SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND DEPARTMENT
_____________________________________________

Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse

Appellant / Plaintiff STATEMENT
Against PURSUANT
TO CPLR 5531
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS etal.

Appellees / Defendants
_____________________________________________

1. The Index Number of this Case in Trial Court is 6500-2011.
2. The Full names of the Original Parties are unchanged.
3. The action was commenced in NYS Supreme Court Kings County Part 27.
4. The action was commenced on 22 March 2011.
5. The Nature of the Case is related to the 2008 presidential election and fraud
associated with it and derives from current active related cases with Index
No.: 29642-2008 and 21948-2012 in NYS Sup. Ct. Kings County Part 43.
6. The appeal is from the 9 December 2013 Decision and Order of Arthur M.
Schack denying the motion to reargue in reconsideration of Sanctions.
7. This appeal is on the Original Record subpoenaed from the County Clerk of
trial court and in the possession of the Clerk of this Appellate Court.





--------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse
Plaintiff / Appellant, APPEAL CASE
-against-
INDEX NO.:
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
J AMES A.WALSH, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chairmen, 2014-00297
EVELYN J . AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P.
PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D.
VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN;
ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P.
DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMÍ COLÓN, in their Official and
individual capacity; Fr. J OSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J .;
Fr. J OSEPH P. PARKES, S.J .; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, J R.;
PETER G. PETERSON, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI;
MARK BRZEZINSKI; J OSEPH R. BIDEN, J R.; SOEBARKAH
(a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II,
a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC
STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES
PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; RÓGER CALERO;
THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J . BRZEZINSKI;
J OHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; J OHN A. BOEHNER;
THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE;
THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE
INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF
THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE;
PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR
AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY
2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; J ohn and J ane Does;
and XYZ Entities.
Defendants / Respondents.



APPELLANT’S APPEAL BRIEF WITH COMBINED APPENDIX


Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 1 of 35


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

Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Sui juris agent debtor trust
transmitting utility ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© Appellant (STRUNK),
being duly sworn. depose and say under penalty of perjury:
Introduction
This third Appellant’s Brief for the appeal 2014-00297 with Notice filed
J anuary 13, 2014 (APX-1) is taken from the 9 December 2013 Decision and Order
(APX-9 thru APX-22) of Arthur M. Schack J SC of Part 27 who denied Plaintiff’s
Motion with CPLR §2221(f) for leave to renew and reargue the prior Decision and
Order dated March 29, 2013 entered by the Clerk of the Court on April 10, 2013
(J udgment), and in support of renewal, requested leave to supplement the
Complaint filed March 22, 2011 with new transactions to conform to evidence by
CPLR §3025(b)(c) and or to transfer to I.A.S. Part 1 in Petition 21948-2012 as
with CPLR §2217(c), and to vacate or modify the J udgment with CPLR §5015(a).
That Plaintiff’s fraud challenge as to the New York State Board of Elections
et al as to state action under color of law is a result of the discovery of their willful
misuse of United States Constitution Article II Section 1 Clause 5 (A2S1C5) as to
the merits of the eligibility requirements for any candidate slate seeking ballot
access and election to the office of President and or Vice President of the United
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 2 of 35


States (POTUS) along with each of those entities or persons materially seeking to
impose candidates onto the New York State ballot in 2008, 2012 and in 2016 as a
continuing harm by State entities that despite being warned of ineligibility in 2008
placed Barack Hussein Obama II aka Barry Soetoro aka SOEBARKAH, aka Steve
Dunham, aka Barry Allen Owens with J oseph R. Biden as a slate, that of J ohn
Sidney McCain III and the Palin slate and the Roger Calero slate onto the ballot at
the 2008 Presidential election cycle; and when all three Presidential candidate
slates were and are never to be eligible as “natural-born Citizens” of the United
States, and that all persons acted with intent of committing misprision of treason in
the commission of willful fraud against the beneficial interest of Plaintiff’s
unalienable rights who along with voters have been denied any remedy available
under law; and as such requires pure equity relief under the maxims of equity here
as if it were a Bill of Particulars for the Appellate Panel and Court embanc to issue
a decree for equity relief. In that the need for a decree by reason of the lack of
POTUS eligibility defines the very existence of the Court in a matter of such
magnitude that has never been a more important case involving grave national
security with the current facts and constellation of parties represented by the nine
attorneys is quite unlike any prior time in our short 230 or so years of history.


Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 3 of 35


Executor Public Officer under martial process in lieu of civilian due process
On 4 March 2014 the Appellate Panel of J ustices PETER B. SKELOS,
THOMAS A. DICKERSON, J OHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL,
issued the Decision and Order M170416 on the Motion by the Appellant, inter
alia, denying provision "for civilian due process of law" on appeals from three
orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County from Case with Index no.: 6500-2011,
dated April 1l, 2012, March 29, 2013, and December 9, 2013, respectively. 12-
5515, 13-6335 and 14-00297. The historical importance of the Decision and Order
M170416, whether to continue under martial process as we have for 81 years under
men or return to civilian due process with our State and Federal Constitutions fully
in force to protect our freedom and unalienable rights under GOD, is front and
center in this third and final Appellant’s Appeal Brief for Appeal 2014-00297 for
consolidated hearing together with Appeal 2012-5515 taken from the Order of
April 11, 2012 filed J une 20, 2013, and Appeal 2013-6335 taken from the Order of
March 29, 2013 filed May 5, 2014 as against all defendants accompanies the
record subpoenaed for each of the Orders for use by the Court in deliberation.
Thus with the 4 March 2014 judicial notice given by Decision and Order
M170416, STRUNK became the duly appointed Executor public officer for the
Express Deed in Trust to the United States of America duly recorded with the
Superior Court of Georgia for Lamar County at BPA BOOK 32 PAGES 716 thru
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 4 of 35


754 on April 29, 2014 at 1:20 PM; and that STRUNK’s duty to the beneficiaries of
the Express Deed in Trust to the United States of America with a claim of
beneficial interest in and over all the public and private real, personal, tangible and
intangible property within the organic UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
geographic border to safeguard and secure for the posterity of WE the People of
the United States of America in the nation given by GOD for securing each private
Citizen’s unalienable rights and beneficial interest in pursuit of life liberty and
happiness in perpetuity, and with the Executor and Beneficiaries duty to the DEED
in TRUST shall guarantee that all incumbents and future candidate(s) for the
Office of President or Vice President of the United States (POTUS) shall be a
bonafide Natural-Born Citizen (NBC) private citizen of the United States agent
who is surety no more to the Debtor Trust Entity in compliance with the
Constitution for the United States Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 (A2S1C5), either
under 12 USC 95 with 50 USC App. 5(b) and related law with the Military
Government authority of the renewed annual National Emergency or otherwise
civil process.
Statement of the Case on Appeal
That were Plaintiff / Appellant on the merits found not to be as the Court
alleges in the subject Decision and Order shown at APX 16 paragraph 3 as quote
“fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational and baseless claims about defendants is
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 5 of 35


frivolous” then, now or in the future as Plaintiff was adjudged by Arthur M.
Schack J SC at the Trial court level with Kings County Index no: 6500-2011 on
April 11, 2012, 29 March 2013 and again reaffirmed 9 December 2013 then this
Court must reverse the outrageous decisions and return this matter to trial court
with a new unbiased J ustice for further litigation, for this matter is not going away
anytime soon; and notwithstanding whether New York regards treason and sedition
per se as do other states of the several states, is a sacred Federal obligation of duty.
Summary of Judgment regarding Decision & Order of 9 December 2013
That although the Court granted fees and expenses for all Defendants’
Counsels, only three of nine Defendants’ Counsel applied for reimbursement of
$167,707.88 to Defendants’’ Counsel plus $10,000 to the Lawyer’s Fund for Client
protection for a grand total of $177,707.88 due within 30 days as follows:
• McGuire Woods LLP counsel to Defendants ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ
BRZEZINSKI, MARK BRZEZINSKI and IAN J . BRZEZINSKI in the
total money amount of $75,600.00 for attorney fees and $2,446.74 for
disbursements for a total of $78,156.74
• SIMPSON THATCHER & BARTLETT LLP representing PETER
GEORGE PETERSON in regards to the total money amount of
$72,696.39 for attorney fees, $4,610.00 for time of support staff, and
$6,657.39 for disbursements for a total of $82,943.64;
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 6 of 35


• The New York State Attorney General in the absence of any appearance
of the named State Defendants appearing alone had expended 17.62
hours in conjunction with this case requesting a $375 per hour for time
expended and that the Attorney General seeks $6,607.50 as part of the
direct costs to the State.
• As to the Court Chief Administrator, 22 NYCRR §130-1.3, STRUNK
shall pay a sanction of $10,000.00 for his alleged frivolous conduct to the
Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection, 119 Washington Avenue, Albany,
New York 12210.
• And that STRUNK is denied his right to sue any of the named
Defendants in State Court without first obtaining permission.
New York must comply with Federal Law as to treason and sedition
New York must comply with Federal Law as to treason and sedition upon
notice of those associated with the acts of BARRY SOETORO SOEBARKAH, the
Indonesian born in Kenya using the name BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, must
color New York State actions as follows:
18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or
adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States
or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned
not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and
shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 7 of 35


18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the
commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may
be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the
United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular
State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than seven years, or both. (emphasis by Petitioner) (J une
25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§ 330016(1)(H),Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.) Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 3 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 3,35 Stat.
1088). Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the alternative.
Amendments 1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for
“fined not more than $1,000”. (emphasis by Appellant)

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection
against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or
comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United
States.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy
by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to
oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay
the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or
possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they
shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or
both.

18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty,
necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the
government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory,
District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 8 of 35


therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such
government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such
government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or
publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching
the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any
government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or
assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or
destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a
member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons,
knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or
both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any
department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section,
each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or
both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any
department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to
any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new
members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing
clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

The Trial court in the absence of State provision of law as to treason and sedition,
other than in State Military Law, having been notified of the duty to enforce
Federal law, maliciously violates the express purpose and intent of performance of
duties under law by inaction and or worse cover-up, and the trial court instead
aided and abetted the New York State Attorney General, Governor and fellow
justices to avoid compliance with Federal law regarding forms of treason and
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 9 of 35


sedition for enforcement and stalked Plaintiff STRUNK in an organized fashion to
be singled out for public ridicule and punishment to chill speech.
Discovery after fraud accrual for Amending after 22 March 2011 filing
STRUNK contends that J udge Schack had a duty to dismiss the complaint sui
sponte if He, like J udge Ross for different reasons, by cursory review deemed the
criteria for establishing fraud were not met would give Plaintiff an opportunity to
cure by supplement and or amendment; but instead J udge Schack decided to
grandstand for self aggrandizement, as an ideology to never let an opportunity go
to waste, proceeded to fashion a straw man to ridicule and use Plaintiff as his
example for others nationally who he terms “Birthers” and thereby J udge Schack
became a biased participant and is acknowledged bias accordingly in his decisions
quote:
“Plaintiff STRUNK presents in his complaint fraud accusations that can be,
at best, described as bare assertions. He does not allege that he relied upon
any statements of defendants and fails to allege that he suffered any
pecuniary loss as a result of the statements of any defendant. Actual
pecuniary loss must be alleged in a fraud action. (Dress Shirt Sales, Inc, v
Hotel Murtiniqzle Assoc., 12 NY2d 339, 343 [1963]; Rivera v Wyckoff
Heights Hosp., 184 AD2d 55 8, 56 1 [2d Dept 19921). The mere use of the
word "fraud" in a complaint is not sufficient to comply with the specific
requirements of CPLR 3016(b) that fraud be plead with particularity.
Therefore, plaintiff STRUNK fails to allege the necessary elements for a
fraud cause of action.”

That despite a matter of fraud has a six year statute of limitations with NYS CPLR
213, the 22 March 2011 Complaint was duly filed well within that time limit, and
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 10 of 35


that J udge Schack acknowledged there is an active related case 29642-08; and
despite being told that the case had already been subjected to judicial review by
J udge Schmidt who urged in open court that it be filed separately, but J udge
Schack nevertheless in service of his biased effort to grand stand to ridicule and
hold STRUNK out as an example to other “Birthers” to chill speech, silence
speech and infringe the right to petition for relief from grievances, and as a matter
of State malicious action done to suppress first, fifth, sixth and ninth amendment
rights otherwise protected by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee to
a private citizen of the United States of America, J udge Schack states quote:
“My Kings County Supreme Court colleague, J ustice David Schmidt, in
Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642/08, as cited above, disposed of
that matter, on March 14, 2011, by denying all of plaintiff's motions and
noting that the statute of limitations expired to join necessary parties
President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN. Further, J ustice Schmidt denied
plaintiff an opportunity to file affidavits of service nunc pro tunc and to
amend the complaint.”

The Federal statute of limitations also follows that of CPLR 213 in that regard
according to 28 USC 2401 (b) for a matter accruing within 6 years, just as 42 USC
1983 is for State acts under color of law three years from accrual, Schack states:
“Then, plaintiff STRUNK, eight days later, on March 22, 2011, commenced
the instant action by filing the instant verified complaint. Plaintiff
STRUNK's complaint recites numerous baseless allegations about President
OBAMA. These allegations are familiar to anyone who follows the "birther"
movement: President OBAMA is not a "natural born" citizen of the United
States; the President is a radical Muslim; the President's Hawaiian
Certificate of Live Birth does not prove that he was born in Hawaii; and,
President OBAMA is actually a citizen of Indonesia, the United Kingdom,
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 11 of 35


Kenya, or all of the above. In my April 11, 2012 decision and order, at * 14,
I noted that: "[a] complaint containing as it does both factual allegations and
legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis" and
"embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful
factual allegation." (Neitzke v Williams, 490 US 319, 325 [1989]). Then,
plaintiff STRUNK, eight days later, on March 22, 2011, commenced the
instant action by filing the instant verified complaint.

“Plaintiff STRUNK's complaint recites numerous baseless allegations about
President OBAMA. These allegations are familiar to anyone who follows
the "birther" movement: President OBAMA is not a "naturalborn" citizen of
the United States; the President is a radical Muslim; the President's
Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth does not prove that he was born in
Hawaii; and, President OBAMA is actually a citizen of Indonesia, the
United Kingdom, Kenya, or all of the above. In my April 11, 2012 decision
and order, at * 14, I noted that: "[a] complaint containing as it does both
factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an
arguable basis" and "embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but
also the fanciful factual allegation." (Neitzke v Williams, 490 US 319, 325
[1989]).”

