You are on page 1of 954

--------------------------------------------------------------------x Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse Plaintiff / Appellant,

-against-

APPEAL CASE INDEX NO.:

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;


JAMES A.WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEM COLN, in their Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSON, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; RGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities.

2012-05515

Defendants / Respondents. APPELLANTS APPEAL BRIEF

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, Plaintiff Appellant / Private US Citizen Self-represented w/o being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281, Brooklyn, New York 11238. 845-901-6767 E-mail: chris@strunk.ws

Plaintiff / Appellant Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Appellant self-represented w/o attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 Ph. 845-901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws Defendants / Respondents ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of NYS by: CLAUDE PLATTON, Esq. AAG Assistant Attorney General 120 BROADWAY 25th Floor New York, New York 10271-0332 Telephone (212) 416-8020 Email: ,lisa.dell@ag.ny.gov, Representing: NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS: JAMES A. WALSH, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER, Co-Chairs EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEM COLN, in their Official and individual capacity; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE;

Todd E. Phillips, Esq. of CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED One Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: 212-319-7125 / 202-862-5000 Email: rtobin@capdale.com, jwehner@capdale.com, tphillips@capdale.com Representing: JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008;
i

THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. of HARRIS BEACH, PLLC The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553 Telephone: 516-880-8484 Email: walbert@harrisbeach.com, kcorbett@harrisbeach.com, tgarry@harrisbeach.com, Representing: JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; PENNY S. PRITZKER; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND

JAMES C. DUGAN Esq. of WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y. 10019-6099 Telephone: 212-728-8000 Email: jdugan@willkie.com, Representing: GEORGE SOROS; MARSHAL BELL, Esq. of McGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Americas, 7th Floor New York, New York 10105 Telephone: 212-548-7004 Email: mbeil@mcguirewoods.com, Representing: ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI;

TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ. of WILEY REIN LLP 1776K Street, NW Washington D.C. 20006 Telephone: 202-719-7000 Email: "Thomas Kirby" <TKirby@wileyrein.com>, tbromberg@wileyrein.com, jbaran@wileyrein.com, Representing: JOHN A. BOEHNER;
ii

Christopher J. Latell Esq. and Daniel S. Reich Esq. of RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, PC 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New York 10006-3791 Telephone: 212-254-1111 Email: cklatell@rbskl.com, dreich@rbskl.com, Representing: RGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY

Erica Burke, Esq. of SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York. New York 10017-3954 Telephone: 212-455-2000 Email: eburk@stblaw.com Representing: PETER G. PETERSON

MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By: CHLARENS ORSLAND, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007 Telephone: (212) 788-0904 email: corsland@law.nyc.gov, Representing: Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.;

iii

APPELLANT BRIEF TABLE OF CONTENTS Parties....i Introduction.......2 Related Cases.3 Summary of the Decision and Order for Sanctions and Costs....11 Argument in Favor of remand and consolidation with active trial court cases...13 Statement of questions presented26 The New York State Board of Elections and State agents maliciously failed to provide Strunk due process and equal protection with EL 3-106 and related law is properly before the Court under EL 16-100 jurisdiction and authority28

Issues on Appeal: The Actions of the State to Deny Equal Protection and Due process . The Actions of the State to Facilitated the Fraud for ineligible candidates. The Actions of the State under color of State Law regarding HAVA and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by changing the POTUS eligibility from natural born Citizen to born a Citizen as if under the 14th Amendment The Actions of Ineligible candidates and campaign agents to facilitate fraud That Sedition is the subversion intended to be prevented under EL 3-106
iv

FAILURE TO HAVE STANDING? .32 FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION? .33 FAILURE TO PLEAD FRAUD WITH PARTICULARITY? .33 FAILURE TO SHOW THAT THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION? ..34 THAT STRUNKS COMPLAINT IS FRIVOLOUS? ..35 The Judiciary as the political co-equal branch under separation of power duty and obligation is to interpret the U.S. Constitution and Laws in this case not the Legislature and or Executive as related to the NYS Board of Election agents ..35

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is not only BORN A CITIZEN...42 All Litigants Have A Right To Impartial And Considered Justice..51 Plaintiff has been a dedicated and loyal New York State Citizen...53 Conclusion In Support of Equity Relief and Remand.....57 That res judicata and or collateral estoppel do not apply to Strunks complaint.58 Statement on word count 59 Jurat verification..60 AUTHORITIES.. vi

APPENDIX and Index as a separate single Volume with page marked APX XX

PDF of the BRIEF and APPENDIX is at http://www.scribd.com/doc/94586470/

AUTHORITIES
Page NEW YORK STATE AUTHORITIES April 20, 1777 New York Constitution July 26, 1788 New York Ratification of the US Constitution
. . .

17,18,20

17

NEW YORK STATE STATUTES EL 3-107 Powers and duties of the state board of elections respecting elections and crimes against the elective franchise (see footnote 8) EL 3-106 Fair campaign code.(see footnote 5) EL 3-105 Administrative complaint procedure. (see footnote 7) EL 3-104 State board of elections; enforcement powers.(see footnote 6) Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) EL 16-100 NYS Election Law Article 12

. . . . . . .

6,59, 4,27,28,29,59

5,59

5,59 4-6,29,59, 2,26,28,37 2

vi

NYS Civil Rights Chapter 6 Article 2 Bill of Rights 10 CPLR 213

. .

13 2,3

STATE CASES Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583 of 1844 Ludlam v. Ludlam 26 NY 256 (1863) Muka v. New York State Bar Association. 120 Misc. 2d 897 (Sup. Ct. Tompkins County 1983) Matter of Meehan v County of Westchester, 3 AD3d 533,534 [2d Dept 2004)
. . . .

22 22

52

16

FEDERAL AUTHORITIES U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2 (A2S1C2)


. . . .

16,26,34,38 16,19,22,29,3 8 26,29,4548,51,57, 38,55

U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 (A2S1C5)

the 14 Amendment to the US Constitution the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution

th

FEDERAL CASES
vii

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892) U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) Storer Et al. v. Brown, Secretary Of State of California, Et Al. 415 U.S. 724 (1974) Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S., at 32 Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U. S., at 442 Neitzke v Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 [1989] Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

20,26 21,27

28 28 28 33 45 26,43-48, 50 26, 44-51, 47 47 47 47

viii

Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821-22 (1975) Liberty Legal Foundation et al v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc. et al, Case No. 12-2143-STA

. . . . . . . .

48 48 48 48 48 48 14

50

FEDERAL STATUTES 3 U.S.C. Sec. 15 the 1922 Cable Act US Immigration and Nationality Act Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA)
. . . .

29 40 39 55

ix

OTHER FEDERAL AUTHORITIES The Declaration of Independence of 1776 The Articles of Confederation of March 1, 1781 The Constitution for the United States of America ratified by the People of New York on July 26, 1788 The Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton
. . . .

18 17

17 38

OTHER AUTHORITIES 6500-2011 Original Record on Appeal Subpoenaed February 13, 2013 in accord with CPLR 5526 29642-2008 Original Record on Appeal with request for Subpoena on February 13, 2013 in accord with CPLR 5526 http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/05/new-york-state-courtshould-not.html http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/logic-and-definingnatural-born-citizen.html, http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obamas-kenyancitizenship/ http://blogs.america.gov/rumors/2009/08/21/the-obamabirth-controversy/ http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
. . . . . . .

2,9,

7,

14

20

23

23 23

Politics, Book Three, Part II, Aristotle, writing in 350 B.C.E., as translated by Benjamin Jowett The Select Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, According to the last Oxford Edition 17 (Henry Eelbeck trans. London 1720) Story on the Constitution, sec. 387 British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5) the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution An Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L.Rev. 1, 5 (1968).by Charles Gordon

21

. . . . .

21 35 23

23

43,50,

Related cases: Strunk v Paterson et al. NYS Supt Ct. Kings County Index No.: 29642-08 Strunk v Jeffries et al. NYS Supt Ct. Kings County Index No.: 21948-12 In re Christopher arl Strunk in esse Petition DC Circuit Original Proceeding 13-5005-OP
. . .

3,4,9,12,5759,

8,10,58,

8,

xi

--------------------------------------------------------------------x Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse Plaintiff / Appellant,


-against-

APPEAL CASE INDEX NO.:

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;


JAMES A.WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEM COLN, in their Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSON, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; RGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities.

2012-05515

Defendants / Respondents.

APPELLANTS APPEAL BRIEF


STATE OF NEW YORK ) } ss: COUNTY OF KINGS )

Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk, being duly sworn. depose and say:

Appellants Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 Page 1 of 60

LNTRODUCTION

1. This is Appellant's Appeal Brief organized according to the preceding Table of Contents with Appellant's Appendix annexed as a separate volume with an underlying set of Constitutional issues to be heard by the NYS Court of Appeals; and that the Brief with Appendix was ordered to be filed with the Court with an extension of time to perfect due by February 22,20 13 (see APX - 6)' with a Second extension by letter application filed February 20,2013 (see APX - 1) extended to March 8,20 13 and motion requesting March 27,20 13 accordingly; 2. That the Original Record on Appeal Subpoenaed February 13,2013 in accord with CPLR 5526 due on February 28,2013 (see APX - 3) based upon the Certification of the Transcript of the Case with Index No.: 6500-2011 (APX - 4).
3. Appellant is self-represented without an attorney who filed a Notice of
Appeal (APX - 17) including various Notices of Entry by Defendants, and with

each the "Request for Appellate Division Intervention - civil" (APX - 10) fic~m and every part of the April 1l , 2 0 12 Order and Decision (APX - 106) that dismissed with prejudice and sanctions without a Judgment for costs issued to date in regards to the civil Complaint filed March 22'20 11 with Index No. : 6500-20 11 using CPLR $213 six year statutory basis fiom discovery of fraud ('I (APX - 460)

Plaintiff's introductory statement on page one of the Complaint: "PlaintzflChristopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, us and for the ComplaintJiled withjurisdiction of New York State Election Law Article $1 6-100 over Article 12 related to the November 4, 2008 General Election inter ulia Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 2 of 60

and Amended Summons (APX - 841) with Defendants' response by eight (8) counsels representing groups listed in the above Caption who filed motions to dismiss (MTD); and that the New York State Attorney General's office though appearing did not either answer or provide any filing for the State Agency and or Officer Parties and State Political Parties, either in their official or individual capacity, appeared to answer the Summons and Complaint duly served. Related Cases

4. That there are a set of related cases that are impacted by this appeal case:
i. That on 12 November 20 10, Plaintiff in Strunk v Paterson et al. Index No.: 29642-08 filed a Notice of Motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (2) that was adjourned by stipulation and then heard on January 11,2011 before the Honorable David I. Schmidt who denied the motion to amend (APX 546) without a transcript instead suggested rather than amend file a new complaint; and to wit Plaintiff memorialized the hearing with an affidavit filed in the case record (3),

equity relief and damages caused by an ongoing scheme to dej?aud with CPLR $213 Actions to be commenced within six years, upon information and belief and at all times hereinafter mentioned, respectfully allege of Defendants as follows:"

"1 3. That the Court asked why Plaintiff does notjust go ahead andfle a new case rather than try to amend the 2008 case; to wit, Plaintzflbased upon information and belief expressed Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 3 of 60

and on March 22,201 1 filed the new complaint with Index No.: 6500201 1 by the defective RJI (APX - 406) assigned to Arthur M. Schack; ii. That the final disposition of the Complaint Strunk v Paterson et al. with Index No.: 29642-08 (APX - 509) is still carried by the Clerk as "ACTIVE" so that a final order is not yet issued to appeal from and that Justice Schmidt erred by holding that there is no cause of action for "sedition" per se (41 that is synonymous with the intent of the State and is legislature's use of the term "subversion" in EL 3-106(~); expressed in the state law amended by HAVA that requires due process

concern the statutory time that has passed since the 2008 Election requires Plaint@"standing depend upon amending the case rather thanJiling a new one."

In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.
Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary fiom one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution. Under the NYS Election Law $3-106. Fair campaign code. 1. In addition to the powers and duties elsewhere enumerated in this article, the state board of elections, after public hearings, shall adopt a "fair campaign code" setting forth ethical standards of conduct for persons, political parties and committees engaged in election campaigns including, but not limited to, specific prohibitions against practices of political espionage and other political practices involving subversion of the political parties and process. (Emphasis added by Plaintiff)

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 4 of 60

by the State Board of Elections under EL 53-102 with EL $3-104

has

both an administrative duty and statutory mandate with EL 53-105 '7' as


-

ELN 3-104. State board of elections; enforcement powers. 1. The state board of elections shall have jurisdiction of, and be responsible for, the execution and enforcement of the provisions of article fourteen of this chapter and other statutes governing campaigns, elections and related procedures. 2. Whenever the state board of elections or other board of elections shall determine, on its own initiative or upon complaint, or otherwise, that there is substantial reason to believe a violation of this chapter or any code or regulation promulgated thereunder has occurred, it shall expeditiously make an investigation which shall also include investigation of reports and statements made or failed to be made by the complainant and any political committee supporting his candidacy if the complainant is a candidate or, if the complaint was made by an officer or member of a political committee, of reports and statements made or failed to be made by such political committee and any candidates supported by it. The state board of elections, in lieu of making such an investigation, may direct the appropriate board of elections to make an investigation. The state board of elections may request, and shall receive, the assistance of the state police in any investigation it shall conduct. 3. If, after an investigation, the state or other board of elections finds reasonable cause to believe that a violation warranting criminal prosecution has taken place, it shall forthwith refer the matter to the district attorney of the appropriate county and shall make available to such district attorney all relevant papers, documents, testimony and findings relevant to its investigation. 4. The state or other board of elections may, where appropriate, commence a judicial proceeding with respect to the filing or failure to file any statement of receipts, expenditures, or contributions, under the provisions of this chapter, and the state board of elections may direct the appropriate other board of elections to commence such proceeding. 5. The state board of elections may promulgate rules and regulations consistent with law to effectuate the provisions of this section.
ELN 5 3- 105. Administrative complaint procedure. 1. The state board of elections shall establish and maintain a uniform, nondiscriminatory administrative complaint procedure pursuant to which any person who believes that there is a violation (including a violation which has occurred or is occurring or is about to occur) of any provision of title three of the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), may file a complaint. 2. Initially, any such complaint may be made orally, in person or by telephone, or in writing. Such complaints may be made to the state board of elections or with any local board of elections. A toll-free number shall be made available therefor for telephone calls to the state board of elections. Complaints shall be addressed by election officials expediently and informally whenever possible. 3. All formal complaints shall be filed with the state board of elections. All formal complaints shall be written, signed and sworn by the complainant. The complainant shall use a complaint form promulgated by the state board of elections. The state board of elections or a local board of elections shall assist any person with a disability who requests assistance to Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 5 of 60

to EL $3- 107

shall provide Plaintiff due process to investigate a

file a complaint. Complaints raising similar questions of law and/or fact may be consolidated

by the state board of elections. 4. Upon the written request of the complainant, there shall be a hearing on the record,
unless prior to the hearing, the state board of elections, in accordance with subdivision four of section 3-100 of this article, sustains the formal complaint as being uncontested. Any party to the hearing may purchase a transcript of such hearing. 5. The evidentiary standard applied to all formal complaints shall be a preponderance of the evidence. 6. Hearings shall be conducted by a panel of two commissioners of the state board of elections of opposite parties or senior staff members of opposite parties as selected by the commissioners of that party. If the panel does not agree to sustain the complaint, the formal complaint shall be deemed dismissed and shall constitute the determination of the panel. 7. The determination of the hearing panel will be final unless changed by the state board of elections pursuant to subdivision four of section 3- 100 of this article, within ninety days of the filing of the formal complaint. A final determination shall be filed and published by the state board of elections within ninety days after the filing of the formal complaint, unless the complainant agrees to a longer period of time. When a violation has been found, the final determination shall include an appropriate remedy for any violation of Title I11 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) found by the state board of elections. A final determination dismissing a formal complaint may be filed by any one member of the hearing panel. 8. Whenever a final determination of a formal complaint is not made within ninety days, or any other longer agreed upon time period, the state board of elections shall refer the formal complaint to an independent, alternative dispute resolution agency. Such hearings and determinations shall be conducted by the alternative dispute resolution agency pursuant to regulations promulgated by the state board of elections pursuant to subdivision four of section 3-100 of this article. Such agency shall have sixty days, from the expiration of the original ninety day time period, or any other longer agreed upon time period, to make a final determination. The state board of elections shall contract, pursuant to subdivision four of section 3-100 of this article with one or more such alternative dispute resolution entities for this specific purpose. 9. No provision of this section shall be construed to impair or supersede the r i ~ h of t an aggrieved pa* to seek a iudicial remedy including a iudicial remedy concerning any final determination made pursuant to subdivision eight of this section. The state board of elections shall provide notice to all complainants of the provisions of this subdivision. (Emphasis added by Plaintiff)

ELN 3-107. Powers and duties of the state board of elections respecting elections and crimes against the elective franchise. Authority is hereby conferred upon the state board of elections to appoint a special investigator to take charge of the investigation of cases arising under the election law, and to appoint such additional special investigators and employees as it may deem necessary, and fix their compensation, within the limits of appropriation available therefor, and assign them to any election district or districts for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the election law. Moneys appropriated for carrying out the provisions of this
Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 6 of 60

claim of sedition or subversion that undermines election process, and that a Certification of the Transcript with a second request of the Appellate Clerk for a Subpoena of the original record is pending

section shall be paid out of the state treasury on the audit and warrant of the comptroller upon the certificate of the state board. Such special investigators shall, when directed by the state board of elections, investigate qualifications of persons to register or vote and violations of the election law. Any such special investigator may: 1. Visit and inspect any house, dwelling, building, inn, lodginghouse, boarding-house, rooming-house, or hotel and interrogate any inmate, house-dweller, keeper, caretaker, owner, proprietor or landlord thereof or therein, as to any person or persons residing or claiming to reside therein or thereat. 2. Inspect and copy any books, records, papers or documents relating to or affecting the election or the registration of voters, or require the board or officer in charge thereof to furnish a copy of any such record, paper or document without charge. 3. Require any lodging-house, boarding-house or rooming-house keeper, landlord or proprietor to exhibit his register of the lodgers therein at any time to such special investigator. 4. Procure warrants of arrest and cause to be taken into custody the person or persons named in such process. 5. Go within the guard-rail at any polling place at any election. Any such special investigator also shall have all of the powers of a peace officer as set forth in section 2.20 of the criminal procedure law, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this chapter. Any person who neglects or refuses to furnish any information required by the election law or authorized herein, or to exhibit records, papers or documents herein authorized to be inspected or which are required to be exhibited, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The state board or any of its special investigators shall have power to issue subpoenas or subpoenas duces tecum, administer oaths and examine witnesses under oath, for the purpose of investigating any matter within the jurisdiction herein prescribed for the purpose of aiding the state board in enforcing the provisions of the election law. Such subpoenas shall be issued in the name of the state board of elections. Such subpoenas may be served by any special investigator or by any police officer or peace officer who is acting pursuant to his special duties. Any person who shall omit, neglect or rehse to obey a subpoena attested in the name of the state board of elections or who shall rehse to testify under or in pursuance thereof shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any such special investigator may call upon any member of the police, sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable or other public officer, or any person, to assist him in carrying out the provisions of this section. Any such officer or person who shall fail to render the assistance so demanded or who shall wilhlly hinder or delay such special investigator in the exercise of any power or the performance of any duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515- Page 7 of 60

consideration (APX - 390), and still active before the Honorable David

I. Schmidt J.S.C.; and that such status is notwithstanding the motion for
intervention by a third party that was denied and taken on Appeal case 2012-0766 with a Appeal Court direct appeal denied (APX -392); iii. There is a related current Article 78 Petition Strunk v Jeffiies et a1 Index No.: 2 1948 / 20 12 that challenges the incompatibility of POTUS Electors using the law of the case determined by Justice Schmidt in the Petition 29641-08 defining the incompatibility of various 2008 election cycle Electors for the Obarna / Biden slate with motions to dismiss pending before the Honorable David I Schmidt J.S.C. with a Note of Issue filed for a trial of the facts (9); and iv. There is a related Original Proceeding in re: Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse a private U.S. Citizen secured beneficiary Petition For A Writ Of

Mandamus involving Federal issues Case No.: 13-5505-OP before a


judicial panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington District of Columbia Circuit (lo) with a motion for fee relief pending;

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 8 of 60

5. That on 22 August 20 11 there was a hearing on the various Motions to

Dismiss the Complaint with Index No.: 6500-2011 (MTD) and Cross Motion to Transfer and Consolidate with 29642-2008, and with appearance of Defendants' Counsels before the Honorable Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. (Judge Schack) with a Transcript record of the hearing (APX - 326) of the Motions to Dismiss; and that for the purpose of brevity herein although germane to the underlying Complaint, are part of the Original Record transferred to this Court without arguing each related motion that in total would be contained in a three volume appendix set that would burden this appeal brief that must use only 14,000 words herein. As such there are three (3) basic motions and one (1) application for an order to show cause in this appeal that all are included herewith to establish the basis to remand to trial court for further action there: First- the Pro Hac Vice Motion by Washington DC Counsel to Defendant John S. McCain I11 et al. (APX - 410) to which, Plaintiff's Cross Motion opposes the Pro Hac Vice Motion for cause because of the misstatements and failure to list the related 29642-08 active case on the RJI by local council (APX - 406) challenged herein, and to wit Plaintiff Cross Motion that requests the Transfer and Consolidation (APX - 393) with still Active Case with Index No.: 296422008 with the record before Justice Schmidt (APX - 507) as an I.A.S. election law related case with Certification of the Transcript (APX - 390) and

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 9 of 60

Further, the Defendants John Sidney McCain I11 et al. MTD represented by DC Council (APX - 421) and Defendants SOEBARKAH et al. MTD represented

by Harris Beach (APX - 437), to wit Plaintiff responded by a Combined


Response (APX - 627); and thereafter Further, on October 21,201 1 Emergency Application for an Order to Show Cause (APX - 164) in regards to The New York State Board of Elections involvement in an extrinsic fiaud as breach of duty to the State Legislature and related law of the land above mentioned that went before Judge Schack on October 25,201 1 who declined to sign the Order (APX - 155); thereafter taken on appeal without leave dismissed on January 3,2012 (APX 154); and Furthermore, on 12 April 20 12, Plaintiff filed a Motion (APX - 718) for Presentment of Evidence of Forgery and Spoliation as Supplement to the Complaint by Request for the Leave of the Court to Supplement to the Complaint annexed thereto (APX - 834), that on June l8,20 12 was denied by Order of Judge Schack (see APX - 717) and is herein on appeal too - goes to the need with related Petition Index no.: 21948-2012 with Note of Issue.

6. That eight (8) months after the 22 August 201 1 hearing before Judge
Schack, the Order and Decision was entered 13 April 2012 (APX - 106), and on May 3,20 12 Plaintiff filed a Response to the Order and Decision (APX -79); and

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 10 of 60

7. Therein, Judge Schack granted Defendants' motions and dismissed my

complete complaint with prejudice. Judge Schack also granted a motion to admit pro hac vice one of the defendant's attorney, finding that he was in good standing and It should be known that the Georgia court at which I attended as a witness there denied Plaintift's Attorney Van Iron's motion for pro hac vice admission and the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania denied Mario Apuzzo's motion for pro hac vice admission, even though they are both in good standing.
8. . That on May 6,2012 a remarkable legal analysis was published by Mario

Apuzzo, Esq. (see APX - 39) was entered as an amicus for Plaintiff at the May 7, 20 12 hearing by the Court, and that I consider Mario Apuzzo a righteous Attorney, who made the effort to defend my efforts unsolicited, and Mr. Apuzzo displays great integrity and virtue motivated in what may be reasonably characterized as a defense of all other such Plaintiffs nationwide who seek redress and relief that would suffer the chilling effect of Judge Schack's Decision and Order;

SIJMMARY OF THE DECISION AND ORDER

9. Judge Schack started his opinion by stating that "[ilf the complaint in this
action was a movie script, it would be entitled The Manchurian Candidate Meets
The Da Vinci Code." He found that I did not sufficiently allege an injury in fact

and therefore does not have standing which causes the court not to have jurisdiction over his claims.
Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 11 of 60

10.Judge Schack found that because it is not possible to easily gain notice fiom reading my complaint what my particular cause of action is, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
11. Judge Schack concluded that my fraud claim also needed to be dismissed

because I did not plead with particularity that I relied upon any of the defendants7 statement and did not plead that I suffered any pecuniary loss as a result of statement of any of the defendants.
12. Judge Schack found that the court has no jurisdiction because of the

political question doctrine and because, while finding no problem with my service upon the other main defendants, Judge Schack found that I did not properly serve Obama and McCain. 13. Judge Schack concluded that I had already litigated "many of the issues" in the instant action in Federal court with Case No.: 08-cv-4289 (APX - 533), and in State Court with the Petition Spunk v. Paterson et al., Index No. 29641/08, where the issues were decided against me. He therefore found that under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, one could not re-litigate those same issues in the instant action. 14. Judge Schack also denied my cross motion to consolidate the instant action with another New York state case, with the Complaint in Strunk v. Paterson et al Index No. 29642/08 that is still active as of this date (APX - 507), and to transfer

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 12 of 60

the case to Judge Schmidt because the Strunk v Paterson et al. Petition with Index 29641/08 that set the law of the case from thereon was dismissed . 15. Judge Schack also dismissed my complaint on the ground that it was both factually and legally frivolous; and finally, Judge Schack also ordered that I be precluded from relitigating the same claims against the same defendants in the New York state court without first obtaining prior written approval fiom an administrative justice or judge.

Argument in Favor of remand and consolidation with active trial court cases

16. That there was a May 7,2012 hearing with a Transcript record (APX - 49) ordered before Judge Schack for Plaintiff to show cause why I should not be sanctioned and adjudge costs, according to the 11 April 2012 Decision and Order. 17.That Appellant contends that the Court's Order and Decision was issued with intentional delay and disparagement of Plaintiff personally eight (8) months after the 22 August 201 1 hearing on various motions to dismiss were granted without a Final Judgment as to sanctions, and that my motion to consolidate was denied on the May 7,2012 transcript starting at APX - 49, shows Justice Schack's biased intent to delay and deny speedy justice to all Parties and without a Final Judgment like a sword of Damocles especially violates Plaintiff fundamental NYS Civil Rights Chapter 6 Article 2 "Bill of fights" fj10. fundamental right for:

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 13 of 60

" Justice to be administered without favor and speedily. Neither justice nor
right should be sold to any person, nor denied, nor deferred; and writs and process ought to be granted fi-eelyand without delay, to all persons requiring the same, on payment of the fees established by law." 18.That on May 24,2012, I made the following statement at the website

regards to the Star Chamber abuse and judicial malice done by Justice Arthur M. Schack in 201 1-6500: "The historical abuses of the Star Chamber are considered a primary motivating force behind the protections against compelled self-incrimination embodied in the Fifih Amendment to the United States Constitution. The meaning of "compelled testimony7'under the Fifth Amendment-i.e., the conditions under which a defendant is allowed to "take the Fifth"--is thus often interpreted via reference to the inquisitorial methods of the Star Chamber. Judge Schack not only invented the alleged violation ipse dixit, for which he charged me of frivolous conduct for daring to allege that BHO Jr. has a British Subject father on August 4, 1961 or when ever it happened, is therefore not NBC; that Justice Schack shamelessly poses as the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one . Without the ability to call the judge as a witness to the crime that he is committing, as my own counsel I may seek an appeal on the merits of the sanctions wrongly held against me.

As the U.S. Supreme Court described it, "the Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required, defendants to have counsel. The defendant's answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed." Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806,821-22 (1975). .."
19. That Plaintiff reasonably characterizes the 22 August 201 1 and 7 May 2012 hearings as a Star Chamber proceeding that wrongfully alleges that I am just an

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 14 of 60

transcript that follows &om APX 378 thru APX 387 as the lead of my brief herein, and because this appeal is about the facts and law not personalities; and
22.

Further, that it is noteworthy to point out that the Court also used a reference

to Private Citizen in its decision and order shown at APX - 129 of page 24, to the contrary "Public" versus "Private" whether the Election Law and the State protects his vote as a meaningful act as a legal matter before this Panel: "Thus, a private citizen who does not show any special rights or interests in the matter in controversy, other than those common to all taxpayers and citizens, has no standing to sue." (Matter of Meehan v County of Westchester,3 AD3d 533,534 [2d Dept 2004). 23. That Appellant contends that any facilitation of fi-aud binds GEORGE

SOROS whether he is a "Private Citizen" or not into a contradiction with his attorney's contention that there is no "natural grounding" or enforceable contract between Mr. Soros and or even Mr. Brzezinski with Mr. Obama to the contrary goes to the admission that Mr. Soros gave an actual contribution that as an admission against interest is an accessory to the fi-aud complained of in regards Obama's ballot access that was done under false pretense to the detriment of Plaintiff facilitated by the State agents; and that goes to my reliance upon the good faith of the State and its agents under A2S 1C2 as to A2SlC5 to provide personal equal protection and hndamental due process under law in exchange for my allegiance as a Private U.S. Citizen under common law and the inherent personal privilege and standing associated with one person one vote personal intangible
Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 16 of 60

property that may neither be given away nor sold under law. 24.Christopher Earl Strunk in esse, the secured beneficiary of the organization CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, in fact, by right of heritage and inheritance, of the New York Republic, protected by hereditary succession of all predecessors previous Contracts with government as found in its adoption of the Declaration of Independence perpetual allegiance of the Monarch of Britain and or feudal the original Constitution of pretender to the authority of GOD on April 20, 1777(13), New York in support of the Revolution that expressly eliminated the feudal doctrine of perpetual aZZegzeance, of that condition based upon a person's soil birthright subjugation as property of an absolute sovereign, and the Articles of Confederation of March 1, 1781(14, and that such declaration against perpetual allegiance was then followed by the Constitution for the United States of America ratified by the People of New York on July 26, 1788 including it's re amble^'^) that the New York People expressly mandate "natural born Citizen" "That no Persons except natural born Citizens, or such as were Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six, or such as held Commissions under the United States during the War, and have at any time since the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six become Citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be Freeholders, shall be eligible to the Places of President, Vice President, or Members of either House of the Congress of the United States." (Emphasis added by Appellant)
l3

l4 l5

http://avalon.law.yale.eddl8th-century/nyO 1.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf. asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ 18th-century/ratny.asp Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 17 of 60

25. That on April 20, 1777, the People of the New York Republic revoked perpetual allegiance use of British Common Law at New York Constitution Article 3 5 that:

"XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same. That such of the said acts, as are temporary, shall expire at the times limited for their duration, respectively. That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers, or concern the alle~iance
heretofore yielded to, and the supremacv, sovereignty, government, or prerogatives claimed or e-xercised bv, the King of Great Britain and his predecessors, over the colony of New York and its inhabitants, or are repugnant to this constitution, be, and they hereby are, abrogated and rejected. And this convention doth fiuther ordain, that the resolves or resolutions of the congresses of the colony of New York, and of the convention of the State of New York, now in force, and not repugnant to the government established by this constitution, shall be considered as making part of the laws of this State; subject, nevertheless, to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State may, from time to time, make concerning the same. (Emphasis added by Appellant)

26.As such Christopher Earl Strunk in esse retains all my unalienable rights granted by GOD incorporated into positive law, embodied in the Declaration of Independence of 1776, and binding Rights upon my parentage and myself since the beginning of the World till 10 days from the end of the World. And further

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 18 of 60

27.

That Plaintiff, the Private US Citizen, privileged to vote under common law

is not subject to perpetual allegiance as explained above, and is no longer a Public Citizen surety of the respective big-letter U s u h c t owned by New York State in trust now relieved of any obligation; and that Plaintiff is injured by the State and its agents acting under color of law that single out Plaintiff individual rights is relegated to collective treatment, and as the State or its agents never answered any complaint since 2008, such is arbitrary denial of equal protection to Plaintiff. 28. That Justice Schack at the 22 August 201 1 Transcript APX - 359 line 14 (I6) expressed condescension at the notion that to take an oath is to make an offer of contract with each individual citizen, and when Plaintiff / Appellant as then "Public" U.S. Citizen on January 23,2009 duly fired Barack Hussein Obama I1 when Obama offered his oath on January 20,2009 as if eligible under the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 (A2S 1C5) (I7) "natural-born Citizen" clause for the office of the President of the United States (POTUS) executive with
l6 THE COURT: I saw your letter that you fired the president. I guess he didn't agree with you because he's still there. MR. STRUNK: I'm an eagle scout. I became an eagle scout in 1959. THE COURT: Congratulations. I was only a life scout. It's true. I praise you for that. MR. STRUNK: But that shapes my thinking as a individual. I mean, what are we as a country if we don't abide by the law? THE COURT: That's right, I'll agree. We are a country. l7 (A2SlC5) United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 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 Ofice of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that OfJice who shall not have attained to the Age ofthirtyJive Years, and beenfourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 19 of 60

power of attorney over accounts with the U.S. Treasury and other executive duties (see APX - 658), when in the best of all possible worlds where justice prevails, Obama is ineligible and his every act is void ab initio; and notwithstanding his acts are void ab initio the office of POTUS as the de facto usurper again usurps the office to Plaintiff / Appellant's detriment and injury; and is of great consequence. 29. The fundamental principal of citizenship allegiance to the republic is the reciprocating duty of protection by the republic- one produces the other as equity. 30. That as a matter of Judicial Notice there is controlling history and law regarding construction of the Declaration of Independence of 1776 that was adopted as the foundation for the respective States' constitutions, including that of New York on April 20, 1777, 3 1.According to Mario Apuzzo Esq. on November 28, 2012 in his essay Logic
and DeJining the "Natural Born Citizen" Clause

published

at

http://puzo1.blogspot.corn/;!012/1 l/logic-and-defining-natural-born-citizen.html,

he explains that what the Founders and Framers learned from Greek ancient history was confirmed by Roman ancient history. The Founders and Framers looked to ancient Roman history to understand the law of nature to learn how best to constitute a republican form of government and to replace perpetual allegiance

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 20 of 60

with the human natural law doctrine of both reek('^) and ~ o m a n ( lorigin ~ ) of the term of art "natural-born Citizen" inheritance of allegiance fiom his parents and or

Is Aristotle also gave us a definition of a "natural born Citizen." In "Politics, Book Three, Part 11, Aristotle, writing in 350 B.C.E., as translated by Benjamin Jowett, gave us his definition of citizenship:

"Part I1 But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors. This is a short and practical definition but there are some who raise the further question: How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen? Gorgias of Leontini, partly because he was in a difficulty, partly in irony, said- 'Mortars are what is made by the mortar-makers, and the citizens of Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to make Larissaeans.' Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the definitionjust given they shared in the government, they were citizens. This is a better definition than the other. For the words, 'born of a father or mother who is a citizen,' cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state. There is a greater difficulty in the case of those who have been made citizens after a revolution, as by Cleisthenes at Athens after the expulsion of the tyrants, for he enrolled in tribes many metics, both strangers and slaves. The doubt in these cases is, not who is, but whether he who is ought to be a citizen; and there will still be a furthering the state, whether a certain act is or is not an act of the state; for what ought not to be is what is false. Now, there are some who hold office, and yet ought not to hold office, whom we describe as ruling, but ruling unjustly. And the citizen was defined by the fact of his holding some kind of rule or office- he who holds a judicial or legislative office fulfills our definition of a citizen. It is evident, therefore, that the citizens about whom the doubt has arisen must be called citizens." ...http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html.
l9 Roman law provided: "Lex MENSIA, That a child should be held as a foreigner, if either of the parents was so. But if both parents were Romans and married, children always obtained the rank of the father, (patrem sequuntur liberi, Liv. iv. 4.) and if unmarried, of the mother, Uipian." Alexander Adam, Roman antiquities: or, An account of the manners and customs of the Romans 2 10 (6th ed. corrected 1807). Cicero wrote in A Proposal:

"The Colophonians claim Homer as their own free Denizen, the Chians challenge him as theirs, the Salaminians demand him again for their own, but the Smyrneans assert him to be their natural born Citizen; and therefore have also dedicated a Temple to him in their Town of Smyrna. There are a great many besides at Daggers-drawing among themselves, and contend for him." A Proposal For Printing in English, The Select Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, According to the last Oxford Edition 17 (Henry Eelbeck trans. London 1720).

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 21 of 60

this point), and notwithstanding the fact of SOEBARKAH'S Indonesian citizenship doesn't apply at his birth, the undisputed facts at http ://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obamas-ken-citizenship/ by Todd Leventhal, the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State, that has been accepted as true this description of Obama's birth circumstances and stated on a State Department web page,

although now reads: "This site has been archived or suspended. is as follows:
. "

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. [ http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA 1948.htm ] That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children: British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part 11, Section 5): 'Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent of his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.' In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC. However, Obama's British citizenship was short-lived, when on Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
'1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 1lth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected
Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 23 of 60

person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.. .


'2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (I), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.'

As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama's father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama's father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (I), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963." Further, Factcheck, in its attempt to show that Obama is a "natural born Citizen," added: "[Tlhe Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya's Constitution specifies that at age 23, Kenyan citizens who possesses [sic] citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1984." Id. 33. But that Obama may have lost his BritishKenyan citizenship after his birth (there is no evidence that Obama ever renounced his British birth citizenship), like an alien losing his or her native citizenship later in life and becoming a U.S. citizen after birth, does not nor can it change his birth circumstances. He still was not born a "natural born Citizen" and cannot become one later in life. So, Obama, even if born in Hawaii in 1961, while born to a U.S. citizen mother, was not born to a U.S. citizen father. Under the British Nationality Act 1948, Obama's father, being born
Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 24 of 60

in Kenya when it was a British colony, was a BritishKenyan citizen. While he traveled to the United States on a temporary student visa to study, he never became a U.S. citizen. Under the same British Nationality Act 1948, Obama himself, through inheritance from his father, was born a British citizen. Under the Kenya Independence Act 1963, also became a Kenyan citizen as age 2. 34. The Founders and Framers demanded that future presidents, who also were to be our commanders in chief of the military, have allegiance and loyalty from birth only to the United States. Being born the citizen of a foreign country, like a person who is born a citizen of a foreign country and who naturalizes to become a "citizen of the United States" after birth and who we have always recognized as being eligible to be President only if born before the adoption of the Constitution, Obama was not born with sole allegiance and loyalty from birth to the United States. The practical consequence of his birth which no one can change is that he not only was not born with unity of allegiance and citizenship to the United States, but he also was not born within the full and complete political and military jurisdiction of the United States. So, Obama from birth was not fully committed both politically and militarily to the United States, nor could the United States expect such total commitment from him. Obama therefore cannot be an Article I1 "natural born Citizen," which under our Constitution is required only of the President, who is also the Commander in Chief of the Military, and the Vice

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 25 of 60

President were need to take over the POTUS's civil and military powers to arise.
35. Apparently, if Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii (that has not been proven),

Mr. Obama can meet the more liberal definition of a Fourteenth Amendment
"citizen of the United States" at birth, i-e., born in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Under this definition, a child born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents is a "citizen of the United States" at birth.
Tong Kim Ark. But he cannot meet the more stringent definition of an Article I1

"natural born Citizen," which only applies to presidential and vice presidential eligibility, born in the United States to citizen parents. Minor. Since, Obama is neither "a natural born Citizen" nor "a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" (was adopted in 1787), Obarna is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.
Statement of questions presented

36.

The facts that give rise to my State legal action commenced as an election

challenge case under EL 16-100 and related articles in the Supreme Court of the State of New York with several causes of action related to the voters' preference of New York State's 2008 General Election cycle Electoral College election of candidates for the office of President of the United States (POTUS) as is the exclusive power of the respective New York State legislature to create under the U.S. Constitution A2S 1C2, McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), with the

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 26 of 60

proviso that in doing so neither the State legislature and or its agents in the
electoral college and or agencies may change the qualifications of any federal officer includes POTUS, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (20).

37. I challenge the "breach of state constitutional fiduciary duty" by the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS and public officer defendants under EL

$3- 106 in both their official and individual capacity; deny me equal protection for
voter expectation of a correct ballot as the State has a compelling interest to do so;

20

SCOTUS held in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) says:

"Second, the provisions governing elections reveal the Framers' understanding that powers over the election of federal officers had to be delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States. It is surely no coincidence that the context of federal elections provides one of the few areas in which the Constitution expressly requires action by the States, namely that "[tlhe Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof." This duty parallels the duty under Article I1 that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors." Art II., $ 1, cl. 2. These Clauses are express delegations of power to the States to act with respect to federal elections. (20) This conclusion is consistent with our previous recognition that, in certain limited contexts, the power to regulate the incidents of the federal system is not a resewed power of the States, but rather is delegated by the Constitution. Thus, we have noted that "[wlhile, in a loose sense, the right to vote for representatives in Congress is sometimes spoken of as a right derived fiom the states, . . . this statement is true only in the sense that the states are authorized by the Constitution, to legislate on the subject as provided by $2 of Art. I." United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299,315 (1941). Cf. Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920) ("[Tlhe power to ratify a proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution has its source in the Federal Constitution. The act of ratification by the State derives its authority from the Federal Constitution to which the State and its people have alike assented"). In short, as the Framers recognized, electing representatives to the National Legislature was a new right, arising from the Constitution itself. The Tenth Amendment thus provides no basis for concluding that the States possess reserved power to add qualifications to those that are fixed in the Constitution. Instead, any state power to set the qualifications for membership in Congress must derive not fi-om the reserved powers of state sovereignty, but rather from the delegated powers of national sovereignty. In the absence of any constitutional delegation to the States of power to add qualifications to those enumerated in the Constitution, such a power does not exist..." (Emphasis by Appellant)

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 27 of 60

. is denial of substantive due process for voter expectation of a correct ballot (21) ,
interference with the right to a republican form of government by the two Jesuit defendants and defendant F.A.O. SCHWARZ, JR., who were all members of the New York City Campaign Finance Board; and interference with plaintiffs election franchise; a scheme to defraud plaintiff of a reasonable expectation of successful participation in the suffiage process; that is an inherent scheme by all defendants for unjust enrichment." Decision and Order, p. 3-4 (APX - 108 to 109); and includes a challenge to the Defendant "Soebarkah" that is the actual Indonesian surname name given Barack Hussein Obama I1 when he was adopted and became an Indonesian Citizen I discovered in DC FOIA case Strunk v. US DOS and DHS NO.; 08-CV-2234 (APX - 780).
The New York State Board of Elections and State agents maliciously failed to provide Strunk due process and equal protection with EL 53-106 and related law is properly before the Court under EL 816-100 jurisdiction / authority. Issues on Appeal:
In the matter of a state compelling interest at elections:

21

Storer Et al. v. Brown, Secretary OfState o f California,Et Al. 415 U.S. 724 (1974) in regards to a California compelling state interest to prevent fraud cited Bullock v. Carter, 405 U. S., at 145, when the unanimous SCOTUS Court decision said:
"The Court has recognized that a State has a legitimate interest in regulating the number of candidates on the ballot. Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U. S., at 442; Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S., at 32. In so doing, the State understandably and properly seeks to prevent the clogging of its election machinery, avoid voter confusion, and ... Moreover, a State has an interest, if not a duty, to protect the integrity of its political processes fiom fi-ivolous or fraudulent candidacies. Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U. S., at 442."

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 28 of 60

The Actions of the State to Deny Equal Protection and Due process.. . The Actions of the State to Facilitated the Fraud for ineligible candidates.. . The Actions of the State under color of State Law regarding HAVA and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by changing the POTUS eligibility from "natural born Citizen" to "born a Citizen" as if under the 14&Amendment. The Actions of Ineligible candidates and campaign agents to facilitate fraud That Sedition is the subversion intended to be prevented under EL 53-106 38.That while the Decision and Order was pending, as an additional matter of extrinsic fi-aud controlling as to the scheme to defraud, my associate the Information Technology expert Kevin Powell of Georgia on October 15,2011 affirmed his affidavit with exhibits (see APX - 199) assembled after the 22 August 201 1 hearing that discovered that the State of New York's instructions for getting on the presidential ballot, rather than state that a presidential candidate has to be a "natural born Citizen" pursuant to A2S 1C5 as I believe pre-existed the 2008 New York General Election at the time I filed the Federal Case No.: 08-cv-4289, instead after March 22,20 11 as of October 5,201 1 had been changed by the State and says that the President only had to be "Born a Citizen." (see APX - 215). 39. That I wrote to the State Counsel for the State election authorities and pointed out the error, and asked that a correction be made to state that a which is A2S 1C5 of our presidential candidate must be a "natural born Citizeny7 Constitution clearly and plainly states (see APX - 257); and

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 29 of 60

40. As had been previously done in New Jersey to change the erroneous instructions there @),I was looking for the same type of relief which would have satisfied my concerns regarding the wording of the eligibility instructions. But the State of New York would have none of it. Not receiving any satisfaction, on October 21,201 1, I filed an application for an order to show cause (APX- 164), asking that the court issue an order to the New York State Board of Elections that it correct the eligibility instruction from "born a Citizen" to "natural born Citizen." Judge Schack declined my application as premature (APX- 155 thru APX - 157). 41 .At the October 25,20 11, hearing on his order to show cause, I stated to counsel for the New York State Board of Elections that I would be willing to settle his litigation if the New York State Board of Elections would change the ballot instruction from "Born a Citizen" to "Natural-born Citizen." The attorney told him that "they could not do that". I then appealed Judge Schack's declined order and on January 3,2012 this Court dismissed my appeal sua sponte (APX - 154). 42.Judge Schack never ruled on my application that the Board of Elections be made to correct the ballot instruction for election for the Office of President to say not "born a Citizen," but rather "natural born Citizen." ; and as Judge Schack
The State of New Jersey also had the same type of error. At fust, the Secretary of State's instruction, using plain citizenship as the criteria for eligibility, did not state that the President had to be a "natural born Citizen." A concerned citizen wrote to the Secretary of State and pointed out the error and she simply made the correction by stating that a presidential candidate must be a "natural born Citizen." The correct New Jersey instructions can be viewed at http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/9 1538227- New-Jersey-SOS-Eligibility-Instructions-forPresidential-Primary-20 12 .
22

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 30 of 60

ordered in the hearing on May 7,2012 with hearing Transcript at APX - 326) I should pay for the costs incurred by the defendants in having to retain and pay their attorneys to defend them against this action for which all bills were submitted as ordered within the deadline, but no Judgment is rendered. 43. Judge Schack did state the correct standard for the court to apply when deciding a motion to dismiss the complaint on its face. He stated: "When determining a motion to dismiss, the court must 'accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory' (see Amav Indus., Inc. Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysman, Milstein, Felder & Steiner, 96 NY2d 300,303 [2001]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83,87438 [ 1994 I) [Emphasis added]." (Goldman v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 5 NY3d 561, 570-57 1 [2005]). Further, the Court, in Morris v Morris (306 AD2d 449,45 1 [2d Dept 2003]), instructed that: In determining whether a complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion pursuant to CPLR 321 1 (a) (7), "the sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four comers factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law a motion for dismissal will fail" (Guggenheimer v Ginsburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]. The court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and determirie only whether the facts alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Dye v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens, 273 AD2d 193 [2000]). However, bare legal conclusions are not entitled to the benefit of the presumption of truth and are not accorded every favorable inference (seeDoria v Masucci, 230 AD2d 764 [2000]). [Emphasis added] For a plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the factual allegations in the claim cannot be "merely conclusory and speculative in nature and not supported by any specific facts." (Residents for a More Beautiful Port Washington, Inc. v Town of North Hempstead, 153 AD3d 727,729 [2d Dept 19891). "The allegations in the complaint cannot be vague and conclusory." (Stoianoff v Gahona, 248 AD2d 525 [2d Dept 19981, app dismissed 92 NY2d 844 [1998], cert denied by Stoianoff v New York Times, 525 US 953 [1998]). (See LoPresti v Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 30 AD3d 474 [2d Dept
Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 3 1 of 60

20061; Levin v Isayeu, 27 AD3d 425 [2d Dept 20061; Hart v Scott, 8 AD3d 532 [Zd Dept 20041) (all emphasis in the original).

FAILURE TO HAVE STANDING?


44.The court found that Strunk did not sufficiently allege an injury in fact and therefore does not have standing. It found that the court therefore did not to have jurisdiction over his claims. Judge Schack applied federal court standing standards to a state election challenge case. Many states in the union have liberal standing standards when it comes to allowing voters of their states to file election ballot challenges, with just requiring that the person be a registered voter of the state. Pennsylvania at most, requires a voter who files a ballot challenge to be of the same party as the candidate of whom the challenger complains. New Jersey has no same party requirement. The federal court standing standards have no application in the state election law challenge Strunk should be given standing to bring his ballot challenge.

FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION?


45.Judge Schack found that because it is not possible to easily gain notice from reading his complaint what his particular cause of action is, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. But with pro se complaints, courts have an obligation to hlly and in good faith search the complaint for a cause of action. As I will show below, I more than adequately set out a cause of action which can be discerned by an indulgent reading of the complaint.
Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 32 of 60

FAILURE TO PLEAD FRAUD WITH PARTICULARITY?


46.Judge Schack found that my fraud claim also needed to be dismissed because somehow I did not plead with particularity that I relied upon any of the defendants7statement, despite the fact that John McCain's effort to have himself declared NBC by the Senate Resolution (APX - 655) is more than enough of a matter of reliance that one would have that McCain would challenge Obama because he in fact is not NBC by the very definition used by the Senate Resolution
- did not challenge Obama that is a breach of my reliance upon McCain to

do so.

47.That Judge Schack contends that I did not plead that I suffered any pecuniary loss as a result of statement of any of the defendants despite the fact that
I had in fact fired Obama (APX - 658) from being my power of attorney over the

private trust accounts at the US Treasury that are now wasting under his mismanagement. In my fraud claim, it is not necessary for me to continue my claim that Obama is not a "natural born Citizen."

FAILURE TO SHOW THAT THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION?


48. Judge Schack found that the court has no jurisdiction because of the

political question doctrine. He found that the question of presidential eligibility and necessarily the meaning of a "natural born Citizen" are left by the Constitution to the Electoral College and Congress in joint session when it counts the Electoral College votes. He even cites and relies upon 3 U.S.C. See. 15which only applies

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 33 of 60

after the general election and when the Congress is in joint session counting the Electoral Votes. Without even acknowledging that Obama is currently a candidate in the 2012 presidential election, the Judge relies on the Electoral College's and Congress's lack of objection to Obama's eligibility in the 2008 presidential election. But what is worse is that Judge Schack confounds and conflated candidates with incumbents. He states that my challenge of the eligibility of "President Obama." did not state that it is "Candidate Obama" that is challenged. The court relies strictly upon the Electoral College and Congress to decide whether incumbents are eligible for presidential office. He wrongly states that the States have no role to play in that process despite A2S lC2 that gives each State Legislature exclusive power to form an electoral college of their own choosing. . 49.Judge Schack found that the court has no jurisdiction because somehow I did not properly serve Obama and McCain and each of their respective campaign finance entities and agents when in fact I did, especially Penny Pritzker the Finance Chairwoman and Martin Nesbitt the Treasurer of Obama for America; and while finding no problem with my service upon the other main defendants, Judge Schack found only that I did not properly serve Obama and McCain. The court did not find that Obama and McCain were indispensable parties and that the action could not proceed without their presence in the action. Hence, even hypothetically

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 34 of 60

service upon the other defendants is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over his claims against the other defendants which concern both Obama and McCain.

THAT STRUNK'S COMPLAINT IS FRIVOLOUS?


50. Judge Schack found that my claim that Obama is not a "natural born Citizen" is frivolous. The "natural born Citizen" issue is the heart and soul of my action. Judge Schack states that " '/a] complaint containing as it does bothfactual
allegations and legal conclusions, isfrivolous where it lacks an arguable basis' and 'embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also thefanciful factual allegation.' (Neitzke v Williams,490 U.S. 3 19,325 [ 1989])." Hence, Judge

Schack looked to both the alleged facts and legal claims made by me relative to the "natural born Citizen" claim in order to determine the complaint was frivolous.
The Judiciaw as the political co-equal branch under separation of powers duty and obligation is to interpret the U.S. Constitution and Laws in this case not the Legislature or Executive related to the NYS Board of Elections agents 5 1.The meaning of any specific clause of the Constitution is a judicial question

and one to be authoritatively decided ultimately by the United States Supreme Court not Congress or the Executive. That high court decision under the supremacy clause is binding on the entire nation. Story on the Constitution, sec. 387. 52.Als0, States do have a critical responsibility to ensure that candidates on state ballots for federal office meet constitutional eligibility requirements. By cutting the States out of making sure that presidential candidates are eligible for the

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 35 of 60

office they seek, the court has cut out the States power to play in properly vetting presidential candidate early in the election process so as to not allow any unqualified candidate to advance too far and even to the point where the general public is voting for an ineligible candidate.
53. The U.S. Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen,
35 years of age or older, and reside in the U.S. for 14 years prior to being elected.

The issue of eligibility has come up on at least seven occasions with regard to past Presidents and Presidential candidates. As we have witnessed with the 2008 presidential election, there is considerable confusion over the issue of who vets candidates for their eligibility for federal office, including the Office of President.
54. With the outrageous reassertion of the doctrine of perpetual allegiance, the

Congressional Research Service (CRS) (23) examined the issue of who is responsible for presidential vetting. In their report they opine that there is "no
federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidatefor federal ofJice produce his or her original birth certzjkate, or a certiJied copy of the record

of live birth, to any o f j i a l of the United States Government; nor is there a


requirementfor federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation." ; and as explained herein, I do not agree with the CRS's Jack

Maskell's definition of a "natural born Citizen" which is any person who is a

%~%80%9~~atural-~om%~2%80%9~-~itizenshi~-~li~ibili~-~e~uirement
Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 36 of 60

"citizen of the United States" from the moment of birth, regardless of to whom or where born. The CRS adds that "there is no speczjic federal agency or office that

'vets' candidatesfor federal ofice as to qual$cations or eligibility prior to elections." ( A P X - 700).


55. That without any federal laws or guidelines on presidential vetting, the

federal government has not precluded the states from doing so. Hence, the best time to resolve any ballot challenge is at the primary level. At the primary level, it is candidate Obama himself who wants to appear on the ballot. Under the Constitution and state law, it is the candidate who has to prove that the candidate is eligible to be placed on that primary ballot. According to NYS EL 8 16-100 (24) that "The supreme court is vested with jurisdiction to summarily determine any question of law or fact arising as to any subiect set forth in this article, which shall be construed liberally." (Emphasis by Appellant) as such affords broad jurisdiction to the State Judiciary over whether I should be made to challenge Obama's eligibility only after the general election in November 2012 - when in fact the entire process is an element of the ongoing fraud against the voters and the People of New York in which the schemers abuse suffrage
NYS Election Law 5 16-100. Jurisdiction; supreme court, county court. 1. The supreme court is vested with jurisdiction to summarily determine any question of law or fact arising as to any subject set forth in this article, which shall be construed liberally. 2. The county court is vested with jurisdiction to summarily determine any question of law or fact except proceedings as to a nomination or election at a primary election or a nomination at a judicial convention, proceedings as to the casting and canvass of ballots, proceedings for examination or preservation of ballots and proceedings to enforce the provisions of article fourteen of this chapter.
24

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 37 of 60

process and stole the cost of the election from the New York taxpayers. Plaintiff(s) should not be made to rely on the Electoral College or Congress for resolving their challenge to Obama's eligibility to be elected President under A2S lC2. At that point, Obama can argue that the courts do not have jurisdiction to tell the Electoral College or Congress how to do their jobs this matter is not moot according to the
25thAmendment and the State Court has a duty to interpret what the State has done

to change Federal officer A2S lC5 eligibility under A2S 1C2 with exclusive power.. 56. In The Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton explained that the President was a "person to whom so important a trust was to be confided." He advocated that the Electoral College "will be most likely to possess the information and
discernment requisite to so complicate an investigation." He said that because the

President was "so an important agency in the administration of the government,"


"tumult and disorder7' were to be avoided in selecting the President. What better

way than for the states to aid in this complex investigation of that person who should want to run for that most important office. Surely by requiring any such candidate to produce documentary evidence of his or her identity and place of birth is a first step in producing that needed information which is so vital to such a complicated investigation. The states therefore serve a vital role in the beginning stages of the vetting of any presidential candidate. Such vetting should start as

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 38 of 60

soon as possible so as to avoid parties becoming entrenched in their selections and wanting to win at all costs at the expense of the people and their Constitution. 57. Furthermore, to allow an ineligible candidate to advance to the Electoral College or even to Congress in joint session only brings with it tremendous cost, embarrassment for both political parties, political haggling, insults and ridicule, and finger pointing, all at the expense of the Constitution. It is best that presidential eligibility requirements are met prior to the election of a candidate in order to avoid the prospect of Congress being asked and having to invalidate national election results. What better way to secure liberty and support the Constitution than to allow all our political institutions, including those of the states, to have a role in presidential vetting. S8.As to my factual allegations, I have adequately pled such facts in my Complaint that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama's birth wherever that may be. As proof of this fact, he relies upon Obarna's admission in his book, Dreams from My Father (APX - 487), the INS (immigration) file on Obama's father (APX - 685), the alleged Certificate of Live Birth that Obama released via the internet on April 27,201 1 (APX - 698), and the Obama-Dunham divorce papers (APX -679). 59. That while the Court argues that portions of my Complaint (references to the Vatican, Roman Catholic Church, and the Society of Jesus and inclusion of a

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 39 of 60

long list of defendants) rise to the level of the "irrational," the thrust of my legal argument, that Obama is not an Article I1 "natural born Citizen" as we shall see below is eminently reasonable. Whether or not Obama is an Article I1 "natural born Citizen" citizen under the American common law standard that has been in place since the Founding is not a conspiracy theory or what Judge Schack pejoratively calls a "birther case." There are some factual allegations in my Complaint that could raise some eyebrows of those unfamiliar with the last 80 years of European centric History nevertheless does not change the fact that Vatican Bank money laundering for drug cartels, the Mafia, is documented at trial, continues and outrageously interferes with U.S. Domestic and Foreign policy. 60. That the Court can also understand my frustration in my naming domestic defendants who I believe have not only allowed but actively facilitated Obama to proceed unchallenged and others who I believe should be "taking responsibility to enforce the law which has not been done" regarding the question of Obama's eligibility for POTUS. Decision and Order, p. 20 (APX - 106) oral arguments. 6 1. Despite Judge Schack's contention that somehow I add some questionable factual allegations in my Complaint about the defendants' religious motivations to wit I flatly deny, and that the Holy See is not a named party nor is that religion per se questioned; and despite the fact that many foreign members of the private organizations that have facilitated the ascendency of Obama to power especially Le

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 40 of 60

Cercle (2", Pilgrim Society (261, 1001 Club (27), Commercial Club of Chicago
Sovereign Military Order of Malta
(29),

Council for National Policy

(SO),

along with the

infamous Saudi Financier Adnan Khashoggi should have been named as material,

but aren't because of difficult service involved remain central to campaign finance. 62.That since I am alleging that the Vatican Bank is the campaign money laundering mechanism with JP Morgan here in New York (a well established fact for which it and its agents have been previously punished including the unindicted Keating five co-conspirator McCain's fi-iendship with Paul Marcinkus also involved in the savings and loan scandal involving the Chicago syndicate) as illegal foreign funds channeled to the Obama Campaigns, I am obligated to make the connection to that institution and defendants- do not express "irrational anti-

Catholic bias."; the Plaintiff's allegation is that foreign money was laundered
through its Vatican Bank facility to J.P. Morgan Bank where the Obama Campaign has its account as its exclusive landing bank in New York - and only until just

25

http://~\~~.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopoliticdsociopol -lecercle07.htm#TheVaticanPaneuropa-network

27
28

http://~.bibliotecapleyades.net/~ociopo1iticdsociopoll00 1club01.htm
http://commercialclubchicago.orgl

29

http://www.orderofinalta.int/?lang=en with a financial stake in Obarna-Care

30

http://~~~.~ourcewatch.orglindex.php?title=Council~for~NationalPolicy

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 4 1 of 60

recently when it resigned because of money laundering investigations, the Vatican Bank now uses Wells Fargo Bank instead; But even whatever were those questionable factual allegations regarding defendants' motivations in regards to the intrinsic fraud complained of, are not relevant to the question of what is a "natural born Citizen" and whether Obama meets that definition. Even hypothetically were those suspect factual allegations which Judge Schack admits Plaintiff "weaves" into the complaint as I must do when the Vatican Bank is involved with money laundering illegally, should therefore not trump the otherwise sound part of my complaint and be used as a means to create a circus-type atmosphere in the court by falsely coloring Plaintiffs motives and thereby to obfuscate the real argument that I make at the heart of both the intrinsic and extrinsic firaud which is that Obama does not meet the status quo American common law definition of a "natural born Citizen," which defmition as we can see below is adequately shown to exist by the historical record and case law of our United States Supreme Court.

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is not only BORN A CITIZEN


63.As to my legal arguments as to what is a "natural born Citizen," Judge Schack did not correctly state my legal position and by doing so actually created a straw man argument. Judge Schack mis-stated: "Plaintiff STRUNK'S complaint, as well as his opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss, alleges that the correct interpretation of the natural born
Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 42 of 60

citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution requires a natural born citizen to have been born on United States soil and have two United States born parents. Despite plaintiffs assertions, Article 11, Section 1, Clause 5 does not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the natural born citizen clause means what plaintiff STRUNK claims it states. "The phrase 'natural born Citizen' is not defined in the Constitution, see Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 [1875]), nor does it appear anywhere else in the document, see Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President althe United States: An Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1,5 (1968)." (Hollander v McCain at 65). Plaintiff STRUNK cannot wish into existence an interpretation that he chooses for the natural born citizen clause. There is no arguable legal basis for the proposition that both parents of the President must have been born on U.S. soil. This assertion is as frivolous as the multitude of alleged allegations outlined above. Moreover, President OBAMA is the sixth U. S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil. Plaintiff STRUNK and his fellow "birthers" might not realize that both parents of President Andrew Jackson were born in what is now Northern Ireland; President James Buchanan's father was born in County Donegal, Ireland; President Chester A. Arthur's father was born in what is now Northern Ireland; President Woodrow Wilson's mother was born in Carlisle, England; and, President Herbert Hoover's mother was born in Nonvich, Ontario, Canada. 64. But I did not argue that a "natural born Citizen" child has to be born to "two

United States born parents" or that "both parents . . . must have been born on U.S. soil." This argument is strictly a creation of Judge Schack. Rather, I argued that a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the United States to "citizen" parents. I correctly argue that "born Citizen" is not the same as "natural born Citizen."
65.

It is outrageous misbehavior that Judge Schack would question my own

parentage as a "natural-born Citizen" so nonchalantly shows his bias as if I were ignorant of my own heritage in regards to my own parents and to the actual meaning used in my Complaint when in fact:

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 43 of 60

a. My father Earl Henry Strunk is a "natural born Citizen7'in 1917 as defined by Minor ,because his father Moses, my grandfather had been a naturalborn Citizen to his own U.S. Citizen parents (my great-grand parents) at his birth, and who married my Prussian born Grandmother Elizabeth who immigrated to the USA, assumed U.S. citizenship of my grandfather Moses when she married by American common law before the Cable Act of 1922; b. And, that my mother Beth Hardwick in 1915 was born a 14thAmendment U.S. Citizen defined by Kim Won2Ark, because her father and mother, my maternal grandparents were British subjects who immigrated to New Jersey from Canada, were domiciled legal resident aliens when Mother was born.
66. The first step in constitutional interpretation is textual analysis of the clause

in question. In that analysis, we have to look at each and every word of the clause which includes "natural" and define that word. By using "born Citizen" rather than "natural born Citizen," would be saying that we do not need to consider and define "natural," that the Framers just threw that word in as surplusage. On the contrary, the word "natural" is part and parcel of the full clause, "natural born Citizen." The clause as a whole is a word of art, an idiom. The historical record shows that it has always been used as such and that it has never been used in some expanded way as "born Citizen" suggests. Indeed, the clause is a unitary phrase with a unitary meaning. Hence, "natural" cannot be separated from the clause. Rather what needs

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 44 of 60

to be done is to search for the meaning of the whole clause and not its parts. In this textual analysis, we cannot simply take that idiom and say that it means some other manufactured definition of the clause. We cannot simply proclaim without evidence that the meaning of that idiom equates to the manner in which Congress and the Fourteenth Amendment allows persons to acquire the status of a "citizen of the United States" as of the moment of birth. No U.S. Supreme Court case or Justice has adopted such a manufactured definition or even said that such a meaning prevailed at the time of the Founding. That someone acquires his or her citizenship from the moment of birth simply does not equate to that person being a "natural born Citizen." Even Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei, 40 1 U.S. 8 15
(1971) tell us that persons may be "naturalized" from the moment of birth. We

accept that "naturalized" person are not "natural born Citizens." Furthermore, that Wong Kim Ark included the clause "natural born subject" in the context of its discussion of what is a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" does not through some amazing feat of logic convert a "citizen of the United States" into a "natural born Citizen." As Minor aptly explained, a "natural born Citizen" is neither created by the Constitution nor depended upon it.

67. Hence, neither Fourteenth Amendment nor its debates on who shall be a
"citizen of the United States" does not control who shall be "natural born Citizens."

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 45 of 60

68. Hence, simply having a status of a "citizen" from the moment of birth does

not necessarily equate to one being a "natural born Citizen." The fact that the Framers included the word "natural" as an additional qualifier tells us that quite plainly, for if such an interpretation were correct the Framers would simply have said "born Citizen." So, any person that is a "born Citizen" who claims to be a "natural born Citizen" still has to show that he or she satisfies the idiomatic meaning of the clause which the historical record and U.S. Supreme Court case law show to be a child born in the country to parents who are citizens of that country. This definition is exactly what our United States Supreme Court in Minor v.

Happersett in 1875 and Wong Kim Ark in 1898 confirmed is the correct American
common law definition of a "natural born Citizen."
69. For this time-honored natural lawllaw of nationslAmerican "common-law"

definition of a "natural born Citizen", see Minor v. Hamersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875) (decided after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 and holding 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"). What Minor said about a "natural born Citizen" was confirmed in US. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (acknowledging and confirming Minor's American common law definition of a "natural-born citizen7'but adding based on the English common law that since

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 46 of 60

"'[tlhe child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the naturalborn child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle [birth in the country]"' (bracketed information supplied), a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States". This American common law definition of a "natural born Citizen" has never been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment (only uses the clause "citizen of the United States" and does not mention "natural born Citizen") or Wong Kim Ark, and therefore still prevails today. Both those U.S. Supreme Court cases define a "natural born Citizen" as a child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country. 70. This American common law definition of a "natural born Citizen" has also been recognized and accepted by a Founder and member of our U.S. Supreme Court as early as 1814 in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253,289 (1 8 14) (Chief Justice John Marshall dissenting and concurring for other reasons). It was also again confirmed by Inalis v. Sailors ' Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. 99 (1830) and Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242,245 (1830). It was again confirmed by Justice Daniels in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U. S. 3 93 (1857).

7 1. It is shown that the original American "common-law" definition of a


"natural born Citizen" was not changed by either the Fourteenth Amendment or Wong Kim Ark, which only deal with a "citizen of the United States" and not a

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 47 of 60

"natural born Citizen." Hence, the same original definition of a "natural born Citizen" was again expressly confirmed by the whole U.S. Supreme Court in Minor and Vong Kim Ark, and a lower federal court in Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582,5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) and United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890). Finally, this same definition was implicitly confirmed by Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964). 72. Given the meaning of the clause since time immemorial; the enlightened intellectual mindset of the Founding period which focused on natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Cicero, Pufendorf, Burlamaqui, John Locke, Rousseau, Emer de Vattel; the motivating spirit of the American Revolution; the Founders and Framers desire to preserve the constitutional republic for Posterity; the way that founding -era legal scholars such as Chief Justice John Marshall, David Ramsay, St. George Tucker, and James Wilson defined American citizenship; Congressional acts on naturalization; U.S. Supreme Court case law; and the whole historical record, this is the most natural interpretation of the clause. 73. Regarding the citizenship status of the parents of a "natural born Citizen," the Constitution and Congressional Acts clearly and without question show that a

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 48 of 60

"citizen" may be one either by being "natural born" or naturalized either at birth or after birth. 74. Hence, what I argued and argue is that a child needs to be born in the country to parents who are both either "natural born Citizens" (NBC) or "citizens of the United States" (citizen) by naturalization at birth or after birth. I did not argue that the parents needed to be born citizens or born on the soil of the United States and in fact a close reading of the transcript at APX - 354 shows that to be born NBC means there are permutations of citizen parents that means NBC = NBC +NBC or NBC = Nl3C + citizen or NBC = citizen + citizen. None of the legal actions filed against Obama on his eligibility have made such an argument and neither did I make such an argument. 75. So it is totally irrelevant to my claim that according to Judge Schack's ridiculous ipse dixit theory that somehow "Obama is the sixth U. S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil," for under Judge Schack's interpretation of the Article 11, Section 1, Clause 5 and his definition of a "natural born Citizen," those presidents, other than Chester A. Arthur who like Obama cannot benefit from Article 11's grandfather clause and was not born to citizen parents, qualified to be President.
76. Judge Schack has not decided the merits of the legal argument that I made

concerning what is a "natural born Citizen," but rather a legal argument that he

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 49 of 60

himself created regarding that clause. Hence, not having yet passed on the argument that I made, Judge Schack surely cannot reasonably conclude that my argument is frivolous.
77.

Furthermore, in Tennessee, the Federal District Court just recently stated: "The Court finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase 'natural born citizen' as a qualification for the Presidency set out in Article I1 of the Constitution, is important and not trivial." "The issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the Presidency is certainly substantial." "It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama's qualifications for the office are 'actually disputed and substantial."' "It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution's definition of 'natural born citizen' and the Supreme Court's decision in Minor." Liberty Legal Foundation et al v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc. et al, Case No. 12-2143-STA. So we can see that the federal court found the issue of whether Obama is a "natural born Citizen" to be "important and not trivial," "substantial," and "disputed."

78. Additionally, Judge Schack disagrees with my definition of a "natural born

Citizen," although as I have shown above Judge Schack states a definition by cherry picking one which I did not put forth, because the Constitution does not define the clause, citing "Hollander v. McCain at 65" which cited Minor and Charles Gordon, Who can be President of the United States: An Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L.Rev. 1, 5 (1968). If that were a valid reason for disagreeing with someone's definition of a constitutional clause, we basically would have virtually no interpretation of the Constitution at all. As is often said, the Constitution is not a dictionary of legal terms. Its meaning has to be gleaned fiom its text, if possible, and when not possible, fi-om sources outside the Constitution. For example, the
Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 50 of 60

Fourteenth Amendment does not tell us what "subject to the jurisdiction" means. Yet, our nation has arrived at a meaning of the clause by looking outside the Constitution. That the Constitution does not defme a "natural born Citizen" is the only argument that Judge Schack makes to discount my position as to what is the meaning of a "natural born Citizen." He offers no other authorities showing that I am wrong. Also, we should know that Charles Gordon in the very same article cited by Judge Schack states that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark's holding defined a "natural born Citizen."
79. Surely, all this shows that I did allege a particular cause of action and gave

sufficient notice of both the facts and the law that support my cause of action. All this also shows that it is not true that my complaint presents no legitimate basis in law or fact which warrants sanctions. Even assuming arguendo that the Court is correct about standing, jurisdiction, and collateral estoppel, the Court did not say that these grounds of dismissal support the Court's finding that the action is frivolous. Rather, the Court's finding of fi-ivolous concerns my definition of a "natural born Citizen." And have shown that my definition is more than reasonable to raise a genuine constitutional question. Hence, my complaint is not frivolous.
All Litigants Have A Right To Impartial And Considered Justice
80. As Judge Schack correctly states, "all litigants have a right to impartial and

considered justice." Muka v. New York State Bar Association. 120 Misc. 2d 897

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 5 1 of 60

(Sup. Ct. Tompkins County 1983). But Judge Schack's references to " 'birther' cases" " 'birther' action," '"birther' movement," "his fellow 'birthers,"' is hardly any show of actually receiving that "impartial and considered" justice. "Birther" is a pejorative term that is used by Obama's supporters. It is a quick way to dismiss through ridicule and ad hominem attack any argument that is made that Obama is not an Article I1 "natural born Citizen."
81. As I have shown, whether Mr. Obama is a "natural born Citizen" is not some

conspiracy or "lunatic fringe" argument. Rather, it is, as even the federal court in Tennessee has confirmed, a legitimate and substantial constitutional issue which to date has escaped being address in any meaningfbl way.
82. Apart that there is no factual or legal basis for the Court to sanction me,

there are also public policy reasons for not doing so, as Judge Schack states in his opinion that sanctions of the court are designed to punish in the present so as to deter what the court deems unacceptable behavior in the future. The court adds that such a policy is justified in that it works to save judicial resources. On the contrary, for the Court to sanction me under the existing circumstances would not only save judicial resources by preventing me from filing further Article I1 eligibility actions in New York in the hture, but would do a great disservice to our system of justice and republican form of government. With any such sanction, the public, not knowing the h l l details of this matter and after having been bombarded by

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 52 of 60

manipulated and propagandist use of the court's sanction decision by Obama's supporters, will come away with the thought that I was sanctioned by the "Supreme Court of the State of New York" because I filed a complaint in a court of law claiming that Mr. Obama is not an Article I1 "natural born Citizen." The public will therefore not only be made to think that there is no legitimate basis in filing any such legal actions against Mr. Obama, but also that if anyone so dare, he or she will be severely sanctioned by our courts. Additionally, because we follow the doctrine of stare decisis (to abide by or adhere to decided cases), other courts will be pressured to do the same should anyone file any such action. Hence, we can easily see the chilling effect that the Court's sanction will have to not only people resorting to our court's in search of what they deem to be justice, but also stifling the free exercise of political speech and discourse in all comers of America. This is especially grave given that Mr. Obama is now being more carehlly publicly and privately vetted for his re-election.
83. For these reasons, the Supreme Court of the State of New York should not

sanction or otherwise discipline pro se litigant, Christopher Earl Strunk in esse, and should discharge its show cause order.
Plaintiff has been a dedicated and loyal New York State Citizen
84.

Beyond the fact that I was born and in part educated in New York and that I

am an Eagle Scout dedicated to GOD and Country although no longer "obedient"

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 53 of 60

and "reverent" as admitted above, I worked my entire life here in both public and private endeavors and am not to be characterized as frivolous.
85.

