Strunk v. Paterson et al.

29642-08

AFFIDAVIT OF Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, Plaintiff Witness at the January 11, 2011 Hearing on the Notice of Motion for Amended Complaint in Strunk v Paterson et al. New York State Supreme Court Kings County Index No.: 29642-08
Present: The Honorable Supreme Court Justice David I. Schmidt Part 47 Court Room 521 360 Adams Street Brooklyn New York 11207 Joan Duffy, Esq. Supervising Assistant Attorney General for the New York Attorney General’s Office Joel Graber, Esq. Special Assistant Attorney General 120 BROADWAY NEW YORK, New York 10271 Representing the State of New York as an interested party Christopher-Earl Strunk in esse Self-represented Plaintiff w/o an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281 Brooklyn New York 11238 STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ) ) ss. )

Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: 1. This is the AFFIDAVIT OF Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, Witness at the January 11, 2011 Hearing on the Notice of Motion for Amended Complaint in

Strunk v Paterson et al. New York State Supreme Court of Kings County Index No.:
29642-08 before the Honorable Supreme Court Justice David I. Schmidt with the appearance of Joan Duffy, Esq. Supervising Assistant Attorney General for the New York Attorney General’s Office and Joel Graber, Esq. Special Assistant Attorney

Strunk Affidavit Page 1 of 6

Strunk v. Paterson et al. 29642-08

General representing the State of New York as a party-in-interest opposing the Motion to Amend the Complaint. 2. After the Court called those in attendance including several law clerks and the audience to order, the Honorable Justice Schmidt questioned Plaintiff as to the subject request for relief to amend the complaint and status of the underlying complaint without there being a recording or transcript of the proceeding. 3. As to the proposed amended complaint, the Court asked whether Plaintiff expects the Court to remove Barack Hussein Obama from office; to wit Plaintiff responded “NO” as that remains a Federal matter. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment as to breach of fiduciary duty by the Defendants failure to provide equal treatment and protection of Plaintiff along with those similarly situated in regards to the certification of the Presidential / Vice Presidential candidates ballot access at the 2008 Election cycle; and as well as plaintiff seeks further discovery as to the scheme to defraud and unjust enrichment. 4. That Plaintiff stated the NYS Board of Elections never responded to the request for documentation of the various certifications of ballot access for the various Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates; and as previously expressed to the Court Plaintiff had filed in Washington DC a FOIA case 08-cv-2234 for the travel records of Stanley Ann Dunham germane herein with a motion for summary judgment decision pending before Judge Richard J. Leon. 5. The Court asked if Plaintiff is seeking to obtain a copy of Barack Hussein Obama Jr.’s (BHO Jr.) Certified Birth record herein; to wit Plaintiff responded "NO". Plaintiff seeks a decision by the Court as to whether or not the Candidate(s) are eligible for Office of President of the United States (POTUS) as required with

Strunk Affidavit Page 2 of 6

Strunk v. Paterson et al. 29642-08

the United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 as required as a regulation by the New York State Board of Elections including inter alia based upon the Certificate of Live Birth published August 21, 2008 by Annenberg Political Fact

Check at FactCheck.org http://www.factcheck.org/elections2008/born_in_the_usa.html (see Exhibit A); and that as a prima facie matter Plaintiff seeks a Court decision herein as to whether or not Obama in fact has Dual Allegiance, is not a Natural Born Citizen per se but merely a Native-Born citizen if that; because BHO Jr.’s father, BHO Sr., is a British subject with a student visa at that time, and is shown to be the purported father of BHO Jr. by both the newspaper announcement and the COLB shown by Fact Check.org; and therefore, at best BHO Jr. is only a "Native" born citizen, if that, with only one U.S. Citizen parent mother as a minor at his birth, and that without two U.S. Citizen parents BHO Jr. is NOT a "Natural" born citizen at best is “Native” born. 6. The Court asked to know Plaintiff's understanding of the difference between "Native" and "Natural" born citizen, to wit Plaintiff explained on a blood and soil basis as of the Law of Nations as related to the 1961, 1963 and 1969 Vienna Convention Treaty matters as to citizenship status as with the children of diplomats and tourists who were not certified admitted by the U.S. Customs Service; and 7. Plaintiff provided the Court with a copy of the SCOTUS decision in

McCreery's Lessee v Somerville 22 US 354 (1824) (see Exhibit B), and
8. That the Court responded favorably to Plaintiff’s argument and contention expressing familiarity with the difference between the Natural and Native born, as there is within Jewish law similar precedent and commented that the Court agreed there is a difference and would read the SCOTUS decision Plaintiff provided.

Strunk Affidavit Page 3 of 6

Strunk v. Paterson et al. 29642-08

9. The Court then asked Mr. Graber to respond; to wit Mr. Graber and Ms. Duffy were in appearance without representing any specific defendant herein, that the State contends that based upon the record filed to date Defendants were not served back in 2008, that Plaintiff has failed to file a default motion as to defendants within one year, and that the State opposes the Motion for Amended Complaint to add twenty-four defendants with CPLR 305 that Mr. Graber especially finds the proposed addition of Zbigniew Brzezinski frivolous. 10. To wit Plaintiff responded first to the proposed addition of Zbigniew Brzezinski as a necessary party based upon the involvement of Zbigniew Brzezinski and his sons Ian and Mark early-on to run both the McCain and Obama campaigns and that Plaintiff contends such involvement is about Zbigniew Brzezinski’s fixation with Afghanistan going back to 1978; and that Zbigniew Brzezinski nor anyone is above the law; 11. That Plaintiff explained that had he known that McCain like BHO Jr. was also not a Natural-born citizen he would not have voted for McCain / Palin and as there was already a question of eligibility with BHO Jr. as a result of the NYS SOS and NYS BOE breach of fiduciary duty that a pattern of malice is shown as to Defendant NYS BOE placing Roger Calero of the Socialist Worker’s Party onto the ballot, when in fact is a Nicaraguan born and to date is not even a naturalized citizen should have been kicked off the ballot as done in New Jersey and California; but to the contrary all were included by NYS BOE Defendants' malicious maladministration of the law and regulations.

Strunk Affidavit Page 4 of 6

Strunk v. Paterson et al. 29642-08

12. Further, to wit Plaintiff responded in the matter of service of Defendants, assuring that Defendants were served in 2008 by a third party; however, Plaintiff would recheck and verify for the Court and update the record. 13. That the Court asked why Plaintiff does not just go ahead and file a new case rather than try to amend the 2008 case; to wit, Plaintiff based upon information and belief expressed concern the statutory time that has passed since the 2008 Election requires Plaintiff standing depend upon amending the case rather than filing a new one. 14. Further, the Court asked Plaintiff [in regards to the underlying complaint] if Plaintiff believes there is a civil action for sedition, treason and or conspiracy as alleged; to wit Plaintiff responded by saying he did not know if a Civil action for Sedition, Treason, and or conspiracy exists; but that under the New York State civil rights law there is a cause of action much like 42 USC §1983, and that Plaintiff emphasized that injuries were caused by Sedition, Treason, conspiracy as well as fraud as willful failure of the BOE and Secretary of State to provide equal treatment of ballot certification terms for BHO Jr., McCain and Calero injuring Plaintiff along with those similarly situated. 15. To wit, the Court held there is no state civil action for sedition, treason and or conspiracy notwithstanding whether or not Plaintiff’s wording of injury were intended, is vague. 16. That the Court found that there were so many procedural questions that would otherwise end up in Appellate Court anyway in that the best way to expedite the matter of importance requires Plaintiff to proceed as quickly as possible and therefore entered an order (see Exhibit C):

Strunk Affidavit Page 5 of 6

Strunk v. Paterson et al. 29642-08

"The motion for leave having come on to be heard, and the Court having heard plaintiff in support thereof, and the Attorney General's Office in opposition thereto, NOW, it is hereby ORDERED, that the motion is denied in entirety." 17. That the foregoing is Affirmant’s best recollection of the hearing as true and substantively complete, notwithstanding additional ancillary matters discussed, and absent a transcript of the hearing accordingly wishes by due service upon the Court and appearing parties without timely objection, that this affidavit be duly admitted by the Court as part of the permanent record for use after entry of the order shown as Exhibit C.

Sworn to before me This ___ day of January 2011

___________________________ Christopher-Earl: Strunk

_____________________ Notary Public

Strunk Affidavit Page 6 of 6

AFFIDAVIT OF Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, Plaintiff Witness at the January 11, 2011 Hearing on the Notice of Motion for Amended Complaint in Strunk v Paterson et al. New York State Supreme Court Kings County Index No.: 29642-08

Exhibit A

FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A.

Page 1 of 7

Born in the U.S.A.
August 21, 2008 Updated: November 1, 2008

The truth about Obama's birth certificate.

Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake." We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said. Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.

Analysis
Update Nov. 1: The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate. Fukino also was quoted by several other news organizations. The Honolulu Advertiser quoted Fukino as saying the agency had been bombarded by requests, and that the registrar of statistics had even been called in at home in the middle of the night. Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 1 2008: "This has gotten ridiculous," state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. "There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy." . . . Will this be enough to quiet the doubters? "I hope so," Fukino said. "We need to get some work done." Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." Since we first wrote about Obama's birth certificate on June 16, speculation

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/print_born_in_the_usa.html

1/14/2011

FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A. on his citizenship has continued apace. Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate to his Web page. That charge leaped from the blogosphere to the mainstream media earlier this week when Jerome Corsi, author of a book attacking Obama, repeated the claim in an Aug. 15 interview with Steve Doocy on Fox News. Corsi: Well, what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate. The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anybody supposed to really piece together his life? Doocy: What do you mean they have a "false birth certificate" on their Web site? Corsi: The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it. Doocy: Well, couldn't it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate? Corsi: No, it's a -- there's been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it's been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. It's a fake document that's on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce. Corsi isn't the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are: The birth certificate doesn't have a raised seal. It isn't signed. No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version. In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters. The certificate number is blacked out. The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn't released until 2008. The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth." Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and threedimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it's stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.

Page 2 of 7

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/print_born_in_the_usa.html

1/14/2011

FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A.

Page 3 of 7

The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller

Alvin T. Onaka's signature stamp

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/print_born_in_the_usa.html

1/14/2011

FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A.

Page 4 of 7

The raised seal

Blowup of text

You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven't been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes. The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above. The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response. The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/print_born_in_the_usa.html

1/14/2011

FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A. do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.

Page 5 of 7

We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn't get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we've found out it's pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 - 010641.

Blowup of certificate number

Some of the conspiracy theories that have circulated about Obama are quite imaginative. One conservative blogger suggested that the campaign might have obtained a valid Hawaii birth certificate, soaked it in solvent, then reprinted it with Obama's information. Of course, this anonymous blogger didn't have access to the actual document and presents this as just one possible "scenario" without any evidence that such a thing actually happened or is even feasible. We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect. Instead, some speculate that somehow, maybe, he was born in another country and doesn't meet the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen." We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/print_born_in_the_usa.html

1/14/2011

FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A.

Page 6 of 7

and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over." In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:

Obama's birth announcement

The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu. Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a highquality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A. Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn't tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama's father's race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father's race and mother's race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African." It's certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be. When we asked about the security borders, which look different from some other examples of Hawaii certifications of live birth, Kurt said "The borders are generated each time a certified copy is printed. A citation located on the bottom left hand corner of the certificate indicates which date the form was revised." He also confirmed that the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes." –by Jess Henig, with Joe Miller

Sources
United States Department of State. "Application for a U.S. Passport." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/print_born_in_the_usa.html

1/14/2011

FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A.

Page 7 of 7

State of Hawaii Department of Health. "Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008. Hollyfield, Amy. "Obama's Birth Certificate: Final Chapter." Politifact.com. 27 Jun. 2008. The Associated Press. "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine" 31 Oct 2008. Nakaso, Dan. "Obama's certificate of birth OK, state says; Health director issues voucher in response to 'ridiculous' barrage" Honolulu Advertiser 1 Nov 2008.

Copyright © 2003 - 2010, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/print_born_in_the_usa.html

1/14/2011

AFFIDAVIT OF Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, Plaintiff Witness at the January 11, 2011 Hearing on the Notice of Motion for Amended Complaint in Strunk v Paterson et al. New York State Supreme Court Kings County Index No.: 29642-08

Exhibit B

MCCREERY'S LESSEE V. SOMERVILLE, 22 U. S. 354 (1824) http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/354/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
McCreery's Lessee v. Somerville, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 354 354 (1824)
McCreery's Lessee v. Somerville 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 354 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MARYLAND Syllabus

The statute of 11 and 12 William III, c. 6, which is in force in Maryland, removes the common law disability of claiming title through an alien ancestor, but does not apply to a living alien ancestor, so as to create a title by heirship, where none would exist by the common law, if the ancestor were a natural born subject or citizen. Thus, where A died seized of lands in Maryland, leaving no heirs except B., a brother, who was an alien, and had never been naturalized as a citizen of the United States, and three nieces, the daughters of the said B, who were native citizens of the United States; it was held that they could not claim title by inheritance through B, their father, he being an alien and still living. The case agreed stated that William McCreery was seized and possessed of a tract of land in Baltimore County, in the State of Maryland, called Clover Hill and died possessed thereof about 1 March, 1814. He had previously executed an instrument of writing purporting to be his last will and testament, by which he devised the above tract of land to those under whom the defendant, Somerville, claimed; but it was witnessed by two persons only, and was therefore inoperative to pass lands in Maryland, the laws of which require three witnesses to a will for that purpose. W. McCreery left at his death no children, but a brother, Ralph McCreery, a native of Ireland, who is still living and who has not been naturalized, and three nieces, Letitia Barwell, Jane McCreery, and Isabella McCreery, the latter being the lessor of the plaintiff, who are the daughters of the said Ralph, and native born citizens of the United States. The devisees under the will applied by petition to the Legislature of Maryland to confirm the will, and the legislature, accordingly, without the knowledge or consent of the lessor of the plaintiff, passed an act for that purpose; saving, nevertheless, the rights of all persons claiming title to the

1

lands devised, by conveyance from any of the heirs of W. McCreery. The action was brought to recover an undivided third part of Clover Hill. Upon this case, judgment was rendered by the court below for the defendant, and the cause was brought by writ of error to this Court. MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. The title of the lessor of the plaintiff to recover in this case depends upon the question whether she can claim as one of the coheirs of her deceased uncle, her father being an alien and alive at the commencement of the present suit. It is perfectly clear that at common law her title is invalid, for no person can claim lands by descent through an alien, since he has no inheritable blood. But the statute of 11 and 12 Wm. III, ch. 6, is admitted to be in force in Maryland, and that statute, beyond all controversy, removes the disability of claiming title by descent, through an alien ancestor. The only point, therefore, is whether the statute applies to the case of a living alien ancestor, so as to create a title by heirship where none would exist by the common law, if the ancestor were a natural born subject. We have not been able to find any case in England in which this question has been presented for judicial decision. In the case of Palmer v. Downer, 2 Mass. 179, in the State of Massachusetts, the facts brought it directly before the court, but it does not appear to have attracted any particular attention, either from the bar or the bench. It may then be considered as a question of new impression, and is to be settled by ascertaining the true construction of the statute of William. That act is entitled "An act to enable his Majesty's natural been subjects to inherit the estate of their ancestors, either lineal or collateral, notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens." The title is not unimportant, and manifests an intention merely to remove the disability of alienage. It proceeds to enact "That all and every person or persons, being the King's natural born subject or subjects within any of the King's realms or dominions, should and might, thereafter, inherit and be inheritable, as heir or heirs, to any honors, &c., lands, &c., and make their pedigrees and titles, by descent, from any of their ancestors, lineal or collateral, although the father and mother, or father or mother, or other
2

ancestor, of such person or persons by, from, through, or under whom he, she, or they should or might make or derive their title or pedigree were or was or should be born out of the King's allegiance and out of his Majesty's realms and dominions as freely, fully, and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if such father and mother, or father or mother, or other ancestor or ancestors, by, from, through, or under whom he, she, or they should or might make or derive their title or pedigree, had been naturalized, or natural born subjects." In construing this enactment, it ought not to escape observation that the language is precisely such as Parliament might have used if the intention were confined to the mere removal of the disability of alienage. It declares that persons might lawfully inherit and be inheritable as heirs, and make their titles and pedigrees, by descent, from any of their ancestors, although their parents were born out of the realm; plainly supposing that they might take as heirs by descent, but for the circumstance of the alienage of the intermediate ancestors, through whom they must claim. It speaks of such intermediate ancestors, as persons who were or should be born out of the realm, and it enables the party to take, as heir, as effectually as if such ancestors had been natural born subjects. Now this language imports no more than a removal of the defect, for want of inheritable blood. It does not, in terms, create a right of heirship, where the common law, independently of alienage, prohibits it; it puts the party in the same situation, and none other, that he would be in, if his parents were not aliens. If his parents were natural born subjects, and capable to take as heirs of the deceased ancestor, it is clear that he could not inherit by descent through them, as they would intercept the title, as nearer heirs. The only cases in which he could inherit, living his parents, are those where the common law has prohibited the parents from taking, although they have inheritable blood. Such are the cases of a descent from brother to brother, and from a nephew to an uncle, where the common law has disabled the parents of the deceased brother or nephew from taking the estate by descent, upon the ground that inheritances cannot lineally ascend. 2 Bl.Comm. 208, 212, and Christian's Note. If the legislature had intended, not only to create inheritable blood, but also to create absolute heirship, some explanatory language would have been used. The statute would have declared, not only that the party should make title by descent; in the same manner as if his parents were natural born subjects, but that he should be deemed the heir, whether his parents were living or dead. No such explanation is given or hinted at, and if we are to insert it, it is by expounding the language beyond its obvious meaning and limitations. We do not feel at liberty to adopt this mode of interpretation in a case where no legislative intention can be fairly inferred beyond the ordinary import of the words.
3

This construction is not impugned by the explanatory act, afterwards passed in 25 Geo. II, ch. 39. It seems that inconveniences were apprehended, in case persons should be held by the statute of William, to gain a future capacity to inherit, who did not exist at the death of the persons last seized. The statute of Geo. II therefore, after reciting the act of William, declares, that it shall not be construed to give any right or title to any persons to inherit as heirs, &c., by enabling any such persons to claim, or derive their pedigree, through any alien ancestor, unless the persons so claiming "were, or shall be, in being, and capable to take the same estate as heir or heirs, &c., by virtue of the said statute, at the death of the person who shall last die seized," and to whom they shall claim to be heir or heirs. Then follows a proviso, "That in case the person or persons who shall be in being, and capable to take, at the death of the ancestor, so dying seized, &c., and upon whom the descent shall be cast, by virtue of this act, or of the said recited act, shall happen to be a daughter or daughters of an alien, and that the alien father or mother, through whom such descent shall be derived by such daughter or daughters, shall afterwards have a son born within any of his Majesty's realms or dominions, the descent, so cast upon such daughter or daughters, shall be divested in favor of such son, and such son shall inherit and take the estate, in like manner as is allowed by the common law of this realm, in cases of the birth of a nearer heir." Then follows a provision for the case of the subsequent birth of a daughter, who is enabled to take as a coheir with the other daughters. It has been argued that this proviso includes the cases of all children born after the descent cast in the lifetime of their alien parents, and therefore supposes the descent may be cast, notwithstanding their parents are living. Admitting this to be the true construction of the proviso, and that it is not restrained to posthumous children, the case of the plaintiff is not aided by it, for the clause, that the son shall take, in like manner as is allowed by the common law, in cases of the birth of a nearer heir, shows that Parliament had in view cases where the children might, at common law, take as heirs, although their parents were living; and yet the common law divested the title, so cast by descent, upon the birth of a nearer heir. For instance, if lands are given to a son, who dies, leaving a sister his heir, if the parents have, at any distance of time afterwards, another son, the common law divests the descent upon the sister in favor of such son, and he is entitled to take the estate as heir to his brother. 2 Bl.Comm. 208, Christian's Note, 5 Co.Litt. 11, Doct. & Stud. 11 Dialog. c. 7.
4

We think, then, that this proviso does not shake the construction, already given by us, to the statute of William. For here the case of after-born children is expressly provided for, which would otherwise be excluded by the declaratory clause of the statute, and if it was contemplated that the act of William created a new title, by heirship, independently of alienage in the parents, beyond the rules of the common law, the natural presumption is that the declaratory clause would, in some manner, have expressed that intention. So far from affirming a new title, by heirship, it asserts that the true construction of that statute excludes all persons who were not in being at the time of the descent cast, and then "capable to take the estate as heir or heirs, &c., by virtue of the said statute of William," and we have already seen, that the terms of that statute give no other capacity than would exist if the parents were natural born subjects. The exception, then, of after-born children, out of the declaratory clause of the act of George II, carries no implication that the legislature was dealing with any other cases except those where, if the alien parents were living at the time of the descent cast, the children were capable of taking, as heirs at common law, in their own right, independently of the alienage. Mr. Justice Blackstone, in his learned Commentaries, 2 Bl.Comm. 251, gives no explanation of these statutes, which extends them beyond such cases, and his omission to notice the larger construction, now contended for by the plaintiff, would be somewhat remarkable if that had been deemed the true interpretation of the statutes. In the absence of all authority, we do not feel ourselves at liberty to derogate from the general doctrine of the common law as to descents, by incorporating into the statute of William a case which is not within its terms, and is not called for by any clear legislative policy. Judgment affirmed with costs.

{Emphasis by Plaintiff)

5

AFFIDAVIT OF Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, Plaintiff Witness at the January 11, 2011 Hearing on the Notice of Motion for Amended Complaint in Strunk v Paterson et al. New York State Supreme Court Kings County Index No.: 29642-08

Exhibit C

AtaUsTMT-?srt7& !be 8 CoratoftkSC.teofNewYork,Wdin.sdfutk Comty of KinCI, at tbe comtbrw, h t e d at Civic Canter, Boreagb Brrktyn, CIty md Sbte of~ew~or~rthe~~P-dayaf 201

7

1

P R E S E N T
.-

~r

/ D ~ v I D ~ . ~ ~ H ~ I ? ~

p & d D (A, ?W(tq50d/

e XI., \

p ...
jl::
i

$. :

..

I ' :
?

k. ,

E N T E R

HOM. DAVID L SCHMi3T

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------x Christopher Earl Strunk, Plaintiff, -againstDavid A. Paterson et al. Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Index No.: 29642 / 08 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS

) ) ss. )

Accordingly, I, _________________________, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: a. Am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. b. My place of business is located at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue Brooklyn New York 11238. c. On January 18, 2011 , Christopher Strunk gave me one (1) Original and three (3) copies each of the AFFIDAVIT OF Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, Plaintiff Witness at the January 11, 2011 Hearing on the Notice of Motion for Amended Complaint in Strunk v Paterson et al. New York State Supreme Court Kings County Index No.: 29642-08 affirmed 1/18/11, for service by the United States Postal Service. d. On January 18, 2011, I placed a complete set into a properly addressed envelope with proper postage with “Personal and Confidential” written in the lower left corner and deposited each with the USPS for mail delivery upon: The Honorable Justice David I. Schmidt of the Supreme Court of New York State Part 47 Court Room 521 360 Adams Street Brooklyn New York 11207 Joan Duffy, Esq. Assistant Attorney General and Joel Graber, Esq. Assistant Attorney General for the New York Attorney General’s Office 120 BROADWAY NEW YORK, New York 10271 Kimberly A. Galvin, Esq. New York State Board of Elections 40 Steuben St. Albany , NY , 12207

___________________________ Sworn to before me This ___ day of January 2011

_____________________ Notary Public

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful