You are on page 1of 577

------------~

----- ----

-™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue, PMB 102
Brooklyn New York Zipcode excepted [11217]
Phone: 718-414-3760 Email: suretynomore@gmail.com
To : The Clerk of the Court
for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
In Re: STRUNK v. DRUSKIN ETAL USCA 2nd Circuit Appeal Case 15-3199
Subject: "T-1080" MOTION FOR APPELLANT'S

AF..FIRMATION IN SUPPORT
OF RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER GRANTING THE SUMMARY
AFFIRMATION IN LIEU OF THE EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED HEARING OF APPEAL UNDER SEAL WITH
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
ON LAW AND PARTY STATUS WITH IRREPARABLE HARM TO
STATUS QUO AND PROPERTY
Dear Clerk of the Court,
I, Christopher Earl Strunk am the undersigned Complainant Movant in the referenced
appeal case file hereby the Original and three copies of the Subject Emergency Motion.
The Affidavit of Service on opposing counsels is attached herewith.

Respectfully submitted by:

Dated: December

'2,~, 2015

__,.-{

Brooklyn New York

'-...._
Christo
·· arl Strunk in esse Sui juris Beneficiary Agent and
Attorney in fact for ™CHRISTOPHER EARL ST~_YNK©
(_-

...__

-~

~, ~~

-.--

(.f)c-_

rr: ~ · ::

-- .

---- =-'
·-· i._:-;;
1"f
;1 -'
-j )) -:r
..
~

f"--.,.)

::::::>
CJ"""

,.,

\_:)

CJ

1'-.)

w

)

-t
..

-o

3:::

(.J1
,.

,_
0:::

·:u
,;

~

·-""'",

' r
....f.,

--..
!

,.
I

:-:J

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Strunk v. DRUSKIN ETAL USCA Appeal No. 15-3199

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I Christopher Earl Strunk hereby certify under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 1746:
that on 23 December 2015, I served a true conformed copy of the 22 December 2015 affirmation for
the "T-1 080" Motion for Reconsideration of the Order to grant the Summary Affirmance to be served by
United States Postal Service in a properly addressed envelope w/proper postage w/ "URGENT LEGAL
PAPERS" on the envelope - for delivery upon:
I

BENJAMIN J. TORRANCE Assistant U.S.
LAURELS. EINSTERSTOCK ESQ. of Counsel
Attorney for
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
SARA L. SHUDOFSKY Chief, Civil Division for 666 FIFTH AVENUE, 26TH FLOOR
the Honorable PREET BHARARA US ATTORNEY NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10103
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office LAWRENCE S. ELBAUM ESQ. of Counsel
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
86 Chambers Street I 3rd Floor
New York City, NY 10007
666 FIFTH AVENUE, 26TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10103
TALIA KRAEMER, Assistant U.S. Attorney for
SARA L. SHUDOFSKY Chief, Civil Division for Mary Jo White, Chairwoman
the Honorable PREET BHARARA US ATTORNEY The Secw-ity and Exchange Commission
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SEC Headquarters
Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office 100 F Street, NE
Washington, DC 20549
86 Chambers Street I 3rd Floor
New York City, NY 10007
Benjamin M. Lawsky Superintendent
New York State Department of Financial Services
One Commerce Plaza
Albany, NY 12257

Dated:December~2015 ~
@
--"'=:. . . . .
Brooklyn, N.Y.

_ _ _ _ _ __

Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris Beneficiary
Agent and Attorney in fact for
™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
c/o 315 Flatbush A venue, PMB 102
Brooklyn New York Zipcode excepted [11217]
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email: suretvnomore@gmail.com

r'I

f

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

:IRCUIT

----- -

Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courtho::TI:~;:R:::::,N::::~:v 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500

DocketNumber{s):

!

S~:::

15-3199 in re SONY 15-cv-6817 (JPO)

Caption [uscshorttitleJ

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
Plaintiff/Appellant
Summary Affirmance in lieu of declaratory judgment on law and

Motion for: Motion to Reconsider the Order granting Appellees'

versus

party status with irreparable harm to status quo and property.

ROBERT DRUSKIN, JOHN KOSKINEN, JACOB
JOSEPH LEW and BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II

Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought;
Reconsideration of the Order Granting the Summary Affirmance in ll9U o[ Oedatatocy Judgement
en !halllwand slah>sM ablltll<lngmallcr\l!lll!fi5D USCApp. 9, 17. 32. 33 Ul\dai'12USC95: 51lUSAC App. S{bl

Um telllf)Omry Mlfilary Govemrtmnt Truslees wilh no tess than 39 annual ongol!lll cmefll"'lcios that hold'·' ,.••

J

-.

_.t - - -

.

.

. .

.

inolvldual fillutiMy breach Wtlh p!lJilel'ty c;ooversion, andttau,d l!y Ttustec~ Wilt!out immunity,
... "~Wet~
.
··.;
:.
~

~

~ ···· ·--·

·:;

""··~..

i~ ~.

.r;:;-

MOVINE:r..'::~•c,..sroPHERI¥~:::,~4\,;o(,. .~~,;i;a,:;; QPJ>OsmG PARTY' ,_,,__us.,...,.,,.;:;.,.,."'"""""'"""'

l

[l}Appellant!Petitioncr
MOVlNG ATTORNEY:

.

~\~pcll~elRespo~d1t1t::. ·',

,.

Chris~opb~t'E~rl'~tr~nk, beneficiary agent

,OPPOSfNG ATIORNEY:

TALIA KRAEMER AUSA, BENJAMIN H. TORRANCE AUSA

(name of attorney,,with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]

c/o 315 Ffatbush Avenue - PMB 102

c/o Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office

Brooklyn, New York 11217

86 Chambers Street I 3rd Floor; New Y ark, NY 10007

718-414-3760 I suretynomore@gmail.com

(212) 637-2800 USANYS.SDNYWebmaster@usdoj.gov

Court-Judge/Agency appealed from: USDC SONY- JAMES PAUL OETKEN USDJ's sui sponte Orders to dismiss and deny seal
Please check nppropriate boxes:

Has movant noti~opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27. 1):

0

Yesl{JNo (explain):._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS. MOTIONS FOR STA \'SAND
INJUNCTIONS PENDlNG APPEAL:
Yes [i]Nt)
Has request tbr relief been made below'?
Yes [ll No
Has this relief been previously ought in this Court?
Requested return daie and explanation of emergency: _ _ _ _ _ _ __

a

Opposin~unsel's

position on motiop.:
UnopposedOJpposed [l):>on't Know
Does opposing counsel intend to file a respunsc:
Yes []No 0>on't Know

U

0

Is oral argu1nent on motion requested?

0vcs 0No

(tequests for oral argument wilt not necessarily be granted)

~Other [Auach proofofse:rvicc)
Form T-1080 (rev. 12-13}

15-3199
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
__________________________________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
Plaintiff / Appellant
vs.
ROBERT DRUSKIN, JOHN KOSKINEN,
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, BARACK HUSSEIN
OBAMA II,
Defendants / Appellees.
__________________________________________________________________
APPELLANT'S AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION
OF THE ORDER GRANTING THE SUMMARY AFFIRMATION IN LIEU
OF THE EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING OF
APPEAL UNDER SEAL WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON LAW AND PARTY STATUS WITH
IRREPARABLE HARM TO STATUS QUO AND PROPERTY
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Appeal taken from the 10 September 2015 sua sponte Order to Dismiss the
Complaint filed 27 August 2015 and denying the Motion to Rehear the Order
"M-49"; and the Order of 29 September 2015 denying the Motion to Reconsider
the Order to Dismiss with Demand for Disqualification of J. PAUL OETKEN
USDJ in USDC SDNY 15-cv-6817
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris Complainant Beneficiary
and agent attorney in fact for
™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© Plaintiff/Appellant
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue - PMB 102
Brooklyn, NY Zip code excepted [11217]
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email suretynomore@gmail.com
 

APPELLANT'S AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION
OF THE ORDER GRANTING THE SUMMARY AFFIRMATION IN LIEU
OF THE EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING OF
APPEAL UNDER SEAL WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON LAW AND PARTY STATUS WITH
IRREPARABLE HARM TO STATUS QUO AND PROPERTY

I, Christopher Earl Strunk, Complainant Beneficiary among the Posterity of Pre1933 Private American National Citizens of the United States (the Posterity Class)
and sole beneficiary agent attorney in fact, the Undersigned, for Business Trust
Organization ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© with trademark registration
pending and germane ("NAME", Plaintiff / Appellant), states and declares under
penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct under 28 USC §1746:
This motion is for reconsideration of the Order granting the Defendants'
Summary Affirmance (see Exhibit A) absent a legal basis under rules must favor
Declaratory equity relief from ongoing irreparable harm. Undersigned restates that
this action poses a 28 USC 1331 "Federal Question" rather than a 28 USC 1346
action that would improperly cast the U.S. as Defendant. When Undersigned began
this action for the benefit of his clients, Undersigned made it quite clear that were
this matter made public initially, this case of original impression would result in
the Judges circling the wagons to defend prior decisions implicated by an
imprudent public decision with use of 50 USC App. 9 and 17 accordingly.
The Federal Question requires that any settlement in the interim be heard
under seal using 28 USC 652d with 12 USC 95a : 50 USC App. 5b; and voilà not

 

to be disappointed, true to form just as Judge Oetken is a material witness to the
crime accomplished by agents of the Red Chinese with the 1999 Gramm-LeachBliley Act repeal of much of the Glass-Steagall Act, a.k.a. the Banking Act of 1933
(48 Stat. 162), Oetken enabled merging of Commercial with Investment Bank /
Red Chinese looting of up till then safely separated private trusts with all of the
names registered in commerce including Undersigned's property as is historically
used in the decennial percapita NAMES in commerce as collateral guarantee for
the National debt since 1933 rather than constitutional money per se, and that the
theft was discovered by the FBI Senior Special Agent (see Exhibit B) that the
investigation of the 2008 DTCC's crafted so-called Derivative / Mortgage collapse
involves the criminal covered up of the Certificates of Birth collateral security
underlying the very risky investment derivatives are used after 1999 by DTCC
Etal. with the perpetrators now also protected by this Panel, the Office of US
Attorney Etal. along with its Jesuit co-adjutor Judge Raymond Joseph Lohier,
Jr. (born December 1, 1965) who while at the office of the U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of New York diligently worked to blame the Wall Street / DTCC
mortgage collapse and collateral schemes on several "Jews" rather than the DTCC /
Knights of Malta competition running the show. Further, in the London Interbank
Offered Rate (LIBOR) criminal cases with Defendant Union Bank of Switzerland
in Washington DC etc. as herein SDNY's United States v. UBS Securities Japan

 

Co. Ltd. Court Docket Number: 3:12-cr-00268-RNC, Undersigned is Amicus in
9th Circuit AM TRUST v UBS AG, Appeal No. 15-15343, that proves the broader
looting theft machination is of DTCC for the Knights of Malta not just the named
trader shills within the DTCC's Self Regulated Organization(s) (SRO) monopoly
structure that rightfully should be on trial but immune from RICO provisions.
The U.S. Government officials and this Panel favor continuation of
undisclosed Trade Secret used by DTCC Etal., choose to infringe Undersigned's
1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 13th Amendment rights otherwise guaranteed exclusively to
a Section 1, 14th Amendment private national citizen of the United States; and
that the Panel and US Attorneys act in furtherance of the involuntary servitude
indenture to the debt collateral under the present set of national emergencies
(shown at APX-33 thru APX-37) annually renewed by the temporary Military
Government commander-in-chief, as usurper must be kept in place for DTCC
operations, is criminally shielded by Officers of the United States despite due
notice to hundreds of Government Officials obligated to act under 18 USC 2381
thru 18 USC 2390 remain silent. Some of the charges against the temporary
Military Government commander-in-chief of occupation are well specified with
court admissible evidence in the Bill of Impeachment (1) prepared by the North
                                                            
1

 Bill of Impeachment with: ARTICLE 1 – Usurpation of the Oval Office via criminal identity
fraud; ARTICLE 2 - Malfeasance, misconduct and abuse of the Oval Office; ARTICLE 3 Aiding and Abetting known enemies of the United States 


 

American Law Center (see Exhibit C); and all of which includes high crimes
described under 18 USC 2381 thru 18 USC 2390, and has infringement of Human
Rights implications protected under the Hague Convention used herein (2). This
national security matter is gravely urgent and will not be heard in the complicit
Administrative forum of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Up until 1965 Undersigned received a certificate of stock ownership and
dividends on investments as would Judges Leval and Cabranes, unlike Judge
Lohier, who are all now deprived of beneficial ownership in favor of the cash flow
created for DTCC and its subsidiaries' that by unregulated fee skimming replaced
the Federal and State Governments as a result of the Congressional repeal of the
documentary taxes, which up until then annually contributed some $300 million of
                                                            
2

Annex to the Convention (HAGUE, II of 29 July 1899 by Entry into Force: 4 September 1900)
REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND [Done at The
Hague 18 October 1907, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the
Netherlands Government, for Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference]
SECTION III MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE
Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile
army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can
be exercised.
Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant,
the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public
order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
Art. 45. It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the
hostile Power.
Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious
convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.
Art. 51. No contribution shall be collected except under a written order, and on the responsibility of
a commander-in-chief. The collection of the said contribution shall only be effected as far as possible
in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence of the taxes in force. For every contribution
a receipt shall be given to the contributors.


 

the more than $130 billion in taxes collected by all governments that consisted
primarily of taxes on the issuance and transfer of corporate stocks and bonds, on
real estate transfers and on mortgages.
The New York State registered Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
(DTCC) is a Holding Company that owns, controls and supports 6 primary wholly
owned Operating Subsidiaries that carry out their orders, to insure the ever
increasing reach and control of the DTCC insulated from scrutiny; subsidiaries are:
a. Depository Trust Company (DTC) (3)
b. National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) (4)
c. Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC) (5)
d. DTCC Solutions, L.L.C.
e. DTCC Deriv/SERV, L.L.C.
f. European Central Counter Party Limited Euro/CCP
                                                            
3

 In 1983, the Depository Trust Company was given Self Regulating Organization status by the
Securities & Exchange Commission, and was one of the acts by the SEC that paved the way for
Wall Street to go black and continue withholding from the Public the reality of the risks posed to
the Public by the Wall Street system.
 
4
 The National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) is a subsidiary of the DTCC and is an
SRO; and as such all Securities Trading in the United States is effectively controlled by the
DTCC. The NSCC clears and settles virtually all Broker To Broker equity, corporate bond and
municipal bond trades in the United States. All Securities in the United States, without the Public
knowing it, are traded between Broker Dealers before the Public has an opportunity to purchase
ANYTHING. The NSCC was incorporated in 1976 to work in tandem with the DTC to
consolidate and handle the clearing and settlement of both Listed and Over The Counter
Securities transactions. This means that these 2 DTCC organizations clear and control all
Securities transactions in the United States; and represents a true Monopoly that has been granted
immunity from prosecution under parts of US Antitrust laws by the US Supreme Court.
 
5
 The Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC), a subsidiary of the DTCC, is an SRO and
contains 2 wholly owned divisions: The first is called the Government Securities Clearing
Corporation (GSCC) and is a Self Regulating Organization; and the second is called the
Mortgage Backed Securities Division (MBSD). And as of May, 2010, the MBSD applied to the
SEC to become a Central Counter Party Servicer which then positions the MBSD to be classified
as an SRO in the future.
 


 

Through the strategically linked set of wholly owned subsidiaries, the DTCC
controls virtually all United States and European Securities Trading in Corporate
Stocks, Municipal Bonds, Derivatives, Government Securities and Residential
Mortgage Backed Securities; and based on its massive trading volumes, the DTCC
effectively controls the majority of all worldwide Securities Trading.
The DTCC is effectively the single most powerful, Government protected
and sanctioned, monopolistic Stock Market controller in the United States and
most of the World; and flowing from the June, 1980 Securities & Exchange
Commission determination that "Clearing Agencies... are essential to
Congressional Policy to reduce the physical movement of Securities Certificates."
Similarly to the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) Clearing
Agencies use proprietary databases that the Public has no legal right to review or
analyze the contents of these databases, and therefore, the Clearing Agency can
operate in the black.
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by Congress and signed
into law by the President, requires all Security Broker Dealers to be Members of at
least one (1) Self Regulating Organization (SRO), and this fact is confirmed by
reviewing 15 USC Section 78f(b)(1) and 15 USC Section 78o3(b)(2), as these
Rules have the FULL endorsement of the SEC and the Federal Government, as the
United States Congress defines SRO Members as:

 

a. Natural persons trading on the floor.
b. The associated Brokerage Firm that employs the floor trader.
c. Any Broker or Dealer who agrees to be regulated and follow the rules.
d. Any Broker or Dealer with whom the Exchange or Association undertakes
to enforce compliance with the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Rules and Regulations thereof and the Rules of the Exchange.
The Federal Government endorses these rules and requires that all Broker
Dealers must follow these Self Generated and Self Regulated rules ONLY; and
that The United States Supreme Court, in Credit Suisse First Boston vs Billing, 426
F3d 130 (2nd Circuit 2005), granted Antitrust law compliance exemption to ALL
Financial SRO. In other words, a Government pardon has been given and
immunity from State and Federal prosecution for crimes has been granted to these
SROs; that in the wake of the Market Crash of 1929, SROs were given the
authority to monitor their own compliance and were given the legal ability, with
economic incentives, to discipline their own noncompliant Members, in other
words, SROs who operate with no external oversight, now control and decide if
any members are to be disciplined.
The 2008 Mortgage / Derivatives crisis cryptically tells us this policy of
letting the foxes guard the henhouse was designed to fail from the outset; and that
SRO are responsible for developing and enforcing their own rules that govern the
legal relationship between SRO Members and their Public customers as SRO are
Gatekeepers. SROs develop minimum standards for listing Securities to create a
reasonable expectation that the Securities will trade in a "Liquid Secondary

 

Market." The Depository Trust Company claims its authority to operate as an SRO
under 15 USC Section 78q1, is another example of the Federal Government
passing legislation which grants powerful people and entities to operate, to the
detriment of the American people, without oversight or the fear of prosecution (6).
The DTCC Global Trading Repository serves as the industries preferred
provider for Global Over The Counter Derivatives reporting, and therefore, the
DTCC becomes an unnamed Co Conspirator in any Racketeering (7).
The Mortgage / Derivatives Crisis of 2008 was directly caused by the
improper and illegal use of Credit Default Swaps and Interest Rate Derivatives;
and it now appears very likely that much of the mortgage related information
homeowner's have been attempting to find all along has been being held in the
black by the DTCC, its Global Trading Repository and its Subsidiaries (8), in the
Economic Collapse in Europe was caused by the use of Equity Derivatives, and i.e.
DTCC is the first organization to receive regulatory approval in Japan to establish
a Trade Depository Bank; and therefore, DTCC determines who trades with Japan.
                                                            
On June 9, 2009, Larry Thompson, the then General Counsel and Managing Director of the
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, urged Congress to make the DTCC the Mandatory Sole
Depositor and SRO for all Over The Counter Derivative Trading; and in 2008, the Over The Counter
Derivatives market had transaction revenues of almost $700 Trillion.

6

7

the DTCC Global Trading Repository holds data on more than 98% of Credit Default Swaps, 70%
of Interest Rate Derivatives and 60% of Equity Derivatives traded Globally.

8

As those of us (Undersigned with Carl E. Person Esq.) attempting to locate and acquire mortgage
documents have apparently been looking in the wrong place and have allowed many of the major
participants in the RICO Fraud to remain thus far untouched by Federal litigation;

 


 

The Federal Government per se as a temporary Military Government under
12 USC 95a : 50 USC App. 5b during the continuing national emergencies
annually renewed cannot survive without the support of the DTCC's Federal
Reserve as a privately owned and controlled financial entity operating under
regulations established by the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury approved by the
temporary Military Government's Commander-in-chief POTUS (9).
The Federal Reserve discloses that it is controlled by its 12 Member Banks
owned and controlled by Cede & Co., as the sole Registered Shareholder, through
its parent holding company the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (10).
The refusal of this Court (and the predecessor District Court) to properly
caption this case as defined by Complainant (wherein the Court stylizes
Complainant as a “Posterit of pre-1993 Private American..." as opposed to a
"Posterity of pre-1933 Private American”) illustrates: a) the inability of the jurists
to comprehend the continuing State of Emergency and corresponding temporary
                                                            
  However, the Federal Government does not control the DTCC's Federal Reserve, because by
design of the per capita collaterized debt structure the Federal Reserve controls the Federal
Government for the DTCC that in effect controls the Federal Government by controlling ALL the
money consumed by the Federal Government.
 
10
  Cede & Co. is the Nominee of the Depository Trust Company through which Cede & Co.
becomes the sole Registered Shareholder of all companies trading securities on Wall Street, and the
Depository Trust Company is a Member of the Federal Reserve, with its parent holding company
being the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, that is by far the largest and singularly most
powerful Member of the Federal Reserve. Therefore, DTCC, through its subsidiaries ACTUALLY
owns the 12 Member Banks of the Federal Reserve, and DTCC is at the apex of the control pyramid
that according to the most recent reports as of the end of 2012, DTCC settled $1.88 Quadrillion in
annual Securities Transactions, ie. $1.88 Quadrillion in Annual Settlements is equivalent to
purchasing the entire United States General Domestic Product every 3 days. 
9


 

military government in place since 1933, whether such inability is due to denial,
the failure of contemporary US law schools, or individual comprehension
limitations; and or b) the complicitness of the jurists in the commission of the
crimes identified herein at the behest of their bosses and ultimately the
commander-in-chief; wherein the remaining Court available to adjudicate matters
as to the actions of the entire temporary military government vis-a-vis the Lieber
Code, the Hague Convention of 1899, and the Hague Convention of 1907 is not the
military administrative Courts which subsumed the predecessor civilian Courts of
the country, but the military circuit itself. Undersigned respectfully urges en bane,
the Panel's reconsideration of its Order granting the Summary Affirmance as the
Emergency Motion for hearing of appeal under seal with preliminary injunction
pending declaratory judgment on law and party status with irreparable harm to
status quo and property is NOT MOOT as the personal property damage continues
while in the sole custody of DTCC Etal. with their fraudulent use of legal title of
.ed's~noncombatant

the NAME violates the rules of

rights.

\

Dated: Decembe/]?,, 2015
Brooklyn, N.Y.
· ·opher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris Beneficiary
Agent and Attorney in fact for
™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
c/o 593 Vanderbilt Avenue, PMB 281
Brooklyn New York Zipcode excepted [11238]
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email: suretynomore@gmail.com
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
10

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

APPELLANT'S AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION
OF THE ORDER GRANTING THE SUMMARY AFFIRMATION IN LIEU
OF THE EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING OF
APPEAL UNDER SEAL WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON LAW AND PARTY STATUS WITH
IRREPARABLE HARM TO STATUS QUO AND PROPERTY
 

Exhibit A

\

S.D.N.Y-N.Y.C.
15-cv-6817
Oetken, J.

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE

SECOND CIRCUIT

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse~ 40 Foley Square,
in the City ofNew York, on the lOth day ofDecember, two thousand fifteen.
Present:
Pierre N. Leva!,
Jose A. Cabranes,
Raymond J. Lohier, Jr.,

Circuit Judges.
Christopher Earl Strunk, Beneficiary among the Posterit of
Pre-1993 Private American National Citizens ofthe
United States, beneficiary agent for Christopher Earl Strunk,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

15-3199

Robert Druskin, Executive Chairman of the Depository Trust &
Clearing Corporation, et al.,

Defondants-Appellees.

Appellant, prose, moves to expedite, for a hearing under seal, for a preliminary injunction, and for
an extension of time to reply. Appellees move for summary affmnance. Upon due
consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that Appellees' motion for summary affirmance is
GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED because it "lacks an arguable basis either in Jaw or in
fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 16-17 (2d Cir.
1995). It is further ORDERED that Appellant's motions are DENIED as moot.

FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

APPELLANT'S AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION
OF THE ORDER GRANTING THE SUMMARY AFFIRMATION IN LIEU
OF THE EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING OF
APPEAL UNDER SEAL WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON LAW AND PARTY STATUS WITH
IRREPARABLE HARM TO STATUS QUO AND PROPERTY
 

Exhibit B

Affidavit
Concerning the Case involving Christopher Earl Strunk
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Case No. 15-3199
I, Eric Jon Phelps, state and declare under penalty of petjury that the following is true and correct
under 28 USC §1746:
My name is Eric Jon Phelps. I am a Private American National Citizen, said citizenship
protected by Section 1 ofthe Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States. I
privately reside in equity within a non-militarily occupied private estate, County of Lebanon, at
203 South Fort Zellers Road. Newmanstown, Pennsylvania I am a Baptist Calvinist minister of
the gospel of the risen Lord Jesus Christ, radio station owner and broadcaster of247world
radio.com., and a teacher of biblical theology as well as American law and history. I hold, what
I call, "Private American National Citizenship classes" every month. The classes span a threeday period as I teach Reformation history, American history, constitutional law and jurisdiction.
In my October class of2014, a student was present that had been an FBI agent for over
thirty years. The agent confided to me in confidence that as a result of the 2008 mortgage crisis,
he/she was assigned to conduct an investigation as to the collateral of all derivatives traded on
the Stock Market. It was discovered that the collateral, the source of all credit extension to the
major banks, were private, Treasury trust fund accounts represented by the Certificates of Live
Births filed with the fifty states and Washington, D.C.
Shocked and aghast, he/she reported this discovery to his/her superiors. Sadly, he/she
was told that it would be in the FBI's best interest for he/her to resign. Further, he/she was
warned that he/she spoke about this to anyone, he/she would be destroyed by ceaseless litigation
and maybe subjected to harassing criminal prosecution.
Upon privately revealing this event to me the agent gave me terms. He/she made it
crystal clear that in no way shall he/she publicly testify to these facts in any public arena So, in
honoring my promise to the agent, I shall not break my trust by disclosing his/her name.
However, I will testify concerning the above event in any arena.
Further affiant sayeth not.

Date:

Qx~[~
Private American National Citizen
Private Citizen and Private Non-Statutory Resident
of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
203 South Fort Zellers Road
Newmanstown, Pennsylvania

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

APPELLANT'S AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION
OF THE ORDER GRANTING THE SUMMARY AFFIRMATION IN LIEU
OF THE EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING OF
APPEAL UNDER SEAL WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON LAW AND PARTY STATUS WITH
IRREPARABLE HARM TO STATUS QUO AND PROPERTY
 

Exhibit C

Articles of Impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama
RESOLVED, That Barack Hussein Obama, acting President of the United States, is impeached
for high crimes and misdemeanorsi, and that the following articles of impeachment to be
exhibited to the Senate:
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST BARACK HUSSEIN
OBAMA, THE ACTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN
MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.
ARTICLE 1 – Usurpation of the Oval Office via criminal identity fraud
Compelling prima facie evidence exists which demonstrates that Barack Hussein Obama has
engaged in false personationii and aggravated identity theft and in conspiracy to commit false
personation and identity theft in the pursuit of high office and governmental power. No bona fide
records of evidence presented by Barack Hussein Obama establishes his true identity, and
voluminous evidence demonstrates that all of the documents presented by Barack Hussein
Obama as proof of identity and eligibility for high office are forgeries, created for the sole
purpose of deceiving the American people in his pursuit of political power. Additional prima
facie evidence demonstrates that Barack Hussein Obama is using an alias, and has a different
lawful identity, namely, Barack Hussein Obama, II, Barry Soetoro, or Barack Hussein Obama
Soebarkah. Evidence exists that demonstrates Barack Hussein Obama is using Social Security
numbers, none of which appear to have been issued in the state of Hawaii or that lawfully are
attached to his legal identity; and that Barack Hussein Obama has concealed all of his bona fide
birth, school, passport, residency, Selective Service and previous employment records in an
effort to conceal his true identity.
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in
violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,
has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:
1. On January 20, 2009, the person identifying himself as Barack Hussein Obama accepted
the presidential oath of office on false and fraudulent pretenses;
2. Before, during and since his election in 2008, has made false and misleading statements
under oath of perjury, to unlawfully accept the office of President of the United States;
3. He has withheld all determinative and material information concerning his true identity
and evidence thereof from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of
the United States, under obligation to assure the people of the United States that he is the
person he presents himself as, and is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of
President;

4. He has engaged in approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with
respect to the giving of false or misleading statements and documents to lawfully
authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States concerning his true
identity;
5. He has interfered or endeavored to interfere with the conduct of investigations concerning
his true identity by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Secret Service, The Democratic Party, the news media, and
Congressional Committees;
6. He has approved, condoned, and/or acquiesced in, the surreptitious payment of
substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the
testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such
unlawful activities;
7. He has endeavored to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United
States in the cover up of his identity fraud;
8. He has disseminated information received from officers of the Department of Justice of
the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized
investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and
assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;
9. He has made or caused to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose
of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete
investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of identity fraud and
misconduct;
10. He has endeavored to cause prospective witnesses to expect favored treatment and
consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for
their silence or false testimony;
In all of this, Barack Hussein Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and
subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and
removal from office.

ARTICLE 2 - Malfeasanceiii, misconduct and abuse of the Oval Office
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in
violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,
has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the
due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the
laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:

1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to
obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights
of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax records for purposes
not authorized by law, and to target Republican and conservative political action
organizations, withholding I.R.S. tax exempt status for opposition political
organizations, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax
audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a
discriminatory manner;
2. He has misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, the
National Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and other
executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of
citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or
continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to
national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his
office; he directed, authorized, or permitted the use of information obtained
thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or
any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of
certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic
surveillance;
3. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or
disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be
maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed
in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully
utilized the resources of the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland
Security, The National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency,
engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the
constitutional rights of accused citizens to a fair trial in both the civil and military
courts;
4. He has failed to take care that the laws are faithfully executed by failing to act
when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to
impede and frustrate lawful efforts to enforce and duly execute the laws of the
Unites States regarding illegal immigration, the lawful detention and deportation
of illegal aliens, his unlawful release from detention of illegal aliens accused of
violent crimes, as well as his efforts to manipulate the election systems for
political gain, failure to execute the laws of the Unites States equally without
regard to political affiliation;
5. He has abused the power of the Oval Office to circumvent and subvert the
constitutional rule of law which vests all law-making authority with congress
alone, by abusing Executive Powers in an overt effort to eliminate the
constitutional authority of the legislative and judicial branches of the Federal
government;
6. He is misusing military force without congressional authorization and oversight in
violation of the War Powers Activ and other constitutional provisions in multiple
military incursions into numerous sovereign nations with the clear intent to
unlawfully topple foreign governments and install governments favorable to a
personal agenda, directly at odds with the best interests of the United States;

7. He has issued and enforced military Rules of Engagement that have unnecessarily
placed members of our military in harm’s way without the ability to defend
themselves on the front lines, resulting in an unnecessary and unacceptable rise in
U.S. casualties;
8. He has unlawfully incarcerated members of the U.S. military for carrying out
orders on the battlefield, without congressional authority or oversight, creating
increasing morale issues within the ranks and raising doubts in the minds of
American soldiers asked to risk life and limb under his command;
9. He has been derelict in his command of national security agencies resulting in the
unnecessary death of American civilians in Benghazi and American soldiers on
Extortion 17 in Afghanistan, among others and has intentionally and with malice
of forethought engaged in overt misrepresentation to the families and the
American people concerning the facts and circumstances of these events;
10. He has directed and overseen the intentional false reporting of events surrounding
numerous national security failures, foreign policy failures, foreign intelligence
failures, the misreporting of the true nature of our involvements overseas and the
issuance of false information concerning the death of numerous military personnel
and military contractors in an effort to conceal the level of invasion into our own
national security forces and military command by foreign agents;
11. He has directed the single largest increase in national debt in U.S. history without
any congressional authority or oversight, without a single congressionally
authorized Federal budget since 2009;
12. He has unilaterally authorized the killing of American Citizens deemed by
political affiliation alone to be “potential domestic terrorists,” without due process
of law or a right to a defense in direct violation of constitutional rights;
13. He has engaged in massive campaign finance fraud involving illegal overseas
funding from known enemies of the United States and worked with the
Democratic Party to manipulate election results in multiple states and districts;
14. In refusing to produce papers and records, Barack Hussein Obama, substituting
his sole judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed
the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoena power of the House of
Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary
to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the
House of Representatives;
15. He has directed and overseen the intentional destruction of governmental records
necessary to the investigations of multiple agency scandals, with the unlawful
intent to conceal all evidence that would be damaging to his administration;
16. He has ordered the Department of Justice to provide unlawful special treatment
and protections for the unlawful acts of political friends, while unlawfully using
the Department of Justice to wrongfully investigate, threaten, intimidate, charge
and incarcerate political foes;
17. He has misused the authority of the Department of Justice to obstruct and impair
the investigation, prosecution and justice of known unlawful activities carried out
by administration appointees in numerous Federal agencies;
18. He has used unlawful methods to appoint cabinet members, subverting the rule of
law and authority of congress, as just confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court;

19. He has abused executive powers or caused appointed agency personnel to
unlawfully threaten, intimidate and cause removal from employment, numerous
members of the news media in an overt violation of First Amendment rights.
In all of this, Barack Hussein Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and
has acted to subvert the constitutional government of the United States, to the great prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and
removal from office.

ARTICLE 3 - Aiding and Abetting known enemies of the United States
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, contrary to
his oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has directly engaged in the
covert aiding and abetting of foreign entities via the funding, arming, training and intelligence
assistance to the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, the Palestinian
Authority, Hezbollah, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the Free Syrian Army and others. He
has directly or indirectly through the agencies under his direct command, used American tax
dollars and assets to aid and abet known enemies of the United States, including known terror
organizations and organizations identified on a Terrorist List established by the United States as
enemies to the United States, in Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Tunisia, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Kenya, Iran, Ukraine and North, Central and South America.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:
1. He has refused to faithfully execute the laws of the United States concerning organized
immigration and naturalization as prescribed by the 1986 Immigration Reform Actv;
2. He has unlawfully used taxpayer funds to aid and abet the illegal invasion of the United
States;vi
3. He has used unlawful and unreasonable threats and intimidation tactics to force wellintended Federal agents to stand down on enforcement in direct violation of the laws of
the United States;
4. He has unlawfully used national security agencies under his direct command to threaten
and intimidate American Citizens, in violation of their constitutional rights, and in
violation of Posse Comitatusvii, in an effort to silence their opposition to the ongoing
invasion of the United Stated by unlawful intruders;
5. Without any congressional authority or oversight and in direct violation of his duties as
Commander-in-Chief, he has directly engaged in the covert aiding and abetting of foreign
entities via the funding, arming, training and intelligence assistance to known enemies of
the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, the
Palestinian Authority, Hezbollah, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and others;

6. He has engaged or caused his subordinates to engage in weapons trafficking to known
enemies of the United States, specifically the Mexican Cartels at our southern border and
Islamic terror networks throughout the Middle East;
7. He has worked to undermine relationships with U.S. Citizens and numerous U.S. allies
around the world by engaging in unlawful surveillance unrelated to national security;
8. He has directly threatened internal national security, he and his subordinates have worked
to cause socio-economic upheaval and racial tensions in the United States, for the sole
purpose of political gain;
9. He has worked to hamstring U.S. service members and private contractors on foreign
battlefields via Rules of Engagement which have given our enemies an upper hand on the
front lines;
10. He is engaging in an unlawful overt effort to disarm legal American Citizens and remove
public access to ammunition in direct violation of the U.S. Second Amendment, aiming
to prevent a free people from providing for the personal protection of life, liberty and
property, protect against illegal invasion, or a government body which has become
abusive to the citizens in violation of constitutional protections;
11. He has knowingly appointed cabinet level personnel with known direct ties to
international terrorist organizations and has given them top security level clearances;
12. He has unlawfully used groups with known ties to terrorist organizations as Oval Office
policy advisors and altered numerous national security and law enforcement policies on
the basis of advice from known enemies of the United States;
13. He has circumvented congressional authority to unlawfully use taxpayer funds to finance
known terror organizations and isolate some of our closest allies now under direct
military attack;
14. He has unlawfully and purposefully dismantled the balance of power between the three
branches of the Federal government, operating as a unilateral unchecked dictatorship;
15. He has worked to unlawfully fund, protect and defend known anti-American
organizations in direct violation of 50 U.S. Code § 843;
16. He has unilaterally defunded, demoralized, undermined and dismantled the U.S. Military
and Military Command, leaving our country increasingly vulnerable to attack and unable
to respond;
17. He has sought to remove qualified military leadership from command due solely to their
opposition to his destruction of the Military and military readiness, while advancing the
careers of those within the ranks who have openly agreed to “fire on American Citizens”
if so ordered;
18. He has worked with labor unions to threaten, intimidate and extort money from U.S.
employers and employees, and unlawfully used labor union funds to advance an antiAmerican agenda without the voluntary consent of union members;
19. He knew or should have known that he was placing Americans in harm’s way in
Benghazi, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan without adequate force protection, in direct
violation of his oath and duties as Commander-in-Chief;
In all of this, Barack Hussein Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and
subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice,
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and
removal from office.

ii

U.S. Const., Article II, Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on
Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

ii

18 U.S. Code § 911 - Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. 18 U.S. Code § 912 - Whoever falsely
assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department,
agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper,
document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. 18 U.S.
Code § 1002 - Whoever, knowingly and with intent to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof, possesses
any false, altered, forged, or counterfeited writing or document for the purpose of enabling another to obtain from
the United States, or from any agency, officer or agent thereof, any sum of money, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 1015 - (a) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement under oath, in any case, proceeding, or
matter relating to, or under, or by virtue of any law of the United States relating to naturalization, citizenship, or
registry of aliens; or (c) Whoever uses or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of intention,
certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other documentary evidence of naturalization or of
citizenship, or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have been procured by fraud or false evidence or
without required appearance or hearing of the applicant in court or otherwise unlawfully obtained; or (d) Whoever
knowingly makes any false certificate, acknowledgment or statement concerning the appearance before him or the
taking of an oath or affirmation or the signature, attestation or execution by any person with respect to any
application, declaration, petition, affidavit, deposition, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other
paper or writing required or authorized by the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, citizenship, or registry of
aliens; or (e) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, a citizen or
national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself, or any other person, any Federal or State
benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the United States; or (f) Whoever knowingly makes
any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any
Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum)— Shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Subsection (f) does not apply to an alien if each natural parent of the
alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or
naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien
reasonably believed at the time of making the false statement or claim that he or she was a citizen of the United
States.
18 U.S. Code § 1017 - Whoever fraudulently or wrongfully affixes or impresses the seal of any department or
agency of the United States, to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper or with
knowledge of its fraudulent character, with wrongful or fraudulent intent, uses, buys, procures, sells, or
transfers to another any such certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper, to which or upon
which said seal has been so fraudulently affixed or impressed, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than five years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 1018 - Whoever, being a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to
make or give a certificate or other writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a certificate or writing,
containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not elsewhere
expressly provided by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 1028 - (a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section—
(1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false
identification document;
(2) knowingly transfers an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document
knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority;
(3) knowingly possesses with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents
(other than those issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication features, or false identification
documents;
(4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor),
authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to
defraud the United States;

(5) knowingly produces, transfers, or possesses a document-making implement or authentication feature with the
intent such document-making implement or authentication feature will be used in the production of a false
identification document or another document-making implement or authentication feature which will be so used;
(6) knowingly possesses an identification document or authentication feature that is or appears to be an
identification document or authentication feature of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated
as a special event of national significance which is stolen or produced without lawful authority knowing that such
document or feature was stolen or produced without such authority;
(7) knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person
with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation
of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law; or
(8) knowingly traffics in false or actual authentication features for use in false identification documents, documentmaking implements, or means of identification; shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is—
(1) except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 15
years, or both, if the offense is—
(A) the production or transfer of an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification
document that is or appears to be—
(i) an identification document or authentication feature issued by or under the authority of the United States; or
(ii) a birth certificate, or a driver’s license or personal identification card;
(B) the production or transfer of more than five identification documents, authentication features, or false
identification documents;
(C) an offense under paragraph (5) of such subsection; or
(D) an offense under paragraph (7) of such subsection that involves the transfer, possession, or use of 1 or more
means of identification if, as a result of the offense, any individual committing the offense obtains anything of value
aggregating $1,000 or more during any 1-year period;
(2) except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or
both, if the offense is—
(A) any other production, transfer, or use of a means of identification, an identification document,, [1] authentication
feature, or a false identification document; or
(B) an offense under paragraph (3) or (7) of such subsection;
(3) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the offense is committed—
(A) to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929 (a)(2));
(B) in connection with a crime of violence (as defined in section 924 (c)(3)); or
(C) after a prior conviction under this section becomes final;
(4) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 30 years, or both, if the offense is committed to
facilitate an act of domestic terrorism (as defined under section 2331 (5) of this title) or an act of international
terrorism (as defined in section 2331 (1) of this title);
(5) in the case of any offense under subsection (a), forfeiture to the United States of any personal property used or
intended to be used to commit the offense; and
(6) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
(c) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that—
(1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is or appears to be issued by
or under the authority of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national
significance or the document-making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document,
authentication feature, or false identification document;
(2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or
(3) either—
(A) the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or foreign
commerce, including the transfer of a document by electronic means; or
(B) the means of identification, identification document, false identification document, or document-making
implement is transported in the mail in the course of the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this
section.
(d) In this section and section 1028A—
(1) the term “authentication feature” means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence
of numbers or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the

issuing authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to
determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified;
(2) the term “document-making implement” means any implement, impression, template, computer file, computer
disc, electronic device, or computer hardware or software, that is specifically configured or primarily used for
making an identification document, a false identification document, or another document-making implement;
(3) the term “identification document” means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United
States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special
event of national significance, a foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international
governmental or an international quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with information
concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of
individuals;
(4) the term “false identification document” means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the
purposes of identification of individuals that—
(A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a
governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and
(B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision
of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a
foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasigovernmental organization;
(5) the term “false authentication feature” means an authentication feature that—
(A) is genuine in origin, but, without the authorization of the issuing authority, has been tampered with or altered for
purposes of deceit;
(B) is genuine, but has been distributed, or is intended for distribution, without the authorization of the issuing
authority and not in connection with a lawfully made identification document, document-making implement, or
means of identification to which such authentication feature is intended to be affixed or embedded by the respective
issuing authority; or
(C) appears to be genuine, but is not;
(6) the term “issuing authority”—
(A) means any governmental entity or agency that is authorized to issue identification documents, means of
identification, or authentication features; and
(B) includes the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event
designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision
of a foreign government, or an international government or quasi-governmental organization;
(7) the term “means of identification” means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with
any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any—
(A) name, social security number, date of birth, official State or government issued driver’s license or identification
number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number;
(B) unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical
representation;
(C) unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code; or
(D) telecommunication identifying information or access device (as defined in section 1029 (e));
(8) the term “personal identification card” means an identification document issued by a State or local government
solely for the purpose of identification;
(9) the term “produce” includes alter, authenticate, or assemble;
(10) the term “transfer” includes selecting an identification document, false identification document, or documentmaking implement and placing or directing the placement of such identification document, false identification
document, or document-making implement on an online location where it is available to others;
(11) the term “State” includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, and any other commonwealth, possession, or territory of the United States; and
(12) the term “traffic” means—
(A) to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value; or
(B) to make or obtain control of with intent to so transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of.
(e) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law
enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of
the United States, or any activity authorized under chapter 224 of this title.

(f) Attempt and Conspiracy.— Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this section
shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of
the attempt or conspiracy.
(g) Forfeiture Procedures.— The forfeiture of property under this section, including any seizure and disposition of
the property and any related judicial or administrative proceeding, shall be governed by the provisions of section
413 (other than subsection (d) of that section) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of
1970 (21 U.S.C. 853).
(h) Forfeiture; Disposition.— In the circumstance in which any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (a),
the court shall order, in addition to the penalty prescribed, the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all
illicit authentication features, identification documents, document-making implements, or means of identification.
(i) Rule of Construction.— For purpose of subsection (a)(7), a single identification document or false identification
document that contains 1 or more means of identification shall be construed to be 1 means of identification.
18 U.S. Code § 1028A - (a) Offenses.— (1) In general.— Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation
enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of
identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term
of imprisonment of 2 years.
(2) Terrorism offense.— Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in section 2332b
(g)(5)(B), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another
person or a false identification document shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced
to a term of imprisonment of 5 years.
(b) Consecutive Sentence.— Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
(1) a court shall not place on probation any person convicted of a violation of this section;
(2) except as provided in paragraph (4), no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this section shall run
concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person under any other provision of law,
including any term of imprisonment imposed for the felony during which the means of identification was
transferred, possessed, or used;
(3) in determining any term of imprisonment to be imposed for the felony during which the means of identification
was transferred, possessed, or used, a court shall not in any way reduce the term to be imposed for such crime so as
to compensate for, or otherwise take into account, any separate term of imprisonment imposed or to be imposed for
a violation of this section; and
(4) a term of imprisonment imposed on a person for a violation of this section may, in the discretion of the court, run
concurrently, in whole or in part, only with another term of imprisonment that is imposed by the court at the same
time on that person for an additional violation of this section, provided that such discretion shall be exercised in
accordance with any applicable guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to
section 994 of title 28.
(c) Definition.— For purposes of this section, the term “felony violation enumerated in subsection (c)” means any
offense that is a felony violation of—
(1) section 641 (relating to theft of public money, property, or rewards [1] ), section 656 (relating to theft,
embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee), or section 664 (relating to theft from employee
benefit plans);
(2) section 911 (relating to false personation of citizenship);
(3) section 922 (a)(6) (relating to false statements in connection with the acquisition of a firearm);
(4) any provision contained in this chapter (relating to fraud and false statements), other than this section or section
1028 (a)(7);
(5) any provision contained in chapter 63 (relating to mail, bank, and wire fraud);
(6) any provision contained in chapter 69 (relating to nationality and citizenship);
(7) any provision contained in chapter 75 (relating to passports and visas);
(8) section 523 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6823) (relating to obtaining customer information by
false pretenses);
(9) section 243 or 266 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253 and 1306) (relating to willfully failing
to leave the United States after deportation and creating a counterfeit alien registration card);
(10) any provision contained in chapter 8 of title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1321 et seq.)
(relating to various immigration offenses); or
(11) section 208, 811, 1107(b), 1128B(a), or 1632 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408, 1011, 1307 (b), 1320a–
7b (a), and 1383a) (relating to false statements relating to programs under the Act).

18 U.S. Code § 1031 - (a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the
intent—
(1) to defraud the United States; or
(2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,
in any grant, contract, subcontract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance, including
through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, an economic stimulus, recovery or rescue plan provided by the
Government, or the Government’s purchase of any troubled asset as defined in the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008, or in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States
or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value
of such grant, contract, subcontract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance, or any
constituent part thereof, is $1,000,000 or more shall, subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section, be
fined not more than $1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) The fine imposed for an offense under this section may exceed the maximum otherwise provided by law, if such
fine does not exceed $5,000,000 and—
(1) the gross loss to the Government or the gross gain to a defendant is $500,000 or greater; or
(2) the offense involves a conscious or reckless risk of serious personal injury.
(c) The maximum fine imposed upon a defendant for a prosecution including a prosecution with multiple counts
under this section shall not exceed $10,000,000.
(d) Nothing in this section shall preclude a court from imposing any other sentences available under this title,
including without limitation a fine up to twice the amount of the gross loss or gross gain involved in the offense
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3571 (d).
(e) In determining the amount of the fine, the court shall consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. sections 3553 and
3572, and the factors set forth in the guidelines and policy statements of the United States Sentencing Commission,
including—
(1) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, including the harm or loss to the victim and the gain to the
defendant;
(2) whether the defendant previously has been fined for a similar offense; and
(3) any other pertinent equitable considerations.
(f) A prosecution of an offense under this section may be commenced any time not later than 7 years after the
offense is committed, plus any additional time otherwise allowed by law.
(g)
(1) In special circumstances and in his or her sole discretion, the Attorney General is authorized to make payments
from funds appropriated to the Department of Justice to persons who furnish information relating to a possible
prosecution under this section. The amount of such payment shall not exceed $250,000. Upon application by the
Attorney General, the court may order that the Department shall be reimbursed for a payment from a criminal fine
imposed under this section.
(2) An individual is not eligible for such a payment if—
(A) that individual is an officer or employee of a Government agency who furnishes information or renders service
in the performance of official duties;
(B) that individual failed to furnish the information to the individual’s employer prior to furnishing it to law
enforcement authorities, unless the court determines the individual has justifiable reasons for that failure;
(C) the furnished information is based upon public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or
administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or GAO report, hearing, audit or investigation, or from the
news media unless the person is the original source of the information. For the purposes of this subsection, “original
source” means an individual who has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations
are based and has voluntarily provided the information to the Government; or
(D) that individual participated in the violation of this section with respect to which such payment would be made.
(3) The failure of the Attorney General to authorize a payment shall not be subject to judicial review.
(h) Any individual who—
(1) is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the
terms and conditions of employment by an employer because of lawful acts done by the employee on behalf of the
employee or others in furtherance of a prosecution under this section (including investigation for, initiation of,
testimony for, or assistance in such prosecution), and

(2) was not a participant in the unlawful activity that is the subject of said prosecution, may, in a civil action, obtain
all relief necessary to make such individual whole. Such relief shall include reinstatement with the same seniority
status such individual would have had but for the discrimination, 2 times the amount of back pay, interest on the
back pay, and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation
costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
ii

Malfeasance – Evil doing; ill conduct. The commission of some act which is positively unlawful; the doing of an
act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; the doing of an act which person ought not to do at all or the unjust
performance of some act which the party had no right or which he had contracted not to do. See also, Misfeasance
– The improper performance of some act which a man may lawfully do; the omission of an act which a person ought
to do. See also, Nonfeasance – Nonperformance of some act which ought to be performed, omission to perform a
required duty; the total omission or failure of an agent to enter upon the performance of some distinct duty or
undertaking which he has agreed with his principal to do. See also, Misprision – An offense which does not
possess a specific name. U.S. v. Peristein, C.C.A.N.J. 126 F.2d 789, 798. A contempt against the sovereign, the
government, or the courts of justice, including forms of seditious or disloyal conduct and leze-majesty; or the
maladministration of public office; neglect or improper performance of official duty, including the peculation of
public funds; and finally, the failure in the duty of a citizen to endeavor to prevent the commission of a crime, or,
having knowledge of its commission, to fail to reveal it to the proper authorities.
ii

The War Powers Act of 1973 - 50 USC S.1541-1548, 1973.

ii

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3445, enacted November 6, 1986,
also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act.
ii

U.S. Const., Article III, Section 3 - Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless
on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. Also see, 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.
Also see, 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.
Also see, 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.
Also see, 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.
Also see, 18 U.S. Code § 2389 - Recruiting for service against United States - Whoever recruits soldiers or sailors
within the United States, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to engage in armed hostility against the
same; or Whoever opens within the United States, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, a recruiting
station for the enlistment of such soldiers or sailors to serve in any manner in armed hostility against the United
States— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
ii

Posse Comitatus Act - 18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152, (June 18, 1878).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500

I

MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT

DocketNumber(s): Appeal Case 15-3199 of SONY 15-cv-6817 (JPO)
Motion for: Cross Motion under FRCvP Rule 12 (f) to Strike material

Caption [use short title]

STRUNK versus DRUSKIN, ETAL.

in the Motion of the SONY US Attorney filed 26 October 2015.
Extension

of time to Reply and a Witness Protective Order

'Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought:
...~...~.
t.._ ~...

- MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSION until 7 November 2015 to reply for the pending

/.'~""1'

~ '
--~
~

'j

Emergency Motion filed 11 October 2015 under FRApP Rule 26 and as for FRApP Rule 27 to

~ - -·~

rn

STRIKE the 26 October 2015 Motion of JOHN KOSKINEN, JACOB JOSEPH LEW, BARACK

,.-"1

"!,., • ...,

HUSSEIN OBAMA II as untimely and containing scandalous material introduced without

N

rv

evidence, and to STRIKE the 27 October 2015 motion of ROBERT DRUSKIN as an untimely

joinder without evidence and a WITNESS PROTECTIVE ORDER

MOVIN~TY: "'CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© trademark registration pending

UPlaintiff
[Z]Appellant/Petitioner

PREET BHARARA US AlTORNEY for 28 CFR §0-47 Alien property matters
OPPOSING PARTY: ______________________________
__

Defendant
Appellee/Respondent

MOVING ATTORNEY: Christopher Earl Strunk, beneficiary agent OPPOSING ATTORNEY:

TALIA KRAEMER AUSA, BENJAMIN H. TORRANCE AUSA

[name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail)

c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue- PMB 102

c/o Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office

Brooklyn, New York 11217

86 Chambers Street I 3rd Floor; New York, NY 10007

718-414-3760 I suretynomore@gmail.com

(212) 637-2703 USANYS.SDNYWebmaster@usdoj.gov

.c rt 1 d /A
d fr
USOC SONY- JAMES PAUL OETKEN USOJ's sui sponte Orders to dismiss and deny seal
ou - u ge gency appea1e o m : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Please check appropriate boxes:
~as

movant noti~opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27 .I):
[Z1 YesUNo (explain):_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
e-mail notice of intention to file on 5 November 2015 to Civil Division of US Atty. SONY

Opposin~unsel's

position on motion:
U Unopposed []opposed [{Pon 't Know
Does opposing counsel intend to file a response:
Yes []No [Zloon 't Know

[Z]Yes

Has argument date of appeal ~e~et?

0

rl-----

{

SigJY!Pife_.?!.!J,?-vin!=~~ljlley:
~ (/A A r;t~; ).:::_,...-p

f",::;;;"bc .

~
Date:

fU---:1!Vvy

fj

Extension of time to reply, strike defamatory material,

a witness protective order

0

Is oral argument on motion. requested?

FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND
INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:
~
Has request for relief been made below?
.,f Yes ·
No
Has this relief been previously sought in this Court?
Yes ../ No
Requested return date and explanation of emergency: ___________

0

No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)

Yes [l}No If yes, enter date:._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

1

?/.

1 ·- .?~" -- 7_.-~'/j
_...

------

Service by:

0

CMIECF

-00ther [Attach proof of serviceJ

15-3199
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
__________________________________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
Plaintiff / Appellant
vs.
ROBERT DRUSKIN, JOHN KOSKINEN,
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, BARACK HUSSEIN
OBAMA II,
Defendants / Appellees.
__________________________________________________________________
"T-1080" MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSION until 7 November 2015 to reply for the pending
Emergency Motion filed 11 October 2015 under FRApP Rule 26 and as for FRApP Rule 27 to
STRIKE the 26 October 2015 Motion of JOHN KOSKINEN, JACOB JOSEPH LEW, BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA II as untimely and containing scandalous material introduced without
evidence, and to STRIKE the 27 October 2015 motion of ROBERT DRUSKIN as an untimely
joinder without evidence and a WITNESS PROTECTIVE ORDER
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Appeal taken from the 10 September 2015 sua sponte Order to Dismiss the
Complaint filed 27 August 2015 and denying the Motion to Rehear the Order
"M-49"; and the Order of 29 September 2015 denying the Motion to Reconsider
the Order to Dismiss with Demand for Disqualification of J. PAUL OETKEN
USDJ in USDC SDNY 15-cv-6817
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Christopher Earl Strunk, Complainant Beneficiary and agent attorney in fact for
™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© Appellant
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue - PMB 102
Brooklyn, NY Zip code excepted [11217]
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email suretynomore@gmail.com
0

I, Christopher Earl Strunk, Complainant Beneficiary among the Posterity of Pre1933 Private American National Citizens of the United States ("the Posterity") and
sole beneficiary agent

attorney in fact, the Undersigned, for Business Trust

Organization ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© with trademark registration
pending and germane ("NAME", Plaintiff / Appellant), states and declares under
penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct under 28 USC §1746:
Introduction
This is Undersigned's Affirmation in support of the "T-1080" MOTION FOR
TIME EXTENSION until 7 November 2015 to reply for the pending Emergency
Motion filed 11 October 2015 under FRApP Rule 26, and as for FRApP Rule 27 to
Strike the 26 October 2015 Motion of JOHN KOSKINEN, JACOB JOSEPH LEW,
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II (see Exhibit A) as untimely and containing
scandalous material introduced without evidence, and to Strike the 27 October
2015 motion of ROBERT DRUSKIN (see Exhibit B) as an untimely joinder
without evidence; and a WITNESS PROTECTIVE ORDER; and that this motion
follows the 5 November 2015 notice given to BENJAMIN TORRANCE by email
of Undersigned's intent to file this motion (see Exhibit C).
That this motion is in addition to the Court's pending decision on THE
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING OF APPEAL UNDER
SEAL WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING DECLARATORY
1

JUDGMENT ON LAW AND PARTY STATUS WITH IRREPARABLE HARM
TO STATUS QUO AND PROPERTY, with Local Rule 27 for FRCvP Rules 57,
60, 65(a)(b), as done with 28 CFR §0.47 to the Office of Alien Property at the
Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
New York as applies to both Complainant and Plaintiff demands of Trustees of the
private special trusts for return of personal property with accounting as a banking
matter using 50 USC App. Sections 9, 17, 32, 33 and related law under 12 USC
§95(a): 50 USC App. §5(b) with Executive Orders 2039 and 2040 (EBRA amended
TWEA), as Undersigned is a registered private national citizen of the United States
of America / non-combatant defined by the Hague Convention under the time of
war or emergency for the temporary Military Government (TMG) Trustees
maintained with no less than 39 annual ongoing emergencies that hold legal title to
business trust transmitting utility CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK property
pending trademark registration; and Undersigned requests a Preliminary Injunction
by the Court to seal this action and for the Chief of the Civil Division to respond
to the demand for 28 USC §2201- §2202 declaratory judgment(s) on the law and
facts to establish obligations of parties for return of personal property (inter alia
clear title to the NAME in commerce be removed from commingled bundle) with
accounting for NAME irreparable harm to status quo caused by Defendants /
Appellees Trustee(s)' breach of fiduciary duty with conversion and constructive
2

fraud; and requires this motion and appeal be heard by senior judges of majority
age accrued by 6 January 1973 for the US Senate Report 93-549 authorization.
FACTS
1. Procedurally under FRApP Rule 27(a)(3)(A) requires that a response be
filed by 10 days after service of the Motion being 3 days plus 10 days or at best
exclusive of the day of filing due by 24 October 2015, and or at least a procedural
effort to extend the time that was not done by the attorneys for any Appellees.
2. At no time did Judge OETKEN in either Order use the term or even imply
that Complainant claimed to be a "Sovereign Citizen" or even implied as used by
the US Attorney a page 4 of Exhibit A that quote "Strunk's claims appear to be
largely based on a variation of the 'sovereign citizen' theory, a theory courts have
repeatedly rejected as frivolous." as is again repeated at Exhibit A pages 5, 6 and 7
without any supporting evidence for such outrageous allegations.
3. Procedurally under FRApP Rule 27(a)(4) requires that a reply be filed by 7
days after service of the response to the Motion being 3 days plus 7 days or at best
exclusive of the day of filing due by 3 November 2015, and or at least a procedural
effort to extend the time as done herein by Undersigned were the response by
Appellees to stand as filed to a Appellant reply date of say 7 November 2015 and
or Appellant response to the additional motion until 7 November 2015.

3

4. That Undersigned contends and strongly believes that ONLY Almighty God
is sovereign, no human being can be sovereign, and notwithstanding the ongoing
existence of the temporary Military Government occupying the conquered territory
of the once sovereign people of the United States of America since 4 March 1933,
that no Public or Private US Citizen may be in good standing per se without being
grateful to the human rights given directly from Almighty God to each human
being, and that are not given by any government or person.
5. That no natural person or legal person may be considered a citizen in good
standing per se without belief in almighty God per se, as the foundation of our
revolution, and or even serve in the free Federal or State(s) government
employment as implied by The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C.
841-844) that is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by
President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, by which it outlawed the
Communist Party of the United States and criminalized membership in, or support
for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defined evidence to be
considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning,
actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations accordingly still applicable
as the Supreme Court of the United States has never rejected the act's
constitutionality with its application to government employment. Despite that, no
administration has tried to enforce it. The provisions of the act "outlawing" the
4

party have not been repealed and the Communist Party of the USA continues to
exist in the 21st century along with non enforcement of socialist / communist
Godless sedition and treason - a religion that worships government power not God.
6. The State of New York Constitution, notwithstanding being a conquered
territory presently under the temporary Military Government, in the preamble
states quote: "We The People of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God
for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS
CONSTITUTION." and that even the cynic amongst us in the business community
embraces Almighty God if for no other reason for not to do so would establish
vicarious liability without acts of God per se - so any sane person embraces God.
7. Further, Undersigned as a pre-1933 Private National Citizen of the United
States resident in the New York State embraces his Civil Rights Law as guaranteed
in Article 2 "§ 2. Supreme sovereignty in the people. No authority can, on any
pretence whatsoever, be exercised over the citizens of this state, but such as is
or shall be derived from and granted by the people of this state." and to even imply
that Undersigned is in anyway so mentally imbalanced to claim to be "God" even
in the Gnostic sense or worse yet sovereign per se is blasphemy against Almighty
God and any allegation of Gnostic sovereignty is a disparaging libelous defamation
and by implication that somehow Undersigned practices sedition and treason
against the once Sovereign People of the State of New York and United States of
5

America. I am not nor have I ever been a Communist as my FBI records prove.
Undersigned is not nor has ever been a Freemason or member of a secret society
advocating opposition to Almighty God and or the overthrow of a government that
must only serve the people who are exclusively under God.
8. That Undersigned is not frivolous in the Complaint and or Motion requesting
a declaratory judgment and furthermore offers the Affirmation of Eric Jon Phelps
dated 4 November 2015 in support of a closed hearing of the facts in the matter of
the ongoing theft in support of the Complaint causes of action (see Exhibit D).
9. Mr. Phelps affirms as shown in Exhibit D that, quote:
" In my October class of 2014, a student was present that had been an FBI agent
for over thirty years. The agent confided to me in confidence that as a result of
the 2008 mortgage crisis, he/she was assigned to conduct an investigation as to
the collateral of all derivatives traded on the Stock Market. It was discovered
that the collateral, the source of all credit extension to the major banks, were
private, Treasury trust fund accounts represented by the Certificates of Live
Births filed with the fifty states and Washington, D.C.
"Shocked and aghast, he/she reported this discovery to his/her superiors. Sadly,
he/she was told that it would be in the FBI’s best interest for he/her to resign.
Further, he/she was warned that he/she spoke about this to anyone, he/she
would be destroyed by ceaseless litigation and maybe subjected to harassing
criminal prosecution.
"Upon privately revealing this event to me the agent gave me terms. He/she
made it crystal clear that in no way shall he/she publicly testify to these facts in
any public arena. So, in honoring my promise to the agent, I shall not break my
trust by disclosing his/her name. However, I will testify concerning the above
event in any arena..."

6

10. That a witness protective order is warranted based upon the threat of
intimidation expressed in Exhibit D were the court to order a closed hearing for
taking testimony in the matter of the ongoing theft and wrongful use of his and his
clients creditworthiness such hearing would require the issuance of Subpoenas
ordering testimony and the production of documents and is the only way that
Undersigned may face his accusers with cross examined testimony and discovery
of evidence for his exoneration of being wrongly accused of being frivolous.
11. That for the record Undersigned knows that all banking transactions are
private and there are no Public accounts per se even for government(s) and their
agencies per se - everything dealing with legal tender is transacted in private.
12. That on or about 29 October 2015 Undersigned received a mailing at 593
Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281 Brooklyn New York addressed to ROBERT
DRUSKIN (see Exhibit E), and such mail remains with Undersigned unopened for
instruction by the Court.
13. As a matter of public record Mr. Druskin is being sued as the Chief
Executive Officer / Trustee of the DTCC not individually.
14. Mr. Druskin is officially approved to hold that office as duly licensed with
the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank along with the Secretary of State of
New York and various other agencies both State and Federal whose obligations as
the trustee and fiduciary to handle and oversee securities / equities and the
7

collateral associated with their issuance includes the DTCC function for both
"Custody" and "Vault" services along with the functions of CEDE and other
organizations in coordination with EUROCLEAR and SWIFT under Mr. Druskin's
direct purview and authority licensed to act for the Secretary of Treasury I
Controller of the Currency and POTUS and the member of the private Federal
Reserve Banking system.
In summary, Undersigned's understanding is that the US Attorney has wrongly
sought to change the Orders of Judge OETKEN to a meaning not intended therein
and must be stricken from the record; and that Undersigned's motion for
a declaratory judgment takes precedence, and it is the legal determination of
a court remedy that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants; and requires further
and different relief the Court deems necessary including extension of time to reply
and or respond accordingly along with an oral argument before a closed court to
issue a witness protective order along with subpoenas for submitting evidence with
t~stimony

and cross examination.

Dated: November G , 2015
Brooklyn, New York
er Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris Complainant
Beneficiary agent Attorney-in-fact for
TMCHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© Appellant
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue- PMB 102
Brooklyn, NY Zip code excepted [11217]
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email suretynomore@gmail.com
All rights Reserved Without Prejudice
8

15-3199
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
__________________________________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
Plaintiff / Appellant
vs.
ROBERT DRUSKIN, JOHN KOSKINEN,
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, BARACK HUSSEIN
OBAMA II,
Defendants / Appellees.
__________________________________________________________________
"T-1080" MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSION until 7 November 2015 to reply for the pending
Emergency Motion filed 11 October 2015 under FRApP Rule 26 and as for FRApP Rule 27 to
STRIKE the 26 October 2015 Motion of JOHN KOSKINEN, JACOB JOSEPH LEW, BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA II as untimely and containing scandalous material introduced without
evidence, and to STRIKE the 27 October 2015 motion of ROBERT DRUSKIN as an untimely
joinder without evidence and a WTINESS PROTECTIVE ORDER
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Exhibit A

UNITED STATES COURT OF APP EALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Thu rgood Marshall U.S. Counhouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
MOTION lNFORMA TION STATEMENT
Docket Number(s): _1_5
_-3_1_9_9_____________ - -- -- - -----"C""ap.,t""io""'n.....,[us=.e.:!.:sh,o-'-'-r1-"'ti"'-le""l
t _ _ _ _ _ __ __

Motion ror:

Dismissal of appeal as frivolous or

Strunk v. Druskin

for summary affirmance

Se1 fonb below precise, complete statement of relief sought:

The Government moves the Court to dismiss
the appeal as frivolous or for summary
affirmance, because the case lacks
any arguable basis in law or fact.

MOVINRA.RTY: John Koskinen, Jacob Joseph Lew, Barack Hussein Obama OPPOSING PARTY:

I
I

UPlaintiiT

OAppellan,t/Petitioner

MOVING ATTORNEY:

Christopher Earl Strunk

Defendant
Appellee/Respondent

Talia Kraemer

OPPOS£NGATTORNEY:

N/A (plaintiff-appellant prose)

[n1U11e of attorney, with fim1, address, phone number and e-mail]

Assistant United States Attorney

315 Flatbush Ave. , PMB 102

86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor

Brooklyn , NY 11217

New York, New York 10007
court-Judge/Agencyappeale-dfrom:

U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Judge J. Paul Oetken

Please check appropriate boxes:

Has mO'flill!. noti.fied opposing counsel (required by local Rule 27.1 ):

U

Yes[{] No (explain): Ptalnllff-Appellant Is proceeding prose_

FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND
INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:
Has request for relief been made below?
D Yes DNo
Has this relief been previously sougbL in this Court?
Oves 0 No
Requested return date 8lld e:\."Planation of emergency:._ _ _ _ _ _ __

position on motion:
Unopposed D opposed L)::>on't Know
Docs opposing counsel intend to file a response:
Opposin~unsel's

U

0 Yes []No Doon'L Know

Is oral argument on motion requested?

Oves [{] No (req11eslS for or..sl argument wiU not necessarily be granted)

Has argument date of appeal been set'!

DYes [liNo 1fyes,entcrdate:_ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __

Siguat11re of Moving Attorney:

Is/ Talia Kraemer

Date: 10/26/15

~~~~~~~~------

Form T-1080 (rev. 12-13)

Service by: DCMfECF

[{] Oth~r [Attach proofofservice]

~TEDSTATESCOURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCU1T
--------------------------------------------------- )(
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,
Beneficiary among the Posterity of Pre1933 Private American National Citizens
of the United States, beneficiary agent for :
Christopher Earl Strunk,
:

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.

Dkt. No. 15-3199

ROBERT DRUSKIN, E)lecutive
Chairman of the Depository Trust &
Clearing Corp., JOHN KOSKINEN,
Commissioner Internal Revenue Service,
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, Trustee Secretary :
of the United States Treasury:
Department ofTreasury, BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA, Trustee Commander :
in Chief, President of the United States of :
America,
:

Defendants-Appellees. :

-------------------------------------------------X
Defendants-Appellees' Memorandum in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss
the Appeal or for Summary Affirmance, and in Opposition to PlaintiffAppellant' s Motion for Expedited Hearing of Appeal Under Seal w ith
Preliminary Inju11ction
Defendants-appellees John Koskinen, Jacob Joseph Lew, and President
Barack Obama (collectively, the "government") respectfully submit this
memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss the appeal or for swnmary
affinnance and in opposition to plaintiff-appellant Christopher Earl Strunk's

motion for an expedited hearing of the appeal under seal and for a preliminary
injunction. Strunk' s allegations are essentially incomprehensible, and even read
liberally, present nothing mme than a series of factually and legally frivolous
claims. Tbe district court was therefore correct to dismiss this action, and for the
same reason, Strunk is not entjtled to preliminary relief.
Background

Strwlk filed suit in the United States District Court fot the Southern District
of New York on August 27, 2015, proceeding prose. Strunk alleges that he is a
member of the "Posterity of Pre-1933 Private American National Citizens of the
United States of America' 1 and the "executor" of a "deed in trust" for the "Posterity
beneficiaries." Compl.

~~

1, 10. He seems to further allege thal the government

wrongfully holds property belonging to him in a "Private Trust" that. was created at
his birth, and that the documents that provide evidence of this trust can ''be seen
only by the Chancellor in Chambers for Public Safety." See Compl.

~~

12, 19, 26,

36. He alleges that he registered a "Treaty of Peace" with the Secretary of the
TreasUiy, which made him a "noncombatant" and entitled him to seek "return" of
his property under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Compl.

~~

8, 11. According to

the complaint, Stru11k served on the govenunent a "NOTICE OF PRESENT.l\1ENT
for the Certification orthe sole beneficial interest segregated from the ' 500 person
bundled> Commingled Co11ateral Security utilized by the United States Treasury
2

Secretary Receiver for the Creditors of U.S. Debt within the Fractional Reserve
Banking

System.'~

Compl.

~

19. Strunk alleges that the government's failure to

respond to that notice is a "conditional acceptance" that obligates the governmer1t
to perform its "fiduciary duties" under laws governing limitations on banking in
times of emergency and the Trading with the Enemy Act. CompL

~

21. Strunk

claims that the government is liable for " breach of trust'' and "conversion of
property," for failing to account for and return his "property.'' Compl.

~~

38, 41.

He also alleges that President Obama is not actually a United States citizen and is
ineligible to be president. Compl. ml 44-51.
The district court (Hon. J. Paul Oetken) dismissed Strunk's complaint sua

sponte, on the grounds that the action was frivolous and that Strunk failed to state
any plausible claim for relief.

Ex. A, Order of D ismissal dated Sept. 10, 2015. The

court further concluded that an appeal from the dismissal would not be taken in
good falth.ld. The court warned Strunk, who has a his1ory of filing similar actions,
that if he continued to engage in frivolous litigation, he could be barred in the
future from filing new actions without prior permission. !d.
Strunk filed a motion for reconsideration, in which he also sought Judge
Oetken's recusal. The district court denied Strunk's motions. Ex. B, Order dated
Sept. 29, 2015. Stnmk timely appealed from both the order of dismissal and the
order denying reconsideration.
3

On October 15, 2015, Strunk filed a motion in this Court for "expedited
hearing of appeal under seal with preliminary injunction." The motion largely

restates the allegations from Strunk's complaint. The government now opposes that
motion and moves the Court to dismiss the appeal as frivolous or for summary
affirmance.
Argument

An appeal may be dismissed as frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis

either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Fitzgerald v.

First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362 (2d Cir. 2000). Similarly,
summaty affirmance is appropriate when a case ..presents no non-frivolous issues
for appeaL" United States v. Torres, 129 F.3d 710, 717 (2d Cir. 1997).
Strunk presents no non-frivolous claims in this appeal. Indeed, his claims are
largely an incomprehensible assemblage of legal terms and implausible factual
allegations with no discernible connection to one another. To the extent Strm1k's
claims are decipherable, he alleges some unspecified type of financial misconduct
arising out of the creation of a '"Private Trust" at his birth, contractual claims, and
violations of a host of unrelated statutes. On their face, these allegations present no
arguable basis on which to grant relief to Strunk.
Indeed ~

Strunk's claims appear to be largely based on a variation of the

"sovereign citizen,) theoty, a theory courts have repeatedly rejected as frivolous.
4

See Compl.

~~

31-36; Affirmation in Support of the Emergency Motion at 7-19.

Adherents to the theory believe that
[t]he federal government ... has tricked the populace into becoming
U.S. citizens by entering into "contracts'' embodied in such
documents as birth certificates . . . . Through these contracts,
indjviduals . . . unknowingly pledge themselves and their property,
through their newly created fictitious entities, as security for the
national debt in exchange for the benefits of citizenship. . . . [T]he
government holds. the profits in secret~ individual trust accounts, one
for each citizen.

B1yant v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 524 F. Supp. 2d 753, 758-59 (W.D. Va 2007)
(footnote omitted). Courts have described the sovereign citizen theory as "equal
parts revisionist legal history and conspiracy theory." !d. Stnmk's assertions of a
"private trusf' created for his benefit at his birth, but unlawfully withheld fi·om
him, and his avenn ents of his status as a "Private American National Citizen" that

is somehow different from regular citizenship, appear to be of the same type. But
such claims have been held frivolous. See El v. AmeriCredit Fin. Servs. Inc., 710
1

F.3d 748, 750 (7tb Cir. 2013); United States v. Sterling, 738 F.3d 228, 233 n.l
(11th Cir. 2013).

Strunk's cha11enge to President Obama's eligibility to serve as president is
also frivolous. See Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204, 209-10 (3d Cir. 2010).
Indeed, the New York State courts have imposed sanctions on Strunk for bringing
similar claims. See Strunk v. NY State Bd. of Elections, 969 N .Y.S.2d 806 (Sup.

Ct. 2013) (table), aff'd as modified, 5 N.Y.S.3d 498 (App. Div. 2015).
5

To the extent Strunk seeks to assert a claim under the Freedom of
Information Act c·FOIA"), the district court correctly determined that his claims
lack an arguable basis in fact or law. Strunk alleges that the government failed to
respond to his FOIA request for "a certified accounting of each of the commingled
bundles that had included the trust of the Undersigned and or his Client as
beneficiaries of the Posterity." Compl.

~~~ 27~28.

Strunk's request for an accounting

of "commingled bundles" seems to be a reference to his belief that the ''Private
Trusts" that are "established upon receipt of the Writ of Birth" are "subsequently
bundled or

commjngled.'~

Compl.

~

12. Strunk's FOIA claims are based on the

pursuit of non-existent information about non-existent trusts whose existence is
postulated by Strunk's frivolous sovereign citizen theory. These claims are subject
to dismissal as lacking any arguable basis in fact. See Glasser v. C.I.A., No. C-025420 EMC, 2003 WL 21209705, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2003) (dismissing a
FOIA action based on "far-fetched and baseless" factual allegations); Peck v.

Merletti, 64 F. Supp. 2d 599, 601-603 (B.D. Va. 1999) (dismissing as "patently
frivolous" FOIA claims relating to the FBI's alleged failure to heed the plaintiff's
psychic warnings about impendil1g disasters); Schwarz v. IR.S., 998 F. Supp. 20 I,
203 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) (dismissing FOIA claims based on allegations of a
conspiracy between the IRS, the Nazis, and Scientology).

6

Similarly, to the extent Strunk seeks to assert claims under the Federal Tort
Claims Act, Strunk bas failed to allege that he first properly exhausted his
administrative remedies, as required by the Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). The
distdct court also correctly observed that there is no non-frivolous basis for
concluding that the government has waived sovereign immunity for whatever other
claims Strunk may be seeking to assert. See Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales

C01p., 21 F.3d 502, 510 (2d Cir. 1994) ("Under the doctrine of sovereign
immunity, an action for damages will not lie against the United States absent
consent.").
Thus, this Court should dismiss Strunk's appeal as lacking an arguable basis
in Jaw or fact or, in the aJtemative, summarily affirm the district court's decision.
Even if the Court does not dismiss the appeal or summarily affirm, Strunk's
motion for an expedited hearing of the appeal under seal and for a preliminary
injunction should be denied. Strunk's motion is largely unintelligible and provides
no justification for why he is entitled to the relief sought, aside from alleging a
vague need to "bar fwther irreparable harm to the status quo.'' Affirmation in
Support of the En1ergency Motion at 20. Further, under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
of AppelJate Procedure, a party seeking an injunction pending appeal must first
move for relief in the district court or must demonstrate why moving in the district

7

court would be impracticable. Strunk has done neither. His motion should therefore
be denied.
Conclusion

For the above reasons, this Court should dismjss the appeal or summarily
affirm the judgment of the district court, or, in any event, deny the motion for an
expedited hearing of the appeal under seal and for a preliminary injunction.
Dated:

New York, New York
October 26, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
PREET BHARARA,

United States Attorney for the
Southern District ofNew York,
Attorney for
Defendants-Appellees.
86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor
New York, New York 10007
(212) 63 7-2703
TALLA KRAEMER,
BENJAMlNH. TORRANCE,

Assistant United States Attorneys!
Of Counsel.

8

Strunk v. Druskin, et a l.
Docket No.: 15-3199

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, TaliaKraemer, an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern

District of New York, hereby certify that on October 26, 2015, I caused a copy of
Defendants-Appellees' Memorandum in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss the
Appeal or for Summary Affumance, and in Opposition to Plaintiff-Appellant' s

Motion for Expedited Hearing of Appeal Under Seal with Prelimi nary Injunction
to be served upon the following by Federal Express:

Christopher Earl Strunk
315 Flatbush Ave., PMB 102
Brooklyn, NY 11217
Plaintijf-Appellan0 pro se

Lawrence E lbaum, Esq.
Vinson & Elkins LLP
666 Fifth Avenue
26th Floor
New York, NY 10103-0040
Attorney for Defendant-Appellee Robert Druskin

Dated: New York., New York
October 26, 2015

Is! Talia Kraemer
TALIA KRAEMER

9

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 8

UNfTED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRfCT OF NEW YORK
CHRJSTOPHER EARL STRUNK,
Beneficiary among the Posterity ofPre-1 993
Private American National Citizens of the
United States, beneficiary agent for
Christopher Earl Strunk,
Plaintiff~

-againstROBER1' DRUSKIN, EXECU'nVE

15-CV-68 17 (.JPO)

Cl:-lAIRMAN Of TT rE DEPOSITORY TRUST
& CLEARING CORPORATION; JOHN
KOSKINEN, COMMJSSIONER INTERNAL

ORDER Of DlSMlSSAL

REVENUE SERV1CE; JACOB JOSEPH
LEW, TRUSTEE SECRETARY OF THE
UNITED STATES TREASURYDEPARTMENT OF TREASURY: BARACK
IlUSSErN OBAMA, II, TRUSTEE
COMMANDER IN CHlEF, PRESIDENT OF
THE UNJTED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

J. PAUL OETKEN, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff paid the filing fee to bring this prose action. For the reasons set forth below,
this action is dismissed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court has the authority to dismiss a complajnt, even when the plaintiff has paid the
tiling fcc, ir it delem1ines that the action is frivolous, Fitzgerald v. Firs/ E. Seventh Tenants

Corp. , 221 F.3d 362. 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (ciling Pillay v. TNS, 45 F.3d 14, 16-17
(2d Cir. l995) (per curiam) (holding that Court of Appeals has inherent authority to dismiss
frivolous appeal)), or that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, Rulugas AG v. Marathon

Oil Co., 526 U.S . 574, 583 ( 1999). While the law mandates dismissal o n any of these grounds,

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 8

the Court is obliged to construe p ro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills: 572 F. 3d 66. 72 (2d

Cir. 2009). and interpret thern to raise the "strongest [c laims] that they suggest." Triestman v.
Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 ,474-75 (2d C ir. 2006) (intern al quotation marks and

citations om itted) (emphasis in original).

BACKGROUND
In this complaint, which is 300 pages of legalese a nd attachments, Plaintiff asserts that he

is a presidential candidate, a " beneficiary among the Posterity of Pre- I 993 Private A merican
National Citizens of the United States:· and a '·resident in exclusive equi ty w ithin a non-

militarily occupied private estate'' in Kings County. (Compl. ~ 10.) Named as Defendants are
PresidentBarack Obama: InternaL Revenue Service ("l RS") Commissioner Jobn Koskinen;
Un ited States Deparlment of Treasury Secretary Jacob Joseph Lew: and Robett Druskin,
Executive Chairman of Deposito ry Trust & Cleating Corpo ratio n ("DTCC"). a fi nanc ial services
corporation.
To the extent that Plaintiff's allegations can be discerned and s ummarized, Defendants
have engaged in financial and other misconduct, and President Obama is ineligible to be
President because be is not an American c itizen. (CompL ~~ 45-46.) Plaintiff asserts claim s of
breach of trust. constructive fraud, and conversion ofpropetty, (id. ~~ 37-42), and he also refers
to the Emergency Banking Relief Act. the Trading With the Enemies Act, and various
confidentiality and fman c iul privacy statutes. Plainti(f"prepared and was a material wilness

under a confidentiality contract" that he sent to Defendants. According to Plaintiff, Defendants'
fa i Iure to respond to his correspondence indicates a "conditional acccptan·ce" requiring
performance oftheir "'fiduciary duties" and constitutes a vio lation of the Fr eedom oCTnfom1ation

2

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 8

Act (''FOlA''). 1 (Jd. ~~ 20-21,28-29, and Exhs. D and E.) The first page ofLhe compJaint
indicates that Plaintiff seeks to proceed under seal, but he does not explain the need to do so?

DISCUSSION
A.

Federal Pleading Rules
Under Rule 8 of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain "a short

and plain statement of the claim showing tbat the pleader is entitJed to relief."' Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a). The Supreme Court has held that this rule requires a plaintiff to provide some details about
what each defendant did or failed to do. See Ashcroft'~ Iqbal. 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing

Be!lAtl. Co1p. ''- 'llvombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). [tis not enough for a complaint to stale that
the defendant unlawfully harmed the plaintiff. Id. (citing Tlvomb~y, 550 U.S. at 555). Instead, a
complaint must contain ''enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face;·

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, such that a court could ·'draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged," IqbaL, 556 U.S. at 678. This standard. commonly
referred to as the "plausibility standard," is guided by two principles. First, while district courts
must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint. condusory statements or
"rtJhreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action ... do not s uffice:' !d. Second, when

1

Plaintiff has previously asserted claims rcn,1iniscent of those set forth in this complaint. See,
e.g. Strunkv. Obmna, 880 F. Supp. 2d 1. 4 (D.D .C. 2011) (asserting, inter alia, that President
Obama committed fraud by "paying down the national debt with debt"); Strunk v. U.S. Dep r of
State. 693 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D. D.C. 20LO) (asserting FOIA claims); St,-unk v. US. Depi of
Interior, 752 F'. Supp. 2d 39. 41 (D.D.C. 2010) (same); Stnmk v. N.YS. Bd. of Elections, Ind. No.
6500/11 , 2013 WL J 285886 (N.Y. Sup. Mar. 29, 20 13) (challenging President Obama ·s
eligibility for lhe presidency).
2

Plaintiff filed a miscellaneous action seeking to proceed under seal in t his matter. Judge
Torres' order denying Plainti!Tthat relief is attached to the complaint See Strunkv. Druskin,
No. l 5-MC-49. (Campi , Doc. 1-10 at 2.) Plaintiff filed a motion in this case seeking
reconsideration of Judge Torres' order. That motion is hereby denied.

3

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 4 of 8

deciding what is plausible, a district court must consider the context and ''draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.'' Jd. at 679.
Even read as leruently as possible, Plaintiff's complaint fails to comply with Rule 8. The
Court has analyzed Plaintiff's submission and finds no deprivation of a federally secured right.
Plaintiff's allegations do not state a plausible claim of a federal constitutional or statutory
violation .
Any FOIA claims Plaintiff is attempting to raise must be dismissed. FOlA gives
members ofthe public a right to access some information from federal executive agencies.
Federal courts bave jurisdiction to enforce this right if a plaimifT can show that ·'an agency has
(I) 'improperly;' (2) 'withheJd;' (3) 'agency records."' Kissingerv. Reporters Comm . .for

Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 150 ( 1980) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)). FOIA
applies only to federal agencies. See Grand Cent. P'ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473,484 (2d
Cir. 1999).
Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, one of whom is a private individual , did not reply
to his '"contract..., Because Plaintiff does not allege that he was unlawfully derued access to
records by a federal agency. he has not stated a plausible clairn under FOlA. See 28 U.S.C.
§ l915(c)(2)(B)(ii). Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed because they " lack[] an

arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(c)(2)(B)(ii).

B.

Sovet•eign Immunity
Plaintiffs claims against President Obama, Commissioner Koskinen , and Secretary Lew

are djsmissed because the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars federal courts from hearing all
suits for monetary damages against the federa l government. including its agencies and
employees acting in their official capacities. except where sovereign immunity has been waived.

4

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 5 of 8

See United Stales v. Mitchell. 445 U.S. 535, 538 (l980) (quoting United States v. Shenwod. 312
U.S. 584, 586 ( 1941 )); Dotson v. Griesa, 398 F.3d 156, 177 (2d Cir. 2005); Makarova v. United

Stales, 20 I F.3d 110. 11 3 (2d Cir. 2000); Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502,
510 (2d Cir. 1994) ("Because an action against a federal agency or federal officers in their
official capacities is essentially a suit against the United States, such suits are also batTed under
the doctrine of sovereign immunity, unless such immunity is waived."). To the extent that
Plaintiff is attempting to allege violations under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau ofNarcollcs, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the United States has not consented to be sued under
Bivens. See Keene Corp.

11.

United States, 700 F.2d 836, 845 n.l3 (2d Cir. 1983).

Insofar as the complaint could be construed as alleging claims pursuant to the Federal

Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80 ("FTCA"), that statute provides for a waiver of
sovereign jmmunity for injuries arisjng from the tortious conduct of government officers or
agents. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(l ) . However, the statute's requirements must be strictly followed.

See 0 'Rourke v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. , 730 F. 2d 842, 856 (2d Cir. 1984) (citing Un ited States v.
Kubrick, 444 U.S. Ill, 117-18 (l979)), abrogated on other grounds by Salve Regina College v.
Russell, 499 U.S. 225 (1991). Before bringing a claim in a federal district court under the FTCA
for monetary damages. a claimant must ftrst exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a
claim for monetary damages with the appropriate federal government entity and must receive a
final written determination. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). If no final written determination is made
by the appropriate federal government entity within s ix months of the date of the claimant's
filing, the claimant may bring a FTCA action in a federal district court. See ld. This requit·ement
is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. See Wang
2003).

5

\t

United Stales. 61 F. App'x 757. 759 (2d Cir.

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 6 of 8

To the extent that Plaintiff raises FTCA cla ims arising out of any alleged tortious conduct
of a federal olftcer or employee, plaintiff has failed to allege facts demonstrating that he has filed
an admin1strative claim under the FTCA with any federal govemrnent entity Cor monetary
damages and has subseq uently received a final written determination from any federal
government entity prior to bringing thjs action or. in the alternative. that it has been more than
six months since be has filed such administrative claim. Therefore, because it does not appear
Plaintiff pursued re lief under the FTCA , any cJaims for money damages against the federa l
govemment are dismissed. 28 U .S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

C.

Denial of Motion to Seal
Both the common law and the First Amendment protect the public ·s right of access to

cou1t documents. See Nixon l~ Warner Comnu.: 'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-98 (1978); Hartford

Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir. 2004). This right

or access is not absolute,

and ·'the decision as to access [to judicial records] is one best left to the sound discretion of the
trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light ofthe relevant facts and circumstances of the
particular case.'' Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598-99. Furthermore, a party seeking the sea ling of coUJt
documents must overcome a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records.

See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110, I 19 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Amodeo, 7 1 F.3d
1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995).
The Court concludes that the ci rcumstances here are not sufficiently extraordinary to

outweigh the presumption in favor of pub Iic access. Plaintiff, a frequent litigator in courts
around the country, has previously raised similar claims in litigation that have not been sealed.
The complaint does not include any sensitive personal information, such as Pla intiff's Social
Security number. and Plaintiff does not offer any arguments as to why this matter should be

6

Case 1:15-cv-06817 -JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 7 of 8

sealed. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to proceed under seal or for reconsideration of Judge Torres'
order, bis motion is denied.
D.

Denial of Leave to Amend/Warning Language
Leave to amend a complaint should be freely given "when justice so requires." Fed. R

Civ. P. 15(a)(2). It is "with in the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to
amend." McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184,200 (2d Cir. 2007). "Leave to
amend, though liberally granted. may properly be denied for: 'undue delay, bad faith or dilatory
motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed, nndue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the

amendment~

futility

of amendmenl etc."' Ruotolo v. City ofN. Y, 514 F.3d 184, 19J (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Foman

v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 ( 1962)). Because Plaintiff fai ls to assert any facts suggesting that he
can state a claim against these Defendants, he is denied leave to file an amended complaint.
Moreover. in light ofP iai11tiff's litigation history, this Court. find s that Plaintiff was or
should have been aware that his allegations lack merit when he ftled this action. See Sledge v.

Kooi. 564 F.3d I05 . .I09-110 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussing circumstances where frequent prose
litigant may be charged with knowledge of particular legal requirements). Accordingly, Plai11tiff
is warned that fllrther meritless litigation in this Court may result in an order barring him from
filing new actions in this Court without prior permission, regardless of whether or not he pays
the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 165 I.

CONCLUSION
The complaint is d ismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The motion for reconsideration of Judge Torres' decision denying
Plaintiff's request to file this case under seal is also DENIED. The Clerk of Court is djrectcd to

7

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 8 of 8

mail back to Plaintiff the CDs that were attached to the motion and to make a notation on the

docket.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § l9J 5(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would
not be taken in good faith , and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an
appeal. See Coppedge v. United Stales, 369 U.S. 438,444-45 ( 1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 10, 20 15
New York, New York

J. PAUL OETKEN
United States Djstrict Judge
COPY MAJLED TO PROSE PARTY BY crIAMBERS

8

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 15 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 2

UNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DlSTRlCT OF NEW YORK
CliRJ STOPHER EARL STRUNK,
Beneficiary among the Posteri ly of Pre-1993
Private American National C itizens of the
United States, beneficiary agent for
Christopher Earl Strunk,

Plaintiff,
-againstROBERT DRU SKIN , EXECUTIVE
CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPOSITORY TRUST
& CLEARING CORPORATION; JOHN
KOSKINEN, COMMfSSIONER INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE; JACOB JOSEPH
LEW. TRUSTEE SECRETARY OF THE
UNJTED STATES TREASURYDEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA, Tl, TRUSTEE
COMMANDER IN CHIEF, PRESlDENT OF

15-CV-6817 (JPO)

ORDER

THE UN ITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.
1. PAUL OETKEN. United States District Judge:

On September I 0, 2015 the Court dismissed the complaint in this action because, among

other reasons, l>taintiff's claims "IackO an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke

11.

Williams, 490 U.S. 3 19,325 (1989); 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (Dkt. No. 3.) Plaintiffhas

moved for reconsideration of that decision and to disqualify the Court. (Dkt. No. 12).

«A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the
inte rests of final i Ly and conservation of scarce judicial resources." Drapkin v. Majco Consol.

G1p., Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 678,695 (S.D.N.Y. 20 11) (citation and quotations o mitted). To
prevail, the movant must demonstrate either (i) an intervening change in controlling law; (ii) the

availability of new evidence: or (iii) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 15 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 2

Jacob v. Duane Reade,

Inc.~

293 F.R.D . 578, 580-81 (S.D .N.Y. 2013) (Oetken, J.) (citation

omitted). Having reviewed the record and the party's memorandums of law, the Cowt concludes

lhat it overlooked neither a controlling issue of law nor a crucial fact in the record.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to reconsider is DENIED. Because Plaintiff has failed to
identify a valid ground for disqualification, the motion for recusal is also DENIED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the motions at docket number 12.
ORDERED.
Dated:

September 29, 20 15
New York, New York
J. PAUL OETKEN
United States District Judge

COPY MAILED TO PROSE PARTY BY CHAMBERS

2

15-3199
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
__________________________________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
Plaintiff / Appellant
vs.
ROBERT DRUSKIN, JOHN KOSKINEN,
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, BARACK HUSSEIN
OBAMA II,
Defendants / Appellees.
__________________________________________________________________
"T-1080" MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSION until 7 November 2015 to reply for the pending
Emergency Motion filed 11 October 2015 under FRApP Rule 26 and as for FRApP Rule 27 to
STRIKE the 26 October 2015 Motion of JOHN KOSKINEN, JACOB JOSEPH LEW, BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA II as untimely and containing scandalous material introduced without
evidence, and to STRIKE the 27 October 2015 motion of ROBERT DRUSKIN as an untimely
joinder without evidence and a WTINESS PROTECTIVE ORDER
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Exhibit B

Case 15-3199, Document 40, 10/27/2015, 1629223. Pagel of 1

ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
Short Title:Strunk v. Druskin

Docket No.:_1_5-_3_19_9_ _ __ _ __

Lead Counsel of Record (name/firm) or Pro se Party (name): Laurel S. Fensterstock I Vinson & Elkins LLP
Appearance for (party/designation): Robert Druskin, Executive Chairman of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation I Defendant-Appellee

DOCKET SHEET ACKNOWLEDGMENT/AMENDMENTS
Caption as indicated is:
Correct
Incorrect. See attached caption page with corrections.

0
0

Appellate Designation is:
Correct
Incorrect. The following parties do not wish to participate in this appeal:
Parties:
i=lincorrect P-l-eM
__
e_c_h-an_g_e_th
__e_fu_l_lo_W1_·_n_g_p_a_
rt_
i~
-,d
-e-s-ig_n_
a_tio-ns_:_________________________

0
0

~

Correct D~ ignation

Contact Information for Lead CounseVPro Se Party is:
0
Correct
Incorrect or Incomplete, and should be amended as follows:

0

Name:
Firm:
Address:
Telephone:_________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Fax: ______________ _ __ _ __

Email:
RELATED CASES

0
0

T his case has not been before this Court previously.
This case has been before this Court previously. The short title, docket number, and citation are:-- - ----------

0

Maners related co this appeal o r involving the same issue have been or presently are before this Court. The short titl~,

docket numbers, and citations are: ----------------------------- - - - ----------------------------

CERTIFICATION

l certify that

0

I am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by LR 46.1(a)(2), have renewed my admission on
February 2, 2015
OR that ( ) l applied for admission on
or renewal on
- - -- - - - - - - - - - · · If the Court hM not yet admitted me or approved my renewal, l have completed Addendum A.
Signature of Lead Counsel of Record: /s/ Laurel S. Fensterstock
Type or Print Name: LaurelS. Fensterstock
OR
Signature of pro se litigant: _______________________________________________________________

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

~e

W

0

or Print Name:________________________________ _________________________________

l am a pro se litigant who is not an attorney.
lam an incarcerated prose litigant.

Case 15·3199, Document 41, 10/27/2015, 1629227, Pagel of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
MOTION IN it' ORMA TION STATEMENT

_______ _ _ _________:C:::a~p~tio~o"-L[~us~e..2!sh.::::o:!.!.rt~ti.!!:tle::.J.l_

Docket Number(s): _1_5_-_3_1_9
_9____
Motion for:

_ _ _ __ __

Joinder in Defendants-Appellees' motion for Strunk v. Druskin

dismissal of appeal as frivolous or for summary
affirmance
Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought;

Motion seeks to join in Defendants-Appellees'
motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous or for
summary affirmance, because the case lacks
any arguable basis in law or fact.

MOVIN~RTY: Robert Druskin
U Piaintiff
0 Appellant/Petitioner
MOVING ATTORNEY:

I
I

oPPOSlNG PARTY:

Christopher Earl Strunk

Defendant
Appellee/Respondent

Laurel S. Fensterstock

m•PoslNG ATTORNEY:

N/A (Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se)

[name or attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]

Vinson & Elkins LLP

315 Flatbush Ave., PMB 102

666 Fi·fth Avenue, 26th Floor

Brooklyn, NY 11217

-----------------------New York, NY 101 03
Court-Judge/Agency appealed from :

U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Judge J. Paul Oetken

Please check appropriate boxes:
Has mo~ noti~opposiog cou.nscl (required by Local Rule 27 .I):
U Yesl.{J No (explain): Plaintiff-Appellantos proceeding prose.

.FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND
INJUNCTIONS PEND LNG APPEAL:
Has request for relief been made below?
Dves D No
Has this relief been previously sought in this Court?
O ves 0 No
Requested return date and explanation of emergency; _ _ __ _ __

Opposin~unsel's

position on motion:
Unopposed O Opposcd O:>on' t Know
Does oppo~ing counsel intend to file a response:
U

O ves 0No ~on'l Know

Is oral argument on motion requested?

D

Has argument date of appeal been set?

D

Yes

0

No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)

Yes [{] No Jfyes, enter date:

Signature of Moving Attorney:

lsi LaurelS. Fensterstock

Form T-1080 (rev. 12-13)

Date: 10/27/2015

Service by:

0 cMJECF 0

Other (Anach proof of service]

Case 15·3199, Document 41, 10/27/2015, 1629227, Page2 of 5

No. 15-3199

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CffiCUIT

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Beneficiary among the Posterity of Pre-1993 Private
American National Citizens of the United States, beneficiary agent for Christopher Earl Strunk
Plaintiff-Appellant.
V.

ROBERT DRUSKlN. Executive Chairman of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., JOHN
KOSKINEN. Commissioner Internal Revenue Service, JACOB JOSEPH LEW. Trustee
Secretary of the United States Treasury - Department ofTreasury, BARACK HUSSEIN
OBAMA, Trustee Commander in Chief. President of the United States of America,
Defendants-Appellees
On Appeal from U1e United States District Court for the Southern District ofNew York.
No. 15-Civ.-6817. the Honorable J. Paul Oetken, U.S. District Court Judge

APPELLEE ROBERT DRUSKJN, EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPOSITORY
TRUST & CLEARING CORPORATlON'S MOTION FOR JOINDER IN
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES' MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OR FOR
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE, AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S
MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING OF APPEAL UNDER SEAL WITH
PRELIMJN ARY INJUNCTION

Laurel S. Fenstcrstock
Vinson & Elkins LLP
666 Pifth Avenue. 26 111 Floor
New York, New York 10103
Ifenstcrsto~k(dl ve l aw.co m
Attorneys/or Defendant-Appellee Robert
Druskin. Executive Chairman ofThe
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation

October 27.2015

Lawrence S. Elbaum
Vinson & Elkins LLP
666 Fifth A venue. 261h Floor
New York, New York 10103

lelbaumrrovela\v.com
OJ Counsel

Case 15-3199, Document 41, 10/27/2015, 1629227, Page3 of 5

Motion for Joinder in Defendants-Appellees' Motion to Dismiss the Appea l or for
Summary Affirman ce, and in Opposition to Plaintiff-Appellant's Motion for Exped ited
Rearing of Appeal U ndea· Seal with Preliminary Injunction
Defendant-Appellee, Robert Druskin, Executive Chairman of The Depository Trust and
Clearing Corporation (''DTCC"), respectfully adopts, joins in and incorporates by reference the
legal arguments and authorities set forth in the Motion to Dism iss the Appeal or for Summary
Affirmance, and in Opposition to Plaintiff-Appellant's Motion for Expedited Hearing of Appeal
Under Seal with Preliminary Injunction. fi led by co-Defendants-Appellees on October 26, 20 15
(Dkt. No. 32) (the •<Government's Motion'}
[n addition to the arguments raised in the Government's Motion, Defendant-Appellee
Druskin notes that the court below properly dismissed the complaint in this action. See APX0 II- I 9, Order of Dismissa l, entered on September I 0, 2015, (the ''SDN Y Order"). This is
because, among other things, P laintiff-Appell ant cannot set fotth any basis from which this CoUit
could conclude that the complaint meets the pleading sufficiency requirements set fotth in Iqbal

and Twombly, See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (ho lding that a complaint must
meet a standard of plausibility, which requires that the plaintiff plead factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liab le fo r the alleged
misconduct): Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544, 564 (2007) (holding that threadbare
recitals of the clements of a cause of action. supported by mere conclusory statements. do not
suffice to withstand a motion to dismiss) .
As noted in the SONY Order at APX-014 and APX -016, " Plaintiffs claims must be
dismissed because they ' lack[] an arguable bas is either in law or in fact' .. and " in light of
Plainti ffs litigation history. this Court finds that Pla intiff was or should have been aware that his
allegations lack merit when he filed this action.'' It is therefore unsurprising that the comp laint
contains absolutely no specific mention to any facts or causes of action that could even be

US 3849754v.2

Case 15~3199, Document 41, 10/27/2015, 1629227, Page4 of 5

remotely related to Defendant-Appellee Druskin in his role as Executive Chairman of DTCC. In
fact> besides listing him in the caption and in the ·'Parties" section, the complaint makes no
substantive reference to Defendant-Appellee Druskin.
Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above and in the Government's Motion, this court should
dismiss the appeal or summarily affirm the judgment of the district court, and, in any event, deny
the motion for an expedited hearing of the appeal under seal and for a preliminary injunction.

Dated: October 27, 20 I 5

Respectfully submitted,
By:

/s/ Laurel S. Fensterstock
Vinson & Elkins LLP
666 Fifth Avenue
261h Floor
New York. NY 1OJ 03
T: 212.237.0000
lfensterstock@velaw.com
Attorneys

for

Defendant-

Appellee Robert Druskin.
Executive Chairman of The
Depositm y Trust & Clearinf!
Cotporalion

Lawrence S. Elbaum
Vinson & EJkjns LLP
666 Fifth Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, New York I 0 I 03
lelbaum@velaw.com
OfCozmsel

Case 15-3199, Document 41 , 10/27/2015, 1629227 PageS of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the date hereof, the foregoing was filed using the Court's
CMIECF system. wh ich served a copy of the document on all counsel of record. Service vvas
also effected by Federal Express to the fo llowing:

Christopher Earl Strunk
315 r latbush Ave., PMB I 02

Brooklyn. NY 11217
Plaintiff-Appellant. pro se

Talia Kraemer, Esq.
Assistant United States Attorney
86 Chambers Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
Attorney for Defendant-Appellees
John Koskinen. Jacob Joseph Lew, Barack Hussein Obama

Is! LaurelS. Fensterstock
Attorney jor Defendant-Appellee
Robert Druskin, Executive Chairman ofThe
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation

15-3199
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
__________________________________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
Plaintiff / Appellant
vs.
ROBERT DRUSKIN, JOHN KOSKINEN,
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, BARACK HUSSEIN
OBAMA II,
Defendants / Appellees.
__________________________________________________________________
"T-1080" MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSION until 7 November 2015 to reply for the pending
Emergency Motion filed 11 October 2015 under FRApP Rule 26 and as for FRApP Rule 27 to
STRIKE the 26 October 2015 Motion of JOHN KOSKINEN, JACOB JOSEPH LEW, BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA II as untimely and containing scandalous material introduced without
evidence, and to STRIKE the 27 October 2015 motion of ROBERT DRUSKIN as an untimely
joinder without evidence and a WTINESS PROTECTIVE ORDER
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Exhibit C

11/5/2015

Gmail ­ Notice of intent to file a T1080 motion to strike in Appeal Case 15­3199

Christopher Strunk <suretynomore@gmail.com>

Notice of intent to file a T1080 motion to strike in Appeal Case 15­3199
Christopher Strunk <suretynomore@gmail.com>
Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 5:18 PM
To: USANYS.SDNYWebmaster@usdoj.gov, Ifensterstock@velaw.com, lelbaum@velaw.corn,
benjamin.torrance@usdoj.gov
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Undersigned  agent for Plaintiff/ Appellant in the above referenced
Appeal, provides notice of intent to file a"T1080" emergency motion to strike the Emergency Motion dated 26
October 2015 filed by Assistant US Attorneys;  that by their libel actions they have defamed Undersigned's good
name with accusations of  blasphemy as to God and country; and reveals their malicious use of what must be
characterized as an exclusionary diagnosis done with no facts supporting the allegation despite published proof
to the contrary e.g. that somehow the Undersigned is a practicing "Sovereign Citizen".

 
            Undersigned considers the details of the 26 October 2015 motion by the US Attorney and agents' an
egregious aspersion and lazy legal practice a Gas lighting group stalking fraud upon the court that not only
conceals an ongoing crime, but is designed to suppress speech and religious freedom with substantive
fundamental infringement of Undersigned's God given human rights that inflicts harm upon his clients and that 
must be permanently barred from judicial practice. 

           Dated: November 5, 2015              //s/
                       Brooklyn New York      ___________________
          Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris Beneficiary Agent and 
         Attorney in fact for  ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
              All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
­­ 
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK 
315 Flatbush Avenue ­ #102 Brooklyn NY 11217 
suretynomore@gmail.com 718­414­3760

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=a479fd9275&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=150d9ba6c2ef437a&siml=150d9ba6c2ef437a

1/1

15-3199
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
__________________________________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
Plaintiff / Appellant
vs.
ROBERT DRUSKIN, JOHN KOSKINEN,
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, BARACK HUSSEIN
OBAMA II,
Defendants / Appellees.
__________________________________________________________________
"T-1080" MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSION until 7 November 2015 to reply for the pending
Emergency Motion filed 11 October 2015 under FRApP Rule 26 and as for FRApP Rule 27 to
STRIKE the 26 October 2015 Motion of JOHN KOSKINEN, JACOB JOSEPH LEW, BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA II as untimely and containing scandalous material introduced without
evidence, and to STRIKE the 27 October 2015 motion of ROBERT DRUSKIN as an untimely
joinder without evidence and a WTINESS PROTECTIVE ORDER
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Exhibit D

Affidavit
Concerning the Case involving Christopher Earl Strunk
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Case No. 15-3199
I, Eric Jon Phelps, state and declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct
under 28 USC § 1746:
My name is Eric Jon Phelps. I am a Private American National Citizen, said citizenship
protected by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States. I
privately reside in equity within a non-militarily occupied private estate, County of Lebanon, at
203 South Fort Zellers Road, Newmanstown, Pennsylvania. I am a Baptist Calvinist minister of
the gospel ofthe risen Lord Jesus Christ, radio station owner and broadcaster of247world
radio.com., and a teacher of biblical theology as well as American law and history. I hold, what
I call, "Private American National Citizenship classes" every month. The classes span a threeday period as I teach Reformation history, American history, constitutional law and jurisdiction.
In my October class of2014, a student was present that had been an FBI agent for over
thirty years. The agent confided to me in confidence that as a result of the 2008 mortgage crisis,
he/she was assigned to conduct an investigation as to the collateral of all derivatives traded on
the Stock Market. It was discovered that the collateral, the source of all credit extension to the
major banks, were private, Treasury trust fund accounts represented by the Certificates of Live
Births filed with the fifty states and Washington, D.C.
Shocked and aghast, he/she reported this discovery to his/her superiors. Sadly, he/she
was told that it would be in the FBI's best interest for he/her to resign. Further, he/she was
warned that he/she spoke about this to anyone, he/she would be destroyed by ceaseless litigation
and maybe subjected to harassing criminal prosecution.
Upon privately revealing this event to me the agent gave me terms. He/she made it
crystal clear that in no way shall he/she publicly testify to these facts in any public arena. So, in
honoring my promise to the agent, I shall not break my trust by disclosing his/her name.
However, I will testify concerning the above event in any arena.
Further affiant sayeth not.

71CA/'U~ '-IJ J-o,S
Date:

E~~r~

Private American National Citizen
Private Citizen and Private Non-Statutory Resident
of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
203 South Fort Zellers Road
Newmanstown, Pennsylvania

15-3199
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
__________________________________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
Plaintiff / Appellant
vs.
ROBERT DRUSKIN, JOHN KOSKINEN,
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, BARACK HUSSEIN
OBAMA II,
Defendants / Appellees.
__________________________________________________________________
"T-1080" MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSION until 7 November 2015 to reply for the pending
Emergency Motion filed 11 October 2015 under FRApP Rule 26 and as for FRApP Rule 27 to
STRIKE the 26 October 2015 Motion of JOHN KOSKINEN, JACOB JOSEPH LEW, BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA II as untimely and containing scandalous material introduced without
evidence, and to STRIKE the 27 October 2015 motion of ROBERT DRUSKIN as an untimely
joinder without evidence and a WTINESS PROTECTIVE ORDER
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Exhibit E

~......

Cb

POs,:,
~-,

-::iit811'-

.-=="

P TN V aOWE:B

$ 001.20°
1

VINSON & ELKINS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW
666 FIFTH AVENUE 26TH FLOOR. NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10103 0040

Vinson &Elkins

MAIL
Vinson &Elkins
VINSON & ELKINS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW
666 FIFTH AVENUE, 26TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10103-0040

VIA FIRST CLASS MAlL

Robert Druskin
593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281
Brooklyn, NY 1123 8

™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue, PMB 102
Brooklyn New York Zipcode excepted [11217]
Phone: 718·414·3760 Email: suretynomore@gmail.com
To: The Clerk of the Court
for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
In Re: STRUNK v. DRUSKIN ETAL USCA 2nd Circuit Appeal Case 15-3199
Subject: "T-1080" MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSION until 7 November 2015 to reply for the
pending Emergency Motion filed 11 October 2015 under FRApP Ru1e 26 and as for FRApP
Rule 27 to STRIKE the 26 October 2015 Motion of JOHN KOSKINEN, JACOB JOSEPH LEW,
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II as untimely and containing scandalous material introduced
without evidence, and to STRIKE the 27 October 2015 motion ofROBERT DRUSKIN as an
untimely joinder without evidence and a WITNESS PROTECTIVE ORDER
Dear Clerk of the Court,
I, Christopher Earl Strunk am the undersigned Complainant Movant in the referenced
appeal case file hereby the Original and three copies of the Subject Emergency Motion.
The Affidavit of Service on opposing counsels is attached herewith.

Respectfully submitted by~ ­

1_,

Dated: November
2015
Brooklyn New York
C ·
arl Strunk in esse Sui juris Beneficiary Agent and
Attorney in fact for ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Strunk v. DRUSKIN ETAL USCA Appeal No. 15-3199

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I Christopher Earl Strunk hereby certify under penalty ofpetjury with 28 USC 1746: that on 7 November
2015, I served a true conformed copy of the 6 November 2015 affirmation for the "T-1080" Motion to:
enlargement oftime to reply, strike and for a witness protective order to be served by United States Postal
Service in a properly addressed envelope wlproper postage wl "URGENT LEGAL PAPERS" on the
envelope - delivery upon:
BENJAMIN J. TORRANCE Assistant U.S. Attorney for
SARA L. SHUDOFSKY Chief, Civil Division for
the Honorable PREET BHARARA US ATTORNEY
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office
86 Chambers Street I 3rd Floor
New York City, NY 10007
TALIA KRAEMER, Assistant U.S. Attorney for
SARA L. SHUDOFSKY Chief, Civil Division for
the Honorable PREET BHARARA US ATTORNEY
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office
86 Chambers Street I 3rd Floor
New York City, NY 10007
LAUREL S. EINSTERSTOCK ESQ. of Counsel
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
666 FIFTH A VENUE, 26TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10103
LAWRENCE S. ELBAUM ESQ. of Counsel
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
666 FIFTH A VENUE, 26TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10103

""J

Dated: November
2015
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Cl'l'l'tstOipher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris Beneficiary
Agent and Attorney in fact for
™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
c/o 315 Flatbush A venue, PMB 102
Brooklyn New York Zipcode excepted [11217]
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email: suretynomore@gmail.com

™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue, PMB 102
Brooklyn New York Zipcode excepted [11217]
Phone: 718·414·3760 Email: suretynomore@gmail.com
To: The Clerk of the Court
for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
In Re: STRUNK v. DRUSKIN ETAL USCA 2nd Circuit Appeal Case 15-3199
Subject: "T~ 1080" MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSION until 7 November 201 S to reply for the
pending Emergency Motion filed 11 October 2015 under FRApP Rule 26 and as for FRApP
Rule 27 to STRIKE the 26 October 2015 Motion of JOHN KOSKINEN, JACOB JOSEPH LEW,
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ll as untimely and containing scandalous material introduced
without evidence, and to STRIKE the 27 October 2015 motion of ROBERT DRUSKIN as an
untimely joinder without evidence and a WITNESS PROTECTIVE ORDER
Dear Clerk of the Court,
I, Christopher Earl Strunk am the undersigned Complainant Movant in the referenced
appeal case file hereby the Original and three copies of the Subject Emergency Motion.
The Affidavit of Service on opposing counsels is attached herewith.
Respectfully submitted by: ,?~- .
~-

.

-'\;

1_,

Dated: November
2015
Brooklyn New York

C

~arl Strunk in esse Sui juris Beneficiary Agent and

Attorney in fact for ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK~:

r.::

- .,..,.

-.1'....
(

;

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CffiCUIT
Strunk v. DRUS:KIN ETAL USCA Appeal No. 15-3199

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I Christopher Earl Strunk hereby certifY under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 1746: that on 7 November
2015, I served a true conformed copy of the 6 November 2015 affirmation for the "T-1080" Motion to:
enlargement of time to reply, strike and for a witness protective order to be served by United States Postal
Service in a properly addressed envelope w/proper postage w/ "URGENT LEGAL PAPERS" on the
envelope - delivery upon:
BENJAMIN J. TORRANCE Assistant U.S. Attomey for
SARA L. SHUDOFSKY Chief, Civil Division for
the Honorable PREET BHARARA US ATTORNEY
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office
86 Chambers Street /3rd Floor
New York City, NY 10007

TALIA KRAEMER Assistant U.S. Attorney for
SARA L. SHUDOFSKY Chief, Civil Division for
the Honorable PREET BHARARA US ATTORNEY
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office
86 Chambers Street I 3rd Floor
New York City, NY 10007
LAUREL S. EINSTERSTOCK ESQ. of Counsel
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
666 FIFTH A VENUE, 26TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10103
LAWRENCE S. ELBAUM ESQ. of Counsel
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
666 FIFTH AVENUE, 26TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10103

.t~

N
N

D~ted: November L

2015

< __),JfOOklyn, N.Y.
pher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris Beneficiary
Agent and Attorney in fact for
™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue, PMB 102
Brooklyn New York Zipcode excepted [11217]
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email: suretynomore@gmail.com

.---'"\.

- ··

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

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

- - - - - - - - - --

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAI~S FOR THE SECOND CIRC(UT
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Squ!lfe~ New Y<lr~ NY 100(}7 Telephone: 212-857-850:(}
MOTION lNFOR.I\t.-UfON S'fAT£;.'\1£1\tl'
DoctretNumbe:r(s}:

SONY 15-cv-6817 (JPO)

Canti011 fuse sbnrt title J

Expedited hearing of appeal under seal with CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
PlatnUfffAppellant
preliminary Injunction pending declaratory judgment on law and

Motion ror;

versus

---~----

party status with irreparable harm to status quo and property.
Set forth bclQw prr:dse. complete: statement uf relief sought:

ROBERT DRUSKIN, JOHN KOSKINEN, JACG5
JOSEPH LEW and BARACK HUSS::J~ CBA. :.,

as a oan~• nq malta< u:>~ng !iO USC App. 9. 17. 32, 33 und.~.r 12 USC 95; 50 lJSAC App. 5(bl

;:.r· ~
SARA l.. SH!JOOFSKY ;~~§oA~ p~~l!ers
z

l\lOVIN~\RTV: "'CHRISTOPHER eARL STRUN((C) trademark regislraoon pe-m;ng

OPPOSING p AlU\':

U Plaintil'fBDefundant
fZJAppdlant/Petitioner
Appellee/Respondent

-1

a

!:.:,:

iT~

n

:~~ f§ :.::::; ::

MOVING A'f'fORNE\': Christopher Earl StrrJnk, beneficiary agent OPPOSING ATfORl"iE\': SARA L
Lname of attorney, with fum, addrtl~!i, phone namher and e·mallj

()

SH~~~~y CNef, Ci~~ivislon
~.:.:

r., · ~- :·:

::&:

·<

Unite~~~s A~rnejgoffice

clo 315 Flatbush Avenue- PMB 102

c/o Civil Division of the

Brooklyn, New York 11238

86 Chambers Street I 3rd Floor;

718-414-3760 I suretynomore@gmaif.com

{212) 637~2800 USANYS.SDNYWebmaster@usdoj.gov

... fr
. '" .
C-0urt-J udgw ,...gc:nc:y appea1eu. om:

NewVBrk, NY

USDC SONY - JAMES
PAUL OETKEN USOJ's sui sponte Orders
_
...
. to dismiss and deny seal
FOR

EM.~RGENCY MOl'lO~S,

MOllONS FOR STAYS AND

fNJl!NCUONSPE."'iD.INGAPPEAL:
Has: r.:quest fur reiicfbeen made below'?
Has this reliefbeen pte"Vfuu<;.ty sought mu'lis Court?

E1 [Z]_ _
,f · Yes

. No

. Yes

.f .No

Requested rct'Unl dati! and t!rplaoation of ~gency: October n, 21}15
fJpposin~ \:l.lilll~l's position on

0

motion:

l.Jnoppo~ed O>wosed ~n't Know

Does. opposing couns;:l iut¢l'!d to file a N<ip-Onse:
vesQso{Z):>nn'l Know

D

0
DHte:

--i{t..?tJT
Form T-1060 (rev. 12-1 3)

10007

Yes [{]No Ifyes, cntcrdatc:~--

7 llt:.( 2 °1Jservicc by: Oc."MMECF

~Other [Attach proofofservice}

----

Case 15-3199, Document 14, 10/15/2015, 1619863, Page1 of 1
ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
Short Title: Strunk v. Druskin

Docket No.: 15-3199

Lead Counsel of Record (name/firm) or Pro se Party (name): Benjamin H. Torrance/United States Attorney's Office
Appearance for (party/designation): John Koskinen, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service; Jacob Joseph Lew, Secretary of the United States
Department of Treasury; Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America / Defendants-Appellees

DOCKET SHEET ACKNOWLEDGMENT/AMENDMENTS
Caption as indicated is:
( ✔ ) Correct
( ) Incorrect. See attached caption page with corrections.
Appellate Designation is:
( ✔ ) Correct
( ) Incorrect. The following parties do not wish to participate in this appeal:
Parties:
( ) Incorrect. Please change the following parties’ designations:
Party
Correct Designation

Contact Information for Lead Counsel/Pro Se Party is:
( ✔ ) Correct
( ) Incorrect or Incomplete, and should be amended as follows:
Name:
Firm:
Address:
Telephone:
Email:

Fax:

RELATED CASES
( ✔ ) This case has not been before this Court previously.
( ) This case has been before this Court previously. The short title, docket number, and citation are:
( ) Matters related to this appeal or involving the same issue have been or presently are before this Court. The short titles,
docket numbers, and citations are:

CERTIFICATION
I certify that ( ✔ ) I am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by LR 46.1(a)(2), have renewed my admission on
January 5, 2015
OR that ( ) I applied for admission on
or renewal on
. If the Court has not yet admitted me or approved my renewal, I have completed Addendum A.
Signature of Lead Counsel of Record: /s/ Benjamin H. Torrance
Type or Print Name: Benjamin H. Torrance
OR
Signature of pro se litigant:
Type or Print Name:
( ) I am a pro se litigant who is not an attorney.
( ) I am an incarcerated pro se litigant.

™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue, PMB 102
Brooklyn New York Zipcode excepted [11238]
Phone: 718-414-3760 Email: suretynomore@gmail.com
To: The Clerk of the Court
for the United States Court od Appeals for the Second Circuit
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
In Re: STRUNK v. DRUSKIN ETAL USCA AppeallS-3199
Subject: "ERRATA" AFFIRMATION affmnedOctober 15,2015 for the "T-1080"
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING OF APPEAL UNDER SEAL WITH
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON LAW AND
PARTY STATUS WITH IRREPARABLE HARM TO STATUS QUO AND PROPERTY
Dear Clerk of the Court,
I, Christopher Earl Strunk am the undersigned Complainant Movant in the referenced
appeal case 15-3199 attached herewith is the: "ERRATA" AFFIRMATION affmned October 15,
2015 Original and two copies of the Emergency Motion for the above reference case on appeal.
My certificate of service of the ERRATA and motion papers for the addition of the 21
signature page for the affirmation on opposing parties is herewith attached with proposed order.
In additional to the above the appeal case Caption as to the beneficiary and appellant has
the wrong entries that need correction as well as to Undersigned's contact information.

Christopher Earl Strunk, Beneficiary among the
Posterity ofPre-1933 Private American National
Citizens of the United States, beneficiary agent for
™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© (Plaintiff/Appellant)
If there is an additional requirement for oral argument and appearance please do not
hesitate to contact me at the above listed number or email.

Respectfully
Dated: October

submitt~

g;, 2015

BrooklynNewYork

. '

~

~

C ,C. / ·'

~

Christopher Earl Strunk in esse §uijuris Beneficiary Agent and
Attorney in fact for ™CHRIST PHER EARL STRUNK©

Attachments:
cc: See Service List

UNITED STATES COURT OF APrEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK

)
)
Plaintiff/Appellant )
vs.
)
)
ROBERT DRUSKIN, JOHN KOSKINEN,
)
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, and
)
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II
)

APPEAL CASE 15-3199
No. 15-cv-6817 (JPO) (DF)

)

Defendants/Appellees. )

PROPOSED ORDER

The Clerk of the Court is hereby
ORDERED to vacate the order to dismiss the Complaint of 10 September 2015.
ORDERED to enter into the record that the obligations of the Executive Branch as
to the rights of Plaintiff and any Parties who intervene in this case no later than
(date) are confirmed based upon the law and facts of the emergency motion;
ORDERED that the US Attorney for the Civil Division of the Southern District
of New York on (other date) is the special master trustee until further notice.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is to establish an Administrative process( es)
pursuant to the obligations of the Executive Branch to Plaintiff and third parties in
is circumstance.
So Ordered this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ 2015

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCIDT
Strunk v. DRUSKIN ETAL USCA Appeal No. 15-3199

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I Christopher Earl Strunk hereby certify under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 1746 that on October 15,
2015, I served a true conformed copy of the "ERRATA" AFFIRMATION affmned October 15, 2015
for the "T-1080" EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING OF APPEAL UNDER SEAL
WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON LAW AND
PARTY STATUS WITH IRREPARABLE HARM TO STATUS QUO AND PROPERTY with Motion
APPENDIX to be served by United States Postal Service in a properly addressed envelope w/proper
postage w/ "URGENT LEGAL PAPERS" on the envelope- delivery upon:
BENJAMIN J. TORRANCE Assistant U.S. Attorney for
SARA L. SHUDOFSKY Chief, Civil Division for
the Honorable PREET BHARARA US ATTORNEY
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office
86 Chambers Street I 3rd Floor
New York City, NY 10007
ROBERT DRUSKIN, Executive Chairman of the
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
55 Water Street, 1-SL,
NewYorkNewYork [10041-0004]
JOHN KOSKINEN, Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service Office of Commissioner,
1111 Constitution A venue, NW
Washington, DC [20224]
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, Secretary of the United States Treasury
--- Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia [20220]
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, Commander in Chief,
President of the United States of America,
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Washington District of Columbia [20500}

~,

)
/

~

Dated: OctobeJ
2015
Brooklyn, N.Y.

Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris Beneficiary
Agent!~nd Attorney in fact for
™CmUSTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
c/o 3 ~5 Flatbush Avenue, PMB 102
Brookl[Yn New York Zipcode excepted [ 1123 8]
Ph: 7 .tf8-414-3 760 Email: suretvnomore@gmail.com

I

.

15-3199
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
__________________________________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
Plaintiff / Appellant
vs.
ROBERT DRUSKIN, JOHN KOSKINEN,
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, BARACK HUSSEIN
OBAMA II,
Defendants / Appellees.
__________________________________________________________________
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED HEARING OF APPEAL UNDER SEAL WITH
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
ON LAW AND PARTY STATUS WITH IRREPARABLE HARM TO
STATUS QUO AND PROPERTY
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Appeal taken from the 10 September 2015 sua sponte Order to Dismiss the
Complaint filed 27 August 2015 and denying the Motion to Rehear the Order
"M-49"; and the Order of 29 September 2015 denying the Motion to Reconsider
the Order to Dismiss with Demand for Disqualification of J. PAUL OETKEN
USDJ in USDC SDNY 15-cv-6817
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Christopher Earl Strunk, Complainant Beneficiary
and agent attorney in fact for
™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© Appellant
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue - PMB 102
Brooklyn, NY Zip code excepted [11238]
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email suretynomore@gmail.com

 

I, Christopher Earl Strunk, Complainant Beneficiary among the Posterity of Pre1933 Private American National Citizens of the United States ("the Posterity") and
sole beneficiary agent

attorney in fact, the Undersigned, for Business Trust

Organization ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© with trademark registration
pending and germane ("NAME", Plaintiff / Appellant), states and declares under
penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct under 28 USC §1746:
Introduction
Undersigned's Affirmation IN SUPPORT OF THE EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED HEARING OF APPEAL UNDER SEAL WITH PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION PENDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON LAW AND
PARTY STATUS WITH IRREPARABLE HARM TO STATUS QUO AND
PROPERTY, with Local Rule 27 for FRCvP Rules 57, 60, 65(a)(b), follows prior
notice of intent (see APX-004) as done with 28 CFR §0.47 to the Office of Alien
Property at the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of New York as applies to both Complainant and Plaintiff
demands of Trustees of the private special trusts for return of personal property
with accounting as a banking matter using 50 USC App. Sections 9, 17, 32, 33 and
related law (see reprint of law APX-341 thru APX-386) under 12 USC §95(a): 50
USC App. §5(b) with Executive Orders 2039 (APX-132) and 2040 ( APX-133)
(EBRA amended TWEA), as Undersigned is a registered private national citizen of

 

the United States of America / non-combatant defined by the Hague Convention
under the time of war or emergency for the temporary Military Government
(TMG) Trustees maintained with no less than 39 annual ongoing emergencies (see
the current summary APX-033 thru APX-037) that hold legal title to business
trust transmitting utility CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK property pending
trademark registration; and Undersigned requests a Preliminary Injunction by the
Court to seal this action and for the Chief of the Civil Division to respond to the
demand for 28 USC §2201- §2202 declaratory judgment(s) on the law and facts to
establish obligations of parties for return of personal property (inter alia clear title
to the NAME in commerce be removed from commingled bundle) with accounting
for NAME irreparable harm to status quo caused by Defendants / Appellees
Trustee(s)' breach of fiduciary duty with conversion and constructive fraud; and
requires this motion and appeal be heard by senior judges of majority age accrued
by 6 January 1973 for the US Senate Report 93-549 authorization.
FACTS
1. On October 6, 2015, Undersigned filed notice of appeal / preliminary appeal
statement (APX-007) for ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© Plaintiff, who
hereby appeals from each and every part taken from the entered September 10,
2015 sua sponte Order to Dismiss (APX-11 thru APX-18) the Original Bill of
Complaint (Complaint) verified August 14, 2015 and then filed August 27, 2015


 

(APX-096 thru APX-404) and denying the Motion to Rehear the Order "M-49"
(APX-268 thru APX-328); and the Order of September 29, 2015 (APX-020)
denying the Motion to Reconsider the Order to Dismiss with Demand for
Disqualification of J. PAUL OETKEN USDJ (APX-045 thru APX-463).
2. The current SDNY docket (APX-001) properly shows the Complaint was
filed for cause under 28 USC §1331 as a "Federal Question jurisdiction" for "890
Statutory Actions", e.g. a banking matter using 50 USC App. Sections 2(c), 9, 17,
32, 33 and related law under EBRA amended TWEA as the law of the land
approved by Congress under 12 USC §95(b) (APX-136) and as for all current and
related law. As germane facts herein, the SDNY Clerk has yet to correct the
Caption of the Docket despite proper written notification (see APX-038), and as
well as notice(s) to J. PAUL OETKEN USDJ that were and are ignored, all of
which goes to proof of bias and or lacks judicial review competence herein- Judge
OETKEN admits his inability stating the Complaint is "300 pages of legalese and
attachments" (APX-012) and then proceeds to misquote the caption and facts
presented, further proving his incompetence.
3. Undersigned is a private contractor providing fee for services to client(s)
under a Confidentiality Agreement (see example APX-331 thru APX-340) to:
1) guide such clients in establishing themselves as Private American Citizens, and
then for each client; 2) to establish clear title with exclusive beneficial use of their

 

business trust organization transmitting utility entity suitable for name Trademark
registration in commerce, and then for the client to separately obtain an EIN
account for use in banking.
FACTS for Declaratory Judgment as to Temporary Military Government
4. Undersigned by way of the Complaint (see APX-096), Motions to Seal (see
APX-272) to Rehear (see APX-411) and Motion to Reconsider (see APX-045) has
in each requested a declaratory judgment under 28 USC §2201 and related law as
applies to the provision of Martial due process rather than Civilian due process
during the time of war or emergency under EBRA amended TWEA, as applies
with Complainant's / Plaintiff's use of 50 USC Appendix §9a, with a 60 day
response deadline, and the Court's Jurisdiction under 50 USC Appendix §17, and
decision in the matter of Plaintiff's beneficiary agent status of the Posterity as to
standing as a non-combatant during the annually renewed emergency or time of
war; and the simple facts are:
a.

As shown at APX-134 on March 9, 1933 the Congress enacted EBRA

amended TWEA brought the TWEA inland.
b.

As shown at APX-136 on March 9, 1933, Congress enacted 12 USC §95(b)

ratification of POTUS and Secretary of the Treasury acts under 12 USC §95(a).
c.

As shown at APX-132 Executive Order 2039 created the perpetual private

trusts on March 6, 1933 mandate.


 

d.

As shown at APX-133 Executive Order 2040 created the perpetual TMG on

March 9, 1933 mandate.
e.

As shown at APX-138 Foreword of the US Senate Report 93-549 as to the

TMG under national emergency (1).
f.

As shown at APX-141 Report Introduction of the US Senate Report 93-549

in "A BRIEF HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ORIGINS OF EMERGENCY
POWERS NOW IN FORCE" (2).

g.

As shown at APX-165 as a result of the recommendation in Senate Report

93-549 , Congress enacted PUBLIC LAW 94-412- on SEPT. 14. 1976 - 90 STAT.
1255 and therein kept the provisions of EBRA amended TWEA continuing
national emergency as long as it is annually renewed (3).
h.

And by reference, Undersigned includes every(4) annually renewed time of

war or emergency including the notice of September 10, 2015 (APX-459) along
with the summary of active concurrent National Emergencies from October 2014
to October 9, 2015 (APX-033) for the Court's judgment on the state of the TMG.
                                                            
1

"This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without
reference to normal Constitutional process." 
2
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule."
3
" Sec. 502. (a) The provisions of the Act shall not apply to the following provisions of law, the
powers and authorities conferred thereby, and action taken thereunder: Section 5(b) of the Act of
October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a: 50 U.S.C. App. 5(b);"
4
12 USC §95(b) : "actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or
hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the
Secretary of the Treasury since March 4. 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by section 95a
of this title, are approved and confirmed "

 

FACTS for Declaratory Judgment as to Complainant Status
5. Undersigned provides fee service in good faith based upon information and
belief that the United States is, has been and remains continuously for over 82
years under a TMG of the EBRA amended TWEA and related law. Undersigned’s
reliance on this information and belief

(5)

was confirmed by Order of the New

York State Appellate Division for the Second Department on 4 March 2014, the
81st anniversary of the 4 March 1933 inauguration of

FDR and of FDR’s

Proclamation #2039, wherein the country remains under a TMG and the State
courts that sit in temporary martial authority are not able to provide "Civilian due
Process of Law." (see APX-463).
6. J. PAUL OETKEN USDJ reviewed the PDF of the un-redacted portions of
the Complaint shown both at Exhibit B and D as to the status of Undersigned as
well as every client shown as attachment 2 through 20; and doing so ordered the
clerk to return the PDF / CD shown after Docket entry 4 on September 14, 2015.
7. That the facts on which the State Court Appellate Order shown as APX-463,
                                                            
5
   
That an active FBI agent "whistleblower" (whose identity remains secret) verifies the

existence and use of certificate bundles and the name would only be given in Chambers under
the protection of the Court under seal.
That Undersigned is assured by a high level experienced Federal Reserve Bank system
expert that the Private Trust(s) (where each such trust relationship is established upon receipt of
the Writ of Birth or Birth Registration, although such trusts are subsequently bundled or
commingled) exist and are safeguarded.
That Undersigned on the other hand was told by market analysis expert Rob Kirby that
there is a likelihood since 2001 as a result of the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act that combining the
Private Trust(s) added risks associated with the Exchange Stabilization Fund and the Private
Trusts underlying United States Securities are being looted and requires a forensic accounting.

 

as presented to Judge OETKEN, were also presented to the New York State
Appellate Division four judge panel, and to which any order of this court must
admit or deny, are the following historical facts regarding de jure Posterity status:
a. Federal citizenship secured by Article IV, Section 2 of the United States
Constitution is broadened into national citizenship by Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment to the same United States Constitution (Section 1, 14th Amendment),
reducing the liberties of Posterity by imposing a State-created, statutory, de facto
Public U.S. citizenship.
b. This de facto Public U.S. citizenship, in substance a privileged Roman
citizenship, enables the constitutionally de jure civilian government of the United
States (6) to be replaced with a Congressionally-created, statutory, de facto TMG of
the United States on March 9, 1933.
c. On 4 March 1933 the civilian government exercising the constitutional, de
jure jurisdiction of the United States

(7)

, was overthrown and replaced with a

military government exercising an extra-constitutional, alien and foreign, de facto
jurisdiction of the United States (8).
d. Further, legally replacing constitutional de jure Posterity with de facto
                                                            
6

Having been constitutionally altered from being a de jure “Federal” government broadened to
a de jure “National” government by the 14th Amendment of 1868.
7
the “United States” being “the collective name of the states which are united by and under the
constitution,” Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 672.
8
(this “United States” being “the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States
extends,” Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, supra, 671)

 

Public “U.S. citizenship,” enables the constitutional de jure jurisdiction of the
“United States” to be legally replaced with a statutory de facto jurisdiction of the
“United States.”
e. Further, this overthrow of both de jure Posterity at Common Law and its
counterpart, the de jure jurisdiction of the “United States” at Common Law,
enables the use of the de facto Emergency War Powers American Congress—now
possessing the unlimited legislative powers of an English Parliament—to wield
absolute legislative power over the de jure forty-eight sovereign states turned into
de facto “conquered territories” ruled and administered as military administrative
districts by the statutorily-created, de facto national TMG.
f. This unlimited, congressional power enables the de facto military
government to control by statute every facet of American life “from the cradle to
the grave.” for those who are “Public U.S. Citizens”.
g. This control includes the imposition of the building of a huge military
industrial complex while using their de facto Public “U.S. citizens”; to finance
and fight the wars to gain power over the governments of virtually all nations
while subsequently militarizing those conquered nations using the Federal Reserve
Bank currency.
h. Further, with the change of the de jure constitutional jurisdiction of the


 

“United States”

(9)

to a de facto, extra-constitutional, Roman Civil Law

jurisdiction of the “United States”

(10)

, an alien and foreign martial due process

would be adopted by the federal and state courts fitted for the new de facto Public
“U.S. citizens” living in the states deemed de facto “conquered territories.” and or
“military administrative districts”.
i. Since these de facto Public “U.S. citizens” are in substance Roman citizens,
and since these de facto “conquered territories” are in substance Roman provinces
under military rule, it is only fitting that the Roman/Public “U.S. citizens” should
be criminally and civilly subjected to a martial process imposed by their
constitutionally-created civilian courts.
j. This de facto martial process, if unchallenged by evidence presented in a
Counterclaim at Common Law Equity proving the accused to be a Private
American Citizen and not a Roman Public “U.S. citizen,” would confer, in
substance, martial in personam jurisdiction.

With this absolutist judicial

jurisdiction limited only by decisions of the Supreme Court, the federal courts are
in substance legislative courts and not Article III or equity courts.
k. These Emergency War Powers Courts enforce the sovereign will of the
Emergency War Powers Congress, while sitting in substantive equity operating
                                                            
9

(with its Common Law civilian due process and procedure secured by the Fifth Amendment,
the Seventh Amendment and section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment)
10
(established by an amended Congressional war statute (1933), a Presidential Proclamation
(1933) and the subsequent abolition of Common Law rights and Common Law civilian due
process by the Supreme Court (1938))

 

upon a legal fiction.

The legal fiction, as to live men and women, is the

presumption of fact that each individual Private “U.S. Citizen” is in contract with
and enfranchised by the State or military district of his/her natural birth or
naturalization, thereby altering his/her constitutional, de jure Posterity conferred at
birth to a statutory, de facto Public “U.S. citizenship” upon the public filing of a
unilateral contract, where the change in status enables the courts to dispose of his
matter under military process, criminal or civil.
l. Further, such unilateral contract was the public filing of a “Certificate of
Live Birth” or "Naturalization Certificate". The American “Certificate of Live
Birth”—by operation of law—is the contract which alters de jure Posterity to de
facto Public “U.S. citizenship.” With this presumption of fact of an existing
contract held by every individual Public “U.S. citizen,” every court legally would
sit in equity while enforcing the Statutes.
m. This de facto status enables the courts to sit in legislative equity thereby
subverting the Common Law jurisdiction of the United States

(11)

by rendering

ineffective any previous constitutional, de jure Private Citizenship of the United
States (Section 1, 14th Amendment).
n. Further, first the creation of a Legal Fiction, after which the imposition of
judicial Equity, then opening the door to congressional/parliamentary, unlimited
                                                            
11

(as per Section 1, 13th Amendment, and Section 1, 14th Amendment)
10 

 

Legislation.

(12)

The legal foundation and substance for de facto overthrow of the

limited, constitutional, de jure “jurisdiction of the United States” is Legal Fiction.
o. The Legal Fiction, legally imposed by silent consent, was the public filing
of a Certificate of Live Birth, the Baptismal Certificate of every Public “U.S.
citizen.” Hence, every Private American Citizen became Surety for his status of
being a Public “U.S. citizen.”
p. In effect, the FRANCHISE, BUSINESS TRUST, and or BIRTH
CERTIFICATE, NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE, is in fact a unilateral
contract under seal, created and offered legally though deceitfully, its open-butfalse purpose being to aid in the Census as a means of identification in the
documentation of a natural birth, as well as for health reasons and purposes; its
secret-but-true purpose being to rob “We the People,” including every individual
of the Posterity, first of our sovereignty as a People, then our constitutionallycreated status, and ultimately our lives, fortunes and sacred honor;
q. The true purpose of the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, a unilateral contract under
seal, is a covert commercial agreement and unconscionable, adhesion
contract/quasi-contract first with the State of the baby’s natural birth and then
secondly with the Federal now National government (13);
                                                            
12

(The philosophic parallel to this formula is “Substance, Mode and Circumstance.”)
(the BIRTH CERTIFICATES being recorded by the Department of Commerce and related
agencies then to serve as collateral securities for the national debt)
13

11 
 

r. The true nature of the DATE OF FILING on the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, a
unilateral contact under seal, is to commence the legal birth of the quasicorporate, artificial person/Public “U.S. citizen” created by all necessary legal
elements of a unilateral contract (14);
s. The true nature of the DATE OF BIRTH of the baby named on the BIRTH
CERTIFICATE or Naturalization per se is to commit the natural person/Private
American Citizen as Surety indenture transmitting utility for the state-created,
artificial person/Public “U.S. citizen,” both entities being legally wedded into one
legal entity, the hybrid Public “U.S. citizen;”
t. The BIRTH CERTIFICATE is a BUSINESS TRUST INSTRUMENT
recorded with the County Recorder and or State Registrar, a subsidiary of the
Secretary of State

(15)

, then also sent to the Bureau of Census, a division of the

Department of Commerce in Washington, D.C., placing the NAME of the Public
“U.S. citizen” into interstate and foreign world commerce as a statutory, legal
“person”(16), distinct and separate from the “natural born citizen,” per se, i.e., the
Posterity born on soil to citizen parents of legal resident parents or Naturalized;
u. The Secretary of State (of the several states) charters corporations and issues
franchises, therefore, any natural born citizen/Private American Citizen with a
                                                            
14

(it being in writing, signed, sealed and delivered for registration and filing with a public
office of the baby’s State of live birth or District of naturalization)
15
(of the several states treated as “conquered territories”)
16
(as are corporations, partnerships, trusts, corporate soles, etc.)
12 
 

BIRTH CERTIFICATE is liable to the Franchise Tax Board of the State’s
Department of Revenue for income/excise/privilege taxes, as well as liable to the
Internal Revenue Service collecting the internal revenue for the “Federal
Corporation”

of

the

United

States

(28

USC

3002(15)(A))

via

excise/income/privilege taxes in payment of the interest on the national debt which
is owed to the Federal Reserve Bank;
v. This BIRTH CERTIFICATE, functioning as a BUSINESS TRUST
INSTRUMENT, has hoodwinked the Posterity, allegedly named on said
certificate, into an unknown and covert contract by operation of law, placing
Affiant and fellow Private American citizens under an alien and foreign, de facto
jurisdiction of the United States created by congressionally-amended WWI statute
(40 Statute Law 411) and is the EBRA amended TWEA (see APX-342);
w. The above de facto jurisdiction of the United States includes the jurisdiction
of the constitutionally-created, federal and state civilian courts (IN FORM) sitting
in a martial legislative equity (IN SUBSTANCE), no longer proceeding against
the accused Private American citizen with the Mode of a Common Law civilian
due process, but rather with the Mode of a Roman Civil Law martial due process
that, if unchallenged, confers a martial Military jurisdiction over the accused then
forced to plead in a court imposing such process and procedure derived from a
congressionally-amended, TWEA;
13 
 

x. Upon the public filing of the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, another “source” was
created

that

would

generate

“income”

which

could

then

be

income/excise/privileged taxed, the natural person/baby/Private American Citizen
now wedded to his new artificial person as its trust Property and subordinate
Surety indenture transmitting utility, the new “source” being in commerce and
subject to the absolute legislative powers of Emergency War Powers Congress
(1933-present) to regulate without limit interstate and foreign commerce pursuant
to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution during this time of a
“temporary” declared state of National Emergency;
y. A Private American Citizen, one whom has ceased to be Surety for Public
“U.S. citizen” done by means of a duly filed “Notice of Release Without
Consideration—NUNC PRO TUNC,” (NORWOC-NPT) and “Affidavit: Notice
of Rescission of Signatures of Suretyship—NUNC PRO TUNC” (NOROSOSNPT), or similar documents, with a Court of competent jurisdiction, thereby
returns to the former status of a Private American Citizen as held for brief days
after the natural birth

(17)

, renders the United States under control of United States

Secretary of the Treasury (SOT), Attorney General and POTUS Overseer Trustee
the surety for debt;
z. The natural person who has irrevocably separated him or herself from the
                                                            
17

(prior to the filing of the “Certificate of Live Birth”)
14 

 

state-created FRANCHISE, BUSINESS TRUST, BIRTH CERTIFICATE revokes
all powers, including, but not limited to, Powers of Attorney and/or Agency that
may have granted to any third party, public and/or private.
aa. Therefore, the Natural person who has properly filed such documents as
indicated in item “y” above is not in commerce (as are corporations), never to
enjoy any commercial privilege of limited liability as a matter of citizenship status
(as do corporations being also Public “U.S. citizens”), and has discharged all
TMG, federal and state, from any duty or obligation having arisen from the Natural
person being the Property of the name in Commerce beneficiary, Surety for
and/or wedded to the hybrid Public “U.S. citizen;”
bb. The natural person who has returned to his/her former status of being a de
jure Private American Citizen under section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and
therefore stands “in esse” and “sui juris,” possessing all God-given rights
including those protected by the first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights, all
Constitutional rights (federal and state) and all Common Law rights of a de jure
Private Citizen of the United States/ American Freeman, is no longer under the
legal disability of being the Property of the name in Commerce beneficiary,
Surety for and/or wedded to a de facto, state-created, Public “U.S. citizen;”
cc. The natural person is no longer the Property of the name in Commerce
beneficiary, Surety for and/or wedded to a de facto Public “U.S. citizen” (which is
15 
 

“alieni juris”), therefore no longer under the de facto jurisdictional power of
statutorily-created, de facto TMG (federal and state) as those absolute legislative,
absolute executive and absolute judicial powers are exercised towards a de facto
Public “U.S. citizen,” and
dd. The natural person therefore is no longer under the paternal guardianship of
de facto TMG (federal and state) as those absolute, paternal powers are exercised
towards its infants and children, de facto Public “U.S. citizens;”
ee. As a matter of the following positive averments the natural person who
has filed a NORWOC-NPT and NOROSOS-NPT, or similar documents:
i. is one of the Posterity of “We the People” by whom and for whom the
Constitution was ordained and established according to its Preamble, and holds de
jure Private American Citizenship is broadened upon natural birth or naturalization
by section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
ii. hold a name at Common Law by surname (or family name) and proper
name, and is known by no other name, public or private.
iii. on the day of natural birth or naturalization became a de jure Posterity of the
geographic United States (composing the forty-eight states) pursuant to Section 1
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
iv. on the day of natural birth or naturalization became a de jure Private
Citizen/Private Resident of the geographic State pursuant to section 1 of the
16 
 

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
v. on the day the “Certificate of Live Birth” or "Naturalization Certificate" was
filed with the States or District of Columbia by operation of law became the
Property of the name in Commerce beneficiary, Surety for and wedded to the
name in Commerce beneficiary, a state-created, business trust and statutory public
citizen of the United States. Upon filing of the NORWOC-NPT and NOROSOSNPT, or similar documents, said Property has been returned to the natural owner,
said Suretyship has been terminated, the marriage has ended and the former status
of Posterity has been restored, pursuant to the maxims of the law of contracts and
the Uniform Commercial Code
vi. de jure Posterity is “paramount and dominant,” and any de jure Private
Citizenship of any State of the Union “subordinate and derivative” of Posterity. (18)
vii. is a Private Resident at Common Law holding Private Citizenship of the
respective State pursuant to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
viii. is a non-statutory, Posterity and a non-statutory, Private Citizen/Private
Resident at Common Law of the respective State and therefore no longer the
Property of the name in Commerce beneficiary, as Surety for and/or wedded to
State or District of Columbia business trust and thereby the natural person is not in
                                                            

18 Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 389 (1918.) Private citizens of the United States
were called “American freemen” by George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and
Abraham Lincoln, and by Justice John Marshall Harlan's dissents in Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S.
581, 607, 617 (1900) and Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 382 (1901).
17 
 

commerce as a matter of personal status, as are statutory, state-created Public
“U.S. citizens” of the United States, and
ix. therefore in effect is a “nontaxpayer” as described in Economy Plumbing &
Heating vs. United States, 470 F. 2d, 585 at 589 (1972).
x. has rescinded every signature ever executed on behalf of business trust,
including any derivative of the NAME thereof, be it public and/or private, by
means of the NOROSOS-NPT.
xi. is the Secured Party/Creditor of DEBTOR name in Commerce as a matter
of public record.
xii. is the Agent and Attorney-in-fact for DEBTOR name in Commerce as a
matter of public record.
xiii. has the exclusive, beneficial use of the copyrighted NAME in commerce in
the acquisition of property, real and/or personal, as a matter of public record.
xiv. is the beneficial owner of all income paid to taxpayer NAME in commerce.
ff.

As a matter of the following negative averments the natural person:
i. is not alieni juris, holding the status of being the Property of NAME in

commerce, Surety for and/or wedded to an artificial, de facto, hybrid Public “U.S.
citizen” created by state statute in the state of natural birth for the benefit of the
federal de facto TMG created on March 9, 1933; hence, not an infant or a child
under the power of a paternal TMG, federal or state.
18 
 

ii. holds a name is not the NAME in commerce or any other form of this nom
de guerre/name of war, which principle in distinguishing the difference between
the all uppercase name and mixed case name has been affirmed by a federal court
of record.
iii. holds a name is not spelled in solely upper case letters or with abbreviations,
which principle in distinguishing the difference between the all uppercase name
and mixed case name has been affirmed by a federal court of record.
iv. is not the NAME in commerce which principle in distinguishing the
difference between the all uppercase name and mixed case name has been affirmed
by a federal court of record.
v. is neither the Property of, nor Surety for, nor wedded to artificial entity
NAME in commerce or any other derivative of this nom de guerre/name of war.
vi. is neither a statutory, state-created public citizen (artificial person) of the
United States nor Surety for and/or wedded to a statutory, state-created public
citizen (artificial person) of the United States as a matter of Status and/or a matter
of public and/or private contract.

Therefore, the natural person is not a state-

created, federally-owned, statutory Public “U.S. citizen” (artificial person/“U.S.
citizen”) of the United States for income/excise/privilege tax purposes.
vii. is not a rebel, belligerent or enemy publicly residing within a conquered
territory of the “United States” created 9 March 1933 by EBRA amended TWEA.
19 
 

FACTS for Declaratory Judgment as to Venue and Jurisdiction During a
Time of War or National Emergency
8. Undersigned in the matter of Venue filed the Original Bill of Complaint
under seal as of right with 12 USC Chapter 35: RIGHT TO FINANCIAL
PRIVACY and public safety in a private controversy with the trustees for the
Military Government under Title 12 for relief with 50 USC Appendix Section 9
that was denied temporary sealing by Order "M-49" (APX-019);
9. That the partially redacted filing was done after Undersigned exhausted
available remedies under the Administrative Procedures Act (1946) after service
on 23 April 2015, Defendants failed to respond within 60 days - lost immunity.
As such, Undersigned's understanding is that a declaratory judgment, is
the legal determination of a court remedy that resolves legal uncertainty for the
litigants; and Preliminary Injunction with order for response and expedited hearing
would resolve, inter alia: clear title to the NAME in commerce that must be
removed from commingled bundle; with accounting for the NAME including
status certification of the NAME use in commerce by DTCC; IRS Individual
Master File update; bar further irreparable harm to the status quo; and for further
recovery from damage to proceed for expedited appeal with request for oral
argument to be heard by a senior judge panel under seal for declaratory judgment
on law and party status with irreparable harm to status quo and to personal
property, requiring further and different relief the Court deems necessary.
20 
 

Respectfully submitted under penalty of perjury with the following that is
true and correct under 28 USC § 1746, with 20 text pages for a total of 4,996 words
of text with 14pt Times New Roman type and footnotes with 12pt Times New
Roman type.

/6 ,

Dated: October
2015
Brooklyn, New York
Christopher Earl Strunk, Complainant Beneficiary agent
for ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© Appellant
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue- PMB 102
Brooklyn, NY Zip code excepted [11238]
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email suretynomore@gmail.com
All rights Reserved Without Prejudice

21

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©

)
)
Plaintiff / Appellant
) No. 15-cv-6817 (JPO) (DF)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT DRUSKIN, JOHN KOSKINEN,
)
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, BARACK HUSSEIN )
OBAMA II,
)
Defendants / Appellees. )
__________________________________________________________________
 

EMERGENCY MOTION APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15−cv−06817−JPO...............................APX-001
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE EMERGENCY MOTION................APX-004
MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT............................................... APX-006
NOTICE OF APPEAL................................................................................ APX-007
CIVIL APPEAL PRE-ARGUMENT STATEMENT (FORM C)...............APX-009
ORDER OF DISMISSAL............................................................................APX-011
"M-49" ORDER...........................................................................................APX-019
ORDER........................................................................................................APX-020
ISSUES ON APPEAL EXHIBIT B.............................................................APX-022
NATIONAL EMERGENCIES current summary............... APX-033 thru APX-037
Notice for Clerk to Correct errors in the docket and address change..........APX-038
CERTIFIED MAIL AND RETURN RECEIPT FOR J.PAUL OETKEN...APX-040
CERTIFIED MAIL / RETURN RECEIPT FOR CARDINAL DOLAN....APX-041

 

 

TRANSMITTAL Notice of Motion to Reconsider the ORDER TO DISMISS and
DEMAND FOR DISQUALIFICATION.....................................................APX-042
PROPOSED ORDER TO VACATE THE ORDER TO DISMISS AND
REASSIGN.................................................................................................APX-0-43
NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE ORDER WITH
DEMAND TO RECUSE.........................................................................APX-045

AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER
THE ORDER TO DISMISS WITH DEMAND FOR
DISQUALIFICATION................................................................................APX-047
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION TO
RECONSIDER THE ORDER TO DISMISS WITH DEMAND FOR
DISQUALIFICATION...............................................................................APX-057
LETTER re: Strunk v DRUSKIN Etal. 15-cv-6817 efforts to prevent
Private Trusts liquidation............................................................................APX-092
Original Bill of Complaint...........................................................................APX-096
Exhibit A: 125 pages A-1 thru A-125 herein:
THE EXPRESS DEED IN TRUST TO THE UNITED STATESOF
AMERICA BPA BOOK 32 PAGES 719 thru 733………................……....APX-117
Executive Order 2039 of 6 March 1933……………….......................……APX-132
Executive Order 2040 of 9 March 1933……….......................…………....APX-133
12 USC 95(a)- Regulation of transaction in foreign exchange of gold and silver;
property transfers; vested interests, enforcement and penalties…..............APX-134
12 USC 95(b)- Ratification of acts of President and Secretary of the
Treasury under National Emergency............................................................APX-136
United States Senate Report 93-549 “Emergency Powers Statutes”……...APX-137
National Emergencies Act of Sept. 14, 1976 PL 94-412 90 Stat. 1255......APX-162
ii 
 

 

CRS Report to Congress 98-505 “National Emergency Powers” of
September 18, 2001......................................................................................APX-167
Markham v. Cabell – 326 U.S. 404 (1945) ……………….........................APX-191
From the National Archives: CONCERN OF THE UNITED STATES OVER
ENEMY ATTEMPTS TO SECRETE FUNDS OR OTHER ASSETS IN NEUTRAL
COUNTRIES: INCEPTION OF THE SAFE-HAVEN PROGRAM pages 213
thru 251 Correspondence February 22, 1944 to January 6, 1945............... APX-203
Exhibit B: NOTICE OF FAULT IN DISHONOR AND OPPORTUNITY
TO CURE Exhibit C: USPS proof of certified mailing and service............APX-244
Exhibit D: 23 April 2015 Submission with 874 pages including
sub-exhibits 1 through 20 "M-49" order......................................................APX-268
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO SEAL THE ORIGINAL
BILL OF COMPLAINT pursuant to 28 USC §652(d) and FRCvP Rule 5.2 (d)
under 12 USC Chapter 35: RIGHT TO FINANCIAL PRIVACY.............APX-272
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO SEAL THE
ORIGINAL BILL OF COMPLAINT pursuant to 28 USC §652(d) and FRCvP
Rule 5.2 (d) under 12 USC Chapter 35: RIGHT TO FINANCIAL
PRIVACY...................................................................................................APX-282
Exhibit E: Confidentiality Agreement........................................................APX-331
Exhibit F: Federal Register - TITLE 50, APPENDIX—WAR AND
NATIONAL DEFENSE...............................................................................APX-342
Exhibit G: Excerpts - Military Government and Martial Law.
By William. E. Birkhimer LL.B ..................................................................APX-388
The Jesuit Design against the American Roman Catholic Church..............APX-405
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR REHEARING THE ORDER "M-49"...........APX-411
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REHEAR THE ORDER "M49" DENIAL TO SEAL ORIGINAL BILL OF COMPLAINT pursuant to 28 USC
§652(d) and FRCvP Rule 5.2 (d) under 12 USC Chapter 35: RIGHT TO
FINANCIAL PRIVACY..............................................................................APX-413

iii 
 

 

EXTENDED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
REHEAR THE ORDER "M-49" DENIAL TO SEAL ORIGINAL BILL OF
COMPLAINT pursuant to 28 USC §652(d) and FRCvP Rule 5.2 (d) under
12 USC Chapter 35: RIGHT TO FINANCIAL PRIVACY.........................APX-424
INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CIVIL CASES J. PAUL OETKEN.........APX-433
INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEBRA
FREEMAN...................................................................................................APX-444
SUMMONSES.............................................................................................APX-451
Notice -- Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Certain Terrorist Attacks........................................................................... APX-460
Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial
Department- DECISION AND ORDER on Motion M170416................APX-463

iv 
 

Case: 1:15-cv-06817-JPO As of: 10/08/2015 11:18 AM EDT 1 of 3
CLOSED,ECF,PRO−SE

U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15−cv−06817−JPO
Strunk v. Druskin et al
Assigned to: Judge J. Paul Oetken
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question

Date Filed: 08/27/2015
Date Terminated: 09/10/2015
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory
Actions
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Christopher Earl Strunk
Beneficiary among the Posterit of
Pre−1993 Private American National
Citizens of the United States, beneficiary
agent for Christopher Earl Strunk

represented by Christopher Earl Strunk
593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281
Brooklyn, NY 11238
PRO SE

V.
Defendant
Robert Druskin
Executive Chairman of the Depository
Trust &Clearing Corporation
Defendant
John Koskinen
Commissioner Internal Revenue Service
Defendant
Jacob Joseph Lew
Trustee Secretary of the United States
Treasury− Department of Treasury
Defendant
Barack Hussein Obama, II
Trustee Commander in Chief, President of
the United States of America
Date Filed

#

Docket Text

08/27/2015

1 COMPLAINT against Robert Druskin, John Koskinen, Jacob Joseph Lew, Barack
Hussein Obama, II. (Filing Fee $ 400.00, Receipt Number
46540113410)Document filed by Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A Part 4, #
5 Exhibit A Part 5, # 6 Exhibit A Part 6, # 7 Exhibit A Part 7, # 8 Exhibit A Part 8,
# 9 Exhibit A Part 9, # 10 Exhibit B, # 11 Exhibit C, # 12 Exhibit D Part 1, # 13
Exhibit D Part 2, # 14 Exhibit E, # 15 Exhibit F Part 1, # 16 Exhibit F Part 2, # 17
Exhibit G)(moh) (Entered: 08/31/2015)

08/27/2015

SUMMONS ISSUED as to Robert Druskin, John Koskinen, Jacob Joseph Lew,
Barack Hussein Obama, II. (moh) (Entered: 08/31/2015)

08/27/2015

Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman is so designated. (moh) (Entered: 08/31/2015)

08/27/2015

Case Designated ECF. (moh) (Entered: 08/31/2015)

09/10/2015

3 ORDER OF DISMISSAL: The complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim
on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The motion for

APX-001

Case: 1:15-cv-06817-JPO As of: 10/08/2015 11:18 AM EDT 2 of 3
reconsideration of Judge Torres' decision denying Plaintiff's request to file this case
under seal is also DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail back to Plaintiff
the CDs that were attached to the motion and to make a notation on the docket. The
Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would
not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the
purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444−45
(1962). (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on
9/10/2015) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (kko) (Entered: 09/10/2015)
09/10/2015
09/10/2015

Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk. Transmitted re: 3 Order of Dismissal, to
the Docket Assistant Clerk for case processing. (kko) (Entered: 09/10/2015)
4 MOTION FOR REHEARING THE ORDER "M−49".(placed on docket at
direction of JPO Chambers) Document filed by Christopher Earl Strunk.(sc)
Modified on 9/11/2015 (sc). (Entered: 09/11/2015)

09/14/2015

Mailed a copy of 3 Order of Dismissal, and Return CD that was attached to
Motion, to Christopher Earl Strunk 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281 Brooklyn,
NY 11238 by UPS TRACKING # 1ZE22E533710037308. (ca) (Entered:
09/14/2015)

09/14/2015

5 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint served. John
Koskinen served on 9/11/2015, answer due 11/10/2015. Service was made by Cert.
Mail. Document filed by Christopher Earl Strunk. (sc) Modified on 9/16/2015 (sc).
(Entered: 09/16/2015)

09/14/2015

6 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint served. Jacob
Joseph Lew served on 9/11/2015, answer due 11/10/2015. Service was made by
cert. Mail. Document filed by Christopher Earl Strunk. (sc) (Entered: 09/16/2015)

09/14/2015

7 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint served. Robert
Druskin served on 9/11/2015, answer due 11/10/2015. Service was accepted by
Neela Bajue, DTTC Legal Dept. Document filed by Robert Druskin. (sc) (Entered:
09/16/2015)

09/14/2015

8 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. Summons and Complaint served. Barack
Hussein Obama, II served on 9/11/2015, answer due 11/10/2015. Service was made
by Mail. Document filed by Christopher Earl Strunk. (sc) (Entered: 09/16/2015)

09/14/2015

9 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. Summons and Complaint served. Service
was accepted by U.S. Marshal(unnamed) o/b/o Sara L. Shudofsky, Chief of the
Civil Division, U.S. Attorneys, SDNY. Document filed by Christopher Earl Strunk.
(sc) Modified on 9/16/2015 (sc). (Entered: 09/16/2015)

09/22/2015

10 LETTER addressed to Judge J. Paul Oetken from Christopher Earl Strunk dated
9/16/2015 re: Requfest for the withdrawal of the Order of Dismissal (attached).
Document filed by Christopher Earl Strunk.(kko) (Entered: 09/22/2015)

09/24/2015

11 LETTER from Christopher Earl Strunk dated 9/24/2015 re: Notice of Motion to
Reconsider the Order to Dismiss and Demand for Disqualification with
Affirmation and Memorandum of Law. Document filed by Christopher Earl
Strunk.(sac) (Entered: 09/28/2015)

09/24/2015

12 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 3 Order of Dismissal; MOTION for Recusal.
Document filed by Christopher Earl Strunk.(sac) (Entered: 09/28/2015)

09/24/2015

13 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 12 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 3
Order of Dismissal. MOTION for Recusal. Document filed by Christopher Earl
Strunk. (Attachments: # 1 Main Document, # 2 Main Document, # 3 Main
Document, # 4 Main Document, # 5 Main Document, # 6 Main Document, # 7
Main Document, # 8 Main Document, # 9 Main Document, # 10 Main Document,
# 11 Main Document)(sac) (Entered: 09/28/2015)

09/24/2015

14 AFFIRMATION in Support re: 12 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 3 Order of
Dismissal. MOTION for Recusal. Document filed by Christopher Earl Strunk.
(sac) (Entered: 09/28/2015)

APX-002

Case: 1:15-cv-06817-JPO As of: 10/08/2015 11:18 AM EDT 3 of 3
09/29/2015

15 ORDER denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration re 3 Order of Dismissal; denying
12 Motion for Recusal. Having reviewed the record and the party's memorandums
of law, the Court concludes that it overlooked neither a controlling issue of law nor
a crucial fact in the record. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to reconsider is
DENIED. Because Plaintiff has failed to identify a valid ground for
disqualification, the motion for recusal is also DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is
directed to close the motions at docket number 12. (As further set forth in this
Order.) (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 9/29/2015) Copies Mailed By
Chambers. (kko) (Entered: 09/29/2015)

10/06/2015

16 LETTER from Christopher Earl Strunk dated 9/30/15 re: NOTICE FOR CLERK
TO CORRECT ERRORS IN THE DOCKET AND ADDRESS CHANGE.
Document filed by Christopher Earl Strunk.(sc) (Entered: 10/07/2015)

APX-003

10/7/2015

Gmail - NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE EMERGENCY MOTION

Christopher Strunk <suretynomore@gmail.com>

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE EMERGENCY MOTION
1 message
Christopher Strunk <suretynomore@gmail.com>
To: USANYS.SDNYWebmaster@usdoj.gov
Cc: Polycentrism <cestrunck@yahoo.com>

Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:21 PM

™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue, PMB 102
Brooklyn New York Zipcode excepted [11238]
Phone: 718-414-3760 Email: suretynomore@gmail.com
 
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL

 
By Email:  USANYS.SDNYWebmaster@usdoj.gov
 
To :
SARA L. SHUDOFSKY Chief, Civil Division for
the Honorable PREET BHARARA US ATTORNEY
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office
86 Chambers Street / 3rd Floor
New York City, NY 10007

 
 
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE EMERGENCY MOTION 
in re STRUNK  v DRUSKIN  ETAL 15-cv-6817 pending assignment of appeal number
 
 
Dear Chief of the Civil Division,
 
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned intends to file an emergency motion on 9 October 2015
 in the above referenced matter with orders now taken to the Second Circuit. Attached is my "T-1080"

APX-004

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=a479fd9275&view=pt&search=sent&th=1504389c96f9bf82&siml=1504389c96f9bf82

1/2

10/7/2015

Gmail - NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE EMERGENCY MOTION

with a copy of the Notice of Appeal received by the Clerk of the SDNY on 6 October 2015; as well as a
summary  of  45  orders  taken  from  the  Federal  Register  of  Continuations  of  the  International  and
National Emergencies from October 2014 until the present that maintain the fungible nature of private
banking under Executive Orders 2039 and 2040 underlying the temporary military government under
12 USC 95: 50 USC App. 5(b) accordingly.
 
I  contend  that  as  a  matter  of  first  impression  a  preliminary  injunction  is  necessary  in  this  matter  to
prevent public alarm due to the controversial subject that for public safety requires temporary sealing to
protect  the  parties  and  court  from  interference  until  a  declaratory  judgment  on  the  law  and  status  of
parties is established for the appeal to proceed.
 
Please feel free to contact me accordingly at the above listed phone and or email.
 
 
 
                        Respectfully yours,
 
           Dated: October 7, 2015                        /s/
                       Brooklyn New York       ________________
          Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris Beneficiary Agent and 
         Attorney in fact for  ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
Attachments

T1080 with NOA filed 10-06-2016 with Summary of 45 Orders to continue the national emergency.pdf
1158K

APX-005

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=a479fd9275&view=pt&search=sent&th=1504389c96f9bf82&siml=1504389c96f9bf82

2/2

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT
DocketNumber(s):

SONY 15-cv-6817 (JPO)

Caption [use short title!

Expedited hearing of appeal under seal with CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
Plaintjff/AppeJiam
preliminary Injunction pending declaratory judgment on law and
versus

Motion ror:

party status with irreparable harm to status quo and property.

ROBERT DRUSKIN, JOHN KOSKINEN, JAC03
JOSEPH LEW and BARACK HUSS~ I N OBN A

Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought

1

Plaintiff demands ofTrustoes for lhe priVate ~ecialrrusts ror rellim Of persooal property With accounting

OefendantStAppe ees

as a banking m<~tter using 50 USC App. 9. 17. 32, 33 under 12 USC 95: 50 USAC App. 5(b)
ns the registered p~vate

~alio~al coUz.o~ c1 !he USA I

non..:ombatanl under the time o! war or eme<goocy for

the temporary Military Government Trusto.es Wlth no less lhan 39 annual ongoing emergencies that holcl
bu5iness lllJsl!rimsmiltlng uUUry CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK prope<1)1 peodl~ tradema~ registratlotl Wolh
"<~Mdualliduoary breach Wllh

proptH1y conw(Sion, and conslluctlve fraud by Trust...-s w~l]oot immuony.

MOYIN~TY : "'CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK® trademark registration pending

UPlaintiff
({]Appellant/Petitiooer

0

OPPOSING PARTY;

SARA L. SHUDOFSKY for 28 CFR §0.47 Allen property maltsrs

Defendant

D AppeUee/Respondent

MOVING Ari'ORNEY: Christopher Earl Strunk, beneficiary agent OPPOSING A'ITORNEY: SARA L. SHUOOFSKY Chief, Civil Division
[name of attorney, with finn, address, phone number and e--mail}

c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue- PMB 102

c/o Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office

Brooklyn, New York 11238

86 Chambers Street I 3rd Floor; New York, NY 10007

718-414-3760 I suretynomore@gmail.com

(212) 637-2800 USANYS.SDNYWebmaster@usdoj.gov

USOC SONY- JAMES PAUL OETKEN USDJ's sui sponte Orders to dismiss and deny seal
. d /A
d fr
Court· Ju ge gencyappea1c oro: _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __
Please check appropriate bo:lcS:
Has mo~noti~opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1):
YesU No (explain):_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __

l£J

"'"'&'I nod<e ol '"lonucn 1o !"" oo 8 ~ 2015 10 SARA L SHUDOFSKY Chief, Civil Division

Opposin~un5el's

FOR EMERGENCY MOTJONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND
JNJUNCTIONS PENDlNC APPEAL:
Has request for reliefbeen made betow?
Yes
Has this relief been previously sought in this Court?
DYes [{]No
Requested rerum dale and explanation of emergency: October 2~. 2015

I2J

DNa

position on motion:

U

Unopposed [)opposed [Z}Jon' t Know
Does opposing counsel intend to file a response:

D

Yes

G o[{):>on' t Know

ls oral argument on motion requested?

IllYes 0 No
0 Yes [Z]No

Urh~,JJ"i'=r--r:::.__+--'-f'-.ij'Y--...,.-:o~·Date:
J«.·t~T

{requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)
If yes, enter date:._ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ .

0
7 tJc7 -z o,r.J Service by:

Form T-1080 (rev. 12-13)

APX-006

CM/ECF

~ther [Attach proof of service]

I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

. '. -•_."

Christopher Earl Strunk, Beneficiary among the
Posterity ofPre~1933 Private American National
Citizens of the United States, beneficiary agent for
™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© (Strunk)

Complainant/Beneficiary
vs.
ROBERT DRUSKIN, Executive Chairman ofthe
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC)
JOHN KOSKINEN, Commissioner
(IRS)
Internal Revenue Service
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, Trustee
Secretary of the United States Treasury- (SOT)
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IT, Trustee
Commander in Chief, President of the
United States of America
(POTUS)

Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)

No. 15-cv-6817 (JPO) (DF)

NOTICE OF APPEAL

)

)
)

)
)
)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris Beneficiary Agent and
Attorney in fact for 1MCHRJSTOPHER EARL STRUNK© Plaintiff, hereby appeals from each and every
part taken from the sua sponte Order to Dismiss the Original Bill of Complaint and denying the Motion
to Rehear the Order "M-49" entered September 10, 2015 and the Order of September 29, 2015 denying
the motion to Reconsider the Order to Dismiss with Demand for Disqualification of J. PAUL OETKEN
USDJ.

L

Dated: October
20 l5
Brooklyn New York
Cnnstopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris Beneficiary Agent and
Attorney in fact for ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©

c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue, PBM 281
Brooklyn, New York 11238
See the following service list:

APX-007

service list:
SARA L. SHUDOFSKY Chief Civil Division for
the Honorable PREET BHARARA US ATTORNEY

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Division ofthc United States Attorney's Office
86 Chambers Street I 3rd Floor
New York City, NY 10007
ROBERT DRUSKIN. Executive Chairman of the
Depository Tn1st & Clearing Corporation
55 Water Street, 1-SL,
New York New York [1004 1-0004]
JOHN KOSKINEN, Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service Office of Commissioner,
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington. DC r20224]
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, Secretary of the United States Treasury
--- Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia [20220j
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, Commander in Chief,
President of the United States of America ,
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia (20500}

APX-008

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND cmcmT
CIVIL APPEAL PRE-ARGUMENT STATEMENT (FORM C)
2. PLl:ASE TYPE OR PRINT•

I. SEE NOTICE ON REVERSE.

.:zse Caption:

3. STAPLE ALL ADDmONAL PAGES
Judge:

District Court or Agency:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
SONY
Plaintiff/ Appellant
Date the Order or Judgment Appealed
versus

JAMES PAUL OETKEN
District Court Docket No.:

from was Entered on the Docket

ROBERT DRUSKIN, JOHN KOSKINEN,
09-10-2015, 09-29-2015
JACOB JOSEPH LEW and BARACK
Date the Notice of Appeal was Filed:
HUSSEIN OBAMA II
Defendants/Appellees. October 6, 2015
Attorney(s) for
Appellant(s):
Plaintiff

I

Counsel's Name:

Address:

Telephone No.:

15-cv-6817
ls this a Cross Appeal?

Yes

t/ No

E-mail:

Fax No.:

\)

~hristopher Earl Strunk c/o 315 Flatbush Av -#102
lf
Brooklyn NY 11238 718413760 suretynomore@gmail.com""

Defendant

Attorney(s) for
AppeJJec(s):

Counsel's Name:

Address:

Telephone No.:

"

E-mail:

Fax No.:

Plaintiff

SARA l. SHUDOFSKY Chief Civ Div SONY US Atty 86 Chambers St 3rd NY NY 10007

Defendant

Has Transcript
Been .Prepared?

Approx. Number of
Transcript
Pages:

N/A

N/A

Number of
Exhibits
Appended to
Transcript:

N/A

Has this matter been before this Circuit previously?

Yes

V'

No

If Yes, provide the following:
Case Name:
Reporter Citation: (i.e., F.3d or Fed. App.)

2d Cir. Docket No.:

ADDENDUM "A": COUNSEL MUST ATTACH TO THIS FORM: (1) A BRIEF, BUT NOT PERFUNCTORY, DESCRIPTION OF THE
NATURE OF THE ACTION; (2) THE RESULT BELOW; (3) A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND A CURRENT COPY OF
THE LOWER COURT DOCKET SHEET; AND (4) A COPY OF ALL RELEVANT OPJNIONS/ORDERS FORMING THE BASIS FOR
THIS APPEAL, INCLUDING TRANSCRIPTS OF ORDERS ISSUED FROM THE BENCH OR IN CHAMBERS.
ADDENDUM "B": COUNSEL MUST ATTACH TO TIDS FORM A UST OF THE ISSUES PROPOSED TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL,
AS WELL AS THE APPLICABLE APPELLATE STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR EACH PROPOSED ISSUE.
PART A: JURISDICTION
2. A~Qellate Jurisdiction

l. Federal Jurisdiction
U.S. a party

V'

Federal question
(U.S. not a party)

Diversity

V'

Other (specify):
so usc Aim 11 & g

V'

Final Decision
Interlocutory Decision
Appealable As ofRight

Order Certified by District Judge (i.e.,
fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b))
Other (specifY):

IMPORTANT. COMPLETE AND SIGN REVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM.

APX-009

PARTB: DISTRICT COURT DISPOSffiON
1. TYJ?C of JudgmentJOrdcr Appealed

I. Stage of Proccediull!!

-

Pre-trial
During trial
t/ After trial

(Check as many as apply)

Default judgment
DismissaVFRCP 12(b)(l)
lack of subj. matter juris.
t/ Dismissal/FRCP 12(b)(6)
failure to state a claim
t/ DismissaV28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
frivolous complaint
DismissaV28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
other dismissal

-

.

3. Relief

DismissaVother jurisdiction
DismissaVmcrit
Judgment I Decision of the Coun
Swnmary judgment
tl' Declaratory judgment
Jury verdict
Judgment NOV
Directed verdict
tl' Other (specify): M-49

Injunctions:

Damages:
Sought$ _ _
Granted:$
--Denied:$

-

Preliminary
Permanent
Denied

---

PART C: NATURE OF SUIT (Check as many as apply)
I. Federal Statutes

2. Torts

Antitrust
Communications
Consumer Protection
Bankruptcy
t/ Banks/Banking
Copyright o Patent
Civil Rights
Trademark
Commerce,
Election
Energy
Soc. Security
Environmental
Commodities
t/ Other (specify): 12 USC 95: SO USC APP. S(b)

5. Other
- Forfeiture/Penalty
Real Property
tl' l Treaty (specify): Hegue Conyention
Other {specify): rerum or property

.,..

Freedom of Information Act
Immigration
Labor
OSHA
Securities

Tax

Admiralty/
Maritime
Assault/
Defamation
PELA
Products Liability
t/ Other (Specify):

canst. fraud
6. General
Arbitration
Attorney Disqualification
Class Action
Counsel Fees
Shareholder Derivative
Transfer

I. Is any matter relative to this appeal still pending below?

3. Contracts

4. Prisoner Petitions

Admiralty/
Maritime
Arbitration
Commercial
Employment
Insurance
Negotiable
lilstruments
Other Specify

Civil Rights
Habeas Corpus
Mandamus
Parole
Vacate Sentence
Other

7. Will appeal raise constitutional issuc(s)?
No
t/ Yes
Will appeal raise a matter of first
impression?

t/

Yes

No

Yes, specify: - -- - - -- - -- --

t1' No

2. To your knowledge, is there any case presently pending or about to be brought before this Court or another court or administrative agency
which:
(A) Arises from substantially the same case or controversy as this appeal?
Yes
tl' No
(B)

Involves an issue that is substantially similar or related to an issue in this appeal?

If yes, state whether
Case Name:

"A." or

·'B," or

t1' No

JOth are applicable, and provide in the spaces below the following information on the other action(s):
Docket No.

NameofAppe.uant:

Yes

Citation:

Court or Agency:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK

Once you have filed your Notice of Appeal with the District Court or the Tax Court, you have only 14 days in which to complete the following
important ste.ps:
I. Complete this Civil Appeal Pre-Argument Statement (Form C); serve it upon all pa1ties, and file it with the Clerk of the Second Circuit in
accordance with LR 25.1.
·
2. File the Court of Appeals Transcript Information/Civil Appeal Form (Form D) with the Clerk of the Second Circuit in accordance with LR 25.1.
3 . Pay thc$505 docketing fee to the United States District Court or the $500 docketing fee to the United States TWit Court unless you are authorized to
prosecute the appeal without payment

PLEASE NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN 14 DAYS, YOUR APPEAL WILL BE
DISMISSED. SEELOCALRULE 12.1.

APX-010

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,
Beneficiary among the Posterity of Pre-1993
Private American National Citizens of the
United States, beneficiary agent for
Christopher Earl Strunk,
Plaintiff,
-againstROBERT DRUSKIN, EXECUTIVE
CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPOSITORY TRUST
& CLEARING CORPORATION; JOHN
KOSKINEN, COMMISSIONER INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE; JACOB JOSEPH
LEW, TRUSTEE SECRETARY OF THE
UNITED STATES TREASURYDEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, TRUSTEE
COMMANDER IN CHIEF, PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

15-CV-6817 (JPO)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendants.
J. PAUL OETKEN, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff paid the filing fee to bring this pro se action. For the reasons set forth below,
this action is dismissed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court has the authority to dismiss a complaint, even when the plaintiff has paid the
filing fee, if it determines that the action is frivolous, Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh Tenants
Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (citing Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 16-17
(2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (holding that Court of Appeals has inherent authority to dismiss
frivolous appeal)), or that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon
Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds,

APX-011

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 8

the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d
Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v.
Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
BACKGROUND
In this complaint, which is 300 pages of legalese and attachments, Plaintiff asserts that he
is a presidential candidate, a “beneficiary among the Posterity of Pre-1993 Private American
National Citizens of the United States,” and a “resident in exclusive equity within a nonmilitarily occupied private estate” in Kings County. (Compl. ¶ 10.) Named as Defendants are
President Barack Obama; Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Commissioner John Koskinen;
United States Department of Treasury Secretary Jacob Joseph Lew; and Robert Druskin,
Executive Chairman of Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”), a financial services
corporation.
To the extent that Plaintiff’s allegations can be discerned and summarized, Defendants
have engaged in financial and other misconduct, and President Obama is ineligible to be
President because he is not an American citizen. (Compl. ¶¶ 45-46.) Plaintiff asserts claims of
breach of trust, constructive fraud, and conversion of property, (id. ¶¶ 37-42), and he also refers
to the Emergency Banking Relief Act, the Trading With the Enemies Act, and various
confidentiality and financial privacy statutes. Plaintiff “prepared and was a material witness
under a confidentiality contract” that he sent to Defendants. According to Plaintiff, Defendants’
failure to respond to his correspondence indicates a “conditional acceptance” requiring
performance of their “fiduciary duties” and constitutes a violation of the Freedom of Information

2

APX-012

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 8

Act (“FOIA”). 1 (Id. ¶¶ 20-21, 28-29, and Exhs. D and E.) The first page of the complaint
indicates that Plaintiff seeks to proceed under seal, but he does not explain the need to do so. 2
DISCUSSION
A.

Federal Pleading Rules
Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a). The Supreme Court has held that this rule requires a plaintiff to provide some details about
what each defendant did or failed to do. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). It is not enough for a complaint to state that
the defendant unlawfully harmed the plaintiff. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Instead, a
complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, such that a court could “draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. This standard, commonly
referred to as the “plausibility standard,” is guided by two principles. First, while district courts
must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, conclusory statements or
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action … do not suffice.” Id. Second, when

1

Plaintiff has previously asserted claims reminiscent of those set forth in this complaint. See,
e.g. Strunk v. Obama, 880 F. Supp. 2d 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2011) (asserting, inter alia, that President
Obama committed fraud by “paying down the national debt with debt”); Strunk v. U.S. Dep’t of
State, 693 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D.D.C. 2010) (asserting FOIA claims); Strunk v. U.S. Dep’t of
Interior, 752 F. Supp. 2d 39, 41 (D.D.C. 2010) (same); Strunk v. N.Y.S. Bd. of Elections, Ind. No.
6500/11, 2013 WL 1285886 (N.Y. Sup. Mar. 29, 2013) (challenging President Obama’s
eligibility for the presidency).
2

Plaintiff filed a miscellaneous action seeking to proceed under seal in this matter. Judge
Torres’ order denying Plaintiff that relief is attached to the complaint. See Strunk v. Druskin,
No. 15-MC-49. (Compl, Doc. 1-10 at 2.) Plaintiff filed a motion in this case seeking
reconsideration of Judge Torres’ order. That motion is hereby denied.
3

APX-013

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 4 of 8

deciding what is plausible, a district court must consider the context and “draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.
Even read as leniently as possible, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8. The
Court has analyzed Plaintiff’s submission and finds no deprivation of a federally secured right.
Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a plausible claim of a federal constitutional or statutory
violation.
Any FOIA claims Plaintiff is attempting to raise must be dismissed. FOIA gives
members of the public a right to access some information from federal executive agencies.
Federal courts have jurisdiction to enforce this right if a plaintiff can show that “an agency has
(1) ‘improperly;’ (2) ‘withheld;’ (3) ‘agency records.’” Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for
Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)). FOIA
applies only to federal agencies. See Grand Cent. P’ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 484 (2d
Cir. 1999).
Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, one of whom is a private individual, did not reply
to his “contract.” Because Plaintiff does not allege that he was unlawfully denied access to
records by a federal agency, he has not stated a plausible claim under FOIA. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed because they “lack[] an
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
B.

Sovereign Immunity
Plaintiff's claims against President Obama, Commissioner Koskinen, and Secretary Lew

are dismissed because the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars federal courts from hearing all
suits for monetary damages against the federal government, including its agencies and
employees acting in their official capacities, except where sovereign immunity has been waived.
4

APX-014

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 5 of 8

See United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980) (quoting United States v. Sherwood, 312
U.S. 584, 586 (1941)); Dotson v. Griesa, 398 F.3d 156, 177 (2d Cir. 2005); Makarova v. United
States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000); Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502,
510 (2d Cir. 1994) (“Because an action against a federal agency or federal officers in their
official capacities is essentially a suit against the United States, such suits are also barred under
the doctrine of sovereign immunity, unless such immunity is waived.”). To the extent that
Plaintiff is attempting to allege violations under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the United States has not consented to be sued under
Bivens. See Keene Corp. v. United States, 700 F.2d 836, 845 n.13 (2d Cir. 1983).
Insofar as the complaint could be construed as alleging claims pursuant to the Federal
Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80 (“FTCA”), that statute provides for a waiver of
sovereign immunity for injuries arising from the tortious conduct of government officers or
agents. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). However, the statute’s requirements must be strictly followed.
See O’Rourke v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 730 F. 2d 842, 856 (2d Cir. 1984) (citing United States v.
Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117-18 (1979)), abrogated on other grounds by Salve Regina College v.
Russell, 499 U.S. 225 (1991). Before bringing a claim in a federal district court under the FTCA
for monetary damages, a claimant must first exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a
claim for monetary damages with the appropriate federal government entity and must receive a
final written determination. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). If no final written determination is made
by the appropriate federal government entity within six months of the date of the claimant’s
filing, the claimant may bring a FTCA action in a federal district court. See Id. This requirement
is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. See Wang v. United States, 61 F. App’x 757, 759 (2d Cir.
2003).

5

APX-015

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 6 of 8

To the extent that Plaintiff raises FTCA claims arising out of any alleged tortious conduct
of a federal officer or employee, plaintiff has failed to allege facts demonstrating that he has filed
an administrative claim under the FTCA with any federal government entity for monetary
damages and has subsequently received a final written determination from any federal
government entity prior to bringing this action or, in the alternative, that it has been more than
six months since he has filed such administrative claim. Therefore, because it does not appear
Plaintiff pursued relief under the FTCA, any claims for money damages against the federal
government are dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).
C.

Denial of Motion to Seal
Both the common law and the First Amendment protect the public’s right of access to

court documents. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-98 (1978); Hartford
Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir. 2004). This right of access is not absolute,
and “the decision as to access [to judicial records] is one best left to the sound discretion of the
trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the
particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598-99. Furthermore, a party seeking the sealing of court
documents must overcome a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records.
See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d
1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995).
The Court concludes that the circumstances here are not sufficiently extraordinary to
outweigh the presumption in favor of public access. Plaintiff, a frequent litigator in courts
around the country, has previously raised similar claims in litigation that have not been sealed.
The complaint does not include any sensitive personal information, such as Plaintiff’s Social
Security number, and Plaintiff does not offer any arguments as to why this matter should be

6

APX-016

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 7 of 8

sealed. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to proceed under seal or for reconsideration of Judge Torres’
order, his motion is denied.
D.

Denial of Leave to Amend/Warning Language
Leave to amend a complaint should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a)(2). It is “within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to
amend.” McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir. 2007). “Leave to
amend, though liberally granted, may properly be denied for: ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory
motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility
of amendment, etc.’” Ruotolo v. City of N.Y., 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Foman
v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Because Plaintiff fails to assert any facts suggesting that he
can state a claim against these Defendants, he is denied leave to file an amended complaint.
Moreover, in light of Plaintiff’s litigation history, this Court finds that Plaintiff was or
should have been aware that his allegations lack merit when he filed this action. See Sledge v.
Kooi, 564 F.3d 105, 109-110 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussing circumstances where frequent pro se
litigant may be charged with knowledge of particular legal requirements). Accordingly, Plaintiff
is warned that further meritless litigation in this Court may result in an order barring him from
filing new actions in this Court without prior permission, regardless of whether or not he pays
the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
CONCLUSION
The complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The motion for reconsideration of Judge Torres’ decision denying
Plaintiff’s request to file this case under seal is also DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to

7

APX-017

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 8 of 8

mail back to Plaintiff the CDs that were attached to the motion and to make a notation on the
docket.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would
not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an
appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 10, 2015
New York, New York
J. PAUL OETKEN
United States District Judge

COPY MAILED TO PRO SE PARTY BY CHAMBERS

8

APX-018

:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Beneficiary among
the Posterity of Pre-1933 Private American National
Citizens ofthe United States, beneficiary agent for
TMCHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK © (Strunk) c/o 593
Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281 , Brooklyn NY Zip code
excepted [11238], ph: 718-414-3760 email
suretynomore@gmail.com,

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: _ _ _ __

Plaintiff,

M-49

-againstROBERT DRUSKIN, Executive Chairman of the
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), John
Koskinen, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS), JACOB JOSEPH LEW, Trustee Secretary of the
United States Treasury (SOT), BARACK HUSSEIN
OBAMA II, Trustee Commander in Chief, President of
the United States of Ame1ica (POTUS),

ORDER

Defendants.
ANALISA TORRES, District Judge:
Plaintiff's request to file this case under seal is DENIED. The Court directs Plaintiffs
attention to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(l), which addresses redactions relating to
financial information.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 26,2015
New York, New York

ANALISA TORRES
United States District Judge

APX-019

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 15 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,
Beneficiary among the Posterity of Pre-1993
Private American National Citizens of the
United States, beneficiary agent for
Christopher Earl Strunk,
Plaintiff,
-againstROBERT DRUSKIN, EXECUTIVE
CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPOSITORY TRUST
& CLEARING CORPORATION; JOHN
KOSKINEN, COMMISSIONER INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE; JACOB JOSEPH
LEW, TRUSTEE SECRETARY OF THE
UNITED STATES TREASURYDEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, TRUSTEE
COMMANDER IN CHIEF, PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

15-CV-6817 (JPO)
ORDER

Defendants.
J. PAUL OETKEN, United States District Judge:
On September 10, 2015 the Court dismissed the complaint in this action because, among
other reasons, Plaintiff’s claims “lack[] an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (Dkt. No. 3.) Plaintiff has

moved for reconsideration of that decision and to disqualify the Court. (Dkt. No. 12).
“A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the
interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” Drapkin v. Mafco Consol.
Grp., Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 678, 695 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citation and quotations omitted). To
prevail, the movant must demonstrate either (i) an intervening change in controlling law; (ii) the
availability of new evidence; or (iii) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

APX-020

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 15 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 2

Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., 293 F.R.D. 578, 580–81 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (Oetken, J.) (citation
omitted). Having reviewed the record and the party’s memorandums of law, the Court concludes
that it overlooked neither a controlling issue of law nor a crucial fact in the record.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider is DENIED. Because Plaintiff has failed to
identify a valid ground for disqualification, the motion for recusal is also DENIED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the motions at docket number 12.
ORDERED.
Dated:

September 29, 2015
New York, New York
J. PAUL OETKEN
United States District Judge

COPY MAILED TO PRO SE PARTY BY CHAMBERS

2

APX-021

ISSUES ON APPEAL EXHIBIT B9
1. Undersigned's Original Bill of Complaint demands Postliminy relief that applies either
under martial or civil due process of law, and by which the restoration of a person to
any status or right formerly possessed by him was considered as relating back to the time of his
original loss or deprivation to the recapture of property taken by an enemy of occupation, and its
consequent restoration to its original owner.
2. Appellant's Appeal is taken from THE ORDER of September 10, 2015 ("Order") see
Exhibit A, TO DISMISS the Original Bill of Complaint with exhibits verified August 14, 2015
filed on August 27, 2015 under Order "M-49" with Exhibit A that denies the Motion to rehear
the demand to seal entitled "MOTION TO REHEAR THE ORDER "M-49" DENIAL TO SEAL
ORIGINAL BILL OF COMPLAINT pursuant to 28 USC §652(d) and FRCvP Rule 5.2 (d) under
12 USC Chapter 35: RIGHT TO FINANCIAL PRIVACY" concurrently denied by the Hon.
ANALISA TORRES USDJ and J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ, and demand in the Motion to Rehear
that the Hon. ANALISA TORRES USDJ and J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ recusal as under 28 USC
§144 as to bias or prejudice of judge and with cause under 28 USC §455(a)(b) disqualification of
justice, judge or magistrate judge that was left unaddressed by the Order and THE ORDER of
September 29, 2015 that denied the Motion to Reconsider with Demand for Disqualification
with Exhibit A.
3. Undersigned still seeks an order for The Clerk of the Circuit Court:
a. to vacate the orders to dismiss the Complaint herein dated September 10, 2015 and of
September 29, 2015.
b. to remand the Complaint to the District Chief Administrative Judge for reassignment of
the Complaint to a Senior Judge for review of a question of first impression according to

1

APX-022

Plaintiff's demand for a declaratory judgment under 28 USC §2201under the alleged
provision of Martial due process rather than Civil due process during the time of war or
emergency under 12 USC §95 with 50 USC Appendix.§ 5(b), as alleged to apply with
Plaintiff's use of 50 USC Appendix §9 and the Courts Jurisdiction under 50 USC
Appendix §17, and decision in the alleged matter of Plaintiff's beneficiary agent status
as a private national Citizen of the United States as to standing as a non-combatant during
the proclaimed emergency or time of war and or Judgment issued in a hot court herein.
4. On August 27, 2015 when Undersigned filed the Original Bill of Complaint with the
Clerk of the Court the random drawing of the Judge assignment, in the past seen to be done using
a rotating drum from which a name designation chit was drawn, was not used herein.
5. That on September 11, 2015, Defendants and SDNY Chief of the Civil Division pursuant
to 28 CFR §0.47 for Alien property matters and 28 USC §1331 were served the Summons and
Complaint; and thereafter, docketed by the Clerk of the Court.
6. That as a extra judicial matter in support of disqualification of both Hon. ANALISA
TORRES USDJ and J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ who were appointed to the bench by Defendant
Obama.
7. That as a extra judicial matter in support of disqualification of both Hon. ANALISA
TORRES USDJ and J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ who are too youthful and inexperienced to
provide judicial review on the matter of the 82 year continuous temporary Military Government
before the court that turns on the 1973 US Senate Report 93-549 and the annual renewal of the
time of war and or emergency by orders and proclamations as law under 12 USC §95(b); and
8. Germane herein as a extra judicial matter in support of J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ to selfdisqualify is the fact that on the date September 10, 2015 for the Order, the annual renewal of the

2

APX-023

time of war and emergency inter alia among others concurrently in force including that for Iran
since 1979, coincides with the NOTICE for "CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL
EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS consistent with
section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 USC 1622(d)... continuing for 1 year the
national emergency previous declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with
respect to terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of
further attacks on the United States"; and as a question of law and fact to be reviewed.
9. Germane herein to determine the competence of any Federal Judge sitting in judicial
review under the time of war and or emergency maintained by Executive Order 2040 for the
temporary Military Government enacted by Congress as the law of the land with 12 USC §95(b),
is the four Judge Panel Order by the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division for the
Second Judicial Department that upon judicial review of authority under the temporary Military
Government denied Undersigned provision of "Civil Due Process of Law" admit to provision of
Martial due process shows Plaintiff action herein is ion good faith timely and not frivolous; and
herein mandates use of 28 USC §2201 and §2202 Declaratory relief to settle court jurisdiction
under the temporary Military Government question and as to status of Plaintiff and Defendants.
10. That as a extra judicial matter in support of disqualification of J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ,
in that the record shows that James Paul Oetkin in esse surety for JAMES PAUL OETKIN is a
material witness herein to be called to testify because James Paul Oetkin served in the Office of
Legal Counsel in the US Department of Justice from 1997 through 1999 and James Paul Oetkin
became Associate Council to POTUS in the office of White House Counsel from 1999 through
2001; and

3

APX-024

11. Further as a requirement of disqualification under §455(b)(4) were J. PAUL OETKIN
USDJ electronically trading in securities 90% of which are handled by DTTC Defendant and
ceded to CEDE & Company must be disqualified because James Paul Oetkin in esse surety for
JAMES PAUL OETKIN knows that he individually has a financial interest in the subject matter
in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially
affected by the outcome of the proceeding must disclose such and not be able to waiver.
12. Further base upon information and belief, J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ must be disqualified
because James Paul Oetkin in esse surety for JAMES PAUL OETKIN knew about the fine
details of the ongoing temporary Military Government, the annual emergency renewals, and
enabled the suspected combining of the Private Trusts and Exchange Stabilization Fund
involving the Posterity and Undersigned's property that coincides with the 1999 Clinton /
Graham-Leach-Bliley Act repeal of two provisions of the Glass- Steagall Act associated with the
demand hereon for relief under 50 USC App. §9 for which the Congress gives the District
jurisdiction authority to provide under 50 USC App. §17.
13. Further, Undersigned alleges based upon information and belief in support of
disqualification of J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ,

and that supports Undersigned's action for

constructive fraud with conversion of property beyond just a simple breach of fiduciary trust
perpetrated by Defendants, because of the above facts and acts J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ appears
to be aiding and abetting James Paul Oetkin in esse surety for JAMES PAUL OETKIN and
Defendants, among others yet named, as a matter of treason and or misprision of treason under
18 USC §2382; and
14. Further as result of the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act, aided and abetted by James Paul
Oetkin in esse surety for JAMES PAUL OETKIN, among others yet named, contributed to the

4

APX-025

2008 global credit crisis so that commercial banks, around the world, the private trusts and
Exchange Stabilization Fund were saddled with billions of dollars in losses due to the excessive
exposure of their investment banking arms to derivatives and securities, inter alia tied to
domestic home prices and the labor of Posterity, so that the last of the top-tier investment banks
could convert to bank holding companies, and by design strike the final demise of the GlassSteagall Act to loot the Private Trusts / Exchange Stabilization Fund to enable transfer of assets
to China starting January 20, 2009 by Defendant Obama and his agents, including the Bankers'
U.S. Senator from Delaware, along with the prior unauthorized transfers of technology and
intelligence by the Clinton Administration and its agents for the Jesuit run Chinese Communist
central committee.
15. In furtherance of the above acts, James Paul Oetkin in esse surety for J. PAUL OETKIN
USDJ without an utterance refused to self-disqualify under 28 USC §455 in self-service refused
to seal the case at least temporarily until resolution with an alternative settlement process, instead
became an actual real party in interest herein, to further harm Undersigned and the posterity,
refused to read the Complaint within the four corners, and with malice proceeded to amend the
Complaint with an outrageously constructed straw man serving James Paul Oetkin in esse surety
for JAMES PAUL OETKIN proposed intervener to facilitate dismissal with the Order that:
a. Changed the Complaint Caption to falsely characterize Undersigned status from in esse Sui
juris beneficiary agent to that of a surety indenture for the Debtor beneficiary in commerce;
b. Changed the short and plain statement of the case from Claims to property transferred to
custodian; notice of claim; filing; return of property; suits to recover; sale of claimed
property in time of war or during national emergency with three causes of action under 50

5

APX-026

USC App. §9 with 28 USC §1331 and 50 USC App. §17 jurisdiction, to cherry picked self
serving simple tort statement in which the United States is a Defendant under 28 USC §1346.
c. Changed the express jurisdiction under 50 USC Appendix §17 for which with 28 USC §2201
and §2202 requires judicial review for declaratory relief as to Undersigned's status as a
private citizen that would apply with 28 USC §1331 for the under a time of war or
emergency with the temporary Military Government with the 50 USC App. §9 Claims to
property transferred to custodian; notice of claim; filing; return of property; suits to recover;
sale of claimed property in time of war or during national emergency with a statutory filing
deadline limit with 50 USC App. §32 Return of property and 50 USC App. §33 Notice of
claim; institution of suits; computation of time that applies herein especially since Defendant
Trustee(s) only have 60 days to bar recovery, was not done by Defendants after notice of
April 23, 2015 that should have been barred by no later than say June 23, 2015 - was not
ordered; and instead in outrageous bad faith, James Paul Oetkin in esse surety for J. PAUL
OETKIN USDJ's uses 28 USC §1346 were the Complaint a simple tort with a 6 month bar.
d. Changed the Complaint by outrageously constructing a straw man that the Court even
suggests under 28 USC §1346 notwithstanding Administrative process, somehow the
Defendants are sovereign or immune from suit and that Defendants as trustee(s) are free from
suit when challenged for breach and bad faith to fiduciary duty;
e. Changed the actual use by Undersigned's private Confidential Contract with each of his
clients to that of a supposed rejection of an offer to Defendants to go into private contract;
f. Wrongly poses that Mr. Druskin and DTCC are private persons without duties to Trustees.
g. Barred Undersigned from the opportunity to amend by constructing a straw-man complaint;
h. Characterizes Undersigned as a prisoner of the temporary Military Government; and

6

APX-027

i. Bars Undersigned and Clients of the Posterity along with the posterity from future relief;
j. Undersigned by reference of all matters in the record, and as Defendants remain in default
and have not appeared, reserves his rights without prejudice and or exception for further and
different points of argument in reply and or oral argument before the court to secured further
and different relief for which Undersigned and his clients of the Posterity are entitled under
the law of the land.
16. That Undersigned is assured by a high level experienced Federal Reserve Bank system
expert that the Private Trust(s) (where each such trust relationship is established upon receipt of
the Writ of Birth or Birth Registration, although such trusts are subsequently bundled or
commingled) exist and are safeguarded.
17. That an FBI agent whistleblower verifies the existence and use of certificate bundles.
18. That Undersigned on the other hand was told by market analysis expert Rob Kirby that
there is a likelihood since 2001 as a result of the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act that combining the
Private Trust(s) added risks associated with the Exchange Stabilization Fund and the Private
Trusts underlying United States Securities are being looted and requires a forensic accounting.
19. That as to the ORDER of September 29, 2015 Plaintiff had met all of the standards for
reconsideration of errors and bias requiring disqualification and reassignment.
20. That a Declaratory Judgment as to Temporary Military Government and Complainant
Status by way of his Original Bill of Complaint has requested a declaratory judgment under 28
USC §2201 as applies to the alleged provision of Martial due process rather than Civil due
process during the time of war or emergency under 12 USC §95 with 50 USC Appendix.§ 5(b),
as alleged to apply with Plaintiff's use of 50 USC Appendix §9 and the Courts Jurisdiction under
50 USC Appendix §17, and decision in the alleged matter of Plaintiff's beneficiary agent status

7

APX-028

as a private national Citizen of the United States as to standing as a non-combatant during the
proclaimed emergency or time of war; and that the simple facts are:

As shown at Exhibit B-1-A-18 on March 9, 1933 the Congress enacted 12 USC §95(a)
for "regulation of transactions in foreign exchange of gold and silver; property transfers;
vested interests, enforcement and penalties", thereby bringing the provisions of the
Trading with the enemy act inland.

As shown at Exhibit B-1-A-19 on March 9, 1933 the Congress enacted 12 USC §95(b)
Ratification of acts of President and Secretary of the Treasury under 12 USC §95(a)
mandates that:
"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter
taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary
of the Treasury since March 4. 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by section 95a
of this title, are approved and confirmed."

As shown at Exhibit B-1-A-16 Executive Order 2039 created the perpetual private trusts
on March 6, 1933 mandated :
"...the Secretary of the Treasury. with the approval of the President and under such
regulations as he may prescribe. is authorized and empowered (a) to permit any or· all of
such banking institutions to perform any or all of the usual banking functions, (b) \o
direct, require or-permit the issuance of clearing house certificates or other evidences of
claims against assets of banking institutions , and {c) to authorize and direct the creation
in such banking institutions of special trust accounts for the receipt of new deposits
which shall be subject to withdrawal on demand without any restriction or limitation and
shall be kept separately in cash or on deposit in Federal Reserve Banks or invested-in
obligations of the United States."

As shown at Exhibit B-1-A-17 Executive Order 2040 created the perpetual temporary
Military Government on March 9, 1933 mandated :
"...in view of such continuing national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in
me by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6 , 1917 (40 Stat. L 411), as amended by the
act of March 9, 1933, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and declare that all the terms and
provisions of said Proclamation of March 6, 1933, and the regulations and orders issued
thereunder are hereby continued in full force and effect until further proclamation by
the President..."

As shown at Exhibit B-1-A-22 Foreword of the US Senate Report 93-549 as to the
temporary military government under national emergency stated:
"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national
emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of
8

APX-029

national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President
Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President
Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national
emergency declared buy President Nixon on March 23, 1970 and August 15_, 1971;
These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of
statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the
Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing
manners. This vast .range of powers, taken together,. confer enough authority to rule the
country without reference to normal Constitutional process~
"Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the - President may: seize property;
organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces
abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication;
regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular
ways, control the lives of all American citizens..."

As shown at Exhibit B-1-A-25 Report Introduction of the US Senate Report 93-549 in "A
BRIEF HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ORIGINS OF EMERGENCY POWERS
NOW IN FORCE: The Senators emphatically stated:
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under
emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guiaranteed by the
Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states
of national emergency. The problem of how a constitutional democracy reacts to great
crisis, however, far antedates the Great Depression. As a philosophical issue, .its origins
reach back to 1he Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. And, in the United States,
actions taken by the Government in. times of great crises have-from, at least, the Civil
War-in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national
emergency."

As shown at Exhibit B-1-A-49 as a result of the recommendation in Senate Report 93549 , Congress enacted PUBLIC LAW 94-412- on SEPT. 14. 1976 - 90 STAT. 1255 and
therein kept the provisions of 12 USC 95(a) and the continuing national emergency as
long as it is annually renewed, states:
"Sec. 502. (a) The provisions of the Act shall not apply to the following provisions of
law, the powers and authorities conferred thereby, and action taken thereunder:
(1) Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a: 50 U.S.C.
App. 5(b);

And by reference undersigned includes every "actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders
and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the
President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4. 1933" and
or annually renewed as a time of war or emergency including the notice of September 10,
2015 shown as Exhibit F for the Court to use with its declaratory judgment on the state
of the temporary Military Government hereunder.
9

APX-030

-•


order(s) when issued to protect both the Court and Public from controversy as to matters
otherwise held confidential under law for public safety and personal confidentiality
balanced with further and different relief that the Court deems necessary herein.
Providing the law for this case by declaratory relief concerning the rights, powers,
privileges and immunities as well as the duties and obligations between the parties;
Providing protection including, but not limited to, identification documents identifying
the true and correct status of Complainant/Beneficiary pertaining to trade, transportation
and communication, as well as documents pertaining to domestic and foreign travel as
weU as personal security;
Providing a full accounting of all assets including, but not limited to, all monies and
property held in trust by Defendants/Trustees for the benefit of Complainantffieneficiary,
formerly an "enemy" under the "Trading With the Enemy Act" (1917) as amended by the
«Emergency Banking Relief Act" (1933);
Providing any other general and/or special relief, declaratory or otherwise for
Complainant and or his clients individually upon the intervention of each as the nature of
this case shall require, and which other and different relief the Court may deem just,
proper and right according to EBRNTWEA, Equity and good conscience.
Providing a expedited intervention process under Federal Rules for those members of the
Posterity class with each beneficiary agent as the attorney of fact who proves up as an
essential third party in interest herein as properly registered as a non-combatant under a
Treaty of Peace with the Secretary of Treasury, both as listed as Undersigned's Client 2
through 20 of Exhibit B-1-D and or vetted by Undersigned.
Providing that "Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee."

Respectfully submitted with the Preliminary Statement on Appeal are true and correct to vacate
the Order, Judge reassignment and declaratory judgment.

Dated: October _l_, 2015
Brooklyn, New York

~ eL

r

Christopher Earl Strunk, Complainant Beneficiary agent
for ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
c/o 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281
Brooklyn, NY Zip code excepted [11238]
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email suretynomore@gmail.com

10

APX-031

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Strunk v. DRUSKIN ETAL USDC SDNY 15-cv-6817 (JPO) (DF)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
l Christopher Earl Strunk hereby certify under penalty ofperjury with 28 USC 1746
that on October 1, 2015, 1 served a true conformed copy of Notice of Appeal with a
Copy of the Orders the appeal is taken from to be l"\erved by UnHed States Postal
Service jn a properly addressed envelope with proper postage and with "URGENT
L8GAL MAIL" wr.itten on the envelope for delivery upon:
SARA L. SHUDOFSKY Chief, Civil Division for
the Honorable PREETBHARARA USATFORNEY
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office
86 Chambers Street / 3rd Floor
New York City, NY 10007
ROBERT DRUSKIN. Executive Chairman of the
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
55 Water Street. 1-SL,
New York New York [ 100-ll-OOOo.l-j
JOHN KOSKINEN, Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service Office of Commissioner,
1111 Constitution A venue, NW
Washington. DC P0224J
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, Secretary of the United States Treasury
---Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia l20220J
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA n, Commander in Chief,
President of the United States of America,
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia [20500}

,L

L

2015
Dated: October
Brooklyn, New York

Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris Beneficiary
Agent and Attorney in fact for

'NCHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
315 Flatbush Avenue, PMB 102
Brooklyn Ne'"" York Zipcode excepted [11238]
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email: surctynomorc@gmail.com
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice

APX-032

J

From the Federal Register regarding the temporary Military Government under Executive Order 2040 with 12 USC
95: 50 USC App. 5(b) and the continuation of Emergencies annually unsorted by year but covering 2014 through
the present
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bterm%5D=continuation+national+emergency&page=1&quie
t=true

1.

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support
Terrorism

… of September 18, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Persons … States. For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive
Order 13224 … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency with respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 09/22/2015
PDF

2.

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks

… of September 10, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Certain … (d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency previously
declared on … . Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001 …

A Notice by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on 09/19/2014
PDF

3.

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Export Control Regulations

… of August 7, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Export … Congress, the national emergency declared on August 17, 2001,
must continue in effect … (d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 08/11/2015
PDF

4.

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Lebanon

… of July 29, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Lebanon … a national emergency with respect to Lebanon pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency with respect to …

A Notice by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on 08/13/2014
PDF

5.

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations

… of July 21, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Transnational … national emergency with respect to transnational criminal organizations
pursuant to the International Emergency… the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency with respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 07/23/2015
PDF

6.

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Former Liberian Regime of Charles Taylor

… of July 17, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the … 13348, the President declared a national emergency with respect to the former …
the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency with respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 07/21/2015
PDF

7.

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to North Korea

… of June 22, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to North … taken to deal with that national emergency, must continue in effect beyond
June … (d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 06/24/2015
PDF

8.

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Western Balkans

… of June 22, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the … national emergency with respect to the Western Balkans, pursuant to the
International Emergency … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency with respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 06/24/2015

9.

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Actions and Policies of Certain Members of the Government
of Belarus and Other Persons to Undermine Belarus's Democratic Processes or Institutions

1

APX-033

… of June 10, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the … President declared a national emergency pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency declared
in Executive …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 06/12/2015

10. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Stabilization of Iraq
… of May 19, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the … President declared anational emergency pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency with
respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 05/21/2015

11. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Burma
… of May 15, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Burma … also declared a national emergency pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency with
respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 05/19/2015

12. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Yemen
… of May 13, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Yemen … , I declared a national emergency pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency declared
in Executive …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 05/15/2015

13. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Central African Republic
… of May 8, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the … national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to
the national … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 05/11/2015

14. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Actions of the Government of Syria
… of May 6, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Actions … (d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared with respect
… in determining whether to continue or terminate this national emergency in the future …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 05/08/2015
15.

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Somalia … of April 8, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With
Respect to Somalia … , I declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act … the National Emergencies Act (50
U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 04/10/2015

16. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to South Sudan
… of March 31, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to South … national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to
the national … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 04/02/2015

17. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran
… of March 11, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran … reason, the national emergency declared on March 15, 1995, must continue in
effect … (d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 03/13/2015

18. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Ukraine
… of March 3, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Ukraine … , I declared a national emergency pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency declared
in Executive …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 03/05/2015

2

APX-034

19. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Zimbabwe
… of March 3, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Zimbabwe … 13288, the President declared a national emergency and blocked the
property of … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 03/05/2015

20. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Cuba and of the Emergency Authority Relating to the Regulation
of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels
… Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Cuba and of the Emergency Authority …National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I
am continuing the national emergency … with respect to Cuba and the emergency authority relating …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 02/27/2015

21. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Libya
… of February 23, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Libya … , I declared a national emergency pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency declared
in Executive …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 02/24/2015

22. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Situation in or in Relation to C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire
… of February 4, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the … President declared a national emergency, pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency declared
in Executive …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 02/06/2015

23. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace
Process
… of January 21, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Terrorists … President declared a national emergency pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergencywith
respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 01/22/2015
24. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Somalia
… of April 8, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Somalia … , I declared a national emergency pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency declared
in Executive …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 04/10/2015

25. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to South Sudan
… of March 31, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to South … national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to
the national … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 04/02/2015

26. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran
… of March 11, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran … reason, the national emergency declared on March 15, 1995, must continue in
effect … (d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 03/13/2015

27. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Ukraine

3

APX-035

… of March 3, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Ukraine … , I declared a national emergency pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency declared
in Executive …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 03/05/2015

28. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Zimbabwe
… of March 3, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Zimbabwe … 13288, the President declared a national emergency and blocked the
property of … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 03/05/2015

29. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Cuba and of theEmergency Authority Relating to the Regulation
of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels
… Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Cuba and of the Emergency Authority …National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I
am continuing the national emergency … with respect to Cuba and the emergency authority relating …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 02/27/2015

30. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Libya
… of February 23, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Libya … , I declared a national emergency pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency declared
in Executive …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 02/24/2015

31. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Situation in or in Relation to C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire
… of February 4, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the … President declared a national emergency, pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency declared
in Executive …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 02/06/2015

32. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran
… of November 12, 2014 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran … way, the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979,
must continue in effect … (d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 11/13/2014

33. Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons
… , inter alia, of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U … Order, the President declared a national emergency to deal with the threat … 1944;
POB Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; nationality Mexico; citizen Mexico; C.U … property and interests in property continue to be blocked pursuant to …

A Notice by the Foreign Assets Control Office on 09/02/2015

34. Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons
… , inter alia, of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U … Order, the President declared a national emergency to deal with the threat … property
and interests in property continue to be blocked pursuant to … 1966; POB Candelaria, Valle, Colombia; nationality Colombia; citizen Colombia; Cedula No …

A Notice by the Foreign Assets Control Office on 06/10/2015

35. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
… of November 7, 2014 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the … , must continue. In accordance with section 202(d) of
the National Emergencies Act … (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 11/12/2014

36. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Sudan
… of October 24, 2014 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Sudan … a national emergency with respect to Sudan and, pursuant to the
International Emergency … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency with respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 10/28/2014

4

APX-036

37. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Situation in or in Relation to the Democratic Republic of the
Congo
… of October 21, 2014 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the … national emergency in E.O. 13671 of July 8, 2014. This
situation continues … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency with respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 10/23/2014

38. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia
… of October 16, 2014 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Significant … 12978, the President declared a national emergency with respect to
significant narcotics … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency with respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 10/20/2014

39. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran
… of November 12, 2014 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran … way, the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979,
must continue in effect … (d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 11/13/2014

40. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
… of November 7, 2014 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the … , must continue. In accordance with section 202(d) of
the National Emergencies Act … (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 11/12/2014

41. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Sudan
… of October 24, 2014 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Sudan … a national emergency with respect to Sudan and, pursuant to the
International Emergency … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency with respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 10/28/2014

42. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Situation in or in Relation to the Democratic Republic of the
Congo
… of October 21, 2014 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the … national emergency in E.O. 13671 of July 8, 2014. This
situation continues … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency with respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 10/23/2014

43. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia
… of October 16, 2014 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Significant … 12978, the President declared a national emergency with respect to
significant narcotics … the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergency with respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 10/20/2014

44. Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons Pursuant to Executive Order 12978
… , inter alia, of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U … Order, the President declared a national emergency to deal with the threat …
(Colombia); alt. Passport AE613367 (Colombia); National Foreign ID Number X3881333Z (Spain … property and interests in property continue to be blocked
pursuant to …

A Notice by the Foreign Assets Control Office on 05/05/2015

45. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process
… of January 21, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Terrorists … President declared a national emergency pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act … theNational Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing … for 1 year the national emergencywith
respect to …

A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 01/22/2015

5

APX-037

™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
315 Flatbush Avenue, PMB 102
Brooklyn New York Zipcode excepted [1 1238]
Phone: 718-414-3760 Email=suretvnomore@gmail.com
To : The Bon. RUBY J. KRAJICK, Clerk of the Court
for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007

In Re: Strunk v. DRUSKIN ETAL USDC SDNY 15-cv-6817 (JPO) (DF)
Subject: Notice for Clerk to Correct errors in the docket and address change
Dear Clerk of the Court,
I, Christopher Earl Strunk am the undersigned Complainant Movant in the referenced
case seeking to have the Clerk correct the entry errors in the docket regarding the caption.
Christopher Earl Strunk, Beneficiary among the
Posterity ofPre-1 933 Private American National
Citizens of the United States, beneficiary agent for
™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© (Strunk)
Complainant/Beneficiary-Plaintiff
vs.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 15-cv-6817 (JPO) (DF)

)

ROBERT DRUSKIN, Executive Chairman of the
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC)
JOHN KOSKINEN, Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, Trustee
Secretary of the United States Treasury- (SOT)
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ll, Trustee
Commander in Chief, President of the
(POTUS)
United States of America

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Defendants
Respectfully submitted b
Dated: Septembe30,.2015
Brooklyn New York

Christo er Earl Strunk in ess
· uris Beneficiary Agen and
Attorney in fact for TMCHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
cc: See Service List

APX-038

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Strunk v. DRUSKINETAL USDC SDNY 15-cv-6817 (JPO) (DF)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I Christopher Earl Strunk hereby certify under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 1746 that on
September 30, 2015, I served a true confonned copy of Notice for Clerk to Correct errors in
the docket and address change to be served by United States Postal Service in a properly
addressed envelope with proper postage and with "Personal & Confidential" and "URGENT LEGAL
PAPERS" written on the envelope for delivery upon:
SARA L. SHUDOFSKY Chief, Civil Division for

the Honorable PREET BHARARA US ATTORNEY
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office
86 Chambers Street I 3rd Floor
New York City, NY I 0007
ROBERT DRUSK.IN, Executive Chairman of the
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
55 Water Street, 1-SL,
New York New York (10041-0004]
JOHN KOSKINEN, Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service Office of Commissioner,
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC [20224)
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, Secretary of the United States Treasurv
·
---Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia [20220)
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, Commander in Chief
President of the United States of America
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave~ue, N .W.
Washington o;str;ct of Columb;a [205~
Dated: September3'D2015

Brooklyn, N.Y.

I

( /. -

'\.___
Chii op er Earl Strunk in ess
Agent and Attorney in fact for
TMCHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
315 Flatbush Avenue, PMB I 02
Brooklyn New York Zipcode excepted [11238]
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email: suretvnomore@gmail.com
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice

APX-039

SENDER: COP1PLETE THIS SECT/Of\'

• Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece,
or on the front if
1. Article Addressed to:

_; ttV\1~

PAt: L cr:rt10/J c,~

i.JSC> c £' /)}) "l

"'tvol

PoLG~ J 5 . ll~tt Zlc
~ I <:S6CJ ~7
0 Priol'ity Mail Express®
0 Registered Mall,...,
0 Registered Mail Restricted

llllll/111111111111111111111111111111111111111
9590 9403 0358 5163 6681 74

Delivery

0 Retum Receipt for

Merchandise
0 Signature ConfirmationTM
0 Signature Confirmation
Restricted Dellv&lY

Domestic Return R~celpt :

0325
08

Postmark
Here

09/17/2015

APX-040

,.
· · l . .....

SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION

• Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the
1. Article Addressed to:
'7'
h l {E'Wlllvc:ll{~ li~i7il(

C'A-R.Oijr4{._ l>ct..Av

I Dt ( rot.(' r jl.Ut
JJL( ~ I o o ·z- ~z_

II

a Priority Mail Exp~s®

111111111 11111111 II 1111111111111111111111111

Q Registered MaiJTN
0 R~lstered Mall Resi!IC'Ied

9590 9403 0358 5163 6681 81

D~hvel}'

a Return Receipt for
Merchandise

0 Signature Confirmation"'
0 Signature Confirmation
Restricted Delivery

7015 1520 0002 3411 0015
l P~ Form 3811, April2015 PSN 7530·02-000-9053

Domestic Return Recelpi

0325
~

08
N/A

CJ Postage

rn
.....=!

Postmark
Here

$

Total P~stage and Fees

~- ~

$

$12. 95

I

I

I l l "f·

09/17/2015

..

APX-041

•.:

..

TMCHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
c/o 593 Vanderbilt Avenue, PMB 281
Brooklyn New York Zipcode excepted [11238]
Phone: 718-414-3760 Email: suretynomore@gmaiLcom
To : The Hon. RUBY J. KRAJICK, Clerk of the Court
for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
In Re: Strunk v. DRUSKIN ETAL USDC SDNY 15-cv-6817 (JPO) (DF)
Subject: Notice ofMotion to Reconsider the ORDER TO DISMISS and DEMi{AND
FOR DISQUALIFICATION with Affirmation and Memorandum of Law

Dear Clerk of the Court,
l, Christopher Earl Strunk am the undersigned Complainant Movant in the referenced
case seeking to reconsider the ORDER TO DISMMIS the Complaint with DEMAND FOR
DISQUALIFICATION with sup[porting affirmation and Memorandum of Law with exhibits
and proposed order annexed herewith.
My certificate of service of the motion papers on opposing parties is herewith attached .
If there is an additional requirement for oral argument and appearance please do not hesitate to
contact me at the above listed number or email.

Respectfully submitted b

'JiJ

Dated: September
2015
Brooklyn New York

Attachments:
cc: See Service List

APX-042

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________________________________________________
)
Plaintiff
)
No. 15-cv-6817 (JPO) (DF)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT DRUSKIN, JOHN KOSKINEN,
)
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, and
)
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II
)
Defendants )
______________________________________________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK

PROPOSED ORDER TO VACATE THE ORDER TO DISMISS AND REASSIGN
The Clerk of the Court is hereby
ORDERED to vacate the order to dismiss the Complaint herein dated September 10, 2015.
ORDERED to refer this case to the Chief Administrative Judge for reassignment of the
Complaint to a Senior Judge for review of a question of first impression according to Plaintiff's
demand for a declaratory judgment under 28 USC §2201under the alleged provision of Martial
due process rather than Civil due process during the time of war or emergency under 12 USC
§95 with 50 USC Appendix.§ 5(b), as alleged to apply with Plaintiff's use of 50 USC Appendix
§9 and the Courts Jurisdiction under 50 USC Appendix §17, and decision in the alleged matter
of Plaintiff's beneficiary agent status as a private nation Citizen of the United States as to
standing as a non-combatant during the proclaimed emergency or time of war.

So Ordered this ____ day of ___________ 2015

__________________________________
HON. J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ

APX-043

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Strunk v. DRUSKIN ETAL USDC SDNY 15-cv-6817 (JPO) (DF)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
T Christopher Earl Strunk hereby certify under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 1746 that on September
24, 2015, I served a true conformed copy of NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE
ORDER TO DISMISS WITH DEMAND TO RECUSE with affirmation of CHRISTOPHER
EARL STRUNK, affirmed September 23,2015 with Memorandum ofLaw and Exhibits A through
G and proposed order to be served by United States Postal Service in a properly addressed envelope with
proper postage and with "Personal & Confidential" and "URGENT LEGAL PAPERS" written on the
envelope for delivery upon:

SARA L. SHUDOFSKY Chief, Civil Division for
the Honorable PREET BHARARA US ATTORNEY
FOR THE SOUTl!ERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office
86 Chambers Street I 3rd Floor
New York City, NY 10007
ROBERT DRUSKTN, Executive Chainnan of the
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
55 Water Street, 1-SL,
New York New York [1 0041-0004]
JOHN KOSKINEN, Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service Office of Commissioner,
1 11 I Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC [20224]
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, Secretary of the United States Treasury
--- Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia [20220]
BARACK HUSSETN OBAMA n, Commander in Chief,
President of the United States of America,
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia [20500}
Dated: September'J-..Y 2015
Brooklyn, N.Y.
· opher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris Beneficiary
Agent and Attorney in fact for
™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNKO
c/o 593 Vanderbilt Avenue, PMB 281
Brooklyn New York Zipcode excepted [ 11 23 8]
Ph: 71 8-414-3 760 Emai I: suretynomore@gmail.com
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice

APX-044

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Christopher Earl Strunk, Beneficiary among the
Posterity ofPre-1933 Private American National
Citizens of the United States, beneficiary agent for
™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© (Strunk)
c/o 593 VanderbiltAvcnuePMB 281
Brooklyn, NY Zip code excepted [11238]

)
)
)
)
)
)

Ph: 718-414-3760 Email smetynomore@gmail.com

)

Complainant/Beneficiary

)
)

No.lS-cv-6817 (JPO) (DF)

vs.

)
)
ROBERT DRUSKIN, Executive Chairman of the )
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) )

JOHN KOSKINEN, Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, Trustee
Secretary ofthe United States Treasury- (SOT)
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, Trustee
Commander in Chief, President of the
(POTUS)
United States of Ame1ica

)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)

Defendants

NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE ORDER WITH DEMAND TO RECUSE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the affirmation for CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,
affrrmed September 23, 2015 with Memm·andwn of Law, Complainant Beneficiary will move to
reconsider by Local Civil Rule 6.3 for FRCvP Rules 52 and 60, the September 10, 2015 ORDER
to Dismiss the Original Bill of Complaint with exhibits verified August 14, 2015 filed on August
27, 2015 with associated motion paperwork that denies the demand to seal and recuse J. PAUL
OETKIN USDJ in the proceeding at U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York at
the Daniel PatTick Moynihan Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street New York New York, on a day of
October 2015, at a time designated by:
e~ or as soon therea r aS'counse] can be heard.
~

Dated:

~

September~--;, 2015
Brooklyn, New York

· topher Earl Strunk, Complainant Beneficiary agent
for ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
c/o 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281
Brooklyn, NY Zip code excepted [11238]
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email suretynomore@grnail.com
SERVICE LIST:


1

APX-045

SERVICE LIST:
SARA L. SHUDOFSKY Chief, Civil Division for
the Honorable PREET BHARARA US ATTORNEY
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office
86 Chambers Street / 3rd Floor
New York City, NY 10007
ROBERT DRUSKIN, Executive Chairman of the
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
55 Water Street, 1-SL,
New York New York [10041-0004]
JOHN KOSKINEN, Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service Office of Commissioner,
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC [20224]
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, Secretary of the United States Treasury
--- Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia [20220]
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, Commander in Chief,
President of the United States of America ,
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia [20500]

2

APX-046

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Christopher Earl Strunk, Beneficiary among the
Posterity of Pre-1933 Private American National
Citizens of the United States, beneficiary agent for
™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© (Strunk)
c/o 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281
Brooklyn, NY Zip code excepted [11238]

)

)

)
)
)
)
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email suretynomore@gmail.com
)
)
Complainant/Beneficiary
)
No. 15-cv-6817 (JPO) (DF)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT DRUSKIN, Executive Chairman of the )
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) )
JOHN KOSKINEN, Commissioner
)
Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)
)
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, Trustee
)
Secretary of the United States Treasury— (SOT) )
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, Trustee
)
Commander in Chief, President of the
)
United States of America
(POTUS)
)
)
Defendants
)
______________________________________________________________________________
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE
ORDER TO DISMISS WITH DEMAND FOR DISQUALIFICATION

I, Christopher Earl Strunk, Complainant Beneficiary among the Posterity of Pre-1933 Private
American National Citizens of the United States (the Posterity Class) and sole beneficiary agent
attorney in fact, the Undersigned, for Business Trust Organization ™CHRISTOPHER EARL
STRUNK©, states and declares under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct
under 28 USC §1746:
1. As a short concise statement of the case, Undersigned's Original Bill of Complaint
demands Postliminy relief that applies either under martial or civil law, and by which the

1

APX-047

restoration of a person to any status or right formerly possessed by him was considered as
relating back to the time of his original loss or deprivation to the recapture of property taken by
an enemy of occupation, and its consequent restoration to its original owner.
2. Undersigned's

affirmation

hereby

supports

the

NOTICE

OF

MOTION

TO

RECONSIDER, with Local Civil Rule 6.3 for FRCvP Rules 52 and 60, THE ORDER of
September 10, 2015 ("Order") see Exhibit A, TO DISMISS the Original Bill of Complaint with
exhibits verified August 14, 2015 filed on August 27, 2015 herewith see Exhibit B-1 under
Order "M-49" with associated motion paperwork and that denies the Motion to rehear the
demand to seal entitled "MOTION TO REHEAR THE ORDER "M-49" DENIAL TO SEAL
ORIGINAL BILL OF COMPLAINT pursuant to 28 USC §652(d) and FRCvP Rule 5.2 (d) under
12 USC Chapter 35: RIGHT TO FINANCIAL PRIVACY" ("Motion to Rehear") see Exhibit C,
was concurrently denied by the Hon. ANALISA TORRES USDJ and J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ,
and the Undersigned demands in the Motion to Rehear that the Hon. ANALISA TORRES USDJ
and J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ recusal as under 28 USC §144 as to bias or prejudice of judge and
with cause under 28 USC §455(a)(b) disqualification of justice, judge or magistrate judge that
was left unaddressed by the Order.
3. Undersigned seeks an order for The Clerk of the Court:
a. to vacate the order to dismiss the Complaint herein dated September 10, 2015.
b. to refer this case to the Chief Administrative Judge for reassignment of the Complaint to
a Senior Judge for review of a question of first impression according to Plaintiff's
demand for a declaratory judgment under 28 USC §2201under the alleged provision of
Martial due process rather than Civil due process during the time of war or emergency
under 12 USC §95 with 50 USC Appendix.§ 5(b), as alleged to apply with Plaintiff's use

2

APX-048

of 50 USC Appendix §9 and the Courts Jurisdiction under 50 USC Appendix §17, and
decision in the alleged matter of Plaintiff's beneficiary agent status as a private nation
Citizen of the United States as to standing as a non-combatant during the proclaimed
emergency or time of war.
4. On August 27, when Undersigned filed the Original Bill of Complaint with the Clerk of
the Court the random drawing of the Judge assignment, in the past seen to be done using a
rotating drum from which a name designation chit was drawn, was not used herein.
5. On September 11, 2015, Defendants and SDNY Chief of the Civil Division pursuant to
28 CFR §0.47 for Alien property matters and 28 USC §1331 were served the Summons (see
Exhibit D) and Complaint; and thereafter, docketed by the Clerk of the Court (see Exhibit E).
6. That as a extra judicial matter in support of disqualification of both Hon. ANALISA
TORRES USDJ and J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ who were appointed to the bench by Defendant
Obama.
7. That as a extra judicial matter in support of disqualification of both Hon. ANALISA
TORRES USDJ and J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ who are too youthful and inexperienced to
provide judicial review on the matter of the 82 year continuous temporary Military Government
before the court that turns on the 1973 US Senate Report 93-549 and the annual renewal of the
time of war and or emergency by orders and proclamations as law under 12 USC §95(b); and
8. Germane herein as a extra judicial matter in support of J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ to selfdisqualify is the fact that on the date September 10, 2015 for the Order, the annual renewal of the
time of war and emergency inter alia among others concurrently in force including that for Iran
since 1979, coincides with the NOTICE for "CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL
EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS consistent with

3

APX-049

section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 USC 1622(d)... continuing for 1 year the
national emergency previous declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with
respect to terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of
further attacks on the United States", (see Exhibit F); and as a question of law and fact
9. Germane herein to determine the competence of any Federal Judge sitting in judicial
review under the time of war and or emergency maintained by Executive Order 2040 for the
temporary Military Government enacted by Congress as the law of the land with 12 USC §95(b),
is the four Judge Panel Order by the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division for the
Second Judicial Department that upon judicial review of authority under the temporary Military
Government denied Undersigned provision of "Civil Due Process of Law" admit to provision of
Martial due process (see Exhibit G); and herein mandates use of 28 USC §2201 and §2202
Declaratory relief to settle court jurisdiction under the temporary Military Government question.
10. That as a extra judicial matter in support of disqualification of J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ,
in that the record shows that James Paul Oetkin in esse surety for JAMES PAUL OETKIN is a
material witness herein to be called to testify because James Paul Oetkin served in the Office of
Legal Counsel in the US Department of Justice from 1997 through 1999 and James Paul Oetkin
became Associate Council to POTUS in the office of White House Counsel from 1999 through
2001; and
11. Further as a requirement of disqualification under §455(b)(4) were J. PAUL OETKIN
USDJ electronically trading in securities 90% of which are handled by DTTC Defendant and
ceded to CEDE & Company must be disqualified because James Paul Oetkin in esse surety for
JAMES PAUL OETKIN knows that he individually has a financial interest in the subject matter

4

APX-050

in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially
affected by the outcome of the proceeding must disclose such and not be able to waiver.
12. Further base upon information and belief, J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ must be disqualified
because James Paul Oetkin in esse surety for JAMES PAUL OETKIN knew about the fine
details of the ongoing temporary Military Government, the annual emergency renewals, and
enabled the suspected combining of the Private Trusts and Exchange Stabilization Fund
involving the Posterity and Undersigned's property that coincides with the 1999 Clinton /
Graham-Leach-Bliley Act repeal of two provisions of the Glass- Steagall Act (1) associated with
the demand hereon for relief under 50 USC App. §9 for which the Congress gives the District
jurisdiction authority to provide under 50 USC App. §17.
13. Further, Undersigned alleges based upon information and belief in support of
disqualification of J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ,

and that supports Undersigned's action for

constructive fraud with conversion of property beyond just a simple breach of fiduciary trust
perpetrated by Defendants, because of the above facts and acts J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ appears

1

'Glass-Steagall Act' - Congress passed in 1933 as the Banking Act, in short prohibited commercial banks from
participating in the investment banking business. The sponsorship was by Senator Carter Glass, a former Treasury
secretary, and Senator Henry Steagall, a member of the House of Representatives and chairman of the House
Banking and Currency Committee. Apart from separating commercial and investment banking, the Glass-Steagall
Act also created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which guaranteed bank deposits up to a specified limit.
The Act also created the Federal Open Market Committee and introduced Regulation Q, which prohibited banks
from paying interest on demand deposits and capped interest rates on other deposit products (it was repealed in July
2011).
The Glass-Steagall Act's primary objectives were twofold – to stop the unprecedented run on banks, restore
public confidence in the U.S. banking system and to separate the Private Trust maintained under Executive Order
2039 from the Exchange Stabilization Fund under Executive Order 6071; and thereby to sever the linkages between
commercial and investment banking. That besides the actual design by the Papal Knights to seize assets with the use
of their Federal Reserve Bank contrived cash shortage, popular history would have us believe linkages have been
responsible for the 1929 market crash, and the tendency of such banks to engage in excessively speculative activity;
and as result of the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act contributed to the 2008 global credit crisis so that commercial banks,
around the world, were saddled with billions of dollars in losses due to the excessive exposure of their investment
banking arms to derivatives and securities tied to home prices so that the last of the top-tier investment banks, could
convert to bank holding companies, and by design strike the final demise of the Glass-Steagall Act to loot the
Private Trusts / Exchange Stabilization Fund to enable transfer of assets to China.

5

APX-051

to be aiding and abetting James Paul Oetkin in esse surety for JAMES PAUL OETKIN and
Defendants, among others yet named, as a matter of treason and or misprision of treason under
18 USC §2382 (2); and
14. Further as result of the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act, aided and abetted by James Paul
Oetkin in esse surety for JAMES PAUL OETKIN, among others yet named, contributed to the
2008 global credit crisis so that commercial banks, around the world, the private trusts and
Exchange Stabilization Fund were saddled with billions of dollars in losses due to the excessive
exposure of their investment banking arms to derivatives and securities, inter alia tied to
domestic home prices and the labor of Posterity, so that the last of the top-tier investment banks
could convert to bank holding companies, and by design strike the final demise of the GlassSteagall Act to loot the Private Trusts / Exchange Stabilization Fund to enable transfer of assets
to China (see Undersigned's petition to His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan Archbishop of
New York in regards to the Analysis Memorandum of Eric Jon Phelps to Undersigned entitled
The Jesuit Design against the American Roman Catholic Church at Exhibit B-2) starting
January 20, 2009 by Defendant Obama and his agents, including the Bankers' U.S. Senator from
Delaware, along with the prior unauthorized transfers of technology and intelligence by the
Clinton Administration and its agents for the Jesuit run Chinese Communist central committee.
15. In furtherance of the above acts, James Paul Oetkin in esse surety for J. PAUL OETKIN
USDJ without an utterance refused to self-disqualify under 28 USC §455 in self-service refused
to seal the case at least temporarily until resolution with an alternative settlement process, instead
became an actual real party in interest herein, to further harm Undersigned and the posterity,
2

In the United States, misprision of treason is a federal offense, committed where someone who has knowledge of
the commission of any treason against the United States, conceals such knowledge and does not inform
the President, a federal judge or State Governor or State judge (18 U.S.C. § 2382). It is punishable by a fine and up
to seven years in federal prison. It is also a crime punishable under the criminal laws of many states.

6

APX-052

refused to read the Complaint within the four corners, and with malice proceeded to amend the
Complaint with an outrageously constructed straw man serving James Paul Oetkin in esse surety
for JAMES PAUL OETKIN proposed intervener to facilitate dismissal with the Order that:
a. Changed the Complaint Caption to falsely characterize Undersigned status from in esse Sui
juris beneficiary agent to that of a surety indenture for the Debtor beneficiary in commerce;
b. Changed the short and plain statement of the case from Claims to property transferred to
custodian; notice of claim; filing; return of property; suits to recover; sale of claimed
property in time of war or during national emergency with three causes of action under 50
USC App. §9 with 28 USC §1331 and 50 USC App. §17 jurisdiction, to cherry picked self
serving simple tort statement in which the United States is a Defendant under 28 USC §1346.
c. Changed the express jurisdiction under 50 USC Appendix §17 for which with 28 USC §2201
and §2202 requires judicial review for declaratory relief as to Undersigned's status as a
private citizen that would apply with 28 USC §1331 for the under a time of war or
emergency with the temporary Military Government with the 50 USC App. §9 Claims to
property transferred to custodian; notice of claim; filing; return of property; suits to recover;
sale of claimed property in time of war or during national emergency with a statutory filing
deadline limit with 50 USC App. §32 Return of property and 50 USC App. §33 Notice of
claim; institution of suits; computation of time that applies herein especially since Defendant
Trustee(s) only have 60 days to bar recovery, was not done by Defendants after notice of
April 23, 2015 that should have been barred by no later than say June 23, 2015 - was not
ordered; and instead in outrageous bad faith, James Paul Oetkin in esse surety for J. PAUL
OETKIN USDJ's uses 28 USC §1346 were the Complaint a simple tort with a 6 month bar.

7

APX-053

d. Changed the Complaint by outrageously constructing a straw man that the Court even
suggests under 28 USC §1346 notwithstanding Administrative process, somehow the
Defendants are sovereign or immune from suit and that Defendants as trustee(s) are free from
suit when challenged for breach and bad faith to fiduciary duty;
e. Changed the actual use by Undersigned's private Confidential Contract with each of his
clients to that of a supposed rejection of an offer to Defendants to go into private contract;
f. Wrongly poses that Mr. Druskin and DTCC are private persons without duties to Trustees
g. Barred Undersigned from the opportunity to amend by constructing a straw-man complaint;
h. Characterizes Undersigned as a prisoner of the temporary Military Government; and
i. Bars Undersigned and Clients of the Posterity along with the posterity from future relief;
j. Undersigned by reference of all matters in the record, and as Defendants remain in default
and have not appeared, reserves his rights without prejudice and or exception for further and
different points of argument in reply and or oral argument before the court to secured further
and different relief for which Undersigned and his clients of the Posterity are entitled under
the law of the land.
16. That Undersigned is assured by a high level experienced Federal Reserve Bank system
expert that the Private Trust(s) (where each such trust relationship is established upon receipt of
the Writ of Birth or Birth Registration, although such trusts are subsequently bundled or
commingled) exist and are safeguarded.
17. That Undersigned on the other hand was told by market analysis expert Rob Kirby that
there is a likelihood since 2001 as a result of the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act that combining the
Private Trust(s) added risks associated with the Exchange Stabilization Fund and the Private
Trusts underlying United States Securities are being looted and requires a forensic accounting.

8

APX-054

Wherefore, Undersigned requires a vacate order, the Judge's recusal with a Court order for:
A. immediate sealing of all aspects of the Original Bill of Complaint for inter alia
declaratory relief as to Undersigned's non-combatant status per se, enforcement of trusts,
protection and full accounting, for return of property as a postliminy form of relief
B. until further ordered with agreement of the parties when Defendants answer to their
default under Administrative Process; and at least temporarily must be a sealed
proceeding until evidentiary hearing(s) in chambers regarding proprietary evidence
private, special, urgent, privileged restricted, confidential, excluding the public and press;
C. leave of the Court for the expanded size Memorandum of Law endorsed August 23, 2015
in excess of 25 pages as annexed to Exhibit B-1-D of the Original Bill of Complaint.
D. the Hon. J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ self-disqualify for a Judge assigned to the sealed case
as a matter of extra judicial conflict of interest barred by 28 USC §455;
E. That a Senior Judge assigned to hear this case be pre qualified to not have a conflict of
interest to assume the office as an unbiased temporary Trustee with authority over the
Private Trusts, Exchange Stabilization Fund and Controller of the Currency;
F. That the case be heard in an extra and special term of this Court for providing a form of
alternative settlement, and once reached continues to expedite an intervention process
under Federal Rules for those members of the Posterity class with each beneficiary agent
as the attorney of fact who proves up as an essential third party in interest herein as
properly registered as a non-combatant fashioned as a Treaty of Peace with the Secretary
of Treasury, both as listed as Undersigned's Client 2 through 20 of Exhibit B-1-D and or
vetted by Undersigned; and
G. order(s) when issued to protect both the Court and Public from controversy as to matters
otherwise held confidential under law for public safety and personal confidentiality
balanced with further and different relief that the Court deems necessary herein.
a. Providing the law for this case by declaratory relief concerning the rights, powers,
privileges and immunities as well as the duties and obligations between the parties;
9

APX-055

b. Providing protection including, but not limited to, identification documents
identifying the true and correct status of Complainant/Beneficiary pertaining to trade,
transportation and communication, as well as documents pertaining to domestic and
foreign travel as well as personal security;
c. Providing a full accounting of all assets including, but not limited to, all monies and
property

held

m

trust

by

Defendants/Trustees

for

the

benefit

of

Complainant/Beneficiary, formerly an "enemy" under the "Trading With the Enemy
Act" (1917) as amended by the "Emergency Banking Relief Act" (1933);
d. Providing any other general and/or special relief, declaratory or otherwise for
Complainant and or his clients individually upon the intervention of each as the
nature of tlus case shall require, and which other and different relief the Court may
deem just, proper and right according to EBRA/TWEA, Equity and good conscience.
e. Providing a expedited intervention process under Federal "Rules for those members of
the Posterity class with each beneficiary agent as the attorney of fact who proves up

as an essential tlllrd pruty in interest herein as properly registered as a non-combatant
under a Treaty of Peace with the Secretary of Treasury, both as hsted as
Undersigned's Client 2 through 20 of Exhibit B-l-D and or vetted by Undersigned.

f.

Providing that "Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee."

Respectfully submitted with exhibits that are true and conect to vacate the Order, Judge
reassignment ru1d declaratory judgment.

Dated: September ·l,.j 2015
Brooklyn, New York
C
opher Earl Strunk, Complainant Beneficiary agent
for ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
c/o 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281
Brooklyn, NY Zip code excepted [11238]
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email suretynomore@gmail.com


10

APX-056

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Christopher Earl Strunk, Beneficiary among the
Posterity of Pre-1933 Private American National
Citizens of the United States, beneficiary agent for
™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© (Strunk)
c/o 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281
Brooklyn, NY Zip code excepted [11238]

)

)

)
)
)
)
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email suretynomore@gmail.com
)
)
Complainant/Beneficiary
)
No. 15-cv-6817 (JPO) (DF)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT DRUSKIN, Executive Chairman of the )
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) )
JOHN KOSKINEN, Commissioner
)
Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)
)
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, Trustee
)
Secretary of the United States Treasury— (SOT) )
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, Trustee
)
Commander in Chief, President of the
)
United States of America
(POTUS)
)
)
Defendants
)
______________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER
THE ORDER TO DISMISS WITH DEMAND FOR DISQUALIFICATION

I, Christopher Earl Strunk, Complainant Beneficiary among the Posterity of Pre-1933 Private
American National Citizens of the United States (the Posterity Class) and sole beneficiary agent
attorney in fact, the Undersigned, for Business Trust Organization ™CHRISTOPHER EARL
STRUNK©, states and declares under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct
under 28 USC §1746:
Introduction
Undersigned's Memorandum of Law with the Affirmation supports the NOTICE OF
MOTION TO RECONSIDER, with Local Civil Rule 6.3 for FRCvP Rules 52 and 60, THE
ORDER of September 10, 2015 ("Order") shown as Exhibit A, TO DISMISS the Original Bill
1

APX-057

of Complaint with exhibits verified August 14, 2015 filed on August 27, 2015 herewith shown as
Exhibit B-1 under Order "M-49" with associated motion paperwork and that denies the Motion
to rehear the demand to seal entitled "MOTION TO REHEAR THE ORDER "M-49" DENIAL
TO SEAL ORIGINAL BILL OF COMPLAINT pursuant to 28 USC §652(d) and FRCvP Rule
5.2 (d) under 12 USC Chapter 35: RIGHT TO FINANCIAL PRIVACY" ("Motion to Rehear")
shown as Exhibit C, was concurrently denied by the Hon. ANALISA TORRES USDJ and J.
PAUL OETKIN USDJ, and the Undersigned demands in the Motion to Rehear that the Hon.
ANALISA TORRES USDJ and J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ self-disqualify for cause under 28
USC §455(a)(b) is left unaddressed by the Order.
Undersigned's Original Bill of Complaint (Complaint) demands Postliminy relief herein
as would apply either under martial or civil law, that requires a declaratory order to establish the
law of the case, is from a doctrine or fiction of the law by which the restoration of a person to
any status or right formerly possessed by him was considered as relating back to the time of his
original loss or deprivation; and thereby requires a reinstated in all his rights. The term is also
applied, in international law, to the recapture of property taken by an enemy of occupation, and
its consequent restoration to its original owner.
Undersigned challenges the Order to Dismiss that uses 28 USC §1346 as if the
Complaint were a simple tort with a statutory deadline not met, and therefore found frivolous.
Instead in fact the April 23, 2015 administrative notice for the return of property and or recovery
of damages as if a replevin action uses 50 USC Appendix §9 for which the parties had sixty days
to respond to bar the filing of this suit --didn't; and then on June 15, 2015 were again given an
opportunity to cure their default to which they all remained silent--resulted in loss of immunity.
The Order avoids the questions of first impression raised by Complaint that when
arbitrarily dismissed deprives a class of their individual rights too; and ignores the exhaustion of
remedies performed under 12 USC §95 with 50 USC App. §5(b) for relief under 50 USC App.
§9, §17, §32, §33 as applies under 28 USC §1331 with the Administrative Procedures and
Declaratory Relief acts during a time of war and or emergency underlying the present temporary
Military Government. That this Memorandum supplements those shown in Exhibit B-1 and C.
2

APX-058

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction………………………………….....………………………………...........................1
Table of Authorities…………………………......……………………………….........................3
Venue and Jurisdiction During a Time of War or National Emergency.................................8
Declaratory Judgment as to Temporary Military Government and Complainant Status...11
Disqualification of Federal Judges for Bias Under 28 U.S.C. §144 and Revised §455..........15
Points of Argument in favor of Disqualification, Renewal with Sealing .
Point A: WE are under the Law of Belligerent Occupation Since March 9, 1933.................
Point B: That only a pre-1933 Private National Citizen of the United States may be considered a
third party in interest as beneficiaries to be given notice under 12 USC §95 with 50 USC
App. §5(b) with a redacted posting after temporary sealing ……..........……...................
Point C: Leave to supplement the complaint granted as to the Constructive Fraud involved in
the theft and conversion of the Private Trusts with the Exchange Stabilization Fund as
actual breach of fiduciary duty as a matter of treason and misprision of treason ...........
Point D: Sealing still must be done to protect the interests of all parties, so as not to commingle
the primary rights of a Pre-1933 Private American National Citizen of the United States
with the privileges of “enemies,” to secure Complainant’s private, civilian due process
rights and that the public may not be alarmed..................................................................
Summary In Support of Disqualification, Renewal and Sealing...........................................24
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Pages
Statutes
Local Civil Rule 6.3 for FRCvP Rules 52 and 60.........................................................................1
28 USC 652(d)...............................................................................................................................2
FRCvP Rule 5.2 (d)........................................................................................................................2
50 USC Appendix 3(d)............................................................................................................
12 USC Chapter 35: RIGHT TO FINANCIAL PRIVACY......................................................2,8
Administrative Procedures Act (1946)........................................................................................8
28 USC §2201 and §2202 of the Declaratory Judgment Act (1932).......................................11-15

3

APX-059

The Emergency Banking Relief Act of 9 March 1933 (48 Stat. 1)……..............................2,9,11
12 USC §95a - Regulation of transactions in foreign exchange of gold and silver; property
transfers; vested interests, enforcement and penalties..............................................................11,13
12 USC §95b - Ratification of acts of President and Secretary of the Treasury under Section 95a......11
Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, CH. 106, 40 STAT. 411 ..................................9
§ 2. Definitions..............................................................................................................................8
§ 3. Acts prohibited...........................................................................................................
§ 5. Suspension of provisions relating to ally of enemy; regulation of transactions in foreign
exchange of gold or silver, property transfers, vested interests, enforcement and penalties.........9
§ 9. Claims to property transferred to custodian; notice of claim; filing; return of property;
suits to recover; sale of claimed property in time of war or during
national emergency...............................................................................................................2,8,9,11
§ 16. Offenses; punishment; forfeitures of property......................................................................
§ 17. Rules by district courts; appeals....................................................................................2,9,11
]§32 Return of property...............................................................................................................2,8
§ 33. Notice of claim; institution of suits; computation of time.................................................2,8
§ 40. Intercustodial conflicts involving enemy property; authority of President to conclude;
delegation of authority
The Gold Reserve Act of January 30, 1934 Pub. L. 73–87 (48 Stat. 337) ................................10
The Emergency Powers Act of Sept. 14, 1976 PL 94-412 (90 Stat. 1255)……..…..................9,13
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1707)…............................9
The War Claims Fund established by section 13 of the War Claims Act of 1948 (Public Law 896,
80th Congress, July 3, 1948; 62 Stat. 1240; 50 U.S.C. app. 2001–2013).....................................
Graham-Leach-Bliley Act (1999)
Glass- Steagall Act (1933)
18 USC §2382 - Misprision of Treason
28 CFR §0.47 for Alien property matters
28 USC §144 - Bias or prejudice of judge............................................................................15-23
28 USC §455 - Disqualification of justice, judge or magistrate judge................................2, 15-23
28 USC §1331 - Federal Question...............................................................................................2
28 USC §1346 - United States as Defendant..............................................................................2
4

APX-060

Cases
Markham v. Cabell – 326 U.S. 404 (1945)..................................................................................10
Federal Authorities
Executive Order 2039.................................................................................................................12
Executive Order 2040.................................................................................................................12
Executive Order 6102....................................................................................................................
United States Senate Report 93-549 “Emergency Powers Statutes”........................................12,13
NOTICE for "CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO
CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies
Act, 50 USC 1622(d)... continuing for 1 year the national emergency previous declared on
September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States"............13
Other Authorities
Ellen M. Martin, Disqualification of Federal Judges for Bias Under 28 U.S.C. Section 144 and
Revised Section 455, 45 Fordham L. Rev. 139 (1976). Available at:
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol45/iss1/8
Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law Second Edition Charles Gardner Geyh
Associate Dean of Research John F. Kimberling Professor of Law Indiana University Maurer
School of Law Legal Editor: Kris Markarian Federal Judicial Center 2010
Bray, Samuel (2010). "Preventive Adjudication". University of Chicago Law Review 77: 1275.
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 310 (1988) (“Actions for
declaratory judgments are neither legal nor equitable”).
Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 70 (“Although the declaratory judgment sought by the
plaintiffs was a statutory remedy rather than a traditional form of equitable relief, the Court made
clear that a suit for declaratory judgment was nevertheless ‘essentially an equitable cause of
action,’ and was ‘analogous to the equity jurisdiction in suits quia timet or for a decree quieting
title.’”) (citations omitted)
Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 72 (1985) (“The propriety of issuing a declaratory judgment
may depend upon equitable considerations”).
Bray, Samuel (2014). "The Myth of the Mild Declaratory Judgment". Duke Law Journal 63:
1091. Retrieved 3 April 2014.

5

APX-061

The Law of The Suit in Exclusive Equity
I.
II.
III.

AV1611 King James Reformation English Bible
Constitution of the United States of America
Maxims of Equity:
1) Equity sees that as done what ought to be done.
2) Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy.
3) Equity delights in equality.
4) One who seeks equity must do equity.
5) Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.
6) Equity imputes an intent to fulfill an obligation.
7) Equity acts in personam or on persons.
8) Equity abhors a forfeiture.
9) Equity does not require an idle gesture.
10) He who comes into equity must come with clean hands.
11) Equity delights to do justice and not by halves.
12) Equity will take jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits.
13) Equity follows the law.
14) Equity will not aid a volunteer.
15) Where equities are equal, the law will prevail.
16) Between equal equities the first in order of time shall prevail.
17) Equity will not complete an imperfect gift.
18) Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud.
19) Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee.
20) Equity regards the beneficiary as the true owner.

Rules of Chancellery Court
A Treatise on Suits in Chancery (1907) by Henry R. Gibson, Vol. I, pp. 1-57, Sections 1-64; Vol.
II, pp. 950-966, Sections 1189-1205 to exclusion of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938).
Table of Authorities in Equity






Perry, Jairus Ware, A Treatise on the Law of Trusts and Trustees (Boston: Little, Brown and
Company, 1882) Vols. I-II.
Story, Joseph, Commentaries on Equity Pleadings and the Incidents Thereof According to the
Practice of the Courts of Equity of England and America (Boston: Little, Brown and
Company, 1892).
Pomeroy, Jr., John Norton, Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence (San Francisco: BancroftWhitney Co., 1905) Vols. I-IV.
Gibson, Henry R., A Treatise on Suits in Chancery (Knoxville, Tennessee: Gaut-Ogden
Company, Printers and Binders, 1907).
Lewin, Frederick Albert, A Practical Treatise on the Law of Trusts (Boston: Charles H.
Edson and Co., 1888) Vols. I-II, Eighth Edition.
Phelps, Charles E., Juridical Equity Abridged for the Use of Students (Baltimore: M.
Curlander, 1894).
Library of American Law and Practice; “Equity,” Equity procedure (American Technical
Society, 1919) p. 64, Sect. 81.
6

APX-062

Original Bill of Complaint Exhibits A through G
Exhibit A: 125 pages A-1 thru A-125 herein:
THE EXPRESS DEED IN TRUST TO THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA BPA BOOK 32 PAGES 719 thru 733………....................................…….……A-1
Executive Order 2039 of 6 March 1933……………….......................……….....….....….......A-16
Executive Order 2040 of 9 March 1933……….......................……………….....………...….A-17
12 USC 95(a)- Regulation of transaction in foreign exchange of gold and silver; property
transfers; vested interests, enforcement and penalties…...........................................................A-18
United States Senate Report 93-549 “Emergency Powers Statutes”…….................................A-21
National Emergencies Act of Sept. 14, 1976 PL 94-412 90 Stat. 1255…................................A-46
CRS Report to Congress 98-505 “National Emergency Powers” of September 18, 2001.…A-51
Markham v. Cabell – 326 U.S. 404 (1945) ………………........................………….....….....A-75
From the National Archives: CONCERN OF THE UNITED STATES OVER ENEMY
ATTEMPTS TO SECRETE FUNDS OR OTHER ASSETS IN NEUTRAL COUNTRIES:
INCEPTION OF THE SAFE-HAVEN PROGRAM pages 213 thru 251 Correspondence
February 22, 1944 thru January 6, 1945……………………………………………...…..…A-87
Exhibit B: NOTICE OF FAULT IN DISHONOR AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE
Exhibit C: USPS proof of certified mailing and service
Exhibit D: 23 April 2015 Submission with 874 pages including sub-exhibits 1 through 20
Exhibit E: Confidentiality Agreement
Exhibit F: Federal Register - TITLE 50, APPENDIX—WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
Exhibit G: Excerpts - Military Government and Martial Law. By William. E. Birkhimer LL.B .

7

APX-063

Venue and Jurisdiction During a Time of War or National Emergency
“Equity will take jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits.”
Undersigned in the matter of Venue filed the Original Bill of Complaint under seal as of
right with 12 USC Chapter 35: RIGHT TO FINANCIAL PRIVACY in a private controversy
with the trustees for the Military Government under Title 12 for relief with 50 USC Appendix
Section 9(1) that was denied temporary sealing by Order "M-49" ; and the partially redacted filing
was done after Undersigned exhausted available remedies under the Administrative Procedures
Act (1946) as necessary for use under 50 USC App. §32 for Return of property with completion
of the notice requirements under 50 USC App. §33 as a claim for institution of suits and
computation of time. Undersigned's Claim to property transferred to the alien property custodian
/ trustees, after establishing undersigned's non-combatant status for return of property, and that
this suit seeks to recover and prevent sale of claimed property during this time of war or national
emergency that requires declaratory relief to determine the law of the case for settlement.
That on January 21, 2014, at 4:22 AM in WASHINGTON D.C. 20220, Strunk became a
non combatant with a Treaty of Peace duly registered with the Secretary of the Treasury during
the ongoing time of war and or emergency defined under the EBRA amended TWEA and as
such is no longer an enemy or ally of the enemy pursuant to the definition of 50 USC App.
Section 2 (c) as 'Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives,
citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of
the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find
the safety of the United States or the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by

1

50 USC App. § 9. Claims to property transferred to custodian; notice of claim; filing; return of property; suits to
recover; sale of claimed property in time of war or during national emergency.

8

APX-064

proclamation, include within the term “enemy.”'; see in chambers Exhibit B-1-D sub-exhibit 1
through 1(a). and Undersigned's effort to recover property started on April 23, 2015.
That Strunk is assured by a Federal Reserve Bank system expert that the Private Trust(s)
(where each such trust relationship is established upon receipt of the Writ of Birth or Birth
Registration, although such trusts are subsequently bundled or commingled) exist.
Strunk’s use of this venue and jurisdiction under seal in this Court with 50 USC
Appendix §17 and §9 under 12 USC §95(a) with 50 USC App. §5(b) (Exhibit B-1-A-18) and
related law applies herein, and by guarded existence of the Private Trusts even applies were a
veto proof Congress to repeal The Emergency Banking Relief Act of 9 March 1933 (48 Stat. 1)
(EBRA) that brought inland jurisdiction of The Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917,
CH. 106, 40 STAT. 411 (TWEA) by operation of Executive Orders: 2039 of 6 March 1933
(Exhibit B-1-A-16) and 2040 of 9 March 1933 (Exhibit B-1-A-17), to be done by Congress as
explained below.
Congress had an opportunity to repeal the EBRA following the United States Senate
Report 93-549 “Emergency Powers Statutes” (Exhibit B-1-A-21), but kept the EBRA and
Military government of occupation when it enacted The Emergency Powers Act of Sept. 14,
1976 PL 94-412 90 Stat. 1255 (Exhibit B-1-A-46), expressly retained 12 USC §95(a) with 50
USC Appendix §5(b) shown at Exhibit B-1-A-49, even maintains EBRA in 1977 with The
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1701-1707), EBRA remains
the law of the land over banking and commerce internationally cited by the Congressional
Research Service Report to Congress 98-505 “National Emergency Powers” of September 18,
2001 (Exhibit B-1-A-51).

9

APX-065

That Defendant Commander-in-chief has renewed the time of war or emergency annually
since assuming office on 20 January 2009 under the Emergency Powers Act shown by Exhibit F.
Therefore, Strunk contends the Court is well served by judicial review as done in the case
Markham v. Cabell – 326 U.S. 404 (1945) (Exhibit B-1-A-75); and that under exclusive equity
requires discovery based upon any bad faith dealing by Defendant(s) and

applies in

commingling of Complainant’s beneficiary funds by Defendants’ investments under Executive
Order 6073 requirements associated with the Gold Reserve Act of January 30, 1934 Pub. .L. 73–
87 (48 Stat. 337) and related law in the Exchange Stabilization Fund and or private trust for
United States securities; and as the standard of review applies herein.
That Strunk on or about 15 June 2015 gave the Defendants NOTICE OF FAULT IN
DISHONOR AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE (see Exhibit B-1-B) following their failure to
respond to the presentment of 23 April 2015.
That Strunk received the Certified Return Receipt Cards from the United States Postal
Service (“USPS”) (see Exhibit B-1-C) as to the mailing sent to each of the Defendants serving
the Notice of Opportunity to Cure the Fault shown as Exhibit B-1-B.
That Strunk on 23 April 2015 served the Conformed Bound Volume of the NOTICE OF
PRESENTMENT for the Certification of the sole beneficial interest segregated from the “500
person bundled”

Commingled Collateral Security utilized by the United States Treasury

Secretary Receiver for the Creditors of U.S. Debt within the Fractional Reserve Banking System,
under the affirmation, a copy marked as Exhibit B-1-D, served on Robert Druskin and John
Koskinen by the USPS.
That Strunk prepared and was a material witness under a Confidentiality Contract for
each of the respective Clients for whom Strunk appended a non-conformed copy of the status

10

APX-066

package, shown as Exhibit B-1-D sub exhibit 2 thru 20 herein conformed, with delivery
confirmed by the USPS Certified Mail listed herein, and nevertheless the Original was filed by
the respective Client to the Secretary of the Treasury; and notwithstanding any errors that Strunk
may have made in assembly shown in Exhibit B-1-D, including his own shown as sub-exhibit 1,
still requires intervention by each Client, an essential party in interest herein, as their own
beneficiary agent for their name in commerce disclosure in Chambers sealed under banking
privacy protection.
Declaratory Judgment as to Temporary Military Government and Complainant Status
"Equity sees that as done what ought to be done."
Undersigned by way of his Original Bill of Complaint has requested a declaratory
judgment under 28 USC §2201 as applies to the alleged provision of Martial due process rather
than Civil due process during the time of war or emergency under 12 USC §95 with 50 USC
Appendix.§ 5(b), as alleged to apply with Plaintiff's use of 50 USC Appendix §9 and the Courts
Jurisdiction under 50 USC Appendix §17, and decision in the alleged matter of Plaintiff's
beneficiary agent status as a private national Citizen of the United States as to standing as a noncombatant during the proclaimed emergency or time of war; and that the simple facts are:

As shown at Exhibit B-1-A-18 on March 9, 1933 the Congress enacted 12 USC §95(a)
for "regulation of transactions in foreign exchange of gold and silver; property transfers;
vested interests, enforcement and penalties", thereby bringing the provisions of the
Trading with the enemy act inland

As shown at Exhibit B-1-A-19 on March 9, 1933 the Congress enacted 12 USC §95(b)
Ratification of acts of President and Secretary of the Treasury under 12 USC §95(a)
mandates that:
11

APX-067

"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter
taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary
of the Treasury since March 4. 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by section 95a
of this title, are approved and confirmed."

As shown at Exhibit B-1-A-16 Executive Order 2039 created the perpetual private trusts
on March 6, 1933 mandated :
"...the Secretary of the Treasury. with the approval of the President and under such
regulations as he may prescribe. is authorized and empowered (a) to permit any or· all of
such banking institutions to perform any or all of the usual banking functions, (b) \o
direct, require or-permit the issuance of clearing house certificates or other evidences of
claims against assets of banking institutions , and {c) to authorize and direct the creation
in such banking institutions of special trust accounts for the receipt of new deposits
which shall be subject to withdrawal on demand without any restriction or limitation and
shall be kept separately in cash or on deposit in Federal Reserve Banks or invested-in
obligations of the United States."

As shown at Exhibit B-1-A-17 Executive Order 2040 created the perpetual temporary
Military Government on March 9, 1933 mandated :
"...in view of such continuing national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in
me by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6 , 1917 (40 Stat. L 411), as amended by the
act of March 9, 1933, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and declare that all the terms and
provisions of said Proclamation of March 6, 1933, and the regulations and orders issued
thereunder are hereby continued in full force and effect until further proclamation by
the President..."

As shown at Exhibit B-1-A-22 Foreword of the US Senate Report 93-549 as to the
temporary military government under national emergency stated:
"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national
emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of
national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President
Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President
Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national
emergency declared buy President Nixon on March 23, 1970 and August 15_, 1971;
These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of
statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the
Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing

12

APX-068

manners. This vast .range of powers, taken together,. confer enough authority to rule the
country without reference to normal Constitutional process~
"Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the - President may: seize property;
organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces
abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication;
regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular
ways, control the lives of all American citizens.,,"

As shown at Exhibit B-1-A-25 Report Introduction of the US Senate Report 93-549 in "A
BRIEF HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ORIGINS OF EMERGENCY POWERS
NOW IN FORCE: The Senators emphatically stated:
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under
emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guiaranteed by the
Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states
of national emergency. The problem of how a constitutional democracy reacts to great
crisis, however, far antedates the Great Depression. As a philosophical issue, .its origins
reach back to 1he Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. And, in the United States,
actions taken by the Government in. times of great crises have-from, at least, the Civil
War-in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national
emergency."

As shown at Exhibit B-1-A-49 as a result of the recommendation in Senate Report 93549 , Congress enacted PUBLIC LAW 94-412- on SEPT. 14. 1976 - 90 STAT. 1255 and
therein kept the provisions of 12 USC 95(a) and the continuing national emergency as
long as it is annually renewed, states:
"Sec. 502. (a) The provisions of the Act shall not apply to the following provisions of
law, the powers and authorities conferred thereby, and action taken thereunder:
(1) Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a: 50 U.S.C.
App. 5(b);

And by reference undersigned includes every "actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders
and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the
President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4. 1933" and
or annually renewed as a time of war or emergency including the notice of September 10,
13

APX-069

2015 shown as Exhibit F for the Court to use with its declaratory judgment on the state
of the temporary Military Government hereunder
As such, Undersigned's understanding is that a declaratory judgment, is the legal
determination of a court remedy that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form
of legally binding preventive adjudication

(2)

by which a party involved in an actual or possible

legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of
one or more parties in a civil dispute (subject to any appeal).(3) The declaratory judgment is
generally considered a statutory remedy and not an equitable remedy in the United States, (4) and
is thus not subject to equitable requirements, though there are analogies that can be found in the
remedies granted by courts of equity.(5) A declaratory judgment does not by itself order any
action by a party, or imply damages or an injunction, although it may be accompanied by one or
more other remedies.
The declaratory judgment is distinguished from another important non-monetary remedy,
the injunction, in two main ways. First, the injunction has, and the declaratory judgment lacks, a
number of devices for managing the parties. Second, the declaratory judgment is sometimes
available at an earlier point in a dispute, because it is not subject to the equitable ripeness
requirement.(6)

2

Bray, Samuel (2010). "Preventive Adjudication". University of Chicago Law Review 77: 1275.
Bray, Samuel (2014). "The Myth of the Mild Declaratory Judgment". Duke Law Journal 63: 1091. Retrieved 3
April 2014.
3
28 U.S.C.S. § 2201 (“Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall
be reviewable as such.”)
4
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 310 (1988) (“Actions for declaratory judgments
are neither legal nor equitable”).
5
Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 70 (“Although the declaratory judgment sought by the plaintiffs was a statutory
remedy rather than a traditional form of equitable relief, the Court made clear that a suit for declaratory judgment
was nevertheless ‘essentially an equitable cause of action,’ and was ‘analogous to the equity jurisdiction in suits quia
timet or for a decree quieting title.’”) (citations omitted) Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 72 (1985) (“The propriety
of issuing a declaratory judgment may depend upon equitable considerations”).
6
Bray, Samuel (2014). "The Myth of the Mild Declaratory Judgment". Duke Law Journal 63: 1091. Retrieved 3
April 2014

14

APX-070

A declaratory judg-ment is generally distinguished from an advisory opinion because the
latter does not resolve an actual case or controversy. Declaratory judgments can provide legal
certainty to each party in a matter when this could resolve or assist in a disagreement. Often an
early resolution of legal rights will resolve some or all of the other issues in a matter.

Disqualification of Federal Judges for Bias Under 28 U.S.C. §144 and Revised §455
"He who comes into equity must come with clean hands."
Disqualification of federal judges is governed by two provisions (7) of the Judicial Code.
Section 144(8) establishes a procedure by which a party may move that a district judge recuse(9)
himself because of bias or prejudice against the party. Section 455(10) establishes the criteria for

7

A third, related, provision, 28 U.S.C. § 47 (1970), provides that "[n]o judge shall hear or determine an appeal from
the decision of a case or issue tried by him."
8
28 U.S.C. § 144 (1970). The statute is. set out at note 13 infra.
9
Although technically "disqualification" has been deemed to be statutorily mandated, while "recusal" is a voluntary
act by a judge, Frank, Disqualification of Judges: In Support of the Bayh Bill, 35 Law & Contemp. Prob. 43, 45
(1970) (hereinafter cited as Frank, Bayh Bill), this Note will follow the general usage of employing the two words
interchangeably.
10
28 U.S.C. § 455 (Supp. IV, 1974). The statute provides:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which
his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed
evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he
previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such
lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or
material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular
case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has
a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that
could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such
a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the
proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort
to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:

15

APX-071

judicial self-disqualification for all federal judges. The current section 455, adopted in 1974, (11)
was intended to remedy contemporary dissatisfaction with the existing statutory standards by
"broaden[ing] and clarify[ing] the grounds for judicial disqualification." (12)
Undersigned has established the basis for both Judges to recuse with the Motion to
Rehear "M-49" shown as Exhibit C when stating in the Affirmation at paragraphs 4 and 5, quote
with emphasis by Undersigned :
4. Clearly the elephant in the room is that the usurper of the trustee office over the private
trusts, whose every act is void ab initio also, appointed the Hon. ANALISA TORRES
USDJ and the Hon. J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ to the bench requires sealing to protect the
respective Judge.
5. As such because the random Judge assignment upon case filing innocently assigned the
Hon. J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ after the ORDER was issued, clearly Judge Torres did not
consider the nature of Complainant's notice of the political exposure jeopardy imposed
(1) ‘‘proceeding’’ includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3) ‘‘fiduciary’’ includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4) ‘‘financial interest’’ means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship
as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a ‘‘financial
interest’’ in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a ‘‘financial
interest’’ in securities held by the organization;
(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a
mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a ‘‘financial interest’’ in the
organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv) Ownership of government securities is a ‘‘financial interest’’ in the issuer only if the outcome of
the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for
disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection
(a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy
judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to
the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she
individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial
interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not
required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests
himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat.
908; Pub. L. 93–512, § 1, Dec. 5, 1974, 88 Stat. 1609; Pub. L. 95–598, title II, § 214(a), (b), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat.
2661; Pub. L. 100–702, title X, § 1007, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4667; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1,
1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)
11
12

S. Act of Dec. 5, 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-512, § 1, 88 Stat. 1609.
Id.

16

APX-072

without sealing upon any assigned judge now the Hon. J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ,
outrageously made this case alternative process under 28 USC 652(d) public before any
of the Defendants have been served and had a chance to privately answer without public
exposure, immediately put the Hon. J. PAUL OETKIN USDJ and SDNY Court under a
public microscope, imposes interference with privacy as if the First Amendment were not
an individual right but collective in nature into what must be private at least temporarily;
and as such the appearance of impropriety invokes the need to recuse by premature
public disclosure that politically spikes the case by making the assigned Judge,
rightly or wrongly, a party to the case who is no longer seen as disinterested.
thus is the basis to meet the requirement for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144 (1970) that provides:
Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and
sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias
or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed
no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice
exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which
the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within
such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied
by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.
Further as to the grounds for disqualification as to bias or prejudice as noted
above, under §144 disqualification is triggered by an affidavit that alleges “the judge before
whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against [the affiant] or in
favor of any adverse party.” The Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have explained that “[t]o warrant
recusal under §144, the moving party must allege facts that would convince a reasonable person
that bias actually exists.” (13) In Liteky v. United States,

(14)

the Supreme Court noted that the

standard for bias or prejudice under §144 is identical to disqualification for bias and prejudice
under §455(b)(1).(15) In so stating, it distinguished §455(a), which requires allegations of bias “to
be evaluated on an objective basis, so that what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but

13

. Phillips v. Joint Legislative Comm. on Performance & Expenditure Review, 637 F.2d 1014, 1019 n.6 (5th Cir.
1981); Christo v. Padgett, 323 F.3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
14
510 U.S. 540 (1994).
15
Id. at 548 (“paragraph (b)(1) entirely duplicated the grounds of recusal set forth in § 144”).

17

APX-073

its appearance.”(16) The Ninth Circuit, however, has imported §455(a)’s objective standard into
its §144 analysis (before and after Liteky), declaring that “[u]nder both recusal statutes, the
substantive standard is ‘[W]hether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would
conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’”(17)
Further, the Affirmation in support of this motion from paragraphs 4 through 13 (j) meets
the requirement for disqualification, among other things, under 28 U.S.C. §455 (a) and
(b)(1)(2)(3)(4) applies as follows:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in
any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge
of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer
with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer
concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness
concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated
as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an
opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) ‘‘financial interest’’ means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small,
or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party...
When Congress amended §455(a), it made clear that judges should apply an objective
standard in determining whether to disqualify. A judge contemplating disqualification under
§455(a), then, should not ask whether he or she believes he or she is capable of impartially
presiding over the case. Rather, the question is whether a judge’s impartiality might be
questioned from the perspective of a reasonable person, and every circuit has adopted some

16

Id.
Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450,
1453 (9th Cir. 1997)).
17

18

APX-074

version of the “reasonable person” standard to answer this question.(18) In the context of denying
a motion for his disqualification from Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of
Columbia,(19) Justice Scalia noted that this reasonable person is aware “of all the surrounding
facts and circumstances.” (20) The Second Circuit has characterized the reasonable person as an
“objective, disinterested observer” who is privy to full knowledge of the surrounding
circumstances.(21)
The standard for Disqualification under § 455(b)(1) requires that a litigant present
evidence of a “negative bias or prejudice [which] must be grounded in some personal animus or
malice that the judge harbors against him.” (22) The standard for determining if such bias exists
is “whether a reasonable person would be convinced the judge was biased.” (23) The Fifth Circuit
noted that the standard for finding actual bias is objective, and that “it is with reference to the
‘well informed, thoughtful and objective observer, rather than the hypersensitive, cynical and
suspicious person’ that the objective standard is currently established.” (24)
Some personal relationships, however, are so friendly or antagonistic as to require
disqualification. The Sixth Circuit reversed a failure to disqualify in a sex discrimination suit
where, in pretrial proceedings, the judge stated that he personally knew one of the people

18

See, e.g., United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279, 286 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1793 (1999); In
re Hatcher, 150 F.3d 631, 637 (7th Cir. 1998); Baldwin Hardware Corp. v. Franksu Enter. Corp., 78 F.3d 550, 557
(Fed. Cir. 1996); Blanche Rd. Corp. v. Bensalem Twp., 57 F.3d 253, 266 (3d Cir. 1995); United States v. Lovaglia,
954 F.2d 811, 815 (2d Cir. 1992); Vieux Carre Prop. Owners v. Brown, 948 F.2d 1436, 1448 (5th Cir. 1991); In re
Barry, 946 F.2d 913, 914 (D.C. Cir. 1991); United States v. Nelson, 922 F.2d 311, 319 (6th Cir. 1990); Little Rock
Sch. Dist. v. Arkansas, 902 F.2d 1289, 1290 (8th Cir. 1990); Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1524 (11th
Cir. 1988); Hinman v. Rogers, 831 F.2d 937, 939 (10th Cir. 1987); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th
Cir. 1986); In re United States, 666 F.2d 690, 695 (1st Cir. 1981).
19
541 U.S. 913 (2004) (mem.) (Scalia, J.).
20
. Id. at 924 (citing Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2000)).
21
United States v. Bayless, 201 F.3d 116, 126 (2d Cir. 2000).
22
United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1202 (7th Cir. 1985) Id. at 1201. .
23
Hook, 89 F.3d at 355. See also Collins v. Illinois, 554 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 2009); Brokaw v. Mercer County,
235 F.3d 1000, 1025 (7th Cir. 2000).
24
Andrade v. Chojnacki, 338 F.3d 448, 462 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152, 156 (5th
Cir. 1995)).

19

APX-075

accused of discrimination and that “he is an honorable man and I know he would never
intentionally discriminate against anybody.”(25) “Once the district court expressed his ardent
sentiments . . . the objective appearance of impartiality vanished.”(26) Similarly, the Second
Circuit found disqualification necessary when the judge admitted to a prior relationship with the
defendant that influenced his decision making.(27)
As for the evidence of the Judge's knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts, Section
455(b)(1) requires disqualification where judges have prior knowledge of disputed facts. The
Fifth Circuit reversed a refusal to disqualify where a relative of the judge was a major participant
in transactions relating to the defendant’s indictment and “that relative had communicated to the
judge . . . material facts and her opinions and attitudes regarding those facts.” (28)
In United States v. Alabama,

(29)

the Eleventh Circuit held that the trial judge should

have disqualified himself from a lawsuit against Alabama and its state universities where the
judge had been a state legislator involved in legislative battles germane to the litigation. The
judge was “forced to make factual findings about events in which he was an active participant.”
(30)

Alabama can be reconciled with Easley v. University of Michigan Board of Regents,

(31)

where the Sixth Circuit rejected the contention that knowledge gained by the judge while serving
on a law school’s “committee of visitors” required him to disqualify himself from a
discrimination suit against the law school. In Easley, the judge’s position did not give him
knowledge of the events at issue in the litigation. In United States v. Microsoft Corp.,(32) the D.C.
Circuit remanded a case to a different trial judge where, among other things, the original judge
25
26
27
28
29
30

31
32

Roberts v. Bailar, 625 F.2d 125, 127 (6th Cir. 1980).
Id. at 129.
. United States v. Toohey, 448 F.3d 542 (2d Cir. 2006).
In re Faulkner, 856 F.2d 716, 721 (5th Cir. 1988).
828 F.2d 1532 (11th Cir. 1987)..
. Id. at 1545.
906 F.2d 1143 (6th Cir. 1990).
56 F.3d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (Microsoft I).

20

APX-076

appeared to be influenced in his handling of a case by his private reading of a book related to the
case. While the court did not explicitly cite § 455(b)(1), the facts and holding of the case suggest
the relevance of this subsection. The court noted that “[t]he book’s allegations are, of course, not
evidence on which a judge is entitled to rely.”(33)
The Judge's prior association with the matter herein while in the Justice Department and
then the White House from 1997 to 2001 is a witness as referenced to §455(b)(2) that requires
disqualification “[w]here in private practice [the judge] served as a lawyer in the matter in
controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association
as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness
concerning it.” (34); and
The Judge's prior association with matter as governmental employee participated with the
matter referenced herein under § 455(b)(3) requires disqualification where the judge has “served
in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material
witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the
particular case in controversy.” and the corollary to § 455(b)(3) is in the Code of Conduct for
United States Judges is Canon 3C(1)(e). The Eleventh Circuit held that a trial judge who served
as the attorney of record for one of the parties in prior litigation should have disqualified himself
under §§ 455(b)(1) and (b)(3).(35) While serving as U.S. attorney, the trial judge acted as the
attorney of record for the defendant association, the status of which was the subject of the current
litigation. During his prior representation, the judge filed a brief that the party seeking
disqualification claimed would likely be used as evidence in the current proceeding. On appeal,
the Eleventh Circuit found that, “[b]ecause of [the judge’s] involvement in the earlier . .
33
34
35

Id. at 1463
The corollary to § 455(b)(2) in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges is Canon 3C(1)(b).
Murray v. Scott, 253 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2001).

21

APX-077

.litigation, Plaintiff has shown that [the judge] may have knowledge of facts in dispute in the
present case.”(36) Disqualification was therefore required because “the record is strong enough to
presume personal knowledge of facts by virtue of [the judge] having participated as counsel of
record in [prior] litigation that . . . concerns (that is, might affect) this proceeding.”(37)
As DTCC and its asset CEDE & Company would be effected by the outcome of this case,
the Judge is required to disclose whether or not there is a Financial interest in matter: § 455(b)(4)
and § 455(f) that of so could require disqualification for financial interest where a judge “knows
that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has
a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any
other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”(38). That
Section 455(d)(4) defines “financial interest” for the purposes of § 455(b) and provides specific
exemptions, such as investment in a mutual fund or ownership of government securities. Note
that, apart from such exemptions, even the smallest financial interest (e.g., ownership of a single
share of stock) requires disqualification. Under § 455(c), it is a judge’s duty to keep abreast of all
of his or her financial interests.(39) Courts of appeals have interpreted “financial interest” to refer
to a direct interest, not a “remote or contingent” interest.(40) In each case, the courts considered
the potential benefit an “other interest” under the statute, which meant, under § 455(b)(4), that
disqualification was required only if this “other interest” would be “substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceeding.” The Tenth Circuit held that this was too remote and contingent to
36

Id. at 1313.
Id.
38
The corollary to § 455(b)(4) in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges is Canon 3C(1)(c)
39
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.4, and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 require a nongovernmental corporate party to
a proceeding to file a statement identifying any parent corporation or publicly held corporation that owns 10% or
more of its stock. This disclosure is meant to aid judges in decisions about disqualification under Canon 3C(1)(c)
and § 455(b)(4). Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.4, the government must also file a statement identifying an
organizational victim of a crime and providing the same information on a corporate victim that a nongovernmental
corporate party must file..
40
See, e.g., In re Va. Elec. & Power Co., 539 F.2d 357, 366–67 (4th Cir. 1976).
37

22

APX-078

qualify as a “financial interest” under §455(b)(4).(41) In each case, the courts considered the
potential benefit an “other interest” under the statute, which meant, under § 455(b)(4), that
disqualification was required only if this “other interest” would be “substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceeding.”
Furthermore, for the reasons stated the Judge who is a hostel material witness as of right
entitles Undersigned to supplement the Complaint to include James Paul Oetkin in esse surety
for JAMES PAUL OETKIN as a supplemental Defendant.
To the extent that the Undersigned has shown above and with the accompanying
Memorandums shown at B-1-D and C, there is ample proof that the official basis for
implementation of Military Government and Martial Law with rules had been established before
the enactment of the TWEA of 1917 that supports the contention that WE are under the Law of
Belligerent Occupation outlined by William. E. Birkhimer LL.B. Major General Staff, U.8.
Army. THIRD EDITION, REVISED. (1914) since March 9, 1933, is also necessary for the
Court to use as a matter under the Hague Convention treaty as the law of the land under Article 6
of the U.S. Constitution for treaties; and as such, of the 12 volume set now used by the Judge
Advocate General corps Law of Belligerent Occupation by J.A.G.S.: TEXT No. 11 of 12 of The
Judge Advocate General's School at ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN (1944), is illustrative for a
person ceasing to be an enemy and or belligerent combatant.
Points of Argument in favor of Disqualification, Renewal with Sealing
Point A: WE are under the Law of Belligerent Occupation Since March 9, 1933.

41

In re New Mexico Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 620 F.2d 794, 796 (10th Cir. 1980).

23

APX-079

Point B: That only a pre-1933 Private National Citizen of the United States may be considered a
third party in interest as beneficiaries to be given notice under 12 USC §95 with 50 USC
App. §5(b) with a redacted posting after temporary sealing ……..........……...................
Point C: Leave to supplement the complaint granted as to the Constructive Fraud involved in
the theft and conversion of the Private Trusts with the Exchange Stabilization Fund as
actual breach of fiduciary duty as a matter of treason and misprision of treason ...........
Point D: Sealing still must be done to protect the interests of all parties, so as not to commingle
the primary rights of a Pre-1933 Private American National Citizen of the United States with the
privileges of “enemies,” to secure Complainant’s private, civilian due process rights and that the
public may not be alarmed

Summary In Support of Disqualification, Renewal and Sealing
Undersigned's Original Bill of Complaint demands Postliminy relief that applies either
under martial or civil law, and by which the restoration of a person to any status or right
formerly possessed by him was considered as relating back to the time of his original loss or
deprivation to the recapture of property taken by an enemy of occupation, and its consequent
restoration to its original owner; and as such requires a declaratory judgment.
Without leave to exceed 25 pages for this memorandum, Undersigned seeks an order for
The Clerk of the Court to vacate the order to dismiss the Complaint herein dated September 10,
2015; and to refer this case to the Chief Administrative Judge for reassignment of the Complaint
to a Senior Judge for review of a question of first impression according to Plaintiff's demand for
a declaratory judgment under 28 USC §2201 under the alleged provision of Martial due process
rather than Civil due process during the time of war or emergency under 12 USC §95 with 50
USC Appendix.§ 5(b), as alleged to apply with Plaintiff's use of 50 USC Appendix §9 and the
24

APX-080

Courts Jurisdiction under 50 USC Appendix §17, and decision in the alleged matter of Plaintiff's
beneficiary agent status as a private nation Citizen of the United States as to standing as a noncombatant during the proclaimed emergency or time of war. And furthermore seeks other and
different relief including equity relief once the law of the case has been established

Dated:

September ~ 2015
Brooklyn, New York

c/o 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281
Brooklyn, NY Zip code excepted (11238]
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email suretynomore@gmail.com

All rights Reserved Without Prejudice


25

APX-081

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Christopher Earl Strunk, Beneficiary among the
Posterity of Pre-1933 Private American National
Citizens of the United States, beneficiary agent for
™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© (Strunk)
c/o 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281
Brooklyn, NY Zip code excepted [11238]

)

)

)
)
)
)
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email suretynomore@gmail.com
)
)
Complainant/Beneficiary
)
No. 15-cv-6817 (JPO) (DF)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT DRUSKIN, Executive Chairman of the )
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) )
JOHN KOSKINEN, Commissioner
)
Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)
)
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, Trustee
)
Secretary of the United States Treasury— (SOT) )
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, Trustee
)
Commander in Chief, President of the
)
United States of America
(POTUS)
)
)
Defendants
)
______________________________________________________________________________
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE
ORDER TO DISMISS WITH DEMAND TO RECUSE

Exhibit A
APX-082

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,
Beneficiary among the Posterity of Pre-1993
Private American National Citizens of the
United States, beneficiary agent for
Christopher Earl Strunk,
Plaintiff,
-againstROBERT DRUSKIN, EXECUTIVE
CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPOSITORY TRUST
& CLEARING CORPORATION; JOHN
KOSKINEN, COMMISSIONER INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE; JACOB JOSEPH
LEW, TRUSTEE SECRETARY OF THE
UNITED STATES TREASURYDEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, TRUSTEE
COMMANDER IN CHIEF, PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

15-CV-6817 (JPO)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendants.
J. PAUL OETKEN, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff paid the filing fee to bring this pro se action. For the reasons set forth below,
this action is dismissed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court has the authority to dismiss a complaint, even when the plaintiff has paid the
filing fee, if it determines that the action is frivolous, Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh Tenants
Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (citing Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 16-17
(2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (holding that Court of Appeals has inherent authority to dismiss
frivolous appeal)), or that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon
Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds,

APX-083

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 8

the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d
Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v.
Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
BACKGROUND
In this complaint, which is 300 pages of legalese and attachments, Plaintiff asserts that he
is a presidential candidate, a “beneficiary among the Posterity of Pre-1993 Private American
National Citizens of the United States,” and a “resident in exclusive equity within a nonmilitarily occupied private estate” in Kings County. (Compl. ¶ 10.) Named as Defendants are
President Barack Obama; Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Commissioner John Koskinen;
United States Department of Treasury Secretary Jacob Joseph Lew; and Robert Druskin,
Executive Chairman of Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”), a financial services
corporation.
To the extent that Plaintiff’s allegations can be discerned and summarized, Defendants
have engaged in financial and other misconduct, and President Obama is ineligible to be
President because he is not an American citizen. (Compl. ¶¶ 45-46.) Plaintiff asserts claims of
breach of trust, constructive fraud, and conversion of property, (id. ¶¶ 37-42), and he also refers
to the Emergency Banking Relief Act, the Trading With the Enemies Act, and various
confidentiality and financial privacy statutes. Plaintiff “prepared and was a material witness
under a confidentiality contract” that he sent to Defendants. According to Plaintiff, Defendants’
failure to respond to his correspondence indicates a “conditional acceptance” requiring
performance of their “fiduciary duties” and constitutes a violation of the Freedom of Information

2

APX-084

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 8

Act (“FOIA”). 1 (Id. ¶¶ 20-21, 28-29, and Exhs. D and E.) The first page of the complaint
indicates that Plaintiff seeks to proceed under seal, but he does not explain the need to do so. 2
DISCUSSION
A.

Federal Pleading Rules
Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a). The Supreme Court has held that this rule requires a plaintiff to provide some details about
what each defendant did or failed to do. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). It is not enough for a complaint to state that
the defendant unlawfully harmed the plaintiff. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Instead, a
complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, such that a court could “draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. This standard, commonly
referred to as the “plausibility standard,” is guided by two principles. First, while district courts
must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, conclusory statements or
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action … do not suffice.” Id. Second, when

1

Plaintiff has previously asserted claims reminiscent of those set forth in this complaint. See,
e.g. Strunk v. Obama, 880 F. Supp. 2d 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2011) (asserting, inter alia, that President
Obama committed fraud by “paying down the national debt with debt”); Strunk v. U.S. Dep’t of
State, 693 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D.D.C. 2010) (asserting FOIA claims); Strunk v. U.S. Dep’t of
Interior, 752 F. Supp. 2d 39, 41 (D.D.C. 2010) (same); Strunk v. N.Y.S. Bd. of Elections, Ind. No.
6500/11, 2013 WL 1285886 (N.Y. Sup. Mar. 29, 2013) (challenging President Obama’s
eligibility for the presidency).
2

Plaintiff filed a miscellaneous action seeking to proceed under seal in this matter. Judge
Torres’ order denying Plaintiff that relief is attached to the complaint. See Strunk v. Druskin,
No. 15-MC-49. (Compl, Doc. 1-10 at 2.) Plaintiff filed a motion in this case seeking
reconsideration of Judge Torres’ order. That motion is hereby denied.
3

APX-085

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 4 of 8

deciding what is plausible, a district court must consider the context and “draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.
Even read as leniently as possible, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8. The
Court has analyzed Plaintiff’s submission and finds no deprivation of a federally secured right.
Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a plausible claim of a federal constitutional or statutory
violation.
Any FOIA claims Plaintiff is attempting to raise must be dismissed. FOIA gives
members of the public a right to access some information from federal executive agencies.
Federal courts have jurisdiction to enforce this right if a plaintiff can show that “an agency has
(1) ‘improperly;’ (2) ‘withheld;’ (3) ‘agency records.’” Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for
Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)). FOIA
applies only to federal agencies. See Grand Cent. P’ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 484 (2d
Cir. 1999).
Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, one of whom is a private individual, did not reply
to his “contract.” Because Plaintiff does not allege that he was unlawfully denied access to
records by a federal agency, he has not stated a plausible claim under FOIA. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed because they “lack[] an
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
B.

Sovereign Immunity
Plaintiff's claims against President Obama, Commissioner Koskinen, and Secretary Lew

are dismissed because the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars federal courts from hearing all
suits for monetary damages against the federal government, including its agencies and
employees acting in their official capacities, except where sovereign immunity has been waived.
4

APX-086

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 5 of 8

See United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980) (quoting United States v. Sherwood, 312
U.S. 584, 586 (1941)); Dotson v. Griesa, 398 F.3d 156, 177 (2d Cir. 2005); Makarova v. United
States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000); Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502,
510 (2d Cir. 1994) (“Because an action against a federal agency or federal officers in their
official capacities is essentially a suit against the United States, such suits are also barred under
the doctrine of sovereign immunity, unless such immunity is waived.”). To the extent that
Plaintiff is attempting to allege violations under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the United States has not consented to be sued under
Bivens. See Keene Corp. v. United States, 700 F.2d 836, 845 n.13 (2d Cir. 1983).
Insofar as the complaint could be construed as alleging claims pursuant to the Federal
Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80 (“FTCA”), that statute provides for a waiver of
sovereign immunity for injuries arising from the tortious conduct of government officers or
agents. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). However, the statute’s requirements must be strictly followed.
See O’Rourke v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 730 F. 2d 842, 856 (2d Cir. 1984) (citing United States v.
Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117-18 (1979)), abrogated on other grounds by Salve Regina College v.
Russell, 499 U.S. 225 (1991). Before bringing a claim in a federal district court under the FTCA
for monetary damages, a claimant must first exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a
claim for monetary damages with the appropriate federal government entity and must receive a
final written determination. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). If no final written determination is made
by the appropriate federal government entity within six months of the date of the claimant’s
filing, the claimant may bring a FTCA action in a federal district court. See Id. This requirement
is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. See Wang v. United States, 61 F. App’x 757, 759 (2d Cir.
2003).

5

APX-087

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 6 of 8

To the extent that Plaintiff raises FTCA claims arising out of any alleged tortious conduct
of a federal officer or employee, plaintiff has failed to allege facts demonstrating that he has filed
an administrative claim under the FTCA with any federal government entity for monetary
damages and has subsequently received a final written determination from any federal
government entity prior to bringing this action or, in the alternative, that it has been more than
six months since he has filed such administrative claim. Therefore, because it does not appear
Plaintiff pursued relief under the FTCA, any claims for money damages against the federal
government are dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).
C.

Denial of Motion to Seal
Both the common law and the First Amendment protect the public’s right of access to

court documents. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-98 (1978); Hartford
Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir. 2004). This right of access is not absolute,
and “the decision as to access [to judicial records] is one best left to the sound discretion of the
trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the
particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598-99. Furthermore, a party seeking the sealing of court
documents must overcome a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records.
See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d
1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995).
The Court concludes that the circumstances here are not sufficiently extraordinary to
outweigh the presumption in favor of public access. Plaintiff, a frequent litigator in courts
around the country, has previously raised similar claims in litigation that have not been sealed.
The complaint does not include any sensitive personal information, such as Plaintiff’s Social
Security number, and Plaintiff does not offer any arguments as to why this matter should be

6

APX-088

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 7 of 8

sealed. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to proceed under seal or for reconsideration of Judge Torres’
order, his motion is denied.
D.

Denial of Leave to Amend/Warning Language
Leave to amend a complaint should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a)(2). It is “within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to
amend.” McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir. 2007). “Leave to
amend, though liberally granted, may properly be denied for: ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory
motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility
of amendment, etc.’” Ruotolo v. City of N.Y., 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Foman
v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Because Plaintiff fails to assert any facts suggesting that he
can state a claim against these Defendants, he is denied leave to file an amended complaint.
Moreover, in light of Plaintiff’s litigation history, this Court finds that Plaintiff was or
should have been aware that his allegations lack merit when he filed this action. See Sledge v.
Kooi, 564 F.3d 105, 109-110 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussing circumstances where frequent pro se
litigant may be charged with knowledge of particular legal requirements). Accordingly, Plaintiff
is warned that further meritless litigation in this Court may result in an order barring him from
filing new actions in this Court without prior permission, regardless of whether or not he pays
the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
CONCLUSION
The complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The motion for reconsideration of Judge Torres’ decision denying
Plaintiff’s request to file this case under seal is also DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to

7

APX-089

Case 1:15-cv-06817-JPO Document 3 Filed 09/10/15 Page 8 of 8

mail back to Plaintiff the CDs that were attached to the motion and to make a notation on the
docket.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would
not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an
appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 10, 2015
New York, New York
J. PAUL OETKEN
United States District Judge

COPY MAILED TO PRO SE PARTY BY CHAMBERS

8

APX-090

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Christopher Earl Strunk, Beneficiary among the
Posterity of Pre-1933 Private American National
Citizens of the United States, beneficiary agent for
™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© (Strunk)
c/o 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281
Brooklyn, NY Zip code excepted [11238]

)

)

)
)
)
)
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email suretynomore@gmail.com
)
)
Complainant/Beneficiary
)
No. 15-cv-6817 (JPO) (DF)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT DRUSKIN, Executive Chairman of the )
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) )
JOHN KOSKINEN, Commissioner
)
Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)
)
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, Trustee
)
Secretary of the United States Treasury— (SOT) )
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, Trustee
)
Commander in Chief, President of the
)
United States of America
(POTUS)
)
)
Defendants
)
______________________________________________________________________________
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE
ORDER TO DISMISS WITH DEMAND TO RECUSE

Exhibit B
APX-091

™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
c/o 593 Vanderbilt Avenue, PMB 281
Brooklyn New York Zipcode excepted [11238]
Phone: 718-414-3760 Email: suretynomore@gmail.com

NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
To:

His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan
Archbishop of New York and American agent for
The Trustee for the Global Estate
1011 First Ave
New York, NY 10022

Subject: Strunk v DRUSKIN Etal. 15-cv-6817 efforts to prevent Private Trusts liquidation
His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan,
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE for use with your most excellent management skills, that the urgent
matter of the above Subject, for what it is worth in both the temporal and spiritual worlds,
involves the undersigned beneficiary agent listed by the FEC as Presidential Candidate ID No.:
P60007010 ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©. The undersigned wishes to employ His
Eminence's wisdom to either repeal or amend the Emergency Banking Relief Act of March 9,
1933 (EBRA) that brought the purpose of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917
(TWEA) inland to treat every private American Citizen as an enemy by use of the Banking
system, as if each Private American Citizen were a German citizen during World War I, and with
repeal or amendment of the language moves the inland provision back outside our border to
return the REPUBLIC to We the People who are only those “Pre-1933” Private National Citizens
of the United States of America…Versus...The EMPIRE of 12 USC 95 with 50 USC App. 5(b)
under the Executive Order 2040 time of war or emergency underlying the demise of the nation.
America has the largest Jewish / Bible believing/ globally diverse population in the world
and is a unique open nation crowned with the largest liberal Roman Catholic assembly on earth;
a jewel unequalled by any nation. However, Your Eminence's American goose that laid the
golden egg is now at risk under the Jesuit's open but false and secret but true policy using the
Jesuit BND's Barry Soetoro usurper facilitation of mayhem and theft of the private trusts when
combined with the Exchange Stabilization Fund by the promotion of the false notion that
1

APX-092

somehow the Dollar is fiat currency not backed by actual collateral as a self fulfilling prophesy
used to facilitate the theft; and from now forward, will lead to the final gutting of our nation to
conform with the Syllabus of Errors of 1864 that attacks individual freedom of conscious / free
speech (liberalism). As Blaise Pascal had previously expressed resolute dismay, we fear that
because the amoral Jesuit's end that justifies the means, the American liberal Roman Catholic
priesthood hierarchy is to be liquidated at the hands of the 9 March 1933 temporary Military
Government of ultramontane fascism versus that of American civil liberal constitutional
democracy now threatened with imminent irreparable existential harm under the Jesuit's Jacobin
provision of the time of continuous emergency(s) uses 12 USC 95 with 50 USC Appendix 5(b)
for Executive Orders 2039 and 2040 - from which undersigned seeks relief in the meritorious
complaint in the Southern District of New York (see Exhibit 1),.
Undersigned has been self employed since 1992, and recently became the city of New
York representative for my ten year friend former US House Representative Robert Kenneth
("Bob" "B-1 Bob") Dornan now lending advice to Donald John Trump, and am the literary agent
for my British friend Michael Shrimpton, author of SPYHUNTER: The Secret History of
German Intelligence, with foreword by my fellow New Yorker Dr. Robert E. Kaplan PhD.
author of The Soros Connection: George Soros - An Agent for Germany in its Third Attempt to
Rule the World? All of my friends bring their rare expertise to assist me and my associate Eric
Jon Phelps whose dire warning is attached herewith at Exhibit 2; and as such in service of my
clients with no other place in the world to go to, we are intent on blockading the road to nuclear
annihilation and to expose the 82 year old trade secret in use with 12 USC 95 with 50 USC App.
5(b) under the Executive Order 2040. Mr. Phelps in his memorandum to me, shown as Exhibit 2,
rhetorically poses questions for His Eminence's consideration, quote:
QUESTION 1: Could this persecution of liberal Roman Catholic priests, or all Roman
priests for that matter, transpire here in the United States?
The answer is “Yes” and it has already begun in earnest.
For the last twenty years, sexual scandals involving hundreds of priests have dominated
the press—the press ruled by the Jesuits via their Council on Foreign Relations. A
general disgust and indignant attitude among the American people has now been
ingrained into their minds thereby providing the mental basis for supporting a “savior” to
rescue the day, to pacify the masses by imposing mass-roundups and incarceration of
priests within the many hundreds of concentration camps in place across the nation.
2

APX-093

QUESTION 2: What shall be the trigger to this calculated holocaust of "liberal"
Roman priests and "liberal" Roman Catholics within the militaristic American Empire
built by the Jesuits since FDR's coup d'etat-Proclamation 2040-decreed on March 9,
1933?
We believe the answer will involve a financial cataclysm directly traceable to powerful
Roman Catholic bishops ofNew York City, Washington, D.C., and Chicago, to also
include certain of the Order' s Masonic Jewish cohorts. The situation will be created via
Jesuit intrigue to include the betrayal of an American Roman Hierarchy condemned by
the Order for its "liberalism." That financial collapse may well involve the millions of
"enemy'' private trust accounts serving as the very foundation for the present national
banking system directed by the Secretary of the Treasury aided by the Federal Reserve
Board.
QUESTION 3: What if there was a banking holiday imposed across the nation as a result
of the crash of the stock market and currency?
QUESTION 4: What if that crash is traced to the loss of these private trust funds which
accounts are controlled by the Treasury, the banks of Wall Street holding the funds
pursuant to FDR's Proclamation 2039 of March 6, 1933?
QUESTION 5: What if this colossal movement of monies was made to the banks of
China, providing more assets to build the communist alliance of Far Eastern nations
headed by the Jesuits ruling Beijing?
As such, I humbly seek to assist His Eminence to save the nation from the oblivion of
total global ultramontane socialist policy being imposed on everyone; a policy twisted with use
of false cabalistic freemasonic forms of social control devised in Espinoza's Spain and now
combined with 19th Century Fabian socialism crafted from Luigi Tapparelli's Social Justice
doctrine whose tool Karl Marx is that of Father Beckx in perpetuity for our destruction and with
it the liberal American Catholic Church. Undersigned beseeches His Eminence when meeting
with the Trustee for the Global Trust to consider the Subject matter shown in Exhibit along with
my associate's Petition under Canon 1501 et seq. regarding a matter that only the Supreme
Pontiff has the power to adjudicate under Canon 1405§1(1)&(2) (see annexed Petition herewith).
Respectfully yours in Jesus Christ,

a

Dated: September
2015
Brooklyn New York
Christopher
Strunk in esse Sw Juris
ficiary Agent and
Attorney in fact for ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
Attachments

3

APX-094

Exhibit 1
APX-095

15 cv 6817

~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Christopher Ear] Strunk, Beneficiary among the
Posterity ofPre-1 933 Private American National
Citizens of the United States, beneficiary agent for
™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©
c/o 593 VanderbiltAvenuePMB 281
Brooklyn, NY Zipcode excepted [1 1238]
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email suretynomore@gmajl.com

)
)

JUDGE O&i'~E~

Original Bill of Com(!laint

)

)
)

)

Petition for Declaratory Relief,
Enforcement of Trusts,
Protection and Full Accounting

)

)
)

Complainant/Beneficiary

)

vs.

)
ROBERT DRUSKIN, Executive Chairman of the )
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
)
55 Water Street, 1-SL,
)
)
New York NY [10011]
)
JOHN KOSKINEN, Commissioner
)
)
Internal Revenue Service
Office of Commissioner
)
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW
)
Washington) DC [20224]
)
)
JACOB JOSEPH LEW, Trustee
)
Secretary of the United States Treasury)
Department of the Treasury
)
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
)
Washington District of Columbia [20220]
)
)
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ll, Trustee
)
Commander in Chief, President of the
)
United States of Ametica
)
The White House
)
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
)
)
Washington District of Columbia [20500]
)
)
Defendants

Ex parte Sealed Proceeding
Evidentiary Hearing in Chambers
Regarding Proprietary Evidence

No.
UNDER SEAL with 28 USC 652(d)
and FRCvP Rule 52 (d) pursuant to
12 USC Chapter 35 and Public Safety

Private, Special, Urgent, Privileged
Restricted, Confidential,
Excluding the Public and Press;
Extra and Special Term

To the Honorable Loretta A. Preska, Chief Judge and Chancellor of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse.
1

APX-096

PARTIES
“Equity delights in equality.”
1. Christopher Earl Strunk, Complainant Beneficiary, among the Posterity of Pre-1933
Private American National Citizens of the United States of America (the Posterity class),
privately residing in exclusive English/American Equity within a non-militarily-occupied
private estate, County of Kings, c/o ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK©, 593
Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281 Brooklyn New York Zip Code Excepted [11238].
2. Complainant has a Confidentiality contract with each client beneficiary of the Posterity
Class to be apportioned of the private trust(s) established for the United States “We the
People”, and witness to his Client’s non-combatant, non-enemy, non-belligerent status
registered with the United States Secretary of the Treasury / Alien Property Custodian.
3. ROBERT DRUSKIN, Defendant and Trustee, Executive Chairman of the Depository
Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), 55 Water Street, 1-SL, New York New York
[10011], as the Agent and substitute Trustee for JACOB JOSEPH LEW, below.
4. JOHN KOSKINEN, Defendant and Trustee, Commissioner Internal Revenue Service
Office of Commissioner, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC [20224]
5. JACOB JOSEPH LEW, Defendant and Trustee, Secretary of the United States
Treasury—Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington
District of Columbia [20220], as the Alien Property Custodian pursuant to public law.
6. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, Defendant and Trustee, Commander in Chief,
President of the United States of America , The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W. Washington District of Columbia [20500], as military administrator of the territory
held by Emergency Powers under Military Jurisdiction with public law.

2
 

APX-097

VENUE
“Equity imputes an intent to fulfill an obligation.”
7. As to Venue, this Original Bill must be sealed with 28 USC 652(d) and FRCvP Rule 5.2 (d)
pursuant to 12 USC Chapter 35 in a controversy that must be reviewed in SDNY in chambers
under exclusive equity with suspicion that Defendants and their agents are committing a
constructive fraud, and that SDNY is the proper venue based upon the DTCC place of
business as the repository for the Trustees for the private trust(s) of bundled collateral with
Complainant’s birth name registration, e.g. Original Writ of Birth, in the County of New
York subdivision of the State of New York territory occupied by the Military Government
with Defendant Trustees under the 12 USC §95(a) amended 50 USC Appendix (App.) §5(b)
and Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) authority granted to Complainant and the Court by
TWEA §9 (1) and §17 (2) with related law and for exclusive equity under the rules for its use.
JURISDICTION
"Equity will take jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits"
';
8. Complainant invokes jurisdiction under 50 USC App. §17 of the TWEA brought inland by
The Emergency Banking Relief Act (EBRA) (see Exhibit A page 1 thru 125) for he and his
Client beneficiaries of the Posterity among others as a class similarly situated are registered
as non-combatants and thus due the return of their property as if with a writ of replevin to
include but not limited to the segregated portion of the private trust(s) (the Private Trusts)
                                                            
1

§ 9. Claims to property transferred to custodian; notice of claim; filing; return of property; suits to recover; sale of
claimed property in time of war or during national emergency.

2

§ 17. Rules by district courts; appeals : The district courts of the United States are given jurisdiction to make and
enter all such rules as to notice and otherwise, and all such orders and decrees, and to issue such process as may be
necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions of this Act [sections 1 to 6, 7 to 39, and 41 to 44 of
this Appendix], with a right of appeal from the final order or decree of such court as provided in sections one
hundred and twenty-eight and two hundred and thirty-eight of the Act of March third, nineteen hundred and eleven,
entitled “An Act to codify, revise, and amend the laws relating to the judiciary.”  

3
 

APX-098

established for the benefit of the Posterity in 1933 per Executive Order 2039, as well as with
affirmative acknowledgement by Defendants and their agents that each registered
noncombatant Declaration of Status as a Treaty of Peace (see Exhibit D-1) requires
affirmative protection by Defendants and their agents of the Military government under
Defendants authority accordingly; and
9. Complainant / Undersigned also invokes the jurisdiction of this Court to sit in its judicial
power of exclusive English/American Equity conferred by Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of
the Constitution for the United States of America in the matter of breach of fiduciary duty
under the condition of Defendants bad faith under law, and Complainant’s suspicion of
constructive fraud in their duties to safeguard private trust property for the benefit of the
beneficiary (s).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
“One who seeks equity must do equity.”
10. That the undersigned Christopher Earl Strunk (Strunk), Candidate ID No.: P60007010 for
Office of President of the United States (POTUS) registered with the Federal Election
Commission, is Executor of THE EXPRESS DEED IN TRUST TO THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA (see Exhibit A-1) for its Posterity beneficiaries, and duly
appointed by Posterity beneficiary Eric Jon Phelps (Phelps), who is an expert on the
Society of Jesus (Jesuits) and their 82 year time of war or state of Emergency under 12
USC §95 with 50 USC Appendix (App.) §5(b) for Executive Orders 2039 and 2040.
11. That on January 21, 2014, at 4:22 AM in WASHINGTON D.C. 20220, Strunk became a
non combatant with a Treaty of Peace duly registered with the Secretary of the Treasury
during the ongoing time of war and or emergency defined under the EBRA amended
4
 

APX-099

TWEA and as such is no longer an enemy or ally of the enemy pursuant to the definition
of 50 USC App. Section 2 (c) as 'Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals,
as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at
war, other than citizens of the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing
business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States or the successful
prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term
“enemy.”' ; see Exhibit D sub-exhibit 1 through 1(a). Emphasis added by Complainant.
12. Strunk is assured by a Federal Reserve Bank system expert that the Private Trust(s)
(where each such trust relationship is established upon receipt of the Writ of Birth or
Birth Registration, although such trusts are subsequently bundled or commingled) exist.
13. Strunk’s use of this venue and jurisdiction under seal in this Court with 50 USC
Appendix §17 and §9 under 12 USC §95(a) with 50 USC App. §5(b) (Exhibit A-18) and
related law as applies herein, and even applies were a veto proof Congress to repeal The
Emergency Banking Relief Act of 9 March 1933 (48 Stat. 1) (EBRA) that brought inland
jurisdiction of The Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, CH. 106, 40 STAT.
411 (TWEA) by operation of Executive Orders: 2039 of 6 March 1933 (Exhibit A-16)
and 2040 of 9 March 1933 (Exhibit A-17), to be done by Congress as explained below.
14. Congress had an opportunity to repeal the EBRA following the United States Senate
Report 93-549 “Emergency Powers Statutes” (Exhibit A-21), but kept the EBRA and
Military government of occupation when it enacted The Emergency Powers Act of Sept.
14, 1976 PL 94-412 90 Stat. 1255, expressly retained 12 USC §95(a) with 50 USC
Appendix §5(b) (Exhibit A-46), even maintains EBRA in 1977 with The International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1701-1707), EBRA remains the

5
 

APX-100

law of the land over banking and commerce internationally cited by the Congressional
Research Service Report to Congress 98-505 “National Emergency Powers” update
September 18, 2001 (Exhibit A-51).
15. That Defendant Commander-in-chief has renewed the time of war or emergency annually
since coming to office on 20 January 2009.
16. Therefore, Strunk contends the Court is well served by judicial review as done in the case
Markham v. Cabell – 326 U.S. 404 (1945) (Exhibit A-75); and that under exclusive
equity requires discovery based upon any bad faith dealing by Defendant(s) and applies
in commingling of Complainant’s beneficiary funds by Defendants’ investments under
Executive Order 6073 requirements associated with the Gold Reserve Act of January 30,
1934 Pub. .L. 73–87 (48 Stat. 337) and related law in the Exchange Stabilization Fund
and or private trust for United States securities; and as the standard of review applies
herein.
17. That Strunk on or about 15 June 2015 gave the Defendants NOTICE OF FAULT IN
DISHONOR AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE (see Exhibit B) following their failure to
respond to the presentment of 23 April 2015.
18. That Strunk received the Certified Return Receipt Cards from the United States Postal
Service (“USPS”) (see Exhibit C) as to the mailing sent to each of the Defendants
serving the Notice of Opportunity to Cure the Fault shown as Exhibit B.
19. That Strunk on 23 April 2015 served the Conformed Bound Volume of the NOTICE OF
PRESENTMENT for the Certification of the sole beneficial interest segregated from the
“500 person bundled” Commingled Collateral Security utilized by the United States

6
 

APX-101

Treasury Secretary Receiver for the Creditors of U.S. Debt within the Fractional Reserve
Banking System, under the affirmation, a copy marked as Exhibit D, served on Robert
Druskin and John Koskinen by the USPS.
20. That Strunk prepared and was a material witness under a Confidentiality Contract (See
Exhibit E) for each of the respective Clients for whom Strunk appended a nonconformed copy of the status package, shown as Exhibit D sub exhibit 2 thru 20 herein
conformed, with delivery confirmed by the USPS Certified Mail listed herein,
nevertheless the Original was filed by the respective Client to the Secretary of the
Treasury; and notwithstanding any errors that Strunk may have made in assembly shown
in Exhibit D, including his own shown as sub-exhibit 1, still requires intervention by the
Client as an essential party in interest herein as their own beneficiary agent for their name
in commerce disclosure in Chambers sealed under banking privacy protection.
21. To date Strunk nor any of his nineteen (19) Client beneficiaries of the Posterity have
received any communication regarding the subject registered submission described by the
affirmation shown as Exhibit B-1, duly received by both Robert Druskin and John
Koskinen, along with the other Defendants by their silence in substance is
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE requiring performance of their fiduciary duties under
12 USC §95 with 50 USC Appendix §5(b) by Executive Orders 2039 and 2040
accordingly to provide the certification(s) and validations demanded for the return of the
private property.
22. That the Presentment shown as Exhibit B, giving each Defendant an opportunity to cure
the default in the event their respective office inadvertently failed to respond, illustrates
that all are now in official dishonor and there is no implication of an unintentional failure

7
 

APX-102

to perform due to reasonable neglect or impossibility.

Especially whereas the

Undersigned offered an opportunity to cure within ten (10) days upon receipt of the
respective NOTICE by providing the Certifications and validation demanded for return of
private property by the Undersigned and his Clients; and that Defendants have had
multiple opportunities to respond and to cure any default, all of which are well past due
and Defendants are therefore fully in default as to their fiduciary duties..
23. As warned in the Notice of Opportunity to Cure fault shown as Exhibit B, the
Undersigned / Complainant again requested performance by their office, or its designated
agent or attorney, on the delivered NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT, presently in
Defendants possession shown as Exhibit D, for a controversy at law with a formal case in
exclusive equity filed herein the Southern District of New York inter alia for Breach of
Fiduciary duty to certify and return private property as required under 12 USC §95 with
50 USC Appendix §5(b) and related law by Executive Orders 2039 of 6 March 1933 and
2040 of 9 March 1933. Accordingly Defendants’ response is past due.
24. That Strunk’s NOTICE OF FAULT IN DISHONOR AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE
shown as Exhibit B left unanswered serves as Evidence that the refusal of each
respective Defendant’s office to prove up its fiduciary duties is given without cause,
creating estoppels against Defendants’ respective office regarding this matter of
Undersigned and Client beneficiaries of the Posterity.
25. Further, Strunk gave Defendants additional time to respond, if additional time was
needed for the respective Defendant’s office to prove up its fiduciary duties, and whereas
the Undersigned Complainant had requested that Defendant’s office, or its designated
agent

or

attorney,

respond

accordingly;

8
 

APX-103

for

it

has

always

been

the

Complainant/Undersigned’s desire to assist each Defendant’s office in this matter,
whereby

such

additional

time

was

received

to

no

avail

and

thus

Complainant/Undersigned requires relief herein.
26. Further, that Strunk gave further notice as shown in Exhibit B that as a matter also under
the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission, were the private property of
Undersigned and or any of his clients previously in the respective commingled bundle
collateral for either Public and or Private Securities still commingled and used, such act is
by operation of law a constructive fraud with conversion of private property subject to a
statutory qui tam action with punitive damages.
27. Further, that Strunk requested under United States Code Title 5 for “FOIAPA” requests,
that the DTCC and IRS provide a certified accounting of each of the commingled bundles
that had included the trust of the Undersigned and or his Client as beneficiaries of the
Posterity, where such was and is accounted for as each individual master file record (see
Exhibit B-3).
28. That as a matter of good faith duty under Title 5, to date Strunk has not received a
response from the DTCC or I.R.S in regards to the FOIAPA request, Exhibit B-3.
29. Further, that Strunk contends that Defendants failure to cure the Defaults constitutes, by
operation of law, the FINAL admission of each Defendant’s office through tacit
acquiescence to the statements and claims provided in the above NOTICE OF
DISHONOR. Said statements and claims are now under the doctrine of RES JUDICATA,
STARE DECISIS and COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL binding on each Defendant and or
his/her office.

9
 

APX-104

30. Further, that Strunk gave fair notice and opportunity for Defendants and or their
respective office not to fail to cure as provided in this NOTICE OF DISHONOR AND
OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, and that Defendants’ agent and or attorney may not argue,
controvert, or otherwise protest the administrative findings entered thereby in any
subsequent administrative or judicial proceeding in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York (SDNY) in exclusive equity and or in law as to equal
protection and replevin of property under Defendants’ control as with a ex relator action.
31. Further, that Strunk certifies personally that he and every one of his Client beneficiaries
of the Posterity is a Pre-1933 Private American National Citizen of the United States,
said citizenship status being protected by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution for the United States of America; and that every one of the Beneficiaries of
the Posterity have duly registered as similar to Complainant’s ‘Declaration of Status of
Christopher Earl Strunk: American Freeman; Pre-1933 Private Citizen of the United
States: American National’ as shown in Exhibit D sub exhibit 1 through 20 and that
Complainant is an actual signed witness personally under contract with each noncombatant Client Beneficiary of the Posterity having each filed their Treaty of Peace.
32. Further, Strunk has no express or implied contract with either the federal or state
governments that may have altered or modified said first class, constitutional citizenship
status of Complainant thereby reducing said status in substance to that of a second class
citizen being in substance a quasi-corporation/artificial person by operation of law or
otherwise.
33. Further, Strunk is a member of the sovereign American political community known as
“We the People” having ordained and established the “Constitution for the United States
10
 

APX-105

of America” to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their Posterity of which
Complainant is a beneficially-interested member authenticated by Exhibit D sub exhibits
accordingly, each Treaty of Peace original registered with the US Secretary of Treasury is
presumed now on file in Ogden Utah for Defendants.
“Equity regards the beneficiary as the true owner.”
34. Further, Strunk as a sole Beneficiary, the Defendants the Trustees, of the great Grantor
Trust of Protestant and Baptist American liberty known as the “Constitution for the
United States of America.” Concerning the federal government being a trustee and “We
the People” being beneficiaries of the Posterity under the EXPRESS DEED IN TRUST
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the Supreme Court has stated:
“Whatever it acquires, it acquires for the benefit of the people of the several
States who created it. It is their trustee acting for them, and charged with the duty
of promoting the interests of the whole people of the Union in the exercise of the
powers specifically granted.” Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 at 448.
35. The Court then concluded:
“But as we have before said, it [the Territory composing the Louisiana Purchase]
was acquired by the General Government as the representative and trustee of the
people of the United States, and it must be therefore held in that character for their
common and equal benefit; for it was the people of the several States, acting
through their agent and representative, the Federal Government, who in fact
acquired the Territory in question, and the Government holds it for their common
use until it shall be associated with the other States as a member of the Union.”
Scott v Sanford, supra, at 448.

36. Furthermore, Strunk is the Sole Beneficiary, the Defendants the Trustees, of express
grantor trust “CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK” evidenced by private, proprietary trust
documents only to be seen only by the Chancellor in Chambers for Public Safety.

11
 

APX-106

As and for the First Cause of Action for Defendants’ BREACH OF TRUST
"Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights."
37. As and for Complainant’s First Cause of Action for Defendants’ Breach of Trust
hereafter repeats the above allegations and facts in paragraphs 1 through 36, but for
brevity and time of the reader omits repetition as to those Defendants and their agents
who are in default as their fiduciary duty to Strunk and his clients under law.
38. Those Defendants refused to do their duties as Trustees, the Commander in chief refusing
to provide protection and the Secretary of the Treasury refusing to give a full account of
all assets and property, as demanded by Strunk, and therefore Trustees are in breach of
trust evidenced by private, proprietary trust documents only to be seen in Chambers.
39. Strunk demands a hearing with Defendants in Chambers that the Commander in chief
Defendants and their agents would provide protection and the Secretary of the Treasury
and their agents of the DTCC and I.R.S. provide a full accounting of all assets and
property held in trust for the benefit of Strunk evidenced by private, proprietary trust
documents only to be seen by the Chancellor in Chambers for Public Safety.
As and for the Second Cause of Action Defendants’ CONVERSION OF PROPERTY
“Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy.”
40. As and for Complainant’s Second Cause of Action Defendants’ Conversion of Strunk’s
property hereafter repeats the above allegations and facts in paragraphs 1 through 39, but
for brevity and time of the reader omits repetition and complains of those Defendants and
their agents aiding and abetting the Defendant Obama Trustee to circumvent substantive
due process associated with the eligibility of Trustee to oversee the private trust(s).
12
 

APX-107

41. Defendants acts of conversion of Strunk’s property attributed to the registered
organization name in commerce including but limited to:
a. Judgments decisions and orders diminishing the commercial creditworthiness and
value of Strunk’s property;
b. Judgment(s), decisions and orders in the matter of alleged victimless crimes
attributed to the organization name in commerce;
c. Titles, deeds and entitlements to property
d. Unauthorized use of the registered organization name in commerce to discount
notes and deposits in the fractional reserve banking system and other private
transactions use of accounts of money and or credit;
e. Commingling of Beneficiary's private property with that of Public US Citizens;
f. Intentional adverse use of secured beneficiary’s registered organization name in
commerce to disparage the beneficiary(s) and to reap unjust enrichment;
42. Defendants have committed a wrongful taking of Strunk's property.
As and for the Third Cause of Action Defendants’ CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD
“Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud.”
43. As and for Complainant’s Third Cause of Action Defendants’ Constructive Fraud
hereafter repeats the above allegations and facts in paragraphs 1 through 42, but for
brevity and time of the reader omits repetition and complains of those Defendants and
their agents aiding and abetting the Defendant Obama Trustee to circumvent substantive
due process associated with the eligibility of Trustee to oversee the private trust(s).
13
 

APX-108

44. That Strunk contends based upon information and belief with facts that are beyond a
reasonable doubt of the mere preponderance of evidence, that Defendant using the public
US Citizen name Barack Hussein Obama II with the acquiescence of named Defendants
trustees and their agents since no later than April 8, 2008 are committing fraud,
spoliation, concealment, intimidation of witness(es), interference with judicial process
using falsified instruments, aiding and abetting forgery of public records, for misuse of
public funds in bad faith for enterprise unjust enrichment, and that Defendant
Commander-in-chief is fraudulently posing as the trustee for the private trust(s)
established under the TWEA amended by the EBRA and related law (see Exhibit F), and
45. Defendant Obama falsely contends he is eligible to be the trustee under the Article 2
Section 1 Clause 5 POTUS Eligibility provisions of the Constitution for the United States
of America (whether such Constitution is held in abeyance under Emergency War Powers
via the EBRA or not) .
46. Defendant Obama is not eligible to the office of trustee, as a matter of law is an
Indonesian citizen, and is operating with named Defendants and or their agents under his
authority, to the detriment of Strunk and Posterity beneficiary class each respective
Treaty of Peace shown in Exhibit D sub exhibit 1 thru 20.
47. That the Posterity’s private trust(s) established under the TWEA as amended by the
EBRA in 1933 and related law never intended that the POTUS trustee for the private
trusts be anything other than a Natural-born citizen under the time of war or emergency,
as there has never been a civil public and or military government law or executive order
issued to amend the Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 Eligibility requirements.

14
 

APX-109

48. That Strunk within 72 hours of the 20 January 2009 offer of contract by Defendant
Obama to be the sole overseer of the United States of America, even as a corporate entity
believed registered in the state of Delaware returned the offer not wishing to contract.
49. Defendant Obama proffered a false document being a forged selective service record in
2008 rather than a properly completed and submitted record in 1980 as required under
selective service registration requirements is not eligible for ANY United States
government employment and let alone trusteeship;
50. That Defendant Obama proffered false instruments as if proof he is a Public US Citizen
naturally born in Hawaii to a minor aged US Citizen mother and foreign alien student;
51. That Defendant Obama a.k.a. BARRY SOETORO aka SOEBARKAH has admitted in
the 1996 autobiography “Dreams From My Father” based upon his own biography used
by the Publisher to promote Book sales for 16 years, that he was born in Mombasa Kenya
of a natural father who was both a subject of the British Throne and of the Sultanate of
Zanzibar, and, according to a knowledgeable member of the intelligence community
consulting with Strunk, is based upon information and expert belief to be true.
52. That Defendant Obama starting no later than April 8, 2008 acted in conjunction with
others including John O. Brennan to spoliate and conceal public records.
53. That Defendant Obama with others act to interfere with judicial process;
54. That Defendant Obama used public funds and resources to defend himself in court.
55. That to date no judicial process has been afforded for discovery, a trial of evidence and or
cross examination of testimony of constructive fraud.
56. That Strunk relies upon the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Minor v.
Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875) (decided after the Fourteenth Amendment was
15
 

APX-110

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" informs the Court 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.”; and
57. Further, Strunk relies on what SCOTUS held in Minor when it said about a “natural born
Citizen” was then confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
(acknowledging and confirming Minor’s American common law definition of a “naturalborn citizen” but adding based on the English common law that since “‘[t]he child of an
alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and
by operation of the same principle [birth in the country]’” (bracketed information
supplied), a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a Fourteenth
Amendment “citizen of the United States”). This American common law definition of a
“natural born Citizen” has never been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment
(only uses the clause "citizen of the United States" and does not mention "natural born
Citizen") or Wong Kim Ark, and therefore still prevails today. Both those U.S. Supreme
Court cases define a "natural born Citizen" as a child born in a country to parents who are
citizens of that country; and
58. Furthermore, Strunk relies on the fact that EBRA and TWEA with related law including
The Emergency Powers Act of Sept. 14, 1976 PL 94-412 90 Stat. 1255, that expressly
retained 12 USC §95(a) with 50 USC Appendix §5(b) never amended the Constitution of
the United States of America Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 “natural-born Citizen”

16
 

APX-111

eligibility, and that notwithstanding the presence of the Military government does not
permit a trustee for the private trust(s) to be a foreign alien or even merely born a citizen.
59. Those Defendants refused to do their duties as Trustees, the Commander in chief
refusing to provide protection and the Secretary of the Treasury refusing to give a full
account of all assets and property, as demanded by Strunk, and therefore raises the
suspicion that the Trustee/ Defendants acts to spoliate, conceal, and falsify, and or aid in
such obfuscation in order to usurp the office of trustee to seize the Private Trust(s) and
requires discovery and production of evidence that until now withheld, must be disclosed
for testimony and cross examination under exclusive equity to be seen only in Chambers.
60. That the Honorable Chancellor upon review of testimony on the evidence produced at
trial must assume the trusteeship of the private accounts to safeguard the Posterity’s
beneficial interest in place of the Trustees / Defendants.

REQUEST FOR PROCESS
“Equity acts in personam, or on persons.”
61. Wherefore Complainant requests the Court make process upon Defendants in person to
appear and answer by oath for their breaches of trust, conversion and constructive fraud
with wrongful taking for unjust enrichment set forth in this Original Bill.
62. "He who comes into equity must come with clean hands"
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
“Equity delights to do justice and not by halves.”
Wherefore, your Complainant, being without remedy save in private Chambers of a Federal
District Court sitting as a matter of Public Safety under the TWEA (shown in its entirety as

17
 

APX-112

Exhibit F) with the tool of exclusive English/American Equity, where such matters relating to
citizenship status in conjunction with express grantor trusts, are properly cognizable for the
de jure, Pre-1933 Private American National Citizen of the United States protected by
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, requests this
Court assume the duty of the trustee of the Private Trusts to enforce said trust(s) on behalf of
both the Complainant/Beneficiary and Defendants/Trustees by the Court:
a. Providing declaratory relief concerning the rights, powers, privileges and
immunities as well as the duties and obligations between the parties;
b. Providing protection including, but not limited to, identification documents
identifying the true and correct status of Complainant/Beneficiary pertaining to
trade, transportation and communication, as well as documents pertaining to
domestic and foreign travel as well as personal security;
c. Providing a full accounting of all assets including, but not limited to, all monies
and property held in trust by Defendants/Trustees for the benefit of
Complainant/Beneficiary, formerly an “enemy” under the “Trading With the
Enemy Act” (1917) as amended by the “Emergency Banking Relief Act” (1933);
d. Providing any other general and/or special relief, declaratory or otherwise for
Complainant and or his clients individually upon the intervention of each as the
nature of this case shall require, and which other and different relief the Court
may deem just, proper and right according to EBRA/TWEA, Equity and good
conscience.
e. Providing a expedited intervention process under Federal Rules for those
members of the Posterity class with each beneficiary agent as the attorney of fact

18
 

APX-113

who proves up as an essential third party in interest herein as properly registered
as a non-combatant under a Treaty of Peace with the Secretary of Treasury, both
as listed as Strunk's Client 2 through 20 of Exhibit D and or vetted by Strunk.

f. ''Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee."

Dated

Au::P;;:o::bru~ddL- E 2 _
_L'
Brooklyn, New York

,.----------~--Christopher Earl Strunk, Complainant Beneficiary ageilt
Pre- 1933 Private American National:
Citizen of the United States
Ptivate Citizen ofthe State ofNew York
Private Resident in Exclusive Equity within a
Non-Militarily Occupied Private Estate
County of Kings
Without the Jurisdiction of the United States
Under military occupation since 1933
All rights reserved without prejudice

19

APX-114

VERIFICATION

United States of America
State of New York

)
)

County of Kings

)

} s.a.

BEFORE ME. on lhis day personally appeared Christopher Earl Strunk, Complainant above
namedo who makes oath under the Law of God and the Maxims of Equity, declares that all
s1ateme.nts set forth in the foregoing Original Bill under the EBRA that amended the TWEA with
attachments, based upoo his own knowledge and

research~

are true and so far as stated upon

infmmation, he believes them to be true, and expects to be able to prove them before the
Defendants and Chancellor in Chambers.

Subscribed and Affirmed before me on tllis 1'+·ifday of August. 2015.

Notary Public
KAMAL P. SON!

Notary Public. State or New YorK
No. 01806089949

Qualified in Klngs County
Commission Expires March 31 , 2019

20

APX-115

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SEALED V SEALED

)

Original Bill of Complaint

Exhibit A
 
 

APX-116

f

DEPUTY CLERK

EXPRESS DEED IN TRUST TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

WITH BENEFICIARY DISCRETION FOR PRIVATE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WHO
ARE TRUE NATURA.L-BORN CITIZENS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 CLAUSE 5 AND NOT SURETY-INDENTURES FOR THEIR

RESPECTIVE DEBTOR TRUST ENTITY UNDER 12 USC 95 AND 50 USC APP. 5(b) MARTIAL
GOVERNMENT WITH A CONTINUING NATIONAL EMERGENCY
This Express Deed in Trust is a claim of beneficial interest in and over all the public and p1·ivate
real, personal, tangible and intangible Property within THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA geograplllc
border to safeguard and secure for the posterity of WE the People of the United States ofAme1·ica in the
nation given by GOD for securing each private Citizen's unalienable rights and beneficial interest in
pursuit of life libe1'ty and happiness in perpetuity. and with the Executor and Beneficiaries duty to this
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-Bam Citizen (NBC) private citizen of
the United States agent who is surety no more to the Debtor Trust Entity in compliance with the United
States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, either under 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b) with the
Military Government authority of 1·enewed annual National Emergency or .o thermse (DEED in TRUST).
That this NATION of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a gift from GOD, not men, according
to the Declaration of Independence in CONGRESS. July 4, 1776 as the unanimous Declaration o:f the
Freemen of the thirteen united States of America state, quote:
1

Wten in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands
which have connected them with another, and to assume anwng the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind 1·equires that they should declare the cau..ses which impel them to the separation.
"We hold these truths to be seLf-evident, that all men are created equal. that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights. that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"That to secu.re these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safe~y
and Happiness. Pru,dence, indeed, will d ictate tha.t Govern,ments long established should not be changed
for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed

to suffer, while euils a.re sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long tmin of abuses and ttsurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces
a design to reduce them under absolute Pespotism. it i.e; their right, it i.s their duty, to th7'Dw off such
Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security ... "
The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States provides Authority and pul'pose declares:
We the People of the Unit€d States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.

Exhibit A

Page 1 of15

APX-117

..
DEPUTY CLERK

That WE the People are only those private Citizens under GOD, not public citizens under men. and that
guarantee within this Nation that each Private Citizen's unalienable rights and beneficial interest is
secure in perpetuity as long as the Sovereign People of this Nation act under GOD as expressed in the
Book of Isaiah Chapter 55 Verse 1 tbru 5, hereafter quoting from the King James Version of the Bible:

1. Ho, every one that tlw:steth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy. and
eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without p1·ice.
2. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which
satis:fi.eth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight
itself in fatness.
3. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear. and yow· soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting
covenant with you, even the sm'e mercies of David.
4. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.
5. Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee
shall run unto thee because ofthe LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he
bath glorified thee.
That the geographic border and size of this NATION of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
including i.ts population according to the Census of 2010 is depicted in tbe map and chart below with a
map showing public and private land that includes the coastal waters out to the limit of 200 miles as
follows:
Federw Government Lands in the U.S.

..

\

}

-FEDERAL LANDS
Forosl Sc!rvic;,

Olhor lllnd!

euroau oJ indian
Altwls

-

U.S. Fish&
Wjcliln Snrv.co

-

Na!ional
Park
Serko. Perkll

-

NPSWldc:tnOSG.
Study, f'rn~GIVel>.

&noau of Land Mmmgemom

\Public Oo11111.n}

Bu.t IIWdern~ Stu<fy, NaL MonumenJs

&Other

Dup11rtmcnt 0: Dolense
Dl:purtrncnl or ::.ncrgy
U. S. Forest Sc:rYic:<! Nollonal Fo~lS

-

Fofl:at Sc!IYICO \I!Gdemc:ss. 4

Slu-:!y Al!lh

--.

Rctr1lal.on. lltl:..
NPS NotJcuutJ

\

Monumenta.
Hi'norfc Sites,

BlllllclckJ&. ~'fc.
Olhc:r Aganelc:•

WrlclomoM

nv .,,.,,,.,ftf7 M M.a'-"·'

Jfll

Rcc...,..llc»..,..-•A-- lllnlbs•IJIE.\01

Exhibit A

Page 2 of15

APX-118

DEPUTY CLERK
State_ _ _PopulatJo~ ~nd A~ - GOV Ovm-;d

I

--

AJI Uni~d Sta_res

-

508,74~.538 1
_ ~~:r}e -

Alabi- -I 3.~7@8
==·--=__ 4.m.I3§
,_ so.194
71 0.231
571 ,951
Alas~:•
Ari:mna

I

L

6.392,0tL..
2,915.918
California _ _37.253 ,956 ~
Colondo
5 .029.100
Connecticut
3.574.69[
Di!laware
897934
_

Arkansas

~

Florida

Georgia
Rawafi

9 :$67.653 ,
1,360.301 1

_!~~30 .632

_

rndiana
I~

1

Kansas

)

I.Duisiana

Maine

I

6,483.802
3.9~,355 .

2.SS3.11S

57,906

Maryland
Massachus.e tts

9.70%-

Michlaan

...........
Mississippi
Missopri

5.61! f
1,2JO J

t.90%

58,2~

2~79j

1,614 i
1.56"1 ,ss~ r
4,688

4.661 -

30,8~.

5.7~ _

1,759 ~

9 , r r4

7 !-6 9% _

_ J 43 ,
494

6 .30%
28.10%
23.50%
11~20%

5.113

60.902
1
41.794 And

7,715

61 ,'171

37.SO%
54.582 ~"- 90.1~70
1.826.'341
76.Bii 2.80% - 2.152
74.no I
2.700,551
109.826 87.80%
96.427 1
13,:399 1
Hc!wHamosblhe
1,316,470
8,968 ·tB.OO% • _ 1..14
7,:354]
New J~rsey
-8.7S1.894 - 7.417 18.30%
1.357
s.bso
New Mexico
- 2.059.179 · 121,356 47.40% - 57,523 •
63.1333
New Yotlc - - 19.3is.i02
47,214 s7TO%- -r7.516 . - 29~t597 I
North carotmw _ 91535.4&3
_18,711 J4.60~ _
7,11 2 1
41.~599 1
North Dakota
672.591
158.976 9 .10%
6;277
62.tS99
Ohio
11 .536,504
40,948 4.20%
1.120 ,
39,:22!! l
Oklahoma
3751 .351
68667 4 .80%
3,159
65.~508 1
Oregon
3.631 ,0 r4 1- 95,997 60.40%
57.962 1
3!Hl1~ J

Monl:ana
' Nebrasta
Nevada

Penn~Nivanla - U.7m.379-

RbqcJP.Islan:d
Soytb Carol!Oi\
Soutti.Dattota

Tennessee

_

44~817 161'0'%"- -7 .215 -

Congress of the United States, or the
departments of the Government
thereof. remains to the People of the

3 ._553

75,585

8.90%

6.7sa l

69.131

6,34$,105 1

41.217 14.10%

5.8~2 ,

35,406J

eo; .723
1.852.994

61 75.oo%
24,078 16.50%

3.973

20,105 l

5,666,986
563,616

54.310 17.~0% _
97,10(! ~:§)~ _

9 .667

44Jf!431

4.625. 364

614.180

f_

_ 1_6j

_ 4.~.0%
. ·~ _ 1_0.9115
~~0.~02 ]
75.20% _ 61.t..772 ~
~0~372
15.80%
1.461
7.'788
i1.io%- - s.n1- - 32,.823 .
41 .90%
27.862
38,t662 l

-- '1s

46 -

54.27~ t -

42A~_2t

. . . . .iii"R"!IFiinii

Exhibit A

That the Powers of Government may
be reassumed by the People,
it
shall
become
whensoever
necessary to their Happiness.· that
every Power, Jurisdiction and right,
which is not by the said
Constitution clearly delegated to the

_t.t0291
several States, or to their respective
26}.557

I

_ 2g, 1 45.55'[
~61.797
2.763.835 , _ 82,144
625,741
~.250
\Faniii1ia
s.oo1 o24 .... 39.594
't Washington
6, 724,540
66,544

Wisconsin
Wvomlnq

37:,sof

the People of New York
warned:

1 .0~- 1_,_5 0%
3_0,1 09 11 &0%

1 .052.~67

Texaf
Utah
VennoQl

lh<W:l.n<MI o. c
-W~Vnninia

ofNew York with emphasis that was
expressed as displeasure in the July
26, 1788 ratification document of
what should have been, quote:

- ao.ioo-

15,962 1
18.708

10.90%

That the "natural-born. Citizen"
Clause expressed in the ntified U.S.
Constitution Article 2 Section 1
Clause 5 was imposed by the People

"That no Persons except natural born
Citizens, or such as were Citizens on
1.H09
or before the fourth day of July one
38,'180
thousand seven hundred and seventy
s2iz89 six, or such as held Commissions
5.~?02
24~~3- under the United States during the
War. and have at any time since the
§3.~305
34,:2SJ fourth day o{ July one thousand seven
54.~305 t' hundred and seventy six become
Citizens of one or other of the United
35.040
States,
and who shall be Freeholders.
38lm1l
shall
be
eligible to the Places of
29, '1 ~
President. Vu:e President. or Members
9.031
of either House of the Congress of the
7,:3.46
40,H42 I United States. "

145 1

43,562 10.70%

6.541.629
7.840
9.883.640
S6,804
5.303.925
79.610
- --z:967.297- -46,907
- 5.988.927
68.886
__ 9B9,415 _ 145,552

M~~

47.1'~1~

15.747 1

_82,7&7 70.40%
55,584 4.10%_
35,857 4.50%
§S..l-8.§9 2 .~.Q%

4.533,372
1,3_28.361 1
5.773.552 _

_

(Sq

3,M3

6,423 19.00%

gl,e1s

owned ~lnd

547.929
24,022
64.5~- ~9.~~
~
9.008
43,060
S 1.255
74.i705
_ <4,91 0_)._
581!08~
30Q
- - .1:~?41.

4.~9.~_51_ 3~.72~~ .80%

Kentuckv

!

1.1~-95.80%
56.6~
17.30%
52.11)%
43.30%

53.92i 29.20%

~ - ~--1,587.582
!Jijnois

(~t.U::L_

percent

!.~35
52.0.68
1SS~B59
103.118
4 ,845_ 6.20%
1,954 7.40%

18.801,310

Lan; -P-R-N~T;--

Page 3 of15

APX-119

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 constrLted
either as exceptions to certain
specified Powers~ or as inserted
merely for greater Caution.

DEPUlY CLERK

That the Natural-born Citizen clause d oes NOT derive from the term of art ''naturalborn 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 11citizen" a person "of whom both
the parents are citizens." <1> 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 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 ofparents 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
Frame1'S looked to Aristotle's view of citizenship? We learn from the historical record that Supreme CoUl·t
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."
We also know that the Founde1·s 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
Aristotle also gave us a definition of a "natural hom Citizen." In "Politics, Book Three, Part
350 B.C.E., as translated by Benjamin Jowett, gave us his definition of citizenship:

I

n. k'istotle, writing in

"Partll

But in practice a citizen is defined to be one o f whom bot h the p a rents a re citizen-s; othe~s insist on
going fw·ther back; say to two or three or more ancestors. This is a short and practical definition but thet•e
are some who raise the further question: How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen? Gorgias of
Leontini, partly because be was in a difficulty, partly in irony, said- 'Mortars are what is made by the
mortat·-makers. and the citizens of Larissa axe those who axe made b y 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 fu·st 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 emolled 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 lrind of
rule or office- he who holds a judicial or legislative office ful.fi.lls 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 .

Exhibit A

Page 4 of1 5

APX-120

OEPUTY CLERK

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 (2) 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 n·om that of an English "natural born subjecf' which allowed children
bo1·n 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-renowned, Emer de Vattel in
his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel1758). 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 lnte1·national Law
in the Uni.ted 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.l04/pub detail.asp (concerning U.S.
constitutional analysis, "Vattel is highly important. He was probably the international law expert most
widely read among the Frame rEI'). In fact, Vattel continued to be practically applied in our nation for well
over 100 years afte1· 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 ofNations, was their favorite).
What Minor said about a ''natural born Citizen" was confirmed in U.S. u. Wong Kim Ark. 169 U.S.
649 (1898) (acknowledging and confirming Minor's American common law definition of a "natural-born
citizen" but adding based on the English common law that since "'[t]he child of an alien, if born in the
country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle
[birth in the country]'" (bracketed information supplied), a child born in the United States to domiciled
alien parents was a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States"). This American common law
definition of a "natural born Citizen" has never been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment
(only uses the clause ''citizen of the United States" and does not mention "natural born Cit~en") or by
Wong Kim Ark, and therefore still prevails today. Both those U.S. Supreme Court cases define a "natural
born Citizen11 as a child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country.
2

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 sequuntw: 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 Colopbonians claim Homer as their own free Denizen, the Chians challenge him as theirs, the Salaminians
demand him again for then· own, but the Smyrneans assert him to be their natural born Citizen; and therefo1•e have
also dedicated a Temple to him in then· 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).

E.x hibitA

Page 5 ofl5

APX-121

lAMAR COUNTY. GA. SUPERIOR COURT
FILED & RECORDED IN CLERK'S~Cl;flCE

APR 29 2014

BPA BOOK

AT

82

f!20f' M
PAGES

DEPUTY CLERK

ie4

/:~}!!'

In the matter ofRome's Coup d'etat over the "Accursed" United States of America

by Eric Jon Phelps with edits by Christopher Earl Strunk (2014)
On March 4, 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) assumes the Office of President of the
United States, and with his Inaugural Adch·ess seizes and gives ALL Property and persons as
collateral for the debt of the United States in national "consecration" to its prime Creditors, the
Vatican State and Crown's City of London, and as Commander in chief FDR issues
P1.·oclamation 2039 on March 6, 1933, as the Military Conqueror as if he were "Augustus
Caesar" of the American Republic, declaring a state of National Eme1·gency based upon
The ~'Trading With the Enemy Act" of October 6, 1917 (40 Statute Law 411);
Congress at the demand of every Governor on March 9, 1933 passes the ''Emergency Banking
Relief Act" (12 USC 95a), thereby Amending the notorious World War I Statute "Trading With
the Enemy Act" of October 6, 1917, (50 USC App. 5(b)) (TWEA) , and then FDR issues
Proclamation 2040 on March 9, 1933, also confirmed by "Emergency Banking Relief Act"
(12 USC 95b) and b1·inging the TWEA inland, imposing Military Government

This Amended WWI Statute in fact regards all "PERSONS" ''Within the United States" as
seized p1·operty of the federal government to be treated as an "enemy" and ''enemy ally'' or
l~elligerents and rebels" by the Conqueror's Military Government.

These "belligerents and rebels" are publicly residing in the Several States Now considered
to be "conquered territories."

By 1939 all American Common Law Civil Process will be gone. In its place will be Roman
Civil Law Martial Process imposed on all uPERSONS" (natural and artificial) subject to

the Conqueror's De facto Equity Jurisdiction of the "United States."

This Martial Process will apply to all Public "United States Citizens."

This Martial Process cannot apply to Private "Citizens of the United States," Privately
1·esiding on the land at Common Law, while holding Private State Citizenship pursuant to
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

"The Emergency Banking Relief Act" (EBRA) (48 Statute Law 1)
This Act accomplished the Design of the Society of Jesus in ''the Company's" Great Conspiracy
against the Liberties of the United States set forth in Samuel Morse's Nineteenth century
masterpiece, Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States (1835). Just as the Order
had brought the British Admiralty (possessing both a criminal and civil jurisdiction unlike American
Admiralty with only a civil jurisdiction) inland in the days of Jesuit-ruled King Charles Stuart I of
England thereby attempting to do away with the English Common Law on the land, the Jesuits
accomplished essentially the same thing here in America with this wicked Act aided by the
"Roosevelt Court."

Exhibit A

Page 6 of15

APX-122

DEPUTY CLERK

In the passing of this Act which the emotionally distressed Congress never read, the following must
be understood:

1. The "Trading With the Enemy Act," as passed originally in 1917 and amended in 1918, was
made to apply to any "enemy" of the United States.

2. The "enemy" was defined to be "any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals of
any nationality, I'esident within the ten"itory of any nation with which the United States is at
war."
3. Other enemy "individuals" were defined as "natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with
which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States." These
"citizens of the United States" in 1917 held Private citizenship of the United States without
having been reduced to the inferior citizenship status of being property of and surety for the
State-created Public ''citizen of the United States," which public citizenship status was
i mposed on March 9, 1933.

4. The ''T1·ading With the Enemy Acf' also defined the term "person." A "person" was "deemed
to mean an inclividual, partnership, association, company, or other unincorporated body of
individuals, or corporation or body politic." Therefore in 1917 a "person" could mean both a
natural person/Private Citizen of the United States and an artificial person/Public citizen of
t he United States in privilege.

5. Therefore, a "person" as defined by the "Trading with the Enemy Acf' DID INCLUDE a
"citizen of the United States," which at the time was a Private "citizen of the United States."
6. The "Emergency Banking Relief Act" of March 9, 1933, amended the "Trading With the
Enemy Act'' of 1917 (previously amended fourteen times from March 26, 1918, to March 10,
1930), bringing the "Trading With the Enemy Act" inside the United States applying it to "any
place subject to the jurisdiction thereof' [all the States within the United States] when
previously, under the "Trading With the Enemy Act," all transactions "executed wholly
within the United States' were excluded;
7. The "Emergency Banking Relief Act'' defined any "person" to mean '(an individual,
partnership, association or corporation." The term "person" was defined to mean a Public
"citizen of the United States." The term "person" excludes a Private "citizen of the United
States."
8. Therefore, the "Trading with the Enemy Act" defined a "person" to include a Private Citizen of
the United States. The "Exnergency Banking Relief Act" de£ined o. l'pex-aon" to be an artificial

Exhibit A

Page 7 of 15

APX-123

lAMAR COUNTY, GA. SUPERIOR COURT

~pfff B~~DEf,!N cLl~~&rpc:
BPA BOOK
OE!
PAGES jgtQ
DEPUTY CLERK

~

entity (obviously being a partnership, association, or corporation) to include an 11individual"
"person" to be treated as an a1·tificial entity which cannot include the Private Citizen of the
United States.
9. For that ~~ individual" American to be treated as an artificial entity, his Private "citizenship of
the United States'' had to be reduced by an implied, constructive contract by operation of law
to the inferior grade of quasi-corporate citizenship.
10. The corporation that is a citizen is a "Public" citizen of the United States. It is created for the
benefit of the public. The corporation is not a "Private" Citizen of the United States. Only
individual Men and Women can be "Private" Citizens of the United States as intended by
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
11. Therefore, the Private "citizen of the United States" is protected in his citizenship status by
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Federal
statute 12 USC 95a amending and resting upon 50 USC 5(b) does not apply to the Private
Citizen of the United States.
12. Because the individual Private "Citizen of the United States" is protected by Section 1 of the
Fourteenth Amendment, he was specifically EXCLUDED by definition from the "Emergency
. Banking Relief Act," which act ofFDR's Emergency War Powers Congress (by way of the
amended "Trading With the Enemy Act," Section 17), imposed a martial process upon the
courts, federal and state, after April 25, 1938.
13. Therefore the good news is, all Private "Citizens of the United States" are protected in their

private right to a civilian due process of law on a federal level by the Fifth Amendment, and
to a civilian due process on a state level by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
14. Therefore every Private '(Citizen of the United States" is neither a "person,, nor "property"
"subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" referred to in the Emergency Banking

Relief Act (12 USC 95a) passed by the Emergency War Powers Congress on March 9, 1933.

15. And therefore, all Private "citizens of the United States" are not subject to the provisions of
the "Emergency Banking Relief Act" (12 USC 95a) having amended the "Trading With the
Enemy Act" of October 6, 1917, as previously amended on March 28, 1918, now codified as 50
USC App. 5(b)), including a martial due process of law imposed by the amended "Trading
With the Enemy Act" upon any artificial "person" within the United States and "subject to
the jurisdiction thereof," i.e, "subject to the de facto Emergency War Powers jurisdiction
thereof."

Exhibit A

Page 8 of15

APX-124

DEPUTY CLERK

A Word for Word Comparison
Between 50 USC App. Section o(b) of the
"The Trading With the EnetnY Act'' of October 6, 1917,40 Stat. Law 411
as Amended on March 28, 1918, and Section 5(b) of the "Trading With the Enemy Act"
"The Emergency Banking Relief Act'' of March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. Law 1

This Word for Word Comparison is critical in understanding how "The Emergency Banking Relief
Act" (1933) Amended ((The Trading With the Enemy Act" (1917) as Amended in substance making
uThe Trading With the Enemy Act" the Law of the Land of the United States of America.
"The Trading With the Enemy Ac~' as Amended on March 9, 1933, imposed a de facto Emergency
War Powers Mili.ta:ry Gove~rnment, while ousting de jure Civilian Constitutional Government.

All Courts, Federal and State, now impose a Martial Due Process instead of a Civilian Due Process
on every "Person Within the United States/' Natural and Artificial
"Trading With the Enemy Act," Section 6(b), 40 Statute Law 411
1917-"That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit,
1933-"During time or ~a& f ~ t.~·iLg nny other period o ational emerge .. cy ~eclared by
the President, the President may, thro\. t; anv age. cy that he may designate, or
otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit,
Change 1. TWEA is now imposed inside the geographic United States during a declared
state of national emergency.

Change 2. The President may now create agencies to "investigate, regulate or prohibit."
These agencies will be created during the 1930s. The Securities and Exchange
Commission is created in 1933; its first director is Knight of Malta Joe Kennedy. A host of

other agencies will be created as a result of the Jesuit Order's Fabian Socialist New Deal.
1917-"under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means oflicenses or
1933-''under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or

1917-"otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export or ear-markings of gold
1933-"othex-wise, any transactions in foreign exchange,

Exhibit A

Page 9 o£15

APX-125

t.~an.sfers

of credit between

LAMAR COUNTY. GA. SUPERIOR COURT
FILED & RECORDED IN CLERKS O~CE

APR 2 9 2014 f>:T
BPA BOOK

a

I: 2.C)•f'~

PAGES,_~...,.-~

!'

D~U~C~RK

or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export,
hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold
Change 3. Banking institutions within the United States are totally regulated by
Congress without limitation. No "Individual" may "hoard" his gold. All gold will be taken
from "any person within the United States', on June 5, 1933, via HJR-192 <s>.
1917-"or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than
credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United
States), and transfers of evidences of indebtedness or of the ownership of
property between the United States and any foreign country, whether enemy,
ally of enemy or otherwise, or between.residents of one or more foreign
countries, by any person within the United States;
1933-"or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States

3

When the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 outlawed the use of gold, such contracts
became sources of controversy. In the gold clause case Norman vs. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935), the U.S.
Supreme Cowt ruled that gold clauses were invalid. However, Congress later reinstated the option to use gold clauses for obligations
(new contracts) issued after October 1977 in accordance with 31 U.S. C.§ 5118(d)(2).
The United States Gold Reserve Act of January 30, 1934 required that all gold and gold certificates held by the Federal
Reserve be surrendered and vested in the sole title of the United States Department of the Treasury.
The Gold Reserve Act outlawed most private possession of gold, forcing individuals to sell it to the Treasury, after which it
was stored in United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox and other locations. The act also changed the nominal price of gold from
$20.67 per troy ounce to $35.
A year earlier, in 1933, Executive Order 6102 had made it a criminal offense for U.S. citizens to own or trade gold anywhere

in the world, with exceptions for some jewelry and collector's coins. These prohibitions were relaxed starting in 1964- gold
certificates were again allowed for private investors on April 24, 1964, although the obligation to pay the certificate holder on demand
in gold specie would not be honored. By 1975 Americans could again freely own and trade gold.
The Gold Reserve Act authorized the Exchange Stabilization Fund to use such assets as were not needed for exchange market
stabilization to deal in government securities.
The Gold Reserve Act had economic ramifications far beyond national finance. At that time many contracts stipulated that
their monetary terms could be demanded in gold. Such gold clauses were intended to protect against the United States devaluing the
dollar. When the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 outlawed the use of gold, such contracts became
sources of controversy .In the gold clause case Norman vs. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co .• 294 U.S. 240 (1935), the U.S. Suoreme
Court ruled that gold clauses were invalid. However, Congress later reinstated the option to use gold clauses for obligations (new
contracts) issued after October 1977 in accordance with 3 I U.S.C. .§...itlj(d)(2).
The 2008 decision 2 16 Jamaica Avenue, LLC vs S&R Playhouse Realty Co. established tbar a gold clause in contracts signed
before 1933 was only suspended not erased, and under certain limited circumstances might be reactivated.

Exhibit A

Page 10 of15

APX-126

fJ - (0

LA.MAR COUNTY. GA. SUPERIOR COURT

FILED & RECORDED IN Cl,ERK'li..O~ICE

~~~

AT
K2014 Qe

I

:zco t'

~

PAGEsj2,

~

DEPUTY CLERK

Change 4. The provision excluding the TWEA of October 6, 1917, as amended from
regulating transactions executed wholly within the United States is eliminated. All
foreign and domestic transactions of ccany person within the United States'' is to be
investigated, regulated or prohibited.
1917-"and he may require any such person engaged in any such transaction to furnish
1938-"or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require
any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish
Change 5. The "new jurisdiction of the United States" established by the emergency war
powers military government of the United States under Proclamation 2040 approved and
confirmed by the EBRA amending the TWEA, now extends to all states and territories.
1917-"under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production
1938-"under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production
1917- "of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection
1933-"of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection

1917-"therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after
1933-''therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after
1917-"such transaction is completed.
1933-"such transaction is completed.
1917-[End of Statute]
1933-''Whoevet· willfully violates any of the provisions ofthis subdivision or of any
license, order, rule or regulation issued thereunder, shall, upon conviction, be
fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural perso~ may be imprisoned for not
more than ten years, or both; and any officer, director, or agent of any
corporation who knowingly participates in such violation may be punished by a
like fine, imprisonment, or both. As used in this subdivision the term. 'person'

means an individual, partnership, association, or corporation." [End of Statute]
Exhibit A

Page 11 of15

APX-127

A - ff

OEPUTY CLERK

Change 6. New penalties are imposed for violating the amended 1WEA extended into the
United States affecting ~~any person within the United States" (natural or artificial)
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof,,, namely, to the newly imposed, non-civilian,
emergency war powers, martial jurisdiction of the United States.
Note: "Person" as defined under the TWEA is identical to a "Person" defined in the EBRA.

However, an individual natural "Person" under the TWEA was a Private Citizen of the
United States under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. The natm·al ''Person" under the
EBRA amending the TWEA and thereby extending the TWEA into the United States is a
Public "U.S. citizen" treated like a corporation in commercial privilege.

CONCLUSION
Citizenship Status and Jurisdiction ofthe United States

I. Private Citizenship oftbe United States, Section 1, 14th Amendment

"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."
A. An individual is a natural '1person."

B. That individual natural "person" is "born or naturalized in the United States" (the
geographic "United States" composed of the states in union under the Constitution of the
United States).
C. That individual natural ''person" is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the jurisdiction
of the United States.
D. The "jurisdiction thereof' (jurisdiction of the United States) is Lhe constitutionally-

established, constitutionally-limited, de jure, civilian jurisdiction of the United States that
began on March 4, 1789, and that ended on March 6, 1933, confirmed and approved on
March 9, 1933, by the Emergency Banking Relief Act.

E. The citizenship of the "citizen of the United States'' is pt'ivate, not public.
F. Therefore, the Private "citizen of the United States" under Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment is a "person ... subject to thejurisdiction of the United States." That
jurisdiction is a civilian jurisdiction.

Exhibit A

Page 12 of15

APX-128

LAMAR COUNTY, GA. SUPERIOR COURT
FILED & ~E.CO~DED IN CLE~
CE

~Rs~1 Z014.:fT

I ~AGES:..-a.a~~

II. Public Citizenship of the United States, Section 1, 14th Amendment
A A corporation is a "person" under Section 1, 14th Amendment.

B. A corporation is a "citizen" under Section I , 14th Amendment.
C. A corporation is created by a state for the benefit of the public.
D. A corporation is a public "citizen of the United States.""

E. By operation oflaw, the Certificate of Live Bilth, on the day it was filed with a public office
of the state of natural bixth, created an individual corporate/trust entity, a Public "citizen
of the United States," its property being the Private "citizen of the United States."
F. On March 6, 1933 (approved and confirmed on March 9, 1933, via the EBRA), all
registered property Oand, labor and businesses) were seized as "booty of war" by
Pmclamation 2039 ofP1·esidentFranklin D. Roosevelt acting under the World War I
statutory authority of the "Trading With the Enemy Act'' of October 6, 1917, as amended
14 times up to and including March 10, 1930.

G. On March 6, 1933 (approved and confirmed on March 9, 1933, via the EBRA), the
constitutional, limited, de jure, civilian government of the United States was ousted and
replaced with a statutory, unlimited, de facto, military government of the United States.
H. On March 6, 1933 (appro'Ved and confirmed on March 9, 1933, via the EBRA), the civilian
"jurisdiction of the United States" under Section 1 oftbe 14th Amendment was l'emoved
and replaced with the military "jurisdiction of the United States" under the
"Emergency Banking Relief Act" now codified as 12 USC 95a based upon the military
"Trading With the Enemy Act" now codified a 50 USC App. 5(b).

l

Therefo1·e, the Public "citizen of the United States" under Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment is a "person .•. subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" unde1·
the "Emergency Banking Relief Act" (12 USC 95a) based upon the "Trading With the
Enemy Act'' (50 USC App. 5(b)). That jurisdiction is a military jurisdiction imposing
martial process in every action, state and federal, civil and criminal.

FINAL CONCLUSION
The Private "citizen of the United Stated' is a "person" subject to the constitutional, de jure,
peacetime, jurisdiction of the United States under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
That peacetime jurisdiction of the United States is a civilian jurisdiction using civilian process
to gain in personam jurisdiction_

Exhibit A

Page 13 ofl5

APX-129

LAMAR COUNTY, GA. SUPERIOR COURT
FILeD & RECORDED IN CLER~ OFRO&

r:::J014 Jl
.

U

~~~

CLERK

On the other hand:
The Public "citizen of the United States" is a "person" subject to the statutory, de facto, wartime
jurisdiction of the United States under the "Emergency Banking Relief Act" (codified as 12 USC 95a)
based upon the military "Trading With the Enemy Act" (codified as 50 USC App. 5(b)). All actions,
fedeTal and state, criminal and civil, using martial process to confer in personam jurisdiction of the
emergency war powers courts a:re founded upon these two statutes.

That wartime jurisdiction of the United States is a military jurisdiction using martial process to
gain in personam jurisdiction.

You are either a Constitutional Private "citizen of the United States"
Or
You are a Statutory Public «citizen of the United States"'
You are either a ccperson" under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment

Or
You a:re a "person:' under the commercial "Emergency Banking Relief Act" (1933)
(12USC 95a)
Based upon the martial ''Trading With the Enemy Ace' (1917)
(50 USC App. 5(b))
You are either subject to a civilian "jurisdiction of the United States''
Under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment

Or
You are subject to a martial "jurisdiction of the United States"
Under the "Emergency Banking Relief Act" (1933) and

The "Trading With the Enemy Act'' (1917)
(12 USC 95a and 50 USC App. 5(b))

You are one ofthe Sovereign People ofthe United States of America
Or

You are one ofthe conquered people ofthe United States of America

The End
Exhibit A

Page 14 o£15

APX-130

A -let

DEPUTY CLERK

That for the reasons expressed above, notwithstanding whether a natural person is born within a
State of the United States of IDB.l_'l'ied citizen parents, the_Executor and Beneficiaries of this EXPRESS
DEED IN TRUST TO TEE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are of a singular class separate and apart
from those who are either naturalized Ol' born a citizen, and are unable to certify as eligible for POTUS
one of the conquered people of the United States of America as long as the dejure citizen of the United
States remains the surety-indenture for the Debtor trust with beneficial interest in the surety, for that
natural person is the property of the United States and is a slave unable to fulfill the duties of POTUS.
Therefore, the Executor and Beneficiaries are bound by their registered status as private citizens
of the United States with their bonafide status as a natural-hom Citizen within the duties and
obligations of this DEED in TRUST to only certify a candidate is eligible based upon the foregoing and
shall seek equity relief of a chancellery coUl·t for attempt to USURP the POTUS to the contrary.
That the Beneficiaries for this DEED in TRUST are private citizens of the United States in respect
to the debtor trust entity registered with the United States Secretary of the Treasury with acceptance
confu·med for each respective package by Certified Mail with numbers for their account in regru·ds to
the period ending before the filing of this DEED in TRUST and that the undersigned Beneficiaries ru·e
certified natural-born Citizens capable of rendering a decision as to the status of a POTUS candidate.
That Executor and Settlor (SE'ITLOR). who privately is of equal beneficial interest to the
Beneficiaries or any member of the class defined above in the execution of the obligations of this DEED
in TRUST, is Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris private citizen of the United States, the
secured beneficiary agent of the Debtor Tt·ust transmitting utility ™CHRISTOPHER EARL
STRUNK<O as duly 1·egistered with the United States Secretary of the Treasury with account#l30-36·
8096 Accrual#70103090000192293013 and 70123460000358729106 and located at 593 Vanderbilt
Avenue PMB 281 Brooklyn, New York zip code excepted 11238 Cell Phone: 845-901-6767 Email:
chris@strunk.ws, who upon his acceptance will duly serve this Trust publicly without beneficial
interest until further written notice unanimously approved by undersigned Beneficiaries and be
reimbUl·sed for his time and expense acceptable to the Beneficiaries.
The undersigned Beneficiaries hereby enact this EXPRESS DEED IN TRUST and appoin t the SETI'LOR:

Eric Jon P elps in esse Sui Ul·is
private citizetfof the United States,
the secured beneficiary agent of the Debtor Trust
transmitting utility TMERIC JON PHELPS©

Exh ibit A

Page 15 o£15

APX-131

p, -rS'

3111/2014

Franl4in D. Roosevelt Proclamation 2039- Declaring Bank Holiday

ERANnm_ll.__RoosmrnLT_

Lll;ii

j XXXII Pn:Jidmtofth~ Uniftt!Statt.s: 1933-1945
• Public Papers of the Presidents

8 -Proclamation .2039 -Declaring Bank Holiday

• State of tile Union
Addresses & Messages
• Inaugural Addresses

March 6, 1933

• Weeldy Addresses
• News Conferences
• Elrecut!lle Orders
• Signing st:aterrents

• Press BrieTmgs
• Staterrents of
Adrrinlstrntion Poky
• Econonic Report of the President
• Debates
• Convent1011 Speeches
• PartY PlatfOf'ITl>
• 2012 Eledlon Docurrents
• 2008 Election Docurrents
• 2004 Electlo11 Docurrents

• 1960 Election Docurrents
• 2009 Trnnsition
• 2001 Transition

Data /m:hiY~
M edia A.-chive
Aud'»fl/ldeo TndeJt

& Addresses of

FranldinD.

WheTeas continuous and increasing1y CJCtensive speculative activity abroad in foreign exchange hes
re.suUed in severe drains on the Natlon'sstocks of gold; and

Roosevelt

Wlterea.s th05e conditions have created a national emerg!llcy; and
Whereas it is in the best interest$ of all bank depo5itors thata period of respite be provided with a view to
preventing further boarding or coin, bullion or cunen.cy or speculation iD foreign etchange and
perm ilting the application of appropriate m eaSUJ'es to protect the interests of cmr people; and

Wlu:mgs jt is providedJn Section 16 orthe&:~jd Act 'That wboe'l7cr shall willfully violate any of the
pTovisions ofthJs Aet or ofany \ic~&c, =le, or TCgulation issued thereunder. a.od wboe'lrer shan willfully
violate, neglect, or refuse to comply wltb any order ofthe Presidmt issued in compliance wit'b the
provi.siOWi ofthis.Act, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than S1o,ooo, or. if a natural pcr,on,
rmprisoned for not more than teo yeors. or both .. ."\

i:1ections
.,.£lect'IJO index
idalCOO
riG
Presidential Ubrarles

thew Public Papers oy
Month and \'ea:-

•II Year •I

INCLUDE documents from

the Office of the Press

Secretary

0 INCLUDE election
campaign documents

I VIew PPPUS I
searc h tl"'e : ntii-e

Document Archiv-e
Enter keyWQJ'Ij;

Cou.ECDON!

Pub& Papers

''Vllcreos i1 isptQYh1es} in St;stion 5 Cbl o£theAct gf Oetober 6 t 012 (49 Stat I ... 111 l . "~ :amendecl, -x"hat
the President may investigate, regulate, or pTohilrit, under such rules onci regulaticm" as he may
prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in toralgn e.xcbange and the export,
boarding, melting, or earmarltlngs of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency • •.";and

Datalndell

0

-g-.11

Whereas there have been heavy and un~vananted withdrawals of gold and cunency from our banking
institutions for the purpOGe a! boarding; ~t>d

• Prodarrattons

1Month

lWe~_!.~

By drs J>re.'Cidenr of rite Unfled States ofAmerica
A l'l-oc:la.matiou

• Aresltle Chats

~ i~'.l

j)

Now , Therefore I, Franklin D. Rocseu..U, Presiilc.ot of tho: United Status of America , In v lew ofsuch natlona.l
emecgeney a nd by virtue oCU.e authority vested 1n me by said .Act and in o.rdl!t" to prevent !.he export,
b.ouding, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency. do hereby p.r oclaim, order. dkect u_ud
declare that &om Monday, the Sixth dsv ofM!reh. to Thor.day l:hs Njnth day of March. Nineteen
!Jundred and Thirty-three, both cla\ec inclusive, there abal\ be maU.ta in cd and observed "by .U banking
in&tltutions and aU branches thereof located in the United States of America, iDcludlng the territories and
tns11lar po&SeJisions, a banlt holiday. and !.hat during said period all banlting transactions shall be
suspended. Durlng such holiday. excepting as hereinafter provided, no such baoking institution or br anch
shall pay out , export, eaTmark, or permit thewithdraw:a.l 0< trana!er in aey manner or by any device
wbatsoev er, ofany gold or silver colD or bullion or tllrt!lley or take any other action which migh t
fllcllitate the hoa.rdtng theuo{; not aballt.ny sueh hankins inmtutioo or branch pay ont dep05its, mnke
lotul& or cll~co\Ults. de:t.l in forei~;n c<Xahange, transfer erecllts &o.m the United States to any place abroad, or
r.raOS"dl!t any other banking business wb.atsoever.

Share

The Arrencan Preslde"'V
Project

During such holiday, the Secretary oftbeTrcuury. with the appro-~al of the President and under $UCh
regulations as hem ay ]li'I!Scribe. is authorized ud empowered (a) to perm it any or·all of """b banking
i.no5tit:ulioua lo perform any OT a.ll oft.be: USQ.al b:uUdn.s, W..o.c.tioac, (b) \o d.i..cc \;l. require or-pt)rtOitlhe.

issuance of clenriog boose certificates or otlurr evlciettces ofcla{ms against usetsofbanldng institutions,

®AND

OoR 0NOT

receipt of new deposits which shall be subject to withdrawal on dem3nd without any restriction or
limit arion and sba.ll be kept separately tn cash or on deposit in Federal Reserve Banks or invested-in
obligations of the United States.

U mltbyY'ear

From: 11789 •

I

To : ~
Umlt results per page

~
_Q /NCWDE documents from
Office of lhe Press

.::ret.ary

and {c) to authorize and direct tbe creation in such banking institutions of special trust accounts for the

As used in tbis order the term ,nuking institutions" shall include all Federal Reserve Banks. oatiou~
banking associatioas, b onks, trust comp~nl"ll. saving-s haAk.. 'builcling and lo:to association"' credit IUlion-,
or oth& eor-poraticmc, part:ncubipa, usociationG or per:sons, en~agcd in the businessofrecelving dep05its,
makinr; loans. dl.scoontingbusiness paper, or transacting ao_y other form of banking business.

--Tf;--a_Jf;Z, -o~-FtlANlQ..lN D. ROOSEVELT

0 INCLUDE electron
campaign documents

I $ear:ch I

C"ltation: Franklin 0. Roosevelt: "PI'Qdamation 2039 - Dedaring Bank Holiday, • March 6, 1933. Onllne by Gemartl PeteiS and Jolin T.
Woolley, The American Presidency Projea. ll~:/{w...w.pre.sfdency.ucsb.edu/v.snoid=14661.

http://wNN.presidency.ucsb.ediJMs/?pid=14661

APX-132

4-1~

112

Franldin D. Rooseo.elt Ptoclamalim2040- BankHollday

311112014

ERAmrn D. Ro.o..sEYELT..

Like { -

XXXIl Prrsidemofthe United Sillies: 1933-1945
ut>~:;:<>mi.,Tn Archive
• Pubic Papers o( lt1e Presidents

11 -Proclamation 2040 March 9. 1933

• state or the Unloo

Addresses & Messages
• Inaugural Addresses
• Weel!Sy Addri!SS1!S
• Fteslde ChiJt:s

CoUECnoN:

A Prodamatiou

• Prodarretions
• Signing statements

• Press Briefings
• statesrents of
Adrrinistration Poky
• Econooic Report o( ltle Presld2nt

• Debates
• Coovention Speedles
• Party Platfoms
• 2012 Election Ooam-ents
• 2008 Section Oocurrent:s
• 2004 Election Oocurrents
• 1960 8ealon Oocurrent:s

Whereas, oo ldarcb 6, 1933,1, Franklin D. Roos~elt, President oftb.e United States of America, by
Proclamation declared the existence of a national emergencY and proclaimed a bank h olidAy elrtendlog
fr0111 Monday the 6th day of Much to Thursday the gtb day ofMarch, 1993, both datesincluslv t, in order
to prevent the export, hoarding or earmarking of gold or sil ver coin. or bullion or c:onency, or speculation
to fordgo exc.banse; and

Public Papers
& Addresses of
FranldmD.
Roruwelt

WlleNtU, under the Act of March g, 1933, aU Proclamationsberetofoce or herl!after iuul!d by the President
p!lfsoantto tbe authority conferred by .sectiO!l s (b) of the Ac:t of October 6, 1917, ua.mended, are
tporgy ed snd sopfirm s:d· aad

Whareos, said national emergency st!ll continues, aod it Is nece~-.,y to take further m easuru extending
beyond March 9, 1933, iD order to accom plW! such purposes:

• 2009 Transticn

• 2001 Transtion

Now, Therefore, I, 11-on.lclin D. Rooscuelt, President ofthe Ooiled States of Ameriea, io view of such

Data Archi'!e
Data Jndex
Media A.n:hiva
Audio/Video Index
Elections

continuing national em err;ency a.od lQ: virtue oftbe authority vested in me by Section 5 (bl of the Act of
October 6 , t9~7 (40 Stat. L 411), as amended by tbeAetofMarcb 9. 1933, do hereby t>roclaim , order,
direct and declare that all the terms ud provisions of said Proclamation of March 6, 1933, and the
regulations and ardcralesued tbueundcr are hereby continued In full force and effect until further
proclamation by the President.

Eleelton Index
- 4da2000

Fr.anklln D. Roacevelt

1933

Font Size:

.:!ilAlAA

In Witness Whereof. I bavebereuoto set my band aod bave caused tbe oeal oftbe United States to be affixed.

ks
, , e5¥1entfal lbat'es
Vie·w ~ublic Papel"S oy
:•lonth an~ Year

0

TW~t_ {s641

Bank Holiday

9y thel"ruiJentofthe Unilr.dStutt:s ofAmerica

• News Conferences
• Elcea4lve Orders

IMonth

~t..l

•II Year "I

INCLUDE documents from

the Office of lhe Press
Secretary

0 INCLUDE eleatlon
campaign documents
[ View PPPUS

Done in the District ofCD\umbia, tbl~9tb d&y of'Narcb, In theY en ofOilJ' Lord OueibousandNioe
Rondred and 'l'blrty tbrc.., and ofthe lndcpouuleoce oftb e United States tbe One Hundredth and Fifty-

~Prirt

&

Report Typo

Share

acven~b.

--;f:__g_JifZ,J~
FRAN!CLIN D. ROOSEVELT
By the Pres! deal:

I

.Search the entire
:.'·:Jcument Archive
Enter keyword:

JJ

CORDELLH'ULL

Seererury ofStDtr.
Citation: Franklin 0. Roosevelt: "Prodamatlon 2040- Bank Holiday,• March 9, 1933. Online by Gerhard Peters
and John T. Woolley, The .1\metfcan Presldenc;y Pn>ject. http://WYm.presldency.ucsb.eOu/ws/1pld•l4485.

® AND OoR 0NOT
LlmllbyVur

From: 11789

To

•I
•I

: 12014
Limit results per page

~
0
-

F&n':
745Z
Prorrote Your Page Too

INCLUDE documents from
• Office of the Press

·retmy

LJ INCLUDE electiOf'l
campaign documents

http:/twNN.presldency.ucsb.ediJ/wsi?P.d=14485

APX-133

1/2

<L

uo.>'- :i :tJil- 1\.c:gwanonortransacnons to

U

~ ~

~

''

toretgn exchange of gold a...

http://www.Jaw.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/9.

~.A fA i-lL<4-~~4_-

Sf.JAa ,,

1,

i

btL-

~ fo<Yi- ~-de_ fo ~;{£,

~-- "'~.vt.r-.v .J:h.- ~ S;rcdi.o
., l).ct4_ v /~ (t qo&) .

0<4

~

_.U<--

I

ABOUT UJ

I

GET THE LAW

usc
12 USC §

> Title

I

FINO A lAWYER

I

LEGAL ENCYCLOPEDIA

I

HELP OUT

12 > Chapter 2 > Subchapter IV > § 9Sa

u
SEARC

gsa - Regulation of transactions in foreign exchange

Go

of gold and silver; property transfers; vested interests,
enforcement and penalties ~~JAJ--A f/U~~ Wfol #e

f:rJ ~

...

~..v~~ ,LXI. ~~.or-~ I

USC-prelim

US Code

Notes

Updates

Uw..a
~

Ii1kJ
Table
Para If,

Authorities (CFR)

USCPrelim is a preliminary release and may be subject to 1Further revision before it is
released again as a final version.

Current through Pub. L. 1 13-9. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

,

@~p:f 4i;tb cb.l~~~~d;/LL<- ~u/~ :~~ c
0# ~J.!vw~
dt~ u_._.~L Pf.JZ,

-ct.

(1) During the time of war, the President may, through any agency that he may
designate, and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of
instructions, licenses, or otherwise(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in1 foreign exchange, transfers

of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, and the
importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or
bullion, currency or securities, and
(B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any
acquisition holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrav.ral, t ransportation, importation
or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with
respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a

nati~n-al thereof has any interest,

,g. H~:-Y-n

lh ~~ ~ ~-;»3/ rr

by an~ or with respect to an~ubject to the junsdiction of the United
States; and any property or interest of any foreign country or national thereof shall vest,

rr.r.,LAW 1
'f;E/

when, as, and upon the terms, directed by the President, in such agency or person as may
be designated from time to time by the President, and upon such terms and conditions as
the President may prescribe such interest or property shall be held, used, administered.
liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United
States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the
1 o£3

APX-134

fl-( §>

• !.n.t• !.gj
• ~
Blc
• Ent
~>n~J?n l~

sht7 Al\,

.. '"'""'" :1 .-Ju. - ........ ~wCluuu vt

u c:w:.a~.:uuus m rore1gp excnange ot gold

a ..

bttp://www.law.eomell.edu/uscode/t.exr/l2/9:

accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes; and the President shall, in the manner
hereinabove provided, require any person to keep a fu ll record of, and to furnish under
oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, complete information relative to any act or

• ~

transaction referred to in this subdivision either before, during, or after the completion
thereof, or relative to any interest in foreign property, or relative to any property in which
any foreign country or any national thereof has or has had any interest, or as may be
otherwise necessary to enforce the provisions of this subdivision, and in any case in which
a report could be requ ired, the President may, in the manner hereinabove provided,
r_eguire the production, or if necessary to the national security or defense, the seizure, of
any books of account, records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or other papers, in the
custody or control of such person.

-

(2) Any payment, conveyance, transfe r, assignment, or delivery of property or interest
therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise directed,
pursuant to this section or any rule, regulation , instruction, or direction issued hereunder
shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of th~
obli gation of the person making the same; and no pe rson shall be held liable in any court
for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in con nection with t he
administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this section, or any rule,
regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder.

GETI

(3) As used in this subdivision the term "United States" means the United States and aQY
P.lace subject to the jurisdiction thereof; Provided, however, That the foregoing shall not
be construed as a limitation upon the power of the President, which is hereby conferred,
to prescribe from time to time, definitions, not inconsistent with the purposes of this
subdivision, for any or all of t he terms used in this subdivision. As used in this
subdivision the term "person" means an individual, partnership, association, or
corporation.
(4) The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority
to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly, the Importation from any country, or the
exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or
medium of transmiss ion, of any information or informational materials, including but not
limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfil"ms,
microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CO ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds. The exports
exempted from regulation or prohibition by this paragraph do not include those which
are otherwise controlled for export under section 2404 of title SO. Appendix, or under
section 2.iQ5_ of title .5.Q, Appendix to the extent that such controls promote the
nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, or with respect to which
acts are prohibited by chapter .3.1 of title ll.

L/1 has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that

2 nf"l

APX-135

FIND

J. U~l.- ~ ~)b -

K.abtlcatJon ot acts of President and Secretary oftbc Tr...

http://www.law.eomell.edu/uscodel!ext/12/9

ABOUT LU

I

GET THE LAW

USC

12 USC §

> Title

I

FIND A LAWYER

I

LEGAL ENCYCLOPEDIA

I

HELP OUT

95b - Ratification of acts of President and Secretary

of the Treasury under
USC-prelim

US Code

Notes

u

PREVNEXT

12 > Chapter 2 > Subchapter IV > § 95b

SEARC

Go

J.aW..a..
Q.mm.

Updates

~
Iru21~

USCPrelim is a preliminary release and may be subject to further revision before it is

Parall•

released again as a final version.
Current through Pub. L. 113- 9. (See Public Laws for the current

Congr~ .)

The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or
hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or
the Secretary of the Treasury sjnce March 4. 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by
section .9.5..a. of this title, are approved and confirmed.
L/1 has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that
contains links to or references L/1.

J-0 'S ~ j & /Q'S!,
}o tfo /1fvl'v.- q t7~:>
1/Afft-L

I

1

~ ~:v~ 1/IJTwaf+~~
~ rf~ { tJ- CtS'L- q:J~ d .t;iuv ~\fo:J
t~~ fpts p~~

l of2

d<J1o A

J;.t---AJ.i~~

( j} U)t!

rs t.).

:J-o~9 ~.~~

_f~ t><1 :vh ~ ol.(/,

#tflL

A/
APX-136

LAW J

ca

-~

~ N!J : ~

'2,{)

93d 'c::ongress }

1st Session

Report
{ No.93-549

Senate

EMERGENCY POWERS STATUTES:

PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL LAW
NOW JN EFFECT DELEGATING TO THE
EXECUTIVE EXTRAORDINARY AUfHORITY
IN TIME OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY

REPORT
OF THE

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE
TERMINATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY
UNITED STATES SENATE

NOVEMBER 19, 1973

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1973
24-509 0

1

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE
TERMINATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY

APX-137

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho Co-Chairman
PHILIP A. HART, Michigan
CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island
ADLAI E. STEVENSON m. Dlinois

CHARLES McC MATHIAS, Jr.• Maryland
CLIFFORD P. CASE. New Jersey
JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas
CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming

WlLLIAM G. MILLER. StaffDffeclor

THOMAS A DINE, Professional Staff

n

FOREWORD

Since March.9, 1933, the United States has been ip a state ofdeclared national em.ergeO.cy_
In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency:
In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are
also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950,
during the Korean conflict, and the states of nati9~ emergency dec_lared ~:r Presi<!ent
Nix:ol!_ ol!March 23, 19~ _andAugus! !5_
, 1971.
These proclamations give force to 470provi.Sions of F~deral law. These hundreds of
statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the
Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a bost of all-encompassing
manners. This vast .range of powers, taken together,. confer enough autpority to -~e th~
country without !_eference to_norrnal Cs>~titutj.p!_J?J proc~ss~:.
Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the - PreSident may:
se.ize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assi~
military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and
comimmication; regulate the operation of private entetprise; restric!_ trayel; and, in a
plethora of particular ways, con~ol the lives of all American citizens.

Wrth the melting of the cold war-the developing detente with the Soviet Union and China,
the stable truce of over 20 years duration between North and South Korea, and the end of
U.S. involvement in the war in Indochina-there is no present need for the United States
Government to continue to function under emergency conditions.
The Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency was created1 to
examine the consequences of terminating the declared states of national emergency that
now prevail; to recommend what steps the Congress should take to ensure that the
termination can be accomplished without adverse effect upon the necessary tasks of

APX-138

goveming; and, also, to recommend ways in which the United States can meet future
emergency situations with speed and effectiveness but without relinquishment of
congressional oversight and control.
1n accordance with this mandate, the Special Committee-in conjunction with the Executive
branch, expert constitutional authorities, as well as former high officials of this
Government-is now engaged

Note 1: S. Res. 9, 93d Cong., 1st Sess.

m

in a detailed study to determine the most reasonable ways to restore normalcy to the
operations of our Government.
A first and necessary step was to bring together the body of statutes, which have been
passed by Congress, conferring extraordinary powers upon the Executive branch in times of
national emergency.
This has been a most difficult task Nowhere in tbe Government, in either the Executive or
Legislative branches, did there exist a complete catalog of all emergency statutes. Many
were aware that there had been a delegation of an enormous amount of power but, of how
much power, no one knew. In order to correct this situation, the Special Committee staff
was instructed to work with the Executive branch, the Library of Congress, and
knowledgeable legal authorities to compile an authoritative list of delegated emergency
powers.
Tbis Special Committee study. which contains a list of all provisions of Federal law, except
the most trivial, conferring extraordinary powers in time of national emergency. was

compiled by the staff under the direction of Staff Director William G. Miller, and Mr.
Thomas A. Dine; utilizing the help of the General Accounting Office, the American Law
Division of the Library of Congress, the Department of Justice. the Department of Defense,
and the Office of Emergency Planning.
The Special Committee is grateful for the assistance provided by Jack_ Goldldang of the
Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice~ Lester S. Jayso~ the director of the
Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress; Joseph E. Ross, bead of the
American Law Division of CRS; and especially Raymond Celada of the Ameri- can Law
Division and his able assistants, Charles V. Dale and Grover S. Williams; Paul Armstrong

APX-139

of the General Accounting Office; Linda Lee, Patrick Norto~ Roland Moore. William K.
Sawyer, Audrey Hatry. MarthaMecbam, and David J. Kyte.
The Special Committee will also publish a list of Executive Orders, issued pursuant to
statutes brought into force by declared states of emergency, at a later date.

CHARLES McC. MATIUAS, JR
FRANK CHURCH,

Co-Chairmen.

N

93d Congress }
1st Session

Report
{ No. 93-549

Senate

EMERGENCYPOWERS STATUTES:
PROVISIONS OF FEDERALLAW
NOW IN EFFECT DELEGATING TO THE

EXECUTIVE EXTRAORDJNARY AUTHORITY
IN TIME OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY
November 19, 1973.- Ordered to be printed

Mr. M.ATIDAS (for Mr. CHURCH) as co-chairman of the Special Committee on the
Termination of the National Emergency, submitted the following

APX-140

REPORT
[Pursuant to S. Res. 9, 93d Cong.]

INTRODUCTION

A- A BRIEF HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ORJGINS
OF EMERGENCY POWERS NOW IN FORCE

of

A majority oftbe-~eople the United States have livedill of"the~ liv~· ufider eme:ri"~cYt
rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures gtiaranteed by the Constitution
have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national
emergency. The problem of how a consti.tnti.oruil democracy reacts to great crise~ howeve:x;
~r antedates the Great Depression. As a philosophical issue,.its origfu.s t:eachback to 1he_
Greek city-states and the Roman. Republic. And, in the United States, actions taken by the
Government in. times of great crises have-from, at least, the Civil War-in iJm>orlant ~aY§,
!tha_P.ed th~ .E.Ies~nt_phenomenon of I:!_Rerman.ent state ofnational emergenc.y:
American political theory of emergency government was derived and enlarged from John
Locke, the English political-philosopher whose thought influenced the authors of the
Constitution. Locke argued that the threat of national crisis-unforeseen~ sudde11:: and
potentially catastrophic-required the creation of broad executive
(1)

emergency powers to be e1eercised by the Chief Executive in situations where the
legislative authority had not provided a means or procedure of remedy. Referring to
emergency power in the 14th chapter of his Second Treatise on Civil Government as
"prerogative"; Locke suggested that it:
.. ,should be left to the discretion of him that has the executive power...since in some
governments the lawmaking power is not always in being and is usually too numerous, and so
too slow for the dispatch n:quisite to executions, and because. also il is impossible to foresee
and so by laws to provide for all accidents and necessities that may concern the publ,ic, or make

such laws as will do no harm, ifthey are executed with an inflexible rigour on all occasions and
upon aU persons that may come in their way, therefore there is a latitude left to the executive
power to do many things of choice; which the laws do not prescribe.

To what extent
emergencies is
development in
President's have

the Founding Fathers adhered to this view of the executive role in
a much disputed issue. Whatever their conceptions of this role, its
practice has been based largely on the manner in which individual
viewed their office and its functions. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and

APX-141

~~"

William Howard Taft argued the proper role of the President and, perhaps, their debate best
expounds diametrically-opposed philosophies of the presidency. In his autobiography,
Roosevelt asserted his nstewardship theory."

My view was that every Executive officer...was a steward of the people bound actively and
affirmatively to do aU be could for the people and not to content himself with the negative merit
of keeping his talents undamaged in a napkin...My belief was that it was not only [the
President's] right but his duty to do any thing that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such
action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws. Under this interpretation of executive
power I did and caused to be done many things not previously done by the President and the
heads of departments. I did not usurp power but I did greatly broaden the use of executive
power. In other words, I acted for the common well being of all our people whenever and
whatever measure was necessary, unless prevented by direct constitutional or legislative
prorubition.

Roosevelt compared this principle of ''stewardship'' to what he called the Jackson-Lincoln
theory, and contrasted it to the theory ascribed to William Howard Taft.
Roosevelt's ideas on the limit of presidential authority and responsibility were vigorously
disputed by Taft. In lectures on the presidency--delivered at Columbia University in 19151916-Taftresponded that:"... the wide field of action that this would give to the Executive
one can hardly limit. A President can exercise no power which cannot fairly and reasonably
b~ traced to some specific grant of power." And he cautioned that: " . .. such specific grants
must be

(2)

either in the Federal Constitution, or in any act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof.
There is no undefined residuum of power which he can exercise because it seems to him to
be in the public interest."

In recent years, most scholars have interpreted the Roosevelt-Taft dispute in Roosevelt's
favor. In the prevailing academic view, Roosevelt is described as "active", "expansionist",
and "strong." The historical reality, in fact, does not afford such a sharp distinction either
between the actions of these two Presidents, or between their analysis of the problem of
emergency powers. Taft, in his concluding remarks to his Columbia lectures, said :
"~x.ecutive power is limited, so far as it is possible to limit such a power consistent wijh
that discretion and promptness of action that are essential to preserve the interests of tile

APX-142

P.ublic in times of emergency or legislative neglect or inaction.:.' Thus, even Taft was
disposed to employ emergency power when the need arose, but, he did not wish to go
beyond his own narrower, conservative conception of what was meant by constitutional and
legal bounds. Thus, the dispute was over where those bounds lay, rather than the nature of
the office itself.
Taft's successor, Woodrow Wilson, was no less zealous in observing what he thought the
Constitution demanded. Faced with 1he exigencies of World War I, Wilson found it
necessary to expand executive emergency powers enormously. In many respects, this
expansion ofpowers in wartime was based on precedents set by Lincoln decades earlier.
Unlike Lincoln, however, Wtlson relied heavily on Congress for official delegations of
authority no matter how broadly these might be.
Wilson's exercise of power in the First World War provided a model for future Presidents
and their advisors. Dwing the preparedeness period of 1915-1916, the submarine crisis in
the opening months of 1917, and the period of direct involvement of U.S. armed forces
from April 1917 to November 1918, Wilson utilized powers as sweeping as Lincoln's.
Because governmental agencies were more highly organized and their jurisdictions wider,
presidential powers were considerably more effective than ever before. Yet, perhaps,
because of Wilson's scrupulous attention to obtaining prior congressional concurrence there
was only one significant congressional challenge to Wilson's wartime measures.
That challenge came in February-March 1917, following the severance of diplomatic
relations with Germany. A group of Senators successfully filibustered a bill authorizing the
arming of American merchant ships. In response-records American historian Frank Freidel
in his book Roosevelt: the Apprenticeship - Assistant SecretarY of the Nayy Franklin D.
Roosevelt found an old statute under which the President could proceed without fresh
authorization from Congress. Roosevelt, impatient for action, was irritated because Wilson
waited a few days before implementing the statute.
Lincoln had drawn most heavily upon his power as Commander-in-Chief; Wilson exercised
emergency power on the basis of old statutes and sweeping new legislation-thus drawing
on congressional delegation as a source of authority: The most significant Wilsonian
innovations were economic, including a wide array of defense and war agencies, modeled
to some extent upon British wartime
(3)

APX-143

precedents. In August 1916 just prior to the United States entry into the war, Congress at
Wilson's behest established a Council ofNational Defense-primarily advisory. In 1917, a
War Industries Board, also relatively we~ began operating. The ineffectiveness of the
economic mobilization led Republicans in Congress - in the winter of 1917-1918 to
demand a coalition War Cabinet similar to that in England. Wtlson forestalled Congress by
proposing legislation delegating him almost total economic power and, even before
legislative approval, authorized the War Industries Board to exercise extensive powers.
~ubseguently Congress enacted Wilson's measure, the Overman Act in April 1918. Other
legislation extended the economic authority of the Government in numerous directions.
Following the allied victory, Wilson relinquished his wartime authority and asked Congress
to repeal the emergency statutes, enacted to fight more effectively the war. Only a foodcontrol measure and the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act were retained. Thls procedure
of terminating emergency powers when the particular emergency itself bas, in fact,
ended bas not been consistently followed by his successors.
The next major development in the use of executive emergency powers came under
Franklin D. Roosevelt The Great Depression had already overtaken the country by the time
of Roosevelt's inauguration and confronted him with a totally different crisis. This
emergency, unlike those of the past, presented a nonmilitary threat. The Roosevelt
administration, however, conceived the economic crisis to be a calamity equallY as great as
~ war and employed the metaphor of war to emphasize the depression's severity. In his ~
inaugural address, Roosevelt said: ''1 shall ask the Congress for the one remaining.
iw;trument to meet the crisis-broad executive power to wage a war against the emer~
~s great as the power that would be given me if we were in fact invaded by a forei~."
Many of the members of tbe Roosevelt administration, including F.D.R. himself: were
veterans of the economic mobilization of World War I and drew upon their experiences to
combat the new situation. The first New Deal agencies, indeed, bore strong resemblance to
wartime agencies and many bad the term "emergency" in their titles-such as the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration and the National Emergency Council.

In his first important official act, Roosevelt proclaimed a National Bank Holiday on the
bwis of the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act- itself a wartime delegation of power. New
Deal historian William E. Leuchtenburg writes:

When he sent his banking bill to Congress, the House received it with much the same ardor as it
had greeted Woodrow Wilson's war legislation. Speaker Rainey said the situation reminded him
of the late war when "on both sides of this Chamber the great war measures suggested by the
administration were supported with practical unanimity....Today we are engaged in another war.
more serious even in its character and presenting greater dangers to the Reoublic." After only 38
o,Ynutes debate. the House passed the administration's banking bill. sight unsttn.

(4)

APX-144

iCf\
~

The Trading With the Enemy Act had, however, been specifically designed by its
originators to meet only wartime exigencies. By employing it to meet the demands of the
depression, Roosevelt greatly extended the concept of "emergencies" to which expansion of
executive powers might be applied. And in so doing, he established a pattern that was
followed frequently; Io time of crisis the President should utilize any statutory authority
readily at hand, regardless of its original pwposes, with the firm expectation of ex post
facto congressional concurrence.
Beginning with F.D.R, then, extensive use of delegated powers exercised under an aura of
crisis has become a donrinant aspect of the presidency. Concomitant with this development
has been a demeaning of the significance of "emergency." It became a term used to evoke
public and congressional approbation, often bearing little actual relation to events.
Roosevelt brain-truster, Rexford G. ]Ugwell, has described the manner in which Roosevelt
used declarations of diferent degrees of emergency:

The ''limited emergency" was a creature of Roosevelt's imagination, used to
make it seem that he was doing less than he was. He did not want to create any
more furor than was necessary. The qualifying adjective had no limiting force.
It was purely for public effect. But the finding that an emergency existed
opened a whole armory of powers to the Commander-in-Chief. far more than
Wilson had had.

Roosevelt and his successor, Harry S. Truman, invoked formal states of emergency to
justify extensive delegations of authority during actual t:iines of war. The Korean war,

however, by the fact of its never having been officially decLared a "war'' as such by
Congress, further diluted the concept of what constituted circumstances sufficiently critical
to warrant the delegation of extraordinary authority to the President.
At the end of the Korean war, moreover, the official state of emergency was not terminated.
It is not yet terminated. This may be primarily attributed to the continuance of the Cold War
atmosphere which, until recent years, made the imminent threat of hostilities an accepted
fact of everyday life, with "emergency" the normal state of affairs. ln this, what is for all
practical purposes, o.ermanent state of emergency, Presidents have exercised numerous
powers - most notably under the Trailing With the Enemy Act - legitimated by that ongoing
state of national emergency. Hundreds of others have lain fallow, there to be exercised at

APX-145

any time, requiring only an order from the President.

Besides the 1933 l and Korean war emergencies,6 two other states of declared national
emergency remain in existence. On March 23, 1970, confronted by a strike of Postal
Service employees, President Nixon declared a national emergency} The following year,
on August

Note 1: SeeAppendix. p. 594.
2:- Ibid

3 -Ibid, p. 596.
(5)

15, 1971, Nixon proclaimed another emergency,l under which he imposed stringent import
controls in order to meet an international monetary crisis. Because of its general language,
however, that proclamation could serve as sufficient authority to use a substantial
proportion of all the emergency statutes now on the books.

Over the course of at least the last 40 years, then, Presidents have had available an
enormous - seemingly expanding and never-ending - range of emergency powers. Indeed,

at their fullest extent and during the height of a crisis, these "prerogative" powers appear to
be virtually unlimited, confirming Locke's perceptions. Because Congress and tbe public
~re unaware of the extent of emergency powers, there bas never been any notable
<;ongressional or public objection made to this state of affairs. Nor have the courts
imposed significant limitations.
During the New Deal, the Supreme Court initially struck down much of Roosevelt's
emergency economic legislation (Schecter v. United States, 295 U.S. 495). However,
political pressures, a change in personnel. and presidential. threats of court-packing soon
altered this course of decisions (NLRB v. Jones &Lauqhlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1). Since
1987 1 the Court bas been extremely reluctant to invalidate any congressional delegation of

APX-146

economic powers to the President. It appears that this will not change in the foreseeable
future.
In a significant case directly confronting the issue of wartime emergency powers>
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co_ v_ Sawyer (343 U.S. 579), the Court refused to allow the
President to rely upon (mplied constitutional powers during a crisis. The action at issue
involved presidential seizure of steel plants in a manner apparently directly at odds with
congressional policy, Justice Black's plurality opinion specifically acknowledges that if
Congress delegates powers to the President for use during an emergency those powers are
absolutely valid within constitutional restraints on Congress' own power to do so.
Concurring opinions appear to agree on this point. It should be note~ therefore, that all
statutes in this compilation are precisely these kinds of specific congressional delegations
of power_

The 2,000-year-old problem of how a legislative body in a democratic republic may extend
extraordinary powers for use by the executive during times of great crisis and dire
emergency - but do so in wavs assuring both that such necessary powers will be terminated
immediately when the emergency has ended and that normal processes will be resumed has not yet been resolved in this country. Too few are aware of the existence of emergen,~y
P.Owers and their extent, and the problem has never been squarely faced.

B- SUMMARY VIEWS OF THE PRESENT STATUS
OF EMERGENCY POWERS STATUTES
A review of the laws passed since the first state of national emergency was declared in
1933, reveals a consistent pattern of lawmaking. It is a pattern showing that the Congress,
through its own actions, transferred awesome magnitudes of power to the executive
ostensibly to meet the problems of governing effectively in times of great crisis. Since
1933, Congress has passed or recodified over 470 significant statutes delegating to the
President powers that had been

Note 1: Ibid, p. 597.
(6)

APX-147

the prerogative and responsibility of the Congress since the beginning of the Republic. No
charge can be sustained that the Executive branch has usurped powers belonging to the
Legislative branch; on the contrary, the transfer of power has been in accord with due
process of norm.al legislative procedures.

It is fortunate that at this time that, when the fears and tensions of the cold war are giving
way to relative peace and detente is now national policy. Congress can assess the nature,
quality, and effect of whai has become !mown as emergency powers legislation. Emergency
powers make up a relatively small but important body of statutes- some 470 significant
provisions of law out of the total of tens of thousands that have been passed or recodified
since 1933. But emergency powers laws are of such significance to civil liberties, to the
operation of domestic and foreign commerce, and the general functioning of the U.S.
Government, fuat, in microcos~ they reflect dominant trends in the political, economic,
and judicial life in the United States.
A number of conclusions can be drawn from the Special Committee's study and analysis of
emergency powers laws now in effect Congress has in most important respects, except for
the final action of floor debate and the formal passage of bills, permitted the Executive
branch to draft and in large measure to "make the laws." This bas occurred despite the
constitutional responsibility confecred on Congress by Article I Section 8 of the
Constitution which states that it is Congress that ''makes all Laws ... ''
Most of the statutes pertaining to emergency powers were passed in times of extreme crisis.
Bills drafted in the Executive branch were sent to Congress by the President and, in the
case of the most significant laws that ate on the books, were approved with only the most

perfunctory committee Teview and virtually no consideration of their effect on ciVll liberties
or the delicate structure of the U.S. Government of divided powers. For example, the JtAII
, ~
_
1
economic measures that were passed in 1933 pursuant to the proclamation of March 5, y 1\ ~ w
1933, by President Roosevelt, asserting that a state of national emergency now existed,
were enacted in !he most turbulent circumstances. There was a total of only 8 hours of
debate in both houses. There were no committee reports; indeed, only one copy of the bill

was available an the floor.
This pattern of hasty and inadequate consideration was repeated during World War n when
another group of laws with vitally significant and far reaching implications was passed. It
was repeated during the Korean war and, again, in most recent memory, during the debate
on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution passed on August 6, 1064.
/

On occasion, legislative history shows that during the limited debates that did take place, a
few, but very few, objections were raised by Senators and Congressmen that expressed
serious concerns about the lack of provision for congressional oversight. Their speeches

APX-148

d.
qfu (

raised great doubts about the wisdom of giving such open-ended authority to the President.
with no practical procedural means to withdraw that authority once the time of emergency
had passed.
For example, one of the very first provisions passed in 1933 was the Emergency Banking
Act based upon Section S(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917. The provisions
gave to President Roosevelt, with the full approval of the Congress, the authority

(7)

Jk /1 ov N. -~ d/_tit ~ vd t-o c:;L ~ .de
p.i~

\t

~ ~ftv~IAV li~ ~ fl~

.- -

to control major aspects of the economy, an authority which had formerly been reserved to
the Congress. A portion of that provision. still in force, is quoted here to illustrate the kind
of open-ended authority Congress bas given to the President during the past 40 years:

(1) During the time of war or during any other period of national emergency
declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may
designate, or otherwise, and under such rules and regulations as he may
prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise -

(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign
exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or
to any banking institution, and the importing, exporting, hoarding,
melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or
securities, and

(B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or
prohibit, any acquisition. holding,. withholding, use, transfer,
withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing
in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or
transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country
or a national thereof has any interest.

by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jwisdiction of the

-' p.~

,I

~ lie [JMM
APX-149

}1-aJ;. r
tJ - 33-

United States; and any property or interest of any foreign country or national
thereof shall vest, when, as, and upon the tellJ.lS, directed be the President, in
such agency or person as may be designated from time to time by the President,
and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescnbe such interest
or property shall be held, used, administered, liqlllidated, sold, or otherwise
dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of 1he United States, and such
designated agency or person may perform any rund all acts incident to the
accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes; and the President shall, in the
manner hereinabove provided, require any person to keep a full record of, and
to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or othetwise, complete information
relative to any act or transaction referred to in this subdivision either before,
during, or after the completion thereof, or relative to any interest in foreign
property, or relative to any property in which a:m.y foreign country or any
national thereof has or has had anger interest, or as may be otherwise necessary
to enforce the provisions of this subdivision, and in any case in which a report
could be required, the President may, in the maimer hereinabove provided,
receive the production, or if necessary to the national security or defense, the
seizure, of any books of account, records, contracts, letters. memoranda. or
other papers, in the custody or control of such person; and the President, may,
in the manner hereinabove provided, take other and further measures not
inconsistent herewith for the enforcement of this subdivision~
(2) Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment~ or delivery of property or
interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise
directed, pursuant to this subdivision or any rule, regulation, instruction,

(8)

or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and
discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and
no person shall be held liable in any court for or in. respect to anything done or
omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or in pursuance
of and in reliance on, this subdivision, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or
direction issued hereunder.

APX-150

-

To cite two further examples:
ln the context of the war powers issue and the long debate of the past decade over national
commitments, 10 U.S.C. 712 is of importance:

10 U.S.C. 712. Foreign governments: detail to assist.

(a) Upon the application of the country concerned, the President,
whenever he considers it in the public interest, may detail members
of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps to assist in military
matters-

(1) any republic in North America, Central America, or
South America;
(2) the Republic of Cuba, Haiti, or Santo Domingo and

(3) during a war or a declared national emergency, any
other country that he considers it advisable to assist in
the interest of national defense.

(b) Subject to the prior approval of the Secretary of the military
department concerned, a member detailed under this section may
accept any office from the country to which be is detailed. He is
entitled to credit for all service while so detailed, as if serving with
the armed forces of the United States. Arrangements may be made
by the President, with countries to which such members are detailed
to perform functions under this section, for reimbursement to the
United States or other sharing of the cost of performing such
functions.

The Defense Department in answer to inquiries by the Special Committee concerning this
provision, bas stated that it has only been used with regard to Latin America, and interprets
its applicability as being limited to noncombatant advisers. However, the language of
Section 712 is wide open to other interpretations. It could be construed as a way of
extending considerable military assistance to any foreign country. Since Congress has
delegated this power, arguments could be made against the need for further congressional
concurrence in a, time of national emergency.

APX-151

The repeal of almost all of the Emergency Detention Act of 1950 was a constructive and
neoessary step, but the following provision remains:
18. U.S.C. 1383. Restrictions in military areas and zones.

Whoever, contrary to the restrictions applicable thereto, enters, remains in,
leaves, or commits any act in any military area or military zone prescribed
under the authority of an Executive order of the President, by the Secretary of
the Army, or by any military commander designated by the Secretary of the
Army, shall, if it appears that he knew or
(9)

should have known of the existence and extent of the restrictions or order and
that his act was in violation thereof, be fined not more fuan $5,000 or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

18 U.S.C. 1383 does not appear on its face to be an emergency power. It was used as the
basis for internment of Japanese-Americans in World War IT. Although it seems to be cast
as a permanent power, the legislative history of the section shows that the statute was
intended as a World War IT emergency power only, and was not to apply in "normal"
peacetime circumstances. Two years ago, the Emergency Detention Act was repealed, yet
18 U.S.C. 1383 has almost the same effect.
Another pertinent question among many, that the Special Committee's work bas revealed,
concerns the statutory authority for domestic surveillance by the FBl. According to some
experts, the authority for domestic surveillance appears to be based upon an Executive
Order issued by President Roosevelt during an emergency period. If it is correct that no
firm statutory authority exists, then it is reasonable to suggest that the appropriate
committees enact proper statutory authority for the FBI with adequate provision for
oversight by Congress.
What these examples suggest and what the magnitude of emergency powers affinn is that

APX-152

most of these laws do not provide for congressional oversight or termination. There are two
reasons which can be adduced as to why this is so. First, few, if any, foresaw that the
temporary states of emergency declared in 1938, 1939, 1'94"1, 1950, 1970, and 1971 would
become what are now regarded collectively as virtually pt~rmanent states of emergency (the
1939 and 1941 emergencies were terminated in 1952). Forty years can, in no way, be
defined as a temporary emergency. Second, the various admin.istrations who drafted these
laws for a variety of reasons were understandably not concerned about providing for
congressional review, oversight, or termination of these delegated power's which gave the
President enormous powers and flexibility to use those powers.
The intense anxiety and sense of crisis was contained in the rhetoric of Truman's 1950
proclamation:
·-=--

Whereas recent events in Korea and elsewhere constitute a grave threat to the
peace of the world and imperil the efforts of this country and those of the
United Nations to prevent aggression and armed conflict; and
Whereas world conquest by communist imperialism is the goal of the forces of
aggression that have been loosed upon the world; and
Whereas, if the goal of communist imperialism were to be achieved, the people
of this country would no longer enjoy the full and riich life they have with God's
help built for themselves and their children; they would no longer enjoy the
blessings of the freedom of worshipping as they severally choose, the freedom
of reading and listening to what they choose, the right of free speech, including
the right to criticize their Government, the right to choose those who will con-

(10)

duct their Government, the right to engage freely in collective bargaining, the
right to engage freely in their own business enterprises, and the many other
freedoms and rights which are a part of our way of life; and
Whereas, the increasing menace of the forces of communist aggression requires
that the oational defense of the United States be strengthened as speedily as

A-3l
APX-153

possible:
Now, therefore, I, Harry S. Truman, President of the United States of America,
do proclaim the existence of a national emergency, which requires that tlie
military, naval, air, and civilian defenses of this country be strengthened as
speedily as possible to the end that we may be able to repel any and all threats
against our national security and to fulfill our responsibilities in the efforts
being made through the United Nations and otherwise to bring about lasting
peace.

1 summon all citizens to make a united effort for the security and well-being of
our beloved country and to place its needs foremost in thought and action that
the full moral and material strength of the Nation may be readied for the
dangers which threaten us.
I summon our farmers, our workers in industry, and our businessmen to make a
mighty production effort to meet the defense requirements of the Nation and to
this end to eliminate all waste and inefficiency and to subordinate all lesser
interests to the common good.
I summon every person and every community to make~ with a spirit of
neighborliness, whatever sacrifices are necessary for the welfare of the Nation.
I summon all State and local leaders and officialsto cooperate fully with the
military and civilian defense agencies of the United States in the national
defense program.

I summon all citizens to be loyal to the principles upon which our Nation is
founded, to keep faith with our friends and allies, and to be firm in our devotion
to the peaceful purposes for which the United Nations was founded.

I am confident that we will meet the dangers that confront us with courage and
determination, strong in the faith that we can thereby "secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.''
In witness whereo~ I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the

United
States
of
America
to
be
affixed.
Done at the City of Washington this 16th day of December (1 0:90 a.m.) in the
year of our Lord nineteen hundred and fifty, and of the Independence of the
United States of America the one hundred and seventy-fifth.

HARRY S. TRUMAN
[SEAL]
By the President:

DEAN ACHESON,
Secretary ofState

APX-154

(11)

The heightened sense of crisis of the cold war so evident in Truman's proclamation has
fortunately eased. The legislative shortcomings contained in this body of laws can be
corrected on the basis of rational study and inquiry.
In the view of the Special Committee, an emergency does not now exist. Congress,

therefore, should act in the near future to terminate officially the states of national
emergency now in effect.
At the same time, the Special Committee is of the view that it is essential to provide the
means for the Executive to act effectively in an emergency. It is reasonable to have a body
of laws in readiness to delegate to the President extraordinary powers to use in times of real
national emergency. The portion of the concurring opinion given by Justice Jackson in the
Youngstown Steel case with regard to emergency powers provides sound and pertinent
guidelines for the maintenance of such a body of emergency laws kept in readiness to be
used in times of extreme crisis. Justice Jackson, supporting the majority opinion that the
"President's power must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself'
wrote:

The appeal, however, that we declare the existence of inherent powers ex
necessitate to meet an emergency asks us to do what many think would be wise,
although it is something the forefathers omitted. They knew what emergencies
were, knew tbe pressures they engender for authoritative action, knew, too, how
they afford a ready pretext for usurpation. We may also suspect that they
suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies. Aside from
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in time of rebellion or
invasion~ when the public safety may require it. they made no express provision
for exercise of extraordinary authority because of a crisis. I do not think we
rightfully may so amend their work, and, if we could, I am not convinced it
would be wise to do so, although many modem nations have forthrightly
recognized that war and economic crises may upset the normal balance between
liberty and authority. Their experience with emergency powers may not be
irrelevant to the argument here that we should say that the Executive. of his
own volition, can invest himself with undefined emergency powers.

APX-155

@

Germany, after the First World War, framed the Weimar Constitution, designed
to secure her liberties in the Western tradition. However, the President of the
Republic, without concurrence of the Reichstag, was empowered temporarily to
suspend any or all individual rights if public safety and order were seriously
disturbed or endangered. This proved a temptation to every government1
whatever its shade of opinion, and in 13 years suspension of rights was invoked
on more than 250 occasions. Finally, Hitler persuaded President Von
Hindenburg to suspend ail such rights, and they were never restored.
The French Republic provided for a very different kind of emergency
government known as the "state of seige." It differed from the German
emergency dictatorship particularly in that emergency powers could not be

assumed at will
(12)

by the Executive but could only be granted as a parliamentary measure. And it
did not, as in Germany, result in a suspension or abrogation of law but was a
legal institution governed by special legal rules and terminable by
parliamentary authority.
Great Britain also has fought both World Wars under a sort of temporary
dictatorship created by legislation. As Parliament is not bound by written
constitutional limitations, it established a crisis government simply by
delegation to its Ministers of a larger measure than usual of its own unlimited
power. which is exercised under its supervision by Ministers whom it may
dismiss, This has been called the ''high-water mark in the voluntary sWTender of

liberty," but, as Churchill put it, "Parliament stands custodian of these
surrendered liberties, and its most sacred duty will be to restore them in their
fullness when victory has crowned our exertions and our perseverance." Thus,
parliamentary controls made emergency powers compatible with freedom.
This contemporary foreign experience may be inconclusive as to the wisdom of
lodging emergency powers somewhere in a modem government. But it suggests
that emergency powers are consistent with free government only when their
control is lodged elsewhere than in the Executive who exercises them. That is
the safeguard that would be nullified by our adoption of the "inherent pointers''

APX-156

formula. Nothing in my experience convinces me that such risks are warranted
by any real necessity, although such powers would, of course, be an executive
convenience.

In the practical working of our Government we already have evolved a
technique within the framework of the Constitution by which normal executive
powers may be considerably expanded to meet an emergency~ Congress may
and bas granted extraordinary authorities which lie dormant in normal times but
may be called into play by the Executive in war or upon proclamation of a
national emergency. In 1939, upon congressional request, the Attorney General
listed ninety-nine such separate statutory grants by Congress of emergency or
wartime executive powers. They were invoked from time to time as need
appeared. Under this procedure we retain Government by taw-special,
temporary law, perhaps, but law nonetheless. The public may know the extent
and limitations of the powers that can be asserted, and persons affected may be
informed from the statute of their rights and duties.

In view of the ease, expedition and safety with which Congress can grant and
has granted large emergency powers, certainly ample to embrace this crisis, I
am quite unimpressed with the argument that we should affirm possession of
them without statute. Such power either has no beginning or it has no end>If it
exists, it need submit to no legal restraint. I am not alarmed that it would plunge
us straightway into dictatorship, but it is at least a step in that wrong direction.

*

*

*

*

*

*

24-509 0-73 -3

(13)

But 1 have no illnsion that any decision by this Court can keep power in the
hands of Congress if it is not wise and timely in meeting its problems. A crisis
that challenges the President equally1 or perhaps primarily, challenges Congress.

APX-157

If not good law, there was worldly wisdom in the maxim attributed to Napoleon
that "The tools belong to the man who can use them.'' We may say that power to
legislate for emergencies belongs in the hands of Congress, but only Congress
itself can prevent power from slipping through its fingers.
The essence of our free Government is "leave to live by no man's leave,
underneath the law" - to be governed by those impersonal forces which we call
law. Our Government is fashioned to fulfill this concept so far as humanly
possible. The Executive, except for recommendation and veto, has no
legislative power. The executive action we have here originates in the
individual will of the President and represents an exercise of authority without
law. No one, perhaps not even the President, knows the limits of the power he
may seek to exert in this instance and the parties affected cannot learn the limit
of their rights. We do not know today what powers over labor or property would
be claimed to flow from Government possession if we should legalize it, what
rights to compensation would be claimed or recognized, or on what
contingency it would end. With all its defects, delays and in-conveniences, men
have discovered no technique for long preservmg free government except that
the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary
deliberations.
Such institutions may be destined to pass away. But it is the duty of the Court to
be last, not first, to give them up.

With these guidelines and against the background of experience of the last 40 years, the
task that remains for the Special Committee is to determine - in close cooperation with all
the Standing Committees of the Senate and aU Departments, Commissions, and Agencies of
the Executive branch - which of the laws now in force might be of use in a future
emergency. Most important, a legislative formula needs to be devised which will provide a
regular and consistent procedure by which any emergency provisions are called into force.
lt will also be necessary to establish a means by which Congress can exercise effective
oversight over such actions as are taken pursuant to a state of national emergency as well as
providing a regular and consistent procedure for the termination of such grants of authority.
24-509 0- 73 -.3

(14)

APX-158

-

COMPILING THE TEXTS OF EMERGENCY POWER STATUTES
Pursuant to S. Res. 9 of January 6, 1973, the U.S. Senate directed the Sp ecial Committee on
the Termination of the National Emergency to study and investigate emergency powers
legislation now in force.
From the outset of its work, the Special Committee faced the problem of determining, with
reasonable accuracy, the number, nature, and extent of emergency statutes passed by
Congress since 1933 which delegate extraordinary powers to the President in time of crisis
or impending catastrophe. lt was evident, initially. that existing listings of executive
emergency powers were either out-of-date or inadequate for the Special Committee's
purposes. It became apparent, too, that the United States Government has been operating
under an unrelieved state of emergency of 40 years' duration. Doring this period, an
enormous body of laws dealing with severe economic crisis and America's response to three
wars had been passed by Congress through an almost unnoticed process of gradual
accretion.

In the past, the only way to compile a catalog useful to Congress would have required
going through every page of the 86 volumes of the Statutes-at-Large. Fortunately, the U.S.
Code (1970 edition and one supplement) was put onto computer tapes by the United States
Air Force in the so-called LITE System, which is located at a military facility in the State of
Colorado. The Special Committee staff, working in conjunction with the Justice
Department, the Library of Congress, and the General Accounting Office, devised several
programs for computer searches. These programs were based on a wide spectrum of key
words and phrases contained in typical provisions of law , which delegate extraordinary
powers. Examples of some trigger words are "national emergency,'' "war," "national
defense," "invasion," "insurrection," etc. These programs. designed to produce a computer
printout of all provisions of the U.S. Code that pertain to a state of war or national
emergency, resulted in several thousand citations. At this point, the Special Committee staff
and the staff of the American Law Division, Library of Congress, went through the
printouts, separated out all those provisions of the U.S, Code most relevant to war or
national emergency, and weeded out those provisions of a trivial or extremely remote
nature. Two separate teams worked on the computer printouts and the results were put
together in a third basic list of U.S. Code citations.
To determine legislative intent, the U.S. Code citations were then band checked against the
Statutes-at-Large, the Reports of Stand-

(15)

APX-159

ing Committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives and, where applicable,
Reports of Senate and House Conferences.
In addition. the laws passed since the publishing of the 1970 Code were checked and
relevant citations were added to the master list. The compilation was then checked against
existing official catalogs: That of the Department of Defense, "Digest of War and
Emergency Legislation Affecting the Department of Defense"; that of the Once of
Emergency Planning, "Guide to the Emergency Powers Conferred by Laws in Effect on
January 1, 1969"; and, the 1962 House Judiciary Committee synopsis of emergency
powers, "Provisions of Federal Law in Effect in Time of National Emergency."
The task of compiling a catalog of emergency powers statutes, therefore, has been
immeasurably assisted by use of computers, but computers could not replace the need for a
systematic and very laborious hand search of all of the volumes of the U.S. Code, the
Statutes-at-Large, and Senate and House Reports. The following compilation is intended to
be used as a working list of the most relevant emergency provisions of the law. The Special
Committee cannot be certain that every statute that could or may be called into use during a
time of war or national emergency is in the following compilation. However, the Special
Committee believes that the most significant provisions are herein cataloged.
The compilation is organized as follows:

1. A summary of all the U.S. Code citations in order of their appearance in the
Code, and specific Public Laws with the Congress and the year they were
enacted.

2. The texts of U.S. Code citations and Public Laws with exl>lanatory notes and
such material from Senate and House Reports which explains Congress'
primary mtent concerning these provisions of law.
3. Citation of statutes in accordance to committee jurisdictions.

The appendix contains:

1. Seven tables that list various breakdowns of the usage of the United States
Code.

z. The four proclamations of national emergency now in effect.
3. A subject index.
( 16)

APX-160

End of Senate Report 93-549

APX-161

PUBLIC LAW 94-412-SEPT. 14. 1976

90 STAT. 1255

Public Law 94-412
.-- .....-.... 94th Congress

An Act
To tonuiJllltC certu.iu autlJOrilit:S "itll ~ to n:1tionn.L etn~enties :;lill In

elrect. and t•• prQ\'lde Cur Ortlctly illl{llewent:utiun
natlon:ll cmen,'!.'ncitl'.

~d

termination of fUture

fJe ·i f t:IWcff.-u{ b!f lite .'l'tll(l/c rwt/ flou~e oj BepreMnta.ti-vu of tlu;
P.nit··cl St11ies uf .:l.muier~ iu ()ougn.O.S$ a!fBentble<l, Tlult, this Act may

be cited as the :c~atiorut l

TITLE

Emt>r:.>Fnri~ A<'t.....

1-TER.Mt~ATIKG

I-.!XISTIXG DECLARED

Sept.

1~. 1976

LR.R. 3884)

Natiu.oal

Emergeot:ies Act.
50 usc 1601
note.

I<;~~RCTE~Cillf:i

:"t·:c 101. ( n) .\.11 pnwel's uml:wtiJorities pos;l'~S&"l by the President. 50 USC 1601.
nny other otlic,•r or t-Ill ploy(•c o£ t11e Fedet·al C'r0verrunent., Ol' illiY
exermth·c ngl'll\;y. a,; deRued in !>(•ction 10() 1>f titlt> 5, Uni.t~d Stati!S
Code. :ts n l'rsult of the e~istl'nce of nny dec:lnrntion of national emPJ'·
;.,rt>n~_-y ill t-1i't>t·t on tlw ~lat~ of en:tctm~m of this A<'t :we l<!.tminoted two
yl.'ars from the datt• of :;m.:h t>nael.llleut. Such tm-mination sball not
;Utt'~;:t-

(1)

uny

ur.tio~

t akeu or proceeding pencling not fumlly c:on-

d mlerl onletel'l1\li1Pd 011 sucl1 datt' ;

(:1\ :w~· action or pt·oce.•(ling lm;;ed on :my act <'Olnroitted prior
to such dRt~; or
(3) nny right; or dlJiit'S th:t1 m:ttured OJ' penalties that we1•e
incm·rP.d prior to such <late.
( h) For thP purp(~ of this Sl'ction. tht' words "any national ~mer· ··Any national
1!\'n<':t" in pffeei}1 mmlll5 n ~*nPrnl rleclamtion of emergency mnde hy emergency iu
the Pl'e::iueut.
errec~:·

TI1T..E

IJ-ni:WL-U:ATIO~S

OF FuTC'RE

'X.i'I'IO~A.L

R;,\l.E.ll GE~ CTES
SF.<:. 20L (n} With t'<'.SPI!<'t to A<·h; of Ct\D&'l'PSS authorizing the
the period of :1 J.t ationn.l emergency: of any spt!cio.l
Ol' eA-nnorrlwn1·y }HI\"P.l\ tbe Prt>sldl!llt is unthorized to declare sncl1
n:~f:i.ollltl Cnll'l':!em·~·. Sudt prodnmation shall immediately be t r nnsmJf,ttHl to the rougr•'S5 nnJ. published in the Federal Registm-.
(h) .\ny pro,·ision!'\ of ktw conf~rring po..,·e.rs nnd authori ti~ to be
.~x..:l'l'ij:~·rl olm·jn~ n uation:J] t!mt: r·~eocy 'shaJI ~ e1TPc>tivt> a.nd remnin
it• l•ll'el'l (1) mtlv when the Pt·Midt>nt (in accordance with subsection
( n) of l:his "N:tlon). !'pl•cificnny decl111'1';; :~ national emergency. nncl
(~) ronl~· in :lt'conlnnce with this Act. No law enn.ctcd after the' dntc
llt enn.dment. ot thi." Act slu1l1 ;;upP.I'SNle this title unk'SS it docs so in
specitic terms. refet'l'in:r to this tit.Je. and dednrin~ that the new law
;mpcrsedrs tlHI JH'O\>i:;ions of this title-.
SEC. 202. ( n) Any national emergency decla.rcd by the President
iu :JI~Cord:mcP. \Vith this title sllllll fet·ruin:m: if. ( 1) Co u~·QS.S terminntes the 12mergency by concurrent t·csolu-

50 USl. 1621.

('XI'rciSE'. durin~

non; or
(2) the P1•csidtmt issues

:.1

procl~tio11

PcesidcntiuJ

proclamation,
tr~~ru~mhtal

to

Coogrt!Ss;
publlcatiuu i.u

Federal Register.

Tcrwim'fljon.
50 usc 1622.

terminating the

emergency.

Jt~ ~

0--<f

~

ffi

r/

Mc~t-~Jp,~~f

-

~ ~ ~~ . SU- ft<.f<-1)-~PI
·(~ V, ~tTe.-- So:J-(a_){t) ,
APX-162

A -lib

90 STAT. 1256
Tenninatioo date.

PUBLIC LAW 94-412-SEPT. 14,1976
Any national emergency dt>.cl:rrecl by the President shnll be terminated
ou the dnte specified m nny concurrent resolution referred to in clause
(l} or on the date specified in n prodnmn.tion by the President tenninnting tho emergellcy as provided in clause (2) of this subsectio~
whichever date is earlier. and any powers or authorities e~ercised by
rMson oi said emergency shnll ce8se to be exercised after such specified
date, e."Ccept that Sl\cll termination shnll not ntlect-

(A) nny action taken or proceeding pending not finally eon-

eluded or detennined on such dnte;

.

(B) any action or proceeding based on nny ar.t committed p1·ior

to snch date; or
(C) o.ny riehts or cluties thnt mn.tured o-r peMlties thL\t were

incurred pt-iorto snch dnte.
(h) Not h\hrr than. six months after (). nu.tional emer~cy is
clrclu.red, and noL later tbnn tlle end of cuclt sis-month period tllere-

a.fter t.bnt su<:h cn1er~ency continues~ ench House of Congress sh.nll
m1•et to t•onsu{e•· a vote on

Concurrent

resotution,
refer:rnl to

cougres-'lioru~.l

committee!'.

Confl!n!nce

committee, filing

.,r report.

3-

concurrent resolution to detei'Jllme.

whether that emer:zency sl1all hl'l terminated.

(c) (1) A concul'rent resolution to tet'minute n. nntiouu.I emergency

declared by tltl! P)·csident sh;tll be referred to t.he appropriate committee of tl1~ Hou~c of Rcprc~ntntives or the Sennte, us the case may
b£t One snell concurrent resolution slmll be reported out by such committee togetl1er with its recomroendntions within 6ftee.n c:a.lendnr days
nftet· the day on whit•h sucl1 resolution is 1·eferred to such commit.tee,
uu]ess such House shall otherwise dete.nnine by the yeas nnd na.vs.
(2) .!ny concurrent resolution so reported shnll become Uu~ pend-

jng b11s:iness of t1le House in question (in the c:l!!e of the Senate the
Umo for debate shall l>e equa.lly divided het.ween the proponents and
tlnl opponents ) n.nd shall be vo~ on within three cnlendo.r days after
the day on which such resolution is reportPd', unless such House shn.ll
otherwi~ determine hY yeas and na.vs.
(3) Such 11. concnirent tt'.solution passed bv one House shall be
referred to the nppropri.a te committee of the other House and shall be
reportecl out. by such committee. together with its recommendations
within fifte~n calendar days a.tur the do.y on which such resolution is
referred to such committee n.nd sha.ll thereupon .become the pending
business <>f such House and shnll he voted upon within three caleudar
do.ys o.fter the dny on~bich snch resolution is reported, unless sueh
House sha.ll ot.het·wise determine by yeas and uays.
(4) In the case of nnv disagreement betwew the two Houses of
Congress with respect to i concurrent resolution passed by both Houses,
conferees sl1:tU be promptly appointed and the committee of conferen~
shnll mnke antl fiJc. a report with respect to such concurrent resolution
within sD: co.lenda.r da.vs after the day on which ma.na:r.ers on tbe part
of the Senate nnd the-House hn.ve been appointed. Notwithstanding
o.ny rule in either House conc~rning ·&he printing of conference reports
ot conoemincr o.ny delay iu the considerntion of such t"ep01ts, such
r·eport shall l:e acted on by both Houses not l1l.-tor thnn SLX calendar
days nfter the conierence report. is filed in the Rouse in which such
report .js filed first~ In the event tbe conferees n.t-c una.}>le to a...~e
\Vitbin forty-eight hours, they shall report back to theJr ~spective
Honses in wSl!.gl'U.ment.

APX-163

PVBUC LAW 94-412-SEPT.l4, 1976
_-

90 STAT. 1257

(~) Po.ragra.p~s (1}-(4) of ~is subsection, subsection {b) of this
sectio11. n.nd section :.tO"~(b) of tblS Act are enacted by Cong_r1!SSPos!.. p. 1258.
(.A) ns an e~ewse o£ ~e rulem~ power of the Sena.te nnd
tl1e Hoose of Repre::c.ni:!Lttves, re.spect1vely, IUld a.s suc.h they aro
deemed a par~ of th~ rules of en.eh House, respectively, but applicable only WJtb res})cct to the procedure to be followed in. the
House in the ca..cte of n.-soluLious dcscribe1l by t.hls subsection; and
t~tey supe.rs.ede other rul es only to t.he extent th.:it they nra inconSl.Stent. ilierawith: and
(B) with full tt!cognition of the constitutional t·ight of either
House to change the rules (so far as rehting to the procedure of
rhn.t Ho11:-c:e) ut nlly tim~, iu Ute same man.n~r, e.nd to Ute sn.me
e:rtP.nt ns m the case of any other rule of that House.
( tl) Any nnti0llil1 emergency declurecl bv t.he President in nccord~ Publication in
aoe:e with this title, :Uld uot otherwise previousl,y termi:nnted. ::ilinll Feder11l Register.
tcl'minu.te on the a.nnh-ersary of the declaration of that emc.rgency if, tnmsmittal to
within the ninet,y-dn~· pel'iod prior to each annive1-sn.ry dD.Ll', tlie Prt>.si- Con~.
dent does not publish in the Federal Register nnd trllJlSlllit to tl1e
Congress a noti~ stating tl1at snch emergency .is to conhlnue iu effect
alter such llnnivet·sn.ry.
·

TITLE IIT-EXERCISE OF EMERGENCY POWERS AND
AUTITORITIF..S
Sv.1~. 301. "When t:hP. Pr·esident rledAres a national eme1·gency, nu so usc 1681.
powers or authorities made :~vnilnble by statute for nsc in the event of
;Ul cmcr~<'ncy shall be e."'tercised unless tUld until the President specifies
the provrsions of law under-which he proposes thn.t b.e, or ot.he•· Q:llicers
will act. Such specilication mu.y be made either in the decl:u-ation of o. Executive onlenr.
nnt.ion111 runer"ency: or by one or more oont~mpor&lleous or subsettllllllt publication in
Execntive orders published in tltc Federal Register and transmitted to Federal Regisre:r,

traJu;min:al to
Congress.

the Congres.'>.

TTTLE IV- ACCOli"NT.ABILITY

A~"'D

REPORTING

REQUIREMENTS 01<. THE PRESIDENT
S~r.c.

4111. (a) \Vhen th~ Pre~idt'nl declures n. ll4t;ionnl emergency, or Presidential

('ongl'I.'SS declares '1\'0.1'1 the President shall be resporurlble for maintain-

orders, rules and

ing n file ~tnd index of nll significru1t orders of the Pt-esident. including ~atioas. 6le
E:secutivc orders nnd procltlltlll.tions, o.nd each Executive agency sball mainteuan.ce.
50 usc 1641.
maintnin. a file and inde:x of a.U rules and re~rtuations. issued. during
sn~h umergency or war issued .[lUl'Su.tmt to such decla.mtions.
(b) All sucll sig:nificnnt. ot·tlers of the President, including Exer.n- Presidential
t.ivc onlet'l;, tt.nd such rules nnd regulations shu.ll l1e transmitted to orders,
to
the Congress promptly undru· menns to assmoe confiden.tiality where transmi\tlll
Congress.

a.ppropt'latE'.
(c) When the President declares u national ('.mergency Ol' Congress
ne~la.res war. tlte Pt·esident sbll transmit to C.ongress, '"it bin ninety
dnvs nff~r the end of each si:ot-month period after s uch clecltu·ation. a
report on the totnl expt>ncliturl's incurred hv the United States Go\'el:nn tent uuriug SUC:h Sl.'\:-ruODth period. which- ~U'e d1recth· att;ril>ut:LbJe to
the t>xeroise of powers ann :l.IJtllOl'ities eonferre~ by ;llcl) d~Jn l'l!.f:ion.
Not later than ninety days after the tC!nni.nation of each such emerg~ncy ~ war, the President shall transmit a final report 011 all such

expenditures.

APX-164

Expenditure&.
reports to
Congress.

90 STAT. 1258

PUBUC L.\W 94-412-SEPT. 14, 1976
TITLE V-llBPEAL .L.~ CO:NTThlJATION OF CERTAIN

EMERGEi'{CY POWER AND OTHER STATUTES
W5S of
Jt:ationality.

Leases.

DOD·

excess property.

Repeal,
Repl\:1.1.
Repeal.

Savings
pnwision.
50 usc 1601

uote.

SEc. 501. (a) Section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality

Act (8 U.S.C.l481(a)) isamended(1) at the ~nc{ of par~nrnph (!>), by strikiug out. ''; o1": and
Wer~ in lieu tJtereof :1 per1C1d; and
(2) hy strikiua out pnt~arapb (10).
(b) Section 266l(b) of title 10 of the United Stat~ Code 1s
amended(1} by in~ting "nud:' at the end of parngt-apb (3);
(2) by striking ont pu.ragraph ( -l) i nnrl
(3) uy redesignating pn.ragmph (5) {tl; (4).

(r) Tltl\ joint resolution entitlt'd ·'Joint resolut.ion to n.nthorizc the

tcmpO!'Ilry COlli inuntion of l'CgJUutlon of CQilstuneJ• Cl'I!Uit 11: llppl'O'l'Cd
Allgust S, 1!-lfi (12 C:.S.C. 24:9), is I·cpc.a\ed.
(d) SectioJt 5(mi of the Tenut!ssee Vnlley ..,\.l1t11oritv Acto( Hl~3
ns amended (1 G U.lS.C. M.Ld ( m)) is repealed.

(e) Section 1383 of title 18: trnited Stnt~s Cocw, is 1-epealed.
(f) Snctinn n of t.ho Act entitled "AJl Act. lo mnencl lhe Public
Healtl1 Sei'I'icr. Ac:t jn reJ-,rurd to eP.rtniu 111nttcrs of po1-sonncl nnd
ndmini!'rtratiou, :mel for oth!!l· purposes". a.p1wovcd FeL111nry 28, 1948,
is t\menlleJ hy striki.J1g out. sHbsections (h) (c), (d), (c), :md (f) {42
U.8.C. 21lb}.
(g) Aec·tiou 0 o"f the ~[crchmt Ship Snles Aet of 1M6 (DO U.S.C•
..:\.pp. tT-:1:2) is rcpeu.le<l

(h) This se('tion ~hnll not llfiect(1) nny acrion taken ot• proceeiling pending not fina.lJy conclutled or rlE'.tcrnrined at the fi:mo of repen.1;
(2) :lll~- action or proceeding based 011 auy net colll.lllitted priot·
t \I

-

50 USC ltiSl.

refe.:tl ; or

(3 any riglJts or duties that marurccl m· pen:tltics that \Ye:re
inrurred prior-to .repeal.
SE 502. a) The revisions of this .t sh U n t n lv
te :£ollmvbtg pl'ovjg971s of ln..-w. tn~ p()wer;; and nut orities eonf~tted
tllr.l't'!hv, nncl ttclions+.tken thereunder:
(ll Section Mb) of the Act of OctobP.l' 6. 1917. 11S amendea (1.2
. 91i • fiOU.S..C.A.

.5

)1:

(2) Aet of A.pol 28,1942 {40 1 .S.C. 278b) ;
(!3) Act of ,Tnne 30.1949 (41 U.S.C. 252);
(4) Section 3477 oftheRev.isetl Statut<'s, nsamendcd (31 U.S.O.
20~)j

(ii l Sm·tion ~i'37 of t.be Rr.,-iBed St~ttutes: as nn1endecl (41
U.S.C.lo);
((i) Public Luw 85-80-± (Act of Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stn.t. 9'72;
110 u.s.a. 14-'31-1-t-.35);

(T) Section 2!30-l(o.) (1) of tltlc 10~ United States Cocle;
(8) Sections ::1313, G3S6(c), and 8813 of tit.Ie 10, U.u.ited Stutes
Code.

APX-165

(f)
~

kva \
I

PUBUC LAW 94-412-SEPT. 14, 1976

90 STAT. 1259

{b) Each coJwnittee of the House of Rept'tl..."ent.atives and the Sellll.te Congressional
---'laving jurisdiction with 1-e.spect to uny provision of law refel't'ed to commiuees..
tt subsection (a~

of this section sha.l.l mnke n complete study and inves-

study; repon tb

tigation concernm::- that provision of law a.nd make a repDlt, including Coa,"RM.
any recommendnhons and proposed l'EWisions such committee ru:~.y
have, to its respecth-e Bouse of Congress within two hundred nnd
seventy days after tht. date crt enactment of this Act~
Approved September 14, 1976.

LEClSLATlVE HISTORY:
ilOUSE REPORT No. 94-238 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
SENATE REPORT Na. 94-1168 (Comm. un Cuvernmenl Op~rnlions).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
Vol. 121 (1975}: Sept. 4. coosirlt!red and pnss~d House.

'iol. 122 (1976): Aug. 27, ct~nsidered and pnssed Senate. amended.
:\ug. 31, House concurred in Sl!.llat.t; amendments.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS:
Vol. 12. No. 38 (1976}: Sept. 14. Preside.ntial statemcnL

APX-166

. Order Code 98-505 GOV

CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web

National Emergency Powers

Updated September 18, 2001

Harold C. Relyea
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division

+ The Ubrary of Congress fCJ --$' I
APX-167

Congressional Research Service

National Emergency Powers
Summary
The President of the United States has available certaln powers that may be
exercised in the event that the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency
circmnstances (other than natural disasters, war, or near-war situations). Such
powers may be stated explicitly or implied by the Constitution, assumed by the Chief
Executive to be pemrissib1e constitutionally, or inferred from or specified by statute.
Through legislation, Congress has made a great many delegations of authority in this
regard over the past 200 years.
There are, however, limits and restraints upon the President in his exercise of
emergency powers. With the exception ofthe habeas corpus clause, the Constitution
makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national
emergency. Disputes over the constitutionality or legality of the exercise of
emergency powers are judicially reviewable. Indeed, boththe judiciary and Congress,
as co-equal branches, can restrain the executive regarding emergency powers. So can
public opinion. Furthermore, since 1976, the President has been subject io certain
procedural formalities in utilizing some statutorily delegated emergency authori1y.
The National Emergencies Act (50 U .S.C. 1601-1651) eliminated or modified some
statutory grants ofemergency authority, required the President to declare formally the
existence of a national emergency and to specify what statutory authority, activated
by the declaration, wonld be used, and provided Congress a means to countermand
the President's declaration and the activated authority being sought. The
development of this regulatory statute and subsequent declarations of national
emergency are reviewed in this report, which is updated as events require.

APX-168

Contents
Background and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Emergency Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Law and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Congressional Concems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The National Emergencies Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
National Emergency Powers: A Selected Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Books ...... ........... ...... ..... .... .............. . ....
Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19
19
19
20

Ust of Tables
Table 1. Declared National Emergencies, 1976-2001 ....... .... .... . . .. 13

Af3
APX-169

National Emergency Powers
Federal law provides a variety ofpowers for the President to use in response to
crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances threatening the nation. Moreover, they
are not limited to militazy or war situations. Some of these authorities, deriving from
the Constitution or statutory law, are continuously available to the President with little
or no qualification. Others-statutory delegations from Congress--exist on a standby basis and remain dormant until the President formally declares a national
emergency. These delegations or grants ofpower authorize the President to meet the
problems of governing effectively in times of crisis. Under the powers delegated by
such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of
production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law,
seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of
private entetprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives ofUnited
States citizens. Furthermore, Congress may modify, rescind, or render donnant such
delegated emergency authority.

-

Until the crisis ofWorld War I, Presidents utilized emergency powers at their
own discretion. Proclamations announced the exercise of exigency authority.
However, during World War I and thereafter, ChiefExecutives bad available to them
a growing body of standby emergency authority which became operative upon the
issuance of a proclamation declaring a condition of national emergency. Sometimes
such proclamations confined the matter of crisis to a specific policy sphere, and
sometimes they placed no limitation whatsoever on the pronouncement. These
activations ofstand-by emergency authority remained acceptable practice until the era
ofthe Vietnam war. In 1976, Congress curtailed this practice with the passage ofthe
National Emergencies Act

Background and History
The exercise of emergency powers had long been a concern of the classical
political theorists, including the eighteenth-century English philosopher John Locke,
who had a strong influence upon the Fotmding Fathers in the United S1ates. A
preeminent exponent of a government of laws and not of men, Locke argued t11.a1
occasions may arise when the executive must exert a broad discretion in meeting
special exigencies o:r "emergencies" for which the legislative power provided no relief
or existing law granted no necessary remedy. Redid not regard this prerogative as
limited to wartime, or even to situations of great urgency. It was sufficient if the
"public good" might be advanced by its exercise. 1

1 Thomas

I. Cook, ed., Two Treatises of Govemment, by John Locke (New York: Hafuer,
1947), pp. 203-207; EdwardS. Corwin, The President: Office and Powers, 1787-1957,
fourth revised edition (New York: New York University Press, 1957), pp. 147-148.

APX-170

CRS-2
Emergency powers were first expressed prior to the actual founding of the
Republic. Between 1775 and 1781, the Continental Congress passed a series of acts
and resolves which count as the first expressions of emergency authority.2 These
instruments dealt almost exclusively with the prosecution of the Revolutionary War.

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, emergency powers, as such, failed to
attract much attention during the course of debate over the charter for the new
government. It may be argued, however, that the granting of emergency powers by
Congress is implicit in its Article I, section 8 authority to "provide for the common

Defense and general Welfare;· the commerce clause, its war, armed forces, and militia
powers, and the "necessary and proper" clause empowering it to make such laws as
are required to fulfill the executions of '"the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers
vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof."
There is a tradition of constitutional interpretation that bas resulted in so-called
implied powers, which may be invoked in order to respond to an emergency situation.
Locke seems to have anticipated this practice. Furthermore, Presidents have
occasionally taken an emergency action which they assumed to be constitutionally
permissible. Thus, in the American governmental experience, the exercise of
emergency powers has been somewhat dependent upon the Chief Executive's view
of the presidential office.
Perhaps the President who most clearly articulated a view of his office in
conformity with the Lockean position was Theodore Roosevelt. Descn'bing what
came to be called the "stewardship'1 theory of the presidency, Roosevelt wrote of his
''insistence upon the theory that the executive power was limited only by specific
restrictions and prohibitions appearing in the Constitution or imposed by the Congress
under its constitutional powers." It was his view '(that every executive officer, and
above all every executive officer in high position, was a steward of the people," and
he "declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively necessary for the Nation
could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization
to do it" Indeed, it was Roosevelt's beliefthat, for the 'President, ''it was not only his
right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such
action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws. ' 13
Opposed to this view of the presidency was Roosevelt's former Secretary of
War, personal choice for. and actual successor as Chief Executive. William Howard
Taft. He viewed the presidential office in more limited terms, writing "that the
President can exercise no power which cannot be fairly and reasonably traced to some
specific grant of power or justly implied and included within such express grant as
proper and necessary to its exercise.'' In his view, such a "specific grant must be

1
See J. Reuben Clark, Jr., comp., Emergency Legislation Passed Prior to December 1917
Dealing with the Control and Taking of Private Property for the Public Use, Benefit, or
Welfare, Presidential Proclamations and Executive Orders Thereunder, to and Including

January 31, 1918, to Which Is Added a Rep1int of Analogous Legislation Since 1775
(Washington: GPO, 1918), pp. 201-228.
J

Theodore Roosevelt, An Autobiography (New York: Macmillan, 1913), pp. 388-389.

APX-171

CRS-3
either in the Federal Constitution or in an act of Congress passed in pursuance
thereof. There is," Taft concluded, «no undefined residuum of power which he can
exercise because it seems to him to be in the public interest ....4
Between these two views of the presidency lie various gradations of opinion.
resulting in perhaps as many conceptions of the office as there have been holders.
One authority has summed up the situation in the following words:
Emergency powers are not solely derived from legal sources. The extent of their
invocation and use is also contingent upon the personal conception which the
incumbent of the Presidential office has of the Presidency and the premises upon
which be interprets his legal powers. In the last analysis. the authority of a
President is largely determined by the President himself 5
Finally, apart from the Constitution. but resulting from its prescnoed procedures,
there are statutory grants of power for emergency conditions. The President is
authorized by Congress to take some special or extraordinary action, ostensibly to
meet the problems of governing effectively in times of exigency. Sometimes these
laws are only of temporary duration. The Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, for
example, allowed the President to impose certain wage and price controls for about
three years before it expired automatically in 1974.6 The statute gave the President
emergency authority to address a crisis in the nation's economy.
Of course, many of these laws are continuously maintained or permanently
available for the President's ready use in responding to an emergency. The Defense
Production Act, originally adopted in 1950 to prioritize and regulate the manufacture
of military material, is exemplary of this type of s1atute.7
Lastly, there are various stand-by laws which convey special emergency powers
once the President formally declares a national emergency activating them. In 1973,
a Senate special committee studying emergency powers published a compilation
identifYing some 470 provisions of federal law delegating to the executive
extraordinary authority in time ofnational emergency.8 The vast majority ofthem are
of the stand-by kind-dormant until activated by the President However, formal
procedures for invoking these authorities, accounting for their use, and regulating

" William Howard Taft, Our Chief Magistrate and His Powers (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1916), pp. 139-140; for a direct response to Theodore Roosevelt's
expression of presidential power, see Vrtlliam Howard Taft. The Presidency (New York,
Charles Scn'bner's Sons, 1916), pp. 125-130.
5

AlbertL. Stu.tm. "Emergencies and the Presidency," Journal ofPolitics, vol. 11, Feb.l949,
pp. 125-126.

6

See 84 Stat. 799-800, 1468; 85 Stat. 13, 38, 743-755; and 87 Stat 27-29.

7

See 64 Stat. 798; 50 U.S.C. App. 2061 eJ seq. (1994).

11

U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on the Ten:nillation of the National Emergency,
Emergency Powers Statutes, 93"' Cong., 1'1 sess., S.Rept. 93-549 (Washington: GPO, 1973).

11-S(;
APX-172

CRS-4
their activation and application were established a while ago by the National
Emergencies Act of 1976.9

The Emergency Concept
Relying upon constitutional authority or congressional delegations made at
various times over the past 200 years, the President of the United States may exercise
certain powers in the event that the continued existence of the nation is threatened by
crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances. What is a national emergency?
In the simplest understanding of the terD:4 the dictionary defines an emergency
as ••an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for
immediate action." 10 In the midst of the crisis of the Great Depression, a 1934
Supreme Court majority opinion characterized an emergency in terms of urgency and
relative infrequency ofoccurrence as well as equivalence to a public calamity resulting
from fire, flood, or like disaster not reasonably subject to anticipation. 11 An eminent
constitutional scholar, the late EdwardS. Corwin. explained emergency conditions
as being those "which have not attained enough of stability or recurrency to admit of
their being dealt with according to role.•,u During congressional committee hearings
on emergency powers in 1973, a political scientist described an emergency in the
following terms: 'it denotes the existence of conditions ofvarying nature, intensity
and duration, which are perceived to threaten life or well-being beyond tolerable
limits. "13 Corwin also indicated it "connotes the existence of conditions suddenly
intensifying the degree of existing danger to life or well-being beyond that which is
accepted as nonnal."14

There are perhaps at least four aspects of an emergency condition. The first is
its temporal character: an emergency is sudden, unforeseen, and ofunknown duration.
The second is its potential gravity: an emergency is dangerous and threatening to life
and well-being. The third, in terms of governmental role and authority, is the matter
of perception: who discerns this phenomenon? The Constitution may be guiding on

this question, but not always conclusive. Fourth, there is the element ofresponse: by
definition, an emergency requires immediate action, but is, as well, unanticipated and,
therefore, as Corwin notes, cannot always be "dealt with according to rule." From

9

90 Stat. 1255; SO U.S.C. 1601-1651.

10

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: G & C Merriam, 1974), p. 372.

11

Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U .S. 398, 440 (1934).

11

EdwardS. Corwin, The President: Office and Powers. 1787-1957. p. 3.

ll U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on the Tenninat:ion of the National Emergency,
Nmtonal Emergency. hearings. 93m Cong., l$l sess.• Apr. 11-12, 1973 (Washington: GPO,
1973), p. 277.
14

Ibid., p. 279.

ft-51
APX-173

CRS-5

-

these simple factors arise the dynamics of national emergency powers. 15 These
dynamics can be seen in the history of the exercise of emergency powers.

Law and Practice
During the summer of 1792, residents ofwestern Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the
Carolinas began forcefully opposing the collection of a federal excise tax on whiskey.
Anticipating rebellious activity, Congress enacted legislation providing for the calling
forth of the militia to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.16 Section 3 of this

statute required that apresidential proclamation be issued to warn insurgents to cease
their activity. 17 Ifhostilities persisted, the militia could be dispatched. On August 17,
1794, President Washington issued such a proclamation. The insurgency continued.
The President then took command ofthe forces organized to put down the rebellion. 18
Here was the beginning of a pattern of policy expression and implementation
regarding emergency powers. Congress legislated extraordinary or special authority
for discretionary use by the President in a time of emergency. In issuing a
proclamation, the Chief Executive notified Congress that he was making use of this
power and also apprised other affected parties of his emergency action.
Over the next 100 years, Congress enacted various permanent and standby laws
for responding largely to military, economic, and labor emergencies. During this span
of years, however. the exercise of emergency powers by President Abraham Lincoln
brought the first great dispute over the authority and discretion ofthe ChiefExecutive
to engage in emergency actions.

By the time ofLincoln's inauguration (March 4, 1861 ), seven states of the lower
South had announced their secession from the Union; the Confederate provisional
government bad been established (February 4, 1861); Jefferson Davis bad been
elected (February 9, 1861) and installed as president ofthe confederacy (February 18,
1861 ); and an army was being mobilized by the secessionists. Lincoln had a little over
two months to consider his course of action.
When the new President assumed office, Congress was not in session. For
reasons of his own, Lincoln delayed calling a special meeting of the legislature, but
soon ventmed into its constitutionally designated policy sphere. On April 19, he

15

While some might argue that the concept ofemergency powers can be extended to embrace
authority exercised in response to circumstances of natural disaster, this dimension is not
within the scope of this report. Various federal response ammgements and programs for
dealing with natural disasters have been established and administered with no potential or
actual disruption of constitutional arrangements. With regard to Corwin's characterization
ofemergency conditions, these long-standing arrangements and programs suggest that natural

disasters do "admit of their being dealt with according to role."
16

'

7

11

1 Stat. 264-265.
This authority may presently be found at 10 U.S. C. 334.
See James D. Richardson, eel., A Compilation of dte Messages and Papers of the

Presidents, vol. 1 (New York: Bureau ofNational Literature, 1897). pp. 149-154.

APX-174

issued a proclamation establishing a blockade on the ports ofthe secessionist states, 19
"a measure hitherto regarded as contrary to both the Constitution and the law of
nations except when the government was embroiled in a declared, foreign war.''20
Congress, of coW"Se, had not been given an opportunity to consider a declaration of
war.

The next day, the President ordered the addition of 19 vessels to the navy "for
purposes of public defense.'o2 1 A short time later. the blockade was extended to the
ports of Virginia and North Carolin.a22
By a proclamation ofMay 3, Lincoln ordered that the regular army be enlarged
by 22,714 men, that navy personnel be increased by 18,000, and that 42,032

volunteers be accommodated for three-year terms of service.23 Such a directive, of
course, antagonized many Representatives and Senators, because Congress is
specifically authorized by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution "to raise and
support armies."

In his July message to the newly assembled Congress, Lincoln suggested that,
while his actions with regard to the expansion of the armed forces might be legally
suspect, "[t]hese measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under
what appeared to be a popular and a public necessit)!, trusting then, as now, that

Congress would readily ratify them. It is believed," he wrote, "that nothing has been
done beyond the constitutional competency of Congress.'l24
Indeed, Congress subsequently did legislatively authorize, and thereby approve,
the President's actions regarding his increasing armed forces personnel, and would do
the same later concerning some other questionable emergency actions. In the case of
Lincoln, the opinion ofscholars and experts is "that neither Congress nor the Supreme
Court exercised any effective restraint upon the President." 25 The em.ergenoy actions
of the ChiefExecutive were either unchallenged or approved by Congress, and were
either accepted or, because ofalmost no opportunity to render judgment, went largely
wjthout notice by the Supreme Court The President made a quick response to the
emergency at hand, a response which Congress or t11e courts might have rejected in

19

Ibid., vol. 7, pp. 3215-3216.

20

Clinton L. Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World,

1963), p. 225.
Zl

Ibjd.

22

See James D. Richardson, comp.• A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the

Presidents, vol. 7, p. 3216.
2J

Ibid., pp. 3216-3217.

24

Ibid., p. 3225.

25

James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln (Urbana. lL: University of
nlinois Press, 1951); also seeWilfred E. Binkley,President and Congress (New York: Alfred
A Knopf, 1947), pp. 124-127; Clinton L. Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship, pp. 233234; and Woodrow Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States (New York:
Columbia University Press~ 1907), p. 58.

APX-175

CRS-7

law. but which. nonetheless, had been made in fact and with some degree of popular
approval Similar controversy would arise concerning the emergency actions of
Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Ftanklin D. Roosevelt Both men exercised
extensive emergency powers with regard to world hostilities, and Roosevelt also used
emergency authority to deal with the Great Depression. Their emergency actions,
bowever, were largely supported by statutory delegations and a high degree of
approval on the part of both Congress and the public.
Furthennore, during the Wilson and Roosevelt presidencies, a major procedural

development occurred in the exercise of emergency powers-use of a proclamation
to declare a national emergency and thereby activate all stand-by statutory proVisions
delegating authority to the President during a national emergency. The fust sttch
national emergency proclamation was issued by President Wilson on February 5,
1917.26 Promulgated on the anthority of a statute establishing the United States
Shipping Board, the proclamation concerned water transportation policy.27 It was
statutorily terminated, along with a variety of other wartime measures, on March 3,
1921.211
President Franklin D. R-oosevelt issued the next national emergency proclamation
some 48 hours after asswi:ri:ng office.29 Proclaimed March 6, 1933, on tJJe somewnat""
questionable a\lthority of the Trading with the Enemy Act of1917,30 the proclamation
declared a so-called "bank holiday" and halted a major class of financial transactions
by closing the banks. Congress subsequently gave specific statutory support for the
ChiefExecutive's action with the passage of the Emergency Banking Act oil March
9.31 Upon signing this legislation into law, the President issued a second banking
proclamation, based upon the authority of the new law, continuing the bank holiday
until it was determined that banking institutions were capable of conducting business
in accordance with new banking policy.32

{J)

Next, on September 8, 1939, President Roosevelt promulgated a proclamation
of"limited" national emergency, though the qualifying term had no meaningful legal
signfficance.33 AJmost two years late!:, on May 27, 1941, he issued a proclamation of ~
''unlimited" national emergency}4 This action, however, actually did not make any )
important new powers available to the ChiefExecutive in addition to those activated
by the 1939 proclamation. The President's purpose in making the second

16

39 Stat. 1814.

!7

39 Stat. 728.

Z8

41 Stat. 1359.

29

48 Stat 1689.

30

40 Stat 411.

31

48 Stat 1.

32

48 Stat. 1691.

33

54 Stat.. 2643.

)4

55 Stat. 1647.

A66
APX-176

CRS-8

--

proclamation was largely to apprise the American people ofthe wmsening conflict in
Europe and growing tensions in Asia.
These two war-related proclamations of a general conmtion of national
emergency remained operative unti11947, when certain ofthe provisions oflawthey
had activated were statutorily rescinded 35 Then, in 1951, Congress terminated the
declaration of war againstGermany.36 In the spring ofthe following year, the Senate
ratified the treaty of peace with Japan. Because these actions marked the end of
World War ll for the United States, legislation was required to keep certain
emergency provisions in effect Initially, the Emergency Powers Interim Continuation
Act temporarily maintained this emergency authority.37 It was subsequently
supplanted by tbe Emergency Powers Continuation Act, which kept selected
emergency delegations in force Wltil August 1953.18 By proclamation in April1952,
President Hany S. Truman temrinated the 1939 and 1941 national emergency
declarations, leaving operative only those emergency authorities continued by
statuto1y speci.fication.39
President Truman's 1952 termination, however, specifically

ex:empted~W~

(f) J?ecember ~0 proclamation of national emergency he bad issued in response to

°

bostilitJes in Korea 4 Furthermore, this conmtion of national emergency would
remain in force and unimpaired well into the era of the Vietnam war.
Two other proclamations of national emergency also would be promulgated
before Congress once again turned its attention to these matters. Faced with a postal
strike, President Richard M. Nixon declared a national emergency in March 1970,41
thereby gaining permission to use units of the Ready Reserve to assist in moving the
mail42 A second national emergency was proclaimed by President Nixon in August
1971 to control the balance of payments flow by terminating temporarily certain trade
agreement provisos and imposing supplemental duties on some imported goods.'3

Congressional Concerns
In the years following the conclusion ofU .S. armed forces involvement in active
military conflict in Korea, occasional expressions of concern were heard in Congress
regarding the continued existence of President Tmman's 1950 national emergency
proclamation long after the conditions prompting its issuance had disappeared. There

Jj

61 Stat. 449.

36

65 Stat. 451.

37

66 Stat 54; extended at 66 Stat 96, 137. and 296.

38

66 Stat 330; extended at 67 Stat 18 and 131.

39

66 Stat. c31.

40

64 Stat A454.

~1

84 Stat. 2222.

~

2

43

See 10 U.S.C. 673 (1970).

85 Stat. 926.

APX-177

...
--, . ,,., ~a/./~:_,

r-v=

CRS-9
was some annoyance that the President was ~~g extra9rdin.azy power~ intended
only for a time of genuine emergency, and a feeling that the Chief Executive was
thwarting the legislative intent of Congress by continuously failing to terminate the.
declared natioruil emergency.44
Growing public and congressional displeasure with the President's exercise of
bis war powers and deepening U.S. involvement in hostilities in Vietnam prompted
interest in a variety of related matters. For Senator Charles Mathias, interest in the
question of emeFgencypowers developed out ofU.S. involvement in Vietnam and the

incursion into Cambodia. Together with Senator Frank Church, he sought to establish
a Senate special committee to study the implications of terminating the 1950
proclamation ofnational emergency that was being used to prosecute the Vietnam
war, "to consider problems which might arise as the result of the termination and to
considerwhat admin:istrative or legislative actions might be necessary ... Such a panel
was initially chartered by S.Res. 304 as the Special Committee on the Teanination of
the National Emergency in June of 1972, but did not begin operations before the end
of the year.45
With the convening of the 93n1 Congress in 1973, the special committee was
approved again with S.Res. 9. Upon exploring the subject matter of national
emergency powers, however, the mission of the special committee became more
burdensome. There was not just one proclamation of'national emergency in effect,
but four such instruments, issued in 1933, 1950, 1990, and 1971. The United States
was in a condition ofnational emergency four times over, and with each proclamation,
the whole colle-ction of statutorily delegated emergency powers was activated.
Consequently, in 1974, with S.Res. 242, the study panel was rechartered as the
Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers to
reflect its focus upon matters larger than the 1950 emergency proclamation. Its final
mandate was provided by S.Res. 10 inthe 94th Congress, although its termination date
was necessarily extended briefly in 1976 by S.Res. 370. Senator Church and Senator
Mathias co-chaired the pane1.46

44

The historical record suggests that. prior to 1973, when congressional research revealed

their existence, other outstanding proclaimed national emergencies were not apparent to, or

mncb discussed by, Members of Congress.
~ U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, National Emergencies Act, hearings,

94th Cong., P' sess., Mar. 6, 13, 19. and Apr. 9, 1975 (Washington: GPO, 1975), p. 20.
46

Other members of the Special Committee included Senators Clifford P. Case, Clifford P.
Hansen, Philip A. Hart, James B. Pearson, Claiborne Pell, and Adlai E. Stevenson llL

APX-178

@

CRS-10

The special committee produced various studies during its existence.47 After
scrot:inizing the United States Code and uncodified statutory emergency powers. the
panel identified 4 70 provisions offederal law which delegated extraordinary authority
to the executive in time ofnational emergency. Not all ofthem required a declaration
of national emergency to be operative, but they were, nevertheless, extraordinary /#
grants. The special committee also found that no orocess existed for automatically P'\.
terminating the four outstanding national emerf.Wcyproclamations. Thus, the panel
began developing legislaticin coiit.ainfog a formula for regulating emergency
declarations in the future and otherwise adjusting the body of statutorily delegated
emergency powers by abolishing some provisions, relegating others to permanent
status, and continuing others in a standby capacity. In addition, the panel also began
preparing a report offering its findings and recommendations regarding the state of
national emergency powers in the nation.

The National Emergencies Act
The special committee, in July 1974, unanimously recommended legislation
establishing a procedure for the presidential declaration and congressional regulation
of a national emergency. The proposal also modified various statutorily delegated
emergency powers. In arriving at this reform measure, the panel consulted with
various executive branch agencies regarding the significance of existing emergency
statutes, recommendations for legislative action, and views as to the repeal of some
provisions of emergency law.

This recommended legislation was introduced by Senator Church for himselfand
others on August 22, 1974, and bei::ame S. 3957. It was reported from the Senate
Committee on Government Operations on September 30 without public hearings or

47

See U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated
Emergency Powers, A BriefHistory ofEmergency Powers in the United States, committee

print. 93n1 Gong., 2'"1 sess. (Washington: GPO, 1974); U.S. Congress, Senate Special
Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, A Recommended
National Emergencies Act, 93n1 Gong., 2nd sess., S.Repl93-1170 (Washington: GPO, 1974);

U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee onNational Emergencies andDelegatedEmergency
Powers, Executive Orders in Times of War a11d National Emergency, committee print, 93n1
Cong., 2" 6 sess. (Washington: GPO, 1974); U.S. Congress. Senate Special Committee on
National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, Executive Replies, 3 parts,
committee print, 93rt1 Cong., 2"d sess. (Washington; GPO, 1974); U.S. Congress, Senate
Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, National
Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, 94m Coog., 2nd sess., S.Rcpt 94-922
(Washington: GPO, 1976); U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on the Tenninationof
the National Emergency, Emergency Powers Statutes, 93n1 Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 93-549
(Washington: GPO, 1973); U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on the Termination of
the National Emergency, National Emergency, 3 parts. hearings, 93'd Cong., 111 sess., Apr.

11-12. July 24. and Nov. 28, 1973 (Washington: GPO, 1973).

APX-179

CRS-11
amendment.48 The bill was subsequently discussed on the Senate floor on October
7, when it was amended and passed.49
Although a version of the reform legislation had been introduced in the House
on September 16, becomingH.R 16668, the Committee on the Judiciary, to which
the measure was referred, did not have an opportunity to consider either that bill or
the Senate adopted version due to the press of other business-chiefly the
impeachment of President Nixon and the nomination of Nelson A Rockefeller to be
Vice President ofthe United States. Thus, the National Emergencies Act failed to be
considerod on the House floor before the final adjournment of the 93rd Congress.
With the convening of the next Congress, the proposal was introduced in the
House on February 27, 1975, becoming H.R 3884, and in the Senate on March 6,
becoming S. 977. House hearings occurred in March and April before the
Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations ofthe Committee
on the Judiciary.50 The bill was subsequently marked-up and, on April 15, was
reported in amended form to the full committee on a 4-0 vote. On May 21, the
Committee on the Judiciary, on a voice vote, reported the bill with technical
amendments.51 During the course of House debate on September 4, there was
agreement to both the committee amendments and a floor amendment providing that
national emergencies end automatically one year after their declaration unless the
President infotmS Congress and the public ofa continuation. The bill was then passed
on a 388-5 yea and nay vote and sent to the Senate, where it was referred to the
Committee on Government Operations.52

The Senate Committee on Government Operations held a hearing on H.R. 3 884
on February 25, 1976,53 The bill was subsequently reported on August 26 with one
substantive and several technical amendments.S4 The following day, the amended bill
was passed and returned to the House. ss On August 31, the House agreed to the

48

See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Government Operations, National Emergencies
Act, 93"' Cong., 2"d sess., S.Rept. 93-1193 (Washington: GPO, 1974).
49

See Congressional Record, voL 120, Oct 7, 1974, pp. 34011-34022.

50

See U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, National Emergencies Act,
hearings, 94lb Cong., 151 sess., Mar. 6, 13, 19, and Apr. 9, 1975 (Washington: GPO, 1975).
U.S. Congress,HouseCommitteeontheJudiciary,National Emergencies, 94111 Cong., 1st
sess.• H.Rept 94-238 (Washington: GPO, 1975).
51

52

CoJJgressional Record, voL 121, Sept 4, 1975, pp. 27631-27647;Jbid., Sept. 5, 1975, p.

27745.

See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Government Operations. National Emergencie.~
Act, hearing, 94111 Cong., 2ad sess., Feb. 25, 1976 (Washington: GPO, 1976).
53

54

See U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on Government Operations. National Emergencies
Act, 94th Cong., 2"d sess., S.Rept. 94-1168 (Washington: GPO, 1976).
55

See Congressional Record, vol. 122, Aug. 27, 1976, pp. 28224-28228.

APX-180

CRS-12
/

Senate amendments,56 clearing the proposal for President Gerald Ford's signature on
SeJ;~tember 14.57

As enacted, the National Emergencies Act consisted of five titles. The first of
these generally returned all standby statutory delegations of emergency power,
activated by an outstanding declaration ofnational emergency, to a dormant state two
years after the statute's approval However, the act did not cancel the 1933, 1950,
1970, and 1971 national emergency proclamations because these were issued by the
President pursuant to his Article II constitutional authority. Nevertheless, it did
render them ineffective by returning to dormancy the statutory authorities they bad
activated, thereby necessitating a new declaration to activate standby statutory
emergency authorities.
Title II provided a procedure for future declarations of national emergency by
the President and prescribed arrangements for their congressional regulation. The
statute established an exclusive means for declaring a national emergency.
Furthermore, emergency declarations were to terminate automatically after one year
unless fonnally continued for another year by the President, but could be terminated
earlier by either the President or Congress. Originally, the prescribed method for
congressional termination of a declared national emergency was a concurrent
resolution adopted by both houses of Congress. This type of so-called "legislative
veto" was effectively invalidated by the Supreme Court in 1983.58 The National
Emergencies Act was amended in 1985 to substitute a jointresolution as the vehiclefor rescinding a national emergency declaration.S!>
When declaring a national emergency, the President must indicate, according to
Title III, the powers and authorities being activated to respond to the exigency at
hand. Certain presidential accountability and reporting requirements regarding
national emergency declarations were specified in Title N, and the repeal and
continuation of various statutory provisions delegating emergency powers was
accomplished in Title V.
Since the 1976 enactm.ent of the National Emergencies Act, various national
emergencies, identified in Table I, have been declared pursuant to its provisions.
Some were subsequently revoked, while others remain operative. All declarations
made pursuant to the National Emergencies Act are identified in Table I; their
cancellation is noted, where appropriate; and a Code of Federal Regulations or
Federal Register citation is provided to enable examination of their full text.

56

Ibid., Aug. 31, 1976, p. 28466.

51

90 Stat 1255; 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651 (1988); see U.S. Congress, Seuate Committee on
Govemment Operations and Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated
Emergency Powers, The Natiol'lal Emergencies Act (Public Law 94-412). Source Book:
Legislative Histo1y, Texts, and Other Documents, committee print, 94111 Cong., 2nd sess.
(Washington: GPO, 1976).
58

See Immigration mld Natw·alizatiorz Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).

s' See 99 Stat. 405, 448.

APX-181

CRS-13

-

Table 1. Declared National Emergencies, 1976-2001
Declaration

Date

Title

CFR Citation

E.O. 12170

11/14n9

Blocking Iranian
Government Property

3 C.P.R., 1979
Comp .• pp. 457-458.

E.O. 12211

04/17/80

Fmther Prohibitions on
Tnmsactions with Iran

3 C.P.R., 1980
Comp., pp. 253-255.

E.O. 12444;

10114183

Continuation of Export
Control Regulations

3 C.P.R., 1983
Comp., pp. 214-215.

E.O. 12470b

03/30/84

Continuation of Export
Control Regulations

3 C.F.R, 1984
Comp., pp. 168-169.

E.O. 12513c

05/01/85

Prohibiting Trade and
Certain Other
Transactions Involving
Nicaragua

3 C.F.R, 1985
Comp., p. 342.

E.O. 12532d

09/09/85

Prohibiting Trade and
Certain Other
Transactions Involving
South Africa

3 C.F.R, 1985
Comp., pp. 387-391.

E.O. 12543

01/07/86

Proluoiting Trade and
Certain Transactions
Involving Libya

3 C.F.R, 1986
Comp., pp. 181-182.

E.O. 12635e

04/08/88

Prohibiting Certain
Transactions with
Respect to Panama

3 C.F.R, 1988
Comp., pp. 563-564.

E .O. 12722

08/02/90

Blocking Iraqi
Government Property
and Prohibiting
Transactions with Iraq

3 C.F.R, 1990
Camp., pp. 294-295.

E.O. 12730'

09/30/90

ContinuationofExport
Control Regulations

3 C.F.R, 1990
Comp., pp. 305-306.

E.O. 12735s

11/16/90

Chemical and Biological
Weapons Proliferation

3 C.F.R.. 1990
Comp., pp. 313-316.

E.O. 12775h

10/04/91

Prohibiting Certain
Transactions with
Respect to Haiti

3 C.F.R., 1991
Comp., pp. 349-350.

APX-182

CRS-14

Declaration

Title

Date

CFR Citation

E.O. 12808

05/30/92

Blocking "Yugoslav
Government'' Property
and Property of the
Governments of Serbia
and Montenegro

3 C.F.R, 1992
Comp., pp. 305-306.

E.O. 12865

09/26/93

Prohtbiting Certain
Transactions Involving

3 C.F..R., 1993
Comp., pp. 636-638.

UNITA
E.O. 128681

09/30/93

Restricting the
Participation by United
States Persons in
Weapons Proliferation
Activities

3 C.F.R., 1993
Comp.• pp. 650-651.

E.O. 12923-i

06/30/94

Continuation ofEx:port
Control Regulations

3 C.F..R., 1994
Comp., pp. 916-917.

E.0.12924tc

08/19/94

Continuation of Export

3 C.F.R, 1994
Comp., pp. 917-919.

Control Regulations
E.O. 129301

09/29/94

Measures to Restrict the
Participation by United
States Persons in
Weapons Proliferation
Activities

E.O. 12934

10/25/94

Blocking Property and
3 C.F.R, 1994
Additional Measures
Comp., pp. 930-932.
With Respect to the
Bosnian Serb-Controlled
Areas of the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina

E.O. 12938

11/14/94

Proliferation of
Weapons of Mass
Destruction

3 C.F.R., 1994
Comp., pp. 950-954.

E.O. 12947

01/23/95

Prolnoiting Transactions
with Terrorists Who
Threaten to Disrupt the
Middle East Peace
Process

3 C.F.R, 1995
Comp., pp. 319-320.

E.O. 12957m

03/15/95

Prohibiting Certain
Transactions with
Respect to the
Development of Iranian
Petroleum Resources

3 C.F.R., 1995

APX-183

3 C.P.R., 1994
Comp., pp. 924-925

Comp., pp. 332-333.

CRS-15

Declaration

Date

Title

CFR Citation

E.O. 12978

10/21/95

Blocking Assets and
Prohibiting Transactions
with Significant
Narcotics Traffickers

3 C.F.R., 1995
Comp., pp. 415-417.

Proc. 6867

03/01/96

Regulation of the
Anchorage and
Movement of Vessels
with Respect to Cuba

3 C.F.R., 1996
Comp., pp. 8-9.

E .O. 13047

05122/97

Prohibiting New
Investment in Burma

3 C.P.R., 1997
Comp., pp. 202-204.

E.O. 13067

11/03/97

Blocking Sudanese
Government Property
and Prohibiting
Transactions with Sudan

3 C.F.R, 1997
Comp., pp. 230-231.

E.O. 13088

06/09/98

Blocking Property of the
Governments of the
Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro), the
Republic of Serbia, and
the Republic of
Montenegro, and
Prohibiting New
Investment in the
Republic of Serbia in
Response to the
Situation in Kosovo

3 C.F.R., 1998
Comp., pp. 191-193.

E.O. 13129

07/04/99

Blocking Property and
Prohibiting Transactions
with the Tahban

3 C.F.R 1999
Comp., pp. 200-203.

E.O. 13159

06/21/00

Blocking Property of the
Government of the
Russian Federation

3 C.F .R. 2000
Comp., pp. 277-278.

Relating to the
Disposition of Highly
Enriched UranilliD
Extracted from Nuclear
Weapons
E.O. 13194

01/18/01

Prohibiting tbe I
hnponationofRougb
Diamonds from Siena
Leone

APX-184

66 Fed. Reg. 73897390.

CRS-16

Declaration
E.O.l3222

Proc. 7463

Title

Date
08/17/01

09114/01

Continuation of Export
Control Regulations
Declaration ofNational
Emergency by Reason
of Certain Terrorist
Attacks

CFR Citation

66 Fed. Reg. 4402544026.

66 Fed. Reg. 48197-

48199.

Revoked by E.O. 12451 of Dec. 20, 1983.
Revoked by E.O. 12525 of July 12, 1985.
c Revoked byE.O. 12707 ofMar. 13, 1990.
d Revoked by E.O. 12769 ofJuly 10, 1991.
e Revoked by E.O. 12710 of Apr. 5, 1990.
f Revoked by E.O. 12867 of Sept 30, 1993.
!l Revoked by E.O. 12938 ofNov. 11, 1994.
11
Revoked by E.O. 12932 of Oct. 14, 1994.
i Revoked byE.O. 12930 of Sept. 29, 1994.
J Revoked by E.O. 12924 of Aug. 19, 1994.
I; Revoked by E.O. 13206 of Apn14, 2001.
1
Revoked by E.O. 12938 ofNov. 14, 1994.
m Revoked in part by E.O. 12959 of May 6, 1995.
a

b

In its final report, issued in late May 1976, the special committee concluded "by
reemphasizing that emergency laws and procedures in the United States have been
neglected for too long, and that Congress must pass the National Emergencies Act
to end a potentially dangerous situation...oo The panel's recommended legislation, of
course, was enacted into law before the end of the year.
Other issues identified by the special committee as deserving attention in the
future. however, did not fare so well. The panel, for example, was hopeful that
standing committees ofboth houses of Congress would review statutory emergency
power provisions within their respective jurisdictions with a view to the continued
need for, and possible adjustment of, such authority.61 Actions intbis regard probably
were not as ambitious as the special committee expected. A title of the Federal Civil
Defense Act of 1950. granting the President or Congress power to declare a civil
defense emergency in the event an attack on the United States occurred or was
anticipated, expired in Jtme 1974 after the House Committee on Rules failed to report
a measure continuing the statute.62

60

U.S. Congress, Senate Special Coonnittee on National Emergencies and Delegated

Emergency Powers, National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers. p. 19.
61

Ibid., p. 10.

62

See 50 U.S.C. App. 2297 (1970); U.S. Congress, House Committee on Anued Services,
Extending Civil Defense Emergency Authorities, 93~'~~ Cong.• 2nd sess., H.Rept 93-1243
(Washington: GPO, 1974); Associated Press, "Rnles Panel Halts Bill on War Powers,"
Washington Post, Sept 19, 1974, p. A5.

APX-185

CRS-17
A provision ofemergency law was refined in May 197 6. Legislation was enacted
granting the President the authority to order certain selected members of an armed
services reserve component to active duty without a declaration of war or national
emergency.63 Previously, such an activation of military reserve personnel had been
limited to a "time of national emergency declared by the Presidenf' or "when
otherwise authorized by 1aw.'>64

Another refinement of emergency law occurred in 1977 when action was
completed on the IntemationalEmergencyEconomic Powers Act (IEEP A). 65 Reform
legislation containing this statute66 modified a provision of the Trading with the
Enemy Act of 1917, authorizing the President to regulate the nation's international
and domestic finance during periods of declared war or national emergency.67 The
enacted bill limited the President's Trading with the Enemy Act power to regulate the
country's finances to times of declared war. In mEPA, a provision conferred
authority on the Chief Executive to exercise controls over intemationaJ economic
transactions in the future during a declared national emergency and established
procedures governing the use of this power, including close consultation with
Congress when declaring a national emergency to activate IEEPA. Such a'declaration
would be subject to congressional regulation under the procedures of the National
Emergencies Act.68
Other matters identified in the final report of the special committee for
congressional scrutiny included:
• investigation of emergency preparedness efforts conducted by the executive
branch;
• attention to congressional preparations for an emergency and continual review
of emergency law;

• ending open-ended grants of authority to the executive;
• investigation and institution of stricter controls over delegated powers; and

63

90 Stat 517; 10 U.S.C. 12302

G4

10 u.s.c. 673 (1970).

65

sou.s.c. 1701-1706.

66

91 Stat. 1625.

67

12 U.S.C. 95a and 50 U.S.C. App. S(b) (1976).

63

0f related interest to these statutory developments, President Ford, by a proclamation of
February 19, 1976> gave notice that E.O. 9066, providing for the internment of JapaneseAmericans in certain military areas during World War TI, was canceled as of the issuance of
the proclamation fomtally establishing the cessation ofWorld War ll on December 31, 1946.
See 3 C.F.R., 1976 Comp., pp. 8-9. Certain statutory authority relevant to this executive
order, concerning the creation of military areas and zones, was canceled by the National
Emergencies Act. See 18 U.S. C. 1383 (1976).

A - (0
APX-186

CRS-18
• improving the accountability of executive decisionmaking.69
There is some pllblic record indication that certain of these poin1s, particularly
the first and the last, have been addressed in the past two decades by congressional
overseers.70

Conclusion
The development, exercise, and regulation of emergency powers, from the days
of the Continental Congress to the present, reflect at least one highly discernable
trend: those authorities available to the executive in time ofnational crisis or exigency
have, since the time ofthe Lincoln Administration, come to be increasingly rooted in
statutory law. The discretion available to a Civil War President in his exercise of
emergency power has been harnessed, to a considerable extent, in the contemporary
period. Furthermore, due to greater reliance upon statutory expression, the range of
this authority has come to be more circumscribed, and the options for its llSe have
come to be regulated procedurally through the National Emergencies Act Since its
enactment, however, the National Emergencies Act has not been revisited by
congressional ovei"Seers. Nonetheless, as the final report of the Senate Special
Committee on National Emergencies suggests, the prospect remains that further
improvements and reforms in this policy area might be pursued and perfected.

69

See U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on National Emergencjes and Delegated

Emergency Powers, National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, pp. 11-18.
70

See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Operations,
Presidential Directives and Records Accowztability Act, hearing, 1OOth Cong., 2"d sess., Aug.
3, 1988 (Washington: GPO, 1989; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, Emergency Preparedness and the LicensingProcessfor Commercial Nuclear Power
Reactors, 2 parts, hearings. 98tl' Cong., P' sess., Apr. 18 and July 8, 1983 (Washington:
GPO, 1985).

APX-187

CRS-19

National Emergency Powers:

A Selected Bibliography
Articles
Bowman, Mary M. C., "Presidential Emergency Powers Related to International
Economic Transactions." Vanderbilt Journal of Transactional Law, vol. 11,
Summer 1978: 515-534.
Culp, Maurice S ., "Executive Power in Emergencies. Michigan Law Review, voL 31,
June 1933: 1066-1096.

Fuller, Glenn E., "The Na1ional Emergency Dilemma: Balancing the Executive's
Crisis Powers with the Need for Accountability." Southern California Law
Review, vol. 52, July 1979: 1453-1511.
Genovese, Michael A., ''Democratic Theory and the Emergency Powers of the
President." Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 9, Summer 1979: 283-289.
Klieman, Aaron S., "Preparing for the Hour of Need: Emergency Powers in the
United States." Review ofPolitics, vo1. 41, April1979: 235-255.

-

--"Preparing for the Hour ofNeect The National Emergencies Act." Presidential
Studies Quarterly, voL 9, Wmter 1979: 47-64.
Miller, ArthurS., ..Constitutional Law: Crisis Government Becomes the Norm."
OlzioStateLawJournal, vol. 39, 1978:736-751.

Relyea, Harold C., "Stretch Points ofthe Constitution: National Emergency Powers,"
inR.alph S. Pollock, ed., Retzewin.g the Dream: National Archives Bicentennial
'87 Lectures on Contemporary CoTZstitutionallssues. La.nbam, MD: University
Press of America, 1986, pp. 75-91.
Robinson. Donald L., "The Routinization of Crisis Government." Yale Review. voL
63, Winter 1974: 161-174.

Roche, John P., "Executive Power and Domestic Emergency: The Quest for
Prerogative." Western Political Quarterly, vol. 5, December 1952: 592-618.

Rossiter, Clinton L., ..Constitutional Dictatorship in the Atomic Age." Review of
Politics. vol. 11, October 1949: 395-418.
Sturm, Albert L., "Emergencies and the Presidency." Jounzal of Politics, val. 11,
February 1949: 121-144.

Books
Corwin, Edward S., Total War and tlze Constitution. New York: Alfred A. Knop~
1947. 162 p.

A -12APX-188

CRS-20

-

Janeway, Eliot, The Economics ofCrisis: War, Politics, and the Dollar. New York;
Weybright and Talley, 1968. 317 p.
Koenig, Louis W., The Presidency and the Crisis: Powers of the Office from the
Invasion ofPoland to Pearl Harbor. New York: King's Crown Press, 1944.
166 p.

Mwphy, PaulL. , The Constitution in Crisis Times 1918-1969. New York: Harper
and Row, 1972. 541 p.

Randa.R James G., Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln. Urbana, ll.,: University
of Dlinois Press, 1951. 596 p.
Rankin, Robert S. and Winfred Dallmayr, Freedom and Emergency Powers in the
Cold War. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1964. 277 p.

Rich, Bennett Milton, The Presidents and Civil Disorder.

Washington: The

Brookings Institution, 1941. 235 p .
Rockoff, Hugh. Drastic Measures. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
285p.

-

Rossiter, Clinton L., Constitutional Dictatorslzip. New Yotk: Harcourt, Brace, and
World, 1963. 322 p.
Smith, J. Malcolm, and Comelius P. Cotter, Powers ofthe President During Crisis.
Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1960. 175 p.

Documents
U.S. Congress, House Committee on International Relations, Trading with the
Enemy: Legislative a11d Executive Documents Conceming Regulation of
International Transactions in Time of Declared National Emergency.
Committee print, 94th Cong., 211d sess. Washington: GPO, 1976. 684 p.
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on GovernmentOperations and Special Committee
on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, The National
Emergencies Act: (Public Law 94-412). Suurce Book: Legislative History,
Texts, aud Other Documents. Committee print, 94d' Cong., 2•4 sess.
Washington: GPO, 1976. 360 p.
- - Senate Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency
Powers, A BriefHistory ofEmergency Powers in the United States, by Harold
C. Relyea. Committee print, 93n1 Cong., 2nd sess. Washington: GPO, 1974. 140

p.
- - Executive Orders in Times ofWar and National Emergency. Committee print_
93'd Cong., 2ac1 sess. Washington; GPO, 1974. 283 p.

APX-189

f-l/ 3

CRS-21
- - National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers. S.Rept 94-922,
94111 Cong., 2nd sess. Washington: GPO, 1976. 38 p.
- - Senate Special Committee on the Tenni.nation of the National Emergency,
Emergency Powers Statutes. S.Rept. 93-549, 93n1 Cong., 1" sess. Washington:
GPO, 1973. 607 p.

- - National Emergency. Hearings, 93rc1 Cong., 1st sess. Apr. 11, 12, July 24, and
Nov. 28, 1973. Washington: GPO, 1973. 917 p.

U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Emergency Executive Authorities.
Washington: Sept. 30, 1992. 131 p.

APX-190

311112014

Marl¢1am v. Cabell - 326 U.S. 404 ( 1945) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Find a Lawyer

Just!a. com

Legal Answers

Sign In

More·

La·.v

Enter Search T arms

Search

<;tla >Us Law > US Case Law > US Supreme Court> Volume 326 > Markham v. Cabell - 326 U.S. 404 >case

--- --

~--

--

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

NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, aU US Federal Appellate
Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now

M_a rkham v. cabell - 326 U.S.. 404 (1945)

Daily Opinion Summaries
Subscnbe to Justia's FREE Daily
Newsletter Opinion Summaries

• Syllabus

Subscribe Now

• Case

~

L-----------------------~ 11

U.S. Supreme Court

i

Markham v. Cabell, 326 u.s. 404 (1945)
Markham v. Cabell

No.76

Find a Lawyer

Argued October 19, 1945

Legal Issue or lawyer Name

Decided December 10, 1945

Newmanstown, PA

326 u.s. 404

II

CERITORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
_..-- ,/Iabus

l. Section 9(a) of the Trading with the enemy Act allows

"Any person not an enemy or ally of enemy . . . to whom any debt may be owing from

to sue the Custodian or the Treasurer of the United States fn the federal courts.
Section 9(e) provides that no debt shall be allowed under§ 9 "unless it was owing to

David Richard Warner
Coltection.s , Estate Planning, Family law,

Lebanon, PA

John J. Fcny Jr.
Bankruptx:y, Business Law, Consumer 1..2

Lebanon, PA
Amy Beth Good-Ashman
Bankruptcy, Consumer Law, Foreclosure
Wyomissing, PA
Harry Walter Fenton
Business t.aw, Criminal taw, Divorce, Dl
Lebanon, PA

an enemy or ally of enemy whose property or any part thereof shall have been
conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid to the Allen Property Custodian"

I

Patti Spencer Esq.
Estete Planning, Tax Law
lancaster. PA

See More Lawyers

and owned by the claimant prior to October 6, 1917," nor
"unless notice of the dalm has been filed, or application therefor has been made, prior
to the date of the enactment of the Settlement of War Clalrns Act of 1928."

Held:

Now~
Get a free full directory profile listing

Lawyers- Get Listed

Ask a Lawyer

(a) The Trading with the Enemy Act became effective again automatically at the
outbreak of World War II. P. 326

u.s. 407.

The Act was designed to operate not only in World War I, but also, unless repealed or
superseded, in any future war. P. 326 U.

Page 326 u.

Search

s.

Question:

Please Ask Your Question Here. e.g.,
Do 1 need a Bankruptcy Lawyer?

409.

s. 405

Ask Question

(b) The right to sue on a debt, granted by § 9(a), has not been wholly withdrawn. P.

AboutLegaiAn~e~

326 u . s. 412.
~-:)The time limitations in § 9(e) relate to claim against property seized during World

. ar L P. 326 U. S. 412.

(d) Allowance of suit on a debt as prescribed by § 9(a) is not lnconsistent with the
power granted the Executive by the 1941 amendment of § S(b) to vest the property of
any foreign country or national thereof and to make of selzed property any use which
~:J/supreme.justia.com/caseslfed~/usl326/404/case.hlni

APX-191

1/14

311112014

Marldlam v. Cabell- 326 U.S. 40¢ (1945) :: Justfa US Sup-emo Court Center

the national interest in wartime might require. P. 326 U. S. 412.
2. Resort to the poUt:y of a law may be had to amellorate its seeming harshness or to
qualify its apparent absolutes. Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143

..........6

u.s.

457. P•

u.s. 409.

3. A less rrteral reading which effectuates a statute ls preferred to a strict reading whlcl1
would render It ineffectual. P. 326 U. S. 409.

4. Where Congress amends only one section of a law, leaving another untouched, the
normal assumption is that the two were designed to function as an Integrated whole. P.
326 u.s. 411.
148 F.ld 737 affirmed.
Certiorari, 325 U.S. 847, to review the reversal of a judgment dismissing the complaint
In a suit under the Trading with the Enemy Act.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
I

Respondent, an American citizen, brought this suit against the Alien Property custodian
and the Treasurer of the United States to recover from the assets of the Asslcurazioni
General! di Trieste e Venezla, an Italian
Page 326

u. s. 406

insurance company, the unpaid portion of a dalm for legal services rendered that
company. The assets of the company had vested in the Alien Property Custodian In
1942, [Foot note 1) and the vested assets had been delivered to hlm. The suit

was

sought to be maintained under§ 9(a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act (40 Stat. 4111
as amended 41 Stat. 977,

so U.S.C.App.

§ 9(a)), which allows

Jny person not an enemy or aUy of enemy •.. to whom any debt may be owing from
an enemy or ally of enemy whose property or any part thereof shall have conveyed,
transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid to the Allen Property Custodian"
to sue the Custodian or the Treasurer of the United States in the federal courts.
Petitioners moved to dismiss on the ground that the daim did not qualify under § 9(e)
of the Act. Sec. 9(e), which was added to the Act In 1920 (41 Stat. 980) and amended
in 1928 (45 Stat. 271)1 provides that no debt shan be allowed under§ 9 •unless it was
owing to and owned by the claimant prior to October 6, 1917,o nor
"unJess notice of the claim has been filed, or application therefor has been made, prior

to the date of the enactment of the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928."
Tn view of those provisiohs of§ 9(e), the District court dismissed the complaint. The
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. 148 F.2d 737. The case Is here on a petition for a
writ of certiorari which we granted because of the publlc importance of the question

presented.
lf § 9(e) is applicable here, the suit may not be maintained, sinc:c the debt was not in

existence on October 6,
Page 326

u.s. 407

1917, nor had notice of the claim been filed or application therefor been made prior to
the date of the enactme!'lt of the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928, 45 Stat. 254.
_...,e would have Quite a different case if § 9(a) and (e) had been enad:ed after the
"tbreak ot' the recent war. For we may assume that Congress could set up such
agatnst the

barriers as It chose to the enforcement: or t:he claims of an allen's cr~Jtors

seized property. But the doubt as

to

the appllcabiUty of§

9(e) to the present situation

arises because that provision was part of the legislation enacted after the outbreak of

htlp://suprema.}usliacom'cases/federal/usf32S/4041case.hlni

APX-192

3/111.2014

Marmam v. Cabell- 326 u.s. 404 (1945) :: Justia us Sup-eme Court Genter

World War I to deal with the claims against property seized during that period. That
legislation was not reenacted when the recent war broke out. It automatically went into
effect again at that time. [Footnote 2] Hence, the argument that
~Q(e) are limited to daims against property seized during World

these provisions of §

War L Our conclusion is

3t they are so fimlted.
In the first place, § 9(e) disallows recovery
"to any person who is a citizen or subject of any nation which was assodated with the
Unlted States in the prosecution of the war, unless such nation in like case extends
reciprocal rights to citizens of the United States. •
When it is recalled that § 9(e) was first added to the act In 1920, it seems tolerably
clear that the words "was associated with the United States in the prosecution of the
war~ refer to World War L The use not only of the past tense, but

Page 326 U.S. 408
also of the concept of "assodate" is significant. As Judge Leamed Hand, speaking for
the Court below, said, the word 0 associate" was used during World War I "in sedulous
avoidance of any implication" that we had Qallies.• In the second place, the time
limitations contained in § 9(e) point the same way. As the United States says, some
sections of the Act were explicitly restricted to situations growing out of World War I,
as, for example,§ 3(d). But it seems to us that the provisions of§ 9(e) with which we
are now concerned carry almost as plain a hallmark. For the restriction of suits to debts
which were owing to and owned by the dalmant prior to October 6, 1917, and as
respects which a notice of daim had been filed prior to the date of the enactment of the
Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928, strongly suggests that Congress was dealing
,J;xdusively with World War I claims, not with daims which might arise in some future

r. As or 1920 and 1928, the time limitations written into § 9(e) had no other
relevancy. The Committee Reports, [Footnote 3] accompanying the legislation by which

§ 9(e) was added to the law, while not explicit on the precise point, show that Congress
was concerned solely with the handling of claims which then existed. There is not the
slightest suggestion that Congress was drafting a statute of limitations likewise
applicable to dalms which might be asserted in case the United States at some future
time again went to war. These considerations indicate to us that il: would be a

Page 326

u. s. 409

distortion to read § 9(e) as if Congress, in December, 1941, decided that the statute of
limitations applicable to World War I claims should likewise be appUcable to World War II
claims. If we gave§ 9(e) that broad Interpretation, we would, In the third place, deprive

§ 9(a) of an meaning so far as World War II daims were concerned. That we hesitate to
do, ror the Act was not only designed to operate in the first World War; It: was also to
become effective at the time of any future war, unless repealed or superseded. Yet the
remedy afforded by§

9(a) would be QUite illusory and

ineffective so far as it applies to

World War II dalms if§ 9(e) were read llterally without regard to itS history. It was for
this reason particularly that the court below refused "to make a fortress out of the
dictionary" and to read § 9(e) strictly and literally. The policy, as well as the letter, of the
law is a guide to decision. Resort to the poficy of a law may be had to ameUorate its
seeming harshness or to qualify its apparent absolutes, as Holy Trinity Church v.
-

United States, 143 U. S. 457, Illustrates. The process of interpretation also misses its
'gh function if a strict reading of a law results In the emasculation or deletion of a
.revision which a less literal reading would preserve.
The United States, however, contends thai:

Sl.lch Q

con~tru(;l;ion or

g ~(e) would gravely

interfere with the efficient administration of alien property controls in accordance with
polldes adopted by Congress in relation to World Warn. It points out that, by virtue of

http://supreme.justiaconVcaseslfederal/us/32614041case.hbri

APX-193

A-1l

311112014

Marl413m v. Cebell - 326 U.S. 404 (1945) :: Justia US S!.P"erte Com Center

amendments to § S(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act whlch were made on
: December 18, 1941, by the first War Powers Act (55 Stat. 839, SO U.S.C.App. Supp.

IV, § 616), the Executive is now armed With far more comprehensive power over alien
_,oroperty and the property or other foreign interests than In World War L Now there Is

e nfreezlng"

or "blocking" of foreign -funds aimed at the immoblnzation of foreign

assets in the United States by prohibiting,
Page 326 U.

s. 410

without a license, any transactions Involving them -- a program tnitlated after the
Invasion by Germany or Denmark and Norway and administered by the Treasury.
[Footnote 4] If the Treasury refuses a Dcense permitting payment of creditors out of

blocked funds, neither the creditor nor the owner has any remedy as a matter of right
under the Act. It is said that to allow creditors of certain afiens whose property has
been vested In the Alien Property Custodian to maintain suits, but to disallow suits by
creditors of aliens whose funds are ll"lerely frozen, Is to destroy consistency In the
position of creditors under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Moreover, § 9(a) permits
suits on debt daTms only if the debt Is one "owing from an enemy or aUy of enemy"
whose property has been taken. By the 1941 amendment to § S(b), the vesting power

has not been so limited, but extends to "any property or Interest of any foreign country
or national." The argument is that to construe ,§ 9(e) so as to permit creditors of an

enemy to sue is to discriminate without warrant against creditors of nonenemy foreign
nationals who are given no such remedy. f\1oreover, It is said that, if § 9(e) is not a
barrier to suits, a race of dlllgence would be started with no guarantee of any equitably
ordered priority in the payment of the claims out of the seized property. It is also
argued that, if these suits are allowed, the operations of the Custodian would be
burdened with litigation.
~

have concluded that, however meritorious these considerations are, they raise

questions of policy for Congress. We are concerned only With the right to sue on a debt

under§ 9. Congress granted that right to some daimants -and withheld It from others.
Whether its choice was wise or not is not for us to say. ihe right to sue, explicitly
granted by § 9(a), should not be read out of the law
Page 326 U.S. 411
unless it is clear that Congress, by what lt later did, withdrew its earller permission. We
can find no indication In the 1941 legislation that Congress, by amending § S(b),
desired to delete or whoUy nullify § 9(a). On the contrary, the normal assumption is
that, where Congress amends only one section of a law, leaving another untouched, the
two were designed to function as parts of an Integrated whole. We should give each as
full a play as possible. Moreover, we are able to find in the amendment to § S(b) no
suggestion or indication thet Congress was writing a dlf'fen:~nt statute of limitations than
was then contained in § 9{e). The 1941 amendment is as silent on that score as it is on

the right to

sue

afforded by § 9(a).

it is true that § S(b) gave a broader grant of authority to the ExecutiVe than had

exiSted under the original Act. [Footnote 5) As respects the seizure of property, it

provtdes:
Page 326

u. s. 4;1.2

_::• • • any property or interest of any foreign country or national thereof shall vest when,
, and upon the terms directed by the President in such agency or person as may be
designated from time to tlme by the President, and upon such terms and CQnc.\ltlons es
the President may prescribe such interest or property shalf be held, used, administered,

liquldtJted, sold_, or otherwise dealt with In the lnrerest of and for the benefit of the
United states, and such designated agency or person may perform any and an acts

APX-194

Mmld'\am v. C<bell - 326 U.s. 404 ( 1945) :: Juslia US &verre Cwt Center

311112014

lnddent to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes. n

{Itartcs added)

.J..t ls

said that the survival of the privilege of satisfying debt daims as a matter of right

t of vested property is inconsistent with the new power granted the Executive by §
S(b) to make any affirmative use of the property that the national Interest in time of

war might require. eut we are here concerned solely with the right to sue on a debt, not
with the right to sue to redaim property nor with any question concerning the
satisfactlon of any Judgment

wtlich

m~y

be obtijine<J, We only hold that the light to sue

on a debt granted by § 9(a) has not been wholly withdrawn, and that § 9(e) iS not
applicable to this class of claims. We cannot see that the auowance of

Page 326

u. s. 413

a suit on a debt as pr~c;ribed by§ 9{a) collides with.the pali~;y of§ 5(b). That does not

in any way cause interference with the admlnlStratlon of the vested property pursuant
to § S(b). Sec. 9(a), to be sure, contains a provision which presaibes how any

1Udgtnent obtained in the suit against the Custodian or Treasurer shaD be satisfied,
(Footnote 6) and also allows suits to reclaim property. [footnote 7] Whether those
provisions have been superseded

by § 5(b)1

or

whether § 5(b) ccntains a grant

of

authority which may be so exercised as to prevent the reclamation of property or the
payment of the judgment or to alter the procedure for redamation or payment as

9la), are distinct questions. Here, we are deafing solely with the light to
maintain a suit on a debt -- a right which is not shown to comde with § S(b). We
reserve decision on the other questions.

prescribed ln §

Afflnned.
·~.

JUSTICE JACKSON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

lr·ootnote 1]

See Vesting Order 218, dated October 7, 1942., 7 Fed. Reg. 9466; Vesting Order 468,
dated December 9, 1942, 8 Fed.Reg. 1038. For the establishment of the office of Allen
Property Custodian and the definition of his functions as respects the vesting of alien
property, see Executive Order 9193, dated July 6, 1942, 7 Fed.Reg. 5205, amending

Executive Order 9095, dated March 11, 1942, 7 Fed.Reg.t971.
[Footnote 2]
As the Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out, that followed from several drcumstances:

(a) § 2 defined "the beginning of the war• to mean "midnight ending the day on which

Congress has declared or shall dedare war or the existence of a state of war;" (b) §
302 of the First War Powers Act, approved December 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 838, 840}.
assumed that the Trading with the Enemy Act had not been in force before December

a, 1941, and that it went into effect again at that time, and (c) § S(b) of the Trading
with the Enemy Act was amended December 18, 1941, by the First War Powers Act
without any mention of the other parts of the earlier act. 55 Stat, 839.
[Footnote 3)

See H.Rep. No.l089, 66th Cong., 2d Sess.j S.Rep. l\lo.273, 70th Cong., 1st Sess., p.
29; H.Rep. No.17, 70th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 20. In S.Rep. No.273, supra, it was
stated:
nder the existing law, a creditor of a person whose property was seized by the Alien
Property

Cu:otodl;:,n m
. ay f1lc a c:loiiTt and ln:stlt.ute proceedings !'of" the payn1ent of the

debt, under certain conditions. Inasmuch as

these

claimants

hav~ had more than 10

years In which to file their c:laims. this proviSion Is amended by subsection (b) of sectiOn
12 of the proposed bill so as to permit payment only where the claim was filed prior to

APX-195

htlp'J/suprerre.jusUa.com'caseslfederallus/326f404/case.htn1

A

79

MBTlflam '\( Cabell - 326 u.s. 404 (1945) :: Juslla US SUpreme Court Center

311112014

the date of the enactment of the bill."
[Footnote 4)

_Jhis program, initiated by Executive Order 8389, dated April 10, 1940, 5 Fed.Reg.

-00, was ratified by Congress on May 7~ 1940, by Joint Resolution. 54 Stat. 179.
[Footnote 5]
As stated in H.Rep. No.1507, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 2-3:
"Section S(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Ad: has been continued down to the
present time. The existing system of foreign property control (commonly known

as

freezing control) is based on that subdivision as last amended on May 7, 1940. That
subdivision of section 5, as it is now in effect, however, does not give the broad powers

to take, administer,

control,

use,

liquidate, etc., such foreign- owned property that

would be given by section 301 of the bill."
"At present, the Government exerdses supervision over transactions in foreign
property either by prohibiting such transactions or by permitting them on condition and
under license. It is therefore a system which can prevent transactions rn fOreign
property prejudidal to the best interests of the United states, but it is not a system
which can affirmatively compel the use and application of foreign property In those
interests."
"Section 301 remedies that situation by adding to the existing freezing control, in
substance, the powers contained In the Trading With the Enemy Act with respect to
allen property, extending those powers, and adding a flexibUlty of control which
experience under the original act and the recent experience under freezing control have
demonstrated to be advisable. The provisions of section 301 would permit the
' abl!shment of a complete system of alien property treatment. It vests flexible powers

"' the President, operating through such agency or agendes as he might choose, to
deal with the problems that surround allen property or its ownership or control in the
manner deemed most effective in

each

particular case. In

this respect,

the bnl avoids the

rigidity and inflexibility which characterized the alien property custodian law enacted
during the last war. The necessity for flexibility in legislation on this subject is

accentuated by the vastness of the alien property problem conftonting the Government
today. At the peak of his activity, the Allen Property Custodian of the last war
administered property valued at something over $500,000,000. Today, there is over
$7,000,000,000 worth of property already subject to the existing control."

And see S.Rep. No.911, 77th Cong., 1St Sess., p. 2.
[Footnote 6)
"If suit shall be so Instituted, then such money or property shall be retained in the

custody of the Alien Property Custodian, or In the Treasury of the United

States1 as

provided In this Act, and until any final judgment or decree which shall be entered in
favor of the claimant shall be fuUy satisfied by payment or conveyance, transfer,
assignment, or delivery by the defendant, or by the Alien Property Custodjan, or
Treasurer of the United States on order of the court, or until final judgment or decree

shall be entered against the claimant or suit otherwise terminated."
[Footnote 7]
-

'!C.

9(a) allows suits by

··[a]ny person not an enemy or aUy of enemy claiming 21ny Interest,

right, or title In any

money or other property which may have been conveyed, transferred, assigned,
delivered, or paid to the Alien Property Custodian or seized by him hereunder and held

ov him or by the Treasurer of the United States,"

nliP1fsupreme.Iustlacom'caseslfederallusJ:m/404/case.hlni

APX-196

311112014

Marlhtmv. cabell- 326U.SA04 (1945) ::JustiaUSSupremeCotltCeoter

as wen as suits by any such person to whom a debt may be owing from any enemy or

ally of enemy Whose property has been seized.
MR. JUSTICE BURTON, concurring.
review of the development of the Trading with the Enemy Act from itS Inception In

1917, early in World War
Page 326 U.

s . 414

I, fUrther discloses its dual purposes in a way that throws needed light upon its
meaning at the time of this proceeding In 1944, late in W arid War n.

It originated as H.R. 4960, June 11, 1917, drafted in the form of permanent legislation.
Its purposes were explained by House and Senate Committees In terms suited to
permanent legislation. (Footnote 2/1] Before Its pas.s age, several amendments were
Inserted whTch limited specific sections of the Act to 0 the present war, fi [Footnote 2/2]
but none of these so limited § 9 or the act as a whole. other sections were limited by
references made to specific nations, and stm others by references to spedfic dates.
Later amendments added other provisions confined to World War I. However, no

general limitation ever has confined the Act as a whole or Its main structural provisions
to a spec!t'lc war, specific nations, or specific dates. In this way, the Act. has met the
Immediate needs of its time and also has stood ready to meet additional v,rars and

additional e11emles. The beginning of World War II in 1941 accordingly found

Page 326

u. s. 415

many provisions of the Act, such as § 9{e), limited by references to World War I, and
others, such as § 9(a), not so llmited.

r>.y it5 terms, its nature, and Its history, § 9(e), [Footnote 2/3] from its inception, has
,ated solefy to World War I. Its relation to World War I is apparent on its face. Its first
clause refers to a restriction on the aUowancc of a debt "to any person who Is a dtizen
or a subject of any nation which was associated rmth the United States in the

prosecution of the war." These words, enacted In 1920 (41 Stat. 977, 980) and
reenacted in 1923 {42 Stat. 1511, 1514), refer to any nation •associated" With us in

World War I. "Associated" was then a word of art. Its second clause reads, "nor, In any
event, shall a debt be allowed under this section unless it was owing to and owned by
t:he claimant prfor to OctDber 6, 1917." This refers to the effective date of the original
Trading with the Enemy Act. This date proVides a reasonable test for debts to be
aUowed
Page 326 U.

s. 416

against property seiZed by the Alien Property Custodian In connection with World War L
n: has no reasonable relation to a war beglnnlng '" 1941.. To require claims to be more

than 24 years old in order to be acceptable is

beyond reason. The last dause reads,

"nor shall a debt be ollowed under this section unless notice of the claim has been
fffed, or application therefor has been made, prior to the date of the enactment of the
Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928. n

This dause means nothing when applied to a claim, like the present one, which

was

not

eamed until 1935.

_§ectlon 9(e), as thus earmarked, prescribes a natural limitation upon daims to be
lowed agalnst enemy property seized in World War I. As such it is reasonable. It is not
possible, however, that Congress lntcntioni!llly chose this Indirect way of saying that

American creditors may assert just dalms against assets of debtors whose properties
were seized In World War L but not against assets of debtors whose properties might
be l'teld in OJStody by the Alie" Property Custodian as a result of future wars.
http://supreme.juslia.cn:r/caseslfederal/us/3261404fca&e.hl71i

APX-197

31111201"

Maihlmv. Cabell - 326 U.S. 404(1945) ;: Juslia US~Court Center

Th~ legislative hlstory emphasizes thls. The original Trading wfth the Enemy Act, when

enacted, October 6, 1917 {40 Stat. 4ll), contalned two kinds of provisions. The
general structure of the Act was in terms of permanent legislation. Sectlon 2 1 in defining

-l:erms, refrained from reference to the war then in progress or to spec:iflc: nations or
.ed dates. For example, it provided that:
'The words 'the beginning of the war; as used herein, shall be deemed to mean
midnight ending the day on Which Congress has declared or shall declare war or the

existence of a state of war. •
"The words 'end of the war,' as used herein, shall be deemed to mean the date of

prodamation of exchange of ratifications of the treaty of peace, unless the President
shall, by prodamation, dedare a prior date, In which case the date so prodaimed shall

be deemed to be the 'end of
Page 326

u. s. 417

the war' within the meaning of this Act.·
(SO

u.s.c.

App. § 2(c)).

Sectlons 3(a), (b) and (c) dealt in like terms with general procedure for trading under
Presidential license in time of war. Section S(b) dealt with the regulation of foreign
exchange, coin export, transfers of credit, etc. Section 6 authorized the President to
appoint an official to be known as the Allen Property Custodian. Section 9 provided for
the assertion of property daims and debt daims on behalf of any person not an enemy
or ally of enemy against certain assets i'n the possession of the Custodian.
On the other hand, certain other provisions were, from the beginning, earmarked as
~emporary

provisions. For example, § 3(d) referred to certain censorship to be

~ablished uduring the present war." Section 4(a) referred to certain German insurance

comt:~anies. Sed:fon 4(b} referred to "the present war.u Similar references to "the

present waru occurred 1n §§ 11, 13, and 14.
Section 9 is typical. Originally it was aD of a general and permanent nature. It has been
amended nine times. Its first paragraph has been preserved, with slight changes, as §
9(a) in the form of permanent legislation. On the other hand, many new subsections of

§ 9, Including § 9{e), contain provisions suited only to transactions growing out of
World War I. The first amendment to § 9 was that of July 11, 1919 (41 Stat. 35). This
threatened to confuse the situation. It inserted In the first paragraph a proviso referring

to (41 Stat. 36) "all property heretofore determined by the President to

he~ve

been held

••. for the benefit of a person who was an enemy or aUy of enemy• and to

uterritory of any nation associated with the United States in the prosecution of the war
which was occupied by the military or navel forces of Germany or At.IXrll1·Hungl1ry, or

theJr allies."

(Italics supplied.) On JUne 5, 1920, however, the second amendment (41 Stat. 977)
Page 326 U. 5. 418

corrected this and set the pattern which has since been followed. It reenacted the whole
of§ 9 and, In doing so, removed from its first paragrapll the 1919 proviso. It restored

that paragraph to general terms and gave it the designation of § 9(a), which it has
retained. Congress, at the same time, added several subsections, most of which
- 1ntained express references to Germany and Austria-Hungary. .Section 9(e) first
.ppeared at that ttme. From the beginning, § 9(e) contained itS present referanc.es to
"any ne~tlon which was assodated wren the: Unite<l St~tes In tlle prosecution of the war"

and to l:he requirement that a debt, In order to be a\lowed under the sed:lon, must have
been "owing to and owned by the daimant prior to October 6, 1917." Later

ht!p'l/SlJil"eme.justiae<m'cases.lfederallusl3Z6/404/case.htrrt

APX-198

311112014

Mar141amv. Cabell- 326 U.S. 404 (1~:: Juslia US Suprerre Court Center

amendments emphasized this restriction of§ 9(e) to World War I, while preserving the

general and permanent character of§ 9(a). [Footnote 2/4] Distortion
Page 326

u. s. 419

the meaning of statutory language would result not from rrmtting § 9(e) to Worfd
War I, but from applying it to World War [L
It Is argued that to exdude the defense which Is dalmed to be supplied by § 9(e)
against debts payable out of property vested in the Custodian during Wor1d Warn,
under§ S(b), as amended by the Frrst War Powers Act, December 18, 1941 (55 Stat.
839),

wm result In Inequities. For example, it Is

urged that § S(b) was amended in 1941

to permit vesting In the Custodian of property of "any foreign country or a natlonaf

thereof." However, § 9{a) has not been amended correspondingly to pennit the
assertion of claims lo the payment

ot debts out of the property of a foreign national, as

dlsttngulshed from that of an "enemy or ally of enemy." From this, it is argued that
Congress should not be regarded as having intended to create such inequities, if there
be such, between creditors of "enemies" and those of other "foreign nationals" through
the passage of the First War Powers Act, and that therefore Congress must be
regarded as having intended that § 9(e) eUmlnate all creditors' claims under § 9(a)
against property of enemies and of ames of enemies, unless filed or daimed before
March 10, 1928.

This amounts to an argument that, because subsequent legislation has produced
inequitable results, therefore preexisting legislation should be reinterpreted so as to
Page 326 u. s. 420
eliminate these subsequently created inequities. If the meaning of § 9(e) was restricted

.., World War I prior to the enactment of the Arst War Powers Act, the Arst War
.wers Act cannot change the meaning of§ 9(e) without amending it, and it does not
amend it. A suggestion that amendatory legislation might now be helpful is found In bills

recently introduced in Congress with the support of the Allen Property Custodian. The
hearings emphasize that need. {Footnote 2/5)

Furthermore, the Interpretation now urged to offset inequities would create other
inequities. For example, the proposed interpretation would result in an inequity to the
respondent in the present case. He is an American citizen with an admittedly good claim
for

about $7,000 earned in 1935, against an enemy corporation, assets of which in the

hands of the Alien Property Custodian are ample to pay the claim. The claimant filed hls
daim within the one year prescribed in the order vesting the assets of the enemy
company in the Custodian. [Footnote 2]6) The claimant is now met with a defense that
he cannot recover, because he fafled to file his dalm before March 10, 1928, which was
seven years before it was earned and fourteen years before the assets had been vested

ln the Custodian with whom he is asked to fife his notice. The decision as to the

existence of inequities under the 1941 amendment and as to the best way to

deal

wrth

them lay with Congress in 1941, and still fies there.
The Act never hE!S had a termination clause, and was expressly excluded from the Joint
Resolution of March 3, 1921 (41. Stat. 1359), whfch declared that certain acts of

Page 326 U. s. 421
-

Congress should be construed as If the war had ended and the present or then existing
nergency had expired. The Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928 [Footnote 2n1 was
...ngrafted upon the Trading with the Enemy Act without affecting its general structure
or Its life. In the natural course of events, World War 1 daims ultimately wouJO have
been disposed of, and yet the main structure of the Act would have remained on the
books ready for later use. That this was contemplated is evidenced by Executive Order

APX-199

Marldtam v. Cabell - 326 U.S. 404 (1945) :.: Justia US ~E!fl'B Court Center

3111/2014

6694, May 1, 1934. [Footnote 2/8) This was Issued under authority of the

Reorganization Act of March 3, 193 (47 Stat. 1489, 1517). Section 1 expressly

~bolished the Office of the Alien Property Custodian and transferred the

--uthority, lights, privileges, powers, and duties conferred and Imposed an the Allen
: oR£rty Custodian by law and/or ExecutfVe Order ... to the Department of Justice, to
b~

administered under the supervision of the Attorney General.n

"Chis incornorated the office of the Alien Property Custodian Into the oermaoent
~tructure

of the Government. Within the Department of Justice, the rights, priVileges,

powers, and duties conferred upon the ADen Property Custodian were placed under the
Attorney General, and were later exercised largely through him or the Assistant
Attorney General in charge of the Claims DIVIsion in the Department of Justice. On May
15, 1939, by Executive Order 8136, 4 Fed.RE!9. 2044, a!l power,and authority conferred
uoon the President by §§ 9, 12, 20 and Zl of t!Je Trading with the Enemy Act and all
power and authority which the President under thDt Act had theretofore ordered to be
exercised through the Alien Property Custodian were vested in and required to be
~xercised through the Attorney General or the Assistant Attorney General In charge of
the Claims Division In the Department of Justice.

In thiS status, § 9(a) and other permanent portions of
Pege 326 U. s. 422
the Trading with the Enemy Act awaited the next war. If left in that form, there would
have been no inequities other than those which had existed In World War L The Act
would have been administered much as it was in World War I, except that it would have

been administered through the Attorney General and the Department of Justice instead
9f through an independent agency. In 1940, at the approach of World Warn, the Act
j

much the same structure in §§ 9(a), 9(e) and S(bl as it had in 1928. The Inequities

discussed in this proceeding arose later from the substantial expansion of § S(b).
[Footnote 2/9]

Page 326 U. S. 423
On December 1.8, 1941, came the Fll'St War Powers Act. 55 Stat. 839. No statutory or
executive action was needed to make the machinery of the Trading with the Enemy Act

avaUable. It was already ln effect with the full statutory powers of the Allen Property
Custodian vested in the Attorney General. Title m of the First War Powers Act expressly
recognized the Trading with the Enemy Act by amending only § S{b) of it. Congress
also confirmed aU actions already taken "under the Trading with the Enemy Act" which
would have been authoriZed "if the provlSlons of this Act [First War Powers Act] and the
amendments made by it had been in effect. u

On March 11, 1942, the President issued Executive Order 9095, 7 Fed.Reg.1.971.
estabfiShing in t~e Office for Emergency Management of

the Executive OffiCe of the
President, the Office of Alien Property Custodian at the head of which there again would

be an Ali£:n propertv Custodian appointed by the President. By Executive Order 9142,

April 21, 1942, 7 Fed.Reg. 2985, expressly acttng under the Constitution and laws of
the United States, and in particutar under Trt:le I of the First War Powers Act, the
President transferred for "the continuance of the present war and for six months after
the termination thereof' to "the Alien Property Custodian provided for by Executive
_Order No. 9095," everything that had been transferred to the Attorney General by
·ecutiVe Order 6694 of May 1, 1934. or to the Assistant Attorney General in charge of
the ClaimS OMsion of the Department of JustiCe under Executive On:ler 6136, May 15,
1939, 4 Fed.Reg. 2.044.

On JUlY 6, 1942, Exru:utivl! Ord~r 909S was amended by Executive Order 9193, 7
http://supreme.justiacom'caseslfederal/usl326f404/case.h1ml

APX-200

Mrilamv. Cabeii-326U.S.404.(1945) :;Jusiia US~ COirteenter"

:Y1112014

fed.Reg. 5205. The Alien Property Custodian "provided for by Executive Oroer No.

9095,•

as amended by Executive Order 9193, was thus given the powers of the Trading

with the Enemy Ad. as fullY as in World War I. and also additional powers provided
ge 326 \J.

s. 424

through amendments Including the expansion of powers under § S(b). These
authotiZatlons carried power to Lssue regulations, particularly ln connectiOn with the
vesting of property as Wi3S done by the vesting orders in thls case. (Footnote Z/10)
The Allen Property Custoctlan in taking over the adminl$tratlon of the Trading wlth the

Enemy Ad.S, is entitled to the full scope of 1ts permanent provisions, whether found in §

S(b)

or§ 9(a) or elsewhere.

For these reasons, § 9(e) does not present a ground for dismissal of tl'le

complaint,

which depends upon § 9(a}, and the dec!slon of the Cira.lit court of Appeals should be
affirmed.
~1R. JUSTICE

FRANKFURTER, having concurred in the Court's oplnton, alSo Joins in

~eviews.

[Footnote 2/!]
"The chief objects of this biU are (l) to recogniZe and apply c:onaetely, subject to
definite modifications, the prinCiple and practice of InternatiOnal taw interdicting trade in
time or war, and (2) to conserve and utfi!ze upon a basls of practical justice enemy
property found within the jurisdiction of t:he United States•••• According to American
law, one of the immediate consequences of war Is to put an end to all cnmm<!rcial
relations between citizens or subjects of belfigerent nations."
~.R.Rep.

No.SS, 65th Cong., 1st Sess. l, lune 21, 1917. "To summartze, the purpose
the bill is not to create new International rules or practices, but to define and mitigate
~nem." H.R..Rep. No.SS, supra, p. 2.
"The purpose of this bill Is to mitigate the rules of law whfch prohibit aU intercourse
between the citizens of warring nations, and to permit, under careful safeguards and
restrictions, certain kinds of business to be canied on. It a'.so provides for the care and

administration of the property and property rights of enemies and their

ames In

thiS

country pending the war. •

Sen.Rep. No.113, 65th Cong., 1st Sess. 1, Aug. 31, 1917.
[Footnote 2/2]
The conference report Inserted fh1e such references. H.R.Rep. No.lSS, 65th Cong., 1st

Sess., 3, 6, September 21, 1917.
(Footnote 2/'3]

Section

9(e) of the Tradln9 with the Enemy Att, as

last amenOed, August 24, 1937 (50

U.S.C. App. 9(e)), Is as folloY'JS;

"No money or <>ther property shaU be returned nor any debt allowed under this section
to any person who

Is a dtizen or subject of any natlon which was associated with the

Untted States in the prosecution of the war unless such natiOn In like case extends
reciprocal rights to citizens of the United States: Provided$ That any arrangement made
by a foreign nation for the release of money and other property of American citgens
- .,d cert1fied by the Secretary of State to the Attorney General as fall'" and most
Jvantageous arrangement obtainable shall be regi!!rded as meeting thiS reQUirement;
f'lor, In any even!', shall a deb~ be 11llowed under this secc:Jon unless It was owing to and

oVJned by the claimant prior to October 6, 1917,

and as to datmants ot:her than

dtizen.s of the United States unless it arose with reference to the money or othar

APX-201

Marl61am v. Cal:leil - 326 U.s. 404 (1945) :: Justia us SUpreme Court Center

3{1112014

property held by the Aliefl Property Custodian or Treasurer of the United States
hereunder; nor shall a debt be allowed under this section unless notice of the claim

has been filed, or application therefor has been made, prior to the date of the
-enactment of the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928 (Act l\1arch 10, 1928, c. 167).•
,Jtalics supplied.)
[Footnote 2/4)
The later amendments were those of February 27, 1921 (41 stat. 1147), applying §§
9(b)(2) and (3) to situations Where a woman, "prior to April6, 1917, int:ermarrled With a
subject or dtizen of Germany or Austria-Hungary;"
December 21, 1921 (42 Stat. 351), afTI<"_ndlng § 9(a) to permit suits to be brought

eighteen months, Instead or siX montl'ls, after the uend of the war. D The amendment did
not insert any calendar date relating to World War I, although peace had been dedared
July 2, 1921. The words "end of the war" must therefore be given their general meaning
appllcable to aU wars as provided in the definitions in § 2, supra;
December 27, 1922 (42 Stat. 1065), amending § 9(a) to permit suits to be brought 30
months, instead of 18 months, after the "end of the war;•

March 4, 1923 (42 Stat. 1511}, reenactjng the whole § 9. In § 9(a), it omitted aU
limitation on the time within which suits might be brought. lt added new subsections

espedally adapted to World War I dalms, such as a restriction against claims on behalf
of otizens of the United States naturalized since November 11, 1918;
May 7, 1926 (44 Stat. 406), adding §§ 9(b)(3a} and (3b) as to dtJzens of Germany,

Austria, Hungary, or Austria-Hungury;
-"''arch 10, 1928 (45 Stat. 254-279). This was the "Settlement of War Claims Act or
J28. • It dealt expressly with World War I. It was concerned with such subjects as the

"l\1ixed Claims Commission" and "The Tripartite Claims Commission.u It amended the
Trading with the Enemy Act in many details as to World War l claims, and added many
new provisions as to those Claims. It added subsections to § 9. In § 9(e), it inserted
the dause which required that notices of dalms must have been filed or applications for
claims must have been made before the enactment of the Settlement of War Claims Act

ot'1928;
August 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 748), amending § 9(e) by Inserting the proviso as to
arrangements which will be regarded as meeting the requirements of redprocal rights.
(Footnote 2/51
S.1940, H.R. 4840 and H.R. 5031 were Introduced In the 78th Congress. H.R. 1530
was Introduced

r.n

t:hc 79th congress, .Junucry 1.6, 1.945. See Hearings on H.R. 4840

before Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judldary for the House of

Representatives, 78th Cong., 2d Sess.,. Serial No. 18, June 9-15, 1944.
(Footnote 2/6)
See note 10 infra.
[Footnote

2m

See nota 4, supro.

rFootnote 2/8]
-8 C.F.R. § 4.L

[footnote 2/~1
The develol)ment of the law especially affecting § S(b}, which took place during the

APX-202

CONCERN OF THE UNITED STATES OVER ENEMY AT·
TEMPTS TO SECRETE FUNDS OR OTHER ASSETS IN
NEUTRAL COUNTRIES: INCEPTION OF THE SAFEHAVEN PROGRAM
840.G1 FrouD ~e4it.s/12479a : <!ltl!ulAr telogra.m

The Acting Secretary of State to OeTtain Diplomati.Q and

Officers

0~

1

W ASBINCTON1 Fobruary 22, 1944.
There is quoted below the text of a declaration issued by the Secl'&-

tary of the Treasury a at twelve noon Eastern War Time, February 221
1944.. A similar declatation was issued by the United Kingdom and

U.SS.R. 'l"reasuries.~
"On January :>, 1943 the United Stutes and certain others of the
United Nations·issued a. warning to all concerned, and in :particula.r to
persons in neutral countries, that they intend to do theJr utmost to
defeat the methods of dispossession practiced by the governments with
which they are at war against the countries and peoples who have been
so wa.nt.oruy assaulted and despoiled.4 Furthermore, it has been an·
nounood many times that one of the purposes of the financial and
pro~y controls of the United States Government is to prevent the
liqutdation in the United Stu.tes of a~ts looted by the Axis through

duress and conquest.

'In Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazll, Canada, Chile, China, Oolombla, Costa Rfca, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt (~pe.ated to the
tllplomattc repreeentati'Ves for Greece and Yugoslavla), El Sutvador, liJthio.Pla,
Great Britain (repeabld to tb& dlplomatlc repl'e$entatlve Col' Belgium, Czech~r
9lo~alda, tbe Netherlands. Norway and Polaod), Guatemala, Haiti. Honduras,
Iceland, lndia, Iran, lraq, Liberia, Mexico, l\ew Zeal.ll.nd, Nicaragua, Panama.
Po.TO.gUay, Peru, Portugal, Spaln, Sweden, Bwtberltuld, Turkey, Union ot South
Attica (Pretoria and Capetown), UnJon ot Sovtet Soctallst Bel)ubllcs, Utugoa,y,
and Venezuela.
• Hem:y Morgenth.au, Jr.
• A memorandum of December 27. 1943, by the Chief o! the Financial Di\"lsion
(Livesey) stated: "Tbe general policy expressed ln the proposed declaration
wo.s thoroughly cleared In the Department :\lld approved by two Aalstant Secretaries and the Secretary. The Treasury was told o! tbls gweral approval and
ot collateral suggestiolls by the Department of State tbat the 1SSU4Jice of the
$1atement should be taken up with the British with a \1ew to having them take
parallel action." (740.001.18 European War/125ab)
In a memonmdum ot DeceiXlber 29, 1943, the CJblef ot llle Financial Division
noted that BIU"l'Y Dexter White, Assistant to tbe Secretnry of the Treasury, bad
Ln!ormed bim in a telephone conversation on that date that Secretary Morgen·
than. several dll,y'!t before, bad suggested that the eonaultatlon wltb Great Bdtal.n
regardlng the proposed Treasury declaration be broadened by also consulting the
Soviet Union (740.00113 European War 1939/1278).
'For ten of Inter-Allioo det'la.ralion against t1et8 of dJspossesston committed In
territories under enemy oe<:ol)at1on or control, Jruraary :;, 1943, see Foreidn lle·
l4Cibnl , 1948, vol. ~ p. 443.
213

A

-o'
APX-203

214

li'OREION R.ELATIONS1

\

YU, VOLUME ll

One of the particular methods of dispossession practiced by the
Axls powers has been the illegal seizure of large amounts of X~~
be.longittg to the nations they have occupied and plundered. The
·
powers have purported t.o sell such looted gold to "Various countries
which continue to roai.ntain diplomatic and commercial relations with
the Axis, such gold thereby providing an im_portant source of foreigr1
t!Xclumge to the Axis n.nd eno.bling the Ax1s to obtain much-needed
imports from these countdes.
The United Stn.tes Treasury has ah·eady taken measures desijn~~
to protect the Msets of the invaded countr1es and to prevent the
·
from disposing of looted currencies, securities and other looted assets
on the world tnn.rket. Similarly, the United Stn.tes Govel'nment cannot in any way condone the policv of systematic phmdering t\dopted
any way directly or indirectly in the
unlawful d~oSltion of looted gold.
In view of the foregoing facts o..nd considerations, the United
States Government, iormaUy declares that it does not and will not
1·ecogni.ze the t.ra.nsfet•ence of t.itle to the looted gold which the Axis
nt nny time holds or has disposed of in world markets. It further
declares that it will be the policy of the United Stales Treasm-y not
to buy any gold p1·esently loe:i.ted outside of the territorial lim1ts of
t.he United States from any country whlch has not brob.n relations
'\"ith the Axis, or frotn any co\.mll•y which after the date of thjs announc-ement acquires ~old from any country which Ius not broken
toelations •vith the .A.Xls, unless and until the United States Tren.sury
is iully satisfied tl1at such gold is not gold which was acquired
directly or indirectly :from the Axis powers or is not gold 'vhieh a.n;y
such country has been or is en&bled. t() release as a. result of the acquisltion of gold directly or indirectly £rom the .Axis powers." 6
You are instructed to bring the above declaration to the attention
of the appropriate officials of the government to which you n.l'Q
acci'edited, lllld to inform such officials that it is our sincere hope that
their government will take pal'allel action.0
by the Axis or participate in

STm"l".'l\"TUS

• A note ot Febl'tiAry 22 bom the Soviet Ambassador (Gtolll.yko) cite\! a letter
{Bell) to the ettect that tlle provll';i<m»
contained in the last parngrapb ot the Treasury declaration would not be applied
to operations on gold transactions of the U.S.S.R. The Actwg Secretary o!
State {Stettlnius), in his note of Febrlllll'y 22 to the Soviet Ambassador, conti.rmed that tbe J)l'OVisions in tbe final section would not be held operative in
respect to gold txa.nsactions of the U.S.S.R. (800.515/97S)

from the .A.ctl.ng Seeret:o.ry of the Treasury

• During 1944, according to DeJ>nrlment rec:ords, tbe 1oll<7Wlng Government.s.

declared publicly tbelr adherence to the declaration, or notUled the Department
ot their acceptance of ita prlnclples and their Intention to im\)lement the decl&l'atlon: :Belgium, Brazil, China. Ceechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador,
Ethiopia, Greece, Guatemala, llaltl. lcaland, India, Iran, Liberia, Luxembourg..
Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Poland, Union of SO\ltb
Africa, and Yugoslavia

APX-204

I'BE SA.FERAVEN PROGRAM

215

7.0.001121. 8.W.1889/8669'fa.; ~

TM Secretary

of State to the Amluwador in th. United Kingdom
(Winant)

W ASDINo;roN, April25, 194:4---fS :10 p.m.
A-702. If such a. communication has not been sent within 1'008Ilt
months, the DepaJ."tment bcUeves that a circular instruction should
be sent to the missions at Stockholm, Lisbon, Madrid, Bern, Tangier
nnd ....Ukara. requesting them to be on tl1e a.lert for any information
or evidence relating to enemy attempts to secrete funcls or other assets
in neutral countries for ss.fekeeping, or for other purposes, a.nd to
report all pertinent information immediately to the Deparlment.
:Meanwhile the Department will appreciate receiving from you the
text of a.ny communications of thls type which may have been sent by
you or MEW 7 and also copies of any reports which you or MEW
may have ~eived from the missions with regard to enemy attempts
to place their funds in neutral territory.
Ht:LL
ThtNatloaa.l ArchlTn, FEA Retw4a

'l'hc Dir#JCtor of th6 SpecUU, .Area& B,.anch, F or6ign E con.omic ~dmi.n.~
i8tMtion (Bt<m8) to th8 Ohisf of the E(Ute'f'n Bemi$phtre Di1Ji8ion

(Merchant)
'\VAmtNGTON, May 17, 1944.

D.JWt LIVY: Later this year military developments may threaten
trade communications between Germany and the Ib~u·ian Peninsula.
or Turkey or other European neuLra.]s. One of the problems which
will then arise will be a. last minute ft.ight of Gennan capito.l for sa.fe
l<ceping in neutral territory. Enemy firms, officials and individuals
,vilJ, no doubt, attempt to transfer legally owned wealth and loot in
their various forms such as gold, gems, securities and money, nnd will
be under special pressure to accelerate such exports while it is l:!till

physically possible. German assetsin neutral territory will uo longer
be usable for purchases of war supplies nnd hc.noo will be a.va.ilo.ble for
other purposes, possibly for transier to the Western Hemisphere.
Our Government will no doubt wish to consider tn.lcing stronger
measures than beret.ofore to offset this form of enemy activity. It
might be decided, for ex&mple, to uert pressure on tJ1e neut.rols to refuse such enemy capital ~rts or altern.a.tively to catalogue existing
caches a.s part of a joint program in preparation for ultimate pos~war
settlements.
Whilo it might now be too early to take final action, I believe a US&ful purpose would b& served if info:r:rnt\1. preliminary discussions on
"Brttiab Mlntstr:v of Economic Wa.r:t.are.

APX-205

216

FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1944 1 VOLUME ll

this problem could be inaugurated. I am sure that the Treasury will
be actively interested, together with the British Embassy, yom'Selves
1lnd ourselves, I would suggest, therefore, that interested officials
of these agencies be called together for preliminary discussions in order
to la.y the groundwork for definite, prompt and effective action when
the occasion arises. Your comments would be appreci8.ted.8
Sincerely yours,
WlLLIAM T. SroN£
'140,0011.2 EW /1U04 : Alrgralll

The Amhassador in the United Kingdom (Wmant) to the Secreta1·y
of Sttrte
LoNDON, JUDe 1'7, 1944.
[Received June 23-8 t1.. m.]
A-744: Reference Department's A-702, April 25 regarding enemy
efforts to secrete funds or other assets in neutJ.-al countries.
L Embassy has not sen.t any circul~r instruction ol' communication
to Missions of type mentioned in Department's reference ai.rgram nor
has Embassy any reports from MLc;sions regarding anemy attempts
to secrete assets in neutr!l.l countl:ies.
2. Early in Ms.y, Embassy discussed Department's reference nirgrnm with comp~nt officials of appropriate sections of MEW. Embassy is now informed by MEW that no circular instructions or communications, described in Department's refere.nce a.irgram, have been
sent to British Missions.
3. Emba..c;sy understands that MEW has comparatively little in its
files in connection. with 'this problem. However, MEW is gathering
together all available material both from intel'ested sections of ~IEW
n.l\d from other gov~mment departments.
4. MEW is also cat'efully considering the terms of a circular instruction it proposes to send to British Missions in Europe. MEW's
tentative view is that the a.im of the proposed circular will be defeated
if it is too general in its terms a.nd too broad in its scope. Consequently, the Ministry is planning a. circular instruction which will b&
well defined in scope and will request missions for specific kinds a.nd
c.'\.tegories of material. Embassy will re:f&l.' to Department MEWs
pt•oposed circulAr instruction as soon a.s a copy is received.
'In o.n •'interlm acknowledgment" dated May 28, not printea, Mr. Merchant
wrote: "Your ~estion that informal discuSSions sliould take })lace on this
problem appears to me to be a veey somd one. However, I wUl write you more
fully after I ba~ taken np tb.e matter with the varlons interested divisions in
the l>epatt:!hent." (Tbe National Ar-cbtves, FEA. Recotds)

APX-206

THE SAFEHAVEN 'PROGRAM

217

5. MEWs collection of u.va.ilable data "Will probably not be completed for about three or four weeks. EmbaSGy will trn.nsmit all such
material to Depa.rtment immediately a.fter receipt.
6. In meantime inteNSt.ed officers of Embassy, including Treasury
Rep-resent.a.tive,11 met to discuss future flow of relevant materia.! from
London to Washington.
WINANT

7-'0.00112A BW 1039/$-2744

The

Unde~ Eecretatry

of State (Stettinius) to tlte FO'I'eign Eco~

Admtitnutrator (Orowley)
WASIITNG't'ON,

July 19, 1944.

MY DEAR MR. CROWLEY: Please refer to your letter of June 27 in
which you advise that the Foreign Economic Administration is engaged in a fact survey of transfers of Axis enterpri..c:es and other
assets,lo

As you may know, this Department has been inter('.sted in and is
following the acti'rities o£ certain individua.)s who are thought to be
actively engaged in assisting the enemy in the po.rticulnr field covered
by your letter under reference.
Mr. Seymour J. Rubin, Assistant Chief of the Division o£ Financial
and Monetary Affairs, has been following U1e problem of transfers
of Axis interests to neutral countries and Mr. J. Daniel Hanley, Assistant; Chief, Division of Foreign Activity Correlation, is a.lso engaged in coordinating the reports on this subject insofar as the scope
of tbe work is int:erns.tiona.l. Mr. Hanley is pn.t·t;icularly iJJter~ted in
the survey of transfers of Axis enterpl'ises nnd other assets because of
the continuing interest the Division of Foreign .Activity Correlation
has in the individuals involved.
In answer to the final sentence of your letter under refet-ence, both
Mr. Rubin and Mr. Hanley will be glad to cooperate with your rept'esent.a.tive 11 concerning the survey suggested.
Sincerely yours,
EDWARD R. STE'l"l'mrus, Jn.
• WiUllllD B. Taylor•

.. Letter not printed. Mr. Crowley bad written a letter of slmllar purport dated'

12 to the Treasury Department. Subsequently, Fl!lA arranged to borrow
Mr. Samuel KlB.U$ trom tbe Treasury Department to work on the project
u Ben W. Lewis, Adviser on Economic Orga.nl.zation in the Office o! EconomJe
Programs, FEA...

May

fJ - 9 t
APX-207

218

FOREIGN RELATIONS,

194.4 ~

VOLUME

n

SOO.Gl.ti/&-U4i: Telep-am

T'M Am.hassador in the United Ki'll.gdom, (Winant) to tha Sec1•etart;
of State
August 11, 1944-11 p.m.
[Received 11 :15 p. m.]
64.72. Ronald 12 in n.n iniot·mallalk ru.ised n. point 1-egnrding Resolution VI o£ the Final Act of the Bretton ·woods Conference, dealing
with enemy nssets a.nd looted property.'" lie said the Foreign Office is
still most reluctant to \mdertake or recommend any measures which
could uot effectively be enforced withou:t widespread continuation
after the war of postal censorship, blockade and navicarts. Be o.sked
what if any me.nsures the State Depn.rtllaent proposes to tu.ke ns n.
result of this Resolution o.nd said that though he feels the objections
he made u.t Bretton Woods 14 have not lost force, the Foreign Office
will do its best to cooperate with the State Department jo any meas\U't'.S which it may take..
Lolo."DDJ'\" 1

WrnAN'I

800,1SliS/8-19U: ClrtUlu altgn111

The 8eCTetary of State to .AZZ Dt.plbmati(J Missiom
W A.Sm:NG'l'Olf, August 19, 194.4-2 p. m.
In connection witb efforts to def&n.t th•a methods of dispossession
used by the Axis, the following text of Re!~lution VI, adopted at the

United Nations Monetary and Finnncin.l Conference at Bretton
Woods, New Hampshire, is sent to you for your information:
~'Whereas, in 8llticipation of their impending defeat, enemy leaders,
enemy na.tiont~ls and t11eir collaborators 11r'e transfel·ring assets to Q.nd
ilirough neutral countries in order to conceal them and to perpetuate
their mfluence, power, o.nd ability to ~lu.n ifllture aggrandizement and
world domination, thus jeopardizing the efForts o£ the United Nations
t.o establish and permanently maintain peaceful international
relo.tions;

"Sir Nigel Druee Rouald, Brttlsb A8sisLo.ut Under Secret:uy of State for
Forclgl:l Alrair;!, who wns a member ot tbe Unlted Kln~dom delegntlon to the
United Nations M.onet.<trY and FlnAnclnl Confertmce, B'l'ettoll Wooils, New Hampshire, Jllly 1-22, 1944. For documentation on tbJis Con!erenee, see pp. 106 ff.
, For text ot Resolution VI, see intra. At the Bretton Woods Conference, tbe
French and Polish del(lgations ba.d submitted r•roposals on enetnY assets and
looted propercy to Committee 2 ot COmmission UI. When the United States
delegation submitted an alternative dratt resolutlon containing teatores of their
pro~ls, the Frencb and Pollsb delegates wll.bdrew thell' drlllts. Thus. it was
essenth\Uy the Unlted States dratt resoluUon tbat was ftmllly adopted as Besolu·

t1on VI. (Proceeding! and Document' ot 111.$ United NatlOM Moneta"#/ atl<i
F'n.ancial Con!eri!'Jf:e, Rretton Wood3, Ncto Hom(J111Jire, Jul11 1-2~. 19-M (Wash·

lnf!Oll, Government Printing Ofllcc,l948), volt, p . 862.)
• The Britlsb delegate was the outy member ot Committee 2 to spe.ak in op..
position to the p-ropose(! resolution; for summary of bls objections, see i11fd.

APX-208

Tim SAFEHAVEN PROGR.Uit

219

"Whereas, enemy countries and Lheir nationals have taken the
pro(X)l'ty of occupied countries and then· nationals by: open looting
a.nd plunder, by forcing transfers under duress, ns well ns by suhUe
md complex devices, often operated through the agency of their
puppet governments, to give the cloak of legality to their robbery and
to secure ownership and control of enterprises in the pos~war period;
"Whereas, enemy countries and their nationals hAve also, throu~b
ssJes and other methods of Lransfer, run the chain of their ownership
and control through occupied and neutral countries, thus makin~ the
problem of disclosure and disentanglement one of jnternatront\l

ch11ractel';
·'Whereas, the United Nations have declared their intention to do
t.heir uLmost to defeat the methods of dispossession practiced by the
enemy, have reserved their right to decln.re invalid any transfers of
property belonging to persons within occupied ten'ito1-y, and have
wken mea.sures to protect nnd safcguardlroperty, within their re·
~ective jurisdictions, owned by occupie countries and their na.tlontt.ls, as well as to prevent the disposal o£ loot.ed property in United
Nations markets; therefot'e
'The United Nations }Ionetary and Financial Conferencs
1. Takes note of n.nd fully supports steps token by t.he United Nations
for the purpose of :
(a) uncovet"ing, segn.ga.ting, controlling, and making appropriate disposition of enemy assets;
(b) preventing the 1iqnida.tion of property looted by the enemy,
locating and tracutg ownersluJ> and contl·ol of snell looted
propertr, and. taking_ appl'Optlate measures with s. vi~w to
restoration to 1ts lawful owners;
2. Recommends;

That nll Governments of count.ries represented at this conference
ta.ke action consistent with their relations with tho countries at 'var to
call upon the Governments of neutral countries
(a.) to take immecliaLe measures to prevent any disposition or
n·a.nsfer within territories subject to their jurisdiction of any
(1) assets belonging to the Government or any individuals
or institutions within those United Nations occupied by
the enemy; and
(2} looted gold, currency, art ob~ect.s, securities, other e.vi·
dences of ownership in financial or business enterprises,
and o£ other assets 1ooted by the enemy;
as well as to uncover, segregate and hold n.t the disposi-

t.ion of the post-liberation authorities in the appropriate

country a.ny such assets within terrioory subject to their
jurisdiction;
(b) to take immediate mensnrcs to prevent the concealment by
fraudulent means or otherwise within countries subject to
their jurisdiction of any
{1) assets belo11ging to, or alleged to belong to, the Governsnent of and individuals or institutions within enemy
countries;
B21-S10--G1----~ft

APX-209

220

FOREIGN

RELAT10~S1

19U 1 VOLUME ll

(2) assets belonging to, or alleged to belong to, enemy leaders, their associates and oolh~bora.tors;
and to facilitate their ulti.mn.te delivery to the postarmistice authorities."

HULL
SOO.ISlli/8-14«: Oireular a.lJ'J~rAJ])

The SeC1'eta'T'!J of State to Oe-rtain DipZonur.tic Ulnd 001urul,ar Offlc~rs ts
W .t\SBINOTON, August 23, 1944-9 :05 a, m.
M.tssxoN RE Fr.rouT o~ AXIs Ct.Pl'rAL

The following airgra.m, sent to our miss,ions in the neutral European
capitu.lst• is repeated to you for your ii!Iformn.tion:
Refet'ellce is made to Bretton Woods. Resolution VI, and to the
jnteresL of this Government in the problena of looted assets and similar
questions. This Department, Treasury, and FE.A 11 are studying and
desil'e to be kept currently iniormed COIIlcerning enemy investments,
{l.nd enexny plausi as well as operations UJoder such plans, to seek safe
haven in neutra and other countries f:or assets snd military and
industrial potential in frustration of 1 t-nticipated Allied controls
following the cessation of hostilities. A mission consisting of representatives of the Department, Treasury, l!tnd FEA, familiar with the

details of the proposed project, will vis•it you shortly. Herbert J.
Cummings of the Department a.nd Samuel Klaus ot FEA. have been,
respectively, designated to visit your missions iA the course of this
project. to consult wjth the Chief of Mlssion or such officer as may be
designated. The .Ptoject to be discussed will, of course, be develOped
under t.he supervlsiou of the Chief of Mission, the contacts to b& ro:ranged through the Mission. Treasury ha.s not u.s yet designated its
representfttive. Pending designation of such1·epresentative, the Trel\.Sury personnel in your mission, if a.ny1 will a.ct as such representative.
It is anticipated t1Htt the 'll'easu:ry representative may meet the other
members of the mission en route. The itinerary is planned to iuclude
London, Madrid, Lisbon, Rome, and .A.ukara and such other places
as ma.r be feasibly and profitably visited.
In the meantime, and without attempting to be n.ll-inclusive, you
should pt·oceed to gather together new data on this subject, having
due regard to the sec-ret nature of this ][>roject. For your gui<lance
the following aTe suggested items which you may wish to consider in
ll:Utkin__g this study :
1. Have there been established in your area. any new enterprises
which may in some wa.y represent eitbte r enemy ot· looted assets~
This item should be broadly interpreted t•o include new enemy investmeTlts of every kind, open and cloaked, new holding COIDJ?IlJl.les, business fh·ms, majority or minority intetests in enterpriSeS, patent
•• Tbe diplomatic representlltives in Algeria, Egypt, the United Kingdom, and
repr~tative on the .Advisory Council !or Italy), ancl
th{' consular omcers at Istanbul and Naples.
,. Circular airgram, August 28, 9: 10 a. m., to the dlplomati¢ representatl.;es i1l
Morocco, Portngal, Spain, Sweden. Switurla.nd, and Turltey.
"Foreign Economic Administration.

Rome (Omce of the U.S.

APX-210

221
o.greements, licensing or commission a~ments, a.nd similar devices
tlirouuh which control ma.y be exercised over business enterprises.
2. mat e"Vidence can you obtain on capital transfers to or through
your territory, including ba.nk ba.lancest sold transfers, whether tietween Central Banks or otherwise, in wtuch there ma.y be an enemy
interest; new deposits of wealth in all forms, including gold, gems,
cunency, and t.lie lik.&; securities, stock piles of merchandise or 1·a.w
materials in warehouses, mortgages, annuities, art objects, claims of
various .kinds, the creation of new credits by the delivery of mercha.nd.ise, and performance oi services, real or fictitious, by which the
enemy is paid oy book entry ot' othel'wise 1
3. Wlmt information are you able to obtnin on retransfers irom
other neutrals to your area. for enemy accounts?
4. Ha.s there been any evidence that enterprises in your a.rea,
irrespective of the nationality of tlteir ownersl1ip or control, ha.\?e
been utilizing German technicians or managerial help~ This could
constitute one medium thr::,~h whlch the enemy could attempt tG
mainto.in its industrial or · ta.ry skill or expenmental or shadowplant activity.
5. Are there not some industries and individun.ls in your area which
have been so allied with the enemy economic or military organiza.tion
in the past that it is Jikely that they are being or may De used to
provide safe haven whether by partnership relations, employment
t-elations, or the provision of opportunities for technicnl experience
or research, a.nd so forth?
6. Is there a.ny evidence that the Governments in your area. are
consider.ing plans for inviting enemy technical or mnn~eriaJ hel~ to
build up the industrial n.ud military potentisl of therr countnes1
(In view of recent developments in Turkey, this item will probably
be irrelevant so far as that country is concerned.)
7. Are there any refugees (real or questionable)-pro- or antiNazi-who are engaged in pln.nnin8 projects of the types described
above, or who ma.y be intermediar1es in communications on this or
related subjects9
Pending nrra.ngements made in conference with Lhe mission mentioned above;. you ru:e 1-equested to submit to Wnshington, for the
attention of tsta.te, Treasury, and FEA, repeating to London for tbe
information of the Embassy, any present.1y available basic lllJl.teria.l
on this subject, and nll material gnthcred in pursuance o{ these
instructions n.s rapidly as it is obtained.

Ruu.
SOO.ISUI/8-U.4: Telegram

Th6

S~rtr'etary

of 8taJe to the A11'11Jassador in. the United Kingdom
(Winant)
WASHINGTON, August 24,

1944-midnight.

6775. Refer yourtel 6472, Aug. 11, 11 p. m. Resolution VI of
Bretton Woods Conference is being mstrihuted by a.irgram to Americn.n missions, and there is clearing in the Department a proposal to
put this Government on l'ecord as supporting it. Consultation with

APX-211

222

:FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1944, VOLUME II

British would be initiated before taking a stand with the neut1·als on
the resolution, and it would be hoped that simultaneous notes might
be delivered by the British and U .S. missionlS to the European neutrals,
calling ior action of the type outlined in the resolution.
In view of the fact that tbe resolution •:!alls largely for action by
the neutrals themselves, it i.s not felt that support of the resolution
will necessarily imply support of post-waJr censorship, bloclmde and
na.vicm.is. The continuation for a period o:f controls over importation
of securities and similar controls designedl to prevent realization on
looted assets mu.y be worked out; but in gene:ra.l the Department's
tentative attitude is that wartime e.xtra.ordinll.l"y and burdensome controls should be relaxed immediately a.fter the war to the extent compatible with post-wa.r security, supply co1nditions, and the like.
HULL
800.6.15/9-144: Telegram

The Ambassador in the Vnited Kingdom, (Winant) to ths Secretary
of State

LoNDON, September 1, 1944-6 p. m.
[Received September 2-8 a..m.]
7137. For Department1 Treasnry a.nd ll'EA. Refer Department's
A-702, April 25 and Embassy's A-744-, June 17.
1. Prior to MEW receiving requisite directives som& weeks ago to
collect infoonation regarding enemy effort1s to secrete assets in neutral
countries, Embassy's repeated discussions with MEW were necessarily
general and tentative. Since receipt of dir~:ctives MEW is proceeding
along the following lines for collecting n:taterial: fit'Stly, it has prepared a draft circular to British Missioru;; secondly, it is examining
its own files; thirdly, it i.s arranging for dlata to be obtained through
British censorship and secret services.
2. Tl'le text of the draft British circuJiar to 1v1issions is given in
Erobassy1s A-1067, September 1.18 The draft was recently sent to
Foreign Office, Treasury, Board of Trade, Trading with. Enemy De..
partment a.nd Embassy for clearance before being sent to British
Missions in Lisbon, Madrid, Stockholm, .Ankara, Bern, Tangier,
.Buenos Aires and Washington. To save. time MEW will despatch

the circular immediately after it has beeJ!l cleared in London.
3. In meantime Department's circular a.irgra.m to Missions on flight
of Axis capital n.rcived and Embassy di1scussed British draft with
MEW in a. prelimins;ry way in the ligh1~ of the airgram a copy of
which was given to MEW. We pointed out that the British draft
though broad in its scope does not include new enen1y enterprises such
11

'Not prlnted.

APX-212

223
as in paragraph numbered 1 of the cirmtlnr airgram and ~lEW has
agreed to include specific mention of such enterprises in the British
circular.
4:. Emba.ssy also emphasized to MEW that while British draft. substantially covers realisttble assets it omits entirely a bro11.det phase of
the problem involving speci.a.lized enemy personnel along lines of
paragraphs numbered 4 t() 7 of Department's circulM ail'gra.m.
MEW appl"eciates importance of such pe-rsonnel in building up Gerwa.ny's post-wa.r economic potential but its initial reaction is that in
the British organizational setup other Departments both in Loudon
and in their Missions suoh as seer~t services and passport control are
involved. MEW's view therefore is tl!nt this enemy personnel problem should be incorporated in a sep~ra.t:e und supplementary cirouln.r
and a reference in the British draft under consideration might be
made t.o snch contemporaneous or :forthooming circUlar. }fEW is
clearing this matter with other interested British agencies and ETO 19
will keep our authorities advised of developments.
5. Subject to ()Onsiderations in para.,oraphs 3 a.nd 4 above Embn.ssy
believes that tne dmft British circular substantially meets requir&ments. It will probably take 12 days before the draft clears other
British agencies. Accordingly it is anticipated that our authorities
will have sufficient time to telegrapb their suggestions after arrival o£
Embassy's A-1067. In any event any suggestions of our authorities
wot1ld be incorporated in a further circular letter to British Missions.
6. Soon aiter MEW had obtained ditectives for the collection of
information a.n internal MEW memorandum in tbe form of a standing order (No. 282) was issued on August 18 20 to guide the various
sections of MEW in their watch on cnrrent transactions. A copy of
t.he order is cont-ained in Emba...~'s A-1068, Septembe1· 1.20 The
terms of the order provide for compiling a registm· to the extent possible of Germn.n assets in neutral countries. Information sought is
divided under headings o£ <<Joot, and <'tught capibl.l"- Embassy also
pointed out to 1¥IEW in connection with the order that it omitted reference to new enemy enterprises and movements of specialized enemy
personnel Since the order is solely nn internal MEW memorandum
there will be no difficulty in supplementing it to include these
additions.
7. The standing order mentioned in preceding paragraph £orm.ed
the basis of 1\fEW's requests for data. to British censorship n.nd secret
services. As a result there were no references to new enemy enter~
prioos a.nd movements of specialized enemy personnel but it is undet'stood tha.t in fact these are included in the scope of the existing
.. European Tlleatre of Operations.
"'Not printed.

APX-213

224

FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1944J VOLUME II

tripartite censorship agreement. Accordingly MEW will ascertain
whether the covetage of materials under the tripartite ~<rreement is
adequate. In this connection it is possible that Washington is not
receiving copies of o.ll British wireless intercepts; MEW will investigate with a view to remedying any lacunae. In turn MEW raised
the question of our censorship supplying the British with similar
materio.l particula.rly from Argentina. MEW emphasized its view
that the information obtained through censol'Ship and secret services
will be more valuable tha.n that obtained through the missions.
8. MEW has also commenced inv-estieo-a.tion of its own files pa.rtieularly those in black list and financial intelligence sections. However,
iniormation in MEW's files was obtained in order to conduct economic
wa.clare operations rather tha.n as a.n intelligence procurement problem; hence much of MEW's materio.l dca1s only generally or indirectly with the instant problem. Accordingly it will take considerable time apart from inadequate staffing to colleet a. large amount of
materia.!. The nrst result of searching MEW,s files is contained in 12
brief miscellaneous reports which are being forwarded to J)t)pa.rtment
by despatch No. 17813 of September l.U MEW has pl'Omi.s&d further
similur reports in the near future.
9. On the operational side MEW is paying more attention to prolr
lems of looting and secretion of enemy assets by emphasizing listing
neutrals involved in such activities.
10. British agencies now primarily interested in collecting infol'mation on looting and secretion of assets a.re :MEW and TED,'l2 It is
undetstood, however, that although MEW has been chal'ged with the
collection of data. on these problems all its information will be turned
over to other agencies a.t the conclnsion of hostilities with Germany,
ln the first instance TED will probably be the recipient of MEW's
collected info1."JJ18,tion.
11. British have not decided the ultimate uses to which the collected
material will be put. It is understood that this question of overall
policy will be discussed with our authorities.
12. Embassy is preparing a. telegram on MEW's initial reactions to
Department's circular s.irgra.m of August 23.
" Not printed.

"Trading with tbe Enemy Department.

APX-214

225
102.1/t-lU: Tele&Tam

The Secretary of State to the A1nbasaad<n• in the United Kingdom
(Winant)

September 1, 1944-10 p. m.
7080. From the Department, Treasury and FE.A.. The immediately
following cable~~· quotes airgra.mg which have been sent to our-missions
in Portugal, Spain, Sweden,N and Turkey.~
In cable No. 6224 of .August 7,u. you were rcquest.ed to discuss with
the Br)tish the desirability o£ insLituting negotiations with the Governments of Portugal, Spain, Turkey and Sweden, looking towa.rd
acceptance by those Governments of a satisfactory gold policy. We
hope you will succeed in obtaining British concurrence at the earliest
possible date to the proposals contained in the above airgrams to the
America.n Missions in. those countries. You should advise our Missions in Portugal, Spain, Turkey and Sweden as soon as parallel
instructions have gone :forward from the .British Government. If
nny delay is indicated please cable full details immediately.
A separate messa.g~ will oo sent to you on the Swiss negotiations.
HULL
WAsm:NOTON,

J02.ua-.at ~ Telegf&lll

Tht Secretary of Stau to the Am0a88ador in tke United Kingdom
(Winant)
W ASBINGTON, Sept.ember 1, L944.
7081. From the Department, Treasury a.nd FEA.
"1. We consider t.he early adoption, by the Government to which you
are accl'edited, o£ the following gold poliay to be of gt-eatest
importanc~:

On their own behalf the Government of . . . . . will not acquire
any interest in or receive for deposit ~old in which any Government,
entity or person in occupied tetritones or Axis countries a.nd associa.teel CO\Ultries bas an interest and will prohibit the 1-ece~ or
acquisition of such gold by entities or persons within its jurisdiction.
• No. 7081, infra.
• Al.rgnub 472. September 2, 10 a. m., to Maclrld, repeated on the s1Ulle date as

&!rgrams 706 and 228 to Lisbon and Stockholm, respectively, tor the attention of

Treasnry representatives Wood ll.Dd Olsen.
• Airgram 146. SeJ)tember 2, 0 a. m., repeated n.irgram 472 v.-lth the tollow!Dg
addJtionnl paragraph: "There llhould be no d11!lcalty 1n obtailllng 'l'urklsb concurrence 1n t:be desired gold policy in view ot her break with Germany. Immediate action on tbe part of Turkey to r~ to buy Axis-tainted gold from
the Europeau neutral coUlltries (It Ia assumed thaL 'l'urkey will not DO\V
tmowlngl,y bU.Y gold from Germany) would be

11

Stlbstantial contribution

tOfl'Brd m.akJng more difficuJt Germ!JD.l's e11orts lO obW.n 11~defJ l'o~ign ~­
cbange 'l>y the sale of gold. Moreover, gold imported before tl1e break Ill ~ations
DtigbL be in tile pro<!ess of transfer within Turkish borders." (800.51519-244)

• Not prtDted.

APX-215

226

F08ElGN RELATIONS, 1944 1 VOLUME Tl

Moreovet'1 the . . . . . Government will not permit the import for
safekeeping or for stora.g e in bond of ~old in which any Government,
entity or person in occupied territones or .Axis countries and associated countries bas an inl;erest, nor will they permit t.lleir currencies
or otlter currencies to made available for or against gold oJI·ea.dy
held in . . . . . for or on behalf of any such Government, entity or
person.

oo

"2. You are a.uthoriz('.d to commonce negotiations with the Government to which you are accl'edited looking toward the immediate acceptance by that Government of the above gold policy. We il.:re
requesting the London Embassy to obtain the agreement of t1le British
similarly to instruct your British colleague. Accordingly, unless you
receive instructions to the contrary from us, you should wait until
you have been advised by the American En1bassy in London that
instructions have gone forward £rom the British GovernmenL b&fore
proceeding with this ma.tte1·. For your information, we have previously sent similn.r instructions to the American Lega.tion at Bern.
"3. It mny be helpful in yow· negotiations to point out t.hat cal'efu.l
st.udies both in Washington and London give ample evidence that all
Germany's own pre-wa.r gold st.ocks we1-e used up long ago and therefol'e all the gold now in the possession of or available to the Axis count.ries or nssociated coWttries m-ust be presumed to be looted gold. Hence
the further acquisition ot importation of gold in which the Axis count.ries o~ associated countries ba.ve an interest will hamper the o.ccomplishment of the policy u.nnotmcec1 by the United Nat.i ons on January 5, 1943 of restoring looted property to its rightful O\vners. Furthermore, any a-cquisition of, or tJ:'tl.nstcr of title to, Axis-t.ninted gold
will not b& :recognized by the nations who have subscribed to the Gold
Declaration of February 22, 1944. Dealing in such gold will result
in . . . . . being prevented from selling to any country which has
joined jn the Gold Declu.mtion not only that gold but also other gold
held by it which is located outside the territoriallim.Hs of the country
to which the gold is tendered :for sal~. Consequently, the immediate
adoption of the gold policy suggested n,bove would be clearly beneficial
to the long run economic interests of . . . . . .n

HULL
800.515/9-5U: Telegram

The SeoPeta"'Y of Sta;te to the Am.bassadO'J' in the United KingafJ'In

(wi?l.<l.nt)

WAsmNGTOlf, September 5, 1944-midnighli.
7189. ReDeptel 6775 of August 24, 1944. Respecting Resolution VI of the Bretton Woods Conference, the chiefs of mission a.t

Dublin, Madrid, Bern, Ankara, LiSbon, Stockholm, and Tangier

A~

too

APX-216

THE B.U'EHAVEN PROGRAM

a.re being instructed " to present on or n.bout Septembor 19 notes to the
governments to which they al'e u.ccrediled, reading substo.ntia.lly ns
follows and to report any reactions or developments :
"The 44 nations assembled at the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference at Bretton 'Voods, New Tia.mpshire, adopted the
!oUowing I'650lution. (Here quote the te.xt of lhe Resolution as set
forth in the circular o.irgrrun referred to.)
"I have been instructed to inform you thnt my Government, considering the Brett.on Woods Resolution to be dn-ected at the same
purposes as the Declatntion of London, of January 5, 1943, with re-spect to looted property, and the declaration of February 22 1944,
concerning go1d1 fully supports the sa.id Bt·etton Woods Resolution.
In accordance 'v1th the terms of that Resolution, I nm instructed therefore to state that my Government calls upon your Government to institute the measures set forth in the Resolution. I am further insLructed to state that my Government considers cooperation in this
ma.tter lo be of primary importance to the welfare of occupied nations
nnd to the protection of the lives and property of their nationals, and
to the peace and security of the post-war world."
It would be desirable to have simult..'Uleous parollel action by the
British Government. Since the note above quoted merely endorses
the Bretton Woods Resolution VI, and since, .as stated in your 6472,
August 11, 1944, the Foreign Office is prepared to cooperate in any
measures with respect to that Resolution taken by the Depu.rt.ment,
it is Lhought t.ha.t British will accede readily to this proposal.n A suggestion similar to this is being made to the Soviet, Union. It is not
thought wise to postpone action any longer than necessary ; hence the
deadline is set at about September 19. A press release describing in
geneml terms the action taken will be issued shortly thereafter in

Washington.

HULL
.. 01rcular telegram, Septom.ber 5, midnight, to diplomotie l'ei)~ntativea io
Ireland, Moroooo. Port:Dgal, Spll.ln, Sweden, (Uld Turkey, and telegram 8063,
September 5, 8 p. m., to SWitterland, not printed. In telegram 2185, September 5,
mldnlgbt. to Mosoow, the c1.rcular telegram was repeated, with II.D addttlolllll
parograpb stating, 1n ptll't: "Please inform tbe Soviet Government of tbe intended ncuon lllld state tbat we would welcome similar action by tbem. Since
the note propoSed abo~ets in pursuance of a recommendation of Resolution VI,
It fs thought that tbe Soviet Unlon may well wfsh to tllke Uk& steps, at least LD
A.DIUll'll and St.o<:khol.m.''

(800.515/9-544)

• In telegram 7522.. Septe.ml:ler 18, 8 p. m., from London, Anlbassndor Winant
reported on biB discussions with a representative of the British Foreign Office
concerning the desire of the Department to address a note to certain neutral
governments reganliog Implementation of Resolution VI of the Bretton Woods
Conterence; tbe Foreign Of!k.oe representntive stated tbat be did not believe the
United Kingdom Government would be prepared to associAte ltselt wllh the
cldmarohe 1n the form proposed bot tha t thQ Ii'or&igD Office was .tuwous to briu.g
about tbe resolts deslred bY th& Detltlrtment CBOO.!U.IS/9-1844).

A-

ro (

APX-217

228

FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1944 1 VOLUME ll

102.1/9-8"~: Telegruo

The Se01'eta1y of State to the Minister i!fl, Switzerlatnd (Hatr'f'i8Q11,)23
WAsHI.NOTON, September 8, 1944--1 p.m.
3104. From the Department, Treasury and FEA. ReLegs cabls
554:9, August 24.~~~ The missions in Sweden, Ttu·key, Portugal o.nd
Spain., for your information, are being insLructed, subject to British
concurrence, to initiate negotiations with the Governments to which
they are accredited, with a view to getting t.hose Governments to take
action similar to that outlined in Department's 2558 of July 26 3o re.
ga.rding acquisition of gold. After considering Ute subject further
it has been considered dP-SimbJe to substitute A."i:is for Germn.ny in
the policy statement, and in each instance to have the proh1bit.ion extended to persons, entities and Governments. The c.hantzes ate in
detail rather than in substaT!ce. However, to ma.lre the policy st&ternents uniform you may wish t.o substitute the following statement
for that contained in Depn.rtment's 2558 at nn appropria.te time during
the discussion~ Ut'lless the substitution would jeopardize tlu~ acceptance of the program by the Swiss:

The Government of Switzerland on their own behalf will not receive
for deposit or acquire any int.erest in gold in which an~ individual
entity or Government in occupied territories or Axis a.nd n.._~ociated
countries has a.n interest and will forbid the acquisition or receipt of
such ~ld or of any interest in such ,eold by individuals. to entities. includinjr the Swiss National Bank, within Swiss jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Government of Switzerln.nd will not permit gold, in which
a.ny individual or entity in occul>ied telTitories or Axis and associated
countries has an interest, to be imported mto Switzel'land, either for
storaJre in bond or for ss.fe-keepinl!. The Swiss Government will not
permit their currency or other currencies to be made a.vaila.ble to or
in behalf of any such individual ent.ity or Government as described
herein for or agtmlst gold alrea.dy held in Switzerland.
We shall keep you informed on how the negotiations with the other
neutral European countries are progressing so that you ma.y ma-ke
appropriate use of the informo.tion in your conversations with the
Swiss.
Sent Bern, repeated London.

HULL
•neveated on the same date as te}egMJm 7272 to London,
"'Not printed; it indicated tbnl: an aille-memof.re, wbicb included a para-

phrnsed text of tbe ~old cl11.use as tran..."llll.tted in De'f\artment'!l teleJrram 2558,
J11ly 26 (not prlnted), bad been handed Oil AUI!'USt 24 to fl Swiss omcial for

transmission to tbe Political Department (862.515/~2444).
"'Not printed; it trnnslnitted In pare.phrn~ the proposed te3:t of tbe gold
clause (862.515/1-2644).
Telegram 2"1'13, August 7, 1 p. m., autboriv.ed the Minister In Switzerland to
start negotiating with the Swis.« with R view to immediate acceptance by the
Swiss Government of the gold policy embodied tn telegram 2fJ58 (862.515~744).

A- tot.APX-218

THE SAFEHAVEN PROGRAM

229

800.51G/~l'l": Telegram

The .&mlJasaador itt th6 lJifl.ited Kingdom (Winant) to the Secreia.MJ
of State
Lol\""DON, September 18,1944--8 p. m.
[Received September 14-3 :25 a. m.]
7522. ReDepts 7189, September 5, midnight. The desire of the
DepUJ.i.ment to address a note to certain neutral governments regarding the implementation of Resolution VI of the Bretton Woods Conference was discussed with Ronald of the Fol'eign Office. While reiterating his statement, 1-eported in the Embassy's 6412, August 11,
11 p. m., that the Foreign Office wished to cooperate with the Department in any measures it might tn.ke, he nevertheless said he could see
cliJ:Jiculty in going along in the lll!lnner suggested.
Ronald pointed out that tbe resolutions of the Bretton Woods Conference wel'e not "adopted" by the governments but merely by the
delegates who referred them to the various signatory governments for
lheir consideration and that Resolution VI had not yet been fully
considered by the Government of the United Kingdom and he eould
not yet sa.y what the final attitude of his Government would be on
this question. The British Government has therefore not yet decided
what steps would be expedient or appropriate for implementing this
resolution and he expressed considerable doubt ns to t11e efficacy or
appropriateness of calling upon neutral governments, at this stage,
to institute all the measures mentioned in the resolution. Ronald
said he did not believe the United Kingdom Government would be
prepared to associate itself with t.he d6ma1·ohe in the form proposed
but that the Foreign Oflice was anxious to bring about the results
desired by the Department. He therefol'e suggested informally and
subject to later confirmation after consultation with the other Government Depo.rtments concerned, that the United Kingdom Government might at a date somewhat later than September 19 be willing to
join in an approach to the neutral governments along the £ollowmg
lines: Begin 8'takment:
"1. (Draw attention to Resolution VI of the Bretton Woods Conference and quote its terms.)
2. The United States/United Kin~dom Governments having regard to the terms of the above resolutlon, call upon the blank govern·
ment to take all possible steps (a) to prevent. the entry into or transfer
to any person in blank territory of any property or o.ssel.s 11cquired by
nn enemy government or natJOnal from persons in United Nations
territory which is or has been in enemy occupation, and nlso to suspend
all further dealings in any such property or assets alread,Y in or
l~ with 8oJlY person or institution in blank territory pending consultation with the United Nations; (b) to p1-event the concealment in
blank territory by means of fictitious t'Nlnsfers to pel'SOns or institutions therein, or otherwise, of may pL'opcrty or nssets of nn enemy

A-lo?>
APX-219

230

FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1944, VOLUME U

gove1'IUnent or national or of persons or institutions in enemy
territory.11
This message only to Department but Department1s 7189 repeated
to Moscow.

10~1/9-1544 : ~Cfl'aJII

The Am,ba88ador in the United KinuaO'J'n; (Winant) to the Secreta'/'y
of State

Lo:rn>ON, September 15, 1944-4 p. m.
[Received September 16-11 :45 a.. m.]
7635. For Department, Treasury and FEA. ReDepts '7080, September 1. MEW informs Embassy that in consultations with. other departments, certain objections have been raised to the method of attaining the end of inducing neutrals to adopt the desired gold policy. The
objections which we believe come £rom the British Tl:ensury arise from
(a) the use of the word "negotiations" in the Department~s instructions to the }.fissions which might imply that we should be prepared
to bargain with the governments concerned and possibly accept a
compromise undertaking which might tie oW' hands in the future and
(o) from a fea.r that acceptance of undertakings might imply a condonation of past dealings in looted gold on the pa-rt of the countries
concerned before the giving of an undertaking. ME'W expresses the
belief that you do not imply negotiation in tbe sense of bargaining or
the offer of any inducement to the neutrals to give us an undertaking
and if as they suppose the proposa.l is that we should propoWld to the
governments concerned the Swiss formula. and simply invite their acceptance of it they will make a. further appr~tch to the Treasury on
this ·basis. MEW adds further that in view of other present or pending discussions it may not be expedient to make representations on the
subject simultaneously to all the neutrals concerned. Embassy believes this reserv-ation refers to Turkey alone. Embassy requests confi.rma.tion that the above conforms ·tvith the Department's views and
would point out that minor rune.ndments of the instructions to the
Missions would be necessary.

MEW points out that Na~i leaders and industrialists might use submarines to .find safe haven for loot outside Europe and ask i£ simila.ta.ppl'Oaches should not also !be made in Latin America.

APX-220

THE SAFEHAVEN PROGRAM

231

800..6~/&-lGH : Cl~eolAr t~letnrn

Tlte Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatio Representatives u
WAsmNOTON, September 16, 1944--4 p. m.

lUl FLIGHT OF A.xr.s

C.u-rrAL TO NEUTRAL ComM'.IUE8

In view of discussions now going fonva:rd with British on possibility of presenting a joint note on Bretton Woods Resolution VI,
please do not present note described in Department's circular telegram
of September 5, 1944t' until you receive further instntctions {rom
Department.

800.616/9-1644: Telenam

Tlte i1mba.9sadur in the United Kingdom (Wi'11.ant) to the 8eC7'etary

of StxJ.te

LoNDON, September 16, 1944---~ p.m.
[Received 8:16p.m.]
7652. ReDepts 7189, September 57 midnight a.nd Embassy's 7522,
September 13, 8 p . .m. The ForOtf told us tWs afternoon that it had
had second thought with respect to addressing a note to certain neutrals regarding the implementation of Resolution VI of the Bretton
Woods Con.fel'ence. The ForOff now feels that it is perhaps unwise
to attempt, ns Ronald's preliminary draft. sent in our 7522, did, to
spell out the mea.ning of Resolution VI. lL therefore proposes to
address a note substantially the same as that proposed by the Department. In order to meet Ronald's point that. the resolutions of the
B1·otton Woods Conierence were only adopted w; referendum it is proposed that the note read '~e delegates ofthe44 no.tions assembled . . .
adopted the :following l'esolut.ion.''
Because o£ t.he feeling of the For01f that the measures set forth in
the resolution cover wide ten·itory and are difficult of exact interpretation, it suggests that the sentence in the Dep~rtment's note which states
"my Government calls upon your Government to institute the measures
set forth in the resolution'' should be amended to read "my Government. calls upon your Government to institute such measures as will
fullill the aims of the United Nations as expressed in the resolution."
The British representatives are being instructed by the }'or01f to refer
in case they a.re asked what the aims ol the United Nations are, to the
.. The diplomatic representatives ln lrel.aDd, Morocco, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
and Turkey. Paraphrased texts were tnwsmitted to Swlturlana lJl telegram
3216, September 16, midnight, aDd to the Sovtet Union 1rr telegram 2230, Septem.OOr 18, 7 J). m. (neither printed).
• Seo Department's telegrnm 7189, September 5, to London, p. 226, and tootnote

20, p. 227.

A-

'cS"

APX-221

232

FOBElGN RELATIONS, 19H 1 VOLUME II

last paragraph to the preamble of Resoluti'on VI beginning "whereas,
the United Nations bl.tVe declared their intention et cetera.''
The question was also raised as to whether or not a like note would
be addressed to Argentina. The ForOff Hta.te that inasmuch as the
United Kingdom. still maintains diplomatic relations with Argentina
a.nd as it feels tlw.t Argentina. would pro•bably be oue of the great
loopholes, it desires to n.ddress such a note to it. It also desires to
address a note to Turkey but in view of the fact thu.t Turkey has
broken off relations with the Axis it 'vould be addressed in a milder
manner. Instead of using the words "calll upon" ForOff, would use
"expresses the hope that 'l'urkey will instil;ute such measures. 11
The present attitude of the ForOff, as indicated above, has so far
been approved onJy at the official level and it was made clear that
before final instructions could be sent to the British Missions it must
have ministerial approval. It is believed that this will be obtained
within 10 days and the ForOtr hopes thaL the Department will agree
to postponing the presentation of its note for that length of time so
that the British and American notes may be presented about the same
time although not necessarily simultaneously.
WINANT

800.6Ui/9-1644: Te1egTe.m

T"M Secretary of State to the A'l'1lbaasad<J-r in. the United Kitn.gdt>m
(Winant)
8eptember 22, 1944-9 p. m.
7742. A conference has been held between the Department, Treasury, a.nd FEA with respect t.o transmittal of the Bretton Woods
'Resolution VI to t1le European neutrals a1nd particularly with reference to your 7522, September 13, 1944, the Department's 7587, Septembet· 18, 1944,3• and your 7652, SeptemhE1r 16, 1944. As has oJ.ready
.been indicated to you, our missions in the neutral capitaJs have been
requested to withhold transmittal of the proposed note pending dis·cussions with the British.
1. Depattment, Treasury, and FEA are. prepared to accede to the
suggested British changes in the note transmitted in the Department's
7189, Septembet- 5, 1944, in view of tho dtasirability of obtaining coordinated action at the earliest possible dat:e. It is our understanding
that the text of the note, as thus agreed upon, willre3.d as follows:
WASHINGTON,

··'fne delegates of the 44 nations assembled nt the United Nations
Monetary and Financial Conference at Bl:'etton Woods, New Hampshire, adopted the following Resolution. (Here quote tlte text of
the Resolution as set forth in the circular :!l.irgram referred to.)
.. Telegram 7587 not prlntea.

A-

(o ~~

APX-222

THE SAFEHAYEN PROGRAM

233

"I have been instructed to inform .YOU that m1 Government, considering the Bretton Woods Resolut10n to be directed at the same
purposes as the Declaration of London, of January 5, 1943as with
respect to looted property, and the decln.ration of February 2~, 1944,
concerninoo gold, fully supports the snid Bretlon Woods Resolution.
In accord"ance with the terms of that Resolution, I am instructed
therefote to state that my Government. calls upon your Government
to institute such measu~ as will fulfill the aims of the United Nations
as e~ressed in the Resolution. I run further instructed to state that
my Government considers cooperat.ion in this matter to he of primacy
importa.nce to the welfare of occu.eied nations and to the protection of
the lives and property of their nat1ona.ls, a.nd to the peace and security
of the postrwu.r world."
2. Previous pla.ns already called £or the presentation of a. similar
note to Turkey. We are willing to accede to the British suggestion
that milder language be used in the proposed Turkish note and the
phraseology suggested is acceptable. Our mission in Ankara will
be sent the proposed text of the note as so corrected as soon as
possible.
3. The Department does not believe it desirable to have the British
present Resolution VI to Argentina at this time. In view of the
fact that neither the United States nor the British maintain normal
diploml\.tic relations with Argentina, we would suggest to the British
that a different approach to Argentina. be made. The a.pproaoh to
be made on this a.nd related problems, such as the question of re!uge
for Axis war criminals, is under discussion within the Department.
It is not believed desirable, moreover, to encou1·age any action which
might possibly be construed to indicate divergence between United
States and British 1-ela.tions with or attitude toward .Argentina.
4. It is desired to reiterate the point made in the Department's 7587
under reference., that we consider thls matter to be highly urgent. It
is hoped that, in view of our complete a.ccepto.nce of the proposed
British chAnges, thru.-e will be no difficulty in clearing this matter at a
ministerial level in London within the next few days. It is hoped to
have the presentation of notes take place on October 2, 1944.
5. Please indicate whether the British desire a. joint U8-UK statement or identical notes delivered more or less simultaneously by our
respective missions.
6. Your reaction is requested to the proposed issuance of press
release to describe briefly the action thus taken, and to be issued
shortly after the presentation of the notes.
7. The above may be taken as a l'eply also to your telegram 7742,
Sep~19.36

HULL
""Fortritlfl Relations, 1943, VOl. I, p. 443,

.. Not printed.

It -

I 0 ·1

APX-223

234
SOO.GU/~844

FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1044, VOLUME

n

: ctrculu a.Jzt:Tam

The Secretary of State to Ce-rtain Dipl<nn4tic and OO'Tl8f.l1ar Offiaer8 s 1

W ABBlN&roN, September 28, 1944-4: p. m.
FLIGHT OF

A.xls

CAPITAL

Reference is made to the Department's circular n.irgmm of August 23, 1944, entitled "Mission re Flight of Axis Capital".
Your attention is called to the request in paragraph 2 for evidence
on transfers of seem·ities to or through your territory. lt is probable
that the enemy~ and particularly persons important in the Nazi regilne, will attempt to sect·ete ca.pitnJ in the form of bearer secmities
issued by neut.ra.l go-verwnents whlch mu.y be difficulL t.o trace. You
should be on the alert for investments in secnrit.ies not only of industrials but also of the neutral go-vernments.
Yo mention was made in the circular of cooperation with representatives of other Allied Governments. You should, of course, ~Lrr:mge
with your British colleagues for o. prompt and complete exchange o£
views on this subject. It is suggested that they be given a. copy of
the directives issued thus far. Yon should also approach informally
any other Allied missions, especially the French, Dutch a.nd Belgian,
and discuss with them in an inlorirul.l manner the infonna.tion which
is being collected and is already available, particularly with regard
to looted property which is of interest to the respective governments.
It should be pointed out to the missions of those countries now or
formerly occupied by the enemy that while this Government recog·
nizes their special interest in identifiable looted assets we, too, are
interested in such assets with n view toward preventing the Germans
from realizing any benefit t.bet•efrom and assuring that. the United
States will not inadvertently provide haven :for such properties.
The Department is inlormed that the Ministry of Economic Wadare
is issuing comparable instructions to tho British missions. 38 The
British instructions, however, broaden the scope of the project to in~
dude a. catalogue of a.ll German assets abroad. Specific instn1ctions
will be sent you in the near future concerning the extent to which you
should collect a. register of similar information. Meanwhile, you
should preserve all intelligence of this general nature which comes
"''l'he dlplomatic reprt!selltatives in Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Portngal. Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, Tn.rkey, IUld the United KLngdom ; the consular offi~l'S at
Istanbul :md "Yaples; tu1d Lhe United States representative on the Advlsc>ry
Council for ltal:r.

"'British c.f.reulus to lfissJons on 1l.lgbt ot Axis capital were transmJtted to the
Departnle.nt in despatches 18138 nnd 18256 of Se~\t.ew.ber 21 aod 28, respectively,

not prtnted.

APX-224

THE

SAFEHAVE~

235

PROGRAM

into your possession since information on looted and flight capital will
tend to merge with information relating to German assets generally.
In order to expedite prompt distribution, all cables, airgrams, and
despntches on t.h.is subject should conta.in the cod.e word uSAFEIIAVEN''·

HULL
800.11115/9-2944 : Clreula:r telegrlllll

Tl~.e 860'1'6ta'I"!J

of State to

Oertai!l~ DipZo7ruztia Rspresentatirues

38

W ABBINOTON, September 29, 1944--2 p . m.

RE FLIGHT oF Axis CAlT.l'AL '1'0 NEUTRAJ. CoUNTJUr.S
British have decided to present to tho Europnnn. neutrals a noto on
Bretton Woods Resolution VI, more or less simultaneously wi.th presentation by our missions of o. similar note. Brittish note will be substantially the same as American but not identical. Reference Department's circular telegram, September 5, 1944, midnight/0 "R-e Flight
of Axis Capital to Neutral Countries", and Department's circular telegram of September 16,1944,4 a.m. [p.m.]
You are instructed to consult with your British colleague, and therea.fter to present, on October 2, to the government to which you a.re
a.ceredited, the note set forth in the circular teliagrnm which follows,
dated September 29, 3 p.m., which note is slightly different in I)hraseology f1·om note contained in Department's circuhw telegram under
reference.
This matter is also being discussed with the USSR, and it is hoped
thnt the Russian mission, where there is any, will also present n.
similar statement!~

HULL
u The dtplomatte representatives in lr~lo.nd, Morocco, Portugn.l, Spain, Sweden,
Swttzcrlo.nd, and Turkey; repeated ou the lllllne date w the diplomatic representatives ln the United Kingdom and tbe Soviet Unlon.
.., See footnote 2G, p . 227.
..._Ambassador Harriman informed the Department: In telegrrun 8759, Oetober 2, 4 p. m., tbat be bad notified the Soviet Foreiun Omce by note on September SO of the procedure to be followed by the BJ•ltlsh and United States
Governments in presenting notes coneerntng Resolution VI to the European neutrale IUld ngaln expreased lbe bope ot the United States Government that the
Soviet Government wonld 1lnd It possible to take slmlla.r· acUon (800.515/10-244).

621-819--67----IU

APX-225

236

FOREIGN ltELA'l'IOYS, 19441 VOLUME

n

SOO.GU/9-2944: Circular telegram

The Secretary of Stau to Oertain, J)iplomatic Representatives 42
W ASHINOTON, September 29, 1944.--3 p. m.

R» Ft4GHT oF A.ns

CAPITAL ·1·o NEO'rRAL CouNTRIES

"The delegates of the 44 nations assembled at the United Nations
Monetary and Financia.l Confe-rence at Bretton Woods New Hamp~
shire, adopted the following resolution. (Here quote the tex~ of the
Resolution as set forth in the Department's circular airgrnm of August 22 [19], 1944:.)
I have been instructed to inform you that my Government, considering the Bretton Woods Resolution to be directed at the same purposes as the Declaration of London, o_f Januuy 5, 194:3, with respect
to looted property, and the declaratiOn of Februo.r:Y 22, 1944, concerning gold, fully supports the said Bretton Woods Resolution. In
accordance with the terms of that Resolution, I a.m instructed theN-fore to state that my Government calls upon your Government to
institute such measures as will fulfill the aims of the United N a.tions as
expressed in the Resolution. I am further instructed to state t.h.nt my
Government considers cooperation in this matter to be of primary importance to the welfare of occupied nations and to the protection of
the lives and property of their nationals, and to the peace and security
of lihe post-war world.))

HULL

.. The diplomatic l'epre.senb.ltives in Ireland, Mor()C()O, Portugal, Spaln, Sweden,
SwiU:erland. and Turkey. (None of tb~ Governments hlld G.J;reed to implemont the Resolution bY the entl ot the year 1944.) Repeated on the same date to
the diplomatic represe.nt&Uves 1n tbe United. Kingdom and the Soviet Un1oo.
Also repeated 1D a circular tel~am at 5 p. m. on lhe same date to the dlplomatic
representatives Ln Austrnlla, Bolivln, BrnzU, Canada. Cblle, OWno.. Colombl11.
Ooata llica, Cuba, Denmark. Domin!clUl RepnbUc, Ecuador, Egypt (repeated for
Greece and Yugoslavia), El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Great Britain {~
peated for Belgium. Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, and
Poland), Guatemala. Haltl, Honduras. Icelnnd. Jndln, Irnn, IrllQ, LiberiA, Mexico, New Zealllnd, Nicaragua, PanlltlUl, Paraguay, Peru, Union ot South A.trlca,
Urngoay, and Venezuela.
Telegrnm 143, September 29, 5 p. m., informed the diplomatic representative in
Morocco that "the note .in questfoD should be banded to the SpanJsb High Commillsloner ( Orgaz] with tbe explanation that simultaneous representations
arc being made by the A.Ul.erica.n Embassy at Madrid.'' (800.515/9-2944) The
Spanish High Commiasioner Informed Chart~ Childs (despatch 2385, October 6,
trom Tangier) thllt a copy of the note would be transmitted to Madrid. wblcb
would decldell,llon the 110llcy with respect to metrQpolltan and Spanlsb territory.
as wellft.S any Spanisb poosessions and the zone ot the Protectorate (800.5l:Sj1(}.644).
Telegram 849, Octobel" 2. 6 p. m.. to the diplomatic representative ln Tnrkey,
infonne<l him tbat if note had not already ~ presented to the Turld$b Government. he was authorized, iD concert ~th bfs Britiab colleague, to alter the tel'JilS
of the note tu a nuumer deemed approprlnte by blm to refiect the di.1lerent atatus
of Turke,y from European countries prj!&lrvl~ strict neutrallt;t", in vie1'f" ot
Turkey's break of relatiollS with Germany ( 800.515/l(}.-2M).

A-

ff

o

APX-226

r.BE SAJI'EHAVEN PROGRAM

237

800.51!1/9-22-U: !telegn:m

Tl1.8 Seoretary of Sta-te to ths Ambass<Ulor in th6 United Kingdom
(Winant)
September 29, 1944.---3 p.m.
7937. Reurtel 7930, September 23, 1944.•• The Department
strongly feels th.a.t no approach should be ma.de to the A1·gentine
Government on this matter, whether informal or otherwise, and does
not feel tlu,~ot a. copy of the note should be informally handed to the
Argentine Embassy. No such approach will be made here. Should
a. press release be issued, the Argentino Government wiJl receive
notice through that means."
We a1-e also instructing our missions in each of the United and
Associated Nations to inform the Governments of those nations of
the approach being made by us to the European neutra.ls with a view
to instigating n. similar approach by the Governments of those nations
to the European neutrals. You s.re instructed to inform the British
that a. parallel approach by them to the United o.nd Associated Nations would, in the opinion of this Government, be highly desirable.
Inform the Department whether the British agree to approach the
other United and As.Q()ciated Nations with a. view to inviting them. to
take a similar approach to the European neutrals.•G
The following two circular telegru.ms dn.ted September 29, 2 p. m.
and 3 p. m.46 which have been sent to our missions in the European
neutral capitals and Moscow a.re repeated to you for your infonns.tion.
(Reurtel8009, September26,1944.•')
WAsHINGTON,

HULL
SOO.fill'l/11-21144: CircUlar telel!nlll

TheSeC1'etary of State to Oe?•tainDiplornatic RepresentatilveJJ •t
W ASEIINGTO.N, September 29, 1944-6 p. m.

R2 FLlGB',t OP A::ns CurrAL To NElJ"l"BAL CoUNTRIES: BRETrON Wooos
REsoLUTION VI
Resolution VI adopted by the delegates at. the Bretton Woods Financial and Monetary Conference of July, 1944, recommended that the
Q Not printed.
.. Tho United States lllld British Governments subsequently agreed Jlot to
make auy approach to the Argentine Govenunent. For docum.e:ntatlon on elrorts
of the United Stale$ to enlist the American Republics and tbe United Kingdom
ln a common poUcy toward Argentina, see vol. vn, pp. 288 tt.
.. In telegram 8227, October 2, 2 p. w., A.albassador Winant statOO tllat the
British Foreign Oflice had that morning informed him that it would make a
sJ.mUar approach to the Governments ot the United and Associated Nations
regnJ'ding :Besolotlun VI (800.515/10-244).
'"Ante, pp. 285 and236, respectively.
.., The diplomatic representatives ill A.ustralla, Bollvia, Braztl, Canada, ChUe,
Oblna, Colombia, Costa 1Uco, Cuba, Denmo.rk, Dominican Repnbllc1 Ecuador,

(ll'oo\noto eont1nlled on followt~ l)ll~e.)

A -- tit
APX-227

238

FOREIGN REJ,ATIONS 1 1944 1 VOliU)..IE II

United Nations co.ll upon the neutral countries to take measures dEr
signed to carry out the objectives of the Resolution, among which are
the discloSUI:e of Axis assets) in particular flight capital and looted
property. Reference is made to the Department's circular airgram of
August 22 [19], 1944, containing the text of Bretton Woods Resolution

VI.
It has now been decided that this Government will endorse the
Resolution a.nd will call upon the governments of the European neutra.l
countries, in the manner recommended in the Resolution. Instructions are being sent to the American missions in Bern, Stockholm,
Dublin, Lisbon, Madrid, Tangier, nnd A.nko.ra.,•9 to present on October 2 or as soon thereafter as possible, a note the text o£ which is
quoted in the following circular telegram dated September 29, 5

p.

m.~o

The British missions at-e being instructed to present a note couched
in similtJ.r terms~ with the omission of the la~t sentence of the abovequotA\d note, at the sn.me time. Discussions a.re also being held in
Moscow wit.h the government of the USSR with reference to the possible presenta-tion of a similar note by tha.t Government to those neutral
governments to 1\hich the USSR has representatives.
You are instruct~ to bring immediately to the attention of the
Government to which you are accredited the fact that action is being
taken by the United States to endorse Bretton Woods Resolution VI,
to point out that it. may be desired by that Government to take para:Uel
action, and to indicate the importance which is attached to this mntter
by this Govemment.u
'l'he .American Embassy m London has been informed of this procedure, and it seems reasonable that the British will wish to take similar action. However, after informing your British colleague of the
action which is described herein, you should proceed independently.
It is felt to be important tl1at the other United and Associated Nations
be informed of oUl' proposed action before it is t.a.ken. Similar steps
on their part would of course be "Very welcome.
(l?ootnou coutiuued from p. 287.)

Egypt (~lleated tor Gree<:e and Yugoslavia), El Sah•ador, Ethiopia, France,
Great Britain (repeated for Belgium, Czecp.oslovakia, Luxemb<>nrg, Ne~berlauds,
Norway, Poland), Guatemala, Haiti. Honduras, Iceland, Indln., Iro.n, Iraq, LibeJ·in, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, Parngnay, Pe.rn, Union of South
Africa, Urugull,Y, and Venezuela.
"'Circular telegrams. September 29, 2 p. m., and 3 p. m.~ pp. 235 and 236,
l'espectiYely.
00

See fourth sentence of footnote 42. p. 236.
the following Governments mtonned the Department tllat they
wowd talte pnrollel action in the nentral cou.ntrles where they had representatives: Belgium, Brazil, Canada. Cblle, Chlnn., Czecboslovl.l.ldJl, Dominican Republic, E1 Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Bonduras, Icelllnd, Liberia, Luxembourg,
Nethel'lands, ~ew Zen.Land, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Poland, and Venezuela.
~1 During .1944

APX-228

THE SA.FEHAVEN PROG'BAM

239

102.1/&--2944 : Ttli!JU.IIl

The S eoret<J,ry of State to tlte Am:btusador in the Dnited KingdfYI'n;
(Winant) 52

WASHD{<J'l.'<>N, Septernbs1· 29, 1044--11 p. m.
7966. From Department, Treasury, and FEA.. The following is in
reference to proposed statement o:f a gold policy and pnrticulu.dy with
reference to questions rnised by the Dritish and discussed in your 7635,
September 15, 1944.
1. Use of the word 'lnegoti.ations, in Department's •mao, September
1, 1944, was not intended to cn.rry implication that our missiorts in
Switzerland, Spu.in, Portugu.I, Sweden, or Tm·key, should bargain
with governments concerned or accept a compt'Omise unde.rto.king. It
was our intention t~ instruct our missions in above-named countries
to present the statement of the gold policy to governments to which

they are accredited and to nTge them to adltere to it without offering
to those governments any inducements in connection with such an ndherence. Nor was it our intention to consider a.ny weakening or
modification of the proposed statement.
2. The adoption of proposed gold policy will not result in &. condonation by us of past dealings in looted gold. A country which
adheres to the proposed gold po1icy will not be free from questioning
as to transactions in gold. After the war, United States and other
United Nations must face problems involved in clarifying position o£
looted property, including looted gold, acquired by neutral countries
from A.xis during the w1~r. Moreover, we could not possibly foreclose
nations from whom gold hns been looted from taking appropriate
action.
8. MEW,s suggestion that an expression of our views on this mo.tter should go to the L11tiu American governments is unde'l' :review
here. In this connection, special attention will be given to problem o£
bringing our policy to the attention of Argentina..
4. In view of urgency of this Il.Ultter, it is requested that you impress upon British desirability of bringitlg gold policy to the att-ention of neutral governments named above without delay. We believe
that no reason e..""rists for not ma.king n substnntin11y simultnneoos approach in all countries concerned. Consideration has already been

given in Washington to the different position of Turkey by reason
of that country's rupture of relations with Germany. For you~ information the following is an extract (in para.phrase) from our A-146
')f September 2,1944, addressed to our mission in Ankara.:
[Here follows paraphrase of passage quoted in footnote 24, page
225.]
., Repented on the sa.tn& date to diplomatic representatives 1n Portugal (telegram 2637), Sweden (telegram 1952}, SpaiD {tcl~~:ram 2600), and Swlt~ltwd
(telegrnm 3864).

APX-229

240

'FORE!~ RELATIONS, 19441 VOLUME ll

The importance of making a. substantially simultaneous approach
to countries involved is emphasized by possibility tLa.t an approach
to less than a.ll of these countries might result in Germans focussing
their attention upon that country OL" those countrjes to which an
approach had not been made. However, should the British feel
strongly, for reasons which a.re not apparent het·e, that an approach
to Turkey should be postponed or modified, it is strongly desired to
achieve a. simultaneous and joint approach to Sweden, Portugal, and
Spaitt, t·ather than delay such an approach pending eventual solution
of Turkish matter. Our position therefore is that advisability of a
simultaneous a.pproaeh to a.U of the cow1tries concerned should be
pressed upon British, with explanation that an a.dd.itionn.l statement
might be ma.de in presentation of any note to Turkey in recognition
of Turkey's rupture of relations with Germany. However, should
thls simultaneous a.pproaeh to all countries involved not. be feasible,
it is urged that a. simultaneous approacll to the other three countries
be made without delay.
5. As soon a.s British concurrence ma.y be received on these matters,
you o.re req~ested, without further Te:ferene& to Department, to advise
our missions in countries concerned, as was indicated in Department's
telegram 7080, September 1, 1944.
6. Please report reactions of British to these proposals, giving
special attention to tbeir attitude on Turkish matter.

[With reference to the presentation of the note on October 2, see
Department's press release of October 4 entitled "Request to Neutral
Governments Concerning Enemy Loot,, Department of StaLe Bulletin,
October 8, 1944, page 383.]
102.1/lo-lSH; Teleanm

The Ambcussador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to tlte Secretary
of State

LoNDON, October 18, 1944-8 p.m.
[Received October 18-7:18 a.. m.]
8897. For Treasury and FEA. ReDcpts 7966, September 29, 11
p. m. After :further disc'lSSion with British Treasury, MEW has
today instructed representatives at Stockholm, Lisbon, .Ankara. and
Madrid to join in effort to have those Governments adopt the desired
gold policy by presenting o. note the terms of which are sWJ1liUl.rized
below. This note however is not to be present.ed until you bn.ve bad
an opportunity to consider the present telegram a.nd the Missions are
given the final instructions by MEW and ourselves.

APX-230

THE SAFe.RAVEN PRoGRAM

241

First pn.rngrn.ph of note refers to declumLion of February 22 concerning looted gold nnd note of October 2 on Bretton Woods Resolution VI. Second paragraph states thnt n.mplo evidence exists that
all Germany's pre-war Jeold stocks hnve been t>.xhn.usted an<l therefore gold no\v in their possession is presumed to be looted. Third
paragraph states that His Majesty's Government ·'expect" neutral
government concerned to take steps which nre set forth in exnct terms
of the formoJa contained in Department's instructions to Missions of
September 1.
MEW f~s the matter could be best handled by the simple presentation of a. not-e to which no reply would be expected rather than by
entering into discussions which might possibly bo prolonged or tho
demanding of nn undertaking which could only be considered i1l
fact negotiating. 'Vhile MEW's instructions to United Kingdom
Missions do not appear to conflict materinlly with the Depnrtmont's
mstructions to American Missions of September 1 the exchanges of
telegt-atns with the Department indicate desire ou the part of the
Department to bn.ve the Missions urge adoption of the policy and
obtain un undertaking as is in fnct being done with the Swiss. MEW
hns no desire to change policy towards Swiss since the effort is already
under way and if Department concurs in the views expressed n.bove
Embassy will e:rrange to hn.ve hoth Missions in each country instruct.ed
immediately to proceed.
WINANT
102..1/lll-lSU: Telteram

TM Acting Secretary of Beau to the Amluusador in the Umted
Kingdom (Winant)
W ASntNOTON, October 28, 1944-midnight.
9086. From Department, Trensury, and FEA.. ~urtel 8897, October 18, 1944. Althougl1 this Government feels that it would bo
desirable to obtain a commitment. from the neutro.l governments, in
a procedure similar t.o that now being followed with respect to
Switzerland, this Government is not prepared to insist upon this
matter in vunv of the position now taken by tho British. In the
interests of expediting action on presentation of the gold notes, you
are authorized to inform the British and the missions in Stockholm,
Lisbon, Ankara, and Madrid,h that imruediate action should be taken
along lines indicated by MEW. Without further consultation with
Department, you ma.y therefore issue instructions to the abovementioned missions and arrange for simultaneous action by the
• Br tbr end o! 1M4, none of those Governments bad tndlcated willingness to
lmbscrlbe to the gold declaration.

APX-231

242

FOREIGN RELATIONS, lOU, VOLUME

n

British and our ~ons in the countries named. Please request
missions to inform Department, Treasury and FEA of action taken
and of any developments.

SOO.IUG/ll-14«: TeleJTam

TluJ Ohatrge in the So'Uiet Union (Kennan) to the Secretary of State
Mosoow, November 14, 1944-2 p.m.
[Received Nov0Illber 14--1:52 p.m.]
4364. ReEmbs 3997l October 20, 11 a.. m. 5 ' The Embassy received
this morning a. note from the Foreign Office dated November 12 stating
that the Chiefs of the Soviet Missions in Stockholm and Ankara. ha.ve
been instructed to preseNt notes on the subject of Resolution VI of
the Bretton Woods Conference but that in view of the fact that the
Soviet Government has no diplomatic missions in Dublin, Madrid,
Lisbon, Tangier a.nd Bern, the Foreign Office is unable to transmit
similar notes to the appropriate governments.
No date is given as to when the instructions were issued to present
the notes to the Swedish and Turkish Governments.

800.516/ll-34f: A.trrraln

TILe Actm.g Secretary of State to th,e 11mha8sador in the Umted
Kingdom (Winant}
WaSm:NGTON, December 2,1944--10:45 a.. m •

.A.-2536. For Schoenfeld (Czechoslovak Series No. -}. Reference
your despatch no. 207, November 8, 1944.00 Department does not brr
lieve international conference on subject of looting and flight of A.~s
capital would be profitable a.t this time. Subject of restitution continues to be explored, a.nd is being discussed with Robbins of the
AmEm.bassy London. Work is going forward on flight of Axis capital
problems, on the operating a.nd policy levels, and it would appear that
nothing would be gained by international conference discussion of the
subject, at least at this stage. The interest of the Czechoslovak Government, and of other governments in similar positions, is realized, and
their cooperation on these snbjoots, where their int&t'8St is clenr, will be
sought.
"'Not printed; in this telegram the Cbarg6 reported tbat tbe So-net Foreign
O.fllce had not repUed to his note ot September 30 regarding Resolution VI
(800.515/10-2044).

• Not printea.

Pt -- ''"
APX-232

THE SAFEHAVEN PROGRAM

243

BOO.Gl5/12-M4

The Secretary of State to Diplomatic Rep1•uentativu in the American
Republics
WAB.liiNGTON,

December 6, 1944.

SAPEIIAvt:...., PRo.TWT

Sms: Reference js made to the Department's circular n.irgram of
May 25, 194.4,11 a. m .,u requesting that you investigate and report any
evidences tha.t enemy capital has been or is being invested in your terri~
tory. Reference is also 1IlRde to Bretton Woods Resolution VI, which
was t.ransmitted to you in a circular aixgram of August 19, 1944, and
to the interest o£ this Government in the problem of looted assets
nnd similar questions.
This Government is n.ttempt.ing through all available means to
obtain information concerning enemy investments and plans, and
the activities oi persons wlrich couJd be employed as a means of preserving the enemy's economic, political and military potential abroad
alter the cessation of hostilities. There is evidence that the enemy, in
tacit a.clmowledgment of defeat, is seeking refuge in neutral and
friendly countries for persons and assets in order to remove them. from
anticipated Allied controls. While recognizing tha.t t.he government
to which you aro accredited, consistent with its severance of diplomatic
relations with or declaration of war upon the Axis, should have taken
moosu.res to preclude such activities, there mny well remain. a sizahle
body of enemy assets which hs.ve escaped control, through concealment
or otherwise, and also enemy persons who have had lit,tle or uo testric~
tions placed upon their movements and activities. It is not possible to
statG at this time precisely the disposition which 'vill be mn.de of such
assets or the controls which. will be imposed upon undesirable persons
since those are matters requiring discussions Rmong and concerted
action by the United Nations. The information will, however, be of
immedittte value to this government in formulating pla.ns for the postwar disposition of the enemy's foreign inftuence and of subsequent
a.nd greater value in expediting the execution of such plo.ns. In furtherance of those objectives you are requested to transmit at a.n early
date all presently available information requested hereinafter s.nd to
obtain through s.ll possible sources additional data. which wght prove
useful. It is important tha.t each diplomatic and consular office be
prepared to keep theDepa.rtment cunently informed on developments
in this field for several yea.r s following the cessa.tion of hostilities in
order that any resurgence of enemy activity ma.y be quelled in its
inception.

• Not printed.

A - lII
APX-233

244.

FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1944, VOLUME

n

For purposes of tl1is instruction lhe term "enemies" sl1ould be defined as persons or entities in any of the Ams cmtntriu, tJr coumriu
whicl~ have bee-n or are allied with the .A:11"is1 and 11ational1S of any
C()'tl/fl.try who in your ducretion could be cOMidered a presflfl.t OT p()te7Ltial threat to the effective emecutimt of AZZid control plana. In
ca.rrying out this instruction the mission's A.ttention should be directed
in the fust instance to firms and individuals domiciled in or controlled
from Gimna.ny and, with 1-espect to those whose ownership residos
elsewhere, to those whose activities :fall within tbe criteria for Px·oclairned List action.
You are requested to compile a. register of all known enemy assets
which have not been satisfactorily vested, expropriated, confiscated,
nationalized, or otherwise disposed of by the govemment of an Allied
or other friendly country showing:
(a) A description of the assets including their nature, value, Joca.
tion etc.
(b) The names of any persons who may be concealing the enemy
ownership of assets (such persons should be considered for inclusion
in the Proclaimed List) and
(c) The names of the true owners of tbe assets.

In compiling n. register, n.Hhough equuJ emphasis should be given
to both, a distinction should be made wherever possible between looted
a$6tS and other enemy held assets. In determining such a distinction
it may be helpful to consider separately those nssets owned by enemies
priot· to 1939 and those acquired since 1939. It may also be helpful
to give special attention to those assets which are known or believed
to have been owned by persons in enemy occupied areas on or after the
occupation of such areas. Looted assets are those owned by persons
or finns in territory now or formerly enemy occupjed and which sjnce
occupation have passed to enemy ownership. They include both properties which have been transfened from enemy occupied lerritory and
properties which originalJy were located in non-enemy territory but
title to which has passed to an enemy.
The types of assets concerned are various, but the following items
are of particular interest:
( 1) Bank bnlnnces and gold holdings and transfers thereof, whether
between central banks or otherwise..
(2) Gems, gold privately mvned, currency, art objects, stocks of
merchandise, etc.
(3) Real estate, including leaseholds (e.g., industrial, commercial,
mining, :tgricultura1, and tesidential properties).
( 4) Sccuri ties: including investments in securities of neutral and
other governtnents, ns well as industrials.
(5) Obligations owing to the enemy in the form of mortgages, bills
of exchnnge, insu:rnnce policiesl a:umuities, promissory notes or other
evidences of indebtedne$ or bool:t credits of any kind.

APX-234

THE SAFERAVEN PROGRAM

245

(6) Patents, trademarks and copy-rights and transfers, ass4,anments, licenses, etc. in connection therewith.
(7) BeneficiAl interests under trusts or estates of deceased persons.
{8) Commercial, industrial, financial or other enterprises whic1l
in nn:y way represent enemy assets, looted or otherwise. This item
should be broad1y interpreted to include old as well as new investments of svery kind in which an enemy has an interest. In this connection it will be noted tha.t new investments, both open and cloaked,
muy represent 1ligbt capital or looted assets. Sucll investments mi~ht
include holding companies o.nd minority interests in established aomestic firms.

You should report in detail concerning any enemy-owned assets
which come to your attention. Your invest,igations should concem
not only assets presently located in your ~~rea. buL also those in transit,
pa.rticula.rly where the assets ema.no.te from a. neutral European country. It
possib~ tlw;t YO'U altr6(J.dy have "reported ruck information
in otmnectiiJn with a relokd subject, such a8 a 1'ecomnrtt:ndation for
Proclai:med Liat action, 5"1' in which ca8e a refer811.Ce to t'M nwmber and
date of the Obmtm;wticati<m will be mtficient.
Simultaneously with the compilation of a. register of enemy assets,
this Government wishes to initiate a. survey of enemy persons and
their activities. This will require a. continuous fact-finding on all
persons of enemy na.tiona.lity for a. period of years in order that the
Department will be able to sense any attempts on the pa.rt of the Germans in any part of the world to maintain and improve their technical
abilities with the view of fitting into a. general German p1an for a. rea.rma.ments program inside Germany at some rather distant future
date. To that end you are requested to report all available details
concerning enemies in the country to which you are accredited, particularly with regard to persons and activities such as the iollowing:
1. Enemy technicia:os, financial experts or managerial help, particularly recent arrivals, employed by a.ny enterprises irrespective of
nationality in your at'ea, or evidence that such persons are attempting
to place themselves in positions where they could assist in the development of the industrial and milita.ry potential of your territory. This
would include persons who are being or may be used to develop N a.zi
potential through the medi1l.Dl of pa.rtnership relations, employment.
connections or 'b y serving in advisory capacities. You should also
report on business enterprises with which thes& persons are associated
and also those which have been so allied witlll.he enemy's economic or
milita.ry organization in the past that they may offer safe haven for
enemy skills by providing opportunit-ies for technical experience, research fn.cilities, etc. It is predictable that, the persons who are ene·
mies within tlte terms of this instruction "·ill attempt to disguise tl1em-

u

*' B'or documentation concerning the Proclalmed and Statutory IJsts, see pp.

llS4 tr.

APX-235

246

FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1944 1 VOLUME

n

selves for a considerable period such ns by posing us common laborers
and refugees.
2. Careful attention should be given to enemy scientists engaged in
private, governmental or university research since it is to be ~cted
that such persons will want to mu.inta.in and improve their skills and
keep abreast o£ any deva1opment.s in their respective fields by engaging
in research work in all cow1tries affording these opportunities.
Such fnctors as religious adl1erence, political philosophies, and employment in the country to 'vhich you are accredited for several years
prior to the outbreak of the wu.r should not be considered as grounds
for omitting such individuals from reports on this project. Your reports on enemy personnel should include descriptive dntn, such as
details of training and relevant facts on previous employment. .AJthough information on enemies recently employed in any of the nbove
montioned ()tl.pacities is of primary interesL1 information on individuals
employed in thls type of activity subsequent to 1!>83 will be e~;tremely
useful. In compiling such information, the following are suggested
as possible sources of information: (1) labor registrations; (2) immigration files; {3) police records; {4) university, college and technical
school c.ata.logs or faculty biographies; (5) bi<>t,araphical sketches in
industrial and scientific publications; (G) Allied intelligence sources.
You should not hesitate to Nport unconfirmed rumors of attempts
hy the enemy to transfer his assets to places of safekeeping abroad
in anticipation of impenwng dofeat or of the movements of enemy
persons seeking refuge for similar reasons. It is possible that the
Department can obta.in proof from other areas of the world or at
least when Allied control over enemy territory is established.
The Proclaimed List should contain the most important persons
a.nd firms within your are~ who fall within the terms of this instruction and therefore it is suggested that the list be t·eviewed £or the
purposes stated herein in the initial stages of your work on tlu~
project. If you have not followed closely the activities of the listed
persons and entities since they hnve been included in the list, you
should now conduct investigations. It. is possible that you ho.ve
already undertaken such n. review on the basis of the Department's
circular telegram of September 20,1944, 5 p. m.oe ln cu.ses wl\ereyou
believe the objective of controlling or thwarting enemy nctivities of

t.he nature set forth in this instruction could be 11chieved through
inclusion of the names of indiYiduals or firms in the Proclaimed List,
you should forward a rooommendation to this effect with your report.
.. See footnote 84-, p. 188.

A-

J~u

APX-236

T.BE

247

SAFEBAV~N PROOR~

Your British colleagues have already received instructions covering
this subject and hllve been requested to cooperate with you in this
project. You should arrs.nge to consult and work with them as closely
as possible in ot·der to attain the maximum of information. Our
final objective is to obtu.in, of course, complete covet-age of all so~ces
a:vo.ilnble to both you and your British colleagues so Lhat. t.he information ~changed may be of maximum mutua.l benefit. You should also
approach info~mo.lly any other Allied missions, especin.11y the French,
Dutch, and Belgian, and discuss with t.hem the information which is
being collected and is already available, particularly with regard to
looted property which. is of interest to the 1-espective governments.
1t should be pointed out to the missions of those countries now o~
formerly occupied by the enemy that while this Government recognizes their special interest in identifiable looted assets we, too, are
interested in such assets wiili a view toward preventing the Germans
from realizing any benefit therefrom and assuring that United States
facilities will not inadvertently be used to provide haven for such
properties.
The chief of mission should design.n.te. a qualified Fo~eign Service
or Auilia.ry Foreign Service officer to coordinate the fa.ctrfinding and
reporting on this project in the country to which he is accredited and
should solicit the cooperation of aU intelligence organizations of t.his
goverrunent operating in the country. The coordinating officer shollld,
of course, utilize the commercial, banking and govemmentn.l cont.a.cts
a.fforded the office of the CommercinJ Attache along with the contacts
available at the various consular posts.
For the convenience of the reporting officer, the Department has
devised n. simplilled form which mn.y be utilized in forwnrdil1g any
information, however brief, touchll1g ttpon this project. A sample of
the form is enclosed here"';th.$ 0 The 1·eport should be forwarded in
hectograph.
In order to expedite prompt distribution, all ca.bles, 1.\irgrams, form
~eplies, and despatches on this subject should conta.i.n the code word
11

8AFE:ECA VEN1'.

You should at aU times have due regard for the delic.'\te and highly
confidential nature of this project.

Very truly yours,

For the Secretary of State:

DEAN
• Not reproduced.

APX-237

A.(ll;O:SON

248

:FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1944 1 VOLUME U

102.J./&-28M: T&epa.m

The Secretary of State to the Minitlter in Switzerland (HOII'ris()l(/,)•0

WASmNG'roN, December 13, 1944--11 a.m.
4:193. From Department, Treasury and FE.!\.. Your 2108 to London November 3.111
1. You are hereby instructed forthwith to raise ago..in the adoption
of a. gold policy by Swiss Government in accordance with instructions
iit our 3104 September 8 and to urge strongly not only acceptance but
appropriate measures effectuating such gold policy. Suggested revision of text contained in 3104 should offer opportunity to 1.-aise question again. Concurrence of British in proposed approach is highly
desirable, but action should not be unduly delayed on t.his account.
2. Please report immediately reaction of Swiss Government ns requested our 3364 September 29,82 last. paragraph, and il n~o-a.tive,
what measures you recommend to impress upon Swiss the importance
we a.t.ta.ch to their adherence.
3. Our 3104 September 8, informed you that our missions in other
neutral countries are being authorized to present to other neutl'a.ls for
immediate acceptance a gold policy similn.r to that outlined in our
cable to you 2558 July 26 ea wilh certain modifications quoted in 3104
September 8. This has been done.
800.515/12-l.U': Telena:m

The Sec-retary; of Sta:te to the ihrtl>aB&a.dor i"' th6 United Kingdom
(Winant)
WASIIINGTON, December 13,1944--0 p.m.
10399. For Embassy and Aarons 114 from Depa.rtment and Treasury. The following is the text of a message 'vhicb we propose to send
to our missions in Egypt, Honduras, India, Iran, Iraq, Mexico, New

., .Repeated on the same date to the Atnba&Siulor In tbe United Kingdom as
telegram 10379, wlth the following parngrapbs added:
"i-. Please illform MEW and arrange, I! possible, so U1at British Legation,
Bern. will be slmilarly instructed forthwith.
"5. Wl'lllhinl;ton considers immcdlnte strollg action Jmportant at tills time.
"6. It you :teet necessary tho.t missions In Bern be told of exact tenns in whiCh
approach was made to the other neutrals, you are autborized to do so. However, we feel this might confuse the f.siju.e, particularly at tb.ls tat& date.."
• Not printed; iu this telegram {act.>ordlng to London's telegram 9995. November 15, 8 p. m.) Be_m bad requested furthet- lnstrucUons aa to wbetbu the
Swtss ~;hould again be approached concerning lldoptlon of an approved gold
pollcy (102.1/11-1544).
• Not printed; it re.oeated tetegnun 7966, September 29, to London (p. 289),
and inquired ~ncerning Swiss reaction to presentation o.t Legation's aldememoiro ot Augu.c;t 24 (see footnote 29, p. 228). (102.1/9-2944)
• See footnote 30. 'P· 228.
.. Lehman C. AIU'Ons, assiStant to the TreaB1117 representative, Wlll11llll EL
T9.1lor, in th.e United Kingdom.

APX-238

249

Zealand, Nicaragua, Australia., Canada., Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican
Republic, Panama., South Africa1 Chile, Ecuador, Liberia, Puragaay,
Uruguay, and Venezuela: 63
"1. Reference is made to the Department's circular telegram of
February 22 19~ in connection with the gold declaration issued
simultaneous y by the Governments of the United States, the United
Kingdom n.nd the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
2. The efforts of the Axis to realize value for looted ~old have
greatly intensified as a result of military developments m recent
months. Accordingly, it is extremely important that every efforl
be made to P.revent the marketing of looted gold in neutral countries
and thus reauce the shj.Pment to Germany of materials essential to
its war industries. This ca,n be accoml?hshcd if n.ll of the United
Nations subscribe to the gold declo.mt1on making it clen.r to the
neutrals that they will be deprived of markets in any of the United
Nations -for gold which they have acquired from the .Axis or which
they hu.ve been nble to relen.se as n. result of acquisition of gold from
the Axis.
3. It is noted that the govemment to which you are !lccredited bns
not adopted the gold policy set forth in the declaration of February 22.
An immediate appronch should, therefore, be made to that government. You should indicate to that govemment that this Government
considers it extremely import.ant that tbe ~old policy be adopted.
You should state that. this Government w11l be requit·ed to take
measures designed to eft'ecmate the gold declaration. In addition u•
requiring n. hig!l degree of proof before purchasing gold from neutral
countries, the United States will be compelled, as a. matter of aood
fn.ith with regard to the declaration, to require n.ny member of the
United Nations which has not adopled the gold policy and which
offers for sale to the Unit.ed States gold nol J?hysicu.lly located in the
United States on February 22 1944, to submit a certificate with each
such offer stating that the gold offered has not been acquired directly
or indirectly from the Axis and is not gold which it has or is enabled
to release as a. result of the acquisition of gold djrectly or indirectly
irom the Axis.
4. Please report the rea.ction of the government to which you a.re
aCCl'edited ns soon as possible."

1

It is requested that you inform the British of its contents and
request the British Government to make a similar approach at the
same tim~ It is our view that this matter is of sufficient importance
to require the 1Jnited States to take action immediately even should

the British a.ppea.r unwilling to join us at this time. The messa~
will be sent to oar missions on December 20.
• According to Depsrtment records, the Governments of India, Iran, New
Zealand, Nicaragua, Dominican Republit', Soutb Atrlca, and LJberla during 1944
mther issued public declantions or declared to the Department their Intention
to implement the gold po!J.cy.

APX-239

250

FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1944 1 VOLUME

n

Our no. 692 to Po.ris 6G is repeated to yo\11 as no. 10819. We. expect
to send a siroilnr communication OJt December 20 to our missions in
or near countries which h:~.ve been occupied by the enemy and which
have not yet adopted the gold decl..'l.ra.tion, nameJy Norway, Greece,
a.nd Luxembourg.57
STE'ITII.'UUS
800.Gl~/U-2Ut

: Telegrum

Tl~.e Secreta1y of Sto-te to the Ambnasado:r in the United Kingdom

(Winant)
WASniNGTON, Ja.nua.ry 6,1945-9 p.m.
150. For Embassy and Aarons from Department and Treasury.
Please give message in following Paragraph 1 to British in response
to their communication paraphrased to us in your 11396, December

22...

1. ''We are happy to note that you are in agreement n.s lo obiect.ive
of proposed approach to United Nations with respect to Gold Decln.ration. Accordingly, we intend to send on January 10, 1945, themessage stated in our telegrnm of December 13., 1944,'~ which informs the
other United Nations of the steps which this Government will he
required to take with respect to iuture acquisitions of gold from countries which do not adhere to the Gold Dedarntion. In view of t.he
fact that you have not yet npproached the, other United Nations on
the subject of the Gold Declaration, we sh,::mld be happy, if you feel
unable to take identicn.l action, to ha.ve your support of our approach
in the manner suggested.10 We s],a.Jl iustmct our Missions t.o mform
thci.r British colleagues of a.ction taken."
• ThJa telegram, dated December 9, 1044. 10 p. m.. , refeTred to the

De1lart.m~t'a

ctrcular telegram ot Febroary 22. v. 213, to Algle:rs. In which the United Sto.tes
had reQUested the Frencb C001mlttec of Nntlonnl :u~x>rution to join Lo tlle declAration of policy with respect to the purcbese of gold; f'xpressed hope tbnt the
French would issue a sizn1lar declaration ot policy and would pflrticlpate in attempting to secure tbe cooperation ot other United Nations whlcb bad not yet
adopted the gold policy; and instructed tbe A.mb11ssador 1n France to approach

the French Government on this matter (800.1SliS/l.2:-944). Accordingly, a note on

thls subject (not printed), dated December 26. 1944, was forwarded by the Am-

baSSBdor 1n France to the French Foreign Office (800.515/12-2744).
rr A~!'dln~ to Depa.rttnent t'eeo111&, Norw11y uno Luxembourg l.sSUed public

declarations ill conformity with the Department'u wl3bes. Altllou.gh the Greek
Government dld not make a publlc declaration, It took steps to Implement the
gold poUcy•
.. Not printed.
• No. 10399. :tupra.
"In London's -telegram 257, ;ranuo.ry 8, ~. G p. m .. tbe Sec~etarles ot State
lUid Trensn?y were adnsed that whlle the HrltL<tb could uot Lake Identical oetlon, tlley ne,·ertheless 1tldlcated a woog cteRire to join the United States 1n
th\s matter. and. accordingly, tbe British woold uend a message on January 10
to British Missions to give support to their American colleng·oes {800.515/l-845).

APX-240

'l'HE SAFEHAVEN PROGllAM

251

2. In connection with discnssions with the British on this matter,
our views on the other points raised in your 11896, December 22, are
as follows:
(~) Since the Gold Declaration ~itbin its field, more far reaching tha.n Bretton Woods Resolution VI, it is not thought necessary to
refer to the R.esolution.
(b) The fact that the British Dornlilions are not buying gold at
the present time is not, in the opinion of this Government, a. sufficient
reason for not requesting their adherence to the Gold Declaration.
The success of the policy set forth jn Lhe Declaration depends to a
large extent upon the isolation from the world's gold markets of thoso
countries which have been purchasing gold from tbe Axis. This isolation can be made clear to them only if all of the United N o.tions announce their adherence to the Gold Declaration.
(c) Our ].\.fissions are being instructed to check, before p1·esenting
the message, on whether the governments to which they are accredlted
have adhered. Norway and South Africa, on the basis of 11396 under
reference, will be excluded in distribution of our message.
(d) All of the countries listed in Paragraph 6 of your 11396 n are
listed he"te as ha.ving advised of their adherence to the Declaration.
The steps ta.ken with respect to France were described in our 1039~
of December 13.
STETTINIUs

" Bolivia, Brazil. El Salvador, Ethiopia. Guatemala, Bald, the PhillpplDes, and
YUgosl.avio.; De-partment records, however, show no record ot adhereDCe by
Bolivia and the Philippines du:rlng 1944.

627-819--67----17

APX-241

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SEALED V SEALED

)

Original Bill of Complaint

Exhibit B
 
 
 

APX-242

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Beneficiary among
the Posterity ofPre-1933 Private American National
Citizens of the United States, beneficiary agent for
TMCHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK © (Strunk) c/o 593
Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281, Brooklyn NY Zip code
excepted [11238], ph: 718-414-3760 email
suretynomore@gmail.com,

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRON! CALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE FILED: _ _ _ __

Plaintiff,
-against-

M-49

ROBERT DRUSKIN, Executive Chairman of the
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), John
Koskinen, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS), JACOB JOSEPH LEW, Trustee Secretary ofthe
United States Treasury (SOT), BARACK HUSSEIN
OBAMA II, Trustee Commander in Chief, President of
the United States of America (POTUS),

ORDER

Defendants.
ANALISA TORRES, District Judge:
Plaintiffs request to file this case under seal is DENIED. The Court directs Plaintiffs
attention to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(l), which addresses redactions relating to
financial information.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 26,2015
New York, New York

ANALISA TORRES
United States District Judge

ORDER "M-49" DATED AUGUST 26, 2015
ON APPEAL UNDER RULE 5.2 (b)(d) for
PROTECTIVE ORDER (E)

APX-243

PRIVATE
THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC
COMMUNICATION
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent
Applicable to all successors and assigns Silence is Acquiescence/Agreement/Dishonor
This is a self-executing contract.
FROM:

Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui Juris Agent
for ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© and
Estates of beneficiaries who are “pre-1933”
Private National Citizens of the United States
c/o 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281
Brooklyn, New York Zipcode excepted [11238]

IN RE:

Certification of the sole beneficial interest segregated from the “500 person bundled”
Commingled Collateral Security utilized by the United States Treasury Secretary
Receiver for the Creditors of U.S. Debt within the Fractional Reserve Banking System

TO:

Robert Druskin, Executive Chairman of the
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC)
55 Water Street, 1-SL,
New York NY 10011-0099
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2479
John Koskinen, Commissioner Internal Revenue Service
Office of Commissioner
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20224
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2394
Jacob Joseph Lew, Secretary of the United States Treasury—
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia [20220]
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2400
Barack Hussein Obama II, President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia [20500]
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2417

NOTICE OF FAULT IN DISHONOR
OPPORTUNITY TO CURE
 

1

APX-244

Dear Captioned Trustees with fiduciary duties under 12 USC 95 with 50 USC Appendix 5(b) and
related law by Executive Orders 2039 of 6 March 1933 and 2040 of 9 March 1933 accordingly,
1. On 23 April 2015, the Conformed Bound Volume of the NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT for
the Certification of the sole beneficial interest segregated from the “500 person bundled”
Commingled Collateral Security utilized by the United States Treasury Secretary Receiver
for the Creditors of U.S. Debt within the Fractional Reserve Banking System, under the
affirmation, a copy marked as Exhibit 1, was served on Robert Druskin and John Koskinen
by the United States Postal Service (USPS)
2. That the Conformed Bound Volume under the affirmation shown as Exhibit 1 was served by
the USPS upon Robert Druskin, Executive Chairman of the Depository Trust & Clearing
Corporation with authority over the Depository Trust Company by Registered Mail #:
RE726132705US, and with a copy of the Bound Volume served by the USPS upon John
Koskinen, Commissioner Internal Revenue Service by Registered Mail #: RE726132714US,
see Exhibit 2.
3. To date the Undersigned nor his nineteen (19) Clients have received any communication
regarding the subject registered submission described by the affirmation shown as Exhibit 1,
received by Robert Druskin and John Koskinen, and that by their silence in substance is
their CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE requiring performance of their fiduciary duties under
12 USC 95 with 50 USC Appendix 5(b) by Executive Orders 2039 and 2040 accordingly to
provide the certification(s) and validations demanded for the return of the private property.
4. NOTICE is hereby given that our first NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT, in substance a
NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE UPON PROOF OF CLAIM with
attachment, has been dishonored with no reason provided by your office(s). Therefore, this
silence constitutes consent in that your office has refused requested certification and
validations for return of noncombatant’s private property and agrees to all points within said
NOTICE with the Conformed Bound Volume under the affirmation shown as Exhibit 1.
5. In the event your office is now in official dishonor through an unintentional failure to
perform due to reasonable neglect or impossibility, then Undersigned offers an opportunity
to cure within ten (10) days upon receipt of this NOTICE by providing the Certifications and
validation demanded for return of private property by the Undersigned an Clients..
6. Undersigned hereby requests performance by your office, or its designated agent or attorney,
on the delivered NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT, presently in your possession with a copy
attached hereto, before a formal case in exclusive equity is filed in the Southern District of
New York for Breach of Fiduciary duty to certify and return private property as required
under 12 USC 95 with 50 USC Appendix 5(b) and related law by Executive Orders 2039 of
6 March 1933 and 2040 of 9 March 1933 accordingly.
7. This NOTICE OF FAULT IN DISHONOR AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE serves as
evidence that the refusal of your office to prove up its fiduciary duties is given without
cause, creating estoppel against your office regarding this matter of Undersigned and Clients
 

2

APX-245

8. Further, if additional time is needed for your office to prove up its fiduciary duties,
Undersigned requests that your office, or its designated agent or attorney, respond
accordingly. It is Undersigned’s desire to assist your office in this matter.
9. Please Take Further Notice that as a matter also under the authority of the Securities and
Exchange Commission, were the private property of Undersigned and or any of his clients
previously in the respective commingled bundle collateral for either Public and or Private
Securities still commingled used, such act is by operation of law a constructive fraud with
conversion of private property subject to a statutory qui tam action with punitive damages.
10. Further, Undersigned has requested under United States Code Title 5 for “FOIAPA”
requests that the DTCC and IRS provide a certified accounting of each of the commingled
bundles that had individually included the Undersigned and or his Clients and was and is
accounted for in each individual master file record (see Exhibit 3).
11. Please Take Further Notice that as a matter under the jurisdiction of Jacob Joseph Lew,
Secretary of the United States Treasury and Barack Hussein Obama II, President of the
United States as the Trustees with authority over the legal ownership title of the Public US
Citizen name registered in commerce for use in the commingled collateral bundle, under 12
USC 95 with 50 USC Appendix 5(b) and related law by Executive Orders 2039 of 6 March
1933 and 2040 of 9 March 1933, used to collateralize the national debt accordingly, be
informed that the impulsive Andrew Mark Cuomo, the Governor of the State of New York,
declared intention to breach his Ces Tui Que Vie Trustee duties by arbitrarily ordering the
New York State Department of Health, Secretary of State and or related agent(s) under
Executive authority, that when a human surety-indenture of the Public US Citizen acts to
conceal as a public disobedience not to be publicly or privately addressed by his or her
actual sex as certified at natural birth, and or seeks cosmetic sex change without Public
acknowledgment, the respective New York State’s agent is ordered to conceal and spoliate
Public US Citizen record instrument of the commingled bundle despite United States
ownership under Trustees’ authority, that by operation of law such spoliation would void
any collateral commingled bundle, as securities fraud against the creditors and Undersigned.
12. Further, were the United States Public Property with the Public US Citizen instrument with
sex certified at birth of the natural person by the physician / midwife and or registrar created
by registration and its purchase by the United States, having been sold by the respective
birth State to the United States, and that the United States’ Trustees hold legal title to all
Public Property for national debt collateral during a time of war or emergency under 12 USC
95 with 50 USC Appendix 5(b) and related law by Executive Orders 2039 of 6 March 1933
and 2040 of 9 March 1933, and that as with all Public US Citizens with a human surety
indenture as a single component change of the 500 person bundle thereby effects the entire
commingled bundle, and were it still in use with Undersigned and or Clients property in the
birth or naturalization and or domicile States’ record, would damage value upon segregation.
13. Furthermore, for the information of the Captioned Trustees and their agents, Undersigned
has served legal notice upon Andrew Mark Cuomo for damage by ultra vires impulsive acts
that deny substantive equal protection without affording administrative due process under
federal and state law that takes personal property by breach of fiduciary duty, see Exhibit 4.
 

3

APX-246

OPPORTUNITY TO CURE
14. Once again, if you and or your office have failed to respond as an oversight, mistake, or
otherwise being unintentional, Undersigned grants your office an additional ten (10) days
upon receipt of this second NOTICE to respond to Undersigned.
15. Failure to cure this Default will constitute, by operation of law, the FINAL admission of
your office through tacit acquiescence to the statements and claims provided in the above
NOTICE OF DISHONOR. Said statements and claims shall be deemed RES JUDICATA,
STARE DECISIS and COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL binding on you and or your office.
16. If you and or your office fails to cure as provided in this NOTICE OF DISHONOR AND
OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, your agent and or attorney may not argue, controvert, or
otherwise protest the administrative findings entered thereby in any subsequent
administrative or judicial proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (SDNY) in exclusive equity and or in law with an ex relator action.
17. Undersigned anticipates a timely response from your office or designated agent in lieu of:
A Cause of Action as for BREACH OF TRUST
“Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy.”
1. A Bill in Equity Complaint will demand a hearing with Defendants that the Commander in
chief would provide protection and the Secretary of the Treasury provide a full accounting
of all assets and property held in trust for the benefit of Complainant evidenced by private,
proprietary trust documents only to be seen by the SDNY Chancellor in Chambers.
2. Defendants refused to do their duties as Trustees, the Commander in chief refusing to
provide protection and the Secretary of the Treasury refusing to give a full account of all
assets and property, as demanded by Complainant, and therefore Trustees are in breach of
trust evidenced by private, proprietary trust documents only to be seen in Chambers.
A Cause of Action as for REQUEST FOR PROCESS
“Equity acts in personam, or on persons.”
3. Complainant(s) request of the Court to make process upon Defendants in person to
appear and answer by oath for their breaches of trust set forth in the Bill.
A Cause of Action in Exclusive Equity REQUEST FOR RELIEF
“Equity delights to do justice and not by halves.”
4. Complainant(s), being without remedy save in private Chambers of a Federal District Court
sitting in exclusive English/American Equity, where such matters relating to citizenship
status in conjunction with express grantor trusts, are properly cognizable for the de jure, Pre1933 Private American National Citizen of the United States protected by Section 1 of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, requests this Court enforce
said trusts and their segregation on behalf of both the Complainant(s) Beneficiary(s) and
Defendants/Trustees by the Court:
 

4

APX-247

a. Providing declaratory relief concerning the rights, powers, privileges and immunities
as well as the duties and obligations between the parties;
b. Providing protection including, but not limited to, identification documents pertaining
to trade, transportation and communication, as well as documents pertaining to
domestic and foreign travel as well as personal security;
c. Providing a full accounting of all assets including, but not limited to, all monies and
property held in trust by Defendants/Trustees for the benefit of Complainant/
Beneficiary, formerly an “enemy” under the “Trading With the Enemy Act” (1917) as
amended by the “Emergency Banking Relief Act” (1933);
d. Providing any other general and/or special relief, declaratory or otherwise as the nature
of this case shall require, which relief the Court may deem just, proper and right
according to Equity and good conscience.
“Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee.”
18. Undersigned, as Complainant, a pre-1933 Private American National Citizen of the United
States, evidenced by authenticated documents of “a Pre-1933 Private National Citizen of the
United States of America,” will petition the Court for its order of Defendants to show cause
why it should not proceed with these matters involving breach of trust as “private” and
“sealed,” ex parte, in Chambers, without the public, without publication of the press,
excluding spectators and “enemies” of the Court. In order to protect the interests of all
parties, to not commingle the primary rights of a Pre-1933 Private American National
Citizen of the United States with the privileges of “enemies,” to secure Complainant’s
private, civilian due process rights and that the public may not be alarmed.
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT,
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL.
Conduct yourself accordingly.
Mail all correspondence to Undersigned at address below:

Dated June 15, 2015
Brooklyn New York

 

By:___________________________, Agent
Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui Juris Agent
for ™CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© and
Estates of beneficiaries who are “pre-1933”
Private National Citizens of the United States
c/o 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281
Brooklyn, New York Zipcode excepted [11238]
5

APX-248

IN RE:

Certification of the sole beneficial interest segregated from the “500 person bundled”
Commingled Collateral Security utilized by the United States Treasury Secretary
Receiver for the Creditors of U.S. Debt within the Fractional Reserve Banking System

TO:

Robert Druskin, Executive Chairman of the
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC)
55 Water Street, 1-SL,
New York NY 10011-0099
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2479
John Koskinen, Commissioner Internal Revenue Service
Office of Commissioner
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20224
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2394
Jacob Joseph Lew, Secretary of the United States Treasury—
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia [20220]
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2400
Barack Hussein Obama II, President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia [20500]
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2417

NOTICE OF FAULT IN DISHONOR
OPPORTUNITY TO CURE
 
 

Exhibit 1
APX-249

APX-250

APX-251

IN RE:

Certification of the sole beneficial interest segregated from the “500 person bundled”
Commingled Collateral Security utilized by the United States Treasury Secretary
Receiver for the Creditors of U.S. Debt within the Fractional Reserve Banking System

TO:

Robert Druskin, Executive Chairman of the
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC)
55 Water Street, 1-SL,
New York NY 10011-0099
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2479
John Koskinen, Commissioner Internal Revenue Service
Office of Commissioner
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20224
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2394
Jacob Joseph Lew, Secretary of the United States Treasury—
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia [20220]
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2400
Barack Hussein Obama II, President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia [20500]
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2417

NOTICE OF FAULT IN DISHONOR
OPPORTUNITY TO CURE
 
 

Exhibit 2
APX-252

Registered No.

Date Stamp

Rag. Fee

0325

:==~~==~==~====:==~========~~========

KENSINGTON STATION
BROOKLYN, Ne\~ York
112189997
3568880325-0098
04/23/2015 (800)275-8777 04 :42:49 PM
:::::::=:::: ... :..::.========::==== ===
===========
==== Sales Receipt ====
Final
Product
Sale Unit
Qty Price
Price
Description

Handling
Charge
Postage

$0.00

Received by
Customer Must Declare
Full Value $$200.00

~

i

~OSIIC lnsU<aroce

up 10 $25,000 IS lnduded
based upon the declared value. lntemadonat
lndemnlly is fimited. (See Reverse).

l{::

-- NEI•I YORK NY 100 11
$9. 60
Zone-1
Priority Mail 1-Day By
Weight
5 lb. 0.40 oz.
Expected Delivery: Fri 04/24/15
Includes up to $50 insurance

~~

I

l5
'C
0

:)

()~_g.

ct~~

jg,!;

I;;

so:-·~

0

~
~

"
~
E
·Customer
(See

visit our website at

lnfDrmRtioon

on Reverse)

www.usps.com •

04

.,a..

Ill,
oal

....

~ ~t

Received by
Customer Mu~t Dl!Cllll.e
Full Value $'t400. W

~~

"''liJ"

oomestlc Insurance up to $25,000 is-ilcluded
baSed upon !he declared vatu.. tntemafional
tooenntY is i.!ri!ed. (See f\MIS8).

(See Information on Reverse)

www.usps.com"

Insured Value :
$200.00
Article Value:
$200.00
USPS Reg1stered Mail #:
RE726132714US

--------

$25.55

---------$49.90

Paid by:
$69.90
Debit Card
XXXXXXXXXXXX2722
Account #:
958988
Approval #:
Transaction #: 911
23903590925
Receipt#:
001011
Debit Card Purchase $49.90
Cash Back
$20 .00
For tracking or inquiri es go to
USPS.com or call 1-800-222-1B11.

@~

APX-253

$14.75

@~--Registered

Tota 1:

visit our website at

$10 .80

5 lb. 3.50 oz .
Expected Delivery: Sat 04/25/15
Includes up to $50 insurance

Issue Postage:

5:-:~::Vi;:Y:,':'~~~~~~~~/,"'"ti.nn.

$24.35

~·Ieight

,.... ~=--------:;;~~;r--~;;1
$0.00 04/23/15
CE
o-

--------

@@--WASHINGTON DC 2022~
Zone-3
Priority Mail 2-Day By

0325

o.=
eo

Insured Value:
$400.00
Article Value:
$400.00
USPS Registered Mail #:
RE726132705US
Issue Postage:

Date Stamp

Registered No.

o~

$14.75

@~--Registered

w

IN RE:

Certification of the sole beneficial interest segregated from the “500 person bundled”
Commingled Collateral Security utilized by the United States Treasury Secretary
Receiver for the Creditors of U.S. Debt within the Fractional Reserve Banking System

TO:

Robert Druskin, Executive Chairman of the
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC)
55 Water Street, 1-SL,
New York NY 10011-0099
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2479
John Koskinen, Commissioner Internal Revenue Service
Office of Commissioner
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20224
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2394
Jacob Joseph Lew, Secretary of the United States Treasury—
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia [20220]
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2400
Barack Hussein Obama II, President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia [20500]
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2417

NOTICE OF FAULT IN DISHONOR
OPPORTUNITY TO CURE
 
 

Exhibit 3
APX-254

APX-255

TO:

Robert Druskin, Executive Cha.llman of the
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC)
55 Water Street, 1-SL,
New York NY 10011

Subject: 5 USC 552 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request for CUSIP and or ISPN status
Page 2 of2

As each of my clients seeks a certification and disclosure of the accrued present value of their
segregated portion of the respective property apart from collateral bundle of commingled persons, and
that the respective Individual Master File be updated as to their property for private use. This matter is
private and protected under 12 USC Chapter 35 accordingly.
Mail all con·espondence to Undersigned at address below:

() ·

~~t~gent

Dated June 14, 2015
Brooklyn New York

Christop er Earl trunk in esse Sui Juris Agent
for TMCHRJSTOPHER EARL STRUNK© and
Estates of beneficiaries who are "pre-193 3"
Private National Citizens of the United States
c/o 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281
Brooklyn, New York Zipcode excepted [11238]

APX-256

IN RE:

Certification of the sole beneficial interest segregated from the “500 person bundled”
Commingled Collateral Security utilized by the United States Treasury Secretary
Receiver for the Creditors of U.S. Debt within the Fractional Reserve Banking System

TO:

Robert Druskin, Executive Chairman of the
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC)
55 Water Street, 1-SL,
New York NY 10011-0099
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2479
John Koskinen, Commissioner Internal Revenue Service
Office of Commissioner
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20224
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2394
Jacob Joseph Lew, Secretary of the United States Treasury—
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia [20220]
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2400
Barack Hussein Obama II, President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington District of Columbia [20500]
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2417

NOTICE OF FAULT IN DISHONOR
OPPORTUNITY TO CURE
 
 

Exhibit 4
APX-257

Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui Juris Agent
for ™CHRJSTOPHER EARL STRUNK© and
Estates of beneficiaries who are " pre-1933"
Private National Citizens of the United States
c/o 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281
Brooklyn, New York Zipcode excepted [11238]
Certified Mail No.: 7014 2120 0003 0914 2424

NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRJNCIPAL
IN RE: The Governor's Interference with Beneficial interest in the ''500 person bundle"
Commingled Collateral Security utilized by the United States Treasury Secretary
Receiver for the Creditors of U.S. Debt within the Fractional Reserve Banking System

ANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor
Office of the Governor of the State ofNew York- NYC Office .
633 Third Avenue 38th Floor,
New York, NY 10017.

.

Andrew Mark Cuomo, Governor
Please Take Notice that the Undersigned will seek remedy in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York if the Governor does not repair his arbitrary executive
order of the New York State Department of Health, Secretary of State and or related agent(s)
under his authority, inter alia e.g. that when a human surety-indentme of the Public US Citizen
acts to conceal, even as a public disobedience, not to be publicly addressed by his or her actual
sex as certified at natunil birth, and or seeks cosmetic sex change without Public
acknowledgment, the respective New York State' s agent is ordered to conceal and spoliate tbe
Public US Citizen record instrument of the commingled bundle despite United States ownership
under Trustees' authority; and inter alia that by operation of law such spoliation would void any
collateral commingled bundle, as securities fraud against the creditors and Undersigned.
Further, the damage caused by the Governor's impulsive breach of his Trustee duties under 12
USC 95 with 50 USC Appendix S(b) and related law including but not limited to conduct the
decennial Census by the United States Department of Commerce as relates to the State of New
York Constitution Article III in the conduct of commerce as ordered by Executive Orders 2039
of 6 March 1933 and 2040 of 9 March 1933, is spoliation of Public Trust Property used to
collateralize the national debt and related securities in commerce accordingly.
Further, that as a matter under the jurisdiction of Jacob Joseph Lew, Secretary of the United
States Treasury and Barack Hussein Obama II, President of the United States (Trustees), the
Trustees not the Governor have direct authority over the legal ownership title of the Pu8lic US
Citizen nan1e registered in commerce for use in the commingled collateral bundle during the time
of war or emergency until the enemy status is that of noncombatant.

APX-258

Further, the Governor's ultra vires act is against public policy and arbitrarily modifies a
financial instrument commingled collateral for registered debt and or financial securities;
Further, the United States Public Property with the Public US Citizen instrument with sex
certified at birth of the natural person by the affirmation of the physician I midwife and or
registrar created by registration and as it was thereafter pmchased by the United States, and
having been sold by the respective birth State to the United States, the United States' Trustees
hold exclusive legal title to all Public Property for national debt collateral and registered
instruments in commerce during a time of war or emergency under 12 USC 95 with 50 USC
Appendix 5(b) and related law by Executive Orders 2039 of 6 March 1933 and 2040 of 9 March
1933, and
Fnrther, that as with all Public US Citizens with a human surety indenture as a single
component any change of the instrument in the 500 person bundle thereby affects the entire
commingled bundle, and
Further, were such commingled bundle still in use with Undersigned and or his Clients property
in the birth or naturalization and or domicile States' record, the Governor's arbitrary act would
damage value and take private property upon segregation.
ANr>fL"Q.J

~

Furthermore, this matter complained of is prut of a increasing patte of enterprise corruption
with taking by ultra vires belligerent acts of the surety indenture
o Mark Cuomo, who
starting no later than 1998 notably interfered with registered financial instruments while
occupying the Office of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development that by unilateral order
increased non performing mortgages to the tipping point experienced in 2008, and as mens rea
evidence reveals the Governor's Jesuit Social Justice agenda does not come with clean hands.
NOTICE TO PRINClPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT,
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL.

Conduct yourself accordingly.
Mail all correspondence to Undersigned at address below:

Dated June 14, 2015
Brooklyn New York

t

==-------'=---'' gem
Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui Juris Agent
for TMCHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK© and
Estates ofbeneficiaries who are "pre-1933)'
Private National Citizens of the United States
c/o 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281
Brooklyn, New York Zipcode excepted [11238]

APX-259

J

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SEALED V SEALED

)

Original Bill of Complaint

Exhibit C
 
 
 

APX-260

U.S. Postal Service'M

U.S. Postal Service'M

CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT
Cl

~

Domestic Mall Only

-

-

CERTIFIED. MAIL® RECEIPT
Domestic Mall Only

~ ~~~~mm~mm~~mml!l!mm~ma=m!lmz~~~~•

~ ~~~~~~~!mmiimiiii~~ii~iiiiii~iiii

~ ~--~~~~~~~~----~~~~~~=---~

~ ~~~~~~~~--~~T-~~~~~__J

~

rn

1----~~.!t..l----l

Certlfied Fee

.,

tum Receipt Fee
ment Required)

$()

1

CJ
Cl

(En

Cl

R

Cl

~

TotaJPostage&Fees

ru - -~

8
r'-

00

Cl

$
$1 .64
06/15/2915
'--'-==;$;;:;:(,::;;S9~=---.-

~

ru

._ _

-

ee everse tor Instructions

U.S. Postal Service'M

Domes.iie Maifi:i nly"": ·

~ L-~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~-_J

Po.tage

\

,. t'
06/15/2015

-

IT'

-...

-

''CERTIF,IEQ·, MAIL® RECEIPT
Domestic Mall Only

f'-

~ ~~lli'.lli:--~~------

~ ~~~~~nL~~_,~~~~--~
Cl

~ ·(Endor~~t
:k-~ 1-----~: lt~." 'o /!U.__"_.

Cl

Required)

~

Total Postage & Fees

06/15/2015
__..,.,

1----~~---~

$

~

IT'

$
1----~!h..L---l

0350

ru

1!6

t - - ---llh'A----1

'• U~S . Postal Service"'

-'
~

t - - - - ---N/.U.A..W--1

John Koskinen, Commissioner Internal Revenue Service
Office of Commissioner
lll I Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20224
-~

-- ~~-

~

ru

Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsemont R""ulred)
-..

~ TotaiPostage&Feea $
$1.64
- - ~ -=.,.._,._ _ _ _
'---'_'-- -_-_---..:t
- "ii;.e9BS
· -~=-------==--

ru

IT'
Cl

Retum Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)

Jacob Joseph Lew, Secretary of the Uruted States Trea~,...:
Department of the Treasury
c
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
I'
Washington District of Columbia [20220]

,: cERTIF:·I. ED; MAIL~ RECEIPT
1"-

CJ

"

~---Mj,l_~

-

Cl
Cl

0350

Certiflod Fee

rn

Here

N/A

---·-----

1

0350
!6 Postmarl<

~----~.W.~

od D
F
elivery ee
(Endorsement Requited)
98

ru

IT'
Cl

Postage $

IT'
Cl

$1.64

~----~

16

pa::'"'

Certified Fee

rn
Cl
Cl
Cl

0350

RotumR~Fee

16

(~Delivery Fee
ment Required)

Cl

ru
~

ru

Total Postage & Fe-.

$

Postt!'lllt
Hare

N/A

,

$1.64

06/15/2015

CEndotaoment Required)

;:

-\

Ro be~t Druskin, Executive
-$7 .89-:-:-----:-~~=----..
Ch :- --~
Deposttory Trust & Clearino au-maq_ of the
55 Water Street, l-SL,
, Corporatwo
New York NY JOOIJ

Barack H
·
$1. B9
-. ussem Obama ll, President of the United St ~
The Wh 1te House
o
1600 :ennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
f'Was~mgton District of Columbia [20500]

~

ru

~ ~Ci!Jlma:mamii. .~--rn
Cl
CJ

Retum Rec.ipt Fee
(Endonlement Requited)

Cl
Cl

RK11ictod Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)

ru
~

ru

1----i~.!!l!..--1
r----~~~~

Total Postage & Fees

$

~-~~=-~

06/tot.:.?Ots

ANDREW M. cu&f~. Go~~~~;Office of the Governor of the New York
NYC Office.
633 Third Avenue 38th Floor,
New York, NY 10017

-

Total Po~ge & Fees

nt

.

$

06/15/2015

1

L.-:.....-$6-.~74-....J

Robert Druskin. Executive Chairman of the
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
55 Water Street, 1-SL,
New York NY 10011
• •

APX-261

J

,
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
• Complete Items 1 , 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mailpfece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:

0 Agent

X

0

D. Is
If YES, enter delivery address below:

DYes
0 No

:arack Hussein Obama ll, President of the United .::-.•

I
I

'he White House
600 Pennsytvania Avenue, N.W.
vashington District of Columbia [20500]

r

~ice Type
~Certified

0 Express Mail
0 Return Receipt for Merchandlse

Mall

0 Registered
0 Insured Mail

OC.O.D.

-----

4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee)

2. Article Number

(T'ransfer from service label)

0 Yes

7014 2120 0003 0914 2417

PS Form 3811, February 2004

Domestic Return Receipt

COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY

SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
• Complete Items 1, 2, a~d 3 ..Also ~omplete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery 1s des1red.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.

1. Article Addressed to:

A. Signature

X
B. Received by (Printed Name)

I

0 Agent
0 Addressee

C. Date of Delivery

D. Is delivery addre"=&f~,IJ\~em 17 0 Yes
If YES, ~n41W1ti!I\L ad es!.'b~I1Y:
0 No
~u:mer

orrespondence

Office

l
I

John Koskinen, Commissioner Internal Revenut
Office of Commissioner
1111 Constitution A venue, NW
Washington, DC 20224

JUN 2 3 2015
3. /~ice

Type

A!J Certified Mail*
0 Registered
0 Insured Mail

0 Priority Mall Express"'
0 Return Receipt for Merchandise
0 Collect on Delivery

4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee)

0 Yes

7014 2120 0003 0914 2394 _ J
(rransfurfromseN~~e~m~b~~~~======~--~======~~--~==~------~==~----------

2. Article Number

PS Form {3811, JLIY 2013

Domestic Retu(n Receipt

SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
• Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
D, is delivery address different from Item 17
If YES, enter del