That on May 2 1, 1985 the entire New York State Legislature enacted a joint

commendation of my dedication to my Public duties as a management confidential public officer of the New York State Facilities Development Corporation who decreed that "WHEREAS It isfor his perception of the value and worth of others,
for his Innate and ingenuous concernfor the preservation and enhancement of human dignity that this Assembled Body commends Christopher Strunk,,,: and WHEREAS Through his unselJishdedication and competent discharge of duty, Christopher Strunk has brought enduring honor to the New York State Facilities Development Corporation..." ( A P X - 857) and as a result of my dedication then

Governor Cuomo used me to personally direct and fulfill the "Willowbrook Consent Decree" by the Honorable John R. Bartel USDJ of the EDNY to close the Staten Island Development Center "I), to wit I completed that task in 1987 on time and within budget. I have been dedicated to the New York State Constitution and laws at all times and dedicated to my and my fellow citizen suffrage and voting rights; and further when Chief Justice Judith Kaye in 2003 called for Citizen

31

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archivesl2O11/O5/23/abandoned-minds-social-justice-civil-rightsand-mental-health-part-11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willowbrook-State-School

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 54 of 60

participation with the John D. Feerick (32) Commission to Promote Public Confidence in the Judiciary for my testimony published by the Feerick Center of Fordharn University School of Law; and further, involved myself in several voting

i l l v. the rights cases including the Federal case in which I joined with the Arbor H
County of Albany NDNY 03-cv-502 as a matter of disenfi-anchisementin re the
VRA of 1965'~~); and further, was an essential party to broaden the case The New

York State Green Party v. The New York State Board of Elections 02-cv-6465 before the Honorable John Gleason in the matter of citizen right of association and speech and fiuther, with a unique perspective as to the role of the Judiciary and

real property, I opposed the Brennan Center efforts financed by George Soros to do what I saw was to seize control over the State Judiciary in the case before John Gleason Lopez Torres v Ehe State o f New York 04-cv- 1129, in which I intervened

. in support of the New York State Justice Association and the State Constitution(35) ,
and in effect have been vindicated when SDNY Bankruptcy Court held that the

John D. Feerick of Fordham Law was primarily responsible for the composition of the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment specifies how a president can remove himself from office temporarily or be removed from office by a majority of his cabinet, and the process that follows for the President to attempt to regain power before Congress, if he so chooses, and then how the President's Cabinet, once again, can remove him from power. This scenario would most likely be used in the event that the President were mentally incapacitated, either voluntarily, through anesthesia in a medical procedure or involuntarily in the case of a mental illness. 33 h t t p ~ : / / b ~ l k . r e ~ ~ ~ r c e . ~ r g ! c o u r t s . g ~ V / C l 34 http~://~.nyed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/02cv6465pi053003.pdf 35 http://law.justia.com/cases/federa~appel1ate-c0~3/462/16 1/525026/
32

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 55 of 60

Mortgage Electronic Recording System (MERS) is facially unconstitutional


especially in that in 2007 as a Plaintiff in Jah Thomas et a1 v. the New York

'.'"

Federal Reserve, Goldman Sachs et al. EDNY 07-cv- 1171 before Judge Ross
complained of the emerging matter of sub-prime mortgages; and still hrthermore, I gave testimony in the Assembly Education Committee in the matter of Federal responsibility to enforce immigration law and reimburse the State regarding the Campaign for Fiscal Equity decision to unreasonably burden upstate real property owners for the education of illegal aliens in NYC (APX - 847), and then in regards to the same lack of enforcement I was invited to testify by NYS Senate majority leader Joseph Bruno before the Committee in opposition to giving drivers license and State citizen privileges to illegal aliens in 2007 (APX - 844). Consistently I take my citizen speech responsibility seriously and not to be marginalized.
86.

Therefore, Christopher Earl Stmnk in esse proceeds at all times with explicit

reservation of all my rights and without prejudice with respect to any of my unalienable rights, inclusive of my personal right to substantive and procedural due process proceedings under the Judicial Power of both my State and my Nation as guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions and Congress granting each State of the Union under the equal footing doctrine, a Republican form of government, not a Corporate form of government. And fbrther Christopher Earl

36

http:II~~~.ny~b.~~~0~rts.gov/opinionsIcgdl86630~39~opinion.pdf
Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 56 of 60

Strunk in esse, state and affirm the following to Almighty God to be noticed by other parties with interest:
87.

That Christopher Earl Strunk in esse rebuts any erroneous presumptions and

or terminates any erroneous election of U.S. "residence" which may have been established in error by the filing of any prior IRS forms, schedules and other statements, by mistake resulting in part from the demonstrable vagueness that is evident throughout Title 26 USC and it's regulations, and by mistakes resulting also from the constructive fraud and misrepresentation mentioned throughout this Affidavit; that Christopher Earl Strunk in esse was neither born nor naturalized in the "United States", Christopher Earl Strunk in esse has never been subject to that jurisdiction except in National Military Service and Christopher Earl Strunk in esse has never been a "United States citizen" as defmed in 26 C.F.R. 1.1.1 and as defined in the alleged 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

CONCLUSION IN SUPPORT OF EQUITY RELIEF AND REMAND


88.

Judge Ross held that my complaint in 2008 did not belong in Federal Court

but must deal with State law matters, and as such I fashioned the Petition 2964 1-08
f the case in my complaint of 29642-08 without the Board of to determine the law o

Elections until the State Constitutional status of the 2008 dual office holders who are the electors was decided by my 29641-08 Petition; and when it was

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 57 of 60

determined, and because Justice Schmidt would not issue a subpoena for necessary records to amend the complaint, I filed my Freedom of Information Act case for the records in Washington DC (08-cv-2234), and two years later receiving several, I went back before Justice Schmidt to file service nunc pro tunc and amend the Complaint of 29642-08; but instead he suggested that I just file a new case with my claim of fraud including the Board of Elections for the first time; and as such I filed the new Complaint 6500-20 11- but could not afford the cost of the WI.
That res judicata and or collateral estoppel do not apply to my complaint
89.

That the WI was filed by Mr. McCain's local attorney under penalty of

perjury without listing the related case 29642-08, and so here we are nearly five years later having been denied speedy and fair justice.
90.

This Court needs to decree that if my vote no longer is meaningful in New

York and the New York State Board of Elections may do as it wishes with impunity, then the people of this State and country need to know; and accordingly I will go elsewhere and deal with the imposition of sanctions and costs - otherwise, send me back to trial court before Justice Schmidt assigned to the: a. related current Article 78 Petition Strunk v Jeffiies et a1 Index No.: 21948 / 2012 that challenges the incompatibility of POTUS Electors using the law of the case determined by Justice Schmidt in the Petition 2964 1-08 defining the

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 58 of 60

92.

As to the foregoing, it 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: 3rdparties, books and records, and personal knowledge; and Affirmant will testify to these facts and matters in open court and or by special appearance; and requests a sur-reply.

f7

Sworn to before me This day of March 20 13

,:Commission Expires June 30. 2 0 4


a .

. * .
,

.<

..;-

3 . .

. -- . ;- . .. - .
.

Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-055 15 - Page 60 of 60

--------------------------------------------------------------------x Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse Plaintiff / Appellant,


-against-

APPEAL CASE INDEX NO.:

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;


JAMES A.WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEM COLN, in their Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSON, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; RGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities.

2012-05515

Defendants / Respondents. APPELLANTS APPENDIX

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, Plaintiff Appellant / Private US Citizen Self-represented w/o being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281, Brooklyn, New York 11238. 845-901-6767 E-mail: chris@strunk.ws

APPELLANT'S APPENDIX APPEAL CASE INDEX NO.: 2012-05515 APPENDIX INDEX APX PAGE NO: 1 3 4 6 7 717 10 17 19 20-A 21-A 24 26

Entry Date

February 20, 2013 February 13, 2013 February 13, 2013 October 26, 2012 October 18, 2012 June 18, 2012 May 23, 2012 May 23, 2012

Appellants Second Letter Request for Extension Time for filing by March 8, 2013 Judicial Subpoena of Original Record on Appeal for 6500-2011 Certification of Transcript for Index 6500-2011 Appellate Order Granting Extension of time Appellants First Letter Request for extension of time to perfect due by February 22, 2013 Order by Judge Schack denying Motion to Supplement the Complaint for Presentment of Evidence shown at 718 RADI - Request for Appellate Division Intervention - civil Notice of Appeal Notice of Entry (only) of Decision and Order by Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, LLP for George Soros Notice of Entry (only) of Decision and Order by Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky, & Lieberman, P.C. for the Socialist Workers Party and Roger Calero Notice of Entry (only) of Decision and Order by McGuire & Woods LLP for the Brzezinski Family Notice of Entry (only) of Decision and Order by Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered for McCain et al Notice of Entry (only) of Decision and Order by Wiley Rein LLP for John A. Boehner

February 15, 2013

Notice of Entry (only) of Decision and Order by Harris Beach PLLC for Penny Pritzker et al Notice of Entry (only) of Decision and Order by Michael A. Cardozo Corporation Counsel for the City of New York Campaign Finance Board, Notice of Entry (only) of Decision and Order by Joel Graber of the State of New York Attorney Generals Office Catholic Lawyers Guild, Diocese of Brooklyn Home Page http://www.catholiclawyersguildofkingscounty.com/
Page

28 29 30 34

Appellants Appeal Appendix Table of Contents

APPELLANT'S APPENDIX APPEAL CASE INDEX NO.: 2012-05515 APPENDIX INDEX APX PAGE NO:

Entry Date

May 6, 2012

May 7, 2012 May 3, 2012 April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 April 12, 2012

Amicus by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. entitled The New York State Court Should Not Sanction Pro Se Plaintiff, Christopher Earl Strunk, for His "Natural Born Citizen" Litigation http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/05/new-york-state-courtshould-not.html Transcript of OSC Proceeding Before Judge Schack Plaintiff filed a Response to the OSC of April 11, 2012 Decision and Order shown at APX 106 The April 11, 2012 Order and Decision the Supplement to the Complaint with Index No.; 6500-2011 Plaintiff Motion for Presentment of Evidence of Forgery and Spoliation as Supplement to the Complaint By Request for the Leave of the Court with the Supplement to the Complaint annexed thereto Plaintiff Affidavit in support of Notice of motion for presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint with: Exhibit 1 Maricopa County AZ Sheriffs Office Press Release March 1, 2012 Exhibit 2 AZ SOS Certified Affidavit by Barack Obama for AZ Ballot access 2007 Exhibit 3 Sheriff Arpaios COLD CASE POSSE Preliminary Report March 1, 2012 Exhibit 4 Forged Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form dated April 25, 2011 Exhibit 5 TRANSCRIPT of Barack Obama April 27, 2011 Press Conference Exhibit 6 Forged CoLB Short form stamped June 6, 2007 with Factcheck.org analysis Exhibit 7 July 29, 2010 certified U.S. DOS FOIA release of Stanley Ann Dunham Exhibit 8 Barack Obama perjured application for entry to the Illinois bar

39

49 79 106 834 718

718 730 736 740 751 753 768 777 792

Appellants Appeal Appendix Table of Contents

Page

ii

APPELLANT'S APPENDIX APPEAL CASE INDEX NO.: 2012-05515 APPENDIX INDEX APX PAGE NO:

Entry Date

January 3, 2012 November 19, 2011 October 25, 2011 October 21, 2011

October 15, 2011

October 5, 2011

Exhibit 9 statements by congressmen from November 11, 2008 thru February 2009 Plaintiffs Memorandum in support of Notice of motion for presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint Sua Sponte Appellate Order M130881 Appeal case 2011-11561 Notice of Appeal for Interlocutory Order with RADI statement for Appeal case 2011-11561 Judge Schack on October 25, 2011 declined to sign the OSC thereafter taken on appeal without leave Emergency Application for an Order to Show Cause in regards to The New York State Board of Elections involvement in an extrinsic fraud Discovered after August 11, 2011 Order to Show Cause for a Mandamus Stay and Injunction Affidavit in support of Order to Show Cause for a Mandamus Stay and Injunction regarding Born a Citizen with: Exhibit 1 Stipulation of Extension between Plaintiff and State Defendants Exhibit 2 - Pre-Discovery Conference Notice Exhibit 3 NYT Article on State of New Hampshire Presidential Primary Exhibit 4 Expert Witness Kevin Richard Powell Affidavit with sub-exhibits A thru E Sub-exhibit A Credentials of Kevin Richard Powell Sub-exhibit B - http://pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/10/newyork-state-boe-website-cover-up. Report by Mr. Powell Sub-exhibit C DVD of actual on-line research by Mr. Powell Sub-exhibit D printout of his DNS report with the IP trace. Sub-exhibit E - Mr. Arena confirms that evidenced in The Internet Archive's source code on line 221 as can be seen in the screenshot referred to as Exhibit E Exhibit 5 - October 12, 2011 Plaintiff email to States Counsel

793 810 154 158 155 164 168 171 189 192 194 199 212 215 240 242 250 257

Appellants Appeal Appendix Table of Contents

Page

iii

APPELLANT'S APPENDIX APPEAL CASE INDEX NO.: 2012-05515 APPENDIX INDEX APX PAGE NO:

Entry Date

October 20, 2011 August 22, 2011 August 11, 2011 July 28, 2011 May 31, 2011

Exhibit 6 - Minor v. Happersett as Standing Precedent on Citizenship Exhibit 7 - October 14, 2011, States Counsel email to Plaintiff regarding Stipulation Exhibit 8 October 13, 2011 on the Post & Email Article by Creg Maroney Exhibit 9 October 7, 2011 that denied access to records Exhibit 10 October 17, 2011 NYS BOE Denial of records Exhibit 11 2008 Election Pamphlet Exhibit 12 WND Article about Soros considerable investment in Uganda oil Memorandum in support of Order to Show Cause for a Mandamus Stay and Injunction Transcript of the Motions Hearing Proceeding Before Judge Schack Second Extension of time for the State Defendants to answer Notice of appearance by New York State Attorney General Office with First Stipulation for extension of time to answer Plaintiffs Combined Response to the Motions to Dismiss of SOEBARKAH et al. and McCain et al. PLAINTIFFS COMBINED AFFIDAVIT In Opposition To Defendant Candidates McCain and Obama Motions To Dismiss the Complaint affirmed May 31, 2011 with: Exhibit 1: June 2008 BHO II CoLB; Exhibit 2: U.S. Senate Sense Resolution 511; Exhibit 3: CE Strunk duly fires BHO II January 23, 2009; Exhibit 4: Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of November 18, 1903; Exhibit 5: Certified Birth Certificate of john Sidney McCain III by the Panama Canal Company; Exhibit 6: August 26, 2009 letter from White House to Christopher Strunk; Exhibit 7: a copy of the March 20, 1964 Divorce Decree between Stanley Ann D. Obama and Barack Hussein Obama Sr.

261 273 277 284 288 292 311 320 326 189

627

627 653 655 658 668 671 676 679

Appellants Appeal Appendix Table of Contents

Page

iv

APPELLANT'S APPENDIX APPEAL CASE INDEX NO.: 2012-05515 APPENDIX INDEX APX PAGE NO:

Entry Date

May 23, 2011

March 11, 2011 January 11, 2011

Exhibit 8: copy of a portion of the INS records of Barack Hussein Obama Senior; Exhibit 9: a copy of the Long Form Birth Certificate CoLB released on April 27, 2011; Exhibit 10: April 3, 2009 Congressional Research Service legal memorandum on POTUS Qualification and eligibility Plaintiffs Cross Motion opposing the Pro Hac Vice Motion and for Transfer and Consolidation NOTICE OF MOTION For Transfer, Consolidation And New Return Date AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION affirmed May 17, 2011 Exhibit 1: RJI signed May 2, 2011; Exhibit 2: Notice of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Todd E. Phillips affirmed May 4, 2011 w/o NOM; Exhibit 3: Defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAINPALIN VICTORY 2008 and John S, McCain's Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Complaint affirmed May 2, 2011; Exhibit 4: with Defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, Joseph R. Biden Jr., OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND 's Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Complaint 5-2-2011; Sub-exhibit A Summons and Complaint 6500-2011 Sub-exhibit B Summons and Complaint 29642-08 Sub-exhibit C Complaint EDNY Case 08-cv-4289 Sub-exhibit D-1 Order re Amend - Renew denied 29642-08 Sub-exhibit D-2 Order NOM Nunc pro tunc denied 29642-08 Sub-exhibit E Sua Sponte Memorandum and Order of dismissal of Complaint EDNY Case 08-cv-4289 Exhibit 5: STIPULATION of EXTENSION of Time granted by Plaintiff to the State and the City of New York filed with the Clerk of the Court May 12, 2011 ; Exhibit 6: Chamber's Rules of Arthur M . Schack J.S.C.; Exhibit 7: Docket for 29642-08 by the Clerk of the Court;

685 698 700 393

393 395 407 410 421 437 457 507 533 545 546 548

557 560 567


v

Appellants Appeal Appendix Table of Contents

Page

APPELLANT'S APPENDIX APPEAL CASE INDEX NO.: 2012-05515 APPENDIX INDEX APX PAGE NO: 569 574 615 421 410 437 406 841 457 507 548

Entry Date

April 28, 2011

May 4, 2011 May 4, 2011 May 2, 2011 May 2, 2011 May 31, 2011 March 22, 2011 October 27, 2008 October 30, 2008

Exhibit 8: Proposed STIPULATION of EXTENSION of return date for New York and NYC; Exhibit 9: Petition for Writ of Prohibition with request for quo warranto request. Memorandum of Law Defendants John Sidney McCain III et al. Motion to Dismiss Defendants John Sidney McCain III et al. DC Counsel Motion Pro Hac Vice Defendants SOEBARKAH et al. Motion to Dismiss RJI filed by Local counsel for Defendants John Sidney McCain III et al. Amended Summons Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011 Summons & Complaint filed Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011 Summons and Complaint filed with NYS Sup Ct. Kings Cty. Index No.: 29642-08 Memorandum and Order of USDJ Allyne R. Ross dismissing EDNY Case 08-cv-4289 Complaint sua sponte denying issuance of summons and or service Complaint without Summons received by Clerk of EDNY with sua sponte Case No.: 08-cv-4289 requesting IFP relief of fees and service by U.S. Marshals TESTIMONY at the Joint - Senate Standing Committee on Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs Article: Heimishe Mentch on the Bench, Supreme Court Justice David I. Schmidt, honored in Brooklyn http://chaptzem.blogspot.com/search?q=heimishe+mentch
TESTIMONY at THE ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING the implementation of the Court of Appeals decision in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity Lawsuit.

October 20, 2008

533 844 35

October 15, 2007 May 25, 2007

December 9, 2003

847 857

May 21, 1985

State of New York Legislative Resolution commending Christopher Strunk

Appellants Appeal Appendix Table of Contents

Page

vi

Christopher-Earl: S t f i n k i

sse

Appellant self-represented w & a t t ~ r i p e y ~ 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - # 2 @ 2 fl fl Brooklyn. New York 11238 Z C 0 (845)901-6767; Email: c h r i @ ! . G
@

2
) ss.

m
L

COUNTY OF KINGS

Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse being duly sworn, depose and say under penaltyof perjury:

The Honorable APRILANNE AGOSTINO derk of the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT 45 Monroe Place Brooklyn, NY 11201

l . Appeal C a s e 12Re: Strunk v NEW PORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et a 0 5 5 1 5 from NYS Sup. Ct. Kings Cty Index No.: 6 5 0 0 - 2 0 1 1 w/ D e c i s i o n a n d Order
Subject: REQUEST FOR SECOND ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO PERFECT APPEAL with 22 NYCRR PART 670 PROCEDURE IN THE APPELLATE DMSION 9 670.4 (a)(3)

Dear Clerk of the Court, Affirmant / Appellant is self-represented without an attorney located at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 within the State of New York subdivision of the city of New York with telephone 845-901-6767 and Email: chri@strunk.ws; and hereby affirms this affidavit in support of the required letter Notice with 22 NYCRR PART 670 PROCEDURE IN THE APPELLATE DIVISION 670.4 ( a ) ( 3 ) for THE SECOND enlargement of time from February 22, 20 13 (first extension order APX - 3 ) to March 8, 2013 to file Appellant's Brief and Appendix (see draft h t t ~ : /www.scn'bd.com/doc/ / 94586470/) That Affirmant's for request is for good cause in that Appellant: (i) (ii) has until 2-28-13 to deliver the original record of the trial court with case index no.: 20 11-6500 according to the subpoena issue 2- 13-13 (see APX - 6); on 2- 13-13 also attempted to obtain a Subpoena for the original record of the active case 08-29642 in Sup Ct Kings (see APX - 390 to 3 9 1 )however was denied by the appellate clerk despite the record being germane herein; and furthermore, Appellant requires a second time extension because Appellant does not have sufficient funds to pay for the filing fee meets the requirements for relief, and requests a Fee waiver and or payment schedule (see the Motion for Poor Person relief attached herewith).

(iii)

APX - . 1

A s to the foregoing t h e same is true to my own knowledge, except a s to the mahers therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and a s to those matters I'klieve it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3 r d parties, books and records, and personal knowledge; and Affirmant will testify to these facts and matters in open court and or 'by special appearance.
.

.,

2 ,

.,.y7 i . - , ..

. F
I

Sworn to beforepy This 3dda.ofFFebruarv 9013 ..-., ,/q // , -.; ,/,.y,. . ' ,

J r
>

.. ' ( ' i s . '~~.'~--.-.


1 . :

I.,

Christopher-Earl: Strunk

,
, '
, . ,

.. ' , .</ . . ,'. 7 x&-~:'~~bk'

. ./---

, . .,. . . ..' , i; 4;'.

. , . ,

\-

'w,'.

C.

/ ,<-JOEL GRABER, Esq.Assistant Attorney General for ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of NYS
Special Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau 120 BROADWAY - 2 4 t h Floor New York, New York 10271-0332 CHLARENS ORSLAND. Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel for MICHAEL CARDOZO Esq. Corporation Counsel of City of New York New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York. New York 10007

Erika Burk, Esq. of SIMPSON THACHER (B BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York. New York 10017-3954 Todd E. Phillips, Esq. of CAPLIN 86 DRYSDALE, CHARTERED One Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 By THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. of HARRIS BEACH, PLLC The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553 JAMES C. DUGAN Esq. of WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y. 10019-6099 MARSHAL BELL, E s q .of McGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Americas. 7 t h Floor New York, New York 1 0105 TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ. JAN WITHOLD BARAN ESQ. THOMAS W. KIRBY ESQ. of WILEY REIN LLP 1776K Street, N W Washington D.C. 20006 Christopher J. Latell Esq. and Daniel S. Reich Esq. RABINOWITZ, BOUDTN, STANDARD,KRINSKY &' LIEBERMAN, PC 45 Broadway. Suite 1700 New York. New York 10006-3791

APX -

Bupreme Qourt of file &ate of %w ?lJork Appellate Biuisian: 5ecmr3 3ubirini Bepartmenf

/ V m)5,,,lc m ~ ~ ~ $ f F1ece;mc~ i n d
TO the Clerk of the
s ; j i I ~ . b w M L

Appellate Division Docket No.:

( 9 5 ~ i

THEPEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK


Court,
GREETING:

K> NO, s V

County.

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, that all business and, excuses being laid aside, you appear before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department, at the courthouse thereof, Ipca ed at 45 Monroe Place, Brooklyn, New York, 11201, on LmA&* .U ,20=, and that you bring with you or before the @ ; day of and produce at that time and place:

The entire case file in the above-entitled matter, bearing Index No. or

/The papers constituting the record on appeal in accord with CPLR 5526 from $ order (judgment) (f 0 : ;sb?(nhe Court, K~NQ T County, dated S 6 r made in the above-enhkled m ag, 7 bearing Index No. b S Cb w 5 p and/or -0 <tT

i;;

!, ,

8)
2x

rGb

3 ~ :

. ru

c z r--

J-

now in your custody. In lieu of a personal appearance, the requirements of this subpoena may be met by delivery of the material by mail or overnight delivery service, provided that it is received on or before the return date set forth herein. Failure to c a p l y with this subpoena is punishable as a contempt of court and shall make you liable to-the person on whose behalf this subpoena is issued for a penalty not to exceed fifty dollars and all damages sustained by reason of your failure to comply. is Cdurt, at Brooklyn, New York, the

Attomey(s) for.

, -

Aprilanne Agostino

Officeand Post Office Address:


- -

Clerk

t?!z~H
b y ~

5-73 L / H & ~ ~ ~ R C , B &

9 ~t c 2 & w

APX - 3

Certification
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF KINGS, SS:
I ,Nancy T. Sunshine, County Clerk and Clerk of Supreme Court Kings County,

do hereby certify that on February 13,2013 1 have compared the document attached hereto,

INDEX 6500112011,2/1312013, Certified Minutes


with the originals filed in my office and the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original in witness whereto I have affixed my signature and seal.

Nancy T. Sunshine

Kings County Clerk

APX

./

Kings County Clerk's Office

Page 1 of 1

6540 1 2011
..

Opened: 312212011 Type: Other STRUNK, CHRISTOPHER-EARL vs. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ETAL Atty: Atty: PRO SE

Filed

Actions

6/19/2012 R Order dtd 6/18/12 5/23/2012 E Notice appeallradi, copy ord, afft svc, fee paid 511512012 P Copy ord. notice entry, afft.svc. 5/2/2012 h 2 Affidavit of sew. 4/27/2012 B, Copy ord. notice entry-affm. svc. 4/27/2012 E Copy ord. notice entry, afft.svc. 4/13/2012 @ Decision and order .. ... DTD. 4111112 4/12/2012 @ MOTION COVERPAGE FEE PD. PLNTF. 3 MOTION COVERPAGE fee pdlp 21912012 E 11/22/2011 D Notice appeallradi, copy ord, afft svc, fee paid ? 2 Endorsed Order dated 10/21/11 (On OSC Declined to Sig~ ?0/28/2011 i 10/21/2011 :S Order to Show Cause Coverpage fee pdlp 811712011 1 MOTION COVERPAGE fee pdld 7/28/2011 % ! Notice of appearance 7/22/2011 IS MOTION COVERPAGE FEE PD. DEFT. 7/20/2011 1Affidavit of sew. 6 7/12/2011 Motion Coverpage No Fee ,cplr 8019d, letter, city 711212011 i Z $ MOTION COVERPAGE fee pd. defl. 7/6/2011 B Affidavit of sew. 6/24/2011 Ei Affidavit of sew. -7 6/14/2011 P MOTION COVERPAGE fee pd/mail/d 6/13/2011 I MOTION COVERPAGE fee pdld 61212011 @ Stipulation to Extend time to Respond 5/24/2011 !Q MOTION COVERPAGE fee pd. deft. 5/23/2011 1 Affidavit of sew. 2 5/23/2011 4 2 Cross Motions Coverpage fee pd ,plntf. 5/18/2011 B MOTION COVERPAGE FEE PD D 5/17/2011 R MOTION COVERPAGE FEE PD. DEFT. 511U2011 B Stipulation 5/12/2011 k2 Affidavit of serv. 51512011 U MOTION COVERPAGE fee pdld 5/2/2011 D MOTION COVERPAGE fee pd. deft. 5/2/2011 P MOTION COVERPAGEfee pd. deft. 5/2/2011 R Req. judical intewen. fee paid d 4125l2011 % Afiidavit of sew. 6 411312011 P Affidavit of sew. -7 4/6/20?1 P Affidavit of sew. 7 3/22/2011 a Summ. & compl. Total: 38

file://C:Documents and Settings\mbencebi\Local Settings\Temp\C!erk\EUUSB.xmI


-

2/ 13/2013

APX -

Stnmk v New York State Board of Elections


A

Strunk v New York State Board of Elections Motion No: 2012-05515 Slip Opinion No: 2012 NY Slip Op 8 9 1 2 9 0 Decided on October 26,2012 Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision
- Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 5 Published by New York State Law Reporting 431.

II

This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Offrcial Reports.

Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

Christopher-Earl Strunk, appellant, v New York State Board of Elections, et a)., respondents. (Index No. 6500111) ORDER ON APPLICATION

Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 11,2012. Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until February 22,2013, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date. ENTER: Aprilanne Agostino Clerk of the Court
A

lofl

_-

APX -

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse


Appellant self-represented w/o an attorney 593 Vsderbitt Avenue #281

B r o o k l y n . New York. 1 1238


(845)901-6767; Email: c h r i ~ t r u n b . w s

Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Sttunk i n esse being duty sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:

The Honorable APRILANNE AGOSTINO Clerk of the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DMSION>ECOND DEPARTMENT 45 Monroe Race Brooklyn,NY 11201

%% 82 SF t3P
I n -

-m 5
8-

-urn

Re: 86unk s NEW SDRKSTATE BCMRD OF ELECTIONS . t L . lMI S U B . - " Countp Index S o . : 6500-2011 with Decision and Order taken on AqifjSl - c; 0

l&pm
Yt

Subject:

. -m c

FOR EaWRaEMEX'JT OF TIME TO F%RFECT TRE APFML wfbfa2 k PART 670 PROCEDUREm THE APPELLATEDMSIO~P$670.4 (a)(3)
t
%

20

- '-.D>w ~)&k,@f h e Court, ..

. . "Affinnant / Appellant is self-represented wisout & attohiq-16&t~f1!'% i 593

Vanderbilt Avenue -281BrooMyn, New York 11238 within the State of New York f New York with telephone 845-901-6767' and Email: subdivision of the city o chris@stntnk.ws; and hereby affirms this affidavit in support o f the required letter Notice with 22 NYCRR PART 670 PROCEDURE M THE APPEUATE DMSiON'670.4 ( a ) ( 3 ) for enlargement of time from November 23,2012to February 22,2013 to perfect the appeal taken from the Decision and Order without a finaljuclgment (see -it A) with Notice of Appeal filed May 23,2012 (see Exhibit B ) . That Affirmant has good cause for the requested enlargement of time to perfect the appeal in that inter alia Appellant has b e n alleged by the lower court to have filed a frivolous case in regards to the ongoing fraud associated with the state of New York general election scheduled for November 6,2012in the election of the candidate slate of the New York electoral college scheduled to cast their advisory vote for the New York Candidate for the Office of President and Vice Resident of the United States (POTUS) by December 15,2012. Appellant does not wish to have the Court wnflate the subject matter of this. appeal to be perfected by November 23,2012 mistaken as interference with the scheduled December 15,2012 election and scheduled oath of office 3 & u q 20,2013. This appeal deals with the facts associated with of the enormity of Justice Arthur M. Schack's invidious infringement of Plaintiffs First amendment through Eight amendment rights that by a premature appeal would involve by implication the

APX -

Index N o . : 6500-2011

Christopher-Ead: Sttunk in esse,


Plaintiff,

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al.,

COUNTY OF KINGS

Defendants.
P -

STATE OF NEW YORK )


)

Accordingly, I, WL(.tbd ~ S l w y b e & duly g sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:
a . Am over 1 8 years of age and not a parw to this action. b. My place of bu iness i s located at V P c7 f3n0 c. On October 2012,Chri:topher serr4%e c o n f o n n ~ % ~ " , t h e Lmer REQUEST EY)R EKEARGEXEST OF TIBdE TO PERFX.3' THE APPEAL wfth 22 WCRR PART 670 PROCEDURE IN THE APPELLATE DMSIOR 670.4 (a)(3)affirmed (October 18,2012 with exhibits annexed for the appeal case Sbunk v NYS BOE et nL NYS County of Kings Supreme Court with mdex 6500-201 1, by USPS d c e upon Appellees' Counsels. S~RV d. On October &, 2012,I caused each copy with proper postagc for service byae%b@ ma11of listed counsels and going to the post office where each envelope was deposited with the USPS for d c e upon:

$ .

5 %

in~ct%Zz

I["?--38

Erica Burke, Esq.of SIMPSON THACHER 8s B A R ' LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York. New York 10017-3954
RITA C. TOBIN, Esq. of CAPLIN 86 DRYSDALE, CHARTERED 375 Park Avenue 35th Floor New York.New York 10152-3500 HARRIS BEACH, PLLC By THOMAS J. GARRY, Egq. 901 Utuondde. New York 11553 The OMNI 333 Earle Ovlngton Blvd.,

JAMES C. DUGAN Esq. of WILLKIE FARR 8s GALLAGHER LLP


787 Seventh Avenue Now York, N.Y. 10019-6099
MARSHAL BELL, Esq.of McGUIRWOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Americas, 7th moor New York, New York 10105 W Y REIN U P TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ.. ! A N WITHOLD B THOMAS W. KIRBY ESQ. 1776K Street. NW Washgton D.C. 20206

M ESQ. and

RABINOWI'IZ, BOUDM, STANDARD, KRJJ?SKY& LIEBERMAN,PC -ChrktopherI . Latell Esq. and Daniel S. Reich Esq. 45 Broadway,Suite 1700 New York, New York 10W3791

ERIC T. SCHNMDERMAN Attorney Generd of NYS by: JOEL GRABER, Esq. AAG Assistant Attom General Special Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau 120 BROADWAY 2 4 t h moor New York, New York 10g1-0332

MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By: CHLARENS ORSLAND, E s q .Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New Ymk, New York 10007

Sworn to before me This ig day of October 2012

APX -

appearance of Judicid real politic; and as such impropriety must be avoided by an enlargement of time until say February 22,2013 as an appropriate date. That Appellant's contention for need of enlargement of time is further supported by the fact that Justice Arthur M. Schack has still more than six months after h a t could submission of Defendants' counsels costs not issued a final Judgment t exceed say $500,000.00; and as such, ipso facto the Judgment withheld u n t i l aft* the December 15,2012 election is res ipsa loquitur, and is further evidence to support a mandate with use of NYS Civil Service Law I05 as to Justice Arthur M. Schack and those who have aided and abetted his misprision of a felony, sedition and tresson. As to the foregoing the same is true t o m y o m 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; and M i a n t will testify to these facts and matters in open c o u . and ~ or

sworn to before me This /B day of October 20 12

._

, --

..

No. 01HA6044027 Qualified In Kings Cou cammi~~ion E X ~ W ~une%, ~ S Erika B u r k Esq. of SIMPSON THACHER 8b BARlU3T U P 425 b r d n p Avenue New York New York 10017-3954

E O o t a r y Publk, State o f New Ybrk

cc:

a01J
-TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ. JAN WITHOLD BARAN ESQ. THOMAS W. K I M ESQ. of WILEY REEN LLP f 776K Street. NW Washington D.C. 20006 Christopher J . Latell Esq. and Daniel S. Rcich Esq. RABINOWPIZ,BOUDIN,STANDJUW, KRINSKY 8s LIEBERMAN, PC 45 Broadway,Suite 1700 New York, New Ymk 10006-3791

Todd E .M p s , Eaq. of CAPWN & DRYSDALE,CHARTERED One Thomas C i , N.W., Suite 1 100, Washington, DC 20005
By THOMAS J, GAIZRY, Esq.of HARRIS BEACH. PLLC
m e OMM 333 Earle OPinRton Blvd.. Suite 901 Uniondale, NW-YO& 11553
JAMES C. DUOAN Esq. of WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New Yo*, N.Y. 10019-6099

JOEL GRABER,Esq. Assistant Attorney General for ERlC T . SCHNEIDERMAN Attomey General of NYS SpcciaJ Litigation Counsel Litigation gureau 120 BROADWAY 24th Floor New York, New York 10271-0332

MARSHAL BELL, ESQ. of McGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Amcrk~s, 7th - Floor New York, New York 10105

CHtARENS ORSLAND, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel for MICHAEL CARDOZO Esq. Coqmation Counsel of City of New York New York City Law Deparbnent lo0 Church Street New York, New Yo* 10007

APX -

Form A

- Request for Appellate Division interyention - Civil


See 5 670.3of the ndas of this ccrurt for diracdans on the use of this form (22 NYCRR 6 7 0 . 3 ) .

~uprrmr doud of t[?r B h t e nf B e f n Bark &p(trllnf~ pibieinn r ,$%lconb guhici&l ~ ~ @ r f m

e n f

0 Specis! Prmetding Other

3 CPkn 5704 b v r s w

37 33 04 05 a6

Puman R.ghts
Licenses

P~blrc Fmplnymem

J 2 A!Iarr\e{'s Fees 3 3 Ch~ldraq- Suppan 3 4 Chfldren - C u s t ~ / V l a t t a t # o n

Social Ssworhw

05

L1 2 3 3 44 e35

B~$~rtass Rdqym~s
Not-far-Protlt

Children Termtnttte Parental R1gbf.s 0 6 Children Alsusamealect Chaldren. JDIRKS Eq~~ttebls Distrjbut~on 0 9 Exclu~wa Occupancy of -

04

Environmsnml

Abuse a! Prbcaas

mrid6czcn
O 10 Expert's Fees 3 1 1 Malntenance/Alimmy

0 5 Uvns
0 6 Mortgrpsr e3 7 Partitian 108 ~anf I ' a9 Taxstkn , tl r o ton in^

Other

/ 3 12
-

Merltal Status

CL 8 Ma~nrsctlect 8 9 tdeqtigems CJ 10 Numance 5 11 P r o ~ t Ljability a


0 t 2 Strim Uabili~y Trrmpats andtar Warn r) 14 Other

3 13 Paramity
~114 SP~USSIS V D P O ~ ~

D 13

C13 U4 Q6 36 37 R8 09

Conntrwt~on Emptoyment

Insomms Real Propany


Sales Secured Other

lr,t 2

Debto: & Cred~tor

C3srlar f 9 120. : 21-f,or

,d Z

Dtscovery

(; 13 Declaratafy Judgmon: 3 4 Ekmion Law

i
i

1 -1 3 ProbstnIAdm~nastrat~on

Notim of Claiv

U Z Emtnent Doma~n Procodwe Lsw f 2 0 7 i 0 3 Grmarsi Mvnicipel Law


f 712

O4 (2 5

Labor Uw 4 2 2 0
Public Service Law 5 i 128

t i

I
hA-RAM-ChrE

of 170 0 6 Otkr
-

APX -

10

D AmsMJed Dectcse

3 D~termtnatior,

O Order

D Resented Order

I
t

'IjiC D ~ c ~ s i o n
* -

Q Intsrtacutdry Judgment
Judgma'rt

J Denss

-- rj Ressttlad Judgment .
"-e
_ _ I____I ^- - - - IX

0 RnS??tl+d Decrre

"

R"F L II
.-

.--.
Zor'Z'

Judgs Insme in CM!):

Stage: O fntttrtoeutory s ~ i n s l

r4 ~c-H-

----

""

-- .Entered:
lndax N o . :
L -

.-

..

3,201

O Past-Finat

!trial: O

Yes

J;lrhlo

if Yes: '3 Jury

Nan-JU~V

onv t.;nporfcc:hd ~ c o o a l sr J ~ r ~ d ~If1 ta :-Is cast.' v ~ 5 f l NO covwed by the annexcd notice of aopeel wi?h the pllor apprn;s7 Nurnborrs~of any prior. pandtng, unverfectsd appsak: Q(

F.

w t 8 n * d ~ ~ ~ -3, ~ =IZb a 1k ~ 7 4 ~ 5 0 & 4 ~ cr j


LJ'~I--P~~CP bC' ~ -1 ,-.

If ve9, d~ 7'3~1 ' n t ~ r K i10 ~ f i r ~ ~The r ' t appral or apot:dl Ye!: J Yn, Set forth t?r Appeilate Drvia~onCaus

II 5 6

i -

-- ---"-Satufe authorixins cornmencmnt of ptotaadrng in tha A~pallato Dtvisroq:


"

Order :r. C ~ I O WC J a ~ i v e 3 Nnr rca o f Po- tlo?

Ll -

I.>-11of tidtc::~r Corpuz - ---"

'

L)a:e t

--

I'P>S.I

--

--I I
-

, Cou*:. -4

"

<c.~rr~ry
& A

---.. --

- " A

[~udgs !name i? fufl):

Order of Transfar Dnts:

G r t
j Judge (name in full):

'

c9.Jl,t\

- -

. --

Dstad:

1 Dpscrrotmn.
f

' t .*n appcai, brrrfii. a p r c r ~ h -r h - p a o m noo-dlcd tvorn I! 1 7 ~ a ' p p r d l 1s fro!r~a ordr:r, ?p'>rl*v t h n r ~ l t p + rnq l n s r ~ d darnrr~ssrc~Cf .n thts C O U ~or transferred pursuant t o and \wtthether thw rnurlan was granted o7'denied If an or-grnal 11racf;wdlrrg CFLR 7804(g), briefly desurba t-8 objmct af the pracssdirg. ff 8n application under Cel-A 5704, briefly describe the nature o f f the ax pone rider to be reviewed.

? ? I ~ M~ ~ ~ f S " P b ? / ~cotqp~~%'nrf h p ~ ~ ~ C O4 7 H q 2 t ~-+.r/fi~+ P t y % ~ ! 9 ~ S fl$o*)LLJS ' -p msmGSl D w W ahfie ~ m u n c rn ~hal~qzg ca w god- q 4 9~ W(T& S " A B ~C M US>~~~
W u m :

#ssms:

If m a p p d k from m p5grnmt. s ~ a i f y tho ansum awwdsd, fb&$f&&LZ/ 0 o@@@ S p ~ i f the y M w s pmposbd to bn teiod on the apacal, promding, or ar~pfieat an far CPL. 5704 reviatw.

$TOO,

...

.~

APX -

11

---

1. Judge Schack maliciously ddayed his decision on the case until Aprir 11,2012, a t which time he entered his Decision and Order.

2. Judge Schack erred when he $ranted defendants' motions and dismissed $trunk's complete complaint with prejudice. 3 . Judge Sc'frackerred when he granted a motion to admit pro haa vice one of t33e dekndant's attorney from Washington DC,fmding that he was in good standing. 4. Judge SckEack expressed his bias when in Ms opinion stated that "[ijf the complakkt i n this action was a mavie script, it would be entitled The Manchurian Candidate Meets The Da Vinu Codc." 5 . Judge Schack crred when he found that Strunk did not auficimtly allege an i n j q i n fact and therefore does not have standing which musts the court not to have jurisdiction over his claims. 6. Judge Schack e d and expressed bias when he found that because it i s not possible to easily gain notice from reading h i s complaint what his particular cause of action i s ,the complaint must be dismissed for failure ta state a cause o f action. 7. Judge Schack erred when he concluded that S W s fraud claim d s o needed t o be dismissed because he did not plead with particularity that he relied upon any of the defendmts' statement and did not plead that he suffered any pecuniary loss as st result o f dtement o f m y of the defendants. 8. Judge Schack erred when found thst thc: court: has no jurisdiction because oftbe political question doctrine and txcause, wxlc finding no problem with his semi= upon the other main dcfendmts, 9. Judge Schack erred when he found that Strunk did nut properly serve O b m a and
McCain.
10.Judge S&ack e m d when he concluded that Sfnmk already litigated 'many of the issues" i n the instant action in federal court and in Strunk v. Patemon, Index No. 29642/08,as if where the issues were decided against him ignored the fact that Justice Schmidt had urged the f h g of the new suit on January 1 1,201 1.
1 1. T h t Judge Schack erred when he found that under the doctrine of collated estoppel, Strunk could nut re-litigate or renew those scme or even new issues i n the; instant action.

12.Jx.1dgeS c b k erred when fie also denied Strunk's cross motion to consolidate the inatant action with mother N m York state case, S t m n k v . Pate-, and to transfer the case to Judge Schmidt because the Patmm case was &ready dismissed when it i s still carried as actit*. 13.Judge M a c k erred when he d s a &Ltrmieeac$ Strunk's complaint on the gruund that i t was bath factndy and legally frivolous. 14.Judge Schack erred when he also ordered that Strunk is precluded from refibgating the same claims against the same defendants i n the New York state court without first obtaining prior written &pprovalfrom an administrativejustice or judge.
Issue cm Appeal Page I of 2
--

.-.

APX -

12

15.Judge Schack erred when he never ruled on S W s application that the Board of
Elections be made to correct the ballot instmctjon for election for the:Ofice of Prcaident to say not 'born a Citizen," but rather "naturalborn Citizen."

16.Judge Schack hm s h m actual bias m d malice at the May 7, 2012 hearing and err4 when he ordered that Struck shou7 cause:why he should not be made to pay for the costs incurred by all the defendants in Raving to retain and pay for their attorneys to defend them against his action. 17.1Xat Judge Schack e m d when presented with actual admissions and evidence .sufficient to be irs.r:Iudtdas n su~ppbmmd to the complaint at t h e 1Of2!5/11 hearing that the etrurt declined t o sign this OSC.Afkging therein This issue i s not ripe until candidates fde nominating petitions for publc offifice for President of U . S . i n several rnantha. Further, t h e Co~ztt will [not1 stop fund-rising by m y candidate because candidates have a right t o raise money pursuant t o statute and the First Amendment. The issue ofcandidatct qualification i s subject to Court action after nominating petitions are submitted and candidates are chdlmgcd i n Court." lfi.Jud,ge .%hack erred when it refurred to hear the admission on the part o f the State that it had not conformed to the express terms of the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 i n the instructions to prosyxcc~ve candidates far the offrce af President of the United States (POTL'S) 19,JudgeSchack erred when it unilaterally m t c d the State tl. third dpen ended extension of time to .o+swer the complaint when the State i s &ged the facilitator o f the injury i n fact to plainM while all the other Defendants have responded with mtion~ to Cfisrniss that are pending and integraI to the State respdnse for the Court to p~opealy decide the motions; X).Judge Schaek erred t o hear t h e application when i n fact the issues raised.by the State admission as concIusive proof are cdntrolling of the m0tiCm~ before the court, 21 .Judge Schack e m d when it has the duty to decide a motion to transfer and consolidate fmt h s c d upon the State's ~ d m i s s i m o f facititation of wrongdoing i n the prior election cycle continuing into the present election cycle and the Court went so fnr even with the admission of f~cElitntion that ?,haisme i s NOT RPE. 22.Judge Schack expressed bias toward plaintifl when refusing to heat the application based upon State's admission sun-tTolling to the issues raising i n the complaint denied a transcript record, and denied a fmt amended complaint that wouId incorporate the State's admission of facilitation of Defendants to injtj=lre PIriintia alang with those similarly situated. 23. Judge Sdlack expressed bias tmard Waintiff for multiple additional reasons including the caurt characterization that p1,laintX i s pursing a deluded fiction, i n which the C0u.t-t intentiundly m i s ~ p r t s m t d Plaintiffs complaint and superimposed the courts own set of facts not before it. 24.,7udge Schack with a n a p p e m c e of hpropritfy e r r & rs?'frcnhe did not recw& himself fmm hearing the sanction trial and instead conducted a start chamber preceding instead on the charges invaded by the Court as prosecutor, jury and
cxecutioner.
25. Judge Schnck denied accused discovew and ability to call ~vibesses i n his defense.

APX -

13

Cxsmblm d I r s a w s an@ s m w . 1mb6e.piwn~ff, drlwd.rr:. Fill m t h n m s o f each p s r ~ vID IM s c w n cw wo;aahna, m b I~t~11dan. name per bna Ir this farm 1% 10 b f d s d tor on m a ! . mdtcatn the status of rhs Wtl:*ww;. m u 1 6 a . dmrnan~. W t m m 1Wd.parly p U u ~ ~ r ftha&pef~'r , psrry m Ihs nrutl o r o q m # l hrtrncs and NS. her. o f m SZ*~U.r? tbs court. 4f rkrcenda% .MI nnavrmr. Fn~mdsrol D psny'r &ownnn b m e n n srmru* rnv, I# ttur form ts m h f i dfar I ~ I ranmsocad W m Ibr toun. I;# In indudo: (IPmIW, m p D R d # l l , auudantrssp~t. rapand.ntwUnl, LrarMlOnn. a d i n m w r . w t y th.putv's mnu m d hi#. ha, or s~ staws m this wuri.

ND.
1

wf

P a w Name

Original Status

Appellate Dlvision Status

.;~MRD &F R=T~&

W ? w DHP~
DEFOY~C~F 1

AU#flvw7-&*

2
3

~ Q r n d k
I)DCICW~ A. I a L m

f i t ? /

:[

APX -

14

r t t l in tlm n k m of ~ *a ~ W W M M f m s of a n w w f W the -I rcunrawa psmisr. If ttns lorn rr ra b . (ired w:th ths mum of putitton ~i order
trr

movldsd.

.vht&

d~lsrs Dtvisian,

rpmrf p-ng tlm bra d the

1%

mmuy

h the wmm 1tHt s Htlgnrrl t.Braunh h a d f o r himsM, Ihs ta I m w m m n r m d in t h ~ N n r d 'Pto St' must kr &mlccd Rnd ?ha spDraPi6lr infwmetlon lob fw pmlm b . w m iIuxH k RlOdird h th swc.8~ &ed.

M x rtur

Addres JAMES C DUG-

- -,-

Fq.d F ml % w n.y, 1001~a09fi Repxe=eW GEORGE SOrrOS


Retained

7819

A -

New York;
I

Attorney Type:

5 Assigned

0 Go~emmmt 17 Pro Se

Q Pro Hac Wee

Ciw:

Tekvhane No.:

alate:

L~D:

TeisDhone Na.:

1~!:alhtj 1 I ] I I I w - d b e . * r q7th Plaor Ker Ymlg Attorney-m. -&g M ~ G U ~ WOOD9 FS UP ZBIGMEf fW3f.'IEeB-qBFS!XZWSKI; y ( ~ Address: NCW York t O l O 5 R f = F
Party or Pnties Represented ~UH*sla-81
___ICI

A t t m e y Type:

)?$~srslnsd

C)A&gnad

DOmrammsm

D R . SF

0FbHn:Vice

,~~~
_ I

-- -

h aa a

-_ -___... m -

k n ~ ~ : _

tyf

J .

Attorney Type:

x ~ c s t h m d

O&af@nsd

D OaMmmeflt

i3 Ro Sa

0 P m yVice ~

i?fl*&+il' 1

I 1

~:

--

APX -

"

15

-.--

"-

A t t o m r y C i e n d Spxriql Litigstion Counsel L~hgatian B m u 120 BROAD WAY - 24th Floor N e w YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECI70KS; JAMES York, Near York IW71-U332 R q m m r t l i n e , : A. WALSH 1 Ch-Chliu, DOUGL4S A. FTLLMEK / &ChRir, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Cammimoncr, GREGORY P. PEfEFSON / Cammiagtoner, Deputy DirtclorTODD D.V i V , E m , D q x ~ t y

---

--

Chy: - ---.

- -. --

L.

------

State:
% . -

Zip:

Telephone No.: --

Attorney Type:

0 Retained
_ r . _

#hsibned
_ a -

Government
w a &ow a tmn fam Q:

Q Pro Se

0 Pro Hao Vice

Party o r Part& Represented r m (mtr pww mmb.rls!

1-Attom -- m a C A R O O Z O
,

__

1 &City afNew YoFk Bp.CKL4.RENS 0 m \ N I ) , Eoq. Addre k3.i-t - s N e r r Ymk City Inr t 100 Church S m New Y & , NCI . -- h k 10007 R t p y m m g ; pk. JOSEm A Q ' W E ,S.J.; J a S m P . P m ,S.J.; FRmEmCK y..-.. Ciw: A.O. SCfCWAm, A n a m y Type: D Retained )(Assigned ~ -~ o v -e * m m s m 0 Pm Sc 0 Ra Hac Vice
Y.ULI.
.b.-

..Y..

t i--- i I . --I I I .i __ _- -- --Anon x81,xWITZ, imym~, FIAwDAWJ. ICRTNSKY a m m , PC - -to~her J . I-n w. M-, 45 R-d.s4.ay, Suite l7W N e w York, fYew ~ m 10006-3791 k Addre Denie1. .-- &JCER CALWIO; THE S O C W m WORI(ERS -- RcpRkn-9 City: . -----. -Party or Parties Repreunted um tom p

~ rmrnbsrlrl v tmm a # . mbaur m r tnm ~ m r ,

a :

.-

,-

ESQ,

~ c u * ~ .

-tJ-

o~epw w~ rru..

Attorney Type: .------

ined

C1 Assigned

0 Government

ORo

QG

0 Pro Hmc Vket

3 ? ? 4 r n X ! 7 -.-State:
Attorney Type:

0 Ret~imd

Patty o r Parties Represenled crrt tach

-O Assigned

OGovernmam

--

&Pro

Se

APro Hm Vice

? -

ntm~~ttd front m w &two a rnknn a:

I I i 1 1 1 1

1 Anornevff irm Nerne:


Address:

Ciry: Type: -Attorney "

I 2 Rutaimxi " *Party ar Pertiea Raprcsemd t h m

State:
-a--.."-

Zip:
. 0 #Vemmsnt
am a:

Telephone N o . :

D AsJmsd

Q Pro Se

0 Pro Hat Vice

~nnb.efc) kanm u ~ba a r m

-Stater
Attormy Type:
"
. ' r ' $ . " , & f .

. .
Z i p ;

-nhz@mea N o . :

---

---

--

0 Retained

0 Assigned

tl GovemmQnt

D Pro Se

O Pta H p r ~ W i

Parry o r Perties Represented t u r f m amv mmckrlsl horn c m w 6bOvb w (tom ~ o n n CI; ,&>:<,rcy*<-~:,i,,t -, , - , ., .,-* , +~ ) Pi , ' q ~ ; ~ ; ~ ; ~ ' j - f a y ~ g ~ - ; ~ ~ u ; - 2 * ; , * * ..rr .$,-.., ,.~*.

--,-r

6,."

. " -

- -

---

APX -

16

SUPREME COURT OF TRE STATE OF NEW PORK COUNTY OF KINGS


Chrietapher-Earl: Strunk, in esse

NOTICE OF APPEAL
Index N o . : 6600-2011

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF .EL(E(STIoNS;J m . A WAZSH I &-Chair, DOUGLAS A. RELINER I Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUIM 1 Commiaeianer, GRJ3GORY P. PETERSON 1 Commiesioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VAIJ3NllNl3, Deputy Director STANLEY W N ; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCI-INEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NO EM^ C O L ~ N . in their O5cial and individual capacity; Fr,JOSEPH A O'HARE, S.J.; Fr.JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK AO. SCHWARZ, JR.; P m R G. PETERSEN,ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; R . ;SOEBAR.KAH NARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R BIDEN, J (a.k.a Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama.11, a k a . Steve,Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF TRE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORR STATE; R ~ G E R CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. B - m JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN k BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLTCAN STATE C O ;THENEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRI'IZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA;OBAMA WCTORY FUND;MCCALN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN WCTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities.
Defendants.
PLEASE TAEJB 146TICE that Christopher-Earl: Sbnk, m ease hereby appeale to the
Appellate Division of the Supnme Court of the State o f New York, Second Judicial

Department, from the April 11,2012 decision and order t o show cause (see attached w i t h
copies of entrg)

axid pending judgment for sanctions dismissing the complaint, thereby

w t h g Dehdants motions t o dismiss, denying maintiff's Molion t o amtyfidate, and

rendering m o o t the motion o f leave f & direct. appeal on constitutional issue and motion with
1

APX

1 7

evidence for leave to f i l e a first supplement to the complaint, and appeal h m qvery part
and issues affected thereby in the related case 2008-29642 and application for OSC dated

October 25,201 1, and duly entered by the Clerk of t h e Court starting after April 23,2012.
Respectfully submitted

Dated: Brooldyn, New York May 2 3 , 2 0 1 2 Christopher-Earl:Strunk in esse Plaintinr self-represented without an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28 1 Brooklyn. New York 1 1 2 3 8 (845) 90 1-6767; Email: chri@strurik.ws

Cc:
Erica Burke. of SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York. New York 10017-395 Represenbng: PETER G. PETERSON Todd E. Phillips, Esq. of CAPLIN 8s DRYSDALE, CHARTERED One Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 Representing JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 1 1 1 ; M C W N VICTORY 2008; MCCAZNPALIN VICTORY 2008 HARRIS BEACH, PLLC By THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. 'I'hc OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553 Representing: JOSEPH R BIDEN, JR; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.ka. Barack Hussein Obama II, a . k a Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; PENNY S. 0 WCTORYFUI?D; . PRITZKER; OaAMA MIR AMEhYCA; -

JAMES C. DUGAN Esq. of WILLIUE FARR 8s GAtLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y.
100196099 Representing GEORGE SOROS

MARSHAL BELL, Esq. of McGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Americas, 7th Floor New York, New York 10105 Representing ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI.
WILM REIN LLP - TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ. ,JAN.WHOLD BARAN ESQ.and THOMAS W. KIRBY ESQ. 1776K Street, NW WashinD.C. 20006 Representing: JOHN A. BOEHNER RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY b LIEBERMAN, PC - Christopher J. LateIl Esq. and Daniel S. Reich Esq. 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New York 10006-3791Representing: ; R~GER CALERO; THE SOCIALISTWORKERS PARTY ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of Nk3 by: JOELGRABER, Esq. AAG Assistant Attorney General Special Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau 120 BROADWAY 24th Floor New York, New York 10271-0332 Representing : NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN. THOMAS P.-DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMf C O L ~ Nin , their O f f i c i a l and individual capacity;

MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By: CHLARENS ORSLAND, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Neiv York City Law -cnt 100 Church S t r e e t New York, New York 10007 Representing: Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ. JR.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YO= COUNTY OF KINGS


-1-----

..*_".1---------------**----

--.--*-----

w---

- ---

--a-

Plaintiff,
Y.

NEW YURK STATE BOARD OF ELECTTONS; J m S A : WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER f Co-Chair, : EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETEWON / Commissioner, Deputy D i m o r TODD D. VALENTmE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; A3DREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDEMAN, "n-iO.MS P.: DINMOLT, RUTH NO EM^ C O L ~ Nin , their Official m d : individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'KARE,SJ.;& JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWm, : JR; PETER G . PETERSEN;ZRIGNIEW KnlMIEw : M e x No,6500-201 I BRZEZWSKI; MARK BuE7,NSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, : JR,; SOFBARXAW (aka. Barry Soetoro, a.k,a B m c k Hussein Qbama 1 1 , a k a . Stmen Dunham); NANCY PELOSf; : NO97CE QF,.E.BTRY OF DEMOCMTIC STATE COMMITTEE OF TEE STATE OF : IPECISIOR: & ORUER NEW YORK; STATE COMh4ITTEE OF "IRE WORKmG : FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE;R C ~ ~ E R CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. : BRXEZTNSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAM 1 1 1 ; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THENEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF : THE I?dDEPENT)ENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF : THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YO= STATE; : YwY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; ORAMA FUR : AMERICA; ORAMA VICTORY FUAfD;MCCAlN VICTORY : 2008;MCC.dJ,Y-PALIN VKTORY 20018; John md Jane Does; : and XYZ Entities.

Defendants.
-----*--r----.--..r"..---*---C1------r--------------------""--.'"-"-

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the within is a b-ue copy o f the Decision & .Order
that was duly made and entered by the Clerk of the Court, New York State Supreme Court,

Kings County, on the 1 3 ' day ~ o f .4pril, 2012.

- -.

..

---

APX- 19

Dated: New Yark, W Y u k


A H 25,2012

WlLLKE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP

L & ugm, Esq.

787-sedcnth Avenue

New York, New York 10019-6099


(2 f 2) 728-&OW
Aftorne.ysfor Defendmt George Sorns

TO: Christopher-Ekl S tmnk


Plnintfj pro se 593 V a n d d i h Avenue ff281 B m k l yn, New York I 1233 (8451 901-6767 Thomas I. G q x ,Esq.

Keith M. C o r m , Esq.
HARRIS BEACT I, PPLC

The Omni 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondate, New York 1 1553
(516) 886-8484

Marshal1 Beil, Esq. Jacob Hifdncr, E.sq. McGLrIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of the Americas, Srh Floor New York, Xew Yak 16 105 (21 2 ) 548-7004
James P. Wehner, Esq.

CAPLM & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED One Thornas Circle, NW t!rashington, DC 20005


(202) 862-5000

Rita C.Tobin, Esq. 375 Park Avenue, 35th Flwr

.. -

--

APX - 20

SUPREME COURT OF THE ,STATE OF NEW YORK COLWTY OF KhrGS


-------*-"--------_---------------------------C------

CHRJSTOPHER-EARL STRbWK in ease,


-iagainst-

Index Na. ddtWfZOf1


NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF E3,ECTIONS; (Judge Arthur M, Schck) JaMES A. 1V.kLSH / Cu-Chair, DOUGLAS A, KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQU1L.4 / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON I NOTTCE OF ENTRY Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D, VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEh'; ANDREW CUOMO,ERIC SCWEIDERMAN, T1IOMS.P. DWPLPOLI, RUTH N O M I COLON, their Oficial and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'f-IAE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. P A W S , SJ.; FRlZDERTCK A,O. SCHWARZ, JR.;PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW, KAIMl Em BRZEmSKI; W RRZEZWSKI; JOSEPH R. BIBEN, R; SOERARKAH i(&k,&&my Sodam, a,k,a.Rmck Huasein O h a If, a.k.n. Steve Dmhrun); NANCY PELOSI; DE,MOCMTTC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE QF NEW Y O N , STATE COMMI*ET.EE OF THE WOUKmG FAMILIES PARTY OF: NEW Y'ORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BWEZTNSKi; JOHN STDNEY MCCAM 111; JOHN A. BOEIfiER; THE NEW YOFX STATE REPURLICA~ STATE COh4MITTEE; THE NEW Y O N STATE COMMITTEE OF THE IP6DEPEmmCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATrVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PEhXY S. BRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS: O R / I , h 5 4 JWR AM?RlCA; ORAM A VICTORY FUiVD; MCCAlrN VICTORY 2008; A4CCAl.N-PAm f/lCTORY 2008: John md Jme Docs; md XYZ Entities, Defendants.

PLEASE T A U NOTICE that the atrncfred is a true copy of a Decision and


Order in this natter that was entered in the office ofthe Come C l e r k ,Kings County,
on the 13a day of April 20 12.

Data!: New York, New Yark


April 26,20 12
Respel=tFully submitted,

-Rabinnwitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky &


Liebeman, P.C.

By: Daniel S. Reich


Attorneys for Defendants The Socialist ttrcrrkers Pmty and Rbger Calerc Lf,5 Broadway, Suite 1700 New Yark, NY ? 0006 Tel: 212-29-1211

TO: TKE

C O W CLERK Supreme Court Bulding 360 Adams Swtt, Room 1 g9 Brooklyn, NY 11201
CHWSTOPHER-EARL STRUh'K 593 Vanderhiit Ave., $28 1 Brooklyn, KJ' 1 1238

APX - 21

l * L

Marshall Beil Jacob I-lildner McGUlREWOODS L,I,P 1345 Avenue o f the Americs, Ah Flaor NewYsKEr.Ncw Ywk 10105
(212) 548-7004 A~urne,psfur Ddendcmts Zbignkw Bnmillrki, Mark Brzezifl.~ki, afid lot Rrzezinskr'

Plaint[$
v.
;"3EUr YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECmONS,

Index Xo, 65001201.1

NOTICE OF ENTRY
et a f . ,

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached is a true copy of the Decision and Qrder of

the: Won. M h m IM. Schacbr,J.S.C.. dated April 3 1,201 2, that wzs entered by the County C l d of
Kings Countyon Ap1.jl 13,2Q12.

Dated: We'ti' York, NEWYork April 26, 2012

1345 Avenue of the Americas, 7th Ffoar New York, New Ynrk 10I 05 (21 2) 548-7004 A tlarne-sfar Defendam Zbi~view B~ezinski, jl4ark Brzeinskix a d d m Brtczinski

Christopher-F~ri St bunk
593 Vanderhilt Avcnrre, *213 1 Brooklyn, XCZV York 11238 Pitrinr g y pm se

Hmis Reach, PLLC Thorn& 3. Barry, Esq. Keitl~ h4. Corlxtt? Esq. 7%e 0-Mh'T

Eric "1'. Schneidemm


Attornejl Gcnersl os'&e State of'New

York

B y Jocl Graber Assistant Attomcy General Special 1,itigsttisn Cctunscf Litigation Bureau 1 20 Brctad~vo y 24 th Floor New Yark, New York 1027 1 (2 12 ) 4 3 6-8645

333 Earle Ocington Bl\d.. Suite 901 lhiondalc, New I . ' & 1 1533 -4 rsorneys *firPm5:idenr U m c k O h a , lrie~ President Joseph R. Hiden, Jr,, Obamafnr Antezsriccc. O b m u 12ictu~v flt~;irnri, and .Vtzinq Petosi
Rabinowfi t~ Borndin, Standard. Krinsky, rFc Lieberman, P.C. Daniel S . Reich Christopher J. Klatell 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New York f 0006 Affnrpleyqfop Defindmts .CiociaiBr Ff a r b Purr$ and R o ~ e r (7ulero

Michael Cardozo Corpararioa C.kunsel of rfic C i ~ y of New York 131": Chlnrens Orsland
Assistant Corporation Counsel Nciv York City Law Drpartment 100 Church St. Km'ir York, Yew Yo& 10007 (2 12) 788-0904

Caplin & DrysJdc, Chartered

Imcs P, FVehncr One 'lhornas Circle, 37V Washington, L1.C. 20005


(202) 862-5000

Simpson Tha~her & tctt I , t P Prtul C.Glucknw Smh L. D m 425 Lexington Avenue . New York, New York 16017-3954 (2 12) 455-2000 Rrroweysfor Dc/endanr Pcter G,Pcrerson

And
Rita C. Tobjn 375 Park Avenue, 35"' Flwr Sew York, New Sork 10152 1212) 329-7125 Araorvtqy,~~fi~r Dtfendrntq AfcCain P?clory 2 008, JWcCoir;-Pulirrt3c'zory 2008,and J n h S xtd~<.'ai~

tVillkie Fan & Oaflagher James C, Dugan 787 Seventh Avenue Yew Ywk, New Erork 10019 (2 12) 728-8000 Ariurr(rej'sj3~ LkfinJrJnr C'er~rgt. Snr0.5

Christopllor-F&l Stmnk
591 Vanderbilt Avenue, g2X 1 Brookl>n,Kcw York 11238 PJninr[fz pro sc

Eric 1'. Schneidcm,m Rtton~try Genaal airhe State of New Yark By:Joel Cirahm Assistmt Attomcy General Special Litigation Counsel Litigation Rurleau 120 13roadwny -- 24th Floor kscw Yark, New York I0271

Harris Beach, PLLC Tharnzi J. R 8 v , Esq. Keith M. Corhctt. EsqThe 0,Mh'l 333 Earle Ovingwn Blsd.. Suits 90 I i.ininndale, Kexv York 11533 Artorncy #%r ?rcsidenr Bmack &ma, Trice Presidefit J o e R. Biden, Jr,, Obarvtsrfsr Americcr. O h m Yicray Fund and IVarq~ Pelosi Rabinoivivitz, Botxdin, Standard, Krin,dq, & Lieberman, P.C. Daniel S. Reicfi Christopher J. Klatell 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New h r k t 0006 A~ornqvsfnr Defendafrts 'sSociali.$t FT'orker~. P w r y arzd Ro,qer CcfIero

(212) 416-8635
Michael Cardnzo Copration Counsel of d ~ Cily e of New York fiy: CMsfrens Orslmd .Assistant Carpomtian Caunscl Yew York City b u r Dtpmn~ent I 00 Chu~ch St. h ' m r York, Yew Yurk ZOO07 (21 2 ) 788-0904
Caplin & Drys&de, Chartered J m c s P. 5 ' e h e r One 'I'harnas Circle, N1.f: n'ashjngtun, D.C. 20005 (2025 862-5000 And Rita C. Tobin 375 Park Avenue, 35"' Floor Xew York, 3'cts; York 101 52

Simpson Thaccher & BseFen LLP Riul C.Glt~ckow Samh L.. mnn 425 Lexington Avenue New York, New Yot-k 10017-3954 (2 12) 4 25-20130 Arrovneysfor De@ndcrr;r Peter G.P ~ f ~ r s a n
!lTillkic Fan & Gallagher James C, Dugan 787 Seventh Avenue

New York, New York 10019 ( 2 12) 728-8OSJO


Arforneysjbr D q f i ~ ~ Geurgtr h ~ r SGPOS

(212) 319-7125 A rrorntzysfir D E $ ~ ~ ~ E McCain ~ P ? F .T"icrog~ Y ,7003, 1LfcUuin-Palin fXkfwy2808. and John S ilWcCkin

APX - 22

_ I -

---...--"-""---

SUPREME: COUR'I- 0 1 - TI4E STA'I'E OF NlSW VORK COUNTY 0 1 7 KINGS


,--

- ---

...--- -

Christopher-Earl: Strr~nkin esse.


-against-

ladex No. 6500L2011 lloncrablc Arthur M.Schack

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;


JAMES A. W A L W / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / CwOl.lair, EVELYN J. AQUILA i Commissioner,CIGC;ORSr Ir. PETERSON ? Comrnissiom, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLY =LEN;

NOTICE OF ENTRY

ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCH'NEIDERMAN,. THOMAS P.DWAYOI,I, RUTH NO EM^ COLON, in their Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S,J.; F E D E R I C K A.Q. SCTqR'ARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN: Zi3IGNIEW KAIMiERZ BRZEZINSKI: I MARK R R ~ E Z Z N S KJOSEPH I; R. RIDEN, JR., S O E B N W H ( a k a . Barry Sactoro, a.k.a. Rarack Hussein Obsma, a.k.n. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMlTlFE OF THE STAI"I:OF NEW YORK;STATE COMMITTEE or:THE WORKIN,G FAMIL,IFS PARTY OF NEW YOfX STATE: ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY;IAN J. BRZEZmSKI; JOHN STDN15Y MCCAIN III; JOHN tZ.130EEINER; THE NEW YORK S7"AR REPIJRI.ICAN STATE . I COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITrEE OF TUE TNDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PAKTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRIIw%KER; GEORGE SOROS; 8BAhfA FOR 1 A&IEHCA; OIjAMA Ir/CTOR Y F U j W ; MC'CAI!? i lfl%MRY 2008; 9:WC'CAlAF-PALIN VICTORY 2008; j J o b and Jane Uoes; and XYZ Entities.

I i

+"

Defendants,
-...----

w .

---

?,

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the annexed is a tmc copy ofa Decision and Order dated
Aprit I 1,2022 duly made in fhc above-captioned action and emered and filed in the C5mk's

Ofice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, on April 13,261 2.

Dated: May 2, 20 12

IVashinptan, D.C,

Todd E. Phillips, Esq. {ndmi'ffedpra h e i~ica) One Thomas Circle, N W Wastrington, DC 20005 'i'elephone: (202) R62-5ftm Facsimile: (202) 429-1230 1

James P. l"ehner, F q .

Rita C . Tobin, Gq. 375 Park Avenue

25th Ffmr New k'ork. NY 10152-3580 'Telephone: (2 12) 3 1 Y-7 t 25 Facsimile: (2 12) 644-6755
A itornqs for Dqfendants McCain tfictc7r-y ,9008, h4cF;'ain-Pniin J4ciory 2 0 1 1 1 8 ,and John S , McUar'n

APX -

24

7 -

SUPREME COURT OF Tl4E STATE OF NEW YORK COtfNTY 01;KMGS


Christopk~er-brl: Strunk i n erne,
PlaintifT,

JAMES A. WALSE?/ CO-Chnir,DOUGLAS A. WELNER / Co-Chair, EVI<LYNJ. AQUII,A / NOTICE OF ENTRY Commissioner, GREGORY P,P m I t S O X / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. 1 VALEXTINE, Deputy Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCM,W'fDEmN*. 'TJ-TOMASP. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEM1 COLON,in their Official md individual capcity; Fr. JOSEPH A. Q ' N A E , S.J.; br. JOSEPH P. PAIIXES, S.J.; FW,,DGRICK A.O. SCIIWARZ, Jn.; PETER 0 . PETERSEN;7BIGNIEW KAIMTEKT, 13RX;r,EZfT'4SSU; MARK BKZEZMSKI; JOSEP! I R. RTDm, JR., SOEBARKAH (o.k.a. Barry Soetom, a.k.n. B ~ m k Ii~ss~in Ohma, a.k.a. Steve D~nham); NmCY PELUSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE: COMMUTEE OF 'IlfE STATE OF NEW YO=; STATE COMMIT1'EE OF TEE W O l W G FMILIES PAKIY O F KEW YORK STATE; RCJQER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; FAN J, DPdEZEYSKI; JOI-fN I SIDNP;Y MCCA~N JOHN A. ~ O G W N E R THE ; NEW YORK ST,4TE REPLrBLICAN STATE COMMI'PTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE CQ.MMITTE OF "EE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMTTTEE OF THE CONSERVKI'fVE PARI'Y OF NEW YORK STA'IT; I'ENNY S. PRITZK1" R;iISORGESQROS; OB/1MAFOR AMERICA; OUAiMA K T O R Y FUAU; Mt2C'N YICTCIRY 2008; ,\4(2CAN-PALIN T~ICTOKY Z O W , i John and Janc Does; and XYZ Entities.

-againstNEW YORK STATE BOARD OF XlLECTIQNS;

7
,

Index No.6SDQ/2011 Honorable Arthur M. S c h d

rn;

PLEASE T A D NOmm that the annexed i s a true copy of a Decision and Order dated
Aptif 11,2012 $uXy d

e in the above-captioned actiim dentered anb fiM fa the Clerk's

Ofice of the Supram Cow ofthe State ofN e ~ q o t kKings , Comty, m April 13,2012.

--

-".

APX - 25

-7

./-@
* _ _ _ 1 1 -

May 2,2012

"-d

7 o % h r n r n berg T'hamas Kirby MqCEY REIN LLP 1776 K St NW


Washington, D.C. 20006

Ph. 202 719 7000 Fx. 202 7 19 7049


Attorney for John .4. Roehner

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS X CHRISTOPHER-EARL: STRUNK,
--U-----YI"-I~---

N W YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSH, Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A, ORDER NOTICE OF ENTRY KELLNER, Co-Chair, EVELYN 3. AQUILA, Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON, Cornmissictner, DEPUTY DIRECTOR TODD D.VALENTINE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR Index No.: 6500-201 1 STANELY ZALEN, ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NAOMl COLUN, in their cr6ficial and individual capacities, FR. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J., FR. JOSEPH P. PARKES,S.J., FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR., P t r E R G.PmRESEN, ZBfGN1W WtM1ERZ BRZEZINSKf, MARK . BRTEZINSKI, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., SOEBARKAH (aMa Barry Soetro, aMa Rawck Hussein Obama 11, a#a Steve Dunham), NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF N W YQRK, STATE COMMllTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE, ROGER CALEBRO, THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY, IAN J. RRZEZINSKI, JOHN SIDENY MCCAIN tll; JOHN A. BOEHNER, THE N E W YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE, . E THE NEW YORK STATE COMMIITEE OF THE I INDEPENDENCE PARTY, STATE COMMITEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEWYORK STATE, PENNY S. PRITZKER, GEORGE SOROS, OBAMA FOR AMERICA, DBAMA VFCTORY FUND, MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIWPALIN VICTORY 2008,JOHN AND JANE DOES and XYZ ENTITIES,

ww

Defendants.

-X

//II

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the within is a true copy of a Decision and Ordsr

duly entered in t h e Offce of the Clerk of the within named Court on April 13,2012.

--

APX - 27

Dated: Uniondale, N e wY c K k

Ii
i

Mayi. 2012

HARRIS BEACH, PLLC Attorneys far Defendant Penny S. Pritrker


BY Keith M. CurbM, fsq. The OMNl 333 Earte Ovingron Btvd., Suit!901 Uniondale, New Yark 11553

To:

Christopher-Earl Smnk PfainiiF,pm se 593 Vanderbilt Avenue # 281 Broaklyn, New York 11238

Eric T. Schnelderman, Esq. New York State Attorney General I20 ~roa#way,24'" Floor New Yo*, Mew Yo& 10271 Attn: Joel Graber, Esq.

Michael Cardarb, Esq. Corporation Counsel ofthe City of New York 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007
Caplin 4% Drysdaie One Thomas Circle, NW Washington, DC 20005
Attn: Todd E.Phillips, Esq.

RabinoBoubin, Stanbard, Krinsky & Liebman, P-C. 45 Broadlway, Suite if00 New York, New Ycrrlt I O U 0 6 Attn: Christopher 4. Klatelt, Esq.

Simpson Thetcher & Rarttett, LLP 425 Lexington Avenue N w York, New York 10017-3954 AHn: Sarah L. Dunn, Esq.

APX - 28

i a l X
3

& b o a

b02
w 9-

E-3

'"

.I 5 e 5
L

z* c

f :

gsZ3

2 2.. 4c35

,g

5; 2s

y v g$ 0 5 3
x w .= 3 L
0
O

2-2 3 & -' .."


2 ~ Pi + 4 ~ W 2.555 c o a
N

35 < .

APX - 29

SUPREME COURT CF TRS STA" CdUNTY O"TXGS

E O F NEW 3 ' 0 %

I A S PART 27 --------_--------__--------------------X

CER: ST372EP-. EARL S?RUNRf

Lndex No. 6500/20:i

Plaint iff,

(Eoz. A r t l m r M. S c h a c k )

NEW YQRK STATE BOA3D OF ELECTIONS, et al.,

ORDER WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY

Defendants.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the w i t h i n

is

a true

copy of an

o ~ d e rof *,he Suprema Court: of t h e State


Cauaxy (Hon. A r t h u r M.

of New York, Kings


in t h e

Schack), duly filed and e n t e r &

o f f i c e of the Clerk of Kings County on the 13th d a y of April,

New Y o r k , N e w Yark May :0, 2012

T. SCHIVS1DEXNA.H A t t o r n c y General of t h e State of New York


ERIC

--

JOEL GRABER Special Litigation Counsel

-.. -

--

Litigation B ~ r e a u 123 Isroadway - 2 ~ ~ " l o o r N e w York, NY 10271-0332 (212) 416-8645

APX -

30

SUPREFvlE COURT OF TRE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KWGS


X -

Index N o . : 6500-2011
I t

Christopher-Earl: Strunk i n tsse,

YEW VoRK STATEBOBRD OF ELECTTONS et al.,

Defendants.
1

Accordingly, 1 ~ t l ~ 1h/ -4~4

6 ~ ) ,king duly swwn, depose and say under penalty ofprjury:

a. Am over 18 ywus of age and not a party t ot h i sadan. b . My p l a e o f bUSiness 1s located at 593 VamlrxMlt Avenue BmaMyn NY 11238.. c. On May 23,2012, Christopher Strunk instructed me to ~cm a true c u n f m e d copy ofthe PmTIIEI"S N m C E OFAPPEAL with Notices of Entry, DECSIONAND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE and RADI forms with Issues on Appeal Attached for the cast! ,Symnk.~.WS BOE et al. NYS CauntydXingo Supreme Court with index 6500-20 I. 1, by USPS mIvicc lnpon Deimdnnts' Counaela, d. On May 23,2012, I cm.tsed each copy a i 4 h praper p ~ g t a g e for sarVia? by regular ma~f of liatcd caunsels and w k m each enmlapc. was deposited wfth the USW for service upon:

k i c a Burke. ESQ.o f SXbP!WN THACHER dr, Bj4KTLETT LLP 425 Lexirtgtm A v ~ n u c Renr York, Hew York 1001'1-3954
ATltA C. TOBXN, E b q . of CAPUN 4 % DRYSDALE, C m k E D 375 Park Avcnuc 35% Florn New Ywk. New York 18 152-3500

n x e OMNI 333 & l e

HAPCRIS BEACH, PUC By THOMAS J. GARIZY, Ebq. Ovtngtan Blvd., Suite 901 Unjt~nd~k. New Yark 11553

JAMES C. DUGAN Esq. of WILL= FARR & QAUAEHER 'tCP 787 Seventh Avenue New+York, N.Y. 1GO 196099

MARSHAL BE&, Esq. of M c C I W WOODS U P


1345 Avenue of Amrriaa, 7th Floor HeurYork,

New York 10105

WlLEY ftEM W KWl3 A. RROMBERG ESQ., JAN WITHOLD BARWESQ. FIE^ TWOMhq Mr. KIRBY LTQ. 1776K Street, NW W ~ h i n g MD I. C .20006
R A B w O v v l BQL9IN. ~ STAWARD, KFWSKY C L I F B B W , PC Chkt~lph*.J. Lhte-11Esq. and Dmicl S . M c h Esq. 45 Droadway, %kc 1330 New Yo& New Y e tOO(Ki-3791

ERIC T. SCHNEtMP,RMAN Attorney Gcnaal of NYS bB:JOEL QRABER, Beq. AAG Assistant Attorney CScncraI Special L i e k i m Counclel litigation Burntu 120BROADWAY - 24th Roor P.Bcrw Ymk, FStw York 102714332

MICHAEL CAmOZO Corporatian Cwnacl ofCig of New Yorlr By; CHLAREPrS ORS-D, Esq. A s d s m t Corporation C o u n ~New l Yark City f m Lkpartment 100 Church Street Few York, New York 10007

This

Sworn to hefore me day of May 20 12

EoCrrE ~ M P T O N JR. ' Notary Public, State vf New M r k


Q~allfied I n Kinn*

--

--

NO. 01HA6044027
..

Cnlrw

APX -

31

,,--I"---*-.---------------,,,-,.----.-----------.--~--------.--x
Chriatophcr Earl Stiunlc,
&&ex

comm OF KMOS

S-ME

COURT OF TRE STATE OF

YO=

N o . : 6500121011,

PlaintifFa Notice o f Appeal signed Mey 23,2012


DbaMon and OSG dgnd Ap*

I 1.20 11 srztered starting A p r E L 23,m12

Variaas Setices o f Entry far 8 Mations

Request far Appolllate Division I a t e r ~ e ~ ~ t i a n

AfYidaxdt olSdc1e

Derted:

Brooklyn, Hew Yerk M a y 23,2012

$ % ( +
--

- a ; &

Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in case, Plaintiff mlf-representwithout being a n attorney 593 Vandcrhilt Avenue 6281, Brooklyn, Yew Yo& 11238. (84% 901-6767 E-mail: gh:rik4et;runk.ws

STAR OF BROOKLYN: Judge Arthur Schack - Home Reporter News: Ge... ~://www.homereportemews .oodnews/-udge-...

-STAR OF BROOKLYN: Judge Arthur Schack -.. . . .-, -.. r--., .... . :. ,-. - ., . .-.._."... .......... "" ." .... . ...... ,--" ..... '. -... .-...-. --.-.
Y . , . . . . .

a. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Y Y

Y . "

- *

B . ,

,Y

I-..... . L " . . . .

Y"--U.

^..U.U""

J,

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Arthur Schack has been very inmlved in his community in the 34 years he has lived in Bay Ridge. Before he became a Supreme Court justice of Kings County, he served on Community Board 10 for 15 years, in several different positions, including treasurer for two years, board chair for three years, and on
+he < . - ."~ (Iarnm;tl+p e c : - - - x.lr,i:+L --. .-. C -~ -r -r . - - - - -- - - - ..- r

-.

!c

y??~.

He has also been inwhred with the Boy Scouts of America for many years. He is a past president of the Brooklyn Council Executk Board Troop 20 at the New Utrecht Reformed Church, and a troop chairperson. He has received the Sliver Beaver Award for Distinguished Service to Youth and the George Meany Award fiom the Boy Scouts r?f .America for his service. CAREER: Schack has had a long, successful career in education and law, but the greatest achievement of his career has been being named a Supreme Court justice. "It's an opportunity to prove justice and himess to the people in the community," Schack said. "This is the best job in the world. I'm thankful I don't mind getting up in the morning."

PERSONAL LIFE: The greatest achievement of Schack's personai iife is his successhi maniage to his wife, Diiia, and the accomplishments of his two children, Elaine, who is an attorney, and Douglas, a New York City police sergeant.
41JlqRnS. Crh-k
<

hnc ~

P C P ~ the F ~ .I?IkpH T

ee C?tln!!b~icpr I\--v??d .dcm t h !biter! ~ Fpdcrntinn nf T e o ~ k p t s !TW\


\ ,

2 c i ; ; d thc Emmcnica! Award

fkom :kc Cat!ioEc LavVycrs

of Xhgs CO'G~~J.

BIGGEST CHALLENGE: Schack's biggest challenge is finding time to balance it all. "Between my job, making decisions, plus my family, it's really about balancing it all out," he noted. .... :-+:-.. X C , : . , -1.7... .. ,i:.-iL .. C-.. ;.-.:.. . -:I +I...* : .. .... , rl. ,c ............. .. -,...C-.. .... -1.. -............ :+. :

.........................
CATl37hT7n%,T.
,I..

.............................................. .. "
i - i

J .

I.,..

..

1 . : .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . ".L . . . . . . . . . , . .

heiping those in need is cruciai. "I beiieve that pubic service is important," said Schacic. "As a judge, I'm mvoived in that. I want to help people."

--

APX -

33

Catholic Lawyers Guild o f Kings County

http://www.cahliclawye~~guildo&iogsco~.md

1.
t
i

:
'

The Catholic Lawyers Guild of Brooklyn dates to the 1930's. The Guild was organized by and for Brooklyn Catholic Lawyers as a forum for discussing the legal and social issues of the day. The. members originally met in Saint Joseph's College on Clinton Hill, then in Saint Francis College, and then, through the years, at several other !,., h : ; . . . . I... 3 , : u r ! : , ~ ~ l ; I.. . - --.. . -.. .- . Tlru . . .- C.,il,-1 - -.. I>-,.. ..- - - . .. - ,- .--.-:,i:-;.-,ir,i! ... - .. .- - . . .- - :I.-. - ri..o - - . - ..%.>..,r:.r-.rr!>;.. .. . - .. .- - . - . .. ..,! - - - - - - -. - . . - the ideals of the Catholic laity.

....

4.- r-4 4 ..n


6. %

fl?y-#.

--

Over the years, the membership as well as the activities of the Guild have broadened in scope. The Guild's mission presently is to advance the goals and ideals of Catholic lawyers; to respect the integrity of the law and the need for its fair, compassionate and just application; to acknowledge the primacy of moral values and of justice in the governing and administration of modern society; to bring together members of the .. . .

! u ! ! . ! !

c!!.. ..!=

O ' l-1!y-"C> L'C! L

l.!!C y-.C!e! C!!._l !Eye! !>>._lC> g!(N I,> fCI-V!!!&S!!>!! ._!!EX. ; > = : >

..

1 n i) conge!?!?!2nd prefecc/on;l! environment.

The Guild currently sponsors several events each year. The Guild's year commences in the Fall with the celebration of the Red Mass, which invokes Divine Providence for the coming Judicial Term. The Red Mass is co-sponsored with the Columbian Lawyers Association of Brooklyn and is followed by a reception which is always well-attended.

+,.. .-..., -...-I lla L I I I I > L I 251 !I~ ty ~ is i u i ~ d u i k d dui-i~iy the 'iuietide season, iliiniediaieiy greieiiiiig iile C i , r i ~ i r ~ pariy, - ~ a ~ w e yiiiira~T o r our irli~ruaiiiaiiviiy driiiiaiiu~~ u1.1i i l e i a w ~ ui ~ ii~r Supreme Courthouse at 360 Adams Street. The dedication includes a blessing by Guild Moderator, Rev. Msgr. Edward B. Scharfenberger and the singing of traditional Christmas carols. At the beginning of the Lenten season, the Guild holds its Annual Shrove Tuesday Luncheon.
The rathnllr ! nwyerc fi:ild Plnrew nf Rrnnklvn Ionkc Fntav~rr! tn the rnmln? year with

a growing membershtp, expanded program of activities and continuing Rdelity to its values, goals and prlnnples.
8 Cathok Lawyers GUM. Questbn6 o r Comnents?_C_ontactUl. SIte Derbned by Amanda

E m
FZ*
. .

,-.i:&q

APX - 34

..

--

--.

._

w\ir\s. 1800iii\v l!~lO.co~'~I~Iip-RcciiIl-tllp

I )

. ...*

Yo11Need a Hip Recall tnw\yer. .W o r k wi~h a.-I.,.CL.C,-..wW..I.._ local NY lzw firrn : * _ * - _..-,_.

-_...

r d& p

= F ; ~ ~ . , ,.=/

-z,

;--,-

Heimfshe Meitch on the Bench, Supreme Court Justice David I . Schmidt, honored i n Brooklyn

When discussing the Legal profession, virtues like compassion, charity and selflessness may not immediately spring to mind - but for the past 33 years, the Catholic Lawyers Guild of Brooklyn has honored judges and attorneys who demonstrate these qualities. This year, about 225 people attended the guild's annual dinner at Gargiulo's Restaurant, according to immediate past president Annalise Cottone. Brooklyn Ciyil Administrative Judge Ariet Belen swore in Joseph Bellard as the new president of the guild, which honored Judge Belen, Brooklyn Law School Professor Richard T. Farrell, Civil Court Judge Bernard Graham, state Justice David Schmidt and attorney Andrea Bonina. Justice David Schmidt accepted the Guild's EcumenicalAward on behalf of his parents, who were both Holocaust suMvors. Schmidt said his father never spoke about his experiences until right before he died. Schmidt had a case against a synagogue in Williarnsburg where a worker fell from a scaffold. He mentioned the case to his father, who then told him how he was taken to the Bergen-Bekenconcentration camp. "There were hundreds of people in the car. The train traveled for seven days and seven nights; they were given no food or water. When the train arrived everyone had died except my father," Schmidt said. "My father thought all the Jews in the world were killed." The first people he saw at Bergen-Belsen were the rabbi of this synagogue and his father.

-.

APX

35

Chaptmn Blog!

"One of the reasons that the Holocaust succeeded in killing so many people is that when the Nazis started passing all these racist laws in which Jews could not marry nonJews, own property or businesses and could not belong to any of the professions, no one protested," Schmidt said. The lawyers supported the laws and the judges did not protest the removal of their colleagues, nor did they find these laws invalid or unconstitutional, Schmidt said. "We as judges and lawyers in the greatest country in the world have a duty to fight racism and bigotry wherever we find it," Schmidt said. "It is our duty to make certain that no one is persecuted based on their religious beliefs or [ethnicity]."

He quoted Martin Niemuller, the German pastor who outspokenly opposed the
Nazis and suffered in concentration camps. In a 1959 seminary address in Atlanta, Ga., Niemuller said, "First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because Iwas not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because Iwas not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me." Webster's defines "ecumenicaln as "fostering religious unity," Justice Schmidt noted. He said he was especially honored to receive this award from the Catholic Lawyers, who "strive for higher ethical morals and standards than the law requires.

" I ,as a Jew with a yarmulke, who wean religion on my sleeve, similarly strive for higher ethical morals," Schmidt said.

The judge graduated from Brooklyn College and Brooklyn Law School, and served for 11 years as law secretary to Justice Gerard Rosenberg before being elected to Brooklyn Civil Court in 1995. He was appointed as an acting state Supreme Court Justice in 2000, and was elected to that bench in 2006.

---This article pcxted by Chaotzem : 5:05 Phi

Comments: I do not understand how a Torah Jew can serve on a secular bench. If a case comes before him involving a Jew, or even two Jewish parties, will he rule al pi halacha or based upon secular Law?Will he reject the case and order them to report to Beis Din (assuming they had no permission to take their case out of Beis Din)? , . - - -nis I a r i i c h posted by :Kiav 25. 2607 ?:07 PN, To "Ido not understand how a Torah Jew can serve on a secular bench.": All the Mosdos in B'klyn sent notices out to vote for him, when he first ran. One school even gave out little chatchkes with his name imprinted. (Were you sleeping?
---This article wzted by Anim}mcus :A<ay27. 2007 1 :20 A,\

- -%

APX -

36

Joseph Ask a Rav your shailah But remember how could he judge a Jew i f he is not at least a dayan?
.

, -..

. .--Tiis articie p3sted DV

Ancnynws : May 27. 2007 2:40 A M

Is he the one who told the two bovorers that their father told him t o send jews to beis din and that they should go?
--This axicle posted by
Ancnymxs :h u v 27. 2007 8:09 Ah!

Judge Schmidt is a living, breathing Kiddush Hashem. He is unique in a sense one can only understand if heishe knows him. What a great person.

..

---T!lis article ~cb:ed by

;:;cn.jmc:s

: May 27. 2007 9:43 A.V

To 8:09- No he's not.

---Tl~is article posted t.y

AnonwiIail5 : t:.ay 27, 2007 10:?5 A M

I don't know which mosdos you are referring to; nor do I know which Rabbonim give a haskomo to whichever mosdos it is.
I just asked a simple question. I did not say their i s no answer. But it is an obvious question. What will he do i f a Jew (or 2 Jewish parties) comes to his bench?Will he uphold the secular law, as he is sworn t o do? Or will he judge al pi din (is he even allowed to judge the case, as one commentator above asked?) Or will he throw out the case?

--

.--I n

-.

~ at s L~de posts b j

: Vay 27, 2037 2:56 Pr?:

Why don't you get off your fat ass and open up a Choshen Mishpat and figure out the answer to your question instead of making that his problem. In fact, Judge Schmidt is a big Talmid Chacham and certainly knows the answer to it. It's you, who is a lazy bum, never cracked a book in your life, GO CRACK A BOOK AND FtGURE OUT THE ANSWER!!!

...This artic!e pasted by

Anonymous : Mzy 27, 2007 8:35 PM

8:35, You just made obvious what an am haaretz you are.

I'lllet you try t o figure out why. But as a hint, asking a halachik question is not only encouraged in Yiddishkeit, but it is the proper method of learning. Come back with some kind of lame "don't sit on your fat ass" type of ' l llet you talk to the wall next time. Iwouldn't want to embarrass non-response. I you more than absolutely necessary. . Nay 27. 2007 9:04 P,M - -This art~cle posted b~ Hey Joseph, if this blog is the ideal place you ask you shailos, a rachmunus oif deer in dayn mishpuchu.
---This article posted by

Analymws : hWc 28, 2007 10:27 , : : P

What is wrong with him, or anyone, discussing halachik shailos on a blog?You are a close-minded idiot.
--This articie w:ed by
Chaim : htiy 29.2007 !2:00 FN

A rachmunus on your family too. Hope ur wife's a bit wiser than that. L . . :. . ;' ,: . . ---Thisarticle pcsted by Anonymous : May 29. 2007 6:25 PM

APX -

37

10:27 - Yeah, whats wrong with a halachik discussion. Sounds like you don't feel competent to particiapte in such a discussion.
--.Tllisar!icle post& by
Xr,onhrnoas : t,lav?9, 2007 5:49 h i

As an attorney who has appeared many times before Judge Schmidt I can tell you:
1. Any times both pammes are Orthodox Jews he encourages them very strongly to p to Bais Din.

2 . If they refuse to go to Bais Din he tries to settle the case with a "peshora" and is sucsessful about 98%of the time.
3. If he i s not sucsessful, he sends the case out for trial to another Judge.
Iwould like you to know that he was endorsed by many Rebbes, Dayanim, and Rosh Yeshivos (including R ' Tauber of the Bobov and R' Kaminettzky of the Philadelphia Yeshiva among others).

Judge Schmidt is a well known Talmudic scholar and has done wonders to the reputation of Orthodox Jews in the Court system.
---This articte posted b:f i i n . ? r : ~: ~May ~ s 31. 2007 li:*V AN

Can anyone tdl me how many Jewish Judges we have in Brooklyn Civil Court?
-.-This artlcle posted by
L n w ~ m o u :: ,May 0 4 . 2009 9:54 ?So

Judge Schmidt is extremely smart guy!!


.-.This article posted by
'inon~~qt .~ June s 18. 2012 lt:42 A'.'

APX

38

Share

Report Abuse Next Blogv

Create Blog

Sign In

Natural Born Citizen Right Answers

- A Place to Ask Questions and Get the


Bocca Della Verita
Fcn

A blog to discuss the U.S. Constitution Article 11, Section 1, "natural born Citizen" presidential eligibility clause.

Sunday, May 6, 2012

The New York State Court Should Not Sanction Pro Se Plaintiff, Christopher Earl Strunk, for His "Natural Born Citizen" ~itigation
The New York State Court Should Not Sanction Pro Se Plaintiff, Christopher Earl Strunk, for His "Natural Born Citizen" Lltigation

Mario A p u r r o

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. May 6, 2012 On Monday, May 7, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., pro se litigant, Christopher Earl Strunk, will have t o show cause before Hon. Arthur M. Schack, at Part 27, in Room 479,360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201, why he should not be made t o pay for the defendants'attorneys' fees in his case i n which he claims that putative President Barack Obarna is not an Article I 1 "natural born Citizen" because he was not born t o citizen parents. There are many attorneys involved and one can just imagine the size of the bill that they will present t o t h e c o u r t . Here are the facts that give rise t o Strunk's legal action. Pro se litigant, Chrlstopher Earl Strunk, commenced his election challenge case in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by filing a complaint on March 22, 2011, i n which he alleged "breach of state I constitutional fiduciary duty by the NEW YORK( STATE BOARD OF ELEClTONS and public officer defendants; denial of equal protection for voter expectatlon of a correct ballot; denial of substantive due process for voter expectation of a correct ballot; interference with the I right t o a republican form of government by the two Jesuit defendants and defendant F.A.O. ! SCHWARZ, JR., who were all members of the New York Clty Campaign Finance Board; interference with plaintiffs election franchise; a scheme t o defraud plaintiff of a reasonable I expectation of successful participation i n the suffrage process; and, a scheme by all defendants for unjust enrichment." Declsion and Order, p. 3-4. He included as a defendant . "Soebarkah (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama, a.k.a. Steve Dunham. The defendant filed motions wlth Hon. Arthur M. Schack t o dismiss Strunk's complaint wlth prejudice. Strunk along with defendants many attorneys had oral argument on the motions before Judge Schack in August 2011. Judge Schack includes In his Decision and Order parts of the transcript of that oral argument. Judge Schack reserved decision. While his case was pending, it was brought t o Strunk's attention that the State of New York's instructions for getting on the presidential ballot, rather than state that a presidential candidate has t o be a "natural born Citizen" pursuant t o Article 11, Section 1, Clause 5, said that the President only had t o be "Born a Cltizen." He wrote to the state election authorities and pointed out the error. He asked that a correction be made t o state that a presidential candidate must be a "natural born Citizen" which is what Article 11, Section 1 , Clause 5 of our Constitution clearly and plainly states.
I e n j o y t h e universe of ideas a n d a s o u n d m i n d a n d body. Mario Apuzzo, Esq., 1 8 5 G a h m e r Ave, Jamesburg NJ 08831, Email: apuzzo[AT]erols.com, TEL: 732-521-1900 FAX: 732-521-3906, BLOG: http://puzol.blogspot.com
< -

c m l . ~ t me

s = Have the ConstitutionaJ Power to Pass Leaislation Prescribing President~al Ballot Access ReauiremenE A Cataloa of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason t o Doubt Putative President Obama Born i n

Hawaii
Read the Kerchner v ObamaIConqress Petition to the U.S. Suoreme COU& Summary of Latest Court Activity Kerchner v Obarna & Conqress Su~rerne Court of U.S. Docket Reoort - Kerchner v Obarna & Conaress Summarv of Lawsuit/Comoiaint and Link ts the Comoiaint-Counts/Charaes Article I1 'natural born CitizeMeans Unitv of Citizenshio at Birth Obarna - Maybe a Citizen of the United States but Not a "natural born Cltizen" of the United S w Natural Born Citiz~nshio Requires Both Parent3 t o be U.S. Citizens Law of Nations - The Leaal Book Used bv the Founders & Framers t o Write& Declaration of Indeoendence and U.S. Constitution t o Unite the 1 3 Free & Inde~endent Sovereian States into a More Petfect Union & Natural Law is The Law of Nat~ons U.S. Federal Common Law on "natural b ~ r Citlzenshi~" n
0

:
,

The State of New Jersey also had the same type of error. At first, the Secretary of State's instruction, using plain citizenship as the criteria for eligibility, did not state that the President had to be a "natural born Cltizen." A concerned citizen wrote t o the Secretary of State and pointed out the error and she simply made the correction by stating that a presidential candidate must be a 'natural born Citizen." The correct New Jersey instructions can be viewed at htto://ww.scribd.com/ouzol/d/91538227-New-Jersev-SOS-EliaibilitvInstructions-for-Presidential-Primarv-2012 . Strunk was looking for the same type of relief i which would have satisfied his concerns regarding the wording of the eligibility instructions. But t h e State of New York would have none of it. Not receiving any satisfaction, i n October 2011, Strunk tlled an order to show cause, asking that the court issue an order t o the New York State Board of Elections that it correct the eligibility instruction from "born a Citizen" t o "natural born Citizen." Judge Schack denied his appilcation as premature. At the October 25, 2011, hearing on his order,to show cause, Strunk stated to counsel for the New York State Board of Elections that he would be willing t o settle his litigation if the New York State Board of Elections would change the ballot instruction from "Born a Citizen" to "Natural-born Citizen." The attorney told him that they could not do that. Strunk appealed Judge Schack's denial order and was told by the appeals court that Judge Schack's order was an interlocutory order (not a final order) and so that court dismissed his appeal. I n the meantime, h e was back before Judge Schack on his pendlng complaint. Judge Schack finally decided the case on April 11, 2012, at which time he entered his
- -- -

--

Not the Same as an Enalish Common Law "natural born Subiect" Qbama When Born in 1961 Was 3 British Subiect as Was His Father and Obama is Still a British Protected Person and Citizen to This Day Neither the 14th Amendment Ratified in 1868 nor the Wono Kim Ark decision in 1898 makes Anv Person a "natural

APX -

39
r,-,-,,-,.a

.-,

.,A

Decision and Order. Judge Schack granted defendants' motions and dismissed Strunk's complete complaint with prejudice. Judge Schack also granted a motion to admit pro hac vice one of the defendant's attorney, finding that he was in good standing. It should be known that the Georgia court denied Attorney Van Iron's motion for pro hac vice admission and the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania denied my motion for pro hac vice admission, even thought we are both in good standing. Judge Schack started his opinion by stating that '[ilf the complaint in this action was a movie script, i t would be entitled The Manchurian Candidate Meets The Da Vincl Code. He found that Strunk did not sufficiently allege an injury in fact and therefore does not have standing which causes the court not to have jurisdiction over his claims.
i Judge Schack found that because it is not possible to easily gain notice from reading his : complaint what his particular cause of action is, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

h m i t i z e n " . Those acts ancreate "Cit~zens of the U.S." but NOT "natural born Citizens of the US." Whv the "natural born Citizen" Clause of Our Constitution is ImDortant and Worth Preserving What is Putative President O b & m a & j

p
Obama's Lack of Constitutional H R 1503 Pres Candidates Constitutional Eliaibilitv Docs Bill for Future Elections NOW Has 1 Z _ S & m AZ HB 2441 - State of AZ Presidential Constitutional Eliaibilitv Verificaton Bill w~th Numerous S~onsors SC Bill 3389 - State of SC R e a m Conclusive Proof of Natural Born citizens hi^ Status for Pres Elections _NH Bill 1245 - State of NH Bill Savs No More Hidden BC Records The Bioa Rules-Please Read Read m v A~uzzo's Writings/Briefs 63 SCRIBD.com How You Can Helo the Cause
Follow by Email

Judge Schack concluded that Strunk's fraud claim also needed to be dismissed because he did not plead with particularity that he relied upon any of the defendants' statement and did not plead that he suffered any pecuniary loss as a result of statement of any of the defendants. Judge Schack found that the court has no jurisdiction because of the political question doctrine and because, while finding no problem with his service upon the other main defendants, Judge Schack found that Strunk did not properly serve Obama and McCain. Judge Schack concluded that Strunk already litigated "many of the issuesn In the instant action in federal court and in Strunk v. Paterson, Index No. 29642108, where the issues were decided against him. He therefore found that under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, he could not re-litigate those same issues in the instant action. Judge Schack also denied Strunk's cross motion to consolidate the instant action with another New York state case, Strunk v. Paterson, and to transfer the case to Judge Schmidt because the Paterson case was already dismissed. Judge Schack also dismissed Strunk's complaint on the ground that it was both factually and legally frivolous. I Finally, Judge Schack also ordered that Strunk is precluded from relitigating the same claims i agalnst the same defendants i n the New York state court wlthout first obtalning prior written approval from an administrative justice or judge.
j Judge Schack never ruled on Strunk's application that the Board of Electlons be made to correct the ballot instruction for election for the Office of President to say not "born a Citizen," but rather 'natural born Citizen."

Email address... -. .

..

=
Search

Search This Blog

SCRIBD Links to Obtain Court Docs Filed

Kerchner v Obama & Congress - All Court Documegts - At A~uzzo's SCRIBD Account Court of DOCKET REPORT - Su~reme U.S. - Kerchner v Obama & Conaress Washington DC DOCKET REPORT - Aa~eais Court Kerchner v Obama & Conaress Phiiadel~hia P A DOCKET REPORT - District Court Kerchner v Obama & Conaress

Judge Schack has now ordered that Strunk show cause why he should not be made to pay for the costs incurred by all the defendants in having to retaln and pay for their attorneys to defend them against his action. Judge Schack did state the correct standard for the court to apply when deciding a motion to dlsmiss the complaint on its face. He stated:

"When determining a motion to dismiss, the court must 'accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and I determine only whether the facts as alleged flt within any cognizable legal theory' (see j Arnav Indus., Inc. Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysman, Milstein, Felder & Steiner, 96 NY2d 300, 303 [2001]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NYZd 83,87438 [I994 I ) [Emphasis added]." (Goldman v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 5 NY3d 561, 570-571 [2005]). Further, the Court, in ' Morris v Morris (306 ADZd 449, 451 [2d Dept 2003]), instructed that:
I

s2xndmm
Table of Contents for Kerchner v Obama & Conaress 2nd Amended C o m ~ l a ~ n t Served on the Defendan& The Lawsuit - Kerchner et ai v Obama et al: Initial filing 2:50 a.m. 20 Jan 2009. Second Amended Verified Com~iaint Filed 9 Feb 2009.

iI
I

I n determining whether a complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), "the sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law a motion for dismissal will fail" (Guggenheimer v Ginsburg, 43 NYZd 268, 275 [1977]. The court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and determine only whether the facts alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Dye v Catholic Med. Ctr, of Brooklyn & Queens, 273 ADZd 193 [2000]). However, bare legal conclusions are not entitled to the benefit of the presumption of truth and are not accorded every favorable inference (seeDoria v Masucci, 230 ADZd 764 [2000]). [Emphasis added] For a plaintiff to survive a motion to dlsmlss for failure to state a cause of action, the factual allegations in the claim cannot be "merely conclusory and speculative in nature and not supported by any specific facts." (Residents for a More Beautiful Port Washington, Inc. v Town of North Hempstead, 153 AD3d 727,729 [2d Dept 19891). "The allegations in the complaint cannot be vague and c o n c l u s o ~ ~ ~ ( S t o ~ a vnGahona, off 248

Useful Info, Docs, & Videos

Article 1 1 Leoai Defense Fund for New

m
Make Mine Freedom (19481 Birther Summit March 2012 Reaistrat~on Natural Born Citizen for Dummie2 Learn What is America's True Form of Government Five citizens hi^ Terms Used in Constitution

--

_--_

APX -

40

AD2d 525 [2d Dept 19981, app dismissed 92 NY2d 844 [1998], cert denied by Stoianoff v New York Times, 525 US 953 [1998]). (See LoPresti v Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 30 AD3d 474 [2d Dept 20061; Levin v Isayeu, 27 AD3d 425 [2d Dept 20061; Hart v Scott, 8 AD3d 532 [2d Dept 20041) (all emphasis in the original). FAILURE TO HAVE STANDING The court found that Strunk did not sufficiently allege an injury in fact and therefore does not have standing. I t found that the court therefore did not to have jurisdiction over his claims. Judge Schack applied federal court standing standards t o a state election challenge case. Many states in the union have llberal standing standards when it comes t o allowing voters of their states to file election ballot challenges, with just requiring that the person be a registered voter of the state. Pennsylvania at most, requires a voter who files a ballot challenge to be of the same party as the candidate of whom the challenger complains. New Jersey has no same party requirement. The federal court standing standards have no application In the state election law challenge. Strunk should be given standing to bring his ballot challenge. FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION Judge Schack found that because it is not possible t o easily gain notice from reading his complaint what his particular cause of action is, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. But with pro se complaints, courts have an obligation t o fully and in good faith search the complaint for a cause of action. As Iwill show below, Strunk more than adequately sets out a cause of action whlch can be discerned by an indulgent reading of the complaint. FAILURE TO PLEAD FRAUD WlTH PARTlCULARIlY Judge Schack found that Strunk's fraud claim also needed t o be dismissed because he did not plead wlth particularity that he relied upon any of the defendants' statement and did not plead that he suffered any pecuniary loss as a result of statement of any of the defendants. Strunk's fraud claim is not necessary for him t o continue his claim that Obama is not a "natural born Citizen." FAILURE TO SHOW THATTHE COURT HAS JURISDICTION Judge Schack found that the court has no jurisdiction because of the political question doctrine. He found that the question of presidential eligibility and necessarily the meaning of a "natural born Citizen" are left by the Constitution t o the Electoral College and Congress in joint session when It counts the Electoral College votes. He even cites and relies upon 3 U.S.C. Sec. 15 which only applies after the general election and when the Congress is in joint session counting the Electoral Votes. Without even acknowledging that Obama is currently a candidate i n the 2012 presidential election, he relies on the Electoral College's and Congress's lack of objection t o Obama's eligibility In the 2008 presidential election. But what is worse is that Judge Schack confounds and conflated candidates with incumbents. He states that Strunk challenges the eligibility of "President Obama." He did not state that it is "Candldate Obama" that Strunk challenges. The court relies strictly upon the Electoral College and Congress t o decide whether incumbents are eligible for presidential office. He states that the states have no role to play in that process. But the meaning of any specific clause of the Constitution is a judiclal question and one t o be authoritatively decided by the United States Supreme Court. That decision under the supremacy clause is binding on the entire nation. 1Story on the Constitution, sec. 387. Also, states do have a critical responsibility t o ensure that candidates on state ballots For federal office meet constitutional eligibillty requirements. By cutting the states out of making sure that presidential candidates are eligible for the office they seek, the court has cut out the states play i n properly vetting presidential candidate early i n the election process so as t o not allow any unqualified candidate t o advance too far and even t o the point where the general public is voting for an ineligible candidate.
,

Euler Loaic Diaaram Analvsis of Natural o fBorn Citizenshio Te U.S. Constitution Natural Born Citizen Graphics - A Picture is Worth a thousand Words. What 1 s a Natural Born Citizen? Exactiv What is a Natural Born Citizen? - Verv Good Video. Ciearina the Smoke on Obama's Eliaibilitv: An Intelliaene Investi~ator's June 10 2009 R e ~ 0 r t See How Easv it is to Produce a Phony Certification of Llve Birth (COLB) and a Diaital Irnaae & Picture of Same and Put i t Online. Here is one for Mickev Hussein Mouse U . Such a diaitai imaqe is all that Obama has aiven t o the electorate and public -art his daim of birth in the USA Analv+is of Obama's Certification of I ive Blrth (COLB) and Examoles of Other TvDe Birth Records bv syc1959. Analysis of Obarna's Certification of L ~ v e W (COLB) by Ron Polarik. PhD. The Greatest Birth Certificate Fraud in Historv - Obama's Foraed Online Certification of Llve Birth - How It Was Done Yideo

- Three I ittleWords

Video - Merrv Christmas Omerika!! Time Since the Usurper Putative President Obama aka Barry Soetoro Unconstitutionally Took Office

'

1203 Days, 00 Hours, 30 Minutes, 56 Seconds


Radio Interviews

- Sampling

Jeff Rense Radio Show Les Naiman Show-970 WGTK Louisville UY-NovIO Les Naiman Show-970 WGTK l ou~svilie KY-MavlO Jeff Kuhner Show-570 WTNT Wash DC-AorlO Blll Cunninqham Show-700 WLW Cincinnati OH-Aua09 Sean & Frank Show-680 WCBM Baltimore MD-Jun09

The U.S. Constitution requires that the President be a natural born cltizen, 35 years of age or older, and reside i n the U.S. for 14 years prior to belng elected. The issue of eligibility has come u p on at least seven occasions with regard to past Presidents and Presidential candidates. As we have witness wlth the 2008 presidential election, there is considerable confusion over the issue of who vets candidates for their eligibility for federal office, including the Office of President. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) examined the issue of who is responsible for presidential vetting. I n their report they opine that there is "no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certlficate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, t o any official of the United States Government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates t o publicly release such personal record or documentation." The CRS memo can be read here: bd.com/doc/74176180/0uaiificatio~-for-President-and-the-Y0E2~/~80 htt~://www.scri %~N~a~~~a~~or_n0/~E20/~8O0/~9D-Citizensh~w-Eliaib (as i l iI ty explain ~ ~ ~ $ . herein, m & n ~ I do not agree with Jack Maskell's definition of a "natural born Citizen" which Is any person who Is a "citizen of the United States" from the moment of birth, regardless o f - t e m or where

AndreaSheaKinaShowBioaTal kRadio-Jun09 Chaliceshow-BloaTaikRadio-Jul09 DrKateConstitutional RadioRloaTal~dio-Aua09

APX - 41

born). The CRS adds that "there is no specific federal agency or office that 'vets' candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to elections." Without any federal laws or guidelines on presidential vetting, the federal government has not precluded the states from doing so. Hence, the best time to resolve Strunk's ballot challenge is at the primary level. At the primary level, it is candidate Obama himself who wants to appear on the ballot. Under the Constitution and state law, it is the candidate who has to prove that the candidate is eligible to be placed on that primary ballot. Strunk should not be made to challenge Obama's el~gibility only after the general election in November 2012. At that point, Obama can argue that the public votes for electors and not him and therefore only the eligibllity of electors can be challenged. Plaintiffs should not be made to rely on the Electoral College or Congress for resolving their challenge to Obama's eligibllity to be elected President. At that point, Obarna can argue that the courts do not have jurisdiction to tell the Electoral College or Congress how to do their jobs. I n The Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton explained that the President was a "person to whom so important a trust was to be confided." He advocated that the Electoral College "will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicate an investigation." He said that because the President was "so an important agency In the administration of the government," "tumult and disorder" were to be avoided In selecting the President. What better way than for the states to aid in this complex investigation of that person who should want to run for that most important office. Surely by requiring any such candidate to produce documentary evidence of his or her identity and place of birth is a first step in producing that needed informatlon which is so vltal to such a complicated investigation. The states therefore serve a vital role in the beginning stages of the vetting of any presidential candidate. Such vetting should start as soon as possible so as to avoid parties becoming entrenched in their selections and wanting to win at all costs at the expense of the people and thelr Constitution. Furthermore, to allow an ineligible candidate to advance to the Electoral College or even to Congress in joint session only brings wlth it tremendous cost, embarrassment for both political parties, political haggling, insults and ridicule, and finger pointing, all at the expense of the Constitution. It is best that presidential eligibility requirements are met prlor to the election of a candldate in order to avoid the prospect of Congress being asked and havlng to invalldate national election results. What better way to secure liberty and support the Constitution than to allow all our political institutions, including those of the states, to have a role In presidential vetting.

BloaTalkRadio-Ian10 MommaeRadioRebelsBIoaTalkRadio-0609 MommaeRadioRebelsBioqTalkRadio-Jul09


Print Media Announcements and Advertorials

How to Helw Place More Print Media Insertions Advertisins Archives - See prior ads
Some Informative Websites & Forums

Alinskv - Rules for Radicals bv Saul Alinskv - Obama,s ,Bible' for Political Action for Social Chanae by 'Rub Raw' Aaitation of the Community American Thinker Website Atlas S h r u g Before It's News Birther Summit Bjrthers Webslte Canada Free Press Citizen Wells Bioq rloward-Piven Strateav of Manufactured . and Orchestrated C r ~ s

Judge Schack found that the court has no jurisdlctlon because Strunk did not properly serve Dr Kate's View Blog Drudae ReD0rt Flovd ReporE Give Us Liberty

i Obama and McCain. While finding no problem with his service upon the other main i defendants, Judge Schack found that Strunk did not properly serve Obama and McCain. The
court did not find that Obama and McCain were indispensable parties and that the action could not proceed without their presence in the action. Hence, service upon the other defendants is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over his claims agalnst the other defendants which concern both Obama and McCain. THAT STRUNK'S COMPLAINT I S FRIVOLOUS Judge Schack found that Strunk's claim that Obama is not a "natural born Citizen" is frivolous. The "natural born Citizen" issue is the heart and soul of Strunk's action. Judge Schack states that " '[a] complaint containing as i t does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where It lacks an arguable basis' and 'embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.' (Neitzke v Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 [1989])." Hence, Judge Schack looked to both the alleged facts and legal claims made by Strunk relative to the 'natural born Citizen" claim in order to determine whether his complaint was frivolous. As to Strunk's factual allegations, he has adequately pled in his complaint that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama's birth wherever that may be. As proof of this fact, he relies upon Obama's admlssion in his book, Dreams from My Father, the INS (immigration) file on Obama's father, the alleged Certificate of Live Birth that Obama released via the internet on April 27, 2011, and the Obama-Dunham divorce papers. While it could be argued that portions of Strunk's complaint (references to the Vatican, Roman Catholic Church, and the Society of Jesus and inclusion of a long list of defendants) rise to the level of the "irrational," the thrust of his legal argument, that Obama is not an Article I1 "natural born Citizen" as we shall see below is eminently reasonable. Whether or not Obama is an Article I1 "natural born Citizen" citizen under the American common law standard that has been in place since the Founding is not a conspiracy theory or what Judge Schack pejoratively calls a "birther case." There are some factual allegations in Strunk's complaint that could raise some eyebrows. We can also understand Strunk's frustratlon and his naming defendants who he believes have allowed Obama to proceed unchallenged and others who he believes should be 'taking responsibility to enforce the law which has not been done" regarding the question of Obama's eligibility to be President. Decislon and Order, p. 20 (Strunk speaking at oral arguments). Strunk does add some questionable factual allegations in his complaint about the defendants' religious motivations. He does express an "irrational anti-Catholic bias." But those questionable factual allegations regarding defendants' motivations are not relevant to the question of what is a 'natural born Citizen" and whether Obama meets that definition. Those suspect factual allegations which he "weaves" into his complaint should therefore not trump the sound part of his complaint and be used as a - t~e~ebyyt_oob~uscate~eereeaI means to create a circus-type atmosphere in the court and

John Christian Rvter's Comem&lye

Gulaa Bound Website

He's Not Mv President Bioa- The NBC

Investiaatina Obama

World

JustAfly Wordpress Biog NoBarack08's WebBiog Obama Citizenshio Facts Obama File Website Obama Release Your Records Bloq Obama Tirneline 1961-2009 One Nation Under Fraud Paiarnas TV Patriot Radio's Bioa bv Andrea Shea Kinq Post & Email Website Protect Our Liberty Safe Guard Our Constitution Stand UD America Bloq Tea Partv Patriots Terrible Truth

APX - 42

""

""-"." """ -.

W..

Y..-Y..Y.W . . . . . . -".-.- --e...

--.,I.-

I . . .

" L y "

' p ' -

y'..-

" " -'

.-,

.. , ' . . .

u . . "

argument that he makes which is that Obama does not meet the status quo American common law definition of a 'natural born Citizen," which definition as we can see below is adequately shown to exist by the historical record and case law of our United States Supreme Court. As to Strunk's legal arguments as to what is a "natural born Citizen," Judge Schack did not

Terrv Lakin Action Fund The Daily Caller The Dailv Pen Trevor Loudon New Zeal Blog Western Center for Journalism Whv Obarna Will Not S + wHis Real Birth Certificate World Net Daily Website
The Rules

' correctly state Strunk's legal position and by doing so actually created a straw man
, argument. He stated:
Plaintiff STRUNK'S complaint, as well as his oppositlon to defendants' motions to dismiss, alleges that the correct interpretation of the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constltutlon requires a natural born citizen to have been born on United States soll and have two United States born parents. Despite plaintiRs assertions, Article 1 1 , Section 1 , Clause 5 does not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the natural born cltizen clause means what plaintiff STRUNK claims i t states. 'The phrase 'natural born Citlzen' is not defined in the Constitution, see Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 [1875]), nor does i t appear anywhere else in the document, see Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President a/the Unlted States: An , 5 (1968)." (Hollander v McCain at Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 65). Plaintiff STRUNK cannot wish into existence an interpretation that he chooses for the natural born citizen clause. There is no arguable legal basis for the proposition that both parents of the President must have been born on U.S. soll. This assertion is as frivolous as the multitude of alleged allegations outlined above. Moreover, President OBAMA is the sixth U. S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soll. Plaintiff STRUNK and his fellow "birthers" might not realize that both parents of President Andrew Jackson were born In what Is now Northern Ireland; President James Buchanan's father was born in County Donegal, Ireland; President Chester A. Arthur's father was born in what is now Northern Ireland; Presldent Woodrow Wilson's mother was born in Carlisle, England; and, President Herbert Hoover's mother was born in Norwich, Ontario, Canada. But Strunk did not argue that a "natural born Citizen" child has to be born to "two United States born parents" or that 'both parents. . must have been born on U.S. soil." This argument Is strictly a creation of Judge Schack. Rather, Strunk argued that a "natural born Cltizen" is a child born in the United States to "citizen" parents.

THE RULES: This blog does not advocate resort to any violence in order to bring about political change. Rather, what we advocate is resort to zealous use of one's First Amendment right to "freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Please keep in mind thls is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. I f you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere. Keep your comments and questions in this blog's threads serious and focused on the subject and merits of this post. Unsubstantiated statements which are determined to be false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts, repetltive, argumentative, personal ad hominem attacks, defamatory statements, criticlsm or lobbying efforts for other attorneys and/or their cases, blog scrolling, advertising links, Inappropriate links, disinformation campaigns, and/or off topic comments will llkely not be also will not discuss In public posted. I specifics as to my planned tactics or am the Judge In thls blog strategies. I and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as Ihave to review them am busy working on various first. As I cases with my law practice, i t may be several hours to 24 hours some days before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered. Please try to stay on topic. The main focus of this blog -- the Obama Article I1 natural born Citizen eligibility issue and the historic Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress lawsuit. Thank you. Blog Archive
7 2012 (13)

Strunk correctly argues that "born Citizen" is not the same as "natural born Cltizen." The first step in constitutional interpretation Is textual analysis of the clause in question. I n that analysis, we have to look at each and every word of the clause which includes "natural" and define that word. By using "born Citizen" rather than "natural born Citlzen," would be saying that we do not need to consider and define "natural," that the Framers just threw that word In as surplusage. On the contrary, the word "natural" is part and parcel of the full clause, "natural born Citizen." The clause as a whole is a word of art, an idiom. The historical record shows that it has always been used as such and that it has never been used in some expanded way as 'born Citizen" suggests. Indeed, the clause is a unitary phrase with a unitary meaning. Hence, "natural" cannot be separated from the clause. Rather what needs to be done is to search for the meaning of the whole clause and not its parts. I n this textual analysis, we cannot simply take that idiom and say that It means some other manufactured definition of the clause. We cannot simply proclaim without evidence that the meaning of that idiom equates to the manner in which Congress and the Fourteenth Amendment allows persons to acquire the status of a "citizen of the United States" as of the moment of birth. No U.S. Supreme Court case or Justice has adopted such a manufactured j definition or even said that such a meaning prevailed at the time of the Founding. That i someone acquires his or her cltlzenship from the moment of birth simply does not equate to that person belng a "natural born Citizen." Even Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 i U.S. 815 (1971) tell us that persons may be "naturalized" from the moment of birth. We accept that "naturalized" person are not "natural born Citizens." Furthermore, that Wong Kim Ark included the clause "natural born subject'' in the context of its discussion of what is i a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" does not through some amazlng feat ; of logic convert a "citizen of the Unlted States" into a 'natural born Citizen." As Minor aptly I explained, a 'natural born Citizen" is neither created by the Constitution nor depended upon it. Hence, neither Fourteenth Amendment nor its debates on who shall be a "citizen of the United States" does not control who shall be "natural born Citizens."
'

Hence, simply having a status of a "citizen" from the moment of birth does not necessarily equate to one being a "natural born Citlzen." The fact that the Framers included the word "natural" as an additional qualifier tells us that quite plainly, for if such an Interpretation were correct the Framers would simply have said "born Cltlzen." So, any person that is a "born Citizen" who claims to be a "natural born Cltlzen" stlll has to show that he or she satisfies the Idiomatic meaning of the clause which the historical record and U.S. Supreme Court case law show to be a child born in the country to parents who are citizens of that country. This definition is exactly what our Unlted States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett in 1875 and Wong Kim Ark in 1898 confiimedisthe correct American common

7 May (2)

The New York State Court Should Not Sanction Pro S... Fox News Is Soreadina False Information on the M e a ,

APX - 43

' ...- ..'

. . . " . I .

-.LA-.-

.-

.-"-. . ,

.-..

Y--".-"YV

-..- --. -..

*-w-.

Y W

...

I . . .

A-'.y"

'y-"".Vb"yV""""'

-"

. I 1

U I I

1 1 "

..

' A . ,

"-.-

" " I . I."L.YU

.,..--..

law definition of a "natural born Citizen." For this time-honored natural law/law of nations/American "common-law" definition of a "natural born Cltizen", see Minor v, Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875) (decided after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted In 1868 and holding that "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon thelr birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners"). What Minor said about a "natural born Citlzen" was confirmed in U S , v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (acknowledging and confirming Minor's American common law definltion of a "natural-born citizen" but adding based on the English common law that since "[tlhe child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle [birth in the country]"' (bracketed information supplied), a chlld born in the Unlted States to domlclied alien parents was a Fourteenth Amendment 'citizen of the United States"). This American common law definltlon of a "natural born Citizen" has never been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment (only uses the clause "citizen of the United States" and does not mention "natural born Citlzen") or Wong Kim Ark, and therefore stlll prevails today. Both those U.S. Supreme Court cases define a "natural born Citizen" as a child born in a country to parents who are cltlzens of that country. This American common law definition of a "natural born Citizen" has also been recognized and accepted by a Founder and member of our U.S. Supreme Court as early as 1814 in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall dissenting and concurring for other reasons). I t was also again confirmed by Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) and Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830). It was again confirmed by Justice Daniels In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).
Ihave shown that the original American "common-law" deflnltlon of a "natural born Cltlzen" was not changed by either the Fourteenth Amendment or Wong Kim Ark, which only deal with a "citizen of the United States'' and not a "natural born Citizen." Hence, the same original definition of a "natural born Citizen" was agaln expressly conflrmed by the whole U.S. Supreme Court in Minor and Wong Kim Ark, and a lower federal court in Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) and United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890). Finally, this same definltlon was impllcitly confirmed by Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964).

W April (4)
b March (2) b February (2) b January

(3)

Followers
Join this site
uilh GOOgle Friend Connect

8
we,

Members (150)

Already a member?

Live Weather
: . <

;c

Given the meaning of the clause since time immemorial; the enlightened intellectual mindset of the Founding period which focused on natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Cicero, Pufendorf, Burlamaqui, John Locke, Rousseau, Emer de Vattel; the motivating spirit of the American Revolution; the Founders and Framers desire to preserve the constitutional republic for Posterity; the way that founding -era legal scholars such as Chlef Justice John Marshall, David Ramsay, St. George Tucker, and James Wllson defined American citizenship; Congressional acts on naturalization; U.S. Supreme Court case law; and the historical record as a whole, this is the most natural interpretation of the clause. Regarding the cltizenshlp status of the parents of a "natural born Citizen," the Constitutlon and Congressional Acts clearly and without question show that a "citizen" may be one either by being "natural born" or naturalized either at birth or after birth. Hence, what Strunk argued is that a child needs to be born in the country to parents who are both either "natural born Citlzens" or 'citizens of the United States" by naturalization at birth or after birth. He did not argue that the parents needed to be born cltlzens or born on the soil of the United States. None of the legal actions filed against Obama on his eligibility have made such an argument and neither did Strunk. So i t is totally Irrelevant to Strunk's claim that "Obama is the sixth U. S. Presldent to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. , Clause 5 and his definition of a soil," for under his interpretation of the Artlcle 1 1 , Section 1 "natural born Citizen," those presidents, other than Chester A. Arthur who like Obama cannot benefit from Article 11's grandfather clause and was not born to cltlzen parents, qualified to be President. Judge Schack has not decided the merits of the legal argument that Strunk made concernlng what is a 'natural born Citizen," but rather a legal argument that he himself created regarding that clause. Hence, not having yet passed on the argument that Strunk made, he surely cannot reasonably conclude that Strunk's argument Is frivolous. Furthermore, in Tennessee, the Federal District Court just recently stated: "The Court finds that the federal question presented, the meanlng of the phrase 'natural born citlzen' as a qualification for the Presidency set out in Artlcle I1 of the Constitution, is important and not trivial." "The issue of whether President Obama Is constitutionally qualified to run for the Presidency is certainly substantlal." 'It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama's qualifications for the office are 'actually dlsputed and substantial.'" 'It is also clear that there wlll be a legal dispute over the Constitution's definition of 'natural born citizen' and the Supreme Court's decision i n Minor." Liberty Legal Foundation et al v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc. et al, Case No. 12-2143-STA. So we can see that the federal court found the Issue of whether Obama is a 'natural born Citizen" to be "important and not trivial," "substantlal," and 'disputed."

edil WEATHER ALERT!- CLICK HERE

Wed

Thu

Blog Patrol

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed

--

APX - 44

!
t

Additionally, Judge Schack disagrees with Strunk's definition of a "natural born Cltizen," although as Ihave shown above he states a definition which Strunk did not put forth, because the Constitution does not define the clause, citing "Hollander v. McCain at 65" which cited Minor and Charles Gordon, Who can be President of the United States: An Unresolved , 5 (1968). I f that were a valid reason for disagreeing with Enigma, 28 Md. L.Rev. 1 someone's definition of a constitutional clause, we basically would have virtually no Interpretation of the Constitution at all. As is often said, the Constltution is not a dictionary of legal terms. Its meaning has to be gleaned from its text, if possible, and when not possible, from sources outside the Constitution. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment does not tell us what "subject to the jurisdlction" means. Yet, our nation has arrived at a meanlng of the clause by looking outside the Constitution. That the Constitution does not define a "natural born Citizen" is the only argument that Judge Schack makes to discount Strunk's position as to what is the meaning of a "natural born Citizen." He offers no other authorities showing that Strunk is wrong. Also, we should know that Charles Gordon In the very same article cited by Judge Schack states that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark's holding defined a "natural born Cltizen." Surely, all this shows that Strunk did allege a particular cause of action and gave suMclent notice of both the facts and the law that support his cause of action. All this also shows that it is not true that Strunk's complaint presents no legitimate basis In law or fact which warrants sanctions. Even assuming arguendo that the Court is correct about standing, jurisdiction, and collateral estoppel, the Court did not say that these grounds of dismissal support the Court's finding that the action is frivolous. Rather, the Court's finding of frivolous concerns Strunk's definition of a "natural born Citizen." Ihave shown that hls definition is more than reasonable to raise a genuine constitutional question. Hence, his complaint is not frivolous.

Live Traftic Feed

P
2-<-~ee your visitors in RealTime! Get the Free Live Traffic Feed Get Feediit Now! A visitor from United States viewed "Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: The New York State Court Should Not Sanction Pro Se Plaintiff, Christovher Earl Strunk for His "Natural Born Citizen" Litigation" 0 sees ago A visitor from E l Paso, Texas viewed "Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Rieht Answers: The New York State Court Should Not Sanction Pro S e Plaintiff, Christopher Earl Strunk, for His "Natural Bonl Citizen" Litiscation" 11 secs ago A visitor from Payson, Arizona viewed "Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Ouestions and Get i d 1 1 Answers: The the R New York State Court Should Not Sanction Pro Se Plaintiff, Christopher Earl Strunk, for His "Natural Born Citizen" Litimtion" 3 mins ago A visitor from Auburndale, Florida viewed "Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Ouestions and Get the Rieht Answers: The New York State Court Should Not Sauction Pro Se Plaintiff, Christopher Earl Strunk. for His "Natural Born Citizen" Litimtion" 3 mins ago

As Judge Schack correctly states, "all litigants have a right to impartial and considered justice." Muka v. New York State Bar Association. 120 Misc. 2d 897 (Sup. Ct. Tompkins County 1983). But Judge Schack's references to " 'blrther' cases" ' 'birther' action," ' : 'birther' movement," "his fellow 'birthers,"' is hardly any show of actually receiving that "impartial and considered" justice. "Birther" is a pejorative term that Is used by Obama's supporters. It is a quick way to dismiss through ridicule and ad hominem attack any argument that is made that Obama is not an Article I1 'natural born Citizen." As Ihave shown, whether Obama Is a "natural born Citizen" is not some conspiracy or 'lunatlc fringe" argument. Rather, It is, as even the federal court in Tennessee has confirmed, a legitimate and substantlal constitutional issue which to date has escaped belng address in any meaningful way.

Apart that there is no factual or legal basis for the Court to sanction Mr. Strunk, there are also public policy reasons for not doing so. Judge Schack states in his opinion that sanctions of the court are designed to punish in the present so as to deter what the court deems unacceptable behavior in the future. The court adds that such a policy is justified in that it works to save judicial resources. On the contrary, for the Court to sanction Mr. Strunk under the existing circumstances would not only save judlcial resources by preventing him from filing further Article I1 eliglbillty actions in New York in the future, but would do a great disservice to our system of justice and republican form of government. With any such sanction, the public, not knowing the full details of this matter and after having been bombarded by manipulated and propagandist use of the court's sanction decision by Obama's supporters, will come away with the thought that Mr. Strunk was sanctioned by the "Supreme Court of the State of New York" because he filed a complaint In a court of law claiming that Mr. Obama is not an Artlcle I1 "natural born Citizen." The public will therefore not only be made to think that there is no legitimate basis in filing any such legal actions against Mr. Obama, but also that if anyone so dare, he or she will be severely sanctioned by our courts. Additionally, because we follow the doctrine of stare decisis (to abide by or adhere to decided cases), other courts wlll be pressured to do the same should anyone file i any such action, Hence, we can easily see the chilling effect that the Court's sanctlon will have to not only people resorting to our court's In search of what they deem to be justice, : but also stifling the free exercise of political speech and discourse in all corners of America. : This is especially grave given that Mr. Obama is now being more carefully publicly and i privately vetted for his re-election. For these reasons, the Supreme Court of the State of New York should not sanction or otherwise discipline prose litigant, Chris Shrunk, and should discharge its show cause order. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. May 6, 2012 h t t ~ : / / ~ u z.bloospot.com/ ol
####

A visitor from Knoxville,


Tennessee viewed "Natural Born Citizen A Place to Ask Ouestions and Get the Ri&t Answers" 5 mins ago A visitor from Milwaukee, Wisconsin viewed "Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Ouestions and Get the Riqht Answers" 7 mins ago A visitor from Fort Myers, Florida viewed "Natural Born Citizen A Place to Ask Ouestions ,-..

Copyright O 2012 Mario Apuzzo, Esq. All Rights Resewed


Posted by Puzol at 1 : 0 6
Labels: Baraclc,ChmbQherE. 5 -

. . ..

,l Y d a -

12 comments:
M~ck said... : 9The SCOTUS has said, in McPherson v. Biacker (1892), that the State election officials have to do ministerial duty w/ discretion to A2 in Presidential elections: "Congress is empowered to determine the time of choosing the electors and the day on which they are to give their votes, which is required to be the same daythroughout the United States; but otherwise the power and jurisdiction of the state Is exclusive, with the exception of the provisions as to the number of electors and the ineligibility of certain persons, so framed that congressional and federal influence might be excluded."
, 35 (1892) McPherson v. Blacker, 146 US 1

Included in the category of those ineligible persons listed in A2 are: 1)"but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trustor Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."(A2Slc2) 2)"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of theAdoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." (A2SlC5) This was a case about the States' power to legislate their statutory scheme of choosing electors, so # 1 applies. But the court certainly would not say to pay attention to the exclusion of 1group and not the others pertaining to A2 in Presidential elections--- those who were not natural born Citizens. I f the states must not pick officers of state and federal government as electors on It's ballot, then it surely cannot pick those who are NOT natural born Citizens to be on the ballot. So says the SCOTUS. "Likewise, in Anderson v Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780,794795 (1983) (footnoteomitted), we said: "[Iln the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest. For the Presidentand the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials whorepresent ail the voters in the Nation." Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 112 Also McPherson v. Blacker clearly says that:
"It is argued that the subject-matter of the controversy is not of judicialcognizance, because it is said that all questions connected with the electionof a presidential elector are political in their nature; that the court has nopower finally to dispose of them; and that its decision would be subject toreview by political officers and agencies, as the state board of canvassers,the legislature in joint convention, and the governor, or, finally, thecongress. But the judicial power of the United States extends to ail cases in law orequity arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, and thisis a case so arising, slnce the validity of the state law was drawn in questionas repugnant to such constitution and laws, and its validity was sustained" , 23 (1892). McPherson v. Biacker, 146 US 1

i n F e Z r t k t #68, a natural born Citizen is described as a "creature of their own''. The purpose of choosing a "Creature of their own", according to Federalist #68 was the prevention of foreign influence. To guard against the choosing of one not a "creature of their own", we were to guard against "an improper ascendant". An "improper ascendant", according to the 1813 and 1828 Webster's Dictionary, is "an improper ANCESTOR". Could a "creature of their own be the scion of a foreigner, who was never a US Citizen? Could the most provident and judicious method of choosing a "creature of their own" in order to avoid foreign influence, be the choosing of one born Brltish, of a British subject father, who held foreign citizenship at least until age 23, and possibly is still a British subject today? Barack Obama Sr. is AN IMPROPER ANCESTOR.
.Mav_6LL012 2:07 PM

lsimrn48 said ...


I woud like to call the court to give my opinion on this totatly unconstitutional decision that the court made what is the phone number??j~hank you Leslie

...

Mav6.2012 3:58 PY

said.. .

APX -

46

Puzol: A solid analysis from top to bottom and it, unfortunately, shows how the pro-Obama portion of the Judcial Branch takes grave and unjustified license in re-stating (or actually mis-stating) things that were said in the action. Would it not be more correct and more helpful to jurisprudence to take these actions seriously, review the evidence, the pertinent precedents and laws involved and THEN make a reasoned ruling citing all polnts of fact and law considered and which back the opinion issued. I n other words, hear the cases on merit rather than dismiss by saying (in effect) "no one else has ever found anything wrong in court so we can't either". Or is it, perhaps, that stare decises applies rather than to SCOTUS precedents (Minor, WKA, etc) but instead to massively flawed and falacious arguments put forth by the court itself in earlier cases as an excuse to rid Itself of a case i t views as politically charged or harmful of it's preferred "politician du jour". Several courts have used the hugely flawed CRS Memo(s) by Maskell that are fllled with mis- and dis- information and actually have been shown to warp and misquote some learned writings to try to prove the opposite of what they actually say. Stare decises based upon clear lies and/or fraud, perhaps?

Unknown said

...

The judiciary is just one of the many corrupted institutions in America. I can not think of one profession that has not given Its soul to the devil so to speak, As as a psychotherapist Ihave to deal with the psychiatric drug scandal. The drugs prevent the person from ever recovering. They destroy lives. There is abundant evidence of this just as there is in the Obama matter--but the powers Ignore It and protect their money and status. At least the Europeans are now starting to fight back. Obviously these various judges know from experience what they can get away with and probably laugh about it among those who know the score. Iwould hope there were some attorneys in New York who would come forth and assist this person who is attempting to do his duty as a good citlzen. Are we In that situation that other nations have found themselves where only after it is way too late people finally wake up?

&& said...
You argument that "natural born citizen" requires two parents isn't accepted by the courts through their interpretation of common law, statute, and precedent. There are really only two options here: Either: 1) The entire US Judiciary is wrong

2) You are wrong. Which is most likely?


8:06 PM

Puml said...
Andy, We are not In a law court here. This is the court of publlc opinion, where the courts have told us the issue of Obama's eligibility belongs. Make your case here.

bdwilcox said. .. You know things are bad when judges blatantly make **** up to threaten people.
15 PM

lustin said. ..
@Andy The highest court in the land DOES agree. Minor v Happersett
"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
-- -

APX - 47

natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."


Mav

2 . 6

MichaelN said... Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the following remarks at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., on March 14, 2005.

"Now, in asserting that originalism used to be orthodoxy, Ido not mean to imply that judges did not distort the Constitution now and then, of course they did. We had willful judges then, and we will have willful judges until the end of time. But the difference is that prior to the last 50 years or so, prior to the advent of the "Living Constitution," judges did their distortlons the good old fashioned way, the honest way - they lied about It. They said the Constitution means such and such, when It never meant such and such. It's a big difference that you now no longer have to lie about It, because we are in the era of the evolving Constitution. And the judge can simply say, 'Oh yes, the Constitutlon didn't used to mean that, but i t does now." We are In the age in which not only judges, not only lawyers, but even school children have come to learn the Constitution changes.
I

I
I

i
1

I have grammar school students come into the Court now and then, and they recite very proudly what they have been taught: "The Constitutlon is a living document." You know, it morphs.

Well, let me first tell you how we got to the "Living Constltution." You don't have to be a lawyer to understand it. The road is not that complicated. Initially, the Court began giving terms in the text of the Constitution a meaning they didn't have when they were adopted."
Mav 7. 2012 1 2 : O O AM

MichaelN said...

@ Andy who said

......

"You argument that "natural born citizen" requires two parents isn't accepted by the courts through their interpretation of common law, statute, and precedent." Then, explain how come the Minor court recognized and acknowledged doubts as to whether a native-born child, born to alien parents, was even a citizen, given i t were true that the Minor court was referring to the Engllsh "common law" in the paragraph of text these doubts were mentioned, and also given that English common law maintained that native-birth sufficed to make a "natural born subject" and given also that "citizen" and "subject" were considered to be analogous???
Mav 7. 2012 12:04 AM

&K& said...

Mario:
I just did. And by logic, you lose.
Mav 7. 2012 3:31 AM

Post a Comment
Links t o this post

Create a Link

Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Older Post

APX -

48

I N V O I C E DIANE DIXON Reporter Supreme C o u r t , Kings county 360 dams S t r e e t - Room 677 B r o o k l y n , New Y o r k 11201

offi c i a1 court

347-296-1413

May 9, TO:

2012

B I L L VAN ALLEN

845-389-4366
BILL FOR STENOGRAPHIC SERVICES I N THE MATTER OF:
STRUNK-V-NYS BOARD OF ELECTIONS

xnd. Number:

6500/11
May 7,

B e f o r e : HON. Part: D a t e o f proceedings:

2012

(origi nal & C o u r t Copy) ( E x p e d i ted) ( D o u b l e - s i ded order)

28 pages @ $3.80 = $106.40


TOTAL AMOUNT DUE:
FOR YOU

$106.40

PROMPT PAYMENT

offi c i a1 court

D I A N ~ DIXON

Reporter

APX - 49

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS: C I V I L TERM : PART 27

CHRISTOPHER-EARL

STRUIK,

i n esse,

PI a i n t i ff,

1 1

against

1
j 1

>

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSH/CO-CHAIR, DOUGLAS A. ~ ~ L ~ N E R / c o - c h a j EVELYN r, 3 . AQUILA/ commi s s i o n e r , GREGORY P PETERSON/ c o m m i s s i o n e r , D e p u t y D i r e c t o r , TODD D. VALENTINE, D e p u t y D i r e c t o r , STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMI COLON,

1 1
)

/'

Fr. ) I n d e x Number ) 6500/11 JOSEPH P. PARKES, 5 . 3 ; FREDERICK A.O., SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW ) E l e c t i o n H e a r i n g K A I M I E R Z BRZEZINSKI ; M A ~ KBRZEZINSKI ; 1 JOSEPH R. BIDEN, 3R.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a 1 B a r r y S o e t o r o , a . k . a B a r a c k H u s s e i n Obama, ) a.k.a steve Dunham); NANCY P E L O S ;I 1 DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE ) OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMIlTEE OF THE WORK) ING F A M I L I E S PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; 1 ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; ) I A N 3 . BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY McCALN, 1 1 1 ; ) JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUB- ) L I C A N STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE ) COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE ) COMMITTEE O F THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF 3 NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE ) SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY ) FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN ) VICTORY 2 0 0 8 ; JOHN AND JANE DOES; and XYZ ) ENTITIES, 1
\

i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l and i n d i v i d u a l capacity, F r . JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.;

1 1 1

x
K i n g s s u p r e m e court 360 Adams S t r e e t ~ r o o k l y n ,New Y o r k May 7, 2 0 1 2 B E F O R E : HONORABLE ARTHUR M. SCHACK, Justice A P P E A R A N c E s : (see next page.)

11201

APX - 50

A P P E A R A N C E S : Attorney

f o r ~l a i n t i ff:
( P r o se)

A t t o r n e y s f o r Defendants zbigniew,

Mark,

and I a n B r z e z i n s k i :

MCGUIRE WOODS, L L P 1345 Avenue o f the A m e r i c a s - S e v e n t h F l o o r New Y o r k , New Y o r k 1 0 1 0 5 - 0 1 0 6 By: 'MARSHALL B E I L , ESQ. Attorneys

f o r D e f e n d a n t s P r e s . B a r a c h Obama, V i c e P r e s .
J o s e p h B i d e n , obama V i c t o r y F u n d , obama f o r A m e r i c a , Rep. N a n c y P e l o s i , and P e n n y S. P r i t z k e r : HARRIS BEACH, PLLC 333 E a r l e O v i n g t o n ~ l v d . , S u i t e 901 uniondale, New Y o r k 1 1 5 5 3 By: K E I T H M. CORBETT, ESQ.

A t t o r n e y s f o r Sen.

John McCain Defendants

and V i c t o r y 2008:

one Thomas c i r c l e , NW

CAPLIN & DRYSDALE

w a s h i ngton , D c 2 0 0 0 5 By: TODD E. P H I L L I P S , A t t o r n e y s f o r Defendant George Soros:

S u i t e 1100 ESQ.

W I L L K I E FARR & GALLAGHER, L L P 787 s e v e n t h A v e n u e New ~ o r k ,New Y o r k 10019-6099 By: T E R I SEIGAL, ESQ. A t t o r n e y s F o r D e f e n d a n t G r e g o r y G. Peterson:

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT, L L P 425 ~ e x i n g t o n Avenue New Y o r k , New Y o r k 1 0 0 1 7 - 3 9 5 4 By: ERIKA H. BURK, ESQ. ( ~ p p e a r a n c e s c o n t ' d n e x r page.)

APX - 51
-

P P E AR A N C E S :

(Cont'd)

A. O'Hare, Attorneys f o r ~ e f e n d a n t s~ o s e p h ~ o s e p hP. Parks, and A.O. Schwarz, J r . :

N E W YORK CITY L A W DEPARTMENT o f f i c e o f t h e Corporation counsel 100 church S t r e e t New York, New York 10007-2601 BY: CHLARENS ORSLAND, ACC Attorneys f o r Governor, C o n t r o l l e r , s e c r e t a r y o f state, fomrni ssioner o f s t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s and several s t a t e Board o f f i c e r s , Attorney General, Thomas D i ~ a p o l i , and ~ u t h Noerni Colon: STATE OF NEW YORK o f f i c e o f t h e Attorney General

120 roadway
New

vork,

By:
Attorneys

N e w York 10271-0332 30EL GRABER, AAG

Roger ca1e r o :

f o r ~ e f e n d a n t sS o c i a l i s t workers P a r t y and
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN,. P.C. 45 roadway - S u i t e 1700 New York, N e w York 10006-3791 By: DANIEL S. REICH, ESQ. DIANE DIXON, RPR, CSR, RMR c o u r t Reporter.

o f f i cia1

proceedi ng A-F-T-E-R-N-0-0-N
THE

S-E-S-S-I-0-N

COURT:

Let m e f i g u r e o u t who we have


we have M r . strunk.

here; i n no p a r t i c u l a r order.
MR.

BEIL:

~ a r s h a 1 7~ e 1.i

I represent

z b i g n i ew Brzezinski , Mark Brzezi nski , and I a n Brzezinski, and I served on M r . strunk today an

a f f i davi t / a f f i rmation o f service i n connection w i t h the c o u r t ' s request f o r a d e t a i l e d statement o f services.

I can hand t h a t up t o t h e Court.


THE COURT:

That would be appreciated.

why

don't you hand i t t o t h e o f f i c e r ? ~ n 1 d' m l o o k i n g a t a copy from t h e s t a t e r e p o r t e r o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r action. So you are here M r . c o r b e t t , and w e ' l l g e t t o you i n a moment.
MR.

CORBETT:

Your Honor, ~ e i t h Corbett, Law

o f f i c e o f H a r r i s Beach; and w e represent Pres. Barach obama, v i c e Pres. 3oseph Biden, the Obama ca, i as we1 1 as we v i c t o r y Fund, Obama For ~ m e r represent Nancy Pelosi and a l s o Penny S . P r i tzker.
MR.

P H I L L I P S :

odd
YOU

phi ] l i p s ,

caplin &

Drysdal e .
THE

COURT:

represent Sen. McCain and t h e

others; r i g h t ?
MR. PHILLIPS:

correcr.

V i c t o r y 2008,

Proceeding McCai n . Todd Phi 11i ps THE COURT:

.
You were admitted pro hac vice?

MR. PHILLIPS:
THE COURT:

Yes.

M r . Corbett, do you have any

b i l l s o r records t h a t you want t o submit a t t h i s time?


MR.

CORBETT: ~t t h i s time, your Honor, w e do

not.

we are a w a i t i n g c l a r i f i c a t i o n from our c l i e n t s t o

see t h a t they are going t o go forward and want t o


submit any document. THE COURT:
Mr.

P h i l l i p s , do you want t o

submit anything t o the c o u r t ?

MR. PHILLIPS:

I do not have authorization.

THE COURT: You're going t o seek costs?


MR. PHILLIPS:
NO.

MS.

SEIGAL:

Your Honor, T e r i Sei gal, W i 1 f k i e

Farr & Gallagher.


MS.

I represent defendant George Soros.

B U R K ~ E r i k a Burk, Simpson Thacher &

~artlett. W e represent M r . Gregory- Peterson, and I

did

-THE COURT:

L e t me j u s t f i n d where simpson

~ h a c h e ri s here.
MS.

BURK:

Excuse me, your Honor.

I did

b r i n g a copy.
THE COURT:
YOU

can hand t h a t up.

MR.

ORSLAND:

chlarens Orsland, t h e campaign

Proceedi ng Finance Board defendants. your Honor, w e decline t o request costs f o r


M r . strunk i n t h i s matter.

w e appreciate t h e o f f e r .

MR. GRABER:
THE COURT:

Joel Graber. Attorney General? Assistant Attorney General.

MR. GRABER:

represent t h e governor, the C o n t r o l l e r , t h e Secretary o f State, the Commissioner o f State Board o f Elections and several o f f i c e r s o f the s t a t e Board; and Attorney General i s also a named defendant.
Mr.

I believe

~i~apo ; land i Ms. Colon i s s t i l l Secretary o f

state. As I stated l a s t October, your Honor, we represent t h e o f f i c e r s , not t h e i n d i v i d u a l s .


THE COURT:
YOU represent various i n d i v i d u a l

defendants who are i n d i v i d u a l o f f i c e r holders o f t h e State o f New York.


MR.
'

GRABER:

Because they-' r e a l l sued i n the

o f f i c i a l capacity. submi s s i on.


THE COURT:
Mr.

The Attorney General does have a

You want t o hand t h a t to

strunk i f he hasn't received i t , and t o t h e

officer?
hank you.
~twas handed up t o me.

It was clocked i n on

APX

55

Proceeding May 3. He probably submi t r e d i t on ~ h u r s d a y .


MR. STRUNK:

Correct. I t h i n k you submitted t h i s

THE COURT: Thursday t o t h e court.


MR.

STRUNK:

C h r i s t o p h e r - ~ a r l strunk, the

plaintiff.
MR. REICH :

Dan Rei ch , ~ a b nowi i t z , Boudi n ,

standard, ~ r i n s k y & ~iebermanon behalf o f s o c i a l i s t workers Party, and Roger Calero.


THE COURT:

And you were here previously;

right?
(NO

verbal response .)

Are you submitting any papers?


MR.
REICH:

Not a t t h i s time.

we'd l i k e t o

reserve t h e r i g h t t o do so i f possible.
THE COURT:

A t the end o f t h i s 1'11 explain

how much time you have t o submit something.

~ 1 r 1 i g h t , j u s t so we are- c l e a r why we' r e here today, and I w i l l read i n t o the record t h a t I issued a decision which was covered on ~ p r i 1 l1 , 2012, published by t h e State Reporter a t 35 Misc 3d 1208(A); o r more s p e c i f i c a l l y 2012 union.
NY

s l i p op 50614CU) as i n

so r h i s i s why we' r e here.


NOW,

I found t h a t M r . strunk's o r i g i n a l
I'm

motion and h i s p e t i t i o n a c t u a l l y i s dismissed.

~roceed ng i sorry.

I shouldn't say p e t i t i o n .

His a c t i o n seeking

various forms o f r e l i e f was denied i n i t s e n t i r e t y and granted i n numerous motions t o d i Smi ss t h e action.

so obviously h i s case went away, and I a l s o


enjoined him from commencing any f u r t h e r a c t i o n i n the
New York State u n i f i e d c o u r t System w i t h o u t permi ssian

o f the appropri ate a d m i n i s t r a t i v e judge depending upon what the j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t intended t o f i l e . ~ n a dl s o I c a l l e d t h i s hearing because I found t h a t M r . strunk's a c t i o n was f r i v o l o u s , and I wanted t o g i v e him an opportunity t o be heard pursuant t o 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[~].

I wanted t o be heard, so I c a n ' t

--

as t o

whether o r n o t I should award costs and/or sanctions because o f t h e f r i v o l o u s papers t h a t he had, and obviously he was served, and he knows about i t . we have, ' I believe, a various combination o f defendants.

we have present i n the-room, one, two,

three, f o u r , f i v e , s i x , seven o f defendants.

--

looks l i k e e i g h t sets

~ 1 1 r i g h t , I read through your papers,


Mr.

strunk.

F i r s t o f f , I before I g i v e you the

opportunity t o be heard, I want you t o know t h a t ' t h i s i s not

--

we're n o t holding a hearing f o r m e to

--

for

you t o renew o r reargue m y decision, because the papers

Proceedi ng were i n response t o whether o r not I should sanction you.


AS

I read through your papers, most o f i t

was

--

w e l l , 1'11 c a l l i t a r e i t e r a t i o n o f why you did,

o r you went through numerous reasons why you disagree y with m y decision t o p u t i t m i l d l y , and argue about m o r i g i n a l decision.
YOU

c a n ' t do t h a t ,

You can f i l e a

motion t o renew o r reargue m y decision t h a t I issued l a s t month, b u t t h i s issue before us today i s whether o r not I should sanction you f o r engaging i n f r i v o l o u s conduct, but I ' m going t o give you an opportunity t o be heard.
MR.

STRUNK:

Yes.

Before I g e t s t a r t e d here

I want t o enter i n as an amicus something t h a t was


noted t o m e by an attorney who has been f o l l o w i n g t h i s case very c l o s e l y because he's g o t cases a71 over i n various c i r c u i t s ; i n federal and i n various states and t h a t he wants t o make sure t h a t your Honor knows why, and I agree w i t h him, why you're overreaching on your h o l d i n g t h a t I should be sanctioned i n some manner, shape, o r form.
THE COURT:

So i n other words,, you want t o

present a document by another attorney attorney?


MR.

--

by an

STRUNK:

An amicus; yes.

APX - 58

Proceeding
THE COURT:

10

Can T see what you have; and you

have copies f o r everyone?


MR.
STRUNK:

Everyone has been served and

they were n o t i f i e d as of yesterday.


THE COURT:

Mario ~ p u z z o ,and i t ' s Jamesburg,

New Jersey.

his i s e n t i t l e d

--

w r i t t e n yesterday

according t o t h i s , and i t says something t h a t I shouldn't

--

t h e t i t l e i s i n boldface.

The New York State Court should Not Sanction


pro se P l a i n t i f f Christopher Ear1 strunk for h i s " ~ a t i o n a lBorn c i t i z e n " l i t i gation.

I d o n ' t know whether t h i s gentleman i s an


attorney whether i t ' s New York, New Jersey o r what. could be a member o f New York law. know. 1'71 t a k e a look a t it. I r e a l l y don't He

I don't know how

persuasive i t ' s going t o be o r not, b u t 1'17 take a look a t i t .

~t looks a l i t t l e b i t o u t o f order, b u t

1'11 take a look a t i t .


MR. STRUNK:

I do n o t o b j e c t t o t h a t being

p u t i n as an amicus.

THE COURT:
object. I d o n ' t know.

Maybe t h e other f o l k s w i l l
~nybody object?

(NO verbal response

.)

~ l rl i g h t , then 1'11 take a look a t i t .

APX - 59

Proceedi ng
MR. STRUNK:

The f i r s t r h i n g I ' d l i k e t o do

i s f i n d o u t what t h e s t a t u s o f t h e other motions are


t h a t were f i l e d t o enter i n t o evidence t h a t would
m i t i g a t e your decision.

There was a motion f i l e d i n on

February 9 requesti ng 1eave .


THE COURT:

I know t h a t subsequent t o t h i s o r

p r i o r t o while t h i s was being w r i t t e n by myself you f i l e d something o r other t o e i t h e r f o r f e i t as I r e c a l l , several weeks ago. You d i d n ' t show up i n A p r i l .

MR. STRUNK: THE COURT:

I showed up.
I b e l i e v e we marked i t o f f
where t h i s i s you went on

because you d i d n ' t appear. and on about

--

I b e l i e v e i t was a case i n Georgia as I

r e c a l l , as I read i t where i n e f f e c t I believe

--

d o n ' t know i f i t was an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law judge i n Georgia o r i t was a t r i a l c o u r t .


I ' m not sure, b u t

someone i n C e o r g i a ' b a s i c a l l y r u l e d t h a t o r dismissed a challenge about Pres. obama n o t be5ng able t o be president, and i t was b a s i c a l l y a , d i a t r i b e by you against whatever t h i s Judge d i d .
MR.
STRUNK:

I o b j e c t t o t h a t language. I read your papers.


To m e i t was
You have a

THE COURT:

a diatribe.

You can o b j e c t t o what I say.


I t was i r r e l e v a n t t o what

r i g h t t o do t h a t .

I did

l a t e r , and then you had one sentence i n there that I

--

APX - a _____

-- -

---

Proceeding should recuse myself and you never explained why.


MR. STRUNK: THE COURT:

You d i d read t h a t .

I read i t , b u t you never showed

up i n c o u r t .

I read i t because I wanted t o be ready

f o r you when you appeared t o speak t o you about i t , but

--

I read i t , b u t you d i d n ' t appeared i n court, so.

I marked i t o f f .
MR. STRUNK:

It was adjourned.
You b e l i e v e i t was adjourned,

THE COURT:

t h i s Index Number 6500/11? M y recollection i s that i t was marked o f f .


MR. STRUNK: THE COURT: I t was adjourned.

We'll f i n d out,

You weren't

here.
COURT CLERK: THE COURT: COURT CLERK:
THE COURT:

A p r i l 23. what d i d we do? Marked i t o f f . what made you- t h i n k i t was

adjourned?
MR. STRUNK:

It was adjourned t o t h e

1 8 t h of June.
COURT CLERK:
MR. STRUNK: COURT CLERK:
NO i t

wasn't.

~ o th t a t one.

Not t h a t one?
This was sequence 16.

~hai rs

a relief.

That could be another one.

APX - 61

Proceedi ng
THE COURT:

13

IS t h a t on t h a t index number,

3une 18?
MR. STRUNK:
B U i ~ t was

a motion f o r leave

to

-THE COURT:

Is t h a t the one t o go t o t h e

court o f ~ p p e a s? l
MR.

STRUNK:

Yes, which i s e s s e n t i a l l y moot

i n any case.
THE COURT:

I t ' s moot, b u t I ' v e g o t t o t e l l

you, t h a t s t a t u t e t h a t you c i t e d says b a s i c a l l y t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e law i s i n question.


I t could

be a d i rect appeal from t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o t h e Court o f

~ p p e a l s , and t h a t was invoked l a s t week, t h e case i n v o l v i n g t h e 63rd senate d i s t r i c t . That's ir r e l e v a n t

t o t h i s case, b u t t h a t ' s how i t was used. However, I d o n ' t t h i n k t h a t ' s c o r r e c t i n t h a t you're n o t a t t a c k i n g t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o r any s t a t u t e .
YOU'

r e a t t a c k i n g whether o r n o t Pres. Obama i s e l i g i b l e

t o be president. anything

That i s n o t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of

.
MR.

STRUNK:

That's n o t what t h e problem w i t h

t h e case i s .

The appeals c o u r t

-The p o i n t i s I ' m n o t

THE COURT:

YOU can go t o t h e a p p e l l a t e

d i v i s i o n i f you've g o t a problem.

sending t h i s t o t h e Court o f ~ p p e a l s . Id o n ' t see

APX - 62

Proceedi ng
I

14

where t h e r e i s any a t t a c k on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f the statute.


MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:

1
I
I

lt's been disposed o f .

~ t ' s disposed o f .

I dismissed

your case.
MR. STRUNK:
SO

i t ' s moot.

Thank you.

THE COURT:

I t h i n k t h a t ' s t h e p o i n t I wanted

t o make.

~ t ' s moot.
MR. STRUNK:

Now, t h e second motion has been

adjourned u n t i l June 18, I b e l i e v e ? COURT CLERK:


THE COURT:
MR.

Yes.

Yes. That was a motion submitted f o r

STRUNK:

evidence o f t r a n s a c t i o n s t h a t occurred a f t e r f i l i n g and hearing which would b o t h m i t i g a t e a f t e r the ~ u g u s t damages and m i t i g a t e t h e d e c i s i o n on your p a r t .
THE COURT:

I s t h a t i n reference t o t h e f a c t

that I wouldn't s i g n t h a t emergency- o r d e r t o show cause back i n October?


MR.

STRUNK:

NO.

That i s a f a c t t h a t an

a u t h o r i t y o f competent j u r i s d i c t i o n has found t h a t t h e r e i s reason t o b e l i e v e and i s suspicious o f f o r g e r y and fraud, and t h a t s p o l i a t i o n has occurred, and'there i s concealment which would a f f e c t your decision.
THE COURT:

I d o n ' t know what you a r e

Proceedi ng r e f e r r i n g to.
MR.
STRUNK:

15

You adjourned i t sua sponte.

THE COURT:

I might not have adjourned i t .

The c l e r k s might have adjourned i t ; kicked i t over because, you know, I don't do motions on a Tuesday. i n any case one a r b i t r a r i f y p i c k s a date, t h e c l e r k s k i c k them over t o another date. put on adjourned.
So

so t h a t ' s why t h i s was

l and You picked the dare o f A ~ r i 24,

then a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y , not me, t h e c l e r k s i n motion support adjourned i t t o June 18.


MR.

STRUNK:

Well, i t ' s m y error i n thinking

t h a t t h e other motion was t o be heard on t h a t date a l s o which was sua sponte adjourned.
o f any adjournment.

I g o t no n o t i f i c a t i o n

THE COURT:

The. c o l d case Posse.

The

Maricopa County, Arizona s h e r i f f s issue o f press release about a c o l d case Posse, 30e Arpaio. That's

the s h e r i f f o f Maric0p.a County, ~ r j z o n a . t h i s i s t h e


one t h a t goes on about t h i s Judge i n Atlanta. This comes back t o you know,

made a r u l i n g

about whether,. you know, you had t h i s case, and I submitted i t about Pres. Obama. we're g e t t i n g f a r a f i e l d . found by Judge
ROSS

YOU

know, ydu were

in

--

X don't have t h e exact date

i n f r o n t o f me, i n 2008 t o have f i l e d a f r i v o l o u s

APX - @

Proceeding motion i n Federal c o u r t . You then b r i n g i t over t o

16

s t a t e Court and you go on and on, and you know, I have certain beliefs.
YOU

have t h e r i g h t t o have the

b e l i e f s about Pres. Obama and about sen. McCain where they were born and whether o r n o t t h e y are e l i g i b l e t o be president o f t h e u n i t e d states, b u t we have many

cases t h a t are n o t f r i v o l o u s t h a t I and other ludges i n t h i s c o u r t have t o handle, and I d o n ' t know how many times you have had a case dismissed before you know you r e a l i z e d you' r e n o t going t o g e t anywhere w i t h t h i s .
MY p o i n t i s t h a t unless an a p p e l l a t e

authority t e l l s m e otherwise, you have an i n c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of what t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n says, t h e r e f o r e


I r u l e d your a c t i o n t o be f r i v o l o u s , b u t you continue

t o move forward.

I want you t o know t h a t ' s why I found

t h i s t o be f r i v o l o u s .
MR.

STRUNK:

This i s t h e motion t h a t we are

discussing?
THE COURT:

We're t a l k i n g about my r u l i n g and

why I r u l e d t h a t you have been engaging i n f r i v o l o u s conduct. You're t e l l i n g m e why I should not now, The f a c t - i s I found you are precluded

sanction you.

a l s o by c o l l a t e r a l estoppel based on what happened i n Federal Court, y e t you decide t o use t h e s t a t e c o u r t f o r your own use, and you go on and on w i t h a

APX - 6 5

Proceedi ng baseless

--

what I c a l l a baseless a c t i o n , and you

know, Federal Court stayed your a c t i o n as i r r a t i o n a l . Let m e g e t t o 3udge Ross and her f i n d i n g s i n Federal Court. You had a s i m i l a r case i n 2008.
MR.

STRUNK:

he case was never heard, and

t h e marked

--

a l l t h e papers were d e f e c t i v e , and t h a t

t h e Judge o n l y for purposes

--

t h e r e was an a c t u a l

motion f o r i n f e r r i n g an improper purpose.


THE COURT:

Judge Ross i n her d e c i s i o n i n

Eastern D i s t r i c t on October 28. 2008 i n t h e case o f Strunk v. New York S t a t e Board o f E ~ e c t i o n s~ t h i c a l Index Number 08-CV-4289 dismissed your a c t i o n , saying you f a i l e d

--

no.

Let m e back up.

Judge Ross i n page s i x i n f o o t n o t e s i x c i t i n g two p r i o r Eastern ~ i s t r i c cases t t h a t you f i l e d saying "The Court has determined t h a t p o r t i o n s o f p l a i n t i f f t h a t ' s you

--

--

p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint have contained

a11egations t h a t have r i s e n t o the. ir r a t i onal "


MR.
STRUNK:

which case a r e you r e f e r r i n g to,

your Honor? THE COURT:


MR.

The case by Judge

--

STRUNK:

The f e d e r a l reserve case?


I d o n ' t know.

THE COURT:

I have her

d e c i s i o n i n f r o n t o f me.

hat's h e r f i n d i n g i n t h e

case o f s t r u n k v. New vork s t a t e Board o f ~ f e c t i o n s at

APX - 6

Proceedi ng ~ n d e xNumber 08-CV-4289, October 28, 2008. Judge Ross she s a i d

18

i n t h e Eastern D i r e c t dismissed t h e a c t i o n . you d i d n ' t have standing. and i t was f r i v o l o u s .


MR.

You f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m

STRUNK:

L e t ' s deal w i t h standing.

know you c a n ' t review a decision, b u t l e t ' s deal w i t h standing.


THE COURT:

That's what she said.

I read

it.

MR. STRUNK:

The Federal Courts have no

o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over a s t a t e e l e c t i o n , and that's

--

f o r t h a t reason alone, she i s e s s e n t i a l l y

telling m e t o go t o s t a t e c o u r t .
THE

COURT:

She a l s o s a i d t h a t your

complaints i n t h a t case
MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:

--

There was wrong. conrai ned a11e g a t i ons have r i sen

t o t h e ir r a t i o n a l ir r a t i ona1 .
MR.

'

She found t h a t your complaint i s

STRUNK:

Judge Ross was one o f t h e senior

c o r p o r a t i o n counsels f o r ~ e n e r a lMotors.
THE COURT:
A5

f o r judge Ross, what does t h a t

have t o do w i t h anything?
MR.

STRUNK:

The p r i o r case i s t h e very

reason t h e sub prime mortgage s t u f f was going on. T h a t ' s what i t has t o do w i t h i t . So when I sued

APX - 67
--

- ---

Proceedi ng Goldman Sachs she g o t pissed off. r i g h t on t a r g e t .


THE COURT:

B e l i e v e me.

1 was

I ' m g l a d you a r e on t a r g e t w i t h

Coldman sachs.
MR.

However, I have t o deal w i t h t h i s case. STRUNK: she was r e a c t i n g t o t h a t .

so

the point i s

-And I agree w i t h t h e d e c i s i o n

THE COURT:

w r i t t e n by J u s t i c e Marshall which I found very i n t e r e s t i n g , t h a t j u s t i c e ' s d e c i s i o n i n 1989 c a l l e d Neitzke v. Williams, 419 US 319 a t page 325. ~hurgood lufarshall remarked t h a t , "A complaint c o n t a i n i n g as i t does both f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s and 1egal conclusions, i s f r i v o l o u s where i t l a c k s arguable basis--" and f u r t h e r J u s t i c e Marshall wrote

--

"and

narguabl e 1egal concl usion, b u t embraces not o n l y t h e i a1so t h e f a c t u a l a1l e g a t i o n .


I agree & i t h Thurgood Marshall.

I believe

t h a t your complaint was f a n c i f u l , delusional.


MR.

f a n t a s t i c , and

so now t h e question i s
STRUNK:

--

which one?

~ h one e before

Judge Ross?
THE COURT:

I mean t h e one you- have i n m y

c o u r t ; t h i s case.
MR. STRUMK:

You're s a n c t i o n i n g m e on?

THE COURT:

I haven't sanctioned you yet.

APX - 68

Proceeding

20

1'17 g i v e you t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o be heard, and then i f


I t h i n k you shouldn't
MR. STRUNK:

-LOO~.

I demand t h a t you recuse

yourself

.
THE COURT:
MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
MR. STRUNK:

On what grounds? On what grounds?


Yes.

You cherry picked t h i s whole

thing.

YOU

rewrote t h e complaint on t h e record i n the You committed something t h a r no

~ugust 22 hearing.

s i t t i n g 3udge should do i n terms o f you gave favor where favor was n o t t o be given.
THE COURT:

I d i d n ' t g i v e f a v o r t o anybody.

r ' m t h e Judge.

I was presented w i t h your complaint and

w i t h motions t o dismiss, and I have t o make a decision based upon t h e case.


MR. STRUNK:

The appearance, t h e i m p r o p r i e t y

i s overwhelming.

his

--

t h a t M r . Graber over here had

you as a defendant i n your pay r a i s e , and t h a r

--

just

t h e f a c t t h a t t h a t was going on, a11 o f t h e a d d i t i o n a l extensions o f time

--

i t ' s q u i d p r o quo.
Mr. ~ r a b e r represents various

THE COURT:

defendants i n t h e case t h a t I sued; i s t h a t correct? That ' s compari ng apples w i t h oranges.


MR.
STRUNK:

But he was t h e lead attorney.

Proceedi ng

21

THE COURT:
attorney.

I don't b e l i e v e he was the lead

A guy named Dofan, Ib e l i e v e i s t h e lead

attorney, and i t went t o t h e c o u r t o f Appeafs. d i d n ' t go t o

-The Attorney General's o f f i c e .


NO,

MR. ~ T R U N K :
MR. GRABER:

your Honor.

w e certified

outside counsel.

we c e r t i f i e d outside counsel. 5-C-H-L-A-U-M


Mr.

THE COURT:

and Gold.

I forget

t h e gentleman's f i r s t name,

Dolan argued against

m y case i n t h e Court o f Appeals even though I won t h a t case, b u t t h a t ' s n e i t h e r here nor there. irrelevant. two years we got a period o f v i c t o r y . That's Took another

.
MR. STRUNK:

I n a record o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f

~ugust 22nd o f l a s t summer, t h e Court d i d a straw man argument making my X argument your Y argument defeating
m y

x argument.
THE COURT:

I ' m sorry t o interrupt.

I want

t o see i f w e can get a few more minutes t o continue this. (off-the-record


MR. STRUNK:

discussion .)

I demand a separate judge t o

hear t h e sanctions when t h i s should be,


THE COURT:

There i s a case.

I ' d have t o

look up t h e c i t e i n Court o f Appeals, People v. Moreno.

APX

70

d o n ' t have t h e c i t e i n f r o n t o f me, but a t t h e time

then on t h e c o u r t o f ~ p p e a l ss a i d t h a t Judge ~ e l l a c o s a

a judge is t h e sole a r b i t e r o f h i s o r her own recusal

don't believe t h a t

r 'rn

u n f a i r o r prejudiced against

you, and I ' m not going t o recuse myself.

MR.

STRUNK:

That scenario o f Straw man

argument should immediately recuse what you d i d i n r e w r i t i n g t h e complaint .

I 1

THE COURT:
MR.

whatever I do today o r i n t h i s -on the transcript,

STRUNK:

the

transcript o f ~ u g u s t 22nd, t h a t ' s what you said.


w i l l take i t on and t u r n i t o u t i n s i x weeks.

six

weeks went by.

E i g h t weeks went by.

I get an order t o

show cause i n October. S t i l l c o r r e c t i n g . The whole question o f you delaying and denying j u s t i c e i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n should be i n i t s e l f a reason f o r your

recusal .
THE COURT:
M r . strunk, w i t h a l l due respect

your case i s one o f approximately 1600 cases 1 have i n m y inventory.

~ ' m one person and I have scarce

resources, and y e t I have t o put your case t o t h e detriment o f other cases, w r i t e t h i s decision and other cases t h a t are not f r i v o l o u s . reasons. So t h a t ' s one o f rhe

I can o n l y do one t h i n g a t a time 1 i ke


So I took time t o w r i t e i t .

anybody else.

You d i d n ' t

--

APX - 71
-~

Proceedi ng Department by t h e way. go t o t h e ~ a w


MR. STRUNK:

I can see

-I did a l l

THE COURT:

M y law secretary s i t t i n g there,

he g o t t o l o o k a t i t when I proofread i t .

t h i s so no one e l s e gets t h e blame.


MR.
THE

STRUNK: COURT:

I ' m g l a d i t ' s on t h e record.


The p o i n t i s i t takes time t o
I a l s o d i d some research,

w r i t e t h i s and t o do t h i s .

and I n o t i c e d t h a t f o r whatever reason, despite your argument about you have t o have your parents born i n

t h e u n i t e d s t a t e s as w e l l as you
MR.

-That's

STRUNK:

That's n o t m y argument.

your argument.

That's t h e straw man argument. You should recuse y o u r s e l f .

You're
I have

a b s o l u t e l y wrong.

nothing e l s e t o say,
THE COURT:

okay, I w i l l note f o r t h e record

t h a t Pres. obama i s t h e s i x t h President t o have one o r both parents n o t born i n t h e u n i t e d - s t a t e s , so i t i s what i t i s .


NOW,

I know I have papers here from various

defendants and t h e a c t i o n has been dismissed concerning costs. Does any counsel o r any defendant want t o p u t

anything on t h e record?
MR.

CORBETT:

K e i t h Corbett o f t h e law f i r m

o f Harris ~each.

Proceedi ng

24

we j u s t want t o reserve our r i g h t t o p o s s i b l y


b r i n g documents seeking costs. c1a r i f i c a t i on from our c l i e n t .
THE COURT:

we have t o await

You have t o c o n s u l t w i t h your

client?

Let m e ask you, M r . c o r b e t t , how much time do

you t h i n k you need f o r a f i n a l decision o f your c l i e n t ?


MR. CORBETT:

I hope t o have t h e decision by

30 days.
T H E COURT:

It h i n k t h a t ' s f a i r f o r anybody.

I w i l l w a i t 30 days from today which would be June

--

what's t h a t , June 7, f o r any defendants who have not submitted b u t reserve t h e i r r i g h t t o submit any a f f i d a v i t f o r costs.
MR. CORBETT:

Thank you, your Honor. Anybody having anything e l s e t o

THE COURT:

say?
(NO

verbal response.)

w e l l , you have t h e f i n a l word, M r . strunk.


MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:

The f i n a l word?

I'm going t o f e t you go on.

They

d o n ' t want t o say anything, so you can conclude. have given them an o p p o r t u n i t y t o speak.
I ' m now

g i v i n g you t h e f i n a l o p p o r t u n i t y t o speak f u r t h e ? .
MR. STRUNK: MY papers speak l o u d l y .

The

p o i n t i s t h a t you are a man s i t t i n g on t h e bench

APX - 7 3

e l e c t e d by t h e people o f ~ r o o k l y n .
THE COURT:
MR.

Thank you.

c hat's correct.

STRUNK:

~ n t d h a t you have not

administered t h i s case i n t h e way t h a t my r i g h t s should be protected, and t h a t t h a t i s a matter t h a t ' s going t o

be put i n f r o n t o f the j u d i c i a l commission.


T H E COURT: MR. STRUNK:
DO

whatever you want.

I a m doing t h a t .

I am, and 1

d o n ' t need your permission t o do t h a t .


THE COURT:

Mr.

strunk, you have various

rights.

YOU

can do whatever you deem t o be


YOU

appropriate.

can threaten me.

I d o n ' t care.

MR. STRUNK:

I ' m not threatening you, your

Honor.

xlm just t e n o i n g you m y intent.


THE COURT:

Go ahead.

You d o n ' t l i k e m y

ruling?

G o t o the Appe71ate D i v i s i o n .
MR. STRUNK:

I don't t h i n k I can other than

p u t t i n g up a bond.
THE COURT:

You do whatever you want t o do.

~nything else you want t o tell me?


MR. STRUNK:

Yes; t h a t you d o n ' t know your

h istory.

YOU

put t h e l e g a l question aside based upon


'

your own s t r a w man s t o r y and argument which has

absolutely nothing t o do w i t h t h i s case, and t h a t i t ' s going t o be on the record, and i t ' s going t o be known

APX - 3

Proceeding around t h e n a t i o n as t h a t , and i t ' s i m p o r t a n t t h a t you consider what y o u ' r e doing f o r t h e purpose o f o t h e r p r o se p l a i n t i f f s who given a u t h o r i t y .
THE COURT:

26

O t h e r p r o se p l a i n t i f f s a r e n o t

i n f r o n t o f me. your case.

T h i s i s a s p e c i f i c a c t i o n , 6500/11;

T h a t ' s what's before me, and t h e r e f o r e ,

whatever happens i n o t h e r cases happens i n o t h e r cases.


YOU

b e l i e v e t h a t I ' v e done something improper, do

whatever you deem t o be a p p r o p r i a t e .


MR. STRUNK:

Your Honor, your e n t i r e d e c i s i o n

i s based upon o t h e r cases.

I i n s i s t t h e record o f

those cases be p u t i n on t h i s case.

THE COURT:

~ l rli g h t .

I know t h e r e a r e ~f you f e e l you want t o

numerous cases t h a t a r e c i t e d .

appeal whatever I rule, t h e judges w i 11 deal w i t b t h a t and t h e ~ p p e l l a t e o i v i s i o n can c e r r a i n l y l o o k up these cases. ~ h e y ' r ecapable o f doing t h a t . They d o n ' t have

t o be provided an e n t i r e d e c i s i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r case c i t e d by me. They have t h e c i t a t i , o n . The record i n which you have,

MR. STRUNK:

because you can go g e t t h e record down i n t h e archives, o r you can go t o ~ u d g e schmidt and g e t t h e record. That record i s t h i s deep now.
THE COURT:
MR.

Could v e r y we11 be.

STRUNK:

I want t h a t o r i g i n a l r e c o r d

APX - 75
-

---

--

Proceedi ng t r a n s f e r r e d and t o be the basis f o r any appeal.


THE COURT:

27

Fine.

GO

t o t h e record room. I t ' s n o t my job t o

photocopy t o your h e a r t ' s content. p u t together an appellate record.


MR. STRUNK:

You're using other cases and

making decisions on 1egal matters o f n a t u r a l -born c i t i z e n s h i p which you d i d n ' t touch w i t h a t e n - f o o t pole.
YOU

i n v e n t your own d e f i n i t i o n t o c o n s t i t u t i o n s ,

not a dictionary.
THE COURT:

I t h i n k you misread Minor v.

Happersett.

Minor v. Happersett does n o t d e f i n e

n a t u r a l -born c i t i z e n .
MR.

STRUNK:

The c o n s t i t u t i o n i n t h a t case
~t must be sought through

s a i d does n o t d e f i n e i t ?

l o o k i n g a t the e n t i r e document.

~t must be l o o k i n g a t

the h i s t o r y o f how t h a t document was p u t together.

The

s t a t e o f New York *as t h e one who forced natural-born c i t i z e n , because i n 1787 we wa1ked, o u t and I s a i d we are

--

New York State i s under r i s k o f seeing B r i t a i n

take over t h e presidency, and t h a t Judge tansing

i n s i sted t h a t .natural -born c i t i zens be placed i n t h e


c o n s t i t u t i o n a l document. That was then r a t i f i e d i n

1788.

New York i s the basis f o r n a t u r a l born.


t h e basis. o f our law today.

It's

You l o o k a t r e a l property

APX -

Proceeding law Section 18 where you cannot own o r lease a copper mine i n the county o f s a i n t Lawrence unless you' r e a

28

natural-born c i t i z e n , and t h a t means you've got t o have parents who are c i t i z e n s when you're born, and t h a t you must be a c i t i z e n a t t h e time t h a t you lease o r own a copper mine i n s a i n t Lawrence County. documented before rhe rev01 u t i o n .
THE COURT:

That i s w e l l

I d o n ' t know how many mines are

l o c a t e d there.

I looked a t r e a l property law, I believe 18


t h a t you c i t e d ; HapperSett, 88 US 162 and page 167. c l e a r l y states t h a t t h e c i t i z e n s h i p i s n o t defined c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 1y. defined
A n a t u r a l -born c i t i z e n i s n o t

It

hat ' s what' it said.

e can adjourn; So i f there i s nothing else, w unless you have anything else. l a s t chance.
MR.

I w i l l g i v e you one

STRUNK:

Your i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s a l l

wrong, and again, I believe t h a t t h e r e has n o t been a hearing i n t h i s matter, a f a i r hearing; a f a i r hearing; t h a t you should be recused, and I t h i n k t h a t t h e f a c t t h a r you are cherry p i c k i n g t h i s whole t h i n g from
s unconscionable . begi nni ng t o end i

THE COURT:

All

r i g h t , one l a s t observation.

I did

i t i n a hearing back l a s t ~ u g u s t . YOU

APX - 77

make a l l these comments i n c o u r t and you're going t o walk out o f here a f r e e man. wonderful country. and everybody e l s e .
I t h i n k America i s a

Have a pleasant day, M r . strunk, T h i s concludes t h e hearing.


. a

-.-

CERTIFIED THAT THE FOREGOING I S A TRUE AND

ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT OF T H E ~ T E N O C R A P H I ~ r I N U T E S IN

THESE PROCEEDINGS.

DIANE

~ I X O N, CSR, RMR

o f f i c i a 1 Court Reporter

APX - 7 8

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et a l . NYSSC Kings C t y Index No.: 6500-201 1

SUPRE= COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COURl'Y OF KINGS XAS Part 27 Index N o . :

-..-...*-...-.".-m----------------------.-------------.----..---..x
'

6500-2011

CMstophet-Earl: Strunk, in-esse


Plaintiff,

(Hon. Arthur M. SchackJ S C )

PLAINTIFF*^

NEW YORK S T A m BOARD OF ELECTIONS;JAMES A. AFFIDAVIT fnr WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ORDER TO SHOW ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI,RUTH NOEMf COLON, in their OEcial and CAUSE WHY individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE,S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMLERZ BRZEZINSKI; COURT COSTS MARK BRZEZINSICI; JOSEPH R. BLDEN, JR.; SOEBARI<AH (ak.a. B a r r y Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama 11, a.k.a. Stwe Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC SHOULD IPOT BE STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES LEVIED RA'MmR PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; THAN SETTLE JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; Z X r n THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; ;=4!== THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE P m , STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PFTiZKER; GEORGE SOROS; O B M FOR AMERFCA; OBAMA WCiWRYFUND; MCCAIN WCTORY 2008: M C M - P A L L N VICTORY 2008;J o h n and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities.

Defendants.
STATE OF WEW YORK
cornTYOFTOu405

1
)

1 a-

Accordingly, I, Christopher-Eark Stnmk in esse, being d u l y sworn, depose and say

under p e n a l t y of pejury:

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 1 of 27

APX - 79 - -

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011
1. I am, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, by special appearance am self-

represented without an attorney, respond to the Decision dismissing the complaint filed March 22,201 1 by the Decision and Order by Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. entered on April 12,2012 and that Plaintiff appear on May 7,2012 to show cause why he should not be sanctioned and levied defendants' costs for litigation; and therein unreasonably alleging Plaintiff case filing and appearance on August 22, 201 1 is a s if frivolous conduct, alleges issue preclusion by collateral estoppel and as if a prior decision existed barred by res judicata
(1);

and notwithstanding such, further alleged

plaintiff lacks standing and suffers no particular injury different than general anyway. 2. In the matter of alleged collateral estoppel, such charge do not apply herein as it has limited applicability in cases where the issues raised in the prior court where the action:
a.

was on a pro se informa pauperus petition denied only to the extent to dismiss the application sua sponte a s the issues were never heard, and were beyond its jurisdiction a s the case before USDC EDNY Judge Ross was filed without a proper application and left without leave to amend or cure in the first place;

b. then in State Court by failure to perfect service as in the case before Judge Schmidt in the case Index no.: 29642-2008 remains active without parties joined until ordered consolidated with this case that as of right based upon the decision in the Article 78 case 2964 1-08 Plaintiff was entitled to cure the complaint by amendment based upon the constitutionality finding as the

Res judicata will be applied to a pending lawsuit if several facts can be established by the party asserting the res judicata defense. First, the party must show that a final judgment on the merits o f the case had been entered by a court having jurisdiction over the matter. This means that a final decision in the fwst lawsuit was based on the factual and legal disputes between the parties rather than a procedural defect, such as the failure to serve the defendant with legal process. Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 2 of 27

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1
controlling law of the case, and subject to discovery in Strunk's Washington DC ongoing FOIA case; c. then a s for the original proceeding in Second Circuit, Petitioner merely sought discovery of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama's travel records wherein the Circuit Judge declined to sign a n order for release of documents, and then d. a s a result thereafter Stmnk sought discovery with a FOIA request still ongoing
FOIA Case Strunk v US DOS and US I)HS USDC DC 08-cv-2234 (RJL) with a

decision on Plaintiffs demand for release of Stanley Ann Obama's travel records between August 1, 1961 and August 10, 1961 also sought in a criminal investigation of the present actions to spoliate and conceal by Defendant Obama in his official capacity is pending, and in which action constitutes a bar of Barack Hussein Obama's motion to dismiss herein under unclean hands doctrine that bars certain equitable defenses that would seek dismissal.

3. The Verified Complaint filed on March 22, 201 1, with the exception of the New
York State Board of Elections and the named chairmen and Commissioners as public officers and the conflict of interest of present and past of members of the New York City Campaign Finance Board acting ultra vires, was filed against private persons not in their capacity a s public officers per se in that notwithstanding any particular public office that any such private person may hold the nature of the ultra vires breach of public interest and trust, conspiracy, civil fraud with unjust enrichment renders each personally liable.
DEFENDANT STATE'S REJECTION OF TENDER OFFER TO SETTLE
4. That the New York State Board of Election principal officers on February 28,

2012 on the recorded video at a public meeting admit to the use of the term "Born a Citizen" associated with the 14th amendment citizenship status rather than the term of

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 3 of 27

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1 art "natural-born Citizen" required by Congress, the State Legislature and the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 a s a n ongoing instruction to any person that seeks ballot access a t the 2012 Presidential Election cycle in New York; and is a furtherance by the principal officers prior actions of the use of "Born a Citizen" in the 2008 election cycle a s the subject of breach of fiduciary duty and facilitation of conspiracy, fraud, and acted to spoliate and conceal evidence from Plaintiff, with felonies now proven, that on October 25, 201 1 were ignored by the Court in the presence of New York State Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Joel Graber and five of Defendants' attorneys in appearance. Use of "Born a Citizen" shifts the burden of duty.

5. That before the appearance on October 25,201 1 in the courtroom, in order to


settle the case except for expense incurred, Plaintiff tendered a settlement offer to Joel Graber AAG regarding his clients the State, in the presence of five defendant attorneys in appearance, that were the State to change the instruction "Born a Citizen" to the required term of art "Natural-born Citizen" Plaintiff would settle, and to the amazement of Defendants7attorneys the State rejected the offer of settlement and thereby bound Plaintiff to continue litigation accordingly;
6. The State's rejection of a settlement resulted in Plaintiffs Notice of Appeal on

the interlocutory decision to decline to sign Plaintiffs application for Order to show cause to mandate a change in instruction Born a Citizen " to "Natural-born Citizen" at the October 25, 20 11 hearing as the necessary evidence and transactions to supplement the complaint as to the culpability of the action of the State and principal officers having been unreasonable denied leave to supplement in open Court, and then the Court over the objection of Plaintiff granted a n open ended extension of time for the State to avoid any response to the Complaint duly served upon it and its officers.

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 4 of 27

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011
7. That Plaintiff fded a Notice of Appeal on the interlocutory decision to decline the

"Born a Citizen" matter at the October 25,201 1 hearing was dismissed s u a sponte by the 2nd Department Appellate division a s pre-mature and denied the right of appeal; and furthermore, on February 9, 2012 was followed by Plaintiff's Notice of Motion to this Court for leave to have the constitutional issue associated with "Born a Citizen" reviewed by the New York State Court of Appeals with CPLR 95601 (b)(2)then adjourned sua sponte twice until June 18, 2012 along with Plaintiffs Notice of Motion for presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint filed April 12, along with the proposed First Supplement to the Complaint.
STRUNK DULY FIRED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA GIVES STANDING WITH INJURY 8. Despite the transcript account of the ipse dixit activities of Arthur M. Schack a t

the motion hearing of August 22, 20 11, the Court properly recognizes that Plaintiff had duly fired Barack Hussein Obama within 72 hours of his dual offer of contract by oath on January 20 & 21, 2009; and a s such, Plaintiff is the only person in the country to have done such firing and suffers a specific particular person& injury as a result different than any other person in the USA in that Defendant Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah personally has injured Plaintiff; and that as a private person Stt-unk's transaction with Soebarkah by proper notice is a simple contract matter, and as such Barack Hussein Obarna's disregard of Strunk's notice bar him from action and underlies the basis of individual action by Plaintiff with this Complaint.
DEFENDANT McCAIN HAS UNCLEAN HANDS

9. That the cause of action involving conspiracy in the scheme to defraud with
breach of contract against John S. McCain (the unindicted co-conspirator of "the Keating Five" who collaborated with Archbishop Paul Marcinkus of the Vatican Bank] is that he misrepresented that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone giving Plaintiff

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 5 of 27

APX - 83

---

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011 sufficient cause and reliance on such misrepresentation a s a contract with Plaintiff to cast his vote a s intangible property in favor of McCain in the General Election in November 2008, and is further supported by the fact that McCain had full knowledge by the Senate sense resolution 51 1 of April 2008 sponsored by then Senator Obama, that to be "natural-born citizen" requires U.S. Citizen parents at birth, and that Defendant McCain knew that Barack Hussein Obama did not have U.S. Citizen parents a t birth alleged in Hawaii, because his father was a British Subject on a foreign alien student visa a s admitted by Barack Hussein Obama Jr. in his campaign speeches and autobiography admits against interest "My father was a foreign student born and raised in Kenya he grew up herding goats! "

h~://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=~,Iayer detailpage&v=6irmkKmuzo.
DEFENDANT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS UNCLEAN KANDS AND MADE ADMISSIONS AGAINST INTEREST 10.That Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah has unclean hands by his and his agents acts of careless disregard of his duty to Plaintiff, with acts of spoliation, concealment, misrepresentation and sufficient evidence of crimes of forgery and use of false instruments a s shown by the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff's Department COLD CASE POSSE on going criminal investigation with their release of findings presented a s judicial notice for a supplement to the complaint on April 12, 2012, and that Defendant and his agents have made admissions against interest as to his involvement in a conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff in furtherance of the usurpation of the office of POTUS for the purpose of unjust enrichment of he and his associates in furtherance of the promotion of the financial stability of the European Union Fourth

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 6 of 27


. 1

.-_-__

APX - 84

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011
Reich (2)with the transfer of no less than $16 trillion of taxpayer obligations and unconstitutional use of out of area NATO forces and U S Military assets and forces in the overthrow of several nations in service of formation of the Mediterranean Union and the European Union control over African resources

/ assets and includes RCC

rebuilding of the third temple as part of the New Babylon and New Testament plan.

THE CONTROLLING ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS THAT DEFENDANT OBANZA KNEW HE IS NOT A NATURAL B O R T Y CITIZEN WITH MULTIPLE ALLEGIANCE
11.That Plaintiff in the Complaint filed March 22, 201 1 never questioned the place of birth of Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah a s purported in the April 25, 201 1 Long

Form Birth Certif~cate of Live Birth (CoLB) merely asserted the fact admitted to by all
parties that Barack Hussein Obama's father married to Stanley Ann Obama was a British Subject on a foreign alien student visa in itself precluding a path to citizenship and therefore Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not a "Natural-born Citizen" a t best "Born a Citizen" a s defined by the 14th Amendment - the birthplace in the Complaint is not a t issue the issue is dual allegiance and perhaps triple allegiance when combined with the Soebarkah Indonesian allegiance!

First Reich 963 AD through 1806 AD (RCC)is the common contemporary Latin legal term used in documents of the Holy Roman Empire was for a long time regnum ("rule, domain, empire", such as in Regrmm Francorum for the Frankish Kingdom) before impertumwas in fact adopted, the latter first attested in 1157, whereas the parallel use of regnum never fell out of use during the Middle Ages. Second Reich 1806 AD through 1918 AD (Protestant)after the defeat of Napoleon lead to Bismarch's Protestant German Austrian Hungarian Empire. Third Reich 1918 AD through 1945 AD (RCC)
Fourth Reich 1945 AD through Present (RCC)the European Union.

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 7 of 27

---

APX -

85

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1
l2.The Court's willful disregard of both history and facts herein is outrageous, and
a s such requires Plaintiff recite the history of what dual allegiance associated with the de facto "Born a Citizennversus the single allegiance of the de jure "Natural-born Citizen" means as is controlling subject before this court that must be resolved a s a matter of provision of substantive due process herein to afford equal protection to Plaintiff, and a s for the de facto "born a citizen" of the 14th amendment and the "anchor baby" without full and complete allegiance is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and New York State Constitution too, goes to State Defendant breach of fiduciary duty and shift of strict burden of responsibility for their arbitrary acts.
13.In the matter of what does "Born a Citizen" in relation to the questionable term

"Anchor Baby" mean in regards to who is to be considered an inhabitant for the purpose of seeking ofice of the POTUS according to the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraphs 5 is germane herein before this court. The truth about the 14" amendment has been out there for so long but no one seems to care what the framers said, and the facts are 100% ignored WE do not need the courts to figure out what a naturalized and natural-born Citizen (NBC) means a s used in NYS Real Property Law

318 or do we need Congress to do an investigation because the truth is already


available all we need to do is look a t the facts. No amendment to the term exists. 14.For the record: the 13" Amendment to abolish slavery was adopted on December 6, 186.5; The Civil Rights Act of 1866 which granted former slaves citizenship was enacted April 9 1866; and, the 14" amendment which made the Civil Rights Act constitutional was proposed on June 13, 1866 and after much debate, a s adopted on July 9, 1868. 15. So the question then raised were all dealt with, during the same time frame, with the same Congressman involved, in each bill. The 14th amendment represented

Stnmk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 8 of 27

APX -

86

Sbxnk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011 the overruling of the Dred Scoffdecision ruling that black people former slaves were not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. 16.The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. Which means the Civil FSghts Act of 1866 still stands because the 14a amendment was never repealed. 17. The left/progressives, associates and Defendants' agents with propagandists including Justia.org and Findlaw.org have willfully totally perverted the 14a Amendment with their Birthright Citizenship lie. Therefore, to truly understand the 14th Amendment and what the framers original intent was when writing it, you must go back to the framers writings and the congressional debates.
18.Obviously the logical people to research in regard to debates would be Senator

Lyman Trumbull who was the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Co-author of the 14th Amendment's "citizenship clause" and co-author of the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery - was an Illinois Supreme Court Justice 1848-1853.
19. Senator Jacob Howard worked with Lincoln to draft the 13th amendment.

Served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and was co-author of the 14th Amendment's "Citizenship Clause". 20.The Honorable John Bingharn was the principle Framer of the 14th Amendment, Judge advocate in the Lincoln assassination trial and prosecutor on the impeachment

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 9 of 27

APX -

--

87

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011
of Andrew Johnson. So getting to the facts, and the easiest way is established by the chronological order of the legislative debate presentation starting with Representative John Bingham in 1862 recorded in the Congressional Globe of the 37th Congress 2nd session page 1639 stated: "There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and the compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born Within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exceptions to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relation to Indians. .."
21 .The next would be the Civil Rights Act of 1866; the original bill was introduced

on January 5, 1866 according to the 39" Congress

1st

session Senate 62, that was

A BILL to protect all persons in the reported out of Committee on January 11, 1866 " United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication." And it read: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory " A week later there was a n amendment offered by Mr. Trurnbull to wit:
"In section 1, line 3, after the word That,' insert, 'that a11 persons born in the

United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States with distinction of color; and,' "

22. On the question to agree to the amendment proposed by Mr. Trumbull, It was
determined in the affmative, Yeas 31 Nays 10. The Bill a s an Act went over to the House of Representatives where it passed, along with Howard and Trumbull's amendment. John Bingham, speaks on the amendment to the bill :

" I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory or what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 10 of 27

APX -

W v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011

sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen;" 23.The bill was then sent, to President Andrew Johnson and Johnson vetoed it. It was sent back to Congress, where both houses, passed the bill, overriding the President's veto. 24.Next Chronologically on to the 14th Amendment, a s the congressional debates while they were debating the l4ul Amendment as with that for the Civil Rights act will reveal how the present use has been 100% perverted. The Bill as proposed for the 14th amendment a t first did not provide for a jurisdictional statement in Article 1 Section 1 quote: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities if 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." During the debates in 1866 Congressional Globes at 2883 Mr. Latham stated quote: "Mr. Speaker, we seem to have fallen upon a n age of theories. We are told from day to day with much seeming sincerity and a n air of the most profound political sagacity that the Union when restored must be restored upon the basis which will make it a s permanent a s the everlasting hills and a s invulnerable a s the throne of the Eternal, and with such safeguards that even treason will no longer be possible within its jurisdiction." 25.Then Senator Edgar Cowen gave a speech telling why the citizenship clause was need and certainly was not to be used to make anyone born here a citizen, stated

...

"Mr. Cowen. The honorable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have no doubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legal definition of "citizenship of the United States." What does it mean? What is its length and breath? I would be glad if the honorable Senator in good earnest would favor us with some such definition. Is the child of the Chinese Immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the United States? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same a s it is to kill another man. You cannot commit an assault and battery on him, I

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 11 of 27

APX -

89

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1
apprehend. He has a right to the protections of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word." "It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. He is not entitled, by virtue of that, to be a n elector. .." And he goes further to state: "I have supposed, further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a broad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the country of California, and if another people of a different race, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have free right to locate there and settle among them, and if they have a n opportunity of pouring in such an immigration a s in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? I do not know that the contingency will ever happen, but it may be well to consider it while we are on this point. "As I understand the right of the States under the Constitution at present, California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she chooses who is not a citizen of some one of the United States...
"I think the Honorable Senator from Michigan would not admit the right that

the Indians of his neighborhood would have to come in upon Michigan and settle in the midst of that society and obtain the political power of the State, and wield it, perhaps, to his exclusion. I do not believe anybody would agree to that." 26. Now who among the framers of the 14th Amendment had no clue or inclination on the issue of illegal immigration and inclusion of anchor babies? Howard and Trumbull argued for the inclusion of the term "and subject to the jurisdictionn would be applied and agreed that there would not be a new definition of the term jurisdiction to be interpreted and applied in the proposed amendment to be declaratory of the

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 12 of 27

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011 current law, the Civil Rights Act, and that a s such Mr. Howard said of the "citizenship clause" quote: "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and ..." 27. What exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean to the framers of the 14th Amendment? Mr. Lyman Trumbull in 1866, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and author of 13th Amendment, in the Congressional Globe 2893 said "The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' Now does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.?' Not owing allegiance of anybody else. That is what it means." 28. In response Senator Jacob Howard responds in concurrence:
"I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word 'jurisdiction,' a s here employed, ought to be construed so a s to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality a s applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that a n Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction. That question has long since been adjudicated, so far a s the usage of the Government is concerned ..."

29.The Supreme Court of the United State (SCOTUS)in Minor v H a ~ ~ e r s e states tt "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 counhy 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. Some authorities go further and include a s citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their (p168) parents. As to Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 13 of 27

APX -

91

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011
this class there have been doubts, but never a s to the first. For the purposes of this case it not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have not to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizen" (Emphasis added) 30.The SCOTUS Case Respublica v DE L O N G C M S 1 US 111 (1784) 1 Dall. 111 "M'Kean, Chief Justice. This is a case of the fvst impression in the United States. It must be determined on the principles of the laws of nations, which form a part of the municipal law of Pennsylvania; and ,if the offenses charged in the indictment have been committed, there can be no doubt, that those laws have been violated." The Chief Justice goes on to say: "Therefore, we conclude, that the Defendant cannot be imprisoned, until his most Christian Majesty shall declare, that the reparation is satisfactory '3. The answer to the last question is rendered unnecessary by the above answer to the second question.' The foregoing answers having been given, it only remains for the Court to pronounce sentence upon you. This sentence must be governed by a due consideration of the enormity and dangerous tendency of the offences you have committed, of the willfulness, deliberation, and malice, wherewith they were done, of the quality and degree of the offended and offender, the provocation given, and all other circumstances which may anyway aggravate or extenuate the guilt. The first crime in the indictment is an infraction of the law of Nations. This law, in its full extent, is part of the law of this State, and is to be collected from the practice of different Nations, and the authority of writers. "
31.

Further search will verify that the term Law of Nations is mentioned a t

least a dozen times on the page and the author Vattel is sighted along with each and no other authorities related to law of nations is cited - only that of Vattel. 32.That in the SCOTUS case The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Mr. Chief Justice Marshal stated "Vattel who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: "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 advantage. 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. "

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 14 of 27

APX -

92

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011
33.As is to be found in The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the law of nature by Emer de Vattel Joseph Chitty at Section 2 12. reads: "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to it 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, reserve to 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." 34.That the question posed is why do the usurper's propagandists use the decision in regards to Wow Kim Ark where the law went astray? They are pulled towards corruption in that nearly 100 years earlier then usurper Chester Arthur
(F3F) appointed

Justice Gray to chief justice to succeed Oliver Wendell Holms, Jr. and Gray had sabotaged his later ruling in Wong Kim Ark from that held in Minor v Happersett of 1874. That in Elk v Wilkins 112 US 94 (1884) Argued April 28, 1884 and Decided November 3, 1884 it seems that Justice Horace Gray knew the law in 1884 but by the time Wong Kim Ark came along 15 years later he had forgotten it! Quoting Justice Gray from the SCOTUS Elk v. Wilkins: "The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which 'no person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States a t the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President.' And "The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Constitution, Article I1 Section 1; Article 1, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scoff u Sanford, Chester Arthur was born in Fairfield Vermont in 1829, but looking at his father's naturalization papers he didn't become a citizen until August 3 1, 1843 meaning that Chester Arthur was not born to citizen parents therefore was not a natural-born Citizen. It seems that the people challenging Chester Arthur then were right all along.
3

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 15 of 27

---

APX - 93
-

--

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 I
19 Howard 393) , and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white of black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases 16 Wall 36, 83 US 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303, 100 US 306. 35.1n the matter of the immigrant taking the Oath to be a citizen of the United States of America: "I hereby declare, a n oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentiate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United states of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same , that I will bears arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, that I perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United states when required by the law that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion so help me God." 36. Immigrants becoming citizens must take a n oath of sole allegiance to the USA. Now why would that not be expected also of citizens born here? If you are born to two citizens parents, your allegiance is passed down. If you are not born to two citizen parents, you must take the oath, simple a s that! Vattel's authority a s a n institutional writer extended to the USA where he was cited in court cases between 1789 and 1820 no less than 92 times on matters pertaining to the law of nations.
PLAINTIFF SINGLED OUT BY COURT

37. Plaintiff strenuously objects to Justice Schack's use of the Jesuit's Social Justice Antonio Gramsci / Palmira Togliatti model to marginalize and debase Plaintiff a s if a n opponent with disparagement tactics glommed from Luciferian Saul Alinsky to single Plaintiff out a s if part of a special class called "Birther" to be considered out of kin, and subject to special treatment for speech and thoughts that do not adhere to the socially accepted norms of political correctness by a so-called collective majority. 38.That the Court's ipse dixit probing and gratuitous bias shown in the transcript from August 22, 201 1 appears a n attempt to obscure and obfuscate the content of the Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 16 of 27

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011
Complaint per se, such as quote "If the complaint in this action was a movie script, it would be entitled The Manchurian Candidate Meets The Da Vinci Code." along with the pure invention of a characterization of "Natural Born Citizenn that both cherry picks and skews history and actual meaning for the willful purpose to debase and belittle Plaintiff and his sworn statements on which this case is based - is in itself sanctionable action for disregard of justice administered without favor that infringes Strunk's
9th

Amendment(4) rights and liberty both in his private person and public

citizen self apart from a supposed majority or collective. The Court strays beyond the guidelines of acceptable norms of prescribed belief and practice that disparages and defame Plaintiff along with those similarly situated individuals otherwise protected by the Bill of Rights that with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution require that no State act to single out a person for special treatment a s if part of a pseudo class based upon outrageously absurd characterizations, and despite Plaintiffs objection

U.S. Constitution 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Some jurists have asserted that the N i n t h Amendment is relevant to interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg (joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan) expressed this view in a concurring opinion in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):
"The Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I do not mean to imply that the ....Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government ....While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire B i l l of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specificallymentioned in the &st eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement. In sum, the Ninth Amendment simply lends strong support to the view that the "liberty"protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments from infringement by the Federal Government or the States is not restricted to rights specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments. Cf. United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 94-95."

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 17 of 27

APX - 95

Strunk v. N Y S Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1
that somehow Plaintiff had been swayed by popular movies rather than facts and historical evidence of Defendants acts a s the reason for filing the Complaint. 39. In the Complaint the term "natural citizen" was never used, instead uses "natural born" 25 times in the Complaint appears with "citizen" or "citizenship" and a t no time in the Complaint had Plaintiff separated the use of the words "natural born* from the term of art "natural born citizen"; and thus shows how Justice Schack's arbitrary and capricious decision is shaped to debase and color Plaintiff. 40. As further evidence of the Court's bias, Judge Schack proceeds to further debase and dehumanize Plaintiff a s self-represented and that infers that Plaintiff is a kook bigoted incoherent frivolous litigant that somehow is primarily motivated by his biase against Catholics and Islam a s a pure invention on Justice Schack's part rather than the truth, law and justice. The Court even mocks Strunk in the August 22, 201 1 transcript when Plaintiff infers while attaining the highest rank of Eagle Scout can only support 10 of the Boy Scout laws not 12 (no longer "obedient" and *reverent") a s to the injury sustained against him by Defendants' acts. 41.As a matter of record Plaintif& use of the term "Catholic" appears 13 times in the Complaint a s the only way to clarify Defendants association and intent: first appears a t Paragraph 49 a s the stated religion of McCain's wife and children; at Paragraph 75 in reference to published religious reference to Fr. @Hare and Justice Sonia Sotomayor who served together on the NYC agency to disburse taxpayer funds, and at the footnote (1) in reference to strategy of putting Catholics on SCOTUS; a t Paragraph 76 in reference to Fr. O'Hare intent of support for BHO; Paragraph 106 a s a quote of expert Count Vittorio Vivaldi 111 of Venice Italy in reference to the 632 AD writing of the Koran; a t Paragraph 109 in footnote reference to Knight of Malta Peter
G . Peterson a s to the SMOM program; a t Paragraph 117 in reference to published

S W ' s Response to the Decision with OSC Page 18 of 27


rl

APX - %

Strunk v. N Y S Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1
educational background of Zbigniew Brzezinski; a t Paragraph 144 footnote reference to George Soros and the Vatican Bank landing bank J P Morgan for BHO foreign funds.

ROME HIJACKED USE OF THE GREEK TERM CATHOLIC


42.Affirmant reads the works of Plato and characterizes himself a s a "liberal catholicn by practice and belief, contrary to the hijacking of the term by Rome, in that the word catholic (derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective, meaning "universal") comes from the Greek phrase, meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words meaning "about" and meaning "whole". The word in English can mean either "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing" or "of the Roman Catholic faith" as "relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church." ; and for the record the word "Catholicn was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize its universal scope. In the context of Christian ecclesiology, it has a rich history and several usages. In non-ecclesiastical use, it derives its English meaning directly from its root, and is currently used to mean the following: (i)universal or of general interest; (ii)liberal, having broad interests, or wide sympathies; or (iii)inclusive, inviting and containing strong evangelism; and a s for Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is the belief in liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, religious free exercise.. . 43.The fact is that Plaintiff is not a Christian or religious of any description nor does he even believe that the supposed person "Jesus" even existed in that the name would have been "Joshuan instead and that otherwise a s a Hebrew would not even have been permitted a Bar Mitzvah with such barbarian name "Jesus" is ridiculous;

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 19 of 27

--- -

APX -

% -

a7

--

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1 and moreover, Plaintiff believes that after the destruction of the second Temple in 70 AD by Titus and Roman in the so-called First Jewish War that Judaism per se ended

as an active religion and with the banishment of the Hebrews from their Temple and
from Judea renamed Acre with the Second Jewish War a s prosecuted by Emperor Hadrian Judaism a s reduced eliminated the Pharisees and started the Rabbinical tradition that was then after 70 AD integrated along with the Five (5)Books of Moses by the New Testament written starting with Gospel of Mark by someone with the penname Josephus and with agreement with those Pharisees in the Diaspora and mosaic would await rebuilding the Third Temple resolution a s is ongoing now with Defendants use of the USA government establishment of USA state religion with the Oslo Accords.
CHRISTIANITY AND THE NEW TESTAMENT A CREATION OF ROME

44.That based upon information and belief "The New Testament" the Church, and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpumius Piso family, who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it--Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, and John the Baptist--are all fictional, and that the Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story into a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such a s the Herods, Gamaliel(s1, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is, fictional!) characters.

5 The Fr. Gregory Galluzo S.J. Ford Foundation funded Gamaliel community organization and mentor to Defendant Obama, in addition to Frank Marshal Davis, whose organization is the namesake of the RCC that canonized Saint Gamaliel the Elder, or Rabban Gamaliel I, who was a leading authority in the Sanhedrin in the mid 1st century CE. He was son of Simeon ben Hillel, and grandson of the great Jewish teacher Hillel the Elder, and died twenty years before the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE). He fathered a son, whom he called Simeon, after his father,[2] and a daughter, whose daughter (i.e.,Gamaliel's granddaughter) married a priest named Simon ben Nathanael. The name Gamliel is the Greek form o f the f Go@ that in the Christian tradition, Gamaliel is celebrated as Hebrew name meaning reward o a Pharisee doctor of Jewish Law. Acts of the Apostles speaks of Gamaliel as a man of great

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 20 of 27

- -

APX _ p _ _ _ _ -

98

--

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty lndex NO.: 6500-2011

45. Further, that in the middle of the first century of our present era, Rome's
aristocracy felt itself confronted with a growing problem. The Jewish religion was continuing to grow in numbers, adding ever more proselytes. Jews numbered more than 8,000,000, and were 10% of the population of the empire and 20% of that portion living east of Rome.
( 6 ) Approximately

half or more of the Jews lived outside Palestine,

of which many were descended from proselytes, male and female." (7) However, Judaism's ethics and morality were incompatible with the hallowed Roman institution of slavery on which the aristocracy fed, lived and ruled. They feared that Judaism would become the chief religion of the empire. The Roman author, Annaeus Seneca, tutor and confidant of Emperor Nero, suggested in a letter to his friend Lucilius (a pseudonym of Lucius Piso) that lighting candles on Sabbaths be prohibited. is later quoted by St. Augustine in his City of God
(9) (although the

(8)Seneca

quotation does not

exist in Seneca's extant writings) as charging that: "the (Sabbath) customs of that most accursed nation have gained such strength that they have been now received in all lands, the conquered have given laws to the conqueror.""
46. Further, that the family headed by Seneca's friend, Lucius Piso, was confronted
n

with a n allied problem more personal to it. They were the Calpurnius Pisos, who were descended from statesmen and consuls, and from great poets and historians a s well. Gaius and Lucius Calpurnius Piso, leaders of the family, had both married Arria the Younger (from her grandfather's name, Aristobulus). This made Gaius and Lucius Piso's wife the great-granddaughter of Herod the Great.

respect who spoke in favor of arrested Christian apostles and the Jewish Law teacher of Paul the Apostle. 6 Klausner, Joseph, From Jesus to Paul, Macmillan Co., 1943, pp 33-34. 7 Baron, Salo, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, Columbia Univ. Pfess, N.Y., and Jewish mtblication Society, Philidephia, 1952, vol. 1, pp 170-171. 8 Seneca, A d Lucilium Epistulae Morales, Vol. 1 1 1 , Epistle XCV.47, pp 87-89. 9 St. Augustine, City of God, Modem Library, Random House, 1950,6.11, p 202.

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 21 of 27

APX -

99

--

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1 47. Further, a s motivation in this charade, repeatedly, religious-minded Judaean zealots were staging insurrections against the Herodian rulers of Judaea who were Piso's wife's relations. Piso wished to strengthen his wife's family's control of the Judaeans. The Pisos searched for a solution to the two problems. They found it in the Jewish holy books, which were the foundation both for the rapid spread of the religion and for the zealot's refusal to be governed by Rome's puppets. The Pisos mocked, but marveled at, the Jewish belief in their holy books. Therefore, they felt a new "Jewish" book would be the ideal method to paclfy the Judaeans and strengthen their in-laws' control of the country. 48.Further, that about the year, 60 A.D. (C.E.), Lucius Calpurnius Piso composed Ur Marcus, the first version of the Gospel of Mark, which no longer exists. He was encouraged by his friend Seneca (10) and assisted by his wife's kinsman, young Persius the Poet. Nero's mistress (later his wife) Poppea was pro-Jewish, and Nero opposed the plan. The result was the Pisonian conspiracy to assassinate Nero, detailed in the historian Tacitus. But this attempt failed when he aborted the plot. Instead, Nero had Piso and Seneca and their fellow conspirators executed by forcing them to commit suicide; and that he exiled Piso's young son Anius [spelled "Arius" herein), who appears in Tacitus under several names, including "Antonius Natalis."
(11)

Nero sent

young Piso to Syria a s governor. That post also gave him command of the legions controlling Judaea. His own "history" records his service in Judaea in the year 65 under the name of Gessius Florus, and in 66 with the pseudonym Cestius Gallus.

'0

" Tacitus, Annals, XV.54,71

Seneca, Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, Vol. I, Epistle XLVI, pp 299-300.

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 22 of 27

APX - 100

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index Na.: 6500-2011
49. Further, that this Arius Calpurnius Piso deliberately provoked the Jewish

revolt in 66 so he could destroy the Temple in Jerusalem (lZ)--forthe Jews were unwilling to accept his father's story and thereby become pacified by it a s it was intended. However, his 12th legion was caught by the zealots in the Pass of Beth Horon and almost lost. Nero's reaction was to exile him instead to Pannonia, to command a legion there; and to send Licinius Mucianus to serve in Syria, and Vespasian to Judaea to put down the Jewish revolt.
SO. Then in 68 Nero was assassinated by his own slave Epaphroditus (13, --who

unknown to his master was young Piso's lackey. Galba became emperor and named Piso's cousin, Licinianus Piso,
(14,

as his intended successor; but Galba in turn was

soon overthrown by Otho. Otho das then overthrown by Vitellius-at which point Piso

and his friends began to flock together against the latter. The Pisos, Mucianus, and Tiberius Alexander all joined ranks behind Vespasian to seek to overthrow Vitellius. (15) The were joined by Frontinus and Agricola.; and that Arius Calpurnius Piso was still commanding the 7th legion in Pannonia (16, (Austria-Hungary), and Vespasian sent him
(17) (now appearing

in Tacitus with the name Marcus Antonius Prirnus

(18))

south

12 Having destroyed the Temple, Piso could then have Jesus (whom he was predating to 40 years before the Temple's destruction) prophecy the destruction because of the Jews' rejection o f him! (Mat. 23.37-38). 13 Roman historians (Suet. Nero 49, and Dio Cassius 63.29) explain merely that Epaphroditus assisted the emperor's suicide. See also Tacitus, Annals XV.55, footnote 2. l4 Tacitus, Histories I. 14. ' 5 Tacitus, Histories 11.74-81. I6 Tacitus, Histories 111.2, footnote 1. l7 (Tacitus)Vespasian relied on Piso because he was grandson of his own brother-Vespasian's brother, T. Flavius Sabinus, had married Arria Sr., who was Piso's maternal grandmother. Piso's identity as thus also a Flavian is decipherable from the appearance in the Flavian family line of L. Caesennius Paetus (Townend, Gavin, Some FlaVian Connections, Journal of Roman Studies LI.54,62, 1961).That was an alias (likeThrasea Paetus) of Piso's father, L. Calpurnius Piso. See page 20 supra, wherein Piso himself also is mentioned as a Caesennius Paetus. That is the true reason Piso used the literary pseudonym of Flavius; it was not because of his alleged-but untrue and hardly necessary-adoption by Emperor Flavius Vespasian. He was in fact a Flavian.

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 23 of 27

-- -

APX - 101

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1
across the Alps to overthrow Vitellius. Meanwhile, the main body of Vespasian's legions marched overland under Mucianus from the east towards Rome. Piso succeeded in defeating Vitellius' army and secured Rome for Vespasian.(lg)Mucianus arrived and promptly sent him to Judaea to help Titus at the siege of Jerusalem. He did so, and in 70 they assaulted the city, then the Temple, burned it, slaughtered many thousands, sent thousands more to slavery and gladiatorial combat and death.

51.Then it was at this point that Arius Calpurnius Piso wrote, in sequence, the
following: Gospel of Matthew (70-75 C.E.) Present Gospel of Mark (75-80 C.E.) Gospel of Luke (85-90 C.E., with help of Pliny the Younger) in the gospel story he inserted himself by playing the role of not only Jesus, but of all the Josephs, as well. He particularly enjoyed assuming the identity of Joseph. Wishing to create a Jewish hero, a savior, in fictional form, he (and his father before him), felt the identity of a second Joseph secretly, but very aptly, fit them. For their name Piso had the same four letters, rearranged, a s the four Hebrew letters (Yud Vov Sarnech Fey) which in that

Is (Tacitus, Histories 111.6). The realization that Marcus Antonius F'rimus was a pseudonym of Arius Calpurnius Piso is based on these factors: 1.The name in Pliny's letters under which Piso is the latter's wife's grandfather is Arius Antoninus. 2 . According to Suetonius (Livesof the Caesars, Book IV. XXV),Emperor Caius Caligula appropriated Gaius Piso's wife at Piso's marriage. That would have been about the year 36--the year before Arius' birth. Caligula is known to have been a descendant of Mark Antony (MarcusAntonius). Seemingly Suetonius was teasing at the questioned paternity of Piso's alter ego creation. 3. Tacitus' caustic description of Marcus Antonius Primus remind one o f Piso. 4. The idea to call Piso "Antonius Primus" --was his own. It was Piso himself in his Jewish War IV.495 who first detailed Antonius Primus' campaign for Vespasian against Vitellius. Also Josephus inserts "Antonius" (himselfl)as a centurion who dies at the capture of Jotapata (Jewish War 111.333). 5. Marcus Antonius Primus' colleague in the campaign against Vitellius is named Arrius Varus (Tacitus, Histories 111.6).This is yet another alter ego of Piso himself. In the mid50's (C.E.), while in his late teens, young Piso was a prefect of a cohort of legionnaires in the campaign against Vologeses, King of Armenia--serving there (in Tacitus, Annals XIII.9) under the name of Arrius Varus. 6. His exploits as General Marcus Antonius F'rimus account for his absence from Judaea in the years 67-69, between his defeat as Cestius Gallus and his reappearing to assist Titus as the siege of Jerusalem in 70. Rather than being Vespasian's prisoner in chains, he was his general, advancing on Rome in his behalf. 1 9 The same device of rearranging consonants was used in recreating AiYanius Burrus, the friend of Seneca (Tacitus, Annals XIII-XW)-and therefore of Lucius Piso. He was Nero's Praetorian Prefect, and then several years before Seneca's death, was himself a victim of the emperor. B u m s reappears as BaRaBbaS, the fictional brigand in Mat. 27.16.

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 24 of 27

APX - 102

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1
language spelled the name Joseph. Thus they saw themselves a s the new Joseph. That is why so much of the story of Joseph in Egypt is secretly redone and inserted into the gospel story of Jesus. This is insight into the Inquisition and role of Jesuit Militia too.
JUSTICE ADMINISTERED WITHOUT FAVOR AND SPEEDILY

52. That the Court's April 11, 2012 decision was issued with intentional delay and disparagement of Plaintiff personally eight (8)months after the August 22, 201 1 hearing on various motions to dismiss therein granted, and with Plaintiff's motion to consolidate denied, shows Justice Schack's biased intent to delay and deny speedy justice to all Parties and especially violates Plaintiff fundamental NYS Civil Rights Chapter 6 Article 2 "Bill of Rights" lo. fundamental right to quote:
" Justice to be administered without favor and speedily. Neither justice nor right should be sold to any person, nor denied, nor deferred; and writs and process ought to be granted freely and without delay, to a l l persons requiring the same, on payment of the fees established by law."

53.That Plaintiff sought justice administered without favor and speedily to prevent delay as time is still of the essence with imminent ongoing irreparable harm now further injuring Plaintiff along with those similarly situated when after more than 60 days Plaintiff forced a n appearance at the OSC preliminary hearing of October 25, 201 1, whereupon at the public hearing forced off the record by the Court despite appearance of counsels for parties there speaking and being granted relief by the Court even though Justice Schack ardently refused to allow any transcript record of germane testimony from Marshal Bell for the Brzezinski family, the State or Plaintiff among others present; and then outrageously granted Joel Graber of the Attorney General Office representing the NYS Board of Elections and its officers of the State a n opened ended extension of time to respond to the Complaint until after the decision was rendered. That the Court there denied Plaintiffs request to supplement the complaint with new evidence arid transactions that have occurred subsequent to the
Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 25 of 27

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1 August 22, 201 1 hearing e.g. that the NYS BOE admits to continued use of "Born a Citizenn 14th amendment citizenship eligibility to seek office of POTUS rather than that required by U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 "natural-born citizen" status a s instruction to any person seeking ballot access in the New York 2012 Presidential election cycle and despite the New York State Assistant Attorney General Joel Graber's refusal of Plaintiff's tender offer to settle in front of Defendants' Counsels there to hear the offer to settle the case specifically "were the NYS BOE to change the website instruction from 'Born a Citizen' back to 'Natural-born citizenn Plaintiff would then merely only seek expense reimbursement .." was rejected by the State thereby binding Plaintiff and other Defendants to further action. 54. Plaintiff contends a s to the behavior of the Court that based upon The Republic by Plato Translated by Benjamin Jowett in Book 2 in regards to Plato's comparison of Physicians and Judges in that one cares for the constitution of the body and the other the constitution of the mind and spirit states: But with the judge it is otherwise; since he governs mind by mind; he ought not therefore to have been trained among vicious minds, and to have associated with them from youth upwards, and to have gone through the whole calendar of crime, only,in order that he may quickly infer the crimes of others as he might their bodily diseases from his own self-consciousness; the honourable mind which is to form a healthy judgment should have had no experience or contamination of evil habits when young. And this is the reason why in youth good men often appear to be simple, and are easily practised upon by the dishonest, because they have no examples of what evil is in their own souls. Yes, he said, they are far too apt to be deceived. Therefore, I said, the judge should not be young; he should have learned to know ' evil, not from his own soul, but from late and long observation of the nature of evil in others: knowledge should be his guide, not personal experience. Yes, he said, that is the ideal of a judge.

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 26 of 27

Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1

CONCLUSIOH IN FAVOR OF RECONSIDERATIOX


That PIaintiff wishes that the Court reconsider the decision and hear the settlement offer offered the State that as a result of admissions of prior acts and transactions that have occurred after the filing of the Complaint back on March 22,
201 1, and since the tender offer by Plaintiff on October 25, 2011to settle in the

presence of Defendants counsels for the State to change the instruction from "Born a Citizen" to ?Natural-born C i t i z e n nwas .rejected and imposes unnecessary costs and expense upon all concerned, and that the additional transactions and evidence presented by P l a i n t i f fmust be entered into the record for the purpose of appeal were the Court to deny reasonable settlement, and for further and different relief as the
Court may deem necessary herein, and that Plaintiff contends t h e foregoing applies to

the State's agents misapplication and administration of laws and duties that have facilitated Defendants action with impunity that has inflicted individual injury upon me specifically, and know the contents thereof apply to me as the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on informatian and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to a l l matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

Sworn to before me This %aY of May 20 12

KAMAL P. SON! Notary Public, State of New York No. 01606089949 Qualified in Kings County Commission Expires March 37,2015

Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 27 of 27

APX - 184

_ / -

'REME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK iUNTY OF KINGS

Index N o . : 6500-2011
X

,histopher-Earl:Strunk in esse,
Plaintiff,

-against-

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al.,

STATE OF NEW YORK )


) ss.

Defendants.
X

COUNTY OF KINGS
Accordingly, I, d

1
~ u ~duly ~ sworn, ~ ~ depose b and e say i n under ~ penalty of perjwy:

v~l~ ~d ~

a . Am over 18years of age and not a b. My place of business is located at 5 c. On April May 3,2012,

PLATNTLFFS MFfDAViT I N RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS AND COURT COSTS SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED RATHER TIfANS m affirmed MAY 3,2012 for the case Strunk u NYS BOE et al. W S County of Kings Supreme Court with index 6500-201 1 . by USPS
service upon Defendants' Counsels. d. On May 3,2012, I caused each copy with proper postage for service by regular mail of listed counsels and where each envelope was deposited with the USPS for s e ~ c upon: e

E r i c a Burke, Esq. of SIMPSON THACHER 8a BARTLE'IT LLB


425 Ludngton Avenue New York New York 10017-3954

RITA C. TOBIN, Esq. of CAPLIN 86 DRYSDALE, CHARTERED 375 Park Avenue 3 5 t h Floor New York. New York 10152-3500

HARRIS BEACH, PLLC By THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553
of WILLKIE FARR 86 GWACHER LLP JAMES C. DUGAN 787 Seventh Avenu%& York, N.Y. 10019-6099

MARSHAL BELL,Esq. of McGUIRE WOODS LLP

1345 Avenue of Americas, 7th Floor New York, New York 10105

WLEY REIN LLP -TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ., JAN WITHOLD BARAN ESQ. and THOMAS W . KIRBY ESQ. 1776K Street, NW Washington D.C. 20006

RABINOWITZ,BOWIN,STANDARD,V S K Y & LIEBERMAN,PC -Christopher J. Latell Esq. and Damel S. Re~ch Esq.45 Broadway, Su~te 1700 New Y o r k ,New York 10006-3791 ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMANAttorney General of NYS by.JOEL GRABER, Esq. AAG Assistant Attorn General Special Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau 120 BROADWAY 24th Floor New York, New York 1081-0332

MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By.CHLARENS ORSLAND, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New Y o r m w York 10007

ABRAHAM HELFENBAUM
City Of New York NO. 2-9363 CertificateFifed in K~ngs c ,u t Commlssron ~ x p i m ,luly
: t o @

Com~~SiOner of Deeds

At an IAS Term, Part 27 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, heId in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York, on the I I th day of April 20 12 PRESENT: HON. ARTHUR SCHA Justice. CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK, in esse Plaintiff,

DECISION & ORDER


-againstIndex No. 6500/11 NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSHfCo-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLWCo-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILAf Cormnissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON/ Coinmissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMI COLON, in their Official and individual capacity, Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A. 0 . SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN-;ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama, a.k.a Steve Dunhain); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW

APX - 106

YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCLALIST W O E R S PARTY, IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; T?3E NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORYFUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAINPALIN VICTORY 2008; JOHN AND JANE DOES; and XYZ ENTITIES. Defendants.

The following papers numbered 1 to 25 read on this motion: Notice of Motion and Notice of Cross-Motion and and Affidavits (Affinnations) Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) Reply Affidavits (Affirmations)

Papers Numbered:
1 - 13
14 - 21

22 - 25

If the coinplaint in this action was a movie script, it would be entitled The
Manclzurian Candidate Meets The Da Vinci Code. Pro se plaintiff CHRISTOPHER-

EARL STRUNK brings this action against numerous defendants, including President

BARACK OBAMA, Vice President JOSEPH BIDEN, Senator JOHN MCCAIN, Speaker
of the House of Representatives JOHN BOEHNER, former House of Representatives Spealcer NANCY PELOSI, Governor ANDREW CUOMO, Attorney Genera1 ERIC

SCHNEIDERMAN, Comptroller THOMAS DI NAPOLI, the NEW YOFX STATE

BOARD OF ELECTIONS, billionaires PETER PETERSEN, PENNY PRITZKER,


GEORGE SOROS and six New York State political parties. Thirteen motions are pending before the Court. Plaintiff STRUNK's complaint is a rambling, forty-five page variation on "birther" cases, containing 150 prolix paragraphs, in at times a stream of consciousness. Plaintiffs central allegation is that defendants President OBAMA and Senator McCAIN, despite not being "natural born" citizens of the United States according to plaintiffs interpretation of Article 11, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, engaged with the assistance of other defendants in an extensive conspiracy, on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church to defi-aud the American people and usurp control of the Presidency in 2008. Most of plaintiff STRUNK's complaint is a lengthy, vitriolic, baseless diatribe against defendants, but most especially against the Vatican, the Roman Catholic Church, and particularly the Society of Jesus (the Jesuit Order}. Plaintiff STRUNK alleges seven causes of action: breach of state constitutional fiduciary duty by the NEW Y O N STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS and public officer defendants; denial of equal protection for voter expectation of a correct ballot; denial of substantive due process for voter expectation of a correct ballot; interference with the right to a republican form of government by the two Jesuit defendants and defendant F.A.O. SCHWARZ, JR., who were all members of the New York City Campaign Finance

,---

APX - 108

Board; interference with plaintiff's election franchise; a scheme to defraud plaintiff of a reasonable expectation of successfbl participation in the suffrage process; and, a scheme
by all defendants for unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment and a preliminary injunction against defendants, including: enjoining the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS from putting Presidential candidates on the ballot for 2012 unless they provide proof of
1 , Section 1, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution; ordering eligibility, pursuant to Article 1

that this eligibility certification be submitted to the Court for proof of compliance; enjoining the Jesuits from interfering with the 2012 elections; ordering expedited discovery to determine the scope of damages, alleged to be more than $12 billion; and, ordering a jury trial for punitive treble damages. Various defendants or groups of defendants, all represented by counsel, present eleven motions to dismiss and one motion to admit an attorneypro hace vice for this action. The eleven individual defendants or groups of defendants are, in chronological order of filing their motions to dismiss: defendants President BARACK OBAMA, Vice President JOSEPH BIDEN, OBAMA FOR AMERICA and the OBAMA VICTORY
FUND; defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIN-PmIN VICTORY 2008 and

Senator JOHN MCCAIN; defendants MARK BRZEZINSKI and IAN BRZEZINSKI; defendant Representative NANCY PELOSI; defendant GEORGE SOROS; defendants

Tf-IE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY and ROGER CALERO; defendant Speaker

APX -109 -

JOHN BOEHNER; defendant ZBIGNEW BRZEZINSKI; defendants Father JOSEPH A.

O'HARE, S.J., Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J. and FREDERICK A. 0. SCHWARZ,


JR.; defendant PENNY PRITZKER; and defendant PETER G. PETERSEN. The eleven
motions to dismiss assert: plaintiff STRUNK laclts standing; plaintiff STRUNK fails to state a claiin upon which relief can be granted; plaintiff STRUNK fails to plead fkaud with particularity; the action is frivolous; plaintiff STRUNK is barred by collateral estoppel from pursuing this action; and, the Court lacks both personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this action. The motion to admit counselpro hace vice for the instant action, by counsel for defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 and Senator
JOHN MCCAIN, for Todd E. Phillips, Esq., a member in good standing of both the

California and District of Columbia bars, is granted. Further, plaintiff STRUNK cross-moves to consolidate the instant action with a similar "birther" action filed by him, Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642108, in the Kings County Special Election Part, before Justice David Schmidt. Many of the defendants oppose consolidation because Spunk v Paterson, et at, Index No. 29642/08, is a disposed case. The cross-motion to consolidate this action with Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642/08, is denied. Defendants who oppose plaintiffs cross-motion are correct. Justice Schmidt disposed of Strunk v Paferson, et al, Index No. 29642108, on the grounds

APX - 110

of collateral estoppel, failure to join necessary parties and laches. The eleven motions to dismiss are all granted and plaintiff STRUNK's instant coinplaint is dismissed with prejudice. It is clear that plaintiff STRUNK: lacks standing; fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; fails to plead fraud with particularity; and, is barred by collateral estoppel. Also, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over most, if not all, defendants. Furthermore, plaintiff STRUNK's instant action is fiivolous. As will be explained, plaintiff STRUNK alleges baseless claims about defendants which are fanciful, fantastic, delusional and irrational. It is a waste of judicial resources for the Court to spend time on the instant action. Moreover, the Court will conduct a hearing to give plaintiff STRUNK a reasonable opportunity to be heard, pursuant to 22 NYCRR
130-1.1, as to whether or not the Court should award costs and/or impose sanctions upon

plaintiff STRUNK for his fiivolous conduct. At the hearing, an opportunity will be given to counsel for defendants to present detailed records of costs incurred by their clients in
the instant action.

Therefore, plaintiff STRUNK, who is not a stranger in the courthouses of New York, is enjoined ffom commencing future litigation in the New York State Unified Court Systern against: the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSW Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER/Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILAI

APX - 111

Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON/Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, and Deputy Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI and RUTH NOEMI COLON, in their Official and individual capacity; Father JOSEPH A. O ' W , S.J.; Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A. 0. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW IUIMZERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSIU; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; BARACIC H. OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI; the DEOMCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CAZERO; the
,

SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSIU; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; the NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; the NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMElUCA; OBAMA VICTURYFWD; MCCAN VICTORY 2008; and MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; without prior approval of the appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge. Backp-round Plaintiff STRUNK previously commenced similar actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofNew York and this Court, the Supreme Court of

APX -

the State of New York, Kings County. In Spunk v New York State Board ofEIections, et al., Index No. 08-CV4289 (US Dist Ct, EDNY, Oct. 28,2008, Ross, J.), the Court dismissed the action because of plaintiffs lack of standing, failure to state a claim and frivolousness. In that action, plaintiff STRUNK accused the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS of "misapplication and inisadministration of state law in preparation for the Noveinber 4,2008 Presidential General Election" by, among other things, in 7 5 1 of the complaint, of "failure to obtain and ascertain that Barrack Hussein Obarna is a natural citizen, otherwise contrary to United States Constitution Article 2 Second 1 Clause 5 [sic]" and demanded "Defendants are to provide proof that Barrack Hussein Obama is a natural born citizen and if not his electors are to be stricken from the ballot [sic]." Judge Ross, at page 6 of her decision, held "the court finds that portions of plaintiffs affidavit rise to the level of the irrational" and, in footnote 6, Judge Ross cited two prior 2008 Eastern District cases filed by plaintiff STRUNK in which "the court has determined that portions of plaintiffs coinplaints have contained allegations that have
risen to the irrational."

My Kings County Supreme Court colleague, Justice Schmidt, in Strzknk v Paterson,

et al, Index No. 29642/08, as cited above, disposed of that matter, on March 14,20 11, by
denying all of plaintiff's motions and noting that the statute of limitations expired to join

necessary parties President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN. Further, Justice Schmidt

APX - 113

denied plaintiff an opportunity to file affidavits of service nzdncpro tune and to amend the complaint. Then, plaintiff STRUNK, eight days later, on March 22, 201 1, commenced the instant action by filing the instant verified complaint. Plaintiff STRUNTC's complaint recites numerous baseless allegations about President OBAMA. These allegations are familiar to anyone who follows the "birther" movement: President OBAMA is not a "natural-born" citizen of the United States; the President is a radical Muslim; the President's Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth does not prove that he was born in Hawaii;
and, President OBAMA is actually a citizen of Indonesia, the United Kingdom, Kenya, or

all of the above. For example, Plaintiff STRUNK alleges, in '1/ 24 of the complaint, that President OBAMA: is a Madrasah trained radical Sunni Muslim by birth right . . . practices Shariah law . . . with the full knowledge and blessing of Defendants:
Peter G. Peterson; Zbigniew Brzezinski; his sons Mark and Ian; Penny

S. Pritzker; George Soros; Jesuits Fathers: Joseph P. O'Hare, Joseph


P. Parices; Brennan Center Executive Frederick A. 0. Schwarz, Jr.;

Nancy Pelosi, John Sidney McCain 1 1 1 ; John A. Boehner; Hillary Clinton; Richard Durbin and others. [sic]

Then, in $1 28 of the complaint, plaintiff STRUNK alleges that President OBAMA "or his agent(s) as part of the scheme to defiaud placed an image of Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (COLB) on the Interest . . . and as a prima facie fact ineans the Hawaii issued COLB does not prove 'natural born' citizenship or birth in Hawaii, only a longform document would [sic.]" Plaintiffs alleged vast conspiracy implicates dozens of political and religious figures, as well as the 2008 presidential candidates fkom both major parties, with numerous absurd allegations. They range from claiming that an associate at the large law
firm of Kirkland and Ellis, LLP masterminded the conspiracy because she wrote a law

review article about the U. S. Constitution's natural born citizen requirement for the off~ce of President to the assertion that Islam is a seventh century A.D. invention of the Vatican. Further, plaintiff STRUNK alleges, in 7 129 of the complaint, that he: is the only person in the USA to have dulyJiredfired9red BHO president

OBAMA] on January 23,2009 by registered mail (rendering BHO the


USURPER as Plaintiff is entitled to characterize BHO as) on the grounds
that he had not proven hiinself eligible . . . and all acts by the usurper are void ab initio - a serious problem! [sic] Plaintiffs allegations are strongly anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and xenophobic. The

APX - 115 ----

complaint weaves the occasional true but irrelevant fact into plaintiffs rambling stream of consciousness, Moreover, plaintiff STRUNK alleges, in 7 22 of the complaint, that defendant Vice President BIDEN knew that President OBAMA was "not eligible to run for president because he is not a Natural-Born Citizen with a British Subject Father with a student visa, however in furtherance of CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] foreign policy initiatives in the mid-east supported Soebarkah president OBAMA] as a Muslim [sic]."
Also, Plaintiff STRUNK discusses, in the complaint, then-Senator OBAMA's
April 2008 co-sponsorship of Senate Resolution 511. This resolved unanimously that

Senator MCCAIN, born in 1936 in Panama, while his father was on active duty in the United States Navy at Coco Sola Naval Air Station, is a natural born citizen of the United States. This resolution put to rest questions about Senator MCCATN'S eligibility to run for President. However, plaintiff STRUNK alleges, in 7 43 of the complaint, that Senate Resolution 5 11 "is part of the scheme to defraud" and "a fraud upon Congress and the People of the several states and territories contrary to the facts." Then, plaintiff STRUNK, in fi 44 of the complaint, cites Senate Resolution 5 11's text as evidence that President OBAMA concedes that the definition of natural born citizenship for President requires both parents of a candidate be U.S. citizens at birth. Further, the complaint

APX - 116 _____-__--

alleges that JOHN MCCAIN and ROGER CALERO, presidential candidate of the SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY, were also ineligible, like then-Senator OBAMA, for President because of their failure to qualify under the natural born citizen requirement. PIaintiff s alleged injury, in 7 47 of the complaint, is "[tlhat on November 4,2008, Plaintiff, as a victim of the scheme to defraud, voted for the electors representing . . . McCain . . . not a natural-born U.S. citizen." Further, in 7 49 of the complaint, "as part of the scheme to defraud, Plaintiff voted for Candidate McCain despite the fact that his wife is a most devoted Roinan Catholic whose two sons were educated by Jesuit priests." Plaintiff alleges, in 5 1 of the complaint, that Senator MCCAIN, was born in Colon Hospital, Colon, Panama, which was not in the Panama Canal Zone. Further, plaintiff alleges, in 7 52 of the complaint, that according to the November 18, 1903 HayBunau Varilla Treaty, by which the United States obtained the Canal Zone, Senator MCCAIN is not a natural-born citizen. Plaintiff STRUNK, in his final twenty pages of the complaint, alleges that the inassive conspiracy to defraud American voters was perpetrated by hundreds of individuals, at the behest of the Roinan Catholic Church and especially the Jesuits, with the aim of bringing about the Apocalypse through the destruction of the A1 Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and the re-building a new Jewish Temple on that site. Among the entities that Plaintiff STRUNK implicates in his alleged conspiracy are: the Muslim Brotherhood;

the Carlyle Group; the CFR; Halliburton; Kirkland and Ellis, LLP; and, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU. For example, in 7 9 1 of the complaint, plaintiff STRUNK states: That inembers of the Council on Foreign Relations including Peter G. Petersen as then Chairman that act with the Jesuit Order by the oath of allegiance superior to the United States Constitution, Treaties, and various States' Constitutions that starting no later than January 2006 sought to usurp the executive branch of government using Barack Hussein Obama I1 and John S. McCain 111, as a matched set of contenders then under joint coinmand and control, to preclude any other contender in preparation for a banking and sub-prime mortgage collapse that requires subsuming the sovereignty of the people of the united States of America and New York to International Monetary Fund conditionality with loss of the dollar reserve currency status, and collapse of the living standards of the vast majority of the Americans to that of a third world status. [sic] Plaintiff S T R W , in

a 139 of the coinplaii~t, alleges that defendant GEORGE

SOROS "proves his allegiance to Rome by promoting Muslim Brotherhood overt control

--

APX - 118

-- -

of Egypt . . . We cannot forget that the Jesuits in Cairo created the Musliin Brotherhood in 1928, the same year the Order created Opus Dei in Spain [sic]." Further, plaintiff

STRUNK, in 7 145 of the coinplaint alleges that "Defendants Pritzlter and Soros have
managed a crucial role for the Vatican State as a member of the CFR and high level Freeinasonry and in conjunction with King Juan Carlos (the King of Jerusalem) to create global regionalisin that subsuines national sovereignty of the USA and the People of New Yorlc state to the detriment of plaintiff and those siinilarly situated [sic]." Eleven defendants or groups of defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff STRUNK: lacks standing; failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; failed to plead fraud with particularity; and, is barred by collateral estoppel. Further, defendants argue that the Court lacks both personal and subject matter jurisdiction and the instant coinplaint is frivolous. Plaintiff, in response, filed an affidavit in opposition to the motions to dismiss and moved to consolidate the instant action with

Strunlc v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642/08.


On August 22,20 11, I held oral arguments on the record with respect to the thirteen instant motions. At the hearing, plaintiff STRUNK agreed with the Court that President OBAMA, with the release of his long-form Hawaiian birth certificate, was born in Honolulu, Hawaii [tr., p. 231. However, plaintiff STRUNK, at tr., pp. 30 - 31, argued that a "natural born citizen," eligible to run for President of the United States, pursuant to

APX - 119

Article 1 1 , Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, means that not only the candidate is natural born, but both of the candidate's parents are natural born. The following exchange at the oral arguments took place, at tr., p. 34, line 25 - p.
35, line 16:

MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:

My injury, I voted for McCain.

Is that an injury? My injury is he did not challenge Mr. Obama

MR. STRUNK:

after he went through the whole exercise. THE COURT: Obama's presidency? You're saying he should have challenged Mr.

MR. STRUNK:

Absolutely, and the ballot. The onus is on me

because he violated his agreement with me. You can't challenge the eligibility until he's up to be sworn. McCain, since everybody in Congress, since they didn't want to know about anything, so it was my responsibility. I fired him by registered inail within 72 hours.

THE COURT:

I saw your letter that you Fred the President.

I guess he didn't agree with you because he's still there.

APX - 120 -

A discussion ensued as to how plaintiff STRUNK alleges that President OBAMA

is a Muslim [tr., pp. 36 - 381. The following colloquy took place at tr., p. 37, lines 4 - 8:

THE COURT:
a radical Sunni Muslim?

How could you come to the conclusion that he's

MR. STRUNK:

Because that's what his records show and that's

what the testimony of individuals who were in class with him show. The following portions of the exchange, at tr., p. 39, line 9

- p. 43, line 8

demonstrates the irrational anti-Catholic bias of plaintiff STRUNK:

THE COURT:

What I find fascinating, fxst of all you said

there was a connection there where you say Cindy McCain says she's a Catholic. I don't know if she is. I think you said she's Catholic faith, Cindy McCain.
MR. STRUNK:

She is the largest distributor of Budweiser.

TEE COURT:
necessarily.

I know that. That doesn't make her a Catholic

MR. STRUNK:
those connections.

It's the connection that counts. Your don't get

APX - 121

THE COURT:

. . . I don't Imow if the Busch family is Catholic.

I don't care.

MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:

That's big business. That's big business selling beer . . . Let's put

Anheuser-Busch to the side.


You said she's a Catholic and you get into this whole riff or rant,

whatever you want to call it, about the Catholic Church and Father O'Hare, the Vatican. You go on and on about the Vatican . . . but it seems to me you have this theory that everything is a conspiracy and it always falls back to Rome. MR. STRUNK: That's a matter of public record. Oh, okay.
What the key is here, Ms. McCain is on the

THE COURT:
MR. S T R W :

Board of Directors for a Jesuit run school where her children are going to school.

THE COURT:
MR. STRUNK:

Could very well be. I don't know.

. . . In fact, it turns out in the discovery of the

% ,

APX - 122

--

connection to the Jesuits it was so compelling that when I started really digging into the background of this scheme of defraud, putting up two Manchurian candidates at once, which would take advantage of New York State's weakness in our law which required honesty. We require to have honesty and didn't get it. THE COURT:
MR. STRUNK:

Your case is more The Da Vinci Code.


The Da Vinci Code is a phoney book.

THE COURT:

With all due respect to John Frankenheimer,

The Manchurian Candidate according to you and the school of the Vatican,
by that way it describes the gist of your argument.
MR. STRUNK:

Frankenheimer? He directed the original Manchurian Candidate

THE COURT: movie. MR. STRUNK: THE COURT:

The old? With Frank, not Denzel. Frankenheimer?


1962 movie.

MR. STRUNIC:

THE COURT:

MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
MR. STRUNK: THE COURT: have it in the movie.

I was aware of the movie at that point, but - Okay, forget it. This is the one with Frank Sinatra?
And Laurence Harvey.

The Queen of Diamondsf Now you've brought - You mentioned The Manchurian Candidate. They

MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:

I've used it as a pejorative.


1 understand that, and I think that The Da Vinci

Code, to make some interesting argument, that's a work of fiction. At least

I think it's a work of fiction.


MR. STRUNK:
The Manchurian Candidate was not a work of

fiction. The work - - I didn't want to get into this area.

THE COURT:

Let's not get into analogies. I understand you

have various arguments but it seems to all come back to Rome.

MR. STRUNK:

No, it comes back to New York State and

whether I have standing in the Supreme Court of the State of New York

APX - 124

on the question of who's going to take responsibility to enforce the law which has not been done.

THE COURT:

Okay, that's your argument.

Standard for a motion to dismiss

"When determining a motion to dismiss, the court must 'accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable
the fncts as allegedfit within any cognizable inference, and determine only wl~ether

legal tlteory' (see Arnav Indzis., Inc. Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysrnan, Milstein,
Felder & Steiner, 96 NY2d 300,303 [2001]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 8 3 , 8 7 4 8

[I 9941) [Enzphrrsis adden]." (Goldrnavl v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 5 NY3d 56 1,


570-57 1 [2005]). Fultl~er, the Court, in Morris v Morris (306 AD2d 449,45 1 [2d Dept 2003]), instructed that:

In determining whether a complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion


pursuant to CPLR 32 11 (a) (7), "the sole criterion is whether the

pleading states a cause of action, and if froin its four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law a motion for dismissal will fail" (Gziggenheimer
v Ginsbz~r*g, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]. The court must accept the facts

alleged in the complaint to be true and determine only whether the facts
nllegedjit within any cognizable legal theory (see Dye v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brookfyn & Queens, 273 AD2d 193 [2000]). However, bare legal conclusions are not entitledto the benefit of the presumption of truth and are not accorded every favorable inference (see

Doria v Masucci, 230 AD2d 764 [2000]). [Emplzasis a@dea

For a plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the factual allegations in the claim cannot be "merely conclusory and speculative in nature and not supported by any specific facts." (Residentsfor a More Beautiful Port
Washington, Inc. v Town ofNorth Hempstead, 153 AD3d 727,729 [2d Dept 19891).

"The allegations in the coinplaint cannot be vague and conclusory." (Sraianoflv Gahona, 248 AD2d 525 [2d Dept 19981, app dismissed 92 NY2d 844 [1998], cert denied by
Stoianofv New York Times, 525 US 953 [1998]). (See LoPresti v Massachusetts Mut.
Life Ins. Co., 30 AD3d 474 [2d Dept 20061; Levin v Isayeu, 27 AD3d 425 [Zd Dept

20061; Hart v Scott, 8 AD3d 532 [2d Dept 20041). Plaintiff STRUNK's complaint must be dismissed because the "Court need not, and should not, accept legal conclusions, unwarranted inferences, unwarranted deductions, baseless conclusions of law, or sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of

APX - 126

factual allegations. (Ulmann v Norma Kamali, Inc., 207 AD2d 691 [Id Dept 19941; Mark Hampton, Inc. v Bergreen, 173 AD2d 220 [Id Dept 199l])." (Goode v Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 8 Misc 3d 1023[A], at 2 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 20051). It is clear that the facts alleged by plaintiff STRUNK do not fit into any cognizable legal theory. Plaintiff STRUNK'S complaint is more of a political manifesto than a verified pleading. Siinilar lawsuits challenging the eligibility of President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN for the presidency based upon plaintiffs incorrect interpretation of the term "natural born Citizen" in Article 11, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution have
1 ; been dismissed as a matter of law. (See Drake v Obama, 664 F 3d 774 [9th Cir 201 1

Ba~nett v Obama, 2009 WL 3861788 [US Dist Ct, CD CA 20091; Berg v Obama, 574 F Supp 2d 509 [ED Pa 20081, a f d 586 F3d 234 [3d Cir 2009); Robinson v Bowen, 567 F Supp 2d 1144 Ca 20081; Hollander v McCain, 566 F Supp 2d 63 [D NH 20081).

Plaintiff STRUNK lacks standing


Plaintiff STRUNIC lacks standing to sue in state court, having suffered no injury. "Standing to sue is critical to the proper knctioning of the judicial system. It is a threshold issue. If standing is denied, the pathway to the courthouse is bloclted. The plaintiff who has standing, however, may cross the threshold and seek judicial redress." (Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801 8 12 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1017 [2003]). Professor David Siegel, in NY Prac, 5 136, at 232 [4d ed]

instructs that: [i]t is the law's policy to allow only an aggrieved person to bring a lawsuit . . . A want of "standing to sue," in other words, is just another way of saying that this particular plaintiff is not involved in a genuine controversy, and a simple syllogism tales us from there to a "jurisdictional" dismissal: (1) the courts have jurisdiction only over controversies; (2) a plaintiff found to lack "standing" is not involved in a controversy; and (3) the courts therefore have no jurisdiction of the case when such a plaintiff purports to bring it. "Standing to sue requires an interest in the claim at issue in the lawsuit that the law will recognize as a sufficient predicate for determining the issue at the litigant's request." (Caprer v Nussbaum, 36 AD3d 176, 181 [2d Dept 20061). "An analysis of standing begins with a determination of whether the party seelung relief has sustained an injury
(see Society ofPlastic Indus. v County o f Sufolk, 77 NY2d 76 1,762-773 [1991])."

(Mahoney v Pataki, 98 NY2d 45,52 120021). "The Court of Appeals has defined the standard by which standing is measured, explaining that a plaintiff, in order to have standing in a particular dispute, must demonstrate an injury in fact that falls within the relevant zone of interests sought to be protected by law." (Caprer v Nussbaum at 183).

-23-

APX - 128

A plaintiff, to have standing, "must allege personal injury.fairly traceable to the

defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." (Allen v Wright, 468 US 737, 751 [1984]). If a plaintiff lacks standing to sue, the plaintiff inay not proceed in the action. (Stark v Goldberg, 297 AD2d 203 [lst Dept 20021). PlaintiESTRUNK clearly laclcs standing to sue because he cannot establish an injury in fact. Plaintiffs claim that his November 2008 vote for Senator MCCAIN for President was his injury is the type of generalized grievance that is foreclosed by the U.S. Constitution's particularized injury requirement. "We have consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government-claiming only harin to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large-does not state an Article 111 case or controversy." (Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U S 555, 572 [1992]). "Thus, a private citizen who does not show any special rights or interests in the matter in controversy, other than those common to all taxpayers and citizens, has no standing to sue." (Matter of Meehan v County of Westchester,3 AD3d 533,534 [2d Dept 20041). (See Diederich v Rockland County Police Chiefs' Ass'n, 33 AD3 d 653,654 [2d Dept 20061; Concerned Taxpayers of Stony Point v Town of Stony
Point,28 AD3d 657, 658 [2d Dept 20067). Plaintiff STRUNK's cornplaint alleges

nothing more than non-justiciable abstract and theoretical claims. Therefore, the instant complaint, failing to state any allegation of a particularized injury, is dismissed with

A,

APX - 129

---

prejudice. (Silver v Pataki at 539; Mahoney v Pataki at 52).

Plaintiff Strunk's failure to state a cause of action

Alternatively, plaintiff STRUNK's complaint must be dismissed for his failure to state a cause of action. The Court is under no obligation to accept as true plaintiffs complaint, full of legal conclusions and bald assertions cloaked as facts. (Ruflno v New
York C i t y Tr. Auth., 55 AD3d 8 17,s 18 [2d Dept 20081). As noted above, in Morris v Morris at 45 1, "bare legal conclusions are not entitled to the benefit of the presumption of

truth and are not accorded every favorable inference." Moreover, plaintiff has failed to plead any facts that fit within any cognizable legal theory. (Goldman v Metropolitan Life
Ir?s. Co., at 570-571).

Further, plaintiff STRUNKYs often rambling and almost incomprehensible complaint fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of CPLR $3013 and CPLR Rule
30 14. CPLR 4 3013 requires statements in a pleading to be "sufficiently particular to

give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action or defense." CPLR Rule 3014 imposes additional pleading requirements that "[elvexy pleading shall consist of plain and concise statements in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Each paragraph shall contain, as far as practicable, a single allegation . . . Separate causes of action or defenses shall be separately stated and numbered and may be

--

APX - 130

A -

stated regardless of consistency." In Sibersky v New York City (270 AD2d 209 [Id Dept 20001, the Court dismissed an amended petition for its "complete failure to follow the dictates of CPLR 3013 or 3014." The Sibersky complaint consisted of "seven pages of single-spaced, uilnumbered paragraphs, the import of which is unascertainable," and the Court held that "[ppeadings that are not particular enough to provide the court and the parties with notice of the transaction or occurrences to be proved must be dismissed." Complaints that do not meet the pleading requirements of CPLR 5 3013 and CPLR Rule 3014 will be dismissed if "devoid of specific factual allegations" and do not "indicate the material elements of a claim and how they would apply to the case." ( M a v Becton Dickinson & Co., 215 AD2d 542 [2d Dept 19951). In Peri v State (66 AD2d 949 [3d Dept 1979]), affd 48 NY2d 734 [1979]), apro se plaintiffs complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with CPLR 9 30 13. The Court instructed that "[a]t a minimum, a valid complaint must include all material elements of the cause of action." Plaintiff STRUNK's rambling, forty-five page prolix complaint, with its irrelevant, scatter-shot morass of alleged historical references, virulent anti-Catholic rhetoric and extensive political rant fails to plead his alleged causes of action in a manner that is "sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the

APX - 131 --__---

_-

material elements of each cause of action [CPLR 5 30131" and organized in "plain and concise statements in consecutively numbered paragraphs [CPLR Rule 30141." "While a refined and attenuated analysis might arguably spell out a shadow of a cause of action, neither the defendants nor the trial court should be subject to the difficulties." (Kent v Truman, 9 AD2d 649 [Id Dept 19591). (See Geist v Rolls Royce Limited, 18 AD2d 63 1 [1d Dept 19621; Safer Beef Co., Inc. v Northern Boneless BeeJ;Inc., 15 AD2d 479 [1d Dept 19611). In a case, such as this one, in which "the amended complaint is prolix, confusing, and difficult to answer" and the complaint contains "a confusing succession of discrete facts, conclusions, coinments . . . and considerable other subsidiary evidentiary matter whose relevance to a particular cause of action is frequently obscure . . . Defendants should not be required to answer such a jumble." (Rapaport v Diamond Dealers, Club, Inc., 95 AD2d 743,744 [Id Dept 19833). (See Etu v CumberlandFarms, Inc., 148 AD2d 821, 824 [3d Dept 19891).

"The elements of fraud are narrowly defined, requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence ( c j , Vermeer Owners v Guterman, 78 NY2d 1114, 1116 [1991])." (Gaidon v Guardian Life Ins. Co. ofAmerica, 94 NY2d 330,349-350 [1999]). Mere conclusory statements alleging the wrong in the pleadings are insufficient. (McGovern v Nassau County Dept. of Social Services, 60 AD3d 1016 [2d Dept 20091; Sargiss v

APX - 132
p p

--

Magarelli, 50 AD3d 1117 [2d Dept 20081; Dumas v Firoito, 13 AD3d 332 [2d Dept 20041; Sfo~za v Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York, 210 AD2d 214,215 [2d Dept

19941).
The Appellate Division, Second Department, in Giurdanella v Giurdanella (226 AD2d 342, 343 [1996], held that: to estabIish a prima facie case of fiaud, the plaintiff must establish
(1) that the defendant made material representations that were false,

(2) that the defendant knew the representations were false and made them with the intent to deceive the plaintiff, (3) that the plaintiff justifiably relied on the defendant's representations, and (4) that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the defendant's representation. (See Kerusa Co., LLC v WlU.U.515Real Estate Ltd. Partnership, 12 NY3d 236 120091; Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc. 94 NY2d 43 [1999]; Channel Master Corp, v
Aluminum Limited Sales, Inc., 4 NY2d 403 [1958J; Smith v Ameriquest Mortg. Cot-p.,60

AD3d 1037 [2d Dept 20091; Cash v Titan Financial Services, Inc. 58 AD3d 785 [2d Dept 20091). Plaintiff STRUNK presents in his complaint fraud accusations that can be, at best, described as bare assertions. He does not allege that he relied upon any statements of defendants and fails to allege that he suffered any pecuniary loss as a result of the

APX - 133

statements of any defendant. Actual pecuniary loss must be alleged in a fraud action. (Dress Shirt Sales, h c . v Hotel Martinique Assoc., 12 NY2d 339, 343 [1963]; Rivera v WyckoffHeightsHosp., 184 AD2d 558, 561 [2d Dept 19921). The mere use of the word "fraud" in a coinplaint is not sufficient to coinply with the specific requirements of CPLR

5 3016 (b) that fraud be plead with particularity. Therefore, plaintiff STRUNK fails to
allege the necessary elements for a fiaud cause of action.

This Court lacks iurisdiction


Plaintiffs complaint essentially challenges the qualifications of both President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN to hold the office of President. This is a non-justiciable political question. Thus, it requires the dismissal of the instant coinplaint. "The "nonjusticiability of a political question is primarily a function of the separation of powers." (Baker v Carr, 369 U S 186,210 [1962]). Under separation ofpowers, "[tlhe constitutionaf power of Congress to regulate federal elections is well established." (Buckley v Valeo, 424 US 1, 13 [I 9761). (See Oregon v Mitchell, 400 US 112 [1970]; Burroughs v United States, 290 US 534 [1934]). Under New York law, "[tlhis judicial deference to a coordinate, coequal branch of government includes one issue of
f New justiciability generally denominated as the 'political question' doctrine." (Matter o

York State Inspection, Security & Law Enforcement Employees, District Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 233,239 [1984]). The framework for the Electoral College and its voting procedures for President

APX - 134

and Vice President is found in Article 11, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. This is fleshed out in 3 USC

5 1 et seq., which details the procedures for Presidential elections.

More specifically, the counting of electoral votes and the process for objecting for the 2009 Presidential election is found in 3 USC 15, as modified by Pub L 110-430, 4 2, 122 US Stat 4846. This required the meeting of the joint session of Congress to count the 2008 electoral votes to be held on January 8,2009. On that day, after the counting of the Electoral College votes, then-Vice President Dick Cheney made the requisite declaration of the election of Presidelit OBAMA and Vice President BIDEN. (155 Cong Rec H76 [Jan. 8 20091). No objections were made by members of the Senate and House of Representatives, which would have resolved these objections if made. This is the exclusive means to resolve objections to the electors' selection of a President or a Vice President, including objections raised by plaintiff STRUNK. Federal courts have no role in this process. Plainly, state courts have no role. Thus, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to determine the eligibility and qualifications of President OBAMA to be President, as well as the same for Senator MCCAIN or ROGER CALERO. If a state court were to involve itself in the eligibility of a candidate to hold the office of President, a determination reserved for the Electoral College and Congress, it may involve itself in national political matters for which it is institutionally ill-suited and interfere with the constitutiona1 authority of the Electoral College and Congress. Accordingly, the political question doctrine instructs this Court

and other courts to refrain froin superseding the judgments of the nation's voters and those federal government entities the Constitution designates as the proper forums to

determine the eligibility of presidential candidates.


Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer Justice Robert Jackson, concurring in Youngsto~vn
(343 US 579, 635 19521, in discussing separation of powers stated that "the Constitution

difkses power the better to secure liberty." Justice Thmgood Marshall, in his majority opinion in US. v Munoz-Flores (495 US 385,394 [1990]), on the subject of separation of powers, quoted from Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in Morrison v Olson, 487 US 654,

697 [1988], in which Justice Scalia observed that "[tlhe Framers of the Federal
Constitution . . . viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just Govermnent." This Court will not disrupt the separation of powers as enunciated in the U.S. Constitution and articulated by Justices Jackson, Marsha11 and Scalia. Further, plaintiff STRUNIC has failed to properly serve defendants, including President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN, pursuant to the CPLR. With numerous other grounds present for disinissing the instant action, the Court will not elaborate upon how plaintiff STRUNK failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendants.
Plaintiff STRUNK is precluded bv collateral esto~pel

Collateral estoppel or "issue preclusion," as observed by Prof. Siegel, in NY Prac

APX ___-- 136

$443, at 748-749, [4th ed], "scans the first action and takes note of each issue decided in

it. Then if the second action, although based on a different cause of action, attempts to
reintroduce the same issue, collateral estoppel intervenes to preclude its relitigation and to bind the party, against whom the doctrine is being invoked, to the way the issue was decided in the first action." In Ryan Y New York Telephone Company (62 NY2d 494,500 [1984]), the Court of Appeals, held that "[tlhe doctrine of collateral estoppel, a narrower species of resjudicata, precludes a party fiom relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that

party or those i n privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same
[Emphnsis added]." Two prerequisites must be met before collateral estoppel can be
raised. The Court of Appeals, in Buechel v Bain (97 NY2d 295 [2001], cert denied 535
US 1096 [2002]), instructed at 303-304, that:

There must be an identity of issue which has necessarily been decided


in the prior action and is decisive of the present action, and there

must have been a full and fair oppomnity to contest the decision now said to be controlling (see, Gilberg v Barnieri, 53 NY2d 285,291 [198l]). The litigant seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel must demonstrate that the decisive issue was necessarily decided in tlteprio~

--

APX - 137 -

action against a party, or one in privity wifiz a patty (see, id.). The

party to be precluded from relitigating the issue bears the burden of


demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination. [Empizasis added]

(See D 'Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659,664 [1990]; Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez, 46 N ~ 2 481,485 d supra; Westchester County Correction Ofleers Benevolent Ass 'n, Inc. v County of Westchester,65 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2d Dept
20091; Franklin Dev. Co. Inc. v Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 897, 899 [Zd Dept 20091; Llkscher ex. re1 Luscher v Arrua, 21 AD3d 1005 [2d Dept 20051). Plaintiff STRUNK litigated many of the issues in the instant action in US District Court, but also in the previously cited Strunk v Paterson) et al, Index No. 29642J08, before Justice Schmidt. He acknowledged this, in f 2 of the instant complaint, by stating: That this complaint is fairly traceable to the events and actions leading up to the Party primaries during the 2008 election cycle for the ballot access of the Presidential slates at the November 4,2008 General Election as complained of in the related election law case, Strunk v Paterson, et al. NYS Supreme Court in the County of Kings with Index No. 29642-08 before the Honorable David I Schmidt.of Part 1

APX - 138

as an election law matter. [sic] As mentioned above, Justice Schmidt disposed of Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642/08, on March 14,201 1, by denying a11 of plaintiffs motions and noting that the statute of limitations expired to join necessary parties President OBAMA and Senator
MCCAIN. Therefore, collateral estoppel precludes plaintiff STRUNK from pursuing the

instant action.
Denial of plaintiffs cross-motion to consolidate

Plantiff s cross-motion to consolidate this action with S ~ u n v k Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642/08, and transfer the instant action to Justice Schmidt is denied. Justice Schmidt, on November 19,2008, in Strunk v Paterson, et al, declined to sign plaintiff STRUNK's order to show cause to enjoin Governor Paterson from convening New York's December 2008 meeting of the Electoral College, because ''plaintiff is collaterally estopped." This refers to the Eastern District action dismissed by Judge Ross, in which she found the complaint frivolous. After a hiatus of several years, plaintiff STRUNK, by order to show cause, attenipted to amend his complaint. Justice Schmidt, in his January 11,201 1 short-form order, denied this motion in its entirety. Then, plaintiff STRUNK moved to reargue. On March 14,20 11, Justice Schmidt,

in a short-form order, denied reargument because plaintiff "failed to join a necessary

APX - 139

party President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN and the statute of limitations to do so expired." Finally, on November 9,20 11, H. William Van Allen, an ally of plaintiff
STRUM<, moved to intervene as a plaintiff to challenge President OBAh4AYs placement

20 12 ballot. In his November 22,201 1 short-form order, Justice on the ~tpcoming Schinidt denied Mr. Van Allen's intervention "in all respects." Further, Justice Schmidt held "[tlhis is an action that was conmenced in 2008 and has remained inactive for several years and it would be improper to allow plaintiff to raise new matters before the Court after the extended period of inactivity."
Plaintiffs frivolous conduct
"A coinplaint containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is

frivolous where it laclts an arguable basis'' and "embraces not only the inarguable legal
conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation." (Neitzlze v Williams,490 US 3 19,
325 [1989]). Plaintiff STRUNK, as cited above, alleges numerous fmciful, fmtastic,

delusional, irrational and baseless claims about defendants. The U.S. Supreine Court, citing Neitzke. held in Denton v Hernandez (504 US 25, 32-33 [1992]), that:
A court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts

alleged are "clearly baseless," 490 US at 127, 109 S Ct at 1833, a category encolnpassing allegations that are "fancihl," id., at 325, 109 S Ct at 1831, "fmtastic," id., at 328, 109 S Ct at 1833, and

,---.
APX
140

"deiusional," ibid. As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible. In Denton, the plaintiff alleged that he had been repeatedly raped by a number of inmates at several different prisons, all using the same modus operundi. The Court concluded that these allegations were ''wholly fanciful" and dismissed the claim as frivolous as a result. In Shoemaker v I% S. Department o m s t i c e (164 F 3d 6 19,6 19 [2d Cir 1998]), plaintiff alleged that the government and television stations conspired to: "(1) broadcast information about his feces on national television; and (2) file and publicized false charges of child abuse against him." The Court, citing Neitzke and Denton, dismissed the action as frivolous because plaintiffs "factual claims are irrational and incredible." Another case applying the frivolous standards ofNeikke and Denton is Perri
v Bloomberg (2008 WL 2944642 [US Dist Ct, ED NY 2008]), in which plaintiff alleged
that a secret unit of the NYPD was attempting to kill him and his cats. The Court

dismissed the case, finding that plaintiffs complaint has "a litany of sensational allegations pertaining not only to the NYPD, but also to various arms of government, both state and federal. Accordingly, Perri has not established that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction, because his allegations of irreparable harm are unsupported and bizarre."

/-

APX 141 - ------

-- -

Plaintiff STRUNK'S complaint, as well as his opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss, alleges that the correct interpretation of the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution requires a natural born citizen to have been born on United States soil and have two United States born parents. Despite plaintiffs assertions, Article 11, Section
1, Clause 5 does not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the natural born

citizen clause means what plaintiff STRUNK claims it states. "The phrase 'natural born Citizen' is not defined in the Constitution, see Mnur vHappersett, 88 US 162, 167

[I 875]), nor does it appear anywhere else in the document, see Charles Gordon, Who Can
Be President of the United States: An UnresolvedEnigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1,s (1968)." (Hollander v McCain at 65). Plaintiff STRUNK cannot wish into existence an interpretation that he chooses for the natural born citizen clause. There is no arguable legal basis for the proposition that both parents of the President must have been born on
U.S. soil. This assertion is as frivolous as the multitude of alleged allegations outlined

above. Moreover, President OBAMA is the sixth U. S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil. Plaintiff STRUNK and his fellow "birthers" might not realize that: both parents of President Andrew Jackson were born in what is now Northern Ireland; President James Buchanan's father was born in County Donegal, Ireland; President Chester A. Arthur's father was born in what is now Northern Ireland;

APX - 142

President Woodrow Wilson's mother was born in Carlisle, England; and, President Herbert Hoover's mother was born in Norwich, Ontario, Canada. Therefore, the prosecution of the instant action by plaintiff STRUNK, with its fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational and baseless claims about defendants appears is frivolous. 22 NYCRR 9 130-1.1 (a) states that "the Court, in its discretion may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages
in fi-ivolous conduct as defined in this Part, which shall be payable as provided in section

130-1.3 of this Subpart." 22 NYCRR 3 130-1.1 (c) states: conduct is frivolous if:
(1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a

reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law;


(2) it is undertaken primariiy to delay or prolong the resolution of the

litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or


(3) it asserts material factual statements that are false.

Conduct is hivolous and can be sanctioned, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c), if "it is co~npletely without merit . . . and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law." (Gordon v Marrone, 202 AD2d 104, 110 [2d Dept 19941 Iv denied 84 NY 2d 8 13 [1995]). (See RKO Properties, Inc. v
Boymelgreen, 77 AD3d 721 [2d Dept 20101; Finkelman v SBRE, LLC, 71 AD3d 1081 [Zd

.---.
APX - 143

Dept 20101; Glenn v Annunziata, 53 AD3d 565, [2d Dept 20081; Miller v Lhgan, 27 AD3d 429 [2d Dept 20061; Greene v Dorat Conference Center Associafes, 18 AD3d 429 [2d Dept 20051; Ofman v Camnpos, 12 AD3d 581 [2d Dept 20041). It is clear that plaintiff STRUNK's complaint: "is completely without merit in law;" "is undertaken primarily

. . . to harass" defendants; and, "asserts material factual statements that are false."
Several years before the drafting and irnpleinentation of the Part 130 Rules for costs and sanctions, the Court of Appeals (A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1,6 [1986]) observed that "fi-ivolous litigation is so serious a problem affecting the proper administration of justice, the courts may proscribe such conduct and impose sanctions in this exercise of their rule-making powers, in the absence of legislation to the contrary (see NY Const, art VI, 3 30, Judiciary Law $ 21 1 [I] [b] )." Part 130 Rules were subsequently created, effective January 1, 1989, to give the courts an additional remedy to deal with frivolous conduct. L n Levy v Carol Management
Corporation (260 AD2d 27,33 [lst Dept 19991) the Court stated that in determining if

,-.

sanctions are appropriate the Court must look at the broad pattern ofconducc by the offending attorneys or parties. Further, "22 NYCRR 130-1.I allows us to exercise our discretion to impose costs and sanctions on an errant party." (Levy at 33). Moreover, "[s]anctions are retributive, in that they punish past conduct. They also are goal oriented,

in that they are useful in deterring future frivolous conduct not only by the particular
parties, but also by the Bar at large." (Levy at 34).

-39-

APX - 144

The Court, in Kernisan, MD. v Taylor (171 AD2d 869 [2d Dept 199I]), noted that the intent of the Part 130 Rules "is to prevent the waste of judicial resources and to deter vexatious litigation and dilatory or lnalicious litigation tactics (cJ Minister, Elders &

Deacons of Refm. Prot. Church of City ofNew York v 198 Broadway, 76 NY2d 41 1; see Steiner v Bonhamer, 146 Misc 2d 10) [Emphasis addedl." To adjudicate the instant
action, with the coinplaint replete with fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational and baseless allegations about defendants, combined with plaintiff STRUNK's lack of standing, the barring of this action by collateral estoppel and the Court laclung persona1 jurisdiction and subject inatter jurisdiction over many of the defendants, is "a waste of judicial resources." This conduct, as noted in Levy, must be deterred. In Weinstock v

Weinstock (253 AD2d 873 [2d Dept 19981) the Court ordered the maximum sanction of
$10,000.00 for an attorney who pursued an appeal "coinpletely without merit," and holding, at 874, that "[wJe therefore award the maximuin authorized amount as a sanction for this conduct (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1) calling to mind thatfrivolous litigation causes

a substmtial waste of judicial resources to the detriment of those litigants who come to
the Court with real grievances [Emphasis addeq." Citing Weinstock, the Appellate Division, Secoiid Department, in Bernadette ParazeZZa, P.C. v De Santis (36 AD3d 734 [2d Dept 20071) affirmed a Supreme Court, Richmond County $2,500.00 sanction, at 736, as "appropriate in view of the plaintiffs waste ofjudicial resources [Emphasisadde4."

In Navin v Mosquera (30 AD3d 883,883 [3d Dept 20061) the Court instructed that

APX - 145

when considering if specific conduct is sanctionable as frivolous, "courts are required to examine 'whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent [or] should have been apparent' (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c])." Therefore, the Court will examine the conduct of plaintiff STRUNK in a hearing, pursuant to 22 NYCRR $ 130-1.1, to determine if plaintiff STRUNK engaged in frivolous conduct, and to allow plaintiff STRUNK a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Further, at the hearing, an opportunity will be given to counsel for defendants to present detailed records of costs incurred by their clients in the instant action.
Plaintiff precluded from relitipation of the same claims

.The Court is concerned that plaintiff STRUNK continues to use the scarce resources of the New York State Unified Court Systein to fruitlessly pursue the same claims. He is no stranger to litigation in Supreme Court, Kings County, Civil Term. Further, plaintiff STRUNK has had several bites of the same apple in U.S. District Court, which resulted in findings of his engagement in frivolous conduct with, as stated by Judge Ross, coinplaints that "have contained allegations that have risen to the irrational." The Court should not have to expend resources on the next action by Mr. STRUNK that will be a new variation on the sane theme of defendants' alleged misdeeds and misconduct. The continued use of the New York State Unified Court System for the personal pursuit
by plaintiff STRUNK of irrational complaints against defendants inust cease.

Our courts have an interest in preventing the waste of judicial resources by a party

APX - 146

who knows that his or lawsuit has no legitimate basis in law or fact and continues to attempt to relitigate resolved claims and issues. (Martin-Trigona v Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 145 Misc 2d 405 [Sup Ct, New York County 19891). The Court, inSassower v Signorelli (99 AD2d 358, 359 [2d Dept 1984]),noted that "public policy mandates free access to the courts . . . and, ordinarily, the doctrine of former adjudication will serve as an adequate remedy against repetitious suits." Then, the Sassower Court observed, in the next paragraph, that: "[nlonetheless, a litigious plaintiff pressing a fi-ivolous claim can be extremely costly to the defendant and can waste an inordinate amount of court time, time that this court and the trial courts can ill afford to lose (see Harrelson v United States, 613 F2d 114).'" Pro se litigants whom abuse judicial process have had their access to the courts limited. In Spremo v Babchik (155 Misc2d 796 (Sup Ct, Queens County 1996]),the

Court, in enjoining apro se litigant from instituting any fbrther actions and proceedings
in any court in the New York State Unified Court System, citing Sassower and Kane v

C i t y ofNew York, 468 F Supp 586 [SD NY 19791, aflfd614 F2d 1288 [2d Cir 19791). The
Kane Court, at 592, held:
The fact that one appears pro se is not a license to abuse the process of the Court and to use it without restraint as a weapon of harassment and libelous bombardment. The injunction herein ordered

APX

is fully warranted to put an end to such activity . . . Commencement of action upon action based on the same facts dressed in different garb, after thrice being rejected on the merits and having been repeatedly warned that the claims were barred by res judicata, can only be explained as inalicious conduct. In Muka v New York State Bar Association (120 Misc 2d 897 [Sup Ct, Tompluns County 1983]), apro se plaintiff commenced a fourth unsuccessful lawsuit against the State Bar Association upon various conspiracy theories. The Court in dismissing the action, based upon resjudicata, observed, at 903, that "all litigants have a right to impartial and considered justice. Insofar as any litigant unnecessarily consumes inordinate amounts of judicial time and energy, he or she deprives other litigants of their proper share of these resources. A balance must be kept." Therefore, plaintiff STRUNK, with his history of abusing the civil justice system,
by bringingpro se actions devoid of merit against the s a n e defendants, is precluded from

relitigating the same claims and issues which waste court resources and is enjoined from bringing any future actions in the New York State Unified Court Systein against: the NEW Y O K STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSHI Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNENCo-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA/Co~nmissioner, GREGORY

P. PETERSON/Commissioner,Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, and Deputy

--

APX - 148

Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS

P. DINAPOLI and RUTH NOEMI COLON, in their Official and individual capacity;
Father JOSEPH A. O'HARF,, S.J.; Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A. 0. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZTNSKI; JOSEPH R.BIDEN, JR.; BARACK H. OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI; the DEOMCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW Y O N ; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; the SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER, the NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; the NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE
OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE

CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA F O R AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORYFUND;MCCAIN
VICTORY 2008; and MCCAIN-PAtlN VICTORY 2008; without the prior approval of the

appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge. The Court instructed, in Vogelgesang v Vogelgesang(71 AD3d 1132, 1134 [2d Dept 2010]), that:
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in enjoining

the appellant froin filing any hrther actions or motions in the . . . action without prior written approval. Public policy generally mandates fiee

access to the courts (see Sassower v Signorelli, 99 AD2d 358,359 [1984]). However, a party may forfeit that right if he or she abuses the judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will (see D u f i v Holt-Harris, 260 AD2d 595 [2d Dept 19991; Shreve v Slzreve, 229 AD2d 1005 [2d Dept 19961). There is ample basis in this record to support the Supreme Court's determination to prevent the appellant from engaging in fUrther vexatious litigation.

(See Scholar. v Timinsky, 87 AD3d 577 [2d Dept 201 11; Dimeryv Ulster Sav. Banlc, 82
AD3d 1034 [2d Dept 201 11; Capogrosso v K a m s , 60 AD3d 522 [Id Dept 20091; Simpson v Ptnszy~zskn, 41 AD3d 607 [2d Dept 20071; Pignataro v Davis, 8 AD3d 487 [2d Dept 20041; Cango v Cango, 288 AD2d 417 [2d Dept 20011; Mancini v Mancini, 269 AD2d 366 [2d Dept 20001; Braten v Finkelstein, 235 AD2d 513 [2d Dept 19971).
Conclusion

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the motion by counsel for defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 and Senator JOHN MCCAIN, to admit Todd E. Phillips, Esq., a member in good standing of both the California and District of Columbia bars, for the instant actionpro hace vice is granted; and it is further ORDERED, that the motions to dismiss plaintiff CHRTSTOPHER-EARL

APX - 150
- -

--

STRUNK's instant complaint by: defendants President BARACK OBAMA, Vice President JOSEPH BIDEN, OBAMA FOR AMERICA and the OBAMA VICTORY

FUND; defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 and


Senator JOHN MCCAIN; defendants MARK BRZEZINSKI and IAN BRZEZINSKI; defendant Representative NANCY PELOSI; defendant GEORGE SOROS; defendants THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY and ROGER CALERO; defendant Speaker
JOHN BOEHNER; defendant ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI; defendants Father JOSEPH A.

O'HARE, S.J., Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J. and FREDERICK A. 0 . SCHWARZ, JR.; defendant PENNY PRITZKER; and defendant PETER G. PETERSEN; are all granted, with the instant complaint dismissed with prejudice; and it is hrther ORDERED, that the cross-motion of plaintiff CHRISTOPHER EARL-STRUNK to consolidate the instant action with Strunlc v Paterson, eta!, Index No. 29642/08, before Justice David Schmidt, is denied; and it is W h e r ORDERED, that plaintiff CHRISTOPHER EARL-STRUNK is hereby enjoined from commencing any future actions in the New York State Unified Court System against: the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSW CoChair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNEWCo-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA/Coinmissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON/Cominissioner,Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, and Deputy Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI and RUTH NOEMI COLON, in their Official and individual

APX - 151

capacity; Father JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.;

FREDERICK A. 0 . SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; BARACK H. OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI; the DEOMCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF
NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; the SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J.

BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; the NEW YORIC STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; the NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE
OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE

CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORYFUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; and MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; without prior approval of the
appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge; and it is further

ORDERED, that any violation of the above injunction by CHRISTOPHER-EARC

STRUNK may subject CHRISTOPHER-EARL ST=


contelnpt proceedings; and it is further

to costs, sanctions and

ORDERED, that it appearing that plaintiff CHRISTOPEER EARL-STRUNK,


engaged in "frivolous conducf" as defined in the Rules of the Chief Administrator, 22

NYCRR NYCRR

4 130-1.1 (c), and that pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Administrator, 22

4 130.1.1 (d), "[aln

award of costs or the imposition of sanctions may be made

-.
APX
-

152

. . . upon the court's own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard," this Court
will conduct a hearing affording plaintiff CHRISTOPHER EARL,-ST"a

reasonable opportunity to be heard" and counsel for all defendants may present to the Court detailed records of costs incurred by their clients in the instant action, before me in Part 27, on Monday, May 7,2012, at 2:30 P.M., in Room 479,360 Adarns Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201; and it is further
ORDERED, that Ronald D. Bra& Esq., my Principal Law Clerk, is directed to serve

this order by first-class mail, upon CHRISTOPHER EARL-STRUNK, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue, # 281, Brooklyn, New Yorlc, 11238 and upon counsel for all defendants in this action. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

HON. &UR

M. SCHACIC J. S. C.

-* ryFL""".i'..
*
r.w"**.m*

--

Sqsreme Qnnrt of the B&tf~ nf NPUVork - -- -. ---.--..-.-..-..


= =

, . . . -=--,

wi.s::isrs12,

.---=-

= .

+ " f b ; s ' ; r ; .

? = +

e3$iLt;h'Wi

. > . .

~z-.~-=r.-s.==..=..

-&LFggrc

; " . g ; & ' ; L

M130881 Slsl

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J.


REI?=JP,LDOE RFY7@,RP rr-., I S",K R SKFl ,OS

-----

MARK C . DILLON DANIEL D ANGIOLILLO, JJ.

Christopher Earl Strunk, appellant, v New York State Board of Elections,

. ' t i &i., iqJv;;i-;.gi!:>.

(Index No. 650011 1)

$sgpe& by GI2 9:aitiiiff fFam October 25,20 11.

ordtF of

SuFi-eilIs: COui;, $$iigs cO-r3i1ty7 ddt2&

On the Court's own motion, it is


C2^PREFRF3 thnt t'js~ ---;r!-r!t~al iar i i a r n i ~ ~ ~ ~;v7th011t Ci rnEtC o r f j i a h : " r i i r r a ~ mn ~q nthe ~~ nrd~r

dated October 25,201 1, is not appeal-able as of right and leave to appeal has not been granted (see CPLR 5701).

ENTER:

Clerk of the Court

January 3: 20 12
SRIJF.TK v Pe'E'bV Y O & ! ! STATE 130L%3U? OF ELECTIONS

A P X - 154

= '-

P
d

*tll~~w=&&

16.

fZ

&k

wirh New Yafk SfateEietim Law


ecs3

M c ; I e8 26-100, &I22

as qplies to EL ArWk?I2

*staatrAl$eSfZ

k t *

aW-yshow-aathelASP&

'27

, h m

* w *
d m sholJLd mt be made a f f the 2012 ElBctiola cycle with
i

f
I

' ,

Aaick 2 Se~tZm 1

" e born Citizen"eligibiLiQ mnirement

o f '%om a citizen'' imp~periy y;

APX - 155

/
#

. % &

--->
% -

+ ' -

/
t

1
ia
6 .

---____-

- .----__

--

- --

- .

b- A S t a p o f & N e v Y o r k ~ s u n t i l & t i r n e a s ~ W S B u ~ ~ ~ ~

SBSX bfPY)Tv%;

AStayofatfbafIot-unlilsucht2rae%*

S has providd evidezlce of q&&n


d A&&&e.
&

e l i g i b i l i t y ;
~ag~r@f

o f D e f w t s NYS BOE u&=

New Y& State p a E W

e mB m ~ Wussein k O
clfndi*

b 4 ZbiguiewB

w ,George Soms and or


&a

for office o fPOTUS in New YO*

~"y~fj~~dlsc~~~ofh~and~rdatedd~iatheir~~norunderits
d v s

e IIfand or Xbga Galem f a &e 2008 election cyele faward;

the eligibility o

h for fhe aBee nfPOTUS adversely

or'&eXewYork Elect& Chilegee

ofmmhirb

b- Say 5 f

Wet &axs

PQTUS h;tfproWevidence of&ficrdion

eligibili~, -

APX

156

APX - 157

9uprernP @ l l r u d of fIp $iHfe of peht

slrltk

Pt03fefi&~ $&iirion : B e u r n & &d.ticial @sparfratmi

Form A - Request for Appellate Division Intervention - Civil


See S 670.3 of the rules of this coun for direcums on the use of this form (22 WCRR 6 7 0 . 3 1

0 3 Licenses

0 1 Children - JDIPINS 0 8 Equitable Distribu:loo


0 9 Exclusive Occupancy of
D 10 E K w r t ' s Fees 1 '1 NIilrntenane&A$rmbny E3 12 M a r i t a l Status

1 3 5 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 11 6 lmerferance with Contract 11 7 MaLccous R e s e ~ m a n f

Abuse af Process

Deciaratory Judgment

Notice of CIaun

ure Law 1 207

S e m e Law 8 9 128

5 N

Form A RADl C h r B

APX - 158

13 Resenled Order

Are any onperfected appsals pending in this case7 D Yes ) ( 360. cavered by the annexed notice of appeat with the prior appeals? Numberfs) of any prim, pending, unperfected appeats:

If yes, do you ~ntend T o perfect the appeal or appeals Yes C b Me. Set forth the Appeilate Division Cause

1Stature authorizing Gommencernent of proceeding in the AppsHate Divrsion:


Court:

1 1

County:

1 Order of Transfer Date:

!f an appeal, brieffy describe the paper appeakd from- f-f the +peat is from an order, specify the relief requested and whether the motion was granted or denied. if an originat prctceedtng commenced in thrs court or tsansfened pursuant to

&&@on:

CPLR 7804(gf, briefly describe the object of t k proceeding. ff an application under CPLR 5704, briefly describe the nature of . -the ex 7 f m h = r-~k-w-d "10 / 25111 'QI~ Court declines tr, sign this OSC. This issue i s not ripe until candidates
-

G Z e norninatitlg petitions for pub& office for President of U.S. in several months. Further, the Court will fnotf stop fund-rai* bg- any candidate baause candidates money pursuant to statute and the First Amendment. The issue have a right to of -&date quzdiEc21tion is subject to Court action aRer nominating petitions are submiad and candidates afe &allen@ in CorrzZrrzZ" stAS " JSC"
Ammt:

Issues:

if an appeaf is from a money judgment, s p q m n e amowti aweram. Speafy the issues proposed to be raised on the appeal, proceeding, o r application for CPLR 5704 review.

-L me court when it refused to hear the adrmssilrn OEIthe part ofthe S - that jt confi3md the express tRrrnS ofthe US &H.htkn Article 2 Section 1 irr &G instfircdons prosMVed i d a m for the office & k i d & oftbe U W S W W T U S )
-

to

Etator ofthe injury in fact to p-while all the &er dismisf that pending and i r d i q p l to she Stsrte response for

APX - 159

\ -

--

T h e C o u r t d bh~appkcationwheninfact~lssaesriiisGdby&eStatearfmissionas concIusivep " f lilro CoEtTdlmgof* mcaicrzts k b e the ccrart.


2

--

--

y - -

--

'

The CM e n e d w h a ~ t h at s h e w t o dm% rtr&otionto~rmdconsoiid&e firstbedupon.thc S+'S admisslsno f b W n o f wrmgdoingfn prim e e o n cycle mnziiwing &to h e present election cycle anathe Court went so f8t.wef~ with the &ksion of fae'dhtion that the issue is XOT

to hear the rtpphdrm based upon State's admission cmrnpkunt denid a trans&$ r w 4 and denied a first amended S t a t e ' s admssim o f f a e r m ofllefbhm @ injure Plaintiff
The Caurt is biasedkiwd P M for m@ie & o r & reasons jlk6hdkg t k dmactenzatirm that plai&E is m i n g a cktmkd ficrj,n, in which tke Cowt immtiooatly - misrqmsr3ntedPlaintis cornp3mt and super-&posed the courts w ns e t offacts not before it.

hen &kg

r j

8r G W G H E R XdtP 7 6 7 -th

Avenue Hew Yorkg

APX - 161

Telephone N o . :

Telephone N o . :

APX - 162

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS


Christopher Earl Strunk,

-_______--_-_______-----~~.~~~~~~~~~ x
Index No.: 6500-2011 Plaintiff,

New York State Board of Elections et al. Defendants.

Plaintiff's Notice o f Appeal signed November 18, 201 1


WSC Order NOT SIGNED October 25, 2 0 1 1- entered October 2 8 ,2 0 1 1

Request for Appellate Division Intervention Affidavit of Service Brooklyn, New York November 19, 2011
Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse, Plaintiff self-represent without being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue 828 1, Brooklyn, New York 11238. (845)90 1-6767 E-mail: chri,s@strunk.ws

bated:

APX - 163
- .

EMERGENCY APPLICATION

To Justice:

addressed forthwith. This is being forwarded to facilitate


act upon the validity of the emergency characterization.

been directed to hand cany this application to you. This case is regularly assigned to Justice:

,w-hosenext motion date is

Attorney 1Movant: Proceed to Room

These papers must be returned to the ex-parte office an the 10th Flortr t o be entered. These are coud documents and must
not leave the ourt tho use

AFFDAVFT I ATTORNEY'S A F F m T I O N IN SUPPORT OF NOTWIGATION


Enstructiow: All in thr box below amiflze index n m h e r Compiefe the hebiankspncespr~nted in bold belowfolfowingrhe dtreefidnv provided Print mrd use black ink an$

SUPREME OF TBE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KlNGS

COURT

C H Q ~ ~ S P;~RC ~ X
[Nil irr Nmne[@l

AWN&

Index No.

650 0

201)

%intiff@) f Petitioner(sf

YS.

[Fill in Narnc{~J

FEW )b&c S T BOARD 06ca..E?-TruovC e'T-&c_____--__-_-----_----D&adant(s)l Respaadeof(s)

STATE OF NEW YORK f

CoUNTr' O F

fv

er

[litserf

Wheresigned]

& - K I I ~iofi@C & ~ & f i $ Y w N m e ] ,


store ~ N OyP ~ r fd t ~ly &nns

being duly sworn (an u t t ~ r a e ~ a h ~ t ~ practrce e d r o zn *he

raderpen~lvo~pgrqv, [fanow),

says:

1.

I reside at

549 UWDW BKT A inthcCo~tyof k / f i ~ S -

[I-

38

~ Y .A $ . I

WC.~

~ o u no p f ~e~&&nee/f?@ice] and State of New York.

2. I am about to commence a special proceeding or submit an order to show cause containing a stay and /or
reStfainiog order for [me&&~ui& fie rearms why you wrmt & bemm to gnwiymr w
t f ]

% A P D R ~ J ~ ^ OF PVS Bae
6p

f e im t t J ~

v~

[ZAiQNG A P D AlKLd7 RccLFJJ. v)J~/C


t

P&wL~

V d m * D I S c ~ d ( R 3 z pO - F ~~ECN~VF

.tJm,w

"
r 0x2

? L a S L '

*,+
?#.-

x;.'

"

*G;.*A

a ~ *+;

,-. -- ....?

APX - 165 -

C1

I have notified my opposition to appear in Part 72, 10' Floor North at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, NY,
a) [ m m ~ YOU m CML OR FAX m w ? ]

onme
b)

20
DAY

O , O ~ P D K , ~ O 5U :~ 3
MONTH

TIME

AM,@

~ W T W E R D DFOUDL~L?]

&&?AIL
YES / NO

AREA CODE

@IT& ~ p U f ~ ' t c ~ ~ c 3 d . c r [WY O F oJC . fmtajtb)

c)

[DRI Y ~ L T R E C E ~ A R E S P O N S CIRCLE E ? ~ ONE:

0
-

[IF YES, W T E RESPONSERERE-

UVCLUDE TIIE h % , W OF TKE PEBOiY W I T d l WHOM YOU sPQKE]

LUO

d)

[IFBENDID YOU TELL THEM T O A P P W INCOURT -Must be a v f i e tlmebzrween9 a m 12 p.m o r 2-3p a (e.g 10 40 am )]

0 . the

DAY

21

of

ocv%fi MONTH

,201(

at

lo

@PM

TLW

4.

cfis~i/& & W ~ O / N ~

1 believe thzt there will be significant prejudice by giving notice because: [ n ~ r m REASONS]

wmff

/a~ O ? Y O &

&'p

[Ifye, s,).ou nvlstyrovidea description of where, whrn andby whom t

unsuccssfut, why you b&we yuu are enrikledfo q p & a&dn .I

DATE :

I>
/

C;.

EOTARY PUBLIC, cxccpt attorneys]

{PRLNT YOUR NAME]

Page 2 o f2

APX - 166

"f 3
- 1 b

Kings Supreme Court Part 72 / Ex-Park


Justice:

&-%I b k h

~ c h f i L k

Date:

i d / z l J

\ (

Order to Show Cause Set i See Method of Service, Set Return Dates, andor See Stay

En Parte Application:
Assign To: Index # of Related Action
-1

2010

Thefollowing itetli(s) are missing or defective with this applicatio~:


Action Marked Stayed on

Case Marked Disposed on

Please Return to Ex Parte OBce I @ Floor Norfh Order to Show Cause/No~-Foreclosu ye

APX - 167

of e e s ~ p n m e Court of the State of New York BE& in and tor the County of Kings, at the courthouse at 360 Adrms Street on the 2 Day of October 2011
PRESENT: Hon.

~t IAS part

b. ~

q
x

----Christopher

--------Strunk,
-against-

Justice of $tie Supreme Court

iONGS C O m N CLEM \ FEEPe)$ 4 5 00

PMI&ii'f,

&@$
/
Index N o . : 6500 1M I1 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR A MBNDAMUS, STAY AND ENJUNCTION

1
i

; NEW

YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Defendants.

I
1

* I _ _ _ -

x 3
A ' -

. > . * :

Upon reading
day of October 20 '

/ , .; Ning the affidavit of Christopher EarI Strunk affirmed to on the 2 0 ~

I !
t

~4th 12 exhibits, and mmorandum of law based upon the underlying

Complaint filed March 22,2011 witb jurisdiction of the CPLR $403{d), $7802 in conjunction

witb New York State Election Law (EL) Article $16-100, $6122 as applies to EL Article 12

from before the start ofthe 2012 election c y d e Presidential primary and general election
Let the respondents or their attorney show cause at the IAS Part-

,Room
C( wan or as soon

q ?? ofthis Court, to be held at the Courthouse, 360 Ad2 0t i


the
day of

Street, Brooklyn, New York, on

.w 9
at

-53

o'clock in the

as counsel may be heard why an order should not be made affecting the 2012 Election cycle with

a. A hkidsmus of the Hew York State Board of Elections anct or its agents to correctly
instfvct a candidate for O f f i c e of President of the United States CpOTUS) to meet the
U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section I "natural born Citizen" eligibility requirement

APX - 168

\Y

r/

b. A Stay of all New York Primares until such time as the NYS BOE has properly
notified a candidate of qualificationsto run for office of POTUS;
c. A Stay of all baliot access until such time as the respective candidate for Office of

POTCTS has pravided evidence of qualificationeligibiity;

d. A Stay of all fuad raising until conclusive proof of eligibility is established,


e. Restraint of Defendants NYS BOE various New York State political parties and or

committees, Barack Hussein Obama II, Zbigniew Brzezinski, George Soros and or
their agents from intwference w i t h the proper public notice of requirements of a

candidate for office of POTUS in New York;


f. NYS BOE disclosure of any and a 1 1reIated archives in their possession or under its

control for the POTLiS qualifications, executive session records, correspundeace and or communication records with electors of the Barack Hussein Obma 11, J o h S. McCain TII and or Roger Cdero for the 2008 election cycle forward;
g, Further and dierent relief including reimbursement for damages incurred.

As it is alleged that the New York State Board of Elections and its agents exceed authority of

Law regarding determining the eligibility of candidates for the office of PO'fCJS adversely
affecting the operation of EL Adele 12 in the formation of the New ~ * r Elected k College.
-

P e n d i i the hearing of this motion it is ORDERED that Respondents a .to


a. Stay all New York Primates until

candidate of qualifications to run for office of POTUS;

b. Stay of all ballot s e e s until such time as the respective eandidgte for Office of

..

POTUS has provided evidence of qualificationeiigibility;


1 1

c. Stay all fund raising in New York until conclusive proof of eligibility is established;

APX - 169 ---______-

. -

'4

ORDERED W Respondents' attorneysare to

I
I
I

f this order, and the papers upon which this order is granted; and

named Defendants shall

his / her attomy show

dams Street, Brooklyn, New

York, on the
or a s soon as counsel may be heard why

not be made aF&ing administfatian of

election law.

upon which this order is

i
ENTER

I I

I
1
I

iI

I
I

APX 170 -

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF W N Q S IAS Part 27 Index N o . :

--------------------------------------------------------------------- X
Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse
Plaintiff,

6500-201 1

(Hon. Arthur M. Schack J.S.C)

PLAINTIFF'S
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIOBS; JAMES A. AFFIDAVIT IN WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. SUPPORT O F THE PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NO EM^ COLON, in their Official and FOR A MANDAMUS, individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; STAY AND PETER G. PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKT; MARK BRZEZINSKT; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH INJUNCTION (a.k.a.Barry Soetoro, aka. Barack Hussein Obama 11, a.k.a.Steve Dunham);NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PAFlTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAM FOR AMERICAs,OBAMA VICTORY FUND; M C C M I VICTORY 2008; M C C m - P m I N VICTORY 2008; John and J a n e Does; and XYZ Entities.

Defendants.

STATE OF NEW YORK


COUNTY OF KINGS

1 =* 1

Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:

Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of OSC Page 1 of 17

APX - 171

I.

Plaintiff is self-represented without a n attorney with the underlying Complaint

filed March 22, 201 1, and makes this affidavit with supplemental allegations against the New York State Board of Elections (NYS BOE) its agents and others in support of the Order to Show Cause for a Mandamus, Stay and Injunction with twelve exhibits and memorandum of law annexed.
2.

Thai on August 22, 201 1 Counsels for Defendants, except the various captioned

New Y o r k State Political parties and or committees who have defaulted by failure to answer to the summons, appeared before the Honorable Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. in the matter of Defendants Motions to dismiss the Complaint of March 22, 201 1, with the exception of the State Defendants who have entered several stipulations for extension of time to answer or othenvise respond by October 12, 201 1 (see Exhibit I]; and that the Court has reserved decision.
3.

That on October 11, 201 1 the Clerk of the Court noticed a pre-discovery

conference schedule for October 24, 20 11 at the Courthouse "Intake Part" in Room
524 (see E
4.

That as a matter of time being of the essence herein, on October 12, 2011 the

New Y o r k Times published the report about the intention of the State of New
Hampshire Secretary of State advancing the Presidential Primary to December 6, 201 1 (see Exhibit 3);and thereby escalates the entire State by State primary process including New York were this Court to issue a n order for the relief request hereby for: a. A Mandamus of the New York State Board of Elections and or its agents to correctly il~struct a candidate for Office of President of the United States (POTUS)to meet the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 "natural born Citizen" eligibility requirement instead of *born a citizen" improperly;
b. A Stay of a l l New York Primaries until such time as the NYS BOE has

Plaintiffs AfFdavit in Support of OSC Page 2 of 17

APX - 172

properly notified a candidate af qua=cations to run for office of POTUS;


c. A Stay of all baltot access until such Gme as the respective candidate for

Office of POTUS has provided evidence of qualification eligibility; d, A Stay of


fund raising until conclusive proof of eligibility is established;

e. Restraint of Defendants MIS BOE various New York State political parties

and or committees, Barack Husseh Obama 11, Zbigniew Brzezinski, George


Soros and or their agents from interference with the proper public notice of reqtlirements of a candidate for office of POTUS in New York;

f. NYS BOE disclosure of any and all related archives in their possession or
under its control for the POTUS qualifications, executive session records, eomespondence and or communication records with electors of the Barack

Hussein Obama 11, John S. McCain III and or Roger Calero for Ule 2008
dection cycle fonvard;
g. Farther and different relief including reimbursement for damages incurred.

5.

That Plaintiff in an effort to discover when and tvhy the NYS BOE and or its

agents maintain the improper eligibility / qualification instructions fos a candidate to


for office of POTUS jn the 2012 election cycle as to "Citizenshipnstates "born a citizen"

on the official webpage "Running for Office" appears as fallows:

Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support of OSC Page 3 of 17

APX - 173

6.

That the statement as to Citizenship "Born a citizen" conflicts with the law of

the land and must be removed and replaced with "Natural born Citizen" to conform.
7.

That Plaintiff recollects that the 2008 election cycle required "Natural born

Citizen" rather than "Born a citizen", and that such instruction is conclusive evidence of the breach of fiduciary duty by the NYS BOE and or its agents alleged in the underlying Complaint.
8.

To find out when the change was made to the website Plaintiff contacted Kevin

Richard Powell (Mr. Powell) with experience to find such record by researching the website and then produced the Affidavit (see Exhibit 4) with sub-exhibits A thru E.
9.

On October 5, 201 1, Mr. Powell published his Endings on his website Pixel

Patriot at p cover-up.htm1 (see Exhibit 4 sub-exhibit B) entitled "NEWYORK STATE BOE


WEBSITE COVER-UP: New York State Board of Elections Website Blocking Access To

Natural Born Citizen Requirements"; and that on October 6 , 201 1 Plaintiff sent States'
Counsel notification of the research finding.
10. That Mr. Powell show-s at Exhibit 4 sub-exhibit

E that after publishing his

findings a t Pixel Patriot that then were mirrored by another website Obama Release

Your Records with greater viewership, that on October 7, 20 11 as affirmed by Mr.


Powell a t his Affidavit shown as Exhibit 4 starting at paragraph 20, after being mirrored there was an illegal deniat-of-service attack monitored by the U.S. Department of State controlled by Defendant Barack Hussein Obama I1 and his agents
1 1. That on October 12, 20 11, Plaintiff confirmed by email (see Exhibit 5)that

according to State's Counsel, State Defendants are unable to stipulate as to the requirement that a candidate for the office of POTUS comply w ~ t h U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 and related law including NYS Election Law (EL) 96-122, a s follows:

Plaintiffs =davit

in Support of OSC Page 4 of 17

APX - 174 --_--

WHEREAS t h e Attorney G e n e r a l ' s Office, representing State Defendants, in t h e absence of a s p e c i F i c New Y o r k s t a t u t e t h a t

defines "natural-born C i t i z e n " for c a n d i d a t e e l i g i b i l i t y f o r e l e c t i o n to t h e o f f i c e of P r e s i d e n t of t h e United S t a t e s requires


any human being must be born on United S t a t e s o f America soil t o two citizen p a r e n t s f o r b a l l o t a c c e s s i n N e w York, and t h a t w e now a g r e e w i t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t New York S t a t e ' s d e f i n i t i o n of "natural-born Citizen" c o m p l i e s w i t h the United S t a t e s Constitution Article 2 Section 1 C l a u s e 5 that mandates:
"No Person except a natural born C i t i z e n , o r a C i t i z e n o f t h e United S t a t e s , a t ihe time o f the Adoption o f t h i s C o n s t i t u t i o n , s h a l l b e e l i g i b l e t o t h e O f f i c e o f President; n e i t h e r s h a l l a n y Ierson b e e l i g i b l e t o t h a t O f f i c e who s h a l l not have a t t a i n e d t o t h e A g e of t h i r t y f i v e Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident w i t h i n t h e United S t a t ~ s . ' ~
12. That Plaintiff in the email to State's Counsel shown as Exhibit 5 gave fair notice

that NYS Board of Elections i s involved in what an experienced attorney Leo D'Onofrio
Esq. characterizes as "...tryt'~~g to amend the US Constitutio~t with an eraser..." in the
form of a legal memorandum published at his website http:/ /naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/20 11/ 10/09/multiple-instances-of-historical-

standing-precedent-on-citizenship-ob-

(see Exhihit 6) quote:

Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court's Holding I n Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship - Obama Not Eligible.
"Recently, the New York State Board of Elections was caught trying to amend the US Constitution with an eraser by listing POTUS eligibility as available to any person "born a citizen". (Please review Pixel Patriot's excellent analysis on this issue, 'New York State BOE Web Site Cover U p ' . ) The Constitution states that only a "natural born Citizen" may be president, a much more stringent requirement than simply being "born a citizen". This effort in New York is part of a much larger effort nationwide to falsely revise history (in this case by scrubbing the very words of our Constitution). The tactic contributes to an insidious pattern of behavior being perpetrated just so Obama will be allowed to occupy the White House despite US Supreme Court precedent which states directly that he is not eligible. (This report assumes Obama was born in Hawaii.)"

Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of OSC Page 5 of 17

APX - 175

13. That the SCOTUS precedent that applies herein to resolve t?ae controversy is present in Minor v Happersett as summarized at page 4 of I1 i n Exhibit 6 , quote:

"The decision in this case was that a woman born of Gitizenparents within the United Sates was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the electivefranchise not being essential to citizenship." (Emphasis added.)
The "decision" in Minor is twofold:
I ) woman are equal citizens to men;
2) voting is not a right o f citizenship.

The first point is still good law. This may seem obvious now, but in 1875 it wasn't. Virginia Minor did not accept that citizenship without voting rights was equal citizenship. She argued that women were being treated as "halfway citizens" and she directly petitioned the Court for a deternlination which stated that women were equal citizens to men. The Court in Minor, referring directly to Article 2 Section 1, and specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment, held that women, if born in the U S to citizenparents, were citizens and that their citizenship was equal to men. The Court further stated that this "class" of persons were "natives, or natural-born citizens".
The Court also held that while women were equal citizens to men, the Constitution did not provide a right to vote to anyone, male or female. This part of the holding was later erased by the 19th Amendment, but the citizenship determination remains as good law today. Therefore, the Court's decision in Minor operates against Obarna being eligible, since his father was never a US citizen.
14. That on October 14, 201 1, State's Counsel sent Plaintiff an email without a

response to the request of the State to conform the instructions to a candidate to the Office of POTUS with the reference to Citizenship a s "Natural born Citizen" rather than "Born a Citizen"; but instead Counsel attached a new stipulation for extension of time for the State to respond to the "amended Complaint" until October 28, 201 1,to wit
Plaintiff declines to sign (see Exhibit 7).
75 . That from September 23, 20 11 through October 16, 20 11, Plaintiff

Plaintifrs =davit

in Support of OSC Page 6 of 17

APX - 176

corresponded with a fellow New Yorker Creg Maroney who had sought to ascertain

why the NYS BOE had not properly wetted the 2008 Election cycle POTUS candidates,
and as a verification for Plaintiff requested clarification from the NYS BOE to no avail

as yet was posted as an article on October 13,2011 on the Post & Entail website

http:/ /www.thepostemd.com/2011/ 10,' 13/new-york-state-board-of-electionsmakes-false-statement-about-article-ii-qucaon/ with a n article entitled Update:

New York State Board o f Elections Makes False Statement about Article II Quali@cationAnd Why Do They Refuse To Correct The Record? (see m i b i t 8). 16. That on September 30, 201 1, Plaintiff sought additional information from the

NYS BOE by FOIL regarding correspondence between then NYS AG Andrew Cuomo
and then NYS Governor DaTzid Paterson and or their staff as electors to then Candidate EIector slate for Barack Hussein Obama I1 and the NYS BOE as to the Executive
Chairman and Commissioners deliberation process in regards to the qualifications

and eligibility of then 2008 POTUS Candidates; and that H. William Van Allen a s an expert on FOIL assisted in that regard and received a response from the NYS BOE on October 7, 201 1 that denied access to such information on grounds of attorney client privilege and work product (see Exhibit 9).
17. That on October 9, 2011 an additional FOIL request of H. William Van Alleii to

the NYS BOE urged release of archival information for the agency website for
qualifications for POTUS, on October 17, 2011 the NYS BOE denied (see Exhibit 10). 18. That for argument sake were there no 2008 "Running for Officenwebsite a s the
NYS BOE suggests and or were the Citizensl-Lip requirement to also say "Born a

Citizen" for the 2008 Election cycle,rather than "Natural born Citizen" a s Plaintiff

believes, then Defendant NYS BOE and its agents have demonstrated prima facie evidence of wrong doing a s to their fiduciary duty and culpability in the scheme to

Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support of OSC Page 7 of 17

APX - 177

defraud Plaintiff and those voters and tax payers similarly situated.
19. That Plaintiff contends that a s a result of the notification by overnight senrice

by order of the Court in October 2008 as to the Article 78 special proceeding in the
Petition 28641-08 that was accompanied with service of a copy of the Complaint
29642-08, then slate of electors had been afforded sufficient notice a s electors who

also have a special duty to the law, especially EL 56-122 (1) to ascertain whether or not Barack Hussein Obama I1 and others would qualify as a natural-born citizen - didn't do that; and therefore, Defendants may not also use their State Officer status to shield from the release of corsespondence with the NYS BOE Executive and or agents before
and or after the 2008 November election. Likewise as to the NYS BOE Executive

Session deliberations regarding natural born Citizen or other status of Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama, Mr. Calero and others must be a matter of public disclosure. A s such at least examination is available to the Court for in camera review with Plaintiff present.
20. That there was a 2008 Election Pamphlet entitled

"the2008 presidential election

PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTflUTIONRND UNITED STATES CODE" that described

whom is responsible for proper notification of the NYS BOE, the prospective candidates for office of POTUS and the electors of each slate the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Office of the Federal Register (OFR) maintains a copy of the Booklet that was provided to each respective State Governor in the 2008 election cycle in New York (see Exhibit 11);and that the Booklet states in the introduction:

Prior to the general election, the OFR sends an informational package to each state's governor to officially notify them of their electoral
NYS EL 6- 122. Designation or nomination; eligibility, restrictions. A person shall not be designated or nominated for a public office or party position who (1)is not a citizen of the state of New York; (2) b iaeligible to be elected to such office or position; or (3) who, if elected w i l l not at the time of commencement of the term of such o m c e or position, meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications thereof or. with respect to judic-id office. who wiU not meet such qualifications within t h t y days of the commencement of the term of such office. (Emphasis by Plaintit?)

Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of OSC Page 8 of 17

APX - 178

responsibilities. A s the results of the popular vote are finalized in each state, election officials send to the OFR Certificates of Ascertainment, which establish the credentials of their electors. In December, the electors hold meetings in each state to cast their votes for President and Vice President. Those choices are documented in Certificates of Vote, which are sent to the OFR for review on behalf of the Congress. In January, the Congress sits in joint session to certify the election of the President and Vice President, based on the documentary evidence assembled and reviewed by the OFR. In the year after the election, electoral documents are held a t the OFR for public viewing, and then transferred to the Archives of the United States for permanent retention and access.
21. That at page 6 shown on Exhibit 11 the 2008 Election Pamphlet recites Article
I1 of the Constitution Section 1 only as applies to the formation of the electoral college
per se not a s to the qualifications of the candidate to run for the office of POTUS and as such only states such clauses of Article II Section 1; however, omits clause 3 using

'* * * * * * *# as the 12th Amendment applies continues with clause 4 a s to the power
of the Congress but does not recite clause 5, 6, 7 and 8 as each applies.

22. A search of the 2008 Pamphlet shown a s Exhibit l l for the phrase "Born a
Citizen" did not establish that that term of art was a direction for use s t the 2008 Election cycle in New York.
23. The only way that use of the term of art "Born a Citizenn could have been used

is by direction of the Executive of the NYS BOE and specifically a t the Executive Session(s)when the term was chosen to be used separate and apart from any other direction that the 2008 Pamphlet expressly provided; and that the correspondence between the then Governor and Attorney General or their agents in that regard are of vital public interest not shielded by either attorney client privilege or work product consideration of waiver, especially since the term of art or idiom "Born a Citizen" was
an invention solely done a t the discretion of the NYS BOE Executive and or its agents

in conjunction with other State Officers several of whom were also electors in the

Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of OSC Page 9 of 17

APX - 179

POTUS race for which they were pre-determining by invention of qualifications


arbitrarily, is a n ultra vires act that is res ipsa loquitur and the word of art "Born a Citizenw a s a conclusive fact is ips0 facto evidence of wrong doing warranting at least a partial summary jud-gnent favoring Plaintiff in preparation for both a jury trial on the additional causes of action and specifically for a hearing on the scope and extent of damages as personal injury and irreparable harm imposed then and continuing now.
24. That such a partial summary judgment is required to establish that the Scheme

to Defraud with unjust enrichment was done as a result of ultra vires acts as a denial of Plaintiff along with those similarly situated equal protection of the law and as a conspiracy against public participation at the 2008 election still ongoing now as a matter of continuing injury and imminent irreparable harm that must be immediately adjudicated before the start of the national primaries.
25. That Plaintiff has not asked for this relief before nor is anyone else interested in

the outcome other than those citizens entitled to the prompt and lawful administration of elections and justice are done herein.
26. That Plaintiff in 2008 complained of irregularities to the NYS BOE as a matter

requiring administrative review and response w i t h EL 83-105, EL 33-106 and has been denied a response, and i s notwithstanding a s the State Counsel argued inadequate service before Justice David I. Schmidt J.S.C. in case 29642-08 could render a decision, nevertheless was sufficient for an administrative review to be done according to regulations and law was not done a s a matter of denial of substantive due process. 27. That as a hybrid matter within the Complaint filed March 22, 201 11 there is a requirement that this special proceeding be by an order to show cause as if a Petition with CPLR Article 78 provisions and question of law that apply as follows:

a. whether the body or officer failed to perform a duty enjoined upon it by

Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of OSC Page 10 of 17

APX - 180
.

law in the 2008 Election cycle and thereafter ;


b. whether the body or officer proceeded, is proceeding or is about to proceed

without or in excess of jurisdiction a s with the 2012 Election cycle; c. whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by a n error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion a s to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed;
d. whether a determination made as a result of a hearing held (Executive

Session in camera], and a t which evidence was taken, pursuant to direction by law is, on the entire record, supported by substantial evidence.
28. That Plaintiff contends that the ultra vires actions of State Defendants are in

conspiracy with the various State Political Parties and their respective candidates for the office of POTUS in both the 2008 election cycle and now the 2012 election cycle for continuation of usurpation of the Office of POTUS being used by a Ultramontane Syndicalist consortium of foreign persons and entities with Defendants and their allegiance to the European Union, the Mithrian Vatican with fellow Zoroastrian Persia for control over an Aryan Caliphate, especially in the theft of mineral rights and genocide against Christian people of Africa that this year alone includes the specter of six illegal wars including the overthrow of Mubarak of Egypt, Kaddafi of Libya, Assad of Syria, and now- a n adventure by U.S. Special Forces troops deployed to shore up Defendant Soros considerable investment in Uganda oil development (see Exhibit 12).

29. That for whatever reason NYS BOE chose to spoliate evidence a t The Internet Archive (ZJ is germane to the causes of action in the underlying Complaint.

The Internet Archive is a non-profit digital library with the stated mission of "universal access to all knowledge". I t offers permanent storage and access to collections of digitized materials, including websites, music, moving images, and nearly 3 million public domain

Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of OSC Page 11 of 17

APX-- 181 --

30. T . Intemet Archive was originally created by Brewster Kahle (3) of the Presidio in San Franciscis California. Internet Archive has a Mirror located in the Bibliotheca

books. The Internet Archive was founded by Brewster Kahle in 1996. I t is a member of the IIPC (International Internet Preservation Consortium).With offices located in San Francisco, California. USA, and data centers in San Francisco, Redwood City, and Mountain View, Califomlia, USA, the Archive's largest collection is its web archive, "snapshots of the World Wide Web". To ensure the stability and endurance of the Internet Archive, its collection is mirrored at the Bibliotheca Alexandiia in Egypt. The Archive allows the public to both upload and download digital material to its data cluster, and provides unrestricted online access to that material at no cost. The Archive also oversees one of the world's largest book digitization projects. I t is a member of the American Library Association and is officially recognized by the State of California as a library. In addition to its archiving function. the Archive is an activist organization, advocating for a free and open Internet. The Archive is a 50 1(c)(3) non-profit operating in the United States. It has a staff of 200, most of whom are book scanners in its book scanning centers. Its main office in San Francisco houses about 30 employees. The ~!chiTbe has an annual budget of $10 million, derived &om a variety of sources: revenue from its Web crawling services, various partnerships, grants. donations. and the Kahle-Austin Foundation. U r e w s t e r Kahle graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1982 with a Bachelor of Science in computer science and engineering, where he was a member of the Phi Fraterni*. The emphasis of his studies was artificial intelligence; he studied under Marvin Minsky and W. Daniel Hillis. Kahle is the founder of the Internet Archive and the Open Content AUiance, a group of organizations committed to making a permanent, publicly accessible archive of digitized texts. Kahle is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a member of the National Academy of Engineering, and serves on the boards of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the European Archive, the Television Archive, and the Internet Archive. He is a member of the advisory board of the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Reservation Program of the Library of Congress, and is a member of the National Science Foundation Advisory Committee for Cyber infrastructure. I n 2010 he was given an honorary doctorate in computer science from Simmons College, where he studied Library science in the 1980s.

He was a member of the Thinking Machines team (1983-1992), where he developed the WMS system, a precursor to the World Wide Web. In 1992, he co-founded, with Bruce Gilliat, WAIS, Inc., and, in 1996, AlexaInternet. At the same time as he started h a , he founded the Internet Archive, which he continues to direct.
ICahle and his wife, M q Austin, created the Kahle/AusGn Foundation, a US$45 million trust that supports the Internet Archive and other non-profit organizations.The Foundation suppoits the Free Sofhvare Foundation for the G N U vroject. Internet Archive is the "Hate Speech" Server for Al-Qaeaa, in that on August 17, 201 1, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRLorg)published "Al-Qaeda, Jihadis Infest the Sari Francisco, California-Based 'Intemet Archive' Library", which detailed how members can post anonymously and enjoy free uncensored hosting.

Plaintiffs Midavit in Support of OSC Page 12 of 17

Alexandrina Archive.

(4;

that maintains the only copy and external backup of the Internet

3 1 . The director of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina is Ismail Serageldin (3, who is

Bibliotheca Alexandrina Egypt. The idea of reviving the old library dates back to 1974. when a committee set up by Alexandzia University selected a plot of land for its new library, between the campus and the sea&ont, close to where the ancient library once stood. The notion of recreating the ancient library was soon enthusiastically adopted by other individuals and agencies. One leading supporter of the project was former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak; UNESCO was also quick to embrace the concept of endowing the Mediterranean region wiih a center of cultural and scientific excellence. A n architectural design competition, organized by UNESCO i n 1988 to choose a design worthy of the site and its heritage, was won by Snehetta, a Norwegian architectural office, from among more than 1,400 entries. At a conference held in 1990 in k v a n , the frrst pledges of funding for the project were made: USD $65 million, mostly &om the Arab states. Construction work began in 1995 and, after some USD $220 million had been spent, the complex was officially inau-gxated on October 16,2002.
The Bibliotheca Alexandrina is t r i l i n g u a l , containing books in Arabic, English and French. In 2010, the library received a generous donation of 500,000 books fi-om the National Library of France, Bibliotheque nationale de France (BnF).The gift makes the Bibliotheca Alexandrina the A also is now the largest depository of sixth-largest Francophone library in the world. The B French books in the Arab world, surpassing those of Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, in addition to being the main French library in Africa. The collections at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina were donated from all over the world. The Spanish donated documents that detailed their period of Moorish rule. The French also donated, giving the library documents dealing with the building of the Suez Canal.

Ismail Serageldin (born 1944 in Giza, Egypt) i s the director of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina. He also chairs the Boards of Directors for each of the BA's fisted research institutes and museums and xvas a Distinguished Professor at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. He was a member of the Senate in Egypt ( M a j l s Al-Shura). He holds a Bachelor of Science degree i n engineering from Cairo University and Masters' degree and a Ph-D. from Harvard University and has received 29 honorary doctorates. He has published over 60 books and monographs and over 200 papers on a variety of topics including biotechnology, nual development, sustainabilty, and the value of science to society. He is sometimes referred to as the "most intelligent man in Egypt" and i s a French Knight. He serves as Chair and Member of a number of advisoiy committees for academic, research, s c i e n a c and international institutions and civil society efforts which includes the Institut d'Egypte (EgyptianAcademy of Science),TWAS (Tllird World Academy of Sciences), the Indian National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, the Brookings Doha Center the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, and the American Philosophical Society. He is Professor of the International Chair Savoirs contre pauvrete (KnowledgeAgainst Poverty), at College de France, Paris, for the academic year 20 10/20 11. He is Co-Chair of the African Biotechnology Panel (withCalestous Juma). He is a foreign fellow of Bangladesh Academy of Sciences He worked in a number of capacities at the World Bank since joining in 1972. Economist in education and human resources (1972-76);Division Chief for Technical Assistance and Special Studies (1977-801, and for Urban Projects in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa (1980-83); Director for Programs in West Africa (1984-87): Country Director for Central and Occidental Africa (1987-89):Technical Director for aIl SubSaharan Afi-ica (1990-921,and Vice-President for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (1993-98).In addition, he was active in promoting NGO-Bank relations, and
5

Plaintiffs AfEdavit in Support of OSC Page 13 of 17

APX - 183

Chairman of the Board for the International Schoolfor Infomtion Science, is a professor at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, is associated with George Soros at the fntemational Crisis Group to maintain the 'Crisis Watch &tabus8 http: / /www.crisisgoup.org/en/publication-type/ crisiswatch/ crisiswatch(see

database.aspx?EndDate=9999 123l&StartDateOO101 l & o n I D s ) and serves


with Zbigniew Brzezinski on the Advisory Council ih) for the Qatar based Brookings

Doha Center as a project of the Saban Centerfor Middle E a s t Policy within the
Brookings Institution, started in 2007 and whose director is Salman Shaikh.

l . entered in 2008 and 32. Disclosure of records of the intrigue that NYS BOE et a
now protect by covemp in 2012 is germane to my injury and a calculation of damages.

33. That as to Plaintiffs personal damage injury, in 2008 when the petition and
Complaints were filed in state and federal venue without rapid resolution, Plaintiff

being 62 in March 2009 applied for the early provision of available Social Security
Administration benefits to be able t o devote full time to litigation rather than

served as Co-Chairman of the NGO-Bank Committee (1997-99).Prior to joining the World Bank. he worked as a consultant in city and regional planning, and taught at Cairo University and Harvard University. He is former Chairman of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR, 1994-2000),founder and former Chairman of the Global Water Partnership (1996-2000)and the Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest, a microfinance program (1995-2000).He was Chairman of the World Commission for Water in the 2 1st Century (August 1998-March 2000).
6

The Brookings Doha Center has an International Advisory Council which includes: Harnacl bin Jassim bin Jaber A1 Thani, Chair, Strobe Talbott, Co-Chair; Madeline Albright; Samuel Berger; Zbigniew Brzezinski; Edward P. Djerejian; Vartan Gregorian; Wajahat Habibullah, Musa Hitam; Pervez Hoodbhoy; Rima Khalaf Hunaidi; Nemir Kirdax; Rami G. Khouri; Atta urRahman; Ismail Serageldin, Fareed Zakaria. The Brookings Doha Center in i t s own words, conducts "research on the socio-economic and geopolitical issues facing Muslim-majority states

and communities, and encourages increased dialogue between policy rnake7.s from the U.S. and the Muslim world". The center is funded as the first research center in the Muslim world is a significant historical development thro~xgh a partnership between the B r o o m s Institution and the State of Qatar. The creation of the center was announced in October 2007 by Brookings President Strobe Talbott, and Saban Center director Martin Indyk and inaugurated February 17,2008 with an address by the Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber a 1 Thani, Prime h4inister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of Qatar. The Brookings Institution is America's oldest think tank http:/ /www.brookings.edu/events/2008/02 17-dohaaspx.

Plaintiffs Aflidavit in Support of OSC Page 14 of 17

APX - 184
-

continuing with private employment. I had not intended to apply for Social security until reaching 67 years of age a s I am of good health and fitness and except for the need to seek a separate source of funds to allow full devotion of personal time to litigation I suffered a diminishment of months allotment of funds by say $700 to an amount of $1071 per month or $12,882 annually rather than say $21,282 annually starting from my 6 7 t h year, or a loss of $8400 annually or $42,000 over five years.
34. That as a result of the usurpation of the office of POTUS by Defendants actions

and continuing acts of allegiance to foreign person(s) and entities to wage illegal war, genocide and gross theft of taxpayer funds a s well a s implementing policies for the ongoing destruction of the value of the currency, whereas when the value of the Dollar is compared to the discounted price of the London r i n g of the price of gold on the commodities market, gold has gone from say $741 per troy ounce on November 4, 2008 to say $1620 per troy ounce today, or rendering the value dollar more than half the 2008 value by design of the usurper and his agents and European d i e s .
35. Plaintiff damages reasonably are measured in equivalent gold troy ounce terms.

36. That as for the cost of the stolen 2008 election manipulated by the NYS BOE by
breach of fiduciary duty cost the taxpayers say no less than $1000 per Election District with say 16350 Eds, cost a total of say $16,350,000 to be verified by the New York State Controller; and to be reimbursed in a pro-rated calculation by the offending Defendants,
37. That the cost of all Plaintiff s litigation from 2008 until the completion herein is

to be born by Defendants who are found by jury trial to be held culpable avid liable jointly and severally.
38. Plaintiff is sufferingongoing irreparable harm beyond the damages referenced.

Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of OSC Page 15 of 17

APX - 185

Wherefore, Plaintiff mishes as time is off the essence and suffers ongoing injury from

2008 with imminent irreparable harm in 2012 that Defendants appear before the
court and show cause why an order should not be granted: a. A Mandamus of the New York State Board of Elections and or its agents to correctly instruct a candidate for Office of President of the United States (POTUS)to meet the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 "natural born Citizen" eligibility requirement instead of "born a citizen" improperly; b. A Stay of all New York Primaries until such time as the NYS BOE has properly notified a candidate of qualifications to run f o r office of POTUS;

c. A Stay of a l l ballot access until such time a s the respective candidate for
Office of POTUS has provided evidence of qualification eligibility; d. A Stay of all fund raising until conclusive proof of eligibility is established; e. Restraint of Defendants NYS BOE various New York State political parties
1 , Zbigniew Brzezinski, George and or committees, Barack Hussein Obarna 1

Soros and or their agents from interference with the proper public notice of requirements of a candidate for office of POTUS in New York; f. NYS BOE disclosure of any and all related archives in their possession or under its control for the POTUS qualifications, executive session records, correspondence and or communication records with electors of the Barack Hussein Obama 1 1 , John S. McCain I11 and or Roger Calero for the 2008 election cycle forward;

g. Further and different relief including reimbursement for damages incurred.


I have read the foregoing response to both motions and hereby request for the

this response be combined; and I know the purposes of brevity and clarification contents thereof apply to me by misapplication and administration of laws in creation

' 7 Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support of OSC Page 16 of 1

APX - 186

STRUNK V. NYS BOE ET AL NYSSC KINGS INDEX 6500-201 1

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

EXHIB
APX - 188

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS I A S PART 27

----------------------------------------x
Index No. 6500/11 (Hon. Arthur M . Schack)

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,

Plaintiff,

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,

et al.,

STIPULATION
OF EXTENSION

Defendants.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the


undersigned, that the time for any State defendant to respond to
the complaint i n t h i s action, dated March 22, 2011, be and the

same hereby is extended to October 12, 2011, and it is further


STIPULATED AND AGREED t h a t this stipulation may be executed

in facsimile, or by electronic means, and in counterparts.


Dated:

New York, New York August 11, 2011

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York A t t o ~ e y for State Defendany

-JOEL GRABER

S p e c i a l Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau 1 2 0 Broadway - 24thFloor

New York, NY 1 0 2 7 1 - 0 3 3 2
(2121 4 1 6 - 8 6 4 5 FAX ( 2 1 2 ) 4 1 6 - 6 0 0 9

APX - 189

APX - 180

STRUNK V N Y S BOE ET AL. NYSSC KNGS Ih'DEX 6500-201 1

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

EXHIB
APX - 191
--

Snpretm anurt a @e Sbte af $2eb For& Civic: Center Brooklyn, New York 11ZOl
CHRISTOPER-EARL - Prose 593 VANDERBILT AVE BROOKLYN NY 11238Index Mo.: 0006500/2011 Caption: STRUNK CHRISTOPHER-EARL

vs.

This is to advise you that our records indicate that the above referenced case has not had a Preliminary Conference as required by Uniform Court mles 202.19 (b)(l). Therefore you must comply with the following :

. You are hereby directed to appear for a Prelimhay Conference on ]I Of24/1L at 9:30am in tbe "Intake Part" located at 360 Adarns Street, Room 524 - Brooklyn NY 1IZc1. It is vour res~onsibifitfto notify at1 other parties in this action of the new date.
The representative who appears from your office must be fully familiar with and authorized to proceed with this case. The representative should therefore be aware of any scheduling conflicts. Counsel must bring all pertinent and necessary documents, including the bill of particulars, all insurance information and all medical reports. The representative must also be p~epared to address any outstanding discovery issues. The failwe of such a representative to appear may result in the Preliminary Conference being held ex-parte or other judicial action.

--

--

---

!
APX -

- __ 1%

STRUNK V. NYS BOE ET AL. NYSSC !SLNGS lNDEX 6500-2011

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

APX - 193 . .

aks&%e~

m e
*P&r%Esd

rn-

a38 mk? rk'ss5s

October 12, 201 1,6:38 pm New Hampshire Threatens Early December Primary

By SARAH W A A T O N
Will the 2012 elections officially start in 201 l? William M. Gardner, New Hampshire's longtime secretary of state and stalwart defender of its first-in-the-nation primary status, has issued a warning that the state's primary could be as early as Dec. 6 or 13 if Nevada Republicans do not move back their Jan. 14 caucus date by at least three days. By state law, New Hampshire's primary must be held at least seven days before a "similar" contest - wording that has traditionally allowed Iowa to hold its caucuses first. But "Nevada's caucus is similar in the eyes of our statute," Mr. Gardner wrote 111 a three-page statement issued Wednesday afternoon. New Hampshire has the "logistics in place" to hold its primary during the first or second Tuesday in December "if needed," he said. Florida set otythe chain reaction, Mr. Gardner said, when Republican officials there settled on a Jan. 31 primary. A Jan. 21 primary is now scheduled in South Carolina, and Nevada Republicans chose Jan. 14 last week. "That left Tuesday, January 3rd as a possibility for us, but Iowa officials tentatively decided that their caucus would be on that day," wrote Mr. Gardner. But in an apparent show of solidarity with the other traditional first state, he said the "problem is the date of Nevada," not Iowa. He also noted the national parties' "important role in that they can discourage other states from trying to leapfrog onto our tradition." "We cannot allow the political process to squeeze us into a date that wedges us by just a few days between two major caucus states," Mr. Gardner wrote.

Copyright 201 1 The New York T i e s Company Privacy Policy NYTimes.cotn 620 Eight11Avenue New York, NY 100 I X

APX - 194

Why New Hampshire's Primary Tradition Is Important


By William Gardner, New Hampshe Secretary of State
October 12,2011

Every four years Americans elect the most powerful leader in the world. We go to the polls and select the man or woman who will be President of the United States. It is probably the most important political decision each of us makes because o w choice can affect the lives and happiness of ourselves and our children for years into our future.
DEMOCRACY IS HARD WORK Protecting American democracy has been a cause of freedom in our nation for over two centuries, and our fellow citizens who have gone before us dedicated their lives, and in some cases lost their lives, in that fight. The principles of democracy and freedom are worth every bit of that fight.

One vital way that we preserve our democracy is to have an election system that allows for the long-said American dream that just about anyone can grow up to be President of the United States. Our boys and girls just starting to go to school should feel that regardless of their wealth or other limitations, they too could become president, or whatever else they aspire to. For nearly 100 years, the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Pnmary has had meaning and relevance to American politics. It has allowed for candidates regardless of national standing or financial capability to begin their launch into presidential politics by winning or doing well here. Several aspiring Americans likely would not have become president if they weren't first able to make their case door-to-door, face-to-face, eye-to-eye with New Hampshire voters who meet them at our homes, in our backyards, and on o w sidewalks away from the microphones and cameras that create a barrier between human beings. NEW HAMSHIRE IS FIRST FOR A REASON. While New Hampshire has had a presidential primary since 1916, and has been first since 1920, it wasn't until 1975 that our status was put into state law. The law now requires that our primary is 7 days or more before similar elections that would challenge our traditional position. What that law requires is that I look at the nominating events of other states where presidential candidates run,and then set o w primary a week ahead of them. Since New Hampshire citizens pay for our primary, we can hold it whenever we wish.

APX - 195

It is up to the candidates themselves to decide whether to campaign here. Ours is the first event where voters go into the privacy of the voting booth to make a choice for a candidate on the ballot. It tells the nation something about their support.
CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVES. It used to be that delegates for national political conventions were chosen in secret mainly by party leaders, out of view of the public. Would we tolerate that kind of process now? And without having caucuses and primaries in smaller states, larger states would have the exclusive major role in the nominating process.

Worse yet, if a national primary was held, or if the role of small states was eliminated, only the very rich or famous candidates would be able to put on the major campaigns needed for victory or to exceed expectations. In a state like New Hampshire, candidates can rn without a large staff or heavy advertising and consulting budgets if they have a message, meet directly with voters, and explain why they should be president. Examples abound.
OPTIONS FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE'S P R W R Y DATE. With Florida movlng its primary earlier than originally planned to January 31st, and South that Carolina making a move to set its primary ten days earlier to January 2lStt, began to limit options for setting our date in January. When officials in Nevada set their caucus for Saturday, January 14', that left Tuesday, January 3"' as a possibility for us, but Iowa officials tentatively decided that their caucus would be on that day.
My job as NH Secretary of State is to follow our law, which mandates that I set our election 7 days or more before any event that would threaten our traditional leadoff status. So if Nevada does not adjust its caucus date to a later time, I cannot rule out the possibility of a December primary.

We cannot allow the political process to squeeze us into a date that wedges us by just a few days between two major caucus states. Ow primary will have little meaning if states crowd into holding their events just hours after our polls have closed. The date of our primary is decided by state law, not by the rules or desires of political parties. Since Nevada's caucus is similar in the eyes of our statute, it means the New Hampshire primary can be set no later than Saturday, January 7th.

--

APX - 196

IT'S REALLY UP TO NEVADA. If Nevada does not accept a date of Tuesday, January 1 7 or ~ later ~ for its caucus, it leaves New Hampshire no choice but to consider December of this year. The dates of Tuesday, December 13th, 'and Tuesday, December 6th are realistic options, and we have logistics in place to make either date happen if needed. Candidates have been campaigning here, and elsewhere, for months, and it is about time we begin the next stage of the presidential nominating process.
The political parties did not give New Hampshire its presidential primary. Traditionally, it has been the first in the nation for almost a hundred years, and our state law protects our tradition. We have the largest turnout in the country, and our citizens take their roles and obligations seriously. But the parties do have an important role in that they can discourage other states from trying to leapfrog onto our trdtion. Right now, the problem is the date of Nevada. We will respond as we need to in order to honor New Hampshire's tradition, and to keep o w primary relevant. Not to do so would allow us to lose an important element of American democracy forever. New Hampshire will not let that happen.

APX - 19'7
-

S T R U M V NYS BOE ET AL. NYSSC IUNGS INDEX 6500-2011

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

EXHIBIT 4
APX - 198

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS Part 27 Index No.:

--------------------------------------------------------------------X
Christopher-Earl: S t m n k , in esse
Plaintif&

6 5 0 0 - 2 0 11

(Hon. Arthur M. Schack J.S.C)

KEVIN RICHARD POWELL


NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIOIS; et al.

AFFIDAVIT

Defendants.

........................................................................
STATE OF GEORGIA

1
)s s .

COUNTY OF GWINNETT )
Accordingly, I, Kevin Richard Powell, being duly sworn, depose and say under

penalty of perjury:

1.

Affirmant is over 17 years of age and not a party to this case herein;

2.

My place for service is located a t 2633 Davenharn Lane, Duluth, GA 30096

3.

My expertise in t!nis matter is: I am currently employed a s a Television

Producer ] Editor with Fulton County Government Television in Atlanta, GA. Attached is Exhibit A, a copy of my resume highlighting my 25 years of experience in the Television and Broadcasting industry.

4.

I am preparing this affidavit for Plaintiff and am willing to testiSy accordingly;

5.

On September 20th, 2011;I published under the pen name of Pixel Patriot a
Kevin Richard Powell =davit

Page 1 of i 2

L__pp_

APX - 199

---- -

report in an internet blog on the case before this Court in an effort to educate the American public about the issue.

6.

On Monday, October 3 r d , 201 1; I was told by the Plaintiff, Christopher-Earl

Strunk that someone was ffing a FOIA request with the New York State Board of
Elections, which I will further refer to a s (NYS BOE); for previous versions of their website. Mr. Strunk informed me that the part of the BOE website that lists candidate eligibility previously said the Presidential candidate was required to be a Natural Born Citizen. I did not know that the website previously stated that. I asked Mr. Strunk if he had personally seen it before it was changed and he said that he had.

7.

While we were still on the phone I went to the website for The Internet Archive

service called the Wayback Machine and started looking for previous versions of the Board of Elections website.

8.

The Wayback Machine allows users to search through "over 150 billion

webpages archived from 1996 to a few months ago."

9.

I have successfully used the Wayback Machine before with this same method in

order to find the telephone number for the Honorable Sean Jerguson, Georgia state representative which had been published on a previous version of his district website.

10. The result that I got when I entered the URL for the NYS BOE candidate

eligibility webpage: http:/ /liveweb.archive.org/http://www.elections.state.ny.us/RunningOffice.html

Kevin Richard Powell Affidavit Page 2 of 12

APX - 200

into the Wayback Machine on October 3d was an error message that said: "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine."
(I will refer to this as - EXCLUDED MESSAGE 1)

11. I then researched what this error message means and what would generate this
error message. I learned that The Internet Archive actually has policies governing the issuance of both EXCLUDED and BLOCKED error messages a s a result of search requests.

12. I discovered that the NYS BOE could embed what is known a s robot.txt into the
computer programming source code for their website, and that this would cause the Wayback Machine to generate the EXCLUDED error message that I saw on the 3 1 ~ 1of October.

13. Upon learning that such a tactic could be employed by a government website to

prevent the public from seeing previous versions of it's website; I immediately went to the NYS BOE website to view its computer programming source code and found that it did indeed have the robot.txt code embedded.

14.

I continued my research looking for previous versions of the NYS BOE website

and discovered that not only did they have previous versions of their webpages EXCLUDED by the robot.kt but that webpages were actually being BLOCKED a t the mirrored site to The Internet Archive in Alexandrina, Egypt.
(I will refer to this a s - BLOCKED MESSAGE 2)

Kevin Richard Powell Aflidavit Page 3 of 12

APX - 201

1 5 . According to The Internet Archive exclusion policies, in order for webpages to be


BLOCKED; the request had to have been made by the site owner.

16. Furthermore, the Internet Archives exclusion policy stipulates that "Archivists
will exercise best-efforts compliance with applicable court orders" and "Beyond that, a s noted in the Library Bill of Rights, Zibraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.'

17. Upon disc.ovesing the NYS BOE website's deceptive practices; I took screen captures of the EXCLUDED and BLOCKED error messages and downloaded the corresponding computer programming source code and then wrote a report and published it online two days later at 7: 16 pm on Wednesday October 5th, 2011 here: http:/ /pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/ lO/new-york-state-boe-w-ebsite-covet-up.htm1

18. I will refer to my online report in this Affidavit a s Exhibit B.

19. The day after my report was published online, another website known a s the

BirtherReport at: ~~ww.ObamaReleaseYourRecords.com which I will furtber refer to a s (ORYR), published my report on Thursday October 6th, 201 1.

20.

I woke early on Friday October 7 t h , 201 1 and decided to test the html links to

my report a s I periodically do. At 3:25 AM ET, I was unable to access the link to the BLOCKED error. Since my computer browser did not say it could not display the webpage, 1was concerned that it might be a DoS attack on that server in order to prevent others from seeing the BLOCKED error message.

Kevin Richard Powell Affidavit Page 4 of 12

APX - 202

2 1. As defined by the Department of Homeland Security:

http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/tips/ST04-015.h.tml
National Cyber Alert System Q b e r Security Tip ST04-015

What is a denial-of-service (DoS)attack?

In a denial-of-service (DoS)attack, a n attacker attempts to prevent legitimate users from accessing information or services. By targeting your computer and its network connection, or the computers and network of the sites you are trying to use, an attacker may be able to prevent you from accessing email, websites, online accounts (banking, etc.), or other services that rely on the affected computer.

The most common and obvious type of DoS attack occurs when a n attacker "floods"a network with information. When you type a URL, for a particular website into your browser, you are sending a request to thar site's computer server to view the page. The sen7ercan only process a certain number of requests a t once, so if an attacker overloads the server with requests, it can't process your request. This is a "denial of service" because you can't access that site.

22.

Since this time I was not getting any error messages, I wanted confirmatioil of

what I was experiencing so I called the site owner for ORYR and he said he could not access it either nor was he getting any kind of error message from his browser. After about 5 minutes while we were still talking on the phone, the BLOCKED error

Kevin Richard Powell Affidavit Page 5 of 12

APX - 203

message s ~ ~ d d e ndisplayed ly in the browser on my computer screen and when I told this to ORYR he said the exact same thing happened for him at the exact same time.
He then ran a program called Sitemeter which allows him to see who is accessing his

website and he told me that within 10 minutes after I had tried to access the BLOCKED site that the U.S. Department of State was looking at my report on his website ORYR:

23.

On Saturday, Oclober 8th I did the same test for the NYS BOE website using

the Wayback Machine; however this time I got a different error message.
This time the error message said:

Kevin Richard Powell Affidavit Page 6 of 12

APX - 204

24.

"Hrm. Wayback Machine doesn't have that page archived.

Want to search for all archived pages under http: / / www.elections.state.ny.us~


(I will refer to this a s - PAGE NOT ARCHIVED MESSAGE 3 )

25. Instead of:

26.

"Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine."

(EXCLUDED MESSAGE 1)

27.

I went back to the W S BOE website and checked the source code and the

robot.txt code was still embedded so I knew that The Internet Archive had to have changed their "own" source code. I was very concerned because this appeared to me non-profit organization and the NYS BOE since to indicate collusion between a 5 0 1 ~ 3 their code was changed just 3 days after my report was published.

28.

I made screen captures on Saturday October 8 t h documenting the fact that by

putting the URL for the NYS BOE into The Internet Archive Wayback Machine a different error message was generated.

29. Additionally, I have also recorded the exact same sequence of steps on

videotape, which I will refer to here as Exhibit C; in real-time in order to document as irrefutable proof that a different error message is generated from what was when I published my report.

Kevin Richard Powell AfEdavit Page 7 of 12

APX - 205 --

30. After having found that the NYS BOE was engaging in a deceptive manner, I
decided to scrutinize the event that I had just experienced a t The Internet Archive Wayback Machine website so that I could fully understand and document it. I took a closer look at the URL in my browser for The Internet Archive error message and I noticed that the URL had an asterisk character " * ",also known a s a wildcard. I know from my personal experience with computers that this wildcard character is used with search strings to define varying search parameters.
I decided to manually invoke the

same search without the wildcard character so I placed the computer curser using my mouse in the URL field and backed up two spaces to remove the asterisk and the preceding forward slash character and hit enter and I instantly got the EXCLUDED error message that I previously did before Saturday: (EXCLUDED MESSAGE 1).

3 1. On Sunday, I consulted with a Cert5ed Microsoft Systems Engineer in order to

verify my findings:

William Lolli, MCSE

President of Tech Assist, Inc. A network consulting company

32. He downloaded a static record of The Internet Archive website source code and
then using special software he also did a live trace of both error messages to confirm that they were both being generated from the same IP address owned by The Internet Archive. I have included as Exhibit D a printout of his DNS report with the IP trace. Additionally, here are questions where I was seeking clarification from the DNS report and his responses:

Kevin Richard Powell M d a v i t Page 8 of 12

APX

_____.-/-

33.

Question: Would you like to expound on the DNS report or is its main

significance that it verifies both domains trace back to the same IP address: 207.241.226.201

34.

Lolli: Wes, it simply shows that archive.org traces back to a block of IP

addresses-- which is pretty d a m big-- 207.241.224.0 - 207.241.239.255, basically


3825 IF addresses are available to their poole."

35. Then we both simultaneously went through the same sequence of steps using

the NYS BOE URL with the Wayback Machine and we compared the error message that was generated. He said that the change in results generated by a search for the
NYS BOE URL using the Wayback Machine would indicate the Internet Archives had

to have changed their own code.

36. Lolli: "Web sites generally have front-end webpages that can send inputrequests for response-outputs of data to a backend database. The database, then responds with either text or an entire webpage a s a response to the query. It is safe to suggest that the archive.org system has more than one database on more than one physical or virtual host [server]. Depending on the URL string, responses are generated from any number of databases; and in this case, probably two."

37. Lolli: "By removing the */ from the URL, you are re-directed to another serverhost (known as liveweb.archive.org),and a new message page is generated and displayed"

Kevin Richard Powell Affidavit Page 9 of 12

APX - 207

38. I also consulted with a professional web developer, Ross Arena; to get a second
opinion. He mites computer programs and internet source code for building websites

and I contacted him through the online referral service called Odesk at
www.odesk.com.

39. I sent him the original source code from last week and gave him a description of
what 1 experienced. Then we reviewed these steps again while discussing it over the phone at the same time. He told me he had noticed a correlation between the "Show
All" button and the (PAGE NOT ARCHIVED MESSAGE 3).

40. He said that the "Latest" button sends a bot to check the website live. I asked
him why would the source code for the "Latest" button not be a subset of the code for
the *Show All" button? He said that is just the way that the developers of The Internet Archive Wayback Machine chose to do it.

41. After Mr. Arena explained to me how the "Show AU" button is invoking the
(PAGE NOT ARCHIVED MESSAGE 3),I deduced that the "Show Alln button is only searching for indexed webpages and he agreed.

42.

That being the case, I then suggested testing for a connection between the

"Latest" button and the first error message I saw last week and when we both tested that, it did generate the first error message: (EXCLUDED MESSAGE 1).

43.

Therefore, Mr. Arena confirms t h a t evidenced in The Internet Archive's source

code on line 22 1 a s can be seen in the screenshot referred to as Exhibit E, the ACTION

Kevin Richard Powell Affidavit Page 10 of 12

APX - 208

command reverses the result you get when you hit the "Take Me Back" button. It now invokes the "Show All" button query which displays a PAGE NOT ARCHIVED

MESSAGE as opposed to the "Latest" button query which displays the EXCLUDED
MESSAGE.

Exhibit E

44.

Therefore, in summary; the New York State Board of Elections website is a

government website and The Internet Archives Exclusion Policy indicates that their normal course of action would be to NOT exclude previous versions of the NYS BOE webpages; however they are. Three days after a report was published exposing this deceptive practice, The Internet Archives changed their computer source code so that searches for previous versions of the N Y S BOE webpages would generate an error message telling the user that the page they are looking for is not archived instead of

an error message that would highlight a deceptive practice by the NYS BOE while
simultaneously concealing an exception to their own Exclusion Policy. And even though the resultant message has changed for the user of the Wayback Machine, the previous versions of the N Y S BOE webpages that listed the requirements for President to be a Natural Born Citizen are still being excluded.

Kevin Richard Powell Affidavit Page 11 of 12

APX - 210

STRUNK V. NYS BOE ET AL. IWSSC ICINGS INDEX 6500-2011

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Kevin Richard Powell Affidavit

EXHIBIT A
-

APX - 211

----

KEVIN R POWELL
TELEVlSiON PROMiCER 1 EDITOR 1 3 30 r ANlMATrON " ""'^"-"

EDUCATION:
MlWLE RNNmSEESTAK UNNERSlTY, ~
~ TN (Graduated m 19%) ,

Bachelor of Science in Recording Industry Maniqement with a double minw in Mass (%tnn-~unicaf~#ls and Eleckotlics.

AWARCIS..

(2W20as) 6 Tetiy Amrds


(2005)

(20031

1 Telty A w n l 2 Aurora Awards

VIEkto Producer 1 E d i r Animator 1 Visual Eff& Animator f Vswi Effects

UPERIENGE:

FGW, Man&,GA (3 4/04 G u m U y Employed) Teievisior, Producer I Editorfor pragrarnrningb m t on Fubn Government Televkm. Photo-Realisk 30 Animatwn Msual EffectsI Storyboard and V l s u a f i i n for special projects
Encoding for web streaming and DVD.

CRAWFORD COAIIIIAUNICATIONS, INC., Atlanta, GA [519&3lf04)

Digital Video Editor, Graphics Artist, Pbtc-Realistic 30 Animation and Visual Effects For network and episodic television including HDTV. Clients include CNN, TNT, NBC Spds, NationalGeographic, I P K D m i q Communications, The Learning Channel, BFLAC, Ciemson Unnrersity, the UnivWSity of N I i p p i and DavisAdvertising. Used a distributive render program to cmte a render farm where muspfe workstations coutd be ufiliredto render animat'is This anowed for an extremeijr efficient woMow. Iwould create complex schedules so that when various segments or specific frames of animations neededto be revised, aft of the available cpu's in the render farm where opemting a peak usage. The rnanagemeflt skdlswere critical in this process and therefore Ihad to analyze ongoing render metriGs so as to update the schedules as needed. Icreated excel spreadsheets to track h i s was important for instant access and projm\lilrrlOiis compmnb of the job such as the time and m u m s . T to required media and deteminingwhen additional resources were needed to be acquired as welt as for budgeting and preparing bids for prospeclive clients and jobs. Icreated an html website forthe Crawford intranet which was a how-to instntctiorra! guide explaining the process for mvefting various font formats and graphics into Chyron fa& and keyable media. Encoding with Sorenson Squeeze for web streamingand DVD. FTP media to host server for client approval and sharing resources. Upconvertarrd d o w ~ ~ n v e between rt HTDV and standard definition including IeUwixx,anamrphic and centercut. Convert bemen frame rates with Teranex Xantus Format Ganverter

FREELANCE, ('99-2005) Produce highend graphics, mpasitog and 30 m&ling and animation for websites and advertising. 2000 Website design, graphics, 30 animation, Ffash and Shockwave for A&J Coffee, LLC 1999 - Website design, graphics 3D animation, Flash and Sbdwave for Tniech

AUDIO WDEO BYRD, Atlant;l, GA (

Vldeo Producer, Senior Post-Production Editor, Graphics Artist and 3D Animator. As the V k h Producer and Senior Post-Production Ediir, 1 was requested by & i n k to assist them in every aspect of f&vision production. I ,wuM create the initial storyboards in consultation for their needs and then ptoduce the finished product by byeating and aoquiring all of the neoessarj! resw~es, and then edit the finished pr@duct In a timdy manner has& on heir time and budget e-m. 1 also performed mWte maintenance on equipment such as tape head cleaning, installing new software upgractes and patches, replacing DVE fans, monitor power supplies, switcher LED'S and h s h

7)

EPROM's.
TBSENT, Ailatria, GA f193-%)
Freeianoe Pmt-PraducEien Editor- Edit S p a n i s h and Pottuguese transiation into feature frtms for TBS Studios and Turner Entertainment library. CMX 3100, GVG 200 stwitcfrers, ADO DWs, Sony 02 composite digrtal with Z a x m T5C.

APX - 212

Video P d m r I Ed'&. i masteredthe ability to edit under tight deadfines for a gtobal24 hour network My w r k experience indudes producing, script-writing and on-line &Ring of Science and Technolcgy features for the SeIencc3 Featurn Dept. I produefxl material which was highiy technical in content and coordinated inWrews and shoots with organkations such as NASA, i h e Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the American Astronom'mt Society, Iwas the video editor twice for remote shoots at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Coooa Beach Flortda for Space Shuttie launches. 1 e d i i ReM p r o d u d W a g e s distributed via satellite to subscribing affiliateTV stations. Video Journalist duties at C C M N included: Assistant Director, Studio Fioor ManagerFStudlo Camera Operator and Tefepmmpter.

CNN t HEADUNE NEWS, Atlanta, GA (4189-1193)

AUWD PBBDUCTMNS, 1NTL, Huntsville, A t (8t884C89)


Video Producw f Videographer I E d i i - Produce, shoat a d Wi for United States Space Camp, Space m y and Teacher's pFogram at the Huntsvilb S p m and Rocket Centel: i s b t a ! of the various activities including: space simuiations, the r n u I t i a x i s Wmer, I % grav& EVA'S, the $light deck arid mission oontrol simulation. I shot intenriewswith camp participanfs, teechers, insbuctors, special activitiw, speck4 pragrams and special ceremonies. I then edit h i 4 ~ h m t l s for ail nts in a spedfic group. The activities were designed lo gibe -pants a chance to participate in activities similar to those experienced by tht3 astronauts.

CLAY TEPPENPAW WDEO PRODUCTK)NS, Nashville, TN Video Producer/ Videographer I Edibx f Director. Design and instal

ed v d u c t i o n control room /edit suite Instaliationof lighting grid in s t u d i o .Diredor ITD for mutbf-mmeraproduction in studio and mobiletruck.

GUMBEatAND MUSEUM AND SCIENCE CENTER, Nasheile, TM ("g0-'81) er for the Sudekum Planetarium at the Cumberland Museum and Wince Center. with 4 color lasers &at would be preprogrammed fw use tMth various other effects such as rnultipb srrde pfoctws, film projectors, the planetarium star bail and a smoke machine. The b l radio F produced the sound tradrs and the planetarium would produce a spedfic show for each soundback. The s h w sound m k s would eiMer be a compilation of musk by a n-nally known contemporary rock band o ra compiWon o f songs from various contemporary artists. As a two man team we woutd aitemate between operating the lasers o r the effects and sound system.

renaiine, Symphony, Media Composer, Xpresf DV Pro Discreet Logic: Ftarne, Combus8on Alias: Maya Unlimited, Maya Fusion Adobe: Production Premium CS5 b i :Power Toois
Wa~hnane:
=

WD-DS, HDCAM, DVCPRO W D , DVCANI, Digitai Betacam, D-1, D-2,Betacam SP 601 Digital Linear Edit Suite with Axial, UDR and Chyron

PERSONALCONTACT i N F C 5 :
2633 bvenham Lanet Duiuth, GA 30036

APX - 213

STRUNK V. NYS BOE ET AL NYSSC KLNGS LNDEX 6500-2011

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Kevin Richard Powell Affidavit

APX - 214

NEW YORK STATE BOE WEBSITE COVER-UP

New York State Board of Elections Website Blocking Access To Natural Born Citizen Requirements
Pixel Patriot I 015120 I I

BY

Previous versions of the New York State Board of Elections website that listed the qualifications for the Presidential candidates to be a Natural Born Citizen have not only been scrubbed, but their website has html source code embedded to prevent archiving and specifically coded so as to be excluded in archival sites such as the Way Back Machine.

(Robot Text - embedded in NY BOE website to thwart access to Natural Born Citizen reference)

The Board of Elections website cites Article I ISection 1as the Constitutionalauthority for Presidential requirements; however the referenceto Natural Born Citizen has been replaced with just "Born a citizen" and they do not list Clause 5 which was specifically included by the Framers as a strong check against dual allegiance and f o ~ i g n influence for the Office of the President of the United States and Commander-inchief :

APX - 215 _

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I1 SECTION I CLAUSE V

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, ai the time qf the Adoption ofthis Constitution,shall be eligible to the Ofice of President; neither shall a T Person be eligible to that OfJicewho shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-Jive Fears, and beenfourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
"

The New York State Board of Elections regularly updates their website. And you can use an internet archive program called the Way Back Machine to see some of the previous versions of the Board of Elections website as it existed during various times in the past. However, not all of the previous webpages are available; and it is not due to broken links. The Board of Elections is employing technology within the computer programming language that makes up the website to actively block someone from gaining access to the webpage that previously listed the Natural Born Citizen requirement for the Presidency.

Wow can I have my site's pages excluded from the Wayback Machine?
Here's how:

INTFRYET ARCHIVE

5arryw
This CRLhas been exctaded &om the SYaybaeEzhIac&e.

Natural Born Citizen Requirement - EXCLUDED

APX - 216

INTfRUET ARCHIVE

- - - I

Show Aii I

Sasrrg.
TttistXL has k n ac1udd from the %Sayback hrachine.

Natural Born Citizen Requirement - EXCLUDED

"The lnternet Archive is not interested in preserving or offering access to Web sites or other Internet documents of persons who do not want their materials in the collection. By placing a simple robots-txt file on your Web server, you can exclude your site from being crawled as well as exclude any historical pages from the Wayback Machine.
Here are directions on how to automaticallv exclude your site. If you cannot

place the robots.txt file, opt not to, or have further questions, email us at info at archive dot org:"

APX - 217

The internet Archive b not interested in offering access to '7ieh sties or other internet documents whose authors do not want their rnatedals in the cvlle~eionf a remove your site fram zhe Wayback kfachine, piase a ~obots W xiife at the fop level of your site {e g r.i~tw ynordamain comkabots twt)and then submit your site befovf
She robo:s W file viill do tvm inings.

I . il ?dill reiftove all documents from your domain from the i'fapback Machine 2 il rrillteli us not to crat~l your site in the future

To exciude il~e internet &c&ive's cravgier (and remove documerris from the Wayback Machine) i%*i!ealla~ing all other robs& Io crab&!your si& your robots M W e should say

Roboh M is ?henosf widely used memod for contr~iilng fhe behayior of automated robots on four site jali msjnraoba'is, helading those of Gacgle WTa Vtsta etc resped these sxclustens) It can be used lo alack access30 she whale damain or any Ble or direcfery ~sithinThere aw a large number of resourms for \veQmasters and site ownen describiming t h i s method and he& lo use P

Heie are some

The robots ki file nwsi tta placed at * e root of your domain ihwctv yourdomain comirabois Mj tlff you up wad our exciosion aolicv I yau think it apptfes to you send a request to us at mfo@arclatve nrg

cannot giQ a robots txt frle

Here is the actual code extracted directly from the Board of Elections website as of Tuesday October 4th,2011: ROWS 10-11
tmeta name="googlebot" content="noarchive" / > (meta name="robots" content="noarchive" / >

---

APX - 218

ELecricns Running for Office Pag'etlTi:lr,


-r,tc-i:="te.irihtol;

cha-aer=i;a-a859-l"

/')

sati.=n cn Petiricnr. jample Forms, \:itr.eises t o

Petition, Co~irersheets

I?

t i = ~ a i r r i p t , pleare v i e w the

<i

r-+=""A-i ,,.r.ndex.titr;i"~Zite

Index

ye-csntsgr * v i d t h s - - - >

Here is the source code for the Presidential candidate requirements:

Rows 111-115 ctd headers="l">President of the United Statesc/td> ctd headers="2" valign="top">Born a citizenc/td>
c t d headers="3" valign="topW>35 years</td>

ctd headers="4" valign="topn>l4 years in countryc/td> ctd headers="5" valign="top">United States Constitution Art. I1 &sect; lc/td>
97
95

.;ldr*>

:dA?

*44
X W

="8nidCcntenrmr 4-1 _ i = ' i a d f n i > R ~ n ~ ifar n~ Hf_trc*hli ct~: ~="Resuzi~HuidCMflce* ,Requi-erneats


T

in E o l d Dfficeciii:>
sh,p,
age, resldenc) and staxute to h o l d

iaz
iE2

+L-

a)

-"Thr, tah:e :is%% t h e "equired 'ff--.&= " 3 : - r ="I L83 it5r=lef+> %@A , t i ? I ; = ' 2 >C:FIC?<J~I'> 105 itl ;1="2' ~CXTIZEPESHIP(/~~> 1 8 C a \r? - L Z = " ? ' ~ , U G E < , rir> $87 <?ti , r = " 6 " ~ R E S I 3 R ~ ~ i i l t ~ ZBB c i $3 ='5' >5T>TJTE<ril 3
(t331" -c

L:-'=';@@x"

T.+

;..

a ztateiirde

<d-->

< .-

o:-gr-"left",

i:~ade:-5="l",f~esi&nt of t h e United StatestZrd)


!hzz.re~s="2" .ir. 't 'i z e n i / M > .. ~ ~ E .a = " t oap d 3" .,a!rgz="rcp">35 years<itd> ctd 'pr..-+rs="i" x.3l5:;;.='"top",la year; Tn counrryi/id~ ctd hrr;ce,-s="S" ~:rli~m="tc~"iUnited States Covstitetion A r t . 11 Sitct. lilt$>

',;d -c - ...=:' . !.,ceu

< ! t ? >

APX - 219

The lnternet Archive "This webpage is no longer available", is the sentence familiar to you? "This is no longer a problem since a complete archive for webpages is now available. Through The lnternet Archive, you can retrieve expired webpages, trace the development of websites, and go back to events that have shaken the world."
Really

Additionally, previous versions of the Board of Elections website have also been "BLOCKED" and can't be accessed from The lnternet Archive at the ,which mirrors The Wayback Machine:

Btocked Site Error.


hi@ //RW elections state ny usiRunntngORce html IS not available m the Wayback Machine. Try anaaer request or ctrck here io see ~fthe page 1 s available, Iwe. on the &eb. htig , ~ J A ~ Fzle:iirins SV - sra:e _ _ _ riZd -us _.A%" : wr;ina,?Rce i;trii!
_ u . -

A closer examination of the exclusion policv reveals the typical response by The
lnternet Archive when having been made by a GOVERNMENT request: Archivists will exercise bestefforts compliance with applicable court orders. Beyond that, as noted in the Library Bill of Rights: 'Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.'

APX - 220

Therefore, according to The Internet Archive exclusion policy; if the New York State Board of Elections made a request to have webpages excluded that would block access to historical references to the term Natural Born Citizen as a requirement for Presidential candidates, the request should have been denied. By removing the reference to Natural Born Citizen as a requirement for a Presidential candidate from the Board of Elections website, that in and of itself is indicative of a concerted attempt to mislead the voters. However, a directive had to have been issued to the person programming the website to implement a technological blockade specifically designed to thwart current and future attempts to gain access to any previous versions of the website that include the Natural Born Citizen reference; pointing to a cover-up and a broader conspiracy by the New York State Board of Elections. This deceptive practice by the New York State Board of Elections is antithetical to Bill A04356, an ACT to amend election law in the State of New York. Introduced on February 2,201 1 by M. of Latimer in the 2011-2012 Regular Sessions in Assembly: Section 1. Subdivision 1 of section 3-106 of the election law, as amended by chapter 8 of the laws of 1978 and as redesignated by chapter 9 of the laws of 1978, is amended to read as follows:
1. (A) In addition to the powers and duties elsewhere enumerated in this article, the state board of elections, after public hearings, shall adopt a "fair campaign code" WHICH SHALL SET forth ethical standards of conduct for persons, political parties and committees engaged in election campaigns including, but not limited to, specific prohibitions against practices of political espionage and other political practices WHICH INVOLVE subversion of the political parties and process, SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE MISREPRESENTATIONOF THE CRIMINAL RECORD OR BACKGROUND, MORAL TURPITUDE, CHARACTER, VOTING RECORD OR OTHER SPECIFIC ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF A CANDIDATE, TO A POTENTIAL VOTER

APX - 221

i.+\ftlDLD TIlROl riH i\Wi4Rk I ?#)I 1 1 ~RTIC i E II OF \T \TE ( I ~ ~ c rnou in

\iELEk TED RIILES t'.U RE(IUL,'\TIOYS

N.Y. ELN. LAW C 6-122 Designation or nomination; eligibility, restrictions p.171


"A person shall not be designated or nominated for a public office or

party position who if elected will not at the time of commencement of the term of such office or position, meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications thereof"

It is obvious that the New York State Board of Elections is intentionally misleading the voters of New York for the purpose of subverting the Constitutional requirement for the Office of the President while also trying to cover their tracks at the same time.

The U.S. Constitution can only be changed through the amendment process.
before the New York State The Board of Elections is currently a defendant in a Supreme Court brought by plaintiff Christopher-Earl Strunk, pro se. For reference, here is the entire source code from the New York State Board of Elections website:
<!DOCTYPE h t m l PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 T r a n s i t i o n a l / / E N W

"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtmll/DTD/xhtmll-transitional.dtd"~
<html xmlns="http://ww.w3.org/l999/xhtml"~ < ! - - DU6 - - > <head> < ! - - Copyright 2005 Macromedia, I n c . All r i g h t s reserved. - - > < t i t l e > N e w York S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s Running f o r O f f i c e P a g e < / t i t l e > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> <meta name="keywords" content="NYS Board o f E l e c t i o n s P e t i t i o n s " /> <meta name="description" content="General I n f o r m a t i o n on P e t i t i o n s . Sample Forms, Witnesses t o a P e t i t i o n , Cover sheets etc." /> tmeta name="googlebotW content="noarchive" /> m e t a narne="robotsn content="noarchive" /> t l i n k r e l = " s t y l e s h e e t W href="ex-side-nav2.cssW t y p e = " t e x t / c s s U media="screenm />

APX - 222

<link rel="stylesheetU href="print-ex-side-nav2.css" type="text/cssU media="print" /> <link rel="indexM href="index.htmlW /> <script src="mm-load-menus.jsW type="text/javascript">c/script~ <script src="mm-menu.jsW type="text/javascript">c/script> </head> <body> tdiv id="skipn> <a href="#main">SKIP TO MAIN CONTENT</a> </div> tscript type="text/javascript",mmLoadMenus();c/script> tnoscript class="noscript">Your browser does not support javascript, please view the <a href="SiteIndex.html",Site Indexc/a> for the full contents of this website.</noscript> < ! - - - you can adjust the width of this table using either fixed or percentage widths - - - > tdiv id="headern> < ! - - NEW BANNER--> <div id="nys-banner", <a href="http://www.ny.govf",timg src="images/nysbannerpics/banner_imgl.png" alt="NY.gov Portal" /></a> <a
href="http://www.nysegov.com/citGuide.cfm?superCat=102&amp;cat=449&amp;content=main">timg src="images/nysbannerpics/banner-img2.pngW alt="State Agency Listing" /></a>

search graphic--> <a href="#" onclick="document.getElementById('sw~searchbox').style.visibility= 'visible'; document.getElementById('searchgraphic').style.visibility= 'hidden';" onkeypress="document.getElementById('sw~searchbox').style.visibility= 'visible'; document.getElementById('searchgraphic').style.visibility= 'hidden';"><img id="searchgraphicW style="float: right; border:none;visibility: hidden;" src="images/nysbannerpics/banner~img3.png" alt="Search all of NY.gov" /></a> <!--state wide search box--> <form id="sw-searchbox" action="http://www.search.state.ny.us/search" method="getU> cp> tinput value="date:D:L:dl" name="sort" type="hiddenW /> tinput value="xml-no-dtd" name="output" type="hiddenW /> tinput value="UTF-8" name="ien type="hiddenn /> <input value="UTF-8" name="oeW type="hiddenU / > <input value="default-frontend" name="clientU type="hiddenU /> <input value="default-frontend" name="proxystylesheet" type="hiddenn/> <input value="default-collection" name="siteW type="hiddenn />
<!--

<label for="searchbox"><input style="cursor: pointer;" type="text" size="lS" name="qW maxlength="256" id="searchbox" title="SearchU /></label> <label f o r = " s e a r c h b u t t o n " > t i n p u t type="submit" style="width: 110px;" id="searchbuttonM value="Search NY-GOV" /></label> </p>
c / f arm>

<!--end wide search box--> tscript type="tex-t/ javascriptTr> // If JavaScript is on, manipulate search control objects. / / Otherwise this will be ignored and search controls will be shown by default document.getElementById('sw~searchbox').style.visibility = 'hidden'; document.getElement8yId('searchgrapbic')style.visibility= 'visible'; </script> tnoscript class="noscript">Your browser does not support javascript.c/noscript> </din < ! - - END NEW BANNER--> c/div> tdiv id="pageBorder"> tdiv id="seal">timg src="images/sseal~color~round.jpg" alt="SBOE Seal" /></div> <div id="logom> tdiv class="logo">Board of Elections </dim </dim

APX - 223

tdiv id="navigationN> tdiv class="navText"> ta href="INDEX.html">HOMEt/a>ta href="AboutSBOE.html">ABOUT USt/a>ta href="FAQ.html">FAQst/a>ta href="Contact.htmlW>CONTACT USt/a>ta href="SiteIndex.html">SITE INDEX </a> t/div> tdiv id="searchm> <form method="getw action="http://search.elections.state.ny~us/search~~ tlabel for="google">Powered by Googlec/label> tinput id = "google" type="textm name="qM size="25" maxlength="256" tabindex="lV /> tinput class="searchW type="submit" value= "SEARCH" tabindex="2"/> tinput type="hiddenU name="client" value="my-frontend" tabindex="3"/> tinput type="'hidden" name="proxystylesheet" value="my-frontend" tabindex="4"/> tinput type="hiddenW name="output" value="xml-no-dtd" tabindex="5"/> </form> </dim t/div> tdiv id="contentn > tdiv id="leftSideBarM> tdiv id="navBarW> tul> <li>ta href="CommissionersMeetings.html" name="link4" id="linklW
onfocus="MM~showMenu(window.mm~menu~0615144621~0,100,12,null,'link4')"
onmouseover="MM~showMenu(window.mm~men~~0615144621~0~1BB~12,null,'link4')"

onblur="MM-startTimeout();" onmouseout="MM-startTimeout();">Public Informationt/a>t/li> tli>ta href="VotingRegister.html",Voting Informationt/a>c/li> tlixa href="HAVA.html" name="link7" id="link5"
onfocus="MM~showMenu(window.mm~menu~0926093310~0~120,0,null,'link7')"

Vote Actt/a>t/li> tli>ta hrei="CampaignFinance.html">tampaign Financet/a>c/li> tli>ta href="RunningOffice.html" >Running for Officet/a>c/li> tli>ta href="PoliticalCalendar.html" >Political Calendart/a>t/li> <li>ta href="NVRA.htmlV >National Voter Registration Actt/a>t/li> tli>ta href="EnrollmentCounty.html">Enrollment Statisticsc/a>t/li> tli>ta href="2010ElectionResult~.html",Election Resultst/a>t/li> tli>ta href="ElectionLaw.html" >Election Lawc/a>t/li> <li>ta href="CountyBoards.html" >County Boardst/a>t/li> tli><a href="http://www.vote-ny-corn" target="-blank" >Voter Educationc/a>c/li> tli>ta href="ElectedOfficials.html" >Elected Officialst/a>t/li> tlixa href="UsefulLinks.html" ,Useful Linkst/a>t/li> </Ill> t/div> t/div> tdiv id="midContentW> thl id="mainm>Running for Officec/hl> th2 id="RequireHoldOffice">Requirements to Hold Officet/h2> tbr /> <table summary="This table lists the required citizenship, age, residency and statute to hold a statewide office." width="100%" border="lW> ttr align=left> tth id="l">OFFICEt/th> tth id="2">CITIZENSHIPt/th> cth id="3">AGEt/th> tth id="4">RESIDEMCYt/th> tth id="SM>STATUTEt/th> t/tr> ttr align="left"> ttd headers="l">President of the United Statestitd,

onmouseover="MM~showMeno(window.rrrmrrrmmenu9260933l00J120J0,null,'link7')" onblur="MM-startTimeout();" onmouseout="MM-startTimeout();" >Help America

APX - 224

--

<td ctd ctd ctd l</td>

headers="2" headers="3" headers="4" headers="S"

valign="top">Born a citizenc/td> valign="top">35 yearsc/td> valign="top">l4 years in countryc/td> valign="top">United States Constitution Art. I1 &sect;

c/tr> ctr align="leftu, ctd headers="l">United States Senatorc/td> ctd headers="2">Citizen 9 yearsc/td> ctd headers="3">30 yearsc/td> ctd headers="4">Resident of state when electedc/td> ctd headers="5">United States Constitution Art. I &sect;3c/td> c/tr> ctr> ctd headers="lV>tabbrtitle="New York State">NYSc/abbr> Governor/ Lt. Governorcbr />Attorney Generalcbr />Comptrollerc/td> ctd headers="2" valign="top">Citizenc/td> ctd headers="3" valign="top">30 yearsc/td> ctd headerszU4" valign="top">Resident of state 5 years immediately preceding electionc/td> ctd headers="SU valign="top">New York State Constitution Art. IV &sect; 2 and Art. V &sect; lc/td> c/tr> <tr> ctd headers="l">Representative in Congressc/td> ctd headers="2" valign="top">Citizen 7 yearsc/td> ctd headers="3" valign="top">25 yearsc/td> ctd headers=-4" valign="top">Resident of state when electedc/td> ctd headers="SW valign="topW>United States Constitution Art. I &sect;2c/td> c/tr> ctr> ctd headers="ln valign="topW>New York State Senatorcbr />New York State Assemblyc/td> ctd headers="2" valign="top">titizenc/td> ctd headers="3" valign="top">l8 yearsc/td> ctd headers="4">Resident of state for 5 years and resident of district for 12 months immediately preceding election. (In a redistricting year, may be a resident of county for 12 months immediately preceding the election.)c/td> ctd headers="5">New York State Constitution Art. I11 &sect; 7cbr />tbr />Public Officers Law &sect; 3</td>
c/tr,

</table><br /> ch2 id="Petitionsm>GeneralInformation on Petitionsc/hZ> cp>These sample forms were prepared by the State Board of Elections. They are all in Acrobat PDF format. You will need the Adobe (TM) Acrobat Reader to view and print them.c/p> cp>These forms can be printed and filled out by hand.c/p> cp>cstrong>Electronic signatures are not acceptable.c/strong>c/p> <ul> tli>ta href="/WSBOE/download/law/DesignatingPetitionNoLines.pdf" target="-selfn>SAMPLE DESIGNATING PETITIONc/a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfW title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 39KB) (print on legal size paper)</li> tli>ta href="/WSBOE/download/law/IndependentNomPetChapter246Change.pdf" target="-selfW>SAMPLE INDEPENDENT NOMINATING PETITIONc/a> (cimg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfm title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 62KB) (print on legal size paper)c/li> tli>ta href="/NYSBOE/download/law/OTBPetitionNoLines2.pdf" target="-selfW>SAMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO BALLOT PETITIONc/a> (cimg src="images/icons/PDF.pif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfN title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 63KB) (print on legal size paper)c/li>

APX - 225

tli>ta href="/NYSBOE/download/law/VillageDPetitionNoLines~pdf" target="-selfn>SAMPLE VILLAGE DESIGNATING PETITIONt/a> (tirng src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="l6" height="16" alt="pdfm title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 30KB) (print on legal size paper)</li> cli>ca href="/NYSBOE/download/law/VillageBPetitionNoLines.pdf" target="-selfW>SAMPLE VILLAGE DESIGNATING PETITION - COUNTY</a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdf" title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 31KB) (to be used if Election is run by the County Board of Elections) (print on legal size paper)</li> <li>ta href="/NYSBOE/download/law/VillageAPetitionNoLines.pdf" target="-selfn>SAMPLE VILLAGE INDEPENDENT NOMINATING PETITION</a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfW title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 31KB) (print on legal size paper)</li> cli>ta href="/NYSBOE/download/law/VillageCPetitionNoLines.pdf" target="-self">SAMPLE VILLAGE INDEPENDENT NOMINATING PETITION - COUNTY</a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfW title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 30KB) (to be used if Election is run by the County Board of Elections) (print on legal size paper)</li> <li><a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/cover.pdf" target="-selfU>SAMPLE COVER SHEETS</a> (<img src="irnages/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfn title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 11KB)t/li> tlixa href="/NYSBOE/download/law/acceptance.pdf" target="-self">SAMPLE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCEt/a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdf" title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 906KB)</li> <li>ta href="/NYSBOE/download/law/declination.pdf" target="-selfW>SAMPLE CERTIFICATE OF DECLINATION</a> (timg src="irnages/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdf" title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 718KB)t/li> tlixa href="/NYSBOE/download/law/substitution.pdf" target="-self">SAMPLE CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTITUTIONt/a> (cimg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfU title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 944KB)t/li> tli>ta href="/NYSBOE/download/law/authorization.pdf" target="-selfn>SAMPLE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATIONt/a> (<img src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdf" title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 33KB)c/li> </ul> cp><strong>NOTE:</strong> The information contained here is intended to provide general guidance for those who are preparing to circulate petitions, and is not to be used as a substitute for consulting the Election Law for specific petition requirements.t/p> cp>Persons wishing to run for elective office may be nominated either by a political party or through the filing of an independent nominating petition. Party members may also circulate petitions to create the opportunity to write in the name o f an unspecified person for an office in which there is no contest for the party endorsement. The current political parties are the Democratic, Republican, Conservative, Working Families, Independence and Green parties. Any person who is not nominated by one of these parties must file an independent nominating petition. The requirements for all petitions are contained in ta href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLaw.pdf" target="-selfW>Article 6 of the Election Lawt/a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfU title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303KB). The provisions for village elections vary slightly, and the reader is directed to <a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLa~.pdf" target="-self">Article 15 of the Election Law</a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfN title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303KB) for specifics.t/p> <p>ta href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2010RunningForOfficeBrochure.pdf" target="-selfW>Running for Officecia, (timg src="images/icons/PDF,gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfm title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 501KB)</p> th3>Party Nominationst/h3> <p>Party nomination of candidates for elective office is made at either a party caucus or at a primary election.c/p> th3>Caucusest/h3> cp>A caucus is an open meeting of a town or village's political party at which candidates are nominated for elective office. Only residents of the town or village

APX - 226
-

who are enrolled members of the party may participate in the caucus. For further information on caucuses see, <a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLa~.pdf~ target="-self">Election Law &sect;6-108 (towns) and &sect;l5-108 {villages)t/a> {timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdf" title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303KB).</p> <h3>Designating Petitionst/h3> <p>If a party nominates its candidates through the primary election process, party designations for this primary are made on a designating petition. The Election Law sets forth the form of this petition; <a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/200XNYflectionLaw,pdf" target="-selfW>&sect;6-132 {state, county and town offices) and &sect;15-108 (village offices).t/a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="1bU alt="pdfU title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303KB) Only enrolled members of a party qualified to vote for an office may sign designating petitions of the party.</p> <h3>Nomination of Non-Party Member</h3> <p>Political parties may nominate a candidate who is not an enrolled member of the political party. Such parties must file a certificate of authorization, signed and acknowledged by the presiding officer and the secretary of the meeting at which such authorization is given. A certificate of authorization is not needed for nominations resulting from a caucus or for a candidate for a judicial office.t/p> th3,Independent Nominationst/h3> <p>To run for office on a line other than an official party line, one must file an independent nominating petition. The Election Law sets forth the form of this petition; <a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLa~.pdf" target="-self">&sect;6-140 (state, county and town offices) and &sect;15-108 (village offices).</a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="1bV alt="pdfM title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303K5) Any registered voter who has not already signed a designating petition, and who is qualified to vote for an office, may sign an independent nominating petition for that office. For Village offices if you participated in a caucus, you cannot sign an independent nominating petition.</p> th3>Form of Petitions</h3> cp>The statute requires that all petitions be <strong>substantially</strong> in the form set forth in the law. See, <a href="/NVS5OE/download/law/2008NYElectionLa~.pdf" target="-self">Election Law &sect;6-132 (party designating petitions), &sect;6-140 (independent nominating petitions) and &sect;15-108 (village designating and independent petitions)</a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="1bV alt="pdfn title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303KB). Deviations or slight rearrangements of the form of petition are not fatal defects, provided that the petition contains all of the required information.</p> <p>Each sheet of the petition must correctly set forth:c/p> <ul> <li>the date of the election;t/li> <li>the name of the candidate and the office or position sought;</li> tli>the candidate's residence, and if different, their mailing or post office address;</li> <li>information about the signer: date of signing, voter's residence address, town or city andt/li> <li>information relating to the person who witnesses the signatures.</li> </ul> tp>A petition may include a committee on vacancies. Failure to provide such a committee, or naming a committee of fewer than three persons, will not invalidate the petition.</p> <p>The voter need only sign the appropriate line on the petition sheet. All other information may be filled in by someone else. Corrections may be made to any information on the signature line. However, corrections or alterations in the date or the signature MUST be initialed by the person making the correction.t/p> <p>Voters may not sign a petition for more candidates than there are openings for an office. For example, if there is one council seat open, then the voter

APX - 227

may only sign one petition for a candidate for that office. If there are 2 seats open, the voter may sign petitions for 2 candidates.t/p> cp>The pages of a petition must be sequentially numbered and securely fastened.t/p> th3,Witnesses to a Petitionc/h3> cp>Anyone who is qualified to sign a petition may witness a petition. The information required for the witness statement is mandatory. Omissions, errors, or unexplained alterations/corrections, may invalidate the entire page. When the witness signs the statement of witness, they are making an oath that subjects them to the penalties for perjury if any of the information preceding their signature is false. The information preceding the signature includes the name and residence of the witness; the number of signatures on the page; a statement that each person signed in their presence; and the date they are signing the statement. Witness identification information, which follows the witness's signature, may be provided by anyone, at any time before the petition is filed. This information includes the town or city; and the county of the witness's registration.c/p> th3>Cover Sheetsc/h3> <p>If there are 1 0 or more pages in a petition, there must be a cover sheet. In New York City, and in other counties where identification numbers are used, only one cover sheet is required, regardless of the number of volumes in the petition. In all other instances, a multi-volume petition requires a cover sheet for each volume.c/p> tp>Cover sheets <strong>must</strong>contain the following information:c/p> <ul> tli>Name, residence address, and mailing address if different, of the candidate.</li> <li>The public office or party position sought.</li> <li>The name of the party or independent body making the nomination.c/li> tli>A statement that the petition contains a number of signatures equal to or in excess of the number required by statute.</li> tli>The volume number OR identification number of that volume.c/li> <li>The total number of volumes in each petition OR the identification number for each volume of the petition.t/li> </ul> cp>The following information is <strong>optional</strong>:t/p> <u1> <li>The name, residence address, (and mailing address if different) telephone number, and facsimile number of the person designated to receive notice of deficiencies in binding or cover sheet requirements.</li>
</ul>

<p>There are additional requirements if the petition contains candidates for county committee, and if there are different candidates on the several pages of the petition. Those requirements are contained in <a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLaw.pdf" target="-self">Part 6215 of the rules and regulationst/a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="1bW height="16" alt="pdfm title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303KB) of the State Board of Elections.</p> cp>Pursuant to <a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLaw.pdf" target="-self">Part 6215 of the rules and regulationsc/a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfW title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303KB) of the State Board of Elections, the Board will provide notice of any correctable errors in cover sheet(s) and binding.t/p> <h3>Filing of Petitions, Acceptances, Authorizations and Declinations</h3> cp>All filings must be filed timely ta href="PoliticalCalendar.html" target="-selfm>(See the Political Calendar)c/a> and in the proper manner at the appropriate board of elections. Pursuant to section 1-106(l) of the New York State Election Law, all papers are required to be filed between the hours of nine A.M. and five P.M. If the last day for filing shall fall on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the next business day shall become the last day for filing. All papers sent by mail in an envelope postmarked prior to midnight of the last day of filing shall be deemed timely filed and accepted for filing when received, tstrong>exceptc/strong> any documents that

APX _---- 228

a r e r e q u i r e d t o be f i l e d w i t h t h e board o f e l e c t i o n s o f t h e c i t y o f New York must be a c t u a l l y r e c e i v e d by such c i t y board o f e l e c t i o n s on o r b e f o r e m i d n i g h t o f t h e l a s t day t o f i l e any such document. F a i l u r e t o do so s h a l l be a f a t a l d e f e c t . t / p > tp>No f i l i n g s w i l l be accepted by f a c s i m i l e o r e-mail.c/p> cp>Candidates must f i l e a c e r t i f i c a t e o f acceptance f o r nominations made by independent nominating p e t i t i o n s , o r i f t h e y a r e named i n a d e s i g n a t i n g p e t i t i o n b u t a r e n o t e n r o l l e d members o f t h a t p a r t y . N e i t h e r an a u t h o r i z a t i o n n o r an acceptance i s r e q u i r e d if t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s a candidate f o r a j u d i c i a l o f f i c e . A d e c l i n a t i o n must be f i l e d should t h e candidate decide n o t t o accept t h e d e s i g n a t i o n o r nomination.c/p> th3>0bjectionsc/h3> <p>Every p e t i t i o n i s presumed t o be v a l i d when f i l e d , if, on i t s face, i t appears t o be i n proper form and t o c o n t a i n enough signatures. However, a r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r may challenge t h e v a l i d i t y o f a p e t i t i o n . W r i t t e n o b j e c t i o n s must be f i l e d w i t h i n 3 days a f t e r t h e p e t i t i o n i s f i l e d (1 day i n a v i l l a g e e l e c t i o n ) . S p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f o b j e c t i o n s must be f i l e d w i t h i n 6 days o f f i l i n g t h e general o b j e c t i o n s ( 2 days i n a v i l l a g e e l e c t i o n ) . For p e t i t i o n s f i l e d w i t h t h e S t a t e Board o f Elections, o b j e c t o r s must d e l i v e r a copy o f t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e candidate and f i l e p r o o f o f such d e l i v e r y w i t h t h e S t a t e Board. For f u r t h e r d e t a i l s see t a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLa~.pdf*'t a r g e t = " - s e l f " > E l e c t i o n Law &sect;6-154 and &sect;15-108 and P a r t 6204 o f t h e r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s < / a > ( t i m g src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="1SU a l t = " p d f W t i t l e = " P o r t a b l e Document Format ( p d f ) " / > 3,303KB) o f t h e S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s . t / p > ch2 id="PresidentW>Running f o r Presidentt/hZ> th3>Independent Candidatesc/h3> cp>An independent candidate f o r p r e s i d e n t i s someone who i s r u n n i n g on a l i n e o t h e r t h a n an o f f i c i a l p a r t y l i n e . P e t i t i o n s f o r independent candidates must i n c l u d e t h e names o f t h e p r e s i d e n t i a l and v i c e - p r e s i d e n t i a l candidates, as w e l l as t h e names o f person(s) r u n n i n g f o r t h e e l e c t o r a l college. Each s t a t e i s p e r m i t t e d t o have one e l e c t o r f o r each congressional d i s t r i c t , p l u s two a t - l a r g e e l e c t o r s . < / p > cp>Independent p e t i t i o n s f o r p r e s i d e n t must c o n t a i n 15,000 signatures. A t l e a s t 100 s i g n a t u r e s must come f r o m each o f o n e - h a l f o f t h e congressional d i s t r i c t s i n target="-self">Election t h e s t a t e . t a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLawpdf" Law &sect;6-142(l)t/a> ( t i m g src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" a l t = " p d f n t i t l e = " P o r t a b l e Document Format ( p d f ) " / > 3,303KB). Each candidate named i n an independent p e t i t i o n f o r p r e s i d e n t i s r e q u i r e d t o f i l e an acknowledged acceptance o f t h e nomination no l a t e r t h a n t h e t h i r d day a f t e r t h e l a s t day t o f i l e t h e p e t i t i o n . <a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2B08NYElectionLa~.pdf" t a r g e t = " - s e l f n > E l e c t i o n Law &sect;& 146(1)c/a> ( t i m g src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" a l t = " p d f m t i t l e = " P o r t a b l e Document Format ( p d f ) " / > 3,303KB).</p> c p > I f t h e r e a r e 10 o r more pages i n a p e t i t i o n , t h e r e must be a cover sheet. A multi-volume p e t i t i o n r e q u i r e s a cover sheet for each volume. Cover sheets must c o n t a i n t h e f o l l o w i n g information:</p> <ul> tli>Name, address, and m a i l i n g address i f d i f f e r e n t , o f candidatest/li> < l i > O f f i c e soughtc/li> <li>Name and emblem o f t h e independent body making t h e nominationt/li> t l i > A statement t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n c o n t a i n s a number o f s i g n a t u r e s equal t o o r i n excess o f t h e number r e q u i r e d by s t a t u t e . < / l i > t l i > T h e volume number o f t h a t v o l u m e t / l i > t l i > T h e t o t a l number o f volumes i n t h e p e t i t i o n c / l i > </ul> < p > A d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on cover sheets i s contained i n <a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLaw.pdf" t a r g e t = " - s e l f " > P a r t 6215 o f t h e r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s t / a > ( t i m g src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="1bU a l t = " p d f U t i t l e = " P o r t a b l e Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303KB) o f t h e S t a t e Board o f Elections.</p> th3,Write-In Candidatest/h3> <p>To r u n as a w r i t e - i n candidate f o r president, you a r e r e q u i r e d t o f i l e a c e r t i f i c a t e o f candidacy w i t h t h e S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s no l a t e r t h a n t h e t h i r d

APX - 229

Tuesday prior to the general election. The certificate must be signed by the presidential candidate and must contain the following information:t/p> <ul> tli>Name and address of presidential candidate</li> tli>Name and address of any vice-presidential candidate, and a signed certificate of acceptance from such candidatec/li> <li>Name and address of at least one elector, with an acceptance certificate and pledge of support signed by each such candidate for elector. t/li> </ul, <p><a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLaw.pdf" target="-selfW>See Election Law &sect;6-153t/a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="l6" height="16" alt="pdfX title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303KB) for further information.</p> th2 id="FilePetitionsU>Whereto File Petitionsc/hZ> th3>PUBLIC OFFICE ONLY</h3> th3>Congressional Districtsc/h3> <u1> <li>l - Suffolk County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>2 and 3 - State Board of Elections</li> tli>4 - Nassau County Board of Elections</li> <li>5 - State Board of Electionsc/li> tli>6 through 1 6 - New York City Board of Electionst/li> tli>17 through 29 - State Board of Electionst/li> </ul> ch3,Senate Districtsc/h3>
<Ul>

<li>l through 4 - Suffolk County Board of Electionst/li> tli>5 - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>6 and 7 - Nassau County Board of Elections</li> tli>8 - State Board of Elections</li> <li>9 - Nassau County Board of Electionsc/li> <li>l0 through 33 - New York City Board of Electionst/li> <li>34 - State Board of Electionst/li> <li>35- Westchester County Board of Elections</li> <li>36 - State Board of Electionsc/li> tli>37 - Westchester County Board of Elections</li> <li>38 through 45 - State Board of Electionst/li> tli>46 - Albany County Board of Elections</li> <li>47 through 4 9 - State Board of Elections</li> tli>5% - Onondaga County Board of Electionst/li> <li,51 through 54 - State Board o f Electionsc/li> tli>55 and 56 - Monroe County Board of Electionsc/li> <li>57 - State Board of Elections</li> tli>58 - Erie County Board of Electionst/li> <li>59 through 62 - State Board of Elections</li> </ul> th3>Assernbly Districtsc/h3> <ul> <li>l through 9 - Suffolk County Board of Electionst/li> tli>l0 - State Board of Electionsc/li> tlizll - Suffolk County Board of Electionst/li> tli>l2 through 21 - Nassau County Board of Electionst/li> <li>22 through 86 - New York City Board of Elections</li> <li>87 through 89 - Westchester County Board of Elections</li> <li>90 - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>91 through 93 - Westchester County Board of Electionsc/li> <li>94 and 95 - Rockland County Board of Elections</li> <li>96 through 101 - State Board of Electionst/li> <li>l02 - Dutchess County Board of Electionsc/li> <li>103 - State Board of Elections</li> <li>104 - Albany County Board of Electionsc/li>

APX - 230

<li>105 through 115 - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>116 - Oneida County Board of Elections</li> tli>117 and 118 - State Board of Elections</li> tli>119 through 121 - Onondaga County Board of Elections</li> tli>l22 through 125 - State Board of Electionsc/li> cli>126 - Broome County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>127 through 138 - State Board of Electionsc/li> cli>131 through 135 - Monroe County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>136 and 137 - State Board of Electionsc/li> tli>138 - Niagara County Board of Electionsc/li> <li>139 and 146 - State Board of Electionsc/li> tli>141 - Erie County Board of Elections</li> tli>142 - State Board of Electionsc/li> tli>143 through 146 - Erie County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>147 through 149 - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>150 - Chautauqua County Board of Electionst/li> </ul> cp><strong>FORALL OTHER OFFICES CONTACT YOUR COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS</strong>c/p> th3,Member of State Committee</h3> <u1> <li>tstrong>REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRATIC, and INDEPENDENCEc/strong> Party State Committee petitions are filed with the county boards of elections.</li> <li>tstrong>WORKINGFAMILIES</strong> Party State Committee petitions, are filed in the same manner as those for the office of Member of Assembly (see chart for ASSEMBLY).t/li> tli>tstrong>CONSERVATIVE</strong> Party State Committee petitions, are filed in the same manner as those for the office of Representative in Congress (see chart for CONGRESSIONAL). <p>Republican State Committee elections are held at the &quot;Fall&quot; primary in odd numbered years. All other parties elect state committee at the &quot;Fall&quot; primary in even numbered years.</p> <p>To run for any party position such as member of state committee, national or judicial delegate or alternate, you must be a duly enrolled member of the party from which you are seeking the designation. You also must be a resident of the jurisdiction from which you are running.c/p> cp>The offices of judicial delegate and alternate judicial delegate are elected at the &quot;Fall&quot; primary. (National delegate and alternate national delegate are elected at the &quot;Spring&quot; primary, held in a presidential election year).c/p>c/li> </ul> <h3>Judicial District Convention Delegate and/or Alternate Delegatec/h3> <ul> tli>FIRST ID (New York County)c/li> tli>SECOND JD (Kings County)c/li> <li>ELEVENTH ID (Queens County)</li> tli>TWELFTH JD (Bronx County)</li> tli>THIRTEENTH JD (Richmond County) cp>All petitions and nominations for these judicial district delegates and alternate delegates are filed at the New York City Board of Electionsc/p> cp><strong>NOTE:c/strong>The following chart for Judicial Delegates and Alternate Delegates applies cem>only</em> to Democratic, Independence, Conservative and Working Families Party candidates. Republican Party candidates for this office file their petitions in the county which contains their portion of the assembly district.c/p>c/li> </ul> ch3>tstrong>THIRD JD Albany, Columbia, Greene, Rensselaer, Schoharie, Sullivan &amp; Ulster Countiesc/strong>c/h3> <ul> tli>98 AD - Sullivan County Board of Electionsc/li> cli>l00 AD - Ulster County Board of Electionsc/li> <li>101 AD - Ulster County Board of Elections</li>

APX - 231 -

--

tli>l03 AD - Columbia County Board of Elections</li> tli>104 AD - Albany County Board of Elections</li> <li>106 AD - State Board of Elections</li> tli>l07 AD - Ulster County Board of Electionsc/li> <li>108 AD - State Board of Electionsc/li> tli>109 AD - Albany County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>112 AD - Rensselaer County Board of Elections</li> tli>127 AD - State Board of Elections</li> </ul> <h3><strong>FOURTH JD Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Hamilton, Montgomery, St. Lawrence, Saratoga, Schenectady, Warren &amp; Washington Counties</strong></h3> <u1> tli>105 AD - State Board of Elections</li> <li>106 AD - Saratoga County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>189 AD - Saratoga County Board of Elections</li> <li>ll0 AD - State Board of Elections</li> <li>ll2 AD - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>113 AD - State Board of Elections</li> <li>114 AD - State Board of Electionsc/li> tli>117 AD - Fulton County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>ll8 AD - St. Lawrence County Board of Elections</li> tli>l22 AD - St. Lawrence County Board of Electionsc/li> </ul> th3>tstrong>FIFTH JD Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Oneida, Onondaga &amp; Oswego Countiesc/strong>c/h3> <ul> <li>lll AD - Oneida County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>115 AD - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>116 AD - Oneida County Board of Elections</li> tli>117 AD - Herkimer County Board of Elections</li> tli>ll8 AD - Jefferson County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>119 AD - Onondaga County Board of Elections</li> tli>l20 AD - Onondaga County Board of Elections</li> <li>l21 AD - Onondaga County Board of Electionsc/li> <li>l22 AD - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>124 AD - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>128 AD - Oswego County Board of Electionsc/li> <li>129 AD - Onondaga County Board of Electionsc/li> </ul> <h3><strong>SIXTHJD Broome, Chemung, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Madison, Otsego, Schuyler, Tioga &amp; Tompkins Counties</strong></h3> <u1> tli>l07 AD - State Board of Elections</li> <li>lll AD - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>117 AD - Otsego County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>123 AD - State Board of Elections</li> tli>125 AD - State Board of Elections</li> <li>126 AD - Broome County Board of Elections</li> tli>127 AD - State Board of Elections</li> cli>129 AD - Cortland County Board of Elections</li> tli>137 AD - State Board of Elections</li> </ul> th3>tstrong>SEVENTH JD Cayuga, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne &amp; Yates Countiesc/strong>c/h3> <ul> <li>123 AD - Cayuga county Board of Elections</li> tli>128 AD and 129 AD - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>l30 AD - State Board of Elections</li> tli>131 AD through 135 AD - Monroe County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>136 AD - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>139 AD - Monroe County Board of Electionsc/li>

APX - 232
-

t l i > 1 4 7 AD - L i v i n g s t o n County Board o f E l e c t i o n s < / l i > </ul, th3><strong>EIGHTH JD Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, Genesee, Niagara, Orleans &amp; Wyoming Countiesc/strong>c/h3> <ul> tli>138 A D - Niagara County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > tli>139 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > <li>140 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > < l i > 1 4 1 A D - E r i e County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > tli>142 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > t l i > 1 4 3 through 146 AD- E r i e County Board o f E l e c t i o n s < / l i > < l i > 1 4 7 AD - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > <li>148 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > t l i > 1 4 9 AD - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > t l i > 1 5 0 AD - Chautauqua County Board o f E l e c t i o n s < / l i > </ul> th3><strong>NINTH JD Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland &amp; Westchester Countiesc/strong>c/h3> <ul> cli>87 A D through 89 AD - Westchester County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > <li>96 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s < / l i > tli>91 A D through 93 AD - Westchester County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > t l i > 9 4 and 95 A D - Rockland County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > cli>96 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s < / l i > <li>97 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > tli>98 A D - Orange County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > <li>99 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > tli>l00 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i s c l i z l 0 1 through 103 A D - Dutchess County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > </ul> <h3>tstrong>TENTH JD Nassau &amp; S u f f o l k Counties</strong>c/h3> <ul> c l i > l AD through 9 A D - S u f f o l k County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > tli>l0 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > <li>llA D - S u f f o l k County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > tli>l2 A D through 2 1 A D - Nassau County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > c/ul> t h 2 i d = " T i t l e g U > T i t l e 9 o f t h e O f f i c i a l Compilation o f Codes, Rules and Regulations o f t h e S t a t e o f New York S u b t i t l e V</h2> th3>&sect; 6201.2 Use o f P u b l i c Opinion Pollsc/h3> cp>No candidate, p o l i t i c a l p a r t y o r committee s h a l l attempt t o promote t h e success o r d e f e a t o f a candidate by d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y d i s c l o s i n g o r causing t o be d i s c l o s e d t h e r e s u l t s o f a p o l l r e l a t i n g t o a candidate f o r such an o f f i c e o r p o s i t i o n , unless w i t h i n 48 hours a f t e r such disclosure, t h e y p r o v i d e t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n concerning t h e p o l l t o t h e board o r o f f i c e r w i t h whom statements o r copies o f statements o f campaign r e c e i p t s and expenditures a r e r e q u i r e d t o be f i l e d by t h e candidate t o whom such p o l l r e l a t e s : c / p > c o l type="an> t l i > T h e name o f t h e person, p a r t y o r o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t c o n t r a c t e d f o r o r who commissioned t h e p o l l and/or p a i d f o r i t . c / l i > c l i z T h e name and address o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t conducted t h e poll.</li> t l i > T h e numerical s i z e o f t h e t o t a l p o l l sample, t h e geographic area covered by t h e p o l l and any s p e c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n i n c l u d e d i n t h e p o l l sample.c/li> t l i > T h e exact wording o f t h e questions asked i n t h e p o l l and t h e sequence o f such q u e s t i o n s . < / l i > < l i > T h e method o f polling&ndash;whether by personal i n t e r v i e w , telephone, m a i l o r o t h e r . c / l i > c l i > T h e t i m e p e r i o d d u r i n g which t h e p o l l was conducted.c/li>

t l i > T h e number o f persons i n t h e p o l l sample: t h e number contacted who responded t o each s p e c i f i c p o l l question; t h e number o f persons contacted who d i d n o t so respond.</li> <li>The results o f the p o l l . < / l i > </0l> <h3>State Board o f E l e c t i o n s t b r />Part 6204</h3> th3>Designating and Independent Nominating P e t i t i o n s < / h 3 > ch3Ssect; 6204.1 S p e c i f i c a t i o n o f o b j e c t i o n s t o d e s i g n a t i n g and independent nominating p e t i t i o n s . < / h 3 > t o 1 type="aW> t l i > A n y person f i l i n g general o b j e c t i o n s t o any d e s i g n a t i n g o r independent nominating p e t i t i o n f i l e d w i t h t h e S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s who t h e r e a f t e r f i l e s s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f h i s o b j e c t i o n s t o any such p e t i t i o n w i t h such board s h a l l do so i n accordance w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f Section 6-154 o f t h e E l e c t i o n Law. A l l such s p e c i f i c a t i o n s s h a l l s u b s t a n t i a l l y comply w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g requirements: t o 1 type="l"> < l i > T h e volume number, page number, and l i n e number o f any s i g n a t u r e o b j e c t e d t o on any p e t i t i o n s h a l l be s e t f o r t h i n d e t a i l . I n a d d i t i o n , any p o r t i o n o f any p e t i t i o n o r any s i g n a t u r e l i n e o r witness statement o b j e c t e d t o s h a l l be s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d and reasons g i v e n f o r any such o b j e c t i o n ; t / l i > t l i > T h e t o t a l number o f s i g n a t u r e s o b j e c t e d t o s h a l l be s e t f o r t h and a l l o b j e c t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o a s i n g l e s i g n a t u r e l i n e should be grouped together; </li> <li>Symbols and/or a b b r e v i a t i o n s may be used t o s e t f o r t h objections, provided t h a t a sheet e x p l a i n i n g t h e meaning o f any such symbols and/or a b b r e v i a t i o n s i s attached t o t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . < / l i > </ol></li> < l i > N o s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f o b j e c t i o n s t o any p e t i t i o n w i l l be considered by t h e Board unless t h e o b j e c t o r f i l i n g t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s p e r s o n a l l y d e l i v e r s o r m a i l s by r e g i s t e r e d o r c e r t i f i e d m a i l a d u p l i c a t e copy o f t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s t o each candidate f o r p u b l i c o f f i c e named on t h e p e t i t i o n . I n t h e case o f a p e t i t i o n c o n t a i n i n g candidates f o r p a r t y p o s i t i o n , s e r v i c e o f t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s s h a l l be made on e i t h e r t h e named candidates o r t h e f i r s t person named on t h e p e t i t i o n ' s committee t o f i l l vacancies. Service s h a l l be made on o r b e f o r e t h e date o f f i l i n g o f any s p e c i f i c a t i o n s w i t h t h e Board. Proof o f s e r v i c e s h a l l accompany t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o r be r e c e i v e d by t h e end o f business two days f o l l o w i n g t h e f i l i n g o f t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , whichever i s l a t e r . t / l i > < l i > A n y n o t i c e and/or d e t e r m i n a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o a p e t i t i o n f o r which s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f o b j e c t i o n s have been f i l e d s h a l l be t r a n s m i t t e d by t h e Board t o t h e o b j e c t o r f i l i n g t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , provided t h a t any such o b j e c t o r may designate an a t t o r n e y o r agent t o r e c e i v e any such n o t i c e and/or d e t e r m i n a t i o n on h i s b e h a l f . Any such d e s i g n a t i o n s h a l l be i n w r i t i n g and i n c l u d e t h e name, address and telephone number o f any such a t t o r n e y o r agent, and any such a t t o r n e y and/or agent s h a l l be e l i g i b l e t o represent any such o b j e c t o r i n any proceeding conducted by t h e Board r e l a t i n g t o t h e specifications.</li> </ol> th3>State Board o f E l e c t i o n s c b r />Part 6215</h3> <h3>Preparation, D e l i v e r y and F i l i n g o f Designating and Nominating Petitions</h3> <h3>&sect;6215.1 Rules f o r f i l i n g d e s i g n a t i n g and nominating p e t i t i o n s . < / h 3 > t o 1 type="aU> t l i > T h e sheets of a p e t i t i o n s h a l l be numbered s e q u e n t i a l l y a t t h e f o o t o f each s h e e t . < / l i > < l i > A l l p e t i t i o n s c o n t a i n i n g t e n o r more sheets s h a l l be accompanied by a cover s h e e t . < / l i > < l i > A n y two o r more p e t i t i o n sheets s h a l l be s e c u r e l y fastened t o g e t h e r by any means which w i l l h o l d t h e pages t o g e t h e r i n numerical o r d e r . c / l i > < l i > P e t i t i o n sheets may be fastened t o g e t h e r t o f o r m one o r more volumes.</li> < l i > I n d i v i d u a l volumes o f a p e t i t i o n s h a l l be f i l e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner: < o l type="lV>

APX - 234

t l i > W i t h respect t o p e t i t i o n s which a r e f i l e d w i t h t h e Board o f E l e c t i o n s i n t h e C i t y o f New York, o r p e t i t i o n s which a r e f i l e d w i t h o t h e r boards o f e l e c t i o n s c o n t a i n i n g candidates f o r more than one p u b l i c o r p a r t y o f f i c e which a r e n o t coterminous, each volume o f each p e t i t i o n s h a l l bear an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number, t o be obtained i n accordance w i t h Section 6215.3, i n f r a . The assigned i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number s h a l l be i n s c r i b e d on t h e f r o n t o f t h e volume. I f an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number has n o t been i n s c r i b e d by t h e person o r persons f i l i n g t h e p e t i t i o n , and t h e p e t i t i o n c o n s i s t s o f m u l t i p l e volumes, then each volume o f t h e p e t i t i o n s h a l l be separately numbered on t h e f r o n t t h e r e o f . Only one i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number may be used t o i d e n t i f y a p e t i t i o n volume.t/li> < l i > A n y Board o f E l e c t i o n s o u t s i d e t h e C i t y o f New York may adopt a p e t i t i o n f i l i n g system f o r a l l p e t i t i o n s u t i l i z i n g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers as provided f o r i n Section 6215.3. The Board may adopt such system through t h e approval o f a r u l e a t l e a s t two months p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t day t o c i r c u l a t e p e t i t i o n s . The r u l e s h a l l be f i l e d a t t h e county board o f e l e c t i o n s and t h e S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s . < / l i > t l i > W i t h respect t o a l l o t h e r p e t i t i o n s which c o n t a i n t e n o r more sheets, each volume o f t h e p e t i t i o n s h a l l have a cover sheet secured t o t h e f r o n t o f such volume.c/li> clol>c/li> </ol> <h3>&sect;6215.2 Cover Sheets</h3> t o 1 type="aW> < l i > A cover sheet s h a l l contain t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : t o 1 type="lU> t l i > T h e o f f i c e and d i s t r i c t number (where appropriate) f o r which each designation and nomination i s being made, t h e name and residence address o f each candidate, and t h e number o f volumes comprising t h e p e t i t i o n . The names and addresses o f candidates f o r t h e county committee may be s e t f o r t h , by assembly d i s t r i c t (or, i n t h e C i t y o f New York, by e l e c t i o n d i s t r i c t ) on a schedule t o be annexed t o t h e cover sheet. Cover sheets f o r t h e p o s i t i o n s o f County Committee i n t h e C i t y o f New Vork s h a l l include, i n a d d i t i o n t o such schedule a l i s t by e l e c t i o n d i s t r i c t o f t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers ( i f known) o r t h e volume number, and page number where such signatures appear f o r each election d i s t r i c t . c / l i > t l i > a n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e volumes comprising t h e p e t i t i o n . When m u l t i p l e volumes a r e f i l e d pursuant t o Section 6215.1(e)(l) o r (2) o f these rules, a s i n g l e cover sheet may be f i l e d w i t h volumes i d e n t i f i e d by l i s t i n g t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number o f each volume e i t h e r i n d i v i d u a l l y o r cumulatively, and t h e t o t a l number o f volumes i n t h e p e t i t i o n . With respect t o a l l o t h e r p e t i t i o n s f i l e d i n m u l t i p l e volumes, each volume s h a l l have a cover sheet which s h a l l i n d i c a t e t h e volume number; such volumes s h a l l be numbered s e q u e n t i a l l y and t h e cover sheet from t h e f i r s t volume s h a l l s e t f o r t h t h e t o t a l number o f volumes comprising p e t i t i o n . < / l i > < l i > a statement t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n contains t h e number, o r i n excess o f t h e number, o f v a l i d signatures, r e q u i r e d by t h e E l e c t i o n Law.c/li> < l i > A place f o r t h e o p t i o n a l designation o f a contact person o t h e r than t h e candidate(s) t o be n o t i f i e d t o c o r r e c t noncompliance w i t h these regulations.t/li> c/ol></li> <li>Cover sheets s h a l l be s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n t h e form s e t f o r t h i n Section 6215.8, i n f r a . c / l i > <li>Where a d e s i g n a t i n g p e t i t i o n i n v o l v e s an o f f i c e t o be f i l l e d by t h e v o t e r s o f t h e e n t i r e state, t h e p e t i t i o n s h a l l be accompanied by a schedule which s e t s f o r t h t h e volume and page number o f each sheet on which signatures appear o f a t l e a s t 100 o r 5 per centum, which ever i s less, o f p r o p e r l y e n r o l l e d v o t e r s i n each o f a t l e a s t oneh a l f o f t h e Congressional D i s t r i c t s o f t h e s t a t e . < / l i > <li>Where a nominating p e t i t i o n i n v o l v e s an o f f i c e t o be f i l l e d by t h e v o t e r s o f t h e e n t i r e state, t h e p e t i t i o n s h a l l be accompanied by a schedule which s e t s f o r t h t h e volume and page number o f each sheet on which signatures appear o f a t l e a s t la8 v o t e r s i n each o f a t l e a s t o n e - h a l f o f t h e Congressional D i s t r i c t s o f t h e s t a t e . < / l i > </ol> ch3>&sect;6215.3 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Numbers, a p p l i c a t i o n , d i s t r i b u t i o n and utilization</h3>

APX 235 -

t o 1 type="aW> c l i > I d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers s h a l l be issued by t h e S t a t e and County Boards o f Elections, w i t h o u t charge, f o r t h e purpose o f i d e n t i f y i n g p e t i t i o n v o l u m e s . t / l i > < l i > T h e S t a t e Board s h a l l assign a s e r i e s o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n codes t o each County B o a r d . c / l i > t l i > A n y person o r persons, i n d i v i d u a l l y o r j o i n t l y , may o b t a i n one o r more i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers, upon w r i t t e n a p p l i c a t i o n , f r o m t h e Board o f E l e c t i o n s . I n d i v i d u a l s who do n o t wish t o apply f o r these numbers i n advance w i l l have them assigned t o t h e i r p e t i t i o n s when t h e y a r e submitted t o t h e Board o f E l e c t i o n s i n accordance w i t h s e c t i o n 6215.6 (b) o f these r u l e s . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers may be used o n l y w i t h i n t h e calendar year f o r which i s s u e d . t / l i > t l i > T h e S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s s h a l l promulgate an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number a p p l i c a t i o n form, which s h a l l be used by any board o f e l e c t i o n s . The a p p l i c a t i o n s h a l l set f o r t h : t o 1 type="lW> c l i > t h e name and residence address o f each a p p l i c a n t f o r t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number;c/li> t l i > t h e daytime and evening telephone numbers f o r such applicant;c/li> < l i > t h e t y p e o f p e t i t i o n t o be f i l e d under t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number (i.e., Designating, Nominating, Opportunity t o B a l l o t ) ; c / l i > < l i > t h e date o f t h e election;c/li> t l i > t h e Name o f t h e P a r t y o r Independent Body; and ( 6 ) t h e number o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers requested. Each a p p l i c a t i o n s h a l l be signed by each a p p l i c a n t and s h a l l be d a t e d . c / l i > </ol></li> cli>Upon r e c e i p t o f an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number, t h e Board s h a l l f o r t h w i t h i s s u e t h e q u a n t i t y o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers requested, i n s c r i b e such numbers on t h e o r i g i n a l a p p l i c a t i o n , and r e c o r d t h e numbers issued w i t h t h e name and address o f t h e a p p l i c a n t i n a book which s h a l l be a v a i l a b l e f o r p u b l i c i n s p e c t i o n . I n t h e event t h a t an a p p l i c a t i o n i s f i l e d by m u l t i p l e applicants, t h e Board s h a l l r e c o r d i n t h e book o n l y t h e name and address o f t h e f i r s t - n a m e d a p p l i c a n t . c / l i > t l i > A n assigned i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number may be used f o r t h e f i l i n g o f p e t i t i o n sheets o n l y by t h e person t o whom t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number was issued. I n t h e case o f m u l t i p l e applicants, t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number may be used by any o f t h e applicants.</li> </ol> ch3>&sect;6215.4 M u l t i p l e Candidates Named On a P e t i t i o n < / h 3 > c o l type="aW> < l i > A l l t h e s i g n a t u r e s appearing i n a p e t i t i o n volume s h a l l apply t o a l l candidates named i n t h a t volume, unless t h e cover sheet s p e c i f i e s o t h e r w i s e . < / l i , t l i > I n t h e event t h a t t h e same candidates do n o t appear on each and every sheet o f t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e n t h e cover sheet s h a l l i n d i c a t e which s i g n a t u r e s apply t o which candidate, by i n d i c a t i n g t h e name o f t h e candidate, t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number o r t h e volume number, and t h e page number o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e signatures. Signatures on such pages may be i d e n t i f i e d by s p e c i f i e d numerical ranges (e.g., pages 1 through 15, pages 15-45).</1i> </0l> th3>&sect;6215.5 F i l i n g o f p e t i t i o n s c / h 3 > t o 1 type="am> < l i > N e i t h e r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r , nor t h e issuance of, an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number c o n s t i t u t e s f i l i n g o f a p e t i t i o n . c / l i > t l i > P e t i t i o n s s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h t h e a p p l i c a b l e Board o f E l e c t i o n s as s e t f o r t h i n t h e E l e c t i o n Law. The o f f i c e r o r Board s h a l l endorse t h e day, hour and minute of r e c e i p t on such p e t i t i o n s . Such o f f i c e r o r Board s h a l l keep a book, which s h a l l be open t o p u b l i c inspection, i n which s h a l l be entered t h e name o f t h e candidate, and volume o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers of t h e p e t i t i o n s which have been f i l e d and t h e t i m e o f t h e i r filing.</li> </0l> th3>&sect;6215.6 C o n s t r u c t i o n o f rules; s u b s t a n t i a l compliancec/h3> t o 1 type="am>

< l i > E x c e p t as s p e c i f i c a l l y s e t f o r t h herein, these r u l e s s h a l l be l i b e r a l l y construed and t e c h n i c a l d e f e c t s s h a l l be disregarded where t h e r e has been s u b s t a n t i a l compliance and where a s t r i c t c o n s t r u c t i o n i s n o t r e q u i r e d f o r t h e p r e v e n t i o n o f fraud.c/li> c l i > T h e f a i l u r e t o o b t a i n an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number o r i n s c r i b e an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number on one o r more p e t i t i o n s o r p e t i t i o n volumes s h a l l n o t render any such p e t i t i o n o r p e t i t i o n volume i n v a l i d . The o f f i c e r o r Board r e c e i v i n g such p e t i t i o n o r p e t i t i o n volume s h a l l assign i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers t o such p e t i t i o n o r p e t i t i o n volumes, s h a l l i n s c r i b e t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number upon t h e p e t i t i o n o r volume, and s h a l l r e c o r d t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number o f such p e t i t i o n o r volume. I n such instances, t h e person o r persons s u b m i t t i n g t h e p e t i t i o n o r p e t i t i o n volume f o r f i l i n g s h a l l be deemed t o be t h e a p p l i c a n t f o r t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number, o r i n t h e event t h e persons s u b m i t t i n g t h e p e t i t i o n o r p e t i t i o n volume, cannot be i d e n t i f i e d , t h e candidates named on t h e p e t i t i o n o r p e t i t i o n volume s h a l l be deemed t o be t h e a p p l i c a n t o r a p p l i c a n t s . < / l i > </0l> <h3>&sect;6215.7 Determinations; cures pursuant t o Section 6-134(2) o f t h e E l e c t i o n Lawc/h3> t o 1 type="am> c l i > W i t h i n two (2) business days o f t h e r e c e i p t o f t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e Board w i t h whom such p e t i t i o n was f i l e d s h a l l review t h e p e t i t i o n t o determine whether t h e p e t i t i o n complies w i t h t h e cover sheet and b i n d i n g requirements o f these r e g u l a t i o n s . Such review s h a l l be l i m i t e d t o m a t t e r s apparent on t h e f a c e o f t h e documents. Such review, and such determination, s h a l l be w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e Board o f o b j e c t i o n s and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f o b j e c t i o n s f i l e d pursuant t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e E l e c t i o n Law.</li> t l i > I n t h e event that, upon t h e review conducted pursuant t o paragraph (a) above, t h e Board determines t h a t a p e t i t i o n does n o t comply w i t h these r e g u l a t i o n s , t h e Board s h a l l f o r t h w i t h n o t i f y t h e candidate o r candidates named on t h e p e t i t i o n o f i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n and t h e reasons t h e r e f o r . < / l i > < l i > N o t i f i c a t i o n o f a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f noncompliance s h a l l be given by w r i t t e n n o t i c e by d e p o s i t i n g such n o t i c e on t h e day o f such d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i t h an o v e r n i g h t d e l i v e r y service, f o r o v e r n i g h t d e l i v e r y , on t h e n e x t business day, o r by personal d e l i v e r y by t h e day a f t e r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o t h e candidate o r t h e contact person, i f designated, a t t h e address s t a t e d on t h e p e t i t i o n . N o t i f i c a t i o n s h a l l be given by o v e r n i g h t d e l i v e r y o r personal d e l i v e r y only, unless t h e candidate s h a l l have f i l e d w i t h t h e Board w r i t t e n a u t h o r i z a t i o n , signed by t h e candidate, f o r t h e Board t o g i v e n o t i f i c a t i o n by f a c s i m i l e transmission. I n t h e event t h a t t h e candidate s h a l l have a u t h o r i z e d n o t i f i c a t i o n by f a c s i m i l e transmission, t h e n t h e Board s h a l l n o t i f y t h e candidate o r t h e c o n t a c t person, i f designated, by f a c s i m i l e t r a n s m i s s i o n on t h e day o f t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o t h e number s e t f o r t h by t h e candidate and s h a l l , i n a d d i t i o n , m a i l a copy o f t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o t h e c a n d i d a t e . c / l i s < l i > A candidate may, w i t h i n t h r e e (3) business days o f t h e d a t e o f a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n does n o t comply w i t h these r e g u l a t i o n s , c u r e t h e v i o l a t i o n o f these r e g u l a t i o n s . Cover sheet d e f i c i e n c i e s may be c o r r e c t e d by t h e f i l i n g o f an amended cover sheet. Such cure o r c o r r e c t i o n must be r e c e i v e d by t h e Board o f E l e c t i o n s no l a t e r than t h e t h i r d business day f o l l o w i n g such d e t e r m i n a t i o n . c / l i > t l i > I f t h e p e t i t i o n i s one f o r an o p p o r t u n i t y t o b a l l o t , t h e n t h e f i r s t named person on t h e committee t o r e c e i v e n o t i c e s o r a p p l i c a n t ( s ) f o r t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number o r numbers under which t h e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d s h a l l be deemed t o be t h e &quot;candidate&quot; f o r purposes o f subparagraphs (b), (c), and (d) a b o v e . < / l i > </ol> <h2 id="Provisions">Further Provisions</hZ> cp>Please be aware t h a t t h e r e may be o t h e r requirements which may apply t o r u n n i n g f o r any p a r t i c u l a r o f f i c e . These may i n c l u d e b u t n o t be l i m i t e d to:c/p> th3,FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS:</h3> <ul> < l i > T h e New York S t a t e E l e c t i o n Law r e q u i r e s candidates and p o l i t i c a l committees t o f i l e statements d i s c l o s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n about c o n t r i b u t i o n s r e c e i v e d and expenditures made i n connection w i t h an e l e c t i o n . c / l i >

tli>The forms required to register a committee and to report receipts and disbursements, as well as a comprehensive handbook of instructions, are available at the State Board of Elections and your county Board of Elections.c/li> cli>Wiew the <a href="CampaignFinance.html" target="-self">Campaign Finance Page</a> for more information on financial disclosure requirements or contact the State Board of Elections at 1-800-458-3453 or 518-474-8200 or contact your <a href="CountyBoards.htmi" >county board of elections</a>.c/li> </ul> <h3>Hatch Act:c/h3> <ul> tli>Call 1-800-85 HATCH - Website <a href="http://www.osc.gov/" target="-blank">www.osc.gov</a> <img src="images/icons/external-link.gifw width="16" height="16" alt="(External Link)" title="The preceding link goes to another website."/></li> </ul> <h3>The Commission on Judicial Conduct:</h3> <ul> tli><a href="http://www.scjc.state.ny.us"~www.scjc.state.ny.usc/a></li> tli>Call ( 6 4 6 ) 386-4800- Main Officec/li> <li>(518) 453-4600 - Albanyc/li> <li>(585) 784-4141 - Rochesterc/li> c/ul> ch3>Judiciai Campaign Ethics Center:c/h3> <ul> tlixa
href="http://www.nycourts.gov/ip/jcec/">www.nycourts.gov/ip/jcec/~/a>c/li~

cli>l-888-600-JCECc/li> </ul> ch3,State Ethics Commission:c/h3> <u1> <li>Call 1-800-873-8442</li> </ul> ch3,Legislative Ethics Committee:</h3> <ul> <li>Call (518) 432-7837 </li> </ul> </div> c/div> tdiv id="footern> tdiv id="globalNavm>
t a href-"INDEX.html"z<abbr

title-"State Board o+ Elections">SBOE</abbr, HOME

</a>ia

href="Contact.html">CONTACT tabbr title="State Board of ElectionsU>SBOE</abbr></a><a href="SiteIndex.html">SITE INDEX </a>ta href="WebsiteAccessibility.html"~ACCESSIBILITY </a> </div> tdiv id="copyRightV>&copy; 2008, NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS </div> </dim </dim <script type="text/javascript"> war gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.1ocation.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); </script> <noscript class="noscript">Your browser does not support javascript.</noscript> <script type="text/javascript", var pageTracker = -gat.-getTracker("UA-4287881-1");
pageTracker.-initData(); pageTracker.-trackpageview();

</script>

APX - 238__--

<noscript class="noscript">Your browser does not support javascript.</noscript> </body> </html,

APX - 239

STRUNK V. N Y S BOE ET AL. NYSSC KINGS INDEX 6500-201 1

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Kevin Richard Powell Affidavit

EXHIBIT C
>

APX _---__ - 240

STRUNK V. N Y S BOE ET AL. NYSSC m G S INDEX 6500-2011

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Kevin Richard Powell Affidavit

EXHIBIT D

--

APX - 241

--

--

APX - 242

APX - 243

Toolbox

APX - 244

---

NeoTrace Trace Version 5.25 R e s u b Tame& fiveweb,arehiveeorg B a k 1011012011 (Nlonday), 4:23:13 PkA Modes: 10
Fade Net Reg IP Address Location
Node Name

Node i i i g h Low Avg 10


33
22

Tot Lost
149
0

25

Netvork Data Network xd#: 1 Query terms are ambiqnous. 11 207.241.226.201 Use
?

The query is assumed to be:

to get help.

The followxng results may also be obtained via: h-ctp://whois.arin.nee/resT/nets;~207.241.2~6.20l?showDeta~ls=true&sh~w~~1~=false&ext=netr~f2


NetRange: CIDR: Origin$& : NetNarne : NetHandle: Parent: SetType : RegDate: Updated: Ref: OrgEane:
OrgId:

207.241.224.0 - 2 0 7 . 2 9 1 . 2 3 9 . 2 5 5 207.241.224.0/20
INTEF34ET-ARCHIVX-1

SET-207-241-224-0-1 NET-207-0-0-0-0 Drrect Assignment 2004-05-20 2004-05-20 http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-207-241-224-O-l Internet Archive INTERN-95 The Presidio of San Francisco 116 Sheridan Ave. San Francisco CA
94129

Address: Address : City: StateProv: PostalCode: Country: KegDater Updated: Ref:


OrgTechNaroe:

US 1557-02-20 2011-09-24
http://whois.erin.net/rest/org/INTERN-95

OrgTechBanale: JSH7S-ARIN Shankland, James OrgTechPhone: +I-415-561-6767 OrgTechEmail: jim@archive.org OrgTechRef: httrp://v~o~s.arrn.net/rest/poc/3SH75-aRIN OrgAbusetfandle: J S H 7 5 - A R I N OrgAbuseName: Shankland, James OrgASusePhone: +1-415-561-6767 ilrgIlbuseCmai1: jh@archive.org OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.neC/rest/poc/JSK~5-ARIN

R e g i s t r a n t Data

Registrant xd#: I NOTICE AND T E R M OF USE: You are not authorrzed to access or query ouz WHOIS Page 1 Mon Oct 10 16:23:13
2011

$at,% O G ~ ~ O 13;32:13 'I~

I1

APX - 245 -

database through the use of higb-volume, automated, electronic processes. The Data in Retwork Solutions' HWOIS database 1s provided by Eetwork Solutions for info~mation purposes only, and to assist persons in obtaining infomation about or related to a domain name registration record. Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy. By suhmittinq a WHOIS query, you agree to abide by the fallowing terns of use: Yos agree that you may use this Data only for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances wzll you use this Data to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolxclted, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail, telephone, or facsimile; Or 12) enable high voluine, automated, electronic processes U l a t apply to Setwork Solut?+ons for its computer systemsf. The r h i s Data IS expressly compilation, repackaging, dissemination or other use of r prohibited wi-chout the prior written consent of Network Solutions. You agree not to use high-volume, automated, electronic processes to access or query the WHOfS database, Network Solutlo2s reserves the right to tenolnate ycur access to the WHOIS datrtbase in its sole discretion, including without imitation, for excessive querylng o f the WHOIS database or for failure to otherwise abide by this policy. Hetwork Solutions reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. Get a FREE domain name reoxstration, transfer, or renewal with any annual hosting package.
http://www.networkSolutions.corn

Visit AboutUs.org for more information about ARCHIVE.ORG <a href= bttp://m.aboutus.orq/kRGHIVE.ORG >AboutUs: ARCHIVE.ORG </a>

Registrant: Internet Archlve 300 Funston Avenue San Francxsco, W 94118 US Domain Name: ARMiIVE.ORG

-----------------------------------------------------------------------Promote your business to millions of viewers for only 1 a rnonth Learn bow you can get an Enhanced Business Listing here for your domain name. Learn more at http://www.h'et~orlrSolutlons.coa/

........................................................................

Admi~strativ?? Contact, Technical Contact: Archive, Internet info@archive.org 300 Funston Rvenue San Francisco, CA 94118 US 415.561.6767

Record expires on 15-Dec-2016. Record created on 24-Sep-2502. Database last updated on 10-0ct-2011 1 9 : 0 8 : 3 3
Domaan servers in listed order: NS1.ARCHfVE.ORG ORD-SNS-PB.ISC.ORG AMS.SNS-PB.ISC.ORG SFBA.SNS-PB.ISC.ORG NS3 .ARCHIVE.ORG NeoTrace Copyright @1997-2001 NeoWorx Inc 208.70.31.236 199.5-0.30 193.6.1.30 149.20.64.3 149.20.55.5

EDT.

I1
I

Page 2 Mon Oct 10 16:23:13

2011

Sat,15 act 2011 13:32:13

--

APX - 246 -

NeoTra~e Trace Version 3.25 Results

Target: waybackarchive.org Dale: fB190f2011 (Monday), 4:26:19 PM


Nodes: $0
Node Net Reg IP address
Location
Ncide Name

1
I
I

Packet D a t a

Node Hiqh Low Bvq

Tot

Lost

Network Data Network id#: 1 C?~ery terms are mhiqu0t;s. r? 207.241.226.201 The query is assumed to be:

Use

to get help,

The following resnlts may also be obtained via: http://whois.ar~n.net/rest/nets;~7.241.226.201?show~etails=true&sh0~~~1~=faise6t=netre~2


NetRange : CID2: OziqicAS: NetName:
NetHa~dle:

207.241.224.0 - 207.241.239.255 207.241.224.0120

Parent: NetPype: RegDate : Updated: Ref:


OrgName :

INTERNET-ARmIVE-1 NET-207-241-224-0-2 NET-207-0-0-0-0 Dlrect Assignment 2004-05-20 2004-05-20 htrp://whois.arin.net/rest/netlNET-257-_141-224-0-~


Internet Archive INTERN-95 The Presidio of San Francisco 116 Shesadan Ave. San Francrsco
64

OrqId: Address: Address : Crty: StateProv: PostalCode: Country: RegDate: Updated: Ref:
BrqTechHandle: OrgTecliNamer

94129 US 1997-02-20 2011-09-24 http://who~s.arin.net/rest/org/II.iTERN-95 JSH75-ARIN Shankland, James +1-415-561-6767 jim@arehive.org http://who~s.arin.net/rest/pot/JSN75-ARrN

OrgTechPhone: OrgTechEmail: OrgTechRef:

Org&useIiar.dle : JsHSS-ARIN OrgAbuseName: Shankland, James OrgAbusePhone: +1-415-561-6767 OrqAbuseEmall: jirn@archive.org http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/JSH75-ARLN OrgAbuseRef:

AKIN WHOIS data and services are sub~ectto the Terms o f Use

APX - 2 4 7

database through the use of hrgh-volume, automated, electronic processes. The Data in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network Solutions for information purposes nnly, and to assist persons in obtaining information about or related t o a domain name registration record. Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a WHOIS query, you agree to abide by the followrng tern3 of use: You agree that you may use thls Data only for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances wrll you use this Data to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the tran.smisslon of mass unsolicltwl, commercial advertising or solicitations vsa e-mail, telephone, or facsimile: or 12) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that apply to NeZwork Solutions (or its computer systems). Tfie compilation, repackaging, dissemination or other use of this data is expressly prohibited without the prior written ccnsent of Network Solutions. You agree not to use high-volvne, automated, electron5.z processes to access or query the WHOIS database, Network Solutions reserves the right to terminate your access to the WROlS database in rts sole cfiscretlon, rncludxng wrthout lirmtat~on, for excessive querjrlng of the W B O q O L S database or for failure to otherwise abrde by this polcy. Network Solutions reserves the r~ght to modify these terns at any time. Get a FREE domain name registration, transfer, or renewal with any annual hostrng package.

v~sit AboutUs.org for more infonaat~oa &out ARCHIVtS.ORG <a href= http://www.aboutus.orglARCHfVE.ORG >AbootDs: ARCHIVE.ORG </a>

Registrant: Internet Archive 300 Funstan Avenue San Francisco, W 94118


9s

Donain Name: MCHIVE.ORG

busrness t o millions of viewers for only 1 a month Promote y o u ~ Learn how you can get an Enhanced Business Listing here for your domain name. Learn more at http://~nt.PetrrorkSolutions.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------+-------

Aduun~strative Contact, Technical Contact: Archive, Internet info@archive.org 300 Funston Avenue San Francisco, CA 94118
D.3

415.561.6767

Record expires on 15-Dec-2016. Record createci on 24-Sep-2002. Database last updated on 10-0ct-2011 19:08:33 Domaln servers in lksted order: NSl.AXCBIVE.ORG 0RD.SNS-PB.ISC.ORG AE4S.SNS-PB.ISC.3RG SFBA-SNS-PB.ISC.ORG NS3.AXCHIVE.ORG NeoTrace Copyright 01997-2001 Heo%'orx Tnc 208.70.31.236 199.6.0.30 199.6.1.30 149.20.64.3 149.20.55.5

EDT.

Page 2 Mon Qct 10 16:24:19

2011

sat,'15 03 2011 13:32:59

STKUNK V. N Y S BOE ET AL.NYSSC KINGS INDEX 6500-2011

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Kevin Richard Powell Affidavit

EXHIBIT E
APX - 249
-

. . -

:2'
r

*:

8,

r
f

. : *

Id+@

* r c '" N 0 +d xt t -4

." E " g5
t
s -

if+

-11

.'U : -4

=
*8 z -

$5" $8,
j

*4t;lz

C
h

m 3 +J z i%,X gz
D O C
~ L

G-E*
-4'4

" -is;
C
+ t r . , Y":
L*

r 4 E W 3 3

+ 4 .-L.l

ra
g-m

g -,#
a ,
b3.
i

L * -4 il

i= --4 8 0 ~ V- n k 0 2 %
"4

..
$1

a*
-4 ' 4

q- 3
'C

c y ' 4

dl
OI

--.V
m

5 2 % , c

-. -

APX - 253

APX - 254

q- L?
**+ id

It

SL1

BI

a d ! U
(0"

A x

. z

w
m
"

+ " "rCi g "$2,


M q ?

---, 11 m
E :*i si -& 4 U

& &< #J :*--H

k . : .g ". E C i i
U 4-

Oii-

&I

2 : 44 W-I? a
*Pi

-..

It

'at

W E

5-

2 u
U

W L 6 ' 0 0 6:

4 1 .A

i: -a 3\33 e i l

a-

ca h -4
V

-&

w-

3 L

ri

c wl
ffi

rt

APX - 255

STRUNK V. N Y S BOE ET AL. NYSSC KLNGS LNDEX 6500-201 1

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

APX _____- 256

Print j Close Window Subjed: Recently, the New York State Board of Elections was caught trying to amend the US Constitution with an eraser From: chris@strunk.ws Date: Wed, Oct 12, 2021 1:29 prn To: "Joel Graber, Esq." <Joel.Grabe@ag.ny.gov> corsland@law.nyc.gov, "Thomas Kirby" <TKirby@wileyrein.com>, walbert@harrisbeach.com, jdugan@willkie.com, mbeil@mcguirewoods.com, Cc: rtobin@capdale.com,jwehner@capdale.com, kcorbett@harrisbeach.com, cklatell@rbskl.com, dreich@rbskl.com, tbromberg@ileyrein.com, jbaran@wileyrein.com, tgarry@harrisbeach.com, sdunn@stbIaw.com, tphillips@capdale.com Bcc: xx Attach: PROPOSED STIPULATION OF EXTENSION until $1-14-1l.pdf PROPOSED STIPULATION OF EXTENSION until 10-28-11.doc

Joel,

Ireceived your phone message requesting your third or fourth time extension to answer or otherwise respond to the March 22, 2011 Complaint extended until October 28, 2011, and not until the November 14, 2011 dated you requested because as you expressed it in yourphone message the New York Attorney General nor its clients are unable to stipulate that (see attached):
WHEREAS t h e u n d e r s i g n e d d e s i r e t h a t , i n t h e i n t e r e s t s o f

convenience and j u d i c i a l economy pending a d e c i s i o n by t h e Honorable A r t h u r M. Schack J . S . C . on t h e motions h e a r d on August

22,

2011;

and

W H E R E A S t h e Attorney General's Office, representing S t a t e


Defendants,

has conferred with p i a i n t i f f ;

and

W H E R E A S t h e Attorney General's Office, representing S t a t e Defendants, i n t h e absence of a s p e c i f i c N e w York s t a t u t e t h a t Citizen" f o r candidate e l i g i b i l i t y f o r

d e f i n e s "natural-born

e l e c t i o n t o t h e o f f i c e o f P r e s i d e n t of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s r e q u i r e s a n y human b e i n g must be b o r n on U n i t e d S t a t e s o f America s o i l t o two c i t i z e n p a r e n t s f o r b a l l o t a c c e s s i n N e w York, and t h a t w e now a g r e e w i t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t N e w York S t a t e ' s d e f i n i t i o n o f

APX - 257

"natural-born Citizen" complies with the United States

Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 that mandates:


"No Person except a natural born C i t i z e n , o r a C i t i z e n o f the U n i t a d S t a t e s , at the t i m e o f the Adoption of t h i s C o n s t i t u t i o n , s h a l l be e l i g i b l e t o t h e O f f i c e of President; n e i t h e r s h a l l any Person be e l i g i b l e t o that Office who s h a l l not have a t t a i n e d t o t h e Age o f t h i r t y five Years, and been fourteen Y e a r s a Resident w i t h i n t h e United States."

Be that the case, Iam giving you fair notice that Ihave just discovered that your client NYS Board of Elections is involved in what an experienced attorney characterizes as "...trying to amend the US Constitution with an eraser..." and because of the nature of the continuing injury t o m e starting no later than September 2008 in m y efforts using EL 3-106 (3)
3 . The s t a t e board of e l e c t i o n s , on i t s own i n i t i a t i v e , o r upon complaint o r o t h e r w i s e , may i n v e s t i g a t e any a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n of t h e f a i r campaign code and, i n a p p r o p r i a t e c a s e s , may a p p l y f o r a n o r d e r , a s provided i n t h i s a r t i c l e .

and having been denied any administrative response as required under N Y S BOE Fair Campaign Election code Section 620 1.3 since my complaint of October 2008 and as in this hrther matter herein when everyone else has responded the below matter is the subject of a supplement to the complaint as to the New York State Board of Elections and whomever involved in the "eraser" or cover-up of the archive of the 2008 POTUS candidates qualification requirements.

"Recently, the New York State Board of Elections was caught trying to amend the U S Constitution with an eraser by listing POTUS eligibility as available to any person "born a citizen". (Please review Pixel Patriot's excellent anaiysg on this issue, "New York State BOE Web Site Cover Up'.) The Constitution states that only a "natural born Citizen" may be president, a much more stringent requirement than simply being "born a citizen". This effort in New York is part of a much larger effort nationwide to falsely revise history (in this case by scrubbing the very words of our Constitution). The tactic contributes to an insidious pattern of behavior being perpetrated just so Obama will be

APX - 258

allowed to occupy the White House despite US Supreme Court precedent which states directly that he is not eligible. (This report assumes Obama was born in Hawaii.)"

Attached a t your request is the proposed stipulation of extension until October 28, 2011, I am at the library and when signed scanned it and send by email for me to sign and return today by 6pm.

Best regards, Chris Strunk 845-901-6767


Copyright O 2003-2011. All rights reserved

STRliNK V. NYS BOE ET AT, hTSSC TWIGS WDEX 6500-201 1

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

EXHIBIT 6
APX - 260 ----

Natural Born Citizen


<(

Respecting the Constitution7 The Natural Born Citizen blon went missing.. . now it's back.

Recently, the New York State Board of Elections was caught trying to amend the US Constitution with an erase: by listing POTUS eligibility as available to any person "born a k BOE citizen". (Please review Pixel Patriot's excellent analysis on this issue, "New Y o ~ State Web Siie rover ry".) The Constitution states that only a "natural born Citizen" may be president, a inuch more stringent requirement than simply being "born a citizen". This effort in New York is part of a much larger effort nationwide to falsely revise history (in this case by scrubbing the very words of our Constitution). The tactic contributes to an insidious pattern of behavior being perpetratedjust so Obama will be allowed to occupy the White House despite US Supreme Court precedent which states directly that he is not eligible. (This report assumes Obama was born in Haw-aii.) Other instances of gross inteltectual dishonesty documented at this blog include the recent attempt by Justia.com to rewrite American history by scrubbing links in subsequent cases which establish that Minor v. Happersett has been cited multiple times as precedent on citizenship issues as well L Z . ~ voting rights. Another instance of this misleading practice was the revision of a Michigan Law Review article by well-known legal scholar, Professor L*rence Solum, wherein his original analysis - lh~76 only nperson born m the ITS of'cztize~z parents w,as beyond quesfzo?zellgzblejbr POTUS - was scrubbed to include as eligible those born of only one citizen parent. The citizenship issue decided in Minor v. Happersett has been documented as precedent by multiple sources of legal scholarship (See also my previous two reports analyzing Minor v Below, I have assembled multiple quotations from various published Happersett, here and h.) literature which cogently establish that the Supreme Court issued iwo holdings in Minor, ofre orr cifzzenshzpand the other on voting right^ That the citizenship issue is precedent, and not dictum, has never been questioned in our national history until now, just as the very words of the Constitution are being scrubbed. My research indicates unequivocally that for over a century before the appearance of Obama, Minor was recognized and cited as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship

Page 1 of 11

We turn now to an esteemed legal scholar and Government attorney who specialized in citizenship law. He will provide unquestionable clarity on the issue of why Minor v. Happersett is precedent on citizenship as well as voting rights.
FREDERLCK VAN DYNE, ASSlSTANT SOLlClTOR US DEPARTMENT OF STATE

The source in question is Frederick Van Dyne who, while holding the office of Assistant Solicitor for the US Department of State, published analysis that the citizenship decision in Minor v. Happersett was precedent. Van Dyne argued that persons born of foreign parents on US soil were "native-born citizens" of the US prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the 14th Amendment. But Van Dyne, while discussing the holding in the New York case ofLpch t i Clark (not binding on the Federal Courts), failed to endorse that case's opinion that all native-born citizens of foreign parentage were natural-born citizens. In his famous treatise, "Citizenship of the United States" (Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing Co., 19041, Van Dyne only went so far as to state that such persons were "native-born citizens". (See Van Dyne's treatise at pgs. 6-7 ) Where the US Supreme Court in Minor differs from Obama eligibility propaganda is that the former regards being "native-born7' as just one element necessary to meeting the natural-born citizen standard of POTUS eligibility, whereas the latter incorrectly argue that it is the (mIJi element. As you will see below, Van Dyne directly recognized that the US Supreme Court's decision in Minor was precedent on citizenship, and that tlie holding therein defined natural-born citizens as those born in the US of citizen parents.
In the following passage, Van Dyne argues that previous American cases recognized that persons born on US soil were US citizens regardless of the citizenship of the yareilts. However, Van Dyne also points out that a statement by the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases appears to contradict this theory. But Van Dyne's analysis stresses that the contradictory statement in the Slaughter-House Cases is dict~m.
He then refers to the ''decisionW in Minor v. Happersett on citizenship in order to counter

the "dictunz" from the Slaughter-House Cases. Van Dyne clearly recognized the Minor Court's decision on citizenship as precedent which outweighs the &cnLm of the SlaughterHouse Cases. hi doing so, Van Dyne anotes (see pgs. 12-13) the Minor Court's definition of a natural-born citizen as one born in the US to citizen parents:

Page 2 of 11

APX 262 -

t, GM4ft.g bra it;* "&dW h t * ttf ai&=


~& k& i bi~k iw &P Erti~d Stsav, zsf i c d F 3 d m eitiirim+Ua Te rsa tf~rtrnhave awe4 f i x ~ s g i p wG& 1 : s ~ W BFPWP~ qm 5~ S R ~ ~ P . at P s (4lbttra;ql. ? h 5 &%i ROW fX' ~%m.&lllf~re~k Ta; tb.Ia"veGnb;. ~ h rcjjsiaium * of tls*c.ietd i n Cjfp i@er~&Pe~-l$+a~ i'atwe, 18 Bell. 3 : : 5 3t k t.$- 4ri5, M n S e a l a SiZter miaid: "*i'flc- p & w , Ctrnks$a=k Paj tBr jk&ri-iict~x%~W* iadcarh-4 F.5 FE. eiza& fP.mszi i$.% ep-atBtw ~Jriblrrts& nrnirnisi~~~~ ioaisa!~,pnd ciiliZ P D"P ~ b g i f > j ~ : $ & fs~r3;gz,11 ~f d;:ft*s b t ~ ~iiifih x rhu I'zxixcZ Faster," 'Tiris ha9 $**-a &ti.& izr ati~3rlrf trI f ! a e rrtpitaratii;rtx tba% %bv *-hi% drm i l ~ i b i t ~ I-&$* = f i m t e $aaEf~s-r; srr- 1s-( &~KS&W fir qhp 'i."rritccl Ess~fiih Ir B ta ~-&wPI~~~ v~ S,W C F F P %flat ~ ~ tkj* PIS tan& a t i ~ ~ h t t t , T&P q=ti*c uxtr ss& . t ~ & r $ i~ if-&z3s*i&.iqt of ah* paw. k*f#w $ 1 e> ~.lpain. 3 2 % - ~kt-~cIjsg te%-rlr.r r r f f+rptdp tatirrinirm %nil amaC-FM!

&stt%

hare

ai:ffi~faaifht%xiy@

m3.j

W~~PR id ~rte-st t # p sixae

wi*j! e t r h r f , IRW ~b~f?t esnfl~jc,SC

~ 1 r ( %ate*% ~ k~~fe.r* cfftpawfFiar~s$esl wi-lr i <$;plrmrra~Sa chrar~;?~


S R sf r f

phtirk~f, Et?; tbp E a a nf ~sstirifl.r, fa tba* ~rridhm t r d ia1-

ab asafra&ss&m, e%*ar~a 6% $!a* rsiotem*r:$ . i ~ z s arrftt t mr+ SISW$ .i;i(.h$1~" clsgrtra i+aw m t i c.rwddtcts* w i# 6 1 ~ hafeia;9 t k * mqart f;nd mikl filr a pt5c-ci~e srbtirl4Co stf t b t p b m . e l ~ s4he i fa^+ rlartr t ~ ~ Z e 31~. l t ~3 w ~ 31 b ISkxr, BW e n ftfw ifnstia* q r h ~ wok ibt t k ECF&S;R~ w f t r d teeI Z I X X ~ tir ~ -a ~m r ~ i t * t ! ~ttet3*;5~~?$ %* @ie~ i r @+at - ~ % ~ I ~ I < ~b wR m ia 2hf* l:nira%-! S ~ ~ I~f ~E sfS k~ - p%r=fa w ~ *ex~lttsJ=-rf ~ t ~ f RSR t l i ~ ~g*_prdr kxr 9f d~
~k-ii&-;

Page 3 of 11

APX - 263

Very rarely, whilst doing research, does one come upon historical evidence that so perfectly establishes the point in question. Examine the last paragraph again:
"7% decision in thrs case w a s that u l.tpomun hfmz c!f'citizetz purents within the U~zzft'd Stutm WLE,S a czfrze~z of [he UrrrtedStates, although mot er?titZeedto vote, the electzvefianch~se not hev~g essentiul to citizenship. (Emphasis added.)
"

The "decision" in Minor is twofold:


I) woman ctre cguul citizen.^ to men;

The first point is still good law. This may seem obvious now, but in 1875 it wasn't. Vil-ginia Minor did not accept that citizenship without voting rights was equal citizenship. She argued that women were being treated as "halh~ay citizens" and she directly petitioned the Court for a determination which stated that women were equal citizens to men

Page 4 of 11

__-_-- APX

- 264

The Court in Minor, referring directly to Article 2 Section 1, and specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment, held that women, $born m t h US ~ to crfzzenpmer2fs, were citizens and that their citizenship was equal to men The Court further stated that this "class7' of persons were "natives, or natural-born citizens" The Court also held that while women were equal citizens to men, the Constitution did not provide a right to vote to anyone, male or female. This part of the holding was later erased by the 19th Amendment, but the citizenship determination remains as good law today Therefore, the Court's decision in Minor operates against Obama being eligible, since his father was never a US citizen. Van Dyne examines the Slaughter-House dictum carefully since it is a statement made by the highest court in the nation which contrasts his view that all persons born on US soil are nativeborn citizens. In classifying the Slaughter-House statement as dictum, Van Dyne notes that determining the citizenship of persons born on US soil to alien parents was not an issue before the court in that case He then points to the "deczston" on citizenship from Minor to contrast the Slaughter-House dictum and in doing so Van Dyne makes clear that Virginia Minor's citizenship was an issue directly before the Court in Minor. Note the following crucial passage fiom Justice Waite's opinion again, paying particular attention to the punchline:

"[TJhe Consfifufzon ...pro$sidEs fhar 'noyersorz except a naturul-bont citizen, or a citizen ofthe Ilrijfed States i . @ the tinle of fhe aduptiutz offhe Con~~itittzon, sbII 6e eljg'bb to the ofice u f Presidetza '... The C:onstitutioion does not, in word.^, say who shall he ~zazzcral-horn cztizcns. Resort must he had elsewhere to mcertuirz thut. 4 fcomrnort-law, with the rtonzerzchfiareof ~tthzch the f.an2ers of the Constitzdtiort werefumiliw, it w2us never dou6fedthat ail ch?ldrt.nborri in a wutzt7y rdpments M J ~ O uJerett.s citizeizs hecmze thern.seI~~e.s, zpin their hir th, citizens uLs(~.jlhexe ?+ere ?tu#~jes, or nufirml-born citizens, as distirz@ishe@Pomdiens or.fbre~p?er,s. ,%me amthor.iiiesgo further and zrici1x& as cifizenschildren borti ulzthzn the jurisdiction ~.t'l'fholib reference to the citizenship oftheir [88 US. 162, 168,7pnrents.As to &is class there have been dozchts, hut never CIS to the,fisl'.I*i~r the pzcr~x).se.stfthis ccrse i f i s not nece.s.saiy to solve these dosbt.~. i f 1,s .sz<ficienf.for everyfhlngwe h e now to consider f h t ali chilhen horn oJ'citize~z yurents within the jztrisd'iction are themselves citize~ls. The worh 'all children' are certainly as cnmprehensit:e,when zlsed in this connectctiori, cis 2allpersotzs, ' nrtd Iffrmczles w r iriclirded iri fJ2e ia.sf they rnzisf he in the,firYsf. Rar t h y are itzcluded in the Iu\f is not denzed T~.ftctthe ~z*holE argument of thepZai~&iffs proceeds rrpoit that idea " (Emphasis added.)
Current propaganda attempting to sanitize Obama in light of the Supreme Court's precedent in Minor mis-directs that Minor's citizenship was not an issue directly before the Court. But in the passage above, the Court's unanimous opinion clearly states that "the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea." So, squarely before the Court was the issue of whether women were equal citizens

Page5of 11

APX - 265

-4h.o consider the name of Van Dyne's treatise, "Citizenship In The United States" As to the soundness of Van Dyne's treatise, the following review appears in The Amerzca~~ .lair~?al Of Inie~rtutioncrl Lcrw: "The author. of thrs work TZOIVocczipzes a / r imporfa~~t post in the Amerrcan Constliar Service. ntree years ngo, rchile holding the poszho?~ of ussistmf solicitor of the Depnrmenr of Stnte, he puhlzshed a work o ?dtizetzshzp ~ ($the I/~z~terlS~ate.s, a w o ~~ k ~ h z wc1.s c h at tj7e &mehrghly comend~d by competent cntrcs and which those who hmle ssrnce used r f hm~efm~nd to be an excei!~wt ~na?~uuI. " Van Dyne stressed that the decrsion in Minor contradicted the earlier dictum in the SlaughterHouse Cases. And Van Dyne specifically quoted the natural-born citizen definition from Minor (taking no issue with it) just before announcing the Court's "decision" that women born in the US to citizen parents were citizens. Again, the 14th Amendment was not necessary in determining Virginia Minor's citizenship since the Court was able to rely upon a direct construction of Article 2 Section 1 instead. The Court held that Minor was in the "class" of persons who were designated as natural-born citizens, whereas those whose citizenship faced doubt due to alien parentage required help from the 14th Amendment. And such help came in 1898 when the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen under the 14th Amendment. Since Minor was a natural-born citizen, the 14th Amendment need not be construed. But Wong Kim Ark was not in the class of natural-born citizens (previously defined in Minor), and therefore the Supreme Court was forced to directly construe the 14th Amendment to resolve citizenship doubts pertaining to the "class" of persons born in the US to alien parents.
It is crucially important to recognize that Wong Kim Ark's citizenship could not be established without the 14th Amendment since he was not a natural-born citizen. if he had been in that class, the Court would have established his citizenship under Article 2 Section 1 as the court had previously done for Virginia Minor.

TEE MINORS' HALFWAY CITIZENSHIP ISSUE


Virginia Minor's briefs (prepared by her husband, attorney Francis Minor) rehsed to blindly accept lower court holdings which stated that women were equal citizens to men. The Minors argued that if women were not allowed to vote, then their citizenship was not equal to men. The exact wording of Minor's argument stated (see pg 59).
" 'lhere carz be no di1.~z,szotz t,fczfzze?zshzp, ezfher c?fzt.srzghts cw zt.s dutrer. l here cctz hc no ha@ w a cztrzenshzp. ~ Hromtnz, as a czizzen qf fhe UnztedSrdes, zs ej~atled fo all the benefits offhat poszaon, mii lzuble to all rrs obligaaons, or to laone. "

Justice Waite spent so much time analyzing Minor's citizenship - and federal citizenship in general - because Virginia Minor directly petitioned the Court to do so. Her "whole argument"

Page 6 of 11

depended on it. And since her citizenship was an issue before the Court, it issued a "decisior7" that she was a citizen, whereas the Court's citizenship statement in the Slaughter-House Cases was dictum since no citizenship issue was before the Court in that case. And here we have literally a texthrx~k example illustrating the difference between dictum and precedent
-

The citizenship of Minor, and of all women, is so ingrained in the history of Minor v. Happersett, that multiple sources besides Van Dyne have also documented the citizenship precedent set by the Supreme Court therein. For example, please review "Inventing Citizens, Imagining Gender Justice. The Suffrage Rhetoric of Virginia and Francis Minor", Quarter& Jazrmal of Speech lbl 93, No. 4, November 2007, pp. 375-602, by Angela G. Ray & Ci~~dy K o e ~ ~Richurd ig Note the title, "Inventing Citizens" Indeed, the entire case, as stressed by Justice Waite, revolves around the issue of citizenship. Here are some relevant quotes fkom this peer-reviewed article' "In this milieu, woman's rights activists, seeking to hlfill revolutionary promises for themselves, pressed the courts to define the privileges of citizenship as applying to all citizens regardless of sex.. . The Minor decision.. . acknowledged women's status as citizens but denied that citizenship entailed voting rights..." at pg. 2).

(m

"This essay demonstrates the ingenuity, the complexity, and the challenges of litigating a nineteenth-century test case that sought to expand the legal definition and performative parameters of citizenship." (PDF at pg. 3). "On March 29, the Court's unanimous decision in Minor v. Happersett, written by first-term Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, accepted that women were citizens but disconnected citizenship from the franchise, supported the authority of states to deny voting rights, and ensured the necessity of a federal amendment for women's enfranchisement. The Minors' rhetoric addressed not only judicial authorities but also women citizens. The arguments that they espoused and performed asked how citizenship should be conceptualized and how it should be enacted.'. (PDF at pg. 7). "For the Minors, citizenship could not be partial, and any exclusions from federal citizenship rights had to be made explicit in federal law The Minors insisted that the definition of citizenship required that its privileges be applied equally and filly In 1869 Virginia Minor told the Missouri Woman Sufffage Association that if women 'are entitled to two or three privileges [of citizenship], we are entitled to all.' The Mmors' argument to the U S Supreme Court elaborated this point 'There can be no half-way citizenship Woman, as a citizen of the United States, is entitled to all the benefits of that position, and liable to all its obligations, or to none ' " (PDF at pg. 8) "Inventing Citizens" was published in 2007, one year before Obama's dual nationality at birth problem first came to the general public's attention via the case I brought against the NJ Secretary of State -DowofP.io 1:. Fells - which was referred to the full court by Justice Clarence Thomas. There does not appear to be even one source which alleges that the citizenship issue from Minor was dictum prior to October 2008. But there are numerous sources which document lhe citizenship issue as precedent.

Page 7 of 11

_-- APX - 267

For example, the Oxford Comnarzzon To The Sipreme C a r t Of The Uitrted Sfafes (2d edition, 2005) has this to say about Minor v. Happersett.

"It zs notnhle,for its ~rnnwo~+~ &fi*tritiotz o f citize?tship 'as com~eyeyilzg the idea qf membership qf n ?tarion,nothiizg more' m~dfor itsfim2, rina~imol4s rejection ofthe Fourteenth Anzerrdment as a source either of a substmtiveeral stifloge rzght or of afederal limrfon stare co~t@ot of the ,fi.~r?zchi.se.{Image of text.)
"

The Oxford Companion makes clear that as late as 2005, Minor is "notable" for Boih its definition of citizenship and voting rights. Both were precedent until the 19th Amendment nullified the voting rights issue, whereas the citizenship precedent still stands today.
in "The Boundaries of Her Body: The Troubling History of Woman's Rights In America", by Debran Rowland (Sphinx Publishing, 2004), it states that the Supreme Court "held" that women were citizens,
"

'?%ere i,s t z o &)uht that wozwa~z may be citizerzs', the fhurf held. '"See pg. 2d.)

in "The American Midwest: An Interpretive Encyclopedia", by Richard Sisson, Christian Zacher, Andrew Cayton (Indiana University Press, 2007), the Supreme Court's citizenship holding was also acknowledged:

"(112 March 29, 1875, a un~mimozcs Suyreme Cmirt ruled that states did not i~iolufe the C'o~z~titz~t10~z when they denied women the right to vole. Vomen were citizcrzs qfthe linzted States g ?tota r~ght ofczkze~~shp. " ( S e e pg 1593.) fhe cortr.tfourd, btdf ~ o f i nwlas
The tandem issues of citizenship and voting rights were again noted in, "Race, Class and Gender in the United States: an Integrated Study", by Paula S. Rothenburg (Worth Publishers, 6th Edition, 2004):

'Tn this case the cou~t held that althoiigh women were nt~zens, rthe r1g1~1 to x70te~ t ~not asa przvzlege OP rmmzii?lrj. o f natzond crfie~?shzp before ndoptior?ofthe I lth Amer~dmenf, nor drd fl7e ~ m l e t ~ h e n t sufiage b the privileges atxi zn~mz~?zzbtes of ~zofional citizenship. " (See pg 485 ) (Emphasis added )

in "American Citizens and Their Government", by Kenneth Wallace Colegrove (Abbington Press, l921), the author noted that the Supreme Court "decided women were citizens:
"7he court decided rhaf while ikfrs.Minor was clear& n citizen of the Ui7itedStaft?s, she was rrot
enfitted to r.,)ute hecnu.se the rixht c?f.mf%-ugt' w'ns nrjt ?zeccs.sarzfyone of the przvileges cad imm?~f?izie.s of citize~tship. " (See pg. 64.)

Until Obama came along, Minor v. Happersett was always viewed as the precedent ruling that wonien were equal citizens to men. I have not seen any resources that pre-date Obama's 2008 election campaign which state that the Supreme Court's analysis of Virginia Minor's citizenship was dictum and not precedent.

Page 8 of 11

APX - 268

The Supreme Court's analysis in Minor elicited a specific definition of the class of natural-born citizens in order to avoid a tricky interpretation ofthe meaning of the 14th Amendment's nebulous phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Therefore, according to the Supreme Court's definition, Obama is not eligible to be President since the class of natural-born citizens was held to be those born in the US to parents who are citizens. His father was never a US citizen, nor was he ever permanently domiciled here That Virginia Minor was not running for President makes no difference at all By directly construing Alicle 2 Section 1 in determining that Minor was a citizen prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court held that persons born in the US to parents who are citizens are "natives or natural-born citizens " These are referred to as a "class" of persons separate from the class of persons born to alien parents The Court in Minor acknowledged that, despite existing doubts, the class born to non-citizen parents might be citizens. But they weren't natural-born. This was confirmed in 1898 by the Supreme Court in UTong Kim Ark, wherein the Court determined that a child born in the US of alien pal-ents bermanently domiciled here) was a US citizen, but that such a person's citizenship is determined by operation of the 14th Amendment Had Wong Kim Ark been a natural-born citizen like Virgnia Minor, the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark could have avoided the 14th Amendment as did the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett In c,onstruingArticle 2 Section 1, the Court in Minor exercised proper judicial restraint by not reaching further than necessary to make an expansive landmark interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The Minor opinion acknowledged that the decision might seem unfair and that the law itself might be unfair, but the Court recognized that their duty was to uphold the law as written, and further stated that if the law was unfair it should be changed. By exercising such restraint, the Court gave birth to a standing definition which conclusively determined the class of natural-born
citizens.

OTHER AUTHORITIES ARE RENDERED MOOT BY THE US SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN MINOR

In conclusion, 1must point out that the holding'defmition of a natural-born citizen issued by the
Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett does not mention the Law of Nations or Vanel. I realize there has been a great deal of scholarship unearthed by both sides of this argument. But in Minor we have direct Supreme Court precedent for this issue which renders other sources moot. Vattel does not make national law The US Supreme Court and the Congress malce national law. Unless the Supreme Court overrules the citizenship precedent stated in Minor v. Happersett, or the Constitution is amended, the case stands as governing national law. This is due to the separation of powers determined by the Constitution itself. It's important to focus on the Supreme Court's holding as opposed to allowing the precedent set therein to be hijacked by

Page 9 of 1I

APX - 269

those who seek to define this definition as "Vattelist" or "foreign". The US Supreme Court in Minor failed to mention Vattel, so despite any influence he might have had on the framers, the definition stated is to be referred to as the US Supreme Court definition of natural-born citizen, and by no other name.

FUTURE CERT 4ND PROPHECY?


I have been asked many times over the last three years whether I believe this issue will ever reach a decision on the merits in any federal court. For a long time, 1thought the answer was an emphatic "never" since the Supreme Court was twice handed the issue on a silver platter. Both Donqfvzo v. Wells, and the petition I prepared in Wrofizo~~sln v. @sre~viczwere referred to the h l l Court for conference. Nobody knows how many votes, if any, were in favor of reviewing the eligibility of Obama. Regardless, certiorari was refused in both cases However, with a recent trial balloon thrown out by the Governor of North Carolina regarding a possible suspension of electio~is in 2012, the game has changed drastically. The economy all over the world is scay. Protests are circling the nation. The UN is increasing its interference with national sovereignty. And all currencies could go belly up as the Ponzi scheme of Fiat paper and fractional reserve banking threatens to make the Great Depression seem not so great And there is a very strong possibility Obama could lose this election. I am very concerned that he will not leave office quietly if the people do not invite him to return and that suspension of the 2012 election might be attempted. This could happen through a national emergency and subsequent martial law.

If Obanla were to lose the election and graciously move on, the issue of his eligibility will probably fade away. However, if Obarna attempts to suspend the election or otherwise retain the White House a&eelosing in 2012, then the eligibility issue has an exponentially greater chance of being litigated before the DC District Court by Writ of Quo Warranto, and finally ending up in the US Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, T truly believe we are headed for a national moment of intense Constitutional conflict. There are provisions of the Patriot Act and various Executive orders which allow for martial law scenarios to unfold. ifthere is an emergency (real or imagined), the Obama might invoke such laws to declare martial law, suspend elections, and incarcerate alleged enemies of the state. If a truly eligible President were operating under any of those dangerous powers, it might be difficult to impeach him. Should Obama avail himself of such draconian measures, the only argument available to remove him may be that he was never eligible to be POTUS. Such a determination would render his entire administration void, which is very different from impeachment This is why, should the issue ever reach the Supreme Court, it becomes imperative that Justices Kagan and Sotomayor recuse themselves. Their appointments could bc nullified if Obama's administration is voided which would cause them to have a personal stake in the outcome. (For a more thorough explanation as to the fallout of voiding a government office, as

Page 10 of 11

APX - 270

opposed to removal via impeachment or expulsion, see my previous r comments thereto specificaily noting precedent in the Senate.)

m on Quo Warranto and

Furthermore, I believe there is an unseen force which is already in place, waiting for its moment to take this nation and cash in the change promised by dear leader. You can feel the rhetoric surfacing against those who have worked hard to achieve success and wealth When you hear the consistent mantra that no person is "bettes" than any other person sung by the masses as they surround your home, you will know that glorious American ideals of success through hard work are being sac~ificed on the altar of redistribution of wealth Just aslc 789 Chrysler dealers where their franchises went Their private property was taken and corporation from a socialist nation was gifted an American given to others And a fore~gn ~nst~tution at the cost of $23 billion to the US taxpayer Fiat paid nothing for Chrysler, not one dime This was done at the insistence of Obama who demanded that no American company was capable of turning Chrysler around I didn't see one single protestor on that one
1pray that Chrysler is not a blueprint of things to come.. . to your door, and inside your house.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq. Copyright 20 11

Page I 1 of 11

APX - 271

STRUNK V. W S BOE ET AL M T S S CKLNGS lNDEX 6500-20 11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

EXHIBIT 7
APX _ __--_ - 272

Print - Close Window


[FWD: Schack Case - Extensian]

cestrunck@yahoo.corn;

Monday, October 17,2011 7129 PM

Subject: Schack Case - Extension From: "Joel Graber" cJoel.Gtaber@ag.ny .gov> Date: Fri, October 14, 2011 7:28 am To: "Chris Strunk" <chris@strunk.ws> Chris, you should wait t o see what Justice Schack says. Thank you for the extension from 10/21 to 10/28, but that's still too tight for my case load. Please reconsider. Thanks, Joel JOEL GRABER Assistant Attarney General Special Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau New York State Attorney General's Office 120 Broadway - 24th Floor New York, NY 10271-0332 (212) 416-8645 FAX (212) 416-6009 Joel .Graber@ag.ny.gov This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. I f you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that review, dissemination or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and notify this office. Thank you for your cooperation.

- - - - - - -- Original Message --------

APX - 273

SUPREME COURT OF TEE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS IAS PART 27

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,


Plaintiff,

Index No. 6 5 0 0 / 1 1

(Hon. Arthur M. Schack)

N E W YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et a l . ,

STIPULATION OF EXTENSION

Defendants.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between t h e


undersigned, that t h e t i m e for any State defendants to respond
to the amended complaint in this action be and the same hereby

is extended to October 28, 2011, and it is further STIPULATED AND AGREED that this stipulation may be executed
i n facsimile, or by electronic means, and in counterparts.

Dated:

New York, New York October 14, 2011

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for State Defendants

JOEL GRABER Special L i t i g a t i o n Counsel Litigation B u r e a u


1 2 0 B r o a d w a y - 24th F l o o r New Y o r k , NY 10271-0332 ( 2 1 2 ) 416-8645 FAX (212) 4 1 6 - 6 0 0 9

Joel.Grabereag.ny.gov

Dated:

Brooklyn, New York O c t o b e r , 2011

CHRISTOPHER EARL ST2LRVK Plaintiff P r o Se 5 9 3 Vanderbilt Avenue - # 281


Brooklyn, NY 11238
(845)

901-6767

APX - 275

STRLJNKV. m r SBOE ET AL. NYSSC KINGS LNDEX 6500-201 1

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

EXHIBIT 8
APX - 276
-

Print 1 Close Window -

Subject: RE: My Second email to NY State board of election Feb 18,2010. From: chris@skunk.ws Date: Fri, Sep 23,201 1 1:39 pm To: "Creg Maroney" cusords@yahoo.corn:, Bcc: "Bill Allen" chvanallen@hvc.rr.com>, "PAMELA BARNETT" <pb_realestat@yahoo.corn~

They intentionally changed their website to what it is today from what i t was inn the 2008 Election Cycle to cover-up their involvement in the scheme t o defraud file in 2008 and again in 2011. See http://pixeloatriot.blo~~~0t~com/2011/09/statute-in-new-vorkstate-law-defines.htrnl#comments I f you want to file a FOIL requesting a record of all changes to the website in that regard that would be useful. Chris Strunk

--- - ---- Original Wessage -------Subject: M y Second email to NY State board of election Feb 18, 2010. From: Creg Maroney <usords@vahoo.cornr Date: Wed, September 21, 2011 6:48 pm To: "chris@strunk.wsN .cchris@strunk.wsz
Mr. Strunk This is the second email I sent to John Gonklin of the NYSBOE on Feb 18,2010 aRer speaking with him on the phone. There has not been any response to this very day. Creg Maroney Pleasant Valley, NY

----- Forwarded Message ---From: Creg Maroney >-< To: iconWin@elections.state.nv.ils Cc: nvaa.~ressoffrce@aa.nv.aov;Newsroom@poughkee.gannett.corn; imprimis@hillsdale.edu; jon.roland@constitution.or~; Wenihan@poughkee.gannett.com Sent: Thu, February 18,2010 7:19:35 P M Subject: Defining Natural-BornCitizen Mr. Conklin, Feburary 18, 2010 There is an error on the N Y States Board of Elections website. The United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1Clause 5 Clearly States that only a Natural Born Citizen shall be eligible to the m c e of President, not just "born a Citizen" as indicated on the NY State Baard of Elections Website . Article 14 states that anyone including two illegal immigrants that have a child on U.S. soil is "born a U.S. Citizen", and surely enough as you well know these born Citizens are excluded from being President of the United States of America. Will you please correct this error that is misleading the public to what is correctly written within the Law of The Land, The United States Constitution.

http: / / federalistblog.us/ 2008 / I 1/natural-born citizen defined.htm1 Thank You


Best regards,

Creg Maroney Pleasant Valley NY


phone: 845-723-423 1 fau: 8 4 5 - 7 8 4 - 1587

APX - 2 7 7

Print - Close Window


E. OSC - Art~cle78
re NBC to

be filed Wednesday

estrunck%ahoo c
Sunday.

October 16,2011 7Q6 PM

-------- Original Message -------Subject: Re: OSC - Article 78 re NBC to be filed Wednesday
From: Creg Maroney ~usords@yahoo.corn> Date: Sun, October 16, 2011 3:51 pm To: "chris@strunk.ws" <chris@strunk.ws>
Chris, I would think this week I would get a response from the "Counsel's Office." Everyone working at the BOE should know the answers just to work there. If the public servants at NYSBOE, or any election "officials" nation wide, do not know the answers to my questions then they do not know who is eligible for the Presidential ballot, period, and are unfit for the election process. I'm speaking with an Attorney on what actions will be next. I will mention the EL 3-105. Pixel Patriot did an excellent job exposing the cover-up, two thumbs up, and now you can add that to your lawsuit to PROVE corruption, priceless. Every A s s e m b l y member in NYS was recently notified and asked the same questions that were presented to the NYSBOE. No response yet. If you can incorporate my unconstitutional dealings w / t h e NYSBOE please feel free to do so. Creg

From: "chris@stfunk.ws" <chris@strunk.w9 To: Greg Maroney cusorus@yahoo.mm> Ce: Bill Allen <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com>; Kevin Powell ~kevinrichardpowell@yahoo.corn~ Sent: Sunday, October 16,2011 5 4 5 Pfvl Subject: OSC -Article 78 re NBC to be filed Wednesday Creg I n regards to our earlier correspondence and your subsequent complaint to the NYS BOE amending a change to the NBC requirement, posted below, in which you are entitled a EL 3105 administrative hearing, have you heard further word other than what has been published on Post & Email? Iam about t o file a special proceding in the form of an order to show cause in my ongoing complaint before Justice Schack concerning http://pixelpatriot.blo~spot.com/2011/~0/newyork-state-boe-website-cover-up. html.

Update: New York State Board of

http://www.thepostemail.com/20~ 1/10/13/uew-vork-stitte-board-of-elections-makes-fa1se statement-about-article-ii-aualificatiod

Update: New York State Board of Elections Makes False Statement about Article I T
Qualification
AND WHY DO THEY REFUSE TO CORRECT THE RECORD?

From:Creg Maroney Sent: W e d 10/12/11 7 5 1 PM

To:info(2elections.state ny us (info~~e1ections.state.ny.u~); cpi;riyintegrity.org (cpi($nyintegnty.org);


dutchesselect~on~@~~.dutcliess.ny (dutchesselect~o~~s@co.dut~hess.ny.us tknapp@co.dutchess.ny.us

( h p p ( @ c o durchess.nq-11s);lp~~ricoIa@co.dutchess.nyus (Ipatricola(~co.dutchess.nq..us); jcoklin(@elecrions.state.ny. t r s


~coiW&elecbons.state.ny.m); %~erq@co.dWchess.ny.us (x~errq-@co.dutchess,ny.us!;afor~nm@co.dutchess,n~.us

(afomm(~co.dutchess.n~...us); jpagones~@co.dutcbess.np.us (ipgomsp~.dutchess.ny.~~); cnt~~land;@co.dutchess.ny.us

(cdurla~zdi@co.dutchess.ny.us); jshort@,m.dutchess.ny.us ijshort@~co.rhtchess.ny.m), ~2'eI~enber~l@?~~Selllb1~.~t~te.n~.~~


(~veisenbergh@assernbI~-.fate.ny.us); Cinvemor.Cuomo@exec.ny.go%; MoliuaroM@assembly.rtate.ny.us

(MulumroM(~~sernb1y.s~te.ny.u~); Kep.Cluls.tiibson~mil.house.gw (Kep.Chris.Ci~bsoi~~$~lli~l.l~ouse.gox~


Cc. sheriff$co d1itchess.ny.11~ (shenff<u)co.dutchess.ny.us);buffalot~ic.%i.gov(huffalot@ic.fhi.gov); nyl@,ic.fbi.gov

(nyl@ic.tbi.go~~); nyspnlail:&?&oopers.stare.ny-.US ~nyspmail~.~ttDopers.s~te.ny.usi

October 12; 201 I 'Yo:Conmunicahons Director John Conklin, 'l11e N Y S Board of Elffitio~is and 'l'he htchess County Board ofi'Electioils,

I hare ~ ~ i tyou t ~rcpmtCCIIy n sincc 2009 socki~g a rcspomi: as to why you l~avc 1101provided accurate i~lfo~rnation to
voters on vour website regarding the qttahficauons for candidates for the Presidency of the United States. To date, you

havc iiot yro'i~dcd any rcaso~lcd rcsponsc.


I have also written repeatedly since F e b r u q 201 1 questions regarding elecQons that have gone unanswered by the New

York state board of elections and the Dutchees county board of electiom t o dale. I %,ill once again submit my electin11 questiom to those i u charge oftranspare~it f x elections ul the state and county 1reside.
[[ Section 1401 of Titlc 8 of the Unitcd States Code dcfmcs "felitizcns" of the United States at birth. I]

1) Are those citizens defined in Section 1401 of 'l'itle 8 United States Code eligible for the Ballot and wdl be placed on the Rallot in New York SkiLe LC) run Tor Tht: Presidency and Vice President trf The IJniied States?

2) Arc those citizens dcfincd in Scction 1401 of Titlc 8 Ihiital Statcs Codc cligiblc for tlic candidacy on any Rallot in Ncw
York Statc [[ EXCEPT ]] for The Presidential and Vice President?
3) Can a chdd of two IUegal Aliens that is born i n New York State run for the Preside~lcy of the United States a d will be

placed coil thc Prcsidctitial Rallot in Ncw York Statc since that ctdld is '' hmn a citizcn " as xvrittcxi by h l m Conkliri on the NYS Board of Elections website, even though Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of The United States Constihrtion shows a distinct diffcrmcc hctwccn a citizcn and a natural Inxn Citixcn?
4) ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 CLAUSE 5: " ,2;0 person except a natrird born C'itize71, or. a Citizen afthe CTnifedSfutes, at
!ha time o f t/w .ddoptio~z of fhzs Comfiirtfio~r, shall be eligible fa the Ofice of Presideizf: .. "

Is it true only a m~ural born [Clilken is eligible and will bt: allowed on the ballot in New York Slate if helshe is r m m g
for the afice of the United Stztes Presidency at the prasent time since all the "citizens" at the t m e of the adoption of the Cttnslilution are not alive?
5 ) Is it kue I h a L one or The Llniied Skiles Conslilulional rstlukemt:nls L o run for the oilict: of The United Slates Presiciencj

is a "natural born IC litizen" and not "born a I clitizen"?


6) Is it true that in bas~c grammill a lower case [c] in "citizen" and a upper case [C] in natural born Citizen ha\% two

ciitircly d~ffcr-crit tncaninpsl Rcinp clcctinn "officials." why is tticrc that basic grariimnr diffcrcncc in thc 14th ~lncn&rlcnt
U.S. ConstitutionB USC Section 1401 [clitizen and the natural born [Clitizen reqmement for U.S. President 1 1 1 Article 2

Scction I Clausc 5 of Thc tJ.3. Constitution?

7) U b t is an Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born [Clitizen" and why- &d the fowlding fathers put thal specific
requirement in The 1.Jnited States Constitution for one to he eligible for the Presidency of The United States?

APX - 280

8) Is it truc that an Art~dc 2 Scctio~~ 1 Clauvc 5 U.S. Constitution " natural born Citizcri " is NOT thc sane as s 14TH
Amendment U S. Constitution/K USC Section 1401 " citizen '1'

This is to formal% request that you immediately amend your website to accurately reflect Constitiltional law regardmg the
eligibdity requirements for someone to be able to be elected as President of the United States. Your website currently states that to be eligible to be elected President, one must be "born o citizen". The Constitutiolml requirement achlally is that.
",hb pewon a c d a rurfural b m Ciiitm, or
(I

Ciliz~ O J ~ fhe Ciniled ,Slu&s, r~l/he

time

0 1rht. Adoprion

of

lhis

Constitlttion,shrill be eligibLe to the OfJice o f Besidenf; tzeif!z~r shall m y Person be eligib.ibleto that Q#ce who shall nof huve ctl~uineci lo the Age :r$ihi~&-Jiw Yeur:~, cmd her?J,urieen Years u Resi~knl wziihitz /he I,hiied Stule~s."
Your wcl~sitc. tlicixhr-c,is iriaccuratc and rnislcading. Rcmusc you have bccm informal of thc Constitutional rcquircmcnt,

repeatedly, in the past, yet, you have not corrected the error, one can assume only that you intend to mislead the general public about this rcquircmcnt. This is official notification that you stand in violation of the Constitution of thc TJnitcd Statcs of America, and potentially you stand in nolation of various state and federal statutes r e g d g conspiracy, hud, misrepresentation, and com~ption. among othcrs Therefore; to avoid hrt11er potential legal liability, you are strongly urged to take corrective action m e d i a t e l y to aiuend your website to accurately reflect Constitutionalla%..

I eagerly amall y o u response

Editor's Note: Mr. Maroney reported the following response to the above communication following its publication.

Dear Mr. Maroney, Thank you for contacting the N Y S Board of Elections concerning various elections questions Your inquiry has been referred to the Counsel's Office for any reply

Thank you for your interest in the NT7S Board of Elections. Sincerely yours, John W Conklin Director of Public Information N Y S Board of Elections

APX - 281

40 Steuben Street Albany, NY 12207 5 18-474-1953

jconklin@elections.state.nvus
6 1

20 1 1, The Post & Emil. All rights reserved inicmatiomlly, unless ohcrwisc specified. 'l'o read 1nore on our cop>~i@t

restrictionsi see our Copyright nolice on Lhc subhcadcr of cvcq pqc. along the lcft nlwin.

APX - 282

STRUNK V. NYS BOE ET AL. NYSSC KLNGS LNDEX 6500-201 1

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

EXHIB
. -

APX - 283

James A. Walsh Co-Chair Gregory P. Peterson Commissioner


Todd D. Vdentitte

Douglas A. Keflner
Co-Chair

Evelyn J. Aquila Commissioner

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS


40 STEUBEN STREET ALBANY, N.Y. 12207-2108 Phone: 518/474-6336 Fax: 5181474-1008

Co-Executive Director

Robert A. Brehm, Co-ExecutiveDirector

httv:/lwww.elections.state.ny.us

October 7,2011

VIA EMAIL

H. William Van Allen 351 North Road Hurley, N Y 12443

Dear Mr. Van Allen: The New York State Board of Elections has received your request for access to public records, specifically: "all electronic records (email) for the period 2007-2008 between NYS-BOE staff and NYS Office of the Governor staff as well as with NYS Office of Attorney General staff, including: all electronic communication [email) for this 2007-2008 period related to executive sessions of the NYS-BOE." With respect to electronic communications with the New York State Attorney General's Office, we have conducted a search of our records and determined that the relevant electronic communications are exempt from disclosure pursuant to New York State Public Officers Law 87(2)[a) constituting either attorney work product or subject to attorney-client privilege. With respect to electronic communications related to executive sessions of the Board, we have conducted a search of our records and determined that the relevant electronic communications are exempt from disclosure pursuant to New York State Public Officers Law 87(2)[g) constituting intra-agency materials which are not statistical or factual tabulations or data; instructions to staff that affect the public; final agency policy or determinations; or external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by the comptroller and the federal government. With respect to electronic communications between NYS-BOE and Office of the Governor staff, we are unable to determine with specificity the records sought. The "Governor's staff" constitutes dozens of agencies which we cannot identify with reasonable effort.

APX - - 285

Mr. Van Allen October 7,2011 Page 2

You have 30 days from receipt of a denial of access to public records or portions thereof to appeal to:

FOIL Appeal Officer New York State Board of Elections 40 Steuben Street Albany, N Y 12207-2107
Thank you for your interest in the New York State Board of Elections. If you require further assistance, please contact us again. Sincerely yours

John W. Conklin Director of Public Information Records Access Officer 5 18-474-1953

--

APX - 286
- -

STRUNK V. NYS BOE ET AL. NYSSC KWGS LNDEX 6500-201 1

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

EXHIB
APX - 287
i p _ p p _ _ -

Monday, October 17, 201 1 Mr. Conklin:

1 am antiapating your usual timely initial response tomorrow (Tuesday) to my latest FOIL electronic and print document request below - especially since the 2012 US Presidential (NYS) funding campaign for USC natural bom citizen eligible POTUS candidates has already started in NYS and elsewhere.
Sincerely,

H. William Van Allen


--

From: Bill Van Allen [mailto:hvanallen@hvc.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, October 09,201 I4 5 0 PM To: (info@elections.state.ny.us); NYS-BOE (jconklin@elections.state.ny.us) Cc: Joel Graber (joel.graber@ag.ny.gov); John Caher fjcaher@alm.com); Joel Stashenko (jstashenko@alm.com); Kim Galvin, Esq.; Todd D. Valentine (tvalentine@elections.state.ny.us); Robert Freeman (coog@dw.state.ny.us); Christopher Strunk Subject: FOIL NYS-BOE website archival limitations re: US Presidential candidate eligibility including US Constitutional requirement of being a

"natural born citizen" Importance: High

Dear NYS-BOE FOIUPIO: Sunday, October 09,201 1 Via email, fax

John W Conklin NYSBOE Albany NY : Dear NYS-BOE FOIUPIO UNDER NYS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW Please provide All electronic and print documents 2006-2011 related to NYS-BOE website handling of publicly available archives on the following NYS ballot issue(s) US Presidential candidate eligibility including US Constitutional requirement of being a "natural born citizen". Again, specifically all electronic and written documentation either allowing or not allowing automated NYS-BOE website's archival access to modified website pages -- e.g. 'Wayback Machine".

H. William Van Allen 351 North Road Hurley, NY 12443 8453894366 HvanaIlen@hvc.rr.com

APX _ - 289

James A. Walsh

Co-Chair Gregoiy P . Peterson Commissioner

Douglas A. Kcllncr Co-Chair

Todd D. Valentine
Co-Executive1)irector

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS


40 STETJBEN STREET ALBANY, N.Y. 12207-2108 Phone: 515f474-6336 Fax: 518/474-1008 http:il~t'ynv.eleetions.state.nv.us

Robert A. Brehm, Co-ExecutiveDirector

October 17,2011

H. William Van Allen 351 North Road Hurley, NY 12443 Dear Mr. Van Allen: The New York State Board of Elections has received your request for access to public records, specifically: "...all electronic and print documents 2006-2011 related to NYS-BOE website handling of publicly available archives on the following NYS ballot issue[s) US Presidential candidate eligibility including US Constitutional requirement of being a "natural born citizen. Again, specifically all electronic and written documentation either allowing or not allowing automated NYS-BOE website's archival access to modified website pages - e.g. "Wayback Machine".".
We have conducted a search of our records and have found nothing matching your request. In addition, we do not believe what you have described meets the definition of "record" pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 86 of the Freedom of Information Law.

Thank you for your interest in the New York State Board of Elections. This constitutes our complete response to your FOII. request If you require further assistance, please contact us again. Sincerely yours

John W. Conklin Director of Public Information Records Access Officer 518-474-1953

APX - 290

STRUNK V NYS BOE ET AL. NYSSC KINGS INDEX 6500-201I

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

EXHIBIT
APX - 291

262 - XdV

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is proud to acknowledge its role in the Presidential election process. NARAS Office of the Federal Register (OFR) acts as the administrator of the Electoral College on behalf of the states, the Congress, and the American people. In this role, the OFR is charged with helping the states carry out their election responsibilities, ensuring the compieteiless and integrity of the Electoral College documents submitted to Congress, and informing the public about the Presidential election process. The Electoral College system was established under Article I1 and Amendment 12 of the U.S. Constitution. In each state, the voters choose electors to select the President and Vice President of the United States, based on the results of the November general election. Prior to the general election, the OFR sends an informational package to each state's governor to officially notify them of their electoral responsibilities. As the results of the popular vote are finalized in each state, election officials send to the OFR Certificates of

Ascertainment, which establish the credentials of their electors. In December, the electors hold meetings in each state to cast their votes for President and Vice President. Those choices are documented in Certificates of Vote, which are sent to the OFR for review on behalf of the Congress. In January, the Congress sits in joint session to certify the election of the President and Vice President, based on the documentary evidence assembled and reviewed by the OFR. In the year after the election, electoral documents are held at the OFR for public viewing, and then transferred to the Archives of the United States for permanent retention and access. In this Presidential election year, the cover of this pamphlet shows a representation of the Electoral College system in celebration of the spirit of the American democratic process.

For more informationon the Electoral College, visit NARA's web site at:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/.
Our thanks are extended to the Creative Services Division of the U.S. Government Printing Office for its assistance in developing this cover.

APX - 293

This pamphlet has been compiled and published by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, for use by the Executives and Electors of the several States in the performance of their duties in connection with Presidential Elections.
[Revised JuQ: 2008]

The 2008 Presidential ElectionlProvisions of the Constitut~on and United States Code

APX - 294
- --

2008 Presidential Election Summary of Key Dates. Events and Information ...................................................... 4

2008 List of States and Votes ...............................................................................................................................

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ........................................................................................................ 7 TweM Amendment ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 Fourteenth Amendment ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Fifteenth Amendment......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Nineteenth Amendment .................................................................................................................................................... 8 Twentieth Amendment ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 Twenty-secondAmendment .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Twenty-thirdAmendment ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Twenty-fourthAmendment ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Twenty-fifthAmendment ....................................................................................................................................................9 Twenty-sixth Amendment ................................................................................................................................................... 9 UNITED STATES CODE ......................................................................................................................................... 10 T i k %The President: Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies .............................................................................. 10 3 ITime of Appointing Electors...................................................................................................................................... 11 2 Failure to Make Choice on Prescribed Day.............................................................................................................. 11 3 Number of Electors................................................................................................................................................... 11 3 4 Vacancies in Electoral College.................................................................................................................................. 11 5 5 Determination of Controversy as to Appointment of Electors................................................................................... 11 5 6 Credentials of Electors; Transmission to Archivist of the United States and to Congress; Public Inspection .................................................................................................................................... 11 5 7 Meetingand Vote of Electors.................................................................................................................................... I I 5 8 Manner of Voting ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 Fj 9 Certificates of Votes for President and Vice President ............................................................................................. 12 8 10 Seaiing and Endorsing Certificates ........................................................................................................................ 12 .. 5 11 Disposrtlon of Certificates....................................................................................................................................... 12 Fj 12 Failure of Certificates of Electors to Reach President of the Senate or Archivist of the United States; Demand on State for Certificate............................................................................. 12 13 Same; Demand on District Judge for Certifite .................................................................................................... 12 fj 14 Forfeiturefor Messenger's Neglect of D u t y ............................................................................................................ 12 Fj 15 Counting Electorai Votes in Congress.................................................................................................................... 12 fj 16 Same; Seats for Officers and Members of Two Houses in Joint Meeting.............................................................. 13 tj 17 Same; Limit of Debate in Each House.................................................................................................................... 14 5 18 Same; Parliamentary Procedure at Joint Meeting................................................................................................... 14 5 19 Vacancy in Offices of Both President and Vice President; Officers Eligible to Act ................................................. 14 5 20 Resignation or Refusal of Office.......................................................................................................................... 15 9 21 Definitions............................................................................................................................................................... 15 MAILING INFORMATION........................................................................................................................................ 16 CONTACTS ............................................................................................................................................................16

The 2008 Presidential ElectionlProvisions of the Constitution and United States Code

2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECIION

Summary of Key Dates, Events and Information


GennaE Authority: The Archivist of the United States, as the head of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA),is responsible for carrying out ministerial duties on behalf of the States and the Congress under 3 U.S.C. sections 6'11, 12, and 13. NAIL4 is primarily responsible for coordinating the various stages of the electoral process by helping the States prepare and submit certificates that establish the appointment of electors and validate the electoral votes of each State. The Archivist delegates operational duties to the Director of the Federal Register. The Federal Register Legal Staff ensures that electoral documents are transmitted to Congress, made available to the public, and preserved as part of our nation's history. The &al Staffreviews the electoral certificates for the required signatures, seals and other matters of form, as specified in Federal law. Only the Congress and the Courts have the authorityto rule on substantivelegd issues.
1. June through October 2008 Preparatio?~ Stage: * The Federal Register prepares letters and instructional materials for the -Archivist to send to the Gowmors of the 50 States and the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
3. Mid-November through December 15,2008

Transrnissim qf Certifiam of hcminment to NARA: The Certificates ofhcertainment list the names of the electors appointed and the number ofvotes cast for each person.

* The States prepare no less than SEVEN originals, which are authenticatecl by the Governor's signature and the State seal, and TWO certified copies. Alternatively, NINE originals may be prepared. One original along with two certified copies (or three originals, if nine were prepared) must be sent by registered mail to the Archivist at the address below:
Allen MTeinstein Archivist of the United States National Archives and Records Administration y'o Office of the Federal Register (NF) 8601 Adelphi Road College Park, MD 20740-6001 The Governors must submit the Certificates of Ascertainment "as soon as practicable" after their States certify election results. At the very latest, they must be received by the electon on the statutory deadljt~e of December 15,2008 and submi%d ta the Archivist 120 later than December I G,
2008.

The materials indude pamphlets on Federal election law and detailed instructions on how to prepare and submit the electors' credentials (Certificatesof Ascertainment) and the electoral votes (Certificates of Vote).

The remaining SIX original Wficates of Ascertainment wil1 be attached to the Certificates ofvote at the State meetings.
4. December 9,2008

* In October, the Federal Register begins contacting Governors and Secretaries of State to establish contacts for the coming election.
2. November 4,2008
Geplernl Ele'ction:

* Thevoters in each State choose slates of electors to serve in the Electoral College. Fortyeight of the fifty States and the District of Columbia are "winner-take all" (Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions).

Date for Detemzi~zutionof Controversya to Appointmatt of Electon: States must make final determinations of any controversies or contests as to the appointment of electors at least six days before December 15 meetings of electors for their electoral votes to be presumptively valid when presented to Congress. Deteminatians by States' lawful tribunals are conclusive,if decided under laws enacted prior to election day.

The 2008 Presidential ElectionlProvisions of the Constitution and United States Code

APX - 296

5 . December 45,2008

Meetings of Electors and Transmission of Cern'$cates of Vole lo NARA: * The electors meet in their State to select the President
and Vice President of the United States. No Constitutional provision or Federal law requires electors to vote in accordancewith the popular vote in their States. NARAs web site lists the States that have laws to bind electors to candidates. The electors record their votes on SIX "Certificates of Vote," which are then paired with the SIXremainingoriginal Certificates of Ascertainment. 'The electors sign, seal and certify the electoral votes in packages containing a paired original Certificate of Ascertainment and original Certificate ofvote each. They immediately distribute the paired certificates as follows:
h pair of original certificates is sent to the President of the Senate (Richard B. Cheney):

One pair of original certificatesis sent to the Chief Judge of the Federal District Court located where the electors meet. It is held subject to the order of the President ofthe United States Senate or the Archivist of the United States in case the electoral vota fail to reach the Senate or the Archivist.
6. December 24,2006

Deadline for Receipt of Electoral lbtes at NARA:


The President of the Senate and the Archivist should have the electoral votes in hand by December 24, 2008. If votes are lost or delayed, the Archivist may take extraordinarymeasures to retrieve duplicate originals.
7. On or Before January 3,2009

Transmission of CertifZcates ofAscertainment to Congress:


As the new Congress assembles, the Archivist transmits copies of the Certificates of Ascertainment to Congress. This generally occurs in late December or early January when the Archivist and/or representatives kom the Federal Register meet with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House This is, in part, a ceremonial occasion. Informal meeting may take place earlier.

The Honorable Richard 8. Cheney President of the United States Senate United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

8. January 6,2009

* Two pain of original certificates are sent to the Archivist


at the following address: Allen Weinstein Archivist of the United States National Archives and &cords Administration c/o Office of the Federal Register (N!?) 8601 Melphi Road College Pa& MD 20740-6001 The Archivist holds one pair subject to the order of the President of the United States Senate in case the electoral votes fail to reach the Senate. The other pair is held by the Office of the Federal Register for public inspection for one year.

Counting Elecroral Votes in Congress: * The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral
votes (Congress may pass a law to change the date). The President of the Senate is the presiding officer. If a Senator and a House member jointly submit an objection, each House would retire to its chamber to consider it. The President and Vice President must achiwe a majority of electoral votes (270) to be elected. In the absence of a majority the I Iouse selects the President, and the Senate selects the Vice President. If a State submits confliaingelectoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject them. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the Statewould be counted in Congress.
9. January 20,2009 at Noon

* Two pairs of cerlificates are sent by registered mail to the Secretary of State of each State, who holds one pair subject to the order of the President of the United States Senate in case the electoral votes fait to reach the Senate

Inauguration:
The President-electtakes the Oath of Office and becomes the President of the United States.

The 2008 Presidential ElectionfProvisions of the Constitution and United States Code

APX - 297

Allocation of Electoral Votes


based on the 2000 Census

Total: 538; Majority Needed to Elect: 270 Alabama - 9 Alaska - 3 Arizona - 10 Arkansas - 6 California - 55 Colorado - 9 Connecticut - 7 Delaware - 3 District of Columbia 3 Florida - 27 Georgia - 15 Hawaii - 4 Idaho - 4 Illinois - 21 Indiana - 11 Iowa - 7 Kansas - 6 Kentucky - 8 Louisiana - 9 Maine - 4 Maryland - 10 Massachusetts - 12 Michigan - 17 Minnesota - 10 Mississippi - 6 Missouri - 11 Montana - 3 Nebraska - 5 Nevada - 5 New Hampshire - 4 New Jersey - 15 New Mexico - 5 New York - 31 North Carolina - 15 North Dakota - 3 Ohlo - 20 Oklahoma 7 Oregon - 7 Pennsylvania - 21 Rhode Island - 4 South Carolina - 8 South Dakota - 3 Tennessee - 11 Texas - 34 Utah - 5 Vermont - 3 Virginia - 13 Washington - 11 West Virginia - 5 Wisconsin - 10 Wyoming - 3

The 2008 Presidential ElectionfProvisions of the Constitution and United States Code

APX - 298 ________-

ARTICLE I1 SECTION 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States ofAmerica He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together ith the Vice President, chosen for the sameTerm, be

State shall appoint, in such Manner as the egisiature thereof may direct, a Number of lectors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and epresentativesto which the State may be entitled in the Congress but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office ofTrust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
TWELFTH AMENDMENT

such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President But in choosing the President, thevotes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. ... The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no peison have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quo1um for the purpose shall consist of two-thilds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President to the United States
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SECTION 1. Ail persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens ofthe United States and 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 Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for asvicePresident, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have

SECTION 3. No person shall be ... elector of President and Vice President ... who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall

* Asterisks represent additional text not printed here.

The 2008 Presidential Electionlprovisions of the Constitution and United States Code

--

---

APX - 299
%

have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States

Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
SECTION 4. The Congress may by law provide for

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.

NINETEENTH AMENDMENT

the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

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 sex.

TWENTY-SECOND AMENDMENT SECTION 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of Plesident or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

TWENTIETH AMENDMENT SECTION 1. The tems of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of Januaq

and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on


the 3d day of January,of the pars in which such tems would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the tems of their successors shall then begin. SECTION 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January unless they shall by law appoint a different day. SECTION 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President d e d shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fked for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the

TWENTY-THIRD AMENDMENT SECTION 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and

The 2008 Presidential Election/Pfovisions of the Constitution and United States Code

Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

SECTION 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

TWENTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or V~ce President, for electors for President or \'ice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

TWENTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT SECTION 1. in case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
SECTION 2 . Whenever there is a vacancy in the office

of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
SECTION 3. Whenever the President transmits to the

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by twothirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary such powers and duties shall be discharged by thevice President as Acting President.

TWENTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

The 2008 Presidential ElectionlProvisions of the Constitution and United States Code

The folloufing provisions of law gouerning Presidential Elections are contained in Ginpter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended);

Title 3

- The President

Chapter 1 PresidePrtial Elections and Vacancies


Section 1. Time of appointing electors. 2. Failure to make choice on prescribed day. 3. Number of electon. 4. Vucilncies in electoral college. of 5. Determination of controversy as to appoint~nent electors. 6 . Credentials o f electors; transmission to Archivist of the United States and to Congress public inspection. 7. Meeting and vote of electoi-s. 8. iMannerofvoting, 9. Qrtijicates of votes for President and Vice President. 10. Sealing and endorsing certificates. 11. Disposition of certijicates. . Failure of certificates of electors to reach President of the Senate or Archivist of the United States; demand on State for certificate. 'i-tl 'ficate. Saine; demand on district judge for c~ . For$eitl~re for mesenger's neglect of duty. 15. Counting electmid votes in Congress. 16. Same; seals /or o@ms and Members of two I-louses in joint meeting. 17. Same; limit of debate in each House. 18. Same; parliamenta~y procedure at joint meering. 19. Vacancy in ofices of both President and Vice President; oficen eligible to act. 20. Resignation or refusal of of/it:e. 21. Definitions.

The 2008 Presidential ElectionlProvisionsof the Constitution and United States Code

10

Time of Appointing Electors 5 1. The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President. Failurz to Make Choice on Ptem.bed Day O 2. N7heneverany State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

iLrurnberof Electors 5 3. The number of electors shall be equal to the number of Senators and Representativesto which the several States are by law entitled at the time when the President and Vice President to be chosen come into office; except, that where no apportionment of Representativeshas been made after any enumeration, at the time ofchoosingelectors, the number of electors shall be according to the then existing apportionment of Senators and Representatives.
Vacancies in Electoral College 5 4. Each State may, by law, provide for the filling of any vacanaes which may occur in its college of electors when such college meets to give its electoral vote. Detmmacion of Controversyas to Appointment of Electors 5 5. If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed forthe appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting ofthe electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such Stateis concerned.

Credeneirllsof Electors; Transrnrssion to Archivist of B e United States and to Congress, Public Inspection (5 6. It shall be the duty of the executive of each State, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the appointment of the electors in such State by the final ascertainment, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment, to communicate by registered mail under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed, setting forth the names of such electors and the canvass or other ascertainment under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast; and it shall also thereupon be the duty of the executive of each State to deliver to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which they are requiled by section 7 of this title to meet, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate under the seal of the State; and if there shall have been any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, it shall be the duty of the executive of such State, as soon as practicable after such determination, to communicate under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such determination in form and manner as the same shall have been made; and the certificate or certificates so received by the Archivist of the United States shalI be preserved by him for one year and shall be a part of the public records of his office and shall be open to public inspection; and the Archivist of the United States at the first meeting of Congress thereafter shall transmit to the two Houses of Congress copies in full of each and evely such certificate so received at the National Archives and Records Administration. Meeting and Vo@ofElecton 5 7. The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.

The 2008 Presidential Election/Provisions of the Constitution and United States Code

11

APX - 303

Manner of Voting 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively in the manner directed by the Constitution. Certificates o f Votesfor President and Vice President 9. The electors shall make and sign six certificatesof all the votes given by them, each of which certificatesshall contain two distinct lists, one of the votes for Resident and the other of the votes for Vice President, and shall annexto each of the certificates one of the lists of the electors which shall have been furnished to them by direction of the executive of the State. Sealing and Endorsing Cmfiates 5 lo. The electors shall seal up the certificates so made by them,and certfi upon each that the lists of all the votes of such State given for President, and of all the votes given for Vice President, are contained therein. Dlspostaon of Certr,ficates 5 11. The electorsshall dispose of the certificates so made by them m d the lists attached thereto in the following manner. First. They shall forthwith forward by registered mail one of the same to the President of the Senate at the seat of government. Second. Two of the same shall be delivered to the secretary of state ofthe State, one of which shall be held subject to the order of the Resident of the Senate, the other to be preserved by him for one year and shall be a part of the public records ofhis office and shall be open to public inspection Third. On the day thereafter they shall forward by registered mail two of such certificates and lists to the Archivist of the United States at the seat of govemment, one of which shall be held subject to the order ofthe President of the Senate The other shall be preserved by the Archivist of the United States for one year and shall be a part of the public records of his office and shall be open to public inspection. Fourth. They shall forthwith cause the other of the certificates and lists to be delivered to the judge of the n which the electors shall have assembled. district i

Failure of Cerhfiates of Ekctors w Reach President of The Senate or Archivist ofThe United Sates; Demand on State for C@@$C~E 5 12.When no certificate of vote and list mentioned in sections 9 and 11 and of this title &om any State shall have been received by the President of the Senate or by the Archivist of the United States by the fourth Wednesday in December, after the meeting of the electors shall have been held, the President of the Senate or, if he be absent from the seat of govemment, the Archivist of the United States shall request, by the most expeditious method available, the secretary of state of the State to send up the certificate and list lodged with him by the electors of such State; and it shall be his duty upon receipt of such request immediately to transmit same by registered mail to the President of the Senate at the seat of govemment. Same; Denland on Dishct Judgefor Certificate 5 13. When no catificates of votes from any State shall have been received at the seat of government on the fourth Wednesday in December, after the meeting of the electors shall have been held, the President of the Senate or, if he be absent from the seat of government, the Archivist of the United States shall send a special messenger to the district judge in whose custody one certificate of votes &omthat State has been lodged, and such judge shall forthwith transmit that list by the hand of such messenger to the seat of govemment.
Farfeiturefm Mesengm'S Neglect o f Duty 5 14.Every person who, having been appointed, pursuant to section 13 of this title, to deliver the certificates of the votes of the electors to the President of the Senate, and having accepted such appointment, shall neglect to perform the services required from him, shall forfeit the sum of $1,000.

Counn'ng Electoral Votes in Congress 5 15. Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of lanuary succeedingevery meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representativesshall meet in the Hall of the House of Representativesat the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day and the President of the Senate shali be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall

The 2008 Presidential Election/Prov~sions of the Constitution and United States Code

12

be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be ceaificates ofthe electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginningwith the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted accordingto the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journalsof the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state dearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof,and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision, and the Speaker of the Iiouse of Representativesshall, i n like manna, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision, and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section G of this title from which but one retum has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the Resident of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are s h w n by the determination mentioned in section 5

of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of s~tch State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a retum from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the hvo Houses shall concurrently decide were m t by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concunently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors ofsuch State But ifthe two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the derision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

Same; Seats for OfJicers and M e m b m of Twa Homes in Joint Meeting 5 16. At such joint meeting of the two Houses seats shall be provided as follows: For the President of the Senate, the Speaker's chair; for the Speaker, immediatelyupon his left; the Senators, in the body of the Hall upon the right of the presiding officec for the Representatives, in the body of the Hall not provided for the Senators; for the tellers, Secretaryof the Senate, and Clerk of the House of Representatives, at the Clerk's desk; for the other officers of the two Houses, in front of the Clerk's desk and upon

The 2008 Presidential ElectionlProvisionsof the Constitution and United States Code

13

APX - 305

each side of the Speaker's platform. Such joint meeting shall not be dissolved until the count of electoral votes shall be completed and the result declared; and no recess shall be taken unless a question shall have arisen in regard to counting any such votes, or otherwise under this subchapter, in which case it shall be competent far either House, acting separately, in the manner hereinbefore provided, to direct a recess of such House not beyond the next calendar day Sunday excepted, at the horn of 10 o'cloclc in the forenoon. But if the counting of the electoral votes and the declaration of the result shall not have been completed before the fifth calendar day next after such first meeting of the two Houses, no further or other recess shall be taken by either House. Same; Limit of &bate in Each House 5 17.When the tcvo Houses separate to decide upon an objection that may have been made to the counting of any electoral vote or votes horn any State, or othes question arising h~the matter, each Senator and Representativemay speak to such objection or question five minutes, and not more than once; but after such debate shall have lasted two hours it shall be the duty of the presiding officer of each House to put the main question without further debate Same; Parliamentary Proceduye at Joint Meeting 9 18.Whiletl~e two Houses shall be in meeting as provided in this chapter, the President of the Senate shall have pow= to preserve ordec and no debate shall be allowed and no question shall be put by the presiding officer except to either House on a motion to withdraw. r/ncancy in Ofices of Both President and Vrce President; Ofimrs Eligible ra Act 5 19. (a)( 1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal froin office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representaiives s h d , upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representativein Congress, act as Resident.

(2) The same mie shall apply in the case of the death, resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual acting as President under this subsection. (b) If, at the time when under subsection (a) of this section a Speaker is to begin the discharge of the powers and duties of the office of President, there is no Speaker, or the Speaker fails to qualify as Acting President, then the President pro tempore of the Senate shall, upon his resignation as President pro tempore and as Senator, act as President. (c) An individual acting as Resident under subsection (a) or subseaion (b) of this section shall contiriue to act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, except that (1) ifhis discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the President-elect and the Vice-President-electto qualify, then he shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies; and (2) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the inability of the President or Vice President, then he shall act only until the removal of the disability of one of such individuals. (d)(l) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability or failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under subsection (b) of this section, then the officer of the United States who is highest on the following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and dutieq of the office of Resident shall act as President: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Seaetary of Defense, Attorney General, Seaetary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Seaeiary of Commerce, Secretary of labor, Seaetary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Seaetary of Transportation, Seaetary of Energy, Seaetary of Education, Seaetary of Veterans M % s . (2) An individual acting as President under this subsection shall continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an h~dividual

The 2008 Presidential EiectionlProvisions of the Constitution and United States Code

14

APX - 306

higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) of this subsection or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list shall not terminate his service. ( 3 )The taking of the oath of office by a n individual specified in the list in paragraph (1)of this subsection shall be held to coilstitute his resignation from the office by virtue of the holding of which he qualifies to act as President. (e) Subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this section shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution. Subsection (d) of this section shall apply only to officersappointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, prior to the time of the death, resignation removal from office, inability or failure to qualif$ of the President pro tempore and on$ to officersnot under impeachment by the House of Representatives at the time the powers and duties of the office of President devolve upon them. ( f ) During the period at any individual acts as President under this sect on, his compensation shall be at the rate then provided by L a w in the case of the President.

Resignation or Refusal of Ofie


20. The only evidence of a refusal to accept or of a resignation of the office of President or Vice President, shall be an instrument in writing, declaringthe same, and subscribed by the person refusing to accept or resigning, as the case may be, and delivered into the office of the

Secretary of State.

Definitions $21.As used in this chapter the term (a) "State" includes the District of Columbia. (b) "executives of each State" includes the Board of Commissioners* of the District of Columbia.

* The functionsof the Board of Commissionersof the Distria of Columbia are now performed by the Mayor of the heistrict of Columbia. (Keomization Plan No. 3 of 1967, Section 401,81
Stat 948 Pub L 3-198, Sections422 and 711,87 Stat 790,818 )

The 2008 Presidential ElectionlProvisions of t h e Constitut~on and United States Code

15

APX - 307

.-

MAIUNG INFORMATION

Certiscates of Ascertainment
As soon as practicable after certifying their general election results, each M e must send ONE original Certiicate of

i f seven originals were prepared) O R THREE original Certificates of Ascertainment, along with T W O certified copies (
Ascertainment (if nine originals were prepared) to:

Allen Weinstein Archivist of the United Stales National Archives and Records Administration c/o Office of the Federal Register (NF) 8601 Adelphi Road College Park, iMD 20740-6001
The remaining SIX original Certificates of Ascertainmentwill be attached to the Certificates of Vote at the State meetings.

Certi:icates of Vote
As soon as possible after their Electors vote, each State must pair SU: original Certificatesof Vote with the SIX remaining originai Certificates of Ascertainment, and send them to the designated Federal and State officials as follows:
One pair oforiginal certificatesis sent to the President of the Senate (Richard B. Cheney): The Honol-ableRichard B. Chenqi President of the United States Senate United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Two pairs of original certificates are sent to the Archivist at the following address: Allen Weinstein Archivist of the Uniled Stales National Archives and Records Administration c/o Office of the Federal Register (NF) 8601 Adelphi Road College Park, MD 20740-6001
The Archivist holds one pair subject to the order of the Presidentof the United States Senate in case the qlectoral votes fail to reach the Senate. The other pair is held by the Office a f the Federal Register for public inspectionfor one year. Two pairs of certificates are sent by registered mail to the Secretary of State of each State, who holds one pair subject to the order of the President of the United States Senate in case the electoral votes fail to reach the Senate.

* One pair of original certificates is sent to the Chief Judge of the Federal District Court located where the electors meet. It is held subject to the order of the President of the United States Senate or the Archivist of the United States in case the electoral votes fail to reach the Senate or the Archivist.
CONTACTS For more information on the Electoral College and the election responsibilities of the States and the Archivist of the United States, contact the Office of the Federal Register: Phone: 202-741-6030 Email: Electoral.College@nara.gov

Your Electoral College contacts at the Office of the Federal Register are: Amy Bunk, Director of Legal Affairs and Policy Allyson Fenton Christou, Attorney-Advisor

The 2008 Presidential ElectionlProvisions of the Constitution and United States Code

APX - 308

-----

APX -309
--

--- -

S T R U M V. NYS BOE ET AL. NYSSC UNGS WDEX 6500-2011

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

EXHIBIT
--

APX -- 310

Why U.S. military in Uganda? Soros fingerprints all over it! Obama's billionaire friend has interests in African country's oil
Posted on October 15; 201 1 at 1 3 0 PM EST
By Aaron Klein
TEL AVIV - An influential -crisis management organization" that boasts billionaire George Soros as a member of its executive board rcccntly rccommcndcd thc U.S. deploy a special advisory military team to Uganda to help with operations and run an intelligence platform.
The president-emeritus of that orgmzation, the International Crisis Group, is the principal au&or of Responsibility to Protect. the military doctrine used by Obama to justify the US.-led NATO can~paign in Libya. Soros' own Open Society Institute is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for Rcsponsibil~ty to Protect, a doctnnc that has bccn citcd many hmcs by activists urging lntcrvcnt~on In Uganda. Authors and advisers of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, including a center founded and led by Sainant1x-i Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, also helped to found the hlternational Critliinal Court. Several of the doctrine's main founders also sit on boards with Soros. who is a major proponent of the doctrine. Soros himself maintains close ties to oil interests in Uganda. His orymkattlons have been the leading efforts purportedly to facilitate more transparency in Uganda's oil indnstry. which is being tightly controlled by the country -s leadership.
U.S. troops to Uganda

Obama on Friday notified I-Iouse Speaker John Boelmer, R-Ohio, that he plans to send about 100 military pcrsonncl, mostly Spccial Operations Forccs, to ccntral Africa. Thc first troops rcportcdly arrived in Uganda on Wednesday. The U.S. mission will be to advise forces seeking to kill or capture Joseph Konq, the leader of the rebel Lord's Resistance Amy, or LRA. Kony is accused of mnajor h u m rights atrocities. He is on the U.S. terrorist list and is wanted by the International Criminal Co~ut.
i n a letter on Friday, Obama announced the initial team of U.S. mil~tay personnel "with appropriate combat equipment': deployed to Uganda on Wednesday. Other forces deploying include "a second combat-equipped team and associated headquarters, communicationsand logstics personnel."

Page 1 of 9

APX - 311

"Our forccs \hiill providc information, advice and assistance to sclcct partncr nation forccs," hc said. Both consen~atives and liberals have raised questions about whether military involvement in Uganda advances

U.S. interests.
Writ~ng in The Atlant~c ycstcrday. Max Flshcr notcd thc Obama adm~nlstration last ycar approvcd spcclal forccs bases and operations across the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and Central Asia

"But tbose operations, large and small, target terrorist groups and rogue states that threaten the U.S. someth~ng the Lords Resistance Anny could not possibly do.'- he mote
'.It's difficult to find a U.S. interest at stake in the Lord's Resistance Army's campaign of violence,'' continued Fisher. "It's possiblc that there's some irnmcdiatc U.S. intcrcst at stakc wc can't obviously scc." Bill Roggio; the managing editor of The Long War Journal, referred to the Obama administration's stated rationale for scnding troops "p~~aling," claiming thc LRA docs not prcscnt a national sccurity Ihrcat to thc U . S. - "despite tvhat President Obama said.'' Tea Party-backed presidential candidate Michele Bachmann also questioned the w ~ s d o n of ~ Obama's move to send U S troops to Uganda. '"When it comes to sending our brave nlen and women into foreign nations we have to first demonstrate a vital Amcrican national intcrcst bcforc wc send our troops in;"shc said at a campaign stop ycstcrday in lows. Soros group: Send military advisors to Uganda

In April 2010 Soros' International Crisis Group, or ICG, released a rew& sent to the White House and key lawmakers advising thc U.S. military to rim spccial operations in Uganda to scck Kony's capti~rc.
Read the report: "To the U.S. gove~i:ment:Deploy a team to the theatre of operations to nit1 an iiltellige~~ce platform that ccntralizcs all operational information from thc Ugandan and other armics, as well as thc U N and civilian networks, and provides analysis to the Ugandans to better target military operatio~~s." Since 2008 the U.S. has been providing financial aid in the form of military equipment to Uganda and the other regional co~tntries to fight Kony-s LRA, but Obama's new deployment escalates the direct U.S. involvement. Soros sits in the 1CG's executive board along with Samuel Berger, Bill Clinton's former national security advisor; Gcorgc 1. Mitchell, formcr U.S. Scnatc Majority Lcadcr who scmcd as a Midcast envoy to both Obama and President Bush and Javier Solana; a socialist activist who is NATO's former Secretary-General as well as the former Foreign Affairs Minister of Spain.

Jimmy Ca~ter's national secnrity advisor, Zbigniem Brzezinski, is the TCG's senior advisor
The ICG's president-emeritus is Gareth Evans, who, together with activist Ramesh TIiakur, is the original founder of thc Responsibility to Protcct doctrkc, with thc duo cvcn coining thc tcrm "responsibility to protect." Both Evans and V~akur sen7eas advisory board members of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect.

tht:main group p ~ ~ h i t nh g e doctrine.

Page 2 of 9

APX - 312

As WND first exposed, Soros IS a primary fitnder and key proponent of the Global Ceatre for Responsibility to Protect.

Soros' Open Society is one of only three non-governmental funders of the Global Cab-e for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium Canada?the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K. Soros' hand in Ugandan oil industry Oil exploration began in Uganda's northwestern Lake Albert basin nearly a decade ago, with initial strikes being made in 2006. Uganda's Energy Mimstry estimates the country has over 2 b~llion barrels of oil, with some estimates going as high as 6 billion barrels. Production is set to begin in 2015. delayed &om 2013 in part because the country has not put in place a regulatorq. h i e w o r k for the oil industry. A 2008 National O i l and Gas Policy: proposed with aid h m a Soros-funded group, was supposed to be a general road niap for the handling and use of the oil. However, the polcy's recommendations have been largely ignored with critics acc~~sing Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni of cormption and of tightening his grip on the A-Crican country's emerging oil sector. Soros hinlself has been closely tied to oil and other interests in Uganda.

In 2008. tht: Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute brought together stakeholders &om Uganda and other h t Africa11couiltries to discuss critical governance issues, including the formation of what became Uganda's National Oil and Gas Policy.
Also m 2008. the Mica Lnstrtute for Energy Governance, a grantee ofthe Sotos-fbnded Re~enue Watch, helped established the. Publish What You Pay Coalition of Uganda, or PWYP, vvhich was purportedly latmched to coordinate and streandme the efforts of thc government in promoting transparency and accountability in the oil sector. Also, a steering committee was formed for PWYP Uganda to develop an agenda for implementing the oil advocacy initiatives and a constitution to guide PWYP's oil w-ork. PWYP has since 2006 hosted a number of t m i n g workshops in Uganda purportedly to promote contract transparency in Uganda-s oil sector.

PWYP is directly funded by Soros' Open Society as well as the Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute. P W P international is actually hosted by the Open Society Foundation in London.
The billionaire's Open Society Institute, meanwhile, runs numerous offices in Uganda. It maintains a coui~tq manager in Uganda, as well as thc Opcn SociLdyInitiative for East _Africa,which supports work in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. The Open Society Institute runs a Ugandan Youth Action Fund, which states its mission is to "identify, inspire, arid support small groups of dedicated young people \~71iocan mobilize aid influence large nunibers of tlieir peers to proniote open society ideals." Samantha Power, Arafat deputy

Page 3 of 9

APX - 313

Meanwhilei a closer Look at the Soros-funded Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect is telling. Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South &can activist Desrnond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu b e recently made solidarity visits to thc Hamas-controlled G i z a Strip as mcmbcrs of a group callcd Thc Elders, which includes formcr Prcsidcnt Jirnmy Carter.

WND was first to revort the committee that devised the Responsibility to Protect doctrine included Arab League a staunch denier of the Secretary General Amre Moussa as well as Palestinian legislator Hanan Asl~rmvi; Holocaust who Iong served as the deputy of Iate PaIestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.
Also, the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy has a seat on the advisoiy board of the 2001 commission that originally founded Responsibilityto Protect. The commission is called the International Commission on lntcnicntion and Statc So~crcignty. It invcntcd thc tcrm "rcsponsibility to protcct" whilc dcfining its guidclincs. The Carr Center is a research center concerned with human rights located at the Kennedy School of Government at b a r d Uluvcrsity. Samantha Power. the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on hu~nal~ rights. w-as Cam-s founding executive director and headed the institute at the time it advised in the founding of Responsibility to Protect. With Po~vcr'sccntcr on thc advisory board, thc Intcrnationd Commission on Intcrvcntion and St& Sovcrcignty first defined the Responsibilityto Protect doctrine. Power reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya Thc Libya bombings haw bccn widely rcgardcd as a tcst of a military doctrinc callcd "Rcsponsibilityto Protect."

In his address to the nation in April explaining the NATO campaign in Lib% Obama cited the doctrine as the main justification for U.S. a ~ iiitemational d airstrikes against Libya.
Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act. as cited by Obam, is a set of principles. no%v backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of ' k a r crimes," "genocide," "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing."

The term "war crimes" has at times been indiscriminately used bq ~mious United Nations-backzd intcmational bodies, including the Tnternational Criminal Court, or ICC, tvhich applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations i n the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops who commit alleged "~var crimes" overseas.
Soros: Right to 'penetrate nation-states'

Soros i~imsctf outiincd thc fundarncntals of Rcsponsibility to Protcct in a 2004 Forcign Policy magazine articlc titled 'The People's Sovereignty: How- a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."

In the article Soros said, 'True sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments "

Page 4 of 9

--

_ APX - 314

_ ----

ibEgovernmentsabuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, Soros wrote. "By spec&+ that sovereignty is based on the people, the outside interference is justifi* international commmlity can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.

' * I nparticular," he continued 'the principle of the people's so~ereignty can help solye two modern cl~allenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states; and the obstacles to global collective a c t i o ~ dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."
'One World Order'
Thc Global Ccntcr for the Responsibility to Protcct, mcan\vhilc: works in partucrship with thc World Fcdcrakst Movement. a group that promotes democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power. The Movement is a main coordinator and member of Responsibility to Protect Center. WND reported that Responsibility doctrine founder Thakur recently advocated for a "global rebalancing" and ".international redistribution'' to create a "New World Order.r."
h~a piece last hlarch in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, "Toward a new world order,-' Thakur wrote: "Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution."

Hc was rcfcrring to a Unitcd Nations-brokcrcd international climatc trcah; in which hc argued, -Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener diredions.':

In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has irllpacted the U. S.
'The West's bullying approach to developing nations won't work mymore - global power IS shifting to Asia." hc u ~ o t c . " A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train" he added.
Thakur continued: '"Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behavior for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant prog-essin deadlocked international negotiations." Thahr contended '-the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left ~nany less fearful of 'superior' \Yestem power."

LRA: A Regional Strategy beyond Killing Kony


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATTONS Tile Lord's Resistance Arm!: ( . = )
has become a regonal problem that requires a regional solution. Operation Lightning

'lll~mder, launched in December 2008, is the Ugandan m y ' s latest attempt to crush militarily the one-time northern Ugandan

Page 5 of 9

rebel group. It has been a failure. After the initial attach small groups of LRA fighters dispersed in the Democratic Republic of Nat~onal Congo (Congo), South Sudan and the Ceiltral Atiican Republic (CAR), where they sm;lve by preying on ci~ilia~ls. securiity forces are too weak to protect their oxm people, while the LJgandan army, with U.S. suppoc is focused on hunting Joseph
Konq-, the group's leader. 'lhe Ugandans h v e eroded the L M ' s lltunbers and made its comn~unications more difficult. But L , M

fighlcrs, though disorganis~d, remain a ~cmbic danger 10 civilians in this mostly ung<ov~mcd lironticr /,one. National amics, (he

UN and civilians themselves need to pool intelligence and coordinate their efforts in new ways ifthey are to end the LRA once
and for all.
As the Juha peace process hegan L o Call apari. Presidenr Museveni oCTJganda work& hard L o cimvince Sociih Sudan and the

Coilgo to pamcipate 111 a joint i d t a q operation against the LRA. He had to overcome their mistrust of h s army, notorious for ~ t s past alnise of civilians and illegal resource e~draction on its neighbours' temtory. The U.S. lent its diplomatic weight to advance discnssiorts. Even though both Sou& Sudan and the Congo finally a p e d , Uganda underminedits chances of success by failing to coordinate with them, giving them little reason to conmit to the fight. In the event, bad weather and leaked intelligence caused Op~~tlio I.ighlning n ' ? % u ~ ~Ltr L Pdil T in its primary c~hjw~ivc; killing Ki)ny, and a lack of fi>m~ard planning allowd Lhc T,RA L o put on a bloody show of force against Congolese cixfians 'Ihe L M has since exylo~ted the inabhty of the Congo, South Sudan and the CAK to control their border areas. Small: fastmoving grt>upsof lighter% aallack unprotecld villagcs L o resupply wilh htxland clothes and sei./t. new xcruits k h r e heading and muulating are part of a strategy of tmor to dissuade s ~ w i ~ m from s cooperating with back to the cover of tlie forest. Kllli~~g the Ugandan aucl otha anrues, Even with the help of U.S. satsllite imagery and audio intercepts, the U g a n h army, the only force committed to the chase; has Iud great a ~ c u l t t yr a c m its targets. m%at was supposed to be a sudden, decisive strike has become a slow and very expensive campaign of attrition across time countries. It lms also yielded unacceptably high Iiumatl costs anlong tocd civilians. wilh virLu&lly no accounkihiliiy fiir L h c railuic lo prc?lccl.The $vcakncssorall ihrw slalc sccurilq liorccs and Lhc limited means of the UN missions in the Congo and South Sudan have left c i d a n s no choice but to fend for themselves, which in many instances they hxTedone \Yell. In March 2010, TJgandan intdligmw reported &at K m y was in the southe~n Darfur region of Sudan, hoping lo receive supprlr