That J ustice Schack’s proclivity to grandstand for self aggrandizement with
his social justice tactics, declares the absence of truth that the end is justified by
any means necessary, ridicules his opposition as the “Birthers”. That in effect
Arthur M. Schack as a member of “high culture” practices a form of "Organized
stalking", in the current-day sense, is surveillance and harassment of a designated
target by stalker members of networked groups
( ) 1
.


1
Organized stalking has three essential elements: •Organized stalking is harassment by a
substantial number of people, not by an obsessed single stalker, nor by helpers recruited by an
obsessed single stalker. •Organized stalking group members are given targets' names and/or
have the target identified for them; they do not usually know the target beforehand. •Organized
stalking community groups are tightly networked with stalking groups in other communities.

Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 12 of 35


Standard of evidence regarding scheme to defraud
That Plaintiff / Appellant in this civil case is to be based on a clear and
convincing standard of evidence that has been met by a plaintiff to win a civil
action that was elevated since 22 March 2011 from a preponderance standard, and
that such clear and convincing evidence of fraud that applies to the third standard
of proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt used in criminal cases and very few civil
cases. But since 27 April 2011 is now proven that Barack Hussein Obama II has
committed several crimes of fraud.
It is my understanding that in a civil case, a plaintiff has a duty of good faith,
the burden of proving the facts and claims asserted in the complaint. When a party
has the Burden of Proof, the party must present, through testimony and exhibits,
enough evidence to support the claim. The amount of evidence required varies
from claim to claim. For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary
standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence. A
third standard, proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, is used in criminal cases and
very few civil cases, it necessary to take into account absent any indictment.
It is my understanding under the circumstance of the ongoing crime of
concealment and spoliation that has been proven the quantum of evidence that
constitutes a preponderance cannot be reduced to a simple formula. A
preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 13 of 35


more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult
to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition
serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant
has carried his or her burden of proof.
Plaintiff contends that the majority of civil claims are subjected to a
preponderance of evidence standard and are however, as of right reasonably to be
granted the opportunity to amend and or supplement the complaint in order to
perfect the complaint to a clear and convincing standard of evidence as to fraud
was denied plaintiff by the court. That if a court or legislature seeks to make a civil
claim more difficult to prove, it may raise the evidentiary standard to one of clear
and convincing evidence with the opportunity to supplement and or amend the
Complaint. That although under some circumstances use of the low preponderance
of evidence standard may be a violation of constitutional rights this complaint
involves a constitutional tort of gigantic proportions with a cover-up, concealment
and spoliation involved that requires a closer scrutiny of review for justice to be
done. The Court has a burden to allow plaintiff to show “clear and convincing
evidence” refers to more than a mere preponderance but something just short of
conclusive (which would be more tantamount to the “beyond a reasonable doubt”
burden used in criminal cases). However, in reality with the presence of crimes
committed and the refusal politically of those charged with enforcement refuse, the
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 14 of 35


“clear and convincing” burden of proof that generally requires proof which leaves
no reasonable doubt concerning the truth of matters in a civil at issue must stand.
This higher burden is generally employed when the alleged offense has
special elements to establish, such as in a claim for fraud, with usurpation of the
Office of POTUS and in which State non / mis / malfeasance under colour of law
applies combined with gross negligence in application and administration of law.
In these and other cases, the stakes at risk are high and that the defending party
must show a potential lose of a substantial benefit, property, and reverse as a
matter of equal protection especially applies to Plaintiff’s personal or fundamental
liberty such as those protected under the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth
Amendments applicable herein.
As for the preponderance of proof required to file in the Federal case
wherein it was deemed in the wrong jurisdiction in that Federal elections are a duty
of the State per se that in the matter of the case filed in forma pauperus that went
before J udge Allyne Ross of the Eastern District of New York with case 08cv4289
that the trial court dismissed sui sponte as being frivolous only as to Federal
matters but as to State matters directed Plaintiff seek standing for relief in State
jurisdiction.
That as to a preponderance of prima facie evidence Plaintiff relied upon:
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 15 of 35


• Barack Hussein Obama II in his autobiography “Dreams From My
Father” published by Random House in 1995 advertised the author’s
biography for the purpose of book sales for 15 plus years that stated that
“Barack Obama, the first African American president of the Harvard
Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia.”; and that
Plaintiff had no basis to question the Publisher.
• That Barack Hussein Obama II released a short form Certificate of Live
Birth (COLB) that stated that his father was not a U.S. Citizen however
shows therein He was registered as born in Hawaii that as a matter of
unique Hawaii state practice, as similarly done with Sun Yat-sen having
been born in China, that allows a foreign birth with a Hawaii state
registry that in fact does not negate the veracity of the Publisher
commercial statement for sales;
• That Phil Berg, Esq. had in August 2008 filed a case challenging the
eligibility of Barack Obama regarding A2S1C5 in Federal Court and as
such gave Plaintiff a good faith confidence to do so for New York before
J udge Ross who in fact directed Plaintiff to State jurisdiction as also later
was done with the Federal Court case with Phil Berg Esq. as its plaintiff.
• That the Indonesian school record for Barry Soetoro was published in
August 2008 indicating not only that he has an Indonesian name but was
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 16 of 35


registered with the religion of “Islam” and that his father is Lolo Soetoro;
and by that record it established that Barack Obama had lied under
penalty of perjury when he stated on the application for his Illinois Law
license that he had never had another name became prima facia evidence.
That with the above preponderance of evidence Plaintiff filed an article 78 Petition
29641-08 to determined whether or not there had been a violation of the State
Constitution as to state officers also serving a second paid public officer job as an
elector for a presidential slate too and as an issue of first impression dependent
upon the Petition finding that would become the “law of the case” for the
companion Complaint challenging the State officer electors for the 2008 general
election with Index No.: 29642-08 that is still active nearly six years later and is
the related case to this one on appeal herein; and
That Plaintiff from 2008 through 2011 sought a clear and concise improvement
of the preponderance of evidence by filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request for the passport application records of the alleged mother Stanley Ann
Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama II to find out whether either had a US
Passport during the period 1960 through 1983 and lacking any response at ALL
after several written attempts, which in itself is highly suspicious, I filed the case
on 22 November 2008, Strunk v DOS and DHS USDC DCD 08-cv-2234 (RJ L),
and after spitting much blood in the process on J uly 29, 2010, I received a partial
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 17 of 35


record release from the DOS only, with the allegation from the DOS Counsel that
the records prior to 1968 had been destroyed by order of the General Service
Administration; and I continued my efforts over the next 18 months to discover the
DOS Counsel’s allegation was a complete fabrication, and further proof of
spoliation of evidence in support of suspicion of a crime-----but nevertheless
established clear and convincing evidence that:
• Barry Soetoro was in fact is also named “SOEBARKAH”
• Supposedly according to the DOS, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro never had
a passport in the name of Stanley Ann Dunham and or Stanley Ann Obama,
and the only application established to exist was in the name Stanley Ann
Dunham Soetoro in 1965; notwithstanding alleged to be destroyed;
• And when I sought a “Vaughn Index” (a simple chronological list by date of
all applications during a period) it was denied me by the court as being a
unnecessary interference with DOS methods and security sources;
• However, when Phil Berg himself had later sought a simple affirmation of
such a Vaughn Index that existed for any US Passport for Barack Hussein
Obama II without actually seeking to see a copy of either the “Vaughn
Index” or the actual application record, the response by DOS was that there
is no record of a passport for Barack Hussein Obama II before 1983–
thereby establishing at best that Barack Hussein Obama II traveled to
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 18 of 35


Indonesia with his newly divorced legal mother having legal custody
accompanied her new husband Lolo Soetoro, and that Barack Hussein
Obama II traveled on her passport as a child based upon the divorce decree;
• that the legal mother Stanley Ann Obama having been married in February
1961 to Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (legal father) in Hawaii is proven with
the Hawaiian Court Decree of March 1964 that acknowledged a child,
Barack Hussein Obama II, for whom the legal father was given liberal
visitation despite the divorce and gave legal custody to the mother Stanley
Ann Obama.
• However, after being adopted in Indonesia by Lolo Soetoro, Barack Hussein
Obama II was no longer to be listed on his mother’s passport, and at which
time she amended her own passport on August 13, 1968 removed “Barack
Hussein Obama” / “SOEBARKAH” from it, presumably so that she could
travel separately from her Indonesian citizen son Barry Soetoro
SOEBARKAH.
• That Barry Soetoro (SOEBARKAH) returned to Hawaii from Indonesia
using an Indonesian Passport of his own to live with his Grandparents and
there attended school as a foreign student in Hawaii, California, New York
and Massachusetts using multiple names from that point forward including
at Columbia University with evidence of a crime now under State control;
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 19 of 35


• That in 1977 His Grandmother, the Trust officer in charge of the trust
accounts for the Bank of Hawaii, upon the death of one of its depositors,
born in 1890 overseas and being without issue or ever having filed for
benefits, glommed use of the Social Security number (SSN) for Barry
Soetoro who had attained the age to seek employment and would need to
register with Selective Service with the SSN, done as such in 2008 with false
instruments;
• That Barry Soetoro attended Columbia University, and obtained foreign
student funding assistance; and that such records are in the custody of the
New York State Higher Education Services Corporation that by law may
never release any record without a court order, and can neither confirm nor
deny the existence of a record.
• That Barry Soetoro SOEBARKAH traveled back to Indonesia while
attending Columbia University as part of his studies, and there renewed his
passport in Indonesia before traveling into Pakistan and Afghanistan while
working for Zbigniew Brzezinski.
With the above preponderance of evidence, I went back to J ustice Schmidt
in regards to Complaint for 29642-08 to amend it in regards to the fraud involved
and therein after several attempts was instructed by J ustice Schmidt to just file a
new case, because under oath in the presence of Assistant Attorney General J oel
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 20 of 35


Graber, where I affirmed that in J une 2010 I had just discovered that J ohn Sidney
McCain III was not born in the Canal Zone to US Citizen parents but born in
Colon Republic of Panama that had jurisdiction over Colon under the US / Panama
Treaty not the United States, and therefore as suggested by J ustice Schmidt I filed
a new cause 6500-2011 involving a scheme to defraud plaintiff and voters at the
2008 General Election that among other things is a related case to 29642-08; and
however without $95 to purchase the RJ I myself it fell upon the good faith of the
opposing counsel for a Defendant to not commit perjury and simply state there is a
related case, and that J ohn Sidney McCain III ‘s counsel lied just like his client and
set this whole matter on edge and is an issue before this Court in the first brief for
appeal 12-5515.
Thereafter, as a matter of upgrading the clear and convincing evidence
tantamount to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” criminal standard proof for fraud:
• On December 2012 the purported long form birth certificate was proven by
document expert Paul Edward Irey a forged false instrument with proof
included in the Note of Issue filed Petition 21948-12 active before the
Honorable David I. Schmidt with a pretrial conference scheduled for 11
September 2014.
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 21 of 35


• That in 2013 I discovered that Barry Soetoro SOEBARKAH is a member of
the SUBUD cult founded in Indonesia practicing transgender homosexual
rituals and
• that SUBUD cult has a major presence in Chicago and Hawaii with its leader
by the surname “FUDDY” (now alleged deceased in a mysterious December
2013 plane crash) a non physician put in charge of Hawaii’s Department of
Health who participated in the forgery of the false instrument purported to
be the “long form birth certificate” released by Barack Hussein Obama at the
White House press conference on 27 April 2011;
• That STRUNK has attempted since December 2013 to obtain a certified
copy of the copyright document from the US Copyright Office using an
established Patent, Trademark and Copyright attorney who regularly
practices in Washington; and to date the agency has denied a certified copy
even though it would only cost $30.
• The copyright filed originally said Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
• That since December 4, 2012, Mr. IREY has done further analysis of the
false instrument shown in the Note of Issue for 21948-2012, and confirmed
that there is further proof of a crime that involves the purported CoLB by the
false instrument of J OHANNA SOLANGE SIERRA OK-HEE AN’NEE.
• That on J une 23, 2014 Mr. IREY forwarded to me his expert analysis of the
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 22 of 35


further proof that the same forger did both false instruments of J OHANNA
SOLANGE SIERRA OK-HEE AN’NEE and those of Defendant OBAMA.
• That STRUNK proves that there is a false instrument purported to be the
“Dreams From My Father” copyright of 1995 involving Random House
agents that had been faxed to someone in the US Copyright Office working
with whomever forged or tendered the instrument and that based upon the
anomaly left by the faxed thermal sensitive roll paper “low” red stripe on the
left side of both pages that it had been there before the forger added
certification appliqués that is proven by the stark difference in the before and
after letter / line degradation, and alleges that Barack Hussein Obama II was
born in the USA rather than Kenya.
• That in addition to the proof of the no less than four false instruments, Short
form COLB, two (2) Long Form COLBs, Selective Service form, there is the
glaringly forged copyright form purported to be that of 1995 done by
Random House for “Dreams From My Father” having been faxed (it is
illegal to fax an original application for a copyright) and leaving a signature
of that mechanical operation of low thermal sensitive roll paper, the
document expert Mr. IREY performed an analysis with the same methods
used on all to find a common forger.

Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 23 of 35


Court opposes Definition of “natural-born Citizen” that did not derive
from the term “natural-born Subject”
That remaining at the heart of this case is the fact that the “natural-born
Citizen” clause does NOT derive from the term of art “natural-born Subject”, but
instead was derived from ancient consideration of GOD’s Natural Law as
expressed in Greece by the works of Aristotle and carried forward for use in
Roman law by the works of Cicero.
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.”
( ) 2
It is this definition which was handed down through the

2
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 J owett, 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 mortar-makers, and the
citizens of Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to make
Larissaeans.' Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the 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. (emphasis by appellant)

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
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 24 of 35


millennia through the law of nations and which the Founders and Framers adopted
for the new republic. We also see that the then Supreme Court of the United States
(SCOTUS) in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875) (Minor)
(decided after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868) held 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" informed that a person who became a
citizen by being born in the country to “citizen” parents was known 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 J ustice J ames 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.” J ames Wilson, 1st commentaries

in tribes many metics, both strangers and slaves. The doubt in these cases is, not who is,
but whether he who is ought to be a citizen; and there will still be a furthering the state,
whether a certain act is or is not an act of the state; for what ought not to be is what is
false. Now, there are some who hold office, and yet ought not to hold office, whom we
describe as ruling, but ruling unjustly. And the citizen was defined by the fact of his
holding some kind of rule or office- he who holds a judicial or legislative office fulfills
our definition of a citizen. It is evident, therefore, that the citizens about whom the doubt
has arisen must be called citizens.” …http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html .

Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 25 of 35


on the Constitution. Here we clearly see Wilson referring to what could only be a
“natural born Citizen” as "the son of a citizen."
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. J efferson 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
( ) 3
and seen the clause “natural born
Citizen.” This shows that they did not need to borrow the clause from English
common law’s “natural born subject.” Rather, they had sources that they read
which contained the exact clause, “natural born Citizen,” 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 world-

3
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
ustoms of the Romans 210 (6th ed. corrected 1807). Cicero wrote in A Proposal: c

“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). (emphasis by appellant)
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 26 of 35


renowned, 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, J r. 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).
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 27 of 35


Court erroneously maintains 14
th
Amendment of 1868 supplants A2S1C5
“natural-born Citizen” with “born a citizen”.
Also central to the errors by the Court is that J udge Schack continues to
contend that the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment somehow amends the term of art
“natural-born Citizen” and he is absolutely wrong. The status of de jure Private
American citizenship of the United States, federal citizenship, is secured by Article
IV, Section 2, and merely broadened into national citizenship by Section 1 of the
14
th
Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, and with the
amendment is meant to overthrow the liberties of Private Citizens of the United
States by imposing a State-created, statutory, de facto Public U.S. citizenship.
That the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has clearly defined
the term of art in case decisions before and after the enactment of the Fourteenth
Amendment that show that the “natural born Citizen” clause remains unchanged:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
“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.”
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

“Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and
her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 28 of 35


a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the
time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until
December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear.
If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by
election a citizen of South Carolina. 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. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this
is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the
death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast,
incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was
not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.”

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

“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 society cannot perpetuate itself
otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow
the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to
be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for
if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and
not his country. . . .”

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

“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.”

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 29 of 35


“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.”
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the
United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S.
soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost
if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that
upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to
return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that
she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision
that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the
USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

"But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of
complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground
that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below,
properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the
defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S.
227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born
citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree
should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The
decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the
Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would
simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg
had lost her American citizenship."

The SCOTUS has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other
category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”


Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 30 of 35


Arguments in support of remand to Part 43 instead of Part 27
Let me be quite clear to this court, Barack Hussein Obama II is not natural
born in the USA of US Citizen parents not even of one US Citizen, HE is by birth
to his legal Kenyan Muslim Father a Muslim of a Muslim Indonesian mother as yet
unknown by name, and that by practice upon His adoption by the Indonesian
Muslim Lolo Soetoro, where HE remains an Indonesian citizen and has never
renounced such citizenship to be a U.S. Citizen (unlike Senator Cruz who has
renounced his Canadian citizenship recently), and HE publicly expresses with his
Arabic inscribed Islamic ring that He remains wedded to political Islam; and
further as a radical Muslim beyond the fact of his Freemasonic 32
rd
level endorsed
by Prince Hall Mason Colin Powell right before the 2008 election, HE is a member
of the Muslim Brotherhood International and Islamic SUBUD Cult through his
training in Indonesia and glaringly provides the basis for collaboration with his
fellow Islamist Muslim Brother Fethullah Gülen of Turkey (living in the
Pennsylvania Poconos), whose members are afforded carte blanch entry and
employment in the White House since 2009 (thanks to Fr. Thomas Michel SJ ); and
together these Muslim Brothers use J ihadist principles of “Sword, word, pen and
donation” a malicious practice of al Takia for enemy deception mandated by the
Koran, to the end of establishing the global Caliphate, and whose every act to
imperil the USA – British Special Relationship is to reverse the efforts of Winston
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 31 of 35


Churchill and Thomas Edward Lawrence who having defeated the Kaiser’s
Ottoman Caliphate ally redrew Mideast borders in 1921, and that Obama having
banished Churchill’s Bust from the White House, in J une 2009 ordered
reinstatement of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization (banned
since the murder of Anwar Sadat); and together Deutscher Verteidigungs der
Dienst (DVD) agents Obama, Biden, Soros, Peterson, Pritzker, Pelosi, named
Brzezinski Defendants, J ohn S. McCain III and others under the direction of papa
Bush 41, the DVD Obermeister Fuhrer, who while operating with the Correa
Group of Frankfurt West Germany previously under the Allen and J ohn Dulles
brothers and the General Operations Group 2 (GO2) in London with the General
Reinhart Gehlen Organization, succeeded Dwight Eisenhower before him; and
ALL presently act to overthrow the USA secular allies in Africa and Mideast
nations using the sinister malice of fellow J ihadist J ohn O. Brennan who according
to retired FBI Agent J ohn Guandola confirmed
( ) 4
that Fordham J esuit trained

4
“Mr. Brennan did convert to Islam when he served in an official capacity on the behalf of the
United States in Saudi Arabia,” Guandolo told interviewer and radio host Tom Trento.
Guandolo, who retired from the FBI in 2008, told the United States Trento Radio Show
Brennan without a doubt converted to Islam in Saudi Arabia and visited Mecca and Medina
during the hajj season along with Saudi officials. He went on to say that these Saudi officials
may have been that catalyst to Brennan’s conversion.
“That fact alone is not what is most disturbing,” Guandolo continued. “His conversion to
Islam was the culmination of a counterintelligence operation against him to recruit him. The fact
that foreign intelligence service operatives recruited Mr. Brennan when he was in a very
sensitive and senior U.S. government position in a foreign country means that he either a traitor
… [or] he has the inability to discern and understand how to walk in those kinds of
environments, which makes him completely unfit to be the director of Central Intelligence.”
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 32 of 35


coadjutor J ohn Owen Brennan, from 1996 through 1999 while the CIA Station
Chief in Riyadh Saudi Arabia converted to Wahhabi Islam, and who by his own
admission made the Hadj to Mecca, an act reserved for practicing Muslims under
penalty of death; then served from 1999 to 2001 as Chief of Staff to George Tenet
preparing for Saudi involvement in the September 11, 2001 attack on the USA; and
who was Obama’s first choice for DCI rather than Papal Knight Leon Panetta
leveraged into office by Hillary Clinton instead using DNA blackmail evidence
controlled by the CIA / DIA / NSA -- that Obama was born in Kenya.
Plaintiff contends with more than ample proof shows that because of
Defendants’ acts from before the 2008 general election and thereafter until the
present the scheme to defraud Plaintiff and the people of the State of New York
along with the posterity of the sovereign people of the United States of America
for whom this Executor represents as a public officer, and who has been
outrageously harmed by this massive fraud in our 230 year history bar none.
That Plaintiff Executor has accumulated damages financial and personal far
exceeding anyone else in the state of New York bar none and ranks in the top ten
nationally for those who upon my observation of Arthur M. Schack’s practice of
Social J ustice doctrine that really springs from the Secret Instructions of the Jesuits
printed verbatim from the London copy of 1725 and republished without the Latin

- See more at: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/islam/did-john-brennan-convert-islam-
being-picked-president-obama-new-cia-chief#sthash.jtu8f7sP.dpuf

Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 33 of 35


text in Princeton, New J ersey by J . & T. Simpson in 1831, that as a matter of
overthrowing the liberties of the United States was plotted during the Congress of
Vienna (1814-1815) and the subsequent Secret Treaty of Verona (1822) because of
which President J ames Monroe issued his “Monroe Doctrine” (1823)—and for
which he was poisoned on J uly 4, 1831, and that American inventor Samuel F. B.
Morse warned of this diabolical J esuit Conspiracy against America in his work,
Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States, published in 1835.
Conclusion in support of Relief
Based upon the record subpoenaed and delivered to the Clerk of this Court as a
record associated with matters of elections law with willful fraud perpetrated upon
Plaintiff, and heretofore, there has not been any legal relief or remedy for Plaintiff
or anyone else in the Country either in Federal or State jurisdiction in the matter of
the usurpation of the Office of POTUS, that this is a matter of grave national
security involving high crimes outrageously ignored by Federal / State judges and
State authorities despite notice of misprision of treason.
That Appellant wishes pure equity remedy herein pursuant to the Bill of
Particulars expressed in the 13-6335 Brief that would include sealing this case and
issuing subpoenas and testimony for a broad solution decree under the maxims of
equity and Appellant wishes further and different relief this Panel deems necessary
for complete justice including affording oral argument and sur-reply.
Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 – Page 34 of 35


APPELLANT’S COMBINED 22 page APPEAL APPENDIX for
Appeal 2014-00297 after the Brief J urat page 35

That the original record of the case 6500-2011 associated with the ORDERs of
April 11, 2012, March 29, 2013 and December 9, 2013 were subpoenaed and were
delivered to the Clerk of the Appellate Court for the Second J udicial Department

APPELLANT’S COMBINED 22 page APPEAL APPENDIX

In addition to the original record on appeal with the Clerk of the Court The
Abbreviated APPENDIX is annexed herewith that includes:
• The Notice of Appeal from the Order of 9 December 2013.………….Apx 1
• Request for Appellate Division Intervention…………………………...Apx 3
• The Decision and Order of 9 December 2013………….…………..….Apx 9

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful