Strunk v. Paterson et al.

 29642-08 Strunk Affidavit Page 1 of 6

AFFIDAVIT OF Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse,

Plaintiff Witness at the January 11, 2011 Hearing on the Notice of Motion for Amended Complaint in

Strunk v Paterson et al 

. New York State Supreme Court Kings County Index No.: 29642-08

Present: The Honorable Supreme Court Justice David I. Schmidt Part 47 Court Room 521 360 Adams Street Brooklyn New York 11207 Joan Duffy, Esq. Supervising Assistant Attorney General for the New York Attorney General’s Office Joel Graber, Esq. Special Assistant Attorney General 120 BROADWAY - NEW YORK, New York 10271 Representing the State of New York as an interested party Christopher-Earl Strunk in esse Self-represented Plaintiff w/o an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281 Brooklyn New York 11238

STATE OF NEW YORK ss. COUNTY OF KINGS

 Accordingly, I,

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse

, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: 1.

 

This is the AFFIDAVIT OF Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse,

 

Witness at the January 11, 2011 Hearing on the Notice of Motion for Amended Complaint in

Strunk v Paterson et al 

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

 

Strunk v. Paterson et al.

 29642-08 Strunk Affidavit Page 2 of 6

General representing the State of New York as a party-in-interest opposing the Motion to Amend the Complaint. 2.

 

 After the Court called those in attendance including several law clerks and the audience to order, the Honorable Justice Schmidt questioned Plaintiff as to the subject request for relief to amend the complaint and status of the underlying complaint without there being a recording or transcript of the proceeding. 3.

 

 As to the proposed amended complaint, the Court asked whether Plaintiff expects the Court to remove Barack Hussein Obama from office; to wit Plaintiff responded “NO” as that remains a Federal matter. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory  judgment as to breach of fiduciary duty by the Defendants failure to provide equal treatment and protection of Plaintiff along with those similarly situated in regards to the certification of the Presidential / Vice Presidential candidates ballot access at the 2008 Election cycle; and as well as plaintiff seeks further discovery as to the scheme to defraud and unjust enrichment. 4.

 

That Plaintiff stated the NYS Board of Elections never responded to the request for documentation of the various certifications of ballot access for the various Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates; and as previously expressed to the Court Plaintiff had filed in Washington DC a FOIA case 08-cv-2234 for the travel records of Stanley Ann Dunham germane herein with a motion for summary  judgment decision pending before Judge Richard J. Leon. 5.

 

The Court asked if Plaintiff is seeking to obtain a copy of Barack Hussein Obama Jr.’s (BHO Jr.) Certified Birth record herein; to wit Plaintiff responded "NO". Plaintiff seeks a decision by the Court as to whether or not the Candidate(s) are eligible for Office of President of the United States (POTUS) as required with

 

Strunk v. Paterson et al.

 29642-08 Strunk Affidavit Page 3 of 6

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

 Annenberg Political Fact Check at FactCheck.org 

 http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html (s

ee Exhibit A

); and that as a prima facie matter Plaintiff seeks a Court decision herein as to whether or not Obama in fact has Dual  Allegiance, is not a Natural Born Citizen per se but merely a Native-Born citizen if that; because BHO Jr.’s father, BHO Sr., is a British subject with a student visa at that time, and is shown to be the purported father of BHO Jr. by both the newspaper announcement and the COLB shown by Fact Check.org; and therefore, at best BHO Jr. is only a "Native" born citizen, if that, with only one U.S. Citizen parent mother as a minor at his birth, and that without two U.S. Citizen parents - BHO Jr. is NOT a "Natural" born citizen at best is “Native” born. 6.

 

The Court asked to know Plaintiff's understanding of the difference between "Native" and "Natural" born citizen, to wit Plaintiff explained on a blood and soil basis as of the Law of Nations as related to the 1961, 1963 and 1969 Vienna Convention Treaty matters as to citizenship status as with the children of diplomats and tourists who were not certified admitted by the U.S. Customs Service; and 7.

 

Plaintiff provided the Court with a copy of the SCOTUS decision in

McCreery's Lessee v Somerville 

 22 US 354 (1824) (

see Exhibit B

), and 8.

 

That the Court responded favorably to Plaintiff’s argument and contention expressing familiarity with the difference between the

Natural

and

Native 

 born, as there is within Jewish law similar precedent and commented that the Court agreed there is a difference and would read the SCOTUS decision Plaintiff provided.