Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.

: 21948-2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR THE COUNTY OF KINGS Christopher-Earl :Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 281 Brooklyn New York 11238 Petitioner,

Index N . 21948 12012 o:
Hon David I Schmidt J . ~ S .
c./,
,

- ..
ecC

L J

5/

c

-

-,'

Hakeem Jeffries ,Grace Meng, Felix Ortiz, Bill DeBlasio, Walter Cooper, Keith L.T. Wright, Christine C. Quinn, William Thompson, Scott Stringer, Emily Giske, Anne Marie Anzalone, Archie Spigner, George Gresham, Ruben Diaz, Jr.; Ken Jenkins; Mario Cilento; Gerald D. Jennings; Byron Brown ; Robert Duffy; Joseph Morelle; Scott Adams ;Stephanie Miner; Steve Bellone; Lrene Stein; Sheila Comar; and Kirsten Gillibrand Respondents.

3 '

PETITIONER'S COMBINED RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NYS ELECTORAL COLLEGE ELECTORS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE & SANCTIONS

STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS

1

) ) ss.

Accordingly, 1,'Christopher-Earl:Strunk in esse, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: 1. This is Petitioner's combined response in opposition to the 2012 New York State Electoral College Electors, Mario Cilento represented by Steven C. Farkas Esq. having filed a motion to dismiss the petition (MTD) with prejudice and sanctions with Memorandum of Law (MOL) filed December 21,2012 and supplement filed January 2,2013 also with MOL, accompanied by the joint MTD of NYS Assemblymen Electors Keith L.T. Wright and Felix Ortiz represented by Joshua Pepper NYS Assistant Attorney General (AAG) with MOL also filed December 21,2012, of which is safely loaded to
http://www.scribd.com/doc/112 74777l4 and

2. Background Petitioner is a private versus a public US Citizen registered to vote at he November 6, 2012 General Election at which all, except for Kirsten Gillibrand, of the Respondents are Presidential

Petitioner's combined response to NYS Electors' MTD Page 1 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012
Electors ("Electors"), having been elected to cast votes for President and Vice President in accordance with Election Law §12-100, and 3. Petitioner contends that according to tradition that remains true, it was and is a citizen's duty to "raise the hue and cry" by reporting crimes, especially felonies, to law enforcement authorities (Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 92 S. Ct. 2646, 33 L. Ed. 2d 626 [1972], quoting WILLIAM
BLACKSTONE);

and that nobody, even Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. the lone ranger, may interfere with a

public citizen’s duty, liberty or Private US Citizen’s Freedom guaranteed with the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, provisions of the US Constitution and State Constitution with related law . 4. On or about November 9, 2012, Petitioner filed criminal complaints with fourteen district attorneys' offices charging the Electors with aiding and abetting a crime, with copies sent to the 29 electors elect including the Governor, Speaker of the Assembly , Controller, Attorney General, and with the contention that were any to vote for the re-election of the defacto usurper SOEBARKAH (aka Barry Soetoro, AKA Barack Hussein Obama II aka Barack Obama) president of the United States (POTUS) each would be guilty of aiding and abetting a felony, sedition and treason; and 5. then on November 14, 2012 Petitioner filed a Petition with Index 21948/12 to obtain a. a trial of the facts of the forgery done by the as yet named perpetrators on or about 25 April 2011 that appears done for the express purpose of re-usurping the office of POTUS in support of high crimes including treason in regards to Benghazi; and b. that all except two of the Electors elect are also public officials with duties as Electors that are incompatible with their duties as public officials; c. further that under A2S1C2 the NYS Legislature has exclusive power to create the New York Electoral College, with the proviso that it shall not attempt or instruct or allow any person serving on the Electoral College representative from New York State to attempt to change the eligibility and or qualifications of a federal officer including POTUS; and

Petitioner’s combined response to NYS Electors’ MTD Page 2 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012
d. that Petitioner also seeks to void the U.S. Senate election of Kirsten Gillibrand, who was not an Elector. 6. That notwithstanding the fact that the defacto President Barack Obama has already admitted that his father is a British Subject married to his then minor aged U.S. Citizen mother on his own 2008 campaign website is not a natural-born citizen but a native-born citizen as if defined under the 14th Amendment United States, on November 19, 2012 Petitioner submitted an application for an OSC inter alia for restraint and declaratory judgment as to incompatibility of classes of 29 electors that was declined to be signed by Justice Schmidt on November 19, 2012; and 7. thereafter Petitioner requested the Court reconsideration its errors in its decision not to sign with a copy delivered to Arthur M. Schack J.S.C., and wherein Petitioner contends: 6. That any person elected at the November 6, 2012 general election, including Respondents, are now certified as elected by the NYS BOE, and because Petitioner was unable to challenge the election in the pre-certification first stage that then would include the NYS BOE and not conform with the wishes of Judge Schack; but now during the post certification phase in which any congressman elect during the lame duck session of congress before those certified would appear to be sworn into office on or after January 3,. 2013 not only does not require the appearance of the NYS BOE, but as with any challenge of first impression regarding a Constitutional issue only requires Petitioner provide proper notification of the Office of the NYS Attorney General which Petitioner did by notifying Lisa Dell, Esq. by email on Friday November 16, 2012 (see Exhibit 15).; and 7. That when Joshua Pepper , Esq. NYS Assistant Attorney General from the litigation bureau, under the supervision of Lisa Dell of His Office, appeared voluntarily as an intervener at the preliminary intake hearing of this application before the Court at Courtroom 541; and thereat, Mr. Pepper disclosed that he represents the Executive including the Governor, Comptroller, Attorney General and Mr. Silver the Speaker of the Assembly; 8. Therefore how would Petitioner be held liable, and under what legal theory for another’s voluntary action applies, whether that be for an intervener as petitioner or respondent?

8. That neither chamber has replied to Petitioner’s challenge to errors in the order and or bar to further action; and as such on December 7, 2012, Petitioner filed his Note of Issue with Certificate of Readiness for trial duly served upon caption parties including Joshua Pepper, AAG (see Exhibit A). 9. It is now a fact that the defacto President Obama has used a forged instrument as if his birth certificate to re-usurp the office of POTUS and were the NYS Electoral College members once Petitioner’s combined response to NYS Electors’ MTD Page 3 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 having been duly notified to have voted for such usurpation they are guilty as an accessory after the fact to the forgery crime that has never been heard before any court on the merits of the evidence. 10. No court has ever heard the facts of the 2011 forgery crime and or ruled on the merits of such.
11. That on October 21, 2012, I first heard facts associated with the forged 25 April 2011 instrument from Paul Edward Irey, who at my request affirmed the first affidavit shown in Exhibit A-2. 12. That Petitioner first responds to the MOL of Joshua Pepper AAG and in which Mr. Pepper alleges that First, Petitioner has not served respondents according to the requirements of the Civil Practice law and Rules ("CPLR). Petitioner has merely mailed the papers to the respondents. (a.) To wit Petitioner contends that the entire NYS Electoral College under A2S1C2 are acting for the State of New York and as such are defacto state officers and therefore served by CPLR §307 (1) . Second, collateral estoppel bars Petitioner's claims. This Court and other courts have already dismissed Petitioner's claims three times over. (b.) To wit Petitioner contends that there has never been a trial of the facts of the forgery anywhere in the country and is therefore not issue and or claim barred- what Mr. Pepper contends is not true. Third, Petitioner lacks standing to assert his claims. Petitioner has never alleged any injury to himself. (c.) To wit Petitioner contends unlike a “Public” US Citizen that is subservient to the State under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Petitioner suffers a particularized injury with actual damages to a
1

NYS CPLR §307. Personal service upon the state. 2. Personal service on a state officer sued solely in an official capacity or state agency, which shall be required to obtain personal jurisdiction over such an officer or agency, shall be made by (1) delivering the summons to such officer or to the chief executive officer of such agency or to a person designated by such chief executive officer to receive service, or (2) by mailing the summons by certified mail, return receipt requested, to such officer or to the chief executive officer of such agency, and by personal service upon the state in the manner provided by subdivision one of this section. Service by certified mail shall not be complete until the summons is received in a principal office of the agency and until personal service upon the state in the manner provided by subdivision one of this section is completed. For purposes of this subdivision, the term "principal office of the agency" shall mean the location at which the office of the chief executive officer of the agency is generally located. Service by certified mail shall not be effective unless the front of the envelope bears the legend "URGENT LEGAL MAIL" in capital letters. The chief executive officer of every such agency shall designate at least one person, in addition to himself or herself, to accept personal service on behalf of the agency. For purposes of this subdivision the term state agency shall be deemed to refer to any agency, board, bureau, commission, division, tribunal or other entity which constitutes the state for purposes of service under subdivision one of this section.

Petitioner’s combined response to NYS Electors’ MTD Page 4 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012
wasting treasury account caused by the Usurper et al. and who seeks remedy by special appearance of Christopher- Earl: Strunk in esse within personal jurisdiction of this Court, is a non-surety “Private” natural-born U.S. Citizen secured beneficiary, who on October 15, 2012 duly filed a Notice of Release without Consideration that under U.S. Constitution Article 4 full faith and credit provisions is binding upon the State of New York and its New York County sub-division within the city of New York to relieve it of further obligation as the trustee-owner of the Usufruct debtor organized on January 24, 1947; and that as of December 12, 2012 Petitioner’s filing of his “Uniform Commercial Code” form UCC-1 Initial Financial Statement is the secured beneficiary of the Usufruct as had been previously noticed in November 2009 to Timothy Franz Geithner of the U.S. Treasury with pending filings to the Treasury and IRS (see Exhibit B); (d.) That Petitioner further contends that notwithstanding whether the Lone Ranger has made light of Petitioner when as a “Public” U.S. Citizen on January 23, 2009 Petitioner duly fired Barack Hussein Obama II (hereinafter known as the “Usurper” and or “SOEBARKAH”) when Obama offered his oath on January 20, 2009 as if eligible under A2S1C5 for the office of the POTUS executive with power of attorney over accounts with the U.S. Treasury and other executive duties, when in fact Obama by his own admission is ineligible and his every act is void ab initio; and notwithstanding all his acts being void ab initio the office of POTUS is again about to be usurped to Petitioner’s detriment and injury, and that is not a matter before this court as it has not authority as with Petitioner’s Original Proceeding in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington District of Columbia Circuit with case No.: 13-5005-OP caption page (see Exhibit C) posted at http://www.scribd.com/doc/117739292/; and (e.) Furthermore, Petitioner contends that unlike a “Public” US Citizen who is subservient to the State under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Petitioner as a “Private” US Citizen secured beneficiary has the Freedom to assert his claims as he has been singled out for suppression of speech, right to petition, right to assembly, right to hold beliefs that cherish the US Constitution and absolute requirement for national borders language and culture, and has suffered a Star Chamber taking by the

Petitioner’s combined response to NYS Electors’ MTD Page 5 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012
Lone Ranger by denial of a trial of facts where the accused may challenge witnesses against him instead under the Lone Ranger star chamber proceeding by his own admission denied applicability of A2S1C5 imposed the born citizen clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and absolutely rejected any resemblance of a speedy impartial administration of the law- but that remains a matter to be heard in Appeal Case 12-5515 in the Second Department Appellate Division.. Fourth, Petitioner's claims are non-justiciable. Challenges to the qualifications of Electors are for Congress, not the courts. This is a political question. (f.) To wit Petitioner contends that any election held in the State of New York is under the jurisdiction of NYS EL 16-100 as an implied power in that the NYS Legislature has made no exception with its exclusive power granted under A2S1C2, McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), and as the NYS Electoral College Members serve as defacto state officers they are subject to the jurisdiction of the state judiciary both under civil & criminal laws and may not change the eligibility or qualifications of Federal Officers, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); and (g.) That notwithstanding whether after January 3, 2013 the NYS Electoral College votes have been tallied in Congress, or where there does remain both a pendant and original Federal jurisdiction in regards to the operation of the 12th 20 and 25th Amendments with related law as explained by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. (see Exhibit D) would apply, such set of circumstances are not exclusive of the remaining duty of the State Judiciary to adjudicate accordingly especially first as to the fact of a crime having been committed by the NYS Electoral Colleges members and as effects the right for Petitioner to exonerate himself from the rights and freedom infringements imposed by the Lone Ranger and then as to the NYS Duty not to change eligibility or qualifications of Federal officers especially as applies with A2S1C5, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). Fifth, this case is moot because the electoral college vote has already taken place. (h.) To wit Petitioner contends that the likelihood of a repetition and continued injury requires a decision now not later.

Petitioner’s combined response to NYS Electors’ MTD Page 6 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012
13. That Petitioner now responds to the MOL of Steven C. Farkas, Esq. and in which Mr. Farkas alleges that the verified petition must be dismissed because : Petitioner Lacks Standing, Having Suffered No Particularized Injury (a.) To wit Petitioner repeats each and every statement and contention contained in paragraphs 1 through 12 (h) with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length; however omits same for the purpose of brevity and economy of the Courts calendar; Petitioner Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, and Instead presents Non-Justiciable Political Questions (b.) To wit Petitioner repeats each and every statement and contention contained in paragraphs 1 through 13 (a) with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length; however omits same for the purpose of brevity and economy of the Courts calendar; Petitioner's Claims Must Be Dismissed on the Grounds of Collateral Estoppel (c.) To wit Petitioner repeats each and every statement and contention contained in paragraphs 1 through 13 (b) with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length; however omits same for the purpose of brevity and economy of the Courts calendar; (e.) That the complaint filed in EDNY with 08-cv-4289 was never joined as to any parties except to say that the State matters are to be heard in State court; and thereafter (d.) Petitioner filed the Petition 08-29641 to contend that a state officer may not hold two offices for pay is against the state constitution; and that the State officers joined were not compatible electors; and that Justice Schmidt declared they were not in violation of the State Constitution and went so far to cite prior incompatibility cases that would bar dual office and that the decision never went to the eligibility merits of the evidence related to Barack Obama eligibility or wrongdoing; and (d.) with the law of the case set by the decision in 08-29641 when Petitioner attempted to amend the case 08-29642, a case that remains an active case till this day, Justice Schmidt asked why Petitioner did not just file a new case on the common law fraud matter; and thereafter

Petitioner’s combined response to NYS Electors’ MTD Page 7 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012
(e.) on March 22, 2011 Petitioner filed a new case with index No.: 2011-6500 that by intentional attorney perjury misbehavior in the RJI affirmation was assigned to the Lone Ranger delayed for 10 months, ran a star chamber, infringed Petitioner’ fundamental rights to a fair hearing y of evidence that would go to the merits of the common law fraud now on appeal with case 12-5515; and that (f) The State of New York except herein has yet to answer or respond to any case I filed since 2008! (g.) That in order for collateral estoppel or res judicata to apply the controversy defined there must have been discovery and trial; and to date there never has been an actual trial of the facts as to the forgery and or eligibility anywhere in the country since 2008 based upon actual certified evidence gained by discovery, as such has always been blocked or as with Judge David O. Carter January 2010 the order for an actual trial reversed and the case dismissed by outrageous Executive corruption. Petitioner Failed to Specify the Time and Place of the Hearing on the Petition, and Failed to Properly Serve Mr. Cilento (h.) To wit Petitioner repeats each and every statement and contention contained in paragraphs 1 through 13 (g) with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length; however omits same for the purpose of brevity and economy of the Courts calendar asserts that with the Note of Issue with Certificate of Readiness for trial filed on December 7, 2012 as shown as Exhibit A, the respondent had twenty days to respond or by December 27, 2012 and has done so. Petitioner's Conduct is Worthy of Sanction Under Part 130 of the Compilation of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (i.) To wit Petitioner repeats each and every statement and contention contained in paragraphs 1 through 13 (h) with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length; however omits same for the purpose of brevity and economy of the Courts calendar; and Petitioner asserts that no sanctions are warranted only a trial; and furthermore (i.) that Petitioner contends that Mr. Farkas has in his amended Notice of January 2, 2013 improperly added the “New York City Board of Elections” and has to explain with what authority he has done that.

Petitioner’s combined response to NYS Electors’ MTD Page 8 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012
14. That upon a close examination of the interveners - the Screamer Mr. Cuomo, Mr. DiNapoli, Mr. Silver, Mr. Schniederman - each member of the Executive branch has a conflict of interest as each possesses the authority and power to prevent cronyism incompatibility of electors in the electoral college especially Mr. Cuomo historicall starting with his HUD work under Mr. Clinton and now as it related to Freddie Mac and ACORN here in this State, but have failed to act; and instead act with the Bosses who hold the private person US Citizen enrolled party members or otherwise in distain, with the exception of two persons listed herein, refuse to allow private U.S. Citizens to take part in the mandates of the State Legislature delegated to the Electoral College responsibilities, instead practice cronyism with political favors that are incompatable with the position of a member of the electoral college; and the body has allowed lawyers, lobbyists, union leaders, licensed professionals, party leaders and other persons holding an office of trust or profit under the 14th Amendment United States, doing busines with the Federal government that includes State & Local officers. 15. That as for Respondents Jeffries, Meng, Ortiz, Wright and Morelle are prime examples of the electors of most numerous branch of the State Legislature that before the 17th Amendment were to elect the respective U.S. Senator of two senators from the state of New York, as the Assembly had a margin of elector control over the State Senate with a ratio of 3 assemblymen to 1 senator.
16. And as such Petitioner wishes the Court to void the U.S. Senate Election and ask the Screamer

Governor who has intevened herein to set a special election, because a significant number of the electors casting their respective vote were domiciled in New York for less than five years and had not lived in their respective county of domicile for at least twelve months and there is no way to determine from the votes cast on Novemebr 6, 2012 of those qualified what candidate was voted for.
17. That as for the misprison of a felony sedition and treason as federal matters, Petitioner relies upon

the knowledge, experience and expertise of Sherrif Joe Arpaio, his chief investigator Mike Zullo (see Exhibit E), Paul E. Irey and especially as to the charge of treason the efforts of Navy Admiral James Lyons (see Exhibit F); however applies herein State Court too as for the New York Electoral College!

Petitioner’s combined response to NYS Electors’ MTD Page 9 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 Wherefore, Petitioner wishes the Court to deny Respondents motion to dismiss, denied any sanction would appy, and proceed forward with Petitioner's application for a trial of the facts for relief along with other and different relief for justice herein; as the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3" parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk Sworn to before me day of January 2013 This

a

/

HARRY HELFENBAUM Commissioner of Deeds City of New York - No.5-883 Certificate Filed in Richmond Commission Expires June 30, 20

Petitioner's combined response to NYS Electors' MTD Page 10 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Petitioner’s combined response to NYS Electors’ MTD

Exhibit A

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR THE COUNTY OF KINGS -----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281 Brooklyn New York 11238

Index No.: 21948 / 2012
Filed November 14, 2012

Petitioner, -againstHakeem Jeffries , Grace Meng, Felix Ortiz, Bill DeBlasio, Walter Cooper, Keith L.T. Wright, Christine C. Quinn, William Thompson, Scott Stringer, Emily Giske, Anne Marie Anzalone, Archie Spigner, George Gresham, Ruben Diaz, Jr.; Ken Jenkins; Mario Cilento; Gerald D. Jennings; Byron Brown ; Robert Duffy; Joseph Morelle; Scott Adams ; Stephanie Miner; Steve Bellone; Irene Stein; Sheila Comar; and Kirsten Gillibrand Respondents.

PETITIONER’S
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NOTE OF ISSUE WITH CERTIFICATE OF READINESS FOR TRIAL OF ISSUES AND

-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ) ) ss. )

FOR PARTIAL SEVERANCE

Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: To: Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C. Part 1, Hon. Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. Part 27, 1. This is Petitioner’s affidavit in support of his note of issue and certificate of readiness by CPLR §3402 for a trial of issues by December 14, 2012 with partial severance for the benefit of captioned Respondent electors of the New York State Legislature’s Electoral College and members of Congress before the deadline to vote by December 17, 2012, and after January 3, 2013 for candidates for the office of President of the United States, and that whether by casting a vote for Barack Obama each may be charged with the crime of accessory after the fact of a felony committed on or about 25 April 2011 by persons as yet named, aided and abetted by White House Counsel Bob Bauer, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and Barack Obama who during the 27 April 2012 White House Press Conference, see the transcript evidence herein (see Exhibit 1), expressly presented a forged instrument to the People of the United States, a crime compounded by spoliation, concealment, perjury, tampering with the public record, intimidation of witnesses and other crimes.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s Affidavit in support of Note of Issue Page 1 of 3

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012
TRIAL OF THE FACTS 2. That Petitioner requires a trial of the facts of a crime before December 17, 2012 essential for the proper execution of the Electoral College vote, say on December 13, 2012, and at which Petitioner will bring only one expert witness for testimony by Typographer Graphics Expert Paul Edward Irey from Delray Beach Florida to testify solely as to the nature of the forgery referenced above without determination of who the perpetrators are per se, as that is a criminal matter for authorities with jurisdiction. 3. That expert testimony by Paul Edward Irey is based upon the Affidavit with Exhibits A through D affirmed December 4, 2012, and herewith (see Exhibit 2) that is res ipso loquitur. 4. Petitioner contends that the body of the crime complained of has been brought to the attention of Respondents and various district attorneys with authority and jurisdiction to further investigate, and that the testimony deals with the fact that in 1961, well before computers or such other technologies that may be in use today, that ANY birth certificate paperwork was done either by hand and or on forms designed for use with the mechanical typewriter technology that was then widely used, rendering a forgery detectible; and that testimony presents the proof of forgery in the context of then mechanical technology in use, and also to prove the forged instrument is of current manufacturer, that the forgers use of the Unsharp Mask software by Adobe to create a Halo around lettering thus also sets the chain of custody of the forgery along with where it was manufactured. 5. That Respondent public officers as if Elector Public Officers and private US Citizens have duty as to matters of law and facts and when in violation of law must be held accountable or would infringe the trust due the People of New York as similarly to Petitioner’s right to suffrage, republican form of government, Freedom and Liberty, any elelctor who would commit a crimne by adiding and abbetting a felony is incompatibkle. as to New York State law as applies to the public officer oath, duties and obligation with use of NYS Civil Service Law §105A and is to be barred as a person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States. 6. That it is a well-settled common law rule that a public officer cannot hold two incompatible offices simultaneously (Matter of Smith v Dillon, 267 App. Div. 39, 43 [1943]). This rule seeks to prevent offices of public trust from accumulating in a single individual. Two offices are incompatible if one is subordinate to the other or there is an inherent inconsistency between the two offices (see People ex rel. Ryan v Green, 58 NY

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s Affidavit in support of Note of Issue Page 2 of 3

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of Note of Issue

Exhibit 1

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

What was really dominating a lot of discussion was this fake controversy, essentially, a sideshow, that was distracting from this real issue. And an example of that would be when major Democrats and Republicans went onto mainstream news organizations to talk about their budget plans -- including the President -- they were asked about this. They were asked about what they thought about the controversy. They were asked if they believed the President was born in the United States. And it was really a distraction. That really struck the President, led him to ask his counsel to look into whether we could ask the state of Hawaii to release the long-form certificate, which is not something they generally do. And he did that despite the fact that it probably was not in his long-term -- it would have been in his -- probably in his long-term political interests to allow this birther debate to dominate discussion in the Republican Party for months to come. But he thought even though it might have been good politics, he thought it was bad for the country. And so he asked counsel to look into this. And now I’ll have Bob explain that, and then we’ll take your questions. MR. CARNEY: I just want to -- sorry, I meant to mention at the top, as some of you may have seen, the President will be coming to the briefing room at 9:45 a.m., making a brief statement about this -- not taking questions, but just wanted to let you know. MR. PFEIFFER: And he will use this as an opportunity to make a larger point about what this debate says about our politics. Go ahead, Bob. MR. BAUER: Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate. And so we undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to make that request. And by Thursday of last week, I spoke to private counsel to the President and asked her to contact the State Department of Health and to have a conversation about any requirements, further requirements, that they thought we had to satisfy to lodge that waiver request. She had that conversation with the state Department of Health on Thursday -- counsel in question is Judy Corley at the law firm of Perkins Coie, and you have a copy of the letter she subsequently sent to the department with the President’s written request. The department outlined the requirements for the President to make this request. He signed a letter making that request on Friday afternoon upon returning from the West Coast. And private counsel forwarded his written request -- written, signed request -- along with a letter from counsel, to the state Department of Health on Friday. For Immediate Release

Get Email Updates

Contact Us

Home • Briefing Room • Press Briefings

Search WhiteHouse.gov

The White House Office of the Press Secretary April 27, 2011

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 8:48 A.M. EDT MR. CARNEY: Good morning, everybody. You can read the paperwork we just handed out in a minute. Let me just get started. Thank you for coming this morning. I have with me today Dan Pfeiffer, the President’s Director of Communications, as well as Bob Bauer, the President’s White House Counsel, who will have a few things to say about the documents we handed to you today. And then we'll take your questions. I remind you this is off camera and only pen and pad, not for audio. And I give you Dan Pfeiffer. MR. PFEIFFER: Thanks, Jay. What you have in front of you now is a packet of papers that includes the President’s long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, the original birth certificate that the President requested and we posted online in 2008, and then the correspondence between the President’s counsel and the Hawaii State Department of Health that led to the release of those documents. If you would just give me a minute to -- indulge me a second to walk through a little of the history here, since all of you weren't around in 2008 when we originally released the President’s birth certificate, I will do that. And then Bob Bauer will walk through the timeline of how we acquired these documents. In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of

B L O G PO ST S ON T H I S I SS UE
March 11, 2012 8:04 PM EDT

Call with President Karzai Following the Report of Afghan Civilian Casualties
President Obama reached out to President Karzai Sunday following the reported killing and sounding of Afghan civilians.
March 11, 2012 9:00 AM EDT

From the Archives: Tsunami in Japan

3 of 15 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

3/11/2012 11:00 PM http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

1 of 15 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

3/11/2012 11:00 PM http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

The department, as I understood it, after reviewing the law and reviewing the grounds asserted in the request, came to the conclusion that a waiver could be appropriately granted. We were advised that the long-form birth certificate could be copied and made available to us as early as Monday, April 25th -- the day before yesterday. And we made arrangements for counsel to travel to Honolulu to pick it up and it was returned to the White House yesterday afternoon. Let me emphasize again, there is a specific statute that governs access to and inspection of vital records in the state of Hawaii. The birth certificate that we posted online is, in fact, and always has been, and remains, the legal birth certificate of the President that would be used for all legal purposes that any resident of Hawaii would want to use a birth certificate for. However, there is legal authority in the department to make exceptions to the general policy on not releasing the long-form birth certificate. The policy in question, by the way, on non-release has been in effect since the mid-1980s, I understand. So while I cannot tell you what the entire history of exceptions has been, it is a limited one. This is one of very few that I understand have been granted for the reasons set out in private counsel’s letter. MR. PFEIFFER: We'll be happy to take some questions.

Hawaii. We received that document; we posted it on the website. That document was then inspected by independent fact checkers, who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document -- independent fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii. To be clear, the document we presented on the President’s website in 2008 is his birth certificate. It is the piece of paper that every Hawaiian receives when they contact the state to request a birth certificate. It is the birth certificate they take to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get their driver’s license and that they take to the federal government to get their passport. It is the legally recognized document. That essentially -- for those of you who followed the campaign closely know that solved the issue. We didn’t spend any time talking about this after that. There may have been some very fringe discussion out there, but as a campaign issue it was settled and it was -Q When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is?

A look back at the U.S. response to the devastating earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan in March of 2011.
March 10, 2012 6:30 AM EDT

Weekly Address: Investing in a Clean Energy Future
Speaking from a factory in Virginia, President Obama talks about how companies are creating more jobs in the United States, making better products than ever before, and how many are developing new technologies that are reducing our dependence on foreign oil and saving families money at the pump.

MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. Q Q I guess I just want to make sure that we’re clear on this. Even though this one says “certificate of live birth” on here, this is different than the other certificate of live birth that we’ve seen? MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. The second page there is the one that was posted on the Internet. Q Okay. That settled the issue. In recent weeks, the issue has risen again as some folks have begun raising a question about the original -- about the long-form birth certificate you now have in front of you. And Bob will explain why -the extraordinary steps we had to take to receive that and the legal restraints that are in place there. But it became an issue again. And it went to -- essentially the discussion transcended from the nether regions of the Internet into mainstream political debate in this country. It became something that when both Republicans and Democrats were talking to the media they were asked about. It was a constant discussion on mainstream news organizations. And the President believed that it was becoming a distraction from the major issues we're having in this country. And he was particularly struck by the fact that right after the Republicans released their budget framework and the President released his, we were prepared to have a very important, very vigorous debate in this country about the future of the country, the direction we’re going to take, how we’re doing to deal with very important issues like education, Medicare, how we’re going to deal with taxes in this country. And that should -- that’s the debate we should be having yet. Because it is not here and that's been an issue.

VIEW ALL RELATED BLOG POSTS

MR. PFEIFFER: We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by -- the fact checkers came to headquarters and actually examined the document we had.

Facebook Twitter Flickr Google+

YouTube Vimeo iTunes LinkedIn

MR. PFEIFFER: And that is a copy of the one that has been kept at the Hawaii Department of Health. Q Okay. And this is the one that would be referred to -- that people have been asking for that is the birth certificate? MR. PFEIFFER: They are both -- the second one is the birth certificate. The one on the top is what is referred to as the long-form birth certificate. As you can see -- and Bob can walk you through it -- it contains some additional information that is not on the second page, which was the birth certificate which was released during the campaign. If you could just explain the difference.

4 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

2 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

MR. PFEIFFER: There will always be some selection of people who will believe something, and that's not the issue. The issue is that this is not a discussion that is just happening among conspiracy theorists. It’s happening here in this room; it’s happening on all of the networks. And it’s something that, as I said, every major political figure of both parties who’s actually out trying to talk about real issues is asked about this by the media. And so the President decided to release this. And I'll leave it to others to decide whether there’s still -- there will be some who still have a different -- have a conspiracy about this. Q You’ve got two certified copies, according to this study. You have these physical --

MR. BAUER: There’s a difference between a certificate and a certification. The certification is simply a verification of certain information that’s in the original birth certificate. The birth certificate, as you can see, has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, who essentially oversees the maintenance of the records. It contains some additional information also -- that is to say, the original birth certificate -- it contains some additional information like the ages of the parents, birthplaces, residence, street address, the name of the hospital. The core information that’s required for legal purposes and that is put into the actual certification that’s a computer-generated document, which we posted in 2008, that information is abstracted, if you will, from the original birth certificate, put into the computerized short-form certification, and made available to Hawaiian residents at their request. So the long form, which is a certificate, has more information, but the short form has the information that’s legally sufficient for all the relevant purposes. Q This first one has never been released publicly, correct?

MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. I showed you one. Just one. Q You showed us a photocopy of one.

MR. PFEIFFER: No, I showed you -Q Does that have a stamp?

MR. PFEIFFER: It has a seal on it. Q Why does this rise to the level of a presidential statement?

MR. BAUER: That’s correct. It is in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii. Q Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years? Was it Donald Trump that prompted you to issue this? MR. BAUER: I’ll let Dan -MR. PFEIFFER: Sure. Q I know you expected that question, right? (Laughter.) MR. PFEIFFER: He even said you would be the one who would ask it. (Laughter.) I don’t think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved -- for those of you who remember the campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008. And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called about it, reported on it until the last few weeks. And as I said earlier, it probably would have been -- a lot of the pundits out there have talked about the fact that this whole birther debate has been really bad for the Republican Party and would probably be good for the President politically. But despite that, the President, as I said, was struck by how this was crowding out the debate,

MR. PFEIFFER: The President -- this in itself -- when you hear the President I think you’ll understand the point he’s making. That will be in not too long. Q Did the President change his own mind about this? In other words, was he advocating during the campaign let’s just put it out there and get it over with, or was this an internal shift in thinking based -- in other words, was it the President who steadfastly during the campaign said this is ridiculous, I don't want to give this any more ground, and has now changed his mind? Or is this the -MR. PFEIFFER: Let’s be very clear. You were there for the campaign. There was never a question about the original birth certificate during the campaign. It was a settled issue. I was there for the original decision to release the birth certificate. I was there when we posted it online. I'm not sure I even knew there was an original one that was different than the one we posted online because it wasn’t an issue. So it wasn’t like -- let’s be very clear. We were asked for the President’s birth certificate in 2008; we released the President’s birth certificate; and it was done. That was it.

7 of 15 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

3/11/2012 11:00 PM http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

5 of 15 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

3/11/2012 11:00 PM http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

And so there hasn’t been a discussion about this other document for years. It’s only been in the last few weeks. And so to your second question, the President decided to do this and he'll talk about this when he gets here -decided to do it at the timeline that Bob laid out because it was a -- this was a sideshow that was distracting from the real challenges that we're facing. It’s not just a sideshow for him; it’s a sideshow for our entire politics that have become focused on this. Q Not to give Donald Trump more publicity than he has, but is he the person who sort of -- sort of that bridge between what you're calling a fringe and the mainstream? Do you think that he’s the reason why this tripped the switch to a level where you now have to deal with something you thought was dealt with? MR. PFEIFFER: It’s not for me to say why mainstream media organizations began to cover this debate. They’ll have to answer that for themselves. Q How concerned were you about running against Donald Trump in a general election?

particularly around the budget, on important issues, and was an example of the sort of sideshows that our politics focuses on instead of the real challenges that we have to confront as a country. And so that’s why he made this decision now, because it became an issue that transcended sort of this -- it essentially was something that was talked about, as I said, from the nether regions of the Internet onto mainstream network newscasts. In fact, Jay has been asked about this just yesterday in this room. Q So I guess the implication is that you did get political advantage by having not released this until today, over the course of the last four years? MR. PFEIFFER: There has been -- no one that I can recall actually asked us to -- we were asked to release the President’s birth certificate in 2008. We did that. And then no one -- it never -- up until a few weeks ago, there was never an issue about that that wasn’t the birth certificate from any credible individual or media outlet. And it hasn’t been until -- I mean, Jay was asked about this yesterday -Q When you say that, you mean certification -- you released the certification?

MR. PFEIFFER: I'd refer any questions on the election to the campaign. Q Can you address the reports of Petraeus to the CIA and DOD -MR. PFEIFFER: When any Hawaiian wants -- requests their birth certificate because they want to get a driver’s license, they want to get a passport, they do exactly what the President did in 2008. And that’s what that is. And we released that. And that’s what any Hawaiian would do to release their birth certificate. And that was good enough for everyone until very recently this became a question again. And so the President made this decision. He’ll talk to you more about his thinking on that. Q And this is going to sound -- I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to -- remain unconvinced. They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper, you could have typed anything in there. Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any -- (laughter.) Q MR. PFEIFFER: The point I'd make is that we weren't the ones who -- we're not the first ones to bring this up in this room. Jay has been asked questions about this; the President has been asked about it in media interviews. And so that wasn’t a decision that we made, and the President made the decision to do this and he made the decision to -- and when he comes down here this morning he'll talk to you about why he thinks there’s an important point to be made here. Q Getting back to the personnel announcements, does the President understand that these announcements have been made and sourced satisfactorily for most news organizations before he speaks up and he’s not letting his Will the President be holding it?

MR. PFEIFFER: You get points for that, Carol. (Laughter.) MR. CARNEY: Yes. I don't have -- but you’ll be disappointed to learn that I don't have a personnel announcement for you. The President will be addressing this -- questions about personnel tomorrow. Q Dan, was there a debate about whether or not this deserved being discussed by the White House, whether or not -- and I'm going back to the birth certificate. I lose points, I understand. But was there debate about whether or not this was worthy of the White House?

MR. PFEIFFER: He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so. But it will -- the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a -- what they have on file. As Bob said, it’s in a book in Hawaii. MR. BAUER: And you’ll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to -Q But do you understand that this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?

8 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

6 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

MR. CARNEY: I don't have anything for you on that this morning. Q Just quickly, back on the birth certificate, yesterday you said this was a settled issue. So --

White House corroborate? MR. CARNEY: I don't have a comment on that for you, Bill. (Laughter.) Q I mean, this is such BS. It’s all out there and you guys are -- okay, the President is going to talk about this tomorrow so we can't say anything. MR. CARNEY: Bill, you're free to make phone calls everywhere you can. I'm just saying that we don't have a personnel announcement for you today. Q And he'll tomorrow, he'll cover all the aforementioned switches?

MR. CARNEY: Well, as Dan said, again, it has been a settled issue. MR. PFEIFFER: From a factual point of view, it’s absolutely a settled issue. But the fact that it was a settled issue did not keep it from becoming a major part of the political discussion in this town for the last several weeks here. So there’s absolutely no question that what the President released in 2008 was his birth certificate and answered that question, and many of your organizations have done excellent reporting which proved that to be the case. But it continued; the President thought it was a sideshow and chose to take this step today for the reasons Bob laid out. Q Aside from the policy distractions that was presented, did you have some concern because it was sort of reaching back into the mainstream news coverage that this could become a factor in the 2012 election with centrist voters? MR. PFEIFFER: No. Q Just to clarify what this document is --

MR. CARNEY: We'll have a personnel announcement tomorrow. Q Jay, yesterday you talked about failsafe triggers as sort of a positive alternative to spending cuts. I'm wondering if the White House has any openness to including that, because it’s a White House proposal, including that in any legislation that would raise the debt ceiling limit. MR. CARNEY: Well, what we've said very clearly, and I think Secretary Geithner said it eloquently yesterday, it is a dangerous, risky idea to hold hostage any other -- hold hostage, rather, raising the debt ceiling, a vote on raising the debt ceiling, to any other piece of legislation. The commitment this President has to moving aggressively towards a comprehensive deficit reduction plan is clear. It will be clear again when the Vice President convenes a meeting, bipartisan, bicameral meeting, next week. And he hopes that progress will be made on that very quickly. In terms of negotiating what that would look like, I think the negotiators should do that, led by the Vice President, Republicans and Democrats together. But again, explicitly linking or holding hostage the absolute necessity of raising the debt ceiling to any other piece of legislation and declaring that we'll tank the U.S. economy and perhaps the global economy if we don't get this specific thing that we want, I think is a dangerous and unprecedented thing to do. And we're confident, remain confident, that the leaders of both parties in Congress, as well as the President, will agree with the President, as I have said many times, that we do not have an alternative to raising the debt ceiling because, as many have said, outside observers, economists and businessmen and women, the impact of that would be calamitous at best. Q So even though it’s your own proposal that you guys endorsed you don't want to see it as part of the final

MR. PFEIFFER: This is the -- the letter first and the two certified copies -- this is one of those. This is the same thing you have a copy of as the first page of your packet. Q How did it get here?

MR. PFEIFFER: As Bob said, it arrived by plane -- the President’s personal counsel went to Hawaii and brought it back and we got it last night. Q Last night?

MR. PFEIFFER: Last night. Q What time?

MR. PFEIFFER: Between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.

11 of 15 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

3/11/2012 11:00 PM http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

9 of 15 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

3/11/2012 11:00 PM http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

Q

When did you decide to do this gaggle?

package? MR. CARNEY: I'm not negotiating individual pieces of a package that we hope Republicans and Democrats can come together around from this podium. But again, we believe it’s essential to -- the President believes -- that's one of the reasons why we're doing this right now -- we believe that these are big debates that need to be had. They can be contentious, argumentative, serious, comprehensive, detailed, because they’re important; they’re all about America’s future. And they’re about visions of this country and where we're going that need to be debated. And this debate was being crowded out in many ways by a sideshow. And he looks forward to having a debate on the real issues that Americans want us to talk about -- long-term economic plans, deficit reduction, investments in the kinds of things that will help this economy grow and create jobs, dealing with our energy needs, a long-term energy plan. These are all issues that have been sidetracked at least in the public debate by some of the issues that we're talking about this morning. Q Is there a concern that more and more people were actually starting to believe its sideshow -- I mean, people have been asking about -MR. CARNEY: I will let the President speak for himself, but what Dan was saying and I think is important is that the issue here is that the President feels that this was bad for the country; that it’s not healthy for our political debate, when we have so many important issues that Americans care about, that affect their lives, to be drawn into sideshows about fallacies that have been disproven with the full weight of a legal document for several years. So, again, as Dan said, and a lot of political pundits have said, you could say that it would be good politics, smart politics, for the President to let this play out. He cares more about what’s good for the country. He wants the debate on the issues. He wants the focus on the issues that Americans care about. Q Jay, the President yesterday said that he had been talking to oil exporters about increasing output. Who specifically has he been talking -MR. CARNEY: Well, I said -- I want to clarify. I said several times I believe from this podium when asked questions about our overall handling of the issue of high gas prices that we've had conversations with oil-producing states and allies and those conversations continue. I don't have specific “the President spoke with this leader or other government officials spoke with others,” but those are ongoing conversations that, of course, we would be having in a situation like this. Q Do you guys have any comment on the NATO soldiers that were killed in Afghanistan and any confirmation on whether there were Americans?

MR. PFEIFFER: What’s that? Q When was this gaggle put on -- when was this planned?

MR. PFEIFFER: Whatever time you received your guidance suggesting that it would be “this time tomorrow morning.” Q Are these letters supposed to demonstrate the legal steps that were involved in releasing it to the White House counsel? MR. BAUER: The letters that you have, the personal request from the President, along with the accompanying letter from private counsel, is merely meant to document the legal path to getting the waiver of that policy so we could get the long-form certificate. Q The waiver of Hawaii state government policy?

MR. BAUER: Right. The non-release of the long-form certificate, which has been in effect since the 1980s -- a natural question would have been, well, what did you do to obtain the waiver, and those letters represent the request. Q Well, isn’t it true that anybody who was born in Hawaii can write this letter? I mean, that's all there is to the waiver process? MR. BAUER: No. Let me just explain once again because I also noticed, by the way, in one report already the wrong certificate was actually posted on the website. The certificate with the signatures at the bottom -- and that's a key difference between the short form and the long form -- the long form has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, and the mother, is the original birth certificate, which sits in a bound volume in the State Department of Health. The short from is a computerized abstract, and that's the legal birth certificate we requested in 2008 and that Hawaiians are entitled to. Since the mid-1980s, the State Department of Health, for administrative reasons, only provides to people who request their birth certificate the short form. They do not provide the long form. So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiver. We had to actually determine that there was

12 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

10 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

a legal basis for providing it, and then ask them to exercise their authority to provide us with the long form. The steps required to accomplish that were a letter from the person with the direct and vital interest -- the President -- so you have a letter from the President, and then there was an accompanying letter from counsel basically formalizing the request. So the reason we included that is that those were legal steps we took to obtain the long form by way of this waiver. Q Do we have the letter from the President --

MR. BAUER: It’s in the packet. Q And you went to Hawaii?

MR. BAUER: I did not go to Hawaii. The counsel, Judy Corley, who signed the -- the President’s personal counsel at Perkins Coie, Judy Corley, whose letter -- signed letter of request is in your packet, traveled to Honolulu and picked up the birth certificate. Q A question on the situation regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. Yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder rejected attacks on Paul Clement, who is taking up defense of the statute on behalf of the U.S. House. Paul Clement has taken a lot of heat from the LGBT community for volunteering to take up defense of DOMA. Eric Holder said, “Paul Clement is a great lawyer and has done a lot of really great things for this nation. In taking on the representation -- representing Congress in connection with DOMA, I think he is doing that which lawyers do when we’re at our best. That criticism I think was very misplaced.” And Holder went on to compare the criticism of Clement to attacks on the Justice Department lawyers for their past for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Does the President share Eric Holder’s views on this? MR. CARNEY: We do share Eric Holder’s views on this. We think -- as we said from the beginning when we talked about -- when I did from this podium -- about the decision no longer from the administration to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, that we would support efforts by Congress if they so chose to defend it. And so I have nothing to add to the Attorney General’s comments. Q Following Monday’s Af-Pak Situation Room meeting, what is the President’s assessment of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan? And does he think that July drawdown is still on? MR. CARNEY: The President’s policy, which included the beginning of a transition -- beginning of a drawdown of American troops, is absolutely still on track. I don’t have anything additionally from the meeting yesterday beyond what we’ve said. But the policy remains as it was.

13 of 15 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

3/11/2012 11:00 PM http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

MR. EARNEST: Jay, we should wrap it up here. MR. CARNEY: Yes. Last one, yes. Q Given the comments of the Pakistani official quoted in the Wall Street Journal, is Pakistan still a U.S. ally, and to what extent? MR. CARNEY: Pakistan is still a U.S. ally. Thanks. END 9:18 A.M. EDT

14 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of Note of Issue

Exhibit 2

page 9

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Paul Edward Irey’s AFFIDAVIT

Exhibit A

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Paul Edward Irey’s AFFIDAVIT

Exhibit B

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Paul Edward Irey’s AFFIDAVIT

Exhibit C

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Paul Edward Irey’s AFFIDAVIT

Exhibit D

Re: binder 11 ... - Yahoo! Mail

http://us.mc1257.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMid=12&filterBy=&...

Re: binder 11 ...
From: "Henry Wayland Blake" <hwblake@bellsouth.net> To: "Paul Irey" <pauledwardirey@gmail.com>, "Doug Vogt" <Diehold@comcast.net>, orly.taitz@gmail.com, cestrunck@yahoo.com, "Chito Papa" <rajska7@gmail.com> 3 Files (1688KB)

Tuesday, December 4, 2012 11:26 AM

1051324…

1051324…

1051324…

Dear Paul,   I think you have proposed the most probable scenario based on the crea on and file dates of the associated court documents.   1.  The paper copy of the Tepper to Fuddy 3‐page le er was dated 05/26/2012.   2.  The electronic version of this 3‐page le er appeared on Scribd on 06/06/2012   3.  The Tepper four‐page electronic document 10513240131.pdf (same as 35‐1.pdf) was created on 06/04/2012 and was last modified on 06/06/2012.  Pages 1‐3 of this document are the 3 electronic pages of the Tepper to Fuddy le er that appeared on Scribd on 06/06/2012.  The 4th electronic page is the Tepper page 4, LFCOLB.  This four‐page document was filed in MS on 06/06/2012.   4.  We really don’t know when the Tepper page 4 LFCOLB was created.      5.  The paper copy of the one‐page Onaka to Tepper verifica on le er was dated 05/31/2012.   6.  The electronic version, which is court document 35‐2, was created on 06/04/2012 and was last modified on 06/06/2012.  This one‐page electronic document was filed in MS on 06/06/2012.   I believe that the most likely scenario is that Tepper created a paper copy of his three‐page le er to Fuddy on 05/26/2012.  He a ached a paper printout copy of the original WH LFCOLB and mailed this four‐page paper copy to Fuddy.   Tepper and Onaka then collaborated to alter the WH LFCOLB to create the Tepper page 4 LFCOLB.   On 06/04/2012, Tepper created the documents 10513240131.pdf (same as 35‐1) and 35‐2.   He then filed the two documents 35‐1 and 35‐2 in MS on 06/06/2012.   We really don’t know the individual ac ons of either Tepper or Onaka with regards the modifica ons of the WH LFCOLB PDF image file to create the altered LFCOLB PDF image file.  Onaka may have modified the WH LFCOLB and then sent the altered PDF image to Tepper as a one‐page PDF image file.  There is

1 of 3

12/4/2012 3:13 PM

Re: binder 11 ... - Yahoo! Mail

http://us.mc1257.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMid=12&filterBy=&...

nothing in his verifica on le er that indicates that he a ached this altered LFCOLB to his verifica on le er.  However, his le er does refer to the LFCOLB copy that was purportedly a ached to the four‐page request le er from Tepper to Fuddy.   Alterna vely, Tepper might have had someone else modify the WH LFCOLB PDF image to create the altered PDF image.  That might explain why the METADATA was not en rely erased from his four‐page electronic document.  We know that a scanner was used so Tepper’s forger would have had to have some means of re‐sizing a scanned and altered image of the WH LFCOLB back to the correct size to match a real 1961 Cer ficate of Live Birth printed form.    I am now certain that the 21 added objects which are invisible in Adobe Reader pre‐existed before 06/04/2012 as a separate PDF image.  The 21 objects include 12 line segements, 2 broad‐line strikeouts and 7 Black redac on rectangles.  This “redac on” page is smaller than the LFCOLB image page size.  I have successfully separated this smaller “redac on” image from the fla ened and altered WH LFCOLB image in both Adobe Illustrator CS6 and Inkscape.  I have a ached my latest screenshots from Adobe Illustrator as proof.  The screenshot [105132401131_ss3.jpg] a ached shows the “redac on” page slid off the LFCOLB image page to the right.  The background of the “redac on” page is transparent.   So an alterna ve scenario would be that Tepper had his forger modify the WH LFCOLB and Onaka provided the “redac on” image to assist Tepper’s forger re‐size his scanned image.  This would lessen Onaka’s involvement with the crea on of the fraudulent LFCOLB Tepper page 4 LFCOLB.   So scenario A would be that Onaka did the deed and scenario B would be that they collaborated to do the deed.   Either way they both are guilty of a emp ng to pull off a bait and switch on Judge Wingate.  They subs tuted the Tepper page 4 LFCOLB for the WH LFCOLB and didn’t tell Judge Wingate about the switch.   I can provide a notarized copy of my sworn affidavit whenever you need it.  Also, I can provide any of my screen shots as required.  I would prefer not to tes fy because of personal reasons.  I also believe that. if I were to tes fy, then I would quickly become a “punching bag” for the defense because I don’t have an IT cer ficate and I have never tes fied as a forensic expert.     Sincerely,   Henry  
From: Paul Irey Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 5:54 AM To: doug@vectorpub.com ; orly.taitz@gmail.com ; cestrunck@yahoo.com ; hwblake@bellsouth.net Subject: binder 11 ...

 
 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7763 (20121204) __________

2 of 3

12/4/2012 3:13 PM

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of Note of Issue

Exhibit 3

Strunk

v Jeffries

et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.; 21948 / 2012

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER
Accordingly,
a. b. c.

)
) ss.

)

I, H. William Van Allen, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:

Am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My place of business is located at 351 North Road Hurley New York 12243. On November 14, 2012, Christopher Strunk instructed me to serve a true conformed copy of the NOTICE OF PETITION, PETITION with AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION affirmed November 13,2012 along with a

NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING A DECLARATORY INJUNCTION ON ISSUE OF LAW AS TO ELECTORS DECLARATORY RELIEF AS TO ELECTORS, a Notice of Petitioner's intent to file an order to show cause
application at the Kings County Supreme Court Building at 10 AM on the 10th Floor intake at 360 Adams Street on Monday November 19,2012 placing a complete set in a properly addressed to each respondent listed below for delivery by USPS by certified mail with request for return receipt for proof of service. On November 14, 2012, I caused each copy with proper postage for service by certified mail on the listed Electors and where each envelope was properly addressed with the Notification "URGENT LEGAL SERVICE" and "PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL" in the lower left hand corner of the envelop that was then deposited with the USPS for service upon:

d.

1. Hakeem Jeffries 35 2. Grace Meng ofl47l4
3.

Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238

CM I RR No 7012101000068749741 CM I RR No 7012101000068749819 CM I RR No 7012101000068749758 CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM I RR No I RR No I RR No I RR No IRR No I RR No I RR I RR IRR I RR No No No No 7012101000068749765 7012101000068749956 7012101000068749826 7012101000068749833 7012101000068749840 7012101000068749857 7012101000068749864 7012101000068749901 7012101000068750242 7012101000068749963 7012101000068749949 7012101000068749895 7012101000068749970 7012101000068749802 7012101000068749772 7012101000068749789 7012101000068749871 7012101000068749888 7012101000068749918 7012101 000068749925 7012101000068749932

34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11232

Bill DeBlasio of 442 lith Street -- Brooklyn. NY 11215 Walter Cooper 150 West 96th Street, #[2G -- New York. NY 10025 6. Keith L.T. Wright of2225 Fifth Avenue -- New York. NY 10037 7. Christine C. Quinn of263 Ninth Avenue. #3A -- New York, NY 10001 8. William Thompson of 106 West 121st Street -- New York. NY 10027 9. Scott Stringer of 155 West 71st Street. #3A -- New York, NY 10023 10. Emily Giske 01'440 West 24th Street -- New York, NY 10014 11. Anne Marie Anzaloue 2827 48th Street -- Astoria. NY 11103 12. Archie Spigner of 11210 175th Street -- Jamaica, N'r' 11433 13. George Gresham 1313 East 233rd Street -- Bronx, NY 10466 14. Ruben Diaz, Jr. of820 Boyton Avenue. #6D -- Bronx. NY 10473 15. Ken Jenkins 108 Bushey Avenue -- Yonkers. NY 10710 16. Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -- Orangeburg, NY 10962 17. Gerald D. Jennings of 1135 New Scotland Road -- Albany. NY 12208 18. Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -- Buffalo, NY 14208 19. Robert Duffy 164 Croydon Road -- Rochester, NY 14610 20. Joseph Morelle of 133 Deerfield Drive -- Rochester, NY 14609 21. Scott Adams of 11 Poplar Avenue -- Orchard Park, NY 14127 22. Stephanie Miner 102 Woodside Drive -- Syracuse, NY 13224 23. Steve Bellone 107 Vanderbilt Avenue -- West Babylon, NY 11704 24. Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive -- Ithaca, NY 14850 25. Sheila Comar 29 Depot Street -- Middle Granville, NY 12849; 26. Kirsten Gillibrand with DC Office 478 Russell Washington, DC 20510

4. 5.

CM I RR No 7012101000068749796 CM I RR No CM I RR No CM I RR No CM I RR No CM IRR No CM I RR No CM I RR No CM I RR No CM I RR No CM I RR No CM I RR No

C"!Rl'N~':'00006R7499R7

/#~ /;l.v~2r;;/
Van Allen

Sworn to before me This i day of November

rlliam
2012

~

~<-Drl
tary Pubhc

Q

~k.o-~

NOTARYPUBUC,

JUDITHS.MA YHON STAT£; OF NEW YORK NO.01MA60B5585 QUALIFIED IN ULSTER COUNTY/'(j

COMMISSION EXPIRES JUt Y 14, 20__

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 W S S C for Kings county Index No.; 21 948 / 2012
,
-

0

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
) ss. )

STATE OF NEW YORK )

TY OF KINGS
Aecordingly, I,

I

Rou&e efi

ALL

being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of pejury:

over 18 y e a r s of age a n d n o t a party t o t h i s action. K 11 place of b u s i n e s s i s located at November 3 0 , 2 0 1 2 , Christopher S t r u n k instructed m e t o serve a true conformed copy of t h e PETITIONER'S -- >OND AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF OSC with EXHIBITS a n n e x e d AFFIRMED November 30,2012 along with a copy of t h e NOTICE OF PETITION, PETITION with AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION affirmed November 1 3 , 2 0 1 2 placing a complete s e t i n a properly addressed envelope to e a c h respondent listed below for delivery by USPS regular

6J5 f/&

ZoG

mail.
d. O n November 3 0 , 2 0 1 2 , I c a u s e d e a c h copy with proper postage for service b y first class mail o n t h e listed Electors And where e a c h envelope w a s properly addressed with t h e Notification "URGENT LEGAL SERVICE" a n d PERSONAL 8a CONFIDENTJAL" i n t h e lower left h a n d c o m e r of the envelop t h a t w a s then deposited with the USPS for service upon:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Andrew M. Cuomo 138 Eagle Street -- Albany, NY 12202 Gerald D. Jennings of 1135 New Scotland Road -- Albany, NY 12208 George Gresham 1313 East 233rd Street -- Bronx, NY 10466 Ruben Diaz, Jr. of 820 Boyton Avenue, #6D -- Bronx, NY 10473 Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -- Buffalo, NY 14208 Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11232 Hakeern Jeffi-ies 35 Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238 Bill DeBlasio of442 1lth Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11215 Robert Duffy 164 Croydon Road -- Rochester, NY 14610 Joseph Morelle of 133 Deerfield Drive -- Rochester, NY 14609 Tom DiNapoli 100 Great Neck Road -- Great Neck, NY 11201 12. Eric Schneiderman 645 West End Avenue, #8F -- New York, NY 10025 13. Walter Cooper 150 West 96th Street, #I2G -- New York, NY 10025 14. Sheldon Silver of 550 Grand Street, #5A -- New York,,NY 10002 15. Keith L.T. Wright of 2225 Fifth Avenue -- New York, NY 10037 16. Christine C. Quinn of 263 Ninth Avenue, #3A -- New York, NY 10001 17. William Thompson of 106 West 121st Street -- New York, NY 10027 18. Scott Stringer of 155 West 71st Street, #3A --New York, NY 10023 19. Emily Giske of 440 West 24th Street -- New York, NY 10014 20. Scott Adams of 11 Poplar Avenue -- Orchard Park, NY 14127 21. Stephanie Miner 102 Woodside Drive -- Syracuse, NY 13224 22. Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -- Orangeburg, NY 10962 23. Anne Marie Anzalone 2827 48th Street -- Astoria, NY 11103 24. Grace Meng of 14714 34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 25. Archie Spigner of 11210 175th Street -- Jamaica, NY 11433 26. Steve Bellone 107 Vanderbilt Avenue -- West Babylon, NY 11704 27. Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive -- Ithaca, NY 14850 28. Sheila Comar 29 Depot Street -- Middle Granville, NY 12849 29. Ken Jenkins 108 Bushey Avenue -- Yonkers, NY 10710 30. Joshua Pepper NYSAssiatant Attorney General Office of Attorney General 120 Broadway NY NY 10171

31 K L Q ~ T V CrfCtVrc/@(l

VtWQ $ f = f = I C @ r L E q B

E ~ ~ S ~ L ~ W H Wmy18

:

.,

KAMAL P. SON1 Notary Public, State of New York No. 01SO6089949 Qualified in Kings C0unly Commission Expires March 31.2015

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of Note of Issue

Exhibit 4

-QUEST
Supreme Index No:

FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION"
UCS-840 (312011)

For Court Clerk Use Only:
IAS tntry Uate

COURT, COUNTY OF

Kings

2 1 ?*

Zo(a

Date Index Issued: &V.

rc/

2012

-JuageAssigned
KJI Uate

CAPTION:

Enter the complete case caption. Do notuse et a or e am. If mae space is 1 t required, attach a caption nder sheet.

I

againstH~,<C?G&'I

B Y m o n e n .
-

J C F * ~ ~ ,
a

G/~ALC g N G , m

BILL DEBWSa,uvryEZ
SRGNGR
A J , ~ -

ICe~yfl b

cm(cy

Dhnch@$l~ea;bfnIent(s) *. - ? ' . - , NATURE OF ACTION 'OR-~OCEE~ING:" : Check.ONEbox-only andspecifywh6re iniicated. ' ' ' ' 3, ;= C " MATRIMONIAL COMMERCIAL 3 0 Contested 0 Buslness Ent~ty (including corporations, partnerships, L*S, et 0 Uncontested 0 Contract r m Insurance (where Insurer is a party, except arbitration)= NOTE: For all Matrimonial actions where the parties have children under the age of 18, complete and attach the MATRIMONIAL RJI Addendum. 0 ucc (including sales, negotiable instruments) C ?a 3
%

RVDIN 1266'Wf-py, J o ~ n u I=& ~ W N GcW 54

T d VfltGc+s, CHRLTT~NE C d u ~ u lW ~ L U P M j G J S I C E , PUPIF )MANE ~ r u & d d W t ? , -)+&c,-rrG D f ~ J2 . Q ~ A ~ L C U CrLFWaf - &

7kn.,mahl, seunJ

~

~
2

,

,

199-f

&wsk ~ ~ - e l
BM*)~

W

s - ~ t ~ / y r q ; r e p p ~ ~ n ~ . ~ . l r n?~; W ;K ~ S F ~~ r E P l ( l f i - m W ~ t ~ ~ / p p , ~ Q p o

, ,

.

.

.,

,

2:;

.-

0

z d-a

TORTS Asbestos Breast Implant Enmmental:

0 0 0

0 Other Commercial:

(tpecity)

NOTE: For Commercial Div~sion assignment requests 122 NYCRR 5 202.70(d)]. complete and attach the COMMERCIAL DIV RJI Addendum.
(SPem)

0Medical, Dental, or Pediatric Malpractice 0Motor Vehlde
0 products ~sbility.

R E A L PROPERTY: Condemnat~on Foreclosure property Address:

0 0

Haw many pmperbesdoes the application include?

0Other Neglglrgence: 0Other Profess~onal Malpractice: 0Other Tort

(~PeclfY) (specrty)

S

m Address

CW

State

Zip

NOTE: For Foreclosure actions invdvlng a one- to four-family, omeroccupied, residential property, or an owner-occupied condominium, '

(saw)

0Tax Certiorari - Section:
0

complete and attach the FORECLOSURE RJI Addendum. Block: Lot: Other Real Properly:
(~peclty)

(~pec~ty)

OTHER MATTERS Certmcate of lncorporat~onlDissolut~on [see NOTE under Commerctal] Emergency Medical Treatment

0 0 Habeas Corpus 0 Local Court Appeal 0 Mechanic's Lien 0 Name Change

9~lectionLaw

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CPLR Article 75 (Arbltrat~on) [see NOTE under Commercial] CPLR Artlcle 78 (Body or Officer)

0

0 MHL Article 9.60 (Kendra's Law) 0 MHL Arbcle 10 (Sex Offender Confinement-initial)

0Pistol Perrn~tRevocation Heanng
0-

0 Sale o Finance of ReligiouslNot-for-Profit Property r
(spadfy)

0 MHL Article 10 (Sex Offender Confinement-Rewew) 0 MHL Article 81 (Guardianship) 0 Other Mental Hygiene:
(~Wlty)

0Other Special ?peeding:
-/

.

bpeuty)

STAfus <X ACTION OR.PROCCE~INU:

.Answer YES or NO for EVERY q&&on ~ ~ b e n additional iiformation where indcafed tei YES I NO l2 Has a summons and complaint or suhmons wlnotice been filed? 'If yes, date filed: 8)
'

.

I

Is this adionlproceedrng being filed post-judgment?

0

0

@

If yes, judgment date:

ClAL INTERVENTION: Cheek ONE box onlyAND ~rdtl'iiljnformation indicated. where nfmr's Cornwmtse Note of Issue and/or Certificate of Readiness 0 Nobe of h4tdical. Dental. or Pediatric Malpractice Date lssue Joined: Nobce df Motion Relief Sought: Return Date: Relief Sought: Return Date: N o w of Petition %6 =order to show cause Relief Sought: m o /PJ"paH p . Return Date: m Other Ex Parte Application Relief Sought: A@=. Poor Persora Application Request for Preliminary Conference Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Settlement Conference Wnt d Habeas Corpus

0 0
0 0 0

.wf/%

9

L z

0
0 0 0

RUATEDCASES:
Case Tile

-

(sPeafY):

S%WM~ C. f

wvfl
~

Ls any r e l a t e d a c t i : Fm IGl-Mlial it actions, k;elude&y-m4ated'~drninal andhx Famlly Court cases. - .,; - ,, -.z7e2- I additional space is-required, complek and attach the R 1 Addendum. %Ifmorre.'leaveblank. f 3 Court Judge (if assigned) Relationship to Instant Case IndexlCase No.
;

.

"

C

L

-

T

,-.

296'ff-

Kt@J-svf
LC
1 1

S ~ H ~ L Q ~ J rS+Ce 8 4 mL-na& r -m i e C J R ~ 1I!

~e r J

,krcrr k~&%"lr36fl
%PI<

'I-q by E - z,EcjB

k c r L/F 2 m ~ c ~

C

( T ~ 6

v PYSBOY Z

PARTIES:

For partieswthout an attorney, check"UnlRep- box AND entecparly address, Mane"Tiumberand&ailld&lrss&4n Parties: Attorneys:
Provide name, firm name, business address, phone number and e-mail address of all attorneys that have appeared in the case.

Y C H ~ ~ CI~ C CG am RP- sc 'If addifionalspace isrequired, complete andattach the.RJMW.@dwi'. , ; J ;.:- , :;, . .",
.
&LA
A -

- Ia a a

S .

,*$

*

~

12-sx*-- . ' t t =$ace. . . k ~ ..? * l h 4
<'$ -$,'

s'-.c

Un- L~st parties in caption order and
role(s) (e.g Rep 3rd-party plaintiff).
Indicate pa*

lssue Joined (YIN):

Insurance Carrier(s):

'%U@It; last Name
CMA IS ~9P-r
F ~ nName t Primary Role:

,5Tgl/rJlK

~,4&s7A@-H3C- L g P C
Last Name

W . k

~ t l p v ? N T me t t" Finn N

-

Flrst Name

DYES

Secondary Rde (tf any):

We B m q $ d - i t cb NO BW-QOL-~TAFax - ~ f i Remall r ~ z ~ @ Phone 7 o
Stste

3 7 vw-3 Stred Address

&~~=F6 KI LastNan?

h a t Name

Ml s lm

D

M&E-J Name

YES

F i i pnnurV Rob:

-per

.
Stmt A d d m
Phone

Finn Name
cftr
Fax
s., tb

Sacaday Role (if any):

OW

d

Last Name Fbdllar*
Rimay Role:

LatHrru
Rmllm

Fhtltrac

Street Mdron
secondary Rob (if any):

car
k
d

-

OE YS

o, m

Phane L.rt Name
Flmt N a m Primary Role:

hst Name
Fkmthm
S W Address

F ' i P

ctr
Fax

&

Secondary Role (It any): Phone

OW

. J

I AFFIRM UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, OTHER THAN AS MUTED Asov+ THERE ARE AMD HAVE BEEN NO RELATED ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS, NOR H UDfClAL m Y BEB( FILED IN THIS ACTION OR PROCEEDING.

'..

& mlz/, SIGNATURE FE~ F - R G ~ x ~ ~ M M f e c i (c~wjqac h d < ~ px +* F
Dated:
(0

22%-

ATTORNEY REGISTRATION NUMBER

PRINT OR TYPE NAME

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of Note of Issue

Exhibit 5

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Petitioner’s combined response to NYS Electors’ MTD

Exhibit B

https://app.sos.ky.gov/ftucc/(S(hxaufn55brzmmv450mfxdl45))/search.aspx

Revised Article 9 UCC Search UCC Search Results
File amendment to this UCC Return to search form

File number: Filing date: Lapse date: Status:

2012-2614943-04 12/12/2012 4:57:28 PM 12/12/2017 4:57:28 PM A - Active

ACTIONS
Action Initial financing Statement File Date 12/12/2012 4:57:28 PM Status Active - Filed online

NAMES
Debtor/Secured Party/Filer Debtor CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK OrgID: 03766 Type: BUSINESS TRUST Jurisdiction: NEW YORK Secured Party Christopher Earl Strunk Filer Christopher Earl Strunk Date Added Address 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 281 Brooklyn NY 11238 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 281 Brooklyn NY 11238 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 281 Brooklyn NY 11238

12/12/2012 4:57:28 PM

12/12/2012 4:57:28 PM 12/12/2012 4:57:28 PM

COLLATERAL DESCRIPTION
Date Filed 12/12/2012 4:57:28 PM Collateral Description THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE ENTERED INTO THE COMMERCIAL REGISTRY ACCEPTED FOR VALUE EXEMPT FROM LEVY -- ALL PROPERTY OF DEBTOR INCLUDING ORGANIZATION NAME, “CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK”.

IMAGES
Document Type UCC Filing - Initial financing Statement PDF PDF Tiff Image File Date Pages 12/12/2012 4:57:28 PM 1

1 of 1

12/12/2012 5:09 PM

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Petitioner’s combined response to NYS Electors’ MTD

Exhibit C

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Petitioner’s combined response to NYS Electors’ MTD

Exhibit D

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

1

More

Next Blog»

Create Blog

Sign In

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

Monday, December 31, 2012

Congress Should Not Confirm Barack Obama As President, For He Is Not an Article II "Natural Born Citizen"
Congress Should Not Confirm Barack Obama As President, For He Is Not an Article II “Natural Born Citizen”

Bocca Della Verita ~ Mario Apuzzo Esq

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 30, 2012

The issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President has always been whether he is an Article II “natural The joint session of Congress meets to born Citizen.” And count the 2008 Electoral College vote that issue has always been about answering two questions: (1) whether he was born in the United States and (2) whether at the time of his birth in the United States he was born to United States citizen parents, for a “natural born Citizen” is defined as a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country. See Mario Apuzzo, The Two Constitutional Obstacles Obama Has to Overcome to be President, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com /2008/12/two-constitutional-obstacles-obama-has.html (published on December 20, 2008). Obama eligibility supporters like to focus on the first question, place of birth, for it lends to so much controversy, speculation, and confusion. The place of birth question raises concerns about whether Obama’s birth certificate, social security number, and draft registration card are false. Of course, for any of that to be true would necessitate conspiracy among many individuals employed by various state and federal government agencies. The charges of conspiracy gives Obama's supporters great opportunity to ridicule and mock concerned American

I enjoy the universe of ideas and a sound mind and body. Mario Apuzzo, Esq., 185 Gatzmer Ave, Jamesburg NJ 08831, Email: apuzzo[AT]erols.com, TEL: 732-521-1900 • FAX: 732-521-3906, BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com • States Have the Constitutional Power to Pass Legislation Prescribing Presidential Ballot Access Requirements • A Catalog of Evidence Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt Putative President Obama Born in Hawaii • Read the Kerchner v Obama/Congress Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court • Summary of Latest Court Activity - Kerchner v Obama & Congress • Supreme Court of U.S. Docket Report - Kerchner v Obama & Congress • Summary of

1 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

citizens who--given that Obama has never released his original birth certificate to any controlling government authority, Obama still refuses to give his consent to release to the public his birth, education, travel, and work records, and some have uncovered unconfirmed information suggesting that Obama was born in Kenya--are still searching for a conclusive answer to the question of whether Obama was born in the United States. These Obama supporters bask in the ease by which they are able to attack those who, without any government or law enforcement assistance, are still investigating Obama’s place of birth with little resources available to them. These Obama eligibility supporters also like to make everyone think that the place of birth issue seals a victory for Obama and them. But such a statement is false. These Obama eligibility supporters have not been able to adequately cast off either by way of any current well-researched and reasoned court decision or otherwise the other requirement for being a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., that the child must be born to parents who were citizens of the country when the child was born. As we can see below, there is a great amount of historical, U.S. Supreme Court, and Congressional sources that confirms this additional requirement which neither a handful of lower law and administrative courts--which have ruled that they have no jurisdiction or plaintiffs have no standing, but yet have still decided the merits of the question of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen”--nor these Obama eligibility supporters have been able to adequately address. What does all this mean for Congress which on January 4, 2013 will be counting the Electoral College votes and deciding whether President Elect Barack Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President? Under Article I, II, and III, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are each given specific and exclusive powers. This is our separation of powers feature of our tripartite form of government. Under this doctrine, powers given to one branch are not to be exercised by any other. Under this scheme and specifically under Article III, the power to interpret the constitution is given solely to the judiciary. The Constitution does not textually commit the resolution of the question of what is a “natural born Citizen” to any specific branch of government other than the judicial branch. The question is no different from the question faced countless times by our nation’s federal and state courts when deciding what the applicable eligibility requirements for any given elected office are. Hence, the constitutional question of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is left to the judicial branch to resolve. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.” Hence, “natural born Citizen” is one of the three exclusive constitutional eligibility requirements to be President found in this article, with the other two being a minimum of 35 years of age and 14 years of U.S. residency. As Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 519 (1969) explained, to determine the nature and extent of constitutionally specified eligibility qualifications is within the court’s power to do. Id. at 522. Determining what a “natural born Citizen” is involves determining the meaning of a constitutional provision which is strictly within the power of the courts to decide. It is a constitutional birth status. The Constitution gives to the courts the authority and the specific task of interpreting the Constitution, which necessarily includes the words and clauses it uses. “Natural born

Lawsuit/Complaint and Link to the Complaint-Counts/Charges • Article II 'natural born Citizenship' Means Unity of Citizenship at Birth • Obama - Maybe a Citizen of the United States but Not a "natural born Citizen" of the United States • Natural Born Citizenship Requires Both Parents to be U.S. Citizens • Law of Nations - The Legal Book Used by the Founders & Framers to Write the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution to Unite the 13 Free & Independent Sovereign States into a More Perfect Union • The Law of Nations & Natural Law is U.S. Federal Common Law on "natural born Citizenship" • An Article II "natural born Citizen" is Not the Same as an English Common Law "natural born Subject" • Obama When Born in 1961 Was a British Subject 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 Wong Kim Ark decision in 1898 makes Any Person a "natural born Citizen". Those acts and laws create "Citizens of the U.S." but NOT "natural born Citizens of the U.S." • Why the "natural born Citizen" Clause of Our Constitution is Important and Worth Preserving • What is Putative President Obama's Current U.S. Citizenship Status? • Obama's Lack of Constitutional Eligibility - The 3 Enablers • HR 1503 Pres Candidates Constitutional Eligibility Docs Bill for Future Elections Now Has 12 Signers • AZ HB 2441 - State of AZ Presidential Constitutional Eligibility Verificaton Bill with Numerous Sponsors • SC Bill 3389 - State of SC

2 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Citizen” is a clause that exists in the Constitution. As Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 163 (1803) long ago established, our judicial branch of government is duty bound to interpret the Constitution to provide meaning to its clauses and is well equipped to do so. In fact, the courts have been doing just that since the Founding. In fact, our judicial branch of government has for centuries engaged in judicial review of matters involving citizenship. The courts are therefore well equipped to interpret the Constitution which includes interpreting and applying the “natural born Citizen” clause, whose decision on the matter Congress must then respect. In matter of citizenship, Congress has under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, power only to make uniform the laws of naturalization. This power does not include the power to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” To grant Congress the sole or any authority to decide what a “natural born Citizen” is would also defeat the U.S. Supreme Court’s constitutional mandate that it is the “ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.” Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 237 (1993). Indeed, Congress is constitutionally bound to follow the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court on the meaning and application of the Constitution. Apart from the First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 considering as a "natural born citizen" a person born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents which the Third Congress changed to considered as a "citizen of the United States" in the Naturalization Act of 1795, and later Congresses just applying the already existing definition of the clause and providing a different definition of a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, neither the Constitution nor historical practice show that Congress has ever taken it upon itself to define a “natural born Citizen.” Finally, for the Congress to take it upon itself to define a “natural born Citizen” in a manner that is not consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent would be an unconstitutional usurpation of judicial power which belongs only to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Twentieth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq. provide a mechanism for Congress to follow when meeting in joint session for the purpose of counting the Electoral College votes and confirming the constitutional eligibility of a President Elect to actually hold that office. But while Congress surely has the power to count Electoral College votes and if necessary fully investigate the question of a President Elect’s constitutional eligibility to be President and make a decision based on its own investigation, the extent of its investigation can only go as far as its legislative and regulatory powers allow it to go. Again, Congress has no direct power to define a “natural born Citizen.” Defining a “natural born Citizen” also does not fall under any investigation in aid of any legislative function. Also, the Twentieth Amendment does not commit to Congress the task of determining what a “natural born Citizen” is, i.e., what is the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” See Nixon, 506 U.S. at 237 (“Our conclusion in Powell was based on the fixed meaning of ‘[q]ualifications’ set forth in Art. I, § 2. The claim by the House that its power to ‘be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members’ was a textual commitment of unreviewable authority was defeated by the existence of this separate provision specifying the only qualifications which might be imposed for House membership. The decision as to whether a Member satisfied these qualifications was placed with the House, but the decision as to what these qualifications consisted of was not” (citing and discussing Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 539 (1969)). See also Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 550 (1969) (in invalidating the House's decision not to seat a Member accused of misuse of funds, the

Requires Conclusive Proof of Natural Born Citizenship Status for Pres Elections • NH Bill 1245 - State of NH Bill Says No More Hidden BC Records • The Blog Rules-Please Read • Read Atty Apuzzo's Writings/Briefs @ SCRIBD.com • How You Can Help the Cause Follow by Email Email address...

Search This Blog

SCRIBD Links to Obtain Court Docs Filed Kerchner v Obama & Congress - All Court Documents - At Apuzzo's SCRIBD Account DOCKET REPORT - Supreme Court of U.S. - Kerchner v Obama & Congress Washington DC DOCKET REPORT - Appeals Court - Kerchner v Obama & Congress - Philadelphia PA DOCKET REPORT - District Court - Kerchner v Obama & Congress - Camden NJ Table of Contents for Kerchner v Obama & Congress 2nd Amended Complaint Served on the Defendants The Lawsuit - Kerchner et al v Obama et al: Initial filing 2:50 a.m. 20 Jan 2009. Second Amended Verified Complaint Filed 9 Feb 2009. Useful Info, Docs, & Videos Article II Legal Defense Fund for New Jersey Make Mine Freedom (1948)

3 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Court held that “in judging the qualifications of its members Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution"). Surely, if Congress cannot add to those constitutionally prescribed qualifications for its own members, it also cannot take away from them. Giving Congress the power to define a “natural born Citizen” with respect to presidential qualifications would do just that, either add to the definition or take away from it and thereby impact on the qualifications to be President. Hence, it is clear under Powell that it is the U.S. Supreme Court which must determine the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” and not Congress. When the matter in issue is eligibility for public office, the point is well made by Justice Stevens in his concurring opinion in Nixon v. United States: “In Powell, the House of Representatives argued that the grant to Congress of the power to ‘Judge’ the qualifications of its members in Art. I, § 5, precluded the Court from reviewing the House's decision that Powell was not fit for membership. We held to the contrary, noting that, although the Constitution leaves the power to "Judge" in the hands of Congress, it also enumerates, in Art. I, § 2, the ‘qualifications’ whose presence or absence Congress must adjudge. It is precisely the business of the courts, we concluded, to determine the nature and extent of these constitutionally specified qualifications. Id., at 522. The majority finds this case different from Powell only on the grounds that, whereas the qualifications 246*246 of Art. I, § 2, are readily susceptible to judicial interpretation, the term ‘try’ does not provide an ‘identifiable textual limit on the authority which is committed to the Senate.’ Ante, at 238.” Nixon, at 245-46 (J. Stevens, concurring). The Constitution under the Twentieth Amendment gives to Congress the authority to decide whether a President Elect is constitutionally qualified for that office. But it also specifies in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 what “‘qualifications whose presence or absence Congress must adjudge.’” And it is “precisely the business of the courts . . . to determine the nature and extent of these constitutionally specified qualifications.” Indeed, these qualifications are “readily susceptible to judicial interpretation.” Id. So, while the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates, it is first the courts, interpreting and applying the eligibility criteria found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which includes the “natural born Citizen” clause, which must first inform them whether a President Elect is constitutionally qualified for that office. To hold that Congress alone is qualified to adjudicate objections to any “unqualified” president elect is simply to beg the question of that person’s eligibility for that office. So, does a settled definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” exist which Congress is constitutionally bound to apply when deciding whether Obama is Article II eligible to be President? While the Constitution does not provide any fixed meaning of the “natural-born Citizen” clause, there exist outside the Constitution specific standards for us to follow in deciding what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is and whether Obama meets that definition. These standards exist in historical, U.S. Supreme Court, and Congressional sources. For example, Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875) has held that a “natural-born citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens when the child was born. The unanimous U.S. Supreme

Birther Summit March 2012 Registration Natural Born Citizen for Dummies Learn What is America's True Form of Government Five Citizenship Terms Used in Constitution Euler Logic Diagram Analysis of Natural Born Citizenship Term In Article II of U.S. Constitution Natural Born Citizen Graphics A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words. What is a Natural Born Citizen? Exactly What is a Natural Born Citizen? - Very Good Video. Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 2009 Report See How Easy it is to Produce a Phony Certification of Live Birth (COLB) and a Digital Image & Picture of Same and Put it Online. Here is one for Mickey Hussein Mouse II. Such a digital image is all that Obama has given to the electorate and public to support his claim of birth in the USA. Analysis of Obama's Certification of Live Birth (COLB) and Examples of Other Type Birth Records by syc1959. Analysis of Obama's Certification of Live Birth (COLB) by Ron Polarik, PhD. The Greatest Birth Certificate Fraud in History - Obama's Forged Online Certification of Live Birth - How It Was Done

4 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Court held there: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Minor, at 167-68. Then United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898) held that a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment is a child born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” but an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States to citizen parents, citing and quoting Minor v. Happersett and its definition of the clause. The question that Minor did not answer, i.e., whether a child born in the United States to alien parents is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” was answered by Wong Kim Ark, wherein the United States argued that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was not a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Ruling against the government, Wong Kim Ark declared a child born in the country to domiciled and resident alien parents to be a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark, citing and quoting Minor and acknowledging its definition that a “natural-born citizen” was born in the country to citizen parents, in no way disturbed Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” for it was asked to decide only if Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark also allowed Wong to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” because it found that his parents, while not U.S. citizens, were, among other things, domiciliaries, residents of the United States, and not working in some foreign diplomatic capacity and therefore “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So Wong decided only the “citizen” part of Wong’s status. It never decided whether he also had the “natural born” part. The Court cautioned in its opinion in the beginning and at its end that it was only deciding whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment and also informed us under what limited conditions (born in the U.S. to alien parents who were domiciled and residing in the U.S. and not employed in some foreign diplomatic capacity) it ruled that he was. Hence, a Wong “citizen of the United States” at birth is not to be conflated or confounded with an Article II “natural born Citizen.” For a full analysis and discussion of these and other sources which confirm that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country, see, among other sources such as the various briefs that I have filed with the courts in New Jersey (Kerchner v. Obama; Purpura and Moran v. Obama), Pennsylvania (Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama), Virginia (Tisdale v. Obama), and Vermont (Paige v. Obama), and the many articles that I have written at my blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ , Mario Apuzzo, Barack Obama Is

Video - Three Little Words Video - Merry Christmas Omerika!! Time Since the Usurper Putative President Obama aka Barry Soetoro Unconstitutionally Took Office 1455 Days, 01 Hours, 12 Minutes, 56 Seconds Radio Interviews Sampling Jeff Rense Radio Show Les Naiman Show-970 WGTK Louisville KY-Nov10 Les Naiman Show-970 WGTK Louisville KY-May10 Jeff Kuhner Show-570 WTNT Wash DC-Apr10 Bill Cunningham Show-700 WLW Cincinnati OH-Aug09 Sean & Frank Show-680 WCBM Baltimore MD-Jun09 AndreaSheaKingShowBlogTalkRadio-Jan10 AndreaSheaKingShowBlogTalkRadio-Oct09 AndreaSheaKingShowBlogTalkRadio-Jun09 ChaliceShowBlogTalkRadio-Jul09 DrKateConstitutionalRadioBlogTalkRadio-Aug09 DrKateRevolutionRadioBlogTalkRadio-Jan10 MommaeRadioRebelsBlogTalkRadio-Oct09 MommaeRadioRebelsBlogTalkRadio-Jul09 Print Media Announcements and Advertorials How to Help Place More Print

5 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obamais-ineligible-to-be.html (wherein I demonstrate that a “natural born Citizen” has always been defined in our nation as a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of the country and that that definition has never been changed by constitutional amendment or by the U.S. Supreme Court and that a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark is not to be conflated and confounded with a “natural born Citizen”) and Mario Apuzzo, Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/logic-and-defining-naturalborn-citizen.html (where I show how some lower courts and Obama eligibility supporters have engaged in fallacious logical reasoning in how they have defined a “natural born Citizen”). Having found and confirmed the time-honored definition of a “natural born Citizen,” Congress must then apply that definition to Obama. Assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii, the undisputed facts show the following: “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/BNA1948.htm ] That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children: British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, 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 if 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. Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. 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 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected 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 (1), 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 (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963.” http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obamas-kenyan-citizenship/ . Todd

Media Insertions Advertising Archives - See prior ads Some Informative Websites & Forums Alinsky - Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky - Obama's 'Bible' for Political Action for Social Change by 'Rub Raw' Agitation of the Community American Thinker Website Atlas Shrugs Before It's News Birther Summit Birthers Website Canada Free Press Citizen Wells Blog Cloward-Piven Strategy of Manufactured and Orchestrated Crisis Conservative Monster Dr Kate's View Blog Drudge Report Floyd Reports Give Us Liberty Gulag Bound Website He's Not My President BlogThe NBC Book Investigating Obama Jefferson Rebels Blog John Christian Ryter's Conservative World JustAfly WordPress Blog NoBarack08's WebBlog Obama Citizenship Facts Obama File Website Obama Release Your Records Blog Obama Timeline 1961-2009 One Nation Under Fraud Pajamas TV

6 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Leventhal, the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State, has accepted as true this description of Obama’s birth circumstances and so stated on a State Department web page, http://blogs.america.gov/rumors/2009/08/21/the-obama-birthcontroversy/ , This site now reads: “This site has been archived or suspended.” Factcheck, in its attempt to show that Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” added: “[T]he 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. But that Obama may have lost his British/Kenyan 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 in Kenya when it was a British colony, was a British/Kenyan citizen. While he traveled to the United States on a 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. 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 II “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 President. who stands to take over the President’s civil and military powers should the need arise. Apparently, if he was born in Hawaii, Obama can meet the more liberal definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at

Patriot Radio's Blog by Andrea Shea King Post & Email Website Protect Our Liberty Safe Guard Our Constitution Stand Up America Blog Tea Party Patriots Terrible Truth Terry Lakin Action Fund The Daily Caller The Daily Pen Trevor Loudon New Zeal Blog Western Center for Journalism Why Obama Will Not Show His Real Birth Certificate World Net Daily Website The Rules 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 this 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. If 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

7 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

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. Wong Kim Ark. But he cannot meet the more stringent definition of an Article II “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), Obama is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. One might ask what Congress can possibly do at Obama’s January 4 confirmation hearing given that it has already once confirmed him to be eligible and he has already served one term as President. That Obama has been President for the last four years does not mean that he is a constitutionally legitimate president. Rather, given that Obama is not Article II eligible to be president, he has acted as a de facto president but not a de jure one. A de facto president is a president who is not constitutionally legitimate but who has usurped the office and its powers and who because of practical reasons is tolerated for the time he occupies and exercises the powers of the office, but who can be legally removed through a prescribed legal process. On the other hand, a de jure president is a president who is constitutionally legitimate. Needless to say, tolerating a de facto president (one that is not a “natural born Citizen”) rather than a de jure president not only renders Article II’s presidential eligibility requirement meaningless, flouts the rule of law, and is inimical to a constitutional republic such as the United States of America, but puts the safety and security of our nation at risk. Our historical precedents have spoken as to who is a “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed the definition to be a child born in the country to citizen parents. Congress is constitutionally bound to apply this definition to Obama. Congress’s failure to apply this definition to Obama and to again declare him President of the United States would amount to nothing more than treason upon the constitution and the nation by allowing a de facto president to continue in that all powerful office for a second term rather than a constitutionally legitimate one. The fate of the nation is in the hands of Congress on January 4, 2013. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 30, 2012 http://puzo1.blogspot.com #### Copyright © 2012 Mario Apuzzo, Esq. All Rights Reserved

the true facts, repetitive, argumentative, personal ad hominem attacks, defamatory statements, criticism or lobbying efforts for other attorneys and/or their cases, blog scrolling, advertising links, inappropriate links, disinformation campaigns, and/or off topic comments will likely not be posted. I also will not discuss in public specifics as to my planned tactics or strategies. I am the Judge in this blog 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 I have to review them first. As I am busy working on various cases with my law practice, it 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 II natural born Citizen eligibility issue and the historic Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress lawsuit. Thank you. Blog Archive ▼ 2012 (22) ▼ December (2) Congress Should Not Confirm Barack Obama As Presid... The Florida Courts Say that If Anyone Can Be Santa... ► November (2) ► October (1)

Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. at 12:40 AM 153 comments

Links to this post

► August (1) ► July (1) ► May (4) ► April (4)

Labels: Barack Obama, Congress Joint Session, constitutional eligibility president, Electoral College, Mario Apuzzo, natural born citizen

8 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Saturday, December 22, 2012

The Florida Courts Say that If Anyone Can Be Santa Claus, Barack Obama Can Be President
The Florida Courts Say that If Anyone Can Be Santa Claus, Barack Obama Can Be President By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 22, 2012

► March (2) ► February (2) ► January (3) ► 2011 (77) ► 2010 (102) ► 2009 (129) ► 2008 (6)

Followers

with Google Friend Connect

Members (159) More » Circuit Judge, Kevin J. Carroll, of the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County, Florida, has abruptly dismissed the state Obama eligibility case of Michael C. Voeltz v. Barack Hussein Obama (Case No. 2012-CA-3857). Judge Carroll had given the plaintiffs until December 23, 2012 to respond to Obama’s motion to dismiss the case. But he then changed his mind and on Thursday issued an order dismissing the case. After stating that the same case was already decided by the Florida courts and that the Florida courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide the case because it raised a political question, Judge Carroll said that the court was now presented with “Voeltz III.” He then said: “This court notes that President Obama lives in the White House. He flies on Air Force One. He has appeared before Congress, delivered State of the Union addresses and meets with congressional leaders on a regular basis. He has appointed countless ambassadors to represent the interests of the United States throughout the world.” President Obama’s recent appointment of The Honorable Mark Walker, formerly a member of this Court, has been confirmed by the United States Senate. Judge Walker has been sworn in as a United States District Court Judge and currently works at the Federal Courthouse down the street. The Electoral College has recently done its work and elected Mr. Obama to be President once again.” Judge Carroll then added: “As this matter has come before the Court at this time of the year it seems only appropriate to paraphrase the ruling rendered by the fictional Judge Henry X. Harper from New York in open court in the classic holiday film ‘Miracle on 34th St.’ ‘Since the United States Government declares this man to be President, this Court will not dispute it. Case dismissed.’” Judge Carroll’s order and decision can be read at http://www.wnd.com /files/2012/12/12CA3857.pdf Again, our judiciary is disappointing. Judge Carroll could have just said that the matter was moot (the matter no longer presents a justiciable FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed

Live Weather

New York

edit WEATHER ALERT! - CLICK HERE Hi: --° F Cloudy. A chan light rain and drizzle...mainly afte. more...

Lo: 47° F

Mon

Tue

Wed
• Fo • Ra • Ne • Ca

58° / 35°

43° / 34°

43° / 34°

9 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

controversy in that the controversy no longer presents any practical consequences to be remedied by the court), res judicata (the matter has already been decided among the same parties and that decision is binding on those same parties in a later action raising the same issues), or the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction (power over the specific matter presented for judicial decision) because the case presented a political question (the Constitution specifically assigns the question of presidential eligibility only to Congress), and that would have ended the case with the appearance of having been decided judiciously. But the judge felt compelled to go further and inject mockery into a judicial decision. I will now only address that part of the decision because that is the part that, despite what might appear to be or passed off as humor of some sort, in a subtle way goes to the merits of the question of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” and is most damaging and prejudicial to the judicial process and the rule of law. I have shown in my article entitled, Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause, accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11 /logic-and-defining-natural-born-citizen.html how a handful of courts that have reached the merits of the question of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and whether Obama meets that definition have engaged in tautological reasoning (by concluding that a “natural born Citizen is any “born citizen”) and committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent (by arguing that a “natural born Citizen” is a “born Citizen” or anyone who becomes at once a citizen of the United States. Obama is a “born Citizen” or someone who became at once a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Obama is a “natural born Citizen”) to reach their conclusion that Barack Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Now we have the Florida court committing more logical fallacies. First, plaintiff Michael C. Voeltz’s constitutional challenge is that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Mr. Voeltz is correct. Among the briefs that I have filed with various courts and the many articles that I have written on the subject at my blog http://puzo1.blogspot.com , see Mario Apuzzo, Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obama-is-ineligibleto-be.html (demonstrates based on historical, U.S. Supreme Court, and Congressional sources that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country and that Obama does not meet that definition). Judge Carroll’s logic and reasoning would have us accept that by Obama acting presidential and the “United States Government” simply saying he is eligible, Obama somehow magically becomes and proves that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Anyone who engages in sound critical thinking should know that things do not become something else by simply acting like something else (cowbirds in other birds’ nests which act like the species of birds they have invaded do not thereby become those other species) or that something is so merely because someone says it is so. (“Unlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.” U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land in Rhodes v. MacDonald, 4:09-cv-106 (CDL) (U.S. Dist. Ct. of Georgia, Middle Dist., Columbus Div., Sept. 16, 2009). Coincidently, the novel was written by Lewis Carroll). After all, did not the United States Government in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), say that Wong was not a U.S. "citizen," but the Court nevertheless ruled that he was. Second, Judge Carroll should study what a de facto officer is because that is exactly what he has used to conclude that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” Following Judge Carroll’s logic, a de facto president, a

Live Traffic Feed

A visitor from United States viewed "Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers" 0 secs ago A visitor from San Antonio, Texas left "Natural Born Citizen A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: What Is Putative President Obama’s Current U.S. Citizenship Status?" via youtube.com 3 mins ago A visitor from San Antonio, Texas viewed "Natural Born Citizen A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: What Is Putative President Obama’s Current U.S. Citizenship Status?" 4 mins ago A visitor from Fayetteville, New York viewed "Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers" 7 mins ago A visitor from Wailuku, Hawaii viewed "Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: The Citizenship Status of Our 44 Presidents" 9 mins ago A visitor from United States viewed "Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Congress Should Not Confirm Barack Obama As President For He Is

10 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

president who is not constitutionally legitimate but who has usurped the office and its powers and who because of practical reasons is tolerated for the time he occupies and exercises the powers of the office but who can be legally removed through a prescribed legal process, would automatically be converted into a de jure president, a president who is constitutionally legitimate. Needless to say, such a result renders Article II’s presidential eligibility requirement meaningless and flouts the rule of law. Third, Judge Carroll’s reliance on Miracle on 34th St. Judge Henry X. Harper is not only misplaced, but actually contradicts his own point. Judge Harper ruled that since the United States Government says that God exists (“In God We Trust”) without there being any evidence of God’s existence, defendant Santa Claus could publicly say he was Santa Claus even though he did not have any evidence to prove that he was in fact Santa Claus. Hence, he dismissed the charges brought against Santa Claus. Is Judge Carroll telling us that Obama can be President even though there does not exist any evidence of his being an Article II “natural born Citizen” just like Judge Harper found, the United States Government can say God exists even though there is no evidence of His existence or Santa Claus can say he is Santa Claus even though he does not have any evidence to prove that he is in fact Santa Claus? In this connection, I am reminded how New Jersey Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, ruled in election ballot challenge, Purpura v. Obama, that Obama did not have to demonstrate who he is or where he was born to get on the New Jersey election ballot, for even Mickey Mouse can run for President, and who ruled that Obama was a “natural born Citizen” even after admitting that there was absolutely no evidence before him as to who Obama is, where he was born, or who his parents are. See, Mario Apuzzo, Update on the Purpura and Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/04/updateon-purpura-and-moran-new-jersey.html . Or how about federal Judge James Robertson, who dismissed an Obama eligibility case, Hollister v. Soetoro, 08-2254 (JR), (U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of Columbia, March 5, 2009), because as he said Obama’s eligibility to be President had been adequately proven through evidence on the internet and wrote: “The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year campaign for the presidency.” What is ironic is that Judge Carroll, Judge Masin, and Judge Robertson have actually described the state of affairs as they presently exist regarding Obama’s eligibility to be President without intending to do so. The American people should expect from our courts logical and well-reasoned decisions, based on adherence to due process and well-established legal principles and real evidence. A judge is supposed to be a neutral arbiter who is guided only by the applicable rules of law and equity and whose purpose is to do justice based on those rules and the evidence before him or her for not only the parties in the case but also for society as a whole. In fulfilling that moral and legal duty, he or she must find the facts and the applicable law, apply that law to those facts, and render a reasoned decision, all done without any bias or prejudice. In a constitutional republic such as the United States, merely saying that someone acts presidential or merely saying that someone is presidential cannot take the place of demonstrating based on real law and evidence that someone truly is presidential. Apart from failing to decide the question of whether Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President based strictly on the Constitution, the rule of law, and real evidence, such mockery and illogical reasoning as we have seen from Judge Carroll and other courts bring only contempt upon our

SiteMeter

11 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

courts and is a mar upon the integrity and professionalism of the American judiciary. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 22, 2012 http://puzo1.blogspot.com #### Copyright © 2012 Mario Apuzzo, Esq. All Rights Reserved

Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. at 5:43 PM 20 comments

Links to this post

Labels: Barack Obama, Mario Apuzzo, Michael C. Voeltz, natural born citizen, presidential eligibility

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Logic and Defining the "Natural Born Citizen" Clause
Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 28, 2012

I recently posted this comment to Keith at Dr. Conspiracy’s blog called, Obama Conspiracy Theories: “You said: ‘[S]o he [Wong] was a born citizen and therefore he was a natural born citizen.’ This is so logically fallacious. Have you ever heard of the fallacy of affirming the consequent? First, the clause is ‘natural born Citizen,’ not ‘born Citizen.’ The clause ‘natural born Citizen’ has one and only one Father of Logic definition which is a child born in the country to ‘citizen’ parents. See Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Second, being a born citizen is a necessary condition of being a ‘natural born Citizen.’ It is not a sufficient condition, for the definition also includes birth in the country to citizen parents. Hence, you commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent when you state that if someone is a born citizen he is therefore a ‘natural born Citizen.’" Then a commentator at Dr. Conspiracy’s blog by the name of dunstvangeet posted this reply to me: “Mario, you talk about logical fallacies. You commit the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent all the time. Your entire argument on Minor is a denial of the Antecedent. If A, then B. Not A. Therefore Not B. If someone is born to two citizen parents and born in the country, then they are a natural born citizen. A is not born

12 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

to two citizen parents and born in the country, therefore A is not a natural born citizen. Classic case of denying the antecedent. So, you lecturing someone on logical fallacies just broke my irony meter.” My advice to dunstvangeet which I posted in the same thread is that he should go back to logic school and get his irony meter fixed. Then on November 27, 2012, Dr. Conspiracy, the owner of the blog, responded to my comment by posting this: “As someone with a graduate degree in mathematics and who has an article published in a scholarly journal on explosions (‘The explosion point characterization theorem’), I hereby issue this affidavit stating: dunstvangeet's comment is a proper application of logical theory to Mr. Apuzzo's comment, and I endorse his conclusion that Apuzzo's reading of the Minor [Minor v. Happersett (1875)] case involves the fallacy of Denial of the Antecedent. Is there a notary in the house?” So there you have the posture of the question of whether Obama’s supporters and the courts have committed the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent or whether I have committed the fallacy of Denial of the Antecedent. I will now further demonstrate that I have not argued any fallacious position and that on the contrary, it is the Obama supporters who engage in tautological argument and commit the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Let us now examine these issues. In order to properly analyze the logical question presented here, we have to start with whether there is any settled definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Indeed, there is only one definition of a “natural born Citizen.” That definition is a child born in a country to “citizen” parents. As the reader can see, I have chosen to insert a picture of Aristotle in this article because Aristotle is the Father of Logic. But there is another reason why Aristotle is relevant to this article. Actually, Aristotle also gave us a definition of a “natural born Citizen.” In “Politics, Book Three, Part II, Aristotle, writing in 350 B.C.E., as translated by Benjamin Jowett, gave us his definition of citizenship: “Part II 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 mortarmakers, 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 definition just 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

13 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

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 . Here we can see that Aristotle did not define citizenship like the English did in the English common law in which they did not give any relevancy to the citizenship of the child’s parents, provided the parents were not diplomats or military invaders. Aristotle included in the definition of a “citizen” a person “of whom both the parents are citizens.” As we shall see, it is this definition which was handed down through the millennia through the law of nations and which the Founders and Framers adopted for the new republic. We shall also see that Minor v. Happersett (1875) informed that a person who became a citizen by being born in the country to “citizen” parents was know in common law with which the Framers were familiar as a “natural-born citizen.” How do we know that the Founders and Framers looked to Aristotle’s view of citizenship? We learn from the historical record that Supreme Court Justice James Wilson wrote in 1791: “‘Generally speaking,’ says the great political authority, Aristotle, ‘a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.’ … In Wilson's view, "a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen.” James Wilson, 1st commentaries on the Constitution. Here we clearly see Wilson referring to what could only be a “natural born Citizen” as "the son of a citizen." 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 learn how best to constitute a republican form of government. They also looked to ancient Roman law to understand the law of nature. 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 210 (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). We also know that the Founders and Framers studied Roman law. The Framers were well read in the Roman and Greek classics as is expounded upon in their writings in the Federalist Papers. Jefferson and other Founders had a love for Roman history and education. The Founders and Framers were great admirers of Cicero and read many of his works. It is not inconceivable that they would have read this English translation of The Proposal and seen the clause “natural born Citizen.” This shows that they did not need to borrow the clause from the English common law’s “natural born subject.” Rather, they had sources which they read which contained the exact clause, “natural born Citizen,”

14 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

which clause also had its own meaning which was different from that of an English “natural born subject” which allowed children born in the King’s dominion and under his allegiance to aliens to be English “natural born subjects.” A definition of a “natural born Citizen” was also provided by the worldrenowned, Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). Vattel had a great influence on the Founders and Framers in their constituting the new republic and writing the Constitution. See, for example, J.S. Reeves, The Influence of the Law of Nature Upon International Law in the United States, 3 Am.J. Int’l L. 547 et. seq. passim (1909) (Vattel exerted such a profound political influence that it is often pointed out that his theories served as the backbone for American independence); Lee A. Casey, David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Darin R. Bartram, Unlawful Belligerency and Its Implications Under International Law, http://www.fed-soc.org /publications/PubID.104/pub_detail.asp (concerning U.S. constitutional analysis, “Vattel is highly important. He was probably the international law expert most widely read among the Framers”). In fact, Vattel continued to be practically applied in our nation for well over 100 years after the birth of the republic; F.S. Ruddy, The Acceptance of Vattel, Grotian Society Papers (1972) (Vattel was mainstream political philosophy during the writing of the Constitution. The Law of Nations was significantly the most cited legal source in America jurisprudence between 1789 and 1820). The Founders and Framers studied and were greatly influenced by Vattel. R.G. Natelson, The Original Constitution 49 and 69 (2010) (“Vattel was probably the Founders’ favorite authority on international law . . . .” and his, treatise, The Law of Nations, was their favorite). “The fourth of the Four Horsemen of American liberty [Algernon Sidney, Samuel von Pufendorf, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel] is Emmerich de Vattel. Although last in this list of forgotten influences, it can be claimed, without exaggeration, that it is Vattel’s interpretations and writings on the subject of the proper constitution of government that was most influential on the Founders of the American Republic. As a matter of fact, Thomas Jefferson, indisputably one of the lead framers of our nation’s government, ranked Vattel’s seminal The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law as highly as similar treatises by Grotius and Pufendorf. Further proof of Vattel’s impression on the Founders is the fact that Vattel’s interpretations of the law of nature were cited more frequently than any other writer’s on international law in cases heard in the courts of the early United States, and The Law of Nations was the primary textbook on the subject in use in American universities.” Joe Wolverton, II, Forgotten Influences of the Founders (December 24, 2009), http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/american /2606-forgotten-influences-of-the-founders . One more source among many more deserves to be cited to show the authority that Vattel carried with the Founders and Framers on matters of citizenship. During the 1789 Ramsay-Smith congressional debate on whether Representative William Smith was at least a “Citizen of the United States” for seven-years so as to be eligible to be a representative under Article I, Section 2, Smith relied upon Vattel to show that he was such a “citizen.” Smith argued that he was a “citizen.” Smith did not refer to the English common law to show that he was a “citizen of the United States” for the requisite 7 years. Rather, he cited Emer de Vattel for support and said he did not have enough money to

15 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

come back to America. In his own defense William Smith quotes Emer de Vattel: “The Doctor [Ramsay] says the circumstances of birth do not make a citizen–This I also deny. Vattel says: 'The country of the father is that of the children and these become citizens by their tacit consent.' I was born a Carolinian [before the Declaration], and I defy the Doctor to say at what moment I was disenfranchised. The revolution which took place in America made me a citizen, though then resident at Geneva…. There was never a moment when I was a citizen of any other country.” So we can see that William Smith, during a debate on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1789, cited Emer de Vattel in defense of his own citizenship to show that he was eligible to be a Representative of the United States under our Constitution. Smith said that Vattel said: "The country of the father is that of the children and these become citizens by their tacit consent." Madison said: "Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony." The case for Vattel's "citizen" was clearly made. Smith, in defining his own citizenship did not mention the English common law, but rather looked to Vattel and the law of nations. Having shown the influence that Vattel had over the Founders and Framers on matters of citizenship, let us now examine what Vattel wrote regarding a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” Here is the full text of Vattel’s Section 212: “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Indeed, Vattel defined a “citizen” as simply a member of civil society. He then said that “[t]he natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” There is little doubt that in this statement Vattel confirmed the definition of a “natural born Citizen” and told us what a “natural-born citizen” was, saying that the “natural-born citizens, are . . .” Hence, he did not only provide a situation among many which defined a “natural-born citizen.” Rather, providing the only definition of the clause, he provided the sufficient and necessary conditions to be met in order for one to be a “natural-born citizen.” Historical and legal evidence demonstrates that the Founders and Framers adopted this ancient definition as the only definition of a

16 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

“natural born Citizen.” First, the Founders and Framers put forth in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 presidential eligibility requirement. The clause reads: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.” Like they made a bright line rule as to 35 years of age and 14 years residency, they did the same with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” There is no evidence in the historical record that has come to light which suggests that the Founders and Framers did not agree on what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” was or that someone during the drafting and ratifying conventions took issue with the then existing definition. The Founders and Framers simply would not have used a clause in the Constitution for presidential eligibility purposes the meaning of which was not settled and not debated that meaning during those constitutional conventions. It is therefore absurd to think that there were other hidden definitions of the “natural born Citizen” clause which were yet to be discovered and confirmed in the future or that there could be other persons who could also be “natural born Citizens” but about whom there were doubts whether they were. Second, there are various U.S. Supreme Court decisions which cited and quoted or paraphrased Vattel and his definition of a “natural-born citizen” and therefore recognized a “natural born Citizen” to be a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. For example, see The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring) (Founder Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons in a prize case the resolution of which depended upon the citizenship status of the parties, cited Vattel and provided his definition of natural born citizens and said: “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 advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’”); Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) (held that a child born in the United States inherits the citizenship of his parents); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245, 252 (1830) (providing the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, Justice Story stated: “If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.” Justice Story in Shanks confirmed the common law maxim that existed in the colonies and during the Founding. That maxim was “partus sequitur patrem” or children follow the condition of their father. “Partus” is defined as “child” or “offspring.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1010 (5th ed. 1979). “Sequitur means to follow. “Patrem” means father. Justice Johnson in his dissent in Shanks further confirmed it when he explained that a “leading maxim[] of common law” then prevailing was “proles sequitur sortem paternam.” “Proles” is defined as [o]ffspring; progeny; the issue of a lawful marriage. In its enlarged sense, it signifies any children.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1091 (5th ed. 1979). Hence, the maxim means children follow the condition of their fathers); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court paraphrased Vattel almost word for word when defining a “natural-born citizen” thus: “At common-law, with

17 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Id. at 167-68); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (cited and quoted Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen”); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same); and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (cited, quoted, and affirmed Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” and held that a child born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment). There has never been any other definition of a “natural born Citizen” articulated by our U.S. Supreme Court, from the early years of the republic down to the present. The same definition of a “natural born Citizen” has been repeated many times by our U.S. Supreme Court. Hence, this one definition can be the only one that the Founders and Framers used. So, there has never been any other definitions or classes of “natural born Citizens.” With a “natural born Citizen” having only one definition and therefore containing no subsets, it cannot by analogy be compared to animals, plants, or automobiles which each contain many subsets. From these historical and legal developments, we can express the one and only definition of a “natural born Citizen” thus: If and only if A is born in the country to citizen parents, then A is a "natural born Citizen." Or If A is a "natural born Citizen," then A is born in the country to citizen parents. Neither of these statements commits what dunstvangeet and Dr. Conspiracy call the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent, for being born in the country to citizen parents are not only sufficient or necessary conditions, but both sufficient and necessary conditions. They are sufficient because if both exist, then one is a “natural born Citizen.” And they are necessary because if one or both conditions do not exist, one cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” The logical error that Obama’s supporters like dunstvangeet and Dr. Conspiracy commit is in not giving the “natural born Citizen” clause a specified and limited meaning. They want to treat a “natural born Citizen” like they would treat animals, plants, and automobiles. Yes, we can agree that the following represents the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent: If Bill owns a dog, he owns an animal. Bill does not own a dog, therefore Bill does not have an animal. The argument is fallacious because Bill could own a cat which is also an animal. But the problem with this simplistic approach is that there is not more than one class of “natural born Citizens” like there is animals which break up into subsets called dogs, cats, horses, cows, pigs, etc. As we have seen, the clause “natural born Citizen” has only one definition. Hence, the factors found in that definition which go to define the clause become both sufficient and necessary. A finding that one’s birth circumstances is missing any one of the necessary constituent factors, i.e., birth in the country or birth to “citizen” parents, is a sufficient basis for us to validly conclude that one is not a “natural born Citizen.” The logical error that Obama’s supporters like dunstvangeet and Dr. Conspiracy commit is in not realizing that because the “natural born Citizen” clause has only one definition, when we say that if a person is born in the country to “citizen” parents, that person is a “natural born

18 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Citizen,” we are really saying “if and only if” (expressed as “iff” in logic, and not just “if”) that person is born in the country to “citizen” parents, that person is a “natural born Citizen.” Now let us examine how Obama’s supporters, in arguing that Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” arrive at their conclusion by way of tautology and the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Jack Maskell, in 2011 wrote a CRS memo entitled, “Qualifications for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, Jack Maskell, Congressional Research Service, November 2011, which can be read at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf . Mr. Maskell concludes that a "natural born Citizen" is any person who, under the Fourteenth Amendment or any Congressional Act, becomes a “citizen of the United States” "at birth." A handful of courts that have reached the merits of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and whether President Barack Obama meets that definition have adopted Mr. Maskell’s thesis and ruled that any child born in the United States who is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment is a “natural born Citizen,” regardless of the citizenship of the parents, simply because such a child is a “born citizen,” “citizen at birth,” or “citizen from birth.” But upon close scrutiny, we can see that there are some grave legal and logical problems with such a simplistic argument. First, the argument that a “natural born Citizen” is any child that is a “born citizen” is a tautology. The argument is nothing but a repetition of part of the clause we are defining, “natural born Citizen,” with the word “natural” left out in order to make it look like one has actually unlocked some secret to defining the clause and provided a definition of the whole clause. But the definition provided, “born citizen,” or its equivalent, “citizen at birth” or “citizen from birth,” add absolutely no information to defining “natural born Citizen.” Of course, a “natural born Citizen” is a “born citizen,” or “citizen at birth,” or “citizen from birth.” The clause itself tells us that a “natural born Citizen” could not be one who is a citizen not from birth. But simply acknowledging the moment in time at which a “natural born Citizen” comes into being does not provide any definition of the clause, for the statement does not identify what conditions must be satisfied in order for such a person to be a citizen from the moment of birth. So, the Founders and Framers could not have had such a tautological statement in mind as the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” They had to have had a definition in mind that contained real conditions which when satisfied made one a “natural born Citizen.” We have seen above that that definition was a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. Second, Mr. Maskell and the courts, like Keith, not only engage in reasoning that is tautological, but also commit the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. dunstvangeet and Dr. Conspiracy did not address my argument concerning Keith committing the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Let us examine this fallacy and how it is found in the argument that, Obama is a “natural born Citizen” because he is a U.S. “citizen” “at birth.” In the correct application and understanding of the statement: If one is a “natural born Citizen,” then one is a “citizen at birth,” the condition of being a “citizen at birth” is only a necessary consequence of being a “natural born Citizen.” “Citizen at birth” is not a factor which alone makes one a “natural born Citizen.” Being the necessary consequence of being a “natural born Citizen,” it is not a sufficient condition for becoming a “natural born Citizen,” for we have seen that what is also necessary is birth in the country to “citizen” parents which are the necessary conditions which produce the consequence of being a “citizen at birth.” So, to simply say that all those

19 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

who are born in the United States and who are “born citizens,” “citizens at birth,” or “citizens from birth” are “natural born Citizens” is not only a tautology, but is also a case of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. To further illustrate this, we can agree what champagne is. Champagne is defined as a sparkling wine produced from grapes that are grown in the Champagne region of France by using certain fermentation rules. Now let us go from this definition to this true statement: If wine is Champagne, then it was “made from grapes grown in the Champagne region of France.” Now let us assume that someone comes along and wants to prove that his sparkling wine is Champagne. He argues that his wine must be Champagne because it was “made from grapes grown in the Champagne region of France.” We scientifically examine his claim and learn that the sparkling wine was “made from grapes grown in the Champagne region of France,” but the producer did not use certain fermentation rules. Actually, “[s]ome use the term champagne as a generic term for sparkling wine, but many countries reserve the term exclusively for sparkling wines that come from Champagne and are produced under the rules of the appellation (footnotes omitted). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne . Did you see that? The wine must also be made under rules of the appellation which is an additional necessary factor to be satisfied in order for any given wine to be Champagne. We must therefore reasonably conclude that the wine is in fact not Champagne because the producer did not use certain fermentation rules which are a requirement to be met if the wine is to be Champagne. So, even though our person’s sparkling wine was “made from grapes grown in the Champagne region of France,” his wine was still not Champagne. That is because having a sparkling wine “made from grapes grown in the Champagne region of France” is a necessary consequence of producing Champagne wine, but it is not a sufficient condition for its creation, for the wine maker must also use certain fermentation rules. So, likewise, being a “born citizen,” or “citizen at birth” or “citizen from birth,” is only a necessary consequence of being a “natural born Citizen,” but it is not a sufficient condition for that type of citizen’s creation, for the age-old definition of the clause also requires birth in the country to “citizen” parents. From this logical reasoning we conclude that even though Barack Obama may have been born in Hawaii, a fact which he has not yet conclusively proven, which would make him under the Fourteenth Amendment a “born Citizen,” or a “citizen at birth,” or a “citizen from birth,” he is still not a “natural born Citizen” because he was not born to “citizen” parents, meaning a U.S. “citizen” father and mother, which is what the American common law definition requires. And not being an Article II “natural born Citizen,” he is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. For a more in-depth analysis of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and explanation of how the clause was defined under the law of nations and American common law rather than English common law, see Mario Apuzzo, “Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Nor a ‘Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,’” accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obama-is-ineligibleto-be.html . For an explanation of how the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent was recently used by the Vermont Superior Court to dismiss the Vermont ballot challenge of H. Brooke Paige v. Barack Obama, see Mario Apuzzo, “The Vermont Court Errs in Dismissing Presidential Ballot Challenge H.

20 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Brooke Paige v. Barack Obama, accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com /2012/11/the-vermont-court-errs-in-dismissing.html . Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 28, 2012 http://puzo1.blogspot.com #### Copyright © 2012 Mario Apuzzo, Esq. All Rights Reserved

Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. at 11:38 PM 57 comments

Links to this post

Labels: Barack Obama, fallacy of affirming the consequent, fallacy of denying the antecedent, Mario Apuzzo, natural born citizen, presidential eligibility, tautology

Saturday, November 17, 2012

The Vermont Court Errs in Dismissing Presidential Ballot Challenge H. Brooke Paige v. Barack Obama
The Vermont Court Errs in Dismissing Presidential Ballot Challenge H. Brooke Paige v. Barack Obama By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 17, 2012 Judge Robert R. Bent, Presiding Judge of the Vermont Superior Court, on November 14, 2012 dismissed the candidate Barack Obama Vermont ballot challenge of Paige v. Obama, Docket No. 611-8-12. He ruled that H. Brooke Paige does not have standing to bring the action, the court does not have jurisdiction, and his argument on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” has no merit. The decision can be read at http://www.scribd.com/doc/113533939/VT-Paige-v-Obama-Et-AlDeCISION-Vt-Super-Ct-Nov-2012 . Mr. Paige filed his ballot challenge against both candidate Barack Obama and the Vermont Secretary of State, arguing that Obama should not be allowed on any presidential election ballot in Vermont because, being born to a U.S. “citizen” mother, but not also to a U.S. “citizen” father, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” I. As to standing, Judge Bent ruled that Vermont has adopted the federal rule on standing which requires a litigant to satisfy both the requirements of Article III and its related prudential component. He explained that standing requires a litigant to show injury in fact, causation, and redressability. He concluded that Paige has not shown injury in fact. But Barack Obama has again won the general election. He now stands to win the Electoral College vote. Paige has adequately shown that his life, liberty, and property can be particularly injured by having to live under the authority and power of a person who may occupy the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military who may not be constitutionally eligible to be there in the first place for not being a “natural born Citizen.” Mr. Paige has adequately shown that

21 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

the Founders and Framers required future presidents to be “natural born Citizens” to protect and preserve the nation. Hence, the clause is a national security measure designed to assure the safety of the nation. Needless to say, the “natural born Citizen” clause is intended to protect and preserve Mr. Paige and to provide for his safety and well-being. That the clause protects all Americans is no reason to deny Mr. Paige its protection in a legal action in which he seeks to have the courts enforce the clause. Judge Bent did recognize that Vermont also has two statutes, 17 V.S.A. Sec. 2603(a)(3), which allows any legal voter to challenge an election after it occurs. He conceded that on its face, the statute does not limit itself to any particular election issue as the subject of an election contest. He also cited Sec. 2617 which provides: “In all cases for which no other provision has been made, the superior court shall have general jurisdiction to hear and determine matters relating to elections and to fashion appropriate relief.” But he distinguished these statutes and concluded that they only apply to activities occurring during the conduct of the election itself which could change the result of the election and not to presidential eligibility. But the statutes say no such thing and Judge Bent has written words into these statutes which the Vermont legislature did not write. Additionally, whether a candidate is eligible for the office he or he seeks does affect the conduct of the election and could surely change the result of the election. What could be more fundamental to the conduct of an election for any given office than whether a candidate is constitutionally eligible for the office he or she seeks? So, the legislature has specifically passed these two statutes which allow a voter such as Mr. Paige to challenge in the Vermont Superior Court a presidential candidate’s eligibility to be placed on the Vermont presidential election ballot and election to that office through the general election and the Electoral College. Judge Bent also concluded that these Vermont statutes are no reason for the court to find that Paige has satisfied the requirement of prudential standing, which requires that a plaintiff’s claim is included in “the zone of interest protected by the law invoked.” He found that these statutes do not expressly allow a challenge by Mr. Paige to presidential eligibility and that to allow such a challenge in state court would produce “wholesale chaos and lingering uncertainty to presidential elections.” But such speculation is no reason to deny jurisdiction and to deny Mr. Paige a judicial forum for him to protect his constitutional rights. Our nation’s courts are more than capable to handle and coordinate complex legal matters. That the issue involves presidential eligibility is hardly a reason to conclude that our state courts cannot handle the matter. Moreover, given that the contested issue involves the presidential election, any state court decision on presidential eligibility would be fast tracked to the U.S. Supreme Court which would decide the matter for all the states. Hence, while the Vermont legislature has decided to confer standing upon Mr. Paige to bring his challenge to Obama in the Vermont state courts, Judge Bent has denied him that right. II. Judge Bent also concluded that the Vermont state courts or any state courts have no jurisdiction over the question of whether a presidential candidate is constitutionally eligible because for a state court to get involved in the matter could potentially create national chaos. But such speculation is no reason to deny jurisdiction and to deny Mr. Paige a judicial forum for him to protect his constitutional rights. As we saw

22 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

above, our nation’s courts are more than capable to handle and coordinate complex legal matters and any state challenge would be fast tracked to the U.S. Supreme Court which would decide the matter for all the states. Finally, Judge Bent was not sure whether Congress in joint session under 3 U.S.C. Sec. 15 has the authority to address the issue of presidential eligibility which would make the matter a nonjusticiable political question. Hence, without any say from the courts (both state and federal given the standing rule and the requirements of jurisdiction that he imposes) or Congress, Judge Bent does not allow for any means for resolving under the rule of law any question of presidential eligibility in our constitutional republic. III. Standing and jurisdiction do not address the merits of a case. But Judge Bent also concluded that Paige’s argument as to what is an Article II “natural born Citizen” has no merit. Judge Bent erred just based on the text of the “natural born Citizen” clause. “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it….” Marbury v. Madison. 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803). Hence, a basic rule of constitutional construction is that every word in the constitution must be given meaning. The Constitution says "natural born Citizen," not "born Citizen." Judge Bent is therefore wrong simply on the constitutional text when he says that anybody who is born a citizen is a "natural born Citizen." There must be a reason the Framers added the word “natural” to “born Citizen.” The reason is that the clause is a word of art, an idiom, a unitary clause, which has a very specific fixed meaning. By adopting such a definition, Judge Bent has given the word “natural” no meaning and has confounded the proper interpretation of the clause by focusing on the result of being a “natural born Citizen” (born a citizen) rather than focusing on the word of art itself which has a very specific meaning. There is nothing about the clause which suggests that the word “natural” is surplusage and intended to have no effect. Hence, his interpretation “is inadmissible” and must be rejected. Historical sources, case law of the U.S Supreme Court, and acts of Congress also demonstrate that Judge Bent has erred. Vattel at § 212. Citizens and natives, defined the “citizens” and the “natural-born citizens” thus: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed.

23 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Neuchatel 1758). While recognizing that Vattel's The Law of Nations "was a work of significant value to the founding fathers," Judge Bent refers to the phrase, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens” as a phrase used only by Vattel. He said that simply because Vattel used the phrase, the phrase does not have any “constitutional significance.” But Paige provided to the court numerous historical and legal sources that demonstrated that after July 4, 1776, our nation adopted the law of nations model of citizenship and not that of the English common law. Judge Bent avoided any discussion of the naturalization acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 which were all jus sanguinis (citizenship derived from parents) based and therefore followed the Vattel model. He also does not address cases like Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), where the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court adopted that phrase and jus sanguinis and held that the "natural born citizens," “[a]t common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar” were “all children, born in a country, of parents who were its citizens” and that at “common law,” “there have been doubts” whether we ever adopted jus soli (citizenship derived from the place of birth) citizenship. Judge Bent wrote as though Vattel is the only person ever to use the phrase when we know that the phrase was also adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court justices in The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring), Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393, 405 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring), and the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor, not to mention Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. 99 (1830) and Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) which adopted the same rule of partus sequitur patrem, i.e., children follow the condition of their parents which is jus sanguinis citizenship and not jus soli citizenship. See also 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) (cite and quote Minor’s Vattelian/American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen”). Judge Bent said that Vattel’s use of “parents” in the plural does not have any "particular significance." Judge Bent said that “[t]hus far, no judicial decisions have adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues.” But first, Vattel is not the only person to use the word “parents” in the plural, for the above cited U.S. Supreme Court Justices and case law also did. So Judge Bent actually told us that there is no “particular significance” to the U.S. Supreme Court’s use of the term “parents.” Second, Judge Bent failed to address the fact that at the time of the founding and until 1922 when Congress passed the Cable Act, a wife’s citizenship merged into that of the husband. Hence, “parents,” meaning both husband and wife, always had the same citizenship. Third, “parents” in the plural is nothing new to our citizenship and naturalization laws, for there are so many such statutes in our history that required both parents to be citizens in order for the child to gain any naturalization or immigration benefits. Fourth, Judge Bent accepted that because other cases were fortuitously decided before his, he is bound by those cases and relinquished his own independent thinking on the matter. Judge Bent's reliance on the Fourteenth Amendment and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) to expand the group of "natural born Citizens" to include children born in the United States to alien parents is also misplaced. The Framers in Article II clearly distinguished between a "natural born Citizen" and a "Citizen of the United States." In the future, being a “Citizen of the United States” was not sufficient, for only a "natural born Citizen" could be President. The Fourteenth Amendment

24 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

provides in relevant part: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." We can see from the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment that it only addresses a "citizen of the United States," not a "natural born Citizen." Wong Kim Ark explained: “The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.” Wong Kim Ark, at 682. We can see that the amendment’s purpose was to exclude from basic membership in the United States, which it calls “citizen of the United States” and not “natural born Citizen,” certain children, i.e., those of American Indians, alien enemies, and diplomats. It was not designed to tell us who were included as Article II “natural born Citizens.” We have seen from Minor, as confirmed by Wong Kim Ark, that American common law did that. Wong Kim Ark confirmed Minor’s American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen" not only when it cited and quoted Minor, but also when it recognized that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Justice Gray told us twice of this distinction. The first time he said: “The 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.' Page 22, note. This paper, without Mr. Binney's name, and with the note in a less complete form, and not containing the passage last cited, was published (perhaps from the first edition) in the American Law Register for February, 1854. 2 Am. Law Reg. 193, 203, 204. ” Wong Kim Ark, at 665-66. Later in his opinion, Justice Gray, in speaking about a child born in the United States to alien parents again said that an alien’s “child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, '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.'” Id. at 694. It is critical that when he mentioned it for the second time, his sentence followed the Court’s conclusion which he based on how the colonial English common law held aliens in amity to have sufficient allegiance to the King to make his children born in the King’s dominion “natural born subjects,” that Wong was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So twice, Justice Gray told us of the distinction between a child born in the country to aliens and a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. He explained that both are “citizens,” but only the latter is a “natural-born citizen.” Hence, Wong Kim Ark interpreted the meaning of the Fourteenth

25 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Amendment’s “citizen of the United States,” not Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” As Minor instructs, the Founders and Framers had only one definition of a "natural born Citizen." It held that the "natural-born citizens," “[a]t common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar” were “all children, born in a country, of parents who were its citizens.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (citing and quoting Minor). It is this American common law (not English common law) definition which the Founders and Framers adopted at the time of the adoption of the Constitution that controls, not what the U.S. Supreme Court said in Wong Kim Ark about a child born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents being a "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, Wong Kim Ark analyzed whether the law of nations, which is the basis of our American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” had any controlling effect on defining citizenship in our nation at the time that the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, not when the Constitution was passed. Hence, Wong Kim Ark was not concerned with the Founders’ and Framers’ view of what was a “natural born Citizen” and Article II, but rather with the Fourteenth Amendment. It is therefore error for Judge Bent to use the Wong Kim Ark decision to expand the class of people who can be held to be “natural born Citizens.” In his cursory mention of Minor in Footnote 1, Judge Bent also conflated and confounded Minor’s use of the word “citizen” with “natural born Citizen.” He pointed out that Minor said that “there have been doubts” whether “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” were “citizens.” He added that Wong Kim Ark answered that question which Minor left unanswered. But then he also concluded that Wong Kim Ark defined who was a “natural born Citizen.” But if Wong Kim Ark answered the question left open by Minor, it did not define what a “natural born Citizen” was, but rather only what a “citizen” was. A careful reading of Wong Kim Ark shows that it recognized that Minor left open the question of who was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not who was an Article II “natural born Citizen.” For example, Wong Kim Ark said: “That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: ‘Allegiance and protection are, in this connection’ (that is, in relation to citizenship), ‘reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] 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 as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the

26 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

jurisdiction are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship. The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94.” Wong Kim Ark, at 679-80. Here, we can see that Wong Kim Ark focused only on the Fourteenth Amendment, its “subject to the jurisdiction” clause, and its definition of a “citizen of the United States” when discussing The Slaughterhouse Cases, Minor, and Elk. It was not concerned with Article II and its meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Judge Bent stated that Wong Kim Ark concluded that the original framers obtained their model of citizenship from the English common law. While he told us by citing and quoting Wong Kim Ark what the English common law in England was on subjecthood, he did not present any evidence that the Founders and Framers adopted that English common law to define the new U.S. national citizenship. He concluded without citing to any evidence that “there is no apparent distinction between” a “natural born citizen” and a “natural-born subject.” He failed to discern that Wong Kim Ark, faced with having to interpret and apply the Fourteenth Amendment to determine whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States,” needed to decide who was a “citizen” under that amendment, not who was a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, and that the Court used the English common law as an aid in doing that and not to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” He also failed to address Minor which in specifically defining a “natural-born citizen,” used a model of citizenship that was based on the law of nations which became American national common law and not the English common law. In this connection, he also avoided any discussion of, among other historical sources provided by Mr. Paige, the naturalization acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 which were all jus sanguinis based (law of nations and American common law) and not jus soli based (English common law). These statutes are highly relevant in determining what the Founders and Framers meant by the “natural born Citizen” clause, for the early acts were passed by many members of the First and Third Congress who were intimately involved in the drafting and passage of the Constitution. Judge Bent stated that the decision of Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009) is the “most comprehensive decision” on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and as such discusses the “the historical basis for the use of the phrase.” As we saw above, Ankeny's reliance on Wong Kim Ark to expand the group of "natural born Citizens" to include children born in the United States to alien parents is misplaced. Additionally, there is not one word in the Ankeny decision that addresses the purpose for which the Founders and Framers included the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution as part of the requirements to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. There is not one word in the decision which looks to what the Founders and Framers intended the clause to mean when they included it in the Constitution. What is also amazing is that the Ankeny court hardly even knew who Emer de Vattel was despite the historical record amply demonstrating the immense influence that Vattel had on the founding generation and beyond and as we have seen above the U.S. Supreme Court adopting his definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

27 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

In discussing Ankeny, Judge Bent said that “‘natural born Citizen’ is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.” But upon close examination, this distinction is not logical at all. This argument is tantamount to arguing that any person who is a “citizen at birth” is a “natural born Citizen.” This is fallacious reasoning called the fallacy of affirming the consequent. We know from the definition of a “natural-born citizen” provided by Minor and other historical sources and U.S. Supreme Court case law cited, that satisfying the definition means that one is necessarily a “citizen” from the moment of birth. But being a citizen from the moment of birth is a necessary condition of being a “natural born Citizen.” It is not a sufficient condition, for according to Minor v. Happersett, the definition also contains the two requirements of being born in the country to “citizen” parents. Hence, just showing that one was “a citizen at birth” only satisfies part of the definition which by the very nature of the definition is necessary but not sufficient. Here is an example of this fallacy: If someone is smart, then someone is a professor. Someone is a professor. Therefore someone is smart. This argument is not valid. It demonstrates the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The first premise does not state that if one is a professor one is smart. Rather, it states that being a professor is the consequence of or follows from being smart. So, being a professor does not necessarily mean that one is smart. So likewise, the definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not state that being “a citizen at birth” makes one a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, being “a citizen at birth” is the consequent of or follows from being a “natural born Citizen.” Being “a citizen at birth” does not prove that one is a “natural born Citizen,” for the other two conditions of being a “natural born Citizen” must also be proven. There is also case law and statutes which prove that simply being “a citizen at birth” does not make one a “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815(1971) said that children born out of the United States to “citizen” parents are citizens at birth, but are made such by naturalization statutes of Congress and not the common law or even the Fourteenth Amendment. We know from a plain reading of these statutes that they only define “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born Citizens.” Judge Bent said that “Mr. Paige has tendered a scholarly article authored by Attorney Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey.” This article is entitled, Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” and may be accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obama-is-ineligibleto-be.html . Judge Bent said that this article is “academic only.” So as we can see, Judge Bent has erred for various reasons in dismissing Mr. Paige’s ballot challenge against presidential candidate Barack Obama and Vermont Secretary of State. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 17, 2012 http://puzo1.blogspot.com #### Copyright © 2012 Mario Apuzzo, Esq. All Rights Reserved

28 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. at 8:25 PM 33 comments

Links to this post

Labels: ballot challenge, Barack Obama, H. Brooke Paige, Mario Apuzzo, natural born citizen, presidential eligibility

Home Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Older Posts

29 of 29

1/18/2013 3:08 PM

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Petitioner’s combined response to NYS Electors’ MTD

Exhibit E

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Petitioner’s combined response to NYS Electors’ MTD

Exhibit F

LYONS: Obama needs to come clean on what happened in Benghazi - Was...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/28/lyonsobama-needs-...

You are LYONS: Obama currently viewing the printable versionwhat article, to return to the normal page, please click here . needs to come clean on of this happened in Benghazi

The American people deserve to know the truth
COM M ENTS (162) SIZE: + / PRINT

By Adm. James A. Lyons

Sunday, October 28, 2012

There is an urgent need for full disclosure of what has become the “Benghazi Betrayal and Cover-up.” The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI and the Pentagon, apparently watched and listened to the assault on the U.S. consulate and cries for help but did nothing. If someone had described a fictional situation with a similar scenario and described our leadership ignoring the pleas for help, I would have said it was not realistic—not in my America – but I would have been proven wrong.

We now know why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to be in Benghazi the night of 9/11 to meet a Turkish representative, even though he feared for his safety. According to various reports, one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

In another excellent article, Clare Lopez at RadicalIslam.org noted that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with our Benghazi mission. During the terrorist attack, the warehouses were probably looted. We do not know what was there and if it was being administrated by our two former Navy SEALs and the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi. equipment was going to hardline jihadis. Nonetheless, the

Once the attack commenced at 10:00 p.m. Libyan time (4:00 p.m. EST), we know the mission security staff immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli. It now appears the White House, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NDI, JCS and various other military commands monitored the entire battle in real time via frantic phone calls from our compound and video from an overhead drone. The cries for help and support went unanswered.

Our Benghazi mission personnel, including our two former Navy SEALs, fought for seven hours without any assistance other than help from our embassy in Tripoli, which launched within 30 minutes an aircraft carrying six Americans and 16 Libyan security guards. It is understood they were instrumental in helping 22 of our Benghazi mission personnel escape the attack. Once the attack commenced, Stevens was taken to a “safe room” within the mission. It is not known whether his location was betrayed by the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, the local force providing security to the consulate, which had ties to the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist group conducting the attack, and to al Qaeda. Unbelievably, we still do not know how Ambassador Stevens died. The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI, State Department and the Pentagon, watched and listened to the assault but did nothing to answer repeated calls for assistance. It has been reported that President Obama met with Vice President Joseph R. Biden and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in the Oval Office, presumably to see what support could be provided. After all, we had very credible military resources within striking distance. At our military base in Sigonella, Sicily, which is slightly over 400 miles from Benghazi, we had a fully equipped Special Forces unit with both transport and jet strike aircraft prepositioned. Certainly this was a force much more capable than the 22-man force from our embassy in Tripoli.

2 of 3

1/10/2013 8:18 PM

LYONS: Obama needs to come clean on what happened in Benghazi - Was...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/28/lyonsobama-needs-...

You are currently viewing the printable version of this article, to return to the normal page, please click here . mind they would have wiped out the terrorists attackers. Also I have no doubt that Admiral William McRaven, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, would have had his local commander at Sigonella ready to launch; however, apparently he was countermanded—by whom? We need to know. I also understand we had a C-130 gunship available, which would have quickly disposed of the terrorist attackers. This attack went on for seven hours. Our fighter jets could have been at our Benghazi mission within an hour. Our Special Forces out of Sigonella could have been there within a few hours. There is not any doubt that action on our part could have saved the lives of our two former Navy SEALs and possibly the ambassador. Having been in a number of similar situations, I know you have to have the courage to do what’s right and take immediate action. Obviously, that courage was lacking for Benghazi. The safety of your personnel always remains paramount. With all the technology and military capability we had in theater, for our leadership to have deliberately ignored the pleas for assistance is not only in incomprehensible, it is un-American. Somebody high up in the administration made the decision that no assistance (outside our Tripoli embassy) would be provided, and let our people be killed. The person who made that callous decision needs to be brought to light and held accountable. According to a CIA spokesperson, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need.” We also need to know whether the director of CIA and the director of National Intelligence were facilitators in the fabricated video lie and the overall cover-up. Their creditability is on the line. A congressional committee should be immediately formed to get the facts out to the American people. Nothing less is acceptable. Retired Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

3 of 3

1/10/2013 8:18 PM

Sources suggest the Benghazi attack was a bungled abduction attempt - T...

http://www.examiner.com/article/some-sources-suggest-the-benghazi-atta...

MAIN

DEMOCRAT

REPUBLICAN

INDEPENDENT

ELECTIONS 2012

BENGAHZIGATE

NOVEMBER 15, 2012

BY: BRIAN COLE

9 photos
View the full slideshow »

RELATED TOPICS BengahziGate Barack Obama

Retired Four-Star Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, one of the guests on “Lou Dobbs Tonight”
(http://archive.org/details/FBC_20121115_000000_Lou_Dobbs_Tonight) this past Wednesday

(http://www.examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com /topic/bengahzigate /articles) /topic/barack-obama)

evening, suggests the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 was the result of a bungled abduction attempt. Admiral Lyons, whose career in the United States (U.S.) Navy was capped by two years of service as the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet from 1985 to 1987, thinks this kidnapping was planned to be the first stage of an international prisoner exchange. This transfer of prisoners would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the “Blind Sheik” convicted of orchestrating the World Trade Center Bombing in 1993. View slideshow: Some sources suggest Benghazi attack was a bungled abduction attempt
(http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/some-sources-suggest-benghazi-attack-was-a-bungledabduction-attempt)

Hillary Clinton
(http://www.examiner.com /topic/hillary-clinton)

General David Patraeus
(http://www.examiner.com /topic/general-davidpatraeus/articles)

Lyons' analysis of the evidence led him to the failed kidnapping conclusion Admiral James Lyons (http://archive.org/details/FBC_20121115_000000_Lou_Dobbs_Tonight) suggests the Obama administration intentionally lessened the levels of security at the consulate compound in Benghazi in the weeks leading up to the attack. This plan should have worked to reduce the possibility of resistance as the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist organization captured Chris Stevens, the American Ambassador to Libya. According to information obtained by Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghaziattack-sources-say/) , Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, both former U.S. Navy Seals, ignored orders to "stand down" and fought vigorously for hours in

their attempt to defend the compound from the impending attack. Ultimately, these armed assaults on the U.S. Consulate and CIA annex claimed the life of four Americans--Ambassador Chris Stevens, former U.S. Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, and State Department information manager Sean Smith. Failed kidnapping attempt theory proposed by Western Center for Journalism

1 of 3

1/10/2013 7:04 PM

Sources suggest the Benghazi attack was a bungled abduction attempt - T...

http://www.examiner.com/article/some-sources-suggest-the-benghazi-atta...

In October 2012, the Western Center for Journalism released two separate articles suggesting the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in the Benghazi attack was the result of a failed kidnapping attempt aborted by the complicit terrorists when they encountered the unexpected armed resistance at the U.S. Consulate. On October 20, Kris Zane published the center’s initial article “Muslim Brotherhood Behind Benghazi Attack with Link to Obama.
(http://www.westernjournalism.com/muslim-brotherhood-behind-benghazi-attack-with-link-to-obama/) ” Zane suggests the “Innocence of Muslims” video

was nothing more than a scapegoat the Obama administration utilized to distract the public from the incriminating information being gathered from the investigations into the attack at Benghazi, Libya. Within 24 hours of the incident, ground intelligence had already linked the assault on the compound to Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt. Therefore, the Obama administration had already determined by September 12 the online video had absolutely nothing to do with the armed assault on the American Consulate and CIA annex. Later in the article, Zane cites an anonymous source from inside the White House that explained the Benghazi debacle had been constructed in order to deliver an “October surprise for Obama.” The administration’s plan was to abduct Ambassador Stevens to ensure the release of Abdel Rahman would be more “palatable to the American people.” By winning the release of Stevens, Obama would have boosted his mediocre approval ratings just in time for Election Day, and Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood could have secured the freedom of their beloved “Blind Sheik.” On October 23, news networks received and released emails (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2012/10/24/internal-emails-on-libya-terrorattack/) confirming that all vital intelligence agencies had been informed of the severity of the attack within two hours of the confrontation. These same

communications had also been forwarded to the White House Situation Room. On October 25, Kris Zane published his second article on the incident “Obama Linked to Benghazi Attack (http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamalinked-to-benghazi-attack/) .” This submission also included a video detailing the facts and research Zane had gathered to support his conclusion that this

botched abduction attempt was the real reason behind the deadly Benghazi attack. Judge Mukasey links Obama to release of sheik Almost a month before the Western Center for Journalism shared its conclusions in regards to the Benghazi attack, the Wall Street Journal had published an article on September 24, 2012 from Judge Michael Mukasey entitled “Will Obama Free the Blind Sheik? (http://online.wsj.com/article
/SB10000872396390444358804578014531735055120.html) ”

In his submission, Mukasey questioned the wisdom of releasing this “poisonously influential Islamic Cleric” Omar Abdel Rahman back to his homeland. Upon Rahman’s release to Egypt, Judge Mukasey concluded the sheik would incite additional domestic and international acts of terror against Americans. Judge Mukasey, who presided over Abdel Rahman’s trial in 1995, had sentenced the sheik to life in prison upon his conviction for the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, numerous plots to destroy other landmarks in New York City, and conspiring to assassinate Hosni Mubarak, the President of Egypt. According to Mukasey, Rahman’s “legacy” as an “totemic figure” for Islamic militants originated in 1981, when his "pronouncements" were used by Egyptian soldiers to justify their assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Mukasey informs his readers of the June 2012 meeting at the White House when Hani Nour Eldin urged that Abdel Rahman be transferred to Egypt. Questions immediately arose as to how Eldin, who had just completed an 11 year sentence for terrorism charges and was also a professed member of a designated terrorist organization, could have even been granted a visa to enter the U.S., much less secure a visit to the White House. After an adamant series of interrogations from Congress, Homeland Security official Nelson Peacock admitted that while the issuance of Eldin’s visa failed to raise “warning flags,” regulations would have required him to receive “waiver from someone in authority” for admittance to the U.S. Sources suggest Clinton’s documents confirm orders for additional security Well-renowned writer Ed Klein appeared as a guest on The Blaze TV’s “Wilkow!” (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ed-klein-bill-clinton-urging-hillaryto-release-benghazi-documents-that-would-exonerate-her-destroy-obamas-re-election-hopes/) on October 24 to discuss the existence of documents

confirming Clinton ordered additional security for the compound in Benghazi, Libya prior to the attack on September 11 2012. Host Andrew Wilkow spoke with Klein, who reported “legal counsel” for the Clintons had informed him of Bill and Hillary’s numerous heated discussions in recent weeks regarding the release of these papers. Ed Klein insisted these communications written by Hillary Clinton (http://www.examiner.com/topic/hillary-clinton) had ordered additional security to be provided in Benghazi, and Obama blatantly refused her request. These documents could be used to further support the rampant suspicions Obama had ulterior motives for leaving the American outpost virtually unguarded from outside aggressors. Bill Clinton tried to convince Hillary to go forward with her written requests so she would be exonerated from any wrong-doing in the attack. Hillary refused to disclose the orders for additional security out of fear she would be labeled as a "betrayer" of the Democratic Party. This "betrayal" would have eliminated her chance to run for president in 2016.

2 of 3

1/10/2013 7:04 PM

Sources suggest the Benghazi attack was a bungled abduction attempt - T...

http://www.examiner.com/article/some-sources-suggest-the-benghazi-atta...

It is worth noting that within days of Obama’s reelection, Hillary Clinton resigned from her cabinet position as Secretary of State. This resignation infers there is truth to the widely reported rumors that the relationship between the Clintons and Obama has always been "tense at best." Congress and the media question timing of General Petraeus’ resignation Further confounding analysts trying to determine what really happened in Benghazi on the night of September 11 are the recent revelations about General David Petraeus’ affair with his Biographer Paula Broadwell (http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_11_14/Petraeus-scandal-distraction-from-Benghaziprobe/) .

General Petraeus publicly stated this affair with his biographer was the reason he submitted his resignation. News of this sex scandal surfaced less than a week after Election Day, when a slim majority of American voters had re-elected Barack Obama (http://www.examiner.com/topic/barack-obama) as President of the United States. Reports indicate the FBI initiated an investigation over the summer regarding General Petraeus’ extramarital affair and the potential related threats to national security. However, the agency never alerted Congress of the potential compromise of confidential information. The Obama administration has also insisted it was never notified by the FBI of the pending investigation prior to the election. However, many critics now conclude the White House intentionally delayed the announcement of Petraeus’ resignation to avoid any impact on Obama’s reelection bid. Tracking down the truths behind the Benghazi attack will take time and tenacity The circumstantial evidence increasingly supports the various sources currently suggesting the attacks on the U.S. Consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya was in fact an aborted abduction attempt resulting in the murder of four Americans. However, tracking down the truth will take time and tenacity for all of the investigators involved in the hunt for honest answers. Voters can play a pivotal role in ensuring the actual account of events will be released by repeatedly contacting local and national media sources, as well as their elected congressional representatives. It is imperative the American electorate demand honesty, transparency, and accountability in the investigation of the attack that lead the death of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

More From Examiner
President Obama could get 3 terms if H.J.Res 15 abolishes term limits (Politics - Examiner.com) Anti-Obama bumper sticker leads to parking lot altercation with a handgun (Politics - Examiner.com) Obama to NBC: He wants to ban semi-autos in 'first year' (Politics Examiner.com) Feinstein's bill targets handguns, prompts talk of civil war (Politics Examiner.com) Boehner to be forced out or resign as House Speaker (Politics Examiner.com)

From Around the Web
5 Ridiculous Gun Myths Everyone Believes (Thanks to Movies) (cracked.com) 6 reasons not to buy a smartphone (Bankrate.com) Stop The Violence: The FBI Releases An UPDATED List Of America’s Top 20 Most Dangerous Cities In 2012!!! (Bossip) 5 Signs a Caregiver Is Stealing From You (Caring.com) How to Decipher a Social Security Number (eHow)

Brian Cole, Tampa Bay Libertarian Examiner
[?]

Brought up among family members with strong political opinions, Brian C. Cole soon arrived at this disheartening conclusion: Neither of the two major political parties represented his personal ideologies. In the 1990s, Brian discovered the Libertarian Party and its commitment to free markets,...

3 of 3

1/10/2013 7:04 PM

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY FACSIMlLE AND REGULAR FIRST CLASS MAIL Strunk v. Jeffries et a1 Index No.: 21948-2012 STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF
Accordingly, I, H. WILLIAM VAN ALLEN, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:
a Am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. . b. c. M place of business is located at 351 North Road Hurley New York 12443. y On January 14,2013,Christopher Strunk sent by email pdf (see attached) and instructed me to serve a true conformed copy of PETITIONER'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENTS" MOTION

TO DISMISS THE PETITION WITH SANCTIONS WITH SIX EXHIBITS affirmed January 14,
2013 I N THE CASE WITH Index no: 21948-2012, both by fax and by regular mail for delivery by the USPS
upon respondents" counsels listed below. d. On January 15,2013, caused each copy with proper postage for service by facsimile (see report attached) I and by regular mail that was then deposited with proper postage with the USPS for service upon:

Fax for the Attention of Steven C. Farkas, Esq. at Fax: 516-742-1765
AND SERVICE BY MAIL UPON ! 3 W E N C. FARKAS, ESQ. COLLERAN, O'HARA & MILS, L.L.P. 1225 Franklin Avenue, Suite 450 Garden C i , New York 11530

Fax for the attention of Joshua Pepper AAG AND SERVICE BY MAIL UPON J0SHUA PEPPER, NYS AAG Special Litigation Counsel Litiaation Bureau 126 Broadway - 24th Floor New York, NY 10271-0332

at Fax: 2124164009

Sworn to efore me This I g %ay of January 20 13

P

*TiGy-A,b
Notary Public

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR THE COUNTY OF KINGS
. -

Index No.: 21948 12012
Hon David I Schmidt J.S.C.

Christopher-Earl :Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 281 Brooklyn New York 11238 Petitioner,

Hakeem Jeffries ,Grace Meng, Felix Ortiz, Bill DeBlasio, Walter Cooper, Keith L.T. Wright, Christine C. Quinn, William Thompson, Scott Stringer, Emily Giske, Anne Marie Anzalone, Archie Spigner, George Gresham, Ruben Diaz, Jr.; Ken Jenkins; Mario Cilento; Gerald D. Jennings; Byron Brown ;Robert DuffL; Joseph Morelle; Scott Adarns ;Stephanie Miner; Steve Bellone; Irene Stein; Sheila Comar; and Kirsten Gillibrand Respondents.

9

Petitioner's combined response in opposition to the New York State Electoral College Electors motion to dismiss the petition with prejudice and sanctions affirmed January 14,2013

EX A - Note of Issue with Certificate of Readinessfor trial EX B - Petitioner - "Private" natural-born U.S. Citizen secured beneficiary
EX C- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington D. of C. Circuit case No.: 13-5005-0P caption EX D- the 1 2 20 and 2 5 Amendments with related law as explained by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. ~ ~

EX & EX F-

Sherrif Joe Arpaio' chief investigator Mike Zullo Affidavit affirmed ~ovember9,2012 Report on the efforts of Navy Admiral James Lyons on October 28,2012 and later.

Affidavit of Service Dated: Brooklyn, New York ~anuary"', 2013
Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse, Petitioner self-represent without being a n attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28 1, Brooklyn, New York 11238. (845) 901-6767 E-mail: chris@strunk.ws

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Petitioner,

I

Index No. 2 1948112

- against HAKEEM JEFFRIES, et al., Respondents.

RESPONDENTS KEITH L.T. WRIGHT AND FELIX ORTIZ'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for Defendants 120 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, New York 10271 (2 12) 4 16-8567

JOSHUA PEPPER Assistant Attorney General of Counsel

INTRODUCTION
Respondents KEITH L.T. WRIGHT and FELIX ORTIZ hereby submit this Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion To Dismiss. Petitioner Christopher Earl Strunk again alleges that the President is not a natural-born citizen and that the Presidential Electors should be disqualified from casting their votes for President Obama. This is a rehash of the same case he has brought three times before. This Court should dismiss this case without reaching the merits of Petitioner's claims for several reasons, each of which constitutes independent grounds for dismissal. First, Petitioner has not served respondents according to the requirements of the Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR). Petitioner has merely mailed the papers to the respondents. Second, collateral estoppel bars Petitioner's claims. This Court and other courts have already dismissed Petitioner's claims three times over. Third, Petitioner lacks standing to assert his claims. Petitioner has never alleged any injury to himself. Fourth, Petitioner's claims are non-justiciable. Challenges to the qualifications of Electors are for Congress, not the courts. This is a political question. Finally, Petitioner's claims are moot. The Electoral College has already held its election.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner is a citizen and registered voter. Petition ("Pet.") f 1. All of the Respondents are Presidential Electors ("Electors"), having been elected to cast votes for President and Vice President in accordance with Election Law 9 12-100. Pet. 7 6.

Petitioner alleges that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and that President Obama has forged his birth certificate. Pet.

7 3.

On or

about November 9, 2012, Petitioner made complaints to fourteen district attorneys' offices charging President Obarna with fraud and charging the Electors with aiding and abetting fraud. Pet. f 3,4. Several of the Electors are also elected officials. Pet. 17 12, 27,42-59. Petitioner seeks to disqualify them as Electors because he contends that their duties as Electors are incompatible with their duties as elected officials. Pet. 77 8-39. Petitioner also seeks to void the U.S. Senate election of Kirsten Gillibrand, who is also an Elector. Pet. vy 8-1 1. On or about November 9, 2012, Petitioner mailed a notice to all 29 Electors, including the Governor, the Attorney General, and the State Comptroller, that Petitioner intended to seek an Order To Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction that would enjoin the Electors from casting their votes. Pet.

7 5. However, Petitioner is enjoined from

filing any actions against, inter alia, the Governor, the Attorney General, the Comptroller, or Assemblymember Sheldon Silver without prior permission from the Court. Pet.

7 10; Strunk v. N. Y.S Bd. of Elections, Case No. 6500- 1 1, 2012 WL

120517,

at * 19-20. Thus, Petitioner dropped them as respondents. Pet. 7 7. On or about November 14, 2012, Petitioner's associate mailed copies of the Petition and Notice of Petition to all respondents at their home addresses. Affidavit of Service (Affirmation of Joshua Pepper ("Pepper Aff."), Ex. A). On or about the same day, Petitioner filed his Petition in this Court. On November 19, 2012, this Court declined to sign Petitioner's Order To Show Cause.

ARGUMENT
1.

RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY SERVED.
Strict compliance with all of the technical dictates of CPLR 308(2) is required in

order to obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Olsen v. Haddad, 187 A.D.2d 375, 376 (1'' Dep't 1992). Mail alone is insufficient, as is service on a party's attorney. Eagle

Ins. Co. v. Republic Western Ins. Co., 2 1 Misc.3d 1121(A), 2008 WL 4700497, at * 2
(Sup. Ct. Nassau Co. Oct. 24, 2008); DiGiuseppe v. DiGiuseppe, 70 Misc.2d 188, 189 (Civ. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1972). It is irrelevant that the defendant may have actually received the requisite documents in the mail. Raschel v. Rish, 69 N.Y.2d 694, 697 (1986). Proper service requires either delivery directly upon the person or delivery to a person of suitable age and discretion at the person's home or business address plus delivery by mail. CPLR 308. Petitioner effected service by mail alone. Pepper Aff., Ex.
A. Thus, Petitioner has failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over Respondent Wright or

Respondent Ortiz - or any respondent, for that matter - and dismissal is warranted.

'

11.

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BARS PETITIONER'S CLAIMS.
Collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating an issue that has been

previously decided against him in a prior proceeding. Buechel v. Bain, 97 N.Y.2d 295, 303 (2001). Petitioner has brought three similar actions in this Court and in federal court:

Strunk v. N. Y.S. Bd. ofElections, Case No. 08-CV-4289 (ARR) (LB) (E.D.N.Y.) ("Strunk

I") (Pepper Aff., Ex. B); Strunk v. Paterson, Index No. 29641108 ("Strunk Il") (Pepper

The Office of the Attorney General appears for Wright and Ortiz'alone because none of the other state officials who may be entitled to such representation have requested it as required by N.Y. Pub. Officers L. jj 17. Although the undersigned counsel has made inquiries, apparently none of the other state officials have received the Petition that Petitioner claims to have mailed to them. The Ofice of the Attorney General reserves the right to make this motion on behalf of any other respondent who may be served in the future. In any event, the record appears to give this Court ample grounds to dismiss this action against all respondents, including those who have not moved.

'

Aff., Ex. C); and Strunk v. N. Y.S. Bd. of Elections, Index No. 650011 1,20 12 WL 12051 17

("Strunk ZIT') (Pepper Aff., Ex. D). The decisions of the courts in these three actions bar
Petitioner's claims three times over. Collateral estoppel has two elements: first, the identical issue must have been decided in the prior action and be decisive in the instant action, and second, the party must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter. Lushcer v. Arrua, 21 A.D.3d 1005, 1007 (2d Dep't 2005); D'Arata v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 N.Y.2d 659, 664 (1 990). Both elements are present here.

A. -

The Court Decided the Identical Issue Against Petitioner in the Previous Three Actions.

An issue is identical even if based on a different cause of action. Strunk 111, 2012 WL 12051 17, at

* 13.

'It need only be "identical in substance."

Westch. Co. Corr.

O ' c e r s Benevolent Ass 'n, Inc. v. County of Westch., 65 A.D.3d 1226, 1227 (2d Dep7t
2009). The issues in the instant action are identical in substance to those in Petitioner's prior actions. In Strunk I, Petitioner sought to prevent the 2008 general election "based on an allegedly invalid slate of presidential electors." Pepper Aff., Ex. B, at 1. The federal court ruled that Petitioner lacked standing to sue and that Petitioner's allegation that the Electors "have allegedly violated the State of New York's Constitution in allowing some electors to hold more than one public office" failed to state a claim. Id. at 4. In Strunk II, Petitioner again "raise[d] the issue regarding an alleged conflict of interest (incompatibility) in [the Electors'] simultaneous holding of two public offices." Pepper Aff., Ex. C, at 3. This Court ruled that no such conflict existed. Id. at 4-7. Finally, in Strunk IIl Petitioner again alleged that the President was not a natural-

born citizen and sought to prevent the New York State Board of Elections from putting presidential candidates on the 20 12 ballot. Strunk 1 1 201 2 WL 12051 17, at 1,

* 1.

The

court ruled, inter alia, that collateral estoppel barred Petitioner's claims because he had

1, litigated them in Strunk Iand Strunk I/. Strunk 1 1 2012 W L 12051 17, at * 13.
Here, Petitioner argues that President Obarna is not a natural-born citizen and that the Electors cannot serve in their public offices and as Electors simultaneously. Pet. 17 839, 42-59. These issues are identical in substance to those that the courts decided against him in his previous three actions.

B. -

Petitioner Has Had a Full and Fair Opportunity To Litigate the Matter.

The party to be precluded from relitigating the issue bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the prior determination. Buechel, '97 N.Y.2d at 304. Petitioner cannot do so. Petitioner has now filed four cases making these same allegations. In all three previous cases, the court heard the. matter, motion practice ensued, and the court made a decision. Indeed, Strunk

III renders Petitioner collaterally estopped from arguing that he is not collaterally
estopped. Accordingly, Petitioner is collaterally estopped from relitigating his claims in this action.

111.

PETITIONER LACKS STANDING TO ASSERT HIS CLAIMS.
Standing is a threshold determination that a court must make at the outset of any

litigation. Soc. of Plastics Indus. v. County of Sutolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 769 (1 991). No allegation of "vital public concern" can confer standing on a litigant. Id. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show that he has sustained an injury in fact that is distinct from

that of the general public. Concerned Tuxpuyers (?/'StonyPoint v. Town qj'Stony Point. 28 A.D.3d 657,658 (2d Dep't 2006). Petitioner alleges no injury whatsoever. He alleges only that he is a registered voter. Pet. 7 1. A person "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." Diederich v. Rockland County Police ChiefS Ass 'n, 33 A.D.3d 653, 654 (2d Dep't 2006). Petitioner's sole interest in this matter is that of any taxpayer and citizen. Moreover, the court has already ruled in

trunk

111 that Petitioner lacks standing

because he cannot establish any injury from the Electors' votes. Strunk III, 2012 W L 12051 17, at *9. Thus, Petitioner is collaterally estopped from asserting standing in this case. Plaintiff lacks standing, and his case should be dismissed.

IV.

PETITIONER'S CLAIM PRESENTS A NON-JUSTICIABLE POLITICAL QUESTION. 'The power of the judicial branch may be exercised only in a manner consistent

with the judicial function. N. Y.S. Inspection, Security and Law Enforcement Employees,

Dist. Council 82, AFCME, AFL-CIO v. Cuomo, 64 N.Y.2d 233, 238 (1984).

The

political-question doctrine requires judicial deference to a coordinate, co-equal branch of government in cases such as this, where "policy matters have demonstrably and textually been committed to a coordinate, political branch of government." Id. at 240. Here, federal law explicitly designates decisions regarding the validity of votes of Presidential Electors to the House of Representatives. 3 U.S.C. tj 15. Any challenge must be made by at least one senator and at least one member of the House of Representatives.

Id.

Indeed, the Strunk III court has already recognized that such

challenges are "the exclusive means to resolve objections to the electors' selection of a

President and a Vice President." Slrunk Ill, 20 12 WL 1205 1 17, at * 12. Thus, collateral estoppel also applies to this point, and this Court may not entertain Petitioner's challenge to the Electors' capacity to cast their votes for President and Vice President. V.

THIS CASE IS MOOT BECAUSE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE.
'I'he Court's jurisdiction extends only to live controversies. Suratoga Couniy

Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Pataki, 100 N.Y.2d 801, 810 (2003). When a change in
circumstances prevents a court from rendering a decision that would determine such an actual controversy, the case becomes moot, and the court should dismiss the case. Id. at 8 11; Dreikausen v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals ofthe City of Long Beach, 98 N.Y.2d 165, 172 (2002). The Electoral College vote took place on December 17, 2012, which was the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. N.Y. Election Law

5

12-104. Thus,

Petitioner's challenge to the qualifications of the Electors cannot determine any live controversy. The instant case is indistinguishable from Gold-Greenberger v. Human

Resources Admin. of the City of N. Y., 77 N.Y.2d 973, 974 (1991), in which the Court of
Appeals reversed a decision on the merits of a candidate's right to solicit signatures on petition for candidacy and dismissed the case as moot because the election had already taken place. Petitioner's claims should similarly be dismissed.

CONCLUSION
This Court has multiple grounds to dismiss this case. Any one of these grounds would be independently sufficient for dismissal. Respondents Wright and Ortiz

respectfully request that this Court dismiss this case with prejudice and grant such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York December 2 1,2012 Respectfully submitted,

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for Respondents Keith L. T. Wright and Felix Ortiz
By:

d ,( j *?~ S H U PEPPER A Assistant Attorney General 120 Broadway, 24'hfloor New York, NY 1027 1 tel: 1-2 12-416-8567 fax: 1-2 12-416-6075 Joshua.pepper@ag.ny.gov

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS
-

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Petitioner, Index No. 2 1948112 Judge David I. Schmidt

- against HAKEEM JEFFRIES, et a]., Respondents.

NOTICE OF MOTION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that respondents KEITH L.T. WRIGHT and FELIX ORTIZ will move this Court, the Honorable David I. Schmidt of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201, at 10 a.m. on January 22,2013, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, for an Order pursuant to CPLR 32 11(a)(2), 32 11(a)(5), 32 11(a)(7), and 32 11(a)(8), granting dismissal in favor of the respondents, together with costs, disbursements, attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in support of their motion, Defendants will rely on the following accompanying documents: Affirmation of Joshua Pepper and

I

exhibits attached thereto, Respondents Keith L.T. Wright and Felix Ortiz's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion To Dismiss, and all other papers submitted in this action. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to CPLR 2214, Petitioner must submit its response, if any, no later than January 15,2013. Defendants will submit their reply, if any, no later than January 20,201 3.

Dated: New York, New York December 2 1,20 12 Respectfully submitted, ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Attorneyjbr Respondents 'Keith L. T.Wright und Felix Ortiz By:

FJyr,
J&HUA PEPPER Assistant Attorney General 120 Broadway, 24Ih floor New York, NY 10271 tel: 1-2 12-41 6-8567 fax: 1-212-416-6075 Joshua.pepper@ag.ny.gov

TO:

Christopher Earl Strunk 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28 1 Brooklyn, NY 1 1238 chris(ii),strunk.ws Petitioner pro se Steven C. Farkas, Esq. Colleran O'Hara & Mills LLP 1225 Franklin Avenue, Suite 450 Garden City, New York 1 1530 A ttorneyfor Respondent Mario Cilento

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Petitioner, Index No. 2 1948112 Judge David I. Schmidt

- against HAKEEM JEFFRIES, et al., Respondents.

AFFIRMATION OF JOSHUA

PEPPER

JOSHUA PEPPER hereby declares the following to be true and correct under penalty of perjury, pursuant to CPLR 2 106:
1.

I am an Assistant Attorney General of New York State. I am a member of

the bar of the State of New York. I make this declaration in support of the Respondents'

Motion To Dismiss. 2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Affidavit of Service

as I received it from the Petitioner.

3.

Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the decision in Strunk

v. N. Y S . Bd. of Elections, Case No. 08-CV-4289 (ARR) (LB) (E.D.N.Y.).

4.

Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the decision in Strunk

v. Paterson, Index No. 2964 1108.
5.

Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the decision in Strunk

v. N. YS. Bd. of Elections, Index No. 650011 1,2012 WL 1205117.

6.

Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Petition

and Petition as I received it from Petitioner.

Dated: New York, New York December 2 1,20 12

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS

..........................................................................
Petitioner, -against-

X
SPECIAL ELECTION PART Index No.: 2 1948112 Hon. David I. Schmidt

CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK,

BOARD OF ELECTIONS CITY OF NEW YORK HAKEEM JEFFRIES, GRACER MENG, FELIX ORTIZ, : BILL DEBLASIO, WALTER COOPER, KEITH L.T. WRIGHT, CHRISTINE QUNN, WILLIAM THOMPSON: SCOTT STRINGER, EMILY GISKE, ANNE MARIE AN-: ZALONE, ARCHIE SPINNINGS, GEORGE GRESHAM : RUBEN DIAZ, JR., KEN JENKINS, MARIO CILENTO : GERALD D. JENNINGS, BYRON BROWN, ROBERT : DUFFY, JOSEPH MORELLE, SCOTT ADAMS, STEPHANIE MINER, STEVE BELLONE, IRENE SMITH, SHELIA COMAR, KRISTINE GILLIBRAND : Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE VERIFIED PETITION, AND IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

COLLEMN, O'HAICA & MILLS, L.L.P. Attorneys for Respondent, MARIO CILENTO 1225 Franklin Avenue, Suite 450 Garden City, New York 11530 (5 16) 248-5757

Steven C. Farkas, Esq.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
L

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT........................................................................................... FACTUAL BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................

L

ARGUMENT I.
L

STANDARD FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS ........................................................ THE VERIFIED PETITION MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE PETITIONER LACKS STANDING, AND THE VERIFIED PETITION FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED, PRESENTS NON-JUSTICIABLE POLITICAL QUESTIONS, and CONTAINS JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS ........................................................

11.

L

1

A.
B.

Petitioner Lacks Standing, Having Suffered No Particularized Injury ......... Petitioner Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, and Instead Presents Non-Justiciable Political Questions......... Petitioner's Claims Must Be Dismissed on the Grounds of Collateral Estoppel ........................................................................................................ The Verified Petition Must Be Dismissed Because Petitioner Failed to Specify the Time and Place of the Hearing on the Petition, and Failed to Properly Serve Mr. Cilento ........................................................................... Petitioner's Conduct is Worthy of Sanction Under Part 130 of the Compilation of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations ............................

C.

D.

E.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Allen v. Wright.. 468 U .S. 737 (1984) ....................................................................................... 5 7 Buechel v. Bain. 97 N.Y.2d 295 (2001) .......................................................................................... 4 .2d 3 18; 740 N.Y.2d 801 (Sup. Ct.Madison Cty.2002).................. Butler v. McCarty, 191 Misc 4 Butler v. McCartv, 762 N.Y.S.2d 129 (App.Div. 3d Dept. 2003) ................................................. 4 Four Seasons Hotels v. Vinnik, 5 15 N.Y.S.2d 1 (App . Div. 1st Dept. 1987) ..........................,...... 7 Gilberg v .Barbieri, 53 N.Y.2d 285 (198 1) .................................................................................... 3 Gugyenheimer v . Ginsburg. 43 N.Y.2d 268 (1977) ........................................................................ Huntington Yacht Club v. Inc. Vill. of Huntindon Bay, 4 767 N.Y.S.2d 132 (App. Div 2d Dept.2003) ............................................................................. 6 Kent v. Truman, 9 A.D.2d 649 (1st Dept. 1959)............................................................................. 3 Leon v . Martinez. 84 N.Y.2d 83 (1 994) .......................................................................................... ; Luian v.Defenders of Wildlife. 504 U.S. 555 (1992)..................................................................5 McNeary v . Nianara Mohawk Power Corn.. 728 N.Y.S.2d 840 (App.Div . 3d Dept.200 1) .........4 3 Morone v. Morone, 50 N.Y.2d 481 (1980) ..................................................................................... Nianara Mohawk Power Corn.v . State. 753 N.Y.S.2d 541 (App. Div. 3d Dept. 2002) .................4 Saratoaa County Chamber of Commerce v . Pataki. 100 N.Y.2d 801 (2003) ................................ 4 6 Sibersky v New York CiW. 270 A.D.2d 209 (1st Dept. 2000) .................................................... Strunk v.New York State Bd.of Elections. 35 Misc. 3d 1208(A) (Sup Ct 2012) ................p assim Travis v.New York State Dept. of Envtl . Conservation, 185 A.D.2d 714 (4th Dept . 1992)..........7 . .......................4 Ulmann v. Norma Kamali. Inc.. 207 A.D.2d 691 (1st Dept. 1994) ................... .

.

42 U.S.C. $1983 .............................................................................................................................. 4 5 Civil Practice Law and Rules $3013 (McKinney 20 12) ..................................................... Civil Practice Law and Rules $3211 (McKinney 2012) ............................................................. 3 , s 7 Civil Practice Law and Rules $304 (McKinney 20 12) ................................................................... 8 Civil Practice Law and Rules $308 (McKinney 20 12) ................................................................... 7 Civil Practice Law and Rules $403 (McKinney 20 12) ................................................................... Rules Civil Practice Law and Rules Rule 3014 (McKinney 2012) .......................................................5, 6 22NYCRR $130-1.1 ..............................................................................................................8 Constitutional Provisions 1 U.S. Constitution Article 2, $ 1 ........................................................................................................

Statutes

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Respondent, MARIO CILENTO, submits this Memorandum of Law in Support of Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Verified Petition of Christopher-Earl Strunk ("Petitioner"), filed on November 14, 2012. As this Court is aware, Petitioner is familiar with the courts of the
L

State of New York, having filed similar lawsuits in the past. In this latest iteration, Petitioner appears to challenge the qualifications of President Barack Obarna to be President of the United
I

States, while also challenging the qualifications of twenty-nine (29) individuals to serve as electors in the Electoral College for the recently-held general election. Petitioner also seeks an injunction staying the electoral college vote scheduled for December 15, 2012, in order to allow
L

this court to issue a declaratoryjudgment interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Petitioner's Verified Petition must be dismissed because Petitioner lacks standing to bring this action, having suffered no particularized injury. Petitioner has also failed to state a

k

claim upon which relief can be granted, and has presented to this Court a rambling set of nonjusticiable political questions. This is in addition to basic procedural and jurisdictional defects,
h

including, failing to list a return date and location on the Notice of Petition, and improper service of the Respondent, Mr. CILENTO.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On November 14, 2012, Petitioner filed a Notice of Petition and Verified Petition in this matter, requesting various forms of relief.

See Affirmation of Steven C. Farkas, at Exhibit "A".

Respondent MARIO CILENTO is the president of the New York State AFL-CIO, and is also a Democratic Presidential Elector. As Judge Schack aptly commented in a prior decision on one of Petitioner's previous attempts to obtain the same relief, the Petition reads more like a political manifesto than a claim for relief. See Strunk v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 35 Misc. 3d 1208(A) (Sup Ct 2012), annexed to the Affirmation of Steven C. Farkas, at Exhibit "B." At its core, the Petition appears to be a challenge to the qualifications of President Barack Obarna to hold the position of the President of the United States. This challenge is based primarily on the claim that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, a claim that has been kept alive throughout the last four years by the so-called "birther" movement. Petitioner contends that President Obama is guilty of a number of offenses, including forgery and theft, in addition to the disqualifjhg characteristic of not being a natural-born citizen of the United States. Further allegations include the claim that President Obarna commits treason by actively giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. Though difficult to discern, the Petition suggests that any member of the Electoral College who casts a vote for President Obarna is guilty of aiding and abetting in the "usurpation" of the Office of the President. MAFUO CILENTO, along with most of the other Respondents, is an elector who cast a vote for the President of the United States on December 15, 2012. Petitioner alleges that any elector who casts such a vote is an accessory to a felony, and asks the Court to enjoin the vote until a decision can be made on the issue of whether or not President

Obama is qualified to hold the Office. Petitioner also seeks a judgment fiom this Court, declaring the election of United States Senator Kirsten Gillibrand to be void "ab initio", due to the alleged disqualification of the Respondents as electors. The remaining five (5) "questions" are all variations on that theme. Notably, Petitioner has not joined Governor Cuomo, Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, Attorney General Eric Schneiderrnan, or New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, based on a restriction found in Judge Schack's Order of April 11,2012. On November 19,2012, this Court declined to sign Petitioner's Order to Show Cause seeking the relief requested in the Verified Petition, because the Petitioner had not obtained court approval to join these necessary parties. Prior to the issuance of that Order, in lieu of properly serving Mr. CILENTO, Petitioner mailed the Notice of Petition and Verified Petition to Mr. CILENTO at his house, via certified mail. ARGUMENT

I.

STANDARD FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS Petitioner's Verified Petition must be dismissed pursuant to N.Y. CPLR $3211(a)(7), as

the Verified Petition fails to set forth a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. When deciding a CPLR $3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss, courts will liberally construe the pleadings and accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true. Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87 (1994)

citing Morone v. Morone, 50 N.Y.2d 481, 484 (1980). "The criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one.'' Id. citing Guanenheimer v. Ginsburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268,275 (1977). Review of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR $3211 requires the court to accept as true the allegations contained in the complaint and to accord the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference and determine whether the facts alleged state

any cognizable legal claim. Butler v. McCarty, 191 Misc. 2d 318; 740 N.Y.2d 801 (Sup. Ct. Madison Cty. 2002), affd Butler v. McCartv, 762 N.Y.S.2d 129 (App. Div. 3d Dept. 2003). However, more is needed to state a claim than factual allegations which are conclusory or vague. Nianara Mohawk Power Corp. v. State, 753 N.Y.S.2d 541, 545 (App. Div. 3d Dept. 2002) (citing McNeaw v. Nianara Mohawk Power Corn., 728 N.Y.S.2d 840 (App. Div. 3d Dept. 2001)); Four Seasons Hotels v. Vinnik, 515 N.Y.S.2d 1 (App. Div. 1st Dept. 1987); see also Huntington Yacht Club v. Inc. Vill. of Huntington Bay, 767 N.Y.S.2d 132, 134 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 2003) (dismissing a claim under 42 U.S.C. $1983 where "plaintiff failed to allege any facts to support its concIusory allegation that it was treated differently fiom other similarly-situated applicants."). The instant Petition must be dismissed as it is filled with nothing more than conclusory allegations. Petitioner's claim must be dismissed because the Court need not accept sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations. Ulmann v. Norma Kamali, Inc., 207 A.D.2d 691 (1st Dept. 1994). Similar to the claims made by this same Petitioner in Strunk, Petitioner's Article 78 Verified Petition is more of a political manifesto than a verified pleading. 11. THE VERIFIED PETITION MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE PETITIONER LACKS STANDING, AND THE VERIFIED PETITION FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED, PRESENTS NONJUSTICIABLE POLITICAL QUESTIONS, AND CONTAINS JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS A. Petitioner Lacks Standing, Having Suffered No Particularized Injury. Standing to sue is a critical component of the judicial system, guarding the pathway to the Court house for those seeking judicial relief. Saratona County Chamber of Commerce v. Pataki, 100 N.Y.2d 801, 812 (2003). It is a threshold issue. Id. In order for a litigant to have standing, that litigant must have an interest in the claim at issue that the law will recognize as a sufficient

predicate for determining the issue at the litigant's request. Strunk, 35 Misc. 3d 1208(A), at "11. The party seeking relief must have sustained an injury fairly traceable to the Respondents' allegedly unlawful conduct, and likely to be redressed by the requested relief. Id.at * 12; citing Allen v. Wrieht., 468 U.S. 737,751 (1984). Here, Petitioner lacks standing because his only alleged injuries are infringement on his right to suffrage, "republican form of government, freedom and liberty." at Exhibit "A", p.14, 735.

See Farkas Affirmation

These are the type of "generally available grievances about

government-claiming only harm 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", that the United States Supreme Court has already decided "[do] not state an Article I11 case or controversy." Luian v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 572 (1992). Similar to the claims raised in Strunk, Petitioner here again only raises "abstract and theoretical claims.. .failing to show any allegation of a particularized injury." in Strunk, the Petitioner's claims must be dismissed with prejudice.

Id.at 12.

Here, as

B. Petitioner Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, and Instead Presents NonJusticiable Political Questions.
Petitioner's claims must be dismissed because they amount to nothing more than bare legal conclusions, which are nothing more than "bald assertions cloaked as facts." Strunk, 35 Misc. 3d 1208(A), at *12, & Ruffino v. New York City Tr. Auth., 55 A.D.3d 817, 818 (2d Dept. 2008). The rambling, confusing, often incomprehensible statements also fail to provide Respondents with the particularity required by CPLR $3013 and CPLR Rule 3014. Section 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." Rule 3014 also requires "separate

causes of action or defenses shall be separately stated and numbered and may be stated regardless of consistency."

See CPLR Rule 3014. The First Department has stated that

"Pleadings that ar& not particular enough to provide the court and the parties with notice of the transaction or occurrences to be proved must be dismissed." Siberskv v New York City, 270 A.D.2d 209 (1st Dept. 2000). The Verified Petition must be dismissed because Petitioner has failed to follow the pleading requirements of the CPLR. Instead, this Court, and the Respondents, have been presented with the type of pleading that Judge Schack called a Rambling.. .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 'suficiently 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' and organized in 'plain and concise statements in consecutively numbered paragraphs.' See Strunk - -9 35 Misc. 3d 1208(A), at *13. There, as here, neither the Respondents, nor this

Court, should be forced to spell out an arguable shadow of a cause of action. Id., citing Kent v. Truman, 9 A.D.2d 649 (1 st Dept. 1959). The claims in the Verified Petition center around the qualifications of President Barack Obama to hold public office, and the voting procedures of the Electoral College. These claims are non-justiciable political questions. Strunk, 35 Misc. 3d 1208(A), at *14. This Court is

ill-suited to pass judgment on issues left to the entities of the federal government to which the Constitution delegates such authority.

Id.at * 15.

C. Petitioner's Claims Must Be Dismissed on the Grounds of Collateral Estoppel. As shown above, Petitioner has already brought these claims in the courts of the State of New York, and has had them dismissed with prejudice in the matter of Strunk, 35 Misc. 3d

1208(A). The doctrine of collateral estoppels is "based on the notion that it is not fair to permit a party to relitigate an issue which has previously been decided against him in a proceeding in which he had a fair opporhmity to fully litigate the point." Gilbern v. Barbieri, 53 N.Y.2d 285, 291 (1981). As stated by the Court of Appeals in Buechel v. Bain, "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 opportunity to contest the decision now said to be controlling." 97 N.Y.2d 295,303-304 (2001). Here, Petitioner has already litigated many of these issues in Strunk, cited above. He recognizes this fact by saying that "...Petitioner seeks equity relief on six (6) issues of Law with Facts pertaining to the misapplication and misadministration of Public Officer acts as relate to the December 5, 2008 Order and Decision as a matter of State Law heard by the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C.. ." See Farkas Aff. at Exhibit "A", p.2. Collateral estoppel must preclude Petitioner fiom pursuing the instant action. D. The Verified Petition Must Be Dismissed Because Petitioner Failed to Specify the Time and Place of the Hearing on the Petition, and Failed to Properly Serve Mr. Cilento. Petitioner's Verified Petition must be dismissed because the Notice of Petition failed to specify the time and place of the scheduled hearing on the petition, as required by CPLR 403. In New York, a special proceeding is commenced, and jurisdiction acquired, by service of a notice of petition. See CPLR 304. By not indicating a return date, Petitioner failed to comply with those statutory requirements, preventing this Court fiom acquiring personal jurisdiction over the Respondents. This must lead to the dismissal of the Petition. See Travis v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 185 A.D.2d 714 (4th Dept. 1992).

Further, the CPLR spells out the methods for serving individuals with initiatory papers. Mr. CILENTO is a natural person, meaning that the Petitioner must comply with the service methods outlined in CPLR 308. None of the methods described in the statute include sending the Notice of Petition and Verified Petition by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. This is the method Petitioner used to serve Mr. CILENTO. See Farkas Aff. at Exhibit "C." Thus, this

Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Mr. CILENTO, by virtue of Petitioner's repeated
failures to comply with the CPLR.

E. Petitioner's Conduct is Worthy of Sanction Under Part 130 of the Compilation of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations
L

As this Court-is well aware, Petitioner has already litigated the issues that are discussed in the Verified Petition. The Compilation of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations allows this Court, "in its discretion", to impose financial sanctions upon "any party of attorney in a civil

b

action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct" as defined in Part 130.

22 NYCRR

$ 130-l.l(a). Part 130 later defines frivolous conduct as that which is "completely without merit
L

in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law." 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c). As discussed in Strunk, 35 Misc. 3d 1208(A), Plaintiffs claims appear to be frivolous,

L

requiring an interpretation of the United States Constitution that is completely without merit in

I
L . -

law. As such, Petitioner should be forced to pay for the costs incurred by Respondent in
responding to the Verified Petition. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Respondent respectfully requests that upon the Notice of Motion
U

to Dismiss dated December 18, 2012, the Affirmation of Steven C. Farkas in Support, with

annexed exhibits, and the Memorandum of Law submitted in support of this Motion to Dismiss, and In Support of Respondent's Cross-Motion for Sanctions, dated December 18,2012, that this Court grant an Order and Judgment dismissing the November 13,2012 Verified Petition filed by Petitioner CHRISTOPHER-EARL: STRUNK, against Respondent, in its entirety, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just, proper and equitable, including sanctions against the Petitioner, and the costs of this motion. Dated: Garden City, New York January 2,20 13

By: STEVEN C. FARKAS Attorneys for Respondent, MARIO CILENTO 1225 Franklin Avenue, Suite 450 Garden City, New York 11530 (5 16) 248-5757

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR THE COUNTY OF KINGS -----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281 Brooklyn New York 11238

Index No.: 21948 / 2012
Filed November 14, 2012

Petitioner, -againstHakeem Jeffries , Grace Meng, Felix Ortiz, Bill DeBlasio, Walter Cooper, Keith L.T. Wright, Christine C. Quinn, William Thompson, Scott Stringer, Emily Giske, Anne Marie Anzalone, Archie Spigner, George Gresham, Ruben Diaz, Jr.; Ken Jenkins; Mario Cilento; Gerald D. Jennings; Byron Brown ; Robert Duffy; Joseph Morelle; Scott Adams ; Stephanie Miner; Steve Bellone; Irene Stein; Sheila Comar; and Kirsten Gillibrand Respondents.

PETITIONER’S
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NOTE OF ISSUE WITH CERTIFICATE OF READINESS FOR TRIAL OF ISSUES AND

-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ) ) ss. )

FOR PARTIAL SEVERANCE

Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: To: Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C. Part 1, Hon. Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. Part 27, 1. This is Petitioner’s affidavit in support of his note of issue and certificate of readiness by CPLR §3402 for a trial of issues by December 14, 2012 with partial severance for the benefit of captioned Respondent electors of the New York State Legislature’s Electoral College and members of Congress before the deadline to vote by December 17, 2012, and after January 3, 2013 for candidates for the office of President of the United States, and that whether by casting a vote for Barack Obama each may be charged with the crime of accessory after the fact of a felony committed on or about 25 April 2011 by persons as yet named, aided and abetted by White House Counsel Bob Bauer, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and Barack Obama who during the 27 April 2012 White House Press Conference, see the transcript evidence herein (see Exhibit 1), expressly presented a forged instrument to the People of the United States, a crime compounded by spoliation, concealment, perjury, tampering with the public record, intimidation of witnesses and other crimes.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s Affidavit in support of Note of Issue Page 1 of 3

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012
TRIAL OF THE FACTS 2. That Petitioner requires a trial of the facts of a crime before December 17, 2012 essential for the proper execution of the Electoral College vote, say on December 13, 2012, and at which Petitioner will bring only one expert witness for testimony by Typographer Graphics Expert Paul Edward Irey from Delray Beach Florida to testify solely as to the nature of the forgery referenced above without determination of who the perpetrators are per se, as that is a criminal matter for authorities with jurisdiction. 3. That expert testimony by Paul Edward Irey is based upon the Affidavit with Exhibits A through D affirmed December 4, 2012, and herewith (see Exhibit 2) that is res ipso loquitur. 4. Petitioner contends that the body of the crime complained of has been brought to the attention of Respondents and various district attorneys with authority and jurisdiction to further investigate, and that the testimony deals with the fact that in 1961, well before computers or such other technologies that may be in use today, that ANY birth certificate paperwork was done either by hand and or on forms designed for use with the mechanical typewriter technology that was then widely used, rendering a forgery detectible; and that testimony presents the proof of forgery in the context of then mechanical technology in use, and also to prove the forged instrument is of current manufacturer, that the forgers use of the Unsharp Mask software by Adobe to create a Halo around lettering thus also sets the chain of custody of the forgery along with where it was manufactured. 5. That Respondent public officers as if Elector Public Officers and private US Citizens have duty as to matters of law and facts and when in violation of law must be held accountable or would infringe the trust due the People of New York as similarly to Petitioner’s right to suffrage, republican form of government, Freedom and Liberty, any elelctor who would commit a crimne by adiding and abbetting a felony is incompatibkle. as to New York State law as applies to the public officer oath, duties and obligation with use of NYS Civil Service Law §105A and is to be barred as a person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States. 6. That it is a well-settled common law rule that a public officer cannot hold two incompatible offices simultaneously (Matter of Smith v Dillon, 267 App. Div. 39, 43 [1943]). This rule seeks to prevent offices of public trust from accumulating in a single individual. Two offices are incompatible if one is subordinate to the other or there is an inherent inconsistency between the two offices (see People ex rel. Ryan v Green, 58 NY

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s Affidavit in support of Note of Issue Page 2 of 3

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of Note of Issue

Exhibit 1

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

What was really dominating a lot of discussion was this fake controversy, essentially, a sideshow, that was distracting from this real issue. And an example of that would be when major Democrats and Republicans went onto mainstream news organizations to talk about their budget plans -- including the President -- they were asked about this. They were asked about what they thought about the controversy. They were asked if they believed the President was born in the United States. And it was really a distraction. That really struck the President, led him to ask his counsel to look into whether we could ask the state of Hawaii to release the long-form certificate, which is not something they generally do. And he did that despite the fact that it probably was not in his long-term -- it would have been in his -- probably in his long-term political interests to allow this birther debate to dominate discussion in the Republican Party for months to come. But he thought even though it might have been good politics, he thought it was bad for the country. And so he asked counsel to look into this. And now I’ll have Bob explain that, and then we’ll take your questions. MR. CARNEY: I just want to -- sorry, I meant to mention at the top, as some of you may have seen, the President will be coming to the briefing room at 9:45 a.m., making a brief statement about this -- not taking questions, but just wanted to let you know. MR. PFEIFFER: And he will use this as an opportunity to make a larger point about what this debate says about our politics. Go ahead, Bob. MR. BAUER: Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate. And so we undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to make that request. And by Thursday of last week, I spoke to private counsel to the President and asked her to contact the State Department of Health and to have a conversation about any requirements, further requirements, that they thought we had to satisfy to lodge that waiver request. She had that conversation with the state Department of Health on Thursday -- counsel in question is Judy Corley at the law firm of Perkins Coie, and you have a copy of the letter she subsequently sent to the department with the President’s written request. The department outlined the requirements for the President to make this request. He signed a letter making that request on Friday afternoon upon returning from the West Coast. And private counsel forwarded his written request -- written, signed request -- along with a letter from counsel, to the state Department of Health on Friday. For Immediate Release

Get Email Updates

Contact Us

Home • Briefing Room • Press Briefings

Search WhiteHouse.gov

The White House Office of the Press Secretary April 27, 2011

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 8:48 A.M. EDT MR. CARNEY: Good morning, everybody. You can read the paperwork we just handed out in a minute. Let me just get started. Thank you for coming this morning. I have with me today Dan Pfeiffer, the President’s Director of Communications, as well as Bob Bauer, the President’s White House Counsel, who will have a few things to say about the documents we handed to you today. And then we'll take your questions. I remind you this is off camera and only pen and pad, not for audio. And I give you Dan Pfeiffer. MR. PFEIFFER: Thanks, Jay. What you have in front of you now is a packet of papers that includes the President’s long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, the original birth certificate that the President requested and we posted online in 2008, and then the correspondence between the President’s counsel and the Hawaii State Department of Health that led to the release of those documents. If you would just give me a minute to -- indulge me a second to walk through a little of the history here, since all of you weren't around in 2008 when we originally released the President’s birth certificate, I will do that. And then Bob Bauer will walk through the timeline of how we acquired these documents. In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of

B L O G PO ST S ON T H I S I SS UE
March 11, 2012 8:04 PM EDT

Call with President Karzai Following the Report of Afghan Civilian Casualties
President Obama reached out to President Karzai Sunday following the reported killing and sounding of Afghan civilians.
March 11, 2012 9:00 AM EDT

From the Archives: Tsunami in Japan

3 of 15 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

3/11/2012 11:00 PM http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

1 of 15 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

3/11/2012 11:00 PM http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

The department, as I understood it, after reviewing the law and reviewing the grounds asserted in the request, came to the conclusion that a waiver could be appropriately granted. We were advised that the long-form birth certificate could be copied and made available to us as early as Monday, April 25th -- the day before yesterday. And we made arrangements for counsel to travel to Honolulu to pick it up and it was returned to the White House yesterday afternoon. Let me emphasize again, there is a specific statute that governs access to and inspection of vital records in the state of Hawaii. The birth certificate that we posted online is, in fact, and always has been, and remains, the legal birth certificate of the President that would be used for all legal purposes that any resident of Hawaii would want to use a birth certificate for. However, there is legal authority in the department to make exceptions to the general policy on not releasing the long-form birth certificate. The policy in question, by the way, on non-release has been in effect since the mid-1980s, I understand. So while I cannot tell you what the entire history of exceptions has been, it is a limited one. This is one of very few that I understand have been granted for the reasons set out in private counsel’s letter. MR. PFEIFFER: We'll be happy to take some questions.

Hawaii. We received that document; we posted it on the website. That document was then inspected by independent fact checkers, who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document -- independent fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii. To be clear, the document we presented on the President’s website in 2008 is his birth certificate. It is the piece of paper that every Hawaiian receives when they contact the state to request a birth certificate. It is the birth certificate they take to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get their driver’s license and that they take to the federal government to get their passport. It is the legally recognized document. That essentially -- for those of you who followed the campaign closely know that solved the issue. We didn’t spend any time talking about this after that. There may have been some very fringe discussion out there, but as a campaign issue it was settled and it was -Q When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is?

A look back at the U.S. response to the devastating earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan in March of 2011.
March 10, 2012 6:30 AM EDT

Weekly Address: Investing in a Clean Energy Future
Speaking from a factory in Virginia, President Obama talks about how companies are creating more jobs in the United States, making better products than ever before, and how many are developing new technologies that are reducing our dependence on foreign oil and saving families money at the pump.

MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. Q Q I guess I just want to make sure that we’re clear on this. Even though this one says “certificate of live birth” on here, this is different than the other certificate of live birth that we’ve seen? MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. The second page there is the one that was posted on the Internet. Q Okay. That settled the issue. In recent weeks, the issue has risen again as some folks have begun raising a question about the original -- about the long-form birth certificate you now have in front of you. And Bob will explain why -the extraordinary steps we had to take to receive that and the legal restraints that are in place there. But it became an issue again. And it went to -- essentially the discussion transcended from the nether regions of the Internet into mainstream political debate in this country. It became something that when both Republicans and Democrats were talking to the media they were asked about. It was a constant discussion on mainstream news organizations. And the President believed that it was becoming a distraction from the major issues we're having in this country. And he was particularly struck by the fact that right after the Republicans released their budget framework and the President released his, we were prepared to have a very important, very vigorous debate in this country about the future of the country, the direction we’re going to take, how we’re doing to deal with very important issues like education, Medicare, how we’re going to deal with taxes in this country. And that should -- that’s the debate we should be having yet. Because it is not here and that's been an issue.

VIEW ALL RELATED BLOG POSTS

MR. PFEIFFER: We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by -- the fact checkers came to headquarters and actually examined the document we had.

Facebook Twitter Flickr Google+

YouTube Vimeo iTunes LinkedIn

MR. PFEIFFER: And that is a copy of the one that has been kept at the Hawaii Department of Health. Q Okay. And this is the one that would be referred to -- that people have been asking for that is the birth certificate? MR. PFEIFFER: They are both -- the second one is the birth certificate. The one on the top is what is referred to as the long-form birth certificate. As you can see -- and Bob can walk you through it -- it contains some additional information that is not on the second page, which was the birth certificate which was released during the campaign. If you could just explain the difference.

4 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

2 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

MR. PFEIFFER: There will always be some selection of people who will believe something, and that's not the issue. The issue is that this is not a discussion that is just happening among conspiracy theorists. It’s happening here in this room; it’s happening on all of the networks. And it’s something that, as I said, every major political figure of both parties who’s actually out trying to talk about real issues is asked about this by the media. And so the President decided to release this. And I'll leave it to others to decide whether there’s still -- there will be some who still have a different -- have a conspiracy about this. Q You’ve got two certified copies, according to this study. You have these physical --

MR. BAUER: There’s a difference between a certificate and a certification. The certification is simply a verification of certain information that’s in the original birth certificate. The birth certificate, as you can see, has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, who essentially oversees the maintenance of the records. It contains some additional information also -- that is to say, the original birth certificate -- it contains some additional information like the ages of the parents, birthplaces, residence, street address, the name of the hospital. The core information that’s required for legal purposes and that is put into the actual certification that’s a computer-generated document, which we posted in 2008, that information is abstracted, if you will, from the original birth certificate, put into the computerized short-form certification, and made available to Hawaiian residents at their request. So the long form, which is a certificate, has more information, but the short form has the information that’s legally sufficient for all the relevant purposes. Q This first one has never been released publicly, correct?

MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. I showed you one. Just one. Q You showed us a photocopy of one.

MR. PFEIFFER: No, I showed you -Q Does that have a stamp?

MR. PFEIFFER: It has a seal on it. Q Why does this rise to the level of a presidential statement?

MR. BAUER: That’s correct. It is in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii. Q Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years? Was it Donald Trump that prompted you to issue this? MR. BAUER: I’ll let Dan -MR. PFEIFFER: Sure. Q I know you expected that question, right? (Laughter.) MR. PFEIFFER: He even said you would be the one who would ask it. (Laughter.) I don’t think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved -- for those of you who remember the campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008. And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called about it, reported on it until the last few weeks. And as I said earlier, it probably would have been -- a lot of the pundits out there have talked about the fact that this whole birther debate has been really bad for the Republican Party and would probably be good for the President politically. But despite that, the President, as I said, was struck by how this was crowding out the debate,

MR. PFEIFFER: The President -- this in itself -- when you hear the President I think you’ll understand the point he’s making. That will be in not too long. Q Did the President change his own mind about this? In other words, was he advocating during the campaign let’s just put it out there and get it over with, or was this an internal shift in thinking based -- in other words, was it the President who steadfastly during the campaign said this is ridiculous, I don't want to give this any more ground, and has now changed his mind? Or is this the -MR. PFEIFFER: Let’s be very clear. You were there for the campaign. There was never a question about the original birth certificate during the campaign. It was a settled issue. I was there for the original decision to release the birth certificate. I was there when we posted it online. I'm not sure I even knew there was an original one that was different than the one we posted online because it wasn’t an issue. So it wasn’t like -- let’s be very clear. We were asked for the President’s birth certificate in 2008; we released the President’s birth certificate; and it was done. That was it.

7 of 15 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

3/11/2012 11:00 PM http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

5 of 15 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

3/11/2012 11:00 PM http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

And so there hasn’t been a discussion about this other document for years. It’s only been in the last few weeks. And so to your second question, the President decided to do this and he'll talk about this when he gets here -decided to do it at the timeline that Bob laid out because it was a -- this was a sideshow that was distracting from the real challenges that we're facing. It’s not just a sideshow for him; it’s a sideshow for our entire politics that have become focused on this. Q Not to give Donald Trump more publicity than he has, but is he the person who sort of -- sort of that bridge between what you're calling a fringe and the mainstream? Do you think that he’s the reason why this tripped the switch to a level where you now have to deal with something you thought was dealt with? MR. PFEIFFER: It’s not for me to say why mainstream media organizations began to cover this debate. They’ll have to answer that for themselves. Q How concerned were you about running against Donald Trump in a general election?

particularly around the budget, on important issues, and was an example of the sort of sideshows that our politics focuses on instead of the real challenges that we have to confront as a country. And so that’s why he made this decision now, because it became an issue that transcended sort of this -- it essentially was something that was talked about, as I said, from the nether regions of the Internet onto mainstream network newscasts. In fact, Jay has been asked about this just yesterday in this room. Q So I guess the implication is that you did get political advantage by having not released this until today, over the course of the last four years? MR. PFEIFFER: There has been -- no one that I can recall actually asked us to -- we were asked to release the President’s birth certificate in 2008. We did that. And then no one -- it never -- up until a few weeks ago, there was never an issue about that that wasn’t the birth certificate from any credible individual or media outlet. And it hasn’t been until -- I mean, Jay was asked about this yesterday -Q When you say that, you mean certification -- you released the certification?

MR. PFEIFFER: I'd refer any questions on the election to the campaign. Q Can you address the reports of Petraeus to the CIA and DOD -MR. PFEIFFER: When any Hawaiian wants -- requests their birth certificate because they want to get a driver’s license, they want to get a passport, they do exactly what the President did in 2008. And that’s what that is. And we released that. And that’s what any Hawaiian would do to release their birth certificate. And that was good enough for everyone until very recently this became a question again. And so the President made this decision. He’ll talk to you more about his thinking on that. Q And this is going to sound -- I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to -- remain unconvinced. They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper, you could have typed anything in there. Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any -- (laughter.) Q MR. PFEIFFER: The point I'd make is that we weren't the ones who -- we're not the first ones to bring this up in this room. Jay has been asked questions about this; the President has been asked about it in media interviews. And so that wasn’t a decision that we made, and the President made the decision to do this and he made the decision to -- and when he comes down here this morning he'll talk to you about why he thinks there’s an important point to be made here. Q Getting back to the personnel announcements, does the President understand that these announcements have been made and sourced satisfactorily for most news organizations before he speaks up and he’s not letting his Will the President be holding it?

MR. PFEIFFER: You get points for that, Carol. (Laughter.) MR. CARNEY: Yes. I don't have -- but you’ll be disappointed to learn that I don't have a personnel announcement for you. The President will be addressing this -- questions about personnel tomorrow. Q Dan, was there a debate about whether or not this deserved being discussed by the White House, whether or not -- and I'm going back to the birth certificate. I lose points, I understand. But was there debate about whether or not this was worthy of the White House?

MR. PFEIFFER: He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so. But it will -- the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a -- what they have on file. As Bob said, it’s in a book in Hawaii. MR. BAUER: And you’ll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to -Q But do you understand that this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?

8 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

6 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

MR. CARNEY: I don't have anything for you on that this morning. Q Just quickly, back on the birth certificate, yesterday you said this was a settled issue. So --

White House corroborate? MR. CARNEY: I don't have a comment on that for you, Bill. (Laughter.) Q I mean, this is such BS. It’s all out there and you guys are -- okay, the President is going to talk about this tomorrow so we can't say anything. MR. CARNEY: Bill, you're free to make phone calls everywhere you can. I'm just saying that we don't have a personnel announcement for you today. Q And he'll tomorrow, he'll cover all the aforementioned switches?

MR. CARNEY: Well, as Dan said, again, it has been a settled issue. MR. PFEIFFER: From a factual point of view, it’s absolutely a settled issue. But the fact that it was a settled issue did not keep it from becoming a major part of the political discussion in this town for the last several weeks here. So there’s absolutely no question that what the President released in 2008 was his birth certificate and answered that question, and many of your organizations have done excellent reporting which proved that to be the case. But it continued; the President thought it was a sideshow and chose to take this step today for the reasons Bob laid out. Q Aside from the policy distractions that was presented, did you have some concern because it was sort of reaching back into the mainstream news coverage that this could become a factor in the 2012 election with centrist voters? MR. PFEIFFER: No. Q Just to clarify what this document is --

MR. CARNEY: We'll have a personnel announcement tomorrow. Q Jay, yesterday you talked about failsafe triggers as sort of a positive alternative to spending cuts. I'm wondering if the White House has any openness to including that, because it’s a White House proposal, including that in any legislation that would raise the debt ceiling limit. MR. CARNEY: Well, what we've said very clearly, and I think Secretary Geithner said it eloquently yesterday, it is a dangerous, risky idea to hold hostage any other -- hold hostage, rather, raising the debt ceiling, a vote on raising the debt ceiling, to any other piece of legislation. The commitment this President has to moving aggressively towards a comprehensive deficit reduction plan is clear. It will be clear again when the Vice President convenes a meeting, bipartisan, bicameral meeting, next week. And he hopes that progress will be made on that very quickly. In terms of negotiating what that would look like, I think the negotiators should do that, led by the Vice President, Republicans and Democrats together. But again, explicitly linking or holding hostage the absolute necessity of raising the debt ceiling to any other piece of legislation and declaring that we'll tank the U.S. economy and perhaps the global economy if we don't get this specific thing that we want, I think is a dangerous and unprecedented thing to do. And we're confident, remain confident, that the leaders of both parties in Congress, as well as the President, will agree with the President, as I have said many times, that we do not have an alternative to raising the debt ceiling because, as many have said, outside observers, economists and businessmen and women, the impact of that would be calamitous at best. Q So even though it’s your own proposal that you guys endorsed you don't want to see it as part of the final

MR. PFEIFFER: This is the -- the letter first and the two certified copies -- this is one of those. This is the same thing you have a copy of as the first page of your packet. Q How did it get here?

MR. PFEIFFER: As Bob said, it arrived by plane -- the President’s personal counsel went to Hawaii and brought it back and we got it last night. Q Last night?

MR. PFEIFFER: Last night. Q What time?

MR. PFEIFFER: Between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.

11 of 15 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

3/11/2012 11:00 PM http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

9 of 15 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

3/11/2012 11:00 PM http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

Q

When did you decide to do this gaggle?

package? MR. CARNEY: I'm not negotiating individual pieces of a package that we hope Republicans and Democrats can come together around from this podium. But again, we believe it’s essential to -- the President believes -- that's one of the reasons why we're doing this right now -- we believe that these are big debates that need to be had. They can be contentious, argumentative, serious, comprehensive, detailed, because they’re important; they’re all about America’s future. And they’re about visions of this country and where we're going that need to be debated. And this debate was being crowded out in many ways by a sideshow. And he looks forward to having a debate on the real issues that Americans want us to talk about -- long-term economic plans, deficit reduction, investments in the kinds of things that will help this economy grow and create jobs, dealing with our energy needs, a long-term energy plan. These are all issues that have been sidetracked at least in the public debate by some of the issues that we're talking about this morning. Q Is there a concern that more and more people were actually starting to believe its sideshow -- I mean, people have been asking about -MR. CARNEY: I will let the President speak for himself, but what Dan was saying and I think is important is that the issue here is that the President feels that this was bad for the country; that it’s not healthy for our political debate, when we have so many important issues that Americans care about, that affect their lives, to be drawn into sideshows about fallacies that have been disproven with the full weight of a legal document for several years. So, again, as Dan said, and a lot of political pundits have said, you could say that it would be good politics, smart politics, for the President to let this play out. He cares more about what’s good for the country. He wants the debate on the issues. He wants the focus on the issues that Americans care about. Q Jay, the President yesterday said that he had been talking to oil exporters about increasing output. Who specifically has he been talking -MR. CARNEY: Well, I said -- I want to clarify. I said several times I believe from this podium when asked questions about our overall handling of the issue of high gas prices that we've had conversations with oil-producing states and allies and those conversations continue. I don't have specific “the President spoke with this leader or other government officials spoke with others,” but those are ongoing conversations that, of course, we would be having in a situation like this. Q Do you guys have any comment on the NATO soldiers that were killed in Afghanistan and any confirmation on whether there were Americans?

MR. PFEIFFER: What’s that? Q When was this gaggle put on -- when was this planned?

MR. PFEIFFER: Whatever time you received your guidance suggesting that it would be “this time tomorrow morning.” Q Are these letters supposed to demonstrate the legal steps that were involved in releasing it to the White House counsel? MR. BAUER: The letters that you have, the personal request from the President, along with the accompanying letter from private counsel, is merely meant to document the legal path to getting the waiver of that policy so we could get the long-form certificate. Q The waiver of Hawaii state government policy?

MR. BAUER: Right. The non-release of the long-form certificate, which has been in effect since the 1980s -- a natural question would have been, well, what did you do to obtain the waiver, and those letters represent the request. Q Well, isn’t it true that anybody who was born in Hawaii can write this letter? I mean, that's all there is to the waiver process? MR. BAUER: No. Let me just explain once again because I also noticed, by the way, in one report already the wrong certificate was actually posted on the website. The certificate with the signatures at the bottom -- and that's a key difference between the short form and the long form -- the long form has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, and the mother, is the original birth certificate, which sits in a bound volume in the State Department of Health. The short from is a computerized abstract, and that's the legal birth certificate we requested in 2008 and that Hawaiians are entitled to. Since the mid-1980s, the State Department of Health, for administrative reasons, only provides to people who request their birth certificate the short form. They do not provide the long form. So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiver. We had to actually determine that there was

12 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

10 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

a legal basis for providing it, and then ask them to exercise their authority to provide us with the long form. The steps required to accomplish that were a letter from the person with the direct and vital interest -- the President -- so you have a letter from the President, and then there was an accompanying letter from counsel basically formalizing the request. So the reason we included that is that those were legal steps we took to obtain the long form by way of this waiver. Q Do we have the letter from the President --

MR. BAUER: It’s in the packet. Q And you went to Hawaii?

MR. BAUER: I did not go to Hawaii. The counsel, Judy Corley, who signed the -- the President’s personal counsel at Perkins Coie, Judy Corley, whose letter -- signed letter of request is in your packet, traveled to Honolulu and picked up the birth certificate. Q A question on the situation regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. Yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder rejected attacks on Paul Clement, who is taking up defense of the statute on behalf of the U.S. House. Paul Clement has taken a lot of heat from the LGBT community for volunteering to take up defense of DOMA. Eric Holder said, “Paul Clement is a great lawyer and has done a lot of really great things for this nation. In taking on the representation -- representing Congress in connection with DOMA, I think he is doing that which lawyers do when we’re at our best. That criticism I think was very misplaced.” And Holder went on to compare the criticism of Clement to attacks on the Justice Department lawyers for their past for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Does the President share Eric Holder’s views on this? MR. CARNEY: We do share Eric Holder’s views on this. We think -- as we said from the beginning when we talked about -- when I did from this podium -- about the decision no longer from the administration to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, that we would support efforts by Congress if they so chose to defend it. And so I have nothing to add to the Attorney General’s comments. Q Following Monday’s Af-Pak Situation Room meeting, what is the President’s assessment of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan? And does he think that July drawdown is still on? MR. CARNEY: The President’s policy, which included the beginning of a transition -- beginning of a drawdown of American troops, is absolutely still on track. I don’t have anything additionally from the meeting yesterday beyond what we’ve said. But the policy remains as it was.

13 of 15 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House

3/11/2012 11:00 PM http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

MR. EARNEST: Jay, we should wrap it up here. MR. CARNEY: Yes. Last one, yes. Q Given the comments of the Pakistani official quoted in the Wall Street Journal, is Pakistan still a U.S. ally, and to what extent? MR. CARNEY: Pakistan is still a U.S. ally. Thanks. END 9:18 A.M. EDT

14 of 15

3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of Note of Issue

Exhibit 2

page 9

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Paul Edward Irey’s AFFIDAVIT

Exhibit A

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Paul Edward Irey’s AFFIDAVIT

Exhibit B

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Paul Edward Irey’s AFFIDAVIT

Exhibit C

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Paul Edward Irey’s AFFIDAVIT

Exhibit D

Re: binder 11 ... - Yahoo! Mail

http://us.mc1257.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMid=12&filterBy=&...

Re: binder 11 ...
From: "Henry Wayland Blake" <hwblake@bellsouth.net> To: "Paul Irey" <pauledwardirey@gmail.com>, "Doug Vogt" <Diehold@comcast.net>, orly.taitz@gmail.com, cestrunck@yahoo.com, "Chito Papa" <rajska7@gmail.com> 3 Files (1688KB)

Tuesday, December 4, 2012 11:26 AM

1051324…

1051324…

1051324…

Dear Paul,   I think you have proposed the most probable scenario based on the crea on and file dates of the associated court documents.   1.  The paper copy of the Tepper to Fuddy 3‐page le er was dated 05/26/2012.   2.  The electronic version of this 3‐page le er appeared on Scribd on 06/06/2012   3.  The Tepper four‐page electronic document 10513240131.pdf (same as 35‐1.pdf) was created on 06/04/2012 and was last modified on 06/06/2012.  Pages 1‐3 of this document are the 3 electronic pages of the Tepper to Fuddy le er that appeared on Scribd on 06/06/2012.  The 4th electronic page is the Tepper page 4, LFCOLB.  This four‐page document was filed in MS on 06/06/2012.   4.  We really don’t know when the Tepper page 4 LFCOLB was created.      5.  The paper copy of the one‐page Onaka to Tepper verifica on le er was dated 05/31/2012.   6.  The electronic version, which is court document 35‐2, was created on 06/04/2012 and was last modified on 06/06/2012.  This one‐page electronic document was filed in MS on 06/06/2012.   I believe that the most likely scenario is that Tepper created a paper copy of his three‐page le er to Fuddy on 05/26/2012.  He a ached a paper printout copy of the original WH LFCOLB and mailed this four‐page paper copy to Fuddy.   Tepper and Onaka then collaborated to alter the WH LFCOLB to create the Tepper page 4 LFCOLB.   On 06/04/2012, Tepper created the documents 10513240131.pdf (same as 35‐1) and 35‐2.   He then filed the two documents 35‐1 and 35‐2 in MS on 06/06/2012.   We really don’t know the individual ac ons of either Tepper or Onaka with regards the modifica ons of the WH LFCOLB PDF image file to create the altered LFCOLB PDF image file.  Onaka may have modified the WH LFCOLB and then sent the altered PDF image to Tepper as a one‐page PDF image file.  There is

1 of 3

12/4/2012 3:13 PM

Re: binder 11 ... - Yahoo! Mail

http://us.mc1257.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMid=12&filterBy=&...

nothing in his verifica on le er that indicates that he a ached this altered LFCOLB to his verifica on le er.  However, his le er does refer to the LFCOLB copy that was purportedly a ached to the four‐page request le er from Tepper to Fuddy.   Alterna vely, Tepper might have had someone else modify the WH LFCOLB PDF image to create the altered PDF image.  That might explain why the METADATA was not en rely erased from his four‐page electronic document.  We know that a scanner was used so Tepper’s forger would have had to have some means of re‐sizing a scanned and altered image of the WH LFCOLB back to the correct size to match a real 1961 Cer ficate of Live Birth printed form.    I am now certain that the 21 added objects which are invisible in Adobe Reader pre‐existed before 06/04/2012 as a separate PDF image.  The 21 objects include 12 line segements, 2 broad‐line strikeouts and 7 Black redac on rectangles.  This “redac on” page is smaller than the LFCOLB image page size.  I have successfully separated this smaller “redac on” image from the fla ened and altered WH LFCOLB image in both Adobe Illustrator CS6 and Inkscape.  I have a ached my latest screenshots from Adobe Illustrator as proof.  The screenshot [105132401131_ss3.jpg] a ached shows the “redac on” page slid off the LFCOLB image page to the right.  The background of the “redac on” page is transparent.   So an alterna ve scenario would be that Tepper had his forger modify the WH LFCOLB and Onaka provided the “redac on” image to assist Tepper’s forger re‐size his scanned image.  This would lessen Onaka’s involvement with the crea on of the fraudulent LFCOLB Tepper page 4 LFCOLB.   So scenario A would be that Onaka did the deed and scenario B would be that they collaborated to do the deed.   Either way they both are guilty of a emp ng to pull off a bait and switch on Judge Wingate.  They subs tuted the Tepper page 4 LFCOLB for the WH LFCOLB and didn’t tell Judge Wingate about the switch.   I can provide a notarized copy of my sworn affidavit whenever you need it.  Also, I can provide any of my screen shots as required.  I would prefer not to tes fy because of personal reasons.  I also believe that. if I were to tes fy, then I would quickly become a “punching bag” for the defense because I don’t have an IT cer ficate and I have never tes fied as a forensic expert.     Sincerely,   Henry  
From: Paul Irey Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 5:54 AM To: doug@vectorpub.com ; orly.taitz@gmail.com ; cestrunck@yahoo.com ; hwblake@bellsouth.net Subject: binder 11 ...

 
 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7763 (20121204) __________

2 of 3

12/4/2012 3:13 PM

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of Note of Issue

Exhibit 3

Strunk

v Jeffries

et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.; 21948 / 2012

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER
Accordingly,
a. b. c.

)
) ss.

)

I, H. William Van Allen, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:

Am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My place of business is located at 351 North Road Hurley New York 12243. On November 14, 2012, Christopher Strunk instructed me to serve a true conformed copy of the NOTICE OF PETITION, PETITION with AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION affirmed November 13,2012 along with a

NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING A DECLARATORY INJUNCTION ON ISSUE OF LAW AS TO ELECTORS DECLARATORY RELIEF AS TO ELECTORS, a Notice of Petitioner's intent to file an order to show cause
application at the Kings County Supreme Court Building at 10 AM on the 10th Floor intake at 360 Adams Street on Monday November 19,2012 placing a complete set in a properly addressed to each respondent listed below for delivery by USPS by certified mail with request for return receipt for proof of service. On November 14, 2012, I caused each copy with proper postage for service by certified mail on the listed Electors and where each envelope was properly addressed with the Notification "URGENT LEGAL SERVICE" and "PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL" in the lower left hand corner of the envelop that was then deposited with the USPS for service upon:

d.

1. Hakeem Jeffries 35 2. Grace Meng ofl47l4
3.

Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238

CM I RR No 7012101000068749741 CM I RR No 7012101000068749819 CM I RR No 7012101000068749758 CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM I RR No I RR No I RR No I RR No IRR No I RR No I RR I RR IRR I RR No No No No 7012101000068749765 7012101000068749956 7012101000068749826 7012101000068749833 7012101000068749840 7012101000068749857 7012101000068749864 7012101000068749901 7012101000068750242 7012101000068749963 7012101000068749949 7012101000068749895 7012101000068749970 7012101000068749802 7012101000068749772 7012101000068749789 7012101000068749871 7012101000068749888 7012101000068749918 7012101 000068749925 7012101000068749932

34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11232

Bill DeBlasio of 442 lith Street -- Brooklyn. NY 11215 Walter Cooper 150 West 96th Street, #[2G -- New York. NY 10025 6. Keith L.T. Wright of2225 Fifth Avenue -- New York. NY 10037 7. Christine C. Quinn of263 Ninth Avenue. #3A -- New York, NY 10001 8. William Thompson of 106 West 121st Street -- New York. NY 10027 9. Scott Stringer of 155 West 71st Street. #3A -- New York, NY 10023 10. Emily Giske 01'440 West 24th Street -- New York, NY 10014 11. Anne Marie Anzaloue 2827 48th Street -- Astoria. NY 11103 12. Archie Spigner of 11210 175th Street -- Jamaica, N'r' 11433 13. George Gresham 1313 East 233rd Street -- Bronx, NY 10466 14. Ruben Diaz, Jr. of820 Boyton Avenue. #6D -- Bronx. NY 10473 15. Ken Jenkins 108 Bushey Avenue -- Yonkers. NY 10710 16. Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -- Orangeburg, NY 10962 17. Gerald D. Jennings of 1135 New Scotland Road -- Albany. NY 12208 18. Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -- Buffalo, NY 14208 19. Robert Duffy 164 Croydon Road -- Rochester, NY 14610 20. Joseph Morelle of 133 Deerfield Drive -- Rochester, NY 14609 21. Scott Adams of 11 Poplar Avenue -- Orchard Park, NY 14127 22. Stephanie Miner 102 Woodside Drive -- Syracuse, NY 13224 23. Steve Bellone 107 Vanderbilt Avenue -- West Babylon, NY 11704 24. Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive -- Ithaca, NY 14850 25. Sheila Comar 29 Depot Street -- Middle Granville, NY 12849; 26. Kirsten Gillibrand with DC Office 478 Russell Washington, DC 20510

4. 5.

CM I RR No 7012101000068749796 CM I RR No CM I RR No CM I RR No CM I RR No CM IRR No CM I RR No CM I RR No CM I RR No CM I RR No CM I RR No CM I RR No

C"!Rl'N~':'00006R7499R7

/#~ /;l.v~2r;;/
Van Allen

Sworn to before me This i day of November

rlliam
2012

~

~<-Drl
tary Pubhc

Q

~k.o-~

NOTARYPUBUC,

JUDITHS.MA YHON STAT£; OF NEW YORK NO.01MA60B5585 QUALIFIED IN ULSTER COUNTY/'(j

COMMISSION EXPIRES JUt Y 14, 20__

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 W S S C for Kings county Index No.; 21 948 / 2012
,
-

0

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
) ss. )

STATE OF NEW YORK )

TY OF KINGS
Aecordingly, I,

I

Rou&e efi

ALL

being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of pejury:

over 18 y e a r s of age a n d n o t a party t o t h i s action. K 11 place of b u s i n e s s i s located at November 3 0 , 2 0 1 2 , Christopher S t r u n k instructed m e t o serve a true conformed copy of t h e PETITIONER'S -- >OND AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF OSC with EXHIBITS a n n e x e d AFFIRMED November 30,2012 along with a copy of t h e NOTICE OF PETITION, PETITION with AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION affirmed November 1 3 , 2 0 1 2 placing a complete s e t i n a properly addressed envelope to e a c h respondent listed below for delivery by USPS regular

6J5 f/&

ZoG

mail.
d. O n November 3 0 , 2 0 1 2 , I c a u s e d e a c h copy with proper postage for service b y first class mail o n t h e listed Electors And where e a c h envelope w a s properly addressed with t h e Notification "URGENT LEGAL SERVICE" a n d PERSONAL 8a CONFIDENTJAL" i n t h e lower left h a n d c o m e r of the envelop t h a t w a s then deposited with the USPS for service upon:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Andrew M. Cuomo 138 Eagle Street -- Albany, NY 12202 Gerald D. Jennings of 1135 New Scotland Road -- Albany, NY 12208 George Gresham 1313 East 233rd Street -- Bronx, NY 10466 Ruben Diaz, Jr. of 820 Boyton Avenue, #6D -- Bronx, NY 10473 Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -- Buffalo, NY 14208 Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11232 Hakeern Jeffi-ies 35 Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238 Bill DeBlasio of442 1lth Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11215 Robert Duffy 164 Croydon Road -- Rochester, NY 14610 Joseph Morelle of 133 Deerfield Drive -- Rochester, NY 14609 Tom DiNapoli 100 Great Neck Road -- Great Neck, NY 11201 12. Eric Schneiderman 645 West End Avenue, #8F -- New York, NY 10025 13. Walter Cooper 150 West 96th Street, #I2G -- New York, NY 10025 14. Sheldon Silver of 550 Grand Street, #5A -- New York,,NY 10002 15. Keith L.T. Wright of 2225 Fifth Avenue -- New York, NY 10037 16. Christine C. Quinn of 263 Ninth Avenue, #3A -- New York, NY 10001 17. William Thompson of 106 West 121st Street -- New York, NY 10027 18. Scott Stringer of 155 West 71st Street, #3A --New York, NY 10023 19. Emily Giske of 440 West 24th Street -- New York, NY 10014 20. Scott Adams of 11 Poplar Avenue -- Orchard Park, NY 14127 21. Stephanie Miner 102 Woodside Drive -- Syracuse, NY 13224 22. Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -- Orangeburg, NY 10962 23. Anne Marie Anzalone 2827 48th Street -- Astoria, NY 11103 24. Grace Meng of 14714 34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 25. Archie Spigner of 11210 175th Street -- Jamaica, NY 11433 26. Steve Bellone 107 Vanderbilt Avenue -- West Babylon, NY 11704 27. Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive -- Ithaca, NY 14850 28. Sheila Comar 29 Depot Street -- Middle Granville, NY 12849 29. Ken Jenkins 108 Bushey Avenue -- Yonkers, NY 10710 30. Joshua Pepper NYSAssiatant Attorney General Office of Attorney General 120 Broadway NY NY 10171

31 K L Q ~ T V CrfCtVrc/@(l

VtWQ $ f = f = I C @ r L E q B

E ~ ~ S ~ L ~ W H Wmy18

:

.,

KAMAL P. SON1 Notary Public, State of New York No. 01SO6089949 Qualified in Kings C0unly Commission Expires March 31.2015

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of Note of Issue

Exhibit 4

-QUEST
Supreme Index No:

FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION"
UCS-840 (312011)

For Court Clerk Use Only:
IAS tntry Uate

COURT, COUNTY OF

Kings

2 1 ?*

Zo(a

Date Index Issued: &V.

rc/

2012

-JuageAssigned
KJI Uate

CAPTION:

Enter the complete case caption. Do notuse et a or e am. If mae space is 1 t required, attach a caption nder sheet.

I

againstH~,<C?G&'I

B Y m o n e n .
-

J C F * ~ ~ ,
a

G/~ALC g N G , m

BILL DEBWSa,uvryEZ
SRGNGR
A J , ~ -

ICe~yfl b

cm(cy

Dhnch@$l~ea;bfnIent(s) *. - ? ' . - , NATURE OF ACTION 'OR-~OCEE~ING:" : Check.ONEbox-only andspecifywh6re iniicated. ' ' ' ' 3, ;= C " MATRIMONIAL COMMERCIAL 3 0 Contested 0 Buslness Ent~ty (including corporations, partnerships, L*S, et 0 Uncontested 0 Contract r m Insurance (where Insurer is a party, except arbitration)= NOTE: For all Matrimonial actions where the parties have children under the age of 18, complete and attach the MATRIMONIAL RJI Addendum. 0 ucc (including sales, negotiable instruments) C ?a 3
%

RVDIN 1266'Wf-py, J o ~ n u I=& ~ W N GcW 54

T d VfltGc+s, CHRLTT~NE C d u ~ u lW ~ L U P M j G J S I C E , PUPIF )MANE ~ r u & d d W t ? , -)+&c,-rrG D f ~ J2 . Q ~ A ~ L C U CrLFWaf - &

7kn.,mahl, seunJ

~

~
2

,

,

199-f

&wsk ~ ~ - e l
BM*)~

W

s - ~ t ~ / y r q ; r e p p ~ ~ n ~ . ~ . l r n?~; W ;K ~ S F ~~ r E P l ( l f i - m W ~ t ~ ~ / p p , ~ Q p o

, ,

.

.

.,

,

2:;

.-

0

z d-a

TORTS Asbestos Breast Implant Enmmental:

0 0 0

0 Other Commercial:

(tpecity)

NOTE: For Commercial Div~sion assignment requests 122 NYCRR 5 202.70(d)]. complete and attach the COMMERCIAL DIV RJI Addendum.
(SPem)

0Medical, Dental, or Pediatric Malpractice 0Motor Vehlde
0 products ~sbility.

R E A L PROPERTY: Condemnat~on Foreclosure property Address:

0 0

Haw many pmperbesdoes the application include?

0Other Neglglrgence: 0Other Profess~onal Malpractice: 0Other Tort

(~PeclfY) (specrty)

S

m Address

CW

State

Zip

NOTE: For Foreclosure actions invdvlng a one- to four-family, omeroccupied, residential property, or an owner-occupied condominium, '

(saw)

0Tax Certiorari - Section:
0

complete and attach the FORECLOSURE RJI Addendum. Block: Lot: Other Real Properly:
(~peclty)

(~pec~ty)

OTHER MATTERS Certmcate of lncorporat~onlDissolut~on [see NOTE under Commerctal] Emergency Medical Treatment

0 0 Habeas Corpus 0 Local Court Appeal 0 Mechanic's Lien 0 Name Change

9~lectionLaw

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CPLR Article 75 (Arbltrat~on) [see NOTE under Commercial] CPLR Artlcle 78 (Body or Officer)

0

0 MHL Article 9.60 (Kendra's Law) 0 MHL Arbcle 10 (Sex Offender Confinement-initial)

0Pistol Perrn~tRevocation Heanng
0-

0 Sale o Finance of ReligiouslNot-for-Profit Property r
(spadfy)

0 MHL Article 10 (Sex Offender Confinement-Rewew) 0 MHL Article 81 (Guardianship) 0 Other Mental Hygiene:
(~Wlty)

0Other Special ?peeding:
-/

.

bpeuty)

STAfus <X ACTION OR.PROCCE~INU:

.Answer YES or NO for EVERY q&&on ~ ~ b e n additional iiformation where indcafed tei YES I NO l2 Has a summons and complaint or suhmons wlnotice been filed? 'If yes, date filed: 8)
'

.

I

Is this adionlproceedrng being filed post-judgment?

0

0

@

If yes, judgment date:

ClAL INTERVENTION: Cheek ONE box onlyAND ~rdtl'iiljnformation indicated. where nfmr's Cornwmtse Note of Issue and/or Certificate of Readiness 0 Nobe of h4tdical. Dental. or Pediatric Malpractice Date lssue Joined: Nobce df Motion Relief Sought: Return Date: Relief Sought: Return Date: N o w of Petition %6 =order to show cause Relief Sought: m o /PJ"paH p . Return Date: m Other Ex Parte Application Relief Sought: A@=. Poor Persora Application Request for Preliminary Conference Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Settlement Conference Wnt d Habeas Corpus

0 0
0 0 0

.wf/%

9

L z

0
0 0 0

RUATEDCASES:
Case Tile

-

(sPeafY):

S%WM~ C. f

wvfl
~

Ls any r e l a t e d a c t i : Fm IGl-Mlial it actions, k;elude&y-m4ated'~drninal andhx Famlly Court cases. - .,; - ,, -.z7e2- I additional space is-required, complek and attach the R 1 Addendum. %Ifmorre.'leaveblank. f 3 Court Judge (if assigned) Relationship to Instant Case IndexlCase No.
;

.

"

C

L

-

T

,-.

296'ff-

Kt@J-svf
LC
1 1

S ~ H ~ L Q ~ J rS+Ce 8 4 mL-na& r -m i e C J R ~ 1I!

~e r J

,krcrr k~&%"lr36fl
%PI<

'I-q by E - z,EcjB

k c r L/F 2 m ~ c ~

C

( T ~ 6

v PYSBOY Z

PARTIES:

For partieswthout an attorney, check"UnlRep- box AND entecparly address, Mane"Tiumberand&ailld&lrss&4n Parties: Attorneys:
Provide name, firm name, business address, phone number and e-mail address of all attorneys that have appeared in the case.

Y C H ~ ~ CI~ C CG am RP- sc 'If addifionalspace isrequired, complete andattach the.RJMW.@dwi'. , ; J ;.:- , :;, . .",
.
&LA
A -

- Ia a a

S .

,*$

*

~

12-sx*-- . ' t t =$ace. . . k ~ ..? * l h 4
<'$ -$,'

s'-.c

Un- L~st parties in caption order and
role(s) (e.g Rep 3rd-party plaintiff).
Indicate pa*

lssue Joined (YIN):

Insurance Carrier(s):

'%U@It; last Name
CMA IS ~9P-r
F ~ nName t Primary Role:

,5Tgl/rJlK

~,4&s7A@-H3C- L g P C
Last Name

W . k

~ t l p v ? N T me t t" Finn N

-

Flrst Name

DYES

Secondary Rde (tf any):

We B m q $ d - i t cb NO BW-QOL-~TAFax - ~ f i Remall r ~ z ~ @ Phone 7 o
Stste

3 7 vw-3 Stred Address

&~~=F6 KI LastNan?

h a t Name

Ml s lm

D

M&E-J Name

YES

F i i pnnurV Rob:

-per

.
Stmt A d d m
Phone

Finn Name
cftr
Fax
s., tb

Sacaday Role (if any):

OW

d

Last Name Fbdllar*
Rimay Role:

LatHrru
Rmllm

Fhtltrac

Street Mdron
secondary Rob (if any):

car
k
d

-

OE YS

o, m

Phane L.rt Name
Flmt N a m Primary Role:

hst Name
Fkmthm
S W Address

F ' i P

ctr
Fax

&

Secondary Role (It any): Phone

OW

. J

I AFFIRM UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, OTHER THAN AS MUTED Asov+ THERE ARE AMD HAVE BEEN NO RELATED ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS, NOR H UDfClAL m Y BEB( FILED IN THIS ACTION OR PROCEEDING.

'..

& mlz/, SIGNATURE FE~ F - R G ~ x ~ ~ M M f e c i (c~wjqac h d < ~ px +* F
Dated:
(0

22%-

ATTORNEY REGISTRATION NUMBER

PRINT OR TYPE NAME

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of Note of Issue

Exhibit 5

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR THE COUNTY OF KINGS
aristopher-Earl :Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 281 Brooklyn New York 1 1238
?

Index NO.:

1 LTL~%\\Z

Petitioner,
-

-againstHakeem Jeffries 35 Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238 Grace Meng of 14714 34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11232 Bill DeBlasio of 442 1 lth Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11215 Walter Cooper 150 West 96th Street, #I2G -- New York, NY 10025 Keith L.T. Wright of 2225 Fifth Avenue --New York, NY 10037 . Christine C. Quinn of 263 Ninth Avenue, #3A --New York, NY 10001 William Thompson of 106 West 121st Street --New York, NY 10027 Scott Stringer of 155 West 71st Street, #3A -- New York, NY 10023 Emily Giske of 440 West 24th Street --New York, NY I0014 Anne Marie Anzalone 2827 48th Street -- Astoria, NY 1 1 103 Archie Spigner of 11210 175th Street -- Jamaica, NY 11433 George Gresham 1313 East 233rd Street -- Bronx, NY 10466 Ruben Diaz, Jr. of 820 Boyton Avenue, #6D -- Bronx, NY 10473 Ken Jenkins 108 Bushey Avenue -- Yonkers, NY 10710 Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -- Orangeburg, NY 10962 Gerald D. Jennings of 1135 New Scotland Road --Albany, NY 12208 Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -- Buffalo, NY 14208 Robert Duffy 164 Croydon Road -- Rochester, NY 14610 Joseph Morelle of 133 Deerfield Drive -- Rochester, NY 14609 Scott Adams of 11 Poplar Avenue -- Orchard Park, NY 14127 Stephanie Miner 102 Woodside Drive -- Syracuse, NY 13224 Steve Bellone 107 Vanderbilt Avenue -- West Babylon, NY 11704 Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive -- Ithaca, NY 14850 , Sheila Comar 29 Depot Street -- Middle Granville, NY 12849; and Kirsten Gillibrand with DC Ofice 478 Russell Washington, DC 20510
,

Petitioner designate The County of Kings as the Place of trial. The basis of venue is the Petitioner's place to vote

Respondent@).

NOTICE OF PETITION
To the above-named Respondent(s):

YOU ARE HEREBY PETITIONED to answer the petition in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the petition is not served with this notice, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Petitioner within 20 days after the service of this Notice, exclusive of the day of service; and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the petition.

Dated:

Brooklyn, New York November 0 , 2 0 1 2

Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse, Petitioner self-represent without being a n attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281, Brooklyn, New York 11238. (845) 901-6767 E-mail: chris@,strunk.ws
To: Respondents as follows:

Hakeem Jeffries 35 Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238 Grace Meng of 14714 34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11232 Bill DeBlasio of 442 1 1th Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11215 Walter Cooper 150 West 96th Street, #I2G -- New York, NY 10025 Keith L.T. Wright of 2225 Fifth Avenue -- New York, NY 10037 Christine C. Quinn of 263 Ninth Avenue, #3A -- New York, NY 10001 William Thompson of 106 West 121st Street -- New York, NY 10027 Scott Stringer of 1 55 West 7 1st Street, #3A -- New York, NY 10023 Emily Giske of 440 West 24th Street -- New York, NY 10014 Anne Marie Anzalone 2827 48th Street -- Astoria, NY 11103 Archie Spigner of 11210 175th Street -- Jamaica, NY 11433 George Gresham 1313 East 233rd Street -- Bronx, NY 10466 Ruben Diaz, Jr. of 820 Boyton Avenue, #6D -- Bronx, NY 10473 Ken Jenkins 108 Bushey Avenue -- Yonkers, NY 10710 Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -- Orangeburg, NY 10962 Gerald D. Jennings of 1135 New Scotland Road -- Albany, NY 12208 Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -- Buffalo, NY 14208 Robert Duffy 164 Croydon Road -- Rochester, NY 14610 Joseph Morelle of 133 Deerfield Drive -- Rochester, NY 14609 Scott Adams of 11 Poplar Avenue -- Orchard Park, NY 14127 Stephanie Miner 102 Woodside Drive -- Syracuse, NY 13224 Steve Bellone 107 Vanderbilt Avenue -- West Babylon, NY 11704 Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive -- Ithaca, NY 14850 Sheila Comar 29 Depot Street -- Middle Granville, NY 12849; and Kirsten Gillibrand with DC Office 478 Russell Washington, DC 2051 0

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR THE COUNTY OF KINGS IndexNo.:

.......................................................................
Christo her-Earl : Strunk in esse
593 VanSerbilt Avenue - 281 Brooklyn New York 11238

2 L q 48 /20 1 2

X

Petitioner, -against-

VEFUFIED PETITION

Hakeem Jeffries 35 Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238 Grace Meng of 14714 34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 FOR EQUITY RELIEF BY Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11232 Bill DeBlasio of 442 I lth Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11214 WRIT OF PROHIBITION WITH Walter Cooper 150 West 96th Street, #I2G New York, NY 10025 Keith L.T. Wright of 2225 Fifth Avenue --New York, NY 10037 TRO STAY, INJUNCTION AND Christine C.Quinn of 263 Ninth Avenue, #3A --New York, NY 10001 William Thompson of 106 West 121st Street -- New York, NY 10027 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Scott Stringer of 155 West 71st Street, #3A --New York, NY 10023 Emily Giske of 440 West 24th Street --New York, NY 10014 AS TO ELECTORAL COLLEGE Anne Marie Anzalone 2827 48th Street -- Astoria, NY 11 103 Archie Spigner of 11210 175th Street -- Jamaica, NY 11433 PUBLIC OFFICERS WITH U.S. George Gresham 1313 East 233rd Street -- Bronx, NY 10466 Ruben Diaz, Jr. of 820 Boyton Avenue, #6D -- Bronx, NY 10473 CONSTITUTION ART. 2 $1 C1.2 Ken Jenkins 108 Bushey Avenue -- Yonkers, NY 10710 Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -- Orangeburg, NY 10962 AND VOID US SENATE ELECTION Gerald D. Jennings of 1135New Scotland Road --Albany, NY 12208 Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -- Buffalo, NY 14208 Robert Duffy 164 Croydon Road Rochester, NY 14610 Joseph Morelle of 133 Deerfield Drive -- Rochester, NY 14609 Scott Adams of 11 Poplar Avenue -- Orchard Park, NY 14127 Stephanie Miner 102 Woodside Drive -- Syracuse, NY 13224 Steve Bellone 107 Vanderbilt Avenue -- West Babylon, NY 11704 Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 Sheila Comar 29 Depot Street -- Middle Granville, NY 12849; and Kirsten Gillibrand with DC Office 478 Russell Washington, DC 205 10

--

--

--

Respondents.
Petitioner, Christopher Earl: Strunk in esse, a non-surety private natural-born U.S. Citizen self represented without an attorney, as and for his Petition for a writ of prohibition with Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and permanent injunction with a declaratory judgment as to U.S. Constitution Article 2 $1 Clause 2 (A2S 1C2) exclusive power of the State legislature formation of the New York electoral college that under CPLR Article 78, the New York State Election Law Article $16-100 jurisdiction over Election Law Article 12 and related law as applies to twenty-nine (29) U.S. Citizens to serve as Public Officer members of the New York Electoral College afier the November 6,2012 General Election thru December 25,2012; and Christopher-Earl: Strunk's PETITION Page 1 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
that this Petition requests expedited emergency equity relief with a CPLR §7805 injunction with a stay of New York Electoral College vote due by December 15, 2012 until the Court renders a declaratory judgment on the issues of law under CPLR §7806 regarding U.S. Constitution: Article 2 in its entirety, especially Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 3 (A2S1C3) as amended by the Article 7 Amendments the 12th , the 14th especially sections 3 and 4, the 20th, and the 25th ; further, especially as to the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 (A2S1C5) term of art “natural born Citizen” (NBC) natural law issue versus the idiom “born a citizen” positive law created by the New York State Board of Elections (NYS BOE); further, the U.S. Constitution: Article 3 Section 3; Article 4; Article 6; and furthermore, related New York State law and regulations as applies to the public officer oath, duties and obligation as applies with use of NYS Civil Service Law §105, and that Petitioner seeks equity relief on six (6) issues of Law with Facts pertaining to the misapplication and misadministration of Public Officer acts as relate to the December 5, 2008 Order and Decision as a matter of State Law heard by the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. at I.A.S. Part 1 in the Article 78 Petition with Kings County Index No.: 2008-29641, and Complaint with Index No.: 2008 29642; and also, Petitioner challenges the New York U.S. Senate Election as void ab initio with U.S. Constitution Amendment 17 and NYS Constitution Article 3 §7 grounds; and that based upon information and belief and at all times hereinafter mentioned, with imminent irreparable harm as time is of the essence and without another forum for relief, alleges of captioned Respondents and related persons as follows: 1. Petitioner Christopher Earl: Strunk in esse, is a duly registered voter of the 64th Election District of the 57th Assembly District (AD) and within the New York 8th U.S. House District at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281 Brooklyn New York 11238 for ten years with email: chris@strunk.ws and cell phone 845-9016767, and an enrolled member of the Republican Party who participated at the November 6, 2012 General Election there voted entirely for the Republican Party line of candidates with Wendy Long for US Senate. 2. On November 9, 2012, Petitioner duly served his COMPLAINT OF ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A CRIME BY A PUBLIC OFFICER WITH NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST AN INJUNCTION IN KINGS COUNTY WITH DECLARATORY RELIEF AS TO ELECTORS (hereinafter the “COMPLAINT”) upon the respective County District Attorney (DA) with jurisdiction over the domicile of residence of the

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 2 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
respective Public Officer member of the New York 2012 Presidential Election Cycle Electoral College for a total of 29 members variously domiciled in Fourteen (14) Counties that are now duly elected without challenge on November 6, 2012, pending the NYS BOE final tally / canvassing by the end of November, all serve as public officer electors to cast their votes by December 15, 2012 and that then will be transmitted to the U.S. Senate President Joseph Biden in a joint seating of the new Congress on January 3, 2013 take their oath of office in the new Congress that there will select the next President / vice President of the United States (POTUS) according to the 12th and 20th Amendments of A2S1C3. 3. That the criminal COMPLAINT affirms of each Public Officer in each domicile therein quote: • [each] Elector as part of the slate for Barack Obama and Joe Biden at the State of New York November 6, 2012 General Election for choosing New York’s candidate for the office of President and Vice President of the United States (POTUS) by their vote cast by December 15, 2012; and that such Public Officers are to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college intending to vote for Barack Obama as if mandated by the State of New York legislature with exclusive power afforded by Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution with use of New York State Election Law and related rules, McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), with the proviso that no Public Official may change the eligibility and or qualification requirements of a federal officer including office of POTUS, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). That in addition to the foregoing, Affirmant based upon information and belief contends that Barack Obama is guilty of forgery, spoliation, concealment intimidation of witnesses and racketeering in the matter of his alleged Common Law citizen status as if a Native-born Citizen notwithstanding the allegiance status of his parents rather than a Natural Law Natural-born Citizen born on soil to married US citizen parents, nevertheless is a British Subject with dual allegiance at birth wherever that was to the minor US Citizen mother in wedlock to a majority aged British subject foreign alien student who then were duly divorced on March 20, 1964; and then when in the mother’s custody nd during her 2 marriage Barack Obama was adopted in Indonesia by his Indonesian Citizen stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, who gave the name “SOEBARKAH” according to the U.S. State Department record affirmed on the August 13, 1968 by Stanley Ann Soetoro; and thereafter as an Indonesian Citizen SOEBARKAH (aka Barry Soetoro) reentered the USA in 1971 alone without a US Passport to live with his grandmother who obtained foreign student funding, illegally obtained a stolen Social Security Number no later than 1980, forged a Selective Service filing dated 1980, and inter alia in furtherance of usurpation of the office of POTUS no later than April 25, 2011, according to more than three experts, forged a Long Form Certificate of Birth as if of Hawaii. That notwithstanding the citizenship status of Barack Obama, Affirmant contends that Barack Obama has multiple allegiances despite taking an oath owing exclusive allegiance to the United States, levies war against the People of the United States, adheres to their enemies al-Qaida, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, GÜLEN Movement and Iran against the People of the United States to establish the Caliphate from Thailand through Morocco, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason; and that any candidate elector and or public officer including … who would aid and abet Barack Obama in usurpation of office of POTUS is no less than guilty of misprision of felony, sedition and treason.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 3 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
• Based upon the foregoing subject there is a preponderance of evidence proving that the April 25, 2011 forged public document is for the purpose of usurping the POTUS, and that were any New York State Public Officer Electors to cast a vote aiding abetting each crime the civil servant would be an accessory after the fact to a felony under New York Penal Law; and as such Affirmant provides due notice hereby as a matter of standing guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, NYS Constitution, 18 U.S.C. § 2381 through §2390 and related law, including but not limited to N.Y.S. Election Law § 16-100, N.Y.S. CPLR § 7202 and N.Y.S. Civil Service Law § 105 as applies to any public officer misapplication and administration of laws; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and rd belief are as follows: 3 parties, books and records, and personal knowledge. “

4. That the respective County DA with jurisdiction over crimes of electors in each of fourteen counties are: P. David Soares Albany District Attorney; Robert T. Johnson The Bronx District Attorney; Frank A. Sedita, III Erie District Attorney; Charles J. Hynes District Attorney of Kings; Sandra Doorley District Attorney of Monroe; Kathleen M. Rice District Attorney of Nassau; Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. District Attorney of New York; William J. Fitzpatrick District Attorney of Onondaga; Francis D. Phillips District Attorney of Orange; Richard A. Brown District Attorney of Queens; Thomas J. Spota District Attorney of Suffolk; Gwen Wilkinson District Attorney of Tompkins; Kevin C. Kortright District Attorney of Washington; Janet DiFiore District Attorney of Westchester; and act independently of this civil action. 5. On November 9, 2012, Petitioner duly served a NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION WITH AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON ISSUES OF LAW AS TO ELECTORS (hereinafter known as the “NOTICE”) upon the respective County District Attorney with jurisdiction over the domicile of residence of the respective Public Officer member of the New York 2012 Presidential Election Cycle Electoral College of 29 members in Fourteen (14) Counties got Notice that stated quote: “Please take notice of Petitioner’s intent to file an order to show cause application at the Kings County Supreme Court Building at 11 AM on the 10th Floor intake at 360 Adams Street on Monday November 19, 2012 for a preliminary injunction relief pending a declaratory judgment on issues of law; e.g., Are public officers to be held liable as accessories to felonies in usurpation of Office of POTUS and Ballot access? Are public officers presented with the facts of Barack Obama ineligibility able to change qualifications before the Electoral College Vote scheduled December 15, 2012?”

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 4 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
6. On November 9, 2012, Petitioner had a person not a party to this suit serve a copy of the COMPLAINT and NOTICE upon the New York 2012 Presidential Election Cycle Electoral College Members for a total of 29 members in Fourteen (14) Counties individually as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Andrew M. Cuomo 138 Eagle Street -- Albany, NY 12202 Gerald D. Jennings of 1135 New Scotland Road -- Albany, NY 12208 George Gresham 1313 East 233rd Street -- Bronx, NY 10466 Ruben Diaz, Jr. of 820 Boyton Avenue, #6D -- Bronx, NY 10473 Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -- Buffalo, NY 14208 Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11232 Hakeem Jeffries 35 Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238 Bill DeBlasio of 442 11th Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11215 Robert Duffy 164 Croydon Road -- Rochester, NY 14610 Joseph Morelle of 133 Deerfield Drive -- Rochester, NY 14609 Tom DiNapoli 100 Great Neck Road -- Great Neck, NY 11201 Eric Schneiderman 645 West End Avenue, #8F -- New York, NY 10025 Walter Cooper 150 West 96th Street, #I2G -- New York, NY 10025 Sheldon Silver of 550 Grand Street, #5A -- New York, NY 10002 Keith L.T. Wright of 2225 Fifth Avenue -- New York, NY 10037 Christine C. Quinn of 263 Ninth Avenue, #3A -- New York, NY 10001 William Thompson of 106 West 121st Street -- New York, NY 10027 Scott Stringer of 155 West 71st Street, #3A -- New York, NY 10023 Emily Giske of 440 West 24th Street -- New York, NY 10014 Scott Adams of 11 Poplar Avenue -- Orchard Park, NY 14127 Stephanie Miner 102 Woodside Drive -- Syracuse, NY 13224 Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -- Orangeburg, NY 10962 Anne Marie Anzalone 2827 48th Street -- Astoria, NY 11103 Grace Meng of 14714 34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 Archie Spigner of 11210 175th Street -- Jamaica, NY 11433 Steve Bellone 107 Vanderbilt Avenue -- West Babylon, NY 11704 Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive -- Ithaca, NY 14850 Sheila Comar 29 Depot Street -- Middle Granville, NY 12849 Ken Jenkins 108 Bushey Avenue -- Yonkers, NY 10710

7. That Petitioner has been barred from filing any further suit without leave by the Order of Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. in the fraud complaint Strunk v NYS BOE et al Index No.: 2011-6500 under penalty of contempt against Public Officers: • • • • Andrew M. Cuomo of 138 Eagle Street -- Albany, NY 12202 Tom DiNapoli of 100 Great Neck Road -- Great Neck, NY 11201 Eric Schneiderman 645 West End Avenue, #8F -- New York, NY 10025 Sheldon Silver of 550 Grand Street, #5A -- New York, NY 10002

; and therefore, such named Public officers are not included herein unless by leave to do so.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 5 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County AS AND FOR THE FIRST QUESTION THE NEW YORK ELECTION OF KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND TO US SENATE IS VOID AB INITIO AS THE ELECTOR QUALIFICATIONS ARE NOT EQUAL TO THAT OF THE NEW YORK ASSEMBLY
8. Petitioner repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction and paragraphs 1 thru 7 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length; and that as and for the first question

the New York election held November 6, 2012 of Kirsten Gillibrand to the U.S. Senate from New York is void ab initio as to elector qualifications are not equal to that of the New York Assembly .
9. Petitioner seeks to overturn New York’s U.S. Senate election with U.S. Const. Amendment 17 “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. ..”

as the November 6, 2012 election for U.S. Senator from New York between Democrat Candidate Kirsten Gillibrand and Republican Candidate Wendy Long was conducted for electors not meeting the qualifications of a member of the Assembly with State Constitution Article 3 Section 7:
“. No person shall serve as a member of the legislature unless he or she is a citizen of the United States and has been a resident of the state of New York for five years, and, except as hereinafter otherwise prescribed, of the assembly … district for the twelve months immediately preceding his or her election; … or member of assembly at the first election next ensuing after a readjustment or alteration of the … assembly districts becomes effective, a person, to be eligible to serve as such, must have been a resident of the county in which the senate or assembly district is contained for the twelve months immediately preceding his or her election. …” (Emphasis added by Petitioner) 10. In addition to the above listed State Officers, Petitioner has also been barred from filing any further suit without leave by the Order of Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. in the fraud complaint Strunk v NYSBOE et al Index No.: 2011-6500 under penalty of contempt against other Public Officers and State entities: • • • The New York State Board of Ellection and its agents The New York Secretary of State City of New York among many other persons;

as such named Public officers and agencies are not included herein unless by leave to do so, Petitioner wishes the Court to void the U.S. Senate Election and ask the Governor set a special election, because a significant number of the electors casting their respective vote were domiciled in New York for less than

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 6 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
fives years and had not lived in their respective county of domicile for at least twelve months and there is no way to determine from the votes cast on Novemebr 6, 2012 of those qualified what candidate was voted for. 11. That Petitioner’s right to suffrage, a republican form of governement, Freedom and Liberty; are and would be infringed were the election of US Senator not held void ab initio and that a new special election held; and therefore, public officers yet name along with Respondent Kirsten Gillibrand of 15 West 26th Street, Suite 4R, New York, NY 10010 with her present place of business at Washington, DC Office 478 Russell Washington, DC 20510, as a public officer has infringed my rights and acted contrary to the law of the land with those yet named as each Respondent must either be sanctioned and barred from office and a new special elelction arranged for qualified elelctors as soon as possible. 12. In addition to the US Senate Election, regarding the POTUS Election there are five (5) categories of elector public officers who are the respondents herein that each of whom have separate and or combined issue questioned specifically as to each member of the respective categrory or jointly, and that based upon information and belief and at all times hereinafter mentioned, Petitioner respectfully alleges a question of law issue as to the captioned Respondents within each category of those public or quasi public officers with fiduciary duty who were notified of an accessory crime in which each participates in, especially if their respective vote is cast as an elector are : a. The Electors who are Public Officers elected to Congress duty as to matter of law and facts. b. The Electors who are Public Union trustees have fiduciary duty as to matter of law and facts. c. The Electors who are Registered Lobbyists have fiduciary duty as to matter of law and facts. d. All the Electors as Public Officers when notified of crime have duty as to the law and facts. e. The Elector private person as an Elector Public Officer duty as to matter of law and facts. 13. That Petitioner pursuant to the requirements of CPLR §7801 as to the nature of proceeding for relief by writ of mandamus or prohibition that shall be obtained in a proceeding under this article is made for a writ or order of prohibition, in which such reference shall, so far as applicable, be deemed to refer to the proceeding authorized by this article.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 7 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County 14. That Petitioner pursuant to the requirements of CPLR §7802 as to captioned Parties of electors listed
herein in part is in keeping with the definition of "body or officer", and the expression "body or officer" that includes every court, tribunal, board, corporation, officer, or other person, or aggregation of persons, whose action may be affected by a proceeding under this article; and that Petitioner contends that Respondent Electors have maliciously acted contrary to the prohibition in favor of another and where this proceeding is brought to restrain the Electors individually and as a body or officers from proceeding without or in excess of jurisdiction in favor of another, the latter shall be joined as a party; and that Petitioner understands that other interested persons in adequately represented by Petitioner actions herein by order of the court may direct that notice of the proceeding be given to any person, and may allow other interested persons to intervene were it not to prejudice the emergency nature of this action.

15. In addition to the above question Petitioner pursuant to the requirements of CPLR §7803 raises Questions that may be raised in a proceeding under this article that are as follows: AS AND FOR THE SECOND QUESTION AS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS HAKEEM JEFFRIES AND GRACE MENG AS TO NEW U.S. HOUSE MEMBERS AND ELECTORS WITH A DUTY AS TO A MATTER OF LAW AND FACTS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH A2S1C2 AS SUCH PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED ARE BARRED ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE REVIEW AFTER JANUARY 2, 2013.
16. Petitioner repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction and paragraphs 1 thru 15

with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length; and that public officers Respondent Hakeem Jeffries and Respondent Grace Meng as to new U.S. House members and Electors with a duty as to matter of law and facts are in conflict with U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 2, i.e. A2S1C2

states “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.” as such persons similarly situated are barred Electoral College vote review after January 2, 2013.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 8 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
17. Other than U.S. Constitution Article VI it does not specify the form of oath a Congressman is to take

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
and was a function of the respective state and federal law as in New York State Public Officer Law §10 requires every public officer to take and file an oath or affirmation prior to the discharge of any of their official duties and to be certified to the clerk of the respective body . The form of the oath or affirmation is set forth in Article XIII, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution ( 1 ) 18. That Petitioner’s understanding of the Decision and Order of Justice Schmidt referenced above is that a New York Electoral College Elector is merely a private person not required to take an oath in New York or elsewhere to uphold the State or Federal Constitution and as such may vote as a private person. 19. That Petitioner’s New York State Assembly Representative of the 57th AD is presently Respondent Hakeem Jeffries of 35 Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238 and pending the final tally and canvassing by the end of the month of November will also be the Elected member of the United States House of Representatives from the New York 8th House District 20. That Respondent Hakeem Jeffries intends as a House member to take his oath to uphold the State and US Constitution on Janaury 3, 2013, intends to sit in the joint session of Congress thereafter to review his own and other votes as an elector as a second bite of the apple despite the prohibitition by A2S1C2 to do so; and intends so despite that Respondent has been given notice by Petitioner.

1

NYSC ARTICLE XIII Public Officers [Oath of office; no other test for public office] Section 1. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as shall be by law exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ......, according to the best of my ability;" no other oath, declaration or test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust, except that any committee of a political party may, by rule, provide for equal representation of the sexes on any such committee, and a state convention of a political party, at which candidates for public office are nominated, may, by rule, provide for equal representation of the sexes on any committee of such party. (Amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 9 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
21. Respondent Grace Meng of 14714 34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 is a American lawyer holding an office of trust and profit and is a member of the New York State Assembly, representing the 22nd assembly district in Flushing, Queens, New York, and pending the final tally and canvassing by the end of November will also be the Elected member of the United States House of Representatives from the New York 6th House District. 22. That the Respondent Grace Meng as a House member takes her oath to uphold the State and U.S. Constitution before Janaury 3, 2013, and then intends to sit in the joint session of Congress thereafter to review her own and other votes as an elector as a second bite of the apple despite the prohibitition by A2S1C2 to do so; and intends so despite that Respondent has been given notice by Petitioner. 23. That arguendo re A2S1C2, “but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector“ use is still with the original meaning and intent despite the addition of the 12th , 14th , 16th and 20th Amendments notwithstanding; and that the original use before ratification of the 14th amendment considered each State of the several States was sovereign and not subservient to the USA in regards to the enforcement of the Bill of Rights applied to the Federal entity that was properly termed these United States not as now termed after ratification of the `14th Amendment (1868) became the singular United States, as each State of the several States became and now remain subservient along with every state citizen therein placed under USA jurisdiction per se; and 24. Further arguendo re original use of A2S1C2, “but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector“ includes any state officer and or public officer accordingly, and that the same meaning for “Senator” who was appointed by the respective State legislature before the 17th Amendment as the representative of the respective State is then and now intended to equate that relationship to every House member even though elected by State Citizens privileged to vote, and therefore also equates to every “Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit” too, and therefore includes every Public officer, in any state or federal jurisdiction, all except a private person per se; and.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 10 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
25. Furthermore arguendo re the issues of Law with Facts pertaining to the misapplication and misadministration of Public Officer acts in 2012 as relate to the December 5, 2008 Order and Decision as a matter of State Law heard by the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. at I.A.S. Part 1 in the Article 78 Petition with Kings County Index No.: 2008-29641 as a matter of the Federal Law of the Land A2S1C2 still un-amended is that the only interpretation of State law involved in the Order and Decision of December 5, 2008 by the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. must be in keeping with the exclusive power, McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), of the New York State Legislature in its plenary formation of the New York electoral college may not change the meaning of A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 at best would have to be a retiring public officer to serve as an elector but make any “Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit” after January 2, of the year following the general election of the POTUS ineligible and as such the member of the respective Electoral College is to be a private U.S. Citizen under Federal jurisdiction as an elector is a public officer per se who votes by no later than December 25, 2012 every four years and when the joint seating of Congress convenes on January 3, 2013 the next year and every four years thereafter until there is a amendment to the quasi Federal officer status of an elector means that without an amendment, no State and or Congress may change the eligibility requirements of a Federal officer includes the elector as well as that of POTUS with A2S1C5, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). 26. A State Officer and local officer as public officers hold an office of trust, and that persons registered with a privilege from the State such as an attorney, union trustee, lobbyist hold an office of trust for profit. 27. That were Respondents Grace Meng, Hakeem Jeffries and or anyother person similarly situated according to A2S1C2 who are officers of the State while acting as electors and as persons holding an office of trust or profit to review their own vote in Congress after Janaury 2, 2013 and also be an elector would infringe Petitioner’s right to suffrage, a republican form of governement, Freedom and Liberty; and therefore, Respondents acts as public officers is and would be contrary to the law of the land as each Respondent must either be barred from voting or office and or if done be referred for criminal action.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 11 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County AS AND FOR THE THIRD QUESTION AS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO ARE THE ELECTORS WHO ARE PUBLIC UNION TRUSTEES WHO HAVE A FIDUCIARY DUTY AS TO MATTERS OF LAW AND FACTS ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE POTUS ELIGIBILITY QUALIFICATIONS OF A2S1C5 AND ARE IN CONFLICT WITH A2S1C2 AND ARE BARRED FROM SUCH VOTE AS A BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THEIR MEMBERSHIP AND PEOPLE OF NEW YORK
28. Petitioner repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction and paragraphs 1 thru 27 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length; and that public officers who are the

electors who are public union trustees have a fiduciary duty as to matters of law and facts attempt to change the POTUS eligibility qualifications of A2S1C5 and are in conflict with A2S1C2, are barred from such vote as a breach of a fiduciary duty to their membership and People of the State of New York.
29. That Respondent George Gresham is a incumbent elected President of 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college. 30. That Respondent George Gresham is a registered fiduciary operating with the state of New York as a qusai Public Officer as a “Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit” who has a conflict of interest as an elector despite the prohibitition by A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 to do so; and intends to proceed as an elelctor tovote by Decmber 15, 2012 despite Notice to Respondent by Petitioner. 31. That Respondent Mario Cilento is a incumbent elected President of the New York State AFL-CIO by the organization's Executive Council to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college. 32. That Respondent Mario Cilento is a registered fiduciary operating with the state of New York as a qusai Public Officer as a “Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit” who has a conflict of interest

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 12 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
as an elector despite the prohibitition by A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 to do so; and intends to proceed as an elector to vote by December 15, 2012 despite Notice to Respondent by Petitioner. 33. That Respondent Scott Adams is a incumbent elected director of UAW Region 9 with Local 686 Local 774 Local 1069 Local 1097 Local 2300 Local 3303 to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 34. That Respondent Scott Adams is a registered fiduciary operating with the state of New York as a quasi Public Officer as a “Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit” who has a conflict of interest as an elector despite the prohibitition by A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 to do so; and intends to proceed as an elector to vote by December 15, 2012 despite Notice to Respondent by Petitioner. 35. That were Public Union Fiduciary Respondents and any other similar representative similarly situated to cast a vote a POTUS candidate that is not eligible for POTUS would infringe Union member trust and similarly private US citizens like Petitioner’s right to suffrage, republican form of governement, Freedom and Liberty; and therefore, their action as public officers is contrary and should lead to removal from their office and or disbanning the respective union and return of alll union member funds.

AS AND FOR THE FOURTH QUESTION AS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO ARE THE ELECTORS WHO ARE REGISTERED LOBBYISTS HAVE FIDUCIARY DUTY AS TO MATTERS OF LAW AND FACTS ARE QUASI PUBLIC OFFICERS WITH A FIDUCIARY DUTY ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE POTUS ELIGIBILITY QUALIFICATIONS OF A2S1C5 AND ARE IN CONFLICT WITH A2S1C2 AND ARE BARRED FROM SUCH VOTE AS A BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
36. Petitioner repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction and paragraphs 1 thru 35 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length; and that public officers who are the

electors who are registered lobbyists have fiduciary duty as to matters of law and facts are quasi public officers with a fiduciary duty attempt to change the POTUS eligibility qualifications of Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 13 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County A2S1C5 and are in conflict with A2S1C2, are barred from such vote as a breach of a fiduciary duty to the People of the State of New York
37. That Respondent Emily Giske is a incumbent government affairs specialist based in New York with extensive experience in Albany and New York City. She has lobbied for corporations, financial institutions, not-for-profit entities and local municipalities including Las Vegas gambling interests lobbyist to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college. 38. That Respondent Emily Giske is a lobbyist with the state of New York as a qusai Public Officer as

a “Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit” who has a conflict of interest as an elector despite the
prohibitition by A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 to do so; and intends to proceed as an elector to vote by Decmber 15, 2012 despite Notice to Respondent by Petitioner. 39. That were a Lobbyist registered in New York and any other similar representative similarly situated to cast a vote a POTUS candidate that is not eligible for POTUS would infringe the trust due the People of New York as similarly to Petitioners right to suffrage, republican form of government, Freedom and Liberty. And therefore their action as public officers is contrary and should lead to removal of Respondents license, order fines levied under State Lobbying law, and crimnal investigation.

AS AND FOR THE FIFTH QUESTION AS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO also are AN ELECTOR PUBLIC OFFICER ALSO HAVE DUTY AS TO MATTERS OF LAW AND FACTS ABSENT A VIOLATION OF LAW MAY NOT VOTE FOR WHOM THEY WISH BY CHANGING THE ELIGIBILITY OF POTUS.
40. Petitioner repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction and paragraphs 1 thru 39 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length; and that all public officers holding more than one public officer job for pay excluding a commissioner of deeds or notary public with a fiduciary

duty attempt to change the POTUS eligibility qualifications are in conflict with A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 and are barred from such vote as a breach of a fiduciary duty to the People of the State of New York; and Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 14 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
41. That each Elector is mandated by the State of New York legislature with exclusive power afforded by A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 with use of New York State Election Law and related rules, McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), with the proviso that no Public Official may change the eligibility and or qualification requirements of a federal officer including that of office of POTUS, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) as apply to each respondent below: 42. That Respondent Robert Duffy is the incumbent 76th Lieutenant Governor of New York to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 43. That Respondent Keith L.T. Wright is a incumbent Member of the New York State Assembly from the 70th district to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 44. That Respondent Stephanie Miner is a incumbent 53rd Mayor of the city of Syracuse New York to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 45. That Respondent Sheila Comar is a incumbent elected Executive committee chair of the New York State Democratic Committee to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 46. That Respondent Joseph Morelle is a incumbent member of the New York State Assembly representing the 132nd Assembly District, which includes eastern portions of the City of Rochester and the Monroe County suburbs of Irondequoit and Brighton to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 47. That Respondent Christine C. Quinn is a incumbent Speaker of the New York City Council representing District 3 to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 48. That Respondent Ruben Diaz, Jr. is a incumbent President of the Borough of the Bronx in New York City to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 49. That Respondent Ken Jenkins is a incumbent Westchester County 16th District legislator, and was elected again Chairman of The Board of Legislators to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 50. That Respondent Steve Bellone is a incumbent Suffolk County Executive to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 15 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
51. That Respondent Felix Ortiz is a incumbent representing New York's 51st Assembly District to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 52. That Respondent Anne Marie Anzalone is a incumbent appointed Chief of staff to Representative Joe Crowley of the 7th New York Congressional District to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 53. That Respondent William Thompson is a incumbent selected by the NYS Governor to head NYC's Battery Park City Authority to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 54. That Respondent Scott Stringer is a incumbent 26th Borough President of Manhattan to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 55. That Respondent Bill DeBlasio is a incumbent New York City elected official, holding the citywide office of New York City Public Advocate to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 56. That Respondent Byron Brown is a incumbent mayor of Buffalo, New York to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 57. That Respondent Gerald D. Jennings is a incumbent mayor of Albany, New York to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 58. That Respondent Archie Spigner is a incumbent District Leader for the 29th A.D. - Part A, and Executive Member of the Guy R. Brewer United Democratic Club to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 59. That although the following public officers are being questionably protected by the enormity of Justice Schack invidious infringement of Petitioner basic rights otherwise protected by the US Constitution and 14th Amendment guarantees and related State law with an order and decision taken on appeal case 20125515 filing pending, the following public officers would be effected by a Court decision herein as follows: a. That Andrew M. Cuomo is a incumbent 56th Governor of New York to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college and was notified of POTUS ineligibility as the NYS Attorney General and an elector in the 2008 Electoral College proceeded to vote.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 16 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
b. That Tom DiNapoli is a incumbent 54th Comptroller of the state of New York to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college and was notified of POTUS ineligibility as the NYS Attorney General and an elector in the 2008 Electoral College proceeded to vote. c. That Sheldon Silver is a incumbent Member of the New York State Assembly from the 64th district and speaker of the assembly to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college and was notified of POTUS ineligibility as the NYS Attorney General and an elector in the 2008 Electoral College proceeded anyway to vote. d. That Eric Schneiderman is a incumbent 65th Attorney General of New York to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 60. That all the above named Public Officer Respondents as the body and or its officers with

the expressed exception of private US Citizens as electors that failed or are about to perform a duty enjoined upon it by the law of the land as to the requirement to conform to U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 as to the eligibility requirements for any candidate for the office of the POTUS; and
61. That the named Respondents as the body and or its officers that proceeded, and is

proceeding or is about to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction to allow violation of NBC Eligibility ; and
62. That the named Respondents as the body and or its officers that proceeded, and is

proceeding or is about to proceed despite the warning of the misprision of felony sedition and treason are to be referred for criminal investigation and removal from office under New York Civil Service Law Section 105;
63. That Respondent public officers as Elector Public Officers have duty as to matter of law and facts and when in violation of law must be held accountable or would infringe the trust due the People of New York as similarly to Petitioners right to suffrage, republican form of government, Freedom and Liberty.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 17 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County AS AND FOR THE SIXTH QUESTION AS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO AS THE ELECTOR PRIVATE PERSON WITHOUT ANOTHER PUBLIC OFFICE AS AN ELECTOR PUBLIC OFFICER ALSO HAVE DUTY AS TO MATTERS OF LAW AND FACTS BUT ABSENT A VIOLATION OF LAW MAY VOTE FOR WHOM THEY WISH.
64. Petitioner repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction and paragraphs 1 thru 63 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length; and that public officers who as the Elector private person without another public office as an Elector Public Officer also have duty as to matters of law and facts but when absent a violation of law may vote for whom they wish. 65. That Respondent Irene Stein is a candidate past super delegate in the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination and wife of Peter Stein the Tomkins County legislator for the 11th District to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 66. That Respondent Walter Cooper is a candidate in an individual capacity as a citizen of New York to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 67. The Elector private person as a US Citizen without another public office as an Elector Public Officer also have duty as to matter of law and facts and when in violation of law must be held accountable or would infringe the trust due the People of New York as similarly to Petitioners right to suffrage, republican form of governement, Freedom and Liberty.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner wishes a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction hearing, and Declaratory judgment under CPLR §7806 and permanent injunction against the Respondents of each category and such other relief as the Court deems just including a TRO Order: a. A hearing on the legal issues as to the void ab initio US Senate Election in New York.. b. A hearing on the issues of facts as to forgery, sedition and treason. c. A hearing on the issues of the actual historical meaning of Natural Born Citizen held by the State of New York from before and after the 1776 Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 18 of 20

'4 - '

L

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County

d. That Public Officers elected to Congress and as a public officer electors be barred from reviewing the elector votes in keeping to the mandates of the law of the land e. That based upon a review of the facts associated with the forgery of public documents to facilitate usurpation of the office of POTUS that Electors be given notice of their being held as an accessory after the fact to a forgery crime that would be referred for criminal proceeding.

f. That based upon a review of the facts associated with the allegation of misprision of
felony sedition and treason that Electors be given notice of their being held as an accessory after the fact to a felony, sedition and warned of treason per se crime that would be referred for criminal proceeding. g. That electors be instructed as to the actual historical meaning of Natural Born Citizen held by the state' of New York from before and after the 1776 issuance of the Declaration of Independence and with the proviso that were a Public Officer other than an independent elector per se to attempt to change the eligibility of a federal offrcer would be held in civil contempt in breach of public officer duties. h. And for further and different relief as the Court may deem necessary herein.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York November 2012

/ +

Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse, Petitioner self-represent without being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28 1, Brooklyn, New York 11238. (845)90 1-6767 E-mail: chris@strunk.ws

Christopher-Earl: Strunk's PETITION Page 19 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County PETITION VERIFICATION AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS
) ) ss. )

Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: I have read the foregoing Petition with six (6) questions at issue against each category of Respondent Public Officers and ~lectors' their official capacity and or individually as against the in unlawful misadministration and misapplication of New York Public Officers in the conduct of the General Election of November 6,201 2 in the election of US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand that is void ab initio, and in which Petitioner wishes a writ of prohibition with Temporary Restraining Order and permanent injunction with a Declaratory Judgment equity relief under jurisdiction of the CPLR Article 78 in conjunction with the New York State Election Law Article $16-100 requires emergency equity relief with a CPLR $7805 injunction with stay of New York Electoral College vote due by December 15,2012, and a declaratory judgment under CPLR $7806 as time is of the essence with irreparable harm; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

26%
Christopher-Earl: Strunk
-

' --

,. -.
~

.
,-

S w o r n t o before me

-

.
: -

7

ARNOLD 1. TlSHFlELD '-Notary Public State Of New YO;~" N0.41-4611662 Qualified In Queens County Certified in Kings County Commission Expires March 30, 20

7

-_-. _
I -

..

-

, -

Christopher-Earl: Strunk's PETITION Page 20 of 20

SUPREME COURT OF TIIE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR THE COUNTY OF KINGS
Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 281 Brooklyn New York 11238
9

Index No.:

Petitioner,
Hakeem Jeffries 35 Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238 Grace Meng of 14714 34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11232 Bill DeBlasio of 442 11th Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11215 Walter Cooper 150 West 96th Street, #I2G -- New York, NY 10025 Keith L.T. Wright of 2225 Fifth Avenue -- New York, NY 10037 Christine C. Quinn of 263 Ninth Avenue, #3A -- New York, NY 10001 William Thompson of 106 West 121st Street -- New York, NY 10027 Scott Stringer of 155 West 71st Street, #3A --New York, NY 10023 Emily Giske of 440 West 24th Street --New York, NY 10014 Anne Marie Anzalone 2827 48th Street -- Astoria, NY 11103 Archie Spigner of 11210 175th Street -- Jamaica, NY 11433 George Gresham 1313 East 233rd Sheet -- Bronx, NY 10466 Ruben Diaz, Jr. of 820 Boyton Avenue, #6D -- Bronx, NY 10473 Ken Jenkins 108 Bushey Avenue -- Yonkers, NY 10710 Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -- Orangeburg, NY 10962 Gerald D. Jennings of 1135 New Scotland Road -- Albany, NY 12208 Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -- Buffalo, NY 14208 Robert Duffy 164 Croydon Road -- Rochester, NY 14610 Joseph Morelle of 133 Deerfield Drive -- Rochester, NY 14609 Scott Adams of 11 Poplar Avenue -- Orchard Park, NY 14127 Stephanie Miner 102 Woodside Drive -- Syracuse, NY 13224 Steve Bellone 107 Vanderbilt Avenue -- West Babylon, NY 11704 . Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive -- Ithaca, NY 14850 Sheila Comar 29 Depot Street -- Middle Granville, NY 12849; and Kirsten Gillibrand with DC Oflice 478 Russell Washington, DC 205 10

NOTICE OF PETITION PETITION PETITION VERIFICATION AFFIDAVIT

n

self-represent without being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281, Brooklyn, New York 11238. (845) 901-6767 E-mail: chris@,strunk.ws

Strunk

v Jeffries

et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.; 21948 / 2012

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER
Accordingly,
a. b. c.

)
) ss.

)

I, H. William Van Allen, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:

Am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My place of business is located at 351 North Road Hurley New York 12243. On November 14, 2012, Christopher Strunk instructed me to serve a true conformed copy of the NOTICE OF PETITION, PETITION with AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION affirmed November 13,2012 along with a

NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING A DECLARATORY INJUNCTION ON ISSUE OF LAW AS TO ELECTORS DECLARATORY RELIEF AS TO ELECTORS, a Notice of Petitioner's intent to file an order to show cause
application at the Kings County Supreme Court Building at 10 AM on the 10th Floor intake at 360 Adams Street on Monday November 19,2012 placing a complete set in a properly addressed to each respondent listed below for delivery by USPS by certified mail with request for return receipt for proof of service. On November 14, 2012, I caused each copy with proper postage for service by certified mail on the listed Electors and where each envelope was properly addressed with the Notification "URGENT LEGAL SERVICE" and "PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL" in the lower left hand corner of the envelop that was then deposited with the USPS for service upon:

d.

1. Hakeem Jeffries 35 2. Grace Meng ofl47l4
3.

Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238

CM I RR No 7012101000068749741 CM I RR No 7012101000068749819 CM I RR No 7012101000068749758 CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM I RR No I RR No I RR No I RR No IRR No I RR No I RR I RR IRR I RR No No No No 7012101000068749765 7012101000068749956 7012101000068749826 7012101000068749833 7012101000068749840 7012101000068749857 7012101000068749864 7012101000068749901 7012101000068750242 7012101000068749963 7012101000068749949 7012101000068749895 7012101000068749970 7012101000068749802 7012101000068749772 7012101000068749789 7012101000068749871 7012101000068749888 7012101000068749918 7012101 000068749925 7012101000068749932

34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11232

Bill DeBlasio of 442 lith Street -- Brooklyn. NY 11215 Walter Cooper 150 West 96th Street, #[2G -- New York. NY 10025 6. Keith L.T. Wright of2225 Fifth Avenue -- New York. NY 10037 7. Christine C. Quinn of263 Ninth Avenue. #3A -- New York, NY 10001 8. William Thompson of 106 West 121st Street -- New York. NY 10027 9. Scott Stringer of 155 West 71st Street. #3A -- New York, NY 10023 10. Emily Giske 01'440 West 24th Street -- New York, NY 10014 11. Anne Marie Anzaloue 2827 48th Street -- Astoria. NY 11103 12. Archie Spigner of 11210 175th Street -- Jamaica, N'r' 11433 13. George Gresham 1313 East 233rd Street -- Bronx, NY 10466 14. Ruben Diaz, Jr. of820 Boyton Avenue. #6D -- Bronx. NY 10473 15. Ken Jenkins 108 Bushey Avenue -- Yonkers. NY 10710 16. Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -- Orangeburg, NY 10962 17. Gerald D. Jennings of 1135 New Scotland Road -- Albany. NY 12208 18. Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -- Buffalo, NY 14208 19. Robert Duffy 164 Croydon Road -- Rochester, NY 14610 20. Joseph Morelle of 133 Deerfield Drive -- Rochester, NY 14609 21. Scott Adams of 11 Poplar Avenue -- Orchard Park, NY 14127 22. Stephanie Miner 102 Woodside Drive -- Syracuse, NY 13224 23. Steve Bellone 107 Vanderbilt Avenue -- West Babylon, NY 11704 24. Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive -- Ithaca, NY 14850 25. Sheila Comar 29 Depot Street -- Middle Granville, NY 12849; 26. Kirsten Gillibrand with DC Office 478 Russell Washington, DC 20510

4. 5.

CM I RR No 7012101000068749796 CM I RR No CM I RR No CM I RR No CM I RR No CM IRR No CM I RR No CM I RR No CM I RR No CM I RR No CM I RR No CM I RR No

C"!Rl'N~':'00006R7499R7

/#~ /;l.v~2r;;/
Van Allen

Sworn to before me This i day of November

rlliam
2012

~

~<-Drl
tary Pubhc

Q

~k.o-~

NOTARYPUBUC,

JUDITHS.MA YHON STAT£; OF NEW YORK NO.01MA60B5585 QUALIFIED IN ULSTER COUNTY/'(j

COMMISSION EXPIRES JUt Y 14, 20__

NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF KINGS Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Petitioner

1. 2. 3.

Hakeem Jeffries 35 Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238 Bill DeBlasio of 442 11th Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11215 Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11232

e

Gerald D. Jennings of 1135 New Scotland Road -- Albany, NY 12208 George Gresham 1313 East 233rd Street -- Bronx, NY 10466 Ruben Diaz, Jr. of 820 Boyton Avenue, #6D -- Bronx, NY 1W73 Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -- Buffalo, NY 14208 9. Robert D u e 164 Croydon Road -- Rochester, NY 14610 10. Joseph Morelle of 133 Deerfield Drive -- Rochester, NY 14609 r c Koaa -- wear K

5.

6. 7. 8.

Nar-n 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 2 1. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

13. Walter Cooper 150 West 96th Street, #I2G -- New York, NY 10025 -IV,K

jo- ( l h G I L & I B ) Z ~ N D ~ ~ p DCQFRCG q@ &rJaL Respondents w &S~/rvGm(3 L P

Keith L.T. Wright of 2225 Fifth Avenue --New York, NY 10037 Christine C. Quinn of 263 Ninth Avenue, #3A --New York, NY 10001 William Thompson of 106 West 121st Street -- New York, NY 10027 Scott Stringer of 155 West 71st Street, #3A -- New York, NY 10023 Emily Giske of 440 West 24th Street --New York, NY 10014 Scott Adams of 11 Poplar Avenue -- Orchard Park, NY 14127 Stephanie Miner 102 Woodside Drive -- Syracuse, NY 13224 Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -- Orangeburg, NY 10962 Anne Marie Anzalone 2827 48th Street -- Astoria, NY 11103 Grace Meng of 14714 34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 Archie Spigner of 11210 175th Street -- Jamaica, NY 11433 Steve Bellone 107 Vanderbilt Avenue -- West Babylon, NY 11704 Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive -- Ithaca, NY 14850 Sheila Comar 29 Depot Street -- Middle Granville, NY 12849 Ken Jenkins 108 Avenue -- Yonkers, NY 107 10

-

ush he^

NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION WITH AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON ISSUES OF LAW AS TO ELECTORS
Please take notice of Petitioner's intent to file an order to show cause application a t the Kings County Supreme Court Building at 11 AM on the 10th Floor intake a t 360 Adams Street on Monday November 19, 2012 for a preliminary injunction relief pending a declaratory judgment on issues of law; e.g., Are public officers to be held liable as accessories to felonies in usurpation of Office of POTUS and Ballot access? Are public officers presented with the facts of Barack Obarna ineligibility able to change qualifications before the Electoral College Vote scheduled December 15, 2012?
For further information Contact :

Www
.= \

b

a

j~*~leo.

i

~7977-7

r/

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse 593 Yanderbilf Avenue - 281 Brooklyn New York 11238 Cellphone: 845-901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws

3-

1

WflOKLYN NY 1 2 8 13
Postage $

I
$0.85
031% --e. ,

P-

!

rc 1 EO

R S I G NY 11354 UH N
Postage $ Cellifled Fee

.rl

$1.50

0319

I

a
Relum Receipt Fee (Endorsemenl Requlred) Restricted Delivery Fee (EndorsementRequired) Total Postage & Fe

0 Retum Receipt Fee 0 (Endorsement Required)
0

Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Requlred)
Total Postage & F-

+ I
0 A

Hakeem Jeffries 35 Underhill Avenue, #2A -Brooklyn, NY 1 1238

Flushing, NY 1 1354
Civ, State. ZIP+4

-.-.-------..-.----.-

...--..-- --....-.-----

1 I

P

a
J l
D

Postage Certified Fee

0

a
u
A ..

Return Receipt Fee (EndorsementRequired) RestrictedDelivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees

1 Sent To

I

city, Sl8@ ZJPM

Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -Brooklyn, NY 1 1232

.---------------.----.
---------**---'-----.

442 l lth Street -city, state,z,P+r

~ ~ o o k l yNY 11215 n,

.-.--.-..-.-.---.---.-..-..-.. ----..-..-..,.--.

I

-,

0

O

a
[=I

Return Receipt Fee (Endorsemenl Required) RestrictedDelivery Fee (Endorsement Required)

Retum Receipt Fee Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required)

a

Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Requlred) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsernent Required)

..
Christine C. Quinn ........ 263 Ninth Avenue, # 3 --~ ........

................ Clly.State, ZIP

New York, NY 10001

f

F

I-Postage $
t

a
A

Q

A
0

Postage $ Cerllfied Fee

0 0 Return Rece~pt Fee 0 (Endorsement Requ~red)
Restricted Del.wery Fee (Endorsement Requ~red)

Cert~fled Fee

i l i l

Scott Stringer i ........ l ........ 155 West 7 1 st Street, #3A ................... New York, NY 10023 ......... ......... CiM State, ZIP-

- -7
-

Return Receipt Fee O (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Requlred) Total Postage & Fees

I 4

0 F l

$

Emily Giske
......... .........
City. State, ZIPt4

440 West 24th Street -......... New York, NY 10014 ..........

Postage

II

-

Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Requlred)

u

(

$2.95

dW

Cerllfled Fee Return Recelpt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delive~y Fee (Endorsement Required)

0

+ I 0 Total Postage & Fees i l

1 Sent To

7

F;:

,

Total Postage & Fees

/ Sent To
"""" """ or PO Box No.

1lLIU
1
IJb'L

""

--IuVL

Jamaica,NY 11433

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

I

820 Boyton Avenue, #6D -- .-----------Bronx, NY 10473

u

Return Receipt Fee

Return Rece~pt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Dellvery Fee (Endorsement Required)
Total Postage & Fees

0

Total Postage &

I $

= ) (

-:Eji4;m2
...-----.---------

ciry,state, ZIP+^

Ken Jenkins 108 Bushey Avenue -Yonkers, NY 10710

,--------------

--.-------,--.

Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -Orangeburg, NY 10962

1

%

postage $ Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required)
TOW Postage & Fees

P-

I

$2.d 3 % % 2 > x

-Y

2

Postage $ Certified Fee

$1.30

0319

'y .

P

Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) RestrictedDeliery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees

- 1$
-

0

$4. 60~:--

1$

1 D. Jennings Gerald - -- ; - - - - - - - - - - &- .

I

1135 New Scotland Road -..-------- - -----. ---.-.----.------..- 12208 Albany, NY Ciu State, ZlF+4
~ ~ t . a0.; or PO Box No.

7

; I 1 Sent To

$6. M)

111/14zil2

I

Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -Buffalo, NY 14208 .-------"-----.--.'-----.

:?+%

3-

1

EWFALO NY 14208

,

/

. i

-.- .

3

F

a

Postage $

$1.30

1

O'T~Q

I
J l
0 0

HIlllLE GRANVILLE NY 1349

031?
Celtltied Fee Return Recelpt Fee (Endorsement RequlNd) Restrlcted Delwery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Pcstage & Fees --

O

a
0
Total Postage & Fees

d

A 0

-------..._--__.__
Clty, State, ZIP+4

rm
d l

Postage $ Certif~ed Fee Relum Recmp?Fee (Endorsement Requvred) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required)

11.30

I

Q dl

Certified Fee Retum Recelpt Fee (Endorsement Requlred) Restrlcted Delhrety Fee (Endorsement Required)

0

0

0

A 3iii?x3rN6;!------ Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive 0 o r P 0 BoxNo. p- ----..---*-----..------.
at^, stale. ZIP+4 '

.. 1
2

T t l Postage a Fees oa

1 $ -312

-

Ithaca, NY 14850

-- .--- ".. --.---,-.

.--.-------.---. -.

107 Vanderbilt Avenue -West Babylon, NY 1 l 704

* Steve Bellone

-

---.------

RestrictedDelivery Fee (Endorsement Requlred)

0 0 R m m Receipt,Fee O (Endorsement Required) a RestrictedDelhrBty Fee

Certlfled Fee

i??7ZI. ;;$y:;zErive ...-------------.-~rieet, p t NO.: ~ .
or PO BOX NO.

- - - - - - - - .- -.- .-- -- - .
Cifx state, Z I P + ~

syracuse, NY 13224

1-

(Endorsement Required)

2

s-,e-t:-Jji:-fib:,r.----A . . . . .

or BOX .-------------------PO-..NO. -. Orchard Park, NY 14127 . ..Stale,.ZIP+^ . - .. . . City,

Scott Adarns 1I Poplar Avenue --

3 P
Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Reslricfed Dellvery Fee (Endorsement Reqared) Total Postage & Fees

I

ROCHESTER NY 14619
Postage Certified Fee Return Recelpt Fee (Endorsement Required)

, H

.-

cO J l

0
C3
RestrictedDelively Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees

Y
2

1 Sent To
OrPO Box No. -...~%8te,ZIP- 133 Deerfield Drive -.....--....-. CiM Rochester, NY 14609

\

1$

$6.60

Tn-/.fi/~iz

-

JosephMorelle

...------------------.----

.__..____i_.._.____-------------------------.-Robert Duffj.
Civ, state. z/P+4

164 Croydon Road -Rochester, NY 14610

-.....------.---.------

1

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 W S S C for Kings county Index No.; 21 948 / 2012
,
-

0

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
) ss. )

STATE OF NEW YORK )

TY OF KINGS
Aecordingly, I,

I

Rou&e efi

ALL

being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of pejury:

over 18 y e a r s of age a n d n o t a party t o t h i s action. K 11 place of b u s i n e s s i s located at November 3 0 , 2 0 1 2 , Christopher S t r u n k instructed m e t o serve a true conformed copy of t h e PETITIONER'S -- >OND AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF OSC with EXHIBITS a n n e x e d AFFIRMED November 30,2012 along with a copy of t h e NOTICE OF PETITION, PETITION with AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION affirmed November 1 3 , 2 0 1 2 placing a complete s e t i n a properly addressed envelope to e a c h respondent listed below for delivery by USPS regular

6J5 f/&

ZoG

mail.
d. O n November 3 0 , 2 0 1 2 , I c a u s e d e a c h copy with proper postage for service b y first class mail o n t h e listed Electors And where e a c h envelope w a s properly addressed with t h e Notification "URGENT LEGAL SERVICE" a n d PERSONAL 8a CONFIDENTJAL" i n t h e lower left h a n d c o m e r of the envelop t h a t w a s then deposited with the USPS for service upon:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Andrew M. Cuomo 138 Eagle Street -- Albany, NY 12202 Gerald D. Jennings of 1135 New Scotland Road -- Albany, NY 12208 George Gresham 1313 East 233rd Street -- Bronx, NY 10466 Ruben Diaz, Jr. of 820 Boyton Avenue, #6D -- Bronx, NY 10473 Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -- Buffalo, NY 14208 Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11232 Hakeern Jeffi-ies 35 Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238 Bill DeBlasio of442 1lth Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11215 Robert Duffy 164 Croydon Road -- Rochester, NY 14610 Joseph Morelle of 133 Deerfield Drive -- Rochester, NY 14609 Tom DiNapoli 100 Great Neck Road -- Great Neck, NY 11201 12. Eric Schneiderman 645 West End Avenue, #8F -- New York, NY 10025 13. Walter Cooper 150 West 96th Street, #I2G -- New York, NY 10025 14. Sheldon Silver of 550 Grand Street, #5A -- New York,,NY 10002 15. Keith L.T. Wright of 2225 Fifth Avenue -- New York, NY 10037 16. Christine C. Quinn of 263 Ninth Avenue, #3A -- New York, NY 10001 17. William Thompson of 106 West 121st Street -- New York, NY 10027 18. Scott Stringer of 155 West 71st Street, #3A --New York, NY 10023 19. Emily Giske of 440 West 24th Street -- New York, NY 10014 20. Scott Adams of 11 Poplar Avenue -- Orchard Park, NY 14127 21. Stephanie Miner 102 Woodside Drive -- Syracuse, NY 13224 22. Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -- Orangeburg, NY 10962 23. Anne Marie Anzalone 2827 48th Street -- Astoria, NY 11103 24. Grace Meng of 14714 34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 25. Archie Spigner of 11210 175th Street -- Jamaica, NY 11433 26. Steve Bellone 107 Vanderbilt Avenue -- West Babylon, NY 11704 27. Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive -- Ithaca, NY 14850 28. Sheila Comar 29 Depot Street -- Middle Granville, NY 12849 29. Ken Jenkins 108 Bushey Avenue -- Yonkers, NY 10710 30. Joshua Pepper NYSAssiatant Attorney General Office of Attorney General 120 Broadway NY NY 10171

31 K L Q ~ T V CrfCtVrc/@(l

VtWQ $ f = f = I C @ r L E q B

E ~ ~ S ~ L ~ W H Wmy18

:

.,

KAMAL P. SON1 Notary Public, State of New York No. 01SO6089949 Qualified in Kings C0unly Commission Expires March 31.2015

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR THE COUNTY OF KINGS -----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281 Brooklyn New York 11238

Index No.: 21948 / 2012
Filed November 14, 2012

Petitioner, -againstHakeem Jeffries , Grace Meng, Felix Ortiz, Bill DeBlasio, Walter Cooper, Keith L.T. Wright, Christine C. Quinn, William Thompson, Scott Stringer, Emily Giske, Anne Marie Anzalone, Archie Spigner, George Gresham, Ruben Diaz, Jr.; Ken Jenkins; Mario Cilento; Gerald D. Jennings; Byron Brown ; Robert Duffy; Joseph Morelle; Scott Adams ; Stephanie Miner; Steve Bellone; Irene Stein; Sheila Comar; and Kirsten Gillibrand Respondents.

PETITIONER’S SECOND
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WITH RECONSIDERATION

-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ) ) ss. )

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

To: The Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C. Part 1,

1. This is Petitioner’s request for reconsideration of the Court’s Decision and Order (Decision) entered on November 19, 2012, see Exhibit 14 as a continuation of the 13 Exhibits that accompany the application. declining to sign the application for an order to show cause http://www.scribd.com/doc/112747771/; and 2. Therein the Decision the Court alleges that the application is non-conforming with the wishes of Hon. Arthur M. Schack as if it would apply, when then and now Petitioner contends He does comply with that prior decision and order and that Petitioner does not circumvent any prior order and or is somehow barred by res adjudicata and collateral estoppel; and that this request is respectfully submitted as the Court has acted in error that may be based upon a misunderstanding of the facts presented, in what may be admittedly under a time constraints, as an in-artful form of application wish for relief, and that this affidavit will perhaps clarify in support if reconsideration, as this matter remains timely,that there remains an imminent irreparable harm as

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s 2nd Affidavit in support of OSC Page 1 of 9

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012
time is of the essence, and Petitioner is without another forum for relief, as and for his Petition wishes three declaratory judgments on law: A. U.S. Senate Election in New York as to the 17th Amendment challenge 3. A declaratory judgment as to the now certified U.S. Senate Election in New York as to the 17th Amendment challenge with jurisdiction afforded the Court by EL 16-100, in that the election held on November 6, 2012 is void ab initio and requires a new election by order of the Governor as to elector qualifications are not equal to that of the New York Assembly; and therefore, Petitioner seeks to overturn New York’s U.S. Senate election with U.S. Const. Amendment 17 : “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. ..” as the November 6, 2012 election for U.S. Senator from New York between Democrat Candidate Kirsten Gillibrand and Republican Candidate Wendy Long among others was conducted for electors not meeting the qualifications of a member of the Assembly with State Constitution Article 3 Section 7: “. No person shall serve as a member of the legislature unless he or she is a citizen of the United States and has been a resident of the state of New York for five years, and, except as hereinafter otherwise prescribed, of the assembly … district for the twelve months immediately preceding his or her election; … or member of assembly at the first election next ensuing after a readjustment or alteration of the … assembly districts becomes effective, a person, to be eligible to serve as such, must have been a resident of the county in which the senate or assembly district is contained for the twelve months immediately preceding his or her election. …” (Emphasis added by Petitioner) 4. That as for Respondents Jeffries, Meng, Ortiz, Wright and Morelle are prime examples of the electors of most numerous branch of the State Legislature that before the 17th Amendment were the elected the respective U.S. Senator of two senators from the state of New York, as the Assembly had a margin of elector control over the State Senate with a ratio of 3 assemblymen to 1 senator. 5. And as such Petitioner wishes the Court to void the U.S. Senate Election and ask the Governor set a special election, because a significant number of the electors casting their respective vote were domiciled in New York for less than fives years and had not lived in their respective county of domicile for at least twelve months and there is no way to determine from the votes cast on Novemebr 6, 2012 of those qualified what candidate was voted for.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s 2nd Affidavit in support of OSC Page 2 of 9

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012
6. That any person elected at the November 6, 2012 general election, including Respondents, are now certified as elected by the NYS BOE, and because Petitioner was unable to challenge the election in the precertification first stage that then would include the NYS BOE and not conform with the wishes of Judge Schack; but now during the post certification phase in which any congressman elect during the lame duck session of congress before those certified would appear to be sworn into office on or after January 3,. 2013 not only does not require the appearance of the NYS BOE, but as with any challenge of first impression regarding a Constitutional issue only requires Petitioner provide proper notification of the Office of the NYS Attorney General which Petitioner did by notifying Lisa Dell, Esq. by email on Friday November 16, 2012 (see Exhibit 15).; and 7. That when Joshua Pepper , Esq. NYS Assistant Attorney General from the litigation bureau, under the supervision of Lisa Dell of His Office, appeared voluntarily as an intervener at the preliminary intake hearing of this application before the Court at Courtroom 541; and thereat, Mr. Pepper disclosed that he represents the Executive including the Governor, Comptroller and Attorney General Mr. Silver the Speaker of the Assembly; 8. Therefore how would Petitioner be held liable, and under what legal theory for another’s voluntary action applies, whether that be for an intervener as petitioner or respondent? 9. It is Petitioner understanding that he is unable to amend a petition per se, this is not a complaint, and even were a legal theory to require such duplication of effort, Petitioner doesn’t have sufficient funds to file a companion petition that for all intents is unnecessary, because Mr. Pepper did not appear by special appearance per se but announced to the Court he actually represents the Executive and the Speaker by name. 10. Why shouldn’t Mr. Pepper’s voluntary appearance representing those named be deemed as such without imposing further injury upon Petitioner for the acts of others whose job it is to appear without any further 14th amendment invidious deprivation of Petitioner fundamental rights too? B. the incompatibility of any Person holding an office of trust or profit under the 14th Amendment United States 11. Petitioner needs equity relief with Temporary Restraining Order of those State and local Officer electors with authority to act independent of the New York State electoral college who vote by December 17,

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s 2nd Affidavit in support of OSC Page 3 of 9

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012
2012, and who are incompatible with the office held, be stayed from voting pending a trial on the facts of a forgery and permanent injunction with a declaratory judgment as to U.S. Constitution Article 2 §1 Cl. 2 12. Petitioner needs a declaratory judgment as to the incompatibility of any Person holding an office of trust or profit under the 14th Amendment United States who are also electors that are to be barred from reviewing the elector votes as present in Congress after January 2, 2013 in keeping to the mandates of the law. 13. Petitioner needs a declaratory judgment as to the incompatibility of any Person holding an office of trust or profit under the 14th Amendment United States who are also electors are to be barred from changing the eligibility of a person seeking the office of President of the United States qualifications are in conflict

with A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 and are barred from such vote as a breach of a fiduciary duty to the People of the State of New York according to the SCOTUS must be in keeping with the exclusive power,
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), of the New York State Legislature in its plenary formation of the New York electoral college may not change A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). TRIAL OF THE FACTS 14. That Petitioner requires a trial of the facts of a crime before December 17, 2012 essential for the proper execution of the Electoral College vote, say on December 13, 2012, and that Petitioner will file a Note of Issue by December 5, 2012 on the facts of forgery of an instrument for the purpose of usurping the office of President of the United States (POTUS)m, and then a determination of whether an elector of the New York State Electoral College when duly notified is an accessory to felony as to New York State law and regulations as applies to the public officer oath, duties and obligation with use of NYS Civil Service Law §105A. 15. That the urgency of a trial on the facts of a crime having been committed is notwithstanding whether the actual perpetrator(s) or accessories before the fact of the forgery are before this Court as a criminal matter afforded jurisdiction elsewhere; and nevertheless Petitioner is entitled a forum under this petition for a trial of the fact of a forgery per se that the electoral college body as necessary public policy and law would become actual accessories by their vote, notwithstanding any matter related to the legal issues referenced above; and therefore, mandates that this trial must deal exclusively with the proof of the actual forgery before December

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s 2nd Affidavit in support of OSC Page 4 of 9

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012
17, 2012, and at which Petitioner will present expert testimony by Typographer Graphics Expert Paul Edward Irey who has his latest work published by the Washington Times on November 19, 2012 shown as Exhibit 10 and therein Mr. Irey states quote: The important section of the Obama long form birth certificate is displayed below and enlarged to fit this page. We have found 24 proofs of forgery on this document so far and are showing 5 areas of our easiest to understand evidence here. We are 2 typographers with a combined experience of 70 years creating and examining our own documents along with expertise in scanning, graphic arts, photography, reproduction, printing, and also including the use of the old manual typewriters along with computer created documentation while starting and owning our own successful business’ employing over 70 people. Allegedly in 1961, a typewriter produced this document on a form, but the evidence shows us this birth certificate was created last year on a Macintosh computer, sending two copies of that form to the White House. The White house then posted a copy online and gave zerox copies to the media that the source for our exam… We have found this birth certificate to be a badly done forgery. 1. Mismatched Typed Letters Compare these typewritten letters enlarged from the birth certificate. We have marked the ones chosen with a blue dot under the original letter. Of the 15 pairs choices, one set is from the word “Student” that exhibits two different type styles of the “ t” within the same word. These support our contention that the typed letters were copied and assembled from different documents. Note the size and shape differences. These letters could not have come from the same typewriter . This is proof of forgery. 2. The Stolen Birth Certificate Number If someone decided last year to forge a birth certificate for a person, they would need a birth certificate number that was issued in the 1961 era. A baby born the same day in Hawaii as Barack Obama … died the next day. We believe that babies number was 61 10641. The family requested her birth certificate and got the short form with a number way out of sequence. They then requested the long form and were refused. They brought a lawsuit before the Hawaiian courts. Its was denied, with the court explaining that the Honolulu Dept. of Health could decide if they wanted to provide the birth certificate of the deceased baby or not. But that is not the law in the state of Hawaii. 3. The Start of Line Error The word “Kapiolani” should be exactly under the word “Male”, not a half space indented. This is proof of forgery. Also the fact that not all the lines are flush to the left is suspicious. No other birth certificate exhibits this peculiar style. 4. Irregular Line Spacing This birth certificate form was designed for type-writers, SO that every time the typist pulled a carriage return, it would advance down exactly 2 picas to match the form line for line. This was common for all forms made for typewriters. We were unable to find another birth certificate from Hawaii with uneven line spacing like this one. Typewriters do not do this. This is proof of forgery. 5. The White Halo The white halo, seen on the online White House release is a white outline around everything on the birth certificate. NO other birth certificate has this. See it on Exhibit “A” below & Exhibit “B” showing how it should look. This was caused by the Adobe Photoshop filter used to sharpen edges. It does this by choking back the edge leaving a white halo. We show in Exhibit “C” how we did the same thing to our specimen example. The Hawaiian Dept. of Health is supposed to have put the original birth certificate on a copier and printed to a special green security paper instead of white paper. The only result possible from that is Exhibit “B”, NOT exhibit “A”. The halo proves

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s 2nd Affidavit in support of OSC Page 5 of 9

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012
that the forger combined a scan of the security paper on a computer … flattened all of the elements in the file and then applied the Unsharp Mask. It is even on the birth certificate above … see upper left corner. Since this is a direct copy of the birth certificate sent from Hawaii, that proves the white halo was on what they copied, so we must assume the Hawaiian original has it also. This is proof of forgery. 16. The Chain of custody of the documents from Hawaii to the White House is frozen with use of the Halo created by the Unsharp Mask program for Adobe and as further referenced by Paul Edward Irey in the outline of the expected Affidavit in support of the Note of Issue filed by say December 5, 2012 would affirm. 17. That Mr. Irey at my request is preparing an affidavit that will form the basis of his Expert testimony in support of Petitioner’s Note of Issue filed on December 5, 2012 with references, see Exhibit 16 with sub exhibits Exhibit A and Exhibit B-1 through B-3; and therein Mr. Irey states quote: I have 57 years experience in graphics. first in serving with the U.S. Air Force being trained as a clerk typist, two of those years with the National Security Agency for which I had a Top Secret security clearance during the years 1957 and 1958. Following that I was employed in Manhattan, New York on the art staff of the Hearst trade journal American Druggist. I was employed at various advertising agencies in Manhattan until 1968 when I started my own business in Ft. Lee, New Jersey named Bergen Graphics. By the mid seventies I employed 60 people as graphic artists, typesetters, camera and darkroom workers doing pre-press services for major retail and printing firms in the New York city area such as Montgomery Ward Catalogs and weekly newspaper ads nationwide, Acme markets newspaper ads for the entire supermarket chain in the northeast, Hearst Blue Book Auto Repair manuals, Key Food Stores of New York and Long Island, Diana stores, Great Eastern Stores, Finest Supermarkets, Hills Supermarkets, Grand Union Supermarkets, etc. In addition to overall knowledge of typography, Photography, four-color stripping and all facets of film preparation for offset printing, I have 26 years experience in desktop publishing with Macintosh Computers since their inception and have used Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator on a daily basis since their inceptions in 1987 and 1989; and The first Exhibit "A" is a page from a recent issue of the Washington Times weekly edition that contains much of the evidence that I will later add to this affidavit. I prepared and wrote this full page myself and attest that the evidence contained therein is accurate and represents evidence of forgery of Obama's long form birth certificate. The actual document I used for examination of the Obama birth certificate is described in the following chain of evidence. Exhibit "B" ... page 1 & 2 & 3 is the proof of purchase of a 14" x 16" reproduction print from Associated Press through their division called "Replay Photos" that sells photographic items from their news service. EXHIBIT "B" page 3 is a copy of that page purchased. They acquired this from the White House at the news conference on the morning of 27 April 2011. 18. As to the first Exhibit "A" shown in Exhibit 16 from a recent issue of the Washington Times weekly Mr. Irey in addition to the publication shown as Exhibit 10 states quote: 1. Miss-Matched Typed Letters 2.The Bent Cap "H” in “Hussein”

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s 2nd Affidavit in support of OSC Page 6 of 9

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

3.The Certificate Number 4. The Start of Line Error 5. Irregular Line Spacing - This birth certificate form was designed for typewriters, so that every time the typist pulled a carriage return, it would advance down exactly 2 picas to match the form line for line. This was common for all forms made for typewriters. We were unable to find another birth certificate from Hawaii with uneven line spacing like this one. Typewriters do not do this. This is proof of forgery. 6. Irregular Letter Spacing - The original locations of the two-letter combinations below are marked with a blue outline. These are just some of the combinations that vary in the space between the letters. These spaces should be equal, not different, since the old mono-spaced typewriters always moved a specific amount after each letter was typed. We feel that the forger, assembling these letters manually on a computer could not replicate the exact spacing that the old style mechanical typewriters produced. This is proof of forgery. 7. The White Halo- The white halo, seen on the online White House release is a white outline around everything on the birth certificate. No other birth certificate has this. See it on Exhibit "A" below & Exhibit "B" showing how it should look. This was caused by the Adobe Photoshop filter used to sharpen edges. It does this by choking back the edge leaving a white halo. We show in Exhibit "C" how we did the same thing to our specimen example. The Hawaiian Dept. of Health is supposed to have put the original birth certificate on a copier and printed to a special green security paper instead of white paper. The only result possible from that is Exhibit "B", NOT exhibit "A". The halo proves that the forger combined a scan of the security paper on a computer ... flattened all of the elements in the file and then applied the Unsharp Mask. It is even on the birth certificate above ... see upper left corner. Since this is a direct copy of the birth certificate sent from Hawaii, that proves the white halo was on what they copied, so we must assume the Hawaiian original has it also. This is proof of forgery.

19. That Respondent public officers as if Elector Public Officers and private US Citizens have duty as to matters of law and facts and when in violation of law must be held accountable or would infringe the trust due the People of New York as similarly to Petitioners right to suffrage, republican form of government, Freedom and Liberty. 20. That it is a well-settled common law rule that a public officer cannot hold two incompatible offices simultaneously (Matter of Smith v Dillon, 267 App. Div. 39, 43 [1943]). This rule seeks to prevent offices of public trust from accumulating in a single individual. Two offices are incompatible if one is subordinate to the

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s 2nd Affidavit in support of OSC Page 7 of 9

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012
other or there is an inherent inconsistency between the two offices (see People ex rel. Ryan v Green, 58 NY 295,304-05 [1874]; O’Malley v Macejka, 44 NY2d 530,535 [19781; Matter of Dupras v County of Clinton, 213 AD2d 952,953 [1995]; Matter of Dykeman v Symonds, 54 AD2d 159, 162 [1976]; Fauci v Lee, 38 Misc. 2d 564,567 [1963], affd. 19 AD2d 777 [1963]). 21. That dual office holders that have an incompatibility "has been said to exist when there is a built-in right of the holder of one position to interfere with that of the other . . ." (O’Malley, 44 NY2d at 535). Where one person holds both such posts then "the design that one act as a check on the other would be frustrated" . 22. That upon a close examination of the interveners, each member of the Executive branch has a conflict of interest as each possesses the authority and power to prevent cronyism incompatibility of electors in the electoral college, but have failed to act; and apparently act along with the Bosses who hold the private person US Citizen enrolled party members or otherwise in distain, with the exception of two persons listed herein, refuse to allow private U.S. Citizens to take part in the mandates of the State Legislature delegated to the Electoral College responsibilities, instead practice crony Bossism and grant political favors that are incompatable with the position of a member of the electoral college; and the body has allowed lawyers, lobbyists, union leaders, licensed professionals, party leaders and other persons holding an office of trust or profit under the 14th Amendment United States, and includes State and Local officers too. 23. And were the Court to thoroughly review the incompatbility of Mr. DiNaopli as the Intervener Controller / Elector who has sole signature power with fidicuary trust over the State pension funds and investment, he along with other Executives and Secretary of State Perales, havce power to investigate a felony for which each will be held liable as accessory after the fact; all refuse to respond to Petitioner’s concerns in light of the civil RICO case 12-cv-04269-JBW-RML in EDNY now before Judge Jack B. Weinstein USDJ as to the ongoing theft and money laundering of $43 Trillions US taxpayer dollars unauthorized by Congress (see http://www.kcandassociates.org/pdfs/111307429-Spire-Law-Federal-Complaint-in-New-York.pdf ); and 24. That based upon Petitioner’s understanding and knowledge of the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and that GAAP follows an accounting convention that lies at the heart of the double-entry bookkeeping system called Matching Principle. This principle works as follows: When a bank accepts bullion,

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s 2nd Affidavit in support of OSC Page 8 of 9

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012
coin, currency, checks, drafts, promissory notes, or any other similar instruments (hereinafter "instruments") from customers and deposits or records the instrument as assets, it must record offsetting liabilities that match the assets that it accepted from customers .like the New York Pension Funds. The liabilities represent the amounts that the bank owes the customers, funds accepted from customers. In a fractional reserve banking system like the United States banking system, most of the funds advanced to borrowers (assets of the banks) are created by the banks themselves and are not merely transferred from one set of depositors to another set of borrowers; and as such, in our system under the “Blue Sky Law” and shell companies registered in New York as done in association with the rules devised by then HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo who while NYS AG now involve his incompatibility with his present support of the Obama Administration with the other Executives use of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York with transaction that involve money of exchange not credit involving money of account that means that lawful money was and is or probably would be disbursed by either side in a covered transaction that in short involves Union and New York Pension Funds as part of the $43 Trillion dollar mix, just as Mr. McCall invested funds in ENRON; however, Petitioner is barred a complaint! Wherefore, Petitioner wishes the Court to expedite the OSC application for a trial of the facts to serve the Electors with the facts and get to the meat of the Petition for relief along with other and different relief for justice herein; as the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge. ___________________________ Christopher-Earl: Strunk Sworn to before me This ___ day of November 2012

_____________________ Notary Public Cc: Hon. Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. Joshua Pepper, NYS AAG Electors

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s 2nd Affidavit in support of OSC Page 9 of 9

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC

Exhibit 14

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC

Exhibit 15

Workspace Webmail :: Print

https://email06.secureserver.net/view_print_multi.php?uidArray=2187|I...

Print | Close Window Subject: OSC application on Monday 11-19-12 re Strunk v Jeffries et al 21948-2012 From: chris@strunk.ws Date: Fri, Nov 16, 2012 3:32 pm To: lisa.dell@ag.ny.gov "Christopher Strunk" <cestrunck@yahoo.com>, "paul irey" <pauledwardirey@yahoo.com>, "Bill Allen" <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com>, "ed" <raptorprimo2004ad@yahoo.com>, "Fanya Vasilevsky" <FanyaVas@yahoo.com>, "Julian Panachyd" <julianpologroup@gmail.com>, maldew@yahoo.com, Carroll1429@aol.com, vetviews@gmail.com, jimc@hightechsecurity.com, pearlywise@aol.com, wilkinsonmbox@optimum.net, alternativemediawarcrimez@yahoo.com, scorpion68@mindspring.com, "jerbargel" <jerbargel@aol.com>, rosenbergforsenate@gmail.com, "Staten Island Tea Party" <taxdayteapartysiny@gmail.com>, pressjohn@gmail.com, "Rachel Bodner" <bodner.rachel@gmail.com>, Bcc: "Homework Helper" <homeworkhelper@ymail.com>, citygirl4@optonline.net, shlomochoina@gmail.com, bronxtparty@yahoo.com, neatzit1990@aol.com, mfxvideo66@yahoo.com, neeragoiten@yahoo.com, "Sybil Graziano" <yesspellsyes@hotmail.com>, tangpurtha@yahoo.com, pcml@optonline.net, susanmoses1940@aol.com, e.pevzner@gmail.com, "Sandy Schulte" <sandy369sandra@yahoo.com>, "Scott Summers" <inphoman911@yahoo.com>, "Eric Phelps" <eric@vaticanassassins.org>, "Barry Chamish" <chamishba@gmail.com>, israel@schoolchoicenj.org, "Arnaldo Ferraro" <arnaldofer@msn.com>, "BILLVANALLEN" <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com>

http://www.scribd.com/doc/112747771/NOTICE-of-PETITION-INDEX-No-21948-2012-in-reComplaint-of-attempt-to-commit-a-crime-by-NY-Public-Officers-in-the-2012-Electoral-Collegeand-to-VOID

1. District Attorney of Westchester; and act independently of this civil action. 2. On November 9, 2012, Petitioner duly served a NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION WITH
AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON ISSUES OF LAW AS TO ELECTORS (hereinafter known as the “NOTICE”) upon the respective County District Attorney with jurisdiction over the domicile of residence of the respective Public Officer member of the New York 2012 Presidential Election Cycle Electoral College of 29 members in Fourteen (14) Counties got Notice that stated quote: “Please take notice of Petitioner’s intent to file an order to show cause application at the Kings County Supreme Court Building at 11 AM on the 10th Floor intake at 360 Adams Street on Monday November 19, 2012 for a preliminary injunction relief pending a declaratory judgment on issues of law; e.g., Are public officers to be held liable as accessories to felonies in usurpation of Office of POTUS and Ballot access? Are public officers presented with the facts of Barack Obama ineligibility able to change qualifications before the Electoral College Vote scheduled December 15, 2012?”

3. On November 9, 2012, Petitioner had a person not a party to this suit serve a copy of the COMPLAINT and
NOTICE upon the New York 2012 Presidential Election Cycle Electoral College Members for a total of 29 members in Fourteen (14) Counties individually as follows:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Andrew M. Cuomo 138 Eagle Street -- Albany, NY 12202 Gerald D. Jennings of 1135 New Scotland Road -- Albany, NY 12208 George Gresham 1313 East 233rd Street -- Bronx, NY 10466 Ruben Diaz, Jr. of 820 Boyton Avenue, #6D -- Bronx, NY 10473 Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -- Buffalo, NY 14208 Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11232

1 of 2

11/30/2012 12:45 AM

Workspace Webmail :: Print

https://email06.secureserver.net/view_print_multi.php?uidArray=2187|I...

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

Hakeem Jeffries 35 Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238 Bill DeBlasio of 442 11th Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11215 Robert Duffy 164 Croydon Road -- Rochester, NY 14610 Joseph Morelle of 133 Deerfield Drive -- Rochester, NY 14609 Tom DiNapoli 100 Great Neck Road -- Great Neck, NY 11201 Eric Schneiderman 645 West End Avenue, #8F -- New York, NY 10025 Walter Cooper 150 West 96th Street, #I2G -- New York, NY 10025 Sheldon Silver of 550 Grand Street, #5A -- New York, NY 10002 Keith L.T. Wright of 2225 Fifth Avenue -- New York, NY 10037 Christine C. Quinn of 263 Ninth Avenue, #3A -- New York, NY 10001 William Thompson of 106 West 121st Street -- New York, NY 10027 Scott Stringer of 155 West 71st Street, #3A -- New York, NY 10023 Emily Giske of 440 West 24th Street -- New York, NY 10014 Scott Adams of 11 Poplar Avenue -- Orchard Park, NY 14127 Stephanie Miner 102 Woodside Drive -- Syracuse, NY 13224 Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -- Orangeburg, NY 10962 Anne Marie Anzalone 2827 48th Street -- Astoria, NY 11103 Grace Meng of 14714 34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 Archie Spigner of 11210 175th Street -- Jamaica, NY 11433 Steve Bellone 107 Vanderbilt Avenue -- West Babylon, NY 11704 Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive -- Ithaca, NY 14850 Sheila Comar 29 Depot Street -- Middle Granville, NY 12849 Ken Jenkins 108 Bushey Avenue -- Yonkers, NY 10710

4. That Petitioner has been barred from filing any further suit without leave by the Order of Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. in
the fraud complaint Strunk v NYS BOE et al Index No.: 2011-6500 under penalty of contempt against Public Officers: Andrew M. Cuomo of 138 Eagle Street -- Albany, NY 12202 Tom DiNapoli of 100 Great Neck Road -- Great Neck, NY 11201 Eric Schneiderman 645 West End Avenue, #8F -- New York, NY 10025 Sheldon Silver of 550 Grand Street, #5A -- New York, NY 10002 ; and therefore, such named Public officers are not included herein unless by leave to do so.

Copyright © 2003-2012. All rights reserved.

2 of 2

11/30/2012 12:45 AM

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC

Exhibit 16

I Paul Edward lrey do hereby state and swear that the following facts are true: I am over the age of 18 years old and am a resident of Florida. The information contained in this affidavit is based on my personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, I could testify completely thereto. I have 57 years experience in graphics. first in serving with the U.S. Air Force being trained as a clerk typist, two of those years with the National Security Agency for which I had a Top Secret security clearance during the years 1957 and 1958. Following that I was employed in Manhattan, New York on the art staff of the Hearst trade journal American Druggist. I was employed at various advertising agencies in Manhattan until 1968 when I started my own business in Ft. Lee, New Jersey named Bergen Graphics. By the mid seventies I employed 60 people as graphic artists, typesetters, camera and darkroom workers doing pre-press services for major retail and printing firms in the New York city area such as Montgomery Ward Catalogs and weekly newspaper ads nationwide, Acme markets newspaper ads for the entire supermarket chain in the northeast, Hearst Blue Book Auto Repair manuals, Key Food Stores of New York and Long Island, Diana stores, Great Eastern Stores, Finest Supermarkets, Hills Supermarkets, Grand Union Supermarkets, etc. In addition to overall knowledge of typography,Photography, four-color stripping and all facets of film preparation for offset printing, I have 26 years experience in desktop publishing with Macintosh Computers since their inception and have used Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator on a daily basis since their inceptions in 1987 and 1989. The first Exhibit "A" is a page from a recent issue of the Washington Times weekly edition that contains much of the evidence that I will later add to this affidavit. I prepared and wrote this full page myself and attest that the evidence contained therein is accurate and represents evidence of forgery of Obama's long form birth certificate. The actual document I used for examination of the Obama birth certificate is described in the following chain of evidence. Exhibit "B" ... page 1 & 2 & 3 is the proof of purchase of a 14" x 16" reproduction print from Associated Press through their division called "Replay Photos" that sells photographic items from their news service. EXHIBIT "B" page 3 is a copy of that page purchased. They aquired this from the White House at the news conference on the morning of 27 April 201 1. PAGE 1

EXHIBIT ccA"

rake a elo5er rook a t the mama rung Form e r t h EertiFieate
The important section of the Obama long form birth bertificate is displayed below and enlarged to fit this page. We have found 19 proofs of forgery on this document so far and are showing 7 areas of our easiest to understand evidence here. We are 2 typographers with a combined experience of 70 years creating and examining our own documents along with expertise in scanning, graphic arts, photography, reproduction, printing, and also including

m a Then ha,

"why ~am't eongre55 Taken a elo5er ronLYw our
is the source for our exam. We reconize that forensic document examiners should be involved in this. Our group attempted to employ over 225 of the 2,000 certified forensic document examiners in this country. All of them refused to either look at or discuss the Obama birth certificate. Excuses given were ... "I do work for the government" or "I support Obama." or "I must see the original." We have found this birth certificate to be a badly done forgery.

the use of the old manual typewriters along with computer created documentation while starting and owning our own succesfull business' employing over 70 people. Alledgedly in 1961, a typewriter produced this document on a form, but the evidence shows us this birth certificate was created last year on a Macintosh computer, sending two copies of that form to the White House. The White house then posted a copy online and gave zerox copies to the media that

1. Miss-Matched Typed Letters
Compare these typewriten letters enlarged from the birth certificate. We have marked the ones chosen with a blue dot under the original letter. Of the 15 pairs chosen, one set is from the word "Student" that exhibits two different type styles of the "t" within the same word. These support our contention that the typed letters were copied and assembled from different documents. Note the size and shape differences. These letters couldnot have come from the same

2.The Bent Cap "HH
We have enlarged "HUSSEIN below to point out the bent cap "HJ9. It is not unusual for typewriter letters to be bent. They are often bent when the typist gets 2 keys stuck together and must pull them apart. E a typewriter letter is bent, it stays bent and does not type bent for the typing of only a single letter. This is proof of forgery because the other 8 cap "H9son this birth certiFcate are straight.

3.The Certificate Number
If someone decided last year to forge a birth certificate for a person, they would need a birth certificate number that was issued in the 1961 era. A baby born the same day in Hawaii as Barack Obama ... died the next day. We believe that babies number was 61 10641. The family requested her birth certificate and got the short form with a number out of sequence. They then requested the long form and were refused. They brought a lawsuit before the Hawaiian courts. It was denied, with the court explaining that the Honolulu Dept. of Health could decide if they wanted to provide the birth certificate of the

aa ee EE 66 11 - 1 I nn SS

OBAMA, I1 a
-

a

I

.
<

'

fI ic
f . 1

t [ :,

1bpi04
, .!.,I
4

6

5a. Month Day Year Sb, Hour Was Child Born Birth glem ~wi-~ r i ~ l e tl n t n 2 n d n 3 r d n Date e Au@s% w ity, Town or Rural Location SEE THE DIFFERENCES IN THE SPACE FROM 6b. Island THE WORD TO THE BASELINE OF THE FORM me of HI I or Inet n (If r ot in hoepital or institution, give street addresa) 6d. Is Place of Birth Imide City or Town Limib? a( If no, give judicial dietrict yes$ NO . ual Rnidence ot MO !r: City, Toyn or Rurql kcation 17b. Island I 7c. County and State or Foreip Country . . .:r.;-,, :y, ,.Y -..,.... .. : . . '. ., * , , . .. . . .. , , . : :;,;/:-,. +.* ,.,.:(, ., ,. Oahu

This Birth

a;eF.pfi
,

-

,p- .+-..

:?$":-j: .-

=r

4. If Twin or Triplet,

4,

1961

7f24Po~.

~oLonolulu -

- - -

oahu

Ma&
.5

lr~A$y CQ~flscolog
,
.
' ,
.,,

-<
'

; ;

.-:pr-

:i:.

v . . ?

1,

,

,

Honolulu, H a w a i i
Town

1'

Limits?

., .

.-.
.

t
A
'

1J.e Highway+
.
,. :

"',

..

7g.

Is Residence on a Fann or Plantadon?
NO@
i

?. 8.
,
t

110*
'

IFull Name of Father

k p C K

ge of Fat er

, I - !
-.
11. Birthplace ( I s l a d ,

yn 9. Race of Father
c

Birthplace (IS]. 4 state

HUS*IN -

hg buntry)Il2a. 3n +

013~~
Uaual Occupation

Afria
12b. Kind of Bueineee or Industry

I

STANLEY
5.
Age of Mother 16.

ANN,--

DIJNHAM
17..

~aucasa
Date Lut Worked

S a t e or Foreign Councr).)

Type of Occupation Outside Home During Pregnanc~ 17b.

None ~ichita,*as+ . 6. Irregular Letter Spacing 5. Irregular Line Spacing i%: noE ai This birth certificate form was designed for typeThe original locations of the two-letter combinations below are 4. The Start of Line Error writers, so that every time the typist pulled a carriage marked with a blue outline. These are just some of the combinations
L

)' -. - - 18

The word "Kapiolani" should be exactly under the word "Male", not a half space indented. This is proof of forgery. Also the fact that not all the lines are flush to the left is suspicious. No other birth certificate exhibits this peculiar style.

return, it would advance down exactly 2 picas to match the form line for line. This was commom for all forms made for typewriters. We were unable to find another birth certificate from Hawaii with uneven line spacing like this one. Typewriters do not do this. This is proof of forgery.

The white halo, seen on the online White House release is a white outline around everthing on the birth certificate. No other birth certificate has this. See it on Exhibit "A" below & Exhibit "B" showing how it should look. This was caused by the Adobe Photoshop filter used to sharpen edges. It does this by choking back the edge leaving a white halo. We show in Exhibit "C" how we did the same thing to our specimen example. The Hawaiian Dept. of Health is supposed to have put the original birth certificate on a copier and printed to a special green security paper instead of white paper. The only result possible from that is Exhibit "B", NOT exhibit "A". The halo proves that the forger combined a scan of the security paper on a computer ... flattened all of the elements in the file and then applied the Unsharp Mask. It is even on the birth certificate above ... see upper left corner. Since this is a direct copy of the birth certificate sent from Hawaii, that proves the white halo was on what they copied, so we must assume the Hawaiian original has it also. This is proof of forgery.

7. The White HaI0

that vary in the space between the letters. These spaces should be equal, not different, since the old mono-spaced typewriters always moved a specific amount after each letter was typed. We feel that the forger, assembling these letters manualy on a computer could not replicate the exact spacing that the old style mechanical typewriters produced. This is proof of forgery.

dl

E l 84~
Donald Trump's gift was that it forced Obama to rush out a forgery. In a sane world Congress would hold hearings and nullify everything he did in office. As an usurper Obama can't be impeached, but should be pressed for the crimes of forgery & treason. Obama's legitimacy is empty of integrity. Now Congress has a "Duty to investigate" or may soon become an Accessory After the Fact to felony and treason.

Exhibit A

3lown up from the lbama birth certificate

hibi bit B

Our type to show Exhibit A without a ha'

hibi bit r.

Exhibit B with ' Jnsharp Mask applied

Paul lrey & Douglas Vogt 2012

Congress failing to investigate this forgery is neglecting their constitutional "Duty to Objecty!

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 W S S C for Kings county Index No.; 21 948 / 2012
,
-

0

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
) ss. )

STATE OF NEW YORK )

TY OF KINGS
Aecordingly, I,

I

Rou&e efi

ALL

being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of pejury:

over 18 y e a r s of age a n d n o t a party t o t h i s action. K 11 place of b u s i n e s s i s located at November 3 0 , 2 0 1 2 , Christopher S t r u n k instructed m e t o serve a true conformed copy of t h e PETITIONER'S -- >OND AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF OSC with EXHIBITS a n n e x e d AFFIRMED November 30,2012 along with a copy of t h e NOTICE OF PETITION, PETITION with AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION affirmed November 1 3 , 2 0 1 2 placing a complete s e t i n a properly addressed envelope to e a c h respondent listed below for delivery by USPS regular

6J5 f/&

ZoG

mail.
d. O n November 3 0 , 2 0 1 2 , I c a u s e d e a c h copy with proper postage for service b y first class mail o n t h e listed Electors And where e a c h envelope w a s properly addressed with t h e Notification "URGENT LEGAL SERVICE" a n d PERSONAL 8a CONFIDENTJAL" i n t h e lower left h a n d c o m e r of the envelop t h a t w a s then deposited with the USPS for service upon:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Andrew M. Cuomo 138 Eagle Street -- Albany, NY 12202 Gerald D. Jennings of 1135 New Scotland Road -- Albany, NY 12208 George Gresham 1313 East 233rd Street -- Bronx, NY 10466 Ruben Diaz, Jr. of 820 Boyton Avenue, #6D -- Bronx, NY 10473 Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -- Buffalo, NY 14208 Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11232 Hakeern Jeffi-ies 35 Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238 Bill DeBlasio of442 1lth Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11215 Robert Duffy 164 Croydon Road -- Rochester, NY 14610 Joseph Morelle of 133 Deerfield Drive -- Rochester, NY 14609 Tom DiNapoli 100 Great Neck Road -- Great Neck, NY 11201 12. Eric Schneiderman 645 West End Avenue, #8F -- New York, NY 10025 13. Walter Cooper 150 West 96th Street, #I2G -- New York, NY 10025 14. Sheldon Silver of 550 Grand Street, #5A -- New York,,NY 10002 15. Keith L.T. Wright of 2225 Fifth Avenue -- New York, NY 10037 16. Christine C. Quinn of 263 Ninth Avenue, #3A -- New York, NY 10001 17. William Thompson of 106 West 121st Street -- New York, NY 10027 18. Scott Stringer of 155 West 71st Street, #3A --New York, NY 10023 19. Emily Giske of 440 West 24th Street -- New York, NY 10014 20. Scott Adams of 11 Poplar Avenue -- Orchard Park, NY 14127 21. Stephanie Miner 102 Woodside Drive -- Syracuse, NY 13224 22. Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -- Orangeburg, NY 10962 23. Anne Marie Anzalone 2827 48th Street -- Astoria, NY 11103 24. Grace Meng of 14714 34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 25. Archie Spigner of 11210 175th Street -- Jamaica, NY 11433 26. Steve Bellone 107 Vanderbilt Avenue -- West Babylon, NY 11704 27. Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive -- Ithaca, NY 14850 28. Sheila Comar 29 Depot Street -- Middle Granville, NY 12849 29. Ken Jenkins 108 Bushey Avenue -- Yonkers, NY 10710 30. Joshua Pepper NYSAssiatant Attorney General Office of Attorney General 120 Broadway NY NY 10171

31 K L Q ~ T V CrfCtVrc/@(l

VtWQ $ f = f = I C @ r L E q B

E ~ ~ S ~ L ~ W H Wmy18

:

.,

KAMAL P. SON1 Notary Public, State of New York No. 01SO6089949 Qualified in Kings C0unly Commission Expires March 31.2015

At IAS Part _____ of the Supreme Court of the State of New York Held in and for the County of Kings, at the courthouse at 360 Adams Street on the _____ Day of November 2012 PRESENT: Hon. _________________________________ Justice of the Supreme Court -----------------------------------------------------------------------x Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, Petitioner, -againstHAKEEM JEFFRIES ET AL., . Index No.:

21948 / 2012

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR TRO, PRELIMINARY, Respondents. INJUNCTION, PROTECTION DECLARATORY JUDGMENT -----------------------------------------------------------------------x AND PROHIBITION ORDER Upon reading and filing the Memorandum and affidavit of Christopher Earl Strunk affirmed to on the 19th day of November 2012 with 13 exhibits, and based upon the underlying Petition with Notice filed November 14, 2012 with jurisdiction of the CPLR §7801, §7802 in conjunction with New York State Election Law (EL) Article §16-100, as applies to EL Article 12 from after the November 6, 2012 Presidential General Election of New York Electoral College members that must cast a vote by 15 December 2012 for New York’s candidate for President and Vice President of the United States. Let the respondents or their attorney show cause at the IAS Part _______, Room _______, of this Court, to be held at the Courthouse, 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the _____ day of _________________, 2012, at _______ o’clock in the ______ noon or as soon as counsel may be heard why an order should not be made affecting the December 15, 2012 Election and New York State election of their U.S. Senator with a) A hearing on the legal issues as to the void ab initio US Senate Election in New York.. 1

b) A hearing on the issues of facts as to forgery, sedition and treason c) A hearing on the issues of the actual historical meaning of Natural Born Citizen held by the State of New York from before and after the 1776 d) Order of Protection of those Expert witnesses subpoenaed to appear to testify against the Respondents of each category e) That Public Officers elected to Congress and as a public officer elector be barred from reviewing the elector votes in keeping to the mandates of the law of the land f) That based upon a review of the facts associated with the forgery of public documents to facilitate usurpation of the office of POTUS that Electors be given notice of their being held as an accessory after the fact to a forgery crime that would be referred for criminal proceeding. g) That based upon a review of the facts associated with the allegation of misprision of felony sedition and treason that Electors be given notice of their being held as an accessory after the fact to a felony and sedition and warned of treason per se crime that would be referred for criminal proceeding. h) That electors be instructed as to actual the historical meaning of Natural Born Citizen held by the State of New York from before and after the 1776 issuance of the Declaration of Independence and with the proviso that were a Public Officer other than an independent elector per se to attempt to change the eligibility of a federal officer would be held in civil contempt in breach of public officer duties. i) And for further and different relief as the Court may deem necessary herein. As it is alleged that six issues of law and issues of fact are that as time is of the essence with imminent irreparable harm with no other forum to seek relief from further infringement of his

2

freedom and liberty, and that Petitioner has not sought this relief before nor is another to benefit from such relief other than as a member of a class similarly situated; and concerns infringement of Petitioner basic rights otherwise protected by the U.S. Constitution and with 14th Amendment guarantees and related state law including the New York State Constitution :

As the first question is the New York election held November 6, 2012 of Kirsten Gillibrand to the U.S. Senate from New York void ab initio as to elector qualifications are not equal to that of the New York Assembly; and therefore, Petitioner seeks to overturn New York’s U.S. Senate election with U.S. Const. Amendment 17, as the November 6, 2012 election for U.S. Senator from New York between Democrat Candidate Kirsten Gillibrand and Republican Candidate Wendy Long was conducted for electors not meeting the qualifications of a member of the Assembly with State Constitution Article 3 Section 7? And that Petitioner wishes the Court to void the U.S. Senate Election and ask the Governor set a special election, because a significant number of the electors casting their respective vote were domiciled in New York for less than fives years and had not lived in their respective county of domicile for at least twelve months and there is no way to determine from the votes cast on Novemebr 6, 2012 of those qualified what candidate was voted for. As the Second question are Respondent Hakeem Jeffries and Respondent Grace Meng as to new U.S. House members and Electors with a duty as to matter of law and facts are in conflict with U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 2, i.e. A2S1C2 and A2S1C5? As the Third Question are public officers who are the electors who are public union trustees as with Respondents George Gresham, Mario Cilento, and Scott Adams as well as for attorneys and lobbyists among others holding an office of trust or profit have a special fiduciary duty as to matters of law and facts attempt to change the POTUS eligibility qualifications of

3

A2S1C5 and are in conflict with A2S1C2, are barred from such vote as a breach of a fiduciary duty to their membership and People of the State of New York? As the Fourth Question are public officers who are the electors who are public union trustees as with Respondent Emily Giske the lobbyist and others that hold an office of trust or profit have fiduciary duty as to matters of law and facts are quasi public officers with a fiduciary duty attempt to change the POTUS eligibility qualifications of A2S1C5 and are in conflict with A2S1C2, are barred from such vote as a breach of a fiduciary duty to the People of the State of New York that may not be segregated from their duty appear as impropriety? As the Fifth Question are all Respondents who are public officers who are state of local officers and or with a fiduciary duty serving the state excluding a commissioner of deeds or notary public who attempt to change the POTUS eligibility qualifications are in conflict with A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 and are barred from such vote as a breach of a fiduciary duty to the People of the State of New York? and And as the Sixth Question are public officers who as the Elector private person without another public office as an Elector Public Officer also have duty as to matter of law and facts as a criminal matter but when absent a violation of law and or A2S1C2 and or A2S1C5 may vote for whom they wish or are each bound by their allegiance to upon hold the US Constitution by birth to US Citizen Parents or as naturalized bound by oath of allegiance thereafter would commit a felony sedition and or treason in casting their vote for an ineligible candidate and who after committing a series of crimes for the purpose of usurping the POTUS an accessory to a felony and crime thereto? Pending the hearing of this motion it is ORDERED that Respondents are to a. Stay all New York Electoral College members from casting a vote until further notice

4

Pending the hearing of this motion it is ORDERED that Respondents’ attorneys are to be notified by Petitioner by overnight mail by delivery 24 hours prior to the hearing ordered herein with a copy of this order, and the papers upon which this order is granted; and furthermore, It is ORDERED that named Respondents shall appear or by his / her attorney show cause at the IAS Part _______, Room _______, of this Court, to be held at the Courthouse, 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the _____ day of _________________, 2012, at _______ o’clock in the ______ noon or as soon as counsel may be heard why an order for a trial of the facts should not be made affecting administration of election law and orders by the Court. . Sufficient cause appearing therefore, let personal service of this order by mail, and the

papers upon which this order is granted, upon the respondent Respondents by their respective attorney and of the New York State Office of Attorney General on or before the _____ day of November, 2012 be deemed good and sufficient. An affidavit or other proof of service shall be presented to this Court on the return date directed in the second paragraph of this order. ENTER ________________________ J.S.C.

5

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR THE COUNTY OF KINGS -----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281 Brooklyn New York 11238

Index No.: 21948 / 2012
Filed November 14, 2012

Petitioner, -againstHakeem Jeffries 35 Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238 Grace Meng of 14714 34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11232 Bill DeBlasio of 442 11th Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11215 Walter Cooper 150 West 96th Street, #I2G -- New York, NY 10025 Keith L.T. Wright of 2225 Fifth Avenue -- New York, NY 10037 Christine C. Quinn of 263 Ninth Avenue, #3A -- New York, NY 10001 William Thompson of 106 West 121st Street -- New York, NY 10027 Scott Stringer of 155 West 71st Street, #3A -- New York, NY 10023 Emily Giske of 440 West 24th Street -- New York, NY 10014 Anne Marie Anzalone 2827 48th Street -- Astoria, NY 11103 Archie Spigner of 11210 175th Street -- Jamaica, NY 11433 George Gresham 1313 East 233rd Street -- Bronx, NY 10466 Ruben Diaz, Jr. of 820 Boyton Avenue, #6D -- Bronx, NY 10473 Ken Jenkins 108 Bushey Avenue -- Yonkers, NY 10710 Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -- Orangeburg, NY 10962 Gerald D. Jennings of 1135 New Scotland Road -- Albany, NY 12208 Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -- Buffalo, NY 14208 Robert Duffy 164 Croydon Road -- Rochester, NY 14610 Joseph Morelle of 133 Deerfield Drive -- Rochester, NY 14609 Scott Adams of 11 Poplar Avenue -- Orchard Park, NY 14127 Stephanie Miner 102 Woodside Drive -- Syracuse, NY 13224 Steve Bellone 107 Vanderbilt Avenue -- West Babylon, NY 11704 Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive -- Ithaca, NY 14850 Sheila Comar 29 Depot Street -- Middle Granville, NY 12849; and Kirsten Gillibrand with DC Office 478 Russell Washington, DC 20510

PETITIONER’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION WITH TRO, STAY, INJUNCTION AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO ELECTORAL COLLEGE PUBLIC OFFICERS WITH U.S CONSTITUTION ART. 2 §1 Cl. 2 AND TO VOID AND ORDER A . NEW US SENATE ELECTION

Respondents. -----------------------------------------------------------------------x This is Petitioner’s Memorandum of Law in support of an Order to Show Cause by, Christopher Earl: Strunk in esse, a non-surety private natural-born U.S. Citizen self represented without an attorney, whose Affidavit is herewith in support with Twelve (12) Exhibits annexed affirmed November 19, 2012; and that Petitioner duly served Notice of Petition and Verified Petition underlying this application herein, as shown as Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7 accordingly, seeks an Order to Show Cause as to captioned respondents as time is of the essence with imminent

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s MEMORANDUM in support of OSC Page 1 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 irreparable harm with no other forum to seek relief from further infringement of his freedom and liberty, and that Petitioner has not sought this relief before nor is another to benefit from such relief other than as a member of a class similarly situated; and concerns infringement of Petitioner basic rights otherwise protected by the U.S. Constitution and with 14th Amendment guarantees and related state law including the New York State Constitution. This application requests a temporary restraining order (TRO) be enforced until further notice of the Court in regards to a trial on the facts and a declaratory judgment on issues of law. This application requests a trial no later than December 4, 2012 as the Electors are to vote between December 7 and December 15 2012 and therefore on the facts of a felony in which the Electors of the New York Electoral College would be accessories to, must be heard and decided on by the Court before they are to vote and the Temporary restraining order being requested herein is to be lifted; and that Petitioner at trial will present evidence and testimony with expert witnesses Paul E. Irey, Pamela Barnett, Mario Apuzzo, Walter Francis Fitzpatrick III., Eric Jon Phelps, H. William Van Allen and others yet named who will testify as to matters explained in a hearing for a preliminary injunction and or at trial of facts and require protection by order of the Court ; and Notwithstanding a trial and the criminal complaint, that Petitioner requires a Declaratory Judgment dealing with the civil incompatibility of members to serve as Electors of the New York Electoral College formed after the 2012 General Election in conflict with A2S1C2 as to each regarding a public officer’s and or private person’s involvement as an elector under the law of the case established by the Decision and Order of December 4, 2008 shown as Exhibit 3 as a matter of State Law heard by the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. at I.A.S. Part 1 in the Article 78 Petition with Kings County Index No.: 2008-29641 with proceeding Transcript shown as Exhibit 4.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s MEMORANDUM in support of OSC Page 2 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 As the first question is the New York election held November 6, 2012 of Kirsten Gillibrand to the U.S. Senate from New York void ab initio as to elector qualifications are not equal to that of the New York Assembly; and therefore, Petitioner seeks to overturn New York’s U.S. Senate election with U.S. Const. Amendment 17 : “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. ..” as the November 6, 2012 election for U.S. Senator from New York between Democrat Candidate Kirsten Gillibrand and Republican Candidate Wendy Long was conducted for electors not meeting the qualifications of a member of the Assembly with State Constitution Article 3 Section 7: “. No person shall serve as a member of the legislature unless he or she is a citizen of the United States and has been a resident of the state of New York for five years, and, except as hereinafter otherwise prescribed, of the assembly … district for the twelve months immediately preceding his or her election; … or member of assembly at the first election next ensuing after a readjustment or alteration of the … assembly districts becomes effective, a person, to be eligible to serve as such, must have been a resident of the county in which the senate or assembly district is contained for the twelve months immediately preceding his or her election. …” (Emphasis added by Petitioner) ?? As Petitioner wishes the Court to void the U.S. Senate Election and ask the Governor set a special election, because a significant number of the electors casting their respective vote were domiciled in New York for less than fives years and had not lived in their respective county of domicile for at least twelve months and there is no way to determine from the votes cast on Novemebr 6, 2012 of those qualified what candidate was voted for. Then under the premise that each Elector is mandated by the State of New York legislature with exclusive power afforded by A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 and with use of New York State Election Law and related rules, McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), with the proviso that no Public Official may change the eligibility and or qualification requirements of a federal officer including that of office of POTUS, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); and Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s MEMORANDUM in support of OSC Page 3 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 Under the premise that Petitioner contends that A2S1C2, “but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector“ use is still with the original meaning and intent despite the addition of the 12th , 14th , 17th and 20th Amendments notwithstanding; and that the original use before ratification of the 14th amendment considered each State of the several States was sovereign and not subservient to the USA in regards to the enforcement of the Bill of Rights applied to the Federal entity that was properly termed these United States not as now termed after ratification of the `14th Amendment (1868) became the singular United States, as each State of the several States became and now remain subservient along with every state citizen therein placed under USA jurisdiction per se; and that by special appearance of Christopher Earl: Strunk in esse, as the non-surety private natural-born U.S. Citizen is a de jure free U.S. Citizen released from servitude differently than all respondents who remain subservient to the respective State trustee as the surety of the debtor usufruct; and therefore subservient under direct jurisdiction of the United States entity - Petitioner contends that : As the Second question are Respondent Hakeem Jeffries and Respondent Grace Meng as to new U.S. House members and Electors with a duty as to matter of law and facts are in conflict with U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 2, i.e. A2S1C2 and A2S1C5? As the Third Question are public officers who are the electors who are public union trustees as with Respondents George Gresham, Mario Cilento, and Scott Adams as well as for attorneys and lobbyists among others holding an office of trust or profit have a special fiduciary duty as to matters of law and facts attempt to change the POTUS eligibility qualifications of A2S1C5 and are in conflict with A2S1C2, are barred from such vote as a breach of a fiduciary duty to their membership and People of the State of New York?

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s MEMORANDUM in support of OSC Page 4 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 As the Fourth Question are public officers who are the electors who are public union trustees as with Respondent Emily Giske the lobbyist and others that hold an office of trust or profit have fiduciary duty as to matters of law and facts are quasi public officers with a fiduciary duty attempt to change the POTUS eligibility qualifications of A2S1C5 and are in conflict with A2S1C2, are barred from such vote as a breach of a fiduciary duty to the People of the State of New York that may not be segregated from their duty appear as impropriety? As the Fifth Question are all Respondents who are public officers who are state of local officers and or with a fiduciary duty serving the state excluding a commissioner of deeds or notary public who attempt to change the POTUS eligibility qualifications are in conflict with A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 and are barred from such vote as a breach of a fiduciary duty to the People of the State of New York? and And as the Sixth Question are public officers who as the Elector private person without another public office as an Elector Public Officer also have duty as to matter of law and facts as a criminal matter but when absent a violation of law and or A2S1C2 and or A2S1C5 may vote for whom they wish or are each bound by their allegiance to upon hold the US Constitution by birth to US Citizen Parents or as naturalized bound by oath of allegiance thereafter would commit a felony sedition and or treason in casting their vote for an ineligible candidate and who after committing a series of crimes for the purpose of usurping the POTUS an accessory to a felony and crime thereto? As a matter of housekeeping, Petitioner acknowledges the concern expressed by Mr. Joshua Pepper New York Assistant Attorney General for the New York Executives as shown as Exhibit 2, and that Petitioner does not intend to either name any of the parties therein referenced nor revisit the ballot access or fund raising issues raised as to the natural-born Citizen issue now before the New York State Court of Appeals in both the Appellate Second Department in appeal case 2012 -05515

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s MEMORANDUM in support of OSC Page 5 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 as well as the Third Department too; however presses the issue that is raised associated with the misprision of felony, sedition and treason as the Electors as well as each Respondent’s intent is to change the NBC POTUS eligibility of A2S1C5 by reestablishing feudal Doctrine of perpetual allegiance eliminated by the Declaration of Independence in 1776 as adopted by the People of the state New York on April 20, 1777 New York outlawed the doctrine of perpetual allegiance of feudalism, Roman Catholic Doctrine, Islamic texts of the Koran, Sira, Hadith, and other totalitarian forms of human subjugation, quote 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 allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the supremacy, sovereignty, government, or prerogatives claimed or exercised by, 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 further 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… XLII. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that it shall be in the discretion of the legislature to naturalize all such persons, and in such manner, as they shall think proper: Provided, All such of the persons so to be by them naturalized, as being born in parts beyond sea, and out of the United States of America, shall come to settle in and become subjects of this State, shall take an oath of allegiance to this State, and abjure and renounce all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and State in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil.( 1 )
1

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ny01.asp The custom of naturalizing aliens by special act was first introduced by the colonial general assembly in 1717, and was continued by the State legislature until the adoption of the Federal Constitution in 1789. After that date the right to hold land upon declaring an

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s MEMORANDUM in support of OSC Page 6 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

And that in regard the People of New York demand for the use of NBC in the second draft of the US Constitution on July 26 1788 Ratified ( 2 ) warned of secession of the People as for NBC held that: . That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution… 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. That rather than burdening the Court with further argument Petitioner with permission of Attorney Mario Apuzzo, Esq ( 3 ) with his website http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ has given permission for me to reference his latest work on the applicability of NBC as to the individual present usurpation of the White House and at trial I will call Mr. Apuzzo as an Expert Witness. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.html
intention to become naturalized was granted by special act until 1825, when a general law for this purpose was passed. -- Hough.
2

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratny.asp

3

Mario Apuzzo, Esq., 185 Gatzmer Ave, Jamesburg NJ 08831, Email: apuzzo[AT]erols.com, TEL: 732521-1900 • FAX: 732-521-3906, BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s MEMORANDUM in support of OSC Page 7 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/05/new-york-state-court-should-not.html http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obama-is-ineligible-to-be.html And finally, that as a matter of national security Petitioner includes herein an additional exhibit to this Memorandum that adds Exhibit 13 with some historical background as to the charges of treason including the 2005 Private Report to Elias Aoun on those responsible for the assassination of Rafic Baha El Deen Al-Hariri (Arabic: ‫ 1 ;رفي ق بھ اء ال دين الح ريري‬November 1944 – 14 February 2005) first published in 2007 by the Beirut Times, and then the June 29, 2010 Affidavit of Eric Jon Phelps as to the Jesuit Co-General Peter-Hans Kovenbach S.J. role in the present use of President Vladimir Putin of Russia per se in Syria entitled Power of the Society of Jesus in Russia From Czar Alexander I to the Present; and That as and for his emergency application for a writ of prohibition with Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and permanent injunction with a declaratory judgment as to U.S. Constitution Article 2 §1 Clause 2 (A2S1C2) exclusive power of the State legislature formation of the New York electoral college that under CPLR Article 78, the New York State Election Law Article §16-100 jurisdiction over Election Law Article 12 and related law as applies to twenty-nine (29) U.S. Citizens to serve as Public Officer members of the New York Electoral College after the November 6, 2012 General Election thru December 25, 2012; and that this Petition requests expedited emergency equity relief with a CPLR §7805 injunction with a stay of New York Electoral College vote due by December 15, 2012 until the court renders a declaratory judgment on the issues of law under CPLR §7806 regarding U.S. Constitution: Article 2 in its entirety, especially Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 3 (A2S1C3) as amended by the Article 7 Amendments the 12th , the 14th especially sections 3 and 4, the 20th, and the 25th ; further, especially as to the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 (A2S1C5) term of art “natural born Citizen” (NBC)

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s MEMORANDUM in support of OSC Page 8 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 natural law issue versus the idiom “born a citizen” positive law created by the New York State Board of Elections (NYS BOE); further, the U.S. Constitution: Article 3 Section 3; Article 4; Article 6; and furthermore, related New York State law and regulations as applies to the public officer oath, duties and obligation as applies with use of NYS Civil Service Law §105, and that Petitioner seeks equity relief on six (6) issues of Law with Facts pertaining to the misapplication and misadministration of Public Officer acts as relate to the December 4, 2008 Order and Decision as a matter of State Law heard by the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. at I.A.S. Part 1 in the Article 78 Petition with Kings County Index No.: 2008-29641, and Complaint with Index No.: 2008 29642; and also, Petitioner challenges the New York U.S. Senate Election as void ab initio with U.S. Constitution Amendment 17 and NYS Constitution Article 3 §7 grounds; and that based upon information and belief and at all times hereinafter mentioned, with imminent irreparable harm as time is of the essence and without another forum for relief WHEREFORE, Petitioner wishes a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction hearing, and Declaratory judgment under CPLR §7806 and permanent injunction by no later than December 4, 2012 with such other relief as the Court deems just including a TRO Order: a. A hearing on the legal issues as to the void ab initio US Senate Election in New York.. b. A hearing on the issues of facts as to forgery, sedition and treason c. A hearing on the issues of the actual historical meaning of Natural Born Citizen held by the State of New York from before and after the 1776 d. Order of Protection of those Expert witnesses subpoenaed to appear to testify against the Respondents of each category e. That Public Officers elected to Congress and as a public officer elector be barred from reviewing the elector votes in keeping to the mandates of the law of the land

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s MEMORANDUM in support of OSC Page 9 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 f. That based upon a review of the facts associated with the forgery of public documents to facilitate usurpation of the office of POTUS that Electors be given notice of their being held as an accessory after the fact to a forgery crime that would be referred for criminal proceeding. g. That based upon a review of the facts associated with the allegation of misprision of felony sedition and treason that Electors be given notice of their being held as an accessory after the fact to a felony and sedition and warned of treason per se crime that would be referred for criminal proceeding. h. That electors be instructed as to actual the historical meaning of Natural Born Citizen held by the State of New York from before and after the 1776 issuance of the Declaration of Independence and with the proviso that were a Public Officer other than an independent elector per se to attempt to change the eligibility of a federal officer would be held in civil contempt in breach of public officer duties. i. And for further and different relief as the Court may deem necessary herein. Respectfully submitted by:

Dated:

Brooklyn, New York November ___, 2012 ____________________________________ Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse, Petitioner self-represent without being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281, Brooklyn, New York 11238. (845) 901-6767 E-mail: chris@strunk.ws

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s MEMORANDUM in support of OSC Page 10 of 10

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR THE COUNTY OF KINGS -----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281 Brooklyn New York 11238

Index No.: 21948 / 2012
Filed November 14, 2012

Petitioner, -againstHakeem Jeffries 35 Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238 Grace Meng of 14714 34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11232 Bill DeBlasio of 442 11th Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11215 Walter Cooper 150 West 96th Street, #I2G -- New York, NY 10025 Keith L.T. Wright of 2225 Fifth Avenue -- New York, NY 10037 Christine C. Quinn of 263 Ninth Avenue, #3A -- New York, NY 10001 William Thompson of 106 West 121st Street -- New York, NY 10027 Scott Stringer of 155 West 71st Street, #3A -- New York, NY 10023 Emily Giske of 440 West 24th Street -- New York, NY 10014 Anne Marie Anzalone 2827 48th Street -- Astoria, NY 11103 Archie Spigner of 11210 175th Street -- Jamaica, NY 11433 George Gresham 1313 East 233rd Street -- Bronx, NY 10466 Ruben Diaz, Jr. of 820 Boyton Avenue, #6D -- Bronx, NY 10473 Ken Jenkins 108 Bushey Avenue -- Yonkers, NY 10710 Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -- Orangeburg, NY 10962 Gerald D. Jennings of 1135 New Scotland Road -- Albany, NY 12208 Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -- Buffalo, NY 14208 Robert Duffy 164 Croydon Road -- Rochester, NY 14610 Joseph Morelle of 133 Deerfield Drive -- Rochester, NY 14609 Scott Adams of 11 Poplar Avenue -- Orchard Park, NY 14127 Stephanie Miner 102 Woodside Drive -- Syracuse, NY 13224 Steve Bellone 107 Vanderbilt Avenue -- West Babylon, NY 11704 Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive -- Ithaca, NY 14850 Sheila Comar 29 Depot Street -- Middle Granville, NY 12849; and Kirsten Gillibrand with DC Office 478 Russell Washington, DC 20510

PETITIONER’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION WITH TRO, STAY, INJUNCTION AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO ELECTORAL COLLEGE PUBLIC OFFICERS WITH U.S CONSTITUTION ART. 2 §1 Cl. 2 AND TO VOID AND ORDER A . NEW US SENATE ELECTION

Respondents. -----------------------------------------------------------------------x STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ) ) ss. )

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

1. Petitioner Christopher Earl: Strunk in esse is a duly registered voter of the 64th Election District of the 57th Assembly District (AD) and within the New York 8th U.S. House District at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281 Brooklyn New York 11238 for ten years with email: chris@strunk.ws and Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC Page 1 of 15

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 cell phone 845-901-6767, and an enrolled member of the Republican Party who participated at the November 6, 2012 General Election there voted entirely for the Republican Party line of candidates with Wendy Long for US Senate. 2. That Petitioner seeks an Order to Show Cause as to captioned respondents as time is of the essence with imminent irreparable harm with no other forum to seek relief from further infringement of his freedom and liberty, and that Petitioner has not sought this relief before nor is another to benefit from such relief other than as a member of a class similarly situated; and concerns infringement of Petitioner basic rights otherwise protected by the U.S. Constitution and with 14th Amendment guarantees and related state law including the New York State Constitution. 3. That on November 9, 2012 duly notified the respondents by regular mail of Petitioners intent to appear on Monday November 19, 2012 to file this application dealing with the civil incompatibility of members to serve as the New York Electoral College formed after the 2012 General Election in conflict with A2S1C2, and the criminal matter complaint as to each regarding a public officer’s and or private person’s involvement First inter alia members as accessory to the crime of usurpation of the POTUS by Felony, sedition and treason, and Second, as to each member elector’s intent to change the POTUS eligibility of A2S1C5 (see Exhibit 1) . 4. That on November 16, 2016 in response to the NOTICE shown as Exhibit 1, Joshua Pepper NYS Assistant Attorney General expressed concerns to the Clerk of the court on November 16, 2012 (see Exhibit 2) that executives be afforded immunity from suit herein: Andrew M. Cuomo is a incumbent 56th Governor of New York to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college and was notified of POTUS ineligibility as the NYS Attorney General and an elector in the 2008 Electoral College proceeded to vote, that Tom DiNapoli is a incumbent 54th Comptroller of the state of New York to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college and was notified of POTUS ineligibility as the NYS Attorney General and an elector in the Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC Page 2 of 15

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 2008 Electoral College proceeded to vote. that Eric Schneiderman is a incumbent 65th Attorney General of New York to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college, and that Mr. Pepper references to the Case Strunk v NYS BOE et al. Index No.: 2011-6500 with a order and decision taken on appeal case 2012-5515 filing pending due February 22, 2013. 5. That Petitioner is in compliance in letter and intent of the order referenced by Mr. Pepper expressed in the Letter shown as Exhibit 2, and because there is no identity of parties nor are the primary issues the same as the prior case 2011-6500 of the complained of 2008 fund raising with related elements of fraud per se inter alia that sought to recover the costs of the 2008 election, and did not concern the composition of then 2008 New York Electoral College; and therefore is different now because the 2012 General Election matter and issues petitioned of for emergency relief herein deals with the results of the 2012 general election incompatibility of members of the New York Electoral College in regards to the law of the land, and that Petitioner seeks equity relief on six (6) issues of Law with Facts pertaining to the misapplication and misadministration of Public Officer acts as in part relate to the December 4, 2008 Order and Decision (see Exhibit 3) as a matter of State Law heard by the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. at I.A.S. Part 1 in the Article 78 Petition with Kings County Index No.: 2008-29641 and based upon the November 3, 2008 proceeding with counsels and Petitioner (see Exhibit 4). 6. In that Petitioner’s understanding of the Decision and Order of Justice Schmidt shown as Exhibit 3 at page 3 is that a New York Electoral College Elector is merely a private person not either a state or local officer or even a public officer according to state definition required to take an oath in New York or elsewhere to uphold the State or Federal Constitution and as such may vote as a private person; however, public officers may not hold two incompatible offices simultaneously as this Second question raises:

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC Page 3 of 15

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 “It is a well-settled common law rule that a public officer cannot hold two incompatible offices simultaneously (Matter of Smith v Dillon, 267 App. Div. 39, 43 [1943]). This rule seeks to prevent offices of public trust from accumulating in a single individual. Two offices are incompatible if one is subordinate to the other or there is an inherent inconsistency between the two offices (see People ex rel. Ryan v Green, 58 NY 295,304-05 [1874]; O’Malley v Macejka, 44 NY2d 530,535 [19781; Matter of Dupras v County of Clinton, 213 AD2d 952,953 [1995]; Matter of Dykeman v Symonds, 54 AD2d 159, 162 [1976]; Fauci v Lee, 38 Misc. 2d 564,567 [1963], affd. 19 AD2d 777 [1963]). Incompatibility "has been said to exist when there is a built-in right of the holder of one position to interfere with that of the other . . ." (O’Malley, 44 NY2d at 535). Where one person holds both such posts then "the design that one act as a check on the other would be frustrated" (id.).” 7. That a State Officer, local officer are public officers that hold an office of trust, as do persons registered to act for the State such as an attorney, union trustee, lobbyist and others hold an office of trust for profit, are an exception to Petitioner’s understanding of the Decision and Order of Justice Schmidt shown as Exhibit 3 at page 5 quote: “Electors of president and vice president are thus specifically excluded from the state officer definition set forth in the Public Officers Law. Hence, the designated respondents, contrary to petitioner's claims, violate no New York State Constitutional provision by holding public officer positions while also serving as electors. The court further concludes that the New York State Constitutional provisions raised by petitioner do not prohibit the designated respondents from holding their respective public offices as well as simultaneously serving as electors even assuming that electors of president and vice president are public officer positions. In this regard, the court finds that petitioner's reliance upon Article 111, §7 of the New York State Constitution as barring the respondents from serving as public officers while also serving as electors of president and vice president is without merit…” 8. That Petitioner based upon the Decision and Order shown as Exhibit 3 considers an Elector of the New York Electoral College is a person who holds an office of trust or profit defined by U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2 (A2S1C2); and therefore, any U.S. Citizen elected to the position of New York Electoral College Elector even if solely a private U.S. Citizen is a person who nevertheless has taken an oath of allegiance to uphold the U.S. Constitution in the same way as would any public officer and therefore are equivalent in that a natural born citizen inherited the allegiance, and the naturalized citizen affirmed sole allegiance; it is not necessary to take an oath. Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC Page 4 of 15

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 9. That this Petition is by special appearance of Christopher Earl: Strunk in esse, as the nonsurety private natural-born U.S. Citizen having on October 15, 2012 duly filed a Notice of Release without Consideration that under U.S. Constitution Article 4 full faith and credit provisions is binding upon the State of New York and its New York County within the sub-division city of New York and relieves further obligation as trustee-owner of the usufruct debtor (see Exhibit 5).
I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, absolutely release all personal property interests, legal and/or equitable, in the public United States Citizen “CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK” created on January 24, 1947, upon the filing of the trust instrument in the State of New York subdivision County of New York within the City of New York, the USUFRUCT Deed Certificate No.: 03766 with the Certification of Birth N00232437 (see Exhibit A). I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, reserve all personal property rights. Legal and equitable. granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States. the Constitution of the State of New York and related law. I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, intend no longer to be the Surety for the Statecreated public United States Citizen “CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,” “CHRISTOPHER E. STRUNK,” “Christopher E. Strunk” or any derivative of the “nom de guerre” thereof, such as “CHRISTOPHE R. STRUNK with ID No. UX94571A”. I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, presently a resident of the State of New York, intend to return to my former natural-born Citizen status conferred at my natural birth on January 23, 1947 of licensed Citizens, that status being a private individual United States Citizen conferred by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and further defined in Hale v Henkel , 201 US 43, 74.

10. That Petitioner contends that A2S1C2, “but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector“ use is still with the original meaning and intent despite the addition of the 12th , 14th , 17th and 20th Amendments notwithstanding; and that the original use before ratification of the 14th amendment considered each State of the several States was sovereign and not subservient to the USA in regards to the enforcement of the Bill of Rights applied to the Federal entity that was properly termed these United States not as now termed after ratification of the `14th Amendment (1868) became the

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC Page 5 of 15

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 singular United States, as each State of the several States became and now remain subservient along with every state citizen therein placed under USA jurisdiction per se; and that by special appearance of Christopher Earl: Strunk in esse, as the non-surety private natural-born U.S. Citizen is a de jure free U.S. Citizen released from servitude differently than all respondents who remain subservient to the respective State trustee as the surety of the debtor usufruct; and therefore subservient under direct jurisdiction of the United States entity 11. That on November 14, 2012 Petitioner filed his Petition (see Exhibit 6) for a writ of prohibition with Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and permanent injunction with a declaratory judgment as to U.S. Constitution Article 2 §1 Clause 2 (A2S1C2) exclusive power of the State legislature formation of the New York electoral college that under CPLR Article 78, the New York State Election Law Article §16-100 jurisdiction over Election Law Article 12 and related law as applies to twenty-nine (29) U.S. Citizens to serve as Public Officer members of the New York Electoral College after the November 6, 2012 General Election thru December 25, 2012; and that this Petition requests expedited emergency equity relief with a CPLR §7805 injunction with a stay of New York Electoral College vote due by December 15, 2012 until the court renders a declaratory judgment on the issues of law under CPLR §7806 regarding U.S. Constitution: Article 2 in its entirety, especially Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 3 (A2S1C3) as amended by the Article 7 Amendments the 12th , the 14th especially sections 3 and 4, the 20th, and the 25th ; further, especially as to the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 (A2S1C5) term of art “natural born Citizen” (NBC) natural law issue versus the idiom “born a citizen” positive law created by the New York State Board of Elections (NYS BOE); further, the U.S. Constitution: Article 3 Section 3; Article 4; Article 6; and furthermore, related New York State law and regulations as applies to the public officer oath, duties and obligation as applies with use of NYS Civil Service Law §105; and also, Petitioner challenges the New York U.S. Senate Election as void ab initio with U.S. Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC Page 6 of 15

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 Constitution Amendment 17 and NYS Constitution Article 3 §7 grounds, and therefore wishes the Court to void the U.S. Senate Election and ask the Governor set a special election, because a significant number of the electors casting their respective vote were domiciled in New York for less than fives years and had not lived in their respective county of domicile for at least twelve months and there is no way to determine from the votes cast on November 6, 2012 of those qualified what candidate was voted for. 12. Respondents were duly served the Notice of Petition and Verified Petition with second Notice of intent to file an OSC along with an on online PDF of the pleadings on November 14, 2012 (see Exhibit 7) at http://www.scribd.com/doc/112747771/ . AS AND FOR THE FIRST QUESTION THE NEW YORK ELECTION OF KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND TO US SENATE IS VOID AB INITIO AS THE ELECTOR QUALIFICATIONS ARE NOT EQUAL TO THAT OF THE NEW YORK ASSEMBLY 13. That as and for the first question the New York election held November 6, 2012 of Kirsten Gillibrand to the U.S. Senate from New York is void ab initio as to elector qualifications are not equal to that of the New York Assembly; and therefore, Petitioner seeks to overturn New York’s U.S. Senate election with U.S. Const. Amendment 17 : “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. ..” as the November 6, 2012 election for U.S. Senator from New York between Democrat Candidate Kirsten Gillibrand and Republican Candidate Wendy Long was conducted for electors not meeting the qualifications of a member of the Assembly with State Constitution Article 3 Section 7: “. No person shall serve as a member of the legislature unless he or she is a citizen of the United States and has been a resident of the state of New York for five years, and, except as hereinafter otherwise prescribed, of the assembly … district for the twelve months immediately preceding his or her election; … or member of assembly at the first election next ensuing after a readjustment or alteration of the … assembly districts becomes effective, a person, to be eligible to serve as such, must have been a resident of the county Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC Page 7 of 15

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 in which the senate or assembly district is contained for the twelve months immediately preceding his or her election. …” (Emphasis added by Petitioner) 14. Petitioner wishes the Court to void the U.S. Senate Election and ask the Governor set a special election, because a significant number of the electors casting their respective vote were domiciled in New York for less than fives years and had not lived in their respective county of domicile for at least twelve months and there is no way to determine from the votes cast on Novemebr 6, 2012 of those qualified what candidate was voted for. AS AND FOR THE SECOND QUESTION AS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS HAKEEM JEFFRIES AND GRACE MENG AS TO NEW U.S. HOUSE MEMBERS AND ELECTORS WITH A DUTY AS TO A MATTER OF LAW AND FACTS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH A2S1C2 AS SUCH PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED ARE BARRED ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE REVIEW AFTER JANUARY 2, 2013. 15. That as and for the first question the New York election held November 6, 2012 of public officers Respondent Hakeem Jeffries and Respondent Grace Meng as to new U.S. House members and Electors with a duty as to matter of law and facts are in conflict with U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 2, i.e. A2S1C2 states “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.” (emphasis added) 16. That other than U.S. Constitution Article V1 ( 1 ) , it does not specify the form of oath a Congressman is to take, and was a function of the respective state and federal law as in New York State Public Officer Law §10 requires every public officer to take and file an oath or affirmation prior to the discharge of any of their official duties and to be certified to the clerk of the respective

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

1

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC Page 8 of 15

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 body . The form of the oath or affirmation is set forth in Article XIII, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution ( 2 ) . 17. Respondent Hakeem Jeffries and Respondent Grace Meng as such persons similarly situated as Assemblymen, attorneys and now House members elect with a conflict of interest are holding an office of trust or profit are barred an Electoral College vote review after January 2, 2013 as being incompatible with public policy. 18. That were Respondents Grace Meng, Hakeem Jeffries and or anyother person similarly situated according to A2S1C2 who are an officer of the state while acting as electors and as persons holding an office of trust or profit to review their own vote in Congress after Janaury 2, 2013, and also be an elector as well as attorney holding an office of trust or profit would infringe Petitioner’s right to suffrage, a republican form of government, Freedom and Liberty; and therefore, Respondents acts as public officers even as a private citizen that holds an office of trust and profit is and would be contrary to the law of the land as each Respondent must either be barred from voting or office and or if done be referred for criminal action. AS AND FOR THE THIRD QUESTION AS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO ARE THE ELECTORS WHO ARE PUBLIC UNION TRUSTEES HAVE A FIDUCIARY DUTY AS TO MATTERS OF LAW AND FACTS ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE POTUS ELIGIBILITY QUALIFICATIONS OF A2S1C5 AND ARE IN CONFLICT WITH A2S1C2 AND ARE BARRED FROM SUCH VOTE AS A BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THEIR MEMBERSHIP
2

NYSC ARTICLE XIII Public Officers [Oath of office; no other test for public office] Section 1. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as shall be by law exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ......, according to the best of my ability;" no other oath, declaration or test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust, except that any committee of a political party may, by rule, provide for equal representation of the sexes on any such committee, and a state convention of a political party, at which candidates for public office are nominated, may, by rule, provide for equal representation of the sexes on any committee of such party. (Amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC Page 9 of 15

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 19. Similar to the conditions described in the Second Question that public officers who are the electors who are public union trustees as with Respondents George Gresham, Mario Cilento, and Scott Adams as well as for attorneys and lobbyists among others holding an office of trust or profit have a special fiduciary duty as to matters of law and facts attempt to change the POTUS eligibility qualifications of A2S1C5 and are in conflict with A2S1C2, are barred from such vote as a breach of a fiduciary duty to their membership and People of the State of New York. AS AND FOR THE FOURTH QUESTION AS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO ARE THE ELECTORS WHO ARE REGISTERED LOBBYISTS HAVE FIDUCIARY DUTY AS TO MATTERS OF LAW AND FACTS ARE QUASI PUBLIC OFFICERS WITH A FIDUCIARY DUTY ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE POTUS ELIGIBILITY QUALIFICATIONS OF A2S1C5 AND ARE IN CONFLICT WITH A2S1C2 AND ARE BARRED FROM SUCH VOTE AS A BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 20. Similar to the conditions described in the Third Question that public officers who are the electors who are public union trustees as with Respondent Emily Giske the lobbyist and others that hold an office of trust or profit have fiduciary duty as to matters of law and facts are quasi public officers with a fiduciary duty attempt to change the POTUS eligibility qualifications of A2S1C5 and are in conflict with A2S1C2, are barred from such vote as a breach of a fiduciary duty to the People of the State of New York that may not be segregated from their duty appear as impropriety. AS AND FOR THE FIFTH QUESTION AS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO ALSO ARE AN ELECTOR PUBLIC OFFICER ALSO HAVE DUTY AS TO MATTERS OF LAW AND FACTS ABSENT A VIOLATION OF LAW MAY NOT VOTE FOR WHOM THEY WISH BY CHANGING THE ELIGIBILITY OF POTUS. 21. That all Respondents who are public officers who are state of local officers and or with a fiduciary duty serving the state excluding a commissioner of deeds or notary public who attempt to

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC Page 10 of 15

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 change the POTUS eligibility qualifications are in conflict with A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 and are barred from such vote as a breach of a fiduciary duty to the People of the State of New York; and 22. That each Elector is mandated by the State of New York legislature with exclusive power afforded by A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 and with use of New York State Election Law and related rules, McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), with the proviso that no Public Official may change the eligibility and or qualification requirements of a federal officer including that of office of POTUS, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) as apply to each respondent below: AS AND FOR THE SIXTH QUESTION AS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO AS THE ELECTOR PRIVATE PERSON WITHOUT ANOTHER PUBLIC OFFICE AS AN ELECTOR PUBLIC OFFICER ALSO HAVE DUTY AS TO MATTER OF LAW AND FACTS BUT ABSENT A VIOLATION OF LAW MAY VOTE FOR WHOM THEY WISH. 23. That public officers who as the Elector private person without another public office as an Elector Public Officer also have duty as to matter of law and facts as a criminal matter but when absent a violation of law and or A2S1C2 and or A2S1C5 may vote for whom they wish. 24. However, as for the criminal matter complained of shown in Exhibit 1 as to each of the 29 member electors whether as public officer’s and or private person’s involvement request for instruction by the Court: 25. First Part A as to elector members as accessory to the felony crime of usurpation of the POTUS by Felony: 26. Petitioner as to the felonies associated with Forgery of the supposed 25 April 2011 CoLB for the purposes of usurping the office of POTUS as was presented by Barack Obama and White Counsel at the 27 April 2011 Press conference in reaction to the challenge by Donald Trump with his latest November 1, 2012 Press release herewith (see Exhibit 8), is an on going investigation by Sheriff Arpaio of Maricopa County Arizona with June 12, 2012 Affidavit (see Exhibit 9); and at the

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC Page 11 of 15

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 trial before December 4, 2012 Petitioner will present expert testimony by Graphics Expert Paul E. Irey who has his latest work published by the Washington Times on November 19, 2012 (see Exhibit 10) and the second witness Intelligence Expert testimony by Pamela Barnett that Unvetted Obama Never Had To Undergo Security Clearance Background Check (see Exhibit 11). 27. Then as for First Part B as to elector members as accessory to the crime of the POTUS sedition and treason, 28. Petitioner as to the matter of Barack Obama acts of sedition and treason requesting instruction by the Court as to the matter of Elector accessory crimes were any to collaborate with Barack Obama, states in his own affidavits shown in Exhibit 1 quote:
Affirmant contends that Barack Obama has multiple allegiances despite taking an oath owing exclusive allegiance to the United States, levies war against the People of the United States, adheres to their enemies al-Qaida, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, GÜLEN Movement and Iran against the People of the United States to establish the Caliphate from Thailand through Morocco, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason; and that any candidate elector and or public officer including … who would aid and abet Barack Obama in usurpation of office of POTUS is no less than guilty of misprision of felony, sedition and treason.

29. That Petitioner contends that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton conspired together with their Muslim Brotherhood associate President Mosey of Egypt and Mohamed al-Zawahiri, the younger brother of Al Qaeda leader Ayman Al Zawahiri, to have Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman (Arabic: ‫' ,عم ر عب د ال رحمن‬Umar 'Abd ar-Raḥman; born 3 May 1938), commonly known in the United States as "The Blind Sheikh", released from Federal prison by in fact using al Qaida to kidnap the Ambassador from the Benghazi Embassy Annex or CIA safehouse, where the Libyan gun buy back was underway, to exchange Stevens for the Blind Sheikh. As follow-up with the cover-up, Obama on September 19, 2012 appeared on the Letterman Show to reinforce the false flag cover story (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/obama-us-consulate-attack-in-libya-not-an-actof-war/2012/09/19/8e5b47ba-021f-11e2-bbf0-e33b4ee2f0e8_video.html?tid=pm_vid&reload=true). The “trailer” was in fact produced by a Palestinian National on Federal probation from a 1999 bank

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC Page 12 of 15

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 fraud conviction working for the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas along with the Palestinian terrorist cousin of Walid Shoebat (see http://shoebat.com/shoebat-foundation/innocence-ofmuslims/ ) in support of the false flag abduction of US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens; and then on the day due to the nature of the three defenders killing more than 100 al Qaida attackers during the four hour fire fight, the attack / kidnapping by al Qaida went sideways, ending in the Ambassador’ rape and death and the continued incarceration of The Blind Sheikh, the slaughter of Egyptian Coptics, Israelis blamed for the movie trailer, Obama coverup, and now invasion of Israel. 30. Petitioner also includes as to the matter of Elector accessory crimes the November 8, 2012 Affidavit of Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III United States Navy Retired (see Exhibit 12) affirms: 1. OBAMA represents a clear and present danger to U.S. national security, to the U.S. Constitution and to our Republican form of government. OBAMA IS A FOREIGN BORN DOMESTIC ENEMY! OBAMA is working assiduously to destroy America! No document record exists showing Barack Hussein OBAMA to be a United States citizen. 2. OBAMA paid money and aided and abetted Al-Qaeda members and groups that attacked Americans on U.S. territory in Benghazi, Libya on 11 and 12 September 2012. Al-Qaeda is the jihadist terrorist organization that attacked the United States on 11 September 2001. 3. Pro-jihadist and Islamist OBAMA personally denied frantic cries for help from Americans in mortal danger throughout a 7-hour attack by approximately 150 heavily armed known jihadists. OBAMA watched four Americans die in real time. OBAMA is allowing our enemies to slaughter our servicemen piecemeal at the same time ordering our troops to disarm. 4. OBAMA lies to the American people about his TREASON with every opportunity. OBAMA is lying to the American people about the 11-12 September attack in Benghazi, Libya in a cover story intended to protect OBAMA from facing a criminal prosecution and conviction. 5. OBAMA is personally responsible for the 6 August 2011 shoot-down of an Army CH47D Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan. 17 Navy SEALS died. All 5 men of the Chinook crew died. 3 Air Force special tactics airmen died. 5 men of a Navy support force died. OBAMA and his gang of outlaws lie to the America people about that. 6. In commission of TREASON OBAMA is engaged in purchasing and supplying guns, heavy weapons, high-powered munitions and explosives to foreign aggressors-AMERICA'S ENEMIES-around the globe. OBAMA has and continues to ship weapons from Libya to Syria through Turkey. Some weapons may be being directly shipped to Syria. Christopher Stevens was OBAMA's point man of this operation when Stevens was murdered in Benghazi during the attack of 11-12 September 2012. In this TREASON OBAMA is arming America's enemies: AlQaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood connected Syrian rebels… 31. Second, each Respondent’s intent is to change the NBC POTUS eligibility of A2S1C5 by reestablishing feudal perpetual allegiance eliminated by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC Page 13 of 15

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 WHEREFORE, Petitioner wishes a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction hearing, and Declaratory judgment under CPLR §7806 and permanent injunction by no later than December 4, 2012 with such other relief as the Court deems just including a TRO Order: a. A hearing on the legal issues as to the void ab initio US Senate Election in New York.. b. A hearing on the issues of facts as to forgery, sedition and treason c. A hearing on the issues of the actual historical meaning of Natural Born Citizen held by the State of New York from before and after the 1776 d. Order of Protection of those Expert witnesses subpoenaed to appear to testify against the Respondents of each category e. That Public Officers elected to Congress and as a public officer elector be barred from reviewing the elector votes in keeping to the mandates of the law of the land f. That based upon a review of the facts associated with the forgery of public documents to facilitate usurpation of the office of POTUS that Electors be given notice of their being held as an accessory after the fact to a forgery crime that would be referred for criminal proceeding. g. That based upon a review of the facts associated with the allegation of misprision of felony sedition and treason that Electors be given notice of their being held as an accessory after the fact to a felony and sedition and warned of treason per se crime that would be referred for criminal proceeding. h. That electors be instructed as to actual the historical meaning of Natural Born Citizen held by the State of New York from before and after the 1776 issuance of the Declaration of Independence and with the proviso that were a Public Officer other than an independent elector per se to attempt to change the eligibility of a federal officer would be held in civil contempt in breach of public officer duties. Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC Page 14 of 15

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012 i. And for further and different relief as the Court may deem necessary herein.

I have read the foregoing affidavit for an Order to show cause with six (6) questions at issue against each category of Respondent Public Officers and Electors in their official capacity and or individually as against the unlawful misadministration and misapplication of New York Public Officers in the conduct of the General Election of November 6, 2012 in the election of US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand that is void ab initio, and in which Petitioner wishes a writ of prohibition with Temporary Restraining Order and permanent injunction with a Declaratory Judgment equity relief under jurisdiction of the CPLR Article 78 in conjunction with the New York State Election Law Article §16-100 requires emergency equity relief with a CPLR §7805 injunction with stay of New York Electoral College vote due by December 15, 2012, and a declaratory judgment under CPLR §7806 as time is of the essence with irreparable harm; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

___________________________ Christopher-Earl: Strunk Sworn to before me This ___ day of November 2012

_____________________ Notary Public

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC Page 15 of 15

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC

Exhibit 1

NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF KINGS Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Petitioner v.
1.
2. 3.

Hakeem Jeffries 35 Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238
Bill DeBlasio of 442 11th Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11215 Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11232

4. 5.
6. 7.

Andrew M. Cuomo 138 Eagle Street -- Albany, NY 12202
Gerald D. Jennings of 1135 New Scotland Road -- Albany, NY 12208

George Gresham 1313 East 233rd Street -- Bronx, NY 10466
Ruben Diaz, Jr. of 820 Boyton Avenue, #6D -- Bronx, NY 10473

8. 9. 10. 11.

Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -- Buffalo, NY 14208 Robert Duffy 164 Croydon Road -- Rochester, NY 14610
Joseph Morelle of 133 Deerfield Drive -- Rochester, NY 14609

Tom DiNapoli 100 Great Neck Road -- Great Neck, NY 11201

12. Eric Schneiderman 645 West End Avenue, #8F -- New York, NY 10025 13. Walter Cooper 150 West 96th Street, #I2G -- New York, NY 10025 14. Sheldon Silver of 550 Grand Street, #5A -- New York, NY 10002
15. Keith L.T. Wright of 2225 Fifth Avenue -- New York, NY 10037

16. Christine C. Quinn of 263 Ninth Avenue, #3A -- New York, NY 10001
17. William Thompson of 106 West 121st Street -- New York, NY 10027 18. Scott Stringer of 155 West 71st Street, #3A -- New York, NY 10023 19. Emily Giske of 440 West 24th Street -- New York, NY 10014 20. Scott Adams of 11 Poplar Avenue -- Orchard Park, NY 14127

21. 22. 23. 24. 26. 27. 28. 29.

Stephanie Miner 102 Woodside Drive -- Syracuse, NY 13224 Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -- Orangeburg, NY 10962 Anne Marie Anzalone 2827 48th Street -- Astoria, NY 11103 Steve Bellone 107 Vanderbilt Avenue -- West Babylon, NY 11704 Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive -- Ithaca, NY 14850 Sheila Comar 29 Depot Street -- Middle Granville, NY 12849 Ken Jenkins 108 Bushey Avenue -- Yonkers, NY 10710

Grace Meng of 14714 34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 25. Archie Spigner of 11210 175th Street -- Jamaica, NY 11433

Respondents NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION WITH AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON ISSUES OF LAW AS TO ELECTORS
Please take notice of Petitioner’s intent to file an order to show cause application at the Kings County Supreme Court Building at 11 AM on the 10th Floor intake at 360 Adams Street on Monday November 19, 2012 for a preliminary injunction relief pending a declaratory judgment on issues of law; e.g., Are public officers to be held liable as accessories to felonies in usurpation of Office of POTUS and Ballot access? Are public officers presented with the facts of Barack Obama ineligibility able to change qualifications before the Electoral College Vote scheduled December 15, 2012? For further information Contact :

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 281 Brooklyn New York 11238 Cellphone: 845-901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC

Exhibit 2

STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN ATTORNEY GENERAL KENT T. STAUFFER EXECUTIVE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL DIVISION OF STATE COUNSEL LISA R. DELL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CHARGE LITIGATION BUREAU

November 16, 2012

Clerk of Court Supreme Court, Kings County 360 Adams Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Re: Christopher Earl Strunk

Dear Sir or Madam: I write because Christopher Earl Strunk has stated in the attached that he intends to file an Order To Show Cause against, inter alia, Governor Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, regarding their casting votes at the Electoral College for President Barak Obama. The attached Order enjoins Mr. Strunk from filing any further actions in the Unified Court System against any of these three people. Moreover, the subject matter of Mr. Strunk’s threatened new litigation is precisely the same as that of the previous litigation that resulted in the attached Order. Thus, Mr. Strunk should not be permitted to file his Order To Show Cause. Respectfully submitted,

Joshua Pepper Assistant Attorney General

120 BROADWAY, NEW YORK N.Y. 10271-0332 • PHONE (212) 416-8610 • FAX (212) 416-6075 *NOT FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS HTTP://WWW.AG.NY.GOV

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC

Exhibit 3

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC

Exhibit 4

SUPRE=

ZOURT OF THE STATE OF hTbl IORX THE CLERK: I?der rimer 29541 of '06,

COUNTY OF KINGS - CIVIL TEXM: 9 X T : 1

C-q-rlstopher Ezrl S ~ r u ? <agalnsr Davld .A. CHaISTOPHER STRUN?,
I?!D.

Patterson, et a-. NO.
k X . CRD4B;R:

-3qa-35~-

29641/08

Joel Graber, Assis:ant

DAVID A . FATERSON(NYS COV?!?OR), MJDREW CUOMOIYYS ATYORNEY C-PNSPAL), DEQX SX5LOS [PRESIDENT ?RO TEMPOOR OF THE NYS S E N ' : ? GCVER);OR), TN0W.S LORRAINE
3 F NE:v
A.
?.

Artorney General. Specral Llrrgazlan Cowsel, Llslgatlon Bureau. 120 Brnadxay, New York New

PAD U1rJ:iOLI

IN LINZ TO SUCCSZD THE !NYS COMPTROLLER), .WD

York.
:Q.

COHEN:

Leorard A Cohen, C e p ~ r y

CORTEZ-VASCUZZ !SECRLT?RY OF TY.E STAlE Defendants.

2:rorney

General, Jlv~slorof Stare Co~nsel,

YORK: , ,

120 6roadway. THE i3UP.T:
--alk.
M3.

. . . . . - - - - - . . . . . . - . - -

x

Yod made the moxlon, now

360 Adarns Street Brooklyn, New York 11201

STRUNK: You naa tankea me ro ansier The Z b l l s

what a publrc oif~c?r w z s .

Officer's Lxd,

1-

f=, a:

coes exclldf - - State

Prblrc O f f ~ c eLair does excldde : e e1ecrora:e h A P P E A R A N C S S : ZHRISTC?ER STiUN? Appear-ng I r o Se OFFICE OF T 5 'Fr-TORKEYGENERRL 120 Brcadway New York, New York 10271-3332 Assistant Rttornev General BY : JOEL G Z E R , ZSQ Deputy Attcrrey General BY: LZOTIAXD -2. COiEN, ESQ ?antasla, Senlor COUI: Reporter
;ennie

ccce they're elscyed fro7 the -- fror. n a a g a p m l i c offlcer. That's also -- Me agreed rhel's rhe case. The fact though ; : a s ct orce they're eleczed

and iney're certlled on, I rhlnk. Decerber lsc, :ney7re federal officers urder tre Feceral Conscltutlon, they are holding a federa ]cb for conpe-satio~p a d for by the S : a : e

?ROCX:DINGS
Legislature.

a manner as the 1egrjlat;re thereof may drrect
of
a n d e r cf elecrcrs equal ra the whole n ~ r b e r
05 SenatOrs and representar:ves

NOW, as Par as pay, there 1s a rpes:lon shether rt's dlmlnlmous. The pay was, when rhsy rewrote che elecrlon law In tne 7C's, ; m y carried over
C?.P

to whlch the

State nay oe ertlrlehr- Congress, b : no u senator sr representat-ve ;r ;ersm, uhlcn I ' n saying rs an elecroraye once chey've been certlflea and 1s necomes federal cff~cers, -cldlng an offlce of trus: cr p r o f ~ t-ndsr c>.e Unrtea S a e t:s
cne

same amount of vaney

:hat was previously ~ a l d the 60's. ln Now I worked as a soda lerk for one collar an hour, mlnlmurr ?ay, and certainly Sl5 an hoLr 16 rwice mnmm :lu
: r

paj- so that's pore d ~ n l n ~ m a ~ s

a . thry'ra gerring pa;a by rd aler shall be appnlr~edan

terms of 1960, '62. The questlon of belng a federal officer

Stare $ : 5

per

elector. T5ey are a - - b,is 1s a11 carried over fror. tne 60's on : e dlmlnrnois q-estlon h ,aten c?ey rewrote rhe lau there are a s r e e:I
1 1

urder the Federal Zo-atltutlon, rrhlch 1s In Frticlf tko, secr-an one, clause two, whlcn can be found In the xernoranda 05 law on paze ihree, on page tcree of - - four of fLoe o? tne bacc, all the way ~n t . back on rhe te nemorandum cf lati, a11 the way Ir the back,
four of floe, f o ~ r i ~ v e , of states tnz; : e h

rhe 713's and zhar cases

of c n t t t o a os:;:n_

regarding tne relstl-nshlp of party ~ r v o l v e ~ e n t to State, publlc lrterest and Sraie acrron. Tnat belrg s h n r r e d 1444 In whlch the Jaynlrd Democra~lc ?zrry as a select rnsider's gcouc .*ere flxlng :e process cf ~ h o h ende3 up h to be candidates In : e prlnary so they were excl~dlngothers. In 1953, again tce Jaybirc Democratic Parry was, -,ha;'s exhibit number 11, <.,as held
lr.

Crzted States Corszltutlon, Ertlcle zuo,
section sne, clause rwo, each state 572-1

aspoirt I n such - THE COURT: K-ere are you?

m . STRUNK: E-ght here.
IIndlcatlng.)
MR. STRLNK:

Xzcn Stare shall apao;li

E-ac r l e y ~ m l c not, =hey .cad to haire en open

prlmary, they had : not have the lnner clrcle o of the party control that whlch t . people re themselves were belrg excl~ded from In terrs of cornpe:lng for the xternal pcs~trons. has oeen carrred forward

asscclatlon. There 1s two ;lasses = c i :hn SirCCture. ? i chat so, : z ' ra i:s the parry tbe

corsldera~lo-wrlch I thlnZ 1s ex:remely rnporran: ro brlry us u3 l: no rhe 21s:

k d char's wka:

In SLaLe Law In thar the Inner clrcles have h controlled : e Elec~3raL Cc__ege. It's change"? the prlnary. The

century and : r . same way as the per alem n ?e woula be D r o ~ g r t~ p .
1 m a n z luror, you askea me to ansder,
1

people, the com.on nan iyrc are party memers, run on
2

: e ]ur3r a ?ubllc offlcerl h ccequrvoca-ly aoso-~cel) nor.

I say

C3 by C3 oasis, delegates

at the convention and : e party 1-slders h take over to control che voie. Btcause they

The -hole process of a lury, of cekn 'c~y excesses of goverment, 1s : 3 cltrrec ; the chezk s

are, lt's to thelr oeneflt to control ~t because they have rhz most
LO

make sure rbat et '

galr by

against excesses ana overreaching by publrc officers. ur the point tnat a liror becomes a publlc offlcer, we're In deep trouole. So ;ertarnly lury nu1l;iica:lon serlcus o . o z :glg : s
1

patracage, by bei?a cn the lnslder to vote whoever they've agreed to vote for no matter whai a . r h a r :nose who are on ra the outslde wco
car'=

gci on the l n s l d e who

problem, b ~ r you asked me
has 1

were In t - e prlrnarles, who wen: to the ccnventlor, wno d d cast thelr votes, they ; are not allowed co parzlclpate.
So

if I r h o ~ q h ta ILror I say absolutely n: o.

p u a l ~ cofflser,

It's agalrst the

fnndarnenrils of the Ccnstitjrlcn :u ever: Jaybird It's ccnslcer a lurcr as a pub:-c off:-er.

I'n c 1 , z i g 3~p:?
l?

-1 1 rhe 0

Dernocratlc Party

Lhis case ln 1453.

Turthsrnore, Justice Caujlas 'xho, iltko-gh I don't a7ree wlth nany of the things he d ~ d a very klgh level mason as

exclusionary.
prote3:lon

It's a vlolatlon of equal

for parry me~rbersas an

*no sorked wlrh 2 who was the SEC boss % rfcer Jasepn Kenredy, cerrainly u-derstood 2nd sroflred ln pcl?p into chat wrole prozess
l . 1933 -hen : e r h

structure whlch as an autocncy and plutocracy and controls publ-c ?o-icy from - THE COURT: WhaE statuze deals wlth ? o .w

Securlty Xxchange

Comlss~or

the electors are elec~edl

was set up. He, In a concxrrence rn Barer v. Carr made a very, mporraxi presentation w h ~ c h 3r1n2s the 1ssLes t a h:
1'7 reffrrlny ro lrto

!a. STRjNK: Ir, : e conventlcn or h

In

cne - - this 1s elecrion law, speclfrcally. In che prlnary procsss? T3SCOURT:
I*.

Zorqe:

: e prlmary. h

sons~derzrlono . tna qest-on 0 5 po11c~ca1 r quesrlons and wksrcer or noc rhe Cour: can Inceruene. a d , rn other words, li the Court can't .nternene on s~meL!llnq 2s importart as eleccron law, rhls
LS

STRUNK: Thzz's artrcle 12.

THE COURT:
president.

I? rhe rote for : e h

lm. STRUNK: Article 12. T h ~ y are
candidates.

like

--

e-ezt~o. ad _
; bus

THE COURT: F r l l .:ce ER. STRUNK:
THE COURT:

12 of7

1s diiierexr tnzli s-rrlrc In the 3 a c k of and zerca~nlyt; h:

The Elecrlal Lad. 3g: 1?.

1s the 'undarnercal thai we

are mcvlnj ahead on. Znd certa~rlynotwltrstazdlng w: h ; Church-ll had : o say ,when ke sald you

ELR. STRUNK: That they are seated under
h; 12 - - 12-100, : e THE COURT: ; e gt:j r e:n certlf~ed.

ho* are they p~cked? Tney are prcked by che - -

meashre daaocracy based Leon z ten n:Je :~t ccnversat~anwirh an .%ner~can, zrzt's our ec-~catlon system. You can't blb-e the fact that we have
ar. ed~cat;cn systen! W~LCP. 'woulir almost p r o x ~ t

Pa. S T 3 J N K :
at large.

Thls 1 s a State - - we go from

a primary, whlch 1s a CD oy CD basis, and at large basls wnlcn 31 electors are cnosen ac Large so yo2 have no cholce : o say I don't

rre lnner clrcle, the Jayblrd sorr of ?arty

want that eleccor, cur I'll rake that elector.

It's wn.r l:e

take all and we cave ro z k o ~ z e
--

THE COU3T:

Ii was - - tne Jayblrd case

whatsoever w w r ite ?HE C O I T :
1.m.

bas regardlng what, the p r x a r y or regardlng the general elecrron?

Eow do y o P I C ~r e-eciorsl ~ :e on

ST3.34K: Ac tne general elez:lon

FIR. STRrJ4X: Regarding ine generaelection.
They cortrolled the prlyary. They controlled uto appeared on tre ballot -n the general slectlon. Tr 'e e was no process

a general - - o . a ballot by party tka: r

tne

carty has tnelr eleccors slats. We aoce 'r o that and rkey nay vaze - - once they're elected che ma]or~:y vote cones fro3 : e e1ec:or. h a - d gei
I?

Once they Fer cerzl'led
CF

tha;

roan

that would allow camset;tlon and chat rhe common party rrenoers were not allcweo to conpete because
1 :

December 15tk, they can v: oe So ihai there : s So, ~ r :: e ohr

for i n T e , r lon:e

they h k e .

no bargzils. r~ofds,rhe

wzs all done on the

THE COURT: ?:r oes

rnslde and then 3y rne tire, ln other words, there was n o ~ o d yon the ballor i.>hlchwas, from a party standpoint, which was

or. electicn dsy vcce for che

elecrors.
13R. SIRii:<:

For the elecior's slare,

representatLve of rhe v s a: common parry memers.

rna~orltyof the

yes. THE COURT:
13R. STAWNK:

Okay. B2t they h a e 70 cho~ce. .

T%E

COURT:

Jaybird is the o7.e w.0 the

surt Has bro~ght a a C : ;rs?

In o i k r uords, rnose who ran In rhe ?rlnzry,
In a ~ h e rwards, :-sy're

m,

ST3m6:

Terry v . Adams rr! Texas.

exclrded ena

he

Texas' a 3epurl-c and s ~ l l l l s the aalll~y n to secede. It's a Resublic const1;utlon a - d

party lnslders tave 1 t ovfr a ; d c;!rp,rlsor
i am mzkrng to : e h

chat's the Jayalrd

it was, next to Georgia, the nost -THE COURT: Jayblrd. What was the la-dsu-r tnere, who brought

Dfmocratx P r y a: by =hi %creme 15th 'menanent .

srzus :u:r

wnrch was found

JUST a rnlnute.

I ' m stlll at

Courr co be a vlolarior of ihe

.-., Jai~blrd?

14R. GT-ER:

Thznk you, Your Honor.

>a. STR'JTIK:

1 :

$was bro~gh: by s - -

Nothlng I4r. Sirunl; has s a ~ d far so ras anythlqg to 30 wlrh =he specla1

reftrr~nc c n a n e g r o 'later wlo wss of the

some party a - d trat 2% %as

--

he uas saylng

proceedings, wltk cie roilon :hat
Your Honor. ' r The Fremlse of e -ot:an
1s

rs ~ e i o r e

that he was ~ r a b l it, put somebody or, ;he ballcr otk,er tha?. rh? ins-ders who were ;cld
Ir '4:
1 0

that

5 ~ 3 p oxg ~ t . d

electors are publlc officers and that for those elecIors wic are p s l ~ c offlcers 1n some other capacity. there 1s a conflrct of interest as beiween rhelr rwo roles. The problen wl;n thls
premise 1 s

rhls 1s the same party zomlng b;ck nlne years later o : :ontime on ~ h l s sort

of inner sanz'.m of the pll;tocrazy whlch contrcued ro pacK ;he ger-erai eLertran b~l10~~. Whether or n3r 1rc1,:ded tt.ey &re
LO
3

that

~t's false. ZlecIors are not publlc offlcers. Black man can be Sectlon two of the ?u!ollc O i f ~ c e r ' s Law deflnes who 1s a prblrc offrcer. THE CC-mT:
Z;

vote

In

z prlrary, ihzr's '41,

prevecied from votlng even ;hob;h

Zgfeec to :hat.

He sald

they were Deaocracs. THE COURT: Tke ouestlo: was whetner a

chat Ir excludes elecrors. xowever, he : polntlng Lo the Federal s Constrtutlon rr f o u r of flre of his mot103.

Black mar can %ate : c
'43. STRUKX:

the prirary.

In the prriary to wr.lch

MR. G m i ? :
or thls rnotlon or

Thaz's not the contentron
1 -

ke rs a rrenber a . chat tzere was an inner . ?@ qrouplng wltnln tre party that were ccntro1lp.q the overall d~rec:loc 3f the party
rl gexsral.

rh~s ~roceedlcgsas a

wt.ole as to wherher ihey're Federal Publlc
Officers.
lt

We haven't bzleied that because papers.

isn't rn the r o . g .rn

THE COURT:

I neard eFo;gh.

m. STRINK: four iionor, I have it ln my
affidavit In s~ppor:.

Nhat do ycu -aae to say?

PiOCET3INGS Nay I r e a d
THE COURT:
It.
) : 1

can vcce f o r whomever t h e y l ~ k e ,some >air a mlnure b e f o r e you r e a d e l e c t o r s a r e unoer o n t r a c t t o v o t e s p e c ~ f ~ c a 1 : y s under s a n t r a c c wrth t h e a

Has any c a s e d e a l t wrth what 1 s considered an o f f l c e o r t r ; s r mean, an o f f l c e 3C
M . STRWK: R

Stare per s e . P.s t h e S i a i e of Yew 'fork, t h e y ' r e not ucder contract. There r z an e A e r e n t of t r ~ s t

or p r a f l t ?
EYEST

What does i t

or proflt?

S o ~ e b o d ywho 1 s rn a

because t h e y a r e o a i l c a l l y p a r t y members.
k-~d alchough t h e y z r e S r a r e officers a s d e l l

p o s l t l o n r o speak f o r r h e l n t e r e s t of i h e S z a t e o r f o r -THE COURT:
Wry d l d q ' t l t l u s t s a y

zs a p a r t y rnenber, Yrrs ;s a system run ~ y t h e i ~ malo= p a r t l e s . o

h o l d l n g an office, 2ald:ng

a publlc o f f l c e ? What

THE COURT:

I Lmcerstand t h a t .
=hat'

So binat

w h a t ' s an o f f ~ c eC ? t r u s t o r p z o f l t ? does l t mean? N one has de:-ned o t h e r e an; I : ? cormnen:ar:es t h a t ever? a t r h e t;me

do you have t o s a y abou:

!fR. GRRBER:
Was they wrcie

: r T s not a posrtlon of c h t p e o p l e a s a dn3le

t r u s t wlth respect : c

because t h e e l e c t o r s a r e d e s ~ g n a t e d y ~ candldates.

B. STRLKX:
T3E COUXT:

1 c a n ' t speak t o t n a t .

m d l n comecilor w-tt the prlnary t h a t was h e l d r?. Sepzember. =he var-ous p r e s l d e n t l a l caz3ldares deslgnated s l a t e s of e l e c t o r s who wire gcing t o r e p r e s e n t tnem
i

I doc':

e-en know b a s i c a l l y

what l t neans p e r s e . Y o u ' r e say;cc of'icer
r n a r r c a t means any

of t h e S t a t e ,who z e t s F a l o , bu: ~ t neans t h a t .

I n t h e New York i l e c r o r a l 1 5 t h a r c a n d l d a r e should prevail I n t h e prlrnary. T h a t ' s t h e source of ~ h d e - e g a t e s . e Tne d e s l g n a i e d e l e c t o r s i n r h e c a s e of :he Dercocrats, S f n i i o r Obama, r t ' s 32

d o n ' t know tha:

T h a t ' s i h e n ~ u b e rone.
MR. STRWfi:

3: u

i t ' s certainly i n a

p o s ~ t r o no f t r ~ s t ,tn-y a r e - - a l t t o u g h t h e y

?RCCZSDINCS p e r s o n s , me-mbers of :,e deslgnated a s e-eciors.
TXE CCUXT:

p'ubllc t h a c he

prevailed r n :heir r e s p e c t r v e p a r t y

prlmarles.

The 31 e ~ e c t c r sd e s l g n a t e d by
31 e l e c r o r s t h a t we

Iie. S e r a r o r 1 4 c C a m h a s

S e n a t o r Oham3 + r e :he

different elez:ors.
MR. G : i B E R :

a r e t a l k l n g about t h r s mornrng. Yss, acd Zhz o r h e r S e n a t o r Obarna's cr.o.ce

They were

and Obama *as t h e

c a n d r d a t e s th;:

s r e gs;ng

r o oe on t n e

D e m o c r a ~ r cv o t e r ' s i n o l c e l n Sep-,err$er.
MR. STRmTK: Yoir Xocor, t h e p a r t y

b a l l o t t o n a r r o s hcne c h t l r awn d e s l g n a t e d electors.
MR. STRLNK:
\1j

r u l e s r e a l l y a r e - - j-ou czn w r l t e and s t a t e rebr::al to that, law based upor r h e a c r u a l r u l e s of t h e p a r t ; of e and t h e r ~ l e s ~ k parLy a r e inconsistent wlth t h e - - u1:h t h a t SwltCh from hhoe'J€r

certalniy l f

yo^

can f ~ n c anybody who was

l c t h e o r l g l n i l p r l n a r y s l a i e on tb.e a a l l o t . I would a g r e e u ~ t k rhe g e n r l e n a n except f o r t h e f a c t t h e s e a r e ~ ? s i d e r swho have t a k e n over tne process. They're not lancer taken They a r e a :r's a b a r t and

g e t s e l e c t e d r n r7.e prlrnary a.id dhc ends up I n t o t h e f m a l sl;:e T E COURT: H 3f c a n d i d a t e s . ~ a s i z a l l yt h e r e a r e okay.

I :hLnk

forward from t h e prrmary. d l f f e r e n r s e t of z e c p l e . swltch. T E COURT: H people?
I 3 1 :
B

t h r e e p o l n r s y o u ' r e ms<:ng,
% One p e n t 1 s 1:

t h e r e 1 s a conflict.

different s e t 0'

o r r l c e r s azd t t e r s 5 o r s t h e y c a r . ' t nave tiio off l c e s

.-

The o t h e r p o x :

rs r h a r t h e y ' r e p l b l l c

.
rs a

MR. C?ABl?: h c , r t ' s xo:,

Your Eonor.

.nmd rre t r l r d p o l z r 1 s t h a t :t.ere b a l t and s * r l t c n . I s t h a t c,rrect?

i t ' s f o r t n e c a n d l a ~ r i z , t - e prlmary, presldentlal
primary

candldates desrgnsze

t h e r r e l e c t o r s and rrhat rh-y have b e f o r e
YOLT Honor t h l s n o r r r n g a r e t h e e l e c t o r s who

PR. STRUNK:
T3E COURT:
M . STRW: R

Yes, Your Honor. Jusr a m n ~ t e . Sc --

were d e s l g n a t e 3 by i5.e can31dates who

PROCEEDINGS

TIE COLRT:
a confilc:. r c a t c3nfl:ct Eoes

L e y ' s a s s u r e t h i r tt.ere 1 s
1 :

swrtzh I n ;he se?.se t h a t r h e ~ e o p l e who were e l e c r e d c r l q l c a l l y a r e c o r 7r.e same ~ 0 0 ~ 1 n 3 1 t 1,lola:es a 5 t n e Sunrene C o , ~ r t T-a;'s t'he

s a y anywhere ~ h - c

p r o h ~ o ~ hl? from v o i l - g ? ts persjn

Pnere does .t say char : i ?r u l t h a c o n e l i c t c;?':
~

o f U F l t e d SLates J a y b i r d c a s e . e n l r ? one.

vote?

n o t e chat r n e r e a r e o t h e r c a s e s 3 1 t I ' m s u r e t h a r :t deals

l e u p o s ; ~ b l > - have a f o c r r h oce, cnac e l e c i o r s c a n ' t be, according co ir.2 Fcaer-1 C o n s t l t ~ t l o n , czn c e somecre #ha r-olds an oiille. T h a r ' s czs.cally
--

i l t t . cunfl-cts,

wlrh some s o r t of l a k .

w t e r e does l t jay

r t a t a person w l r t a c c n f l l c t c a n ' t - ~ e t e ?
I*,

.r.
~ r ' srm;-ar s to

STam:

:ne

problem c o l t s r :

tnac

T n a r ' s proozbly

wia a r e t h e y voclng f o r .
I n o:her

tt.e a r g ~ m e - r t F a r rh? S t a z r Law doisn'r allow.
:.Ie

words, acr,ebouy becomes a

T - a t ' s w e r e I see y o ~ r argument.

Denocrat p e r sf s o ~ h z tt h e y can d o t i l n -.rlmary. ;nd

Who s a y s t h e r e r s a c o n f l ~ c : , , c a n ' t r be done? L e t ' s assume, I s e e rzlnisrerlal.
11

r h a t l e ' s t h e malor-ty p a r r y

as e S t a t e f u n c ~ l c ns i n c e t ? e y ' r e con:rol.ng

- n ? r e zi

t ? e Gs-,.errment t h a t put f o r w a r d tire s l a t e . T E COURT: H agalr. l o l ' r e 3lx.ng :he argune-rs

L e t ' s s a y ~ t ' a Republican s

dho has t o cer::iy 2 Jemocrar.

he e i e c c ; m

r e s c l c s of for a a ~ ~ - . ~ c e .

Tnere 1 s t h r e e , may32 f a ~ ~ o s s l b l e r

L e r ' s a55um2 :hat

argmenEi. m e , ;here ;s z c o n f l l c t . c r che c o n f l l c t . The o r n e r cne 1 s tha: s t a t e s you c a n ' t r.a.Je
--

Tners rs s confllz:. I p r s s s e a you ox.
K R . ST3IJNK:

k r ' s s a y t n e r e was

Xe i r e o r t h e second

:ns

Staye L a w

q - e s c l o n , iie a r e on r 3 t h e q ~ e s t i o ? .of wtecher o r n o t somebody whc r s an e l e c c e r zan csrtlfy hmself.

h o l d tllo p r S l l c

offices.
The e h ~ r d one 1s
IC

was a b a l t an0

T E COURT: H

Wco s a y s ne can t ?

L2:'s

a s s m e t h e r e 1 s z c o n f l l c t a2 you s a y .
:GI. STRWvA:
policy,
11

you can 3 l c k h i r , l f t h e p a r t y l e a d e r can plck r t 'directly, :hen why c a n ' t t h e y make t h e e l e c t l o n I n a <day th3: t h e y want.

:he

quesclon of pub._c

rhe same way, ~ r ' sp e c l f l c a - l y s a no5ary cannot notax:ze

s n g l e d o u t , tha;
his
3%-

SO, I'n d o i n r o your l a s t argumect whlct we a r e t a l k l n g zbour 1 s t h a t no senator
3r

signature.

T3E COURT:

I says t y a notary, :
Ard

rewresencizlve o r person holdrzg
02

c a e s n ' t s a y ~t a n j p l a c e e l s e .

an o f f - c e of t r o s i

p r 3 f 1 1 c r d e r t h e Unrted an e l e c t o r . 33: c l e a r t o us hox a

o b v i 3 u s l y l f t h e y say t h a t you c o - i d c e r t l f y , tben t h e y :ouldn't p r s h l b ~ tby a no:ary e l e c r l o n law. p r o h i b : ~ s , nayte they and d - d n ' t p r o h ~ b i r rn

S t a t e s s h a l - be ;ppol:tei

!?I.

GP.fi3ER:

1:'s

$ r a t e P u b l l c O f f ~ c e r1 s s p e r s o n holding an o f f l c e of t r u s c or p r a f l c ~ n d e rt h e

m . STEmIK:
of t h e l a w a s
--

I t ,hloulc o e an ~ n t e r p r e t a t i o -

Jnlted Stares.

T r a t sounds l l k e t h e

d e f l n l t ~ oof a f e a e r a l officer r a t h e r then a ~
I uncerscand t h a t .

T E CCURT: H

s z a t e p u b l r c of51zer, Your Honor.
1%.

Then m e o t h e r argument aaouL t h e J a y b i r d , lf t-,ey = a r appolr: whoever t n e .

ST3m:<:

The governor s e r v e s a s t h e

Comander I n C h e f of =he S ~ a c e u l l t a r y . r T E COURT: H N: O when t h e Naclonal Guard

f e e l l l k e , eazh S t a c e a p p o l n r s a z 3 e a c n
legislator may d l r e c r s o t h e r c nay n o t

1 s f e d e r a l i z e d , he d o e s n ' t .

have t o be an ele=:.on

a s :o

t h e electors,

kE. STRIJNK:
T E COURT: H
YOU know I

Neil -Jusr a m l r . ~ t e .
DWY

211 t r e y nave z o aa i s a p p a l n r . ;h:s i o ~ l d seeT t o s 1 m l a r t o t h e be
1-

t- at argument.

I t says,

Lcpei T o r r e s c a s e

whlci rhey ~ r ~ teo d

l t s a y s o f f i c e of :rust Unlted S t a t e s .

or p r o f l t mder the

knock o c t t h e .day chey prcked Srpreme CeLrr
Justices I?

?he governor does riot s e r v e

whlcn t h e Courr i;a:ed

they

t a s t h e o f f l c e r of t r ~ s o r p r o f r t under t h e U n ~ t e dS t a t e s .

d 3 n T t u n d e r s t a - d \.)cat t h e argumenr i s , ~f

>r~d5 0 chis f e d e r a l r h l n g

bo.C :'l
15,

P : o ~ t l a wlt 30 the questLon here o
y m steied tleri 1 s lr : e n

TriE COURT:

I Icn't knou wcat you're
--

Sae :t

referring to.

Nelther the salary Yes.

Co35t:cut:o~ cfflces.

thi: yo2 can't hold : o pdblic w

a. T R W L : S

i?ausi.I In the leglilarlve secrlo?
I a STRUNK: As a federal, z s a federal ..

l a . ST3UWK:

c :

artlcle t-ree of cne State Co:.stltatlor, an2 then uncer artrcle 13

offlcer, : e elecror ; pala, the Coverment h s would be -- the qovernor would be pald and ~ t ' s yrolatron of that specri;cally in

spec~!i=ally, hklCh --

7dE COmT:

YOU iant to show ir : mi. o
zes.

because he's recelvlng money that he houldn'c nornally be gettlcg as part of h ~ governor's s lob, whetner it be
2

tm. x x n m :

.1.i.

I

Pas?. ) is : e h leg~slGtrve

dollar, dlmrlmous, or

S7R-JqK: 7: hs

2008 per dlern.
Y H T

portlo?. On tte follo.%~nq page ~ n d e rartlcle 13, sever in regards ro shall have been elesred
r.or shall he cr ske oe peld
3r

COURT:

Okay. Thz electors are not

:n. C - m E R :

recelvlng the 515 as publlc offrcers
beta-se the Publlc Off~cersLaw srates that

r e c e i v e , or

the third l ~ n e , any ozher extra cornpensailon w h ~ c hgoes to what T3i COURT:
?%.
--

they're not publlc oiilcers. Trey are rece:vlnq the money solely as eleclors.

Where 1s : s next or;? h

So ~t can't lrnpllcate any provision of the Sae :t Carst-t~tlorpertarnrng to plbllc

YPRmT<: Naxt page over. iilghr

kere. i1nd:catlng.l THZ CCURT: Selirer -- okay.

officers.

When article i5.ree. sectlcn seven, article three bexng ice 1eg;slaturs article iihlcr. of rhe Scate Ccnst-r~tion,that -e!rberz of tte leg-slaturt
can':

?R,STRCnlK: Tne pub:-c
would cover rhe governor.

3 flcer

be appoir~edto any

ocher office which 2-tall% compe-sation, lt doesrt concern the scatus of electors because elector 15 not a public office. .n, :. -d of course, the second zolr:, the $15

declslon sefore the electlon or can tnis be rnade afLer tne elrcrlcn?
YR.

STSlmK: Well, certainly the questlon

as to whet5er cr n : rhe governor -- ~t goes o to the Jayblrd p! a r : z.;uarron.

doesn'c ionstltute legally cognizable compensation. It's i~minrmous.

General pubilc, I rr-ed ro get che
legislator Ilsr.

m. STR-UXK: Wtzre artlcle 12 of che
Electlon Law ceals 'dleh afLer -- Defore and afrer they've been certrfled, so 1 ' :s deallcg wzrh the quesrron of the oehavror and tne jab 05 =he cer:~f;ed offlcel aL thi: pox: elector as a federal

They nave tnfse lnslcers rome addressel,

publlrh adcresses, 'relr t:?ey aldn'r
.da-t

: ?u311si- ~t and make : o t

avarlable to rce gsreral publlc, we d o z t know who we're oorrng - -

whlch the

THE COURT: My questlon ls, d3es it
have to be done before the electlon? That's the questron.
%,

c o ~ ~ p t r o l lsays ho.~ u c hihey'ri to be e~ ~ pald anc ihe Secrerary Of State cerclfles ihac. Trat's 110. So thls 1s t . State paylng the elector Pe who 1s covere3 as a federal ofiicer a : polnc, rhe payment ci zoney. 1' :s thai

STR-UbM: Trere shculd have been

--

aosolutely, the electicn's halfway over. o It's absenyee aa-lo: :r :o w weeks.

dlgitaied.

THE COURT:

CEn : i ?s

be decrdec before

It's a pass off from ihe Siate ro the offlclal pcsltlon ' a the federal

the elector's voce or coes xt have to ae done
today?

-

as the

assem3lage of the Electoral College which
1s

CIP. STRmJK: : c T2E COURT: Xhy?

s r o u i be ceclded row.

przsected to ibc 1suse. TdE COURT: Whzr else?

m.
are.

STImJK: Because tne general

Is ic Lmparzzn: char tnrs rnz7.g be done

popu-at~onshould know who rne electors

aefore the electlo?. : a hc

I have : rake 2 o

I

I n p r e v m u s e l e c t l o r s . t h e y vcted f o r
t h e s l a t e of = . l e c t o r s . n o t t h e c a s e tha: absol-tely. ~t k.d 1 t
15
IS

L e t ' s assume rhaL you c l a m t h a t l t s a b a l t and s w l r c h .
KR. G-ER:
:iA:r a l l due r e s p e c t ,

absolutely

a salt and s w ~ t c h i h e y ' r e vatlng

-t's

To r h h k :hat

December -THE CC-URT:

f o r KcCaln o r Elasn, L h e y ' r e n o t , 1r. f a c t I t 1 s absoluril-: mls:rforratlx t?.e g e n e r a l po~-lzr.o: positlon to

Yes, I made an e r r o r .

So

now I a g r e e wltP. y o l , i L ' s b a l t and s u l t c t , t y p o t h e t ~ c e l l y ,Jayb:rd S'lpreae Court

and p r m o t e s t n e

of t i e Jaybird 3ernocrarlc P a r t y

d e c l s l o n 1 s or. a l l i o ; ~ ' s n)ipothetlcall!i. No= iihat?
% r e you

~rslders. T h a t ' s w h a ~t h l s 1 s r e a l l y a l l a b o u t . Rnd t h e f a c t t h a r t".y d ~ d c ' t ubllsh the p

go-rq i o chaxge t h e e l e c t ~ o n
T h e y ' r e g o r g t o -- :hey They d o n ' t have tlrne t o

p c l l , the p o l l s .

n a r e s s e p a r a t e from r t e a d d r e s s e s , i t a k e - T E COURT: H
hick l€:'s

have t l n e t o do t'at? do t h a t .

contrast l t .

A s s w , ~ r . gI cez-de ~t today anc b e f o r e November 1 5 t h wnere w o u ~ a:he t h e d i f f e r e n c e be? what would hap?ec? I: - - where would today,

s I n e s s e n c e , ~ t ' r e a l l y iihatever I do d o e s n ' t make a d - f f e r e c c e t o d a y .
MR. STR-W: Yodr Hacor, t h e elgh:

I cec:dea

aays

: d e c ~ c e df o r you,

ago o r elch:

days f r o 7 tomorrow was t h e l a s t
--

l e t ' s s a y , h y p r h e r r c a l l y , what wobld happen? I t wodld be t o c l a r e zo change
anything.

c a t e whlch you can f 1 1 l v a c a n c i e s and T E COURT: H acymore.
MR. STRUNK: Y O J Z a n ' t 5111

vacancies

You c l d halt m t l l t h e l a s t

T n a t ' s nor t r u e .

seccnd s o n a t h r r g wculJ change.

Rnc

lf

Accardlng t o t h e f e d e r a l law t h e f l l l l n g of
a r y vacancy up t o r h s p o l n r t h a t t t e y ' r e t o

I wcul3 decrde ~ t s e f o r e Noireher l E t h ,
yo^

know, wrarever happened, ~ t ' tso o l a t e

vote -T E COURT: H Y o u can f r l l a vacancy

PZOCSEDINZS c.-.tll Decenber 15zh?
1.R. STRUNK:

g r v e a J u s r l c e cf t h e Suprame Court i u r l s d l c t r 3 n o v e r t h e matcer and I z r l n k - T E COURT: X So I have ] u r l s d : c t ~ o n . Yes,
sir.

Yes. You zan? ies, s l r . I f y o u c a r f r l l rr ;111

7FE COURT:
:.R K RT m : ' T3E COURT:

m.

STRUNK:

T E COURT: X

7 r e q ~ e s t l o n1 s :>her. Lne

Uecerroer l j r h , yo.. l u s t arswerea 7 y q u e s z i c n . So t h e ? ,
1 1

d e c i s l a n h + s t o oe made. Does l r have t o be made 1 - a rush :. Kanner l u s t o f f t t e c u f f , s e a t of t h e pants? So ~t can h e made l n
2 TOTE

essence, there

IS

no u r g e r c y you're

t-. t h l s because, z s s x n l r g :hat

r l q h t , t h e n r h e rzcancy c a r be f i l l e d airerwards.

Zm. STXWK:
accoralng
--

I t ' s up r o t h e l e g l s l a t d r e

c e l l b e r a t e Tanner sc tr.at 1 5 t n e r e 1 s no

difference a s t o whezher 1:'s
ZssuT~lng r n a t D i ; t

made rodzy

THE COURT: 15 found
--

acd si.irtch

o r not b e l n g t h a t Ehe e l e c r o r s c a r be changed a f t e r w a r d s --

MR. SrRUNK:

I d l d ~ ? . I S , I was

bm. s;PuNK:
correci.
n..-

I agree.

That's absolutely

+ s s e n ~ i a l l y~ h r a w n 13 t h e b a r r e l e r g h r y e a r s ago o? a r o t a l l y u n r e l a t e d m a t t e r .
_?3 I

?rr COLXT:

Whcz ao yo1 have t 3 say?
Certainly t h e r a c h l n e s

was t o l d t r a t I i a c r o c o r e back b e f o r e rhe cLecclan f o r ~r r o 'ce p r o p e r l y c o n s r c e r e d .
T I E COURT:

MR. GRUER:

have a l r e a d y been d e l i v e r e d zo t h e pc1llr.g places. T E COURT: H s o r t does:..'t aaKe a dec:slon
I
:USE

L e t ' s assune t C a t y0.l had t o

come back ~ e i o r e :he e l e c t l l c . The decrs;or r h e elsc::on d z e s n ' t have t o be b e f o r e

Yod c a n ' t change anything,
i lmay nor

make a d l f f e r e - c e .

b f s a u s t ~ t ' nsc golnq t o make s

today, a l t h o u g h I may.
IS

any a ~ f t e r e r c e .
1G. Sr.2m.JK:

@act -- ; x r e

a l r z t l i more

I ~ t l - k1 ~ ' essen:lal s

ro

argmenE cn w n a r ' s c o n s i d e r e d .

I s a C o m ~ s s i o n e rof Deeds a p u o l l c off,cer?
I43.

ana vr-e p r e s l d e n r a r e specifically r e n t r o n e d STRUNT<: Yes, a c c o r d ~ n g:o
A Comlss:oner

-Dte5s .s a

ana excluded. M . STRr>L<: LTnder a r i l c l e rwo. s?ct1o:

T E COU?T: H ~ u b l l c ff-cer? o

o:

cwc, w h l c . 1 s e x c l b l t ilunnez e r q h t o r tt.e I d o n ' t know i f ~t does o r declarakior..
'.m. sWBE3:

*. GFS3ER:
I4R. STRLWX:

d o e s n ' t , You; Honor. The S i a t e a r t l c i e 13 2

:n

sect:cn

two of t n f Nei

York P U D ~ O fC l c e r ' s Law, Conmlsslorers of ~ f Deeds a r e n o t rnentloned a s p u b l l c ?f::csrs o r n o t , b i t e1;c:ors of p r e s ~ d e n tand o;ce

i e g ~ s - a r r v e~ a c o n s r d e r s v (Fause. M R . STRWK:

--

Ezc4 under a r t l c l e c t r e e , 1eg:slature

p r e s l x n t a r e s p e c - : ~ c a i l y excluded by i h e leg~slacure.

s e c t l o n sene?, no relnber of :he s h a l l , and 1 c s;ys 1eg:sLaiure Eeeds

b-oveaer i h e ~iernher of of

TH? COLRT:

That's the polnt.

maybe appolnLed Comlss:oner

>.ssumlng t h e y a r e e x c i i d e a , you i o u l d rb.ick t h a r t n e Cor.xss;oner of Deeds, a e l n g

.
Nod C o ~ m s s ~ o n e r Deeds 1 s a p u b l l c of

t h a c 1 c ' s 7 . o ~rnentlonea, 1 s a l s o excluded a n c t h e n t-.e q J e s t l o c 1 s wk.y does t h e Com.mssroner o
1 ;

afircer ~oslcron because t h e y a c t u a l l y :dke r e s t s under rhe p u b l r c o f f i c e r law, p e r i e . So t h a t C o ~ ~ ~ s s l c ofe Deeds an0 Notary, n r ,which a r e two different p o s l z l o n s , a r e ~ d c l : c offlzers. of f z c t . r n e y ' r e S i a t e Offlcers as a marter

mentlo.

Deeds h e r e , ~ h l c hi s , ; r

e s s e n c e , noi a p u b l i c o f f l e e . I f 1 1 ' s n o t a ~ , k l l c f i l c e , t h e n :nac o sor: o f c u t s l n t c ycur argllrnent t h a t ~ t ' s

n o t a pub112 o f f l e e . One r h l n g 1 s c l e a r from Lhe MR. GWdER: t h a r ca? suorrac: Tyere r s n ' : any argument
3f

Im. G m T R :

d e f l n ~ t l o ns e c t l o n of t n e P u b l l c O f f l c e r ' s

frcn section tso

the

I

Law, t h a t C o m r s s i o n e r of Dteus a r e n 3 t

P u b l l c O f f l c e r ' s Law, che e x c l ~ s L o nc f

S:ectors.

lio arqa-ent c a . . Ee
IS

no =omper.satloc.

That's ihe q u e s l l o r . ~ s ,

T E COURT: X

say-ng t h a t t h e h set- ~ ~ on m d e r r h e there

He 1s s z y l n g , I n e s s e n c e , t h a t :c
LS

Sonstlt~tlon trumps i P l b l l c Offleer Law.
I*.

a 1eg:sla:cr.

I z 1s a c l v l l o f i l c e p a i d m d e r :re s r a t e of

and r n e y ' r e ?e;ilng New York.
MR. T M E R :

GFSBER:

There ~ s n ' -i 50:. constlturlans.

m. STR-mi(:
I*.
G'dBER:

F:rst

of a l l , c h l s a r g m e n t

There 1 s " ' ~ n y ~ h l r gI n a that

would 0:-y

a p p l y t o =he members of t h e Second, t x s - Hang on, b ~ tth e r e a r e
11.

tt-e Ne7b York S c a r e Cans:A:otlon prot.lDlts --

legislature.

T: H
I $ i l l 1 t e l l you h l s

COU3T:

ThE COURT:

menters of t h e l e g i s l a t ~ r eon
MR.

a r g m e n t because I w :t a.
SO

-0 32:

1 :

clezr

STRLNK:

Yes.
There a r e ? Yes. JUS; h a r e on.
I don1: know

I h e a r ,your a r g m e r t , t h a r ' s 1-hy I ' m argument. 1eglslat:re be

MR. GRmER: r4R.

a e b a r r n g h's

Sr3LINX:

I f a -enber of :he

T E COUFT: H

e l e c ~ e c o Congress o r apFcrnred t o any t s f i r c e , C L V L ~ , guess t t . 2 ~L S a C - v l l 1 offlee, c r r n ~ l ~ r a q u?der :he Government of t h e dnr:ea S t a t e of
1;ei.j

So, I h e a r h l s zrgurnent.

u h l c h e l e c t o r s you a r e t a l k l n g a b o u t .

L e t ' s t a l k akou: governor
-5

the governor.

'he

Stat-s,

i n i c r l z ' s no:,

or the

ncz a member of t h e l e g r i l a t u r e . 3 s !was :he ?r;sldenof r h e

York, so we nzve t a l k e d about

MR. STRLTliX:

l e g i s l a t o r appoi:.ted t h e 3ra:e

ro a c ~ u - 1o f f ~ c ei n

Senace.
THE COURT:

of Neh Yorh., o r n d s r acy C l r y that shall

He was, b u t he l s n ' t .

Rho

governnent, r r s o r her acce?t:ng

e l s e 1 s z member of r - e 1 e g ; s l a i u r e l

v a c a t e cls o r s e a t ~r t h e l e q l s l e t c r e and thdy s p e c i f l z - l l y exclude Z o ~ n . l s s 1 o n e rOf Deeds o r any o f f r c e t h a t he o r she r e c c l v e

m . STRIJNK:
Assemoly, Tedesco

0:i

t h e t o p of my "ead, t h e Y ~ n o r l T yLeaner o i t h e

Speaker of t h e ;.sserrioly,

?iOCLXDINGS
THE COURT: You ha-~e trere. rt Wrat are

ZROCEEDINGS cocs-dered compensatlon, ro a e f n e coapensatlon?

y3u shcwlnq ne there?
YX.

SUZBER:

? .

close reading of t5e

m.. S T i m a : accorclng to Bloomerg,
he had to tzie z dollar In lleu ci the zctual salary thaz he hzs t3 be paid. If he wore

5-ct:on

seven, article three, talks abou;

members of the leg~slarare'<no rece~vean a~poi:.rmenr
from ihe gouercor, the senaror,

: not to take : e dollar. 1 would be a c h
unfulfilled contract.

t-.e legislature of any Clty govermect.

h d

really an elector doesn't fall Into any of rnose categories.
Y3.

THL C U : OR:

1 may be a conrrac: :

wl:hou~

ccnsiderat-on. You are citing to Bloomerg and ;'I sure he wodld be happy to near t a , h: the qussrioz s , what 1s -- who says thzr The governor doesn't Tne results Sloomberg needed to take the dollar, r.i~-@ber one. re Ler's assurne ihai he needed raKe :. dollar. If he wants to takf the dollcr's

STRiTNK: Tna appointment of

gJxrernor - KR. G W Z R .

certlfy anyrhlng, Your Honor.

of tne elecrian ramorrow 3re cert-fled by che Srate Board of Elections. THE COURT: 1:s e' line, You see tho pclnr as follows,

conpensatlo., wi-at's :ozszdered co!-Qensatlon? If rr cost :hem a lot more than $15 to n serve ; tnat offlze, y3u knod tne gas and whatever, would expe-ses be compensation, re:.nbursenent of consensatlor, would that

go a lltrle furrher, on ihe fourtn
1 :

a m e m e r of rhe leglsiat~reb e
:3

e-ected to Congress or appointed

a) n'

offlce, ~t doesn't say by the ';overnor.
bfR. G . B ? : ;jE,

Okay. YOU krow, you rre?tloned teat

be compensar~on?

TSE COURT:

mi.

S ' T R W : Yes. Where uou-d ~r sraze :hat

~t's only xte governor, ~ t ' rot. s
EZh. GaLBE?:

T E C m T :

As ve -:e h questljn 15, wna; is

would be co-?pensatlon? Tnat coula De lr's re:m5ursemelt.

Ti.€ COURT:

I'm not servlng for

1
compensatlon.
MR. STHUNK:

norice lt's golng rc cost ther. xore :ha" Relnb.rsement, 13 cenrs z 315. $15 nay nor be conpensatlon.
K?.

E l € , whlci.

2s

part of arzlcle 12's, 110 is

ST3UNK: biell, the word shzil, : r h; Tne lau

tne separare relmbursemenr from compensat~an per dlem, 1"s THE COURT: Co:.stl:ution?
b9.. STRWK:

: no; nay or can, 11 says shall. s essenilally says sha.?.

13 cents a m-is. Wto separates
l : ,

the
lt.

--,I. .; C3UR'i:
Shall

S r a l has nothlng to ac wltn ..l

receive

no cornpensatlor ana I don't

The Election Law.

L:nou wh2i compensatlon neazs. Dces ;r mean reimbursement? mean a cornpensatlo7 :ha= Does rt

TYE CO-URT: The Elecrlan La!., separates
~ t bur I don't knnk lf the Const1tut:on , we're not gclnq rnaer the Electlon Law. Urder the Elecrion Law ; says an t elecror
15

-

I get money over

acd above 3.y expenses or ever! li they pay my expenses, is that coxsldered compensation?
b . SRII? R TU'!:

excluded.

We're dorng ~t Scalla,

we're qolng rlghr znto the Const1:u:ion ltself. VJko says wtar's consloered cornpensa:~on? Would a dollar be? Okay, taking your argument, wlsh Bloomberg, you would say a dollar 1s compensa:-on?
,

Rell, the generzl rearing soaethi-.g
12

of compensatlon, you're g:ig e:n return for servlces or Sometn:ng 1s rerurned.
i:'s

a co2tract.

There can be no c l a m as long as rhere 1s sore;?.lrg traced, uhether ~t be a slbway

token or uhazever, that would be conslderec .7ioso1uzely. Posslbly a dollar wculd noL co~er-sarlon, ge?.eraliy. Eur t-ey, under Zlection Law, rhey
specifically dellneate, from an accolnt-rg

m.
T% ;

STRUNK:

COURT:

be conpensazlon I£, Ir a sense, that they're really taklnq a lass because whatever lt'5 going ro cost nlm, I c o d d tane ludrcial

sta.dpolct, that which

IS

fxFenseS and shat

whrch iould show up as rncoae or Gages.

Expenses a r e nor wages.

T h l s 1s where Plecrlon

, -== - o r e

t h e Suprerne Court or. cce mazter of - morning

t h e c o m p t r o l l e r canes I" under :he Law.

- t ' s UP b e f o r e J u s t l c e S o u t e r t h l s

The c o m p t r o l l e r 1 s bro-ghr I n t o a u a l t

a s t o whether o r . o t Obma s h o u l d prove t h a t h e ' s s o r n -THE COUZT: I rhought he proved t h a t he

t h e d i f f e r e x c e between expenses and j e r d l e n per s e . TKE COmT:
Ca you have unaer t h e Incone

was bcrn r n &war1 y e s t e r a a y .

--; xLaw, ~
-

a o they g e t a 1399 f o r I : , When I do l u r y d u t y . I

m. STRUKK:
THE COURT:

There was no p r 2 o f .
I thcught ke r e l e a s e d r h e

M . STRLNX: 3.
co

.
T5r CO'SST: You g e t a 1099 f o r i ~ r y

b ~ r t hc e r t l f l s a t e .
1.m. S T R M :

I t was :oc

a slrzh

drty?

certlflcate. STRWK: IYell, 1:'s a -- I dld

IL -as a c e r t l f l c z s e of l l v e

m.

o l r t h , whlch Hawall could a c c e p t from a?y co;ncry, l.ve
;c e r ; l f i c a r e

two y e a r s ago. 1:'s

I got s o r n e t h ~ n g17 r e r u r n .
I a i n g e t -- ?.o, I

of r e g r s t r a t l o n of a cnan a --

been a long rrr.e.

3 1 ~ r h . I c s ]us7 d i f f e r e n : THE Z O m T :

c a n ' t sgeak t o c h a t .

g a s l t z c c e p t e d t-.e saxe

T3E COURT:

Cxay.

dzy he was born?
' 3 . STRUiiK:

P n y t h l ~ ?e l s e ?

That a c c o r d l r g Goes t o :nat
L :

there i s

m. SU3ER:
MR. STRUNK:

So, Your Honor. ies.

a c e x n - b l t 16 wh;cr

Issue.

T-E CO-mT: Nhat does ...
me 7

have r o dc wlrh

T5.ere i s an c r d e r l y r n ~m a t r e r whlch I wcLld lLke c; have heard on che 15rh of November. T E COURT: H Decerner o r Noveroer?

bm. STWVrIK:

Well -Thls I s a ? e d e r z l q e s t l o n

T?E COURT:

a s t o wherher o r n o t i e can s e r v e a s t h e

m.

S T R U ~ : No'demer.

presrde-t

.
I would l l k e t o ger a

~ t ' going t o a c o n t r o v e r s y w h c h 1 s now s

m . STRTJNK:

r e s t r a r n t on who t h e e l e c t o r a i c o l l e g e , rf n e ' s ?.ot c j u a l l f r e d , a n a r u r a l t o r r c i r i z e n , we c a x ' t p e r m t a - TR3 COLXT: forum. l f :he You maybe Ir t h e wrorg FeJerzl i f t h e Zeds donc: portlon

have s t a n c l n g r o s a y , who = a s - T E COURT: H You may bave s ~ a n d ~ l, n y ~
I woulo t n l n k t h l s

t h e wrong courc chouqn.

wou-d be a Federal Csurt l o s u e 2s t o w h e t t e r o r not he rs born ir t h e 2 n l t e d S c a t e s p e r se. I f rhey, ~f rhey u a l l o a t e l t , t t e n I wnulr t h r . t h r , v o t e f o r t;m
!43.
--

scow h l n and a r e ?.oc e n f o r c ~ c ~ thz: of t h e law t h a t r t q u l r e s n r :o o r a t l e a s t p r o v l r g :hat

be a c l t r z e n

he 1 s a c l t l z e n o r

yo^

know, tie c z n , t h e y can

was bcrn I n t h e Uxltec S t a t e s Lha; ycc know, a S r a t e j,dge
w l l l noc be a b l e t o ,
:a

-The e l e c t o r s . r h e vo:ers

.n a aoze

STRUNK:

back way, not al-ow :he e1ec:ars
KR.

02 t h e f o d r t h do noc ~ o t e o r any c a n l r d a c e f e x c e p t f o r t h e e l e c t c r a l s l a t e and tF.2:'~ p l a l c and s l w l e . s t a r t i n g ;he

STi-UWK: wodld

C e r i a l n l y :ce
require

Federal

:cnstltuLlor ~ n l s s s-

t h a t arybody prliatt

The re21 e l e c t l o n o c c u r s

e l e c t o r s a r e no:

1 5 t h and i t ' s got t o be

l n a r u r d u a l s , t h e y ' r e p u b l r c officers. and t h e r e f o r e w.ust t a k e
2-

completed by t n e 24th of Decedcer s o c h e r e
1 s a josslbl1r:y

o a t h , a t l e a s t be

of s r v e n , exgh:,

nine

days

w l l l l r q t s t a k e an o a t h t o s u j p o r t t h e C o n s t l t u r l o n of t h e S i a t e of N e w Y o r k and tt.e US Consc:tutlon and p e r t 3 f c h a t - -

of p e r dlem f o r t h e E l e c t o r a l C o l l e g e t o d e a l wlth t h e s e q u e s t l c n s . md ~ssed upon :he winner t a k e a l l
p r o c e s s , we n a y have r o e l l r u n a t e t h e

Deczuse t h e r e i s eo s r a t c t e bnat s a y s snr,eDody, sonebody :s golng
70

collecc rhls

p u b l l c off:cers

who nave now become F e a e r a l

c e r t i f ~ c a t e b ~ r t h ,no m e r e I n zny of r e d e r a l Law does ~t say a s e r - a t o r rnust
submit n l s c e r t l f l z a r e of slr:h

O f f i c e r s e i g h t o r n z e o r r e n fzom :be Democrats, khick b r l n g s r r down t o 20 Democra: e l e c t o r s , and then t h e n e x t

o r anywhere. doesn't

l t ' s s o r e t h ~ n g~ t e r e f a zlt:ien r

h l q h e s t number would come o u t o f t h e

v o t e g e t t e r s , s o Lhere would oe 15 Pepubllcan e l e c t o r s 3rd q u l t e a b a t t l e f o r naybe n:ce a a q s who -- r t ' s up t o t h e n . :. y e

L-C

1 s where t h e C ~ r t . 7o c c u r r e a .

a d tha:

t n e Unlted S t a t e s s z a t e Department has t h o s e r e c o r d s whlch a r e prlma f a c r e k-kett.er she was i n s l d e o r ouzslde che c o m t r y . Anc r h e r e 1 s cestlmony recorded of S a r a . Oahma, who 1 s e s s e n z ~ a l l yx a s presen:

a r e t h e o z e s e l e c t e d :o s o l v e t h o s e p r o d e m s s c t h a ~ ' m 1 - r e r e s r c c I n a ~ ~ d l c s~ p ole n a I wa 0: t r a v e l r e c o r d s f r o x 1960, 1963.
THE COURT:

zr

You asked f o r t h a z I" your

t h e b l r t h I n Mombasa an2 t h a t t h e r e was a r e s t r l c c l o . on a i r p l a c e f l l g h c vhlch d l d

papers?

m.

GRABE9:

No.

noc p e r m i t 2 preqnan:

woman co e n t e r ha-.<

m . STRuNK:
Let's see.

T:?at 1 s I . m aff;daaLt. ? y

l n r o =he c o u n t r y because of t h e pregnanzy and t h e r e a r q l v l n q b l r t h . And i h s r e f o r e , . Hawarr t h e a - t u a l n o r ~ g l n a lf u l l c e r t l f l c a t e of b l r t h show1r.q McTbasa P o s p ~ t a lpresence 1 s on r e c o r d i n
H- w _ ,,,

I'm zskrr:q t h a t i n m s b p p o r t r n g y
a f ' l d a v ~ t whlch l c s a y s 07. age - - paragraph 16 of m supporting a f f l d a v ~ t ,pace f l v e y of seven, fur:?er-;iore Thai p r e l r r a c a r j -

-. .

r q k r now and t h a t t h e r e r s o n l y a

~ r j u n c t - o n h e a r ~ n gwlth New Yark S:ate Boarc of ; l e c t l o n s a r 3 ~ t asg e n t , lnclza:n?

r e g l s t r a r l o n , whlch .s hoir. Kawall workea ~ n 1961, t h e y ]..st becone a s t a r e . They were

th.e D l r e c t o r o i E l e c t l c n s and Kew York S t a t e S e c r e t a r y of S r z t e who nus: show why t r e y
:3

essentially a p r o t e c ~ o r a t e of t h e Unl:ed
$.-i rLaies.

I:

i a s e n z l r e l y s t r u c t u r e d of

s r o u l d n o t perform d ~ d r l i z e n c e e
ascertain

?.o.,J people r e g r s c e r e d under a U p r o t e c r o r a t e S

whether o r n,t

S a r a c k Hussein 213

s o t n a t a r e g l s t r a t l o r of a l ~ v e ~ r c h1s b wnat Gas ~ s s u e o and what was snowr by LC? Emenberg ?ouxdatlon iho t a d a confl1:r of

Obaaa 1s + n a r u r a l born cl:izen affected by t h e al1eg;trons

in tie

a i o r e E e c c ~ o n e dc a s e . Or, paragraph 1 5 , where t h e r r o r i e r

I n r e r e s t s a n g one of t n e i r a r z o r n e y s ln t n e i r r s t p-ace - -

T Z COU3T: K

JUII a mlnuce.

That c a s e 1 s ? n t l t l e c Berg, 3-E-a-G, 3barna. kd t h e i i s r e r n Dis:rrcr of

v.

What do you have t o s a y abo-r t-.at?
bR. GSRkBER:

Tnls 1 s n o t p a r t of t h e thls

P e a n s y l v a r r z n l s m ~ s s e cchr case f o r l i c k 3f s ' a n d l r 0 same zhlng 1 s :rue ?ere.

cause t h a t w e ' r e hear;:g order ro s h o ~ nornrng.

The S t a c e has not n o t l i e d t h a t I n a p p l l c a z l o n wlth

Fr. Szrunk d o e s n ' t h a - ~ e;ny i n t e r e s t
r n whether Obana r s r h e D s n o c r a i l c c a c d ~ d a i e
3:

Mr. S i r u n k *as mak;n; res?ecr
EO

S e n a t c r Ozama's c l t l z s i s h l p .

Nncm t h e e l e c r a r s are wlih r i s p e c r ro

I t seems a s rcough Xr. Srru?.k's conzerns wlth Obama's p l a c e o i o r l g l - s a r e a a r n l y ;he focus of a s e p a r a c e a c t l o n ir.hlch 1 s under a s e p 5 r a t e lncex r m o e r . He provlded a sucslons axd c o r p l a l n t I n thar a c t l o n , but ~ t ' not a marter Sefore s your xor.or. 0: c o u r s e , everyzhlng c h a t Xr. Strunk

3csma fro-n t n e s t r n c p c l n t of Obama's cltizenshlp. ?e has a g e 2 e r z l l z e d m t e r e s : T h a t ' s no:

t h a t a s any o t h e r p e r s o n . su:flclenc
:he

for stanalrg. Zasrerr D ~ s r r x c roi Pennsylvanlz

s h o u l ~ n ' tb e In t n l s Col;rt e i t h e r .

.m.

STRTJNK:

'I?e o r l y ~ h l n g;?at

we

have I n t?.ls Ccur-try t h a t nolds us t o g e t h e r 1 s c h s C o r . s r r t u t r o n , a soc-a1 i o n t r a c r , ana s t h a t f u n d m e n ~ a lof ~ k a t o c l a l c o 7 t r a 2 t 1 s wnecher o r c o t 'we're g-lng t o e l e c t a man w.-.o would run t h l s c o u n t r y f o r f o u r y e a r s who i s a l l e g e o i o be a f o r e i g n e r ,
illegal, illegal a l l e n who 1s 1 n p r 3 ~ e r l y
I r t h l s ~ o ~ n i r yzcordlrg t o a,

r.as l u s ~ a 1 3 and e v s r y t h ~ n g~ h a ch e ' s p u t s I n h;s pcEers with r e s p e c t t o S e n a t o r Oba?a

1 s d e r l v e c from :he I q t e r n e t .

m.

STauNK:

T h i c ' s not t r u e . I r ~ e r n e tq o s s l p . N: o :rue.

m . GPUBR:

!a. STRW:
144. GRABER:

2 a r t l c u l a r l y frox a lablsult
0:

s : h

reenzry

t h a t i a s f l l e d In the Eastern 3 l s t r l c t Pennsy-vanla w h c h was a l s r u s s e o on OCt0321 2 4 t h .

ai:er

comi-.q back w ~ t h&n I n d o n s s i a r wnen he er.zered oask a r age 18,

,,-i --=- ~ o r t

c h a t ' s coveren I n e x m b l r 1 6 .

PROCEEDINGS Rather t h a n g e t c l n g d e t i l l s , i o e l l e v e ,

submitted f l v e days a:o

t o So,.iter, who 1 s

I'm t h e o n l y one I n =he c o u n t r y whose
r e a l l y , r s r o u g h m s r , e x p e r r e n e e , tf.rough y t h e Deparzment o f :e;lth, througn m own y

t h e justice, s l n g l e ] u s ~ l c ewhc d e a l s i - l t h t i e T h l r d C l r c u l t , :o o r S e r Obama t o deliver what ~ t s

a c e r t l f l z a c s o f o ~ r t h . Th;:'s asklng f o r . T E COURT: H KR. ZXn3E'n: THE COURT: O<ay,

t r a c k l n g down b l r c n z e r t l f l c a t e s and affll:a==or.s, a l l s o r r s of s k u l l l ~ g g e r y

Declslon reseriled.

t h a t i wecr t o c o ~ r t o r a year and k a l f , two f y e a r s o v e r I n Manhairan, I t n ~ n k1 1 ' s r b s o l u t e i y essential t h a t we s e e m e c r a v e 1 r e c o r d s of t h e nother from 1 3 6 0 L a i463 e.$en l n c&Tera, e v e r I n camera
1 :

Th224 you, Your Honor. 3s i;sll. Have a good day.

I d o n ' c chlnk I'm gorng t o I s s u e a

decision today b e c a ~ s cl t ' s r e a l l y - - l t ' 5
not u r g e n t .
MR. STRUNK: I ' T not a? a t t o r i e y , t h e o n l y

=here

i s a p r l v a c y I s s u e , 2 1 s wonar and h e r r e c o r a 1 s essentially t h e 1lnchp:n whether o r not w e ' r e co:nq to

way I can g e t avy d o c m e n t s t n a t would be t h e bas:* f o r a November 1 5 t h h e a r l n g woulc be l f Issue@ before

t o have a Tan

wco, accordrna i o zhs p a s t D e p ~ r y2 t t o r n e y General of Pennsylvznia, 2 man of good s t a n d l c a w l t h many z o u r t s , t h a t somehow we shoulPhroow h l n
--

w e r e 1 s gorng t o be a restra:nt

t r e c e r t l f r c a t - o n cf r h e e l e c t o r s t h a t a l l we need t o s e e 1s n a z e s and i n e d a t e s a r e -T E COURT: H
1 '~r3ers:and t h a t .

Dec1slon

!a. G
Your Eanor.

~ E I : 1:'s

slmply no;

aefore

reserved.

*
15

T E COURT: H3k K So~ter zoday?

; b e f o r e JUStlc? t

Certified t o be a t r u e and a c c u r a t e t r a n s c r i p t of

t h e foregoing p r o c e e d i n g s .

p.m. G?.?BER: A z s o r d ~ n q-m. STIUNK:
.c.z;orcing t o K r . 3erg,

who was Lntervlewtd l a s t n l g h c , n e had

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC

Exhibit 5

..

LAMAR COUNTY, GA. SUPERIOR COURT

DEPUTY CLERK

NOTICE OF RELEASE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION
TO
: STATE OF NEW YOW, Releasee

IN RE : USUFRUCT "CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,""CHF?ISTOP(58!$$&..; FROM: Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Releasor
STATE OF NEW YORK
) )

ET'I'Xyd'&!!hiiStophe'r E. Strunk"

I hereby certify the-ivithin and foregoing to be a true, correct and complete copy of the original

COUNTY OF KINGS

=*

,z*s
D Clerk L ar Su *Comt e a y t Bho kay m d e r pma*.
New Y d

Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse (Rekasor) being d y m o d . of pejury:

Releasor until further notice is located for senrice at 593 Vanderbik Avenue -281 B 11238 within the State of New York subdivision of the c t of New Yo* iy

I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, absolutely release all personal property interests, k@ &/m equitable, in the public United States Citizen 'CHRISTOPHER EARL SR I = J # , - - meatd cm calxqd h T o r k 1947, upon the filing of the trust instrument in the State of Nevi York suWwithin the City of New York, the USUFRUCT Deed Certificate N . 037% aith the W 6 d m o: NO0232437 (see Exhibit A). I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, reserve al personal pmperty rights kg4 and l secured by the Constitution of the United States. the Gmstitution o d Stae d f h
p m E t d rn

i 5 d 1 d z ~ ~ Z h

I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, intend no longer to be the f o r t h %a States Citizen "CHRISTOPHER EARC STRUNK,' 'CHMlSlr-BP-F-TER E sSIXWiiP any derivative of the "nom de guerre' thereof, such as ~~ SEEXI R

w v Z= > CFkTX
m Y ~ ~ s ~

I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, presen* a r e s i & m o F ; t h e ~ d b former natural-born Citizen status coniferred at n a t m d l&tk cnJ Z& I F I that status being a private idkidpal United -C ? L& k ? Amendment to the United States C n osir& c k 5 & m F i z - E h i W XlBI ZS q 3k =

- -- Rdstmz
f '

barnna &BSb a I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk i esse,ired to be n ntnl accordance with Chapter 17-B of the State d W Y d k g d? h Release o a power o f f
This Release renders null a d Poid any-E State of New York and or s u b f r k k h d @ .
d % f !q
--\

-

: q

4

-.,-..-.. .....
v

I
\.

.

I

.

.-

.

...;

.-

I

' F

k
b
b.

--.
~bdrlarm~ww*--bJr. Blus -raved harder and scale M h raised intagCb printing :
M u l r i q o b d *-,*t d d 4 ~lcr(,~rl~hdthewwds~ew~~~ityDspe;bnentd~ea~had~ Hygiene immedhtely above the boltom @y/ard W b k using rn mwitylng glass
I
\

+

, \

.
a

* .

__
S

.

--

-

I

,

I

COPY
DEPUTY CU

STATE OF NEW YO= SUBDIVISION COUNTY OF NEW YO& WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW YO=
/

,

..

- .

-

TO

: STATE OF NEW YORK, Releasee
1

C/O THE CLERK OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK with Chapter 17-B New York State Estates, Powers and Ttusts Article 10 Section 9.2 Release o a power o a f f p w

IN RE : USUFRUCT "CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,' 'CI-DUSIOPHER E SIRUMLf Tfm51

FROM: Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Releasor

NOTICE OF m

E molu:-r O C b B S I D ~ 0 9

Exhibit A

- usvrp~v~rll)eed ~ - - ~ ~ ~ " r i h e - x

Dated:

--A ~ Y o 4 ~ Y t a c k
r
- 1

-

\/'

- E 3 k c 2 z m 3 a t

3?TF?+et%*

-

COPY

LAMAR C ~ ~ ~ K ' G A - C ~ U R T

DEPUTY CLlE

STATE OF GEORGIA SUBDIVISION COUNTY OF LAMAR

--.

TO
: STATE OF NEW YORK, Releasee

C / OTHE CLERK OF THE COUNTY OF LM$AR STATE OF GEORGIA W W B 5 TOWN OF BARNESVILLE, GEORGIA with Chapter 17-B a f t b c b P d State Estates, Powers and Trusts Anticle 1 Section 9.2 R e k n s e ~ a ~ a f 0 appointment Sub-Section (c) Such release may be delivered to any oft l w person, other than the donee, who might be advmsely af5ected by an exuc

IN RE : USUFRUCT "CHRISTOPHER EARL SR h ""CEIRZSTOPHERE SlMMK I UK
FROM: Christopher Earl Strunk, i esse Releasor n

NOTICE OF RELEASE WR'HOWT C IO

Dated:

Brooklyn, Hew Y & o October 2012

+*

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC

Exhibit 6

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
that this Petition requests expedited emergency equity relief with a CPLR §7805 injunction with a stay of New York Electoral College vote due by December 15, 2012 until the Court renders a declaratory judgment on the issues of law under CPLR §7806 regarding U.S. Constitution: Article 2 in its entirety, especially Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 3 (A2S1C3) as amended by the Article 7 Amendments the 12th , the 14th especially sections 3 and 4, the 20th, and the 25th ; further, especially as to the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 (A2S1C5) term of art “natural born Citizen” (NBC) natural law issue versus the idiom “born a citizen” positive law created by the New York State Board of Elections (NYS BOE); further, the U.S. Constitution: Article 3 Section 3; Article 4; Article 6; and furthermore, related New York State law and regulations as applies to the public officer oath, duties and obligation as applies with use of NYS Civil Service Law §105, and that Petitioner seeks equity relief on six (6) issues of Law with Facts pertaining to the misapplication and misadministration of Public Officer acts as relate to the December 5, 2008 Order and Decision as a matter of State Law heard by the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. at I.A.S. Part 1 in the Article 78 Petition with Kings County Index No.: 2008-29641, and Complaint with Index No.: 2008 29642; and also, Petitioner challenges the New York U.S. Senate Election as void ab initio with U.S. Constitution Amendment 17 and NYS Constitution Article 3 §7 grounds; and that based upon information and belief and at all times hereinafter mentioned, with imminent irreparable harm as time is of the essence and without another forum for relief, alleges of captioned Respondents and related persons as follows: 1. Petitioner Christopher Earl: Strunk in esse, is a duly registered voter of the 64th Election District of the 57th Assembly District (AD) and within the New York 8th U.S. House District at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281 Brooklyn New York 11238 for ten years with email: chris@strunk.ws and cell phone 845-9016767, and an enrolled member of the Republican Party who participated at the November 6, 2012 General Election there voted entirely for the Republican Party line of candidates with Wendy Long for US Senate. 2. On November 9, 2012, Petitioner duly served his COMPLAINT OF ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A CRIME BY A PUBLIC OFFICER WITH NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST AN INJUNCTION IN KINGS COUNTY WITH DECLARATORY RELIEF AS TO ELECTORS (hereinafter the “COMPLAINT”) upon the respective County District Attorney (DA) with jurisdiction over the domicile of residence of the

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 2 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
respective Public Officer member of the New York 2012 Presidential Election Cycle Electoral College for a total of 29 members variously domiciled in Fourteen (14) Counties that are now duly elected without challenge on November 6, 2012, pending the NYS BOE final tally / canvassing by the end of November, all serve as public officer electors to cast their votes by December 15, 2012 and that then will be transmitted to the U.S. Senate President Joseph Biden in a joint seating of the new Congress on January 3, 2013 take their oath of office in the new Congress that there will select the next President / vice President of the United States (POTUS) according to the 12th and 20th Amendments of A2S1C3. 3. That the criminal COMPLAINT affirms of each Public Officer in each domicile therein quote: [each] Elector as part of the slate for Barack Obama and Joe Biden at the State of New York November 6, 2012 General Election for choosing New York’s candidate for the office of President and Vice President of the United States (POTUS) by their vote cast by December 15, 2012; and that such Public Officers are to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college intending to vote for Barack Obama as if mandated by the State of New York legislature with exclusive power afforded by Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution with use of New York State Election Law and related rules, McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), with the proviso that no Public Official may change the eligibility and or qualification requirements of a federal officer including office of POTUS, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). That in addition to the foregoing, Affirmant based upon information and belief contends that Barack Obama is guilty of forgery, spoliation, concealment intimidation of witnesses and racketeering in the matter of his alleged Common Law citizen status as if a Native-born Citizen notwithstanding the allegiance status of his parents rather than a Natural Law Natural-born Citizen born on soil to married US citizen parents, nevertheless is a British Subject with dual allegiance at birth wherever that was to the minor US Citizen mother in wedlock to a majority aged British subject foreign alien student who then were duly divorced on March 20, 1964; and then when in the mother’s custody nd during her 2 marriage Barack Obama was adopted in Indonesia by his Indonesian Citizen stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, who gave the name “SOEBARKAH” according to the U.S. State Department record affirmed on the August 13, 1968 by Stanley Ann Soetoro; and thereafter as an Indonesian Citizen SOEBARKAH (aka Barry Soetoro) reentered the USA in 1971 alone without a US Passport to live with his grandmother who obtained foreign student funding, illegally obtained a stolen Social Security Number no later than 1980, forged a Selective Service filing dated 1980, and inter alia in furtherance of usurpation of the office of POTUS no later than April 25, 2011, according to more than three experts, forged a Long Form Certificate of Birth as if of Hawaii. That notwithstanding the citizenship status of Barack Obama, Affirmant contends that Barack Obama has multiple allegiances despite taking an oath owing exclusive allegiance to the United States, levies war against the People of the United States, adheres to their enemies al-Qaida, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, GÜLEN Movement and Iran against the People of the United States to establish the Caliphate from Thailand through Morocco, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason; and that any candidate elector and or public officer including … who would aid and abet Barack Obama in usurpation of office of POTUS is no less than guilty of misprision of felony, sedition and treason.

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
Based upon the foregoing subject there is a preponderance of evidence proving that the April 25, 2011 forged public document is for the purpose of usurping the POTUS, and that were any New York State Public Officer Electors to cast a vote aiding abetting each crime the civil servant would be an accessory after the fact to a felony under New York Penal Law; and as such Affirmant provides due notice hereby as a matter of standing guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, NYS Constitution, 18 U.S.C. § 2381 through §2390 and related law, including but not limited to N.Y.S. Election Law § 16-100, N.Y.S. CPLR § 7202 and N.Y.S. Civil Service Law § 105 as applies to any public officer misapplication and administration of laws; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and rd belief are as follows: 3 parties, books and records, and personal knowledge. “ 4. That the respective County DA with jurisdiction over crimes of electors in each of fourteen counties are: P. David Soares Albany District Attorney; Robert T. Johnson The Bronx District Attorney; Frank A. Sedita, III Erie District Attorney; Charles J. Hynes District Attorney of Kings; Sandra Doorley District Attorney of Monroe; Kathleen M. Rice District Attorney of Nassau; Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. District Attorney of New York; William J. Fitzpatrick District Attorney of Onondaga; Francis D. Phillips District Attorney of Orange; Richard A. Brown District Attorney of Queens; Thomas J. Spota District Attorney of Suffolk; Gwen Wilkinson District Attorney of Tompkins; Kevin C. Kortright District Attorney of Washington; Janet DiFiore District Attorney of Westchester; and act independently of this civil action. 5. On November 9, 2012, Petitioner duly served a NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION WITH AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON ISSUES OF LAW AS TO ELECTORS (hereinafter known as the “NOTICE”) upon the respective County District Attorney with jurisdiction over the domicile of residence of the respective Public Officer member of the New York 2012 Presidential Election Cycle Electoral College of 29 members in Fourteen (14) Counties got Notice that stated quote: “Please take notice of Petitioner’s intent to file an order to show cause application at the Kings County Supreme Court Building at 11 AM on the 10th Floor intake at 360 Adams Street on Monday November 19, 2012 for a preliminary injunction relief pending a declaratory judgment on issues of law; e.g., Are public officers to be held liable as accessories to felonies in usurpation of Office of POTUS and Ballot access? Are public officers presented with the facts of Barack Obama ineligibility able to change qualifications before the Electoral College Vote scheduled December 15, 2012?”

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 3 of 20

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 4 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
6. On November 9, 2012, Petitioner had a person not a party to this suit serve a copy of the COMPLAINT and NOTICE upon the New York 2012 Presidential Election Cycle Electoral College Members for a total of 29 members in Fourteen (14) Counties individually as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Andrew M. Cuomo 138 Eagle Street -- Albany, NY 12202 Gerald D. Jennings of 1135 New Scotland Road -- Albany, NY 12208 George Gresham 1313 East 233rd Street -- Bronx, NY 10466 Ruben Diaz, Jr. of 820 Boyton Avenue, #6D -- Bronx, NY 10473 Byron Brown 14 Blaine Street -- Buffalo, NY 14208 Felix Ortiz 189 B 33rd Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11232 Hakeem Jeffries 35 Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238 Bill DeBlasio of 442 11th Street -- Brooklyn, NY 11215 Robert Duffy 164 Croydon Road -- Rochester, NY 14610 Joseph Morelle of 133 Deerfield Drive -- Rochester, NY 14609 Tom DiNapoli 100 Great Neck Road -- Great Neck, NY 11201 Eric Schneiderman 645 West End Avenue, #8F -- New York, NY 10025 Walter Cooper 150 West 96th Street, #I2G -- New York, NY 10025 Sheldon Silver of 550 Grand Street, #5A -- New York, NY 10002 Keith L.T. Wright of 2225 Fifth Avenue -- New York, NY 10037 Christine C. Quinn of 263 Ninth Avenue, #3A -- New York, NY 10001 William Thompson of 106 West 121st Street -- New York, NY 10027 Scott Stringer of 155 West 71st Street, #3A -- New York, NY 10023 Emily Giske of 440 West 24th Street -- New York, NY 10014 Scott Adams of 11 Poplar Avenue -- Orchard Park, NY 14127 Stephanie Miner 102 Woodside Drive -- Syracuse, NY 13224 Mario Cilento 3 Isabel Road -- Orangeburg, NY 10962 Anne Marie Anzalone 2827 48th Street -- Astoria, NY 11103 Grace Meng of 14714 34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 Archie Spigner of 11210 175th Street -- Jamaica, NY 11433 Steve Bellone 107 Vanderbilt Avenue -- West Babylon, NY 11704 Irene Stein 101 Brandywine Drive -- Ithaca, NY 14850 Sheila Comar 29 Depot Street -- Middle Granville, NY 12849 Ken Jenkins 108 Bushey Avenue -- Yonkers, NY 10710

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County AS AND FOR THE FIRST QUESTION THE NEW YORK ELECTION OF KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND TO US SENATE IS VOID AB INITIO AS THE ELECTOR QUALIFICATIONS ARE NOT EQUAL TO THAT OF THE NEW YORK ASSEMBLY
8. Petitioner repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction and paragraphs 1 thru 7 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length; and that as and for the first question

the New York election held November 6, 2012 of Kirsten Gillibrand to the U.S. Senate from New York is void ab initio as to elector qualifications are not equal to that of the New York Assembly .
9. Petitioner seeks to overturn New York’s U.S. Senate election with U.S. Const. Amendment 17 “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. ..”

as the November 6, 2012 election for U.S. Senator from New York between Democrat Candidate Kirsten Gillibrand and Republican Candidate Wendy Long was conducted for electors not meeting the qualifications of a member of the Assembly with State Constitution Article 3 Section 7:
“. No person shall serve as a member of the legislature unless he or she is a citizen of the United States and has been a resident of the state of New York for five years, and, except as hereinafter otherwise prescribed, of the assembly … district for the twelve months immediately preceding his or her election; … or member of assembly at the first election next ensuing after a readjustment or alteration of the … assembly districts becomes effective, a person, to be eligible to serve as such, must have been a resident of the county in which the senate or assembly district is contained for the twelve months immediately preceding his or her election. …” (Emphasis added by Petitioner) 10. In addition to the above listed State Officers, Petitioner has also been barred from filing any further

7. That Petitioner has been barred from filing any further suit without leave by the Order of Arthur M. suit without leave by the Order of Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. in the fraud complaint Strunk v NYSBOE et al Schack J.S.C. in the fraud complaint Strunk v NYS BOE et al Index No.: 2011-6500 under penalty of Index No.: 2011-6500 under penalty of contempt against other Public Officers and State entities: contempt against Public Officers: Andrew M. Cuomo of 138 Eagle Street -- Albany, NY 12202 Tom DiNapoli of 100 Great Neck Road -- Great Neck, NY 11201 Eric Schneiderman 645 West End Avenue, #8F -- New York, NY 10025 Sheldon Silver of 550 Grand Street, #5A -- New York, NY 10002 ; and therefore, such named Public officers are not included herein unless by leave to do so. The New York State Board of Ellection and its agents The New York Secretary of State City of New York among many other persons; as such named Public officers and agencies are not included herein unless by leave to do so, Petitioner wishes the Court to void the U.S. Senate Election and ask the Governor set a special election, because a significant number of the electors casting their respective vote were domiciled in New York for less than

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 5 of 20

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 6 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
fives years and had not lived in their respective county of domicile for at least twelve months and there is no way to determine from the votes cast on Novemebr 6, 2012 of those qualified what candidate was voted for. 11. That Petitioner’s right to suffrage, a republican form of governement, Freedom and Liberty; are and would be infringed were the election of US Senator not held void ab initio and that a new special election held; and therefore, public officers yet name along with Respondent Kirsten Gillibrand of 15 West 26th Street, Suite 4R, New York, NY 10010 with her present place of business at Washington, DC Office 478 Russell Washington, DC 20510, as a public officer has infringed my rights and acted contrary to the law of the land with those yet named as each Respondent must either be sanctioned and barred from office and a new special elelction arranged for qualified elelctors as soon as possible. 12. In addition to the US Senate Election, regarding the POTUS Election there are five (5) categories of elector public officers who are the respondents herein that each of whom have separate and or combined issue questioned specifically as to each member of the respective categrory or jointly, and that based upon information and belief and at all times hereinafter mentioned, Petitioner respectfully alleges a question of law issue as to the captioned Respondents within each category of those public or quasi public officers with fiduciary duty who were notified of an accessory crime in which each participates in, especially if their respective vote is cast as an elector are : a. The Electors who are Public Officers elected to Congress duty as to matter of law and facts. b. The Electors who are Public Union trustees have fiduciary duty as to matter of law and facts. c. The Electors who are Registered Lobbyists have fiduciary duty as to matter of law and facts. d. All the Electors as Public Officers when notified of crime have duty as to the law and facts. e. The Elector private person as an Elector Public Officer duty as to matter of law and facts.

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County 14. That Petitioner pursuant to the requirements of CPLR §7802 as to captioned Parties of electors listed
herein in part is in keeping with the definition of "body or officer", and the expression "body or officer" that includes every court, tribunal, board, corporation, officer, or other person, or aggregation of persons, whose action may be affected by a proceeding under this article; and that Petitioner contends that Respondent Electors have maliciously acted contrary to the prohibition in favor of another and where this proceeding is brought to restrain the Electors individually and as a body or officers from proceeding without or in excess of jurisdiction in favor of another, the latter shall be joined as a party; and that Petitioner understands that other interested persons in adequately represented by Petitioner actions herein by order of the court may direct that notice of the proceeding be given to any person, and may allow other interested persons to intervene were it not to prejudice the emergency nature of this action.

15. In addition to the above question Petitioner pursuant to the requirements of CPLR §7803 raises Questions that may be raised in a proceeding under this article that are as follows: AS AND FOR THE SECOND QUESTION AS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS HAKEEM JEFFRIES AND GRACE MENG AS TO NEW U.S. HOUSE MEMBERS AND ELECTORS WITH A DUTY AS TO A MATTER OF LAW AND FACTS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH A2S1C2 AS SUCH PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED ARE BARRED ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE REVIEW AFTER JANUARY 2, 2013.
16. Petitioner repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction and paragraphs 1 thru 15

with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length; and that public officers Respondent Hakeem Jeffries and Respondent Grace Meng as to new U.S. House members and Electors with a duty as to matter of law and facts are in conflict with U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 2, i.e. A2S1C2

states “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of
13. That Petitioner pursuant to the requirements of CPLR §7801 as to the nature of proceeding for relief

Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be
by writ of mandamus or prohibition that shall be obtained in a proceeding under this article is made for a writ or order of prohibition, in which such reference shall, so far as applicable, be deemed to refer to the proceeding authorized by this article.

entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.” as such persons similarly situated are barred Electoral College vote review after January 2, 2013.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 7 of 20

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 8 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
17. Other than U.S. Constitution Article VI it does not specify the form of oath a Congressman is to take

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
21. Respondent Grace Meng of 14714 34th Avenue -- Flushing, NY 11354 is a American lawyer holding an office of trust and profit and is a member of the New York State Assembly, representing the 22nd assembly district in Flushing, Queens, New York, and pending the final tally and canvassing by the end of November will also be the Elected member of the United States House of Representatives from the New York 6th House District. 22. That the Respondent Grace Meng as a House member takes her oath to uphold the State and U.S. Constitution before Janaury 3, 2013, and then intends to sit in the joint session of Congress thereafter to review her own and other votes as an elector as a second bite of the apple despite the prohibitition by A2S1C2 to do so; and intends so despite that Respondent has been given notice by Petitioner. 23. That arguendo re A2S1C2, “but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector“ use is still with the original meaning and intent despite the addition of the 12th , 14th , 16th and 20th Amendments notwithstanding; and that the original use before ratification of the 14th amendment considered each State of the several States was sovereign and not subservient to the USA in regards to the enforcement of the Bill of Rights applied to the Federal entity that was properly termed these United States not as now termed after ratification of the `14th Amendment (1868) became the singular United States, as each State of the several States became and now remain subservient along with every state citizen therein placed under USA jurisdiction per se; and 24. Further arguendo re original use of A2S1C2, “but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector“ includes any state officer and or public officer accordingly, and that the same meaning for “Senator” who was appointed by the

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
and was a function of the respective state and federal law as in New York State Public Officer Law §10 requires every public officer to take and file an oath or affirmation prior to the discharge of any of their official duties and to be certified to the clerk of the respective body . The form of the oath or affirmation is set forth in Article XIII, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution ( 1 ) 18. That Petitioner’s understanding of the Decision and Order of Justice Schmidt referenced above is that a New York Electoral College Elector is merely a private person not required to take an oath in New York or elsewhere to uphold the State or Federal Constitution and as such may vote as a private person. 19. That Petitioner’s New York State Assembly Representative of the 57th AD is presently Respondent Hakeem Jeffries of 35 Underhill Avenue, #2A -- Brooklyn, NY 11238 and pending the final tally and canvassing by the end of the month of November will also be the Elected member of the United States House of Representatives from the New York 8th House District 20. That Respondent Hakeem Jeffries intends as a House member to take his oath to uphold the State and US Constitution on Janaury 3, 2013, intends to sit in the joint session of Congress thereafter to review his own and other votes as an elector as a second bite of the apple despite the prohibitition by A2S1C2 to do so; and intends so despite that Respondent has been given notice by Petitioner.

1

NYSC ARTICLE XIII Public Officers [Oath of office; no other test for public office] Section 1. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as shall be by law exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ......, according to the best of my ability;" no other oath, declaration or test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust, except that any committee of a political party may, by rule, provide for equal representation of the sexes on any such committee, and a state convention of a political party, at which candidates for public office are nominated, may, by rule, provide for equal representation of the sexes on any committee of such party. (Amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)

respective State legislature before the 17th Amendment as the representative of the respective State is then and now intended to equate that relationship to every House member even though elected by State Citizens privileged to vote, and therefore also equates to every “Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit” too, and therefore includes every Public officer, in any state or federal jurisdiction, all except a private person per se; and.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 9 of 20

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 10 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
25. Furthermore arguendo re the issues of Law with Facts pertaining to the misapplication and misadministration of Public Officer acts in 2012 as relate to the December 5, 2008 Order and Decision as a matter of State Law heard by the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. at I.A.S. Part 1 in the Article 78 Petition with Kings County Index No.: 2008-29641 as a matter of the Federal Law of the Land A2S1C2 still un-amended is that the only interpretation of State law involved in the Order and Decision of December 5, 2008 by the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. must be in keeping with the exclusive power, McPherson v.

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County AS AND FOR THE THIRD QUESTION AS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO ARE THE ELECTORS WHO ARE PUBLIC UNION TRUSTEES WHO HAVE A FIDUCIARY DUTY AS TO MATTERS OF LAW AND FACTS ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE POTUS ELIGIBILITY QUALIFICATIONS OF A2S1C5 AND ARE IN CONFLICT WITH A2S1C2 AND ARE BARRED FROM SUCH VOTE AS A BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THEIR MEMBERSHIP AND PEOPLE OF NEW YORK

Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), of the New York State Legislature in its plenary formation of the New York 28. Petitioner repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction and paragraphs 1 thru 27 electoral college may not change the meaning of A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 at best would have to be a retiring with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length; and that public officers who are the public officer to serve as an elector but make any “Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit” after January 2, of the year following the general election of the POTUS ineligible and as such the member of the respective Electoral College is to be a private U.S. Citizen under Federal jurisdiction as an elector is a public officer per se who votes by no later than December 25, 2012 every four years and when the joint seating of Congress convenes on January 3, 2013 the next year and every four years thereafter until there is a amendment to the quasi Federal officer status of an elector means that without an amendment, no State and or Congress may change the eligibility requirements of a Federal officer includes the elector as well as that of POTUS with A2S1C5, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). 26. A State Officer and local officer as public officers hold an office of trust, and that persons registered with a privilege from the State such as an attorney, union trustee, lobbyist hold an office of trust for profit. 27. That were Respondents Grace Meng, Hakeem Jeffries and or anyother person similarly situated according to A2S1C2 who are officers of the State while acting as electors and as persons holding an office of trust or profit to review their own vote in Congress after Janaury 2, 2013 and also be an elector would infringe Petitioner’s right to suffrage, a republican form of governement, Freedom and Liberty; and therefore, Respondents acts as public officers is and would be contrary to the law of the land as each Respondent must either be barred from voting or office and or if done be referred for criminal action.

electors who are public union trustees have a fiduciary duty as to matters of law and facts attempt to change the POTUS eligibility qualifications of A2S1C5 and are in conflict with A2S1C2, are barred from such vote as a breach of a fiduciary duty to their membership and People of the State of New York.
29. That Respondent George Gresham is a incumbent elected President of 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college. 30. That Respondent George Gresham is a registered fiduciary operating with the state of New York as a qusai Public Officer as a “Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit” who has a conflict of interest as an elector despite the prohibitition by A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 to do so; and intends to proceed as an elelctor tovote by Decmber 15, 2012 despite Notice to Respondent by Petitioner. 31. That Respondent Mario Cilento is a incumbent elected President of the New York State AFL-CIO by the organization's Executive Council to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college. 32. That Respondent Mario Cilento is a registered fiduciary operating with the state of New York as a qusai Public Officer as a “Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit” who has a conflict of interest

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 11 of 20

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 12 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
as an elector despite the prohibitition by A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 to do so; and intends to proceed as an elector to vote by December 15, 2012 despite Notice to Respondent by Petitioner. 33. That Respondent Scott Adams is a incumbent elected director of UAW Region 9 with Local 686 Local 774 Local 1069 Local 1097 Local 2300 Local 3303 to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 34. That Respondent Scott Adams is a registered fiduciary operating with the state of New York as a quasi Public Officer as a “Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit” who has a conflict of interest as an elector despite the prohibitition by A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 to do so; and intends to proceed as an elector to vote by December 15, 2012 despite Notice to Respondent by Petitioner. 35. That were Public Union Fiduciary Respondents and any other similar representative similarly situated to cast a vote a POTUS candidate that is not eligible for POTUS would infringe Union member trust and similarly private US citizens like Petitioner’s right to suffrage, republican form of governement, Freedom and Liberty; and therefore, their action as public officers is contrary and should lead to removal from their office and or disbanning the respective union and return of alll union member funds.

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County A2S1C5 and are in conflict with A2S1C2, are barred from such vote as a breach of a fiduciary duty to the People of the State of New York
37. That Respondent Emily Giske is a incumbent government affairs specialist based in New York with extensive experience in Albany and New York City. She has lobbied for corporations, financial institutions, not-for-profit entities and local municipalities including Las Vegas gambling interests lobbyist to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college. 38. That Respondent Emily Giske is a lobbyist with the state of New York as a qusai Public Officer as

a “Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit” who has a conflict of interest as an elector despite the
prohibitition by A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 to do so; and intends to proceed as an elector to vote by Decmber 15, 2012 despite Notice to Respondent by Petitioner. 39. That were a Lobbyist registered in New York and any other similar representative similarly situated to cast a vote a POTUS candidate that is not eligible for POTUS would infringe the trust due the People of New York as similarly to Petitioners right to suffrage, republican form of government, Freedom and Liberty. And therefore their action as public officers is contrary and should lead to removal of Respondents license, order fines levied under State Lobbying law, and crimnal investigation.

AS AND FOR THE FOURTH QUESTION AS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO ARE THE ELECTORS WHO ARE REGISTERED LOBBYISTS HAVE FIDUCIARY DUTY AS TO MATTERS OF LAW AND FACTS ARE QUASI PUBLIC OFFICERS WITH A FIDUCIARY DUTY ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE POTUS ELIGIBILITY QUALIFICATIONS OF A2S1C5 AND ARE IN CONFLICT WITH A2S1C2 AND ARE BARRED FROM SUCH VOTE AS A BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
36. Petitioner repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction and paragraphs 1 thru 35 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length; and that public officers who are the

AS AND FOR THE FIFTH QUESTION AS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO also are AN ELECTOR PUBLIC OFFICER ALSO HAVE DUTY AS TO MATTERS OF LAW AND FACTS ABSENT A VIOLATION OF LAW MAY NOT VOTE FOR WHOM THEY WISH BY CHANGING THE ELIGIBILITY OF POTUS.
40. Petitioner repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction and paragraphs 1 thru 39 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length; and that all public officers holding more than one public officer job for pay excluding a commissioner of deeds or notary public with a fiduciary

duty attempt to change the POTUS eligibility qualifications are in conflict with A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 and are barred from such vote as a breach of a fiduciary duty to the People of the State of New York; and Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 14 of 20

electors who are registered lobbyists have fiduciary duty as to matters of law and facts are quasi public officers with a fiduciary duty attempt to change the POTUS eligibility qualifications of Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 13 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
41. That each Elector is mandated by the State of New York legislature with exclusive power afforded by A2S1C2 and A2S1C5 with use of New York State Election Law and related rules, McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), with the proviso that no Public Official may change the eligibility and or qualification requirements of a federal officer including that of office of POTUS, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) as apply to each respondent below: 42. That Respondent Robert Duffy is the incumbent 76th Lieutenant Governor of New York to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 43. That Respondent Keith L.T. Wright is a incumbent Member of the New York State Assembly from the 70th district to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 44. That Respondent Stephanie Miner is a incumbent 53rd Mayor of the city of Syracuse New York to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 45. That Respondent Sheila Comar is a incumbent elected Executive committee chair of the New York State Democratic Committee to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 46. That Respondent Joseph Morelle is a incumbent member of the New York State Assembly representing the 132nd Assembly District, which includes eastern portions of the City of Rochester and the Monroe County suburbs of Irondequoit and Brighton to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 47. That Respondent Christine C. Quinn is a incumbent Speaker of the New York City Council representing District 3 to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 48. That Respondent Ruben Diaz, Jr. is a incumbent President of the Borough of the Bronx in New York City to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 49. That Respondent Ken Jenkins is a incumbent Westchester County 16th District legislator, and was elected again Chairman of The Board of Legislators to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 50. That Respondent Steve Bellone is a incumbent Suffolk County Executive to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
51. That Respondent Felix Ortiz is a incumbent representing New York's 51st Assembly District to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 52. That Respondent Anne Marie Anzalone is a incumbent appointed Chief of staff to Representative Joe Crowley of the 7th New York Congressional District to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 53. That Respondent William Thompson is a incumbent selected by the NYS Governor to head NYC's Battery Park City Authority to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 54. That Respondent Scott Stringer is a incumbent 26th Borough President of Manhattan to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 55. That Respondent Bill DeBlasio is a incumbent New York City elected official, holding the citywide office of New York City Public Advocate to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 56. That Respondent Byron Brown is a incumbent mayor of Buffalo, New York to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 57. That Respondent Gerald D. Jennings is a incumbent mayor of Albany, New York to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 58. That Respondent Archie Spigner is a incumbent District Leader for the 29th A.D. - Part A, and Executive Member of the Guy R. Brewer United Democratic Club to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 59. That although the following public officers are being questionably protected by the enormity of Justice Schack invidious infringement of Petitioner basic rights otherwise protected by the US Constitution and 14th Amendment guarantees and related State law with an order and decision taken on appeal case 20125515 filing pending, the following public officers would be effected by a Court decision herein as follows: a. That Andrew M. Cuomo is a incumbent 56th Governor of New York to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college and was notified of POTUS ineligibility as the NYS Attorney General and an elector in the 2008 Electoral College proceeded to vote.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 15 of 20

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 16 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County
b. That Tom DiNapoli is a incumbent 54th Comptroller of the state of New York to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college and was notified of POTUS ineligibility as the NYS Attorney General and an elector in the 2008 Electoral College proceeded to vote. c. That Sheldon Silver is a incumbent Member of the New York State Assembly from the 64th district and speaker of the assembly to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college and was notified of POTUS ineligibility as the NYS Attorney General and an

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County AS AND FOR THE SIXTH QUESTION AS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO AS THE ELECTOR PRIVATE PERSON WITHOUT ANOTHER PUBLIC OFFICE AS AN ELECTOR PUBLIC OFFICER ALSO HAVE DUTY AS TO MATTERS OF LAW AND FACTS BUT ABSENT A VIOLATION OF LAW MAY VOTE FOR WHOM THEY WISH.
64. Petitioner repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction and paragraphs 1 thru 63

elector in the 2008 Electoral College proceeded anyway to vote. with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length; and that public officers who as the d. That Eric Schneiderman is a incumbent 65th Attorney General of New York to participate as a Elector private person without another public office as an Elector Public Officer also have duty as to matters member of the State of New York electoral college of law and facts but when absent a violation of law may vote for whom they wish. 60. That all the above named Public Officer Respondents as the body and or its officers with 65. That Respondent Irene Stein is a candidate past super delegate in the 2008 Democratic presidential

the expressed exception of private US Citizens as electors that failed or are about to perform a duty enjoined upon it by the law of the land as to the requirement to conform to U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 as to the eligibility requirements for any candidate for the office of the POTUS; and
61. That the named Respondents as the body and or its officers that proceeded, and is

nomination and wife of Peter Stein the Tomkins County legislator for the 11th District to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 66. That Respondent Walter Cooper is a candidate in an individual capacity as a citizen of New York to participate as a member of the State of New York electoral college 67. The Elector private person as a US Citizen without another public office as an Elector Public Officer also have duty as to matter of law and facts and when in violation of law must be held accountable or would infringe the trust due the People of New York as similarly to Petitioners right to suffrage, republican form of governement, Freedom and Liberty.

proceeding or is about to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction to allow violation of NBC Eligibility ; and
62. That the named Respondents as the body and or its officers that proceeded, and is

proceeding or is about to proceed despite the warning of the misprision of felony sedition and treason are to be referred for criminal investigation and removal from office under New York Civil Service Law Section 105;
63. That Respondent public officers as Elector Public Officers have duty as to matter of law and facts and when in violation of law must be held accountable or would infringe the trust due the People of New York as similarly to Petitioners right to suffrage, republican form of government, Freedom and Liberty.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner wishes a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction hearing, and Declaratory judgment under CPLR §7806 and permanent injunction against the Respondents of each category and such other relief as the Court deems just including a TRO Order: a. A hearing on the legal issues as to the void ab initio US Senate Election in New York.. b. A hearing on the issues of facts as to forgery, sedition and treason. c. A hearing on the issues of the actual historical meaning of Natural Born Citizen held by the State of New York from before and after the 1776

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 17 of 20

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s PETITION Page 18 of 20

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC

Exhibit 7

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC

Exhibit 8

(88) Timeline Photos

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152222524855725&set=a....

Search for people, places and things

Chr

Timeline Photos
Back to Album · Donald J. Trump's Photos · Donald J. Trump's Page Previous · Next

Donald J. Trump Press release. Video response to follow. Like · Comment · Share · November 1 Pamela Barnett, Linda Bentley and 16,445 others like this. 2,955 shares

Album: Timeline Photos Shared with: View Larger Download Report/Remove Tag Public

1 of 2

11/14/2012 9:25 PM

(88) Timeline Photos

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152222524855725&set=a....

Chr Donna Tryon And there is another explanation, the truth, for this: he did produce the documents, they are real, and Mr. Trump just hasn't followed through on his offer and never will because he refuses to let go of his delusions about Pres. Obama. 23 hours ago · Edited · Like · 3 Brett Abrams no 22 hours ago · Like William Chapman We Stand Behind you...This is the Most Nefarious Individual in the U.S. Today Donald...Yes, the Majority needs to march on D.C. Soon! 10 hours ago · Like Rj Parsons wanted to let you know about a new petition I created on We the People, a new feature on WhiteHouse.gov, and ask for your support. Will you add your name to mine? If this petition gets 25,000 signatures by December 14, 2012, the White House wil... See More 8 hours ago · Like Michelle Matherne You are an idiot, Mr. Trump, You rail about China stealing the US manufacturing jobs, yet your Macy's line of ties are all made in China! You come off as an ignorant buffoon. YOU LOST, get over it. 5 hours ago · Like Yolita Mogollon de Ripoll Trump is such an idiot that he doesn't know that if you are a foreigner it is harder to get financial aid for college, it is almost imposible you have to find a scholarship because you cannot get it via the government. 9 minutes ago · Edited · Like Christopher Strunk http://www.scribd.com/doc/112747771 /NOTICE-of-PETITION-INDEX-No-21948-2012-in-re-Complaintof-attempt-to-commit-a-crime-by-NY-Public-Officers-in-the2012-Electoral-College-and-to-VOID a few seconds ago · Like Write a comment...

Facebook © 2012 · English (US)

About · Create an Ad · Create a Page · Deve

2 of 2

11/14/2012 9:25 PM

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC

Exhibit 9

State of Arizona County of Maricopa

) ) ss.

1

AFFIDAVIT

I, the undersigned, being first duly sworn, do hereby state under oath and under penalty of perjury that the facts are true:

1. I am over the age of 18 and am a resident of Arizona. The information contained in this affidavit is based upon my own personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, could testify competently thereto. I am the duly elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, and I have been a law enforcement officer and official, in both state and federal government, for 5 1 years.

2. In August of last year, a group of citizens from the Surprise Arizona Tea Party
organization met with me in my office and presented a petition signed by approximately 250 residents of Maricopa County, asking if I would investigate the controversy surrounding President Barrack Obama's birth certificate authenticity and his eligibility to serve as the President of the United States.

3. This group expressed its concern that, up until that point, no law enforcement
agency in the country had ever gone on record indicating that they had either

looked into this or that they were willing to do so, citing lack of resources and jurisdictional challenges.

4. The Maricopa County Sheriffs Office is in a rather unique position. Under the
Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes, as the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, I have the authority to request the aid of the volunteer posse, located in the county, to assist me in the execution of my duties. Having organized a volunteer posse of approximately 3,000 members, I, as the Sheriff of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, can authorize an investigation go forward to answer these questions at virtually no expense to the tax payer.

5. The Cold Case posse agreed to undertake the investigation requested by the 250
citizens of Maricopa County. This posse consists of former police officers and attorneys who have worked investigating the controversy surrounding Barack Obama. The investigation mainly focused on the electronic document that was

presented as President Obama's long form birth certificate to the American people and to citizens of Maricopa County by the White House on April 27,201 1.

6. The investigation led to a closer examination of the procedures regarding the
registration of births at the Hawaii Department of Health and various statements made by Hawaii government officials regarding the Obama birth controversy over the last five years.

7. Upon close examination of the evidence, it is my belief that forgery and fraud was
likely committed in key identity documents including President Obama's longform birth certificate, his Selective Service Registration card, and his Social Security number.

8. My investigators and I believe that President Obama's long-form birth certificate
is a computer-generated document, was manufactured electronically, and that it did not originate in a paper format, as claimed by the White House. Most importantly, the "registrar's stamp" in the computer generated document released by the White House and posted on the White House website, may have been imported from another unknown source document. The effect of the stamp not being placed on the document pursuant to state and federal laws means that there is probable cause that the document is a forgery, and therefore, it cannot be used as a verification, legal or otherwise, of the date, place or circumstances of Barack Obama's birth.

9. The Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into Barack Obarna's birth
certificate and his eligibility to be president is on-going. The on-going nature of the investigation is due to additional information that has come to light since we held the press conference in March, 2012. As soon as that information has been properly verified by the Cold Case Posse, I will release that information to the public. Executed this Ld_ day of June, 20 1 Maricopa County, Arizona. Joseph M. Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff

Sworn to and subsc ibed before me this \%?dayof $-lx\e ,2012.

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC

Exhibit 10

THIS DOCUMENT AND THIS PRESIDENT ARE NOT LEGITIMATE
The important section of the Obama long form birth certificate is displayed below and enlarged to fit this page. We have found 24 proofs of forgery on this document so far and are showing 5 areas of our easiest to understand evidence here. We are 2 typographers with a combined experience of 70 years creating and examining our own documents along with expertise in scanning, graphic arts, photography, reproduction, printing, and also including the use of the old manual typewriters along with computer created documentation while starting and owning our own succesfull business' employing over 70 people. Alledgedly in 1961, a typewriter produced this document on a form, but the evidence shows us this birth certificate was created last year on a Macintosh computer, sending two copies of that form to the White House. The White house then posted a copy online and gave zerox copies to the media that the source for our exam. Concern's about the :sident's izenship have peaked between Sept. 15&17,2012, You.Gov ask 1000 Americans whether "Barack Obama was born in the US". The poll says 73 percent of Republicans and 40 percent overall either don't believe Obama was born in the U.S. or are not sure. For both Republicans and Americans, belief is that Obama is foreign-born. We have found this birth certificate to be a badly done forgery.

I

1. Mismatched Typed Letters
Compare these typewriten letters enlarged from the birth certificate. We have marked the ones chosen with a blue dot under the original letter. Of the 15 pairs chosen, one set is from the word "Student" that exhibits two different t v ~ stvles of the "t" within the same e, word. These support our contention that the typed letters were copied and assembled from different documents. Note the size
, I

2.The Stolen ---

differences. These letters couldnot have come from the same typewriter.

aa ee EE 66 AA I1 nnSS
- - - - % F g g & ~ ? ~ W W * ~ : ~ : ~ . ?, y ' y.-->.--. f ~ r
.i,

A

.
,',.

Birth Certificate Number

of forgery.
a>

If someone decided last year to forge a birth certificate for a person, they would need a birth certificate number that was issued in the 1961 era. A baby born the same day in Hawaii as Barack Obama ... died the next day. We believe that babies number was 61 10641. The family requested her birth certificate and got the short form with a number way out of sequence. They then requested the long form and were refused. They brought a lawsuit before the Hawaiian courts. It was denied, with the court explaining that the Honolulu Dept. of Health could decide if they wanted to provide the birth certificate of the deceased baby or not. But that is not the law in the state of Hawaii.

.,.-c: .T 5
,

OF . HAWAII %l+i3ERTIFIC,ATE
.,..,:
A*:.:

r 2;.
-I

,!,.,s ; '
* +

.

I

LIVE BIRTH
.
~,
-A-

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

v

a

."','

ened & elarged to show the White Halo,i:;;ii. !z.sL:.
pe or ~g,n&l ..
.,. .,

':L.

' -

'

,

,, .

I

'.
L ,2
A -

..
~

.

.
-

.

~- ~

.

. :

2

L

?A,

.

~-

FILE NUMBER

151
lc.
Day

61 10641
L~et Name

;

..?!$iddle

. .

.

,v.,,;: B A R A C ~ $ ~ ~ "*&! ~

k*q.; % ,
t

~ i q $ ~ ~,-@ ~ , . . . .i. T. . ~@&,~~~$~?!,,l
@x >; :': i ;{
.,;'*, :; " .. w+,

HUSSZIN

.?

OBAMA, I1
Year

t $? : > : ;.% !e ; ~,, L i i h %jj ;;;,; j;;;--. I.AW&.-,t . . -.s

36*sJ'hia , .Birth ,. -~~~
G@ L : h $ Y p% y
% + ,.

*

rn

Y4.v

.;, 4 1 4
h , .

2

*&
,,.

.<...., --

I c.-

i,~ ; ~-+ : . : ~ ~ ~ + .p p" ~ g -~ .?I.. g+tk ; ; ; . I . 2 l;gzA~ ~ ;:. O~
'
.<~&b
< .

Single Twin U City, Top a. Rm.--l tce of Birth: ..u.aa
V.

Mj !a

*d =u
a(

. . I~a-n:m- 7 L N I . o & a V I I 'j:
I
\

If -( 4. -Twinn ordTriplet,- Birth Was Child Born - 3rd U Date TripletU let 2 d
< -"$J <
,

.;.

-

..>. . .

;

58.

Month

Sb, Hour

August

&;SEE THE DIFFERENCES IN THE SPACE FROM ,THE WORD TO THE BASELINE OF THE FORM

I
I

I LL

"IJ'

b h ~
County and State or Foreip G u n ty

/

7,

&.Kapiolani- Maternity r , ? * ,
9

mme of Hospital or Institution (If trot in hoebital or institution, give etreet address)

qua1 Residence of Mother: City, Town or Rural Lpcation
1

-

.
vJb-d y: . 9

z.IStreet Address . <,G>

--

-

i .L< ,a?- : -5q 3 : . ' e Y
A

,

,

,

vi&pc:

:.,,

,~2881~.::j

6085 Kala,l.anaoLe Highway
'.
,I%,

7f. Mother's Mailing Address
,I,

> .

*

.

, .

r L.

8.

lFull Name of Father: :.
Age of Father

10.

BARACK 25

.

. '
L a

11.

Kenya, East Africa.
,

13. Full Maiden Name of Mother

STMJLEY
15.
Age of Mother 16.

3.The Start of Line Error
The word "Kapiolani" should be exactly under the word "Male", not a half space indented. This is proof of forgery. Also the fact that not all the lines are flush to the left is suspicious. No other birth certificate exhibits this peculiar style.

5. The W hite HaI0 The white halo, seen on the online White House release is a white outline
around everthing on the birth certificate. NO other birth certificate has this. See it on Exhibit "A" below & Exhibit "B" showing how it should look. This was caused by the Adobe Photoshop filter used to sharpen edges. It does this by choking back the edge leaving a white halo. We show in Exhibit "C" how we did the same thing to our specimen example. The Hawaiian Dept. of Health is supposed to have put the original birth certificate on a copier and printed to a special green security paper instead of white paper. The only result possible from that is Exhibit "B", NOT exhibit "A". The halo proves that the forger combined a scan of the security paper on a computer ... flattened all of the elements in the file and then applied the Unsharp Mask. It is even on the birth certificate above ... see upper left corner. Since this is a direct copy of the birth certificate sent from Hawaii, that proves the white halo was on what they copied, so we must assume the Hawaiian original has it also. This is proof of forgery.

Congress failing to investigate this forgery is neglecting their constitutional "Duty to Object'!

%+,

Gym ecolog?fial Hospital,
J7b. Island
%

-

6d.

Is Place of Birth Inside City or Town Lirnib? If no, give judicial dietrict yeam NO

17c.
7e.

-:

~ o n ~ ' . u $ u < ----

O . . c . - -. - . '

-

Oat..~

Honolulu
Is Reeidence Ineide City or Town Limits? ,give judicial district :efb 7g. Is Reddeuce on a Farm or Plantation?
YCS NO@
i

-

'--

i: z

t
&

+
OBATU

..':
a

,

, ,

.,3.,~y

.-

2 PICAS ..

.

:

.L

. ,:.

..

9. Race of Father

. . .
Birthplace (Islarid,

HCTSSEIN <
Sore or Foreign k u n q y )

Africa
12b. Kind of Businees or Industry

12az Usual Occupation

Studen
DlmlAM
17s.

14. Race of Mother

-iversity Caucasian

ANN,
Birthplace (Island, State

-

or Foreign Country)(

Type of Occupation Outside Home During Pregnancy l7b.

I

Date Lut Worked

4. Irregular Line Spacing
This birth certificate form was designed for typewriters, SO that every time the typist pulled a carriage return, it would advance down exactly 2 picas to match the form line for line. This was commom for all forms made for typewriters. We were unable to find another birth certificate from Hawaii with uneven line spacing like this one. Typewriters do not do this. This is proof of forgery.

Donald Trump's gift to the American people was that it forced Obama to rush .. out a torgery . In a sane world Congress would hold hearings and nullify everythine he did in office. As an usurper Obama can't be impeached, but should be pressed for the crimes of forgery & treason. Obamats legitimacy is empty of integrity. Now Congress has a "Duty to investigate" . O may Soon become an Accessory After r the Fact to felony and high treason.
4

hibi bit
hat
A

c

Exhibit B with . ; ao t +r U Mask aoi

-

With purpose of evasion , Against the Constitution . This can not be ignored, All parties have a " Duty to Object " Lady Liberty and the American people have a right to know the Truth about Their President.
Paul lrey & Douglas Vogt 2012

Paul Irey Statement on Indiana Ballot Challenge Trial

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/paul-irey-statement-on-indiana-ballot-ch...

Paul Irey Statement on Indiana Ballot Challenge Trial

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/paul-irey-statement-on-indiana-ballot-ch...

Videos Ballot News Blog FILING A COMPLAINT
Search here

I might add that the judge had experience using typewriters … as I understand from local people. This is very good for us as I am sure she understood my evidence that was mostly about the impossible typewriter errors on the Obama birth certificate. There was an audience … and many of them congratulated me after the testimony. One witness was with Army Intelligence and had good testimony also but was unable to testify as she was last just after me. At the conclusion of my testimony … judge Reid had to end the trial because of an appointment. This judge was fair and overruled countless objections from the two government attorneys representing Obama. In fact when I began to testify … they both got out of their seats and came over to stand about 5 feet away from me seeming concerned … as did Orly and Greg. Fortunately I had previously explained my testimony to Greg when we first met at a federal express office just before he drove Orly and I to the court building. Greg Black did an excellent job by the way … and was exactly what Orly needed to assist her in this very tough environment. There appeared to be about 20 to 25 audience members and there were actually 4 … not 2 witness’s who had attended to present their testimony and did so in my presence at the 3 hour mock trial we had … just off the main lobby of the University Plaza hotel the night before. My four 30 wide by 20 deep exhibits were entered into evidence and remained with the court. I am going to attach them here. I was not given enough time to present all of my evidence. The time was a problem because of the constant objections and long dissertations by the government lawyers which took one and a quater hours … so Judge Reid allowed the following hour for evidence to be presented … extending the trial 15 minutes until 12:15. It had started at 10 am. There was no easel available to put my exhibits on. At first I held the first two exhibits in my hand and after that … Orly held the other 4. All my testimony was a direct answer to Orly’s questions. The only significant questions from the government attorneys was if I knew the make and model typewriter used to type the birth certificate and did I have “personal” knowledge of the methods used in 1961 at the Health Dept. in Honolulu … to which I had to answer no. I made my testimony in a clear direct assertive manner … confident that I was correct and I think the judge was impressed. When the government attorneys objected that I was not an expert witness … the 65 year old lady judge answered that objection instead of Orly … “He said he had 57 years experience.” At the beginning when asked by Orly what my qualifications were … I had replied that I had … in the U.S. Air Force … from 1955 to 1958 … almost four years experience typing forms … two of which were at the National Security Agency for which I was given a Top Secret security clearance followed by 9 years after my discharge … being employed by Hearst Corp. and three advertising agencies before I formed my own company in 1968. Not testified to because of the time constrains … but I intended to mention … was that my company … Bergen Graphics Inc. was incorporated in the spring of 1968 and in its peak by the late 80 s … employed 60 people. Orly had forgotten to leave three of the exhibits with the judge. One was the blow-up of the important part of the Obama birth certificate that I had used to point out the line over line spacing irregularities and another page with the pic of my typewriter showing a bent “H” key … seen on the mismatched letters proof … a blow up of many “a”s typed on my own Olivetti – Underwood 5 … demonstrating how a typewriter was a precision instrument that typed letters always perfectly aligned vertically and horizontally and another pic showing how two keys could get stuck together and require being pulled apart manually causing the bent letters that have been proven in court in the past to positively identify any particular typewriter due to its unique assortment of bent letters. Also undelivered to the judge on that page … was a pic of my own Underwood 5 typewriter … and a pic of the same typewriter from the internet claiming that this was a “long-time standard of gov. agencies, newsrooms, and offices.

Posted by By GeorgeM at 24 October, at 01 : 49 AM Print

Like

5

Send

3

Paul was a trial witness and an early exposer of the Obama (long form) birth certificate forgery Via David LaRocque: I just returned to Florida last night from testifying at the trial against Obama’s elligibility as the presidential debate was going on in Boca Raton. You have reported the trial accurately. What was your source?

1 of 4

11/14/2012 9:10 PM

2 of 4

11/14/2012 9:10 PM

Paul Irey Statement on Indiana Ballot Challenge Trial

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/paul-irey-statement-on-indiana-ballot-ch...

Paul Irey Statement on Indiana Ballot Challenge Trial

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/paul-irey-statement-on-indiana-ballot-ch...

Most of my testimony was similar to the newspaper page we had published in the Washington Times a week before … and Orly should have entered that in evidence also but forgot … but I don’t blame her as she had her hands full responding to what seemed to me to be the overbearing best lawyers the government could provide. The “Baseline Errors” evidence is new and not in the Wash. Times page because I had just discovered it this past Sat. before I flew to Indianapolis. What I did first was type a test of the particular way the old manual typewriters shifted from lower case to caps. The entire mechanism holding the keys moves down when the shift key is held down … causing the cap letter to strike in place of the lower case letter because both characters are on the same key. It was considered a great innovation when this method was first employed on a typewriter because it allowed for cheaper manufacturing. However if the typist did not press the shift key completely down before the letter was struck … the result would be a cap typed letter a bit higher than the baseline of the word. Also less common would be when a letter was typed before the shift key was fully released that would cause the following lower case letter to be lower than the baseline. Once I had established that rule … I decided to check the baselines of everything on the certificate to see if any cap letter was below the baseline of a word and if any lower case letter was above the baseline of a word … which was impossible. I found 4 lower-case letters … marked with red arrows … that were above the baselines of the word they were included in … and this all by itself proved forgery because that is absolutely impossible for any manual typewriter since the mechanism does not allow that. I found no caps that were lower than the baseline. Then along in addition that evidence … I found seven of the nine lines on the Obama birth certificate had words that were on the same line … but contained whole words or parts of words that did not align with the rest. Also impossible for a typewriter unless the typist were to release the roller and adjust the position up or down manually … and why would any typist do that for no good reason in the middle of typing a single line on a form? This proves forgery in two individual ways and shows us that no typewriter did it … but that it most likely was all a result of the letter being positioned by eye … probably on a computer monitor using Adobe Photoshop. This was new evidence no one had found before … and I was elated that I had discovered another separate proof of my contention that it was a computer created document. The last three documents attached here are the two mistakenly not given to the judge. Except for a completely controlled major media … I could absolutely prove this to the American voter right now with my testimony and my cards … a pointer … and camera zooms. And remember that this evidence was accepted in a Superior court in the state of Indiana … from me as a person now recognized as an expert witness … for the purpose of not allowing Obama votes to be counted because he has not proven his citizenship. I have a bad feeling that if judge Reid rules in favor of Orly … the media will not report it … as they have not reported this important trial … and also not reporting that Obama was served a subpoena to produce his original birth certificate and come to Indiana to answer these serious charges of forgery … a contention if true … also amounts to treason. And if for some technical reason the Judge declines to rule against Obama … then the media WILL fully report it with the expected usual headline: PROOF OBAMA BORN IN HAWAII … JUDGE THROWS OUT CASE! A Headline I found on FOX NEWS in 2008 when a judge ruled against a plaintiff because of his not having “STANDING” … meaning that Obama had not harmed him personally. So FOX lied … giving the impression that the judge had heard evidence but he actually had not … and I would know the word “standing” should have been mentioned as part of that story.

Paul Irey More on Indiana

Post to Facebook Post to dd k d Ballot News Blog, iIndiana News, Uncategorized Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE

3 of 4

11/14/2012 9:10 PM

4 of 4

11/14/2012 9:10 PM

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC

Exhibit 11

Unvetted Obama Never Had To Undergo Security Clearance Background ...

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/unvetted-obama-never-had-to-undergo-s...

Unvetted Obama Never Had To Undergo Security Clearance Background ...

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/unvetted-obama-never-had-to-undergo-s...

Videos Ballot News Blog FILING A COMPLAINT
Search here

Posted by By Pamela Barnett at 6 November, at 07 : 19 AM Print

Loopholes and Ensuing Conspiracy. I have had many years of experience working with the security clearance process as an officer in the Army. One of my job positions was as the battalion intelligence staff officer where I was in charge of security clearances and physical security for a unit of 400 people. I became unnerved at all of the suspect relationships of Obama in the 2008 campaign. When Obama was sworn in, I knew that there could not be a security check requirement because Obama wouldn’t pass. I began my research into the presidential vetting process only to find that there are no requirements of even vetting the minimum qualifications to become President, only a couple times where vetting is optional: with Congress when certifying the election results and with the states as a matter of ballot access. No federal agency is required to check into a Presidential candidate or President Elects’ background. This CIA page snap shot, clearly states that President, Senator and Representatives do not have to qualify for a security clearance. They are just given one because they were elected… Unfortunately for the security of the U.S. voters are not privy to a candidates’ critical background information so they cannot fully evaluate a candidate’s trustworthiness . From the Central Intelligence Agency’s report How Intelligence-Sharing Works at Present (2007); https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs /sharing-secrets-with-lawmakers-congress-as-a-user-of-intelligence/3.htm

Barack Obama Did Not Have to Undergo Any Background Checks to Become President or Gain Access To Top Secret Information Because It was Not Required Adjudication of Publicly Available Information Proves Obama Would Never Be Granted A Security Clearance If He Had To Qualify For One By CPT Pamela Barnett, U.S. Army Retired (Use of rank does not imply endorsement or approval of the Department of Defense or U.S. Army) Obama never had to prove his ability to legally work in the United States or had to submit to a security clearance background investigation…. Ever!!! Shockingly the reason is that it is not required. This statement is proven in the recently released book Obama Never Vetted: The Unlawful President, The National Security

From the CIA website link above – In General All Members of Congress have access to intelligence by virtue of their elected positions. They do not receive security clearances per se. The Office of Personnel Management for the federal government also states that the federal government does not do a background check into Presidents, yet they do a background check for everyone else working in the White House. See OPM letter below.

1 of 8

11/16/2012 7:36 PM

2 of 8

11/16/2012 7:36 PM

Unvetted Obama Never Had To Undergo Security Clearance Background ...

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/unvetted-obama-never-had-to-undergo-s...

Unvetted Obama Never Had To Undergo Security Clearance Background ...

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/unvetted-obama-never-had-to-undergo-s...

Because Obama’s background was not vetted by any federal agency, I adjudicated his background using publicly available information and the federal guidelines for adjudicating an applicant for access to classified information. My conclusion is that Obama would be denied a clearance if he had to qualify for one. Here’s the Obama Adjudication report from Obama Never Vetted: The Unlawful President…. Obama Security Clearance Adjudication Preliminary Analysis Begins Here Obama did not contribute to this analysis. Information was obtained from sources linked within analysis. (Appendix Contains Federal Forms that All other Federal Employees Except The Constitutionally Elected Employees Have to Complete at End of Chapter) (1) Guideline A: Allegiance to the United States Concern 1 – Obama born with British/Kenyan Allegiance through legal father Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. Concern 2 – Obama became Indonesian and developed Indonesian allegiance through adopted father while living overseas in Indonesia. (according to Indonesian School records from AP.) Concern 3 – No proof that Obama has renounced citizenship to either country. (President of the U.S. only position that requires sole allegiance to the United States (ie: Natural Born Citizen requirement in Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5) Concern 4 – Obama supports actions of Islamic caliphate in Arab world instead of promoting secular democracies run by the people of the country in an effort to continue Middle Eastern allies. Obama was raised in the Islamic religion and shows a preference to Islamic rule in the middle east which compromises the security of the United States. Obama’s adviser Dalia Mogahed is a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer. It is the express goal of the Muslim Brotherhood to bring the entire world under Islamic government and Sharia law – including

the United States. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL6JK55ql1E Obama’s Pro Muslim Brotherhood Advisor Dalia Mogahed: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/nonie-darwish /appeasing-the-muslim-brotherhood/ Obama gives billions of tax payer money to Muslim Brotherhood to Buy Weapons: http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=l2S1mJAxMzA Obama spends $770 million to help foreign mosques http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHwPrXsw0Ag& playnext=1&list=PLCCEBB0C000B35B07&feature=results_main Concern 5 - Regarding 4(C )(1)(2)(4) Long- time friend of Bill Ayers, Member of the Weather Underground, which wanted to overthrow the United States, The Weather Underground was responsible for multiple murders and bombings of federal government buildings. Ayers has been quoted as saying he wishes he could have done more. Recently an affidavit was signed by the mailman for the Bill Ayer’s family house which stated that the Ayers family paid for Obama’s college and said that Obama was a foreign student. So Obama has been closely associated with Bill Ayers for about 30 years. He wasn’t just a man in the neighborhood as Obama has repeatedly espoused to the electorate of the U.S.: http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/postman-ayers-familyput-foreigner-obama-through-school/#ooid=E0ZGg2NDqsd2ZwNHinIhhgXegZkT00X1 Concern 6 – Obama associates William Ayers Bernadine Dohrn, Tom Hayden and Carl Davidson were involved in espionage against the United States on behalf of communist Cuba according to FBI files. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5860 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2322 From DiscoverTheNetworksCarl Davidson and Tom Hayden take credit for having launched in 1969 the “Venceremos Brigades,” which covertly transported hundreds of young Americans to Cuba to help harvest sugar cane and interact with Havana’s communist revolutionary leadership. (The Brigades were organized by Fidel Castro’s Cuban intelligence agency, which trained “brigadistas” in guerrilla warfare techniques including the use of arms and explosives.) from Canada Free Press storyUnrepentant terrorist former leading Weather Underground Organization (WUO) member William Ayers was aided by Fidel Castro’s Cuba in the 1970s, according to a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report. The 400-page report, a copy of which was obtained by the New York Times, revealed that Cuban intelligence officers in the General Directorate of Intelligence (known by its initials in Spanish as the DGI, Cuba’s equivalent of the CIA) set up the Venceremos Brigades in which WUO members participated. “The ultimate objective of the DGI’s participation in the setting up of the Venceremos Brigades was “the recruitment of individuals who are politically oriented and who someday may obtain a position, elective or appointive, somewhere in the U.S. Government, which would provide the Cuban Government with access to political, economic and military intelligence.”(Italics CFP’s). bold underlines by author. Obama is linked to Ayers by working with him directly in multiple progressive foundations and Obama is linked to Carl Davidson from his involvement in The New Party in Illinois. Obama is closely linked with Tom Hayden ( http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/05/14/obamas-connections-to-the-violent-sds-tom-hayden/) who also has an FBI file for his subversive activities against the United States. Hayden has a 22,000 page FBI file. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/books/review/subversives-by-seth-rosenfeld.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 In the mid-1990s Davidson was a major player in the Chicago branch of the New Party, a socialist political coalition whose members hailed largely from the Committees of Correspondence, the Democratic Socialists of America, and ACORN. Davidson first met Barack Obama through the New Party, which endorsed Obama’s campaign for the Illinois state senate in 1996. Concern 7 – Regarding 4(a)Raised money and campaigned for Ralia Odinga who sought to be elected in Kenya, a fellow member of the Luo Tribe member. Odinga is an avowed communist and signed an agreement with a Muslim group in his country to not assist America and other nations with the apprehension and extradition of terrorists while under the counsel of Obama. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnfsF-9h4LI&feature=channel&list=UL
4 of 8 11/16/2012 7:36 PM

3 of 8

11/16/2012 7:36 PM

Unvetted Obama Never Had To Undergo Security Clearance Background ...

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/unvetted-obama-never-had-to-undergo-s...

Unvetted Obama Never Had To Undergo Security Clearance Background ...

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/unvetted-obama-never-had-to-undergo-s...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tHUbtrpFeU&list=UUY8sdsGPYCgy8XrVT-mPX4g&index=7& feature=plcp Obama’s actions could be strongly construed to be a payoff for possibly hiding or destroying something in Kenya- like a birth certificate perhaps. Note: Why else would Obama be travelling to another continent and advising him unless he was getting something in return? Concern 6 – Regarding section 4(a), Obama in his own autobiography admits that he was mentored by Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis who was working directly for the Soviet Union to overthrow the Republican system of government. Frank Marshall Davis has a large FBI surveillance file and would have been arrested for espionage if the U.S. went to open war with the Soviet Union. The following are some links that contain parts of the FBI file on Sources: Autobiography, http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/hawaii-obama.pdf, http://www.usasurvival.org /marshall.fbi.files.html Concern 7 – Obama wants a new system of government fascism instead of the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution, the Constitution which is his job to defend and uphold. http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4&feature=player_embedded Mitigating Factors – None. No mitigation has been done by Obama, in fact he has spent $10 million in U.S. tax payer dollars to pass a new Kenyan Constitution to instill Muslim Sharia law and legalize abortions in Kenya. He continues relationships and courses of action which are of great concern. (http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=RlboSRT5kYo&feature=player_embedded#!) (2) Guideline B: Foreign Influence Kenya Concern 1 – Obama states he was born in Kenya until 2007 while stating also he was born in Hawaii. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeYUwlLrl3w Concern 2 – Regarding section 7(a)(b), Obama took U.S. tax payer money to help write and pass a pro-Sharia, pro-abortion Constitution that would also allow him to become President in Kenya. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlboSRT5kYo Concern 3 -Obama is influenced by his Kenyan fellow citizens. He also has substantial profit from foreign companies in his 2011 tax return. Members of the Kenyan government have stated on the record that Obama was born in Kenya, found it amazing that a non-native of America could become President of the United States. Sources; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_8PC3oKAvA Concern 4 – Regarding section 7(a)(b), Obama has very close ties to Ralia Odinga who promoted violence when he lost his election and signed agreement to not cooperate with the U.S. regarding terrorism. Obama acts as if he owes something personally to Ralia Odinga by raising $1 million dollars and campaigning for him even though it is against the Logan Act. Indonesia A retired postal worked signed affidavit that Obama was a Indonesian student in college. Question – Obama hides his college records most likely to hide his Indonesian citizenship as an adult and/or hide who paid for his college? This must be further investigated and all college records examined. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwoNpP35pXI http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_162767&feature=iv&src_vid=IwoNpP35pXI& v=ql20v23KnIY? Obama allowed by Executive Order billionaire James Riyadi a fellow Indonesian convicted of breaking U.S. campaign finance laws by funneling millions of dollars illegally to President Bill Clinton to enter the country after Congress had banned him from entry. Regarding 7(i), a trip to Pakistan with a Pakistani national at time when Pakistan was at war with the Soviet Union in 1981. Mitigating Conditions: None. None of these relationships could be construed as casual or unsubstantial

because large amounts of money were raised on Obama’s behalf to help Odinga, funneled millions of dollars to Kenya, and special treatment for a criminally convicted billionaire who owns the largest coal mining business in Indonesia by signing an Executive Order to allow him in the country. Regarding the Pakistan trip, Obama would have to have been interviewed to know length of stay, all foreign contacts and what he was doing there at a time of turmoil. Some questions – Why would Obama not instead be campaigning to raise money for himself instead of Odinga? What possible benefit would Odinga be to Obama? Could it be the purported missing birth record of Obama in Kenya (by Kenyan government)? Why is Obama allowing a convicted felon banned by Congress to enter the U.S. to come right in? Is it his special feeling of allegiance to Indonesia? Why have Kenyan official stated in their legislative sessions that Obama was born in Kenya? (3) Guideline C: Foreign Preference 9. The Concern. When an individual acts in such a way as to indicate a preference for a foreign country over the United States… Regarding section 10(a)(1), Possession of a current foreign passport. The following link has excellent additional information on dual citizenship and foreign passports. http://www.clearancejobs.com/clearednews/91/dual-citizenship-and-security-clearances Obama’s passport records were compromised by an employee of his now head of Terrorism John Brennan. The Office of Inspector General did a lengthy report on the breach but only released about half of the report to the public. Then Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said that she could not guarantee that anything was added to or taken from the passport databases regarding Obama’s file. The Pakistani equivalent to the U.S. Civil Service exam had Obama being born in Kenya, this could be because Obama may have used a Kenyan passport when he traveled to Pakistan. Obama was also taken off his mother’s (Stanley Ann Dunham) passport as a child while living in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen according to Indonesian grade school records obtained from the Associated Press. Regarding section 10(5), using Foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country – Obama has never produced any school records (AP News produced Indonesian grade school record) Occidental has said that Obama had been on scholarship there. Normally that would mean decent grades, but Obama has hidden his records for Occidental, Columbia and Harvard. Khalid al Mansour, a radical Muslim who is anti-Christian and anti-Jew, and an agent for a Saudi Prince who owns a large percentage of Fox News (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIVO8MZYXo8) raised money for and helped Obama to get into Harvard. Mitigating Conditions – None, Obama continues to hide his college and middle and high school records. All of these school records need to be examined. President of the United States is to have no other citizenships to best try to ensure sole allegiance to the United States. (4) Guideline D: Sexual Behavior 13. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying: Obama has been accused of being a “member” of the Down Low Club and of having sexual relationships with men by Larry Sinclair in his book , the mother of a murdered gay man Donald Young, a fellow Trinity Church member, and now others from Trinity church in Chicago. There is more than once accusation from more than 3 people. Whether or not Obama is gay, he could be subject to coercion, exploitation or duress which could be a disqualifying condition of its own. http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/another-boost-for-obamas-gay-accuser/ http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/jesse-jackson-wright-arranged-obama-marriage/ http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/trinity-church-members-reveal-obama-shocker/ Mitigating Conditions – Further investigation would need to be done of the people making the accusations and of Obama. (5) Guideline E: Personal Conduct Regarding Section 16(d)(3), Obama lied on his Attorney application for the state of Illinois. He stated under penalty of perjury that he had not been known by any other names when he was known by at least 4 other

5 of 8

11/16/2012 7:36 PM

6 of 8

11/16/2012 7:36 PM

Unvetted Obama Never Had To Undergo Security Clearance Background ...

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/unvetted-obama-never-had-to-undergo-s...

Unvetted Obama Never Had To Undergo Security Clearance Background ...

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/unvetted-obama-never-had-to-undergo-s...

names: Soebarkah, Barry Soetoro, Barack Hussein Obama II and Junior. Obama is a serial liar, which shows he cannot be trusted. Here are only some of the many lies told by Obama.: http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies Regarding Section (g), Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, Frank Marshall Davis, Khalid al Mansour, and Ralia Odinga are/were associates of Obama. All are either criminals or have advocated for the overthrow of the U.S. government. Mitigating Conditions: None. Behaviors continue. (6) Guidline F: Financial Considerations 18. The Concern. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern. It may indicate proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts. (h)unexplained affluence , as shown by lifestyle or standard of living , increase of net worth , or money transfers that cannot be explained by subject’s known legal sources of income. Convicted felon Tony Rezko who was a fundraiser for Obama, had secured a property and home purchase for the Obama’s far below the market value. Rezko’s attorney is listed as the owner of the property. This is very indicative of bribery, tax fraud and Senate ethics violations. (http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2008/12 /obamas-house-is-owned-by-rezkos-lawyer.html) The financing of Obama’s education would also need to be further investigated to determine the nature of the deal between Al Mansour and Saudi Arabian citizens. Mitigating Conditions: None (7) Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption Not rated/Unknown By Adjudicator (8) Guideline H: Drug Involvement Obama has admitted to using several illegal drugs in his books and another allegation of his using drugs was made by Larry Sinclair (See also Guideline G: Sexual Behavior for more on Sinclair).: http://www.amazon.com /Barack-Obama-Larry-Sinclair-Cocaine/dp/0578013878 Mitigating Conditions: Further investigation required and polygraph test. (9) Guideline I: Psychological Conditions Not rated, but recommend mental evaluation due to serial lying. (10) Guideline J: Criminal Conduct Regarding section 31(c), allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted. Forged BC, Selective Service Registration(Draft Card), and Use Of Not Assigned SSN A background check of publicly released “documents” by Obama reveal non-authentic, altered otherwise forged documents. Forged birth certificate and Selective Service Forgery – see Hawaii Chapter in Sheriff Arpaio’s report. A background check of Obama’s Social Security Numbers and addresses would have revealed extremely likely criminal behavior that should be turned over to a special prosecutor as the DOJ has proven to be a political animal not concerned with the rule of law and not trustworthy in matters of national security. Mitigating Condition: None. Crime is ongoing as Obama continues to use a SSN not assigned to him, a Selective Service Registration made fraudulently after the deadline, and continues to have a birth certificate forgery posted at whitehouse.gov. A full inestigation would have to be done to sort out all of the signs of criminal fraud encompassing Obama. (11) Guideline K: Handling Protected Information Obama’s White House has leaked a vast amount of information that endangers the U.S. and our allies according to Congresmen and Senator Diane Feinstein.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VPd0YpN8E8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNh9O_2fyp8 Mitigating Conditions: None as Obama has not taken responsibility or taken action to stop leaks. (12) Guideline L: Outside Activities Not rated by Adjudicator because other criteria regarding applicant more than enough to deny clearance to applicant Obama. (13) Guideline M: Use of Information Technology Systems
7 of 8 11/16/2012 7:36 PM 8 of 8

Concern 1 -Obama used the federal government website whitehouse.gov to post a forged birth certificate document Concern 2 – Has used federal government computers to spy on Americans that do not agree with his policies with flag@whitehouse.gov These actions prove that Obama has no respect for rules and regulations regarding government computer access; cannot use computers for personal use or to commit a crime. Mitigating Conditions: None. Birth certificate forgery remains at www.whitehouse.gov CONCLUSION Security clearance denied to applicant Barack Obama for massive complex unresolved issues that present a great potential threat to national security. Forwarding file to special prosecutor for investigation of criminal activity. ************************************************End of Report*********************************************** Author: Pamela Barnett’s book Obama Never Vetted: The Unlawful President, The National Security Loopholes and Ensuing Conspiracy That Endanger America is available at Amazon.com.

Ballot News Blog background check, birth certificate, forged, forgery, never vetted, obama, security clearance Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE

11/16/2012 7:36 PM

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s AFFIDAVIT in support of OSC

Exhibit 12

Thursday, 8 November 201270th Anniversary OPERATION TORCH - World War II Northwest Africa - Casablanca From: Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III United States Navy Retired To:
• Robert Swan Mueller, III, Director - Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington D.C. (ORIGINAL) The Foreman of the two sitting Federal Grand Juries sitting in Knoxville, Tennessee via William C. Killian, U.S. Attorney for Tennessee's Easter District

died. 5 men of a Navy support force died. OBAMA and his gang of outlaws lie to the America people about that. 6. In commission of TREASON OBAMA is engaged in purchasing and supplying guns, heavy weapons, high-powered munitions and explosives to foreign aggressors-AMERICA'S ENEMIES-around the globe. OBAMA has and continues to ship weapons from Libya to Syria through Turkey. Some weapons may be being directly shipped to Syria. Christopher Stevens was OBAMA's point man of this operation when Stevens was murdered in Benghazi during the attack of 11-12 September 2012. In this TREASON OBAMA is arming America's enemies: Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood connected Syrian rebels. 7. As an Act of TREASON OBAMA provides safe-haven and sanctuary to those bent on the destruction of the United States, its people, and its form of government. OBAMA encourages, facilitates and arms our enemies to carry out a WAR on the United States from enemy bases set up in the homeland and around the globe. OBAMA aids and abets these known enemy forces to establish and strike from strongholds OBAMA allows established on American soil. 8. OBAMA refuses to pledge his allegiance to the United States. OBAMA conspires with leaders of countries, groups and organizations bent upon the destruction of America. By so doing OBAMA engages in TREASON against the United States in every aspect of TREASON. 9. As an Act of TREASON OBAMA broke into and occupies the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling and deceit. OBAMA is an undocumented illegal alien and spy. Posing as an imposter president and commander-in-chief OBAMA strips civilian command and control over the military establishment. Known military criminal actorscommand racketeers such as Martin Dempsey-are free in the exercise of an extra-military government intent upon the destruction of our Republican, constitutional form of governance. There are dozens of senior military commanders no more obedient to the United States Constitution than is OBAMA. 10. OBAMA is joined in his TREASON by a raft of civilian criminal assistants too numerous to name in this submission. I leave it to the Grand Jury, in the conduct of an independent, autonomous, and unfettered investigation, to assign specificity and particularity to the list of OBAMA'S co-conspiring outlaws. 11. OBAMA is a FOREIGN BORN DOMESTIC ENEMY, an infiltrator, a

SUBJECT: FORMAL CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS NAMING BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMAIN COMMISSION OF TREASON! 1. OBAMA represents a clear and present danger to U.S. national security,
to the U.S. Constitution and to our Republican form of government. OBAMA IS A FOREIGN BORN DOMESTIC ENEMY! OBAMA is working assiduously to destroy America! No document record exists showing Barack Hussein OBAMA to be a United States citizen. 2. OBAMA paid money and aided and abetted Al-Qaeda members and groups that attacked Americans on U.S. territory in Benghazi, Libya on 11 and 12 September 2012. Al-Qaeda is the jihadist terrorist organization that attacked the United States on 11 September 2001. 3. Pro-jihadist and Islamist OBAMA personally denied frantic cries for help from Americans in mortal danger throughout a 7-hour attack by approximately 150 heavily armed known jihadists. OBAMA watched four Americans die in real time. OBAMA is allowing our enemies to slaughter our servicemen piecemeal at the same time ordering our troops to disarm. 4. OBAMA lies to the American people about his TREASON with every opportunity. OBAMA is lying to the American people about the 11-12 September attack in Benghazi, Libya in a cover story intended to protect OBAMA from facing a criminal prosecution and conviction. 5. OBAMA is personally responsible for the 6 August 2011 shoot-down of an Army CH-47D Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan. 17 Navy SEALS died. All 5 men of the Chinook crew died. 3 Air Force special tactics airmen

2

-----~----------

~------- -----

-- ------

traitor and a spy. OBAMA installed and operates a government that rivals and competes with our U.S. Constitution. OBAMA operates government not found in our United States Constitution. If not arrested OBAMA will continue to commit TREASON. OBAMA is emboldened now and more dangerous to this country's survival as a constitutional Republic than any other threat the United States faces in the world. 12. We come now to this reckoning: I accuse Barack Hussein OBAMA of TREASON. I accuse OBAMA'S military-political criminal assistants of TREASO N. Their criminal mischief is recognized as TREASON in pure form. I expose and identify OBAMA and his criminal associates as TRAITORS (Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, Susan Rice, David Petraeus and Martin Dempsey but a few). 13. It needs be said out loud and relentlessly: OBAMA is aiding and abetting America's enemies. OBAMA is lying to the American people in every regard going to OBAMA'S TREASONOUNS escapades. OBAMA IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! 14. This submission renews and extends all previous filings naming OBAMA in commission of TREASON dating from 17 March 2009. The list of ACTS of OBAMA'S TREASON found in this formal criminal complaint is not exhaustive. Far from it. 15. My sworn duty is to stand against everything OBAMA stands for. The FOREIGN BORN DOMESTIC ENEMY OBAMA IS NOT MY PRESIDENT! HE IS NOT MY COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF!

Obedient to my oath to the United States Constitution in submission of this criminal complaint for TREASON I remain stead fast and,

BORN FIGHTING,

~1!:!~:lf!~'~~ [}//
United States Navy Retired Distribution wide

Sworn and issued before me

this 8th day of November 2012

"This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is perhaps, the end of the beginning."

at

/(/X/J3

hours local (

14: ¢>Ja.m.

EST)

3

4

.

Strunk v Jeffries et al. Article 78 NYSSC for Kings County Index No.: 21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk’s MEMORANDUM in support of OSC

Exhibit 13

Private Report to Elias Aoun - Yahoo! Mail

Page 1 of 1

Private Report to Elias Aoun
From: "Eric Phelps" <eric@vaticanassassins.org> To: "Christopher Strunk" <cestrunck@yahoo.com> 1 File (747KB)

Sunday, August 15, 2010 9:34 PM

Private R...

Here it is. If you need it in PDF let me know.

http://us.mc576.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMid=21&filt... 8/16/2010

Private Report to Elias Aoun
Attempted Answers to Specific Questions And the Fate of Lebanon as per the Design of the Society of Jesus

Warning: The conclusions of this report are private and the personal property of Elias Aoun. No part of this report will be released by the author to any third party without a specific directive from Elias Aoun.
Before commencing the body of this text, the author recommends the reading of his book, Vatican Assassins: “Wounded In The House Of My Friends.” Therein, the reader will be informed, fact-by-fact, as to the origin and perfection of the Jesuit Superior General’s International Intelligence Community. That Community is overseen by the pope’s Sovereign Military Order of Malta headquartered in Rome and directed by its Grand Master, Andrew Bertie. Thus, the Jesuit General, also known as “the Black Pope,” controls the entirety of the American Intelligence Community, including but not limited to, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Office of Naval Intelligence as well as the intelligence arms of the Army and the Air Force. An accurate understanding of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 overseen by Knight of Malta Francis Cardinal Spellman further confirms the reality of a unified American Intelligence Community, which is the foundation for the pope’s International Intelligence Community, including Nazi-founded INTERPOL and Soviet KGB/FSB. This Unified International Intelligence Community was built during Rome’s Second Thirty Years’ War (1914-1945) and perfected during Rome’s subsequent Cold War (1945-1990). A brief chronology will be now provided as a summary of events of the Twentieth Century as covered in detail in Vatican Assassins: “Wounded In The House Of My Friends,” third edition, enclosed herein as a gift to Elias Aoun.
1

1.

During the Black Pope’s World War I, called “The Great War,” the

Protestant German Empire (the Second Reich) was destroyed. On its ruins, the Roman Catholic German Third Reich would be erected, fully prepared to fulfill the Order’s Council of Trent in killing accursed “heretics and liberals” throughout Europe and Jesuit-ruled Russia (alias, “U.S.S.R.”), the Order having been formally readmitted into Russia by Lenin after its legal expulsion by Tzar Alexander I in 1820. During this time Jesuit Nazi fascism, overseen by a separate Jesuit entity called the SS, would be united with Islam in that calculated destruction. It was for this reason that Hitler and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini worked together from 1941 to 1945 while based in the once Protestant, then apostate, Masonically-ruled city of Berlin. The collusion between Jesuit Nazi Fascism, Jesuit Soviet Communism, Islam and Labor Zionism is undeniable, all four factions being ruled by the Black Pope via high-level, illuminized Freemasonry and financed by the Knights of Malta directing the pope’s International Banking Cartel based in the Old City of London and New York City. Therefore, we should not be surprised to see the pope’s Lebanese Intelligence Service (overseen by the Jesuit Provincial in Beirut) secretly working with Islamic intelligence commanders of several factions, including Saudi Arabia, for the ultimate destruction of both papal and non-papal Christians in Lebanon. As the majority of Bible-reading Christians have been purged from Iraq under the guise of the Order’s “War on Terror,” even so will it be in Lebanon. 2. During the Black Pope’s World War I, the Masonically-ruled, Islamic

Ottoman Empire would be defeated and dismembered after Jesuit Temporal Coadjutors Sultan Abdul Hamid II and Kaiser Wilhelm II (who had fired anti-Jesuit, Masonic Prince Bismarck) carried out the pope’s Armenian Genocide, murdering nearly two million non-papal Christians via the Grand Orient Lodge’s Masonic “Young Turks.” The tool of the Society of Jesus to bring this massacre to pass was its Masonically-directed, apostate Protestant

2

British Empire (ruled by Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor and Knight of Malta King George V), which Empire had also been slated for ultimate destruction. Jerusalem would now be taken from the Moslems, or rather given away by the Order’s Masonic Sultan in 1917 (the Sultan’s “defenders” of Jerusalem surrendering the city to Masonic British General Allenby without firing a shot!), to be under the military power of Britain until Israel’s War of Independence (conveniently aided through a military “mistake” by Haj Amin al-Husseini, Masonic commander of Palestine’s Arab Moslems) in 1948. According to James A. Wylie’s The History of Protestantism, Volume II, Book 15, page 386, Loyola’s first quest was to take Jerusalem from the Moslems: “The war in which Loyola and his nine companions enrolled themselves, when on the 15th of August, 1534, they made their vow in the Church of Montmartre, was to be waged against the Saracens of the East.” [Emphasis added] Clearly, Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus, fully intended to reclaim Jerusalem for the pope as did every Crusade during the Dark Ages, save the First Crusade. In fact, the two cities preeminent in the mind of every Jesuit professed of the Fourth Vow are Jerusalem and Babylon. Rome is merely the base of operations until the Order can move its commercial capital from London to a rebuilt Babylon (Revelation 18), and its religious capital from Rome (Revelation 17) to Jerusalem (II Thessalonians 2:3-4) hosting a rebuilt Hebrew Temple in its midst (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15). At the time of World War I, both cities were within the jurisdiction of Islam’s Ottoman Empire. Therefore, it had to be broken up if Solomon’s Hebrew Temple and Babylon were to be rebuilt. The 33rd Degree Freemason and Royal Institute of International Affairs member, which the Black Pope used to divide up the Ottoman Empire, was the arch conspirator in the deliberate sinking of the Lusitania (1915) and the murder of 100,000 White Protestant British soldiers at Gallipoli (1915), Winston Churchill.

3

After the infamous Treaty of Versailles concluded in 1919, the nations of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Turkey, and Palestine (Israel) were created out of the former Ottoman Empire. The Jesuits, via their high Freemasons directing the Versailles conference in Paris, carefully laid the foundations for the future creation of these new nations. Britain would rule Iraq (Babylon), Jordan and Palestine/Israel (Jerusalem). France would rule Lebanon (Beirut) and Syria (Damascus). Thus, we see that the Black Pope used the British Empire (his creature since the tyrannical reign of King George III) to oversee the world’s two most important cities in the eyes of the Order: Jerusalem and Babylon. The building of Jerusalem would commence; but the building of Babylon would have to wait until after this present, American-led Crusade and war of Moslem/Shiite annihilation in Iraq and Iran. Then Babylon could be rebuilt with its precursor in Dubai. Apparently, the Masonic Sunni and Wahhabi leaders subject to Rome (including the Black Pope’s Masonic House of Saud) have united for the destruction of the Shiites (formerly, the greatest Moslem enemies of the Jesuits, their past leaders having expelled the Order from Iraq in 1969), while Shiite leaders of today aid in that murder, betraying their own people into the hands of American crusaders, including the pope’s Knight of Malta-owned, “turkey-shooting,” U.S.-based, Blackwater Group mercenaries. The French Mandate issued at Versailles, based upon the pre-arranged Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916), enabled France to begin occupying Lebanon and Syria. Lebanon became a republic in 1926 and achieved independence in 1943, during World War II. Its first president was a “heretic” Greek Orthodox lawyer and former journalist, Charles Dabbas. He in turn governed the republic that was filled with “accursed heretics,” including nonRoman Catholic Christians slated for “extirpation” pursuant to the Black Pope’s Counter Reformation Council of Trent. They included Maronites and Greek Orthodox; their future murderers would be Sunni and Shiite Moslems

4

acting as the “Sword of the Church.” For that murder to transpire, the French would have to go, as they had been the protectors of all “Christians” within the Ottoman Empire. Since 1943 Lebanon has been an independent republic secretly ruled by the Jesuit Order from their military fortress, St. Joseph’s University in Beirut. The Jesuit Provincial for the Order’s Near East Vice-Province resides in Beirut and is pictured below; the province is composed of Egypt, Lebanon and Syria. Thus, Beirut is the heart of all Jesuit military activity within the nation and region. http://www.companysj.com/v143/meetingpix.html

Fr. Jan Bronsveld, 2007 Jesuit Provincial for the Near East Vice-Province Local Master of Hezbollah and Government of Lebanon Secret Master of Lebanon’s Intelligence Services
5

The most important Jesuit of all, the Provincial for the Near East ViceProvince for eighteen years, was none other than today’s Jesuit General:

Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, 1990s Jesuit Superior General, 1983-Present Provincial, Near East Vice-Province, 1974-1981 Incited Lebanese Civil War in 1975 Ordered to Rome by Jesuit Superior General Pedro Arrupe, 1981
http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=554

We now shall be able to understand the mass-murder of Lebanon’s resident, non-papal Christians at the hands of Rome’s Moslem “warriors for the Church.” This will ultimately bring us to the Black Pope’s creation and temporary backing of Shiite Hezbollah as well as the Masonic Jewish Labor Zionists (ruling the pope’s revived “Kingdom of Jerusalem”—Israel) and

6

thus the Mossad and military commanders of the Israeli Defense Forces. Between these two military powers were the “heretic and liberal,” nonRoman Catholic Christians who were being annihilated in the most recent Israeli-Hezbollah War (2006). Tortured and murdered by Shiite Hezbollah and bombed by the Israeli Defense Forces, the Christians of Southern Lebanon were just more victims of Jesuit military maneuvers, the Black Pope directing both sides of every conflict and thus the resultant diplomatic resolutions. (We see this scenario repeated in Israel over and over again.) The “extirpation” was merely the Council of Trent enforced once again amidst the confusion of Shiite Hezbollah’s rocket attacks into Israel killing another group of “accursed infidels,” the racial Jews within the borders of the land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 15:16-21). Body of Questions In light of the above background, the following questions will be addressed with additional supporting facts: Question 1: “The public impression has been that Iran finances Hezbollah, and that Saudi Arabia financed Saad Hariri and Fath al-Islam. Can you offer convincing, specific evidence that CIA/Saudi Arabia finances Hezbollah?” Response 1: There is no question that CIA/Al Qaeda/Saudi Arabia finances Shiite Hezbollah. The leaders of Hezbollah must follow orders or they will be terminated as was President Kennedy in 1963, as was Hezbollah’s Abbas alMusawi in 1992, as was King Faisal of Saudi Arabia in 1975. (It is most intriguing that Faisal was murdered by a close relative who had just returned from the United States. No doubt, Georgetown University was involved as per the Hollywood American movie/video titled Syriana.)

7

The open but false policy of the CIA is to oppose Shiite Hezbollah
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/10/wleb10.xml) in

support of Lebanon’s Sunni Moslem Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. (Siniora was trained by Jesuit Coadjutors in Beirut at the American University—once the Syrian Protestant College (1866-1920) but now manned by Knight of Malta-directed CIA assets—and was employed at Citibank in New York City, said bank being ruled by the Knights of Malta. (A past head of Citicorp, the holding company for Citibank, was U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and JFK assassin, Knight of Malta William Simon.) Yet the secret but true policy of the Jesuit/Nazi/SMOM-ruled CIA is to back Shiite Hezbollah through Saudi Arabia for the annihilation of all “Christians” (including “liberal” Roman Catholics) in Lebanon. It is most telling to observe that there are no more Jewish communities in Lebanon or Iraq, the poverty-stricken majority Jews having been forced to flee to the pope’s intended Jewish graveyard, Israel. Lebanon is to be a complete and total, political Islamic state, as are Turkey, Egypt, and Syria. No Christian of any stripe is to ever be seated in government if Wahhabi Saudi-financed Shiite Hezbollah and Syria (ruled by Jesuits in Damascus) succeed in fulfilling its mission. Lebanon’s old, antiJesuit, French protectors are gone (the Order being re-admitted into France in 1942 after which, in 1943, Jesuit Coadjutors Henri Petain and Pierre Laval cut loose Lebanon for the future annihilation of Lebanon’s Christians by the Black Pope’s Masonically-led Moslem hordes as was the case in Orthodox Armenia). The Jesuits rule the region via their Provincial in Beirut. With his help, nearby Orthodox Southern Cyprus, now in the European Community, is to be taken back by Turkey as a consolation prize for not being allowed into the pope’s Roman Catholic European Union, thereby evacuating and/or destroying the Greek Orthodox people of Cyprus which destruction began in 1974 at the direction of the pope’s CFR/Knight of Malta “Court Jew,” Henry Kissinger (“Henry Killinger,” as the Cypriots call him). This means the

8

expulsion of the British military and British ex-patriots from Cyprus, and the Islamic-block nations are to be united under the all-seeing eye of the Black Pope’s Jesuit Assistant ruling that Moslem-populated Jesuit Assistancy. (Presently there are ten Jesuit Assistancies in the world.) This united Moslem block will then enter into an alliance with Russia for the purposed invasion of North America at the close of Rome’s Twenty-first Century Crusade. Presently, the Jesuits are “extirpating” the Christians in Lebanon in the same, exact manner as they are “extirpating” the Orthodox Christians in Serbia. Roman Catholic Croats and Moslem Albanians, backed by America’s Jesuit/CFR-directed military and CIA, murdered tens of thousands of Orthodox Serbs in the 1990s. At this moment the Order is using NATO to back the same two factions, the Croats and Albanians, continuing the killing of those most “accursed and obstinate Serbian heretics.” Jesuit Roman Fascism (its greatest military champion being the CFR-ruled U.S. government with two huge fasces on display in the House of Representatives) and Islam work together today to “extirpate all heretics from the face of the earth.” That combination was used to put down the Spanish Republic from 1936 to 1939 via Francisco Franco directed by Cardinal Segura; to murder the Serbs during World War II via Himmler’s SS-directed, Franciscan-led, Croatian Ustashi overseen by Archbishop Stepinac from 1941 to 1945; and to attack the anti-Roman Catholic, Coptic Christian nation of Ethiopia via Mussolini directed by Cardinal Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli, killing 700,000 Black Ethiopians. That extirpation now extends to Lebanon. We now must focus on Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. The Jesuits instituted Wahhabi Islam in the mid-1700s via the British Empire. One of its key operatives within the British Secret Intelligence Service was 33rd Degree Freemason Sir Richard Burton who made a pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina in 1853. By 1932 the British working with Mussolini (whose advisor was the

9

Secretary to the Society of Jesus, Pietro Tacchi-Venturi) established the Order’s oil bonanza within the heart of Islam, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Mussolini, hailed as the “Protector of Islam” in 1937, gave arms and supplies to Saudi Arabia’s first King, Ibn Saud.

Il Duce Benito Mussolini, 1937 Roman Catholic Fascist “Protector of Islam” Advised by Jesuit Pietro Tacchi-Venturi
Saud’s personal advisor was British Intelligence agent and English Knight of Malta Sir John Philby who was himself a Wahhabi Moslem. In 1933, the Saudis gave their oil concession to Standard Oil of California (SOCAL), controlled by the Knights of Malta through Rockefeller
10

ownership. Years later, one of those Knights active in SOCAL would be JFK assassin and CIA Director, John McCone. The 1930s commenced the Order’s quest of hording the world’s gold and oil. The wealth of the once mighty, White Protestant nations of Western Civilization would be redirected into the coffers of Saudi Arabia after the Second Thirty Years’ War (1914-1945). Simultaneously, America’s oil wells would be capped, its Alaskan pipeline would be used for the oil needs of Japan and Americans would pay more at the pumps, further indebting the American Empire to Saudi Arabia, which hates the Lord’s Abrahamic covenant-bound, racial Hebrew/Jewish/Israelites. (Not a single synagogue or Bible-reading church is allowed in the pope’s Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.) The massive wealth directed into Saudi Arabia would then be used to build the commercial powerhouse of Wahhabi-Islamic, Jew-hating Dubai while secretly building an international Masonic Islamic Terrorist Network. That Network would be overseen by the Black Pope’s International Intelligence Community and its money would be laundered through the Order’s International Banking Community. The Black Pope’s International Drug Trade worked by the Sicilian Mafia (overseen by the Archbishop of Palermo) and orchestrated by the Jesuit General’s CIA-led, International, Intelligence Community (including Al Qaeda) and International Crime Syndicate would also be used to finance his Terrorist Network. All the while, those historic White Anglo-Saxon Protestant nations outside of continental Europe (England, Scotland, America, Canada, South Africa, Rhodesia, and Australia)—having abandoned the public honoring of the Reformation English Bible, The Authorized King James Version of 1611—would continue to descend into the status of mere third world nations with huge national debts, no middle class, no individual liberty and treasonous political leaders in the employ of the Vatican thereby returning the Modern Era back to the Dark Ages when the pope was the universal monarch of the world.

11

Saudi Arabia is the bank for Rome’s International Islamic Terrorist Network. (In the 1800s it was the Order’s International Anarchist Terrorist Network, which assassinated at least fifty heads of state, including Tzar Alexander II (1881) and President William McKinley (1901)). If the Jesuits have ruled Saudi Arabia since its inception in 1932; if the Jesuits have directed the CIA since its inception since 1947; and if the Order dictates policy to the Saudi monarchs as it has since King Ibn Saud; if the Company is building its Masonic Islamic International Terrorist Network for the purpose serving as a common enemy to unite Europe under Rome (via the European Community) while using this same CIA-directed Islamic Terrorist Network to financially and culturally destroy apostate Protestant Western Civilization; if the Black Pope’s “oil bonanza” of Saudi Arabia finances Al Qaeda; WHY WOULD THE BLACK POPE NOT SUPPORT SHIITE HEZBOLLAH???? As the covert master of Saudi Arabia, the Black Pope uses his Wahhabi Kingdom to finance his international, Islamic jihadist Crusaders—as secretly intended from the very day of the Kingdom’s creation. Hezbollah is one of the jihadist groups according to Rome’s CFR-controlled U.S. News and World Report. Published on Dec. 15, 2003, we read from “The Saudi Connection,” page 28: “The high-flying Carlyle Group has made fortunes doing deals with the Saudis. Among Carlyle’s top advisers have been former [SMOM] President George H. W. Bush; James Baker, his secretary of state; and [SMOM] Frank Carlucci, a former secretary of defense. If that wasn’t enough, there was the staggering amount of Saudi investment in America—as much as $600 billion in U.S. banks and stock markets.” “That kind of clout may help explain why the House of Saud could be so dismissive of American concerns on terrorism. Official inquiries about bin Laden went unanswered by Riyadh. When Hezbollah terrorists killed 19 U.S. troops with a massive truck bomb at Khobar Towers in Dharhan [Saudi Arabia] in 1996, Saudi officials stonewalled, then shut the FBI out of the investigation.”

12

Thus, CIA/Saudi Arabia finances Hezbollah as it does Al Qaeda. Further, both jihadist factions are controlled by the Moslem Brotherhood which is directed by high, Islamic Freemasons from the Grand Lodges of Cairo and Istanbul. This is never spoken of in any alternative circles. Question 2: “What is the purpose behind the emergence of Fath a-Islam in Lebanon?” Response 2: Fatah al-Islam (“Conquest of Islam”) is a radical Sunni Islamist terrorist group with links to CIA/Al Qaeda. Formed in November of 2006 and led by Palestinian refugee Shaker al-Abssi, it gained notoriety by open combat with Lebanese forces at the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp in May/June of 2007. The pope’s CFR-controlled U.S. government openly classified the group as a terrorist organization, while at this moment there are sixty-two (62) Islamic terrorist training camps on American soil under the covert direction of the CIA/FBI. (This fact was provided to the author by a former Arab Palestinian who was a member of the Moslem Brotherhood and a Palestinian street-fighter in Israel. He is now a Bible-believing Christian and his ministry is to Arab Moslems in America, leading them to the true Lord Jesus Christ of the Reformation Bible.) Al-Abssi was backed by the Syrian government as well as the Lebanese government for the ridiculous reason of “fighting Hezbollah.” Secretly, both Sunni Fatah al-Islam and Shiite Hezbollah work together for the complete Islamic conversion of Lebanon while making incursions into Israel for the killing of racial Jews—as intended by the Jesuit General. The same policy will be used here in the U.S. It is most intriguing to know that U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, a CFR member and 33rd Degree Freemason, and Saudi National Security Advisor Prince Bandar (“Bush”) bin Sultan have provided funding to Fatah al-Islam “to counter” Shiite Hezbollah. The truth is both factions work

13

together at the top via their leaders beholden to the Jesuit Provincial in Beirut as did the leaders of Nicaragua’s Contras and Sandinistas who served the Archbishop of New York City, John Cardinal O’Connor. The Jesuits have used their CFR-controlled U.S. government to openly finance a faction that is intended to lose after its purpose is accomplished. This was done with the anti-communist Hungarian patriots in 1956, the anti-communist Cuban patriots in 1961 at the Bay of Pigs, and the anti-communist Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s. This may also be the case with Fatah al-Islam, built to be betrayed in the future—but this author doubts it. The group is backed by CIA/Al Qaeda, is financed by both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Thus it appears that Fatah al-Islam will be used to continue to draw to the forefront the real, uncontrollable enemies of Rome’s Masonic Jewish Labor Zionists ruling Israel for execution by the CIA/Mossad or IDF, while destabilizing the Lebanese government to the end that Lebanon will not protect its “Christians” of whatever stripe. Question 3: “What is the hierarchy in Beirut?” Response 3: The Jesuit Provincial in Beirut is the man of total power in the region. That man is Jan Bronsveld as previously given. He has the complete support of the Black Pope’s International Intelligence Community, including the CIA, the Mossad and both Lebanese and Syrian Intelligence. Question 4: “Who are the assassins among the Jesuits in Beirut?” Response 4: The assassins in the area can be drawn upon from many factions controlled by the Jesuits. Assassins could be used from any one of the Masonic Islamic terrorist groups, any one of the national intelligence agencies overseen by the Knights of Malta, a member of the Order’s Masonic/SMOM International Crime Syndicate, or “lone nuts” at the disposal of the

14

Company. In any event, no high-level assassination is carried out without a direct order from the Jesuit General advised by his Assistants in Rome. The murders are planned after extensive reports from the General’s Provincials in the region and under the advisement of his Assistants after pointed deliberation. The “Father General’s” Assistant for the region is fully apprised as to every significant event in the Near East Vice-Province by meticulous reports from Jesuit Provincial Bronsveld. Question 5: “What Lebanese politicians work for them (& in what capacity)?” Response 5: The most prominent Lebanese politicians working for the Jesuit Provincial in Beirut are none other than your own Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora (19 July 2005-Present) and President Emile Lahoud (24 November 1998-Present). Siniora is a Sunni Moslem, Lahoud is a Maronite Roman Catholic whose mother was an Armenian from Syria. (According to the Constitution, the President is to be a Maronite Catholic and the Prime Minister is to be a Sunni Moslem.) Lahoud was commander-in-chief of the army and, thus in fact, a military dictator from 1989 to 1998. In 1998 he was elected president and is the only “Christian” head of state in an Arab country. Any opposition to him is eliminated, thanks to Jesuit intrigue via Rome’s intelligence agencies in the region. Former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated by the chiefs of Lebanon’s security forces because he opposed an additional presidential term for Lahoud as backed by the Order’s Masonic President Bashar Assad of Syria, the Jesuits controlling Damascus via Syrian Intelligence. It was reported by the New YorkTimes that Lahoud went swimming on the day of Hariri’s murder. Lahoud is clearly a pawn for Jesuit Provincial Jan Bronsveld and must be removed if Lebanon is to ever be normalized.

15

Siniora is also Jesuit-controlled, he being tied to international finance via the Knights of Malta at Citibank/Citicorp for which reason he has the backing of Skull and Bonesman President George W. Bush (whose father and uncle are both Knights of Malta), the pope’s United Nations and the surrounding Arab countries. He has included the criminal Hezbollah in his government (as per the desires of the Jesuit Provincial) but refuses to have any dealings with General Michael Aoun’s “Free Patriotic Movement.” Aoun is a true Lebanese patriot and is in great danger of being assassinated by an agent of Rome as was ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. General Aoun’s late enemy was the Jesuit-trained President, Elias Hrawi. (As mentioned, Hariri was murdered by Jesuit Coadjutors within Lebanon’s intelligence services, which killing was then blamed on Syria with the secret collusion of the Syrian President. Both Siniora and Lahoud were parties to the assassination and will never be prosecuted for the crime. Meanwhile, the Lebanese people are kept agitated against Syria when their greatest enemies are in Beirut. This same tactic is being used on the American people, they believing that the Moslem world is their enemy when the greatest threat to their personal security and happiness is in Washington, D.C., i.e., Jesuit Georgetown University ruling the CFR/Bush Crime Family in the White House.) Question 6: “Can you outline what is actually taking place in Lebanon and what is the objective for the country.” Response 6: There are several objectives regarding Lebanon. First, it must be a staging base for continued attacks into Israel. Jesuit Coadjutor Shimon Peres is a co-conspirator against the Lord’s beloved Hebrew/Jewish people in Israel, along with Omert, Assad, Lahoud, Siniora, the Saud Dynasty, Abbas (who wrote his doctoral dissertation on the collusion between the Labor Zionists and the Nazis in carrying out the Eurasian Jewish Holocaust—which thesis is true!), not to mention Bush, Blair and Putin and their infamous

16

“Roadmap Policy” designed to purposely bring war into Israel for the destruction of the Moslem Mosques on the pope’s Temple Mount and the killing of thousands of “accursed” Moslems and Jews in Israel. (The author is convinced this is one of the paramount purposes for the pope’s Americanled Crusade against Islam, called a “Crusade” by Bush himself!) For it was the infamous Jesuit Francis Xavier who cried: “Put me in a place where there are no Jews or Moslems.”
{1}

The Second objective to be achieved in Lebanon is the elimination of any true, Bible-based, Christian influence in the land. This will be effected by the Jesuits using their “Sword of the Church,” fanatical Islam. Islam is nothing more than Roman Catholicism for the Arab peoples of color, the half-brothers of racial Jews who also have Biblical promises to inherit. The parallels are striking and once analyzed it becomes evident that the Papacy created Islam to annihilate “heretic” non-papal Christians, “liberal” Roman Catholics and “perfidious” racial Jews. This continues to be Rome’s design and use of Islam (especially with the Black Pope’s CIA-led Masonic Islamic International Terrorist Network), while simultaneously killing millions of Moslems in clearing the way for the building of the third Hebrew Temple for the last and final pope turned “Antichrist” to be worshipped therein sometime after this Crusade is terminated. Therefore, we will continue to see the betrayal of Lebanese Christians by the government of Lebanon (as we presently observe with the Serbian Orthodox Christians) culminating in their murder by the fanatical forces of a Jesuit-ruled, Nazi/CIA/Al Qaeda/Wahhabi Islam which is the secret master of both Sunni and Shiite Moslem leadership. Once enough Shiites have been __________________________________________________________________
1.

Dr. E. Boyd Barrett, Ex-Irish Jesuit, Rome Stoops to Conquer, (New York: Julian Messner, Inc., 1935) p. 180.

17

murdered, Islam will be united under a common banner after the mosques in Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem are brought down by the secret forces of the Jesuit General. (This scenario is portrayed in the movie/video The Order featuring Roman Catholic Jean-Claude van Damme.) Rome will blame her American Empire she fully intends to destroy, just as she destroyed the Third Reich after she had used Hitler to mass-murder the “accursed,” antiCommunist, Russian Orthodox peoples, the “heretic” German Lutheran people, the “heretic and liberal” Protestant peoples of Britain and Europe (especially Czechoslovakia) and the “perfidious” Jews of Eurasia. Question 7: “Who is financing Lebanon?” Response 7: The sponsors of Lebanon are the pope’s international bankers financially controlling America, Britain, Europe and Saudi Arabia. Those bankers include the Chairman of the pope’s Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Ben Bernanke, one of the pope’s “Court Jews.” The Fed extends credit to the U.S. Congress which then gives U.S. foreign aid to Lebanon. This makes Lebanon the servant of the Black Pope’s American Empire. Question 8: “At the end of this email, there is a list of some assassinated Lebanese political figures. Can you offer specific details on who killed any or all of them and why each was killed?” Response 8: I do not have any specific details, but once the reader becomes acquainted with the apparatus of power controlled by the Society of Jesus and its aims, it is relatively easy to deduct why each and every one of the victims listed was assassinated. I shall attempt to add details and the reasons why two leaders were assassinated in addition to former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. This will help the reader establish a formula for finding the answer as to “Who benefits” and “Why.”

18

Bachir Gemayel: former President-Elect, founder of Lebanese Forces, son of Pierre Gemayel, assassinated on September 14, 1982. The author’s “gut feeling” is that he was assassinated for truly opposing the rising power of fanatical Islam in the country, including the PLO. This is true. Gemayel was a Roman Catholic Maronite “Christian” trained by the Jesuits at their St. Joseph University in Beirut. He led a right-wing fascist group of patriots, called the Kataeb Party, which the Jesuit Order, over time, betrayed into the hands of its Moslems. This includes the murder of Elie Hobeika who participated with the Israelis in the massacre of Palestinians in Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in Lebanon (mentioned above on page 13) after the murder of Gemayel in 1982. The same betrayal was done with the leaders of the rightwing Contras in Nicaragua, the right-wing Cubans at the Bay of Pigs, and the right-wing Chinese led by Chiang Kai-shek in 1949. Right-wing Jesuit fascism always loses in the end to its enemies after those fascists kill the peoples targeted by the Order. In this case it was unarmed Palestinian men, women and children in a refugee camp surrounded by the pope’s Israeli Defense Forces. The lesson we learn from Jesuit-trained Bachir Gamayel is that the Jesuit Brotherhood will set up one of their own students who, after graduation, was then placed in a key position of power, only to sacrifice him in the end after his usefulness has been fulfilled. His execution may be the result of disobedience as in the case of Benito Mussolini (who refused to deport the Jews of Rome to Auschwitz due to the influence of his Jewish mistress) and Yitzak Rabin (who refused to consent to making Jerusalem an international city to be shared with Arab Moslems, i.e., “Palestinians”) or merely to placate another enemy faction also under Jesuit domination. Renè Moawad: President for seventeen (17) days (1989). Also trained by Jesuits at St. Joseph University in Beirut, he brought hope seeking to end the civil war that raged from 1975 to 1990. Seemingly a virtuous leader and loved by his people, he said:

19

“There can be no country or dignity without unity of the people, and there can be no unity without agreement, and there can be no agreement without conciliation, and there can be no conciliation without forgiveness and compromise." This, the Jesuit Order would never allow. Hatred must be festered on the side of the Moslems against all “Christians” if Lebanon is to be conquered by Jesuit-directed Islam. He truly could have brought a real peace to Lebanon. Therefore, he was assassinated with a car-bomb killing an additional twenty-three (23) people. His murder was never investigated. The common enemy of Syria was blamed, but it was the Order’s Lebanese Intelligence Services who were at the bottom of the execution. Again, the Order sacrificed one of their own students “for the greater glory of God,” the god who sits in St. Peter’s Chair! As in the case of every political assassination, the intelligence community of that nation carries out the termination order issued by the Black Pope. In this way no truly representative, liberal government ruling for the benefit of the people can ever rise to popular power. So it is in Lebanon today; so it is in the United States of America. This is the conclusion of the author’s analysis and responses to the questions posed by Elias Aoun. The author thanks Mr. Aoun for the opportunity of providing this service and looks forward to many other opportunities of being of aid in resolving the international disorder caused by the Order, the Society of Jesus.

20

Affidavit Power of the Society of Jesus in Russia From Czar Alexander I to the Present I, Eric Jon Phelps, Author of Vatican Assassins: “Wounded In The House Of My Friends”, Third Edition, concerning the history of the ubiquitous, Counter Reformation Society of Jesus in Russia, do solemnly state: 1. That in 1723 AD Czar Peter the Great expelled the Society of Jesus from Orthodox Russia for attempting to usurp the Romanov throne and reduce its citizens to the absolute Temporal Power of the Pope of Rome; 2. That by the mid-Eighteenth Century the power of the Society of Jesus had grown so great, that nearly every monarch in Europe was under the power of a Jesuit confessor or adviser directing affairs of state; 3. That due to this vast Jesuit power employed by the Jesuit Superior General to create commercial monopolies as well as assassinate selected enemies of the Society, be they popes or kings, the Order was expelled from Roman Catholic Portugal in 1759, from Roman Catholic France in 1764, from Roman Catholic Spain in 1767, and from Roman Catholic Malta in 1768; 4. That due to the most powerful European Roman Catholic monarchs, including the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta, expelling the Company of Jesus from their nations and empires, Franciscan Pope Clement XIV, after a four-year investigation, promulgated the lengthy Bull, Dominus ac Redemptor Noster, forever suppressing and extinguishing the Society of Jesus in 1773; 5. That because of the papacy’s suppression of the Society of Jesus, Pope Clement XIV was poisoned with a measured dose of “aquetta,” subjecting the “Vicar of Christ” to excruciating pain and prolonged suffering before he died in 1774;

6. That because of the Order’s suppression throughout the Holy Roman Empire as well as the entire Roman Catholic world, the Society sought and received protection from non-Roman Catholic monarchs. Three of those monarchs (all of whom were racial Germans) were Frederick II “the Great” of Prussia, Protector of the German Lutheran Church; Catherine II “the Great” of Russia, Protector of the Russian Orthodox Church; and King George III, Protector of the English Anglican Church and Protestant Faith of Great Britain; 7. That as a result of the Order’s protection from both Frederick and Catherine, Roman Catholic Poland was partitioned by those monarchs, eliminating the rule of Poland’s Roman Catholic monarch, thereby rendering the pope’s Bull of none effect in that nation, saving the Order’s massive property holdings and treasure from confiscation; 8. That as a result of the Order’s admittance into Russia, the Company established its headquarters therein, and began to plot the neutralization of all anti-papal priests and nuns within the Russian Orthodox Church; 9. That as a result of the Order’s admittance into Russia, the Company sought to usurp and control the power of the Romanov monarchy, proposing to submit both Czar and Orthodox Patriarch to the Temporal Power of a future pope of Rome within the control of the Order; 10. That as a result of the Order’s admittance into Russia, Empress Catherine created the “Pale of Settlement” for Russian Jews, forcing them into a specific geographical region, later to be exterminated by Masonic Jesuit Temporal Coadjutors Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin whose Gestapo and NKVD worked together during World War II; 11. That as a result of the Order’s suppression by Pope Clement XIV, the Company founded a host of other secret societies including the Bavarian Illuminati in 1776; 12. That having founded the Bavarian Illuminati from Ingolstadt College near Munich, Bavaria, the Company used its new occult secret society to consolidate all Masonic power into its hands, thereby creating Illuminized Freemasonry, directed at its apex by the Jesuit General; 2 of 9

13. That having established its invisible power in Russia, Prussia, Poland and England, the Company then launched the Masonic French Revolution and subsequent Napoleonic Wars, taking vengeance on all enemies daring to curtail the power of the Order; 14. That during the Napoleonic Wars, Masonic Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Napoleon Bonaparte I drove the Knights of Malta from Malta, the Order finding refuge in Russia via the power of Czar Paul I, later murdered by the Company for refusing to wage war on Lutheran Germany; 15. That during the time of the Napoleonic Wars, the acting Jesuit General in Russia reduced the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta to his service in anticipation of the Order’s formal restoration by the pope, which restoration would come in 1814; 16. That as a result of Napoleon’s Jesuit War on the Vatican, on the Roman Catholic monarchs of Europe, and on the Protestant nations of Europe, including Germany and the Calvinist Republic of the United Netherlands, Pope Pius VII restored the Society of Jesus to its former power in August of 1814, one month prior to the commencement of the Congress of Vienna that restored the Papal States to the rule of the Pope; 17. That as a result of the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815), the Company of Jesus set out to destroy all constitutional republics, especially the Constitutional Republic of these United States of America, considered to be the font of all anti-divine right and anti-papal movements in Europe; 18. That as a result of the Congress of Vienna and the Order’s quest to control the Romanov monarchy in Russia, Czar Alexander I issued his famous “ukase” in 1820 expelling the Society of Jesus from all the Russias. Knowing the Order would then seek to secretly overthrow his imperial power via Grand Orient Freemasonry, in 1822 Bible-friendly Alexander closed every Masonic lodge in the empire; 19. That as a result of the expulsion of the Society of Jesus from Russia and the closing of all Masonic lodges within the empire, Czar Alexander I was given “the poison cup” in 1825 in accordance with the bloody Fourth Vow taken by the highest of the Professed Jesuits within the Order; 3 of 9

20. That as a result of the Congress of Vienna, the Secret Treaty of Verona was convened by Prussia, Austria and Russia (1822), plotting the overthrow of the Protestant-Calvinist, constitutionally limited, antiabsolute monarchy, government of these United States of America; 21. That as a result of the Secret Treaty of Verona, James Monroe issued his beloved Monroe Doctrine (1823), warning all European Powers to stay out of the Western Hemisphere to the chagrin of the Jesuit Order; 22. That as a result of the Order’s past expulsion from Orthodox Russia by Czars Peter the Great and Alexander I, the Jesuits contrived another means by which it would be able to reduce the Russian Orthodox monarchy and peoples, to the Temporal Power of the Pope now governed by the Jesuit General: that means would be Marxian SocialistCommunism. For the Company had perfected the socialist tenets of Sir Thomas More’s Utopia while the Order had operated its 59 socialistcommunist “Reductions” in Paraguay (1609-1759). These tenets were codified into The Communist Manifesto, its penholder being Masonic Jew Karl Marx, its authors being the Jesuits resident in England; 23. That as a result of the practical effects of Napoleon’s war on papal political tyranny coupled with the preaching of the Reformation Bible throughout Europe and America during the 19th Century, the Jesuit Order was suppressed once again throughout Europe, so much so, the Company has called it “the Century of Disaster;” 24. That during the “Century of Disaster,” the Jesuit Order remained formally expelled from Russia since 1820. Beginning with the reign of the great Alexander II, Russia was beginning to experience political liberty at the hand if her greatest of Czars. But on the day he was to sign a written Constitution limiting the power of the monarchy and abolishing the secret police (the Okhrana), he was assassinated by the Anarchists, hired assassins of the Jesuits, later to murder President McKinley; 25. That as a result of Alexander II’s brutal murder, the assassination having succeeded on the fifth attempt, the only Jew involved in the murder was blamed by successor Alexander III who then launched a bloody pogrom killing tens of thousands of Jews throughout Russia; 4 of 9

26. That as a result of Alexander III’s pogroms, the Order instilled a hatred for the Romanov dynasty in the hearts of Russian Jews. This was necessary as the Order was to use its obedient Masonic Jews to lead the Bolshevik Revolution giving the appearance to the world that Bolshevik Communism was in fact “Jewish Bolshevik Communism;” 27. That as a result of Alexander III’s pogroms, his son and successor, Czar Nicholas II, would launch the bloodiest pogroms in Russian history, further driving the Jews of Russia into the Order’s Bolshevik Communist revolutionary camp; 28. That in preparation for the Order’s overthrow of Orthodox Russia pursuant to the Council of Trent, Moscow being “the Third Rome,” the Jesuits trained their prize student for the task, Josef Stalin. Educated by Roman Catholic Capuchin priests in Gori, Georgia, Stalin was given a scholarship by those priests to attend the Orthodox Tiflis Seminary in Tiflis, Georgia. There, under the tutorship of secret Jesuit, Orthodox Father Demetrius, Stalin was taught the doctrines of Marxian Communism in preparation for the Bolshevik Revolution (1917); 29. That as a result of the Order’s control of Czars Alexander III and Nicolas II, while exciting anti-Czarist fury among the Jews of Russia, the Bolshevik Revolution was a success. From 1920 to 1922 the Order conducted a Bolshevik Civil War throughout Russia, killing off all nationalist resistance led by Orthodox patriots. The Jesuit-led Bolsheviks totally decapitated all leaders within the Russian Orthodox Church who were against the Papacy, over 5,000 priests and nuns losing their lives; 30. That as a result of the successful Red Bolshevik Civil War against the White Russian Orthodox, Masonic President Warren G. Harding gave over 60 million dollars to the Reds in 1922---the same year Stalin readmitted the Jesuits into Russia---further entrenching their rule; 31. That as a result of the successful Red Bolshevik Revolution, Edmund A. Walsh, an American Jesuit priest from Georgetown University, was dispatched to Moscow to negotiate for the Vatican with the Bolsheviks. From 1922 to 1924 Walsh resided in the new, Jesuit slave state of the “USSR” naming Josef Stalin Secretary of the Communist Party; 5 of 9

32. That as a result of the elimination of the Romanov Dynasty and the subordination of the Russian Orthodox clergy, Edmund Walsh, in his Total Empire: The Roots and Progress of World Communism (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1951), page 28, wrote about the Russian Revolution of 1917, that it was, “. . . the most significant single political event in the history of Western civilization since the decline and disappearance of the Roman Empire.”; 33. That the reason Jesuit Edmund Walsh put such tremendous weight upon the success of the Bolshevik Revolution lay in the fact the Order had used its Marxist Socialist-Communism to submit its old enemy, Orthodox Moscow, “the Third Rome,” to the Roman Papal Caesar. Constantinople, “the Second Rome,” had fallen to Rome’s apparent enemy of Islam in 1453 AD, thereby conveniently benefitting the papacy; Moscow, had fallen to Rome’s apparent enemy of Communism in 1917 AD, also conveniently benefitting the papacy, the world in fact to be deprived of the truth that both Islam and Communism are creations of the Vatican; 34. That the Jesuits were now in total control of the Bolshevik Communists ruling the USSR with deadly cruelty, the Julian calendar was replaced with the Gregorian calendar (1917) composed by the Jesuit Christopher Clavius; that every Jewish leader during the Revolution was slowly and systematically executed or murdered save one, Lazar M. Kaganovitch; that Jesuit Coadjutor Josef Stalin launched a murderous inquisition against the Orthodox peoples of the Ukraine, starving from 7 to 10 million people in one year; that the inquisition extended to Protestant Mennonites, Lutherans and Baptists throughout the USSR in accordance with the Black Pope’s Counter Reformation Council of Trent; 35. That the Jesuits were now in control of the USSR, Jesuit Edmund A. Walsh sat in the White House next to his servant, Masonic American President Franklin D. Roosevelt, when the president formally recognized the USSR as a sovereign nation in 1933; 36. That as a result of FDR recognizing the USSR, massive projects were begun by American cartel-capitalists, including Masonic Henry Ford furnishing the Gorky auto plant mechanizing the Soviet War Machine; 6 of 9

37. That because the Jesuit Order plotted to use the White Protestant, Baptist and Roman Catholic Middle Class of its American Empire to build Rome’s Red Communist monster in Moscow, the USSR was made a partner of the Allies during World War II, FDR giving 11.3 billion dollars in Lend Lease funds and materials to Stalin, never to be repaid to the American people; 38. That as a result of the Jesuit Order being in total control of its CFRdirected American government since no later than 1865 with Rome’s assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, FDR gave all of Eastern Europe into the hands of the USSR at the Yalta Conference at the command of Jesuits Harry Hopkins and Averell Harriman, in preparation for the ensuing Cold War Hoax during which the Society of Jesus would use its CIA and KGB to destroy all genuine, Eastern European /Russian Bible-believers as well as all true nationalists, furthering the Order’s quest for world government under a Jesuit-directed Pope of Rome; 39. That during the Pope’s Cold War Hoax (premised upon the hoax of mutual airborne nuclear war as explained in VAIII) the Order’s CFRcontrolled American government provided the financing and technology for the building of the Black Pope’s Soviet War Machine, erecting the Kama River truck factory during the 1970s facilitated by Jesuit Fordham University-trained Knight of Malta William J. Casey before becoming the Director of Rome’s pro-Nazi, Central Intelligence Agency; 40. That upon the conclusion of the Jesuit General’s Second Thirty Years’ War (1914-1945), the American OSS/CIA continued to work together with the Soviet NKVD/KGB throughout the entirety of the Cold War Hoax; that this secret alliance is referred to in the Jesuit Order’s Hollywood Theater release, The Good Shepherd (2006); 41. That during this time of secret, mutual collaboration between the American, Soviet and British intelligence agencies, stupendous acts of treason were committed against the American people, including CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton giving many of the Agency’s top secrets over to Anatoli Golitsin, a Soviet KGB officer in the US. Anthony Cave Brown makes this clear in his Treason in the Blood (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994), page 555: 7 of 9

“Angleton . . . demonstrated his confidence in Golitsin [a supposed defector] by making available to him the CIA files on the personnel of the main operating section of the CIA in the Cold War with Russia, the thousand-odd men and women of the Soviet Division.”; 42. That during the Cold War Hoax, both the American and Soviet intelligence agencies were manned with ex-Nazis, the papacy saving its Nazi Gestapo/SS/SD inquisitional mass-murderers from justice under the guise of fighting either “Communism” in the East or “Capitalism” in the West as proven by author John Loftus in his Unholy Trinity: How the Vatican’s Nazi Networks Betrayed Western Intelligence to the Soviets (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991); 43. That during the Cold War Hoax, former Nazi intelligence chief Reinhard Gehlen ran the West German BND in conjunction with the East German SSD, Stasi. For ex-SS Nazi Hans Felfe, Gehlen’s right-hand man in the BND, also worked for the East German SSD/Stasi for over twenty years; thus, BND Chief Reinhard Gehlen and SSD Chief Marcus Wolf worked together for over twenty years perfecting the East-West united intelligence community subject to the Jesuit Papacy, partitioned Berlin serving as a foremost rendezvous for East-West agencies: 44. That during the Cold War Hoax, Moscow served as a training base for the Jesuit Order’s world revolutionary socialist communists, including Fidel Castro, Michael (“Martin Luther”) King, Yasser Arafat, Jesuittrained Bill Clinton and indeed, president-elect Barry Davis Obama; 45. That during the Pope’s Cold War Hoax the Jesuit Papacy in control of both East and West, was perfecting its internationalist/anti-nationalist socialist-communist revolution; its Unified International Intelligence Community; its International Banking Cartel; its International Mafia Organized Crime Syndicate; its International Drug Trade; its plot to assemble a military coalition of nations to one day attack and subjugate the “heretic and liberal” American peoples, said coalition having been built and financed by the Pope’s CFR-controlled American government; that the culmination of this plot will be a Sino-Soviet-Muslim invasion into North America ending what is left of the Grand and Glorious White Northern European Protestant Reformation; 8 of 9

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK For the COUNTY OF KINGS Index No.: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------x

21948-2012

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse,
-against-

Petitioner,

HAKEEM JEFFRIES ET AL.,, Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

• • •

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR A FOR TRO, PRELIMINARY, INJUNCTION, PROTECTION, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PROHIBITION ORDER Memorandum in support of Order to Show Cause Affidavit in support of Order to Show Cause

Ex 1 – November 9, 2012 duly notified the respondents of COMPLAINT and NOTICE Ex 2 - November 16, 2016 response to NOTICE Joshua Pepper NYS Assistant Attorney General Ex 3 – December 4, 2008 Order and Decision Article 78 Petition Index No.: 2008-29641 Ex 4 – Index No.: 2008-29641 November 3, 2008 proceeding Transcript Ex 5 - October 15, 2012 duly filed a Notice of Release without Consideration Ex 6 – November 14, 2012 Notice of Petition and Verified Petition Ex 7 - November 16, 2012 Affidavit of service of Notice of Petition, Verified Petition and Notice Ex 8 – Donald Trump’s latest November 1, 2012 Press release Ex 9 – Sheriff Arpaio of Maricopa County Arizona with June 12, 2012 Affidavit Ex 10 – Graphics Expert Paul E. Irey work published by the Washington Times on November 19, 2012 Ex 11 – Intelligence Expert testimony by Pamela Barnett that Unvetted Obama Never Had To Undergo Security Clearance Background Check Ex 12 – November 8, 2012 Affidavit of Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III United States Navy Retired Ex 13 – 2005 Private Report to Elias Aoun on those responsible for the assassination of Rafic Baha El Deen Al-Hariri, and June 29, 2010 Affidavit of Eric Jon Phelps entitled Power of the Society of Jesus in Russia From Czar Alexander I to the Present;

Dated:

Brooklyn, New York November ___, 2012

____________________________________ Christopher Earl Strunk in esse, petitioner 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281, Brooklyn, New York 11238. (845) 901-6767 E-mail: chris@strunk.ws

6

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful