn1r-nts took place. 111 1r••

llu.~m

Mil. Sl ll\fN)(•M)' lllfUI). I vota.l lbr Mcl"llln

undc.r j~lnt cnmm;md and cnnuot. tu f1rt'CI!Jd(! AU)" other CMII1 ten~r in

APX - 070

p. 34, line:!$· f'

MR. STRUNK:Shc is !he lurgest di<tributor ofBudwci,.,r.

filE COUll hi• thm an injury?
MR.

STRIJN~ :My

llil:: COURT:I know lh31. That docSil't tnal<e h<r o Ollholic

injury i• he did 001 challt:ngc Mr Ohruna

necessarily.

MR. STRUNK:It's lhc connc:ction tbmoouniS. Yourdon'l get

I liE COURT: You're ..yi.ng h.:Sho\Jld h1ve d"'lh:n~aJ Mr

tho:ie COI1JJt.·t:tions.

Mtl STR.LINK:Absolutel). ond <he bill lor. The onW< IS on me

Tt IE COURT:.

b«-.UJ~ be viohlh.!d his aa;rc~:menl \Yith

I don't care.

'-.Wt\f'n,

mc: You cun't clutUtngc tlu: cl.iglhility ulltll he$ up tu he:

I don't know if !he Busch frunily IJ Oltholic

Mc.Cttin. sin~ CWf') body in Con~ si:ncc tho)

MR. STRUNK:Tha1's big business.
H I£ COURT:Thafs big bu<incss><lling hecr •. . l.ct's put

Anheu..ser-Busdt to the side.
fill' COUR'I :t <aw yuur IcHor lblll )Oll fired lhc Prcsidcm.

You said she's n Catholic n.nd you get into this \\hole riff or rant.
\\hauwer you wan110 call it. aboutlhe Catholic ChutCh nnd FatherO'IInre.

A diS<:ulOrit!n <n5ucd ._, ICIIKI" pluin(oO' STRUNK all<'j!tslhat P=idenl OBAMA

the Varico.n. You go on and on ahoUllhe Vatican .• . but it StCnt$ to me

i> o Muslim ltr.. pp, 16 • 381. lltc rollowing colloquy roo~ pl~~t< nt tr,. p, 37, litl<l> I • 8:

you bO\'C this thoory tbat everylhing i$ a conspiracy :md i1 always falls

IIIli t'OUR'J :llmv,"'O.Jd you come. to IJic Cl•nclusiun lb111 he's
back to Rome.
MR. STRUNK:Th:u'• a mJlller of public record.

Tt IE COURT:Oh. okay.
whnt the tesumnny ufindt\·idual~ ~hu wtrc in thes.s with hhn :dlow

MR. STRUNK:What the key is horc. Ms. McCain is on <he

·n.. lollo"in& p<•rtt<>ns o(lhe O.o:llWlgc. ot tr. p. 39.1inc 9- p. 43.llnc 8 tkmU<ISl<UlL.. lhc
tnutional nnri-Clllholie bin.< or ~l •inti!T:)Il!UNK;

Boord of Directors ror a Jcsull run sthool where her childn."tt are going to

1111: COURl ·Wtuu I find fitsetnllllng. lil$t n( oil you "'id

scbool.
TI 11:: COURT:Could very well be. t don't know.
MR. STRUNK:.. . In fact. iltuflbOUI in the dbco..,c-ryofthe

connec1ion to the Jesuits h was so compelling thol when I s1aned really

Cindy McCain

digg.ang in1o lk boclt.ground ofthi,;-schc:mc ardetroW~ fl'uttin~ up 1"~'1 '1 'f
Ma:~hurinn GU\t:Udllh!$ at I)~ whi~ Vt\JUM tulc ~Wl.U.i.Jtb~ or N~

YQrt.. Stu:tc:·,.~euknt:tim our l~'' whkh n:qtjU"elJ bo"'-~- We ~"quh~ h•

C<~e. to m.tlJI;c SQUI-C' tnlc:~wg: urJ:&Un1C'J1L th.ul"S 4 work of ficlinn. At taut

1-wv~ OOncsly Wld ditln'l &;~i!t n.

1think it's a \\-of\, of f.clio11-

'I I lE COURT·Your c;ase is more 11rc Du J1n<l CINI.•

MR. S'J RUNK ·1'M-.Afuftcfmrflm Cundidm~ WBS no~ -a Wt,itk 01

fiction. The ~or1. • I didn't v.anllO t,>et inln Ihis al\."3,
4

n fE COURT:Wilh aU due rusp~.--c:t to Juhn fran)icnhem1Cr

rt fI! <.'OURT:Lcl''~ ndt t:;cl into 311o.lpgics..l urtderstaml )'~

v,h.ich 11M not bt.'Cntklne.
~~~~

SIKIINK: I11ould1

till

l'UliR I :WiO• fronk. nm ll<ntcl.

n IE COIJRT:Oluty.lhru'< your argument.
Swndmd rhr 11 mminlliO dismis.~
"When dclcrmmio» a motion to dismiss, tire Nun m.u.rt aco:p1lhc: tucu us a.Jkyed m the.
complainlld ~ BCco111 plahujlf.s the l"'cncf1.1 of t."\'ef')' ~"'ible: (ti\'CrrMI\! toftl1.:nt'c., nntl
tiJ•tt•rtnitW mJiy whc1her '"e fitcu W< ulli!fettljlt wilhin t~ny co~nr;~1hlr lt1tulll"{)f)' (-\Ct Anlul'
lnd45.. lttc Hturemem Ftw.J ,. Brmnr, Huyx"uur, .\ll/.,t&.•in.. Fl'ldt-r cf: .~C!inl'r. tJ6 NY~ 300. )O;
(ZOO II; /.eon 1• .lfurtiorc, R4 'IY2d !11. R7-RR [ 19941) (Emplto.fi<udrldj ." l &ol<ii•J!~!!..!.

MR. STRUNK:Frunkcnbeomer'l
TilE COURT: l'IG:! movie.

MR. SlKUN.KJ v;'US aW'.u~ or the: rtHJ\'Ie-iltitlnl ~rn, but ~.

Aft·ttuiNlrtun I ll!; h r.a n, ~. 57fl...S71 1200SIJ.
(306 AD'ld 449. 4SI[2d D<t112o03J),In,1ru<ted rh•l:

rt IF t:OI IR I :Olut), forget II

Futt.her.lh ~

f'UJ'Sunnt tn ('r1t..R J2l l (ul (7), ''thcsnte criterion is \\hetber tbc
MR. STRIJNK:TI~e Q""'n of Oimnooo.t N~"

)OU-. bmu~hr

..

plcadiug st~h.:s a l'Uuse oroction. and if f~t~m il$ fttur con.e,., rtK:uml

nil• I l)liR'I :You lllCilliot,.,,J lite \fouH'Imrlmr ( 'm•ll.ktl< Ill<)

APX - 071

Cowt..m \/()rrJs

~· ~lorr11

•o

PluintiO'STRVNK U.Cb sau:ndh1~ ,;ue 'io.si.Otc t..-oun. h~l\'ltllt suffered nt1lnjury "StW1l1ing to
sue i! critic.ltl In dlC pi'D(h!r fun~,.'lionin, oftbe judic:iuJ s>'stc.m (t Is o t.htc5hold iJSUC, lf ~IGlklJng 1\
deni<.'tl, lht pmh\WY 10 the: COUJ'tbou)IQ ts- hlocl.:cd. '11~ pi::.Inti!Twho hili !IIWlding.. bO\Oit"\l~.o"t. ltUi;
em~ the l.hrcsb£\td und :«.'Ck judir:i;ll rud~"!ii -· (Stlrtitf;gtl Cmml\1 t 'hambt:r «ifCommut:e. /m:. v
Parul;i, 100 Nv:!d 801 81212110JJ, n'rl tl•mat/540 US IUI7120()3j). l'mfcs."'r J)avi<l Sicgpl, in
NY f'r.oc. J 1>6. ut1J2 [4<lr<IJ
Or u{Hrooll)n&Qu•OI/o,21JADM

l 93fl000f~

liulro'''" hun!

IJ11rl11 >' olln<Uli'i. llO AOld 764(21100]), (E.'mf1/ru.ru llolil..o/1
For~ plaimitrro survive n motionlu dismi.~Jhr fnifu.-., tt1 Sllltc: u c:su~ of ~ion. the fat:tuul
nUegaJiQi\$1n t.he ~luim ~Rot ~ ""fm.•rcly conciU:tOry and .speculative in no1.nut" and no1
11
~Upporlt.od ~ M) .spa."ific. fzl.:t5. (J..'tMtft Ids fur a A!IJI't 8t.uJilifiJ Puf'/ Wut:hirq;ton, Inc l'
IJ0ttmh 1/cnt/tdrtN/, li.l /\Old 727, 129 (2d Dept 1989)), '"The 3llc.gtttions in tbl: \.'"00\plainl
t:UlllOI be V"'!U< and oonciU><>t}." (.~l<>tw••J!v Gllhotmt, 248 i\02d S25 l!d Dept l'l'>!r), tlflfl

1(''"•

Juw/,o•J91 ~Y2d 844 (11198), "" J,,.(.,lby Sln/umdfv Nr,. llH•A lim<'>. S25 US QSJfl<l<l8Jl
t_.,Prc.rll , . ~fun uo:hlu~ ltJ .\lui_ 1.1/rt ll#t. { u 30_.:\UJ J .. i'.tJ2d lA•~ l()()(,). ltti~-~ }.iil):.IJ..
tld ~,.

lU a '"jun~ltl l i•n!l.l • tH.STn ~.

f'.

the OJI.U1-\ hl.l\1!-JUriStltCdlltl ,n.l)

n\-cr contrO\'fflJcr. f2):. pl1lintiff round'"' II.Wk '"<®nding" l.s nol

(.~!.'

~7 AO_hl~

jurisdiction of the case when Sllth b plninrtfTpurporlb> to bring it.

oactUAiullcgatlllns !Uinum!lv Vt•rmu ~tJmlllt.lm·. , 207 AD2d 6VIIId Dcp4 11194): ~lurk
' . Hu•tplom lne. dhrgrr<n,I73Al)M:!Ztlfl0 Dept I<I<II)!,"(Gou,lc vl"IIIJI'IcrtJ<J,. fi,...
/n, Co, &Mi:!C Jd 102J)AJ.ooliSupC~ N"""'u C<tunty 1005]), Ill< oii.'Jir tl1uJ lite facualle~t.-d
oy ptuimiiTSTR\mK do ntll 1111n10 uny ""l'lli"'bl< I<I!JIIIheury.
PbuotiffSl'RtiNK'S complninl i~ more oro )XlhtiCDI m:~ni(~(l dwno vcnfit.:d pteuding. $;nlita.t
low<UiiS cb"ll""ging lbe oligib1Ut)l of l'n:sideut 013/\MA Wld Scn..oor MCCAIN far !he
pn:slderwy h:i..'il'd upun pl11intin·~ inc."QITC-ct interprt-l!lhon <1f d1e u..-rm ..oaturul born CitiJ:eO" io
Arude ft. Section J. C'btu..-,e 5 of the U.S. Conslitution ha\c been dismiS:ied A.-1¢ lllnntteruflav.
(&c /Nukr •Vlwmo, bM r Jdn4)91b Cir2011J: &tml'lt vObumu. 200'l WU8bi?~S Jl!S
0•<1 Cl. CD CA 1009); lkrg • Obumu, S1~ F SuP!' 2d 509IIID Pa 2008f,ulfd S86 fld 2.l4(3d
t:•r 20091; N.Wfrtfitm 11 Bowen. Sb1 F Sup(! 2IJ l14..J (~I) Cat 2UClM1~ llnllnmlt•f' \' Ht:CtiJJt, 566 f;
Supp 2d 63 ID Nl1 2008j).

apphCt.li,m of t.he Con.'i•Huliun W1d lows. and ieeku1g relief Uud nu more tfin.'Ctly und tnngJ'bly
hem tits him than il~ tl1iL" rYUblic al lar,sc-iJ()Q nol ~IteM 1\rth:l.c Ill~ or \."UnlWVm)'.·
(Lujan v D<fonller. oJWi/JJif•- 504 us !>SS, sn ftWZfi •n,..,, • pn\1ltetiti""" who does not
1d1(lW any sp..'tial rights or inlcrtSt5 in thi: maucr i:n controvmy, ollkt than m,~_se ccul.rn.on 1.0 uU
li.1Xp3Yt'J$llnd citizen$, h;l" no !11.Unding 10 sue.• ~.. tl••ttt \ ( .,,.,11\ •'' Wt'.Vcl~< da l
Affid ~H. 534 f2d D<pt1W41~ (.<,,· /)w /ql'h •• &~'!.lum/DluJJIJ.J!tlliH..Ch!Ji.tlj~
6lllsl..9.t.l.. 65~ l,:!d lkpt20001; f "t'' ··trlrj.l.e_rtl!ll1"(l uf .Xw_nt· PtJmt r
11; .\,Jum• Pqlnt. 2»
~~. 658 f1d D<pt 2006j). PlalnliiT~IRliNK'• complaint ollcg"" oothio~ muno than noojusticinhlc abstracao.~nd lhto~tical chtirru... '1hetefott. t.l.tc il'lW~nt ClltnpJ.:tfnl, litiUn~ t.o ~ale UJJ)

z-,,.,

ulll'l!fllion ol• panitulan/xd l"jury. i!>di~nli~ with rf':Judlcc. IS/hff 11 /'t.IUJI:I "' SJij:
Muhomot.v v Purukl oJ Sll.

A1U11llllivc:ly,
..
phnniHfS rRUNl\:'$t.."'mp1ultU HIWI.t be dismi~d l''r his hulurt' 10 JR:Ur: .1 cause: •••
:acuon.. 111eCoun is under no ubli~tioo ' u tn:~cplu ltUt' plairuitl'sc:utuplnmt.. rut I urlcwll
cood\.ISiOO$ 11nJ. b!Jid llSSCI1ions doo.l:o.l ut fuel\. tRtclfln!J~<l!-t!vA (to It ''''" U QJS 11~
.!tl.:.. lfl8(2d Orpt !OOS]).As norN ~:~txn-e.in Mrll"fl,, v .MtN"rl,tut <151 , ..bot..: l c~ rum.llL"iof'l.\tl,tC"
nut cmhlcJ to lht- brnclit o(thc pl't'.:llumpl.ion uftrUth nnd tm: nUl occt\1\led cwry fitvon1blc
m(c:rcnc~• M~Jn.:O\'Cf", pl3inlifflws tAiled tu f!leud. an,)' fa\:ts lhnl f'it within any CO~IJINC.IeWJt
lt\e()l') (C,'hiflmml \• Mdrnpo/lllm IJ/~ IM ( 'd..., AI57(}.j7J 1
Funh~r.

plainliffSTRUNK's oft~n

mmblln~ :and u1most irM:flmpn:hen~ibJe comphnnt fnll~ 10

,...;,ry the plcadlng 1\'quiremcms u(CPI.R t30P :lll<ll' I'JJI Ruld014 l'rll( ~lUll requtN:•
>C.U.menl> in u pl01oding 10 lx 'suOicitnlly purticular w gi1c Uoo wun dnd punk' notice "f01<

"Sttu"M.Iin~ Cn sue n:quir61UI intCf1!4tt in the clnJm u\ l~lM:! in the IJw~uat th1111h<- tnw wttl
recogniu as a suffic.icnt fWJI~.!~tc furdctcrmbtin~ 1be i..'>S\It' al Ou.: litiQ~W,-'s reqUCSL I' (~''f'!c , ,
~tlo_n.;ui~'!>")_!J.!<l.lli. 181 pd Dc')'l2()()(.1). 'An otW)oi!of<IMilin~ bcjlins w!lh u
detmnirnal.ioo ,,r whtther the- p;1rt.y seeking n:litfha:t ;<~;tiStairw:d lin mjury (.s:rr StH.·w.ry D) Plrwlc
/llllu,t I' Coomtyt.fS•Ifttl*.11 NY2d 761. 762-773 l l'l'liJ)-" (MIIhO!N')' t•/'.tlnki. 98 NY2d 4S, 52
[20011). "The t'oun ••f Appeals bus defined lbc >landanl by which !>1llllding "IIICWiUr<<i.
C..~pta.i nut~ lhu,t a piBtntiff. in oM:r lo ha\t: 'Slandint~-md pa:rtku.l.ar dispute, rol1S1 dcrtw.mstru.Le ~
injury il'l f3Ct !hut ftJJl-1 V. ithin the rcJe\11R.t Mile orinte1CS15$0UQ.h1 10 he prniCCicd ht l~w.'

(Cilf"tl'l' ."'U$l'IHiflmtU IKl),

'I

ll<lcnd•n•'s ullegollly unluwlul ottnduet und ltkeJy tub< nodn:sscd b) Ihe I'<I!IIC>I<'<i rclttf • (,11/n •
,. Wrlghl. 468 US 737,751 (IQM)J, If u pl••lnun·l..,...,;...,ding tn """' tllepMnti!Tmu)' noll
pro<>:ed in !he ;"'tion. (Sla't • I •••lliltt'K, 191 AD2d 203 Jill D<p12tl(l2j)

Plaintiff s1-RUNK \!h:arl)' hlC.ks ~nding 10 61JC b«ISUst' liC CWinOt cs'ttlhlish o~~~injury in r~r.
Pfaimlffs duln1 1hnl ht~ No,crnbcr ZOOS \'Ute fur ScmaJor MCCJ\JN fut PfeStdcn' 'VIS lU"b lDJut:1

it tht typc.ott;_t.-ncrofj,t:\J ¥f\t\IOXII::~ !hul l$ ri U'\."Ch)~ h) the U.5. (OM;dlul.ilr\ ~ rru-ucuJari~
ihjul') n:quirt(lh:nL "\Ve h1l'-'t «•ntti.su:ntl} hdd duu 11 plainliO' mls-lng only .;l ~oerw..-rally available
~e\'Jlncc :sbout gflwnmlt<nH:Inhnillij only hum1 to his: .t.nd e\'C1')' ctlil'Cu's- intcrcs11n proper

ralls iu plead hl:i ullcged ctt.U~ of !M!Ii,>n i1111 nnmncr tha1 iJ "~uOillicml) panil..'•u.lur to gl\'e rhe
lind purtic."S DOiiC'e or the tra~hU!U, \JIL'Cum:UC~. ttr :.~::riet of lransuc:LiUO$ fU' tM."CUIT~UCdo..
ont<O\J•'<llo be P"'"'d and tho:
COUO

matcn:tl c-Jemen'5 ~fca"h c:.usc. ol .-wltmlll'l'l K ~ 30tJr llntl orwn11U'd m "phun a.nd cClncl:.c-aalancnJs in con!~cuth'\!ly numbei'L-d. pll.ill!,!I'Uph.'tjCPI R Rulc:l014t:' "Whilt tt tCfined und
utltouttlcd onolysis might llll!UObl} sr<ll out • shodow of o e<>IJ50 of action, neitl~<r Chc dcrwdrulb
nw the t.riaJ CWJ1 should be subject lo tllt: djOicultiQ." (Kr,rl v Tn~~Pro~r. q ADZd 64Q [Jd lXpl
195Ql).(&c (o<l"l vRoiL• Nto)'c< Lmlllcd, IH AD206ll lid Dept 1%2J:SuforBttfCo, Inc •'
Nunltrrn ~~;,,..r..- Ht<(. Inc IS AD2d 47<1 fld Depc 191•1 J), loU<'U.'IC. >ucb as Ibis tml'. in which
"dlC: ttnk'nd~ compJaitll i~ pnJiix. c:unrusiny. 11nd dinit.uh to answd' uftd 1he ootnp1nlnt conltli113''u contusing sue..~un li'fdiim:lt rae Is. cvnoh.IStun_o,., oommt:llts .- and nmsidcrn.ble o!kr
$Ub~idiruy a,n·idmli.ary n1.1dlet whose n:luvunce: I" oi particUJtirCII.USt of uction iS fttquet,tJ)
"bscure ..• Oc-fendums should no~ be required In .m.'C'Wer MJCh n jumble." 4Rapapurt v Ditunnml
D<ul•r., Club, 111<'.. ~; /\DM 743, 7~4 jld D<pl 1983]), (Sr< E/11 v C'•mi><Tillnll tttrm•. ltl<'., I ~K
ADZ~ ~ll , ~24)3d Ocpl l'l~Qj) ,
1'1,1iJnili'S llWNio. fail> Ill plcud li':ttkl wilh p;ortlcubtnly
'"The ,-lt.:t11C!'IIL~ t'f fmud :u....- nanowly defi 11ctl 1'\"\\lll!lu~:: t>rwfby dcru- and cunvincin,g. cvidcntt
((.f.. l 't'-ntJCet' 0h'f'WT\ v Gut~rrnan.. 18 NYli.l 1114, , , ,,. rJQ4)) ll " (Guidnn ,, CirllJ.TdJun Lifo ln.\.Co ufA.n1C!TI..'O, 94 NY2d 330• .349·350 II mu Mtre conclusory ~1111emt'nl$ ~~~c~[ng the \Ym(\.:;
in the. p1e:ldings :!re inJ~uffieient. f Vt.l.;,~~-d.l l~tu. .J.!.!IIIIill~IJ!l}~JJ.:i;,~1S l'h@ .\~
!.!!12 120 l:kj)( lOO'JJ; Survrtv ,,

lmrL"ttCfl,tf\.'1.. Qt'cu:rrc:n(.'\."$, 0' $C:Qi3 of tmrunctiun$ Ct.r tn."'l..ntnCC:..~ in~,.:-DdeJ Ill ~ prttvcd :tnJ the

,\(uca'ci/J, SO

mutcri!\1 ulcmcnts orelh:b CiiUSC:fl( UC::U(In orck:ICn!\C.... <.:11 1.R ltulc lOI•t lnlptlSCS fldditinnal
t•leadia~ mtulrtn1C'11L\ dmt ''jc)vcry p!C".klinw, shall cun.'illlt nf p1tain urwJ etmci~ ~tntemt:nt..-.ln
C'Ott5CI.lUJivcly numbcn:d p~TIIpbs. i!.'leh poragh\J1h 'ihnll Cl'ntlun,l.tS IW ll.!i rroot.it-ablc. a sanglc.
AU~~.nion .. $epomk ctlUst$ or1lCIIOn ur d~::(t:r\$0 .ShALl f,e \(..."J'iinUeJy .Slaf~Q lli'IJ numbero,llithl
UlU.)' 1M: SllUCd rtglrdless or ~'USil\U,"Dcy."

..ft{hr:.o ,~ ll~.·t'llth IJu

~Old

In Sih<rskl' I' N<w l'urA Cfty 1210 AD2d 20<1)1 d fA.'J'I 2UOOJ, lhc Cuun dil<ltoi~-d WI "''"'nded
peliliou ltor ll< "romplett full""' to foll(lwd•e di<UJIC.sofe"Pl,K 3013 or J0t4 • The Sll••-.*>
comphnnt ('()1\Sisted o( 5e\l~o<n fl:\&t:S ••f sin,gl..~f.'<l. unnumbered parngrnphs. the IMfl''" nt
\,,h kh is Ull!l...:ertainublc!..n uud Ihe Ccum lle:td thal •tplh:~ding..-. Uw:l n~ not partitulnr COUUi!-h to
provi+Jc: tile roun u.nd the pllnl\~S V! tlh OO[ice or the ti'UI\.\UCtion Of OOtum:OCCS to bt:
Jprovcd
m1J51 ~Ji;mi<t:<d." C(1mf11aln~ lhlttlfo L'kll MI:'J."S the plcadlogl'\'qutn-':lna~L~ofCI'lR t-J013 amt
CPLR Mule Jnld will be d.isniiJ>«d u•de•ofd orspoc.lfic IOO.UJJ oU<1181ions• ond do nt>l
·•indkau: lhe nwh.-'fiAt dement¥ of :1 C'laim and how the)· "'~HJid nppl)l to !he cu,~... 1Mtgnu ,.
aet·mn /Jickinllln & 0>.. 21S ADM 542 )2d D<p4 19Q5J), lul'<rlv SiuJe \6(1 \J}2d 949 fJd Dctlt
1?7•111. <!Od~~ NV<<I714(t'17•ll), Of/I'IJ •"• plaintin'H>>mploi"t ",.. dlsm"'-<cd lor foil= to
~m.ply with CI'LR ~ 30tJ T11e Court in.s~mcn:d !lull "IC\11; ltli,lmum. tt vnlitl C'(lmphtinl mnsl
include .dltniUerilll tltl~nts or the CIU~ of tk•tJcm •

w cstublildl u nrimn fucic: CUSt' of fraud. Lltc pln.inl.iff mL&St e.\labliilh

1117fld O.:ptliJOK], Olof""-' • f'lmilo, 13 AOJd lJ2fM lk>pt 201).1(,

l'lm; nfG,tnltt Nn1 Ynr.t , 210 AD2d

~ 14.

215 J2d l>cptliJOotl),

AIY.ld 342, 343 fl'l<l6J, held !hal

11

with thu UIICIII IU d«<IVC tho plointi0: t3) !hut !he phointi!TjU$!lJinh!y

injured as u resull nf 1h~: dcfi!ndlsnl*s mprcseauauon.
(Su.:..K~

Plaintiff~1'RtJNK's-rumhlln¥o l\.'r1) -fh~:o ~~ rrOii\ o)mpliiint, Wllh ~~ ~n,:ft"'••n l, :ScnH~>f·':iht\1
,."'-,~ nf dll~ol hi~lnric:nl fd'Cten~'Oi , vfnden1 nnri·t"alholic dl<.:t('lric .1nd el(lcn,'\hC: cxtlilic.ld mm

/ll _

I[Jl!/.tl.l}_&tJJ~~J!JJ_.t4.__ f'll, l t14 lli1U.

1~ NYlt.J ..Jb (20dQ}; Smn/1 ,~
\' Abm1in11n1 I.Jm/ti'tl

l..nrll/a.I'J Tobl1C'C'O C'u.. 1m.· . Q.11\~"2d ..t3 1199fl]; Cllf111n1~1 MrMt~r ('t~tfl.

APX - 072

Soles. Inc., 4 NY2d 403 [ 1958): Smith v An,.riqwst Mortg. Corp.. 60 AD3d I037[2d Dept
2009[: Cash\' Titan Financial S<m«.<. Inc. 58 A03d 785 l2d Dcp< 2009[).
College .uld Congr~ ll ma)' lnvoiW: i~lfin outiuwd polibcn.l trtlllters fhr whkh +ll~
Pl~intiffSTRUNK ~nts

in his complaint froud ucx:usahons that can be. at bc:se. described as

bare 3SSC:rtions. lie docs not nllcge tluu he relied upon any Statements of defendants and fails 10
allege lha.l he suffered an) pecuniary loss as a result orlhe srrucmcnts ofany defccu.L.mt. Actual
pecuniary IO$$ must be ollcgcd in o frttud action.

R:fntin from Slqx.'Thediuy thcJud~mCJIIs ul1 lhc nutnm'1 \·olen amt u~ fcdcnd go\cmment
cotiti~ tb~:- Constttutiun tJcsiww(CJ as the rrupc:r (CJl\U11)-Il1 dt'll'T1Uinc UK' dfyjbillty of
pre....idL•rttiAI cunJiiJnh:.s.

"u:. ,.

(Dms S/!frr Sale.<.
Hotel Martinique Assoc.. 12 NY2d 339. 343 I 1963]: Rlw1ra v Wyr:k/Jff
1/cighls llt><p., 184 AD2d 558, 561 [2d Dept 1992]). The m<re usc of the word "fiuud" in a
complaint is not sullicieot to comply ~ith tbc: specific requit'l.-mcnL~ ortPLR § 3016 (b) lhm
fmud be plead with particularity. Then: fore. plnintirrs·m.UNK rails to allege the ncc:ess;~.ry

clemcnLs for a rraud cause of ace ion.

This Cowt looksjuri:ldiction

Jusrice Roht-11 Jnt.lo;nn. oollC!urri~ in rtumRsWWit SIM!I & T11M tu \' ..\O'Wl'£f fl43 US 579. 6.:-S
1951J.io disc:ussjn,g scpar'.ltiolt ofpo\.,t1"i stulcd tlu1l "IN.· ConstJtuli<'ln dimlSCS pu\\t.'T t~ hctt~:r '•'
!oc<:t= libcny • lusti«: Thuw><J<l \lt~J>hu.ll , m hi• muJurily op.nioo in U.S ,. Mur~t~:-~1'"'·' t495
US 385-. J94 (IQ90j), on the- ~ubjoet or~ram"'"' \\ff'V\\~u,;,. quob:(l from Ju.~Ctice Anlonin
Sc:1tio'• di...,t ill .1/urrl.,nn v m.w11. 481 US 6S~. 697 [ 1988] in which JuStice S.::.h• observt<l
ttw •lithe FnwKnoflh~ Ytdt:rul Cons1iwtiuu . \'icm~d the principle. o l SCp!lmtltm o(po"t.'l'l
.. the •*lutoly <'l:nlml ~uatliDit:< of • jU>t G<>vommenl• ftus.Coun
r~ Jlw11111tt

.,,)1

scparatiub of f'J\\~u"D M en11UC.lutl!'d inlht: U.S. Cutt~llJJjon ~ Artkulatt.:\1 b~ Justh:cs J~tCUon,

l,laiotifrs complaint essentially challenges the qualifications ofbolh President

Mmhall nnd Scallu.

OBAMA and Scnruor MCCAJN 10 hold the office of PresidcfU. This is n non~j~1ieiable political
question. Thus. it n:quires the dismissal or the ins1an1 compl.ainL "The "nonjusticiability of a
political question is primarily a function of the scpnrntion of powers." (Baker l' Ctur, 369 US
186.210 (1962]). Undcrscp:ltllrion of powers, "[tjhc constituriolllll pow~:TofCongr<ss to
rogulotc fcdcrnlelections is Mil established." (Buck/""" Valeo. 424 US I, 13 (1976]). (S<<
Ortgortl' .11/tr;lll'l/,400 US 112 11970); Ourrouglu '' UrriredStatt.>, 2'XJ US 534 [1934)), Under
New York l3w. "(tjbis judiciaJ defercnoc to a coordiMte. coequal btanch of govemn.1ent includes
one issue ofjU$liC:iubility generally denominmed Mthe pOlitical question' doctrine." (Mollfr of
NtH' )'ork SloJe /nsJWCiiun. S~C~Jriry & l..nw Enforc~mtnl Emplu~~s. DLwrict Counci/81,
AFSCME!. AFI..C/0 • Cuomo, 641'<Y2d 233,239 I 1984[).
The fr.urum'Ork for the Flcctorul Coltcgc Md it~ 'lOting procedures for President a.nd Viec:
President is fotmd in Aniclcll, Section I of the U.S. Constitution. This is fleshed out in 3 USC§
I ~tl·eq., which detuils the procedures for Prc:s.identinl elections.. More specific,Jlly. the counling
of electoral votes and the process for objecting for the 20091'residential eJection is found in 3
USC§ 15, as modi lied by Pub I. I 10430, § 2, 122 US Stm 4846. Thi• ""!•ired the m<..,tin& of
tbc joint session of Congress to count thc2008 electoral votes to be held on January 8. 2009. On
that dtty. after the counting of the: EJoctornJ College votes. tht!n-Vicc: Pn:sident Oic:.k Cheney
made the rcquisitcdct:l=tion of the clc:ction ofPr<:$idcnt OBIIMA and Vice Pm.idcnt BID EN.
(155 Cong Rcc 1176[Jnn. 8 2009[). No objections "ere mnde by members of the Senate and
llouseofRcprcsenunivcs. which would have resolved these objections if made. 'J11is is the
cxclusi.,·e means 10 n:solvc objections 10 the clccto~· selection ofa Prc$idcnt or a Vice P~idcnL.
including objections raised by plaintiff STRUNK. federal courts l:mve no role in this process.
Plninly. suue couns have no role.
'lltus.. this Coun lacks subjm maltcr jurisdictioo to determine the eligibility and qu~lificotions of
l'r<:$idcnt OBAMA tQ be Presi<k.'!lt, ._,"ell liS the same for Senator MCCAIN or RCXiER
CALI:.RO.Ifnstatc court Y,'Crt' to im:oh•c it~lfin the cligihilhyofa.candidatc LO hold Lht offiec

'r

furll"". rl>toiiiT~ I RIJNK bas fnilcd lo popc1l~ """" dcfcodwns, 11\Ciu<hng l'rc>rdtttt OUAM \

-ru...t Sem\161' ~ I CCAJN, purnuanl to thr.1 C li'l R. Wh.h n:urru:I'OI.L-<~"0\her gtou:nJ..c, rrae111 thor

dlsnii!;.)ing th!!" Ubtunt ac1inn1 1hc C.A'nlrt will Mt c:l:,hmm~ upon how ph:dmln' Sl it UN~\ fi1ili.>d «4•

oMnln pcr.r.on.tJ jurl!tlictic>JI over tkfendm.nt

PlmntiO'STRIINK Is pn.ooluJL'\1 hy ct>llllh:ntl <<IHflflt'l

§443. ill 7·l8·N9. J4tb cdl. "'l'CiltlS thC!I rii'Sl ucuon u.nd lli.kt:S nme uf ~.:ii41h i~ut' da.·iddlln u llttu

ir the sccnnJ act1on. nJthoU,gh bllS\"<1 Ol'\ u diflm."'• cmJ.SC ofoc,ion.-~Hcmpts t4' 1'\:tQl£odl ~ec: Lhc
oollatl.!flll d1oppcl iUiet"Vcnes to P'"--cludt!' ilS retili_,gf&r.il"'n wld lu Mod tJ\t' pi.1rty, agah.""t
whnm 1he dl'K!Inne i!\. hcing i1wok...'tl. 10 1he Wa) 1hc b.suc \l,oliJI decid'-xl in Ihe: fiffi't atlidn." In
/()'WI,. .Vuw l"rk 1'</cp/tutl< CUIII/MinY (/.2 NY2d 494.500

S<Jn~ i.~ut.

[I@Ill, the Cowt of Appeals, held thnt "[ljhc doctrin<: ofcx>Uilli:rnl "''"rpd. • nnnuwcrspcci<>,
afl'e\'jUtflnUtJ, pn.."Ciudco; ll pzin)' fn:~m rclhigatin~ ln :t Sll~tU.:nll\Ciion nr proceeding ~Ul i$SUt'
,•ll,:uly n11sn! in a rrlor actioo or p~ccl.lin,g and d~.-~id\!d a,paiUSt ilia\ fktt\)' ur lhotcf w prfw(J·.
whclhcr .~,WI th~: tribonul.s ''r 1-11~ ur ru.:ti1'1n are Ihe Sl1l1L' lf.lr1plw,1, w/d('JJ .. I \\tt
pr..•n:~ui:dlt..\ musc b.: met bettlre c:ollmtnd t:\l()(lpC-1can he mist<~. t'he Coun nr Af'(lt.llls~ tn
8!X'riHII\•{fmn(91 NY:ld ~95[2CXI I[ .I'trllietlll't/535 IJS 1091• POO~[). inMNCt<'d Itt 303·304,
that

In the priur l.Ctinn twd i5 ~ee"l!il\'t 01 tho ~m :K.1ion

nn~

thm

l)lanuO's ci'U!IS--mol.ion 1u cun54.•hdu1e thi.~~~;.k'tiun with Smmk\' l'nttn'J'tm. c;tol; lndcx No.
1%42./0tt anJ trnm:fcr dM:;nstaui 11Clion tt> Justice Schnudlls dcnkd. Justice-S<lhmidl, on
N'l\"Cmbcr- IQ-. 2008. in Stnmkv PfJferif!rt. r/ u/. Ui.•dinc<llo sil;!..n pluuuirfS rR UN~"sntder tn
abn\\t- CGlbC w cl\join Oo"~mf'r PtlJt:r.k'!n fml1• ~;''""emf!~ New Yorl'sDcccrnbcr 2008 111\.<.elin~dl
the f..lc.'c:hjr.l' Colltgc.. bt."CIJOM! "plotintiffis-l'Oil~tftro.U) GhlprnJ.." n1~~ren. h•l,,l; l!.a,,.U..'m

said I() be- c-"nlrt\Uing t.\ t:e, Gilhcrx &rniuri, Sl NY"'..d 285. 29 1

dcmon~r.ltt.· th:u l~

instilulionll11)' ill~ited und imerfcft' with the cotu-ticmianaluutbllrity o( 1M hlccturaJ College
IIDtll:ottgn-:.:ss. Actordin~:ly. the poliCic"t i.ltlttllllnn t1«.1nnc 1n~trutts thi~ t:ou.n Atl.d mhcr oourb 111

decisive issttt: \tnl.--s ~san1y rl~-ct;/c!llln 111~ priUr

Di~tricl

net lOll dlsmi~d b) Jutlgc lt(».-r», HI \\hic:h sbc found tht (,'Ulllflhth\1 rrivfllctu,..

tA:Ucm a,t!l.llml u puny. ur OIW ''' prl'.'i/J' with u pcvl)' (,)~~. f.tt•. Ole'

1\ft.:t • hJOIUS uf liCV<rnl yan, pluintiiT ~ rRUNK. b) UNCI to •h•"' CUllS<.
tkrnu~mtifli the oth~rM:t: of11 fullmuJ

t.1a D'Aratn • N<•· YMk Ctnl

Mm.

aucmpted 111 r:uneod ru~ complo.iot Justice ScllmidL to hisJarturuy I I. 201 J !oh-.V'I·fl•l'm •-rder..
tlcnicd thi5 nKU.ioo '" il!> cntir"CI).I 1 1

l'ilit t•pportunity to \:Uill~t

Ftr~

Ins. Cn., 16 NY2~ M9, 6&11 1990]; Vmmmm1 llo111e

/m'(!,tlfN'~ Ct;rp. v WJKI. 46 NY~tl-181, 4K5 .t1tpt"JJ: ~ru !t.Li111X.il_~llh~ I ;m, ~·a
~.liJ-I~~, IU7(2diXpi2.009J.i.::J.wJJ.u!
/m " .ftlaalic .\fjd Itt' Co. hO AO.l&.l ~117~ X9'J lld Oeptl009J: Lu.w::ltf!r a ttl

1 \-:\·

ru

L•I<Mr '' lrnm, 21 AOld I 005 [2d Dept 200S] I.
lll.aintiiT~'TR.UNK liti t:~;(l].i.ld many ufthc r~in the 1nstw1t uc:tJon in US Distri1.1 Coun. bul uJ .... ,
ih thc- pf'\!:YiClli.\l) e:httl SlnlnACv Puler.H.m. d tJI, Jnda. No.1964ll08. befor.: JUb1icc Sc:!bmidl. lleJtloo\'tlcd,WXI this. in 12 nfthe insmnt c.C"mpl:tim. b_) Jl,f1in{.;

Then. plamtitfSTRUNK moved to n.'W"g;uc. f)n Murch 14,101 I. Ju.qfcc Schnudt. 111 u ~hun·fOIIU
order. denied n:~&rgume.u hfe-.J\JSQ plninli IT"fllll\:d 10 jaiu a f'k."'I::\~'-Q pm1y Pn..~dCfll OBAMA
&ind Senator MCCAIN nnd the Stmutc of limttrn.ions 10 do;!IO expired."' filnully, Pn Novcmber9.
1011.11. William Vwt All'-"ll,an odly ofpluinlifT~TRUNK. moved tointc:n~ne uaplaimUfto
cb<1lknge P""'idc:nt OBAMfl'oplocL'tllelll on tho upwming 2012 bolloc In bis'lo,cmbcr22.
2011 :Sltmt..rorm onier~Josticc: Sdunidt Jtoied Mr. Van Ali<..'D'Ilnh:nntioo ""in aJI respects."
Funher. Ju!llit't Schmkh hc:ld •(tlhi• b ''" m:llcln dml \YM commc-n.,'OIJ in 2008 omd hitS remainN
hUM:Iiv< fot Sc:.vcrnl )"carl nu~t it woukf be'- Ull11ro(XIr to ulluw Jdnmtill '"raise new mc1ttcr~rbcfur!
tho:

Coun 111.f\er the extended period nl inucd\•uy"
l'loinlill'• rnvolous conduct

fcodin~ up

A wl'llplliJnt conunning tb it tlu~ both factual o.lh.·gntion! il.nd tcpl coQclvsi.nm, l5 rn\1dh'IIJ~
whcnt i11atki un drguablebasis" dlld ~cmbr'aco not oct)) th~t frwguable: lcgnl corw.·huf,ln, hm
.,1,., the fiuK·iful f<Wnll~ nltq;otiun.• tNm:u ,. ll'il/iwm.490 US 319. 3~ I19K91~ PlointiiT
51 RLfNK.-U3 cittd ubo\t.llllcgcs numCKIUS fancifi1l. (nnlnst.tc. ddustonal.lrnuional and basclt>."clalms u'x!Ul dt.:.fe11diiOIS. '"'"' u..~. Su)»1!m\! Co.urc. citin~ ,\',:ll;kc, hl'-ld 10 (Jenintt" /foi'J(m_t.lcc
(SQ.l u~ !5 J2-JJ [1992]). thlll:

It'! tl:lc Party primari~during thc1008 l!loctio'' C): de (QI' the

baUOIOOCd.'\Ofthc Presidenti-al ~hUe$ at

1~

Nmcmbd 4, 2008 Gcm:ml

Election 11.\ oompbuncd ofin the rcl•lcd elt<~lon to" c-. Stru11~ v

lndt.•'< Nu. 29642...08 before dtt ttouuruhlt D:lvid f Scbnudtor r•an I

utlcgcdnre"dl'MiyboselC>S,"49CliiS.u 127.1fl9SL'tat 18JJ,o

,\.OJ; mdlttoncd llbtwc. Jl1~icc Sclmudt Jls~ cf S/nutk v Put.-rstl/4 c1 ul. lode:( Nv. 29<w.l2/08.
l\n Mardi l4.101 J. by •.knying IIIJ orpfai.ntifl'-S moliont end ntlling t.h!tl \heflt-tlUle (If Hml1ttll\1rlt,

1(11) ~ ClaJ 1~3 I. "lunlll51it:.

c:xpi.W t(' joln CM.-..'4...~ J'ilf\ICS Pn:sidcnl OQAMA aniJ Sertalot
M( '(. 'AJN. 11lcrt-fi'lf..:-, ~oltall'nll otoppel precludes pl:undfTSTRUNK front puNUJng tbc inswnt
:1(.'1101\.

l..lreniuJ ur plnintiO's C'f'IMS·motion 10 consoHdatt

APX - 073

id. ul32~. 109 S 0 ttt ;gn.llllll

In I 'Htllttlll,lhe plainlifrnllit!l-d. lhlll be t~JtiJ ~"CC\ n.:pc:uu:dly ml)l."i;l hy n HWnbcr or 111l11idCS ·"
:;c,,."tUJ djO'cfem pri!it.ms, .all \.ISing_ll)( S&ut fmHfltA wwrmult. lbc t ''o un oontluckd thtn tbrw
tillt:t;\tliOR.'i ~en: 11 Whully rancifu.l 11 wtd di.su1l)SC(I Ut~: dulm liS

T~Wor'\:. tlk' proM.-culton or the ms:wnt uc.tion hy pluintiffS"ffitJNK. Y.ith i1$ f11111.:iru1. fru1UtStlc.

and ho.scJ:s:s clolmsubouJ dcfcndu.nl$ appears JS !ri"·oluus. 21 NYCRR 9
130· U (a) sc.ues lbut •me- COllrt. in i~ discn."llon mu~ lru~ firumcilll omn~i~>n."i upop ooy put:ly
in» chtll tac~ian or proceeding'' hn engugcs in (ri\'olo\&6 conduct -a.~ ddined in lhh.
r'an. wl.itch ~ha.tl t)i! pt~yublc:oo pfovil.!oJ tn ~iun 130-1.3 tlf1his Subpclr1." 22 NYCRR § 130•
l.llcl>11U""

tldlL~Qnal , irmti~~n:~l
Of ttlllii'OO)'

fnvofous ItS~ ll::!'iU11 In Shtknwter ,. l(S, l.A'fXII'Itllt'lll il}JU.)IM: (1M f )d t!IY. bl'l (ld

Cir 1998]1, plaintlff:tllogcd that the government w>d tdcvos>OII "AI>OIU conspired w: "( I)
bn.mrJcns' jnfOimllliOn uboa,d h~ few..'\ op nalloll41telcvis.un; and(.:!) file und pubhciZI.<d fttlk
cbo:IJl!I!S of thUd ttlm!ir agairu.l him." lbe- COurl. citinw: Nrlt4;; Md Vt!nJm•, di!\t11{M,ed the actioo
as frivolnus b«uu.o.;c pl:dntifl's "fttctual ctaims IU'C' lrr.uiomtl ;md locredihle.... Another~
tpplyin~ th" 1'\ivoiUtiS ~nd.lll'\ls of Nell:k.t• und Dtnfon i) l't.'rrl ,. BltHIIIJf!t!l~f.t ~2(K~ Wl :!')4464t
111s Oist L,,ll~ NV li)Q~p. io which plointi!f alleged that n Y:cf<l unit of~>< l'l) 110,...,
.t.IU!mptfno fo ~ill him nntl1u~ cnts.. ThC" Court di..\mi~ thi! ~ fimling thn.t pl.t.inliOt,.
CC'liUflllliiU has "u liutn_)' nr sens::uiomllullt:.g~uian.s ('CI111lning n01 only U> Ihe NYI'O. butaloo 10
vurinu:o.- :trm.-: ofg.o'fonuncm. bo'.h State und rc.dml 1\et..-ortling.l)'. Perri bw. not CSlnbUJdn:d \h:J1
lte is cntitJW lU" ~lnninW)' tfl)Ul'lt;liun. ~Uk ln~: ~allq:>'.liltM uftm-pttrnble honn IV'!
unsuppar1cd llnJ t•t ~ I

T.l" lrivotou.~ if: (I 1il ~ll ou«nf!(ctet) \\ ithout mm1 1n lo'\ ond a::uunul hi: ~u,purtt'\1
r~Mh1tiJrgUJ'nen l fur-ant.'l:l&<lon. modlfic.,lion or reveTSl.l o(~i.M.IL\g.ldw:

l!ondutt

t,"ly u

Cunduetls fri'''IOIJSond cun be sant,ill~t~t.d. pu~uant to22 NYCRR t 1'30-t.l (clll(• t, Is
CXJn1ple\cl} WilJ10UJ md'il •. _-unJcmJn<tt, be supported by 8 CeMOMblc tltgUmCl'\1 (()( M
t':\li:!m.TCUl~ modilie~~1Mn Hf rcv~r.wii~Jfc:U!Sting l:m.* (CiMJrm v Mlll'ftHN\ 201 A02d 1().4, 110
)2d lkpti'JI>.I( /t•<kr~l<•ds.l NY1J 813)1995)), l.'""r R/\1)/'mt~<rllr•.lt" . v /Jqym<lxrwt. n
1\PJd n1 [lJ lkpl ~010]; fmMI•""lD~f#ll . 11< _ 11
1\lHJ 12.! D.:pt 1010). <1lm11 •
ofm,wck~W 1J \ IJ,d 5fl!i, 12d l.kpt200:Mii Wl/t't \' Dm:11o. 17•\l."ll d ~1 19l2d Oepi200611
G~ttM v Dnrul Cmrf~Nik:~ c't•m~r JIUIH.'Itllt!t, IM AD3d -42'~ 1~ Oc:r,t 1WSI: t.!bJt!l!~~
~~ 1 Vllld I'J<:pt 20o~ 1~ II iHieortba• plointiiT~l l<lJNK's «•mJ>i•unl •J,
~plctd} witfl\IUI n>mt in Juw;" •u Ulltk-rtai:OQ pnm•rily

'"'J

~1 dl~mis.s:. n.llegt$ that ltk: CtM'lttt lnlc:rp~tnuon ol the n1Uuntl bum cttfzcn ckut5e uf1hc U.S
CutlliiHu:tiUII rcquJ~ u onturot born e~uzen lo f\3yc t'ai."Cn bom on tln!l.:d Stales ~il

..tnJ hu~e I"-'\' UmlaJ Slalc:s bom pottna lk~rnlt plninull'~ as.sertions. Anicle U, ScctJ,,n T

t'l.uL<;t- 5 does. notstnte 1hi.:;. No lcwtl aullu)lity h1:1..~ cHr sUli<:d tlt.11 the nnluml bam c:itit.cn dau:u.
IUc!..Ul\ v..'htatrdnintifrSTRVNK dAims il SUddl. "Tbe: phm.ie narurnl born

S.:vcml years b...-.tbrc thedmslin.s iUld impl~lC'TlblliOit or-the 11 on 130 Rules rur CVSLS ru10
Cilk--;n' is no' dcJin.."l.l in the Con.stjtulion, .tt-c .\IJJKJrvJ/ap{!f!TSIIII, 88 (JS 162,. 167IIM75J), no•
dO« it O.pPC:3t anywhere ci$C' in tlk.l' f.k:lcunw-.1, ) 'n! t'hariClS Cordna, Wllfl t 'wr
8t• j)r~\·/(fc•t~l oj lhf! { fn(Jet./ Wulcs.· (,. l.mu.mJwd f:nignm~'1S

~M.

I Re\ .

I~ ~

(llvJ/oHJt:r\ Mt:C'aln Ul 6S). Pla.mtiiTSTRiiN~ Cflli11nt v.hh 1nli' exiSI1.'1lCC' ;an

( IW~l~

ln!Crp~ll'llinnthnt

he t.l~ae•seb for 1~ muuru1 hom eili'leo cllllKC. n,erc '"no :ut;u:ablt lcwal bcni! (Of 11\t! propusidttll
Uuu bulh J)!lrcniX u(thc Prcstdc.m m~ havr: l"CCtl bum un l _s_ !lOti r!IL~t3$$1..'C1Iflo 1a> Gb frh•Qlo\»

...,.ction.<-d•< C""" ol' 1\pp<!!ls(,tG- SMpMo/,.,.mu•x{.'<NJ• 1• /paA,MNV:W I, 6(19~61)
observOO ll:~t •rn,·ntousliligntion is so ~rious n 1>roble1n all'ccring lhe
p.ropet MimirWU1l:dun ofjUS1jet.:. t.hero.wismuy pru~rihcst tch C•lmlllt.1 u•J •mpo5e s:mc11(fl'15'b•
th~ Q"c!rti$C qflbcirrulc-mul.'ill,l; po'\"crs. in tl-=: ohst:llcc llflcg~lotJJ,n 10 tltt.! to111mry (ste NV
Cnnst, nn VI, t JO, Judic•IU) l~" §211 Ill fbi I-·

a<t lltt:. utulhtlldc ofnllegc=d u.Ucgi:dl4.msoulllu~ abo\t
Mort··o,er. l~•~k·nl t)l1AMA U.the-si;\ttll ~ . 5. l"r6idcn' to h<~lle hud tHle-<Jr hn1h Mhi\ pclm'll.!.
oot born em '-i S. Mlll. t'laintiiTS'fRIJNK and his fc:llo\\ •birthtf'!lt.. might not reoli;o.e tJ-.:,1: both
parents o( P~,-i'ticul Amh-cw Jnt-ksuu ~eu: b.,\m m wl'tAI JS oow Nflr1ht:m Ireland~ Pn:mdcnt
JunlC:S Ouclwulf11$ fi•1ha- v.M '-"'•m h• C"'nuot) Dnt"\Cgal. II"¢'Atld..l•t'Qide:n' Cheslt:r A. ,\nhur'-s
fatbL., \\lth bom in '""hat is ''m" Northern Ireland:

P«£idc:nt WoudtOVI Witsou·s moU'k.:r ''fL~ born m Curfisi('.. f•ncl•md. and.. ~;dttl, llc:rb~:n
Ilu<m:(t muthcr ms born in lllurwi<h, (lntwio. Clllln<i<L
-

lllc C'oun, in K•mlrorr. M_D • 7((1'/oq 171 l\1)2d ¥6~ (~d Dept 19111)). nmcd t1cu lh<' lnoent ol
the l'w11 JO RuJ~,. '"iJ to prr~'i!,t (/k1 WaJi t 4!./Jr;tftuu/ re.,·uurcl':r :tnd tu defer \CXtniuus llllg;&tiuu
and dllatory or m.1lidous Utigrulon lltCtie.s tr:/ \fJ,H(~r f1tlr.rs .t-l~n•mt~ 41( Rc:Jm /tru;, t 'ltmdt
of\ityufM.ttt~ Y11rk '' I!JIJ BrtH1flway. 16 NY2d ~II .«-~ Slttint:r \1 8c)nhwlwr1 1.46 Mise 2d !())
(Emphalr!f udtltttfJ ," To :sdjudTcau:: the 1m.u'"L 1n:uon. wlth till: complm•\1 rcpiC'h! with lttn(!i(ul.
(antn.'itic. d~:lusiorwl. •n-.nionaJ w1tJ ~ess allcg.~utm1l' aboUI ®fal>tJdtll~. contbitlt'd \'ilh ph1hnll\
S'rRUNK'J io.;k of stondiug.lbe boning ofthls oction by collattml cstuppd ~~nJ the Coun
lucking P'!rs.mnl JUriSdit1-ion QliJ )ubjcte mnUtt Jurisdkuon o:Vt:r mun)' ,_.( Htt' ddi.mdlml' Is •a
wa..-te
• ofjuilicltil rc:wlti'C\:s." Tbb CC\odoet..a~ nmN ut /•.r''J'· mu.s.t be- delt:ITN~ In Wt•fnst(N:k ,.
"'•'ill.'ftMk (253 AUld 873 {2d Ocpl 19981) lhC' Cnun ordered lhe mnx-imutn ~In\ tinn nor
\10.000.-00 for -an altCJntC) \\ho pot'$IJdd cut ttf'pr-41 •compktdy "ithuut mtrit," llll4llwldluy.. ul
874. 1hut•(wJ~ ih.crehtrc IH~unJ tru: ~i nlllfll._i\llfaorb.cd am•xon m tt SllDI.'li,,n IN 1his c\'ndool
(h1JI. n NVCRR 1~0· I I) ailllng 10 mind Wt /fh~tlvw.\ /II(>Julltmcmt.H!.~ u tUIHIIIfl-llu'l •rfl\lt' tt/
j u;/klflf rttffm!'C.'t..t co thL' tktrimern nfU~ Utigont:-. \\ho o :tmc to dlt t'nun wilh real _gri"\<,11\CL-:.
J/:.ntfJhtl.' "' 00dcdj.11 Ching WeJllr.tUJd. ttw: Appcii~Jt Oi\'lslun. S«-und O<:pan.monr, in 84-!rnodeu,
/ 1unullu. /' ( • I' ll< Sont<,rlG AD 3d 134 (ld ll.:pt2007]l >~Oinn«l •>Suprcmc f 'uurl. Ricbm011J
(\)~ty S2.50U.00 .sru1c.tiun.. ut7J6, Lt!'i "npptupriotc in view of We rhunlltl's ~tt.tH~4(f1UhdaJ

OOI.l.J'U rm tldWtioMl«c:m.."<ly to dtaJ \\itb friv~IUU$ oonJucc. In lA\') ,, (tiM/ M.J•~ng.·mnm
Cm•J,.,r,lliMt (260 A02d 27.).) [tid Dept 19?9)) lht Cowt suuOO thut iu dttcnninlug tr $amctJOII!i
"re APPNfJC"IAic the Coun n1us1loo~ Ill t.be bi"O(U.! pitll\."rn or conduct by lh~ oiTtmdJTtg ntllmiCys 11t
f1Uf1tcs. Punher. ·22 NYCRR 130-l.laii'W•\ w.luo.crcisc ourdi)Crch,llllil h"nrubC' tuSb- u.mt
soncticu'-.-: on un l!l"l"i1nt p.ut}." (L_.~ 111 3)). -\ioroovcr. ~lsl.mtlioru, are r.:tributivc-~ in rh:u tht')•
punish past oouch101 11ley 111S<P Ju~ gn:d unenh.~. In th:u they Jtrr usc.Rd m detcrnns. futur-e
fri\<nlou.s eonduc:lnut \)l\1)' b) the purtit•u.l.~&r put\l\o'S1 btu ulsv by thc-ll:ar nllaritc.~" (/.l't')' ol 14}.

r~.;lved a:lr.Urn.<-tl1ld i.blJc:$. (_
Murlfu-1"ri,llrmo ,, U/p1I1JI Cillf'fMDC lt~e.. 14.S .Mlsc2d 4051Sup
l"t, Sow Vorl:. County 1989)) The: C'oun.,m.""-<.<Dir<r vSfJI/ltJr<lli t'i'l I\OZd 3S8. 35Q f:W Ocr I
19M)), nmoo ll1:tt "poblic poticy m:mdotes f~tt
thcllOiltt> _ ond, ordillllrily, ~>c
dodrin~ of fom•C'f ndjudicati"n will ~'1'\-c: B:, un Ddc:quaz.: n:rncdy agailb1. rcpclitioUI' suit<t.,.. n~u
lhc ."tuJ.rmt'tlf c,.un O~rvod. in lht"llCXI fl3n!gmph. tluu; ..~ n)onc11u:lcs.s. :1 liligJC'IUS JlhlinufT

"'""''"to

Pll:S:S111):t 1.1 (m·otuu!S d!Jilll C'llll tx CXtr\:UII.:Iy eo.<Uty 10 the dcftnJ:uu J-lld Colli wa:st' Wl illOI\ItUIIIC
lliiJUurn t..tf wun. time. time that thts court nn,J the tt1-al tu01t• ilCUt illtaOtmJ tu hlSt f~ llllrritbtvt
v 1/mt•JStut<"S, 613 F2d 1141.

l'rv1 xe H11W'rll'( '"hom abu.....e JUdicull proees.tt httvc h:t.d their ilCCGS.'i h:) 'he courts limit~d. In
SfnnKJ v l!tlhchlk ('155 Mlsc2d 796 (Sup(~. Queens C'uwu~ 1~96]l, llle Court. Ill ctymuut).l.a
f'unhcr ac1inns nnd pr~:tdings-m aoy coun ln1J.c- 1\t\\ Y\irl
Stilt.: flhitltd Coun Sy:nctn.. ciOngSru.\'IJh't•rand 1\r~ '' CII~ of Nd\• )'ork. 46& r !-\upr SR(+ (Sll
NY 191llj.,!ffdol4 f"..d 1l88(2d Cir 1979)), Tit< /.'on• Coun.ot502.hc:ld:

J)fiJ •'l· lihgliul from inslit\JJing an)'

H!~t1Ur'"r1t!.'t fPmpiHI.:<U·afidii"ff],•

In lri!:JILr..lf!"'LI'''hll liJ ·~. SSl (3d D.:p< 2006)!tltc C<>urt IO>tro<t<J tlllu wh1•n
if spt'Cilit: c.oAdutt is 58J~Ho03hlei1S frivoJolb. ~~.'fluru. dl'a: o:qWrcd co

hllr:USlucmltmd libc:luus buttlbcudmeut. 1he UIJWM1hun herem onJtR:..t

~1Sidc.ring

.:Jbunmc- \\bctht."tur not ttk- ct...,rtdut"t '~ con1inucd when It$ luck ofltg.nl or likhwl bw!.i~ \W:t

"PI""'"' Iori >110ulu IJ·••• l>o<n apparent' Ol NYC'RR 130-1 I tcJt.•

n~1tnn

upon :11:tfnn M.'Oc..'tl on the SI!IUl" fJIUll' dre;~ in difT~ru ~rb..

l l,c:rdim:,the.(o-tn1 \.\111 ~m.i t'IC the cunJI,lct ,,rplaJmiO'~TR.\ INK Ina hdSiing.. pum.wnl tv 22
NYCRJl § 130.1_1. to d<tiCflllinelf plain> iO'S'I ItUNK onjlllt!td in fri>olou.
conduct. itnd to 11lluw pl~ttr~lifrS"rRI INK u ~tbteorptrtunicy tn tlc h~ . Furtlu:r, •It Ihe:
.h(o-d.Ji.ng.. 4.11 uppctnunii.Y ~....mbe givt'lli(J C\)UJtSd ror dell:odWU$- w WektU Jcwiled records or
I .1Ut('()Sib tncllm.'tt hy &heir clients in tbc: insu~nl ~'liOn
t'lW.utiff p.rcchxlcJ bum n-JitigatiQn or the sw.ne dWut!

!Itt: C,•un b euoc:auctJ thai pla:int.UrSTR UNK oontinuor to tJSe the !.'C!4U'Cc ft'..SOt.tr:'CeS of the Ne\\
Ynrk Srme t 'nlriod Cnun Sys~C!m t('l fruitlessly ptti"MIC ,~ S'.'lmc th1irm .• l ie iJJ: no srronger u1
lltl~tiun tn Su}'lrefnc Coun. Kings County, t~i"1l t enn. .-unhtr. plninl.iffSTRUNK bo.fj- b:td
•t:"urtl l:l!tcso(dlc sanlC apple in t 1.S- Uit.1ril-1' C'uort. Yohlth n:$UJt~.:d itt findings or hi>
all.)~s~n''" ltivo1oUll conduct with. ru. JlllWd h}· Jodgt- R.oS$. tom plaints lhru ''buvc contaioc_d
r~llegtninn.s thnl huvc risen Ulthc: irruttUrull ... I he.! Coun l\hould not h~t\'t co opcnd J'f!S()Urces ()n
Ihe next ~dun. by Mr. STRUNK uw will be u new VIU'Uihon on lhe SUUlt' theme ur d~:(cndllJWi'
ulteucd tlli~t'Cds Qlld m.l!cond~J~:t. Ttw o.untmuc.J u..<ie ot'lhc New Y(•Jl. State l 1nifit:d C(uJ(l
S) .,1cm lot 1hi;l pc:t:s-,tnul p~llit b) pliijn.tiffSTI(IINK t.)(lrrallurtalctunpJuJnU-aijllinst tler~nl
11\I.ISI «USt.

Ouroourb lwvonu hHcl'\.-~ In prevcwuing lht: \lo"tl.SlC-('IJ JuJkiot tauUrt:es: b~ D port~ who ~ntH¥t
lbal hi$ or 1:3\\-).Uil I\AS "" lc:~tlnllllc lx'l:li~tu t..w (JI' focJi.illd coruiml4."l Ul111h1llpt
..
lfl rdUi~Ht:

a.'i &rudiciou.~QOnducc .

ln \Mu ,, Nc•• )utk ~<.tt 8(1t .f,,<,oUJ/mn ( 1211 Ml"' :W 1197 [Sup rt, rnmp~•n> t"unt) 1081' ),
u J!n' <1f p1!1intiff oOt»m<.•fkX-d a fourth WbUOt.;(::):.ful hw..su1t against !ho SUite Am A~oci;~tiC>u
upon \""Jriml$ con:;:plmc:y theories. fllc Ct'JtU't iu dismi~ng !he :"'tion. b:.a.~l u~\C'N"I
·r'i'.V
]Wicmu. obsctved. u:t (){)),\hat "ttll Uti[f.!lllls have a nghl h l_ 'illipftltial und ~~nsidnt\J JU..,.if;c..
ln~-ntur- tt.S"®') litigant unn.:<tcsSUtil) ootblilll.~ IO(lfdinwc amount! ot rudicinl Lime tlltd enc~)' ~'•
or she <kprives other liog.mts nfthdr Pf'OI>I!f s.h.trc <•f thc!M: rt:sman-~. A b:'llnncc nut5t be l¢cpl.
Th~fUrc.JllniruilT\""TRtSNK. with h11 h L\t.\try of tthwm,g lhc civjl JU.~tc~ sya:t~m. b)' bnuwn~
pro \t! '~lioM dc\'UtJ vf"matt ~.~gain,, the- o;am..: \I~(C-Il\.I.Ulb, l.s prcctuded frum n.:tllitahng the
same clainJS noJ lS>"Ues which t.<t'l\...1~ ~'tiUr1ti:SOurt1.".$ ru.J 1.) ~joinoJ (tOm brirt.g.inJ: M) futun:
ocr!ore. in theN•ow V<1>\ SUttcUniOoo C>OunS}'lllemugt<lnst· thcNI'.W VORKSTI\ IE 801\IUJ
OF liLE.CI10NS, JI\MIJS 1\. W·\I.SI·V 1'<>-l:hwr, OOIIGI.I\S 1\. K171.1 NFRIC'a-Chllir
EVet VN J. 1\QOII.I\IC'onuni!t'lltll>er, GRI'OURY I' PI ll•RSONIC'omntissionor, l'<:puty
Dlr01:tor I Ol>D [}, VAJ.I-.NliNI ~ 11nJ O.·puty t)jn:ewr SI "NI Y :rALFN: 1\NDitEW
CIIOMO, IOIUC' SCilNI'IUEIIM"N, IMOMM I' lliNAI~ll.l und Rt.rfli NOFMI ('()I.ON. In
1heir Otricral nnd individual cntMtcity;

APX - 074

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ALBANY
Index No.: 0707-2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
:
Hon. David A Weinstein, AJSC
BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO
:
:
Petitioners,
:
:
-against: AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
:
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
:
NOTICE OF MOTION for
:
Respondents.
:
CPLR §7802(d) -Intervention
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Exhibit 2

APX - 075

TM'i:.,.-P....:x;~"'>t;

.<\t~
__.o rebc-Suprc:ttK

CI.')Ut1 orlhe Stale or New Yor.k,
h<ld in .ad for tho Coontyof Ncw
Yo.rk, tl1he Counhou~ thec~f,

loca!.ed at 60 Ctut~ S ucct~_ljs;w

vor~r. Nm•• •h• ~

·

~ot

.2016

fiU'. SENT:

I~No,

BARRY KORMAN und WIWAM GALLO.

_ __ /2016

Cllllli( R TO S IIOW C,\USE

loll'\\' YURK STATE BOARD m FIJ'Cll\tN,

.,
irt tt,i.c II C:t.t "" ,.r~ r"• f'1"' ~d ttr.,l\~f'll
Countv of trfb;,..'(, 1ttlltf'A4 l"'t( ~u ""r tt•• r,..u r·~,

1"41"&Tf'l

.oon thert>ulltr •• tounsel can be ht-.ud, why nn onler <h<>uld nol be tn>dcand entered hcleln
ordering the New York Sllllc lloan:l ol' Elcc1ion! not to dcsignote Rllfacl Edward (''Tcdj Crun.s
SNOWI313 J;) o~voa

• candida!< 1\Jr PmMl'~.Ururo!d Stata in rheltcpubllcan Pre.•idcnrlol Primary Election 14

61 'b jij 8 1 BJJ 91U'

0311:!

'

tiEWVURK
COl•foo'TV Cli'1'IC'O ""''C<
tr.~

l8 t

·~

SliPREME COURT Of THSSTA'I'EOP N~WYOR~

NO!~_,,..o

COUNI'Y OF NEW YORK

~COI"tAI.f

SAIUlY KOI<JdAN •n<l WILUAM GALLO,

V£RIFI< D PETITION

"-EW YORl' STt.TE SOARD OF ELECTION,

lk>pond""'

By deli"-ery 10 411 twcmigtu de~ . ~ltc ;JO FtbRW)' 1.8, 2016 (ur "m-day d~ll \IWY to
lho Nev. Yorl< SlUt< ~or!;k«K1• ... 40 North Ptllrl St""l Sulto: S. Albon)l, NY
11207: and
-

By

h~ if'l pason lu the Ofrtce: ortbc Attorney Oentr.il at the locauon

~b)..,~~iliiii~O UiOiJW!Il··lii* Moor. Now \or(

NV

TO THESUPRF.ME COURT O F l'H o STATI'. OF NEW YORK>
Pctttion~r.;

A copy dUIII abo be dd1w:n:J ~ o\lrml~tl ~Icc: hi ( nu.1~1t P~t,:01,2 4 0rfti:'\\•Y flla:tii.

"'"'~"-~""'

~"'"

r,1!).2/JB/!6

TO INVAUDt.Tt
CANDIDATt DESIGNATION
FOR PlUMARY ELECTION

O"rry Korman and W1lli~m C.tUu ("~tltiwwr> ·,, b)' "nd th.Nugh

tht!u- attdr'nt.-')', Rogt!r J 64!nutt.!.m. bnng thi~ Vt.•nRl'd 1\.-Utwn pu~oant CU Atttdl! 1~ 116
(1t

t,u New Yc"k Elrcnon L.lw tlod AWr ~ fnUo\o\'.'t

rcth!1tlll.!f'\ arc duly

HON. ARTHUR F. ENGORON
2.

~~~~nod Y\\t~rs tn

the S11llt:' ul New Vor~

On inf,mnar\on and bebei-, Ro;lael Edward ("'Tlod"') Ctot, ".!iclt..dnlg(lah:~d

G.tncHda.tt.• ft~t U\0 ~Wpul:'oliti\fl

~ldt..,tiat

nomlnahun m ttw Nt:'" Ymk RepubJl,"iln

Pre:ilJcntldJ rtimAt') RK-cti,m, h.lJ publld)' allmith.<d th't hr Wt)l bom t.n Cau.nSa A

cvr}' Ul

t\1~ C'lnMhan b1rth

Augu~t

JS. 2013 is .1ttacbcd as £x)\lbH A

3.

(\.'ftlnr.Ht •h pu.ttlishl."\1 by lh.C! Dalt.ls MC'Imln~ Nr\\1'\ 00

Purtu.ult tu Artldc !>. Sl'Ciion 122 or lh• N•w Yllrk Eleclttm uw, "IaI

~1'1'0l' 2hAII nt,l be ~h~t~N tcd ~Jf

nununAt«l !or a publ!c office or rarr,o ptlbthon wlw (1}

Is not • dtian of the s!\1-tl'..,r Ni!W y,,rJ..; (llls. mc\i~lh1•• h1 OOdect..-..1 tu ~uch offict 111
po!~-ttiuf\

APX - 076

or \3) who,. If ~edcU wUI not _.t th~.· time o( ("QQ''nlMtcmtnt ol ~ torm o! .5uch.

olfire or posihon, m4..~t the ronsbtutiurutl or statutory quaUfkations."'
Art1do ll, §I, 0>1150< 5 ol tl., Constlttldon of tlle Unltod Statos Qf Amen<&

4.

>lATE OF N~'W VQRK

sp«ifies thM:

)

No Per:~on except a rwturAI born Clt.iT.A.'n. or • CitU.M of thtt
United States, at the time or the Adoption or tlu.•
Coru.tittltlon, shall be tHgtble co the OfflC<! of l'resid.,c; .
By rea<on of bei11J! bom ~>utsic!J< the tcrrltoriolluri>diction of the Unit<<!

5.

1

State<.. in C.1n.,d0t, Cru~ is not A natt~ral ~m ciH-..:cn tl{ the UnJted S~tt-5. Since Cn.~YIJ

"

li1.1rry Kt1rmo1n, btirq; .;iuly o;w"m, deJ'IOfel #l'h.i f.lys: des~..met11 ts lhr p('t1t~tlf'll!"r
hcrl.14n; depano!O: hns T&.V.:i Uw.•lton!!g111ns p..tthon and kl1ow" the nmtt:s'~ thcrruf, th~:
s.1me ~~ lrul'lO dl'p!JN.'nt'sown knawlttdge. rXC\"~11 ~~"~ h;~ the mdtt.e"' thi.!rcln s.tated to be
~IIL<gcd IXl inf\mflatkm o1nd bf.llef or nutt.:D or l~w, .'lnd At. 10 lhCl~ m"m·''' dl'pun>!nt
bclle..-tt lhem to ~ true.

nnt a nlltural bom dti.l.cn of the Unhed States. he Is con.stitutfOtlO)lly Ineligible for thto
5~o... urn

office of Pre!Jdmt ot th~ Uni~ States;

WHERf.FORE llu r..pcctfully oubmltted ch<>t the New York State Board ol

tu bt-Jorc M~ I hit

n!i"nv ,,( h-bruary,lJJl~

::7, J lfCHtfUH

Elections l>hould be ordered 110110 deslS"ato Rafael Edward (•Ted•) CN< u •

lt'C·Il~Tf.O' NlW1'01U(
c~ndidoue Eor

Prcsldcmt o! the Unh'">d Stotes in tl-w: Republ.lan

~ld\!'nt~.J1

Prlmary

.,, ~-'Q!~f?fi~~\~1'1\C'y ddmltttd h\ prtH~tire !n tht' C'OUrt.t l'f New YN!t.:

Stnt.,, hct't'hy .t(flrms4> K';lt~;W"A u1ulcr ('\..'flwllie-sc.fpc!fjury: lam the .atton1cy vJ rC'tord
IM J"-'htiuner Willi<'m Cillo l haVl' re.d thl! tQfi."&'-'mg Pchhon .md know the ronh:n~
tht:m.lf titlil tfbrm thnt the~me 1.& tru~ tt• m~ knuw),.odgl' except
the •TH'll.:t'en!
dM..·f't'ltt Sti\l~ t<J b\! o1l~l'.d tm t.nfomt.\llon .md hl-.L.d. nu.. venlf.c:ation t5 tnadc by
ol!ur tna.nt Gt~d no~ by pt:titloncr bt.'CU.5t! ~ulirrnanl m:dntl\ins tuJ offices ln ~ munty olher
than the nddrtn c-,f J>Utihntlt-r

[!ectiQ!l lObe lteld 011 Aprill9, 2011>.
O.at~:

~

~ OUh•tl.,J;~

a..,"'

N-:o"' York. New York
Fcbru•ry 17,2016

Roger J. Bernstein. Esq

Attorntyjdr Pttillontrt
535 Fifth Avcnuc,35• F1oor
Nl"W York,. N~..ow Ymk 10017

Do1h.>d: t\cw \'<uk.

N~w Ynr~

F<-l>ru•ry 1i l!ll6

Td: (212) 7<8-1500
fax: (6461904-6633
Olf:ID.,.km

1~1

SUPREME COURT OF n-tESTATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK

BARRY KORMAN ond WILUAM CALLO,
Petitioners,

Index No.___/21)16

NEW YORK STATE IJOARDOF ELECTION,

Respondent.

R~cr

Stat\.~ in

AfFIRMATION OF
ROGER). BERNSTEIN

Cmad.tL Cru,.. ~nut a &wtural bomci.trt~o.>o afthe Urul!ld.S\Ato. 11\sttad. Mlso

J.lkn'btct.n. an attorney admitted to pt.lcti~ before the courts: of the State

o( New Yorl<. affinn> "-"follows und<'< penolcy of perjury
I.

I am not ~ party to thls action iUld am over 18 ye.1rs of age. (have porsonal

l'vrsunnt to An1cle c.. Section 122 ol the New York Elecdun lAw. '"laj

2.
1~n shall

not b4:!: dt'Signated or nomuuted for a publicofftcc or party ('O"Ition who (1)

is not .t citlzM ()/the ~tilt~ t""~f ~ew York; (2) is i.ncUgiblc to be clcr:ted tQ ~uch olR<:c or

poslrlfm; ur (3) who. If e!~~ wUI n()t 01t the time ('I( commamO!mcnt of the term o! .such

Election co be held un Apnl 19, llll6

office or posltlon. me<!t thtt con.stiluttonal or ~t:atutory qualifl.:atioru.."
3.

candldacelnr rr..1d<'lll ,,(the Ul\llod Slat.,. Ullh, RopubUGtn rre<Jdontiall'rlm•ry

Article II,§ 1, O•u:.c 5 of the Con>tltut>on of tho United State> ol America

Ootct..>d New \"uric. too:~w Yor),
F<•bnmy 17. 201&

spt!afie-- that:

No Ptr><IO cxrept a notural bom Cibz.en. or a Citizen olthe
United State$, at the time or thr Adop~on of this
Constittlli.>n. shnll be eligible to the Office or Prc>idcn~ ••••

CJndidatt.' lttr th~ Rcpublk'an J'residcntl.-1 nomlnahon ln the-N~ York RepublJQn

APX - 077

ROGEII.J. BERNSTEIN
• .-..,,.....,~c sa

~"1,......,

,__~

.,._.. .~

GENERAL 0QJECI!ON fORM
Tho Rtwd urf.lectlOOJ.Uflhc St.ut orNew Yoc\

r~

O>t,

,Lt,.l".......... ,...... ~

Nom'",

-~l':l_ ~P.."'-"1'1

·~' c~•·~M))
e:"'

IW>d:n<e .\d4r•.n:

__:i~L_•·~-l,!L N

,_., ·==--+--

1

........ .J,.,

~

1(

February 16. '::Ulb

Bv fNrt

0rC'f'lltsi!l 5rt'tlltr

N""'' YoYk SQtt' Boilrd hf FW<h~

40 North Pcul $L1t.1.:L Sutw 5

S.H Fif\h A''ef'lue.l~ Ft®r
New Vorl<, NY 10017

Alb•nv. NY 1221l7-27l'l
Tetephc>nt Nwnt>co

tl121748-410

Fu Number:

Enuul Addrftlo·
1.

G~Ml!r.tl Obj«ttL\n of

ISoury Konn.M to n'ltihC8-IO of de.iiJno'Uon for

R.tloel Edward ("Ted") Cnn (With Afilfli\Ariono/S..rvlr.);
2.

The Obj«mt hmby Ob.)~ wlhe mt~fitllt of 6C$11nn.tlon nted Wilh lhc BOinl nr

Sp«iUc Obje<Uoo 10 Co..dldacy ~IIW•el \\l.lw;>rd nw·l CTw
•ubmllt«< bv Mr. Kom"n In Juppc>rt ol hu t;.,trnl Obl«lion (whn
Adlrmaboo ol ~rvtC\!);

3

El~~onswhith

purpons 10 name: the: foiJo\vina:asaQndidue: tn tbe Primat) f.lec&lon 111 br hckJ

on ~pntl•. 201~ ror Ute oiTu:c !lldlo:a.cd.

Gen.,.l Qbtecr.on ol WU!Wn C11lo '" C't'tl1fi~••• of dc.igN.IIO!llor
r\.lhiV' Ed ware\ t""Tfrd"'JCru1 (whh Afhm·u•IU'M"' ofC.t•l'\'~<'o)

Cf\i1 fo.- Pn=J1dcm

Spctific Obj«bon roC•nd•JacyofR&f..,t &!word ("Ted/Crot
subaUned by Mr, C.Uo m >Vppor\ ol his Cenenl Ol>jomon (with
AffmnaliOtt of S..rvltt)

P.O. Boxl5J7b

Ho"'IOO. TX 7'126S
f'ublleOOlc:c

Vny tnaJy youn.

Pofilia.lflClJl)'.

Enclosutb (41

SesuiOT Raf•d \\l.lward Csw. W.shio~t"", IX

n:

C(\t( lor l'n•>1dtmt, tlOtlstul\. Tao~>

Sgec!Oc Ob!!!Ctlon to Clndlc!acv of Rafael

Edward !Jed") Cng

Immigration and Nationality Aa, 8 U.S.C. § 1431(a).' However, while conferring United

Rafael Edwald Clutts not ellglble to run ror Pres1dent or the United Stall!S

States clliZenshlp as such, this sl<!tute did not - and COUkl not - transform cruz Into a

betause he Is not a natural bom citizen of the United states as Article II, Sec11on 1,

•natural bom o~zen· or the United States. Indeed, the lmmlgnuon and NatiOOaUty A<l

Oause 5 of the U.S. ConstlttJtlon requlnes.' Instead, Cruz Is a nat\Jral bom citizen ot

never described him as such. By its own terms the statute only made Cruz •a dtizen of

ca.-

the United States", not a nat\Jral bom dtm!n of the Unled States.

In canada (In the city ol C..lgary in the Prov\nce of Alberta) on

1'11e S<Jptetne Court has cl<!arly determined that, as a matter or law, a •natural

December 31, 1970. See Exhibit A(cruz' canae!ian birth c:ertftlcate). Ileal use ne was

bam Clt!W>• Is a person born on United stat.. te<rito<y, not a person born In another

born In canada, cruz Is a natural bom d~zen of canada as

countJy. tn llrllw Slatt's v. W""9 Kim M. 169 u.s.

Ciul was born

a matter of canadian law.

~9. 662,

18 s.a. 456, 462

canadian Otizenslllp fod. § 3(1Xa). Hels also consldered to be a natural bom dti:ren ot

(1898), the SUpreme Court stated that the term •narural born Citizen" In the

canada under Unltl!d States Jaw, betaiiSe place of birth determines wl1ethet a person Is

Conslltut!on was used "In refe~ to that l)(indple or public law, well under>tood in

a natural born dlllen under Un~e<l States law.

this <XIUntJy at the time of the adoption of the co~, whktl referred dtlzensl1lp to

Under p<eValllng legal rules at the time the U.S. Constitution was adoptl!d, a

the p1ace or birth."

natural born dtlzen of a countJy Is a person born within the boundaries of that country.

1'11e Unltl!d States Constlt\J~on makes an unambiguous diSilnctlon between be:ng

Sino! Cru: was not born In the Unltl!d States, he Is not a natural born dtlzen of the

a dtlzen and being a natural born dUzen. A1tlde I d the COnstitution proyldes that a

Un1ted StateS. Instead, Ouz is deemed to be a United States citltM - not a naturel

"Cit!wl ol the Unltl!d States" may be a member ol Congress. However, Attlde U of tile

born d!IU!n - only by reason ala laler naturalllaUon !.taMe enacted by Congress.

Const!Mion required that only a "natural bom O~zen• may be President or tile United

Cruz' mother, Stanor Elizabeth Wilson, was a native-born Unhed States dUzen from

States. 1'111s olstlnctlon necessarily means that a citizen Is legally different from a

Delaware llvfng In canada When CI\IZ was bam there. Bealuse or nls motner's Unite<!

nallnl bom citizen.

States dt12enshlp, and only for that reason, Cruz was able 10 beccme a •cltm!n• or the
United States under a law passed by Congress, !hat Is, Sec11on 320(a) or the

The Board of Elections Is required to give effect to the ConstJMtonal
~rement

t11at a candidate ror President of the Unlie<l States be a natural bam

0\llen. Section 6·122 or the N.Y. ElectiOf\ Low requires that a candidate be eligible to

ArtiCle n, S<d!On 1, oause 5 or me u.s. Corut>Mion provides: "No...,_ except a
IIIJl\lral

bom Oltlen, ot a 0~ ol the United States, at the time ol the Adoption oll!>ls

Constitution, snail be eligible to tlte Offl<e of Pn!siden~ neltlter sllalarty be
tll\llble to lllat Office who shall nor have at!!llnod to the Age olllllrty nve Years, ond
Men four'teen Years 1 Resident wlhln the Uolted stilte5."

be

elected to the Pt.Jblle otllce he seeks and able to meet the coost!Mional

quatl!lcadons lor that offlce. Since Mr. Cl\ltls not a natural bam c~lzen of the Unrte<l
OUl' tattler, Rafid 81en\lfi'1Jdo Ctuz, w.s a ~ natiON! When Cl\1% was born In
~a.

APX - 078

Stat!s, "" does net meet tne CXlM!Mional Quanttcat1o!ls to be Presldel1t of 111e Unl!l!d
St>ru and >hoYict be ,..,..,ed from the Now Y0<1< Pre<lclenU•I Prlnwy ~ 1>1Wot.

t~

AFFIRMATION
Rag~ J. Bem$11..!41\ i1n •tfl.ll"nt!)'

admhh.'d 10 prAchC\- before ttw ('()Urt5 -of clw St.)tt
ofNN Ycrk. atnrmJ M follow• WldeT penal')' of pt..\ftvry

Jam not 1 pu1y to lhls Jction M\d am ovtt ll' )'Nrs ot Jge
Name:
Mailing ~ress:

On Fcbn..uy 16 2!ll6.

:!.

llCger J. llemsl!!!n
535 1'11\n Ave<we, 35" Aocr
New YO!t. NY 10017

tru• cupy ol thA. within c....,..., Ob1L'<IIM

by h-d.(:x- overnight J~ivt:1y to Cf\lltOt 11residen1, P.o. &~ J.$)16,
totous1on. TX 7n6-': ilnd

Telephone Number: (212) 748--1800
Fax Number:
Emal~ Address:

,,,,.n~~,.J,

ful'lll •ISJ"'d by llm)llCun'l'l•n aM Sjx!afu: Obltctlon to C•nd1dacy of Edwitd R.Uaol
t..T~d'') Cruz signed by U.ury komun 4i foUow~:

(646) 9~33
rbemstetoC!:rtblow com

h)

by fedc;. O\ltrnighr d"h\IU)' I<' Sentlur R.atat-1 E.dw;ard Crux.

Unlt<'d Stolt" SPN~to, Runoll
W""'"'SIO<\ DC 10510.

s,.,.,,, Offi"' Buildin& Room ~0.

Dated rww \'o1\., Ne:w 'at\'

f•br\l•ry IO, llll6

:;oeclllc Ob1ectlon to Qnd!dacy or Batyl Edward lied"\ Cruz
Rafael Edward Cruz Is not eligible to l\ltl for President oll!le UMed States
be<.ouse"" Is not a nlltlJI'III born

Q~

of the United Slat!!$ as Miele II, Section I,

Clause 5 of the U.S. Con5ti\\J~on requires.' lnst.ad, Cruz is a natural born dbzen of

CENE!!ALO!IIECIION fORM

canada.

·~""''""

""""'

u,

R""'""<Addr=

lo(

r

Cruz wos born in Canada (In the dty of Qlgary In 11\e PI'O\Iince ol Al>erta) on

G1

f(; t;I(IIU/#f

December 31, 1970. See Exhibit A (Cruz' Q - birth certifiCate). Because he was

1vF

bom in canada, Cruz Is a natural born ciiiZen of canada as a matter of Canadian laW.

~r.rdz ~/YII&"~p
tJitil(.1fUl 1SCOSTAt.'l

canadian Olizenshlp Act, § )( tXa). Hels also comk!ered to be a natural born ddztn o1

f'otM»>

canada under United Slates law, beaose plaa! of birth cletennl-les ,..,.!her a pet50n Is
a natural born CltiZen under U11led Slates law.

''•illfljl AJdra,.

53S Fifth A'!t'IIUC, ts- nou1
""" Yollc, NV 10011

Under preva'llng tegal rules at the time the u.s. Constitution was adopted, a

natural bom citizen of a COIMir'f is a person born Within the boundaries of that counlry.
Sinc.e Cruz was not born In the United Slates, he Is not a natural born -•n of l!le

United StatM. Instead, CNliS deemed to be a United States od;ren- not a natural
bom Clbzen -only by rusan of a later naturalizlldan statute enacted by Congress.

Cruz' mother, Eleano< Ellzabe(h Wilson, Wil> a native-born United Sl21te5 cltlun from
Dellw""' liVIng in a.nada when Cruz w.>s bom th....,. Because of hiS mo<he<"s U<>lted

States auzensh1), and only for that reason, Cruz was atJie to become a "oUz.t.n" of the
Un~ed

States lllder a law passed by Congress. that Is, Sedloo 320(a) of the

t,;nu rot Y~ldcr~t
P.O IWII.l~376
Houl1on TX 11ltiS

P<Iblcan

~
~· ,

,r

#3

0

r's:

· -·-~

t

APX - 079

Al1lcle U, SecUon I, O.use Sol !he U.S. ~proYicles: "Hol'o<sonm:opt 1
natural born omen, 0< a Cltllon d t11e Unltl!d Slate>, aLihe Ume d the .AdopCion tl !his
Conslftul;;on. ~~ be elgitlle to the omc. ot Prt$1dent; netther shM anv perton be
dQiblt to lhotOIIIa!who""'U """""""'"ln«<to the Age dlhlrtyiM! Years, and
been fou.uen Years a Resldt!nt Witt«\ the U~ Stato. •

lmmtgratlon and Nabonality All, 8 U.S.C. § 143l(a).' However, while conferTtng United

SIB~, M ~- reX meol the consuMional Qualrficabons CD be Pruldont d t1Wi United

States dllzenst.p as sum, this statute did not- and COIJld not - U'ansform Cruz Into •

s~

ll1d shoUld be ....-ed from lho New Yort. Pr.sldenUAI ~.., flec1lon ()do(.

It/~

"natural born Citizen" of the Unlt;!d States. Indeed, tile Immigration and Natl«lollty All
never descrt>ed him as such. By its own terms tile statute only made Ctuz •a dtizen of
the United States", not a natural born cithen of l!le UnRed States.

Otllm'<l't'S Cotrf;,cr P!r«>fj;

The SUpfeme Court has clearly detennlned that, as a matter of law, a "n.Wral
bam atlten"ls • person born on UAitl!d States tetntofV, not a person born In another

country, In IJIJ/ledSiatesv. YlongJCtmAIII, 169U.S. 649,662, 185.0.456,%2

(1898), the SUpreme Court ~tl!d tluot the term •natural born cltJzen' in lhe

Name:
MaiWng Mdl'esls:

Roger l. ~eln
535 Flftll1.venuo, 15" Roar

New Yor1<, NY 10017
Tdephone Numlla'; (212) 748-4600
F•• Number:
(6-16) 96<1·6633
EmaU.A<I<In!s!i:
11
or

Constitution was used 1n refere1<e to !hat pnnclp4e of public law, well understood In
thiS country at tile time of l!le adoption of lhe constitution, which referred c!t1zenshlp to

the place cl birth.•
The United States Constitution makes an unambiguous diSllnction between being

a c~izen and being a natural born Citizen. Artlde 1 of the constitutlcn prC)';!Oes that •
"Crtlzen ollhe Un1ted Stateo" moy be a member of eoog...,.., However, Artlde 11 cl the
Ccnst~utlon

required !hot only a •natural born Otlzon" may be President of the United

SCates. This dbtlnction """""'"ly means that a citizen Is legally dllrerent from a
natural born otllen.
The lloord of Eioctlons Is req.rlred to g~ ellect tc the Constrnr!JOnal

requirement that a candidate fer President cllhe United States be a natural born
citiZen. SO<tion 6-122 of l!le N.Y. Election l.llw requires that a candidate be eligible to

be elettl!d to the public clfoce he see1cs and able to meet the consliMional
quafrlicatlcns lor !hat olla. Stru Mr. Ctuz Is rClt a natural born atlzen ol the Un1ted
CNI" ractter, Rafael

5envenldo en.a, """ a OA::Ian net1cna1 when Cruz was bomln

Qooada.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
AFFIRMATION
Rngor J, S.mst= ll\4llt>m<)' •dnutt•-d IO p11Kii« bdore the <WriJof tho S"IY
ut New York. Affirm> ufollow> under penalty of pe~ury :

BARRY KORMAN •nd WllUAM GALLO,
Petitiont:~.

I am not A pJrty tu fhls actk\n itnd -am C)V~r 11' )IV.Ir-<. nf .:tgl'.
l.

IndO>< No. 100240/2016

On fcbn.t• f}' 16, ltltt\.. t ~·rwU \\ h'U"- Ct'lpy of dw wit.hln G.:twr-al 0\~u

r~~·1g~~);~:t=~n~~:!:':~,~L~~:r}:,~~titm

to COU\dldacy of Edw•rc Ra~~1

j)

by Fl-dnU\•t'mlg_hJ dclJ~,ol!ry foli"U.ot for Pf'C;C~d,ont, P.O. l)ol( 2537f\.
Ito...,..,, TX m&s; •nd

ii)

by F~ex u\'t..'might dl1livuy '" Smatt\r R.Ai~-1 &Jwa.rd Cruz.
Unil-..>d SliiCISoenAt~, Rus.."t-0 SeNti' Offt~ BuUdLng Room ~ r

NEW'IORKSTATEBOARDOFELECTION,

Respondent

W .ul\ln~t<m, DC 20510

Dot«!: New Y01k,. New York
Febru.vy 10. 2016

/.lSre-S"'~'--l
Rogetl. Bemstdn

PETTilONER'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN OPPOSmON TO DESICNA'riON OF RAFAEL EDWARD
(''TED") CRUZ FOR REPUBLICAN PRESlDEN1lAL PRIMARY

535 Fifth Awmre, 35• Floor
New York, New York 10017

Tel: (212) 743-4800
Fare (6-16) 96U633

rbyrn•Uein!trlb.1w com

BenjAmin Dioor. Esq.
Eisner & AssociAtes, P.C.
113 University Pbc:e
New York.. f\ry lCXMn
Tc~

(2.12) 473-8'700

Wn!clsnfmsmjo!N rom
llllorn<ys for l'etitfonm

APX - 080

distinction between being a dtizen and being 1 naturolbom dli?.cn. To be a membero(

StaiCJM)I o( Facts

[h. .ole fact reJ<ovunt iO tJUs prc><eedlng is the fact that RafAel Edward ("Too•)

Congmslt is """""""l'IO be • "ctti.7.m• or the United Stat... U.S. Constitution, Artiele

Cruz was not born Inside the territorial furbdlctionof the United States of America Ted

I,§ 1, Cls. 2 & 3. Howew:r. Art1de ll of the Cons:htution requires th<lt only a ..natural

Cru.t was born in Calgary, PI'O\'!n<r of Alberto, Canada. See Bernsl<!in All., Exhibit A

born Cltizen• may be l'res!deot of the Urutoo Stot.._ TbJs cllstinctlon neaosariJy means

(CN>'s Canadion b1rlh wrtilicote). AcoordlnglyCnrz Is 1 ootunl bom CruudiAn dtiu'n

!hat 1 citilen Is legaUy dlllcrent from o naturol bom dtu.cn.

at common law and illso by •tatute under the Canadian Citizenship Ad.§ 3{l)(a).

More spocifially, the part of Article II which Is periinent to this ease re•ds ••

Although Cruz notes th.tt one of hls parents witS on Americon dtiu'n" the time

follows:

of hi< Canadian birth', th.lt f•ct Is irrelevant bee•""' it does not make htm a "naturally

No person oxcept • rutural bom Citizen •.• of U.. Unit<-d
Srat... • shall be eligible to the Offic:e of President ••.•

born• Amcttc.m dti:tA!n. A child can be natu,..lly born in only one plac:e. Cruz ......
natuntUy bom on the soD of Canad>. not in the United States ol America. Moreover, in

Art. U, § 1, Cl. 5. Pctitloocrs havcsubmlttcd unront.,.tod evidence that Cruz wasbomln

Ameria.n oommon law, hel<dllary dti7A'Mhlp from pamuto child dOOf not o>dsl

Canada. As we show bclow. this means that Cna was not a ,.natural born Citizen" of

'Therefore the (ado£ Cnu.'s molher's American dti7.enship hao; nu bt!aring on whetlwr

the United Sc-ates. He is therefore ineligible for the o(fi~ of United btates Presidenl.

Cruz Is a ruuural born db7.on of the Unltc<l Sta,.. of Ameriat.

Cnu.ls Not., ''NnturalBom Citi.7..cn.. of the
lJnhrdSCjttrslJndrtArii(k'IJ S«tlonl CI01tt!t(5

Natural bom ci!U.enshlp is, quite simply, d!U.onshlp which arises naturally. Th.'t

The 1\llL'S for cliglblllty to be President of the United Slllt.. ore sp<dlkaUy

IJ to say, It

enumerated in lhe U.S. Constitution:
No pel"'O ex«pt a natural born Citmm. or a Cihun or t.heo
Untt.C States, at the tune ol tlw Adoption ol !Ius
Constitution, shaO be eUgible to the Offioe of Pre$ident;
neither shall any Por.son be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of tlurty-li"" Yean>, and been
fourteen Year$ a Ra:tdent withm thf: Uruted States.
U.S. ConsUIUtion, Article

pertains to a dtlz.onslup which arises by Ji>clf without the need for ony

interve.nbonon the pan of the government. such os by an Acto( Congrct\S. Jnstead, ir
arises of its own nttturalacoord. th.lt is, birth, .mel is thus •ppropdately called nou.nl
bum ati.r.em.tup. Tile only other form of citite.nshlp ariSeS .solely by lntervenhon or the-

govmunenr through on Act of Congress. Sw:h dtizel>ohip does 1101 occur naturally, ol

u.s own accord. Thls Is NtumUzcd atizcmhip. No amount of semantic go~uJ~rru•nship

n.§ 1, Cl S. The Constitution makes an unambiguous

Qn convert • naturali.r.ed c:ili:tcn into a natural bom citi7...en. The Supreme Court hou fuJly

Ctu:z.' s motht"r, Elun.or tliubeth \.Vllsor\. w~t 1 Mtav.....tx>m United St3tes dlizen born in
OeJt~ware. ~ wM llvtng In CAn:.d• whtn Cru:t was bom thl!re4 CruZ's fathff, bfael
81erwcnJdo Cru~ was a Cuban national when Cruz wu bom ln Ca.n.ada.

Ills :lX'Iomatk that lenns m the US. Conshtvtlon that M"-e a common law hisiOT)'

""' to be lnrerpreted in accordance with theJr meaning at the time the Constitution wos
•dopled. "!'he language of the Constitution and of many acts of Congress could not be
undCJ>tood without reference to the common 1.1w.• M..,.. v. UniU:d StaiQ, 91 U.S. 270,
274,23 LEd.346, 1875 WL 17916 at "3 (1875); ~«•WErP"TitCros.<m•"- 267 US. rn,

108-09 (1925) ("'[I]M statesmen and lawyer$ of the Convention who jUbmilted il to the
ratiHcation ott~ Conventions of the thirteen States, Wert!' bom and btottght up In the

•.:cepted thls dhtinction. as outlined ~)0\1.'.

St•tes Co'W"""; the rwo routes at< mutually exdU5ivc and there is no her"<<1tary
ddun.l>lp,
[Unlted Stat~ dtiuM r~rc) such only as are ell!wr bom or made so, born
within the limits and under the jurlo;diction o( the United States, or
nattaaliz.ed by the authority of law, either in one or the St~Hes before the

Constitution. or si.noe that time, by virtue of an octo( the Congress of the
United States •.. The right ol dtlb.'t1Siup ntlltl' dl!<t11ds urtht ltgnl so11t,
either by the comnwn law, or under the common natura!Wrtlon acto. It is
incident to birth in the country, or It is glvon persoMUy by statute.
Unittol St#ltll o. W•ng Klm Art, 169 U.S. 649, 665 (1898} (emphasfs suppUedc Internal

atmo:sphere o! the comnlon law.. and thoug.ht and spoke ln.Its vOOlbuJAJ"y'").

quotahOnB and citatlo"" orruttod). The Court further explamcd th.lt "[t)he fundamentAl

ln 1788 tl'lt' tt'nn ..natural bOmdtlzcn.. had only onemcanlng :H common Jaw:

tht fUJ'bd.iction in wtuch a person is born is the sole criterion (or determ.Jl'W"8 dtiunship.

n.dc of dtlzenship by bir1h within the dominion of the United States.. nota.tithJtlfnding

Put otherwise, the ·,us soh• (law of rho <oil) determined dti7.enshipm1788.

alrcn•g• of,.,,.,!$, has been •ffltmed.ln well consider"<! opinions o( U1e exectrti~

In 1789, J•me> Madison. known lor his central role In the dro!tlng of the
Con.11itutlon, had UU. to

dcp.,rtments o( the Covemment, sirtcJe the adophon of the Fourlecnth Amendment o(

••Y in a •poodl before Congress:

the Constitution." /d ot 688 (emphasio •dded).

It b an cstablicitwd maxim tNt birth is a oicerlon of
olk-giance. Birth . . . den"'eS it!l fota': a.omet:lme!l (rom
plac., and sometimes from parentage; but . . . plAce is
the most certain aiterion; it is what app~ in th<!- United

States

lmpomntly, the Supreme Court reoognlZed th.lt so far ass the oommon law IS
roncemed, the rule of JUS J<l/1 did not UlCiudo c:onlening citv.enshlp on children bom
abroad oi American parents:

. ...:

Many roW'IS haw identtlled plaoe of binh as the sole fac:t that detenn•ned
whether • person was a natural born citizen 11t the lime the CONtitution was drafted..
The US. Supreme Court has spoken to this"'"""· One key pomt stn!OSed by tl.e Court

I!

t!Us; United Stoles otizonshtp ori..,. olther by Yirh"' or being bom within the tenitori.ll

limito of rho United Sroreo, or by an 11<1 of nal\lrlll.,.~on provided lor by the United
McManamon, 'I'M N•ttm.l 8Dm Cui:tJt Cl•uSt'as Orig1'natly Uutla'5Jood, 64 C.lh. Uruv. LAw
Reonew317,,tp,Jlij

The notion that thc:rc is ony oommqn-law prlnriJ;Ile to naturalize 1hc:
cbi1drton bom in foreign £5Mllrla of native-born Amedam lather 'and'
mother~ father 'or' mothor, must be di$c:arded. Dwre ls not ttod n">'('t was
any such common-law pdndpk.' Binney, Alienigenac. 14. 20; 2 Am. Law
Reg. 199, 203. And the SJ''<lt weight of the Engli.oh oulhorltles, before and
~rnce he wrote. appca.rs to support his conclll!o'iun. CAl~n't COM.. 7 Coke,
t7o, 18a; Co. Utt. 8a. and Hotgrl''e'S note 36; I 81. Comm. 373; Barnngton.
Statutes (5th gd.) 268; l..ord Kenyon, in Doc v. jones, 4 Term R. 300, 308;
Lunl ChA,..Uor Cranworlh.ln Shedden v. Patricl<. I Ma<q. 535, 611;
Coekb. Nat. 7. 9; De Geet v. Stone, 22 Ch Otv. 243, 252; Oicey, Conl1
t..aw•. t78, 741. 'The acquisition.' oaya Mr. Dicey (page 741}, 'ol MtionaUty
by dol;omt,ls foreign to the principles of the eommon law, and IS based

APX - 081

whoUy upon statu.toT)' cruu:tm~nts.'

for the sake of emphasis, however.tet us consider agam wh:Jt the Court so ad

W011g Kl"' Ark. 169 US. at 670 (emphAsis supplied~

about whether at common law Unltcd Stotos citizenshlp rould ll!ise by VU'IUt of being

Jn 19'71the Court was (aced with 11 test. pt"rtalning to a man who wu bom
~::ad to 1

bom to a mothel' or father who was a United StOtt~ dtlzc:n;

US. citizen mother, u is the ca..,e with Cruz. 'The man failed to ~t a

'"l"ht.re Is not. and newr was, any s.udt rommon-law pnndplt."

condiHonsub<c!quenttohis birth tNt was~ by the natutallza~onstature in order

Wong Kmt Ark. 169 U.S. at670 (dtations omi!!ed). The Court's statement of the law of

for him to retaln the U.S. atlunship which he wouJd othc:rwlse ha\ie by st1tute. ln

cih.ZKnship ls a statement about an accepred common hn'<' role of abzenship which

docidlng his c-ase, the Court rejeacd the claim that p.>renbll dll=>ship conforred

predol.. the Fourteenth Amendment and. in fact. Is "ancient• in nature. 169 US. at667.
~statements

Not UJ'Iil 1934 wouJd Wt person hove httd any OOf'l(.'etvable
claim to United States dtizenship. For mo~ than a century
and a twf no statute was oC assistance. Maternal dtizcnsNp
o((orded no benelf•

dlild.l'\!fl of U.S. citWm:s obtain atb:cmhip u,rt<Jer a naturalization statute
U.

RDgm v. Belki, 401 U.S. 815, 826 (1971). Citing Wo11g Kim Ark. the Court •g•in oonduded

tNt ..naturalization by descent' w•s not a comtnon·law cc-~1 but was dependent,
Instead, upon statutory en.1ctment."

must be tak.cn as belng the defuULive statement by the Court on how

natural bom ollzcnship is aoquired: It is not acqwrod by birth when lot<ign bom

f!osm, 401 US. at 828 (lnblmal dtoHuns otnittecl).

'The NaturlllizatiOJ\ Act of 1790 Does Not
Convert Natwalj£1ltjon to Niltttml Birth

Tho Naturlllization Act of !790, ltls ..ttl supports the ld•• that Cruz Is • naturn

bom dfuen of tho United St>tes. Prodsely tho oppoo!tc Is the ca.."" Ni will be'"""'- the
wry •XI>!enat of that Act reinforces the prindplc that indlvldUAis bom abtOlld.

Till: Court in Wong Kim Ark summed up 1ts conclustOm: as foUows;

regardless of parenblge, must be naturalized pursuant to stotute and do not meet the

~

foregoing 0009:idtratio:ns ond tulhoriUcs irresistibly lead
us to t.hcR o:mdus;ons: The fourteenth amendment affm"r1.S
the andrnt and fundamc:ntal rulg o( dtiz&rnituR ~birth
within thf: tnrUocy in the allegiance and undq •be
protertioa gf tbt: coU!ltry. including oO childron hero bom of
resodentallerl:l. with the e><ceptions or quolifications (u old
;lit the ruk itkll) o£ chUd.n-rl of foreign &O~tel.gn.; or tho:Jr
auni$-ters, or hom on foreign public shlp5. oro£ enemles
within and dur.ing a hostil~ O<'nlpation of part of OW'
!en:ltOl')'. , , • ,

common law d•finltion of a natvraUy bom dt~t.m. Only •Ieight of hand"''" convert

ctttremtup by statutory Mlu:rallzaUon into common law dttt.,m!<htp arising from. birth
within the relevant Jurisdlcbon.

The specifiC prOV>SiOn of lhe1790 Act whlch Is daimed to support the Idea that
"natural born citizen.. somehow included m.:hviduals not bom within the Unitl>d States
but having an American citizen poreru was as follow$: • And the children of citiuns or

169 US. at 693 (emphasis suppO.d).

the Urut~d States th:t,t may be born beyond Scla, or out of the limita of the United St.ates.

shdU be oonsjdsrnsf at n.:l.tural bom Oti.z.tns"" (emphasis supplied).' It 1s said that thL!i

[n (ad ,

:u McMa.namonhu pouued ou~

tl~ wtN ~vcr.al

ckudes m the-

1~

provtston shed! light on till! meantng of "natural born'" Ln Article n beclusc tome (not

whl--n there Wol!t nn JotJtule 1\ aU on tN! books tog•w US. atiunship to dUldrcn bom

•liJ or tho outhor.; of Article u O)nSiitutcd a rcw (agaU\ not all) or the Senato.. and

abroJd tu US.cttlr"""' So tlth<-thoaryaboullho 179<1Act <mbroced by Cruz is

Cong,...men in the First Co~~ are many O•ws m thl! ilne of argumenL
First. the: Naturalization Acto£ 1'790 was repeaitd i.n l19S at the behest of Jam~
Madi-.on. a key author o( the ConslttutJon. lt was ~ctro in the Natutilliz;ation Ad o£

coOt'\.-t. tht.m this would be an ex;1mpli~ oi OmJ.,rre.ss c:tcnyrttt; n.Atunl hom ~hlp al

1ht consUI..l.rtKmAJ level d~ mud' of the n.tnCfecnth c£otury,

With that in mlnd., let w look On<.'~;' mon: ~amine the Suprem~ Court ded6iuu 111

17'15. Thore the Fourth Congreso changed the wording pertaining to dtizrnship for

RnJ!""' v. 8dln. 6c.Ilej wao; OOm r:n lt.l.ly tn 1q39 ton US. dti7.en mol her 41J1 U.S

children born abrood to AmortCl1tl diU~ns soy that those bom abrood to children of

Lndrt tht: nttur'tlliz;a;tlon ~hltute ln tof(teta~l hi& btrth. Bcllci tmmechately ~ined U.S

Americ•n parents "'•.. shall be consad~ as ati~ of the Urult'd Statts"':

oll<OMhlp; howo..,r. that st•tul< •lbo prolli<J<.d that S.Uoi wotJd low hi> U.S.

Tho delehon o( the phro"" "Nturl'll bom" that had.,.,.,. wed in the 1790 A<'t,ls

l!t 817.

t;thl••.nslup '' •• UJ'lle..~. e.her age 14 a·nd bcfor~ liKe 28r he 6ha11 come tC'I tll@' UnitOO States.

slTlldng. Following the logic of the Cruz positio11. one must conclude tNt the members

l1nd be physkallvpr~thereronhnuouslyfcrrall~l Ov.:}~;.!Js." IIDJ U.S. •tK1~17.

of the Fourth cong....._ ln delotmg the plva"' "naturn born cifuen"lrom the

&lie! lollo.'<l to rumply wtth this rond.lllon 1\Jboo.-qu''"~ •nd ., tho Supton\< Cowt beiJ,

naf\.U'aUution statule ln 1795, intended to prevt:r~t the acqu.lsilion of Mturll bom

lherelon: lost h15 US. dll:z:enstup. It!

dti?-""•ltip lor po150nsbom a(ter l'I'JSsudusCruz. Porifthe Act olt790 had

lilw Cntt. outomJ~~c-aOy gatns U5 oti>-""""'P ta'oder • -'•tute b)• re&.'!Qn ol being born to

10mehow transJonncd naturali:zed atbzn$ born abroad into natur.a.l bom dttt.cns bom

~ A.tn.!rlcan

in lhe United Statl!S, then 1t follows that Congress w.. p"""'nting nalurn bom

would Mt Jooc hi; oliUS\illtip by'""""" ol Uving abroad).

atiz.,nshlp from ariolng Yi.l noturallz.,tion by deletJng that phr.,. in 17'15 CnllO ha.• no
answ('f' tu this ina:mYeOJent c:oroUary to h1.s effort to lnvoke the Naturallution Ad of

17'10.

The~

proves th.tto thUd bom a.b1'04d Wl'D.

parent,. d{lft not llt all gnin the st~ILIS of' naturiJUy bam otfzen (who

Orw must a..sk "'U tht dUz.enshlp which ame. by sb•tute 1! rea.ti)' natwa.l born
otJunshtp •t the rorutl!ut.JOnolleocl, then how L•lt !hal Congreso cvuld dony such

blatus (Of yoon at a llme by rc>t J>l"l>idlng lor .'lll<:ll ;tH.,. by >t•lut•. ar by providing 1\
Qnty wheosut,ed 10 O:U"tain Statitlorylitrutatkin.s. Mm the 8dlt'i~to.t.1 Otrort\l.'.J'Stl:ly.ll

1.4. There Is te"~n to tNnk that lhf ~ w.u simply the C'Orrectlon of an erroneous
use of thett-rm ..natura.! bom·. "'Rtfemng to 'lht Wdvtrte\t \1$t"Of the rerm
nahual-bom in the Ad o( 1790: one Juthor ave~Ttd that ·u wu Mr. Madison who
had parllci~ted m the drafhng of the Con.slJtuUon who had discovered !he error ilnd
•uthorlzed lhtbUI tocorrtd h bydtle-tlng tht term from thea<"l of 1795.'"
McM:u\..1l't'IOf\ Tlst N•twnl &rn Cit&Utr ClhM., Or'lgm•ll) Untlmtood. ntpr•, ill p. 336.
fn.l37

ru~rural bom """"an bo denied l>y the """""'<>I Coogro» r~ prol'ld<! for tl by

then bow can U h.a\'!' tnt:.lrting M

...

••••ut•.

4p0dlic n:quin.*ment ,, the C,..mhhJlion it.orclfl Thctte

hun.. ka»""' wnA•h•''"''P'""' run\ yplttll'\rr..tJ.....-1.qu,·l!!j·OsM~ItgJl"r=t:tr:b,1•1HC\fdttUilU!t.l\)
1!11Jil\t!a7a1U.b7•1· ti·+~P. liHI )tl?'!ht#l ~ohvxbnn!

APX - 082

questions P.NWcr lhmtlldvef.

and WAihng period or NtumlizAti<m for olllCr immigrants._ Con~ty.

In ~hort, the plw.-.e ··nalur.tl bom Cit~'" tnl'!nnJ90n1ttthur& more lhaJ1 slmply
'h<rmll Otl1.1tn' or"'" Cittt.en U~ce buth' !tis ""tead 1 term of atl U\ OOIJ\mon 13w U

tuch W\.trtt not

the~~

rhen why would nor the Constitution haw bl"-lM wor<kod to

t.'OA~J.'I

roquJMru..,,. In Artlcle 0

of the Con<tllldlOO (fir>t by "'Pro<"'diY granting m;h

ronsttluU011aJ $tt\U.'I by llitalui.,-. and then by dt~lh'lg it), Nor cUd Congfl".Ss have any

Nll<rt ~1At7 Why would not tl1c CGr$tution ..,y: "No~"""'" I.'Xrept • I""""" who hA<>
"""'• cihun '""""biM shall be •ll,glblo

ll i6 hardly

IO.UOI1Abk' IO condudo tlut C~ tomehow Wlll1tfld to clutnge the cllglbility

., The Constitution dOo!S not"""" tto.

pow~
m~

(whidl b. th£' one &dYC)(;\ted by Cruz); lNI~Jd, II ~p~y l"t\.l~ th:u Ih.·

to am1a1.d a provr-;ton (It the! COMbt\ltion by st.-rutc!'; only a supcr-mtt)'Qriiy oi tJM:

or ll-onttilut.iUN) run\'cntiun may amend It U.S.

ThUd. the langUAg• uf

P~rdrnt be • ,;ctur.U bom dh1.cn.

c,..,_.,, ,Art. V.

t"" Notw:alluhon Act ur 11'10 llilcll dces not 5Uppon the

idt'"a lhet those who are m.~de: cilb.cn:s Ul'1(ier the auuuu.• are U\ fua nnrur41 born c.tl7~

SC'cond.- thR.r\> IS" rogcot o.ltl::m.JtJve expt·uutllon to 1~ idt".l th.tt tlwAs lhc e;talute: .say_,., duklu.m bom •broad to Unit:rd Sta•·cs otizcn5: and who an.• made

N>tutftl!Uhan Act of 1790 """"\dod narusol born ClliWl<t•t"' •• the ...m.Ututionol
otit-*'Jb. u;n.df!t \hit ~tJ~\de ~

• shiU be cgnsidemd ao;~ n.atun.l born·• dli'.tt!nJ {e,npl\&51!o

lcwl Ccrnsider what t.hL' A~1.at.w:lf lud 'o qy about how Utsmigranb g~ could

:ruppi.W!d).• In like ma.nrw!f. onemigN ~v th:Jt on.! shaH m•.:~t 4ft attif.id.\l ilow~ I ! it it

be:ome Un.ittd Stato dtllin.,.~

Be it ~c.ted by the ~tc .1tkl HoUSf: of JWprcs.etttath~ 01
thr lJ.nhed Sl.tt6 of Am~ itt Cungt~ At.:oteroblf\t TNt
nny AU<t1 being • fn.'e while~"'"""' who •Nll ""'"' resi<kd
wllhln tho ltmitil .md undor the junsdlclion ol t"" Unltod
Slott:$ lor tJw ''""' o( two Y"""'· =y be admut•d to boc-o""'
111 otb.c1.1 ttk-rNf tnt4ppUation to ony oollUhOn l~w Court of
""'ord fn >ny one of lh! Sta"" wherein he shallluvt> ""tdL'<I
(Of the term Of 01'\f.l' yeAr Oil 1--.t, and m.1king ptOOt tO lhl!:
Mtt.sf.>ct!onol•udi.Olurt t!Uit h<>l< • pe:soo of good
dl.•"'""'' and t>ldng tJw oath or afllnNtlon pl\..aibed by
l•w to 51.1PP0Tt tl1o c..,.utution ollhe Unltod Stot .., wlllch
Oath or A(Ctnn.~tlm\ sud1 Court •JWiadmlnlsw, and U...
Clotk of -<;1ch Court sb.UJ "'cord aud\ Applic:ati•>n, and too
PJ"<'<"''Illng• UleN<'I1; and lbeTL'\Jp(>O OD£h """"" .J<all be
m'r\.'iid~red as A Citiun of tl~ Untied Sllltes.l6
1t

t... c,lca.r that Con~~ '""a! wnp}y ttru.un.llnl.n,g W

p~

wtr~ 4 re.11

tlow'-"'' But tl\1\1 does 001 af co~ tnulllotTnlt mtu 14 TNl Oow.!r. l.llus, tho

w~rdJng of

tho §tututo it>cll ptrinala the rondu.Jou thot •udt dtU.en<hip Is nolln.w.!

ta&lur..J bum dtkl.'ttiWp. but rn~ UYtlhox who a.t'e tn4dt'- cltizent under the l\ct WD
... in\ply bt! rn"t~r.U•u:J a n.tiural bam dt.izcrw fot n.Atnraliutlun pul"J'ORI'·

fourth, pothaps the str.mgest &Spt'<t ol thb whole deb.lto Ucs in too foct thai
tOO.. who tJunJ. thAI tJ,e 1\.'lttUr.tliz.Jtion Act of 1790 >~<pports the idt•• tho I Cnu a a
O.Atllttl born dti7..cn camp1etely 0\oerlook..tl'k' v~~ MOW of the Jiotl11.Ue. itsclf>liw

Nantraliution Acl o£1790 (~phasi.1 rupplfud). Natur.sllution and natural bom. ft..4 w~

for d\i.Jd.n!n bom abroad to

haw O<er\ •re >nbtlwtlc:all..,.al conn.>p~>.

US. dht.en pa.n:nl!i to bolt- abk 10 t.ontef" l.lit! rountry ;and UOJOY .illlh! right, ot dtl2.er\ship
(t~.g.,

th1..• ngtu h.J ~~~~ p,..,..~.rty) WJthttut fl"'t havUlg to gu lhto~Jlh !.he eonttre proC'C"!i'i

y

LD.

10

The Coaunon Law Meaning ul tht> Mmu~e ...Natural Born CUitc.n ..
cannot br Oetwniru;d. by Rel.,el'JCC '0 lhe Ci.n:~laQCU of
l.ab.D..JA~

rertamly knew of the exception to I"' $011 for children of a country's diplomats whon

McCain L(!l; AJonr Coytmor Crorsc Romney

those diplomats were stationed abro.td (an embassy being an C!Xterts.10n of a oounuy·s

lt opp.mmtly was john jay who flr.1t Stlggt'Stl'd that tho C<lOStltulll>ll should

ownjurisd.tebon). Thus W argument based on)ohnjay Sllbsilmtio conteDlpJating his

c:ontatn a natural bom dti7.m rcquuemmt m orde.r to hoJd chrt- oslk~ or Pre.ident of the
Unued Stille\. At lhl? "'On\ll'tlllon ln rhilo~d~lphia In

1787 when:. 11-«! Cc:nutitutlon Wiall

Another cont.cntlon J5lhat ~ mc.arung nf natural born dtlzenship was somehow

bt_.tng dtnfh.•d )\e made a n.'qUCSI In WTitu'l& I:J) Ccorgeo w~._hingtan thiJ1 the Constitution

contain e>o~cUy tlUs rcquuemmt.' One lh1e otargwnent

chiklren's careers has no merit.

••Y" tha~ as • good p>rt:nt Joy

.setl1rd wbe:n John McCain ran (or President of the United States m 2006. McCain wu

bom in withm the Coco Solo Naval Air Station. a Umled States military instafialion in

11\An!ly rould not tuw ln"'nd<d to haw his own I""-~8J>obom dilldn!n b• nudt Ul<!llglblo

the Panama Cam! Zone, while his Cather was serving there as an o(fkrt in the United

to hold t"" Qlficr uf t'11!S1dcnt.

St~t<.'! N&vy,

The- V'e'()' onusu~' prent.L.~ i.s that the·pn-<oS"D l" ~ o{ his children w~ patt or

loy's.obj\."Ct t.n n.."C<<tn~ llw. ~nof ~ 10nat'\I.RJ bom dtnentt

~'J1'\en1

tor

lhe I'N;Id..._-y. Wel.now, ~.... Uut ~'"' iJ not the COR: I•Y wgod ad<>Piion ol the

•tmng chl'd: to the odmk.<lon of forcl!lJl"'" into tlu>
adnuNstr<lt:.lQ.ll qf

our Ntional Gow.mmi.!Jl.l: txpn"&l~]ly th.u thor Commond in chie!f of

lhe.{Afm~n Mmy ~h.,U

not be gl\.-en tn. nor devolve on. anv btU • Ntural bom

3.nd on thai basis some questioned whe:Wr M4'Cai.n was a natura1 born

ci117.cn. Howewr, a militouy InstallAtion in th<> Canal Zone w>S inc!isputnbly Unltf/d
States k>rritory to which the pnnciplt of jus soli t.l{t:ended. 1'1le McCain situation has no
pteeedential slgn.ffh:anct" for this case, ln whkh Cnn a1 birth w.1s a natural bom dtizen

of a forl!i&n sowrcign.. As to Georg~ Romney's brief campaign for~ Pn!:s:idcncy, lhl!-re
was no~ for any court tb rule on his clig:lbllity bclore he withdrew.
rv.

G~"''

Article 0 of the ConstitutlonCalls for tht:States, Not the El«toral
Collqr tg [)vrcrmJne Candjdtlts Eligibility In Stale Primacy l}Ja;tlpn;)

NY Election Law, §6-1.22 pro'lldes that: "'lal pmon shall not be df<ilputrd

for a pubUc office ••• who • • (2) l1 ineligible tq 00 eJected so sud\ office .•. ; ~

'liW~V" CONidton!d childr.m or the dJplollFib.C~rvMtJ 1,.1( ~ gO\'E'tnmcnt who atl!
"~Hof\('(i

abt®d to br ~!ural hom ctiuM. Wl'rJS 10-m. .<\rJ 169 U.S. at6&.'\-68S, Thl.s ~

"'' •""""'' prlnaple uf- "8•111- <<>mmon io~<. 5« McMAromot~. '"~"'•· ot p. 331. loy

l! c.lcctcd mll...n:2t.at. the Ume: o( romtnenct"mcnt of the term or .5\IC:h ofiiw OT po&itiol\
mtts the mnstitutiOfiAI. • qu~UBatigm tbgrgof ..... (emphasis supplied). Hence the

Legislature has YeStod in this Court jurts<liction to detennino the eligibilily of Cnu (or
Me.\Ci!nfl;n'\tth, wpnt. ill p. :+29 n,SO

tlw of6c. 11<> is seclcing

' W ..upp 32&.2CJ.
It

t2

APX - 083

The Cruz campaign apparently contend< \hot the Elcrtorol Colk-ge procedures

Colq,tt- o( Co~ as to wht-:the.r a C"andidate meets the Constitutional qua:lilicatfon)

contained m the TweUth AmL'nd~nt are the exdush-c Corum for deu~·rminlng a

lor tho Pre$1dency. That 1tatute simply outhoriz.es considerntion of irregul.aritiesln !he

c;sndldate•s qu.tlifi<arion. to hold the office of Presid<nt of the Untt<.-d S!at<s This

costing of Etectorol Col""e ballots.

contention hos no merit. The Twt>lf!h Amendment provkf..:

Tho suggested. proo!dW\' of owiltUtg post-<!lcction proet't'dings o£ the 61ectoral

The Elertol5 shall meet in their ~ive stati!S, and vote by

College is shot through with practic;a.l •• W10U oslegol dlsutor potential. The gist of the

ballot for Pre$ident and Vice·President, one of whom. at
least.,. shill not be an inhabitant of the 5ame state \\lith
themselves; theyshaU name in lheirbollotsthe ~"''"""voted

argum~t lS that- after having

for as Preskl(!f'lt, and in dbtfnrt ballots the penon voted for
""Vice-P,...ldent. lllld they •hall l1lllk1: d.C!unct llsLS of •II
pc_r10ns voted for as Pretiident, and all persons voted for as
Vice--President and of the numbu of votes for e;;~c:h. which
Usts they shall sign and ccrllly, and tr•"'"'it ,.,,led to the
..., of the govmtrn<nt of the United States. directed to tho

gone through the entire general election p~ leading

up to Nowmber of !he P""'ldrotl31electlon l"'ar, ond lhe gl:l1etol volin!; public Mvlng
sclected • rr..Jdont·El<'ct. and !he Electors havmg been deslgnat<-<1 to '•ote for the
<andidate prevailmg is> lheirstale (NY Election Law§ 12-100 t1

•"'·l- tho El«toral

Pt<sident of tho Senote.

College shAll be the fits! pl<lce to consider whether !he President-elect is too young (age

The President of the Senats shatJ in the pl'CSCJlCC o£ the
Senal~ and House of Representatives, oprn all the certificotm

:U); or not residmt ln the Uruted States ror the n.."quired Courteen yecus. or not a natural

and tht votN &hall thr·n b£ myotrd

bom dtiu:n of~ Urutcd States.
1t would beabrawm~bcrofCortgre5S mdeed who, in the fa~ of tht:- post·

The person h.tVlns the patest Numbe;r oC yots:s for
Prrs!dtmt shall ® tb£ Prg:ddrnt jfsudl number be II

majority g( lbe wbo)e numbgr gf Eln;tom apoointcd· and if

electjon momentum .Uord<.-<1 o President..lect. would challenge the Pn!<idcnt..,l«t's

no pe150n have such mojority,lhen from lhe pci'50ilS having
!he high""' numberS not ""et't'ding three on the list of tho6c
volt_"CC for IS PNsid~nt. the House o£ Representatives mau

qua!Ule>tionuo Ia!< in the process; !here would instanlly be a hugo cry ol "foul".

choose immediately. by ballot, tho President.

Moceove.r, the mull would to create ongoing lDlD:rtainty as to who the nl!xt p~t

Oearty there is no provision In the 1\\•c.Ulh Amendment for the elcctolli to determnlC'

would be.ltls not reali.<dc to thlnlt ritot lhe ElcrtoraiCallege •hould be lhe 6rst pl.,.,

whether o Presidenl-clert meets !he Article II qUillifie<~Uons (or tho o£ficr; their job is

\hot considerS eligibility for !he office or Pruid....t. ~Cruz oont..,tlon that this

limit'-'d to voting for the c.andldate: that ~a.Ued in the election hcld in their st~t<!'. Stc.

fundaottntal il.s-ue should nol bot ht-21-rd until alter the ~lcd:ion 1s a thtnly·vclk.-d cl!ort to
U1SUt<> that the ls;ruo of meli8Jbility ~uw he is nola n.ttur.al born United S~~ttes dtiz.en

tg. NY Ele<tion Law.§ 12·100tt"''
Nor does 3 U.S.C § 15, • 19"'

""''"'Y stotute enacted in tho woke of !he Hay<>-

ltfden rontcst~ clcctaon of 1876. provide for a dete-musvnlon by eitlll-r the Ete<:tUnd

hMwrdecidl'd.

A legally i.nelfgible candidate: cannot be allowed to participate in a presidential

13

eiOOion without domg &"'""

14

v!o...,., to the Con.titutional qwlilicot.ions douse.

Certainly !he •uthoiS or the Constitution and its omendments did not intl!nd to leav.

U.. entia! issue to be detemuned only ojlu an eledlon h.. o!relldy taken pl<lce.lndeed,
the~ is not

one wocd ut thr 't'wcllth or Twcruielh Amendtncnt:s: thlt dlspla~ or ~.'!~

seelcs to displatl), st~te ju.rlsdiction over elections within a state.ln fact presidential

Tho peu1Jt>t1!hould be f!"'Oied and the Now York Sottt Board or El«tion should
I>• ordvred not to lnclude Cruz It\~"' April 1\1. Wl6 R<!"''>llan l'rlmory I!IK!lon

P•t..S• New Yor]., N•w Vorl<

Ftl>ru..ry 17, W\6

etectlonsare ..an .:srea owr which the Constitution gives Co~ no authority
whatsoever ..

1\n~na v. Inter Tnlml Counol

ofAriwn11., Inc..,_ U.S._. 1335. CL 2247.

J. lkr)\>t<.•n. F.aq

~fe-wY~

6y O:mtrast.. ArtiCle U of Ule Constitution not only dchvers to~ states full
conttol o- tho method of pickmg Presidential elmo,.; it ""'uiros !hem to eJ<crcise !hat

power: ·•EArn State~ appoint, in such Manner as !he t..gislatlln' thereof may direct,
• Nwnbet of Electors, ••••• (cmphosis supplied). It Is therdore abund•ntly cloar \hot

the: Cc:»mtltuhon was wtitlen to confer on the states the p<)'WCI". indeed U'le obligation, to

on•ct J•w• !ltrchu NY Election Law §6-122 which pertain to !he -ntlal clec:tlon
process within each stat"- There Is no rea.oon that W.. power should (ail to include

detemUnma, whether u candldak' for Pretident in a primary ell!dlon m~ts the
fundammtal ConsutuHonal rt_-quin.!mc:nlt for thAt Qfflce. Othenvw voters could readily
cost their vot.. for an incliglble penon during tho ptinwy- ond only aftor the g.,.,.l

tl«tlon would they 8nd out \hot their eandldote w .. dlsquolilled. At that pomt it
would, or course. be tar too late to VOl? U\ a

Ro~c<r

~ Fifth A\otm\1~. 3511

2268 n.2(21l13) (Abto. J,. dissenlinS on other gi"OUlllh).

primary (or onother candidate who is

ebgible

t5

APX - 084

Aoor

N•w\otk 10017
tel· flll) 748-4WJ
h ...- (646) 'J64.6b33
1\'

Tl).ltjll!l rth-An

Uti!

B•nJ>rnln Dlctor. £sq
l!!sn<r t.r Auoclole, P.C.
IJ31Jn!Verolty Placr
N•w York, NY 10003
fel· (212) 47J.l11011
t

..:.r.,. biY rut ·•

'1o1ft

'IT'

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ALBANY
Index No.: 0707-2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
:
Hon. David A Weinstein, AJSC
BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO
:
:
Petitioners,
:
:
-against: AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
:
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
:
NOTICE OF MOTION for
:
Respondents.
:
CPLR §7802(d) -Intervention
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Staff Report on February 2016 Presidential Ballot Access Filing Period as of February 19, 2016
Type of
Document

Candidate

↓ PRIMA

FACIE

REVIEW ↓

B. Sanders
and Sheralyn
Goodman, et
al

President and
Pledged Delegates
to National
Convention

Bernie
Sanders

President of the
US

DEM

PETITION

Bernie
Sanders

President of the
US

DEM

PETITION

Cristin Griskie

President of the
US

DEM

PETITION

PETITION

Office

District

Party

Description of issue

SBOE staff

Decision

recommendation

On/Off

↓ PRIMA FACIE REVIEW ↓
CD 17

DEM

Insufficient signatures on its face.

Invalid Petition

5000 signatures required, and filing consists of 4 pages only. A valid
petition is on file
Insufficient signatures on its face

Invalid Petition

5000 signatures required, and filing consists of 6 pages only. A valid
petition is on file
Insufficient signatures on its face

Invalid Petition

5000 signatures required, and filing consists of 1 page only. A valid
petition is on file
Petition filed late: due 2/4 and received by 2/5 – petition was
postmarked 2/4 but received on 2/9. Insufficient signatures on its face.

Invalid Petition

5000 signatures required, and filing provides cover letter claiming 172
signatures filed.
PETITION

Roque
‘Rocky’
DeLaFuente

President of the
US

DEM

Petition received late. Due 2/4 and received by 2/5 but petition bears
no postmark or similar shipping date, and was received 2/8

DECLINATION

Patrick
Mulholland

Sanders Delegate
to National
Convention

DECLINATION

Vilma TorresMulholland

SUBSTITUTE

SUBSTITUTE

Invalid Petition

CD 18

DEM

Declination received late. Due 2/8 and received by 2/9 but declination
was postmarked 2/9 and received 2/11

Invalid
Declination

Sanders Delegate
to National
Convention

CD 18

DEM

Declination received late. Due 2/8 and received by 2/9 but declination
was postmarked 2/9 and received 2/11

Invalid
Declination

M. Sussman

Sanders Delegate
to National
Convention

CD 18

DEM

No certificate of substitution filed. Declination on which substitution is
based was late (see above).

Invalid
Substitution

K. Levering

Sanders Delegate
to National
Convention

CD 18

DEM

No certificate of substitution filed. Declination on which substitution is
based was late (see above).

Invalid
Substitution

↓ ACCEPTANCE/DECLINATION SUMMARY ↓

Exhibit 3

APX - 085

Staff Report on February 2016 Presidential Ballot Access Filing Period as of February 19, 2016
Type of
Document

Candidate

Office

District

Party

Staff Report on February 2016 Presidential Ballot Access Filing Period as of February 19, 2016

Description of issue

SBOE staff

Decision

recommendation

On/Off

Type of
Document

Candidate

Office

District

Party

Description of issue

SBOE staff

Decision

recommendation

On/Off

of service.

↓ OBJECTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS – LATE/FAULTY ↓

↓ NH = ↓
OBJECTION

OBJECTION

Ted Cruz

Marco Rubio,
Ted Cruz and
Bobby Jindal

President of the
US

President of the
US

REP

REP

Objector Fischer – Objection received late – due 1/29, but was
postmarked 1/30 and received 2/4 Natural born citizen. Objection is
beyond the ministerial scope of the board Objection is made in
incorrect venue, as no direct election for president occurs via election
day ballots.

Invalid
Objection

Objector Laity – Natural born citizen. Objection is beyond the
ministerial scope of the board. Objection is made in incorrect venue, as
no direct election for president occurs via election day ballots.

Invalid
Objection

↓ SPECS ↓

↓ RE SPECS: SUMMARY OF STAFF FINDINGS ↓

N/A

↓ HEARINGS CONDUCTED: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ↓
N/A

SPECS

Ted Cruz

President of the
US

REP

Objector Fischer – Objection received late – due 1/29, but was
postmarked 1/30 and received 2/4. Specifications provide no proof of
service. Natural born citizen. Objection is beyond the ministerial scope
of the board. Objection is made in incorrect venue, as no direct
election for president occurs via election day ballots.

Invalid
Objection and
Specs

SPECS

Ted Cruz and
Marco Rubio

President of the
US

REP

Objector Laity – Natural born citizen. Objection is beyond the
ministerial scope of the board Objection is made in incorrect venue, as
no direct election for president occurs via election day ballots.
Specifications provide no proof of service.

Invalid
Objection and
Specs

OBJECTION
and SPECS

Piyash
‘Bobby’
Jindal

President of the
US

REP

Objector Laity –No ballot access certificate filed. Natural born citizen.
Objection is beyond the ministerial scope of the board Objection is
made in incorrect venue, as no direct election for president occurs via
election day ballots. Specifications provide no proof of service.

Invalid
Objection and
Specs

OBJECTION
and SPECS

Ted Cruz

President of the
US

REP

Objector – Korman - Natural born citizen. Objection is beyond the
ministerial scope of the board Objection is made in incorrect venue, as
no direct election for president occurs via election day ballots.
Objection received late – due 1/29, but was postmarked 2/16 and
received 2/17. Specifications are late – due 2/4, and provide no proof
of service.

Invalid
Objection and
Specs

OBJECTION
and SPECS

Ted Cruz

President of the
US

REP

Objector - Gallo Objector – Natural born citizen. Objection is beyond
the ministerial scope of the board Objection is made in incorrect venue,
as no direct election for president occurs via election day ballots.
Objection received late – due 1/29, but was postmarked 2/16 and
received 2/17. Specifications are late – due 2/4, and provide no proof

Invalid
Objection and
Specs

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ALBANY
Index No.: 0707-2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
:
Hon. David A Weinstein, AJSC
BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO
:
:
Petitioners,
:
:
-against: AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
:
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
:
NOTICE OF MOTION for
:
Respondents.
:
CPLR §7802(d) -Intervention
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Exhibit 4

APX - 086

No hearing
required/held

LAMAII COUNTY. GA. SUP£RIO'\ COOI!T

teU\~EQ"mf'rca

SPABOOk~AG£5~

~

llEAA'i CWU<

'That \VE the Peop1~ IU'C only thoee prwo.te Cadwra undar COO• .out Jiublic cluun! under men. and that
guarantee w1tb'u t..hi.s Notion that each Privat~ Cttit.en'a utlo..lienable right.& and bcnftrclal inht.rtst illl
~ure in JMlfJK!tut()' aP lonw tu~ tht.' Su\'«!!reiln Peopt~ of thia N~mon 11ct undar GOO u ~xP~ in cht>
Book or ltoLRh Chapter 6.5 Verse 1 thru 5, bt>reaflctr quotinr from the J(jng ,Jamn Vtr.tic)n. of th ~ Btble:

.....

ThAI thc- ..nalur•l~rn

txp~ed b

1. Ao, every one thot lhtr.Rte-1-h. come ye to the woter!IJ. and he thnt hath no money, come ye, buy, and

!!8.

est; yea, oome, b\lV wane rmd milk wnhout monoy and "''thout praec.
2. Whcrt>£ore do ye r5pend money Cor that wbJch ts not breed~ and your labour Cor thot wh.ch
t.atillfif'th not? ht.•arken dilhtontly unto me, Anti eat }'C that whJeh ut 1f0Qd, nnd let your .oul deli1:ht
t\.IKI:lf an (at.neu.

d.tspleA~JUretn tbt!July

17a6 nttifitnnoo dlJCIUDWOt uf'

"''hsit tbould h..we boon, quoU!
~ "" &t4QM orrm autum! hum
Cj'i.;.·,• ,.,. •4t'h cu t~>e~Y ~on
~{tift tlv (ourlh dt;ty o( July ,,.~

(tr

itrn1J.¥J~Jd tt"I~YJ. ~wltl:irrd OJfll MA"Itl)'
t~U. 11r tufh. 01 l1rtd Cqmtnjpt!llt.t

3. lncll.nt!: your t:llr-. and come unw me: hear, and y{tur soul ~hnU hve; nnd I wall make on everlaating
CO\'eOil.nt ¥dth )'OU, 4.\V(!O the IIW'O ml'rctC8 of David.
1. Behold, I hA'-e: &1\'e.n him fur o. wito~ to the poop1o, n. Jt>ador ond eommAndt>r to th~ pooplo.
fi. Behold, thou shah. call a nation that. Lbou k:nowe.s:t. not., and wations that. knew not thee
aball rl,.ID unto t.hM but'AUSe or the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he
bath g lorilhtd

Cit.i~en'"'

Cl4u,.t' cqma;.-!Se'd in tOO nuifitd l1$.
Con.n1tu.Lion .A.rtie't- j Slrtk)n I
Ct.lbC 6 WIUI uDPI)llttd by lhe P(.-opl~,ol
mNow York Wlth 1!.1Dphns~ Lhnt Wll&

th~e.

That the i•ographlo bo~der and ol•• oftblll NATION of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
mcluding at.s popula.uan accarditlg lo thP ~WI ol2010 18 dl'pJetM in t.ho mllp and chart below with a

nmp ahowmc public 11nd pn\'Dt~ l.und that mcludos the eoa&ual waters out to the limit. of200 n1ilea u.s
.And lha Prople oC New York
warned:

rollowo;

Federal Go,·crnmcot Lands In the U.S.

lbtJt th.- Pb"~agfGqrvnmrnt mqy

be

muermrd

wluuwlft.'fr

Ehr

hJ

tlytlJ

,,

&ntde
bmunc

fH:qpqn lo thrjc Jlqpmn•W.: IIWJ

t"ryry Pou'f'.r~ JuriMlidion aM riRhl,
u.·/ddt ~ nul ey Ill~ tolrl
~d,.,:tdd'!l<llrtllo ""
f'onlfn:~d(tlw! (!rritt"(/ Slntr-.or lhr
;/~tp.lrtmr;;t.,~o. of f{lf! Gf,M<;•fYtttW.ttt
IIJt!W>{. N..,tOtn.J.lo lilt Ftot~ ol tht
Mwnol S'UJI,•s, nr to tliNt ru6pt-(I1Vt!
St11lr t;.,..._.,.,.,,.f'nl• tq ,, ho1" t!u.-y

may hmlc )trUHttd tit,. ..Jmt', And
1/lol thOM t.Hnu~s i111 tlu• *'id
!t•Mrh d•v.kur1, llurl

..-..._. ..,......,..............
_tllW.._ .....,_.......

~

Ct>ntrea iJhol/ not hal~ q.r ~

._
,_.._,

·----

fl"rlOIIl ~~.

do

_,_ ______ .

- ~ .. o....

_____
__

. u . ...... ~,.,..,.._,...
.,..._

......,.. ""

~S"-.e""T

Page 2

......_.

impl,i thai
tillY

F\tr{W'f

C-f'HUtitult~on;
ro ~ ......,,,&trw'cl

,Rk"" b.t lhr .Ud

but &ucl; Clau.-.A a,...

Exhibit A

(101

C',ottgf"..41 &. tcnWinl lo
Ml

rttht~r

m

~pU()n.Jj

tn

rniwft

IPI"Ci{Jai l-bi4'«'nt, or .u ana..·r«..U

....,.

mrtYIJ fur grftllff CouJion

ExbibilA

or 15

lAMAR COUNTY. QA Sli>eqiOA COOAT

A;~~~~i
ll&VTY CW<

That th~ Natur•l-born Citiu"n clause doe.- NOT derive &om the term or art "natura\..
boro Subject" but mtrill!'ud W'J!Ui" dl'rivt-d &om nntientroM.ider~~;b.Qn o£ CiOD'Il Natural Lo!tYo fl!t txJ'"'.ate-d
m On.~ by the work• of .-\ri"totl~ and tamed forwprd (or UI'O m ft(lmnn law by 'he worb of~ro.
Artitot.le dtd oot deline citil'J..hip Ub the En~lillb dtd In the En&]!.eh <OllliDOD l•w 10 which they
did nOt'fO\"e a~· relevan~ to tho Cltlztnfitup or tlw child'• pa.rente, ))rovadod the paroote \\'en!< not
dJplDmats or malila.ry Jn,•odera. Anttotle U\Ciud~ U1 the d~:~fin11ion or a ·cui.tA.. a penon ..of «J.'hom OOih
thcpoi'r.nU Oft! ctl&.:-tn•."' !II Jt iB thts deflrut.uln wh..icl\ Wft.rl, hAildt!d dowo through r.bemillMOJtl through
cba law olru&bonA IUld 't\'ht.ch th(! 1-"'uun&~ all(]. P:rtUUt<rt~ adop~ ror the new rt'publW. W• nllo 4t!ll! that
Lilt' t~l $Uftn!Uitf CUurtufdw Uu.iW•l Sl;.el.uo(S(IOTUS)

Ui

MwY' ,. Mumrrt\'fl

aa u..s

t21 W.as.ll) 102

(18761 <M!!w:) (deetd'.-d a(teT tbt! four~1nth Amendm~nt WBI'> adopted IP 1868) held thru •ofl childnn
b.Jrn ur o country of poN'nlf u·lw t("n' tlk<"~li«tt# br:-comr tllf'm,;eh-r•, upq,. thnr b~rlh, c•'trzM~ol«.t. 'I"Jr.eM
u•trt noltun or Mtuml·bam cUi=f'll8,.,. di#linJPti•hNI from uli~>M or {orfJf/nfr(o• infcnmed thor-n pan10n
who boctun~ o citi-r.eo by bCl'lnlt born u:a the Q'!Ountry w "citi.un"' porentA wow known to common law w-.lh
.,., hach tbc l'"'rrutHH'" wc·re ranuluu AS" a "n.otJ.;rol·b()rn citi...~n." Row do we know th11t rbe ltotmden &nd

Fro.mrn.lookod to Antttotle'e

Yl(l.W

o( CJ.ti.1.c.rulup? We leur:n. £tom the

h.unoncall'l'C:Ord thatSupnmH" Ct.urt

.1\aeuco Jamc• Wilton wrot~ &.n 1791· ··GtMrollytJX!Okln.g1 '10n th~ groot pohtiMI outhoritj, ~4n&.tot~ 'a
rW.z-eiii8Cilft" ptJI'W}Wt1J.l'QI'Ol{y (lj p(HtrranJ of f#Ubord!nn/wn ,. ln Wil~m·· Vlt>W, •o rUut'n. tt/
t\o.ttn.ByltorulJ '"he, u'hD hM r~&Jdctl ,,. rhr ,...lalt' lub)'mT6, nttd, u'~'" llmltma~. ho. poid o ttot,e or
tmmty tu:c or hf iA bnU't't'"n thr CJi(H of w..-ll.(-.' 0'"' rmd tll'f'nt;l IU'(I.Vttfro, ond tJu. Mn ofa ati.rt•n. • Jamce
WU~Wn. Lit commenane.o; on the: C<..n"btutlrm. a~re we ch.!.arl>· ..ee Wdr.on referr1n& to w"hat oould onl)'ile
a "nntuml b.lrn C'iti:ttn• u"/111 .1011 ofncllizttn"
We also kno¥.· that thQ Founders and Fnune,...stud.ted Romnn law. The Prn.men-..~re well n:nd in
rh.,_ Roman ond Oreti~k clniSS!I:.Iii a. L"l ~poundoc,l upoa m Lhet-r wrab.ntcl!lt.D Lhe Fed.er&.h.llr Po.pera; Joffenten
I .Ariiiode rliJIO ,.,.. 04. d.t.fi.Dlll(.!l) tiL IJ PIILWAI born C•I.Ult'Q. tn "PoUtaU. &ok Tht~.
150 R.C.J.t, "M trarb-14ti!'d by 8cnJ•ItrUn JOW\!lt, t;ave 1.b hu. dto6ruUon (l( OUJ'i'Mhlp
·PartU

r.rc. II• •'\rl.!ftosle. Wntitl(l"'

Sua m prac.uc:e a QW;rn "thOn«l tg bc one afwhom both lhr oarrntl ace cW;cne, CKhe-NIIn.t"ltt em
ICQJOI(.lul'th..~r bwldt; ...,_v to two or ~aor mort .anoectD,.,. Th~ lla •hart.nnd pracbea.l dl'fin.U1Cln but thi.'l"tt
ca~ 10mt1 who rnt.l:'l'! d~ot- !dnhtrquHuon HJJW tlue t.Nrd.or fourth 11ncea.toreame co be a eibxcn?(ku1{iuor
kootull, pArtly bHav.~o:: ht' Wilt u1 ~ dll1ic\llty. plrtly m U'QD)'0 aud· 'MortaTS.aft whAt bl mutU- b)' th~
mmv.r--outb.D. ;1nd tbt tllW!P!Jo!Lan&IJI AI'(! thoP.-- ,.,hom• m.a~ by~ ma(lAU'ate•; for illl tlwt:r tradt~- to
au1.k41 l..ariJ;.u(lnns..' Yot dill! qUH.UOn lf. really •1$ple. for. if llalOrdmr to the dcfinabonj1.1i.tt IJ\'t!ll they Mt•ted
In tht pwrnmtnt, t.hby
tal&X4DL Tb.ut.,. o hflttf>rclufirutaon Llum c.bt•other. For tht word~. 'born of a.
.C..U.bt.r or modwr who ~ a mttnon.' Cl.nD()t po•«1bb' apply t4 tbl! 6rtt mbtJtitant.t or roundc-h- or 6 .to,le.

""'rfl

TIM!n~,. a aruu,r difficuhy m t:.l:ll' cat~t or~ v.-bv biYt be.n tMIU! c:a:twm•afu..r 1 K'YOiuuon . ..,. by
C:W~ IJU At.b41n.~afUir tlw t~.puJsaonoft.hc.• tyn.nt.t. lor bco NlroUud 1n tr-ibH: JDADY metw, both
•t.....,Kt'rtJ"nd t.ltt\t"& Tht.·doublw ~auu..., ao: •hull. buL\Iobocht.rhr wbollou.htto.,.,.rad.u~

bt a (\lrc.hnu.w O.r ..ur.e. whtlhf.r~t o:rU.iA~ \JUr 11 noc..a.n ~«:t.of"t.he •urte: (or WhAt
tJugbt rwt to bu ~ wb.ot &a f.alle-. so.,.., thent
toCOl~ wild bold oiJiot.. ADd '!ICL uu.cbt aot co hold ol!i.:e. wholo
"'!<r dua1.b, d.!l.rulmg. btu .rul1ne WlJUf:t.l~ .A.nd tbe~!J..W,tn ...ude-fw~ by Ow:' ("d.oftu..boJr!&.naJrOml! \t.nd o(
ni.lc cw llffioo· be wbo holda • 1ud.toalor leCJtlab.Ye officr ru(fiu. bW" dtd'i.oitioo o( • a~.U.Cn It;., CrYld.CIOI,
\b~ that the- ou¥.~a• aboul whom the doubt h.u a,..n mua& be Cill}ed cat;ltOP~
-.Qd thr~ ,..Lll•UlJ

·blU.t
Exhibit A

*'"

~mJLrd!.k'At"!.f"kJPPluaa btml

Page 4 oflS

11nd udw.r Foun.dnn h.Ad tt IO\ to for Roma.n h.l&tury and t"ducru)on Tho ..Pot.t.nd.el'* dru,l.f'H.mt!n -waro gn-!at.
lldma~ofCteuro and rend nuut.y of his wctrk..... It lE- nM uwoncl!!1\'o.biD that t.bey would hn\'l' .read this
EnRii.ah tre..Mlauon t1! TJ•~ Proposal 'J e.n.d ef'Gn the C'l.oWJe ..nolutal born Cit~·,.n-." 'rhu ~~;bi'K' a thot tboy
d1d nol nee-d c.n tx~rrow the c)uu..e &urn Ent:lHoh comm<Jn law•~-; "natural I.Hmt ~Jbjt-rt" Ralh~r. lhu)' had
toe~urcoa. that they read wluc:.b c:anuined the lJMr:t chm.e.. ,JrJI1~rol bnrn CUU'I'tt." wb1ch cluu~te 11lio .bod tU!
('IWn ttu•arung whJ<th \\'1\A dt.ffeteOI from t.hn 0£ an E.nclath "lh)IUtal born. I.J;bjftr whJoh Allo'-·00 cb.i.ld.t\otn
born tn tht' Ktng~~ dom.uuon and. under 1m aUot~uuu;t> Wal1uu to bt.1 Eugl..l.:th ·noluml bortt •u.t.J~t...·
" dl"6nlll()n of a ·nolutallxtrn Cili:~:n· Wa.& al!<J pttwtdod b~ tbt- wurld·l'(!nownC!d Lmt•t do Vatt~ll.D
bJ.$-ThcLaw qfNnlfo/11. S«.tlon !t12 (l...Cindun 1791) (I"-' l"tL N~uc.butcl 1768). VtHwl h11d n ~1
anDueru:o on tho Founden. and Frame~ 1.n thear "uatJtut1ng t.ht> nt;~ republic and wntmg thu
fommtulitm See. (m oxamp)~. J.S ~\~!o Tb~ lnllwntr pi thr Lwc.• ofNqWcr LfpAA lntrmquonbl Ln~t•
intJu· Unjtrd Stbtr1 3Am..l.lnt'J L. 5471.\L !MeQ. p116tim (1909) (V.auru bcrted aueb. a prQrqund polltic.al

1nOuttnr.e chrn n.., arten pcnn1<'d aut 1h1tt hu t.heorte.a fi4!TWd n.s the bttc:kbcllll' for Am~ncan 1nde:pendeneo)
lAit A CaSE'y, Ovvid B. lltvlun. Jr. und Donn It Bormun. l."olu" lui Btll,Mfrenry qad It• ltrwhrotron•
lllldq lakrnoUpnnJ f4),w, {JUnt()))\'ft fi-.d·MIS!.otgll>yhlicv.lliliU!dlui;!IP U!41pub dtLul n~ (conoorrung US.
aon«tatuuvn.a.l aual,:.·lit. ""ro1~ it' lushJ.o;,,..portor,l. Ht· '""' probobl:r tit,. ""'"'1t.ot•o,ollau np.·rt 11101t
,iJ,dtl) f'fOd omong tht!FNJ"'~rs--t. ld r_,ez. \'"a~l continued t.O he prooueally applied i.n our n.11tion ror wcll
owr 100 )'l,ar.. a.ftn the b1n.b C\f rht· rt'p.ublic:F.S. Rudd> Tl!t AQt'~'nlgtu!l of \f"qtttl Orouan&tlcty
P•p., 11072) (\'art•! ,... Ol!Uo>ln!lll!l polilu,al phtlooophy duritl~ th•
ohbo C<>ruttiluOon. ~
LaUI ofNqUog wa~ ~•gnificantl,y the at08t ot.ed. ie-§lll80u.J'OC- w Am<U"u:u J~pru.diml'e batwecn l760 and
1820). Thu Founders and F'ram.~.~rsttudl~d u.od "\\D~ groatl.'' ..n.Oucnred by Voue.l R..O NJJtlU&Cin, XJH.
Original Ctm&tilurion 1!'1 und G9 (~OJO) (... l'ottel ua, prolmbl.v thr Fomtdt"N' {nl'On~nutlum:,• c)n
w~mol141tullow
"and hat. trentwe, The Lau• ptf\'quon.t, was- tbt.u.r (Avotno)
What Mi4tl£UJ.d about a ~nawrol bor1t Cit,un~ \¥811 confirmed tn li.&. tt, Ujlu K1m drlt. 169 U.S
6-1.9 ( 1898) (llckDbWI.~d~Ol( and COn.fiJ'OUJlf:t M.uwr'tt- Atncncan C</m.UlUn law d~fi.ruuon or. •n.alural-born
cili.z.,.n• bul~tddlng ba.M"d on t.ht' £.ogU11b C(ltai.ID.On tnw t.bllf ttnc& ~{c )li" thild of tm aliPn 1 if horu rn the

"'nil"'

of'""

CGunt,.,# ,., aa muclt a c•luc.•rt u•llt; flUiu..rul...born r:h.ild of o tit~"· Ulid by Optftll1on
"!fiJm!!pnnc.iplt!
(bJ.rth m the countty]- (br6t:~blt.'d IDfO"rrrtbbon •uppht'd), a c:lnM ltonl Ul ~e Ur:rt~d S!Mleti t,o dum.IQled
~than pArt'DtM wM.n Fou.rtct!nth .1\.m~ndmtt.nl •eitizcn vi lltt' f'rtlt.llfl SUJlf'i'), Tht5 Arn~nCftn common In~
d£!fin1lwn ot a ~IWL•Jrnllxmt Cit~M.. baA oaver been ehangc>d. not even by the FoW""t.Ceot.h Anu;odmeot
(only u~~ t.ht! clAu!W' •ciJizl'n of tht Pnlt.ffl Stot~3· and dUC& not me.ruion ~notmul born Cut:tn•) or by
U·Pne Kuu ·\r' and thert~(unur;tiU p~vult today. Both llto&e U.$. Supremo.l.."'<Jun caset de!.lme 11 •n.otural
born Ciliunlt -'.if •1 ch1ld born 1n n. country to po.nmtA who arc ctll.Ze1UI of tbAf country.
~ Roman l&tw ptOVidttcl. ·~~ ME.NSIA lJtAu.Jdl11d •hQ;yld be hcld...u..A...fgnU~t ..J(,r,;itbrr oflhft ptfCAIJ
DL& Bul if both ptrtnll W..(l_~oa.I\UIUl.marzfttil....~bUdrpp alwayw gblAinrdt.be.omkphht ratbor
!.PfiiU.W ·~uuntur Ub.r1, t..f,•. 'V 1.) •t.nd 1f un.m•rned• 4.1hb. mOlb•r. Vrp-um," ..\lt!XaJUI.G.r Ad.am. Roman anuquuiea:

oc-,An a-o:;uunLcJthe atan.ato!DiiQd eu«tocoloflbo Rota~~on. J10(6thod. corroccd Ui07). Clecrro wrote mA Pmpout

w.,..

1'ht ColQpbOrua.o..t d.&uo Utmaer Al!'t.bw o~·o fl:w.~ t>o.wwu c.be C'ban• cha.Ut.ow(" him ..
tbi. Salaauniant
di:!.Ul.a.nd blm •CUUl Mr thr!tr I.JW"II but~ SO).frQt.all.& Uf(!rt. him to bt> tbtrt.r nat.una'J bam r,won: and t.b..l~!Cft b.n\'(1
~ dt>d"~Urted a T•~:~~ple co ht.m w t.MP- Towg ofS10yrwt TheN" ue r1. vern tz:l4.t\)' bttJ.~ •t OGI\tttt·dra•mJ amon.c
tbem.~!Yto• and cooiJCOd lor b,u;o
,\Pro~&) Fc.w Pn:oun~ tn !n~etu.b. 'rbl'! s,.II'C;t (JriiOOIHol ~latt18 1--u.!Uu.r; Ctce,.,. ~rd.IDIJ tO the lw!lOdord
Schoon 17 (llenry Eelbeck tram London 1720)

APX - 087
Exhihit

A

Pogo 6 of lfi

to the mnttr r of Romq's Coup d'etat oyer lht: ...AccursAA" Uni h•d Stotes ofAmerhm

In thq Jl.llllorO&nl(uftlu~ Act wh1ch tbe ei1)Gt:tonttUy dUltrcl!wlto~t Coo&:rtWt n~wr rt'l\d the followm,r mWJt
llf' und."'tood

by Eric J on Phe lps wttb edlto by CbrllltA>pbi!J' En.rl Strunk (201•1)
On ;\far eb 4, 1933 Fr anklin Dolo n o Roosevelt (FOR) n""ume• tho Offioo of PreSident of tho
United Sww., 11nd wnh lri• lnnugurn l AdtlteHS >llllw• •nd IllVet! ALL Prol"'rly tUid pe~n• ••
coUtttcn•l fur the deb I of che United Sua tea in noti.onnJ "'cnnsecrnuon.. to its prun~ Crcditort1, t.be
Vouca.n St.aw and Crown's City or London. and as Commander in chief FDR iss u es
Proolnmntlon 2089 on l\tarcb 6, 1933,1utthe Military Conqueror"" if he wc>:C "Auguatus
Ca.,...r· ortb• American Republic, decl«nng o •~>•tc of Notional Emergency b....-d upoo
The "T r ading Wit h th e Enemy Act" of October 6. 1917 (•10 S totutc Low ~ 11):

., Tho ·enenv" wn• dc:!:fiiU'd to lw •u.n.y ut.dJVldunl. pB.tfne.n;lup, or o&lwr bt.dl of tnd.Jviduala of
11ny nUUdOillny. ~ldf"rlt wttlunthe t.vmt<n·y ofAI'I)' ntttt4>n w1th whwh the lJnstNI Sw~ Ul ot.
wur.

CongnltiB ot tbo domuod of owty Gov•ruor o n M11rcb !l, 1933 pai!SI'o tho "Emergency Banking
Rnlief Act~ (12 USC 96n), thoreby Am""dtn« the notoriowt World War I Statute "'''rnding With
tbo E n e my Ac t.. uf Ootoh<\r 6, 1..q11 (fiO USC App. n(b)) l'l'WEA), and theD F'OR i,;s..ee
Proclamat i o n 20 40 on MRroh 9. 193i'l, also <'Onlirml'd by "Emergency Banking Relief Act"
(12 USC 95b) and lmn!Png the 'lWEA inland, imp06mg Militllr:l' Go>·t!rnmon t

a . Olhf•r rnemv • jndJvtdua.l• Wt+n! dt•finl.'d ft8 " nntl\"('".i>, citi-Mnfl. (•r tUbJt.IC"ta orony u~tttun with
whkh t.bL' lfru1t...~ S!Ateto til 111 wnr. othC!r th•n c.h.lt.tus or &he United S t..atce .. Tht:.I!IC
..dtu.l!U!'' uf the.• Uuit(·d Sttl:tei""' m 1917 held Priv,_li' dtit..cn..-hlp nf tht> Umted S tuk'IJ withaul
huv•n~ bPcn l"('(iuet.'CI tu the in&"'llOr citJ.wn•h•p lft:ttu~ of~t~ f)r'UJ>f' ft.)' o( and atttetv fot th(t
S~t~.~.crentod
.
Publ1c 'CJllt.L'It of thtt Un1ted Stat~.· "'bkh public cltillHboh1p • I.Ot.Us ¥.-IU

Tbt' "'TI'tldin~ Wrtll thi.· Jo~n~m>' AeL.• rt• pJt~~>ed otit;u1all,y U1 HH 1 ttnd amended in 1918. was

mMdt! to apply w any .e.oe:my" ur lhe United St.tttt-.•

""""""' un Mordt 9, 1933.

Tlui Amended WWl St.nlutc m Cucn regard.t nD "PERS ONS" "Within the United S tates" u•
"<'i>.cod l)l'oporty of the federalll""ornxoenr to b<> ttt>at<'<l •• <m •oneo:ny" aod "en crt\)· ally" or
' be lllg" r" n \5 nod •ebe lof' by th<• C<lnqucrcr'• ?.lililltry ao... rnmunt..

1"1w "'rrodma W1tb Lhl"l 1.1numy o~\ct~ a..l8o d.(lfincd thL• ten» ..per&Oo . A "pcl"50n" \\"'M ·ol"""'med
[0 mean an md1v1dWI.I. p~rstup, !WtOODtion, comp.an~·. ur ot htor utu.Aellrpu.ta.led bod)' of
tndJvLdua.J-. or oorpumt.ion or bod.t pohw: ... 1'htlrt!l'ort H\ 1917•• • penJOn · could mc...n bot.h u
nittut"'l P'-'non/Pnvtttt Ctti:r.cn of thQ Umtl-d S!Jtt4:1J Jt.Od an ~rtific:mt 1)4'ntOniPubhc dt~·n uf
rho Unuod St.ot~-& In ~ri Vlll.ogo.

Tbolo(> •l)elllge renl.8 aDd rebeltl" .are publiely """dlalf an tho Sc,•~rni g,...,_ Now <'on.<odered
ca be "'conqUel"ffd

~rrl t.ori es:

• By WJ9 ol!l Am<tn"'tn Common Law CiVIl ~'roc:<:"" will be gonl!. ln il.,; p inee wiU be Raman
Civil Lnw )fA.J'tlol Proceu imposed on aU "PERSONS" (naturnl and nmfinailoubJoct to
tho Cuaqu•lOl"• D• facto Equity .Jurisdic tion of the "'U nited State !I.'
Tluii Martial Proce.. wlllapply t-u oU Publil: "United St<oteJi Cifueo• "

6. 'f'hcnr(o..., n ' t><>rw n· ••• defined b, the ' 1'rtl(hng W\lh tho Encmy Act' 010 INCLUDE a
•oit.o:cn of the United Stnt~~: whK:h a t the unw ~as o Pnvnto •citiz.on oft he UniU!d Statt'tL"

r. Th• 'P.mel'l:onay 1.\nJ\Jdnll: Relief Act" o(Mon:h 9. tu38, Kmonded lbe "Tnodlng With tit<:
t:ncmy 1\cc.· or t917 (prt'YJOU:!dy amunded fouri•.·on tJmoe rrom March 2G. 1918. to Mareh 10,
1930). hri.ngmJI' tbe 1'n~d.io& Wtth the Enl\my Act · tn111~ tht! Umt~ Su.tt.~ ltpplying ll to "any
plou•ub)«l to th.}urhldl<:lion th<rwr Jull lll<'Stol<&tl·rthl,.r h~ UrUu!d Su.Iu] when
provtbUtLty. under the.· -rrndi.ng W1Lh tbc Enemy Act, ,.JltroMft<:ti(,na •euclllrd U"'holl,v
Ulithin lhr United S tatelf wcn.o uxtluded

Tluo Marti ni Process co.nntn apply to Pm'<IW "Citl• cn>s of the Unite d S ta.tCll," Pnvotcly
I'Hidtlllt on tho land t<l C<lmmon l.ilw. wlul~ holcionc Pn vnw Slat<> c,w,rulup PUro\IIUll\0

Sccboo loftbul4••AmundmenL
'"!'he Emergc nC)' Banking R e lie f Act" !EBRAJ 148 S t atute L.1w 1)

a...,..

Thi. Act aooompb!lhed the Desit<n of the Society o! J eou• U1 ·the C<lmpuny'•"
Con•Jill'BD)'
OgDltl$.l th~ Ulx>rt."W.s the Vrutod StolCI- SPt farcb 10 Su.m.ue) Mo~'J Nmetoonth ccnrury
mn~tcTPiocc, foo•rpn Cmypitntt Agnim;l tht UberltttJ oflht• United Scnt~t• ( It)$5). Ju11t ~the Ordot
hnd brou11ht tilt> Bnt"h AdlJIU't\lty u-«...nng h<>tb • aunmnl and civil JUrudicllon unhlce Amel"'CCW
Adnural\y '"th only n ci••il JUrtodittoon) mla.nd 10 th• du)'fo of JMuit..ruled King Chari.. StuBrt l "f
En1lund LMI't'hy ultt•atpllog to do uwu)· with the En~boh Common Law "n tho loud, tbe JeBUltB
ooconlpliobrd Moentu.U, tbt• AAmt• thtnl! hr,...ln Amoncn "~'b th,. wtck•d Act ntdcd by the
· Roo,..,.veh Ooutl

or

, '11M! "Kmt•f'I:L~nc.:y &n.ki.nt Rei.HJ"Att• dtfint....J nt\f ·per .on· Ill mm~n ""n mdtvtdu:d.
Jlo(tri!WrMl'li!J1 n.lf6(,11ttlat:ion Of corpomtwm • ~term "pei"'In" wu defini\CI \0 mean •• Publk
"at.l.lJ:n c-(thu Umtc.-d Statcd.* The ~nm "parson• e:c.eludL,. a PnV11W ~t.-t'l.en of L~.J Urutcd
Suu.,. ·

s.

v..t th the Enemy Acl" d,,(inNi ij "'J)('rseon" to fndude--n Pr1vnw Ctu:wn Qr
tb" t lmlvd Stot....., 1'bu "1-;mc.tgC.J."'C')' Btmk•na: tt..·lw( Act• d~finud a •persoo• to~ ~Jn andir"LI.ll

Th~M:!roro. th, ...rrud.uu;

P•g• 7 or 15

EshibitA

EshibitA

Pnge G or l5

LAMAR COUI<TY, G~ S\IPERIOR COURT

f/Mft~DEfr'<~CL~~m

BPA SOOK:=::::a.g::PAGES
bEPUTY CLERk

ttJlte!

en my (obviously be in!' a part.aerolup, a.!IU<Wltion. or ..,rpornt10n) to tnolude an .. individual"
"p erson"' to be t::reoted e.R an on.iJicial Mtity which cannot Ulclude tbc Pnvote Citb.en ol the
United SU>tOf..
9. For that "Individual" Amoricun to be treated.,. an an:tlicmlentiry. biB Private "citizenshtp of
the United St.ate8" lmd to be rlrllu<led by un implied, con•m•ct•w oontrnct hy operntkm or law
10 the inf~nOT l(rnde- of qud-5\•C:Uf"PPI'B~ btl7.C.•Mhip.

10. Tb• oorporauon tlutt 15 a au.en i.o a · PubUc" mtiwn of tbr Um.ted Stat.,, Lt oa created for the
benefit ufthr publio, The corporntiou,. DDt a ' P r ivate" Ciureo of the United Stat~ 0~·
1ndavidu.o1 MPn nr1d \Vbrnon eo-rt be · Priv ate" Cili7i!nt\ or thtl Unh ed State-a ag m ronded by
Seotioo 1 of Lht! Fuuttoonth Amt~nd.m~nt
11. Therefore, the Privlite "nut~lJ oCtbe Umted St1Ht"ti' as prot.e<:ted m hH; cJb.V..t"nship ~tat-u..r; by
Sec't:ton 1 of the FourLeenlh .Amoudm~nl to lhc Coot-tJtuuon the Uruted Suates. FederOI

or

"'"'""' 12 USC 95a nmeuclnuo and resting upon iiO USC f)(b) does not apply to the Pr~Yill~

Citizen of the Untrod Sl.atos.

A » to nt Cor \\'oat Compg rison

1141twoon 50 USCApp. Soctlon 5(b) or tho
"Th• Troding\11th the Enemy Act" or October 6, 191 7, <0 S taL Law 4t I
n• Amto.ndcd on Morch

1918. 8l'ld Seclio.a 6(b) of the ""Troding \Vit.b the Ene m..r Ace·

Tht~: \)toni Co r Word Comoari"on lfi cribeal in unden;tnnding how •Tho l=!mcrg,,mcy Bonkuu.-; Rcl.i.u(
1\cc'' (1933) Amended -The 'l'rnding Wit.h c.tw Enemy :-\ct• ( 19 li') n11 Amenclecf 10 sub~t&nn.ce 1ntllrin~

"Tbt• Trndwg With <h• Ent•my At1" the Law oft he Lend o(tbe Llnn<-'<1 State« or Amonon_
"'The- 'J'rn.dtng W1th t.h~ .Emuuy Act.'" a~JA.uumdcd on .Mat'\:h 9. 1933. a:mpo.M.'d n d·•(oclt~ Ernco;l'ncy
War Powt•r, MUl-.ary Govam tnent.,. whili! ou.toung d(' JUI'I! Oivilla.n Conslitutionll1 Cov~n1 meoL.

All Court.s. Fedcre.l nnd Sun.e, now rmJ)Cit!V n Ma.rt.l1l1 Ota.u PI"'OCt'ul:rU!tend ot e Civilian Oue PJ'OC('iC,i
-~NitM Jtit/un llu• (.'ntt~l Stntn.... Natural und .-\rliRcl.al.

on e\'NY

the ondoVJdunJ Pnvate ' Ctti""n oft he United S<ate!o" 11 protected by Sccuon I o.flho
Foo.rt.,.,nth Amondment_ he """ spooifioaUy E.XCLUDED by dofiruUj!n !rom the "Emergency
Banking Roher A<;t," whtcb not. of FOR'sEm•l'll•DC,)' War Powrro CongreM (by way of the
nmended 4'rndmg Wnh ttw Ene-my Aot: Sct:uon 17), atni)08(!d 11 martlul proceu upon t.he

1~. 8<'Cnu..,

cou,.... f.d~rnl nnd otllt<l, afior April 26. 1938.

14. Tbel't'fure every Privme "Citl)'.t'n of 1be Onit.cd Sb,re8:" ~ oe_ttber a ..person... not --propertY'
•w b}l't!t to thd urlKdl<tion of the Unlt.ed Stute•• l'fforred to ln tho Emergency Bo.nlang
R<•ltof ..~~ (12 USC' 96a) p•....d by tM Emo'IC"nt.')' Wor Puwero C<lnl(l'e'.•an ~1nreh 9, 1933.
II; ..o\Qd tbt.,..fo"'· sU Pnvnte "mti>rns of the Urutt'd St.a""'" nre not iUbJl'<'t w t.be proVJotinruo of
th• "Eme,..ency Baohng 8ehcl' Act" (12 USC !>Ua) boving omended the "Tradie~ With tht•
EDCmy Acl- o{ October 6. 1917, M previou.<lynmvnded on Much 2S, 1918, now ooclilied •• 60
USC ,\pp. 61b)). lneludoag n mA.r tllll duo pl'OC!eu aflAw imp...,d by the amended "Tmdmg
\\"lth tht• Enemy A<;t" upon MY ar\l{icwl"person " wtt.hJn the United State& ond ••ubjectto
the j urlJUilcllofl lh.,.,of," •·•· "Aub)<l<'t to the d• {acto Emel'llency Wnr I'O\Yono jutiJ!chcllon
tb~rr-of."

='J'tadjng With the Enemv Act " Scctiqn
1917-"'Tbat tbe

Prc ~ idenLmny tn-vWrtlgat..e~

1933--..DittltJr Um Ul ~

§(b)

40 S tatute Law 411

rt.'gu.laue .. o·r proWbi'-'

Or' tlUIIO~ IU.,. ttl h•

I" h. oJ uf 1 ~o~ttit•ll•l •tu••rJ:'''W' tf(l~t,,,..-d lt.)

Lh.. &•n•~>tdt nt lhe. P~s ld t. n t JUAy. i.h1uH 'h oh )'
utht ·• h•e io.veatigatc, regulate. or prob.lbh.•

13. Therefore tho (!ood new• 1-. all PriVIIW •c atnena or I ht• Umt..d SIJlt.eo" - prowctod tn thOU'
pnvate r1gbt to a ci viJjan due proces• oflaw on n Cederallovel by t he Fifth Amendment, and
toR civi lian due prOC~I\S <)11$ !'lll\te IJ.vel by &cuo:a l or Ihe Fourtoenrh Asnendment.

tt\l~UC)

thur hr

w,., d•·•l"n.-t• . or

~.

1WF.A ire now impos-ed in!flde the ga.og:raphic United S t11te8 during u dec.la.«d
s tAte or notional e me rgency.

~.

Tbe Prd ident DU\Y no w create ngenci f'B 10 '"inv<! •li~l\i.e, regutnte or prohibit.''

The&e agencie. wUI be! t:.rcated du.rlng the l930s. The Securities a.nd .E.xehango
Commi6sion itf cre ated in 1933: hs flr~t dlt~cLOr l.s KnJgh.t or l\faJt-a Joe K ennedy. A host of
o ther ltgenc.le& will be created u u re~ult or the Jeault O tder'"o~~ Fabian Sucl..U..L New Dea L
191 7-~nd~r euc b

l'ules nnd re gutntio niJ ns he mf\V preliQribc, by m -:nns oCUccnseJi o r

1933-''wJde.r gu cb rules a nd

rc.gu.J a t.i o n~

a s be ma y prescribe, by means ofl.i c:eos t"k nr

1011-"'othel'wi.so. any t-rnru;.uc:tlonN-In foreign e• eha.uge., ~.xport or ea.r--m.t'lrkingi of gold
19:13-""otherwisc, a ny t-rnM .nctionl in for~ig:n dJte ba.n g~ tr n rN .1t.L.r.

Exb.lbltA

Exhibit A

28~

"The Emergency Bonltlng Rc Utr Act" of MJtrclo 9. 1983, 43 Sl.llt, Law 1

Pagc.8 of t5

APX - 088

Page 9 of I&

tfi

h1

u

APX - 089

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ALBANY
Index No.: 0707-2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
:
Hon. David A Weinstein, AJSC
BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO
:
:
Petitioners,
:
:
-against: AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
:
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
:
NOTICE OF MOTION for
:
Respondents.
:
CPLR §7802(d) -Intervention
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Exhibit 5

APX - 090

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ALBANY
Index No.: 0707-2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
:
Hon. David A Weinstein, AJSC
BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO
:
:
Petitioners,
:
:
-against: AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
:
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
:
NOTICE OF MOTION for
:
Respondents.
:
CPLR §7802(d) -Intervention
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Exhibit 6

APX - 091

APX - 092

CALENDAR FOR THE
APRIL 19, 2016
PRESIDENTIAL
PRIMARY ELECTION
for
SELECTING DELEGATES
to a
NATIONAL CONVENTION
Requirements and dates herein are
provided for in Chapters 87 and 88
of
the Laws of 2015
40 North Pearl Street, Suite 5
Albany, New York 12207
(518) 474-6220
www.elections.ny.gov
August 18, 2015

APX - 093

DELEGATE SELECTION PLAN
Pursuant to Chapters 87 and 88 of the Laws of 2015, a state
committee providing for the selection of delegates and alternate
delegates to a national party convention or conference must
select either the §3 plan or the §4 plan contained in the act.
12/1/15

11/1/15

DEMOCRATIC DELEGATE SELECTION
PLAN FILING DATES

REGISTRATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL
PRIMARY ELECTION

2/8/16

Last day for candidates to decline designations.
§2-122-a(2)

Last day for other political parties to choose
Republican plan. §2-122-b(1)

2/8/16

Last day for CBOE to notify SBOE of candidates
which filed at CBOE. §2-122-a(6)(h)

Last day for a party to select their delegate
selection method. §2 Chapter 87 of Laws of 2015

2/16/16

Last day for party committee to file certificate of
candidacies for delegate and alternate delegate
candidates. §2-122-a(7)(a-b)

3/25/16

Mail Registration: Last day to postmark application
and last day it must be received by board of elections
is March 30. §5-210 (3)

3/25/16

In Person Registration: Last day application must be
received by board of elections to be eligible to vote in
primary election. §§5-210, 5-211 & 5-212

3/30/16

Change of address. §5-208 (3)

FILING REQUIREMENTS § 1-206(1)(a)
For the 2016 Federal Primary Election and General Election,
all certificates and petitions of designation or nomination,
certificates of acceptance or declination of such designations
and nominations, certificates of authorization for such
designations, certificates of disqualification, certificates of
substitution for such designations or nominations and objections
and specifications of objections to such certificates and petitions
required to be filed with the State Board of Elections or a board
of elections outside of the city of New York shall be deemed
timely filed and accepted for filing if sent by mail or overnight
delivery service (as defined in CPLR §2103(b)(6)) in an envelope
postmarked or showing receipt by the overnight delivery service
prior to midnight of the last day of filing, and received no later
than one business day after the last day to file such certificates,
petitions, objections or specifications.

REPUBLICAN DELEGATE SELECTION
PLAN FILING DATES
1/26/16 2/16/16

Dates for nationally-known candidates or matching
fund eligible candidates to file certificate with State
Board requesting to appear on ballot.
§2-122-b(3)(a-b)

2/24/16

Last day for SBOE to certify nationally-known or
matching fund candidates. §2-122-b(3)(b)

3/22/16

Last day for presidential candidate to file certificate
to have their name removed from the primary
ballot. §2-122-b(3)(d)

4/18/16

Last day for presidential candidate to file
certificate deeming any vote for such candidate to
be a void vote. §2-122-b(3)(d)

2/25/16

Last day for SBOE to notify party committee of
candidates who will appear on ballot.
§2-122-a(7)(d)

2/26/16

Last day for CBOEs to notify party committee of
candidates who will appear on ballot.
§2-122-a(7)(d)

ABSENTEE VOTING FOR PRESIDENTIAL
PRIMARY ELECTION
4/12/16

Last day to postmark application for ballot.
§8-400 (2)(c)

4/18/16

Last day to apply in person for ballot.
§8-400 (2)(c)

THE FOLLOWING DATES APPLY TO ALL DELEGATE
SELECTION PLANS

4/18/16

Last day to postmark ballot and date it must be
received by the board of elections is April 26.
§8-412 (1)

DESIGNATING PETITIONS

4/19/16

Last day to deliver ballot in person to county
board. §8-412 (1)

12/29/15

First day for signing designating petitions.
§6-134 (4)

2/1/16 2/4/16

Dates for filing designating petitions.
§6-158 (1)(a)

2/8/16

Last day to decline a designation.
§6-158 (2)

2/12/16

Last day to fill vacancy after declination.
§6-158 (3)

MILITARY/SPECIAL FEDERAL VOTERS
FOR PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ELECTION

3/25/16

Last day for a BOE to receive application for
ballot if not previously registered.
§10-106 (5) & §11-202 (1)(a)

4/12/16

Last day for a BOE to receive application if
previously registered.
§10-106 (5) & §11-202(1)(b)

4/18/16

Last day to apply personally
registered. §10-106 (5)

3/5/16

Date for county boards to transmit Military/Special
Federal ballots. §10-108 (1) & §11-204

4/18/16

Last day to postmark ballot and date it must be
received by the board of elections Is April 26.
§10-114(1) & §11-212

CERTIFICATION
2/25/16

Certification of Primary ballot by
designations filed in its office. §4-110

SBOE

of

2/26/16

Certification of Primary ballot by
designations filed locally.
§4-114

CBOE

of

APX - 094

if

previously

APX - 095

APX - 096

APX - 097

APX - 098

APX - 099

APX - 100

APX - 101

APX - 102

APX - 103

---·
Complaint and Demand for Public Hearing on the Eligibility
of the declared candidate Barack Hussein Obama II for Office
of POTUS at the 2012 Election Cycle in New York
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTioNS,
40 Steuben Street
Albany New York 12207

CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT
No:70111570000033846626

Attention:



JAMES.A. WALSH I Co-Chair,
DOUGLASA. KELLNER I Co-Chair,
EVELYN J. AQUILA I Commissioner,
GREGORY P. PETERSON I Commissioner,

STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS

)
)
)

...

Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse being duly swom, depose and say under penalty of
petjucy:
1. Petitioner.is located for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845) 9016767 email: chris@strunk.ws.; and is a duly registered voter in the 2008 and 2012 election cyde.
2. That Petitioner with Election Law (EL) 3-104 hereby complains of the declared candidate Barack
Hussein Obama II as not being eligible for the Office of President of the United States (POTUS) and
demands a hearing on the declared candidates eligibility on 2114112 or as soon thereafter as the
Chairman and Comniissioners may chose to convene to take evidence and testimony to bar Barack
HusseinObama II from the 2012 Presidential Election cycle ballots as time is of the essence.
3. That Petitioner references the NYS BOE schedule issued on January 9 2012 for the 2012
Presidential Election cycle that designates the start of the DEMOCRATIC DELEGATE SELECTION
PLAN FILING DATES:
• 2114112 Last day for candidates to decline designations. §2-122-a(2) .
• 2114112 Last day, for CBOE to notify SBOE candidates which filed at CBOE. § 2-122-a(6)(h)
• 2121112 Last day for party comniittee to ftle ·certificate of candigacies for delegate and
altemate delegate candidates. §2-122-a(7)(a-b)
• 311112 Last day for SBOE to notify party committee of candidates who will appear on ballot.
§2-122-a(7)(d)

312112 Last day for boards of election to notify party committee of candidates who will
appear on ballot. §2-122-a(7)(d)
That based upon information and belief Barack Hussein Obama II (BHO II) has already declared
himself a candidate for the office of President of the United States here in the New York 2012
election cycle.
That based upon the adniission of Barrack Hussein Obatna II with the release of his autobiography.
"Dreams From My Father" (1995) the British subject at his birth was Barack Hussein Obama Sr.
That according to the INS record signed by Barrack Hussein Obama Sr. he is a Foreign Alien nonimmigrant with a student visa and never was at anytime a US Citizen or even had a "Green Card"
That according to the divorce decree issued from the Hawaii court of competent jurisdiction British
subject Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was married to the US Citizen Stanley Ann Obama being of
minor age at the time of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama II;
That according to the Certificate of Live Birth released by Barack Hussein Obama II during a press
conference in Apri12011, BHO II was bom in Hawaii to U.S. Citizen Stanley Ann Dunham Obama
the mother, and British Subject Barack Hussein Obama Sr. the father on August 8, 1961.

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Strunk Complaint and Demand for Hearing with EL 3-104

APX - 104

Page 1 of2

9. That Barack Hussein Obama II is merely a native born naturalized citizen not a Natural-Born
Citizen (NBC) a person born in the country of US Citizen parents) as defmed by the Supreme Court
of the United States (SCOTUS) in the precedent set in Mirwr. v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21
Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. by Justice Waite holding that natural born citizens (NBC) per se are so
by virtue of birth on United States soil when both parents were Citizens of the United States
according to the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 de jure citizens without reaching
the need of use of the 14th Amendment or the power of Congress granted with Article 1 Section 8
t paragraph 4 to defme;paturalization and immigration status person other than NBC persons. ~
10. That Barack Hussein Obama II is not a Natural- born Citizen however may be classified as "Born a
Citizen" depending upon the power of Congress granted to defme such status other than NBC.
11. That Barack Hussein Obama II is a declared candidate with EL 14-1 00( 1)(7)(9) here in New York,
and_has illegally directed his campaign fund raising here in New York to proceed starting last
summer as with EL 14-114;
J!J

12. That BHO II as an ineligible declared candidate"seeking a ballot line in the Democratic Primary and
General Election ballot starting February 14, 2012.
13. That BHO II as an ineligible declared candidate illegally participates within the state and personally
directed his fund raising agents to proceed as defmed under NYS EL 14-114 and the fraudulent
conversion of the funds as defmed by EL 14-130 in relevant parts with related law.

14. That the NYS BOE is willfully facilitating BHO II as an ineligible declared candidate since no later
than the 2008 election cycle continuing now with malicious facilitation using instructions on the
NYS BOE website page "Running for Office" contrary to the law of the land and the requirements set
by the State Legislature stating therein as to citizenship status that a declared candidate need orily
be "Born a Citizen" rather than a "Natural-born Citizen" to be eligible for the office of POTUS.
15. That Petitioner alleges that the Chairman and Commissioners are involved in the misprision of a
~/
felony by facilitating the declared candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama II and others, and that a.. "25
duplicate of this complaint affidavit is simultaneously filed with the Albany District Attorney for
investigation; and that
16. On January 26, 2012, Petitioner was a material witness at the ballot access hearing held by the
Georgia Secretary of State before a Justice of that Court to bar Barack Hussein Obama II from that
ballot and BHO II nor his attorney attended by default relinquish 16 electoral votes from Georgia.
17. Petitioner knows the wrongful acts to facilitate the· continued fund raising and attempt for ballot
access by the declared candidate is an irreparable harm with time as the essence that applies to me
by misapplication and administration of laws; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to
the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it
to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as
follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

8

~~trunk
ARNOLD I. TISHFIELO
Notar-Y Public State· Of New York
No.41-4311662
Qualified In Queens County
!·/
Certified In Kings County
Commission Expires March 30, 20

.J..9

·

CC:
Office of the District Attorney
Albany County Judicial Building
6 Lodge Street
Albany, NY 12207
CertRRNo: No:70111570000033846633.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of New York State
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224

Strunk Complaint and Demand for Hearing with EL 3-104

APX - 105

Page 2 of2

·-

Specific Objections to the RICK SANTORUM FUing with the
NYS Board of Elections on February 21, 2012
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPI'
No:70111570000033846664

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
40 Steuben Street
Albany New York 12207
Attention:
JAMES A. WALSH I Co-Chair,
DOUGLAS A. KELLNER I Co-Chair,
EVELYN J. AQUILA I Commissioner,
GREGORY P. PETERSON I Commissioner,




STATE OP NBW YORK

)
)

COtnrrY OP KINGS

)

-..:

...

, _ Accordirigly, I, Christopher.,.Earl: Strunk in esse being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of peljuxy:
1. Objector is located for service at -593 Vanderbilt Avenue -281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845) 901-6767
email: chris@sttunk.ws.; and is a duly registered voter in the 2008 and 2012 election cycle.
2. That Objector's_Objection to Document(s) by Rick Santorum Requesting his Placement as a Nationally
Known Candidate, and/ or a Candidate Receiving Federal Matching Funds,- on the ballot m a Republican
Primary for President of the U.S., and or any Republican Party Designating Petition in New York,
Designating Rick Santorum, as filed with the NYS Board of Elections on February 21, 2012 is based
upon the fact that Mr. Santorum has not provided proof that he was born to citizen parents in the USA in
1958 and therefore, is·a Natural-born Citizen (NBC).
3. That based upon information and belief Mr. Santorum has been contacted to produce documents to prove
he is a NBC to date he has done nothing; and also his mother was contacted to·produce a birth certificate
for her son she has done nothing. Therefore objector suspects Mr. Santorum is not a NBC especially
when even World Net Daily has the documents for the parents but does not prove their citizenship at the
time of their son being born in USA.
4. Objector is aware that the Document filed February 21, 2012, by Rick Santorum, AKA Richard John
"Rick" Santorum, requests ballot placement of based upon he being: a Nationally Known Candidate, and
or a Candidate Receiving Federal Matching Funds however does not provide proof of his NBC eligibility to
office of POTUS.
5. Further, that based upon information believe Richard John "Rick" Santorum is a member of the
Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) having sworn allegiance to both_ the Roman Catholic Church
(RCC) Pope of the Holy See and the Jesuit General Nicolas as members of a sovereign foreign nation; and
6. -Furthermore, to the extentfuat the majority if not all the Chairmen and Commissioners of the NYS Board
of Elections are members of the RCC and have allegiance to the Pope and that Mr. Kellner in particular
also served as the attorney for the New York Province for Society of Jesus and that for nearly a century
the Governors have either been members of the SMOM and or RCC devotees with allegiance to the Holy
See with direct Jesuit oversight that Mr. Santorum's fort ·
t·provision of NBC
of eligibility for
Office ofPOTUS is that more compelling. _

Sworn to before me

Thi&l.-_J_ day of February 2012
HELFENBAUM
-----rcommissioner of Deeds
City of New York • No.5·883
.
Certificate Filed in Richmond Cou~
Commission ~xpires June 30, 20

""'f'5

>

-

CC. RICK SANTORUM- PO BOX 37 VERONA PA 15147.............. Cert rr No: 70111570000033846657

APX - 106

$0.45

$
Cl
. Cl
Cl
Cl

ee.tffiedFee

$2.95

Retum Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)

$2. 35

Cl

(Endorsement Required)

r-

Reslr1cted Delivery Fee r--~:-----~

$()• 00

r------~

Ll'l

......
I .

PS Form JSOO, August 2006

See ReversP for Instructions

r-

Ll'l
..D
..D

:::r
c:O
ITI

Postage

1'1'1

Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl

$

$0.45

Certified Fee

$2.95

Retum Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)

$2.35

Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)

$0.00

r-

Ll'l

.-'I
.-'I
.-'I
Cl

r-

APX - 107

APX - 108

Specific Objections to the OBAMA FOR AMERICA Filing with
the NYS Board of Elections on February 9, 2012
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
40 Steuben Street
,
Albany New York 12207

CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPf
No:70111570000033846640

Attention:



JAMES A. WALSH I Co-Chair,
DOUGLAS A. KELLNER I Co-Chair,
EVELYN J. AQUILA I Commissioner,
GREGORY P. PETERSON I Commissioner,

STATE OF NEW YORK

)

COUNTY OF KINGS

)

) sa.
Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of
perjury:
1. Objector is located for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845) 901-

6767 email: chris:@strunk.ws.; and is a duly registered voter in the 2008 and 2012 election cycle.
2. That Objector has already filed a complaint and demand for hearing with Election Law (EL) 3-104
of the declared candidate Barack Hussein Obama II as not being eligible for the Office of President of
the United States (POTUS) and demands a hearing on the declared candidates eligibility on 2114112
or as soon thereafter as the Chairman and Commissioners may chose to convene to take evidence
and testimony to bar Barack Hussein Obama II from the 2012 Presidential Election cycle ballots as
time is of the essence.
3. That Objector references the NYS BOE notice that agents of the OBAMA FOR AMERICA campaign
flled designating petitions on February 9, 2012 that designates Barack Hussein Obama II for ballot
access at the Democratic Party Primary in the start of the DEMOCRATIC DELEGATE SELECTION
PLAN FILING.
4. That Objector challenges the Certification of both the declared candidate BHO II and all the petitions
and filing documents as a nullity against public policy in that Barack Hussein Obama II is not
eligible for the Office of the President of the United States (POTUS) because he is not a "Natural Born
Citizen"' (NBC) as is required under New York State law in compliance with the U.S. Constitution
Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 and New York provision of law defining "Natural born Citizen" and
therefore all the designating petitions must be rejected as defective . .
5. That objections are based upon the admission of Barrack Hussein Obama II with the release of his
autobiography. "Dreams From My Father" {1995) the British subject at his birth was Barack
Hussein Obama Sr.- as such BHO II is not NBC and ineligible for POTUS.
6. That objections are based upon the INS record signed by Barrack Hussein Obama Sr. that BHO II's
father was a Foreign Alien non-immigrant with a student visa and never was at anytime a US
Citizen or even had a "Green Card"- as such BHO II is not NBC and ineligible for POTUS.
7. That objections are based upon the record of the divorce decree issued from the Hawaii cou.rt of
competent jurisdiction British subject Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was manjed to the U.S. Citizen
Stanley Ann Obama being of minor age at the .t ime of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama II;
8. That objections are based upon the supposed Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) released by Barack
Hussein Obama II during a press conference in Apri12011, alleging BHO II was born in Hawaii to
U.S. Citizen Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, the mother, and British Subject Barack Hussein Obama
Sr. the father on August 8, 1961.
9. The evidence shows that at best, Barack Hussein Obama II may merely be a native born naturalized
citizen not a "Natural-Born Citizen", a-person bom in the country of US Citizen parents as defined
by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the precedent set in Minor. v. Happersett 88
Strunk ~Jatrrr and Demand for Hearing f.rith EL 3-104
Page 1 of 2
0

B'Jec.;Jt9\J.S

15

APX - 109

U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. by Justice Waite holding that natural bom citizens
(NBC) per se are so by virtue of birth on United States soil when both parents were Citizens of the
United States according to the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 de jure citizens
without reaching the need of use of the 14th Amendment or the power of Congress granted with
Article 1 Section 8 paragraph 4 to defme naturalization and immigration status person other than
NBC persons; and as upheld by New York State jurisprudence as to NBC defmed in state law.
10. That Barack Hussein Obama II is not a Natural- born Citizen however may be classified as "Born a
Citizen" depending upon the power of Congress granted to defme such status other than NBC.
11. That objector challenges Barack Hussein Obama II and or his agents to prove both the place of birth
and that both of his parents at the time of his birth were US Citizens.
12. That on February 9, 2012, Objector duly flied in the NYS Supreme Court County of Kings I.A.S. Part
27 in Case Strunk v. NYS BOE et a12011-6500 a notice of motion for leave of direct appeal to the
New York State Court of Appeals as of right with a stay of the trial court proceedings until the sole
US Constitutional issue being Barack Hussein Obama II's ineligibility is ~:rep

Christopher-Earl: Strunk
Sworn to before me
T.hls:~ day of February 2012
:

.

-

-~

·-~:.. ~C:-

HARRY HELFENBAUM
Commissioner of Deeds
City of New York - No.5-883
Certificate Filed in Richmond Counw
Commission Expires June 30,

_..

Ce·~~ m·i·'li'€ 6N V4-e~ct~ 4/0

20--i:J>

f( .

OBAMA FOR AMERICA (OF A) Headquarters

:ie!·~!;;_~Y,IOO!O
ce(l"T

·.

/Oll 0001

&311 I ~73

Office of the District Attorney
AlbanyCountyJudicialBuilding
6 Lodge Street
Albany, NY 12207

5 Ptfl..fJC.K.

so%~
rou

l.%1 I CA

d f3A tn A

Gfl£Et-J{,UOO/J

(To

J

IL

(po" J [ '

CC:lt:1' /lfl.. ~ 7oll ioo(J ooo( G,3ff

1?oeae1 · PIFifllotJP
na e, ·cy3RP-tf-" AfT

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of New York State
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224

;D

(Jlj (Ulj /012-f-/6~¢

~rzAac fiV~.reu-J ~f3~..4 JC
T rlf uJ It fr.e' f-((JVt/t
f' o~ p@J,u St-f t..-'li.A-NIA Av~ IV .. w.
WMHtfV"r:tTO,J p, l, ~oSo o 9
t Q. : 1 ofl 1.oou ooot tb:;t t -r8toh

f!J:frL-/ fl.«

~ 7011

ttJt'O ooo{ 031 I

dJ !;'Jt::f..{ld"-J..S

Strunk ~mplaifit and Demand for Hearing with EL 3-104

9

AVe,

APX - 110

Page 2 of 2

7&ry

. ,.

U.S. Postal ServicerM

CERTIFIED MAILrM RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)

I A L USE
Postage

$0.45

$

1 - - - - - --

$2.95

Certlfled Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)

CJ

-4

0354

03

$2.35

Postage
Certified Fee

Postmark
·Here

$

1---

$0,45
--'------l

$2.95

OJ

Postmark
Here

f---- -____:=----l

Restricted Delivery Fee
$(),()()
(Endorsement Required) 1-----~--4

CJ
CJ
CJ
ru r-=-.=-4~~ntt~nr~~~~~~~~~~--,
~.

.-:1
M
CJ
1'-

>·-<c,· ··c· ,.·.··.-,,-··,/l--~r -.-,,·---.: ::: ·~-.~-·=-">=·- -

Postage

.-:1

CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ

$

$0.45

0354

$2 •95

03

1---_:..._..:.....:..::..__J

Certified Fee

Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee t----'-"=:..._--1

$2,35>

(Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees

0354
Postmark
Here

-r'l
CJ
CJ
CJ

1---.:..
$():::...•:.:00
~--1

$

$5,75

0211012012

ru~~--~----------~~----~~----__,

.-:1 i ~entTo

8
1'-

B~c_ (jgJ4ffl~

~t't~::::~:.::-ro·~---s:-(in.·~-~"bAv<r-cirY:siare:zi;;<x;;.·-------------------------------------------------------------.:.

L f-(1 C/Cl-Go ( (_ ~ . b C) 6 /0

PS Form 3800, August 2006

See Reverse for lnstructoons

APX - 111

03

Postmarl<
Here

Is dllvlrY .~ cllfarlnt from 1tlem .1?.
.. If Yes. enter delivery addreaa b8loW:

-~ R.o\6~T t)'A~~~~ _··,

=

· ri~ ·fi: ~· .c:r:rflP.Jt./ltJ7i.o~u==_==~=======!
{\)u,7· . ·'~•i_.,.{.
J-1.· 'iot22~f.t;,G
Y
.

.C

.

.

'~.!:ptfor_· ~

-Cc.o.o. ·

DYes
2

·Aitlcte o.;-.:..> ·~·

-

1:

!< : -

' :

.. .

!> \;;

.

.

.

.

'. -.~· ,m...
.. }r.':r"t~-i.U.
..~~
·~.... ~~.F. · .y_· ..·. 71]11,
.· .· . ].570
. . OIJOIJ 3384 664(]

APX - 112

.

·,

.·.;.

• Complete Items '1, 2, and 3. NeQ complete
·.
Item' 4 ~ Restrtcted Delivery Ia deelrad~
, • Prtnt
name~~ o.n the nwerse
· so ·that we:can 'l'8lUm the can:l to you.
~ • Attach thiB 08i'd. to the' ta::kd the mallplece,
or on ttl&~ If apace permits.

your

: 1.~~to:

: ~ f{tl-~J~O~IJJ!'

·, ~~ w~. 11s-~~
f(51-JfV, AVB- !Jw
.: ~f.ft Prf'Yll-i/IJ c lelfad ~~~~~~;;:;;-;;~

tioo -

SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION

·, • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
Item 41f Restricted Delivery Is desired.
• Print your name and addr8ss on the reverse

·

so that we can return the C8ld to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the malplece,
or ori the front If 8pace permits.
D. Is~ adchaa

1. Artlcle.Add181188d to:

ctS>~~fT'rezf

i

bN.

VA.cAJ}CtlfiJ

,'i

ltan 1?
If YES, enter delivery addresa below:

·; a~-dB~ik:~;~~~~)n~tc~ -_
; 2(" 'eMT ~J')r:;t:St;_..:-~~- '~~-

fJ~

fA-1

Joo I cJ .
Vee

7011
I

6311 7873

IIi~~~-

APX - 113

APX - 114

Specification of Objections to
the Letter from Rick Santo rum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santo rum as a
Request for Ballot Access
in the New York Primary Election
for Republican Candidate for President of the United States
or any other named Republican Nominating or Designating Certificate or Petition or Request
Designating Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum as a Candidate for President
Filed with the NYS Board of Elections on February 21, 2012
H. William Van Allen
Objector
351 North Road
Hurley, NY 12443
phone 845 389 4366
email objector hvanallen@hvc.rr.com

February 21,2012

,......_,
: -:-....;

To:
Election Operations
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
40 Steuben Street
Albany New York 12207

~·--:

.

c::; :.:. ~
..

.:-.:::>

,.___,

......,
:-; 1

co

t-~)

r.-~ :<~

-o

:::.:c

-..
{_ •')

-n
r

m
0

Further to my General Objections,
I, H. William Van Allen (Objector) specifically object to the:
Letter from Rick Santo rum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santo rum as a Request for Ballot Access in the
New York Primary Election for Republican Candidate for President of the United States based on being
a nationally known candidate, naming delegates and alternates, and giving as his return address:

Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum, and any other nan1ed Republican Nominating or
Designating Certificate or Petition or Request Designating Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick"
Santorum as a Candidate for President, filed with the NYS Board ofElections on February 21,2012.
I refer for document identification to:
http://www.elections.ny.gov:8080/reports/rwservlet?cmdkey=whofiled
List of Filings for the Presidential Primary
Office: President

Republican
Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum 02/21/2010 Vols. 0 Pages 0 Supporting

Objector resides and is registered to vote as an Independence Party member:
Specific Objection Santorum

page 1 of9

APX - 115

APX - 116

Specific Objections to the OBAMA FOR AMERICA Filing with
the NYS Board of Elections on February 9, 2012

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
40 Steuben Street
Albany New York 12207

CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT
No:

Attention:



JAMES A. WALSH I Co-Chair,
DOUGLAS A. KELLNER I Co-Chair,
EVELYN J. AQUILA I Commissioner,
GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner,

;-..)

C.::J
c--..)

"1'"1

r··;--,

STATE OF NEW YORK

) ss.
COUNTY OF ULSTER

)

-~

i1

0

I

r· -·,"4

~- :·i

(.;"')

:e:·-;

--~

•....---

--~

-o

3:

m
0

.....- .~ )>
(~_) f"l-i

Accordingly, I, H. William Van Allen in esse being duly sworn, depose and say under peumty of R5tiury:
l.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Objector is located for service at 351 North Road Hurley, New York 11238 (845) 894-4366 email:
hvanallen@hvc.rr.com; and is a duly registered voter in the 2008 and 2012 election cycle.
That Objector as with Election Law (EL) 3 - 104 demands a hearing on the objections of the declared
candidate Barack Hussein Obama II as not being eligible for the Office of President of the United
States (POTUS) on 2 f 141 12 or as soon thereafter as the Chairman and Commissioners may chose to
convene to take evidence and testimony to bar Barack Hussein Obama II from the 2012 Presidential
Election cycle ballots as time is of the essence.
That Objector references the NYS BOE notice that agents of the OBAMA FOR AMERICA campaign
filed designating petitions on February 9, 2012 that designates Barack Hussein Obama II for ballot
access at the Democratic Party Primary in the start of the DEMOCRATIC DELEGATE SELECTION
PLAN FILING.
That Objector challenges the Certification of both the declared candidate BHO II and all the petitions
and filing documents as a nullity against public policy in that Barack Hussein Obama II is not
eligible for the Office of the President of the United States (POTUS) because he is not a "Natural Born
Citizen"' (NBC) as is required under New York State law in compliance with the U .S. Constitution
Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 and New York provision of law defining "Natural born Citizen" and
therefore all the designating petitions must be rejected as defective.
Those objections are based upon the admission of Barrack Hussein Obama II with the release of his
autobiography. "Dreams From My Father" (1995) the British subject at his birth was Barack
Hussein Obama Sr. -as such BHO II is not NBC and ineligible for POTUS.
That objections are based upon the INS record signed by Barrack Hussein Obama Sr. that BHO II's
father was a Foreign Alien non-immigrant with a student visa and never was at anytime a US
Citizen or even had a "Green Card"- as such BHO II is not NBC and ineligible for POTUS.
That objections are based upon the record of the divorce decree issued from the Hawaii court of
competentjurisdiction British subject Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was married to the U.S. Citizen
Stanley Ann Obama being of minor age at the time of th e birth of Barack Hussein Obama II;
That objections are based upon the supposed Certificate of Live Birth (COLB} released by Barack
Hussein Obama II during a press conference in April 2011, alleging BHO II was born in Hawaii to
U.S. Citizen Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, the mother, and British Subject Barack Hussein Obama
Sr. the father on August 8, 1961.
The evidence shows that at best, Barack Hussein Obama II may merely be a native born naturalized
citizen not a "Natural-Born Citizen", a person born in the country of US Citizen parents as defmed
by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the precedent set in Minor. v. Happersett 88
U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. by Justice Wai te holding that natural bom citizens
(NBC} per se are so by virtue of birth on United States soil when both parents were Citizens of the
Van Allen Objections and Demand for Hearing Page J of 2

APX - 117

United States according to the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 de jure citizens
without reaching the need of use of the 14thAmendment or the power of Congress granted with
Article 1 Section 8 paragraph 4 to define naturalization and immigration status person other than
NBC persons; and as upheld by NewYork State jurisprudence as to NBC defined in state law.
10. That Barack Hussein Obama II is not a Natural- born Citizen however may be classified as "Born a
Citizen" depending upon the power of Congress granted to define such status other than NBC.
11. That objector challenges Barack Hussein Obama II and or his agents to prove both the place of birth
and that both of his parents at the time of his birth were US Citizens.
12. That on February 3,2012, Objector duly filed with the NYSCourt of Appeals in re: Case Strunk v.
David A. Paterson et al. 2008-29642 for an appeal as of right along with a notice of motion for leave
of the NYSSupreme Court Appellate Division 2ndDepartment in appeal 2012-00766 for appeal to
the New York State Court of Appeals as of right with a stay of the trial court proceedings until the
sole U.S. Constitutional issue being Barack Hussein Obama II's ineligibility is settled.

p~

/ H. William Van Allen

Sworn to before me
This
day of February 2012

/t1

1

~.J~TnUN

NOTAR i PU!:luC SlAT ~ OF NEW YORK
NO 01MA6095585

c;

QUALIFIED IN ULSTER COUNTY /'
COMMISSIONEX.f'IRES
JULY 14, 20
_

CC:

OBAMA FOR AMERICA (OF A) Headquarters
25 E. 21st St
New York, NY, 10010
Office of the District Attorney

Albany County Judicial Building
6 Lodge Street
Albany, NY 12207
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of New York State
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224

Van Allen Objections and Demand for Hearing

APX - 118

Page 2 of 2

APX - 119

Specification of Objections to
the Document from Mitt Romney as a Request for Ballot Access
in the New York Primary Election
for Republican Candidate for President of the United States
or any other named Republican Nominating or Designating Certificate or Petition or
Request Designating Mitt Romney as a Candidate for President
Filed with the NYS Board of Elections on February 17, 2012
Christopher B. Garvey
(Republican Objector)
16 Nicoll Ave.
Amityville, NY 11701-3018
phone 1 631 598 0752
February 16, 2012
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT #7011 1570 0003 5313 ______
To:
Election Operations
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
40 Steuben Street
Albany New York 12207
Further to my General Objection mailed on
____________________________________________,
I, Christopher B. Garvey (Objector) specifically object to the:

Letter from Mitt Romney as a Request for Ballot Access in the New York
Primary Election for Republican Candidate for President of the United States
based on being a nationally known candidate, naming delegates and alternates, and
giving as his only return address,
Miss Megan Sowards
Deputy General counsel for Mitt Romney
585 Commercial Street
Boston, MA 02109
and any other named Republican Nominating or Designating Certificate or Petition or Request
Designating Mitt Romney as a Candidate for President
Filed with the NYS Board of Elections on February 17, 2012.
I refer for document identification to:
http://www.elections.ny.gov:8080/reports/rwservlet?cmdkey=whofiled
List of Filings for the Presidential Primary
Office: President
Republican
Specific Objections to Romney

page 1 of 18

APX - 120

Mitt Romney 02/10/2010 Vols. 0 Pages 0 Supporting

Objector resides and is registered to vote as a Republican at:
16 Nicoll Ave.
Amityville, NY 11701-3018
phone 1 631 598 0752
Objector is a duly registered Republican New York voter in the 2012 election cycle, and is
qualified to vote for in the New York Primary for President of the United States.

I hereby specify the following objections:
The designated candidate Mitt Romney is not eligible for the Office of President of the United
States and is therefore not eligible to run in the next New York Primary for President of the
United States.
Objector references the NYS BOE notice that a document was filed on February 10, 2012 that
designates Mitt Romney for ballot access in the next New York Primary as the Republican Party
Candidate for President of the United States.
Objector challenges the Certification of both the declared candidate Mitt Romney and all the
petitions and filing documents as a nullity, against the Constitution of the United States, and
against public policy, in that Mitt Romney is not eligible for the Office of the President of the
United States because he is not a “Natural Born Citizen” as is required under New York State
law in compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 and New York
provision of law defining “Natural born Citizen”.
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person
be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been
fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

A Natural Born Citizen is a person born in the United States of two United States
Citizens.
Therefore all the designating petitions must be rejected as defective.
New York State has case law on the term “Natural Born Citizen” because New York State Law
prohibited all but Natural Born Citizens from owning mines:
Real Property Law § 18
Mines in Saint Lawrence county.
§ 18. Mines in Saint Lawrence county. The proprietors of any mines or
veins of lead or copper in the county of Saint Lawrence, may demise,
lease, or rent the same for a period not to exceed twenty-one years from
the date of any such lease, to any foreign individual or company, and
such lessee may take, hold, work, use or convey the same during the said
Specific Objections to Romney

page 2 of 18

APX - 121

term, in the same manner and subject to the same liabilities as if such
lessee were a natural born citizen.
Objections are based upon the following timeline, constructed on information and belief, which
shows that Mitt Romney's father George Romney, was a Mexican Citizen or a British Subject.
1757

Emmerich de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” Section 212:
“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents [both] who
are citizens.”
The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that
book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212,
of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain
duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives,
or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the
society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens,
those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their
rights. . . .
The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:
“Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .”
The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are terms; used to translate the idea conveyed by
the French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both referred to the same category of citizen:
one born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.
In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the
natural circumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term “indigenes” is from
the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from within” (indegenes), as in the phrase “the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived
there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term, “natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou
indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country.
1775
Benjamin Franklin wrote [Exhibit 1] from Philadelphia Dec. 19, 1775 that the members of the
Congress were consulting a copy of Vattel’s book to complete their work .
“I'm much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It
came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary
frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy which I kept... has been
continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much
pleased with your notes, and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for
their author....”

Specific Objections to Romney

page 3 of 18

APX - 122

See Exhibits 1 - 4 attached.
1787 - Vattel's term, “natural born citizen” appears in a letter [Ex 4] of the future Supreme Court
Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention.
John Jay wrote:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and reasonable to provide as a
strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national
government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army
shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. ---...”
1787 July 25 New York, Letter from John Jay to His Excellency General Washington, [Exhibit 4]

1794 The Senate made its first purchases: Blackstone's Commentaries and Vattel's Law of
Nature and Nations. Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 5 is a my own Venn diagram of types of citizen in early America.

Marriage gave women their husband's citizenship automatically. So both parents had the same
nationality [except out-of-wedlock]: that of the husband-father. There was no divided loyalty
Specific Objections to Romney

page 4 of 18

APX - 123

objection, because there was no divided parent citizenship. So the father's citizenship meant both
parents' citizenship. In 1922 a change in US law eliminated marriage's automatic change of the
wife's citizenship, Married Women's Act (the Cable Act). Today, it is possible to have one parent
who is not a US citizen, which creates a divided loyalty obstruction to becoming Commander-inchief.
For example, such a conflict of divided loyalty might arise if one's adopted father was an official
of the Indonesian Army and a Citizen of Indonesia. For such an example, see: Obama Dreams of
My Father.

1814
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated
with the American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:
Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 till Nov.
26, 1829.
John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 till July 6, 1835.
William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, till Aug. 4,
1834.
Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20,
1807 till March 18, 1823.
Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 till Feb. 7, 1826.
Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 till Jany 14,
1835.
Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 till Sept. 10,
1845.
Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph
Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the
army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792.
During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the
New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to
the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served
as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First
Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutemen of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian
Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for
ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington
was George Washington’s nephew and heir.
Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the
Constitution had intended.
The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus,
belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the
War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case
Specific Objections to Romney

page 5 of 18

APX - 124

said about citizenship, is what matters here.
WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP
In The Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire
§212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain
duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives
or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being
able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children
naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle
and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the
laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…
1806 Miles Archebald Romney, b. Dalton-in-Furness, co. Lancaster, 13 July 1806, d. St.
George, Utah, 3 May 1877 m. Dalton-in-Furness, co. Lancaster, 16 Nov. 1830 (Mitt Romney’s
Great Great Grandfather), Miles Archebald Romney married in Liverpool to Elizabeth, both
British Subjects.
1809 Elizabeth Gaskell, b. Dalton-in-Furness, co. Lancaster, 8 Jan. 1809, d. St. George, Utah,
11 Oct. 1884
1830 Miles Archebald Romney & Elizabeth Gaskell married. Dalton-in-Furness, Co.
Lancaster, 16 Nov. 1830
1837 Romneys convert to Mormons
1839-Joseph Smith is in Nauvoo, IL.
1841 Great Great grandfather [Mitt’s] arrives in US. Miles Archebald Romney with wife
Elizabeth and 5 children.
1841 Miles Archebald Romney moved to Nauvoo, IL.
I have found no indication that Miles Archebald Romney ever became a Citizen of the United
States of America, . Miles Romney (1806-1877) and his wife Elizabeth Gaskell (1809-1884)
lived in the Liverpool area. Following their baptism, they sailed for New Orleans and made their
way up the Mississippi by steamboat arriving at Nauvoo in 1841. T
----------------------------------Becoming a Citizen
For most aliens the naturalization process was a two part process that took a minimum of
five years though there were some exceptions. First an alien would file a declaration of
intent. The court would keep a copy of the declaration and the alien would be given a
copy to keep with him. After a proscribed period of residence an alien would file his
petition for naturalization. When the alien filed his petition of naturalization, he returned
Specific Objections to Romney

page 6 of 18

APX - 125

his copy of his declaration of intention to the court. Following a change in the law in
1906 an alien also had to receive a certificate of arrival from the Immigration and
Naturalization Service that verified his or her legal immigration. When an alien's petition
was granted the court issued a certificate of citizenship to the alien. This document was
the alien's official proof that he or she was now a U.S. citizenship.
http://www.ourarchives.wikispaces.net/Naturalization
There is no indication that the above Miles Archebald Romneys ever became US citizens.
1842 Hannah Hood Hill, (Mitt’s Great grandmother) born in Tosoronto Township, Simcoe,
Ontario, 9 July 1842, d. Colonia Juarez, Chihuahua, México, 29 Dec. 1928. She was a British
Subject.
1842

Hill family arrived in Nauvoo with Hannah Hood Hill.

1843

Joseph Smith visited England.

1843 Miles Park Romney, Mitt’s Great grandfather (1843-1904) born in 1843-Aug-18: Birth in
Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, USA of two British Subjects (Miles Archebald Romney &
Elizabeth Gaskell) is therefore himself a British Subject under US and International Law.
1850 The Territory of Utah was an organized incorporated territory of the United States that
existed from September 9, 1850, until January 4, 1896, when the final extent of the territory was
admitted to the Union as the State of Utah.
1855 From 1855 to 1922, a married woman automatically assumed the citizenship of her
husband; if an American woman married a foreign national, she lost her U.S. citizenship.
Similarly, if a foreign national married a U.S. citizen, she automatically became a citizen. Her
only documentation would be her marriage license and the naturalization (or birth) record of her
husband. After 1922, a married woman was required to meet the naturalization laws although no
declaration of intention was needed and residency changed from five years to one.
http://archives.utah.gov/research/guides/naturalizations.htm
Miles Archebald Romney Moved to Utah
1862 The federal government in Washington passed the Morrell Act outlawing polygamy. (The
bill was signed by Abraham Lincoln in the middle of the civil war.) This law was not enforced as
can be seen from the 1880 census where multiple wives are listed.
1862 March 10
Miles Park Romney marries to Hannah Hood Hill (1842-1929 Mitt’s Great
Grandmother) in Salt Lake City - She was born in Canada. Miles and Hannah had eleven [or
possibly thirteen] children including Gaskell Romney (1871-1955).
1862 or 1863? Miles Park Romney was sent on a mission to England before their first child
(Isabell 1863-1919) was born. While in England he preached for several years in the area around
Specific Objections to Romney

page 7 of 18

APX - 126

Liverpool (former home of his parents). He came back to Salt Lake City with a boatload of new
English converts.
1863 New York State Court of Appeals in Ludlum v Ludlum , 26 N.Y. 356 (1863 March Term),
defines Natural Born Citizen.
1866 Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, Congressional Globe, 39th , 1st Sess.
Pg 1291 (March 9, 1866) stated:
“...every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not
owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself,
a natural born citizen.”
Note the reference to a singular child of plural parents, “not owing allegiance to any foreign
sovereignty”. Both parents must not owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty for the child to be
a Natural Born Citizen.
This quote also demonstrates that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the children of British
Subjects, who retained their own parent's nationality.
1867 In 1867 the Romney family moved from Salt Lake City to Saint George, Utah. St. George
is in the southwest corner of the state on the Arizona border.
1867 -Mar-23 Miles Park Romney: Marriage to Caroline Lambourne (1846-1879) in Salt Lake
City - two children
1868

14th Amendment -Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The purpose of this Amendment was to prevent former slaves from being denied citizenship
rights by their states. It was not intended to abrogate the right of citizenship of nationals of other
Countries by usurping their right to give their own nationality to their children.
The Amendment refers to “any State”, not to territories.
-------------------------------Discussion:
Gaskell and Anna were born in the Territory of Utah, but they were not born in the state of Utah.
Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt Romney were both born of British Parents in the
Territory of Utah in 1871 and 1876 respectively.
Gaskell’s father (Mitt’s great grandfather) Miles Romney was a polygamist. The 1882 Edmunds
Act stripped polygamists of the basic rights of U.S. citizenship.
Since the Romney’s lived in the Territory of Utah at that time, did they have any US citizenship?
If so, was it stripped by the Edmunds Act?
In 1884 Miles Romney moved his multiple wives and children from the Territory of Utah to
Specific Objections to Romney

page 8 of 18

APX - 127

Mexico. Then in 1896 the Territory of Utah became a state. Since the Romneys moved to Mexico
before 1896, they could not have received US citizenship, since they were no longer residents of
the Territory of Utah when it became a state.
When George W. Romney (Mitt’s father) was born in Mexico in 1907, George W. became a
native Mexican (based on the location of his birth), whether or not he was legally recognized as
such. Some argue that George W. Romney was in fact a Mexican citizen at birth. He may have
been a British Subject, like his parents.
How did those in the Territory of Utah naturalize to become US citizens? One source states,
“Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who applied for naturalization
during the 1870s and 1880s were often denied because of polygamy.”
https://www.familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Utah_Naturalization_and_Citizenship
Another article states that when the Territory of Utah became a state in 1896, “resident noncitizens did not automatically become U.S. citizens even if they had filed declarations of
intention of becoming U.S. citizens.” The article also stated “We know from a contemporaneous
news story that as of October 15 1967, George W. Romney hadn’t filed any particular papers to
make himself a citizen.” http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/mitt-romney-natural-borncitizenship-and-media-bias/
So since Mitt’s grandparents, Gaskell (born of British Subjects) and Anna Romney were born in
the Territory of Utah (which did not automatically make them US citizens) and had left the
Territory of Utah before it became a state, where is the proof that Gaskell and Anna Romney had
US citizenship to pass on to their son George W. Romney when he was born in Mexico in 1907?
Where is the proof that George W. Romney had US citizenship to pass on to his son Mitt
Romney when he was born in 1947?
---------------------1870 Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870.
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude.
1871 Gaskell Romney (Mitt’s Grandfather) was born in Utah, the son of Miles Romney and
Elizabeth Gaskell two British Subjects; thereby becoming a British Subject.
7 FAM 1121.3 Status of Inhabitants of Territories, Absent Laws Defining Status
(TL:CON-66; 10-10-96) c. A child born in an outlying possession before January 13,
1941, whose father (or mother if the child was born out of wedlock) was a non-citizen
U.S. national, was held to have acquired the parent’s status, and a child born there to alien
parents was held not to have acquired U.S. Nationality.
Therefore Gaskell Romney was not a US National.
1873 -Sep-15 Miles Park Romney: Marriage to Catharine Jane Cottam (1855-1918) in Salt
Lake City - 10 children
1877 Aug-01 Miles Park Romney: Marriage to Annie Marie Woodbury (1858-1930) in St
Specific Objections to Romney

page 9 of 18

APX - 128

George Utah - 8 children
The United States census lists Miles Park Romney, his two wives Hannah Hood Hill and
Catherine Jane Cottam, and six of Hannah’s children, including her son Gaskell who was eight
years old at the time.
1881
1881

Miles Park Romney Moved to St George, Utah to build Temple.
Miles Park Romney Moved to Az.

1882 The Edmunds Act stripped polygamists of the basic rights of U.S. citizenship, denying
them the right to vote, serve on juries or hold office. Not dissimilar to current immigration raids,
U.S. federal agents hunted and arrested polygamists. Polygamists were forced to leave the
country or risk jail.
1886 Miles Park Romney started for Mexico with his family, Tom Mahoney The Story Of
George Romney (1960).
Gaskell Romney (Mitt’s Grandfather) was 15 years old; too young to ratify his citizenship in a
US Court. His intention, and that of his parents, seems to be to become a permanent Mexican
national or citizen.
According to Mahoney:
Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather fled with his three wives to Mexico so they could
continue their polygamist lifestyle with a multitude of other Mormon polygamists and
settled there, cutting land deals with Mexican president, Porfirio Diaz using funds that
came from The Mormon Church. President Diaz was happy to have the Mormon settlers
there as a buffer against the Apache Indians. (pg.51)
With others, Helaman Pratt obtained permission from Diaz for Miles Park Romney and
other Mormon refugees to buy lands and establish colonies in Mexico. Partly with funds
advanced by the Church, they purchased large, mostly undeveloped tracts in Sonora and
Chihuahua. Diaz was happy to have colonists there as buffers against the Apache Indians
1887 The Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 was enforced. Archibald Newell Hood (Hannah’s
father) and her brother (Samuel) were arrested, fined, and imprisoned for several months in Salt
Lake City for practicing polygamy. About 1,300 Mormon men were imprisoned in the late
1880s.
1890 9/24/1890 Mormon Church advised Mormons to refrain from polygamy. In 1890, The
Mormon Church lost their case to the Supreme Court which upheld Edmunds-Tucker Act, so
Utah came out with their Manifesto soon afterward which condemned plural marriage:
The “1890 Manifesto”, sometimes simply called “The Manifesto”, is a statement which
officially disavowed the continuing practice of plural marriage in The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Issued by church president Wilford Woodruff
in September 1890, the Manifesto was a response to mounting anti-polygamy pressure
from the United States Congress, which by 1890 had disincorporated the church,
escheated its assets to the U.S. federal government, and imprisoned many prominent
Specific Objections to Romney

page 10 of 18

APX - 129

polygamist Mormons.
The Manifesto was a dramatic turning point in the history of the LDS Church. It
officially prohibited church members from entering into any marriage prohibited by the
law of the land, and made it possible for Utah to become a U.S. state.
Nevertheless, even after the Manifesto, the church quietly continued to perform a small
number of plural marriages in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, thus necessitating
a Second Manifesto during U.S. congressional hearings in 1904.
In regards to the missionaries, the expatriate Mormons had to become Mexican citizens since
missionary work by foreigners was prohibited by Mexican law at the time.
Mexico only allowed citizens to conduct missions/missionary work. The Mormons operated
missions in Mexico.
1891= 5 years + 1886 Under the operative immigration law of nations at the time, each
government had a tacit agreement about such expatriates to avoid being put into delicate
situations of having to defend Americans on foreign soil. This was operative when the Mormons
fled Utah. The standard was that if an American stayed five or so years, each country would
consider he had rejected his native country’s citizenship. This made Miles Park Romney and his
son George Romney both Mexican Citizens.
George W. Romney was born in Mexico, son of the head elder (Gaskell Romney), who was in
Mexico for about 3 decades before George W. Romney's birth, said Gaskell Romney must have
been a Mexican [or British] citizen. Therefore, Gaskell Romney could not bestow American
citizenship, much less “natural born” citizenship to George W. Romney. Since George W.
Romney [Mexican or British] was therefore not an American citizen, George W. Romney could
not eventually bestow natural born citizen status to his son Mitt Romney.
1892 Gaskell Romney (Mitt’s Grandfather) became 21 years old; old enough to declare his
citizenship in a US Court. But he lived in Mexico. His intention and that of his parents seemed
to be to become a permanent Mexican national or citizen. He did not live in the United States for
at least 5 years before his 23rd birthday in 1894.
----------------------------Minors (Children)
Minor children were granted derivative citizenship when their father, or after 1922 their
parent, was naturalized. This practice remained in place for children under the age of 21
from 1790 to 1940. There usually will be no record of a minor child's derivative
citizenship unless he/she applied to the INS after 1929 for a certificate of citizenship.
Between 1824 and 1906 an alien who arrived as a minor, had lived in the United States
for at least 5 years before their 23rd birthday, and whose father had not become a U.S.
naturalized citizen could file his declaration and petition at the same time. Although the
forms used for this process varied from court to court, the declaration of intention and
petition for naturalization are usually found on one form.
Specific Objections to Romney

page 11 of 18

APX - 130

http://www.ourarchives.wikispaces.net/Naturalization
There is no evidence that Gaskell ever:
arrived as a minor in the US,
lived in the United States for at least 5 years before his 23rd birthday,
filed his declaration or petition to be a US Citizen.
Therefore, Gaskell was not a US Citizen.
1895 -Feb-20 Miles Park Romney married Anna Amelia Pratt (1876-1926) in Dublan,
Chihuahua, Mexico. She was the grand daughter of Mormon Pioneer Parley Pratt.
1896

Utah becomes a State Jan 4, 1896

1897 -Feb-02 : Miles Park Romney married Emily Henrietta Eyring (1870-1947) in Dublan
Mexico, widow of William Snow. They begat no children, but she already had two children from
the Snow marriage.
1904 Miles Park Romney (Mitt's Great Grandfather) died at Colonia Dublan, Chihuahua,
Mexico, evidencing his intent to remain a Mexican for life.
-----------------------------------Women
Early naturalization laws did not restrict naturalization for women and in theory alien
women could apply for citizenship. However a variety of laws began to limit a woman's
rights to naturalization culminating in a 1855 law that effectively restricted naturalization
for women. The 1855 act held that "[a]ny woman who is now or may hereafter be
married to a citizen of the United States, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized,
shall be deemed a citizen." Essentially the law said that a woman held the citizenship of
her husband. For instance if a German woman immigrated to the United States and
married a U.S. citizen, she automatically became a citizen. Or if a German couple
immigrated to the United States and the husband was naturalized, his wife was
considered a citizen by virtue of his naturalization. A strange quirk of this law was that
if a woman who was a native-born U.S. citizen married a foreigner, the U.S.
government considered that she had given up her U.S. citizenship in favor of her
husband's citizenship. This was a matter of debate for some time but an act in March of
1907 codified it in law.
Few women pursued naturalization before 1920 because women couldn't vote - the major
right of citizenship - and in many places couldn't own property. Following the passage of
the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote, there was a movement to
change the laws relating to naturalization of women. Many asked why a woman should
automatically be granted the right to vote through marriage. Congress passed the Married
Women's Act (the Cable Act) on September 22, 1922. Women were now able to apply for
naturalization on their own. Included in the Cable Act, was a provision to allow American
born women who had lost their citizenship due to their marriages to foreigners to file
petitions to become citizens. Many U.S. born women who had married foreign citizens
Specific Objections to Romney

page 12 of 18

APX - 131

did not believe they should have to file for a citizenship to which they had been born. In
1936 Congress passed a new act that allowed U.S. born women who had married
foreigners between 1907 and 1922 to take an oath of allegiance (sometimes mistakenly
called a repatriation petition).
http://www.ourarchives.wikispaces.net/women
--------------1904 Second Manifesto of Church during U.S. congressional hearings in 1904 rejecting
Polygamy.
1907 George W. Romney (Mitt's father) was born in Mexico. George W. Romney was born in
a Mormon Colony, Colonia Dublán, in Galeana, State of Chihuahua, Mexico, on July 8, 1907.
His parents were Gaskell and Anna Amelia Pratt Romney, both ex-patriot British citizens who
were born in Utah and who met and married in Mexico, and who seem to have become Mexican
Citizens.
George W. Romney's birth on foreign soil, raises the question of citizenship “by descent” of
children born to American citizens on foreign soil. Citizenship lies in two concepts of
international law:
a) birth in-country, or jure soli (by right of the soil) by which George would be Mexican;
or
b) from birth outside the country to parents who are citizens, jure sanguinis (by right of blood).
George was born in Mexico of British Subjects or Mexican Citizens, so he is either:
by jure soli (by right of the soil) a Mexican Citizen, or
by jure sanguinis (by right of blood), a British Subject or Mexican Citizen.
1908 Mitt’s mother, Lenore Romney, was born in Logan, Utah on November 9, 1908. She was
an American citizen at birth.
1913 George & parents move to El Paso refugee center. They were temporary exiles. George
said: "We were the first displaced persons of the 20th century." Mitt Romney has repeated this
admission and thus adopted it as his own.
A displaced person (sometimes abbreviated DP) is a person who has been forced to leave his or
her native place, a phenomenon known as forced migration. Displaced person - Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displaced_person
displaced person n. One who has been driven from one's homeland by war or internal upheaval.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000
by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All
rights reserved.
displaced person
a person forced from his or her country, esp. as a result of war, and left homeless elsewhere
Specific Objections to Romney

page 13 of 18

APX - 132

Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc.,
Cleveland, Ohio. Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
displaced person
noun
a person driven or expelled from his or her homeland by war, famine, tyranny, etc.
Abbreviation: DP, D.P. Origin: 1940–45 Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012.
Definition of DISPLACED PERSON
: a person expelled, deported, or impelled to flee from his country of nationality or habitual
residence by the forces or consequences of war or oppression —abbr. DP
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/displaced%20person
displaced person
noun
1. someone who has been forced to leave their own country and live somewhere else, for
example because there is a war in their own country
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/displaced-person
The use by George Romney of the phrase: “Displaced Person” is thus an admission that George
Romney regarded his native place, country of nationality, own country, nationality, and
homeland as Mexico.
1938 Twenty-six years after the Romneys were forced from Mexico, the case of "Gaskell
Romney vs. United States of Mexico" was heard in Salt Lake City in 1938. Gaskell requested
$28,753 in damages. He was awarded $9,163, court records show — a sizable amount then.
The records say Gaskell gave half of the award to his son, George, which would have helped
to put him on his road to becoming chairman of American Motors and governor of Michigan.
1947 Mitt Romney was born in Detroit, Michigan on March 12, 1947. His parents were
George W. Romney [Mexican or British by blood or Mexican by birth in Mexico] and Lenore
LaFount Romney, who married in Salt Lake City on July 2, 1931. At the time of his birth, Mitt’s
father served as general manager of the Automobile Manufacturers Association, in Detroit.
1967 According to an October 15, 1967 New York Times interview with George Romney, who
was then seeking the 1968 Republican nomination for President of the United States, it appears
that he did not at any time apply for naturalization.
According to the Times report, “Governor Romney said today that the question of his
constitutional eligibility for office had been studied by lawyers and that he believed it
posed no problem… Governor Romney said that he did not have to file any papers to
become an American citizen since both his parents had been born in the United States…”

Specific Objections to Romney

page 14 of 18

APX - 133

However, both George's parents were Mexican Citizens, or British Subjects, when George was
born.

Wherefore: Objector challenges Mitt Romney and or his agents to prove that both of
his parents at the time of his birth were US Citizens; particularly Mexican born George Romney.
I specifically object to the the Letter to designate the unqualified candidate, Mitt Romney, as a
candidate for President on the NY Primary Ballot.
Objector objects on the basis of the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 (1) eligibility
“natural-born Citizen”.
Objector cautions the New York State Board of Elections against using as a criteria the novel
inapplicable phrase “Born a Citizen” (under “Running for Office” at BOE website), instead of the
Constitutional term “natural born Citizen”.
The Natural Born Citizen idiom was selected by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution to conform with
the concerns of the People of New York who were intent to safeguard sovereignty, to reflect history and
practice of the “Law of Nations”(2) since Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York, July
26, 1788, and that as defined by the Legislature by statute example in the Real Property Law Article 2
Section 18 (3),and as relates to matters of inheritance, that have since been upheld by the State of New
York Court of Appeals in its precedents that also conform with precedents of the Supreme Court of the
United States (SCOTUS) before and after the addition of the 14th amendment that did not amend the
Natural Born Citizen idiom, or warrant any assertion by the NYS BOE, other than “natural-born Citizen”.
The BOE may not paraphrase the Constitution to change its meaning to some ill-defined or differently
defined “born a citizen” term, as indicated on the BOE's website this election for the very first time.
There is no state statutory provision warranting NYS BOE to use “Born a Citizen” per se rather than
Natural Born Citizen; and therefore, is strictly a U.S. Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5
Natural Born Citizen eligibility issue that the NYS BOE must conform to, in compliance with the body of
common law of the New York Courts (4), and in accordance with SCOTUS precedents (5) that are contrary
to “Born a Citizen” idiom use.

Objector notes that my mother explained to me, when I was a child:
that she could never be President, because she was a naturalized citizen; but,
the fact that she had naturalized before the birth of her children, and married a another
U.S. citizen, meant that I could be President.
It is interesting that this once-common Constitutional knowledge, of an immigrant, seems to
have been somehow obscured by the last few decades.
As required, prior to filing this Specification of Objections, a true and correct copy of it, together
with any and all attachments was mailed by, registered or certified mail
Certificate 7011 1570 0003 5313 __________
to the only person and address named on the Romney's Document as the Representative of the
Candidate for service of this notice:
Miss Megan Sowards
Specific Objections to Romney

page 15 of 18

APX - 134

Deputy General counsel for Mitt Romney
585 Commercial Street
Boston, MA 02109
Proof of such Service is attached hereto in the form of a copy of the certified mailing receipt for
the same and Certificate of Service.
Feb. 27, 2012
Signed
Christopher B. Garvey (Republican Objector)
Endnotes
Exhibits 1 to 5

Specific Objections to Romney

page 16 of 18

APX - 135

1

U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 paragraph 5:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
2

Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758)

3

NYS RPL § 18. Mines in Saint Lawrence county. The proprietors of any mines or veins of lead or copper in the county
of Saint Lawrence, may demise, lease, or rent the same for a period not to exceed twenty-one years from the date of
any such lease, to any foreign individual or company, and such lessee may take, hold, work, use or convey the same during
the said term, in the same manner and subject to the same liabilities as if such lessee were a natural born citizen.
4

New York Miscellaneous Reports

PEOPLE v. QUIROGA-PUMA, 18 Misc.3d 731 (2007) No. LX6701631.
MATTER OF BROWN, 132 Misc.2d 811 (1986) July 7, 1986 .
AGOSTINI v. DE ANTUENO, 199 Misc. 191 (1950) February 20, 1950.
PEOPLE EX REL. CHOOLOKIAN v. MISSION OF IMMAC. VIRGIN, 192 Misc. 454 (1947) December 30, 1947.
New York Appellate Division Reports
WILLIAMS v. VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER, 97 App. Div. 84 (1904) July, 1904
New York Court of Appeals Reports
MUNRO v. MERCHANT, 28 N.Y. 9 (1863) September Term, 1863
LUDLAM v. LUDLAM, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) March Term, 1863…………………………………….
WADSWORTH v. WADSWORTH, 12 N.Y. 376 (1855) March Term, 1855
McCARTHY v. MARSH, 5 N.Y. 263 (1851) September Term, 1851
HOYT v. THOMPSON, 5 N.Y. 320 (1851) September Term, 1851
Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand.Ch. 583, 659-663 (N.Y. 1844)
5

Minor. v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627

Cases citing Minor: Boyd. v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971); City of Mobile v.
Bolden, 446 U.S 55 (1980); Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm’m of Montana, 436 U.S 371 (1978) ; Breedlove v. Suttles, 302
U.S. 277 (1937); US v. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935); Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S.
559 (1911); Hague v. Committee For Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939); Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245
(1934); Harris v. Mcrae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980); Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S 47 (1907); Kepner v. U.S., 195 U.S. 100 (1904);
Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705 (1962); N.Y. Ex Rel. Bryant v.
Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63 (1928); Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1 (1982); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 816
(1971); Schick v. U.S., 195 U.S. 65 (1904); Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944); South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437
(1905); In Re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23
(1968)
Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894), that is essentially the holy grail of support for Minor v. Happersett, as it
states:“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of
membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States,
have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of
the constitution as since…” (Emphasis added) and also the City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980)

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

APX - 136

Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830) therein C.J. John Marshal on how New York law
and British common law apply before and after 1776 Independence affects the right to take land in controversy by descent
in New York:

APX - 137

APX - 138

Specification of Objections to
Democratic Party
Designating Petition
Designating Barack Obama
Filed with the NYS Board of Elections on February 9, 2012
02/13/12
CERTIFIED mail RETURN RECEIPT # 7011 1570 0003 5313 5080
To:
Election Operations
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
40 Steuben Street
Albany New York 12207
Attention:
• JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair,
DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair,
EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner,
GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner,
Further to my General Objection mailed on Feb. 9, 2012, and an Amended General Objection
mailed herewith today,
I, Christopher B. Garvey (Objector) object to the above identified petition, and I hereby specify the
following reasons:
1. Objector resides at 16 Nicoll Ave., Amityville, NY 11701-3018.
Phone: 631 598 0752.
2. Objector is a duly registered New York voter in the 2012 election cycle, and is qualified to vote for
President.
3. The designated candidate Barack Obama (Obama) is not eligible for the Office of President of the
United States (POTUS). Objector demands a hearing on the declared candidate's eligibility on
2/14/12 or as soon thereafter as the Chairman and Commissioners may chose to convene to take
evidence and testimony to bar Barack Obama from the 2012 Presidential Election cycle ballots, as
time is of the essence.
4. Objector references the NYS BOE notice that agents of the OBAMA FOR AMERICA campaign filed
designating petitions on February 9, 2012 that designates Barack Obama for ballot access as the
Democratic Party Candidate for President of the United States.
Objector challenges the Certification of both the declared candidate Barack Obama and all the
petitions and filing documents as a nullity, against public policy, and against the Constitution of
the United States, in that Barack Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President of the
United States (POTUS) because he is not a “Natural Born Citizen” as is required under New
York State law in compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 and New
York provision of law defining “Natural born Citizen”.
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption
of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible
to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a
Resident within the United States.”

Therefore all the designating petitions must be rejected as defective.
Specific Objections to Obama Designating Petition

APX - 139

Page 1 of 4

5. Objections are based upon the admission of Barack Obama , AKA Barack H. Obama (AKA Barrack
Hussein Obama II) with the release of his autobiography. “Dreams From My Father” (1995).
Barack Obama's father was Barack H. Obama Sr., a British subject at the time of the Candidate's
birth. This non-US Citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama Sr. makes Barack Obama not a
Natural Born Citizen, and therefore Obama is ineligible for the Office of President of the United
States.
6. Objections are based upon the INS record signed by Barrack Hussein Obama Sr. that Barack
Obama’s father was a Foreign Alien non-immigrant with a student visa and never was at anytime a
US Citizen or even had a “Green Card” – as such Barack Obama is not Natural Born Citizen and
ineligible for POTUS.
7. objections are based upon the record of the divorce decree issued from the Hawaii court of competent
jurisdiction British subject Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was married to the U.S. Citizen Stanley
Ann Obama being of minor age at the time of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama II;
These objections are based upon the supposed Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) released by
Barack Obama during a press conference in April 2011, alleging Barack Obama was born in
Hawaii to U.S. Citizen Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, the mother, and British Subject Barack
Hussein Obama Sr. the father on August 8, 1961.
8. The evidence shows that at best, Barack Obama may merely be a native born or naturalized citizen,
not a Natural Born Citizen. A Natural Born Citizen is a person born in the United States, of US
Citizen parents, as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the precedent
set in Minor. v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. Justice Waite
holding that natural born citizens per se are so by virtue of birth on United States soil when both
parents were Citizens of the United States.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere
to ascertain [***10] that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution
were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens
became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as
distinguished from aliens or foreigners. “ id. http://www.osah.ga.gov/documents/Cases/Cite-minor
%20v%20happersett.pdf, at page 2 of the decision.

9. This is the definition which applies to the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5. It is the
definition commonly accepted under international law at the time the Constitution was drafted and
ratified. When the delegates from New York insisted on this clause, they did not wish to have a
British Subject or his offspring becoming Commander-in-chief, and then, by surrender, returning
the United States to being subject to the King of England.
10. Natural Born Citizen is a Constitutionally different term than the terms used in the 14thAmendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the State wherein they reside....”

The 14thAmendment is irrelevant to the term Natural Born Citizen.
11. Natural Born Citizen is defined without reaching the need of use of the 14th Amendment or the
power of Congress granted with Article 1 Section 8 paragraph 4 to define naturalization and
immigration status of persons other than Natural Born Citizen persons; and as upheld by New
York State jurisprudence as to Natural Born Citizen, defined in state law.
12. Barack Obama is not a Natural- born Citizen. However he may possibly be classified as “Born a
Citizen” depending upon the power of Congress granted to define citizen status, other than
Natural Born Citizen.
13. On information and belief, Barack Obama renounced his citizenship at various times.
Obama received a public education In Indonesia, where public education was only provided to
Specific Objections to Obama Designating Petition

APX - 140

Page 2 of 4

Indonesian Citizens and where dual citizenship was not permitted.
Obama applied for financial aid as a foreign student within the United States.
• Said application[s] was evidence that he is not a US Citizen.
Said application[s] as a foreign student operatively served as his renunciation of his US
Citizenship.
15. On information and belief, Obama traveled as an Indonesian Citizen, with an Indonesian Passport,
when dual citizenship was not permitted. This was either evidence of renunciation, or operative
renunciation of his citizenship, or both.
16. Barack Obama is ineligible to be President because he has violated his oath of office to “protect and
defend the Constitution.”:
17. By pretending to be President, when he is not a Natural Born Citizen, he has violated U.S.
Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5.
18. Obama has attacked the First Amendment by arresting persons and members of the press at peaceful
assemblies.
19. Obama has attacked the First Amendment by forcing religious organizations to act in violation of
their beliefs,
20. Obama has used the ATF to violate the Second Amendment.
21. Obama has attacked the Fourth Amendment by, without warrant, using agents to conduct
unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, houses, places and effects, including data and
private communications.
Obama has attacked the Fourth Amendment by depriving American Citizens of life, liberty, and
property, without due process of law.
22. Barack Obama has attacked the Sixth Amendment, by denying accused persons a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
23. Barack Obama has attacked the Sixth Amendment, by arresting and imprisoning trial Counsel.
24. Barack Obama has violated the Seventh Amendment, by imposing “Civil” penalties on persons,
where the value in controversy exceeded twenty dollars, without the right of trial by jury
25. Barack Obama has violated Amendment 8 -by requiring excessive bail, imposing excessive fines, and
inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
26. Barack Obama has violated Amendment 9 by denying and disparaging other rights retained by the
people.
27. Barack Obama has violated Amendment 10, by usurping powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, which are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.
28. Barack Obama declined to become president the last time he was elected by not taking his oath of
office. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=274_VdeckAU
What Obama said may be an oath that he has violated, but was not quite what the Constitution, Article
II, Sec. 1 requires:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will
to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

29. Wherefore: objector challenges Barack Obama and or his agents to prove both the place of birth and
that both of his parents at the time of his birth were US Citizens, and that Barack Obama has never
renounced his US Citizenship, nor violated his oath of office.
Specific Objections to Obama Designating Petition

APX - 141

Page 3 of 4

30. I object that there is no summary page on the Designating Petition.
31. I specifically object to all volume numbers, all page numbers, and all line numbers containing any
signatures, and to all the signatures, in that they purport, in the language of the petition at the top
of each page, to designate the unqualified candidate, Barack Obama.
32. I have no objections to any signature other than to the candidate they purport to designate.
33. I have no objections to any portion of any petition or any signature line or witness statement, nor any
other reasons for any such objection, other than: that the Candidate they purport to designate is
unqualified.
34. I object to the the total number of signatures submitted, because the Candidate they purport to
designate is unqualified.
35. All the signatures are grouped together in one group, for the above reasons, because the Candidate
they purport to designate is unqualified.
No specifications of objections to any petition will be considered by the Board unless the objector filing the
specifications personally delivers or mails by registered or certified mail a duplicate copy of the specifications to each
candidate for public office named on the petition. In the case of a petition containing candidates for party position,
service of the specifications shall be made on either the named candidates or the first person named on the petition's
committee to fill vacancies. Service shall be made on or before the date of filing of any specifications with the Board.
Proof of service shall accompany the specifications or be received by the end of business two days following the filing
of the specifications, whichever is later.

As required, prior to filing this Specification of Objections, a true and correct copy of it, together with any
and all attachments was mailed by, registered or certified mail to:
the first person named on the Petition's committee to fill vacancies:
Robert Diamond
118 East 93rdStreet
New York, NY 10128
and to the Candidate:
Barack Obama
5064 S. Greenwood Ave.
Chicago, Illinois 60515
Proof of such Service is attached hereto in the form of a copy of the certified mailing receipt for the each
and a Certificate of of Service.
Signed

_________________________________
Christopher B. Garvey Objector

Specific Objections to Obama Designating Petition

APX - 142

Page 4 of 4

Febru~ry 28. 2012

STATE OF NEW YORK
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

In the Matter of the objections of CHRISTOPHER GARVEY,
to the designating petition of the Democratic
DETERMINATION
Party purporting to designate BARACK OBAMA
as a candidate for the office of President of the
United States

After an examination of the des~nating petition of the Democratic Party
purporting to nominate SARACK OBAMA as a candidate for the office of President of
the United States, and the matter having been considered by the Commissioners of the
State Board of Elections on February 28, 2012, the State Board finds that the objector
has no standing to object to the party position as the objector is not an enrolled member
of the Democratic Party (Election Law §6-154(2)). Further, the objection raises issues
which are beyond the ministerial scope of the State Board to determine and such
objection is made in the incorrect venue, as no direct election for President of the
United States occurs via election day ba llots. Rather, the April 24, 2012 Presidential
Primary is the ballot access process which provides for the election of delegates to a
national party convention or a national party conference in 2012.

For the reasons cited

herein, the objection is overruled and the petitio n is valid.

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

APX - 143

Specification of Objections to
the Letter from Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum as a
Request for Ballot Access
in the New York Primary Election
for Republican Candidate for President of the United States
or any other named Republican Nominating or Designating Certificate or Petition or Request
Designating Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum as a Candidate for President
Filed with the NYS Board of Elections on February 21, 2012
Christopher B. Garvey
Republican Objector
16 Nicoll Ave.
Amityville, NY 11701-3018
phone 1 631 598 0752
email objectorCG@verizon.net
02/25/12
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT #7011 1570 0003 5313 _____
To:
Election Operations
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
40 Steuben Street
Albany New York 12207
Further to my General Objection mailed on Tuesday, 02/21/2012,
I, Christopher B. Garvey (Republican Objector) specifically object to the:
Letter from Rick Santorum, a Request for Ballot Access in the New York Primary Election for
Republican Candidate for President of the United States, and giving no return address, and
document[s] naming delegates and alternates:
I refer for document identification to:
http://www.elections.ny.gov:8080/reports/rwservlet?cmdkey=whofiled
List of Filings for the Presidential Primary
Office: President
Republican
Rick Santorum 02/21/2010 Vols. 0 Pages 0 Supporting

Objector resides and is registered to vote as a Republican at:
16 Nicoll Ave.
Amityville, NY 11701-3018
phone 1 631 598 0752
Objector is a duly registered Republican New York voter in the 2012 election cycle, and is qualified to
vote for in the New York Primary for President of the United States.

Specific Objection Santorum

page 1 of 10

APX - 144

I hereby specify the following objections:
The Document contains no return address for the service of objections, or of summons and complaint,
on the Candidate.
The designated candidate Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum is not eligible for the
Office of President of the United States and is therefore not eligible to run in the next New York
Primary for President of the United States.
Objector challenges the Certification of both the declared candidate Rick Santorum AKA Richard John
"Rick" Santorum and all the filing documents as a nullity, against the Constitution of the United States,
and against public policy, in that Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum is not eligible
for the Office of the President of the United States because he is not a “Natural Born Citizen” as is
required under New York State law in compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1
paragraph 5 and New York provision of law defining “Natural born Citizen”.
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of
this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that
Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident
within the United States.”

A Natural Born Citizen is a person born in the United States of two United States
Citizens.
Rick Santorum's father was an Italian Citizen, who immigrated to the United States.
“Rick Santorum is the middle of the three children of Aldo Santorum (1923–
2011), a clinical psychologist who immigrated to the United States at age seven
from Riva del Garda, Italy,[15] and Catherine (Dughi) Santorum (1918–), an
administrative nurse[15][16][17] of Italian American and Irish American descent.
[18]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum

On Feb. 7, 2012, Rick Santorum publicly admitted that he is a first generation American:
“I never thought as a first-generation American whose parents and grandparents
loved freedom and came here because they didn't want the government telling
them what to believe and how to believe it.”
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1202/07/acd.02.html
I found no information indicating that the Candidate's father, Aldo Santorum, ever
naturalized as a United States Citizen.
Therefore, Candidate Rick Santorum is not a “A Natural Born Citizen ... a person born
in the United States of two United States Citizens.” Therefore he is not Constitutionally
Specific Objection Santorum

page 2 of 10

APX - 145

qualified to be President of the United States. He must not be placed on any New York
ballot for election to that office.
Therefore all the designating documents must be rejected as defective.
New York State has case law on the term “Natural Born Citizen” because among other reasons, New
York State Law prohibited all but Natural Born Citizens from owning mines:
Mines in Saint Lawrence county.
Real Property Law § 18
§ 18. Mines in Saint Lawrence county. The proprietors of any mines or
veins of lead or copper in the county of Saint Lawrence, may demise,
lease, or rent the same for a period not to exceed twenty-one years from
the date of any such lease, to any foreign individual or company, and
such lessee may take, hold, work, use or convey the same during the said
term, in the same manner and subject to the same liabilities as if such
lessee were a natural born citizen.
Law of Nations
According to Emmerich de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” Section 212: (1757)
“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents [both] who are
citizens.”
The Law of Nations, was written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that
book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the
English translation of 1797 (p. 110) see Exhibit 2 [annotations of uncertain origin]:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and
subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born
citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist
and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally
follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .
The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:
“Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .”
The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are English terms; used to render the idea conveyed by
the French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both referred to the same category of citizen: one
born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.
In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the Law of
Nature, that is by the natural circumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term
“indigenes” is from the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from
within” (inde-genes), as in the phrase “the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and
lived there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term, “natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou
indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country.
Vattel's term, “natural born citizen” appears in a letter [Ex 4] of the future Supreme Court Justice, John
Specific Objection Santorum

page 3 of 10

APX - 146

Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention.
John Jay wrote, 1787 July 25 New York, Letter from John Jay to His Excellency General Washington,
[Exhibit 4]:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and reasonable to provide as a strong
check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to
declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor
devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. --- ….”
Benjamin Franklin wrote [Exhibit 1] from Philadelphia Dec. 19, 1775 that the members of the
Continental Congress were consulting a copy of Vattel’s book to complete their work .
“I'm much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us
in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult
the law of nations. Accordingly that copy which I kept... has been continually in the hands of
the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes, and preface,
and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author....
1794 The Senate made its first purchases: Blackstone's Commentaries and Vattel's Law of Nature and
Nations. Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 5 is a my own Venn diagram of types of citizen in early America.

Specific Objection Santorum

page 4 of 10

APX - 147

Marriage gave women their husband's citizenship automatically. So both parents had same nationality
[except out-of-wedlock]: that of the husband-father. There was no divided loyalty objection, because
there was no divided parent citizenship. So father's citizenship meant both parents' citizenship. In 1922
a change in US law eliminated marriage's automatic change of the wife's citizenship, Married Women's
Act (the Cable Act). Today, it is possible to have one parent who is not a US citizen, which creates a
divided loyalty obstruction to becoming Commander-in-chief.
For example, such a conflict of divided loyalty might arise if one's adopted father was an official of the
Indonesian Army and a Citizen of Indonesia.
For such an example, see: Obama Dreams of My Father.
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, decided by men who were intimately associated
with the American Revolution. In that year the following judges sat on the Supreme Court:
Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26,
1829.
John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.
William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.
Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til
March 18, 1823
Specific Objection Santorum

page 5 of 10

APX - 148

Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.
Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jan. 14, 1835.
Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845
Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s
father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the
British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary
War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-decamp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’s father,
mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the
line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutemen of Virginia,
and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General
George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General
Assembly. Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir.
Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had
intended.
The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named The Venus,
belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War
of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about
citizenship, is what matters here.
WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP
In The Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd
paragraph from the French edition of Vattel supra, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties,
and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes
are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and
to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the
condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and
stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the
state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…
In 1863, the New York State Court of Appeals in Ludlum v Ludlum , 26 N.Y. 356 (1863 March Term)
defined Natural Born Citizen.
In 1866, Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, in the Congressional Globe, 39th , 1st Sess.
Pg 1291 (March 9, 1866) stated:
“...every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing
allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural
born citizen.”
This demonstrates that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the children of Italian Citizens, who
retained their own nationality. Note the reference to a singular child of plural parents, “not owing
allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”. Both parents must not owe allegiance to any foreign

Specific Objection Santorum

page 6 of 10

APX - 149

sovereignty for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen.
Aldo Santorum was an Italian Citizen born on Italian soil.
If Aldo didn't naturalize, then Aldo never became a US citizen.
His son Rick Santorum, may or may not be a Citizen, by his birth May 10, 1958 in Winchester,
Virginia,: jure soli (by right of the soil).
If Rick took his Italian Father's Italian citizenship, then Rick is an Italian Citizen.
If Rick took his mother's citizenship, and his mother is a US Citizen, then then Rick is a US Citizen.
But, Aldo's son, Rick Santorum, lacks two US citizen parents who were citizens at the time of Rick's
birth. He is not a Natural Born Citizen as required by the Constitution.
He has at least one parent who is not a US citizen, which creates a divided loyalty obstruction to
becoming Commander-in-chief.
Objector objects on the basis of the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 (1) eligibility “natural-born
Citizen”.
Objector cautions the New York State Board of Elections (BOE) against using as a criteria the novel
inapplicable phrase “Born a Citizen” (under “Running for Office” at BOE website), instead of the
Constitutional term “natural born Citizen”.
The Natural Born Citizen idiom was selected by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution to conform with the
concerns of the People of New York who were intent to safeguard sovereignty, to reflect history and practice of
the “Law of Nations”(2) since Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York, July 26, 1788, and that
as defined by the Legislature by statute example in the Real Property Law Article 2 Section 18 (3),and as relates
to matters of inheritance, that have since been upheld by the venerable State of New York Court of Appeals in its
own most stringent precedents that also conform with precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States
before and after the addition of the 14th amendment that did not amend the Natural Born Citizen idiom, or
warrant any assertion by the NYS BOE, other than “natural-born Citizen”. The BOE may not paraphrase the
Constitution to change its meaning to some ill-defined or differently defined “born a citizen” term, as indicated
on the BOE's website this election for the very first time.
There is no state statutory provision warranting NYS BOE to use “Born a Citizen” per se rather than Natural
Born Citizen; and therefore, is strictly a U.S. Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 Natural Born Citizen
eligibility issue that the NYS BOE must conform to, in compliance with the body of common law of the New
York Courts (4), and in accordance with SCOTUS precedents (5) that are contrary to “Born a Citizen” idiom use.

Objector notes that my mother explained to me, when I was a child, that she could never be President,
because she was a naturalized citizen. But, the fact that she had naturalized before the birth of her
children, and married a another U.S. citizen, meant that I could be President. It is interesting that this
once-common Constitutional knowledge, of an immigrant, seems to have been somehow obscured by
the last few decades.

Wherefore: Objector challenges Rick Santorum and or his agents to prove that both of his
parents, especially his father, at the time of his birth, were US Citizens.

Specific Objection Santorum

page 7 of 10

APX - 150

Should Rick Santorum be unable or unwilling to provide this NY State Board of Elections his
Father Aldo Santorum's Certificate of Naturalization, dated before Rick's birth on May 10, 1958,
then this board must not place Rick Santorum on the ballot for President, because he is
Constitutionally unqualified for that Office.
As required, prior to filing this Specification of Objections, a true and correct copy of it, together with
any and all attachments was mailed by, registered or certified mail
Certificate 7011 1570 0003 5313 5110
to the address named on the Santorum Document as the Representative of the Candidate for service of
this notice:
Rick Santorum
Post Office Box 37
Verona, PA 15147
The Santorum document lacks a committee to fill vacancies.
Proof of such Service is attached hereto in the form of a copy of the certified mailing receipt for the
same and Certificate of Service.
Feb. ____, 2012
Signed
Christopher B. Garvey (Objector)
Endnotes follow
Attached: Exhibits 1-5

Specific Objection Santorum

page 8 of 10

APX - 151

1

U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 paragraph 5:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
2

Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758)

3

NYS RPL § 18. Mines in Saint Lawrence county. The proprietors of any mines or veins of lead or copper in the county
of Saint Lawrence, may demise, lease, or rent the same for a period not to exceed twenty-one years from the date of
any such lease, to any foreign individual or company, and such lessee may take, hold, work, use or convey the same during
the said term, in the same manner and subject to the same liabilities as if such lessee were a natural born citizen.
4

New York Miscellaneous Reports

PEOPLE v. QUIROGA-PUMA, 18 Misc.3d 731 (2007) No. LX6701631.
MATTER OF BROWN, 132 Misc.2d 811 (1986) July 7, 1986 .
AGOSTINI v. DE ANTUENO, 199 Misc. 191 (1950) February 20, 1950.
PEOPLE EX REL. CHOOLOKIAN v. MISSION OF IMMAC. VIRGIN, 192 Misc. 454 (1947) December 30, 1947.
New York Appellate Division Reports
WILLIAMS v. VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER, 97 App. Div. 84 (1904) July, 1904
New York Court of Appeals Reports
MUNRO v. MERCHANT, 28 N.Y. 9 (1863) September Term, 1863
LUDLAM v. LUDLAM, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) March Term, 1863…………………………………….
WADSWORTH v. WADSWORTH, 12 N.Y. 376 (1855) March Term, 1855
McCARTHY v. MARSH, 5 N.Y. 263 (1851) September Term, 1851
HOYT v. THOMPSON, 5 N.Y. 320 (1851) September Term, 1851
Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand.Ch. 583, 659-663 (N.Y. 1844)
5

Minor. v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627

Cases citing Minor: Boyd. v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971); City of Mobile v.
Bolden, 446 U.S 55 (1980); Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm’m of Montana, 436 U.S 371 (1978) ; Breedlove v. Suttles, 302
U.S. 277 (1937); US v. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935); Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S.
559 (1911); Hague v. Committee For Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939); Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245
(1934); Harris v. Mcrae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980); Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S 47 (1907); Kepner v. U.S., 195 U.S. 100 (1904);
Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705 (1962); N.Y. Ex Rel. Bryant v.
Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63 (1928); Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1 (1982); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 816
(1971); Schick v. U.S., 195 U.S. 65 (1904); Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944); South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437
(1905); In Re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23
(1968)
Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894), that is essentially the holy grail of support for Minor v. Happersett, as it
states:“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of
membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States,
have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of
the constitution as since…” (Emphasis added) and also the City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980)

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

Specific Objection Santorum

page 9 of 10

APX - 152

Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830) therein C.J. John Marshal on how New York law
and British common law apply before and after 1776 Independence affects the right to take land in controversy by decent in
New York:

Specific Objection Santorum

page 10 of 10

APX - 153

APX - 154

P.02/02
'

1

..
.

l'lU,U.l"A.R'f: 10

'

'

• •~ •

'

,
r

NASsAU CO'UNTY ·.

•, '

INDEX NO• onl7'6._:li.

..
. . ., '

~_st~

.

NEW VORK.STAT'E BOAl'W OF ELE:C'I10l'fSI;
RO'BUT DIAMOND; :DARACK 01\&"'A..;
MITT ..ltOMNEY; BlCJ( SM'i'I'ORTJM1

.

"":.

.

f.. ~ J

r•

.. ,

' .. .
..

.t .-

Re~pO'UellU,

...'

..

~

. ..
J'

,

'

1

• -

,.r ' • •
'

."

I

the ~oo~d~ tG Bigulh,eo,Mecto~w cause and ~i.fid.p.e.titi.Cin brougl)t~~tio-net

W. CPLR. .s~ng inJUTJ.di"-'e rclW ~ the New YOlk ~ ,Beard of'
EI~onti because ofU'nprope;r venue. l\rrsumt to CP'l,A §506 ('o) and i7i04 (b), venue tbtthi!
I

o

.

.i

.

'

·~

~ :~

. .

"

o

,.

"' ·;..f~

,.

tho ~lion e:ompl~ ot'was n!Ad~ u:~d. 'die ~cipal office oft;hr. .c~.ikntis

iliiCEib!d. f&~.

..

.

j

Mmcft of'Rybac~ :n AD2d 9lj}.

I.

Arr!Glf: 7lt proc~aarmsttht N$W Ycrkswe Bomi ~ properlylir:.s in .Albcmy.(:~T
w~

..•

''

~ J\rticl~ ?! of

I

~

0'

I

Thu oo.n.rtirute.s. the d~i.sion and ordft of 1his Coll!t.

' t

• of'.

':

~

I

..

-·~.

.' .' ..
I

o

'

'

""... ..

_

.{"

'

.

''·.~=·
•"j't,

· ,__ .

'"'.

lt

I

.. , l

~011i:AlU'B:ua. r4. Dl'A.MOND ·
:r. S.C-

~

r

'l •
I '

.i:

..
l

r

To:

. I•
J

Pmiti~et

Pro Se

CURlST'OPBER B~ GARVEY
lo Ntcoll Av-e.
Am.II:)'Vlile. New Yom ll70J

~~·

• •

AlW.moyff:Jr~po~

, . ·.
. · ~{··.
OFJIICEOPTUEATTOltNE'V~·, •· . ~.•*~.
200 Old Co\lntty Road, Suitt: 2IW . .
.
·- : ·.·~. :..,.~
MiuQOb., Ne-w Ycrk 11501
· .. · ··..
I

.

'

I .,

4

:.-

. ...
~

•'

APX - 155

..

1' I

o I I

I

l

~..~... ~,

'.~_;•:

I
I

~I ~

.. .

'"'

•;

I

' " ·_(;'.

Page

---------

' - - - - - -- _______._,_,

Romney

___

Mitt

Candidate Name

Secondary District :

REPUBLICAN

Pet ld : 342620

Party :

Candidate Name
- -·Barack
Barack
Barack
Barack
Barack
Barack
Barack
Barack
Barack
Barack

o

o

§upport[l1.9

13 FEB 2012

2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012

15FEB2012

FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB

Objection
Postmarked

11
13
13
13
13
13
13
13

Objection
Postmarked
--·----09 FEB 2012

Objection
Filed

10FEB2012
10 FEB 2012
14 FEB 2012
14 FEB 2012
15 FEB 2012
15 FEB 2012
15FEB2012
15 FEB 2012
16 FEB 2012
16 FEB 2012

Filed
--------------·-

Objection

- - - - - - - ----- ----- - ---- - - - · - - - - -- - -- - - --

--------

DEMOCRATIC
342476
Secondary District :

Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama

Pet ld:

Party:

0

President

District:

Office:

I ------------

1

( ---- -

APX - 156

.

21 FEB 2012

Specification
s Due

Specification
s Due
----------·
15FEB2012
16 FEB 2012
17 FEB 2012
21 FEB 2012
13 FEB 2012
21 FEB 2012
21 FEB 2012
21 FEB 2012
21 FEB 2012
21 FEB 2012

-

Specifications
Filed

14 FEB 2012

16 FEB 2012

Specifications
Postmarked

13 JUL 2012
14 FEB 2012

15 JUL 2012
16 FEB 2012

Specifications
Filed

11 FEB 2012

__

13FEB2012

,

Specifi cations
Postmarked
________
________

15 FEB 2012
10 FEB 2012
14 FEB 2012

-- - - · - ---~-

Elizabeth

M

M

J.
J.

B.

Chamberlain

Objector's Name

Christopher
H. William
Christopher
Aimee
Thomas
Leonard
John
Natalie
Julianne
Alton

v

Candidate
Status

v
v
v
v
v
v
v

v

v
v

Candidate
Status

·-.-- ···--Garvey
Van Allen
Strunk
Fitzgerald
Dean
Volodarsky
Allegate
Allegata
Thompson
Yee

Objector's Name

TIME:

DATE :

Hearing
Date

Hearing
Date

2:34 PM

Hearing
Result

Hearing
Result

February 17 , 2012

Thursday, February 9 2012

Page 1 of 6

List of Filings for the Presidential Primary
Office: President
Democratic
Name

Barack Obama

Received date

02/09/2012

Vols

Pages

24

5006

Vols

Pages

0

0

Supporting
Supporting

Status
Valid

Republican
Name

Newt Gingrich

Received date

02/02/2012

Supporting
Supporting

APX - 157

Status
Valid

APX - 158

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 1 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 2 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

Jim Walsh:*RRGDIWHUQRRQHYHU\RQH:HOFRPHWRRXUPHHWLQJRIWKH1HZ<RUN6WDWH
%RDUGRI(OHFWLRQV6RUU\IRUWKHGHOD\EXWEXVLQHVVVRPHWLPHVJHWVPRUHFRPSOLFDWHG,
ZRXOGOLNHWRVWDUWRIIWKHPHHWLQJLI\RXZRXOGSOHDVHE\LQWURGXFWLRQV0\QDPHLV-LP
:DOVK,¶OOEHDFWLQJDVWKH&KDLUPDQRIWKH%RDUGWRGD\7RP\OHIWP\ULJKW,¶PVRUU\
P\&RFKDLUPDQ'RXJ.HOOQHU(YHO\Q$TXLOD*UHJ3HWHUVRQ7RGG9DOHQWLQH3DXO
&ROOLQV3KLO%XUQV$QQD6YL]]HUR7RP&RQQROO\-RKQ&RQNOLQ'DQ9DOYR%LOO
0F&DQQ&KHU\O&RXVHU%RE%UHKP7HUU\%UHDGV%RE:DUUHQ*XHVWOLVWDWWDFKHG 

Jim Walsh: 7KDQN\RXDOO7KHILUVWLWHPRIEXVLQHVVLVWKHPLQXWHVRIWKH-DQXDU\ 
PHHWLQJ 

Doug Kellner,PRYHWKHDGRSWLRQRIWKHPLQXWHVDVUHDG  

Evelyn Aquila6HFRQG 

Jim Walsh$OULJKWDOOLQIDYRU 

All:$\H 

Jim Walsh2SSRVHG&DUULHG 

Jim Walsh:8QLWXSGDWHV([HFXWLYH%RE%UHKPDQG7RGG9DOHQWLQH 

Todd Valentine: :HOOZHFRQWLQXHWRSODQZLWKRXUUHVWDFNLQJFRPPLWWHH±UHVWDFNLQJ
LVVKRUWKDQGIRUWKHPRYLQJRIWKHDJHQF\6R\RXNQRZULJKWQRZZHKDYHPHWZLWKRXU
2IILFHRI*HQHUDO6HUYLFHVGHVLJQDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQVHFWLRQDQGWKH\DUHZRUNLQJRQVRPH
SODQVIRUDSURSRVHGPRYHWR,GRQ¶WNQRZLIWKDWKDVEHHQDQQRXQFHGSXEOLFO\RUQRWVR
\HDKZHOOPRYLQJ\HVEXWWKHORFDWLRQ,GRQ¶WNQRZLIWKH\DUHUHOHDVLQJWKDW\HWRUQRW
<HDKLW¶VQRWIDUDZD\EXWZH¶UHZRUNLQJRQWKHGHVLJQSODQVEHFDXVHLWFRXOGFKDQJH
EXW,DVVXPHWKDWZHDUHVWLOOJRLQJWKHUH7KH\H[SHFWWRKDYHUHYLVHGSODQVWRRXUSODQ
WRXVDWWKHHQGRIWKLVZHHNDQGWKHQZH¶OOUHYLHZWKDWDQGPDNHDQGVHH7KHUHVKRXOG
EHDPSOHVSDFHLQWKHDUHDZHDUHORRNLQJDW,W¶VMXVWWKHQDWWKDWSRLQWZH¶OOGULOOGRZQ
IRUHDFKXQLWWRORFDWHWKHLUSDUWLFXODUHPSOR\HHVZLWKLQHDFKOLWWOHVXEXQLWRIRXURZQ
ERDUG7KHUHVKRXOGEHDPSOHVSDFHWKHUH7KHUHLVREYLRXVO\VSDFHIRUD%RDUGURRP
PHHWLQJVIRUDUHJXODUFRQIHUHQFH, VSDFH 

Evelyn Aquila$Q\SULYDWHRIILFHV" 

Todd Valentine7KHUHDUH7KDWLVRQHRIWKHSOXVIDFWRUVWRWKLVORFDWLRQ,WGLGKDYH
WKDW7KHUHLVDELWPRUHSULYDF\DVIDUDVWKDWLVFRQFHUQHGDQGRIFRXUVHDPSOHVWRUDJH
IRUWKHSHWLWLRQVURRPIRUZRUNLQJRQWKHYRWLQJPDFKLQHVDQGZHDUHDOVRFRQVROLGDWLQJ
RXUVWRUDJH:HKDYHDQRWKHURIIVLWHVWRUDJHIDFLOLW\MXVWQRUWKRI$OEDQ\LQDQRWKHUVWDWH
IDFLOLW\,WLVDUHQWHGIDFLOLW\DQGZH¶OOEHDEOHWRFRQVROLGDWHWKLVDQGVDYHDGGLWLRQDO
PRQH\ 

Evelyn Aquila:KDWZLOOEHWKHUH" 

Todd Valentine:,W¶VDEDFNVWRUDJHZHKDYHIRUYRWHUUHJLVWUDWLRQIRUPVWKDWJHWPDLOHG
RXW,W¶VDOVREDFNVWRUDJHIRUFDPSDLJQILQDQFHSULPDULO\ROGSHWLWLRQVWKDWZHZLOOVWRUH
XQWLORXUFRQVWUXFWLRQGDWHFRPHVXVZHZRXOGVWRUHWKHUH6RWKRVHZLOODOOQRZEH
FRQVROLGDWHGLQWRWKHVDPHEXLOGLQJDGLIIHUHQWORFDWLRQWKDQZKHUHZHDUH7KH\ZLOOEH
RQDGLIIHUHQWIORRUEXWWKHUHLVDPSOHVWRUDJHVSDFHVRZHZLOOEHDEOHWRQRWRQO\VDYH
WKHUHQWIURPRXUFXUUHQWOHDVHGVSDFHEXWDOVRZHGROHDVHVSDFHLQWKDWZDUHKRXVHWKDW
ZHZLOOEHDEOHWRFRQVROLGDWHWRRQHORFDWLRQ6RWKDWZRXOGEHWKDWFRXOGEHXQLTXH
ZLWKRQO\LQRQHEXLOGLQJ:HGRQ¶WKDYHDQ\SHUVRQQHOSHUPDQHQWO\ORFDWHGDWWKDW
ZDUHKRXVHEXWZHGRKDYHWRJRGRZQWKHUHRQDUHJXODUEDVLVWRQRWRQO\ILOHWKLQJVEXW
DOVRWRUHWULHYHGRFXPHQWVRXWRIRXUDUFKLYDOVWRUDJH 

Evelyn Aquila: $QGWRFKHFNRQWKHPDLO 

Todd Valentine:<HDK6RWKDW 

Evelyn Aquila: <RXFDQWKURZHYHU\WKLQJRXWDQGQRWNQRZZKRWKH\EHORQJWR 

Todd Valentine:HOORXUVSDFHLVVHFXUH1RERG\LVWKURZLQJLWRXW,PHDQLWLVLQD
ORFNHGVWRUDJHVSDFHVRQRERG\DFFHVVHVLWDQGWKHVDPHZLOOEHWKHUHDUHSURYLVLRQVIRU
DVHFXUHORFDWLRQZLWKLQVHJUHJDWHGZLWKLQWKLVVWRUDJHIDFLOLW\LQWKLVEXLOGLQJDQGZH
FRQWLQXHWRZRUNZLWKWKH2IILFHIRU7HFKQRORJ\WRGHWHUPLQHDORFDWLRQIRUWKHVLWHIRU
WKHVHUYLFHIRUWKHGDWDEDVHVWKDWZHUXQDQGWKHQIRUFRQQHFWLYLW\WRWKHFRXQW\ERDUGVWR
NHHSWKDWRSHUDWLQJLQDVPRRWKVHDPOHVVPDQQHU,PHDQREYLRXVO\ZH¶OOKDYHWRJR
RIIOLQHDWDFHUWDLQSRLQWEXWZHZDQWWRPLQLPL]HWKDW$QGVRZHKDYHWRXUHGQRWPH
SHUVRQDOO\EXWZHKDYHKDGVHYHUDOSHRSOHWRXUDYDULHW\RIORFDWLRQVWKDWWKH\KDYH
RIIHUHGWRKRXVHWKHVHUYHUV1RQHRIWKHPDUHSHUIHFW\HWDOORIWKHPQHHGVRPHW\SHRI
ZRUNHLWKHUIRUVSDFHZLVHRUZH¶OOQHHGWRSXWVHFXULW\IRURXUVHUYHUVRUFRQQHFWLYLW\
RXWWRWKHFRXQWLHVDQGWKHUHVWRIWKHZRUOG$FRQQHFWLRQEHWZHHQRXUGRZQWRZQ
ORFDWLRQZKLFKZLOOEHDQGZKHUHZHDUHDQWLFLSDWLQJORFDWLQJWKHGDWDEDVHLVDQRWKHUHQG
RI$OEDQ\7KDWFRQQHFWLRQDOUHDG\H[LVWVVRDTXHVWLRQRIMXVWPDNLQJLWZRUNLVDOOZH
KDYHWRGR%XWWKDWLVQRWVHWWOHG\HWHLWKHUDQGRIFRXUVHZHDUHVWLOOZDLWLQJIRUWKH
EXGJHWWREHDSSURYHG\RXNQRZRXUSURSRVHGEXGJHWZKLFKGRHVKDYHDORWRIWKHVH
VDYLQJVDOUHDG\LQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRLW6RWKHVRRQHUWKDWZHFDQFRPSOHWHWKHUHVWDFNLQJ
WKHOHVVRIDQLVVXHWKDWZH¶OOKDYHJRLQJLQWRWKHQHZILVFDO\HDUDQGZHKDYH
HYHU\WKLQJHOVHJRLQJRQ 

Bob Brehm2QHELWRIJRRGQHZVWKDWGRHVQ¶WKDSSHQRIWHQLQWKHZRUOGRIEXGJHWLVWKH
)HGHUDO(OHFWLRQ$VVLVWDQFH&RPPLVVLRQQRWLILHGWKHVWDWHVWKDWWKHUHZDVDQRWKHUURXQG
RIUHTXLUHPHQWPRQH\YHU\VPDOODPRXQWVIRUZKDWHYHUVWDWHVIDLOHGWRXVHWKHLUOHYHU
UHSODFHPHQWPRQH\E\WKHWLPHWKDWZDVH[WHQGHGXQGHU+$9$,IWKH\GLGQ¶WFRPSOHWH
LWE\WKHGDWHFHUWDLQWKH\IRUIHLWHGWKHPRQH\DQGWKH+HOS$PHULFD9RWH$FWKDGD

APX - 159

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 3 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 4 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

IRUPXODWRUHDOORFDWHLWWRWKHUHPDLQLQJVWDWHV2XUVKDUHRIWKDWLV:HPDGH
DSSOLFDWLRQDVZHZRXOGZDQWWRJHWRXUPXFKIDLUVKDUHFRPSOHWHGDOOWKHDSSOLFDWLRQ
DQG7RP-DURVHMXVWJDYHPHQRWLFHZLWKLQWKHODVWWZRGD\VLVWKDWWKHPRQH\WUDQVIHUUHG
DQGLWKDVEHHQUHFHLYHG6RWKDWLVPRQH\WKDWLVKHUH:HKDYHWKHVSHQGLQJ
DXWKRUL]DWLRQXQGHUWKHVWDWHDFFRXQWWRXVHWKDWIRUZKDWHYHURWKHUNLQGRISXUSRVHVZH
KDYHVRWKDWLVWKHOLWWOHELWRIJRRGQHZVWKDWZHKDYH2WKHUWKDQWKDWZHGLGKDYH
DQRWKHUIROORZXSPHHWLQJZLWKWKH6WDWH'HSDUWPHQWRI0RWRU9HKLFOHV7KH\DUH
ZRUNLQJRQDSURJUDPDVSDUWRIWKHLUUHYLHZRIPLVVLRQFULWLFDOSURJUDPVDQGWKH
UHGXFWLRQDQGVWDWVWKDWWKH\KDYHWKURXJKWKHDWWULWLRQDQGIXQGLQJ7KH\KDYHLGHQWLILHG
WKHHOHFWURQLFYRWHUUHJLVWUDWLRQDFWLYLW\LQWHJUDWHGGXULQJWKH'09WUDQVDFWLRQDVD
SULRULW\WKDWWKH\WKLQNZLOOLPSURYHVHUYLFHV6RWKH\PHWZLWKXVKHUHRQ)HEUXDU\WK
WRUHYLHZ7KH\KDGDIHZTXHVWLRQVDQGZHUHYLHZHGWKHSURFHVVDQGZKDWWKH\ZHUH
SURSRVLQJWRZRUNWKURXJKLW,WORRNVYHU\LQWHUHVWLQJ,WLVDZD\WRUHDOO\VWUHDPOLQH
WKRVHSLHFHVRISDSHUIURPWKHYDULRXV'09LQWDNHVGLUHFWO\WRWKH&RXQW\%RDUGRI
(OHFWLRQV<RXNQRZZKHQZHORRNDWWKH195$DQQXDOUHSRUWDQGRIWKHSHUFHQWDJHRI
GHEWZHKDGEXWJHQHUDOO\RIWKH195$DJHQFLHVRIWKHSDSHUZRUNFRPHVIURPWKH
'09VLWHRQDYHUDJH6RWKDWLIZHFDQIDFLOLWDWHWKDWJHWWLQJIURPD'09VLWHWRWKH
FRXQWLHVTXLFNHUDQGLQDPRUHHIILFLHQWZD\WKH\FDQXVHLW,WKLQNWKDWZLOOKHOSWKHP
6RZHVWLOODUHZRUNLQJDJJUHVVLYHO\RQWKDWSURJUDPDQG,WKRXJKWLWZDVDSURGXFWLYH
PHHWLQJ2WKHUWKDQWKDW,WKLQNLWZRXOGEHHDV\WRVD\ZHVSHQWDJUHDWGHDORIWLPH
VLQFHRXUODVWPHHWLQJZRUNLQJRQYDULRXVSROLWLFDOFDOHQGDUVDQGUHVSRQVHVWRIHGHUDO
FRXUWWKDW,NQRZLVELJRQWKHFRXQFLO¶VDJHQGDDOVR 

Jim Walsh:7KDWLVDJRRGOHDGLQWRRXUQH[WLQWURGXFWLRQ7KDQN\RXYHU\PXFKIRUWKDW
%REDQG7RGG/HJDO3DXO&ROOLQVSOHDVH  

Paul Collins::HOOZHIRXQGDQDFWXDOZULWWHQUHSRUWWKDWWKHERDUGKDVDOUHDG\DGRSWHG
WKLVPRQWK6XEVHTXHQWWRWKHILOLQJRIWKDWUHSRUWZHUHFHLYHGQRWLFHIURPWKH
'HSDUWPHQWRI-XVWLFHDQGRXUDSSOLFDWLRQIRUSUHFOHDUDQFHRIWKHRYHUYRWHVFUHHQV
GHYLVHGE\(6 6RQDQLQWHULPEDVLVRQERWKWKHVFDQQHUDQGWKHEDOORWPDUNLQJGHYLFH
KDVUHFHLYHGSUHFOHDUDQFHRIWKH'HSDUWPHQWRI-XVWLFH7KDWPHDQVLQWKHVSHFLDO
HOHFWLRQVLQ1HZ<RUN&LW\RQ0DUFKWKWKH\ZLOOEHDEOHWRXVHWKRVHVFUHHQVZKLFKLV
JRRGQHZV$OVRWKHDFWXDORYHUYRWHFDVHLWVHOIKDVEHHQUHVROYHG:HQRZKDYHDFRXUW
EOHVVLQJRIWKHUHVROXWLRQWKRVHVFUHHQVKDYHJRQHWRWKH'HSDUWPHQWRI-XVWLFHIRUSUH
FOHDUDQFHDVZHOOWKDWLVSHQGLQJ7KHELJWKLQJWKDWZHKDYHSHQGLQJZLWK'2-LVWKH
EOHVVLQJRIWKH'HSDUWPHQWRI-XVWLFH¶VVHFWLRQSUHFOHDUDQFHXQLWRI-XGJH6KDUS¶V
RUGHURIWKH-XQHQRQSUHVLGHQWLDOIHGHUDOSULPDU\LQ1HZ<RUNEXW,IXOO\DQWLFLSDWHWKDW
WKH\ZLOOVLJQRIIRQWKDWLQUHODWLYHO\VKRUWIDVKLRQ)LQDOO\WKH$SSHOODWH'LYLVLRQKDV
LVVXHGDQRUGHUZLWKUHJDUGWRRQHRIWKHWKUHH1DVVDXFRXQW\HOHFWLRQPDFKLQHFDVH
DSSHDOVDQG1DVVDXILQDOO\KDVWRILOHDEULHI,WKLQNE\WKH0DUFKWKVRWKDWLVKHDWLQJ
XS7KH6FKXOW]FDVHZKLFKVRXJKWWREDQDQ\YRWLQJPDFKLQHLQ1HZ<RUNZKHWKHUWKH
ROGOHYHUPDFKLQHVRUWKHQHZHOHFWURQLFPDFKLQHVWKH\KDYHILOHGWKHLUEULHIDQG
DSSHQGL[LQWKHVHFRQGFLUFXLWDQGZH¶OOILOHRQRUEHIRUH0DUFKWKRXUUHSO\$JDLQ
&RPPLVVLRQHU:DOVKLWLVDOZD\VQLFHWREHRQWKHUHVSRQGHQW¶VVLGHEHFDXVHZHZRQLQ

WKH'LVWULFW&RXUW$QGILQDOO\WKH*UDPDOLF&DVHZKLFKVRXJKWWRFKDOOHQJHWKHEDQRI
WKHXVHRIQRQUHVLGHQWSHWLWLRQHUSHWLWLRQJDWKHUHUVLQ1HZ<RUNKDVEHHQPDUNHG
VXEPLWWHGRQWKHWKRI0DUFKWRDVHFRQGFLUFXLWSDQHO$JDLQWKHUHVSRQGHQWWKHUH
KDYLQJZRQLQWKHGLVWULFWFRXUWDQGRWKHUWKDQWKDWHYHU\WKLQJHOVHLVSUHWW\PXFKLQRXU
ZULWWHQUHSRUW  

Jim Walsh:7KDQN\RXYHU\PXFK(OHFWLRQ2SHUDWLRQV$QQDSOHDVH 

Anna Svizzero: 7KDQN\RX&RPPLVVLRQHU*RRGPRUQLQJ*RRGDIWHUQRRQ,QDGGLWLRQ
WRRXUZULWWHQUHSRUWZHGRKDYHDFRXSOHRILWHPVWRDGG:HDUHSUHSDULQJSDSHUZRUN
WKDWZLOOFHUWLI\WKHSUHVLGHQWLDOSULPDU\EDOORWEDVHGRQWKHRXWFRPHRIWRGD\¶VERDUG
PHHWLQJ:HDUHZRUNLQJZLWK2*6RQRXUFRQWUDFWUHQHZDOV7KDWLVTXLWHDQH[WHQGHG
SURFHVVVRZHDUHWU\LQJWRJHWLQYROYHGLQWKDWDVHDUO\DVSRVVLEOH:HDUHORRNLQJDWWKH
FRQWUDFWVIRUWKHWHVWLQJODEVIRU1<67(&DQGDOVRWKHYRWLQJV\VWHPV7KHYRWLQJ
V\VWHPVFRQWUDFWVKDYHDRQH\HDUH[WHQVLRQLQWKHPDQGWKDWKDVEHHQWULJJHUHG:HDUH
DOVRGLVFXVVLQJZD\VWRFRQVLGHUWKHSURFXUHPHQWRIFHQWUDOFRXQWYRWLQJV\VWHPVVRWKHVH
FRQYHUVDWLRQVDUHMXVWEHJLQQLQJZLWK2*6:HDUHUHYLHZLQJWKHUHJXODWLRQVWKDWDUHLQ
H[LVWHQFHWKDWFRYHUHGFHQWUDOFRXQWV\VWHPVXSXQWLOQRZ%RE:DUUHQDQG-RKQ)HUUL
KDYHUHYLHZHGWKRVHDQGZHDUHORRNLQJWRPDNHVXUHWKDWHYHU\UHTXLUHPHQWLQWKHROG
UHJVLVFRYHUHGE\DUHTXLUHPHQWLQWKHQHZSDUWDQGWRPDNHVXUHWKDWZH
GRQ¶WKDYHDQ\RPLVVLRQVDQGWKDWZHKDYHLQFRUSRUDWHGDOORIWKHEHVWSUDFWLFHVWKDWZH
KDYHOHDUQHGRYHUWKH\HDUVXVLQJWKHFHQWUDOFRXQWV\VWHPZHKDYHULJKWQRZ:H
REYLRXVO\ZRUNHGWKURXJKDOORIWKHREMHFWLRQSURFHVVDQGZRUNHGZLWKWKHFRXQFLO¶V
RIILFHWRUHYLHZWKRVHLWHPVDQGSUHSDUHWKRVHGRFXPHQWVIRUWRGD\¶VPHHWLQJDQG,GRQ¶W
EHOLHYHWKDW,KDYHDQ\WKLQJHOVH-RHGR\RXKDYHDQ\WKLQJWRDGG"
:HFDQDQVZHUTXHVWLRQVLI\RXKDYHDQ\ 

Doug Kellner: $QQDWKHUHDUHWZRPDFKLQHIDLOXUHLVVXHVWKDWDUHRXWVWDQGLQJWKDWKDYH
FRPHXSUHFHQWO\2QHLVLQWKHFLW\RI7RQDZDQGD7KHPDQXDOFRXQWWKH\GLVFRYHUHG
WKDWWKHUHZDVDEDOORWLQWKHEDOORWER[WKDWKDGQRWEHHQUHFRUGHGE\WKHYRWLQJPDFKLQH
DQGODWHURQLQWKHPHHWLQJ,DPJRLQJWRFRPPHQWPRUHRQWKHFRXUWUXOLQJVLQWKH
7RQDZDQGDFDVH%XWLWLVP\XQGHUVWDQGLQJWKDWWKH(ULH&RXQW\&RPPLVVLRQHUVDUH
GRLQJDQLQYHVWLJDWLRQDQG,ZRXOGDVNWKDWWKHVWDWHERDUGDOVRJHWLQYROYHGLQWKDW
EHFDXVH,WKLQNWKDWLWLVYHU\LPSRUWDQWWKDWZHIROORZXSRQHYHU\VLQJOHLVVXHZKHUH
WKHUHLVDPDFKLQHIDLOXUH$QGREYLRXVO\DEDOORWJHWWLQJLQWRWKHEDOORWER[ZLWKRXW
EHLQJFRXQWHGE\WKHPDFKLQHLVVLJQLILFDQW,WKLQNWKH(ULH&RXQW\WKHRU\ULJKWQRZLV
WKDWWKHUHPD\KDYHEHHQDSDSHUMDPDQGVRPHKRZRURWKHULQFOHDULQJWKHMDPWKH
EDOORWZHQWWKURXJKZLWKRXWWKHYRWHEHLQJUHJLVWHUHG%XW,WKLQNZHQHHGWRLQYHVWLJDWH
WKDWIXUWKHU$QGWKHQWKHRWKHULVWKHLVVXHRIWKHODUJHQXPEHURIRYHUYRWHVWKDWKDYH
EHHQUHFRUGHGRQDPDFKLQHLQWKH%URQ[DQG,XQGHUVWDQGWKDW%RE:DUUHQLVJRLQJ
GRZQWRWKH%URQ[DQGLVILQDOO\JHWWLQJDFFHVVWRWKHHOHFWLRQPDWHULDOVRQWKDW$QG,
ZRXOG DSSUHFLDWHDUHSRUWRIZKDWZHNQRZVRIDUDQGH[DFWO\ZKDWZHDUHSODQQLQJWRGR
DWWKHVWDWHERDUGOHYHORQWKDWLVVXH 

APX - 160

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 5 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 6 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

Anna Svizzero:,FDQKDYH%REVSHDNWRWKDWUDWKHUWKDQPHLQWHUSUHWKRZ%REKDV
EULHIHG-RHDQG,VR«« 

Bob Warren::HDUHJRLQJWRJRGRZQWRPRUURZDQG,KDYHWDONHGWRWKH%URQ[DQG
DVNHGWKHPWRPDNHDYDLODEOHWKHHOHFWLRQWKHEDOORWGHILQLWLRQHOHFWLRQWKHLPDJHVIRU
WKDWPDFKLQHWKDWZHUHFROOHFWHGWKHSK\VLFDOEDOORWVWKDWZHUHPDUNHG$QGWKH\DUH
JRLQJWRKDYHVRPHH[WUDEDOORWVWKDWZHFDQKDYHIRUWHVWVDQGWKH\DUHJRLQJWRKDYHWKH
PDFKLQHLQWKHUHWKDWLVLQTXHVWLRQ:HDUHDOVRJRLQJWRORRNDWWKHLUWHVWGHFNPDNH
VXUHWKDWWKH\FUHDWHGWKHLUWHVWGHFNSURSHUO\DQGWKHUHVXOWVRIWKHWHVWGHFNSURFHVVLQJ
$QGZKDWZHFDQ¶WJHWWKURXJKZHDUHJRLQJWREULQJEDFNZLWKXVDOOWKHLPDJHVWKDW
WKH\KDYHVRWKDWLIZHKDYHWRGRIXUWKHUH[DPLQDWLRQZH¶OOKDYHWKHPKHUHDQGZH¶OOWU\
WRGHWHUPLQHZKHWKHULWZDVDKXPDQHUURULQGHVLJQLQJWKHEDOORWZKHWKHULWZDVD
SULQWLQJHUURULQSULQWLQJWKHEDOORWRUZKHWKHULWZDVWUXO\DPDFKLQHHUURU,WFRXOGHQG
XSEHLQJRQHRIWKRVHRUDQGWKHRWKHUSRVVLELOLW\LVWKH\DUHDOORYHUYRWHGEDOORWV$QG
WKHQLWLVDTXHVWLRQRIXVDELOLW\RUWKHGHVLJQRIWKHEDOORWWKDWFDXVHGWKHSUREOHP
%HFDXVHWKLVLVIURPWKH*RYHUQRU¶VHOHFWLRQDQG,KDYHEHHQGRLQJVRPHDQDO\VLV
RQVRPHRIWKHRWKHUFRXQWLHVWKDWKDGVRPHLQFLGHQWVRIRYHUYRWHVDQGVRPH\RXFDQ
PDNHDQDUJXPHQWWKDWPD\KDYHEHHQFDXVHGEHFDXVHRIWKHZUDSSLQJ7KHVHDUHRQWKH
ODQGVFDSHWKHLUVLVWKHSRUWUDLWVRWKDWPD\FRPHLQWRSOD\LQWKHLUV 

Evelyn Aquila:%REZKDW,ZDQWHGWRDVNLVWKDWWKHDUHHLWKHURIWKHVHFDVHVWKHRYHU
YRWHLQWKH%URQ[RUPD\EH3DXOZRXOGKDYHWRDQVZHUWKLVLQWKH7RQDZDQGDFDVHDUH
WKH\SDUWRIDQ\RIWKHVHODZVXLWVWKDW\RXMXVWPHQWLRQHG",VQ¶WWKHUHDODZVXLWWRVD\\RX
MXVWJRWRWKHSDSHUEDOORW" 

Paul Collins&HUWDLQO\(YHO\Q&RPPLVVLRQHU$TXLODWKHRYHUYRWHFDVHZKLFKZDV
EURXJKWE\WKH1$$&3ZLWKLQWKHFRQWH[WRIGLVFRYHULQJLQWKDWFDVH1HZ<RUN&LW\ZDV
REOLJHGWRUHSO\WRGLVFRYHU\UHTXHVWIURPWKH1$$&3DQGWKDWLVZKHQWKLVDQRPDO\LQ
WKHWZRVFDQQHUVDWRQHSROOVLWHLQWKH%URQ[FDPHLQWRSOD\7KHFDVHKDVEHHQUHVROYHG
DVDJDLQVWWKH6WDWH%RDUGRI(OHFWLRQV,WKDVQRWEHHQUHVROYHGDVDJDLQVWWKH1HZ<RUN
&LW\%RDUGRI(OHFWLRQVDQGLVRQJRLQJLQWKHHYHQWWKDWWKHUHLVVRPHXQZLOOLQJQHVVRQ
WKHSDUWRIWKH1HZ<RUN&LW\%RDUGWRLPSOHPHQWWKHQHZZDUQLQJVFUHHQVWKDWZHKDYH
DJUHHGRQZLWKWKHSODLQWLII,QWKH7RQDZDQGD&DVHLVQRWRQRXUUDGDUVFUHHQDQGLW
LQYROYHGDORFDOHOHFWLRQRXWLQ(ULH&RXQW\ 

Doug Kellner: %RE,KDYHWZRDGGLWLRQDOLWHPVWKDWPD\EH\RXKDYHDOUHDG\FRQVLGHUHG
RQWKLV2QHLVZLOO\RXKDYHDFFHVVWRWKHRULJLQDOFDQYDVUHSRUWVWKHRULJLQDOFDQYDV
WDSHVWRFRQILUPWKDWWKHFDQYDVWDSHVDFWXDOO\VKRZHGWKHQXPEHUVWKDW« 

Bob Brehm:7KH\GLGQ¶WPHQWLRQWKDWEXW,FDQFDOOZKHQ,JHWGRZQVWDLUV 

Doug Kellner:2ND\DQGWKHQVHFRQGLVWRUHYLHZ1HZ<RUN&LW\¶VSURFHGXUHVWKHLU
SRVWHOHFWLRQSURFHGXUHV1RWMXVWIROORZLQJWKHOHWWHURIRXUSRVWHOHFWLRQWHVWLQJUXOHVEXW
DOVRZKHWKHUWKH\KDYHDQ\WKLQJLQSODFHVRWKDWZKHQWKHUHDUHDQRPDORXVUHVXOWVWKDW

WKDWZRXOGWULJJHUDVSHFLDOUHYLHZ$QGLWVHHPVWRPHWKDWZKHQ\RXKDYHDQDQRPDO\
RIWKDWVL]HWKDWLWVKRXOGEHKDQGOHGVRPHWKLQJGLIIHUHQWO\WKDQMXVWLJQRULQJLWDQGXVLQJ
WKHVDPHPDFKLQHDVHFRQGWLPHZLWKRXWIROORZLQJXS 

Bob Warren:2ND\ 

Evelyn Aquila:'R\RXWKLQN%REWKDWWKLVFRXOGKDYHMXVWEHHQDIDXOW\PDFKLQH" 

Bob Warren: ,WFRXOGEH,WFRXOGEHSHRSOHDFWXDOO\RYHUYRWHGWKDWPXFK<RXNQRZ
OLNH,VDLG,GLGQRWLFHWKDWWKHZUDSSLQJGRHVVHHPWRDSSHDUWKDWLWFDXVHGSHRSOHWR
RYHUYRWHWKDWPD\QRWKDYHRYHUYRWHG<RXGRQ¶WNQRZIRUVXUH 

Doug Kellner: 0D\EHZHQHHGWRH[SODLQWKDWDOLWWOHELWEHFDXVHZKHQ\RXKDYHD
KRUL]RQWDOEDOORWZKLFKLVXVHGHYHU\ZKHUHH[FHSWLQ1HZ<RUN&LW\ZKHUHWKH
FDQGLGDWHVDUHOLVWHGE\SROLWLFDOSDUW\DFURVVDURZVRWKDWULJKWQRZDOOWKH'HPRFUDWLF
FDQGLGDWHVZRXOGEHRQURZ$DOORIWKH5HSXEOLFDQFDQGLGDWHVZRXOGEHRQURZ%DQG
VRRQ  

Bob Warren: 6RZKHQWKHUHDUHQ¶WHQRXJKURZVIRUDOOWKHSDUWLHVWKDWDUHDYDLODEOH
WKHQ\RXKDYHWREHJLQWRJHWDVHFRQGFROXPQOLNHLQWKLVFDVHIRUWKH*RYHUQRU¶VUDFH
WKHQ\RXVWDUWIURPWKHERWWRPZUDSSLQJWKHFDQGLGDWHVFRPLQJXSWKHEDOORW6RIRU
VRPHERG\WKDWPD\QRWKDYHEHHQSD\LQJDWWHQWLRQWKH\FRXOGHDVLO\WKLQNWKDWLWLVMXVW
DQRWKHUFROXPQDQGWKH\DUHMXVWPDUNLQJDVWKH\JRDORQJDQGWKH\PDUNLQHYHU\
FROXPQWKDWWKH\VHHDQGJRRQWKHLUZD\ 

Doug Kellner: 1RZWKDWGRHVQ¶WKDSSHQWRWKDWH[WHQWLQ1HZ<RUN&LW\EHFDXVH1HZ
<RUN&LW\XVHVDEDOORWRQWKHRSSRVLWHDFFHVVVRWKDWWKHSROLWLFDOSDUWLHVDUHOLVWHGLQ
FROXPQVDQGWKHEDOORWRQO\KDVHLJKWFROXPQV$QGLQ1HZ<RUN&LW\IRUPDQ\\HDUVZH
KDYHKDGWKHSURFHGXUHWKDWWKHILUVWWZRFROXPQVDUHUHVHUYHGIRUWKH'HPRFUDWVDQGWKH
5HSXEOLFDQVZKLFKHYHUJHWVFROXPQ$DQGWKHZUDSSLQJRQO\JRHVLQWKHVL[FROXPQVWR
WKHULJKWRIWKRVHVRWKDWLIWKH\QHHGWZRRUWKUHHURZVWKHUHZLOOQRWEHDPLQRUSDUW\
FDQGLGDWHOLVWHGLQFROXPQLQZKDWZRXOGDSSHDUWREHFROXPQ$RULQFROXPQ%$QGVR
\RXGRQ¶WKDYHWKDWVRLIVRPHERG\LVYRWLQJDVWUDLJKWWLFNHWLWLVREYLRXV 

Evelyn Aquila: 7RJRGRZQ 

Doug Kellner: $QG,WKLQNWKDWLVDQRWKHULVVXHRIEDOORWGHVLJQ,GRQ¶WNQRZZKHWKHU
\RXFDQLQFRUSRUDWHWKDWVDPHSURFHGXUHLQWKHODQGVFDSHEDOORWWKDWHYHU\ERG\HOVHXVHV
EXWLWFHUWDLQO\ZRXOGDYRLGWKHSUREOHPEHFDXVHOHDYLQJWKHILUVWWZRFROXPQVEODQN
KLJKOLJKWVWKHIDFWWKDWLWLVDVLQJOHRIILFHDQGWKDWWKHUHDUHPXOWLSOHURZV 

Bob Warren7KDWLVZKDWZHGREHFDXVHZHEHJLQIURPWKHERWWRPXSVR\RXQHYHUJHW
XSWRWKHWRSZKHUHWKHWZRPDMRUSDUWLHVDUHWKHUH 

APX - 161

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 7 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 8 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

Doug Kellner: 6R\RXDUHVD\LQJWKDWDOOWKHRYHUYRWHVRFFXULQWKHRWKHUSDUWLHV 

Bob Warren:7KH\RFFXUUHG\RXNQRZLWZRXOGHLWKHUEH'HPRFUDW5HSXEOLFDQRU
&RQVHUYDWLYHDQGWKHQVRPHERG\ZRXOGKDYHDPDUNGRZQLQWKH7D[SD\HU¶V3DUW\RU
VRPHWKLQJEHFDXVHLWZDVLQWKDWRWKHUFROXPQVRWKH\ZHUHMXVWJRLQJ\RXNQRZKHUH
KHUHKHUH6RPHSHRSOHYRWHGVWUDLJKWDFURVVRQWKHURZWKH\GLGVWUDLJKWSDUW\YRWH
DFURVVDWWKHERWWRP7KHUHZHUHMXVWYDULRXVWKLQJVWKDWZRXOGKDYHWKDW\RXFDQORRNDW
WKHEDOORWDQG\RXDUHRQO\DVVXPLQJWKDWWKHSHUVRQGLGQ¶WGRLWLQWHQWLRQDOO\ 

Doug Kellner: 2ND\ZHOO,ORRNIRUZDUGWRJHWWLQJDGHWDLOHGUHSRUWRQWKH1HZ<RUN
&LW\%URQ[RYHUYRWHVLWXDWLRQEHFDXVH,WKLQNLWLVVLJQLILFDQW 

Bob Warren2ND\ 

Jim Walsh: $OOVHW"2XU195$3,2-RKQ&RQNOLQ 

John Conklin:7KDQN\RX&RPPLVVLRQHU,UHDOO\GRQ¶WKDYHPXFKWRDGGWRWKHZULWWHQ
UHSRUW,MXVWZDQWHGWRKLJKOLJKWWKDW7RPDQG,KDYHEHHQZRUNLQJRQWKHUHVWDFNLQJ
VWXIIDVZHOOZLWK%REDQG7RGG,Q*HRUJH¶VDEVHQFH7RPDQG,KDYHNLQGRIEHHQ
ZRUNLQJRQVRPHGHFLVLRQVZLWK,7DQGZHKDYHEHHQLQYROYHGLQYLVLWLQJWKHVLWHVIRU
ZKHUHWKHVHUYHUVPD\EHVRZHKDYHEHHQGRLQJDORWRIWKDWNLQGRIVWXII,MXVWZDQWHG
WRKLJKOLJKWWKDW'R\RXKDYHDQ\WKLQJWRDGG7RP" 

Tom: 1RZH¶UHJRRG 

Jim Walsh: 7KDQN\RXJHQWOHPHQ&DPSDLJQ)LQDQFH%LOO0F&DQQ 

Bill McCann7KDQN\RX&RPPLVVLRQHU-XVWDFRXSOHRIKLJKOLJKWVIURPRXUUHSRUWZH
GLGILOHIRUWKH-DQXDU\SHULRGLFRUGHUWRVKRZFDXVHRQWKHUGDQGWKDWLVUHWXUQDEOHLQ
0DUFKRQWKHQGQDPLQJWKHILOHUVWKDWWKH\ILOHSURFHVVLQJRIWKDW:HGLG
FRPSOHWHRXULQLWLDOGDWDWHVWLQJIRURXU2SHUDWLRQV6\VWHP1HXWUDO6RIWZDUHDQGWKH\DUH
GRLQJDSRVWXVHDQDO\VLVDQGWKDWLVJRLQJZHOO:HDUHZDLWLQJRQWKHUHVSRQVHIRURXU
FRQWLQXLQJOHJDOHGXFDWLRQDSSOLFDWLRQZKLFKWDNHVVHYHUDOPRQWKVLQWKHQRUPDOSURFHVV
VRZHDUHKRSLQJWRJHWWKDWDSSURYDOLQOLQHZLWKRXUVHPLQDUVZKLFKZHDUHVFKHGXOLQJ
QRZIRUWKHVSULQJZKLFKZLOOWDNHSODFHLQ0D\DQG-XQH$OVRZRUNLQJRQRXUILOHU
XSGDWHZKLFKZHVHQGRXWHDFKVSULQJLQDQWLFLSDWLRQRIWKHVHPLQDUVIRUDOORIRXUILOHUV
DVZHOODVPDNLQJDQ\PRGLILFDWLRQVWRRXUKDQGERRNDQGEHHQZRUNLQJRQWKHVHPLQDU
VFKHGXOHVRWKDWLVDOOJRLQJDFFRUGLQJWRSODQ7KHQODVWEXWFHUWDLQO\QRWOHDVWRXU
LQGHSHQGHQWH[SHQGLWXUHUHJXODWLRQVPDQGDWHGE\&KDSWHURIZHUHSXEOLVKHGLQ
WKH6WDWH5HJLVWHURQ)HEUXDU\QGDQGWKDWSXEOLFFRPPHQWSHULRGUXQVWKURXJK$SULO
WKHWKDQGVRZHZLOOZDLWDQGVHHZKDWFRPPHQWVZHJHWDQGWKHQSURYLGHWKDWWRWKH
%RDUGIRUDSSURYDO7KDWLVRXUUHSRUW4XHVWLRQV"7KDQN\RX 

Jim Walsh,7'DQ9DOYR 

Dan Valvo,KDYHQRWKLQJWRDGGWRWKHDOUHDG\VXEPLWWHGUHSRUW:KDW,ZDVJRLQJWR
DGGZDVSUHHPSWHGE\ERWK7RGGDQG-RKQVR««
Jim Walsh6R,¶OOJLYH\RXDWKLUGRIWKHFUHGLWIRUWKDW)RUROGEXVLQHVVGLVFXVVWKH 
SURSRVHGOHJLVODWLRQLV3DXO&ROOLQV 

Paul Collins: .LPLVQRWKHUHDQGVKHLVVRUWRIVKHSKHUGLQJWKDWGULYHVR,DPJRLQJWR
GHIHU2ND\ 

Jim Walsh: 7KDW¶VILQH 

Doug Kellner:$OULJKWZHOO,KDYHWZRWKLQJVWKDW,ZDQWWRVD\ 

Bob Brehm,WKLQNIRURQHDWRXUPHHWLQJWKDWZHGLVFXVVHGWKLVODVWZKLFKLVWZR
PHHWLQJVDJR,EHOLHYH\RXUHTXHVWHGWKDWZHVHQGLWRXWWRWKH(OHFWLRQV&RPPLVVLRQHUV
$VVRFLDWLRQ6RZHKDGVHQWWKDWRXWWRWKHRIILFHUVDQGWKHOHJLVODWLYHFRPPLWWHHEHFDXVH
WKH\ZHUHKDYLQJDPHHWLQJWKH\ZHUHJRLQJWRGLVFXVVLWDQGVKDUHWKHYLHZV:HGLG
UHFHLYHDFRXSOHRIFRPPHQWVEDFNWKDW,NQRZ$QQDDQG.LPZKHQVKH¶VKHUHKDYHWR
UHYLHZ7KH\ZHUHQ¶WYHU\VXEVWLWXWHDQGWKHUHZHUHVRPHLVVXHVWKDWWKH\UHFRPPHQGHG
EXWLWZDVQ¶WH[WHQVLYHVXEVWDQFHVLQRUGHUWRLQFRUSRUDWHWKHLUYLHZVEXWRWKHUWKDQWKDW,
WKLQNZHVWLOOKDYHVRPHZRUNWRGRLQWHUQDOO\RQDELOOWKDWORRNVOLNH,PHDQWKDWRQHLV
SUHWW\FORVHWKH$UWLFOHELOOLWLVMXVWDPDWWHURIDFRXSOHRIGD\V7KHUHDUHDFRXSOHRI
LVVXHVZLWKWKHXVDELOLW\WKDWZHQHHGDOLWWOHELWRIWLPHMXVWWRVLWGRZQ7KLVVKRXOGQ¶WEH
RYHUO\FRPSOLFDWHGWRWU\DQGGHDOZLWKVRPHRIWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVWKDWDUHRXWWKHUH
WRZKDWEHWWHUFDQZHGRWRPDNHWKHEDOORWDOLWWOHELWHDVLHUHVSHFLDOO\IURPWKH
LQVWUXFWLRQSRLQWRIYLHZ,WKLQNWKDWLVZKHUHZHKDYHVHHQDORWRILQIRUPDWLRQIURP
VRPHRIWKHJURXSV<RXNQRZZKHQ\RXUHDGWKRVHLQVWUXFWLRQVWKH\DUHTXLWHODERULRXV
DQGZHUHFRPPHQGWKDWVRPHLGHDVWKHUHRWKHUWKDQWKDW,NQRZWKDWLVZKDWZHKDYH
EHHQZRUNLQJRQVLQFHRXUODVWGLVFXVVLRQRQLW 

Doug Kellner:,KRSHWKDWZHFDQJHWWKHVWDIIWRPDNHWKLVDSULRULW\QRZWRJHWWKLV
GRQHE\WKHQH[WPHHWLQJ%DVLFDOO\WKHRXWOLQHVRIWKLVZHUHVXEPLWWHGLQ1RYHPEHUDQG
\RXDUHUDLVLQJLWHDFKPRQWKDQGZHNHHSSXWWLQJLWRYHUDQGEHIRUHZHNQRZLWWKH
OHJLVODWLYHVHVVLRQLVJRLQJWREHRYHUDQGLW¶VJRLQJWREHWRRODWH$QG,WKLQNLWLV
LPSRUWDQWWRDGGUHVVWKLV7KHRWKHUWKLQJWKDW,ZRXOGOLNHWRGRLI\RXZRXOGEHDUZLWK
PHLVWRMXVWUHYLHZIRUDPLQXWHP\UHDFWLRQRQWKHUHFHQW&LW\&RXQFLO5DFHLQWKHWKLUG
ZDUGLQ7RQDZDQGDZKLFKUHVXOWHGLQOLWLJDWLRQWKDWZDVHYHQWXDOO\UHVROYHGEXW,WKLQN
WKHUHZHUHVLJQLILFDQWLVVXHVWKDWFDPHXSWKDWDUHZRUWKUHYLHZLQJ,QWKDWUDFHWKH
LQLWLDOFDQYDVRIDOOEDOORWVLQFOXGLQJWKRVHVFDQQHGDWWKHSROHVLWHVWKHRSWLFDOVFDQZDV
WKH(6 6'6DQGWKHDEVHQWHHPLOLWDU\DQGSURYLVLRQDOEDOORWVZKLFKDUHVFDQQHGRQ
VHSDUDWHVFDQQHUVDWWKH(ULH&RXQW\%RDUGRI(OHFWLRQVKDGDUDFHWKDWUHFRUGHG
YRWHVIRU&DQGLGDWH%\HUDQGYRWHVIRU&DQGLGDWH6OL]ZLWKEDOORWVWKDWZHUH
GHHPHGEODQNRUYRLG6RWKHORVLQJFDQGLGDWH6OL]FRPPHQFHGDSURFHHGLQJLQ(ULH

APX - 162

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 9 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 10 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

&RXQW\6XSUHPH&RXUWSXUVXDQWWR(OHFWLRQ/DZWRREWDLQDPDQXDODXGLWRIWKH
YRWHUYHULILDEOHDXGLWUHFRUGVRIDOOWKHEDOORWVFDVWLQWKHHOHFWLRQ$QGWKHWULDOMXGJH
LQLWLDOO\GLVPLVVHGWKHSURFHHGLQJHVVHQWLDOO\IRUIDLOXUHWRVWDWHDFDXVHRIDFWLRQUHO\LQJ
RQWKH&RXUWRI$SSHDOVGHFLVLRQLQ-RKQVRQYV0DUWLQVWKDWZDVWKHGHFLVLRQRYHU
WKH6HQDWH5DFH:KHUHWKH&RXUWRI$SSHDOVKDGUXOHGWKDWWKHGLVFUHSDQF\UDWHWKDW
ZKHUHWKHUHLVQRPDQXDOFRXQWZKHQWKHGLVFUHSDQF\UDWHLVVLJQLILFDQWO\EHORZWKH
PDUJLQRIYLFWRU\VXFKDVWKHUHLVQRVXEVWDQWLDOOLNHOLKRRGWKDWWKHUHVXOWRIWKHHOHFWLRQ
ZRXOGEHDOWHUHGE\WKHFRQGXFWRIDIXOOPDQXDODXGLW7KLV\HDUWKH$SSHOODWH'LYLVLRQ
LQWKHWKGHSDUWPHQWUHYHUVHGWKHUXOLQJRIWKH(ULH&RXQW\&RXUWDQGUHPDQGHGWKHFDVH
IRUWULDODQGDOWKRXJKWKH$SSHOODWH'LYLVLRQGLGQRWDGGUHVV-RKQVRQYV0DUWLQVWKH
FRXUWGLGQRWHWKDWLWZDVXQGLVSXWHGWKDWWKHUHZHUHQRXQUHVROYHGGLVFUHSDQFLHVGXULQJ
WKHPDQGDWRU\DXGLWDQGWKXVQREDVLVIRUIXUWKHUYHULILDEOHDXGLWUHFRUGXQGHUHOHFWLRQ
ODZZKHUHUHJXODWLRQ$QGWKHQWKHFRXUWZHQWRQWRQRWHWKDWWKH
SHWLWLRQHUKDGQRWDOOHJHGDQ\RIWKHGLVFUHSDQFLHVGHILQHGXQGHUHOHFWLRQODZDQG
VRWKHRQO\EDVLVIRUDPDQXDODXGLWLVWKDWWKHUHLV³DOLNHOLKRRGRIDPDWHULDOGLVFUHSDQF\
EHWZHHQWKHPDQXDODXGLWWDOO\DQGWKHYRWLQJPDFKLQHVV\VWHPWDOO\ZKLFKLVODQJXDJHRI
HOHFWLRQODZVXEGLYLVLRQ$QGWKHQWKH$SSHOODWH'LYLVLRQDGGHGWKDWEHFDXVH
RQO\RQHYRWHVHSDUDWHGWKHWZRFDQGLGDWHVWKHSHWLWLRQHULVFRQWHQGLQJWKDWWKHUHLVD
VXEVWDQWLDOSRVVLELOLW\WKDWWKHZLQQHURIWKHHOHFWLRQLVUHIOHFWHGLQWKHYRWLQJPDFKLQHV
V\VWHPWDOO\FRXOGFKDQJH$QGWKH$SSHOODWH'LYLVLRQUXOHGWKDWWKHORVLQJFDQGLGDWH
VKRXOGEHJLYHQDQRSSRUWXQLW\WRSURYHWKHFDVHHYHQWKRXJKLWGLGQ¶WDFWXDOO\RUGHUD
PDQXDOFRXQW6RRQUHPDQGREYLRXVO\WKHUHZDVFRQVLGHUDEOHLQWHUHVWDPRQJHOHFWLRQ
RIILFLDOVWKURXJKRXWWKHVWDWHEHFDXVH1HZ<RUNGRHVQ¶WKDYHDQ\EODFNDQGZKLWH
JXLGHOLQHVRQZKHQDPDQXDOFDQYDVLVDSSURSULDWH$QGULJKWQRZWKHUHLVQRVWDWHZLGH
VWDQGDUGDQGPRVWFRXQWLHVKDYHQRVWDQGDUGDWDOOZLWKWZRH[FHSWLRQVWKDW,NQRZDERXW
&ROXPELD&RXQW\GRHVDPDQXDOFDQYDVLQHYHU\FRQWHVWDQG1HZ<RUN&LW\KDVD
ZULWWHQSURFHGXUHWKDWUHTXLUHVDPDQXDOFDQYDVZKHUHWKHPDUJLQLVOHVVWKDQòDSHUFHQW
RUWHQYRWHV 

Evelyn Aquila: ,VWRSSHGWKHUHDQGGLGPDQ\P\VHOI. 

Doug Kellner: 6RP\RZQSHUVRQDOYLHZZDVWKDWWKHUHVKRXOGEHQRGLVSXWHWKDWZKHUH
WKHUHLVDRQHYRWHPDUJLQLQDQ\FRQWHVWWKDWWKDWLVFORVHHQRXJKWRWULJJHUDPDQXDO
FDQYDV7KH(ULH&RXQW\&RPPLVVLRQHUVZKR,WKLQNDFWHGYHU\UHVSRQVLEO\DQG
WKRURXJKO\LQWKLVSURFHVV'HQQLV:DUGDQG5DOSK0RRUHZHUHDZDUHWKDWDQ\WKLQJWKDW
DQ\GHFLVLRQWKDWWKH\PDGHVKRXOGEHSDUWRIWKHIRUPXODWKDWZRXOGKDYHDELQGLQJ
SUHFHGHQWLDODIIHFW$QG,WKLQNWKH\DUHDOVRFRQFHUQHGDERXWHTXDOSURWHFWLRQLVVXHVRI
KDYLQJDFRXQW\VHWWKHLURZQVWDQGDUGZLWKRXWDQ\VWDWHZLGHVWDQGDUGEHFDXVHWKHQ\RX
JHWLQWRLVVXHVRILVHYHU\ERG\EHLQJWUHDWHGWKHVDPHDFURVVWKHVWDWH(YHQWXDOO\WKH
FDQGLGDWHVZKRIHOWWKDWWKH\ZHUHVSHQGLQJXQGXHUHVRXUFHVIRUDUHODWLYHO\
LQFRQVHTXHQWLDOORFDORIILFHGHFLGHGWKDWLWZDVQ¶WZRUWKIXUWKHUOLWLJDWLRQDQGFRQGXFWHG
DPDQXDOFDQYDVDQGEHFDXVHLWZDVFRQGXFWHGRQFRQVHQWLWGRHVQ¶WKDYHDQ\UHDO
SUHFHGHQWLDOHIIHFWVEXWWKHDFWXDOUHVXOWVRIWKDWPDQXDOFDQYDVVWLOOIRUFHGXVWRWDNH
QRWLFHRIVLJQLILFDQWLVVXHVEHFDXVHLQWKHPDQXDOFDQYDVWZRYRWHVFKDQJHG:HDOUHDG\

GLVFXVVHGRQHRIWKHPZKHUHWKH(ULH&RXQW\%RDUGKDGSUHYLRXVO\QRWHGWKDWWKHUHZDVD
PLVVLQJEDOORWDQGLWWXUQHGRXWWKDWWKHUHZDVRQHPRUHEDOORWLQWKHEDOORWER[WKDQWKH
PDFKLQHKDGUHFRUGHGDQGLWWXUQHGRXWWKDWWKDWEDOORWZDVIRUFDQGLGDWH6OL]VRWKDW
EURXJKWWKHUDFHXSWRDWLHDQGWKHQWKHUHZDVDVHFRQGEDOORWWKDWWKHVFDQQHUKDG
FRXQWHGDVDEODQNYRWHEXWRQORRNLQJDWWKHEDOORWPDQXDOO\WKHYRWHUKDGFLUFOHGWKH
FDQGLGDWHER[ZLWKRXWSXWWLQJDQ\PDUNLQVLGHWKHYRWLQJEXEEOH6RWKHPDFKLQH
FRUUHFWO\GLGQ¶WFRXQWLWEXWXQGHURXUUXOHVEHFDXVHWKHYRWHU¶VLQWHQWZDVFOHDUWKDW
FRXQWHGDVDQRWKHUYRWHIRUWKHFDQGLGDWHZKRVHQDPHKDGEHHQFLUFOHGDQGWKDWJDYHKLP
WKHRQHYRWHPDUJLQWKDWDFWXDOO\IOLSSHGWKHUHVXOWV6RZKDWWKLVLOOXVWUDWHVLVZKLOHRXU
PDFKLQHVKDYHDQH[FHOOHQWUHFRUGRXWRIWKHDXGLWVWKDWZHKDYHGRQHVRIDUWKHUHKDV
RQO\EHHQRQHEDOORWRXWRIWKHPLOOLRQVWKDWKDYHEHHQDXGLWHGZKHUHWKHPDFKLQH
PLVFRXQWHGWKHEDOORWDQGWKDWZDVEHFDXVHWKHEDOORWZDVZHWZKHQLWZHQWWKURXJKWKH
PDFKLQHDQGLWFDPHRXWDVDEOXUU\LPDJHLQWKHLPDJHV%XWZHVHHWKLVLVVXHRIZKHUH
WKHUHDUHSDSHUMDPVRUSHUKDSVVRPHRWKHUH[SODQDWLRQZKHUHEDOORWVFDQJHWLQWRWKH
EDOORWER[ZLWKRXWEHLQJUHFRUGHGVRWKDWLVRQHH[DPSOHKHUHRIWKHSUREOHP$QG
EHFDXVHWKLVLVDUHDOLVVXH,WKLQNLWKLJKOLJKWVIRUXVWKHQHHGWRGHYHORSDVWDWHZLGH
VWDQGDUGRQZKHQDUDFHLVVRFORVHWKDWWKHUHVKRXOGEHDPDQXDOFDQYDV$QG,WKLQNLWLV
DVXEMHFWWKDWZHVKRXOGEHWDONLQJDERXW7KDWZHVKRXOGJHWWKHSROLWLFDOSDUWLHVDQGWKH
HOHFWLRQODZ\HUVWRWDONDERXWDQGWU\WRFRPHWRVRPHDJUHHPHQWRQDVWDQGDUGVRWKDW
WKHUHLVDVLQJOHVWDWHZLGHVWDQGDUGDQGQRWVRPHWKLQJWKDWLVDVREVFXUHQRZDVMXVW
VD\LQJWKHSRVVLELOLW\RIWKDWLWZRXOGFKDQJHWKHRXWFRPH 

Evelyn Aquila: ,WKLQNZHVKRXOG.,WKLQNWKDWLVDYHU\JRRGLGHD 

Doug Kellner: $QGWKHQWKHVHFRQGWKLQJLVVLPSO\WKHFRPPHQWWKDW,KDYHIRUHOHFWLRQ
SUDFWLWLRQHUVLVWKDWWKHEDOORWLPDJHVDUHUHFRUGHG,WLVUHODWLYHO\HDV\WRJDLQDFFHVVWR
WKHEDOORWLPDJHVIRUWKHLPDJHVFDQPDFKLQHV,WLVPRUHGLIILFXOWWRJDLQDFFHVVWRWKH
LPDJHVIRUWKH'6DOWKRXJK,XQGHUVWDQGWKDWRQHRIWKHSURMHFWVWKDWZHKDYHLQWKH
ZRUNVLVWRPDNHLWHDVLHUWRJHWWKHEDOORWLPDJHVIRUWKH'6%XWWKDWRQHZD\RI
DGGUHVVLQJWKLVLVVXHLVWKDWLIHOHFWLRQODZ\HUVJHWGLVFRYHU\RIWKHEDOORWLPDJHVWKHQWKH
EXUGHQRQILQGLQJWKHPLVFRXQWHGEDOORWVFRXOGEHRQWKHODZ\HUVDQGWKDWWKH\VKRXOG
KDYHWRJRWKURXJKWKHEDOORWLPDJHVDQGVD\³+H\,¶YHIRXQG;QXPEHURIEDOORW
LPDJHVRIEDOORWVWKDWDSSO\LQJRXUUXOHVKRXOGEHFRXQWHGGLIIHUHQWO\WKDQWKH
PDFKLQHFRXQWHGDQGWKDWZRXOGVSDUHWKH%RDUGRI(OHFWLRQVWKHREOLJDWLRQRIGRLQJD
PDQXDOFRXQWDQGSODFHWKHREOLJDWLRQDWOHDVWLQWKHLQLWLDOOHYHORQWKHFDQGLGDWHZKRLV
FKDOOHQJLQJWKHUHVXOWVRIWKHFDQYDVWRVKRZWKDWWKHEDOORWLPDJHVZRXOGUHYHDODFKDQJH
LQWKHUHVXOWEHIRUHLWJRHVWRFRXUW,DPMXVWWKURZLQJWKHVHRXWDVLGHDVWKDWZHVKRXOG
H[SORUH,DSSUHFLDWH\RXUSDWLHQFHLQEHDULQJZLWKPHRQWKDWORQJSUHVHQWDWLRQEXW,GLG
ZDQWWRPDNHLWIRUWKHUHFRUGVRWKDWZHFRXOGJHWWKLVGLVFXVVLRQVWDUWHG 

Evelyn Aquila: &RXOG,PDNHMXVWRQHYHU\TXLFNFRPPHQW",DJUHHZLWKERWKRI\RXU
VXJJHVWLRQV,MXVWZRQGHULVWKHUHDQ\WKLQJDWDOOLQWKHVWDWHODZWKDWUHVWULFWVXVIURP
GRLQJWKDWWKDWWKHFRXQWLHVKDYHWKHULJKW" 

APX - 163

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 11 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 12 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

Bob Brehm,WLVFOHDUO\WKHXQLIRUPVWDQGDUGZRXOGEHZKDWZHDUHORRNLQJIRU7KHUH
LVDTXHVWLRQDQG,HYHQZHQWDQGWDONHGWR&RPPLVVLRQHU:DUG\HVWHUGD\DQGZKDWKH
JHWVLQWRLVLWFOHDUWKDWLVLWDFRXQW\E\FRXQW\DXWKRULW\RULVLWDVWDWHDXWKRULW\",ILWLV
FRXQW\E\FRXQW\\RXDUHJRLQJWRKDYHDFRQWHVWWKDWJRHVEH\RQGDFRXQW\ERUGHUWKDW
DUHJRLQJWREHFRXQWHGGLIIHUHQWO\IURPFRXQW\WRFRXQW\6RZKDWHYHUWKHVWDQGDUGLV
PDNHVVHQVHWRGRLWVWDWHZLGH,PHDQFOHDUO\VLQFHZHKDYHDEVROXWHO\QRUHFRXQW
SURYLVLRQLQWKHVWDWXWHZKDWVRHYHUHYHU\ERG\LVPLQLQJWKHILHOGRIWKHDXGLWWU\LQJWR
ILQGDZD\WRXVHWKHDXGLWWRJHWDUHFRXQWDVRSSRVHGWRDQH[SDQGHGDXGLW6R\RX
NQRZDORWRIWKHLVVXHVDQGWKHZRUGLQJRIWKHVWDWXWHORRNVWR\RXKDYHWRGHWHFW\RX
KDYHWRSURYHWKDW\RXKDYHGHWHFWHGDQHUURUDQGWKHHUURULVSURMHFWHGWRFDXVHWKH
FKDQJH:HOOLI\RXKDYHGRQHDVPDOODXGLWDQGWKHUHLVQRGHWHFWHGHUURUWKHQLWLVQRW
HDVLO\LWKDVQ¶WEHHQVXFFHVVIXOLQJHWWLQJZKDWWKH\ZDQWZKLFKLVDUHFRXQW:KHQ
HYHU\ERG\LVDOOGRQHUHFRXQWLQJDQGWKHQWKH\PLQGWKHRQO\VHFWLRQWKDWOHWVWKHP
ZKLFKLVWKHDXGLW6RDFOHDUVWDQGDUG\RXNQRZHYHQIURPWDONLQJWR&RPPLVVLRQHU
:DUG,GLGQ¶WKDYHDFKDQFHWRWDONWR5DOSKLWLVFOHDUO\ZKDWWKH\DUHORRNLQJIRUVR
WKDWWKH\GRQ¶WJHWLQWRDSUREOHPZKHUH\RXNQRZZHMXVWZDQWWRGRZKDWZHDUH
VXSSRVHWRGRDQGZHZDQWWRGRLWULJKW 

Evelyn Aquila: %RE,UHPHPEHUPDQ\\HDUVDJRZHGLVFXVVHGWKLVKDYLQJVWDWHZLGH
UHTXLUHPHQWVIRUZKHQWKHUHZRXOGEHDUHFRXQWDQGDWWKDWWLPHZHDEDQGRQHGLWEHFDXVH
LWVHHPHGWREHWKHULJKWDORQJZLWKWKHFRXQWLHVZKHWKHUWKH\KDGDULJKWIRULWDWWKDW
WLPHRUQRWEXWLWVHHPHGWREHORQJWKHUH 

Bob Brehm: ,W¶VNLQGRIDWZRSDUWSUREOHPEHFDXVHZHKDYHQRVSRWDWWKHVWDWHOHYHO
IRUKDYLQJDFFXUDWHRUUHOLDEOHLQWHULPUHVXOWV\RXNQRZIRUWKRVHFRXQWLHVZKRXVHWKH
SRUWDEOHPHPRU\GHYLFH<RXNQRZ\RXKDYHWREHDEOHWRJHWWKHQXPEHUVLILWLVWRWDOO\
ZLWKLQWKHFRXQW\,UHPHPEHUZKHQZHKDGWKHDXGLWSURYLVLRQVWKDW+RZDUG6WDQLVOHYLF
DQGRWKHUVZHUHFDOOLQJIRUZHKDGDJUHDWGLVFXVVLRQDWWKDWWLPHEHFDXVHZKDWWKH\
ZHUHORRNLQJIRUXVWRSXWLQSODFHZDQWHGWREHWULJJHUHGEDVHGRQKRZFORVHDQHOHFWLRQ
ZDVDQGZHKDYHQRZD\ULJKWRIUHDVRQDEO\ZHKDYHHQRXJKWURXEOHRIJHWWLQJWKH
GD\GHDGOLQHIRU\RXWRFHUWLI\PXFKOHVVDQDFFXUDWHSUHOLPLQDU\QXPEHUWKDWJRHV
EH\RQGWKHFRXQW\WKDW\RXFRXOGWKHQVD\LVWKHDXWRPDWLFWULJJHU6R\RXNQRZWKH
KDUGSDUWLV,JXHVVIRU1HZ<RUNZKHUHRXUDXGLWLVXSIURQWDQGVRPHRIWKHRWKHUVWDWHV
WKDWKDYHWKDWSURYLVLRQ\RXFHUWLI\WKHUHVXOWVWKHQ\RXGRWKHDXGLWDQGWKHQ\RXXVHWKH
UHVXOWVSHUKDSVWRFKDQJHWKHFHUWLILFDWLRQ2XUVKDVWREHFRPSOHWHGEHIRUHZHFDQ
FRPSOHWHWKHFHUWLILFDWLRQVRLWLVNLQGRIZHZRXOGQHHGVRPHZD\ZKHQWKHFRQWHVW
JRHVEH\RQGWKHERUGHUWRUHDVRQDEO\NQRZDQXPEHUVRWKDWLVZK\WKHQXPEHULV
LPSRUWDQWDQGWKHSURFHVVLVLPSRUWDQW$QGLWOLWHUDOO\LVDIWHUHYHU\HOHFWLRQZHJHW
WKHVHFDOOVDQGLWLVVRPHWKLQJWKDWKDVQ¶WEHHQDGGUHVVHG\HWDQGHLWKHUZHFRPHXSZLWK
DIRUPXODRUSURFHVVWKDWZHFDQZRUNZLWKRUSHUKDSVWKHFRXUWZLOOKDYHDKRGJHSRGJH
DFURVVWKHVWDWH 

Evelyn Aquila: ,IHHOZHWULHGWRDGGUHVVLWVHYHUDO\HDUVEDFNEXWLWJRWQRZKHUH
EHFDXVHRIVRPHRIWKHSUREOHPVWKDWZHUHMXVWVWDWHG,ZRXOGWKLQNWKDWLWLVVRPHWKLQJ

WKDWZHVKRXOGDEVROXWHO\GRDQG,EHOLHYHWKDWDWWKDWWLPHLWZDVWKDW,WKLQNWKDW
FRQVLGHULQJKDYLQJWKUHHRUIRXUSULPDULHVDQGDQLQWHUQDOHOHFWLRQPD\EHZHQHHGWRGR
LWVWDUWLQJ'HFHPEHUIRUWKHQH[W\HDUDQGWKHQZHFDQORRN,GRQ¶WNQRZLIWKHUHLV
HQRXJKVWDIIKHUHWRUHDFKLQJRXWWRWKHFRXQWLHVDWWKLVWLPHWRZRUNZLWKXVRQWKLV,W
PD\EHDKDUGWLPHLWPLJKWEHDGLIILFXOWWLPHEXWLWDEVROXWHO\KDVWREHDGGUHVVHG%XW
ZHKDGWRWDNHLWRIIWKHWDEOHVHYHUDO\HDUVEDFN<RXPLJKWKDYHEHHQRQWKH%RDUGDW
WKDWWLPH 

Jim Walsh:7KDQN\RX 

Evelyn Aquila: ,WLVDJUHDWLGHDDQGYHU\LPSRUWDQW 

Jim Walsh: 8QGHUQHZEXVLQHVVYRWHRQSHWLWLRQUXOLQJVZHKDYHWZRYRWHVWRFRQGXFW
KHUH2QHLVRQWKHODUJHVKHHWVRISDSHU\RXKDYH:HZLOODFFHSWDPRWLRQRIDFFHSWWKH
VWDIIUHSRUW5HJDUGLQJREMHFWLRQVKDYHEHHQILOHGZLWKUHVSHFWWRWKHSUHVLGHQWLDOSULPDU\ 

Doug Kellner6RPRYHGDQGLW¶VQRWMXVWWKHVWDIIUHSRUWEXWWKHUHDUHWKHGUDIW
GHWHUPLQDWLRQVWKDWZHUHDOVRFLUFXODWHG 

Jim Walsh:$OULJKWVHFRQG 

Gregory Peterson: 6HFRQG 

Jim Walsh: 1RRSSRVHG" 

Jim Walsh: 6HFRQGLWHPZHKDYHDPRWLRQWRLQYDOLGDWHWKHUHTXHVWWRDSSHDURQWKH
5HSXEOLFDQ3UHVLGHQWLDO3ULPDU\%DOORWE\5LFN6DQWRUXPIRUIDLOXUHWRFRPSOHWHVHWRI
GHOHJDWHVDQGDOWHUQDWHVDVUHTXLUHGE\VWDWXWHVXEMHFWWRKHDULQJE\ILOLQJDFRPSOHWH
VODWH&DQ,KDYHDPRWLRQ" 

Gregory Peterson,¶OOPDNHWKDWPRWLRQ 

Gregory Peterson:-XVWE\ZD\RIH[SODQDWLRQZHJRWDOHWWHUWRGD\IURP0HLOLQ7DQRI
)OXVKLQJ,¶OOMXVWUHDGLWVRWKDWZHKDYHFOHDUXQGHUVWDQGLQJDVWRZK\KLVVODWHZDVQRW
FRPSOHWH6KHVD\VWKDW³,WKDVFRPHWRP\DWWHQWLRQWKDWP\QDPHKDVEHHQVXEPLWWHG
E\5LFN6DQWRUXPDVDSURSRVHGDOWHUQDWHGHOHJDWHIRUWKHWKFRQJUHVVLRQDOGLVWULFW
VXSSRUWLQJKLVFDQGLGDF\LQWKH1HZ<RUN5HSXEOLFDQ3UHVLGHQWLDO3ULPDU\3OHDVHEH
DGYLVHGWKDW,QHYHUFRQVHQWHGWRWKLVVXEPLVVLRQDQGWKDWLQIDFW,GRQRWVXSSRUWDQG
DPQRWFRPPLWWHGWR5LFN6DQWRUXP¶V3UHVLGHQWLDO&DQGLGDF\3OHDVHUHPRYHP\QDPH
DVDSURSRVHG6DQWRUXPDOWHUQDWHGHOHJDWHWRWKHWK&RQJUHVVLRQDO'LVWULFW7KDQN\RX
IRU\RXUFRRSHUDWLRQ´DQGLWLVVLJQHGE\KHURUKLP6RWKDWEHLQJWKHFDVHWKDWOHDYHV
WKHVODWHLQYDOLG:HKDYHQRFKRLFHEXWWRSDVVDPRWLRQOLNHWKLVVXEMHFWWRWKHPFXULQJ
LW 

APX - 164

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 13 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 14 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

Doug Kellner:&RPPLVVLRQHUMXVWVRZHUXQWKURXJKWKHOHJDOLVVXHVKHUHLWLVP\
XQGHUVWDQGLQJWKDWZKLOHWKHVWDWXWHWKDWDSSOLHVKHUHLVHOHFWLRQODZEZKLFKLVWKH
PHWKRGIRU3UHVLGHQWLDO3ULPDU\1RPLQDWLRQVWKDWDUHXVHGE\WKH5HSXEOLFDQ3DUW\
ULJKW"$QGXQGHUVXEGLYLVLRQEWKDWWKHWZR5HSXEOLFDQ&RPPLVVLRQHUVKDYHFHUWLILHG
WKHFDQGLGDF\RI5LFN6DQWRUXPDVDSHUVRQZKRLVQDWLRQDOO\NQRZQDQGUHFRJQL]HGVR
WKHQZHJRGRZQWKHQWRVXEGLYLVLRQGZKLFKVD\VWKDWWKDWWKHFDQGLGDWHZKRKDVPHW
WKDWUHTXLUHPHQWKDVWRILOHDFHUWLILFDWHZLWKWKH6WDWH%RDUGRI(OHFWLRQVSURYLGLQJD
FRPSOHWHHOHFWLRQSULRULWL]HGOLVWRISURSRVHGFRQJUHVVLRQDOGLVWULFWGHOHJDWHVDQG
FRQJUHVVLRQDOGLVWULFWDOWHUQDWHGHOHJDWHVVXSSRUWLQJDQGFRPPLWWHGWRWKHLUSUHVLGHQWLDO
FDQGLGDF\IRUHDFKVXFKSRVLWLRQIURPWKHFRQJUHVVLRQDOGLVWULFWVWREHHOHFWHGDWWKH
SULPDU\HOHFWLRQ6RDJDLQLWLVP\XQGHUVWDQGLQJWKDW5LFN6DQWRUXPLQLWLDOO\ILOHGWKDW
OLVWDQGWKHUHZHUHPDQ\GHIHFWVRQWKHOLVWULJKW" 

Gregory Peterson5LJKW 

Evelyn Aquila: 2KDEXQFK 

Doug Kellner:$QGWKDWKHUHFHLYHGDQRWLFHWRFXUHRQ)HEUXDU\QGZLWKDOLVWRIWKH
ZHOOZKDWLVLWLWLVDOPRVWWZRGR]HQGHOHJDWHVWKDWZHUHLQYDOLGDQGWKDWDIWHUUHFHLYLQJ
WKDWQRWLFHWRFXUHRQ)HEUXDU\QGWKH6DQWRUXPFDPSDLJQWKHQILOHGDQHZOLVWWKDW
DWWHPSWHGWRFXUHEXWWKHQHZOLVWEXWWKHQMXVWWKLVPRUQLQJWKH6WDWH%RDUGUHFHLYHG
WKLVOHWWHUIURPWKHFDQGLGDWH 

Gregory Peterson: 2QHRIWKHGHOHJDWHV0HLOLQ7DQ 

Doug Kellner: 6RWKHFRPPLVVLRQHUUHDGDQGVRWKHUHIRUHLWZRXOGDSSHDUWKDWLQIDFW
WKH6DQWRUXPFDPSDLJQKDVQRWILOHGDFRPSOHWHOLVWRIGHOHJDWHVDQGDOWHUQDWHGHOHJDWHV
VXSSRUWLQJDQGFRPPLWWHGWRWKH3UHVLGHQWLDO&DQGLGDF\DQGWKHUHIRUHZHJRGRZQ
DJDLQWRWKHVWDWXWHLQWKDWVDPHVXEGLYLVLRQLWVD\VWKDWWKHVWDWHERDUGVKDOOUHYLHZHDFK
VODWHDQGLILWGHWHUPLQHVWKDWWKHVODWHLVQRWFRPSOHWHRULVQRWRWKHUZLVHLQFRPSOLDQFH
ZLWKWKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKHSDUDJUDSKLWVKDOOQRWLI\WKH3UHVLGHQWLDO&DQGLGDWHRIDQ\
GHIHFWVIRUWKZLWKDQGSURYLGHVXFK3UHVLGHQWLDO&DQGLGDWHZLWKILYHEXVLQHVVGD\VWRFXUH
DQ\GHIHFWV$QGVLQFHZHRQO\JRWWKHQRWLFHIURPWKLVGHOHJDWHWKLVPRUQLQJWKDWZDV
QRWRQWKHRULJLQDOOLVWRIFXUHVRE\WKLVUHVROXWLRQZHDUHJLYLQJWKH6DQWRUXPDVHFRQG
DWWHPSWWRFXUHZKLFKZHRUGLQDULO\ZRXOGQ¶WGR,ILWZHUHRQWKHILUVWOLVWDQGKHKDGQ¶W
FXUHGLWZRXOGEHWRRODWH%XWVLQFHLWZDVQ¶WRQWKHILUVWOLVWZHDUHJLYLQJLWWKLVFXUH
RSSRUWXQLW\%XWWKHQDOVRZHKDYHGLVFXVVHGDPRQJRXUVHOYHVWKHIDFWWKDW0DUFKVW
ZKLFKLVWKLV7KXUVGD\LVWKHGHDGOLQHIRUWKH6WDWH%RDUGWRFHUWLI\WKHEDOORWVWRWKH
FRXQW\ERDUGVVRWKDWWKHEDOORWVFDQEHSULQWHGLQWLPHWREHPDLOHGWRPLOLWDU\DQG
RYHUVHDVYRWHUVDQGVRHYHQWKRXJKWKHVWDWXWHJLYHVWKHFDQGLGDWHILYHGD\VWKH
FDQGLGDWHLVRIIWKHEDOORWXQWLOKHFXUHVDQGLIZHGRQ¶WJHWWKHFXUHEHIRUHWKH0DUFKVW
FXUHGDWHWKHQWKHERDUGZLOOFHUWLI\WKHEDOORWDVLWLV,IZHGRJHWWKHFXUHEHIRUH0DUFK 
VWWKHQWKDWZLOOEHRQWKHFHUWLILFDWLRQWKDWJRHVRXW 

Evelyn Aquila: 0DUFKVWLVWRRODWH,WKRXJKWWKDWWKH\KDG0DUFKVW 

Bob Brehm: %\0DUFKVW 

Doug Kellner: :HOOKDYH,RYHUORRNHGVRPHWKLQJLQWKLV" 

Paul Collins5HVSHFWIXOO\&RPPLVVLRQHUDQG,GRQ¶WZDQWWRJRGRZQWKHURDGVZH
VKRXOGQ¶WJREXWDQREYLRXVTXHVWLRQSUHVHQWVLWVHOILISULRUWR0DUFKVWZHUHFHLYHGD
SLHFHRISDSHUSXUSRUWHGWRFXUHWKLVGHIHFWWKDWLVWHUULILF:KRLVJRLQJWRPDNHWKH
GHWHUPLQDWLRQDVWRZKHWKHULWGRHVFXUHWKHGHIHFW" 

Todd Valentine: :HOOLWZRXOGEHWKHLQLWLDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQOLNHZHGRZKHQLWLVILOHG
RND\" 

Paul Collins,WKLQNWKHUHVROXWLRQRXJKWWRFRYHUWKDWLVVXHEHFDXVHWKDWLVDQREYLRXV
TXHVWLRQ 

Todd Valentine: 6LQFHWKLVZDVQ¶WDQLQLWLDOILOHWKHERDUGGRHVQ¶WUXOHRQWKHLQLWLDOILOH
DQGWKH\RQO\UXOHRQWKHSURMHFWLRQZLWKUHJDUGVWREDOORWGHWHUPLQDWLRQV  

Doug Kellner$QGZHKDYHKDGFXUHVLQWKHSDVWULJKW" 

Todd Valentine: <HDK 

Doug Kellner: &RYHUVKHHW" 

Todd Valentine: :HKDYHKDGFRYHUVKHHWVLQWKHSDVW 

Doug Kellner: $QGLQWKHSDVWZKRUXOHVRQZKHWKHURUQRWWKH\DUHFXUHG" 

Bob Brehm: 7KHVWDIIGRHV 

Evelyn Aquila: $OZD\VWKHVWDII 

Todd Valentine6RLWZRXOGEHWKHVDPHSURFHVV 

Todd Valentine,WKLQNDGHWHUPLQDWLRQKDVEHHQPDGHDQGLW¶VRQO\LIVRPHWKLQJLV
ZURQJZLWKWKHFXUHRU,VXSSRVH\RXZRXOGQ¶WKDYHWREULQJZHZRXOGQ¶WKDYHWRFRPH
EDFNLWMXVWGLGQ¶WPDNHLW 

Bob Brehm5LJKW 

Gregory Peterson: ,WLVP\XQGHUVWDQGLQJWKDWWKHUHLVDUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIWKH6DQWRUXP
&DPSGULYLQJXSDVXEVWLWXWHWRGD\ZKRKDVEHHQSURPLVHGE\R¶FORFNWKLVDIWHUQRRQ

APX - 165

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 15 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 16 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

1RZREYLRXVO\WKH\GLGQ¶WGRWKHLUKRPHZRUNZKLFKLVZK\WKLVWKLQJFDPHWRRXU
GRRUVWHSWRGD\$QGWKHUHFHUWDLQO\QHHGVWREHDEHWWHUGHOLQHDWLRQRIZKDWLVUHTXLUHGRI
FDQGLGDWHVLQRUGHUWRSXWWKHLUQDPHRQDEDOORW&HUWDLQO\QRWZLOO\QLOO\MXVWJUDEELQJ
VRPHERG\DQGWKURZLQJWKHLUQDPHRQDEDOORWDQGNHHS\RXUILQJHUVFURVVHGWKDWWKH\
DUHJRLQJWRDFFHSW7KHUHVKRXOGEHVRPHVRUWRIFHUWLILFDWLRQE\WKRVHZKRDUHQDPHG
DQGWKDWWKH\KDYHLQGHHGDFFHSWHGWKDWZKLFKZRXOGPDNHRXUMREDORWHDVLHUDQG
FHUWDLQO\WKLVNLQGRIVLWXDWLRQZRXOGQRWSUHVHQWLWVHOI,WLVDOZD\VGLIILFXOWWRWXUQ
DURXQGDQGVD\WRVRPHRQHWKDWVRUU\\RXGRQ¶WTXDOLI\DQGRIWHQ,NQRZLQ1HZ<RUN
ZHKDYHEHHQFULWLFL]HGIRUSLFN\ZKDWKDVDOOHJHGO\KDVEHHQSLFD\XQHGHWDLOLQJRID
SURFHVV+RZHYHULQDVLWXDWLRQOLNHWKLVZKHUHWKHUHLVREYLRXVO\VRPHERG\ZKRKDV
VDLG³+H\\RXGLGQ¶WDVNPH,GRQ¶WVXSSRUWJHWP\QDPHRII´WKDWOD\VLWLQRXUODSWR
GRWKHULJKWWKLQJDQGIUDQNO\DWWKDWSRLQW\RXUGHOHJDWHOLVWLVQRWFRPSOHWHDQG\RXDUH
RIIWKHEDOORW6RDVZHYRWHWRGD\DQGDWWKLVKRXUDVVXPLQJWKDWWKDWLVZKDWKDSSHQV
ERWWRPOLQHLVKHLVRIIXQWLOWKDWLVFXUHGDQG,DVVXPHKRSHIXOO\E\WKLVDIWHUQRRQWKDW
ZHZLOOKDYHIRXQGDFXUHIRUWKDW%XWREYLRXVO\WKHUHLVDGHIHFWLQWKHSURFHVVWKDWZH
KDYHWRDGGUHVVZLWKLQWKHQH[WIRXU\HDUV

RUGHUWKDWWKHFRXUWFRXOGFRQVLGHU,WPD\KHOSXVWUHPHQGRXVO\,NQRZLWZDVVRPHWKLQJ
ZHGLVFXVVHGZKHQZHSXWWRJHWKHUWKHZDLYHUDSSOLFDWLRQZKLOHLWZDVWKHDSSOLFDWLRQ
ZDVQRWDFFHSWHGDQG,WKLQN\RXNQRZLWZRXOGEHKHOSIXOWRGRWKDW$QG,DPJRLQJWR
JXHVVLWZLOOWDNHPRUHWKDQRQFHWKLV\HDUEHFDXVH,DPQRWSHUFHQWVXUHWKDWWKH
FDOHQGDULVDOOVHW 

Doug Kellner: :HFRXOGWHDVH\RXDQGVD\WKDWWKHGHPRFUDWLFUXOHVUHTXLUHZULWWHQ
All: /RWVRIODXJKWHUDQGWDONLQJ  

Gregory Peterson:<RXNQRZZKDWDQG,DJUHHZLWK\RX 

Doug Kellner:%XWWKHNH\ZRUGVKHUHDUHWKDWWKHVWDWXWHUHTXLUHVWKDWWKHGHOHJDWHVEH
VXSSRUWLQJDQGFRPPLWWHGWRWKH3UHVLGHQWLDO&DQGLGDF\DQGLQYLHZRIWKHZULWWHQ
VWDWHPHQWRIWKHGHOHJDWHWKDWVKHLVQRWVXSSRUWLQJ6DQWRUXP,GRQ¶WWKLQNZHKDYHDQ\
FKRLFHEXWWRVHQGKLPWKHFXUHQRWLFH 

Jim Walsh:7KDQN\RX7KDQN\RXDOO:HKDYHDPRWLRQPDGHDQGVHFRQGHGRQWKH
PRWLRQ$OOLQIDYRUSOHDVHVD\D\H 

All:$\H 

Jim Walsh: 2SSRVHG"&DUULHG 

Jim Walsh:,WHP%PHHWLQJZLWKFKLHIDGPLQLVWUDWLYHMXGJHUHJDUGLQJWKH
&DOHQGDULVVXHV%RE%UHKPDQG7RGG9DOHQWLQH 

Bob Brehm:,NQRZWKLVLVRQWKHDJHQGDDQGZHWDONHGDERXWLWEULHIO\DQGEHIRUH,
WKLQNLW¶VRQHRIWKRVHLWHPVLQWKHSDVWWKHERDUGKDVDWWHPSWHGWRUHDFKRXWWRWKHFRXUW
DQGJRWKURXJKWKHFDOHQGDULVVXHV,WKLQNLWLVKHOSIXOWRUHGRWKDWDVVXPLQJZHKDYHD
VWDEOHSROLWLFDOFDOHQGDUDVLWVSHDNV-XVWEHFDXVHWKHUHLVVRPXFKFKDQJHLWZRXOGUHDOO\
EHKRRYHXVZLWKDFRPSUHVVHGFDOHQGDUWRPHHWZLWKWKHFRXUWH[SODLQWRWKHFRXUWWKH
FDOHQGDUDQGWKHSUHVVXUHWKDW\RXNQRZWRPHHWWKRVHGHDGOLQHVDQGDQ\SURFHVVLQJ

Todd Valentine::HQHHGWRRSHQDGLDORJXHWKLV\HDUVSHFLILFDOO\EHFDXVHWKHUHDUHVR
PDQ\HOHFWLRQVWKDWDUHRFFXUULQJDFFRUGLQJWKDWWKHUHFRUGLQJFRQYHQWLRQPD\RFFXUDQG
WKHFRXUWQHHGVWREHDSSUDLVHGRIWKHWLPHWDEOHVWKDWDUHLQYROYHGWKDWLWLVGLIIHUHQWWKDQ
SUHYLRXV\HDUV,PHDQ,¶PVXUHWKH\UHDGSUHVVUHSRUWVEXWZHQHHGWRJHWWKHPWRIRFXV
RQWKDWDQGMXVWJHWWKDWGLDORJXHRSHQLQJ:HPD\VWDUWZLWKWKHOHWWHUREYLRXVO\
LQWURGXFLQJWKHVXEMHFWDQGWKHQJRIURPWKHUHDQGVHHZKDWWKH\DUHJRLQJWRGR%XW
\RXNQRZZHKDYHGRQHWKLVLQWKHSDVWWRPHHWZLWKWKHFRXUWV\VWHP1RWVRPXFKQRW
WRUHPLQGWKHPRIWKHLUREOLJDWLRQVEXWWRH[SODLQWKHVLWXDWLRQVRWKDWWKH\XQGHUVWDQGWKH
QHHGIRUILQDOLW\DQGVRWKDWZHFDQJHWEDOORWVRXWDQGJHWYRWHGRQVR 

Doug Kellner:7KHUHDUHWKUHHWKLQJVWKDW,ZRXOGOLNHWRHPSKDVL]HLQDSSURDFKLQJWKLV
DQG,WKLQNWKDW-XGJH3UXGHQWLZLOOEHYHU\UHVSRQVLYHWKDWVKHKDVDIDLUDPRXQWRI
HOHFWLRQODZVH[SHULHQFHDQGZLOOXQGHUVWDQGWKHVHLVVXHV7KHILUVWLVWKHFDOHQGDULVVXHV
WKDW\RXKDYHGLVFXVVHGDQGREYLRXVO\ZHGRQ¶WUHDOO\NQRZZKDWLVJRLQJWRKDSSHQ
EHFDXVHWKHSULPDULHVFRXOGUHDOO\KDSSHQDQ\GDWHEHWZHHQ-XQHWKDQG$XJXVWWK,W
LVUHDOO\XSWRWKHOHJLVODWXUHLIWKH\DUHJRLQJWRJHWDURXQGWRFRPELQLQJWKHPDQGVRLW
PD\EHSUHPDWXUH\HWWRWDONDERXWWKHFDOHQGDULVVXHV7KHVHFRQGWKLQJLVVRPHWKLQJZH
KDYHGLVFXVVHGLVWRHPSKDVL]HWRWKHFRXUWVWKDWWKHUHQHHGVWREHDUHDOGDWHWKDWLVWKH
ODVWGD\WKDWWKHFRXUWFDQRUGHUDFKDQJHLQWKHEDOORWEHFDXVHRIWKHQDWXUHRIWKH
VFDQQLQJPDFKLQHV,W¶VQRWOLNHWKHOHYHUYRWLQJPDFKLQHVZKHUH\RXFDQGRDQRUGHUWKH
GD\EHIRUHWKHHOHFWLRQDQGJHWFRPSOLDQFHDQG,¶PRIWKHYLHZWKDWZHZRXOGEHZHOO
VHUYHGE\JHWWLQJDELSDUWLVDQDJUHHPHQWLQDGYDQFHRQZKDWWKDWFXWRIIGDWHUHDOO\LVVR
WKDWWKHUHLVQRDUJXPHQWODWHURQE\RQHVLGHRUWKHRWKHUDVWRZKHWKHULWLVIHDVLEOHWR
UHSULQWEDOORWVDQGGRWKHQHFHVVDU\WHVWLQJLQRUGHUWRFKDQJHWKHPDFKLQHV%XWWKHRQH
WKLQJWKDWWRPHLVDEVROXWHO\FULWLFDOLVWKDWQRYRWLQJPDFKLQHVKRXOGEHXVHGZLWKRXW
KDYLQJJRQHWKURXJKWKHORJLFDQGDFFXUDF\WHVWLQJWKDWLVUHTXLUHGE\WKHVWDWXWHLQRXU
UXOHV1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJDFRXUWRUGHUFKDQJLQJWKHEDOORW$QGWKHQWKHWKLUGLVVXHLVWR
DVNLI-XGJH3HUGHQWLZRXOGEHZLOLQJWRVHQGDUHPLQGHUWRWKHMXGJHVWKDWHOHFWLRQGD\
RUGHUVVXFKDVWKHLPSRXQGPHQWRUGHUVWKDWDUHW\SLFDOO\VRXJKWH[SDUWHXQGHUWKH
FRXUWVRZQUXOHVDUHUHTXLUHGWREHRQQRWLFHWRWKHERDUGRIHOHFWLRQVDQGSDUWLFXODUO\
ZKHUHWKHVHRUGHUVVXVSHQGWKHRSHUDWLRQRIWKHVWDWXWRU\VFKHPHWKDWWKHMXGJHVVKRXOG
QRWGRWKDWDVOLJKWO\DVWKH\GRLWQRZ-XVWEHFDXVHDODZ\HUVXEPLWVDQRUGHUWKDWDOWHUV
WKHVWDWXWRU\VFKHPHRQKRZWKHEDOORWVVKRXOGEHFDQYDVVHGVKRXOGQRWEHWDNHQZLWKRXW
QRWLFHWRWKH%RDUGVRI(OHFWLRQV6R,ZRXOGKRSHWKDWZHFRXOGLQFOXGHWKDWLQRXU
GLDORJXHZLWKWKH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH-XGJH 

APX - 166

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 17 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 18 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

Doug Kellner:7KH\SXWWKHUXOHLQWKDWVD\V,PHDQWKHUHLVDFRXUWUXOHWKDWVD\V\RX
DUHQRWVXSSRVHWRGRLWH[SDUWHDQGLWVMXVWWKHQHHGWR 

Evelyn Aquila,NQRZ:KHQSHRSOHUXVKLQWRWKHFRXUWWKDWQLJKWDQGWKH\IDLO 

Bob Brehm::HGLGJHWRQHODVW\HDUWKDWZDVDVXUSULVHWRXVWKDWDVXUSULVHRXWRIDOO
RIWKHPWKDWZHJHWRQHDFWXDOO\IROORZHGWKHUXOHVVRLWZDVGLIIHUHQW 

Paul Collins:7KDWZRXOGEH-XGJH/\QFKIURP$OEDQ\&RXQW\ 

Evelyn Aquila:<RX¶UHDJRRGIULHQG 

All: /DXJKWHUDQGORWVRIFRPPHQWVWRJHWKHU  

Bob Brehm:,WPDGHIRUDQLQWHUHVWLQJKHDULQJWKH\JRWWKURXJKWKHSURFHVVHYHU\WKLQJ
ZRUNHGIROORZLQJUXOHVDOVR 

Doug Kellner:1RZLQWKHODVWWZR\HDUVZHKDYHJRWWHQH[SDUWHRUGHUVWKDWZHUH
FRQWUDU\WRWKHVWDWXWRU\VFKHPHDQGDWOHDVWZHZHUHVXFFHVVIXOLQWDONLQJWRWKH
DWWRUQH\VZKRVXEPLWWHGWKHRUGHUVWRJHWWKHPWRUHLQWHUSUHWWKHLURUGHUVWRFRPSO\ZLWK
WKHVWDWXWHEXW,WKLQNWKDWLVOHVVGHVLUDEOHWKDQDWOHDVWDOHUWLQJWKHMXGJHVLQWKHILUVW
LQVWDQWWKDWWKH\VKRXOGQ¶WEHVLJQLQJWKRVHRUGHUVZLWKRXWFKHFNLQJ 

Evelyn Aquila: ,GRQ¶WVHHPXFKKRSHLQJHWWLQJLW 

Jim Walsh:2ND\WKDQN\RXYHU\PXFK,WHPQXPEHU&YRWHRQUHVROXWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
DGGLWLRQDOH[SHQGLWXUHVRIKDYLQJIXQGVIRUFRXUWRUGHUHGYRWLQJPDFKLQHPRGLILFDWLRQV
DQGWHVWLQJ$QQDDQG-RH%XUQVDQ\FRPPHQW" 

Doug Kellner:,PRYHWKHUHVROXWLRQVSHDNVIRULWVHOI 

Evelyn Aquila:,VHFRQG 

Jim Walsh:$OOLQIDYRUVD\D\H 

All:$\H 

Jim Walsh:2SSRVHG"&DUULHG7KHUHLVQRQHHGIRUH[HFXWLYHVHVVLRQ,EHOLHYHLVWKHUH" 

Doug Kellner:1R 

Evelyn Aquila:7KHUHLVRQHFDVH 

Evelyn Aquila:2KLWZDV" 

Jim Walsh:2ND\,ZLOOVHWWKHGDWHIRURXUQH[WPHHWLQJ 

Todd Valentine:)RU7KXUVGD\0D\UGLVZKDWZHDUHORRNLQJDWIRUWKHQH[WPHHWLQJ
DQGWKHUHZRXOGEH\RXNQRZRWKHUEXVLQHVV 

Evelyn Aquila:1R0DUFKRU$SULO" 

Todd Valentine::HOOWKHEHJLQQLQJRI$SULO\RXKDYH(DVWHUVR(DVWHUDQG3DVVRYHU
\RXKDYHWRGHDOZLWKDQGWKHQZHKDYHWKHILOLQJSHULRGRIWKHWKDQGWKHWKLV
FXUUHQWO\VFKHGXOHGDQGDOORZLQJWZRZHHNVIRUREMHFWLRQVDQGVSHFLILFDWLRQVVR
DVVXPLQJWKLVLVDOOVWLOOJRLQJRQWKDWFDOHQGDUWKDWLVKRZZHFDOFXODWHGWKDWLVKRZZH
FDPHXSZLWKWKDWZHHN 

Evelyn Aquila: 1R,XQGHUVWDQG 

Doug Kellner:<HDK0D\UGLVILQH0\SUREOHPLVQRWJHWWLQJWKHOHJLVODWLYHSDFNDJH
GRQH 

Todd Valentine:HOOZHKDYHWKDWLVVXHWRR 

Doug Kellner,WKLQNZHVKRXOGPHHWPRQWKO\ 

Evelyn Aquila::LOOZHEHUHDG\E\0D\UG 

Doug Kellner:1RZHVKRXOGGRLWLQ$SULO:HVKRXOGPHHWWKHILUVWZHHNRI$SULO 

Evelyn Aquila:7KDW¶V(DVWHULVQ¶WLW" 

Bob Brehm:7KDW¶VWKHVHFRQGZHHN" 

Doug Kellner::HFDQPHHWRQWKDW0RQGD\MXVWVRWKDWZHGRQ¶WLQWHUIHUHZLWKWKH
3DVVRYHU 

Evelyn Aquila:,ZRXOGSUHIHUWRVWLFNZLWK7KXUVGD\7XHVGD\RU7KXUVGD\ 

Bob Brehm:$SULOUGRUWK 

Doug Kellner::HOOLI,WKRXJKWZHZRXOGKDYHWKHOHJLVODWLYHSDFNDJHGRQHZLWKRXW
VHWWLQJDGHDGOLQHIRUWKHPHHWLQJ 

Jim Walsh:,VWKHUHVRPHZD\WKDWZHFDQDFFRPSOLVKWKDW"

Doug Kellner:7KHUHZDVRQHFDVHDQGLWZDVDVNHGWREHKHOGRYHUWRDQRWKHUVHVVLRQ

APX - 167

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 19 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 20 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________ 

Doug Kellner::K\GRQ¶WZHFDQFHOWKHPHHWLQJWKHQLIZHJHWLWGRQH" 

Todd Valentine::HFRXOGVFKHGXOHLWIRUWKHWKRI$SULO 

Paul Collins&RPPLVVLRQHUWKHWKRI$SULOLV+RO\7KXUVGD\1R 

Evelyn Aquila:1RZHDUHQRWJRLQJWRKDYHLWRQ+RO\7KXUVGD\ 

Paul Collins:,WKRXJKWWKDWPLJKWEHDFRQFHUQ 

Doug Kellner:/HW¶VGRLWWKHQGRUWKHUG 

Evelyn Aquila:7KHUGKRZDERXWWKHUG 

Todd Valentine:,ZRXOGSUHIHU7XHVGD\VWR0RQGD\V 

Evelyn Aquila:<RXSUHIHU7XHVGD\V,GRWR<RXFDQ¶WEHWKHUHRQ7XHVGD\" 

Jim Walsh:,FDQ¶WEHKHUH 

Evelyn Aquila:<RXFDQ¶WEHWKHUHRQ7XHVGD\" 

Jim Walsh:7KHUGRI$SULO" 

Doug Kellner:7KHQG" 

Evelyn Aquila:7KHQGLVYHU\EDGIRUPH 

Gregory Peterson:7KHQG,KDYH 

Evelyn Aquila:7KHQGLVYHU\EDGEXWLI,KDYHWR,KDYHWR,¶OOKDYHWRFDQFHO
VRPHWKLQJ

Doug Kellner:7KDWLIZHFDQJHWWKLVOHJLVODWLYHSDFNDJHDJUHHGWREHIRUHWKHQPD\EH
ZHFDQFDQFHOWKHPHHWLQJ 

Evelyn Aquila:7KDWZHFDQJREDFNWRWKHUG 

Doug Kellner:7KHQZHGRQ¶WQHHGWRDOOFRPHWR$OEDQ\EHFDXVHZHGRQ¶WQHHGWR
IRUPDOO\YRWH 

Todd Valentine:6RZK\GRQ¶WZHVFKHGXOHDPHHWLQJIRU0D\UG 

Evelyn Aquila:7KDW¶VDGHILQLWH$QGWKHWKLVLIQHHGHG

Bob Brehm:,WORRNVOLNHWKHWKVRIDU,GLGQ¶WNQRZWKDWLWZDVDOUHDG\EDG 

Gregory Peterson::HGQHVGD\" 

Doug Kellner:6RZK\GRQ¶WZHKDYHLWRQWKHWK" 

Bob Brehm:2ND\
Jim Walsh:7KLVLVVWLOOSHQGLQJWKDWLI 

Todd Valentine:$QGDERXWWKHVFKHGXOHIRUWKHSULPDU\FKDQJHV 

Doug Kellner:3RVVLEOH 

Evelyn Aquila:<HDK,NQRZ 

Todd Valentine:7KHQZH¶OODGMXVWWKHPDLQPHHWLQJ 

Jim Walsh:2ND\ 

Todd Valentine:7KDW¶VWRDOORZWLPHWRSURFHVV
Bob Brehm:7KDW¶VWKHODVWGD\WKDWZHKDYHWRFHUWLI\ 

Doug Kellner:/HW¶VVHHLIZHFDQJHWDJUHHPHQWRQWKHOHJLVODWLYHSDFNDJHVRWKDWZH
GRQ¶WQHHGWRFRPHLQ$SULO2WKHUZLVH,WKLQNZHQHHGWRFRPHEHFDXVHLIZHGRQ¶WVHWD
GHDGOLQHLW¶VMXVWQRWJRLQJWRKDSSHQLWVVL[PRQWKVQRZ 

Evelyn Aquila:,V0D\UGDOULJKWIRU\RX" 

Gregory Peterson:<HV 

Jim Walsh:$PRWLRQWRDGMRXUQSOHDVH 

Doug Kellner:6RPRYHG 

Jim Walsh:6HFRQG 
Jim Walsh:$OULJKWERWKFDUULHG:HDUHDGMRXUQHG   

2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections
Page 21 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________    

APX - 168

cc:

David A. Paterson
45 West 132nd Street Apt. 7N
New York NY 10037
NYS BOE General Counsel
New York State Board of Elections
40 NORTH PEARL STREET, SUITE 5
ALBANY, NY 12207-2729
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney
General of New York State
by: JOSHUA PEPPER, Esq. AAG
120 BROADWAY – 24th Floor
New York, New York 10271-0332
Thomas P. DiNapoli
Office of the State Comptroller
110 State Street
Albany, NY 12236
Hakeem Jeffries
445 Neptune Avenue
Amalgamated Warbasse #2
Brooklyn, NY 11224
Hakeem Jeffries
35 Underhill Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11238
Andrew Cuomo, Governor
of the STATE OF NEW YORK
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher Earl Strunk,

Dean Skelos,
The New York State Senate
The Capital Room 501
Albany New York 12224
New York City Board of Elections
Executive Office
32 - 42 Broadway, 7 Fl
New York, NY 10004
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281
Brooklyn, New York 11238
The Honorable Gail Prudenti, J.S.C.

Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts

New York State Unified Court System
Office of Court Administration
25 Beaver Street, Room 852
New York, NY 10004
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II
POTUS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
The WHITE HOUSE
1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE N.W.
WASHINGTON D.C. 20500-0003

Chief Administrative Judge has been requested and has in fact taken a direct role in
monitoring this entire matter.
Index No.: 29642 / 08
2.

Plaintiff,

Sheldon Silver,
The New York State Assembly
The Capitol
Albany New York 12224

Including “Van Allen v NYSBOE” 1787-2012 (born a citizen case) and “Van Allen

I.A.S. Part 47
v Silver” message of necessity passed legislations. All related to NYS Electoral College

-against-

(Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)

David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo
(NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli
(NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of
PETITIONER’S AFFIDAVIT
the Assembly), Malcolm Smith (NYS Senator),
th
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57 AD),
Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council),
William Thompson (NYC Comptroller),
RENEW AND REARGUE
Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos
(President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their
INTERVENTION
Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat
Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official
Capacity and individually; The New York State Board
of Elections and John Does and Jane Does
Defendants.

COUNTY OF ULSTER

districting; as well as notice of related unconstitutional process “message of necessity”
and constitutional convention delegate cases; i.e. “Schulz v Cuomo” (NYS
constitutional convention delegate eligibility, “Schulz v State of New York Executive”
(message of necessity passed NYS SAFE Act) and “Schulz v New York State Executive”
(message of necessity passed NYSBOE unconstitutional language of 2013
constitutional ballot question). All constitutional Albany Civil Supreme cases assigned
to emergency “Acting State Supreme Court Justices” i.e. un-elected Court of Claims

-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
STATE OF NEW YORK

delegate selection based upon unconstitutional state and federal legislative re-

appointed judges nomination confirmed by unconstitutionally districted state

)
) ss.
)

legislators. SCOTUS Motion/Application pending for expansion of time to file petitions
of certiorari pending the disposition of this proposed intervention motion.

Accordingly, I, H. William Van Allen, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty
of perjury:
1. That Petitioner, H. (Harold) William Van Allen, is self-represented without an
attorney petitions as of right with CPLR §2221(f) and §1012(a)(2) to protect my own
liberty and rights including right to petition for a redress of grievances in periods
under the NYS Constitution and declared political emergency and necessity, with
below exhibit, against an ongoing injury that started from before the 2008 New York
General Election cycle and by this motion renews my prior motion to intervene as the
circumstances and transactions have changed entitling me to do so. The NYSUCS

3.

That Petitioner re-submits herewith a copy of the Verified Supplement of

November 4, 2011 to Plaintiff’s Complaint filed October 29, 2008 (See Exhibit A with
sub--exhibits 1 through 6) as to jurisdiction of New York State Election Law Article
§16-100 over Article 12 and related law for the November 4, 2008 General Election for
emergency equity relief, and to the extent that the New York State Board of Elections
and its agents (NYS BOE) have yet to respond to service of the underlying Complaint
and as required with NYS Election Law (EL), hereby provide five (5) supplement causes
to the Second and Third Cause of action shown in Exhibit A-1 from paragraphs 29
thru 38 with facts of subsequent transactions disclosed subsequent to the October 29
2008 filing and before Defendants’ answer and or response.

Van Allen Affidavit in support of Motion to Renew Intervene Page 1 of 16

APX - 169

Van Allen Affidavit in support of Motion to Renew Intervene Page 2 of 16

4.

That Part 47 on November 22, 2011 in its order denying my previous

7.

That clearly the circumstances have changed since November 22, 2011 with the

intervention held that “Plaintiff Christopher Strunk quite capable of representing all

misbehavior of Justice Arthur M. Schack in the Decision and Order for Case 6500-

alleged aggrieved parties in the case” (see Exhibit B)

2011 barring Mr. Strunk from any further action in States court and or against any of

5.

That the Order of this Court in Part 47 on January 24, 2014 proves this case

the named defendants therein including the NYS Board of Elections (Exhibit F) even

remains active an d that is a matter to be heard before the Court on March 28, 2014

though the order(s) taken on appeal by Plaintiff Strunk to the Appellate Division with

(see Exhibit C)as a related case to the active case Strunk v Jeffries et al NYS-SC for

Appeal cases 12-5515, 13-6335 and 14-0297 remain unresolved accordingly; and
8.

the County of Kings in Part 47 with Index No.: 2012-21948 having a Notice of

Thereby Mr. Strunk’s hands are tied, and making Petitioner the only Proposed

Readiness for the Trial of the evidence of fraud at the 2012 General Election scheduled

Intervener capable of having standing herein as the necessary party for not only

for June 18, 2014 perpetrated by the agents for Presidential Candidate Barack

Plaintiff Strunk, but for the voters of New York and WE THE PEOPLE that would

Hussein Obama, now the USURPER POTUS Commander-in chief with, according to

benefit by my intervention herein.

Mr. Strunk, authority and jurisdiction over this Court as a defacto executive martial

9. That Petitioner was duly registered to vote and enrolled in the New York State

rule court under 12 USC 95, 50 App USC 5(b) and related law associated with POTUS

Independence Party for the 2008 and 2012 New York Election Cycle and is currently in

Commander-in-chief Franklin Delano Roosevelt’ s Proclamations 2039, 2040, 6201

the enrollment “lock box” as “constitution monitors party” for the 2014 Election cycle.

with related proclamations and executive orders issues after March 4, 1933; and as

10. That Petitioner’s place for service is located at 351 North Road Hurley New

further acknowledged by the NYS Supreme Court Appellate Division for the Second

York 12443, with telephone number (845) 389-4366 and email hvanallen@hvc.rr.com.
11.That on October 30, 2008 according to the RULES AND REGULATIONS of the

Department by the panel decision and order denying Mr. Strunk his request for
“Civilian due process of law” be provided in his Appeal Cases 12-5515 13 6335 and

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS Current with amendments issued prior to 2008,

14-00297 taken from various Orders and Decisions in the case before Part 23 Strunk

TITLE 9 — EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT SUBTITLE V — STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

v NYS Board of Elections et al. NYS-SC for the County of Kings with Index No.: 6500-

(NYS BOE) § 6201.3 ELECTION LAW (2) the Complaint was duly served for the State

2011 now due to be submitted by May 5, 2014 (see Exhibit D).

Board staff to propose to the board an investigation of an alleged violation of the code;

6.

That the Case 6500-2011 was maliciously assigned with a perjured RJI petition

(see Exhibit E) to Part 23 rather than Part 47 against I.A.S. administrative procedure

that accordingly that shall be filed by mailing to, or by personally serving, the Board of
Elections at then address 40 Steuben St., Albany, NY 12207-2109 (see Exhibit A-2).
12.That pursuant EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT SUBTITLE V — STATE BOARD OF

even though this case 29642-2008 is listed as a related on the first page of the 6500-

ELECTIONS (NYS BOE) § 6201.3 ELECTION LAW, Petitioner on December 1, 2008,

2011 Complaint; and

while not a party to this action also duly served the Summons and Complaint for

Van Allen Affidavit in support of Motion to Renew Intervene Page 3 of 16

Van Allen Affidavit in support of Motion to Renew Intervene Page 4 of 16

Plaintiff upon the NYS BOE and others shown in Exhibit A-2 as required under CPLR;

jure U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 ( 1 ) before the enactment of the 14th

however, Plaintiff failed to follow-up completion with the clerk of the court.

Amendment defined by law as expressed precedent in Minor. v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162

13.That on March 14, 2011 the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. held in an order

(1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. by Justice Waite as natural born citizens

(see Exhibit A-3) regarding both Plaintiff’s reconsideration motion to file service nunc

(NBC) per se are so by virtue of birth on United States soil when both parents were

pro tunc and for an amended complaint that quote:

Citizens of the United States ( 2 ).

”All motions are denied. Mr. Strunk failed to join a necessary party President
Obama & Senator McCain. & the statute of limitations to do so expired. In view
of the above there would be no purpose to allow plaintiff to file passed service
nunc pro tunc or for amended complaint. “

17.That in New York only a person who is of the de jure class of natural born
citizens may be nominated, designated and or certified accordingly by convention for
candidacy for election by the duly elected electors of the electoral college required

14.That on October 25, 2011 the Honorable Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. held in the
case Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. with Index 6500-2011 that the court would not claim

under NYS EL Article 12 and Article 14.
18.The New York election cycle for selecting the slate of electors for a candidate for

jurisdiction over matters transacted in regards to the 2008 Election cycle under the
jurisdiction of the NYS BOE in the matter of ballot qualifications for office and decline

office of POTUS and Vice President of a particular political committee is
notwithstanding any “right” the voters may expect to have, in fact the voters cast a

to sign the order as to the NYS BOE (see Exhibit A-4) wrote :
vote ONLY as an advisory referendum on the POTUS candidate, for the actual electoral
"10/25/11 The Court declines to sign this OSC. This issue is not ripe until
candidates file nominating petitions for public office for President of U.S. in
several months. Further, the Court will [not] stop fund-raising by any candidate
because candidates have a right to raise money pursuant to statute and the
First Amendment. The issue of candidate qualification is subject to Court action
after nominating petitions are submitted and candidates are challenged in
Court."_s/AS " JSC"
15.That Petitioner is a member of the minor State party New York State
Independence Party and unlike Plaintiff who is an enrolled member of the majority
State party the New York State Republican Party in bipartisan control of the NYS BOE
Petitioner is subject to their indifferent bi-partisan self-serving arbitrary and
capricious manipulation favoring major State parties in control of elections.
16.That Petitioner is a member of the de jure class of natural born citizens along
with those similarly situated that include Plaintiff, who at birth are according to the de

Van Allen Affidavit in support of Motion to Renew Intervene Page 5 of 16

1

United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 that mandates:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any
Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years,
and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

2 “[T]he Constitution…provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the
United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of
President’…The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must
be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the
Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who
were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or naturalborn citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as
citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162,
168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this
case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to
consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves
citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all
persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the
last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
(Emphasis added.)

APX - 170

Van Allen Affidavit in support of Motion to Renew Intervene Page 6 of 16

slate when passing state legislative muster may vote as they see fit notwithstanding
anything the advisory referendum may reflect as a popular vote.

not responded as required by Election Law causing a continuing harm to Petitioner.
23.That Plaintiff’s Complaint shown in Exhibit D-1 with Second Cause of Action

19.That when the political committee collects signatures and or holds a convention

reads is insufficient to protect Petitioner’s liberty an rights causing personal injury to

for certifying a candidate for ballot access, also solicit funds with NYS EL Article 14 as

Petitioner along with those similarly situated and therefore requires a supplement with

defined with EL §14-100 as to the meaning of “political committee”, “candidate” and

subsequent transactions and incidents discovered after filing and before Defendants

“contribution” for the purposes of such nominating, designating, convention certifying

answer or otherwise respond and as is now the fact that the related action takes no

effort for a candidate that is not eligible to qualify for POTUS are committing a fraud.

jurisdiction of the evens and transactions relate to the 2008 election cycle injury.

20. That when the political committee collects contribution(s) for the candidate(s)

24. That Petitioner alleges unlike Plaintiff that the NYS BOE and or its agents

it falls under EL - §14–114. Contributions and receipt limitations and is subject to

failed to respond as required by EL §3-104 (2) as is required in the Second Cause of

eligibility and qualification of the candidate(s) even if not yet nominated or designated

Action absent the need of any other defendant or party to be joined, falls entirely upon

merely is dependent upon a declaration of intent; and when the political committee

Defendant NYS BOE as a duty and responsibility of the NYS BOE agents oath.

solicits, collects and expends funds with an ineligible candidate who is unable to

25.That based upon Petitioner review of the NYS BOE Open Meetings record from

qualify to take the oath of office such acts are in fact a personal use of funds that the

2007 forward until this date there has not been a mention of the term “Natural born

Election Law prohibits as a conversion of campaign funds to personal uses. In its

citizen” or “Born a Citizen” in the record.

relevant part it states:

26. That Petitioner in an effort to discover when and why the NYS BOE and or its

EL §14-130. Campaign funds for personal use. Contributions received by a
candidate or a political committee may be expended for any lawful purpose.
Such funds shall not be converted by any person to a personal use which is
unrelated to a political campaign or the holding of a public office or party
position.
21.That despite the fact that the Voters at the General Election for POTUS were not

agents maintain the improper eligibility / qualification instructions for a candidate to
for office of POTUS in the 2012 election cycle as to “Citizenship” states “born a citizen”
27. Moreover, that the NYS BOE has the power under EL §3–104. with enforcement
powers that were bound to respond to when Petitioner on October 30, 2008 duly

presented with a list if the slate of electors of the respective candidate, the voters were

served the NYS BOE for Plaintiff with a complaint shown as Exhibit A-1 accompanied

presented the names of the POTUS candidates as eligible and would qualify for office

by a mandamus petition with Index 29641-08 served upon electors listed at Exhibit A-

of POTUS when not eligible or would not qualify to take the oath is fraud.

1 (A), to that NYS BOE agent(s) never responded under Election Law to the Plaintiff.

22. That when on December 1, 2008, Petitioner duly served the Summons and

28. That the statement as to Citizenship “Born a citizen” conflicts with the law of

Complaint for Plaintiff in this case upon the NYS BOE as is required under EL §3-

the land and must be removed and replaced with “Natural born Citizen” to conform.

104(2), EL §3-105 and EL §3-106 and related law, according to Plaintiff NYS BOE has

That based upon the present NYS BOE website entitled “Running for Office” in regards

Van Allen Affidavit in support of Motion to Renew Intervene Page 7 of 16

Van Allen Affidavit in support of Motion to Renew Intervene Page 8 of 16

to those seeking the Office of POTUS there is no use of the term of art “Natural-born
Citizen” as required under U.S. Constitution Section 1, instead use the term “Born a
Citizen” on the official webpage “Running for Office” appears as follows:

33. That Petitioner requested by FOIL that the NYS BOE disclose the record of the
executive session at which the term of Art “Born a Citizen” was invented and that the
NYS BOE denied such information as privileged protected from public disclosure (see
Exhibit A-5).
34. That Petitioner requested by FOIL that the NYS BOE disclose the record of the
communication between the Governor’s Office and or Attorney General office in
regards to the use of the term of art “Born a Citizen” that was invented and that the
NYS BOE denied such information as attorney client privileged protected from public
disclosure as work product (see Exhibit A-6).
35. That Defendant NYS BOE has injured Petitioner along with those similarly
situated as a member of the class of those de jure citizens who are NBC.
36. That Defendant NYS BOE has injured Petitioner along with those similarly
situated as a member of the minor State party that had performed a Wilson Picula

29.That the misstatement of Running for Office Qualification facilitates the
violation of law campaign fund raising law as defined by EL §14-100 (7) for who may
be a candidate for the office of POTUS determines who may seek contributions for the
office of POTUS and or creation of an electoral college slate for 2008 and 2012 ballots.
30. That based upon Petitioner review of the NYS BOE Open Meetings record with
Public Officers Law from 2007 forward until this date there has not been a mention of

endorsement of the Republican party candidate for POTUS and denied an honest
election by manipulating the qualifications to run for Office of POTUS.
37. That Petitioner alleges the NYS BOE or agent(s) have failed to respond as
required by EL §3-105 as relates to unequal protection of minor State party members
afforded by special treatment for the major State Party Candidates with multiple lines
on the Full Face Ballot with HAVA in State Election Law EL §6-120(3).
38.That Plaintiff’s Complaint shown in Exhibit A-1 with the Third Cause of Action

the term “Born a Citizen” in the record.
31. That based upon the requirement of Federal Law the instructions sent to the

reads is insufficient to protect Petitioner’s liberty an rights causing personal injury to

Governor of the State of New York for the formation of the New York Electoral College

Petitioner along with those similarly situated and therefore requires a supplement with

from New York in the 2008 Election cycle did not use the term “Natural-born Citizen”

subsequent transactions and incidents discovered after filing and before Defendants

or “Born a Citizen”.

answer or otherwise respond and as is now the fact that the related action takes no

32. Therefore, the word of art “Born a Citizen” had to be created in the executive
session of the NYS BOE and violates Public Officer Art. 7 §103 Open Meetings Law.

jurisdiction of the evens and transactions relate to the 2008 election cycle as a
continuing injury.
39. Petitioner alleges the NYS BOE and or its agents breach their oath of duty to

Van Allen Affidavit in support of Motion to Renew Intervene Page 9 of 16

APX - 171

Van Allen Affidavit in support of Motion to Renew Intervene Page 10 of 16

the law by maintaining “Born a Citizen” and concealing the executive record of such

42.That as a further supplemental cause of action Petitioner who for years has

political practice as an act of subversion that is undermining political parties and the

been watchful of Judicial misbehavior in contemplation of how the judiciary by enlarge

electoral process including, but not limited to, the preparation or distribution of any

is to be occupied by intelligent and well educated judges is nevertheless so poorly

fraudulent, forged or falsely identified writing or the use of any employees or agents

trained and instructed by the Unified Court system when either elected or appointed

who falsely represent themselves as supporters of a candidate, political party or

and as such my curiosity as to the actual flaw in their training requested with a FOIL

committee, that failed to respond as required by EL §3-106 (1).

a copy of the public seminar used to train the Judges (see Exhibit G); and on

40. That on or about October 3, 2011 State Attorney General Special Counsel to

February, 2014 was told by the administrative response is not public
43.That like Plaintiff Strunk’s “Freedom of Information Act” efforts in Washington

Defendant NYS BOE when presented with a request to stipulate and admit to use of
the term of art “Natural born Citizen” to mean a person born on USA soil to two citizen

DC starting in 2008 to obtain the passport application records for Stanley Ann

parents under the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 rather than the term “Born a

Dunham Obama, the Mother of Barack Hussein Obama, were hindered with only

Citizen” refuse to admit to the meaning or use of the express idiom for notification to a

partially released documents with a huge scandal that emerged proving that spoliation

prospective candidate or committee use to disenfranchise voters and Petitioner with

and destruction of records were done and the reasons for destruction proffered and

those similarly situated.

proven a crime of some proportions as my effort shows in the US Department of State

41.That a further Supplemental Cause of Action is required because of the onerous

release of directives (see Exhibit H) as to the destruction of document proves that

political activities of Defendant Cuomo, whom Plaintiff is barred from suing, first

there will never be a protection of our 5th Amendment right under the US Constitution

evidenced as the then US HUD Secretary that collapsed the economy in 2008 in

while the USURPER is in control of the Executive branch of government, leaving ONLY

coordination ACORN that went bankrupt and reemerged as a new threat to the People

the respective State of Residence to provide the people equal protection under the law

of New York along in partnership with Defendant Cuomo, who from before 2008 all

as must be done for private citizens of the United States in New York.
44. I agree with what Plaintiff Strunk contends, and I am sure he will explain, that

worked together with then Attorney General, and now since 2010 when assuming the
office of Governor having perpetrated a series of onerous unconstitutional ultra vires

the US Constitution is suspended under the March 9, 1933 Proclamation 2040 for a

acts under colour of law that violate my Section 1 Fourteenth Amendment right to

continuing National Emergency shapes our history since March 4, 1933, especially

equal protection of the law that have escalated to public incoherent diatribes that

since the April 25, 1938 SCOTUS decisions ended the Lockner Era of common law

threatened Petitioner as a conservative to leave the State or else be injured as the

rights, and that proves that WE the People of New York have been under a continuous

consequence of His continued wrath of the conga line of psychopathic disorders now

siege of martial process that has replaced Common Law Civilian due process; and
45. Further, that although Petitioner remains his named entity registered in his

overflowing from the Governor’s office and that must disqualify him from ever serving
in elected office in New York again and bar his further action as an elected official that

birth state of (Indiana – City of Lafayette) the product of natural born citizen father

must be held as a threat to the life and safety of the general population.

(Penn. – City of Pittsburg) and natural born citizen mother (Illinois – City of Chicago),

Van Allen Affidavit in support of Motion to Renew Intervene Page 11 of 16

Petitioner may not speak for Mr. Strunk’s class too;

Van Allen Affidavit in support of Motion to Renew Intervene Page 12 of 16

divorced Obama Sr. (see Exhibit I); and
48.Further, based upon the SCOTUS seminal decision in Minor v Happersett to be

46.Further however, Petitioner may speak as member of my class per se, and now
contend that this Court has discretion, given the inadequacy of Judicial instruction

a “Natural-born citizen” without any question of national loyalties, one must be born

shown with Exhibits G refusal of the Office of Court Administration to disclose what

of U.S. Citizen parents, in which BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. is not.
49.Further supporting Petitioner’s contention that the Commander-in chief is an

and when the elected judges may or may not know in regards to provision of martial
process rather that civilian due process, that it appears true according to the Appellate

unconstitutional USURPER controlling the New York State Judiciary as a defacto

Panel shown with Exhibit D, and that affords this Court discretion to at least fashion a

Executive court without authority to do so, because BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II is

remedy in chambers if not in open court that will afford Petitioner relief, as well as for

not NBC, that every proclamation and executive order extending the National

Plaintiff Strunk whose altered status is a private citizen of the United States secured

Emergency starting with the Iranian Crisis national emergency since 1979 is now void

party beneficiary agent for the Debtor Trust ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©

ab intitio due to the USURPER Commander-in-chief, and that as such the New York

transmitting utility registered with the United States Secretary of Treasury. Further,

State Judiciary and this Court without a constitutional Commander-in chief mandate

Petitioner contends that as a matter of law based upon the admission of the Appellate

for martial process to continue in place of civilian due process under colour of law

Panel in its decision and order shown as Exhibit D that the New York State Judiciary

violates Petitioner Section 1 Fourteenth Amendment equal protection of the law.
50.Further, in support of Petitioner’s contention that BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II

and this Court, although is a constitutional formed body here in the State as with the
Federal Article III Courts are nevertheless in fact a defacto Executive Judicial body

is now USURPING the POTUS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF executive authority over the

under the direct authority of the POTUS Commander-in Chief since March 6, 1933,

martial rule dispensed by New York State Court as a matter of contention posed by the

and now BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II; and

New York State Appellate Division order shown as Exhibit D, is the video

47.Further, Petitioner contends that while I am under this Martial Process I am
entitled to directly challenge the eligibility of the Barack Hussein Obama II to hold the
office of POTUS Commander-in chief with direct authority and control over the New

(3)

released

on Friday evening February 26, 2014, for the disclosure by the Honorable Michael
Shrimpton barrister to HER MAJESTY’S BENCH

(4)

in regards to the ineligibility of

3

York Judiciary and this Court per se, as BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. is not a

http://wwil was w.birtherreport.com/2014/02/official-wikipedia-scrubs-michael.html “Boom:
Wikipedia Scrubs Michael Shrimpton Profile; Kenyan Obama Caught On Tape”

“natural-born citizen” (NBC) by his own admission, because his father as a foreign

4

alien student of Great Britain from Kenya with a US Visa here to study ONLY starting
in 1959 was then a British Citizen at the Barack Hussein Obama Jr. birth, when ever
and where ever that may have occurred; and that the official Hawaii index record of
marriages shows that His Mother Stanley Ann Obama was duly married to His Father
Barack Hussein Obama Sr. before she became married to Lolo Soetoro after she

BIOGRAPHY of Michael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983 and is a
specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and CounterTerrorism. He has wide ranging connections both in Western Intelligence agencies and amongst exSoviet Bloc agencies. Michael has earned respect in the intelligence community for his analysis of
previously unacknowledged post WWII covert operations against the West by organisations based in
Washington, Munich, Paris and Brussels and which are continuing in post 9-11.
He is Adjunct Professor of intelligence Studies, Department of National Security, Intelligence and
Space Studies, American Military University, teaching intelligence subjects at Masters Degree level
to inter alia serving intelligence officers. He has represented US and Israeli intelligence officers in
law and has briefed staffers on the Senate select Committee on Intelligence and Joint Congressional
inquiry into 9-11, also addressing panels on terrorism in Washington DC and Los Angeles.

APX - 172

Van Allen Affidavit in support of Motion to Renew Intervene Page 13 of 16

Van Allen Affidavit in support of Motion to Renew Intervene Page 14 of 16

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. to be POTUS, stating unequivocally that Barack
Hussein Obama "was born in Mombasa, Kenya."; wishes to join BARACK HUSSEIN
OBAMA II as a necessary party herein.
51.That in light of the newly disclosed allegation from credible authorities,
Petitioner has never asked for this relief before and in that Plaintiff has been rendered
incapable of joining this matter himself as a result of the outrageous actions by
ARTHUR M. SCHACK, Petitioner is entitled to relief herein and that the supplement to
this complaint annexed herewith be accepted accordingly.
52.That Petitioner’s case 1787-2012 in Albany before Acting Judge Richard Platkin
re: the New York State BOE refusal to use express instructions of the Constitution
Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and held in the order to dismiss (see Exhibit J) that:
“In view of petitioner's lack of standing to maintain the instant proceeding,
there is no reason to consider respondent's additional contentions that this
proceeding is barred by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel based
upon prior litigation undertaken by Christopher-Earl Strunk, an alleged privy
of petitioner, and that the petition is non-justiciable insofar as the Electoral
College is the sole and exclusive forum in which objections to the selection of a
President may be determined.” (emphasis added by Petitioner)
53.Further, that in regards to Petitioner’s fundamental right to a hearing on his
grievance as is his right to petition, see The History, Meaning, Effect, and Significance
of the Right to Petition Government for Redress of Grievances analysis by Robert L.
Schulz (2014) (see Exhibit K), and in light of the order to dismiss shown in Exhibit J,
that the new transactions and facts warrant that this Court grant Petitioner
intervention as of right and or as an essential party herein.

His active assistance to Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies in the Global War on Terror
has produced some notable success including the exposure of the Abu Graib “hood” photograph as a
fake. His work in strategic intelligence takes him on regular trips to the Pentagon and he also met
with senior advisors to the President of the Russian Federation in Moscow in November 2005. He
participated in the Global Strategic Review conference in Geneva in 2005 and is a contributor at
conferences such as Intelcon and the Intelligence Summit Washington DC February 2006.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/shrimpton/
Van Allen Affidavit in support of Motion to Renew Intervene Page 15 of 16

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher Earl Strunk,

Index No.: 29642 / 08

Plaintiff,
-against-

I.A.S. Part 47
(Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)

David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo
(NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli
(NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of
PETITIONER’S AFFIDAVIT
the Assembly), Malcolm Smith (NYS Senator),
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD),
Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council),
William Thompson (NYC Comptroller),
RENEW INTERVENTION
Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos
(President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their
Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat
Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official
Capacity and individually; The New York State Board
of Elections and John Does and Jane Does
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Exhibit A

APX - 173

APX - 174

APX - 175

APX - 176

APX - 177

APX - 178

APX - 179

APX - 180

APX - 181

APX - 182

APX - 183

APX - 184

APX - 185

APX - 186

APX - 187

APX - 188

APX - 189

APX - 190

APX - 191

APX - 192

APX - 193

APX - 194

APX - 195

APX - 196

APX - 197

APX - 198

APX - 199

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher Earl Strunk,

Index No.: 29642 / 08

Plaintiff,
-against-

I.A.S. Part 47
(Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)

David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo
(NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli
(NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of
PETITIONER’S AFFIDAVIT
the Assembly), Malcolm Smith (NYS Senator),
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD),
Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council),
William Thompson (NYC Comptroller),
RENEW INTERVENTION
Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos
(President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their
Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat
Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official
Capacity and individually; The New York State Board
of Elections and John Does and Jane Does
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Exhibit B

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher Earl Strunk,

Index No.: 29642 / 08

Plaintiff,
-against-

I.A.S. Part 47
(Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)

David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo
(NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli
(NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of
PETITIONER’S AFFIDAVIT
the Assembly), Malcolm Smith (NYS Senator),
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD),
Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council),
William Thompson (NYC Comptroller),
RENEW INTERVENTION
Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos
(President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their
Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat
Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official
Capacity and individually; The New York State Board
of Elections and John Does and Jane Does
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Exhibit C

APX - 200

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher Earl Strunk,

Index No.: 29642 / 08

Plaintiff,
-against-

I.A.S. Part 47
(Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)

David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo
(NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli
(NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of
PETITIONER’S AFFIDAVIT
the Assembly), Malcolm Smith (NYS Senator),
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD),
Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council),
William Thompson (NYC Comptroller),
RENEW INTERVENTION
Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos
(President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their
Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat
Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official
Capacity and individually; The New York State Board
of Elections and John Does and Jane Does
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Exhibit D

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher Earl Strunk,

Index No.: 29642 / 08

Plaintiff,
-against-

I.A.S. Part 47
(Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)

David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo
(NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli
(NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of
PETITIONER’S AFFIDAVIT
the Assembly), Malcolm Smith (NYS Senator),
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD),
Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council),
William Thompson (NYC Comptroller),
RENEW INTERVENTION
Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos
(President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their
Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat
Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official
Capacity and individually; The New York State Board
of Elections and John Does and Jane Does
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Exhibit E

APX - 201

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher Earl Strunk,

Index No.: 29642 / 08

Plaintiff,
-against-

I.A.S. Part 47
(Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)

David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo
(NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli
(NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of
PETITIONER’S AFFIDAVIT
the Assembly), Malcolm Smith (NYS Senator),
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD),
Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council),
William Thompson (NYC Comptroller),
RENEW INTERVENTION
Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos
(President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their
Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat
Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official
Capacity and individually; The New York State Board
of Elections and John Does and Jane Does
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Exhibit F

APX - 202

APX - 203

APX - 204

APX - 205

APX - 206

APX - 207

APX - 208

APX - 209

APX - 210

APX - 211

APX - 212

APX - 213

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher Earl Strunk,

Index No.: 29642 / 08

Plaintiff,
-against-

I.A.S. Part 47
(Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)

David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo
(NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli
(NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of
PETITIONER’S AFFIDAVIT
the Assembly), Malcolm Smith (NYS Senator),
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD),
Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council),
William Thompson (NYC Comptroller),
RENEW INTERVENTION
Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos
(President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their
Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat
Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official
Capacity and individually; The New York State Board
of Elections and John Does and Jane Does
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Exhibit G

APX - 214

Print

https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=1jmoregiq194o#mail

Print

https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=1jmoregiq194o#mail

䎶䏘䏅䏍䏈䏆䏗䎝

䎩䎺䎝䎃䎩䎲䎬䎯䎝䎃䏈䏑䏗䏌䏕䏈䎃䏇䏒䏆䏘䏐䏈䏑䏗䎃䏓䏄䏆䏎䏄䏊䏈䎃䏒䏉䎃䏆䏒䏘䏕䏗䎃䏈䏇䏘䏆䏄䏗䏌䏒䏑䎃䏄䏑䏇䎃䏌䏑䏇䏒䏆䏗䏕䏌䏑䏄䏗䏌䏒䏑䎃䏕䏈䏔䏘䏌䏕䏈䏇䎃䏒䏉䎃䏈䏙䏈䏕䏜䎃䎱䎼䎶䎸䎦䎶䎃䏖䏘䏓䏕䏈䏐䏈䎃䏆䏒䏘䏕䏗䎃䎋䏄䏆䏗䏌䏑䏊䎃䏄䏓䏓䏒䏌䏑䏗䏈䏇䎃䏒䏕䎃䏈䏏䏈䏆䏗䏈䏇䎌䎃䏍䏘䏇䏊䏈

䎩䏕䏒䏐䎝

䎥䏌䏏䏏䎃䎹䏄䏑䎃䎤䏏䏏䏈䏑䎃䎋䏋䏙䏄䏑䏄䏏䏏䏈䏑䎣䏋䏙䏆䎑䏕䏕䎑䏆䏒䏐䎌

Examples of related forms at particular judicial districts, which also are available for other districts you can search for on the court system's website:

䎷䏒䎝

䏆䏈䏖䏗䏕䏘䏑䏆䏎䎣䏜䏄䏋䏒䏒䎑䏆䏒䏐䎞

http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad2/IJEQC/IJEQC2.shtml

䎧䏄䏗䏈䎝

䎷䏘䏈䏖䏇䏄䏜䎏䎃䎩䏈䏅䏕䏘䏄䏕䏜䎃䎔䎔䎏䎃䎕䎓䎔䎗䎃䎔䎝䎗䎗䎃䎳䎰

http://www.ny-ijeqc.org/process.shtml

For information concerning convention delegates and the Election Law, you may wish to contact the NYS Board of Elections, or the local Boards of
Elections.

Very truly yours,

From: FOIL@nycourts.gov [mailto:FOIL@nycourts.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:24 PM
To: Allen, Bill Van
Subject: Re: FOIL: entire document package of court education and indoctrination required of every NYSUCS supreme court (acting appointed or
elected) judge

Shawn Kerby
Assistant Deputy Counsel

Dear Mr. Van Allen:

Your FOIL appeal will be forwarded for processing to the FOIL Appeals Officer, Ronald Younkins.
<mime-attachment>..Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>>> "Bill Van Allen" <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com> 2/5/2014 3:33 PM >>>

Very truly yours,

NYSUCS OCA FOIL OFFICER:

Shawn Kerby

Under NYS FOIL (freedom of information law) please provide me access to documents and if available electronically
linked access to documents being currently employed/used to indoctrinate and or formally familiarize each and every
NYSUCS elected or appointed acting justice of the supreme court (including appellate justices if different)

Assistant Deputy Counsel

This comprehensive documentation/ package would include all formal standardized NYSUCS approved screening
committee packages of nominated judicial election or appointed acting candidates.

..Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>>> Bill Van Allen <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com> 2/6/2014 7:11 PM >>>
I hereby appeal your denial of requested documents to chief administrative judge NYSUCS Prudenti

including any formal standardized documents or electronic resource documents if any given to partisan judicial
nominating convention delegates.

Sent from my iPhone

I am also especially seeking any and all standardized NYSUCS documentation and electronic links to orientation and
training regarding judicial behavior and in concordance with each judge’s sworn/affirmed oath of office regarding
his/her conduct towards both the NYS constitution and the US constitutions.
/s/

On Feb 6, 2014, at 12:39 PM, FOIL@nycourts.gov wrote:

H. William Van Allen

Dear Mr. Van Allen:

351 North Road
Hurley, NY 12443

Please be advised that FOIL does not require the performance of legal research, or the compilation of information to respond to a request. See Public
Officers Law 89(3).

8453894366
hvanallen@hvc.rr.com

To the extent that you seek to compile your own research or information, you may wish to visit the following links concerning judicial education and
training:
http://www.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefjudge/17.shtml
http://www.nycourts.gov/ip/jcec/training_faq.shtml

For information concerning the Independent Judicial Education Qualification Commissions:
http://www.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefadmin/150.shtml
http://www.ny-ijeqc.org/index.shtml

1 of 2

2/11/2014 5:58 PM

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher Earl Strunk,

Index No.: 29642 / 08

Plaintiff,
-against-

2 of 2

I.A.S. Part 47
(Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)

David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo
(NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli
(NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of
PETITIONER’S AFFIDAVIT
the Assembly), Malcolm Smith (NYS Senator),
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD),
Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council),
William Thompson (NYC Comptroller),
RENEW INTERVENTION
Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos
(President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their
Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat
Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official
Capacity and individually; The New York State Board
of Elections and John Does and Jane Does
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Exhibit H

APX - 215

2/11/2014 5:58 PM

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher Earl Strunk,

Index No.: 29642 / 08

Plaintiff,
-against-

I.A.S. Part 47
(Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)

David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo
(NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli
(NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of
PETITIONER’S AFFIDAVIT
the Assembly), Malcolm Smith (NYS Senator),
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD),
Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council),
William Thompson (NYC Comptroller),
RENEW INTERVENTION
Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos
(President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their
Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat
Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official
Capacity and individually; The New York State Board
of Elections and John Does and Jane Does
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Exhibit I

APX - 216

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher Earl Strunk,

Index No.: 29642 / 08

Plaintiff,

I.A.S. Part 47

-against-

(Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)

David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo
(NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli
(NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of
PETITIONER’S AFFIDAVIT
the Assembly), Malcolm Smith (NYS Senator),
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD),
Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council),
William Thompson (NYC Comptroller),
RENEW INTERVENTION
Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos
(President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their
Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat
Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official
Capacity and individually; The New York State Board
of Elections and John Does and Jane Does
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Exhibit J

Print

https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=23391ahvss3ih#mail

Print

https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=23391ahvss3ih#mail

䎶䏘䏅䏍䏈䏆䏗䎝

䎹䏄䏑䎃䎤䏏䏏䏈䏑䎃䏙䏖䎑䎃䎱䎼䎶䎃䎥䏒䏄䏕䏇䎃䎲䏉䎃䎨䏏䏈䏆䏗䏌䏒䏑䏖

䎶䏘䏅䏍䏈䏆䏗䎝

䎹䏄䏑䎃䎤䏏䏏䏈䏑䎃䏙䎃䎱䏈䏚䎃䎼䏒䏕䏎䎃䎶䏗䏄䏗䏈䎃䎥䏇䎑䎃䏒䏉䎃䎨䏏䏈䏆䏗䏌䏒䏑䏖䎃䎕䎓䎔䎕䎃䎱䎼䎶䏏䏌䏓䎲䏓䎃䎘䎔䎕䎘䎘䎋䎸䎌

䎩䏕䏒䏐䎝

䎥䏌䏏䏏䎃䎹䏄䏑䎃䎤䏏䏏䏈䏑䎃䎋䏋䏙䏄䏑䏄䏏䏏䏈䏑䎣䏋䏙䏆䎑䏕䏕䎑䏆䏒䏐䎌

䎩䏕䏒䏐䎝

䎥䏌䏏䏏䎃䎹䏄䏑䎃䎤䏏䏏䏈䏑䎃䎋䏋䏙䏄䏑䏄䏏䏏䏈䏑䎣䏋䏙䏆䎑䏕䏕䎑䏆䏒䏐䎌

䎷䏒䎝

䏆䏈䏖䏗䏕䏘䏑䏆䏎䎣䏜䏄䏋䏒䏒䎑䏆䏒䏐䎞

䎷䏒䎝

䏍䏆䏄䏋䏈䏕䎣䏄䏏䏐䎑䏆䏒䏐䎞䎃䏍䏖䏗䏄䏖䏋䏈䏑䏎䏒䎣䏄䏏䏐䎑䏆䏒䏐䎞䎃䏕䏌䏆䏋䏄䏕䏇䏚䏌䏑䏊䏈䏕䎣䏜䏄䏋䏒䏒䎑䏆䏒䏐䎞䎃䏒䎼䏄䏑䏌䏙䎣䏑䏜䏇䏄䏌䏏䏜䏑䏈䏚䏖䎑䏆䏒䏐䎞

䎧䏄䏗䏈䎝

䎰䏒䏑䏇䏄䏜䎏䎃䎰䏄䏕䏆䏋䎃䎔䎓䎏䎃䎕䎓䎔䎗䎃䎘䎝䎘䎔䎃䎳䎰
䎦䏆䎝

䏍䏄䏉䏌䏗䏝䏊䏈䏕䏄䏏䏇䎣䏒䏓䏗䏒䏑䏏䏌䏑䏈䎑䏑䏈䏗䎞䎃䏓䏕䏈䏙䏈䏕䏈䎣䏕䏌䏖䏈䏘䏓䏉䏒䏕䏄䏐䏈䏕䏌䏆䏄䎑䏆䏒䏐䎞䎃䏓䏄䏐䏈䏏䏄䏅䏄䏕䏑䏈䏗䏗䎣䏐䏄䏌䏏䎑䏆䏒䏐䎞䎃䏆䏋䏕䏌䏖䏊䏄䏕䏙䏈䏜䎔䎣䏙䏈䏕䏌䏝䏒䏑䎑䏑䏈䏗䎞䎃䏆䏈䏖䏗䏕䏘䏑䏆䏎䎣䏜䏄䏋䏒䏒䎑䏆䏒䏐䎞
䏋䏒䏑䏒䏕䏄䏐䏈䏕䏌䏆䏄䏉䏒䏕䏈䏙䏈䏕䎣䏊䏐䏄䏌䏏䎑䏆䏒䏐䎞䎃䏎䏈䏑䏄䏑䏇䏅䏈䏗䏖䏈䏜䏄䏏䏏䏈䏑䎣䏐䏖䏑䎑䏆䏒䏐䎞䎃䏎䏈䏙䏌䏑䏕䏌䏆䏋䏄䏕䏇䏓䏒䏚䏈䏏䏏䎣䏜䏄䏋䏒䏒䎑䏆䏒䏐䎞䎃䏄䏓䏘䏝䏝䏒䎣䏈䏕䏒䏏䏖䎑䏆䏒䏐䎞䎃䎲䎵䎯䎼䎑䎷䎤䎬䎷䎽䎣䎪䎰䎤䎬䎯䎑䎦䎲䎰䎞䎃䏅䏒䏅䎣䏊䏌䏙䏈䏐䏈䏏䏌䏅䏈䏕䏗䏜䎑䏒䏕䏊䎞
䏙䏄䏑䎣䏏䏌䏅䏈䏕䏗䏜䏏䏈䏊䏄䏏䏉䏒䏘䏑䏇䏄䏗䏌䏒䏑䎑䏆䏒䏐䎞䎃䏚䏄䏏䏎䏈䏕䏉䏗䏒䏇䏇䎣䏊䏐䏄䏌䏏䎑䏆䏒䏐䎞䎃䏚䏌䏏䏏䏌䏄䏐䏕䏌䏆䏋䏄䏕䏇䏖䏒䏑䎔䎓䎣䏊䏐䏄䏌䏏䎑䏆䏒䏐䎞

䎧䏄䏗䏈䎝

䎷䏋䏘䏕䏖䏇䏄䏜䎏䎃䎤䏓䏕䏌䏏䎃䎔䎔䎏䎃䎕䎓䎔䎖䎃䎚䎝䎕䎜䎃䎤䎰

WebCivil Supreme - Case Detail
Court:

Albany Civil Supreme

Index Number:

001787/2012

Upstate Index Number:

1787-12

Case Name:

Van Allen vs. NYS Board Of Elections

Search Criteria

Case Type:

Spec Proceed-Election

Party Name : van and allen

Track:

Standard

RJI Filed:

05/30/2012

Upstate RJI Number:

01-12-107051

Slip Decisions Search Results

Total number of records found: 6

Date NOI Due:

Decision

NOI Filed:
Disposition Date:

Party Name

08/20/2012

Calendar Number:

Date

Court

Official Citation

Slip Number

In the Matter of H. William Van Allen et petitioners v Sheldon Silver et

10/12/2012

App Div, 3d Dept

2012 NYSlipOp 87

Jury Status:

Unknown

In the Matter of H. William Van Allen et petitioners v Sheldon Silver et

10/12/2012

App Div, 3d Dept

2012 NYSlipOp 87

Justice Name:

RICHARD M. PLATKIN

In the Matter of H. William Van Allen et petitioners v Sheldon Silver et

10/12/2012

App Div, 3d Dept

2012 NYSlipOp 87

In the Matter of H. William Van Allen et petitioners v Sheldon Silver et

10/12/2012

App Div, 3d Dept

2012 NYSlipOp 87

In the Matter of H. William Van Allen et petitioners v Sheldon Silver et

10/12/2012

App Div, 3d Dept

Van Allen v New York State Bd. of Elections

07/09/2012

Other Courts

Attorney/Firm For Plaintiff:
H. William Van Allen SRL

Attorney Type: Pro se

Atty. Status: Active

2012 NYSlipOp 88
36 Misc 3d 1212(A)

2012 NYSlipOp 51

Attorney/Firm For Defendant:
NYS Board Of Elections

Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record

Atty. Status: Active

Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record

Atty. Status: Active

Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record

Atty. Status: Active

40 N. Pearl Street-5th Fl.
Albany, NY 12207
(518)474-81
Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman AG

Van Allen v New York State Bd. of Elections
2012 NY Slip Op 51255(U) [36 Misc 3d 1212(A)]

The Capitol-Dept Of Law
Albany, NY 12224

Decided on July 9, 2012

(518)474-2138
Douglas J. Goglia AAG

Supreme Court, Albany County
Platkin, J.

The Capitol-Dept Of Law
Albany, NY 12224

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

(518)474-6800

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 9, 2012
Supreme Court, Albany County

H. William Van Allen, Petitioner,
against

1 of 1

APX - 217
3/12/2014 10:40 AM

1 of 3

New York State Board of Elections, Respondent.

3/12/2014 10:43 AM

Print

https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=23391ahvss3ih#mail

Print

https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=23391ahvss3ih#mail
[collecting authorities]).
In view of petitioner's lack of standing to maintain the instant proceeding, there is no reason to consider respondent's additional

1787-12

contentions that this proceeding is barred by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel based upon prior litigation undertaken
by Christopher-Earl Strunk, an alleged privy of petitioner, and that the petition is non-justiciable insofar as the Electoral College is
the sole and exclusive forum in which objections to the selection of a President may be determined.

H. William Van Allen

Finally, the branch of respondent's motion seeking the imposition of monetary and non-monetary sanctions is denied. While

Self-Represented Petitioner

respondent's counsel refers to "repetitive" and "numerous vexatious and harassing lawsuits" commenced by petitioner, nothing in the
record confirms this assertion. And the mere fact that a trial court of coordinate jurisdiction rejected similar claims advanced by an

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General

alleged privy of petitioner does not render the instant petition frivolous within the meaning of Part 130 of the Rules of the Chief
Administrative Judge.

Attorney for Respondent

Accordingly, it is

(Douglas J. Goglia, of counsel)

ORDERED that the branch of respondent's motion seeking dismissal of the petition is granted; and it is further

The Capitol

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed in all respects; and finally it is

Albany, New York 12224

ORDERED that the branch of respondent's motion seeking the imposition of monetary and non-monetary sanctions is denied.
[*3]

Richard M. Platkin, J.

This Decision, Order & Judgment is being transmitted to the counsel for respondent and all other papers are being transmitted to
the Albany County Clerk for filing. The signing of this Decision, Order & Judgment shall not constitute entry or filing underCPLR §

This is a special proceeding brought by petitioner H. William Van Allen pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking a writ of

2220. Counsel are not relieved from the applicable provisions of that section respecting filing, entry and notice of entry.

mandamus, emergency injunctive relief and declaratory relief. Respondent New York State Board of Elections ("SBOE") moves to
dismiss the petition and also seeks the imposition of monetary and non-monetary sanctions upon petitioner.

Dated: Albany, New York

The United States Constitution provides that "[n]o person except a natural born Citizen

July 9, 2012
RICHARD M. PLATKIN

. . . shall be eligible to the Office of President" (US Const, art II, § 1, clause 5 ["Natural Born Citizen Clause"]). Petitioner alleges that
eligibility instructions on the SBOE internet web site erroneously advise that a candidate for the Office of President need only be

A.J.S.C.

"born a citizen" of the United States, rather than a "natural born Citizen", as required by the text of the Constitution. In particular,
petitioner objects to the "ballot access of [President] Obama as it is wrongfully facilitated by the [SBOE's] arbitrary use of the
instruction Born a Citizen'". Among other things, petitioner seeks an order: (a) enjoining the SBOE from using the term "Born a
Citizen" with respect to the eligibility of presidential candidates; and (b) requiring each presidential [*2]candidate on the 2012
general election ballot to establish that he or she is a "Natural Born Citizen" of the United States in order to remain on the ballot.
The standing of a party to institute or maintain a judicial proceeding is a threshold issue that must be determined by the Court at
the outset of litigation (see Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6 [1975]). To establish standing to challenge an
administrative action in a proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, petitioner must show that he would suffer an injury in fact
"that is in some way different from that of the public at large" (Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk (77 NY2d 761, 773-774
[1991]). In other words, petitioner must show that he actually will suffer a concrete and particularized harm as a result of the
challenged action (id.; New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello, 2 NY3d 207, 211 [2004]; Matter of Hassig v New
York State Dept. of Health, 5 AD3d 846 [3d Dept 2004]).
In opposing respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner maintains that he brings this proceeding "to protect[] his personal
intangible vote property in this 2012 election cycle" (Petitioner's Response in Opposition, ¶ 23). However, the allegedly faulty
instruction given by the SBOE regarding the Natural Born Citizen Clause in no way denies petitioner his right to vote in the 2012
general election. Petitioner, who is not an enrolled member of the Democratic party, remains free to support and vote for a candidate
of his choosing (see Berg v Obama, 586 F3d 234, 239-240 [3d Cir 2009]; Hollander v McCain, 566 F Supp2d 63, 69-70 [D NH
2008]; see also Crist v Comm'n on Presidential Debates, 262 F3d 193, 195 [2d Cir 2001]). And it is clear that petitioner's interest
in compelling the SBOE to adopt his interpretation of the Natural Born Citizen Clause and to use his preferred terminology in its
publications is in no "way different from that of the public at large" (Society of Plastics, 77 NY2d at 773-774). As such, petitioner's
interest is far too generalized and unparticularized to support standing under the facts and circumstances of this case (see Berg at 240

2 of 3

3/12/2014 10:43 AM

3 of 3

3/12/2014 10:43 AM

© 2014 by Robert L. Schulz. All rights reserved.

THE HISTORY, MEANING EFFECT AND SIGNIFGANCE OF THE RIGHT TO
PETITION GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
By Robert L. Schulz
“On every question of the construction of the Constitution, let us carry ourselves back to
the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against
it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

Thomas Jefferson,
Letter to William Johnson, Supreme Court Justice (1823)

No Court has ever declared the meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment – that is,
the Rights of the People and the Obligations of the Government.
We must look, therefore, to the intent of the framers of the First Amendment: what was the
situation before the First Amendment was added, what were the framers saying as they framed
the First Amendment and what was the situation in the years following the adoption of the First
Amendment?
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher Earl Strunk,

Chapter 61 of the Magna Carta (the cradle of Liberty, upon which all of western civilization has
evolved, signed at a time when King John was sovereign) reads in relevant part:

Plaintiff,
-against-

“ 61. Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of
the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions,
desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to
them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the
kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold,
and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by
this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers,
shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this
peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and
twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and,
laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay.
And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm,
if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been
intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid
shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons
shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible
ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until
redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of
our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old
relations towards us….” (emphasis added by the People).

Index No.: 29642 / 08
I.A.S. Part 47
(Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)

David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo
(NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli
(NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of
PETITIONER’S AFFIDAVIT
the Assembly), Malcolm Smith (NYS Senator),
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD),
Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council),
William Thompson (NYC Comptroller),
RENEW INTERVENTION
Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos
(President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their
Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat
Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official
Capacity and individually; The New York State Board
of Elections and John Does and Jane Does
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Exhibit K

Chapter 61 was a procedural vehicle for enforcing the rest of the Charter. It spells out the Rights
of the People and the obligations of the Government, and the procedural steps to be taken by the
People and the King, in the event of a violation by the King of any provision of that Charter: the
People were to transmit a Petition for a Redress of their Grievances; the King had 40 days to
respond; if the King failed to respond in 40 days, the People could non-violently retain their
money or violence could be legally employed against the King until he Redressed the alleged
Grievances.1
1

See Magna Carta Chapter 61. See also William Sharp McKechnie, Magna Carta 468-77 (2nd ed. 1914)

1

APX - 218

© 2014 by Robert L. Schulz. All rights reserved.

© 2014 by Robert L. Schulz. All rights reserved.

The 1689 Declaration of Rights proclaimed, “[I]t is the Right of the subjects to petition the King,
and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning is illegal.” This was obviously a basis
of the “shall make no law abridging the right to petition government for a redress of grievances”
provision of our Bill of Rights.

point of a bayonet”]. Lawson and Seidman also suggest that Petitions were merely devices for
communication (not for the People to bind the Government to the Constitution), and that the
Constitution’s “express provisions for periodic election of legislative officials” somehow provide
the People with the adequate means to “affect government choice.” Lawson and Seidman ignore
the self-evident fact that the Rights of individuals and the minority to cure constitutional torts
they suffer cannot possibly be placed in the hands of the majority that elects our representatives.

In 1774, the same Congress that adopted the Declaration of Independence unanimously adopted
an Act in which they gave meaning to the People’s Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances
and the Right of enforcement as they spoke about the People’s “Great Rights.” Quoting:
“If money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may
retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without
trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.” "Continental Congress To
The Inhabitants Of The Province Of Quebec." Journals of the Continental Congress 1774, Journals
1: 105-13.

In 1775, just prior to drafting the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson gave further meaning to
the People’s Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances and the Right of enforcement. Quoting:

In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congress. The bulk of
the document is a listing of the Grievances the People had against a Government that had been in
place for 150 years. The final Grievance on the list is referred to by scholars as the “capstone”
Grievance. The capstone Grievance was the ultimate Grievance, the Grievance that prevented
Redress of these other Grievances, the Grievance that caused the People to non-violently
withdraw their support and allegiance to the Government, and the Grievance that eventually
justified War against the King, morally and legally. The Congress gave further meaning to the
People’s Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances and the Right of enforcement. Quoting the
Capstone Grievance:
“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms.
Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by with repeated injury. A Prince, whose
character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is thus unfit to be the ruler of a
free people….We, therefore…declare, That these United Colonies…are Absolved from all
Allegiance to the British Crown….” Declaration of Independence, 1776

The courts would err to the extent they would in any way be influenced by the hypothesis of
Lawson and Seidman,2 who theorized that Government is not obligated anymore to respond to
Petitions for Redress of Grievances3 due to “modern notions of representative
government…modern notions of separation of powers…[today’s absence of] sound pragmatic
reasons for taking petitions seriously [Lawson and Seidman give as examples the absence of any
threat of loss of “formal power over money matters” and the absence of any threat “from the

3

In response to any notion that the People have lost a guarantee to one of their Rights under the
Petition Clause because the Petition Clause is now superfluous, I argue they do not, EVER, lose
any guarantees to any fundamental Rights until they voluntarily agree to give them up under the
procedures of Article Five of the Constitution of the United States of America, and if a Natural
Right, they can never lose it.
“It cannot be presumed, that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect.”

Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison,
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 139 (1803)

“The privilege of giving or withholding our moneys is an important barrier against the
undue exertion of prerogative which if left altogether without control may be exercised to
our great oppression; and all history shows how efficacious its intercession for redress of
grievances and reestablishment of rights, an how improvident would be the surrender of so
powerful a mediator.” Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:225.

2

The People did not lose any of their unalienable, Natural Rights when they reorganized
Government and adopted the principle of separate powers. Nor have they given up their power
over money matters or their Right to keep and bear arms.

“On every question of the construction of the Constitution, let us carry ourselves back to the time
when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of
trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed.”

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William
Johnson, Supreme Court Justice (1823)

“And the Constitution itself is in every real sense a law-the lawmakers being the people
themselves, in whom under our system all political power and sovereignty primarily resides, and
through whom such power and sovereignty primarily speaks. It is by that law, and not otherwise,
that the legislative, executive, and judicial agencies which it created exercise such political
authority as they have been permitted to possess. The Constitution speaks for itself in terms so
plain that to misunderstand their import is not rationally possible. 'We the People of the United
States,' it says, 'do ordain and establish this Constitution.' Ordain and establish! These are definite
words of enactment, and without more would stamp what follows with the dignity and character of
law. The framers of the Constitution, however, were not content to let the matter rest here, but
provided explicitly-'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' (Const. art. 6, cl. 2.) The supremacy
of the Constitution as law is thus declared without qualification. That supremacy is absolute; the
supremacy of a statute enacted by Congress is not absolute but conditioned upon its being made in
pursuance of the Constitution. And a judicial tribunal, clothed by that instrument with complete
judicial power, and, therefore, by the very nature of the power, required to ascertain and apply the
law to the facts in every case or proceeding properly brought for adjudication, must apply the
supreme law and reject the inferior statute [298 U.S. 238, 297] whenever the two conflict. In the
discharge of that duty, the opinion of the lawmakers that a statute passed by them is valid must be
given great weight, Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525, 544 , 43 S.Ct. 394, 24 A.L.R.
1238; but their opinion, or the court's opinion, that the statute will prove greatly or generally
beneficial is wholly irrelevant to the inquiry. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S.
495, 549 , 550 S., 55 S.Ct. 837, 97 A.L.R. 947.”

Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936).

Gary Lawson and Guy Seidman, “Downsizing the Right to Petition,”
93 Nw. U.L. Rev. 739, 756
They make no distinction between grievances relating to constitutional torts and grievances relating to
political or policy making matters.

And from Hamilton, Federalist No. 78:

2

3

© 2014 by Robert L. Schulz. All rights reserved.

© 2014 by Robert L. Schulz. All rights reserved.
lacks an affirmative statement that Government shall respond to Petitions for, “It cannot be
presumed, that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect.” Chief Justice
Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 139 (1803). For instance, the 26th
Amendment guarantees all citizens above the age of 18 the Right to Vote, it does not contain an
affirmative statement that the Government shall count the votes.

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated
authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No
legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to
affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that
the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by
virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

The Right to Petition is a distinctive, substantive Right, from which other First Amendment
Rights were derived. The Rights to free speech, press and assembly originated as derivative
Rights insofar as they were necessary to protect the preexisting Right to Petition. Petitioning, as a
way to hold Government accountable to natural Rights, originated in England in the 11 th century6
and gained recognition as a Right in the mid 17th century.7 Free speech Rights first developed
because members of Parliament needed to discuss freely the Petitions they received.8 Publications
reporting Petitions were the first to receive protection from the frequent prosecutions against the
press for seditious libel.9 Public meetings to prepare Petitions led to the Right of Public
Assembly.1

“If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own
powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other
departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not
to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be
supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to
substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the
courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in
order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The
interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is,
in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them
to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the
legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that
which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other
words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the
intention of their agents.

The Right to Petition was widely accorded greater importance than the Rights of free expression.
For instance, in the 18th century, the House of Commons, 2 the American Colonies, 3 and the first
Continental Congress4 gave official recognition to the Right to Petition, but not to the Rights of
Free Speech or of the Press.5
The historical record shows that the Framers and Ratifiers of the First Amendment also
understood the Petition Right as distinct from the Rights of free expression. In his original
proposed draft of the Bill of Rights, Madison listed the Right to Petition and the Rights to speech
and press in two separate sections.6 In addition, a “considerable majority” of Congress defeated a

“Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative
power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of
the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the
Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to
regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.”

In We The People v United States, it appears the DC Appeals Court may have been deterred from
a reversal by what it (incorrectly) perceived was a serious debate among the scholars regarding
the obligation of the Government to respond to Petitions for Redress of Grievances, due to the
hypothesis of Lawson and Seidman. Indeed, the Panel concluded its opinion stating, “We need
not resolve this debate, however, because we must follow the binding Supreme Court precedent
[in Smith and Knight].”4
Though the Rights to Popular Sovereignty and its “protector” Right, the Right of Petition for
Redress have become somewhat forgotten, they took shape early on by Government’s response to
Petitions for Redress of Grievances.5 The Right is not changed by the fact that the Petition Clause
4

The Opinion listed most of the Law Review articles that the People relied on. However, the Panel
overlooked one important historical review referenced by Appellants in their Brief to the Court; “The
Vestigial Constitution: The History and Significance of the Right to Petition” by Gregory A. Mark, 66
Fordham L. Rev. 2153 (May, 1998).
5
See A SHORT HISTORY OF THE RIGHT TO PETITION GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES, Stephen A. Higginson, 96 Yale L.J. 142(November, 1986); "SHALL MAKE NO LAW
ABRIDGING . . .": AN ANALYSIS OF THE NEGLECTED, BUT NEARLY ABSOLUTE, RIGHT OF
PETITION, Norman B. Smith, 54 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1153 (1986);"LIBELOUS" PETITIONS FOR REDRESS
OF GRIEVANCES -- BAD HISTORIOGRAPHY MAKES WORSE LAW, Eric Schnapper, 74 Iowa L. Rev.
303 (January 1989);THE BILL OF RIGHTS AS A CONSTITUTION, Akhil Reed Amar, 100 Yale L.J. 1131
(March, 1991); NOTE: A PETITION CLAUSE ANALYSIS OF SUITS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT:
IMPLICATIONS FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 1111 (MARCH, 1993); SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY AND THE RIGHT TO PETITION: TOWARD A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PURSUE

JUDICIAL CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, James E. Pfander, 91 Nw. U.L. Rev. 899 (Spring
1997);THE VESTIGIAL CONSTITUTION: THE HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RIGHT TO
PETITION, Gregory A. Mark, 66 Fordham L. Rev. 2153 (May, 1998); DOWNSIZING THE RIGHT TO
PETITION, Gary Lawson and Guy Seidman, 93 Nw. U.L. Rev. 739 (Spring 1999); A RIGHT OF ACCESS
TO COURT UNDER THE PETITION CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT: DEFINING THE
RIGHT, Carol Rice Andrews, 60 Ohio St. L.J. 557 (1999) ; MOTIVE RESTRICTIONS ON COURT
ACCESS: A FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE, Carol Rice Andrews, 61 Ohio St. L.J. 665 (2000).
6
Norman B. Smith, “Shall Make No Law Abridging…”: Analysis of the Neglected, But Nearly Absolute,
Right of Petition, 54 U. CIN. L. REV. 1153, at 1154.
7
See Bill of Rights, 1689, 1 W & M., ch. 2 Sections 5,13 (Eng.), reprinted in 5 THE FOUNDERS’
CONSITUTION 197 (Philip B. Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds., 1987); 1 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE,
COMMENTARIES 138-39.
8
See David C. Frederick, John Quincy Adams, Slavery, and the Disappearance of the Right to Petition, 9
LAW & HIST. REV. 113, at 115.
9
See Smith, supra n.4, at 1165-67.
1
See Charles E. Rice, Freedom of Petition, in 2 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE AMERICAN
CONSTITUTION 789, (Leonard W. Levy ed., 1986)
2
See Smith, supra n4, at 1165.
3
For example, Massachusetts secured the Right to Petition in its Body of Liberties in 1641, but freedom of
speech and press did not appear in the official documents until the mid-1700s. See David A. Anderson, The
Origins of the Press Clause, 30 UCLA L. REV. 455, 463 n.47 (1983).
4
See id. at 464 n.52.
5
Even when England and the American colonies recognized free speech Rights, petition Rights
encompassed freedom from punishment for petitioning, whereas free speech Rights extended to freedom
from prior restraints. See Frederick, supra n6, at 115-16.
6
See New York Times Co. v. U.S., 403 U.S. 670, 716 n.2 (1971)(Black, J., concurring). For the full text of
Madison’s proposal, see 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 434 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834).

4

APX - 219

5

© 2014 by Robert L. Schulz. All rights reserved.

© 2014 by Robert L. Schulz. All rights reserved.

motion to strike the assembly provision from the First Amendment because of the understanding
that all of the rights in the First Amendment were separate Rights that should be specifically
protected.7

Government accountability was understood to include response to petitions.18 American
colonists, who exercised their Right to Petition the King or Parliament, 19 expected the
Government to receive and respond to their Petitions.20 The King’s persistent refusal to answer
the colonists’ grievances outraged the colonists and as the “capstone” grievance, was a
significant factor that led to the American Revolution.21

Petitioning Government for Redress has played a key role in the development and enforcement of
popular sovereignty throughout British and American history. 8 In medieval England, petitioning
began as a way for barons to inform the King of their concerns and to influence his actions.9
Later, in the 17th century, Parliament gained the Right to Petition the King.10 This broadening of
participation culminated in the official recognition of the right of Petition in the People
themselves.11
The People used this newfound Right to question the legality of the Government’s actions,12 to
present their views on controversial matters,13 and to demand that the Government, as the
creature and servant of the People, be responsive to the popular will.14
In the American colonies, disenfranchised groups used Petitions to seek government
accountability for their concerns and to rectify Government misconduct.15 By the nineteenth
century, Petitioning was described as “essential to … a free government,”16 an inherent feature of
a republic17 and a means of enhancing Government accountability through the participation of
citizens.

Frustration with the British Government led the Framers to consider incorporating a people’s
right to “instruct their Representatives” in the First Amendment.22 Members of the First Congress
easily defeated this right-of-instruction proposal.23 Some discretion to reject petitions that
“instructed government,” they reasoned, would not undermine Government accountability to the
People, as long as Congress had a duty to consider petitions and fully respond to them.24
Congress viewed the receipt and serious consideration of every Petition as an important part of its
duties.25 Congress referred Petitions to committees26 and even created committees to deal with
particular types of Petitions.27 Ultimately, most Petitions resulted in either favorable legislation or
an adverse committee report. 28 Thus, throughout early Anglo-American history, general
petitioning (as opposed to judicial petitioning) allowed the people a means of direct political
participation that in turn demanded government response and promoted accountability.

Conclusion
In sum, if the People have some evidence that the Government is violating some restriction,
prohibition, mandate or principle underlying their State or Federal Constitutions they have the
Right to Petition for Redress of their Grievance, citing the provision thought to be in violation
together with a factual overview of the violation and demanding a Remedy.

7

See 5 BERNARD SCHWARTZ, THE ROOTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS at 1089-91 (1980).
8
See Don L. Smith, The Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances: Constitutional Development and
Interpretations 10-108 (1971) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation) (Univ. Microforms Int’l); K. Smellie, Right
to Petition, in 12 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 98, 98-101 (R.A. Seiligman ed., 1934).
9
The Magna Carta of 1215 guaranteed this Right. See MAGNA CARTA, ch. 61, reprinted in 5 THE
FOUNDERS’ CONSTITUTION, supra n.5, at 187.
10
See PETITION OF RIGHT chs. 1, 7 (Eng. June 7, 1628), reprinted in 5 THE FOUNDERS’
CONSTITUTION, supra n5 at 187-88.
11
In 1669, the House of Commons stated that, “it is an inherent right of every commoner in England to
prepare and present Petitions to the House of Commons in case of grievances, and the House of Commons
to receive the same.” Resolution of the House of Commons (1669), reprinted in 5 THE FOUNDERS’
CONSTITUTION, supra n5 at 188-89.
12
For example, in 1688, a group of bishops sent a petition to James II that accused him of acting illegally.
See Smith, supra n4, at 1160-62. James II’s attempt to punish the bishops for this Petition led to the
Glorious Revolution and to the enactment of the Bill of Rights. See Smith, supra n15 at 41-43.
13
See Smith, supra n4, at 1165 (describing a Petition regarding contested parliamentary elections).
14
In 1701, Daniel Defoe sent a Petition to the House of Commons that accused the House of acting
illegally when it incarcerated some previous petitioners. In response to Defoe’s demand for action, the
House released those Petitioners. See Smith, supra n4, at 1163-64.
15
See RAYMOND BAILEY, POPULAR INFLUENCE UPON PUBLIC POLICY: PETITIONING IN
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY VIRGINIA 43-44 (1979).
16
THOMAS M. COOLEY, TREATISE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS WHICH REST
UPON THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION 531 (6 th ed. 1890).
17
See CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Session. 1293 (1866) (statement of Rep. Shellabarger) (declaring
petitioning an indispensable Right “without which there is no citizenship” in any government); JOSEPH
STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 707 (Carolina
Academic Press ed. 1987) (1833) (explaining that the Petition Right “results from [the] very nature of the
structure [of a republican government]”).

18
See Frederick, supra n7 at 114-15 (describing the historical development of the duty of government
response to Petitions).
19
See DECLARATION AND RESOLVES OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 3 (Am. Col. Oct. 14,
1774), reprinted in 5 THE FOUNDERS’ CONSTITUTION, supra n5 at 199; DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
OF THE STAMP ACT CONGRESS 13 (Am. Col. Oct. 19, 1765), reprinted in id. at 198.
20
See Frederick, supra n7 at 115-116.
21
See THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE para. 30 (U.S. July 4, 1776), reprinted in 5 THE
FOUNDERS’ CONSTITUTION, supra n5 at 199; Lee A. Strimbeck, The Right to Petition, 55 W. VA. L.
REV. 275, 277 (1954).
22
See 5 BERNARD SCHWARTZ, supra n15, 1091-105.
23
The vote was 10-41 in the House and 2-14 in the Senate. See id. at 1105, 1148.
24
See 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 733-46 (Joseph Gales ed., 1789); 5 BERNARD SCHWARTZ, supra n15, at
1093-94 (stating that representatives have a duty to inquire into the suggested measures contained in
citizens’ Petitions) (statement of Rep. Roger Sherman); id. at 1095-96 (stating that Congress can never shut
its ears to Petitions) (statement of Rep. Elbridge Gerry); id. at 1096 (arguing that the Right to Petition
protects the Right to bring non-binding instructions to Congress’s attention) (statement of Rep. James
Madison).
25
See STAFF OF HOUSE COMM. ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 99 TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
PETITIONS, MEMORIALS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE CONSIDERATION
OF CONGRESS, MARCH 4, 1789 TO DECEMBER 15, 1975, at 6-9 (Comm. Print 1986) (including a
comment by the press that “the principal part of Congress’s time has been taken up in the reading and
referring Petitions” (quot. omitted)).
26
See Stephen A. Higginson, Note, A Short History of the Right to Petition the Government for the Redress
of Grievances, 96 YALE L. J. 142, at 156.
27
See H.J., 25th Cong., 2d Sess. 647 (1838) (describing how petitions prompted the appointment of a select
committee to consider legislation to abolish dueling).
28
See Higginson, n34 at 157.

6

© 2014 by Robert L. Schulz. All rights reserved.
Government is obligated to respond. If the Government fails to refute the facts and fails to
comply with the Petition’s remedial instructions the Government becomes unrecognizable, not
the government the People instituted to secure their Rights, thus giving the People justification
for engaging in non-violent Civic Action.
To be sure, a communication designated as a Petition for Redress and requiring a formal, specific
response from the Government, would have to embody certain components to ensure that the
document was a petition and not a "pretended petition." Not all communications, nor any
document, can be regarded as a constitutionally protected Petition for Redress of Grievances.

To be protected, a Petition for Redress should:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

be serious and documented, not frivolous;
contain no falsehoods;
not be absent probable cause;
have the quality of a dispute;
come from people outside of the formal political culture;
contain both a "direction" and a "prayer" for relief;
be punctilious;
address public, collective grievances;
involve constitutional principles not political talk;
be signed only by a citizen(s);
be dignified;
have widespread participation and consequences;
be instruments of deliberation not agitation;
provide new information;
not advocate violence or crime;
provide legal Notice of the existence of a constitutional tort(s);
seek substantive Redress to cure such constitutional tort.

8

APX - 220

7

APX - 221

APX - 222

APX - 223

APX - 224

APX - 225

APX - 226

APX - 227

Christopher B. Garvey v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
WITH TRO AND INJUNCTION

Exhibit A

Christopher B. Garvey v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
WITH TRO AND INJUNCTION

Exhibit B

APX - 228

DELEGATE SELECTION PLAN:

DEMOCRATIC DELEGATE SELECTION
PLAN FILING DATES:

STATE OF NEW YORK
Pursuant to Chapter 147 of the Laws of 2011, a state committee
providing for the selection of delegates and alternate delegates
to a national party convention or conference must select either
the §3 plan or the §4 plan contained in the act.

12/6/11

11/1/11

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

Last day for other political parties to choose
Republican plan. §2-122-b(1)

REGISTRATION FOR PRIMARY ELECTION
3/30/12;
4/4/12

Mail Registration:
Last day to postmark application and last day it
must be received by board of elections. §5-210 (3)

3/30/12

In Person Registration:
Last day application must be received by board of
elections to be eligible to vote in primary election.
§§5-210, 5-211 & 5-212
Change of address. §5-208 (3)

2/14/12

Last day for candidates to decline designations.
§2-122-a(2)

2/14/12

Last day for CBOE to notify SBOE candidates
which filed at CBOE. §2-122-a(6)(h)

2/21/12

Last day for party committee to file certificate of
candidacies for delegate and alternate delegate
candidates. §2-122-a(7)(a-b)

4/4/12

3/1/12

Last day for SBOE to notify party committee of
candidates who will appear on ballot.
§2-122-a(7)(d)

ABSENTEE VOTING FOR PRIMARY ELECTION:

3/2/12

Last day for boards of election to notify party
committee of candidates who will appear on ballot.
§2-122-a(7)(d)

Last day for a party to select the delegate selection
method. §2 Ch. 147 of 2011

4/17/12

CALENDAR FOR THE
REPUBLICAN DELEGATE SELECTION
PLAN FILING DATES:

APRIL 24, 2012
PRESIDENTIAL
PRIMARY ELECTION
for
SELECTING DELEGATES
to a
NATIONAL CONVENTION
Requirements and dates herein are
provided for in Chapter 147 of
the Laws of 2011

THE FOLLOWING DATES APPLY TO ALL DELEGATE
SELECTION PLANS:
2/21/12

Last day for matching funds candidate to
file certificate with State Board requesting ballot
access. §2-122-b(3)(a)

Last day to postmark application for ballot.
§8-400 (2)(c)

4/23/12

Last day to apply in person for ballot.
§8-400 (2)(c)

4/23/12;
5/1/12

Last day to postmark ballot and date it must be
received by the board of elections. §8-412 (1)

4/24/12

Last day to deliver ballot in person to county
board. §8-412 (1)

DESIGNATING PETITIONS
1/31/122/21/12

Dates for nationally known candidate to file
certificate with State Board requesting to appear
on ballot. §2-122-b(3)(b)

1/3/12

First day for signing designating petitions.
§6-134 (4)

1/31/12

Last day for party to certify the number of
delegates for the convention. §2-122-b(2)

2/6/12 2/9/12

Dates for filing designating petitions.
§6-158 (1)(a)

2/21/12

Last day for presidential candidate to certify slate
of delegates and alternate delegates.
§2-122-b(3)(d)

2/14/12

Last day to decline a designation.
§6-158 (2)

2/21/12
4/17/12

Last day for presidential candidate to invalidate
their candidacy. §2-122-b(3)(e)

Last day to fill vacancy after declination.
§6-158 (3)

40 STEUBEN STREET
ALBANY, NY 12207
(518) 474-6220
www.elections.ny.gov

January 9, 2012

APX - 229

MILITARY/SPECIAL FEDERAL VOTERS
FOR PRIMARY ELECTION:

3/30/12

Last day for a BOE to receive application for
ballot if not previously registered.
§10-106 (5) & §11-202 (1)(a)

4/17/12

Last day for a BOE to receive application if
previously registered.
§10-106 (5) & §11-202(1)(b)

4/23/12

Last day to apply personally if previously
registered. §10-106 (5)

3/9/12

Date for county boards to send out Military/Special
Federal ballots. §10-108 (1) & §11-204

4/23/12;
5/1/12

Last day to postmark ballot and date it must be
received by the board of elections.
§10-114(1) & §11-212

CERTIFICATION
3/1/12

Certification of Primary ballot by SBOE of
designations filed in its office. §4-110

3/2/12

Certification of Primary ballot by CBOE of
designations filed locally.
§4-110

APX - 230

APX - 231

STATE OF NEW YORK

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

CALENDAR FOR THE
APRIL 24, 2012
PRESIDENTIAL
PRIMARY ELECTION
for
SELECTING DELEGATES
to a
NATIONAL CONVENTION
Requirements and dates herein are
provided for in Chapter 147 of
the Laws of 2011
40 STEUBEN STREET
ALBANY, NY 12207
(518) 474-6220
www.elections.ny.gov

Christopher B. Garvey v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al
January 9, 2012

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
WITH TRO AND INJUNCTION

Exhibit C

DELEGATE SELECTION PLAN:

Pursuant to Chapter 147 of the Laws of 2011, a state committee
providing for the selection of delegates and alternate delegates
to a national party convention or conference must select either
the §3 plan or the §4 plan contained in the act.

12/6/11

11/1/11

Last day for other political parties to choose
Republican plan. §2-122-b(1)

DEMOCRATIC DELEGATE SELECTION
PLAN FILING DATES:

REGISTRATION FOR PRIMARY ELECTION
3/30/12;
4/4/12

Mail Registration:
Last day to postmark application and last day it
must be received by board of elections. §5-210 (3)

3/30/12

In Person Registration:
Last day application must be received by board of
elections to be eligible to vote in primary election.
§§5-210, 5-211 & 5-212
Change of address. §5-208 (3)

2/14/12

Last day for candidates to decline designations.
§2-122-a(2)

2/14/12

Last day for CBOE to notify SBOE candidates
which filed at CBOE. §2-122-a(6)(h)

2/21/12

Last day for party committee to file certificate of
candidacies for delegate and alternate delegate
candidates. §2-122-a(7)(a-b)

4/4/12

3/1/12

Last day for SBOE to notify party committee of
candidates who will appear on ballot.
§2-122-a(7)(d)

ABSENTEE VOTING FOR PRIMARY ELECTION:

3/2/12

Last day for boards of election to notify party
committee of candidates who will appear on ballot.
§2-122-a(7)(d)

Last day for a party to select the delegate selection
method. §2 Ch. 147 of 2011

REPUBLICAN DELEGATE SELECTION
PLAN FILING DATES:
THE FOLLOWING DATES APPLY TO ALL DELEGATE
SELECTION PLANS:
2/21/12

Last day for matching funds candidate to
file certificate with State Board requesting ballot
access. §2-122-b(3)(a)

1/31/122/21/12

Dates for nationally known candidate to file
certificate with State Board requesting to appear
on ballot. §2-122-b(3)(b)

1/3/12

First day for signing designating petitions.
§6-134 (4)

1/31/12

Last day for party to certify the number of
delegates for the convention. §2-122-b(2)

2/6/12 2/9/12

Dates for filing designating petitions.
§6-158 (1)(a)

2/21/12

Last day for presidential candidate to certify slate
of delegates and alternate delegates.
§2-122-b(3)(d)

2/14/12

Last day to decline a designation.
§6-158 (2)

2/21/12
4/17/12

Last day for presidential candidate to invalidate
their candidacy. §2-122-b(3)(e)

Last day to fill vacancy after declination.
§6-158 (3)

4/17/12

Last day to postmark application for ballot.
§8-400 (2)(c)

4/23/12

Last day to apply in person for ballot.
§8-400 (2)(c)

4/23/12;
5/1/12

Last day to postmark ballot and date it must be
received by the board of elections. §8-412 (1)

4/24/12

Last day to deliver ballot in person to county
board. §8-412 (1)

DESIGNATING PETITIONS
MILITARY/SPECIAL FEDERAL VOTERS
FOR PRIMARY ELECTION:

3/30/12

Last day for a BOE to receive application for
ballot if not previously registered.
§10-106 (5) & §11-202 (1)(a)

4/17/12

Last day for a BOE to receive application if
previously registered.
§10-106 (5) & §11-202(1)(b)

4/23/12

Last day to apply personally if previously
registered. §10-106 (5)

3/9/12

Date for county boards to send out Military/Special
Federal ballots. §10-108 (1) & §11-204

4/23/12;
5/1/12

Last day to postmark ballot and date it must be
received by the board of elections.
§10-114(1) & §11-212

CERTIFICATION
3/1/12

Certification of Primary ballot by SBOE of
designations filed in its office. §4-110

3/2/12

Certification of Primary ballot by CBOE of
designations filed locally.
§4-110

Christopher B. Garvey v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
WITH TRO AND INJUNCTION

Exhibit D

APX - 232

Specification of Objections to
Democratic Party
Designating Petition
Designating Barack Obama
Filed with the NYS Board of Elections on February 9, 2012
02/13/12
CERTIFIED mail RETURN RECEIPT # 7011 1570 0003 5313 5080
To:
Election Operations
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
40 Steuben Street
Albany New York 12207
Attention:
• JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair,
DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair,
EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner,
GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner,
Further to my General Objection mailed on Feb. 9, 2012, and an Amended General Objection
mailed herewith today,
I, Christopher B. Garvey (Objector) object to the above identified petition, and I hereby specify the
following reasons:
1. Objector resides at 16 Nicoll Ave., Amityville, NY 11701-3018.
Phone: 631 598 0752.
2. Objector is a duly registered New York voter in the 2012 election cycle, and is qualified to vote for
President.
3. The designated candidate Barack Obama (Obama) is not eligible for the Office of President of the
United States (POTUS). Objector demands a hearing on the declared candidate's eligibility on
2/14/12 or as soon thereafter as the Chairman and Commissioners may chose to convene to take
evidence and testimony to bar Barack Obama from the 2012 Presidential Election cycle ballots, as
time is of the essence.
4. Objector references the NYS BOE notice that agents of the OBAMA FOR AMERICA campaign filed
designating petitions on February 9, 2012 that designates Barack Obama for ballot access as the
Democratic Party Candidate for President of the United States.
Objector challenges the Certification of both the declared candidate Barack Obama and all the
petitions and filing documents as a nullity, against public policy, and against the Constitution of
the United States, in that Barack Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President of the
United States (POTUS) because he is not a “Natural Born Citizen” as is required under New
York State law in compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 and New
York provision of law defining “Natural born Citizen”.
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption
of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible
to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a
Resident within the United States.”

Therefore all the designating petitions must be rejected as defective.
Specific Objections to Obama Designating Petition

5. Objections are based upon the admission of Barack Obama , AKA Barack H. Obama (AKA Barrack
Hussein Obama II) with the release of his autobiography. “Dreams From My Father” (1995).
Barack Obama's father was Barack H. Obama Sr., a British subject at the time of the Candidate's
birth. This non-US Citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama Sr. makes Barack Obama not a
Natural Born Citizen, and therefore Obama is ineligible for the Office of President of the United
States.
6. Objections are based upon the INS record signed by Barrack Hussein Obama Sr. that Barack
Obama’s father was a Foreign Alien non-immigrant with a student visa and never was at anytime a
US Citizen or even had a “Green Card” – as such Barack Obama is not Natural Born Citizen and
ineligible for POTUS.
7. objections are based upon the record of the divorce decree issued from the Hawaii court of competent
jurisdiction British subject Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was married to the U.S. Citizen Stanley
Ann Obama being of minor age at the time of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama II;
These objections are based upon the supposed Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) released by
Barack Obama during a press conference in April 2011, alleging Barack Obama was born in
Hawaii to U.S. Citizen Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, the mother, and British Subject Barack
Hussein Obama Sr. the father on August 8, 1961.
8. The evidence shows that at best, Barack Obama may merely be a native born or naturalized citizen,
not a Natural Born Citizen. A Natural Born Citizen is a person born in the United States, of US
Citizen parents, as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the precedent
set in Minor. v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. Justice Waite
holding that natural born citizens per se are so by virtue of birth on United States soil when both
parents were Citizens of the United States.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere
to ascertain [***10] that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution
were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens
became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as
distinguished from aliens or foreigners. “ id. http://www.osah.ga.gov/documents/Cases/Cite-minor
%20v%20happersett.pdf, at page 2 of the decision.

9. This is the definition which applies to the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5. It is the
definition commonly accepted under international law at the time the Constitution was drafted and
ratified. When the delegates from New York insisted on this clause, they did not wish to have a
British Subject or his offspring becoming Commander-in-chief, and then, by surrender, returning
the United States to being subject to the King of England.
10. Natural Born Citizen is a Constitutionally different term than the terms used in the 14thAmendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the State wherein they reside....”

The 14thAmendment is irrelevant to the term Natural Born Citizen.
11. Natural Born Citizen is defined without reaching the need of use of the 14th Amendment or the
power of Congress granted with Article 1 Section 8 paragraph 4 to define naturalization and
immigration status of persons other than Natural Born Citizen persons; and as upheld by New
York State jurisprudence as to Natural Born Citizen, defined in state law.
12. Barack Obama is not a Natural- born Citizen. However he may possibly be classified as “Born a
Citizen” depending upon the power of Congress granted to define citizen status, other than
Natural Born Citizen.
13. On information and belief, Barack Obama renounced his citizenship at various times.
Obama received a public education In Indonesia, where public education was only provided to

Page 1 of 4

Specific Objections to Obama Designating Petition

Indonesian Citizens and where dual citizenship was not permitted.
Obama applied for financial aid as a foreign student within the United States.
• Said application[s] was evidence that he is not a US Citizen.
Said application[s] as a foreign student operatively served as his renunciation of his US
Citizenship.
15. On information and belief, Obama traveled as an Indonesian Citizen, with an Indonesian Passport,
when dual citizenship was not permitted. This was either evidence of renunciation, or operative
renunciation of his citizenship, or both.
16. Barack Obama is ineligible to be President because he has violated his oath of office to “protect and
defend the Constitution.”:
17. By pretending to be President, when he is not a Natural Born Citizen, he has violated U.S.
Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5.
18. Obama has attacked the First Amendment by arresting persons and members of the press at peaceful
assemblies.
19. Obama has attacked the First Amendment by forcing religious organizations to act in violation of
their beliefs,
20. Obama has used the ATF to violate the Second Amendment.
21. Obama has attacked the Fourth Amendment by, without warrant, using agents to conduct
unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, houses, places and effects, including data and
private communications.
Obama has attacked the Fourth Amendment by depriving American Citizens of life, liberty, and
property, without due process of law.
22. Barack Obama has attacked the Sixth Amendment, by denying accused persons a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
23. Barack Obama has attacked the Sixth Amendment, by arresting and imprisoning trial Counsel.
24. Barack Obama has violated the Seventh Amendment, by imposing “Civil” penalties on persons,
where the value in controversy exceeded twenty dollars, without the right of trial by jury
25. Barack Obama has violated Amendment 8 -by requiring excessive bail, imposing excessive fines, and
inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
26. Barack Obama has violated Amendment 9 by denying and disparaging other rights retained by the
people.
27. Barack Obama has violated Amendment 10, by usurping powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, which are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.
28. Barack Obama declined to become president the last time he was elected by not taking his oath of
office. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=274_VdeckAU
What Obama said may be an oath that he has violated, but was not quite what the Constitution, Article
II, Sec. 1 requires:

Page 2 of 4

30. I object that there is no summary page on the Designating Petition.
31. I specifically object to all volume numbers, all page numbers, and all line numbers containing any
signatures, and to all the signatures, in that they purport, in the language of the petition at the top
of each page, to designate the unqualified candidate, Barack Obama.
32. I have no objections to any signature other than to the candidate they purport to designate.
33. I have no objections to any portion of any petition or any signature line or witness statement, nor any
other reasons for any such objection, other than: that the Candidate they purport to designate is
unqualified.
34. I object to the the total number of signatures submitted, because the Candidate they purport to
designate is unqualified.
35. All the signatures are grouped together in one group, for the above reasons, because the Candidate
they purport to designate is unqualified.
No specifications of objections to any petition will be considered by the Board unless the objector filing the
specifications personally delivers or mails by registered or certified mail a duplicate copy of the specifications to each
candidate for public office named on the petition. In the case of a petition containing candidates for party position,
service of the specifications shall be made on either the named candidates or the first person named on the petition's
committee to fill vacancies. Service shall be made on or before the date of filing of any specifications with the Board.
Proof of service shall accompany the specifications or be received by the end of business two days following the filing
of the specifications, whichever is later.

As required, prior to filing this Specification of Objections, a true and correct copy of it, together with any
and all attachments was mailed by, registered or certified mail to:
the first person named on the Petition's committee to fill vacancies:
Robert Diamond
118 East 93rdStreet
New York, NY 10128
and to the Candidate:
Barack Obama
5064 S. Greenwood Ave.
Chicago, Illinois 60515
Proof of such Service is attached hereto in the form of a copy of the certified mailing receipt for the each
and a Certificate of of Service.
Signed

_________________________________
Christopher B. Garvey Objector

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will
to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

29. Wherefore: objector challenges Barack Obama and or his agents to prove both the place of birth and
that both of his parents at the time of his birth were US Citizens, and that Barack Obama has never
renounced his US Citizenship, nor violated his oath of office.
Specific Objections to Obama Designating Petition

Page 3 of 4

APX - 233

Specific Objections to Obama Designating Petition

Page 4 of 4

Specification of Objections to
the Document from Mitt Romney as a Request for Ballot Access
in the New York Primary Election
for Republican Candidate for President of the United States
or any other named Republican Nominating or Designating Certificate or Petition or
Request Designating Mitt Romney as a Candidate for President
Filed with the NYS Board of Elections on February 17, 2012
Christopher B. Garvey
(Republican Objector)
16 Nicoll Ave.
Amityville, NY 11701-3018
phone 1 631 598 0752
February 16, 2012
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT #7011 1570 0003 5313 ______
To:
Election Operations
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
40 Steuben Street
Albany New York 12207
Further to my General Objection mailed on
____________________________________________,
I, Christopher B. Garvey (Objector) specifically object to the:

Letter from Mitt Romney as a Request for Ballot Access in the New York
Primary Election for Republican Candidate for President of the United States
based on being a nationally known candidate, naming delegates and alternates, and
giving as his only return address,

Christopher B. Garvey v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
WITH TRO AND INJUNCTION

Exhibit E

Miss Megan Sowards
Deputy General counsel for Mitt Romney
585 Commercial Street
Boston, MA 02109
and any other named Republican Nominating or Designating Certificate or Petition or Request
Designating Mitt Romney as a Candidate for President
Filed with the NYS Board of Elections on February 17, 2012.
I refer for document identification to:
http://www.elections.ny.gov:8080/reports/rwservlet?cmdkey=whofiled
List of Filings for the Presidential Primary
Office: President
Republican
Specific Objections to Romney

page 1 of 18

term, in the same manner and subject to the same liabilities as if such
lessee were a natural born citizen.

Mitt Romney 02/10/2010 Vols. 0 Pages 0 Supporting

Objector resides and is registered to vote as a Republican at:
16 Nicoll Ave.
Amityville, NY 11701-3018
phone 1 631 598 0752

Objections are based upon the following timeline, constructed on information and belief, which
shows that Mitt Romney's father George Romney, was a Mexican Citizen or a British Subject.
1757

Objector is a duly registered Republican New York voter in the 2012 election cycle, and is
qualified to vote for in the New York Primary for President of the United States.

I hereby specify the following objections:
The designated candidate Mitt Romney is not eligible for the Office of President of the United
States and is therefore not eligible to run in the next New York Primary for President of the
United States.
Objector references the NYS BOE notice that a document was filed on February 10, 2012 that
designates Mitt Romney for ballot access in the next New York Primary as the Republican Party
Candidate for President of the United States.
Objector challenges the Certification of both the declared candidate Mitt Romney and all the
petitions and filing documents as a nullity, against the Constitution of the United States, and
against public policy, in that Mitt Romney is not eligible for the Office of the President of the
United States because he is not a “Natural Born Citizen” as is required under New York State
law in compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 and New York
provision of law defining “Natural born Citizen”.
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person
be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been
fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

A Natural Born Citizen is a person born in the United States of two United States
Citizens.
Therefore all the designating petitions must be rejected as defective.
New York State has case law on the term “Natural Born Citizen” because New York State Law
prohibited all but Natural Born Citizens from owning mines:
Real Property Law § 18
Mines in Saint Lawrence county.
§ 18. Mines in Saint Lawrence county. The proprietors of any mines or
veins of lead or copper in the county of Saint Lawrence, may demise,
lease, or rent the same for a period not to exceed twenty-one years from
the date of any such lease, to any foreign individual or company, and
such lessee may take, hold, work, use or convey the same during the said
Specific Objections to Romney

page 2 of 18

Emmerich de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” Section 212:
“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents [both] who
are citizens.”
The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that
book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212,
of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain
duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives,
or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the
society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens,
those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their
rights. . . .
The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:
“Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .”
The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are terms; used to translate the idea conveyed by
the French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both referred to the same category of citizen:
one born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.
In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the
natural circumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term “indigenes” is from
the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from within” (indegenes), as in the phrase “the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived
there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term, “natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou
indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country.
1775
Benjamin Franklin wrote [Exhibit 1] from Philadelphia Dec. 19, 1775 that the members of the
Congress were consulting a copy of Vattel’s book to complete their work .
“I'm much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It
came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary
frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy which I kept... has been
continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much
pleased with your notes, and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for
their author....”

Specific Objections to Romney

APX - 234

page 3 of 18

See Exhibits 1 - 4 attached.
1787 - Vattel's term, “natural born citizen” appears in a letter [Ex 4] of the future Supreme Court
Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention.
John Jay wrote:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and reasonable to provide as a
strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national
government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army
shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. ---...”

objection, because there was no divided parent citizenship. So the father's citizenship meant both
parents' citizenship. In 1922 a change in US law eliminated marriage's automatic change of the
wife's citizenship, Married Women's Act (the Cable Act). Today, it is possible to have one parent
who is not a US citizen, which creates a divided loyalty obstruction to becoming Commander-inchief.
For example, such a conflict of divided loyalty might arise if one's adopted father was an official
of the Indonesian Army and a Citizen of Indonesia. For such an example, see: Obama Dreams of
My Father.

1787 July 25 New York, Letter from John Jay to His Excellency General Washington, [Exhibit 4]

1794 The Senate made its first purchases: Blackstone's Commentaries and Vattel's Law of
Nature and Nations. Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 5 is a my own Venn diagram of types of citizen in early America.

1814
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated
with the American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:
Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 till Nov.
26, 1829.
John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 till July 6, 1835.
William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, till Aug. 4,
1834.
Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20,
1807 till March 18, 1823.
Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 till Feb. 7, 1826.
Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 till Jany 14,
1835.
Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 till Sept. 10,
1845.
Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph
Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the
army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792.
During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the
New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to
the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served
as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First
Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutemen of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian
Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for
ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington
was George Washington’s nephew and heir.
Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the
Constitution had intended.

Marriage gave women their husband's citizenship automatically. So both parents had the same
nationality [except out-of-wedlock]: that of the husband-father. There was no divided loyalty

The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus,
belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the
War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case

Specific Objections to Romney

Specific Objections to Romney

page 4 of 18

said about citizenship, is what matters here.
WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP
In The Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire
§212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain
duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives
or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being
able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children
naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle
and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the
laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…
1806 Miles Archebald Romney, b. Dalton-in-Furness, co. Lancaster, 13 July 1806, d. St.
George, Utah, 3 May 1877 m. Dalton-in-Furness, co. Lancaster, 16 Nov. 1830 (Mitt Romney’s
Great Great Grandfather), Miles Archebald Romney married in Liverpool to Elizabeth, both
British Subjects.
1809 Elizabeth Gaskell, b. Dalton-in-Furness, co. Lancaster, 8 Jan. 1809, d. St. George, Utah,
11 Oct. 1884
1830 Miles Archebald Romney & Elizabeth Gaskell married. Dalton-in-Furness, Co.
Lancaster, 16 Nov. 1830
1837 Romneys convert to Mormons
1839-Joseph Smith is in Nauvoo, IL.
1841 Great Great grandfather [Mitt’s] arrives in US. Miles Archebald Romney with wife
Elizabeth and 5 children.

his copy of his declaration of intention to the court. Following a change in the law in
1906 an alien also had to receive a certificate of arrival from the Immigration and
Naturalization Service that verified his or her legal immigration. When an alien's petition
was granted the court issued a certificate of citizenship to the alien. This document was
the alien's official proof that he or she was now a U.S. citizenship.
http://www.ourarchives.wikispaces.net/Naturalization
There is no indication that the above Miles Archebald Romneys ever became US citizens.
1842 Hannah Hood Hill, (Mitt’s Great grandmother) born in Tosoronto Township, Simcoe,
Ontario, 9 July 1842, d. Colonia Juarez, Chihuahua, México, 29 Dec. 1928. She was a British
Subject.
1842

Hill family arrived in Nauvoo with Hannah Hood Hill.

1843

Joseph Smith visited England.

1843 Miles Park Romney, Mitt’s Great grandfather (1843-1904) born in 1843-Aug-18: Birth in
Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, USA of two British Subjects (Miles Archebald Romney &
Elizabeth Gaskell) is therefore himself a British Subject under US and International Law.
1850 The Territory of Utah was an organized incorporated territory of the United States that
existed from September 9, 1850, until January 4, 1896, when the final extent of the territory was
admitted to the Union as the State of Utah.
1855 From 1855 to 1922, a married woman automatically assumed the citizenship of her
husband; if an American woman married a foreign national, she lost her U.S. citizenship.
Similarly, if a foreign national married a U.S. citizen, she automatically became a citizen. Her
only documentation would be her marriage license and the naturalization (or birth) record of her
husband. After 1922, a married woman was required to meet the naturalization laws although no
declaration of intention was needed and residency changed from five years to one.
http://archives.utah.gov/research/guides/naturalizations.htm

1841 Miles Archebald Romney moved to Nauvoo, IL.
I have found no indication that Miles Archebald Romney ever became a Citizen of the United
States of America, . Miles Romney (1806-1877) and his wife Elizabeth Gaskell (1809-1884)
lived in the Liverpool area. Following their baptism, they sailed for New Orleans and made their
way up the Mississippi by steamboat arriving at Nauvoo in 1841. T
----------------------------------Becoming a Citizen
For most aliens the naturalization process was a two part process that took a minimum of
five years though there were some exceptions. First an alien would file a declaration of
intent. The court would keep a copy of the declaration and the alien would be given a
copy to keep with him. After a proscribed period of residence an alien would file his
petition for naturalization. When the alien filed his petition of naturalization, he returned

Miles Archebald Romney Moved to Utah

Specific Objections to Romney

Specific Objections to Romney

page 6 of 18

page 5 of 18

1862 The federal government in Washington passed the Morrell Act outlawing polygamy. (The
bill was signed by Abraham Lincoln in the middle of the civil war.) This law was not enforced as
can be seen from the 1880 census where multiple wives are listed.
1862 March 10
Miles Park Romney marries to Hannah Hood Hill (1842-1929 Mitt’s Great
Grandmother) in Salt Lake City - She was born in Canada. Miles and Hannah had eleven [or
possibly thirteen] children including Gaskell Romney (1871-1955).
1862 or 1863? Miles Park Romney was sent on a mission to England before their first child
(Isabell 1863-1919) was born. While in England he preached for several years in the area around

APX - 235

page 7 of 18

Liverpool (former home of his parents). He came back to Salt Lake City with a boatload of new
English converts.
1863 New York State Court of Appeals in Ludlum v Ludlum , 26 N.Y. 356 (1863 March Term),
defines Natural Born Citizen.
1866 Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, Congressional Globe, 39th , 1st Sess.
Pg 1291 (March 9, 1866) stated:
“...every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not
owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself,
a natural born citizen.”
Note the reference to a singular child of plural parents, “not owing allegiance to any foreign
sovereignty”. Both parents must not owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty for the child to be
a Natural Born Citizen.
This quote also demonstrates that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the children of British
Subjects, who retained their own parent's nationality.
1867 In 1867 the Romney family moved from Salt Lake City to Saint George, Utah. St. George
is in the southwest corner of the state on the Arizona border.
1867 -Mar-23 Miles Park Romney: Marriage to Caroline Lambourne (1846-1879) in Salt Lake
City - two children
1868

14th Amendment -Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The purpose of this Amendment was to prevent former slaves from being denied citizenship
rights by their states. It was not intended to abrogate the right of citizenship of nationals of other
Countries by usurping their right to give their own nationality to their children.
The Amendment refers to “any State”, not to territories.
-------------------------------Discussion:
Gaskell and Anna were born in the Territory of Utah, but they were not born in the state of Utah.
Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt Romney were both born of British Parents in the
Territory of Utah in 1871 and 1876 respectively.
Gaskell’s father (Mitt’s great grandfather) Miles Romney was a polygamist. The 1882 Edmunds
Act stripped polygamists of the basic rights of U.S. citizenship.
Since the Romney’s lived in the Territory of Utah at that time, did they have any US citizenship?
If so, was it stripped by the Edmunds Act?

Mexico. Then in 1896 the Territory of Utah became a state. Since the Romneys moved to Mexico
before 1896, they could not have received US citizenship, since they were no longer residents of
the Territory of Utah when it became a state.
When George W. Romney (Mitt’s father) was born in Mexico in 1907, George W. became a
native Mexican (based on the location of his birth), whether or not he was legally recognized as
such. Some argue that George W. Romney was in fact a Mexican citizen at birth. He may have
been a British Subject, like his parents.
How did those in the Territory of Utah naturalize to become US citizens? One source states,
“Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who applied for naturalization
during the 1870s and 1880s were often denied because of polygamy.”
https://www.familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Utah_Naturalization_and_Citizenship
Another article states that when the Territory of Utah became a state in 1896, “resident noncitizens did not automatically become U.S. citizens even if they had filed declarations of
intention of becoming U.S. citizens.” The article also stated “We know from a contemporaneous
news story that as of October 15 1967, George W. Romney hadn’t filed any particular papers to
make himself a citizen.” http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/mitt-romney-natural-borncitizenship-and-media-bias/
So since Mitt’s grandparents, Gaskell (born of British Subjects) and Anna Romney were born in
the Territory of Utah (which did not automatically make them US citizens) and had left the
Territory of Utah before it became a state, where is the proof that Gaskell and Anna Romney had
US citizenship to pass on to their son George W. Romney when he was born in Mexico in 1907?
Where is the proof that George W. Romney had US citizenship to pass on to his son Mitt
Romney when he was born in 1947?
---------------------1870 Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870.
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude.
1871 Gaskell Romney (Mitt’s Grandfather) was born in Utah, the son of Miles Romney and
Elizabeth Gaskell two British Subjects; thereby becoming a British Subject.
7 FAM 1121.3 Status of Inhabitants of Territories, Absent Laws Defining Status
(TL:CON-66; 10-10-96) c. A child born in an outlying possession before January 13,
1941, whose father (or mother if the child was born out of wedlock) was a non-citizen
U.S. national, was held to have acquired the parent’s status, and a child born there to alien
parents was held not to have acquired U.S. Nationality.
Therefore Gaskell Romney was not a US National.

In 1884 Miles Romney moved his multiple wives and children from the Territory of Utah to

1873 -Sep-15 Miles Park Romney: Marriage to Catharine Jane Cottam (1855-1918) in Salt
Lake City - 10 children
1877 Aug-01 Miles Park Romney: Marriage to Annie Marie Woodbury (1858-1930) in St

Specific Objections to Romney

Specific Objections to Romney

page 8 of 18

George Utah - 8 children
The United States census lists Miles Park Romney, his two wives Hannah Hood Hill and
Catherine Jane Cottam, and six of Hannah’s children, including her son Gaskell who was eight
years old at the time.
1881
1881

Miles Park Romney Moved to St George, Utah to build Temple.
Miles Park Romney Moved to Az.

1882 The Edmunds Act stripped polygamists of the basic rights of U.S. citizenship, denying
them the right to vote, serve on juries or hold office. Not dissimilar to current immigration raids,
U.S. federal agents hunted and arrested polygamists. Polygamists were forced to leave the
country or risk jail.
1886 Miles Park Romney started for Mexico with his family, Tom Mahoney The Story Of
George Romney (1960).
Gaskell Romney (Mitt’s Grandfather) was 15 years old; too young to ratify his citizenship in a
US Court. His intention, and that of his parents, seems to be to become a permanent Mexican
national or citizen.
According to Mahoney:
Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather fled with his three wives to Mexico so they could
continue their polygamist lifestyle with a multitude of other Mormon polygamists and
settled there, cutting land deals with Mexican president, Porfirio Diaz using funds that
came from The Mormon Church. President Diaz was happy to have the Mormon settlers
there as a buffer against the Apache Indians. (pg.51)
With others, Helaman Pratt obtained permission from Diaz for Miles Park Romney and
other Mormon refugees to buy lands and establish colonies in Mexico. Partly with funds
advanced by the Church, they purchased large, mostly undeveloped tracts in Sonora and
Chihuahua. Diaz was happy to have colonists there as buffers against the Apache Indians
1887 The Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 was enforced. Archibald Newell Hood (Hannah’s
father) and her brother (Samuel) were arrested, fined, and imprisoned for several months in Salt
Lake City for practicing polygamy. About 1,300 Mormon men were imprisoned in the late
1880s.
1890 9/24/1890 Mormon Church advised Mormons to refrain from polygamy. In 1890, The
Mormon Church lost their case to the Supreme Court which upheld Edmunds-Tucker Act, so
Utah came out with their Manifesto soon afterward which condemned plural marriage:
The “1890 Manifesto”, sometimes simply called “The Manifesto”, is a statement which
officially disavowed the continuing practice of plural marriage in The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Issued by church president Wilford Woodruff
in September 1890, the Manifesto was a response to mounting anti-polygamy pressure
from the United States Congress, which by 1890 had disincorporated the church,
escheated its assets to the U.S. federal government, and imprisoned many prominent
Specific Objections to Romney

page 10 of 18

page 9 of 18

polygamist Mormons.
The Manifesto was a dramatic turning point in the history of the LDS Church. It
officially prohibited church members from entering into any marriage prohibited by the
law of the land, and made it possible for Utah to become a U.S. state.
Nevertheless, even after the Manifesto, the church quietly continued to perform a small
number of plural marriages in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, thus necessitating
a Second Manifesto during U.S. congressional hearings in 1904.
In regards to the missionaries, the expatriate Mormons had to become Mexican citizens since
missionary work by foreigners was prohibited by Mexican law at the time.
Mexico only allowed citizens to conduct missions/missionary work. The Mormons operated
missions in Mexico.
1891= 5 years + 1886 Under the operative immigration law of nations at the time, each
government had a tacit agreement about such expatriates to avoid being put into delicate
situations of having to defend Americans on foreign soil. This was operative when the Mormons
fled Utah. The standard was that if an American stayed five or so years, each country would
consider he had rejected his native country’s citizenship. This made Miles Park Romney and his
son George Romney both Mexican Citizens.
George W. Romney was born in Mexico, son of the head elder (Gaskell Romney), who was in
Mexico for about 3 decades before George W. Romney's birth, said Gaskell Romney must have
been a Mexican [or British] citizen. Therefore, Gaskell Romney could not bestow American
citizenship, much less “natural born” citizenship to George W. Romney. Since George W.
Romney [Mexican or British] was therefore not an American citizen, George W. Romney could
not eventually bestow natural born citizen status to his son Mitt Romney.
1892 Gaskell Romney (Mitt’s Grandfather) became 21 years old; old enough to declare his
citizenship in a US Court. But he lived in Mexico. His intention and that of his parents seemed
to be to become a permanent Mexican national or citizen. He did not live in the United States for
at least 5 years before his 23rd birthday in 1894.
----------------------------Minors (Children)
Minor children were granted derivative citizenship when their father, or after 1922 their
parent, was naturalized. This practice remained in place for children under the age of 21
from 1790 to 1940. There usually will be no record of a minor child's derivative
citizenship unless he/she applied to the INS after 1929 for a certificate of citizenship.
Between 1824 and 1906 an alien who arrived as a minor, had lived in the United States
for at least 5 years before their 23rd birthday, and whose father had not become a U.S.
naturalized citizen could file his declaration and petition at the same time. Although the
forms used for this process varied from court to court, the declaration of intention and
petition for naturalization are usually found on one form.
Specific Objections to Romney

APX - 236

page 11 of 18

http://www.ourarchives.wikispaces.net/Naturalization
There is no evidence that Gaskell ever:
arrived as a minor in the US,
lived in the United States for at least 5 years before his 23rd birthday,
filed his declaration or petition to be a US Citizen.
Therefore, Gaskell was not a US Citizen.
1895 -Feb-20 Miles Park Romney married Anna Amelia Pratt (1876-1926) in Dublan,
Chihuahua, Mexico. She was the grand daughter of Mormon Pioneer Parley Pratt.
1896

Utah becomes a State Jan 4, 1896

1897 -Feb-02 : Miles Park Romney married Emily Henrietta Eyring (1870-1947) in Dublan
Mexico, widow of William Snow. They begat no children, but she already had two children from
the Snow marriage.
1904 Miles Park Romney (Mitt's Great Grandfather) died at Colonia Dublan, Chihuahua,
Mexico, evidencing his intent to remain a Mexican for life.
-----------------------------------Women
Early naturalization laws did not restrict naturalization for women and in theory alien
women could apply for citizenship. However a variety of laws began to limit a woman's
rights to naturalization culminating in a 1855 law that effectively restricted naturalization
for women. The 1855 act held that "[a]ny woman who is now or may hereafter be
married to a citizen of the United States, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized,
shall be deemed a citizen." Essentially the law said that a woman held the citizenship of
her husband. For instance if a German woman immigrated to the United States and
married a U.S. citizen, she automatically became a citizen. Or if a German couple
immigrated to the United States and the husband was naturalized, his wife was
considered a citizen by virtue of his naturalization. A strange quirk of this law was that
if a woman who was a native-born U.S. citizen married a foreigner, the U.S.
government considered that she had given up her U.S. citizenship in favor of her
husband's citizenship. This was a matter of debate for some time but an act in March of
1907 codified it in law.
Few women pursued naturalization before 1920 because women couldn't vote - the major
right of citizenship - and in many places couldn't own property. Following the passage of
the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote, there was a movement to
change the laws relating to naturalization of women. Many asked why a woman should
automatically be granted the right to vote through marriage. Congress passed the Married
Women's Act (the Cable Act) on September 22, 1922. Women were now able to apply for
naturalization on their own. Included in the Cable Act, was a provision to allow American
born women who had lost their citizenship due to their marriages to foreigners to file
petitions to become citizens. Many U.S. born women who had married foreign citizens
Specific Objections to Romney

page 12 of 18

did not believe they should have to file for a citizenship to which they had been born. In
1936 Congress passed a new act that allowed U.S. born women who had married
foreigners between 1907 and 1922 to take an oath of allegiance (sometimes mistakenly
called a repatriation petition).
http://www.ourarchives.wikispaces.net/women
--------------1904 Second Manifesto of Church during U.S. congressional hearings in 1904 rejecting
Polygamy.
1907 George W. Romney (Mitt's father) was born in Mexico. George W. Romney was born in
a Mormon Colony, Colonia Dublán, in Galeana, State of Chihuahua, Mexico, on July 8, 1907.
His parents were Gaskell and Anna Amelia Pratt Romney, both ex-patriot British citizens who
were born in Utah and who met and married in Mexico, and who seem to have become Mexican
Citizens.
George W. Romney's birth on foreign soil, raises the question of citizenship “by descent” of
children born to American citizens on foreign soil. Citizenship lies in two concepts of
international law:
a) birth in-country, or jure soli (by right of the soil) by which George would be Mexican;
or
b) from birth outside the country to parents who are citizens, jure sanguinis (by right of blood).
George was born in Mexico of British Subjects or Mexican Citizens, so he is either:
by jure soli (by right of the soil) a Mexican Citizen, or
by jure sanguinis (by right of blood), a British Subject or Mexican Citizen.
1908 Mitt’s mother, Lenore Romney, was born in Logan, Utah on November 9, 1908. She was
an American citizen at birth.
1913 George & parents move to El Paso refugee center. They were temporary exiles. George
said: "We were the first displaced persons of the 20th century." Mitt Romney has repeated this
admission and thus adopted it as his own.
A displaced person (sometimes abbreviated DP) is a person who has been forced to leave his or
her native place, a phenomenon known as forced migration. Displaced person - Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displaced_person
displaced person n. One who has been driven from one's homeland by war or internal upheaval.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000
by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All
rights reserved.
displaced person
a person forced from his or her country, esp. as a result of war, and left homeless elsewhere
Specific Objections to Romney

page 13 of 18

Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc.,
Cleveland, Ohio. Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

However, both George's parents were Mexican Citizens, or British Subjects, when George was
born.

displaced person
noun
a person driven or expelled from his or her homeland by war, famine, tyranny, etc.
Abbreviation: DP, D.P. Origin: 1940–45 Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012.

Wherefore: Objector challenges Mitt Romney and or his agents to prove that both of

Definition of DISPLACED PERSON
: a person expelled, deported, or impelled to flee from his country of nationality or habitual
residence by the forces or consequences of war or oppression —abbr. DP
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/displaced%20person
displaced person
noun
1. someone who has been forced to leave their own country and live somewhere else, for
example because there is a war in their own country
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/displaced-person
The use by George Romney of the phrase: “Displaced Person” is thus an admission that George
Romney regarded his native place, country of nationality, own country, nationality, and
homeland as Mexico.
1938 Twenty-six years after the Romneys were forced from Mexico, the case of "Gaskell
Romney vs. United States of Mexico" was heard in Salt Lake City in 1938. Gaskell requested
$28,753 in damages. He was awarded $9,163, court records show — a sizable amount then.
The records say Gaskell gave half of the award to his son, George, which would have helped
to put him on his road to becoming chairman of American Motors and governor of Michigan.
1947 Mitt Romney was born in Detroit, Michigan on March 12, 1947. His parents were
George W. Romney [Mexican or British by blood or Mexican by birth in Mexico] and Lenore
LaFount Romney, who married in Salt Lake City on July 2, 1931. At the time of his birth, Mitt’s
father served as general manager of the Automobile Manufacturers Association, in Detroit.
1967 According to an October 15, 1967 New York Times interview with George Romney, who
was then seeking the 1968 Republican nomination for President of the United States, it appears
that he did not at any time apply for naturalization.
According to the Times report, “Governor Romney said today that the question of his
constitutional eligibility for office had been studied by lawyers and that he believed it
posed no problem… Governor Romney said that he did not have to file any papers to
become an American citizen since both his parents had been born in the United States…”

Specific Objections to Romney

page 14 of 18

his parents at the time of his birth were US Citizens; particularly Mexican born George Romney.
I specifically object to the the Letter to designate the unqualified candidate, Mitt Romney, as a
candidate for President on the NY Primary Ballot.
Objector objects on the basis of the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 (1) eligibility
“natural-born Citizen”.
Objector cautions the New York State Board of Elections against using as a criteria the novel
inapplicable phrase “Born a Citizen” (under “Running for Office” at BOE website), instead of the
Constitutional term “natural born Citizen”.
The Natural Born Citizen idiom was selected by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution to conform with
the concerns of the People of New York who were intent to safeguard sovereignty, to reflect history and
practice of the “Law of Nations”(2) since Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York, July
26, 1788, and that as defined by the Legislature by statute example in the Real Property Law Article 2
Section 18 (3),and as relates to matters of inheritance, that have since been upheld by the State of New
York Court of Appeals in its precedents that also conform with precedents of the Supreme Court of the
United States (SCOTUS) before and after the addition of the 14th amendment that did not amend the
Natural Born Citizen idiom, or warrant any assertion by the NYS BOE, other than “natural-born Citizen”.
The BOE may not paraphrase the Constitution to change its meaning to some ill-defined or differently
defined “born a citizen” term, as indicated on the BOE's website this election for the very first time.
There is no state statutory provision warranting NYS BOE to use “Born a Citizen” per se rather than
Natural Born Citizen; and therefore, is strictly a U.S. Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5
Natural Born Citizen eligibility issue that the NYS BOE must conform to, in compliance with the body of
common law of the New York Courts (4), and in accordance with SCOTUS precedents (5) that are contrary
to “Born a Citizen” idiom use.

Objector notes that my mother explained to me, when I was a child:
that she could never be President, because she was a naturalized citizen; but,
the fact that she had naturalized before the birth of her children, and married a another
U.S. citizen, meant that I could be President.
It is interesting that this once-common Constitutional knowledge, of an immigrant, seems to
have been somehow obscured by the last few decades.
As required, prior to filing this Specification of Objections, a true and correct copy of it, together
with any and all attachments was mailed by, registered or certified mail
Certificate 7011 1570 0003 5313 __________
to the only person and address named on the Romney's Document as the Representative of the
Candidate for service of this notice:
Miss Megan Sowards
Specific Objections to Romney

APX - 237

page 15 of 18

1

Deputy General counsel for Mitt Romney
585 Commercial Street
Boston, MA 02109

U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 paragraph 5:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Proof of such Service is attached hereto in the form of a copy of the certified mailing receipt for
the same and Certificate of Service.

2

Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758)

3

NYS RPL § 18. Mines in Saint Lawrence county. The proprietors of any mines or veins of lead or copper in the county
of Saint Lawrence, may demise, lease, or rent the same for a period not to exceed twenty-one years from the date of
any such lease, to any foreign individual or company, and such lessee may take, hold, work, use or convey the same during
the said term, in the same manner and subject to the same liabilities as if such lessee were a natural born citizen.

Feb. 27, 2012
Signed
Christopher B. Garvey (Republican Objector)

4

New York Miscellaneous Reports

PEOPLE v. QUIROGA-PUMA, 18 Misc.3d 731 (2007) No. LX6701631.
MATTER OF BROWN, 132 Misc.2d 811 (1986) July 7, 1986 .
AGOSTINI v. DE ANTUENO, 199 Misc. 191 (1950) February 20, 1950.
PEOPLE EX REL. CHOOLOKIAN v. MISSION OF IMMAC. VIRGIN, 192 Misc. 454 (1947) December 30, 1947.

Endnotes
Exhibits 1 to 5

New York Appellate Division Reports
WILLIAMS v. VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER, 97 App. Div. 84 (1904) July, 1904
New York Court of Appeals Reports
MUNRO v. MERCHANT, 28 N.Y. 9 (1863) September Term, 1863
LUDLAM v. LUDLAM, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) March Term, 1863…………………………………….
WADSWORTH v. WADSWORTH, 12 N.Y. 376 (1855) March Term, 1855
McCARTHY v. MARSH, 5 N.Y. 263 (1851) September Term, 1851
HOYT v. THOMPSON, 5 N.Y. 320 (1851) September Term, 1851
Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand.Ch. 583, 659-663 (N.Y. 1844)
5

Minor. v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627

Cases citing Minor: Boyd. v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971); City of Mobile v.
Bolden, 446 U.S 55 (1980); Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm’m of Montana, 436 U.S 371 (1978) ; Breedlove v. Suttles, 302
U.S. 277 (1937); US v. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935); Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S.
559 (1911); Hague v. Committee For Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939); Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245
(1934); Harris v. Mcrae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980); Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S 47 (1907); Kepner v. U.S., 195 U.S. 100 (1904);
Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705 (1962); N.Y. Ex Rel. Bryant v.
Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63 (1928); Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1 (1982); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 816
(1971); Schick v. U.S., 195 U.S. 65 (1904); Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944); South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437
(1905); In Re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23
(1968)
Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894), that is essentially the holy grail of support for Minor v. Happersett, as it
states:“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of
membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States,
have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of
the constitution as since…” (Emphasis added) and also the City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980)

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

Specific Objections to Romney

page 16 of 18

Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830) therein C.J. John Marshal on how New York law
and British common law apply before and after 1776 Independence affects the right to take land in controversy by descent
in New York:

APX - 238

APX - 239

Specification of Objections to
the Letter from Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum as a
Request for Ballot Access
in the New York Primary Election
for Republican Candidate for President of the United States
or any other named Republican Nominating or Designating Certificate or Petition or Request
Designating Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum as a Candidate for President
Filed with the NYS Board of Elections on February 21, 2012
Christopher B. Garvey
Republican Objector
16 Nicoll Ave.
Amityville, NY 11701-3018
phone 1 631 598 0752
email objectorCG@verizon.net
02/25/12
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT #7011 1570 0003 5313 _____
To:
Election Operations
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
40 Steuben Street
Albany New York 12207
Further to my General Objection mailed on Tuesday, 02/21/2012,
I, Christopher B. Garvey (Republican Objector) specifically object to the:
Letter from Rick Santorum, a Request for Ballot Access in the New York Primary Election for
Republican Candidate for President of the United States, and giving no return address, and
document[s] naming delegates and alternates:
I refer for document identification to:
http://www.elections.ny.gov:8080/reports/rwservlet?cmdkey=whofiled
List of Filings for the Presidential Primary
Office: President
Republican
Christopher B. Garvey v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
WITH TRO AND INJUNCTION

Exhibit F

Rick Santorum 02/21/2010 Vols. 0 Pages 0 Supporting

Objector resides and is registered to vote as a Republican at:
16 Nicoll Ave.
Amityville, NY 11701-3018
phone 1 631 598 0752
Objector is a duly registered Republican New York voter in the 2012 election cycle, and is qualified to
vote for in the New York Primary for President of the United States.

Specific Objection Santorum

APX - 240

page 1 of 10

I hereby specify the following objections:
The Document contains no return address for the service of objections, or of summons and complaint,
on the Candidate.

qualified to be President of the United States. He must not be placed on any New York
ballot for election to that office.
Therefore all the designating documents must be rejected as defective.

The designated candidate Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum is not eligible for the
Office of President of the United States and is therefore not eligible to run in the next New York
Primary for President of the United States.
Objector challenges the Certification of both the declared candidate Rick Santorum AKA Richard John
"Rick" Santorum and all the filing documents as a nullity, against the Constitution of the United States,
and against public policy, in that Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum is not eligible
for the Office of the President of the United States because he is not a “Natural Born Citizen” as is
required under New York State law in compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1
paragraph 5 and New York provision of law defining “Natural born Citizen”.
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of
this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that
Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident
within the United States.”

A Natural Born Citizen is a person born in the United States of two United States
Citizens.
Rick Santorum's father was an Italian Citizen, who immigrated to the United States.
“Rick Santorum is the middle of the three children of Aldo Santorum (1923–
2011), a clinical psychologist who immigrated to the United States at age seven
from Riva del Garda, Italy,[15] and Catherine (Dughi) Santorum (1918–), an
administrative nurse[15][16][17] of Italian American and Irish American descent.
[18]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum

New York State has case law on the term “Natural Born Citizen” because among other reasons, New
York State Law prohibited all but Natural Born Citizens from owning mines:
Real Property Law § 18
Mines in Saint Lawrence county.
§ 18. Mines in Saint Lawrence county. The proprietors of any mines or
veins of lead or copper in the county of Saint Lawrence, may demise,
lease, or rent the same for a period not to exceed twenty-one years from
the date of any such lease, to any foreign individual or company, and
such lessee may take, hold, work, use or convey the same during the said
term, in the same manner and subject to the same liabilities as if such
lessee were a natural born citizen.
Law of Nations
According to Emmerich de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” Section 212: (1757)
“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents [both] who are
citizens.”
The Law of Nations, was written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that
book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the
English translation of 1797 (p. 110) see Exhibit 2 [annotations of uncertain origin]:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and
subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born
citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist
and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally
follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .
The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:
“Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .”

On Feb. 7, 2012, Rick Santorum publicly admitted that he is a first generation American:
“I never thought as a first-generation American whose parents and grandparents
loved freedom and came here because they didn't want the government telling
them what to believe and how to believe it.”
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1202/07/acd.02.html
I found no information indicating that the Candidate's father, Aldo Santorum, ever
naturalized as a United States Citizen.
Therefore, Candidate Rick Santorum is not a “A Natural Born Citizen ... a person born
in the United States of two United States Citizens.” Therefore he is not Constitutionally
Specific Objection Santorum

The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are English terms; used to render the idea conveyed by
the French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both referred to the same category of citizen: one
born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.
In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the Law of
Nature, that is by the natural circumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term
“indigenes” is from the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from
within” (inde-genes), as in the phrase “the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and
lived there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term, “natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou
indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country.
Vattel's term, “natural born citizen” appears in a letter [Ex 4] of the future Supreme Court Justice, John
Specific Objection Santorum

page 2 of 10

page 3 of 10

Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention.
John Jay wrote, 1787 July 25 New York, Letter from John Jay to His Excellency General Washington,
[Exhibit 4]:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and reasonable to provide as a strong
check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to
declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor
devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. --- ….”
Benjamin Franklin wrote [Exhibit 1] from Philadelphia Dec. 19, 1775 that the members of the
Continental Congress were consulting a copy of Vattel’s book to complete their work .
“I'm much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us
in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult
the law of nations. Accordingly that copy which I kept... has been continually in the hands of
the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes, and preface,
and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author....
1794 The Senate made its first purchases: Blackstone's Commentaries and Vattel's Law of Nature and
Nations. Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 5 is a my own Venn diagram of types of citizen in early America.

Marriage gave women their husband's citizenship automatically. So both parents had same nationality
[except out-of-wedlock]: that of the husband-father. There was no divided loyalty objection, because
there was no divided parent citizenship. So father's citizenship meant both parents' citizenship. In 1922
a change in US law eliminated marriage's automatic change of the wife's citizenship, Married Women's
Act (the Cable Act). Today, it is possible to have one parent who is not a US citizen, which creates a
divided loyalty obstruction to becoming Commander-in-chief.
For example, such a conflict of divided loyalty might arise if one's adopted father was an official of the
Indonesian Army and a Citizen of Indonesia.
For such an example, see: Obama Dreams of My Father.
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, decided by men who were intimately associated
with the American Revolution. In that year the following judges sat on the Supreme Court:
Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26,
1829.
John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.
William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.
Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til
March 18, 1823
Specific Objection Santorum

page 4 of 10

Specific Objection Santorum

APX - 241

page 5 of 10

Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.
Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jan. 14, 1835.
Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845
Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s
father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the
British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary
War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-decamp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’s father,
mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the
line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutemen of Virginia,
and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General
George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General
Assembly. Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir.
Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had
intended.
The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named The Venus,
belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War
of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about
citizenship, is what matters here.
WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP
In The Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd
paragraph from the French edition of Vattel supra, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties,
and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes
are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and
to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the
condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and
stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the
state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…
In 1863, the New York State Court of Appeals in Ludlum v Ludlum , 26 N.Y. 356 (1863 March Term)
defined Natural Born Citizen.
In 1866, Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, in the Congressional Globe, 39th , 1st Sess.
Pg 1291 (March 9, 1866) stated:
“...every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing
allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural
born citizen.”
This demonstrates that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the children of Italian Citizens, who
retained their own nationality. Note the reference to a singular child of plural parents, “not owing
allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”. Both parents must not owe allegiance to any foreign

Specific Objection Santorum

sovereignty for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen.
Aldo Santorum was an Italian Citizen born on Italian soil.
If Aldo didn't naturalize, then Aldo never became a US citizen.
His son Rick Santorum, may or may not be a Citizen, by his birth May 10, 1958 in Winchester,
Virginia,: jure soli (by right of the soil).
If Rick took his Italian Father's Italian citizenship, then Rick is an Italian Citizen.
If Rick took his mother's citizenship, and his mother is a US Citizen, then then Rick is a US Citizen.
But, Aldo's son, Rick Santorum, lacks two US citizen parents who were citizens at the time of Rick's
birth. He is not a Natural Born Citizen as required by the Constitution.
He has at least one parent who is not a US citizen, which creates a divided loyalty obstruction to
becoming Commander-in-chief.
Objector objects on the basis of the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 (1) eligibility “natural-born
Citizen”.
Objector cautions the New York State Board of Elections (BOE) against using as a criteria the novel
inapplicable phrase “Born a Citizen” (under “Running for Office” at BOE website), instead of the
Constitutional term “natural born Citizen”.
The Natural Born Citizen idiom was selected by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution to conform with the
concerns of the People of New York who were intent to safeguard sovereignty, to reflect history and practice of
the “Law of Nations”(2) since Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York, July 26, 1788, and that
as defined by the Legislature by statute example in the Real Property Law Article 2 Section 18 (3),and as relates
to matters of inheritance, that have since been upheld by the venerable State of New York Court of Appeals in its
own most stringent precedents that also conform with precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States
before and after the addition of the 14th amendment that did not amend the Natural Born Citizen idiom, or
warrant any assertion by the NYS BOE, other than “natural-born Citizen”. The BOE may not paraphrase the
Constitution to change its meaning to some ill-defined or differently defined “born a citizen” term, as indicated
on the BOE's website this election for the very first time.
There is no state statutory provision warranting NYS BOE to use “Born a Citizen” per se rather than Natural
Born Citizen; and therefore, is strictly a U.S. Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 Natural Born Citizen
eligibility issue that the NYS BOE must conform to, in compliance with the body of common law of the New
York Courts (4), and in accordance with SCOTUS precedents (5) that are contrary to “Born a Citizen” idiom use.

Objector notes that my mother explained to me, when I was a child, that she could never be President,
because she was a naturalized citizen. But, the fact that she had naturalized before the birth of her
children, and married a another U.S. citizen, meant that I could be President. It is interesting that this
once-common Constitutional knowledge, of an immigrant, seems to have been somehow obscured by
the last few decades.

Wherefore: Objector challenges Rick Santorum and or his agents to prove that both of his
parents, especially his father, at the time of his birth, were US Citizens.

Specific Objection Santorum

page 6 of 10

Should Rick Santorum be unable or unwilling to provide this NY State Board of Elections his
Father Aldo Santorum's Certificate of Naturalization, dated before Rick's birth on May 10, 1958,
then this board must not place Rick Santorum on the ballot for President, because he is
Constitutionally unqualified for that Office.

1

page 7 of 10

U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 paragraph 5:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

As required, prior to filing this Specification of Objections, a true and correct copy of it, together with
any and all attachments was mailed by, registered or certified mail
Certificate 7011 1570 0003 5313 5110
to the address named on the Santorum Document as the Representative of the Candidate for service of
this notice:
Rick Santorum
Post Office Box 37
Verona, PA 15147

NYS RPL § 18. Mines in Saint Lawrence county. The proprietors of any mines or veins of lead or copper in the county
of Saint Lawrence, may demise, lease, or rent the same for a period not to exceed twenty-one years from the date of
any such lease, to any foreign individual or company, and such lessee may take, hold, work, use or convey the same during
the said term, in the same manner and subject to the same liabilities as if such lessee were a natural born citizen.

The Santorum document lacks a committee to fill vacancies.

PEOPLE v. QUIROGA-PUMA, 18 Misc.3d 731 (2007) No. LX6701631.
MATTER OF BROWN, 132 Misc.2d 811 (1986) July 7, 1986 .
AGOSTINI v. DE ANTUENO, 199 Misc. 191 (1950) February 20, 1950.
PEOPLE EX REL. CHOOLOKIAN v. MISSION OF IMMAC. VIRGIN, 192 Misc. 454 (1947) December 30, 1947.

Proof of such Service is attached hereto in the form of a copy of the certified mailing receipt for the
same and Certificate of Service.

2

Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758)

3

4

New York Miscellaneous Reports

New York Appellate Division Reports
WILLIAMS v. VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER, 97 App. Div. 84 (1904) July, 1904

Feb. ____, 2012
Signed
Christopher B. Garvey (Objector)
Endnotes follow
Attached: Exhibits 1-5

New York Court of Appeals Reports
MUNRO v. MERCHANT, 28 N.Y. 9 (1863) September Term, 1863
LUDLAM v. LUDLAM, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) March Term, 1863…………………………………….
WADSWORTH v. WADSWORTH, 12 N.Y. 376 (1855) March Term, 1855
McCARTHY v. MARSH, 5 N.Y. 263 (1851) September Term, 1851
HOYT v. THOMPSON, 5 N.Y. 320 (1851) September Term, 1851
Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand.Ch. 583, 659-663 (N.Y. 1844)
5

Minor. v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627

Cases citing Minor: Boyd. v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971); City of Mobile v.
Bolden, 446 U.S 55 (1980); Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm’m of Montana, 436 U.S 371 (1978) ; Breedlove v. Suttles, 302
U.S. 277 (1937); US v. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935); Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S.
559 (1911); Hague v. Committee For Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939); Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245
(1934); Harris v. Mcrae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980); Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S 47 (1907); Kepner v. U.S., 195 U.S. 100 (1904);
Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705 (1962); N.Y. Ex Rel. Bryant v.
Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63 (1928); Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1 (1982); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 816
(1971); Schick v. U.S., 195 U.S. 65 (1904); Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944); South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437
(1905); In Re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23
(1968)
Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894), that is essentially the holy grail of support for Minor v. Happersett, as it
states:“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of
membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States,
have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of
the constitution as since…” (Emphasis added) and also the City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980)

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

Specific Objection Santorum

page 8 of 10

Specific Objection Santorum

APX - 242

page 9 of 10

Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830) therein C.J. John Marshal on how New York law
and British common law apply before and after 1776 Independence affects the right to take land in controversy by decent in
New York:

Specific Objection Santorum

page 10 of 10

APX - 243

Christopher B. Garvey v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
WITH TRO AND INJUNCTION

Exhibit G

APX - 244

Christopher B. Garvey v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
WITH TRO AND INJUNCTION

Exhibit H

Christopher B. Garvey v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al

Christopher B. Garvey v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
WITH TRO AND INJUNCTION

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
WITH TRO AND INJUNCTION

Exhibit I

Exhibit J

APX - 245

APX - 246

APX - 247

APX - 248

APX - 249

APX - 250

APX - 251

APX - 252

APX - 253

APX - 254

APX - 255

APX - 256

APX - 257

APX - 258

APX - 259

APX - 260

APX - 261

APX - 262

APX - 263

APX - 264

APX - 265

APX - 266

APX - 267

APX - 268

APX - 269

APX - 270

APX - 271

APX - 272

APX - 273

APX - 274

APX - 275

APX - 276

APX - 277

APX - 278

APX - 279

1. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran
… Notice of March 9, 2016 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Iran On … )of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for
… from the emergencyrenewal of November 2015. This notice shall be published
in the Federal …
o
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 03/10/2016
PDF

O

2. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Venezuela
… of March 3, 2016 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Venezuela On March 8, 2015 … ) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.
1622(d)), I am continuing for … 1 year thenational emergency declared in Executive
Order …
o
O
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 03/07/2016
PDF

3. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran
… Notice of November 10, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect
to Iran On … 14, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 … U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for …
o
O
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 11/13/2015
PDF

4. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect
to theProliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
o
… Notice of November 12, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With
Respect to theProliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction …
) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I
am continuing the national emergency declared …
o
O
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 11/13/2015
PDF

5. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Sudan
… Notice of October 28, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Sudan On … to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,
expanded the scope of thenational emergency to … ) of the National Emergencies Act
(50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuingfor …
o
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 10/30/2015
PDF

APX - 280

6. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to theSituation in or in
Relation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo
… Notice of October 21, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect
to theSituation in or in … Relation to the Democratic …
) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for …
o
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 10/23/2015
PDF

O

7. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Narcotics
Traffickers Centered in Colombia
… Notice of October 19, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Significant Narcotics … 21, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
202(d) of the NationalEmergencies Act (50 … U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for …
o
O
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 10/20/2015
PDF

8. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Persons Who Commit,
Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism
… Notice of September 18, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With
Respect to Persons Who … 23, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
202(d) of the National EmergenciesAct (50 … U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for …
A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 09/22/2015
PDF
9. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Certain Terrorist
Attacks
… Notice of September 10, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With
Respect to Certain Terrorist … ) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I
am continuing for … threat of further attacks on the United States. Because the terrorist
threat continues, the nationalemergency declared …

o
O

o
O
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 09/11/2015
PDF

10. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Export Control
Regulations
… Notice of August 7, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Export Control … 17, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 … U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for …
o
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 08/11/2015
PDF

APX - 281

11. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Lebanon
… Notice of July 29, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Lebanon On … August 1, 2015. In accordance with section
202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 … U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for …
o
O
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 07/31/2015
PDF

12. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Transnational Criminal
Organizations
… Notice of July 21, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Transnational Criminal … 24, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 … U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for …
o
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 07/23/2015
PDF

O

13. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Former Liberian
Regime of Charles Taylor
… Notice of July 17, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect
to the Former Liberian Regime of Charles … 22, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with
section 202(d) of the NationalEmergencies Act (50 … U.S.C. 1622(d)), I
am continuing for …
o
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 07/21/2015
PDF

O

14. Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Resulting
From the Termination of the National Emergency Declared in Executive Order
13348
… , 2015, the President signed Executive Order 13710,
terminating the national emergency in Executive Order
13348 of … the National Emergency With Respect to the Conflict in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo.” These individuals continue …
A Notice by the Foreign Assets Control Office on 12/04/2015
O PDF
15. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Western Balkans
… Notice of June 22, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect
to theWestern Balkans On June … 26, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
202(d) of the NationalEmergencies Act (50 … U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for …
o

o
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 06/24/2015
PDF

APX - 282

16. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to North Korea
… Notice of June 22, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
North Korea … to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United
States posed by thecontinued … ) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)),
I am continuing for …
o
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 06/24/2015
PDF

O

17. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Actions and
Policies of Certain Members of the Government of Belarus and Other Persons to
Undermine Belarus's Democratic Processes or Institutions
… of June 10, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect
to the Actions and Policies of Certain Members of the … Government of Belarus
A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 06/12/2015
O
O

PDF

18. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to theStabilization of Iraq
… Notice of May 19, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect
to theStabilization of Iraq On May … the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by obstacles to the continued …
) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I amcontinuing for …
o
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 05/21/2015
PDF

O

19. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Burma
… of May 15, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Burma
On May 20, 1997, the … of the Government of Burma continue to pose an unusual and
extraordinary threat tothe national … ) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.
1622(d)), I am continuing for …
o
O
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 05/19/2015
PDF

20. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Yemen
… Notice of May 13, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Yemen On … 16, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 … U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for …
o A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 05/15/2015
O PDF
O

APX - 283

21 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Central African
Republic
… Notice of May 8, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect
to the Central African Republic On … 12, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
202(d) of the NationalEmergencies Act (50 … U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for …
o
O

o
O
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 05/11/2015
PDF
22. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Actions ofthe Government of Syria
… Notice of May 6, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Actions ofthe Government of Syria On … am continuing for 1
year the national emergency declared with respect
to the actions of the Government of …
A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 05/08/2015
PDF
23 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Somalia
… Notice of April 8, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Somalia On … 12, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 … U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for …

o
O
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 04/10/2015
PDF
24. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to South Sudan
… Notice of March 31, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
South Sudan … 3, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 … U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for …

o
O

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 04/02/2015
PDF

APX - 284

APX - 285

PUBLIC LAW 94-412-SEPT. 14. 1976

90 STAT. 1255

Public Law 94-412
94th Congress

An Act
To terminate certuln authorities with respect to national emergeDciea still in
~f!'ect, and to provide fl>r or<lPrly lmplemantMlon and termii1at1on Of future
national emergencies.

Be it en<Icted by tlte Senate and House of Rep1'e8entativea of the
U,nited States of Ame1·ica in Oo,ngr688 assembled, T hat this Act may
be cited as the "~atiomtl Emergencies Act".

TI T LE

I-TER.ML~ATING

EXISTING DECLARED
EMERGENCIES

Sept. H, 1976
[H.R. 3884]

National
Emergencies Act.
50
1601

usc

note.

SEa. 101. (a) All powers and authorities poss~:>ssed by the President, 50 usc l60l.
any oth~:>r officer or emp1oyf?e of the Federal Government, or any
executive agency, as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States
Code, ns a. result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency in effect on thl' date of enactment of this Act are terminated two
vpars from the da.l:(>. of such enactment. Such termination shall not
affect( 1) tmy action taken or proceeding pending not :finally concluded or cletenninPd on such date;
(2) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior
to snch date ; or
(3) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were
incurred prior to such date.
(b) For the purpose of this section, the wot•ds 11any national emer- ''Any national
gency in effect" means a genl'ral dl'claration of emergency made by emergency in
effect."

the President.
TITLE II-DECLARATIONS OF FUTURE NATIONAL
EUERGENCIES
SEc. 201. (a) With respect to Acts of Congress authorizing the
exercise, during the period of a national emergency, of any special
or extraordinary power, the President is authorized to declare such
n.ntional emergency. Such proclamation shAll immediately be tran smitted to the CongL·ess and published in the Federal R egister.
. (b) Any provisions of law conferring powers and authorities to be
ex(}rcisccl during a nationnl emel'gency shall be effective and remain
in effect (1) on]y when the Pr11sident (in accordat1ce with snbsection
(a) oft~ section), spec~cally declar·es a national emergency, and
(2) only m accordance w1th this A ct. No law enacted after the date
or enactment ot this Act shall supersede tJliS title unless it does $0 in
specific terms, refening to this title, and oeclaring that the new law
supersedes the {)rovisions of this title.
SEC. 202. (a) Any national emergency declared by the P resident
in nccordance with this title shall term.i:rulte if. (1) Congress terminates the emergency by concurrent resolutiOn; or
(2) t.he President issues a proclamation terminating the
emergency.

APX - 286

50 US<. 1621.

Presidential
pToclamation,
transmittal to
Congress;
publication in
Fedenl Register.

Tennination.
50
1622.

usc

90 STAT. 1256
Termination date.

Concurrent
resolution,
referral to
congressional
committees.

Conference
committee, filing
of report.

PUBLIC LAW 94-412- SEPT. 14, 1976
Any national emergency dechtred by the President shall be terminated
on the date specified in any concurrent resolution referred to in clause
(1) or on the date specified in a proclamation by the President terminating the emergency as provided in clause (2) of this subsection,
whichever date is earlier, and any powers or authorities exercised by
r~>.ason of said emergency shall cease to be exercised after such specified
date, except that such termination shall not affect(A) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date; .
(B) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior
to such date; or
. (C) any .rights or dnties that matured or penalties that were
mcurred pr1or to such date.
(b) Not Inter than six months after a national emel'gency is
clPcllll·ed, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall
mPet to consider a vote on a, concurrent resolution to determine
whether that emergency shall be terminated.
(c) (1) A concurrent resolution to terminate a national emet·gency
declared by the President shaH be referred to the appropriate committee o£ t'he House of Representatives or the Senate, ns the case may
be. One such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days
after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee,
unless such House :;'Lull otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
(2) Any concUl'rent resolution so reported shall become the pend·
ing business of the House in question (in the case o£ the Senate the
lime for debate shnlJ be equn.lly divided between the proponents and
the opponents) and shall be voted on within three calendar days after
the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall
otherwise determine by yens and nays.
(3) Such a concu l'l'ent resolution passed by one House shall be
referred to the appropriate committP,e of the other House and shall be
reported out by such committee together with its recommendations
w.itbin fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution -is
referred •to such committee and shall thereupon become the pending
busiooss of such House and shall be voted upon within three calendar
days afte1· the day on .whiCh such resolution is reported, unless such
House shall otherwise determine by yeas and na.ys.
(4) In the case of any disagreement between the cwo Houses of
Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses,
conferees shall be promptly apP.ointed and the committee of conference
shall make and 1ile a report w1th respect to such concurrent resolution
within six calendar days after the day on which managers on the part
of the Senate and the House have been a;Ppointed. Notwithstanding
any rule in either House concerning·the pnnting of conference reports
or concerning any delay in the consideration of such re,Ports, such
report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than s1x calendar
days after the conference report is .filed in the House in which such
re,~>ort is filed first. In the event the conferees are unable to agree
wxthin forty-eight hours, they shall report back to their respective
Houses in disagreement.

APX - 287

PUBUC LAW 94-412- SEPT. 14, 1976

90 STAT. 1257

(5) Paragraphs (1)-(4) of this subsection, subsection (b) of this
section, and section 502 (b) of thls Act are enacted by CongressPos4 p. 1258.
(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such they a1-e
deemed a pa.rt of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in the
Houso in tho case of resolutions Clescribed by this subsection; and
they supersede other ·rules only to the extent tha:t they are inconsistent therewith; and
(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either
H<mse to cltange the rules (so far as relating to the procedure of
.that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to ·the same
extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.
(d) Any national emergency declared by the President in accord- Publication in
&nee with this title, and not otllerwise previously terminated, shall Federal Register,
terminate on the anniversary of the declaration of that emergency if, transmittal to
within the ninety-day period prior to eacil anniversary date, the Presi- Congress.
dent does not publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the
Congress a notice stating that such emergency is to continue in effect
after such anniversary.

TITLE TIT-EXERCISE OF EMERGENCY POWERS AND
AUTHORITIES
SEc. 301. When the President declares a national emergency, no 50 usc 1631.
powei"S or authorities made available by statute fo:r use in the event of
an emergency shalJ be exercised unless and until the President specifies
the provisions of law ttnder which he proposes that he, or other officers
will act. Such specification may be made either in .the declaration of a Executive orders;
nntional emergency, or by one or more cont.P.mporll.neou;; or snhsequent publication in
Register,
Executive orders published in the Federal Register and transmitted to Federal
tr8Jil!mittal to
the Congress.
Congress.

TITLE IV-ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRESIDENT
SEc. 401. (a) When the President dechues a national emergency, or Presidential
Congress declares war, the Pt·esident shaJl be r('sponsible for maintain- orders, rules and
ing n file a.nd index of all significant orders of the President, including regulations, £ile
maintenance.
E xecutive orders n.nd proclamations, and each Executive agency shall 50
usc 1641.
maintn.in a file and index of all rules and regulations, issued during
such emergency or war issued pmsuant to suCh declarations.
(b) All such significant orders of the President, including E.""{ecu- Presidential
tive orders, and such rules and regulations shall be transmitted to orders,
the Congress promptly under means to assure confidentiality where transmittal to
Congress.
ttppropnate.
(c) When the President declares a national emergency or Con~ Expenditures,
declares war, the President shall trliJlSJllit to Congress, within nmety reports to
days after the end of each six-month period after such declaration, a Congress.
report on tl1e total expenditures incurred by the United States Government during such six-month period which are directly attributable to
the exercise of powers and authorities conferred by such declaration.
Not later than ninety days after the termination of each such emergency or war, the President shall transmit a final report on all such
expenditures.

APX - 288

PUBUC LAW 94-412- SEPT. 14, 1976

90 STAT. 1258

TITLE V-REPEAL AND CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN
EMERGENCY POWER AND OTHER STATUTES
Loss of
nationality.

Leases, non·
excess property.

Repeal.

SEc. 501. (a) Section 349 (a) o:f the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C.1481(a)) is amended(1) at the end of paragraph (9), by striking out "; or'' and
inserting in lieu thereof a. per·1od; and
(2) by striking out paragraph (10).
(b) Section 2667(b) of title 10 of the United States Code is
amended(1) by inserting "and" at the end of paragraph (3);
(2) by sGriking out paragraph (4); and
(3) by redesigno.Ling pamgraph (5) as (4).
(c) The joint resolution entitled "Joint resolution to authorize the

~mpo1'nry

Repeal.
Repeal.

Repeal.
Savings
provision.

50

usc 1601

note.

contiltulltlon of r·egulation of consumer Cl'edit", n.pp1·oved

August 8,1947 (12 U.S. C. 249), is I'epealed.
(d) Sectiml 5( m} of tbe Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933
as amended (16 U.S.C. 831d (m) is repealed.
(e) Section 1383 o£ title 18, tnited States Code, is repealed.
(:f) Section 6 of the Act entitled "An Act io amend the Public
Health Service Act in regard to certain mattei'S of personnel and
administration, and :for other puL'poses" t approved February 28 1 1948,
is amended by striking out subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), a1'td ( £) ( 42
u.s.c. 2llb).
(g) Sertion 9 of the Merchant Shlp Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C.
App. 1742) is repealed.
(h) This section shn.ll not aifect(1) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined at the hme of repeal;
(2) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior

i

to repeol; or
50 usc 1651.

(3) any rights or duties that matured o1· penalties that were
inem-red prior to repeal.
SEc. 502. (a) The provisions o£ this Act shall not apply to the following px·ovisions of law, the powers and authorities conferred
thereby, and actions taken thereunder:
( 1) Section 5 (b) of the Act o£ October 6, 1917, as amended (12
ssa; 5o
App. 5 (b)) ;
(2) Act of April 28, 1042 (40 U.S.C. 278b) ;
(3) Actof Jtme30,194.9 (41 U.S.C.252);
( 4) Section 34/77 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C.
203);
(5) Section 3737 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (41
u.s.c. 15);
(6) Public Law 85-804 (Act of Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 972;
5o
aai-1435);
(7) Section 2301(a.) (1) of title 10, United States Code;
(8) Sections 3313, 6386(c), and 8313 of title 10, United States
Code.

u.s.a.

u.s.a.

u.s.a.

APX - 289

PUBLIC LAW 94-412-SEPT. 14, 1976

90 STAT. 1259

(b) Ea~h committee of the House of Representatives and the Senate Congressional
having jurisdictjon with respect to any provision o£ law referred to committees,
report to
in subsection (a) of-this section shall make a complete study and inves- study;
Congress.
tigation concernin~ that provision of law and make a report-, including
any recommendations and proposed revisions such. committee may
have, to its respective House of Congress within two hundred and
seventy days after the date of enactment of this A ct.
Approved September 14, 1976.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
HOUSE REPORT No. 94-238 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
SENATE REPORT No. 94-1168 (Comm. on Government Operations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
Vol. 121 (1975): Sept. 4, considered and passed House.
Vol. 122 (1976): Aug. 27, considered and passed Senate, amended.
Aug. 31, Bouse concurred in Senate amendm.ents.

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS:
Vol. 12, No. 38 {1976): Sept. 14, Presidential statemen1.

APX - 290

PUBLIC LAW 95-223-DEC. 28, 1977

91 STAT. 1625

Public Law 95- 223
95th Congress
An Act
Wltb respect to tbe powers or the President in time of war or national emergency.

Dec. 28, 1977
(H.R. 7738]

Be it enacted by thr Senate o·nd Houae of Repruentatives of the
Wartime or
Unitrd States of Amerira in Oongrus aJJsemlJlecl,
natioru~l

TITLE

I-.DlEND~lEXTS

RtThlOVAL OJ,'

TO THE TRADING WITH THE
ENEMY ACT

NATIO~AL

emergencies.
Presidential
powers.

EMERGE.."fCY POWERS UNDER Tllll TRADING WlTH
THE Eli.'EMY ACT

SEc. 101. (a) ~C'ction 5(b) (1) of tl1e Trading With the Enemy Act
is amended Ly striking out. "or during any other pt>riod of national
emergency declared by the President" in the text prect>ding bUbparagraph (A).
(I)) Notwithstanding ll1e amendment made by subsection (a~, the
authorities confel'red upon the President by sectton 5 (b) of the Trading With the Enemy .Act, which were being exercised with respect
to a country on ,July 1, 1977, as a result of a nation1tl emergency
dcclarrd by the Pr<>sidcnt before such date, may continue to l>e exercised
with respect to such country, except that, unless extended, the exercise
of such author·ities shall terminate (subject to the savings provisions of Lhe second scnt<'nce of section 101 (a) of the Na tiona) Emergencies Act) at the end of the two-year period beginning on the date
of enactment of the National Emergencies Act. The President may
extend the exercise of such author::ities for one-year periods upon a
determination for each such extension that the exercise of such
autl1oritics with respect to such country for another year is in the
national interest of the United States.
(c) The termination and extension provisions of subsection (b)
of this section supersede the provisions of section lOl(a} and of title
II of the Nationn.l Emergencies .Act to the extent that the provisions
of subsection (b) of this section are inconsistent with those provisions.
(d) Para#!mph (1) of section 5Q-2(a) of the National Emergencies
.Act is repealed.

SO USC app. 5.

Termination or
extension,
effective date.
50 USC app. 5
note.

50 usc 1601.
50 usc 1601
note.

50

usc 1621.

Repeal.
50

usc 1651.

WARTIME AUTHOlUTJES

SEc. 102. Section 5(b) (1) of the Trading With the Enemy Act is Supra.
amcndetl(1) in the text preceding subparagraph (A), by striking out
"or otherwise," the .first time it appe&rs; and
(2) by striking out "; and the President may, in the manner
1H're•nohove provtded, take other and further measures not inconsistent herewith for the enforcement of this 1mbdivision".

APX - 291

91 STAT. 1626
50 USC app. 16.
50 USC app. 5.

International
Emergency
Economic Powert

Act.
50 usc 1701
note.

PUBUC LAW 95-223-DEC. 28, 1977

SEc. 103. (a) Section 16 of the Trading With the Enemy Act is
amended by striking out "$10,000" and inserting in lieu thereof

"$50 000".

(b~ Section 5(b) (3) of such Act is amended by striking out the
second sentence.
TITLE IT- INTERNATIONAL ElfERGENCY ECONOMIC
POWERS
snoRT TITLE

SEC. 201. This title may be cited as the "International Emergency
Economic Powers Act".
SITUATIONS IN WIDCH AUTHORITIES MAY BE EXERCISED

Unusual and
extraordinary
threat,
Presidential
declaration of
national
emergency.

50

usc 1701.

SEc. 202. (a) Any authority t;r:anted to the President by section
203 may be exercised to deal w1th nny unusual and extraordinary

threat which has its source in whole or substantial pa1t outside the
United States, to the national security, foreign ~>Olicy, or economy of
the United States, if the President declares a natlonal emergency with
reSJ?ect to such threat.
(b) The authorities granted to the President by section 203 may
only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extrn,ordinary threat
with respect to wpj.ch a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this title and may not be exercised for any other purpose.
Al1y exercise of such authorities to deal with any new threat shall be
based on a new declaration of national emergency which must be with
respect to such threat.
GRA~'T

50 usc 1702.

OF AUTHORlTIES

SEc. 203. (a) (1) At the times and to the extent specified in section
202, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe,
by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise-

(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit(i) nny transactions in foreign exchange,
(h) transfers of credit or payments between, by, throun-h,
or to any banking institution, to the extent that sucl1 I ra~'S
or payments involve any interest of nny foreign country or
a national thereof,
(iii) the importing or exporting of currency or securities;
and
(B) investigate1 regulate, direct and compel, nnllify, void,
prevent or prohib1t1 any acquisition, holding. withholding, use,
transfer, withdrawal, transpot,tation, impo1tation or expottation
of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privile~c with
respect to, or transactions involvmg, any property in which any
foreign country or a national thereof has any interest;
by any person, or with respect to n.ny property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Records.
(2) In exercising the authorities granted by paragraph {1), the
maintenance and Pres1dent may require any person to keep a full record of, and to
availability.
furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, complete
information relative to any act or transaction referred to in paragraph
(1) either before, during, or after the completion thereof, or relative

APX - 292

PUBLIC LAW 95-223-DEC. 28, 1977

91 STAT. 1627

to any interest in :foreign property, or rela.ti'""e to any property in
which any foreign country o~ any national thereof has or bas _h~d any
interest, or as may be otherw1se necessary to enforce the prOVlSlons o:f
such pnngraph. In any case in which a report by a person could be
required under this paragraph, the President may require t he production of any books of account, records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or othet• papers, in the custody or control of such person.
(3) Complianre with any re~ation, in~ruction, or direction i~·meo Uability.
undt>r this title sl1all to the erlt>nt thereoi be a full acquittance and
discharge for· all purpOSE's of the obli~ation of the person making the
same. No person shall be held liable m any cou1t for or with. respect
to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection 'vith the
administrntion of, or prn'Suant to and in reliance on, this titlc, or any
regulation, instruction, or direction issued under this title.
(b) The authority trr-anled to the President by this section does not
include the nuthor·ity to regulate or prohibit. directly or indirt>ctly(1) any 'Postal, telegraphic, telt>phonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of
value; or
(2) donations, by persons subject to tl1e jurisdiction of the
United States, of ar6cles, snch as food, clothin{!, and medicine,
intended to be used to relieve human suffering, except to the extent
that tho President determines that such donations (A) would
seriously impair his ability to deal with any national emergency
declared tmder section 202 of this title, (D) arc in responoo to
roercion against. the proposed redpient or donor, or ( 0) would
endanger Armed Forces of the United States which are cngag<'d
in hostilities or are in a situation where imminent involrement in
hostilitit's is clearly indicated by the circumstances.
CONSULTATIOX Allo""O flEl'ORTS

Sec. 20.1. (a) The President, in every pO!'.'lible instance, shaH consult 50 USC 1703.
with the Congress before exercisi~ any of tl1e authorities grant<'d by
this title nnd shall consult regularly with the Congress so long ns such
authoritiPs are exerci!1ed.
(b) Whenever the President exercises any of the authorities granted
by t~i s. title, he shall immediately transJrut to the Congress a report.
speclfyma(1) the circumstances which necessitate such exercise o! nuthorit.y;
(2) why the President believes thooo circumstances constitute
an Wlusual and extraordinary threa.t, which has its source in
whole or substanti11l part outside the United States, to the
national security, foreign policy, or economy o:f the United
States;
(3) the authorities to be exercised and the Rctions to bo takcn
in the exercise of those authorities to deal with those cit·cumstanccs;
. ( 4) why t_he President believes such actions arc neceRsat·y to deal
w1th those cr rcumstances; and
(5) any foreign countries with respect to which such actions at·c
to be taken and why such actions are to be taken with respect to
those countries.
(c) At least once during each succeeding six-month period after
transmitting a report pursuant to subsection (b) with respect to an
exercise of authonties under this title, the President shall report to the

APX - 293

91 STAT. 1628

50

usc 1641.

PUBLIC LAW 95-223-DEC. 28, 1977

Congress with respect to the actions takent since the last such report,
in tlie exercise of such authorities, and WJth respect, to any chan~:,res
which have occurrPd concerning any information previously furnished
pursuant to paragraphs ( 1) through ( 5) of subsection (b).
(d) The requirements of this section are supplemental to those contained in title IV of theN ational Emergencies Act.
AUTJIORITY TO ISSUE REGULATIONS

50 usc 1704.

SEC. 205. The Pwudent may issue surh regulations, including regulations prescribing definitions, as may be necessary for the exercise of
the authorities granted by this title.
PENALTIES

50

usc 1705.

SEC. 206. (a) A civil penalty of not to exceeo $10,000 may be
imposed on any person who violates any license, order, or regulation
issued tmder this title.
(b) "Whoever willfully violates any licl'nse, orde1·. or regulation
issut>d nnder this title shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than
$i'iO,OOO, or, if a natUl'a1 person, may be imprisoned for not more tha.n
ten years, or both; and !tn:V officer, director, or agent of any corporation
who kno,vingly participates in such violation may he ptmished by a
like fine, imprisonment, or both.
S.\VIXGS PROVISTON

50
50

usc 1706.
usc 1601

note.

50 usc 1622.

50 usc 1601.

SEo. 207. (a) (1) Except as provided in subsection (b) 1 notwithstanding the termmation pursuant to the National Emergencies Act
of a national emergency declared for pnrpof'CS of this title, any
authorities granted by this title, which are exercised on the date of
such termination on the basis of such national emergency to prohibit
transactions involving property in which R foreign country or na.tionaJ
thereof has any interest, may continue to be so exE'rCi"E'd to prohibit
transactions in'·olving that property if the Pt·esident determines that
the continuation of such prohibition with respect to that property is
necessa~ on account of claims involving snrh country or its nationals.
(2) N otwithstnnding the termination of the authoriti<'s described
in section 101 (b) of this A ct, any Euch authorities, which arc exercised
with respect to a. countr-y on the date of surh termination to prohibit
transactions imrolnng any property in which surh country or any
national thereo-f has any interest, may continue t.o be exercised to prohibit transactions involving that pr·operty if the President determines
that the continuution of such prohibition with respect to (hat property
is necesc;ary on accotmt of claims involving such country or its
nationals.
(b) The authorities described in subsection (a) (1) may not continue to be exerci~ed under this section j£ t.he n!ltional emergency is
terminntecl by the Congress by concurrent rr!'olution pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act. and j£ the Congr-ess specifies
in such concurrent resolution that such authorities may not continue
to be exercised under this section.
(c) (1) The provisions of this S('ction nrc supplcmento.l to the savin~s
provts1ons of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 101(a) and of
paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of sectiOn 202(a.) of the NationaJ
Emergencies Act.

APX - 294

PUBLIC LAW 95-223-DEC. 28, 1977

91 STAT. 1629

(2) The provisions o-f this section supersede the termination pl'ovisioms of section 101 (a) and of tille II of the Nationnl .Emergencies
Act to the extent that the provisions of this se<'lion aro inconsistent. 50 usc 1601,
1621.
with these provisions.
(d) If the President uses the authority of this section to continue Report to
prohibitions on transactions involving foreign property interests, he Congress.
shall report to lhe Congress every six months on the use of such
authority.
SEc. 208. If any provision of this Act is held invalid, the remainder Severability.
50 usc 1701
of the Act shall not be affected thereby.
note.
TITLE ill- AMENDMENTS TO THE EXPORT
.ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1969
AOTllORJTY T() REOCJ.ATE EXTRATERRITORIAL EXPORTS

~EC. 301. (a) T he first S<'ntence of section 4(b) (1) of the Export
A.dministn1f ion Act of 1969 is amended to read RS follows : "To
effectuate the policies set forth in section 3 of this Act, the President
may prohibit or curtail the exportation, except under such rules and
re~lations as he shall prescribe, of any a1ticles, matPrials, or supplies, including technical data or any other information, subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States or e~orted by any person subject to the jw'isdiction of the United States.' .
(b) (1) Section 4(b) (2) (B) of such Act is umended(A) in the first sentence, by striking out ":from the United
States, its territories and possessions,"; and
(B) in the second sentence-(i) by striking out " from the United States"; and
(il) by strik:irig out "produced in the United States" and
insertin~ in lieu thereof uwhich w<>uld be subject to such
controls'·
(2) Section 6(c)(2)(A) of such Act is amended by striking out
" from the United States, its territories or possessions,".

Approved December 28, 1977.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
HOUSE REPORT No. 95-459 (Cornm. on International Relations).
SENATE REPORT No. 95-466 (Comm. on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 123 (1977):
July 12, considered and passed House.
Oct. U, considered and passed Senate, amended.
Nov. 30, House concurred in certain Senate amendments, in others with
amendments.
Dec. 7, Senate concurred in House amendments.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENlS, Vol. 13, No. 53:
Dec. 28, Presidential statement.

APX - 295

50 USC app.
2403.
50 USC app.
2402.

50 USC app.
2405.

AMENDMENTS TO THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT LIMIT PRESIDENTIAL POWER TO REGULATE
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC TRANSACTIONS

Maryland Journal of International Law
Volume 3 !Issue 2

Article II

Amendments to the Trading With the Enemy Act

APX - 296
Follow this and additional works at: http :/ /digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu / mj il

& Part of the lnten1ational Law Commons, and the International Trade Commons
Recommended Citation
Amendments to the 'lhlding With tl1e Enemy Act, 3 .Md.J. l nt'l L.413 ( 1978).
Available at: http:/ / digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/ mjil/ vol3/ iss2/ll

This Notes & Comments is brought to you for free and Op<!n ~ccess by DigitalCommons@lUM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Maryland journal of International Law by :m authorized administrator ofDigit;~.!Commons@JUM Carey Law. For more information, please contact
sn~~.:CJ.rtr@llai'Will.l.ryland.edu .

The Trading with the Enemy Act 1 was passed by Congress in
1917 as a wartime measure to regulate economic transactions with
enemy countries and their allies. Section 5(b) of the Act grants the
President unlimited powers to regulate economic transactions
during any declared period of national emergency. Congress
recently amended Section 5(b) of the TWEA to restrict the
authorized presidential powers/
The purpose of the TWEA was to "define, regulate and punish
trading with the enemy."a Section 5(b) of the original act gave the
President power to regulate or prohibit transactions in foreign
exchange and currency, and transfers of credit or property with
any foreign country or the resident of any foreign country during
war.• This section has been amended four times. 5
In 1933 Section 5(b) was amended to provide that its
authorities could be used in time of a national emergency declared
by the President; 6 previously, the grants of power could be used
only during wartime. President Roosevelt cited the emergency
authority of 5(b) to declare a bank holiday during the depression. 7
The national emergency declared by Roosevelt is still in effect
today.
1. Trading With the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C. app. §§ 1-39, 41-44 (1970)
[hereinafter cited as TWEA].
2. Amendments to the Trading with the Enamy Act, Pub. L. No. 95-223, 91
Stat. 1625 (1977). For legislative history see H.R. 7738, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., 123
CoNG. REc. H6868 (daily ed. July 12, 1977) (House version); H.R. 7738, 95th Cong.,
1st Sess., 123 CoNG. REo. Sl6912 (daily ed. Oct. 11, 1977), (Senate version). The
House concurred in the Senate amendment& with ita own amendments on Nov. 30,
1977, 123 CoNo. REc. Hl2558 (daily ed. Nov. 30, 1977). The Senate concurred in the
House amendment& with amendmente on Dec. 7, 1977, 123 CoNo. REc. 819439
(daily ed. Dec. 7, 1977).
3. Memorandum for the Special Committee on the Termination of the
National Emergency, Department of Justice, May 21, 1973. 120 CoNG. REc. 834016
(1974).
4. Trading With the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C. app. §5(b) (1970).
5. 40 Stat. 966 (1918); 48 Stat. 1 (1933); 54 Stat. 179 (1940); 55 Stat. 839 (1941).
6. 48 Stat. 1 (1933).
7. Exec. Proc. No. 2039, 48 Stat. 1691 (1933). This Proclamation declared that
a national emergency existed because of heavy withdrawals from banking
institutions.

(413)

414

THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE

LAw

JOURNAL

APX - 297

Three other national emergencies declared pursuant to 5(b)
are still in effect at the present time. In 1950, President Truman
declared the existence of a national emergency to aid in
furthering the Korean War.8 President Nixon declared a national
emergency during the postal strike in 1970.9 Another national
emergency was declared in 1971 to deal with the balance of
payments crisis. 1o Other than President Truman's declaration, the
three declared national emergencies illustrate the President's
expansion of the original wartime powers of 5(b) to include
regulation of economic transactions during peacetime. In 1968,
President Johnson imposed foreign direct investment controls on
U.S. investors.11 He based these regulations on the national
emergency declared by President Truman in 1950. In 1971,
President Nixon imposed a 10% surcharge on imports, based on
the national emergency declared to ease the balance of payments
crisis. 12 When the Export Administration Act expired, section 5(b)
of the TWEA was used as authority for the Export Administration
Regulations. 13
Four sets of regulations pursuant to section 5(b) are still in
force, all based on the national emergency declared by Truman
during the Korean War. The Foreign Assets Control Regulations 14
place a complete embargo on trade with North Korea, Cambodia
and Viet Nam in the absence of a license from the Treasury
Department. 15 A second set of regulations, entitled Regulations
Prohibiting Transactions Involving the Shipment of Certain
Merchandise Between Foreign Countries, 16 limits trading with
Communist countries unless the goods are shipped via certain
western countries,17 The Cuban Assets Control Regulations 18
withhold Cuban assets located in the U.S. and limit transactions
with Cuba. The Foreign Funds Control Regulations's block assets

8. Exec. Proc. No. 2914, 3 C.F.R. 99 (1950).
9. Exec. Proc. No. 3972, 3 C.F.R. 473 (1970).
10. Exec. Proc. No. 4074, 36 Fed. Reg. 15724 (1971).
11. Exec. Order No. 11387, 33 C.F.R. 47 (1969).
12. Exec. Proc. No. 4074, 36 Fed. Reg. 15724 (1971).
13. Exec. Order No. 11677, 37 Fed. Reg. 15483 (1972).
14. 31 C.F.R. §§500.101-.809 (1976).
15. ld. § 500.201.
16. ld. §§ 505.01-.60.
17. Id. § 505.31.
18. ld. §§ 515.01-.809.
19. ld. §§ 520.01- .809.

THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT

415

of countries pending settlement of claims by U.S. citizens for
compensation of property confiscated by the Communist govern·
mente after World War II.
The power of the President to control economic transactions
pursuant to 5(b) has been upheld by the courts. In U.S. v. Yoshida:
International Inc., 20 an importer challenged the validity of
President Nixon's 10% import surcharge issued pursuant to the
declared emergency of the balance of payments crisis. Judge
Markey of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals held that
section 5(b) of the TWEA clearly delegated power to the President
to regulate imports during declared national emergencies, and
that the President acted properly by issuing the 10% surcharge.21
To partially delimit the President's broad powers in the area,
in 1976 Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act22 which
terminated any emergency in effect two years frqm the date of
enactment. New procedures were established for declaring future
national emergencies. However, section 5(b) of the TWEA was
specifically exempted from the provisions of the National
Emergencies Act to allow Congress to study proposed revisions of
5(b) which would not disrupt policies currently in effect.23
Public Law, 95-223, the new act amending section 5(b), is a
result of this study.2 4 Both House and Senate Reports on the act
note that Presidents have extensively used the authorities of 5(b)
to regulate economic transactions unrelated to war or national
emergency, 25 and that 5(b) had thus become an almost unlimited ·
grant of power to the President. The purpose of the new act is to
redefine and codify the President's authority to regulate interna·
tional economic transactions in future times of war or national
emergency.26 The legislation "would separate war and non-wat
20. 526 F.2d 582 (C.C.P.A 1975).
21. Id. at 583.
22. 50 U .S .C .A. §§1601-1851 (1977). For legislative history and purpose of the
act, see [1976) U.S. CODE CONG. & Ao. NEWS.
23. H.R. REP. No. 459, 95th Cong., let Sese. (1977).
24. SuscoMMITrEE oN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND CoMMERCE, CoMMlTI'EE
O.N INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 94TH CONG. 2D S;;ss., TRADING WITH THE ENEMY,
LEGISLATIVE AND ExECUTIVE DOCUMENTS CONCERNING REGULATION OF
INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS IN TIME OF DECLARED NATIONAL EMERGENCY.

(Comm. Print 1976).
25. H.R. REP. No. 459, 95th Cong., let Sese. 4 (1977), and S. REP. No. 466, 95th
Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1977).
26. H.R. REP. No. 459, 95th Cong., let Seas. 1 (1977); S . REP. No. 466, 95th
Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1977).

416

THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE

LAw

JouRNAL

APX - 298

authorities and procedures, preserving existing presidential
powers in time of war declared by Congress, and providing
somewhat narrower powers subject to Congressional review in
times of national emergency." 27 The act itself is divided into three
sections.
Title I removes national emergency powers from section 5(b)
of the TWEA. However, the artime powers of 5(b) remain intact.
The title includes a grandfather clause tied to existing regulations
to prevent their termination by the amendment. The act states
that the powers exercised under 5(b) before July 1, 1977 may
continue only for a two-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of the National Emergencies Act. The President can
then extend the authorities for one-year periods if he believes it is
in the national interest. 2 a Finally, the criminal penalties for
violation of the TWEA are increased from $10,000 to $50,000. 29
The last section of Title I states that a Presidential decision to
extend or terminate existing uses under 5(b) would not be subject
to provisions of the National Emergencies Act. 30 This section is
necessary because the National Emergencies Act states that it
governs unless specifically superseded by subsequent legislation. 31
The act's major significance lies within Title II, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This section provides
for Presidential regulation of economic transactions in times of
national emergencies. A national emergency is defined as an
"unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security,
foreigD policy or economy of the U.S. which has its source wholly
or partly outside the U .8."32 Any exercise of authority to deal with
a new threat must be based on a new declaration of national
emergency .33
27. H.R. REP. No. 469, 95th Cong., let Sese. 1 (1977).
28. Amendments to the Trading with the Enemy Act, Pub. L. No. 95-223,
§ 101(b), 91 Stat. 1625 (1977) [hereinafter cited as the Act].
29. The House Report says that this increase brings fines of the TWEA into
conformity with those for violation of national security and foreign policy
pro.v isions of the Export Administration Act.
30. Amendments to the Trading with the Enemy Act, Pub. L. No. 95-223,
§ lOl(c), 91 Stat. 1625 (1977).
31. National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C.A. §§ 1601-1651 (1977), says "no law
enacted after September 14, 1976 shall supersede this subchapter unless it does so
in specific terms, referring to this subchapter and declaring that the new law
supersedes the provisions of this subchapter."
32. Amendments to the Trading with the Enemy Act, Pub. L. No. 95-223,
§ 202, 91 Stat. 1625 (1977).
33. !d. § 202(b).

THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AcT

417

The grant of authorities under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act is similar to the grant under 5(b) of the
TWEA. Under the new section, the President may investigate,
regulate or prohibit transactions in foreign exchange, banking
transactions, importing and exporting of currency or securities
and regulate or freeze any property in which any foreign country
or national thereof has any interest. 34 This section of the act also
has a provision similar to that of 5(b) which allows the President
to require that records be kept of these transactions. 35
Title II does not include the powers to.l) ves£ foreign property;
2) regulate gold or silver coin or bullion; 3) seize records; or 4)
regulate domestic transactions which were included in the
President's national emergency powers in 5(b).36 The Interna·
tiona! Emergency Economic Powers Act specifically limits the
President's power during a national emergency. The President·
would be restricted from "regulating or prohibiting directly or
indirectly personal communications not involving transfers of
value." 37
The final version excludes Presidential authority over
"donations of articles, such as food, clothing and medicine
intended to be used to relieve human suffering." 38 The Act
prohibits monetary contributions because "the person making the
contributions has no control over the end use of his funds." 39
However, the Act provides that the President may regulate or

34. !d. § 203(a)(l).
35. ld. § 203(a)(2).
36. H.R. REP. No. 459, 95th Cong., 1st Seas. 15 (1977); S. Rep. No. 466, 95th
Cong., 1st Sese. 5 (1977).
37. Amendments to the Trading with the Enemy Act, Pub. L. No. 95-223,
§ 203(b)(1), 91 Stat. 1625 (1977).
38. The House version of the bill would have only excluded from the
President's authority "uncompensated transfers of anything of value." H.R. 7738,
95th Cong., 1st Seas., §203(b)2,123 CoNG. REc. H6868 (daily ed. July 12, 1977). The
House concurred in the Senate version with its own amendments, 123 CONG. REc.
Hl2558 (daily ed. Nov. 30, 1977). The Senate version originally read, "donations of
articles, including food, clothing, and medicine intended to be used solely to relieve
human suffering." H.R. 7738, 95th Cong., let Seas., § 203(b)2, 123 CoNo. REc.
816912 (daily ed. Oct. 11, 1977). The House amendments deleted "including",
substituted "such as" and deleted "solely." "Such as" was substituted so that the
listed items would only be illustrative of the donations covered by the exemption.
"Solely" was deleted since items of a humanitarian character would have some
economic benefit in addition to relieving human suffering. 123 CoNG. REc. H12558
(daily ed. Nov. 30, 1977).
39. S. REP. No. 466, .5th Cong., 1st Sese. 5 (1977).

418

419

APX - 299

THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW JOURNAL

THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AcT

prohibit these items if he determines that otherwise his authority
to deal with the emergency would be seriously impaired, if they
are in response to coercion, or if they would endanger U.S. armed
forces. 40
Title II also requires that the President consult with Congress
before exercising authority granted under the Act unless prompt
action is required in an emergency. 41 The Act calls for a report to
be submitted to Congress which specifies 1) the circumstances
which necessitate the authority, 2) why these circumstances
constitute an emergency, 3) the action to be taken, 4) why this
action is necessary, and 5) which foreign countries are involved.
The President must then report to Congress at six month intervals
any changes which have occurred and what action has been
taken. 42
Title II of the House bill had a provision for Congressional
veto of any regulation issued pursuant to the Act. 48 The Senate
Committee44 completely deleted this provision from their version.
The Committee felt that the provision would violate constitutional
principles of separation ofpowers. 45 The House version stated that
if Congress adopts a concurrent resolution disapproving a
regulation, then such regulation shall cease to be effective. 46 The
House Committee thought that this provision was necessary in
view of past instances where Presidents have used the authority
to expand the scope of 5(b). 47 The House finally agreed to the

Senate amendment because Congress already had authority under
the National Emergencies Act to overrule or veto the President's
declaration of emergency.••
The Act has a savings provision similar to that of the
National Emergencies Act.•9 It provides that the President may
continue to block any assets of a foreign country if he determines
that this is necessary because of U.S. claims against the country
involved. 50 This provision, however, cannot save the regulation if
Congress terminates the national emergency under the National
Emergencies Act. 51 The Act also contains a section stating that if
any provision of it is held invalid, the remainder shall not be
affected. 52
Title III of the Act contains amendments to the Export
Administration Act. The amendments confer authority to the act
to control non-U.S. origin exports by foreign subsidiaries of U.S.
concerns. Section 5(b) of the TWEA had previously been cited as
the authority for this act. Now, the non-wartime powers of this
Act have been removed from the authority of 5(b). The final
version of the Act was basically the Senate version with several
minor technical corrections.
The effect of the new legislation will be to take away the
broad Presidential power to regulate international economic
transactions during peacetime by using 5(b) of the TWEA. The
wartime provisions of the TWEA remain the same. The new Act
gives the President specific procedures and guidelines to follow in
exercising the act's powers when a national emergency is
declared. The President is subject to Congressional review.

40. Amendments to the Trading with the Enemy Act, Pub. L. No. 95-223,
§ 203, 91 Stat. 1625 (1977).
41. Id. § 204(a), states that Congress should be consulted "in every possible
instance." The House Committee Report says, "[n]othing in this section shall be
construed as requiring submission of a report as a precondition of taking action
where circumstances require prompt action prior to or simultaneouely with
submission of a report."
42. Amendments to the Trading with the Enemy Act, Pub. L. No. 95-223,
§ 204(b), 91 Stat. 1625 (1977).
43. Id. § 206.
44. The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs has control
over International banking.
45. Amending the Trading with the Enemy Act, H.R. 7738. Hearings before
the Senate Subcommittee on International Finance of the Committee on Banking,
Housing & Urban Affairs, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1977) (statement of C. Fred
Bergsten, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs).
46. Amendments to the Trading with the Enemy Act, Pub. L. No. 95-223,
§ 206(b)(1), 91 Stat. 1625 (1977).
47. H. REP. No. 459, 95th Cong., 1st Seas. 16 (1977). The report cites as an
e¥ample when President Roosevelt ordered the Federal Reserve Board to impose

consumer credit controls in 1941, the authority of 5(b) to regulate transactions
involving banking institutions was found to extend to a "vendor of consumer
durable goode."
48. 123 CoNo. REc. S12558 (daily ed. Nov. 30, 1977).
49. 50 U.S.C.A. § 1601(a) (1977) of the National Energencies Act excludes from
termination 1) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or
determined on such date; 2) any action or proceeding based on any act committed
prior to such date; or 3) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were
incurred prior to such date.
50. Amendments to the Trading with the Enemy Act, Pub. L No. 95-223,
§ 207, 91 Stat. 1625 (1977). The House Committee Report states that holding the
asset of a foreign country is generally the most effective means of achieving
settlement of U.S. claims.
51. 50 U.S.C.A. § 1622(a)(1) (1977) of the National Emergencies Act provides
that the national emergency shall terminate if Congress terminates the emergency
by concurrent resolution.
52. This would save the whole bill from being declared invalid.

Order Code 98-505 GOV

420

THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAw JOURNAL

APX - 300

In 1976, the National Emergencies Act ended the national
emergencies still in effect with the exception of those declared
pursuant to 5(b). The International Emergency Economic Powers
Act will provide guidelines and authorities for future emergencies.
The Act has specific limitations to prevent abuses by the
President. It restricts the President's power to invoke foreign
economic controls for national emergency reasons.
It must be emphasized that because of the savings provision
in the Act, 53 existing regulations will be excluded from the control
of the Act. The Foreign Assets Control Regulations, Regulations
Prohibiting Transactions Involving the Shipment of Certain
Merchandise Between Foreign Countries, the Cuban Assets
Control Regulation and the Foreign Funds Control Regulations
will not be affected by this Act. These regulations have been
criticized because they control trade of many foreign countries by
regulating the U.S. multinational corporations within those
countries.s• Many of the foreign host countries have policies
which permit trade with countries with which trade is prohibited
by U.S. regulations. Thus, the multinational subsidiary cannot
trade with the prohibited countries or they risk violating the U.S.
regulations. These regulations will only terminate if the President
fails to extend them each year.ss
The Act was approved by the President on December 28,
1977.56

Rita Mannheimer

CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web

National Emergency Powers

Updated September 18, 2001

Harold C. Relyea
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division

53. Amendments to the Trading with the Enemy Act, Pub. L. No. 95-223,
§ 207, 91 Stat. 1625 (1977).
54. Sawyier, Encourag ing Foreign Inuestments in the U.S. by Limiting the
President's Emergency Authority under the Trading with the Enemy Act, 27
MERCER L. REV. 68 (1976); Skol and Peterson, Export Control Laws and
Multinational Enterprises, 11 lNT'L LAw 29 (1977); The Trading with the Enemy
Act of 1917 and Foreign Based Subsidiaries of American Multinatwnal Corpora·
tions: A Time to Abstain from Restraining. 11 SAN DIEGO L. REv. 206 (1973).
55. Amendments to the Trading with the Enemy Act, Pub. L. No. 95-223,
§ 207, 91 Stat. 1625 (1977).
56. 123 CoNa. REc. 819439 (daily ed. Dec. 7, 1977); 123 CoNG. REc . H12558
(daily ed. Nov. 30, 1977).

Congressional Research Service •:0 The Library of Congress

National Emergency Powers
Contents

Summary
The President of the United States has available certain powers that may be
exercised in the event that the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency
circumstances (other than natural disasters, war, or ncar-war situations). Such
powers may be stated explicitly or implied by the Constitution, assumed by the Chief
Executive to be permissible constitutionally, or inferred from or specified by statute.
Through legislation, Congress has made a great many delegations of authority in this
regard over the past 200 years.

APX - 301

There are, however, limits and restraints upon the President in his exercise of
emergency powers. With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution
makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national
emergency. Disputes over the constitutionality or legality of the exercise of
emergency powers are judicially reviewable. Indeed, both the judiciary and Congress,
as co-equal branches, can restrain the executive regarding emergency powers. So can
public opinion. Furthermore, since 1976, the President has been subject to certain
procedural formalities in utilizing some statutorily delegated emergency authority.
The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) eliminated or modified some
statutory grants ofemergency authority, required the President to declare formally the
existence of a national emergency and to specify what statutory authority, activated
by the declaration, would be used, and provided Congress a means to countennand
the President's declaration and the activated authority being sought. The
development of this regulatory statute and subsequent declarations of national
emergency arc reviewed in this report, which is updated as events require.

Background and History . . . . .