Appellant's BRIEF and APPENDIX - NYS Appellate Division 2nd Dept Appeal 2012-05515

--------------------------------------------------------------------x Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse Plaintiff / Appellant,
-against-
APPEAL CASE INDEX NO.:
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;

JAMES A.WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEM COLN, in their Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSON, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; RGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities.
2012-05515
Defendants / Respondents. APPELLANTS APPEAL BRIEF
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, Plaintiff Appellant / Private US Citizen Self-represented w/o being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281, Brooklyn, New York 11238. 845-901-6767 E-mail: chris@strunk.ws
Plaintiff / Appellant Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Appellant self-represented w/o attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 Ph. 845-901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws Defendants / Respondents ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of NYS by: CLAUDE PLATTON, Esq. AAG Assistant Attorney General 120 BROADWAY 25th Floor New York, New York 10271-0332 Telephone (212) 416-8020 Email: ,lisa.dell@ag.ny.gov, Representing: NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS: JAMES A. WALSH, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER, Co-Chairs EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEM COLN, in their Official and individual capacity; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE;
Todd E. Phillips, Esq. of CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED One Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: 212-319-7125 / 202-862-5000 Email: rtobin@capdale.com, jwehner@capdale.com, tphillips@capdale.com Representing: JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008;
i
THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. of HARRIS BEACH, PLLC The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553 Telephone: 516-880-8484 Email: walbert@harrisbeach.com, kcorbett@harrisbeach.com, tgarry@harrisbeach.com, Representing: JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; PENNY S. PRITZKER; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND
JAMES C. DUGAN Esq. of WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y. 10019-6099 Telephone: 212-728-8000 Email: jdugan@willkie.com, Representing: GEORGE SOROS; MARSHAL BELL, Esq. of McGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Americas, 7th Floor New York, New York 10105 Telephone: 212-548-7004 Email: mbeil@mcguirewoods.com, Representing: ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI;
TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ. of WILEY REIN LLP 1776K Street, NW Washington D.C. 20006 Telephone: 202-719-7000 Email: "Thomas Kirby" <TKirby@wileyrein.com>, tbromberg@wileyrein.com, jbaran@wileyrein.com, Representing: JOHN A. BOEHNER;
ii
Christopher J. Latell Esq. and Daniel S. Reich Esq. of RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, PC 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New York 10006-3791 Telephone: 212-254-1111 Email: cklatell@rbskl.com, dreich@rbskl.com, Representing: RGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY
Erica Burke, Esq. of SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York. New York 10017-3954 Telephone: 212-455-2000 Email: eburk@stblaw.com Representing: PETER G. PETERSON
MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By: CHLARENS ORSLAND, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007 Telephone: (212) 788-0904 email: corsland@law.nyc.gov, Representing: Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.;
iii
APPELLANT BRIEF TABLE OF CONTENTS Parties....i Introduction.......2 Related Cases.3 Summary of the Decision and Order for Sanctions and Costs....11 Argument in Favor of remand and consolidation with active trial court cases...13 Statement of questions presented26 The New York State Board of Elections and State agents maliciously failed to provide Strunk due process and equal protection with EL 3-106 and related law is properly before the Court under EL 16-100 jurisdiction and authority28
Issues on Appeal: The Actions of the State to Deny Equal Protection and Due process . The Actions of the State to Facilitated the Fraud for ineligible candidates. The Actions of the State under color of State Law regarding HAVA and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by changing the POTUS eligibility from natural born Citizen to born a Citizen as if under the 14th Amendment The Actions of Ineligible candidates and campaign agents to facilitate fraud That Sedition is the subversion intended to be prevented under EL 3-106
iv
FAILURE TO HAVE STANDING? .32 FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION? .33 FAILURE TO PLEAD FRAUD WITH PARTICULARITY? .33 FAILURE TO SHOW THAT THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION? ..34 THAT STRUNKS COMPLAINT IS FRIVOLOUS? ..35 The Judiciary as the political co-equal branch under separation of power duty and obligation is to interpret the U.S. Constitution and Laws in this case not the Legislature and or Executive as related to the NYS Board of Election agents ..35
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is not only BORN A CITIZEN...42 All Litigants Have A Right To Impartial And Considered Justice..51 Plaintiff has been a dedicated and loyal New York State Citizen...53 Conclusion In Support of Equity Relief and Remand.....57 That res judicata and or collateral estoppel do not apply to Strunks complaint.58 Statement on word count 59 Jurat verification..60 AUTHORITIES.. vi
APPENDIX and Index as a separate single Volume with page marked APX XX
PDF of the BRIEF and APPENDIX is at http://www.scribd.com/doc/94586470/
AUTHORITIES
Page NEW YORK STATE AUTHORITIES April 20, 1777 New York Constitution July 26, 1788 New York Ratification of the US Constitution
. . .
17,18,20
17
NEW YORK STATE STATUTES EL 3-107 Powers and duties of the state board of elections respecting elections and crimes against the elective franchise (see footnote 8) EL 3-106 Fair campaign code.(see footnote 5) EL 3-105 Administrative complaint procedure. (see footnote 7) EL 3-104 State board of elections; enforcement powers.(see footnote 6) Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) EL 16-100 NYS Election Law Article 12
. . . . . . .
6,59, 4,27,28,29,59
5,59
5,59 4-6,29,59, 2,26,28,37 2
vi
NYS Civil Rights Chapter 6 Article 2 Bill of Rights 10 CPLR 213
. .
13 2,3
STATE CASES Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583 of 1844 Ludlam v. Ludlam 26 NY 256 (1863) Muka v. New York State Bar Association. 120 Misc. 2d 897 (Sup. Ct. Tompkins County 1983) Matter of Meehan v County of Westchester, 3 AD3d 533,534 [2d Dept 2004)
. . . .
22 22
52
16
FEDERAL AUTHORITIES U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2 (A2S1C2)

. . . .
16,26,34,38 16,19,22,29,3 8 26,29,4548,51,57, 38,55
U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 (A2S1C5)
the 14 Amendment to the US Constitution the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution
th
FEDERAL CASES
vii
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892) U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) Storer Et al. v. Brown, Secretary Of State of California, Et Al. 415 U.S. 724 (1974) Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S., at 32 Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U. S., at 442 Neitzke v Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 [1989] Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
20,26 21,27
28 28 28 33 45 26,43-48, 50 26, 44-51, 47 47 47 47
viii
Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821-22 (1975) Liberty Legal Foundation et al v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc. et al, Case No. 12-2143-STA
. . . . . . . .
48 48 48 48 48 48 14
50
FEDERAL STATUTES 3 U.S.C. Sec. 15 the 1922 Cable Act US Immigration and Nationality Act Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA)
. . . .
29 40 39 55
ix
OTHER FEDERAL AUTHORITIES The Declaration of Independence of 1776 The Articles of Confederation of March 1, 1781 The Constitution for the United States of America ratified by the People of New York on July 26, 1788 The Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton
. . . .
18 17
17 38
OTHER AUTHORITIES 6500-2011 Original Record on Appeal Subpoenaed February 13, 2013 in accord with CPLR 5526 29642-2008 Original Record on Appeal with request for Subpoena on February 13, 2013 in accord with CPLR 5526 http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/05/new-york-state-courtshould-not.html http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/logic-and-definingnatural-born-citizen.html, http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obamas-kenyancitizenship/ http://blogs.america.gov/rumors/2009/08/21/the-obamabirth-controversy/ http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
. . . . . . .
2,9,
7,
14
20
23
23 23
Politics, Book Three, Part II, Aristotle, writing in 350 B.C.E., as translated by Benjamin Jowett The Select Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, According to the last Oxford Edition 17 (Henry Eelbeck trans. London 1720) Story on the Constitution, sec. 387 British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5) the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution An Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L.Rev. 1, 5 (1968).by Charles Gordon
21
. . . . .
21 35 23
23
43,50,
Related cases: Strunk v Paterson et al. NYS Supt Ct. Kings County Index No.: 29642-08 Strunk v Jeffries et al. NYS Supt Ct. Kings County Index No.: 21948-12 In re Christopher arl Strunk in esse Petition DC Circuit Original Proceeding 13-5005-OP
. . .
3,4,9,12,5759,
8,10,58,
8,
xi

-against-

2012-05515
Defendants / Respondents.
APPELLANTS APPEAL BRIEF

STATE OF NEW YORK ) } ss: COUNTY OF KINGS )
Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk, being duly sworn. depose and say:
Appellants Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 Page 1 of 60
LNTRODUCTION
1. This is Appellant's Appeal Brief organized according to the preceding Table of Contents with Appellant's Appendix annexed as a separate volume with an underlying set of Constitutional issues to be heard by the NYS Court of Appeals; and that the Brief with Appendix was ordered to be filed with the Court with an extension of time to perfect due by February 22,20 13 (see APX - 6)' with a Second extension by letter application filed February 20,2013 (see APX - 1) extended to March 8,20 13 and motion requesting March 27,20 13 accordingly; 2. That the Original Record on Appeal Subpoenaed February 13,2013 in accord with CPLR 5526 due on February 28,2013 (see APX - 3) based upon the Certification of the Transcript of the Case with Index No.: 6500-2011 (APX - 4).
3. Appellant is self-represented without an attorney who filed a Notice of
Appeal (APX - 17) including various Notices of Entry by Defendants, and with
each the "Request for Appellate Division Intervention - civil" (APX - 10) fic~m and every part of the April 1l , 2 0 12 Order and Decision (APX - 106) that dismissed with prejudice and sanctions without a Judgment for costs issued to date in regards to the civil Complaint filed March 22'20 11 with Index No. : 6500-20 11 using CPLR $213 six year statutory basis fiom discovery of fraud ('I (APX - 460)
Plaintiff's introductory statement on page one of the Complaint: "PlaintzflChristopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, us and for the ComplaintJiled withjurisdiction of New York State Election Law Article $1 6-100 over Article 12 related to the November 4, 2008 General Election inter ulia Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 2 of 60
and Amended Summons (APX - 841) with Defendants' response by eight (8) counsels representing groups listed in the above Caption who filed motions to dismiss (MTD); and that the New York State Attorney General's office though appearing did not either answer or provide any filing for the State Agency and or Officer Parties and State Political Parties, either in their official or individual capacity, appeared to answer the Summons and Complaint duly served. Related Cases
4. That there are a set of related cases that are impacted by this appeal case:
i. That on 12 November 20 10, Plaintiff in Strunk v Paterson et al. Index No.: 29642-08 filed a Notice of Motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (2) that was adjourned by stipulation and then heard on January 11,2011 before the Honorable David I. Schmidt who denied the motion to amend (APX 546) without a transcript instead suggested rather than amend file a new complaint; and to wit Plaintiff memorialized the hearing with an affidavit filed in the case record (3),
equity relief and damages caused by an ongoing scheme to dej?aud with CPLR $213 Actions to be commenced within six years, upon information and belief and at all times hereinafter mentioned, respectfully allege of Defendants as follows:"
"1 3. That the Court asked why Plaintiff does notjust go ahead andfle a new case rather than try to amend the 2008 case; to wit, Plaintzflbased upon information and belief expressed Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 3 of 60
and on March 22,201 1 filed the new complaint with Index No.: 6500201 1 by the defective RJI (APX - 406) assigned to Arthur M. Schack; ii. That the final disposition of the Complaint Strunk v Paterson et al. with Index No.: 29642-08 (APX - 509) is still carried by the Clerk as "ACTIVE" so that a final order is not yet issued to appeal from and that Justice Schmidt erred by holding that there is no cause of action for "sedition" per se (41 that is synonymous with the intent of the State and is legislature's use of the term "subversion" in EL 3-106(~); expressed in the state law amended by HAVA that requires due process
concern the statutory time that has passed since the 2008 Election requires Plaint@"standing depend upon amending the case rather thanJiling a new one."
In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.
Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary fiom one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution. Under the NYS Election Law $3-106. Fair campaign code. 1. In addition to the powers and duties elsewhere enumerated in this article, the state board of elections, after public hearings, shall adopt a "fair campaign code" setting forth ethical standards of conduct for persons, political parties and committees engaged in election campaigns including, but not limited to, specific prohibitions against practices of political espionage and other political practices involving subversion of the political parties and process. (Emphasis added by Plaintiff)
Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 4 of 60
by the State Board of Elections under EL 53-102 with EL $3-104
has
both an administrative duty and statutory mandate with EL 53-105 '7' as

-
ELN 3-104. State board of elections; enforcement powers. 1. The state board of elections shall have jurisdiction of, and be responsible for, the execution and enforcement of the provisions of article fourteen of this chapter and other statutes governing campaigns, elections and related procedures. 2. Whenever the state board of elections or other board of elections shall determine, on its own initiative or upon complaint, or otherwise, that there is substantial reason to believe a violation of this chapter or any code or regulation promulgated thereunder has occurred, it shall expeditiously make an investigation which shall also include investigation of reports and statements made or failed to be made by the complainant and any political committee supporting his candidacy if the complainant is a candidate or, if the complaint was made by an officer or member of a political committee, of reports and statements made or failed to be made by such political committee and any candidates supported by it. The state board of elections, in lieu of making such an investigation, may direct the appropriate board of elections to make an investigation. The state board of elections may request, and shall receive, the assistance of the state police in any investigation it shall conduct. 3. If, after an investigation, the state or other board of elections finds reasonable cause to believe that a violation warranting criminal prosecution has taken place, it shall forthwith refer the matter to the district attorney of the appropriate county and shall make available to such district attorney all relevant papers, documents, testimony and findings relevant to its investigation. 4. The state or other board of elections may, where appropriate, commence a judicial proceeding with respect to the filing or failure to file any statement of receipts, expenditures, or contributions, under the provisions of this chapter, and the state board of elections may direct the appropriate other board of elections to commence such proceeding. 5. The state board of elections may promulgate rules and regulations consistent with law to effectuate the provisions of this section.
ELN 5 3- 105. Administrative complaint procedure. 1. The state board of elections shall establish and maintain a uniform, nondiscriminatory administrative complaint procedure pursuant to which any person who believes that there is a violation (including a violation which has occurred or is occurring or is about to occur) of any provision of title three of the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), may file a complaint. 2. Initially, any such complaint may be made orally, in person or by telephone, or in writing. Such complaints may be made to the state board of elections or with any local board of elections. A toll-free number shall be made available therefor for telephone calls to the state board of elections. Complaints shall be addressed by election officials expediently and informally whenever possible. 3. All formal complaints shall be filed with the state board of elections. All formal complaints shall be written, signed and sworn by the complainant. The complainant shall use a complaint form promulgated by the state board of elections. The state board of elections or a local board of elections shall assist any person with a disability who requests assistance to Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 5 of 60
to EL $3- 107
shall provide Plaintiff due process to investigate a
file a complaint. Complaints raising similar questions of law and/or fact may be consolidated
by the state board of elections. 4. Upon the written request of the complainant, there shall be a hearing on the record,
unless prior to the hearing, the state board of elections, in accordance with subdivision four of section 3-100 of this article, sustains the formal complaint as being uncontested. Any party to the hearing may purchase a transcript of such hearing. 5. The evidentiary standard applied to all formal complaints shall be a preponderance of the evidence. 6. Hearings shall be conducted by a panel of two commissioners of the state board of elections of opposite parties or senior staff members of opposite parties as selected by the commissioners of that party. If the panel does not agree to sustain the complaint, the formal complaint shall be deemed dismissed and shall constitute the determination of the panel. 7. The determination of the hearing panel will be final unless changed by the state board of elections pursuant to subdivision four of section 3- 100 of this article, within ninety days of the filing of the formal complaint. A final determination shall be filed and published by the state board of elections within ninety days after the filing of the formal complaint, unless the complainant agrees to a longer period of time. When a violation has been found, the final determination shall include an appropriate remedy for any violation of Title I11 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) found by the state board of elections. A final determination dismissing a formal complaint may be filed by any one member of the hearing panel. 8. Whenever a final determination of a formal complaint is not made within ninety days, or any other longer agreed upon time period, the state board of elections shall refer the formal complaint to an independent, alternative dispute resolution agency. Such hearings and determinations shall be conducted by the alternative dispute resolution agency pursuant to regulations promulgated by the state board of elections pursuant to subdivision four of section 3-100 of this article. Such agency shall have sixty days, from the expiration of the original ninety day time period, or any other longer agreed upon time period, to make a final determination. The state board of elections shall contract, pursuant to subdivision four of section 3-100 of this article with one or more such alternative dispute resolution entities for this specific purpose. 9. No provision of this section shall be construed to impair or supersede the r i ~ h of t an aggrieved pa* to seek a iudicial remedy including a iudicial remedy concerning any final determination made pursuant to subdivision eight of this section. The state board of elections shall provide notice to all complainants of the provisions of this subdivision. (Emphasis added by Plaintiff)
ELN 3-107. Powers and duties of the state board of elections respecting elections and crimes against the elective franchise. Authority is hereby conferred upon the state board of elections to appoint a special investigator to take charge of the investigation of cases arising under the election law, and to appoint such additional special investigators and employees as it may deem necessary, and fix their compensation, within the limits of appropriation available therefor, and assign them to any election district or districts for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the election law. Moneys appropriated for carrying out the provisions of this
claim of sedition or subversion that undermines election process, and that a Certification of the Transcript with a second request of the Appellate Clerk for a Subpoena of the original record is pending
section shall be paid out of the state treasury on the audit and warrant of the comptroller upon the certificate of the state board. Such special investigators shall, when directed by the state board of elections, investigate qualifications of persons to register or vote and violations of the election law. Any such special investigator may: 1. Visit and inspect any house, dwelling, building, inn, lodginghouse, boarding-house, rooming-house, or hotel and interrogate any inmate, house-dweller, keeper, caretaker, owner, proprietor or landlord thereof or therein, as to any person or persons residing or claiming to reside therein or thereat. 2. Inspect and copy any books, records, papers or documents relating to or affecting the election or the registration of voters, or require the board or officer in charge thereof to furnish a copy of any such record, paper or document without charge. 3. Require any lodging-house, boarding-house or rooming-house keeper, landlord or proprietor to exhibit his register of the lodgers therein at any time to such special investigator. 4. Procure warrants of arrest and cause to be taken into custody the person or persons named in such process. 5. Go within the guard-rail at any polling place at any election. Any such special investigator also shall have all of the powers of a peace officer as set forth in section 2.20 of the criminal procedure law, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this chapter. Any person who neglects or refuses to furnish any information required by the election law or authorized herein, or to exhibit records, papers or documents herein authorized to be inspected or which are required to be exhibited, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The state board or any of its special investigators shall have power to issue subpoenas or subpoenas duces tecum, administer oaths and examine witnesses under oath, for the purpose of investigating any matter within the jurisdiction herein prescribed for the purpose of aiding the state board in enforcing the provisions of the election law. Such subpoenas shall be issued in the name of the state board of elections. Such subpoenas may be served by any special investigator or by any police officer or peace officer who is acting pursuant to his special duties. Any person who shall omit, neglect or rehse to obey a subpoena attested in the name of the state board of elections or who shall rehse to testify under or in pursuance thereof shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any such special investigator may call upon any member of the police, sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable or other public officer, or any person, to assist him in carrying out the provisions of this section. Any such officer or person who shall fail to render the assistance so demanded or who shall wilhlly hinder or delay such special investigator in the exercise of any power or the performance of any duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515- Page 7 of 60
consideration (APX - 390), and still active before the Honorable David
I. Schmidt J.S.C.; and that such status is notwithstanding the motion for
intervention by a third party that was denied and taken on Appeal case 2012-0766 with a Appeal Court direct appeal denied (APX -392); iii. There is a related current Article 78 Petition Strunk v Jeffiies et a1 Index No.: 2 1948 / 20 12 that challenges the incompatibility of POTUS Electors using the law of the case determined by Justice Schmidt in the Petition 29641-08 defining the incompatibility of various 2008 election cycle Electors for the Obarna / Biden slate with motions to dismiss pending before the Honorable David I Schmidt J.S.C. with a Note of Issue filed for a trial of the facts (9); and iv. There is a related Original Proceeding in re: Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse a private U.S. Citizen secured beneficiary Petition For A Writ Of
Mandamus involving Federal issues Case No.: 13-5505-OP before a

judicial panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington District of Columbia Circuit (lo) with a motion for fee relief pending;
5. That on 22 August 20 11 there was a hearing on the various Motions to
Dismiss the Complaint with Index No.: 6500-2011 (MTD) and Cross Motion to Transfer and Consolidate with 29642-2008, and with appearance of Defendants' Counsels before the Honorable Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. (Judge Schack) with a Transcript record of the hearing (APX - 326) of the Motions to Dismiss; and that for the purpose of brevity herein although germane to the underlying Complaint, are part of the Original Record transferred to this Court without arguing each related motion that in total would be contained in a three volume appendix set that would burden this appeal brief that must use only 14,000 words herein. As such there are three (3) basic motions and one (1) application for an order to show cause in this appeal that all are included herewith to establish the basis to remand to trial court for further action there: First- the Pro Hac Vice Motion by Washington DC Counsel to Defendant John S. McCain I11 et al. (APX - 410) to which, Plaintiff's Cross Motion opposes the Pro Hac Vice Motion for cause because of the misstatements and failure to list the related 29642-08 active case on the RJI by local council (APX - 406) challenged herein, and to wit Plaintiff Cross Motion that requests the Transfer and Consolidation (APX - 393) with still Active Case with Index No.: 296422008 with the record before Justice Schmidt (APX - 507) as an I.A.S. election law related case with Certification of the Transcript (APX - 390) and
Further, the Defendants John Sidney McCain I11 et al. MTD represented by DC Council (APX - 421) and Defendants SOEBARKAH et al. MTD represented
by Harris Beach (APX - 437), to wit Plaintiff responded by a Combined

Response (APX - 627); and thereafter Further, on October 21,201 1 Emergency Application for an Order to Show Cause (APX - 164) in regards to The New York State Board of Elections involvement in an extrinsic fiaud as breach of duty to the State Legislature and related law of the land above mentioned that went before Judge Schack on October 25,201 1 who declined to sign the Order (APX - 155); thereafter taken on appeal without leave dismissed on January 3,2012 (APX 154); and Furthermore, on 12 April 20 12, Plaintiff filed a Motion (APX - 718) for Presentment of Evidence of Forgery and Spoliation as Supplement to the Complaint by Request for the Leave of the Court to Supplement to the Complaint annexed thereto (APX - 834), that on June l8,20 12 was denied by Order of Judge Schack (see APX - 717) and is herein on appeal too - goes to the need with related Petition Index no.: 21948-2012 with Note of Issue.
6. That eight (8) months after the 22 August 201 1 hearing before Judge
Schack, the Order and Decision was entered 13 April 2012 (APX - 106), and on May 3,20 12 Plaintiff filed a Response to the Order and Decision (APX -79); and
7. Therein, Judge Schack granted Defendants' motions and dismissed my
complete complaint with prejudice. Judge Schack also granted a motion to admit pro hac vice one of the defendant's attorney, finding that he was in good standing and It should be known that the Georgia court at which I attended as a witness there denied Plaintift's Attorney Van Iron's motion for pro hac vice admission and the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania denied Mario Apuzzo's motion for pro hac vice admission, even though they are both in good standing.
8. . That on May 6,2012 a remarkable legal analysis was published by Mario
Apuzzo, Esq. (see APX - 39) was entered as an amicus for Plaintiff at the May 7, 20 12 hearing by the Court, and that I consider Mario Apuzzo a righteous Attorney, who made the effort to defend my efforts unsolicited, and Mr. Apuzzo displays great integrity and virtue motivated in what may be reasonably characterized as a defense of all other such Plaintiffs nationwide who seek redress and relief that would suffer the chilling effect of Judge Schack's Decision and Order;
SIJMMARY OF THE DECISION AND ORDER
9. Judge Schack started his opinion by stating that "[ilf the complaint in this
action was a movie script, it would be entitled The Manchurian Candidate Meets
The Da Vinci Code." He found that I did not sufficiently allege an injury in fact
and therefore does not have standing which causes the court not to have jurisdiction over his claims.
10.Judge Schack found that because it is not possible to easily gain notice fiom reading my complaint what my particular cause of action is, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
11. Judge Schack concluded that my fraud claim also needed to be dismissed
because I did not plead with particularity that I relied upon any of the defendants7 statement and did not plead that I suffered any pecuniary loss as a result of statement of any of the defendants.
12. Judge Schack found that the court has no jurisdiction because of the
political question doctrine and because, while finding no problem with my service upon the other main defendants, Judge Schack found that I did not properly serve Obama and McCain. 13. Judge Schack concluded that I had already litigated "many of the issues" in the instant action in Federal court with Case No.: 08-cv-4289 (APX - 533), and in State Court with the Petition Spunk v. Paterson et al., Index No. 29641/08, where the issues were decided against me. He therefore found that under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, one could not re-litigate those same issues in the instant action. 14. Judge Schack also denied my cross motion to consolidate the instant action with another New York state case, with the Complaint in Strunk v. Paterson et al Index No. 29642/08 that is still active as of this date (APX - 507), and to transfer
the case to Judge Schmidt because the Strunk v Paterson et al. Petition with Index 29641/08 that set the law of the case from thereon was dismissed . 15. Judge Schack also dismissed my complaint on the ground that it was both factually and legally frivolous; and finally, Judge Schack also ordered that I be precluded from relitigating the same claims against the same defendants in the New York state court without first obtaining prior written approval fiom an administrative justice or judge.
Argument in Favor of remand and consolidation with active trial court cases
16. That there was a May 7,2012 hearing with a Transcript record (APX - 49) ordered before Judge Schack for Plaintiff to show cause why I should not be sanctioned and adjudge costs, according to the 11 April 2012 Decision and Order. 17.That Appellant contends that the Court's Order and Decision was issued with intentional delay and disparagement of Plaintiff personally eight (8) months after the 22 August 201 1 hearing on various motions to dismiss were granted without a Final Judgment as to sanctions, and that my motion to consolidate was denied on the May 7,2012 transcript starting at APX - 49, shows Justice Schack's biased intent to delay and deny speedy justice to all Parties and without a Final Judgment like a sword of Damocles especially violates Plaintiff fundamental NYS Civil Rights Chapter 6 Article 2 "Bill of fights" fj10. fundamental right for:
" Justice to be administered without favor and speedily. Neither justice nor
right should be sold to any person, nor denied, nor deferred; and writs and process ought to be granted fi-eelyand without delay, to all persons requiring the same, on payment of the fees established by law." 18.That on May 24,2012, I made the following statement at the website
regards to the Star Chamber abuse and judicial malice done by Justice Arthur M. Schack in 201 1-6500: "The historical abuses of the Star Chamber are considered a primary motivating force behind the protections against compelled self-incrimination embodied in the Fifih Amendment to the United States Constitution. The meaning of "compelled testimony7'under the Fifth Amendment-i.e., the conditions under which a defendant is allowed to "take the Fifth"--is thus often interpreted via reference to the inquisitorial methods of the Star Chamber. Judge Schack not only invented the alleged violation ipse dixit, for which he charged me of frivolous conduct for daring to allege that BHO Jr. has a British Subject father on August 4, 1961 or when ever it happened, is therefore not NBC; that Justice Schack shamelessly poses as the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one . Without the ability to call the judge as a witness to the crime that he is committing, as my own counsel I may seek an appeal on the merits of the sanctions wrongly held against me.
As the U.S. Supreme Court described it, "the Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required, defendants to have counsel. The defendant's answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed." Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806,821-22 (1975). .."
19. That Plaintiff reasonably characterizes the 22 August 201 1 and 7 May 2012 hearings as a Star Chamber proceeding that wrongfully alleges that I am just an
transcript that follows &om APX 378 thru APX 387 as the lead of my brief herein, and because this appeal is about the facts and law not personalities; and
22.
Further, that it is noteworthy to point out that the Court also used a reference
to Private Citizen in its decision and order shown at APX - 129 of page 24, to the contrary "Public" versus "Private" whether the Election Law and the State protects his vote as a meaningful act as a legal matter before this Panel: "Thus, a private citizen who does not show any special rights or interests in the matter in controversy, other than those common to all taxpayers and citizens, has no standing to sue." (Matter of Meehan v County of Westchester,3 AD3d 533,534 [2d Dept 2004). 23. That Appellant contends that any facilitation of fi-aud binds GEORGE
SOROS whether he is a "Private Citizen" or not into a contradiction with his attorney's contention that there is no "natural grounding" or enforceable contract between Mr. Soros and or even Mr. Brzezinski with Mr. Obama to the contrary goes to the admission that Mr. Soros gave an actual contribution that as an admission against interest is an accessory to the fi-aud complained of in regards Obama's ballot access that was done under false pretense to the detriment of Plaintiff facilitated by the State agents; and that goes to my reliance upon the good faith of the State and its agents under A2S 1C2 as to A2SlC5 to provide personal equal protection and hndamental due process under law in exchange for my allegiance as a Private U.S. Citizen under common law and the inherent personal privilege and standing associated with one person one vote personal intangible
property that may neither be given away nor sold under law. 24.Christopher Earl Strunk in esse, the secured beneficiary of the organization CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, in fact, by right of heritage and inheritance, of the New York Republic, protected by hereditary succession of all predecessors previous Contracts with government as found in its adoption of the Declaration of Independence perpetual allegiance of the Monarch of Britain and or feudal the original Constitution of pretender to the authority of GOD on April 20, 1777(13), New York in support of the Revolution that expressly eliminated the feudal doctrine of perpetual aZZegzeance, of that condition based upon a person's soil birthright subjugation as property of an absolute sovereign, and the Articles of Confederation of March 1, 1781(14, and that such declaration against perpetual allegiance was then followed by the Constitution for the United States of America ratified by the People of New York on July 26, 1788 including it's re amble^'^) that the New York People expressly mandate "natural born Citizen" "That no Persons except natural born Citizens, or such as were Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six, or such as held Commissions under the United States during the War, and have at any time since the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six become Citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be Freeholders, shall be eligible to the Places of President, Vice President, or Members of either House of the Congress of the United States." (Emphasis added by Appellant)
l3
l4 l5
http://avalon.law.yale.eddl8th-century/nyO 1.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf. asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ 18th-century/ratny.asp Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 17 of 60
25. That on April 20, 1777, the People of the New York Republic revoked perpetual allegiance use of British Common Law at New York Constitution Article 3 5 that:
"XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same. That such of the said acts, as are temporary, shall expire at the times limited for their duration, respectively. That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers, or concern the alle~iance
heretofore yielded to, and the supremacv, sovereignty, government, or prerogatives claimed or e-xercised bv, the King of Great Britain and his predecessors, over the colony of New York and its inhabitants, or are repugnant to this constitution, be, and they hereby are, abrogated and rejected. And this convention doth fiuther ordain, that the resolves or resolutions of the congresses of the colony of New York, and of the convention of the State of New York, now in force, and not repugnant to the government established by this constitution, shall be considered as making part of the laws of this State; subject, nevertheless, to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State may, from time to time, make concerning the same. (Emphasis added by Appellant)
26.As such Christopher Earl Strunk in esse retains all my unalienable rights granted by GOD incorporated into positive law, embodied in the Declaration of Independence of 1776, and binding Rights upon my parentage and myself since the beginning of the World till 10 days from the end of the World. And further
27.
That Plaintiff, the Private US Citizen, privileged to vote under common law
is not subject to perpetual allegiance as explained above, and is no longer a Public Citizen surety of the respective big-letter U s u h c t owned by New York State in trust now relieved of any obligation; and that Plaintiff is injured by the State and its agents acting under color of law that single out Plaintiff individual rights is relegated to collective treatment, and as the State or its agents never answered any complaint since 2008, such is arbitrary denial of equal protection to Plaintiff. 28. That Justice Schack at the 22 August 201 1 Transcript APX - 359 line 14 (I6) expressed condescension at the notion that to take an oath is to make an offer of contract with each individual citizen, and when Plaintiff / Appellant as then "Public" U.S. Citizen on January 23,2009 duly fired Barack Hussein Obama I1 when Obama offered his oath on January 20,2009 as if eligible under the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 (A2S 1C5) (I7) "natural-born Citizen" clause for the office of the President of the United States (POTUS) executive with
l6 THE COURT: I saw your letter that you fired the president. I guess he didn't agree with you because he's still there. MR. STRUNK: I'm an eagle scout. I became an eagle scout in 1959. THE COURT: Congratulations. I was only a life scout. It's true. I praise you for that. MR. STRUNK: But that shapes my thinking as a individual. I mean, what are we as a country if we don't abide by the law? THE COURT: That's right, I'll agree. We are a country. l7 (A2SlC5) United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 : "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Ofice of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that OfJice who shall not have attained to the Age ofthirtyJive Years, and beenfourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
power of attorney over accounts with the U.S. Treasury and other executive duties (see APX - 658), when in the best of all possible worlds where justice prevails, Obama is ineligible and his every act is void ab initio; and notwithstanding his acts are void ab initio the office of POTUS as the de facto usurper again usurps the office to Plaintiff / Appellant's detriment and injury; and is of great consequence. 29. The fundamental principal of citizenship allegiance to the republic is the reciprocating duty of protection by the republic- one produces the other as equity. 30. That as a matter of Judicial Notice there is controlling history and law regarding construction of the Declaration of Independence of 1776 that was adopted as the foundation for the respective States' constitutions, including that of New York on April 20, 1777, 3 1.According to Mario Apuzzo Esq. on November 28, 2012 in his essay Logic
and DeJining the "Natural Born Citizen" Clause
published
at
http://puzo1.blogspot.corn/;!012/1 l/logic-and-defining-natural-born-citizen.html,
he explains that what the Founders and Framers learned from Greek ancient history was confirmed by Roman ancient history. The Founders and Framers looked to ancient Roman history to understand the law of nature to learn how best to constitute a republican form of government and to replace perpetual allegiance
with the human natural law doctrine of both reek('^) and ~ o m a n ( lorigin ~ ) of the term of art "natural-born Citizen" inheritance of allegiance fiom his parents and or
Is Aristotle also gave us a definition of a "natural born Citizen." In "Politics, Book Three, Part 11, Aristotle, writing in 350 B.C.E., as translated by Benjamin Jowett, gave us his definition of citizenship:
"Part I1 But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors. This is a short and practical definition but there are some who raise the further question: How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen? Gorgias of Leontini, partly because he was in a difficulty, partly in irony, said- 'Mortars are what is made by the mortar-makers, and the citizens of Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to make Larissaeans.' Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the definitionjust given they shared in the government, they were citizens. This is a better definition than the other. For the words, 'born of a father or mother who is a citizen,' cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state. There is a greater difficulty in the case of those who have been made citizens after a revolution, as by Cleisthenes at Athens after the expulsion of the tyrants, for he enrolled in tribes many metics, both strangers and slaves. The doubt in these cases is, not who is, but whether he who is ought to be a citizen; and there will still be a furthering the state, whether a certain act is or is not an act of the state; for what ought not to be is what is false. Now, there are some who hold office, and yet ought not to hold office, whom we describe as ruling, but ruling unjustly. And the citizen was defined by the fact of his holding some kind of rule or office- he who holds a judicial or legislative office fulfills our definition of a citizen. It is evident, therefore, that the citizens about whom the doubt has arisen must be called citizens." ...http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html.
l9 Roman law provided: "Lex MENSIA, That a child should be held as a foreigner, if either of the parents was so. But if both parents were Romans and married, children always obtained the rank of the father, (patrem sequuntur liberi, Liv. iv. 4.) and if unmarried, of the mother, Uipian." Alexander Adam, Roman antiquities: or, An account of the manners and customs of the Romans 2 10 (6th ed. corrected 1807). Cicero wrote in A Proposal:
"The Colophonians claim Homer as their own free Denizen, the Chians challenge him as theirs, the Salaminians demand him again for their own, but the Smyrneans assert him to be their natural born Citizen; and therefore have also dedicated a Temple to him in their Town of Smyrna. There are a great many besides at Daggers-drawing among themselves, and contend for him." A Proposal For Printing in English, The Select Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, According to the last Oxford Edition 17 (Henry Eelbeck trans. London 1720).
this point), and notwithstanding the fact of SOEBARKAH'S Indonesian citizenship doesn't apply at his birth, the undisputed facts at http ://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obamas-ken-citizenship/ by Todd Leventhal, the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State, that has been accepted as true this description of Obama's birth circumstances and stated on a State Department web page,
although now reads: "This site has been archived or suspended. is as follows:
. "
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. [ http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA 1948.htm ] That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children: British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part 11, Section 5): 'Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent of his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.' In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC. However, Obama's British citizenship was short-lived, when on Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
'1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 1lth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected
person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.. .

'2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (I), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.'
As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama's father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama's father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (I), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963." Further, Factcheck, in its attempt to show that Obama is a "natural born Citizen," added: "[Tlhe Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya's Constitution specifies that at age 23, Kenyan citizens who possesses [sic] citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1984." Id. 33. But that Obama may have lost his BritishKenyan citizenship after his birth (there is no evidence that Obama ever renounced his British birth citizenship), like an alien losing his or her native citizenship later in life and becoming a U.S. citizen after birth, does not nor can it change his birth circumstances. He still was not born a "natural born Citizen" and cannot become one later in life. So, Obama, even if born in Hawaii in 1961, while born to a U.S. citizen mother, was not born to a U.S. citizen father. Under the British Nationality Act 1948, Obama's father, being born
in Kenya when it was a British colony, was a BritishKenyan citizen. While he traveled to the United States on a temporary student visa to study, he never became a U.S. citizen. Under the same British Nationality Act 1948, Obama himself, through inheritance from his father, was born a British citizen. Under the Kenya Independence Act 1963, also became a Kenyan citizen as age 2. 34. The Founders and Framers demanded that future presidents, who also were to be our commanders in chief of the military, have allegiance and loyalty from birth only to the United States. Being born the citizen of a foreign country, like a person who is born a citizen of a foreign country and who naturalizes to become a "citizen of the United States" after birth and who we have always recognized as being eligible to be President only if born before the adoption of the Constitution, Obama was not born with sole allegiance and loyalty from birth to the United States. The practical consequence of his birth which no one can change is that he not only was not born with unity of allegiance and citizenship to the United States, but he also was not born within the full and complete political and military jurisdiction of the United States. So, Obama from birth was not fully committed both politically and militarily to the United States, nor could the United States expect such total commitment from him. Obama therefore cannot be an Article I1 "natural born Citizen," which under our Constitution is required only of the President, who is also the Commander in Chief of the Military, and the Vice
President were need to take over the POTUS's civil and military powers to arise.
35. Apparently, if Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii (that has not been proven),
Mr. Obama can meet the more liberal definition of a Fourteenth Amendment
"citizen of the United States" at birth, i-e., born in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Under this definition, a child born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents is a "citizen of the United States" at birth.
Tong Kim Ark. But he cannot meet the more stringent definition of an Article I1
"natural born Citizen," which only applies to presidential and vice presidential eligibility, born in the United States to citizen parents. Minor. Since, Obama is neither "a natural born Citizen" nor "a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" (was adopted in 1787), Obarna is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.
Statement of questions presented
36.
The facts that give rise to my State legal action commenced as an election
challenge case under EL 16-100 and related articles in the Supreme Court of the State of New York with several causes of action related to the voters' preference of New York State's 2008 General Election cycle Electoral College election of candidates for the office of President of the United States (POTUS) as is the exclusive power of the respective New York State legislature to create under the U.S. Constitution A2S 1C2, McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), with the
proviso that in doing so neither the State legislature and or its agents in the
electoral college and or agencies may change the qualifications of any federal officer includes POTUS, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (20).
37. I challenge the "breach of state constitutional fiduciary duty" by the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS and public officer defendants under EL
$3- 106 in both their official and individual capacity; deny me equal protection for
voter expectation of a correct ballot as the State has a compelling interest to do so;
20
SCOTUS held in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) says:
"Second, the provisions governing elections reveal the Framers' understanding that powers over the election of federal officers had to be delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States. It is surely no coincidence that the context of federal elections provides one of the few areas in which the Constitution expressly requires action by the States, namely that "[tlhe Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof." This duty parallels the duty under Article I1 that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors." Art II., $ 1, cl. 2. These Clauses are express delegations of power to the States to act with respect to federal elections. (20) This conclusion is consistent with our previous recognition that, in certain limited contexts, the power to regulate the incidents of the federal system is not a resewed power of the States, but rather is delegated by the Constitution. Thus, we have noted that "[wlhile, in a loose sense, the right to vote for representatives in Congress is sometimes spoken of as a right derived fiom the states, . . . this statement is true only in the sense that the states are authorized by the Constitution, to legislate on the subject as provided by $2 of Art. I." United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299,315 (1941). Cf. Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920) ("[Tlhe power to ratify a proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution has its source in the Federal Constitution. The act of ratification by the State derives its authority from the Federal Constitution to which the State and its people have alike assented"). In short, as the Framers recognized, electing representatives to the National Legislature was a new right, arising from the Constitution itself. The Tenth Amendment thus provides no basis for concluding that the States possess reserved power to add qualifications to those that are fixed in the Constitution. Instead, any state power to set the qualifications for membership in Congress must derive not fi-om the reserved powers of state sovereignty, but rather from the delegated powers of national sovereignty. In the absence of any constitutional delegation to the States of power to add qualifications to those enumerated in the Constitution, such a power does not exist..." (Emphasis by Appellant)
. is denial of substantive due process for voter expectation of a correct ballot (21) ,
interference with the right to a republican form of government by the two Jesuit defendants and defendant F.A.O. SCHWARZ, JR., who were all members of the New York City Campaign Finance Board; and interference with plaintiffs election franchise; a scheme to defraud plaintiff of a reasonable expectation of successful participation in the suffiage process; that is an inherent scheme by all defendants for unjust enrichment." Decision and Order, p. 3-4 (APX - 108 to 109); and includes a challenge to the Defendant "Soebarkah" that is the actual Indonesian surname name given Barack Hussein Obama I1 when he was adopted and became an Indonesian Citizen I discovered in DC FOIA case Strunk v. US DOS and DHS NO.; 08-CV-2234 (APX - 780).
The New York State Board of Elections and State agents maliciously failed to provide Strunk due process and equal protection with EL 53-106 and related law is properly before the Court under EL 816-100 jurisdiction / authority. Issues on Appeal:
In the matter of a state compelling interest at elections:
21
Storer Et al. v. Brown, Secretary OfState o f California,Et Al. 415 U.S. 724 (1974) in regards to a California compelling state interest to prevent fraud cited Bullock v. Carter, 405 U. S., at 145, when the unanimous SCOTUS Court decision said:
"The Court has recognized that a State has a legitimate interest in regulating the number of candidates on the ballot. Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U. S., at 442; Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S., at 32. In so doing, the State understandably and properly seeks to prevent the clogging of its election machinery, avoid voter confusion, and ... Moreover, a State has an interest, if not a duty, to protect the integrity of its political processes fiom fi-ivolous or fraudulent candidacies. Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U. S., at 442."
The Actions of the State to Deny Equal Protection and Due process.. . The Actions of the State to Facilitated the Fraud for ineligible candidates.. . The Actions of the State under color of State Law regarding HAVA and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by changing the POTUS eligibility from "natural born Citizen" to "born a Citizen" as if under the 14&Amendment. The Actions of Ineligible candidates and campaign agents to facilitate fraud That Sedition is the subversion intended to be prevented under EL 53-106 38.That while the Decision and Order was pending, as an additional matter of extrinsic fi-aud controlling as to the scheme to defraud, my associate the Information Technology expert Kevin Powell of Georgia on October 15,2011 affirmed his affidavit with exhibits (see APX - 199) assembled after the 22 August 201 1 hearing that discovered that the State of New York's instructions for getting on the presidential ballot, rather than state that a presidential candidate has to be a "natural born Citizen" pursuant to A2S 1C5 as I believe pre-existed the 2008 New York General Election at the time I filed the Federal Case No.: 08-cv-4289, instead after March 22,20 11 as of October 5,201 1 had been changed by the State and says that the President only had to be "Born a Citizen." (see APX - 215). 39. That I wrote to the State Counsel for the State election authorities and pointed out the error, and asked that a correction be made to state that a which is A2S 1C5 of our presidential candidate must be a "natural born Citizeny7 Constitution clearly and plainly states (see APX - 257); and
40. As had been previously done in New Jersey to change the erroneous instructions there @),I was looking for the same type of relief which would have satisfied my concerns regarding the wording of the eligibility instructions. But the State of New York would have none of it. Not receiving any satisfaction, on October 21,201 1, I filed an application for an order to show cause (APX- 164), asking that the court issue an order to the New York State Board of Elections that it correct the eligibility instruction from "born a Citizen" to "natural born Citizen." Judge Schack declined my application as premature (APX- 155 thru APX - 157). 41 .At the October 25,20 11, hearing on his order to show cause, I stated to counsel for the New York State Board of Elections that I would be willing to settle his litigation if the New York State Board of Elections would change the ballot instruction from "Born a Citizen" to "Natural-born Citizen." The attorney told him that "they could not do that". I then appealed Judge Schack's declined order and on January 3,2012 this Court dismissed my appeal sua sponte (APX - 154). 42.Judge Schack never ruled on my application that the Board of Elections be made to correct the ballot instruction for election for the Office of President to say not "born a Citizen," but rather "natural born Citizen." ; and as Judge Schack
The State of New Jersey also had the same type of error. At fust, the Secretary of State's instruction, using plain citizenship as the criteria for eligibility, did not state that the President had to be a "natural born Citizen." A concerned citizen wrote to the Secretary of State and pointed out the error and she simply made the correction by stating that a presidential candidate must be a "natural born Citizen." The correct New Jersey instructions can be viewed at http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/9 1538227- New-Jersey-SOS-Eligibility-Instructions-forPresidential-Primary-20 12 .
22
ordered in the hearing on May 7,2012 with hearing Transcript at APX - 326) I should pay for the costs incurred by the defendants in having to retain and pay their attorneys to defend them against this action for which all bills were submitted as ordered within the deadline, but no Judgment is rendered. 43. Judge Schack did state the correct standard for the court to apply when deciding a motion to dismiss the complaint on its face. He stated: "When determining a motion to dismiss, the court must 'accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory' (see Amav Indus., Inc. Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysman, Milstein, Felder & Steiner, 96 NY2d 300,303 [2001]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83,87438 [ 1994 I) [Emphasis added]." (Goldman v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 5 NY3d 561, 570-57 1 [2005]). Further, the Court, in Morris v Morris (306 AD2d 449,45 1 [2d Dept 2003]), instructed that: In determining whether a complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion pursuant to CPLR 321 1 (a) (7), "the sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four comers factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law a motion for dismissal will fail" (Guggenheimer v Ginsburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]. The court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and determirie only whether the facts alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Dye v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens, 273 AD2d 193 [2000]). However, bare legal conclusions are not entitled to the benefit of the presumption of truth and are not accorded every favorable inference (seeDoria v Masucci, 230 AD2d 764 [2000]). [Emphasis added] For a plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the factual allegations in the claim cannot be "merely conclusory and speculative in nature and not supported by any specific facts." (Residents for a More Beautiful Port Washington, Inc. v Town of North Hempstead, 153 AD3d 727,729 [2d Dept 19891). "The allegations in the complaint cannot be vague and conclusory." (Stoianoff v Gahona, 248 AD2d 525 [2d Dept 19981, app dismissed 92 NY2d 844 [1998], cert denied by Stoianoff v New York Times, 525 US 953 [1998]). (See LoPresti v Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 30 AD3d 474 [2d Dept
Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-05515 - Page 3 1 of 60
20061; Levin v Isayeu, 27 AD3d 425 [2d Dept 20061; Hart v Scott, 8 AD3d 532 [Zd Dept 20041) (all emphasis in the original).
FAILURE TO HAVE STANDING?

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

45.Judge Schack found that because it is not possible to easily gain notice from reading his complaint what his particular cause of action is, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. But with pro se complaints, courts have an obligation to hlly and in good faith search the complaint for a cause of action. As I will show below, I more than adequately set out a cause of action which can be discerned by an indulgent reading of the complaint.
FAILURE TO PLEAD FRAUD WITH PARTICULARITY?

46.Judge Schack found that my fraud claim also needed to be dismissed because somehow I did not plead with particularity that I relied upon any of the defendants7statement, despite the fact that John McCain's effort to have himself declared NBC by the Senate Resolution (APX - 655) is more than enough of a matter of reliance that one would have that McCain would challenge Obama because he in fact is not NBC by the very definition used by the Senate Resolution
- did not challenge Obama that is a breach of my reliance upon McCain to
do so.
47.That Judge Schack contends that I did not plead that I suffered any pecuniary loss as a result of statement of any of the defendants despite the fact that
I had in fact fired Obama (APX - 658) from being my power of attorney over the
private trust accounts at the US Treasury that are now wasting under his mismanagement. In my fraud claim, it is not necessary for me to continue my claim that Obama is not a "natural born Citizen."
FAILURE TO SHOW THAT THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION?

48. Judge Schack found that the court has no jurisdiction because of the
political question doctrine. He found that the question of presidential eligibility and necessarily the meaning of a "natural born Citizen" are left by the Constitution to the Electoral College and Congress in joint session when it counts the Electoral College votes. He even cites and relies upon 3 U.S.C. See. 15which only applies
after the general election and when the Congress is in joint session counting the Electoral Votes. Without even acknowledging that Obama is currently a candidate in the 2012 presidential election, the Judge relies on the Electoral College's and Congress's lack of objection to Obama's eligibility in the 2008 presidential election. But what is worse is that Judge Schack confounds and conflated candidates with incumbents. He states that my challenge of the eligibility of "President Obama." did not state that it is "Candidate Obama" that is challenged. The court relies strictly upon the Electoral College and Congress to decide whether incumbents are eligible for presidential office. He wrongly states that the States have no role to play in that process despite A2S lC2 that gives each State Legislature exclusive power to form an electoral college of their own choosing. . 49.Judge Schack found that the court has no jurisdiction because somehow I did not properly serve Obama and McCain and each of their respective campaign finance entities and agents when in fact I did, especially Penny Pritzker the Finance Chairwoman and Martin Nesbitt the Treasurer of Obama for America; and while finding no problem with my service upon the other main defendants, Judge Schack found only that I did not properly serve Obama and McCain. The court did not find that Obama and McCain were indispensable parties and that the action could not proceed without their presence in the action. Hence, even hypothetically
service upon the other defendants is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over his claims against the other defendants which concern both Obama and McCain.
THAT STRUNK'S COMPLAINT IS FRIVOLOUS?

50. Judge Schack found that my claim that Obama is not a "natural born Citizen" is frivolous. The "natural born Citizen" issue is the heart and soul of my action. Judge Schack states that " '/a] complaint containing as it does bothfactual
allegations and legal conclusions, isfrivolous where it lacks an arguable basis' and 'embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also thefanciful factual allegation.' (Neitzke v Williams,490 U.S. 3 19,325 [ 1989])." Hence, Judge
Schack looked to both the alleged facts and legal claims made by me relative to the "natural born Citizen" claim in order to determine the complaint was frivolous.
The Judiciaw as the political co-equal branch under separation of powers duty and obligation is to interpret the U.S. Constitution and Laws in this case not the Legislature or Executive related to the NYS Board of Elections agents 5 1.The meaning of any specific clause of the Constitution is a judicial question
and one to be authoritatively decided ultimately by the United States Supreme Court not Congress or the Executive. That high court decision under the supremacy clause is binding on the entire nation. Story on the Constitution, sec. 387. 52.Als0, States do have a critical responsibility to ensure that candidates on state ballots for federal office meet constitutional eligibility requirements. By cutting the States out of making sure that presidential candidates are eligible for the
office they seek, the court has cut out the States power to play in properly vetting presidential candidate early in the election process so as to not allow any unqualified candidate to advance too far and even to the point where the general public is voting for an ineligible candidate.
53. The U.S. Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen,
35 years of age or older, and reside in the U.S. for 14 years prior to being elected.
The issue of eligibility has come up on at least seven occasions with regard to past Presidents and Presidential candidates. As we have witnessed with the 2008 presidential election, there is considerable confusion over the issue of who vets candidates for their eligibility for federal office, including the Office of President.
54. With the outrageous reassertion of the doctrine of perpetual allegiance, the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) (23) examined the issue of who is responsible for presidential vetting. In their report they opine that there is "no
federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidatefor federal ofJice produce his or her original birth certzjkate, or a certiJied copy of the record
of live birth, to any o f j i a l of the United States Government; nor is there a

requirementfor federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation." ; and as explained herein, I do not agree with the CRS's Jack
Maskell's definition of a "natural born Citizen" which is any person who is a
%~%80%9~~atural-~om%~2%80%9~-~itizenshi~-~li~ibili~-~e~uirement
"citizen of the United States" from the moment of birth, regardless of to whom or where born. The CRS adds that "there is no speczjic federal agency or office that
'vets' candidatesfor federal ofice as to qual$cations or eligibility prior to elections." ( A P X - 700).

55. That without any federal laws or guidelines on presidential vetting, the
federal government has not precluded the states from doing so. Hence, the best time to resolve any ballot challenge is at the primary level. At the primary level, it is candidate Obama himself who wants to appear on the ballot. Under the Constitution and state law, it is the candidate who has to prove that the candidate is eligible to be placed on that primary ballot. According to NYS EL 8 16-100 (24) that "The supreme court is vested with jurisdiction to summarily determine any question of law or fact arising as to any subiect set forth in this article, which shall be construed liberally." (Emphasis by Appellant) as such affords broad jurisdiction to the State Judiciary over whether I should be made to challenge Obama's eligibility only after the general election in November 2012 - when in fact the entire process is an element of the ongoing fraud against the voters and the People of New York in which the schemers abuse suffrage
NYS Election Law 5 16-100. Jurisdiction; supreme court, county court. 1. The supreme court is vested with jurisdiction to summarily determine any question of law or fact arising as to any subject set forth in this article, which shall be construed liberally. 2. The county court is vested with jurisdiction to summarily determine any question of law or fact except proceedings as to a nomination or election at a primary election or a nomination at a judicial convention, proceedings as to the casting and canvass of ballots, proceedings for examination or preservation of ballots and proceedings to enforce the provisions of article fourteen of this chapter.
24
process and stole the cost of the election from the New York taxpayers. Plaintiff(s) should not be made to rely on the Electoral College or Congress for resolving their challenge to Obama's eligibility to be elected President under A2S lC2. At that point, Obama can argue that the courts do not have jurisdiction to tell the Electoral College or Congress how to do their jobs this matter is not moot according to the
25thAmendment and the State Court has a duty to interpret what the State has done
to change Federal officer A2S lC5 eligibility under A2S 1C2 with exclusive power.. 56. In The Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton explained that the President was a "person to whom so important a trust was to be confided." He advocated that the Electoral College "will be most likely to possess the information and
discernment requisite to so complicate an investigation." He said that because the
President was "so an important agency in the administration of the government,"

"tumult and disorder7' were to be avoided in selecting the President. What better
way than for the states to aid in this complex investigation of that person who should want to run for that most important office. Surely by requiring any such candidate to produce documentary evidence of his or her identity and place of birth is a first step in producing that needed information which is so vital to such a complicated investigation. The states therefore serve a vital role in the beginning stages of the vetting of any presidential candidate. Such vetting should start as
soon as possible so as to avoid parties becoming entrenched in their selections and wanting to win at all costs at the expense of the people and their Constitution. 57. Furthermore, to allow an ineligible candidate to advance to the Electoral College or even to Congress in joint session only brings with it tremendous cost, embarrassment for both political parties, political haggling, insults and ridicule, and finger pointing, all at the expense of the Constitution. It is best that presidential eligibility requirements are met prior to the election of a candidate in order to avoid the prospect of Congress being asked and having to invalidate national election results. What better way to secure liberty and support the Constitution than to allow all our political institutions, including those of the states, to have a role in presidential vetting. S8.As to my factual allegations, I have adequately pled such facts in my Complaint that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama's birth wherever that may be. As proof of this fact, he relies upon Obarna's admission in his book, Dreams from My Father (APX - 487), the INS (immigration) file on Obama's father (APX - 685), the alleged Certificate of Live Birth that Obama released via the internet on April 27,201 1 (APX - 698), and the Obama-Dunham divorce papers (APX -679). 59. That while the Court argues that portions of my Complaint (references to the Vatican, Roman Catholic Church, and the Society of Jesus and inclusion of a
long list of defendants) rise to the level of the "irrational," the thrust of my legal argument, that Obama is not an Article I1 "natural born Citizen" as we shall see below is eminently reasonable. Whether or not Obama is an Article I1 "natural born Citizen" citizen under the American common law standard that has been in place since the Founding is not a conspiracy theory or what Judge Schack pejoratively calls a "birther case." There are some factual allegations in my Complaint that could raise some eyebrows of those unfamiliar with the last 80 years of European centric History nevertheless does not change the fact that Vatican Bank money laundering for drug cartels, the Mafia, is documented at trial, continues and outrageously interferes with U.S. Domestic and Foreign policy. 60. That the Court can also understand my frustration in my naming domestic defendants who I believe have not only allowed but actively facilitated Obama to proceed unchallenged and others who I believe should be "taking responsibility to enforce the law which has not been done" regarding the question of Obama's eligibility for POTUS. Decision and Order, p. 20 (APX - 106) oral arguments. 6 1. Despite Judge Schack's contention that somehow I add some questionable factual allegations in my Complaint about the defendants' religious motivations to wit I flatly deny, and that the Holy See is not a named party nor is that religion per se questioned; and despite the fact that many foreign members of the private organizations that have facilitated the ascendency of Obama to power especially Le
Cercle (2", Pilgrim Society (261, 1001 Club (27), Commercial Club of Chicago
Sovereign Military Order of Malta
(29),
Council for National Policy
(SO),
along with the
infamous Saudi Financier Adnan Khashoggi should have been named as material,
but aren't because of difficult service involved remain central to campaign finance. 62.That since I am alleging that the Vatican Bank is the campaign money laundering mechanism with JP Morgan here in New York (a well established fact for which it and its agents have been previously punished including the unindicted Keating five co-conspirator McCain's fi-iendship with Paul Marcinkus also involved in the savings and loan scandal involving the Chicago syndicate) as illegal foreign funds channeled to the Obama Campaigns, I am obligated to make the connection to that institution and defendants- do not express "irrational anti-
Catholic bias."; the Plaintiff's allegation is that foreign money was laundered
through its Vatican Bank facility to J.P. Morgan Bank where the Obama Campaign has its account as its exclusive landing bank in New York - and only until just
25
http://~\~~.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopoliticdsociopol -lecercle07.htm#TheVaticanPaneuropa-network
27
28
http://~.bibliotecapleyades.net/~ociopo1iticdsociopoll00 1club01.htm
http://commercialclubchicago.orgl
29
http://www.orderofinalta.int/?lang=en with a financial stake in Obarna-Care
30
http://~~~.~ourcewatch.orglindex.php?title=Council~for~NationalPolicy
recently when it resigned because of money laundering investigations, the Vatican Bank now uses Wells Fargo Bank instead; But even whatever were those questionable factual allegations regarding defendants' motivations in regards to the intrinsic fraud complained of, are not relevant to the question of what is a "natural born Citizen" and whether Obama meets that definition. Even hypothetically were those suspect factual allegations which Judge Schack admits Plaintiff "weaves" into the complaint as I must do when the Vatican Bank is involved with money laundering illegally, should therefore not trump the otherwise sound part of my complaint and be used as a means to create a circus-type atmosphere in the court by falsely coloring Plaintiffs motives and thereby to obfuscate the real argument that I make at the heart of both the intrinsic and extrinsic firaud which is that Obama does not meet the status quo American common law definition of a "natural born Citizen," which defmition as we can see below is adequately shown to exist by the historical record and case law of our United States Supreme Court.
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is not only BORN A CITIZEN

63.As to my legal arguments as to what is a "natural born Citizen," Judge Schack did not correctly state my legal position and by doing so actually created a straw man argument. Judge Schack mis-stated: "Plaintiff STRUNK'S complaint, as well as his opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss, alleges that the correct interpretation of the natural born
citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution requires a natural born citizen to have been born on United States soil and have two United States born parents. Despite plaintiffs assertions, Article 11, Section 1, Clause 5 does not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the natural born citizen clause means what plaintiff STRUNK claims it states. "The phrase 'natural born Citizen' is not defined in the Constitution, see Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 [1875]), nor does it appear anywhere else in the document, see Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President althe United States: An Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1,5 (1968)." (Hollander v McCain at 65). Plaintiff STRUNK cannot wish into existence an interpretation that he chooses for the natural born citizen clause. There is no arguable legal basis for the proposition that both parents of the President must have been born on U.S. soil. This assertion is as frivolous as the multitude of alleged allegations outlined above. Moreover, President OBAMA is the sixth U. S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil. Plaintiff STRUNK and his fellow "birthers" might not realize that both parents of President Andrew Jackson were born in what is now Northern Ireland; President James Buchanan's father was born in County Donegal, Ireland; President Chester A. Arthur's father was born in what is now Northern Ireland; President Woodrow Wilson's mother was born in Carlisle, England; and, President Herbert Hoover's mother was born in Nonvich, Ontario, Canada. 64. But I did not argue that a "natural born Citizen" child has to be born to "two
United States born parents" or that "both parents . . . must have been born on U.S. soil." This argument is strictly a creation of Judge Schack. Rather, I argued that a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the United States to "citizen" parents. I correctly argue that "born Citizen" is not the same as "natural born Citizen."
65.
It is outrageous misbehavior that Judge Schack would question my own
parentage as a "natural-born Citizen" so nonchalantly shows his bias as if I were ignorant of my own heritage in regards to my own parents and to the actual meaning used in my Complaint when in fact:
a. My father Earl Henry Strunk is a "natural born Citizen7'in 1917 as defined by Minor ,because his father Moses, my grandfather had been a naturalborn Citizen to his own U.S. Citizen parents (my great-grand parents) at his birth, and who married my Prussian born Grandmother Elizabeth who immigrated to the USA, assumed U.S. citizenship of my grandfather Moses when she married by American common law before the Cable Act of 1922; b. And, that my mother Beth Hardwick in 1915 was born a 14thAmendment U.S. Citizen defined by Kim Won2Ark, because her father and mother, my maternal grandparents were British subjects who immigrated to New Jersey from Canada, were domiciled legal resident aliens when Mother was born.
66. The first step in constitutional interpretation is textual analysis of the clause
in question. In that analysis, we have to look at each and every word of the clause which includes "natural" and define that word. By using "born Citizen" rather than "natural born Citizen," would be saying that we do not need to consider and define "natural," that the Framers just threw that word in as surplusage. On the contrary, the word "natural" is part and parcel of the full clause, "natural born Citizen." The clause as a whole is a word of art, an idiom. The historical record shows that it has always been used as such and that it has never been used in some expanded way as "born Citizen" suggests. Indeed, the clause is a unitary phrase with a unitary meaning. Hence, "natural" cannot be separated from the clause. Rather what needs
to be done is to search for the meaning of the whole clause and not its parts. In this textual analysis, we cannot simply take that idiom and say that it means some other manufactured definition of the clause. We cannot simply proclaim without evidence that the meaning of that idiom equates to the manner in which Congress and the Fourteenth Amendment allows persons to acquire the status of a "citizen of the United States" as of the moment of birth. No U.S. Supreme Court case or Justice has adopted such a manufactured definition or even said that such a meaning prevailed at the time of the Founding. That someone acquires his or her citizenship from the moment of birth simply does not equate to that person being a "natural born Citizen." Even Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei, 40 1 U.S. 8 15
(1971) tell us that persons may be "naturalized" from the moment of birth. We
accept that "naturalized" person are not "natural born Citizens." Furthermore, that Wong Kim Ark included the clause "natural born subject" in the context of its discussion of what is a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" does not through some amazing feat of logic convert a "citizen of the United States" into a "natural born Citizen." As Minor aptly explained, a "natural born Citizen" is neither created by the Constitution nor depended upon it.
67. Hence, neither Fourteenth Amendment nor its debates on who shall be a
"citizen of the United States" does not control who shall be "natural born Citizens."
68. Hence, simply having a status of a "citizen" from the moment of birth does
not necessarily equate to one being a "natural born Citizen." The fact that the Framers included the word "natural" as an additional qualifier tells us that quite plainly, for if such an interpretation were correct the Framers would simply have said "born Citizen." So, any person that is a "born Citizen" who claims to be a "natural born Citizen" still has to show that he or she satisfies the idiomatic meaning of the clause which the historical record and U.S. Supreme Court case law show to be a child born in the country to parents who are citizens of that country. This definition is exactly what our United States Supreme Court in Minor v.
Happersett in 1875 and Wong Kim Ark in 1898 confirmed is the correct American
common law definition of a "natural born Citizen."
69. For this time-honored natural lawllaw of nationslAmerican "common-law"
definition of a "natural born Citizen", see Minor v. Hamersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875) (decided after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 and holding that "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners"). What Minor said about a "natural born Citizen" was confirmed in US. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (acknowledging and confirming Minor's American common law definition of a "natural-born citizen7'but adding based on the English common law that since
"'[tlhe child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the naturalborn child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle [birth in the country]"' (bracketed information supplied), a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States". This American common law definition of a "natural born Citizen" has never been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment (only uses the clause "citizen of the United States" and does not mention "natural born Citizen") or Wong Kim Ark, and therefore still prevails today. Both those U.S. Supreme Court cases define a "natural born Citizen" as a child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country. 70. This American common law definition of a "natural born Citizen" has also been recognized and accepted by a Founder and member of our U.S. Supreme Court as early as 1814 in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253,289 (1 8 14) (Chief Justice John Marshall dissenting and concurring for other reasons). It was also again confirmed by Inalis v. Sailors ' Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. 99 (1830) and Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242,245 (1830). It was again confirmed by Justice Daniels in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U. S. 3 93 (1857).
7 1. It is shown that the original American "common-law" definition of a

"natural born Citizen" was not changed by either the Fourteenth Amendment or Wong Kim Ark, which only deal with a "citizen of the United States" and not a
"natural born Citizen." Hence, the same original definition of a "natural born Citizen" was again expressly confirmed by the whole U.S. Supreme Court in Minor and Vong Kim Ark, and a lower federal court in Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582,5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) and United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890). Finally, this same definition was implicitly confirmed by Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964). 72. Given the meaning of the clause since time immemorial; the enlightened intellectual mindset of the Founding period which focused on natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Cicero, Pufendorf, Burlamaqui, John Locke, Rousseau, Emer de Vattel; the motivating spirit of the American Revolution; the Founders and Framers desire to preserve the constitutional republic for Posterity; the way that founding -era legal scholars such as Chief Justice John Marshall, David Ramsay, St. George Tucker, and James Wilson defined American citizenship; Congressional acts on naturalization; U.S. Supreme Court case law; and the whole historical record, this is the most natural interpretation of the clause. 73. Regarding the citizenship status of the parents of a "natural born Citizen," the Constitution and Congressional Acts clearly and without question show that a
"citizen" may be one either by being "natural born" or naturalized either at birth or after birth. 74. Hence, what I argued and argue is that a child needs to be born in the country to parents who are both either "natural born Citizens" (NBC) or "citizens of the United States" (citizen) by naturalization at birth or after birth. I did not argue that the parents needed to be born citizens or born on the soil of the United States and in fact a close reading of the transcript at APX - 354 shows that to be born NBC means there are permutations of citizen parents that means NBC = NBC +NBC or NBC = Nl3C + citizen or NBC = citizen + citizen. None of the legal actions filed against Obama on his eligibility have made such an argument and neither did I make such an argument. 75. So it is totally irrelevant to my claim that according to Judge Schack's ridiculous ipse dixit theory that somehow "Obama is the sixth U. S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil," for under Judge Schack's interpretation of the Article 11, Section 1, Clause 5 and his definition of a "natural born Citizen," those presidents, other than Chester A. Arthur who like Obama cannot benefit from Article 11's grandfather clause and was not born to citizen parents, qualified to be President.
76. Judge Schack has not decided the merits of the legal argument that I made
concerning what is a "natural born Citizen," but rather a legal argument that he
himself created regarding that clause. Hence, not having yet passed on the argument that I made, Judge Schack surely cannot reasonably conclude that my argument is frivolous.
77.
Furthermore, in Tennessee, the Federal District Court just recently stated: "The Court finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase 'natural born citizen' as a qualification for the Presidency set out in Article I1 of the Constitution, is important and not trivial." "The issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the Presidency is certainly substantial." "It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama's qualifications for the office are 'actually disputed and substantial."' "It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution's definition of 'natural born citizen' and the Supreme Court's decision in Minor." Liberty Legal Foundation et al v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc. et al, Case No. 12-2143-STA. So we can see that the federal court found the issue of whether Obama is a "natural born Citizen" to be "important and not trivial," "substantial," and "disputed."
78. Additionally, Judge Schack disagrees with my definition of a "natural born
Citizen," although as I have shown above Judge Schack states a definition by cherry picking one which I did not put forth, because the Constitution does not define the clause, citing "Hollander v. McCain at 65" which cited Minor and Charles Gordon, Who can be President of the United States: An Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L.Rev. 1, 5 (1968). If that were a valid reason for disagreeing with someone's definition of a constitutional clause, we basically would have virtually no interpretation of the Constitution at all. As is often said, the Constitution is not a dictionary of legal terms. Its meaning has to be gleaned fiom its text, if possible, and when not possible, fi-om sources outside the Constitution. For example, the
Fourteenth Amendment does not tell us what "subject to the jurisdiction" means. Yet, our nation has arrived at a meaning of the clause by looking outside the Constitution. That the Constitution does not defme a "natural born Citizen" is the only argument that Judge Schack makes to discount my position as to what is the meaning of a "natural born Citizen." He offers no other authorities showing that I am wrong. Also, we should know that Charles Gordon in the very same article cited by Judge Schack states that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark's holding defined a "natural born Citizen."
79. Surely, all this shows that I did allege a particular cause of action and gave
sufficient notice of both the facts and the law that support my cause of action. All this also shows that it is not true that my complaint presents no legitimate basis in law or fact which warrants sanctions. Even assuming arguendo that the Court is correct about standing, jurisdiction, and collateral estoppel, the Court did not say that these grounds of dismissal support the Court's finding that the action is frivolous. Rather, the Court's finding of fi-ivolous concerns my definition of a "natural born Citizen." And have shown that my definition is more than reasonable to raise a genuine constitutional question. Hence, my complaint is not frivolous.
All Litigants Have A Right To Impartial And Considered Justice
80. As Judge Schack correctly states, "all litigants have a right to impartial and
considered justice." Muka v. New York State Bar Association. 120 Misc. 2d 897
(Sup. Ct. Tompkins County 1983). But Judge Schack's references to " 'birther' cases" " 'birther' action," '"birther' movement," "his fellow 'birthers,"' is hardly any show of actually receiving that "impartial and considered" justice. "Birther" is a pejorative term that is used by Obama's supporters. It is a quick way to dismiss through ridicule and ad hominem attack any argument that is made that Obama is not an Article I1 "natural born Citizen."
81. As I have shown, whether Mr. Obama is a "natural born Citizen" is not some
conspiracy or "lunatic fringe" argument. Rather, it is, as even the federal court in Tennessee has confirmed, a legitimate and substantial constitutional issue which to date has escaped being address in any meaningfbl way.
82. Apart that there is no factual or legal basis for the Court to sanction me,
there are also public policy reasons for not doing so, as Judge Schack states in his opinion that sanctions of the court are designed to punish in the present so as to deter what the court deems unacceptable behavior in the future. The court adds that such a policy is justified in that it works to save judicial resources. On the contrary, for the Court to sanction me under the existing circumstances would not only save judicial resources by preventing me from filing further Article I1 eligibility actions in New York in the hture, but would do a great disservice to our system of justice and republican form of government. With any such sanction, the public, not knowing the h l l details of this matter and after having been bombarded by
manipulated and propagandist use of the court's sanction decision by Obama's supporters, will come away with the thought that I was sanctioned by the "Supreme Court of the State of New York" because I filed a complaint in a court of law claiming that Mr. Obama is not an Article I1 "natural born Citizen." The public will therefore not only be made to think that there is no legitimate basis in filing any such legal actions against Mr. Obama, but also that if anyone so dare, he or she will be severely sanctioned by our courts. Additionally, because we follow the doctrine of stare decisis (to abide by or adhere to decided cases), other courts will be pressured to do the same should anyone file any such action. Hence, we can easily see the chilling effect that the Court's sanction will have to not only people resorting to our court's in search of what they deem to be justice, but also stifling the free exercise of political speech and discourse in all comers of America. This is especially grave given that Mr. Obama is now being more carehlly publicly and privately vetted for his re-election.
83. For these reasons, the Supreme Court of the State of New York should not
sanction or otherwise discipline pro se litigant, Christopher Earl Strunk in esse, and should discharge its show cause order.
Plaintiff has been a dedicated and loyal New York State Citizen
84.
Beyond the fact that I was born and in part educated in New York and that I
am an Eagle Scout dedicated to GOD and Country although no longer "obedient"
and "reverent" as admitted above, I worked my entire life here in both public and private endeavors and am not to be characterized as frivolous.
85.
That on May 2 1, 1985 the entire New York State Legislature enacted a joint
commendation of my dedication to my Public duties as a management confidential public officer of the New York State Facilities Development Corporation who decreed that "WHEREAS It isfor his perception of the value and worth of others,
for his Innate and ingenuous concernfor the preservation and enhancement of human dignity that this Assembled Body commends Christopher Strunk,,,: and WHEREAS Through his unselJishdedication and competent discharge of duty, Christopher Strunk has brought enduring honor to the New York State Facilities Development Corporation..." ( A P X - 857) and as a result of my dedication then
Governor Cuomo used me to personally direct and fulfill the "Willowbrook Consent Decree" by the Honorable John R. Bartel USDJ of the EDNY to close the Staten Island Development Center "I), to wit I completed that task in 1987 on time and within budget. I have been dedicated to the New York State Constitution and laws at all times and dedicated to my and my fellow citizen suffrage and voting rights; and further when Chief Justice Judith Kaye in 2003 called for Citizen
31
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archivesl2O11/O5/23/abandoned-minds-social-justice-civil-rightsand-mental-health-part-11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willowbrook-State-School
participation with the John D. Feerick (32) Commission to Promote Public Confidence in the Judiciary for my testimony published by the Feerick Center of Fordharn University School of Law; and further, involved myself in several voting
i l l v. the rights cases including the Federal case in which I joined with the Arbor H
County of Albany NDNY 03-cv-502 as a matter of disenfi-anchisementin re the
VRA of 1965'~~); and further, was an essential party to broaden the case The New
York State Green Party v. The New York State Board of Elections 02-cv-6465 before the Honorable John Gleason in the matter of citizen right of association and speech and fiuther, with a unique perspective as to the role of the Judiciary and
real property, I opposed the Brennan Center efforts financed by George Soros to do what I saw was to seize control over the State Judiciary in the case before John Gleason Lopez Torres v Ehe State o f New York 04-cv- 1129, in which I intervened
. in support of the New York State Justice Association and the State Constitution(35) ,
and in effect have been vindicated when SDNY Bankruptcy Court held that the
John D. Feerick of Fordham Law was primarily responsible for the composition of the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment specifies how a president can remove himself from office temporarily or be removed from office by a majority of his cabinet, and the process that follows for the President to attempt to regain power before Congress, if he so chooses, and then how the President's Cabinet, once again, can remove him from power. This scenario would most likely be used in the event that the President were mentally incapacitated, either voluntarily, through anesthesia in a medical procedure or involuntarily in the case of a mental illness. 33 h t t p ~ : / / b ~ l k . r e ~ ~ ~ r c e . ~ r g ! c o u r t s . g ~ V / C l 34 http~://~.nyed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/02cv6465pi053003.pdf 35 http://law.justia.com/cases/federa~appel1ate-c0~3/462/16 1/525026/
32
Mortgage Electronic Recording System (MERS) is facially unconstitutional

especially in that in 2007 as a Plaintiff in Jah Thomas et a1 v. the New York
'.'"
Federal Reserve, Goldman Sachs et al. EDNY 07-cv- 1171 before Judge Ross
complained of the emerging matter of sub-prime mortgages; and still hrthermore, I gave testimony in the Assembly Education Committee in the matter of Federal responsibility to enforce immigration law and reimburse the State regarding the Campaign for Fiscal Equity decision to unreasonably burden upstate real property owners for the education of illegal aliens in NYC (APX - 847), and then in regards to the same lack of enforcement I was invited to testify by NYS Senate majority leader Joseph Bruno before the Committee in opposition to giving drivers license and State citizen privileges to illegal aliens in 2007 (APX - 844). Consistently I take my citizen speech responsibility seriously and not to be marginalized.
86.
Therefore, Christopher Earl Stmnk in esse proceeds at all times with explicit
reservation of all my rights and without prejudice with respect to any of my unalienable rights, inclusive of my personal right to substantive and procedural due process proceedings under the Judicial Power of both my State and my Nation as guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions and Congress granting each State of the Union under the equal footing doctrine, a Republican form of government, not a Corporate form of government. And fbrther Christopher Earl
36
http:II~~~.ny~b.~~~0~rts.gov/opinionsIcgdl86630~39~opinion.pdf
Strunk in esse, state and affirm the following to Almighty God to be noticed by other parties with interest:
87.
That Christopher Earl Strunk in esse rebuts any erroneous presumptions and
or terminates any erroneous election of U.S. "residence" which may have been established in error by the filing of any prior IRS forms, schedules and other statements, by mistake resulting in part from the demonstrable vagueness that is evident throughout Title 26 USC and it's regulations, and by mistakes resulting also from the constructive fraud and misrepresentation mentioned throughout this Affidavit; that Christopher Earl Strunk in esse was neither born nor naturalized in the "United States", Christopher Earl Strunk in esse has never been subject to that jurisdiction except in National Military Service and Christopher Earl Strunk in esse has never been a "United States citizen" as defmed in 26 C.F.R. 1.1.1 and as defined in the alleged 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
CONCLUSION IN SUPPORT OF EQUITY RELIEF AND REMAND

88.
Judge Ross held that my complaint in 2008 did not belong in Federal Court
but must deal with State law matters, and as such I fashioned the Petition 2964 1-08
f the case in my complaint of 29642-08 without the Board of to determine the law o
Elections until the State Constitutional status of the 2008 dual office holders who are the electors was decided by my 29641-08 Petition; and when it was
determined, and because Justice Schmidt would not issue a subpoena for necessary records to amend the complaint, I filed my Freedom of Information Act case for the records in Washington DC (08-cv-2234), and two years later receiving several, I went back before Justice Schmidt to file service nunc pro tunc and amend the Complaint of 29642-08; but instead he suggested that I just file a new case with my claim of fraud including the Board of Elections for the first time; and as such I filed the new Complaint 6500-20 11- but could not afford the cost of the WI.
That res judicata and or collateral estoppel do not apply to my complaint
89.
That the WI was filed by Mr. McCain's local attorney under penalty of
perjury without listing the related case 29642-08, and so here we are nearly five years later having been denied speedy and fair justice.
90.
This Court needs to decree that if my vote no longer is meaningful in New
York and the New York State Board of Elections may do as it wishes with impunity, then the people of this State and country need to know; and accordingly I will go elsewhere and deal with the imposition of sanctions and costs - otherwise, send me back to trial court before Justice Schmidt assigned to the: a. related current Article 78 Petition Strunk v Jeffiies et a1 Index No.: 21948 / 2012 that challenges the incompatibility of POTUS Electors using the law of the case determined by Justice Schmidt in the Petition 2964 1-08 defining the
92.
As to the foregoing, it is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters
therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rdparties, books and records, and personal knowledge; and Affirmant will testify to these facts and matters in open court and or by special appearance; and requests a sur-reply.
f7
Sworn to before me This day of March 20 13
,:Commission Expires June 30. 2 0 4

a .
. * .
,
.<
..;-
3 . .
. -- . ;- . .. - .
.
Appellant's Brief for Appeal Index No.: 12-055 15 - Page 60 of 60

-against-

2012-05515
Defendants / Respondents. APPELLANTS APPENDIX
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, Plaintiff Appellant / Private US Citizen Self-represented w/o being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281, Brooklyn, New York 11238. 845-901-6767 E-mail: chris@strunk.ws
APPELLANT'S APPENDIX APPEAL CASE INDEX NO.: 2012-05515 APPENDIX INDEX APX PAGE NO: 1 3 4 6 7 717 10 17 19 20-A 21-A 24 26
Entry Date
February 20, 2013 February 13, 2013 February 13, 2013 October 26, 2012 October 18, 2012 June 18, 2012 May 23, 2012 May 23, 2012
Appellants Second Letter Request for Extension Time for filing by March 8, 2013 Judicial Subpoena of Original Record on Appeal for 6500-2011 Certification of Transcript for Index 6500-2011 Appellate Order Granting Extension of time Appellants First Letter Request for extension of time to perfect due by February 22, 2013 Order by Judge Schack denying Motion to Supplement the Complaint for Presentment of Evidence shown at 718 RADI - Request for Appellate Division Intervention - civil Notice of Appeal Notice of Entry (only) of Decision and Order by Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, LLP for George Soros Notice of Entry (only) of Decision and Order by Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky, & Lieberman, P.C. for the Socialist Workers Party and Roger Calero Notice of Entry (only) of Decision and Order by McGuire & Woods LLP for the Brzezinski Family Notice of Entry (only) of Decision and Order by Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered for McCain et al Notice of Entry (only) of Decision and Order by Wiley Rein LLP for John A. Boehner
February 15, 2013
Notice of Entry (only) of Decision and Order by Harris Beach PLLC for Penny Pritzker et al Notice of Entry (only) of Decision and Order by Michael A. Cardozo Corporation Counsel for the City of New York Campaign Finance Board, Notice of Entry (only) of Decision and Order by Joel Graber of the State of New York Attorney Generals Office Catholic Lawyers Guild, Diocese of Brooklyn Home Page http://www.catholiclawyersguildofkingscounty.com/
Page
28 29 30 34
Appellants Appeal Appendix Table of Contents
APPELLANT'S APPENDIX APPEAL CASE INDEX NO.: 2012-05515 APPENDIX INDEX APX PAGE NO:
Entry Date
May 6, 2012
May 7, 2012 May 3, 2012 April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 April 12, 2012
Amicus by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. entitled The New York State Court Should Not Sanction Pro Se Plaintiff, Christopher Earl Strunk, for His "Natural Born Citizen" Litigation http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/05/new-york-state-courtshould-not.html Transcript of OSC Proceeding Before Judge Schack Plaintiff filed a Response to the OSC of April 11, 2012 Decision and Order shown at APX 106 The April 11, 2012 Order and Decision the Supplement to the Complaint with Index No.; 6500-2011 Plaintiff Motion for Presentment of Evidence of Forgery and Spoliation as Supplement to the Complaint By Request for the Leave of the Court with the Supplement to the Complaint annexed thereto Plaintiff Affidavit in support of Notice of motion for presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint with: Exhibit 1 Maricopa County AZ Sheriffs Office Press Release March 1, 2012 Exhibit 2 AZ SOS Certified Affidavit by Barack Obama for AZ Ballot access 2007 Exhibit 3 Sheriff Arpaios COLD CASE POSSE Preliminary Report March 1, 2012 Exhibit 4 Forged Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form dated April 25, 2011 Exhibit 5 TRANSCRIPT of Barack Obama April 27, 2011 Press Conference Exhibit 6 Forged CoLB Short form stamped June 6, 2007 with Factcheck.org analysis Exhibit 7 July 29, 2010 certified U.S. DOS FOIA release of Stanley Ann Dunham Exhibit 8 Barack Obama perjured application for entry to the Illinois bar
39
49 79 106 834 718
718 730 736 740 751 753 768 777 792
Page
ii
Entry Date
January 3, 2012 November 19, 2011 October 25, 2011 October 21, 2011
October 15, 2011
October 5, 2011
Exhibit 9 statements by congressmen from November 11, 2008 thru February 2009 Plaintiffs Memorandum in support of Notice of motion for presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint Sua Sponte Appellate Order M130881 Appeal case 2011-11561 Notice of Appeal for Interlocutory Order with RADI statement for Appeal case 2011-11561 Judge Schack on October 25, 2011 declined to sign the OSC thereafter taken on appeal without leave Emergency Application for an Order to Show Cause in regards to The New York State Board of Elections involvement in an extrinsic fraud Discovered after August 11, 2011 Order to Show Cause for a Mandamus Stay and Injunction Affidavit in support of Order to Show Cause for a Mandamus Stay and Injunction regarding Born a Citizen with: Exhibit 1 Stipulation of Extension between Plaintiff and State Defendants Exhibit 2 - Pre-Discovery Conference Notice Exhibit 3 NYT Article on State of New Hampshire Presidential Primary Exhibit 4 Expert Witness Kevin Richard Powell Affidavit with sub-exhibits A thru E Sub-exhibit A Credentials of Kevin Richard Powell Sub-exhibit B - http://pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/10/newyork-state-boe-website-cover-up. Report by Mr. Powell Sub-exhibit C DVD of actual on-line research by Mr. Powell Sub-exhibit D printout of his DNS report with the IP trace. Sub-exhibit E - Mr. Arena confirms that evidenced in The Internet Archive's source code on line 221 as can be seen in the screenshot referred to as Exhibit E Exhibit 5 - October 12, 2011 Plaintiff email to States Counsel
793 810 154 158 155 164 168 171 189 192 194 199 212 215 240 242 250 257
Page
iii
Entry Date
October 20, 2011 August 22, 2011 August 11, 2011 July 28, 2011 May 31, 2011
Exhibit 6 - Minor v. Happersett as Standing Precedent on Citizenship Exhibit 7 - October 14, 2011, States Counsel email to Plaintiff regarding Stipulation Exhibit 8 October 13, 2011 on the Post & Email Article by Creg Maroney Exhibit 9 October 7, 2011 that denied access to records Exhibit 10 October 17, 2011 NYS BOE Denial of records Exhibit 11 2008 Election Pamphlet Exhibit 12 WND Article about Soros considerable investment in Uganda oil Memorandum in support of Order to Show Cause for a Mandamus Stay and Injunction Transcript of the Motions Hearing Proceeding Before Judge Schack Second Extension of time for the State Defendants to answer Notice of appearance by New York State Attorney General Office with First Stipulation for extension of time to answer Plaintiffs Combined Response to the Motions to Dismiss of SOEBARKAH et al. and McCain et al. PLAINTIFFS COMBINED AFFIDAVIT In Opposition To Defendant Candidates McCain and Obama Motions To Dismiss the Complaint affirmed May 31, 2011 with: Exhibit 1: June 2008 BHO II CoLB; Exhibit 2: U.S. Senate Sense Resolution 511; Exhibit 3: CE Strunk duly fires BHO II January 23, 2009; Exhibit 4: Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of November 18, 1903; Exhibit 5: Certified Birth Certificate of john Sidney McCain III by the Panama Canal Company; Exhibit 6: August 26, 2009 letter from White House to Christopher Strunk; Exhibit 7: a copy of the March 20, 1964 Divorce Decree between Stanley Ann D. Obama and Barack Hussein Obama Sr.
261 273 277 284 288 292 311 320 326 189
627
627 653 655 658 668 671 676 679
Page
iv
Entry Date
May 23, 2011
March 11, 2011 January 11, 2011
Exhibit 8: copy of a portion of the INS records of Barack Hussein Obama Senior; Exhibit 9: a copy of the Long Form Birth Certificate CoLB released on April 27, 2011; Exhibit 10: April 3, 2009 Congressional Research Service legal memorandum on POTUS Qualification and eligibility Plaintiffs Cross Motion opposing the Pro Hac Vice Motion and for Transfer and Consolidation NOTICE OF MOTION For Transfer, Consolidation And New Return Date AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION affirmed May 17, 2011 Exhibit 1: RJI signed May 2, 2011; Exhibit 2: Notice of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Todd E. Phillips affirmed May 4, 2011 w/o NOM; Exhibit 3: Defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAINPALIN VICTORY 2008 and John S, McCain's Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Complaint affirmed May 2, 2011; Exhibit 4: with Defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, Joseph R. Biden Jr., OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND 's Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Complaint 5-2-2011; Sub-exhibit A Summons and Complaint 6500-2011 Sub-exhibit B Summons and Complaint 29642-08 Sub-exhibit C Complaint EDNY Case 08-cv-4289 Sub-exhibit D-1 Order re Amend - Renew denied 29642-08 Sub-exhibit D-2 Order NOM Nunc pro tunc denied 29642-08 Sub-exhibit E Sua Sponte Memorandum and Order of dismissal of Complaint EDNY Case 08-cv-4289 Exhibit 5: STIPULATION of EXTENSION of Time granted by Plaintiff to the State and the City of New York filed with the Clerk of the Court May 12, 2011 ; Exhibit 6: Chamber's Rules of Arthur M . Schack J.S.C.; Exhibit 7: Docket for 29642-08 by the Clerk of the Court;
685 698 700 393
393 395 407 410 421 437 457 507 533 545 546 548
557 560 567

v
Page
APPELLANT'S APPENDIX APPEAL CASE INDEX NO.: 2012-05515 APPENDIX INDEX APX PAGE NO: 569 574 615 421 410 437 406 841 457 507 548
Entry Date
April 28, 2011
May 4, 2011 May 4, 2011 May 2, 2011 May 2, 2011 May 31, 2011 March 22, 2011 October 27, 2008 October 30, 2008
Exhibit 8: Proposed STIPULATION of EXTENSION of return date for New York and NYC; Exhibit 9: Petition for Writ of Prohibition with request for quo warranto request. Memorandum of Law Defendants John Sidney McCain III et al. Motion to Dismiss Defendants John Sidney McCain III et al. DC Counsel Motion Pro Hac Vice Defendants SOEBARKAH et al. Motion to Dismiss RJI filed by Local counsel for Defendants John Sidney McCain III et al. Amended Summons Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011 Summons & Complaint filed Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011 Summons and Complaint filed with NYS Sup Ct. Kings Cty. Index No.: 29642-08 Memorandum and Order of USDJ Allyne R. Ross dismissing EDNY Case 08-cv-4289 Complaint sua sponte denying issuance of summons and or service Complaint without Summons received by Clerk of EDNY with sua sponte Case No.: 08-cv-4289 requesting IFP relief of fees and service by U.S. Marshals TESTIMONY at the Joint - Senate Standing Committee on Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs Article: Heimishe Mentch on the Bench, Supreme Court Justice David I. Schmidt, honored in Brooklyn http://chaptzem.blogspot.com/search?q=heimishe+mentch
TESTIMONY at THE ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING the implementation of the Court of Appeals decision in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity Lawsuit.
October 20, 2008
533 844 35
October 15, 2007 May 25, 2007
December 9, 2003
847 857
May 21, 1985
State of New York Legislative Resolution commending Christopher Strunk
Page
vi
Christopher-Earl: S t f i n k i
sse
Appellant self-represented w & a t t ~ r i p e y ~ 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - # 2 @ 2 fl fl Brooklyn. New York 11238 Z C 0 (845)901-6767; Email: c h r i @ ! . G
@
2
) ss.
m
L
COUNTY OF KINGS
Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse being duly sworn, depose and say under penaltyof perjury:
The Honorable APRILANNE AGOSTINO derk of the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT 45 Monroe Place Brooklyn, NY 11201
l . Appeal C a s e 12Re: Strunk v NEW PORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et a 0 5 5 1 5 from NYS Sup. Ct. Kings Cty Index No.: 6 5 0 0 - 2 0 1 1 w/ D e c i s i o n a n d Order
Subject: REQUEST FOR SECOND ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO PERFECT APPEAL with 22 NYCRR PART 670 PROCEDURE IN THE APPELLATE DMSION 9 670.4 (a)(3)
Dear Clerk of the Court, Affirmant / Appellant is self-represented without an attorney located at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 within the State of New York subdivision of the city of New York with telephone 845-901-6767 and Email: chri@strunk.ws; and hereby affirms this affidavit in support of the required letter Notice with 22 NYCRR PART 670 PROCEDURE IN THE APPELLATE DIVISION 670.4 ( a ) ( 3 ) for THE SECOND enlargement of time from February 22, 20 13 (first extension order APX - 3 ) to March 8, 2013 to file Appellant's Brief and Appendix (see draft h t t ~ : /www.scn'bd.com/doc/ / 94586470/) That Affirmant's for request is for good cause in that Appellant: (i) (ii) has until 2-28-13 to deliver the original record of the trial court with case index no.: 20 11-6500 according to the subpoena issue 2- 13-13 (see APX - 6); on 2- 13-13 also attempted to obtain a Subpoena for the original record of the active case 08-29642 in Sup Ct Kings (see APX - 390 to 3 9 1 )however was denied by the appellate clerk despite the record being germane herein; and furthermore, Appellant requires a second time extension because Appellant does not have sufficient funds to pay for the filing fee meets the requirements for relief, and requests a Fee waiver and or payment schedule (see the Motion for Poor Person relief attached herewith).
(iii)
APX - . 1
A s to the foregoing t h e same is true to my own knowledge, except a s to the mahers therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and a s to those matters I'klieve it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3 r d parties, books and records, and personal knowledge; and Affirmant will testify to these facts and matters in open court and or 'by special appearance.
.
.,
2 ,
.,.y7 i . - , ..
. F
I
Sworn to beforepy This 3dda.ofFFebruarv 9013 ..-., ,/q // , -.; ,/,.y,. . ' ,
J r
>
.. ' ( ' i s . '~~.'~--.-.

1 . :
I.,
Christopher-Earl: Strunk
,
, '
, . ,
.. ' , .</ . . ,'. 7 x&-~:'~~bk'
. ./---
, . .,. . . ..' , i; 4;'.
. , . ,
\-
'w,'.
C.
/ ,<-JOEL GRABER, Esq.Assistant Attorney General for ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of NYS
Special Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau 120 BROADWAY - 2 4 t h Floor New York, New York 10271-0332 CHLARENS ORSLAND. Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel for MICHAEL CARDOZO Esq. Corporation Counsel of City of New York New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York. New York 10007
Erika Burk, Esq. of SIMPSON THACHER (B BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York. New York 10017-3954 Todd E. Phillips, Esq. of CAPLIN 86 DRYSDALE, CHARTERED One Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 By THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. of HARRIS BEACH, PLLC The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553 JAMES C. DUGAN Esq. of WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y. 10019-6099 MARSHAL BELL, E s q .of McGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Americas. 7 t h Floor New York, New York 1 0105 TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ. JAN WITHOLD BARAN ESQ. THOMAS W. KIRBY ESQ. of WILEY REIN LLP 1776K Street, N W Washington D.C. 20006 Christopher J. Latell Esq. and Daniel S. Reich Esq. RABINOWITZ, BOUDTN, STANDARD,KRINSKY &' LIEBERMAN, PC 45 Broadway. Suite 1700 New York. New York 10006-3791
APX -
Bupreme Qourt of file &ate of %w ?lJork Appellate Biuisian: 5ecmr3 3ubirini Bepartmenf
/ V m)5,,,lc m ~ ~ ~ $ f F1ece;mc~ i n d
TO the Clerk of the
s ; j i I ~ . b w M L
Appellate Division Docket No.:
( 9 5 ~ i
THEPEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Court,
GREETING:
K> NO, s V
County.
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, that all business and, excuses being laid aside, you appear before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department, at the courthouse thereof, Ipca ed at 45 Monroe Place, Brooklyn, New York, 11201, on LmA&* .U ,20=, and that you bring with you or before the @ ; day of and produce at that time and place:
The entire case file in the above-entitled matter, bearing Index No. or
/The papers constituting the record on appeal in accord with CPLR 5526 from $ order (judgment) (f 0 : ;sb?(nhe Court, K~NQ T County, dated S 6 r made in the above-enhkled m ag, 7 bearing Index No. b S Cb w 5 p and/or -0 <tT
i;;
!, ,
8)
2x
rGb
3 ~ :
. ru
c z r--
J-
now in your custody. In lieu of a personal appearance, the requirements of this subpoena may be met by delivery of the material by mail or overnight delivery service, provided that it is received on or before the return date set forth herein. Failure to c a p l y with this subpoena is punishable as a contempt of court and shall make you liable to-the person on whose behalf this subpoena is issued for a penalty not to exceed fifty dollars and all damages sustained by reason of your failure to comply. is Cdurt, at Brooklyn, New York, the
Attomey(s) for.
, -
Aprilanne Agostino
Officeand Post Office Address:

- -
Clerk
t?!z~H
b y ~
5-73 L / H & ~ ~ ~ R C , B &
9 ~t c 2 & w
APX - 3
Certification
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF KINGS, SS:
I ,Nancy T. Sunshine, County Clerk and Clerk of Supreme Court Kings County,
do hereby certify that on February 13,2013 1 have compared the document attached hereto,
INDEX 6500112011,2/1312013, Certified Minutes

with the originals filed in my office and the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original in witness whereto I have affixed my signature and seal.
Nancy T. Sunshine
Kings County Clerk
APX
./
Kings County Clerk's Office
Page 1 of 1
6540 1 2011
..
Opened: 312212011 Type: Other STRUNK, CHRISTOPHER-EARL vs. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ETAL Atty: Atty: PRO SE
Filed
Actions
6/19/2012 R Order dtd 6/18/12 5/23/2012 E Notice appeallradi, copy ord, afft svc, fee paid 511512012 P Copy ord. notice entry, afft.svc. 5/2/2012 h 2 Affidavit of sew. 4/27/2012 B, Copy ord. notice entry-affm. svc. 4/27/2012 E Copy ord. notice entry, afft.svc. 4/13/2012 @ Decision and order .. ... DTD. 4111112 4/12/2012 @ MOTION COVERPAGE FEE PD. PLNTF. 3 MOTION COVERPAGE fee pdlp 21912012 E 11/22/2011 D Notice appeallradi, copy ord, afft svc, fee paid ? 2 Endorsed Order dated 10/21/11 (On OSC Declined to Sig~ ?0/28/2011 i 10/21/2011 :S Order to Show Cause Coverpage fee pdlp 811712011 1 MOTION COVERPAGE fee pdld 7/28/2011 % ! Notice of appearance 7/22/2011 IS MOTION COVERPAGE FEE PD. DEFT. 7/20/2011 1Affidavit of sew. 6 7/12/2011 Motion Coverpage No Fee ,cplr 8019d, letter, city 711212011 i Z $ MOTION COVERPAGE fee pd. defl. 7/6/2011 B Affidavit of sew. 6/24/2011 Ei Affidavit of sew. -7 6/14/2011 P MOTION COVERPAGE fee pd/mail/d 6/13/2011 I MOTION COVERPAGE fee pdld 61212011 @ Stipulation to Extend time to Respond 5/24/2011 !Q MOTION COVERPAGE fee pd. deft. 5/23/2011 1 Affidavit of sew. 2 5/23/2011 4 2 Cross Motions Coverpage fee pd ,plntf. 5/18/2011 B MOTION COVERPAGE FEE PD D 5/17/2011 R MOTION COVERPAGE FEE PD. DEFT. 511U2011 B Stipulation 5/12/2011 k2 Affidavit of serv. 51512011 U MOTION COVERPAGE fee pdld 5/2/2011 D MOTION COVERPAGE fee pd. deft. 5/2/2011 P MOTION COVERPAGEfee pd. deft. 5/2/2011 R Req. judical intewen. fee paid d 4125l2011 % Afiidavit of sew. 6 411312011 P Affidavit of sew. -7 4/6/20?1 P Affidavit of sew. 7 3/22/2011 a Summ. & compl. Total: 38
file://C:Documents and Settings\mbencebi\Local Settings\Temp\C!erk\EUUSB.xmI

-
2/ 13/2013
APX -
Stnmk v New York State Board of Elections

A
Strunk v New York State Board of Elections Motion No: 2012-05515 Slip Opinion No: 2012 NY Slip Op 8 9 1 2 9 0 Decided on October 26,2012 Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision
- Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 5 Published by New York State Law Reporting 431.
II
This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Offrcial Reports.
Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
Christopher-Earl Strunk, appellant, v New York State Board of Elections, et a)., respondents. (Index No. 6500111) ORDER ON APPLICATION
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 11,2012. Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until February 22,2013, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date. ENTER: Aprilanne Agostino Clerk of the Court
A
lofl
_-
APX -
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse

Appellant self-represented w/o an attorney 593 Vsderbitt Avenue #281
B r o o k l y n . New York. 1 1238

(845)901-6767; Email: c h r i ~ t r u n b . w s
Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Sttunk i n esse being duty sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:
The Honorable APRILANNE AGOSTINO Clerk of the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DMSION>ECOND DEPARTMENT 45 Monroe Race Brooklyn,NY 11201
%% 82 SF t3P
I n -
-m 5
8-
-urn
Re: 86unk s NEW SDRKSTATE BCMRD OF ELECTIONS . t L . lMI S U B . - " Countp Index S o . : 6500-2011 with Decision and Order taken on AqifjSl - c; 0
l&pm
Yt
Subject:
. -m c
FOR EaWRaEMEX'JT OF TIME TO F%RFECT TRE APFML wfbfa2 k PART 670 PROCEDUREm THE APPELLATEDMSIO~P$670.4 (a)(3)
t
%
20
- '-.D>w ~)&k,@f h e Court, ..
. . "Affinnant / Appellant is self-represented wisout & attohiq-16&t~f1!'% i 593
Vanderbilt Avenue -281BrooMyn, New York 11238 within the State of New York f New York with telephone 845-901-6767' and Email: subdivision of the city o chris@stntnk.ws; and hereby affirms this affidavit in support o f the required letter Notice with 22 NYCRR PART 670 PROCEDURE M THE APPEUATE DMSiON'670.4 ( a ) ( 3 ) for enlargement of time from November 23,2012to February 22,2013 to perfect the appeal taken from the Decision and Order without a finaljuclgment (see -it A) with Notice of Appeal filed May 23,2012 (see Exhibit B ) . That Affirmant has good cause for the requested enlargement of time to perfect the appeal in that inter alia Appellant has b e n alleged by the lower court to have filed a frivolous case in regards to the ongoing fraud associated with the state of New York general election scheduled for November 6,2012in the election of the candidate slate of the New York electoral college scheduled to cast their advisory vote for the New York Candidate for the Office of President and Vice Resident of the United States (POTUS) by December 15,2012. Appellant does not wish to have the Court wnflate the subject matter of this. appeal to be perfected by November 23,2012 mistaken as interference with the scheduled December 15,2012 election and scheduled oath of office 3 & u q 20,2013. This appeal deals with the facts associated with of the enormity of Justice Arthur M. Schack's invidious infringement of Plaintiffs First amendment through Eight amendment rights that by a premature appeal would involve by implication the
APX -
Index N o . : 6500-2011
Christopher-Ead: Sttunk in esse,

Plaintiff,
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al.,
COUNTY OF KINGS
Defendants.
P -
STATE OF NEW YORK )

)
Accordingly, I, WL(.tbd ~ S l w y b e & duly g sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:
a . Am over 1 8 years of age and not a parw to this action. b. My place of bu iness i s located at V P c7 f3n0 c. On October 2012,Chri:topher serr4%e c o n f o n n ~ % ~ " , t h e Lmer REQUEST EY)R EKEARGEXEST OF TIBdE TO PERFX.3' THE APPEAL wfth 22 WCRR PART 670 PROCEDURE IN THE APPELLATE DMSIOR 670.4 (a)(3)affirmed (October 18,2012 with exhibits annexed for the appeal case Sbunk v NYS BOE et nL NYS County of Kings Supreme Court with mdex 6500-201 1, by USPS d c e upon Appellees' Counsels. S~RV d. On October &, 2012,I caused each copy with proper postagc for service byae%b@ ma11of listed counsels and going to the post office where each envelope was deposited with the USPS for d c e upon:
$ .
5 %
in~ct%Zz
I["?--38
Erica Burke, Esq.of SIMPSON THACHER 8s B A R ' LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York. New York 10017-3954
RITA C. TOBIN, Esq. of CAPLIN 86 DRYSDALE, CHARTERED 375 Park Avenue 35th Floor New York.New York 10152-3500 HARRIS BEACH, PLLC By THOMAS J. GARRY, Egq. 901 Utuondde. New York 11553 The OMNI 333 Earle Ovlngton Blvd.,
JAMES C. DUGAN Esq. of WILLKIE FARR 8s GALLAGHER LLP

787 Seventh Avenue Now York, N.Y. 10019-6099
MARSHAL BELL, Esq.of McGUIRWOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Americas, 7th moor New York, New York 10105 W Y REIN U P TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ.. ! A N WITHOLD B THOMAS W. KIRBY ESQ. 1776K Street. NW Washgton D.C. 20206
M ESQ. and
RABINOWI'IZ, BOUDM, STANDARD, KRJJ?SKY& LIEBERMAN,PC -ChrktopherI . Latell Esq. and Daniel S. Reich Esq. 45 Broadway,Suite 1700 New York, New York 10W3791
ERIC T. SCHNMDERMAN Attorney Generd of NYS by: JOEL GRABER, Esq. AAG Assistant Attom General Special Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau 120 BROADWAY 2 4 t h moor New York, New York 10g1-0332
MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By: CHLARENS ORSLAND, E s q .Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New Ymk, New York 10007
Sworn to before me This ig day of October 2012
APX -
appearance of Judicid real politic; and as such impropriety must be avoided by an enlargement of time until say February 22,2013 as an appropriate date. That Appellant's contention for need of enlargement of time is further supported by the fact that Justice Arthur M. Schack has still more than six months after h a t could submission of Defendants' counsels costs not issued a final Judgment t exceed say $500,000.00; and as such, ipso facto the Judgment withheld u n t i l aft* the December 15,2012 election is res ipsa loquitur, and is further evidence to support a mandate with use of NYS Civil Service Law I05 as to Justice Arthur M. Schack and those who have aided and abetted his misprision of a felony, sedition and tresson. As to the foregoing the same is true t o m y o m knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge; and M i a n t will testify to these facts and matters in open c o u . and ~ or
sworn to before me This /B day of October 20 12
._
, --
..
No. 01HA6044027 Qualified In Kings Cou cammi~~ion E X ~ W ~une%, ~ S Erika B u r k Esq. of SIMPSON THACHER 8b BARlU3T U P 425 b r d n p Avenue New York New York 10017-3954
E O o t a r y Publk, State o f New Ybrk
cc:
a01J
-TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ. JAN WITHOLD BARAN ESQ. THOMAS W. K I M ESQ. of WILEY REEN LLP f 776K Street. NW Washington D.C. 20006 Christopher J . Latell Esq. and Daniel S. Rcich Esq. RABINOWPIZ,BOUDIN,STANDJUW, KRINSKY 8s LIEBERMAN, PC 45 Broadway,Suite 1700 New York, New Ymk 10006-3791
Todd E .M p s , Eaq. of CAPWN & DRYSDALE,CHARTERED One Thomas C i , N.W., Suite 1 100, Washington, DC 20005
By THOMAS J, GAIZRY, Esq.of HARRIS BEACH. PLLC
m e OMM 333 Earle OPinRton Blvd.. Suite 901 Uniondale, NW-YO& 11553
JAMES C. DUOAN Esq. of WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New Yo*, N.Y. 10019-6099
JOEL GRABER,Esq. Assistant Attorney General for ERlC T . SCHNEIDERMAN Attomey General of NYS SpcciaJ Litigation Counsel Litigation gureau 120 BROADWAY 24th Floor New York, New York 10271-0332
MARSHAL BELL, ESQ. of McGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Amcrk~s, 7th - Floor New York, New York 10105
CHtARENS ORSLAND, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel for MICHAEL CARDOZO Esq. Coqmation Counsel of City of New York New York City Law Deparbnent lo0 Church Street New York, New Yo* 10007
APX -
Form A
- Request for Appellate Division interyention - Civil

See 5 670.3of the ndas of this ccrurt for diracdans on the use of this form (22 NYCRR 6 7 0 . 3 ) .
~uprrmr doud of t[?r B h t e nf B e f n Bark &p(trllnf~ pibieinn r ,$%lconb guhici&l ~ ~ @ r f m
e n f
0 Specis! Prmetding Other
3 CPkn 5704 b v r s w
37 33 04 05 a6
Puman R.ghts
Licenses
P~blrc Fmplnymem
J 2 A!Iarr\e{'s Fees 3 3 Ch~ldraq- Suppan 3 4 Chfldren - C u s t ~ / V l a t t a t # o n
Social Ssworhw
05
L1 2 3 3 44 e35
B~$~rtass Rdqym~s
Not-far-Protlt
Children Termtnttte Parental R1gbf.s 0 6 Children Alsusamealect Chaldren. JDIRKS Eq~~ttebls Distrjbut~on 0 9 Exclu~wa Occupancy of -
04
Environmsnml
Abuse a! Prbcaas
mrid6czcn
O 10 Expert's Fees 3 1 1 Malntenance/Alimmy
0 5 Uvns
0 6 Mortgrpsr e3 7 Partitian 108 ~anf I ' a9 Taxstkn , tl r o ton in^
Other
/ 3 12
-
Merltal Status
CL 8 Ma~nrsctlect 8 9 tdeqtigems CJ 10 Numance 5 11 P r o ~ t Ljability a

0 t 2 Strim Uabili~y Trrmpats andtar Warn r) 14 Other
3 13 Paramity
~114 SP~USSIS V D P O ~ ~
D 13
C13 U4 Q6 36 37 R8 09
Conntrwt~on Emptoyment
Insomms Real Propany

Sales Secured Other
lr,t 2
Debto: & Cred~tor
C3srlar f 9 120. : 21-f,or
,d Z
Dtscovery
(; 13 Declaratafy Judgmon: 3 4 Ekmion Law
i
i
1 -1 3 ProbstnIAdm~nastrat~on
Notim of Claiv
U Z Emtnent Doma~n Procodwe Lsw f 2 0 7 i 0 3 Grmarsi Mvnicipel Law

f 712
O4 (2 5
Labor Uw 4 2 2 0
Public Service Law 5 i 128
t i
I
hA-RAM-ChrE
of 170 0 6 Otkr
-
APX -
10
D AmsMJed Dectcse
3 D~termtnatior,
O Order
D Resented Order
I
t
'IjiC D ~ c ~ s i o n
* -
Q Intsrtacutdry Judgment
Judgma'rt
J Denss
-- rj Ressttlad Judgment .
"-e
_ _ I____I ^- - - - IX
0 RnS??tl+d Decrre
"
R"F L II
.-
.--.
Zor'Z'
Judgs Insme in CM!):
Stage: O fntttrtoeutory s ~ i n s l
r4 ~c-H-
----
""
-- .Entered:
lndax N o . :
L -
.-
..
3,201
O Past-Finat
!trial: O
Yes
J;lrhlo
if Yes: '3 Jury
Nan-JU~V
onv t.;nporfcc:hd ~ c o o a l sr J ~ r ~ d ~If1 ta :-Is cast.' v ~ 5 f l NO covwed by the annexcd notice of aopeel wi?h the pllor apprn;s7 Nurnborrs~of any prior. pandtng, unverfectsd appsak: Q(
F.
w t 8 n * d ~ ~ ~ -3, ~ =IZb a 1k ~ 7 4 ~ 5 0 & 4 ~ cr j

LJ'~I--P~~CP bC' ~ -1 ,-.
If ve9, d~ 7'3~1 ' n t ~ r K i10 ~ f i r ~ ~The r ' t appral or apot:dl Ye!: J Yn, Set forth t?r Appeilate Drvia~onCaus
II 5 6
i -
-- ---"-Satufe authorixins cornmencmnt of ptotaadrng in tha A~pallato Dtvisroq:

"
Order :r. C ~ I O WC J a ~ i v e 3 Nnr rca o f Po- tlo?
Ll -
I.>-11of tidtc::~r Corpuz - ---"
'
L)a:e t
--
I'P>S.I
--
--I I
-
, Cou*:. -4
"
<c.~rr~ry
& A
---.. --
- " A
[~udgs !name i? fufl):
Order of Transfar Dnts:
G r t
j Judge (name in full):
'
c9.Jl,t\
- -
. --
Dstad:
1 Dpscrrotmn.
f
' t .*n appcai, brrrfii. a p r c r ~ h -r h - p a o m noo-dlcd tvorn I! 1 7 ~ a ' p p r d l 1s fro!r~a ordr:r, ?p'>rl*v t h n r ~ l t p + rnq l n s r ~ d darnrr~ssrc~Cf .n thts C O U ~or transferred pursuant t o and \wtthether thw rnurlan was granted o7'denied If an or-grnal 11racf;wdlrrg CFLR 7804(g), briefly desurba t-8 objmct af the pracssdirg. ff 8n application under Cel-A 5704, briefly describe the nature o f f the ax pone rider to be reviewed.
? ? I ~ M~ ~ ~ f S " P b ? / ~cotqp~~%'nrf h p ~ ~ ~ C O4 7 H q 2 t ~-+.r/fi~+ P t y % ~ ! 9 ~ S fl$o*)LLJS ' -p msmGSl D w W ahfie ~ m u n c rn ~hal~qzg ca w god- q 4 9~ W(T& S " A B ~C M US>~~~
W u m :
#ssms:
If m a p p d k from m p5grnmt. s ~ a i f y tho ansum awwdsd, fb&$f&&LZ/ 0 o@@@ S p ~ i f the y M w s pmposbd to bn teiod on the apacal, promding, or ar~pfieat an far CPL. 5704 reviatw.
$TOO,
...
.~
APX -
11
---
1. Judge Schack maliciously ddayed his decision on the case until Aprir 11,2012, a t which time he entered his Decision and Order.
2. Judge Schack erred when he $ranted defendants' motions and dismissed $trunk's complete complaint with prejudice. 3 . Judge Sc'frackerred when he granted a motion to admit pro haa vice one of t33e dekndant's attorney from Washington DC,fmding that he was in good standing. 4. Judge SckEack expressed his bias when in Ms opinion stated that "[ijf the complakkt i n this action was a mavie script, it would be entitled The Manchurian Candidate Meets The Da Vinu Codc." 5 . Judge Schack crred when he found that Strunk did not auficimtly allege an i n j q i n fact and therefore does not have standing which musts the court not to have jurisdiction over his claims. 6. Judge Schack e d and expressed bias when he found that because it i s not possible to easily gain notice from reading h i s complaint what his particular cause of action i s ,the complaint must be dismissed for failure ta state a cause o f action. 7. Judge Schack erred when he concluded that S W s fraud claim d s o needed t o be dismissed because he did not plead with particularity that he relied upon any of the defendmts' statement and did not plead that he suffered any pecuniary loss as st result o f dtement o f m y of the defendants. 8. Judge Schack erred when found thst thc: court: has no jurisdiction because oftbe political question doctrine and txcause, wxlc finding no problem with his semi= upon the other main dcfendmts, 9. Judge Schack erred when he found that Strunk did nut properly serve O b m a and
McCain.
10.Judge S&ack e m d when he concluded that Sfnmk already litigated 'many of the issues" i n the instant action in federal court and in Strunk v. Patemon, Index No. 29642/08,as if where the issues were decided against him ignored the fact that Justice Schmidt had urged the f h g of the new suit on January 1 1,201 1.
1 1. T h t Judge Schack erred when he found that under the doctrine of collated estoppel, Strunk could nut re-litigate or renew those scme or even new issues i n the; instant action.
12.Jx.1dgeS c b k erred when fie also denied Strunk's cross motion to consolidate the inatant action with mother N m York state case, S t m n k v . Pate-, and to transfer the case to Judge Schmidt because the Patmm case was &ready dismissed when it i s still carried as actit*. 13.Judge M a c k erred when he d s a &Ltrmieeac$ Strunk's complaint on the gruund that i t was bath factndy and legally frivolous. 14.Judge Schack erred when he also ordered that Strunk is precluded from refibgating the same claims against the same defendants i n the New York state court without first obtaining prior written &pprovalfrom an administrativejustice or judge.
Issue cm Appeal Page I of 2
--
.-.
APX -
12
15.Judge Schack erred when he never ruled on S W s application that the Board of
Elections be made to correct the ballot instmctjon for election for the:Ofice of Prcaident to say not 'born a Citizen," but rather "naturalborn Citizen."
16.Judge Schack hm s h m actual bias m d malice at the May 7, 2012 hearing and err4 when he ordered that Struck shou7 cause:why he should not be made to pay for the costs incurred by all the defendants in Raving to retain and pay for their attorneys to defend them against his action. 17.1Xat Judge Schack e m d when presented with actual admissions and evidence .sufficient to be irs.r:Iudtdas n su~ppbmmd to the complaint at t h e 1Of2!5/11 hearing that the etrurt declined t o sign this OSC.Afkging therein This issue i s not ripe until candidates fde nominating petitions for publc offifice for President of U . S . i n several rnantha. Further, t h e Co~ztt will [not1 stop fund-rising by m y candidate because candidates have a right t o raise money pursuant t o statute and the First Amendment. The issue ofcandidatct qualification i s subject to Court action after nominating petitions are submitted and candidates are chdlmgcd i n Court." lfi.Jud,ge .%hack erred when it refurred to hear the admission on the part o f the State that it had not conformed to the express terms of the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 i n the instructions to prosyxcc~ve candidates far the offrce af President of the United States (POTL'S) 19,JudgeSchack erred when it unilaterally m t c d the State tl. third dpen ended extension of time to .o+swer the complaint when the State i s &ged the facilitator o f the injury i n fact to plainM while all the other Defendants have responded with mtion~ to Cfisrniss that are pending and integraI to the State respdnse for the Court to p~opealy decide the motions; X).Judge Schaek erred t o hear t h e application when i n fact the issues raised.by the State admission as concIusive proof are cdntrolling of the m0tiCm~ before the court, 21 .Judge Schack e m d when it has the duty to decide a motion to transfer and consolidate fmt h s c d upon the State's ~ d m i s s i m o f facititation of wrongdoing i n the prior election cycle continuing into the present election cycle and the Court went so fnr even with the admission of f~cElitntion that ?,haisme i s NOT RPE. 22.Judge Schack expressed bias toward plaintifl when refusing to heat the application based upon State's admission sun-tTolling to the issues raising i n the complaint denied a transcript record, and denied a fmt amended complaint that wouId incorporate the State's admission of facilitation of Defendants to injtj=lre PIriintia alang with those similarly situated. 23. Judge Sdlack expressed bias tmard Waintiff for multiple additional reasons including the caurt characterization that p1,laintX i s pursing a deluded fiction, i n which the C0u.t-t intentiundly m i s ~ p r t s m t d Plaintiffs complaint and superimposed the courts own set of facts not before it. 24.,7udge Schack with a n a p p e m c e of hpropritfy e r r & rs?'frcnhe did not recw& himself fmm hearing the sanction trial and instead conducted a start chamber preceding instead on the charges invaded by the Court as prosecutor, jury and
cxecutioner.
25. Judge Schnck denied accused discovew and ability to call ~vibesses i n his defense.
APX -
13
Cxsmblm d I r s a w s an@ s m w . 1mb6e.piwn~ff, drlwd.rr:. Fill m t h n m s o f each p s r ~ vID IM s c w n cw wo;aahna, m b I~t~11dan. name per bna Ir this farm 1% 10 b f d s d tor on m a ! . mdtcatn the status of rhs Wtl:*ww;. m u 1 6 a . dmrnan~. W t m m 1Wd.parly p U u ~ ~ r ftha&pef~'r , psrry m Ihs nrutl o r o q m # l hrtrncs and NS. her. o f m SZ*~U.r? tbs court. 4f rkrcenda% .MI nnavrmr. Fn~mdsrol D psny'r &ownnn b m e n n srmru* rnv, I# ttur form ts m h f i dfar I ~ I ranmsocad W m Ibr toun. I;# In indudo: (IPmIW, m p D R d # l l , auudantrssp~t. rapand.ntwUnl, LrarMlOnn. a d i n m w r . w t y th.putv's mnu m d hi#. ha, or s~ staws m this wuri.
ND.
1
wf
P a w Name
Original Status
Appellate Dlvision Status
.;~MRD &F R=T~&
W ? w DHP~
DEFOY~C~F 1
AU#flvw7-&*
2
3
~ Q r n d k
I)DCICW~ A. I a L m
f i t ? /
:[
APX -
14
r t t l in tlm n k m of ~ *a ~ W W M M f m s of a n w w f W the -I rcunrawa psmisr. If ttns lorn rr ra b . (ired w:th ths mum of putitton ~i order
trr
movldsd.
.vht&
d~lsrs Dtvisian,
rpmrf p-ng tlm bra d the
1%
mmuy
h the wmm 1tHt s Htlgnrrl t.Braunh h a d f o r himsM, Ihs ta I m w m m n r m d in t h ~ N n r d 'Pto St' must kr &mlccd Rnd ?ha spDraPi6lr infwmetlon lob fw pmlm b . w m iIuxH k RlOdird h th swc.8~ &ed.
M x rtur
Addres JAMES C DUG-
- -,-
Fq.d F ml % w n.y, 1001~a09fi Repxe=eW GEORGE SOrrOS

Retained
7819
A -
New York;
I
Attorney Type:
5 Assigned
0 Go~emmmt 17 Pro Se
Q Pro Hac Wee
Ciw:
Tekvhane No.:
alate:
L~D:
TeisDhone Na.:
1~!:alhtj 1 I ] I I I w - d b e . * r q7th Plaor Ker Ymlg Attorney-m. -&g M ~ G U ~ WOOD9 FS UP ZBIGMEf fW3f.'IEeB-qBFS!XZWSKI; y ( ~ Address: NCW York t O l O 5 R f = F
Party or Pnties Represented ~UH*sla-81
___ICI
A t t m e y Type:
)?$~srslnsd
C)A&gnad
DOmrammsm
D R . SF
0FbHn:Vice
,~~~
_ I
-- -
h aa a
-_ -___... m -
k n ~ ~ : _
tyf
J .
Attorney Type:
x ~ c s t h m d
O&af@nsd
D OaMmmeflt
i3 Ro Sa
0 P m yVice ~
i?fl*&+il' 1
I 1
~:
--
APX -
"
15
-.--
"-
A t t o m r y C i e n d Spxriql Litigstion Counsel L~hgatian B m u 120 BROAD WAY - 24th Floor N e w YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECI70KS; JAMES York, Near York IW71-U332 R q m m r t l i n e , : A. WALSH 1 Ch-Chliu, DOUGL4S A. FTLLMEK / &ChRir, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Cammimoncr, GREGORY P. PEfEFSON / Cammiagtoner, Deputy DirtclorTODD D.V i V , E m , D q x ~ t y
---
--
Chy: - ---.
- -. --
L.
------
State:
% . -
Zip:
Telephone No.: --
Attorney Type:
0 Retained
_ r . _
#hsibned
_ a -
Government
w a &ow a tmn fam Q:
Q Pro Se
0 Pro Hao Vice
Party o r Part& Represented r m (mtr pww mmb.rls!
1-Attom -- m a C A R O O Z O
,
__
1 &City afNew YoFk Bp.CKL4.RENS 0 m \ N I ) , Eoq. Addre k3.i-t - s N e r r Ymk City Inr t 100 Church S m New Y & , NCI . -- h k 10007 R t p y m m g ; pk. JOSEm A Q ' W E ,S.J.; J a S m P . P m ,S.J.; FRmEmCK y..-.. Ciw: A.O. SCfCWAm, A n a m y Type: D Retained )(Assigned ~ -~ o v -e * m m s m 0 Pm Sc 0 Ra Hac Vice
Y.ULI.
.b.-
..Y..
t i--- i I . --I I I .i __ _- -- --Anon x81,xWITZ, imym~, FIAwDAWJ. ICRTNSKY a m m , PC - -to~her J . I-n w. M-, 45 R-d.s4.ay, Suite l7W N e w York, fYew ~ m 10006-3791 k Addre Denie1. .-- &JCER CALWIO; THE S O C W m WORI(ERS -- RcpRkn-9 City: . -----. -Party or Parties Repreunted um tom p
~ rmrnbsrlrl v tmm a # . mbaur m r tnm ~ m r ,
a :
.-
,-
ESQ,
~ c u * ~ .
-tJ-
o~epw w~ rru..
Attorney Type: .------
ined
C1 Assigned
0 Government
ORo
QG
0 Pro Hmc Vket
3 ? ? 4 r n X ! 7 -.-State:
Attorney Type:
0 Ret~imd
Patty o r Parties Represenled crrt tach
-O Assigned
OGovernmam
--
&Pro
Se
APro Hm Vice
? -
ntm~~ttd front m w &two a rnknn a:
I I i 1 1 1 1
1 Anornevff irm Nerne:

Address:
Ciry: Type: -Attorney "
I 2 Rutaimxi " *Party ar Pertiea Raprcsemd t h m
State:
-a--.."-
Zip:
. 0 #Vemmsnt
am a:
Telephone N o . :
D AsJmsd
Q Pro Se
0 Pro Hat Vice
~nnb.efc) kanm u ~ba a r m
-Stater
Attormy Type:
"
. ' r ' $ . " , & f .
. .
Z i p ;
-nhz@mea N o . :
---
---
--
0 Retained
0 Assigned
tl GovemmQnt
D Pro Se
O Pta H p r ~ W i
Parry o r Perties Represented t u r f m amv mmckrlsl horn c m w 6bOvb w (tom ~ o n n CI; ,&>:<,rcy*<-~:,i,,t -, , - , ., .,-* , +~ ) Pi , ' q ~ ; ~ ; ~ ; ~ ' j - f a y ~ g ~ - ; ~ ~ u ; - 2 * ; , * * ..rr .$,-.., ,.~*.
--,-r
6,."
. " -
- -
---
APX -
16
SUPREME COURT OF TRE STATE OF NEW PORK COUNTY OF KINGS

Chrietapher-Earl: Strunk, in esse
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Index N o . : 6600-2011
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF .EL(E(STIoNS;J m . A WAZSH I &-Chair, DOUGLAS A. RELINER I Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUIM 1 Commiaeianer, GRJ3GORY P. PETERSON 1 Commiesioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VAIJ3NllNl3, Deputy Director STANLEY W N ; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCI-INEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NO EM^ C O L ~ N . in their O5cial and individual capacity; Fr,JOSEPH A O'HARE, S.J.; Fr.JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK AO. SCHWARZ, JR.; P m R G. PETERSEN,ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; R . ;SOEBAR.KAH NARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R BIDEN, J (a.k.a Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama.11, a k a . Steve,Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF TRE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORR STATE; R ~ G E R CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. B - m JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN k BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLTCAN STATE C O ;THENEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRI'IZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA;OBAMA WCTORY FUND;MCCALN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN WCTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities.
Defendants.
PLEASE TAEJB 146TICE that Christopher-Earl: Sbnk, m ease hereby appeale to the
Appellate Division of the Supnme Court of the State o f New York, Second Judicial
Department, from the April 11,2012 decision and order t o show cause (see attached w i t h
copies of entrg)
axid pending judgment for sanctions dismissing the complaint, thereby
w t h g Dehdants motions t o dismiss, denying maintiff's Molion t o amtyfidate, and
rendering m o o t the motion o f leave f & direct. appeal on constitutional issue and motion with
1
APX
1 7
evidence for leave to f i l e a first supplement to the complaint, and appeal h m qvery part
and issues affected thereby in the related case 2008-29642 and application for OSC dated
October 25,201 1, and duly entered by the Clerk of t h e Court starting after April 23,2012.
Respectfully submitted
Dated: Brooldyn, New York May 2 3 , 2 0 1 2 Christopher-Earl:Strunk in esse Plaintinr self-represented without an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28 1 Brooklyn. New York 1 1 2 3 8 (845) 90 1-6767; Email: chri@strurik.ws
Cc:
Erica Burke. of SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York. New York 10017-395 Represenbng: PETER G. PETERSON Todd E. Phillips, Esq. of CAPLIN 8s DRYSDALE, CHARTERED One Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 Representing JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 1 1 1 ; M C W N VICTORY 2008; MCCAZNPALIN VICTORY 2008 HARRIS BEACH, PLLC By THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. 'I'hc OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553 Representing: JOSEPH R BIDEN, JR; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.ka. Barack Hussein Obama II, a . k a Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; PENNY S. 0 WCTORYFUI?D; . PRITZKER; OaAMA MIR AMEhYCA; -
JAMES C. DUGAN Esq. of WILLIUE FARR 8s GAtLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y.
100196099 Representing GEORGE SOROS
MARSHAL BELL, Esq. of McGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Americas, 7th Floor New York, New York 10105 Representing ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI.
WILM REIN LLP - TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ. ,JAN.WHOLD BARAN ESQ.and THOMAS W. KIRBY ESQ. 1776K Street, NW WashinD.C. 20006 Representing: JOHN A. BOEHNER RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY b LIEBERMAN, PC - Christopher J. LateIl Esq. and Daniel S. Reich Esq. 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New York 10006-3791Representing: ; R~GER CALERO; THE SOCIALISTWORKERS PARTY ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of Nk3 by: JOELGRABER, Esq. AAG Assistant Attorney General Special Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau 120 BROADWAY 24th Floor New York, New York 10271-0332 Representing : NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN. THOMAS P.-DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMf C O L ~ Nin , their O f f i c i a l and individual capacity;
MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By: CHLARENS ORSLAND, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Neiv York City Law -cnt 100 Church S t r e e t New York, New York 10007 Representing: Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ. JR.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YO= COUNTY OF KINGS

-1-----
..*_".1---------------**----
--.--*-----
w---
- ---
--a-
Plaintiff,
Y.
NEW YURK STATE BOARD OF ELECTTONS; J m S A : WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER f Co-Chair, : EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETEWON / Commissioner, Deputy D i m o r TODD D. VALENTmE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; A3DREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDEMAN, "n-iO.MS P.: DINMOLT, RUTH NO EM^ C O L ~ Nin , their Official m d : individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'KARE,SJ.;& JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWm, : JR; PETER G . PETERSEN;ZRIGNIEW KnlMIEw : M e x No,6500-201 I BRZEZWSKI; MARK BuE7,NSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, : JR,; SOFBARXAW (aka. Barry Soetoro, a.k,a B m c k Hussein Qbama 1 1 , a k a . Stmen Dunham); NANCY PELOSf; : NO97CE QF,.E.BTRY OF DEMOCMTIC STATE COMMITTEE OF TEE STATE OF : IPECISIOR: & ORUER NEW YORK; STATE COMh4ITTEE OF "IRE WORKmG : FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE;R C ~ ~ E R CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. : BRXEZTNSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAM 1 1 1 ; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THENEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF : THE I?dDEPENT)ENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF : THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YO= STATE; : YwY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; ORAMA FUR : AMERICA; ORAMA VICTORY FUAfD;MCCAlN VICTORY : 2008;MCC.dJ,Y-PALIN VKTORY 20018; John md Jane Does; : and XYZ Entities.
Defendants.
-----*--r----.--..r"..---*---C1------r--------------------""--.'"-"-
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the within is a b-ue copy o f the Decision & .Order
that was duly made and entered by the Clerk of the Court, New York State Supreme Court,
Kings County, on the 1 3 ' day ~ o f .4pril, 2012.
- -.
..
---
APX- 19
Dated: New Yark, W Y u k

A H 25,2012
WlLLKE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
L & ugm, Esq.
787-sedcnth Avenue
New York, New York 10019-6099

(2 f 2) 728-&OW
Aftorne.ysfor Defendmt George Sorns
TO: Christopher-Ekl S tmnk

Plnintfj pro se 593 V a n d d i h Avenue ff281 B m k l yn, New York I 1233 (8451 901-6767 Thomas I. G q x ,Esq.
Keith M. C o r m , Esq.
HARRIS BEACT I, PPLC
The Omni 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondate, New York 1 1553
(516) 886-8484
Marshal1 Beil, Esq. Jacob Hifdncr, E.sq. McGLrIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of the Americas, Srh Floor New York, Xew Yak 16 105 (21 2 ) 548-7004
James P. Wehner, Esq.
CAPLM & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED One Thornas Circle, NW t!rashington, DC 20005

(202) 862-5000
Rita C.Tobin, Esq. 375 Park Avenue, 35th Flwr
.. -
--
APX - 20
SUPREME COURT OF THE ,STATE OF NEW YORK COLWTY OF KhrGS

-------*-"--------_---------------------------C------
CHRJSTOPHER-EARL STRbWK in ease,

-iagainst-
Index Na. ddtWfZOf1

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF E3,ECTIONS; (Judge Arthur M, Schck) JaMES A. 1V.kLSH / Cu-Chair, DOUGLAS A, KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQU1L.4 / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON I NOTTCE OF ENTRY Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D, VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEh'; ANDREW CUOMO,ERIC SCWEIDERMAN, T1IOMS.P. DWPLPOLI, RUTH N O M I COLON, their Oficial and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'f-IAE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. P A W S , SJ.; FRlZDERTCK A,O. SCHWARZ, JR.;PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW, KAIMl Em BRZEmSKI; W RRZEZWSKI; JOSEPH R. BIBEN, R; SOERARKAH i(&k,&&my Sodam, a,k,a.Rmck Huasein O h a If, a.k.n. Steve Dmhrun); NANCY PELOSI; DE,MOCMTTC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE QF NEW Y O N , STATE COMMI*ET.EE OF THE WOUKmG FAMILIES PARTY OF: NEW Y'ORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BWEZTNSKi; JOHN STDNEY MCCAM 111; JOHN A. BOEIfiER; THE NEW YOFX STATE REPURLICA~ STATE COh4MITTEE; THE NEW Y O N STATE COMMITTEE OF THE IP6DEPEmmCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATrVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PEhXY S. BRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS: O R / I , h 5 4 JWR AM?RlCA; ORAM A VICTORY FUiVD; MCCAlrN VICTORY 2008; A4CCAl.N-PAm f/lCTORY 2008: John md Jme Docs; md XYZ Entities, Defendants.
PLEASE T A U NOTICE that the atrncfred is a true copy of a Decision and

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

April 26,20 12
Respel=tFully submitted,
-Rabinnwitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky &

Liebeman, P.C.
By: Daniel S. Reich

Attorneys for Defendants The Socialist ttrcrrkers Pmty and Rbger Calerc Lf,5 Broadway, Suite 1700 New Yark, NY ? 0006 Tel: 212-29-1211
TO: TKE
C O W CLERK Supreme Court Bulding 360 Adams Swtt, Room 1 g9 Brooklyn, NY 11201
CHWSTOPHER-EARL STRUh'K 593 Vanderhiit Ave., $28 1 Brooklyn, KJ' 1 1238
APX - 21
l * L
Marshall Beil Jacob I-lildner McGUlREWOODS L,I,P 1345 Avenue o f the Americs, Ah Flaor NewYsKEr.Ncw Ywk 10105
(212) 548-7004 A~urne,psfur Ddendcmts Zbignkw Bnmillrki, Mark Brzezifl.~ki, afid lot Rrzezinskr'
Plaint[$
v.
;"3EUr YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECmONS,
Index Xo, 65001201.1
NOTICE OF ENTRY
et a f . ,
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached is a true copy of the Decision and Qrder of
the: Won. M h m IM. Schacbr,J.S.C.. dated April 3 1,201 2, that wzs entered by the County C l d of
Kings Countyon Ap1.jl 13,2Q12.
Dated: We'ti' York, NEWYork April 26, 2012
1345 Avenue of the Americas, 7th Ffoar New York, New Ynrk 10I 05 (21 2) 548-7004 A tlarne-sfar Defendam Zbi~view B~ezinski, jl4ark Brzeinskix a d d m Brtczinski
Christopher-F~ri St bunk
593 Vanderhilt Avcnrre, *213 1 Brooklyn, XCZV York 11238 Pitrinr g y pm se
Hmis Reach, PLLC Thorn& 3. Barry, Esq. Keitl~ h4. Corlxtt? Esq. 7%e 0-Mh'T
Eric "1'. Schneidemm

Attornejl Gcnersl os'&e State of'New
York
B y Jocl Graber Assistant Attomcy General Special 1,itigsttisn Cctunscf Litigation Bureau 1 20 Brctad~vo y 24 th Floor New Yark, New York 1027 1 (2 12 ) 4 3 6-8645
333 Earle Ocington Bl\d.. Suite 901 lhiondalc, New I . ' & 1 1533 -4 rsorneys *firPm5:idenr U m c k O h a , lrie~ President Joseph R. Hiden, Jr,, Obamafnr Antezsriccc. O b m u 12ictu~v flt~;irnri, and .Vtzinq Petosi
Rabinowfi t~ Borndin, Standard. Krinsky, rFc Lieberman, P.C. Daniel S . Reich Christopher J. Klatell 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New York f 0006 Affnrpleyqfop Defindmts .CiociaiBr Ff a r b Purr$ and R o ~ e r (7ulero
Michael Cardozo Corpararioa C.kunsel of rfic C i ~ y of New York 131": Chlnrens Orsland
Assistant Corporation Counsel Nciv York City Law Drpartment 100 Church St. Km'ir York, Yew Yo& 10007 (2 12) 788-0904
Caplin & DrysJdc, Chartered
Imcs P, FVehncr One 'lhornas Circle, 37V Washington, L1.C. 20005

(202) 862-5000
Simpson Tha~her & tctt I , t P Prtul C.Glucknw Smh L. D m 425 Lexington Avenue . New York, New York 16017-3954 (2 12) 455-2000 Rrroweysfor Dc/endanr Pcter G,Pcrerson
And
Rita C. Tobjn 375 Park Avenue, 35"' Flwr Sew York, New Sork 10152 1212) 329-7125 Araorvtqy,~~fi~r Dtfendrntq AfcCain P?clory 2 008, JWcCoir;-Pulirrt3c'zory 2008,and J n h S xtd~<.'ai~
tVillkie Fan & Oaflagher James C, Dugan 787 Seventh Avenue Yew Ywk, New Erork 10019 (2 12) 728-8000 Ariurr(rej'sj3~ LkfinJrJnr C'er~rgt. Snr0.5
Christopllor-F&l Stmnk
591 Vanderbilt Avenue, g2X 1 Brookl>n,Kcw York 11238 PJninr[fz pro sc
Eric 1'. Schneidcm,m Rtton~try Genaal airhe State of New Yark By:Joel Cirahm Assistmt Attomcy General Special Litigation Counsel Litigation Rurleau 120 13roadwny -- 24th Floor kscw Yark, New York I0271
Harris Beach, PLLC Tharnzi J. R 8 v , Esq. Keith M. Corhctt. EsqThe 0,Mh'l 333 Earle Ovingwn Blsd.. Suits 90 I i.ininndale, Kexv York 11533 Artorncy #%r ?rcsidenr Bmack &ma, Trice Presidefit J o e R. Biden, Jr,, Obarvtsrfsr Americcr. O h m Yicray Fund and IVarq~ Pelosi Rabinoivivitz, Botxdin, Standard, Krin,dq, & Lieberman, P.C. Daniel S. Reicfi Christopher J. Klatell 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New h r k t 0006 A~ornqvsfnr Defendafrts 'sSociali.$t FT'orker~. P w r y arzd Ro,qer CcfIero
(212) 416-8635
Michael Cardnzo Copration Counsel of d ~ Cily e of New York fiy: CMsfrens Orslmd .Assistant Carpomtian Caunscl Yew York City b u r Dtpmn~ent I 00 Chu~ch St. h ' m r York, Yew Yurk ZOO07 (21 2 ) 788-0904
Caplin & Drys&de, Chartered J m c s P. 5 ' e h e r One 'I'harnas Circle, N1.f: n'ashjngtun, D.C. 20005 (2025 862-5000 And Rita C. Tobin 375 Park Avenue, 35"' Floor Xew York, 3'cts; York 101 52
Simpson Thaccher & BseFen LLP Riul C.Glt~ckow Samh L.. mnn 425 Lexington Avenue New York, New Yot-k 10017-3954 (2 12) 4 25-20130 Arrovneysfor De@ndcrr;r Peter G.P ~ f ~ r s a n
!lTillkic Fan & Gallagher James C, Dugan 787 Seventh Avenue
New York, New York 10019 ( 2 12) 728-8OSJO

Arforneysjbr D q f i ~ ~ Geurgtr h ~ r SGPOS
(212) 319-7125 A rrorntzysfir D E $ ~ ~ ~ E McCain ~ P ? F .T"icrog~ Y ,7003, 1LfcUuin-Palin fXkfwy2808. and John S ilWcCkin
APX - 22
_ I -
---...--"-""---
SUPREME: COUR'I- 0 1 - TI4E STA'I'E OF NlSW VORK COUNTY 0 1 7 KINGS

,--
- ---
...--- -
Christopher-Earl: Strr~nkin esse.

-against-
ladex No. 6500L2011 lloncrablc Arthur M.Schack

JAMES A. W A L W / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / CwOl.lair, EVELYN J. AQUILA i Commissioner,CIGC;ORSr Ir. PETERSON ? Comrnissiom, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLY =LEN;
NOTICE OF ENTRY
ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCH'NEIDERMAN,. THOMAS P.DWAYOI,I, RUTH NO EM^ COLON, in their Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S,J.; F E D E R I C K A.Q. SCTqR'ARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN: Zi3IGNIEW KAIMiERZ BRZEZINSKI: I MARK R R ~ E Z Z N S KJOSEPH I; R. RIDEN, JR., S O E B N W H ( a k a . Barry Sactoro, a.k.a. Rarack Hussein Obsma, a.k.n. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMlTlFE OF THE STAI"I:OF NEW YORK;STATE COMMITTEE or:THE WORKIN,G FAMIL,IFS PARTY OF NEW YOfX STATE: ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY;IAN J. BRZEZmSKI; JOHN STDN15Y MCCAIN III; JOHN tZ.130EEINER; THE NEW YORK S7"AR REPIJRI.ICAN STATE . I COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITrEE OF TUE TNDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PAKTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRIIw%KER; GEORGE SOROS; 8BAhfA FOR 1 A&IEHCA; OIjAMA Ir/CTOR Y F U j W ; MC'CAI!? i lfl%MRY 2008; 9:WC'CAlAF-PALIN VICTORY 2008; j J o b and Jane Uoes; and XYZ Entities.
I i
+"
Defendants,
-...----
w .
---
?,
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the annexed is a tmc copy ofa Decision and Order dated
Aprit I 1,2022 duly made in fhc above-captioned action and emered and filed in the C5mk's
Ofice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, on April 13,261 2.
Dated: May 2, 20 12
IVashinptan, D.C,
Todd E. Phillips, Esq. {ndmi'ffedpra h e i~ica) One Thomas Circle, N W Wastrington, DC 20005 'i'elephone: (202) R62-5ftm Facsimile: (202) 429-1230 1
James P. l"ehner, F q .
Rita C . Tobin, Gq. 375 Park Avenue
25th Ffmr New k'ork. NY 10152-3580 'Telephone: (2 12) 3 1 Y-7 t 25 Facsimile: (2 12) 644-6755
A itornqs for Dqfendants McCain tfictc7r-y ,9008, h4cF;'ain-Pniin J4ciory 2 0 1 1 1 8 ,and John S , McUar'n
APX -
24
7 -
SUPREME COURT OF Tl4E STATE OF NEW YORK COtfNTY 01;KMGS

Christopk~er-brl: Strunk i n erne,
PlaintifT,
JAMES A. WALSE?/ CO-Chnir,DOUGLAS A. WELNER / Co-Chair, EVI<LYNJ. AQUII,A / NOTICE OF ENTRY Commissioner, GREGORY P,P m I t S O X / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. 1 VALEXTINE, Deputy Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCM,W'fDEmN*. 'TJ-TOMASP. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEM1 COLON,in their Official md individual capcity; Fr. JOSEPH A. Q ' N A E , S.J.; br. JOSEPH P. PAIIXES, S.J.; FW,,DGRICK A.O. SCIIWARZ, Jn.; PETER 0 . PETERSEN;7BIGNIEW KAIMTEKT, 13RX;r,EZfT'4SSU; MARK BKZEZMSKI; JOSEP! I R. RTDm, JR., SOEBARKAH (o.k.a. Barry Soetom, a.k.n. B ~ m k Ii~ss~in Ohma, a.k.a. Steve D~nham); NmCY PELUSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE: COMMUTEE OF 'IlfE STATE OF NEW YO=; STATE COMMIT1'EE OF TEE W O l W G FMILIES PAKIY O F KEW YORK STATE; RCJQER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; FAN J, DPdEZEYSKI; JOI-fN I SIDNP;Y MCCA~N JOHN A. ~ O G W N E R THE ; NEW YORK ST,4TE REPLrBLICAN STATE COMMI'PTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE CQ.MMITTE OF "EE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMTTTEE OF THE CONSERVKI'fVE PARI'Y OF NEW YORK STA'IT; I'ENNY S. PRITZK1" R;iISORGESQROS; OB/1MAFOR AMERICA; OUAiMA K T O R Y FUAU; Mt2C'N YICTCIRY 2008; ,\4(2CAN-PALIN T~ICTOKY Z O W , i John and Janc Does; and XYZ Entities.
-againstNEW YORK STATE BOARD OF XlLECTIQNS;
7
,
Index No.6SDQ/2011 Honorable Arthur M. S c h d
rn;
PLEASE T A D NOmm that the annexed i s a true copy of a Decision and Order dated
Aptif 11,2012 $uXy d
e in the above-captioned actiim dentered anb fiM fa the Clerk's
Ofice of the Supram Cow ofthe State ofN e ~ q o t kKings , Comty, m April 13,2012.
--
-".
APX - 25
-7
./-@
* _ _ _ 1 1 -
May 2,2012
"-d
7 o % h r n r n berg T'hamas Kirby MqCEY REIN LLP 1776 K St NW

Washington, D.C. 20006
Ph. 202 719 7000 Fx. 202 7 19 7049

Attorney for John .4. Roehner
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS X CHRISTOPHER-EARL: STRUNK,
--U-----YI"-I~---
N W YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSH, Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A, ORDER NOTICE OF ENTRY KELLNER, Co-Chair, EVELYN 3. AQUILA, Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON, Cornmissictner, DEPUTY DIRECTOR TODD D.VALENTINE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR Index No.: 6500-201 1 STANELY ZALEN, ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NAOMl COLUN, in their cr6ficial and individual capacities, FR. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J., FR. JOSEPH P. PARKES,S.J., FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR., P t r E R G.PmRESEN, ZBfGN1W WtM1ERZ BRZEZINSKf, MARK . BRTEZINSKI, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., SOEBARKAH (aMa Barry Soetro, aMa Rawck Hussein Obama 11, a#a Steve Dunham), NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF N W YQRK, STATE COMMllTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE, ROGER CALEBRO, THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY, IAN J. RRZEZINSKI, JOHN SIDENY MCCAIN tll; JOHN A. BOEHNER, THE N E W YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE, . E THE NEW YORK STATE COMMIITEE OF THE I INDEPENDENCE PARTY, STATE COMMITEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEWYORK STATE, PENNY S. PRITZKER, GEORGE SOROS, OBAMA FOR AMERICA, DBAMA VFCTORY FUND, MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIWPALIN VICTORY 2008,JOHN AND JANE DOES and XYZ ENTITIES,
ww
Defendants.
-X
//II
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the within is a true copy of a Decision and Ordsr
duly entered in t h e Offce of the Clerk of the within named Court on April 13,2012.
--
APX - 27
Dated: Uniondale, N e wY c K k
Ii
i
Mayi. 2012
HARRIS BEACH, PLLC Attorneys far Defendant Penny S. Pritrker

BY Keith M. CurbM, fsq. The OMNl 333 Earte Ovingron Btvd., Suit!901 Uniondale, New Yark 11553
To:
Christopher-Earl Smnk PfainiiF,pm se 593 Vanderbilt Avenue # 281 Broaklyn, New York 11238
Eric T. Schnelderman, Esq. New York State Attorney General I20 ~roa#way,24'" Floor New Yo*, Mew Yo& 10271 Attn: Joel Graber, Esq.
Michael Cardarb, Esq. Corporation Counsel ofthe City of New York 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007
Caplin 4% Drysdaie One Thomas Circle, NW Washington, DC 20005
Attn: Todd E.Phillips, Esq.
RabinoBoubin, Stanbard, Krinsky & Liebman, P-C. 45 Broadlway, Suite if00 New York, New Ycrrlt I O U 0 6 Attn: Christopher 4. Klatelt, Esq.
Simpson Thetcher & Rarttett, LLP 425 Lexington Avenue N w York, New York 10017-3954 AHn: Sarah L. Dunn, Esq.
APX - 28
i a l X
3
& b o a
b02
w 9-
E-3
'"
.I 5 e 5
L
z* c
f :
gsZ3
2 2.. 4c35
,g
5; 2s
y v g$ 0 5 3
x w .= 3 L
0
O
2-2 3 & -' .."

2 ~ Pi + 4 ~ W 2.555 c o a
N
35 < .
APX - 29
SUPREME COURT CF TRS STA" CdUNTY O"TXGS
E O F NEW 3 ' 0 %
I A S PART 27 --------_--------__--------------------X
CER: ST372EP-. EARL S?RUNRf
Lndex No. 6500/20:i
Plaint iff,
(Eoz. A r t l m r M. S c h a c k )
NEW YQRK STATE BOA3D OF ELECTIONS, et al.,
ORDER WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY
Defendants.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the w i t h i n
is
a true
copy of an
o ~ d e rof *,he Suprema Court: of t h e State

Cauaxy (Hon. A r t h u r M.
of New York, Kings

in t h e
Schack), duly filed and e n t e r &
o f f i c e of the Clerk of Kings County on the 13th d a y of April,
New Y o r k , N e w Yark May :0, 2012
T. SCHIVS1DEXNA.H A t t o r n c y General of t h e State of New York

ERIC
--
JOEL GRABER Special Litigation Counsel
-.. -
--
Litigation B ~ r e a u 123 Isroadway - 2 ~ ~ " l o o r N e w York, NY 10271-0332 (212) 416-8645
APX -
30
SUPREFvlE COURT OF TRE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KWGS

X -
Index N o . : 6500-2011
I t
Christopher-Earl: Strunk i n tsse,
YEW VoRK STATEBOBRD OF ELECTTONS et al.,
Defendants.
1
Accordingly, 1 ~ t l ~ 1h/ -4~4
6 ~ ) ,king duly swwn, depose and say under penalty ofprjury:
a. Am over 18 ywus of age and not a party t ot h i sadan. b . My p l a e o f bUSiness 1s located at 593 VamlrxMlt Avenue BmaMyn NY 11238.. c. On May 23,2012, Christopher Strunk instructed me to ~cm a true c u n f m e d copy ofthe PmTIIEI"S N m C E OFAPPEAL with Notices of Entry, DECSIONAND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE and RADI forms with Issues on Appeal Attached for the cast! ,Symnk.~.WS BOE et al. NYS CauntydXingo Supreme Court with index 6500-20 I. 1, by USPS mIvicc lnpon Deimdnnts' Counaela, d. On May 23,2012, I cm.tsed each copy a i 4 h praper p ~ g t a g e for sarVia? by regular ma~f of liatcd caunsels and w k m each enmlapc. was deposited wfth the USW for service upon:
k i c a Burke. ESQ.o f SXbP!WN THACHER dr, Bj4KTLETT LLP 425 Lexirtgtm A v ~ n u c Renr York, Hew York 1001'1-3954
ATltA C. TOBXN, E b q . of CAPUN 4 % DRYSDALE, C m k E D 375 Park Avcnuc 35% Florn New Ywk. New York 18 152-3500
n x e OMNI 333 & l e
HAPCRIS BEACH, PUC By THOMAS J. GARIZY, Ebq. Ovtngtan Blvd., Suite 901 Unjt~nd~k. New Yark 11553
JAMES C. DUGAN Esq. of WILL= FARR & QAUAEHER 'tCP 787 Seventh Avenue New+York, N.Y. 1GO 196099
MARSHAL BE&, Esq. of M c C I W WOODS U P

1345 Avenue of Amrriaa, 7th Floor HeurYork,
New York 10105
WlLEY ftEM W KWl3 A. RROMBERG ESQ., JAN WITHOLD BARWESQ. FIE^ TWOMhq Mr. KIRBY LTQ. 1776K Street, NW W ~ h i n g MD I. C .20006
R A B w O v v l BQL9IN. ~ STAWARD, KFWSKY C L I F B B W , PC Chkt~lph*.J. Lhte-11Esq. and Dmicl S . M c h Esq. 45 Droadway, %kc 1330 New Yo& New Y e tOO(Ki-3791
ERIC T. SCHNEtMP,RMAN Attorney Gcnaal of NYS bB:JOEL QRABER, Beq. AAG Assistant Attorney CScncraI Special L i e k i m Counclel litigation Burntu 120BROADWAY - 24th Roor P.Bcrw Ymk, FStw York 102714332
MICHAEL CAmOZO Corporatian Cwnacl ofCig of New Yorlr By; CHLAREPrS ORS-D, Esq. A s d s m t Corporation C o u n ~New l Yark City f m Lkpartment 100 Church Street Few York, New York 10007
This
Sworn to hefore me day of May 20 12
EoCrrE ~ M P T O N JR. ' Notary Public, State vf New M r k

Q~allfied I n Kinn*
--
--
NO. 01HA6044027
..
Cnlrw
APX -
31
,,--I"---*-.---------------,,,-,.----.-----------.--~--------.--x
Chriatophcr Earl Stiunlc,
&&ex
comm OF KMOS
S-ME
COURT OF TRE STATE OF
YO=
N o . : 6500121011,
PlaintifFa Notice o f Appeal signed Mey 23,2012

DbaMon and OSG dgnd Ap*
I 1.20 11 srztered starting A p r E L 23,m12
Variaas Setices o f Entry far 8 Mations
Request far Appolllate Division I a t e r ~ e ~ ~ t i a n
AfYidaxdt olSdc1e
Derted:
Brooklyn, Hew Yerk M a y 23,2012
$ % ( +
--
- a ; &
Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in case, Plaintiff mlf-representwithout being a n attorney 593 Vandcrhilt Avenue 6281, Brooklyn, Yew Yo& 11238. (84% 901-6767 E-mail: gh:rik4et;runk.ws
STAR OF BROOKLYN: Judge Arthur Schack - Home Reporter News: Ge... ~://www.homereportemews .oodnews/-udge-...
-STAR OF BROOKLYN: Judge Arthur Schack -.. . . .-, -.. r--., .... . :. ,-. - ., . .-.._."... .......... "" ." .... . ...... ,--" ..... '. -... .-...-. --.-.
Y . , . . . . .
a. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Y Y
Y . "
- *
B . ,
,Y
I-..... . L " . . . .
Y"--U.
^..U.U""
J,
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Arthur Schack has been very inmlved in his community in the 34 years he has lived in Bay Ridge. Before he became a Supreme Court justice of Kings County, he served on Community Board 10 for 15 years, in several different positions, including treasurer for two years, board chair for three years, and on
+he < . - ."~ (Iarnm;tl+p e c : - - - x.lr,i:+L --. .-. C -~ -r -r . - - - - -- - - - ..- r
-.
!c
y??~.
He has also been inwhred with the Boy Scouts of America for many years. He is a past president of the Brooklyn Council Executk Board Troop 20 at the New Utrecht Reformed Church, and a troop chairperson. He has received the Sliver Beaver Award for Distinguished Service to Youth and the George Meany Award fiom the Boy Scouts r?f .America for his service. CAREER: Schack has had a long, successful career in education and law, but the greatest achievement of his career has been being named a Supreme Court justice. "It's an opportunity to prove justice and himess to the people in the community," Schack said. "This is the best job in the world. I'm thankful I don't mind getting up in the morning."
PERSONAL LIFE: The greatest achievement of Schack's personai iife is his successhi maniage to his wife, Diiia, and the accomplishments of his two children, Elaine, who is an attorney, and Douglas, a New York City police sergeant.
41JlqRnS. Crh-k
<
hnc ~
P C P ~ the F ~ .I?IkpH T
ee C?tln!!b~icpr I\--v??d .dcm t h !biter! ~ Fpdcrntinn nf T e o ~ k p t s !TW\

\ ,
2 c i ; ; d thc Emmcnica! Award
fkom :kc Cat!ioEc LavVycrs
of Xhgs CO'G~~J.
BIGGEST CHALLENGE: Schack's biggest challenge is finding time to balance it all. "Between my job, making decisions, plus my family, it's really about balancing it all out," he noted. .... :-+:-.. X C , : . , -1.7... .. ,i:.-iL .. C-.. ;.-.:.. . -:I +I...* : .. .... , rl. ,c ............. .. -,...C-.. .... -1.. -............ :+. :
.........................
CATl37hT7n%,T.
,I..
.............................................. .. "
i - i
J .
I.,..
..
1 . : .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . ".L . . . . . . . . . , . .
heiping those in need is cruciai. "I beiieve that pubic service is important," said Schacic. "As a judge, I'm mvoived in that. I want to help people."
--
APX -
33
Catholic Lawyers Guild o f Kings County
http://www.cahliclawye~~guildo&iogsco~.md
1.
t
i
:
'
The Catholic Lawyers Guild of Brooklyn dates to the 1930's. The Guild was organized by and for Brooklyn Catholic Lawyers as a forum for discussing the legal and social issues of the day. The. members originally met in Saint Joseph's College on Clinton Hill, then in Saint Francis College, and then, through the years, at several other !,., h : ; . . . . I... 3 , : u r ! : , ~ ~ l ; I.. . - --.. . -.. .- . Tlru . . .- C.,il,-1 - -.. I>-,.. ..- - - . .. - ,- .--.-:,i:-;.-,ir,i! ... - .. .- - . . .- - :I.-. - ri..o - - . - ..%.>..,r:.r-.rr!>;.. .. . - .. .- - . - . .. ..,! - - - - - - -. - . . - the ideals of the Catholic laity.
....
4.- r-4 4 ..n

6. %
fl?y-#.
--
Over the years, the membership as well as the activities of the Guild have broadened in scope. The Guild's mission presently is to advance the goals and ideals of Catholic lawyers; to respect the integrity of the law and the need for its fair, compassionate and just application; to acknowledge the primacy of moral values and of justice in the governing and administration of modern society; to bring together members of the .. . .
! u ! ! . ! !
c!!.. ..!=
O ' l-1!y-"C> L'C! L
l.!!C y-.C!e! C!!._l !Eye! !>>._lC> g!(N I,> fCI-V!!!&S!!>!! ._!!EX. ; > = : >
..
1 n i) conge!?!?!2nd prefecc/on;l! environment.
The Guild currently sponsors several events each year. The Guild's year commences in the Fall with the celebration of the Red Mass, which invokes Divine Providence for the coming Judicial Term. The Red Mass is co-sponsored with the Columbian Lawyers Association of Brooklyn and is followed by a reception which is always well-attended.
+,.. .-..., -...-I lla L I I I I > L I 251 !I~ ty ~ is i u i ~ d u i k d dui-i~iy the 'iuietide season, iliiniediaieiy greieiiiiig iile C i , r i ~ i r ~ pariy, - ~ a ~ w e yiiiira~T o r our irli~ruaiiiaiiviiy driiiiaiiu~~ u1.1i i l e i a w ~ ui ~ ii~r Supreme Courthouse at 360 Adams Street. The dedication includes a blessing by Guild Moderator, Rev. Msgr. Edward B. Scharfenberger and the singing of traditional Christmas carols. At the beginning of the Lenten season, the Guild holds its Annual Shrove Tuesday Luncheon.
The rathnllr ! nwyerc fi:ild Plnrew nf Rrnnklvn Ionkc Fntav~rr! tn the rnmln? year with
a growing membershtp, expanded program of activities and continuing Rdelity to its values, goals and prlnnples.
8 Cathok Lawyers GUM. Questbn6 o r Comnents?_C_ontactUl. SIte Derbned by Amanda
E m
FZ*
. .
,-.i:&q
APX - 34
..
--
--.
._
w\ir\s. 1800iii\v l!~lO.co~'~I~Iip-RcciiIl-tllp
I )
. ...*
Yo11Need a Hip Recall tnw\yer. .W o r k wi~h a.-I.,.CL.C,-..wW..I.._ local NY lzw firrn : * _ * - _..-,_.
-_...
r d& p
= F ; ~ ~ . , ,.=/
-z,
;--,-
Heimfshe Meitch on the Bench, Supreme Court Justice David I . Schmidt, honored i n Brooklyn
When discussing the Legal profession, virtues like compassion, charity and selflessness may not immediately spring to mind - but for the past 33 years, the Catholic Lawyers Guild of Brooklyn has honored judges and attorneys who demonstrate these qualities. This year, about 225 people attended the guild's annual dinner at Gargiulo's Restaurant, according to immediate past president Annalise Cottone. Brooklyn Ciyil Administrative Judge Ariet Belen swore in Joseph Bellard as the new president of the guild, which honored Judge Belen, Brooklyn Law School Professor Richard T. Farrell, Civil Court Judge Bernard Graham, state Justice David Schmidt and attorney Andrea Bonina. Justice David Schmidt accepted the Guild's EcumenicalAward on behalf of his parents, who were both Holocaust suMvors. Schmidt said his father never spoke about his experiences until right before he died. Schmidt had a case against a synagogue in Williarnsburg where a worker fell from a scaffold. He mentioned the case to his father, who then told him how he was taken to the Bergen-Bekenconcentration camp. "There were hundreds of people in the car. The train traveled for seven days and seven nights; they were given no food or water. When the train arrived everyone had died except my father," Schmidt said. "My father thought all the Jews in the world were killed." The first people he saw at Bergen-Belsen were the rabbi of this synagogue and his father.
-.
APX
35
Chaptmn Blog!
"One of the reasons that the Holocaust succeeded in killing so many people is that when the Nazis started passing all these racist laws in which Jews could not marry nonJews, own property or businesses and could not belong to any of the professions, no one protested," Schmidt said. The lawyers supported the laws and the judges did not protest the removal of their colleagues, nor did they find these laws invalid or unconstitutional, Schmidt said. "We as judges and lawyers in the greatest country in the world have a duty to fight racism and bigotry wherever we find it," Schmidt said. "It is our duty to make certain that no one is persecuted based on their religious beliefs or [ethnicity]."
He quoted Martin Niemuller, the German pastor who outspokenly opposed the
Nazis and suffered in concentration camps. In a 1959 seminary address in Atlanta, Ga., Niemuller said, "First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because Iwas not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because Iwas not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me." Webster's defines "ecumenicaln as "fostering religious unity," Justice Schmidt noted. He said he was especially honored to receive this award from the Catholic Lawyers, who "strive for higher ethical morals and standards than the law requires.
" I ,as a Jew with a yarmulke, who wean religion on my sleeve, similarly strive for higher ethical morals," Schmidt said.
The judge graduated from Brooklyn College and Brooklyn Law School, and served for 11 years as law secretary to Justice Gerard Rosenberg before being elected to Brooklyn Civil Court in 1995. He was appointed as an acting state Supreme Court Justice in 2000, and was elected to that bench in 2006.
---This article pcxted by Chaotzem : 5:05 Phi
Comments: I do not understand how a Torah Jew can serve on a secular bench. If a case comes before him involving a Jew, or even two Jewish parties, will he rule al pi halacha or based upon secular Law?Will he reject the case and order them to report to Beis Din (assuming they had no permission to take their case out of Beis Din)? , . - - -nis I a r i i c h posted by :Kiav 25. 2607 ?:07 PN, To "Ido not understand how a Torah Jew can serve on a secular bench.": All the Mosdos in B'klyn sent notices out to vote for him, when he first ran. One school even gave out little chatchkes with his name imprinted. (Were you sleeping?
---This article wzted by Anim}mcus :A<ay27. 2007 1 :20 A,\
- -%
APX -
36
Joseph Ask a Rav your shailah But remember how could he judge a Jew i f he is not at least a dayan?
.
, -..
. .--Tiis articie p3sted DV
Ancnynws : May 27. 2007 2:40 A M
Is he the one who told the two bovorers that their father told him t o send jews to beis din and that they should go?
--This axicle posted by
Ancnymxs :h u v 27. 2007 8:09 Ah!
Judge Schmidt is a living, breathing Kiddush Hashem. He is unique in a sense one can only understand if heishe knows him. What a great person.
..
---T!lis article ~cb:ed by
;:;cn.jmc:s
: May 27. 2007 9:43 A.V
To 8:09- No he's not.
---Tl~is article posted t.y
AnonwiIail5 : t:.ay 27, 2007 10:?5 A M
I don't know which mosdos you are referring to; nor do I know which Rabbonim give a haskomo to whichever mosdos it is.
I just asked a simple question. I did not say their i s no answer. But it is an obvious question. What will he do i f a Jew (or 2 Jewish parties) comes to his bench?Will he uphold the secular law, as he is sworn t o do? Or will he judge al pi din (is he even allowed to judge the case, as one commentator above asked?) Or will he throw out the case?
--
.--I n
-.
~ at s L~de posts b j
: Vay 27, 2037 2:56 Pr?:
Why don't you get off your fat ass and open up a Choshen Mishpat and figure out the answer to your question instead of making that his problem. In fact, Judge Schmidt is a big Talmid Chacham and certainly knows the answer to it. It's you, who is a lazy bum, never cracked a book in your life, GO CRACK A BOOK AND FtGURE OUT THE ANSWER!!!
...This artic!e pasted by
Anonymous : Mzy 27, 2007 8:35 PM
8:35, You just made obvious what an am haaretz you are.
I'lllet you try t o figure out why. But as a hint, asking a halachik question is not only encouraged in Yiddishkeit, but it is the proper method of learning. Come back with some kind of lame "don't sit on your fat ass" type of ' l llet you talk to the wall next time. Iwouldn't want to embarrass non-response. I you more than absolutely necessary. . Nay 27. 2007 9:04 P,M - -This art~cle posted b~ Hey Joseph, if this blog is the ideal place you ask you shailos, a rachmunus oif deer in dayn mishpuchu.
---This article posted by
Analymws : hWc 28, 2007 10:27 , : : P
What is wrong with him, or anyone, discussing halachik shailos on a blog?You are a close-minded idiot.
--This articie w:ed by
Chaim : htiy 29.2007 !2:00 FN
A rachmunus on your family too. Hope ur wife's a bit wiser than that. L . . :. . ;' ,: . . ---Thisarticle pcsted by Anonymous : May 29. 2007 6:25 PM
APX -
37
10:27 - Yeah, whats wrong with a halachik discussion. Sounds like you don't feel competent to particiapte in such a discussion.
--.Tllisar!icle post& by
Xr,onhrnoas : t,lav?9, 2007 5:49 h i
As an attorney who has appeared many times before Judge Schmidt I can tell you:
1. Any times both pammes are Orthodox Jews he encourages them very strongly to p to Bais Din.
2 . If they refuse to go to Bais Din he tries to settle the case with a "peshora" and is sucsessful about 98%of the time.
3. If he i s not sucsessful, he sends the case out for trial to another Judge.
Iwould like you to know that he was endorsed by many Rebbes, Dayanim, and Rosh Yeshivos (including R ' Tauber of the Bobov and R' Kaminettzky of the Philadelphia Yeshiva among others).
Judge Schmidt is a well known Talmudic scholar and has done wonders to the reputation of Orthodox Jews in the Court system.
---This articte posted b:f i i n . ? r : ~: ~May ~ s 31. 2007 li:*V AN
Can anyone tdl me how many Jewish Judges we have in Brooklyn Civil Court?
-.-This artlcle posted by
L n w ~ m o u :: ,May 0 4 . 2009 9:54 ?So
Judge Schmidt is extremely smart guy!!

.-.This article posted by
'inon~~qt .~ June s 18. 2012 lt:42 A'.'
APX
38
Share
Report Abuse Next Blogv
Create Blog
Sign In
Natural Born Citizen Right Answers
- A Place to Ask Questions and Get the

Bocca Della Verita
Fcn
A blog to discuss the U.S. Constitution Article 11, Section 1, "natural born Citizen" presidential eligibility clause.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
The New York State Court Should Not Sanction Pro Se Plaintiff, Christopher Earl Strunk, for His "Natural Born Citizen" ~itigation
The New York State Court Should Not Sanction Pro Se Plaintiff, Christopher Earl Strunk, for His "Natural Born Citizen" Lltigation
Mario A p u r r o
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. May 6, 2012 On Monday, May 7, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., pro se litigant, Christopher Earl Strunk, will have t o show cause before Hon. Arthur M. Schack, at Part 27, in Room 479,360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201, why he should not be made t o pay for the defendants'attorneys' fees in his case i n which he claims that putative President Barack Obarna is not an Article I 1 "natural born Citizen" because he was not born t o citizen parents. There are many attorneys involved and one can just imagine the size of the bill that they will present t o t h e c o u r t . Here are the facts that give rise t o Strunk's legal action. Pro se litigant, Chrlstopher Earl Strunk, commenced his election challenge case in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by filing a complaint on March 22, 2011, i n which he alleged "breach of state I constitutional fiduciary duty by the NEW YORK( STATE BOARD OF ELEClTONS and public officer defendants; denial of equal protection for voter expectatlon of a correct ballot; denial of substantive due process for voter expectation of a correct ballot; interference with the I right t o a republican form of government by the two Jesuit defendants and defendant F.A.O. ! SCHWARZ, JR., who were all members of the New York Clty Campaign Finance Board; interference with plaintiffs election franchise; a scheme t o defraud plaintiff of a reasonable I expectation of successful participation i n the suffrage process; and, a scheme by all defendants for unjust enrichment." Declsion and Order, p. 3-4. He included as a defendant . "Soebarkah (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama, a.k.a. Steve Dunham. The defendant filed motions wlth Hon. Arthur M. Schack t o dismiss Strunk's complaint wlth prejudice. Strunk along with defendants many attorneys had oral argument on the motions before Judge Schack in August 2011. Judge Schack includes In his Decision and Order parts of the transcript of that oral argument. Judge Schack reserved decision. While his case was pending, it was brought t o Strunk's attention that the State of New York's instructions for getting on the presidential ballot, rather than state that a presidential candidate has t o be a "natural born Citizen" pursuant t o Article 11, Section 1, Clause 5, said that the President only had t o be "Born a Cltizen." He wrote to the state election authorities and pointed out the error. He asked that a correction be made t o state that a presidential candidate must be a "natural born Citizen" which is what Article 11, Section 1 , Clause 5 of our Constitution clearly and plainly states.
I e n j o y t h e universe of ideas a n d a s o u n d m i n d a n d body. Mario Apuzzo, Esq., 1 8 5 G a h m e r Ave, Jamesburg NJ 08831, Email: apuzzo[AT]erols.com, TEL: 732-521-1900 FAX: 732-521-3906, BLOG: http://puzol.blogspot.com
< -
c m l . ~ t me
s = Have the ConstitutionaJ Power to Pass Leaislation Prescribing President~al Ballot Access ReauiremenE A Cataloa of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason t o Doubt Putative President Obama Born i n
Hawaii
Read the Kerchner v ObamaIConqress Petition to the U.S. Suoreme COU& Summary of Latest Court Activity Kerchner v Obarna & Conqress Su~rerne Court of U.S. Docket Reoort - Kerchner v Obarna & Conaress Summarv of Lawsuit/Comoiaint and Link ts the Comoiaint-Counts/Charaes Article I1 'natural born CitizeMeans Unitv of Citizenshio at Birth Obarna - Maybe a Citizen of the United States but Not a "natural born Cltizen" of the United S w Natural Born Citiz~nshio Requires Both Parent3 t o be U.S. Citizens Law of Nations - The Leaal Book Used bv the Founders & Framers t o Write& Declaration of Indeoendence and U.S. Constitution t o Unite the 1 3 Free & Inde~endent Sovereian States into a More Petfect Union & Natural Law is The Law of Nat~ons U.S. Federal Common Law on "natural b ~ r Citlzenshi~" n
0
:
,
The State of New Jersey also had the same type of error. At first, the Secretary of State's instruction, using plain citizenship as the criteria for eligibility, did not state that the President had to be a "natural born Cltizen." A concerned citizen wrote t o the Secretary of State and pointed out the error and she simply made the correction by stating that a presidential candidate must be a 'natural born Citizen." The correct New Jersey instructions can be viewed at htto://ww.scribd.com/ouzol/d/91538227-New-Jersev-SOS-EliaibilitvInstructions-for-Presidential-Primarv-2012 . Strunk was looking for the same type of relief i which would have satisfied his concerns regarding the wording of the eligibility instructions. But t h e State of New York would have none of it. Not receiving any satisfaction, i n October 2011, Strunk tlled an order to show cause, asking that the court issue an order t o the New York State Board of Elections that it correct the eligibility instruction from "born a Citizen" t o "natural born Citizen." Judge Schack denied his appilcation as premature. At the October 25, 2011, hearing on his order,to show cause, Strunk stated to counsel for the New York State Board of Elections that he would be willing t o settle his litigation if the New York State Board of Elections would change the ballot instruction from "Born a Citizen" to "Natural-born Citizen." The attorney told him that they could not do that. Strunk appealed Judge Schack's denial order and was told by the appeals court that Judge Schack's order was an interlocutory order (not a final order) and so that court dismissed his appeal. I n the meantime, h e was back before Judge Schack on his pendlng complaint. Judge Schack finally decided the case on April 11, 2012, at which time he entered his
- -- -
--
Not the Same as an Enalish Common Law "natural born Subiect" Qbama When Born in 1961 Was 3 British Subiect as Was His Father and Obama is Still a British Protected Person and Citizen to This Day Neither the 14th Amendment Ratified in 1868 nor the Wono Kim Ark decision in 1898 makes Anv Person a "natural
APX -
39
r,-,-,,-,.a
.-,
.,A
Decision and Order. Judge Schack granted defendants' motions and dismissed Strunk's complete complaint with prejudice. Judge Schack also granted a motion to admit pro hac vice one of the defendant's attorney, finding that he was in good standing. It should be known that the Georgia court denied Attorney Van Iron's motion for pro hac vice admission and the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania denied my motion for pro hac vice admission, even thought we are both in good standing. Judge Schack started his opinion by stating that '[ilf the complaint in this action was a movie script, i t would be entitled The Manchurian Candidate Meets The Da Vincl Code. He found that Strunk did not sufficiently allege an injury in fact and therefore does not have standing which causes the court not to have jurisdiction over his claims.
i Judge Schack found that because it is not possible to easily gain notice from reading his : complaint what his particular cause of action is, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
h m i t i z e n " . Those acts ancreate "Cit~zens of the U.S." but NOT "natural born Citizens of the US." Whv the "natural born Citizen" Clause of Our Constitution is ImDortant and Worth Preserving What is Putative President O b & m a & j
p
Obama's Lack of Constitutional H R 1503 Pres Candidates Constitutional Eliaibilitv Docs Bill for Future Elections NOW Has 1 Z _ S & m AZ HB 2441 - State of AZ Presidential Constitutional Eliaibilitv Verificaton Bill w~th Numerous S~onsors SC Bill 3389 - State of SC R e a m Conclusive Proof of Natural Born citizens hi^ Status for Pres Elections _NH Bill 1245 - State of NH Bill Savs No More Hidden BC Records The Bioa Rules-Please Read Read m v A~uzzo's Writings/Briefs 63 SCRIBD.com How You Can Helo the Cause
Follow by Email
Judge Schack concluded that Strunk's fraud claim also needed to be dismissed because he did not plead with particularity that he relied upon any of the defendants' statement and did not plead that he suffered any pecuniary loss as a result of statement of any of the defendants. Judge Schack found that the court has no jurisdiction because of the political question doctrine and because, while finding no problem with his service upon the other main defendants, Judge Schack found that Strunk did not properly serve Obama and McCain. Judge Schack concluded that Strunk already litigated "many of the issuesn In the instant action in federal court and in Strunk v. Paterson, Index No. 29642108, where the issues were decided against him. He therefore found that under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, he could not re-litigate those same issues in the instant action. Judge Schack also denied Strunk's cross motion to consolidate the instant action with another New York state case, Strunk v. Paterson, and to transfer the case to Judge Schmidt because the Paterson case was already dismissed. Judge Schack also dismissed Strunk's complaint on the ground that it was both factually and legally frivolous. I Finally, Judge Schack also ordered that Strunk is precluded from relitigating the same claims i agalnst the same defendants i n the New York state court wlthout first obtalning prior written approval from an administrative justice or judge.
j Judge Schack never ruled on Strunk's application that the Board of Electlons be made to correct the ballot instruction for election for the Office of President to say not "born a Citizen," but rather 'natural born Citizen."
Email address... -. .
..
=
Search
Search This Blog
SCRIBD Links to Obtain Court Docs Filed
Kerchner v Obama & Congress - All Court Documegts - At A~uzzo's SCRIBD Account Court of DOCKET REPORT - Su~reme U.S. - Kerchner v Obama & Conaress Washington DC DOCKET REPORT - Aa~eais Court Kerchner v Obama & Conaress Phiiadel~hia P A DOCKET REPORT - District Court Kerchner v Obama & Conaress
Judge Schack has now ordered that Strunk show cause why he should not be made to pay for the costs incurred by all the defendants in having to retaln and pay for their attorneys to defend them against his action. Judge Schack did state the correct standard for the court to apply when deciding a motion to dlsmiss the complaint on its face. He stated:
"When determining a motion to dismiss, the court must 'accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and I determine only whether the facts as alleged flt within any cognizable legal theory' (see j Arnav Indus., Inc. Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysman, Milstein, Felder & Steiner, 96 NY2d 300, 303 [2001]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NYZd 83,87438 [I994 I ) [Emphasis added]." (Goldman v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 5 NY3d 561, 570-571 [2005]). Further, the Court, in ' Morris v Morris (306 ADZd 449, 451 [2d Dept 2003]), instructed that:
I
s2xndmm
Table of Contents for Kerchner v Obama & Conaress 2nd Amended C o m ~ l a ~ n t Served on the Defendan& The Lawsuit - Kerchner et ai v Obama et al: Initial filing 2:50 a.m. 20 Jan 2009. Second Amended Verified Com~iaint Filed 9 Feb 2009.
iI
I
I n determining whether a complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), "the sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law a motion for dismissal will fail" (Guggenheimer v Ginsburg, 43 NYZd 268, 275 [1977]. The court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and determine only whether the facts alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Dye v Catholic Med. Ctr, of Brooklyn & Queens, 273 ADZd 193 [2000]). However, bare legal conclusions are not entitled to the benefit of the presumption of truth and are not accorded every favorable inference (seeDoria v Masucci, 230 ADZd 764 [2000]). [Emphasis added] For a plaintiff to survive a motion to dlsmlss for failure to state a cause of action, the factual allegations in the claim cannot be "merely conclusory and speculative in nature and not supported by any specific facts." (Residents for a More Beautiful Port Washington, Inc. v Town of North Hempstead, 153 AD3d 727,729 [2d Dept 19891). "The allegations in the complaint cannot be vague and c o n c l u s o ~ ~ ~ ( S t o ~ a vnGahona, off 248
Useful Info, Docs, & Videos
Article 1 1 Leoai Defense Fund for New
m
Make Mine Freedom (19481 Birther Summit March 2012 Reaistrat~on Natural Born Citizen for Dummie2 Learn What is America's True Form of Government Five citizens hi^ Terms Used in Constitution
--
_--_
APX -
40
AD2d 525 [2d Dept 19981, app dismissed 92 NY2d 844 [1998], cert denied by Stoianoff v New York Times, 525 US 953 [1998]). (See LoPresti v Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 30 AD3d 474 [2d Dept 20061; Levin v Isayeu, 27 AD3d 425 [2d Dept 20061; Hart v Scott, 8 AD3d 532 [2d Dept 20041) (all emphasis in the original). FAILURE TO HAVE STANDING The court found that Strunk did not sufficiently allege an injury in fact and therefore does not have standing. I t found that the court therefore did not to have jurisdiction over his claims. Judge Schack applied federal court standing standards t o a state election challenge case. Many states in the union have llberal standing standards when it comes t o allowing voters of their states to file election ballot challenges, with just requiring that the person be a registered voter of the state. Pennsylvania at most, requires a voter who files a ballot challenge to be of the same party as the candidate of whom the challenger complains. New Jersey has no same party requirement. The federal court standing standards have no application In the state election law challenge. Strunk should be given standing to bring his ballot challenge. FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION Judge Schack found that because it is not possible t o easily gain notice from reading his complaint what his particular cause of action is, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. But with pro se complaints, courts have an obligation t o fully and in good faith search the complaint for a cause of action. As Iwill show below, Strunk more than adequately sets out a cause of action whlch can be discerned by an indulgent reading of the complaint. FAILURE TO PLEAD FRAUD WlTH PARTlCULARIlY Judge Schack found that Strunk's fraud claim also needed t o be dismissed because he did not plead wlth particularity that he relied upon any of the defendants' statement and did not plead that he suffered any pecuniary loss as a result of statement of any of the defendants. Strunk's fraud claim is not necessary for him t o continue his claim that Obama is not a "natural born Citizen." FAILURE TO SHOW THATTHE COURT HAS JURISDICTION Judge Schack found that the court has no jurisdiction because of the political question doctrine. He found that the question of presidential eligibility and necessarily the meaning of a "natural born Citizen" are left by the Constitution t o the Electoral College and Congress in joint session when It counts the Electoral College votes. He even cites and relies upon 3 U.S.C. Sec. 15 which only applies after the general election and when the Congress is in joint session counting the Electoral Votes. Without even acknowledging that Obama is currently a candidate i n the 2012 presidential election, he relies on the Electoral College's and Congress's lack of objection t o Obama's eligibility In the 2008 presidential election. But what is worse is that Judge Schack confounds and conflated candidates with incumbents. He states that Strunk challenges the eligibility of "President Obama." He did not state that it is "Candldate Obama" that Strunk challenges. The court relies strictly upon the Electoral College and Congress t o decide whether incumbents are eligible for presidential office. He states that the states have no role to play in that process. But the meaning of any specific clause of the Constitution is a judiclal question and one t o be authoritatively decided by the United States Supreme Court. That decision under the supremacy clause is binding on the entire nation. 1Story on the Constitution, sec. 387. Also, states do have a critical responsibility t o ensure that candidates on state ballots For federal office meet constitutional eligibillty requirements. By cutting the states out of making sure that presidential candidates are eligible for the office they seek, the court has cut out the states play i n properly vetting presidential candidate early i n the election process so as t o not allow any unqualified candidate t o advance too far and even t o the point where the general public is voting for an ineligible candidate.
,
Euler Loaic Diaaram Analvsis of Natural o fBorn Citizenshio Te U.S. Constitution Natural Born Citizen Graphics - A Picture is Worth a thousand Words. What 1 s a Natural Born Citizen? Exactiv What is a Natural Born Citizen? - Verv Good Video. Ciearina the Smoke on Obama's Eliaibilitv: An Intelliaene Investi~ator's June 10 2009 R e ~ 0 r t See How Easv it is to Produce a Phony Certification of Llve Birth (COLB) and a Diaital Irnaae & Picture of Same and Put i t Online. Here is one for Mickev Hussein Mouse U . Such a diaitai imaqe is all that Obama has aiven t o the electorate and public -art his daim of birth in the USA Analv+is of Obama's Certification of I ive Blrth (COLB) and Examoles of Other TvDe Birth Records bv syc1959. Analysis of Obarna's Certification of L ~ v e W (COLB) by Ron Polarik. PhD. The Greatest Birth Certificate Fraud in Historv - Obama's Foraed Online Certification of Llve Birth - How It Was Done Yideo
- Three I ittleWords
Video - Merrv Christmas Omerika!! Time Since the Usurper Putative President Obama aka Barry Soetoro Unconstitutionally Took Office
'
1203 Days, 00 Hours, 30 Minutes, 56 Seconds

Radio Interviews
- Sampling
Jeff Rense Radio Show Les Naiman Show-970 WGTK Louisville UY-NovIO Les Naiman Show-970 WGTK l ou~svilie KY-MavlO Jeff Kuhner Show-570 WTNT Wash DC-AorlO Blll Cunninqham Show-700 WLW Cincinnati OH-Aua09 Sean & Frank Show-680 WCBM Baltimore MD-Jun09
The U.S. Constitution requires that the President be a natural born cltizen, 35 years of age or older, and reside i n the U.S. for 14 years prior to belng elected. The issue of eligibility has come u p on at least seven occasions with regard to past Presidents and Presidential candidates. As we have witness wlth the 2008 presidential election, there is considerable confusion over the issue of who vets candidates for their eligibility for federal office, including the Office of President. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) examined the issue of who is responsible for presidential vetting. I n their report they opine that there is "no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certlficate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, t o any official of the United States Government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates t o publicly release such personal record or documentation." The CRS memo can be read here: bd.com/doc/74176180/0uaiificatio~-for-President-and-the-Y0E2~/~80 htt~://www.scri %~N~a~~~a~~or_n0/~E20/~8O0/~9D-Citizensh~w-Eliaib (as i l iI ty explain ~ ~ ~ $ . herein, m & n ~ I do not agree with Jack Maskell's definition of a "natural born Citizen" which Is any person who Is a "citizen of the United States" from the moment of birth, regardless o f - t e m or where
AndreaSheaKinaShowBioaTal kRadio-Jun09 Chaliceshow-BloaTaikRadio-Jul09 DrKateConstitutional RadioRloaTal~dio-Aua09
APX - 41
born). The CRS adds that "there is no specific federal agency or office that 'vets' candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to elections." Without any federal laws or guidelines on presidential vetting, the federal government has not precluded the states from doing so. Hence, the best time to resolve Strunk's ballot challenge is at the primary level. At the primary level, it is candidate Obama himself who wants to appear on the ballot. Under the Constitution and state law, it is the candidate who has to prove that the candidate is eligible to be placed on that primary ballot. Strunk should not be made to challenge Obama's el~gibility only after the general election in November 2012. At that point, Obama can argue that the public votes for electors and not him and therefore only the eligibllity of electors can be challenged. Plaintiffs should not be made to rely on the Electoral College or Congress for resolving their challenge to Obama's eligibllity to be elected President. At that point, Obarna can argue that the courts do not have jurisdiction to tell the Electoral College or Congress how to do their jobs. I n The Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton explained that the President was a "person to whom so important a trust was to be confided." He advocated that the Electoral College "will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicate an investigation." He said that because the President was "so an important agency In the administration of the government," "tumult and disorder" were to be avoided In selecting the President. What better way than for the states to aid in this complex investigation of that person who should want to run for that most important office. Surely by requiring any such candidate to produce documentary evidence of his or her identity and place of birth is a first step in producing that needed informatlon which is so vltal to such a complicated investigation. The states therefore serve a vital role in the beginning stages of the vetting of any presidential candidate. Such vetting should start as soon as possible so as to avoid parties becoming entrenched in their selections and wanting to win at all costs at the expense of the people and thelr Constitution. Furthermore, to allow an ineligible candidate to advance to the Electoral College or even to Congress in joint session only brings wlth it tremendous cost, embarrassment for both political parties, political haggling, insults and ridicule, and finger pointing, all at the expense of the Constitution. It is best that presidential eligibility requirements are met prlor to the election of a candldate in order to avoid the prospect of Congress being asked and havlng to invalldate national election results. What better way to secure liberty and support the Constitution than to allow all our political institutions, including those of the states, to have a role In presidential vetting.
BloaTalkRadio-Ian10 MommaeRadioRebelsBIoaTalkRadio-0609 MommaeRadioRebelsBioqTalkRadio-Jul09

Print Media Announcements and Advertorials
How to Helw Place More Print Media Insertions Advertisins Archives - See prior ads
Some Informative Websites & Forums
Alinskv - Rules for Radicals bv Saul Alinskv - Obama,s ,Bible' for Political Action for Social Chanae by 'Rub Raw' Aaitation of the Community American Thinker Website Atlas S h r u g Before It's News Birther Summit Bjrthers Webslte Canada Free Press Citizen Wells Bioq rloward-Piven Strateav of Manufactured . and Orchestrated C r ~ s
Judge Schack found that the court has no jurisdlctlon because Strunk did not properly serve Dr Kate's View Blog Drudae ReD0rt Flovd ReporE Give Us Liberty
i Obama and McCain. While finding no problem with his service upon the other main i defendants, Judge Schack found that Strunk did not properly serve Obama and McCain. The
court did not find that Obama and McCain were indispensable parties and that the action could not proceed without their presence in the action. Hence, service upon the other defendants is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over his claims agalnst the other defendants which concern both Obama and McCain. THAT STRUNK'S COMPLAINT I S FRIVOLOUS Judge Schack found that Strunk's claim that Obama is not a "natural born Citizen" is frivolous. The "natural born Citizen" issue is the heart and soul of Strunk's action. Judge Schack states that " '[a] complaint containing as i t does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where It lacks an arguable basis' and 'embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.' (Neitzke v Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 [1989])." Hence, Judge Schack looked to both the alleged facts and legal claims made by Strunk relative to the 'natural born Citizen" claim in order to determine whether his complaint was frivolous. As to Strunk's factual allegations, he has adequately pled in his complaint that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama's birth wherever that may be. As proof of this fact, he relies upon Obama's admlssion in his book, Dreams from My Father, the INS (immigration) file on Obama's father, the alleged Certificate of Live Birth that Obama released via the internet on April 27, 2011, and the Obama-Dunham divorce papers. While it could be argued that portions of Strunk's complaint (references to the Vatican, Roman Catholic Church, and the Society of Jesus and inclusion of a long list of defendants) rise to the level of the "irrational," the thrust of his legal argument, that Obama is not an Article I1 "natural born Citizen" as we shall see below is eminently reasonable. Whether or not Obama is an Article I1 "natural born Citizen" citizen under the American common law standard that has been in place since the Founding is not a conspiracy theory or what Judge Schack pejoratively calls a "birther case." There are some factual allegations in Strunk's complaint that could raise some eyebrows. We can also understand Strunk's frustratlon and his naming defendants who he believes have allowed Obama to proceed unchallenged and others who he believes should be 'taking responsibility to enforce the law which has not been done" regarding the question of Obama's eligibility to be President. Decislon and Order, p. 20 (Strunk speaking at oral arguments). Strunk does add some questionable factual allegations in his complaint about the defendants' religious motivations. He does express an "irrational anti-Catholic bias." But those questionable factual allegations regarding defendants' motivations are not relevant to the question of what is a 'natural born Citizen" and whether Obama meets that definition. Those suspect factual allegations which he "weaves" into his complaint should therefore not trump the sound part of his complaint and be used as a - t~e~ebyyt_oob~uscate~eereeaI means to create a circus-type atmosphere in the court and
John Christian Rvter's Comem&lye
Gulaa Bound Website
He's Not Mv President Bioa- The NBC
Investiaatina Obama
World
JustAfly Wordpress Biog NoBarack08's WebBiog Obama Citizenshio Facts Obama File Website Obama Release Your Records Bloq Obama Tirneline 1961-2009 One Nation Under Fraud Paiarnas TV Patriot Radio's Bioa bv Andrea Shea Kinq Post & Email Website Protect Our Liberty Safe Guard Our Constitution Stand UD America Bloq Tea Partv Patriots Terrible Truth
APX - 42
""
""-"." """ -.
W..
Y..-Y..Y.W . . . . . . -".-.- --e...
--.,I.-
I . . .
" L y "
' p ' -
y'..-
" " -'
.-,
.. , ' . . .
u . . "
argument that he makes which is that Obama does not meet the status quo American common law definition of a 'natural born Citizen," which definition as we can see below is adequately shown to exist by the historical record and case law of our United States Supreme Court. As to Strunk's legal arguments as to what is a "natural born Citizen," Judge Schack did not
Terrv Lakin Action Fund The Daily Caller The Dailv Pen Trevor Loudon New Zeal Blog Western Center for Journalism Whv Obarna Will Not S + wHis Real Birth Certificate World Net Daily Website
The Rules
' correctly state Strunk's legal position and by doing so actually created a straw man
, argument. He stated:
Plaintiff STRUNK'S complaint, as well as his oppositlon to defendants' motions to dismiss, alleges that the correct interpretation of the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constltutlon requires a natural born citizen to have been born on United States soll and have two United States born parents. Despite plaintiRs assertions, Article 1 1 , Section 1 , Clause 5 does not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the natural born cltizen clause means what plaintiff STRUNK claims i t states. 'The phrase 'natural born Citlzen' is not defined in the Constitution, see Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 [1875]), nor does i t appear anywhere else in the document, see Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President a/the Unlted States: An , 5 (1968)." (Hollander v McCain at Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 65). Plaintiff STRUNK cannot wish into existence an interpretation that he chooses for the natural born citizen clause. There is no arguable legal basis for the proposition that both parents of the President must have been born on U.S. soll. This assertion is as frivolous as the multitude of alleged allegations outlined above. Moreover, President OBAMA is the sixth U. S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soll. Plaintiff STRUNK and his fellow "birthers" might not realize that both parents of President Andrew Jackson were born In what Is now Northern Ireland; President James Buchanan's father was born in County Donegal, Ireland; President Chester A. Arthur's father was born in what is now Northern Ireland; Presldent Woodrow Wilson's mother was born in Carlisle, England; and, President Herbert Hoover's mother was born in Norwich, Ontario, Canada. But Strunk did not argue that a "natural born Citizen" child has to be born to "two United States born parents" or that 'both parents. . must have been born on U.S. soil." This argument Is strictly a creation of Judge Schack. Rather, Strunk argued that a "natural born Cltizen" is a child born in the United States to "citizen" parents.
THE RULES: This blog does not advocate resort to any violence in order to bring about political change. Rather, what we advocate is resort to zealous use of one's First Amendment right to "freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Please keep in mind thls is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. I f you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere. Keep your comments and questions in this blog's threads serious and focused on the subject and merits of this post. Unsubstantiated statements which are determined to be false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts, repetltive, argumentative, personal ad hominem attacks, defamatory statements, criticlsm or lobbying efforts for other attorneys and/or their cases, blog scrolling, advertising links, Inappropriate links, disinformation campaigns, and/or off topic comments will llkely not be also will not discuss In public posted. I specifics as to my planned tactics or am the Judge In thls blog strategies. I and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as Ihave to review them am busy working on various first. As I cases with my law practice, i t may be several hours to 24 hours some days before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered. Please try to stay on topic. The main focus of this blog -- the Obama Article I1 natural born Citizen eligibility issue and the historic Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress lawsuit. Thank you. Blog Archive
7 2012 (13)
Strunk correctly argues that "born Citizen" is not the same as "natural born Cltizen." The first step in constitutional interpretation Is textual analysis of the clause in question. I n that analysis, we have to look at each and every word of the clause which includes "natural" and define that word. By using "born Citizen" rather than "natural born Citlzen," would be saying that we do not need to consider and define "natural," that the Framers just threw that word In as surplusage. On the contrary, the word "natural" is part and parcel of the full clause, "natural born Citizen." The clause as a whole is a word of art, an idiom. The historical record shows that it has always been used as such and that it has never been used in some expanded way as 'born Citizen" suggests. Indeed, the clause is a unitary phrase with a unitary meaning. Hence, "natural" cannot be separated from the clause. Rather what needs to be done is to search for the meaning of the whole clause and not its parts. I n this textual analysis, we cannot simply take that idiom and say that It means some other manufactured definition of the clause. We cannot simply proclaim without evidence that the meaning of that idiom equates to the manner in which Congress and the Fourteenth Amendment allows persons to acquire the status of a "citizen of the United States" as of the moment of birth. No U.S. Supreme Court case or Justice has adopted such a manufactured j definition or even said that such a meaning prevailed at the time of the Founding. That i someone acquires his or her cltlzenship from the moment of birth simply does not equate to that person belng a "natural born Citizen." Even Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 i U.S. 815 (1971) tell us that persons may be "naturalized" from the moment of birth. We accept that "naturalized" person are not "natural born Citizens." Furthermore, that Wong Kim Ark included the clause "natural born subject'' in the context of its discussion of what is i a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" does not through some amazlng feat ; of logic convert a "citizen of the Unlted States" into a 'natural born Citizen." As Minor aptly I explained, a 'natural born Citizen" is neither created by the Constitution nor depended upon it. Hence, neither Fourteenth Amendment nor its debates on who shall be a "citizen of the United States" does not control who shall be "natural born Citizens."
'
Hence, simply having a status of a "citizen" from the moment of birth does not necessarily equate to one being a "natural born Citlzen." The fact that the Framers included the word "natural" as an additional qualifier tells us that quite plainly, for if such an Interpretation were correct the Framers would simply have said "born Cltlzen." So, any person that is a "born Citizen" who claims to be a "natural born Cltlzen" stlll has to show that he or she satisfies the Idiomatic meaning of the clause which the historical record and U.S. Supreme Court case law show to be a child born in the country to parents who are citizens of that country. This definition is exactly what our Unlted States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett in 1875 and Wong Kim Ark in 1898 confiimedisthe correct American common
7 May (2)
The New York State Court Should Not Sanction Pro S... Fox News Is Soreadina False Information on the M e a ,
APX - 43
' ...- ..'
. . . " . I .
-.LA-.-
.-
.-"-. . ,
.-..
Y--".-"YV
-..- --. -..
*-w-.
Y W
...
I . . .
A-'.y"
'y-"".Vb"yV""""'
-"
. I 1
U I I
1 1 "
..
' A . ,
"-.-
" " I . I."L.YU
.,..--..
law definition of a "natural born Citizen." For this time-honored natural law/law of nations/American "common-law" definition of a "natural born Cltizen", see Minor v, Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875) (decided after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted In 1868 and holding that "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon thelr birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners"). What Minor said about a "natural born Citlzen" was confirmed in U S , v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (acknowledging and confirming Minor's American common law definltion of a "natural-born citizen" but adding based on the English common law that since "[tlhe child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle [birth in the country]"' (bracketed information supplied), a chlld born in the Unlted States to domlclied alien parents was a Fourteenth Amendment 'citizen of the United States"). This American common law definltlon of a "natural born Citizen" has never been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment (only uses the clause "citizen of the United States" and does not mention "natural born Citlzen") or Wong Kim Ark, and therefore stlll prevails today. Both those U.S. Supreme Court cases define a "natural born Citizen" as a child born in a country to parents who are cltlzens of that country. This American common law definition of a "natural born Citizen" has also been recognized and accepted by a Founder and member of our U.S. Supreme Court as early as 1814 in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall dissenting and concurring for other reasons). I t was also again confirmed by Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) and Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830). It was again confirmed by Justice Daniels In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).
Ihave shown that the original American "common-law" deflnltlon of a "natural born Cltlzen" was not changed by either the Fourteenth Amendment or Wong Kim Ark, which only deal with a "citizen of the United States'' and not a "natural born Citizen." Hence, the same original definition of a "natural born Citizen" was agaln expressly conflrmed by the whole U.S. Supreme Court in Minor and Wong Kim Ark, and a lower federal court in Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) and United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890). Finally, this same definltlon was impllcitly confirmed by Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964).
W April (4)
b March (2) b February (2) b January
(3)
Followers
Join this site
uilh GOOgle Friend Connect
8
we,
Members (150)
Already a member?
Live Weather
: . <
;c
Given the meaning of the clause since time immemorial; the enlightened intellectual mindset of the Founding period which focused on natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Cicero, Pufendorf, Burlamaqui, John Locke, Rousseau, Emer de Vattel; the motivating spirit of the American Revolution; the Founders and Framers desire to preserve the constitutional republic for Posterity; the way that founding -era legal scholars such as Chlef Justice John Marshall, David Ramsay, St. George Tucker, and James Wllson defined American citizenship; Congressional acts on naturalization; U.S. Supreme Court case law; and the historical record as a whole, this is the most natural interpretation of the clause. Regarding the cltizenshlp status of the parents of a "natural born Citizen," the Constitutlon and Congressional Acts clearly and without question show that a "citizen" may be one either by being "natural born" or naturalized either at birth or after birth. Hence, what Strunk argued is that a child needs to be born in the country to parents who are both either "natural born Citlzens" or 'citizens of the United States" by naturalization at birth or after birth. He did not argue that the parents needed to be born cltlzens or born on the soil of the United States. None of the legal actions filed against Obama on his eligibility have made such an argument and neither did Strunk. So i t is totally Irrelevant to Strunk's claim that "Obama is the sixth U. S. Presldent to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. , Clause 5 and his definition of a soil," for under his interpretation of the Artlcle 1 1 , Section 1 "natural born Citizen," those presidents, other than Chester A. Arthur who like Obama cannot benefit from Article 11's grandfather clause and was not born to cltlzen parents, qualified to be President. Judge Schack has not decided the merits of the legal argument that Strunk made concernlng what is a 'natural born Citizen," but rather a legal argument that he himself created regarding that clause. Hence, not having yet passed on the argument that Strunk made, he surely cannot reasonably conclude that Strunk's argument Is frivolous. Furthermore, in Tennessee, the Federal District Court just recently stated: "The Court finds that the federal question presented, the meanlng of the phrase 'natural born citlzen' as a qualification for the Presidency set out in Artlcle I1 of the Constitution, is important and not trivial." "The issue of whether President Obama Is constitutionally qualified to run for the Presidency is certainly substantlal." 'It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama's qualifications for the office are 'actually dlsputed and substantial.'" 'It is also clear that there wlll be a legal dispute over the Constitution's definition of 'natural born citizen' and the Supreme Court's decision i n Minor." Liberty Legal Foundation et al v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc. et al, Case No. 12-2143-STA. So we can see that the federal court found the Issue of whether Obama is a 'natural born Citizen" to be "important and not trivial," "substantlal," and 'disputed."
edil WEATHER ALERT!- CLICK HERE
Wed
Thu
Blog Patrol
FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed
--
APX - 44
!
t
Additionally, Judge Schack disagrees with Strunk's definition of a "natural born Cltizen," although as Ihave shown above he states a definition which Strunk did not put forth, because the Constitution does not define the clause, citing "Hollander v. McCain at 65" which cited Minor and Charles Gordon, Who can be President of the United States: An Unresolved , 5 (1968). I f that were a valid reason for disagreeing with Enigma, 28 Md. L.Rev. 1 someone's definition of a constitutional clause, we basically would have virtually no Interpretation of the Constitution at all. As is often said, the Constltution is not a dictionary of legal terms. Its meaning has to be gleaned from its text, if possible, and when not possible, from sources outside the Constitution. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment does not tell us what "subject to the jurisdlction" means. Yet, our nation has arrived at a meanlng of the clause by looking outside the Constitution. That the Constitution does not define a "natural born Citizen" is the only argument that Judge Schack makes to discount Strunk's position as to what is the meaning of a "natural born Citizen." He offers no other authorities showing that Strunk is wrong. Also, we should know that Charles Gordon In the very same article cited by Judge Schack states that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark's holding defined a "natural born Cltizen." Surely, all this shows that Strunk did allege a particular cause of action and gave suMclent notice of both the facts and the law that support his cause of action. All this also shows that it is not true that Strunk's complaint presents no legitimate basis In law or fact which warrants sanctions. Even assuming arguendo that the Court is correct about standing, jurisdiction, and collateral estoppel, the Court did not say that these grounds of dismissal support the Court's finding that the action is frivolous. Rather, the Court's finding of frivolous concerns Strunk's definition of a "natural born Citizen." Ihave shown that hls definition is more than reasonable to raise a genuine constitutional question. Hence, his complaint is not frivolous.
Live Traftic Feed
P
2-<-~ee your visitors in RealTime! Get the Free Live Traffic Feed Get Feediit Now! A visitor from United States viewed "Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: The New York State Court Should Not Sanction Pro Se Plaintiff, Christovher Earl Strunk for His "Natural Born Citizen" Litigation" 0 sees ago A visitor from E l Paso, Texas viewed "Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Rieht Answers: The New York State Court Should Not Sanction Pro S e Plaintiff, Christopher Earl Strunk, for His "Natural Bonl Citizen" Litiscation" 11 secs ago A visitor from Payson, Arizona viewed "Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Ouestions and Get i d 1 1 Answers: The the R New York State Court Should Not Sanction Pro Se Plaintiff, Christopher Earl Strunk, for His "Natural Born Citizen" Litimtion" 3 mins ago A visitor from Auburndale, Florida viewed "Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Ouestions and Get the Rieht Answers: The New York State Court Should Not Sauction Pro Se Plaintiff, Christopher Earl Strunk. for His "Natural Born Citizen" Litimtion" 3 mins ago
As Judge Schack correctly states, "all litigants have a right to impartial and considered justice." Muka v. New York State Bar Association. 120 Misc. 2d 897 (Sup. Ct. Tompkins County 1983). But Judge Schack's references to " 'blrther' cases" ' 'birther' action," ' : 'birther' movement," "his fellow 'birthers,"' is hardly any show of actually receiving that "impartial and considered" justice. "Birther" is a pejorative term that Is used by Obama's supporters. It is a quick way to dismiss through ridicule and ad hominem attack any argument that is made that Obama is not an Article I1 'natural born Citizen." As Ihave shown, whether Obama Is a "natural born Citizen" is not some conspiracy or 'lunatlc fringe" argument. Rather, It is, as even the federal court in Tennessee has confirmed, a legitimate and substantlal constitutional issue which to date has escaped belng address in any meaningful way.
Apart that there is no factual or legal basis for the Court to sanction Mr. Strunk, there are also public policy reasons for not doing so. Judge Schack states in his opinion that sanctions of the court are designed to punish in the present so as to deter what the court deems unacceptable behavior in the future. The court adds that such a policy is justified in that it works to save judicial resources. On the contrary, for the Court to sanction Mr. Strunk under the existing circumstances would not only save judlcial resources by preventing him from filing further Article I1 eliglbillty actions in New York in the future, but would do a great disservice to our system of justice and republican form of government. With any such sanction, the public, not knowing the full details of this matter and after having been bombarded by manipulated and propagandist use of the court's sanction decision by Obama's supporters, will come away with the thought that Mr. Strunk was sanctioned by the "Supreme Court of the State of New York" because he filed a complaint In a court of law claiming that Mr. Obama is not an Artlcle I1 "natural born Citizen." The public will therefore not only be made to think that there is no legitimate basis in filing any such legal actions against Mr. Obama, but also that if anyone so dare, he or she will be severely sanctioned by our courts. Additionally, because we follow the doctrine of stare decisis (to abide by or adhere to decided cases), other courts wlll be pressured to do the same should anyone file i any such action, Hence, we can easily see the chilling effect that the Court's sanctlon will have to not only people resorting to our court's In search of what they deem to be justice, : but also stifling the free exercise of political speech and discourse in all corners of America. : This is especially grave given that Mr. Obama is now being more carefully publicly and i privately vetted for his re-election. For these reasons, the Supreme Court of the State of New York should not sanction or otherwise discipline prose litigant, Chris Shrunk, and should discharge its show cause order. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. May 6, 2012 h t t ~ : / / ~ u z.bloospot.com/ ol
####
A visitor from Knoxville,

Tennessee viewed "Natural Born Citizen A Place to Ask Ouestions and Get the Ri&t Answers" 5 mins ago A visitor from Milwaukee, Wisconsin viewed "Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Ouestions and Get the Riqht Answers" 7 mins ago A visitor from Fort Myers, Florida viewed "Natural Born Citizen A Place to Ask Ouestions ,-..
Copyright O 2012 Mario Apuzzo, Esq. All Rights Resewed

Posted by Puzol at 1 : 0 6
Labels: Baraclc,ChmbQherE. 5 -
. . ..
,l Y d a -
12 comments:
M~ck said... : 9The SCOTUS has said, in McPherson v. Biacker (1892), that the State election officials have to do ministerial duty w/ discretion to A2 in Presidential elections: "Congress is empowered to determine the time of choosing the electors and the day on which they are to give their votes, which is required to be the same daythroughout the United States; but otherwise the power and jurisdiction of the state Is exclusive, with the exception of the provisions as to the number of electors and the ineligibility of certain persons, so framed that congressional and federal influence might be excluded."
, 35 (1892) McPherson v. Blacker, 146 US 1
Included in the category of those ineligible persons listed in A2 are: 1)"but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trustor Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."(A2Slc2) 2)"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of theAdoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." (A2SlC5) This was a case about the States' power to legislate their statutory scheme of choosing electors, so # 1 applies. But the court certainly would not say to pay attention to the exclusion of 1group and not the others pertaining to A2 in Presidential elections--- those who were not natural born Citizens. I f the states must not pick officers of state and federal government as electors on It's ballot, then it surely cannot pick those who are NOT natural born Citizens to be on the ballot. So says the SCOTUS. "Likewise, in Anderson v Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780,794795 (1983) (footnoteomitted), we said: "[Iln the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest. For the Presidentand the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials whorepresent ail the voters in the Nation." Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 112 Also McPherson v. Blacker clearly says that:
"It is argued that the subject-matter of the controversy is not of judicialcognizance, because it is said that all questions connected with the electionof a presidential elector are political in their nature; that the court has nopower finally to dispose of them; and that its decision would be subject toreview by political officers and agencies, as the state board of canvassers,the legislature in joint convention, and the governor, or, finally, thecongress. But the judicial power of the United States extends to ail cases in law orequity arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, and thisis a case so arising, slnce the validity of the state law was drawn in questionas repugnant to such constitution and laws, and its validity was sustained" , 23 (1892). McPherson v. Biacker, 146 US 1
i n F e Z r t k t #68, a natural born Citizen is described as a "creature of their own''. The purpose of choosing a "Creature of their own", according to Federalist #68 was the prevention of foreign influence. To guard against the choosing of one not a "creature of their own", we were to guard against "an improper ascendant". An "improper ascendant", according to the 1813 and 1828 Webster's Dictionary, is "an improper ANCESTOR". Could a "creature of their own be the scion of a foreigner, who was never a US Citizen? Could the most provident and judicious method of choosing a "creature of their own" in order to avoid foreign influence, be the choosing of one born Brltish, of a British subject father, who held foreign citizenship at least until age 23, and possibly is still a British subject today? Barack Obama Sr. is AN IMPROPER ANCESTOR.
.Mav_6LL012 2:07 PM
lsimrn48 said ...

I woud like to call the court to give my opinion on this totatly unconstitutional decision that the court made what is the phone number??j~hank you Leslie
...
Mav6.2012 3:58 PY
said.. .
APX -
46
Puzol: A solid analysis from top to bottom and it, unfortunately, shows how the pro-Obama portion of the Judcial Branch takes grave and unjustified license in re-stating (or actually mis-stating) things that were said in the action. Would it not be more correct and more helpful to jurisprudence to take these actions seriously, review the evidence, the pertinent precedents and laws involved and THEN make a reasoned ruling citing all polnts of fact and law considered and which back the opinion issued. I n other words, hear the cases on merit rather than dismiss by saying (in effect) "no one else has ever found anything wrong in court so we can't either". Or is it, perhaps, that stare decises applies rather than to SCOTUS precedents (Minor, WKA, etc) but instead to massively flawed and falacious arguments put forth by the court itself in earlier cases as an excuse to rid Itself of a case i t views as politically charged or harmful of it's preferred "politician du jour". Several courts have used the hugely flawed CRS Memo(s) by Maskell that are fllled with mis- and disinformation and actually have been shown to warp and misquote some learned writings to try to prove the opposite of what they actually say. Stare decises based upon clear lies and/or fraud, perhaps?
Unknown said
...
The judiciary is just one of the many corrupted institutions in America. I can not think of one profession that has not given Its soul to the devil so to speak, As as a psychotherapist Ihave to deal with the psychiatric drug scandal. The drugs prevent the person from ever recovering. They destroy lives. There is abundant evidence of this just as there is in the Obama matter--but the powers Ignore It and protect their money and status. At least the Europeans are now starting to fight back. Obviously these various judges know from experience what they can get away with and probably laugh about it among those who know the score. Iwould hope there were some attorneys in New York who would come forth and assist this person who is attempting to do his duty as a good citlzen. Are we In that situation that other nations have found themselves where only after it is way too late people finally wake up?
&& said...
You argument that "natural born citizen" requires two parents isn't accepted by the courts through their interpretation of common law, statute, and precedent. There are really only two options here: Either: 1) The entire US Judiciary is wrong
2) You are wrong. Which is most likely?

8:06 PM
Puml said...
Andy, We are not In a law court here. This is the court of publlc opinion, where the courts have told us the issue of Obama's eligibility belongs. Make your case here.
bdwilcox said. .. You know things are bad when judges blatantly make **** up to threaten people.
15 PM
lustin said. ..
@Andy The highest court in the land DOES agree. Minor v Happersett
"it was never doubted that all children born in'a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or
-- -
APX - 47
natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Mav
2 . 6
MichaelN said... Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the following remarks at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., on March 14, 2005.
"Now, in asserting that originalism used to be orthodoxy, Ido not mean to imply that judges did not distort the Constitution now and then, of course they did. We had willful judges then, and we will have willful judges until the end of time. But the difference is that prior to the last 50 years or so, prior to the advent of the "Living Constitution," judges did their distortlons the good old fashioned way, the honest way - they lied about It. They said the Constitution means such and such, when It never meant such and such. It's a big difference that you now no longer have to lie about It, because we are in the era of the evolving Constitution. And the judge can simply say, 'Oh yes, the Constitutlon didn't used to mean that, but i t does now." We are In the age in which not only judges, not only lawyers, but even school children have come to learn the Constitution changes.
I
I
I
i
1
I have grammar school students come into the Court now and then, and they recite very proudly what they have been taught: "The Constitutlon is a living document." You know, it morphs.
Well, let me first tell you how we got to the "Living Constltution." You don't have to be a lawyer to understand it. The road is not that complicated. Initially, the Court began giving terms in the text of the Constitution a meaning they didn't have when they were adopted."
Mav 7. 2012 1 2 : O O AM
MichaelN said...
@ Andy who said
......
"You argument that "natural born citizen" requires two parents isn't accepted by the courts through their interpretation of common law, statute, and precedent." Then, explain how come the Minor court recognized and acknowledged doubts as to whether a native-born child, born to alien parents, was even a citizen, given i t were true that the Minor court was referring to the Engllsh "common law" in the paragraph of text these doubts were mentioned, and also given that English common law maintained that native-birth sufficed to make a "natural born subject" and given also that "citizen" and "subject" were considered to be analogous???
Mav 7. 2012 12:04 AM
&K& said...
Mario:
I just did. And by logic, you lose.
Mav 7. 2012 3:31 AM
Post a Comment
Links t o this post
Create a Link
Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Older Post
APX -
48
I N V O I C E DIANE DIXON Reporter Supreme C o u r t , Kings county 360 dams S t r e e t - Room 677 B r o o k l y n , New Y o r k 11201
offi c i a1 court
347-296-1413
May 9, TO:
2012
B I L L VAN ALLEN
845-389-4366
BILL FOR STENOGRAPHIC SERVICES I N THE MATTER OF:
STRUNK-V-NYS BOARD OF ELECTIONS
xnd. Number:
6500/11
May 7,
B e f o r e : HON. Part: D a t e o f proceedings:
2012
(origi nal & C o u r t Copy) ( E x p e d i ted) ( D o u b l e - s i ded order)
28 pages @ $3.80 = $106.40

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE:
FOR YOU
$106.40
PROMPT PAYMENT
offi c i a1 court
D I A N ~ DIXON
Reporter
APX - 49
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS: C I V I L TERM : PART 27
CHRISTOPHER-EARL
STRUIK,
i n esse,
PI a i n t i ff,
1 1
against
1
j 1
>
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSH/CO-CHAIR, DOUGLAS A. ~ ~ L ~ N E R / c o - c h a j EVELYN r, 3 . AQUILA/ commi s s i o n e r , GREGORY P PETERSON/ c o m m i s s i o n e r , D e p u t y D i r e c t o r , TODD D. VALENTINE, D e p u t y D i r e c t o r , STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMI COLON,
1 1
)
/'
Fr. ) I n d e x Number ) 6500/11 JOSEPH P. PARKES, 5 . 3 ; FREDERICK A.O., SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW ) E l e c t i o n H e a r i n g K A I M I E R Z BRZEZINSKI ; M A ~ KBRZEZINSKI ; 1 JOSEPH R. BIDEN, 3R.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a 1 B a r r y S o e t o r o , a . k . a B a r a c k H u s s e i n Obama, ) a.k.a steve Dunham); NANCY P E L O S ;I 1 DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE ) OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMIlTEE OF THE WORK) ING F A M I L I E S PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; 1 ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; ) I A N 3 . BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY McCALN, 1 1 1 ; ) JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUB- ) L I C A N STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE ) COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE ) COMMITTEE O F THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF 3 NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE ) SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY ) FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN ) VICTORY 2 0 0 8 ; JOHN AND JANE DOES; and XYZ ) ENTITIES, 1
\
i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l and i n d i v i d u a l capacity, F r . JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.;
1 1 1
x
K i n g s s u p r e m e court 360 Adams S t r e e t ~ r o o k l y n ,New Y o r k May 7, 2 0 1 2 B E F O R E : HONORABLE ARTHUR M. SCHACK, Justice A P P E A R A N c E s : (see next page.)
11201
APX - 50
A P P E A R A N C E S : Attorney
f o r ~l a i n t i ff:
( P r o se)
A t t o r n e y s f o r Defendants zbigniew,
Mark,
and I a n B r z e z i n s k i :
MCGUIRE WOODS, L L P 1345 Avenue o f the A m e r i c a s - S e v e n t h F l o o r New Y o r k , New Y o r k 1 0 1 0 5 - 0 1 0 6 By: 'MARSHALL B E I L , ESQ. Attorneys
f o r D e f e n d a n t s P r e s . B a r a c h Obama, V i c e P r e s .
J o s e p h B i d e n , obama V i c t o r y F u n d , obama f o r A m e r i c a , Rep. N a n c y P e l o s i , and P e n n y S. P r i t z k e r : HARRIS BEACH, PLLC 333 E a r l e O v i n g t o n ~ l v d . , S u i t e 901 uniondale, New Y o r k 1 1 5 5 3 By: K E I T H M. CORBETT, ESQ.
A t t o r n e y s f o r Sen.
John McCain Defendants
and V i c t o r y 2008:
one Thomas c i r c l e , NW
CAPLIN & DRYSDALE
w a s h i ngton , D c 2 0 0 0 5 By: TODD E. P H I L L I P S , A t t o r n e y s f o r Defendant George Soros:
S u i t e 1100 ESQ.
W I L L K I E FARR & GALLAGHER, L L P 787 s e v e n t h A v e n u e New ~ o r k ,New Y o r k 10019-6099 By: T E R I SEIGAL, ESQ. A t t o r n e y s F o r D e f e n d a n t G r e g o r y G. Peterson:
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT, L L P 425 ~ e x i n g t o n Avenue New Y o r k , New Y o r k 1 0 0 1 7 - 3 9 5 4 By: ERIKA H. BURK, ESQ. ( ~ p p e a r a n c e s c o n t ' d n e x r page.)
APX - 51
-
P P E AR A N C E S :
(Cont'd)
A. O'Hare, Attorneys f o r ~ e f e n d a n t s~ o s e p h ~ o s e p hP. Parks, and A.O. Schwarz, J r . :
N E W YORK CITY L A W DEPARTMENT o f f i c e o f t h e Corporation counsel 100 church S t r e e t New York, New York 10007-2601 BY: CHLARENS ORSLAND, ACC Attorneys f o r Governor, C o n t r o l l e r , s e c r e t a r y o f state, fomrni ssioner o f s t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s and several s t a t e Board o f f i c e r s , Attorney General, Thomas D i ~ a p o l i , and ~ u t h Noerni Colon: STATE OF NEW YORK o f f i c e o f t h e Attorney General
120 roadway
New
vork,
By:
Attorneys
N e w York 10271-0332 30EL GRABER, AAG
Roger ca1e r o :
f o r ~ e f e n d a n t sS o c i a l i s t workers P a r t y and
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN,. P.C. 45 roadway - S u i t e 1700 New York, N e w York 10006-3791 By: DANIEL S. REICH, ESQ. DIANE DIXON, RPR, CSR, RMR c o u r t Reporter.
o f f i cia1
proceedi ng A-F-T-E-R-N-0-0-N
THE
S-E-S-S-I-0-N
COURT:
Let m e f i g u r e o u t who we have

we have M r . strunk.
here; i n no p a r t i c u l a r order.
MR.
BEIL:
~ a r s h a 1 7~ e 1.i
I represent
z b i g n i ew Brzezinski , Mark Brzezi nski , and I a n Brzezinski, and I served on M r . strunk today an
a f f i davi t / a f f i rmation o f service i n connection w i t h the c o u r t ' s request f o r a d e t a i l e d statement o f services.
I can hand t h a t up t o t h e Court.

THE COURT:
That would be appreciated.
why
don't you hand i t t o t h e o f f i c e r ? ~ n 1 d' m l o o k i n g a t a copy from t h e s t a t e r e p o r t e r o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r action. So you are here M r . c o r b e t t , and w e ' l l g e t t o you i n a moment.
MR.
CORBETT:
Your Honor, ~ e i t h Corbett, Law
o f f i c e o f H a r r i s Beach; and w e represent Pres. Barach obama, v i c e Pres. 3oseph Biden, the Obama ca, i as we1 1 as we v i c t o r y Fund, Obama For ~ m e r represent Nancy Pelosi and a l s o Penny S . P r i tzker.
MR.
P H I L L I P S :
odd
YOU
phi ] l i p s ,
caplin &
Drysdal e .
THE
COURT:
represent Sen. McCain and t h e
others; r i g h t ?
MR. PHILLIPS:
correcr.
V i c t o r y 2008,
Proceeding McCai n . Todd Phi 11i ps THE COURT:
.
You were admitted pro hac vice?
MR. PHILLIPS:
THE COURT:
Yes.
M r . Corbett, do you have any
b i l l s o r records t h a t you want t o submit a t t h i s time?

MR.
CORBETT: ~t t h i s time, your Honor, w e do
not.
we are a w a i t i n g c l a r i f i c a t i o n from our c l i e n t s t o
see t h a t they are going t o go forward and want t o

submit any document. THE COURT:
Mr.
P h i l l i p s , do you want t o
submit anything t o the c o u r t ?
MR. PHILLIPS:
I do not have authorization.
THE COURT: You're going t o seek costs?

MR. PHILLIPS:
NO.
MS.
SEIGAL:
Your Honor, T e r i Sei gal, W i 1 f k i e
Farr & Gallagher.

MS.
I represent defendant George Soros.
B U R K ~ E r i k a Burk, Simpson Thacher &
~artlett. W e represent M r . Gregory- Peterson, and I
did
-THE COURT:
L e t me j u s t f i n d where simpson
~ h a c h e ri s here.
MS.
BURK:
Excuse me, your Honor.
I did
b r i n g a copy.
THE COURT:
YOU
can hand t h a t up.
MR.
ORSLAND:
chlarens Orsland, t h e campaign
Proceedi ng Finance Board defendants. your Honor, w e decline t o request costs f o r

M r . strunk i n t h i s matter.
w e appreciate t h e o f f e r .
MR. GRABER:
THE COURT:
Joel Graber. Attorney General? Assistant Attorney General.
MR. GRABER:
represent t h e governor, the C o n t r o l l e r , t h e Secretary o f State, the Commissioner o f State Board o f Elections and several o f f i c e r s o f the s t a t e Board; and Attorney General i s also a named defendant.
Mr.
I believe
~i~apo ; land i Ms. Colon i s s t i l l Secretary o f
state. As I stated l a s t October, your Honor, we represent t h e o f f i c e r s , not t h e i n d i v i d u a l s .

THE COURT:
YOU represent various i n d i v i d u a l
defendants who are i n d i v i d u a l o f f i c e r holders o f t h e State o f New York.

MR.
'
GRABER:
Because they-' r e a l l sued i n the
o f f i c i a l capacity. submi s s i on.

THE COURT:
Mr.
The Attorney General does have a
You want t o hand t h a t to
strunk i f he hasn't received i t , and t o t h e
officer?
hank you.
~twas handed up t o me.
It was clocked i n on
APX
55
Proceeding May 3. He probably submi t r e d i t on ~ h u r s d a y .

MR. STRUNK:
Correct. I t h i n k you submitted t h i s
THE COURT: Thursday t o t h e court.

MR.
STRUNK:
C h r i s t o p h e r - ~ a r l strunk, the
plaintiff.
MR. REICH :
Dan Rei ch , ~ a b nowi i t z , Boudi n ,
standard, ~ r i n s k y & ~iebermanon behalf o f s o c i a l i s t workers Party, and Roger Calero.

THE COURT:
And you were here previously;
right?
(NO
verbal response .)
Are you submitting any papers?

MR.
REICH:
Not a t t h i s time.
we'd l i k e t o
reserve t h e r i g h t t o do so i f possible.
THE COURT:
A t the end o f t h i s 1'11 explain
how much time you have t o submit something.
~ 1 r 1 i g h t , j u s t so we are- c l e a r why we' r e here today, and I w i l l read i n t o the record t h a t I issued a decision which was covered on ~ p r i 1 l1 , 2012, published by t h e State Reporter a t 35 Misc 3d 1208(A); o r more s p e c i f i c a l l y 2012 union.
NY
s l i p op 50614CU) as i n
so r h i s i s why we' r e here.

NOW,
I found t h a t M r . strunk's o r i g i n a l
I'm
motion and h i s p e t i t i o n a c t u a l l y i s dismissed.
~roceed ng i sorry.
I shouldn't say p e t i t i o n .
His a c t i o n seeking
various forms o f r e l i e f was denied i n i t s e n t i r e t y and granted i n numerous motions t o d i Smi ss t h e action.
so obviously h i s case went away, and I a l s o

enjoined him from commencing any f u r t h e r a c t i o n i n the
New York State u n i f i e d c o u r t System w i t h o u t permi ssian
o f the appropri ate a d m i n i s t r a t i v e judge depending upon what the j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t intended t o f i l e . ~ n a dl s o I c a l l e d t h i s hearing because I found t h a t M r . strunk's a c t i o n was f r i v o l o u s , and I wanted t o g i v e him an opportunity t o be heard pursuant t o 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[~].
I wanted t o be heard, so I c a n ' t
--
as t o
whether o r n o t I should award costs and/or sanctions because o f t h e f r i v o l o u s papers t h a t he had, and obviously he was served, and he knows about i t . we have, ' I believe, a various combination o f defendants.
we have present i n the-room, one, two,
three, f o u r , f i v e , s i x , seven o f defendants.
--
looks l i k e e i g h t sets
~ 1 1 r i g h t , I read through your papers,

Mr.
strunk.
F i r s t o f f , I before I g i v e you the
opportunity t o be heard, I want you t o know t h a t ' t h i s i s not
--
we're n o t holding a hearing f o r m e to
--
for
you t o renew o r reargue m y decision, because the papers
Proceedi ng were i n response t o whether o r not I should sanction you.

AS
I read through your papers, most o f i t
was
--
w e l l , 1'11 c a l l i t a r e i t e r a t i o n o f why you did,
o r you went through numerous reasons why you disagree y with m y decision t o p u t i t m i l d l y , and argue about m o r i g i n a l decision.
YOU
c a n ' t do t h a t ,
You can f i l e a
motion t o renew o r reargue m y decision t h a t I issued l a s t month, b u t t h i s issue before us today i s whether o r not I should sanction you f o r engaging i n f r i v o l o u s conduct, but I ' m going t o give you an opportunity t o be heard.
MR.
STRUNK:
Yes.
Before I g e t s t a r t e d here
I want t o enter i n as an amicus something t h a t was

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

MR.
--
by an
STRUNK:
An amicus; yes.
APX - 58
Proceeding
THE COURT:
10
Can T see what you have; and you
have copies f o r everyone?

MR.
STRUNK:
Everyone has been served and
they were n o t i f i e d as of yesterday.

THE COURT:
Mario ~ p u z z o ,and i t ' s Jamesburg,
New Jersey.
his i s e n t i t l e d
--
w r i t t e n yesterday
according t o t h i s , and i t says something t h a t I shouldn't
--
t h e t i t l e i s i n boldface.
The New York State Court should Not Sanction

pro se P l a i n t i f f Christopher Ear1 strunk for h i s " ~ a t i o n a lBorn c i t i z e n " l i t i gation.
I d o n ' t know whether t h i s gentleman i s an

attorney whether i t ' s New York, New Jersey o r what. could be a member o f New York law. know. 1'71 t a k e a look a t it. I r e a l l y don't He
I don't know how
persuasive i t ' s going t o be o r not, b u t 1'17 take a look a t i t .
~t looks a l i t t l e b i t o u t o f order, b u t
1'11 take a look a t i t .

MR. STRUNK:
I do n o t o b j e c t t o t h a t being
p u t i n as an amicus.
THE COURT:
object. I d o n ' t know.
Maybe t h e other f o l k s w i l l
~nybody object?
(NO verbal response
.)
~ l rl i g h t , then 1'11 take a look a t i t .
APX - 59
Proceedi ng
MR. STRUNK:
The f i r s t r h i n g I ' d l i k e t o do
i s f i n d o u t what t h e s t a t u s o f t h e other motions are

t h a t were f i l e d t o enter i n t o evidence t h a t would
m i t i g a t e your decision.
There was a motion f i l e d i n on
February 9 requesti ng 1eave .

THE COURT:
I know t h a t subsequent t o t h i s o r
p r i o r t o while t h i s was being w r i t t e n by myself you f i l e d something o r other t o e i t h e r f o r f e i t as I r e c a l l , several weeks ago. You d i d n ' t show up i n A p r i l .
MR. STRUNK: THE COURT:
I showed up.
I b e l i e v e we marked i t o f f
where t h i s i s you went on
because you d i d n ' t appear. and on about
--
I b e l i e v e i t was a case i n Georgia as I
r e c a l l , as I read i t where i n e f f e c t I believe
--
d o n ' t know i f i t was an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law judge i n Georgia o r i t was a t r i a l c o u r t .

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

To m e i t was
You have a
THE COURT:
a diatribe.
You can o b j e c t t o what I say.

I t was i r r e l e v a n t t o what
r i g h t t o do t h a t .
I did
l a t e r , and then you had one sentence i n there that I
--
APX - a _____
-- -
---
Proceeding should recuse myself and you never explained why.

You d i d read t h a t .
I read i t , b u t you never showed
up i n c o u r t .
I read i t because I wanted t o be ready
f o r you when you appeared t o speak t o you about i t , but
--
I read i t , b u t you d i d n ' t appeared i n court, so.
I marked i t o f f .
MR. STRUNK:
It was adjourned.
You b e l i e v e i t was adjourned,
THE COURT:
t h i s Index Number 6500/11? M y recollection i s that i t was marked o f f .

MR. STRUNK: THE COURT: I t was adjourned.
We'll f i n d out,
You weren't
here.
COURT CLERK: THE COURT: COURT CLERK:
THE COURT:
A p r i l 23. what d i d we do? Marked i t o f f . what made you- t h i n k i t was
adjourned?
MR. STRUNK:
It was adjourned t o t h e
1 8 t h of June.
COURT CLERK:
MR. STRUNK: COURT CLERK:
NO i t
wasn't.
~ o th t a t one.
Not t h a t one?
This was sequence 16.
~hai rs
a relief.
That could be another one.
APX - 61
Proceedi ng
THE COURT:
13
IS t h a t on t h a t index number,
3une 18?
MR. STRUNK:
B U i ~ t was
a motion f o r leave
to
-THE COURT:
Is t h a t the one t o go t o t h e
court o f ~ p p e a s? l
MR.
STRUNK:
Yes, which i s e s s e n t i a l l y moot
i n any case.
THE COURT:
I t ' s moot, b u t I ' v e g o t t o t e l l
you, t h a t s t a t u t e t h a t you c i t e d says b a s i c a l l y t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e law i s i n question.

I t could
be a d i rect appeal from t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o t h e Court o f
~ p p e a l s , and t h a t was invoked l a s t week, t h e case i n v o l v i n g t h e 63rd senate d i s t r i c t . That's ir r e l e v a n t
t o t h i s case, b u t t h a t ' s how i t was used. However, I d o n ' t t h i n k t h a t ' s c o r r e c t i n t h a t you're n o t a t t a c k i n g t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o r any s t a t u t e .
YOU'
r e a t t a c k i n g whether o r n o t Pres. Obama i s e l i g i b l e
t o be president. anything
That i s n o t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of
.
MR.
STRUNK:
That's n o t what t h e problem w i t h
t h e case i s .
The appeals c o u r t
-The p o i n t i s I ' m n o t
THE COURT:
YOU can go t o t h e a p p e l l a t e
d i v i s i o n i f you've g o t a problem.
sending t h i s t o t h e Court o f ~ p p e a l s . Id o n ' t see
APX - 62
Proceedi ng
I
14
where t h e r e i s any a t t a c k on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f the statute.

MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
1
I
I
lt's been disposed o f .
~ t ' s disposed o f .
I dismissed
your case.
MR. STRUNK:
SO
i t ' s moot.
Thank you.
THE COURT:
I t h i n k t h a t ' s t h e p o i n t I wanted
t o make.
~ t ' s moot.
MR. STRUNK:
Now, t h e second motion has been
adjourned u n t i l June 18, I b e l i e v e ? COURT CLERK:

THE COURT:
MR.
Yes.
Yes. That was a motion submitted f o r
STRUNK:
evidence o f t r a n s a c t i o n s t h a t occurred a f t e r f i l i n g and hearing which would b o t h m i t i g a t e a f t e r the ~ u g u s t damages and m i t i g a t e t h e d e c i s i o n on your p a r t .
THE COURT:
I s t h a t i n reference t o t h e f a c t
that I wouldn't s i g n t h a t emergency- o r d e r t o show cause back i n October?

MR.
STRUNK:
NO.
That i s a f a c t t h a t an
a u t h o r i t y o f competent j u r i s d i c t i o n has found t h a t t h e r e i s reason t o b e l i e v e and i s suspicious o f f o r g e r y and fraud, and t h a t s p o l i a t i o n has occurred, and'there i s concealment which would a f f e c t your decision.
THE COURT:
I d o n ' t know what you a r e
Proceedi ng r e f e r r i n g to.
MR.
STRUNK:
15
You adjourned i t sua sponte.
THE COURT:
I might not have adjourned i t .
The c l e r k s might have adjourned i t ; kicked i t over because, you know, I don't do motions on a Tuesday. i n any case one a r b i t r a r i f y p i c k s a date, t h e c l e r k s k i c k them over t o another date. put on adjourned.
So
so t h a t ' s why t h i s was
l and You picked the dare o f A ~ r i 24,
then a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y , not me, t h e c l e r k s i n motion support adjourned i t t o June 18.

MR.
STRUNK:
Well, i t ' s m y error i n thinking
t h a t t h e other motion was t o be heard on t h a t date a l s o which was sua sponte adjourned.
o f any adjournment.
I g o t no n o t i f i c a t i o n
THE COURT:
The. c o l d case Posse.
The
Maricopa County, Arizona s h e r i f f s issue o f press release about a c o l d case Posse, 30e Arpaio. That's
the s h e r i f f o f Maric0p.a County, ~ r j z o n a . t h i s i s t h e

one t h a t goes on about t h i s Judge i n Atlanta. This comes back t o you know,
made a r u l i n g
about whether,. you know, you had t h i s case, and I submitted i t about Pres. Obama. we're g e t t i n g f a r a f i e l d . found by Judge
ROSS
YOU
know, ydu were
in
--
X don't have t h e exact date
i n f r o n t o f me, i n 2008 t o have f i l e d a f r i v o l o u s
APX - @
Proceeding motion i n Federal c o u r t . You then b r i n g i t over t o
16
s t a t e Court and you go on and on, and you know, I have certain beliefs.
YOU
have t h e r i g h t t o have the
b e l i e f s about Pres. Obama and about sen. McCain where they were born and whether o r n o t t h e y are e l i g i b l e t o be president o f t h e u n i t e d states, b u t we have many
cases t h a t are n o t f r i v o l o u s t h a t I and other ludges i n t h i s c o u r t have t o handle, and I d o n ' t know how many times you have had a case dismissed before you know you r e a l i z e d you' r e n o t going t o g e t anywhere w i t h t h i s .
MY p o i n t i s t h a t unless an a p p e l l a t e
authority t e l l s m e otherwise, you have an i n c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of what t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n says, t h e r e f o r e

I r u l e d your a c t i o n t o be f r i v o l o u s , b u t you continue
t o move forward.
I want you t o know t h a t ' s why I found
t h i s t o be f r i v o l o u s .
MR.
STRUNK:
This i s t h e motion t h a t we are
discussing?
THE COURT:
We're t a l k i n g about my r u l i n g and
why I r u l e d t h a t you have been engaging i n f r i v o l o u s conduct. You're t e l l i n g m e why I should not now, The f a c t - i s I found you are precluded
sanction you.
a l s o by c o l l a t e r a l estoppel based on what happened i n Federal Court, y e t you decide t o use t h e s t a t e c o u r t f o r your own use, and you go on and on w i t h a
APX - 6 5
Proceedi ng baseless
--
what I c a l l a baseless a c t i o n , and you
know, Federal Court stayed your a c t i o n as i r r a t i o n a l . Let m e g e t t o 3udge Ross and her f i n d i n g s i n Federal Court. You had a s i m i l a r case i n 2008.
MR.
STRUNK:
he case was never heard, and
t h e marked
--
a l l t h e papers were d e f e c t i v e , and t h a t
t h e Judge o n l y for purposes
--
t h e r e was an a c t u a l
motion f o r i n f e r r i n g an improper purpose.

THE COURT:
Judge Ross i n her d e c i s i o n i n
Eastern D i s t r i c t on October 28. 2008 i n t h e case o f Strunk v. New York S t a t e Board o f E ~ e c t i o n s~ t h i c a l Index Number 08-CV-4289 dismissed your a c t i o n , saying you f a i l e d
--
no.
Let m e back up.
Judge Ross i n page s i x i n f o o t n o t e s i x c i t i n g two p r i o r Eastern ~ i s t r i c cases t t h a t you f i l e d saying "The Court has determined t h a t p o r t i o n s o f p l a i n t i f f t h a t ' s you
--
--
p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint have contained
a11egations t h a t have r i s e n t o the. ir r a t i onal "

MR.
STRUNK:
which case a r e you r e f e r r i n g to,
your Honor? THE COURT:

MR.
The case by Judge
--
STRUNK:
The f e d e r a l reserve case?

I d o n ' t know.
THE COURT:
I have her
d e c i s i o n i n f r o n t o f me.
hat's h e r f i n d i n g i n t h e
case o f s t r u n k v. New vork s t a t e Board o f ~ f e c t i o n s at
APX - 6
Proceedi ng ~ n d e xNumber 08-CV-4289, October 28, 2008. Judge Ross she s a i d
18
i n t h e Eastern D i r e c t dismissed t h e a c t i o n . you d i d n ' t have standing. and i t was f r i v o l o u s .

MR.
You f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m
STRUNK:
L e t ' s deal w i t h standing.
know you c a n ' t review a decision, b u t l e t ' s deal w i t h standing.

THE COURT:
That's what she said.
I read
it.
MR. STRUNK:
The Federal Courts have no
o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over a s t a t e e l e c t i o n , and that's
--
f o r t h a t reason alone, she i s e s s e n t i a l l y
telling m e t o go t o s t a t e c o u r t .
THE
COURT:
She a l s o s a i d t h a t your
complaints i n t h a t case
MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
--
There was wrong. conrai ned a11e g a t i ons have r i sen
t o t h e ir r a t i o n a l ir r a t i ona1 .
MR.
'
She found t h a t your complaint i s
STRUNK:
Judge Ross was one o f t h e senior
c o r p o r a t i o n counsels f o r ~ e n e r a lMotors.
THE COURT:
A5
f o r judge Ross, what does t h a t
have t o do w i t h anything?
MR.
STRUNK:
The p r i o r case i s t h e very
reason t h e sub prime mortgage s t u f f was going on. T h a t ' s what i t has t o do w i t h i t . So when I sued
APX - 67
--
- ---
Proceedi ng Goldman Sachs she g o t pissed off. r i g h t on t a r g e t .

THE COURT:
B e l i e v e me.
1 was
I ' m g l a d you a r e on t a r g e t w i t h
Coldman sachs.
MR.
However, I have t o deal w i t h t h i s case. STRUNK: she was r e a c t i n g t o t h a t .
so
the point i s
-And I agree w i t h t h e d e c i s i o n
THE COURT:
w r i t t e n by J u s t i c e Marshall which I found very i n t e r e s t i n g , t h a t j u s t i c e ' s d e c i s i o n i n 1989 c a l l e d Neitzke v. Williams, 419 US 319 a t page 325. ~hurgood lufarshall remarked t h a t , "A complaint c o n t a i n i n g as i t does both f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s and 1egal conclusions, i s f r i v o l o u s where i t l a c k s arguable basis--" and f u r t h e r J u s t i c e Marshall wrote
--
"and
narguabl e 1egal concl usion, b u t embraces not o n l y t h e i a1so t h e f a c t u a l a1l e g a t i o n .

I agree & i t h Thurgood Marshall.
I believe
t h a t your complaint was f a n c i f u l , delusional.

MR.
f a n t a s t i c , and
so now t h e question i s
STRUNK:
--
which one?
~ h one e before
Judge Ross?
THE COURT:
I mean t h e one you- have i n m y
c o u r t ; t h i s case.
MR. STRUMK:
You're s a n c t i o n i n g m e on?
THE COURT:
I haven't sanctioned you yet.
APX - 68
Proceeding
20
1'17 g i v e you t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o be heard, and then i f

I t h i n k you shouldn't
MR. STRUNK:
-LOO~.
I demand t h a t you recuse
yourself
.
THE COURT:
MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
MR. STRUNK:
On what grounds? On what grounds?

Yes.
You cherry picked t h i s whole
thing.
YOU
rewrote t h e complaint on t h e record i n the You committed something t h a r no
~ugust 22 hearing.
s i t t i n g 3udge should do i n terms o f you gave favor where favor was n o t t o be given.
THE COURT:
I d i d n ' t g i v e f a v o r t o anybody.
r ' m t h e Judge.
I was presented w i t h your complaint and
w i t h motions t o dismiss, and I have t o make a decision based upon t h e case.

MR. STRUNK:
The appearance, t h e i m p r o p r i e t y
i s overwhelming.
his
--
t h a t M r . Graber over here had
you as a defendant i n your pay r a i s e , and t h a r
--
just
t h e f a c t t h a t t h a t was going on, a11 o f t h e a d d i t i o n a l extensions o f time
--
i t ' s q u i d p r o quo.
Mr. ~ r a b e r represents various
THE COURT:
defendants i n t h e case t h a t I sued; i s t h a t correct? That ' s compari ng apples w i t h oranges.

MR.
STRUNK:
But he was t h e lead attorney.
Proceedi ng
21
THE COURT:
attorney.
I don't b e l i e v e he was the lead
A guy named Dofan, Ib e l i e v e i s t h e lead
attorney, and i t went t o t h e c o u r t o f Appeafs. d i d n ' t go t o
-The Attorney General's o f f i c e .

NO,
MR. ~ T R U N K :
MR. GRABER:
your Honor.
w e certified
outside counsel.
we c e r t i f i e d outside counsel. 5-C-H-L-A-U-M

Mr.
THE COURT:
and Gold.
I forget
t h e gentleman's f i r s t name,
Dolan argued against
m y case i n t h e Court o f Appeals even though I won t h a t case, b u t t h a t ' s n e i t h e r here nor there. irrelevant. two years we got a period o f v i c t o r y . That's Took another
.
MR. STRUNK:
I n a record o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f
~ugust 22nd o f l a s t summer, t h e Court d i d a straw man argument making my X argument your Y argument defeating
m y
x argument.
THE COURT:
I ' m sorry t o interrupt.
I want
t o see i f w e can get a few more minutes t o continue this. (off-the-record

MR. STRUNK:
discussion .)
I demand a separate judge t o
hear t h e sanctions when t h i s should be,

THE COURT:
There i s a case.
I ' d have t o
look up t h e c i t e i n Court o f Appeals, People v. Moreno.
APX
70
d o n ' t have t h e c i t e i n f r o n t o f me, but a t t h e time
then on t h e c o u r t o f ~ p p e a l ss a i d t h a t Judge ~ e l l a c o s a
a judge is t h e sole a r b i t e r o f h i s o r her own recusal
don't believe t h a t
r 'rn
u n f a i r o r prejudiced against
you, and I ' m not going t o recuse myself.
MR.
STRUNK:
That scenario o f Straw man
argument should immediately recuse what you d i d i n r e w r i t i n g t h e complaint .
I 1
THE COURT:
MR.
whatever I do today o r i n t h i s -on the transcript,
STRUNK:
the
transcript o f ~ u g u s t 22nd, t h a t ' s what you said.

w i l l take i t on and t u r n i t o u t i n s i x weeks.
six
weeks went by.
E i g h t weeks went by.
I get an order t o
show cause i n October. S t i l l c o r r e c t i n g . The whole question o f you delaying and denying j u s t i c e i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n should be i n i t s e l f a reason f o r your
recusal .
THE COURT:
M r . strunk, w i t h a l l due respect
your case i s one o f approximately 1600 cases 1 have i n m y inventory.
~ ' m one person and I have scarce
resources, and y e t I have t o put your case t o t h e detriment o f other cases, w r i t e t h i s decision and other cases t h a t are not f r i v o l o u s . reasons. So t h a t ' s one o f rhe
I can o n l y do one t h i n g a t a time 1 i ke

So I took time t o w r i t e i t .
anybody else.
You d i d n ' t
--
APX - 71
-~
Proceedi ng Department by t h e way. go t o t h e ~ a w

MR. STRUNK:
I can see
-I did a l l
THE COURT:
M y law secretary s i t t i n g there,
he g o t t o l o o k a t i t when I proofread i t .
t h i s so no one e l s e gets t h e blame.

MR.
THE
STRUNK: COURT:
I ' m g l a d i t ' s on t h e record.

The p o i n t i s i t takes time t o
I a l s o d i d some research,
w r i t e t h i s and t o do t h i s .
and I n o t i c e d t h a t f o r whatever reason, despite your argument about you have t o have your parents born i n
t h e u n i t e d s t a t e s as w e l l as you
MR.
-That's
STRUNK:
That's n o t m y argument.
your argument.
That's t h e straw man argument. You should recuse y o u r s e l f .
You're
I have
a b s o l u t e l y wrong.
nothing e l s e t o say,
THE COURT:
okay, I w i l l note f o r t h e record
t h a t Pres. obama i s t h e s i x t h President t o have one o r both parents n o t born i n t h e u n i t e d - s t a t e s , so i t i s what i t i s .

NOW,
I know I have papers here from various
defendants and t h e a c t i o n has been dismissed concerning costs. Does any counsel o r any defendant want t o p u t
anything on t h e record?
MR.
CORBETT:
K e i t h Corbett o f t h e law f i r m
o f Harris ~each.
Proceedi ng
24
we j u s t want t o reserve our r i g h t t o p o s s i b l y

b r i n g documents seeking costs. c1a r i f i c a t i on from our c l i e n t .
THE COURT:
we have t o await
You have t o c o n s u l t w i t h your
client?
Let m e ask you, M r . c o r b e t t , how much time do
you t h i n k you need f o r a f i n a l decision o f your c l i e n t ?

MR. CORBETT:
I hope t o have t h e decision by
30 days.
T H E COURT:
It h i n k t h a t ' s f a i r f o r anybody.
I w i l l w a i t 30 days from today which would be June
--
what's t h a t , June 7, f o r any defendants who have not submitted b u t reserve t h e i r r i g h t t o submit any a f f i d a v i t f o r costs.
MR. CORBETT:
Thank you, your Honor. Anybody having anything e l s e t o
THE COURT:
say?
(NO
verbal response.)
w e l l , you have t h e f i n a l word, M r . strunk.

MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
The f i n a l word?
I'm going t o f e t you go on.
They
d o n ' t want t o say anything, so you can conclude. have given them an o p p o r t u n i t y t o speak.
I ' m now
g i v i n g you t h e f i n a l o p p o r t u n i t y t o speak f u r t h e ? .
MR. STRUNK: MY papers speak l o u d l y .
The
p o i n t i s t h a t you are a man s i t t i n g on t h e bench
APX - 7 3
e l e c t e d by t h e people o f ~ r o o k l y n .
THE COURT:
MR.
Thank you.
c hat's correct.
STRUNK:
~ n t d h a t you have not
administered t h i s case i n t h e way t h a t my r i g h t s should be protected, and t h a t t h a t i s a matter t h a t ' s going t o
be put i n f r o n t o f the j u d i c i a l commission.

T H E COURT: MR. STRUNK:
DO
whatever you want.
I a m doing t h a t .
I am, and 1
d o n ' t need your permission t o do t h a t .

THE COURT:
Mr.
strunk, you have various
rights.
YOU
can do whatever you deem t o be

YOU
appropriate.
can threaten me.
I d o n ' t care.
MR. STRUNK:
I ' m not threatening you, your
Honor.
xlm just t e n o i n g you m y intent.

THE COURT:
Go ahead.
You d o n ' t l i k e m y
ruling?
G o t o the Appe71ate D i v i s i o n .
MR. STRUNK:
I don't t h i n k I can other than
p u t t i n g up a bond.
THE COURT:
You do whatever you want t o do.
~nything else you want t o tell me?

MR. STRUNK:
Yes; t h a t you d o n ' t know your
h istory.
YOU
put t h e l e g a l question aside based upon

'
your own s t r a w man s t o r y and argument which has
absolutely nothing t o do w i t h t h i s case, and t h a t i t ' s going t o be on the record, and i t ' s going t o be known
APX - 3
Proceeding around t h e n a t i o n as t h a t , and i t ' s i m p o r t a n t t h a t you consider what y o u ' r e doing f o r t h e purpose o f o t h e r p r o se p l a i n t i f f s who given a u t h o r i t y .
THE COURT:
26
O t h e r p r o se p l a i n t i f f s a r e n o t
i n f r o n t o f me. your case.
T h i s i s a s p e c i f i c a c t i o n , 6500/11;
T h a t ' s what's before me, and t h e r e f o r e ,
whatever happens i n o t h e r cases happens i n o t h e r cases.

YOU
b e l i e v e t h a t I ' v e done something improper, do
whatever you deem t o be a p p r o p r i a t e .

MR. STRUNK:
Your Honor, your e n t i r e d e c i s i o n
i s based upon o t h e r cases.
I i n s i s t t h e record o f
those cases be p u t i n on t h i s case.
THE COURT:
~ l rli g h t .
I know t h e r e a r e ~f you f e e l you want t o
numerous cases t h a t a r e c i t e d .
appeal whatever I rule, t h e judges w i 11 deal w i t b t h a t and t h e ~ p p e l l a t e o i v i s i o n can c e r r a i n l y l o o k up these cases. ~ h e y ' r ecapable o f doing t h a t . They d o n ' t have
t o be provided an e n t i r e d e c i s i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r case c i t e d by me. They have t h e c i t a t i , o n . The record i n which you have,
MR. STRUNK:
because you can go g e t t h e record down i n t h e archives, o r you can go t o ~ u d g e schmidt and g e t t h e record. That record i s t h i s deep now.
THE COURT:
MR.
Could v e r y we11 be.
STRUNK:
I want t h a t o r i g i n a l r e c o r d
APX - 75
-
---
--
Proceedi ng t r a n s f e r r e d and t o be the basis f o r any appeal.

THE COURT:
27
Fine.
GO
t o t h e record room. I t ' s n o t my job t o
photocopy t o your h e a r t ' s content. p u t together an appellate record.

MR. STRUNK:
You're using other cases and
making decisions on 1egal matters o f n a t u r a l -born c i t i z e n s h i p which you d i d n ' t touch w i t h a t e n - f o o t pole.
YOU
i n v e n t your own d e f i n i t i o n t o c o n s t i t u t i o n s ,
not a dictionary.
THE COURT:
I t h i n k you misread Minor v.
Happersett.
Minor v. Happersett does n o t d e f i n e
n a t u r a l -born c i t i z e n .
MR.
STRUNK:
The c o n s t i t u t i o n i n t h a t case
~t must be sought through
s a i d does n o t d e f i n e i t ?
l o o k i n g a t the e n t i r e document.
~t must be l o o k i n g a t
the h i s t o r y o f how t h a t document was p u t together.
The
s t a t e o f New York *as t h e one who forced natural-born c i t i z e n , because i n 1787 we wa1ked, o u t and I s a i d we are
--
New York State i s under r i s k o f seeing B r i t a i n
take over t h e presidency, and t h a t Judge tansing
i n s i sted t h a t .natural -born c i t i zens be placed i n t h e

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l document. That was then r a t i f i e d i n
1788.
New York i s the basis f o r n a t u r a l born.

t h e basis. o f our law today.
It's
You l o o k a t r e a l property
APX -
Proceeding law Section 18 where you cannot own o r lease a copper mine i n the county o f s a i n t Lawrence unless you' r e a
28
natural-born c i t i z e n , and t h a t means you've got t o have parents who are c i t i z e n s when you're born, and t h a t you must be a c i t i z e n a t t h e time t h a t you lease o r own a copper mine i n s a i n t Lawrence County. documented before rhe rev01 u t i o n .
THE COURT:
That i s w e l l
I d o n ' t know how many mines are
l o c a t e d there.
I looked a t r e a l property law, I believe 18

t h a t you c i t e d ; HapperSett, 88 US 162 and page 167. c l e a r l y states t h a t t h e c i t i z e n s h i p i s n o t defined c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 1y. defined
A n a t u r a l -born c i t i z e n i s n o t
It
hat ' s what' it said.
e can adjourn; So i f there i s nothing else, w unless you have anything else. l a s t chance.
MR.
I w i l l g i v e you one
STRUNK:
Your i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s a l l
wrong, and again, I believe t h a t t h e r e has n o t been a hearing i n t h i s matter, a f a i r hearing; a f a i r hearing; t h a t you should be recused, and I t h i n k t h a t t h e f a c t t h a r you are cherry p i c k i n g t h i s whole t h i n g from
s unconscionable . begi nni ng t o end i
THE COURT:
All
r i g h t , one l a s t observation.
I did
i t i n a hearing back l a s t ~ u g u s t . YOU
APX - 77
make a l l these comments i n c o u r t and you're going t o walk out o f here a f r e e man. wonderful country. and everybody e l s e .
I t h i n k America i s a
Have a pleasant day, M r . strunk, T h i s concludes t h e hearing.

. a
-.-
CERTIFIED THAT THE FOREGOING I S A TRUE AND
ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT OF T H E ~ T E N O C R A P H I ~ r I N U T E S IN
THESE PROCEEDINGS.
DIANE
~ I X O N, CSR, RMR
o f f i c i a 1 Court Reporter
APX - 7 8
Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et a l . NYSSC Kings C t y Index No.: 6500-201 1
SUPRE= COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COURl'Y OF KINGS XAS Part 27 Index N o . :
-..-...*-...-.".-m----------------------.-------------.----..---..x
'
6500-2011
CMstophet-Earl: Strunk, in-esse

Plaintiff,
(Hon. Arthur M. SchackJ S C )
PLAINTIFF*^
NEW YORK S T A m BOARD OF ELECTIONS;JAMES A. AFFIDAVIT fnr WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ORDER TO SHOW ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI,RUTH NOEMf COLON, in their OEcial and CAUSE WHY individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE,S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMLERZ BRZEZINSKI; COURT COSTS MARK BRZEZINSICI; JOSEPH R. BLDEN, JR.; SOEBARI<AH (ak.a. B a r r y Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama 11, a.k.a. Stwe Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC SHOULD IPOT BE STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES LEVIED RA'MmR PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; THAN SETTLE JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; Z X r n THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; ;=4!== THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE P m , STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PFTiZKER; GEORGE SOROS; O B M FOR AMERFCA; OBAMA WCiWRYFUND; MCCAIN WCTORY 2008: M C M - P A L L N VICTORY 2008;J o h n and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities.
Defendants.
STATE OF WEW YORK
cornTYOFTOu405
1
)
1 a-
Accordingly, I, Christopher-Eark Stnmk in esse, being d u l y sworn, depose and say
under p e n a l t y of pejury:
Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 1 of 27
APX - 79 - -
Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011
1. I am, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, by special appearance am self-
represented without an attorney, respond to the Decision dismissing the complaint filed March 22,201 1 by the Decision and Order by Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. entered on April 12,2012 and that Plaintiff appear on May 7,2012 to show cause why he should not be sanctioned and levied defendants' costs for litigation; and therein unreasonably alleging Plaintiff case filing and appearance on August 22, 201 1 is a s if frivolous conduct, alleges issue preclusion by collateral estoppel and as if a prior decision existed barred by res judicata
(1);
and notwithstanding such, further alleged
plaintiff lacks standing and suffers no particular injury different than general anyway. 2. In the matter of alleged collateral estoppel, such charge do not apply herein as it has limited applicability in cases where the issues raised in the prior court where the action:
a.
was on a pro se informa pauperus petition denied only to the extent to dismiss the application sua sponte a s the issues were never heard, and were beyond its jurisdiction a s the case before USDC EDNY Judge Ross was filed without a proper application and left without leave to amend or cure in the first place;
b. then in State Court by failure to perfect service as in the case before Judge Schmidt in the case Index no.: 29642-2008 remains active without parties joined until ordered consolidated with this case that as of right based upon the decision in the Article 78 case 2964 1-08 Plaintiff was entitled to cure the complaint by amendment based upon the constitutionality finding as the
Res judicata will be applied to a pending lawsuit if several facts can be established by the party asserting the res judicata defense. First, the party must show that a final judgment on the merits o f the case had been entered by a court having jurisdiction over the matter. This means that a final decision in the fwst lawsuit was based on the factual and legal disputes between the parties rather than a procedural defect, such as the failure to serve the defendant with legal process. Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 2 of 27
Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1
controlling law of the case, and subject to discovery in Strunk's Washington DC ongoing FOIA case; c. then a s for the original proceeding in Second Circuit, Petitioner merely sought discovery of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama's travel records wherein the Circuit Judge declined to sign a n order for release of documents, and then d. a s a result thereafter Stmnk sought discovery with a FOIA request still ongoing
FOIA Case Strunk v US DOS and US I)HS USDC DC 08-cv-2234 (RJL) with a
decision on Plaintiffs demand for release of Stanley Ann Obama's travel records between August 1, 1961 and August 10, 1961 also sought in a criminal investigation of the present actions to spoliate and conceal by Defendant Obama in his official capacity is pending, and in which action constitutes a bar of Barack Hussein Obama's motion to dismiss herein under unclean hands doctrine that bars certain equitable defenses that would seek dismissal.
3. The Verified Complaint filed on March 22, 201 1, with the exception of the New
York State Board of Elections and the named chairmen and Commissioners as public officers and the conflict of interest of present and past of members of the New York City Campaign Finance Board acting ultra vires, was filed against private persons not in their capacity a s public officers per se in that notwithstanding any particular public office that any such private person may hold the nature of the ultra vires breach of public interest and trust, conspiracy, civil fraud with unjust enrichment renders each personally liable.
DEFENDANT STATE'S REJECTION OF TENDER OFFER TO SETTLE
4. That the New York State Board of Election principal officers on February 28,
2012 on the recorded video at a public meeting admit to the use of the term "Born a Citizen" associated with the 14th amendment citizenship status rather than the term of
Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1 art "natural-born Citizen" required by Congress, the State Legislature and the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 a s a n ongoing instruction to any person that seeks ballot access a t the 2012 Presidential Election cycle in New York; and is a furtherance by the principal officers prior actions of the use of "Born a Citizen" in the 2008 election cycle a s the subject of breach of fiduciary duty and facilitation of conspiracy, fraud, and acted to spoliate and conceal evidence from Plaintiff, with felonies now proven, that on October 25, 201 1 were ignored by the Court in the presence of New York State Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Joel Graber and five of Defendants' attorneys in appearance. Use of "Born a Citizen" shifts the burden of duty.
5. That before the appearance on October 25,201 1 in the courtroom, in order to

settle the case except for expense incurred, Plaintiff tendered a settlement offer to Joel Graber AAG regarding his clients the State, in the presence of five defendant attorneys in appearance, that were the State to change the instruction "Born a Citizen" to the required term of art "Natural-born Citizen" Plaintiff would settle, and to the amazement of Defendants7attorneys the State rejected the offer of settlement and thereby bound Plaintiff to continue litigation accordingly;
6. The State's rejection of a settlement resulted in Plaintiffs Notice of Appeal on
the interlocutory decision to decline to sign Plaintiffs application for Order to show cause to mandate a change in instruction Born a Citizen " to "Natural-born Citizen" at the October 25, 20 11 hearing as the necessary evidence and transactions to supplement the complaint as to the culpability of the action of the State and principal officers having been unreasonable denied leave to supplement in open Court, and then the Court over the objection of Plaintiff granted a n open ended extension of time for the State to avoid any response to the Complaint duly served upon it and its officers.
7. That Plaintiff fded a Notice of Appeal on the interlocutory decision to decline the
"Born a Citizen" matter at the October 25,201 1 hearing was dismissed s u a sponte by the 2nd Department Appellate division a s pre-mature and denied the right of appeal; and furthermore, on February 9, 2012 was followed by Plaintiff's Notice of Motion to this Court for leave to have the constitutional issue associated with "Born a Citizen" reviewed by the New York State Court of Appeals with CPLR 95601 (b)(2)then adjourned sua sponte twice until June 18, 2012 along with Plaintiffs Notice of Motion for presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint filed April 12, along with the proposed First Supplement to the Complaint.
STRUNK DULY FIRED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA GIVES STANDING WITH INJURY 8. Despite the transcript account of the ipse dixit activities of Arthur M. Schack a t
the motion hearing of August 22, 20 11, the Court properly recognizes that Plaintiff had duly fired Barack Hussein Obama within 72 hours of his dual offer of contract by oath on January 20 & 21, 2009; and a s such, Plaintiff is the only person in the country to have done such firing and suffers a specific particular person& injury as a result different than any other person in the USA in that Defendant Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah personally has injured Plaintiff; and that as a private person Stt-unk's transaction with Soebarkah by proper notice is a simple contract matter, and as such Barack Hussein Obarna's disregard of Strunk's notice bar him from action and underlies the basis of individual action by Plaintiff with this Complaint.
DEFENDANT McCAIN HAS UNCLEAN HANDS
9. That the cause of action involving conspiracy in the scheme to defraud with
breach of contract against John S. McCain (the unindicted co-conspirator of "the Keating Five" who collaborated with Archbishop Paul Marcinkus of the Vatican Bank] is that he misrepresented that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone giving Plaintiff
APX - 83
---
Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011 sufficient cause and reliance on such misrepresentation a s a contract with Plaintiff to cast his vote a s intangible property in favor of McCain in the General Election in November 2008, and is further supported by the fact that McCain had full knowledge by the Senate sense resolution 51 1 of April 2008 sponsored by then Senator Obama, that to be "natural-born citizen" requires U.S. Citizen parents at birth, and that Defendant McCain knew that Barack Hussein Obama did not have U.S. Citizen parents a t birth alleged in Hawaii, because his father was a British Subject on a foreign alien student visa a s admitted by Barack Hussein Obama Jr. in his campaign speeches and autobiography admits against interest "My father was a foreign student born and raised in Kenya he grew up herding goats! "
h~://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=~,Iayer detailpage&v=6irmkKmuzo.
DEFENDANT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS UNCLEAN KANDS AND MADE ADMISSIONS AGAINST INTEREST 10.That Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah has unclean hands by his and his agents acts of careless disregard of his duty to Plaintiff, with acts of spoliation, concealment, misrepresentation and sufficient evidence of crimes of forgery and use of false instruments a s shown by the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff's Department COLD CASE POSSE on going criminal investigation with their release of findings presented a s judicial notice for a supplement to the complaint on April 12, 2012, and that Defendant and his agents have made admissions against interest as to his involvement in a conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff in furtherance of the usurpation of the office of POTUS for the purpose of unjust enrichment of he and his associates in furtherance of the promotion of the financial stability of the European Union Fourth

. 1
.-_-__
APX - 84
Reich (2)with the transfer of no less than $16 trillion of taxpayer obligations and unconstitutional use of out of area NATO forces and U S Military assets and forces in the overthrow of several nations in service of formation of the Mediterranean Union and the European Union control over African resources
/ assets and includes RCC
rebuilding of the third temple as part of the New Babylon and New Testament plan.
THE CONTROLLING ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS THAT DEFENDANT OBANZA KNEW HE IS NOT A NATURAL B O R T Y CITIZEN WITH MULTIPLE ALLEGIANCE
11.That Plaintiff in the Complaint filed March 22, 201 1 never questioned the place of birth of Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah a s purported in the April 25, 201 1 Long
Form Birth Certif~cate of Live Birth (CoLB) merely asserted the fact admitted to by all
parties that Barack Hussein Obama's father married to Stanley Ann Obama was a British Subject on a foreign alien student visa in itself precluding a path to citizenship and therefore Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not a "Natural-born Citizen" a t best "Born a Citizen" a s defined by the 14th Amendment - the birthplace in the Complaint is not a t issue the issue is dual allegiance and perhaps triple allegiance when combined with the Soebarkah Indonesian allegiance!
First Reich 963 AD through 1806 AD (RCC)is the common contemporary Latin legal term used in documents of the Holy Roman Empire was for a long time regnum ("rule, domain, empire", such as in Regrmm Francorum for the Frankish Kingdom) before impertumwas in fact adopted, the latter first attested in 1157, whereas the parallel use of regnum never fell out of use during the Middle Ages. Second Reich 1806 AD through 1918 AD (Protestant)after the defeat of Napoleon lead to Bismarch's Protestant German Austrian Hungarian Empire. Third Reich 1918 AD through 1945 AD (RCC)
Fourth Reich 1945 AD through Present (RCC)the European Union.
---
APX -
85
l2.The Court's willful disregard of both history and facts herein is outrageous, and
a s such requires Plaintiff recite the history of what dual allegiance associated with the de facto "Born a Citizennversus the single allegiance of the de jure "Natural-born Citizen" means as is controlling subject before this court that must be resolved a s a matter of provision of substantive due process herein to afford equal protection to Plaintiff, and a s for the de facto "born a citizen" of the 14th amendment and the "anchor baby" without full and complete allegiance is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and New York State Constitution too, goes to State Defendant breach of fiduciary duty and shift of strict burden of responsibility for their arbitrary acts.
13.In the matter of what does "Born a Citizen" in relation to the questionable term
"Anchor Baby" mean in regards to who is to be considered an inhabitant for the purpose of seeking ofice of the POTUS according to the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraphs 5 is germane herein before this court. The truth about the 14" amendment has been out there for so long but no one seems to care what the framers said, and the facts are 100% ignored WE do not need the courts to figure out what a naturalized and natural-born Citizen (NBC) means a s used in NYS Real Property Law
318 or do we need Congress to do an investigation because the truth is already

available all we need to do is look a t the facts. No amendment to the term exists. 14.For the record: the 13" Amendment to abolish slavery was adopted on December 6, 186.5; The Civil Rights Act of 1866 which granted former slaves citizenship was enacted April 9 1866; and, the 14" amendment which made the Civil Rights Act constitutional was proposed on June 13, 1866 and after much debate, a s adopted on July 9, 1868. 15. So the question then raised were all dealt with, during the same time frame, with the same Congressman involved, in each bill. The 14th amendment represented
Stnmk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 8 of 27
APX -
86
Sbxnk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011 the overruling of the Dred Scoffdecision ruling that black people former slaves were not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. 16.The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. Which means the Civil FSghts Act of 1866 still stands because the 14a amendment was never repealed. 17. The left/progressives, associates and Defendants' agents with propagandists including Justia.org and Findlaw.org have willfully totally perverted the 14a Amendment with their Birthright Citizenship lie. Therefore, to truly understand the 14th Amendment and what the framers original intent was when writing it, you must go back to the framers writings and the congressional debates.
18.Obviously the logical people to research in regard to debates would be Senator
Lyman Trumbull who was the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Co-author of the 14th Amendment's "citizenship clause" and co-author of the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery - was an Illinois Supreme Court Justice 1848-1853.
19. Senator Jacob Howard worked with Lincoln to draft the 13th amendment.
Served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and was co-author of the 14th Amendment's "Citizenship Clause". 20.The Honorable John Bingharn was the principle Framer of the 14th Amendment, Judge advocate in the Lincoln assassination trial and prosecutor on the impeachment
APX -
--
87
of Andrew Johnson. So getting to the facts, and the easiest way is established by the chronological order of the legislative debate presentation starting with Representative John Bingham in 1862 recorded in the Congressional Globe of the 37th Congress 2nd session page 1639 stated: "There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and the compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born Within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exceptions to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relation to Indians. .."
21 .The next would be the Civil Rights Act of 1866; the original bill was introduced
on January 5, 1866 according to the 39" Congress
1st
session Senate 62, that was
A BILL to protect all persons in the reported out of Committee on January 11, 1866 " United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication." And it read: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory " A week later there was a n amendment offered by Mr. Trurnbull to wit:
"In section 1, line 3, after the word That,' insert, 'that a11 persons born in the
United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States with distinction of color; and,' "
22. On the question to agree to the amendment proposed by Mr. Trumbull, It was
determined in the affmative, Yeas 31 Nays 10. The Bill a s an Act went over to the House of Representatives where it passed, along with Howard and Trumbull's amendment. John Bingham, speaks on the amendment to the bill :
" I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory or what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign
APX -
W v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011
sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen;" 23.The bill was then sent, to President Andrew Johnson and Johnson vetoed it. It was sent back to Congress, where both houses, passed the bill, overriding the President's veto. 24.Next Chronologically on to the 14th Amendment, a s the congressional debates while they were debating the l4ul Amendment as with that for the Civil Rights act will reveal how the present use has been 100% perverted. The Bill as proposed for the 14th amendment a t first did not provide for a jurisdictional statement in Article 1 Section 1 quote: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities if citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." During the debates in 1866 Congressional Globes at 2883 Mr. Latham stated quote: "Mr. Speaker, we seem to have fallen upon a n age of theories. We are told from day to day with much seeming sincerity and a n air of the most profound political sagacity that the Union when restored must be restored upon the basis which will make it a s permanent a s the everlasting hills and a s invulnerable a s the throne of the Eternal, and with such safeguards that even treason will no longer be possible within its jurisdiction." 25.Then Senator Edgar Cowen gave a speech telling why the citizenship clause was need and certainly was not to be used to make anyone born here a citizen, stated
...
"Mr. Cowen. The honorable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have no doubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legal definition of "citizenship of the United States." What does it mean? What is its length and breath? I would be glad if the honorable Senator in good earnest would favor us with some such definition. Is the child of the Chinese Immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the United States? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same a s it is to kill another man. You cannot commit an assault and battery on him, I
APX -
89
apprehend. He has a right to the protections of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word." "It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. He is not entitled, by virtue of that, to be a n elector. .." And he goes further to state: "I have supposed, further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a broad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the country of California, and if another people of a different race, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have free right to locate there and settle among them, and if they have a n opportunity of pouring in such an immigration a s in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? I do not know that the contingency will ever happen, but it may be well to consider it while we are on this point. "As I understand the right of the States under the Constitution at present, California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she chooses who is not a citizen of some one of the United States...
"I think the Honorable Senator from Michigan would not admit the right that
the Indians of his neighborhood would have to come in upon Michigan and settle in the midst of that society and obtain the political power of the State, and wield it, perhaps, to his exclusion. I do not believe anybody would agree to that." 26. Now who among the framers of the 14th Amendment had no clue or inclination on the issue of illegal immigration and inclusion of anchor babies? Howard and Trumbull argued for the inclusion of the term "and subject to the jurisdictionn would be applied and agreed that there would not be a new definition of the term jurisdiction to be interpreted and applied in the proposed amendment to be declaratory of the
Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-2011 current law, the Civil Rights Act, and that a s such Mr. Howard said of the "citizenship clause" quote: "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and ..." 27. What exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean to the framers of the 14th Amendment? Mr. Lyman Trumbull in 1866, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and author of 13th Amendment, in the Congressional Globe 2893 said "The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' Now does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.?' Not owing allegiance of anybody else. That is what it means." 28. In response Senator Jacob Howard responds in concurrence:
"I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word 'jurisdiction,' a s here employed, ought to be construed so a s to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality a s applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that a n Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction. That question has long since been adjudicated, so far a s the usage of the Government is concerned ..."
29.The Supreme Court of the United State (SCOTUS)in Minor v H a ~ ~ e r s e states tt "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a counhy of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens. As distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include a s citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their (p168) parents. As to Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 13 of 27
APX -
91
this class there have been doubts, but never a s to the first. For the purposes of this case it not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have not to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizen" (Emphasis added) 30.The SCOTUS Case Respublica v DE L O N G C M S 1 US 111 (1784) 1 Dall. 111 "M'Kean, Chief Justice. This is a case of the fvst impression in the United States. It must be determined on the principles of the laws of nations, which form a part of the municipal law of Pennsylvania; and ,if the offenses charged in the indictment have been committed, there can be no doubt, that those laws have been violated." The Chief Justice goes on to say: "Therefore, we conclude, that the Defendant cannot be imprisoned, until his most Christian Majesty shall declare, that the reparation is satisfactory '3. The answer to the last question is rendered unnecessary by the above answer to the second question.' The foregoing answers having been given, it only remains for the Court to pronounce sentence upon you. This sentence must be governed by a due consideration of the enormity and dangerous tendency of the offences you have committed, of the willfulness, deliberation, and malice, wherewith they were done, of the quality and degree of the offended and offender, the provocation given, and all other circumstances which may anyway aggravate or extenuate the guilt. The first crime in the indictment is an infraction of the law of Nations. This law, in its full extent, is part of the law of this State, and is to be collected from the practice of different Nations, and the authority of writers. "
31.
Further search will verify that the term Law of Nations is mentioned a t
least a dozen times on the page and the author Vattel is sighted along with each and no other authorities related to law of nations is cited - only that of Vattel. 32.That in the SCOTUS case The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Mr. Chief Justice Marshal stated "Vattel who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantage. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. "
APX -
92
33.As is to be found in The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the law of nature by Emer de Vattel Joseph Chitty at Section 2 12. reads: "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to it authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed as matter of course, that each citizen , on entering into society, reserve to children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent." 34.That the question posed is why do the usurper's propagandists use the decision in regards to Wow Kim Ark where the law went astray? They are pulled towards corruption in that nearly 100 years earlier then usurper Chester Arthur
(F3F) appointed
Justice Gray to chief justice to succeed Oliver Wendell Holms, Jr. and Gray had sabotaged his later ruling in Wong Kim Ark from that held in Minor v Happersett of 1874. That in Elk v Wilkins 112 US 94 (1884) Argued April 28, 1884 and Decided November 3, 1884 it seems that Justice Horace Gray knew the law in 1884 but by the time Wong Kim Ark came along 15 years later he had forgotten it! Quoting Justice Gray from the SCOTUS Elk v. Wilkins: "The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which 'no person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States a t the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President.' And "The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Constitution, Article I1 Section 1; Article 1, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scoff u Sanford, Chester Arthur was born in Fairfield Vermont in 1829, but looking at his father's naturalization papers he didn't become a citizen until August 3 1, 1843 meaning that Chester Arthur was not born to citizen parents therefore was not a natural-born Citizen. It seems that the people challenging Chester Arthur then were right all along.
3
---
APX - 93
-
--
Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 I
19 Howard 393) , and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white of black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases 16 Wall 36, 83 US 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303, 100 US 306. 35.1n the matter of the immigrant taking the Oath to be a citizen of the United States of America: "I hereby declare, a n oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentiate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United states of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same , that I will bears arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, that I perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United states when required by the law that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion so help me God." 36. Immigrants becoming citizens must take a n oath of sole allegiance to the USA. Now why would that not be expected also of citizens born here? If you are born to two citizens parents, your allegiance is passed down. If you are not born to two citizen parents, you must take the oath, simple a s that! Vattel's authority a s a n institutional writer extended to the USA where he was cited in court cases between 1789 and 1820 no less than 92 times on matters pertaining to the law of nations.
PLAINTIFF SINGLED OUT BY COURT
37. Plaintiff strenuously objects to Justice Schack's use of the Jesuit's Social Justice Antonio Gramsci / Palmira Togliatti model to marginalize and debase Plaintiff a s if a n opponent with disparagement tactics glommed from Luciferian Saul Alinsky to single Plaintiff out a s if part of a special class called "Birther" to be considered out of kin, and subject to special treatment for speech and thoughts that do not adhere to the socially accepted norms of political correctness by a so-called collective majority. 38.That the Court's ipse dixit probing and gratuitous bias shown in the transcript from August 22, 201 1 appears a n attempt to obscure and obfuscate the content of the Strunk's Response to the Decision with OSC Page 16 of 27
Complaint per se, such as quote "If the complaint in this action was a movie script, it would be entitled The Manchurian Candidate Meets The Da Vinci Code." along with the pure invention of a characterization of "Natural Born Citizenn that both cherry picks and skews history and actual meaning for the willful purpose to debase and belittle Plaintiff and his sworn statements on which this case is based - is in itself sanctionable action for disregard of justice administered without favor that infringes Strunk's
9th
Amendment(4) rights and liberty both in his private person and public
citizen self apart from a supposed majority or collective. The Court strays beyond the guidelines of acceptable norms of prescribed belief and practice that disparages and defame Plaintiff along with those similarly situated individuals otherwise protected by the Bill of Rights that with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution require that no State act to single out a person for special treatment a s if part of a pseudo class based upon outrageously absurd characterizations, and despite Plaintiffs objection
U.S. Constitution 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Some jurists have asserted that the N i n t h Amendment is relevant to interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg (joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan) expressed this view in a concurring opinion in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):
"The Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I do not mean to imply that the ....Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government ....While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire B i l l of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specificallymentioned in the &st eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement. In sum, the Ninth Amendment simply lends strong support to the view that the "liberty"protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments from infringement by the Federal Government or the States is not restricted to rights specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments. Cf. United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 94-95."
APX - 95
Strunk v. N Y S Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1
that somehow Plaintiff had been swayed by popular movies rather than facts and historical evidence of Defendants acts a s the reason for filing the Complaint. 39. In the Complaint the term "natural citizen" was never used, instead uses "natural born" 25 times in the Complaint appears with "citizen" or "citizenship" and a t no time in the Complaint had Plaintiff separated the use of the words "natural born* from the term of art "natural born citizen"; and thus shows how Justice Schack's arbitrary and capricious decision is shaped to debase and color Plaintiff. 40. As further evidence of the Court's bias, Judge Schack proceeds to further debase and dehumanize Plaintiff a s self-represented and that infers that Plaintiff is a kook bigoted incoherent frivolous litigant that somehow is primarily motivated by his biase against Catholics and Islam a s a pure invention on Justice Schack's part rather than the truth, law and justice. The Court even mocks Strunk in the August 22, 201 1 transcript when Plaintiff infers while attaining the highest rank of Eagle Scout can only support 10 of the Boy Scout laws not 12 (no longer "obedient" and *reverent") a s to the injury sustained against him by Defendants' acts. 41.As a matter of record Plaintif& use of the term "Catholic" appears 13 times in the Complaint a s the only way to clarify Defendants association and intent: first appears a t Paragraph 49 a s the stated religion of McCain's wife and children; at Paragraph 75 in reference to published religious reference to Fr. @Hare and Justice Sonia Sotomayor who served together on the NYC agency to disburse taxpayer funds, and at the footnote (1) in reference to strategy of putting Catholics on SCOTUS; a t Paragraph 76 in reference to Fr. O'Hare intent of support for BHO; Paragraph 106 a s a quote of expert Count Vittorio Vivaldi 111 of Venice Italy in reference to the 632 AD writing of the Koran; a t Paragraph 109 in footnote reference to Knight of Malta Peter
G . Peterson a s to the SMOM program; a t Paragraph 117 in reference to published
S W ' s Response to the Decision with OSC Page 18 of 27

rl
APX - %
Strunk v. N Y S Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1
educational background of Zbigniew Brzezinski; a t Paragraph 144 footnote reference to George Soros and the Vatican Bank landing bank J P Morgan for BHO foreign funds.
ROME HIJACKED USE OF THE GREEK TERM CATHOLIC

42.Affirmant reads the works of Plato and characterizes himself a s a "liberal catholicn by practice and belief, contrary to the hijacking of the term by Rome, in that the word catholic (derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective, meaning "universal") comes from the Greek phrase, meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words meaning "about" and meaning "whole". The word in English can mean either "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing" or "of the Roman Catholic faith" as "relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church." ; and for the record the word "Catholicn was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize its universal scope. In the context of Christian ecclesiology, it has a rich history and several usages. In non-ecclesiastical use, it derives its English meaning directly from its root, and is currently used to mean the following: (i)universal or of general interest; (ii)liberal, having broad interests, or wide sympathies; or (iii)inclusive, inviting and containing strong evangelism; and a s for Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is the belief in liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, religious free exercise.. . 43.The fact is that Plaintiff is not a Christian or religious of any description nor does he even believe that the supposed person "Jesus" even existed in that the name would have been "Joshuan instead and that otherwise a s a Hebrew would not even have been permitted a Bar Mitzvah with such barbarian name "Jesus" is ridiculous;
--- -
APX -
% -
a7
--
Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1 and moreover, Plaintiff believes that after the destruction of the second Temple in 70 AD by Titus and Roman in the so-called First Jewish War that Judaism per se ended
as an active religion and with the banishment of the Hebrews from their Temple and
from Judea renamed Acre with the Second Jewish War a s prosecuted by Emperor Hadrian Judaism a s reduced eliminated the Pharisees and started the Rabbinical tradition that was then after 70 AD integrated along with the Five (5)Books of Moses by the New Testament written starting with Gospel of Mark by someone with the penname Josephus and with agreement with those Pharisees in the Diaspora and mosaic would await rebuilding the Third Temple resolution a s is ongoing now with Defendants use of the USA government establishment of USA state religion with the Oslo Accords.
CHRISTIANITY AND THE NEW TESTAMENT A CREATION OF ROME
44.That based upon information and belief "The New Testament" the Church, and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpumius Piso family, who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it--Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, and John the Baptist--are all fictional, and that the Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story into a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such a s the Herods, Gamaliel(s1, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is, fictional!) characters.
5 The Fr. Gregory Galluzo S.J. Ford Foundation funded Gamaliel community organization and mentor to Defendant Obama, in addition to Frank Marshal Davis, whose organization is the namesake of the RCC that canonized Saint Gamaliel the Elder, or Rabban Gamaliel I, who was a leading authority in the Sanhedrin in the mid 1st century CE. He was son of Simeon ben Hillel, and grandson of the great Jewish teacher Hillel the Elder, and died twenty years before the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE). He fathered a son, whom he called Simeon, after his father,[2] and a daughter, whose daughter (i.e.,Gamaliel's granddaughter) married a priest named Simon ben Nathanael. The name Gamliel is the Greek form o f the f Go@ that in the Christian tradition, Gamaliel is celebrated as Hebrew name meaning reward o a Pharisee doctor of Jewish Law. Acts of the Apostles speaks of Gamaliel as a man of great
- -
APX _ p _ _ _ _ -
98
--
Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty lndex NO.: 6500-2011
45. Further, that in the middle of the first century of our present era, Rome's
aristocracy felt itself confronted with a growing problem. The Jewish religion was continuing to grow in numbers, adding ever more proselytes. Jews numbered more than 8,000,000, and were 10% of the population of the empire and 20% of that portion living east of Rome.
( 6 ) Approximately
half or more of the Jews lived outside Palestine,
of which many were descended from proselytes, male and female." (7) However, Judaism's ethics and morality were incompatible with the hallowed Roman institution of slavery on which the aristocracy fed, lived and ruled. They feared that Judaism would become the chief religion of the empire. The Roman author, Annaeus Seneca, tutor and confidant of Emperor Nero, suggested in a letter to his friend Lucilius (a pseudonym of Lucius Piso) that lighting candles on Sabbaths be prohibited. is later quoted by St. Augustine in his City of God
(9) (although the
(8)Seneca
quotation does not
exist in Seneca's extant writings) as charging that: "the (Sabbath) customs of that most accursed nation have gained such strength that they have been now received in all lands, the conquered have given laws to the conqueror.""
46. Further, that the family headed by Seneca's friend, Lucius Piso, was confronted
n
with a n allied problem more personal to it. They were the Calpurnius Pisos, who were descended from statesmen and consuls, and from great poets and historians a s well. Gaius and Lucius Calpurnius Piso, leaders of the family, had both married Arria the Younger (from her grandfather's name, Aristobulus). This made Gaius and Lucius Piso's wife the great-granddaughter of Herod the Great.
respect who spoke in favor of arrested Christian apostles and the Jewish Law teacher of Paul the Apostle. 6 Klausner, Joseph, From Jesus to Paul, Macmillan Co., 1943, pp 33-34. 7 Baron, Salo, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, Columbia Univ. Pfess, N.Y., and Jewish mtblication Society, Philidephia, 1952, vol. 1, pp 170-171. 8 Seneca, A d Lucilium Epistulae Morales, Vol. 1 1 1 , Epistle XCV.47, pp 87-89. 9 St. Augustine, City of God, Modem Library, Random House, 1950,6.11, p 202.
APX -
99
--
Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1 47. Further, a s motivation in this charade, repeatedly, religious-minded Judaean zealots were staging insurrections against the Herodian rulers of Judaea who were Piso's wife's relations. Piso wished to strengthen his wife's family's control of the Judaeans. The Pisos searched for a solution to the two problems. They found it in the Jewish holy books, which were the foundation both for the rapid spread of the religion and for the zealot's refusal to be governed by Rome's puppets. The Pisos mocked, but marveled at, the Jewish belief in their holy books. Therefore, they felt a new "Jewish" book would be the ideal method to paclfy the Judaeans and strengthen their in-laws' control of the country. 48.Further, that about the year, 60 A.D. (C.E.), Lucius Calpurnius Piso composed Ur Marcus, the first version of the Gospel of Mark, which no longer exists. He was encouraged by his friend Seneca (10) and assisted by his wife's kinsman, young Persius the Poet. Nero's mistress (later his wife) Poppea was pro-Jewish, and Nero opposed the plan. The result was the Pisonian conspiracy to assassinate Nero, detailed in the historian Tacitus. But this attempt failed when he aborted the plot. Instead, Nero had Piso and Seneca and their fellow conspirators executed by forcing them to commit suicide; and that he exiled Piso's young son Anius [spelled "Arius" herein), who appears in Tacitus under several names, including "Antonius Natalis."
(11)
Nero sent
young Piso to Syria a s governor. That post also gave him command of the legions controlling Judaea. His own "history" records his service in Judaea in the year 65 under the name of Gessius Florus, and in 66 with the pseudonym Cestius Gallus.
'0
" Tacitus, Annals, XV.54,71
Seneca, Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, Vol. I, Epistle XLVI, pp 299-300.
APX - 100
Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index Na.: 6500-2011
49. Further, that this Arius Calpurnius Piso deliberately provoked the Jewish
revolt in 66 so he could destroy the Temple in Jerusalem (lZ)--forthe Jews were unwilling to accept his father's story and thereby become pacified by it a s it was intended. However, his 12th legion was caught by the zealots in the Pass of Beth Horon and almost lost. Nero's reaction was to exile him instead to Pannonia, to command a legion there; and to send Licinius Mucianus to serve in Syria, and Vespasian to Judaea to put down the Jewish revolt.
SO. Then in 68 Nero was assassinated by his own slave Epaphroditus (13, --who
unknown to his master was young Piso's lackey. Galba became emperor and named Piso's cousin, Licinianus Piso,
(14,
as his intended successor; but Galba in turn was
soon overthrown by Otho. Otho das then overthrown by Vitellius-at which point Piso
and his friends began to flock together against the latter. The Pisos, Mucianus, and Tiberius Alexander all joined ranks behind Vespasian to seek to overthrow Vitellius. (15) The were joined by Frontinus and Agricola.; and that Arius Calpurnius Piso was still commanding the 7th legion in Pannonia (16, (Austria-Hungary), and Vespasian sent him
(17) (now appearing
in Tacitus with the name Marcus Antonius Prirnus
(18))
south
12 Having destroyed the Temple, Piso could then have Jesus (whom he was predating to 40 years before the Temple's destruction) prophecy the destruction because of the Jews' rejection o f him! (Mat. 23.37-38). 13 Roman historians (Suet. Nero 49, and Dio Cassius 63.29) explain merely that Epaphroditus assisted the emperor's suicide. See also Tacitus, Annals XV.55, footnote 2. l4 Tacitus, Histories I. 14. ' 5 Tacitus, Histories 11.74-81. I6 Tacitus, Histories 111.2, footnote 1. l7 (Tacitus)Vespasian relied on Piso because he was grandson of his own brother-Vespasian's brother, T. Flavius Sabinus, had married Arria Sr., who was Piso's maternal grandmother. Piso's identity as thus also a Flavian is decipherable from the appearance in the Flavian family line of L. Caesennius Paetus (Townend, Gavin, Some FlaVian Connections, Journal of Roman Studies LI.54,62, 1961).That was an alias (likeThrasea Paetus) of Piso's father, L. Calpurnius Piso. See page 20 supra, wherein Piso himself also is mentioned as a Caesennius Paetus. That is the true reason Piso used the literary pseudonym of Flavius; it was not because of his alleged-but untrue and hardly necessary-adoption by Emperor Flavius Vespasian. He was in fact a Flavian.
-- -
APX - 101
across the Alps to overthrow Vitellius. Meanwhile, the main body of Vespasian's legions marched overland under Mucianus from the east towards Rome. Piso succeeded in defeating Vitellius' army and secured Rome for Vespasian.(lg)Mucianus arrived and promptly sent him to Judaea to help Titus at the siege of Jerusalem. He did so, and in 70 they assaulted the city, then the Temple, burned it, slaughtered many thousands, sent thousands more to slavery and gladiatorial combat and death.
51.Then it was at this point that Arius Calpurnius Piso wrote, in sequence, the
following: Gospel of Matthew (70-75 C.E.) Present Gospel of Mark (75-80 C.E.) Gospel of Luke (85-90 C.E., with help of Pliny the Younger) in the gospel story he inserted himself by playing the role of not only Jesus, but of all the Josephs, as well. He particularly enjoyed assuming the identity of Joseph. Wishing to create a Jewish hero, a savior, in fictional form, he (and his father before him), felt the identity of a second Joseph secretly, but very aptly, fit them. For their name Piso had the same four letters, rearranged, a s the four Hebrew letters (Yud Vov Sarnech Fey) which in that
Is (Tacitus, Histories 111.6). The realization that Marcus Antonius F'rimus was a pseudonym of Arius Calpurnius Piso is based on these factors: 1.The name in Pliny's letters under which Piso is the latter's wife's grandfather is Arius Antoninus. 2 . According to Suetonius (Livesof the Caesars, Book IV. XXV),Emperor Caius Caligula appropriated Gaius Piso's wife at Piso's marriage. That would have been about the year 36--the year before Arius' birth. Caligula is known to have been a descendant of Mark Antony (MarcusAntonius). Seemingly Suetonius was teasing at the questioned paternity of Piso's alter ego creation. 3. Tacitus' caustic description of Marcus Antonius Primus remind one o f Piso. 4. The idea to call Piso "Antonius Primus" --was his own. It was Piso himself in his Jewish War IV.495 who first detailed Antonius Primus' campaign for Vespasian against Vitellius. Also Josephus inserts "Antonius" (himselfl)as a centurion who dies at the capture of Jotapata (Jewish War 111.333). 5. Marcus Antonius Primus' colleague in the campaign against Vitellius is named Arrius Varus (Tacitus, Histories 111.6).This is yet another alter ego of Piso himself. In the mid50's (C.E.), while in his late teens, young Piso was a prefect of a cohort of legionnaires in the campaign against Vologeses, King of Armenia--serving there (in Tacitus, Annals XIII.9) under the name of Arrius Varus. 6. His exploits as General Marcus Antonius F'rimus account for his absence from Judaea in the years 67-69, between his defeat as Cestius Gallus and his reappearing to assist Titus as the siege of Jerusalem in 70. Rather than being Vespasian's prisoner in chains, he was his general, advancing on Rome in his behalf. 1 9 The same device of rearranging consonants was used in recreating AiYanius Burrus, the friend of Seneca (Tacitus, Annals XIII-XW)-and therefore of Lucius Piso. He was Nero's Praetorian Prefect, and then several years before Seneca's death, was himself a victim of the emperor. B u m s reappears as BaRaBbaS, the fictional brigand in Mat. 27.16.
APX - 102
language spelled the name Joseph. Thus they saw themselves a s the new Joseph. That is why so much of the story of Joseph in Egypt is secretly redone and inserted into the gospel story of Jesus. This is insight into the Inquisition and role of Jesuit Militia too.
JUSTICE ADMINISTERED WITHOUT FAVOR AND SPEEDILY
52. That the Court's April 11, 2012 decision was issued with intentional delay and disparagement of Plaintiff personally eight (8)months after the August 22, 201 1 hearing on various motions to dismiss therein granted, and with Plaintiff's motion to consolidate denied, shows Justice Schack's biased intent to delay and deny speedy justice to all Parties and especially violates Plaintiff fundamental NYS Civil Rights Chapter 6 Article 2 "Bill of Rights" lo. fundamental right to quote:
" Justice to be administered without favor and speedily. Neither justice nor right should be sold to any person, nor denied, nor deferred; and writs and process ought to be granted freely and without delay, to a l l persons requiring the same, on payment of the fees established by law."
53.That Plaintiff sought justice administered without favor and speedily to prevent delay as time is still of the essence with imminent ongoing irreparable harm now further injuring Plaintiff along with those similarly situated when after more than 60 days Plaintiff forced a n appearance at the OSC preliminary hearing of October 25, 201 1, whereupon at the public hearing forced off the record by the Court despite appearance of counsels for parties there speaking and being granted relief by the Court even though Justice Schack ardently refused to allow any transcript record of germane testimony from Marshal Bell for the Brzezinski family, the State or Plaintiff among others present; and then outrageously granted Joel Graber of the Attorney General Office representing the NYS Board of Elections and its officers of the State a n opened ended extension of time to respond to the Complaint until after the decision was rendered. That the Court there denied Plaintiffs request to supplement the complaint with new evidence arid transactions that have occurred subsequent to the
Strunk v. NYS Board of Election et al. NYSSC Kings Cty Index No.: 6500-201 1 August 22, 201 1 hearing e.g. that the NYS BOE admits to continued use of "Born a Citizenn 14th amendment citizenship eligibility to seek office of POTUS rather than that required by U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 "natural-born citizen" status a s instruction to any person seeking ballot access in the New York 2012 Presidential election cycle and despite the New York State Assistant Attorney General Joel Graber's refusal of Plaintiff's tender offer to settle in front of Defendants' Counsels there to hear the offer to settle the case specifically "were the NYS BOE to change the website instruction from 'Born a Citizen' back to 'Natural-born citizenn Plaintiff would then merely only seek expense reimbursement .." was rejected by the State thereby binding Plaintiff and other Defendants to further action. 54. Plaintiff contends a s to the behavior of the Court that based upon The Republic by Plato Translated by Benjamin Jowett in Book 2 in regards to Plato's comparison of Physicians and Judges in that one cares for the constitution of the body and the other the constitution of the mind and spirit states: But with the judge it is otherwise; since he governs mind by mind; he ought not therefore to have been trained among vicious minds, and to have associated with them from youth upwards, and to have gone through the whole calendar of crime, only,in order that he may quickly infer the crimes of others as he might their bodily diseases from his own self-consciousness; the honourable mind which is to form a healthy judgment should have had no experience or contamination of evil habits when young. And this is the reason why in youth good men often appear to be simple, and are easily practised upon by the dishonest, because they have no examples of what evil is in their own souls. Yes, he said, they are far too apt to be deceived. Therefore, I said, the judge should not be young; he should have learned to know ' evil, not from his own soul, but from late and long observation of the nature of evil in others: knowledge should be his guide, not personal experience. Yes, he said, that is the ideal of a judge.
CONCLUSIOH IN FAVOR OF RECONSIDERATIOX

That PIaintiff wishes that the Court reconsider the decision and hear the settlement offer offered the State that as a result of admissions of prior acts and transactions that have occurred after the filing of the Complaint back on March 22,
201 1, and since the tender offer by Plaintiff on October 25, 2011to settle in the
presence of Defendants counsels for the State to change the instruction from "Born a Citizen" to ?Natural-born C i t i z e n nwas .rejected and imposes unnecessary costs and expense upon all concerned, and that the additional transactions and evidence presented by P l a i n t i f fmust be entered into the record for the purpose of appeal were the Court to deny reasonable settlement, and for further and different relief as the
Court may deem necessary herein, and that Plaintiff contends t h e foregoing applies to
the State's agents misapplication and administration of laws and duties that have facilitated Defendants action with impunity that has inflicted individual injury upon me specifically, and know the contents thereof apply to me as the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on informatian and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to a l l matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.
Sworn to before me This %aY of May 20 12
KAMAL P. SON! Notary Public, State of New York No. 01606089949 Qualified in Kings County Commission Expires March 37,2015
APX - 184
_ / -
'REME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK iUNTY OF KINGS
Index N o . : 6500-2011
X
,histopher-Earl:Strunk in esse,
Plaintiff,
-against-
STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss.
Defendants.
X
COUNTY OF KINGS
Accordingly, I, d
1
~ u ~duly ~ sworn, ~ ~ depose b and e say i n under ~ penalty of perjwy:
v~l~ ~d ~
a . Am over 18years of age and not a b. My place of business is located at 5 c. On April May 3,2012,
PLATNTLFFS MFfDAViT I N RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS AND COURT COSTS SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED RATHER TIfANS m affirmed MAY 3,2012 for the case Strunk u NYS BOE et al. W S County of Kings Supreme Court with index 6500-201 1 . by USPS
service upon Defendants' Counsels. d. On May 3,2012, I caused each copy with proper postage for service by regular mail of listed counsels and where each envelope was deposited with the USPS for s e ~ c upon: e
E r i c a Burke, Esq. of SIMPSON THACHER 8a BARTLE'IT LLB

425 Ludngton Avenue New York New York 10017-3954
RITA C. TOBIN, Esq. of CAPLIN 86 DRYSDALE, CHARTERED 375 Park Avenue 3 5 t h Floor New York. New York 10152-3500
HARRIS BEACH, PLLC By THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553
of WILLKIE FARR 86 GWACHER LLP JAMES C. DUGAN 787 Seventh Avenu%& York, N.Y. 10019-6099
MARSHAL BELL,Esq. of McGUIRE WOODS LLP
1345 Avenue of Americas, 7th Floor New York, New York 10105
WLEY REIN LLP -TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ., JAN WITHOLD BARAN ESQ. and THOMAS W . KIRBY ESQ. 1776K Street, NW Washington D.C. 20006
RABINOWITZ,BOWIN,STANDARD,V S K Y & LIEBERMAN,PC -Christopher J. Latell Esq. and Damel S. Re~ch Esq.45 Broadway, Su~te 1700 New Y o r k ,New York 10006-3791 ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMANAttorney General of NYS by.JOEL GRABER, Esq. AAG Assistant Attorn General Special Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau 120 BROADWAY 24th Floor New York, New York 1081-0332
MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By.CHLARENS ORSLAND, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New Y o r m w York 10007
ABRAHAM HELFENBAUM
City Of New York NO. 2-9363 CertificateFifed in K~ngs c ,u t Commlssron ~ x p i m ,luly
: t o @
Com~~SiOner of Deeds
At an IAS Term, Part 27 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, heId in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York, on the I I th day of April 20 12 PRESENT: HON. ARTHUR SCHA Justice. CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK, in esse Plaintiff,
DECISION & ORDER

-againstIndex No. 6500/11 NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSHfCo-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLWCo-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILAf Cormnissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON/ Coinmissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMI COLON, in their Official and individual capacity, Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A. 0 . SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN-;ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama, a.k.a Steve Dunhain); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW
APX - 106
YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCLALIST W O E R S PARTY, IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; T?3E NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORYFUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAINPALIN VICTORY 2008; JOHN AND JANE DOES; and XYZ ENTITIES. Defendants.
The following papers numbered 1 to 25 read on this motion: Notice of Motion and Notice of Cross-Motion and and Affidavits (Affinnations) Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) Reply Affidavits (Affirmations)
Papers Numbered:
1 - 13
14 - 21
22 - 25
If the coinplaint in this action was a movie script, it would be entitled The
Manclzurian Candidate Meets The Da Vinci Code. Pro se plaintiff CHRISTOPHER-
EARL STRUNK brings this action against numerous defendants, including President
BARACK OBAMA, Vice President JOSEPH BIDEN, Senator JOHN MCCAIN, Speaker
of the House of Representatives JOHN BOEHNER, former House of Representatives Spealcer NANCY PELOSI, Governor ANDREW CUOMO, Attorney Genera1 ERIC
SCHNEIDERMAN, Comptroller THOMAS DI NAPOLI, the NEW YOFX STATE
BOARD OF ELECTIONS, billionaires PETER PETERSEN, PENNY PRITZKER,

GEORGE SOROS and six New York State political parties. Thirteen motions are pending before the Court. Plaintiff STRUNK's complaint is a rambling, forty-five page variation on "birther" cases, containing 150 prolix paragraphs, in at times a stream of consciousness. Plaintiffs central allegation is that defendants President OBAMA and Senator McCAIN, despite not being "natural born" citizens of the United States according to plaintiffs interpretation of Article 11, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, engaged with the assistance of other defendants in an extensive conspiracy, on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church to defi-aud the American people and usurp control of the Presidency in 2008. Most of plaintiff STRUNK's complaint is a lengthy, vitriolic, baseless diatribe against defendants, but most especially against the Vatican, the Roman Catholic Church, and particularly the Society of Jesus (the Jesuit Order}. Plaintiff STRUNK alleges seven causes of action: breach of state constitutional fiduciary duty by the NEW Y O N STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS and public officer defendants; denial of equal protection for voter expectation of a correct ballot; denial of substantive due process for voter expectation of a correct ballot; interference with the right to a republican form of government by the two Jesuit defendants and defendant F.A.O. SCHWARZ, JR., who were all members of the New York City Campaign Finance
,---
APX - 108
Board; interference with plaintiff's election franchise; a scheme to defraud plaintiff of a reasonable expectation of successfbl participation in the suffrage process; and, a scheme
by all defendants for unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment and a preliminary injunction against defendants, including: enjoining the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS from putting Presidential candidates on the ballot for 2012 unless they provide proof of
1 , Section 1, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution; ordering eligibility, pursuant to Article 1
that this eligibility certification be submitted to the Court for proof of compliance; enjoining the Jesuits from interfering with the 2012 elections; ordering expedited discovery to determine the scope of damages, alleged to be more than $12 billion; and, ordering a jury trial for punitive treble damages. Various defendants or groups of defendants, all represented by counsel, present eleven motions to dismiss and one motion to admit an attorneypro hace vice for this action. The eleven individual defendants or groups of defendants are, in chronological order of filing their motions to dismiss: defendants President BARACK OBAMA, Vice President JOSEPH BIDEN, OBAMA FOR AMERICA and the OBAMA VICTORY
FUND; defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIN-PmIN VICTORY 2008 and
Senator JOHN MCCAIN; defendants MARK BRZEZINSKI and IAN BRZEZINSKI; defendant Representative NANCY PELOSI; defendant GEORGE SOROS; defendants
Tf-IE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY and ROGER CALERO; defendant Speaker
APX -109 -
JOHN BOEHNER; defendant ZBIGNEW BRZEZINSKI; defendants Father JOSEPH A.
O'HARE, S.J., Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J. and FREDERICK A. 0. SCHWARZ,

JR.; defendant PENNY PRITZKER; and defendant PETER G. PETERSEN. The eleven
motions to dismiss assert: plaintiff STRUNK laclts standing; plaintiff STRUNK fails to state a claiin upon which relief can be granted; plaintiff STRUNK fails to plead fkaud with particularity; the action is frivolous; plaintiff STRUNK is barred by collateral estoppel from pursuing this action; and, the Court lacks both personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this action. The motion to admit counselpro hace vice for the instant action, by counsel for defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 and Senator
JOHN MCCAIN, for Todd E. Phillips, Esq., a member in good standing of both the
California and District of Columbia bars, is granted. Further, plaintiff STRUNK cross-moves to consolidate the instant action with a similar "birther" action filed by him, Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642108, in the Kings County Special Election Part, before Justice David Schmidt. Many of the defendants oppose consolidation because Spunk v Paterson, et at, Index No. 29642/08, is a disposed case. The cross-motion to consolidate this action with Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642/08, is denied. Defendants who oppose plaintiffs cross-motion are correct. Justice Schmidt disposed of Strunk v Paferson, et al, Index No. 29642108, on the grounds
APX - 110
of collateral estoppel, failure to join necessary parties and laches. The eleven motions to dismiss are all granted and plaintiff STRUNK's instant coinplaint is dismissed with prejudice. It is clear that plaintiff STRUNK: lacks standing; fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; fails to plead fraud with particularity; and, is barred by collateral estoppel. Also, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over most, if not all, defendants. Furthermore, plaintiff STRUNK's instant action is fiivolous. As will be explained, plaintiff STRUNK alleges baseless claims about defendants which are fanciful, fantastic, delusional and irrational. It is a waste of judicial resources for the Court to spend time on the instant action. Moreover, the Court will conduct a hearing to give plaintiff STRUNK a reasonable opportunity to be heard, pursuant to 22 NYCRR
130-1.1, as to whether or not the Court should award costs and/or impose sanctions upon
plaintiff STRUNK for his fiivolous conduct. At the hearing, an opportunity will be given to counsel for defendants to present detailed records of costs incurred by their clients in
the instant action.
Therefore, plaintiff STRUNK, who is not a stranger in the courthouses of New York, is enjoined ffom commencing future litigation in the New York State Unified Court Systern against: the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSW Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER/Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILAI
APX - 111
Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON/Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, and Deputy Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI and RUTH NOEMI COLON, in their Official and individual capacity; Father JOSEPH A. O ' W , S.J.; Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A. 0. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW IUIMZERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSIU; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; BARACIC H. OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI; the DEOMCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CAZERO; the
,
SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSIU; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; the NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; the NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMElUCA; OBAMA VICTURYFWD; MCCAN VICTORY 2008; and MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; without prior approval of the appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge. Backp-round Plaintiff STRUNK previously commenced similar actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofNew York and this Court, the Supreme Court of
APX -
the State of New York, Kings County. In Spunk v New York State Board ofEIections, et al., Index No. 08-CV4289 (US Dist Ct, EDNY, Oct. 28,2008, Ross, J.), the Court dismissed the action because of plaintiffs lack of standing, failure to state a claim and frivolousness. In that action, plaintiff STRUNK accused the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS of "misapplication and inisadministration of state law in preparation for the Noveinber 4,2008 Presidential General Election" by, among other things, in 7 5 1 of the complaint, of "failure to obtain and ascertain that Barrack Hussein Obarna is a natural citizen, otherwise contrary to United States Constitution Article 2 Second 1 Clause 5 [sic]" and demanded "Defendants are to provide proof that Barrack Hussein Obama is a natural born citizen and if not his electors are to be stricken from the ballot [sic]." Judge Ross, at page 6 of her decision, held "the court finds that portions of plaintiffs affidavit rise to the level of the irrational" and, in footnote 6, Judge Ross cited two prior 2008 Eastern District cases filed by plaintiff STRUNK in which "the court has determined that portions of plaintiffs coinplaints have contained allegations that have
risen to the irrational."
My Kings County Supreme Court colleague, Justice Schmidt, in Strzknk v Paterson,
et al, Index No. 29642/08, as cited above, disposed of that matter, on March 14,20 11, by
denying all of plaintiff's motions and noting that the statute of limitations expired to join
necessary parties President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN. Further, Justice Schmidt
APX - 113
denied plaintiff an opportunity to file affidavits of service nzdncpro tune and to amend the complaint. Then, plaintiff STRUNK, eight days later, on March 22, 201 1, commenced the instant action by filing the instant verified complaint. Plaintiff STRUNTC's complaint recites numerous baseless allegations about President OBAMA. These allegations are familiar to anyone who follows the "birther" movement: President OBAMA is not a "natural-born" citizen of the United States; the President is a radical Muslim; the President's Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth does not prove that he was born in Hawaii;
and, President OBAMA is actually a citizen of Indonesia, the United Kingdom, Kenya, or
all of the above. For example, Plaintiff STRUNK alleges, in '1/ 24 of the complaint, that President OBAMA: is a Madrasah trained radical Sunni Muslim by birth right . . . practices Shariah law . . . with the full knowledge and blessing of Defendants:
Peter G. Peterson; Zbigniew Brzezinski; his sons Mark and Ian; Penny
S. Pritzker; George Soros; Jesuits Fathers: Joseph P. O'Hare, Joseph

P. Parices; Brennan Center Executive Frederick A. 0. Schwarz, Jr.;
Nancy Pelosi, John Sidney McCain 1 1 1 ; John A. Boehner; Hillary Clinton; Richard Durbin and others. [sic]
Then, in $1 28 of the complaint, plaintiff STRUNK alleges that President OBAMA "or his agent(s) as part of the scheme to defiaud placed an image of Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (COLB) on the Interest . . . and as a prima facie fact ineans the Hawaii issued COLB does not prove 'natural born' citizenship or birth in Hawaii, only a longform document would [sic.]" Plaintiffs alleged vast conspiracy implicates dozens of political and religious figures, as well as the 2008 presidential candidates fkom both major parties, with numerous absurd allegations. They range from claiming that an associate at the large law
firm of Kirkland and Ellis, LLP masterminded the conspiracy because she wrote a law
review article about the U. S. Constitution's natural born citizen requirement for the off~ce of President to the assertion that Islam is a seventh century A.D. invention of the Vatican. Further, plaintiff STRUNK alleges, in 7 129 of the complaint, that he: is the only person in the USA to have dulyJiredfired9red BHO president
OBAMA] on January 23,2009 by registered mail (rendering BHO the

USURPER as Plaintiff is entitled to characterize BHO as) on the grounds
that he had not proven hiinself eligible . . . and all acts by the usurper are void ab initio - a serious problem! [sic] Plaintiffs allegations are strongly anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and xenophobic. The
APX - 115 ----
complaint weaves the occasional true but irrelevant fact into plaintiffs rambling stream of consciousness, Moreover, plaintiff STRUNK alleges, in 7 22 of the complaint, that defendant Vice President BIDEN knew that President OBAMA was "not eligible to run for president because he is not a Natural-Born Citizen with a British Subject Father with a student visa, however in furtherance of CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] foreign policy initiatives in the mid-east supported Soebarkah president OBAMA] as a Muslim [sic]."
Also, Plaintiff STRUNK discusses, in the complaint, then-Senator OBAMA's
April 2008 co-sponsorship of Senate Resolution 511. This resolved unanimously that
Senator MCCAIN, born in 1936 in Panama, while his father was on active duty in the United States Navy at Coco Sola Naval Air Station, is a natural born citizen of the United States. This resolution put to rest questions about Senator MCCATN'S eligibility to run for President. However, plaintiff STRUNK alleges, in 7 43 of the complaint, that Senate Resolution 5 11 "is part of the scheme to defraud" and "a fraud upon Congress and the People of the several states and territories contrary to the facts." Then, plaintiff STRUNK, in fi 44 of the complaint, cites Senate Resolution 5 11's text as evidence that President OBAMA concedes that the definition of natural born citizenship for President requires both parents of a candidate be U.S. citizens at birth. Further, the complaint
APX - 116 _____-__--
alleges that JOHN MCCAIN and ROGER CALERO, presidential candidate of the SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY, were also ineligible, like then-Senator OBAMA, for President because of their failure to qualify under the natural born citizen requirement. PIaintiff s alleged injury, in 7 47 of the complaint, is "[tlhat on November 4,2008, Plaintiff, as a victim of the scheme to defraud, voted for the electors representing . . . McCain . . . not a natural-born U.S. citizen." Further, in 7 49 of the complaint, "as part of the scheme to defraud, Plaintiff voted for Candidate McCain despite the fact that his wife is a most devoted Roinan Catholic whose two sons were educated by Jesuit priests." Plaintiff alleges, in 5 1 of the complaint, that Senator MCCAIN, was born in Colon Hospital, Colon, Panama, which was not in the Panama Canal Zone. Further, plaintiff alleges, in 7 52 of the complaint, that according to the November 18, 1903 HayBunau Varilla Treaty, by which the United States obtained the Canal Zone, Senator MCCAIN is not a natural-born citizen. Plaintiff STRUNK, in his final twenty pages of the complaint, alleges that the inassive conspiracy to defraud American voters was perpetrated by hundreds of individuals, at the behest of the Roinan Catholic Church and especially the Jesuits, with the aim of bringing about the Apocalypse through the destruction of the A1 Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and the re-building a new Jewish Temple on that site. Among the entities that Plaintiff STRUNK implicates in his alleged conspiracy are: the Muslim Brotherhood;
the Carlyle Group; the CFR; Halliburton; Kirkland and Ellis, LLP; and, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU. For example, in 7 9 1 of the complaint, plaintiff STRUNK states: That inembers of the Council on Foreign Relations including Peter G. Petersen as then Chairman that act with the Jesuit Order by the oath of allegiance superior to the United States Constitution, Treaties, and various States' Constitutions that starting no later than January 2006 sought to usurp the executive branch of government using Barack Hussein Obama I1 and John S. McCain 111, as a matched set of contenders then under joint coinmand and control, to preclude any other contender in preparation for a banking and sub-prime mortgage collapse that requires subsuming the sovereignty of the people of the united States of America and New York to International Monetary Fund conditionality with loss of the dollar reserve currency status, and collapse of the living standards of the vast majority of the Americans to that of a third world status. [sic] Plaintiff S T R W , in
a 139 of the coinplaii~t, alleges that defendant GEORGE
SOROS "proves his allegiance to Rome by promoting Muslim Brotherhood overt control
--
APX - 118
-- -
of Egypt . . . We cannot forget that the Jesuits in Cairo created the Musliin Brotherhood in 1928, the same year the Order created Opus Dei in Spain [sic]." Further, plaintiff
STRUNK, in 7 145 of the coinplaint alleges that "Defendants Pritzlter and Soros have
managed a crucial role for the Vatican State as a member of the CFR and high level Freeinasonry and in conjunction with King Juan Carlos (the King of Jerusalem) to create global regionalisin that subsuines national sovereignty of the USA and the People of New Yorlc state to the detriment of plaintiff and those siinilarly situated [sic]." Eleven defendants or groups of defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff STRUNK: lacks standing; failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; failed to plead fraud with particularity; and, is barred by collateral estoppel. Further, defendants argue that the Court lacks both personal and subject matter jurisdiction and the instant coinplaint is frivolous. Plaintiff, in response, filed an affidavit in opposition to the motions to dismiss and moved to consolidate the instant action with
Strunlc v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642/08.

On August 22,20 11, I held oral arguments on the record with respect to the thirteen instant motions. At the hearing, plaintiff STRUNK agreed with the Court that President OBAMA, with the release of his long-form Hawaiian birth certificate, was born in Honolulu, Hawaii [tr., p. 231. However, plaintiff STRUNK, at tr., pp. 30 - 31, argued that a "natural born citizen," eligible to run for President of the United States, pursuant to
APX - 119
Article 1 1 , Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, means that not only the candidate is natural born, but both of the candidate's parents are natural born. The following exchange at the oral arguments took place, at tr., p. 34, line 25 - p.
35, line 16:
MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
My injury, I voted for McCain.
Is that an injury? My injury is he did not challenge Mr. Obama
MR. STRUNK:
after he went through the whole exercise. THE COURT: Obama's presidency? You're saying he should have challenged Mr.
MR. STRUNK:
Absolutely, and the ballot. The onus is on me
because he violated his agreement with me. You can't challenge the eligibility until he's up to be sworn. McCain, since everybody in Congress, since they didn't want to know about anything, so it was my responsibility. I fired him by registered inail within 72 hours.
THE COURT:
I saw your letter that you Fred the President.
I guess he didn't agree with you because he's still there.
APX - 120 -
A discussion ensued as to how plaintiff STRUNK alleges that President OBAMA
is a Muslim [tr., pp. 36 - 381. The following colloquy took place at tr., p. 37, lines 4 - 8:
THE COURT:
a radical Sunni Muslim?
How could you come to the conclusion that he's
MR. STRUNK:
Because that's what his records show and that's
what the testimony of individuals who were in class with him show. The following portions of the exchange, at tr., p. 39, line 9
- p. 43, line 8
demonstrates the irrational anti-Catholic bias of plaintiff STRUNK:
THE COURT:
What I find fascinating, fxst of all you said
there was a connection there where you say Cindy McCain says she's a Catholic. I don't know if she is. I think you said she's Catholic faith, Cindy McCain.
MR. STRUNK:
She is the largest distributor of Budweiser.
TEE COURT:
necessarily.
I know that. That doesn't make her a Catholic
MR. STRUNK:
those connections.
It's the connection that counts. Your don't get
APX - 121
THE COURT:
. . . I don't Imow if the Busch family is Catholic.
I don't care.
MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
That's big business. That's big business selling beer . . . Let's put
Anheuser-Busch to the side.

You said she's a Catholic and you get into this whole riff or rant,
whatever you want to call it, about the Catholic Church and Father O'Hare, the Vatican. You go on and on about the Vatican . . . but it seems to me you have this theory that everything is a conspiracy and it always falls back to Rome. MR. STRUNK: That's a matter of public record. Oh, okay.
What the key is here, Ms. McCain is on the
THE COURT:
MR. S T R W :
Board of Directors for a Jesuit run school where her children are going to school.
THE COURT:
MR. STRUNK:
Could very well be. I don't know.
. . . In fact, it turns out in the discovery of the
% ,
APX - 122
--
connection to the Jesuits it was so compelling that when I started really digging into the background of this scheme of defraud, putting up two Manchurian candidates at once, which would take advantage of New York State's weakness in our law which required honesty. We require to have honesty and didn't get it. THE COURT:
MR. STRUNK:
Your case is more The Da Vinci Code.

The Da Vinci Code is a phoney book.
THE COURT:
With all due respect to John Frankenheimer,
The Manchurian Candidate according to you and the school of the Vatican,
by that way it describes the gist of your argument.
MR. STRUNK:
Frankenheimer? He directed the original Manchurian Candidate
THE COURT: movie. MR. STRUNK: THE COURT:
The old? With Frank, not Denzel. Frankenheimer?

1962 movie.
MR. STRUNIC:
THE COURT:
MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
MR. STRUNK: THE COURT: have it in the movie.
I was aware of the movie at that point, but - Okay, forget it. This is the one with Frank Sinatra?
And Laurence Harvey.
The Queen of Diamondsf Now you've brought - You mentioned The Manchurian Candidate. They
MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
I've used it as a pejorative.

1 understand that, and I think that The Da Vinci
Code, to make some interesting argument, that's a work of fiction. At least
I think it's a work of fiction.

MR. STRUNK:
The Manchurian Candidate was not a work of
fiction. The work - - I didn't want to get into this area.
THE COURT:
Let's not get into analogies. I understand you
have various arguments but it seems to all come back to Rome.
MR. STRUNK:
No, it comes back to New York State and
whether I have standing in the Supreme Court of the State of New York
APX - 124
on the question of who's going to take responsibility to enforce the law which has not been done.
THE COURT:
Okay, that's your argument.
Standard for a motion to dismiss
"When determining a motion to dismiss, the court must 'accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable
the fncts as allegedfit within any cognizable inference, and determine only wl~ether
legal tlteory' (see Arnav Indzis., Inc. Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysrnan, Milstein,
Felder & Steiner, 96 NY2d 300,303 [2001]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 8 3 , 8 7 4 8
[I 9941) [Enzphrrsis adden]." (Goldrnavl v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 5 NY3d 56 1,

570-57 1 [2005]). Fultl~er, the Court, in Morris v Morris (306 AD2d 449,45 1 [2d Dept 2003]), instructed that:
In determining whether a complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion

pursuant to CPLR 32 11 (a) (7), "the sole criterion is whether the
pleading states a cause of action, and if froin its four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law a motion for dismissal will fail" (Gziggenheimer
v Ginsbz~r*g, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]. The court must accept the facts
alleged in the complaint to be true and determine only whether the facts
nllegedjit within any cognizable legal theory (see Dye v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brookfyn & Queens, 273 AD2d 193 [2000]). However, bare legal conclusions are not entitledto the benefit of the presumption of truth and are not accorded every favorable inference (see
Doria v Masucci, 230 AD2d 764 [2000]). [Emplzasis a@dea
For a plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the factual allegations in the claim cannot be "merely conclusory and speculative in nature and not supported by any specific facts." (Residentsfor a More Beautiful Port
Washington, Inc. v Town ofNorth Hempstead, 153 AD3d 727,729 [2d Dept 19891).
"The allegations in the coinplaint cannot be vague and conclusory." (Sraianoflv Gahona, 248 AD2d 525 [2d Dept 19981, app dismissed 92 NY2d 844 [1998], cert denied by
Stoianofv New York Times, 525 US 953 [1998]). (See LoPresti v Massachusetts Mut.
Life Ins. Co., 30 AD3d 474 [2d Dept 20061; Levin v Isayeu, 27 AD3d 425 [Zd Dept
20061; Hart v Scott, 8 AD3d 532 [2d Dept 20041). Plaintiff STRUNK's complaint must be dismissed because the "Court need not, and should not, accept legal conclusions, unwarranted inferences, unwarranted deductions, baseless conclusions of law, or sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of
APX - 126
factual allegations. (Ulmann v Norma Kamali, Inc., 207 AD2d 691 [Id Dept 19941; Mark Hampton, Inc. v Bergreen, 173 AD2d 220 [Id Dept 199l])." (Goode v Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 8 Misc 3d 1023[A], at 2 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 20051). It is clear that the facts alleged by plaintiff STRUNK do not fit into any cognizable legal theory. Plaintiff STRUNK'S complaint is more of a political manifesto than a verified pleading. Siinilar lawsuits challenging the eligibility of President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN for the presidency based upon plaintiffs incorrect interpretation of the term "natural born Citizen" in Article 11, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution have
1 ; been dismissed as a matter of law. (See Drake v Obama, 664 F 3d 774 [9th Cir 201 1
Ba~nett v Obama, 2009 WL 3861788 [US Dist Ct, CD CA 20091; Berg v Obama, 574 F Supp 2d 509 [ED Pa 20081, a f d 586 F3d 234 [3d Cir 2009); Robinson v Bowen, 567 F Supp 2d 1144 Ca 20081; Hollander v McCain, 566 F Supp 2d 63 [D NH 20081).
Plaintiff STRUNK lacks standing

Plaintiff STRUNIC lacks standing to sue in state court, having suffered no injury. "Standing to sue is critical to the proper knctioning of the judicial system. It is a threshold issue. If standing is denied, the pathway to the courthouse is bloclted. The plaintiff who has standing, however, may cross the threshold and seek judicial redress." (Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801 8 12 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1017 [2003]). Professor David Siegel, in NY Prac, 5 136, at 232 [4d ed]
instructs that: [i]t is the law's policy to allow only an aggrieved person to bring a lawsuit . . . A want of "standing to sue," in other words, is just another way of saying that this particular plaintiff is not involved in a genuine controversy, and a simple syllogism tales us from there to a "jurisdictional" dismissal: (1) the courts have jurisdiction only over controversies; (2) a plaintiff found to lack "standing" is not involved in a controversy; and (3) the courts therefore have no jurisdiction of the case when such a plaintiff purports to bring it. "Standing to sue requires an interest in the claim at issue in the lawsuit that the law will recognize as a sufficient predicate for determining the issue at the litigant's request." (Caprer v Nussbaum, 36 AD3d 176, 181 [2d Dept 20061). "An analysis of standing begins with a determination of whether the party seelung relief has sustained an injury
(see Society ofPlastic Indus. v County o f Sufolk, 77 NY2d 76 1,762-773 [1991])."
(Mahoney v Pataki, 98 NY2d 45,52 120021). "The Court of Appeals has defined the standard by which standing is measured, explaining that a plaintiff, in order to have standing in a particular dispute, must demonstrate an injury in fact that falls within the relevant zone of interests sought to be protected by law." (Caprer v Nussbaum at 183).
-23-
APX - 128
A plaintiff, to have standing, "must allege personal injury.fairly traceable to the
defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." (Allen v Wright, 468 US 737, 751 [1984]). If a plaintiff lacks standing to sue, the plaintiff inay not proceed in the action. (Stark v Goldberg, 297 AD2d 203 [lst Dept 20021). PlaintiESTRUNK clearly laclcs standing to sue because he cannot establish an injury in fact. Plaintiffs claim that his November 2008 vote for Senator MCCAIN for President was his injury is the type of generalized grievance that is foreclosed by the U.S. Constitution's particularized injury requirement. "We have consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government-claiming only harin to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large-does not state an Article 111 case or controversy." (Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U S 555, 572 [1992]). "Thus, a private citizen who does not show any special rights or interests in the matter in controversy, other than those common to all taxpayers and citizens, has no standing to sue." (Matter of Meehan v County of Westchester,3 AD3d 533,534 [2d Dept 20041). (See Diederich v Rockland County Police Chiefs' Ass'n, 33 AD3 d 653,654 [2d Dept 20061; Concerned Taxpayers of Stony Point v Town of Stony
Point,28 AD3d 657, 658 [2d Dept 20067). Plaintiff STRUNK's cornplaint alleges
nothing more than non-justiciable abstract and theoretical claims. Therefore, the instant complaint, failing to state any allegation of a particularized injury, is dismissed with
A,
APX - 129
---
prejudice. (Silver v Pataki at 539; Mahoney v Pataki at 52).
Plaintiff Strunk's failure to state a cause of action
Alternatively, plaintiff STRUNK's complaint must be dismissed for his failure to state a cause of action. The Court is under no obligation to accept as true plaintiffs complaint, full of legal conclusions and bald assertions cloaked as facts. (Ruflno v New
York C i t y Tr. Auth., 55 AD3d 8 17,s 18 [2d Dept 20081). As noted above, in Morris v Morris at 45 1, "bare legal conclusions are not entitled to the benefit of the presumption of
truth and are not accorded every favorable inference." Moreover, plaintiff has failed to plead any facts that fit within any cognizable legal theory. (Goldman v Metropolitan Life
Ir?s. Co., at 570-571).
Further, plaintiff STRUNKYs often rambling and almost incomprehensible complaint fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of CPLR $3013 and CPLR Rule
30 14. CPLR 4 3013 requires statements in a pleading to be "sufficiently particular to
give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action or defense." CPLR Rule 3014 imposes additional pleading requirements that "[elvexy pleading shall consist of plain and concise statements in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Each paragraph shall contain, as far as practicable, a single allegation . . . Separate causes of action or defenses shall be separately stated and numbered and may be
--
APX - 130
A -
stated regardless of consistency." In Sibersky v New York City (270 AD2d 209 [Id Dept 20001, the Court dismissed an amended petition for its "complete failure to follow the dictates of CPLR 3013 or 3014." The Sibersky complaint consisted of "seven pages of single-spaced, uilnumbered paragraphs, the import of which is unascertainable," and the Court held that "[ppeadings that are not particular enough to provide the court and the parties with notice of the transaction or occurrences to be proved must be dismissed." Complaints that do not meet the pleading requirements of CPLR 5 3013 and CPLR Rule 3014 will be dismissed if "devoid of specific factual allegations" and do not "indicate the material elements of a claim and how they would apply to the case." ( M a v Becton Dickinson & Co., 215 AD2d 542 [2d Dept 19951). In Peri v State (66 AD2d 949 [3d Dept 1979]), affd 48 NY2d 734 [1979]), apro se plaintiffs complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with CPLR 9 30 13. The Court instructed that "[a]t a minimum, a valid complaint must include all material elements of the cause of action." Plaintiff STRUNK's rambling, forty-five page prolix complaint, with its irrelevant, scatter-shot morass of alleged historical references, virulent anti-Catholic rhetoric and extensive political rant fails to plead his alleged causes of action in a manner that is "sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the
APX - 131 --__---
_-
material elements of each cause of action [CPLR 5 30131" and organized in "plain and concise statements in consecutively numbered paragraphs [CPLR Rule 30141." "While a refined and attenuated analysis might arguably spell out a shadow of a cause of action, neither the defendants nor the trial court should be subject to the difficulties." (Kent v Truman, 9 AD2d 649 [Id Dept 19591). (See Geist v Rolls Royce Limited, 18 AD2d 63 1 [1d Dept 19621; Safer Beef Co., Inc. v Northern Boneless BeeJ;Inc., 15 AD2d 479 [1d Dept 19611). In a case, such as this one, in which "the amended complaint is prolix, confusing, and difficult to answer" and the complaint contains "a confusing succession of discrete facts, conclusions, coinments . . . and considerable other subsidiary evidentiary matter whose relevance to a particular cause of action is frequently obscure . . . Defendants should not be required to answer such a jumble." (Rapaport v Diamond Dealers, Club, Inc., 95 AD2d 743,744 [Id Dept 19833). (See Etu v CumberlandFarms, Inc., 148 AD2d 821, 824 [3d Dept 19891).
"The elements of fraud are narrowly defined, requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence ( c j , Vermeer Owners v Guterman, 78 NY2d 1114, 1116 [1991])." (Gaidon v Guardian Life Ins. Co. ofAmerica, 94 NY2d 330,349-350 [1999]). Mere conclusory statements alleging the wrong in the pleadings are insufficient. (McGovern v Nassau County Dept. of Social Services, 60 AD3d 1016 [2d Dept 20091; Sargiss v
APX - 132
p p
--
Magarelli, 50 AD3d 1117 [2d Dept 20081; Dumas v Firoito, 13 AD3d 332 [2d Dept 20041; Sfo~za v Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York, 210 AD2d 214,215 [2d Dept
19941).
The Appellate Division, Second Department, in Giurdanella v Giurdanella (226 AD2d 342, 343 [1996], held that: to estabIish a prima facie case of fiaud, the plaintiff must establish
(1) that the defendant made material representations that were false,
(2) that the defendant knew the representations were false and made them with the intent to deceive the plaintiff, (3) that the plaintiff justifiably relied on the defendant's representations, and (4) that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the defendant's representation. (See Kerusa Co., LLC v WlU.U.515Real Estate Ltd. Partnership, 12 NY3d 236 120091; Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc. 94 NY2d 43 [1999]; Channel Master Corp, v
Aluminum Limited Sales, Inc., 4 NY2d 403 [1958J; Smith v Ameriquest Mortg. Cot-p.,60
AD3d 1037 [2d Dept 20091; Cash v Titan Financial Services, Inc. 58 AD3d 785 [2d Dept 20091). Plaintiff STRUNK presents in his complaint fraud accusations that can be, at best, described as bare assertions. He does not allege that he relied upon any statements of defendants and fails to allege that he suffered any pecuniary loss as a result of the
APX - 133
statements of any defendant. Actual pecuniary loss must be alleged in a fraud action. (Dress Shirt Sales, h c . v Hotel Martinique Assoc., 12 NY2d 339, 343 [1963]; Rivera v WyckoffHeightsHosp., 184 AD2d 558, 561 [2d Dept 19921). The mere use of the word "fraud" in a coinplaint is not sufficient to coinply with the specific requirements of CPLR
5 3016 (b) that fraud be plead with particularity. Therefore, plaintiff STRUNK fails to
allege the necessary elements for a fiaud cause of action.
This Court lacks iurisdiction

Plaintiffs complaint essentially challenges the qualifications of both President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN to hold the office of President. This is a non-justiciable political question. Thus, it requires the dismissal of the instant coinplaint. "The "nonjusticiability of a political question is primarily a function of the separation of powers." (Baker v Carr, 369 U S 186,210 [1962]). Under separation ofpowers, "[tlhe constitutionaf power of Congress to regulate federal elections is well established." (Buckley v Valeo, 424 US 1, 13 [I 9761). (See Oregon v Mitchell, 400 US 112 [1970]; Burroughs v United States, 290 US 534 [1934]). Under New York law, "[tlhis judicial deference to a coordinate, coequal branch of government includes one issue of
f New justiciability generally denominated as the 'political question' doctrine." (Matter o
York State Inspection, Security & Law Enforcement Employees, District Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 233,239 [1984]). The framework for the Electoral College and its voting procedures for President
APX - 134
and Vice President is found in Article 11, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. This is fleshed out in 3 USC
5 1 et seq., which details the procedures for Presidential elections.
More specifically, the counting of electoral votes and the process for objecting for the 2009 Presidential election is found in 3 USC 15, as modified by Pub L 110-430, 4 2, 122 US Stat 4846. This required the meeting of the joint session of Congress to count the 2008 electoral votes to be held on January 8,2009. On that day, after the counting of the Electoral College votes, then-Vice President Dick Cheney made the requisite declaration of the election of Presidelit OBAMA and Vice President BIDEN. (155 Cong Rec H76 [Jan. 8 20091). No objections were made by members of the Senate and House of Representatives, which would have resolved these objections if made. This is the exclusive means to resolve objections to the electors' selection of a President or a Vice President, including objections raised by plaintiff STRUNK. Federal courts have no role in this process. Plainly, state courts have no role. Thus, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to determine the eligibility and qualifications of President OBAMA to be President, as well as the same for Senator MCCAIN or ROGER CALERO. If a state court were to involve itself in the eligibility of a candidate to hold the office of President, a determination reserved for the Electoral College and Congress, it may involve itself in national political matters for which it is institutionally ill-suited and interfere with the constitutiona1 authority of the Electoral College and Congress. Accordingly, the political question doctrine instructs this Court
and other courts to refrain froin superseding the judgments of the nation's voters and those federal government entities the Constitution designates as the proper forums to
determine the eligibility of presidential candidates.

Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer Justice Robert Jackson, concurring in Youngsto~vn
(343 US 579, 635 19521, in discussing separation of powers stated that "the Constitution
difkses power the better to secure liberty." Justice Thmgood Marshall, in his majority opinion in US. v Munoz-Flores (495 US 385,394 [1990]), on the subject of separation of powers, quoted from Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in Morrison v Olson, 487 US 654,
697 [1988], in which Justice Scalia observed that "[tlhe Framers of the Federal
Constitution . . . viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just Govermnent." This Court will not disrupt the separation of powers as enunciated in the U.S. Constitution and articulated by Justices Jackson, Marsha11 and Scalia. Further, plaintiff STRUNIC has failed to properly serve defendants, including President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN, pursuant to the CPLR. With numerous other grounds present for disinissing the instant action, the Court will not elaborate upon how plaintiff STRUNK failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendants.
Plaintiff STRUNK is precluded bv collateral esto~pel
Collateral estoppel or "issue preclusion," as observed by Prof. Siegel, in NY Prac
APX ___-- 136
$443, at 748-749, [4th ed], "scans the first action and takes note of each issue decided in
it. Then if the second action, although based on a different cause of action, attempts to
reintroduce the same issue, collateral estoppel intervenes to preclude its relitigation and to bind the party, against whom the doctrine is being invoked, to the way the issue was decided in the first action." In Ryan Y New York Telephone Company (62 NY2d 494,500 [1984]), the Court of Appeals, held that "[tlhe doctrine of collateral estoppel, a narrower species of resjudicata, precludes a party fiom relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that
party or those i n privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same
[Emphnsis added]." Two prerequisites must be met before collateral estoppel can be
raised. The Court of Appeals, in Buechel v Bain (97 NY2d 295 [2001], cert denied 535
US 1096 [2002]), instructed at 303-304, that:
There must be an identity of issue which has necessarily been decided

in the prior action and is decisive of the present action, and there
must have been a full and fair oppomnity to contest the decision now said to be controlling (see, Gilberg v Barnieri, 53 NY2d 285,291 [198l]). The litigant seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel must demonstrate that the decisive issue was necessarily decided in tlteprio~
--
APX - 137 -
action against a party, or one in privity wifiz a patty (see, id.). The
party to be precluded from relitigating the issue bears the burden of

demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination. [Empizasis added]
(See D 'Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659,664 [1990]; Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez, 46 N ~ 2 481,485 d supra; Westchester County Correction Ofleers Benevolent Ass 'n, Inc. v County of Westchester,65 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2d Dept
20091; Franklin Dev. Co. Inc. v Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 897, 899 [Zd Dept 20091; Llkscher ex. re1 Luscher v Arrua, 21 AD3d 1005 [2d Dept 20051). Plaintiff STRUNK litigated many of the issues in the instant action in US District Court, but also in the previously cited Strunk v Paterson) et al, Index No. 29642J08, before Justice Schmidt. He acknowledged this, in f 2 of the instant complaint, by stating: That this complaint is fairly traceable to the events and actions leading up to the Party primaries during the 2008 election cycle for the ballot access of the Presidential slates at the November 4,2008 General Election as complained of in the related election law case, Strunk v Paterson, et al. NYS Supreme Court in the County of Kings with Index No. 29642-08 before the Honorable David I Schmidt.of Part 1
APX - 138
as an election law matter. [sic] As mentioned above, Justice Schmidt disposed of Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642/08, on March 14,201 1, by denying a11 of plaintiffs motions and noting that the statute of limitations expired to join necessary parties President OBAMA and Senator
MCCAIN. Therefore, collateral estoppel precludes plaintiff STRUNK from pursuing the
instant action.
Denial of plaintiffs cross-motion to consolidate
Plantiff s cross-motion to consolidate this action with S ~ u n v k Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642/08, and transfer the instant action to Justice Schmidt is denied. Justice Schmidt, on November 19,2008, in Strunk v Paterson, et al, declined to sign plaintiff STRUNK's order to show cause to enjoin Governor Paterson from convening New York's December 2008 meeting of the Electoral College, because ''plaintiff is collaterally estopped." This refers to the Eastern District action dismissed by Judge Ross, in which she found the complaint frivolous. After a hiatus of several years, plaintiff STRUNK, by order to show cause, attenipted to amend his complaint. Justice Schmidt, in his January 11,201 1 short-form order, denied this motion in its entirety. Then, plaintiff STRUNK moved to reargue. On March 14,20 11, Justice Schmidt,
in a short-form order, denied reargument because plaintiff "failed to join a necessary
APX - 139
party President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN and the statute of limitations to do so expired." Finally, on November 9,20 11, H. William Van Allen, an ally of plaintiff
STRUM<, moved to intervene as a plaintiff to challenge President OBAh4AYs placement
20 12 ballot. In his November 22,201 1 short-form order, Justice on the ~tpcoming Schinidt denied Mr. Van Allen's intervention "in all respects." Further, Justice Schmidt held "[tlhis is an action that was conmenced in 2008 and has remained inactive for several years and it would be improper to allow plaintiff to raise new matters before the Court after the extended period of inactivity."
Plaintiffs frivolous conduct
"A coinplaint containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is
frivolous where it laclts an arguable basis'' and "embraces not only the inarguable legal
conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation." (Neitzlze v Williams,490 US 3 19,
325 [1989]). Plaintiff STRUNK, as cited above, alleges numerous fmciful, fmtastic,
delusional, irrational and baseless claims about defendants. The U.S. Supreine Court, citing Neitzke. held in Denton v Hernandez (504 US 25, 32-33 [1992]), that:
A court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts
alleged are "clearly baseless," 490 US at 127, 109 S Ct at 1833, a category encolnpassing allegations that are "fancihl," id., at 325, 109 S Ct at 1831, "fmtastic," id., at 328, 109 S Ct at 1833, and
,---.
APX
140
"deiusional," ibid. As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible. In Denton, the plaintiff alleged that he had been repeatedly raped by a number of inmates at several different prisons, all using the same modus operundi. The Court concluded that these allegations were ''wholly fanciful" and dismissed the claim as frivolous as a result. In Shoemaker v I% S. Department o m s t i c e (164 F 3d 6 19,6 19 [2d Cir 1998]), plaintiff alleged that the government and television stations conspired to: "(1) broadcast information about his feces on national television; and (2) file and publicized false charges of child abuse against him." The Court, citing Neitzke and Denton, dismissed the action as frivolous because plaintiffs "factual claims are irrational and incredible." Another case applying the frivolous standards ofNeikke and Denton is Perri
v Bloomberg (2008 WL 2944642 [US Dist Ct, ED NY 2008]), in which plaintiff alleged
that a secret unit of the NYPD was attempting to kill him and his cats. The Court
dismissed the case, finding that plaintiffs complaint has "a litany of sensational allegations pertaining not only to the NYPD, but also to various arms of government, both state and federal. Accordingly, Perri has not established that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction, because his allegations of irreparable harm are unsupported and bizarre."
/-
APX 141 - ------
-- -
Plaintiff STRUNK'S complaint, as well as his opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss, alleges that the correct interpretation of the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution requires a natural born citizen to have been born on United States soil and have two United States born parents. Despite plaintiffs assertions, Article 11, Section
1, Clause 5 does not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the natural born
citizen clause means what plaintiff STRUNK claims it states. "The phrase 'natural born Citizen' is not defined in the Constitution, see Mnur vHappersett, 88 US 162, 167
[I 875]), nor does it appear anywhere else in the document, see Charles Gordon, Who Can
Be President of the United States: An UnresolvedEnigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1,s (1968)." (Hollander v McCain at 65). Plaintiff STRUNK cannot wish into existence an interpretation that he chooses for the natural born citizen clause. There is no arguable legal basis for the proposition that both parents of the President must have been born on
U.S. soil. This assertion is as frivolous as the multitude of alleged allegations outlined
above. Moreover, President OBAMA is the sixth U. S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil. Plaintiff STRUNK and his fellow "birthers" might not realize that: both parents of President Andrew Jackson were born in what is now Northern Ireland; President James Buchanan's father was born in County Donegal, Ireland; President Chester A. Arthur's father was born in what is now Northern Ireland;
APX - 142
President Woodrow Wilson's mother was born in Carlisle, England; and, President Herbert Hoover's mother was born in Norwich, Ontario, Canada. Therefore, the prosecution of the instant action by plaintiff STRUNK, with its fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational and baseless claims about defendants appears is frivolous. 22 NYCRR 9 130-1.1 (a) states that "the Court, in its discretion may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages
in fi-ivolous conduct as defined in this Part, which shall be payable as provided in section
130-1.3 of this Subpart." 22 NYCRR 3 130-1.1 (c) states: conduct is frivolous if:
(1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a
reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law;

(2) it is undertaken primariiy to delay or prolong the resolution of the
litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or

(3) it asserts material factual statements that are false.
Conduct is hivolous and can be sanctioned, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c), if "it is co~npletely without merit . . . and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law." (Gordon v Marrone, 202 AD2d 104, 110 [2d Dept 19941 Iv denied 84 NY 2d 8 13 [1995]). (See RKO Properties, Inc. v
Boymelgreen, 77 AD3d 721 [2d Dept 20101; Finkelman v SBRE, LLC, 71 AD3d 1081 [Zd
.---.
APX - 143
Dept 20101; Glenn v Annunziata, 53 AD3d 565, [2d Dept 20081; Miller v Lhgan, 27 AD3d 429 [2d Dept 20061; Greene v Dorat Conference Center Associafes, 18 AD3d 429 [2d Dept 20051; Ofman v Camnpos, 12 AD3d 581 [2d Dept 20041). It is clear that plaintiff STRUNK's complaint: "is completely without merit in law;" "is undertaken primarily
. . . to harass" defendants; and, "asserts material factual statements that are false."
Several years before the drafting and irnpleinentation of the Part 130 Rules for costs and sanctions, the Court of Appeals (A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1,6 [1986]) observed that "fi-ivolous litigation is so serious a problem affecting the proper administration of justice, the courts may proscribe such conduct and impose sanctions in this exercise of their rule-making powers, in the absence of legislation to the contrary (see NY Const, art VI, 3 30, Judiciary Law $ 21 1 [I] [b] )." Part 130 Rules were subsequently created, effective January 1, 1989, to give the courts an additional remedy to deal with frivolous conduct. L n Levy v Carol Management
Corporation (260 AD2d 27,33 [lst Dept 19991) the Court stated that in determining if
,-.
sanctions are appropriate the Court must look at the broad pattern ofconducc by the offending attorneys or parties. Further, "22 NYCRR 130-1.I allows us to exercise our discretion to impose costs and sanctions on an errant party." (Levy at 33). Moreover, "[s]anctions are retributive, in that they punish past conduct. They also are goal oriented,
in that they are useful in deterring future frivolous conduct not only by the particular
parties, but also by the Bar at large." (Levy at 34).
-39-
APX - 144
The Court, in Kernisan, MD. v Taylor (171 AD2d 869 [2d Dept 199I]), noted that the intent of the Part 130 Rules "is to prevent the waste of judicial resources and to deter vexatious litigation and dilatory or lnalicious litigation tactics (cJ Minister, Elders &
Deacons of Refm. Prot. Church of City ofNew York v 198 Broadway, 76 NY2d 41 1; see Steiner v Bonhamer, 146 Misc 2d 10) [Emphasis addedl." To adjudicate the instant
action, with the coinplaint replete with fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational and baseless allegations about defendants, combined with plaintiff STRUNK's lack of standing, the barring of this action by collateral estoppel and the Court laclung persona1 jurisdiction and subject inatter jurisdiction over many of the defendants, is "a waste of judicial resources." This conduct, as noted in Levy, must be deterred. In Weinstock v
Weinstock (253 AD2d 873 [2d Dept 19981) the Court ordered the maximum sanction of
$10,000.00 for an attorney who pursued an appeal "coinpletely without merit," and holding, at 874, that "[wJe therefore award the maximuin authorized amount as a sanction for this conduct (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1) calling to mind thatfrivolous litigation causes
a substmtial waste of judicial resources to the detriment of those litigants who come to
the Court with real grievances [Emphasis addeq." Citing Weinstock, the Appellate Division, Secoiid Department, in Bernadette ParazeZZa, P.C. v De Santis (36 AD3d 734 [2d Dept 20071) affirmed a Supreme Court, Richmond County $2,500.00 sanction, at 736, as "appropriate in view of the plaintiffs waste ofjudicial resources [Emphasisadde4."
In Navin v Mosquera (30 AD3d 883,883 [3d Dept 20061) the Court instructed that
APX - 145
when considering if specific conduct is sanctionable as frivolous, "courts are required to examine 'whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent [or] should have been apparent' (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c])." Therefore, the Court will examine the conduct of plaintiff STRUNK in a hearing, pursuant to 22 NYCRR $ 130-1.1, to determine if plaintiff STRUNK engaged in frivolous conduct, and to allow plaintiff STRUNK a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Further, at the hearing, an opportunity will be given to counsel for defendants to present detailed records of costs incurred by their clients in the instant action.
Plaintiff precluded from relitipation of the same claims
.The Court is concerned that plaintiff STRUNK continues to use the scarce resources of the New York State Unified Court Systein to fruitlessly pursue the same claims. He is no stranger to litigation in Supreme Court, Kings County, Civil Term. Further, plaintiff STRUNK has had several bites of the same apple in U.S. District Court, which resulted in findings of his engagement in frivolous conduct with, as stated by Judge Ross, coinplaints that "have contained allegations that have risen to the irrational." The Court should not have to expend resources on the next action by Mr. STRUNK that will be a new variation on the sane theme of defendants' alleged misdeeds and misconduct. The continued use of the New York State Unified Court System for the personal pursuit
by plaintiff STRUNK of irrational complaints against defendants inust cease.
Our courts have an interest in preventing the waste of judicial resources by a party
APX - 146
who knows that his or lawsuit has no legitimate basis in law or fact and continues to attempt to relitigate resolved claims and issues. (Martin-Trigona v Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 145 Misc 2d 405 [Sup Ct, New York County 19891). The Court, inSassower v Signorelli (99 AD2d 358, 359 [2d Dept 1984]),noted that "public policy mandates free access to the courts . . . and, ordinarily, the doctrine of former adjudication will serve as an adequate remedy against repetitious suits." Then, the Sassower Court observed, in the next paragraph, that: "[nlonetheless, a litigious plaintiff pressing a fi-ivolous claim can be extremely costly to the defendant and can waste an inordinate amount of court time, time that this court and the trial courts can ill afford to lose (see Harrelson v United States, 613 F2d 114).'" Pro se litigants whom abuse judicial process have had their access to the courts limited. In Spremo v Babchik (155 Misc2d 796 (Sup Ct, Queens County 1996]),the
Court, in enjoining apro se litigant from instituting any fbrther actions and proceedings
in any court in the New York State Unified Court System, citing Sassower and Kane v
C i t y ofNew York, 468 F Supp 586 [SD NY 19791, aflfd614 F2d 1288 [2d Cir 19791). The
Kane Court, at 592, held:
The fact that one appears pro se is not a license to abuse the process of the Court and to use it without restraint as a weapon of harassment and libelous bombardment. The injunction herein ordered
APX
is fully warranted to put an end to such activity . . . Commencement of action upon action based on the same facts dressed in different garb, after thrice being rejected on the merits and having been repeatedly warned that the claims were barred by res judicata, can only be explained as inalicious conduct. In Muka v New York State Bar Association (120 Misc 2d 897 [Sup Ct, Tompluns County 1983]), apro se plaintiff commenced a fourth unsuccessful lawsuit against the State Bar Association upon various conspiracy theories. The Court in dismissing the action, based upon resjudicata, observed, at 903, that "all litigants have a right to impartial and considered justice. Insofar as any litigant unnecessarily consumes inordinate amounts of judicial time and energy, he or she deprives other litigants of their proper share of these resources. A balance must be kept." Therefore, plaintiff STRUNK, with his history of abusing the civil justice system,
by bringingpro se actions devoid of merit against the s a n e defendants, is precluded from
relitigating the same claims and issues which waste court resources and is enjoined from bringing any future actions in the New York State Unified Court Systein against: the NEW Y O K STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSHI Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNENCo-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA/Co~nmissioner, GREGORY
P. PETERSON/Commissioner,Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, and Deputy
--
APX - 148
Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS
P. DINAPOLI and RUTH NOEMI COLON, in their Official and individual capacity;
Father JOSEPH A. O'HARF,, S.J.; Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A. 0. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZTNSKI; JOSEPH R.BIDEN, JR.; BARACK H. OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI; the DEOMCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW Y O N ; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; the SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER, the NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; the NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE
OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE
CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA F O R AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORYFUND;MCCAIN
VICTORY 2008; and MCCAIN-PAtlN VICTORY 2008; without the prior approval of the
appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge. The Court instructed, in Vogelgesang v Vogelgesang(71 AD3d 1132, 1134 [2d Dept 2010]), that:
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in enjoining
the appellant froin filing any hrther actions or motions in the . . . action without prior written approval. Public policy generally mandates fiee
access to the courts (see Sassower v Signorelli, 99 AD2d 358,359 [1984]). However, a party may forfeit that right if he or she abuses the judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will (see D u f i v Holt-Harris, 260 AD2d 595 [2d Dept 19991; Shreve v Slzreve, 229 AD2d 1005 [2d Dept 19961). There is ample basis in this record to support the Supreme Court's determination to prevent the appellant from engaging in fUrther vexatious litigation.
(See Scholar. v Timinsky, 87 AD3d 577 [2d Dept 201 11; Dimeryv Ulster Sav. Banlc, 82
AD3d 1034 [2d Dept 201 11; Capogrosso v K a m s , 60 AD3d 522 [Id Dept 20091; Simpson v Ptnszy~zskn, 41 AD3d 607 [2d Dept 20071; Pignataro v Davis, 8 AD3d 487 [2d Dept 20041; Cango v Cango, 288 AD2d 417 [2d Dept 20011; Mancini v Mancini, 269 AD2d 366 [2d Dept 20001; Braten v Finkelstein, 235 AD2d 513 [2d Dept 19971).
Conclusion
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the motion by counsel for defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 and Senator JOHN MCCAIN, to admit Todd E. Phillips, Esq., a member in good standing of both the California and District of Columbia bars, for the instant actionpro hace vice is granted; and it is further ORDERED, that the motions to dismiss plaintiff CHRTSTOPHER-EARL
APX - 150
- -
--
STRUNK's instant complaint by: defendants President BARACK OBAMA, Vice President JOSEPH BIDEN, OBAMA FOR AMERICA and the OBAMA VICTORY
FUND; defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 and

Senator JOHN MCCAIN; defendants MARK BRZEZINSKI and IAN BRZEZINSKI; defendant Representative NANCY PELOSI; defendant GEORGE SOROS; defendants THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY and ROGER CALERO; defendant Speaker
JOHN BOEHNER; defendant ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI; defendants Father JOSEPH A.
O'HARE, S.J., Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J. and FREDERICK A. 0 . SCHWARZ, JR.; defendant PENNY PRITZKER; and defendant PETER G. PETERSEN; are all granted, with the instant complaint dismissed with prejudice; and it is hrther ORDERED, that the cross-motion of plaintiff CHRISTOPHER EARL-STRUNK to consolidate the instant action with Strunlc v Paterson, eta!, Index No. 29642/08, before Justice David Schmidt, is denied; and it is W h e r ORDERED, that plaintiff CHRISTOPHER EARL-STRUNK is hereby enjoined from commencing any future actions in the New York State Unified Court System against: the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSW CoChair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNEWCo-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA/Coinmissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON/Cominissioner,Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, and Deputy Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI and RUTH NOEMI COLON, in their Official and individual
APX - 151
capacity; Father JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.;
FREDERICK A. 0 . SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; BARACK H. OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI; the DEOMCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF
NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; the SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J.
BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; the NEW YORIC STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; the NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE
OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE
CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORYFUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; and MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; without prior approval of the
appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge; and it is further
ORDERED, that any violation of the above injunction by CHRISTOPHER-EARC
STRUNK may subject CHRISTOPHER-EARL ST=

contelnpt proceedings; and it is further
to costs, sanctions and
ORDERED, that it appearing that plaintiff CHRISTOPEER EARL-STRUNK,

engaged in "frivolous conducf" as defined in the Rules of the Chief Administrator, 22
NYCRR NYCRR
4 130-1.1 (c), and that pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Administrator, 22
4 130.1.1 (d), "[aln
award of costs or the imposition of sanctions may be made
-.
APX
-
152
. . . upon the court's own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard," this Court
will conduct a hearing affording plaintiff CHRISTOPHER EARL,-ST"a
reasonable opportunity to be heard" and counsel for all defendants may present to the Court detailed records of costs incurred by their clients in the instant action, before me in Part 27, on Monday, May 7,2012, at 2:30 P.M., in Room 479,360 Adarns Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201; and it is further
ORDERED, that Ronald D. Bra& Esq., my Principal Law Clerk, is directed to serve
this order by first-class mail, upon CHRISTOPHER EARL-STRUNK, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue, # 281, Brooklyn, New Yorlc, 11238 and upon counsel for all defendants in this action. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
HON. &UR
M. SCHACIC J. S. C.
-* ryFL""".i'..
*
r.w"**.m*
--
Sqsreme Qnnrt of the B&tf~ nf NPUVork - -- -. ---.--..-.-..-..

= =
, . . . -=--,
wi.s::isrs12,
.---=-
= .
+ " f b ; s ' ; r ; .
? = +
e3$iLt;h'Wi
. > . .
~z-.~-=r.-s.==..=..
-&LFggrc
; " . g ; & ' ; L
M130881 Slsl
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J.

REI?=JP,LDOE RFY7@,RP rr-., I S",K R SKFl ,OS
-----
MARK C . DILLON DANIEL D ANGIOLILLO, JJ.
Christopher Earl Strunk, appellant, v New York State Board of Elections,
. ' t i &i., iqJv;;i-;.gi!:>.
(Index No. 650011 1)
$sgpe& by GI2 9:aitiiiff fFam October 25,20 11.
ordtF of
SuFi-eilIs: COui;, $$iigs cO-r3i1ty7 ddt2&
On the Court's own motion, it is

C2^PREFRF3 thnt t'js~ ---;r!-r!t~al iar i i a r n i ~ ~ ~ ~;v7th011t Ci rnEtC o r f j i a h : " r i i r r a ~ mn ~q nthe ~~ nrd~r
dated October 25,201 1, is not appeal-able as of right and leave to appeal has not been granted (see CPLR 5701).
ENTER:
Clerk of the Court
January 3: 20 12
SRIJF.TK v Pe'E'bV Y O & ! ! STATE 130L%3U? OF ELECTIONS
A P X - 154
= '-
P
d
*tll~~w=&&
16.
fZ
&k
wirh New Yafk SfateEietim Law

ecs3
M c ; I e8 26-100, &I22
as qplies to EL ArWk?I2
*staatrAl$eSfZ
k t *
aW-yshow-aathelASP&
'27
, h m
* w *
d m sholJLd mt be made a f f the 2012 ElBctiola cycle with
i
f
I
' ,
Aaick 2 Se~tZm 1
" e born Citizen"eligibiLiQ mnirement
o f '%om a citizen'' imp~periy y;
APX - 155
/
#
. % &
--->
% -
+ ' -
/
t
1
ia
6 .
---____-
- .----__
--
- --
- .
b- A S t a p o f & N e v Y o r k ~ s u n t i l & t i r n e a s ~ W S B u ~ ~ ~ ~
SBSX bfPY)Tv%;
AStayofatfbafIot-unlilsucht2rae%*
S has providd evidezlce of q&&n

d A&&&e.
&
e l i g i b i l i t y ;
~ag~r@f
o f D e f w t s NYS BOE u&=
New Y& State p a E W
e mB m ~ Wussein k O
clfndi*
b 4 ZbiguiewB
w ,George Soms and or

&a
for office o fPOTUS in New YO*
~"y~fj~~dlsc~~~ofh~and~rdatedd~iatheir~~norunderits
d v s
e IIfand or Xbga Galem f a &e 2008 election cyele faward;
the eligibility o
h for fhe aBee nfPOTUS adversely
or'&eXewYork Elect& Chilegee
ofmmhirb
b- Say 5 f
Wet &axs
PQTUS h;tfproWevidence of&ficrdion
eligibili~, -
APX
156
APX - 157
9uprernP @ l l r u d of fIp $iHfe of peht
slrltk
Pt03fefi&~ $&iirion : B e u r n & &d.ticial @sparfratmi
Form A - Request for Appellate Division Intervention - Civil

See S 670.3 of the rules of this coun for direcums on the use of this form (22 WCRR 6 7 0 . 3 1
0 3 Licenses
0 1 Children - JDIPINS 0 8 Equitable Distribu:loo

0 9 Exclusive Occupancy of
D 10 E K w r t ' s Fees 1 '1 NIilrntenane&A$rmbny E3 12 M a r i t a l Status
1 3 5 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 11 6 lmerferance with Contract 11 7 MaLccous R e s e ~ m a n f
Abuse af Process
Deciaratory Judgment
Notice of CIaun
ure Law 1 207
S e m e Law 8 9 128
5 N
Form A RADl C h r B
APX - 158
13 Resenled Order
Are any onperfected appsals pending in this case7 D Yes ) ( 360. cavered by the annexed notice of appeat with the prior appeals? Numberfs) of any prim, pending, unperfected appeats:
If yes, do you ~ntend T o perfect the appeal or appeals Yes C b Me. Set forth the Appeilate Division Cause
1Stature authorizing Gommencernent of proceeding in the AppsHate Divrsion:

Court:
1 1
County:
1 Order of Transfer Date:
!f an appeal, brieffy describe the paper appeakd from- f-f the +peat is from an order, specify the relief requested and whether the motion was granted or denied. if an originat prctceedtng commenced in thrs court or tsansfened pursuant to
&&@on:
CPLR 7804(gf, briefly describe the object of t k proceeding. ff an application under CPLR 5704, briefly describe the nature of . -the ex 7 f m h = r-~k-w-d "10 / 25111 'QI~ Court declines tr, sign this OSC. This issue i s not ripe until candidates
-
G Z e norninatitlg petitions for pub& office for President of U.S. in several months. Further, the Court will fnotf stop fund-rai* bg- any candidate baause candidates money pursuant to statute and the First Amendment. The issue have a right to of -&date quzdiEc21tion is subject to Court action aRer nominating petitions are submiad and candidates afe &allen@ in CorrzZrrzZ" stAS " JSC"
Ammt:
Issues:
if an appeaf is from a money judgment, s p q m n e amowti aweram. Speafy the issues proposed to be raised on the appeal, proceeding, o r application for CPLR 5704 review.
-L me court when it refused to hear the adrmssilrn OEIthe part ofthe S - that jt confi3md the express tRrrnS ofthe US &H.htkn Article 2 Section 1 irr &G instfircdons prosMVed i d a m for the office & k i d & oftbe U W S W W T U S )
-
to
Etator ofthe injury in fact to p-while all the &er dismisf that pending and i r d i q p l to she Stsrte response for
APX - 159
\ -
--
T h e C o u r t d bh~appkcationwheninfact~lssaesriiisGdby&eStatearfmissionas concIusivep " f lilro CoEtTdlmgof* mcaicrzts k b e the ccrart.

2
--
--
y - -
--
'
The CM e n e d w h a ~ t h at s h e w t o dm% rtr&otionto~rmdconsoiid&e firstbedupon.thc S+'S admisslsno f b W n o f wrmgdoingfn prim e e o n cycle mnziiwing &to h e present election cycle anathe Court went so f8t.wef~ with the &ksion of fae'dhtion that the issue is XOT
to hear the rtpphdrm based upon State's admission cmrnpkunt denid a trans&$ r w 4 and denied a first amended S t a t e ' s admssim o f f a e r m ofllefbhm @ injure Plaintiff
The Caurt is biasedkiwd P M for m@ie & o r & reasons jlk6hdkg t k dmactenzatirm that plai&E is m i n g a cktmkd ficrj,n, in which tke Cowt immtiooatly - misrqmsr3ntedPlaintis cornp3mt and super-&posed the courts w ns e t offacts not before it.
hen &kg
r j
8r G W G H E R XdtP 7 6 7 -th
Avenue Hew Yorkg
APX - 161
Telephone N o . :
Telephone N o . :
APX - 162
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS

Christopher Earl Strunk,
-_______--_-_______-----~~.~~~~~~~~~ x
Index No.: 6500-2011 Plaintiff,
New York State Board of Elections et al. Defendants.
Plaintiff's Notice o f Appeal signed November 18, 201 1

WSC Order NOT SIGNED October 25, 2 0 1 1- entered October 2 8 ,2 0 1 1
Request for Appellate Division Intervention Affidavit of Service Brooklyn, New York November 19, 2011
Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse, Plaintiff self-represent without being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue 828 1, Brooklyn, New York 11238. (845)90 1-6767 E-mail: chri,s@strunk.ws
bated:
APX - 163
- .
EMERGENCY APPLICATION
To Justice:
addressed forthwith. This is being forwarded to facilitate

act upon the validity of the emergency characterization.
been directed to hand cany this application to you. This case is regularly assigned to Justice:
,w-hosenext motion date is
Attorney 1Movant: Proceed to Room
These papers must be returned to the ex-parte office an the 10th Flortr t o be entered. These are coud documents and must
not leave the ourt tho use
AFFDAVFT I ATTORNEY'S A F F m T I O N IN SUPPORT OF NOTWIGATION

Enstructiow: All in thr box below amiflze index n m h e r Compiefe the hebiankspncespr~nted in bold belowfolfowingrhe dtreefidnv provided Print mrd use black ink an$
SUPREME OF TBE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KlNGS
COURT
C H Q ~ ~ S P;~RC ~ X
[Nil irr Nmne[@l
AWN&
Index No.
650 0
201)
%intiff@) f Petitioner(sf
YS.
[Fill in Narnc{~J
FEW )b&c S T BOARD 06ca..E?-TruovC e'T-&c_____--__-_-----_----D&adant(s)l Respaadeof(s)
STATE OF NEW YORK f
CoUNTr' O F
fv
er
[litserf
Wheresigned]
& - K I I ~iofi@C & ~ & f i $ Y w N m e ] ,

store ~ N OyP ~ r fd t ~ly &nns
being duly sworn (an u t t ~ r a e ~ a h ~ t ~ practrce e d r o zn *he
raderpen~lvo~pgrqv, [fanow),
says:
1.
I reside at
549 UWDW BKT A inthcCo~tyof k / f i ~ S -
[I-
38
~ Y .A $ . I
WC.~
~ o u no p f ~e~&&nee/f?@ice] and State of New York.
2. I am about to commence a special proceeding or submit an order to show cause containing a stay and /or
reStfainiog order for [me&&~ui& fie rearms why you wrmt & bemm to gnwiymr w
t f ]
% A P D R ~ J ~ ^ OF PVS Bae
6p
f e im t t J ~
v~
[ZAiQNG A P D AlKLd7 RccLFJJ. v)J~/C

t
P&wL~
V d m * D I S c ~ d ( R 3 z pO - F ~~ECN~VF
.tJm,w
"
r 0x2
? L a S L '
*,+
?#.-
x;.'
"
*G;.*A
a ~ *+;
,-. -- ....?
APX - 165 -
C1
I have notified my opposition to appear in Part 72, 10' Floor North at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, NY,
a) [ m m ~ YOU m CML OR FAX m w ? ]
onme
b)
20
DAY
O , O ~ P D K , ~ O 5U :~ 3
MONTH
TIME
AM,@
~ W T W E R D DFOUDL~L?]
&&?AIL
YES / NO
AREA CODE
@IT& ~ p U f ~ ' t c ~ ~ c 3 d . c r [WY O F oJC . fmtajtb)
c)
[DRI Y ~ L T R E C E ~ A R E S P O N S CIRCLE E ? ~ ONE:
0
-
[IF YES, W T E RESPONSERERE-
UVCLUDE TIIE h % , W OF TKE PEBOiY W I T d l WHOM YOU sPQKE]
LUO
d)
[IFBENDID YOU TELL THEM T O A P P W INCOURT -Must be a v f i e tlmebzrween9 a m 12 p.m o r 2-3p a (e.g 10 40 am )]
0 . the
DAY
21
of
ocv%fi MONTH
,201(
at
lo
@PM
TLW
4.
cfis~i/& & W ~ O / N ~
1 believe thzt there will be significant prejudice by giving notice because: [ n ~ r m REASONS]
wmff
/a~ O ? Y O &
&'p
[Ifye, s,).ou nvlstyrovidea description of where, whrn andby whom t
unsuccssfut, why you b&we yuu are enrikledfo q p & a&dn .I
DATE :
I>
/
C;.
EOTARY PUBLIC, cxccpt attorneys]
{PRLNT YOUR NAME]
Page 2 o f2
APX - 166
"f 3
- 1 b
Kings Supreme Court Part 72 / Ex-Park

Justice:
&-%I b k h
~ c h f i L k
Date:
i d / z l J
\ (
Order to Show Cause Set i See Method of Service, Set Return Dates, andor See Stay
En Parte Application:
Assign To: Index # of Related Action
-1
2010
Thefollowing itetli(s) are missing or defective with this applicatio~:

Action Marked Stayed on
Case Marked Disposed on
Please Return to Ex Parte OBce I @ Floor Norfh Order to Show Cause/No~-Foreclosu ye
APX - 167
of e e s ~ p n m e Court of the State of New York BE& in and tor the County of Kings, at the courthouse at 360 Adrms Street on the 2 Day of October 2011
PRESENT: Hon.
~t IAS part
b. ~
q
x
----Christopher
--------Strunk,
-against-
Justice of $tie Supreme Court
iONGS C O m N CLEM \ FEEPe)$ 4 5 00
PMI&ii'f,
&@$
/
Index N o . : 6500 1M I1 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR A MBNDAMUS, STAY AND ENJUNCTION
1
i
; NEW
YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Defendants.
I
1
* I _ _ _ -
x 3
A ' -
. > . * :
Upon reading
day of October 20 '
/ , .; Ning the affidavit of Christopher EarI Strunk affirmed to on the 2 0 ~
I !
t
~4th 12 exhibits, and mmorandum of law based upon the underlying
Complaint filed March 22,2011 witb jurisdiction of the CPLR $403{d), $7802 in conjunction
witb New York State Election Law (EL) Article $16-100, $6122 as applies to EL Article 12
from before the start ofthe 2012 election c y d e Presidential primary and general election
Let the respondents or their attorney show cause at the IAS Part-
,Room
C( wan or as soon
q ?? ofthis Court, to be held at the Courthouse, 360 Ad2 0t i

the
day of
Street, Brooklyn, New York, on
.w 9
at
-53
o'clock in the
as counsel may be heard why an order should not be made affecting the 2012 Election cycle with
a. A hkidsmus of the Hew York State Board of Elections anct or its agents to correctly
instfvct a candidate for O f f i c e of President of the United States CpOTUS) to meet the
U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section I "natural born Citizen" eligibility requirement
APX - 168
\Y
r/
b. A Stay of all New York Primares until such time as the NYS BOE has properly
notified a candidate of qualificationsto run for office of POTUS;
c. A Stay of all baliot access until such time as the respective candidate for Office of
POTCTS has pravided evidence of qualificationeligibiity;
d. A Stay of all fuad raising until conclusive proof of eligibility is established,

e. Restraint of Defendants NYS BOE various New York State political parties and or
committees, Barack Hussein Obama II, Zbigniew Brzezinski, George Soros and or
their agents from intwference w i t h the proper public notice of requirements of a
candidate for office of POTUS in New York;

f. NYS BOE disclosure of any and a 1 1reIated archives in their possession or under its
control for the POTLiS qualifications, executive session records, correspundeace and or communication records with electors of the Barack Hussein Obma 11, J o h S. McCain TII and or Roger Cdero for the 2008 election cycle forward;
g, Further and dierent relief including reimbursement for damages incurred.
As it is alleged that the New York State Board of Elections and its agents exceed authority of
Law regarding determining the eligibility of candidates for the office of PO'fCJS adversely
affecting the operation of EL Adele 12 in the formation of the New ~ * r Elected k College.
-
P e n d i i the hearing of this motion it is ORDERED that Respondents a .to

a. Stay all New York Primates until
candidate of qualifications to run for office of POTUS;
b. Stay of all ballot s e e s until such time as the respective eandidgte for Office of
..
POTUS has provided evidence of qualificationeiigibility;

1 1
c. Stay all fund raising in New York until conclusive proof of eligibility is established;
APX - 169 ---______-
. -
'4
ORDERED W Respondents' attorneysare to
I
I
I
f this order, and the papers upon which this order is granted; and
named Defendants shall
his / her attomy show
dams Street, Brooklyn, New
York, on the
or a s soon as counsel may be heard why
not be made aF&ing administfatian of
election law.
upon which this order is
i
ENTER
I I
I
1
I
iI
I
I
APX 170 -
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF W N Q S IAS Part 27 Index N o . :
--------------------------------------------------------------------- X
Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse
Plaintiff,
6500-201 1
(Hon. Arthur M. Schack J.S.C)
PLAINTIFF'S
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIOBS; JAMES A. AFFIDAVIT IN WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. SUPPORT O F THE PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NO EM^ COLON, in their Official and FOR A MANDAMUS, individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; STAY AND PETER G. PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKT; MARK BRZEZINSKT; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH INJUNCTION (a.k.a.Barry Soetoro, aka. Barack Hussein Obama 11, a.k.a.Steve Dunham);NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PAFlTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAM FOR AMERICAs,OBAMA VICTORY FUND; M C C M I VICTORY 2008; M C C m - P m I N VICTORY 2008; John and J a n e Does; and XYZ Entities.
Defendants.
STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS
1 =* 1
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:
Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of OSC Page 1 of 17
APX - 171
I.
Plaintiff is self-represented without a n attorney with the underlying Complaint
filed March 22, 201 1, and makes this affidavit with supplemental allegations against the New York State Board of Elections (NYS BOE) its agents and others in support of the Order to Show Cause for a Mandamus, Stay and Injunction with twelve exhibits and memorandum of law annexed.
2.
Thai on August 22, 201 1 Counsels for Defendants, except the various captioned
New Y o r k State Political parties and or committees who have defaulted by failure to answer to the summons, appeared before the Honorable Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. in the matter of Defendants Motions to dismiss the Complaint of March 22, 201 1, with the exception of the State Defendants who have entered several stipulations for extension of time to answer or othenvise respond by October 12, 201 1 (see Exhibit I]; and that the Court has reserved decision.
3.
That on October 11, 201 1 the Clerk of the Court noticed a pre-discovery
conference schedule for October 24, 20 11 at the Courthouse "Intake Part" in Room
524 (see E
4.
That as a matter of time being of the essence herein, on October 12, 2011 the
New Y o r k Times published the report about the intention of the State of New
Hampshire Secretary of State advancing the Presidential Primary to December 6, 201 1 (see Exhibit 3);and thereby escalates the entire State by State primary process including New York were this Court to issue a n order for the relief request hereby for: a. A Mandamus of the New York State Board of Elections and or its agents to correctly il~struct a candidate for Office of President of the United States (POTUS)to meet the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 "natural born Citizen" eligibility requirement instead of *born a citizen" improperly;
b. A Stay of a l l New York Primaries until such time as the NYS BOE has
Plaintiffs AfFdavit in Support of OSC Page 2 of 17
APX - 172
properly notified a candidate af qua=cations to run for office of POTUS;

c. A Stay of all baltot access until such Gme as the respective candidate for
Office of POTUS has provided evidence of qualification eligibility; d, A Stay of

fund raising until conclusive proof of eligibility is established;
e. Restraint of Defendants MIS BOE various New York State political parties
and or committees, Barack Husseh Obama 11, Zbigniew Brzezinski, George

Soros and or their agents from interference with the proper public notice of reqtlirements of a candidate for office of POTUS in New York;
f. NYS BOE disclosure of any and all related archives in their possession or
under its control for the POTUS qualifications, executive session records, eomespondence and or communication records with electors of the Barack
Hussein Obama 11, John S. McCain III and or Roger Calero for Ule 2008
dection cycle fonvard;
g. Farther and different relief including reimbursement for damages incurred.
5.
That Plaintiff in an effort to discover when and tvhy the NYS BOE and or its
agents maintain the improper eligibility / qualification instructions fos a candidate to

for office of POTUS jn the 2012 election cycle as to "Citizenshipnstates "born a citizen"
on the official webpage "Running for Office" appears as fallows:
Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support of OSC Page 3 of 17
APX - 173
6.
That the statement as to Citizenship "Born a citizen" conflicts with the law of
the land and must be removed and replaced with "Natural born Citizen" to conform.
7.
That Plaintiff recollects that the 2008 election cycle required "Natural born
Citizen" rather than "Born a citizen", and that such instruction is conclusive evidence of the breach of fiduciary duty by the NYS BOE and or its agents alleged in the underlying Complaint.
8.
To find out when the change was made to the website Plaintiff contacted Kevin
Richard Powell (Mr. Powell) with experience to find such record by researching the website and then produced the Affidavit (see Exhibit 4) with sub-exhibits A thru E.
9.
On October 5, 201 1, Mr. Powell published his Endings on his website Pixel
Patriot at p cover-up.htm1 (see Exhibit 4 sub-exhibit B) entitled "NEWYORK STATE BOE

WEBSITE COVER-UP: New York State Board of Elections Website Blocking Access To
Natural Born Citizen Requirements"; and that on October 6 , 201 1 Plaintiff sent States'
Counsel notification of the research finding.
10. That Mr. Powell show-s at Exhibit 4 sub-exhibit
E that after publishing his
findings a t Pixel Patriot that then were mirrored by another website Obama Release
Your Records with greater viewership, that on October 7, 20 11 as affirmed by Mr.

Powell a t his Affidavit shown as Exhibit 4 starting at paragraph 20, after being mirrored there was an illegal deniat-of-service attack monitored by the U.S. Department of State controlled by Defendant Barack Hussein Obama I1 and his agents
1 1. That on October 12, 20 11, Plaintiff confirmed by email (see Exhibit 5)that
according to State's Counsel, State Defendants are unable to stipulate as to the requirement that a candidate for the office of POTUS comply w ~ t h U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 and related law including NYS Election Law (EL) 96-122, a s follows:
Plaintiffs =davit
in Support of OSC Page 4 of 17
APX - 174 --_--
WHEREAS t h e Attorney G e n e r a l ' s Office, representing State Defendants, in t h e absence of a s p e c i F i c New Y o r k s t a t u t e t h a t
defines "natural-born C i t i z e n " for c a n d i d a t e e l i g i b i l i t y f o r e l e c t i o n to t h e o f f i c e of P r e s i d e n t of t h e United S t a t e s requires

any human being must be born on United S t a t e s o f America soil t o two citizen p a r e n t s f o r b a l l o t a c c e s s i n N e w York, and t h a t w e now a g r e e w i t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t New York S t a t e ' s d e f i n i t i o n of "natural-born Citizen" c o m p l i e s w i t h the United S t a t e s Constitution Article 2 Section 1 C l a u s e 5 that mandates:
"No Person except a natural born C i t i z e n , o r a C i t i z e n o f t h e United S t a t e s , a t ihe time o f the Adoption o f t h i s C o n s t i t u t i o n , s h a l l b e e l i g i b l e t o t h e O f f i c e o f President; n e i t h e r s h a l l a n y Ierson b e e l i g i b l e t o t h a t O f f i c e who s h a l l not have a t t a i n e d t o t h e A g e of t h i r t y f i v e Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident w i t h i n t h e United S t a t ~ s . ' ~
12. That Plaintiff in the email to State's Counsel shown as Exhibit 5 gave fair notice
that NYS Board of Elections i s involved in what an experienced attorney Leo D'Onofrio
Esq. characterizes as "...tryt'~~g to amend the US Constitutio~t with an eraser..." in the
form of a legal memorandum published at his website http:/ /naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/20 11/ 10/09/multiple-instances-of-historical-
standing-precedent-on-citizenship-ob-
(see Exhihit 6) quote:
Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court's Holding I n Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship - Obama Not Eligible.
"Recently, the New York State Board of Elections was caught trying to amend the US Constitution with an eraser by listing POTUS eligibility as available to any person "born a citizen". (Please review Pixel Patriot's excellent analysis on this issue, 'New York State BOE Web Site Cover U p ' . ) The Constitution states that only a "natural born Citizen" may be president, a much more stringent requirement than simply being "born a citizen". This effort in New York is part of a much larger effort nationwide to falsely revise history (in this case by scrubbing the very words of our Constitution). The tactic contributes to an insidious pattern of behavior being perpetrated just so Obama will be allowed to occupy the White House despite US Supreme Court precedent which states directly that he is not eligible. (This report assumes Obama was born in Hawaii.)"
APX - 175
13. That the SCOTUS precedent that applies herein to resolve t?ae controversy is present in Minor v Happersett as summarized at page 4 of I1 i n Exhibit 6 , quote:
"The decision in this case was that a woman born of Gitizenparents within the United Sates was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the electivefranchise not being essential to citizenship." (Emphasis added.)
The "decision" in Minor is twofold:
I ) woman are equal citizens to men;
2) voting is not a right o f citizenship.
The first point is still good law. This may seem obvious now, but in 1875 it wasn't. Virginia Minor did not accept that citizenship without voting rights was equal citizenship. She argued that women were being treated as "halfway citizens" and she directly petitioned the Court for a deternlination which stated that women were equal citizens to men. The Court in Minor, referring directly to Article 2 Section 1, and specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment, held that women, if born in the U S to citizenparents, were citizens and that their citizenship was equal to men. The Court further stated that this "class" of persons were "natives, or natural-born citizens".
The Court also held that while women were equal citizens to men, the Constitution did not provide a right to vote to anyone, male or female. This part of the holding was later erased by the 19th Amendment, but the citizenship determination remains as good law today. Therefore, the Court's decision in Minor operates against Obarna being eligible, since his father was never a US citizen.
14. That on October 14, 201 1, State's Counsel sent Plaintiff an email without a
response to the request of the State to conform the instructions to a candidate to the Office of POTUS with the reference to Citizenship a s "Natural born Citizen" rather than "Born a Citizen"; but instead Counsel attached a new stipulation for extension of time for the State to respond to the "amended Complaint" until October 28, 201 1,to wit
Plaintiff declines to sign (see Exhibit 7).
75 . That from September 23, 20 11 through October 16, 20 11, Plaintiff
Plaintifrs =davit
in Support of OSC Page 6 of 17
APX - 176
corresponded with a fellow New Yorker Creg Maroney who had sought to ascertain
why the NYS BOE had not properly wetted the 2008 Election cycle POTUS candidates,
and as a verification for Plaintiff requested clarification from the NYS BOE to no avail
as yet was posted as an article on October 13,2011 on the Post & Entail website
http:/ /www.thepostemd.com/2011/ 10,' 13/new-york-state-board-of-electionsmakes-false-statement-about-article-ii-qucaon/ with a n article entitled Update:
New York State Board o f Elections Makes False Statement about Article II Quali@cationAnd Why Do They Refuse To Correct The Record? (see m i b i t 8). 16. That on September 30, 201 1, Plaintiff sought additional information from the
NYS BOE by FOIL regarding correspondence between then NYS AG Andrew Cuomo
and then NYS Governor DaTzid Paterson and or their staff as electors to then Candidate EIector slate for Barack Hussein Obama I1 and the NYS BOE as to the Executive
Chairman and Commissioners deliberation process in regards to the qualifications
and eligibility of then 2008 POTUS Candidates; and that H. William Van Allen a s an expert on FOIL assisted in that regard and received a response from the NYS BOE on October 7, 201 1 that denied access to such information on grounds of attorney client privilege and work product (see Exhibit 9).
17. That on October 9, 2011 an additional FOIL request of H. William Van Alleii to
the NYS BOE urged release of archival information for the agency website for
qualifications for POTUS, on October 17, 2011 the NYS BOE denied (see Exhibit 10). 18. That for argument sake were there no 2008 "Running for Officenwebsite a s the
NYS BOE suggests and or were the Citizensl-Lip requirement to also say "Born a
Citizen" for the 2008 Election cycle,rather than "Natural born Citizen" a s Plaintiff
believes, then Defendant NYS BOE and its agents have demonstrated prima facie evidence of wrong doing a s to their fiduciary duty and culpability in the scheme to
Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support of OSC Page 7 of 17
APX - 177
defraud Plaintiff and those voters and tax payers similarly situated.
19. That Plaintiff contends that a s a result of the notification by overnight senrice
by order of the Court in October 2008 as to the Article 78 special proceeding in the
Petition 28641-08 that was accompanied with service of a copy of the Complaint
29642-08, then slate of electors had been afforded sufficient notice a s electors who
also have a special duty to the law, especially EL 56-122 (1) to ascertain whether or not Barack Hussein Obama I1 and others would qualify as a natural-born citizen - didn't do that; and therefore, Defendants may not also use their State Officer status to shield from the release of corsespondence with the NYS BOE Executive and or agents before
and or after the 2008 November election. Likewise as to the NYS BOE Executive
Session deliberations regarding natural born Citizen or other status of Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama, Mr. Calero and others must be a matter of public disclosure. A s such at least examination is available to the Court for in camera review with Plaintiff present.
20. That there was a 2008 Election Pamphlet entitled
"the2008 presidential election
PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTflUTIONRND UNITED STATES CODE" that described
whom is responsible for proper notification of the NYS BOE, the prospective candidates for office of POTUS and the electors of each slate the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Office of the Federal Register (OFR) maintains a copy of the Booklet that was provided to each respective State Governor in the 2008 election cycle in New York (see Exhibit 11);and that the Booklet states in the introduction:
Prior to the general election, the OFR sends an informational package to each state's governor to officially notify them of their electoral
NYS EL 6- 122. Designation or nomination; eligibility, restrictions. A person shall not be designated or nominated for a public office or party position who (1)is not a citizen of the state of New York; (2) b iaeligible to be elected to such office or position; or (3) who, if elected w i l l not at the time of commencement of the term of such o m c e or position, meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications thereof or. with respect to judic-id office. who wiU not meet such qualifications within t h t y days of the commencement of the term of such office. (Emphasis by Plaintit?)
APX - 178
responsibilities. A s the results of the popular vote are finalized in each state, election officials send to the OFR Certificates of Ascertainment, which establish the credentials of their electors. In December, the electors hold meetings in each state to cast their votes for President and Vice President. Those choices are documented in Certificates of Vote, which are sent to the OFR for review on behalf of the Congress. In January, the Congress sits in joint session to certify the election of the President and Vice President, based on the documentary evidence assembled and reviewed by the OFR. In the year after the election, electoral documents are held a t the OFR for public viewing, and then transferred to the Archives of the United States for permanent retention and access.
21. That at page 6 shown on Exhibit 11 the 2008 Election Pamphlet recites Article
I1 of the Constitution Section 1 only as applies to the formation of the electoral college
per se not a s to the qualifications of the candidate to run for the office of POTUS and as such only states such clauses of Article II Section 1; however, omits clause 3 using
'* * * * * * *# as the 12th Amendment applies continues with clause 4 a s to the power
of the Congress but does not recite clause 5, 6, 7 and 8 as each applies.
22. A search of the 2008 Pamphlet shown a s Exhibit l l for the phrase "Born a
Citizen" did not establish that that term of art was a direction for use s t the 2008 Election cycle in New York.
23. The only way that use of the term of art "Born a Citizenn could have been used
is by direction of the Executive of the NYS BOE and specifically a t the Executive Session(s)when the term was chosen to be used separate and apart from any other direction that the 2008 Pamphlet expressly provided; and that the correspondence between the then Governor and Attorney General or their agents in that regard are of vital public interest not shielded by either attorney client privilege or work product consideration of waiver, especially since the term of art or idiom "Born a Citizen" was
an invention solely done a t the discretion of the NYS BOE Executive and or its agents
in conjunction with other State Officers several of whom were also electors in the
APX - 179
POTUS race for which they were pre-determining by invention of qualifications

arbitrarily, is a n ultra vires act that is res ipsa loquitur and the word of art "Born a Citizenw a s a conclusive fact is ips0 facto evidence of wrong doing warranting at least a partial summary jud-gnent favoring Plaintiff in preparation for both a jury trial on the additional causes of action and specifically for a hearing on the scope and extent of damages as personal injury and irreparable harm imposed then and continuing now.
24. That such a partial summary judgment is required to establish that the Scheme
to Defraud with unjust enrichment was done as a result of ultra vires acts as a denial of Plaintiff along with those similarly situated equal protection of the law and as a conspiracy against public participation at the 2008 election still ongoing now as a matter of continuing injury and imminent irreparable harm that must be immediately adjudicated before the start of the national primaries.
25. That Plaintiff has not asked for this relief before nor is anyone else interested in
the outcome other than those citizens entitled to the prompt and lawful administration of elections and justice are done herein.
26. That Plaintiff in 2008 complained of irregularities to the NYS BOE as a matter
requiring administrative review and response w i t h EL 83-105, EL 33-106 and has been denied a response, and i s notwithstanding a s the State Counsel argued inadequate service before Justice David I. Schmidt J.S.C. in case 29642-08 could render a decision, nevertheless was sufficient for an administrative review to be done according to regulations and law was not done a s a matter of denial of substantive due process. 27. That as a hybrid matter within the Complaint filed March 22, 201 11 there is a requirement that this special proceeding be by an order to show cause as if a Petition with CPLR Article 78 provisions and question of law that apply as follows:
a. whether the body or officer failed to perform a duty enjoined upon it by
APX - 180
.
law in the 2008 Election cycle and thereafter ;

b. whether the body or officer proceeded, is proceeding or is about to proceed
without or in excess of jurisdiction a s with the 2012 Election cycle; c. whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by a n error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion a s to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed;
d. whether a determination made as a result of a hearing held (Executive
Session in camera], and a t which evidence was taken, pursuant to direction by law is, on the entire record, supported by substantial evidence.
28. That Plaintiff contends that the ultra vires actions of State Defendants are in
conspiracy with the various State Political Parties and their respective candidates for the office of POTUS in both the 2008 election cycle and now the 2012 election cycle for continuation of usurpation of the Office of POTUS being used by a Ultramontane Syndicalist consortium of foreign persons and entities with Defendants and their allegiance to the European Union, the Mithrian Vatican with fellow Zoroastrian Persia for control over an Aryan Caliphate, especially in the theft of mineral rights and genocide against Christian people of Africa that this year alone includes the specter of six illegal wars including the overthrow of Mubarak of Egypt, Kaddafi of Libya, Assad of Syria, and now- a n adventure by U.S. Special Forces troops deployed to shore up Defendant Soros considerable investment in Uganda oil development (see Exhibit 12).
29. That for whatever reason NYS BOE chose to spoliate evidence a t The Internet Archive (ZJ is germane to the causes of action in the underlying Complaint.
The Internet Archive is a non-profit digital library with the stated mission of "universal access to all knowledge". I t offers permanent storage and access to collections of digitized materials, including websites, music, moving images, and nearly 3 million public domain
APX-- 181 --
30. T . Intemet Archive was originally created by Brewster Kahle (3) of the Presidio in San Franciscis California. Internet Archive has a Mirror located in the Bibliotheca
books. The Internet Archive was founded by Brewster Kahle in 1996. I t is a member of the IIPC (International Internet Preservation Consortium).With offices located in San Francisco, California. USA, and data centers in San Francisco, Redwood City, and Mountain View, Califomlia, USA, the Archive's largest collection is its web archive, "snapshots of the World Wide Web". To ensure the stability and endurance of the Internet Archive, its collection is mirrored at the Bibliotheca Alexandiia in Egypt. The Archive allows the public to both upload and download digital material to its data cluster, and provides unrestricted online access to that material at no cost. The Archive also oversees one of the world's largest book digitization projects. I t is a member of the American Library Association and is officially recognized by the State of California as a library. In addition to its archiving function. the Archive is an activist organization, advocating for a free and open Internet. The Archive is a 50 1(c)(3) non-profit operating in the United States. It has a staff of 200, most of whom are book scanners in its book scanning centers. Its main office in San Francisco houses about 30 employees. The ~!chiTbe has an annual budget of $10 million, derived &om a variety of sources: revenue from its Web crawling services, various partnerships, grants. donations. and the Kahle-Austin Foundation. U r e w s t e r Kahle graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1982 with a Bachelor of Science in computer science and engineering, where he was a member of the Phi Fraterni*. The emphasis of his studies was artificial intelligence; he studied under Marvin Minsky and W. Daniel Hillis. Kahle is the founder of the Internet Archive and the Open Content AUiance, a group of organizations committed to making a permanent, publicly accessible archive of digitized texts. Kahle is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a member of the National Academy of Engineering, and serves on the boards of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the European Archive, the Television Archive, and the Internet Archive. He is a member of the advisory board of the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Reservation Program of the Library of Congress, and is a member of the National Science Foundation Advisory Committee for Cyber infrastructure. I n 2010 he was given an honorary doctorate in computer science from Simmons College, where he studied Library science in the 1980s.
He was a member of the Thinking Machines team (1983-1992), where he developed the WMS system, a precursor to the World Wide Web. In 1992, he co-founded, with Bruce Gilliat, WAIS, Inc., and, in 1996, AlexaInternet. At the same time as he started h a , he founded the Internet Archive, which he continues to direct.
ICahle and his wife, M q Austin, created the Kahle/AusGn Foundation, a US$45 million trust that supports the Internet Archive and other non-profit organizations.The Foundation suppoits the Free Sofhvare Foundation for the G N U vroject. Internet Archive is the "Hate Speech" Server for Al-Qaeaa, in that on August 17, 201 1, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRLorg)published "Al-Qaeda, Jihadis Infest the Sari Francisco, California-Based 'Intemet Archive' Library", which detailed how members can post anonymously and enjoy free uncensored hosting.
Plaintiffs Midavit in Support of OSC Page 12 of 17
Alexandrina Archive.
(4;
that maintains the only copy and external backup of the Internet
3 1 . The director of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina is Ismail Serageldin (3, who is
Bibliotheca Alexandrina Egypt. The idea of reviving the old library dates back to 1974. when a committee set up by Alexandzia University selected a plot of land for its new library, between the campus and the sea&ont, close to where the ancient library once stood. The notion of recreating the ancient library was soon enthusiastically adopted by other individuals and agencies. One leading supporter of the project was former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak; UNESCO was also quick to embrace the concept of endowing the Mediterranean region wiih a center of cultural and scientific excellence. A n architectural design competition, organized by UNESCO i n 1988 to choose a design worthy of the site and its heritage, was won by Snehetta, a Norwegian architectural office, from among more than 1,400 entries. At a conference held in 1990 in k v a n , the frrst pledges of funding for the project were made: USD $65 million, mostly &om the Arab states. Construction work began in 1995 and, after some USD $220 million had been spent, the complex was officially inau-gxated on October 16,2002.
The Bibliotheca Alexandrina is t r i l i n g u a l , containing books in Arabic, English and French. In 2010, the library received a generous donation of 500,000 books fi-om the National Library of France, Bibliotheque nationale de France (BnF).The gift makes the Bibliotheca Alexandrina the A also is now the largest depository of sixth-largest Francophone library in the world. The B French books in the Arab world, surpassing those of Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, in addition to being the main French library in Africa. The collections at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina were donated from all over the world. The Spanish donated documents that detailed their period of Moorish rule. The French also donated, giving the library documents dealing with the building of the Suez Canal.
Ismail Serageldin (born 1944 in Giza, Egypt) i s the director of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina. He also chairs the Boards of Directors for each of the BA's fisted research institutes and museums and xvas a Distinguished Professor at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. He was a member of the Senate in Egypt ( M a j l s Al-Shura). He holds a Bachelor of Science degree i n engineering from Cairo University and Masters' degree and a Ph-D. from Harvard University and has received 29 honorary doctorates. He has published over 60 books and monographs and over 200 papers on a variety of topics including biotechnology, nual development, sustainabilty, and the value of science to society. He is sometimes referred to as the "most intelligent man in Egypt" and i s a French Knight. He serves as Chair and Member of a number of advisoiy committees for academic, research, s c i e n a c and international institutions and civil society efforts which includes the Institut d'Egypte (EgyptianAcademy of Science),TWAS (Tllird World Academy of Sciences), the Indian National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, the Brookings Doha Center the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, and the American Philosophical Society. He is Professor of the International Chair Savoirs contre pauvrete (KnowledgeAgainst Poverty), at College de France, Paris, for the academic year 20 10/20 11. He is Co-Chair of the African Biotechnology Panel (withCalestous Juma). He is a foreign fellow of Bangladesh Academy of Sciences He worked in a number of capacities at the World Bank since joining in 1972. Economist in education and human resources (1972-76);Division Chief for Technical Assistance and Special Studies (1977-801, and for Urban Projects in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa (1980-83); Director for Programs in West Africa (1984-87): Country Director for Central and Occidental Africa (1987-89):Technical Director for aIl SubSaharan Afi-ica (1990-921,and Vice-President for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (1993-98).In addition, he was active in promoting NGO-Bank relations, and
5
Plaintiffs AfEdavit in Support of OSC Page 13 of 17
APX - 183
Chairman of the Board for the International Schoolfor Infomtion Science, is a professor at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, is associated with George Soros at the fntemational Crisis Group to maintain the 'Crisis Watch &tabus8 http: / /www.crisisgoup.org/en/publication-type/ crisiswatch/ crisiswatch(see
database.aspx?EndDate=9999 123l&StartDateOO101 l & o n I D s ) and serves

with Zbigniew Brzezinski on the Advisory Council ih) for the Qatar based Brookings
Doha Center as a project of the Saban Centerfor Middle E a s t Policy within the
Brookings Institution, started in 2007 and whose director is Salman Shaikh.
l . entered in 2008 and 32. Disclosure of records of the intrigue that NYS BOE et a
now protect by covemp in 2012 is germane to my injury and a calculation of damages.
33. That as to Plaintiffs personal damage injury, in 2008 when the petition and
Complaints were filed in state and federal venue without rapid resolution, Plaintiff
being 62 in March 2009 applied for the early provision of available Social Security
Administration benefits to be able t o devote full time to litigation rather than
served as Co-Chairman of the NGO-Bank Committee (1997-99).Prior to joining the World Bank. he worked as a consultant in city and regional planning, and taught at Cairo University and Harvard University. He is former Chairman of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR, 1994-2000),founder and former Chairman of the Global Water Partnership (1996-2000)and the Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest, a microfinance program (1995-2000).He was Chairman of the World Commission for Water in the 2 1st Century (August 1998-March 2000).
6
The Brookings Doha Center has an International Advisory Council which includes: Harnacl bin Jassim bin Jaber A1 Thani, Chair, Strobe Talbott, Co-Chair; Madeline Albright; Samuel Berger; Zbigniew Brzezinski; Edward P. Djerejian; Vartan Gregorian; Wajahat Habibullah, Musa Hitam; Pervez Hoodbhoy; Rima Khalaf Hunaidi; Nemir Kirdax; Rami G. Khouri; Atta urRahman; Ismail Serageldin, Fareed Zakaria. The Brookings Doha Center in i t s own words, conducts "research on the socio-economic and geopolitical issues facing Muslim-majority states
and communities, and encourages increased dialogue between policy rnake7.s from the U.S. and the Muslim world". The center is funded as the first research center in the Muslim world is a significant historical development thro~xgh a partnership between the B r o o m s Institution and the State of Qatar. The creation of the center was announced in October 2007 by Brookings President Strobe Talbott, and Saban Center director Martin Indyk and inaugurated February 17,2008 with an address by the Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber a 1 Thani, Prime h4inister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of Qatar. The Brookings Institution is America's oldest think tank http:/ /www.brookings.edu/events/2008/02 17-dohaaspx.
Plaintiffs Aflidavit in Support of OSC Page 14 of 17
APX - 184
-
continuing with private employment. I had not intended to apply for Social security until reaching 67 years of age a s I am of good health and fitness and except for the need to seek a separate source of funds to allow full devotion of personal time to litigation I suffered a diminishment of months allotment of funds by say $700 to an amount of $1071 per month or $12,882 annually rather than say $21,282 annually starting from my 6 7 t h year, or a loss of $8400 annually or $42,000 over five years.
34. That as a result of the usurpation of the office of POTUS by Defendants actions
and continuing acts of allegiance to foreign person(s) and entities to wage illegal war, genocide and gross theft of taxpayer funds a s well a s implementing policies for the ongoing destruction of the value of the currency, whereas when the value of the Dollar is compared to the discounted price of the London r i n g of the price of gold on the commodities market, gold has gone from say $741 per troy ounce on November 4, 2008 to say $1620 per troy ounce today, or rendering the value dollar more than half the 2008 value by design of the usurper and his agents and European d i e s .
35. Plaintiff damages reasonably are measured in equivalent gold troy ounce terms.
36. That as for the cost of the stolen 2008 election manipulated by the NYS BOE by
breach of fiduciary duty cost the taxpayers say no less than $1000 per Election District with say 16350 Eds, cost a total of say $16,350,000 to be verified by the New York State Controller; and to be reimbursed in a pro-rated calculation by the offending Defendants,
37. That the cost of all Plaintiff s litigation from 2008 until the completion herein is
to be born by Defendants who are found by jury trial to be held culpable avid liable jointly and severally.
38. Plaintiff is sufferingongoing irreparable harm beyond the damages referenced.
APX - 185
Wherefore, Plaintiff mishes as time is off the essence and suffers ongoing injury from
2008 with imminent irreparable harm in 2012 that Defendants appear before the
court and show cause why an order should not be granted: a. A Mandamus of the New York State Board of Elections and or its agents to correctly instruct a candidate for Office of President of the United States (POTUS)to meet the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 "natural born Citizen" eligibility requirement instead of "born a citizen" improperly; b. A Stay of all New York Primaries until such time as the NYS BOE has properly notified a candidate of qualifications to run f o r office of POTUS;
c. A Stay of a l l ballot access until such time a s the respective candidate for
Office of POTUS has provided evidence of qualification eligibility; d. A Stay of all fund raising until conclusive proof of eligibility is established; e. Restraint of Defendants NYS BOE various New York State political parties
1 , Zbigniew Brzezinski, George and or committees, Barack Hussein Obarna 1
Soros and or their agents from interference with the proper public notice of requirements of a candidate for office of POTUS in New York; f. NYS BOE disclosure of any and all related archives in their possession or under its control for the POTUS qualifications, executive session records, correspondence and or communication records with electors of the Barack Hussein Obama 1 1 , John S. McCain I11 and or Roger Calero for the 2008 election cycle forward;
g. Further and different relief including reimbursement for damages incurred.

I have read the foregoing response to both motions and hereby request for the
this response be combined; and I know the purposes of brevity and clarification contents thereof apply to me by misapplication and administration of laws in creation
' 7 Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support of OSC Page 16 of 1
APX - 186
STRUNK V. NYS BOE ET AL NYSSC KINGS INDEX 6500-201 1
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
EXHIB
APX - 188
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS I A S PART 27
----------------------------------------x
Index No. 6500/11 (Hon. Arthur M . Schack)
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,
Plaintiff,
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
et al.,
STIPULATION
OF EXTENSION
Defendants.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the

undersigned, that the time for any State defendant to respond to
the complaint i n t h i s action, dated March 22, 2011, be and the
same hereby is extended to October 12, 2011, and it is further

STIPULATED AND AGREED t h a t this stipulation may be executed
in facsimile, or by electronic means, and in counterparts.

Dated:
New York, New York August 11, 2011
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York A t t o ~ e y for State Defendany
-JOEL GRABER
S p e c i a l Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau 1 2 0 Broadway - 24thFloor
New York, NY 1 0 2 7 1 - 0 3 3 2
(2121 4 1 6 - 8 6 4 5 FAX ( 2 1 2 ) 4 1 6 - 6 0 0 9
APX - 189
APX - 180
STRUNK V N Y S BOE ET AL. NYSSC KNGS Ih'DEX 6500-201 1
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
EXHIB
APX - 191
--
Snpretm anurt a @e Sbte af $2eb For& Civic: Center Brooklyn, New York 11ZOl
CHRISTOPER-EARL - Prose 593 VANDERBILT AVE BROOKLYN NY 11238Index Mo.: 0006500/2011 Caption: STRUNK CHRISTOPHER-EARL
vs.
This is to advise you that our records indicate that the above referenced case has not had a Preliminary Conference as required by Uniform Court mles 202.19 (b)(l). Therefore you must comply with the following :
. You are hereby directed to appear for a Prelimhay Conference on ]I Of24/1L at 9:30am in tbe "Intake Part" located at 360 Adarns Street, Room 524 - Brooklyn NY 1IZc1. It is vour res~onsibifitfto notify at1 other parties in this action of the new date.
The representative who appears from your office must be fully familiar with and authorized to proceed with this case. The representative should therefore be aware of any scheduling conflicts. Counsel must bring all pertinent and necessary documents, including the bill of particulars, all insurance information and all medical reports. The representative must also be p~epared to address any outstanding discovery issues. The failwe of such a representative to appear may result in the Preliminary Conference being held ex-parte or other judicial action.
--
--
---
!
APX -
- __ 1%
STRUNK V. NYS BOE ET AL. NYSSC !SLNGS lNDEX 6500-2011
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
APX - 193 . .
aks&%e~
m e
*P&r%Esd
rn-
a38 mk? rk'ss5s
October 12, 201 1,6:38 pm New Hampshire Threatens Early December Primary
By SARAH W A A T O N
Will the 2012 elections officially start in 201 l? William M. Gardner, New Hampshire's longtime secretary of state and stalwart defender of its first-in-the-nation primary status, has issued a warning that the state's primary could be as early as Dec. 6 or 13 if Nevada Republicans do not move back their Jan. 14 caucus date by at least three days. By state law, New Hampshire's primary must be held at least seven days before a "similar" contest - wording that has traditionally allowed Iowa to hold its caucuses first. But "Nevada's caucus is similar in the eyes of our statute," Mr. Gardner wrote 111 a three-page statement issued Wednesday afternoon. New Hampshire has the "logistics in place" to hold its primary during the first or second Tuesday in December "if needed," he said. Florida set otythe chain reaction, Mr. Gardner said, when Republican officials there settled on a Jan. 31 primary. A Jan. 21 primary is now scheduled in South Carolina, and Nevada Republicans chose Jan. 14 last week. "That left Tuesday, January 3rd as a possibility for us, but Iowa officials tentatively decided that their caucus would be on that day," wrote Mr. Gardner. But in an apparent show of solidarity with the other traditional first state, he said the "problem is the date of Nevada," not Iowa. He also noted the national parties' "important role in that they can discourage other states from trying to leapfrog onto our tradition." "We cannot allow the political process to squeeze us into a date that wedges us by just a few days between two major caucus states," Mr. Gardner wrote.
Copyright 201 1 The New York T i e s Company Privacy Policy NYTimes.cotn 620 Eight11Avenue New York, NY 100 I X
APX - 194
Why New Hampshire's Primary Tradition Is Important

By William Gardner, New Hampshe Secretary of State
October 12,2011
Every four years Americans elect the most powerful leader in the world. We go to the polls and select the man or woman who will be President of the United States. It is probably the most important political decision each of us makes because o w choice can affect the lives and happiness of ourselves and our children for years into our future.
DEMOCRACY IS HARD WORK Protecting American democracy has been a cause of freedom in our nation for over two centuries, and our fellow citizens who have gone before us dedicated their lives, and in some cases lost their lives, in that fight. The principles of democracy and freedom are worth every bit of that fight.
One vital way that we preserve our democracy is to have an election system that allows for the long-said American dream that just about anyone can grow up to be President of the United States. Our boys and girls just starting to go to school should feel that regardless of their wealth or other limitations, they too could become president, or whatever else they aspire to. For nearly 100 years, the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Pnmary has had meaning and relevance to American politics. It has allowed for candidates regardless of national standing or financial capability to begin their launch into presidential politics by winning or doing well here. Several aspiring Americans likely would not have become president if they weren't first able to make their case door-to-door, face-to-face, eye-to-eye with New Hampshire voters who meet them at our homes, in our backyards, and on o w sidewalks away from the microphones and cameras that create a barrier between human beings. NEW HAMSHIRE IS FIRST FOR A REASON. While New Hampshire has had a presidential primary since 1916, and has been first since 1920, it wasn't until 1975 that our status was put into state law. The law now requires that our primary is 7 days or more before similar elections that would challenge our traditional position. What that law requires is that I look at the nominating events of other states where presidential candidates run,and then set o w primary a week ahead of them. Since New Hampshire citizens pay for our primary, we can hold it whenever we wish.
APX - 195
It is up to the candidates themselves to decide whether to campaign here. Ours is the first event where voters go into the privacy of the voting booth to make a choice for a candidate on the ballot. It tells the nation something about their support.
CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVES. It used to be that delegates for national political conventions were chosen in secret mainly by party leaders, out of view of the public. Would we tolerate that kind of process now? And without having caucuses and primaries in smaller states, larger states would have the exclusive major role in the nominating process.
Worse yet, if a national primary was held, or if the role of small states was eliminated, only the very rich or famous candidates would be able to put on the major campaigns needed for victory or to exceed expectations. In a state like New Hampshire, candidates can rn without a large staff or heavy advertising and consulting budgets if they have a message, meet directly with voters, and explain why they should be president. Examples abound.
OPTIONS FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE'S P R W R Y DATE. With Florida movlng its primary earlier than originally planned to January 31st, and South that Carolina making a move to set its primary ten days earlier to January 2lStt, began to limit options for setting our date in January. When officials in Nevada set their caucus for Saturday, January 14', that left Tuesday, January 3"' as a possibility for us, but Iowa officials tentatively decided that their caucus would be on that day.
My job as NH Secretary of State is to follow our law, which mandates that I set our election 7 days or more before any event that would threaten our traditional leadoff status. So if Nevada does not adjust its caucus date to a later time, I cannot rule out the possibility of a December primary.
We cannot allow the political process to squeeze us into a date that wedges us by just a few days between two major caucus states. Ow primary will have little meaning if states crowd into holding their events just hours after our polls have closed. The date of our primary is decided by state law, not by the rules or desires of political parties. Since Nevada's caucus is similar in the eyes of our statute, it means the New Hampshire primary can be set no later than Saturday, January 7th.
--
APX - 196
IT'S REALLY UP TO NEVADA. If Nevada does not accept a date of Tuesday, January 1 7 or ~ later ~ for its caucus, it leaves New Hampshire no choice but to consider December of this year. The dates of Tuesday, December 13th, 'and Tuesday, December 6th are realistic options, and we have logistics in place to make either date happen if needed. Candidates have been campaigning here, and elsewhere, for months, and it is about time we begin the next stage of the presidential nominating process.
The political parties did not give New Hampshire its presidential primary. Traditionally, it has been the first in the nation for almost a hundred years, and our state law protects our tradition. We have the largest turnout in the country, and our citizens take their roles and obligations seriously. But the parties do have an important role in that they can discourage other states from trying to leapfrog onto our trdtion. Right now, the problem is the date of Nevada. We will respond as we need to in order to honor New Hampshire's tradition, and to keep o w primary relevant. Not to do so would allow us to lose an important element of American democracy forever. New Hampshire will not let that happen.
APX - 19'7
-
S T R U M V NYS BOE ET AL. NYSSC IUNGS INDEX 6500-2011
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
EXHIBIT 4
APX - 198
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS Part 27 Index No.:
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
Christopher-Earl: S t m n k , in esse
Plaintif&
6 5 0 0 - 2 0 11
KEVIN RICHARD POWELL

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIOIS; et al.
AFFIDAVIT
Defendants.
........................................................................
STATE OF GEORGIA
1
)s s .
COUNTY OF GWINNETT )
Accordingly, I, Kevin Richard Powell, being duly sworn, depose and say under
penalty of perjury:
1.
Affirmant is over 17 years of age and not a party to this case herein;
2.
My place for service is located a t 2633 Davenharn Lane, Duluth, GA 30096
3.
My expertise in t!nis matter is: I am currently employed a s a Television
Producer ] Editor with Fulton County Government Television in Atlanta, GA. Attached is Exhibit A, a copy of my resume highlighting my 25 years of experience in the Television and Broadcasting industry.
4.
I am preparing this affidavit for Plaintiff and am willing to testiSy accordingly;
5.
On September 20th, 2011;I published under the pen name of Pixel Patriot a
Kevin Richard Powell =davit
Page 1 of i 2
L__pp_
APX - 199
---- -
report in an internet blog on the case before this Court in an effort to educate the American public about the issue.
6.
On Monday, October 3 r d , 201 1; I was told by the Plaintiff, Christopher-Earl
Strunk that someone was ffing a FOIA request with the New York State Board of
Elections, which I will further refer to a s (NYS BOE); for previous versions of their website. Mr. Strunk informed me that the part of the BOE website that lists candidate eligibility previously said the Presidential candidate was required to be a Natural Born Citizen. I did not know that the website previously stated that. I asked Mr. Strunk if he had personally seen it before it was changed and he said that he had.
7.
While we were still on the phone I went to the website for The Internet Archive
service called the Wayback Machine and started looking for previous versions of the Board of Elections website.
8.
The Wayback Machine allows users to search through "over 150 billion
webpages archived from 1996 to a few months ago."
9.
I have successfully used the Wayback Machine before with this same method in
order to find the telephone number for the Honorable Sean Jerguson, Georgia state representative which had been published on a previous version of his district website.
10. The result that I got when I entered the URL for the NYS BOE candidate
eligibility webpage: http:/ /liveweb.archive.org/http://www.elections.state.ny.us/RunningOffice.html
Kevin Richard Powell Affidavit Page 2 of 12
APX - 200
into the Wayback Machine on October 3d was an error message that said: "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine."
(I will refer to this as - EXCLUDED MESSAGE 1)
11. I then researched what this error message means and what would generate this
error message. I learned that The Internet Archive actually has policies governing the issuance of both EXCLUDED and BLOCKED error messages a s a result of search requests.
12. I discovered that the NYS BOE could embed what is known a s robot.txt into the
computer programming source code for their website, and that this would cause the Wayback Machine to generate the EXCLUDED error message that I saw on the 3 1 ~ 1of October.
13. Upon learning that such a tactic could be employed by a government website to
prevent the public from seeing previous versions of it's website; I immediately went to the NYS BOE website to view its computer programming source code and found that it did indeed have the robot.txt code embedded.
14.
I continued my research looking for previous versions of the NYS BOE website
and discovered that not only did they have previous versions of their webpages EXCLUDED by the robot.kt but that webpages were actually being BLOCKED a t the mirrored site to The Internet Archive in Alexandrina, Egypt.
(I will refer to this a s - BLOCKED MESSAGE 2)
Kevin Richard Powell Aflidavit Page 3 of 12
APX - 201
1 5 . According to The Internet Archive exclusion policies, in order for webpages to be

BLOCKED; the request had to have been made by the site owner.
16. Furthermore, the Internet Archives exclusion policy stipulates that "Archivists
will exercise best-efforts compliance with applicable court orders" and "Beyond that, a s noted in the Library Bill of Rights, Zibraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.'
17. Upon disc.ovesing the NYS BOE website's deceptive practices; I took screen captures of the EXCLUDED and BLOCKED error messages and downloaded the corresponding computer programming source code and then wrote a report and published it online two days later at 7: 16 pm on Wednesday October 5th, 2011 here: http:/ /pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/ lO/new-york-state-boe-w-ebsite-covet-up.htm1
18. I will refer to my online report in this Affidavit a s Exhibit B.
19. The day after my report was published online, another website known a s the
BirtherReport at: ~~ww.ObamaReleaseYourRecords.com which I will furtber refer to a s (ORYR), published my report on Thursday October 6th, 201 1.
20.
I woke early on Friday October 7 t h , 201 1 and decided to test the html links to
my report a s I periodically do. At 3:25 AM ET, I was unable to access the link to the BLOCKED error. Since my computer browser did not say it could not display the webpage, 1was concerned that it might be a DoS attack on that server in order to prevent others from seeing the BLOCKED error message.
APX - 202
2 1. As defined by the Department of Homeland Security:
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/tips/ST04-015.h.tml
National Cyber Alert System Q b e r Security Tip ST04-015
What is a denial-of-service (DoS)attack?
In a denial-of-service (DoS)attack, a n attacker attempts to prevent legitimate users from accessing information or services. By targeting your computer and its network connection, or the computers and network of the sites you are trying to use, an attacker may be able to prevent you from accessing email, websites, online accounts (banking, etc.), or other services that rely on the affected computer.
The most common and obvious type of DoS attack occurs when a n attacker "floods"a network with information. When you type a URL, for a particular website into your browser, you are sending a request to thar site's computer server to view the page. The sen7ercan only process a certain number of requests a t once, so if an attacker overloads the server with requests, it can't process your request. This is a "denial of service" because you can't access that site.
22.
Since this time I was not getting any error messages, I wanted confirmatioil of
what I was experiencing so I called the site owner for ORYR and he said he could not access it either nor was he getting any kind of error message from his browser. After about 5 minutes while we were still talking on the phone, the BLOCKED error
APX - 203
message s ~ ~ d d e ndisplayed ly in the browser on my computer screen and when I told this to ORYR he said the exact same thing happened for him at the exact same time.
He then ran a program called Sitemeter which allows him to see who is accessing his
website and he told me that within 10 minutes after I had tried to access the BLOCKED site that the U.S. Department of State was looking at my report on his website ORYR:
23.
On Saturday, Oclober 8th I did the same test for the NYS BOE website using
the Wayback Machine; however this time I got a different error message.
This time the error message said:
APX - 204
24.
"Hrm. Wayback Machine doesn't have that page archived.
Want to search for all archived pages under http: / / www.elections.state.ny.us~

(I will refer to this a s - PAGE NOT ARCHIVED MESSAGE 3 )
25. Instead of:
26.
"Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine."
(EXCLUDED MESSAGE 1)
27.
I went back to the W S BOE website and checked the source code and the
robot.txt code was still embedded so I knew that The Internet Archive had to have changed their "own" source code. I was very concerned because this appeared to me non-profit organization and the NYS BOE since to indicate collusion between a 5 0 1 ~ 3 their code was changed just 3 days after my report was published.
28.
I made screen captures on Saturday October 8 t h documenting the fact that by
putting the URL for the NYS BOE into The Internet Archive Wayback Machine a different error message was generated.
29. Additionally, I have also recorded the exact same sequence of steps on
videotape, which I will refer to here as Exhibit C; in real-time in order to document as irrefutable proof that a different error message is generated from what was when I published my report.
Kevin Richard Powell AfEdavit Page 7 of 12
APX - 205 --
30. After having found that the NYS BOE was engaging in a deceptive manner, I
decided to scrutinize the event that I had just experienced a t The Internet Archive Wayback Machine website so that I could fully understand and document it. I took a closer look at the URL in my browser for The Internet Archive error message and I noticed that the URL had an asterisk character " * ",also known a s a wildcard. I know from my personal experience with computers that this wildcard character is used with search strings to define varying search parameters.
I decided to manually invoke the
same search without the wildcard character so I placed the computer curser using my mouse in the URL field and backed up two spaces to remove the asterisk and the preceding forward slash character and hit enter and I instantly got the EXCLUDED error message that I previously did before Saturday: (EXCLUDED MESSAGE 1).
3 1. On Sunday, I consulted with a Cert5ed Microsoft Systems Engineer in order to
verify my findings:
William Lolli, MCSE
President of Tech Assist, Inc. A network consulting company
32. He downloaded a static record of The Internet Archive website source code and
then using special software he also did a live trace of both error messages to confirm that they were both being generated from the same IP address owned by The Internet Archive. I have included as Exhibit D a printout of his DNS report with the IP trace. Additionally, here are questions where I was seeking clarification from the DNS report and his responses:
Kevin Richard Powell M d a v i t Page 8 of 12
APX
_____.-/-
33.
Question: Would you like to expound on the DNS report or is its main
significance that it verifies both domains trace back to the same IP address: 207.241.226.201
34.
Lolli: Wes, it simply shows that archive.org traces back to a block of IP
addresses-- which is pretty d a m big-- 207.241.224.0 - 207.241.239.255, basically

3825 IF addresses are available to their poole."
35. Then we both simultaneously went through the same sequence of steps using
the NYS BOE URL with the Wayback Machine and we compared the error message that was generated. He said that the change in results generated by a search for the
NYS BOE URL using the Wayback Machine would indicate the Internet Archives had
to have changed their own code.
36. Lolli: "Web sites generally have front-end webpages that can send inputrequests for response-outputs of data to a backend database. The database, then responds with either text or an entire webpage a s a response to the query. It is safe to suggest that the archive.org system has more than one database on more than one physical or virtual host [server]. Depending on the URL string, responses are generated from any number of databases; and in this case, probably two."
37. Lolli: "By removing the */ from the URL, you are re-directed to another serverhost (known as liveweb.archive.org),and a new message page is generated and displayed"
APX - 207
38. I also consulted with a professional web developer, Ross Arena; to get a second
opinion. He mites computer programs and internet source code for building websites
and I contacted him through the online referral service called Odesk at
www.odesk.com.
39. I sent him the original source code from last week and gave him a description of
what 1 experienced. Then we reviewed these steps again while discussing it over the phone at the same time. He told me he had noticed a correlation between the "Show
All" button and the (PAGE NOT ARCHIVED MESSAGE 3).
40. He said that the "Latest" button sends a bot to check the website live. I asked
him why would the source code for the "Latest" button not be a subset of the code for
the *Show All" button? He said that is just the way that the developers of The Internet Archive Wayback Machine chose to do it.
41. After Mr. Arena explained to me how the "Show AU" button is invoking the
(PAGE NOT ARCHIVED MESSAGE 3),I deduced that the "Show Alln button is only searching for indexed webpages and he agreed.
42.
That being the case, I then suggested testing for a connection between the
"Latest" button and the first error message I saw last week and when we both tested that, it did generate the first error message: (EXCLUDED MESSAGE 1).
43.
Therefore, Mr. Arena confirms t h a t evidenced in The Internet Archive's source
code on line 22 1 a s can be seen in the screenshot referred to as Exhibit E, the ACTION
APX - 208
command reverses the result you get when you hit the "Take Me Back" button. It now invokes the "Show All" button query which displays a PAGE NOT ARCHIVED
MESSAGE as opposed to the "Latest" button query which displays the EXCLUDED
MESSAGE.
Exhibit E
44.
Therefore, in summary; the New York State Board of Elections website is a
government website and The Internet Archives Exclusion Policy indicates that their normal course of action would be to NOT exclude previous versions of the NYS BOE webpages; however they are. Three days after a report was published exposing this deceptive practice, The Internet Archives changed their computer source code so that searches for previous versions of the N Y S BOE webpages would generate an error message telling the user that the page they are looking for is not archived instead of
an error message that would highlight a deceptive practice by the NYS BOE while
simultaneously concealing an exception to their own Exclusion Policy. And even though the resultant message has changed for the user of the Wayback Machine, the previous versions of the N Y S BOE webpages that listed the requirements for President to be a Natural Born Citizen are still being excluded.
APX - 210
STRUNK V. NYS BOE ET AL. IWSSC ICINGS INDEX 6500-2011
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Kevin Richard Powell Affidavit
EXHIBIT A
-
APX - 211
----
KEVIN R POWELL
TELEVlSiON PROMiCER 1 EDITOR 1 3 30 r ANlMATrON " ""'^"-"
EDUCATION:
MlWLE RNNmSEESTAK UNNERSlTY, ~
~ TN (Graduated m 19%) ,
Bachelor of Science in Recording Industry Maniqement with a double minw in Mass (%tnn-~unicaf~#ls and Eleckotlics.
AWARCIS..
(2W20as) 6 Tetiy Amrds

(2005)
(20031
1 Telty A w n l 2 Aurora Awards
VIEkto Producer 1 E d i r Animator 1 Visual Eff& Animator f Vswi Effects
UPERIENGE:
FGW, Man&,GA (3 4/04 G u m U y Employed) Teievisior, Producer I Editorfor pragrarnrningb m t on Fubn Government Televkm. Photo-Realisk 30 Animatwn Msual EffectsI Storyboard and V l s u a f i i n for special projects
Encoding for web streaming and DVD.
CRAWFORD COAIIIIAUNICATIONS, INC., Atlanta, GA [519&3lf04)
Digital Video Editor, Graphics Artist, Pbtc-Realistic 30 Animation and Visual Effects For network and episodic television including HDTV. Clients include CNN, TNT, NBC Spds, NationalGeographic, I P K D m i q Communications, The Learning Channel, BFLAC, Ciemson Unnrersity, the UnivWSity of N I i p p i and DavisAdvertising. Used a distributive render program to cmte a render farm where muspfe workstations coutd be ufiliredto render animat'is This anowed for an extremeijr efficient woMow. Iwould create complex schedules so that when various segments or specific frames of animations neededto be revised, aft of the available cpu's in the render farm where opemting a peak usage. The rnanagemeflt skdlswere critical in this process and therefore Ihad to analyze ongoing render metriGs so as to update the schedules as needed. Icreated excel spreadsheets to track h i s was important for instant access and projm\lilrrlOiis compmnb of the job such as the time and m u m s . T to required media and deteminingwhen additional resources were needed to be acquired as welt as for budgeting and preparing bids for prospeclive clients and jobs. Icreated an html website forthe Crawford intranet which was a how-to instntctiorra! guide explaining the process for mvefting various font formats and graphics into Chyron fa& and keyable media. Encoding with Sorenson Squeeze for web streamingand DVD. FTP media to host server for client approval and sharing resources. Upconvertarrd d o w ~ ~ n v e between rt HTDV and standard definition including IeUwixx,anamrphic and centercut. Convert bemen frame rates with Teranex Xantus Format Ganverter
FREELANCE, ('99-2005) Produce highend graphics, mpasitog and 30 m&ling and animation for websites and advertising. 2000 Website design, graphics, 30 animation, Ffash and Shockwave for A&J Coffee, LLC 1999 - Website design, graphics 3D animation, Flash and Sbdwave for Tniech
AUDIO WDEO BYRD, Atlant;l, GA (
Vldeo Producer, Senior Post-Production Editor, Graphics Artist and 3D Animator. As the V k h Producer and Senior Post-Production Ediir, 1 was requested by & i n k to assist them in every aspect of f&vision production. I ,wuM create the initial storyboards in consultation for their needs and then ptoduce the finished product by byeating and aoquiring all of the neoessarj! resw~es, and then edit the finished pr@duct In a timdy manner has& on heir time and budget e-m. 1 also performed mWte maintenance on equipment such as tape head cleaning, installing new software upgractes and patches, replacing DVE fans, monitor power supplies, switcher LED'S and h s h
7)
EPROM's.
TBSENT, Ailatria, GA f193-%)
Freeianoe Pmt-PraducEien Editor- Edit S p a n i s h and Pottuguese transiation into feature frtms for TBS Studios and Turner Entertainment library. CMX 3100, GVG 200 stwitcfrers, ADO DWs, Sony 02 composite digrtal with Z a x m T5C.
APX - 212
Video P d m r I Ed'&. i masteredthe ability to edit under tight deadfines for a gtobal24 hour network My w r k experience indudes producing, script-writing and on-line &Ring of Science and Technolcgy features for the SeIencc3 Featurn Dept. I produefxl material which was highiy technical in content and coordinated inWrews and shoots with organkations such as NASA, i h e Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the American Astronom'mt Society, Iwas the video editor twice for remote shoots at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Coooa Beach Flortda for Space Shuttie launches. 1 e d i i ReM p r o d u d W a g e s distributed via satellite to subscribing affiliateTV stations. Video Journalist duties at C C M N included: Assistant Director, Studio Fioor ManagerFStudlo Camera Operator and Tefepmmpter.
CNN t HEADUNE NEWS, Atlanta, GA (4189-1193)
AUWD PBBDUCTMNS, 1NTL, Huntsville, A t (8t884C89)

Video Producw f Videographer I E d i i - Produce, shoat a d Wi for United States Space Camp, Space m y and Teacher's pFogram at the Huntsvilb S p m and Rocket Centel: i s b t a ! of the various activities including: space simuiations, the r n u I t i a x i s Wmer, I % grav& EVA'S, the $light deck arid mission oontrol simulation. I shot intenriewswith camp participanfs, teechers, insbuctors, special activitiw, speck4 pragrams and special ceremonies. I then edit h i 4 ~ h m t l s for ail nts in a spedfic group. The activities were designed lo gibe -pants a chance to participate in activities similar to those experienced by tht3 astronauts.
CLAY TEPPENPAW WDEO PRODUCTK)NS, Nashville, TN Video Producer/ Videographer I Edibx f Director. Design and instal
ed v d u c t i o n control room /edit suite Instaliationof lighting grid in s t u d i o .Diredor ITD for mutbf-mmeraproduction in studio and mobiletruck.
GUMBEatAND MUSEUM AND SCIENCE CENTER, Nasheile, TM ("g0-'81) er for the Sudekum Planetarium at the Cumberland Museum and Wince Center. with 4 color lasers &at would be preprogrammed fw use tMth various other effects such as rnultipb srrde pfoctws, film projectors, the planetarium star bail and a smoke machine. The b l radio F produced the sound tradrs and the planetarium would produce a spedfic show for each soundback. The s h w sound m k s would eiMer be a compilation of musk by a n-nally known contemporary rock band o ra compiWon o f songs from various contemporary artists. As a two man team we woutd aitemate between operating the lasers o r the effects and sound system.
renaiine, Symphony, Media Composer, Xpresf DV Pro Discreet Logic: Ftarne, Combus8on Alias: Maya Unlimited, Maya Fusion Adobe: Production Premium CS5 b i :Power Toois
Wa~hnane:
=
WD-DS, HDCAM, DVCPRO W D , DVCANI, Digitai Betacam, D-1, D-2,Betacam SP 601 Digital Linear Edit Suite with Axial, UDR and Chyron
PERSONALCONTACT i N F C 5 :
2633 bvenham Lanet Duiuth, GA 30036
APX - 213
STRUNK V. NYS BOE ET AL NYSSC KLNGS LNDEX 6500-2011
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
APX - 214
NEW YORK STATE BOE WEBSITE COVER-UP
New York State Board of Elections Website Blocking Access To Natural Born Citizen Requirements
Pixel Patriot I 015120 I I
BY
Previous versions of the New York State Board of Elections website that listed the qualifications for the Presidential candidates to be a Natural Born Citizen have not only been scrubbed, but their website has html source code embedded to prevent archiving and specifically coded so as to be excluded in archival sites such as the Way Back Machine.
(Robot Text - embedded in NY BOE website to thwart access to Natural Born Citizen reference)
The Board of Elections website cites Article I ISection 1as the Constitutionalauthority for Presidential requirements; however the referenceto Natural Born Citizen has been replaced with just "Born a citizen" and they do not list Clause 5 which was specifically included by the Framers as a strong check against dual allegiance and f o ~ i g n influence for the Office of the President of the United States and Commander-inchief :
APX - 215 _
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I1 SECTION I CLAUSE V
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, ai the time qf the Adoption ofthis Constitution,shall be eligible to the Ofice of President; neither shall a T Person be eligible to that OfJicewho shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-Jive Fears, and beenfourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
"
The New York State Board of Elections regularly updates their website. And you can use an internet archive program called the Way Back Machine to see some of the previous versions of the Board of Elections website as it existed during various times in the past. However, not all of the previous webpages are available; and it is not due to broken links. The Board of Elections is employing technology within the computer programming language that makes up the website to actively block someone from gaining access to the webpage that previously listed the Natural Born Citizen requirement for the Presidency.
Wow can I have my site's pages excluded from the Wayback Machine?
Here's how:
INTFRYET ARCHIVE
5arryw
This CRLhas been exctaded &om the SYaybaeEzhIac&e.
Natural Born Citizen Requirement - EXCLUDED
APX - 216
INTfRUET ARCHIVE
- - - I
Show Aii I
Sasrrg.
TttistXL has k n ac1udd from the %Sayback hrachine.
Natural Born Citizen Requirement - EXCLUDED
"The lnternet Archive is not interested in preserving or offering access to Web sites or other Internet documents of persons who do not want their materials in the collection. By placing a simple robots-txt file on your Web server, you can exclude your site from being crawled as well as exclude any historical pages from the Wayback Machine.
Here are directions on how to automaticallv exclude your site. If you cannot
place the robots.txt file, opt not to, or have further questions, email us at info at archive dot org:"
APX - 217
The internet Archive b not interested in offering access to '7ieh sties or other internet documents whose authors do not want their rnatedals in the cvlle~eionf a remove your site fram zhe Wayback kfachine, piase a ~obots W xiife at the fop level of your site {e g r.i~tw ynordamain comkabots twt)and then submit your site befovf
She robo:s W file viill do tvm inings.
I . il ?dill reiftove all documents from your domain from the i'fapback Machine 2 il rrillteli us not to crat~l your site in the future
To exciude il~e internet &c&ive's cravgier (and remove documerris from the Wayback Machine) i%*i!ealla~ing all other robs& Io crab&!your si& your robots M W e should say
Roboh M is ?henosf widely used memod for contr~iilng fhe behayior of automated robots on four site jali msjnraoba'is, helading those of Gacgle WTa Vtsta etc resped these sxclustens) It can be used lo alack access30 she whale damain or any Ble or direcfery ~sithinThere aw a large number of resourms for \veQmasters and site ownen describiming t h i s method and he& lo use P
Heie are some
The robots ki file nwsi tta placed at * e root of your domain ihwctv yourdomain comirabois Mj tlff you up wad our exciosion aolicv I yau think it apptfes to you send a request to us at mfo@arclatve nrg
cannot giQ a robots txt frle
Here is the actual code extracted directly from the Board of Elections website as of Tuesday October 4th,2011: ROWS 10-11
tmeta name="googlebot" content="noarchive" / > (meta name="robots" content="noarchive" / >
---
APX - 218
ELecricns Running for Office Pag'etlTi:lr,

-r,tc-i:="te.irihtol;
cha-aer=i;a-a859-l"
/')
sati.=n cn Petiricnr. jample Forms, \:itr.eises t o
Petition, Co~irersheets
I?
t i = ~ a i r r i p t , pleare v i e w the
<i
r-+=""A-i ,,.r.ndex.titr;i"~Zite
Index
ye-csntsgr * v i d t h s - - - >
Here is the source code for the Presidential candidate requirements:
Rows 111-115 ctd headers="l">President of the United Statesc/td> ctd headers="2" valign="top">Born a citizenc/td>
c t d headers="3" valign="topW>35 years</td>
ctd headers="4" valign="topn>l4 years in countryc/td> ctd headers="5" valign="top">United States Constitution Art. I1 § lc/td>
97
95
.;ldr*>
:dA?
*44
X W
="8nidCcntenrmr 4-1 _ i = ' i a d f n i > R ~ n ~ ifar n~ Hf_trc*hli ct~: ~="Resuzi~HuidCMflce* ,Requi-erneats

T
in E o l d Dfficeciii:>
sh,p,
age, resldenc) and staxute to h o l d
iaz
iE2
+L-
a)
-"Thr, tah:e :is%% t h e "equired 'ff--.&= " 3 : - r ="I L83 it5r=lef+> %@A , t i ? I ; = ' 2 >C:FIC?<J~I'> 105 itl ;1="2' ~CXTIZEPESHIP(/~~> 1 8 C a \r? - L Z = " ? ' ~ , U G E < , rir> $87 <?ti , r = " 6 " ~ R E S I 3 R ~ ~ i i l t ~ ZBB c i $3 ='5' >5T>TJTE<ril 3
(t331" -c
L:-'=';@@x"
T.+
;..
a ztateiirde
<d-->
< .-
o:-gr-"left",
i:~ade:-5="l",f~esi&nt of t h e United StatestZrd)

!hzz.re~s="2" .ir. 't 'i z e n i / M > .. ~ ~ E .a = " t oap d 3" .,a!rgz="rcp">35 years<itd> ctd 'pr..-+rs="i" x.3l5:;;.='"top",la year; Tn counrryi/id~ ctd hrr;ce,-s="S" ~:rli~m="tc~"iUnited States Covstitetion A r t . 11 Sitct. lilt$>
',;d -c - ...=:' . !.,ceu
< ! t ? >
APX - 219
The lnternet Archive "This webpage is no longer available", is the sentence familiar to you? "This is no longer a problem since a complete archive for webpages is now available. Through The lnternet Archive, you can retrieve expired webpages, trace the development of websites, and go back to events that have shaken the world."
Really
Additionally, previous versions of the Board of Elections website have also been "BLOCKED" and can't be accessed from The lnternet Archive at the ,which mirrors The Wayback Machine:
Btocked Site Error.

hi@ //RW elections state ny usiRunntngORce html IS not available m the Wayback Machine. Try anaaer request or ctrck here io see ~fthe page 1 s available, Iwe. on the &eb. htig , ~ J A ~ Fzle:iirins SV - sra:e _ _ _ riZd -us _.A%" : wr;ina,?Rce i;trii!
_ u . -
A closer examination of the exclusion policv reveals the typical response by The
lnternet Archive when having been made by a GOVERNMENT request: Archivists will exercise bestefforts compliance with applicable court orders. Beyond that, as noted in the Library Bill of Rights: 'Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.'
APX - 220
Therefore, according to The Internet Archive exclusion policy; if the New York State Board of Elections made a request to have webpages excluded that would block access to historical references to the term Natural Born Citizen as a requirement for Presidential candidates, the request should have been denied. By removing the reference to Natural Born Citizen as a requirement for a Presidential candidate from the Board of Elections website, that in and of itself is indicative of a concerted attempt to mislead the voters. However, a directive had to have been issued to the person programming the website to implement a technological blockade specifically designed to thwart current and future attempts to gain access to any previous versions of the website that include the Natural Born Citizen reference; pointing to a cover-up and a broader conspiracy by the New York State Board of Elections. This deceptive practice by the New York State Board of Elections is antithetical to Bill A04356, an ACT to amend election law in the State of New York. Introduced on February 2,201 1 by M. of Latimer in the 2011-2012 Regular Sessions in Assembly: Section 1. Subdivision 1 of section 3-106 of the election law, as amended by chapter 8 of the laws of 1978 and as redesignated by chapter 9 of the laws of 1978, is amended to read as follows:
1. (A) In addition to the powers and duties elsewhere enumerated in this article, the state board of elections, after public hearings, shall adopt a "fair campaign code" WHICH SHALL SET forth ethical standards of conduct for persons, political parties and committees engaged in election campaigns including, but not limited to, specific prohibitions against practices of political espionage and other political practices WHICH INVOLVE subversion of the political parties and process, SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE MISREPRESENTATIONOF THE CRIMINAL RECORD OR BACKGROUND, MORAL TURPITUDE, CHARACTER, VOTING RECORD OR OTHER SPECIFIC ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF A CANDIDATE, TO A POTENTIAL VOTER
APX - 221
i.+\ftlDLD TIlROl riH i\Wi4Rk I ?#)I 1 1 ~RTIC i E II OF \T \TE ( I ~ ~ c rnou in
\iELEk TED RIILES t'.U RE(IUL,'\TIOYS
N.Y. ELN. LAW C 6-122 Designation or nomination; eligibility, restrictions p.171

"A person shall not be designated or nominated for a public office or
party position who if elected will not at the time of commencement of the term of such office or position, meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications thereof"
It is obvious that the New York State Board of Elections is intentionally misleading the voters of New York for the purpose of subverting the Constitutional requirement for the Office of the President while also trying to cover their tracks at the same time.
The U.S. Constitution can only be changed through the amendment process.
before the New York State The Board of Elections is currently a defendant in a Supreme Court brought by plaintiff Christopher-Earl Strunk, pro se. For reference, here is the entire source code from the New York State Board of Elections website:
<!DOCTYPE h t m l PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 T r a n s i t i o n a l / / E N W
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtmll/DTD/xhtmll-transitional.dtd"~
<html xmlns="http://ww.w3.org/l999/xhtml"~ < ! - - DU6 - - > <head> < ! - - Copyright 2005 Macromedia, I n c . All r i g h t s reserved. - - > < t i t l e > N e w York S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s Running f o r O f f i c e P a g e < / t i t l e > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> <meta name="keywords" content="NYS Board o f E l e c t i o n s P e t i t i o n s " /> <meta name="description" content="General I n f o r m a t i o n on P e t i t i o n s . Sample Forms, Witnesses t o a P e t i t i o n , Cover sheets etc." /> tmeta name="googlebotW content="noarchive" /> m e t a narne="robotsn content="noarchive" /> t l i n k r e l = " s t y l e s h e e t W href="ex-side-nav2.cssW t y p e = " t e x t / c s s U media="screenm />
APX - 222
<link rel="stylesheetU href="print-ex-side-nav2.css" type="text/cssU media="print" /> <link rel="indexM href="index.htmlW /> <script src="mm-load-menus.jsW type="text/javascript">c/script~ <script src="mm-menu.jsW type="text/javascript">c/script> </head> <body> tdiv id="skipn> <a href="#main">SKIP TO MAIN CONTENT</a> </div> tscript type="text/javascript",mmLoadMenus();c/script> tnoscript class="noscript">Your browser does not support javascript, please view the <a href="SiteIndex.html",Site Indexc/a> for the full contents of this website.</noscript> < ! - - - you can adjust the width of this table using either fixed or percentage widths - - - > tdiv id="headern> < ! - - NEW BANNER--> <div id="nys-banner", <a href="http://www.ny.govf",timg src="images/nysbannerpics/banner_imgl.png" alt="NY.gov Portal" /></a> <a
href="http://www.nysegov.com/citGuide.cfm?superCat=102&cat=449&content=main">timg src="images/nysbannerpics/banner-img2.pngW alt="State Agency Listing" /></a>
search graphic--> <a href="#" onclick="document.getElementById('sw~searchbox').style.visibility= 'visible'; document.getElementById('searchgraphic').style.visibility= 'hidden';" onkeypress="document.getElementById('sw~searchbox').style.visibility= 'visible'; document.getElementById('searchgraphic').style.visibility= 'hidden';"><img id="searchgraphicW style="float: right; border:none;visibility: hidden;" src="images/nysbannerpics/banner~img3.png" alt="Search all of NY.gov" /></a>  <form id="sw-searchbox" action="http://www.search.state.ny.us/search" method="getU> cp> tinput value="date:D:L:dl" name="sort" type="hiddenW /> tinput value="xml-no-dtd" name="output" type="hiddenW /> tinput value="UTF-8" name="ien type="hiddenn /> <input value="UTF-8" name="oeW type="hiddenU / > <input value="default-frontend" name="clientU type="hiddenU /> <input value="default-frontend" name="proxystylesheet" type="hiddenn/> <input value="default-collection" name="siteW type="hiddenn />
 tscript type="tex-t/ javascriptTr> // If JavaScript is on, manipulate search control objects. / / Otherwise this will be ignored and search controls will be shown by default document.getElementById('sw~searchbox').style.visibility = 'hidden'; document.getElement8yId('searchgrapbic')style.visibility= 'visible'; </script> tnoscript class="noscript">Your browser does not support javascript.c/noscript> </din < ! - - END NEW BANNER--> c/div> tdiv id="pageBorder"> tdiv id="seal">timg src="images/sseal~color~round.jpg" alt="SBOE Seal" /></div> <div id="logom> tdiv class="logo">Board of Elections </dim </dim
APX - 223
tdiv id="navigationN> tdiv class="navText"> ta href="INDEX.html">HOMEt/a>ta href="AboutSBOE.html">ABOUT USt/a>ta href="FAQ.html">FAQst/a>ta href="Contact.htmlW>CONTACT USt/a>ta href="SiteIndex.html">SITE INDEX </a> t/div> tdiv id="searchm> <form method="getw action="http://search.elections.state.ny~us/search~~ tlabel for="google">Powered by Googlec/label> tinput id = "google" type="textm name="qM size="25" maxlength="256" tabindex="lV /> tinput class="searchW type="submit" value= "SEARCH" tabindex="2"/> tinput type="hiddenU name="client" value="my-frontend" tabindex="3"/> tinput type="'hidden" name="proxystylesheet" value="my-frontend" tabindex="4"/> tinput type="hiddenW name="output" value="xml-no-dtd" tabindex="5"/> </form> </dim t/div> tdiv id="contentn > tdiv id="leftSideBarM> tdiv id="navBarW> tul> <li>ta href="CommissionersMeetings.html" name="link4" id="linklW
onfocus="MM~showMenu(window.mm~menu~0615144621~0,100,12,null,'link4')"
onmouseover="MM~showMenu(window.mm~men~~0615144621~0~1BB~12,null,'link4')"
onblur="MM-startTimeout();" onmouseout="MM-startTimeout();">Public Informationt/a>t/li> tli>ta href="VotingRegister.html",Voting Informationt/a>c/li> tlixa href="HAVA.html" name="link7" id="link5"
onfocus="MM~showMenu(window.mm~menu~0926093310~0~120,0,null,'link7')"
Vote Actt/a>t/li> tli>ta hrei="CampaignFinance.html">tampaign Financet/a>c/li> tli>ta href="RunningOffice.html" >Running for Officet/a>c/li> tli>ta href="PoliticalCalendar.html" >Political Calendart/a>t/li> <li>ta href="NVRA.htmlV >National Voter Registration Actt/a>t/li> tli>ta href="EnrollmentCounty.html">Enrollment Statisticsc/a>t/li> tli>ta href="2010ElectionResult~.html",Election Resultst/a>t/li> tli>ta href="ElectionLaw.html" >Election Lawc/a>t/li> <li>ta href="CountyBoards.html" >County Boardst/a>t/li> tli><a href="http://www.vote-ny-corn" target="-blank" >Voter Educationc/a>c/li> tli>ta href="ElectedOfficials.html" >Elected Officialst/a>t/li> tlixa href="UsefulLinks.html" ,Useful Linkst/a>t/li> </Ill> t/div> t/div> tdiv id="midContentW> thl id="mainm>Running for Officec/hl> th2 id="RequireHoldOffice">Requirements to Hold Officet/h2> tbr /> <table summary="This table lists the required citizenship, age, residency and statute to hold a statewide office." width="100%" border="lW> ttr align=left> tth id="l">OFFICEt/th> tth id="2">CITIZENSHIPt/th> cth id="3">AGEt/th> tth id="4">RESIDEMCYt/th> tth id="SM>STATUTEt/th> t/tr> ttr align="left"> ttd headers="l">President of the United Statestitd,
onmouseover="MM~showMeno(window.rrrmrrrmmenu9260933l00J120J0,null,'link7')" onblur="MM-startTimeout();" onmouseout="MM-startTimeout();" >Help America
APX - 224
--
<td ctd ctd ctd l</td>
headers="2" headers="3" headers="4" headers="S"
valign="top">Born a citizenc/td> valign="top">35 yearsc/td> valign="top">l4 years in countryc/td> valign="top">United States Constitution Art. I1 §
c/tr> ctr align="leftu, ctd headers="l">United States Senatorc/td> ctd headers="2">Citizen 9 yearsc/td> ctd headers="3">30 yearsc/td> ctd headers="4">Resident of state when electedc/td> ctd headers="5">United States Constitution Art. I §3c/td> c/tr> ctr> ctd headers="lV>tabbrtitle="New York State">NYSc/abbr> Governor/ Lt. Governorcbr />Attorney Generalcbr />Comptrollerc/td> ctd headers="2" valign="top">Citizenc/td> ctd headers="3" valign="top">30 yearsc/td> ctd headerszU4" valign="top">Resident of state 5 years immediately preceding electionc/td> ctd headers="SU valign="top">New York State Constitution Art. IV § 2 and Art. V § lc/td> c/tr> <tr> ctd headers="l">Representative in Congressc/td> ctd headers="2" valign="top">Citizen 7 yearsc/td> ctd headers="3" valign="top">25 yearsc/td> ctd headers=-4" valign="top">Resident of state when electedc/td> ctd headers="SW valign="topW>United States Constitution Art. I §2c/td> c/tr> ctr> ctd headers="ln valign="topW>New York State Senatorcbr />New York State Assemblyc/td> ctd headers="2" valign="top">titizenc/td> ctd headers="3" valign="top">l8 yearsc/td> ctd headers="4">Resident of state for 5 years and resident of district for 12 months immediately preceding election. (In a redistricting year, may be a resident of county for 12 months immediately preceding the election.)c/td> ctd headers="5">New York State Constitution Art. I11 § 7cbr />tbr />Public Officers Law § 3</td>
c/tr,
</table><br /> ch2 id="Petitionsm>GeneralInformation on Petitionsc/hZ> cp>These sample forms were prepared by the State Board of Elections. They are all in Acrobat PDF format. You will need the Adobe (TM) Acrobat Reader to view and print them.c/p> cp>These forms can be printed and filled out by hand.c/p> cp>cstrong>Electronic signatures are not acceptable.c/strong>c/p> <ul> tli>ta href="/WSBOE/download/law/DesignatingPetitionNoLines.pdf" target="-selfn>SAMPLE DESIGNATING PETITIONc/a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfW title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 39KB) (print on legal size paper)</li> tli>ta href="/WSBOE/download/law/IndependentNomPetChapter246Change.pdf" target="-selfW>SAMPLE INDEPENDENT NOMINATING PETITIONc/a> (cimg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfm title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 62KB) (print on legal size paper)c/li> tli>ta href="/NYSBOE/download/law/OTBPetitionNoLines2.pdf" target="-selfW>SAMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO BALLOT PETITIONc/a> (cimg src="images/icons/PDF.pif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfN title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 63KB) (print on legal size paper)c/li>
APX - 225
tli>ta href="/NYSBOE/download/law/VillageDPetitionNoLines~pdf" target="-selfn>SAMPLE VILLAGE DESIGNATING PETITIONt/a> (tirng src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="l6" height="16" alt="pdfm title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 30KB) (print on legal size paper)</li> cli>ca href="/NYSBOE/download/law/VillageBPetitionNoLines.pdf" target="-selfW>SAMPLE VILLAGE DESIGNATING PETITION - COUNTY</a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdf" title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 31KB) (to be used if Election is run by the County Board of Elections) (print on legal size paper)</li> <li>ta href="/NYSBOE/download/law/VillageAPetitionNoLines.pdf" target="-selfn>SAMPLE VILLAGE INDEPENDENT NOMINATING PETITION</a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfW title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 31KB) (print on legal size paper)</li> cli>ta href="/NYSBOE/download/law/VillageCPetitionNoLines.pdf" target="-self">SAMPLE VILLAGE INDEPENDENT NOMINATING PETITION - COUNTY</a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfW title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 30KB) (to be used if Election is run by the County Board of Elections) (print on legal size paper)</li> <li><a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/cover.pdf" target="-selfU>SAMPLE COVER SHEETS</a> (<img src="irnages/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfn title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 11KB)t/li> tlixa href="/NYSBOE/download/law/acceptance.pdf" target="-self">SAMPLE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCEt/a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdf" title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 906KB)</li> <li>ta href="/NYSBOE/download/law/declination.pdf" target="-selfW>SAMPLE CERTIFICATE OF DECLINATION</a> (timg src="irnages/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdf" title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 718KB)t/li> tlixa href="/NYSBOE/download/law/substitution.pdf" target="-self">SAMPLE CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTITUTIONt/a> (cimg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfU title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 944KB)t/li> tli>ta href="/NYSBOE/download/law/authorization.pdf" target="-selfn>SAMPLE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATIONt/a> (<img src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdf" title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 33KB)c/li> </ul> cp><strong>NOTE:</strong> The information contained here is intended to provide general guidance for those who are preparing to circulate petitions, and is not to be used as a substitute for consulting the Election Law for specific petition requirements.t/p> cp>Persons wishing to run for elective office may be nominated either by a political party or through the filing of an independent nominating petition. Party members may also circulate petitions to create the opportunity to write in the name o f an unspecified person for an office in which there is no contest for the party endorsement. The current political parties are the Democratic, Republican, Conservative, Working Families, Independence and Green parties. Any person who is not nominated by one of these parties must file an independent nominating petition. The requirements for all petitions are contained in ta href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLaw.pdf" target="-selfW>Article 6 of the Election Lawt/a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfU title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303KB). The provisions for village elections vary slightly, and the reader is directed to <a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLa~.pdf" target="-self">Article 15 of the Election Law</a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfN title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303KB) for specifics.t/p> <p>ta href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2010RunningForOfficeBrochure.pdf" target="-selfW>Running for Officecia, (timg src="images/icons/PDF,gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfm title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 501KB)</p> th3>Party Nominationst/h3> <p>Party nomination of candidates for elective office is made at either a party caucus or at a primary election.c/p> th3>Caucusest/h3> cp>A caucus is an open meeting of a town or village's political party at which candidates are nominated for elective office. Only residents of the town or village
APX - 226
-
who are enrolled members of the party may participate in the caucus. For further information on caucuses see, <a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLa~.pdf~ target="-self">Election Law §6-108 (towns) and §l5-108 {villages)t/a> {timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdf" title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303KB).</p> <h3>Designating Petitionst/h3> <p>If a party nominates its candidates through the primary election process, party designations for this primary are made on a designating petition. The Election Law sets forth the form of this petition; <a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/200XNYflectionLaw,pdf" target="-selfW>§6-132 {state, county and town offices) and §15-108 (village offices).t/a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="1bU alt="pdfU title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303KB) Only enrolled members of a party qualified to vote for an office may sign designating petitions of the party.</p> <h3>Nomination of Non-Party Member</h3> <p>Political parties may nominate a candidate who is not an enrolled member of the political party. Such parties must file a certificate of authorization, signed and acknowledged by the presiding officer and the secretary of the meeting at which such authorization is given. A certificate of authorization is not needed for nominations resulting from a caucus or for a candidate for a judicial office.t/p> th3,Independent Nominationst/h3> <p>To run for office on a line other than an official party line, one must file an independent nominating petition. The Election Law sets forth the form of this petition; <a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLa~.pdf" target="-self">§6-140 (state, county and town offices) and §15-108 (village offices).</a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="1bV alt="pdfM title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303K5) Any registered voter who has not already signed a designating petition, and who is qualified to vote for an office, may sign an independent nominating petition for that office. For Village offices if you participated in a caucus, you cannot sign an independent nominating petition.</p> th3>Form of Petitions</h3> cp>The statute requires that all petitions be <strong>substantially</strong> in the form set forth in the law. See, <a href="/NVS5OE/download/law/2008NYElectionLa~.pdf" target="-self">Election Law §6-132 (party designating petitions), §6-140 (independent nominating petitions) and §15-108 (village designating and independent petitions)</a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="1bV alt="pdfn title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303KB). Deviations or slight rearrangements of the form of petition are not fatal defects, provided that the petition contains all of the required information.</p> <p>Each sheet of the petition must correctly set forth:c/p> <ul> <li>the date of the election;t/li> <li>the name of the candidate and the office or position sought;</li> tli>the candidate's residence, and if different, their mailing or post office address;</li> <li>information about the signer: date of signing, voter's residence address, town or city andt/li> <li>information relating to the person who witnesses the signatures.</li> </ul> tp>A petition may include a committee on vacancies. Failure to provide such a committee, or naming a committee of fewer than three persons, will not invalidate the petition.</p> <p>The voter need only sign the appropriate line on the petition sheet. All other information may be filled in by someone else. Corrections may be made to any information on the signature line. However, corrections or alterations in the date or the signature MUST be initialed by the person making the correction.t/p> <p>Voters may not sign a petition for more candidates than there are openings for an office. For example, if there is one council seat open, then the voter
APX - 227
may only sign one petition for a candidate for that office. If there are 2 seats open, the voter may sign petitions for 2 candidates.t/p> cp>The pages of a petition must be sequentially numbered and securely fastened.t/p> th3,Witnesses to a Petitionc/h3> cp>Anyone who is qualified to sign a petition may witness a petition. The information required for the witness statement is mandatory. Omissions, errors, or unexplained alterations/corrections, may invalidate the entire page. When the witness signs the statement of witness, they are making an oath that subjects them to the penalties for perjury if any of the information preceding their signature is false. The information preceding the signature includes the name and residence of the witness; the number of signatures on the page; a statement that each person signed in their presence; and the date they are signing the statement. Witness identification information, which follows the witness's signature, may be provided by anyone, at any time before the petition is filed. This information includes the town or city; and the county of the witness's registration.c/p> th3>Cover Sheetsc/h3> <p>If there are 1 0 or more pages in a petition, there must be a cover sheet. In New York City, and in other counties where identification numbers are used, only one cover sheet is required, regardless of the number of volumes in the petition. In all other instances, a multi-volume petition requires a cover sheet for each volume.c/p> tp>Cover sheets <strong>must</strong>contain the following information:c/p> <ul> tli>Name, residence address, and mailing address if different, of the candidate.</li> <li>The public office or party position sought.</li> <li>The name of the party or independent body making the nomination.c/li> tli>A statement that the petition contains a number of signatures equal to or in excess of the number required by statute.</li> tli>The volume number OR identification number of that volume.c/li> <li>The total number of volumes in each petition OR the identification number for each volume of the petition.t/li> </ul> cp>The following information is <strong>optional</strong>:t/p> <u1> <li>The name, residence address, (and mailing address if different) telephone number, and facsimile number of the person designated to receive notice of deficiencies in binding or cover sheet requirements.</li>
</ul>
<p>There are additional requirements if the petition contains candidates for county committee, and if there are different candidates on the several pages of the petition. Those requirements are contained in <a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLaw.pdf" target="-self">Part 6215 of the rules and regulationst/a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="1bW height="16" alt="pdfm title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303KB) of the State Board of Elections.</p> cp>Pursuant to <a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLaw.pdf" target="-self">Part 6215 of the rules and regulationsc/a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="pdfW title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303KB) of the State Board of Elections, the Board will provide notice of any correctable errors in cover sheet(s) and binding.t/p> <h3>Filing of Petitions, Acceptances, Authorizations and Declinations</h3> cp>All filings must be filed timely ta href="PoliticalCalendar.html" target="-selfm>(See the Political Calendar)c/a> and in the proper manner at the appropriate board of elections. Pursuant to section 1-106(l) of the New York State Election Law, all papers are required to be filed between the hours of nine A.M. and five P.M. If the last day for filing shall fall on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the next business day shall become the last day for filing. All papers sent by mail in an envelope postmarked prior to midnight of the last day of filing shall be deemed timely filed and accepted for filing when received, tstrong>exceptc/strong> any documents that
APX _---- 228
a r e r e q u i r e d t o be f i l e d w i t h t h e board o f e l e c t i o n s o f t h e c i t y o f New York must be a c t u a l l y r e c e i v e d by such c i t y board o f e l e c t i o n s on o r b e f o r e m i d n i g h t o f t h e l a s t day t o f i l e any such document. F a i l u r e t o do so s h a l l be a f a t a l d e f e c t . t / p > tp>No f i l i n g s w i l l be accepted by f a c s i m i l e o r e-mail.c/p> cp>Candidates must f i l e a c e r t i f i c a t e o f acceptance f o r nominations made by independent nominating p e t i t i o n s , o r i f t h e y a r e named i n a d e s i g n a t i n g p e t i t i o n b u t a r e n o t e n r o l l e d members o f t h a t p a r t y . N e i t h e r an a u t h o r i z a t i o n n o r an acceptance i s r e q u i r e d if t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s a candidate f o r a j u d i c i a l o f f i c e . A d e c l i n a t i o n must be f i l e d should t h e candidate decide n o t t o accept t h e d e s i g n a t i o n o r nomination.c/p> th3>0bjectionsc/h3> <p>Every p e t i t i o n i s presumed t o be v a l i d when f i l e d , if, on i t s face, i t appears t o be i n proper form and t o c o n t a i n enough signatures. However, a r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r may challenge t h e v a l i d i t y o f a p e t i t i o n . W r i t t e n o b j e c t i o n s must be f i l e d w i t h i n 3 days a f t e r t h e p e t i t i o n i s f i l e d (1 day i n a v i l l a g e e l e c t i o n ) . S p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f o b j e c t i o n s must be f i l e d w i t h i n 6 days o f f i l i n g t h e general o b j e c t i o n s ( 2 days i n a v i l l a g e e l e c t i o n ) . For p e t i t i o n s f i l e d w i t h t h e S t a t e Board o f Elections, o b j e c t o r s must d e l i v e r a copy o f t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e candidate and f i l e p r o o f o f such d e l i v e r y w i t h t h e S t a t e Board. For f u r t h e r d e t a i l s see t a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLa~.pdf*'t a r g e t = " - s e l f " > E l e c t i o n Law §6-154 and §15-108 and P a r t 6204 o f t h e r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s < / a > ( t i m g src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="1SU a l t = " p d f W t i t l e = " P o r t a b l e Document Format ( p d f ) " / > 3,303KB) o f t h e S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s . t / p > ch2 id="PresidentW>Running f o r Presidentt/hZ> th3>Independent Candidatesc/h3> cp>An independent candidate f o r p r e s i d e n t i s someone who i s r u n n i n g on a l i n e o t h e r t h a n an o f f i c i a l p a r t y l i n e . P e t i t i o n s f o r independent candidates must i n c l u d e t h e names o f t h e p r e s i d e n t i a l and v i c e - p r e s i d e n t i a l candidates, as w e l l as t h e names o f person(s) r u n n i n g f o r t h e e l e c t o r a l college. Each s t a t e i s p e r m i t t e d t o have one e l e c t o r f o r each congressional d i s t r i c t , p l u s two a t - l a r g e e l e c t o r s . < / p > cp>Independent p e t i t i o n s f o r p r e s i d e n t must c o n t a i n 15,000 signatures. A t l e a s t 100 s i g n a t u r e s must come f r o m each o f o n e - h a l f o f t h e congressional d i s t r i c t s i n target="-self">Election t h e s t a t e . t a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLawpdf" Law §6-142(l)t/a> ( t i m g src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" a l t = " p d f n t i t l e = " P o r t a b l e Document Format ( p d f ) " / > 3,303KB). Each candidate named i n an independent p e t i t i o n f o r p r e s i d e n t i s r e q u i r e d t o f i l e an acknowledged acceptance o f t h e nomination no l a t e r t h a n t h e t h i r d day a f t e r t h e l a s t day t o f i l e t h e p e t i t i o n . <a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2B08NYElectionLa~.pdf" t a r g e t = " - s e l f n > E l e c t i o n Law §& 146(1)c/a> ( t i m g src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="16" a l t = " p d f m t i t l e = " P o r t a b l e Document Format ( p d f ) " / > 3,303KB).</p> c p > I f t h e r e a r e 10 o r more pages i n a p e t i t i o n , t h e r e must be a cover sheet. A multi-volume p e t i t i o n r e q u i r e s a cover sheet for each volume. Cover sheets must c o n t a i n t h e f o l l o w i n g information:</p> <ul> tli>Name, address, and m a i l i n g address i f d i f f e r e n t , o f candidatest/li> < l i > O f f i c e soughtc/li> <li>Name and emblem o f t h e independent body making t h e nominationt/li> t l i > A statement t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n c o n t a i n s a number o f s i g n a t u r e s equal t o o r i n excess o f t h e number r e q u i r e d by s t a t u t e . < / l i > t l i > T h e volume number o f t h a t v o l u m e t / l i > t l i > T h e t o t a l number o f volumes i n t h e p e t i t i o n c / l i > </ul> < p > A d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on cover sheets i s contained i n <a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLaw.pdf" t a r g e t = " - s e l f " > P a r t 6215 o f t h e r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s t / a > ( t i m g src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="16" height="1bU a l t = " p d f U t i t l e = " P o r t a b l e Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303KB) o f t h e S t a t e Board o f Elections.</p> th3,Write-In Candidatest/h3> <p>To r u n as a w r i t e - i n candidate f o r president, you a r e r e q u i r e d t o f i l e a c e r t i f i c a t e o f candidacy w i t h t h e S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s no l a t e r t h a n t h e t h i r d
APX - 229
Tuesday prior to the general election. The certificate must be signed by the presidential candidate and must contain the following information:t/p> <ul> tli>Name and address of presidential candidate</li> tli>Name and address of any vice-presidential candidate, and a signed certificate of acceptance from such candidatec/li> <li>Name and address of at least one elector, with an acceptance certificate and pledge of support signed by each such candidate for elector. t/li> </ul, <p><a href="/NYSBOE/download/law/2008NYElectionLaw.pdf" target="-selfW>See Election Law §6-153t/a> (timg src="images/icons/PDF.gif" width="l6" height="16" alt="pdfX title="Portable Document Format (pdf)"/> 3,303KB) for further information.</p> th2 id="FilePetitionsU>Whereto File Petitionsc/hZ> th3>PUBLIC OFFICE ONLY</h3> th3>Congressional Districtsc/h3> <u1> <li>l - Suffolk County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>2 and 3 - State Board of Elections</li> tli>4 - Nassau County Board of Elections</li> <li>5 - State Board of Electionsc/li> tli>6 through 1 6 - New York City Board of Electionst/li> tli>17 through 29 - State Board of Electionst/li> </ul> ch3,Senate Districtsc/h3>
<Ul>
<li>l through 4 - Suffolk County Board of Electionst/li> tli>5 - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>6 and 7 - Nassau County Board of Elections</li> tli>8 - State Board of Elections</li> <li>9 - Nassau County Board of Electionsc/li> <li>l0 through 33 - New York City Board of Electionst/li> <li>34 - State Board of Electionst/li> <li>35- Westchester County Board of Elections</li> <li>36 - State Board of Electionsc/li> tli>37 - Westchester County Board of Elections</li> <li>38 through 45 - State Board of Electionst/li> tli>46 - Albany County Board of Elections</li> <li>47 through 4 9 - State Board of Elections</li> tli>5% - Onondaga County Board of Electionst/li> <li,51 through 54 - State Board o f Electionsc/li> tli>55 and 56 - Monroe County Board of Electionsc/li> <li>57 - State Board of Elections</li> tli>58 - Erie County Board of Electionst/li> <li>59 through 62 - State Board of Elections</li> </ul> th3>Assernbly Districtsc/h3> <ul> <li>l through 9 - Suffolk County Board of Electionst/li> tli>l0 - State Board of Electionsc/li> tlizll - Suffolk County Board of Electionst/li> tli>l2 through 21 - Nassau County Board of Electionst/li> <li>22 through 86 - New York City Board of Elections</li> <li>87 through 89 - Westchester County Board of Elections</li> <li>90 - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>91 through 93 - Westchester County Board of Electionsc/li> <li>94 and 95 - Rockland County Board of Elections</li> <li>96 through 101 - State Board of Electionst/li> <li>l02 - Dutchess County Board of Electionsc/li> <li>103 - State Board of Elections</li> <li>104 - Albany County Board of Electionsc/li>
APX - 230
<li>105 through 115 - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>116 - Oneida County Board of Elections</li> tli>117 and 118 - State Board of Elections</li> tli>119 through 121 - Onondaga County Board of Elections</li> tli>l22 through 125 - State Board of Electionsc/li> cli>126 - Broome County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>127 through 138 - State Board of Electionsc/li> cli>131 through 135 - Monroe County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>136 and 137 - State Board of Electionsc/li> tli>138 - Niagara County Board of Electionsc/li> <li>139 and 146 - State Board of Electionsc/li> tli>141 - Erie County Board of Elections</li> tli>142 - State Board of Electionsc/li> tli>143 through 146 - Erie County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>147 through 149 - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>150 - Chautauqua County Board of Electionst/li> </ul> cp><strong>FORALL OTHER OFFICES CONTACT YOUR COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS</strong>c/p> th3,Member of State Committee</h3> <u1> <li>tstrong>REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRATIC, and INDEPENDENCEc/strong> Party State Committee petitions are filed with the county boards of elections.</li> <li>tstrong>WORKINGFAMILIES</strong> Party State Committee petitions, are filed in the same manner as those for the office of Member of Assembly (see chart for ASSEMBLY).t/li> tli>tstrong>CONSERVATIVE</strong> Party State Committee petitions, are filed in the same manner as those for the office of Representative in Congress (see chart for CONGRESSIONAL). <p>Republican State Committee elections are held at the "Fall" primary in odd numbered years. All other parties elect state committee at the "Fall" primary in even numbered years.</p> <p>To run for any party position such as member of state committee, national or judicial delegate or alternate, you must be a duly enrolled member of the party from which you are seeking the designation. You also must be a resident of the jurisdiction from which you are running.c/p> cp>The offices of judicial delegate and alternate judicial delegate are elected at the "Fall" primary. (National delegate and alternate national delegate are elected at the "Spring" primary, held in a presidential election year).c/p>c/li> </ul> <h3>Judicial District Convention Delegate and/or Alternate Delegatec/h3> <ul> tli>FIRST ID (New York County)c/li> tli>SECOND JD (Kings County)c/li> <li>ELEVENTH ID (Queens County)</li> tli>TWELFTH JD (Bronx County)</li> tli>THIRTEENTH JD (Richmond County) cp>All petitions and nominations for these judicial district delegates and alternate delegates are filed at the New York City Board of Electionsc/p> cp><strong>NOTE:c/strong>The following chart for Judicial Delegates and Alternate Delegates applies cem>only</em> to Democratic, Independence, Conservative and Working Families Party candidates. Republican Party candidates for this office file their petitions in the county which contains their portion of the assembly district.c/p>c/li> </ul> ch3>tstrong>THIRD JD Albany, Columbia, Greene, Rensselaer, Schoharie, Sullivan & Ulster Countiesc/strong>c/h3> <ul> tli>98 AD - Sullivan County Board of Electionsc/li> cli>l00 AD - Ulster County Board of Electionsc/li> <li>101 AD - Ulster County Board of Elections</li>
APX - 231 -
--
tli>l03 AD - Columbia County Board of Elections</li> tli>104 AD - Albany County Board of Elections</li> <li>106 AD - State Board of Elections</li> tli>l07 AD - Ulster County Board of Electionsc/li> <li>108 AD - State Board of Electionsc/li> tli>109 AD - Albany County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>112 AD - Rensselaer County Board of Elections</li> tli>127 AD - State Board of Elections</li> </ul> <h3><strong>FOURTH JD Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Hamilton, Montgomery, St. Lawrence, Saratoga, Schenectady, Warren & Washington Counties</strong></h3> <u1> tli>105 AD - State Board of Elections</li> <li>106 AD - Saratoga County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>189 AD - Saratoga County Board of Elections</li> <li>ll0 AD - State Board of Elections</li> <li>ll2 AD - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>113 AD - State Board of Elections</li> <li>114 AD - State Board of Electionsc/li> tli>117 AD - Fulton County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>ll8 AD - St. Lawrence County Board of Elections</li> tli>l22 AD - St. Lawrence County Board of Electionsc/li> </ul> th3>tstrong>FIFTH JD Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Oneida, Onondaga & Oswego Countiesc/strong>c/h3> <ul> <li>lll AD - Oneida County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>115 AD - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>116 AD - Oneida County Board of Elections</li> tli>117 AD - Herkimer County Board of Elections</li> tli>ll8 AD - Jefferson County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>119 AD - Onondaga County Board of Elections</li> tli>l20 AD - Onondaga County Board of Elections</li> <li>l21 AD - Onondaga County Board of Electionsc/li> <li>l22 AD - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>124 AD - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>128 AD - Oswego County Board of Electionsc/li> <li>129 AD - Onondaga County Board of Electionsc/li> </ul> <h3><strong>SIXTHJD Broome, Chemung, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Madison, Otsego, Schuyler, Tioga & Tompkins Counties</strong></h3> <u1> tli>l07 AD - State Board of Elections</li> <li>lll AD - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>117 AD - Otsego County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>123 AD - State Board of Elections</li> tli>125 AD - State Board of Elections</li> <li>126 AD - Broome County Board of Elections</li> tli>127 AD - State Board of Elections</li> cli>129 AD - Cortland County Board of Elections</li> tli>137 AD - State Board of Elections</li> </ul> th3>tstrong>SEVENTH JD Cayuga, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne & Yates Countiesc/strong>c/h3> <ul> <li>123 AD - Cayuga county Board of Elections</li> tli>128 AD and 129 AD - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>l30 AD - State Board of Elections</li> tli>131 AD through 135 AD - Monroe County Board of Electionsc/li> tli>136 AD - State Board of Electionsc/li> <li>139 AD - Monroe County Board of Electionsc/li>
APX - 232
-
t l i > 1 4 7 AD - L i v i n g s t o n County Board o f E l e c t i o n s < / l i > </ul, th3><strong>EIGHTH JD Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, Genesee, Niagara, Orleans & Wyoming Countiesc/strong>c/h3> <ul> tli>138 A D - Niagara County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > tli>139 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > <li>140 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > < l i > 1 4 1 A D - E r i e County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > tli>142 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > t l i > 1 4 3 through 146 AD- E r i e County Board o f E l e c t i o n s < / l i > < l i > 1 4 7 AD - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > <li>148 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > t l i > 1 4 9 AD - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > t l i > 1 5 0 AD - Chautauqua County Board o f E l e c t i o n s < / l i > </ul> th3><strong>NINTH JD Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland & Westchester Countiesc/strong>c/h3> <ul> cli>87 A D through 89 AD - Westchester County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > <li>96 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s < / l i > tli>91 A D through 93 AD - Westchester County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > t l i > 9 4 and 95 A D - Rockland County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > cli>96 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s < / l i > <li>97 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > tli>98 A D - Orange County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > <li>99 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > tli>l00 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i s c l i z l 0 1 through 103 A D - Dutchess County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > </ul> <h3>tstrong>TENTH JD Nassau & S u f f o l k Counties</strong>c/h3> <ul> c l i > l AD through 9 A D - S u f f o l k County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > tli>l0 A D - S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > <li>llA D - S u f f o l k County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > tli>l2 A D through 2 1 A D - Nassau County Board o f E l e c t i o n s c / l i > c/ul> t h 2 i d = " T i t l e g U > T i t l e 9 o f t h e O f f i c i a l Compilation o f Codes, Rules and Regulations o f t h e S t a t e o f New York S u b t i t l e V</h2> th3>§ 6201.2 Use o f P u b l i c Opinion Pollsc/h3> cp>No candidate, p o l i t i c a l p a r t y o r committee s h a l l attempt t o promote t h e success o r d e f e a t o f a candidate by d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y d i s c l o s i n g o r causing t o be d i s c l o s e d t h e r e s u l t s o f a p o l l r e l a t i n g t o a candidate f o r such an o f f i c e o r p o s i t i o n , unless w i t h i n 48 hours a f t e r such disclosure, t h e y p r o v i d e t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n concerning t h e p o l l t o t h e board o r o f f i c e r w i t h whom statements o r copies o f statements o f campaign r e c e i p t s and expenditures a r e r e q u i r e d t o be f i l e d by t h e candidate t o whom such p o l l r e l a t e s : c / p > c o l type="an> t l i > T h e name o f t h e person, p a r t y o r o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t c o n t r a c t e d f o r o r who commissioned t h e p o l l and/or p a i d f o r i t . c / l i > c l i z T h e name and address o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t conducted t h e poll.</li> t l i > T h e numerical s i z e o f t h e t o t a l p o l l sample, t h e geographic area covered by t h e p o l l and any s p e c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n i n c l u d e d i n t h e p o l l sample.c/li> t l i > T h e exact wording o f t h e questions asked i n t h e p o l l and t h e sequence o f such q u e s t i o n s . < / l i > < l i > T h e method o f polling–whether by personal i n t e r v i e w , telephone, m a i l o r o t h e r . c / l i > c l i > T h e t i m e p e r i o d d u r i n g which t h e p o l l was conducted.c/li>
t l i > T h e number o f persons i n t h e p o l l sample: t h e number contacted who responded t o each s p e c i f i c p o l l question; t h e number o f persons contacted who d i d n o t so respond.</li> <li>The results o f the p o l l . < / l i > </0l> <h3>State Board o f E l e c t i o n s t b r />Part 6204</h3> th3>Designating and Independent Nominating P e t i t i o n s < / h 3 > ch3Ssect; 6204.1 S p e c i f i c a t i o n o f o b j e c t i o n s t o d e s i g n a t i n g and independent nominating p e t i t i o n s . < / h 3 > t o 1 type="aW> t l i > A n y person f i l i n g general o b j e c t i o n s t o any d e s i g n a t i n g o r independent nominating p e t i t i o n f i l e d w i t h t h e S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s who t h e r e a f t e r f i l e s s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f h i s o b j e c t i o n s t o any such p e t i t i o n w i t h such board s h a l l do so i n accordance w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f Section 6-154 o f t h e E l e c t i o n Law. A l l such s p e c i f i c a t i o n s s h a l l s u b s t a n t i a l l y comply w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g requirements: t o 1 type="l"> < l i > T h e volume number, page number, and l i n e number o f any s i g n a t u r e o b j e c t e d t o on any p e t i t i o n s h a l l be s e t f o r t h i n d e t a i l . I n a d d i t i o n , any p o r t i o n o f any p e t i t i o n o r any s i g n a t u r e l i n e o r witness statement o b j e c t e d t o s h a l l be s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d and reasons g i v e n f o r any such o b j e c t i o n ; t / l i > t l i > T h e t o t a l number o f s i g n a t u r e s o b j e c t e d t o s h a l l be s e t f o r t h and a l l o b j e c t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o a s i n g l e s i g n a t u r e l i n e should be grouped together; </li> <li>Symbols and/or a b b r e v i a t i o n s may be used t o s e t f o r t h objections, provided t h a t a sheet e x p l a i n i n g t h e meaning o f any such symbols and/or a b b r e v i a t i o n s i s attached t o t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . < / l i > </ol></li> < l i > N o s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f o b j e c t i o n s t o any p e t i t i o n w i l l be considered by t h e Board unless t h e o b j e c t o r f i l i n g t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s p e r s o n a l l y d e l i v e r s o r m a i l s by r e g i s t e r e d o r c e r t i f i e d m a i l a d u p l i c a t e copy o f t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s t o each candidate f o r p u b l i c o f f i c e named on t h e p e t i t i o n . I n t h e case o f a p e t i t i o n c o n t a i n i n g candidates f o r p a r t y p o s i t i o n , s e r v i c e o f t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s s h a l l be made on e i t h e r t h e named candidates o r t h e f i r s t person named on t h e p e t i t i o n ' s committee t o f i l l vacancies. Service s h a l l be made on o r b e f o r e t h e date o f f i l i n g o f any s p e c i f i c a t i o n s w i t h t h e Board. Proof o f s e r v i c e s h a l l accompany t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o r be r e c e i v e d by t h e end o f business two days f o l l o w i n g t h e f i l i n g o f t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , whichever i s l a t e r . t / l i > < l i > A n y n o t i c e and/or d e t e r m i n a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o a p e t i t i o n f o r which s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f o b j e c t i o n s have been f i l e d s h a l l be t r a n s m i t t e d by t h e Board t o t h e o b j e c t o r f i l i n g t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , provided t h a t any such o b j e c t o r may designate an a t t o r n e y o r agent t o r e c e i v e any such n o t i c e and/or d e t e r m i n a t i o n on h i s b e h a l f . Any such d e s i g n a t i o n s h a l l be i n w r i t i n g and i n c l u d e t h e name, address and telephone number o f any such a t t o r n e y o r agent, and any such a t t o r n e y and/or agent s h a l l be e l i g i b l e t o represent any such o b j e c t o r i n any proceeding conducted by t h e Board r e l a t i n g t o t h e specifications.</li> </ol> th3>State Board o f E l e c t i o n s c b r />Part 6215</h3> <h3>Preparation, D e l i v e r y and F i l i n g o f Designating and Nominating Petitions</h3> <h3>§6215.1 Rules f o r f i l i n g d e s i g n a t i n g and nominating p e t i t i o n s . < / h 3 > t o 1 type="aU> t l i > T h e sheets of a p e t i t i o n s h a l l be numbered s e q u e n t i a l l y a t t h e f o o t o f each s h e e t . < / l i > < l i > A l l p e t i t i o n s c o n t a i n i n g t e n o r more sheets s h a l l be accompanied by a cover s h e e t . < / l i > < l i > A n y two o r more p e t i t i o n sheets s h a l l be s e c u r e l y fastened t o g e t h e r by any means which w i l l h o l d t h e pages t o g e t h e r i n numerical o r d e r . c / l i > < l i > P e t i t i o n sheets may be fastened t o g e t h e r t o f o r m one o r more volumes.</li> < l i > I n d i v i d u a l volumes o f a p e t i t i o n s h a l l be f i l e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner: < o l type="lV>
APX - 234
t l i > W i t h respect t o p e t i t i o n s which a r e f i l e d w i t h t h e Board o f E l e c t i o n s i n t h e C i t y o f New York, o r p e t i t i o n s which a r e f i l e d w i t h o t h e r boards o f e l e c t i o n s c o n t a i n i n g candidates f o r more than one p u b l i c o r p a r t y o f f i c e which a r e n o t coterminous, each volume o f each p e t i t i o n s h a l l bear an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number, t o be obtained i n accordance w i t h Section 6215.3, i n f r a . The assigned i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number s h a l l be i n s c r i b e d on t h e f r o n t o f t h e volume. I f an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number has n o t been i n s c r i b e d by t h e person o r persons f i l i n g t h e p e t i t i o n , and t h e p e t i t i o n c o n s i s t s o f m u l t i p l e volumes, then each volume o f t h e p e t i t i o n s h a l l be separately numbered on t h e f r o n t t h e r e o f . Only one i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number may be used t o i d e n t i f y a p e t i t i o n volume.t/li> < l i > A n y Board o f E l e c t i o n s o u t s i d e t h e C i t y o f New York may adopt a p e t i t i o n f i l i n g system f o r a l l p e t i t i o n s u t i l i z i n g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers as provided f o r i n Section 6215.3. The Board may adopt such system through t h e approval o f a r u l e a t l e a s t two months p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t day t o c i r c u l a t e p e t i t i o n s . The r u l e s h a l l be f i l e d a t t h e county board o f e l e c t i o n s and t h e S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s . < / l i > t l i > W i t h respect t o a l l o t h e r p e t i t i o n s which c o n t a i n t e n o r more sheets, each volume o f t h e p e t i t i o n s h a l l have a cover sheet secured t o t h e f r o n t o f such volume.c/li> clol>c/li> </ol> <h3>§6215.2 Cover Sheets</h3> t o 1 type="aW> < l i > A cover sheet s h a l l contain t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : t o 1 type="lU> t l i > T h e o f f i c e and d i s t r i c t number (where appropriate) f o r which each designation and nomination i s being made, t h e name and residence address o f each candidate, and t h e number o f volumes comprising t h e p e t i t i o n . The names and addresses o f candidates f o r t h e county committee may be s e t f o r t h , by assembly d i s t r i c t (or, i n t h e C i t y o f New York, by e l e c t i o n d i s t r i c t ) on a schedule t o be annexed t o t h e cover sheet. Cover sheets f o r t h e p o s i t i o n s o f County Committee i n t h e C i t y o f New Vork s h a l l include, i n a d d i t i o n t o such schedule a l i s t by e l e c t i o n d i s t r i c t o f t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers ( i f known) o r t h e volume number, and page number where such signatures appear f o r each election d i s t r i c t . c / l i > t l i > a n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e volumes comprising t h e p e t i t i o n . When m u l t i p l e volumes a r e f i l e d pursuant t o Section 6215.1(e)(l) o r (2) o f these rules, a s i n g l e cover sheet may be f i l e d w i t h volumes i d e n t i f i e d by l i s t i n g t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number o f each volume e i t h e r i n d i v i d u a l l y o r cumulatively, and t h e t o t a l number o f volumes i n t h e p e t i t i o n . With respect t o a l l o t h e r p e t i t i o n s f i l e d i n m u l t i p l e volumes, each volume s h a l l have a cover sheet which s h a l l i n d i c a t e t h e volume number; such volumes s h a l l be numbered s e q u e n t i a l l y and t h e cover sheet from t h e f i r s t volume s h a l l s e t f o r t h t h e t o t a l number o f volumes comprising p e t i t i o n . < / l i > < l i > a statement t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n contains t h e number, o r i n excess o f t h e number, o f v a l i d signatures, r e q u i r e d by t h e E l e c t i o n Law.c/li> < l i > A place f o r t h e o p t i o n a l designation o f a contact person o t h e r than t h e candidate(s) t o be n o t i f i e d t o c o r r e c t noncompliance w i t h these regulations.t/li> c/ol></li> <li>Cover sheets s h a l l be s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n t h e form s e t f o r t h i n Section 6215.8, i n f r a . c / l i > <li>Where a d e s i g n a t i n g p e t i t i o n i n v o l v e s an o f f i c e t o be f i l l e d by t h e v o t e r s o f t h e e n t i r e state, t h e p e t i t i o n s h a l l be accompanied by a schedule which s e t s f o r t h t h e volume and page number o f each sheet on which signatures appear o f a t l e a s t 100 o r 5 per centum, which ever i s less, o f p r o p e r l y e n r o l l e d v o t e r s i n each o f a t l e a s t oneh a l f o f t h e Congressional D i s t r i c t s o f t h e s t a t e . < / l i > <li>Where a nominating p e t i t i o n i n v o l v e s an o f f i c e t o be f i l l e d by t h e v o t e r s o f t h e e n t i r e state, t h e p e t i t i o n s h a l l be accompanied by a schedule which s e t s f o r t h t h e volume and page number o f each sheet on which signatures appear o f a t l e a s t la8 v o t e r s i n each o f a t l e a s t o n e - h a l f o f t h e Congressional D i s t r i c t s o f t h e s t a t e . < / l i > </ol> ch3>§6215.3 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Numbers, a p p l i c a t i o n , d i s t r i b u t i o n and utilization</h3>
APX 235 -
t o 1 type="aW> c l i > I d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers s h a l l be issued by t h e S t a t e and County Boards o f Elections, w i t h o u t charge, f o r t h e purpose o f i d e n t i f y i n g p e t i t i o n v o l u m e s . t / l i > < l i > T h e S t a t e Board s h a l l assign a s e r i e s o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n codes t o each County B o a r d . c / l i > t l i > A n y person o r persons, i n d i v i d u a l l y o r j o i n t l y , may o b t a i n one o r more i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers, upon w r i t t e n a p p l i c a t i o n , f r o m t h e Board o f E l e c t i o n s . I n d i v i d u a l s who do n o t wish t o apply f o r these numbers i n advance w i l l have them assigned t o t h e i r p e t i t i o n s when t h e y a r e submitted t o t h e Board o f E l e c t i o n s i n accordance w i t h s e c t i o n 6215.6 (b) o f these r u l e s . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers may be used o n l y w i t h i n t h e calendar year f o r which i s s u e d . t / l i > t l i > T h e S t a t e Board o f E l e c t i o n s s h a l l promulgate an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number a p p l i c a t i o n form, which s h a l l be used by any board o f e l e c t i o n s . The a p p l i c a t i o n s h a l l set f o r t h : t o 1 type="lW> c l i > t h e name and residence address o f each a p p l i c a n t f o r t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number;c/li> t l i > t h e daytime and evening telephone numbers f o r such applicant;c/li> < l i > t h e t y p e o f p e t i t i o n t o be f i l e d under t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number (i.e., Designating, Nominating, Opportunity t o B a l l o t ) ; c / l i > < l i > t h e date o f t h e election;c/li> t l i > t h e Name o f t h e P a r t y o r Independent Body; and ( 6 ) t h e number o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers requested. Each a p p l i c a t i o n s h a l l be signed by each a p p l i c a n t and s h a l l be d a t e d . c / l i > </ol></li> cli>Upon r e c e i p t o f an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number, t h e Board s h a l l f o r t h w i t h i s s u e t h e q u a n t i t y o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers requested, i n s c r i b e such numbers on t h e o r i g i n a l a p p l i c a t i o n , and r e c o r d t h e numbers issued w i t h t h e name and address o f t h e a p p l i c a n t i n a book which s h a l l be a v a i l a b l e f o r p u b l i c i n s p e c t i o n . I n t h e event t h a t an a p p l i c a t i o n i s f i l e d by m u l t i p l e applicants, t h e Board s h a l l r e c o r d i n t h e book o n l y t h e name and address o f t h e f i r s t - n a m e d a p p l i c a n t . c / l i > t l i > A n assigned i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number may be used f o r t h e f i l i n g o f p e t i t i o n sheets o n l y by t h e person t o whom t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number was issued. I n t h e case o f m u l t i p l e applicants, t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number may be used by any o f t h e applicants.</li> </ol> ch3>§6215.4 M u l t i p l e Candidates Named On a P e t i t i o n < / h 3 > c o l type="aW> < l i > A l l t h e s i g n a t u r e s appearing i n a p e t i t i o n volume s h a l l apply t o a l l candidates named i n t h a t volume, unless t h e cover sheet s p e c i f i e s o t h e r w i s e . < / l i , t l i > I n t h e event t h a t t h e same candidates do n o t appear on each and every sheet o f t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e n t h e cover sheet s h a l l i n d i c a t e which s i g n a t u r e s apply t o which candidate, by i n d i c a t i n g t h e name o f t h e candidate, t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number o r t h e volume number, and t h e page number o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e signatures. Signatures on such pages may be i d e n t i f i e d by s p e c i f i e d numerical ranges (e.g., pages 1 through 15, pages 15-45).</1i> </0l> th3>§6215.5 F i l i n g o f p e t i t i o n s c / h 3 > t o 1 type="am> < l i > N e i t h e r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r , nor t h e issuance of, an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number c o n s t i t u t e s f i l i n g o f a p e t i t i o n . c / l i > t l i > P e t i t i o n s s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h t h e a p p l i c a b l e Board o f E l e c t i o n s as s e t f o r t h i n t h e E l e c t i o n Law. The o f f i c e r o r Board s h a l l endorse t h e day, hour and minute of r e c e i p t on such p e t i t i o n s . Such o f f i c e r o r Board s h a l l keep a book, which s h a l l be open t o p u b l i c inspection, i n which s h a l l be entered t h e name o f t h e candidate, and volume o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers of t h e p e t i t i o n s which have been f i l e d and t h e t i m e o f t h e i r filing.</li> </0l> th3>§6215.6 C o n s t r u c t i o n o f rules; s u b s t a n t i a l compliancec/h3> t o 1 type="am>
< l i > E x c e p t as s p e c i f i c a l l y s e t f o r t h herein, these r u l e s s h a l l be l i b e r a l l y construed and t e c h n i c a l d e f e c t s s h a l l be disregarded where t h e r e has been s u b s t a n t i a l compliance and where a s t r i c t c o n s t r u c t i o n i s n o t r e q u i r e d f o r t h e p r e v e n t i o n o f fraud.c/li> c l i > T h e f a i l u r e t o o b t a i n an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number o r i n s c r i b e an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number on one o r more p e t i t i o n s o r p e t i t i o n volumes s h a l l n o t render any such p e t i t i o n o r p e t i t i o n volume i n v a l i d . The o f f i c e r o r Board r e c e i v i n g such p e t i t i o n o r p e t i t i o n volume s h a l l assign i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers t o such p e t i t i o n o r p e t i t i o n volumes, s h a l l i n s c r i b e t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number upon t h e p e t i t i o n o r volume, and s h a l l r e c o r d t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number o f such p e t i t i o n o r volume. I n such instances, t h e person o r persons s u b m i t t i n g t h e p e t i t i o n o r p e t i t i o n volume f o r f i l i n g s h a l l be deemed t o be t h e a p p l i c a n t f o r t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number, o r i n t h e event t h e persons s u b m i t t i n g t h e p e t i t i o n o r p e t i t i o n volume, cannot be i d e n t i f i e d , t h e candidates named on t h e p e t i t i o n o r p e t i t i o n volume s h a l l be deemed t o be t h e a p p l i c a n t o r a p p l i c a n t s . < / l i > </0l> <h3>§6215.7 Determinations; cures pursuant t o Section 6-134(2) o f t h e E l e c t i o n Lawc/h3> t o 1 type="am> c l i > W i t h i n two (2) business days o f t h e r e c e i p t o f t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e Board w i t h whom such p e t i t i o n was f i l e d s h a l l review t h e p e t i t i o n t o determine whether t h e p e t i t i o n complies w i t h t h e cover sheet and b i n d i n g requirements o f these r e g u l a t i o n s . Such review s h a l l be l i m i t e d t o m a t t e r s apparent on t h e f a c e o f t h e documents. Such review, and such determination, s h a l l be w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e Board o f o b j e c t i o n s and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f o b j e c t i o n s f i l e d pursuant t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e E l e c t i o n Law.</li> t l i > I n t h e event that, upon t h e review conducted pursuant t o paragraph (a) above, t h e Board determines t h a t a p e t i t i o n does n o t comply w i t h these r e g u l a t i o n s , t h e Board s h a l l f o r t h w i t h n o t i f y t h e candidate o r candidates named on t h e p e t i t i o n o f i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n and t h e reasons t h e r e f o r . < / l i > < l i > N o t i f i c a t i o n o f a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f noncompliance s h a l l be given by w r i t t e n n o t i c e by d e p o s i t i n g such n o t i c e on t h e day o f such d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i t h an o v e r n i g h t d e l i v e r y service, f o r o v e r n i g h t d e l i v e r y , on t h e n e x t business day, o r by personal d e l i v e r y by t h e day a f t e r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o t h e candidate o r t h e contact person, i f designated, a t t h e address s t a t e d on t h e p e t i t i o n . N o t i f i c a t i o n s h a l l be given by o v e r n i g h t d e l i v e r y o r personal d e l i v e r y only, unless t h e candidate s h a l l have f i l e d w i t h t h e Board w r i t t e n a u t h o r i z a t i o n , signed by t h e candidate, f o r t h e Board t o g i v e n o t i f i c a t i o n by f a c s i m i l e transmission. I n t h e event t h a t t h e candidate s h a l l have a u t h o r i z e d n o t i f i c a t i o n by f a c s i m i l e transmission, t h e n t h e Board s h a l l n o t i f y t h e candidate o r t h e c o n t a c t person, i f designated, by f a c s i m i l e t r a n s m i s s i o n on t h e day o f t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o t h e number s e t f o r t h by t h e candidate and s h a l l , i n a d d i t i o n , m a i l a copy o f t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o t h e c a n d i d a t e . c / l i s < l i > A candidate may, w i t h i n t h r e e (3) business days o f t h e d a t e o f a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n does n o t comply w i t h these r e g u l a t i o n s , c u r e t h e v i o l a t i o n o f these r e g u l a t i o n s . Cover sheet d e f i c i e n c i e s may be c o r r e c t e d by t h e f i l i n g o f an amended cover sheet. Such cure o r c o r r e c t i o n must be r e c e i v e d by t h e Board o f E l e c t i o n s no l a t e r than t h e t h i r d business day f o l l o w i n g such d e t e r m i n a t i o n . c / l i > t l i > I f t h e p e t i t i o n i s one f o r an o p p o r t u n i t y t o b a l l o t , t h e n t h e f i r s t named person on t h e committee t o r e c e i v e n o t i c e s o r a p p l i c a n t ( s ) f o r t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number o r numbers under which t h e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d s h a l l be deemed t o be t h e "candidate" f o r purposes o f subparagraphs (b), (c), and (d) a b o v e . < / l i > </ol> <h2 id="Provisions">Further Provisions</hZ> cp>Please be aware t h a t t h e r e may be o t h e r requirements which may apply t o r u n n i n g f o r any p a r t i c u l a r o f f i c e . These may i n c l u d e b u t n o t be l i m i t e d to:c/p> th3,FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS:</h3> <ul> < l i > T h e New York S t a t e E l e c t i o n Law r e q u i r e s candidates and p o l i t i c a l committees t o f i l e statements d i s c l o s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n about c o n t r i b u t i o n s r e c e i v e d and expenditures made i n connection w i t h an e l e c t i o n . c / l i >
tli>The forms required to register a committee and to report receipts and disbursements, as well as a comprehensive handbook of instructions, are available at the State Board of Elections and your county Board of Elections.c/li> cli>Wiew the <a href="CampaignFinance.html" target="-self">Campaign Finance Page</a> for more information on financial disclosure requirements or contact the State Board of Elections at 1-800-458-3453 or 518-474-8200 or contact your <a href="CountyBoards.htmi" >county board of elections</a>.c/li> </ul> <h3>Hatch Act:c/h3> <ul> tli>Call 1-800-85 HATCH - Website <a href="http://www.osc.gov/" target="-blank">www.osc.gov</a> <img src="images/icons/external-link.gifw width="16" height="16" alt="(External Link)" title="The preceding link goes to another website."/></li> </ul> <h3>The Commission on Judicial Conduct:</h3> <ul> tli><a href="http://www.scjc.state.ny.us"~www.scjc.state.ny.usc/a></li> tli>Call ( 6 4 6 ) 386-4800- Main Officec/li> <li>(518) 453-4600 - Albanyc/li> <li>(585) 784-4141 - Rochesterc/li> c/ul> ch3>Judiciai Campaign Ethics Center:c/h3> <ul> tlixa
href="http://www.nycourts.gov/ip/jcec/">www.nycourts.gov/ip/jcec/~/a>c/li~
cli>l-888-600-JCECc/li> </ul> ch3,State Ethics Commission:c/h3> <u1> <li>Call 1-800-873-8442</li> </ul> ch3,Legislative Ethics Committee:</h3> <ul> <li>Call (518) 432-7837 </li> </ul> </div> c/div> tdiv id="footern> tdiv id="globalNavm>
t a href-"INDEX.html"z<abbr
title-"State Board o+ Elections">SBOE</abbr, HOME
</a>ia
href="Contact.html">CONTACT tabbr title="State Board of ElectionsU>SBOE</abbr></a><a href="SiteIndex.html">SITE INDEX </a>ta href="WebsiteAccessibility.html"~ACCESSIBILITY </a> </div> tdiv id="copyRightV>© 2008, NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS </div> </dim </dim <script type="text/javascript"> war gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.1ocation.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); </script> <noscript class="noscript">Your browser does not support javascript.</noscript> <script type="text/javascript", var pageTracker = -gat.-getTracker("UA-4287881-1");
pageTracker.-initData(); pageTracker.-trackpageview();
</script>
APX - 238__--
<noscript class="noscript">Your browser does not support javascript.</noscript> </body> </html,
APX - 239
STRUNK V. N Y S BOE ET AL. NYSSC KINGS INDEX 6500-201 1
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
EXHIBIT C
>
APX _---__ - 240
STRUNK V. N Y S BOE ET AL. NYSSC m G S INDEX 6500-2011
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Kevin Richard Powell Affidavit
EXHIBIT D
--
APX - 241
--
--
APX - 242
APX - 243
Toolbox
APX - 244
---
NeoTrace Trace Version 5.25 R e s u b Tame& fiveweb,arehiveeorg B a k 1011012011 (Nlonday), 4:23:13 PkA Modes: 10
Fade Net Reg IP Address Location
Node Name
Node i i i g h Low Avg 10

33
22
Tot Lost
149
0
25
Netvork Data Network xd#: 1 Query terms are ambiqnous. 11 207.241.226.201 Use
?
The query is assumed to be:
to get help.
The followxng results may also be obtained via: h-ctp://whois.arin.nee/resT/nets;~207.241.2~6.20l?showDeta~ls=true&sh~w~~1~=false&ext=netr~f2

NetRange: CIDR: Origin$& : NetNarne : NetHandle: Parent: SetType : RegDate: Updated: Ref: OrgEane:
OrgId:
207.241.224.0 - 2 0 7 . 2 9 1 . 2 3 9 . 2 5 5 207.241.224.0/20
INTEF34ET-ARCHIVX-1
SET-207-241-224-0-1 NET-207-0-0-0-0 Drrect Assignment 2004-05-20 2004-05-20 http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-207-241-224-O-l Internet Archive INTERN-95 The Presidio of San Francisco 116 Sheridan Ave. San Francisco CA
94129
Address: Address : City: StateProv: PostalCode: Country: KegDater Updated: Ref:

OrgTechNaroe:
US 1557-02-20 2011-09-24
http://whois.erin.net/rest/org/INTERN-95
OrgTechBanale: JSH7S-ARIN Shankland, James OrgTechPhone: +I-415-561-6767 OrgTechEmail: jim@archive.org OrgTechRef: httrp://v~o~s.arrn.net/rest/poc/3SH75-aRIN OrgAbusetfandle: J S H 7 5 - A R I N OrgAbuseName: Shankland, James OrgASusePhone: +1-415-561-6767 ilrgIlbuseCmai1: jh@archive.org OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.neC/rest/poc/JSK~5-ARIN
R e g i s t r a n t Data
Registrant xd#: I NOTICE AND T E R M OF USE: You are not authorrzed to access or query ouz WHOIS Page 1 Mon Oct 10 16:23:13
2011
$at,% O G ~ ~ O 13;32:13 'I~
I1
APX - 245 -
database through the use of higb-volume, automated, electronic processes. The Data in Retwork Solutions' HWOIS database 1s provided by Eetwork Solutions for info~mation purposes only, and to assist persons in obtaining infomation about or related to a domain name registration record. Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy. By suhmittinq a WHOIS query, you agree to abide by the fallowing terns of use: Yos agree that you may use this Data only for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances wzll you use this Data to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolxclted, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail, telephone, or facsimile; Or 12) enable high voluine, automated, electronic processes U l a t apply to Setwork Solut?+ons for its computer systemsf. The r h i s Data IS expressly compilation, repackaging, dissemination or other use of r prohibited wi-chout the prior written consent of Network Solutions. You agree not to use high-volume, automated, electronic processes to access or query the WHOfS database, Network Solutlo2s reserves the right to tenolnate ycur access to the WHOIS datrtbase in its sole discretion, including without imitation, for excessive querylng o f the WHOIS database or for failure to otherwise abide by this policy. Hetwork Solutions reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. Get a FREE domain name reoxstration, transfer, or renewal with any annual hosting package.
http://www.networkSolutions.corn
Visit AboutUs.org for more information about ARCHIVE.ORG <a href= bttp://m.aboutus.orq/kRGHIVE.ORG >AboutUs: ARCHIVE.ORG </a>
Registrant: Internet Archlve 300 Funston Avenue San Francxsco, W 94118 US Domain Name: ARMiIVE.ORG
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Promote your business to millions of viewers for only 1 a rnonth Learn bow you can get an Enhanced Business Listing here for your domain name. Learn more at http://www.h'et~orlrSolutlons.coa/
........................................................................
Admi~strativ?? Contact, Technical Contact: Archive, Internet info@archive.org 300 Funston Rvenue San Francisco, CA 94118 US 415.561.6767
Record expires on 15-Dec-2016. Record created on 24-Sep-2502. Database last updated on 10-0ct-2011 1 9 : 0 8 : 3 3
Domaan servers in listed order: NS1.ARCHfVE.ORG ORD-SNS-PB.ISC.ORG AMS.SNS-PB.ISC.ORG SFBA.SNS-PB.ISC.ORG NS3 .ARCHIVE.ORG NeoTrace Copyright @1997-2001 NeoWorx Inc 208.70.31.236 199.5-0.30 193.6.1.30 149.20.64.3 149.20.55.5
EDT.
I1
I
Page 2 Mon Oct 10 16:23:13
2011
Sat,15 act 2011 13:32:13
--
APX - 246 -
NeoTra~e Trace Version 3.25 Results
Target: waybackarchive.org Dale: fB190f2011 (Monday), 4:26:19 PM

Nodes: $0
Node Net Reg IP address
Location
Ncide Name
1
I
I
Packet D a t a
Node Hiqh Low Bvq
Tot
Lost
Network Data Network id#: 1 C?~ery terms are mhiqu0t;s. r? 207.241.226.201 The query is assumed to be:
Use
to get help,
The following resnlts may also be obtained via: http://whois.ar~n.net/rest/nets;~7.241.226.201?show~etails=true&sh0~~~1~=faise6t=netre~2

NetRange : CID2: OziqicAS: NetName:
NetHa~dle:
207.241.224.0 - 207.241.239.255 207.241.224.0120
Parent: NetPype: RegDate : Updated: Ref:

OrgName :
INTERNET-ARmIVE-1 NET-207-241-224-0-2 NET-207-0-0-0-0 Dlrect Assignment 2004-05-20 2004-05-20 htrp://whois.arin.net/rest/netlNET-257-_141-224-0-~

Internet Archive INTERN-95 The Presidio of San Francisco 116 Shesadan Ave. San Francrsco
64
OrqId: Address: Address : Crty: StateProv: PostalCode: Country: RegDate: Updated: Ref:
BrqTechHandle: OrgTecliNamer
94129 US 1997-02-20 2011-09-24 http://who~s.arin.net/rest/org/II.iTERN-95 JSH75-ARIN Shankland, James +1-415-561-6767 jim@arehive.org http://who~s.arin.net/rest/pot/JSN75-ARrN
OrgTechPhone: OrgTechEmail: OrgTechRef:
Org&useIiar.dle : JsHSS-ARIN OrgAbuseName: Shankland, James OrgAbusePhone: +1-415-561-6767 OrqAbuseEmall: jirn@archive.org http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/JSH75-ARLN OrgAbuseRef:
AKIN WHOIS data and services are sub~ectto the Terms o f Use
APX - 2 4 7
database through the use of hrgh-volume, automated, electronic processes. The Data in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network Solutions for information purposes nnly, and to assist persons in obtaining information about or related t o a domain name registration record. Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a WHOIS query, you agree to abide by the followrng tern3 of use: You agree that you may use thls Data only for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances wrll you use this Data to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the tran.smisslon of mass unsolicltwl, commercial advertising or solicitations vsa e-mail, telephone, or facsimile: or 12) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that apply to NeZwork Solutions (or its computer systems). Tfie compilation, repackaging, dissemination or other use of this data is expressly prohibited without the prior written ccnsent of Network Solutions. You agree not to use high-volvne, automated, electron5.z processes to access or query the WHOIS database, Network Solutions reserves the right to terminate your access to the WROlS database in rts sole cfiscretlon, rncludxng wrthout lirmtat~on, for excessive querjrlng of the W B O q O L S database or for failure to otherwise abrde by this polcy. Network Solutions reserves the r~ght to modify these terns at any time. Get a FREE domain name registration, transfer, or renewal with any annual hostrng package.
v~sit AboutUs.org for more infonaat~oa &out ARCHIVtS.ORG <a href= http://www.aboutus.orglARCHfVE.ORG >AbootDs: ARCHIVE.ORG </a>
Registrant: Internet Archive 300 Funstan Avenue San Francisco, W 94118

9s
Donain Name: MCHIVE.ORG
busrness t o millions of viewers for only 1 a month Promote y o u ~ Learn how you can get an Enhanced Business Listing here for your domain name. Learn more at http://~nt.PetrrorkSolutions.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------+-------
Aduun~strative Contact, Technical Contact: Archive, Internet info@archive.org 300 Funston Avenue San Francisco, CA 94118
D.3
415.561.6767
Record expires on 15-Dec-2016. Record createci on 24-Sep-2002. Database last updated on 10-0ct-2011 19:08:33 Domaln servers in lksted order: NSl.AXCBIVE.ORG 0RD.SNS-PB.ISC.ORG AE4S.SNS-PB.ISC.3RG SFBA-SNS-PB.ISC.ORG NS3.AXCHIVE.ORG NeoTrace Copyright 01997-2001 Heo%'orx Tnc 208.70.31.236 199.6.0.30 199.6.1.30 149.20.64.3 149.20.55.5
EDT.
Page 2 Mon Qct 10 16:24:19
2011
sat,'15 03 2011 13:32:59
STKUNK V. N Y S BOE ET AL.NYSSC KINGS INDEX 6500-2011
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
EXHIBIT E
APX - 249
-
. . -
:2'
r
*:
8,
r
f
. : *
Id+@
* r c '" N 0 +d xt t -4
." E " g5
t
s -
if+
-11
.'U : -4
=
*8 z -
$5" $8,
j
*4t;lz
C
h
m 3 +J z i%,X gz
D O C
~ L
G-E*
-4'4
" -is;
C
+ t r . , Y":
L*
r 4 E W 3 3
+ 4 .-L.l
ra
g-m
g -,#
a ,
b3.
i
L * -4 il
i= --4 8 0 ~ V- n k 0 2 %
"4
..
$1
a*
-4 ' 4
q- 3
'C
c y ' 4
dl
OI
--.V
m
5 2 % , c
-. -
APX - 253
APX - 254
q- L?
**+ id
It
SL1
BI
a d ! U
(0"
A x
. z
w
m
"
+ " "rCi g "$2,

M q ?
---, 11 m
E :*i si -& 4 U
& &< #J :*--H
k . : .g ". E C i i
U 4-
Oii-
&I
2 : 44 W-I? a
*Pi
-..
It
'at
W E
5-
2 u
U
W L 6 ' 0 0 6:
4 1 .A
i: -a 3\33 e i l
a-
ca h -4
V
-&
w-
3 L
ri
c wl
ffi
rt
APX - 255
STRUNK V. N Y S BOE ET AL. NYSSC KLNGS LNDEX 6500-201 1
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
APX _____- 256
Print j Close Window Subjed: Recently, the New York State Board of Elections was caught trying to amend the US Constitution with an eraser From: chris@strunk.ws Date: Wed, Oct 12, 2021 1:29 prn To: "Joel Graber, Esq." <Joel.Grabe@ag.ny.gov> corsland@law.nyc.gov, "Thomas Kirby" <TKirby@wileyrein.com>, walbert@harrisbeach.com, jdugan@willkie.com, mbeil@mcguirewoods.com, Cc: rtobin@capdale.com,jwehner@capdale.com, kcorbett@harrisbeach.com, cklatell@rbskl.com, dreich@rbskl.com, tbromberg@ileyrein.com, jbaran@wileyrein.com, tgarry@harrisbeach.com, sdunn@stbIaw.com, tphillips@capdale.com Bcc: xx Attach: PROPOSED STIPULATION OF EXTENSION until $1-14-1l.pdf PROPOSED STIPULATION OF EXTENSION until 10-28-11.doc
Joel,
Ireceived your phone message requesting your third or fourth time extension to answer or otherwise respond to the March 22, 2011 Complaint extended until October 28, 2011, and not until the November 14, 2011 dated you requested because as you expressed it in yourphone message the New York Attorney General nor its clients are unable to stipulate that (see attached):
WHEREAS t h e u n d e r s i g n e d d e s i r e t h a t , i n t h e i n t e r e s t s o f
convenience and j u d i c i a l economy pending a d e c i s i o n by t h e Honorable A r t h u r M. Schack J . S . C . on t h e motions h e a r d on August
22,
2011;
and
W H E R E A S t h e Attorney General's Office, representing S t a t e

Defendants,
has conferred with p i a i n t i f f ;
and
W H E R E A S t h e Attorney General's Office, representing S t a t e Defendants, i n t h e absence of a s p e c i f i c N e w York s t a t u t e t h a t Citizen" f o r candidate e l i g i b i l i t y f o r
d e f i n e s "natural-born
e l e c t i o n t o t h e o f f i c e o f P r e s i d e n t of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s r e q u i r e s a n y human b e i n g must be b o r n on U n i t e d S t a t e s o f America s o i l t o two c i t i z e n p a r e n t s f o r b a l l o t a c c e s s i n N e w York, and t h a t w e now a g r e e w i t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t N e w York S t a t e ' s d e f i n i t i o n o f
APX - 257
"natural-born Citizen" complies with the United States
Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 that mandates:

"No Person except a natural born C i t i z e n , o r a C i t i z e n o f the U n i t a d S t a t e s , at the t i m e o f the Adoption of t h i s C o n s t i t u t i o n , s h a l l be e l i g i b l e t o t h e O f f i c e of President; n e i t h e r s h a l l any Person be e l i g i b l e t o that Office who s h a l l not have a t t a i n e d t o t h e Age o f t h i r t y five Years, and been fourteen Y e a r s a Resident w i t h i n t h e United States."
Be that the case, Iam giving you fair notice that Ihave just discovered that your client NYS Board of Elections is involved in what an experienced attorney characterizes as "...trying to amend the US Constitution with an eraser..." and because of the nature of the continuing injury t o m e starting no later than September 2008 in m y efforts using EL 3-106 (3)
3 . The s t a t e board of e l e c t i o n s , on i t s own i n i t i a t i v e , o r upon complaint o r o t h e r w i s e , may i n v e s t i g a t e any a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n of t h e f a i r campaign code and, i n a p p r o p r i a t e c a s e s , may a p p l y f o r a n o r d e r , a s provided i n t h i s a r t i c l e .
and having been denied any administrative response as required under N Y S BOE Fair Campaign Election code Section 620 1.3 since my complaint of October 2008 and as in this hrther matter herein when everyone else has responded the below matter is the subject of a supplement to the complaint as to the New York State Board of Elections and whomever involved in the "eraser" or cover-up of the archive of the 2008 POTUS candidates qualification requirements.
"Recently, the New York State Board of Elections was caught trying to amend the U S Constitution with an eraser by listing POTUS eligibility as available to any person "born a citizen". (Please review Pixel Patriot's excellent anaiysg on this issue, "New York State BOE Web Site Cover Up'.) The Constitution states that only a "natural born Citizen" may be president, a much more stringent requirement than simply being "born a citizen". This effort in New York is part of a much larger effort nationwide to falsely revise history (in this case by scrubbing the very words of our Constitution). The tactic contributes to an insidious pattern of behavior being perpetrated just so Obama will be
APX - 258
allowed to occupy the White House despite US Supreme Court precedent which states directly that he is not eligible. (This report assumes Obama was born in Hawaii.)"
Attached a t your request is the proposed stipulation of extension until October 28, 2011, I am at the library and when signed scanned it and send by email for me to sign and return today by 6pm.
Best regards, Chris Strunk 845-901-6767

Copyright O 2003-2011. All rights reserved
STRliNK V. NYS BOE ET AT, hTSSC TWIGS WDEX 6500-201 1
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
EXHIBIT 6
APX - 260 ----
Natural Born Citizen

<(
Respecting the Constitution7 The Natural Born Citizen blon went missing.. . now it's back.
Recently, the New York State Board of Elections was caught trying to amend the US Constitution with an erase: by listing POTUS eligibility as available to any person "born a k BOE citizen". (Please review Pixel Patriot's excellent analysis on this issue, "New Y o ~ State Web Siie rover ry".) The Constitution states that only a "natural born Citizen" may be president, a inuch more stringent requirement than simply being "born a citizen". This effort in New York is part of a much larger effort nationwide to falsely revise history (in this case by scrubbing the very words of our Constitution). The tactic contributes to an insidious pattern of behavior being perpetratedjust so Obama will be allowed to occupy the White House despite US Supreme Court precedent which states directly that he is not eligible. (This report assumes Obama was born in Haw-aii.) Other instances of gross inteltectual dishonesty documented at this blog include the recent attempt by Justia.com to rewrite American history by scrubbing links in subsequent cases which establish that Minor v. Happersett has been cited multiple times as precedent on citizenship issues as well L Z . ~ voting rights. Another instance of this misleading practice was the revision of a Michigan Law Review article by well-known legal scholar, Professor L*rence Solum, wherein his original analysis - lh~76 only nperson born m the ITS of'cztize~z parents w,as beyond quesfzo?zellgzblejbr POTUS - was scrubbed to include as eligible those born of only one citizen parent. The citizenship issue decided in Minor v. Happersett has been documented as precedent by multiple sources of legal scholarship (See also my previous two reports analyzing Minor v Below, I have assembled multiple quotations from various published Happersett, here and h.) literature which cogently establish that the Supreme Court issued iwo holdings in Minor, ofre orr cifzzenshzpand the other on voting right^ That the citizenship issue is precedent, and not dictum, has never been questioned in our national history until now, just as the very words of the Constitution are being scrubbed. My research indicates unequivocally that for over a century before the appearance of Obama, Minor was recognized and cited as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship
Page 1 of 11
We turn now to an esteemed legal scholar and Government attorney who specialized in citizenship law. He will provide unquestionable clarity on the issue of why Minor v. Happersett is precedent on citizenship as well as voting rights.
FREDERLCK VAN DYNE, ASSlSTANT SOLlClTOR US DEPARTMENT OF STATE
The source in question is Frederick Van Dyne who, while holding the office of Assistant Solicitor for the US Department of State, published analysis that the citizenship decision in Minor v. Happersett was precedent. Van Dyne argued that persons born of foreign parents on US soil were "native-born citizens" of the US prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the 14th Amendment. But Van Dyne, while discussing the holding in the New York case ofLpch t i Clark (not binding on the Federal Courts), failed to endorse that case's opinion that all native-born citizens of foreign parentage were natural-born citizens. In his famous treatise, "Citizenship of the United States" (Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing Co., 19041, Van Dyne only went so far as to state that such persons were "native-born citizens". (See Van Dyne's treatise at pgs. 6-7 ) Where the US Supreme Court in Minor differs from Obama eligibility propaganda is that the former regards being "native-born7' as just one element necessary to meeting the natural-born citizen standard of POTUS eligibility, whereas the latter incorrectly argue that it is the (mIJi element. As you will see below, Van Dyne directly recognized that the US Supreme Court's decision in Minor was precedent on citizenship, and that tlie holding therein defined natural-born citizens as those born in the US of citizen parents.
In the following passage, Van Dyne argues that previous American cases recognized that persons born on US soil were US citizens regardless of the citizenship of the yareilts. However, Van Dyne also points out that a statement by the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases appears to contradict this theory. But Van Dyne's analysis stresses that the contradictory statement in the Slaughter-House Cases is dict~m.
He then refers to the ''decisionW in Minor v. Happersett on citizenship in order to counter
the "dictunz" from the Slaughter-House Cases. Van Dyne clearly recognized the Minor Court's decision on citizenship as precedent which outweighs the &cnLm of the SlaughterHouse Cases. hi doing so, Van Dyne anotes (see pgs. 12-13) the Minor Court's definition of a natural-born citizen as one born in the US to citizen parents:
Page 2 of 11
APX 262 -
t, GM4ft.g bra it;* "&dW h t * ttf ai&=

~& k& i bi~k iw &P Erti~d Stsav, zsf i c d F 3 d m eitiirim+Ua Te rsa tf~rtrnhave awe4 f i x ~ s g i p wG& 1 : s ~ W BFPWP~ qm 5~ S R ~ ~ P . at P s (4lbttra;ql. ? h 5 &%i ROW fX' ~%m.&lllf~re~k Ta; tb.Ia"veGnb;. ~ h rcjjsiaium * of tls*c.ietd i n Cjfp i@er~&Pe~-l$+a~ i'atwe, 18 Bell. 3 : : 5 3t k t.$- 4ri5, M n S e a l a SiZter miaid: "*i'flc- p & w , Ctrnks$a=k Paj tBr jk&ri-iict~x%~W* iadcarh-4 F.5 FE. eiza& fP.mszi i$.% ep-atBtw ~Jriblrrts& nrnirnisi~~~~ ioaisa!~,pnd ciiliZ P D"P ~ b g i f > j ~ : $ & fs~r3;gz,11 ~f d;:ft*s b t ~ ~iiifih x rhu I'zxixcZ Faster," 'Tiris ha9 $**-a &ti.& izr ati~3rlrf trI f ! a e rrtpitaratii;rtx tba% %bv *-hi% drm i l ~ i b i t ~ I-&$* = f i m t e $aaEf~s-r; srr- 1s-( &~KS&W fir qhp 'i."rritccl Ess~fiih Ir B ta ~-&wPI~~~ v~ S,W C F F P %flat ~ ~ tkj* PIS tan& a t i ~ ~ h t t t , T&P q=ti*c uxtr ss& . t ~ & r $ i~ if-&z3s*i&.iqt of ah* paw. k*f#w $ 1 e> ~.lpain. 3 2 % - ~kt-~cIjsg te%-rlr.r r r f f+rptdp tatirrinirm %nil amaC-FM!
&stt%
hare
ai:ffi~faaifht%xiy@
m3.j
W~~PR id ~rte-st t # p sixae
wi*j! e t r h r f , IRW ~b~f?t esnfl~jc,SC
~ 1 r ( %ate*% ~ k~~fe.r* cfftpawfFiar~s$esl wi-lr i <$;plrmrra~Sa chrar~;?~

S R sf r f
phtirk~f, Et?; tbp E a a nf ~sstirifl.r, fa tba* ~rridhm t r d ia1-
ab asafra&ss&m, e%*ar~a 6% $!a* rsiotem*r:$ . i ~ z s arrftt t mr+ SISW$ .i;i(.h$1~" clsgrtra i+aw m t i c.rwddtcts* w i# 6 1 ~ hafeia;9 t k * mqart f;nd mikl filr a pt5c-ci~e srbtirl4Co stf t b t p b m . e l ~ s4he i fa^+ rlartr t ~ ~ Z e 31~. l t ~3 w ~ 31 b ISkxr, BW e n ftfw ifnstia* q r h ~ wok ibt t k ECF&S;R~ w f t r d teeI Z I X X ~ tir ~ -a ~m r ~ i t * t ! ~ttet3*;5~~?$ %* @ie~ i r @+at - ~ % ~ I ~ I < ~b wR m ia 2hf* l:nira%-! S ~ ~ I~f ~E sfS k~ - p%r=fa w ~ *ex~lttsJ=-rf ~ t ~ f RSR t l i ~ ~g*_prdr kxr 9f d~
~k-ii&-;
Page 3 of 11
APX - 263
Very rarely, whilst doing research, does one come upon historical evidence that so perfectly establishes the point in question. Examine the last paragraph again:
"7% decision in thrs case w a s that u l.tpomun hfmz c!f'citizetz purents within the U~zzft'd Stutm WLE,S a czfrze~z of [he UrrrtedStates, although mot er?titZeedto vote, the electzvefianch~se not hev~g essentiul to citizenship. (Emphasis added.)
"
The "decision" in Minor is twofold:

I) woman ctre cguul citizen.^ to men;
The first point is still good law. This may seem obvious now, but in 1875 it wasn't. Vil-ginia Minor did not accept that citizenship without voting rights was equal citizenship. She argued that women were being treated as "halh~ay citizens" and she directly petitioned the Court for a determination which stated that women were equal citizens to men
Page 4 of 11
__-_-- APX
- 264
The Court in Minor, referring directly to Article 2 Section 1, and specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment, held that women, $born m t h US ~ to crfzzenpmer2fs, were citizens and that their citizenship was equal to men The Court further stated that this "class7' of persons were "natives, or natural-born citizens" The Court also held that while women were equal citizens to men, the Constitution did not provide a right to vote to anyone, male or female. This part of the holding was later erased by the 19th Amendment, but the citizenship determination remains as good law today Therefore, the Court's decision in Minor operates against Obama being eligible, since his father was never a US citizen. Van Dyne examines the Slaughter-House dictum carefully since it is a statement made by the highest court in the nation which contrasts his view that all persons born on US soil are nativeborn citizens. In classifying the Slaughter-House statement as dictum, Van Dyne notes that determining the citizenship of persons born on US soil to alien parents was not an issue before the court in that case He then points to the "deczston" on citizenship from Minor to contrast the Slaughter-House dictum and in doing so Van Dyne makes clear that Virginia Minor's citizenship was an issue directly before the Court in Minor. Note the following crucial passage fiom Justice Waite's opinion again, paying particular attention to the punchline:
"[TJhe Consfifufzon ...pro$sidEs fhar 'noyersorz except a naturul-bont citizen, or a citizen ofthe Ilrijfed States i . @ the tinle of fhe aduptiutz offhe Con~~itittzon, sbII 6e eljg'bb to the ofice u f Presidetza '... The C:onstitutioion does not, in word.^, say who shall he ~zazzcral-horn cztizcns. Resort must he had elsewhere to mcertuirz thut. 4 fcomrnort-law, with the rtonzerzchfiareof ~tthzch the f.an2ers of the Constitzdtiort werefumiliw, it w2us never dou6fedthat ail ch?ldrt.nborri in a wutzt7y rdpments M J ~ O uJerett.s citizeizs hecmze thern.seI~~e.s, zpin their hir th, citizens uLs(~.jlhexe ?+ere ?tu#~jes, or nufirml-born citizens, as distirz@ishe@Pomdiens or.fbre~p?er,s. ,%me amthor.iiiesgo further and zrici1x& as cifizenschildren borti ulzthzn the jurisdiction ~.t'l'fholib reference to the citizenship oftheir [88 US. 162, 168,7pnrents.As to &is class there have been dozchts, hut never CIS to the,fisl'.I*i~r the pzcr~x).se.stfthis ccrse i f i s not nece.s.saiy to solve these dosbt.~. i f 1,s .sz<ficienf.for everyfhlngwe h e now to consider f h t ali chilhen horn oJ'citize~z yurents within the jztrisd'iction are themselves citize~ls. The worh 'all children' are certainly as cnmprehensit:e,when zlsed in this connectctiori, cis 2allpersotzs, ' nrtd Iffrmczles w r iriclirded iri fJ2e ia.sf they rnzisf he in the,firYsf. Rar t h y are itzcluded in the Iu\f is not denzed T~.ftctthe ~z*holE argument of thepZai~&iffs proceeds rrpoit that idea " (Emphasis added.)
Current propaganda attempting to sanitize Obama in light of the Supreme Court's precedent in Minor mis-directs that Minor's citizenship was not an issue directly before the Court. But in the passage above, the Court's unanimous opinion clearly states that "the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea." So, squarely before the Court was the issue of whether women were equal citizens
Page5of 11
APX - 265
-4h.o consider the name of Van Dyne's treatise, "Citizenship In The United States" As to the soundness of Van Dyne's treatise, the following review appears in The Amerzca~~ .lair~?al Of Inie~rtutioncrl Lcrw: "The author. of thrs work TZOIVocczipzes a / r imporfa~~t post in the Amerrcan Constliar Service. ntree years ngo, rchile holding the poszho?~ of ussistmf solicitor of the Depnrmenr of Stnte, he puhlzshed a work o ?dtizetzshzp ~ ($the I/~z~terlS~ate.s, a w o ~~ k ~ h z wc1.s c h at tj7e &mehrghly comend~d by competent cntrcs and which those who hmle ssrnce used r f hm~efm~nd to be an excei!~wt ~na?~uuI. " Van Dyne stressed that the decrsion in Minor contradicted the earlier dictum in the SlaughterHouse Cases. And Van Dyne specifically quoted the natural-born citizen definition from Minor (taking no issue with it) just before announcing the Court's "decision" that women born in the US to citizen parents were citizens. Again, the 14th Amendment was not necessary in determining Virginia Minor's citizenship since the Court was able to rely upon a direct construction of Article 2 Section 1 instead. The Court held that Minor was in the "class" of persons who were designated as natural-born citizens, whereas those whose citizenship faced doubt due to alien parentage required help from the 14th Amendment. And such help came in 1898 when the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen under the 14th Amendment. Since Minor was a natural-born citizen, the 14th Amendment need not be construed. But Wong Kim Ark was not in the class of natural-born citizens (previously defined in Minor), and therefore the Supreme Court was forced to directly construe the 14th Amendment to resolve citizenship doubts pertaining to the "class" of persons born in the US to alien parents.
It is crucially important to recognize that Wong Kim Ark's citizenship could not be established without the 14th Amendment since he was not a natural-born citizen. if he had been in that class, the Court would have established his citizenship under Article 2 Section 1 as the court had previously done for Virginia Minor.
TEE MINORS' HALFWAY CITIZENSHIP ISSUE

Virginia Minor's briefs (prepared by her husband, attorney Francis Minor) rehsed to blindly accept lower court holdings which stated that women were equal citizens to men. The Minors argued that if women were not allowed to vote, then their citizenship was not equal to men. The exact wording of Minor's argument stated (see pg 59).
" 'lhere carz be no di1.~z,szotz t,fczfzze?zshzp, ezfher c?fzt.srzghts cw zt.s dutrer. l here cctz hc no ha@ w a cztrzenshzp. ~ Hromtnz, as a czizzen qf fhe UnztedSrdes, zs ej~atled fo all the benefits offhat poszaon, mii lzuble to all rrs obligaaons, or to laone. "
Justice Waite spent so much time analyzing Minor's citizenship - and federal citizenship in general - because Virginia Minor directly petitioned the Court to do so. Her "whole argument"
Page 6 of 11
depended on it. And since her citizenship was an issue before the Court, it issued a "decisior7" that she was a citizen, whereas the Court's citizenship statement in the Slaughter-House Cases was dictum since no citizenship issue was before the Court in that case. And here we have literally a texthrx~k example illustrating the difference between dictum and precedent
-
The citizenship of Minor, and of all women, is so ingrained in the history of Minor v. Happersett, that multiple sources besides Van Dyne have also documented the citizenship precedent set by the Supreme Court therein. For example, please review "Inventing Citizens, Imagining Gender Justice. The Suffrage Rhetoric of Virginia and Francis Minor", Quarter& Jazrmal of Speech lbl 93, No. 4, November 2007, pp. 375-602, by Angela G. Ray & Ci~~dy K o e ~ ~Richurd ig Note the title, "Inventing Citizens" Indeed, the entire case, as stressed by Justice Waite, revolves around the issue of citizenship. Here are some relevant quotes fkom this peer-reviewed article' "In this milieu, woman's rights activists, seeking to hlfill revolutionary promises for themselves, pressed the courts to define the privileges of citizenship as applying to all citizens regardless of sex.. . The Minor decision.. . acknowledged women's status as citizens but denied that citizenship entailed voting rights..." at pg. 2).
(m
"This essay demonstrates the ingenuity, the complexity, and the challenges of litigating a nineteenth-century test case that sought to expand the legal definition and performative parameters of citizenship." (PDF at pg. 3). "On March 29, the Court's unanimous decision in Minor v. Happersett, written by first-term Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, accepted that women were citizens but disconnected citizenship from the franchise, supported the authority of states to deny voting rights, and ensured the necessity of a federal amendment for women's enfranchisement. The Minors' rhetoric addressed not only judicial authorities but also women citizens. The arguments that they espoused and performed asked how citizenship should be conceptualized and how it should be enacted.'. (PDF at pg. 7). "For the Minors, citizenship could not be partial, and any exclusions from federal citizenship rights had to be made explicit in federal law The Minors insisted that the definition of citizenship required that its privileges be applied equally and filly In 1869 Virginia Minor told the Missouri Woman Sufffage Association that if women 'are entitled to two or three privileges [of citizenship], we are entitled to all.' The Mmors' argument to the U S Supreme Court elaborated this point 'There can be no half-way citizenship Woman, as a citizen of the United States, is entitled to all the benefits of that position, and liable to all its obligations, or to none ' " (PDF at pg. 8) "Inventing Citizens" was published in 2007, one year before Obama's dual nationality at birth problem first came to the general public's attention via the case I brought against the NJ Secretary of State -DowofP.io 1:. Fells - which was referred to the full court by Justice Clarence Thomas. There does not appear to be even one source which alleges that the citizenship issue from Minor was dictum prior to October 2008. But there are numerous sources which document lhe citizenship issue as precedent.
Page 7 of 11
_-- APX - 267
For example, the Oxford Comnarzzon To The Sipreme C a r t Of The Uitrted Sfafes (2d edition, 2005) has this to say about Minor v. Happersett.
"It zs notnhle,for its ~rnnwo~+~ &fi*tritiotz o f citize?tship 'as com~eyeyilzg the idea qf membership qf n ?tarion,nothiizg more' m~dfor itsfim2, rina~imol4s rejection ofthe Fourteenth Anzerrdment as a source either of a substmtiveeral stifloge rzght or of afederal limrfon stare co~t@ot of the ,fi.~r?zchi.se.{Image of text.)
"
The Oxford Companion makes clear that as late as 2005, Minor is "notable" for Boih its definition of citizenship and voting rights. Both were precedent until the 19th Amendment nullified the voting rights issue, whereas the citizenship precedent still stands today.
in "The Boundaries of Her Body: The Troubling History of Woman's Rights In America", by Debran Rowland (Sphinx Publishing, 2004), it states that the Supreme Court "held" that women were citizens,
"
'?%ere i,s t z o &)uht that wozwa~z may be citizerzs', the fhurf held. '"See pg. 2d.)
in "The American Midwest: An Interpretive Encyclopedia", by Richard Sisson, Christian Zacher, Andrew Cayton (Indiana University Press, 2007), the Supreme Court's citizenship holding was also acknowledged:
"(112 March 29, 1875, a un~mimozcs Suyreme Cmirt ruled that states did not i~iolufe the C'o~z~titz~t10~z when they denied women the right to vole. Vomen were citizcrzs qfthe linzted States g ?tota r~ght ofczkze~~shp. " ( S e e pg 1593.) fhe cortr.tfourd, btdf ~ o f i nwlas
The tandem issues of citizenship and voting rights were again noted in, "Race, Class and Gender in the United States: an Integrated Study", by Paula S. Rothenburg (Worth Publishers, 6th Edition, 2004):
'Tn this case the cou~t held that althoiigh women were nt~zens, rthe r1g1~1 to x70te~ t ~not asa przvzlege OP rmmzii?lrj. o f natzond crfie~?shzp before ndoptior?ofthe I lth Amer~dmenf, nor drd fl7e ~ m l e t ~ h e n t sufiage b the privileges atxi zn~mz~?zzbtes of ~zofional citizenship. " (See pg 485 ) (Emphasis added )
in "American Citizens and Their Government", by Kenneth Wallace Colegrove (Abbington Press, l921), the author noted that the Supreme Court "decided women were citizens:
"7he court decided rhaf while ikfrs.Minor was clear& n citizen of the Ui7itedStaft?s, she was rrot
enfitted to r.,)ute hecnu.se the rixht c?f.mf%-ugt' w'ns nrjt ?zeccs.sarzfyone of the przvileges cad imm?~f?izie.s of citize~tship. " (See pg. 64.)
Until Obama came along, Minor v. Happersett was always viewed as the precedent ruling that wonien were equal citizens to men. I have not seen any resources that pre-date Obama's 2008 election campaign which state that the Supreme Court's analysis of Virginia Minor's citizenship was dictum and not precedent.
Page 8 of 11
APX - 268
The Supreme Court's analysis in Minor elicited a specific definition of the class of natural-born citizens in order to avoid a tricky interpretation ofthe meaning of the 14th Amendment's nebulous phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Therefore, according to the Supreme Court's definition, Obama is not eligible to be President since the class of natural-born citizens was held to be those born in the US to parents who are citizens. His father was never a US citizen, nor was he ever permanently domiciled here That Virginia Minor was not running for President makes no difference at all By directly construing Alicle 2 Section 1 in determining that Minor was a citizen prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court held that persons born in the US to parents who are citizens are "natives or natural-born citizens " These are referred to as a "class" of persons separate from the class of persons born to alien parents The Court in Minor acknowledged that, despite existing doubts, the class born to non-citizen parents might be citizens. But they weren't natural-born. This was confirmed in 1898 by the Supreme Court in UTong Kim Ark, wherein the Court determined that a child born in the US of alien pal-ents bermanently domiciled here) was a US citizen, but that such a person's citizenship is determined by operation of the 14th Amendment Had Wong Kim Ark been a natural-born citizen like Virgnia Minor, the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark could have avoided the 14th Amendment as did the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett In c,onstruingArticle 2 Section 1, the Court in Minor exercised proper judicial restraint by not reaching further than necessary to make an expansive landmark interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The Minor opinion acknowledged that the decision might seem unfair and that the law itself might be unfair, but the Court recognized that their duty was to uphold the law as written, and further stated that if the law was unfair it should be changed. By exercising such restraint, the Court gave birth to a standing definition which conclusively determined the class of natural-born
citizens.
OTHER AUTHORITIES ARE RENDERED MOOT BY THE US SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN MINOR
In conclusion, 1must point out that the holding'defmition of a natural-born citizen issued by the
Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett does not mention the Law of Nations or Vanel. I realize there has been a great deal of scholarship unearthed by both sides of this argument. But in Minor we have direct Supreme Court precedent for this issue which renders other sources moot. Vattel does not make national law The US Supreme Court and the Congress malce national law. Unless the Supreme Court overrules the citizenship precedent stated in Minor v. Happersett, or the Constitution is amended, the case stands as governing national law. This is due to the separation of powers determined by the Constitution itself. It's important to focus on the Supreme Court's holding as opposed to allowing the precedent set therein to be hijacked by
Page 9 of 1I
APX - 269
those who seek to define this definition as "Vattelist" or "foreign". The US Supreme Court in Minor failed to mention Vattel, so despite any influence he might have had on the framers, the definition stated is to be referred to as the US Supreme Court definition of natural-born citizen, and by no other name.
FUTURE CERT 4ND PROPHECY?

I have been asked many times over the last three years whether I believe this issue will ever reach a decision on the merits in any federal court. For a long time, 1thought the answer was an emphatic "never" since the Supreme Court was twice handed the issue on a silver platter. Both Donqfvzo v. Wells, and the petition I prepared in Wrofizo~~sln v. @sre~viczwere referred to the h l l Court for conference. Nobody knows how many votes, if any, were in favor of reviewing the eligibility of Obama. Regardless, certiorari was refused in both cases However, with a recent trial balloon thrown out by the Governor of North Carolina regarding a possible suspension of electio~is in 2012, the game has changed drastically. The economy all over the world is scay. Protests are circling the nation. The UN is increasing its interference with national sovereignty. And all currencies could go belly up as the Ponzi scheme of Fiat paper and fractional reserve banking threatens to make the Great Depression seem not so great And there is a very strong possibility Obama could lose this election. I am very concerned that he will not leave office quietly if the people do not invite him to return and that suspension of the 2012 election might be attempted. This could happen through a national emergency and subsequent martial law.
If Obanla were to lose the election and graciously move on, the issue of his eligibility will probably fade away. However, if Obarna attempts to suspend the election or otherwise retain the White House a&eelosing in 2012, then the eligibility issue has an exponentially greater chance of being litigated before the DC District Court by Writ of Quo Warranto, and finally ending up in the US Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, T truly believe we are headed for a national moment of intense Constitutional conflict. There are provisions of the Patriot Act and various Executive orders which allow for martial law scenarios to unfold. ifthere is an emergency (real or imagined), the Obama might invoke such laws to declare martial law, suspend elections, and incarcerate alleged enemies of the state. If a truly eligible President were operating under any of those dangerous powers, it might be difficult to impeach him. Should Obama avail himself of such draconian measures, the only argument available to remove him may be that he was never eligible to be POTUS. Such a determination would render his entire administration void, which is very different from impeachment This is why, should the issue ever reach the Supreme Court, it becomes imperative that Justices Kagan and Sotomayor recuse themselves. Their appointments could bc nullified if Obama's administration is voided which would cause them to have a personal stake in the outcome. (For a more thorough explanation as to the fallout of voiding a government office, as
Page 10 of 11
APX - 270
opposed to removal via impeachment or expulsion, see my previous r comments thereto specificaily noting precedent in the Senate.)
m on Quo Warranto and
Furthermore, I believe there is an unseen force which is already in place, waiting for its moment to take this nation and cash in the change promised by dear leader. You can feel the rhetoric surfacing against those who have worked hard to achieve success and wealth When you hear the consistent mantra that no person is "bettes" than any other person sung by the masses as they surround your home, you will know that glorious American ideals of success through hard work are being sac~ificed on the altar of redistribution of wealth Just aslc 789 Chrysler dealers where their franchises went Their private property was taken and corporation from a socialist nation was gifted an American given to others And a fore~gn ~nst~tution at the cost of $23 billion to the US taxpayer Fiat paid nothing for Chrysler, not one dime This was done at the insistence of Obama who demanded that no American company was capable of turning Chrysler around I didn't see one single protestor on that one
1pray that Chrysler is not a blueprint of things to come.. . to your door, and inside your house.
by Leo Donofrio, Esq. Copyright 20 11
Page I 1 of 11
APX - 271
STRUNK V. W S BOE ET AL M T S S CKLNGS lNDEX 6500-20 11
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
EXHIBIT 7
APX _ __--_ - 272
Print - Close Window

[FWD: Schack Case - Extensian]
cestrunck@yahoo.corn;
Monday, October 17,2011 7129 PM
Subject: Schack Case - Extension From: "Joel Graber" cJoel.Gtaber@ag.ny .gov> Date: Fri, October 14, 2011 7:28 am To: "Chris Strunk" <chris@strunk.ws> Chris, you should wait t o see what Justice Schack says. Thank you for the extension from 10/21 to 10/28, but that's still too tight for my case load. Please reconsider. Thanks, Joel JOEL GRABER Assistant Attarney General Special Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau New York State Attorney General's Office 120 Broadway - 24th Floor New York, NY 10271-0332 (212) 416-8645 FAX (212) 416-6009 Joel .Graber@ag.ny.gov This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. I f you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that review, dissemination or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and notify this office. Thank you for your cooperation.
- - - - - - -- Original Message --------
APX - 273
SUPREME COURT OF TEE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS IAS PART 27
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,

Plaintiff,
Index No. 6 5 0 0 / 1 1
(Hon. Arthur M. Schack)
N E W YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et a l . ,
STIPULATION OF EXTENSION
Defendants.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between t h e

undersigned, that t h e t i m e for any State defendants to respond
to the amended complaint in this action be and the same hereby
is extended to October 28, 2011, and it is further STIPULATED AND AGREED that this stipulation may be executed
i n facsimile, or by electronic means, and in counterparts.
Dated:
New York, New York October 14, 2011
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for State Defendants
JOEL GRABER Special L i t i g a t i o n Counsel Litigation B u r e a u

1 2 0 B r o a d w a y - 24th F l o o r New Y o r k , NY 10271-0332 ( 2 1 2 ) 416-8645 FAX (212) 4 1 6 - 6 0 0 9
Joel.Grabereag.ny.gov
Dated:
Brooklyn, New York O c t o b e r , 2011
CHRISTOPHER EARL ST2LRVK Plaintiff P r o Se 5 9 3 Vanderbilt Avenue - # 281

Brooklyn, NY 11238
(845)
901-6767
APX - 275
STRLJNKV. m r SBOE ET AL. NYSSC KINGS LNDEX 6500-201 1
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
EXHIBIT 8
APX - 276
-
Print 1 Close Window -
Subject: RE: My Second email to NY State board of election Feb 18,2010. From: chris@skunk.ws Date: Fri, Sep 23,201 1 1:39 pm To: "Creg Maroney" cusords@yahoo.corn:, Bcc: "Bill Allen" chvanallen@hvc.rr.com>, "PAMELA BARNETT" <pb_realestat@yahoo.corn~
They intentionally changed their website to what it is today from what i t was inn the 2008 Election Cycle to cover-up their involvement in the scheme t o defraud file in 2008 and again in 2011. See http://pixeloatriot.blo~~~0t~com/2011/09/statute-in-new-vorkstate-law-defines.htrnl#comments I f you want to file a FOIL requesting a record of all changes to the website in that regard that would be useful. Chris Strunk
--- - ---- Original Wessage -------Subject: M y Second email to NY State board of election Feb 18, 2010. From: Creg Maroney <usords@vahoo.cornr Date: Wed, September 21, 2011 6:48 pm To: "chris@strunk.wsN .cchris@strunk.wsz
Mr. Strunk This is the second email I sent to John Gonklin of the NYSBOE on Feb 18,2010 aRer speaking with him on the phone. There has not been any response to this very day. Creg Maroney Pleasant Valley, NY
----- Forwarded Message ---From: Creg Maroney >-< To: iconWin@elections.state.nv.ils Cc: nvaa.~ressoffrce@aa.nv.aov;Newsroom@poughkee.gannett.corn; imprimis@hillsdale.edu; jon.roland@constitution.or~; Wenihan@poughkee.gannett.com Sent: Thu, February 18,2010 7:19:35 P M Subject: Defining Natural-BornCitizen Mr. Conklin, Feburary 18, 2010 There is an error on the N Y States Board of Elections website. The United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1Clause 5 Clearly States that only a Natural Born Citizen shall be eligible to the m c e of President, not just "born a Citizen" as indicated on the NY State Baard of Elections Website . Article 14 states that anyone including two illegal immigrants that have a child on U.S. soil is "born a U.S. Citizen", and surely enough as you well know these born Citizens are excluded from being President of the United States of America. Will you please correct this error that is misleading the public to what is correctly written within the Law of The Land, The United States Constitution.
http: / / federalistblog.us/ 2008 / I 1/natural-born citizen defined.htm1 Thank You

Best regards,
Creg Maroney Pleasant Valley NY

phone: 845-723-423 1 fau: 8 4 5 - 7 8 4 - 1587
APX - 2 7 7
Print - Close Window

E. OSC - Art~cle78
re NBC to
be filed Wednesday
estrunck%ahoo c
Sunday.
October 16,2011 7Q6 PM
-------- Original Message -------Subject: Re: OSC - Article 78 re NBC to be filed Wednesday
From: Creg Maroney ~usords@yahoo.corn> Date: Sun, October 16, 2011 3:51 pm To: "chris@strunk.ws" <chris@strunk.ws>
Chris, I would think this week I would get a response from the "Counsel's Office." Everyone working at the BOE should know the answers just to work there. If the public servants at NYSBOE, or any election "officials" nation wide, do not know the answers to my questions then they do not know who is eligible for the Presidential ballot, period, and are unfit for the election process. I'm speaking with an Attorney on what actions will be next. I will mention the EL 3-105. Pixel Patriot did an excellent job exposing the cover-up, two thumbs up, and now you can add that to your lawsuit to PROVE corruption, priceless. Every A s s e m b l y member in NYS was recently notified and asked the same questions that were presented to the NYSBOE. No response yet. If you can incorporate my unconstitutional dealings w / t h e NYSBOE please feel free to do so. Creg
From: "chris@stfunk.ws" <chris@strunk.w9 To: Greg Maroney cusorus@yahoo.mm> Ce: Bill Allen <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com>; Kevin Powell ~kevinrichardpowell@yahoo.corn~ Sent: Sunday, October 16,2011 5 4 5 Pfvl Subject: OSC -Article 78 re NBC to be filed Wednesday Creg I n regards to our earlier correspondence and your subsequent complaint to the NYS BOE amending a change to the NBC requirement, posted below, in which you are entitled a EL 3105 administrative hearing, have you heard further word other than what has been published on Post & Email? Iam about t o file a special proceding in the form of an order to show cause in my ongoing complaint before Justice Schack concerning http://pixelpatriot.blo~spot.com/2011/~0/newyork-state-boe-website-cover-up. html.
Update: New York State Board of
http://www.thepostemail.com/20~ 1/10/13/uew-vork-stitte-board-of-elections-makes-fa1se statement-about-article-ii-aualificatiod
Update: New York State Board of Elections Makes False Statement about Article I T
Qualification
AND WHY DO THEY REFUSE TO CORRECT THE RECORD?
From:Creg Maroney Sent: W e d 10/12/11 7 5 1 PM
To:info(2elections.state ny us (info~~e1ections.state.ny.u~); cpi;riyintegrity.org (cpi($nyintegnty.org);

dutchesselect~on~@~~.dutcliess.ny (dutchesselect~o~~s@co.dut~hess.ny.us tknapp@co.dutchess.ny.us
( h p p ( @ c o durchess.nq-11s);lp~~ricoIa@co.dutchess.nyus (Ipatricola(~co.dutchess.nq..us); jcoklin(@elecrions.state.ny. t r s

~coiW&elecbons.state.ny.m); %~erq@co.dWchess.ny.us (x~errq-@co.dutchess,ny.us!;afor~nm@co.dutchess,n~.us
(afomm(~co.dutchess.n~...us); jpagones~@co.dutcbess.np.us (ipgomsp~.dutchess.ny.~~); cnt~~land;@co.dutchess.ny.us
(cdurla~zdi@co.dutchess.ny.us); jshort@,m.dutchess.ny.us ijshort@~co.rhtchess.ny.m), ~2'eI~enber~l@?~~Selllb1~.~t~te.n~.~~

(~veisenbergh@assernbI~-.fate.ny.us); Cinvemor.Cuomo@exec.ny.go%; MoliuaroM@assembly.rtate.ny.us
(MulumroM(~~sernb1y.s~te.ny.u~); Kep.Cluls.tiibson~mil.house.gw (Kep.Chris.Ci~bsoi~~$~lli~l.l~ouse.gox~

Cc. sheriff$co d1itchess.ny.11~ (shenff<u)co.dutchess.ny.us);buffalot~ic.%i.gov(huffalot@ic.fhi.gov); nyl@,ic.fbi.gov
(nyl@ic.tbi.go~~); nyspnlail:&?&oopers.stare.ny-.US ~nyspmail~.~ttDopers.s~te.ny.usi
October 12; 201 I 'Yo:Conmunicahons Director John Conklin, 'l11e N Y S Board of Elffitio~is and 'l'he htchess County Board ofi'Electioils,
I hare ~ ~ i tyou t ~rcpmtCCIIy n sincc 2009 socki~g a rcspomi: as to why you l~avc 1101provided accurate i~lfo~rnation to
voters on vour website regarding the qttahficauons for candidates for the Presidency of the United States. To date, you
havc iiot yro'i~dcd any rcaso~lcd rcsponsc.

I have also written repeatedly since F e b r u q 201 1 questions regarding elecQons that have gone unanswered by the New
York state board of elections and the Dutchees county board of electiom t o dale. I %,ill once again submit my electin11 questiom to those i u charge oftranspare~it f x elections ul the state and county 1reside.
[[ Section 1401 of Titlc 8 of the Unitcd States Code dcfmcs "felitizcns" of the United States at birth. I]
1) Are those citizens defined in Section 1401 of 'l'itle 8 United States Code eligible for the Ballot and wdl be placed on the Rallot in New York SkiLe LC) run Tor Tht: Presidency and Vice President trf The IJniied States?
2) Arc those citizens dcfincd in Scction 1401 of Titlc 8 Ihiital Statcs Codc cligiblc for tlic candidacy on any Rallot in Ncw
York Statc [[ EXCEPT ]] for The Presidential and Vice President?
3) Can a chdd of two IUegal Aliens that is born i n New York State run for the Preside~lcy of the United States a d will be
placed coil thc Prcsidctitial Rallot in Ncw York Statc since that ctdld is '' hmn a citizcn " as xvrittcxi by h l m Conkliri on the NYS Board of Elections website, even though Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of The United States Constihrtion shows a distinct diffcrmcc hctwccn a citizcn and a natural Inxn Citixcn?
4) ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 CLAUSE 5: " ,2;0 person except a natrird born C'itize71, or. a Citizen afthe CTnifedSfutes, at
!ha time o f t/w .ddoptio~z of fhzs Comfiirtfio~r, shall be eligible fa the Ofice of Presideizf: .. "
Is it true only a m~ural born [Clilken is eligible and will bt: allowed on the ballot in New York Slate if helshe is r m m g
for the afice of the United Stztes Presidency at the prasent time since all the "citizens" at the t m e of the adoption of the Cttnslilution are not alive?
5 ) Is it kue I h a L one or The Llniied Skiles Conslilulional rstlukemt:nls L o run for the oilict: of The United Slates Presiciencj
is a "natural born IC litizen" and not "born a I clitizen"?

6) Is it true that in bas~c grammill a lower case [c] in "citizen" and a upper case [C] in natural born Citizen ha\% two
ciitircly d~ffcr-crit tncaninpsl Rcinp clcctinn "officials." why is tticrc that basic grariimnr diffcrcncc in thc 14th ~lncn&rlcnt
U.S. ConstitutionB USC Section 1401 [clitizen and the natural born [Clitizen reqmement for U.S. President 1 1 1 Article 2
Scction I Clausc 5 of Thc tJ.3. Constitution?
7) U b t is an Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born [Clitizen" and why- &d the fowlding fathers put thal specific
requirement in The 1.Jnited States Constitution for one to he eligible for the Presidency of The United States?
APX - 280
8) Is it truc that an Art~dc 2 Scctio~~ 1 Clauvc 5 U.S. Constitution " natural born Citizcri " is NOT thc sane as s 14TH
Amendment U S. Constitution/K USC Section 1401 " citizen '1'
This is to formal% request that you immediately amend your website to accurately reflect Constitiltional law regardmg the
eligibdity requirements for someone to be able to be elected as President of the United States. Your website currently states that to be eligible to be elected President, one must be "born o citizen". The Constitutiolml requirement achlally is that.
",hb pewon a c d a rurfural b m Ciiitm, or
(I
Ciliz~ O J ~ fhe Ciniled ,Slu&s, r~l/he
time
0 1rht. Adoprion
of
lhis
Constitlttion,shrill be eligibLe to the OfJice o f Besidenf; tzeif!z~r shall m y Person be eligib.ibleto that Q#ce who shall nof huve ctl~uineci lo the Age :r$ihi~&-Jiw Yeur:~, cmd her?J,urieen Years u Resi~knl wziihitz /he I,hiied Stule~s."
Your wcl~sitc. tlicixhr-c,is iriaccuratc and rnislcading. Rcmusc you have bccm informal of thc Constitutional rcquircmcnt,
repeatedly, in the past, yet, you have not corrected the error, one can assume only that you intend to mislead the general public about this rcquircmcnt. This is official notification that you stand in violation of the Constitution of thc TJnitcd Statcs of America, and potentially you stand in nolation of various state and federal statutes r e g d g conspiracy, hud, misrepresentation, and com~ption. among othcrs Therefore; to avoid hrt11er potential legal liability, you are strongly urged to take corrective action m e d i a t e l y to aiuend your website to accurately reflect Constitutionalla%..
I eagerly amall y o u response
Editor's Note: Mr. Maroney reported the following response to the above communication following its publication.
Dear Mr. Maroney, Thank you for contacting the N Y S Board of Elections concerning various elections questions Your inquiry has been referred to the Counsel's Office for any reply
Thank you for your interest in the NT7S Board of Elections. Sincerely yours, John W Conklin Director of Public Information N Y S Board of Elections
APX - 281
40 Steuben Street Albany, NY 12207 5 18-474-1953
jconklin@elections.state.nvus
6 1
20 1 1, The Post & Emil. All rights reserved inicmatiomlly, unless ohcrwisc specified. 'l'o read 1nore on our cop>~i@t
restrictionsi see our Copyright nolice on Lhc subhcadcr of cvcq pqc. along the lcft nlwin.
APX - 282
STRUNK V. NYS BOE ET AL. NYSSC KLNGS LNDEX 6500-201 1
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
EXHIB
. -
APX - 283
James A. Walsh Co-Chair Gregory P. Peterson Commissioner

Todd D. Vdentitte
Douglas A. Keflner
Co-Chair
Evelyn J. Aquila Commissioner
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

40 STEUBEN STREET ALBANY, N.Y. 12207-2108 Phone: 518/474-6336 Fax: 5181474-1008
Co-Executive Director
Robert A. Brehm, Co-ExecutiveDirector
httv:/lwww.elections.state.ny.us
October 7,2011
VIA EMAIL
H. William Van Allen 351 North Road Hurley, N Y 12443
Dear Mr. Van Allen: The New York State Board of Elections has received your request for access to public records, specifically: "all electronic records (email) for the period 2007-2008 between NYS-BOE staff and NYS Office of the Governor staff as well as with NYS Office of Attorney General staff, including: all electronic communication [email) for this 2007-2008 period related to executive sessions of the NYS-BOE." With respect to electronic communications with the New York State Attorney General's Office, we have conducted a search of our records and determined that the relevant electronic communications are exempt from disclosure pursuant to New York State Public Officers Law 87(2)[a) constituting either attorney work product or subject to attorney-client privilege. With respect to electronic communications related to executive sessions of the Board, we have conducted a search of our records and determined that the relevant electronic communications are exempt from disclosure pursuant to New York State Public Officers Law 87(2)[g) constituting intra-agency materials which are not statistical or factual tabulations or data; instructions to staff that affect the public; final agency policy or determinations; or external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by the comptroller and the federal government. With respect to electronic communications between NYS-BOE and Office of the Governor staff, we are unable to determine with specificity the records sought. The "Governor's staff" constitutes dozens of agencies which we cannot identify with reasonable effort.
APX - - 285
Mr. Van Allen October 7,2011 Page 2
You have 30 days from receipt of a denial of access to public records or portions thereof to appeal to:
FOIL Appeal Officer New York State Board of Elections 40 Steuben Street Albany, N Y 12207-2107
Thank you for your interest in the New York State Board of Elections. If you require further assistance, please contact us again. Sincerely yours
John W. Conklin Director of Public Information Records Access Officer 5 18-474-1953
--
APX - 286
- -
STRUNK V. NYS BOE ET AL. NYSSC KWGS LNDEX 6500-201 1
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
EXHIB
APX - 287
i p _ p p _ _ -
Monday, October 17, 201 1 Mr. Conklin:
1 am antiapating your usual timely initial response tomorrow (Tuesday) to my latest FOIL electronic and print document request below - especially since the 2012 US Presidential (NYS) funding campaign for USC natural bom citizen eligible POTUS candidates has already started in NYS and elsewhere.
Sincerely,
H. William Van Allen

--
From: Bill Van Allen [mailto:hvanallen@hvc.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, October 09,201 I4 5 0 PM To: (info@elections.state.ny.us); NYS-BOE (jconklin@elections.state.ny.us) Cc: Joel Graber (joel.graber@ag.ny.gov); John Caher fjcaher@alm.com); Joel Stashenko (jstashenko@alm.com); Kim Galvin, Esq.; Todd D. Valentine (tvalentine@elections.state.ny.us); Robert Freeman (coog@dw.state.ny.us); Christopher Strunk Subject: FOIL NYS-BOE website archival limitations re: US Presidential candidate eligibility including US Constitutional requirement of being a
"natural born citizen" Importance: High
Dear NYS-BOE FOIUPIO: Sunday, October 09,201 1 Via email, fax
John W Conklin NYSBOE Albany NY : Dear NYS-BOE FOIUPIO UNDER NYS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW Please provide All electronic and print documents 2006-2011 related to NYS-BOE website handling of publicly available archives on the following NYS ballot issue(s) US Presidential candidate eligibility including US Constitutional requirement of being a "natural born citizen". Again, specifically all electronic and written documentation either allowing or not allowing automated NYS-BOE website's archival access to modified website pages -- e.g. 'Wayback Machine".
H. William Van Allen 351 North Road Hurley, NY 12443 8453894366 HvanaIlen@hvc.rr.com
APX _ - 289
James A. Walsh
Co-Chair Gregoiy P . Peterson Commissioner
Douglas A. Kcllncr Co-Chair
Todd D. Valentine
Co-Executive1)irector
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

40 STETJBEN STREET ALBANY, N.Y. 12207-2108 Phone: 515f474-6336 Fax: 518/474-1008 http:il~t'ynv.eleetions.state.nv.us
Robert A. Brehm, Co-ExecutiveDirector
October 17,2011
H. William Van Allen 351 North Road Hurley, NY 12443 Dear Mr. Van Allen: The New York State Board of Elections has received your request for access to public records, specifically: "...all electronic and print documents 2006-2011 related to NYS-BOE website handling of publicly available archives on the following NYS ballot issue[s) US Presidential candidate eligibility including US Constitutional requirement of being a "natural born citizen. Again, specifically all electronic and written documentation either allowing or not allowing automated NYS-BOE website's archival access to modified website pages - e.g. "Wayback Machine".".
We have conducted a search of our records and have found nothing matching your request. In addition, we do not believe what you have described meets the definition of "record" pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 86 of the Freedom of Information Law.
Thank you for your interest in the New York State Board of Elections. This constitutes our complete response to your FOII. request If you require further assistance, please contact us again. Sincerely yours
John W. Conklin Director of Public Information Records Access Officer 518-474-1953
APX - 290
STRUNK V NYS BOE ET AL. NYSSC KINGS INDEX 6500-201I
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
EXHIBIT
APX - 291
262 - XdV
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is proud to acknowledge its role in the Presidential election process. NARAS Office of the Federal Register (OFR) acts as the administrator of the Electoral College on behalf of the states, the Congress, and the American people. In this role, the OFR is charged with helping the states carry out their election responsibilities, ensuring the compieteiless and integrity of the Electoral College documents submitted to Congress, and informing the public about the Presidential election process. The Electoral College system was established under Article I1 and Amendment 12 of the U.S. Constitution. In each state, the voters choose electors to select the President and Vice President of the United States, based on the results of the November general election. Prior to the general election, the OFR sends an informational package to each state's governor to officially notify them of their electoral responsibilities. As the results of the popular vote are finalized in each state, election officials send to the OFR Certificates of
Ascertainment, which establish the credentials of their electors. In December, the electors hold meetings in each state to cast their votes for President and Vice President. Those choices are documented in Certificates of Vote, which are sent to the OFR for review on behalf of the Congress. In January, the Congress sits in joint session to certify the election of the President and Vice President, based on the documentary evidence assembled and reviewed by the OFR. In the year after the election, electoral documents are held at the OFR for public viewing, and then transferred to the Archives of the United States for permanent retention and access. In this Presidential election year, the cover of this pamphlet shows a representation of the Electoral College system in celebration of the spirit of the American democratic process.
For more informationon the Electoral College, visit NARA's web site at:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/.
Our thanks are extended to the Creative Services Division of the U.S. Government Printing Office for its assistance in developing this cover.
APX - 293
This pamphlet has been compiled and published by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, for use by the Executives and Electors of the several States in the performance of their duties in connection with Presidential Elections.
[Revised JuQ: 2008]
The 2008 Presidential ElectionlProvisions of the Constitut~on and United States Code
APX - 294
- --
2008 Presidential Election Summary of Key Dates. Events and Information ...................................................... 4
2008 List of States and Votes ...............................................................................................................................
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ........................................................................................................ 7 TweM Amendment ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 Fourteenth Amendment ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Fifteenth Amendment......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Nineteenth Amendment .................................................................................................................................................... 8 Twentieth Amendment ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 Twenty-secondAmendment .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Twenty-thirdAmendment ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Twenty-fourthAmendment ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Twenty-fifthAmendment ....................................................................................................................................................9 Twenty-sixth Amendment ................................................................................................................................................... 9 UNITED STATES CODE ......................................................................................................................................... 10 T i k %The President: Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies .............................................................................. 10 3 ITime of Appointing Electors...................................................................................................................................... 11 2 Failure to Make Choice on Prescribed Day.............................................................................................................. 11 3 Number of Electors................................................................................................................................................... 11 3 4 Vacancies in Electoral College.................................................................................................................................. 11 5 5 Determination of Controversy as to Appointment of Electors................................................................................... 11 5 6 Credentials of Electors; Transmission to Archivist of the United States and to Congress; Public Inspection .................................................................................................................................... 11 5 7 Meetingand Vote of Electors.................................................................................................................................... I I 5 8 Manner of Voting ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 Fj 9 Certificates of Votes for President and Vice President ............................................................................................. 12 8 10 Seaiing and Endorsing Certificates ........................................................................................................................ 12 .. 5 11 Disposrtlon of Certificates....................................................................................................................................... 12 Fj 12 Failure of Certificates of Electors to Reach President of the Senate or Archivist of the United States; Demand on State for Certificate............................................................................. 12 13 Same; Demand on District Judge for Certifite .................................................................................................... 12 fj 14 Forfeiturefor Messenger's Neglect of D u t y ............................................................................................................ 12 Fj 15 Counting Electorai Votes in Congress.................................................................................................................... 12 fj 16 Same; Seats for Officers and Members of Two Houses in Joint Meeting.............................................................. 13 tj 17 Same; Limit of Debate in Each House.................................................................................................................... 14 5 18 Same; Parliamentary Procedure at Joint Meeting................................................................................................... 14 5 19 Vacancy in Offices of Both President and Vice President; Officers Eligible to Act ................................................. 14 5 20 Resignation or Refusal of Office.......................................................................................................................... 15 9 21 Definitions............................................................................................................................................................... 15 MAILING INFORMATION........................................................................................................................................ 16 CONTACTS ............................................................................................................................................................16
The 2008 Presidential ElectionlProvisions of the Constitution and United States Code
2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECIION
Summary of Key Dates, Events and Information

GennaE Authority: The Archivist of the United States, as the head of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA),is responsible for carrying out ministerial duties on behalf of the States and the Congress under 3 U.S.C. sections 6'11, 12, and 13. NAIL4 is primarily responsible for coordinating the various stages of the electoral process by helping the States prepare and submit certificates that establish the appointment of electors and validate the electoral votes of each State. The Archivist delegates operational duties to the Director of the Federal Register. The Federal Register Legal Staff ensures that electoral documents are transmitted to Congress, made available to the public, and preserved as part of our nation's history. The &al Staffreviews the electoral certificates for the required signatures, seals and other matters of form, as specified in Federal law. Only the Congress and the Courts have the authorityto rule on substantivelegd issues.
1. June through October 2008 Preparatio?~ Stage: * The Federal Register prepares letters and instructional materials for the -Archivist to send to the Gowmors of the 50 States and the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
3. Mid-November through December 15,2008
Transrnissim qf Certifiam of hcminment to NARA: The Certificates ofhcertainment list the names of the electors appointed and the number ofvotes cast for each person.
* The States prepare no less than SEVEN originals, which are authenticatecl by the Governor's signature and the State seal, and TWO certified copies. Alternatively, NINE originals may be prepared. One original along with two certified copies (or three originals, if nine were prepared) must be sent by registered mail to the Archivist at the address below:
Allen MTeinstein Archivist of the United States National Archives and Records Administration y'o Office of the Federal Register (NF) 8601 Adelphi Road College Park, MD 20740-6001 The Governors must submit the Certificates of Ascertainment "as soon as practicable" after their States certify election results. At the very latest, they must be received by the electon on the statutory deadljt~e of December 15,2008 and submi%d ta the Archivist 120 later than December I G,
2008.
The materials indude pamphlets on Federal election law and detailed instructions on how to prepare and submit the electors' credentials (Certificatesof Ascertainment) and the electoral votes (Certificates of Vote).
The remaining SIX original Wficates of Ascertainment wil1 be attached to the Certificates ofvote at the State meetings.
4. December 9,2008
* In October, the Federal Register begins contacting Governors and Secretaries of State to establish contacts for the coming election.
2. November 4,2008
Geplernl Ele'ction:
* Thevoters in each State choose slates of electors to serve in the Electoral College. Fortyeight of the fifty States and the District of Columbia are "winner-take all" (Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions).
Date for Detemzi~zutionof Controversya to Appointmatt of Electon: States must make final determinations of any controversies or contests as to the appointment of electors at least six days before December 15 meetings of electors for their electoral votes to be presumptively valid when presented to Congress. Deteminatians by States' lawful tribunals are conclusive,if decided under laws enacted prior to election day.
APX - 296
5 . December 45,2008
Meetings of Electors and Transmission of Cern'$cates of Vole lo NARA: * The electors meet in their State to select the President
and Vice President of the United States. No Constitutional provision or Federal law requires electors to vote in accordancewith the popular vote in their States. NARAs web site lists the States that have laws to bind electors to candidates. The electors record their votes on SIX "Certificates of Vote," which are then paired with the SIXremainingoriginal Certificates of Ascertainment. 'The electors sign, seal and certify the electoral votes in packages containing a paired original Certificate of Ascertainment and original Certificate ofvote each. They immediately distribute the paired certificates as follows:
h pair of original certificates is sent to the President of the Senate (Richard B. Cheney):
One pair of original certificatesis sent to the Chief Judge of the Federal District Court located where the electors meet. It is held subject to the order of the President ofthe United States Senate or the Archivist of the United States in case the electoral vota fail to reach the Senate or the Archivist.
6. December 24,2006
Deadline for Receipt of Electoral lbtes at NARA:

The President of the Senate and the Archivist should have the electoral votes in hand by December 24, 2008. If votes are lost or delayed, the Archivist may take extraordinarymeasures to retrieve duplicate originals.
7. On or Before January 3,2009
Transmission of CertifZcates ofAscertainment to Congress:

As the new Congress assembles, the Archivist transmits copies of the Certificates of Ascertainment to Congress. This generally occurs in late December or early January when the Archivist and/or representatives kom the Federal Register meet with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House This is, in part, a ceremonial occasion. Informal meeting may take place earlier.
The Honorable Richard 8. Cheney President of the United States Senate United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
8. January 6,2009
* Two pain of original certificates are sent to the Archivist

at the following address: Allen Weinstein Archivist of the United States National Archives and &cords Administration c/o Office of the Federal Register (N!?) 8601 Melphi Road College Pa& MD 20740-6001 The Archivist holds one pair subject to the order of the President of the United States Senate in case the electoral votes fail to reach the Senate. The other pair is held by the Office of the Federal Register for public inspection for one year.
Counting Elecroral Votes in Congress: * The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral
votes (Congress may pass a law to change the date). The President of the Senate is the presiding officer. If a Senator and a House member jointly submit an objection, each House would retire to its chamber to consider it. The President and Vice President must achiwe a majority of electoral votes (270) to be elected. In the absence of a majority the I Iouse selects the President, and the Senate selects the Vice President. If a State submits confliaingelectoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject them. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the Statewould be counted in Congress.
9. January 20,2009 at Noon
* Two pairs of cerlificates are sent by registered mail to the Secretary of State of each State, who holds one pair subject to the order of the President of the United States Senate in case the electoral votes fait to reach the Senate
Inauguration:
The President-electtakes the Oath of Office and becomes the President of the United States.
The 2008 Presidential ElectionfProvisions of the Constitution and United States Code
APX - 297
Allocation of Electoral Votes

based on the 2000 Census
Total: 538; Majority Needed to Elect: 270 Alabama - 9 Alaska - 3 Arizona - 10 Arkansas - 6 California - 55 Colorado - 9 Connecticut - 7 Delaware - 3 District of Columbia 3 Florida - 27 Georgia - 15 Hawaii - 4 Idaho - 4 Illinois - 21 Indiana - 11 Iowa - 7 Kansas - 6 Kentucky - 8 Louisiana - 9 Maine - 4 Maryland - 10 Massachusetts - 12 Michigan - 17 Minnesota - 10 Mississippi - 6 Missouri - 11 Montana - 3 Nebraska - 5 Nevada - 5 New Hampshire - 4 New Jersey - 15 New Mexico - 5 New York - 31 North Carolina - 15 North Dakota - 3 Ohlo - 20 Oklahoma 7 Oregon - 7 Pennsylvania - 21 Rhode Island - 4 South Carolina - 8 South Dakota - 3 Tennessee - 11 Texas - 34 Utah - 5 Vermont - 3 Virginia - 13 Washington - 11 West Virginia - 5 Wisconsin - 10 Wyoming - 3
The 2008 Presidential ElectionfProvisions of the Constitution and United States Code
APX - 298 ________-
ARTICLE I1 SECTION 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States ofAmerica He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together ith the Vice President, chosen for the sameTerm, be
State shall appoint, in such Manner as the egisiature thereof may direct, a Number of lectors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and epresentativesto which the State may be entitled in the Congress but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office ofTrust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
TWELFTH AMENDMENT
such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President But in choosing the President, thevotes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. ... The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no peison have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quo1um for the purpose shall consist of two-thilds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President to the United States
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SECTION 1. Ail persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens ofthe United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for asvicePresident, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have
SECTION 3. No person shall be ... elector of President and Vice President ... who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall
* Asterisks represent additional text not printed here.
The 2008 Presidential Electionlprovisions of the Constitution and United States Code
--
---
APX - 299
%
have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States
Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
SECTION 4. The Congress may by law provide for
to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
NINETEENTH AMENDMENT
the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
TWENTY-SECOND AMENDMENT SECTION 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of Plesident or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
TWENTIETH AMENDMENT SECTION 1. The tems of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of Januaq
and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on

the 3d day of January,of the pars in which such tems would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the tems of their successors shall then begin. SECTION 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January unless they shall by law appoint a different day. SECTION 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President d e d shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fked for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the
TWENTY-THIRD AMENDMENT SECTION 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and
The 2008 Presidential Election/Pfovisions of the Constitution and United States Code
Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
SECTION 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
TWENTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or V~ce President, for electors for President or \'ice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
TWENTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT SECTION 1. in case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
SECTION 2 . Whenever there is a vacancy in the office
of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
SECTION 3. Whenever the President transmits to the
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by twothirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary such powers and duties shall be discharged by thevice President as Acting President.
TWENTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
The folloufing provisions of law gouerning Presidential Elections are contained in Ginpter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended);
Title 3
- The President
Chapter 1 PresidePrtial Elections and Vacancies

Section 1. Time of appointing electors. 2. Failure to make choice on prescribed day. 3. Number of electon. 4. Vucilncies in electoral college. of 5. Determination of controversy as to appoint~nent electors. 6 . Credentials o f electors; transmission to Archivist of the United States and to Congress public inspection. 7. Meeting and vote of electoi-s. 8. iMannerofvoting, 9. Qrtijicates of votes for President and Vice President. 10. Sealing and endorsing certificates. 11. Disposition of certijicates. . Failure of certificates of electors to reach President of the Senate or Archivist of the United States; demand on State for certificate. 'i-tl 'ficate. Saine; demand on district judge for c~ . For$eitl~re for mesenger's neglect of duty. 15. Counting electmid votes in Congress. 16. Same; seals /or o@ms and Members of two I-louses in joint meeting. 17. Same; limit of debate in each House. 18. Same; parliamenta~y procedure at joint meering. 19. Vacancy in ofices of both President and Vice President; oficen eligible to act. 20. Resignation or refusal of of/it:e. 21. Definitions.
The 2008 Presidential ElectionlProvisionsof the Constitution and United States Code
10
Time of Appointing Electors 5 1. The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President. Failurz to Make Choice on Ptem.bed Day O 2. N7heneverany State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.
iLrurnberof Electors 5 3. The number of electors shall be equal to the number of Senators and Representativesto which the several States are by law entitled at the time when the President and Vice President to be chosen come into office; except, that where no apportionment of Representativeshas been made after any enumeration, at the time ofchoosingelectors, the number of electors shall be according to the then existing apportionment of Senators and Representatives.
Vacancies in Electoral College 5 4. Each State may, by law, provide for the filling of any vacanaes which may occur in its college of electors when such college meets to give its electoral vote. Detmmacion of Controversyas to Appointment of Electors 5 5. If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed forthe appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting ofthe electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such Stateis concerned.
Credeneirllsof Electors; Transrnrssion to Archivist of B e United States and to Congress, Public Inspection (5 6. It shall be the duty of the executive of each State, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the appointment of the electors in such State by the final ascertainment, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment, to communicate by registered mail under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed, setting forth the names of such electors and the canvass or other ascertainment under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast; and it shall also thereupon be the duty of the executive of each State to deliver to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which they are requiled by section 7 of this title to meet, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate under the seal of the State; and if there shall have been any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, it shall be the duty of the executive of such State, as soon as practicable after such determination, to communicate under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such determination in form and manner as the same shall have been made; and the certificate or certificates so received by the Archivist of the United States shalI be preserved by him for one year and shall be a part of the public records of his office and shall be open to public inspection; and the Archivist of the United States at the first meeting of Congress thereafter shall transmit to the two Houses of Congress copies in full of each and evely such certificate so received at the National Archives and Records Administration. Meeting and Vo@ofElecton 5 7. The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.
The 2008 Presidential Election/Provisions of the Constitution and United States Code
11
APX - 303
Manner of Voting 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively in the manner directed by the Constitution. Certificates o f Votesfor President and Vice President 9. The electors shall make and sign six certificatesof all the votes given by them, each of which certificatesshall contain two distinct lists, one of the votes for Resident and the other of the votes for Vice President, and shall annexto each of the certificates one of the lists of the electors which shall have been furnished to them by direction of the executive of the State. Sealing and Endorsing Cmfiates 5 lo. The electors shall seal up the certificates so made by them,and certfi upon each that the lists of all the votes of such State given for President, and of all the votes given for Vice President, are contained therein. Dlspostaon of Certr,ficates 5 11. The electorsshall dispose of the certificates so made by them m d the lists attached thereto in the following manner. First. They shall forthwith forward by registered mail one of the same to the President of the Senate at the seat of government. Second. Two of the same shall be delivered to the secretary of state ofthe State, one of which shall be held subject to the order of the Resident of the Senate, the other to be preserved by him for one year and shall be a part of the public records ofhis office and shall be open to public inspection Third. On the day thereafter they shall forward by registered mail two of such certificates and lists to the Archivist of the United States at the seat of govemment, one of which shall be held subject to the order ofthe President of the Senate The other shall be preserved by the Archivist of the United States for one year and shall be a part of the public records of his office and shall be open to public inspection. Fourth. They shall forthwith cause the other of the certificates and lists to be delivered to the judge of the n which the electors shall have assembled. district i
Failure of Cerhfiates of Ekctors w Reach President of The Senate or Archivist ofThe United Sates; Demand on State for C@@$C~E 5 12.When no certificate of vote and list mentioned in sections 9 and 11 and of this title &om any State shall have been received by the President of the Senate or by the Archivist of the United States by the fourth Wednesday in December, after the meeting of the electors shall have been held, the President of the Senate or, if he be absent from the seat of govemment, the Archivist of the United States shall request, by the most expeditious method available, the secretary of state of the State to send up the certificate and list lodged with him by the electors of such State; and it shall be his duty upon receipt of such request immediately to transmit same by registered mail to the President of the Senate at the seat of govemment. Same; Denland on Dishct Judgefor Certificate 5 13. When no catificates of votes from any State shall have been received at the seat of government on the fourth Wednesday in December, after the meeting of the electors shall have been held, the President of the Senate or, if he be absent from the seat of government, the Archivist of the United States shall send a special messenger to the district judge in whose custody one certificate of votes &omthat State has been lodged, and such judge shall forthwith transmit that list by the hand of such messenger to the seat of govemment.
Farfeiturefm Mesengm'S Neglect o f Duty 5 14.Every person who, having been appointed, pursuant to section 13 of this title, to deliver the certificates of the votes of the electors to the President of the Senate, and having accepted such appointment, shall neglect to perform the services required from him, shall forfeit the sum of $1,000.
Counn'ng Electoral Votes in Congress 5 15. Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of lanuary succeedingevery meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representativesshall meet in the Hall of the House of Representativesat the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day and the President of the Senate shali be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall
The 2008 Presidential Election/Prov~sions of the Constitution and United States Code
12
be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be ceaificates ofthe electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginningwith the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted accordingto the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journalsof the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state dearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof,and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision, and the Speaker of the Iiouse of Representativesshall, i n like manna, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision, and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section G of this title from which but one retum has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the Resident of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are s h w n by the determination mentioned in section 5
of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of s~tch State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a retum from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the hvo Houses shall concurrently decide were m t by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concunently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors ofsuch State But ifthe two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the derision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.
Same; Seats for OfJicers and M e m b m of Twa Homes in Joint Meeting 5 16. At such joint meeting of the two Houses seats shall be provided as follows: For the President of the Senate, the Speaker's chair; for the Speaker, immediatelyupon his left; the Senators, in the body of the Hall upon the right of the presiding officec for the Representatives, in the body of the Hall not provided for the Senators; for the tellers, Secretaryof the Senate, and Clerk of the House of Representatives, at the Clerk's desk; for the other officers of the two Houses, in front of the Clerk's desk and upon
The 2008 Presidential ElectionlProvisionsof the Constitution and United States Code
13
APX - 305
each side of the Speaker's platform. Such joint meeting shall not be dissolved until the count of electoral votes shall be completed and the result declared; and no recess shall be taken unless a question shall have arisen in regard to counting any such votes, or otherwise under this subchapter, in which case it shall be competent far either House, acting separately, in the manner hereinbefore provided, to direct a recess of such House not beyond the next calendar day Sunday excepted, at the horn of 10 o'cloclc in the forenoon. But if the counting of the electoral votes and the declaration of the result shall not have been completed before the fifth calendar day next after such first meeting of the two Houses, no further or other recess shall be taken by either House. Same; Limit of &bate in Each House 5 17.When the tcvo Houses separate to decide upon an objection that may have been made to the counting of any electoral vote or votes horn any State, or othes question arising h~the matter, each Senator and Representativemay speak to such objection or question five minutes, and not more than once; but after such debate shall have lasted two hours it shall be the duty of the presiding officer of each House to put the main question without further debate Same; Parliamentary Proceduye at Joint Meeting 9 18.Whiletl~e two Houses shall be in meeting as provided in this chapter, the President of the Senate shall have pow= to preserve ordec and no debate shall be allowed and no question shall be put by the presiding officer except to either House on a motion to withdraw. r/ncancy in Ofices of Both President and Vrce President; Ofimrs Eligible ra Act 5 19. (a)( 1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal froin office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representaiives s h d , upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representativein Congress, act as Resident.
(2) The same mie shall apply in the case of the death, resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual acting as President under this subsection. (b) If, at the time when under subsection (a) of this section a Speaker is to begin the discharge of the powers and duties of the office of President, there is no Speaker, or the Speaker fails to qualify as Acting President, then the President pro tempore of the Senate shall, upon his resignation as President pro tempore and as Senator, act as President. (c) An individual acting as Resident under subsection (a) or subseaion (b) of this section shall contiriue to act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, except that (1) ifhis discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the President-elect and the Vice-President-electto qualify, then he shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies; and (2) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the inability of the President or Vice President, then he shall act only until the removal of the disability of one of such individuals. (d)(l) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability or failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under subsection (b) of this section, then the officer of the United States who is highest on the following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and dutieq of the office of Resident shall act as President: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Seaetary of Defense, Attorney General, Seaetary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Seaeiary of Commerce, Secretary of labor, Seaetary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Seaetary of Transportation, Seaetary of Energy, Seaetary of Education, Seaetary of Veterans M % s . (2) An individual acting as President under this subsection shall continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an h~dividual
The 2008 Presidential EiectionlProvisions of the Constitution and United States Code
14
APX - 306
higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) of this subsection or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list shall not terminate his service. ( 3 )The taking of the oath of office by a n individual specified in the list in paragraph (1)of this subsection shall be held to coilstitute his resignation from the office by virtue of the holding of which he qualifies to act as President. (e) Subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this section shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution. Subsection (d) of this section shall apply only to officersappointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, prior to the time of the death, resignation removal from office, inability or failure to qualif$ of the President pro tempore and on$ to officersnot under impeachment by the House of Representatives at the time the powers and duties of the office of President devolve upon them. ( f ) During the period at any individual acts as President under this sect on, his compensation shall be at the rate then provided by L a w in the case of the President.
Resignation or Refusal of Ofie

20. The only evidence of a refusal to accept or of a resignation of the office of President or Vice President, shall be an instrument in writing, declaringthe same, and subscribed by the person refusing to accept or resigning, as the case may be, and delivered into the office of the
Secretary of State.
Definitions $21.As used in this chapter the term (a) "State" includes the District of Columbia. (b) "executives of each State" includes the Board of Commissioners* of the District of Columbia.
* The functionsof the Board of Commissionersof the Distria of Columbia are now performed by the Mayor of the heistrict of Columbia. (Keomization Plan No. 3 of 1967, Section 401,81
Stat 948 Pub L 3-198, Sections422 and 711,87 Stat 790,818 )
The 2008 Presidential ElectionlProvisions of t h e Constitut~on and United States Code
15
APX - 307
.-
MAIUNG INFORMATION
Certiscates of Ascertainment
As soon as practicable after certifying their general election results, each M e must send ONE original Certiicate of
i f seven originals were prepared) O R THREE original Certificates of Ascertainment, along with T W O certified copies (
Ascertainment (if nine originals were prepared) to:
Allen Weinstein Archivist of the United Stales National Archives and Records Administration c/o Office of the Federal Register (NF) 8601 Adelphi Road College Park, iMD 20740-6001
The remaining SIX original Certificates of Ascertainmentwill be attached to the Certificates of Vote at the State meetings.
Certi:icates of Vote
As soon as possible after their Electors vote, each State must pair SU: original Certificatesof Vote with the SIX remaining originai Certificates of Ascertainment, and send them to the designated Federal and State officials as follows:
One pair oforiginal certificatesis sent to the President of the Senate (Richard B. Cheney): The Honol-ableRichard B. Chenqi President of the United States Senate United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Two pairs of original certificates are sent to the Archivist at the following address: Allen Weinstein Archivist of the Uniled Stales National Archives and Records Administration c/o Office of the Federal Register (NF) 8601 Adelphi Road College Park, MD 20740-6001
The Archivist holds one pair subject to the order of the Presidentof the United States Senate in case the qlectoral votes fail to reach the Senate. The other pair is held by the Office a f the Federal Register for public inspectionfor one year. Two pairs of certificates are sent by registered mail to the Secretary of State of each State, who holds one pair subject to the order of the President of the United States Senate in case the electoral votes fail to reach the Senate.
* One pair of original certificates is sent to the Chief Judge of the Federal District Court located where the electors meet. It is held subject to the order of the President of the United States Senate or the Archivist of the United States in case the electoral votes fail to reach the Senate or the Archivist.
CONTACTS For more information on the Electoral College and the election responsibilities of the States and the Archivist of the United States, contact the Office of the Federal Register: Phone: 202-741-6030 Email: Electoral.College@nara.gov
Your Electoral College contacts at the Office of the Federal Register are: Amy Bunk, Director of Legal Affairs and Policy Allyson Fenton Christou, Attorney-Advisor
APX - 308
-----
APX -309
--
--- -
S T R U M V. NYS BOE ET AL. NYSSC UNGS WDEX 6500-2011
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
EXHIBIT
--
APX -- 310
Why U.S. military in Uganda? Soros fingerprints all over it! Obama's billionaire friend has interests in African country's oil
Posted on October 15; 201 1 at 1 3 0 PM EST
By Aaron Klein
TEL AVIV - An influential -crisis management organization" that boasts billionaire George Soros as a member of its executive board rcccntly rccommcndcd thc U.S. deploy a special advisory military team to Uganda to help with operations and run an intelligence platform.
The president-emeritus of that orgmzation, the International Crisis Group, is the principal au&or of Responsibility to Protect. the military doctrine used by Obama to justify the US.-led NATO can~paign in Libya. Soros' own Open Society Institute is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for Rcsponsibil~ty to Protect, a doctnnc that has bccn citcd many hmcs by activists urging lntcrvcnt~on In Uganda. Authors and advisers of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, including a center founded and led by Sainant1x-i Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, also helped to found the hlternational Critliinal Court. Several of the doctrine's main founders also sit on boards with Soros. who is a major proponent of the doctrine. Soros himself maintains close ties to oil interests in Uganda. His orymkattlons have been the leading efforts purportedly to facilitate more transparency in Uganda's oil indnstry. which is being tightly controlled by the country -s leadership.
U.S. troops to Uganda
Obama on Friday notified I-Iouse Speaker John Boelmer, R-Ohio, that he plans to send about 100 military pcrsonncl, mostly Spccial Operations Forccs, to ccntral Africa. Thc first troops rcportcdly arrived in Uganda on Wednesday. The U.S. mission will be to advise forces seeking to kill or capture Joseph Konq, the leader of the rebel Lord's Resistance Amy, or LRA. Kony is accused of mnajor h u m rights atrocities. He is on the U.S. terrorist list and is wanted by the International Criminal Co~ut.
i n a letter on Friday, Obama announced the initial team of U.S. mil~tay personnel "with appropriate combat equipment': deployed to Uganda on Wednesday. Other forces deploying include "a second combat-equipped team and associated headquarters, communicationsand logstics personnel."
Page 1 of 9
APX - 311
"Our forccs \hiill providc information, advice and assistance to sclcct partncr nation forccs," hc said. Both consen~atives and liberals have raised questions about whether military involvement in Uganda advances
U.S. interests.
Writ~ng in The Atlant~c ycstcrday. Max Flshcr notcd thc Obama adm~nlstration last ycar approvcd spcclal forccs bases and operations across the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and Central Asia
"But tbose operations, large and small, target terrorist groups and rogue states that threaten the U.S. someth~ng the Lords Resistance Anny could not possibly do.'- he mote
'.It's difficult to find a U.S. interest at stake in the Lord's Resistance Army's campaign of violence,'' continued Fisher. "It's possiblc that there's some irnmcdiatc U.S. intcrcst at stakc wc can't obviously scc." Bill Roggio; the managing editor of The Long War Journal, referred to the Obama administration's stated rationale for scnding troops "p~~aling," claiming thc LRA docs not prcscnt a national sccurity Ihrcat to thc U . S. - "despite tvhat President Obama said.'' Tea Party-backed presidential candidate Michele Bachmann also questioned the w ~ s d o n of ~ Obama's move to send U S troops to Uganda. '"When it comes to sending our brave nlen and women into foreign nations we have to first demonstrate a vital Amcrican national intcrcst bcforc wc send our troops in;"shc said at a campaign stop ycstcrday in lows. Soros group: Send military advisors to Uganda
In April 2010 Soros' International Crisis Group, or ICG, released a rew& sent to the White House and key lawmakers advising thc U.S. military to rim spccial operations in Uganda to scck Kony's capti~rc.
Read the report: "To the U.S. gove~i:ment:Deploy a team to the theatre of operations to nit1 an iiltellige~~ce platform that ccntralizcs all operational information from thc Ugandan and other armics, as well as thc U N and civilian networks, and provides analysis to the Ugandans to better target military operatio~~s." Since 2008 the U.S. has been providing financial aid in the form of military equipment to Uganda and the other regional co~tntries to fight Kony-s LRA, but Obama's new deployment escalates the direct U.S. involvement. Soros sits in the 1CG's executive board along with Samuel Berger, Bill Clinton's former national security advisor; Gcorgc 1. Mitchell, formcr U.S. Scnatc Majority Lcadcr who scmcd as a Midcast envoy to both Obama and President Bush and Javier Solana; a socialist activist who is NATO's former Secretary-General as well as the former Foreign Affairs Minister of Spain.
Jimmy Ca~ter's national secnrity advisor, Zbigniem Brzezinski, is the TCG's senior advisor
The ICG's president-emeritus is Gareth Evans, who, together with activist Ramesh TIiakur, is the original founder of thc Responsibility to Protcct doctrkc, with thc duo cvcn coining thc tcrm "responsibility to protect." Both Evans and V~akur sen7eas advisory board members of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect.
tht:main group p ~ ~ h i t nh g e doctrine.
Page 2 of 9
APX - 312
As WND first exposed, Soros IS a primary fitnder and key proponent of the Global Ceatre for Responsibility to Protect.
Soros' Open Society is one of only three non-governmental funders of the Global Cab-e for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium Canada?the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K. Soros' hand in Ugandan oil industry Oil exploration began in Uganda's northwestern Lake Albert basin nearly a decade ago, with initial strikes being made in 2006. Uganda's Energy Mimstry estimates the country has over 2 b~llion barrels of oil, with some estimates going as high as 6 billion barrels. Production is set to begin in 2015. delayed &om 2013 in part because the country has not put in place a regulatorq. h i e w o r k for the oil industry. A 2008 National O i l and Gas Policy: proposed with aid h m a Soros-funded group, was supposed to be a general road niap for the handling and use of the oil. However, the polcy's recommendations have been largely ignored with critics acc~~sing Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni of cormption and of tightening his grip on the A-Crican country's emerging oil sector. Soros hinlself has been closely tied to oil and other interests in Uganda.
In 2008. tht: Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute brought together stakeholders &om Uganda and other h t Africa11couiltries to discuss critical governance issues, including the formation of what became Uganda's National Oil and Gas Policy.
Also m 2008. the Mica Lnstrtute for Energy Governance, a grantee ofthe Sotos-fbnded Re~enue Watch, helped established the. Publish What You Pay Coalition of Uganda, or PWYP, vvhich was purportedly latmched to coordinate and streandme the efforts of thc government in promoting transparency and accountability in the oil sector. Also, a steering committee was formed for PWYP Uganda to develop an agenda for implementing the oil advocacy initiatives and a constitution to guide PWYP's oil w-ork. PWYP has since 2006 hosted a number of t m i n g workshops in Uganda purportedly to promote contract transparency in Uganda-s oil sector.
PWYP is directly funded by Soros' Open Society as well as the Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute. P W P international is actually hosted by the Open Society Foundation in London.
The billionaire's Open Society Institute, meanwhile, runs numerous offices in Uganda. It maintains a coui~tq manager in Uganda, as well as thc Opcn SociLdyInitiative for East _Africa,which supports work in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. The Open Society Institute runs a Ugandan Youth Action Fund, which states its mission is to "identify, inspire, arid support small groups of dedicated young people \~71iocan mobilize aid influence large nunibers of tlieir peers to proniote open society ideals." Samantha Power, Arafat deputy
Page 3 of 9
APX - 313
Meanwhilei a closer Look at the Soros-funded Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect is telling. Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South &can activist Desrnond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu b e recently made solidarity visits to thc Hamas-controlled G i z a Strip as mcmbcrs of a group callcd Thc Elders, which includes formcr Prcsidcnt Jirnmy Carter.
WND was first to revort the committee that devised the Responsibility to Protect doctrine included Arab League a staunch denier of the Secretary General Amre Moussa as well as Palestinian legislator Hanan Asl~rmvi; Holocaust who Iong served as the deputy of Iate PaIestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.
Also, the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy has a seat on the advisoiy board of the 2001 commission that originally founded Responsibilityto Protect. The commission is called the International Commission on lntcnicntion and Statc So~crcignty. It invcntcd thc tcrm "rcsponsibility to protcct" whilc dcfining its guidclincs. The Carr Center is a research center concerned with human rights located at the Kennedy School of Government at b a r d Uluvcrsity. Samantha Power. the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on hu~nal~ rights. w-as Cam-s founding executive director and headed the institute at the time it advised in the founding of Responsibility to Protect. With Po~vcr'sccntcr on thc advisory board, thc Intcrnationd Commission on Intcrvcntion and St& Sovcrcignty first defined the Responsibilityto Protect doctrine. Power reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya Thc Libya bombings haw bccn widely rcgardcd as a tcst of a military doctrinc callcd "Rcsponsibilityto Protect."
In his address to the nation in April explaining the NATO campaign in Lib% Obama cited the doctrine as the main justification for U.S. a ~ iiitemational d airstrikes against Libya.
Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act. as cited by Obam, is a set of principles. no%v backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of ' k a r crimes," "genocide," "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing."
The term "war crimes" has at times been indiscriminately used bq ~mious United Nations-backzd intcmational bodies, including the Tnternational Criminal Court, or ICC, tvhich applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations i n the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops who commit alleged "~var crimes" overseas.
Soros: Right to 'penetrate nation-states'
Soros i~imsctf outiincd thc fundarncntals of Rcsponsibility to Protcct in a 2004 Forcign Policy magazine articlc titled 'The People's Sovereignty: How- a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."
In the article Soros said, 'True sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments "
Page 4 of 9
--
_ APX - 314
_ ----
ibEgovernmentsabuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, Soros wrote. "By spec&+ that sovereignty is based on the people, the outside interference is justifi* international commmlity can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.
' * I nparticular," he continued 'the principle of the people's so~ereignty can help solye two modern cl~allenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states; and the obstacles to global collective a c t i o ~ dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."
'One World Order'
Thc Global Ccntcr for the Responsibility to Protcct, mcan\vhilc: works in partucrship with thc World Fcdcrakst Movement. a group that promotes democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power. The Movement is a main coordinator and member of Responsibility to Protect Center. WND reported that Responsibility doctrine founder Thakur recently advocated for a "global rebalancing" and ".international redistribution'' to create a "New World Order.r."
h~a piece last hlarch in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, "Toward a new world order,-' Thakur wrote: "Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution."
Hc was rcfcrring to a Unitcd Nations-brokcrcd international climatc trcah; in which hc argued, -Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener diredions.':
In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has irllpacted the U. S.
'The West's bullying approach to developing nations won't work mymore - global power IS shifting to Asia." hc u ~ o t c . " A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train" he added.
Thakur continued: '"Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behavior for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant prog-essin deadlocked international negotiations." Thahr contended '-the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left ~nany less fearful of 'superior' \Yestem power."
LRA: A Regional Strategy beyond Killing Kony

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATTONS Tile Lord's Resistance Arm!: ( . = )
has become a regonal problem that requires a regional solution. Operation Lightning
'lll~mder, launched in December 2008, is the Ugandan m y ' s latest attempt to crush militarily the one-time northern Ugandan
Page 5 of 9
rebel group. It has been a failure. After the initial attach small groups of LRA fighters dispersed in the Democratic Republic of Nat~onal Congo (Congo), South Sudan and the Ceiltral Atiican Republic (CAR), where they sm;lve by preying on ci~ilia~ls. securiity forces are too weak to protect their oxm people, while the LJgandan army, with U.S. suppoc is focused on hunting Joseph
Konq-, the group's leader. 'lhe Ugandans h v e eroded the L M ' s lltunbers and made its comn~unications more difficult. But L , M
fighlcrs, though disorganis~d, remain a ~cmbic danger 10 civilians in this mostly ung<ov~mcd lironticr /,one. National amics, (he
UN and civilians themselves need to pool intelligence and coordinate their efforts in new ways ifthey are to end the LRA once
and for all.
As the Juha peace process hegan L o Call apari. Presidenr Museveni oCTJganda work& hard L o cimvince Sociih Sudan and the
Coilgo to pamcipate 111 a joint i d t a q operation against the LRA. He had to overcome their mistrust of h s army, notorious for ~ t s past alnise of civilians and illegal resource e~draction on its neighbours' temtory. The U.S. lent its diplomatic weight to advance discnssiorts. Even though both Sou& Sudan and the Congo finally a p e d , Uganda underminedits chances of success by failing to coordinate with them, giving them little reason to conmit to the fight. In the event, bad weather and leaked intelligence caused Op~~tlio I.ighlning n ' ? % u ~ ~Ltr L Pdil T in its primary c~hjw~ivc; killing Ki)ny, and a lack of fi>m~ard planning allowd Lhc T,RA L o put on a bloody show of force against Congolese cixfians 'Ihe L M has since exylo~ted the inabhty of the Congo, South Sudan and the CAK to control their border areas. Small: fastmoving grt>upsof lighter% aallack unprotecld villagcs L o resupply wilh htxland clothes and sei./t. new xcruits k h r e heading and muulating are part of a strategy of tmor to dissuade s ~ w i ~ m from s cooperating with back to the cover of tlie forest. Kllli~~g the Ugandan aucl otha anrues, Even with the help of U.S. satsllite imagery and audio intercepts, the U g a n h army, the only force committed to the chase; has Iud great a ~ c u l t t yr a c m its targets. m%at was supposed to be a sudden, decisive strike has become a slow and very expensive campaign of attrition across time countries. It lms also yielded unacceptably high Iiumatl costs anlong tocd civilians. wilh virLu&lly no accounkihiliiy fiir L h c railuic lo prc?lccl.The $vcakncssorall ihrw slalc sccurilq liorccs and Lhc limited means of the UN missions in the Congo and South Sudan have left c i d a n s no choice but to fend for themselves, which in many instances they hxTedone \Yell. In March 2010, TJgandan intdligmw reported &at K m y was in the southe~n Darfur region of Sudan, hoping lo receive supprlrl froill his former benefactor, the Khartoum government. He appears now to have crossed back into the CAR: where the bulk of his foroes are, but with the fighters so scattered and mobile; it is difficult to pin down 1Gs exact whereabouts or the LLRA's present ntmlerical strength. However, as the Ugandan army slolvly kills and captures more of his Acholi officers, Kony's faithful core is
s h u h g . l'liis threatens the L k Y s cohesion, u h c h depends on the leadership controhg the rank aid file throu& violeilce and
Ikar. Tf~c audio in~crccp: capal~iliip Ihc 17.3 has givm ihcamy rnakcs a>mmunica~ir~n ilangcn>~s hy any mciins oLhw than' runner. Despite these organisational stresses, LRA fighters continue to cause appalling suffering even m sun;lval mode and .~vould likely coiltluue to do so even if Kony is cat~gllt or killed.
To remove this t\x~eniy-~edr-old cancer. a new straie$y is required ihal priorilises civilian pr~)leclion; unily ofei%rl ilmr>n&
iiulitaq- and c~xdian actors w i t h and aaoss national boundaries; and national ownership, The LRA's need for fresh rrecmits and them both a nloral imperative the ability of ci\;llians to provide the henost accurate dormation on its activities malies protectk~
Page 6 of 9
APX - 316
and a tactical ~xecessity Only by pooling intelhgence and coordinatq activities across the entire affected regon can ~ l Ugandan e
army; its ~iational partners, the UN and ci~ilians hope to rid themselves of the LRA. The Ugandan operation aud UF.I missions,
however, offer on1y tempmy s~tpport to JXA-aEected states. The latter need to put structures in place now to ensuse they can cope with wlmt is left of the orga~Gsatio~l and its fighters when foreign d t a r i e s leave. Morcovcr, cvcn complctc victory o v a tlic LRA would not guara~tcc sn end to utsccwity in ~ ~ o ~ tUganda. h c ~ n To do that. thc Kampala govenment must treat the root causes of trouble in that area ramwhich the LRA sprang, namely northern perceptions of econonllc and political marginahation, and ensure the social rehabhation of the north.
To thc Ugandan and U.S. Cou-cmments: 1. Adopt a ncm stratcgy that prioritiscs civllian protection. R&CW thc opc~~ation CXFCI~ four ~nonths to assess civilian casualties
and increase civilian protection measures accordingly. 2. Set a clear goal and timeline for the operatio% such as the neutralisstion of the L L K A leadership within one year
To the G~vernments and Armies of Ugmda, the Citngt, the CAR and South Sudan, the U N Mission in Congo (MONUC)
and the UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS): 3.L)eploy Inore soldiers and logistical support to LKA-affected areas to proride safe havens by \'1crmsjngjoint day and night ptrols in villages; on rrcqucnll\. uscd rouks and c s p i a l l y in iargw sclllcm~mLs.
4. Work with civilians to set up unarmed and voluntary communiw s e c x i r i t y committees in the Congo and increase the capacity of
n South Sudan and die CAX. self-defence youps i
6. hiIONUC' and UNMIS should deploy permanentjoint protection teams to monitor human rights abuses commi~td in LRA-
affected areas, and the Congolese government should urgently ent'orce disciphe \ v i b the regiments deployed in b u t - and BasIJ6l&,m c i ~ u r a ~ civilian c oversight slrwiures to mtmitor human righh ahuses by it? soldiers and punish and wilfibaw ofrcnders
from the field.
Regm-Ihzg unity of ejort among m~lditqv and civilim actors withirt md amss natiozal boan~?mres
To the U.S. Government:
Page 7 of 9
APX - 317
7. Deploy a team to the theatre of operations to run an imelligence platform that centralises all operational informaaon Bo~n the
Ugandan and other amies, as well as the UN and c i r r l h ~letwor-h, and protides analysis to the Ugmdarn to better talget militaq operations.
To MOR'UC and UNMS:

8. Create a regio~lal team with menibers in both the Congo and South Sudan Iledicatd to gathering, analysing and sharirlg
intbrmation on LRA acti~lties and advising on how best to protect ci\&m.
To the UD; Security Council:

9. Give the UN missiorl i n the CAR a d Chad (MWURCAT) a new marldate to remain in the CCAR, deploy to ihe south east and
join the MDNlTCAJNMIS regional team demcated to gathering, analysing and sharing information on LRrl activities and advising on how best to protect civilians.
10. Emurc that thc plaru~d arid gradual clrswdowr~ of M O N K lcavcs sufficient forces m thc LRA-affcutcdarcas in the Congo.
To the Ugandan A m y , MONUC, U N W and MINURCAT:
11. Woslc more closely x i t b the Congolese, South Sudan (SPL4) nnJ CAR armies through joint patrols and offensive operations,
in full compliance with the UN's conditionalitypolicy on support to national armies, and by sharing information so they gain a
full understan&ng of the operation and hprove their counter-insurpa~cy tactics.

T o the Gorernrnent~ o f the Congo, South Sudan (GoSS), and the CAR:
12. Instruct local authorities, police and the security forces to w o k with communities in the support of self-defence grou~ps; local
administrators sl~ould register all members, agree in u~itmg on their specific tasks, plan and monitor pro~tp activities carektlly. Regurditig the root causes o f the problern in northern LkanJa
To the Ugandan Gvemment: 13. Bnng closure tc the LRI\ confict and minimise the risk of a successor insurgency by- implementing the pm\lsions of the
a~recrncnts ncgotiatcd hut not finally signed in Juba tvhich rclatc to reconstructing the north, bringing the worst p ~ z t r a t s oto ~ justice and reconciling cixilians with former fighters
T o Donors:
Page 8 of 9
APX _ -__-_ - 318
--
14. Finance a &sarmamenti demobhsation and reintegration (~DDR) program for LRA combatants and a regional comunication
campaign and support l~umnita~ian relief and long-term development programs implemented in an accountable and transpareut
manna in northern Uganda.
NnirobilBrusscLF, 28 April 2010
Page 9 of 9
. -
APX - 319-__-----
--
...........................................................................
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse,
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS Index No.:
X
6500-2011
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT OF
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al., Defendants.
FOR A MANDAMUS STAY

AND INJUNCTION
This statement i s scanty as time is of the essence and I merely address;; the controlling law for the filing of the affidavit of Christopher Earl Strunk affirmed io on the 20tll day of October 201 1 with 12 exhibits, that is based upon the underlying Complaint filed llrIarch 22, 201 1 with jurisdiction of the CPLR 9403(d),S7802 in conjunction with New York State Election Law (EL) Article $16- 100,6- 122 a s applies to EL Article 12 from before the start of the 2012 election cycle Presidential primary and general election.
Controlling law: United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 that mandates:
"No Persor~. except a rza.kaE born. Citizen, or a Cifizen o f the United States, at the time of the Adoption ofthis Constitution, shall b e eligible to the OfSice of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age ofthi@$ue Years, and beenfourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Minor. v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162 (1875),21 W a l l . 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. In particular from the decision is the following crucial passage from Justice Waite's opinion paying particular attention to the punchline:
Plaintie s Memorandum of Law in Support of OSC Page 1 of 6
APX - 320
"[T]he Constitution...provides that 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen ofthe United States at the time o f the adoption ofthe Constitution>shall be eligib1e to the ofice o f President'. ..The Constitution does not, in words, say zuho shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature o f which theflamers o f the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted 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, us distinguishedfrom aliens orforeigners. Some authorities go f d h e r and include as citizens children born mWIthin the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship o f their j88 U.S. 162, 1 681parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes o f this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. ft is sufficzent for everything we have now to consider that all children born o f citizen parents within the jurisdiction are thenlselves citizens. The words 'all children' are certainlg a s comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons, ' and females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the pZainH4fs proceeds upon that idea. (Emphasis added.)
ELN 3-102. State board of elections; general powers and duties. In addition to the enforcement powers and any other powers and duties specified by law, the state board of elections s h a i have the power and duty to: 1. issue instructions and promulgate rules and regulations relating to the administration of the election process, election campaign practices and campaign financing practices consistent with the provisions of law; 3 . Conduct any investigation necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter; 4. conduct private or public hearings; 5. administer oaths or affirmations, subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, and require the production of any examine them under oath or books, records, documents or other evidence it may deem relevant or material; 14. take all appropriate steps to encourage the broadest possible voter participation in elections including the administration of a program of registration form distribution by participating state agencies a s prescribed by section 5-2 11 of this c h a ~ t e r : 16. administer the administrative complaint procedure a s provided for in section 3-105 of this article: 17. perform such other acts a s may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter.
1 ,
EL 3 3-105. Administrative complaint procedure. 1. The state board of elections shall establish and maintain a uniform, nondiscriminatory administrative complaint procedure pursuant to which any person who believes that there is a violation (including a violation which has occurred or is occurring or is about to occur) of any provision of title three of the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), may file a complaint. 2. Initially, any such complaint may be made orally, in person or by telephone, or in writing. Such complaints may be made to the state board of elections or with any local board of elections. A toll-free number shall be made available therefor for telephone
Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Support of OSC Page 2 of 6
APX
- 321
calls to the state board of elections. Complaints shall be addressed by election officials expediently and informally whenever possible. 3 . AII formal complaints shall be filed with the state board of elections. AU formal complaints shall be written, signed and sworn by the complainant. The complairiant shall use a complaint form promulgated by the state board of elections. The state board of elections or a local board of elections shall assist any person with a disability who requests assistance to file a complaint. Complaints raising similar questions of law and/or fact may be consolidated by the state board of elections. 4. Upon the written request of the complainant, there shall be a hearing on the record, unless prior to the hearing, the state board of elections, in accordance with subdivision four of section 3-100 of this article, sustains the formal complaint a s being uncontested. Any party to the hearing may purchase a transcript of such hearing. 5. The evidentiary standard applied to all formal complaints shall be a preponderance of the evidence. 9. No provision of this section shall be construed to impair or Supersede the right of a n aggrieved party to seek a judicial remedy Including a judicial remedy concerning any final determination made Pursuant to subdivision eight of this section. The state board of Elections shall provide notice to all complainants of the provisions of this subdivision. NYS EL 8 6-122. Designation or nomination; eligibility, restrictions. A person shall not be designated or nominated for a public office or party position who (1)is not a citizen of the state of New York; (2) is ineligible to be elected to such office or position; or (3)who, if elected will not at the time of commencement of the term of such office or position, meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications thereof or, with respect to judicial office, who will not meet such qualifications within thirty days of the commencement of the term of such office.
NYS 316-100. Jurisdiction; supreme court, county court. 1. The supreme court is vested with jurisdiction to summarily determine any question of law or fact arising as to any subject set forth in this article, which s h a l l be construed liberally.
CPLR fj403 (d)Order to show cause. The court may grant a n order to show cause to be served, in lieu of a notice of petition at a time and in a manner specified therein.
CPLR g408. Disclosure. Leave of court shall be required for disclosure except for a notice under section 3123. A notice under section 3123 may be served at any time not later than three days before the petition is noticed to be heard and the statement denying or setting forth the reasons for failing to admit or deny shall be served not later than one day before the petition is noticed to be heard, unless the court orders otherwise on motion made without notice. This section shall not be applicable to proceedings in a surrogate's court, nor to proceedings relating to express trusts pursuant to article 77, both of which shall be governed by article 31.
CPLR s506. Where special proceeding commenced. (a) Generally. Unless otherwise prescribed in subdivision (b) or in the law authorizing the proceeding, a special proceeding may be commenced in any county within the judicial district where the proceeding is triable. (b) Proceeding against body or officer. A proceeding against a body or officer shall be commenced in any county within the judicial district where
Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Support of OSC Page 3 of 6
APX
- 322
the respondent made the determination complained of or refused to perform the duty specifically enjoined upon him by law, or where the proceedings were brought or taken in the course of which the matter sought to be restrained originated, or where the material events otherwise took place, or where the principal office of the respondent is located.. . CPLR 57802. Parties. (a)Definition of "body or officer". The expression "body or officer" includes every court, tribunal, board, corporation, officer; or other person, or aggregation of persons, whose action may be affected by a proceeding under this article (b) Persons whose terms of office have expired; successors. Whenever necessary to accomplish substantial justice, a proceeding under this article may be maintained against an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, or member of a body whose term of office has expired. Any party- may join the successor of such officer or member of a body or other persoil having custody of the record of proceedings under review. (c) Prohibition in favor of another. Where the proceeding is brought to restrain a body or officer &om proceeding without or in excess of jurisdiction in favor of another, the latter shall be joined as a party. (d) Other interested persons. The court may direct that notice of the proceeding be given to any person. It may allow other interested persons to intervene.
CPLR 87804. Procedure. (a)Special proceeding. A proceeding under this article is a special proceeding. (b)Where proceeding brought. A proceeding under this article shall be brought in the supreme court in the county specified in subdivision (b) of section 506 except as
that subdivision otherwise provides. (c) Time for service of notice of petition and answer. Unless the court grants a n order to show cause to be served in lieu of a notice of petition at a time and in a manner specified therein, a notice of petition together with the petition and affidavits specified in the notice, shall be served on any adverse party at least twenty days before the time at which the petition is noticed to be heard. An answer and supporting affidavits, if any, shall be served at least five days before such time. A reply, together with supporting &davits, if any, shall be served at least one day before such time. In the case of a proceeding pursuant to this article against a state body or officers, or against members of a state body or officers whose terms have eAxpiredas authorized by subdivision (b) of section 7802 of this chapter, commenced either by order to show cause or notice of petition, in addition to the service thereof provided in this section, the order to show cause or notice of petition must be served upon the attorney general by delivery of such order or notice to an assistant attorney general at a n office of the attorney general in the county in which venue of the proceeding is designated, or if there is no office of the attorney general within such couniy, at the office of the attorney general nearest such county. In the case of a proceeding pursuant to this article against members of bodies of governmental subdivisions whose terms have expired a s authorized by subdivision (b) of section 7802 of this chapter, the order to show cause or notice of petition must be served upon such governmental subdivision in accordaxce with section 3 11 of this chapter. (d) Pleadings. There shall be a verified petition, which may be accompanied by &davits or other written proof. Where there is an adverse party there shall be a verified answer, which must state pertinent and material facts showing the grounds of the respondent's action complained of. There shall be a reply to a counterclaim denominated as such arid there shall be a reply to new matter in the answer or where the accuracy of proceedings annexed to the answer is disputed. The court may permit such other pleadings a s are authorized in an action upon such terms as it may specify. (e)Answering affidavits; record to be filed; default. The body or officer shall file with the answer a certified transcript of the record of the proceedings under consideration, unless such a transcript has already been filed with the clerk of the court. The respondent shall also serve and submit with the answer &davits or other written proof showing such evidentiary facts as shall entitle him to a trial of any issue of fact. The court may order t l ~ e body or officer to supply any defect or omission in the answer, transcript or an answering affidavit. Statements made in the answer, transcript or a n answering affidavit are not
Plaintifr s Memorandum of Law in Support of OSC Page 4 of 6
APX
- 323
conclusive upon the petitioner. Should the body or officer fail either to file and serve an answer or to move to dismiss, the court may either issue a j u d e e n t i n favor of the petitioner or order that an answer be submitted. (4 Objections in point of law. The respondent may raise an objection in point of law by setting it forth in his answer or by a motion to dismiss the petition, made upon notice within the time allowed for answer. If the motion is denied, the court shall permit the respondent to answer, upon such terms as may be just; and unless the order specifies otherwise, such answer shall be served and filed within five days after service of the order with notice of entry; and the petitioner may re-notice the matter for hearing upon two days' notice, or the respondent may re-notice the matter for hearing upon service of the answer upon seven days' notice. The petitioner may raise an objection in point of Iaw to new matter contained in the answer by setting it forth in his reply or by moving to strike such matter on the day the petition is noticed or re-noticed to be heard. (g) Hearing and determination; transfer to appellate division. Where the substantial evidence issue specified in question fout of section 7803 is not raised, the court in which the proceeding is commenced shall itself dispose of the issues in the proceeding. Where such an issue is raised, the court shall first dispose of such other objections as could terminate the proceeding, including but not limited to lack of jurisdiction, statute of limitations and res judicata, without reaching the substantial evidence issue. If the determination of the other objections does not terminate the proceeding, the court shall make an order directing that it be transferred for disposition to a term of the appellate division held within the judicial department embracing the county in which the proceeding was commenced. When the proceeding comes before it, whether by appeal or transfer, the appellate division shall dispose of all issues in the proceeding, or, if the papers are insufficient: it may remit the proceeding. (h)Trial. If a triable issue of fact is raised in a proceeding under this article, it shall be tried forthwith. Where the proceeding was transferred to the appellate division, the issue of fact shall be tried by a referee or by a justice o f the supreme court and the verdict, report or decision rendered after the t r i a l shall be returned to, and the order thereon made by, the appellate division.
CPLR 3 7805. Stay. On the motion of any party or on its own initiative, the court. may stay further proceedings, or the enforcement of a n y determination under review, upon terms including notice, security and payment of costs, except that the enforcement of an order or judgment granted by the appellate division in a proceeding under this article may be stayed only by order of the appellate division or the court of appeals. Unless otherwise ordered, security given on a stay i s effective in favor of a person subsequently joined a s a party under section 7802.
5 7806. Judgment. The judgment may grant the petitioner the relief to which he i s
entitled, or may dismiss the proceeding either on the merits or with leave to renew. If the proceeding was brought to review a determination, the judgment may annul or confirm the determination in whole or in part, or modify it, and may direct or prohibit specified action by the respondent. Any restitution or damages granted to the petitioner must be incidental to the primary relief sought by the petitioner, and must be such as he might otherwise recover on the same set of facts in a separate action or proceeding suable in the supreme court against the same body or officer in its or his official capacity.
after completion of Plaintiffs H d a v i t a new posting was loaded by the attorney Leo D'Onofrio, Esq. in the matter that supports Plaintiffs allegation that in 2006 there was
Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of OSC Page 5 of 6
APX - 324
<
a concerted e f f o r t to obscure the law to *ow Bstrack Hussein Obama 11 to usurp the
office of POTUS t h a t states:
New evidence conclusivety establishes that 25 US-Supreme Court opinions h e run up to the '08 were sabotaged then republished at Justia.com during t election. M y prior report dmumentedthe scrubbing of j u s t two cases. But last week, a .third sabotaged case was discovered which led to a thorough examination of all U S Supreme Court cases which cite "Minor v. Happersett* as they appeared on Justiacom between 2006 and the present.
Since Justia placed affirmations on each tampered opinion which state "Full Text ofGaseP,personnel may also be guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. 1018 by intentionally passing off tampered versions of US Supreme Court opinions as if they were 0 1 versions published by the US Supreme Court. At this point, we do not know who committed these acts of sabotage. Since neither Obama nor McCain meet the Supreme Court's definition of a "naturalborn citizennin Minor v. Happersett, the deception might have been undertaken on behaif ~f either one.
That the sabotage of the onLine citations for the SCOTUS underlines the scope of the
conspiracy at work and makes the finding that P h t i f f and Kevin Richard Powell in
our research contend about the involvement of the NYS BOE to facilitate the
usurpation of the office of the POTUS as Mr. Powefi i nhis summary at page 11 of his Affidavit shown as Exhibit 4 states, and PlaintB is deserving of relief requested and further investigation in depth is warranted:
Dated: Brooktp,
Hew York October 20,20 11

Christopher-Earl: Strunk, i nesse, Plaintiff self-represent without being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281, Brooklyn, New York 1 1238. f845) 901-6767 E-maik chri%@stru&.ws
PlaintiE s Memorandum of Law in Support of OSC Page 6 of 6
APX
--
- 325
-
---
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HEW YORK
Index No.:
Christopher-Ear1: Strunk i n esse,
Plaintiff,
6500-201 1
Defendants.
Order to Sbow Cause for a Mandamus Stay and Injunction Affidavit in support of Order to Show Cause for a Mandamus Stay and Injunction
Ex 1 -Stipulation of Extension between Plaintiff and State Defendants Ex 2 Pre-Discovery Conference Notice Ex 3 - NYT Article on State of New Hampshire Presidential Primary Ex 4 Kevin Richard Powell Affidavit with sub-exh&its A thru E Ex 5 October 12'20 11,Plaintiff email to State's Counsel Ex 6 - Minor v. Happernett as Standing Precedent on Citizenship Ex 7 October 14,20 11,State's Counsel email to Plaintiff regarding Stipulation Ex 8 - October 13,2011on t h e Post & EmaiZ Article by C'mg M m n e y Ex 9 -October 7,2011 IWS BOE denied access to records Ex 10 - October 17,2011! W S BOE Denial of records Ex 11 2008 Election Pamphlet Ex 12 WNI) Article about Soros considerable investment i n Uganda oil
Memorandum in support of Order to Show Cause for a Mandamus Stay and Injunction Dated: Brooklyn, New Yotk
593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28 1. Brooklj~~, New York 11238. (845) 901-6767 E-mail: cbris@strunk.ws
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS: CIVIL TERM: PART 27 CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK, Plaintiff.
against -
: Index No.
6500/2011 NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSH, Co-Chair; DOUGLAS A. KELLNER, Co-Chair; EVELYN J. AQUILA, Commissioner; GREGORY P. PETERSON, Commission; DEPUTY DIRECTOR TODD D. VALENTINE; DEPUTY DIRECTOR STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO; ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN; THOMAS P. DINAPOLI; RUTH NOEMI COLON; in their official and individual capacities; FR. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; FR. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, J R . ; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a/k/a Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama 11, a/k/a Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY;
IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111;
: :
JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY;: STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE'PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA: OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; JOHN AND JANE DOES; and XYZ ENTITIES,
..........................................
MOTION
Defendants.
360 Adams Street Brooklyn, New York August 22, 2011 '
APX - 326
B E F O R E : HONORABLE ARTHUR M. SCHACK, J.S.C. A P P E A R A N C E S : CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK Plaintiff Pro Se 593 Vanderbilt Avenue, #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 STATE OF NEW YORK Office of the Attorney General Assistant Attorney General Special Litigation Counsel Attorney for Defendants All New York State Government Defendant BY: JOEL GRABER, ESQ. 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT Assistant Corporation Counsel Attorneys for Defendants A.O. Schwarz, Fr. Joseph A. O'Hare and Fr. Joseph P. Parkes BY: CHLARENS ORSLAND, ESQ.
100 Church Street
New York, New York 10007 SIMPSON, THACHER & BSTLETT, LLP Attorneys for Peter G. Peterson BY: SARAH DUNN, ESQ. 425 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 McGUIRE, WOODS, LLP Attorneys for Zbigniew Brzezinski, Mark Brzezinski and Ian Brzezinski BY: MARSHALL BEIL, ESQ. 1345 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10105
_________________-_----------------------SANDRA WILKES, R.P.R. Senior Court Reporter
APX
- 327
(Appearances cont ' d ) : HARRIS BEACH, PLLC Attorneys for President Barack Obama, V i c e president Joseph Biden, Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund, Nancy Pelosi and Penny Pritzker BY: THOMAS J. GARRY, ESQ. 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Uniondale, New York 11553 RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, P .C . Attorneys for the Socialist Workers Party and Roger CaLero BY: DANIEL S. REICH, ESQ. 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New York 10006 CAPLIN & DRYSDALE Attorneys for John McCain, 111 BY: RITA C. TOBIN, ESQ. BY: TODD E. PHILLIPS, ESQ. 375 Park Avenue New York, New York 10152 WILEY, REIN, LLP Attorneys for John A. Boehner BY: THOMAS W. KIRBY, ESQ.
1776. K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006 WILLKIE, FARR & GALLAGHER, LLP Attorneys for George Soros BY: JOHN R. OLLER, ESQ. 787 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10019
APX
- 328
PROCEEDINGS
THE COURT: before me.
I believe I have ten motions
I
I
Whoever appears, sort out whose who.

MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
I ' m self-represented.
Give your appearance. My name is Christopher-Earl
MR. STRUNK:
Strunk.
I'm self-represented.
I live in Brooklyn and
the case is a matter of standing based upon my vote as a one person, one person-one vote, and that I believe that the case
-You'll be
THE COURT:
We just want to know who you are.
We'll get to your offering, believe me. given a full opportunity to be heard. MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
I
I
Thank you. I'm not going to deny you that.
All right, now you can run through the list.. Anybody here for the State Board of Elections?
MR. GRABER:
attorney general.
Joel Graber.
I'm an assistant
I represent the governor and all the
other state defendants. THE COURT: Help m e out. You represent the Besides the Board
members of the Board of Elections.
of Elections I see there are names in an individual
capacity, am I correct?
MR. GRABER:
SW
Yes, your Honor.
APX
- 329
Kellner, Evelyn Aquila, and Gregory Peterson? MR. GmBER: THE COURT: Yes. And I take it they must be the
deputy directors of the State Board, Mr. Valentine and Mr. Zalen, correct? MR. GRABER: Yes. Although the individuals
I I
have changed, we represent the offices. THE COURT: You represent Governor Cuomo,
Attorney General DiNapoli? I don't know who Ruth Noem Colon is. MR. GRABER: She's a former Secretary of State, your Honor.
THE COURT:
now?
Who is the Secretary of State

It keeps changing.
I'm trying to remember.

MR. GRABER:
We don't, we don't focus on
personality.
We
-Oh, on the personality. What wa
THE COURT:
that song back in 1958, Personality? It was a number one. We'll focus on personality. MR. GRABER: defendants. THE COURT:
MR. GRABER:
Those are always distinct
Your name again? Joel Graber. You want to

SW
THE COURT:
--
if I can ask you
PROCEEDINGS
question then I notice you have, and I believe this is because there was a Campaign Finance Board, that's Father OIHare. It was also Father Parkes at the campaign.
MR. ORSLAND: Also A.O. Schwarz.

THE COURT: He was a Corp Counsel. I'm Chlarens Orsland,
MR. ORSLAND: 0-R-S-L-A-N-D. THE COURT: please? MR. ORSLAND: THE COURT:
Can you spell that again for me,
0-R-S-L-A-N-D.
First name? C-H-L-A-R-E-N-S.
MR. ORSLAND:
THE COURT: You're from Corp Counsel? I'll just say Campaign Fiance Board.
I don't
t h i n k t h e campaign can a s k t o match i f a n y t h i n g i s
wrong, MR. ORSLAND: THE COURT: get any money? No, they do judicial.
I understand.
How come I didn't
MR. ORSLAND: Leave me out.

that day. THE COURT:
I wasn1.tthere
I also know I am -- okay.
For Mr. Peterson, who MS. DUNN:
--
I'm here for Mr. Peterson but his SW
APX - 331
PROCEEDINGS
petition is not returnable today, THE COURT: D-U-N-N? Yes.
Sarah Dunn.
MS. DUNN:
THE COURT:\ I thought that one was thought I advanced everything. MS. DUNN: THE COURT: dismiss? MS. DUNN: THE COURT: MS. DUNN: THE COURT: Court? MS. DUNN: THE COURT: here today. Yes.
-- I
We just filed it on Wednesday. What was that, a motion to
You served it on Mr. Strunk? We did. You haven't served it on the
We filed it on Wednesday. I thought maybe I had everything
I thought I did.
And that's on behalf of Peter Peterson?
MS. DUNN:
THE COURT: caption.
Yes. So let me continue with my
Zbigniew Brzezinski? MR. BEIL: THE COURT: Mark Brzezinski. Yes. Okay. Zbigniew Brzezinski and
And who did I leave out? Ian, father and two sons. SW
MR. BEIL:
APX - 332
PROCEEDINGS
THE COURT:
Zbigniew Brzezinski, he'was a
national security adviser for President Carter. MR. BEIL: THE COURT: Yes. Who are you? My name is Marshall. Beil. And last name, sir? B-E-I-L, from McGuire Woods. McGuire Woods? Yes. And you're for the Brzezinski
MR. BEIL:
THE COURT: MR. BEIL: THE COURT:
MR. BEIL:
THE COURT: defendants? MR. BEIL: THE COURT: the vice president?
MR. GARRY:
Yes. Then we have
--
who's here for
I am, your Honor. You're also for the President? Yes.
THE COURT: MR. GARRY:
THE COURT: Mr. Garry, I know you. MR. GARRY: Thomas Garry from the law firm of
Harris Beach on one motion, four defendants. THE COURT: You represent. the vice president Who else?
I
I
I
Biden, you represent President Obama. MR. GARRY:
I represent the Obama for
America, as well as the Obama Victory Fund. THE COURT:

SW
Okay.
APX
- 333
PROCEEDINGS MR. GARRY: That's on one motion.

I also
represent Nancy Pelosi. THE COURT: MR. GARRY: THE COURT: Okay. As well as Penny Pritzker. And Pritzker, okay.
I want to continue. You represent the State Democratic Committee or not?

MR. GARRY:
I do not. Who represents the State
THE COURT: Democratic Committee?
MR. GARRY: My understanding is they have no

appeared. THE COURT: Who's here for the Working
Families Party, anybody?

Okay.
On behalf of the
Socialist Workers
Party and Roger Calero? MR. REICH: Daniel Reich, R-E-I-C-HI from
Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky and Lieberman. THE COURT: Rabinowitz
--
MR. REICH:
THE COURT:
MR. REICH:
B-0-U-D-I-N. Who else? Standard, Krinsky and Lieberman.
That's for Socialist Workers Party and Roger Calero. THE COURT:
v
And that's for the Socialist
SW
APX - 334
PROCEEDINGS
10
Workers Party and Roger Calero? MR. REICH: THE COURT: McCain? MS. TOBIN: Drysdale. THE COURT: C for Caplin? That's a C, representing John Rita Tobin from Caplin and Yes. Okay. And on behalf of Senator
MS. TOBIN:
McCain, McCain Victory 2008 and McCain-Palin Victory

2008.
We also have a motion on the calendar for the Pro Hav Vice Admission of my colleague Todd Phillips. And as soon as he is admitted Pro Hav Vice, he would also be representing THE COURT: somewhere? MS. TOBIN: your Honor. THE COURT: I have a motion to dismiss. You should have them somewhere,
-Do I have papers on that
name is on there Ms. Tobin and Mr. Wehner. MS. TOBIN: office.
THE COURT:
Yes, James Wehner of our D.C.
yOul/
That's in here to admit your
colleague for Pro Hav Vice or what is that, a separate motion?
APX - 335
%
---
--
PROCEEDINGS
11
All right, let me see if I have ithere. Okay, I have a motion to admit Mr. Phillips. Let's see, I have Mr. Wehner's name on it.
I see Mr. Phillips is a member of the bar of

California and of the District of Columbia. And
Mr. Wehner said Mr. Phillips is a individual who's a skilled attorney and a person of integrity. I don't doubt that. And I see he has a Certificate in Good
Standing from the State of California bar and the D.C. bar. Is there any objection to admitting Mr. Phillips for -MR. STRUNK:
I object on the basis that it's
part of the subject of the cross motion transfer in that it becomes a recognized operation before this Court. It's also required that they familiarize
themselves with the rules of the Court and with the structure of law of the State of New York.
n ! And it's r
contention that both Ms. Tobin and Mr. Phillips, and
Mr. Wehner were both involved in what I characterize a:

a misstatement in the request for judicial incerventior in that they did not recognize a related cqse that had been listed and swore to that matter. THE COURT: related case?
SW
What are you talking about? What
APX
- 335-A
PROCEEDINGS
MR. STRUNK:
There is an open case before
Judge Schmidt. THE COURT: MR. STRUNK: THE COURT: it again.
I believe he dismissed that.

It is an active case.
I don't know if -- 1'11 look at
I had a conversation about an hour ago with
Judge Schmidt, but I had a different impression. I'll look at it again. MR. STRUNK:
But
Certainly a sworn statement in
the RGI where it's clearly stated that there is a

related case.
THE COURT:
What does that have to do with
his permission for Pro Hav Vice? Let's assume everything you tell me is correct. What does that have to do with him being
He's a member of
admitted for this particular matter?
the bar in good standing of the District of Columbia and the State of California. MR. STRUNK:
My only objection is that this
motion was standard after the RGI was filed and that he should have familiarized himself with the rules of your Honor and the Court. THE COURT: That's all I -If that's all, the lawyers of the I'm going
State of New York would never read my rules.

to overrule.
SW
W
APX - 336
-
PROCEEDINGS
13
MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
Okay. It presented, what is -- what's
presented to me shows Mr. Phillips is a member of the bar in good standing of two other jurisdictions within the United States of America, and therefore for purposes of this particular case and pursuant to Section 520.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal and
22 NYCRR section 690.3, I'm going to admit him for Pro
Hav Vice.
For all I know, he is going to sit next to
Ms. Tobin and not say anything. He's admitted. Congratulations.
MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: You get a break. You don't have
to pay the # 3 5 0 bi-annual registration. Let me go back to see who's who.

Okay, are.you representing Mr. Boehner or
not? MR KIRBY: Thomas W.'Kirby of Wiley Rein. What's your name? Thomas W. Kirby, Wiley Rein,
THE COURT:
MR. KIRBY:
representing Speaker Boehner. THE COURT: Anybody here for the New York
State Republican State Committee? Anybody here for the New York State ~omrnitteel of the Independence Party?
SW
W
APX
- 337
PROCEEDINGS
14
Anybody here for the New York State Comrnitte of the Conservative Party? Okay, I*know we have Ms. Pritzker represented
-&
anyone here for George Soros? John Oller, 0-L-L-E-R, with
MR. OLLER: Willkie, Farr
Gallagher. Willkie, Farr and Gallagher? Yes. You guys, one time you were the
THE COURT:
MR. OLLER:
THE COURT:
lawyers for the National League forever.
MR. OLLER:
We do a little bit, not as much
as when we had the commission.
THE COURT:
know.
Okay, Obama for America we
The Obama Victory Fund. McCain, we have McCain Victory Fund 2008,
McCain-Palin representatives. Anything else I didn't get? covered everything. So we have
I think I've
--
so we have nine opposing
counsel, which is counsel, as well as Mr. Strunk befor
us today.
Now, Mr. Strunk, help me out. You know what Ron
--
I want to --
You have the index number on that Judge Schmidt case?
PROCEEDINGS
15
MR. STRUNK:
29642 dash 08. Here's what I'm going to do.
THE COURT:
want -- I need about one or two minutes.
I want to go
to my computer in my chambers and look at the County Clerk's files on that so I could see where we are on that case.
I'll be right back.

(At this time, there was a break in the
.
proceedings and the matter subsequently resumed.) THE COURT:
Okay, Mr. Strunk, it appears that
index number 29642, basically summarized, it appears

that you, there was a case in which it appears you had
tried to enjoin the Electoral College from meeting, am I correct, among other things? MR. STRUNK: THE COURT: Among other things. Then there were various orders
I I I I I I
issued and it appears that the judge in 2 0 0 8 -- I j u s t want to work my way through this. In November of 2008 you had an Order to Show Cause that you filed with the Court to estop the
Electoral College in New York State from meeting, among other things, and all kinds of other things you wanted about travel records in the State Department, about President Obama's mother in the early 60s, and it goes on and on and on. right now.
I don't want to go through that
But anyway, Judge Schmidt declined to,
sw
APX - 339
PROCEEDINGS
based on the decision of the second circuit. Then you came back a year later with an Order to Show Cause in .November of 2009 where you wanted a temporary restraining order, protective order et cetera about various federal, state and city agencies doing certain things with various individuals who -- Pastor Manning, Robert Dornan, Orley Taitz, et cetera, a number of people.
.
I'm not going to characterize them
in anyway whatsoever, just say they're individuals in the United States and he declined to sign that one. Then you came back on the same action in this year, and I have copies of the orders with notice of entry served by you, by the attorney general, State of New York office, and it appears that on January 11th of this year in that case you had a motion for leave being
heard by Judge Schmidt, and the Attorney General
I
I
opposed and he ordered that the motion was denied in its entirety. Then in March of this year, on March 17th --
I'm going to try to read Judge Schmidt's handwriting,

it says "All motions, also notices of entry by the
office of the Attorney General, all motions are denied. Mr. Strunk failed to join as a necessary party President Obama and Senator McCain, and the Statute of Limitations to do so expired in
II I
I
--
can't quite read a
-sw
APX - 340
PROCEEDINGS
17
word or two that he has.
I don't have a great
handwriting either, but I'm trying to, but it appears there's no purpose to allow the plaintiff to provide proof of service nunc pro tunc or to amend the complaint. case. It appears to me basically this is a dead
I don't know how else to describe it with

This case basically has, is not .
I mean certainly the Electoral
respect to 29642. around.
It's expired,
College met in 2008.
And not only New York State, but
in the District of Columbia and forty-nine other states, and congress did what they had to do in counting it under the Constitution. Mr. Obama is now the President of the United States whether you like it or not. is. So it is what it
so that's the situation that we have with respect
to t h a t .
Tell me why
--
I mean Judge Schmidt is the
judge in the Special Election Part.
So why should I
consolidate this action with an action that is basically disposed of?
MR. STRUNK:
Your Honor, the motion-for, the
Order to Show Cause was for a mandamus, a Article 78 under 29641. And depending upon the outcome of that,
then the companion complaint would be determined by the law of the case that was decided by him in regards to
APX
- 341
PROCEEDINGS
state officers receiving two, officers being paid twice. In other words THE COURT:
--
I I
I
You said
--
I don't -- I think
electors get expenses.
I don't think they get paid.
MR. STRUNK: They get paid per diem,
THE COURT:
That's expense money.
In other
words, if someone resides let's say in this county,.in Kings County, Mew York City, Brooklyn, and they go to Albany, I think the third Wednesday in December after the election I believe is when the Electoral College meets, if I'm correct, in that they meet, every state capital in the country every four years. So if
I 1 I /
somebody drives their car to Albany and gets fifty cents a mile and tolls and lunch, that's expense money. That's not compensation.
MR. STRUNK:
It was not expense.
It was
payment for the day, which is different.
THE COURT: All right, so be that as it may,

let's --
II 1i
I
1
MR. STRUNK:
In any case -Let's assume for argument sake
THE COURT:
someone is a New York City councilman, state senator and they're chosen as an elector for that particular case. So you're saying that that person
--
I mean
that's why you had Governor Paterson in there or SW

LJ
I I
PROCEEDINGS
19
Mr. Cuomo when he was attorney general because they
were electors. MR. STRUNK: the same time. They were holding two jobs at
The law of the case, this was
determined according to the decision by Judge Schmidt, and that was that
-But he denied all these motions. Go ahead.
THE COURT:
All right, let me hear you out. I'm sorry. say. MR. STRUNK:
I apologize.
Let me hear what you have to
If 29641 had been decided in
--
in other words, I couldn't make a proper complaint because you have so many state officers also as electors which I figured was a unusual situation where there was a conflict of interest. Now, these was
THE COURT:
--~-mean if you went to
Is it
other states, for argument sake. you went to California,

you're going to tell me that democratic officers in
California are not electors in California?

EJIR.
STRUNK:
I didn't study California.
only studied New York. THE COURT: In the same respect, obviously
Mr. McCain had one and Mr. -MR. STRUNK: Mr. S k e l o s .

SW
" L ',
APX - 343
PROCEEDINGS
20
THE COURT: And others who were all leaders of the respective chambers in the legislature as republicans, I'm,sorry, slate of electors, you would have made the argument, am I correct?
MR. STRUNK:
Yes.
There was a decision where, the decision on the law, what is done in 29641, and the attorney's presentation both of the Public Officer's Law and the Executive Law, and the constitution was made in which could then decide how to proceed in my complaint because otherwise I didn't know where, if in fact ther had been a conflict because the state legislature never
--
because they're the ones under Article 2,
Section 1
--
determined because the right to vote is a
privilege and Electoral College is determined by the

s t a t e legislature.
.But t h e r e w a s nothing in l a w w h i c h
defined who an elector could be,
And of course it's
become a patriot in its positidn by habit and I considered it bad habit. THE COURT: You say
--
maybe it's your honor
because you're a leader of a particular political part that wins the most votes. State. Let's stay with New York
If you're a member of the political party that
gets the most votes, popular votes, the party gives yod this honor and you are rubber stamped so to speak, the
SW
APX - 344
-
PROCEEDINGS
will of the votes
-Excuse me. The general electiol
MR. STRUNK:
is not a party and raises
--
it's anybody that's not a
member of a party can seat. THE COURT: Correct. But technically you're
voting on election day for President of the United States throughout this country. You don't have one.--
we really have 51 for slates of electors in fifty countries. MR. STRUNK: THE COURT: Fifty-one separate elections. Correct. Whoever wins that
particular, DC or any one of the fifty states that you were voting for a slate of electors, anywhere from three to, I forget how many electors the State of California has, so you're voting for those electors.
Most people don't understand that.
So then whoever
gets the most votes for that state of votes, those people become the electors.
MR. STRUNK:
w e understand that.
In New York State. And also technically they can For argument1$ sake,
THE COURT:
vote for everything they like.
when David Paterson was elected in 2008 and he wanted to vote for John McCain, that's his right. He voted.
Every elector voted in New York State for Obama.

MR. STRUNK:
And we come to the rub of the
SW
PROCEEDINGS
22
complaint.
The rub of the complaint is that it was my
obligation to inform the electors of whom both the republicans and the democrats that they were entering into an area which was I believe and 1 still believe uncovered, not covered by New York State law. They
were essentially having to determine as is required under the 20th amendment the eligibility of the candidates, and I had given them notice in my complaint. And once I found whether they're sitting
properly, which was the Article 78, I could then, I ha

a right to amend the complaint, and I did not amend th complaint because I went to Washington under a Freedor of Information request to get further discovery becaus
I was denied any discovery whatsoever on the Departmen

of State records to determine in no uncertain terms where the mother was at the time of the birth. still in court on that three years. Now 1.'
I
I
I
THE COURT:
jumping ahead.
Here's a'question. Maybe this is
Subsequent to your commencing this action that we have before us today, and also subsequent to the 2008 action, President Obama released these documents from the State of Hawaii which I think was late April.
I know it's in the motion papers.
You
attached as an exhibit his birth certificate, the birth
sw
APX - 346
PROCEEDINGS
23
certificate that, it was released from the State of Hawaii
.
MR. STRUNK:
I don't challenge either one.
accept that as prima facie proof that his father is a British subject. THE COURT: born in -MR. STRUNK: THE COURT: Honolulu, you agree? MR. STRUNK: Absolutely, I agree. prima facie. That's It's all right. You believe he was born in
I I
You're not raising whether he was
I'm not going to challenge it if there's

I'm just saying that he
a presumption that it's true.
I I
admitted that his father 1s a British subject. THE COURT: But I don't think anybody denies
I believe
his father was a British or Kenyan subject.
for sure when Kenyan achieved its independence from Britain
-MR. STRUNK: Even when he was born his f a t h e l
was a British subject.

THE COURT:
We agree he's not an American
citizen at the time of his birth. MR. STRUNK:

He was a student, considered a
foreign allegiant on a student visa and therefore he couldn't also be a permanent resident in the United
SW
PROCEEDINGS
States.
Therefore, he was here on a short term It was clear. And to
turnover for education only.
jump forward here, it's clear that New York State was the preventer.
L
II
They generated what natural born When Chief Justice Yates left the
citizen means.
Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787, he came back and told George Clinton, "We don't want any part of what's going on down there because we've got too much at stake," New York spread from the upper Peninsula of Michigan all the way to the Connecticut river. THE COURT: constitution. New York State ratified the
MR. STRUNK: Only when Jay and Hamilton were

able to yank it out of Philadelphia, it posed a rigor which met the requirements of New York State, and that was a natural born citizen. When we ratified the constitution, it was on our terms and it was a compromise only to the fact that we allowed for it on1 because it was a phyric victory. There were already
nine ratifications that both the federalists and anti-federalists said we'll list with only the president being a natural born, but we want all congressman being natural born. That's what the
ratification documents were and it was put in as a pure

SW
PROCEEDINGS
25
recollection of afterthought. But if they had acted unified under Yates and Clinton, they could have made that requirement and it would be a
--
THE COURT:
We're now in 2011. report.
Let's -- we're not in 1787. That's law. Let's come to the
I
I
So, but the way, I mean, you're arguing this to Judge Schmidt. It appears to me that Judge Schmidt
more or less has resolved these issues.
Also with what occurred in 2008, it's sort of like humpty-dumpty. It's done. The egg is broken.
You can't put it back together again.
MR. STRUNK: overturn an election. suggest it.
I'm not, certainly not trying to
I would be a fool even to
II
We don't have a law in the State of New
York, nor is there a law anywhere else in the country. Everybody is on their best honor that they're going to submit a certified candidate to be on the ballot to meet the requirement of a natural born citizen. filing on your honor. You're a citizen. It's
I
I I I
There's
nobody there to verify, there's nobody taking responsibility unless I come in three days after the submission of that certification and challenge it in court.
After three days Mickey Mouse is on the ballot. There is no
So somebody has to take responsibility. SW
APX - 349
PROCEEDINGS
26
law under the 20th amendment.
It's the supreme Court
of the state running the specific election for a federal officer representing that state. The Supreme
Court of the State of New York has original jurisdiction over all elections. elections per se. legislature. There are no federal
There is no law coming out of the
There is no law coming out of the
executive. Honor.
Therefore, the buck stops with you, your
THE COURT: Truman.
Thank you for making me Harry
MR. STRU*:
I don't want it to repeat again
in 2012, and that's already been announced by the Socialist Worker Party the candidates and it's been announced by Mr. Obama that he's running for 2012. THE COURT: However, the convention hasn't
met in Charlotte, North Carolina. Let's assume for a moment all your arguments are valid.
I haven't made any assumptions. Let's
assume for the sake of argument one of the things you're asking for me to enjoin him from being on the ballot or slate of electors in 2012.
MR. STRUNK:
.THE COURT:
Which would go to part one. Here's my question for you.
There's -- since a democratic convention has
PROCEEDINGS
27
not yet met, not until next summer, technically there' no candidates for 2012. Isn't it premature for
enjoining Mr. Obama from being on the ballot?

MR. STRUNK:
I think there are steps to be
taken before.
We're being injured. I'm being injured You look pretty good to me when I know, not in the I'm sorry, but go
THE COURT:
you say you're personally injured. physical sense, I understand that. ahead. MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
I didn't mean
-I made a
I said I'm sorry.
little joke.
I sho-uldn'tdo that, but go ahead.

Well, look, I've been called I did it because you said you I understand what you're
MR. STRUNK:
--
THE COURT:
were personally injured. saying.

MR. STRUNK:
I'm the,only one in the country
one of 300 million or however many, minus the

THE COURT:
--
You and I are two of many. I'm the only one in the State o
MR. STRUNK:
New York who went to court in 2008., It was a learning curve problem and shame on me for not handling the problem. But the record shows around the country that
I'm ahead of, head and shoulders ahead of most

attorneys who tried this, and I know all of them and
PROCEEDINGS
28
that they're still running around Federal C o w t as if Federal Court had jurisdiction. They don't. Our
elections are run'by the State, and Supreme Court is where the buck stops. And right now we have no responsibility being taken by the Board of Elections who's run by the democrats and republicans. And if I may add, the democrats was actually the lawyer for the people. Two people actually behind the scenes giving
advice for the election of both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama, and that I believe -THE COURT:
You're talking about Mr. Garry or
are you
-MR. STRUNK: No, Douglas Kellner.
THE COURT:
MR. STRUNK:
TEE COURT:
Oh.
He is very much
I see.
--
MR. STRUNK:
-- of the Province of the

j
Society of Jesus. He represented them and he had it his interest to recuse himself and to make sure that
their ministerial tasks were righteously carried out i terms of enforcing the only rule which appears in the State of New York, which was on their website which they repeated, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, which says "No candidate for president or vice president shall be on the ballot unless they meet that
SW
PROCEEDINGS
29
requirement."
It was on their honor. Excuse me one more moment.
THE COURT:
(At this time, there was a pause in the proceedings and the matter subsequently resumed.)
THE COURT:
can continue.
Sorry, continue.
Go ahead.
You
I just -I believe that -- I told my son
MR. STRUNK:
before I came here today, he's going to vote for the first time next year, I don't believe our vote means very much anymore because it's all manipulated behind the scenes. Our voting rate of turn out for election has dropped off.
we no longer have a reasonable
expectation of individual participation in the elections and certainly the ballot is picked for the president's race and that even puts a greater responsibility on the Board of Elections to check that the requirement of eligibility,underArticle 2, Section
1, Clause 5 are met, and that was not done. And it's
already been admitted by the Socialist Workers Party that it had been done and it was admitted that nobody could be eligible for president unless they had two citizen parents at birth. Mr. McCain. That was the condition of
I voted for Mr. McCain.
Painfully I vote
for Mr. McCain.
But nonetheless, when he did not
challenge Mr. Obama, when he had already admitted that SW
APX
- 353
PROCEEDINGS
30
he had a British born father, Mr. McCain did not challenge that. Therefore, my contract to vote, one
person-one vote, where I cannot sell my vote, I can't give it away.

I can go to jail for that.
There's a
other side to my vote.
It means something in the Stat
of New York and it better mean something because New York State is in dire condition politically. We canno
sustain a voting assembly where people do not vote. Upstate, New York is emptying out because they are not being represented properly, that's germane. that aside Putting
-So essentially your argument is
THE COURT:
for someone to run for president of the United States under Article 2 of the constitution, it says you have to be a natural born citizen. That means that not on1
you have to be born.within the United States of America, but both your parents have to be natural born citizens, is that what you're saying?
MR. STRUNK:
Yes, your Honor, What if for argument's sake
THE COURT:
Mr. Obama's father would have been naturalized?

MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
He would be naturalized.
So in other words, your parents
have to be citizens? MR. STRUNK: SW

V
Yes, and as spelled out in New
APX
- 354
PROCEEDINGS
31
York State law and specifically in regards to our history of law that's found in the real property law Section 18, that's the only location that the natural born citizen is mentioned and there's a basis of legislative action to that basis where you cannot convey a piece of mining rights to anybody who is not natural born. Natural born is also defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1824 as it relates to the transition of the property rights after the revolution where family would inherit. So in other domestic law in our
surrogate, in our law which passes property on to a family member, there's a definition in New York State law which clearly defines that it's blood and soil law of nations definition and I say law of nations because
it's big letters in.the U.S. Constitution.
It is the
basis of how we carried on trade, how we carried on commerce, how we were able to borrow money to run the revolution that we had to operate under international law that was commensurate with our ability to exist as
a nation after we broke from the king.
So all this
comes to bear to the legislature which I deem them lazy, you know, bad habits. Mr. Goldwater was the last one on the ballot in 64 who was not born on U.S. soil. He was born in SW
W
APX - 355
PROCEEDINGS
32
the territory of Arizona. THE COURT: Barry Goldwater.

a
Listen, I'm not going to debate
MR. STRUNK:
This is in LBJ's papers.
They
had prepared a challenge in the event that Goldwater THE COURT:
Arizona became a state in 1912.
I'm not sure what year Mr. Goldwater was born.

MR. STRUNK:
1901 or 2. Whenever. Doesn't matter.
THE COURT:
For purposes of this, let's assume he was born in 1912
--
I didn't think he was that old when he
ran for president.
Be that as it may, it was American
territory since the treaty of Guadalupe in 1828. Depending on where he was born in Arizona, it's American territory. Even going far afield to argue
about Senator Goldwater, and you have a argument about
Senator McCain, his father was on active duty in Unite States Navy.
I didn't check, I'm assuming his father
and mother were natural born citizens of the United States. You're linking a little bit of the
Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty to try to claim he's .not a natural born citizen.

MR. STRUNK:
Isn't that a little far fetched

No, not at all.
He was born in They
the Republic of Panama, not on a military base. didn't have a hospital at that point.
SW
PROCEEDINGS
33
I
I 4 I
I
THE COURT:
Thank you.
Why are his, father
and mother in 1936 in Panama? Because they voluntaril went to Panama? *He got orders to go to Panama, his father.
MR. STRUNK: That is really a fact.

is that the senate, the U.S. Senate THE COURT:
--
The
I read that resolution.
I waSn'tl
aware of it but I read about it in your papers.
MR. STRUNK: All right.
So I took it, the
argument on territory I accepted it at the time and voted accordingly. wasn't

I wasn't aware of the treaty.
-THE COURT: Well, fortunate or unfortunate, I

In my previous life
actually am aware of that treaty.
I taught American history and Mr. Bunau-Varilla had

never set f o o t t h e r e i n h i s life.
I d o n ' t know if
you're aware. MR. STRUNK:
I was stationed --
THE COURT:
preference.
Mr. Bunau-Varilla was a tool of
They're trying to get Panama to cut a deal

A n d . 1 know
with the U.S. so he's assigned six days.
I I
I
that history because I once studied U.S. diplomatic history. The point I want to make, Senator McCain's father, he became Admiral McCain.
SW
He's ordered by the
APX - 357
PROCEEDINGS
navy department, you're assigned.
Whatever his
assignment was in Panama and his wife goes, she's don't know, she gets pregnant.
-- I
I don't know how long

So Senator
he was in Panama prior to Senator McCain.
McCain, in that his parents, his father goes on
official business for the United States and is a member
I
I
of the United States Navy and that's why his father was1 there and you're arguing because of that he's disqualified to be president of United States? MR. STRUNK: I'm arguing that he had been
certified by the senate.
I know unanimously that he
was natural born and that there simultaneously was a bill introduced in the house which essentially defined that, that you need two citizen parents to do such, butl that was never carried forward. They wanted to do a
constitutional amendment. They recognized that there was a problem in the definition and they recognized that and it was never carried forward. But the sense
resolution was sponsored by Mr. Obarna and by Mrs. Clinton who were candidates against Mr. McCain.
THE COURT:
Maybe they had a realization that
even though you can disagree with John McCain politically, he is also a natural born citizen of the United States. MR. STRUNK:
SW
My injury, I voted for McCain.
APX
- 358
PROCEEDINGS
35
THE COURT:
Is that a injury?
MR. STRUNK: My injury is he did not challenge Mr. Obama after he went through that whole exercise. THE COURT: You're saying he should have
challenged Mr. Obama's presidency? MR. STRUNK: Absolutely, and the ballot. onus is on me because he violated his agreement with T h i
me.
You can't challenge the eligibility until he's up McCain, since everybody in Congress,
to be sworn.
since they didn't want to know about anything, so it was my responsibility. within 7 2 hours. THE COURT: the president. I fired him by registered mail
I saw your letter that you fired
I guess he didn't agree with you
because he's still there.
MR. STRUNK:
eagle scout in 1959. THE COURT: life scout.
I'm an eagle scout.
I became a
Congratulations.
I was only a
It's true.
I praise you for that.
MR. STRUNK: individual.
But that shapes my thinking as
I mean, what are we as a country if we
don't abide by the law? THE COURT: a country.

SW
That's right, 1'11 agree.
We ar
APX
- 359
PROCEEDINGS
36
MR. STRUNK: After all, the only thing I have is my life and my vote. And if my vote doesn't mean
anything and they- can run around and not make a THE COURT:
--
But in looking at your complaint,
and I read, you know, I think it's 45 pages, right, your complaint? But then you come out with statements -- let's take Mr. Obama. as Soebarkah. You refer to him
To me hers President Obama.
I mean you
come out with what I call conclusions.
I don't know
what it's based upon that he's, in paragraph 24, that he's "a Madrasah trained radical Sunni Muslim by birth right. "
MR. STRUNK: That's a matter of public

record. THE COURT:
He's a Muslim.
I hear on Sunday
morning he goes to church.
MR. STRUNK:
When I went to Washington on a
case to determine where the mother was at the time of
his birth, I had not drawn a conclusion other than I

already knew his father was a British subject. passport application had on it Soebarkah. one who got that name Soebarkah. of that. Her
I was the
I was the originator

There was nobody
I am entitled to use that.
else in the country who had thought about doing this.
I was the first one in the country.

SW
APX - 360
PROCEEDINGS
Now, Soebarkah, also if you use the language
of the region, is a conjunction of the son, who's the

son of Soetoro.
THE COURT:
How could you come to the
conclusion that he's a radical Sunni Muslim? MR. STRUNK: Because that's what his records
show and that's what the testimony of individuals who were in class with him show. stringent He practiced the most
--
he spoke Arabic and he practiced the most
stringent rigors of attendance in the Mosque, and that
is a matter of public record.

THE COURT': Muslim? MR. STRUNK: There's nothing wrong with bein But what's wrong with being
a Muslim.
There is nothing wrong with it. THE COURT: Well, you ma-ke a statement that
Sunni Muslims -- I mean, that's the majority of Muslims and Shia and others. But you say that
--
let me get
the exact quote that you had here, a Muslim, in paragraph 24, I have "a Muslim is a liar by training, never to be trusted."
MR. STRUNK: A1 takia.

THE COURT:
Meaning there are hundreds of
millions of people in the world who are Muslims, none of them are to be trusted by virtue of the fact they
APX
- 361
PROCEEDINGS
are Muslim?
MR. STRUNK:
If we were to get into a
detailed discussion of the Koran THE COURT:
--
I don't know too much.

I don't want to discuss the
MR. STRUMK:
Koran.
THE COURT:
I don't either.
But you make a
statement in your complaint. Seems to me like you defamed hundreds of Muslims.

MR. STRUNK:
Mr. Obama is one of the most
practiced liars that I've ever seen in my short 64 years of life.

'
THE COURT: Okay.

MR. STRUNK:
And nobody challenges his lies.
I've heard Nixon, I've heard everybody from Eisenhower in my lifetime, and that Mr. Obama is a consummate lia
and he doesn't get called out on it.

word. He's trained.
Nobody says a
It's his training.
Franklin Marshal Davis as a FBI stringer was very much involved in the training of Mr. Obama after year ten when he, when he was sent by his mother and grandmother to Chicago for therapy. His background
went to Father Galluzzo, Greg Galluzzo the Jesuit Priest who helped in his rehabilitation from recovery of his substance abuse problems. But that's neither
APX - 362
PROCEEDINGS
39
I
I I
here nor there.
The point is that lying is a-art which
you've got to learn and Mr. Obama has been taught how to lie and he's one of the best liars that I have ever seen, including Bill Clinton who blushes when he lies. THE COURT: Clinton and Obama. Let me move along from Bill There's something else concerns me
I
I
I
reading the papers, because you mention a number of things about the Muslims. What I find fascinating, first of all you said there was a connection there where you say Cindy McCain says she's a Catholic.
I don't know if she is.
I think you said she's Catholic faith, Cindy McCain.

MR. STRUNK: of Budweiser. THE COURT: She is the largest distributor
I know that.
That doesn't make
I I
her a Catholic necessarily.
MR. STRUNK:
It's the connection that counts.
You don't get those connections. THE COURT:

I don't know if the
Anheuser-Busch, I don't know if the Busch family is Catholic.

I don't care.
MR. STRUNK:
That's big business. That's big business selling beer.
THE COURT:
If I had a Anheuser-Busch-ship I wouldn't be sitting

here.
I would be counting my money.
I
I
Let's put
APX - 363
PROCEEDINGS
40
Anheuser-Busch to the side. You said she's a Catholic and you get into this whole riff or rant, whatever you want to call it about the Catholic church and Father O'Hare, the Vatican. You go on and on about the Vatican, and I'm
seeing this book I can't avoid, a very thick book in front of me. It says Vatican Assassins as a title, bul
it seems to me you have this theory that everything is a conspiracy and it always falls back to Rome.
MR. STRUNK:
record. THE COURT:
That's a matter of public
Oh, okay. What the key is here, Ms. McCair
MR. STRUNK:
is on the Board of Directors for a Jesuit run school

where her children are going to school. THE COURT: know. Could very well be.
I don't
MR. STRUNK: And they have a tight connection

to the magazine America which was unbeknownst to me at the time,
I would not have voted for him if I had
known because I was warned by my friend Bob Dornan that anybody associated with the magazine America is not a friend of this country. And that's Bob Dornan. Bob Dornan is one of the top Jesuit people in this country nobody can challenge, and this was said on a radio SW
I I
I
APX - 364
PROCEEDINGS
program which I was on for two hours. to anyone who listens.
It's available
His take on Mr. McCain, he and
I
I
I both voted for Mr. McCain because we could not see

1
our way clear of voting for Mr. Obama because he did not have two citizen parents, and we relied on Mr. McCain, the old war horse, the old glue factory horse, that he would do what was necessary to protect
our interest as voters, Mr. Dornan down in Virginia in

F a i r f a x where he's from and me here, and Mr. McCain di
not follow through.

I
In fact, it turns out in the
discovery of the connection to the Jesuits it was so
I I 4 I
compeliing that when I started really digging into the background of this scheme of defraud, putting up two Manchurian candidates at once, which would take advantage of New York State's weakness in our law whicq required honesty. didn't get it.
We require to have honesty and we
THE COURT:
Code.
Your case is more the Davinci
MR. STRUNK:
The Davinci Code is a phoney
Frankenheimer, the Manchurian Candidate according to you and the school of the Vatican, by that way it describes the gist of your argument.
I I
I
PROCEEDINGS
42
Frankenheimer, He directed the original
I 1
I
Manchurian Candidate movie. MR. STRUNK: THE COURT: MR. STRUNK: The old. With Frank, not Denzel. Frankenheimer.
THE COURT:
MR. STRUNK: point, but
1962 movie.
I
I
I was aware of the movie at that
-Okay, forget it. This is the one with Frank
THE COURT: MR. STRUNK: Sinatra .

,'-
THE COURT: And Laurence Harvey.
MR. STRUNK: you've brought --
The Queen of Diamonds. Now
THE COURT:
Candidate.
You mentioned Manchurian
They have it in the movie. I've used it as a pejorative.
I understand that, and I think
the Davinci Code, to make some interesting argument, that's a work of fiction. At least-I think it's a worl of fiction. MR. STRUNK: a work of fiction. into this area.
SW
The Manchurian Candidate was noi
The work
-- I
don't want to get
PROCEEDINGS
43
THE COURT:
Let's not get into analogies.
understand you have various arguments but it seems to
all come back to Rome.

MR. STRUNK: No, it comes back to New York
State and whether I have standing in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on the question of who's goin
to take the responsibility to enforce the law which.ha

not been done.
THE COURT:
Okay, that's your argument.
want to make one observation before I hear from all t h c defendants in this particular case on their motion. You made a statement earlier about rigged elections and about how everything is pre-ordained, what's going to happen, you don't have a choice et cetera, et cetera. Despite how you feel about this
country, you have now spoken for half hour approximately, in which to put it mildly, you have madc statements which 1'11 say, you 'know, that are not, are not in favor of Mr. Obama, President of the United States, and you made statements about Mr. McCain and others. detained. You haven't been handcuffed, you haven't been You're going to walk out of this room a frec Despite whatever you
man, and I'll let you go on.
think, you have a right to your opinion in this country.
I just want to say that.
APX
SW
- 367
PROCEEDINGS
Thank you, your Honor. Okay.
MR. STRUNK: What my observation is, judge, the appeals court back in 2002, 2003 was interested in increasing the confidence of the general population an the judiciary.
I participated in testimony in what I
thought was necessary to increase participation in the confidence of the general public in our judiciary. Forget the federal court. they're -THE COURT:
They're overpaid and
Oh, I'll disagree with you there
That's the federal, it's not the New York State judiciary. That's what you're talking about now. The judiciary is the only place
MR. STRUNK:
that a citizen can make a argument from soup to nuts, from beginning to end.
THE COURT:
Have you stopped?
Guess what?
I'm letting you.
MR. STRUNK: That's why I'm here. judiciary. speech.
I love th
That's the only place I get my freedom of
There was an arrest on the weekend in NYU. Somebody standing on a soap box because he was going o about the federal reserve. that.
I just sue them.
I don't get involved with
SW
APX
- 368
PROCEEDINGS
45
THE COURT: either?
So you don't have Ron ~ a u l
MR. STRUNK: Ron Paul, I frankly think is a ring kisser.

He's a bookend of a argument.
THE COURT:
I'm not going there.
He's not i l
the case. He's one of the new people. MR. STRUNK: Ron Paul said in no uncertain
terms, "I'm not going to embarrass myself in front of my colleagues by challenging Mr. Obama.
I wouldn't be
'
able to live with myself," or something paraphrased. can't find anybody in THE COURT:
-In essence, you want me to enjoil
Mr. Obama from being on the ballot and you want expedited discovery, as I notice, about various damages. And I see you also want me to enjoin your
claim that the Jesuits have interfered with our election law.
MR. STRUNK: That is a matter which is a

longer standing matter which there's Christine Quinn that shows
--
Christine Quinn.
THE COURT: council.
I show speaker of the city
MR. STRUNK:
Mr. Obama..
She was an elector for
THE COURT:
Okay.
PROCEEDINGS
46
MR. STRUNK:
She also chose the participants
of the Campaign Finance Board who then gave out money at six dollars for every one dollar of taxpayer money to
--
including Ms. Quinn got money to run. THE COURT:
She did as a member candidate for
council. MR. STRUNK: THE COURT: That's right. But I don't believe that
I I
Mr. Obama, McCain got money for campaign boards. MR. STRUNK: What opened my eyes in my case
against Mr. Paterson is that when he took over for Mr. Spitzer who was essentially thrown out for messing with Wall Street, that's clear that's what Mr. THE COURT: but let's work on
--
I I I
1
I don't think that's actually,
--
MR. STRUNK: Mr. Paterson's aides who read
all of his work and a11 of his,papers and made the necessary proposals of what Mr. Paterson said is a Jesuit priest, and as a Jesuit priest, you don't quit the Jesuit order. Only God relieves you of that
I I I
requirement. So that that opened up my eyes seeing
what was a Jesuit priest doing controlling the governor of the State of New York in the governor's office. THE COURT: You're talking about Mr. O'Byrne
who used to be the governor's secretary, is that what

SbJ
PROCEEDINGS
you're talking about? MR. STRUNK: THE COURT: priesthood? MR. STRUNK: There's no such thing. You have Mr. Paterson.
I thought he resigned the
to divorce the priesthood. THE COURT: Jesuits and God. That's between Mr. OIByrne, the
I don't know
I'm not going there.
what happened there. former priest. MR. STRUNK:
My understanding was he was a
You have to be -- in other
words, the Jesuiteorder is a militia of the Holy See, and since 1984 -THE COURT:
I know we can bring back
inquisition going over here and to file the reformatior and everything else. 2011. MR. STRUNK: time is unbroken. The time is, the time is, the It's not 1900 anymore. It's
There is no
--
they are here for the
same reason as they were in 1540 when they did the Council on Trent. THE COURT: I have the gist. There's
--
want to give each defendant, just as I have given you
an opportunity to be heard, to be heard.
MR. STRUNK: Well, my primary cause of action

SW
APX
- 371
PROCEEDINGS
48
here is that one person-one vote has been trampled on in the State of New Yoxk. They're not turning out. People are not voting now.
I
I
I
They've got to know that when
somebody is put on the ballot, the entire board of elections does their job, and they're not
THE COURT:
--
Mr. Strunk, we are a democracy
which means that people can choose in an election. ~n isn't it also that people can choose not to vote?
MR. STRUNK:
votes.
If they want to waste their
THE COURT:
I know i t ' s
--
if people choose
1
I
I
not to go as a democracy, you're saying we should coerce them or mandate that people have to vote?
MR.
I
I
STRUNK:
That's how it's done in
Australia.
THE COURT:
MR. STRUNK:
I know, another country.
I
I
Under Article 111, New York
State Election Law, the Board of Elections has as its primary duty to increase participation in election.
has failed and it has failed because they're playing
1.1
democrat tweedle durn, tweedle dee and not enforcing the law the way it's written and the way
THE COURT:
--
Okay, I have the gist of your
argument. I may?
I want to hear from the defendants, okay, if
Thank you.
SW
APX
- 372
PROCEEDINGS
MR. STRUNK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you.
The reason why I let you go on, I want to be sure that you are able to be given the opportunity to be heard.
MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
Thank you.
I don't want you to walk out of
here thinking I wasn't going to listen to you. Whatever the decision is going to be, it will be. at least I want you to have the opportunity to be heard.
I list Tpthink nine sets of lawyers in order
But
The order in which they announce their appearance, why don't I do it that way, and ask the people to
--
Mr. Graber, you want to speak first on behalf of your clients?

MR. GRABER:
Thank you, your Honor.
The State would like to defer to the defendants who had made motions. THE COURT: Okay. That's fair. So then
--
it is Orsland on behalf of the Corp,Counsel? MR. ORSLAND: Yes, your Honor.

I know that
Mr. Strunk is very sincere in his political beliefs.

THE COURT: I'll agree with you there. Never have I seen any brief in
MR. ORSLAND:
PROCEEDINGS
which we see no cause of action. And if the Court has no questions, I'd like to rest on that brief. THE COURT:
I really have no questions. I
think your papers are going to lay it out, particular1
to Mr. Strunk.
I looked at several others.
It
to me in my own mind you have in your, I don't know, that Campaign Finance Board, forgetting about Father O'Hare, Father Parkes, whatever they have to do with the election. MR. ORSLAND:
I think we have nothing to do.
I think you can
-They don't do matching money.
THE COURT: They're not involved. MR. ORSLAND:

MR. STRUNK:
Correct. It's individuals.

*
I have a
--*
should say slate of electors. THE COURT:
That's neither here nor there. Yes.
MR. ORSLAND:
THE COURT:
All right, on behalf of
Mr. Peterson I believe we have Ms. Dunn.

MS. DUNN:
I haven't been--- we just filed
our motion on Wednesday so it hasn't been fully briefed. THE COURT: I'll take a look.
On behalf of the Brzezinskis.

SW
PROCEEDINGS
MR. BEIL:
Thank you, your Honor.
We've also Laid out our argument in the papers. We have problems with injuries and the
defendants, our defendants can be sued in New York but
I think there's a very important issue there.

Mr. Strunk has his first amendment rights to stand up and speak. THE COURT: MR. BEIL: He certainly does. But I think the defendants here a
well have a right to participate in advice and advice precedents and a lawsuit which will exercise that right, and it's very important that their rights be protected by the case being dismissed, THE COURT: The point to be made despite his
beliefs about Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain and numerous defendants, he's not going to be-thrown in prison for his beliefs. He's going to walk out of this courtroom
like everybody else.
I gave him his opportunity to be
heard because that's what we do in court, and the father and sons, the Brzezinski family has a right to their opinions too. MR. BEIL: And it's important that they not be challenged in court for recognizing that right. Th
Supreme Court has recognized this and a lawsuit like this does affect their ability to go forward if it's
PROCEEDINGS
52
repeated and these lawsuits become routine, The case should be dismissed very quickly on merits.
THE COURT: All right Mr. Carry.

MR. GARRY: On behalf of my client, we would
rely upon the argument made pursuant to 3211 in CPLR. Your Honor doesn't have any questions, we'll -THE COURT: question Mr. Strunk. Okay, Mr. Reed, is it?
I don't have any.
I tried to
MR. REICH: Reich.

THE COURT: Mr. Reich. On behalf of the SWB, we also
MR. RE1CI-i:
filed a motion and rest on our papers, and I could argue as to codefendants in addition to that that I just want to make clear that Mr. Strunk in fact doesn' make any allegations that our clients did anything in his complaint other than run for president.
THE COURT:
They exercised, other than
exercise their rights as citizens to run and it's not criminal or violation or civil action. neither here nor there. Mr. Calero is one of three hundred million Americans who did what he's entitled to do. MR. REICH: THE COURT:
SW
Well, it's
That's correct, your Honor.
I understand that.
Thank you.
PROCEEDINGS
53
Okay, Ms. Tobin. MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, your Honor.
On behalf of McCain entities, we laid out ou arguments in our brief and we'll rest on that. you. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Thank
And on behalf of Mr. Boehner we have Mr. Kirby. MR. KIRBY: The same, your Honor, We rest our papers. THE COURT: Thank you.
0
And Mr. --6~ler, I believe you're here on behalf of Mr. Soros.

MR. OLLER:
Yes, your Honor.
We would rest
on our papers as well.

I would add one point,-and that is Mr. Soros
is a private citizen.
He's not alleged to be part of No relief is sought from hi
the government in anyway.
apart from the conspiracy allegations which have no natural grounding. As far as I can tell from the complaint against Mr. Soros is that.he gave money to Mr. Obama.
THE COURT:
I know, it's a sin.
I guess he'
a big, he gives money not only politically, but a lot

of charities.
PROCEEDINGS
54
MR. OLLER:
In any case, Mr. Soros is allege
to be in cahoots with Rupert Murdoch and we would ask for a swift decision.
I 4I
I
I
THE COURT:
There are a lot of arguments that
Mr. Soros would believe are strange about him in this.
Any other
-Mr. Strunk, you have anything else you want
to add now that you've heard the defendants? MR. STRUNK: this case.
Well, there are three aspects of
The first being threshold as to whether or
not I had a, my vote represents even under common law, contract law whet~ermy vote as one person-one vote represents a contract with Mr. McCain or his electors when they voted, and whether or not he has an obligation to challenge his opponent. And he had the
I
I
best standing of anybody in the country to do that and he didn't do it. Now, that's an important element of my case because then comes the question of whether or not New York State has
--
I haven't responded to the State
because they haven't responded, so I reserve an argument in that regard. But there is no law that all
of these learned attorneys, a lot of high powered attorneys told their clients you can do this because you're not breaking the law. SW It's just like The Inside
APX
- 378
PROCEEDINGS
Job.
You can go ahead and do the derivatives'and we'll
make sure that you're not going to have any down side whatsoever so that their clients, Mr. Boehner, Ms. Pelosi and the representative of Socialist Workers Party, they put in their certification knowing very well that whoever could challenge had to do it within three days or else it was up to the, it was up to the Board of Elections.
I
I1
Actually democrats and republicans1
sit there and say should we let the democrats on the ballot, should we let the republicans on the ballot. They didn't do it. Now they didn't break the law. So
I
I I I
I
where do we stand"in the State of New York? Well, we stand pretty much like the 51 other states because they don't have other laws that -THE COURT:
Fifty and DC.
MR. STRUNK: Thank y o u . THE COURT: states. MR. STRUNK: In our law, Washington, DC is Fifty. We agree there's fifty
treated as a state in this regard.
THE COURT:
MR. STRUNK:
Correct.
In that sense, I use that
chronologically. That's law. Now, New York State is the first to define what a natural born citizen is. And it can be found
SW
PROCEEDINGS
56
through the legislative intent of the formations of the
real property law, Section 18 which they only raise the
whole law and the venerable nature of New York State law, the New York council will substantiate it's in depth and it goes back four hundred years.
So New Yor
II
I
State of all the states should be the one and only state to set the definition of what a natural born
citizen is by reading a law. And why didn't the Board

of Elections do that?
Well, they were part of a scheme to defraud
me and the voters, those who decided to vote who
haven't given up.' *and there are a lot of people out there who have given up and they don't want to be a
11
part of what's going on.
But as a eagle scout, I'm
I1
going to be prepared, if necessary, to go the ten points. I'm a boyscout.

THE COURT:
I am not going to back down.
There are 12 points to scout law,
not ten. MR. STRUNK: Well, I've broken two. THE COURT: are 12, not ten.
I wouldn't get too
--
well, there
I'll take judicial notice of that.
I11
MR. STRUNK: Certainly the requirement is

that a citizen stand up and defend his vote even when it '
S
only a privilege. Tomorrow the legislature could
II
take all this away under Article 2, Section 1.
We
SW
PROCEEDINGS
won't have a right to vote for the president. But whe the legislature depends on us as citizens to make a decision and cast our vote with a reasonable expectation of winning and participating in a leveled
nl
I
playing field by the Board of Elections, not involving it to uphold their requirement and then working with the democrats and republicans. All of the other
finance boards which result in the certification of these three candidates, those candidates become quasi officers. Their duty is a quasi fiduciary duty. They have just as much duty to
II
I
1I
They're on a ballot.
respond to their involvement, to submission of that document just as Senator Goldwater had to do in '64. can't find any other candidate on the ballot. Here we
have three, and the socialist workers admitted they were on in 2004 and admit they can be a green card and run for president. And they become a party for
fiduciary responsibility, and that's state action. They did a sworn statement and they have just as much duty to show up in court and defend their action as the1 Board of Elections, and they have
-T
THE COURT:
With all due respect, with the
Socialist Worker Party, they're here.
I I
1
MR. STRUNK:
here.
The Board of Elections is not
They haven't shown up on any case in three
APX
- 381
PROCEEDINGS
58
years.
They didn't even sign the certified return They're working wit
receipt, that's the hubris there.
the post office department, so they have a plausible explanation on serving something. electronic tracking. Your Honor, what it comes down to, it's a scheme to defraud me personally. attorney.
I'm not bere as an
"I
I
I I I I I I I
Thank God for
I'm not representing a class.
I can't.
my vote and my knowledge and my discovery that I was used in the scheme to put the plan through the commercial club of Chicago which is Penny Pritzker and
the Council on ~ o t ~ i Relations, ~ n and everything that ' s) in The Inside Job.
THE COURT; I'm sorry, I forgot CFR is a parti

of the Vatican conspiracy.
MR. STRUNK:
It's not.- It's part of the fact
when we survive. When

Lodge
-- Harding is a, Harding Borah
-THE COURT: You're going back into 1918.
Treaty of Versailles.
MR. STRUNK: Treaty of Versailles. We

survived that. World War I did not end
---
THE COURT:
MR. STRUNK:
It was an act of Congress. Because we didn't want
I I
THE COURT: And World War I1 ended by the

SW
PROCEEDINGS
ability of Congress, December 21, 1946. MR. STRUNK: I'm talking about the Council o
Foreign Relations was set up as a parallel operation because we refused to join the League of Nations.
intentionally created the Council on Foreign Relations
1 Theyl
I
as if it were the League of Nations.

of fact.
That's a matter
I
I I
I
THE COURT:
Is it a Council on Foreign
Leagues? The organization have
--
and that I know
members and they do whatever they do as a private organization. MR.
STRONK:
But they were set up with the
intention to resemble the League of Nations because the United States refused to give up its sovereignty in that they were intent on turning us back to the Europeans as we were before the revolution. Now, the European Union needed money until the Lisbon Treaty came along in 2009. It was finalize
II
last year and they now have what is known as a Musolini Structure, a Ultramontane Syndica3ist Structure.
dl I
There's a partnership of syndicates.between the

government, the capital and labor, and that is what the Musolini Structure was, and that's what hit THE COURT:
--
My understanding, we also did
that in the United States under the NRA in 1933 and 34.
SW
APX - 383
PROCEEDINGS
I know that.
MR. STRUNK:
By Cordosa.
In l935, but that's neither here
THE COURT:
nor there.
Okay. But certainly the Council on
MR. STRUNK:
Foreign Relations is a body which was intentionally made to shadow the League of Nations and bring us into it as the United States; all that is, it came directly from the United Nations. There is a seamless
connection between and before the United Nations and there's a seamless connection between the United Nations and the Holy See is what, with Edmund Walsh ou of Georgetown who sat there at the Versailles Treaty arrangement for Wilson, he was in the Wilson administration, he oversaw that. He oversaw the
defeating of the Russian Christians and the putting of Lenin on a Russian train. Father Walsh had Joseph
Stalin as the head of the communist party in 1922, 23, and it was a direct result of Edmund Walsh out of Georgetown who presided over the Versailles Treaty Affairs, a presiding structure of the Jesuit Order as it remains now shared with David Rockefeller, the man living on many body parts. The point is that Father O'Hare is one of th most important Jesuits in the world at this point
APX - 384
-
PROCEEDINGS
because he controls the body which has been directing the structure of transfers of $16 trillion in the last four years for European banks and in Asia in order to stave off the crises that your client Mr. Cuomo, after getting rid of Glass Stegal in 1999, that was all brought about and they needed to have somebody who had dual allegiance.
I call him the black Irishman,
Mr. Dunham, the black Irishman had a dual relationship He even stayed in Windsor Castle and visited his relatives' graves and backgrounds in the British Isles The man has dual allegiance in the European, Europe an the European structure which was connected to his coming out of the Chicago Commerce Club which is aggrandizing it through the structure of the European Union. And oil, the Chevron Astor Trust, the control
of oil which is what's going on now from Thailand to all the way to Nigeria.
I mean that's the big picture I could take it int
and I wanted to limit it to that.
Wall Street and I can do it but I didn't think it was necessary.
THE COURT:
to tell me?
Is there anything else you need
MR. STRUNK: Well, there's the question of

the scheme of defraud which certainly brings in foreig money flooding into the bank
of
J.P. Morgan.
Whether
PROCEEDINGS
62
or not Obama is a natural born citizen or not; he was bringing it in because he did not declare to his fund raisers the requirement that anybody donating must be citizen, whereas Mr. McCain did and others did. Now, it's -- there was a
--
it's a prima
facie fact he was willing to get foreign money from where ever since he had dual allegiance. With Europe you knew where he was coming from and he had already financed Odinga in 2006 when they were in genocide against the Christians. He personally gave large
amounts of money as a U.S. Senator --
THE COU#T:
We're getting far --
MR. STRUNK:
into the
--
for bringing all the money
-THE COURT:
We're getting far afield from
-
Mr. Obama being on the ballot.

MR. STRUNK: scheme to defraud.
The sec~ndaryissue is their
If in fact you find that you could
have a one citizen parent and one foreign citizen to b t a natural born citizen, the case is done.
But there i!
no, there is nothing in New York State law, and we nee(

you.
The buck stops with you, your Honor, and it take:
--
THE COURT:
Maybe I overlooked something in
your complaint.
I know you quoted in Article 2 of the

SW
APX
- 386
PROCEEDINGS
U, S. Constitution, and I looked at the ~onstikution. It said you had to have been a natural born citizen of the United States to be accepted with exception of the people born
-- the first eight presidents were not
natural born, but they were
--
MR. STRUNK: Grandfathered in. THE COURT: Van Buren is the first natural,
II
I
I
but the constitution grandfathered the first eight. They didn't know who they were going to be at that time.
I understand that, but here's my question.
Where in your papers do you explain what you had to sad orally about the interpretation, about the fact that both parents of a person born on American territory has to be
-- where in your complaint?

MR. STRUMK:
In the response to Mr. McCain
and Mr. Obama which is combined together, I present a
background historically, an argument not in my words,
but of those who were involved in defining what natural born is. THE COURT: that. this.
Is this where you're quoting from, Henry
.I I I I
Oh, now I'm seeing where you have
So I'm going to have to 1ook.through all of
Fletcher and others? MR. STRUNK: SW Fletcher as a historian was

--
APX
- 387
PROCEEDINGS
64
THE COURT:
I know, in 1919.
I see where
you're making your argument about, about Mr. Bingham. MR. STRUNK: the 14th Amendment.
THE COURT:
Mr. Bingham was the sponsor of
I'll look further at that in your
reply papers.
MR.
STRUNK: But here, what New York needs
desperately is to regain it's position in the country since we were the ones to define natural born citizens before we enjoined the federal structure. We have a
structure of law and I think the legislature needs an interpretation soi=t can do the proper legislation and put it in place by the 2012 election. THE COURT: Okay, I understand.
Anybody have anything else? Thank you. I'm going to reserve.decision. You'll hear from me. MR. STRUNK: Your Honor, may I offer some of This is the
that, the references in that paperwork? book that I have a disk for.
(Continued on next page to include Jurat.)
PROCEEDINGS
THE COURT:
MR.
I d o n ' t need your book. Okay. Thank you.

I ' l l a s k everyone
STRUNK:
COURT OFFICER:
t o c l e a r t h e courtroom, p l e a s e . lunch.
We're c l o s i n g f o r
{At t h i s t i m e , t h e m a t t e r c o n c l u d e d . )
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION I hereby c e r t i f y t h a t t h e foregoing i s a t r u e and a c c u r a t e copy of t h e l d i n t h e above m a t t
*SANDRA WILKES, RPR S e n i o r Court R e p o r t e r
SW
APX
- 389
Certification
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF KINGS, SS:

I, Nancy 7. Sunshine, County Clerk and Clerk of Supreme Court Kings County,
do hereby certify that on February 13,2043 1 have compared
the document attached hereto,

INDEX 2964212008, 211312013, Certified Minutes with the originals filed in my office and the same is a correct transcript
therefrom and of the whole of such original in witness

whereto I have affixed my signature and seal.
Nancy T. Sunshine Kings County Clerk
APX
- 390
-
Kings County Clerk's Office
Page 1 of 1
Opened: 1Qf2912008Type: Other

STRUNK, CHRISTOPHER EARL vs. PATERSON, DAVID A. ETAL Atty: STRUNK Atty:
. 1 ,
Filed
Actions
RecRoom
111012012 1213012011 B Notice appeallradi, copy ord, afft svc, fee paid 1/17/2012 12120/2011 @ Copy ord, notice entry, affl,svc. 1212312011 B Order dtd 11122 to intervene denied 1211I2011 I 121712011 1112212011 B Affidavit of serv. 121612011 11/9/2011 P MOTION COVERPAGE fee pd. non party 41512011 3/25/2011 @ Copy ord. notice entry, aR.svc. 31231201I 3117/20?1 3 Order dated 3114111 311/2011 212812011 D MOTION COVERPAGE FEE PD-PLTFF 3/1/2011 212812011 I 3 MOTION COVERPAGE FEE PD-PLTFF 31112011 2/28/2011 @ MOTION COVERPAGE FEE PD-PLTFF 211712011 2/8/2011 @ Copy ord. notice entry, afR.svc. 113112011 111312011 2 Order ...DTD I l l I l l I 1111512010 11/12/2010 P MOTION COVERPAGE FEE PD. PLNTF. 3125/2010 1112512009 Endorsed Order DTD 11123109 1112312009 Order to Show Cause Coverpage -FEEPAID8/9/2010 214/2010 11120t2008 g Endorsed Order DECLINED to sign OSC 11/17/2008 E Order to Show Cause Coverpage FEE PD. PETIT. 1213112008 1111912008 1012912008 B Req. judical interven. fee paid (pro-se) 12/312008 1012912008 S Surnm. & compl. Total: 19
APX
- 391
file://C:\Documents and SettingshbencebiLocal Settings\Temp\ClerkUEUUSB.xml
Appellate liuieion: Beran3 guhicial Bepartmeat

MI34380 Elnl
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P. CHERYL E. CHAMBERS L. PRISCILLA HALL LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
20 12-00766 DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION Christopher Earl Strunk, plaintiff, v David A. Paterson, et al., defendants; H. William Van Allen, nonparty-appellant. (Index No. 29642108)
Motion by H. William Van Allen pursuant to CPLR 5601 for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 22,201 1. Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied.
BALKIN, J.P ., CHAMBERS, HALL and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.
Aprilanne Agostino Clerk of the Court
March 7,2012 STRUNK v PATERSON
APX - 392
--
& J ,P
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS Index N o . :
Ghrishpher-Earl: Strunk,in esse
65002011 ____.-~--.--_._..-.--~-*-~*___--.-~.---..--~~-*------.~.----.-.------X
Plaintiff,
@ton.Arthur M. Schack J.S.C)
' NEW YORE STATE BOARD OF ELEGTfONS; JAMES
-against-
NOTICE OF CROSS A. W-ALSH I Co-Chair, D O U G W A. KELLNER I Co-Chair, ( M O N far TRANSFER EVELYN J. AQUILA I Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON I Commissioner, Depuw Director TODD D. COt4SOLIDATfON and VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUQMO. ERIC SCHNEIDERW9THOMAS P. NEW RETURN DfW?E DfNAPOLf, RUTH NO EM^ C O L ~ Nin , their W c i a l and indiyidual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARfiES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SGHWW4RZ, JR.; PETER G, PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; M R X BRZEZINSXI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBRKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a k a . Barack Hussein Obama D, * d a.k.a. Steve Bunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COm31.I.rEE OF THE STATE OF MEW YORK; STATE COmEiTEE OF THE RrORKfNC FAltnLfEij PiUZTI' OF NEVV YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; - . cov7J'FHE SOCIALISTW O F i i R S PARW IAN J. B R Z E Z M m ; dOHN SIDNEY LICC'ASN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE CO%IMI'ITEE; WE EJEW PORK STATE COMMITTEE OF TEE 4 INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF - - THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK Sl'ATE; PENNY S. PRIZKER; GEORGE SOROS: O B L FOR AMERIC'A; QBAMA FTCTU3YFL?AZ?MCCMN PTCTORY 2008 MGCMN-PALIN WCTORYZOItS,.John and Jane Does; \ and Xn Eatities.
-a 7
0
3
Defendants.
-------*1,.--..-..---------*d.-------.------"-------..------------------------:B
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Christopher-Earl:

Strunk in esse, affirmed May 17,2011 with exhibih annexed and memorandum of
'g
!axv, Plaintiff will move with CPLR $2017 for Transfer of Motions, CPLR $602 far
ConsaSidation of the Complaint with Stnznk v. Paterson e t al Index No.: 29642-08,
Mo.9rs~ supporn m p 0 iD O-~+TE
aYG.S C ~ ~ h g y S ~ P R E M COURT ~
.r72pwhA/
APX - 393
and with the motion return date on Thursday, June 2: 2011 a t 9:45 a.m. in Part 27, Courtroom 479 to be extended to Friday, June 3,2011, at 9 4 5 a.m. in P a r t 27, Courtroom 479 of 360 Adams Street Brooklyn,NY 11201 according to Chamber's rules before the Honorable Arthur M. Schack at 360 Adams S t r e e t Brooklyn New
York 11201, or at a time designated by the court or as soon thereafter as counsel
can be heard. Dated: ~ a y 2011 Brooklyn Kew York
/?-.
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse plaint& self-represented wfo attorney 593 Vitnderbilt ,4venue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 Ph. 845-901-6767 Email: chris@strunk,ws
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York by: JOEL GRABER, Esq. AAG Assistant Attorney General Speeid Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau 120 BROAU\%rL4Y - 24th Floor New York, New York 10271-0332 (212) 416-8645 FAT(: 416-6009 Joel.Grabe@aa.nv.rrov
RITA4 C. TOBIN, Esq. 375 Park Avenue 35th Floor New York. New York 10152-3500 Ph: (212) 319-7125, Fax: 644-6755
Attorney for Defendants McCain Victory 2008, McCain-Palin Victory 2008 and John S, McCain
HARRIS BEACH, PLLC

-By THOMAS J. GbRRY, Esq. KEITH M.CORRETH, Esq. The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington BIvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553 (516) 880-8484
Attorneys for Barack Hussein Obama 11, Joseph R. Biden Jr.. OBAMA FUR
MICIXEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By: CHL4RENS ORSTAND, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007 (212) 788-0904 corsland@law.nve.~-OV
Attorney for the City of New York
AMERICA; OBAW WCTORYPCT'@.
PIILLKIE FARR & GALWGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue h'ew Yo~k, N.Y. 10019-6099, U.SA. T 212-728-8000F 212-728-8111
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS Index No.:
.....................................................................
Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse Plaintiff,
-against-
6500-201 1
AFFIDAVXT
IN SUPPORT OF THE WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUEA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. NOTICE OF CROSS PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; MOTION for TRANSFER ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NO EM^ COLON, in their Official and CONSOLIDATION and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.;FREDERTCK A. 0. SCHWARZ, JR.; NEW RETURN DATE PETER G.PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a.Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama 11, a.k.a. Steve Dunharn); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE O F NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN m;JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMI'rl'EE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRlTZKJ3R; GEORGE SOROS;OBAMA IOR AIMERZCA;OBAlMA VICTORY FUND;MCCAntr VICTORY 2008; MCCATN-PALIN VICTORY 2008, J o h n and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities.
NEW YORK STATE BOARD O F ELECTIONS; JAMES A.
Defendants.
STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS
1
) ss.
Strunk Affidavit i n Support of Cross Motion Page 1of 11
1. Affirmant makes this &davit with exhibits annexed in support of the
memorandum of law for the Cross Motion with CPLR 820 15 under the Request
)for the for Judicial Intervention (RJI] purchased May 2, 20 11 [see Exhibit 1
transfer of Motions with CPLR g20 17 of : the Notice of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Todd E. Phillips a f f i e d May 4, 201 1(see ExhlZbit 2 with
sub-exhibit 1); Defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY

2008 and J o h n S, McCain's Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Complaint affirmed
May 2, 201 1(see Exhibit 3) a n d both with l l ~ e return date on Thursday, J u n e 2,

20 1 1filed by local Counsel RlTA C. TOBIN Esq. of counsel to CAPLIN &
DRYSDALE, CHARTERED; along with Defendants Barack Hussein Obama 11, Joseph R. Biden Jr., OBAIW\ FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORYFUND 's Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Complaint affirmed May 2, 20 11 (see Exhibit 4 ~ 4 t h
with the return date on Ffjday, J u n e 3, 20 11 filed by

THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. and KEITH M. CORBETH, Esq. of counsel to HARRIS BEACH, PLLC; along with the STIPULATION of EXTENSION as between Plaintiff, the State by JOEL GRABER Esq., AAG a n d the City of New York by CHLARENS ORSLAND, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department fded with the Clerk of the Court on May 12, 201 1 (see Exhibit 5);anCl further, that a n y other motion yet served as to and including the Summons Complaint
f i l e d March 22, 20 11 shown as Exhibit 4 Sub-exhibit A along w i t h any

associated supporting documents of the action of such and additional Cross Motion and or responses be Transferred a n d Consolidated using CPLR 9602 with the active Complaint with Skunk v. Paterson et a 1 Index No. : 29642-08 assigned
Strunk Affidavit in Support of Cross Motion Page 2 of 11
APX - 396
--
to the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. of I.A.S. Part 1, and furthermore, that
with the motion return date on Thursday, June 2, 20 11at 9 4 5 a.m. in I.A.S.
Part 27, Courtroom 479 to be extended to Friday, June 3 , 201 1, at 9:45 a.m. in Part 27, Courtroom 479 according to Chamber's rules (see Exhibit 6) before the Honorable Arthur M. Schack at 360 Adams Street Brooklyn New York 11201, or
at a time designated by the court or as soon thereafTer as counsel can be heard.
2. Further, that Affirmant in regards to the Motion to Dismiss shown as
Exhibit 4 has a Cross Motion for Striking Disparaging Statements with CPLR 3024(b) with a return date on Friday, June 3, 20 11, at 9:45 a.m. in I.A.S. Part 27, Courtroom 479 according to Chamber's rules before the Honorable Arthur
M. Schack at 360 Adams Street Brooklyn New York 1120 1, or at a time
designated by the court or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard.

3. The RJI shown as Exhibit 1 purchased on May 2, 20 11 by RITA C. TOBIN
Esq. of counsel to CAPLIN 8r, DRYSDALE, CHARTERED appears to be "robo
signed" by RITA C. TOBM Esq. with Attorney Registration Number RTC5413.

4. RITA C. TOBIN Esq. on page two of the RJI shown as Exhibit 1 aMirmed :
"I affm under penalty of perjury that, to my knowledge other than noted above, there are and have been no related actions or proceeding , nor has a request for judicial intervention previously been fded in this action or proceeding" and further
5.
That RITA C. TOBIN Esq. on page two of the RJI shown as Exhibit 1 in the
dedicated section for listing any related case is left it blank, despite the due notice provided by Plaintiff at page two of the Complaint shown as Exhibit 4 sub-exhibit A cited the related case Index No.: 28642-08 stated at paragraph 2:
Stmnk Affidavit in Support of Cross Motion Page 3 of 11
APX
- 397
"2. That this complaint is fairly traceable to the events and actions leading up to the Party primaries during the 2008 election cycle for the ballot access of the Presidential slates at the November 4,2008 General Election as complair~ed of in the related election law case Strunk v. Paterson e ta l . NYS Supreme Court in the County Kings with Index No.: 29642-08 before the Honorable Justice David I. Schmidt of Part i as an election law matter."
6.
That RITA C. TOBIN Esq. on page two of the RJI shown as Exhibit 1 in the
dedicated section for listing any related case is left it blank despite the fact that the Clerk of the Court shows that the case remains open (see Ehhibit 7 ) .
7.
That Flaixitiff reviewed the RJI and motion upon which it is filed with an
assignment of the Honorable Arthur M. Schack of I. A. S. Part 2 7, as if it were to remain before I.A.S. Part 27 rather than the I.A.S. Part 1 Justice, would disadvantage Plaintiff and the Court to reconstruct the record of the related prior proceeding including the Article 78 with Index No.: 2964 1-08 that generated the controlling law of case 29642-08, with multiple motions that underlie this action.
8.
That this complaint with index 6500-20 11 properly belongs before the
I.A.S. Part 1 Justice according to Court I.A.S. nrles and procedure,
notwithstanding any inconvenience to Plaintiff that nevertheless is real and represents a serious burden.
9.
That Plaintiff checked the Chamber's Rules for the Honorable Arthur M.
Shack as shown as Exhibit 6, that require that any motion or cross be heard simultaneously on any Friday ONLY before the Justice in Part 27 under threat of sanctions.
Strunk Affidavit i n Support of Cross Motion Page 4 of 11
10.
That Plaintiff reviewed the Pro Hac Vice Motion shown as Exhibit 3
af&med May 4, 20 11, even there after sufficient time to review Part 27
Chambers rules, that even the Pro Hac Vice motion was set with a Thursday return date rather than a Friday return also showing that none of the Attorneys read the Rules.
t 1. Because of CAPLIN 8r, DRYSDALE, CHARTERED 's attorneys the Plaintiff

is proced~waJly placed in a unwarranted bind when in fact the MTD of counsel of HARRIS BEACH, PLLC shown as exhibit 4 did follow Chambers Rules with a Friday return date places Plaintiff in an untenable situation both with expense
and considerable effort in preparing all the responses now affected by the
egregious Affirmance by RITA C. TOBIN Esq. who prepared the RJI and then who failed to notify associate counsels seeking entry to the Court therein of Chambers Rules.
12.
On May 12, 20 11, Plaintiff signed and forwarded a Stipulation by
facsimile from Staples Office Center to obtain agreement and signature by RITA
C. TOBIN Esq. to agree that motion and associated papers be extended to new
the return date on Friday 3, 20 11 abide with Chambers Rules (see Exhibit 8).
13.
That at about 1 p.m. on May 12, 20 11, Affirmant called RITA C. TOBIN
Esq. at the office phone number provided and the receptionist who answered for
CAPLIN 86 DRYSDALE, CHARTERED said that Ms. TOBIN was out of the office, took my message as a confirmation of the facsimile being transmitted and request a return phone call by counsel accordingly and received no return call;
and further;
Strunk Midavit in Support of Cross Motion Page 5 of 11
APX - 399
14.
On the Morning of Friday May 13, 20 11, A f f i a n t again called RITA C.
TOBIN Esq. at the office phone number provided and the receptionist who
answered for CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED who said that an attorney would call back. 15.
A t about 2 p.m. on Friday May 13, 20 11 Affirmant again called RITA C.
TOBTN Esq. at the office phone number provided and the receptionist who answered for CAPLIN 8b DRYSDALE, CHARTERED who transferred me to the paralegal assistant to RITA C. TOBIN Esq.,, '%ugenianwho took my message in
e l a y of urgency to expedite the Stipulation shown as Exhibit 7, and the r

paralegal Eugenia said that she would have Ms TOBIN or another attorney return a call today (Friday). 16. At about 5 p.m. on Friday May 13, 20 11 Affimant again called RITA C.
TOBIN Esq. and or the paralegal "Eugenia" a t the office phone number provided
and the receptionist who answered for CAPLIN 8 DRYSDALE, CHARTERED who merely took my message.
17.
A t about 10 a.m. on Monday May 16, 20 11 Affmant again called RITA
C. TOBIN Esq. and or paralegal "Eugenia" at the office phone number provided
and the receptionist who answered for CAPLIN said that an attorney would return my call.
8; DRYSDALE,
CHARTERED and
18.
At about 5 p.m. on Monday May 16, 20 11 Affirmant again called RITA C.
TOBIN Esq. and or the paralegal "Eugenia" a t the office phone number provided
and the receptionist who answered for CAPLIN merely took my message.
Br,
DRYSDALE, CHARTERED who
Strunk Affidavit i n Support of Cross Motion Page 6 of 11
APX
-
- 400
19.
That as a matter of law Plaintiff is required to request a Pre-discovery
conference within 60 days of the filing of the RJI or by July 11, 20 11. 20. That as a matter of law Plaintiff is required to have completed all service
of defendant by July 20, 20 11 or four months or say 120 days after f&g the Complaint as done herein on March 22, 20 11.
2 1. That Plaintif'f is a qualified poor person in the Federal Court system with
active cases in Washington District of Columbia DCD 08-cv-2234 with active motions arid return dates before the Distriet Judge Richad J. Leon. 22.
T h a t Plaintiff is also a petitioner to the Justices of the Supreme Court of
the United States (SCOTUS) associated with the underlying petition for Writ of Certiorari SCOTUS No.: 10-1170 Strunk et al. u Thomas J. Spdrao et al.
scheduled for conference on or about May 26, 2011 and with the Petition for
Writ of Prohibition with request for quo warranto inquest (see E
m that by
a certificate of good f a i t h within the intent and meaning of 28 USC $j 144 and 28
USC 455(a) 28 USC I651 urges for the recusal of Chief Justice John Roberts,
and de facto Justice Elena Kagan and de facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor as well as the de facto U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, de facto Attorney General Eric
Holder de facto U.S. Attorney for Washington District of Columbia Ronald C.

Machen Jr. from participation except a s respondent parties-in-interest i n an
inquest hearing and or in the SCCYTUS Petition for Writ of Certiorari No. 10-1170
as a matter of personal bias in an extra judicial forum of impropriety in a matter
that may appear before each in the matter of the questionable eligibility of
Barack Hussein Obama I1 to serve as PoTUS and of Chief Justice Roberts who is
Strunk Midavit in Support of Cross Motion Page 7 of 11
aiding and abetting the usurpation of the POTUS office along with those
similarly situated since January 20, 2009, and is a material witness subject to a
subpoena to testifg- herein this instant action in regards to fraud associated with the 2008 election cycle and Defendant Obama's expressed intent to file in New York in the 20 12 election cycle.
23. In addition to the above actions, A f f i a n t is preparing to argue the
appeal taken from the dismissal of the action Fol-ione et al. v US Election
Assistmce Commission et a 1 06-cv-0080 transferred by Judge Arcara of Western

District of New York to Northern District of New York as related to the improper billing by various states under the Help America to Vote Act of 2002 that has taken the property and diminishing the liberty and rights of New York voters and plaintiffs therein and of which Affirmant is one and appointed to speak to that 2nd Circuit panel in 10-822 after the submission cutoff date of on or about June 2,2011. 24. That Affumant is burdened by the expense and process associated with all the above and is dependent upon successful solicitation of donations for meeting the needs of expenses accordingly, and suffers from any disparaging reference or action which takes unfair advantage of justice and process associated with this action. 25. That process of service upon defendants herein is being done in Chicago, Washington D.C., Alexandria Virginia, Brooklyn & New York as well as Long Island and Albany New York as such as with the requirement to makes service complete within 29 days for each defendant is dependent upon Affmant
Strunk AEdavit in Support of Cross Motion Page 8 of I 1
APX
402
meeting t h e costs and reimburse the servers accordingly for travel and expense; the completion off service is much more d=c&t in New York state court and with Federal jurisdiction and depends upon a level playing field among all parties within the understanding that an individual mu evade service unlike in the federal jurisdiction and thereby requires Affmant to utilize the complete time provided for such service, but however has been adversely affected by the
bad faith actions with the R J I and matters that w i l l be responded to in the
accompanying cross motion for striking disparaging statements with return date on Friday June 3, 2011.
26. That respondent RITA C, TOBIN, Esq. has maliciously injured Affirmant
by rnakifig Plaintiff incur unnecessary additional costs and to effect disparagement of Plaintiff liberty and fundament rights to substantive due process, and notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff is self-represented without being an attorney working pro bono has been damaged in the sum of $45 for the fee for filing this cross motion along with expense for facsimile, copying, travel,
maili~ig and loss of time associated with service and effort which is questionably
reimbursable in this and my related actions, for total expense damage of say
$200 to be invoiced upon award.
27. That because this malicious action was unnecessary and Affirmant made
n every effort to resolve the discrepancy as he has been unnecessarily dragged i

violation Chamber's rules who without this cross motion would also be held in bad faith by Justice Schack jeopardizing this action that Plaintiff as selfrepresented Affirmant should be awarded treble damages accordingly.
Sttunk Affidavit in Support of Cross Motion Page 9 of 11
APX
403
28. Wherefore, Plaintiff wishes the Court to order for:
a. Transfer of Motions, complaint and related matter, by CPLR 9602;

b. Consolidation of the Complaint with Strunk v. Paterso~z et a 1 Index No.:
29642-08;
c. with the motion return date on Thursday, June 2, 20 1 1 at 9 4 5 a.m. in
Part 27, Courtroom 479 to be extended to Friday, June 3, 201 1, at 9:45 a.m. i n Part 27, Courtroom 479 of 360 Adams Street Brooklyn, NY
1120 1 according to Chamber's rules before the Honorable Arlhur M.
Schack a t 360 Adams Street Brooklyn New York 1120 1, or at a time designated by the court or a s soon thereafter as counsel;
d. That the Court with plenary authority apply sanctions for the malicious
action of RlRA C. TOBIN, Esq. in a sum of say $200 for the costs of the cross motion; e. That the Motion for Pro Hac Vice be denied as to both applying attorneys who failed to meet the requirement of the Chambers Rules and or even to have assumed responsibility as petitioning attorneys to
read the Complaint as to the suitability of the RJI, warrants treble
damages in the amount of say $600 plus court costs in an amount determined by the Court as just be held against CAPLIN & DRYSDALE,
CHARTERED for malfeasance; and for
f. Further and different relief that the Court may deem appropriate and
necessary herein for justice and equity.
Stmnk Afi5davit in Support of Cross Motion Page 10 of 11
APX
404
I have read the foregoing Cr-ctssmotion with requcst for rclief with request determined by the bench; and for reimburselnent of damages plus treble damage@
know the contents thereof apply to me by misapplication and administration of laws in creation of the New York Electoral College going into and following the General Election of h'ovember 4,2008 as a continuing injury caused by the scheme to de!kaud with unjust enrichment that affects Plaintitiff and Plaintiffs AD HOC
Brookifynf l o m e R u l e CoaLition along with those similarly situated; the same is true
to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on

information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows:
3rd
parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.
/-=.
Christopher-Ear& Strunk Sworn to before me This day of May 2011
HARRY HELFENSAUM Cornmissinnero f Deeds City o f New Yerk No.5-883 Gettificate F~!ed in Richmond Coun Commission Expires June 30,204.$
Strunk ,4TGdavit in Support of Cross Motion Page I 1 of 11
APX
405
Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYS Sup. Ct. Cty of Kings Index No.: 6500-2011
AFFIDAVIT I N SUPPORT OF THE NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION for TRANSFER CONSOLIDATION and NEW RETURN DATE
Exhibit 1
APX
- 406
REQUEST FOR J U D I C I ~NTERVENTION ~

U W
fY2OI1)
Supreme
COURT, COUNTY OFKings
Index Na:15so0-2011
Date Index Mued&rch 22 203 1
(aka. &tiySoetoro, a.ka. Barack H u m Obama H, aka.Steve DuntrarnfiNANCY PELDSI;OENWCRATIC OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEEOFTHE WOMING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEWW R K S T A E R&R
6 ES-
tmnlant
MOTE: For f2innme~olst W s h~~bfWtr ~i t~
aW 9 NYCRR $
0 Other Pmfeashal MslprPdoe:

@ mw T~ F r a t & , unjunenrichment
1 -
0 ~ReslProperb:
UQTr; For Foredosumaotkns involvinga one-bwr-famlly, occupied, reoWentislkwwty. or an awneroocypiad condwninium. oomplaEe and a t h a FORECL4SURE RB Mb.adum. Q ~ = c e r b b r e r t - ~ ~ ~ ,~ a r e LM
--
0 MHL Arttcfe 5.m{Kendra's L w )

Plstd Permit RevocaticnHescing
0 MHLArtUe 81 (Guard!mshlp)
0 MHLArticla SO ( k ~ l s n d sWnmmHwmvl r
0 MHLA r W 10 { ~ ~ i s n dCMfinanmwnm) er
M e 8 summons and compW orsunmons w l n o % bwn ~ ~ W? is this acwmweemnghe(ng fr)ed postdudgmmp
lf~ao,j~@meotdete.
APX
407
NdeoflssuesndhxCeMcalsof~ Nr**eof Medical. Dmtal. o r Poddrio Malpractice
Date hue Joined. * l a
NoacedMotim bbtiee d P a m
0Other Ex Parfe At@catiPn

0 Wt ?m Appiimtion 0wntof~abeas Gms
~equest far m m , n a r y conference
Riief SnJght.'-f== Rakef Sargm: Awl-zCd wf ~nerm "YK~ ~ e l l t SOUghr f A & -ce
JW~LZOII
Return Gate izeturn ~ e t w
wf:
0~eskk&isi~Fmadown?Settleme&~n~
L d F h U m
Dated:
May L 201 1
PRINT OR TYPE NAME
!
i
RCT5413 A n O R N N REGISTRAM NUMBER
Rita C .Tobin
Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. N Y S Sup. Ct. Cty of Kings Index No.: 6500-201 1
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION for TRANSFER CONSOLIDATION and NEW RETURN DATE
Exhibit 2
APX -
409
I
!
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YO= COUNTY OF KINGS

CWstophaEatl: Strunk in esse,
Index No. 6500f2011
Plaintiff,
-againstNEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSH I Co-Chair*DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUEA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON I Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD a. VALENTINE, Deputy B d o r STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO,ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NO EM^ COLON, I n &5r Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S,J.; Fr. JOSEPH P .PARKES, S.J.; FREDEUCK A.O. S C W A W , S R . ;PETER G, PETERSEN, ZBfGNEEW KAIMIERif;BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSRI; JOSEPH R BJDEN,JR., SOEBARKAH (akaBarry Soetoro, aka. Barack Hussein Obama 11, aka Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATEOF NEW YORK;STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORWNG FAMELIES PARTY OF NEW
AFFIXMATION OF JAMES P. WEHNER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FUR ADMI!!jSIm PRO HAC VICE OF ATTORNEY
TODD E .PHILLIPS
YORK STATE,R ~ G E R CAtER0;THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI, JOEIN SIDNEY MCCAmf 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER;THE YORK STATE EPmLICAN STATE COMMITTEE;THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCEPARTX STATE COh-QWTIEEOF THE CONSERVATNE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENMY S. .
PRLTZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OB,4M$ FOR -4MLXICA; OBdlMA VICTORYFUND;MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCALN-PAXLV ECTORY ZOO& John and Jane Daes; and XYZ Entities, Defendants.
James P.W e k , Esq. a@ms under penalty of pejury that the following is true:
1.
f am a member of the firm Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, which is counsel of
m r d for Defendants McCain Victory 2008, McW-Palin Victory 2008, and John S McCain
APX
410
(hereinafter mlieetively referred to as "Defendants") in the above-captioned action.

2.
I am a member of good standing af the bar of the State of New York, having been
admitted to practice in the State of New York in 2003. I am also a member of good standing of
the b m of Virginia [admitted 1995) and the D i i c t of Columbia (admitted 1997).
3.
Pursuant to &on
520.1 1 of the Rules of the New York State Court of Appeals
and 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 3 690.3[a], I make this af.itirmation in support of he Motion for Admission Pro
Hac Vice of Todd E. Phillips.
4 .
Todd E. Phillips is an attorney with the law fm of Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered,
and will serve as counsel for Defendzlats, Mr. Phillips is a member in good standing of the bars o f
the State of California and the District of Cdlifornia See Certificates of Good Standing attached
as Exhibit 1 to the Affidavit of Todd E.Phillipsin Support of Motion for Admission Pro H a c Yice
of Attorney Todd E. Phillips. Mr. Phillips is fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this
case.
5,
As required by the laws of New Yo&, I will be associated I n this matter, for which
I am one of the attorneys of record.

6.
I have known Mr. Phillips s h e 2008 and have found Mr. Phillips to be a skilled
attorney and a person of integrity. I believe that Mr. PhiUips will candwt himself in a manner
required of attorneys admitted to practice before this Court pro hac vice. 1 therefore respectf-idry request that he be allowed to appear pro hac vice in this matter for the- purpose of counseling and advocatingfor Defendants,
7.
By affidavit,Mr. Phillips agrees to abide by the standards of professional conduct
imposed upon members ofthe New York bar as well as all relevant satutes, rules,and procedures,
including the rules of court governing the conduct of attorneys, the Rules of Professional Conduct,
the New York Civil Pmetice Law and Rules md the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court
APX
411
-
and the County Court. Mr. Phillips' affidavit is being filed c o m e n t l y herewith.
8.
No prior application has been made in any wurt for the relief sought herein.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court issue an Order, admitting Todd
E. Phillips, pro hac vice to the Supreme Court of the S w e of New York, County of Kings, in
I
t
order to assist in the litigation of the above-captioned action, and for otha and further relief as this
Court deemsjust and proper. Dated: May 4,201 1
i4 L[
es P.Wehner, Esq.
APX
412
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse,
Index No. 6500/2011
PlaW
- a m -
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WAMH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / &-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON I Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy D i t o r STANLEY ZALEN, ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. IIINAPOLI, RUTH NQEM COLON, in their Official and individual capacity; F r .JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P,PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR-; PETER G. PETERSW ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZMSKI; MARK BRZEZn\JSIU; JOSEPH R . BIDEN, JR, SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry S&oro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama Il, a k a . SteveDmhm); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKINO. FAMILIES P A R m OF NEW YURK STATE, R ~ G E R CALERO;TIIE SOCIAL~ST WORKERS PARTY;IAN J. BRZEZINSm, JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER;THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STAm COMMITTEE; THE NEW YQRK STATE COMMITTEE OF TEE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CQNSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE, PENNY S. FRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAM FOR AMERICA; O B A U YICTORYF W D ; MCCALV VICTORY 2008; IMCCARV-PALIN ViCTOBY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Enfties, Defdts.
'
AFFIDAVIT UF TODD E . PHILLIPS IN SUPPORT OF MOTEON FOR ADMISSION PRO H A ( : EfCE OF ATTORNEY TODD E. PHILLIFS
T o d d E. Philtips, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1.
I am an attorney at the law firm of Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, One Thomas Circle,
N.W., Washington, D.C" 20005, (252) 862-5000, which is counsel for h/fcCain Victory 2008, McCain-
Palin Victory 2008, and k h n S. McCaifi (collectively, '13efendanW), I make this af5davit i n support of my appiication to became admittedpro hac vice in the abovecaptioned action.
4681 17
2,
I was admitted to practice l a w in California in 2005 and in the District of CoIulllbk in
2009. 3.
I am currently a member of good standing in each of thesejurisdictions. Attached as
Exhibit 1 to this af'fidavit are Certificates of Good Sttinding from the State Bar of California and the Court &Appeals of the District of Columbia.
4.
I have never taken the New York bar examination, nor have I ever appearedpro h ~ c
vice in the w u T t s of the State of New York, and I am not ctmmtiy doing so in m a n y other matter. 5,
f am in p o d standing to practice befere d l ofthe courts to which I am admitted. I am
not currently suspended nor have I ever been disbarred in any jurisdiction. There are no disciplinary
actions or investigationspending against me in any jurisdiction, and I have never been the subject of
any discipline in any of the jurisdictions for which I am licensed to practice law.
6.
The matter in which I seek admission pro hac vice involves a field of law in which I
have experience. As an attorney, I believe that I can materially assist in the representation of
Defendants in this action.

7.
I am familiar with the standads of professional conduct imposed upon members of the
New York bar as well as all relevant statutes, d e s , and procedures, including the rules of court the Rules of l'rof~ssional Conduct, the New York Civil Practice governing the con&& of att~meys,
Law and Rdes aad the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court and the County Court, and I wiIl
abide by all such statufes, nxles and procedures.
8.
James P. Wehner of tbe law firm of Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, is a member i n good
standing ofthe bar of the State of New York, an attorney of record in the above-captioned action, and
will be associated in the above-captioned action. Mr. Weher's aBnnation in support of t h Motion ~
fbr Admission PPCJ Huc Vice of Todd E. Phillips is being filed concmently herewith.
WEBEFORE, I respectfully request that this Court issue an Order, pursuant to Section 520.11
of the Rules of theNew York State Court of Appeals and 22N.Y.C.R.R.
5 690.3fa1, admitting Todd E.
Philfips, pro fwc vice to the Supreme Court of the S t a t e of New York, County of Kings, in order to
APX -
414
-
Date& Washington, D.C.
May 4,201 1
+
odd E. Phillips
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ss:

Subscribed and Swom to before me
APX
415
I, JULIO A. CASTILLO, Clerk of t h e District of Columbia
Court of Appeals, do hereby certify that
w a s on the
day of
~2a09 Y
duly qualified and admitted as an attorney and counselar and

estitlsd to practice befare this Court and is, on the date
indicated below, an a c t i v e member in good standing of this Bar. .

* -
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed t h e seal of t h i s Court a& the C i t y of Washingeon, D . C . , on April
12, 2011.
JULIO A. CASTILLO Clerk o f the Court
By:
'~eputy Clerk
APX
416
.*
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

I80 HOWARD STREET, SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNLA 941054617
klEiMBER SERVICES CENTER

TELEPHONE. W m - 3 4 0 0
CERTIFICATE OF STANDING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certrfy that according to the records of the State Bar, TODD EVAN PHILLIPS, #238183 was admitted to the pwctice o f law in this state by the Supreme Court of California on December 7,2005; and has been since that dab, and is at date hereof, an ACTIVE member of the State Bar of California; and that no recommendation for discipline for professional OF other miscondud has ever been made by the b a r d of Governors or a Pisciplinary Board to the Supreme Court of the State af California.
THE STATE BAR OF CAUFORNiA
Kath Lambert Custodian of Membership Records
APX
417
SIfPRE1ME COURT OF THE STATE O F NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS

Christopher-Earl: S.bunkin esse, Plaintiff,
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSH / CO-Chair,DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / CO-Cbair,EVELYN J. AQUILA 1
Index No. 650012t]ll
Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON I Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTKNE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN-; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P . DINAFOLI, RUTH NO& COLON, in their Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.;Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK AVO. SCHWARZ, JIt; PETER G. PETERSEN-, ZBIGNIEW BKZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKE;JOSEPH R. BIDEN, , E L , SOEBARKAH ( a k a Barry Soetoro, a k a Bamk Hussein ObamaII, a.k.a Steve D A NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF fHE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YO= STATE; R~GER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN I Q JOHN A. BOEHNER, THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THEWEPENDENCE PARTY, STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATTVE PARTY DF NEW YORK STATE, PENNY S . PRLTZKER; GEORGE SOROS; O B A M FUR AMERJCA; 03AMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCGAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities, Defendants.
STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
1
) SS:
APX
418
Eugenia Benetos, b e i duly deposed, states:

1.
Iamove~theageofei@~amnotap~in~caseorpros~g,andIarn a paralegat of the firm Ckpiiin & PrysMe, Chartered, counsel of recard for
Defenhts McCain Victory 2008, McCain-Palin Victory 2008, and John S.
McCain (hereMer collectively referred to as "Defendants").
On May 5,201 1,I caused to be served by U.S. Mail, First C l a s s ,true and correct
copies of the Notice ~fofation for Admission Pro Ha Vice of Attorney Todd E.
Phillips, Afikmation of James P,W e h a in Support of Motion for Admission of

Pro Hac Vice of Todd E. Fhi&ps, and Affidavit of Todd E. PhiIlips in Support of
Motion for Admission Pro Ha Vice of m m e y Todd E. Phillips, on the

following Plain*.
Christopha-Earl Strunk 593 Vanderbilt Avenue, #28 1 Brooklyn, New York 1 1238 Pro Se Pda&ii@
KAMAL F ! SON} f@@Y Public, State of Mew y~
I
I
,.?S~6089949 Qualrf~ed In Kings ~m~~~~ ExpfresMarch 31,a 7 5
4?.
APX
419
$fmnkv. W B O E et ol. NYS Sup. Cl. Cfy of Kings Index N o . :6500-2011
AF'FIDAVrr IN r n R T OF TIIE NOTICE OF a 2 0 8 3 MmoM for
m -
CONsOmATIoN and NEW RETURN DATE
Exhibit 3
-.
APX
- 420
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS Christopher-Earl: Skunk in esse, Plaintiff,
Index No. 6 5 W 1 1
I
DEFENDANTS MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAINPALIN MCTORY 2W3, AND
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSW / CO-Chair,DOUGLAS A. KELLNER I' Cv-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUfLA 1 Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON I Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOIMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOE& C O L ~ M in , their Omciaf md individual capaciw, Fr, JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, SJ.; FREDERICK A.O. SCWWAR2, JR; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZMSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEM,JR., SOEBARKAH ( a k a Barry Soetoro, aka.B a s k Hussein Obama 11, ak.a S m D a m ) ; NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITKE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE C O W T T E E OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; RQGER CALERe THE SOCIALIST W O W R S PARTY;IAN J. BRZEZMSKI; JOHN SiDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BQEHNER;THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMPvflITEE OF THE MDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YUW STATE; PENNY S . PRfTZKER; GEORGE SORQS; OBAM FOR AMERICA; UBAMA VICTQRY FUND; MCCAM VICTORY 2008, MCCAJN-PALIN VICTORY 20W, J o b and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities,
Defendants.
JOHN S . MCCAIN'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS THF, C-JM~LMNT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to &miss the Complaint, Defend-
McCA Victory 2008, McCain-Palin Victory
2008, and John S. McCain's ("McCain" or "Defendants") will move this Court returnable in the IAS Part Te Be Assigned, at the Kings County Supreme Court, 360 Adams Street,Bmkiyn, New York
11201, on June 2,201 1 at 9:30 a.m. for a r ~ order dismissingthe Complaint pursuant to CPLR
475933
APX
421
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUEtTu' OF KINGS Christopher-Ed:Stnmk i nw e , Plaintiff,
-agd-'
Index NO. 6500/2011
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WACSH t &-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chsrir, EVELYN I. AQUILA I Commissioner, GREGORY P,PE'I1ERSON / Conrmissioner,Deputy Director TODD L 3 . \rAL)NlTJE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, EEUG S C H N E f D E W , , THOMAS P- DINAPOLI, RUTH NQEMI COLON,in their Official and individd ctlpacitr, Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICKkO.SCHWARZ. JW. PETER G. PETERSEN;ZBIGN&W KAI&IE& BRZEZINSIU, MARK BRZEElNSKf; JOSEPH R.BIDEN2JIt, S Q E B W (aka, Bany Soetm, aka. Barack Hwsein 0 b m I& 8 . b . Steve Drmham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATSCSTATE COMMX'M'EE OF THE STATE OF NEW YO= STATE C O E OF THE WQRKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE,R ~ G E R CALERO; THE SOCWIST W O PARTY, IAN J. BRZEZINSKI;JOHN SZDNEYMCCAIN m; rom A. BOEHNER;TNE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMl'ITEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMEJlffTEE O F THE INLlEPENDENCE PARTY, STA'IZ O O E OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YO= STATE;PENNY S. P R F l ' m GEORGE SOROS; 0 3 M FOR W R i C A ; O B M V7CTQRYFUND; M C C m HCTORY 2Oa8: MCCAlN-PALIN MCTQRF 2008; John and JaneDoes; and XY2 E n t i t i e s ,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTSlVLCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAEN-PAWN VICTORY 2008, AND JOBN S, MCCAiN'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMlSSTHE COMPLAiNT
CAPLIN & DRYSDALE,C W T M D Rita C. Tobin, Esq. 375 Perk AvalUe Suite 1100 35th Floor New YO& NY iO152-3500 W q n , DC 20005 Telephone: (212) 319-7125 Te1eplm~ (202) 862-5000 Facsimile: (212) 644-6755 Facsimile: (202) 429-3301 Attorneysfor Def+ts M&in Yictory 2008, McCain-PalinYic- 2008, and John S .McCnin
James P. Wehner, Esq. One Thomas Circle, EFBlr
CAPLIN $ DRYSDALE, CHARTElkEB
May 2,201 1
475928
APX
422
TABLE OF CONTENTS
L ................................................................................................................................... *..T HE COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE C O M P m PURSUANTTO RULE 3 2 11(A)(2) BECAUSE I T LACKS SUBJECT MATTER IURISDICTIFNh. ................ 2
A........................................................................................................................... tmnk Lacks S t a n d i n g Becausethe Comp1aina Fails to Allege a Concrete, Particularid and Judicially-R-ble Injury
.................................................. 2
S
B........................................................................................................................... trrmk's Colllplaint Requires the Resolutioil of a Nos-Justiciable Political Question. ............................................................................................................
5
T
II. ................................................................................................................................ HE COURT S H O W DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 321 1(A)(7) BECAUSE STRUMS HAS FAlf,ED 'jrO STATE A CAUSE OF
A.
ACTION .......................................................................................................................... 7
.......................................................................................................................... t& Fail& to Allege a Cause o f m o n for Fmud.............................................

t
S 7
B........................................................................................-..............
C............................................................
,.......- .. 8 d Failed t a AHege a Cause of Action for UnjW Enrichment...........
,........-.S
................................................................. 11 Other 'Causes ofActim'9imirarJyFail ...: 9
....................................................
III. .............................................................. -.--....-....... ................................................... T HE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY NMShrIENT APPARENTLY SOUGHT ARE UNSUPPORTABE................................................. 10 CONCLUSION....................-.d...................s.......................
..........................................
12
APX
423
Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)
0) and (a) (?), Defendants McCain Victory 2008, M&ain-
Pdin Victory ZOOS,aad John S. M d X n C'McCaink OrL'Demt5'3 move t o d i d w Plaintiff
Christopher-Earl: Ssaurk's ("Struak"QI ''Plaintiff') Cmplaint.

PRELIMINARY STATEMEiYT
Plaintiff Stnmk's pro se V&ed Complaint is very difficult to u n * ,
consisting of
u n w d f a d allegations and legal theories. Defendants are @mined to read auy meaning into
Struok's Complaint and determine how the different aIleged "'Chsw of Action" relate to
D e f k ~ d a n t s at all. Strunk seems t o claim that Senator McC& ran for President knowing he w a s
inefigiile for the office, and that W a n i therefore deprived Stnrttk of bis ri&t t o cast a legal
vote (e-g., camplaint 70). Such allegations, however>are meritless. Similar lawsuits have
r the presidency by attacIrfng his sultw as a "natural born challenged McCain's eligibility h
Citizen.'' (US Const, art II, Q 1 , el 4). Yet the courts i n all ofthese prior cases have &&sad
the
claims as a matta &law (e-g.,Hoflmtderv McCain, 566 F Supp 2d 63 [DNH 2008])? The same
result & o d d occur here.
Plaintiffs lawsuit is subject to dismissal for s e d fimddamena reasons. First, Strunk
l a c k s standing to sue in
state court, having suffered no injury. Second, this case
involves a
political question, the ~e~01ution of which is better left to the voters and the politicsX branches of
the fedend g o v ~ t Third, . Stnmk bas failed t o sfate valid awes of action u n k New York
I a w for frryld, unjust enric;hment or any of the o&er alleged %auses of Action." Moieova, a
cause of action fm fraud mpira paitid&
showings by a p k h m and Stmuk's allegations fid to establish even a single dement of this claim. Similarty, SStrrmk has failed to adequately
allege a cohered or intelligible claim fix mjmt e m i b e n t or any af the other m r t e d
See, e.g., XolPrblin v O
h 2809 WL 2513986,2009 US Dist LEXS 75360 @ Ariz 2009), Robinson v Bowen, 567 F Stpp 2d 1144 (2008); Elliott v McCain, No. 08-0520 (WD Pa, dismissed Aug. 5,2(MS). Likewise, Defendant Barack Obama has f d a number of fiv01ous lawsuits regarding his eligibility for President. T h e s e cases have been dismissed as a matter ~f law as well. E.g., Berg v Ohma, 574 P Supp 2d 509 (EDPa 20081, afd 586 Md 234 (3d Cir
2009).
"Causes of Action" includiug, for example, ' M a 1 ofEquai Protection for Voter Expectation of
a Uiaifom T r u e and Comect Ballot A c e ~ d m g to Law md Regulations by the Defendants BOE
and its Agents, Candidates, Committea and Politid Parties" (wmplaint a t1 8 ) .
Momver, ,no
court has interpreted the N W Bom Citizen Cf.ause - a reoccurring theme in the Complaint
- to confer aay- individual rights, and his claims m u s tf d .In short, Stnmk's Complaint lacks
m&5 and it should be dismissed w i t h prejudice for any of the r ~ n explained s below.
I.
THE COURT SHOULD DrSlWS THE COMPLAlPJT PURSUANT TO RULE 3211(Ax2) BECAUSE 1T LACKS SWJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Stnlnk has @led to file a
case that is justiciable, a prerequisite to d l court actions
{Cuomo v Long f s W Lfglrt. Co., 71 NY2d 349, 358 f19881). T o qualify as a justiciable, the
Complaint must satisfy doctrines of standing, maotness, ripeness and political question. An
actual controversy must exisi, capable of resolution with a concmb impact on the parties.
(Chtny v Kmh, 126 AD2d 346,350-351 [2d Dept 19871). Absent such wre elements, as here,
the Court lacks subject matterjurisdiction and the plaintiffs action must be dismissed (Matter of
New Fork State fmpection, &. & hEnforcemat Em&., Dist. Cmm.182, AFSCME, AFLCIO v Cuonao, 64 NY 2d 233,241 [19841).
A.
Strnnk Lacks Stanrting Becaitse the Cemplaislt Fails to AUege a Concrete, Psrtlcukized pad J--Rhabfe.mary in his Complaint that,
'
As the party trying to invoke jurisdiction, Stntnk; must allege fa&
if proven, &OW he
'
ia .injury ~i n faq distimt
mat of me g ~ e r a pu~ic." ~
[1998J). Srui&c m o t e s w l i s h the requiite injury because McCain's alleged ineligibility to

run for President did n o t viol* imy of Strunk's legally pmtected interests. At most, S t m a t r alleges that MeCain's improper a p p a m ~ c e on New York's ballot deprived him of his "@It to
I&] republican form of gavefmnent" and denied h i s ''expectatioo of a d o r m true andxxmect ballof' (complaint at 18,20). McCain faoed a s i m k theory in HoSlandm, which also %[&I
on the premisetkat MdXn'n's mere status as a presidential candidate or party Mminee somehow
interfddl &with the electoral franchise of voters like b L a i n t i f f l " (ffoZkz~~&~~ 566 F Supp 2d at
APX
425
68). The court in Hollander rightly found however, that 'p]lhe presence of some allegedly ineligible canttidate on the ballot w o u l d not seem to impair [votind ri&t[sj in the least, no
matter how tbat candidate paforms in the election" (id.). The mutt fhereforeheld the plaintiff
lacked standing, reasoning: "McCain's candidacy for the presidency, whatever his eligibility, is
'hardly a restriction on voters' rights' because it in no w a y prev-
them from voting for
sameone else" (id. a t 69, guoting3a:kr v FEC, 230 F3d 381,390 [lst Cis 200012
As such, Stnmk's awnsationthat McCain deprived him of his right to vote i s baseless. If
Stnmk believed MeCsin to be idigible, he was free to vote for any number of other candidates
that appeared on the ZOO8 primary- and general-eMonballots in New York. Evm if Strunk
shy& home on E l d o n Day bacause of his opinion
of McCain's eligibility, the voIuntary
forfeiture of a right is not a ham that confix% standing (see, e-g.,Bear Lodge MuItipIc Use Assn.
v Babbitt, 1175 F3d 814,815-836 [loth Cir 19991 Zp1aintBk lacked d i n g because National
Park S e r v i c e ' s request that they v 0 1 u n ~ y reinfzided no injury&
climbing Devils Towers in June
Stmnk's allegation$ of injury amount to at m s t a gen&ed
grievance. It is well
established that "aprivate citizen who does not s h o w any special rights or interests in the matter
in controversy, ofha than &se
wmmm t o all laxpayers and citizens,has no standimg to sue"
( M a * o f M e e h v Coung o f IVe~tckes&~ 3 AD3d 533.534 [2d Dept 20041). And a plaintiff

d m not have standing by virtue of his ststus as a voter whae, as here, a complaint fkik to cite a
spedific staNte "evenGUlgentislly IF:^ to the right to v&
(Ru&er v Pataki,93 NY2d 273,
Though not binding authority, federal court decisions are i n f m v e because of the similrrritiesbetween federal and New York standug requirements (Socy. ofP.'lasticsIItdw., Inc.,
77 N Y d 761, 772 [1931] [comparing the "core reqaknent'' fbr standing l(derived h m the
Fed& Constinitionor the common law"]). Fed& c~urts f a a m notably held that votm do not
APX -
426
have standing to challenge the q d i o n s of candidates for elected federal office.2 S W s challenge t o McCain's status as a 'haturd born Citiza" - add &US McCain's digiility for
office
- is
precisely the type of g a d y available $tievaace that is .fbmlosed by the
Constitution's particularized,injury requirement (Lacjanv Defders of JRMiifee, 504 US 555,573

~19921).
Even if Stmnk could allege an injury-in-fact, his alleged injury could not be naimwdby
the Court SpecifieallyIStrunk's request for relief - which includes over $36 million in damages
- is bared by the
First
hgld
Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Cpnstitution, Political
candidates, Iike MeCain, have "a constitutional right to m fer office," a n d the impwition of damages would effectively j d s h McCaia for ex&g
rhia right (Flinn v Gordon, 775 F2d
1551, 1554 [llth Cir 19851). Indeed, the "right to run for public office touches on two
fundamental freedoms: freedom of individual expression and iieedom of association'' (Coxv

Louisium, 379 US 536,554-555 [1965]). hsumhg only for sake of argument that McCain would not have beeg eligible to be
President, the First a n d Foutkenth Amendments still paantee a political party and its members
their choice of a m i n e e , md S t r p n k cannot impose damages on McCain for his nomination to
the Republican ticket (see Tmknom 9 TMa Cities Area New
P a r t y , $20 US 351,359 [ I 9 9 7 1
is unconttoversid'~). This is not
[What [defendant party] has a right t o seEect its own &date
For example+in ScBIesizlger v Rarer&& C b m n to Stop the Wm: 418 US 208 (1974, the Court held dtat plainti% lacked standing to pursue a claim alleging& t i t certainmembers dCongress were ineligiie for oflice under the Constitution's Ine~mpatibility Clause. Id. at 220. The Court explained that "standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest. . which is held in common by all members of the public," id, a d that the standing requirement carries
"particular[ 1 "weight in cases "seek[ing] an interpretation of a wnstitutiond pvision which has never before been comtmd by the federal murts." Id. at 221; See &o Ex Parte Leuitt, 302 US 633, 636 (1937 per cwiam) (holding t b t plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the eligibility of Hugo Nack to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court b '?t is not &cient that klaintifflbas d y a general interest catmrn to afl members of the public"); Jones v Bwh, 122 F Supp 2d 713 (ND Tar 2000), afld without opinion, 244 F3d 134 (5th CU2000)s(holding that three Texas voters lacked standing to briag suit aUeging that George W.Bush md Richard 3. Cheney were ineligible to receiveTexas's electoral votes under the Twelfth Amendment
APX
427
32 I lfa){2) and (a)(7), with prejudice, and for such further and other relief as the Court may deem just
and proper. Defendants seek relief on several grounds including the Complaint's failure to allege facts
sufficient to confer standing on Plaintiff Christopher-Earl: Saunk
that would entitle h i m to
invoke the Court's jurisdiction, the Complaint presents a politiGal question inappropriatefor judicial review, and the CompIaint faiIs to state a claim under New York law for fraud, unjust enrichment, and the other alleged "Causes of Action."
The above-entitled action has been brought by Stfunk seeking "a preliminary injunction hearing
with declaratory judgment with a partial summary judgment" and other relief against various
Defendantsfor alleged violations of state law in connection with, iMer alia, the qualificationsof John
S. McCain and Barrack Hussein Obama as presidential candidates.
Pursuant to N.Y,C,P.L.R 22140, answeringaftidavirsand supponingpapers, if any, are
required to be served upon the undersigned at least seven days before the return date of this motion. Dated: May 2,201 1
By:
cAP$IN& DRYSDALE,CHARTERED Wefmer, Esq. One Thomas Circle, NW Washington, DC 20005
ame ex
Telephone: (202)862-5000 Facsimile: (202) 429-330 1

Rita C.Tobin, Esq.
,
375 Park Avenue 35th Moor New York, NY 10152-3500 Telephone: (2 12) 3 19-7125 Facsimile: (212) 644-6755
Attorneysfor Defendnts McCui~ Victory-2008, McCuin-Palip1 Victory 2008, avrdJoh~l S. McCain
.to say, however, that maely bemuse a p o l i t i c a l party h;ts a constitutional right to selsct its
nominee, the nominee hiis an unqw&ied right to hold o f f i c e . History provides s e v d examples
of palitid parties that have s d v d fheir political agendas by nominatingcandidates knawn U
be ineligible at the time.3 As the U.S. Constitution prevents courts drom disagarding and
undermining a political party's decision tQ nominate such a &date,

damages on McCain for
the Court amnot impose
the exmise of these First and Fourkmth Amendment rights here;.
Consequdy, the Court cannot redress Strunk's alleged injury with a favorable dmg, and his claims must be di-
B .
Strunk's Complaint Requires rhe Resoiation of a NohJusticisble Political
Q9estion Notwithstmhg S4runk's lack of standhg, bis challenge t o McCaia's eligibility for the
O f f i c e of President raises issues that constitute a non-justiciablepolitical question, and require

the Complaint's dismid. The political question dochine is ''essentially a function of the
separation of powers'' (Bakerv Can, 369 US 186,217 [1962]). It serves to restrain the judiciary from substituting ''judicial aversight &r the disdonary management d public business by
public officials" (Matter o f Abrams v New Yark City Tr. Auth., 39 W 2 d 994 992 [1976]).
Where '4natta-s have demonstrably and texWiy been cofumitted to a m o d h t e , politid
h c h af govanment, any mns-on
of such m a t t e r s by a branch or body other than that in

'
which the power expressly is reposed would, rtbstnt exhaordinary o r emergency ckwmstances,
constitute an ultra ~ i r & act" fNav YorkState I?iqxztioon,64 NYZd at 234).
The U . S . Constitution i n d i m t h a ti s m elating to a '
~ eligility s for the
O f f i c e of President rest, in the first instance, with the voters srad then with the Electoral Colleg@,
the constitutionally mated body responsible for seleetkg the President of the U n i t e d States (see,
b 11872, for example, the Equal Rights Party nominated Victoria Woodhull, considd by many t o be the &it woman run for president, even though she was not yet 3 5 - y w old and, as a woman, was then unable to vote. See Kate Hzwelin, Victors Woodhull: Fearless Feminist at 37 (Twenty First Centuty Books 2006). SimilarIy, i n 2004,the &&can Socialist Workers Par& nominated a presidential candidate who was a Nica~aguan immigrant. See Third Pa* Presidential Candidates, USA Today, Oct.23,2004.
APX
429
US Coast, art II, 4
1, d 2 ["EachState shrtfl appoint, in such Manner as the Legis1ature &emf
may dim%," e w r s for the President and V i c e President]; US Const, a
~ XXm, d 5 1). 33e
U.S. C d M i o n ' s commitmeat to the Electoral College of the responsibility to seiect the
President subsumesthe authorityto decide whether a presidential candidateis quakftd for office
because the e m o n of a candidate's qualifications is an integral component of fhe electors'

decision-maktdgprocess!
The ConstiMm also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further r e v i e w
of a prmesldential d b t e ' s eligibility for office, t~ the extent such review is r e q u i r e d ,rests with
Coajpss. Where no candidate receives a majority of the electorrtl votes, the Constitution
commitsto the House of R m t a t i v e s the authority to select &e President and,in so doing, to
evaluate the candidates' qualifications (see, US Const, mend XIT). Similarly, the
Twentieth
Amendment explicitly grants Congress the responsibility far seteckg a President when a candidate elected by the Electoral College does not satisfy the Constitution's eligibility requirements (see, US Const, amend XX, 4 3 C"&e Congress may by law provide for the case
wherehi aeither a President elect nor a Vice President e l e c t shall have qualified, declaring who
$ball then act as President. . ,' 7 ) .

The US. Constitution therefore provides that, i n the first instance, the selection o f the
-dent
-and the evduation of a candiws q d f i d o m - should be m d e by the voters ttnd
politidly accountable bodies withcrut j u d i d participation. Voters aud e1eetm can chose not
to vote for a candidate they believe to be inetigi'ble, and nwqbers of Conp-839 can object to
electorat votes as they are counted (3 USC 5 15)- If a state court were to pass upon the ePgiility
of a andidate to hold the Office of President -a detemktion reserved for the Electmid allege
and Congress - it may involve itself in nationai politid matters firr which it is institutionally ill-
If a state coat were t o sit in judgment of a federal arididateasqwilifi~tiotls,its judgment w u X d ' ~ r o j w i a t ~ interfer[elm ly~ with the E I 4 College's constiMonal a u t h o r i t y to elect tke President and to evaluate the ~ ~ c a t i o of ns the national catldidaks seeking that office. United States v Mulun-f;rorm,495 US 385,394 (1990).
suited, and intmke with the oonstitutional authority of the I31ectoral College and Congress t o
d m t e the qualifications of presidential candidates,
Accmhgiy, the political question da&e

supe?seding the judgments of the nation's v
instructs Ws Court to refrain from
o and ~ those federal governmental bodies the
Constitutm designates
the m e r f o m for determining M W s eligibility to hold office.
If the Court were t o make this d e t e m b t i ~ 1 -as i t must to resolve Strunk's claims - it risks
disrupting at tbe nafional level the U.S. Constitutioa's ~8fefXly calibrated separationof powers '%heabsolately central paantee of a just Gwe~nmmt~ (Mmoz-Flora, 495 US at 394 quoting
Morrison v Ofson, 487 US 654,697[I 9881 [Scalia, J., dkmntin~).
l L
THl3 COURT SEOUL0 DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 3211(A)CI) BECAUSE STRIXliK HAs FAILED TO STATE: A CAUSE OF ACTXOM
Alternatively, the Couxt should dismiss Stcmk's Ccrmplaint b r failure to state a cause of
action. The purpose of a Motion to Dismiss d e r CPLR 3211(a) (7) is to test the legal
sufliciency of a complaint we,e.g., Sheridan Y Carter, 48 AD3d 444,445 [2d Dept 20081). A
court i s not requir(3d, however, to presume the trutbfirIness of bald d o n s ,
~ f 1 0 1 ~
allegations or legal conclusions couched as $ds (see RuBno v N t r w Y~rk City Tr. Auth., $5
AD3d 817, 818 [2d Dept 20083 r p ] a r elegal conclusions are not entitled to the benefit of the
preamption of truth and
not acoorded every hvorable infereneey). Under this standard,
Sbmk's offen unintelligiile Complaint must be dismissedbecause Savnk has not alleged any of
the elements necessary for any of the "Causes ofAction" under New Yurk law (see also CPLR
3013 & 3014 [requkhg, inter alia, sufliciently particular statements and plain and concise
statements]).
A.
Stnurk Fded ~ AUegt a Cause of Actiwt for h a d

case bmught under New York law, a p W f F is obliged to &.ate the
In any fraud
c i r c ~ c e constituting s ihe wrong in &dl (QLR 3016
0; see also Matter offlobinson v

a
E d w a d , 54 AD3d 682, 683 [2d Dept 20081 [finding that complaint alleging e l d o n h u d
"failed to plead the frsurd claims with the requisite specificitya). Indeed,
complaint is
APX
431
insufficient if it cantaim "only conclusory d-tions
of fraud without any facts to support a
findingthat any liaudm act was commi@&'~Sar@v Miure$ii, 50 AD3d 1117,1118 [2nd
Depe 2 0 0 8 } } , afld as a s m o d , 12 NY3d 527 [2009]).

Strunk, offering ammations that can,a t besf, be &scribed as bare assertk~s,bas alexi to
satisfy the essentid elemwfs of a muse of action for fraud, which are ''representation of a material existing fact, falsity, scienta, deception and i n . (New York Univ. v Cont. h . Co.,
87 NY2d 308, 318 [I9951 [intemd quotatiom and citations omirtedJ). Smdc's only alleged
example of any representation of fact made dkedy or indimtly by McCain comes fiwm a
statement filed in Arizona t o c o n i b eligibility for and partiupation in that s t a t e ' s son-binding
Presidential Preference Primary (complaint 146). Skunk does not allege that he &ied on this
statement or that he w a sw i t h i n the class of persans that this statement-made in another stafpifor
a separate eI&n
- was intended
to i
d u (see ~ BrucKeffv GMwuCd, 112 NY 454, 471
Moreover, even if Stnmk's factual claims about McCain's birthplace are accepted as true,
Stnmlr has not alleged that McCain's statement was Mse or that McCain knew it was fake
because, as discussed above, only certain bodies are authorized by the U.S. Constitution to
detmdne eligibility for the Office of the President and t h e bodies have never declared McCain
ina3igible for that Office (Beltrone v G e m d Sclruyler & Co., 223 An2d 938, 941 f3d Dept
19961 [statements alleged to be fhwkdeat m u s t be 'Wse whenmade"]). Finally, Stnmk has n o t alleged t h a t he suffix& au a&$
p d a r y loss as a result of
McCain's statement (Dress Shirt SaCes, Im. v Hotel Marhhique Asso(:.., 12 NY2d 339, 343
119631). Sfrunk bas &us not alleged the elementsnecessary far a cause of action for fraud
B .
Strunk Fded to AUege a Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment
A cause of aetion f aunjust enrichment must show that the dpfkdant was emic~ed at the plaintiffs expaw {see Milman v Dennisan, 271 AD 988,988 I2d Dept 19471). Here, neither
criteria is met. S W s unjust e n r i c b t claim seems to flow from can~paignMraising
APX
432
activity by d d a t e s , indudhg McCain (complaint fl148) Howeva, Stnmk never dleges in
the f b m p h t tbat he personally contributed any fin& t a these activities. Thus, there was no
qmse t o Stntnk. And even if Smdc had contributed to WcCain's campaign fUddraising
I
1
activities, McCain &d
not have been enriched. Strid fedecal rules p w n t campip funds
from b e i a g f b r a u y 4 W s 5 h dusey' 11 CFR 113.1,1132? As such, Strankhas failed
to allege sdquateiy a cause of d o n for unjust enrichment.

C.
A H W e r 'Causes o fA e t i a t l " SimibViy Fail
Stnultr has asserted a total of seven Y k w s o f Action'' in the Carnp~aint.' Defendants
cannot detamim whether or not they bvebeen sued under all af these "Causes of Action," nor
can Defendants discm whaf atl of the 'Causes of Adion" repsent. Gerieraliy speaking, all of
the alleged ccwses o f d o n , including those for h u d and unjust enrichment, are nninteUigible,
incoherent7 and fail to fit within any cognimble legal theory (see CPLR 3013 8c 3014). Gouts
routineiy dismiss complaints that contain such pleading even from pro se litigants (see, e.g.,
%mar
v Dinkes & Mwitzer, 29 Misc3d 1202[Aj, 2010 NY Slip Op 51655[U], *4 [2010]
It should also be noted hat federal rules require the Fed& Election Commission to audit rigomusiy all Udain gd-election conwittees that accepted fe;deml public giants dtuing the 2008 electim, deb helps ensure over$ camplianw with this c'prsonsluse" &&on. 11 C.F.R. 5 9007.1. Besides fraud and anjust enrichment, Strunk alleges t % m c B r e a c h of St& Cdtutionai Fiduciary Duty as A+t all Public Officer Defendants"; of Equal Pswtaction For Voter Expectation of a Unifbrm True and Correct Ballot A w x h g to Law and Regulations by the Defmdants BOE aad its Agents, Candidah, Committees a d Political P a r t i e s 7 ' ;'aenial of Substantive Due Process far Voter ExpetWioon of a Uniform T r u e and Crrnect Ballot According to l a w and Regulations by the D e m t s BOE and its Agents, Candidates, Commitkxs and Politid Parties Aided and Abetted U n .Enrichment': " I n W Witb Right to a RepQbfican Form of G6vernmentby Fr. Joseph A. O'Hare, SJ.,Fr. Joseph P . Pilrkes S.J. and Frederick A. 0.Schwan t " :and ' W e r m with Election ~mchise by Defendants and Frethick A. 0 . Schwan, Jr." (camplaintat 2,18,19,20,25).
For example, Stnmk alleges that "Dfif-t SUEBANCAB and Defmdant McCaia as part o f Soebtwld's Republican Guaml committed perjury before a Federal OfEcer in vi01aiion of 18 USC $1001 as part of the faekefewkg enterprise cormptoa" (complaint a t 35).
APX
433
-
.
injlmcton, see CPLR 6301, and has not established he is atided t o any such relief. As such, this
I 1
i
I
I
!
appmntrequestmustfail.
With respect to the request for a dec1aratory jud-ent
uuder CPLR 3001, Shunk has not
alleged a mticiable controversy." 'Tursuant to CPLR 3001, the Supreme Court may render a
decl-
judgment a s to the rights of the parties when there is a justiciable oontmversy. A
justiciable g o ~ v e r s y m u s t involve a present, rather than hypothetical, contingent or mote,
prejudice to the plaintiff" (Waterways Dev- Gorp. v b a l k , 28 AD 3d 539, 540, [2d k p t

2 0 0 6 1 ) . As discussed above, this action shauld be dismissed as non-justiciable for, inter a h , a
lack of standmg and for involving a political question. Strunk has thus alieged no genuine dispute o r actual controversyY
APX
434
For the foregoing reasons, tbe Court shodd dismiss S W s Complaint w i ~
Dated: M a y 2,20 11
Telephone: (202) 862-5000 Facsimile:(202) 429-330 1
35th Floor New York, NY 10152-3500 Telephone: (212) 3 19-7 125 Facsimile: (21 2) 544-6755
Attorneys for Lkfindands McCain ~ ~ : E C D Q 2008, kf&in-Prr!in Victory 2008,and John S. McCain
Rita C. Tobin, Esq. 375 Pack Avenue
'O
Given the overall tenor of the Complaint, Defendants would request that dismissal be with prejudice and h t Strunk not be granted leave to replead as such an exercise W d be futile,
Strunkv. NYSBOE et al. N Y S Sup. Ct. Cty of Kings Index No.: 6500-201 1
Exhibit 4
SUPREME CQURTOF THE STATEOF NEW YQRK COUNTY OF KINGS
-------
CHRISTOPHER-W STRUNK,
Plainti&
NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS KELLNER, CO-Chair,EVELYN J. AQUILA Commissioner,GREGORY P. PETERSON, Commissioner, DEPUTY DIRECTOR TODD Index No.: 6500-202 1 I ) .VALEDEPUTY DIRECTOR STANELY ZALEN, ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC S C ~THOMAS ~ P. DINAPOLI, , RUTH NAOMI COLUN, i n their afficial and Returnable Date: indiuidual capacities, FR. JOSEPH A. O'IbWE, June 3,201 5 Sd, FR JOSEPH P, PARKES, S.J., FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR, PETER G. PETERESEN, ZBIGNIEW KABTlER.2 BRZEZINSKI, MARX BRZEZINSIU, JOSEPH R. BLDEM, JR., S0EBAR.KAI-i (aklaBarry Soetro, M a B m k Hussein Obama D[, &a Steve Dubm), NANCY PELOSf; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMTMEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORR, STATE COMMLTfEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE, ROGER CAtEBRO, THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY, IAN J. BRZEZNSKI, IOHN S I D W MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNEQTHE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COh4MITTEE7 THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITIEE OF THE INDEPENDENCEPARTY, STATE C O E OF THE CONSERVATM3 PARTY OF MEW YORK STATE, PENNY S. . P R I GEORGE SOROS, OBAMA FOR AMERICA, OBAMA VICTORY FUND, M C C m VICTORY 2008, MCCM-PALIN VICTORY 2008, JOHN AND JANE DOES and XYZ ENTITIES,
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMESA. WALSH, CO-Chair,DOUGLAS A.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that updn the Affbatian of Thomas J. Gasry, of Harris
Beach, PLLC, attorneys for Defendants, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph R.
.
APX
- 437
Biden, Jr., Obama for America and Obama Victory Fund, dated & & y 2, 2011, and upon all
pleading5 and proceedings heretofore had herein, the undersigned will move this Court at the
CouIzhouse located at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the 3rd day of June 2011, at
\
9 3 0 a.m. in the forenoon of that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for an order
pursuant to C.P.L.R. @ 321 1(a)(2), C.P.L.R. 5 321 l(aXS), C.P,LR
4 321 l(a)(7) and C.P,L.R, 3
321 l(a)(8) dismissing the Plaintiffs cumplainti dated March 22,201 1, in its entirety.
This is an election law proceeding.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that p w s w t to CPLR 2214(b), answering
papers, if any, are required to be sewed upon the undersigned at least seven (7) days before the
rerum date of this motion.
Dated: Uniondale, New York

May 2,20 1 1
KARlUS BEACH, PLLC Attorneys f o r President Barack O b m Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Obamafor America and Ohmna VicforyFund
By:
The OMNI 333 EasIe OvingtonBIvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 5 1553 (516) 880-8484
TO:
Christopher-Earl Stfllnk Plaint<%pro se 593 Vandabilt Avenue # 281 Brooklyn, Kew York 1 1238
APX
--
438
--
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KLNGS

---------------------------"------*-----------
CHRTSTOPHER-EARL: STRUNK,
NEW YORK STaTEBOARI) OF ELECTIONS,

AFFIRMATTON IN SUPPORT J M S A. WALSH, CO-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER, Ca-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA, OF MOTZONTO R~SMSS Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON, Commissioner, DEPUTY DIRECTOR TODD Index No.: 6500-2011 D.VALENTDE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR STANELY ZALEN, ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHWEIDEMAN, THOMAS P .DINAPOLI, RUTH NAOMI COLUN, in their oEcid and individual capacities, FR.JOSEPH A. O'HARE, SJ., FR. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J., FREDERlCK A.O. SCHWAECZ, Jlt,PETER G. PETERESEN, ZBlGNIEW IUIMIERZ BRZEZn\TSKf,MARK BRZEZINSRI, JOSEPH R BIDEN, JR., SOEB(#a Barry Soetro, &a Barack Hussein ObamalI, &a Steve Durham), NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE O F NEW YORK,STATE COMMFTTEE OF THE WORKING FMLLES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE, ROGER CALEBRO, THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY, LAN J. BRZEZMSKI, JOHN SDEW M C C m 111, JOHN A. BOEI-DER, THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE C O , THE NEW YORK STATE COMMTIEE OF TRE INDEPEBDENCE PARTY, STATE CUMMITEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE, PENNY S. PRITZKER, GEORGE SOROS, OBAMA FOR AMBRICA, OBAMA VICTORY FUNDSM C C M VICTORY 2008, MCCAIN-PALXI4 WCTORY 2008, JOHN AND JANE DOES and XYZ ENTITIES,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - l l - - . - - - * - l l Y U - - Y I - . - C - - - - - - - I - - - -
COUNSELORS:
THOMAS J. GARKY, ESQ., an attorney duly admitted to practice law before h e

Courts of the State of New York and a M e r w i t h the law firm of Harris Beach, PLLC, the
attorneys for the Defendants, President B m k Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden, h.,
Obarna for America and Obarna Victory Fund, affirms the fodowing to be trite mder penal9 of
pejurj!:
I,
f am fully familiar with the facts and c i r e ~ c eof s the above ~aptioned matter.
Said familiarity is based upon a review ofthe files maintained by my office. PRELLlWNARY STATEMENT
2.
This afkmtion is submitted in support of the motion by Defendrints, President
Obama, Vice Presideat &den,' Obama for America and Obama Victory Fun4 (bereinafter
"Defendanfs") to dismiss the Plaintiffs complaint, dated March 22, 2011, (hereinafter "complaint") in its entirety. 3. Obama for America is a federal plitical committee registered with the Federal
Election Commission. It is the principal campaign wmmittee of President Obama and Vice
President Biden. &g 2 U.S.C.
4 3 1 ( 5 ) . Obama Victory Fund is a joint fundraising cormnittee
formed by Obama for America and the Democratic National Committee in connection with the 2008 presidential election,
Election Commission.
See 11 C.F.R. 3 102.17.
It is also registered with the Federal
The complaint appears to only name President Obama and Vice President Biden in their A individual, and not in their official, capacities&(Plaintiffs complaint at 20,23, Exhibit complaint naming the President and Vice President in their official capacities would-raise fundamental questions about this court's jurisdiction. Moreover, a Plaintiff may not receive damages Franklin v. or an injunction against the President when acting in an oRcial capacity. Massachusetts, 505 U . S .788,827 (United States Supreme Court 1992) (Scalia, I., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 73 1, 749 (United States Supreme Court 1982). The President and Vice President reserve &e right to asses aIl applicable arguments if Plaintiff attempts to assert claims relating to their official capacities.
"m.
4.
Tbe Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, an order h m this Court finding that President
Obama is a not a nah& born citizen of the United States, is prohibited from holding the office
of President of the United States (herelnaffer "President") and can not be placed on the electoral ballot for t b 2512 presidential
5.
Plaintiffs allegations about President Obama are patently
however, even
taking them as true for purposes of this Motion, Plaintiffs suit must be dismissed immediately. Plaintiff lacks standing to- challenge The quaIifications of the President; P l a i M has s l e d to
state a
claim utpon which relief can be g r a n ~ ,Plaintiff has failed to plead fia& with
particularity; P l a W s d o n is frivolous; this C o w lkks subject matter jurisdiction over the case; Plaintiff is collaterally estopped f h m bringing this action; and the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. PROCEDURAL RISTORY
6.
0 x 1or about March 22,201 1, the Plaintiff filed his complaint with the Supreme
Court, County of Kings. The Plaintiff asserted a myriad of allegations that appear to interpose
the foilowing causes of action: 1.) breach of fiduciary
2.) denial of equal protection; 3.)
denial of substantive due process; 4.) interference with fhe republican fonn of gove~nment;~ 5.)
interference w i t h the elective franchise; 6.) fraud, and 7.) mjust enrichment. Annexed hereto as Exhibit "A" is a copy of E%htiff s complaint. Plaintiff also seeks to have the court adjudicate the citizenship of two other candidates in the 2508 presidential election, John McCain and Roger Calero. (Plaintips Complaint at T( 41, Exhibit "'A.") President Ohma has publicly produced a certified copy ofa birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. This Court can take judicial notice of this-fact. Plaintiff on$ raises this cause of action as to the "Public Officer Defendants." (First cause of action in Plaintiffs complaint, Exhibit "A.") He does not appear to raise this cause of action against President Obama, Vice President Biden, Obama for America, or Obama Victory Fund Plaintiff does wt raise this cause of action against X'resident Obama, Vice President Biden, Obama far America, or Obama Victory Fund. (Fourth cause of action in Phintiff s complaint, Exhibit "A.")
7.
The Plaintiff has previously commenced similar actions in the New York State
Supreme Court, County of Kings and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York. Annexed hereto as Exhibits KB" and "C", respectively, are copies of tbe complaints
in Strunk v. Patterson. et al, No. 2%21108 (N.Y. Sup. C t .2008) and Strunb- v. New York State B o d of Bectiofls. et a l , No. 08-CV-4289 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). Both actions were dismissed.
Annexed hereto as Exhibits "Dn and "E", respectively, are copies of the orders in Stmnk v.
Patterson, et al, No. 29642108 (3I.Y. Sup. C t 20081, dated March 14, 201 1 and Sin& v. New
York State Board of Elections et d,No. 08-CV-4289 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), dated October 28,2008,
respectively.
8.
The instant action w a s commenced eight (8) days after this Court denied
Plaintiffs motion to reargue his request to file an amended complaint in Strunlc v. Paflerson, et
& No+29642108 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2 0 U 8 ) .The allegations contained in said amended complaint are
almost identical to the causes of action set forth in the instant proceeding.
9,
The PlaintiR is m stranger to litigation in New York a n d the District of
Columbia. The Plaintiff has previously commenced approximateiy ten (10) legal actions based upon similar c~aims in coutts i n the above refmeneed jurisdieti~ns.~
Strunk v. CIA, No, 08-CV-1196 @.D.N.Y- Mar. 27,2008); St'runk v. United States Postal Service, No. 08-CV-1744 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 3008); ACORN v. United States of America et al, No. 09-CV-4888 (E.D.N.Y. Jan, 20, 2010) {denying Stntnk's motion to intervene); Strunk v, United t r u n k ' s States House of Revresentatives, No. 99-CV-2168 (ED.N,Y Apr. 3, 2001) (dismissing S motions as fi-ivolous and ultimately dismissed the complaint as void of merit); S a n k v. Debt. of Housin~ & UrbanDevYt, No. 99-CV-6840 ( E . D . N . Y . Apr. 3,2001) (sua sponte dismissing claims for failure to comply with Fed. R. Ciu. P. 8); Torres v. New York State Bd. Of Elec., No. 04-GV-1129 ( E . D . N . Y . Apr. 18,200Q (denying motion to intervene as fkivolous since Sf.runk was not interested partyh Thomas v. Federal Reserve Bank, No. 07-CV-1171 (E.D.N.Y. May 29, 2097) (dismissing SttunkYs cmpiaint as fkivolous and denying him intervenor status fbr purposes of appeal); Qgg Partv of NEW York State v. New Yo& W e Bd. Of Eiec., No. 02-CV-6465 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 2,2003); Strunk v. United States Dept of State, 693 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D.D.C. 2010) and 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXfS 24978 (D.D.C. Mar. IO,201 I); Taitz v- Obma, No. 10-CV-00151@.D.C.Ap. 14,2010).
APX - 442
P o r n1 TRE PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING TO ASSERT TEFE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT
10.
In the case at bar, b e Plaintiff cornmeneed this action as a citizen of
the United Stares and a voter in the State of New York The causes of action assxtd by the
Plaintiff are general in nature and therefore available to any voter in the State of New York.
1 1.
det&ed
As this Court is we11 aware, standing is an aspect ofjusticiability that must be

at the outset of any- Jitigation, The Societv of the Plastics M W . Im.. v.
count^ of
Sdolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778 (Court o f Appeals 1991); Catxer v. Nussbaum, 36
A.D.3d 176,825 N,Y.S.2d 55 (2nd Dep't. 2006). Standing requires a court to determine if the
person seeking relief is the proper party to request adjudication, The Societv of the Plastics
Industrv, Inc,. v. C O Wof Suffolk, 77 N.Y2d 761,570 N.Y.S.2d 778 (Court of Appeals 1931);
Silver v. P a m , %N.Y.2d 532,730 N-YS.2d 482 (Ca& of Appeals 2001). 12.
Pursuant ta
PJew Yatk law a plaintiff is required to establish staud'mg
by
demo^ an injury in fact, Montana v. County Legislature of C m t v of SuffoIk, 70 A.D.3d

203,891 N,Y.S.Zd 82 (2nd Dep't. 2009); The Societv o f the Plastics Industrv, Inc.. v. County of SutEolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761,571)N.Y.S.2d 778 (Court of Appeals 1991); Silver v. Pa*, 96 N.Y.2d
i
532,730 N.Y.S.2d 482 (Court of Appeals 2001). An injury m fact exists when the plaintBhas
sustained a direct and personal injury b t is different than the injury sustained by the public at
large, Silver v. Pat&,
5 2 6 N.Y.2d 532, 730 N.Y.S.2d 482 (Court of Appeals 2001). Rudder v.
m,246 A.D.2d 183,675 N.Y.S.2d653 (3rd Dep't. 19%); Raines v. Byd, 521 U.S. %1.1,117
SCt. 2312 (United States Supreme Court 1997); New Yerk State Association of Nwse
Anesthetists v. Noveilo, 2 N.Y.3d 207,778 N.Y.S.2d 123 (Corn of Appeals 2004).
13.
Under New York law?a plaintiff does not have standing to adjudicate gendized
grievances m o r e appropriately addressed by the representative bmnches of government,

Societv of the Piastics Industrv. kc.. v. County of SUE&
The
77 N.Y.2d 761, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778
(Court of Appeals 191); Silver v. Patald, 95 N.Y.2d 532,730 N.Y.S.2d 482 (Court of Appeals
2001); Kadish v. Roosevdr Raceway Associates. L.P., 183 A.D.2d 874,584 N.Y.S.2d 592 (2ud Dep't. 1992). 14.
Courts have repeatedly held that a voter does not have standing t o challenge a
candidate's quaiifications to be P r e s i d e n t . In Jan@ v. Bush, 122 F. Supp. 2d 713 @.D. Tex.),
affd wlo o w a n , 244 F.3d 134 (5th
2000), voters sued to chailenge the qualifications of
then-Gov. George W,Bush and Richard Chedey to be elected President and =ce President of the United States, respectively, on the grounds that they were both "inhabitants" of Texas in
violation of the Twelftb Amendment. The C o u r t dismissed the case on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing b e w e they failed to demonstrate a specific and individualized injury
from the alleged violation.

15. More recently, courts have dismissed suits challenging the qualifications of the 2008
presidential candidates under the Natwal Born Citizen Ciause on the grounds that the Plaintiffs
lacked a particularized injury, Berg v, Obama, 586 F.3d 234, 239 (3d Cir. 2009); Cohen v.
Obama, No. 08-2150, 2008 WL 5191864, at *1 @.D.C2OD8],.affd, 2009 WZ 2870668
(D.C.Cir. 2009); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F.Supp.2d 63,58-71 @.N.H. 2508)).
16.
The case at bar is no different The crux of Plaintiffs complaint seems to be that
President Obama should have been prohibited from being elected President in 2008 and csrnnot
be placed on the ballot for the presidential e l d o n in 2012-The basis for Plaintiffscomplaint is
APX
444
the unsubstantiated and baseless dtegation that President Obama is not a natural born citizen of
the United States.
17.
As a result af the aforementioned, tbe PlahtifT s e e m s to plead the foIIowing
injuries: (1) injury to Plainties sovereignty, (See: Erst, second, and sixth causes of action in
Plaintiffs complaint, Exhibit "A"); (2) injury to Plaintiff's freedom and liberty, (See: second and
third causes of action in Plaintiffs complaint, Exhibit "A"); (3) denial of Plaintiffs right to a
republican form of government, (See: thitd cause of action in PlainWs complaint, Exhibit "An);
(4) injury to PIainWs reasonable expectation of success&l participation j n the suflkge process,
(See: sixth cause of action in Plaintiffs complaint, Exhibi? "A"), ancl (5) financial injury to
taxpayers for the cost of the 2008 election (See: seventh w e of action in Plaintiff's complaint,
Exhibit " A ' ? .
18.
that could
The injuries alleged i n the Plaintiffs complaint are no different than the injuries
be alleged by the public at large. In fact, the PlaintifPs complaint acknowledges that
his alleged injuries are generally applicable to all citizens of the State of New York:
"PlajntiZ along with those similar& sitziated W e r s injury to his sovereignty as guaranteed under New York Sate Civil Rights J~ZW Chapter 6 Section 2 as a sovereig~1 citizen ~ f t A eState ofNew
York thaf here gumantees the Supreme sovereipv in the people; and whereas, m authority c a m ~ any pretence whatsoever, be exercised over the citizens of this st& but such as is or shaB be derivedfiom and granFed by r& people of chis state". (See: first cause of action in PlainWs complaint at q 60, Exhibit "fl.
19.
The Plaintiffs complaint alleges nothing more t h non-justiciable abstract and
theoretical claims, without any allegation of a particularized injury, and must be dismissed. (See: Montano v. Countv Legislature of Countv of Suffo1k, 70 A.D.3d 203, 891 N.Y.S.2d 82'(2nd
Dep't. 2009); Albanese v. Federal Elections Commission, 884 54.Supp. 685 (E.D.N.Y. 1995);
Lamar Adve~tish~ af Penn, LLC v. The Town of Orchard Park. New York, 2008 WL 781865
(W.D.N.Y. 2008); Silver v. Pataki, 96 N.Y.2d 532,730 N.Y.S.2d 482 (Court of Appeals 2001)). POINT II THE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO STATE A VALID CAUSE OF Aerrom
20.
Pursuant to New York Law,the question to be determined on a motion to dismiss
under the Civil Practice Zstw and Rules ("C.P.L.R'3
8 3211(a](7) is whether the plaintiff
presently has a cause of action, not whether the cause of action may be proven at a fume date,
Fields v. Leeponis, 95 A,D.2d 822, 463 N.Y.S.2d 864 (2nd Dep't. 1983); Gu~penheimer v,
_Gioburp, 43 N.Y.2d 268,401 N-Y.S.2d 182 (1st Dep't. 1974); Luoinski v. Village of Ilion, 59 A.D.2d 1050, 399 N.Y.S.2d 956 (4th Dep't. 1977); Ressis v. Herman, 122 A.D.2d 516, 505
N.Y.S.2d266 (3rd Dep't. 1986).
2 1.
In determining whether a plaintiff has a cause of action, a corn must accept the
facts alleged as tme and determine simply whether tbose fkts fit within any cognizabte legal
theory,Blitman Construction Cow. V. Kent Vi@eHousing Cornpay, Inc., 91 A.D.2d 173,457

N.Y.S.2d 817 (1st Dep't. 1983); Modes v. CoDvright, hc.,28 A.D.3d 440,813 N.Y.S.2d 731 (2nd Dep't. 2006); Cayurn Partners, LLC v. 150 m d . LLC, 305 A.D.2d 527, 759 N.Y.S.2d
347 (2nd Dep't. 2003).
22.
In the case at bar, the Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts that fit within my
cognizable legal theary. As noted above, the Plaintiff's claim that the Defendants breached a.
State Constitutional fiduciary duty is brought against the "Puiblic Q%ce Defendants," and does
not appear to be brought against President Obama, Vice President Biden, Obama for ~ m e r i d a or , Obama Victory Fund. But, even kf it is construed as w h , it is not recognized as a cause of
action under New York law.
23.
Plaintiff also fails to plead any semblance of facts to support a claim that he was
denied the equal protection of law o r that his substantive due process rights were violated. Nor
could ha. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution only applies to state
action. See Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345,349 (1974). But there is no state
action here. Plaintiff is suing President Obama and Vice President Biden in their individual
capacities. Abditiodly, Obama far America and Obama Victory Fund w e political committees,
~ ogovernmental t entities.
24.
Similarly, there are no cognizable legal theories to be derived from the Plaintiffs
complaint to support the causes of d o n for interfe~nce 6 t helective franchise, fraud upon the
electorate and unjust enrichment.

25.
A review of the Plaintiffs complaint clearly demonstrates that there are no valid
causes of action asserted against President Obama, Vice President Biden, Obama for Ammica or
the Obama Victory Fund.
26.
Based upon the above, and viewing the complaini in the light most favorable to
the Plaintiff, there is no basis for this Court to allow the Plaintiffs claims against the Defendants to go forward. The Plaintiffs failure to set forth a valid cause of action is grounds for dismissal
of his complaint.
POZNT LII TRE PLAWIWF HAS FAILED TO COMPLYWI'I*EI C.P.L.R. 3016@) AND PLEAD FRAUD WTHPAaTIcuLmm
27.
Under C.P.L.R. fj 30160, a Plaint8 is required to plead the eIemenfs of fraud
w i t h particularity. Where a cause of action is based on fiaud in any way, the circumstapces
w4~ti1~ting tbe wrong must be stated in detail The Court of Appeals has pointed out that the
transactions/occumnces constituting the fiaud m u s t be set forth in suEcient detail to clearly
inform a defendant with respect to the incidents complained of, Lanzi v. Brooks, 43 N.Y.2d 778,
402 N.YFS,2d384 (Court ofAppeds 1977). 28.
As this Court is well aware, the required elements for fraud are: (I) defendant
made a material false representation; (2) defendant was asware that the representation was fdse
and intended to deceive the Plaintiff; (3) Plaintiff justifiably relied on defendant's
representations, and (4) the Plaintiff was injured as a result, Btamkan v. Board of Educ, Of
Levittown Union Free School Dist., I8 A9.3d 787,796 N.Y.S.2d 690 (2nd Dept, 2005). It is well estabtished precedent that conclusorq- allegations af bud won't satisfy $3016(b) and a party pleading budmust state all the elements of the claim, Glassman v. Cat& 11 1 A.D.2d 744, 489 N.Y.S.Zd 777 (2nd Dept. 1985); Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward and Kissel, LLP, 12
N.Y.3d 553,883 N.Y.S2d 147 (Court of Appeals 2009).

29.
In WaWh v. Nowicki, 10 A.D.3d 437, 780 N.Y.S.2d 737 (2nd Dept 2004)
plaintiffs commenced a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating a candidate in a primary

election. The c o w held that petitioners failed to plead their fcaud claims with requisite specificity to apprise the candidate ofthe diegations being made agairrst her. Similarly, in v. Landegper, 44 A.D.2d 671, 354 N.Y.S.2d 430 (1st DepL 1974) in a stockholders' derivative action, the cwrt held that the complaint therein d i d not sufficiently plead "fhe circumstances constituting the wrong." The court found that an allegation that a corporation controlled by the
prime stockholder sold machinery at an unfairly high figure, but bought it at an unfairly low
figure, did not sufficiently Mainate the transactions involved without more information.
30.
Plaintiffs camplaint alleges fraud against the Defendants in paragraphs 28, 43,
47, and 70;additionally, Plaintiffs sixth cause of action alleges " a scheme to defraud Plaintiff
and those similarly situated against all defendants-" However, a t no time does the Plaintiff
mention the requisite elements of h u d , nor does the Plaintiff set forth any facts under which a cause of action for fraud could be ascertained. (See: Exhibit "A")
31.
The mere use of the word '"fraud" in. a complaint is not sui5cient to comply with
the requirements set forth ih C.P,L.R
8 3016@), The Plaintiffs failure to properly plead a cause
i s m i s s a l of Plaintiffs claim. of action for fraud entitles the Defendants to the d

P o r n IV
THE PLAINTIPF'S AGTIOM IS FRIVOLOUS

32, As this Court is well aware, an action is eonsidered frivolous whetn, "either: (1)
the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when &legations are &a product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the elaim is based on an indisputably maitless legal theory", Livingston v. Adirondack Bev. Co., 141 F.3d 434 (2d Cir- 1998). Conduct is frivolous if it is completely
withaut merit in law or fact and cannot be supported by a reasanable argument for the extension,
modifidon, or reversal of existing law; it is undertaken to primarily delay or prolong the resolution of the l i t i g a t i o n ,or hatass or malicimly injure another; or it asserts material factual statements that are false, 22 NYCRR 138-l.l[4(2007).
33.
In determining whether conduct is friv~lous,New York Courts consider such
factors as: the circumsfances for the action, time avdable for investigating the legal or factual
basis of the conduct, and whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or
factual basis was apparent, shoslld have b n apparent, or was broughi to the attention of counsel
or the party, 22 NYCm 130-1.l[c](2007).
34.
The court, in an action previously commenced by the Plaintiff herein, held that
Plaintiffs action was frivolous as it lacked an arguable basis in law, Stntnk v. New York-state
Board of Elections, etal, No. 08-CV-4289 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). I respxtfblly submit to this Court
that the instant action by the Plaintiff also lacks an arguable basis in law and fact.
APX
449
35.
Not only does the Plaintiff lack star~d'kig to assert the cairns in his complaint, but
there is no legal basis to the Plaintifl's unsubstantiated and baseless allegations that require
P o r nV THIS COURT LACKS JURISIDICTION OVER TRE SUaTECT MATIER OF T B I S ACTION

36.
In essence, Plaintiffs complaint seeks t~ challenge the qualifications of President
Obama to hold the office of President. S p e c S d y , the Plaintiff seeks a determination firom this
Court that President Bmck Obama is not a citizen of the United States, in vialation of Article 2, Section 1, CIause 5 of the Constitution ofh United States. In addition to the m y r i a d of federal constitutional provisions that the Plaintiff requests this Court to review, the Plaintiff seeks an order fiom this Court determbkg that President Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President under tke fderal legislation known as the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952.(See: Exhibit
"A"). This court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate such a question.
37.
Pursuant to Article 1 , Section 4 of the Constitution of the United. Stares, Congress
is auihorized and empowered to regulate federal elections in the United States, Burrounhs v.
United States, 290 U.S. 534, 54 S.Ct. 287 (United States Supreme Court 1934); Re~~blican
National Committee v.. Federal Eiection Commission, 487 F.Supp; 280 (S.D.N.Y.1980); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1,36 S.Ct. 612 (United S t a t e s Supreme Court 1976). Moreover, the
United States Supreme Court has held that Congress has ultimate supervisory power over
presidential and vice-presidential elections, Bucklev v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 , 96 S.Q. 612 (United
States Supreme Corn 1976); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 91 S.Q. 260 (United States
Supreme C o u r t 1970); Burroughs v. United States, 290 U.S- 534, 54 S.Ct. 287 (LTnited States
Supreme Court 1934).
APX
450
38.
Federal l a w establishes the procedure for election of the President and Vice
President and provides the exclusive mmeans for challenges to their qual'ications. It specifies that
the electors shall meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, 3 U.S.C. $
7 (20101, for their v&es to be certified and transmittedto the President of the Senate, 3 U.S.C. $8
9-1 1, w h o receives and causes the votes to be counted befoe a joint session of Congress on
January 8 , 3 U.S.C. $ 15, as modified by Pub. L. No. 110-430, 8 2, 122 Stat. 4846 (2008). The
"[clomting of electoral votes in Congress" and the process for objecting to them is detailed i n3
U.S.C. $15, which states in relevaut pa%:
1
39.
" m h e wtes having been ascevtained a d couated . . , rhe result of the same M I be &livered to the Presidefit of the Senate, who shalI t h e r e p n a m a m e tk state 4 the vote, which uunomcemnt shall be deemed a s @ k b t declaration o f the persoas, ij: any, elected Presresrdent arrd V L k e President o f the United States, . . . Upon such reading ofany such cerfi~eafe or p a p , the Preside& ofthe Sen& &aid callfor objecti~pu; ifaw, Every objectiao s k l f be made in writing, and shall state clearly and conci!sely, and without a r p e n t , the grotmithereof: arrd shall be signed by at hasr one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before lhe same shall E 7 e received. When d objections so made to any vote or paper pant a State shall have been received and read the Senate shll thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submined to the Semte for its decision; and fhe Speaker of the House o f Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objectiow to the Hozrse oflepresentativesf o its decision; . . " 3 U.S.C. $15 ( a p h i s added).
On January 8,2009, the then-Vice President made the'requisitedeclar~~tiw of fhe
election of Bara~k Obama and Joe Biden as President and Vice President. 155 Cong. Rec. I376 (daily ed. Jan. 8, 2009). That was "'deemed a sufficient declaration" of their election,
in the
absence of objections filed by members of the Seaate and House of Representatives, khich
would have been resold by those bodies. There being no such objections, the Resident and
Vice President w e r e duly inaugurated.
40,
By its terms, &is is the exclusive means to res&

OE
objections to the electors'
selection of a President
Vice President, including the species of objections raised by this
P a t i f f . Federal c o w have no mle in this process. Plaidy state courts have none. 41.
In the case at bar, the Plaintiff seeks an order fiom fhis Court determining the
eligibility and qualifications of President Obama t o be President. This Court lacks jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the PIainWs action.
TNE P
POINT VI m IS PRECLUDED FROM BBJNGING TfIIS ACTZON UNDER THE D o -
OF COLLATERALESTOPPEL 42.
Pursuantto New Yerk law, a plaintiff is precluded Born re-litigating an issue that
has already been adjudicated by the courts, K a b v. Eli Lillv and Company, 65 N.Y.2d 449,
492 N.Y.S.2d 584 (Court of Appeals 1985); Sahid v, Consolidat~d Edison Comanv of New
Yorb, 95 A.DZd 610,467 N.Y.S.2d 843 (2nd Dep't. 1983). The doctrine of collated estoppel is applicable to a l l plaintiffs who attempt to re-litigate issues after they already had a fbll and fair oppormity to assert their claims, GZlbera v. Barbid 53 N.Y.2d 285,441 N.Y.S.2d 43 (Court of
Appeals 1981); Schwartz 8. Public L i c s t r a t o f ofthe Bronx, 24 N.Y.2d 65,298 N.Y.S.2d955
(Court of Appeals 1%9).

43.
In the case at bar, the Plaintiff acknowledges that the issues in his complaint were
litigated in the Svpreme Cout of the State of New Ymk, Comfy of Kings in the action known as
Strunk u, Patterson, et al, No. 29641108 (N.Y. Sup. Q. 2008)- As set forth in paragraph 2 of
PlainWs wmplaint:
"Thiscomplaint isfairly W e a b l e to the evenfsaid actions leading up to the P a * primaries dm'ng the 2008 election cycle for the ballot acesss o f the Presriintial ballot datesat the November 4, 2008 General Electi~n as cemphirted o f in the related election law ease Strunk v. Patleison, et a a l
M S Supreme Gourt in the Cowtry ofkings with b d e x No.: 29682-Q8. . . '%mpCas& @&fed (Exhibit "A") 44.
Based upon the Plaintiffs own representation that these issues were complained
of i n his prior Iitigation, and this Court's order of dismissal in said prior litigation, the Plaintiff is precluded from bringing this action. (See:Exhibit ' 7 3 " ) . P O W VII THIS COURT LACKS PERSONAL JCfRISDICTION
45,
Pursuant to New York law, a pIaintiff is required to attain personal jurisdiction
over an individual defendant by serving a summons in accordance with C.P.L.R.
308. A
plaintiffs failure to effectuate service of process in compliance with C.P.L.R 308 entitles a
defendant to the dismissal of the complaint, Greene v. Thommon, 61 A.D.2d 867,402 N.Y.S.2d
78 (3rd Dept. 1978); Emoire Insurance Companv v. Mmuez, 168 ADZd 810, 564 N.Y.S.2d
232 (3rd Dept. 1990).
46.
Under New York law service upon a nondomieibry out of the state may be
effmtuated in the same manner as service performed within the state, C.P.L.R. 5 313. In New
Yo&, service is eTfecWted by:

1.
2.
3.
4,
defiveringthe summons withizi the sfate to the person tr, be served; delivering the summom within the state to apeman of t the acMI place of business, * suitable age and discretion a dwellingplace or tcsstcdpluce of abocle ofthepetson to he semed and by either mailipfgthe summoms to th8 person to be served at his or her list Krtown residence or by miling the summom by@rst class mail to the f business; person fo be served at his or herplace o by delivering the summons within ftre stare to the agentfor service ofthe person fa be served as designated under C.P.L.R. 318, and w h e service under paragraph I or 2 cannot be m d e with due diligence, by afiing t h e s m o l l s to the dour of either the actual place of business, dwellingpiace or usual plum
qfabode witiarin the state sfthe perm to be semd andby either mailing the smmons to suck person ut hi&or her Iusf known residence or by miling the summonsbyfirsf elms mail to theperson to be served at his UP her ac&.wl place of business. . . C.P.L.R 5 308
47.
In the case at bar, President Ubama, Vice President Bide&Obama for America,
and Obama Victory Fund are nut domiciled in the State of New York. Further, the Plaintiff failed
to properly serve the defendants in ~ompIiance with C.P.L.R.
9 308,
48.
l%e Plaintiffs &davit of
service
clearly establishes that the summons and
complaint was only mailed to President Obzlma and Vice President Biden. The Plaintiff did not serve the s u m m m and complaint u p n President Obama and Vice Presidenf Biden in person, as required by C.P.L.R. 308.
49, With respect to Obama for America and the Qbama Victory Fund, the Plaintiffs
affidavit of service clearly establishes that Plaintiff only left a copy of the summons and
complaint with a security guard at a building where the Democratic National Committee
maintains its headquarters. The Plaintiff did not mail a copy o f the summons and mmplaiut t o
Obama for America and the Obama Victory Fund as required by C.P.L.R. 5 308.
5 0 .
Based upon the above, the Plaintiff failed to attain personal jurisdiction over the
Defendants under C.P.L.R. 8 308. Therefore, this Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants and the Plaintiffs complaint m u s t be dismissed in its entirety:
WHEREFORE, it is respedfidly requested that this Court dismiss the Plaintiffs

complaint in its entirety and grant the Defefidants such a t h e r and further relief as it deems just,
proper and equitable.
Dated: Uniondale, New York May 2,201 1
I-URFJSBEACH, PLLC Aftorneysfor Presidenr B m k

Ohm, Vice President Joseph R Biden, Jr. Obamafor America and O b m Vicrorv F u d
By:
The OMNI 333 Earls Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553 (5 1 6) 880-8484
SUPREME COUlRT OF THE STATE OF NEW YO= COUNTYOFKINGS Index No.:

Clubtopher-Eark Strunk in ease,
-45500 Zofl _-----------------------"-----..----.---..-----------X
Plain-
Filed: Ahmh 22,2011
NEW YORK =ATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;JAMES A. WALSH I Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A KELLNER f &Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA I Commissioner, GREGORY P.
Plaintiff designates The County of Kings a s the Place of jury trial.
PETERSON I Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE,Deputy Director STANLEY W N ; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCBNEIDERNIAN, THOMAS P. The basis of venue is the DINAPOLI, RUTH NO EM^ COLON,in their Official and plaintifPs place for suffrage individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICKA.0. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW KAIMXERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKX; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.Ea. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama 1 1 , a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMI?TEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORJSING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; R&ER CALERO; THE SOCLALIST WORKERS PARTY; IANJ. BRZEZINSKI; 1 1 ;JOHN A. BOEHNER; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 1 THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITI'EE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; SUMMONS PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; O B M FOB AMERQCA; OBAlMA WCTQRYFUhQMCCMN MCTORY MCC'N-PRLTN WCTORY20065;John and Jane Does: PlaintifPs place for service: and XYZ Entities. 593 Vanderbilt Avenue- 281 De&tndante. Brooklyn, New York 11238
T
To the above-namedDefendants:
YOU ARE HEXEFtY SUMMONED to answer the supplement to the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Dated: March 22,2011 BrookJyn New York
a@&
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse plaintiff
593 v&derbilt Avmue R81, Brooklyn, New York 11238. (845) 901-6767 E-mail: chris@&.ws
T o :
Defendants as follows:
FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR. a t the Brennan Center for Justice 161 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor New York, NY 10013. JOSEPH ROBINE'ITE "JOE" BIDEN, JR. a t The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20500 BARACK W S S E I N OBAMA I1 a t The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20500
NANCY PELOSI 235 Cannon House O f f i c e Building Washington, DC 20515-0508
NEW YORK SIA!l% BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSH l Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KZLLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA I Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN,
At the New York State Board of Elections 40 Steuben Street Albany-New York 12207 Andrew Cuomo (NYS Governor), The Capitol Albany New York 12224 Eric Schneiderman (NYS Attorney General), The Capitol Albany, 'New York 12224 Thomas P. DiNapoli (NYS Comptroller), O f f i c e of the NYS Controller
110 State Street
DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 461 Park.Avenue South New York, NY 10016
STATE COMMIlTEE OF THE WORKING
Albany, NY 12236
THE DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE PRESIDENTJAL ELECTORS .AS A CLASS And RUTH NO EM^ COLON Department of S t a t e One Commerce Plaza 99 Washington Ave, Albany, NY 12231-0001
FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE 2-4 Nevins Street Floor 3 BROOHLYN, NY 11217 .
JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN I11 241 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510
Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J. 39 East 83rd Street, New York, New York 10028. Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S . J . , 39 East 83rd Street, New York, New York 10028.
JOHN A. BOEFINER, 1011 Longworth H.O.B. Washington, DC 20515

THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE 315 STATE ST, ALBANY, N Y 12210-2001
THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF ' l ' l l E INDEPBN1)ENCE I'Alil'Y By Frank MacKay, Chairman PO BOX 871 Lindenhurst, NY 11757 STATE C0MMXT"I.T'OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE By Michael Long 486 78TH STREET BROOKLYN, NY 11209 ROGER CALERO C/O THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY 1000 Grand Concourse, #4A Bronx, NY 10451 THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY 1000 Grand Concourse, #4A Bronx, NY 10451 PETER G. PETERSEN At the Council on Foreign Relations 58 East 68th Street New York, NY 10065-5953 ZBIGNIEW KAlMlERZ BRZEZINSKI, a t Columbia University in the City of New York School of Foreign Affairs 2960 Broadway New York, NY 10027-6902
MARK BRZEZINSKI a t McGuire WoodsU P 2001 K Street N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20006-1040
PENNY SUE PRITZKER a t Pritzker Realty Group, L.L.C. 71 S. Wacker Drive 47th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 GEORGE SOROS a t Soros Management 888 7th Avenue Suite 3300 New York, NY 10106 O B M FOR AMERICA by Martin H. Nesbitt, Treas. PO Box 8102 Chicago, IL 60680; O E M WCTORY FUND
b y Andrew Tobias, Treas.
430 South Capitol Street SE Washington DC 20003

MCCMN V7CTORY2008 228 S WASHINGTON ST STE 115 ALEXANDRW VA 22314 MCCRTN-PALIN VICTORY2008 & The New York Finance Committee Road to Yictory Tour 228 S WASHINGTON ST STE 115 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
IAN J. BRZEZINSKI a t The Atlantic CounciIHeadquarters 1101 15th Street, NW, 11th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005
APX - 459
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YO= COUNTY OF KINGS NO-:

--------------------------------------.-------x Chistopher-Earl:Strunk, i n esse
%b5a-ZO]~
V E m D
COMPLAINT
PlaintifZ
Filed: March 22,2011
NEW YO= STATE BOARD OF ELECI'IONS; JAMES A.

WMSH I Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KEUNER I Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA I Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON I Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY %%EN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEW C O L ~ Nin , their M c i a l and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. @HARE, S.J.; &JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK RO. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (aka. Barxy Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama 11, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW Y O W STATE COMMTIVXE OF TI-IE WORKING FAMlLIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; R&ER CALERO; THE S0CLAI;IST WORKERS PARTY; IANJ- BRZEZINSKT; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPTJBLICAN STATE COMMITI'EE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE IND~PENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITW%R; GEORGE SOROS; O B M FOR AMERICA; O M W C T O R Y P U . M C C ' N WCTORY 2008 M C C Q T N - P ! WCTORY2008,;John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities.
,
---_-L---"I--I-I---__--C----------------------------------*---------------------w
Defendants, x
Plaint= Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, a s and for the Complaint filed with jurisdiction of New York State Election Law Article 516-100 over Article 12 related to the November 4,
2008 General Election inter alia equity relief and damages caused by a n ongoing schemk to
defraud with CPLR 213 Actions to be commenced within siu years, upon information and belief and a t a l l times hereinafter mexitioned, respectfully allege of Defendants a s follows:
Verified Complaint Page 1of 45
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of State Constitutional fiduciary duty as against all Public Officer Defendants)
1.Plaintiff Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse ("Plaintiff' or "voter"), is a natural born
Citizen resident in New York who was and is a qualified voter registered to vote in the 2008 election cycle and participate in the November 4, 2008 General Election in the State of New York, and whose principal place for service is located a t 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281, Brooklyn, New York 11238. 2. That this complaint is fairly traceable to the events and actions leading up to the Party primaries during the 2008 election cycle for the ballot access of the Presidential slates at the November 4, 2008 General Election as complained of in the related election law case Strunk v. Paterson et al. NYS Supreme Court in the County Kings with Index No.: 2964208 before the Honorable Justice David I. Schmidt of Part 1as an election law matter. 3. That Defendant NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, (Defendant NYS BOE) with four commissioners two appointed from each major state party Defendant JAMES A. WALSH 1 Co-Chair, Defendant DOUGLAS A. KELLNER 1 Co-Chair, Defendant EVELYN
J. AQUILA 1 Commissioner, Defendant GREGORY P. PETERSON 1 Commissioner, and

two deputy directors of elections Deputy Director Defendant TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director Defendant STANLEY ZALEN, are all located at the New York State Board of Elections 40 Steuben Street Albany, NY 12207; and 4. Defendant NYS BOE and its agents have authority over their agents at the local boards of election both for ballot access and the certification of the Presidential Elector Candidates slates and committees for the names Barack Hussein Obama (BHO, SOEBARKAH), John
M. McCain I11 (McCain) and Roger Calero (Calero) hereinafter known as "Defendant
Presidential Candidate(s)" with the November 4 2008 General Election results published.
5 . Based upon information and belief the Presidential Elector Candidate Defendants as a
Verified Complaint Page 2 of 45
APX
-
- 461 - ---- ---
class represented by Andrew Cuomo having replaced David Paterson a s Governor on the Democratic side and Republican Majority leader Dean Skelos representing the McCain Electors with notice to then secretary of state L O W E A CORTEZ-VA!ZQUEZ appointed by Governor Paterson and Spitzer, now replaced by RUTH NO EM^ C O L ~ N New York State Acting Secretary of State; that according to the Help America to VoteAct of
2002 (HAVA) section 213 (a) (1) (A) are in their Official capacity are both Federal and State
officers who serve as a n unpaid employee of the United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC), and represent the Class of the Calero Electors along with those of the Cuomo and Skelos classes; and that the Governor Cuomo appointee, RUTH NO EM^
COLON is located a t the Department of State One Commerce Plaza 99 Washington Ave,
Albany, NY 12231-0001).
6. That the Secretary of State and Attorney General Eric Schneiderman are responsible
for the enforcement of NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5-A Sections 53 through 57
Membership Corporationsand UnincozporatedAssociations., which is not done in regards to
the exclusive membership of Jesuits having an exclusive constitution and oath of induction within the New York Province for the Society of Jesus.
7. Defendant ERIC SCHNEIDEXMAN is sued in his capacity of Attorney General of New
York state and individually with place of business located a t The Office of the Attorney General The Capitol Albany, New York 12224, was duly elected a t the 2010 General Election replaced Andrew Cuomo then Attorney General during the 2008 Election cycle.
8. The Defendants NYS BOE their agents John and Jane Does and with due notice
LORRAINE A. CORTEZ-VAZQUEZrepresent the class of 2008 presidential electors and their agents having misapplied and mis-administered their public officer fiduciary duties under NYS BOE regulation by failure to obtain and ascertain proof that each Defendant
APX
462
__
Presidential Candidate is a natural-born Citizen (NBC), that otherwise is contrary to State Law, regulations and the United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1Clause 5:
"NoPerson except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shaV be eligrr'ble to the Office ofPresident; neither shallany Person be eLigrr.ble to that Office who shallnot have attained to the Age of th&ty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the Um'ted States."
9. Based upon information and belief the State Defendants, Defendant Presidential
Candidates, various Defendant Campaign Committees and their agents have not presented a certified copy of the 'long-form" birth certificate of the Defendant Presidential Candidates
for ballot access to the New York November 4, 2008 General Election 1 2008 election cycle.
10. That based upon information and belief the NYS BOE has not maintained the
consistency of Presidential Candidate Certificate documents used for ballot access by maladministration of the law and regulations.
11.
There has never legally been a n Article I1 Executive who has ever been a native
born, naturalized citizen or a non-citizen a s it is against the mandate of the U.S. Constitution Article I1 Section 1 Clause 5 must be a Natural-born citizen to be eligible. 12. There has never legally been a n ArticIe 11 Executive who is a citizen of a foreign
nation and or has dual allegiance with a foreign nation.

13. That the Supreme Court of the United State opinion in McCreerv's Lessee v
Somerville 22 US 354 (1824) explains the difference between a Natural-born andhrativeborn U.S. Citizen a s is to be applied with U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1Clause 5.
14.
That were the executive to be occupied by a foreign citizen would constitute an
invasion, coup-d-tat and trespass upon the sovereign citizen of New York a taking as of right under the l o t h Amendment become the basis for New York state and its People to secede from the Union until such time the Union were made whole and laws enforced again.
15.
Those Defendant BOE and Presidential Electors having been duly served prior to
Velified Complaint Page 4 of 45
the general election knew they have a duty to prevent any person who is not a natural born citizen from ballot access in the state of New York when running for President and or Vice President and have maliciously acted contrary to their fiduciary duty. 16. Those Officer Defendants and the NYS BOE have not fulfilled the due diligence
necessary to protect the voter(s) during the 2008 election cycle, are ultra vires, are individually liable, and intend to repeat the outrageous injury in 2012. 17. That Defendant NYS BOE and its agents certified the Elector Defendants for each Defendant Presidential Candidate to be on the ballot a t the November 4,2008 General Election for the preference election of the New York Electoral College;
18. That Defendant NYS BOE and its agents and Officer Defendants Cuomo, DiNapoIi,
Colon, Schneiderman do not intend to enforce the requirements of the U.S. Constitution Article I1 Section 1Clause 5 and New York State ballot access eligibility requirements for prospective candidates for POTUS ballot access a t the 2012 election cycle. 19. That under the New York State Constitution the State of New York Legislature has
a winner take all system of Electoral College with 31 votes for selection of President and Vice President based upon 29 House seats and two (2) U.S. Senators a t large during the 2008 election cycle and will be 29 votes for the 2012 election cycle. 20. That Defendant JOSEPH ROBINETTE "JOE" BIDEN. JR. (a.k.a. Joe Biden)
individually as a Jesuit Coadjutor member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a papal knight with place of business located a t his Office: c/o the White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500; 202-456-1111; was the Vice Presidential Candidate on the ballot in the New York 2008 Election cycle and intends ballot status in the 2012 cycle.
21.
Since shortly following Biden's withdrawal from the presidential race, Obama had
APX
464
been privately telling Biden
that he was interested in finding a n important place for him
in a possible Obama administration. Biden declined Obarna's first request to vet him for the
vice presidential slot, fearing the vice presidency would represent a loss in status and voice from his senate position, but subsequently changed his mind. In a June 22, 2008, interview on NBC's Meet the Press, Biden confirmed that, although he was not actively seeking a spot on the ticket, he would accept the vice presidential nomination if offered. In early August, Obama and Biden met in secret to discuss a possible vice-presidential relationship, and the two hit i t off well personally. On August 22,2008, Barack Obama announced that Biden would be his running mate. The New York E k e s reported that the strategy behind the choice reflected a desire to fill out the ticket with someone who has foreign policy and national security experienc-and not to help the ticket win a swing state or to emphasize
Obama's "change" message. Other observers pointed out Biden's appeal to middle class and blue-collar voters, a s a Jesuit coadjutor for their "Social Justice" doctrine as well as his willingness to aggressively challenge Republican nominee John McCain in a way that Obama seemed uncomfortable doing a t times. 22. Defendant Biden knew that Soebarkah is not eligible to run for president because he is
not a Natural-Born Citizen mlth a British Subject Father with a student visa, however in
furtherance of CFR foreign policy initiatives in the mid-east supported Soebarkah as a Muslim.
23.
That Defendant SOEBARKAH (a.k.a Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Birdie Dunham, a.k.a.
Barack Hussein Obama 111, Defendant Democrat Presidential Candidate) individually under the name Barack Hussein Obama is located in care of c/o The White House 1600 1. Joe Biden has received honorary degrees from the University of Scranton (1976), Saint Joseph's University (1981),Widener University School of Law (2000),Emerson College (2003), his alma mater the University of Delaware (2004),S a o l k University Law School (2005),and his other alma mater Syracuse University (2009); and received the Chancellor Medal from his alma mater, Syracuse University, in 1980. In 2005, he received the George Arents Pioneer Medal-Sj~acuse's highest alumni award-"for excellence in public affairs."
'
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20500, was a Presidential Candidate on the ballot in the New York 2008 Election cycle and intends ballot status in the 2012 cycle. 24. SOEBARKAH is a Madrasah trained radical Sunni Muslim by birth right according
to the Koran through his father Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (a Sunni Muslim), and that by training and practice admitted during the speech to the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo in
2009 - SOEBARKAH practices Shariah law, and is devoted to King Saud of Saudi Arabia
who based upon information paid for the Columbia and Harvard university expenses with the full knowledge and blessing of Defendants: Peter G. Petersen; Zbigniew Brzezinski, his sons Mark and Ian; Penny S. Pritzker; George Soros; Jesuits Fathers: Joseph P. O'Hare, Joseph P. Parkes; Brennan Center Executive Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr.; Nancy Pelosi; John Sidney McCain 111; John A. Boehner; Hillary Clinton; Richard Durbin and others. 25. Defendant Soebarkah practices Al takia or the Islamist art of fooling the enemy and
professes to be a Christian when in fact a Muslim is a liar by training - never to be trusted. 26. Defendant SOEBARKAH admits his natural father a t the time of his birth is a
citizen of the United Kingdom and as the British Nationality Act of 1948 governs dual citizenship a t birth; Soebarkah has dual allegiance at best by his own admission is not a Natural-born citizen with the full knowledge and blessing of Defendants: Peter G. Petersen; Zbigniew Brzezinski, his sons Mark and Ian; Penny S. Pritzker; George Soros; Jesuits Fathers: Joseph P. @Hare, Joseph P. Parkes; Breman Center Executive Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr.; Nancy Pelosi; John Sidney McCain 111; John A. Boehner; and others. 27. That Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, Congressional Globe,
39th, 1st Sess., pg 1291 (March 9, 1866) stated:
"... every human being born within thejuns&ction of the United Skates ofparents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language ofyour Constitution itseg a natural-bora citizen."
28.
That Defendant SOEBARKAH and or his agent(s) a s part of the scheme to deraud
placed a n image of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (COLB) on the Internet, which in Hawaii per se is issued for all birth's registered by the State of Hawaii whether the human being is born there or not, and as a prima facia fact means the Hawaii issued COLB does not prove "natural born" citizenship or birth in Hawaii, only a longform document would. 29. Whether Hawaii was a territory or a state, historically it issued a COLB certlfylng
that the named person was born alive no matter where that may have been a s evidenced by the COLB; and for instance Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866 to a Hakka family
in the village of Cuiheng, Xiangshan (later Zhongshan) county, Guangzhou prefecture,
Guangdong province (26 km or 16 miles north of Macau), in the Empire of the Great Qing of China. At age thirteen, Sun went to live with his elder brother, Sun Mei, in Honolulu. Sun Mei, who was fifteen years Sun Yat-sen senior, had immigrated to the Hawaiian Islands a s
a laborer and had become a prosperous merchant. Sun Yat-sen studied at the Iolani School
where he learned English, mathematics and science. OriginaIly unable to speak the English language, Sun Yat-sen picked up the language so quickly that he received a prize for outstanding achievement from King David K a l a a u a . While a t Iolani, he befriended Tong Phong, who later founded the First Chinese- American Bank. After attending Iolani School, from which he graduated in 1882, Sun enrolled in Oahu College (now Punahou School, the same private school where BHO was educated) for further studies for one semester. He was soon sent home to China as his brother was becoming &aid that Sun Yat-sen was about to embrace Christianity, which he did, but he returned to Hawaii a t least twice, in 1900 and 1901. In March 1904, he obtained a Certificate of live Hawaiian Birth, issued by the Territory of Hawaii, stating he was born on November 24,1870 in Kula, Maui, and just as the BHO HI COLB alleges he also was alive a t birth on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu Oahu
APX
467
-
---
just like Sun was born on November 24, 1870 in Kula, Maui. The HI law as used remains the same in meaning and intent, and that BHQ dual allegiance and dual citizenship a t birth alone is more than sufficient to prove BHO ineligible. 30.
A COLB issued to those who are "naturalized" in Hawaii is of questionable legal
issue contrary to U.S. Constitution Article 158 Clause 4, Article I 59 Clause 1, Article 1510 Clause 1,and a s a matter of first impression conflicts with thefullf&th and credit clause.
31. That Defendant SOEBARKAH a t six years of age used the name given upon his
adoption by Lolo S. Soetoro Mangunharjo, an Indonesian colonel in General Suharto's Armed Forces who had married Stanley Ann Obama, and a s an Indonesian Citizen from six years of age SOEBARKAH is presumed to have an Indonesian passport after removal from the U.S. Passport of Stanley Ann Soetoro as released to Plaintiff on July 29,2010 by the U.S. Department of State. 32. That Defendant SOEBARKAH is also not eligible for the Office of the President
because with the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 as the controlling legal authority for the birth of BHO, and especially when the transmission of British citizenship to BHO a t birth no matter where the location is proves a dual citizen at birth, a s a treaty matter between Britain and the USA, and that with the admission against interest of both Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama Sr. in a marriage in Hawaii entered after conception, in which both parents attribute Paternity to BHO Sr. without challenge a t the time of the March 20, 1964 divorce decree makes BHO Jr. a British subject with dual citizenship and multi-allegiances a t best that by the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act, therefore BHO Jr. is not a Natural Born Citizen; and
33.
Further, Defendant SOEBARKAH lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married
an Indonesian citizen and became a naturalized citizen of Indonesia and in that Indonesia does not recognize dual citizenship, and because Defendant SOEBARKAH did not take an Verified Complaint Page 9 of 46
APX
468
oath of allegiance to the USA when reaching the proper age while resident in the USA retains Indonesian Citizenship having renounced his previous US. Naturalized citizenship
/ British Citizen status; and
34.
Plaintiff furthermore alleges, that had SOEBARKAH followed up with his resident
status after 1971 while living with his Grandmother in Hawaii to become naturalized, he failed to take an oath of allegiance when SOEBARKAH turned 18 years old to regain his U.S. citizenship status, and then obtained school financing as a foreign exchange student in Hawaii and again a t Occidental College in Los Angeles as done a t Columbia and Harvard, at best has multiple citizenship status with allegiances to Indonesia, Great Britain, Kenya perhaps; however is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and according to the public record is not even a citizen of the United States, and therefore, ineligible for the presidency with NBC Clause as mandated by the Defendant NYS BOE; and 35. The Defendant class of the New York State Democratic Party Committee Candidates
for Presidential Electoral College &om the State of New York for Presidential Candidate Barack Hussein Obama and Vice Presidential Candidate Joseph Biden ("Democrat Party Elector Candidates", "Democrat Party Elector Defendants") as a class of elector candidates Defendants certified with the New York State Board of Elections and related local entities under New York state Election Law (EL) on or about September 24,2008. 36. That on August 28,2008 Defendant; NANCY BELOSI individually with her place of
business located a t Washington, D.C. Address 235 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-0508, and as chair failed to a&m for the Democratic National Committee and DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NYDP) the eligibility of BHO for ballot access in the State of New York November 4,2008 General Election using the terms that "the foVowi!w were duivnominated as candidates of
said Partv for President and Vice Ifresident of the Um'tedStates respectivelx" and nowhere
APX
469
affirms that the candidates are eligible as required by the NYS BOE as shown a t its website provisions citing Article I1 Section 1Clause 5 in any of the several states and or territories except for the State of Hawaii; however Defendant Pelosi as an admission against interest also affirmed differently for Hawaii as follows:
37.
That on August 28,2008 Defendant PeIosi individually and as Chair affirmed the
alleged eligibility of BHO for ballot access in the State of Hawaii November 4, 2008 General Election differently than done for any other state or territory including New York using the terms that "thefollowin candidates fir President and Vice President of the United States
are legally gudifed to serve under the ~ r o v i s i nof s the United States Constitution" as
certified for the Hawaii Secretary of State. 38. That on September 15,2008, Defendant STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING
FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE (NYWFP) by Robert P. Master Presiding Officer affirmed the alleged eligibility of BHO and the electors for ballot access in the State of New York November 4, 2008 General Election using the terms that "bymajority vote of
the members present, voting by weighted ballot, nominate the folowing WorkingFamilies Party candidates for oEce at the General election to be held November 4,2008" nowhere
affxms the Constitutional eligibility of BHO. 39. That the Democratic Party Elector Candidates are Velda Jeffrey, June F. O'Neill,
Dennis Mehiel, David A. Paterson, Andrew Cuomo, Thomas P. DiNapoli, Sheldon Silver, Malcom Smith, Maria Luna, Robert Master, Pamela Green-Perkins, Helen D. Foster, Jon Cooper, Hakeem JefKes, Richard Fife, Deborah A. Slott, Terrence Yang, George Arthur, George Gresham, Alan Van Capelle, Inez Dickens, Suzy Ballantyne, Alan Lubin, Bethaida Gonzalez, Christine Quinn, William Thompson, Stuart Applebaum, Maritza Davila, Ivan Young, Barbara Fiala, Frank A. Bolz, 111.
40.
That in November 2008 the Court rendered an opinion in association with the Verified Complaint Page 11 of 45
Article 78 Petition 2008129641 held that there is no breach of the State Constitution or bar for any ElectoraI College Elector to hold more than one public office for compensation and that all the democratic electors were duly served notice of both actions including the underlying complaint herein regarding the improper ballot access for Barack Hussein Obama before the November election, and that otherwise Plaintiff is damaged and injured as a result of the Democratic Electors breach of duty as to ballot access for Presidential Candidates Obama, McCain, and Calero. 41. Plaintiff seeks a decision by the Court a s t o whether or not the Candidate($ are
eligible for Office of President of the United States (POTUS) as required with the United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1Clause 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 Amenberg Political Fact Check at PactCheck.org
http:l/www.factcheck.or~elections-2008 in the usa.htm1 ;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 a t that time, and is shown to be the purported father of BHO Jr. by both the newspaper announcement and the COLB shown by Fad Check.org; and therefore, at best BHO Jr. is only a "Native" born citizen, if that, with only one U.S. Citizen parent mother a s a minor a t his birth, and that without two U.S. Citizen parents - BHO Jr. is NOT a "Natural" born citizen a t best is "Native" born - no matter where BHO was born the HI COLB does not prove NBC status; 42. That Defendant ROGER CALERO (Defendant Calero, Presidential Candidate) with
place for service located a t the Committee Address: 1000 Grand Concourse, #4A Bronx, NY 10451, was born i n Nicaragua in 1969. He and his family fled via Los Angeles, California in 1985. Calero is now a permanent resident alien (holding a green card) since 1990. While in Verified Complaint Page 12 of 45
Los Angeles, Calero joined a socialist movement and helped mobilize support against Proposition 187 in the early 90s, and is presumed to have filed a certification for ballot access through the respective Defendant Socialist Worker's Party Committee, but is not a natural-born U.S. Citizen with the US, Constitution Article 11 Section 1 Clause 5 as mandated by the Defendant NYS BOE.
43.
In thak on April 10, 2008 a s part of the scheme to defraud, U.S. Senator Barack
Hussein Obama was the Sponsor of the U.S. Senate sense resolution S 511 along with other U.S. Senators Mrs. MCCASKfLL, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr.
WEBB, and who maliciously submitted the S 511 resolution knowing it was false as to the
natural-born Citizen status of Senator John Sidney McCain 111, in violation of 18 USC $1001; and in which S 511 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary then to the U.S. Senate as a fraud upon Congress and the People of the several states and territories contrary to the facts stated:
''&%ereasJohn Sidney McCain, was born to Amen'can citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:"
44.
That U.S. Senator Barack Hussein Obama acknowledges endorsing Senate
Resolution 511 that one needs two (2) U.S.A. Citizen parents at birth to be qualified to be a natural born citizen.
45.
Further by U.S. Senate resolution is underscored and confirmed by the Honorable
United States District Judge Michael Chertoff then serving as the Secretary of Homeland Security in testimony under oath before the U.S. Senate Committee and as reprinted in the Congressional Record pages S2950 and S2951 stated:
CHERTOFF "Myassumption and my understanding i s that ifyou are born of American parents, you are natmaflya natural-born American citizen."
46.
That on November 30,2007, Barack Hussein Obama 1 1 , and on October gth2007,
John Sidney McCain I 1 1 each affirmed a n affidavit for the Arizona Secretary of State to Verified Complaint Page 13 of 45
APX
472
gain ballot access in the Arizona 2008 Presidential Preference Election Ballot and that both affirmations were duly filed with the AZ Secretary of State who certified each affirmed:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that all the information in this Nomination Paper is true, that a s to these and all other qualifications, I am qualified to hoId the office that I seek, having fulfilled the United States constitutional requirements for holding said office. I further swear (or affirm) that I have fulfilled Arizona's statutory requirement for placing my name on the Presidential Preference Election ballot."
47.
That on November 4,2008, Plaintiff, as a victim of the scheme to defraud, voted far
the electors representing the Republican Party Presidential Candidate John Sidney McCain I11 (McCain), that based upon information and belief that McCain was alleged to be a natural-born Citizen and whom subsequently did not obtain sufficient votes to win the winner take all Electoral College from New York; and thereafter was discovered not a natural-born U.S. Citizen.
48.
That Defendant JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III individually with place of business
located a t Washington Office: 241 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510,; was a Presidential candidate a t the New York 2008 election cycle without being a Naturalborn citizen with the full knowledge and blessing of Defendants: Peter G. Petersen; Zbigniew Brzezinski, his sons Mark and Ian; Penny S. Pritzker; George Soros; Jesuits Fathers: Joseph P. O'Hare, Joseph P. Parkes; Brennan Center Executive Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr.; Nancy Pelosi; John Sidney McCain 111; John A. Boehner; Hillary Clinton; Richard Durbin and others.
49.
In good faith with the alleged NBC status as part of the scheme to defraud, Plaintiff
voted for Candidate McCain despite the fact that his wife is a most devoted Roman Catholic whose two sons were educated by Jesuit priests went to Brophy Prep, SchooI where Mrs. McCain is a member of Brophy's board of regents and where the McCains have been generous supporters of Brophy by support of vouchers for Catholic schools like Brophy.
50.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Father Edward Reese S.J., who is the brother of Fr.
Thomas J. Reese S.J., (former editor of America and senior fellow a t the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University), spoke in support for Candidate McCain at the Republican National Convention at the direction of the Jesuits a t Fordham University controlling the Archbishop of New York City and the Jesuits of Georgetown University controlling the Archbishop of Washington, DC; and notwithstanding the requirements of the Vienna Convention of Consular Affairs that agents of a sovereign state not interfere with the domestic affairs of the USA.
51.
Defendant John Sidney McCain 111 was born on August 29,1936 in Colon Hospital,
Colon Panama, according t o the Panama Canal Health Department not in the Panama Canal Zone, which is authenticated by Donald Lynn Lamb representing the Panama Railroad Company with authority over the Hospital in Colon; and
52.
That according to the Hay-Banau-VarilIa Treaty of November 18, 1903 that has 26
articles in which the two pertinent to the status of the city of Colon under that Treaty refer to the Convention for the Construction of a Ship Canalsays that the Colon Panama, the birth city cited on McCain's 1936 long form birth certificate where he was witnessed being born, and where his parents resided, Colon, Republic de Panama, is not part of the Canal Zone, quote: ARTICLE I The United States guarantees and will maintain the independence of the Republic of Panama. ARTICLE I1 The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the distance of five miles on each side of the center line of the route of the Canal to be constructed; the said zone beginning in the Caribbean Sea three marine miles from mean low water mark and extending to and across the Isthmus of Panama into the Pacific ocean to a distance of three marine miles from mean low water mark WITH THE P R O W THAT THE CIlTES OF P A N M ANL)COLONand the harbors adjacent to said cities, WHICHARE INCLUDED W T H I N THE BOUNDARIES UP THE ZONE ABOVE DESCRIBED, SHALL NOT BE LNCLUDED W T I N THIS GRANT..
."
APX
474
and therefore, Defendant McCain is not a natural-born Citizen as he was not born on U.S. Territory or the USA and is not eligible for the Presidency with the U.S. Constitution Article I1 Section One Clause 5 as mandated by the Defendant NYS BOE.
53.
The New York State Republican Party Committee Candidates for Presidential
Electoral College from the State of New York for Presidential Candidate John S. McCain and Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin as a class of elector candidate Defendants certified with the Defendants NYS BOE and Secretary of State and by related local entities under New York state Election Law (EL) on or about September 24,2008.
54.
That on September 4, 2008, Defendant JOHN k BOEHNER, individuaIly with
place of business located a t Washington, D.C. Office 1011 Longworth H.O.B. Washington, DC 20515, and as Chairman affirmed for the Republican National Committee and Defendant THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE (NYRP) the alleged eligibility of McCain for ballot access in the State of New York November 4,2008 General Election using the terms that "the foLlowina person. meeting the constitutional
re~uirements for the OEce ofpresident of the United States."
55.
Defendant John Boehner, when pressed on the BHO eligibility issue said: "The state of
Hawaii has said that President Obama wus born there. That's good enoughfor me."
56.
That on September 21,2008, Defendant THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE
OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY (NYIP) by Frank McKay Chairman affirmed the

alleged eligibility of McCain and the electors for ballot access in the State of New York November 4, 2008 General Election using the terms that "do hereby certifir that the
folIowinp persons were dulv nominated bvmaioritv vote for the office of Presiden t and Ece President of the United States"
57.
That on September 22,2005, Defendant STATE COMMITTEE OF THE
APX
475
CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE (NYCP) by Michael R. Long Chairman

affxmed the alleged eligibility of McCain and the electors for ballot access in the State of New York November 4,2008 General Election using the terms that "do hereby certifir that
persons were dulvnominated bv majority vote for the ofice ofPresident and the folow~hg Vice President of the United States"
58. There are 31 Candidates for the Republican Party Committee Presidential Elector
Slate under the names: Jesus Garcia, Gary Melius, Roger C. Bogsted, Lawrence Kadish, Angelo Corva, Katherine A. James, Fred Ramstel, Debra Leible, Jane E. Deacy, Diane Haslett Rudiano, Myrtle G. Whitmore, Richard Alicea, Jim Tedisco, Jim Kerr, Denice Johns, Ed Cox, Doug Colety, Vincent Reda, Louis Liotti, Jasper Nolan, Kathy Jimino, Bijoy Datta, James Ellis, Michael Nouolio, William Gilberti, Jr., Dean Skelos, James Domalgalski, Henry Wojtaszek, Thomas D. Cook, Joseph N. Mondello, Rudy Giuliani (member of SMOM) on the ballot a t the November 4,2008 General Election. 59. That Defendant NYS BOE and its agents have not provided the ballot certification
requested with Plaintiffs FOIL for Roger Calero's Committee with THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY, the DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK and or THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE and others.
60.
Plaintiff, along with those similarly situated, suffers injury to his individual
sovereignty a s guaranteed under New York State Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Section 2 a s a sovereign citizen of the State of New York that here guarantees the Supreme sovereignty in the people; and whereas, no authority can, on anypretence whatsoever, be exercised over
the citizens of this state, but such as is or s6aII be derived&
andgranted by the people
of this state; is denied equal treatment under the NYS Constitution guarantee for
individual voter suffrage and liberty.
APX - 476
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Denial of equal protection far voter expectation of a uniform true and correct ballot according to law and regulations by the Defendants BOE and its agents, Candidates, Committees and Political Parties)
61.
Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the First Cause of Action
paragraphs 1 thru 60 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth a t length.
62.
Defendants by reason of their actions to seek election to the Electoral College on
November 4,2008 with due notice otherwise before the General Election voted without expressing intention to resign from the electoral college slate simultaneous with the certification of the winning Electoral College slate under EL $12-102by December 1,2008, intentionally are in breach of their oath of office and subject to impeachment.
63.
That public officers of the NYS BOE Defendant and the Public Officer Defendants
intentionally Breach their oath of Office to be placed on the November 4,2008 ballot as candidates for electors of the Electoral College and fiduciary duty to the voter(s).
64.
Plaintiff, along with those similarly situated, suffers injury to his sovereignty a s
guaranteed under New York State Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Section 2 a s a sovereign citizen of the State of New York that here guarantees the Supreme sovereignty in the people; and whereas, no authority can, on any pretence whatsoever, be exercised over the citizens of this state, but such a s is or shall be derived from and granted by the people of this state. 65. That Plaintiff individually a s a natural person a s with those similarly situated as
We The People as natural persons of the State of New York (a corporate entity) resident in New York state are grateful to Almighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings apart from any such corporate fiction or pretender monarch, and or a s further guaranteed by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Federal Constitution, and Magna Carta.
66.
That nunc pro tunc Plaintiff inherits all the sovereign rights, pfivileges and property Verified Complaint Page 18 of 45
APX - 477
that a living natural human inures from the creator Yahweh whose son Jesus Christ guarantees the sovereign Freedom &om Almighty God against corporate fiction and Public Officer Ilefendants and their agents who are ultra vires and bent on enslaving plaintiff and those similarly situated.
67.
That the failure of the NYS BOE its agents and candidates and various committees
to verify and protect Plaintiff a n those similarly situated &om the wrongful certifications for ballot access a t the November 4, 2008 general election for President / Vice President have done so with impunity and that the mal-administration of law by public officers is a n egregious habit that without correction will continue by the %-partisan" control over elections are expected to continue to repeat the same actions a t the 2012 election cycle that without restraint and injunction imposed with oversight available to the Court under NYS CPLLR and Election Law will further injure Plaintiff along with those similarly situated and that Plaintiff has no other means to obtain relief in that Officer Defendants are ultra vires.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Denial of substantive due process for voter expectation of a uniform true and correct ballot according to law and regulations by the Defendants BOE and its agents, Candidates, Committees and Political Parties aided and abetted unjust enrichment)
68.
Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the First through Second
Cause of Action paragraphs 1through 67 with the same force and effect a s though herein set forth at length.
69.
That Official Defendants by denial of substantive due process for voter expectation
of a uniform true and correct ballot according to law and regulations by the Defendants aid and abet unjust enrichment of all defendant campaign committees and by failure Defendants infringe Strunk's individual liberty, expectation of a republican form of government, and burden his expectation of effective participation in the general election were the laws not enforced in good faith with the duties of their office as a taking trespass. Verified Complaint Page 19 of 45
APX
478
70.
That all the Defendants having been culpable to jointly and severally aid and abet
the false billing of Defendant Presidential Candidate campaigns with associated funds from the New York state taxpayers in the excess of say $10,000,000.00 or more, are liable for the cost of elections, with interest, and cost of suit caused by the scheme to defraud.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Interference with right to a republican form of government by fi.Joseph A. O'Hare, S.J., Fr.Joseph P. Parkes S.J. and Frederick AO. Schwarz Jr.)
71.
Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the First through Third
Cause of Action paragraphs 1through 70 with the same force and effect a s though herein set forth a t length.
72.
That Defendant fi.JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J. (a.k.a Fr. O'Hare) individually and as
a fourth level induction member of the White and Black Pope's Militia that by exclusive oath is a member of the New Ymk Province for the Society of Jesus (NYPSJ) with place for service located a t the offices of the membership association incorporated in the state of New York in 1944 located a t 39 East 83rd Street, New York, New York 10028. 73. Defendant O'Hare from March 1986 until December 1989, Father O'Hare served on
the newly established Mayor's Committee on Appointments, a five-person citizen's committee charged with interviewing and recommending candidates for New York City commissions. He also was a member of the Charter Revision Commission of the City of New York chaired by Richard Ravitch (1986-1988). 74. In April 1988, Mayor Edward I. Koch appointed Fr. O'Hare chair of the NYC
Campaign Finance Board (CFB),a five-member non-partisan board created to oversee a new law on voluntary public financing of municipal elections established by the City Council and Mayor Koch in February 1988. He has been reappointed to this position twice by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in January 1994 and in April 1999, was reappointed by Mayor
APX
--
479
Bloomberg until 2003, and is now in pastoral service. 75. Defendant Fr. O'Hare, the former president of Fordham Universitv, and presiding
member of the Council on Foreign Relations, came to know Sonia Sotomayor as a Hispanic Catholic associated with La Raza and the Aztlan Movement and they both served on the N e w
York City Campaicn Finance Boardin the 1980s, said: "Ijust don't think Sonia wouldJit in with Roberts, exactly, and certaidy not Scalia. 1think they?-e very Merent Catholics." @).
76.
Defendant F ' r . O'Hare made every effort to support the candidacy of Barack Hussein
Obama, even though Fr. O'Hare knew he is not eligible for POTUS, with the intention to further the Jesuit's Social Justice doctrine with the work of Antonio Grarnsci to elevate Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, as Judge Sotomayor would support regionalism of the North American Union and be part of the church's wing of Hispanic Catholics who are more liberal than white Catholics on some social and economic issues, like immigration and health care reform, but more conservative on homosexuality and abortion.
77.
Father O'Hare's long association with America began in 1972 and was Editor in Chief
from 1975 until 1984 when then President Ronald Reagan recognized the Sovereignty of the Vatican State for the First time in history on January 10, 1984 to reset the relationship of all Jesuits as the Pope's Militia with an exclusive oath of induction with duties to extirpate heretics.
Lucas A. Powe Jr., a professor of law and government at the University of Texas, Austin, said Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and ,Mito are "Catholic and movement conservatives." "That combination is just golden for being anti-abortionand anti-Brmative action," said Mr. Powe, author of 'The Supreme Court and the American Elite, 1789-2008(March 2009, Harvard Universitv Press). Justice Kennedy, who wrote two decisions favoring equal rights for gay people, is a "country club Republican," which Mr. Powe described as "an economic conservative without some of the social conservatism." The court's liberal wing is made up of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburp;and Stewhen G. Brever, who are Jewish, and John Paul Stevens, a Protestant. Justice Scalia, whose son is a Catholic priest and Justice Mto are of Italian Catholic ancestry. Justice Thomas is an African-Americanconvert who once went to seminary, left the church for 28 years and rejoined in the mid-1990s. Verified Complaint Page 21 of 45
APX
480
78.
That Fr. O'Hare served NYC Mayors on t h e NYC Campaign Finance Board (3) from
April 1 , 1 9 8 8 through March 31,2003, and with Sonia Sotomayor from April 1 , 1 9 8 8
through September 22, 1992.
MYC Campaim Finance Board Members and their Terms of Service: July 28, 2010 - Present: Joseph P. Parkes, S.J., Chairman, Art Chang, %chard J . Davis, Courtney C. Hall , Mark S. Piazza; July 1, 2009 - July 28, 2010: Joseph P. Parkes, S.J., Chairman, Art Chang, Richard J. Davis, Katherine C. Patterson, Mark S. Piazza; June 29, 2009 - June 30, 2009: Joseph P. Parkes, S.J., Chairman, Richard J, Davis, Katherine C. Patterson, Mark S. Piazza; February 10, 2009 -June 28; 2009: Joseph P. Parkes, S.J., Chairman, Dale C. Christensen, Jr., Katherine C. Patterson, Mark S. Piazza; April 8, 2008 - February 9, 2009: Joseph P. Parkes, S.J., Chairman; Preeta D. Bansal, Dale C. Christensen, Jr., Katheryn C. Patterson, Mark S. Piazza ;May 29, 2007 -April 7,2008: Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Chairman, Dale C. Christensen, Jr., Joseph P. Parkes, S.J., Katheryn C. Patterson, Mark S. Piazza; April 1, 2007 - May 28, 2007 : Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Chairman, Dale C. Christensen, Jr., Katheryn C. Patterson, Mark S. Piazza ;May 16, 2006 - March 31, 2007 : Frederick AO. Schwarz, Jr., Chairman, Dale C. Christensen, Jr., Katheryn C. Patterson, Mark S. Piazza, Joseph Potasnik ; April 1, 2006 - May 15, 2006: Frederick AO. Schwarz, Jr., Chairman, Dale C. Christensen, Jr., Katheryn C. Patterson, Joseph Potasnik ; September 16, 2004 March 31, 2006: Frederick AO. Schwarz, Jr., Chairman, Dale C. Christensen, Jr., Katheryn C. Patterson, Joseph Potasnik, Alan N. Rechtschaffen: October 27, 2003 - September 15, 2004: Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Chairman, Alfred C. Cerullo, 111, Dale C. Christensen, Jr., Joseph Potasnik, Alan N. Rechtschaffen; July 30, 2003 - October 26, 2003: Frederick k O . Schwarz, Jr., April 1, 2003 -July 29, Chairman, Alfred C. Cerullo, 111, Dale C. Christensen, Jr., Joseph Potas*, 2003: Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Chairman, Alfred C. Cerullo, 111, Dale C. Christensen, Jr., Pamela Jones Harbour, Joseph Potasnik: October 17, 2000 -March 31: 2003: Joseph A. O'Hare, S.J., Chairman, Alfred C. Cerullo, 111, Dale C. Christensen, Jr., Pamela Jones Harbour, Joseph Potasnik; September 2, 2000 - October 16, 2000: Joseph A. O'Hare, S.J., Chairman, Alfked C. Cerullo, 111, Dale C. Christensen, Jr., Joseph Potasnik; May 31, 2000 - September 1, 2000: Joseph A. O'Hare, 1 1 , Dale C. Christensen, Jr., Joseph Potasnik; May Chairman, Martin S. Begun, Alfred C. Cerullo, 1 18, 2000 -May 30,2000: Joseph A O'Hare, S.J., Chairman, Martin S. Begun, Dale C. Christensen, Jr., Bill Green, Joseph Potasnik; May 13, 2000 - May 17, 2000: Joseph A. O'Hare, S.J., Chairman, Martin S. Begun, Bill Green, Joseph Potasnik; June 28, 1999- May 12,2000: Joseph A. O'Hare, S.J., Chairman, Martin S. Begun, Bill Green, Dennis Mehiel, Joseph Potasnik, January 12, 1999 - June 27, 1999: Joseph A. O'Hare, S.J., Chairman, Martin S. Begun, Bill Green, Dennis Mehiel; June 1998 -January 11, 1999: Joseph A O'Hare, S.J., Chairman, Martin S. Begun, Bill Green; September 19, 1997 - June 1998: Joseph A. O'Hare, S.J., Chairman, Martin S. Begun, Joseph Erazo, Bill Green; June 2, 1997 - September 18, 1997: Joseph A. O'Hare, S.J., Chairman, W i n S. Begun, Bi Green, Vaughn C. Williams, June 4, 1996 - June 1, 1997: Joseph A. O'Hare, S.J., Chairman, Martin S. Begun, Bill Green, James I. Lewis, Vaughn C. Williams; June 7, 1995 - June 3, 1996: Joseph A. O'Hare, S.J., Chairman, Bill Green, James I. Lewis, Vaughn C. Williams; July 21, 1994 - June 6, 1995: Joseph A. O'Hare, S.J., Chairman, Bill Green, James I. Lewis, Joseph Messina, Vaughn C. Williams; December 11, 1992 - July 20, 1994: Joseph A. O'Hare, S.J., Chairman, James I. Lewis, Joseph Messina, Vaughn C. Williams; September 23, 1992 - December 10, 1992: Joseph A. O'Hare, S.J., Chairman, James I. Lewis, Joseph Messina; July 14, 1990 - September 22, 1992: Joseph A. O'Hare, S.J., Chairman, James I. Lewis, Joseph Messina; Sonia Sotomayor; December 22, 1988 July 13, 1990: Joseph A. O'Hare, S.J., Chairman, James I. Lewis, Joseph Messina, Robert B. McKay, Sonia Sotomayor; April 1, 1988 - December 13, 1988: Joseph A. O'Hare, S.J., Chairman, James I. Lewis, Frank J. Macchiarola, Robert B. McKay, Sonia Sotomayor.
V e 3 i e d Complaint Page 22 of 45
79.
That Defendant Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J., (Fr.Parkes) individually, presiding
member of the Council on Foreign Relations, i s a fourth level induction member of the White and Black Pope's Militia that by exclusive oath is the Jesuit Provincial member of the New YorkProvincefor the Society of Jesus (NYPSJ) with place of business for service located a t the offices in New York state in 1944 located a t 39 East 83rd Street, New York, New York 10028. 80. Father Parkes (4) was appointed to the Board by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on
May 29,2007 and to chairman on April 8,2008 whose term will expire November 30,2013. 81. That Defendant Fr. Parkes served on the NYC CFB with Defendant Frederick A.O.
Schwarz Jr. and collaborates with the litigation efforts of the B r e w Centerfor Justice a t
NYU Law School.

82. Defendant Fr. Parkes made every effort to support the candidacy of Barack Hussein
Obama, even though Fr. Parkes knew Soebarkah is not eligible for POTUS, with intention to further the Jesuit's doctrine of Social Justice using the work of Antonio Gramsci(5)acted to elevate Judge Sotomayor to the SCOTUS. 83. That THE NE W YORK PROVINCE OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS was incorporated July
03, 1944 in the Bronx New York and is deemed an active domestic not-for-profit corporation
Fr. Parkes is the President of Cristo Rey New York High School in East Harlem. He also sits on the Boards of St. Aloysius School in Central Harlem, St. Peter's College in Jersey City, and St. Ann's School in East Harlem. He previously served as President of the Fordham Preparatory School. He also sewed in a variety of posts within the New York Province of the Society of Jesus before his appointment as Provincial in 1990. He earned his Bachelor's degree rom the Fordham University College of Philosophy &Letters, his M.A. in Medieval History from the University of Wisconsin and his Masters of Divinity from Woodstock College.
Antonio Gramsci : (January 22, 1891 -April 27, 1937) was an Italian writer, politician, political theorist, linguist and philosopher. A founding member and onetime leader of the Communist Party of Italy, he was imprisoned by Benito Mussolini's Fascist regime safeguarded by Fr. Pietro Tacchi Venturi, S.J. His writings are heavily concerned with the analysis of culture and political leadership and he is notable as a highly original thinker within the Miwxist tradition. He is renowned for his concept of cultural hegemony as a means of maintaining the state in a capitalist society. Verified Complaint Page 23 of 45
APX
482
where Defendants Fr. O'Hare and Fr. Parkes along with other Jesuits in New York, exceed 19 contributing members who are subject to the restrictions from interfering with Domestic afrairs of New York and the united States of America as a sovereign entity with the Vienna Convention Treaties of 1961, 1963 and 1969 as applies to consular affairs, and in which the Jesuits order are agents of the Sovereign Vatican State.
84.
That according to NYS Benevolent Orders Law,the members of the Jesuit Order are not
exempt from registering as an exclusive membership organization with a constitution and exclusive oath of induction that requires strict adherence to NYS Civil Rights Law Chapter 6
Article 5A $5 53-57 Membersh~p Corporationsand UnincorporatedRssociationa, is not done.

85.
That Defendants Fr. O'Hare and Fr. Parkes among other members of the Pontifex
Maximus's Jesuit Militia order here in New York since the January 10, 1984 recognition of the Sovereignty of the Vatican State are questionably serving on the NYC Campaign Finance Board Members and by their Terms of Service ongoing, and as well as endorsements of Barack Hussein Obama to the POTUS, Judge Sotomayor to the SCOTUS and of other political campaigns and appointments are interfering in the domestic affairs of the people of New York state, must be restrained from such action; and that the Jesuit Order must be audited and fined for failure to comply with NYS Civil Right Law Chapter 6 Article 5A.
86.
On information and belief, the Defendant Chairmen act to enrich Vatican temporal
power and financial interests in Brooklyn as with the Nehemiah Housing projects here and elsewhere and use their office to facilitate persons in service of the Jesuit Order and Vatican, and that interferes with Plaintiff liberty along with those similarly situated.
87.
That Plaintiff has been personally injured as a result of the Jesuit Chairmen's
recommendation for appointments to the various Brooklyn Community Boards including the Third Community Board for Bedford Stuyvesant and others including that for the
APX
-----
____---
483
Atlantic Yards in Prospect Heights, along with such is interference with Plaintiffs liberty along with those similarly situated, as Defendant Jesuits and the CFB members approved campaign matching funds to enable Plaintiffs enemies the Assemblymen William Boylan of the 59h Assembly District (AD) and Hakeem Jefferies in the 57th AD and State Senator Velmanette Montgomery of the lgth Senate District, each have prospered a t the loss of liberty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated and especially William Boylan who facilitated the conversion of Plaintiffs interest in real property as a taking of say
$2,000,000 in damages as outlined in the EDNY case Stmnk v US HUD et al. 99 cv 6480
(NG), as retribution for when Plaintiff exposed William Boylan's taking of NYC HPD
property for personal gain.
88.
William Boylan has been indicted in the SDNY for influence peddling in Brooklyn.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACT1ON

(Interference with election franchise by Defendants and Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr.)
89.
Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the First through Fourth
Cause of Action paragraphs 1 through 88 with the same force and effect a s though herein
set forth at length.
90.
That Plaintiff is the founder of the AD HOC Broaklyn Borne Rule Coalition ( 6 ) for a
referendum with NYS Municipal Home Rule Law Section 37 to return Brooklyn Home Rule with the bottom-up annual election of a representative in each 5000 person district within BROOKLYN HOME RULE COALITION htt~://associationf~r~~~ereignh~merde~ithin.org/br~_o~
home-rule-coalition.html : As an Ad Hoe group intent on maintaining the integrity of neighborhoods
and subsidiarity in communities within the respective community boards without dismantling gains made every ten years. Brooklyn is to conduct annual election of neighborhood self-administration, with One (1)representative Board member for each 5000 person district in each Community Board (CB) with an average of 25 such districts that in turn each CB elect a chairman (18 in all) to carry the proxy of each respective board member to advise the Brooklyn Mayor in the governance of Brooklyn as a sub-divisionof the state as it once was, rather than the bedroom borough tax farm for the Manhattan elite that since the Great Mistake of 1898 have depleted the opportunity of each person in favor of oligarchy. 2011 INITIATIVE REFERENDUM with N Y S MHR 337 to amend the NYC Charter h t t ~ : / / a s s o c i a t i o n f o r s o v e r e i g n h o m e r u l e w i . Verified Complaint Page 25 of 45
APX
484
each of eighteen Brooklyn Community Boards with the referendum pending US DOJ Voting Rights Section application for VIlA 95 pre-clearance review by the November 2011 election.
91.
That members of the Council on Foreign Relations including Peter G. Petersen as
then Chairman that act with the Jesuit Order by the oath of allegiance superior to the United States Constitution, Treaties and various States' Constitutions that starting no later than January 2006 sought to usurp the executive branch of government using Barack Hussein Obama I1 and John S. McCain 1 1 1 , as a matched set of contenders then under joint command and control, to preclude any other contender i n preparation for a banking and sub-prime mortgage collapse that requires subsuming the sovereignty of the people of the united States of America and New York to International Monetary Fund conditionality with loss of the dollar reserve currency status, and collapse of the living standards of the vast majority of Americans to that of a third world status.
92.
That the Democratic and Republican Party at the national and State level colluded
in the plan to usurp the POTUS and used both Defendant Pelosi and Defendant Boehner to carry out the scheme to defraud the voters of New York and the several states.
93. That Defendants Fr. O'Hare and Fr. Parkes along with Sonia Sotomayor and
Defendant Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr. as the NYC CFB Chairman &om April 1,2003 until the April 7 2008 (while chief counsel to the Brennan Center for Justice) acted to interfere with the election of Justices of the State Supreme Court by approving matching funds for those Justices that exclusively handle foreclosures and would serve the temporal and financial interests of the Vatican State to overturn the Judicial election requirements of the New York State Constitutional election process of Justices done by Assembly Districts.
94.
That Defendant FREDERICK AO. SCHWARZ. JR. (Defendant Schwarz) is sued
individually and as past NYC CFB Chairman serving from April 1,2003 until the April 7
2008, while the chief senior counsel the Brennan Center for Justice a t NYU Law School
_-_-_---
APX
485
-
--
with place of business located c/o the Brennan Center for Justice New York Office 161 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor New York, NY 10013. 95. Simultaneously the Brennan Center filed the fiendly case Lopez-Torres v the NYS
BOEet a l . EDNY 04-cv-1192(JG), in which Strunk intervened on the side of the State
Constitution and State Justices with an order taken on appeal to the Second Circuit Panel with Judges Sonia Sotomayor, Peter Hall and Chester Straub in support of dismantling the State Constitution as to election of Justices and from which the State filed for certiorari and that was remanded back by the SCOTUS and that Defendant Schwarz had and has a conflict of interest that has damaged Plaintiff in the amount of $250. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Scheme to defraud Plaintiff and those similarly situated as against all Defendants)
96.
Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the First through Fifth
Cause of Action paragraphs 1through 95 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length. 97.
ALL Defendants act in the scheme to defraud Plaintiff along with those similarly
situated in denial of a reasonable expectation of successful participation in the suffrage process in conjunction with the private organizations known as the Council on Foreign Relations with an exclusive secret oath superseding any oath to the U.S. and or respective State Constitution and Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) directed by the Jesuit General, used Peter G. Petersen, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Penny Pritzker, George Soros, et al. including Fethullah Gulen with Fr. Thomas Michel S.J. and the Gulen Movement with the Muslim Brothel-hood here in Brooklyn (as with Soebarkah and Fr. Gregory Galluzzo, S.J.) to recreate a worldwide Caliphate, in a push for destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque to be blamed on the USA Military as the Stage Three described in US. DOSPubIication 7277 to
facilitate the final temple of Babylon using the Manchurian candidates: Soebarkah since 1995 who co-authored Dreams ti-om MvFather and Republican Guard candidate McCain since 1999 who co-authored, Faith ofMvFathers and who both act together to reduce the United States of America to a mere territorial region without sovereignty. 98. The actual scheme to defraud the voters in 2008 began in earnest on February 22,
2006 when the Editor of the Chicago-Kent Law School Law Review, Sarah P. Herlihy (Kirkland & Ellis U P ) , published a memorandum with approved edits of 11-23-05entitled ME1'VDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIIZENR8QUIREMENT: G L O B A L I . T7ONAS THElMFETUSAiW THE OBSTACLEat Vol. 81: 275 , and with a special footnote designating the author has a J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2005 and "that the author would like to thank Professor Graeme Dinwoodie, and the 2004-2005 GlobaEzation
and Its Effect on Domestic Law Seminar Class for their valuable comments and insights on
this Note." (see http://www.scribd.corn/doc/48927079)
99.
The key to understanding the scheme to defraud the voters in 2008 is the way the
circumvention of U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1Clause 5 required two not one version of a candidate with flaws Barack Hussein Obama I1 and John Sidney McCain 111. 100. That in the Herlihy memorandum Part one of the paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about globalization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment. 101. That according to Sarah P. Herlihy's resume on line with the International Law f i r m of Kii-kImd & Egis LLPin Chicago after Ms. Herlihy was the Law Clerk to the Honorable Verified Complaint Page 28 of 45
APX
-
487
Michael M. Mihm, United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, 2005 2006 she has been employed by the firm and in the resume she is listed with receiving the award of the Order of the Coifwhose various members of the Society are traced throughout the Obama support network in conspiracy with the Candidates and Campaign Defendants. 102. That a Principal of Kiitland & Ells LLP,Bruce I . Ettelson, P.C., is Member of finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin. http://www.kirkland.com (towards bottom of the page) In addition to members of the firm making donations to the Obama campaign, Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the " Illinois Venture CapitalAssociation's lifetime
achievement a ward for service to the private equity/veenture capital commum2f presented
by Illinois Senator Barack Obama. 103. That Ki'rtland & EVisLLP is a global firm with powerful international clients listed on the website that span the business affairs of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, including the current client British Petroleum, and includes among its attorneys SMOM member John Robert Bolton the prior administration's U.S. United Nations Ambassador. 104. The Jesuits, SMOM, CFR and OPUS DEI (documented by Plaintiff in the EDNY Case S t m k v CL4 et al. 08-cv-1196) are agents of the Holy See and the Vatican sovereign state, as agents fail to follow 18 USC Chapter 45, Vienna Conventions and related law. 105. Plaintiffs expert witness Eric Jon Phelps a f i m s that the CFR and its affiliates, overseen by the Archbishop of New York City and his Knights of Malta a t the direction of the Pope of Rome on orders of the Jesuit General, are to rebuild the Kingdom of Babylon including the City of Babylon. This quest will be pursued under the guise of establishing a new Sunni Caliphate with its capital in Baghdad after the destruction of the Temple Mount Mosques a s well as Mecca and Medina, which destruction will be blamed upon the USA during this present Papal Crusade in the Middle East. There will be built a
Third Hebrew Temple in Jerusalem and a Temple in Babylon. The dicta of the Vatican mandates the Kingdom of Babylon, from Dubai to Baghdad, will be the new economic capital of the world headed by the final Pope of Rome, murdered and risen from the dead to be the AntichristIMan-BeastlKingof Babylon. 106. On May 28, 2010, in a n radio interview with Eric Jon Phelps, in the context of a
andRomans 11:24 Count Vittorio Vivaldi I11 of Venice Italy review of Hosea 3:4-5;6-1-2
proves Islam is a Creation of the Vatican stated: "ThePapacy createdlslam to annihilate
the Pope's Jewish and non-Roman Catholic Christian enemies." States, "the Koran was
completed in 649 AD Rome under Pope Theodore I...it appears, however, after further
review, the Koran was completed in 632 AD during the pontificate of Pope Honorius I (625638 AD), later accursed by Rome as a "heretic."
107. And for which Count Vivaldi confirms what the ex-Jesuit priest, Alberto Rivera stated in an interview of December 11,2001 of How the Vatican created Islam (see transcript a t htt~:Nwww.scribd.com/doc148923143 ), which was told to him by Jesuit Cardinal Augustin Bea while he was a t the Vatican, and that based upon secret records in the Vatican Library confirm starting in the third century the Vatican desperately wanted to control Jerusalem acted through the Augustinian Monks to create Mohammed as the Islamic messiah, wrote the Koran whose manuscripts are a t the Vatican and prove " B e
pope moved quickly and issued bulIs granting the Arab generals permission to invade and conquer the nations of North Mica. Zbe Vaticanhelped to fmance the buiIding of these massive Isfamic armies in exchange for three favors''
108. To that end, Defendant PETER G. PETERSEN (Defendant Petersen) being sued
individually with his place of business as senior chair of the Council on Foreign Relations located a t 58 East 68th Street New York, N Y 10065-5953(212) 434-9400.
Verif3ed Complaint Page 30 of 45
109. That based upon information and belief, Defendant Petersen as a member of the Knights
of Malta (') a s well a s Chairmen of the New York Federal Reserves Bank, co-founder of The Blackstone Group, a s founding chair of the Institute for International Economics, i n anticipation of the sub-prime mortgage collapse and as a prior Lehman chair, to be blamed on Lehman Brothers, Bear Steams and Bernard Madoff, that requires strategic turmoil t o restructure the Mideast using CFR members Zbigniew Kaimierz Brzezinski, Joseph Biden, Penny S. Pritzker, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Barack Hussein Obama, Frederick A.O. Schwarz Jr. John S. McCain I11 e t al. to cease the executive in 2008.
110. That Defendant ZBIGNIEW RAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI, (Defendant Brzezinski)

individually with his place of business a t Columbia University in the City of New York School of Foreign Affairs 2960 Broadway New York, NY 10027-6902,is both a blood member of the SMOM on "the right" and of the Scottish Rite Freemason Grand Lodge of Philadelphia on "the left" working for the Jesuits against the sovereign interest of the USA
As a member of the Knights of Malta, and by virtue of your blood oath of obedience to the Pope, you are required to support to the death the desires of the head of the Order of the Knights of Maltain this case, Pope Benedict XVI -over and above any other allegiance you may feel or pretend to feel toward any other loyalty such as a loyalty to the Constitution for the united States of America. Those who are presently members of the Knights of Malta must on penalty of death support those policies advocated by the Vatican. It is not hard for them to do this. They BELIEVE in these policies and principles. The polices which are espoused and proclaimed by the office of the Pope are as follows:
1. End of sovereignty for the United States and other countries. 2. End of absolute property rights. 3. End of all gun rights. 4. The new international economic Order (world government). 5. The redistribution of wealth and jobs. 6. Calls for nations to trust the United Nations. 7. Total disarmament. 8. Promote the United Nations as the hope for peace. 9. Promote UNESCO, the deadly educational and cultural arm of the United Nations. 10. Promote interdependence. 1 1 . Support sanctions honoring Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin-the New Age Humanist Priest. 12. Support the belief that the economic principle of traditional Christian or Catholic social doctrine is the economic principle of communism. 13. Promote the Pope as the acting go-between for the United States and the Soviet Union.
APX
490
and plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

111. Defendant Brzezinski as a CFR member and founding member of the Trilateral
Commission, that as National Security Advisor to five presidents maintains the belief that:
"In the economic-technolog.~i.alfEeld, some international cooperation has akeady been achieved, but &her progress d r e q u i r e greater American sacr&xs. More intensive effortsto shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent nsk to the present relatively favorable American position. "
"The technotrunic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would he dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-todate complete files containing even the most personaIiPlformation about the citizen. n e s e fies will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities."
112. Defendant Brzezinski's world outlook and agenda by evidence of writings acts for the
Society of Jesus that eclipses all other influences on SOEBARKAH, McCain and Calero.
113. That Defendant Brzezinski has managed a crucial role for the Vatican State as a
member of the SMOM and as a Freemason of the Philadelphia Grand Lodge to create global regionalism that subsumes national sovereignty and as Former National Security Adviser to President Carter expressed his view of regionalism a t Mikhail Gorbachev's October 1995
State of the World Forum, that quote: "We cannot leap into worldgovernment i n one quick step...The precondition foP. eventual globaliza tion -genuine globaliza tion -i sprogressive regionalization. "
114. In August 2007, Brzezinski endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack
Hussein Obama 11. He stated that Obama
"recognizesthat the challenge is a new face, a new sense ofdirection, a new defim'tion of America k role in the world" Also saying, " What makes Obama attractive to me i s that he understands that we live in a very d2Eerent world where we have to reiate to a variety of cultures andpeople.."
115. In September 2007 during a speech on the Iraq war, Soebarkah introduced
Brzezinski as "one of our most outstanding thinkers," but some questioned his criticism of the Israel lobby in the United States.
APX
491
116. In a September 2009 interview with TBe DaiZvBeast, Brzezinski replied to a question about how aggressive President Obama should be in insisting Israel not conduct
l y an air strike on Iran saying: " We are not exactlyimpotent little babies. m e y h a v e to f
over our airspace i n Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?" This was interpreted as supporting the U.S. downing Israeli jets to prevent a n attack on Iran. 117. Defendant Brzezinski is on the faculty of Columbia University from 1960 and is now emeritus, was on the faculty of Harvard University 1953-60. Ph.D., Harvard University, 1953; B.A. and M.A., McGill University 1949 and 1950; and holds Jesuits honorary degrees from Georgetown University, Williams College, Fordham University, College of the Holy Cross, Alliance College, the Catholic University of Lublin, Warsaw University, the University of Tbilisi, the University of Vilnius, the Ukrainian Free University, the Jagiellonian University, Comenius University (Bratislava); Tashkent University; Baku State University (Azerbaijan); 118. That Defendant Brzezinski advised CFR members SOEBARKAH and McCain whose campaigns used his sons, Mark who was a member of the advisors in the SOEBARKAH Campaign and Ian who was an advisor on the McCain Campaign, all done in exchange for his sons' government employment and furtherance of the enterprise corruption associated with funding raising done by George Soros and King Juan Carlos. 119. Defendant IAN J. BRZEZINSKI individually has his place of business is located a t TheAtlantic CouncilHeadquarters 1101 15th Street, NW, 11th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 U.S.A. Tel: (202) 463-7226 Fax: (202) 463-7241; he is son of Polish American political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman Zbigniew Brzezinski, brother of American lawyer and foreign policy expert Mark Brzezinski. 120. Defendant Ian J. Brzezinski was the Foreign policy advisor to the campaign of John Sidney McCain 1 1 1 . Verified Complaint Page 33 of 45
121. Ian Joseph Brzezinski is a Senior Fellow in the International Security Program and is on the Atlantic Council's Strategic Advisors Group. During George W. Bush presidency of the United States, he served as Deputy Assistant United States Secretary of Defense for Europe and NATO BoozALlen Hamiiton, Inc. providing policy and technical support to U.S. combatant commands and foreign clients. Policy (2001-5). Brzezinski is frequent contributor of American press on foreign policy issues today; he leads the Brzezinski Group a t the Atlantic Council, which provides strategic insight and advice to government and commercial clients. 122. Defendant MARK BRZEZINSKI is an American lawyer and foreign policy expert place of business is located a t McGuire WoodsLLP2001 K Street N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20006-1040 T: 202.857.1717 F: 202.828.2989. 123. He is the son of Polish-born former National Security AdvisorZbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski graduated from Dartmouth College with a Bachelor of Arts in government, earned a J.D. from the University of Virginia Law School, and holds a D.Phil. in political science from Oxford University. He also earned a Fulbright Scholarship to study the Polish Constitutional Court. He was a corporate and securities associate a t Hogan & Hartson LLP in Washington, D.C. from 1996-1999.From 1999-2001,Mr. Brzezinski served in the Clinton administration a s a director of RussianlEurasian
-
and later Southeast European affairs -
of the National Security Council at the White House. In that capacity, he was White House coordinator for U.S. democracy and rule of law assistance programs for the region. He is currently a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm McGuire Woods,where he manages the international practice. 124. Defendant Mark Brzezinski was a foreign policy advisor to the presidential campaign of Barack Hussein Obama 11. 125. That Plaintiff with those similarly situated are denied individual lst, 5th, gthand Verified Complaint Page 34 of 45
APX
493
loth amendment rights to sovereignty and a republican form of government as well as

financial injury for the cost of the 2008 election cycle in New York.. 126. That Democrat Party Elector Candidate Defendants, their agents John and Jane Does are part of an enterprise who have overthrown the government of the United States in conjunction with SOEBARKAH, Joseph Biden, McCain, Calero and their agents a t the state and national level with those other candidate elector slates of other states of the several states. 127. Defendant SOEBARKAH and Defendant McCain as part of Soebarkah's Republican Guard committed perjury before a Federal Officer in violation of 18 USC lo01 as part of the racketeering enterprise corruption. 128. That Defendants idringe Strunk's individual liberty, expectation of a republican form of government, and burden his expectation of effective participation in the general election were the laws not enforced in good faith wit.h the duties of their office. 129. Plaintiff is the only person in the USA to have duly iLiredfiredfiedBHO on January 23, 2009 by registered mail (rendering BHO the USURPER as Plaintiff is entitled to characterize BHO as) on the grounds that he had not proven himself eligible to be the administrator I trustee of Plaintiffs private account at the U.S. Treasury as required by U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1clause 5 with a pending Replevin matter in the District of Columbia; and all acts by the usurper are void ab initio - a serious problem! 130. Furthermore, New York State Board of Elections individuals; the New York State Secretary of State individually, the New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo individually as an elector aIong with John and Jane Does have conspired inter alia for a breach of fiduciary duties under color of state law enacted by the State Legislature to protect Plaintiff's along with those similarly situated right to a reasonable expectation of participation and success with a proper ballot for the New York electoral college election of Verified Complaint Page 35 of 45
APX
494
the 2008 president and vice president of the United States of America in accordance with United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1Clause 5. 131. That Defendant PENNY SUE PRITZKER (Defendant Pritzker) is the principal of the Pritzker Realty Group, L.L.C. 71 S. Wacker Drive 47th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 P: 312.873.4800 F: 312.873.4987 is sued individually a s the National Finance Chair of the Barack Hussein Obama I11 for President Campaign. 132. Defendant Pritzker (8) raised campaign funds with George Soros, was co-chair of the 2009 Presidential Inaugural Committee, was thought to be i n the final stages of vetting to become commerce secretary in the Obama administration withdrew from consideration.
' The Superior Bank FSB was a Hinsdale, Illinois-based Savings and loan association that collapsed
in July 2001 M with some $2.3b in assets. Synopsis: Superior opened in 1988 under conditions created by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, which made generous arrangements for the takeover of several failed thrifts. The bank was a 50-50partnership between the Pritzker's jointly (the elder k, Pennv and Thomas) and real estate investor Alvin Dworman (architect of the "sub-prime" mortgage after the collapse of the savings and loan industry), who ran Superior from his New York office after Pritzker's death in 1997. The Pritzkers and Dworman bought the failed Lyons Federal for the relatively modest price of $42.5 million, with each using a shell corporation to control half of Coast-to-CoastFinancial Corporation (CCFC), a holding company created to own Superior. The July 2001 collapse, according to a press release from the Office of Thrift Suuervision, "Superior Bank suffered as a result of its former high-risk business strategy, which was focused on the generation of significant volumes of subprime mortgage and automobile loans for securitization and sale in the secondary market. OTS found that the bank also suffered from poor lending practices, improper record keeping and accounting, and ineffective board and management supervision." George Kaufinan, a finance professor at Loyola University Chicago called Superior's failure "a tale of gross mismanagement," adding "[Superior]was engaged in relatively unethical practices, fancy-footwork accounting, playing it very close to the edge." Kaufman says many share in the blame for the mess-the bank's managers, directors, and auditors, as well as banking regulators-but he also wonders how the Pritzkers, as co-owners, could have allowed it to happen. "One of the great mysteries to me is what the Pritzkers were up to, why they took these chances," he said. "It makes no sense given their wealth and visibility." The Settlement by the Pritzkers in December 2001, agreed to pay a record $460 million to the federal government to avoid being punished for the failure of Superior Bank FSB. And the RICO lawsuit in 2002 uninsured depositors filed federal class-actioncharges under the RICO Act against one-timeboard chairwoman Pennv Pritzker, her cousin Thomas Pritzker, Dworman, other bank principals and Ernst & Young. Plaintiffs' attorney Clint Krislov claimed that those who controlled Superior induced depositors to put money in the bank, "corruptly" funneling money out of the bank to "fraudulently" profit the owners. The lawsuit, Courtney v. Hallerin was an initially filed under a district court, which dismissed the claims; the appeal was argued before the 7th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals on September 25,2006. In her May 7,2007 opinion, Judge Wood affirmed the lower court's decision. httu:Nwww.scribd.comldoci49708919/A-Financial-Histo-of-Modern-U-SCoruorate-Scandals-Prom-Enron-to-Reform see Pages 226-227 and 281-282.
APX - 495
-
133. Defendant Pritzker is a longtime friend of Defendant Obama in Chicago and was a chief architect of his record-breaking fund-raising efforts during the presidential campaign. Defendant Pritzker's business dealings raised tough questions during confirmation hearings that involved running and overseeing Superior Bank, a n Illinois institution coowned by her family that was at the forefront of turning subprime loans into securities, the risky practice a t the heart of the financial crisis. The bank collapsed in 2001 after regulators discovered accounting irregularities that overstated its assets.
134. Presently Defendant Pritzker is chair of the newly launched SfiillsfiforAmericak
Future for the administration and is gearing up for a re-election funding in 2012.
135. Defendant Pritzker is associated with Martin H. Nesbitt and George Soros who all served to raise and bundle campaign funds for the Obama Campaign committees.
136. Defendant Pritzker a s Chairman of the board of TransUnion, ChairmadCEO of

Pritzker Realty Group, and Chairman and co-founder of Vi(former1y Classic Residence by Hyatt), The Parking Spot and Artemis Real Estate Partners. TransUnion is a global financial information company; the Pritzker Realty Group invests in non-hotel real estate and developed the award winning Hyatt Center in Chicago's Loop. Vi (pronounced VEE) is
a leading developer and operator of lifestyle communities for older adults, the Parking Spot
in association with Martin H. Nesbitt manages the largest network of off-site airport parking facilities in the U.S. Launched in 2010, Artemis Real Estate Partners is a private equity, real estate investment manager.
137. Defendant Pritzker is a board member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a trustee
of Stanford University, a trustee of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, an advisory board member of Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project, and a former member of
the Harvard University Board of Overseers. Defendant Pritzker's daughter Rachel Pritzker
APX
496
Hunter is treasurer of George Soros's Media M a w s for America $100 million clearing house known as the Democracy Alliance @A). 138. That Defendant GEORGE SOROS (a.k.a. George Schwartz) with place for service at Soros Management 888 7th Avenue Suite 3300 New York, NY 10106, is a Member of: the Council on Foreign Relations, the Carlyle Group, Major Stockholder: Halliburtan, Financial Backer of Barack Hussein Obama, Friend of Rupert Murdoch cg), and a high level Freemason. 139. Defendant George Soros proves his allegiance to Rome by promoting Muslim Brotherhood overt control of Egypt---now a reality. We cannot forget that the Jesuits in Cairo created the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928, the same year the Order created Opus Dei in Spain. Egypt is to be the staging base for an Islamic invasion into Israel &om the South--somewhat like the 1973 Yom Kippur War that was intended not to succeed in destroying the Pope's Revived Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Israel) as the Third Temple must be built with Jews in Jerusalem acting as a buffer between the Pope's Masonic Labor Zionist leaders of Israel and resident Arab Muslim "Palestinians," the invasion will serve as the justification for a US and possible EU military intervention during which time the Temple Mount Mosyues will be destroyed, and that destruction will be blamed on the U.S.A. thereby inciting the unity of international Sunni Islam and its future invasion of U.S. soil. 140. According to investigative Journalist Aaron Klein, a s of February 10,2011, Defendant Soros created a n international securities fund for the "Country of Palestine", in which Defendants Soebarkah and Soros are major shareholders to benefit. 141. Investigative journalist Aaron Klein, Jerusalem bureau chief for World Net Daily, Rupert Murdoch is a Member: Council on Foreign Relations, Knights of St. Gregory, Owner: Fox News Network and News Corp / Twentieth Century Fox, Friend of George Soros, Occult Protector of Barack Hussein Obama Bill O'Reilly -The O'Reilly Factor and Glenn Beck
APX
497
reports of collaborative actions of both Defendants Soros and Brzezinski that:
An international 'kn'sismanagement"group led by philanthropist bbiIlionaire George Soros has long petitioned the E m t i a n government to normalize ties with the Muslim Brotherhood
The International Crisis Group, or ICG, also released a report urging the Egyptian regime to aVow the Brotherhood to establish an Islamist politicalparty. The ICG includes on its boardMohamed EIBaradei, one of the main opposition leaders in Egypt, as well as otherpersonalities who champion &aZogue with Hamas, a d e n t offshootof the Muslim Brotherhood. In a June 2008report entitled "Egypt'sMuslim Brothers Conti-ontation or Integration,"Soms'ICG urges the E m t i a n regime to aVow the group toparticipate in political He. The report dismisses E'gypt's longstanding government crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood as 'dangerouslyshort-sighted." The ICGreport c d e d on President HosmiMubarakkregime to %ave the way for the regularization of the M u s h Brothem'participation in political life,"incIuding by allowing for the '&stablishmentof a political party with reIig7ous reference." The ICG specXcdy stressed allowing the Brotherhood to serve as an Islamist party several times i n its 2008 report. The ICG and its personalities have long petitioned the Muslim Brotherhood to be allowed tojoin the Egyptian government.
WNDreported earlief this week Soros is one of eight members of the ICG executive committee.
ElBaradei suspended his board membership i n the ICG two weeks ago, &er he returned to E m t to lead the anti-Mubarakprotests. U S . board members include Zbi&u'ew Brzezinski, who was national secun'ty adviser to Jimmy Carteq Samuel Berger, who was Big Chton's nationalsecruity adviseq and retired U . S . ambassador 2'3omas Pickenng who made headlines i n 2009 after meeting with Hamas leaders and cdingfor the U S . to open ties to the Islamist group. Another ICG member is Robert M d e x a former adviser to Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign who resigned &er it was exposed he had communicated with Hamas. WNDfirst reported MaZley had longpetitioned for dialogue with Hamas. The ICG defies itseLfas an "%dependent, nun-pro@, multinational organization, with 200 staffmembers on five continents, working through field-based analysis and high-level advocacy to prevent and resolve deadly conflict."
APX
498
Mean while, Soros also has other ties to opposition groups in the Mddle East. His Open Society Institute's Middle East and North &ca initiative has provided numerous grants to a wide range ofprojects that promote so-caned democratic issues across the region, hzcluding in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood stands to gain from any fiirture election. Soros' Open Society also finded the main opposition voice in Tumsia, RaELio fiima, which championed the riots there that led to the ouster ofPresident Zine El Abidri2e Ben Ali In September, Soros'group was looking & expaad its operationsi n Egypt by hking a new project manager for its Egyptian Initiative for PezsonaI Rights, which is run in partnership with the Open Society Justice Initiative. The group is seek2ng to develop a national network of legal empowerment actors for refemal ofpublic-interest law cases. Such organizations in the past have helped represent Muslim Brotherhood i n the country. leaders seeking election or more authon%_y Sums himseflon Friday made public statements in support of the protests i n Egypt, which the LWubarakgovernment has warned will result in the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood i n the country. In a Washington Post editon-alentitled, " m y Obama Has to Get Egypt Right," Soros recognized that iffiee elections were held in E ' t , 'the Brotherhood is bound to emerge as a majorpolitical h e , though it is far &om assured of a majority." He stated the US. has 'huch to gain by moving out in fi-ont and siding with the public demand for digmty and democracy" i n Egypt. He claimed the 'Muslim Brotherhood's cooperation with Mohamed EIBaradei ... i s a hopefirl sign that it intends to play a constructive role in a democratic political system. " Soros didnot mention his ties to EIBaradei. Soros di4 however, single out Israel as "themain stumbling blocPin paving the way toward transition in the Middle East.
' f l i 1 reality, Israel has as much to gain &om the spread of democracy in the MiddIe East as the United States has. But Israel i s unlikely to recognize its own best interests because the change is too sudden and carnies too manyrisks, "he wrote,
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Scheme for Unjust Enrichment, against A l l Defendants)
142. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the First through Sixth
Cause of Action paragraphs 1through 141 with the same force and effect as though herein
set forth at length.
APX
499
143. That based upon information and belief, Russia, I r a n , Syria, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Lebanon, Nigeria, Libya, Egypt, Dubai among other sovereign foreign entities and persons have illegally contributed to the campaign of Defendant SOEBARKAH who spent $738,812,857 to seize control of the White House and is 46% of the total money raised for all candidates in the 2008 Presidential Election t h a t compares to three hundred and ten million spent by Defendant McCain; and a s part of the scheme to dehaud the Vatican Bank was used as a n intermediary for transfer of funds into its USA landing Banks in New York that with the release of the banking records of the SOEBARKAH campaign committee will show substantial illegal foreign involvement to launder funds to buy the presidency a s previously done in the instance of James Riady of the Indonesian Lippo Group for Bill Clinton in 1992 was not convicted by the DOJ until January 11,2001. 144. Defendants Penny S. Pritzker, George Soros and their agents bundled foreign donations for the Soebarkah Campaign with the Vatican landing b a d JP Morgan Chase in New York state ( 1 0 ) .
There are three direct Vatican Banking mechanisms used to channel money into the United States: (i) The Vatican Bank number UID# 014780 BIC/SWIFT : IOPRVAVX a,k.a ISTITUTO PER LE OPERE DI BELIGIONE of VATICAN CITY in the VATICAN CITY STATE and for which there are seven (7) banking participants as the landing banks for international wire transfers into the USA and who directly benefited by putting Obama into office: 0001 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON; 0002 JPlklORGCfAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; 0008 CITIBANK, N.A.; 0103 DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST CO AMERICAS; 0108 HSBC BANK US& 0256 STANDARD CHARTERED BANK; 0509 WELLS FARGO NY INTL FKA WACHOVLA; needless to say the Vatican Bank and the participating banks are generally owned by the Vatican through the Ruthschild who have managed the Vatican asset since 1824 and keep that control tightly within the family circle even as far back as Alexander Hamilton who having married a Rothschiid cousin setup the Bank of New York in 1784 that only after great effortbecame chartered after 1791when he became the US Treasurer; and (ii) further, the International Catholic Union of the Press (LJCIP)is used for the World Forum of Professionals and Institutions in Secular and Religious Media with the Address: UCIP, CP 197,1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland and the Vatican name of the account holder: UCIP with the name of the Banlr: IOR, Vatican Swiftcode: IOPRVAVX Account number in Europe: 16586001 htt~:l/www.ucip.chlune/ib.htrn and in which the Vatican Interbank clearing account in the US is with JPhl CHASE MANHATTAN BANK NEW YORK Account no.: 001-1-97500;and (iii) further yet, The Vatican Bank: ISTITUTO PER LE OPERE DI RELIGIONE = INSTITUTE FOR THE RELIGION WORKS in which the Institute for Works of Religion (Italian: Verified Complaint Page 41 of 45
10
APX
500
145. That Defendants Pritzker and Soros have managed a crucial role for the Vatican
State as a member of the CFR and high level Freemasonry and in conjunction with h g Juan Carlos (the King of Jerusalem) to create global regionalism that subsumes national sovereignty of the USA and the People of New York state to the detriment of plaintiff and those similarly situated.
146. Each of the Candidate Defendants and their agents have been unjustly enriched by
the referenced activities to disrupt the election without assuring a duly eligible Presidential Candidates for the Republican, Democrat and Socialist Workers party under color of state law, that violates Plaintiffs and those similarly situated State voter right, imposing expense as a taking as applies in its entirety with election costs levied upon real property.
147. That Defendant SOEBARKAH used campaign finance committees nationally and in
New York State according to records maintained by the Defendant NYS BOE include but are not limited to: O B M FORAMERICA by Martin H.Nesbitt
(ll),
Treas. PO Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680 ; OBRnL4 WCTORYIiZiND by Andrew Tobias, Treas. 430 South Capitol Street SE Washington DC 20003; among others used exclusively in New York state; and that Defendant Soebarkah conspired with Defendant Nancy Pelosi individually with place of business located a t Washington, D.C. Address 235 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-0508, along with the DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK located a t 461 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 , STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE located a t 2-4 Nevins Street Floor 3 Brooklyn, NY 11217 and XYZ JOINTFUNDRATSING COMMITTEESto use the funds associated with the campaign.
Istituto per le Opere d i Religione - IOR) commonly known as Vatican Bank was formed during World War 2 and is located inside the Vatican City. 11 The Parking Spot: Ms. Pritzker is co-founderand chairman of The Parking Spot, an off-site airport parking Management Company.http://www.theDarkint~swot.com/
APX
----
501
148. That Defendant John Sidney McCain 111, individually then located at 3501 North 24th Street Phoenix, AZ 85016 used campaign finance committees nationally and in New York state according to records maintained by the Defendant NYS BOE, and that include but are not limited to the MCCATN VICTORY2008locatedat 228 S WASHINGTON ST STE 115 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314;MCCMN-PALIN VICTORY2008& The New York
Finance Committee Road to lrictory Tomlocated at 228 S WASHINGTON ST STE 115

ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314, and that Defendant John Sidney McCain located at-Campaign Address 2211 East Camelback Road Phoenix, A2 85016 and place of business at Washington, D.C. Address 241 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, conspired with Defendant John A. Boehner, individually along with THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE located a t 315 STATE ST, ALBANY, NY
12210-2001, THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARlY

located at Frank MacKay, Chairman Independence Party of New York State PO BOX 871 Lindenhurst, NY 11757, STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE located at 486 7STH STREET BROOKLYN, NY 11209,and XYZ JOINTFUNDMSING COMMTTTEES to use the funds associated with the campaign.
149. That Defendant R6ger Calem, individually used campaign finance committees
nationally and in New York state according to records maintained by the Defendant NYS BOE, and that include but are not limited to persons associated with THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY located a t Committee Address: 1000 Grand Concourse, #4A Bronx, NY
10451,read more: http:/lwww.citv-data.com/elec08/CALERO.htmlxzz14RIvR4iu , and

XYZ JOINTFU~RATSING COM1WnEESto use associated funds with the campaign.
150. That all the Defendants are liable having been culpable to jointly and severally aid
and abet soliciting and false billing of Defendant Presidential Candidate campaigns with or associated funds from the New York state taxpayers in the excess of say $10,000,000.00 Verified Complaint Page 43 of 45
more, are liable for the cost ofeleetions, with interest,and cost of suit caused by the h u d .
WEEREPORE, Plaintiffwishes a p r e h h m r y injunction hearing with declaratory

judgment with a partial summary judgment under CPLR 53001 against the Defendants and such other relief as the C o d deems just including:
a. Order of Injunction and restraint upon NYS BOE and various agents with
authority over the State political Parties and Presidential Candidates with
.
entities presenting certiftcation for ballot access process preparatory for the various State party primaries and a t the November 6,2012 General Election to comply to NYSC regulations ballot access requirements for a candidate to
provide proof of eligibility as with the United States Constitution Article 2
Section 1Clause 5.
b. That all certification submissions duly approved by the NYS BOE and its agents be submitted to the Court for proof of compliance until further notice;
c. Restraint against interference by the Jesuit Order in New York and a
Preliminary injunction requiring compliance with NYS Chap. 6 Article 5-A. d. That the Court order expedited discovery to determine the scope of the alleged
$12,000,250.00or more aetual damages plus after conducting hearings and jury
trial to determine the scope of punitive treble damages; e. And for further and difkrent relief as the Court may deem necessary herein.
Dated. . h c r a M 2011 Brooklyn, New York

self-representwithout being an attorney 593 vanderblt venue Brooklyn, New York 11238. (845) 901-6767 E-mail: chri&strunk.ws
#281.
Versed Complaint Page 44 of 45
STATE OF NEW PORK

COUNTYOFKINas
=.
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, b e i i duly sworn, depose and say under
penalty of perjury:
I have read the foregoing Complaint with seven Causes of Action against Defendants
in their official capacity and or individually, in which Plaintiff requests a preliminary

Injunction with restraint of the NYS Board of Elections and its agents, and Declaratory Judgment for equity relief as well as for say $ 1 2 , 0 0 0 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 in damages plus treble damages determined a t a jury triaI; and know the contents thereof apply to me by misapplication and administration of Iaws in creation of the New York Electoral College going i n t o and following the General Election of November 4,2008 as a continuing injury caused by the scheme to defiaud w i t h unjust enrichment that affects Plaint8 and
r o o k l p Home Rule Coaltion along with those similarly situated; the Plaintiff's AD HOC B
same is true to my own knowledge, except a s to the mattee therein stated to be alleged on idormation and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs a s to all matters n i t stated upon information and belief are as follows: W parties,
books and records, and personal knowledge.
..
Christopher-Earl: Strunk Sworn to before me Jday of March 2011 This $ 2
I..
> ,: $ \.'
. ..-. ->.
.5.---*
SUPRJ3ME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW PORK COUNTY OF KINGS Index N O . :

1 .
---------------__-....-------------.-X
Plaintiffl
-against-
Chrietcrpher-Earl: St;Fung, i n esse

Filed: March 22,2011
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ~ ~ O NJAMES S ; A. WALSH I Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER I &Chair, EVELYN J- AQUILA I Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON 1 Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE,Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUONK), ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, TNOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NO EM^ COLON, in their Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S . J . ;FREDERICK AO. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN;ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSXI; MARK BRZE!ZINSK& JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Bussein Obama 11, a k a . Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DElMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEWYORK STATE; R ~ G E R CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; LAN J. BRZEZINSQ JOHN SIDNEY MCCATN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMllT%E; THE NEW YORK STATE C O M M I W E OF THE INDEPENDENCE PAR'Ir; STATE COMNfITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIW PARTY OF MEW YORK STATE; . PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMiTBICA; O B M MCTORYFUM? MCCATN MCTOIEY ZOO& M C C M N - P m WCTORYZOO8;;John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities.
Defendants.
SUMMONS
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Dated:
March 22,2011 Bmoklyn, New Y d

Christopher-Earl:Strunk, in esse plaintiff 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281, Brooklyn, New York 11238
(845) 901-6767 E-mail: chris@strunk.ws
EXHIBIT 6
APX - 507
[continued on p. 21
David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo (NYS Attorney General), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of the Assembly), Malcom Smith (NYS Senator), Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57thAD), Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos (President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) The Capitol Albany New York Thomas P. DiNapoli (NYS Comptroller), Office of the NYS Controller 110 State Street Albany, NY 12236 The New York State Board of Elections 40 Steuben Street Albany New York Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council), New York City Council New York New York William Thompson (NYC Comptroller), Office of the Comptroller City of New York 1 Centre Street New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 669-3500 Fax: (212) 669-2707
j: . f 4
:
z y z ~ ~ s s i l ~ . . . a m(pase30fm mp~
.%
L
1
J
i
47
5
SUPBEME m OF TiLE STATEOF NEW YOBK COUNTY OF WNW s

CIaistophetmSeunk,
index&
, ~ ~ ~
s f o I l 0 ~ ~ :
.I
. i
X)avidA.~(NYSQov~m~t~~Cuonw
~Attomgr-XThOmP-mpoli
1 f
t
( N Y S ~ x S h e M o n S i l ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ o f t h eM y , M t hw s -1,
- ~ - ~ - ~ ~ % t b r e s ? ~ ~ ) ,
w ( N Y C x
Christiae~~CSpaakerofthtCo~,
t
5
?,
J i m T h m AsSealbIymsn), Dean s k e l o s ~ptsngKlgeoftheNYS~~intheir
1
4
3 4
M-EleEtols&~adasg,hWoffiGiat
&~and~;fiieNewY&SWBoard
~f~and~Doesared3~Das
~~
X
1
4
Plsia~~e~EertStMdr,~andkhigConiplaint~j~afNew
Yiwk StateBation Law Article p16-kW1 o v e r Article 12 forthe November 4,2008 Gemad B~farem~~relief,~ppOninfomtation~befiefawiat~times~r
~ ~ y ~ o f ~ ~ i r
-7
-;Z 4
1 3
3
id
:i
mtmCAUSE OF AeflON ~dStpteCosslPnatiormPIBarf~r~Pilbk~foWart~etbs pubk ,eae a ~ f i i r ~ a s ~ a l l P r t W i i c ~ - ~

I. P I a i n M C m k E a r i ! B m n k ( * ~ or .trotH"),is ~ ensturdl~om citizen &New
-J
i 4
.* 3,
Yorkdhowclsandkaq~wterne~towttesad~iatheN0~4,2(lf#(
~~011In~~ofNt?wYork,andwhirsegrlncipalpeCeforservioeiSldat593
1
' I
C o ~ ~ 1 o f I S
APX
509
_____P__Pw
APX
-
510
APX
----
14. P
l B e m b e r s d t h e ~ Y o d t ~ ~ f b t ~ m r ~ ~ ~ a o t b e ~
on~4,2068d*wtilcherbr~babeb3g~~begm.tBateadaEL
g121QO,anypgte*tbeRpehfentieljislecs)sitall&~0ok,clrr~~the~
elsoaoassistc,~aeaiBedac:stetegilbIicofii#nr,
I S . IhatwOlFdoer
lmve-d
. . ..t a e d I I e s & t e ~
Y~~bespiterbefadthatlllvsarEL~ll-l~rteerthbNaoamkr~21108~~ion~~ dthecaarmssoftbsvoaascsstW3L~M b y ~ I , # K t % m ~ l h e ~
pertiiEertEl~&ea#tbe~party~rmdoriadepsadeatbodyfia~Pzesideatiat
fBcmRCAUSE O# ACMON ~ d ~ e f O m a s ~ R t M t r ~ ~ ~ D a B s l r d r ; r l l d N Y 8 B O E )
2
P~~eachdevargaIIe~~in~Fwt~Q?fAotionwitht8e
APX - 515
1964Y2000sumn & W
@~ge 12 o f& s
f 1 '
4
9
1
j
5
1
5
acpuayA~yGenerslof~&Mfiledthecrrseptose,erkidtatareviewafthe
cra~ntdocgetindimb-iscaliedPM@J.BE;RGv. 84&9C1YOMM4,TH13 LI-RC
NRiT0NX.L C o r n ' ? H ' EFEDERA&l2LECUON C O W O N and
i
i
I : i
5
DOEt l - 5 O h V C L t i m EUPA M 0 8 3 filed August 21,2008; and wherein the mended
oomplaint~MpJ.BePg~~~Defeadant~~isnot~bbforthe Offi~ofthePre~tbecanseObrunalosthisU*S.cftizedshipwhenhis~decIan
Indonesian~eednaturalizedia~R~~d~thatObamsfciio~her
;?
'3
naRtraliP$bndendfaited~~~of~whsnhetucnsd~8yeandd~legajnhis
U.S.cifkmhip~ and M u p o n r e q u e s t & W m i s a M * a f l a d o & d
E;enya,notadbmcitizenofbUniMStittesaod~tohptlbliez%cmrd ism
e m a citizen ofthe United Sfates.
44.
45.
Therehnevarbeenrm~II~x&hhasbeena~~
bk~beenenArddeXWve~isecitieenofa~~
46. m m & e x e c r u t m e t o b e o c c n p * Q a f o r e i g n e i h d m m
% '
o
~rmionuntilsuehtimetheUnion~neremade~andlaws~agaia
47, ~hose~efextdantsbvesdutytoprevefltmy~seltoisrwta~~mcitiz~
I
j
if i
from~ot~inthc~ofNcwY~wbennmniag~~aedorV~Presidean.
4%.
h~~andthe1WSBOEhavenotMedthe&dili~
Iiemmqto~ct*~
49.
T h e t D e m o s s t ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ J o h D a n d J ~ ~ ~
snenterpriselur:atRmptinstooverthmw~govennneQtoftlae~ofNmY&in
eonjdnwittr Baractr Hurpsein Obama,Joseph Biden r a c k u t e & n g ~ ~ ~ N g ~ e m b e r
1S
i
Camp-
Page 10 d 15
Ii
APX - 521
APX
522
B.p
BEf4
DUI
B m
asla
nk! D M
DB)
llRll
DW
a
m
PEld
MLI OBi PeYL
l m i
@EM
ols
wu
Pli#
W11 D E M
OEll
m
OEYl DfUI
Dad
o m
REI R E P REP Ra REP

REP
REP am'
KEP
REP
REP
E l '
tkrrbrdPrWIYEkccw
D W I R I ( X .
NiA
-& '
-)*aw
IUD INn
l)lD
wiaan m&as,Jr.
~~
a a*mr
IWD
em
MD
*D
ntlratoRCodr
Jglph#MSeMle
Cenr
O W m E e
- -
POW
COll
w-
JW6eYL.b
cow
GOn
W#s CM CQIl
tory-
mm6.M
trwnnaI(rbrh
&lgbto
oar
c9n
QDli leON EOFI G O N
C(#l
m L.tbk
-kart
~ ~ R u d k n o
MImbQRkb.nlMeu J J m THbW
Jls* brdE.Jdnm
m&?bmARrdfWlH
CON C O W
con
Ed Cox
Owg-
colt COli
e(#P
mim&eda
LashLbM
JlrpW
Wli
COH
eM1 Cau eMi
mem
erD.r
m u
eOu
CXI#
um cow
m N
-anla
rdwmlllYlthn abal&JI. Dsrrakah
Ma
~ D . w a o L . Jagb N . mQd*la
mA1
m mlm
-Ape-
Woa
WOR i#OR
SIIsl-
wlx
PmLARok,5 J O B Owpu
--
APX - 524
R9clckntBiM
D m a c R w
w --REP
Nmm
JIM Trdtme
RUI RLP
REP
Aa* Rnk.wma
Ed br
RLSP
Rep
oolrpColasr
Ymos?RIdP
REP R e
LaRou&
J-W-
w
REP
ReP
REP REP REP
REP
n;ltklt amilm WY*es EItRI
YI*hd -in MrulIm albw&&* DusmtCe
REP
a wIllv-
m
R6P
HmwV~frma
REP I n D
Jars(#rek
1111
im
IND
IllD
a -
-~A~
Fad R d U
JbaT#llec
l?mmu b Codc
.
R6a
JaJ.gLM.YmdcIb
~~
m m
ntP
I N 0
IND
tfJD
RIortoRbnkrveolrcV
D*nItrOrri&mno
wse.'IYh$moR
m
w
iND
PID
a*
mskejobnr
w m
W J
ma Me
rn
WJ
mo
-Eirrtcrx
Doll0 c -
%mu
LuIkUolll
Kdhy Jhino
erlor-
H & h p . 1 rauszulia
APX
525
ri+sgww
.ua# -lug
mwm
nrrsalo wmma
rmlwyl
UOUH Parwpg
mwa n p u A
acR#M On#lftlt
===awan@#-
ouure=m =ws=v
L(pB.13
vu.u.pyPw
-l-s=M
=awn*
4
1
W4==-3%3rraRwt
rptlrs l l lt40YUlro01q mU6uoppr(%
cnn,
w=@aw'Jw
wynbwwU9
VdYWrll
'
=m=mmwma
-P = d
~~
.trrlqsyl
mwmP@w
W u W
mwquvq
W r W s h
W ' i J w ~
ilOlocf'U~
4w W q l
afftYllO-d-'w
r u a p W = w
wl'=ml
rlbwDmwm
-wimw
Vm
ollron3~ -m a
:lsmma
==smmw'W
p.lsl -
PSL
Pa.
FSL
t8L
P8L PSL
P(IL
PSL
mi.
PsL
PSL
Pm.
pgi
Psi.
P8L
WUI
PWI
OllN
GRN
OAn
ORN
BW
blu(
ERll
# N ' ORN BUI
tRN
SRN
bRN QRN
oaR
aw
6WI
81W
@RM
LB1
LBi
m
LBt
LBT L B T
P=u WT
M LBT
un
LIlT
iBT
m
tst
CBT
U I ; 1
ca
LBI M
rBZ LBT
r%l
U l f
PLT PLT
PLT PTI PLT

PLT
KT
ptT
RLT PLT
RY
P L T
RT
# I
P L T
PLT
PLT KT
kr
RT RT #T
PLT
RT
PLT
(WRCE:
-.Pnr
PLT
PLT PLT PLT
PLT
PLt
--PMy
P8U
mu
DEM
Eat
REP REP
APX
529
~96.1uzoOs Summ. & mnpl. m ! e 25 # 25)
X $ t 5
,.T
-*
+ '
8 o
.i
1
fi
fU]PR&MECOURT OR THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNnOFMIYGS
x
IndsrNa:
-*Msmk
Ii
i
DavidA. Pamon(NYS Gwemox),Andfew Cwno C p n s ~ y ~ X ~ P . r n a p o t i (NYS t3mptmUerf, S b e h Sjhrec (KYSSpes%Pa of the Asseddy)., W r n Smi$t (NYS Senator), - ~ ~ ( ~ y s a w ~ f o r t h e s P ~ ~ ) , ClaisfhQIlirm@JYCSpeakerof rhe Cam&), WNm-WcConrpltooller), Jim Teaiseo(Nys Assemb&mm), I)eaaSkelos ~wp~ofthtNYS-)Ltheir OfficialCapdtiesand MdualIy, t & l3amcrst CagdicEete-ElemorsssaclasSintheirofficial wtyand-9mNw YarkStateBad of Electio~is aad John Does and Jam Does
-i
4 .f
.i
smMMONS with thcorn-
3 :,I
:.9
X)Pted:
New Ysrk. New liyork

&&her 27,2088
:i "a
rE
I'3
~$
* 4
Case 1:08-cv-04289-ARR-LB Document 1 Filed 10i20108 Page l of 11
UNITED STATES IIISTMCT COURT EASTERN DISTIUCT OF NEW YDRK
~stopher~Stnmk,
~laina
v .
1
: :
COMPLAINT
{Jarg Trirt request)
08 4 2 8 9
New Yo& Stette Board of Elections, Deputy Director Todd D .Val*, Dej~~ty Director Stanley Men, and Lorraine A. Cortez-Vaqwz, of the State of New Yo&, each in their official surd individual capacity.
~~
: : : :
with demand for Temporary Restraint and B r e i i m w hj811&11
Defdts.
and
The New Yark State Attorney Gend, 3%e United States L)epartntentafState,
The United States Attorney General.
PRO S E OFFlCE
Eaintiff-
E d Strtlnk (Stnmk), pro se withwa being atr attorney, heretry

and o in
t i m & m e n M rights rrnd civil rights injury by defendan&misappli&
of
state faur in p r e p d o n for the Nayember 4,2008 P r e b M Ge&xd E W o n , tfLat violates
u&r the f 4' Amendment PlaktEs r i g b
under the United S&
C o m a
each entity and named agent or yet to be named individMy and or in his / h e oEciaf capcity
as a Federal question of e q d p t e d o n under 42 USC 9 t 983, that with imminentirlqkd$8
harm as time is ofthe essence, &defendants awe substantive due process and equal ptedion
;simy to Strank's d % g e and liberty h o g with those similarly situated as for State acrion
u&r the 14' Amendmeot, and thitt denies a mpnblicaiifarm ofgowmmnt; and chdengm the
mn&t&m&ty
. -
of the NLajor State Party d
~~
undet E1eCtior.tLaw
APX - 533
Case 1.08-cv-04289-ARR-LB Document I Flied 10/20/08 Page 2 of l 3
Cj12-100 h g h EL 912-110, that along with &&ofi
efthe elector date ti& apply to
the pEesid&
eIectio4 seek remedy under FRCvP Rule 6 5 @ ) , 28 U.S.C. $2201.
JURISDIrnON
I. This i d o n with fbw (4) Cartses ofaction is h u g b t under:the C i d Rig& AH pursorrnt to

Tie42 U.S.C. Sections $1983, $1985, Ij1988, as may sp&
to New York State E l d o n Law
~t~withntlesasappiy~~NewYorirStateCo~on~~le~ff,Article1l1,
& . c k
WI and United States ConstitutionArtiele II. McIe N, aod Article Vfl. amembat:
14' as to State a e t i c a and asappiy ander 28 USC $1343 ( a ) (1) ( 2 ) (3); 28 USC $1331.
2. TMDefendantsare subjec?tofemBdydertheCIvilRi&sAcfpurslrrmttoTi~e42
U . S . C . $1983 $1985,11988, reiaaed law provisiwts ofthe U.S. aad NY. State C O I ~ S ~ ~ ,
3. That Strunk's rigkt to &&age theNew York ELmral College i s tefkencd by the
Summary Ckder ofthe United
* s
court af Appeals fot the 2* C i t Gasp 006021 in the
appd &om an order takenfrom the Eastem District (9rder of the Howmb1e Jack 8. Weinstein
Electoral C o w Case Mknr-7177, and wherein OOaMlcv C h i t Judge &adeinland as the
i d ofa threejudge pane$ statwl guote:

c6Although the same contmversy &y arise in conne&nta the 2004 electioa, trunk can fife a timely @tion fix relief at that h e . "
4.
Venue applii under28 USC $1391@X2j;28 USC ft1404fa); 28 USC fI657(a);
28 USC $ 2 2 0 1 ( a ) ; 28 USC $2202; 28 USC g2403; rrnd that this coznplakt is pmp1y laid in ttris
Court where Sbmk i s a Repubhwz Party member in Brooklyn gmefulto Almighty God for our
Freedom in order to secure its blmhg and gnatantee ofa quWc8n form ofgovmm& uader
the C a n s , i s to be ;heard. by an Article III Judge.
Complaint Page 2 of 11
APX
534
Case 1:08-cv-94289-ARR-LB Document 1 Flied 10/20108 Page 3 of 11

'V
PARTiES
5. P l a i n t i f fSfm& ("Voter") is an aetive eligible voter {AEV) with w h i t e www.strunk.ws
from the Brooklyn New York r$h Senate D i e t , 5 9 Assenrbiy Disbicf and I lh U.S. Honse
W i c t with place ibr sewice a t 593 Vandesbilt Avmue #28f Brooklyn New York 11238, and
contact e-mai1 unwwoW-.arn
Defkndm14h e r e m lamm as
Defei?dentssr i n e w i d e ns Defedsmt:
6 . New York State Board ofEfectiom, ( NYS BOE)with fourco-m two appointed
from eacfi major state party is Iocated at the New York State Board o f,ftim 40 Steuben W t &bay, NY 12207.
7. Todd Z). Valentine, appointed by the cmmbioners as dze Republican fatty Deputy
D h c t ~ of r E l d t r s l who is ioceted at the New York State Baard of E

A l b y , NY 12207.
d $0 Steuben Street
8. Smky ;raten, appointed by the c o ~ s i o l i e r s as the Dem&c
Party Deputy D k c b r
o fE k e r i m who is locafed at the New York State Baatd BE1ectiol1s 40 Steuben Street Albanyf
NY 12207.
9- Lorshe A. Caet-Vazquez,Seoretaryof ?heState of New York (NYS SOS) with piace
for sentice located at ikprlment of State One Comme~~:e Plaza, H ! WaYashingtan Avenue
Aib9ny, New York 12231-0001
STATEMENT O F EACXGROLTJDF A W
10. There is a G m d E l d o n fm President and Vice President t o be oonducted natimwide
on November 4,2008, and that each state hasjurk&Aon over its ownelectoral college.
I 1. Thatmder the UniW States ConstitutionArtide 2 W o n 1 Cfause 2:
APX
_
535
Case 1 08-cv-04289-ARR-16 Document 1 Filed 10i20i08 Page 4 of 71
"Each Sb&es W appoint, in such h%miesas t h Legislature &ereof may diw& a Number ofW~@~Zhe~IeNurn~ofSenarorsand~~aowhicbthe~ may be d e d hthe Con-: but no Saatar o r Fkpmmtatiwfor Person holding an
Office of T N s t or h f i t nndet &e L ? L dStates, shall be appointed an Elector."
"Tk Bec?orssW1meet in their respecrive Ststes, and vote by BBatlot for two Pasons, of whomoneat leastshallnotbesnb!x&itantofthe sameStatewitbth~Ives.Andrhey shall make a List of all tbe P e m m voted f a , snd ofthe Number o f Votes for each; wkicb List fhey shall sign m d& , artd %rawdt sealed to the Seat o f the OovemTnecntof the United States*directed t o the President afthe Senate. The President of the Senete shalt, ia the Reseaw ofttrs: k m t e iuzdHouse of Rep-=, upen all the Certificates,and the
Votesshalfth;eakdTheF~~thegrea&NambetofVotesr;haU.bdK l%skW, i f & Numbs be a uaj* of* whole Namber ofEIectors appo&e& aad if thwe be more one who hwe such Majoritysand b e an equal Number af V a , then the House o f R ~ v e sbaLI s i m m e l y chuseby Ballot me o f h s i for Resident, and if no Per%m have a Majority, then tiam the E v e highest an the List the said House shall in like Uanner chuse the President But in chthe Preside@.,the Votes shali be taken by States, the RqmsmMion ftom w h Strtte having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose ~consisrofaMemberorM~hmtwothirdsoftheS~anda~jorltyofafl the SUes shall be necessary to s=ce. In atcry Case, after the Choice ofttre M d e n t , the Person hviag the greatest Numbr of Votes o f tbe EIectors s l d be the Via President. But jf there s M d remain#o or more who have Votes, the !kawe shall chuse from rhem by Ballot the Vice Preside&."
winner take d l system of Electom! College with 3 1votes for s e l e c t i o nof President and Vice
Resident based upon 29 House seats and ? x Ssmtors i & hge.

14. That under the New York State ConstitutMn the State ofNew Yodr Legishue have a
I
I
primary system as under
onLaw $2-122tbat selectsstate party delegaies by cowentionan
a basis ofthe respective individuaf U.S. House district,and with twO at large delegate.
pr$naryas wmk EL 92-12 mdr e W sections cast their M o t s in die mttionalconvention a &
based upw* wimer of the convention!dot@
the w b h g national party candidate@) then
APX
536
Case 138-cv-04289-ARR-LB Document 1 Filed 10120158 Page 5 of 11
16. 'I'M mong the iwpctive W
e elecrors for the New Yo& pnsidtdd slate
electors having been s e W e d by ead~ respective Mew York stete party, indudes the Democrat
and Republican Presidential electofi sle, and all elector sf-
are wtified state public officers.
17. That Stnmk &dies t o h o w who the pwidential&mom slates are W o r e the November
4,2008 G e n d Eketi-
and tbat eack e l m o r be quditied according to the State Law not to
bold more thsn cme public position.

18. That Stnmir was d
e to obsahz the p r e s i w elector list on the N Y S BOE Website.
19. That Stnmk hati lreen d i e to O M the presidentid elector list on the various major
and h
r sbxte pady and or ind-
candidate websites.
AS m FOR CAUSE ONE
N m York State &rand of E l d m Deputy Dkemr T d d D .Vaten*
Deputy Dirtctor Senley %den have f a to p n b w notkc+pabfiatia d timely providevoters with the pmidenUal ~I&oR rrtntes befere e & y vst$tg began.
20. Pbhtifftepeats md d e g e s emb and every fact and allegation contained i n peragrryths
1-19 above as eppliesto Defendan&the New York %ate Bcrard dEldons, ikp&Director
mpeetive Major State paay for parikn purposes.

22. 'Bat NYS f30E Defendant find both Deputy Board ofEMons Directors have fai& to
pra*
wblic ILO*~
publish aad i a f o m voters of the preside& eleetom slats Wore early
pres-ial
ekfor list on the State &ad Webs&.
24. T b a t NYS BOE Defendant DepQ Board of E l d m lXrwi01s were provided with ffE
ComplaintPage 5 of I1
Case 1:58-cv-54289-ARR-LB Document 1
Filed 15120/08 Page 6 of 1l
Fespective & W r a t
e l e c t o rsla*
before the d e & k f o ~ o n
mxssary for p h h g
the respective elector slate on &e baiiot,
2 5 . ThatNYS BOE Defendants have infringed Stnmk's flrsfamendmentright to speech and
mmkthn and burden his expectationof effectiveparticipation in the generd election.
AS AND FOR CAUSE TWY)
Mew Yark State k r d ofEie&ons, Depaty Dhxter Todd D .V a h t h e , lkpuly Director

S~Znlenhave~pp~dmisPdraiaietuaa~eStPte~iopmtePtveters~ the pmideW t g shte trr smke slrre an dectOr i s nat employed by the statt ia more & M I one aate pabtle pdtba
1-25 above as &es
to I)efdants the New YO& state bard of Eiectiorn,
D'lfe~ta
Todd D .Valenrine, Deputy Director Stantey Zala W S BClE Def-1

27. That d l public officers at the Def*
New York S&ateBoard of Ele~tiom, including
Deplrty Dkwtor Todd D. V h t i n e , and & p t y Depntytof Sadey Zatentook the foliowing oath
"Ido~~~ysvvear{or~~thatIwillsuppartthedtutianofhlhtitedStates,rmd
the d n r r i c m ofthe State o*w Ycuk, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties ofthe office of accMding to rtme best of my ability;"
......,
28. That NYS BOE D e f e I)epury Board of ElectionsDimtors &ve misapphdaad

~-s&m&zd
-.
State Law to pmtect voters with tlie presidentid slectors' slates to make
~aaelectorknot~yedtr;trthestatc:innwre~one~publicposition
29, That NYS BOE Defembfs ad their agents have &applied aad misadministeredthe
State of New Y o r k Constitution Article 3 Section6 for the L e g i s k compstioa &owawes
and traveling experrses of members, in part skies:
"'...nor sfial! he or she receive to his o r her use any feesor perquisites o foffice o r O&X
~ o f z "
Case 1:08-cv-04289-ARR-LB
Document 1 Filed 10120l08 Page 7 of 1 1
30. That N Y S BOE L ) e f e t s and W Pagents have mhppliedsod misactministeredthe
S t & of New York Constiwon Articb 3 Section 7 f af
l QuaWCatio~ls ~ ~ of
"...No member ofthe -1 Wdwkgthetime forwftichheor shewas elected, re~eiveanycivii~in~~thegov~,~~~em~randthe~e,thelegisiahne Q I from any city govermnenf, t o an office which &dlhwre been aded, or the em~lwltents wfierrofs l d b e been i n d during snch time.ifa member ofthe l e g i s h be ebted to congress, o r appointed to any office, civil or m i l i t a r y ,,under the government ofthe United States,the sateofMewYork,~~auderany citygowmmeot~ceptasam~ofthe natr*mat&or navalmilitia of the state, o r of tke reserve forces of the United States, his OF Iter amprance thereof s h a U vacate his or h e r seat in the l e g i s k , pvidio& however, that a m a n k of the l e g i s b may be appohtd commissioner af d d or to any office in which he or she &dl d v e no eom@w."
32.That NYS BOE D e f e have n&yplied and L@&&&E&
the Sterte o f N m Y o r k
Constitution Astiefe 13 Section 7 for Public Ofhcers Coqermtion of o f k r s , in part aate :
"Neithsthe salary of q y member nor any other allowance so fixed may be bcmszd or Mhed~andui&tespect~o,the~fw*hheorsheMhavebeeneleeled, nor stdl he or ske be paid or receive my other extra c o r n m o a "
32. Tbat N Y S RUE DefewIants and their agents hiwe misapplied aad
..
the
State s fNew Yo& law so that rhe New York Democrat snd Reputdim CommitteeElectoral Coilege s k ( s ) far election of a Mdenntial Elector & I & , have included c u m ~teP;sWve t
public officers h i g u a t d TO serve as tbe Electoral Cotlege state to be cecCified by by thevmor
under the Serrl
by the Secmtary of State after the November4,2008 & e n d election.
33. T h a t N Y S BOE DefendaMs and their a g -
have misipplied and misadminiaered the
State of New Yo& law despite the f k t that a presided& dectorinNew York i s a pubfic officer.
34. That N Y S BOE Defendants have misapplied and misaQniaisteredthe StaB: of New Y o r k
law despite the fact that any presidential elector that holds more than one public officer position
i s prohibited under the state cmdmfiw, must be b a d from balding either or b t h positions.
35. That W S BOE D e h W and their Bgentsbeve misapplied tmd misadministeredthe
Case 1.08-cv-04289-ARR-LB Document 1

L
Filed f0120108 Page 8 of 11

Y
S t a t eo fNew Yo& taw despite t bfect that becauseW election ofaay wimring Elffitod
Co1leg;eslsteisdoneattarge,whenoneeleetoris~dified&~~eis~~d
36. Thrtt NYS ROE lk&d&s
law -te
have misapplied and -sterrsd
the State ofNew Yo&
the fact that under EL $1 2-100, any vote fw the Residential s k & $ s ) &dlbe deemed
as state public oftiem.
to be cast for the candidates' electors state, previody c&ed
37. Tbat NYS BOE De-ts
have misapplied aad misadmttllsteredthe S t & of New York
..
taw despite the fmthac uader EL 4 12-102,after the N O c(u1vass 5 f h wtes cast &EL #!I-214 by
4,2008 g e n d etwtion and the
1,2008, so that the winning e e d
Eleomr slm for the sta*:party &dates
and or indepemleat body h r the Presidential slate(s)
Isthento~~edtheNewY~electord~ltegebytheN YorkGovemerundertheserrl ew
in possession of t&eNew York Seae%wyof State.

38. That hTS BDE Defendants bave mhppIied and m h & m S s d &e State ofNew Yo&
..
law despite the fsct that uaden EL 4 12-104, the certified electoralcollege for the New Yo&
Presidential s h e tWI nmeet on ikxmubr 17,2008 stmting on tlte tirst Monday follow& the
second WednesOay in I ) &
rtext followhgtheir election.
38. That N Y S BOE Defendants have rmisapplied aid m b a h h h dthe State of New Yo&
law despite the fact h
t &Et $12-105, the d
e d Electoral College & d make l and s i g n
six certificatesofall tke votes on ftrrmsprovided by the NYS Ebard of Etections.
o l k 4 0 .T M NYS BOE Defatdants have dsap@ed and misadmtIusteredthe State of New Y

law despite the fact that under EL $12-108,l kpresident of the assembled certitied electad
college M I distribute the six c e z t i E w of election b e f m Bcemher 24,2008:
-.
om to the
President o f f U . S .Senate; two c e r % c m to the New York State Board ofElectiof19 one of
which hdd subjwt tcl tfie
o f the senate, and one held for we year in the public record;
Compbint Page 8 of Z l
APX
540
Case 1:08-cv-04289-ARR-LBDocument 1 Filed 10120/08 Page 9 of 11
and then on or by the fol~owing day or December25,2808 fonvard two ce&icittes to the
nrhnlntstrator ofthe GeaeraE Services
..
~~arad to &live the ranainingcertificate to
the Chief Judge oftbe United Strrte District Court of the 11ortkemd i & h of tbe M e New York.
4 1. That N Y S BOE Defendrtntshave misapplied and zakdmhistered the State of New Yo&
law d e q i i the f k t$rat uader EL 812-1 10, any &W E l m coIIege slate i w state public
officers when d
d at large on November 4,2Wl? when c&Zed to pToceed t o attard the

Electors
ele~tosal wlege meting to be convened December 17,2008, shall &ve
c o ~ o for neach day of his atkdimce in the sumof fifteea dollars per day together with
d i c a t e ef the semtary
of state.
have kEnged Stmnk's fkst iundmmt right to speech and
42. That NYS BOE D e f -
associationand btnden his exp&&ion ofeffective putidpation i a the general electian.

AS AND FOR CAUSE THREE
L o h e A. Cortez-Yazqaez, Secmta~ of Ute Stsk of New Yerk dnty is ta rtppb and addmhker the S t i l e Laov to pmtect vatem &ep*tiel dtxtws* dates fe I B sure an deftor is not enrployed by the state h~ m r e tlms ene irtrrte pub& posiihk
43. P ~ ~ r e p e aand t sW e g e s each and every-& and diegation cpnraked in paagaphs
1-42 above as apf es t o E)efendant Emmine A Costez-Vazqnez, Secretar)r of the S t a t eof New
York @eh&mt N Y S SOS)
a p a m q e appointment by the l3emxdc Party Gav-
to rhe public o&.
45. That Defendrrnt SOS has taken the fo1lowing oath ar aEmdon:
"I do solemnly sweat.(or alTirm) that I will support the d t o t i o n ofthe United States,
and the constitutionofthe State ofNew York, and W f wiU faihfdly duties of the oEce o f ......, according to the beft of my &ilw)(I
the
C m p W Page 9 of 11
APX - 541
Case 'l:08-cv-04289-ARR-LB Document 1
Filed 10f20/08 Page I 0 of 7 2
46.Tftat Defendant N Y S SOS b a s a&@ to safe&
the Seal of New York faz paper use.
47. ThatDef~NYSSOS~adrrtytopvidetheSeaitotheGovernorunderEL $12-
f 02,after the November 4 2008 general electionaad the EL 59-214 canvass ofthe vote by
independentbody fw thr:Presidential slat&) may be d e d the winner of popular votes,and
thw certified as the New York electorat d e g e by tbe New York Governor imder the seal i n
psswion ofthe New York SsreWy afState.
48. Were Defendant N Y S SOS t o pvide &e mi for my slate of presidential dectors who
atz not qualitEed inctudiug any person that hold more than we state position wolrid be a violdon
ofthe oath of oftice and wouid be duries and
..
under the S t a t e Law to
p r a m voters with the preside& electors sIatef t o make sure iiu elector i s ncit emplayed by the
state in more h m one state public position.
~9.~hatDefendsnt~~SSOS~0uld~geStrunk'sfitst~ri@to~hand
laws nut enforced in good faitB with the duties of her office.
AS AND FOR CAUSE FOUR

Defeadnxsts w a d be in vkrlatioa of&&
egth were theg b p e d t a Presidential candidate to run fw oi&e whs is eot n eatlusl e m .
50. Plaintiffrepeatsaed ndkges each and every fact and allegationcontained in jmipphs
1-49 above as applies to Defendants and their agents.
51. f 3 a s e d u p o n ~ m a n d b e l i e f t h e h f ~ & ~ ~ e n t s h a v e ~ I i & a n d
nhdd&iered their duties by failure to obtain Hnd ~~proof that Barrstck Hussein Obma is a Elstma] citizen, otherwise contnny t o United States Coll~tiMion Article 2 Section I Clause 5:
"No Person except a n a t d bom Citizen, or a C
b of&
Ur6b4d SEates, at the time o f the
APX
542
Case 1 :08-cv-04289-ARR-LB Document I Filed 19120/08 Page 11 of I I

v
Adoption of tfiis ConstiNticn, M be eligible to the Office of President; neither shaIf any Penon be eligible to that Office who did not have athimi t o the Age of$tirtyiimYears, gnd been fouaeen Y m a Resident Hlithinthe. Ifnited States"
52. Based nponinfonnaton and belief fhe Wendants and their agents have not obtakd a
cdfid copy ofthe b i d d moflkrmck Hussein Otrama
53.%.oseI)ef&&
have adutytoprevent anypemnwhoisnotanatucatbomcit-ten
~anbeltotaccessinthestateofNew Y o r k ~ ~ f o r ~ e n t a n d o r v i c e p r e f ~
54. Those LMemhm have not & H l d the due dGgence necessary to protect Ure voters.
55. Tbat Z)efendants infringe Stnmk'sIbeaty, expectation ofa republicanfann of
govemamt, aud bunlen his eqstaticat of effective @cip&ctn

laws not e n f d in good faith with the duties of their office*
in ihe gene& electioa were the
Wherefore,plaintiff&&
the relief as follows:
A. On the first cause ofaction an Order W a TRD be granted for public riotice of every
cat&d Presiddzd elecm date on the Wet.

3. On the second cause of actionan Order thar any deotor slate with any & e d
elector with
mere than one public positiont o be stricken fbm the M o t in e n t i r e t y .

C. O n t h e t h i r d ~ o f a c r i o n a T R O i f a n y s l a t e o f e l e d o ~ ~ i s t ? W ~ a n y e f e c t o r h a s
~ ~ t h a n w e p b I i c o f f i c e a n d t h a t t h e ~ S O S b e r e s t r a i n e d f r *thestate om
seal for dfication
an
under EL 12- 102.

are to provide proof t M Barrack HusseinOhma i s
D. On &e f C m &cause of action Def-ts
d born citizen aid if wt that his electors are t o be stricken from the U o t . E. The costs and disbursements ofthis action. F. Such o w and furtherdief that this Court may deemjust and equitable.
Re~pctfdly submitted by:
D W Octobfx 20,2008 Brmicip, New York
comp1aint Page I 1 of 11
APX
543
APX
545
E N T E R
Flied 1U13008 Page 1 of 7
, .. - - - . - -
. .-
- .. . -. ..
. ,
?+c
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

E.L\STERNDISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------*-------------
NOT FOR PRINT OR

ELECTRONIC PtTSLIWION
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRt'NK,

Plaintiff,
-@pi~l~t-
08-CV-4289 ( A R R S B )
MEMORANDUM AND OWER
New York State Board of Elections, Lleputy Director TODD D. VALENTM, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN and L0RRAD-E A. CORTEZ-VAZQUEZ, Secretary of the State of New York, each in their official and individual
capacity,'
-------"----"-----------------------------ROSS, United States District Judge:
Defendants.
On October 20,2008, plaintiff ChristopherEa~l Strunk,2 appearingprose, commenced this
aetion pursuantto 42 U.S.C. $5 1983,1985,1988 and state law. He seeks a "restrainingorder and preliminary injunction"to prevent the general electio~ on November 4,2008 based on an allegedly
invalid slate of presidential electors. On October 22,2008, piairitiff filed a proposed "orderto show
cause." The court grants plaintiffs request to proceed infurma paw-ueris pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 3
1915(a) solely for the purpose ofthis order, As set forth helow, tbe complaint is dismissed and the
order to show cause is denied.
Plaintiff also names the New York State Attorney General, The United States Deptment of State and the United States Attorney General as "Parties-in-interest." Con$. at 1.
Plaintiff is no stranger to this Court, He has filed the folloowing actions:Strunk v. ynited States House of Rm., Ko. 99-CV-2168 (NG);Stntnk v. United States Dep't of Housing and Urban Dev., No. 99-CV-6840 @GI; Strunk v. United States House of Reu,, No. 00-CV-7177
(JBW); Strunk v. United States CIA,No. 08-CV-1196 (ARR); Strunk v. United Staks Pustal
No. 08-CV-1744 (ARR).
Case 1:08-cv-04289-ARR-LB Document 7
Filed 10!30/08
Page 2 of 7
Plaintiffchallengesthe2008New YorkPresidential E l e ~ t ~ College a l and questionswhether

Senator Obama can m for President of tbe United States. Specifically, plaintiffalleges that &New York State Board of Elections rBOE") has failed to provide him w i t h a list of the preside~tial elector list and that it is not available on the BOE's website? Compl. at 5. As a result, plaintiff
argues that the BUE has "infringed Strunk's ftrst amendment right to speech and association and
burden[s] t.lis expectation of effective participation in the gene& election." Compl. at 5,125.
Plaintiff alleges &at defendants Todd D. Valentine and Stanleym e n ,BOE deputy directors, failed
tc~ comply with various state eiections laws. Cornpi. at 6-9. Plaintiff specdates that defendant
Lomine Cortez-Vazquez, Secretary of the State of New York may use the Seal of New York
improperly. Compl. ~ct1 0 , Fiidly, plaintiff alleges that "defendants and their agents have
misapplied and misadministeredtheir duties by failure to obtain and ascertain p o f &at B m s k
Hussein Obama is a natud citizen, otherwise conimy to United States Article 2 Section 1 Clause
5." Compl. at f 0. P l a i n t i f fseeks (a) ''public notice of every certified Presidential elector slate on
the ballot," (b) an order strifring from the bdIot aoy certified elector with more than we public
position, (c) an order restraining use of t k state seal foiany elector holdingmore than one public
position, and fd) pofthat Senator Obamais a natural born citizen. Compl. at I I . On October 22,
2008, plaintiff filed an order to show cause seeking a preliminary injunction and tempomry
remiinin~ order. He seeks to prevent, inter dia, certain electors from appearing on the November
4,2008 ballot and the delivery of the Seal to the Mew York Governor after the election.
On October 20,2008,plaintiffreceived "a seven-page list ...ofthe certified Presidential Elector Slates of 'Candidates'...." Strtmk Affidavit at 2,T 5.
Document T Filed 10130108 Page 3 of 7
Standard of Review
In reviewing the complaint, the court is mindful that plaintiff is prowedingpro se and &at
his pleadings should be held 'to less stsingent standardsthat formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Hwhesv. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5,Y (1 980); see &soMcEachin v. McGuinnis, 357F.3d 197,200&d Cir.
2004) ("[when the plaintiff proceeds pro se ...a court is obliged to construe his pleadings liberally, particularly when %ey allege civil rights violations."(citation omitted)). However, pursuant to the
infmaprmperis statute, the court must dismiss a complai3t if it determines that the action is "{i)
frivolous or malicious, fii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune h r n such relief." 28 U.S.C. tj 1915(e)(2)@). A
ctaim is frivolous if its "factual contentions are cimly baseless, such as when diegations are the
product of delusion or fantasy," or if it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory" -that is,
when it lacks an arguable basis in law ...or [when] a dispositive defense ckariy exists on the face
of the complaint." Livin~ston v. Adirondack Bev. CO., 141 F.3d 434,437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotationsomitted).
Biseussion
A. Standing
Under Article IIl of the Corrstitution, fedesal courts have jurisdiction o d y over "cses" and "controversies." U.S. Const., art. I l I , 8 2; Allen v. Wrieht, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984); Warth v.
t j @ &
422 U.S. 490,498 (1975);Jaehow v. Xew YorkState D e ~ tofEduc., . 131 F.3d 326,329-330
(2d Cir, 19 9 7 ) . Standing"is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement
of Article 1 1 1 . " Luian v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).Standing requires that
(i) plaintiff have suffered an injury in facf (ii) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (iii) likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
APX
550
Case 1:08-cv-04289-ARR-if3 Document 7
Filed 10/30/08 Page 4 of 7
&at 560-61; see also Lee v, B o a r d of Governorsof theFed. Reserve Svstem, 1 18 F.3d 905: 910 (2d
C i . 1997).
Moreover, the Supreme Court has "consistently held that a pIaintiff raising ody a generally available grievance about government - claiming only harm to his and every citizen's i n t e r e s t in
proper application of the Constitutionand laws, md seeking relief that no more directlyand tangibly
benefits him than it does the public at large - does not create an Article III case or controversy."
504 U.S. at 573-75 (citing cases]; see also Lance v. Coffinan, 127 S.Ct. 1194,1198 (2007)
(dismissing Elections Clause challmp for lack of standing as plaintiffs sfated a "generalized
grievanceaboutthe conduct of govenunent."). Here, plaintiff seeks to challenge the New York State
slate of presidential electors based on the alleged violation of state constitutional law; he has not
sufficiently alleged an injury in fact, but rather a generalized grievance. As such. it is plain on the
face of the complaint that there is no actual "case" or "controversy"and therefore plaintiff lacks
standing to bring this lawsuit:
B. Failure to State A Claim Even ifplaintlff did have standing to bring this action, the complaint fails to state a claim
since the crux of his complaint is that defendants
allegedfy violated the State of New York's

Compl, at 6-10. A
Coastitutirm in allowkg some electors to hold more than one public ofice,
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 5 1983requires plaintiff to establishthat the challenged conduct
was committed by persons acting under color of state law and that it deprived plaintiff of rights, privilegesor immunitiessecured by the C o ~ t i o n olaws r ofthe United States. Pitchdl v. Callan,
Plaintiff's prior challenge, on a different theory, to New York's method of seIecting Strunk v. United States House of Rev., No. OO-CVpresidential electors w a s unsuccessM. 7177 (JBW),&& 24 Fed. Appx. 21 (2d Cir. Nov. 8,2001).
APX
551
Case 1 :08-cv-04289-ARR-LB Document 7
Filed $0130108 Page 5 of 7
"Section 1983 'is not itselfa source of a substantiverights,' but merely provides 'a method
for vindication offederd rights elsewhereconferred.'"Albriht v. Oliver, 5 10 U.S. 266,271 (1 994)
{citation o m i t t e d ) ;Svkes v. James, 13 F.Sd 5 15,519 (2d Cir. f 993) (citation omitted}(%e plaintiff
must show that the defendant's conduct deprived him of a federal right.". Thus, "[qhe first step in
any such claim is to identify the specific constitutional.right allegedly irdkged." Nbri&t. 5 10U.S. at 271 (citation omitted). Here, plaintiffs complaint relia on the purported rnisappIicationofNew
York State's Constitutionand not on any violation of federal law. Plaintiff's conclusory citation
to the First hendment in unavailing and insufficient.

S i d a r l y , plaiatiff fails to show how defendants violated the conspiracy statute pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5 1985.For exampie, $1985 generally prohibitsconspiracies to interfere with civil rights.
Section 1985(1) prohibits conspiracies to prevent federal o&ids from performing their duties.
Weiss v. Feicrenbatun, 558 F.Supp. 265, 272 (E.D.N.Y. 1982). Section 1985(2) prrrhibits
conspiracies aimed at deterring witnesses &om participating in either federal or state judicial
proceedings.
Chahal v. Paine Webber he., 725 F.2d 20,23 (2d Cir.1934). Section 1985(3) n or class of persons of equal protectionof the laws, or
prohibits conspiraciesto deprive "any p
of equal privilegesand immunitiesunder the laws ... wbercby a person is either injured in his person or proper@or hprived of any right of a citizen of the United States."B r o w n 221 F.3d 3241,341 f2d Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). Here, plaintiff provides no f m s to supprt a
conspiracy under any of the &orementioned sections.'
U.S.G.4 1988@), the court "in irs discretion, may allow the prevailing party ...a reasonable
As plaintiffhas not retained an attorney, 5 1988 is inapplicable to this case. Under 42
attorney's fee as part of the costs." See e.G LaRouche v. Kezer, 20 F.3d 68,71 (2d Cir. 1994); Connfitvencut,208 F.Supp.2d 263,270 (D.Conn,2002).
5
APX
552
Case 1.08-cv-04289-ARR-LB Document 7
Filed T0130/08 Page 6of 7
F i l y , the Supreme Court has observed that a ' W i g of factual frivolousness is appropriate when thefacts alleged rise to the level of the W o n d or the wholly incredible, whether
or not there are judicially noticeable facts availableto contradid t h e m . " Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25,33 ( I 992); Shoemakerv. U.S. Dw't of JusticeJ164F.3d 619 (2d C i . 1998).Here, plaintiff
makes the following allegations:

The foot dragging going on there is quite remarkable, and appears more Eke ii snipe hunt to k w &e attention off of theobvious - was Barrack HUSS&I Obama born in Ha%?aii at all?; and other than the appearance of fast slight ofhand inthe then new created fiftieth state being easier to accomplish there t h a n in New Pork, which &om persond experience it is very possible to fwI around wit! any birth record in New Yo& and do it below the radar of public policy.
That Bishop John Carmil buiit Georgetown University with slave trade biood money, without any apology mind you, so that seamiessly the Jesuits uniil this day control the politics of davery and use it to fashion their liberationtheologyInewage ecumenism,andherdexTents in thc election cycle with the purpose to eruicfa ventures on the continent of M c a south of the equator under the control of the Sovereign Military Order o f Malta (SMDM) and Rome. Some months ago I discovered that Democratic Party Candidate B m c k Hussein Obama is a 32 level Freeman,which in Masonic parlance means that he is eligible to become a Shrifierand able to rub shoulderswith the movers and shakers of America, including George H.W. Bush and notable membersofthe SMOM w i t h all the symbotic md actual advantagesassociared with that fact.
St&
Affi&ndatffTl26,33-34. A k eonsfruingplaintiff s pleadings liberally and interpretingthem
as raising the strongest arguments they suggest, Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241,248 (2d Cir. 2006),
the court finds that pottions of plaintiff's affidavit rise to the level of the irrational6
In prior cases, the court has determined that portions of plainties complaints have Stntnk v. U n i t e d States CIA, No. 08contained allegationsthat have risen to the inaticmai.
Document 7 Filed 10/30/08 Page 7 of 7
Condusion
Accordingly, the complaint,filed infomapauperis,is dismissedfor lack of sanding,failure

to state a claim and as Evolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 4 1915(e)(2)@); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12fh)(3).
Therefore,the court denies plaintiffs order to show came seeking a preliminary injunction and a
temporary restrcdng order. To the extent plaintiff raises s t a t e law claims, those claims are
dismissed without prejudice. The c o w certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. fj1915(a)I3) that any appeal
from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore informapatfperkstatus is denied for
the purpose of an appeal. Cov~edge v. United States, 369 U.S. 43%

SO ORDERED.
-45 (1962). A
'-- Dared: Ekooklyn, New York October 28,2008
AllyneR. &ss
-.
United States District Judge
CV-I196(ARR), slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26,2008); Stnrnk Y. United States Postal Svce, No. OXCV-1744(ARR), slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Shy 9,2008).
APX - 554
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COLmTY OF KINGS
Index No.:6500-1 I
CHRESTOPHER-Earn: STRUNK,
Plaintiff,
NEW Y O X STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et. a1
NOTICE OF MOTLON TO DISMISS WXTB SUPPORTING AFFIRMATION AND EXHfSITS
HARRIS BEACH PLLC Attorneys f o Barack ~ Obama, Joseph R. Biden Jr., O b a mfor America and Obama VicfoyFund The OMNT 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553 Tel.: (516) 880-8484 Fax:(516) 880-8483
PLEASE TAKE NU T E E
Notice of
that the within a a (cer~@ei$true crjm, of a entered in the oflee ofthe clerk qf the within nmzed Court on
Entry
Notice of Settlement Daed:
rhatan O &
at
ojwkich the within i s a true corn will bepresentedfor settlement zo the Honorable , one of the judges of the hevifhiPa named Court, on 2010. at m.
Stnrnk v. NYS BOE et al. NYS Sup. Ct. Cty of Kings Index No.: 6500-2011
Exhibit 5
APX
556
corn
SUPREME COURT OF OP KIhlCS
TEE
STATH: OF
NEW YDFX
CHRLSMPHER EARL STRUNK,
2 Index Mo. 6500/112 n

funassignedf
ry
aN w
Plaintiff, -agaf nst
~2
17=
kh;
~~ WARD OF
&LECTIONS,
Defendants.
NEW
YORK
et al.,
-*-----------*-----*--------------------
IT PS
STIPUliATBD Z&D AGREED, by and between the
undersigned, that t h e tims Lor any State defendant and any C i t y
of New York defendant to respond to the complaint in this

actLon, dated March 22, 2011,
be and the same her-
is extended
to June 15, 2011, and it fa further

ST1PULAT3D AND AGREED that Chis stipulation m y be ~xecuted
in faceimtle, or hy electronic means, and in cinxnterparts.

Dated:
New York, New York April 2 7 , 2011
BBIC-T. SCHNEIDERMKU
m e i s t a m Attorney General Special Lltfgation Counsel

~iti~atim 3iirebu l 120 Broadway - 24" Floor New York, NY 10271-0332 (212) 416-8645 lrAX (212) 416-6009 Joel .Grabensag .ny.gov
MICHAEL CARD020 CorporaLLon Counsel o f the C i t y of New 'fork By :
Assistant Corporation C a m s e l New York C i t y Law Department 100 Church St. New York, NY I O O D 7
(212) 788-0904
Dated:
A Brooklyn, p r i ~ New ~ 2 York 0 1 1
*&
coreXanct@law.nyc.gov
.
'aiRISTOPAER EARI, STRUNK Plaintiff P r v r So 593 Vanderbilt Ave., # 281 Brooklyn, NY 11338 (845) 901-6767
Strurk Y. NYS BOE et al. NYS Sup. Ct. Cty of Kings Index No.: 6500-2011
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION for TBANSFER CONSOLIDATION and NEW RETURN DATE
Exhibit 6
Hon. ARTHUR M. SCHACK JSC PRESIDING JUSTICE

KINGS COUNTY SUPREME COURT 360 Adams Street Brooklyn, NY 1120 1 RULES OF CIVIL TERM PART 27 EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,2009 Chambers: Room 478
Law Clerk: Ronald D. Bratt
Secretary: Barbara Guida TEL. (347) 296-1518 , FAX. (2 12) 884-8996 Courtroom: Room 479 Part Clerk: Steven M.Goodman Officer: Carlos Negron
TEL. (347) 296-1648
INQUIRIES
All inquiries as to case or calendar status should, in the first instance, be made to the IAS Trial Term Track Coordinator at (347) 296-1968. The only inquiries to be made directly to Chambers or the Part should be those involving the exercise of judicial discretion.
MOTIONS
1. All motions, including orders to show cause, are returnable every Friday at 9:45 a.m. Motions for the period January through June, 2009 will be heard on January 9, 16, 23 and 30; February 6, 13, 20 and 27; March 6, 13, 20 and 27; April 3, 17 and 24; May 1, 8 and 15; June 5, 12, 19 and 26, 2009. All motions require appearances and oral argument.
2. There will be two (2) calendar calls on motion days. First call of the motion calendar will be at 9:45 a.m. Second call will be at 10:30 a.m.
3. Upon the first call of the motion calendar, any matter upon which the movant answers the call and the opposing party does not, and for which no written opposition has been submitted, will be marked second call.
4. Anyone failing to answer the second call of the calendar will have their motion marked off, if they are the movant, or the motion will be granted upon default as against the opposing party who fails to answer the calendar call. 5. In order to adjourn any matter on the motion calendar, the part requires: (1) a stipulation pre-approved as to adjourn date by the court, signed by all sides and marked 6nal; or (2) an attorney must appear and make a formal application for an adjournment.
6. There will be no adjournments of motions which have appeared on the motion calendar two (2) previous times. If a stipulation is submitted for a matter that has already been adjourned twice, and the parties do not answer the call of the calendar, the matter will be marked off. 7. There will be no adjournments of motions related to discovery. If a stipulation is submitted for a motion related to discovery, and the parties do not answer the call of the calendar, the motion will be marked off. 8. Filing of motion and cross motions is governed by the Uniform Civil Term Rules. Pursuant to those rules, NO MOTIONS OR CROSS MOTIONS ARE TO
BE SENT TO CHAMBERS NOR WILL MOTIONS OR CROSS MOTIONS BE ACCEPTED IN THE PART ON MOTION DAYS. NO COURTESY COPIES OF MOTIONS, CROSS MOTIONS OR MEMOS OF LAW ARE TO BE FILED WITH CHAMBERS.
9. No affirmations or affidavits in opposition can be served on the motion day. All parties must comply with CPLR Rule 2214 for service of motion papers.
10. Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rule 13 is strictly enforced.
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE
At this conference counsel should be prepared:
A.
To alert the Court as to all anticipated disputed issues of law and fact, and provide the Court with citations to all statutory and common law authority upon which coullsel will rely. To stipulate to undisputed facts and the admissibility of clearly admissible documents and records. To alert the Court to any anticipated in Zimine motions or evidentiary objections which counsel believes will be made during the course of the trial. To provide the Court with a copy of all prior decisions and orders which may be relevant to said in Zimine applications. To discuss scheduling as well as the number of witnesses to be called at trial, and the estimated length of the trial. To alert the Court as to any anticipated problems regarding the attendance at trial of parties, attorneys or essential witnesses, and any other practical problems which the Court should consider in scheduling.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
APX
562
w--
G.
To alert the Court to any anticipated requests for a jury instruction relating to missing witnesses andlor documents. To alert the Court to any anticipated request for apportionment as to alleged culpable nonparties pursuant to CPLR Article 16.
H.
RULES FOR TNAL COUNSEL

1. Be Prepared: Prior to jury selection, counsel is cautioned to ascertain the availability of all witnesses and subpoenaed documents. Plaintiffs counsel shall requisition the file to the Courtroom as soon as possible after assignment of the case to this part. If you have non-English speaking witnesses, or any other special needs, e.g. easels, blackboards, shadow boxes, television, subpoenaed material, etc., it is your responsibility to notiij the Court Officer, advance, so as not to delay the progress of the trial.
2. Marked Pleadings Plus: Plaintiffs counsel shall furnish the Court with copies of: A. B.
Marked pleadings as required by CPLR 4012; A copy of any statutory provisions in effect at the time the cause of action arose upon which either the plaintiff or defendant relies; The bill(s) of particulars; All expert reports relevant to the issues; If any part of a deposition is to be read into evidence (as distinguished from mere use on cross-examination) you must, well in advance, provide the Court and your adversary with the page and line number of all such testimony so that all objections can be addressed w r to use before the jury.
C. D. E.
3. Pre-Marked Exlbits: All trial exhibits should be pre-marked for identification, and copies of a list of exhibits must be given to the Court before the trial actually begins. Failure to comply with this rule may result in sanctions, which may include an order precluding the offering of such exhibits at trial. See, Davis Eckert v State
o f New York, 70 NY2d 632 (1987).
No Communication with Jurors: In order to maintain the appearance of total impartiality, once the jury has been selected no one is to communicate in any form This includes both verbal and non-verbal at any time with any communication, including, without limitation, nods, shrugs and shaking the head. Do not even say "hello" or "good morning".
4.
m.
5. Check-In: At the start of each day on trial, check in with the clerk of the Court and or the Court Officer so that (s)he will be aware of your presence.
6. T n ~ b r e c t l o l l Ifsa lawyer wishes to make an objection, it g- a can be accomplished by standing and saying the word, "objection",
g s
such as "hearsav," '"oolstering," "leading," " . d n aor -'' If you believe further argument is required, ask permission to approach the bench. This request will almost always be granted. Keep in mind that you will always be given the opportunity to make a full record.
7. Courtroom,Comments and Demeanor: All remarks should be directed to the Court. Comments should be made to opposing counsel. Personal remarks, including name-calling and insults, to or about opposing counsel will not be tolerated. Remember do not try to "talk over" each other; only one person speaks at a time or the record of the proceeding will be incomprehensible. Simple requests (e.g., a request for a document or an exhibit), should be accomplished in a manner which does not disrupt the proceedings or your adversary. If you require a significant discussion with your adversary, such as a possible stipulation, ask for permission to approach the bench. I will grant that request, and you will have a chance to talk to each other outside the presence of the jury. In addition, no grandstanding in the presence of the jury, i.e., making demands, offers or statements that should properly be made outside the presence of the jury.
8. Use Of Pro~osed Exhibits: Do not show anything, including an exhibit or proposed exhibit to a witness without first showing it to opposing counsel. If this procedure is claimed to compromise trial strategy, a pre offer ruling outside the presence of the jury should be first obtained.
9. Examination of Witnesses: Do not approach a witness without permission of the Court. Please allow the witness to complete hislher answer to your question before asking another question. Do not interrupt the witness in the middle of an answer, unless it's totally un-responsive in which event you should seek a ruling from the Court. Direct examination, cross, redirect and re-cross are permitted. However, the Court does not ordinarily permit =-redirect examination of a witness.
APX
564
10. J u w t At the commencement of the trial all counsel shall submit suggested jury charges and a suggested verdict questionnaire. Amendments thereto shall be permitted at the final charging conference. If counsel relies on a Pattern Jury Instruction [PJI] without any change thereto, it should be referred to by PJI number and topic only. If any changes to the PJI are suggested, then the entire proposed charge should be set forth and the changes should be highlighted or otherwise called to the Court's attention. Citations to appropriate statutory or common law authority shall be given in support of suggested non-PJI jury charges or suggested PJI modifications. In addition, unless a marshaling of the evidence is waived, Counsel should, at the r i a l charging conference, provide the Court with the proposed facts which counsel believes should be marshaled by the Court; and the respective contentions of the parties.
Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYS Sup. Ct. Cty of Kings Index No.: 6500-201 1
AFFTDAVIT I N SUPPORT OF THE NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION for TRANSFER CONSOLmA'ITON and NEW RETURN DATE
Exhibit 7
APX
566
APX
-
567
/
Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYS Sup. Ct. Cty of Kings Index No.: 6500-2011
AFFIDAVIT I N SUPPORT OF THE NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION for TRANSFER CONSOLIDATION and NEW RETURN DATE
Exhibit 8
APX
568
05/12/2011 10:34 FitX 17184911624

I
STAPLES
%&*bt*$*?*+8?88**8*8
a001
*s+
xrr
TX KEPORT
P*S**0*$*P**I***SIO8t
NO
3450
CONNeePION TBL
smmms
12126446755
CONNECTION ID ST. TIBE USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT
D5/lf l0:39 00'33 9
OK
hdex No.:65tlG~2011 ---^___--__-_.------_-.~--..._*.-,.--_<-_.---_.__-I--.*~--.-----^----.-X
SUPREME' COURT OF ?'HE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS
NEW YOItK STATE BOAR11 OF E1,ECTIONY et al.,
FACSMLE
FROM: Chistopher-Ed: Strurtk in esse
PIaintrtTseif--resmfed w,howt an atfomey 593 Vr;t?derbiftAvenue #25 I Brooklyn.New Yo& 1 1238 (545) 001 -67167; Email chns@,strunk.ws
--
T C ) :
RITA (:. TQHIN, b q . 375 Park Avenue 3sm Floor New York. New York 10 152-3500 Ph.( 2 12) 1 19-7 12%Fax- 1212) 644-6755
ATTACH ED:
APX
569
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KlNGS

d----------..-..---.--..--..----m-m-.-..---.--..--b.------------x
Index N o . : 6500-2011
won. ARTHUR M. SSCIACK J.S.C.)
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in ewe,

Plaintiff,
NEW YORR STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al.,

Defendants. .-.--*.---.--. ' . " . , * . . . . . * . * . . . x
FACSfMILE
F&ONI: Christopher-Earl: Stnmk in esse Plaintiff self-representedwithout an aftorney 593 Vaaderbilt Awnue #28I Brooklyn New Yo& 1 1238 (845) 901-676%b i t : CW&W.WS
TO:
RITA C TOBIN, Esq. 375 Park Avenue 35* Floor New York New York 10152-3500
Fh: (212) 319-7125, Fax: (212) 644-6755
ATTACHED:
One page - Stipdation for extension
WSTRumONS:
If agreed please return a signedcopy by PDF attachment to
chri&&trunb..ws and with the unders-&g
that when received f>laint%
will prepare a bIuebsEkfor immediate filing with the clerk ofthe murt.
APX
570
SWREXME COURT OF THE STATE OF NJ3W PORK COUNTY OF KINGS
. . . . . . . . * . ' . . ' . ' . . . . . . . . x

Christopher-Earl:S t &
in esse,
Index Ne.: 6500-2011

W n . ARTHUR M.SCHACK J.S.C.)
Plaintiff,

Defendants. --.*v--------.---.'-.-.Cf-------.-,---ItT IS REReBY ST-ATED
SPIZWMl"ION
OF ElITEN5ION
sUW AGREED, by and between theundersigned, that
the time for the Plaintiff in tfds action, with Complaint died March 22,201 I, to respond to the
Notice o f Motion for Admission Pro %c Vice of Atfomy Todd E. Willips affirmedMay 4,
201 1 and Defendants McCain Victory 2008, McCain-Palin Victory 2008 and John S, McCain's
Notice ofMotion to Dismiss the Complaint a h c d May2,2011 and both w i t h the return date
on Thmday, June 2,201 1, is extended to F d a y , June 3,2011, at 9:45 a.m. i n Part 27,
Courtroom 479 of 360 Adams Street Bmokly~~, NY 11201 according to Chamher's d m .
STIPULATED AND AGREED that this stipuIaiiamay be e x W in facsimile, or by
electronic means and in counterpartsDated: Bmklyn, New Yak ~ a ~ / & 201 1
Christopher-Earl: S.hunk in esse lai in tiff self-represented without an attorney 593 Vanderbiit Avenue - #281 Brooklyn. New Yo& 1 1238 (845) 901-6767; Emit: cbris@stnmkws
Dated: New York New York

May ,201
1
RITA C. TOBIN. Esa.
New York. New Yo& 10152-3500 Ph: (212) 319-7125, FX (212) 644-6755
Attorney for Defendants McCain Victory 2008, McCain-Pafin Victory 2008 and Jobn S, McCain
1--.-----.-*--..-.--..--..*.....-.....----..---------.-----*.-----.----x
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YO= COUNTY OF XINGS
Index N o . :6500-2011
(Hun, ARTHUR M.SCHACK J.S.C.)
Christopher-EarkStrunk in esse,
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al., Defendants.
STIpULATiON OF EXTENSION
F A C S W E COVERSHEETS
Dated: Brooklyn, New York May , 20% 1
Christopher-Eart Strunk i n esse Plaktiff se9f-represWed without an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - $281 Brooklyn. New York 1 1238
(845) 901-6767; Email: chris-.ws
Strunk v. NYSBOE et al. NYS Sup. Ct Cty of Kings Index No.: 6500-2011 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION for TRANSFER CONSOLIDATION and NEW RETURN DATE
Exhibit 9
APX
- 573
In The Supreme Court of the United States

IN RE CHRJSTOPHER EARL STRUNK. IN ESSE
PETITIONER WITH SCOTUS RUU3 20 FOR

AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF PROHIBITION
WITH QUO WARRANTO INQUEST
OF CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS Jr., DE FACTO JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN, DE FACTO JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, DE FACTO SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES NEAL KATYAL AND DE FACTO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ERIC HOLDER, IN THE ABSENCE OF VOLUNTARY RECUSAL FROM HEARING THE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN SCOWS NO. 10-1170, AND OR THAT EACH IS
CHALLENGED IN QUO WARRANTO TO PROVIDE PROOF OF AUTHORITY TO SERVE BY THE VOID AB INITIO ACTS OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA I1 RATHER THAN JOSEPH R. BIDEN WHO MUST SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE.
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Petitioner wlo being a n attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 Cell-845-901 -6767 ; chris@strunk.ws
Respondents
John-Joseph: Forjone in esse H. William Van Allen in esse C/O 351 North Avenue Hurley, New York 12231 Chief Justice John G. Roberts De facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor De facto Justice Elena Kagan a t One First Street NE, Washington, DC 20543. Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Associate Justice Clarence Thomas Associate Justice Antonin Scalia Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at One First Street NE, Washington, DC 20543. Barack Hussein Obama I1 at The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington D.C. 20500 Joseph R. Biden Jr. at The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington D.C. 20500 De facto Attorney General Eric Holder U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530
Ronald C. Machen Jr. De facto U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C. United States Attorney's Office 555 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 De facto Solicitor General Neal Katyal Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Solicitor General of the United States Room 5614 Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530-0001 Solicitor General of the State of N.Y. Office of Attorney General of New York The Capitol Albany, New York 12224-0341 James E. Long, Esq. Bar Roll No. 506898 668 Central Avenue Albany, New York 12206 Congressman Ron Paul The U.S. House of Representatives 160 D Street NE Washington D.C. 20002
Table of Contents Page

Petitioner's Affidavit in support of relief
1 ................................................................
Respondents Concurring Declaration in support of relief
..................................... 13
A Writ of Prohibition with Quo warranto inquest of Chief Justice John Roberts, de
facto Justice Elena Kagan, de facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor, de facto Solicitor General of the United States Neal Katyal, de facto Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder, and de facto U.S. Attorney for Washington District of Columbia Ronald C. Machen Jr. in the absence of voluntary recusal from hearing the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in SCOTUS No. 10-1170.
SCOTUS Rules:
SCOTUS Rule 20. Procedure on a Petition for a n Extraordinary Writ SCOTUS Rule 332.: For petitions with 8.5 inch by 1 1inch paper format
Cases:
McCreerv's Lessee v Somerville 22 US 354 (1824). ........................................... .2

1 Duncan v . Louisiana, 391 US 145 (1968)........................................................1
United States v . Balistrierx 779 F.2d 1191, 1199 (7th Cir. 1985) Libertv Lobb-v,Inc. v. DowJones Co., 838 F.2d 1287, 1301 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (citing cases) .....................
Morton v. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886). ............................... Perlstein v. Walk,Ill S.Ct., February 17, 2006
Ineligibility of officer is insufficient ground for refusal to administer the oath. People v. Dean, 3 Wend. ( 3 I . Y . ) 438
APX
-
576
Failure due to another, where failure to take the oath within the time prescribed is due to the refusal of the officer designated to administer it the office does not become vacant. State v. &a&, 20 Or. 28,23 Pac. 663. Oath does not confer office. A candidate without even a prima facie right to municipal office cannot give himself the right to the office by taking the oath. Walker E Quillian, 118 Ga. 152, 44 S.E. 987. Path-failure to take oath within prescribed time renders office vacant. D o u ~ l a s v . Essex Go., 38 N.J. L. 214: Branham v. Long, 78 Va. 352; People v. McKinnev, 52 N.Y. 374. A person elected to office... who failed to take the oath prescribed by statute, never obtained title to the office. Hay& v. Benaer, 67 N.J.L. 359, 52 Atl. 351.
statutes:
28 U.S.C.5 1Number of justices; quorum. The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a q u o m .
28 USC $144 Bias or prejudice of judge. 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.
28 U.S.C.5 453. Oaths of justices and judges, Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: '2: X X Y Z do solemnly swear (or a&m) that I wilI administerjustice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and thatI wiU
faithfuIIy and impartially d j c h s g e andperform all the duties incumbent upon me as X X X under the Constitution and laws of the U n i t e d States. So help me God."
28 USC 5455 (a)Any justice ... 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; (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.. .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; (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.
28 U . S . C .5 459. Administration of oaths and acknowledgments. Each justice or judge of the United States may administer oaths and a&mations and take acknowledgments.
28 U.S.C. 1651. Writs (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law..
Washington DC Code Chapter 35 Title 16 W o n 3503 Refusal of Attorney General

or United States attorney to act: If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502as to security for costs.................... 4,5,12
United States Constitution
U.S. Constitution Article I1 Section 1Clause 5...............................................2,3,5 U.S. Constitution Article VII Twenty-fifth Amendment Section 4 (1967).. .........6 2
New York State Constitution
New York State Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 2 Section 2...............................
Exhibit One annexed: May 20, 2009 CES Letter to Washington DC US Attorney Jeffery Taylor May 20,2009 with attachment: CES v BHO Verified Quo Warranto Complaint May 19,2009; CES Fires BHO January 22,2009; Proof of Service of January 23,2009 of CES Firing of BHO; Proof of Service of Letter w/ attachments to Jeffery Taylor US Attorney et al. Exhibit Two annexed:August 26,2009 Letter from BHO to CES Exhibit Three annexed: March 22,201 1 filing; Strunk v NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Cty Kings
lndex 6500-201 1
Exhibit Four annexed: Affidavit of Service of BHO and Biden with Strunk v NYS BOE W N Y S S C Cty Kings Index 6500-201 1
v
APX
578
Questions Presented:
1. Does Chief Justice John G. Roberts have a conflict of interest and not hear
SCOTUS 10-1170,must show cause why he is not a material witness to the scheme to defraud by BHO et al, filed in New York State Supreme Court in Strunk v . NYS BOE et al, in the County of Kings Index No. 6500-2011?
2. Does de facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor have a conflict of interest must not hear
SCOTUS 10-1170,must show cause why she is not a material witness to the scheme to defraud by BHO et al. fiIed in New York State Supreme Court in Strunk v. NYS BOEet al. in the County of Kings Index No. 6500-2011? 3. Were Barack Hussein Obama I1 (BHO) acts Void ab initio because BHO is ineligible for P O W S in conflict with U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1Clause
5 as BHO's birth where ever that may have been on August 4,1961 is to natural
father who is a British subject on a student visa married to Stanley Ann Obama? 4. Are de facto officers appointed by BHO to show cause why they may serve without a conflict of interest with Affirmant and SCOWS No. 10-1170?
5, Must BHO in a Quo Warranto proceeding show cause why he has authority as
POTUS rather than Joseph R. Biden Jr. under the 25th Amendment Section 4?
6. Should de facto Justice Sotomayor show cause why having heard seven cases
while in the Second Circuit she should not recuse for hearing SCOTUS 10-1170'?
7. Would legal malpractice issue as to Chief Justice Roberts, de facto Justices
Kagan, Sotomayor, Defacto Solicitor, Attorney General and U.S. Attorney would issue if any were to proceed as to the Writ of Certiorari SCOTUS No. 10-1170?
To the Honorable Associate Justices: Stephen G. Breyer; Samuel A. Alito; Clarence Thomas;Antonin Scalia; Anthony Kennedy; and Ruth Bader Ginsburg supervising
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
IN RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK IN ESSE
PETITIONER WITH S C O W S RULE 20 FOR

WITH QUO WARRANT0 INQUEST

STATE OF NEW YORE
COT3NTY OF KINGS
) ) ss. )
I. Affirmant is a petitioner for Writ of Certiorari signed March 9, 2011 by H.
William Van Allen, John-Joseph Forjone, Christopher-Earl Strunk and presents this affidavit a s a certificate of good faith within the intent and meaning of 28 USC
144 and 28 USC 455(a) 28 USC $1651 for the recusal of Chief Justice John Roberts,
and de facto Justice Elena Kagan and de facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor as well a s the de facto U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, de facto Attorney General Eric Holder de facto U.S. Attorney for Washington District of Columbia Ronald C. Machen Jr. from participation except a s respondent parties-in-interest i n a n inquest hearing and or i n the SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Certiorari No. 10-1170 a s a matter of personal bias in a n extra judicial forum of impropriety in a matter that
AFFIDAVIT - In Re: Christopher-Earl: Strunk Petition Page 1 of 12
APX
580
may appear before each in the matter of the questionable eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama I1 to serve as POTUS and of Chief Justice Roberts aiding and abetting the usurpation of the POTUS office along with those similarly situated since January 20,2009 as a material witness.
2. Respondent John Glover Roberts, Jr. is the 17th and current Chief Justice of
the United States (Chief Justice Roberts). He has served since 2005, having been nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist. 3. Respondent Barack Hussein Obama I1 (Respondent Obama) was the 2008 Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States (F'OTUS) without being eligible under U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, as his natural father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was a British Subject with a student Visa at the birth August 4, 1961 by his minor aged U.S. Citizen mother Stanley Ann Obama, and as such according to the SCOWS opinion in McCreerv's Leesee vSomerv5"Ie22
US 354 (1824) that explains the difference between a Natural-born and Native-born
U.S. Citizen as is to be applied with U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, Barack Hussein Obama and all the names he uses is not a Natural-born citizen and by his own allegation only a native born-citizen therefore is not eligible to POTUS.
4. That Respondent Chief Justice Roberts before administering the oath of office
for POTUS on Jahuary 20, 2009, met with the Associate Justices of the SCOTUS, presumably to discuss the pending oath taken by a person ineligible for POTUS.
5. That Respondent Obama being ineligible illegally took the oath of office after
Noon on January 20, 2009 at 12:05 pm, and failed to timely take the Oath of office
Affidavit in re: Christopher-Earl: Strunk Petition Page 2 of 12
as administered by Respondent Chief Justice Roberts.

6 . The Oath mandated by the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 8
was botched in its delivery by Respondent Chief Justice Roberts who said the oath incorrectly, while Respondent Obama paused and gave Chief Justice Roberts an opportunity to correct it. The Chief Justice Roberts said it wrong a second time, in another way. Then Respondent Obama repeated the incorrect first version of the oath; and because the oath was incorrect, the next day, at 7:35 pm in every report Affirmant could find, Respondent Obama and Respondent Chief Judge Roberts repeated the oath in private on January 21, in the White House Map room.
7. That Mirmant Petitioner is the only person in the United States of America
(USA) to have duly firedEredfiredBH0 on January 23,2009 (see Exhibit 1)served

by registered mail; thereby rendering BHO the USmPER to the POTUS; and as Petitioner is now entitled to characterize BHO as. 8. That Respondent Obama was fired on the grounds that he had admitted that he was not eligible for POTUS by the admission that his natural father is a British Subject on a student visa, making BHO a Native-born citizen a t best if born within the full and complete jurisdiction of the USA, we do not know; and therefore, BHO is ineligible to be the administrator 1 trustee of Plaintiffs private account a t the
U.S. Treasury as required by U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1Clause 5, that as
Article I1 Section 1 Clause 8. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: - "Ido solemnly swear (or afirm) that I winfaithfully execute the Ofice ofPresident of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
APX
582
a Replevin matter pending to be resolved in the District of Columbia along with all
BHO's acts as the Usurper from January 20,2009 heretofore are void ah initio (2).
9. That May 20, 2009 Mirmant provided due notice to then U.S. Attorney
Jeffkey Taylor for Washington D.C. and present de facto Attorney General Eric Holder, shown in Exhibit 1; and that Respondents Holder and BHO forced the de jure U.S. Attorney of Washington DC to resign in order for the Usurper to replace that U.S. Attorney Office with the present de facto U.S. Attorney for Washington District of Columbia Ronald C. Machen, Jr.,; and together Respondents Holder, Machen and Katyal act in concert for the Usurper without responding to Affirmant's application for a Quo Warranto inquest with DC Code Chapter 35 Title 16 Section 3502.
10.That Affirmant is the interested person required with DCC Chapter 35 516-
3503: meets the condition (2) that the Usurper's demurer Letter of August 2009 (see
Exhibit 2), in which Respondent Obama pleads the special general issue of
separation ofpowers doctrine; and that as a matter of law did not deny the facts
presented in the petition shown as Exhibit 1, and in that Affirmant - fired the Usurper on January 22, 2009, making his dual allegiance issue at birth with a
Ab Initio - prep. Latin phrase meaning "from the start"; literal meaning being something done 'from scratch'. In legal parlance it stands from: 1.) if any legal agreement is void ab initio then it stands null and void from the very beginning of its intended existence and not just from the instant its declared as void. 2.) if a person enters onto someone's private property (real estate) by authority of law but later maltreats that authority then he becomes a trespasser ah initio.
2
APX
583
majority age British subject father on a student visa an undisputed fact, and as a matter of law is not eligible for the Office of President contrary to U.S. Constitution Article I1 Section 1 Clause 5, a copy of the Petition Memorandum annexed; meets the condition (3) the law requires a declaratory judgment as to the finding on those facts only absent further discovery; and (4) that Affirmant with DCC Chapter 35 $16-3544is ready for the inquest and Affirmant waives a jury for a bench trial.
1 1 . That Respondent Obama's appointments of Respondents: Eric Holder, Elena
Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Neal Katyal Ronald C. Machen Jr. among others are a nullity and void ab initio. 12. Affirmant has a duty to make this petition to protect a judicial right against any waiver that may without application accrue; and that Affirmant has a direct injury ongoing here in Brooklyn New York involving de facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor as a
2nd
Circuit Judge that from no later than 2004 since January 20,
2009 with Chief Justice John Roberts and Sotomayor are material witnesses to the Complaint filed by AfFirmant in New York State Supreme Court in the County of Kings with Index No. 6500-2011in the matter of a scheme to defraud Plaintiff along with those similarly situated as voters in New York state fded on March 22 2011 (see copy of blue back page Ftxhibit 3); and duly served upon Respondents Obama and Biden on Thursday, March 31 2011, by a third party server whose affidavit is herewith (see Exhibit 4), and as with the questionable appointment of de facto Justice Elena Kagan is sufficient cause for their consideration with 28 USC 5144 and $455 to recuse from hearing the SCOTlTS petition No, 10-1170, and in which
Affirmant is a petitioner therein also being effected and must be excluded from hearing the matter of a writ of prohibition with quo warranto inquest too.
13. That Respondents Chief Justice Roberts, de facto Justices Kagan and
Sotomayor, as well a s the de facto U.S. Attorney for Washington DC, de facto Attorney General Holder and de facto Solicitor General are material witnesses to the malice by Respondent Obama.
14. That M i m a n t has conferred in the petition herein with Petitioners Van
Allen and Forjone in the SCOTUS Petition No. 10-1170 and that both state hereafter agreement with Affirmant's allegations and demand, state by their declaration attached, and have designated that Affvmant support this motion to recuse from hearing the Strunk et al v Certiorari SCOTUS No. 10-1170.
15. That Affirmant heard credible allegations during the 2005 confirmation
oma as J. Spargo et d Petition for Writ of
process for Chief Justice Roberts that surfaced that John G. Roberts is possibly a member of OPUS DEI the secular organization established by the Jesuit Order in 1928; and the allegations are that John G. Roberts is a member of Opus Dei that was the subject raised during the confirmation proceeding were never answered:
http://www.charm.net/-profpad2OO5/07/is-judae-roberts-opus-dei.html 16. In the context of such disturbing unanswered allegation during the 2005
confirmation hearing, which is bad enough in itself, in that the OPUS DEI member oath is to exclusively serve the Vatican State over any other commitment or allegiance, Affwmant was also notified of the disturbing posting by agents of
APX - 585
-
Congressman Ron Paul at http://daSpaul.comll5475l/slush-fund-of-~p-~oliticians-
found-at-vatican-bank-obama-clinton-roberts-leatus-slit (3)
17. That on February 3, 2011, Affirmant confronted the outrageous posting by agents of Representative Ron Paul to either retract the allegation otherwise
without support or investigate the claim, as Mr. Paul is on the House Banking Committee with subpoena power to investigate accordingly; and that to date there has never been a response to what Affirmant requested as follows quote:
"RonPaul duty to authenticate the allegations or remove the post Submitted by Chris Strunk on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 16:20.
Mr. Paul Sr. as a member of the House Banking committee having been a Presidential candidate in 2008 has a duty to advance an immediate investigation of the allegations included herein the "Slush Fund" post. Especially since Media reports from the 2008 campaign cycle (supported by actual fines levied by the FEC against BHO and his finance committees) allege that BHO had received large sums of campaign funds from foreign sources during the campaign that were never reported.
Slush fund of top politicians found at Vatican Bank, Obama, Clinton, Roberts? Legatus split! Submitted by ACihWA on Wed,01/19/2011ZI:22 i n PoLitics & Law What do you thinh-? Slush fund of top po..?iticJims found at Vatican Bank, Obama, Clinton, Roberts? Lega tus split! Slush fund accounts of major US politicians identified and seized at Vatican
3
Bank (Rome). Connection established with Daniel Dal Bosco RICO indictment, which cites Giancarlo Bruno, SSvio Berlusconi & Ban Ki Moon. On Wednesday 5th January 2011, it emerged that US establishment-related slush fund accounts had been located in, and seized from, the Vatican Bank in Rome. The source of funds for these accounts in almost every instance was found to be the US Treasury. Beneficiaries of the covert Vatican accounts include Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and each of the Obama children, Michelle Obama's mother, all the Bushes and the Clintons, including Chelsea Clinton, Joe Biden, Timothy Geithner, Janet Napolitano, several US Senators, including Mitch McConnell, several US Congressmen including John Boehner, several US Military Chiefs of Staff, the US Provost Marshal, the US Judge Advocate General, the US Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts, several US Judges, the Pope, and several cardinals. Big money was found in each of the accounts. Cont: htto://seeker401.word~ress.com/2011/01/17Ib0b-~ha~man-ne~~1e
...
Further allegations that Chief Justice Roberts and others within the Congress and Executive also maintain an account is terribly troubling especially since many of those listed are active supernumeraries of Opus Dei and as such makes those members that are also in government service and elected officers agents of the sovereign Vatican State a huge conflict of interest. It is my understanding &om actual testimony of Vatican Bank representatives that the Vatican Bank's IOR is a limited depository institution, that is not open to the public in the sense that the depositors are essentially limited to Vatican State employees, members of the Holy See, religious orders, and persons who deposit money destined, at least in part, for works of piety. However, it has been proven in the Federal civil case GEORGE DALE et. al. v. EMILIO COLAGIOVANMI et al. (SDMS) 3:Ol-cv-00663-WHB-WRA, that there was the use of the Vatican Bank / IOR as a straw-man for conducting money laundering and insurance fraud in the United States. That the deposition of Thomas A. Bolan on July 19, 2004 (see http://www.vaticanbankclaims.com/dale.pd ) shows that the Vatican Bank and IOR cooperate with investors as a straw-man to conduct business for persons who deposit money, "at least in part" for works of piety - are proven in the civil case to fit money laundering and other RICO predicates that form a corrupt enterprise; and were they involved in financing the BHO 2008 campaign is a serious international scandal up with Oil for Food and the BCCI matter of money laundering associated with the collapse of Franklin National Bank in the early eighties. Mr. Ron Paul must respond immediately to this post and to the followup letter of demand to be sent registered mail. Sincerely yours, Chris Strunk ( chris@strunk.ws )"
1 8 . In support of clear and convincing evidence of why Respondent Obama, and
defendants in the Complaint shown on the caption with Exhibit 3, John S. McCain and Roger Calero are not eligible for POWS either, because of dual allegiance or birth in a foreign nation outside the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States of America, and why most lawyers do not get the natural-born-citizen and dual allegiance matter that is an ongoing matter of malpractice. Affirmant based upon information received, believes that with the exception of Tulane University, which offers an option because Louisiana is a civil law jurisdiction -adopted from Affidavit in re: Christopher-Earl: Strunk Petition Page 8 of 12
APX
587
their French roots, all other law schools teach the common law of England.
19. That every state of the several states, except Louisiana, has adopted the
common law of England by constitutional provision or statutory act. As such, all attorneys learn the common law of England. That presents a big problem; the United States has never adopted the common law of England. While many terms used in the constitution were also part of the common law of England, there was no such thing in that law regarding a natural-born citizen. The closest was a natural. born subject. As such, these attorneys conflated the two terms.
20. The people who really knew what a natural-born citizen is were those who
dealt with foreign relations. -After all, being identified as a natural-born citizen really doesn't have any distinct purpose while within the U.S., save that of being President. It does, however, have great importance in terms of foreign relations.
21. In regards to U.S. Foreign relations: A natural-born citizen, being born on
U.S. soil, of parents who were both citizens, means that no other country can
obligate you to allegiance. By the Law of Nations, the law voluntarily adopted by all civilized nations in order to resolve disputes, no other country can require you to join their military. Those who are born of parents who are not citizens acquire the condition of their father by inheritance of blood. -Even if born on U.S. soil, they have, by jus sanguinis, a dual character. They can be claimed by two countries. 22. Chief Justice John Jay knew what he was doing when he suggested to General Washington that only a natural-born citizen should hold the position of Commander-in-Chief. It was the only way that no other power could legally require
APX
588
the services of the President, as seen provided by BHO with dual allegiance.
23. As early as 1862 representative John Bingham acknowledged congressional

plenary authority over citizenship and the constitutional restraints on those powers, stating:
" All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens ... [There is] no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians. 37 CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE 1639 f 1862)."
24. The Representative Bingham's statement is significant because it confirms
congressional plenary authority over citizenship and that the doctrine of which Rep. Bingham again in 1872 confirms.
f the gentleman will only let me go on I will answer all his 'Mr. BINGHAM. I questions. As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United State there is not room for the showdown of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth."
And further should we consider Rep. Bingham7s testimony reliable? Here is what Justice Hugo Black (a former U.S. Senator from Alabama) said in 1968: "Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means." -Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145 Supreme Court 1968.. ." Affidavit in re: Christopher-Earl: Strunk Petition Page 10 of 12
And here is what Henry Fletcher (who established the Minnesota Law Review) had to say in 1919 about citizenship and allegiance as published in the Atlantic Monthly
- (1919) "OUR DIVIDED COUNTRY" by
Henry J Fletcher:
"Our country furnishes many examples of that curious phenomenon, double allegiance. All persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are declared by the Constitution to be citizens. This is true of the children of non-naturalized aliens domiciled here. But the children of aliens have the same nationality a s their parents, according to the laws of nearly all foreign countries, and such children are therefore subject to a double allegiance. In this way, if a German living in this country chooses not to accept the citizenship which we so generously urge upon him, his children born here may, when they grow up, disclaim their American citizenship. A young man born here of alien parents may, if he goes to Europe for study, be forced into the army, and the United States will be powerless to protect him, even though he intends to return and reside here. Even if the alien father be naturalized here, the minor son born here before the father's naturalization, if he returns to his father's native country, is liable to be seized and compelled to perform military service, and his American citizenship will prove to be a mere fiction. If a German domiciled here is so attached to the memories of the fatherland a s to refuse the proffer of American citizenship, and his children while growing up are diligently nurtured in the same sentiments of loyalty, they cannot be relied on by the United States in time of war as Germany and France are now relying on their subjects at home. If in addition to this consciousness of divided allegiance, there are family ties and expectations of inheritance in the old country, it is clear that the Americanism of such persons, considered as an asset in time of war with Germany, must be charged off as worthless, if it be not an actual liability."
CONCLUSION IN SUPPORT OF RELIEF

This petition shows that the writ of prohibition and quo warranto inquest will
be in aid of the Court's appellate or original jurisdiction in that exceptional

circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court. Affirmant has read the foregoing petition for a 28 USC $1651 extraordinary writ of
Affidavit i n re: Christopher-Earl: Strunk Petition Page 1 1of 12
APX
590
-
prohibition with quo warranto inquest against Respondents in their official capacity
l those and or individually, and in which Affirmant requests a voluntary recusal of d

respondents with a direct material interest herein a s with 28 US $144 and 28 USC $455(a) from hearing or involvement in the petition for writ of certiorari with
SCOTUS No. 10-1170, and statutory relief available with DC Code Chapter 35
Article 16 Section 3503 and related law; and know the contents thereof apply to me by misapplication and administration of laws in creation of the New York Electoral College goiag into and following the General Election of November 4, 2008 as a continuing injury caused by the scheme to defraud with unjust enrichment that affects Affirmant and Affirmant's AD HOC BrwkIm Home Rule Coalition along with those similarly situated; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge. There is total of 3745 affidavit petition words with footnotes.
Sw0rn.p before me This fday of April 20 1 1
Notarf Public
KAMAL P.SON1 Notary Public, State of New York NO.01SO5089949 Qualified in Kin s County Commission ~xpires%arch 31,2015
Affidavit i n re: Christopher-Earl: Strunk Petition Page 12 of 12
GIJWORmG DECCLARATIUN
WE John-Joseph: Forjone in esw,
and
H. William Van Allen in esse, state
under penaky for peemy with 28 USC $1746 respectfulty request that the Supreme
Court qstmt review of the ~ectcusdmatter i n that the Usurper, Barack Bmsein
Obuma II @ H a ) , aGtions
as
POTUS are mid ah
wanrant an extraordinary
writ: ofpmhibi1iQJR by 28 U.S.C. $1651, SCOTUS Rule 20 with qua warrant inquctsl.
WE concur with the petition of Christopher-Earl: Strank 8s to the demand

reclrsal of Jwtices John G. %berts, Eknrr Xagrr, Sunia Sotarnayor as well as Neal
Katyal the Aating Solieitor Cenewl of the United States and Eric Holder and
%ndd
C.Maehen JF.
B E 0 actions including any appointment made are void ab r i L i t i o because
BHO is not eligribe for POTUS with Articfe 2 W o n I Clause 5, as the Usupper i sa
perma born with dual allegiance as a ~ubject of the fEritish United Kingdom LUthe
natural son af Bamck f-fucssein Obama Sr. who was a British subject us& a USA
student visa;and for the foregoing reasons as a matter af the denial of a republican
fann of government demand reeusal, RespectfuI'ty submitted by,
Dated: apkl
Lake L
m e New Yark
Self represented w/o an anattorney d o 35 1 North Ruad Hufley New York 112443
APX
592
IN RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK IN ESSE

PETITIONER WITH SCOTUS RULE 20 FOR
WITH QUO WiUUUNTO INQUEST
Exhibit 1
CES Letter to Washington DC US Attorney Jeffery Taylor May 20, 2009 CES v BHO Verified Quo Warranto Complaint May 19,2009 CES Fires BHO January 22,2009 Proof of Service of January 22,2009 Firing of BHO Proof of Service of Letter wl attachments to Jeffery Traylor US Attorney et al.
APX
593
...mc~.r~v C ~ Ci . nFp a r r e . , , i n 3 l i t , , , r d ~0 ~~ 8~; urpnsunr. ~ ~ mrN hr, mfwmh11 q ~ m . ~ t n a t i - / @ ~ ~ L'nikdS~eter ~ ~ & ~ T h r 3 i d m nrvthmfirc lo hcmo&dedm*~cmil.""7 ofthe U " , f r d ~ Lnota9 . mete i o a l ;*I 0 f l k Dhtrict ae;a~olm~u/aaalaprrofmn it can hr m~iui~wdun lrn~f f f e e r b m this Cox* A m e z o n CO.18. Cmiuiamrr ofthr.Dimict, 224 0. S. 491. ~ ~ G G G G Pmuh. GGGG L Z
The Honorableletfrry T q I o r U.S. Mbmey fartbe Dlslrt'elofColumbin. Unilta skin AIlomeyey~ M c e 55s 4 L St&, NW W&ng~ar+ IK: 20530
The nen rasenlialdcctnon s m cuma an v. uqiLedStala r x Rd ~ ~ 238 I U.S. I ,537 at 546 (IYlq, lhc SupremcCo..r~i n ( q w d ?hermeo f $heAG and US d l o m y as fo1Illou.s:
The D~;-alc? Cbd'rnJl -LI w ~ ~ d i orf o ni i i i m o pcrhiic x mni( which h h k rnrreutadon<u@ p " ~ d i n g in6cnmzc ~ & b ' m m & n r ~ & l * - i h ikmc promd* 0k inrwed h ? chi. Anonrqe) ~ m m oofthe i L?ruedSm~s und 6 - h r ommqf ~ , k D i r / C b .By ~dmrr ~ f t h ~ i r p v ~ ; i t iffiry, m, u h&dffrcIhn ond . man& r k .-Sl? " f f f i ~ i i i ~ m < h i l i f Nn i ' , lir"fin#t'- Y"chpfi'medbrrt.s i n m,' ffieu'b~m m e n re k& ore ruionf m i m s o / p ~ t ~ c p ! t ogainstpmnimnbr cy s p h l i c i,ffddtn khmorsed "ithIil&ananan OW his ~ k hto t hdd@cr dorrkcw'indod?docr nOl m~lhuhuiii~priv& cilbm, on hfi oun nOllon. Q 110Ck 1h1 in~mk..nl'r title, hrt u BNKWY ~ S ( ~ / CbUR. I no)-~/dI~wc~~plitW it( l ~ l l ~ ~ . mwia:ia:, howcwr. ?hot t h m a e h r k u r r t m ~ . s in ivhiclr if ~ w ~ dk ld p r o p m m allow nrdrpmmdrn~ b b;n,%dinucd fp a t&dmmow, h m f , i r p r i d m Ihot r8ck "third pnon"rnrnrnd m&;ifn,mthe rvr.vunruflk ;on, v f i i i i ofIhepw~mrc% hlthr m n ~ n t g f f f i ~ S ~ - ~Collri , qfh~D1rmict ~ / C ~ l i i n , h 'if~ m , he a s sue themmeof fk,@~mmmtiR quo ~mamtopmccpmccddn~.
i ,Chrislophcr-Earl:SlnlnL 0 i n esie,reUor, am Ihe i*llast&prIy i n Ihe above mafler aod hereby dcmznl lhal y o u office ~1161~ble aproeealiw! zgainal inhcrsme eT ihc Unwd % l a s@m?La indlndud BsiaEkIlumcm Obama ~ncnc(a&'a Barn Soaorol WUa wirniil the h r m n olcalumbis usurps, ~mndo i n i o , o r ml~wsully c x w i w , a rmchis~mnr~rmd b~ LhS ~ua~.hnn Eorpoialc uniiodsum o n i o o ~ r o , C ~ d ~ rorrsiline (~~~ mAorcalplb~t~r ~) c i ~ *iUt m Antcle 2 Scciim ICralae5 o r l h o u s M Surus'c-hriorio w smaurroriirar~mpresalan. Fdher,in rtNDRAUh u, LAUOR. 72DPP2d1475.234 U.S.Ann.D.C.3X4(IYR4~, l k TherRolswr'anngiwl Vnilicd Camplainria slrackdhemw#lh, xl!hBapmrilo iknrrd8wu<ll lactho Cavl o f Appeals for lhe Dislricl ofColumbiaEas held lhal Ihedefwlo offieedsdoeVini: daes dup+iiat s o d c m d s j u ~ M s am l t h e 1 S P ~f ~~ fsct nnd a d t o n a m q o d o o of nm nd pmhlbil %Aiuieral aaaeb" ofoffictal acliuns harod uponaplblb off,r!r'b lack of Impmnioa rnjlIhcDlauictlvdpc in .Smmk t DrIF rtd. 08<b-P:4by CCCC M ~ i i i i iin i ihc eligibility. n t b e srtnol gw %-"to suuila l o -me lheoWcia1,Ihey 8Ieoiii1 suits lo Dc~o~n~'~rno mdirnl9.m lian mhcrarclun~ l,2DD9il~lm~~an~syourollimhplilor ehallenp* s speeificaclionoflhal official. rnapondcdinIhc sflirmn5ru.ncvdlcl~sxill gomIhoDislriaCoun8r oSnghL In11e Andma me,Leplnlnllffs wamLiovemmarl employes who lo* lheirjobs l o ~dawrnrcm !our tlooor in , M ~ c s ~ p r c m ~~l'lh. c ~ lu mn i i r d ~ a ~ ~ ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ d ~ 'kduelim i n fox$ ordinances ~ h i c h c uwhdedcparlmenls l b m lhs Governmealbtdgl. The 4 " m . c : p M n t i f k d allepng lhosewhe did the culling were no1Comlilulionaliy qusltfwi lo m l e suehd&ona i n t m lhur a m i n t m e m violaled lheaminlmenls e b s e u f l h e US m e s r m ~ n aSCOTUS l case which b tnlerprded lheQuo W a n a n l o a l d u l e i s ~ Com,il"lion. united Slates ex W. F r i d I , U R U.S 537 (1915). The q%~onserves s alhnou@heduesriun The DC Dklticr C d h d d l h a ~ !heplaintiffs m n o s ~ ~ ~ d i n ~ o l hlobring e r ~ h aggdinet a~~ on hiislay "Cquo r a w l l l o ar w l l a a I h e p m a ~l l d a y ml.rp=iuI~m. Amurdmg lo sllack-inquo-nlo Lo mnovcCaeslleged up~lper Bul the DC Coud of A p p l a r w d SCOTUS, N ~ w m m l 5 5 2 , lhc slatule applie~ 10 ony p ~ b i i ictfictfi. c and mid lb n l a i n l i i k ~ h ~ dddRered kd teal i n i w i a muld brinesuch aneelionon n m i e by .assbasis ifbeyroubpmme lbeirinjury i n fan (beingflred)w$ caused by a Government
&end
~ ~ E ~ i ~ x d Sd t~od ~ z thm l e c mc ~ D ~ r m gfC011rnrhio e rhhmil k thcz~llr of gmr-'W""Icnt, and "oi1"flhCS onouhed" ffir ~ r o r o f w ~ e " ' s ~ I he I h h i i i d i " ha DboictcfCehmhio. " The Cdod ...podod<didi lhmf t k m s r t d o l l hm.e,~insdicIid II grnd yilo nrroalr, " a p i ~ 7 aperron t who zmio*jirlb hddv w csr~u'ua within thc obm.ct.t.. . p a h i i ~ v j f ic ~ ~ ,~ ingiiitn?; l o ~ "1, xaypmhoh+ kmsrieoflhir fa&? lhof ~rnwnel off~a.? nri&t k r i r m w k h . d tho! rhE .41mm'y G " m d g f t k Lr?urcdSIate, . * es bive"paim 1"i"ltihih. nrchpm,di"s...
m v i d s e w c s nfIB7n ~r,s&djdjrrrirdiiddniifhbbbbbrrts of-edidiss hhhhghr b the ~'nililaiSla~esduone: for t k m ) l o ~ ! ~ f p n O heI&"~ m 0fke e o w w m thr, Ibz~r@m,hdnvr&rcnt. RoiStot, %cflcfloncfl 563<141,626(i41, f77W. Trris Rcr x'm m&de fh..leIdi~ioi Cvde of1911.36Slol 1168 In IYOI, C r n ~ z " 8 " 1 . ~ c $ r o i b ~iithmsedlhc m f c d 3 r m e r Dirnin Cemtfir tbeD*rD,e YfCoI~mbio to i t w e q* wmmnto inrhe vrmf &the 0nitdSI~1fc.f~. A a @ h i m h 3, 1901.31 Sln. 1419, Title 16. Srudm / P I IlfrheD.C Cud=09441. llouutir, rhiryrmt ir ~ t ~ i elimi&.dondir h. rr,nfinds&!vto.~i"iatiom im>l"lngfmn&i,'~ondpiihi& o f i m f,h~ld,'<hi" l k Dirbiit ofCohmhro T k r e 1 3 no uhcrf~ufi~~tfMtt~pm).~).iUiu iue.iuti~ o*iii jrissdcnun in the diimkc wtmn in PPP P P Y I T m ~n ~ o n o n o .
F u n h m m o , b;lb;laolho Qaob W w m ~ o ~ u ~ u ~ c s ~pi d i l m e id r m~sailling, ~ ~ vokd in. sworn ir+ Senrlor, A k r l Galidin Ibwwn out of office in 1793 fmbangconslildiondly ineligihb lo b e aSendor. noihariq Ihe9 year requiremm as a U.S. r-ilkenTheLI1 cvngnssional linkand Lepmcedure they usal fullwe.:
& a d s Mhadaeouar) rilhpmdud,onufdo~vmenlr and intCmrgalona. and UMI lhis aclirn is i n a d r i n d and insewmble.
1u o u l d b more thin rilli8ig onoraner June 1,2009,to d1Domte on L i s danand wilh
sn expandedmemo~sndum I W would also Lncomp&qIheresyclable work of iheallomey La, T e i k Esq. of Califumia, Mario A p a o , Bsq. ofNer Dumfriu. Waq, ofNew Jersey. Dr
Jersey and loM D Hemenway, Eq. of WmhlnE(on Dtslliel ufColumbraas now repreacnl M;lfw.Howwwrr~hisis I& reqlrind rtltu8ly m l m *fa -isling slinglnlenl rewaradof me. h i r -rial ""leofw,impur(ancr lome, 1 rm a natura1-bnmn l i m o f two m a n i d nalural-bombrn eilkrens I W malra mcrltgiMe l o b r ~ m e p i e i d e n f however , my son w%n m h i n g 35 and bvingrerided i n lhe USA for 14 yu e l f f l i a may no1beanaumi-born dlilen because my wife at lhe time ufhhh b i l h t n N m Yark w a n* a c i l k m and a s such because t b r e i ~ n intemln(~an o ar lorhe ~ n r z o ~ A c i2cS~ a1 i o~ n IClaura5 is a maller of tint-tmpmwon dew lo me m d i . c(f-tlng a)l i b c ' ) now muard Y o v r ~ m m . ~ n r r r s p ~ ~ l a s~ ~, h rp l rm n t a l c r t , w m t d md b) uo) d ~ : u p jIhr d ~ ~ ~ pi ~w na d ~ tlotcral n lhrld Dclvv CC:~ . r , a c Jrl) M116c4. I nm, hck.. .l.al t l ~ u l # the ~g
hnh h e .
udex m cvn~~der,8ionnf (besbvereferemul Y O r l 7 m d o l k Jco5toni ~ Fomss u,lh n J!rrcl8,1 :ullasrl alack upr" lhc wurpcr m ~mnupmcs ubilludl m
,\
s q rnll
tn~ii\
4 ~ l ~ r n r ~ l r n ~ . Y l>rI ~ nJ< IY n (m
I b S The Irtsper s m anJcbtdual ~n
Med. May 2@, 2909 B m k l y n New Ymk

A a x h d . VaiBed Quo Wm-mlo Complaint w i L m Qacalion of Fial Impresion wtlh eshsbils
1. TW Maor is The l o v a d @ l emplnrploprof Ihe POTUS w b udaa aulhorily over my pwroml m i o f p o ~ e r ~ f a f l o m pcmiss,on ty given loamninislcr Iheunited svale6uf America (incd.
d furlury Ttirl and Drrisirm on
The H e n o ~ b l e Eric Holder

J
llr-! R a r a i H,,,*,n OWnl t n c,..: I\ISIF !hat oNwe md w\t,tnAIy u t a h ~ II . he,? . :Qa., urrrxv~, i u r . r n 10 pw.2 bar eli.abtl,ty uLe .blc to rrttm 1 3Lew,me olfirc cspr:ll) &;\~&ncd b) ~ l t e Ibrl I r ,in~,lita ~ h ~ r a q w r n PC,Il a S clwta
I . .rdil,r .anJtnp. t hp r ~ i . ~ ~ I * t~ ~ .~ ~e n J~Hewn! n d lhin lllr @ n # r l k,,#fltcr & 1 d FOlA I IY K L I ~ codplli. C !I dl !l.jun ant1 d b a lp~~hl.i. ;,,&+;c;LLJ b) ! h i 1 ,&all ~ ~ f ~ n . ~ . wht. h lm e cn~ad h) h I . t t r p ~ pt%"wll) n.4 only the pa*rtd'r 2nd 1ni~ntlal#~,8al 8yun. but nerurlltns lu !hcoppfbt13ax~ .o~bd I~m 10 b c ~ a ~ r ! t o h Dr v ,IMIIC~~,~,~~L.PIC~ d. 61nrhn ~"rr IIE~YII. 1 1 ( 1 1 4L,.IIIM la)~ t d hnInp. k e n wvndly h ~ l h b l d h) lh i'Oll1S Lxerult\c u htle ~.nda the I uw
Cass l:OBcvd2234-RJL
Documerrt 192
Filed 06mliZM)S
Page 219 of 243
Case 1:08crOPWRJL
Document lM
Filed 06r01RW9
Page ZZOof243
U.S.sxlnBel.Smo);v.Bara&Ht~3&~W UNITED SfAT&S DISllUCt COUPT FOR 'I'mDlsl'Rrff O P c O L U M m
QUO WARRANlV COMPLAINTWITE DEMAND ROB JURY TRIAL AND DECISIONONQUHSPION OF FIRST IMPRESSION
Case l:O&w-022WRJL
Document 1 s t
Filed WOlRW9
PageZ21 of243
Case l-OBcrmZ34-RJL Document lQ-2
FtW 06!01iZ009
Page 222 of 243
U S . ~ ~ ~ S q r o k u . ~ H ~ O b s m n O C D C
1 6 . ~ ~ i s m t a U . S . ' ~ b o m m ~ ~ ~ M 5 t o m ~ I h c ~ t e d
SBlesPedde4pnruamrn~llnitad~Coar~%~RSn~l,C~S.
l 7 .A ~ ~ . ~ & m s t o h s v t b s m b o m h m ( 2 ) ~ h m p i g l s i n M ,
h - ~ l y ~ h M ~ K m y a m h i s ~ a U . S c i ~ ~ ~ ~ a K m
N ~ w a h i o l b c U n i a d ~ w i m L n r ~ M ~ y ~ ~
l $ . ~ ~ . O b a r m J r . - s m e m l ~ I r h . . ~ ~ , w ~ a 8 r i ~ ~ ~ 0 m n e d
.Mdetbeh.spidtbcUnitodKingdommaniedwMI.Memsk's~SMlyArmDvnhgn
idthctime~fIrh..Obsrrnb'sbirthwA~4,1%1.
i9.~tMemsadmitPt3aIhiaf~Q~timofbjs~~aciftmoftbe
U d ~ s n d ~ U r W & ~ C M e f I W ~ W ~ % b h t h .
2O.~hkndslaObaau~pby&ngSaYacW~5lIyanrd2
US~pnmhtobsqt&&dmkamDxzdboo&zm
21.IhifRep.~~&af&14ihIlmcammm,~ndQob539m,la ~p~1291(Merb9,1866)&
= . ~~humaabeiogbom~tkj~koftbs
U n i S d ~ o f ~ N ~ O ~ G ~ W T O A N Y F O R n ~ S O Y E R 6 I ~
I S . i n ~ h ~ a f ~ ~ i a e l f r ~ c i r i n n . n.~tObsmabarhrnarWla~"~~~vasimbjlmmri~bo~~er,k
harrdmcdrrhishbp~lsa&-fbsUoitedStato.
P.imtsabM..BanySosf~~~~bjsaqmt(~)pMm~~f~(~ran
Cmif@eriotr of Live B k l b (COLB),whidr is isared fm dl titdl's~asd in tbP S w d
Havaii,heCOLB,doeson pmve*nalmalb a o - d M i p a W i n WMji

24. A COLBi.~
f hoawer, d ~ itdau n a t p m ~ " M bm"
d ~ , a C O t 8 h i n o r d m ~ ~ - h o p c ~ y Y l l s . ~ .
APX - 595
Case 1:OBN-UZ234-RJL O
M is2
FiledWUiQUUS
Page 223 of 243
Case l:Wcv-U223GRJL
occurnerd 1S-z
i W~ lRW d S
page 224 of 243
S~~SavaWSps)in~~hdth~inC~oftfrtfr~tad~ScaaSaia
wah NOTICETO lH@ACENl'IS N O n m TO PRINCIPALXOTICE'RJPIUNCIPAL IS
m~TOA~~FORTHERECORD.aedtbarbom-~for*al~~
~dihumrand"iUtoomidrrslirm~~i.mS~~f~OfPIPhffiB.
chooritlgwishisgno~mhtllaccwt*kU~~Cafc~.C.C):fcra
~
2,.
m ~ s m ~ b a ~ $ ~ m , " i & & m i n

f t h = ~ i n ~ o f l k ~ ~ w i t h ~ d ~ ~ ~
4 ?
BEaomOlsUrUSwdeli~aulst$~AM0n~27,m~W~,DC
zoar,for;l~ormeusPsT~~d~pmfr6ariccby~mailxr
i % A @ m
U I . l b a I ~ W R c d n d n o ~ y h ~ ~ E m & ~ d m h i s
A M s ) a o d ~ i o O n ~ ~ ~ ~ p a ~ W ~ b c e n M
29~~0b&~fsikta~p1yradirin~1u)PlBinW.
3~Detiadrmt0tamaine~eisthe~~har~izedmemrporate~tfia~the~ai
Case l . O l c u 4 Z B G R J L
Oocumerd l3-2
FilsdOGIOlRWS
Wge 225afZ43
Case l:DBcvO2234-RJL
D-snf
1%
Filed WOIRWS
Page 226 Of 243
VERIFICATION
APX - 596
--
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 227 of 243
QUO WARRANTO C0MPLA.INTWITH DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND DECISION ON QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION
APX
597
B~r..ck Hxzssem Obzm fir
SSI=
n.kr; B F E So5aro ~ fn ewe a'k a f3wy &sham m ' e-i-cz* xk"% f3my Dtisfsprlu f~ 178 DBA B.MLUf # HtrSSEK OBA2vI4. Br'
5UPER?v7Sr3R(SJi-WlKfS),AGEhTfS) -ks5;a<(sj
of. {hi*AGEKT fXC?iiIPIRGE. i3F T i 3
53 c x e
I _ ? . X E D .jT1+ESSECRET SERTTC-E a-Y$~z & ~ D I ' P ~ ~ z ? ~m z ~d :? Pfr&ffc -$g&r 242 Mrimtpr .Eki;a.
Bi~tIcbg 410.
\%'&xzgoz
Df 25223
RLk OI'Ff R Di: CONTRa-C'T Ecy:rir-rtd20 J:iooaq 2OiS and r ~ c isd \ 21 iai:uaut 2009
FOR THE RECORD

KETt:Ry 4 . 3 2 3 MBRSFT TI&IEEeY,%%lTSO&jT DEHOKOR %%?'irkTHE RESTRICTED SPECLU-.APPE-?dt4St NOT% . CQP&FC#MTION I b c i,klnpSt~uf
APX
598
5t.e zi~rige you ~ e e k i~ t n remfd. g dd7-f'mmff53~tt4, p+occed?ii& liq, b ~ ~~ k i l s b ~b;m; e r dt~osil& %vie yea. ytm as m ~ m i f & n ~ m zigamsfjusli~~ ~ms affdcrRevisel SItatrrfr;s i l f &s UnTkd S&;a Firs Seasas ~ up ftil i 2 years in pri~nn pi.r 43 G c w p s s . . ~ c ~ t i oFMf3u s %L27 & 5408 rot&* tq in S9.QQO f ; n Y& xt%&v:t yaw Fzti $03=3&, Ti& 3 $ LXC S e m ZQTj ~ &so c m e s %EEL ~ m p s m ~ ?d ~zt d:qwiEftr~%tnn tf+;isfficz. E ~ ~ T I U T r7enn;y attonre3 reg$ y:*c nor xs 6ie m y &ctntntts f i k e rltrnc. ~ G U ae s:li! rdpomibie, a 5 j &do zicr m:rpt~-&trrl-pi~q-!~~mi~ersiiny ~rosne2, cfrstflci zi+tcanq.trr anymrr: 5am tfjc Irrv~tsrirr~ ~f arc f & ~Ehkd-~i-i; 3IIJ &aSGZ 3 3 a~ t i m s e to m&t: 3 teg,d drtemnx&ue rr: kh:s w+ltrras &+ry EXG w t %qiw*~t %=ZE 4 Ym, &B wmrgdmkf Gnhr k v c the zutr~rify EGrr:pFm~ml #$m your cl~fi-issI kwcw u chuici- but i i r Zit. Sh;iio~ld You k a i ! ~r;l ~rpIroI& Yaar S s G r n =tb rtcerd A X.AfZi?'s-ar sfCkit&d C n m p f i ~a i g a i ~Ye= f m d sifpd ZI NV M Ypzs borrdiz~ zz~ip~zrk:~.
SEC-Wg7. I f m o i.fm;lFe persans i ?m y SQic ~ ;Tmit~ry r w&*f c~r&e$rtrp~s+bf itnp&ietrg in p %BE Bf T & t t r ~ ~ 3 " i E k hi&=%. o&m~t- ~g dr-%&g in &y r n ~ ~ e F t~ - ~~I Z Z @fj%%&E' inm: tr7 dm3 :a my ckwz~f xk qii& pri~~tfcn~a eE&e &='f, ar 0mj%E Znm cx his prtyerty f i r Is\*faIi.; n;fs~cing firs:t~rnptiw f a& % r a , f &i i * afzw pawn- C T zfit~fi ~ ~f ~ E O P Lrtl . %h8 t q ~ a ll w ~ t e ~11f i ~ ~ f CPi 3 ~ ~ ' 4 sff'i& pmmi &fI hz p s ~ h h d by a Fie = - d s r ^ f i t s ~Iess r f t a EL.Etrtndred iicr ~:J:;:E&EE5s-e B o m z d ~3oiiar.i.or by ikprimmmr, TFi& W T Y ~ & hard ~& t T C f & o r - m i j-3 tPte.ii six ~ R d - u imr s m e ~ B~aii e six yc+.% OF b), b f h~dii Gin-; 214 i ~ ~ p l r i s n z t zbss ~ ~ t$ , $ 5 977- f 98 2 W 1 o t 9, 3 5 8 i f t i 5 5 I El- i Tifie L k X --- ClWZES. CH.6 t"R&%S AGARKT IiiS.OCE { C ~ f r s p ; Z ~d ~a i mfk~cmcirraf the E mi
i .
if:Ioever ~'~idfsl~?~ znd BE~B~I&I~%* ,'om&. ~ z t ~ r emEt.Ia?a, s, a~ltterafes or des~rajs, a:

attcarpt.3 t a du m. or. ri& inlent r a &a ssa ttkcs and c d e s zwiy art): rxard. pt~?cezdidins~ imp, hook, pap&% -&caq~ezf? tTr c&zz rirtns F2ct.j0 ~ ai& r nc ~ ~ k k clr i?ifi?crr ~ alafry cnrtq ~ i~i' the ::'r-.n2tc& S u t S , ~ f i~7-3. s psbira o R k . GF E?T& arty J L ~ D I BQ ~F~Z& nfticz;~ ~ ~ E ef&e kaited Gtsse- &tII b z tinw a d e r &is title nr imprrzimed nnr mnri-&mlhr~ yrsrrs, rrr b ~ r h
APX
- 601
f %hik rtu: mr%pn:sM;rtia~rtt'am
m a l kcL pn;;f ar pmzxzl may et3esrirufe bm13 t i ~ fiafkmn%i? i of ~ m ~ y m..m ~ k t os x ,smce:edane:r~ " which irs.iirltrs shea~h af fegf day, cm~ ur fonfide~gc,juslfy e p d a r k i f is i~jurifius tu w~&er. ar h5 uhith m undue advitmwe h takm itfairuths, m&y & c a w the fntxndarim lirr a d &%en thete if a dufy r e spmk, =-he% d a ma-ceFid inkreace r r f faci m 5 k -mi@ ns vmnp!itf as a pnsftlsrc mirft3paaPrion. Tex, Civ. App lgi53. Wttt:&dck 35 H f ~ @ f t , J SF9.? J $95, dfiripttfd I75 SfF2Lf 73t52 142 Ta. (6 Ti iSD A. thi: --5* j
fe~f
f"f'ftr: t h i r d St815 as lsra-ee afc n m e W paper m d s in ne bi8e~ar Eght &an any other dt=imw.'* *Theifltigerf Sratcs dmr busimm o n trmi-nes t m s , tt i s n a erremgx& %em rke gewmf w1.s gtsfiemisg%e @$ITS a& difgw ~ftdi-a'uc.~ by the fitifitmess egis deafins ;sand 3s k ~ h g t q o b p %en@ t o do w& ifbane bx a pfincipal p e m f rWOQWE~SIV~ ftO rOam f i r datnbr-- ffrfctff@irzfsf ;ff~@ C$ ~f t : F~iifetr' .Sf~ffgrs. J f i S f - S. 3EdffP43f.J
{"COWS enforcing mere 5mnrtes do nor act judiciail), hur n'tinisteriatly. having nu iudicial im8nunirl;. and unlike Coans of Law, do nor obbin jurisdiction by sefvicc of process nwevzgs by hmsr snd Clsmpt'fiat A ~ W C . " B m e I f tB!.hi 9 Wrnb~tlrb 336. jJ8-1
:-t%a;s efJtrri.;diatun m q nor Iw c
d hy e m n t oftfte tft+Im:-
ff1ifrdt;~i~$+$fiJf~$t14
.+.~sbit'fu~iti~ x: KC]. R. 323 L:S 3JOS 3 J 3 , 1
_ _ -
APX
602
5- rAjPr$=t
m d d ia eriol&ion~ f & @ precess is vaiddnpj;r~~ld T d e F@fk~%~~gce Ww&e& 444 2Wp291 : idcer&rmfBmk P- Wifq* f 95 US 257; Pesnupje~ v. Ngg
95 E f S 714 1
f "-.&E q&emerrk afdee process BILE& k m d 'befirrerIre can p~t3.lsf:dy a,%ertin pe~samtrs j d d i c 6 ~ ~Fefl.. F F~rgo v- Fells F w g ~ 556 ~ E dM i4 I64
APX - 603
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 234 of 243
QUO WARRANTO COMPLAINT WITH DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND DECISION ON QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION
APX
604
.....................................
JAF 31st STREET WS T-1 NEH YORK, New York
101999004 3558250157-0097 01/23/2009 (212)330-2183 02:50:38 A M
--
Registered NO.
Date Stamp
Product Description
"
-----------*-------------------------
......................................
Sales Receipt Sale Unit Qty Price
Final Price
WASHINGTON D C 20223 $0.59 Zone-3 First-Class Letter 1.60 02, Return Rcpt (Green $2.20 Card) Registered $10.00 Insured Value : $0.00 Article Value : $0.00 Label 8: RE400301908US
--------------$12.79
Issue Total :
PVI:
Paid by: Cash Change Due: Save this receipt as evidence of insurance. For inforlnation regarding domestic insurance, v i s i t our website a t usps .corn/irisurance/po~toffice. htm
"
Order stamps at USPS.com/sho~ or c a l l 1-800-Stamp24, Go to USPS .com/cl icknship t o p r i n t shipping labels with postage, For other information c a l l
1-800-ASK-USPS .
A l l sales f i n a l on stamps and wstage Refunds f o r guaranteed services only Thank you f o r your business
********S*~S$**X**********X***%**
*******~*M#******w*f$+$**%**~* HELP U S SERVE YW BETTER
Go to: htt~://gx.gallup.com/pos
TELL US ABOUT YWR RECENT POSTAL EXPERIENCE YOUR OPINION CWNTS
+C*.*.*++IICIJI*JI&&u**.*..*.-...
. .. .
I
UMT@D-fiATES m s u n / K E e
I Help I S i g n !
Track & Confirm

Search Results
LaMeceipt Number RE40 0301 908U S Status: Delivered
Track & C o d h
Enter LabeVReceipt Number.
Your item was del~efed at 8:07 AM on January 27,2009 in WASHINGTON, DC 20223.
NocificatialOptiorrs
Track 8 Confirm by email

Get current event information or updates for your item sent to you or others by email.
site Map
&ran Us
Foms
Gov't Sewices
Jms
Pmscy Polley FOlA
T e m d Use
NamllaI 8 Premier AcmunD
Copyright@ 1999-2007 USPS. All Raghts Reserved.
No FEAR Act EEO Dala
8)
'
1 I
APX
606
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 237 of 243
Christopher-Earl: St& O in esse 593 Vanderbiit Avenue, #281 Brooklyn, New York 1 1238
The Honorable Jeffrey Taylor U.S. Attorney for the District ofColumbia, United States Attorney's Ofiice 555 4th Street, N W Washington, DC 20530
Cc:
The Honorable Eric Holder U.S. Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pemsylvania Avenue, NW Wa~hingto& DC 20530-0001
Batack Hussein Obama in esse c/o The White House I600 Pennsylvania Ave~ue W Washington, DC 20500
IN RE ClXtUSTOPHER EARL STRUNK I N ESSE
PETITIONER WITH SCOWS RULE 20 FOR
WITH QUO WARRANT0 INQUEST
Exhibit 2
August 26,2009 Letter from BHO to CES
APX
608
THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON
Mr. Christopher Strunk Unit 281 593 Vanderbilt Avenue Brooklyn,New York 11238
Dear M r .S t m k
Thank you for contacting the office of President Barack Obama. The Fresident appreciates your W i g the time to voice your concerns and opinions.
We would like to be of assistance to you; however, due to the separation of powers, it is not within our authority to become involved in Iegal m a m . You m u s t resolve this i s s u ethrough the judicial system.
PIease be aware that you can visit www.usa.gov or call 1-800-FEDINFO for information a b u t Federal Government assistanceWe hope your concerns are resolved to your satisfaction.
Again, thank you for your cmespondence.
Sincerely,
F. Michael Kelleher
Special Assistant to the President and
D i r e c t o r of Presidential Correspondence
IN RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK I N EBSE PETITIONER WITH SCOTUS RULE 20 FOR

WITH QUO W 0
INQUEST
Exhibit 3
March 22,2011 fding; Strunk v N Y S BOE etal. NYSSC Cty Kings lndex 6500-2011
SUPR.EME COURT OF THE STAT&OF NEW YORK Index go-:

Christopher-Earl:Strunk, i n eme
Plaintiff,
FiIed: March 22,2011
-againstW Y O R J C STATE BOARD OF 3EUZCirONS; JAMES A. WAISH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner,Deputy DiFector TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Directar S'Y'ANLEX ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN,THOMAS P . DINAPOLI, RUTH NO EM^ COL~N, in their Officialand individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; &JOSEPH P. PARI(ES, S.J.; FREDERICK AO.SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN;ZBIGNIEW KAIPiaERZ BIXZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKT; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (aka, Barry Soetoro, aka. Barack Hussein Obama 11, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF TNE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PA~TY OF NEW YORK STATE; R ~ E CURO; R THE SOCIALISTWORKERS PARTY;IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COIk&Tl%E; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF m E INDEPENDENCE PARTY., STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STA'IX; . PENNY S .P R GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AlME'C& OBAMA ~ C ! i W R Y F U .MCCAIN ., WCTORY 2004 MCCMN-PAUN MG'TORY2008;; John and Jane Does;
and XYZ Entities.
SUMMONS
VERUFIEDCOMPEAINT
Dated:
March 22,2011 Brooklyn New Pork

Christopher-Earl:Strunk, in e& plaintiff 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281, Brooklyn, New York 11238
(845) 901-6767 E-mail: ~hri&runk.ws
APX
611
I N RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNX IN ESSE

PETITIONER WITH SCOTUS R
m 20 FOR
WITH QUO WARRANTO INQUEST
Exhibit 4
ffidavit of Service of BHO and Biden with Strunk v NYS BOE et al.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KI[Nt=S
" I
-----------Plaintiff,
Index No.: 6500-2011
Christopher-Earl: Stnmk in esse,

3
a " . .
-against-
+ -
-...
ci\
" ,3 , _ ; c: ;.+<
*-=Ci
. , $ % . .
--
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTlONS et al,,

p w 7
ST _'-T::.;
--1
) ss. )
Defendants.
X
STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY 0 3 3 KINGS
Accordingly, I, Edward M. Person, Jr., being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: a. Am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action.
b, My place of business is located at 5342 Clark Road # 175 Sarasota Florida 34233.
c. On March 31,2011, Christopher Strunk gave me in~tnr~tions topersonally serve a true conformod copy
of the Summons and Verified Complaint affirmed 0312211 1 for the case StPunk v PJYSBOE eb al. NYS County of Kings Supreme C o u r t with index 6500-2011, for personal service by USPS certified return receipt upon entity Defendants BARACK HUSSEIN O B M If andJrOSEPff R. BIDEN, SR. ;
d. I placed one copy each in a bmwn cnvelope with only the name and address of the defendant with the
mtice "Personal and ConfidentiaI" printed in the lower left corner of the envelope and sealing same with a certified return receipt with return address of Christopher Smnk and the USPS placed proper postage.
e. OnMarch 3Is, 201 1, at 1433 PM - I personally went to the George Mason Unit of the Alexandria
h e r e each envelope was deposited with the USPS for service upon Defendants: Virginia Post Office w
BARACK KLJSSEIN OBAMa II at The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20500 Certified RJR No.: 7010309000(5192264037
JOSEPH ROBI[NEmE "JOE" ELDEN, JR. a t The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20500 CeRfied ltlR No.: 70103090000192264044
Sworn t before me This zfday of April 2011

KAMAL P: SON1
Notary Publ~c, State of New Yark
Commtssion Expires March 31,2015
No. U!S0608W49 Qualifiedm Kings County
---
--
--
---
SUPREME CO'URT OF THE UNITED STATES IN RE

SCOTUS No. 10-1170arrd Rule 20 Petition for Writ of Prohibition
CERTfFICATE OF SEItVfCE
On May 6,2011, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in ewe, under penalty of pej u r y pursuant to 28 USC 1746. caused the senice of Eleven (11) complete sets of the IN RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK IX ESSE PETITIONER WITH SCOTUS RULE 20 FOR AN EXTRAORDINARYWRIT OF PROFTIBITION WITH QUO WARBANTO INQUEST affirmed April 5,2011 with exhibits as a complete set placed in a sealed folder properly addressed with proper postage wlth a delivery confirmation number to be served by USPS mail upon:
Barack Hussein Obama I1 a t Tllc.:'~Tiite House 1600 Pemsylvania Avenue NW Washington D.C. 20.500 Del. Rcpt: 03102640000129354619
Joseph R. Biden J r . a t The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue P4W Washington D.C. 20500 Del. Rcpt: 03102640000129354626
Solicitor General of the United States Room 5614 Cepai-tment af Lustice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530-0001 Del. Rcpt: 03102640000329354596 Solicitor General of the State of N.Y. Off. of Attorney General of New York The Capitol Albany, New York 12224-0341 Del. Rcpt: 03102640000129354602 James E. Long, Esq. 668 Central Avenue Albany, New York 12206 Del. Rcpt: 031C1230000109580168 Congressman Ron Paul 160 D Street NE Washington D.C. 20002 Del. Rcpt: 0310264V000129354558 John-Joseph: Forjone in esse 141 Harris Avenue Lake Luzerne, New York 12846
De facto Attorney General Eric Holder U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Del. Rcpt: 03102640000129354565 Ronald C. Machen Jr. De facto U.S. Attorney Washington D.C. United States Attorney's Office 555 4th Street, NW Washngton, DC 20630 Del. Rcpt: 03102640000129354572 De facto Solicitor General Neal Katyal Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Del. Rcpt: 03102640000129354589
H. JYilliam Van M e n in esse 351 North Road Hurley New York 12231
under penalty of -ury:
2011 Brooklyn, New York
Jib.
I EiO declare and cer*

I
, \
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn, New York 1x238 (845)-901-6767,chrisG3strunk.w~
APX
614
-
.....................................................................
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse,
SUPREME COURT OF TEE STATE OF W W YORK COUNTY OF KINGS

X
Index N o . : 6500-201 1
(Hon. ARTHUR M. SCHACK J.S.C.)
P l a i n t i f f ,
-against-
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF TRANSFER CONSOLIDATION AND
NEW RETURN DATE
N E W YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et a l . ,

Defendants.
.........................................................................
That this cross motion is based upon the annexed affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, affirmed May 17, 20 11 with exhibits 1 through 9 annexed and that Plaintiff moves with CPLR 820 17 for Transfer all Motions, CPLR 9602 for Consolidation of the Complaint with SCPuak u. Paterson
et al Index No.: 29642-08, and to change the -
motion return date on Thursday,
June 2, 20 11 at 9:45 a.m. in Part 27, Courtroom 479 to be extended to Friday, June 3, 20 11, at 9:45 a.m. in Part 27, Courtroom 479 of 360 Adams Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 according to Chamber's Rules before the Honorable Arthur M. Schack or at a time designated by the court or as soon thereafter a s counsel can be heard. There are three compelling reasons that are underlying this motion for relief for the injury caused by the bad-faith that started on the May 2, 20 11 when the R J I ~7as affirmed by the local Counsel RITA C. TOBIN Esq. of counsel to CAPLIN 85 DRYSDALE, CHARTERED in order to proceed to file Defendants: McCain Victory 2008, McCain-Palin Victory 2008 and John S, McCain7sNotice
of Motion affirmed May 2, 201 1 to Dismiss PlainWs March 22, 201 1

Memorandum of Law in support of Cross Motion Page 1 of 6
Complaint with the improper return date on Thursday, June 2, 2011 is in
contradiction to the Chamber's Rules of the Honorable Arthur M. Schack

assigned to 1.A.S. Part 27, compounded by local Counsel's failure to inform
Defendauts' WaslGngto~l D.C. Counsel to is seeking dnlission Pro Kac Vice by
fl~e l~lutian affirmed May 4, 2 0 11, and thc.reby intentionally separates their
clients Defifldants MCCAlN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008

and John $, McCaizi7sNotice of Motiort to Dismiss the Cornplaint affilmed May
2, 2011 from that of B m c k Hussein Obarna 11, Joseph R. Biden J i . , OBANLA
FQR AMERICA; QB4MA VICTORY FUND
's
Notice of Marion to Dismiss the
Cornplaint also aff?med May 2 207 1, conforming to ChamberB Rules; and
thereby, atso put PlainLifT into a dilemma w i t h the Chamber's Rules, and who
then attempted to convince local Counsel to sist the return date by one day
from Thursday to F~iday Jme 3 by the Pru~~osed stipulation shown at Exhibit 8

that %-as umso~iably rejected witlm~zt even a reply, showing compound evidence of bad-faith.
Discussion on transfer and consolidation

That Plaintiff seeks affirmative relief that should not be requested in %Ire
?,J
responding affidavits to a sun~rnaqr motion, which the motions to$ dismiss are and must ordinarily be done by c ~ v s motion s with CPLR 822 15 on14 as in
Helfcutd v. MassachusetCs Buzr&ng& I?%. Go., 197 A.D. 759, 189 N.Y.S. 246 (ISt Dept 1921) (as wherein plaintiff co~dd not use defendants' motion for s u n z r n q
judgment a$ a procedural device to strike c e r t a i n defenses without serving a
cross nlotion). Silvestro v %XJ of New Yark, 49 N.Y.S.2d 2 17 {Sup. Ct. Kings
R~iemorandum o-f Law in support of Cross MoLion Page 2 of 6
APX - 616
County 1911).Aff'd. 269 A.D. 783, 55 N.Y.S. 2d 583 (2d Dept. 1915). That
CPLR 822 17(aj permits judges, in their discretion, to refer any motion to a
judge who has decided a prior motion in the action that is related to S m n k
v.
Paterson et a E .29642-08 before Justice David I. Schmidt who had made

several interlocutory decisions that underlie this case, and germane in that the appearances of January 11,20 11 and March 11,20 11were not recorded that
Plaintiff, Joel Graber Esq. of the New York Attorney General's Office and the
Court were material witnesses to the record of why as shown as Exhibit 4 subexhibit D CPLR $22 17 is to apply in that this subdivision adopted the Individual Assignment System (I.A.S.) in the uniform rules for the Supreme Court in January 1986. This action is an election law matter to be assigned to
1.A.S. Part 1 whose assigned Justice is David I, Schmidt.
The advantage of the I.A.S. is that it permits the judge, to whom the case is assigned to acquire an intimate understanding of the case, thus avoiding the unnecessary expenditure of time and efforts involved in having different judges acquaint themselves with the prior proceedings in each action in which they were called upon to decide a motion. The inefficiencies of the "master calendar" system are well illustrated by the case of New York v. United F'undins; Inc. 106
A.D.2d 846, 484 N.Y.S.2d 245
(31d
Dep't 1984).
The original version of CPLR 922 17(a]contained a n additio~lal sentence

providing for compulsory referral of a n y motion "seeking relief similar to that sought in a prior motion to a judge who decided the prior motion (see Panzer v.
Bennan, 53 Misc. 2d 122, 277 N.Y.S.2d 186, 190 Sup. Ct. New York County
1967).This was designed to "prevent the practice of 'shopping' for relief among
different judges avhich has been strongly cotldemaed' by t h e c o ~ ~ r t Plaintiff s.

has acted k l keeping wit11 lfle Court that asked why Strunk has not filed a new
action that ~ v o ~ iiilcludc ld necessary parties and as S~IOI'LTI
a t Exhibit 4-D held
the requirement to join Barack Htlssehl Obama I1 as done herein.

As for the application of CPLR g602, there must be a~ actioli pending in
a court for that cour-t to order co~isolidatioll or joint trial Clti-i-ierev. Raeill, 55
Misc. 26 1049, 287 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1967 N.'17. Misc. (Sup. Ct. Nassau County
14671, and
i n keeping with the New York Constirution Article T\rI 519(a),
provides that the Supreme Court may transfer to itseIf an action or proceeding originated or pending i~l another court witllin the same judicial department upon &lding that the transfer will promote the administration of justice.
Plaintiffs Injuries
Plaintiff's * s i tinjuy is that there is an active underlying related case clearly referenced i n the colnplaint that must be consolidated with the case herz wherein in representing a major investment of time and experies~ce by the
I.A.S. Part 1 Justice arid tile State per se that attended ttrr-oughout the prior
proceedings including the Article 78 state constin~tional challenge to rhc electoral college that k c m e the la'iv of the case herein - must k transfe~~ed to
the 1.A.S. Part 1 Justice calendar.
Plaintiffs second injury is that knowing illat Plaintiff has 120 days to
9
serve and 60 dais from the purcl-iase of the RJI to set the initial prz-conferel~ce
meeting, and as such has been cut short - whereby Defendants' focal attorney
Rknlorai~dumof Law it1 support of Cross hfotion Page 4 o f G
APX
618
used the improper R J I as a tactic to deny Plaintiff his rightful due process
allowed by CP1,R.
Plaintiff's third injury is the cost of the Cross Motion due to the bad -
faith actions of local counsel compound by Local Counsel refusal to mitigate darnages by stipulation; and moreover, is made outrageous by the pro hac vice applicants also. That Plaintiff may not effectively prosecute the interlocutory appeal of the orders shown in Exhibit 4-D without affecting this case after Justice Schmidt
urged such action be taken and to do otherwise would put Plaintiff' in contempt
of the Court and the prior orders. Plaintiff seeks to appeal the prior orders with permission of that court to the extent that Plaintiff has cured the defect.
Conclusion i n support o f relief

Plaintiff respectfully requests the transfer and consolidation of this case with Index No. 29642-08, and that this cross motion be extended to the return date of June 3, 20 1 1; and thereafter, be combined with that the return date for
all the motions be before Justice Schmidt in I.A.S. Part 1 to coincide with the
pending answerts) and or other response(s) in coordinate with the State, the
City of New York and Justice Schmidt's schedule of say Friday July 1, 20 11. That the Court has the discretion and plenary jurisdiction with authority to take testimony of the counsels herein and especially as to the alleged kobo signing' to determine the degree of bad-faith with the requirements of the court
and plaintiff and as such Plaintiff urges sanctioiis be imposed and damage to
Plaintiff be reimburse immediately not as an abide mixed with the

APX
619
determination of liability and reimbursement necessary i n the complaint and

other furfher and different relief the Court deems necessary for justice herein.
RespectMly submitted by:
Plaintiff self-representedwithout an attorney 593 Vandcrbilt Avenue - #221 BraoMyn, New York 1 1238 (845) 90 1-6767; J3maj.l: chris@strunk.~vs
h4emorandum or Law in support o f Cross ?dotion Page G of 6
----------------------------------------------Christopher-Eark Srnrnk m esse,
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KWGS
Index No.: 6500-2011
Plaintiff,
-against-
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS e ta ! .
----..-.-.------------I--------I---------------------------------~
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KMGS
Defendants.
1
) ss. )
Accordingly, I, Julian Panachyd, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury a. Am over 18 years of age. and not a party to this action.
b. My place of business is located at 32-16 Crescent Street, Suite 5L Long Island City,
New York 11106.
c On May 19,2011. Christopher S W mstructed me to serve a true conformed coop) of the Notice of Cross Motion for Transfer Consohdabon and Nav R e t u r n Date wth suppomng &davit affirmed Ma)
17,2011 ~ v i t h exhib~ts m e x e d and memorandum of Ian for the case Smnk v NI'S BOE et a1 N Y S
County of I(mgs Supreme Court u ~ t h index 6500-2011, by USPS upon Defendants- Counsels
d. On May 20,201 1, I caused each copy wdh proper po-e
for semce by two d a ! mail of listed cwnseis
and gomg to the post office uhere each emelope vcas depcsstcd
thc USPS for semce upon
RITA C . TOBIN, Esq. of
CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED 375 Park Avenue 3 5 t h Floor

Mew York. New York 10152-3,MO HaRRIS BEACH, PLLC By THOMAS J. CARRY, Esq. KEITH M. CORBETH, Esq. The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale. New York 11553
WILLKIE F A . & GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y. 10019-6099,U.S.A.
Sworn to before me
-Not
ARFIOLO I. TfStlF!ELD
Notary Piibiir: State O f New Yark

N3.41-46f 1662 Qualified In Oi~eensCounty Ceriii~ed In Krncs County
Co8miss~anExpires h r c h 30, 20
r
- - - -- Uos-P a l SorvtdDelivery c ~ l f i m ~ ~ i ~ t
----_-_
- --
-====-== .--=- - .. - -. --_ --_-_ SF'T'!Kl r'y yps
la
%"
-ge and wver~ faes mustbe p& betoremailing. -Qm='@~lm-npnindby~
-*-
w i i i ~ i g
B?r,%!.rN,
";p
j~iji
1132143til
55tid%5935~.-~t~34 65,'2~/23r 1 {sq8)fiss-@oa 0 3 , :34 ~ ~ pr, -* -. ; - -- --- --. -" -_ -----. : i : r : : - -.--- !hiss !?irr;e .>: ---.-.Pb;CI>~ci Sa:t~'?it F:pa!
I -
gz
$ti
sz
u rn
o
4t
-.--
*&.i 6 2
, &fee
I~'
5
Keep this ~ W IFor U Inqornes: ~ AGCSSB intefmt web site at

:(K~1-@5222-1811 '..,""""""
'ra4cnaMmmus~~nr,
~
Des~~~o:ian -. -------- -@j!dj;'iigf$E&tc j Y
prIce
-A
-="
: I -
i l ,r& "J FT
pa-
: ! 'h, 7 , ) 0 . : 2 EF&C;:~ ;e!;,yy,

L.&B
I
kne-;
-a -
*'ri.r~ 3 j-
1
l . : . .
s,s5
$-Y .JK t I ~ * s e h l c e s ~
I-rcepersr)
OF~~C~MS~$~&~I
~ ~ a~ ilhr tv hy
-p "'
= b ' = . q 2 p ( n
_C_b_-
iveri: Tpfirmaili;t:
~t,
$0 71! ~~?~Oc?u 7 ya3s.ia.3 wii

----L---
LC
dg-13~:
-----..--
1 '
$
% w C d r n & & f m QMmr-NRemIpt
---------- _
isae PYJ:
NF~$ Y W I ~ YY 10019 ZCne-I Fr iorlty
2 '0
i
98.65
$3.95
! h
P,
--
"*t~altebs-&~
C-
' E l b h pl-&
f
-- -
r 0 192 3323
7.40 2:. Ex~erird U8i i\lery: 5a- ~ + ~ z iI ; ) Ilai i ~ e * . yCr+lf7 r ~i x~ t $ 1 ; 7,: k ~ e Xi * Q308Q071>$:lijcf ~63249~
1~s:: PvI: ~
--.--- --.
-$E.E4 - $5.55
'&
m n
Ps
752. m y z . 2 2
P q
d&fi
jI
.one-i ?;ro;.ify J'trl] 2 ILL r.3, Gi. ixpcte3 Gel !;aery 331 &/;iil Se i very Curif t t xzt I or,
~abe7a .
I-&
_
U.S. p 1
-and
-.-.
--
A -
"
$0.71; 3~08&37ogsu~7ge~3t;g~
-------A
mice"Deliv~ry b-mRw@
w i v e r y confirmation fee-~ must be W@ mmalflrrg
iswe
Tola1 :
I
--------
DY:,
56,55
~sentre:[taliezmwbg*
@/Lf
DE&C SJ
.
\ < ,
2=z=Li.--2+
8 ' 9 95
$20.05
3.n
**
4k:
'
:as!,
-siar'a~ Dtie:
-$8 D5
~
8, so Ea Su
Pa
ii~J23
POSTAL CUSTOMER:
\KW~MIS rempt
pwtm.
,*%=
b "
q m ~ d m e web x sitaat
,w."wsm.
lnrlulfls
shTc?;ng I&is ~ i P h ncstaae

*+ha2
3~53 stjaps 4 t i ~ j p C j O~$I:C~ p cai 1 1 -8;rJ-$1i;;i724. 6~ lo 'BFZ .~Gfi,';i i ~ ~ l s ~ $tn ?p prfr,~

i n f n r b ~ l t r n n-,TI
5E
2" =a
P
T;1
"2
~fcail l-BOD-Z2-*811 &~~R~~~ALUSECDB.~)

&idMtty
' .% ,
wfsenr1~~
~sr
P
pswmtn.WW~2
D~irst-Cb mfp~m,~
L ] P ~ ~ ~ W ~ W P ~
*->
Web-Based Email ::Print
Page 1 of 5
Prink
Cfose Window
Service o f the NOM for Transfer Consolidation and New Return Date NYS SupCtKings Subject: 6500-2011 in RE: NYC failure notice From: "Joel Graber" cJoel.Graber@ag.ny.goW Date: thu, May IS, 2011 2:30 pm To: <chris@strunk.ws> - - - - - * - .- - ---- -- -- -- -- - - A
"
This is to confirm that this office rece~ved your e-mail.

JQEL GRABER Assistant Attorney General Spmial Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau New York State Attorney General's Office 120 Broadway - 24th floor New York, NY 10271-0332 (212) 416-8645
'
FAX (212) 416-6009

Joel.Graber@ag.t?y.gov This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain informationthat m PRIVIL CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have recelved tt in error and that review, dissemination or copying of this communication IS proh~btted. If you have receC communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and notify this office. Thank you for yo1
1
3
Chuck Orsland Esq. NYC Assistant Corporation Counsel,
The NYC system does not aceept PDFs therefore the foilowing that has been loaded on Scribd.com is
' Would you please confirm the receipt of this email for me to submit w:&
r
the filing at Court by tomorrow'
Best regards
Chris Strunk
I
I8
Original Message Subject: failure notice From: MAlLER-DAEMON@p3plwbeout06-O6.prod.phx3.securese~er.net Date. Thu, May 19, 201 1 1.31 pm To. chris@strunk.ws
---
APX - 623
Service of the NOM fou Tran
Consolidationand New Return Date
'S Sup Ct Kings... Page 1 of 1
Sewice of the NOM for Transfer Consofidation and New Return Date NYS Sup Ct Kings Cty Index 6500-2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011 4:28 PM
Fram: s'chnsQstrunk.wS"~chr~sQstrunP.ws>
To: "Chuck Orsland* <corsland@law.ny~.gov>,"Joel Graber.Esq." <Joel.Graber@ag,ny.gov>
* .
"Christopher Sirunk" zce$trun~kQ~ahoa.com~, 1uil0Qver1zon.net 1 File (17 MB)
Chuck and Joel,

As follow-up to your both of kind offers to receive service by Email PDF I want to take you both up on that I am in a bit of a $$$ pinch until next week. If you each would confirm receipt by return email I will be grateful and file such with the clerk tomorow.
Attached for your information and use is a true conformed copy of the Notice of Cross Motion for Transfer Cotisolidation and New Return Date with supporting Affidavit H i e d May 17,201 1 with 9 Exhibits mexed and Memorandum of Law for the case S h n k v BOExt al. NYS County of Kings Supreme Court
with index 6500-2011.

If you have a problem receiving this please call at 845-901 -6767
Best regards Chris Stnrnk
Print
Page 1 of 4
Close Window
RE: Service of the NOM for Transfer Consolidalon and New Return Date NYS SupCt Kings Cty Index 6500-20' subject' failure notice From: "Orsiand, Chlarem" ccorsland@law.nyc.gov? Date: Tnu, May 19,2011 2:41 pm To: <ehds@strunk.ws> Cc: "Christopher Strunk" <cestrunck@yahoo.com:
- -- - - A -
---
------
---
- - -- - -
Chris:
'
I am in receipt of this amail. Chuck Orsiand Asst Gorp Counsel
*
'
--
----- -
= -
----
----"
From: chr~s@strunk.ws fmailto:chns@strunk.ws] Sent: Thursday, May 19,3115:10 PM

To: Orstand, Chlarens Cc: Joel Gmber,Et;q.; Chr~stopher Strunk Subject: Service of the NOM for Transfer Consolidation and New Return Date NYS SupQ Kings Cty Index 6500-20 falure notice
, Chuck Orsland
1
Esq. NYC k s ~ s t a nCorporation t Counsel,
The NYC system does not accept PDFs therefore the following that has been loaded on Scribd.com is
j Would you please confirm the receipt of this emad For me to submit with the filing a t Court by tomor
: Best regards
,
Chris Strunk
-- - ----- Original Message -------Subject: failure notice From: M A I L E R - D A E M O N @ p 3 p l y v b e o u t O 6 - 0 6 . p r o d . p h ~ e r . n e t Date: Thu, May 19, 2011 1:31 pm To: chris@strunk.ws
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at p3plwbeout06-06.prod.phx3.securese~er.net. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the fonowing addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<conlandQlaw.nyc.gov>: 161.185.2.11 failed aRer I sent the message. Remote host said: 552 #5.3.4 message size exceeds lrrnit
*
II
1 --- Below this line is a copy of the message.

Retum-Path: cchris@strunk.ws>
SiTPREf E COURT OF THE STATE OF PIEW YORS COUNTY OF KINGS Index N o . :
.....................................................................
Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse
6500-2011
x Qlon. Arthur M.Schack J S C )
Plaintiff,
-against-
Filed: Maxch 2 2 , 2 0 1 1
HEW 'IIORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;et al.
Defendants.
NOTICE OF NOTION FOR TRANSFER, CONSOLIDATION RETUaH DATE
NEW
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTIOH affirmed MAY 1 7 , 2 011
Exhibit 1: RJI sigr~ed May 2, 20 11; Exhibit 2: Notice of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Todd E. Phillips affirmed May 4, 20 11; Exhibit 3: Defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCMN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 and John S , McCain's Ncrtice of Motion to Dismiss the Complaint afErmed May 2, 20 11; Exhibit 4 : with Defendants Barack Hussein Obama 11, Joseph R. Riden Jr., OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAA&4 VIGTORY FUND 's Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Complaint afftirmed May 2 , 20 11; Exhibit 5 : STIPULATION of EXTENSION of Plaintiff, the State and the City of New York i3ed w i t h the Clerk of the Court on May 12, 201 1 ; Exhibit 6: Chamber's Rules of Arthtlr M. Schack J.S.C.; Exhibit 7: Docket for 29642-08 b31 the Clerk of the Court; Exhibit 8: Proposed STIPULATION of EXTENSION of return date; Exhibit 9: Petition for Writ of Profitbition with request for quo sTarrantoinquest.
r
Memorandum of Law
Affidavit if Service
Dated:
Way
Eroaklyn, New York

Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse Plaintiff self-represented wjo an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281, Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 E-mail: chri@strunk.ws
011
Plaintiff,
-againstPLAINTIFF'S COMBINED
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF IZLECTIOIPS; JAMES A . AFFIDAVIT IN W a L S I l / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQULLA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. OPPOSITION TO PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; IIEFENDMT CANDIDATES ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMf COLON, in their Official and MCCAIR ANB OBAMA individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCWARZ, JR.; MOTIOm TO PETER G. PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZTIVSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKl; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH DISMISS (a.k.a.Bany Soetoro, aka. Barack Hussein Obama 11, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC THE COMPLMNT STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKlfdG F N I L I E S PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOI-IN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMIYIXE; 'Q THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE 3 INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF ;j THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; Y PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; 0&4MA FOR , . . . c p ? ? ; -z -5;* MERlCA; OBAMA VICTORY F U N . NCCAW VICTURY 52008; MCCAIN-Pam VICTORY 2008; J o h n and Jane Does; .+?". -32 and XYZ Entities.
z? 3 s-2'.
--s
$2
Mendants.
e
cpt
, ? g
1 =. 1
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say under
penalty of perjury:
Plaintiff's Combined AfEdavit in Response to Candidate Defendants Page 1 of 25
APX
- 627
1.
Plaintiff is self represented without an attorney with the complaint filed
March 22,20 11, and makes this affidavit with 10 exhibits annexed combined in
1 1 , MCCAIN VICTORY response in opposition to Defendants John Sidney McCain 1
2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 (Republican Candidate Defendants) motion to dismiss the complaint as to them affirmed May 2, 20 11 with the return date on Thursday, June 2, 20 1 1 filed by local Counsel RITA 6. TOBIPJ Esq. of counsel to CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED, and in opposition to Defendants Barack Hussein Obarna 11 (BHO 1 1 1 , Joseph R. Biden Jr., OBAMA FOR M E R I C A ; OBAMA
VICTORY FUND 's (Democrat Party Candidate Defendants) Notice of Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint affirmed May 2, 201 1 with the return date on Friday, June 3 , 2 0 11 filed by THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. and KEITH M. CORBETH, Esq. of counsel to HARRIS BEACH, PLLC and in the context of a Cross Motion for all such motions and respective responses to be Transferred and Consolidated using 1 Index No.: CPLR $602 with the active Complaint with Strunk u. Faterson et a 29642-08 assigned to the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. of I.A.S. Part 1, and furthermore, that with the motion return date on Thursday, June 2, 201 1 at 9 1 4 5 a.m. in I.A.S. Part 27, Courtroom 479 to be extended to Friday, June 3, 201 1, at 9:45 a.m. in Part 27, Courtroom 479 according to Chamber's rules before the Honorable Arthur M. Schack at 360 Adarns Street Brooklyn New York 1120 1, or at a time designated by the court or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard.
2.
That Plaintiff combines this response to both major state party presidential
for the respective candidates (hereinafter known as "Candidate Defendant(sJn) Democratic and Republican party who jointly control the New York State Board of
Plaintiffs Combined Affidavit in Response to Candidate Defendants Page 2 of 25
APX
628
Elections apparatus including jurisdiction and authority over all local boards to the conduct of election cycles in New York with fiduciary responsibility attached.
FACTS ASSOCIATED WITH PLAINTIFF'S INDIVIDUAL INJURY

3 . Plaintiff is a de jure natural-born Citizen (NBC)of the United States that by
virtue of being born in Manhattan New York to natural parents, one male and one female who were married U.S. Citizens, and additionally Plaintiff is a citizen of New York registered to vote in Brooklyn New York.
4.
That the presidential elections are conducted within each state of the
several states plus D.C. for a total of 51 separate election contests for appointing the respective electoral college vote of the respective state legislature; 5. The U.S. Constitution Article I1 Section I recognizes the plenary power of
each respective state legislature to choose the method of appointing the respective Electoral College slate from that respective state in the appointment of the chief magistrate, President of the United States (POTUS];
6.
That the U.S. Constitution Twentieth amendment does not designate who is
responsible for determining the eligibility of the presidential candidate for POTUS.
7. That the New York State Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over any
election that occurs in New York whether for Federal of State officers.
8. That the New York State Supreme Court has authority to determine
whether a candidate is eligible for office including a candidate for POTUS.
9.
In New York, there is no right to vote for the presidential slate per se, it is
merely a privilege granted by the state legislature that may be withdrawn as a privilege just as quickly as it was given within a particular election cycle.
Plaintifrs Combined &davit in Response to Candidate Defendants Page 3 of 25
10. That George Washington as to the sanctity of the executive office in his
Farewell address at the end of the second term as president warned: "But let there be no change by usumation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." (Emphasis added by Affirmant)
1I. That as a matter of where an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution must
be rightfully found was expressed by James Madison who stated: "[a]$a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution . . . the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in intentions of the Bod~7 the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it received all the authority which it possesses" (Farrand, IV, 447-48)
12. That the New-York Convention on July 26, 1788 ratified the U.S.
Constitution with the text shown on the YaIe University Law School website at h t t ~/ :/ avalon.law .vale.edu / 18th centuni/ratny.asp ( I ) , in the present form that
New-York ratified the U.S. Constitution on July 26 1788 after nine states (3/4s) having done so already, members of the ratifymg convention stated in part:
1
"WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Petvlsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents] and having also serio~~sly and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known.
That all Power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the People, and that Government is instituted by them for their common Interest Protection and Security.
That the enjoyment of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are essential rights which every Government ought to respect and preserve. That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to Plaintiff's Combined AfEdavit in Response to Candidate Defendants Page 4 of 25
APX
630
was drafted in the New York Convention during 1788 taken from the failed effort
in Philadelphia during 1787 that according to Chief Justice Robert Yates of the New York Supreme Court there in his notes of the Secret Proceedings (2)as an effort according to Luther Martin of Baltimore January 27, 1788 stated to the governor of Maryland regarding Messer's Yates and Lansing notes: "that some time by July 5"' 1787, the honorable Mr. Yates and Mr. Lansing of New-York, left the convention; that they had uniformly opposed the system, and that believe, despairing of getting a proper one brought forward, or of rendering any real service, they returned no more." and a s for the New York position during 1788 as expressed by Justice Yates on the eventual "Bill of Rights" is found at Page 229 of The Road to Indepe?zde?tce The
Revolution Movement in New York 1 773-1777 by Bernard Mason 1966 by
University of Kentucky Press-Lexington Library of Congress #66-26691) "Robert Yates, writing in 1788 under the pseudonym "Sydney" threw some light on the fate of the bill of rights. Those who favored the bill based themselves on English precedents: the Petition of Right, 1628, and the Bill of Rights 1689. Those opposed denied the analogy, comparing New York to a "state of nature" without any constitution; therefore, any new constitution would operate a s a bill of rights. Moved by these considerations and the provisions for frequent elections and impeachment, the Convention dropped the idea. N.Y.J., June 13, 1788; Paul L. Ford, Essays on the Constitution of the united States, Published During Its Discussion by the People 17871788 (Brooklyn, 1892),pp. 297-3 14."
their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress i s entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution."
"ecret A-aceedincrs And Debates O f The Convention Assembled At Philadelphia, in the year 1787 for the purpose of forming the constitution of the united states of America from the notes taken by the late - Robert Yates, Esq. Chief Justice of New York, and copied by John Lansing; J r . Esq. Late Chancellor of that State, members in convention Central Book Company 850 DeKalb Avenue Brooklyn New York 11221
Plaintif% Combined Aftidavit in Response to Candidate Defendants Page 5 of 25
APX
-
631
13. That both the Nem- York Federalists and the New York anti-Federalists
forced the relocation of the Constitutional Convention to New York in 1788, and that with New York as the new Capitol of the USA, New York is where George Washington was sworn in a s the first President of the USA; and as such
14. On July 26, 1788 the anti-Federalists and Federalists agreed to join the
Union as expressed in the ratification document that the necessity that eligibility for both the Executive and Congress requires each candidate to be a natural-born Citizen PI - however, in the actual U.S. Constitution only mandates the naturdborn Citizen (NBC) requirement for the Executive - but is the measure of NBC.
15. The people who really knew what a natural-born Citizen is were those who
dealt with foreign relations. -After all, being identified as a natural-born Citizen really does not have any distinct purpose while within the U.S., save that of being President. It does, however, have great importance in terms of foreign relations. 16. In regards to U.S. Foreign relations: A natural-born citizen, being born on U.S. soil, of parents who were both citizens, means that no other country can obligate you to allegiance. By the Law of Nations as referenced in the U.S. Constitution at Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10, the law voluntarily adopted by all civilized nations in order to resolve disputes, no other country can require you to join their military. Those who are born of parents who are not citizens acquire the
' That no Persons except natural born Citizens, or such as were Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six, or such as held Commissions under the United States during the War, and have at any t h e since the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six become Citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be Freeholders, shall be eliaihle to the Places o f President, Vice President, or Members of either House of the Con~ress of t k United States. (emphasis added by Plaintiff)
t Response to Candidate Defendants Page 6 of 25 Plaintiff's Combined H ~ d a v iin
APX - 632
condition of their father by inheritance of blood. Even if born on U.S. soil, they have, by jus sanguinis, a dual character. They can be claimed bv two countries.
17. Chief Justice John Jay knew what he was doing when he suggested to
General Washington that only a natural-born citizen should hold the position of Commander-in-Chief. It was the only way that no other power could legally require the services of the President, as seen by BHO I1 with dual allegiance. 18. A s early as 1862 representative John Bingham acknowledged congressional plenary authority over citizenship and the constitutional restraints on those powers, stating:
"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens... [There is] no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians. 37 CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE 1639 (18621."
19. The Representative Bingham's statement is significant because it confirms congressional plenary authority over citizenship and that the doctrine of which
Rep. Bingham again in 1872 coafirms.
"Mr. BINGHAM. If the gentleman will only let me go on I will answer a l l his questions. A s to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Howard is a natural-born of a doubt. citizen of the United State there is not room for the showdow~l He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express w-ords of the Constitution, a s amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth." And further should we consider Rep. Bingham's testimony reliable? Here is what Justice Hugo Black (a former U.S. Senator from Alabama) said in 1968: "Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said,
Plaintiff's Combined =davit
in Response to Candidate Defendants Page 7 of 25
and most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingharn, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means." -Duncan v. Louisiana,391 US 145 - Supreme Court 1968..." And furthermore, here is what Henry Fletcher (who established the Minnesota Law Review) had to say in 1919 about citizenship and allegiance as published in the Atlantic Monthly - (1919) "OUR DIVIDED COUNTRY" by Henry J Fletcher: "Our country furnishes many examples of that curious phenomenon, double allegiance. All persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are declared by the Constitution to be citizens. This is true of the children of non-naturalized aliens domiciled here. But the children of aliens have the same nationality as their parents, according to the laws of nearly all foreign countries, and such children are therefore subject to a double allegiance. In this way, if a German living in this country chooses not to accept the citizenship which we so generously urge upon him, his children born here may, when they grow up, disclaim their American citizenship. A young man born here of alien parents may, if he goes to Europe for study, be forced into the army, and the United States will be powerless to protect him, even though he intends to return and reside here. Even if the alien father be naturalized here, the minor son born here before the father's naturalization, if he returns to his father's native country, is liable to be seized and compelled to perform military service, and his American citizenship will prove to be a mere fiction. If a German domiciled here is so attached to the memories of the fatherland as to refuse the proffer of American citizenship, and his children while growing up are diligently nurtured in the same sentiments of loyalty, they cannot be relied on by the United States in time of war as Germany and France are now relying on their subjects at home. If in addition to this consciousness of divided allegiance, there are family ties and expectations of inheritance in the old country, it is clear that the Americanism of such persons, considered as an asset in time of war with Germany, must be charged off a s worthless, if it be not an actual liability."
20.
That the People of New-York maintain the express right as then
guaranteed under the Ninth and 10th amendments to secede as is required were the express mandates of the U.S. Constitution not followed, and that New-York Plaintiff's Combined Hidavit in Response to Candidate Defendants Page 8 of 25
would remain separate until such trespass is made whole again as expressed in the July 26 1788 ratification that stated: "That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may hase granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution."
2 1. During June 2008 Barack Hussein Obama I1 had his campaign provide his
alleged CoLB (see Exhibit 1)showing that BHO I1 was born August 4, 1961 as the natural son to the minority aged U.S. Citizen mother Stanley Ann D. Obarna married to the majority aged non-immigrant alien foreign student Barack Hussein Obama Senior then a British subject; and therefore, Defendant Democratic Candidate Barack Hussein Obama I1 is not a natural-born Citizen eligible to the POTUS as mandated by the U.S. Constitution Article I1 Section 1 Clause 5 (4).
22. Plaintiff relies upon the CoLB shown as Exhibit 1 that shows that
Defendant BHO II is not NBC because he has dual allegiance at birth with a majority aged British subject father who was a non-immigrant alien foreign student while married to a minor aged U.S. Citizen.
23. New York does not consider BHO I1 a NBC with a British subject father.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
APX
635
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AS TO JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111

24. Based upon the foregoing background facts Plaintiff has a cause of action
against defendant McCain and his fund raising done here in New York; and
25. That because Plaintiff is a Republican party member who voted in both the
2008 primary and general election and complains that there is now a particular
injury about to be repeated in the 2012 election cycle as Defendant Obarna has announced intentian for re-election to POTUS here in New York, and as such Plaintiff starts the response in opposition to Defendants John Sidney McCain 111,
MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 motion to dismiss the
complaint as to them alleging that Plaintiff: has no cause of action, has no standing to sue has no particularized injury and failed to allege fraud as to whether or not an injury in fact occurred.
26. That Plaintiff relied on the U.S. Senate sense resolution 51 1 in which
Defendant Obarna as well as Clinton et al. made materially false representations that Defendant McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone (see Exhibit 21.
27. Defendant McCain chose the least experienced political running mate
available, Alaska Governor Sarah Pdin(.5!,with the inten tion of micro managing her every move and public exposure to protect fellow CFR member BHO 11, and as such furtherance of discovery will prove these set of facts to the jury at trial.
28. Defendant McCain stifled his running mate's public presentations along
with dissenting speech expressed privately or publicly among his supporters in
5 Then Governor of Alaska with a 2009 estimated 698,473 total population, and in which the Alaska 2006 state election contest for Governor Sarah Palin only won by a plurality of 48.33%or 114,697 of the 21 1,935 total votes cast statewide in Alaska.
regards to questionable eligibility of his opponent and fellow CFR member BHO 11.
29. Plaintiff's vote as a one-person-one-vote consideration given to
McCain/Falin is a contract with Defendant McCain and Ms. Palin that requires consideration in return in the form of fulfilment of the fiduciary duty to challenge BHO I1 as ineligible for POTUS to protect Plaintiff's individual right not to have the U.S. Constitution eviscerated as being done by the Usurper et al.
30. Defendant McCain ran for President knowing that BHO I1 was ineligible to
POTUS who as a standard equal to his own a t least needed two U.S. Citizen parents when born on United States soil or at least arguably U.S.A. territories including the birth alleged in the Panama Canal Zone.
3 1. That when Defendants McCain and Defendant Biden failed to challenge the
eligibility of BHO II before January 20, 2009 Plaintiff proceeded to duly fired BHO
I1 (see Exhibit 3) as is my responsibility, and right by the U.S. Constitution's
First, Fifth, Ninth Tenth and Twentieth Amendments as guaranteed by the State Constitution as an equal protection matter of the State Bill of Rights Section 11P1. 32. Plaintiff was unaware that Mr. McCain was born in the city of Colon of the Republic of Panama when he had been told that Mr. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone by the U.S. Senate Sense Resolution 51 1 that instead was concealed until the summer of 20 10 when Affirmant received a copy of the Ilay-
'
IEqual protection of laws; discrimination in civil rights prohibited]
31 1. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any
subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938; amended by vote of the people November 7,2001.) Plaintiffs Combined Affidavit in Response to Candidate Defendants Page 11 of 25
Banatl-Varilla Treaty of November 18, 1903 from Clark Hambin (see ;14-
and that Treaty has 26 articles in which the two pertinent to the status of the city
of Colon under that Treaty refer to the Conventionfor the Construction o f a Ship
Canal says that the Colon Panama, the birth city cited on McCain's 1936 long
form birth certificate where he was witnessed being born, and where his parents resided, in Colon, Republic de Panama, is not part of the Canal Zone, quote: ARTICLE I The United States guarantees and wi1I maintain the independence of the Republic of Panama.
ARTICLE 11 The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the distance of five miles on each side of the center line of the route of the Canal to be constructed; the said zone beginning in the Caribbean Sea three marine miles from mean low water mark and extending to and across the Isthmus of Panama into the Pacific ocean to a distance of three marine miles from mean low water mark WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE CITlES OF PANAM4 AND COLON and the harbors adjacent to said cities, WHICH ARE INCLUDED WITHIN TNE BOUNDARBS O F THE ZONE ABOVE DESCRIBED, SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS GRANT..
."
33. Defendant McCain maliciously concealed his own birth in the Republic of
Panama (see Exhibit 5)that makes him not eligible for POTUS along with BHO 1 1 ,
as part of the scheme to defraud Plaintiff along with those similarly situated; and
34. That notwithstanding the fact that Defendant McCain is the son of an
active U.S. Military Officer he was born on foreign soil not U.S. soil or territory and concealed that fact by stating he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
35. A s to the facts that apply to the complaint against Republican Candidate
Defendants' John Sidney McCain I11 and MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN
VICTORY 2008 agents fund raising committees that show Defendant McCain
Plaintiff's Combined Affidavit in Response to Candidate Delendants Page 12 of 25
Itnew he had been born in Colon Republic of Panama not Panama Canal Zone;
36. Plaintiff relied on McCain's materially false representations that he w a s

born in the Canal Zone and that Mr. McCain absolutely knew that Defendant Democratic Candidate BHO I1 only had dual allegiance at birth as his father was a British subject of majority age and minor aged mother U.S. Citizen.
37. However the Republican Candidate Defendants' John Sidney McCain 111
and Democratic Candidate Barack Hussein Obama I1 based upon the foregoing
reasons acted with pre-meditation in the 2008 election cycle in New York by alleging the McCain birth in the Panama Canal Zone as an offspring of military personnel stationed there, used the U.S. Senate Sense Resolution 511 of 2008 with no authority of law, to mislead Plaintiff and those voters similarly situated;
38. That Defendant McCain maliciously failed to challenge the eligibility of BHO
I1 before the election and afterward when BHO I1 gained sufficient votes as part of
the scheme to defraud Plaintiff along with those similarly situated.

39. That the foregoing particulars are prima facie evidence that Republican
Candidate McCain ~naliciously conspired with Democratic Candidates Barack Hussein Obama I1 and Joseph R. Biden Jr. to gain ballot access with the U.S. Senate Sense Resolution 511 that has no force of law in order to deny Plaintiff along with those similarly situated a reasonable expectation of participation in the election that would not have a negative consequence of participation.
40. That according to Robert Kenneth Dornan who in February 2008 told
Affirmant, and in a radio interview together that supported the public record that Defendant McCain had previously exhibited a pattern of deceit and deception
Plaintiffs Combined Atdavit in Response to Candidate Defendants Page 13 of 25
APX
- 639
going back before the Vietnam W a r s and as U.S. Senator concealed evidence of the 72 1 missing in action and prisoners held by the Vietnamese, sealed those records in order to not fulfil1 the promises for reparations under the Paris Treaty, and that Defendant McCain sealed his own military records to cover-up malice a s
a pilot before he was captured as a downed pilot; and that the pattern supports
the allegation of premeditation to cause injury and the potential of individual injury of Plaintiff along with those similarly situated.
4 1. Defendant McCain has uttered not a word or comment other than to say he
supports nearly every move and policy initiative that BHO I1 has taken despite each action being void ab initio.
42. And that the foregoing is evidence in the scheme to defraud that supports
the complaint of the unjust enrichment intended with use of Defendants' John Sidney McCain 111, MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 fund raising and is in conjunction with the State defendants and respective state comlnittees who failed to perform their fiduciary duty to eligible voters.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AS TO BARaCK HBSSEIN OBAMA I1 43. Based upon the foregoing background facts as against Defendant McCain
Plaintiff repeats same as hereafter however omits it for brevity that necessitates that there is a cause of action against Defendant Obama and his fund raising also in New York in that both campaigns together acted with malice against Plaintiff
and those similarly situated and is support in such allegation as follows; and
41. That on August 26 , 2008 after Plaintiff fired BHO 1 1 , Defendant Obama
responded with correspondence (see Exhibit 6) that as a demurer stated
APX
/
640
--_--
'...due to the separation of powers, it is not within our authority to become involved in legal matters. You must resolve this issue through the judicial system." 45. That the August 26, 2008 demurer shown as Exhibit 6 is an invitation for Plaintiff to sue Defendant Obarna as done herein. 46. That Plaintiff opposes the Defendants Barack Hussein Obarna TI (BHO 11), Joseph R. Biden Jr., OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA WCTORY FUND 's (Democrat Party Candidate Defendants) Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Complaint whose attorney contends, therein wrongly. that somehow Plaintiff: "...lacks standing to challenge the qualification of the President; ...has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;. ..has failed to plead fraud with particularity; ...action is frivolous; this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case; ... is collaterally estopped from bringing this action; and the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendants."
ADDITIONAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF BARING DEFENDANT OBAMA FROM THE 2012 BALLOT IN NEW YORK
47. In early 2009 Plaintiff obtained a copy of the March 20, 1964 Divorce Decree
(see Exhibit 7 sub-exhibit B-1 thru B-5) as between Stanley Ann D. Obarna and Barack Hussein Obama Senior, decided by the Honorable Samuel P. King presiding Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit of the State of Hawaii Division of Domestic Relations with Divorce No. 57972 so ordered adjudged and decreed that Stanley Ann Obama in her Hawaii marriage with Barack Hussein Obama Sr. divorced, thereby granting Stanley Ann Obama full custody of Barack f Hussein Obama I1 and granting Barack Hussein Obarna Senior "the right o reasonable visitation...", and that based upon information belief such a divorce required one year of separation to become final.
Plaintiffs Combined =davit
in Response to Candidate Defendants Page 15 of 25
APX -
641
48. A s to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama's first husband Barack Hussein Obama
Senior of last non nth the INS / ICE / DHS have released records to a one Heather Smathers, who a s a journalist is crafting her own storyline and legend for Barack Hussein Obarna I1 and does not want to release those documents to Declarant by download from Scribd.com at http://www.scribd.c0m/doc/54015762/3arackHusseie-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File; however the case may be for withholding
the entire download of documents were obtained by a series of snapshots with the germane portions to the case herein as documents cooberating evidence of the marriage and birth of BHO I1 (see Exhibit 8 with sub exhibit A-1 through A-12):
a. At Document pages 5 2 through 55, on July 28, 1960 (see sub-exhibit A1 through A-4) the U.S. Customs agent obtained a record of BHO
Senior's fingerprints, signature, and verified the birth record and then conducted a background search with Barack Hussein Obama Senior's fingerprints that confirmed that the alien's birth date was June 1 8 , 1934
-
see BHO Senior's signature on page A- 1 and again on A-3.
b. At Document pages 49 and 50, on July 29, 1959 (see sub-exhibit A-5 /
@)the U.S. Consulate General in Nairobi Kenya Eleanor R.
Borrowdale authorized BHO Senior to obtain a student visa and enter the United States as a non-immigrant alien foreign student a t the University of Hawaii. c. At Document page 39, on April 12, 1961 (see sub-exhibit A-7) the local
INS officer Lyle H. Dahlin in the Memo to File discussed the legality of
the BHO Sr. marriage to SAD Obama and deemed marriage legitimate.
Plaintiff's Combined Aff'idavit in Response to Candidate Defendants Page 16 of 25
d. At Document page 35,36, on August 31, 1961 the INS granted BHO Sr.
born June 18, 1934 an extension of time and or temporary employment request under the student Visa on the approval listed BHO Sr. married to Stanley Ann Dunham of Honolulu (see sub-exhibit A-8 / A-9). e. At Document page 34, on August 3 3, 1961 the INS Agent William Wood in a hand written memo authenticated that Stanley Ann D. Obama and August 4, 1961Barack Hussein Sr. "have one child born in Hor~olulu Barack Obama Ll, child liuing with mother ..." (see sub-exhibit A- 10) f. At Document page 2 1, on April 28, 1964, (see Exhibit A-1 1) the I N S agent M.F. McKeon stated, "After alien stated he was married, he stated he was separated and that they may get a divorce. The wife [SAD Obama]in the Philippines from whom he is separated is a U.S.C. memo on yellow paper in file indicates he had uafe in Kenya wherx he anived in U.S. in 1959." g. At Document page 7, on July 23, 1964 the INS verified that BHO Sr. departed July 6, 1964 back to Kenya (see Exhibit A-121. 49. On April 27 20 11, Barack Hussein Obama I1 personally held a press conference as a material witness and participant to provide his alleged long form
(LF] CoLB (see Exhibit 9) that confirms the CoLB released June 2008 shown as
Exhibit 1 for the August 4, 1961 birth of the natural son to the minority aged U.S. Citizen mother married to the majority aged non-immigrant alien foreign student Barack Hussein Obarna Senior then a British subject; and therefore, Defendant Democratic Candidate Barack Hussein Obama I1 absolutely admits and confirms he is not a natural-born Citizen eligible to the POTUS as mandated by the US Constitution Article I1 Section 1 Clause 5. And that were this latest
Plaintiffs Combined Affidavitin Response to Candidate Defendants Page 17 of 25
APX
- 643
release to be proven fraudulent, then such would constitute a felony committed by BHO I1 within the scheme to defraud in furtherance of the ongoing cover-up to continue the seizure of the Executive while aided and abetted by Defendant McCain et a l . to further injure Plaintiff and those similarly situated.
50. Let alone any discussion of the various allegations of the fraudulent aspects
of both the CoLB shown as Exhibit 1 and LF CoLB shown as Exhibit 9, as such allegations are not entertained herein, or in the complaint for the simple reason that both documents are taken as a prima facie fact as evidence that there is no material difference between the two documents and they are compatible with the original release and statement going back to June of 2008 that shows BHO 11's father is a British subject and therefore, BHO I1 is not NBC when born with dual allegiance; and if found otherwise merely supports the alleged scheme to defraud. 5 1. Further, that both CoLB releases inexplicably show the various arguments that BHO II financed with two maion plus in legal fees to have attorneys argue to various courts that to release a long form birth certificate would be injurious to
BHO 11 - is an absolutely fraud upon evely court where BHO I1 appeared and that
goes unpunished; and that the funds raised are ill-gotten gains.
AS TO PLAINTIFF STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE QUALIFICATION
OF THE USURPER TO THE PRESIDENT

52. Based upon the foregoing background facts as against Defendant McCain
and Defendant Obama Plaintiff repeats same as hereafter however omits it for brevity in that there is a cause of action against Defendant Obama and his fund raising done here in New York who acted with malice against Plaintiff and those
Plaintiff's Combined Affidavit in Response to Candidate Defendants Page 18 of 25
similarly situated does have standing to challenge the qualification of a candidate for POTUS and has been doing so continuously in this Court all be it with fits and starts since October 27, 2008 and in that this issue is one of first impression.
5 3 . That although a challenge was not launched during the petition process
such statutory requirement does not apply herein as eligibility to be POTUS is merely a technical issue without statutory limits that when asserted a t any point before or after the election is not to be a matter of estoppel or res-adjudicata - the simple fact is that the U.S. Constitution may not be amended by a popular vote of the people - to allow a usurper into the POTUS as a precedent is catastrophic.
51. That Plaintiff is the only person in the U.S.A. to have duly fired the Usurper
on J a n u a q 2 3 , 2009 a shown as Exhibit 3, and that Plaintiff acted with the right guaranteed by the lst,9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
55. That Plaintiff has every right to bring a State Court action to fire an official
when such person has violated the technical provisions of the respective constitution and law as with an improper or void oath of office or ineligibility of a state officer, the POTUS is in effect of the Constitution a state appointed officer of New York to the U.S.A. as part of the social contract in lieu of disunion.
AS TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF A CLAIM UPON WHICH
RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED

and Defendant Obama Plaintiff repeats same as hereafter however omits it for
brevity that there is a cause of action against Defendant Obama and his fund
Plaintiff's Combined Mdavit in Response to Candidate Defendants Page 19 of 25
APX
645
raising done here in New York who acted with malice against Plaintiff and those similarly situated does have a claim upon which relief can be granted.
5 7 . This Court in Part 1 has original jurisdiction under both the Federal and
state constitution to hear and resolve all election matters occurring or having occurred in New York, and with the U.S. Constitution and 20th Amendment.
58. For not being a natural-born Citizen Defendant Obama must be barred
from the New York general election ballot along with Senator McCain and Calero.
AS TO A S TO PLAINTIFF'S PLEADING OF FRAUD WITH PARTICULARITY
and Defendant Obama Plaintiff repeats same as hereafter however omits it for brevity that there is a cause of action against Defendant Obama and his fund raising done here in New York who acted with malice against Plaintiff and those similarly situated who does plead fraud with particularity.
60. Both Defendants tendered a false and misleading statement intended to

mislead Plaintiff and those similarly situated.
61. That Plaintiff relied upon the statements made and was injured a s a result.
AS TO PLAINTIFF'S ACTION IS MERITORIOUS AND NOT FRIVOLOUS
62. Based upon the foregoing background facts a s against Defendant McCain
and Defendant Obama Plaintiff repeats same as hereafter however omits it for brevity that there is a cause of action against Defendant Obarna and their fund raising done here in New York who acted wilh malice against Plaintiff and those similarly situated does have a meritorious cause of action which is not meant to
Plaintiffs Combined m ~ d a v iin t Response to Candidate Defendants Page 20 o f 25
APX
646
harass or be frivolous in any way.

63. Any prior Court action that has no bearing upon Plaintiffs injuries and
cause of action herein is not germane any more than Defendant's lawyers numerous other actions have bearing unless relevant to the complaint herein.
61. Clearly the Federal Courts have ruled that standing may only occur in this
particular set of circumstances in state court where the various elections involving eligibility and qualifications occur, as there are no federal elections per se all elections are state elections even when electing the state's federal officers.
AS TO THIS COURT'S SUBJECT AfIATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE
and Defendant Obarna Plaintiff repeats it as hereafter; however omits it for brevity that there is a cause of action against Defendant Obarna and his fund raising done here in New York and who acted with malice against Plaintiff and those similarly situated does afford this Court subject matter jurisdiction over the case
as far as state law provides under the U.S. Constitution regarding elections.
66. The State Court may not remove a sitting president from office that must be
done by the 2Sth Amendment, may report on eligibility with the 20thAmendment.
67. However, the State Court may report on the Iaw a s it applies to the state
election in New York that based upon full faith and credit in the documents provided by the various states, as a state court has the authority to rule on eligibility of a candidate at any point as a technical matter without statutory limit.
Plaintiffs Combined Affidavit in Response to Candidate Defendants Page 2 1 of 25
68. For the information and consideration by this Court, on April 3 , 2009 the
Congressional Research Service's legal memorandum looks at qualification of the president and legal challenges to the eligibility of a Candidate (see Exhibit 10).
AS TO PLAINTIFF NOT BEING COLLATERALLY ESTQPPED FROM
BRINGING THIS ACTION
and Defendant Obama Plaintiff repeats same as hereafter however omits it for
brevity that there is a cause of action against Defendant Obama and his fund raising done here in New York who together with the McCain Campaign acted with malice against Plaintiff and those similarly situated does and is not collaterally estopped in that related case with Index 29642-08 remains active and awaits consolidation with this case herein as the remedy with necessary parties be joined and as so held by the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. at Part 1; and
70. There has not been adjudication of this matter in Eastern District of New
York even by the past corporation counsel for General Motors now on that bench in fulI grandeur; nor was the complaint there valid under Federal rules without a support affirmation; and without an affirmation such was to be deemed frivolous.
7 1 . With the exception of the New York State Board of Elections who
presumably deemed 29642-08 improperly served, in effect there is neither an identity of issues except for the eligibility issue and or an over lap of defendants other than those state officers also serving as POTUS elector slate members at the 2008 general election; and that the Court in 29642-08 invited necessary parties
be joined before a decision on the matter of eligibility would be rendered.
AS TO THE COURT'S PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVERTHEDEFENDANTS
and Defendant Obarna Plaintiff repeats it hereafter however omits it for brevity, that the Court has personal jurisdiction over defendants upon proper service.
73. That as a matter of law, Plaintiff is required to have completed all service of
defendants by July 20,201 1 or four months or say 120 days after filing the Complaint as done herein on March 22, 20 11; and that which has been completed is a matter of court record with the Clerk of the court..
74. Service is still being accomplished due primarily to financial constraints
upon plaintiff who does not operate an office for which to conduct legal actions.
75. That process of service upon defendants herein is being done in Chicago,
Washington D.C., Alexandria Virginia, Brooklyn & New York as well as Long Island and Albany New York as such a s with the requirement to make service complete within 20 days for each defendant or either service is dependent upon Affirmant meeting the costs and reimburse the servers accordingly for travel and expense; the completion off service is much more difficult in New York state court than with Federal jurisdiction, and Plaintiff herein depends upon a level playing field among all parties within the understanding that an individual may evade service unlike in the federal jurisdiction and thereby requires Affirmant to utilize time provided for such service; arid the co~nplete
76. While serving BHO I1 in Chicago it was discovered that Barack Hussein
Obarna I1 did not even own the supposed residence at 5046 S Greenwood Ave., Chicago, IL 606 15; and where we could not nail and then mail according to CPLR;
APX
649
because the Property has a homestead exemption under the name of a Illinois Circuit Court judge who appears as owner and or participating in a "multilayer" real estate transaction that is the expertise of the law firm for BHO I1 and or the Judge to receive a Fannie Mae loan with a trust setup by the Northern Trust Co.
77. That Plaintiffs time for service process has been adversely affected by the
bad faith actions with the M I and motion matters in the accompanying cross
motion for transfer consolidation and new return date filed May 23, 20 11.
78. Were defendant(s) to accept alternative service, a s with CPLR 5312-a it
would save all involved much time money and energy all around. 79. For instance, notwithstanding all my and my servers attempts to personally serve papers upon the Occupant of the White House, we were barred at the White House gate and Press entrance by armed guards who told us to make an appointment and when we tried to do that based upon the subject material legal service we were ba-]red an appointment and directed to the use the USPS instead;
80. A s such even after the White House invited Plaintiff to sue them a s shown
in Exhibit 6, we have done the necessary USPS service in the case of Barack Hussein Obarna I1 and Joseph R. Biden Jr. and unless they would afford u s an appointment to duly serve them personally such must be deemed sufficient service by the Court under CPLR 5200 1 after July 20, 20 11.
8 1. However as the case may be decided by the Court there will continue to be
a challenge to anyone not NBC for any ballot access before the 20 12 election cycle
and it behooves all to fess up now rather than later to process in that this Court
has full and complete original jurisdiction of eligibility and ballot access.
Plaintiff% Combined Affidavit in Response to Candidate Defendants Page 24 of 25
APX
650
Wherefore, Plaintiff wishes that the Court order that:

a/ This action be transferred to the propcs election I a v Part I;
b) This action b e consolirtated with Index 29642-05 in Part 1;
c) Plaintiff has time for completion of sei-vice be granted until July 20, 20 11;
d) Plaintiff be resen~ed an aciditional time ancl opportunity for a n extended
rnemornndu~n of law regarding eligibility to POTUS;
e ) Both motions Tor disnlissal be denied as both pre-mature a ~ that d

ciefendants be afforded an opportunity to answer to the complaint; fj For further and different relief deemed n e c e s s q by the court.
1 have read the foregoing response to both motions and hereby request for
the purposes of brevity and clarification this response be combined; and I know the contents thereof apply to me by misapplication and administration of laws in creation of the New York Electoral College going into and following the General Election of November 4,2008 a s a continuing illjury caused by the scheme to
defraud wit11 unjust enrichment that affects Plaintiff' and Plaintiff's AD HOC
Brooh-lgn i-lome Rule Coalition along with those similarly situated; the same is true
to my own kno'ivledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and a s to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds
of nly beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as
follows: 3'* parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.
Christopher-Earl: Strunlr
Sworn to before me ~his*uay of Ma37 20 13
Public, State of New York - Notary PJy. 1)150608@919
K A C A M A L P. SOMI
Commiss&~n Expires March 31 2015
Clual~fied In Kings County
Plaintlfi7s Combined Affidavit in Response to Candidate Defendants Page 25 of 25
APX
651
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENIfANT CANDIDATES MCCAIN AND OBAMA MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 1
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CANDIDATES MCCAIN AND OEAMA MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 2
APX
654
52950
CO1NGRESSIONAL RECORD -SEN. ;TE

Whereas innovative research is progressing faster and is being conducted more aggresin part, to the sively than ever before, c%ueue; Cystic Fibrosis Foundation's establishment of a model clinical trials network; Whereas, although the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation continues to fund a research pipeline for more than 30 potential therapies and funds a nationwide network of care centers that extend the length and quality of life for people with cystic fibrosis, lives continue to be lost to this disease every day; Whereas education of the public about cystic fibrosis, including the symptoms of the disease, increases knowledge and understanding of cystic fibrosis and promotes early diagnosis: and Whereas the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation will conduct activities to honor National Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month in May 200I3: Now, therefore, be it Resolved. That the Senate(1) honors the goals and ideals of National Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month; (2) supports the promotion o f further public awareness and understanding o f cystic fibrosis: (3) encourages early diagnosis and access to quality care for people with cystic fibrosis to improve the quality o f their lives; and (4) supports research to find a cure for cystic fibrosis by fostering an enhanced research program through a strong Federal commitment and expanded public-private partnerships. SENATE RESOLUTION 511-RECOG SIDNEY NIZING THAT JOHK MCCAIN m, IS A NATURAL BORN CITI!ZEN Mrs. McCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, MIS. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. RES. 511 Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the Resident, a person must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States; Whereas the term "natural born Citisen", as that term appears in Article 11, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution o f the Unlted States; Whereas there is no evidence o f the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children ram serving as their country's Pres~dent; Wherea,s such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the "natural born Citizen" clause of the Constitution of the United States. as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the tenn "natural born Citizen"; Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to f our national serve our country outside o borders; Whereas previous presidential oandidates, were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to b e President; and Whereas John Sidney McCain, m, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be i t Resolverl, That John Sidney McCain, m, is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
April 10, 2008
t o originate student loans or finance student loan-related activities. This will provide funds for banks to help Brovide critically-needed student loans during these difficult economic times. The Federal Home Loan Banks are t~oday an essential source of stable, low-cost funds t o financial institutions for home mortgage, small business, and rural and agTicultura1 loans. With their members, the Federal Home Loan Banks represent one of t h e largest sources of home mortgage and community credit. There are twelve Federal Home Loan Banks, including one in Boston, each located in different regions of the country. Their cooperative structure is ideal for serving the system's 8,100 member lenders. Today, the Federal Home Loan Banks provide billions of dollars of primary liquidity t o approxinlately 80 percent of the Nation's financial institutions. By providing this additional student loan authorization t o i t s members, member institutions will be able t o 'emain active in the student loan marketplace and help students pay for their education. This legislation is absolutely vital t o securing the opportunity of higher education for all who choose t,o pursue it. SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
SENATE RESOLUTION 51CSUPPORTING THE GOALS AND LDFALS OF NATIONAL CYSTIC FIBROSIS AWARENESS MONTH Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Mr. INHOFE) sub~nittedthe following resolution; which was referred t o the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: S. RES. 510 Whereas cystic fibrosis is one of the most common life-threat,eninggenetic diseases in the United States and one for which there is no known cure; Whereas the average life expectancy of an indivlduaJ with cystic fibrosis is 37 sears, an improvement from a life expectancy in the 1 9 G O s where children did not live long enough to attend elementary school, but still unacceptably short; Whereas approximately 30,000 people in the United States have cystic fibrosis, more t11a.n half of them children; whereas 1 of every 3,500 babies born in the United States is born with cystic fibrosis; Whereas more than 10,000,000 Americans are unknowing, symptom-free carriers of the cystic fibrosis gene; Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that all States consider newborn screening for cystic fibrosis; Whereas the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation urges all States to implement newborn screening for cystic fibrosis to facilitate early diagnosis and treatment which improves health and life expectancy; Whereas prompt, aggressive treatment of the symptoms of cystic fibrosis can extend the lives of people who have the disease; Whereas recent advances in cystic fibrosis research have produced promising leads in gene, protein. and drug therapies beneficial to people who have the riisease;
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join Senator CLAIREMCCASI~LL in introducing a resolution t o express the common sense of everyone here t h a t Senator McCAw is a "natural born Cib izen," a s the term is used in the Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution contains three requirements for a person t o be eligible to be President-the person must have reached the age of 35: must have resided in America for 14 years: and must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States. Certainly there is no doubt t h a t Senator MCCAINis of sufficient years on t h i s earth and in t,his country given t h a t he has been serving in Washington for over 25 years. However, some pundits have raised the question of whether he is a "natural born Citizen" because he was born outside of the official borders of the United States. Jom S I D NMcCam, ~ m, was born to Anlerican citizens on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. Numerous legal scholars have looked into the purpose and intent of the "natural born Citizen" requirement. As far as I am aware, no one has unearthed any reason t o think t h a t the Framers would have wanted t o limit, the rights of children born t o military fanlilies stationed abroad or t h a t such a limited view would serve any noble purpose enshrined in our founding document. Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed t h a t if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in t,he world t,hey are nat,ural born citizens. It is interesting t o note t h a t another previous presidential candidate, George Romney, was also born outslde of the United States. He was widely understood t o be eligible t o be President. Senator Barry Goldwater was born in a U.S. territory t h a t later became the State of Arizona so some even questioned his eligibility. Certainly the millions of Americans who voted for these two Republican candidates believed t h a t they wcro eligible t o a s sume the office of the President,. The same is true today. Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind t h a t Senator MCC-4IN is a natural born citizen. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Securitg Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge, if he had any doubts in his mind. He did not. I expect t h a t this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate and I thank the Senator from Missouri for working with me on this. I ask unanimous consent t h a t the relevant excerpt from the Judiciary Committee hearing where Secretary Chertoff testified be made a part of the RECORD. EXCERPT OF SECRETBRY CHERTOFF TEST~IONY FP.OM APRIL 2, 2 0 0 8 Chairman LEAHY. W e will come baclr to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask e have had some questhis: I believe-and w tion in this Committee to have a special law
APX
655
April 10, 2008
QGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENA

Intenial Revenue Code of 1B86 to provide tax incentives for the wroduotion of renewable energy and energy conservation. SA 4524. Mr. NELSON of Nebraska submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2739, to authorize certain pmgrams and activities in the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the Department of Energy, to implement further the Act approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, to amend the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table. TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
pa-ed declaring that Senator McCain, who to his family and his Nation will not be forwas born in the Panama Canal, that he gotten: Now, therefore, be it Resol%&, That the S e n a t e meets the constitutional requirement to be (1) honors the life, achievements, and conPresident. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he tributions of Charlton Heston; and (2) extends its deepest sympathies to the meets our oonstitutio~lalrequirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head fam~lyof Charlton Heston for the loss of of the agency that executes Federal immi- such a great and generous man, husband, and gration law. Do you have any doubt ill your father. mind-I mean, I havc none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is conSENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUstitutionaJlg eligible t o hecome President? Secretary CHSlZTOFF. My assumption and TION 7CEXPRESSWG THE my understanding is that if you are born of SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE American parents, you are naturally a natSECRETARY OF DEFENSE ural-born American citizen. SHOULD TAKE IMMEDIATE Chairman LEAIIY. That is mine, too. S T E P S TO APPOINT DOCTORS OF Thank you. CHIROPRACTIC AS COICMISSIONED OFETCERS IN THE ARMED FORCES SENATE RESOLUTION 5SHONORING THE LIFE OF CHARLTON Mr. COLEMAN (for himself a n d Mr. HESTON H m ) submitted t h e following conc u r r e n t resolution; which was referred Mr. DEMINT (for himself, Mr. BAUcus, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. ALLBRD, Mr. t o t h e Committee on Armed Services: S. C O N . RES. 75 CHAMBLISS, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAIG,Mr. EXSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. NELWhereas the Secretary of Defense has statS O N of Nebraska, and Mr. WEBB) sub- utory authority under section 3070 of title 10, m i t t e d t h e following resolution; which United States Code, to appoint doctors of was referred t o t h e Committee on t h e chiropractic as commissioned officers in the Armed Forces, but has not yet made such apJudiciary: pointments; S. RES. 512 Whereas the urgent needs of military perWhereas the United States has lost a great sonnel in the Eeld of operations include acpatriot with the passing of Charlton Heston; cess ta the widest possible range of health Wllereas Charlton Heston first became be- care options, especially in the area of care of loved by the Nation a8 a great actor and por- the spine and related StruCturB of the body: trayed many heroic figures, incllrding Moses, Whereas providing military personnel in Michelangelo, Andrew Jackson, John the the field of operations with access to chiroBaptist, Mark Antmy, and El Ciid in epic practic care will increase the cost effectivemovies of the 1950s and 1960s. and won the ness of military health care expenditures by 1959 Best Actor Academy AwaNl (Oscar) for taking advantage of the conservative, playing tlle title character in "Ben-Hur"; drugless, and non-surgicaJ care option ofWhereas Charlton Heston was a leader in fered by chiropractic care: many areas of life outside of acting, includWhereas back injuries are the leading ing serving as president of the Screen Actors cause of lost service time and disability in Guild, which he helped to integrate with the Armed Forces; Ronald Reagan, and as chairman of the Whereas militam personnel in the field of American Film Institute; operations or on shipboard can access chiroWhereas Charlton Heston was an active practic care only through commissioned supporter of the civil rights movement, in- chiropractic officers; cluding protesting the showing of his Elm a t Whereas accem to chiropractic care a segregated movie theater in Oklahoma through commissioned chiropractic officers City and participating in and leading the will enhance the combat readiness of miliArts G r o u ~ in the 1963 civil rie'hts march on tary personnel by offering a non-pharmaWashington; ceutical o ~ t i o n for the health care needs of Whereas, in the last major public role of such personnel: and his life. Charlton Heston was resident of the Whereas the appointment of doctors of National Rifle Association from June 1998 chiropractic as commissioned Offices will until April 2003: make use of a hiehlv skilled and trained wool -Whereas. as vresident of the National Rifle of health care p&f&sionals and help to meet ~ s s o c i a t i o i6 , a r l t o n Heston was a stalwart the growing demand for chiropractic care i n defender of the 2nd Amendnlent right of citi- the Armed Forces: Now, therefore, be it zens to keep and bear a.rnls and was an active Resolved by th& Senate (the House of Rwand effective promoter of wildlife manage- resmtatives coacurring), That i t is the sense ment through hunting; of Congress that the Secretary of Defense Whereas in 2003 Charlton Heston was should take immediate steps to establish a awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, career path for doctors of chiropractic to be honor; the Nation's highest ci~ilian appointed as commissioned officers in all Whereas Charlton Heston was born in branches of the Armed Forces for purposes of Evanston. Illinois, on October 4,1923, and his providing chiropractic services to members parents moved to St. Helen, Michigan, where of the Armed Forces. he grew up; Whereas in 1943 Charlton Heston enlisted in the Army Air Forces and served as a AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND radio-gunner in the Aleut.ian Islands of AlasPROPOSED ka, and in 1947 he was discharged from the SA 4523. Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Army; proposed ) an amendment to the bill Whereas in 1944 Charlton Heston married S ~ B Y the love of his life, Lydia Clarke, to whom he H.R. 3221, moving the United States toward greater energy independence and security, had been married 64 years a t his death; Whereas Charlton and Lydia Heston are developing innovative new technologies, rethe parents of 2 children, Fraser Heston and ducing carbon emissions, crea.ting green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean reHolly Heston Rochell; %%ereasCharlton Heston passed away on newable energy production, and modernizing April 5 , 2008, and the contributions he made our energy infrastructure, and to amend the
~
SA 4523. Mr. DODD (for himself a n d

Mr. SHELBY) proposed a n amendment t o t h e bill H.R. a 2 1 , moving t h e United S t a t e s toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, yrotect i o n consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, a n d modernizing o u r energy infrastructure, a n d t o amend t h e Internal Revenue Code of 1986 t o provide t a x incentives for t h e production of renewable energy and energy conservation; a s follows: Amend the title so as to read: To provide needed housing reform and for other purposes.
SA 452.4. Mr. NELSON of Nebraska,

submitted a n amendment intended t o be proposed by h i m t o t h e bill S. 2739, t o authorize certain programs a n d act i v i t i e s i n t h e Department of t h e Interior, t h e F o r e s t Service, and t h e Dep a r t m e n t of Energy, t o implement furt h e r t h e Act approving t h e Covenant t o Establish a Commonwealth of t h e Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with t h e United S t a t e s of America, t o amend t h e Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, a n d for other purposes.; which was ordered t o l i e on t h e table; a s follows: Strike section 335. NOTICE O F HEARING
COMMlTTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL
REsouRGEs Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would l i k e t o announce for t h e inform a t i o n of t h e Senate a n d t h e public t h a t a hearing h a s been scheduled before t h e S e n a t e Committee on Energy a n d Natural Resources. T h e hearing will be held on Thursday, May 1, 2008, a t 9:30 a.m., i n room S D 3 B of t h e Dirksen Senate Offlce Building. T h e purpose of t h e hearing is t o receive testimony on t h e m i l i t a r g buildup on Guam: impact on t h e civilian community, planning, a n d response. Because of t h e limited t i m e available for t h e hearing, witnesses m a y testify b y invitation only. However, those wishing t o s u b m i t w r i t t e n testimony for t h e hearing record m a g do s o by sending it t o t h e Committee on Energy a n d Natural Resources, United S t a t e s Senate, Washington, D.C. 205106150, o r by e-mail to Rosemarie
Calabro@energy.senate.gov.
APX -
- 656
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CANDIDATES MCCAIN AND OBAMA MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 3
APX
657
APX
659
APX - 660
NQTTGE TC! THE CLERK OF REGORBS
m.cia*~g s ! *cttrci &~u*~a>t. ~ z p 1~r<~~~&3i-1g. ~ r mxp. kwcsk wr nthw 8hxng dcp73iice t+>%tk ihe im~qttip j ~n;i. >*tat3 ate co~r,niZn;z~g ri ir1ii.s agc,,rli:$f quiilic ti&&? gcs.iw3 Z;m~lc.irt fl?t L - s t i i e c i S ~ Li"cf-i + %~?t(~ii 54,!8 li%nling up 10 %LI$lrl0 ir? fines ;$ztd up ttr 12 >e315 ii:,nibiln 1%: -33 cL3.'pesa. Scctrntrs jJii.3, 3aliJ? gfij<+&v~t you f ~ i 117 l rcL~rcf, -i-~iIi: b CSf Sle~.tloj: Itti: I dtLj c3iiTi~$ Snt?is irrm~tnsmicB1 B3d d1"cu~1en1-5 !!he mt;ii-*, YOb? C : l l r<~uspa)l XRgnrcy rL*:d,>ixuno: to iixr iiryu-iiific?[tra..$(it&r. if r~%grr*r~slblrr, ss I do rk>accept IXP, B r n h l i l r r t y - m i a r , ~ ~ ria? ~ r ~&ri:i>meg. ~ dtszficr aitpmrj ai! ai~yctcc rf~c I ;aqi*kg 'pitit arr: dl drig&.psnica ;nd Jti 1:; r iwt L' 3 lt~ai:iii ~ 1 1 1 ' & c A i e g d d~'tr:m6~~1,.ac"rx1 u , L q-fW.c$uWe w-rrtd5 ' i i ~$lieL r r M t i zit.Tk * i s ! rirrl irsic :]lo ,t~Zfiblnl> .i? Tt*pE%C31: rtrs rr.:ti:rk ra i i i q % i ~ .Sl~o~iltJ 1tost k%sti10 ~ipk!iiJYrwx S V ; ~ I ~L+Z& U s ~~ t ~~ r~ km dx jattr ! ~ I i t t %1 w%i:j I Y ~ FW C t.l~t-:cchut to rxpy io YI-ii::r \ ~ Z ? T I L ~ ,PIII:~I,L~?<. IT~ i e , i ~ J , l a.Ull;r!,vi! r . CrTiimld3 ~ f'llj~lpiat~t;r,$&st YTJW BBJ s&ilJ
is!!;. iP;S.--Q*RX&%;rFS - C ' l i 4 C'(RlA1l.S iiL-?IILtlYT.dt S IICI

3k71 d~trt?: ak.,~.54ir+. ! ; r r q pt~,+tz~ xvhi~ i i i l l f ~ i',i%ni'+ {!~ >i d i : a f i ~ ; ~ tt 3 i\ Jc-llny, or. v+& LBI~NX :tke-? ;rvZ c;rri,., .iu z; Jm ricL>rrt piipx. !>I.p r i i ~ ~ ; ~ d<if iii +I~COUFI ~7f j i t s i i c ~ ,f i l d ~r ~ i ~ t e i ~3 t : ~~ itt b a~rP:,i i. pq3er, ni.r f < % a r n c ~rr: t t rscrrild ilicd rtr ~!cpr;;sitrd!nr an) puidrc of,6iac. * , i . ~or h r f i z i : 3 f =,xh cii;gn, fir w -.x-~*ht an1jadrtldai ~ ipuhbc r ~ ~ ~ G c Fstia!i. ' T , :;~lliai~r rrlrra~ce in t':r I. urie rst tile ree<:rtrti,fxprn. rir;~~n;if-rr: c*rvi%fr&nb5.i r&m. ply n fim e f z u r rrrorc tiinn !\%.I th~*~$dild ~!~xl:dr~. i3rkiti%r i~tfpri$u!fri~'*<ti iif ti irii i'g! 3 iabv.i- u ~ mopq$A.tr i eer I%=. i.1: k:b- fSti= 4 7 i&.tX j4 1 i. f $14i T$i)a1 Y *:4 --- i.iifMf 3 CFeBlE5 Ad;A@;ST II:S71%T fDestr~>mg &e .paMlc rwi~rds.1
LOE
---
&EC,54@7.
er ap;~rlp s z r ) ~ rfi
Si2-t ; a 1c m 2 4 ~ enrisp,st. ~ far the pq.;; af irfip:ill,,
iisrdcrtii- uk%irai~ii~~g Jr drf~'a~jr~g t,m 3x15 inann??, fYrr &:c dinnr icf j~~strclx ;sr aoy 3;a?e or cmrUp % %%h t iw , ~ c . ; Z E :u dm%$ to ;rtq &i%erl?ti6 ~ u t t i d ftlOfrdiaZ oftas LLI!V& tbr t# injure h ~ r n dr hils ~trupectrry tnr !avt3uIIj cr-$~s~crn*g. nr ~~IL*IPIIPI~ b,~ ~ f - i 3 f ~ the t ' . ,"3g?tt id-li~! pr'hntl. ilr e l s o of ~ i l r ~ . - ito i l , &e q u g t pc:tc%ilri *%I G12 ids*, cadi d m & yerhi~n skzufznit hi pxusb1 . : b a gnz cxf a101.ir,~= !h&~ fit t- I!tfuLi~c-d nlri mrqrr & a g e ilbe flldh4zsniJdoEI,%r.;, trr impn:r)narcni i%rtt& nr nrrltaat kzrd Ixilclr. an: fczs 6hm six ~ C I I I G I ~ r?twr tk?hi t.s ri%zr>xrr by itirrt ;hr: impriiaatrrsni, %c: IQ?:-iWi, 20914C110, 5506-iiSIO.3 T f t k I X X ---*-mi;i-kli.:S ---CH.J CFtiT#LiZS.iGZcEiST 31 3 EC'E [Consp:t-s;\ to dckar ertfiltc<i~ni of lire hu".f.
"y~dfi~ 317d .SEC",?dDS. I 5 c1y uEcrr. h x ~ n ~hil g ;~v,<id? ird a t >"&>id, rkt~u~c.rL. pdpt'i. prtt~t~:Siitg ~-G&:II~ Gf~~*-~i~ulhwiZ+td :I&diwcr1;~hc %aiid&!irqxiig tAc5 av:ay ; J ; arihtiisas. tlr ac~tr.sis d w : :lu~'h =cord, rld.lunrmf.. pnpcr, or proeccding TI!=& In 1x1- <s@cu w ifrp~rltn3 w;;llh h l r a ar $i-itics cu?l_tndv.sirall pa: a fiirz nl'i~.?lmiire jI1:7:2 i?%ro rcousand iitrifa~%, or suffr? mn?pr$Prtw,nmeiit at f t a d !ab*;r :filt 11:~111,'ih~i? I'hdii :rasrs air hntb an.1 4.nrrlf.rnt*rtYivcr hrfcit i,rs ~ P I T m ~Z ~IP he :hrw>i"idf:rfi"i*b:if tij~qi~lifief5 tiill?: hi'ridi$a; 3~ ais:h~r: w?a?fi i&!? GeVcmUf&nint $ 3~,ntred ~ srarec i O~dm>'i!?g mmrd b: ii&tglcer in cilarpr 'r
El 2
j*p;.:fliil:
t 'I
E;
3C;:CS8C49 2!191 12 ttA2r

iir
1?C37t . c13i3tl~bliiill~*~L, rCtrlc~-:bi.

-&?~<*=i.<? i t
rilt.ttlif~ibofl c~%cM!!>
ce-xzc%i cq,I ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ,uAhI h G t~c. i ~ : ~de$it4&\ ~ ~ 3 kSv ~iifui!y axd uiiL,\b CUR;; dn .*ti. 1ir. uikli inkad tit do si' tzkcs arid usmilr dxay an) iucorsl, pn~emdrrl$ i ~ i i * , iarai, p ~ p ~.$,~cljatem! x, ,zr L & ilring. t~ 5tv.l ,ir ;k?>r~>lP~d a rCtx J Z ~ > &birr% ,:?rD % C C ~ o i t ~ f f ' ) C W i t iil' ;UPIIC t * f & ~ e 13: tiit it an>JII~ILIJJ or p~ibl$c ~?lttc:*i.;rf!~IC i ~ i f ~ i i rhat I , ~ l i ~ YSli.itei, f ,tr m Xtxic* anail bi: fir%&$ undm*$Fa.% trrlLi ~tf.armpvtsrtncd $tormrlrt. r k ~ n truer- Fears c ~ ihatit
:Iriu?ili?rq.. tci
> b %1
trai
' .4 %ii! &GI: JCZ%SJFI~~~ T ~ I I F Z ~ C CmapI ! ~ ~ ~Svok ~ J~~:wni:ur, 1WJL.i tr $\ T,ht7ri ttrr hji7ng 1 k a 2 ap.1 rnher thing. it., iiliu21.; and tixifzis?~iir)tr ciitrcn.i.;, remo tis- rtlu&:aFea. nb!itrratcr. Fdsr Gc4. m dei,-,i~t'v\~~+ ;ire srrril:: ckai: ti< ilry:d ~srljcr t i 2 3 i13ie.,r rfi.:~?3:%!t~d 'ICI fir^.!^ rh,~n tkr2e yedi~. ixi illttli il:ii: ?ball !i&X t i i o ~ t 2 ; ~:m~l b L;C 15tgijr~tiiifi csi t~ckn, i.nTr:r~g $9;. P%:P m d r r t%.! r~fi;~it SI~E~"I $5 it%&! Iri cl~aR~rr i!iia su"i%t.tiirm ilic remr '\~Sli;c"(tee<rtcit ri~cluik iltt ofi;i; ttcid b$*:rtiy pesztm CI tct~icd 1.f nte .\rmw4 f-irt;t:+ LIIthe !.nsieit ST3df,
*%*I, "
$\J
: 5; *$
. " *
b
, !
+>"!
: :*-
1
; - $ '
; *It
- -, . '
3 .
.-:
,
$*,<%-,
" i
G ,
,*%
* \
..""
I
I t,V hife tht: rmrz~r~psp~e~~srrr@inp1 sia m e n d f

" . & & ~ s '
nr present may cfif~riiruie a:aa"t a far 38:~nIr:rti?cr: af legpi myB E - jmissinrr s r r~tsncrlrlmni rvfiich ~n%olke= s brrarh ($4 legal duT)i, tntsi 01 cafmfi'rbense, just!> repagd art3 if iajurious ti> i u r ~ t h ~ r , nr hg vJxr,5 sra undue advnlhlage is ~ k a of n snerihw, wray &some The R#tifle&tiijpi 6 w iaaferertsi: uT &~ and when the* is a duy to %g&, the cowaidfleref af a mrraeriaf Faer m g be equatlg. as i+~c~ngTut a %a w?siiivcmi7njsrt3pmentairm. Tex. Civ App 1Wi. Z;fg~l>b?ka;k I: rYZf~zl*I T 3 T^ETbFf'c7dcTY2, tz@r~~e 8 d 3 SfF2d 16&2 I d 2 I A Y j i S @4.L R
..%Me
-'I
t e ~Y?;P@# having .;ap~riar hawledge :r!avhait a t s advaetage irf ,wttth*rirf'4 ,E rrntrmcr; al U IQW CQ d ~ e i v htn~ e by st&&& wlf~ea:ilt~~l+nz 81r miszp~s~ntation can bc 41:eidK S ~ E ~ B %iErle iftr rhsP c r r ~ i f ~ TPX ~ t ,t $17,f;iw,J"~pfis[y, i~ct v - { h i l e ~;$tttit~ar~I z~ fjdttk "3
~ f ~ r~ r3 2 d
{ vl; then
90
a gaveomanentk u ~ s e i s l Tea a cronerrns the naermrinrts
in wy w m g catnpanlc..ii divests k.sc.t?l. r~azpi%51~. of its s t l e ~ e i g ~hi;mcte~. llilJ
r whitk hianrapt; to i?ss-ism and to rhe hrsinea it*ii; a& take% the r %t.kit.h E's $.abe ~ ~ s a e i e d .Bunk '' r{if united C % ~ ~t-i ".fFfatp~t~;~~ d BSP&r#f-d;et~k~qId 32 t+ 2 %W.IJJr92lf.f
I%e iSnikd W a f e ~ a s \g~iri%~e a n f cn~~~merrrtai p s s~z ~i l f S ii~ n ~ ~~B%PER:M r E&E~ t 4 5 m any cxtRer &see.-- +"-&e I, fnlfe4 Ststs dees basimsz s r r btrs~nrir;-s terns, ft is DO% rkempsd & ~ r w ?hegenemi mlcs gelrcm,nrg the ki@rs m i 3 delies O ~ ~ \ L " S b) S the largeam of ia deafin@ and its h*s.ingltfa empiny ags:nrs fa rta whs if dune b3 a ~rJ~i~3cip~f a n perq81t ~ v G u ~f&a$x & iin ror7m &x&&kt." i"fe&~Tefd TFU~$F ( I f v t-'pif~~d
irdtr~r""). f /rS i ,$
J&siJ9iJ~.]
APX
662
I - b"i% jrtd,went ~ n d e in d %3i~fafi~a ordue grweSs is vaid-" iPu~"1d B.bs'r'd@ p0Idbb!+~gfli iv~t~ffe 44% r %'iJ.S, ~ 285, 295; .nIa~itf~rd Bmk n?. Widey? $45 US 257:. ,@e~~'~o-k"lpr Y. Nqi
os trs sry
f, " A statute %which either fbrbids OT r q U i ~ &e s dokg nf rn ia terns sa YVWB that mea a f c o m a a iakjfigen~e mud naes&ly guess" at its = m i n i n g.6irad diffa 10its appliwtion, %+o-ptatm the. emarid uf due proccs ofhw.""C:ntt~aI(v xt Ge;.rpe~~zi 6,"can+rert~~~ti~n CCYo., 269 tf .S. 3 8534% 11
j . ""'Mrplm~ver it a p p s W &pt": COW k k s ,wbjed ma@&r j~stji~tia the: fi~ corln i s r%blibigeB ta di-smlss the arctia,~?.''Wi2.r v- CC:'~.&Kfsf~~I C Q ~ 503 . , U.S. E 3 g ,L 36-37: Cj: S v. Texas, 252 F. 8upp ;?J4,2%4j
Document 19-2
Filed 0610112009
Page 234 of 243
QUO WARRANTO COMPLAINT WTTH DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND DECISION ON QUESTION OF FIRST TMPRESSION
APX
664
----------*---------------------------
JAF 31st STREET W S T-1 NEW YORK, New York

101999004 3558250157-0097 01/23/2009 (212)330-2183 02:50:38 AM
-Registered No.
Product Description
..................................... -----------------------------------Sales Receipt Sale Unit Qty Price
Final Price
$0.59
WASHINGTON DC 20223 Zone-3 F i rst-Class
Letter 1.60 or. Return Rcpt (Green $2.20 Card) "- Registered $10.00 $0.00 Insured Value : Article Value : $0.00 Label #: RE400301908US Issue Total : Paid by: Cash
--------------$12.79
PVI:
Change Due:
Save t h i s receipt as evidence of insurance. For information regardins domestic insurance, v i s i t our website a t usps .com/i nsurance/postoff ice, him
Order stamps at USPS.cornjshop or c a l l 1-800-Stamp24. Go t o USPS. coni/cl icknship t o p r i n t shipping labels with postage. For other information call 1-800-ASK-USPS.
"-
A l l sales f i n a l on stamps and

Postage Refunds f o r guaranteed services only Thank you for your business
..................................
******S.3*********t******************
HELP US SERVE YOU BETTER

Go to: htt~://gx.gallup,com/pos TELL US A B O U T YOUR RECENT POSTAL EXPERIENCE
YWR
+*I************CIZJ&ZJ.ZJZJZJZJ i l
OPINION COUNT ..S
. . ...
APX
-__--
665
/ -
Rack & Cocrfim

h Results
LabeVReceiptNumber. RE40 0301 908U S Status: Delivered
Your item was delivered at 8:07 AM on January 27.2009 in WASHINGTON, DC 20223.
Track 8 Confkm
Enter LabeVReceiptNumber.
Track 8 Confirm by ernail Get current event informationor updates for your item sent to you or others by ernail.
Ste Map
a n t a d Us
Forms
Gov t SewlCes
Ws
Privacy PDNq
Terms ofUse
Na:mat 8 Prem~er Aocounis

I
Copyright@ 1999-2007
USPS. All Rights Reserved.
Na FEAR Acl EEO Data
FDlA
EXHIBIT 13
Exhibit 4
Convention Between the United States and the Republic of Panama ... Page 1 of S
--v
n
r'd.'
3 -
Shop now and save
$qof
u
an Tunes Gift Ca
C O h T S a BOOK COhTLAq F-ilSLtWGWPHlCR,~C~.lRQ Amcrim Historical DoEumcntr, 1000-IN.
'IheH w d Classics. l W + l d
Convention Ilehveen the Unired States and lthe Republic of Panrmr
PC attempt an rhe part of a French m p n y ta hwitd a Panama canal wm begun in I879 under a concession from h e Republic of Colombia ~hrough~vhvhosctcrritn~ the canal was 10 pa.When the cnlcrprisc was taken over by rhc United Slat= in 1903. the beat! wiLh Colombia arran~ing thr Unircd States conlml nt'thc canal strip, wits rcjrcted by thc Congrcss of Columbia. 1 hc pcnple of the isrhmlt*, ~ v h o x prosperity larpelj depcndcd on zhc building of the canat therurprm seedad from Culornhia wt up he Republic of Panama, and a g w d to Ihe ~ollowing mvcntion.l
FOR h e C o n ~ c t i o n oTa Ship Canal to Connec~ the Waler~ nf [he Atlan~ic and Pacific Occa~rh.Signed a1 Washington, Xuvm'bcr IS. 190;. Katitication advised by thc Scfiatc. Fchrulvy 13. 1904. Ralificd hy the ksidcnt, Fehnzz 1 5 , 19%. Ra!i?;cd by Panama, k m k 2, 1903. Ratificaljons exchangd a! Washingion, P c b m q 26.1904.
Proclaimed. Febmar). 26, 1904.
'
By thc M i d e n t of thc 1JniM Stat- of America

h Pmclarnation
\+?hems.a Cmvcntion helwc.cn t5c I ! n i l e d Smtm o f h e r i a and the Kepublic of Panama to insum the consmcrion of a ship anal aemss the I s h l s of Panama to m n t c t thc Atlnnrjc and Pacific Oceans. was cnncludcd and signed by thcir rcsvaive Plcnipotcntiwim at Washing~un.on the ci$~eenlh day of Nnvcrnbcr, one lthouliand nine hundrcd wd r h . the original of which Unnvendon. k i n g in thc Ilnglish language, is word !iir tcnrd a , Tollows:
Isthmian Canal Convcntim
>
The Unircd States of America and the Repbtfc of Panama k i n g desirous to insure &e construction of a ship canal across h e isthmus of Panama lo connect the Allanric and Pacific Owaus, and thc I'ongms efthe United Slalrj nf America Laviug p&wd an act approved June 28. 1902, in funberana o!'~+zt object. hy w-hicb t$e ktsidcat of thc
APX - 668
Convention Between the United States and the Republic ofPanama . . . Page 2 of 8
United States is authwi~d to acquire within a mwmable time thc mnml of the necessary territory o f !he Republic of Colombia, and the sovereignly of such territory hcing actually vested m fhe Republic of Panam& h e high hNracting p;wes have resnlved fur ha p q m e to concludc a convention and haw accordingly appointed a thcir plenipotentiaries, 7hc President ohhe L ' c i t c d stat^ ofPlmeriu John Ilav. S m t w y of Ststc. and Ttie Government of the ReprbIic irfXtnamq Rhilippr: Bunau-Vwillrittq Envoy Exhawdinan.md Minisfer Plenipotentiary ofthe Republic of Panama, thereunto spciulfy tmpowaed by said government who afier cnrnrnunicatinp rvirh each othcr heir respective Futl powers. found to be in g d and due fm, havc a g m d upnn and concluded the fvl lowing articles:
The Unitcd Stat- guarantees and will maintain the independenceofthc Uepuhlic o f Panama.
Anicte 11
Ihe Repubtic of l'anams g m b to the United Slates in m r u i t y , the use, occupation and conlrol of a mne of land and l a d under water for the anstruaion, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protixiinn of said Canal of the width of ten m i l a extending to die dismancc of fivc milcs on each side of the mntcr line of the mutc orthc Canal to hc mnshucrcd: thc .wid mne heginning in ihc C T a n h h Sfa three marine miles firjrn mean low waw mark mi! exmdie;: 10311dacrnss Ihc Islhnus of P ~ inla h J e !'a~ilic O m to a distance o f three marine milcs fmm mean low water mark with Ihe proviso that the cities of I'anama and Colon and he h h r s adjacent to said cities, which are included within h e hundarict o f the Lone above dcscrihtd, shalI not be includcd within this grant. Thc Rcpuhlic OF Panama further pnnb 111 ibr Unilcd Statw in p c r p ~ ~ i tthc y, use. occupation and nrntn~l of any otllcr lands and waters ounidc ul'ihc mnc a h w c dmt-ihwlu h ~ n-rq h 132 nccessaq atd wnrcnirni Tur LIE mnslruclion, rnainlenance, operation, sanitsrim and protection of thc said Canal or ofany auxiliary canals or othcr works ncasszq and ccmvenirnt for thc mnstmcrion. nlaintenancc, oreration, sanitatinn and prokction of the said enterprise. The Republic of Panama further gmnb in likc manna 10 Ihc Unitcd Statcs in pcrptuiy. all islmds .r\.ii!!in !he IirniL~ uf h e zone abovc dmcrilxd and in addition thcr!o. thc g ~ i nl'zrnal! iulan& in the 13ay of l'annnia, n a m d I'cricn, NMP. Ctrlrhm and Flammcct.
l ~
Thc Rcpublic of Panama p m t s to the Unitcd States dl thc righ~q, power and auhority within thc rant mcntinned and desrribcd in Article I1o f this agreement, and. within the limlls o!'all auxiliar). Zarlds and waters rnenlioned and descn'kd in said AnicIc I1 rvl~ich the lJnilal Slates wuuld p a x s s and exrrcisr. ifit wcrz h e *wcreigrl of tile tr'rrtto~y will$n which said Ian& and waters are Iocared to the rnth exclusion of thc excrcim by the Rcpublic of'Panama nf any such so.rrcrcig rights, ponw or authority.
As rights swhsidillry 2 0! he &lrc grants fhe Republic of Panama grants in perpetuity, tc) be Uni:d S t a m t!e right zo usc thc h e r s . s ~ / ~ C anr! z S atbe: Wits or water w i h h ils Limits for oravipatlm, thc supply o f w a r m or wkqmwer w other purpojes, su far as the use of said rivers. streams, lakes and M e s of water and h e waiers thereof may he n e c m s q and cl~nvenient for the mnsmn~ction, maintenance. opwatiw. sanitation
and protection ~ r d t ra !i d Canal.
Convention Behveen the United StaFes and the Republic o f Panama ... Page 3 of 8
'Ihe Republic of Panama giants to the United States in perpetuity, a monopoly for Ihe of any qyslem of comrnunicalion by means of canal or railmad 3 m s it_c !miforl; khvccn the Caribksn Sen and the Pacific Ocean.
mauctjw. maintcnmcewd -tion
Article
V1
I:
The gmnt9 herein contained shall in no m m e r invalidate thc titlcs or rights o f priwatc Iaml holders or owners of private properly in the said zone or in nr tn any o f t k lands or waters granted to the Unitcd Slates by the provisions of any Anicle of this b-eaty. n w shalI they interfere with the rights o r w y over the public mad? p m i n thrnugh ~ the said zone or over any of thc said lands or waters unlcss said rights o f n.ay or private righL~ shall conflict with rights herein gtlmted to thc United Slates in which case the riphtq of thc Unitcd Statca shall be superiw. A11 damcaused tn the owners or private Imds o r private pnlprty ofany kind by , y n o f the m l s contain4 in this ireat). or by reason ol the operntions of thc Ihitcd Siales. i ~ eyents s or crnpln!ce or by rcmon of thc cunsln~criun, maintc~~nncc. n ~ d l i u n sanilalion . and pmtectian of t k said Canal o r of thc wwks of sanitatioil and p r d o n herein pr+idcd for, s h a l l be tippraixd and scnld by a joint Commissitm ttppinted hy h c Govcmmcnts of the Iinited States and h e Republic ot' Panama, rvhose decisions a 5 ro such damages shall bc final and whose awards as to such dtlmages shall k paid wlcly by the United States. No part ofthe work on said Canal or L h e Panama milroad or om any auxilim wwks relating thereto and authorized by h e terms oTtllis trcni! .;Ira11 ht: prevented. dday~xl or irnptrld by or pcnding such proceedings to ascertain such damages. 'lhe appnisal of said priuatc lands and private property and the zmscssmcnt ordamape tn thcm rhall be based u p their value before
tlic datc afthis convention.
She RcpulJic of ?&ma grana to the I k i t d Stat& within rl~e lin~ils orll~e cilia or Pmms and ZraPon and shctr djacmt hwhm md ~~iilhin !bc t c r r i ~ o p adjaccnt rhcrcro h c right to aoquirt by purchase or by thc cxcrcise or he right o f eminm! domain, any lands, buitdings, waterrights or o r h propenies n m w i y and cmvmicnt for thc construction, rnain~enance.gresatim and pm~ectivn of rhc Canal and of any works o f smitatinn, such as the collection and disposition of sewagc and the distributiontofwatcr in ~ h tsaid : cilies of Panama and Colun. which. in ~ h discretion c r$TlfieUnilcd Starts m a ! . k n r c e s s q md cut~vcl~ivnt h r the wnstwc~ion. ~~iainlcnttnclc, uperaliun, .-~iiIalion and pro~tcliuri irrtl~c said Canal and railmad. All such tvorks of sanitation. a ~ l l r a i o n and disposition o f scwagc and distribution of water in the cities or Panama and Colon shall be made at thc cvpcnsc of the United State., md ndc < i o v m e n t of the !!nftd States, its agcna or nominees shall be a u h r i 7 d to irnp~se and collect wrtltr rates and scw~agcratcs which shall be siificient to providc for Ihe pqmcnt of interest and thc arnnrtl~dtion ofthe pnnclpal oibc cwt of said works within a pcnd oi fi* years and upon Ihe expiradon o f said r c m ot'fiftvyesas h e sysrcrn of sewers and water work3 shall revert to nnd bccomc thc pmpcfiies uf &e cities of P m a and Golrm mpcctir ely. and the usc of thc water shall 'be free to thc inhahitank?, o f Panama and Colon rrcep?to thc extent that water raies may k necessary far h e ~perarion and rnaimerlancc of said system nf sewm and nxtcr.
The Republic ufl'mlmma agrees r h a the ciijes uTPanama and Colwn shdl m p l y in p q x l u i ~ ywith , h~anitaiy ordinances w h e k ofa preventive a curative character prescribed by the United States and in c w the Gowmm-entof Panama is unablc or fails i$i its duty to c n f m h i s mmp'kce by thc cities oCPmma and Colon with thc snriitary nrdinmcw nf the llnitrd Statm thc Rcpuhlic of Panama grants m the IFnitd S t i ~ t e the ~ right and authority lo &om thc same.
'!
Convention Bwem the United States and the Republic of Panama
... Page 4 of 8
'?
Tfic same righ and authority are grand to the Unitd 96's for thz mainta-,zixe of mblic ordcr in the cities of Panama dColon and che territories and harbors adiacent ibmto in case the Republic of Panama should not k .in thejudpenl lor the ~ n i t c d Statcs. able to maintain such order.
Tllc Rcpubllc of Panama p a n u to h e United States all rights which it now has or hereaIter may acquire to he propem: of the New Panama Canal Company and h e Panama Railroad Company as a rcsult of the b-mdcr of sovereipp from the Republic of Columbia ro rhc Rcpublic or Panama over the lsthmus dl'anama and auhrizes h e New Panama Canal Company to wll and trnesfcr m the United %talc% it5 rights, nrivileocs. ~m~crtics m t fm~~ssion asswell as the I'mama I l a i l r t ~ d s m d all the sharcs br part o f thc shares of that company: but thc pub1 ic Ian& situared outside of thc: mnc descrikd in Article If of this m t v now included in thc concessions ofbth said cntqriscs and nor required in the consbuction r* opfration of the Canal shall rcvcn to the Republic o f Panama cxcepl any prnper!y now o*ncdby o r in thc posscs~im of said companifi within Panama or Colon srthc pons or terminals thcmf.
Thc U n i t 4 States a p m fbat thc pmIs at ei!her cn!mnm of lhc Canal and fie waters thcroof, and the Republic of Panama n that the towns orl'anarna and Colon shall be k c thrall limc so that them shaH not l w i m p 4 nr collccterl custom house tolls. Xnnnas anchmpe. lighthouse, wharL pilot. o r quarantine ducs or nrly othcr r h ~ c or s taxes ofany kind upon any vessel using or passing through thc Canal or hclrmging to or employed by the LTnitcd Slates. d d l y m indirecrlp, in mnnoction with thc mnsmction. rnaintenancc, opcmlion. sanitation dpmteclion o f the main Canal. or auuiliar). works, or upon the catgo, oJlimm. CRW, M passengem of'uny such mwls, except such ~otIs and charj~5 a s : may be imposed by the United Statcs for the usc of h e Canal , a d otlwr 5wh. und eacepi tolls and charp-; imposed by thc Rcpilhlic of' Pnnama upon mcrchnr~disc des~inedro k intrcduccd R b r the consumption of the mof thc Republic of Panama, and upon vcswls touching at trhc pOm ohColon and Pmama and which do no1cross thc
Ca~~fll.
rSlc Gmcmment oftbe Rcpuhlic or Panama shall have the righa 2 0~ t r I i s h in such porn and i n the t o m a f Panama a d Colon such houses a d pads as it may deem n c a x w io ~ollect duties o r 1 ir~rpflalionq dcstild to othcr portions o r Panama and to pm+enl canlmbmd ~ d cThe . Vnircd S E ! ~ shall bavc thc righ: :a m&c x x cf ~ ! tov.ms c and h h r s of Panama and Colon as p l a c of ~ anchorage, t?nd Ibt making nqmirs, T o r loading. unloading, d q w s i t i n ~ or uan~shippinp, cargws eifherin transit or destined for the service of dbc Cannl and for other work.\ pnaining ro thc Canal.
Article X
1"
~9
'lhe Republic of Panama agms that t h m shall not he hposcd any t a m , national. muoicipal, d c p h e n t a l . or o f any olhw class, u p n the Canal, hr railways and auxiliary works, lugs w d other vast)< employed in the semce oflhc Canal. s t m houses, work shops. ofices. quanm for laborerr. factosies orall kinds. warrhomws. w h m e e machinery and otbcr HV&. p r o p q , and eFI*ects appedmng to thc Canal or raihacl and auxiliary works. o r lheir o r i i m o r employees. siruated within the citres or Panama and Colon. and that t h m s b d nor bc impowd mtriiutions w chargcs of a personal chmctcr of any hind upon offimm, employees, lahnrws. and h e r individuals in zbe service uilhe Can31 a d railroad and auxrha? works.
Convention Between the h i r e d States and the Republic of Panama
... hge 5 of 8
Thc United S ~ t e a s mh a t he ooflicial dispatch= of thc Government ofthe Republic of Panama shall be transmitted over any telegraph and telqhonc Iines established for canal purposes and usad for public and private business ar rat- not higher lhan those nquired from officials in the service o f the Ilnited Stafes.
hrticie XI1
The Government ofthe Republic o f Panama shall permit Iheimmipahn and frcc access te h c lands and workshnps of the Cmal and in auxiliar). w o k s of all cmplnyew aad rvorkmcn of whatever nationaliiy undcr wnn-act to wnrk upon or seeking cmptoyment upon or in an! rrxse c o m c t c d w v h i t f said ~ canal and its auxiliar?.works. w i h PJ~cir m@vr rwlilics, mil di such p . mh u l l k F n z : wid cxcrnpr frum the rnilitay service arthe Rcpuhlic of Panama.
Article MU
Ihr IInired Slates may h-rqmrt at any lime inlo thc said ynnc aml auxiliary Imdc. free of amom dutics. imps&. tares. or nthcr charga. a d \%ithout any restriaions,any and dl vcsscls, drwlges, engines. ems, machinew. tonla explmivcs. malerials, supplies, and other dicles necessary and convenient in tlic construction, mainlenance, opmtinn. sanitation and pro~ecrion of the Canal and auniliw works, and all provisions. rncdicinm, cl(lthin& supplies. and nher thing nccessaq and mvenienr for Ihc ~lffim, employm. uorknwn and laborers in the servicc and employ of the United Statcs and for their Lmilres. It m y such a n i c l arc ~ divpt~d oi'for uw outside ol'lhe a m und auxiliary lands grant4 to the United Smtm and within rhc tmilory of rhe Republic. they shall bc subjcct to tlie same impwl or rlihrr duties a like aniclm impofled undcr thc laws orthe Rcpuhlic of l'anama
.. .-
As thc p i c e or compensation Ibr the righa, powers a d privikgcs granted in this the Republic elf l'anama 10 the Unitcd Stales, thc Govcmment urthe United Stules agrees to p y 10h e RcpublicoTPanama Ihe sum often million dollars (S10,000.000) in gold =)in of thc Ilnited Slates on the exchange of the n!iGcarion ofthis conventinn and el.^^, zm annil~l payment during zhc life nf this convenfion nf hvn hundrcd md fifty thousand dollars (S2511.000E i n likc gold coin. hceinnine ninc y a m ntkr the datc afomid. Ihe provisions ofthi?;Article shall be in addition to dl o t k htnelits assured to thc Republic ofl'anama undcr h i s aanvatCion. But na delay OT diffmce of opinion under this khclc w my orher provisionsOF h i s trcuty shall ~ f f e t o r intcmpi h e full opratiur! md c&l o f this con\.mtior! i n all odirr
m v c n t i o n by
23
The joint wmmisinn serared to in Article V1 shaU be mtablishrd as follows:
The Pmident ofthe Uninitcd Stake shall nominate trvo p o n s and the h i d e n t or~he Rcpuhlic ofl'anma shall nominate n~r) m n s and they shall prowcd tu a decision: but in w e ordi-~er~t ofthe Coraoiissium(by masun oilheirking cyudly divided in conclusion). an umpire shall be appoinred by the hvo Goyernmen&whr, shdl render Ihe decision. In thc cvcnt of h e death. a k w , or incqacip of a Cornrnisrrinner w Llmpire, o r of his onlining, decliningor -1ng to a a his place shaU be lilled by h e appointment of another ~ r s w in the mmnm above i n d i d A U decisions by a majority of thc Cummission or by d ~ umpire c shall be final.
: '
Convention Between the United S h m and the Republic of Panama ... P a g 6 of S
Article XVI
IR
The t m Gwernmenfs shall makc adequate provision by hturc agrcmcnt for the purrnit. mpture. imprisonment dctcntion dd e f i v c ~ wirhin said zone llnd auxiliary lands to thc authorities of h e Rcpu'nric: of I'mama oipaso~~s u n q c d with the wn?mitrncnt o f ~ ~ i m feiirnizs. rs ur r n i s d m l w wilhou( u i d w n r a d for Ihe pursuit, q t m . imprisonment, detention and dclivcry wilhout said zone to h e authoritiw of the Uni~ed States of persons c h q e d with the ummitmcnt of crirncs. fclonics and misdemeanors within &d m e and a u x i l i v lands.
'Ihe Republieo f P a n m a grants t o tfic United Srales the llsc of d tbe ports of the Republic opcn b mrnmerCe as placcs of d u g e for any vewcls cmploycd in the Canal entcrprisc. and for all vessels passing or Ibound to pa through the Canal which may be in d i r and ~ be driven to scck refuge m said pt~. Such vesstls shall k exempr from a~ichorag and tnnnagc ducs sin Ihe part nTC1c Reptlhfic trrhnan~a.
Ihe Canal. when m m a d . and thc cnhances thercto &at1 be neutral in perpetuity, and shall k openad upon the terms provided for by Scctinn 1 o f h i c l e b e e of, and in conformity wirh all the slipulatinns nf. the m t y m t d intn hy thc Govcmrncnh o f the 1Jnited Stat- and Cireat Uritiin on Nnvrrnher 18. 1901.'
TICGuvmrnent of h e Rcpuhlic o r Paaama shall have the right to k m s p i over the Canat, its vessels ~ n its d ~mqw md munitions oT%var in such vessels at dl times without paying charges of any kind. Thc exemption is to he extcnded to the auxiliary railway f o r the transponation of pcrsons in the mice of'itre Republic of I'mama or o f h e police hrce charged with thc p ~ w z t i o of n public order outsfdc of said zone,r s well as to lheir baggage, munitions o f war and supplies.
I f by virfue o f any cvidmg t r c q in wlsrion r o rhc t & l ~nf thc Iahmuu rrT Panama, \ v h c o f thc ohligations sball descend or be 9ssurncrl by the Republic or l'nnama there may be any privilege or concession in ravorof rhc rmwmment or Ihc citizens and subjocts o f a third puwet relarivc 10an: interoceanicmeans oimnrnunictltion wtlich in any of irs terms may be inmmptible with the t t m s of the present convention. thc Rguhlic oil'mama a p s to cancel or modify such t r c z in due form. for which purpose i t shall pirc to Ihr said third p o r m the requisite outification nit!irr thc term uf four mnnthc lintn Lhr d a ~ c d t h c p m t convcntirkn, nnd in m w the evicting (real> cantains no cltlue w i t t i n g its rndiiications or annulment rbe Republic o f Panama agms to pmcurr:its mdification or annulment in such form h a t bere shall not exist any conflid w i l hh e stipulations orthe p m n t convention.
Tbe rights and privileges m r e d by the Republic o f h a m a ao h e United Srares in the prcccding Articlm me undernod t o be k of all antcn'or dcbts. lien?.. trusts. or liabilities, w con&om or p n v i l e p 10oher Govcrnmatc, corporations, syndimm m individiltila, wd oonseqnem!y. if t h m should arise any ctaims on account of thc present
Convention Between the United States and the Republic of Panama. ... Page 7 of 8
and privileges or irlllerw-kc, the clai~~lmtr &I m= i r j i ; Govcrnn~cnt ~ of zhc Rcpuhlic of P a n m a and no to the United S ~ t c fmbrany s irtdcrnnity or wmpmmise
MI~XSS~OIIS
which may be required.
Article
Thc Rcpublic of I'anama tcnwnces and p t s to the Uniled Statcs, thc p d c i p t i o n ro which it mighr be entitled in the future emings of the Canal under Article X V oftbe concessionary contract with Lucien N. R. Wyse, now owncd by h e New Panama Canal Company and any all other ri&s or claims uf a p e c u n i e nature arising undcr or relatingto said crmcffsion o r arising under or relating to lhc mnccssinns tn the Panama Railmad Company or any extension or modification m k w d it likewise renounces, contirms and p m ro h e Unitcd Stares. now and h m d t e r . all thc righa wd prrrptny rcscncd in h~ I wnctsions I whicll ulhmvise ~ l 'mlong d to Panama tll or kfure 'thc expiration ofh e terms o f ninety-nine years o f the mCessions granted tw o r hetd by (he abuve mentioned party and companies, and a H right title md interest which it now has or may llcteaftcr have, in and to thc l a d canal. wrks. properly and rights held by thc said cornpanics under said conamions or ohenvise. and acquired or to t x acquircd by [he U n i f d Srafes from or thmugh the Sew 1',111arnn Canal Cnrnpany. includln~ ; m pmperiy m d ri$s \\'hich might cr ma! in h e f'umrc ciher hy lap= uof'tirnc, fnr!kitcn: m othenvise, rcvcrt to thc Republic of Panama under any contracts or con&ons, with said Wyse, ~ h c Univcma! Panama Canal Company, die Panama kilrwd Company and the Ncw Panama Canal Company. The aforesaid righk md p m p q shall b and arc free and r c l d From any prrrcnt or rcversion~ inlmst in m ~ i d ~ l i id i r ['mama and flw [ilk oi'thr IY~lillXt 5lalt.s Ihmto upon consummion oFthc u~nlcn~plated ptlr~haw b> *C Uniicd Shtcs h m Lhc NCW P.mama Canal Company, shall bc abmlutc, f a as concerns the liepublic of Panema. cvccpting alrvays ihe riels o f lhc R~-public specifidly s~curcd undcr this trcaty.
S J -
~r
' j
T f it should hcanme n w w r y at any time la mploy m e d f o w for rhe wfew m pmtcclion [if the Canat or o f thc ships that makc usc of he smc. or Lhf rsil\\%l;sand auxiliary wotk~, the United Stat- shall have thc ri~ht, ar all rirncs and in its discretion, to use its pliee and its land and naval Forces or I(I fiitahlish fmtifiwtions fw rhtsc purposes.
Nu change eiher in thc Govzrnmmr or inthe l a w a d matics of the Republic of Panama shall. rvitbout thc consent or* Unitdl Slates. ab'fect any right of lhe United Srntes undcr the prcscnl convention. or under any t m t y sripuladon bebvem thc two countries that now exists or may hcrcafiaexisl touching ll~c subject mmm o f this
If rht: Republic of Panama did1 hcrcaficr c n t a ss a mhnimnt into any ohcr Ciovernn~cnt or into any union or mnfcderatiun of states, s o as LO rncrge k r srwmignty or indcpcndence i n such Gorrmmnt, union or confodefa!ion, the rights of the llnirrd Statcs undcr this convenuon shall not br: in any respcct lessenad or impaired.
L*
For Ihe better pwformmcc of he engagememsof this convention and to thc md o f thc efficient lprotcmion ofthe Canal and rhe prcscrvatimr o f i u neutrality, thc Government of the Republic of Panma will selF or Ito thr United States lands adeqware and n e c e s s q 10r the naval o r coaling stahore; on the Yacific masf and on the weslem
Convention Between the United S t a t e s and the Republic of Panama ... Page 8 of 8
Caribbean coast of&
Rgublic af cenain pointg to k a g r d u p with the President of
the Unitod Smcs.
This wnvcntivn when sipcd by thc Plcnipntmdaics ofthc Conmcting P d c s shall k mificd by rk m v e Govemmcfits a w lthe ra~fications shd! k exchanped at Washington 1 the earliest date passihle. If faith whcrwf the w v e Plenipotentiarieshave s i d the v e n t comeation in ' I duplicate md bwe heremlo afftxed tllcir m p t i v e scals. Done a! h e City of Washington, the 18lh day o f November in thc y w o f our Lord. ninefeen hundred and thm. John flay. I d . ] P. Dunau Varilla Iseal.1 43 And rvhaeas h e said Convention has been duly ratifid on 'both p t & . and the rari[ications of the two govcmments were exchangd in h e City of Washington, on the twcn~y-sixth day of T:chruary, one lholsand ninc hundred and four. lr Nuiu. ~l~e~t.T~+,rr. k it L m w n thm 1, Thdm K c w v c l ~ Presidm~ oilhe Uniird Stittw ur Americs have caused tZlc said ConvmLiun lo be madc pubtic. lu h e end d l a ~ hsame and every article and clausc thereof, may br: o b m d d fulfilled witti good faith by rhe
"
llriitcd Statcs and rhc ciri7ms thereof.
I n tcstirnrmy whereaT, 1 have hcrcuntr, s & my hand and cmsd !he =I of Ihe United Stales of Amerim ro be aflixcd. Donc at tlle City orU'ia4bi1lglon.!his nvmtyl~ihth day or ~chmmy. fllc y e a r rfour lard onc t h w s 3 n d ninc h u n d d md four, and o f thc lndeppndtmcc of lhc l l n i t d States thc o n o n e hundred and [went!-eighth. [MI J Theodore Rmsevelr.
'j
''
By h e President:
John Hay,
.kcrefun* of S
m.
amazon &I?- %
rrce Panama Fact 5h-t
1 ,b
For people consldenng Investing. VblElng, or Uvlng In Panama

WmVW.lnWTMDOMHNIOP.COm
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CANDIDATES MCCAIW AND OBANIA MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 5
APX
670
nePLluLl~A UE PANAMA
REGlSfHO PUBLIC0 DE PANAMA

iU~i.lry+lja,.LVi.i~~~.~?nn
*, .
No.769760
L C I U L ~ A ~ . M I T ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ T ~ U I I U & L ~ C O O E P ~ W M A H ~ ~ : ~ ~ W
,,,+
.,
.,, . r..lihru~;rlDPU~~~~~DLI.PnlI~~ii[r[rBBROi.i.~~~CUOE?a~riL<IriEG ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ U L ~
ZOMay/ZOM)
( 3 Z R . l
F I C A
COH VZE:T&
I;A 1;0LICITl.ll, 013
--
545'529
L
QUB LA S L L D A L J EXTXAIIJERA: **E**+t****Hr4cu ? M A M A HAlLWOAD COUPMY fCOnYhc+'Ih DEL FYRRDCARSll, D 5 : YAtJAIUI) CfiARGfUAL DL ADVGRTSSGIA)
*re+.mmW*******
3E EhlCUSYTRA AliGISTRADA L A FIGHA B.Sm8 DI; YOVIIZRBHIHE DE HTL UCIVECIZBITUB UOVEYTA
942 W 1 .
42417 DEDnE
61.
Y MUEVE
-BEGRSTARIO QUL DXGIIATARIO6

i3UB
3 !
BON:
PRIBIDEUTE
TEBOWERO
: BARK rAna VICE-I'RLBIQEYTB VOCRE. : JIM KAY - QU6' LA KKPRP5I;UTACIW LEGAL LA E J B R C E E A : EL REPREBEITAflS LEGAL C10 S&HA ROYAEJQ LYUB LlimH WARGIHAL IZb: AWERTLNCIA BOBRE W S W I - S 5227/2W3 D-5Zl6B3r AUPLeTO 6733312003 D-517736. ASTE#To 62565/Ri34N COW RBIYOXIiW AL ASI6!573&/ aOQ3D-479564rL08 CUALEB LIO CU'WLIAU COM WE R G U U I S I ' L ~ B Dii L E Y PARA S J Ch LIFICACION E IP8CRIPCfOlY. E 6 T A H W A tlAWIYAL UQ hAHUL& LA IWBCRIPCIOM P W O WI;@KQXHGE @ti D?;I?BCHOG 061; DUEbO C) T & HAS6RA. W E M I Yo BIi U 0 W)L3RA H A C E % I m CAUCPLE 0 BE PBACTIUUk.LU BU CABO. L A RECTIFIChFII%. R E U T I V A A L AGTEtrPO D I ; QUL SE TRATAU 8 COB OPERACIW A W W A POGTERIDB. TPANCIAS R E G I a E i f l ADUIERTGLI WE EL. ABISUTO 67S3/2DQ3 YO 6 X I S T E W D R 68 BU IU$CRIPCIOY.IIIUB EPEClWS JURIDICOB SP AFECTAY POR EL A 8 I M I T 0 6 Z J 6 5 EXPEDIDO Y FIRDL'L DO5 MIL OCHO
A
: D0PAL.n L. LAZ48--RKPRESEUTkblkblP6 LEGAL : l ; E G l i A l D E bl. LAMB : NAJfK MHB
EM U i PRCVIBCIA D6 PAUAbIA LAS D C i : 0 6 : 1 7 r P . ! 4 .
BL V P I l l T P
DE PVIYO
1 m ~ : ESTA C E R T ~ F I C A C I C IPAGO DXRXCBOS ~ ~ L J ~ ~ v A L o R D E B / 30.00 CCJ~~~ROBANTE YO- CX3
545539
F
/ / PItMO
~ Msrtee :
//
ao.
DY 3-
Cai*s sl~oh c*.ri,eiten. *el Clrcuifo 'S Ponr:r,,
r e d , .J ;do. 0 . 3 4 7 . 8 0 1 . ._. *.x . , - A

~
, , , , ,
i(j
, p ,;
,,
,,b;,co orc,,a
..
iaf5$'o'~ con ~ ~ s, COnfOInv3
0 1 1 2 . ~ ~ ~
"a ei'cbnf;o&
, ,
.. .
-A
~ . .
: e
?h%.L
AFFIDAVIT OF DONALD LYNN L A M E 3
I am Donald Lynn Lamb, a naturaliad Panamanian Citizen, male, single, with
Panamanian IdentificationNumber
I do hereby attest that 1 am at present the Legal Kepmentative of the private New York
Company calIed tfie:
PANAMA RAILROAD COMPANY.
Registered in the Paaarna Public Kegislq in Ficha S.E. 942, Document 4241 7 in
confom\iQ with CertificadoNumber 769760 dated May 20,2008.
I attest ihg we have m n d e d in the Live B i r t h Records of the Panama Railroad

Company the folbwing Live Birth.
'THE PANAMA CANAL"
HEALTH DEPARTMENT CERTIFICATEOF LIVE BIRTH
Born in the City of Colon, Republic of Panama,
JOHNSIDNEY MCCAIN In
Mde Legitimate
Father John McCain August 29,1936
Mother - Roberta WtighE
Residence: Colon Color - White Occupation:US Militaty
Residence: Colon
Color - White
C&q&ion: Housewife
APX
672
L+yeeBirthRecords CPlon Hospital Panama Railmad ~omp'any
7.-
..
APX - 673 ---
CERTIFICATE OF ATlXNDING PHYSICIAN

Born alive at 6:25 PM
Signature
RF. Amis, Physician

August 29,1936
Signed
John Walkice
Superintendent
Fucther, your affiant say&
Exhibit 6
APX
675
THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON
August 26,2009
Mr. ChristopherStrunk Unit 281 593 Vanderbilt Avenue Brooklyn, New York 1 1238
Dear Mr. Stmdc
Thank you for contacting the &ce of President Barack Obama. The President appreciates your taking the time to voice your concerns and opinions.
We would like to be of assistance to you; however, due to the separation of p o w e r s ,it is not within our authority to become involved m legal matters. You must resolve this issue through thejudicial s y s t e m .
Please be aware that you can visit www.usa.gov or call 1-8O(r-FEDINFO for information about Federal Government assistance.
We hope your concerns are resolved to your satisfaction.
Again, thank you for your correspondence.

Sincerely,
..
F. Michael Kelleher
Special Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Correspondence
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CANDIDATES MCCAIN AND OBAMA MOTIONS TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 7
APX - 678 _-____------
3s t-$$ &irrdt: E mJ ~ tot jirgt Cir~tait

STr%% O f IABA1L
Mae rhr Rwx1%
-- -,---. ..%GS%.Lr--t%&--- ----
AT -3 aYmf
=---
"- - j +
M*
i2FsEsL.T 3 s T#F; X%UCCOE&Z RW1i
OF SAID
Exhibit B-1
f t . ria,
z x
l i cmcm
counn OF
1-roz
szm m e w . cmrt:
8@6bIZBS
S t A E 4E w & E i
OIFSfIDH OF DOCEG'ITL
r s a sn p m
6 ~ ~
t b s l*l
pK2a~1117 ~ w a k b2 d
bg
U'brklrat whtft
s2h =6 tiie ~ past &Eke ad&aas 02 &e LtBeIlee is 129
D, W n .
m -mC T S L E U ~ ~ w ZBSB FW
h m #F H13UXT
rnmz.s.
CWUXT
D W f W t.p s m 5 5 s m ngy-
Exhibit B-3
2,
& W S I
%kt Lf.baWt
m M a &~k3zra
Bfvarss
~ai4 Ltbetlre;;
3,
% a &
* &
sale dare m a r d =st*
a5 the ebitoe n W
ehtd
shm! a * bk sua+af& E n M*L;lsot; 4- & A far SU~Z B t w d %rt%z' aL(&L%ef a9

%WE w3
fQt
fn ?tw p r e w ,
M T F B : &?Pef.&3+.
;7WYa+p,
s#&i, r '
&? &
. ; : . i
%9iZ&*
Exhibit B-4
APX
--- -
682
-
,
and
DBgbSt
Exhibit B-5
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CANDIDATES MCCAIN AND OBA.MA MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 8
APX
--
684
=-*=-c
7
AUEW
, -
i
*"f
rt,,
P*,*
*.
It
,-,war* . * *r9-***:
i @=*
r?Ldh-*
-3
m(f
A?.=
am*
B Q # h
+ i s
hwa
,*+;
JW~W 13~trj% ~ ~-**&,-4 -- e i ?

5-*t-
ft&#SXXfiil
---
SlU? is5
% A % ? :v
% l b @ &
Exhibit A-1
---__-__
APX
685
Exhibit A-2
ALIEN
.
1
. .
Exhibit A-3
Exhibit A-4
&n a 7 l $dl l38wSP uf s &
--
. . -
&a sari: priiwn i s s
:&
a-dp ~ BU
d .Mmsrwe:
@=eel%&
,
FP~ZO 8 R ~ R $&*~x%~~&ri:-
I934
- --
C d -
F w . ~ E i t~r & ~ a & r eaterlag f6g isitlrrtstt+ of ~ s u a t f arc acw 33iarr;5 t . i i f i $ l l i a s t l ~ j n g di u di o a u g r r o s r ! i u t ~ f f f F~TDBCQB* t h r L r a i l ~ k Lsfia-as t tlrt#gvto* The e s r s ~ t eQF the t a a f l f v f g i s ro g i r a t ~ I a n s l wardlnS@g I n erst .ant r i r l t f e n E n g l $ & rsc' fa 2 r g l t ' k ~t ozlantirfiee t o F A 9 A~i?a$r?4n sstxersriy and c w u e t t u tn arbr-r t o wepsrcr t h e t t a b e ~ 2i s I1 ~ x e w i * * d i n are1 + e g g ~cqulrrc r r d i f p e r @ . Jn i i r r l r d l sacl r t & o * and ~rfi-iilsrEngl!~h saC 4 dsclsgon 1 s e d c ilr f a w + e + h e t hr * w s i lake 4 i l of p s r l ~l h i s rstl i n i h r i n t t l l t P r . $ l r d g n l $ ( 1 the insiTta*a peyr Ir add!tfca io i h a r . ~ q u f a tZefrtrsS*y t w : l f s n , rars!rl F D V + $ T ~e e s , L S $ 2 r s t t f i p t + r d khaf t h s lnstliubc plea, w r h a s r % I l k r ~ ? " i t e ; t i ~ f ~ v f l t c q a S t s v a , a-d vco thrraFare should Be p r a s d r e d . I f i t i 3 dffep-z* a d r l s a b l ~by fko g ~ r r % t r r Adatrery tt tismr-if !+tij +O S C ~ d B ~ ~ehri\%ti?r 0s a t , f t f i 3 z i a r p rres3ieizos ~f %or&I + I h t m r s f s fbf f a f t % 3 ( i f ~ ~
' ka b r r m w d i i s Mer z&rf&n4
.? ..% .w _ --__ ._, *[-aid r s W itii~srrr
i sd e i
~ttejutid-
; _
Uf oil ~ ~ - . sslfa or* a a p r d as &era ahre.
. .---C?- 2 =
e *
f
sz'
r n r q ii & ; &tie61dujrrr 1 ;drparr'5ca, jrnd rccwc to the U n l t d Lvcrduring ~ h c period of ;alidilr of nrs wse o r &sires 80 %.tots a 1 cricasim d his irrowary &mtsr;sa, or dcsiiev f~ :izndtr $ 0 .%orkir
Exhibit A-5
'~*-4r
t;3=
. w r B SE*
r m s ia ~
~ 4 e 3
%bmm*V: SEW w l%BifS: WTff4v .*!~Fl%Ts?r
rn<tao
m : : w * A a : w
*iJiFmii?fl
I S
~
3 s -
& -
Exhibit A-6
Exhibit A-7
APX
691
Exhibit A-8
---
Jb-8
i f -
*= =
Exhibit A-9
Exhibit A-10
APX
694
icSf+d tae % & h e n having Irecb?ir v i t R 4~ has since i e i t tRe 9*%i., 5tstsd is:
3.h. :rsn~ferp& re Hbeacd %lcS p t i ~ b e t ~ h c El r a I P S r s 1962: a54 34&2 tq study for m.3. 5% C*xmies.. *?xp>ers i6 ;ct &me ia 2-3 pears er,d tistzs ; a ; f f l l f d 5% Z3Slt;L stsfbs, e:e. *lid W p k w r t Wit$* P$ I-3'1% $C B I m r LJ.@X&:! ~sfd i= b i d =:I e x ~ e ~ 6 : i ?+P l a wrrsft.
Z-Ikcz trsf Frost + hcrrald i as a l l e a tfstrrtd ke it.il!brrJt r&~;zm3er uiw-re 3c -Ref m&& fir; ftc q.3, l a i d % -arts -4 ~?sesreh a t Hsrvaid. ~d :ha$ ?:r. Erne, m a r Z the b r r - r a oiilrlaL+, latcras tg t a l k r e ~ ~ J I - C f-r I hfs nirrlrst rgtsaticf,, iSarvatd th~dks?a's asrrztro : h smaso ta Y r e y ; p i ; * 7diiwne
a r .
uccist. ;4lfy
tb
wpct a-4 use tsar i+ ;ir r b zesu:r* at c8r Pnreru>+w.
tt) h i + UPT:: + F t r ? i B f c C Z ~ % ~n E S ~ P ha ~ w ~ G I pet Ic f n r n k wss~.r!, & w a r d ui l l c a l : 11% r t t h
+ftcrn al;:r*
gcx a b i - r s a .
T . S + C . W arrived 3~ 6.3- is 19Hr f a i l rrip bi'lFf4ir
~Latir~ 1IP d =as #rfi&, L said bs ws be~irrrat~d a ? : *Cthay my The rife ?a :la? Bftifiwtms f s ~ 3 V~L'F: 5% 5r7para~B6$9 a 03 yfliwa p t ? p i? t lle Indl~sfeS &ad si:c iri &=%a whs* h+
Exhibit '4-11
APX - 695
Exhibit A-12
APX
696
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CANDIDATES MCCAIN A.ND OBAMA MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 9
APX
-
697
APX
698
Exhibit 10
source:' 5 Nov 2010 posting at http:I/puzol .blogspot.com1201011 llmembers-of-congress-memo-what-to-tellhtml
Congressional
Research
Service
MEMORANDUM Subject
April 3.2009
Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate Jack Maskell Legislative Attorney American Law Division
From:
ed enable distribution to more than one congressional office. This memorandum was ~ r e ~ a r to
This memorandum addresses inquiries &omcongressional ofEces regarding the constitutional qualifications for the office of President of the United States, and the issue of challenges concerning specifically the questioning of President Obama's 'ktural born citizenship" status.' Many of the inquiries have questioned why then-Senator, and now President, Obama has not had to produce an original, socalled "long" version of a "birth certificab" ikom the State of Hawaii, how federal candidates are "vetted" for qualifications generaity, and have asked for an assessment of the various allegations and claims of non-eligibility status. Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, a r a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any o f i i a l of the United States Govement; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation? Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that "vets" candidates for federal oBce as to qualiiations or eligibility prior to election? The mechanics of elections of federal officials within the several states are. administered under state l a d The quadrennial presidential election, although required since 1845 to be held on the same day in each
that one must be at least 35 yeais old, a resident "withinthe United States" for 14years, and a "nahual born Citizen."
' The standing qualifications to be President of the United States, at Article II, Section 1, clause 5, of the Constitutionprovide
In addition to the "natural born Citizen'' requirement for President, a United States Senatorm u s t be a "citizen" of the United S t a t e s fm nine years (An. I, Sec. 3, cf. 3), rmd a United States Representative must be a "citizen" for seven pars (Art. I, See.2, cl. 2). No general requirement exists for camlidah to the United S t a t e s Senate or House of Representatives to produce an original, or a ce?tified copy of a binh certificate. The Federal Election Commission is authorized by l a w to administerand seek compliance with the eampaig~finance provisions of federal law for candidatesto federal office, and to administer and seek compliance with the provisions for public financing of the nomination and election of candidates for President, but has no duties or responsibilities w i t h respect to judging or vcning qualificationsor eligibility of candidates t o federal office. 2 U.S.C. 5 437c. 4~rticle 1 1 , Section I , cl. 2, delegates authority to the state legislatures to direct the manner of appointment of electors for President; and Article I, Section 4, cl. 1, delegates to the state legislatures the initial authority for the ''Times, Places and Manner" of elections to Congress, with a residual authority in Congress to make such regulations.
'
Source: 5 NowC201 0 posting at http:llpuzol .blogspot.coml201011 llmembers-of-congress-memo-what-to-tell-ht ~ngression Resea& ~ s--Ce 2

is, in an administrative and operational sense, fifty-one separate elections in the states and the District of Columbia for presidential electors. States generally control, within the applicable constitutional parameters, the administrative issues, questions, and mechanisms of ballot placement and ballot a c ~ e s s . ~
stat$
State election officials under some state ballot Iaws might thus require candidate "statements" or "declarations" of candidacy attesting to andlor certifying certain facts as a condition to be on the ballot; i n other states, representatives of the established political parties may certify names to the Secretary of State, or the designated elections official may place viable or ''recognized" candidates on the presidential preference ba~lots.~ In such cases, opposing political candidates or political parties may have "standing" to legally challenge the placement of a name of an opponent on the ballot,8 or state law may specifically provide for a procedure for timely protests to be filed concerning the qualifications of ~andidates.~ Additionally, the relevant election official in the state, such as the Secretary of State, may have authority to exercise discrejian to challenge a self-certification or a certification by a political party of a candidate whom the election official believes is not eligible for the office. It would appear to be a matter of state law and interpretation as to whether election officials in a particular state have discretionary authority to question the certification of a party's nomiuated candidate, or even a self-certification of a candidate, if such election officials were presented with actual probative, documentary evidence to rebut any presumed or self-certified eligibility. In K q e s v. Bowen, the California Supreme Court dismissed a suit against the Secretary of State which challenged President O b m ' s eligibility and the California electoral votes for bim,finding that: "Petitioners have not identified any authority requiring the Secretary of State to make an inquiry into or demand detailedproof of citizenship from Presidential candidates," and thus mandamus (a writ o f mandate) was not granted. la However, although no "ministerial duty" or mandatory requirement exists to support a mandamus action, there may still exist dircrelionaty authority in such elections official." Several citizen law suits filed in 2008 challenging the eligibility of one or both of the major party candidates for President were dismissed bccause of the lack of legal "standing" of the plaintiff. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution provides that jurisdiction of the federal courts extends only to "cases" and "controversies." and this jurisdictional Iimitatioo is interpreted to mean that the litigant bringing a case must have an actual injury which is r e a l or concrete, as opposed to theoretical or hypothetical, and which is also discrete or particularized to that individual or p u p , rather than overly generalized.i2The
5 Stat. 721, Ch 1, January 23, 1845; see now 3 U.S.C. 3 1. Slorer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Jenness v. Forb-on, 403 U.S. 431 (1971); BuNack v . Carter,405 U.S. 134, I45 (1972); Lubin v. Pantsh, 415 U.S. 709,719 (1974): Anderson v. Ceiebrezre,460U.S. 780 (1983); Wilfi~)ms v. Tucker, 381 F. Supp. 381, 387-388 (Ivi.D.Pa. 1974). ? See. e.g., Senate Rules and Administration Committee, Nombtotion mid Electio~ of the President and Yice President of thb UnitedSrates, 2000, S.Doc. 106-16 (Smuary 2000). Texns Ilemocraric Par& v. BenkLrer, 459 F.3d 582,585-588 (5" Cir. 2 0 0 6 ) , Application for S f q to Supreme Coun, denied.,No. 06-A-1 39 (2006). regarding ballot placement of a "substitute" opposifion candidate under state law, and the constitutional "eligibilily"of the original candidate; see also Fulani v. Hogsett, 917 F.2d 1028, 1030 ( pCir. 1990), finding standing of opposition party to challenge bdIot placement of opposing candidates', Schdz v. Williams, 44 F.3d 48,52-53 (2d Cir. 1994) (discussion of "competiiors' standig" in a political contexr). 'Note, e.g., Ohio Revised Code. 8 3513.05 (formerly Ohio Gen. Code 4 4785-70), and Miowart v. BoordofElecfions,105 N.E.2d 639 (Ohio 1952). appeal of voter protest of citizenship quaIification in statement of candidacy of a federal candidate. la Kews v. Bowen, Cese No. 39-2008-80000096-CU-WPIf-GDS, Slip op. at 2 (Sup. Ct. Cd.March 13.2009). Emphasis added. '' See, for example, unreported case of CIemervJordan, Case no. 7838 (Calif.Supreme Court minutes, Sep. 26,1968). cert. denied, 393 U.S. 8 10 (1968), where California court reportedly upheld discretionary authority of Secretary af State not to fist ineligible candidate for President on the ballot; and Jenness v Brown, also unreported, case no. civil 72-204 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 27, 1972), concerning ballot placement of an ineligible candidate in Ohio. '*Baker v. Carr,369 9 . S . 186 (1962): FlaFI v. Ghen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968); Valley Forge Christian College v. A m e r i m Unired (continua i . . . )
'
APX
701
Sourck: 5 Nov 2010 posting at http:l/puzol .blogspot.com1201011llmembers-of-congress-memo-what-to-tell.html

Congrwsi~~r~l Researclt Service
3
constitutional principles undertying this "standing" requirement - component of the doctrine of separation of powers -reflect the limited role of the judiciary expressed in the Constitution and recognize the deference to the democratically elected "politicaf' or "representative" branches of the federal government with regard to addressing generalized interests and questions of public policy and constitutional precepts (as opposed to addressing particularized injuries resulhg from constitutional violations).'' The general, societal interests claimed by certain individuals, where there are no cognizable pattiwlarized injuries, are deemed intended to be addressed by the political pmcess and by the "politicaf" departments of government, rather than in the context of the more limited role assigned to federal courts. Thus, in both a practical and constitutional sense, the general, overall "vetting" of political candidates in the United States is considered a consequence and product of the political process, and within the bailiwick of the political institutions and political branches of government. As noted by the Supreme Court w i t h respect to another provision in the Constituiion, which was found not to be the proper subject of general citizen suits:
In a very real sense, the absence of aparticularindividual or class to Iitigate these claims gives support to the argumentthat the subjectmatter is committedt o the surveiliance of Congress, and ultimately to the political process. l4
With respect to presidential candidates, this political process includes running the gauntlet of numerous political party primaries, caucuses, or conventions in the states; being the subject of intense. "opposition research" by political opponents in one's own party in the nomination process, and by the opposition party in the genera1 election campaign; scmtlny in the primaries and the general election by an independent press; and the necessity of convincing the majority of voters in enough states of one's abilities as well as qualifications.'5 For candictates of major political parties, there is an inherent selfinterest of the party to thoroughly "vet" a candidate to whom it is considering giving its nomination so that the party will not waste opportunity and time, and deplete its resources, on a candidate who is not eligible for the office.
Finally, concerning official oversight of "eligibility," it may be noted that the issue of qualifications of elected federal officials might be considered to have been delegated, at least in part, to one of the political branches of government, that is, the United States Congress. W i t h respect to the quaiifications for Congress, for example, each house of Congress is expressly granted within the Constinrtion the specific authority to "be the Judge of the Elections, Rehnns and Qualifications of its own ~ e m b e r s . " 'This ~ authority has been described by the Supreme Court as "an unconditional and f d judgment" over the seating of its own ~ernbers,"which is not reviewable by the courts because it is "a non-justiciable
(..,continued) for Separation o f Church andstate, 454 U.S. 464 (1982); AIIen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984). l 3 See, e.g., discussions in Devins and Whitlington (editors), Congres &the Comtifuiion, (Duke University Press 2005). l4 United States v. Richarrtron, 418 U.S. 166, 179 (1974) (denying standingto citims under the Constitution's "Accounts Clause" {Art. 1.8 9, cl. I ) ) , quoted in Berg v. Obma, 574 F.Supp.Zd509,520, n. 13 (E.D. Pa. 2008). sruy app. deflied,petilian for review denied,555 U.S. (Supreme Court docket no. 08-570, December 9 and 17,2008), denying "standing" to a voter or citizen who has no particularized, differentiated claim, nor any concrete or actual ''injury," concerning the qualifications clause. As noted by a federal judge in s-arjiy d~smissing a citizen suit concerning President Obama's 'haturd born" citizenship (and ordering the attorney who was a member of that bar to show cause why he should not be disciplined for filing a frivolous and harassing lawsuit): "The issue of the president's citizenshipwas raised, vetted, blogged, terted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants ~t resolved by a cousun,"~fo~Iis~er v. Soetom, Civil Action No. 08-2254, Slip. Op.at I- 2 (D.D.C. March 5,2009). Article I, Section 5, clause 1. Roudebush v. Nartke ,405 U.S. 15, 19 (1972). See also Barry v. UniredStatesex re[. Cunningham.279 U.S. 597 (1929).
''
Source: 5 Nov 201 0 posting at http:llpuzol .blogspot.com/201 O H llmembers-of-congress-memo-what-to-tell.html

C~ngressianal Reseatrh %mice
4
AS to presidential candidates, the United States Congress, in joint session, is specifically directed in the Constitution to count the electoral votes and to formally announce the winner of the presidential election.lg It has generally been assumed over the more than 220 years of presidential elections that the specidc authority to "count" the electoral votes must, by practical necessity, also involve the implied authority to determine which electoral votes to count. Congress has thus developed over time a detailed process whereby electoral votes may be "challenged" in the joint session, and the procedures for resolving such challenges." It may be noted that even prior to Congress codifying in law the procedures for challenging electoral votes, Congress had rejected three electoral votes which were given by electors in the State of Georgia for a candidate who had died, and thus obviously was no Longer eligible to serve as resident.^' It appears fium the record that no Member of the House or of the Senate of the ill" Congress, in joint session for the purpose of counting and certifying the electoral vote, raised or forwarded any objection to the electoral votes of (then) President-elect Obama on the grounds of qualifications, or otherwise?'
poiiticai question."'8
Legal Analysis of Natural Born Citizenship Requirement

Because the term "natural born Citizen" is not defined w i t h i n the Constitution, nor has the Supreme Court ever needed to rule specifically on the terms in this clause, there have been questions raised &om time-totime as to the precise meaning of the qualifications clause.
As explained by the Supreme Court of the United States over the course of a number of years, it is wellsettled from common law principles ofjus soli ("law of the soil") extant in England and the Colonies at
the time of ~nde~endence?~ as well as from subsequent constitutional provisions, as well as subsequent statutory law, that all persons born "in" the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States "at such, any person physically born "inn the United States, regardless of the citizenship of one's parents (unless such parents are foreign diplornutic personnel not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), would appear to be a "natural born" citizen eligible to be President of the United
'' Roudebtuh, supra at 19. See Powell v. MccCormack, 395 U.S. 4 8 6 (1969) for parameters of the "qualifications" which may be judged. See Court of Appeals opinion authored by then-judge Scalia in Morgmr v. UnitedS(ates,801 F.2d 445 @ . C . Cir. 1986). 19 U . S .Co~lstitution, Amendment 12, amcnding Article 11, Section 1, clause 3. Electoral Count Act of 1887,24 S t a t .373, ch. 90,49th Cong., February 3, 1887; 62 Stat. 671, P.L. 771, June 25,1948, enacting Title 3, United States Code, into positive law. See now 3 U.S.C. 44 3-21. See generally CRS ReportRL32717, Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members o f Congress, by Jack ,Maskell and Elizabeth Rybicki. Zl Congressional Giobe, 42nd Cong., 3rd Sess. 1285-1287,1289 (February 12, 1873). See CRS Report RL30769, Electoral Vote Counts in Congiess: Survey of Cerhin CongressionalPmtioes, by Jack Maskell et d . , st 14-15. 155 Congressional RemrdH75-76 (daily ed., January 8,2009). 23 'The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessariiy influenced by the fact that its provisions are famed in ihe language of the English common law, and are to be read m the light of its history." Smith v. Alobmnu, 124 U.S. 465,478 (1888): Moore v. UnitedStater, 91 U.S. 270,274 (1875); UniredStatm v. WongKim Ark, 169 U.S. 649,654-655 (1897). 24 UnitedSfatesv. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1897); Weedin v. Chin Baw, 274 U.S. 657 (1926); Schneider v. RE& 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964); Perkins v. EIg, 307 U.S. 325,329-330.334 (1939). See now 8 U.S.C. fj 1401(a); United States Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1. 25 See specifically Penh'nr v. Elg, supm at 329-330, where the Supreme Court explains that "a child born here of alien parrntage (contiiu ed...)
''
APX
703
--
Source: 5 Nov 2010 posting at http:llpuzol .blogspot.com1201Of11/members-ofcongress-memo-what-to-teIi.html

CongressionalResenrch Service
Most of the serious academic and scholarly inquiry on the presidential qualifications clause has been directed at the question of whether one who is a United States citizen "at birth" because of the operation of federal statutory lau is also a "natural born" citizen, regardless of whether that person is physically born "in" the United States. Such questions often concern persons born abroad to parents who are United States citizens, or persons born abroad when only one parent is a United States citizen who had resided in the United ~ l t h o u such ~ h individuals may clearly be United States citizens "at birth" by statute, would such persons also be "natural born Citizens," or should such persons be considered "naturalized" (albeit automatically by statute at birth)?27 The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion t h d ''natural born Citizen" means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.28The Consn'tution o f the United States of America, Analysis andlnterpretation, prepared for the United States Senate by this agency, agrees w i t h the majority of scholarship on the issue, noting that "[wlhatever the term 'nahual born' means, it no doubt n a t u r a l i z e d ' , " that is, one who must go through the kgal process of does not include a person who is ' naturalization and, after discussing historical and legal precedents and arguments, concludes that "[tlhere is reason to believe ... that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens."29
(...continued} becomes a citizen of the United States," even if she or he is removed to a Froreign country by a parent and made a citizen there. The Court favorably cites a decision of the Attorney General that such a person is "a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United S t a h under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and indue time, ifthe people elect, he can become President of the United States ... [even though] the father, in accordance w i t h the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son G ~ m a citizenship n and the rights which it carrieq ...." 26 See now 8 U.S.C. 8 1401(c) - (g), setting out the several categories of pe~sons born outside of the limits of the United States who are deemed t o be United States citizens "at biqh." 27 Arguments have been raised that, under the 14* Amendment, one is now a citizen of the United States if one is either "born or naturalized in the United States," and that such two methods of citizenship are exclusive. See, e.g.. CfnitedStafm v. Mong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. supm a t 702-703;Rogers v. Bdlei, 401 U.S.815,841 ( I 9 7 1 ) ,I . Black dissenting. 'All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependant on congressionalenactment am fonns of naturalization." '~obinson v. Bowen, 567 F.Supp.2d1144,1145-1 146 (ND. Cal. 2 0 0 8 ) : Jill Pryor, "The Natural Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach to Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty," 97 Yale L J . 881 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; Charles Gordon, 'Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma," 28 Ud.L . Rev. 1 (1968); Michael Nelson, ,at 384-391 ( S p ~ 1 g9 8 7 ) ; "Constitutional Qualifications for President," PresidentialStudies Quar/erly, VV,XVII, Number 2 Warren Freedman, Comment, "Presidential Timber: Foreign Born Children of American Parents," 35 Come![ L.Q. 357 (1950); Alexander Porter Morse, 'Watural Born Citizen ofthe United States - Eligibility for the Mfice of F'resident," 66 Albany L.J.99 (1904);Akil Amar, ''NaIuraI Born Killjoy, Why the ConstitutionWon't Let Immigrants Run for President, and W h y That Should Change," Legal Afluirs, 16,17{Mar-Apr. 2 0 0 4 ) : "...the presidency and vice presidency were reserved for citizens by birth." For the opposing view, see Isidor Blum, " I s Fov. George Romney Eligible to Be President?," N.Y.L.I.,Oct. 16 62 17,1967,at I. In a more ratlictive analyses one author would include children of U.S. citizenswho are born abroad when one or both of the parents are abroad under the direction of and officiallyrepresenting, or on duty for, the United States Government, either in the military or in a civilian governmental role. Lohman, Christina. '?rssidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause," 36 Gvnzagn L a v Review 349,369 (2000/2001). 29 The Conslihttivn ofthe UnifedStatesofAmen'cn, Anal-Ls andlnte'pre~a~ion, S. Doe. 108-17, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. at 456457 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . The United States Senate has also stated its opinion by way ofunanimous consent. in S. Res. 5 1 1, 1 1 0 t h Congwss, that "natural born citizens" include those persons who are citizens "at birth" by statute by virtue of being born abmad of United Slates citizens.
APX
704
Source: 5 Nov 2010 posting at http:l/puzol .blogspot.coml2010H llmembers-of-congress-memo-what-to-tellhtml

CongressionalResearch Service
6
Constitutional History
The Constitution does not detine the term "natural b o r n Citizen,'' nor are the notes from the debates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 instructive as to any collective intent of the Framers concerning the meaning of the term. Tracing the development of this clause through the Constitutional Convention of 1787 clearly indicates that there were no specific discussions or other explications within the Convention on the meaning of the specific tenn "natural born7' citizen.30
Aliholigh there was no discussion concerning the precise meaning or deriyation of the tern "natural born," there is in the Documentary History of the Convention a clue fcom where the qualification for President to be a "natural born" citizen may have derived The history of the Convention indicates that George Washington, the presiding officer, received a letter dated July 25,1787, fmm John Jay, which appears to raise for the first time the issue of a requirement to be a "natural born" citizen of the United States as a requisite qualification to be President:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american m y shalt wt be given to, nor devolve on, any but a
natural born citizen."
There is no specific indication as to the precise role this letter and its "hint" actually played in the adoption by the Convention of the particular qualification of being a "natural born" citizen. However, no other expressions of this particular term are evident in Convention deliberations prior to the receipt of Jay's letter, and the September 4 draft of the Constitution reported from the Committee of Eleven to the delegates, at a time shortly after John Jay's letter had been acknowledged by Washington, contained for The timing of Jay's letter, the acknowledgment of its receipt by the first time such a qualification.32 Washington on September 2, and the first use of the term in the subsequent report of the Committee of Eleven, on September 4, 1787, m y thus indicate more than a mere coincidence. If this were the case, then the concern over "foreigners," without sufficient allegiance to the United States, serving as President and commander-in-chief, would appear to be the initial and principal motivating concern of the Framers, in a somewhat similar vein as their concerns over congressional citizenship qualifications.'3 Such purpose of the ''natural born" citizen qualificationwas expressed by Justice Joseph Story in his historic treatise on the Constitution in 1833:
It is indispensable, too, that the president should be anatural born citizen af the United States ... [Tlhe general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts offall chances for ambitious foreignem, who might otherwise be intriguing
I1 The Records of the Federal Conventionof1 787 (Max Farrand ed.) 85,97, 116-1 17, 121-125, 177-179, 185,337,344,366367,376,473,493-494,498,574,598 vale University Press 191I ) . According to Madison's notes: 'The (section 2.) ,.. requiring that the President should be a natural-born Citizen, &c& have been resident for fourteen years, 62 be thirty f i ~ years e of age, was agreed to nem: wn:" [without dissent] II Farrand,supra at 536. 111 Farrand, Appendix A, LXVIII, at 61 ;Doormentary Hisro?yofthe Constifution,N, at 237. "A Aleter f r o m Washington to John Jay on September2, 1787, references Jay's "hjnt3'mdsuggestirrr, to Washington. m Farrand, Appendix A, XCIX, at 76; Donrmeniaiy History Ofthe Constitution, N, 269. 33 The provision w not directed at foreign-born stafesmenor politicians in the country at the time of the draffing of the Constitution, such as Alexander Hamilton who was born in the Caribbean, since the eligibility clause expressly "grand-fathered" in those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Hamilton, in any event, supported the idea of limiting the eligibility to be President to a current citizen, or thereafter one who is "born a Citizen of the United States." 1 1 1Farrand, supra at App. F, p. 629.
3u
"
APX
705
Source: 5 Nov 2010 posting at http://puzol .blogspot.comi2010/11 /members-of-congress-memo-what-to-tell, html

ConrsssionnI h e a d Semice
7
for the office; and interposes a barrier against those carmpt interferencesof foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of "Ambitious foreigners" who may be "intriguing for the office" of head of state, which had been the unfortunate experience in Europe, appeared to be a generalized and widespread concern at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, as was the concerns over the possibility of allowing foreign royalty, monarchs, and their wealthy progeny, or other relatives to control the government of the new nation. Max Farrand, in his treatise on the adoption of the Constitution, discussed these concerns and rumors during the Convention of 1787:
During the sessions of the convention, but it would seem especially during the latter part of August, while the subject of the presidency was causing so much disquiet, persistent rumors were current outside that the establishment of a monarchy was under consideration.The common form of the rumor was that the Bishop of Osnaburgh,the second son of George 1 1 1 ,w a s to be invited to become King of the United
Others have noted that m o r s were extant concerning colonial statesmen approaching or making inquiries of other foreign royalty about seeking the chief exe&utive7s position of the United States, including rumors involving Prince Henry of Prussia, and the ascension of King George's second son, Frederick. Duke of York. Presidential scholar Michael Nelson has commented: The presidency they were creatingwas, the earners realized, the closest analog in the new constitution to a king, just by being a separate, unitary executive. Even before the convention assembled, von Steuben had disseminated a rumor that Nathaniel Gorham, president of Congressunder the Articles of Confederation and a convention delegate from New Hampshire, had approached Prince. Henry of Prussia about serving as America's King.Similar stories involved the ascendancy of King Gearge's second son, Frederick, Duke of York. During the summer, these rumors gained new currency. The story spread that the convention, whose deliberations were secret, w a s advancing the plot behind closed doors.36 The apparent purposes of this citizenship clause were thus to assure the requisite fealty and allegiance to the nation &om the person to be the chief executive of the United States, and to prevent wealthy foreign citizens, and particularly wealthy foreign royalty and their progeny or other relations, from scheming and buying their way into the Presidency, or creating an American monarchy.
Common Understanding of the Legal Term "Natural Born" i n 1700s

It may be a somewhat speculative exercise to attempt to discern the "common understanding" of a group of individuals who may be geographically, professionally, and politically diverse, particularly during a period many years removed from the current time. The fact that no discussion of &is particular phrase appears in the notes of the Convention of 1787just highlights the problems in such speculation. That being said, however, there are indications that there existed what might be called a "common" or "general understanding" of the tenn "natural born," as it related to those who were considered "natural born" subjects of England, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This understanding apparently
34
'' Max Farrand, The Framing of the Conr/itartionofthe UnitedSfofes,173 (Yale University Press 1913). ''Nelson, Presidential Studies Qtiarterfy,supra at 395. See alsc AWil Reed b a r , America's Constifution,A Biography,at
164- 165 (Random House 2005).
Joseph Story, Carnrnenfm'm on the Comfitartionoffhe UnitedStates,Vol. 3, 1473 (1833).
source: 5 Now 2010 posting at http://puzol .blogspot.com/2010/ll/members-of-congress-memo-what-to-tell.html

Cmcpssimml Rewadi S-ce
included both the early, strict common law recognition of "natural born" subjects born on British soil, as
well as those born abroad of British subjects who were considered (or recognized) as "natural-born subjects" under the operation of several statutory laws dating f r o m the reign of Edward ID in 1350, and 1 , C. reiterated and expanded in various forms by Parliament in 1708 (7 Anne, c.5,93), 1731 (4 George 1 2 f ), m d 1773 (13 George 1 1 1 , c. 2 1). This "state of the hw" concerning who was a "natural-born" subject of England under English laws was evidently known to the Framers since, as noted by the Supreme Court: "These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of ~nde~endence."'~
The concept of a "natural born" subject in English law at the time of the drafting of the Constitution was explained in the legal treatise on the laws of ~ n ~ l a that n d was available and widely known in the Colonies, referred to as "Blackstone," for its author William lacks stone?^ Blackstone traced the development of the concept of "natural-born"allegiance to the reciprocal duties of protection and allegiance that developed concerning land ownership and use under the feudal system, eventually understood to encompass the reciprocal protection/allegiance of all English subjects with respect to the king.39 Concerning specifically the issue of children born abroad of English subjects, Blackstone explains clearly that such children are then (in 1765) considered under the law of England as "natural born" subjects, and have been considered as such for most purposes since at least the time of Edward I11 (1350), because of the development of statutory law inEngland to accommodate developing transportation and increased travel by the citizenry, as well as to "encourage also foreign commerce." As stated by Blackstone in h i s 1765 treatise: [All1 children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted,or banished beyondsea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a p r b e at enmity with Great ~ r i t a i a ~ The "commonly understood" meaning of the t e r m "natural born" in the United States at the time of the drafting of the Constitution may thus be broader than the early, strict Engiish "common law" meaning of that term?' Clearly, the term "natural born" subject in British common law, incorporating as it did the concept ofjus soli ("law of the soil''), included at least all of those born "in" the county and subject to its jurisdiction." However, as noted by Charles Gordon, former General Counsel of the Immigration and
Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. supra at 660. The ''common understanding" ofwords or phrases at the time of the drafting of the Constitution is one facet of a tool of constitutional interpretation generally characterized a s "originalism" that is, an attempt to discern the originat collective meaning or intent of the Framers. 38 t . .... Blackstone's Cmentaries was widely circulated in the Colonies ..." Poweflv. McComuck, 395 US. 486,538 (1969). "Sit William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1 769) is the most important Iegal treatise everwritlen in the English language. It was the dominant lawbook inEngland and America in the century &er ifs publication and played a unique role in the development of the fledgling American legal system." William Blackstone, Cammentories on the Laws of EngIund, [hereinafter Blackstone]. Volume I, Of the Rights of Pasons (1765) (Intmduction at iii). j9 Id. at 354-357, 40 Id, at 361: "When I say that a n alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions,or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. ... F]he children of the king's ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local aliegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son t was enamd by statute 25 Edw. III. R. 2. that all children born abroad, provided also ....To encourage also foreign commerce, i both their patents were a? the time of the birth in allegiance to the king ... might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it i a t h been so adjudged in behalf of merchants." Legal scholars in England were not completely unanimous about the narrowness of English common law during this period, as some had averred that even "common law" included as " n d born" subjects those born abroad of English parents, and/or that the statute of 1350, in the reign of Edward III, was merely a recitation or "declaration" of the common law. See discussion in UnitedStrrtes v. WongKim Ark, 169 U.S. at 669- 670, and Weedin v. Chin Bow. 274 U.S.65 7,670 (1926). See discussion of British common law, and its "incorporation" into the body of law in the United States. United SIores v. Wong (continued...)
''
"
"
APX
- .
707
Source: 5 Nov 2010 posting at htip:l/puzol .blogspot.com/201Of1Ilmembers-of-congress-memo-what-to-teil.htm1

Congressional Research Sovice
9
Naturalization Service, whether the "body of English law" in the 1770s was from early common law, from statutory law, or from the common law modified over the years by statutory law, these provisions "were part of the corpus of the English law in existence at the time of the Revolution, which was substantially recognized and adopted by our forefathers."" This common usage and popular understanding of the term "natural born" subject (as employed in England and understood in the Colonies), and the term's apparent evolution and broadening through statutory lav, has thus led several other legal commentators and historians to conclude: "The constitutional Framers had a broad view of the term 'natural-born' and considered all fore@-born children of American citizen parents eligible for the Office of the Presidency9*; or, a s stated by another: "[Tlhe delegates meant to apply the evolved, broader common law meaning of the term when they included it in the presidential qualifications clause.'d5 Considering the histoty of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the frst Congress in enacting the naturalization act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens)P6 as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth." This meaning would include one entitled to U . S .citizenship "at birth" either by being born "in" the United States (and subject to its jurisdiction, that is, not a child of official diplomatic personnel of another nation):' or by being entitled to U.S.citizenship at birth by statute, such as one born abroad of parents who are United States citizens.48Such interpretation would distinguish this "natural born Citizen" &om one who is not a U.S. citizen "at birth," that is, one who is an "alien" and who is required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a United States citizen.49
Legal Challenges Brought In 2008

Senator McCain
During the 2008 presidential campaign between Senators McCain and Obama, several lawsuits were initiated challenging the "natural born citizenship" requirement of Senator McCain who was not born "in"
(...continued) Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1897); Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1926). Gordon, 28 Md. L . . Rey., supra at 18. Lohman, 36 GonzagaLaw Review, supra at 369. 45 Nelson, at 396. See also 7 Charles Gordon, Stanley Mailman, &Steven Yale-Loehr, Immigration Law andPrwedure, 4 92.03[1][b] (rev. ed. 2000); Pryor, supra at 882; Gordon, supra at 5-7. 46 Act of M m h 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104. The law was later amended, and deleted the phrase "natural bom" before citizen, without explanation. However, it is still considered significant that the First Congress, with many Framers part of that Congress and occurring closest in time to the drafting of the Constitution, considered it appropriate to define ''natural born" citizenship "at birth" by statute. See discussion in Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265,297 (1888); Marsh v. Chambers,463 U.S. 783, 788-791 (1983). See also MFcitel v. Ander~on, 14 F.3d 623,631 (D.C. Cir. 1994): "Although the actions of the early congresses are not a perfect indicator of the Framers' intent, those actions provide some indications of the views held by the Framers, given the propinquity of the congresses and the framing and the presence of a number of Framers in those congresses." *' See, for example, discussion in dicta in Perkins v. Eig, 307 U.S.325,329-330,334 (1939). Nofe 14" Amendment, Section 1. 4g AS B general matter, depending on the law of a nation, one m a y be entitled to citizenship "at birW either through the place of birth (ius so@, or througfr the citizenship of one's parents, that is, citizenship by descent (iussunguinis). 49 SChneider v. Rzisk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964).
" "
Source: 5 Nov 2010 posting at http://puzol .blogspot.com/2010/11/members-of-congress-memo-what-to-tell.html

Conflssimrai Research Smice
10
the United States, but rather in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.50~lthough these suits concerning Senator a federal McCain's eligibility were generally dismissed for want of legal standing of the district court for the Northern District of California did note that Senator McCain would qualify as a citizen "at birth," and thus a ''natural born" citizen, since he was born "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" to two United State citizen parents, as provided for in federal nationality statutes in force at the time of his birth?' The court there found that the meaning of the phrase in the nationality statutes in force in 1936 (R.S. $ 1993 (1855) and 48 Stat. 797 (1934)), that is, the phrase "born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" to citizen parents, was merely the reverse or "converse of the phrase 'in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"' appearing in the citizenship provision of the 14'~mendm&t, and that such phrase thus would include all those born abroad of two United States citizen parents, such as Senator McCain:
Article I1 states that "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President." Article II left to Congress the role of defining citizenship, including citizenship by reason of birth. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828, 91 S.Ct. 1060, 28 L.Ed2d 499 (1971). Many decades later, the Fourteenth Amendment set a floor on citizenship, overmled the DredScott decision, and provided that all born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; were citizensby reason of birth (or naturalization proceedings, for that matter). Id. at 829-30,91 S.Ct. 1060. Atthe time of Senator'sMcCain's birth, the pertinent citizenshipprovision prescribedthat "[alny child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States." Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250,48 Stat. 797. The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" in this statute to be the converse of the phrase 'In the United States, andsubjeci to the jurisdiction thereof," in the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore to encompass all those not granted citizenship directly by the Fourteenth 649,687 (1898) ....I Under this view, Senator Amendment. [Unitedstates v. WmgKimArk. 169U.S. McCain was a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain's circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain's circumstances art: citizens by virtue oftheir birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already. This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relie&that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits necessary to warrant the drastic remedy he seeks. s3
The court thus implicitly adopted a meaning of the tern "natural born Citizen" in the presidential eligibility clause which would include not only the narrow "common law" (based on apparent British purposes, that is, common law) and the later United States constitutional designation for 14*~mendment one born "in" the United States Qus soli), but also the statutory designation by Congress of one entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth" transmitted from one's parent or parents (jus sanguinis).
50 See so-called "Insular cases" where the Supreme Court, in another context, found that the phrase "withinthe United Sti?tes" means within the geographical limits of the (current 50) states and the District of Columbia, and in those territories under the jurisdiction of the United States only if they have been "incorporated" into the United States. Downff v. Bidwell, 182 U . S .244, 250-251 (1901); Boiznc v. Porco Rico, 258 U.S.298,304-305 (1922). Hollander v. McCain. 566 F. Supp.2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008); Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F.Supp2d 1 144 (N.D. Cat. 2008). 52 Robinson v. Bowen, supra a 1 146. s"obin~a~v. Bowen, supra at 1145-1 146.
"
APX
-- -
709
Source: 5 Now 2010 posting at http:llpuzol .blogspot.com/201011llmembers-of-congress-memo-what-to-teII.html

Conffressional Rese~reh Wce
11
President Obama
In addition to the lawsuits concerning Senator McCain's eligibility, there had been several allegations and lawsuits brought challenging the status of President Obarna as a "natural born" citizen, based on various u m m a r i l y dismissed, either because of failure theories and assertions. These cases have uniformly been s to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, because the plaintiff seeking a stay or an injunction against some future event was deemed "not likely to succeed on the merits," or because of lack of legal standing of the
Despite the absence 6f any formal administrative or legal requirement or oversight at the federai ievel, or sp&ific state requirementto produce a birth certificatefor billet placement, it &iy be noted here briefly that the onlv "oEcial" documentation or record that has been ~resented in the matter of President Obama's eligibility has been an official, certified copy of the &cord of live birth released by the Obama campaign in June of 2008, as an apparent effort by then-candidate Obama to address rumors and innuendos concerning the place of his birth.5' The copy of this certificate states on its face, as certified by Hawaii health and vital records personnel, that President Obama was born in Hawaii, in the city of Honolulu on the Island of Oahu, at 7:24 P.M. on August 4 , 1 9 6 1 .Under ~ Hawaii law, an officially certified copy of such health record is to be considered "for a l l purposes the same as the original,"s7 and is "prima facie" evidence of the facts Since Hawaii became a state on August 21, 1959, all official documentation available at this time indicates that President Obama was born "in" the United With respect to requests to "evaluate" evidence of a foreign birth, it may be noted briefly that there appear to be no official documentary records, or copies of such records, which might be subject to such evaluation. No official documents or records have been produced or forwarded contradicting the prima facie indications of President Obama's birth in Hawaii, as provided in the official certification (or certificate) of five birth released by the Obama campaign.No oficiai record of birth from any other
54
State of Connecticut, 958 A.2d 709 (Colin. 2008), stay app. denied, 555 U . S . (2008) (Supreme Court docket no. 08A469, December 15,2008); Donofrio v. Wefls (Secretary of State of New Jersey), Motion No. AM-0153-08'12, stay app. dmied, 555 U . S .-(2000)(Supreme Court docket no. 08A407, December 8,2008); Hollistw v. Soetoro, Civil Action No. 08-2254 0.D.C. March 5,2009); Key= v. Bowen, Case No. 34-2008-80000096-CU-WMGDS (Sup. C t .Cai, March 13,2009); Stomper v. United States, case No. 1;08 CV 2593 (N.D. Ohio 2008); Gohen v. O h m , Civil Action No. 08 2150 (D.D.C. 2008). 5 5 A scanned copy of the official certification of the record of live birth was ''released'' by the Obama campaign and made available on the candidate's website (http:l/figh~mears.~om/articlesl5hirthcertificate). The campaign reportedly invited a non-partisan, apparently independent, organization involved in public policy and the political process to examine the certificate, that is, "factcheck.org," a project of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center. See discussion a! www.factcheckorg/elections-2008/print~bom~in~~e~u~~h~, and the Sf.Petersburg Times' "Politfact.com," which describes itself as "a project of the St. Petersburg Times to heIp you find the truth in politics" (Wbama's birth certificate: Final chapter": h t t p : l / ~ . p o l i t i f a c t . ~ 0 ~ ~ m J L - 0 - m e t e r / c l O O 7 / o b - b i - c f i c a t p -Note i i ) . also discussion in Wikipedia
-(Supreme Court docket no. 08-570, December 9,2008, and December 17,2008); Wrobrowskiv. Bysiewicr. Secretary of the
See, for example, Berg v. Ohamo, 574 F.Supp2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008), sf* app. denied peririon for review denied, 555 U . S .
(ht~~~en.wikipedia.orgi~iWB~~~k~Obma~citizen~hip~~m~piraey~thwries), 56 In addition to the attestation on the document that the certificate was a "true copy" of the birtb records on file, official e r e on file at the Department of Health. Hawaii personnel of the Stateof Hawaii verbally indicated that such records w Department of Health, News Release, "Statement by Dr. Chiyome Fukino," October 31,2008; see Honolulu Star-Bulletin, "Officials verify birth certificate of Obama:' November I, 2008. Note also contemporaneousnewspaper announcementsof Obamabirth in August of 1961 in Honolulu, e.g., The Sun* Advertiser, "Health Bureau Statistics," p. B-6, Auyst 13, 1961. Hawaii Revised Statutes Ann., 338-13. 58 Hawaii Revised Statutes Ann., 338-41@). 59 Even if one were born in Hawaii prior to statehood, federal law provides that any person '%om in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen ofthe United States at birth." 8 U.S.C. $ 1405.
APX - 710
Source: 5 Nov 2010 posting at http:/lpuzol .blogspot.com/2010111/members-of-congress-memo-what-to-tell.html

CoizorrgressionalResearch Service
12
jurisdiction or country has been produced, no contradictory health record or hospital record has been forwarded, no official record of travel (such as a passport record or passenger manifest) ap ears to exist ! placing President Obama's mother in a foreign country at the time of the President's birth.6 Rather, there have been several theories, allegations, and self-generated "questions" concerning the place and circumstances o f f resident Obama's birth which, as noted in c o w decisions, have been posited on the Internet and "television news tabloid[s]," and upon which several of the lawsuits were based6'
In some of the cases filed, plaintiffs have argued that even if President Obama had been born in Hawaii, the removal to Indonesia of his mother with him a t the time he was a minor in some way "nullified" the citizenship-at-bkth status of President Obama, even though as a rninor he moved back to and resided within the United States6' It should be noted initially, however, that the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that a citizen at birth, such as one born "in" the United States, does not forfeit his or her citizenship-atbirth status because ofremoval as a minor to a foreign country, even a country in which onc or both parents are or become citizens and nationals. Rather, citizenship may only be forfeited by a citizen of the United States by an affirmative action of renunciation by one having that capacity (that is, as an adult):
It has long been a recognized principle in this country that if a child born here is talcenduringminority to the country of his parents' origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenshipin the U n i t e d States provided that on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.
Expatriation i s the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance. [footnotes omitted] It has no applicationto the removal from this muntry of a native citizen during minori such a case the voluntary action which is of the essence of the right of expamation is lacking. In
2 ' .
Other suits, which were also summarily dismissed, alleged that even if President Obarna had been born in Hawaii, he was not a "natural born" citizen because his father was not a United States citiien, but rather was a citizen of Kenya and therefore a British subject. It was argued that President Obama at birth would
In Liacakar v. Kennedy, 195 F . Supp. 630,632433 (D.D.C. 1%1), the court found that "a record ofbirth contemparaneously made by governmental authority in official records would be almost conclusive evidence of birth." However, with no such official foreign (or domestic) contemporaneous documentation, a "delayed b i r t h certiticate" produced by the plaintiff, even though issued by Ihe State of West Virginia 46 years aAer the alleged birth there, would provide prima facie evidence of "natural born citizenship." That prima facie evidence, un-rebutted by any official foreign documentation, along with collateral evidence of assumed citizenship, would establish "natural born" status by a "fair preponderanceoftbe evidence." 195 F. Supp. at 633-634. Berg v. O b a m , supra at 513, noting plaintiffs reliance on various sources of allegations, including a "television news tabloid." See also dismissal of cases against the Ohio Secretary of State, Neal v. Bnmner, Wayne Common Pleas case # 08CV72726; and Greenberg v. Bnmner, Wood Common Pleas case # 08CV 1024. In the Ned case, as reported in The Cincinnufi Inquirer, October 31,2008, the judge stated: 'The onus is upon one who challenges such public officer to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by admissible evidence - not hearsay, conclusory allegations or pure speculation .... It is abundantly clear that the allegations in 'Plaintiffs complaint concerning 'questions' about Senator Obama's status as a 'natural born citizen' are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either defendant Brunner or this magistrate." The basis of some of the "questions" raised in law suits appear to be the fact of the existence of other law suits, as well as . Bowen, Slip op. supm at 4. In Stamper v. UnitedSfafe, s u p m , the disputed third-party statements. Berg. supra at 513; Keyer v United States District Court noted that a court may dismiss a ~ ~ n p 1 a i "for n t lack of subje~t matter jurisdiction" when the "allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit or no longer open to discusion," and found that the court "is not required to accept unwarranted factual inferences." " Berg v. Obama, supm at 5 13. 63 Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325,329,334 (1939). See also Rogers v. Beflei,$01 U.S.815,835 (1971): : "... Congress has no 'power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his assent.' Afioyyim v. Rurk 387 U.S.. at 257."
4
APX - 711 ---
Source: 5 Nov 2010 posting at http:llpuzol .blogspot.com~010i1 Iimembers-of-congress-memo-what-to-tell.html

Cmpessional Research S &
13
thus have been entitled to British citizenship by operation of British laws. As one entitled to "dual citizenship," it was argued that President Obama auld not be a "natural born citizen" of the United states.@ The ~ u ~ r e m e ~ o has u rlong t made it clear, however, that one born within the boundaries and jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen "at b i i , " regardless of the citizenship of one's parents.b5 As stated recently by a United States District Court: Those born "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649,674-75,18 S.CL 456,42 L.Ed. 890 (I 898), andthus eligibie far the presidency, see, e.g., Schneider v. Rusk. 377 U.S. 163,165,84 S.Ct. 1187,12 L.Ed.2d 218 (1964)(dicta}.~~ Merely because a child born within the United States could have, under the operation of a foreign law, been a citizen also of that foreign nation because of a parent's nationality or citizenship, would not affect and the federal nationality the status of that child as a U.S. citizen "at birih" under the 14* ~rnendment laws, since the citizenship laws or rights of other nations could not influence and impact the United States' own determination of who its citizens at birth would be. As explained by the Supreme Court: On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. ... In a comprehensive review of the principles and authoritiesgoverning the decision in that case -that a child bornbere of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States -the Court advettedto the "inherent right of every independent nationto determine for itself, and accordingto its own constitution and iaws, what classes ofpersonsshall be entitled to its citizenship." UnitedStaies v. Wong Kim Ark, mpm, p. 668. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality. [footnotes omitted] And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law, on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents, does not compel the conclusion that she lost her own citizenship acquired under our 1aw.6~
The Supreme Court in Perkins v. Elg thus found that one born "in" the US., even of alien parentage, is a U.S. citizen "at birth," and in dicta in the case indicated that such person is eligibIe a be President of the United States. The Court explained that even if that person's parents move back to their counby of origin with their child, and obtain citizenship for that child in the foreign country, such a U.S.citizen "at birth" who returns or intends to return to the United States by the age of majority remains a "natural born citizen" of the United States. Citing with approval an opinion ofthe Attorney General, the Supreme Court explained that such a citizen returning to the United States would qualify to be President:
u b j e c t by birth, wigrated to the United States in 1848 ... and in the One Steinkauler, a Pmsian s followingyear had a son who was born in St. h i s . Four years later Steinkauleireturneci to Germany taking this child and became domiciled in Weisbaden where they continuously resided. ... On
See, e.g., ~ u ~ P , v. i u We/&-, No. 08A407, Application for Emergency Stay to the United States Supreme Court, contending that "candidate Obama is not eligible to the Presidency as he would not be a 'natural born citizen' of the United States even if it were proven he was born in Hawaii, since ... Senator Obama's father was born in Kenya and therefore, having been born with split and competing loyalties, candidate Obama is not a 'natural born citizen' ...." See also Berg v. Obama, supm at 513. Wovg Kim Ark. supra at 674-675; Perkins v. Efg,supra at 329,334. Fourteenth Amendment, Sec. I, and 8 U.S.C. $ 1401(a). Hollander v. McCain, 566 F.Supp.2d 63,66 @.N.H. 2 0 0 8 ) . "Perkins v. Elg, mpra at 329. Note also &atChester A. Arthur, 2fLPresidentof the United States, was apparently born in the United States (although rumors were rife that he was born i n Canada) in 1829 to a U.S. citizen-mother and a father who was not a U.S. citizen, but rathes a citizen of Ireland and a British subject, although it is not clear that this fact was generally or widely known at the time. (See indication of "naturalization" of Arthur's father in 1843. Library of Congress, microfilm file reproduced at http:l/www.scribd.contldodl1067180iWilli~m-Arthur-fatfier-of-President-Chester-r-Naaation-cificate-1843M
Congress.)
Source: 5 Nov 2010 posting at http:/lpuzol .blogspot.coml201011Ilmembers-ofcongress-memo-what-to-tell.htmi

Congressional Resea& Sen&%
14
reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the naturalization treaty of 1868 with North Germany, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:
"Young Steinkauler is a native-bornAmerican citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright.He canreturnto America at the age of twentysne, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President ofthe United States ... [even though] the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenshipand his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries ....'"
The constitutional history and relevant case taw thus indicate that one born "in" the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, that is, when one's parents are not official diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation in the US., would be considered a U.S. citizen "at birth" or "by birth," and thus a "natural born Citizen" of the United States, regardless of the citizenship status of that individual's parents.
Perkins v Eig, supra at 330.
APX
713
SLIPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF IUNGS
lndex No.:
6500-2011
Christopher-Ed. Strt~nk in esse,
Plaintiff,
-against-
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et d . ,
...........................................................
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss. )
Defendants.
X
COUNTY OF KIXGS
Accordingly, I, Julian Panachyd, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:
a. Am over 1 8 years of age and not a party to this action b. M y place of business is located at 32-16 Crescent Street: Suite 5L Long Island City, New York 111W.
c. On M a y 31,2011, Christopher Strnnk instructed me to serve a true conformed copy of the PLAINTIFF'S
COMBINED AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDAHT CAZYDIDATES MCCAW AEJD OBAPdA
MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT afErmed May 31,2011 with exhibits annexed for the case SLmnk u NYS BOE et d .NYS County of Kings Supreme Court with index 6500-201 1, by USPS next day
service upon Defendants' Counsels. d. On May 31,2011, I caused each copv with proper p o s t a g e for semce by next day mad of listed counsels
and going to the post office where each envelope was deposited with the USPS for service upon:
RlTA C. TOBIN, Esq. of CAPLIN &, DRYSDALE, CHAITTERED 375 Park Avenue 35th Floor New York. New York 10152-3500
HARRIS BMCH, PLLC By THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Bhrd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553
JAMES C . DUGAN Esq. of WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP

787 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y. 10019-6099
M A R S H A L BELL, Esq. of McGUIRWOODS LLP 1245Avenue of Americas, 7th Floor New York,New York10105
EWC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York by: JOEL GRABER, Esq. AAG Assistant Attorney General Special Litigatioxl Counsel Litigation Bureau 120 BROADX7AY 24th Floor New York, New
York 10271-0332 MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By: Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 1 0 0 Church
Sworn to before me ~ h i s day a of May 201 1
APX
714
.P~c,~~GZ
= s . T z s . . -
"-
ua Q-
Rscei
;i--=
$ale lJfi1':
A Y . i , . * , ; . l
Fins'
" G r z i
De:.f;gtjcn
Qly Price
-,i*.b--+&&-a
LNTO"fJAi.E Wv 1-553 23iii5-: FXgrc?';~ l.lai 1

PO-Add
1
$16.55
Ib, 3 , i C cr. label $ : EGa90275556US Flea &fi{o]/il lsrC3 .. Guarfin'& &'I l!:ery slgrtatilre R ~ Q L I z " ~ ~
?-'
, -,*-.--
- - .--
issue P V I ;
+13.55
-.,-
i.:I$; &cc~!;Y!? # : Approval #: Transdctio~)t:
Pard by:
$59"39
Y%;<$?,,x!4k~~~~5S~5
23903551136
9525853 56
A11 ~ a ' i e sfinal on s t a , ! a!;,j ~~~ postage
?ef triids f 2 1 ' #israr~reed ser,;. ii;ss anT;, Thank ysi, to: yc~lrbii-. s T tles1;
x ~ x ~ ~ * r ~ r * ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ $ i : f : ~ ~ ~ ~ . i : ~ ~ j , i ~
APX - 715
SUPRENE COURT OF THE STATE OF N E W YOFX
COUNTY OF KINGS
----"--------"--..---------*---=----.----.-----.-.------------------------*
Index No.:
X
6500-201 1
(Hon. Arthur M. Sclzack J.S.C\
Christopher-Eari: Strunk in esse,

Plaintiff,
NEb7YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS e C al.,
Defendants.
-------*-----""---------------------*-----------"------"-----------------
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CANDfDATES MGCATN AND OBAMA MOTIONS TO DISMESS THE COMPLMNT affurned May 31,5201 1 Exhjlbit 1 : June 2008 BHO I1 CoLB; Exhibit 2: U.S. Senate Sense
Resolution 511; Exhibit 3: CE Strunk dulj7 fires BHO I1 January 23, 2009:
Exhibit 4: Hay-Baaau-Van'lh Treaty of November 18, 1903; Exhibit 5:
Certified Birth Certificate of john Sidney McCain I11 by r;he Panama Canal
Company; Exhibit 6:August 26, 2009 letter from White House lo
Christopher Strunk; Exhibit 7: a copj7 of the March 20, 1964 Divorce
Decree between Stanley Ann D. Obana and Barack Hussein Obarna Senior;
Exhibit 8 : copy of a portion of the INS records of Barack Hussein Ubama
Senior; Exhibit 9: a copy of the Long-Foim Birth Certificate CoLB released on April 27, 20 11; Exhibit 10: April 3 , 2009 Congressional Research
Service legal memorandum on POTUS Qualification and eligibility,
Aff1dasrit of Service
Dated: Hay
--, 4f
201l
- ?
Brooklyn, Hew York
--
&
~hriswer-~ar Strunk, l: in esse, Plaintiff self-represent without being an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281, Brooklyn, Fiew York 11238. (845)901-6767 E-mail: chri&Zstrunk.ms
APX
716
6500/2011 Order dtd 6/18/12
1
P R E S E N T :
Justice Hon.
At an l.AS. Trial Term, parta the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of f(ings, at the Courthouse, located at Civic Center, ~ o r o u ~ ofh Brooklyn, City and State
'qrclwo
P&dfl-rnc ;
Plaintiff(s)
C ~ INO. .
Index No.
t37 6 pSbo /4
- against Defendant(s) The following papers numbered 1 to

Notice of Motion - Ordcr to Show Cause and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed (Affirmation) Answering Affidav~t
read on this motion

I
Papers Numbered
/ -
Pleadings - Exhibits Stipulations - Minutes Filed Papers
Rep1y Affidav~ t (Affirmation) Affidavit (Affiqnation)
For Clerks use only
MGMI)IIAotion Seq. #
@
E N T
J.S.C.
HOn,
APX - 717
M,WHACK 1.S.C.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEWYORK COUNTY OF XINGS XAS. Part 27 f ndex N o . : 6500-2011 . S . C ) x (Hon. Arthur M.Schack J 1
J Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse
NOTICE OF MOTION
Ic
II
-
i
I
Plaintiff,
-against-
i
I
NEW NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; Et d-.^

Defendants.
PLEfLSE TAKE ROTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk
' i
in esse, affirmed April 10,2012with exhibits annexed and memorandum of law,
maintiffwill mave with CPLR 3025@] i n support of the notice of motion for
presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint filed
March 22.201 1 that by request for leave of the court having previously denied at the
October 25,2011 hearing for the right to file a first amended complaint; with the -~-". -^F"".7 '."---. motionkhlm date on Tuaday, April 24;2012 at f$45)iBrn. i n Part 27,Courtroom 479
, * , . '
1
I
-%-A
befare the Juatice Arthur M? Schack at 360 Adams S h t Brooklyn N
d York 11201,
or at a time designated by the court or as soon thereafter as counsel cah be heard.
Dated: ~ p r i 1 2012 Brooklyn New York

plaintif? self-representedw/o attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28E Brooklyn, New York 11238 Ph.845-901-6767 %.mail:chris@stmnk.wg
cc: see &rvice list that follows:
g,
- 1 I
8 - N
APX
718
-
Erica Burke, Esq. of

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York. New York 10017-3954 Todd E. Phillips, Esq. of CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED One Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 HARRIS BEACH, PLLC By THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553 JAMES C. DUGAN Esq. of WILLWE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y. 10019-6099 MARSHAL BELL, Esq. of McGUIRWOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Americas, 7th Floor New York, New York 10105 WILEY REIN LLP TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ. , 1776K Street, NW Washington D.C. 20006 RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, PC Christopher J. Latell Esq. and Daniel S. Reich Esq. 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New York 10006-3791 ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of NYS by: JOEL GRABER, Esq. AAG Assistant Attorney General 120 BROADWAY - 24th Floor New York, New York 10271-0332 MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By: CHLARENS ORSLAND, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007
APX
719
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW PORK COUNTY OF KINGS LAS Part 27 Index No.:
-------------------------------.-r-3--*C-.---------------------------
6500-2011
Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in e s s e Plaintiff,
PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT IN NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, SUPPORT OF THE EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. NOTICE OF MOTION VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NO EM^ COLON, in their Official and FOR PRESENTMENT individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; OF EVIDENCE Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR,; PETER G. PETERSEN, ZBICNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; OF FORGERY AND MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama 11, SPOLIATION AS a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; SUPPLEMENT TO STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE COMPLAINT THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; BY REQUEST FOR THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF LEAVE OF THE COURT THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN LTCTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; J o h n and J a n e Does; and XYZ Entities.
Defendants.
) ) ss.
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duIy sworn, depose and s a y
under penalty of perjury:
PlainWs AlEdavit in Support of Motion to Supplement ... Page 1 of 9
APX
720
1. That Petitioner Christopher Earl Strunk (Plaintiff, Affirmant) submits this affidavit under CPLR 3025(b),in support of the notice of motion for presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation a s supplement to the complaint that by previous request for leave of the court having been denied a t the October 25, 201 1 hearing the right to file a first amended complaint by Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. 2. Petitioner is located for service a t 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 email: chris@strunk.ws.; and is a duly registered voter in the 2008 and 2012 election cycle, and that Plaintiff has not sought this relief before.
3. That there are several motions pending a decision including the essential motion
for transfer and consolidation with the active case, Index No. 29642-2008 a s yet decided and the Motion for leave of direct appeal of constitutional issues to the Court of Appeals involving the term "Born a Citizen" adjourned until Tuesday April 24, 2012. EVIDENCE OF FORGERY, SPOLIATION AND CONCEALMENT
4. That subsequent to the October 25, 2011 hearing, that on March 1, 2012, the
Maricopa County Arizona Sheriffs Press Release (see Exhibit 1)and Press Conference established that there is the Preliminary Report by the Sheriff's COLD CASE POSSE,
as an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate fraud and crimes
committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an affirmation in 2008 that Respondent Obama affirmed compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 requirement for eligibility for "Natural-born citizen" with a picture of the Sheriffs webpage appended (see Exhibit 2) and currently before the Arizona primary now in 20 12; and that the attached Preliminary Report of the Sheriffs COLD CASE POSSE (see Exhibit 3) supports the suspicion with sufficient evidence that Respondent Barack Obama was not even born in Hawaii between August 1 1961 through August 10, 1961 and acts to spoliate evidence of a crime - Quote:
Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement ... Page 2 of 9
APX
721
"Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, a s an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large as "proof positive" of President Obama's authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth ceficate. During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama's life history including:. President Obama's Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed by a n examination of the postal date stamp on the document; To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, records from the days surrounding Obama's birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 w[h]ere these immigration cards cannot be found. "
5. durther, that according to the Preliminary Report of the COLD CASE POSSE
shown a s Exhibit 3, the purported C e f i c a t e of Live Birth (CoLB) long form (see
Exhibit 4) is a forged document as submitted to the entire nation by Respondent

Barack Obama and attorneys at his April 27,201 1 a t the Washington DC Press Conference according to the transcript (see Exhibit 5);and
6. The Forged document shown a s Exhibit 4 also now joins the previously 2008
proffered CoLB short form document that is a forgery a s well based upon the admissions of the Respondent Obama and his attorneys there at the White House at the April 27, 201 1 press conference . In the transcript shown a s Exhibit 5, that at the April 27, 201 1 press conference the White House attorney repeatedly said that Respondent Obama had requested the short form CoLB in 2008 from the State of Hawaii be released. However, examination by Petitioner of the supposed document Hawaii supposedly released in 2008 is in fact is stamped June 6, 2007 (see Ekhibit 6)
as shown by the FactCheck.org report on August 21, 2008; and the later as the
APX
722
November 2 1, 2008 report appended shows the so-called Factcheck.org investigators, depended on by members of Congress and Media, were partisan amateurs according to uEEigibilityUpdate: FactCheck.org Doesn't Do Forensics; NH SOS and Cerhficates;
British Policeman on Eligibility",and thereby all the foregoing provides sufficient

suspicion of fraud and or statements made a s admission against interest as a bar under clean hands doctrine of irrefutable presumption of wrong doing by Respondent Obama and his agents in 2008 and continuing currently.
7. That Plaintiff in his November 22,2008 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

request of the U.S. Department of State (US DOS) and related agency for the passport and travel records of Respondent Obama's mother Stanley Ann Dunharn (Obama) (Soetoro)for the period before and after August 4, 1961, received on July 29, 2010 a transmittal of documents certified from the attorney for the U.S. DOS; and on the FS299 Application for renewal dated August 13, 1968 Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro removed "Barack Hussein Obarna Soebarkah* from her subsequent Passport (see
Exhibit 7 1 , therein proving that Respondent Obama had been renamed by his adoptive
father Lolo Soetoro, the Indonesian Army Lt. Colonel having married Stanley Ann Dunham subsequent to her divorce from Barack Hussein Obarna Sr. in 1963; and
8. Further, Plaintiff contends that the additional evidence of forgery of the
Selective Service record before the 2008 election along with the theft and tampering of the US DOS Passport records by US DOS private contractor entity under the control of John Brennan currently Respondent Obama's White House Counter Terrorism advisor having previously been assistant to Central Intelligence Director George Tenent, and a s such underlines the suspicion why the microfilm records from the National Archives are missing now as well, a s both agencies are under the direct authority and control of Respondent Obama, the apparent usurper in the office of POTUS, and by his
APX
723
refusal to make such microfilm and the missing U.S. DOS records referenced in the cover Ietter shown in Exhibit 6 provide the Court herein with substantial direct available proof that Respondent Obarna is now directly acting in a continuing pattern to spoliate evidence.
9. As Further evidence, Plaintiff provides additional proof that Respondent Obama,

in a continuing pattern acted to spoliate evidence of his adoptive status as an Indonesian citizen and the ramifications that would have on his law license in Illinois and plans to seek the office of US Senator in 2005 and POTUS in 2008, perjured himself on the application for entry to the Illinois bar affirmed he had no other name (see Exhibit 8). 10.That Affirmant testified in a ballot access hearing in Atlanta Georgia on January 26, 2012 before Judge Malihi in Atlanta Georgia with the entire proceeding video of sworn testimony at i-CX-w http: / /www. youtube.com/watch?feature=player~detailpage&v=Uuxq1 11.That Plaintiff was present during the sworn testimony of Witness John Sampson, retired INS False Document Special Investigator, at the January 26, 2012 hearing as an expert witness who when asked if he would have issued an arrest warrant of Barack Obama as a person having filed falsified documents to the government based upon what the witness has seen said YES!" 12.That in light of the compelling evidence provided by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office of forgery and spoliation associated with the Defendant Barack Obama and his agents and as a precedent to date as the only authority of competent jurisdiction to have an ongoing criminal investigation with press conferences releasing additional evidence and continued findings every 30 days starting March 1, 2012 as shown a s Exhibit 1, an update released on March 31, 2012, related to the targeted
Plaintiffs affidavit in Support o f Motion to Supplement ... Page 5 o f9
spoliation of the U.S. National Archive microfilm spool of all travel records dating August 1, 1961 through August 10, 1961 and the concealment of records of Defendant Obama's Selective Service record proven as a criminal forgery by Defendant Obama and or his agents carrying a jail term of five years and $250,000.00 fine in submission of a forged document to the Selective s e ~ c and e in addition the forgery of a U.S. Postal Senrice date stamp. 13.That in light of the compelling evidence provided by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office of forgery and spoliation associated with the Defendant Barack Obama and his agents, Affiiant includes a s germane in this supplement to the complaint copies of letters U.S. Congressmen released to Affirmant by a journalist for publication herein as demonstrative of statements by congressmen dating from November 11, 2008 through February 2009 that demonstrates Congressional confusion in what constitutes eligibility with use of U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 for office of POTUS in their conflation of the term "Born a Citizen" a s a 14th amendment with the term of art "natural-born Citizen", see Ezchibit 9 for the copy of the entire content of each letter quoted below with excerpts a s follows: Senator Jim Bunning defers to INA, 14" Amend. and courts on November 11, 2008 wrote:
The ab11134'lorccciw Untted Srates crt~zetxshlp is OJE orlhe cnre pillars tn our +yxxt deinomzy. [It IS outliucd in fkc Forrrzeenth .&nmdrtent of the U.S. Paastitutiazt and S ~ t i i m 3Ul(a,l ofthe Irnrntgmt~orf xzd Xabcnalrty Agt (IXA) C8U.S.C Section 1401(a))2thai 8 pmon \vf~v i s born in t 1 I,k~tcd ~ ritatm, s u b j z t to i s jtmsdic~ioc~, i s a cidzer, uf thi: Eriirc?clfates regnrcietis o? rhe race. ctluucizy, or aallcnage ofthe parents. RdditronaIl3, amording to theL1.S <:onsdtutjon, on13 ir natural born cltzcn or a c i h ~ e n of tbe t :~ited States of, at nlinic~urrt, ttiiriqc five years of age anci Fourteal ycs3 of United Slatcb residency, is eligible ?am~filr thc Preb d~rti ofthe Ln,te& Siatcs.
i nregard to Senillor Ubama: fiere i s a ~CCIGTRI l r ~ s u jpendmg t m Penwylvrtiiia addressing &s marter Howwcr, as a P-oitcd %aces Scrratnr, I ann no; inrzrvenc in t l ~ e 1egJ aclctrss dcct r n ~ i q defer t to t&e cdurts ! U nrake the appn~riorc decisxoq ehnut this case
Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support o f Motion to Supplement ... Page 6 o f9
APX
--
725
--
Senator Sherrod Brown defers to BHO June 2008 CoLB on November 12, 2008 wrote: ,%*ator Obama has provided wvrrsl news crganlwtions 1 % ; ~s copy o-his b i a h cc%.r,if!catetc;
>hawinghe &as bum in Horwluiu, llauaii 01.1 Augu:u~ 9, 1961. Ilawaii became s srak 51 1959. and all indivictt~ais Som ia lhaaii aI'tct i;s &t'Iib$i00 are cruns~dered natur4.91-bur11 U~ited States crti~cns.Tilc samc:is trite f i r ind1~idu;ils. such as Ssmlur McCain, IWI ip. the Psnaols Cmal
Zone
Senator Jon Kyl defers to the internet on December 1, 2008 wrote:
Rep Ed Whitfield relies on News media & "proper authorities" on December 4, 2008 wrote:
T M yo11 fes coatacting nte regarding Presi~wt-electIlbetm. I hate heard srnz ul;llr:
Obama Of course, the roters b a spoken ~ pi&y clearly* mi? sa now we wiii move on. I do expect that rlte nS6.s niedia and the proper zutlwrities wig look imo any parts hatrecaused people concern, and that evidence afleptimate concern will be appropriately addressed. J will continue to mvtritirr these issues closely- as well.
.Mint: reparts t i ' syou W&IIt?on about >i?f.
Senator Sessions with disinterest relies on the courts on December 16, 2008 wrote:
Senator Sessions then relies on BHO June 2008 the CoLB on January 23,2009 wrote:
A, you ai e a-+,are, stones have cn culated that call Into question Dres~dcnt Obama's c~tirensl~tp .Add~tionall~, mrious lawsiiits have been filed alleging that Obama is not a ttalural born citiren ofthe Grtited States, arid thaefore i s const~tutinnall~ inekigible for rhe office of president However, rn June 3008. President Obama released a digitally scanned image af h ~ s birth certiticate. and Harvmi's Director of the State Department of Health, Chiyome Fukimo. has verified its authent~city
As you may know on January 8. 7099, Conpss ccrt~fied and tallled the Electoral College rewits that \ ertfied President 0bama.s elect~on as the next president of the UrttLeci States
Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support o f Motion to Supplement ... Page 7 o f9
Senator Shelby relies on BHO J u n e 2008 CoLB and Hawaii on January 29,2009 wrote:
M a n y have contacted m e regardlnq t h e numerous claxms a-d lawsuzts ckreulatlng on =be 1xter~1et asserting thar Obama - s n3t a ~ a t u r a ibcrr cltizerl and therefore inel..gtl;le to become Unlzctd Statea President !iowe>er, P r e s ~ d e n t - e l e c tCbama ha; presented hls b i r r h c e r t l f l c a ~ e , and ~t has been ~rszkf-cda m showzng thar, he was ccrn I n H a ' n ' a : ~ , ,-ozf~rmad O y Hawarlag offrcsais i i c i d ~ t l o n a l l y , the Ssprens Court has decl:nea to act 01-any of the cases contesting Obama's cltlzenskip On Janua-y 8, 2 3 0 9 , W e ~ ~ n e r of s Congress *ere glver zho oppo-t~inlty to csiltesr the ~ s s rn ~ ea :olnt sesslon of Congress, but no SLCII ob?ecz;on was ralssd durlag the msetlng Bv al- accojnts, President-elect BazacL Gbana meets those reculrements. ??,ease be a s w f e d chat 1 &ill coiitlzue to nonlrror tQe airuario~i si~oolclfurther
ieiurs a - i s e
Rep. Steve King defers to the 14th Amendment on January 29, 2009 wrote:
UGle f do not understafid why President Obama has refix& to p d u c c evidenceto clear up this question, my office has &coveted c o h t i o n thatputs the question in rest. You %ill find a!dshod u copy of President Obama's birth a~xtounren~ent i n the Honolulu A&estiser, dated August 13, 1961. This shows that President Qbarna was born in the United States and is t h d o r e an American citizen under the 14* Amendment t o the United State Conshtution.
Senator Feinstein deferring to the 14th Amendment on February 2, 2009 wrote:

Prcsrfienr Ot'arntl mcci5 kltcqe r'onPitUIic>na~ ri',!dl*etnents !ie \&a%born In Holmluk~ Has&aii nn 411g.1,~ 4 19hl Arcording scralic Founanfh 4mondmcnt, all pcr%mshnrn in thc r ~ $ ~ r cSlaws d arrconsidrrrd c t i t ~ m a ol'thr Ltiitcil State\ Ut:dr; tharcriterla Prcvdent Ohamd a a?-%ear oid I S riruea uho I zs ~rsrdrxl ir: rhc I.lnilcd States fix Itln~er:hiti1 fotrwm
.<ears,15 et~g~blc to hc P r ~ s ~ d e n t
Rep Sanford D. Bishop relies on Factcheck.org verification as shown at Exhibit 7 on February 6, 2009 wrote:
( bfkwhcr > I . 200% nhc D ~ r r ~ i iv - 1r Einua:r'\ Dcpilrifilcirl ot f fcsitil c*~niimleJ th~r Prcsrdent Olriirna \%a% 111 :act i . r b r n ~ rIlrmi\;.jlu . TIlr ttculih f>irrsi,lm. pqiiaailt, \crifird fhat tidzlrsii i f4~zirh Depsnmcni h d d s thc P ~ C \ S ~ ~nriginal C I I ~ 'bir~h ~ crfii~ic.~teT ~ i..ii,tcar C :*rid ~ c c i l t ~S ,,c ? the b~rtt! ier;irieali: al%l.r lxar it.ri?-tcd h> tll; nr,rr-p,qnl>an r+tgcnii,ltr%tn F.i;:C heck t r g hick 5irri.t 3 rcprrscn%t~lirce tn i i a x ~ , r ~ til r .:rmjyc rhe h~rill ccrtifiratc ,n pcratln .$d811io;sxll>, r1rr.c ti.%\ h ,altrt Prc+itlen! C I b a ~ t ~b~rrb. '5 a bjrth ani~r;sn~arurnt iwr pirbii.;hcd rri thc l?'clnivfdzt .f~iterlirc*o n 5 l r n d ~ q . .%up 13 I % ! ,
WHEREFORE,Plaintiff in support of the notice of motion for presentment of evidence

of forgery and spoliation a s a supplement to the complaint wishes leave of the Court and having previously been denied at the October 25, 201 1 hearing the right to file a first amended complaint, now as a matter of compelIing state interest grant a n order:
That this affidavit be admitted as a supplement to the complaint f i l e d ~ai'ch 22,
2011.
That the copy of the purported Certificate of Live Birth long form dated April 25,20 11released by DefGndant Barack Obama at his April 27,20 11R ~ s s Conference included in Exhibit by Plaintiff in his response to Defendant Obama's motion to dismiss be deemed evidence of Defendant's release of a forgery rather than a documentation of Barack. Obama's birth in Hawaii and that a t this point is not only in question but supports suspicion of his birth overseas according to the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office.
That Defendants answer or otherwise respond to the supplement with

compelling evidence as a matter of compelling state interest; and for different and other relief deemed necessaxy for justice herein. That the foregoing m a t t e r invokes irreparable harm as time is of the essence without any alternative forum for relief that dompounds maintiff's injury along with those similarly situated;hereby verities the evidence submitted wherewith and that
a t t e r s therein stated to be the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the m

alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be bee. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.
Sworn to before me This Lp: day of April 20 12

HARRY HELFENBAUM
ul-n)r,
ts S
Flairitiff's Affidavit i n Support ofMotion-
... Page 9 of 9
APX
-
728
Stlunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 1
APX
729
Joe Arpaio, Sheriff
SHERIFF ARPAIO RELEASES PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ON OBAMA BIRTH CERTIRICATE
(Phoenix, AZ) Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a press conference today told
reporters, "A six month long investigation conducted by my cold case posse has lead me to believe there is probable cause to believe that President Barack Obama's longform birth certificate released by the White House on April 27,201 1, is a computergenerated forgery. I do not believe that it is a scan of an original 1961 paper document, as represented by the White House when the long-form birth certificate was made public." This is the principle preliminary finding of a six-month on-going Sheriffs Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility to be president. Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large as "proof positive" of President Obama's authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.
APX
730
President Obama's Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document; To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, records from the days surrounding Obama's birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 were these immigration cards cannot be found.
When and ttPlv Sherifrs investipaturs became involved

In August 201 1,250 members of the Surprise Ariiona Tea Party, residents of Maricopa County, presented a signed petition asking Sheriff Arpaio to undertake this investigation. The Tea Party members petitioned under the premise that if a forged birth certificate was utilized to obtain a position for Barack Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised. Sheriff Arpaio agreed to accept the investigation and assigned it to his "Cold Case Posse" at no expense to the tax payers for a thorough examination. The Sheriffs Cold Case Posse, consisting of former law enforcement oEcers and lawyers with law enforcement experienced, spoke to dozens of witness and examined hundreds of documents, and took numerous sworn statements from witnesses around the world.
Additional findings bv investiaQtors
APX -
731
Suspecting that the long form birth certificate is a computer generated forgery, they now say they have identified persons of interest in the case. Sheriffs Investigator Mike Zullo says, "We have also determined during the course of our investigation that the Hawaii Department of Health engaged in what we believe is a systematic effort to hide any original 1961 birth records that they may have in their possession." Sheriff Arpaio added, "A continuing investigation is needed to not only understand more about the creation of the alleged birth certificate forgery, but also to determine who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized it." The Matter o f the Selective Service Repistration Card Sheriffs Investigators were then led to investigate President's Obama selective service registration card allegedly filled out in Hawaii in 1980. Investigators compared Obama's card to others filled out in same year and to at least two cards filled out in the same local. The year stamp that is used on selective service registration cards should include all four digits of the year, for example 1980, the year Obama may have registered with selective service. However, investigators note that Obama's registration card is highly unusual having a year stamp including only two digits, "80" which appears to be an inverted number. Additionally, those numbers are offset by a significant amount suggesting that the stamp was somehow manually manipulated.
Investigators use video presentations to back up the evidence The Cold Case Posse produced six technical videos to demonstrate why the Obama long-form birth certificate is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery. The videos were designed to display the testing used by the investigators to examine
100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
Media Contact: MediaRequest@MCSO.Maricopa.Gov
3
various claims made when the April 27 document was posted on the White House website for public dissemination. The videos consisted of step-by-step computer demonstrations using a control document. They also illustrate point-by-point the investigators conclusion that the features and anomalies observed on the Obama long-form birth certificate were inconsistent with features produced when a paper document is scanned, even if the scan of the paper document had been enhanced by Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and optimized. Additionally, the videos demonstrated that the Hawaii Department of Health Registrar's name stamp and the Registrar's date stamp were computer-generated images imported from an unknown source into an electronic document, as opposed to actual rubber stamp imprints inked by hand or machine onto a paper document. "The fact that we were able to cast reasonable suspicion on the authenticity of the Registrar stamps is especialIy disturbing, since these stamp imprints are designed to provide government authentication to the document itself," Zullo said." If the Registrar stamps are forgeries, then the document itself is a forgery." "As I said at the beginning of the investigation," Arpaio said, "the President can easily put all of this to rest. All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 196 1 paper, microfilm, and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has." Arpaio further stressed the Hawaii Department of Health needs to provide, as part of the full disclosure, evidence regarding the chain of custody of all Obama birth records, including paper, microfilm, and electronic records, in order to eliminate the possibility that a forger or forgers may have tampered with the birth records. "Absent the authentic Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other credible proof supporting the idea or belief that this President was born in Hawaii, or in the United States for that matter, as he and the White House have consistently asserted," Arpaio said.
Conclusive remarks
Sheriff Arpaio stresses that these are preliminary frndings and concluded by suggesting a Congressional investigation might be warranted. Arpaio asked that any other law enforcement agency with information referencing this investigation be forwarded to his office.
"I want to make this perfectly clear. I am not accusing the sitting President of the United States of committing a crime. But there remain a lot of questions which beg for answers and we intend to move forward with this investigation in pursuit of those answers, hopefully with the cooperation of all parties involved," Arpaio said.
Links to the Videos Used during the press conference are below.
APX
733
APX
734
-
---
Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201
NOTICE O F MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT O F EVIDENCE O F FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 2
APX
- - ---
735
-
APX
736
You are hereby notified that I, B m k Cbama am seeking nfminaffwt as a mndMate for the o f Pmident of tiw United States hwn the Democmti c Pkrty, at the Pre&mtbl Prekcmnce UecZion tobehddonthe5thdayofFebnwry2008.
1 am a natural born citben of the United have been a resident withi the U r t i i Statesfor yeas of age, and
Obama for America, 233 Mprth lich gan Avenue, 11W Floorr Chicag
CendideBa's Post ORice ~ddress
!
fcity~town)
(zip)
866%.
Candidate's Arizona commitlee infmuim

Chairman's Name
Don Bivens
I Avenue, Phoenix A2 85012 2910 Nor%ri Cenimql

Address
(number and street)
>
I
w town)
(zip)
I (&y
APX
737
SECRETARY OF STATE
e registeredvoter in the,state in which I
REC~IVED
r a maf 3 P!f @ 8 1
candidate for the offrce President of the UnledStates I

Ido solemnly swear (or affirm) that all the infdnnatron in t h i s Nomination Paper is true, that as to these and a8 ofher quaffitions, 1 am qu said offae. I further swear (or sfiim)that the United States wnstlbrbbnal requimmls for I have fuffiaecf Arizona's statutory requirement for pl Elecfon ballot
subaaibad AND mVORN to
Hle with:
Arlwnemryofw E~Senr~MvisiPn IroO Wwt WaahingaDnStmet, P Flwr PhoerdK,Atbane 86007
ORIce Revision WZlRKV
APX
738
---
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF F'ORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 3
APX 739
. .
. " & A ; * Y . , : < . : . , . , :
: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE : , ..: . .. . . . .... , , . .. ' '*+e?::P~Y34

;,.z
,
.;
:.. , \..>.
* % .*
Opening Statement:
I ,Mara Zebest, am preparingthis report at the request of Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in support of the Cold Case Posse investigation. The PDF birth certificate document released by the White House (shown in Figure 1)is a completely manufactured and fabricated computer generated image.The same source file was used to 1 ,in which the print a copy handed to the A P (shown in Figure 2 A P scanned in the version handed to them. A third photograph version (Figure 3) was touted by Savannah Guthrie who claimed to have held and felt the seal on the document, but the original Internet posted images have been scrubbed. The White House wants us to believe the PDF document started out in printed form on security paper retrievedfrom Hawaii-but this is notpossible. All three versions manifest itself as a printed document only when the PRINT button is pressed from within the original manufactured document file.This would account for the transformationof a document containing different color backgrounds, and the ability to print with or without safety paper pattern (by turning a layer on or off). There is no doubt in my mind that this computer generated image never started out as a paper source document and was never scanned in as described by the White House-it was digitally created and manufactured. The bulk of this report will explainthe evidence to support this, which will include the following points: Inconsistencies within text characters: All anti-aliasedtext (in a color scan), or all bitmappedtext (in a black & white scan)-not a mixture of both which is impossible in a legitimate document. Image noise should also be consistent throughout.
.::. Chromatic aberrationabsent: A color scanned document

would display chromatic aberration.This is physics and occurs in all color scans but is absent in Obama's PDF document.
P. Layers: A normal scan i s a flat file and does not contain multiple layers.The Obama PDF contains 9 layers and grouped to a clipping mask layer.
Z- Links: Indicate that components were pasted into the file,
rotated, and resized.
2 Clipping Mask Path hides image information: Proof of

manipulation.
APX
740
A: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE . . '. .-'a=

*rwsv-,Zd
/
r*"WiL7%
The OCR Argument Not a Factor!

OCR-which stands for OpticalCharacterRecognition-will scan a document for text and convert any images of text to live (editable) text. After OCR is applied to a PDF in Adobe Acrobat Pro, the text C R text can be responds as if it is in a Word document.The O selected, changed, copied and pasted.The Obama PDFdocument as downloaded cannot be edited in the aforementioned manner. Note: AdobeAcrobar Pro has PDF editing functions, but Adobe Acrobat Reader does not. Additionally, if the PDF had been scanned using OCR software; one would be able to search the document with keywords and if the text exists in thedocument, then those keywoidswould be found. Figure 4 shows the keyword"Live"typedin the FIND box, and even though the word "Livef'exists in the Certificateof Live Birth title, a dialog box responds that "no matches were found."
F~
-?q:iira 4:
Search for text is not recognized-No
O C R applied
When viewing the font properties dialog box in Figure 5, no fonts are listed. If O C R was used, the image area would be convertedto recognizedfonts in the document and the fonts would be listed. The dialog box is empty, indicating that Obama's PDF file does not recognizeany text.This dialog box can be viewed by going to the File menu r Properties, then click on the Font tab in the DocumentProperties dialog box. Font-based text can be created aftera file has been processed through the OCR Text Recognition feature in Adobe Acrobat.To run the OCR feature, go to the Document menu and select OCR Text Recognition, and then click RecognizeText Using OCR. Acrobat will then perform a scan on the document and convert any C R text found in the image to editable text. Note that applying O Text Recognition will alter the appearance of the characters in the conversion from image to text. Figure 6 shows that all the fonts recognized during the process are now listed in the Font Propertiesdialog box. C R is applied) on the Figure 7 shows another search (after O keyword "LiveS'typed in the FINO box.The word"1ive" is found and highlighted within the Certificateof Live Birth title.
of Obama's PDFfile %ig,irdI* Font Propert~es
5.
Font Propertiesdialog after OCRText Recognition
%igf>re7:
Searchfor text is recognizedafter O C R is applied
REPORT
BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

,<
i
, *zl?rWx$-z?r&3 Introduction to BasicTerms
Let's briefly examine three terms relatedto graphic programs: Noise, Anti-aliasing, and Bitmap
Noisev No Noise
Scanned images will have a consistent noise. Any inconsistencies in noise would be a strong telltale sign of tampering.When looking at an image at a normal zoom level (100%) colors may appear as one color of any particular area of an image. Zooming in closer to the area, consistent noise is easily apparent in the slight variations of color from neighboringpixelsthat make up each color (shown in Figure 8).This is the natural noise level for this image. Note that it is consistent throughout the image; variations can be seen for neighboringpixels of each color area in the original image. In contrast, Figure 8 also shows an example of no noise as a result of digital manipulation.Two pixels were sampled to match colors within the image. Using a paint brush tool in Adobe Photoshop, a streak of each sampled color is drawn across the image area. Clearly the lack of noise in the digital brush strokes is inconsistent with natural noise of the image. Components added digitally to an image do not containnoise. All neighboringpixelsfor the sample paint strokes in Figure 8 are solid in color with no variation-not even the slightest of variations. In order to avoid detection when editing an image, an experienced professionalwill need to mimic the noise to match the document. One common method used is to access the Add Noise filter found on the Photoshop Filter menu. This was not done in the Obama PDF file. If this was a legitimate color scan, noise would be consistently displayed throughout the entire document.
"'i;~x"e
Painted brush strokes in digital scan lack noise
Bitmap (orAliasing) v Anti-aliasing

Figure 9 offers a visual explanation of aliasing (or bitmap text) contrasted with anti-aliasing. Noticethat aliasing is the visual stair-steppingof edges that occurs in an image which yields a jagged edge. Anti-aliasing is the smoothing of jagged edges in digital images by averaging the colors of the pixels at the boundary edges. Also noticethe transition of pixel colors that occur in Figure 8 where contrast colors bump up next to each other.This color transition (averaging of color pixels) makes the lines appear smooth when viewed at a normal viewing level. Without anti-aliasingto soften this line edge transition of colors, images will have a choppy jagged edge quality (aliasingor bitmappedquality). Anti-aliasing i s either applied globally (to an entire image) during scanning-or not at all. Figure 10 is a perfect example of an inconsistencythat occurs with image manipu1ation.The numericalcharacters 064 seen in the Figureare all aliased or bitmapped, and the 1 is anti-aliased as well as containing noise. A color scan would produceanti-aliased results universally. While it is possible to use a bitmap setting when scanning, the results would create a black and white image-no colorpresent. A bitmap setting would turn every pixel to on or off-white or black. So if a bitmap setting was used in a scan, then there shouldn't be a color background, along with varying colors in the text outside the grayscale range?All text color values have green tone values-not black or grayscale.
Aliasing (or bitmap)and anti-aliasing
.-.;dii*c
**
4 4:
Bitmap edges are jagged v smooth anti-aliased edge
APX
REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

%W"'P;ziiS.I?-rrr^I
J1
'
6 3 . -x*&'fl*Xe,
Scanner Chromatic Aberration

What i s chromatic aberration?Thisoccurs when different wavelengths of light are refracted differently as it goes through a lens or prism during the scanning process. Light is refracted d~fferently as the scanner encounters one side of a contrasting color (particularlywith text) comparedto the opposite side of the contrasting color. In simpler terms, Figure 11 is an example of ChromaticAberration in which the scanner produced warm red-ish color values at the bottom and left edges of the text, and similarly the scanner produced cool blue-ish color values around the top and right edges of text transitions. Chromatic Aberration can be seen at a high zoom level in color scans such as the APversion of Obama's BC-but this chromatic aberration is NOToresent in Obama's PDF released by the White House. Becausethe AP version displays chromatic aberration, this is an indicator that the A P did receive a printed hard copy of the B C from the White House and scanned whatever was presentedto them. A P did not do anything wrong.They simply scanned what was handed to them. It's important to note that the A P version does NOT have a security safety paper background pattern, but rather a baby blue colored background.This sudden difference in background color/pattern is another inconsistencythat could NOT happen if the document was simply scanned with no further manipulation and released by the White House-but this inconsistencywould only happen if the White House document i s a manufactured file.
Figure :1: Scanned textand CbmmotirAberrcrtion
ri2c.r
2, Obama PDF viewed in Acrobat at 1600% zoom level
Applying the Terms Reviewed

A key problem with the document, as presented, is that it is riddled with inconsistencies. Scanning a document without manipulation produces an image with qualities that are consistentglobally (throughoutthe entire Image). Amateurish image manipulation will reveal local (specific areas) of inconsistencies or odd artifacts. Another example af anti-aliased text containing noise for the letter "R" mixed with surrounding bitmap text in Figure 12.The white halo effect surroundingthe text with no chromatic aberration is also a strong ind~cator that the document was manipulated (more on the white halo later). Figure 13 displays text color inconsistencies in dates, along w ~ t h a m~sspeiling In the official stamp text-"TXEinstead of"THE."While it may be argued that the misspellingis merely a function of the stamp ink appl~ed unevenly, the odds s~gn~ficantly decrease that th~s would occur on both vertical bars that affect both sides of the "Hncharacter. Both sides pull in substantially displaying an "X."The stamp also sports suspicious markings in the"Alvin"signature that has been referred to as a "happy face.'' Figure 14 offers a contrast image of Alvin Onaka's stamp in which the words are spelled correctly and no"happy face" markings in the"Alvinnsignature.The "Ph." spacing betweenthe"Pnand " h is different in both signatur6 images (the period spacing as well). Also, the stamp version displayed in Figure 13 is a solid bitmap layer-no signs of texture (ink stamp on paper) can be detected. Some semblance of texture would be reflected in an image scan (even with optimization applied), but this overall quality of texture-the ink stamp on paper as seen in Figure 14-is absent from the Obama PDF.
esqx;.:r" 7 3- Examples of text inconsistencies
APX
743
----
REPORT
BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

% k . S ~ , ~ l % ~ t l 5% ' ~ r
1
i e
'
*.
?ir9 >*%@&!+.Wb
Layers: Flat, Man-made, and Optimixed

Attempts to suggest optimizationexplains the presenceof layers in the Obama PDF is simply not true. While it is true that optimization can cause layers, it is not true that optimization explains the layers displayed in Obama's PDF.The layers in Obama's PDF clearly display a decision-making process that would be present with image
A simple definition for optimization is a process that applies
suitable compression settings to reduce file size. As stated-optimization can cause layers-but in the case of optimization; the process of how thedocument is layered is completely computer-generated based on programming algorithms.Thus, there are certain predictable patterns. Before examiningthe Figures, it might help to explain that there are two types of graphic programs: Raster-basedand Vector-based. Raster-based is a fancy word for pixel-busedwhich is the strength of a program like Adobe Photoshop.Whereas Adobe lllustrator is a vector-based program-meaning it relies on mathematical interpretations.Illustrator operates differently than Photoshop in that lines or shapes drawn in Illustrator are referred to as paths-the mathematical equations that define the line, line segment, or shape. With this in mind, when a pixel-based image is opened in illustrator, is generated to define the outer boundary border of that .This is why you will see sub-layers in the screen capture s with a Path title that corresponds to the visible blue (default rectangle-shapedborder edges of an object (in the displayed The A P file version of Obama's PDF in Figure 15 will serve to represent a scanned document and when opened in Illustrator, there is only one link, and one layer; the layer breaks down to display the following sub-layers:
2- A boundary edge path-the blue border surroundingthe image
" : : And the flattened image Figure 16 shows a crucial difference in the number of layers
displayed in Obama's PDF file (comparedto the AP file):Obamals PDF has nine links and nine sub-layers (N0TE:The paths are actively displayed in the image). In addition to the nine sub-layer objects, a clipping path is at the top of the sub-layer list.The clipping path groups all the remainingsub-layers below. Note the location of the clipping path in the image, which will be explained further on the next page. It's presence within the file and applied in a manner to hide portions of the image also reflects image manipulation. Another crucial difference in the number of layers occurs when optimization is applied to the AP scanned image in Figure 17. There is an unreasonable amount of layers generated. Note despite resizing the Links and Layers panels, there is still a scrollboxwhich scrolls the length of the empty scrolling bar area (to offer a sense of how many layers extend beyond the current view). Examine how the layers divide the image into pieces. It is analogous to taking a scissor and cutting the image into random rectangles. Finally, notice that Figure 17 calls out the top layer as a bitmap layer (which means it contains one color value only), while all remaining layers are color layers (contains multiple color values). One bitmap layer and multiple color layers are typical optimizationbehavior; but the reverse is true in Obama's PDF in which it contains multiple bitmap layers and only one color layer.
REPORT
BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BII3TH CERTIFICATE

,',,,Y:%"bXH1-G
The Clipping Mask Path

Let's return to the previously mentioned Clipping Mask Path.The term mask refers to defining parts of an image to be hiddenfrom view (rather than have to delete unwanted parts). Any vectorsha~e can be used as a climina oath-in this case the rectangle path shaoe seen in Fiaure 18 defines an area that acts like a window: Anything within the shape border is visible, and anything that falls outs~de its boundary is not visible. A benefit derived from using a clipping mask is it allows the mask to be reposition at any time to show or hide different parts of the artwork. A clipping mask that hides image information from view only occurs in a manual process to manipulated a document. If a dipping mask is generated in an optimized file-it will never hide information.
c:q.*rr i 3 :
Obama PDF opened in Illustrator with clipping mask
Figure 18 displays the clipping mask as the only visible path when the Obama PDF is first opened-all other path objects behave as a group attached to the clipping path.To move and see these objects separately-the clipping mask group needs to be released-or ungrouped. Figure 19 shows an open Layers panel (to display the sub-layers). A right-click inside the clipping mask offers a menu option to Release Clipping Mask. Notice that releasingthis path not only exposes the other grouped path objects, but suddenly uncovers additional background pattern that spills outside (and beyond) the clipping mask path boundary-proof of image manipulation.
X-Ray Scanner Vision

iiq~trc 1 S: Clipping Maskgroup releasedand sub-layers displayed
Tom Harrison, a software designer, published a m r _ tthat examines the top two sub-layer objects. Without a doubt, the implications of these two sub-layers are clear indicationsof image manipulation.This cannot happen in a normal document. At first glance these layers appear to be empty-but this is not the case. These layers contain odd random white pixel information, while the pixels under the white dots show no disturbance of safety paper pattern (on the bottom layer).This is simply not possible in a normal scan and can only happen in image manipulation.
Tom Harrison offersthe following analogy in his report:Try to have
p~gbre 22,
Zoom view oftop layer reveals white pixels
someone take a picture of a person holding a football hidden behind their back, not visible to the camera. Will you ever be able to extract the person from the photograph and still see the football revealed?Of course not. However, if a picture is taken of a football, and a separate picture is taken of the person, layers can be used to"hidenthe picture of the football behind the person (usinga program like Photoshop).By placing the picture of a person on a layeruinfront of-or on top-of the layer containing the football in the document-the football would not be visible to the casual viewer unless the layer ofthe person i s turned off. Using the football analogy, look closely at Figure 20-a close-up view to reveal numerouswhite pixels in the top layer object. Additionally, these pixels are bitmapped rather than displaying a soft blending quality to transition into the background patternanother indicationthat the white pixels are not a normal part of the backgroundpattern. Figure 21 shows the white dot layer turned off to expose the undisturbed safety pattern in the background (under the white pixel dots).Toparaphrase Mr. Harrison, no scanner in the world has x-ray vision that can detect uninterruptedsafety paper pattern under another object (such as the random white dots).
*".grs:c i F : Layer turned off reveals uninterrupted pattern below
AMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE 4 . ' * - , . .*ML? f % Wi7-3i

'
Stamp Layer Appearance

The main purpose and strength of layers is they allow parts of an image to be isolated to make it easy to repositioned, or adjust visibility (on or om independently of surrounding image layered parts-thus layers are a powerful image manipulation tool. It makes sense to have a date and a certification stamp on separate layers-to move, rotate, or reposition for the purpose of manioulation and alteration. Fiaures22-24 demonstrate how objectsian be moved around independently.~he 0bama PDF has a clean separation of text isolated on each layer, unlike the A P optimization layer results for the same informationin Figures 2526.The layer results seen in the Obama PDF cannot be duplicated through optimization, but can be easily duplicated (and explained) with an understandingof image manipulation. The date stamp and certification stamp are the selected layers in Figure 22.The Links and Layers panels verify the selection along with the active blue paths that display around the layered objects. Figure 23 demonstrates that the objects can be moved independent of the background (or other text items). Note that in the Obama PDF, the text for the certification stamp is completely and independentlyseparated onto its own layer.The same is true of the date stamp.This is a clear and important indicationof image manipulation in which each ofthese items can be manipulated independently of the surrounding background layer.This clean separation can only be accomplishedthrough image manipulation of document elements. Figure 24 shows the background layer can also be selected and moved independently from the stamp and date layer elements. The white halos are a part of the background layer since white is the typical color present when building a background layer.Thus, whenever the safety paper pattern is not present, the typical color displayed in the absence of pattern will be white.
2:ijZIv~ 2
Target layers and objects for date and certify stamps
3 1 8 ' " 2 2 , Layers allow for movingthe date and certify stamps
;-$
Automation v Manual Manipulation

Figure 25 and Figure 26 shows the lack of predictabilitywhen an automation process chops up an image and generates layers during optimization. A s previously mentioned, the A P file opens with the appearance of a normal scanned document containing only one layer. For this reason, the A P file was used to demonstrate what happens when optimization is applied. After the optimization process, the A P file displays a multitude of layers. Most of the black text extracts onto one bitmap layer at the top of the layer list.This top text layer is turned off in Figure 25. Note that the text does not separate cleanly onto one layer. Remnants of text remain behind on a variety of the many multi-color layers in the list that still have their visibility turned on in Figure 25. Additionally, the top text layer contains a large portion of all document text and optimizationfails to separate text according to usefulness. In other words, all the stamp text does not reside on its own layer-nor is there a different layer for the date text-and again, no clean and complete separation. Figure 26 has the top text layer visibility turned back on again, but instead, one of the bottom background layer's visibility is turned off this time.The selected paths show how there's no human quality to the logic in dividing informationinto layers-the machine is deciding based on an automated process.
e4
Background layer with white halos can also move
"i?.~:e i F c Optimized lacks the human element in layering
,,..
7 , : . Text layerturned on and one background layer off
APX
746
BAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

w--..tr .,pya~7;--.
'
. i .
+ -c. i ~ r r k . ~ a .~?~
White Halo Creation

The white halo effect presents two common questions; why is there a white halo,and what caused it?Before answering the former question, let's address the latter. The white halo could simply be a function of a selection created around all the text-before filling the backgroundlayer with a green safety pattern.
g ? j h m k T cb-&-,~h.~.
STAE
&GISIRAR
The green safety pattern could have easily been applied to the background layer without any selection-thus a solid pattern would have covered the entire background layer-without a white halo. But for some reason, a white halo effect was generatedeither through an active selection when creating the background, or through an enhancement process, or a combination of both. A s might be expected, the creation of a background using a text selection is easily demonstrated with step-by-step Figures. Figure 27 shows the demonstrationfile set-up.The stamp text from the Obama PDF file was copied (from Illustrator)and pasted into a new Photoshopfile on a layer that is above a solid white background layer. Note the two layers in the Layers panel: Stamp Text layer and the Background layer (currently filled with white). When working in a graphic program, if you want to apply any changes to an image, you have a choice to use a selection for the target area, or to make changes without a selection. If there is no selection, then any changes can be applied to the entire image without any restrictions. If a selection is created, the changes are limited to the selection area only. Analogous to selecting text in a Word program to apply a change, such as bold formatting; the text is first selected, and the bold formatting is then applied to the selection only. In this example, a selection will be created around the text as the next step shown in Figure 28. Any object separated on a layer can easily be used to create a selection of that object. Simply hold down the Ctrl key and click on the layer thumbnail-in this case click on thestamp Text layer. A selection that resembles marching ants appears around the text. The next step is to expand the selection to include a little extra space surrounding the text.This can be accomplishedfrom the Select menu, using Modify, and then choosing the Expand option (also seen in Figure 28).
c,:,"
' .r- 28
A text selection created and selection expanded
-"
n;ttr-
"9:
Expand Selection option-expanded 2 pixels
The ExpandSelectiondialog box displays in Figure 29 which allows a user to specify how many pixels to expand the selection. Since, the idea is to surround the text by a small area, the amount entered in this example will be Zpixels. The expanded selection in Figure 30 currently surrounds the text. However, the current selection area needs to remain white since the ultimate goal i s to apply a pattern fill to the surrounding backgroundarea-not the surrounding text area.Therefore, the selection needs to be reversed-also known as inverse-to ensure the pattern will fill everything on the background layer exceptthe text area. Go to the Select menu shown in Figure 30.The Inverseoption is chosen.The selection is now ready to fill with a color, or a pattern, or even another scanned image (such as a scan of security safety paper). Everything but the text area is now selected. For purposes of this demonstration, the next step will define a safety paper pattern and fill the backgroundlayer using the current active selection.
Fcqt:,e 39:
Next the selection needs to be inversed
C K OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Safety Paper Creation
In a program such as Photoshop, a selection can be filled with a solid color of choice, an image, or a pattern can also be defined as a fill option. It should be noted that a full sheet of safety paper could have been scanned and used without going through steps to define it as a pattern-but a pattern can be easily defined from an existing image as an alternative method. Most likely, there was access to a sample of safety paper when creating the Obama PDF. It's not necessary to reinvent the wheel-the current Obama PDF file will be used as the source pattern for the purpose of this demonstration. The Obama PDF is temporarily opened in Figure 31 and a square selection is made t o isolate a portion of the pattern that will tile easily-which means that when the selected area is filled repeatedly next to each other, the pattern continues seamlessly-without any noticeable disruptions in the pattern. With the selection active, the Define Pattern option is selected from the Edit menu.The Obama PDF file is closed and no longer needed. Back to the demonstration file shown in Figure 32; with the Backgroundselected as the active layer, the Fill option is chosen from the Edit menu. In the Filldialog box, the Pattern option from the Content list is chosen in Figure 33. The safety paper pattern defined earlier in Figure 37 is also chosen in the Filldialog boxin Figure 34. ClickOK to complete the effect. The results in Figure 35 show a slight white halo outside the text. In Figure 36-the StampText layer's visibility is turned off, and the marching ants are deselected (Ctrl+D).The white halo effect was easily manufactured in less than a minute, i n less time than it took to read the explanation. In summation, the security paper background layer was added as the last step to create the illusion of an image in which text was imprinted on security paper. However, the text had in fact been placed and arranged on a solid white background.This last application gives a created image the false appearance of being an official document.
F:gr:de 32
Selection used to define a pattern
F;c~,-e 22: Use the Edit menu to launch the Fill dialog box
i t.nh;$a. 5 : ;
The Pattern option is used in the Fill dialog box
-r:ara 21:
The pattern fills the selection area
-? * - ~ ~3-%= < r c . The defined pattern chosen from Custom Pattern list
S-:gcr% 36,
Turn off the text layer: Wh~te halo effect is displayed
OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

%W?*'IYelSh' ,
iri
,,, "-c,*lWx<%%
Some FinalThoughts
The previous exercise demonstrated how the white halo could be created, but there can be a multitude of ways to accomplishthe same task in a program such as Photoshop. Whether or not the exercise presented is the definitive method is notthe main point. The exercise was presented as a possible solution to the question: How did the white halo get into the document?But actually, the only question that matters is: why is the white halo there at all? Any official document obtained by legitimate procedures and scanned would not have the white halo. A s previously stated, every anomaly can be easily explained as a manufactureddocument. Not only does this document display attributes that it was completely manufactured digitally, but there is strong evidence that a master file exists as a source file. What is meant by a master file?A master file is a file in which all the objects still exist on separate layers (in other words, more layers and informationthan seen in the Obama PDF sub-layers). For example, in the Obama PDF, the bottom layer contains the background pattern with some text elements mergedonto that layer. In the master file version, the text still remains on a separate layer-NOT merged with the background layer. I t is highly probable that this master file also contains the short form certificate layers (which would explain the problems seen in the A P version of the file). P version of the Figure 37 and Figure 38 demonstrate that the A long form certificate contains a different set of problems as follows:
'A sudden sh~ft to a different background
Safety paper pattern in the shadow at the left edge-but not in the document background Short form embedded into the printout-Figure 38 is an enhanced version which allows the details to be seen more easily
Once again, all of these additional problems displayed in the AP version would not occur if the source document presented to the A P had been a legitimate scanned document without manipulation. However, all three problems would easily be a result of a manufacturedsource file-ln whlch layers from a master file were turned off or mistakenly left on.
4 ighebix
2%-
Enhancement applied to easily see short form
APX
749
Exhibit 4
APX
751
Exhibit 5
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 1 The White House
Get Ibnail Updates
Contad Us
IIorne Briefing Room Press Briefings
Search WhiteHouse.gov
The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release April 27,2011
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
8:48 A.M. EDT
MR. CARNEY: Good morning, everybody. You can read the paperwork we just handed out in a minute. Let me just get started. Thank you for coming this morning. I have with me today Dan Pfeiffer, the President's Director of Communications, as well as Bob Bauer, the President'sWhite House Counsel, who will have a few things to say about the documents we handed to you today. And then we'll take your questions. Iremind you this is off camera and only pen and pad, not for audio. And Igive you Dan Pfeiffer. MR. PFEIFFER: Thanks, Jay. What you have in front of you now is a packet of papers that includes the President's long-formbirth certificate from the state of Hawaii, the original birth certificate that the President requested and we posted online in 2008, and then the correspondence between the President's counsel and the Hawaii State Department of Health that led to the release of those documents. ifyou would just give me a minute to -- indulge me a second to walk through a little of the history here, since all of you weren't around in 2008 when we originally released the President's birth certificate, Iwill do that. And then Bob Bauer will walk through the timeline of how we acquired these documents. In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President's campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of
BLOG POSTS ON T H I S I S S U E
March 11, 2012 8:04 PM EDT
Call President Karzai Followillg the Report of Afghan Ci~ilian Casualties
civilians.
March H, 2012 Q:00AM EDT
From the Archives: Tsunami in ,Japan
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/20111 The White House
http://www.w~tehouse.gov/fhe-press-office/2Olll~/27lpress-ga~le-press-sec1et~y-jay-cxne ...
Hawaii. We received that document; we posted it on the website. That document was then inspected by independent fact checkers, who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document -- independent fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii. To be clear, the document we presented on the President's website in 2008 is his birth certificate. It is the piece of paper that every Hawaiian receives when they contact the state to request a birth certificate. It is the birth certificate they take to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get their driver's license and that they take to the federal government to get their passport. It is the legally recognized document. That essentially for those of you who followed the campaign closely know that solved the issue. We didn't spend any time talking about this after that. There may have been some very fringe discussion out there, but as a campaign issue it was settled and it was -Q When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is?
Alook back at the U.S. response to the devastating earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan in March of 2011.
March to, 2012 6:30AMEDT
Weeldy Address: Investing in a Clean Energy Future

Speaking from a factory in Virginia, President Obama talks about how companies are creating more jobs in the United States, making better products than ever before, and how many are developing new technologies that are reducing our dependence on foreign oil and saving families money at the pump.
VIEW ALL RELATED BLOG POSTS
--
MR. PFEIFFER: Yes.

Q
Because it is not here and that's been an issue. Facebook Thrltter Flickr YouTube
Vlmeo
MR. PFEIFFER: We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by -the fact checkers came to headquarters and actually examined the document we had.
That settled the issue. In recent weeks, the issue has risen again as some folks have begun raising a question about the original about the long-formbirth certificate you now have in front of you. And Bob will explain why -the extraordinary steps we had to take to receive that and the legal restraints that are in place there.
--
iTunes Linkedln
Google+
But it became an issue agaln. And it went to -- essentially the discussion transcended from the nether regions of the Internet into mainstream political debate in this country, It became something that when both Republicans and Democrats were talking to the media they were asked about. It was a constant discussion on mainstreamnews organ~zations. And the President believed that it was becoming a distraction from the major issues we're having in this country. And he was particularly struck by the fact that right after the Republicans released their budget framework and the President released his, we were prepared to have a very important, very vigorous debate in this country about the future of the country, the direction we're going to take, how we're doing to deal with very important issues like education, Medicare, how we're going to deal with taxes in this country. And that should --that's the debate we should be having yet.
http:Nwww.w~khouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-ga~e-p~ss-secretary-jay-cxm.. .
What was really dominating a lot of discussion was this fake controversy, essentially, a sideshow, that was distracting from this real issue. And an example of that would be when major Democrats and Republicans went onto mainstream news organizations to talk about their budget plans including the President -- they were asked about th~s.They were asked about what they thought about the controversy. They were asked if they believed the Presidentwas born in the United States. And it was really adistraction.
--
That really struck the President, led him to ask his counsel to look into whether we could ask the state of Hawaii to release the long-formcertificate,which is not something they generally do. And he did that despite the fact that it probably was not in his long-term it would have been in his -- probably in his long-term political interests to allow this birther debate to dominate discussion in the Republican Party for months to come. But he thought even though it might have been good politics, he thought it was bad for the country. And so he asked counsel to look into this.
--
And now I'll have Bob explain that, and then we'll take your questions. MR. CARNEY: I just want to -- sorry, Imeant to mention at the top, as some of you may have seen, the Presidentwill be coming to the briefing room at 9:45 a.m., making a brief statement about this --not taking questions, but just wanted to let you know.
MR. PFEIFFER: And he will use this as an opportunity to make a larger point about what this debate says about
our politics. Go ahead, Bob. MR. BAUER: Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate. And so we undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to make that request. And by Thursday of last week, Ispoke to private counsel to the President and asked her to contact the State Departmentof Health and to have a conversation about any requirements, further requirements, that they thought we had to satisfy to lodge that waiver request. She had that conversation with the state Department of Health on Thursday --counsel in question is Judy Corley at the law firm of Perkins Coie, and you have a copy of the letter she subsequently sent to the department with the President's written request. The department outlined the requirements for the President to make this request. He signed a letter making that request on Friday afternoon upon returning from the West Coast. And private counsel forwarded his written request -- written, signed request -- along with a letter from counsel, to the state Department of Health on Friday.
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney,4/27/2011 1 The White House
hnp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off1ce/2011/04/27/press-ga&e-press-secretxy-jay-c~~.,.
The department, as I understoodit, after reviewing the law and reviewing the grounds asserted in the request, came to the conclusionthat a waiver could be appropriately granted. We were advised that the long-formbirth certificate could be copied and made available to us as early as Monday, April 25th --the day before yesterday. And we made arrangements for counsel to travel to Honolulu to pick it up and it was returned to the White House yesterday afternoon. Let me emphasize again, there is a specific statute that governs access to and inspectlon of vital records in the state of Hawaii. The birth certificate that we posted online is, in fact, and always has been, and remains, the legal birth certificate of the President that would be used for all legal purposes that any resident of Hawaii would want to use a birth certificate for. However, there is legal authority in the department to makeexceptionsto the general policy on not releasingthe long-formbirth certificate. The policy in question, by the way, on non-release has been in effect since the mid-1BSOs, lunderstand. So while Icannot tell you what the entire history of exceptions has been, it is a limited one. This is one of very few that Iunderstand have been granted for the reasons setout in private counsel's letter. MR. PFEIFFER: We'll be happy to take some questions.
Q Iguess Ijust want to make sure that we're clear on this. Even though this one says "certificate of live birth on here, this is different than the other certificate of live birth that we've seen?
MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. The second page there is the one that was posted on the Internet.
Q
Okay.
MR. PFEIFFER: And that is a copy of the one that has been kept at the Hawaii Department of Health. Q Okay. And this is the one that would be referred to -- that people have been asking for that is the birth certificate? MR. PFEIFFER: They are both --the second one is the birth certificate. The one on the top is what is referred to as the long-formbirth certificate. As you can see - and Bob can walk you through it -- it contains some additional information that is not on the second page, which was the birth certificate which was released during the campaign.
if you coutd just explain the difference.
http://www.whikhouse.gov/the-press-officel20lI/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-cne..
MR. BAUER: There's a difference between a certificate and a certification. The certification is simply a verification of certain informationthat's in the original birth certificate. The birth certificate, as you can see, has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, who essentially oversees the maintenance lcontains some additional information also -- that is to say, the original birth certificate -- it contains of the records. i sorne additional information like the ages of the parents, birthplaces, residence, street address, the name of the hospital. The core information that's required for legal purposes and that is put into the actual certification that's a computer-generated document, which we posted in 2008, that informationis abstracted, if you will, from the original birth certificate, put into the computerized short-formcertification, and made available to Hawaiian residents at their request. So the long form, which is a certificate, has mare information, but the short form has the information that's legally sufficient for all the relevantpurposes.
Q This first one has never been released publicly, correct?

MR. BAUER: That's correct. i lis in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii.
Q Bob, can you explain why President Obama let thisdrag on for four years? Was it Donald Trump that prompted you to issue this?
MR. BAUER: I'lllet Dan MR. PFEIFFER: Sure.
--
Q I know you expected that question, right? (Laughter.) MR. PFEIFFER: He even said you would be the one who would ask it. (Laughter.)
I don't think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved -- for those of you who remember the campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008. And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called about it, reported on it until the last few weeks. And as Isaid earlier, it probably would have been -- a lot of the pundits out there have talked about the fact that this whole birther debate has been really bad for the Republican Party and would probably be good for the President politically. But despite that, the President, as Isaid, was struck by how this was crowding out the debate,
Press Gaggle by Press SecretaryJay Carney, 4/27/2011 1 The White House
h~p:Nwww.whiteho~e.gov/the-press-otti~e/20I1/04/27/pre~~-gagg1e-pre~~-~e~retary-jay-~arne ...
particularly around the budget, on important issues, and was an example of the sort of sideshows that our politics focuses on instead of the real challenges that we have to confront as a country. And so that's why he made this decision now, because it became an issue that transcended sort of this -- it essentially was something that was talked about, as Isaid, from the nether regions of the Internet onto mainstream network newscasts. In fact, Jay has been asked about this just yesterday in this room.
Q So Iguess the implication is that you did get political advantage by having not released this until today, over the course of the last four years?
MR. PFEIFFER: There has been -- no one that Ican recall actually asked us to -- we were asked to release the President's birth certificate in 2008. We did that. And then no one -- it never -- up until a few weeks ago, there was never an issue about that that wasn't the birth certificate from any credible individual or media outlet. And it hasn't been until -- Imean, Jay was asked about this yesterday -Q When you say that, you mean certification --you released the certification?
MR. PFEIFFER: When any Hawaiian wants -- requests their birth certificate because they want to get a driver's license, they want to get a passport, they do exactly what the President did in 2008. And that's what that is. And we released that. And that's what any Hawaiian would do to release their birth certificate. And that was good enough for everyone until very recently this became a question again. And so the President made this decision. He'll talk to you more about his thinking on that.
Q And this is going to sound -- I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to -- remain unconvinced. They're going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper, you could have typed anything in there. Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any - (laughter.)
Q
Will the President be holding it?
MR. PFEIFFER: He will not, and Iwill not leave it here for him to do so. But it will -- the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a -- what they have on file. As Bob said, it's in a book in Hawaii. MR. BAUER: And you'll see the letter from the director of the Health Departmentthat states that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to --
GI But do you understandthat this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay C m y , 4/27/2011 1The White House
http://www.w~tehouse.gov/the-press-officeI2011/04/27/press-gagglepress-secretary-jay-carne ...
MR. PFEIFFER: There will always be some selection of people who will believe something, and that's not the issue. The issue is that this is not a discussionthat is just happening among conspiracy theorists. 8's happening here in this room; it's happening on all of the networks. And it's something that, as Isaid, every major political figure of both parties who's actually out trying to talk about real issues is asked about this by the media. And so the President decided to release this. And I'llleave it to others to decide whether there's still --there will be some who still have a different have a conspiracy about this.
--
Q You've got two certified copies, according to this study. You have these physical --
MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. Ishowed you one. Just one.

Q
You showed us a photocopy of one.
MR. PFEIFFER: No, Ishowed you -Q
Does that have a stamp?
MR. PFEIFFER: It has a seal on it.
Q Why does this rise to the level of a presidential statement?

MR. PFEIFFER: The President --this in itself -- when you hear the President Ithink you'll understand the point he's making. That will be in not too long.
Q Did the President change his own mind about this? In other words, was he advocating during the campaign let's just put it out there and get it over with, or was this an internal shift in thinking based --in other words, was it the President who steadfastly during the campaign said this is ridiculous, Idon't want to give this any more ground, and has now changed his mind? Or is this the --
MR. PFEIFFER: Let's be very clear. You were there for the campaign. There was never a question about the original birth certificate during the campaign. It was a settled issue. Iwas there for the original decision to release the birth certificate. Iwas there when we posted it online. I'm not sure Ieven knew there was an original one that was different than the one we posted online because it wasn't an issue. So it wasn't like --let's be very clear. We were asked for the President's birth certificate in 2008; we released the President's birth certificate; and it was done. That was it.
Press Gaggle by Press SecretaryJay Carney, 4/27/2011 l The White House
hnp:i/www.whitehouse.gov/~-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne ...
And so there hasn't been a discussion about this other document for years. It's only been in the last few weeks. And so to your second question, the President decided to do this and he'll talk about thiswhen he gets here -decided to do it at the timeline that Bob laid out because it was a -- this was a sideshow that was distracting from the reat challenges that we're facing. It's not just a sideshow for him; it's a sideshow for our entire politics that have become focused on this.
Q Not to give Donald Trump more publicity than he has, but is he the person who sort of -- sort of that bridge between what you're calling a fringe and the mainstream? Do you think that he's the reason why this tripped the switch to a level where you now have to deal with something you thought was dealt with?
MR. PFEIFFER: It's not for me to say why mainstream media organizations began to cover this debate. They'll have to answer that for themselves.
Q
How concerned were you about running against Donald Trump in a general election?
MR. PFEIFFER: I'd refer any questions on the election to the campaign.
Q Can you address the reports of Petraeus to the CIAand DOD --
MR. PFEIFFER: You get points for that, Carol. (Laughter.) MR. CARNEY: Yes. I donY have but you'll be disappointedto learn that IdonY have a personnel announcement for you. The President will be addressing this -- questions about personnel tomorrow.
--
Q Dan, was there a debate about whether or not this deserved being discussed by the White House, whether or not -- and I'm going back to the birth certificate. Ilose points, lunderstand. But was there debate about whether or not this wasworthy of the White House?
MR. PFEIFFER: The point I'd make is that we weren't the ones who --we're not the first ones to bring this up in this room. Jay has been asked questions about this; the President has been asked about it in media interviews. And so that wasn't a decision that we made, and the President made the decision to do this and he made the decision to -- and when he comes down here this morning he'll talk to you about why he thinks there's an important point to be made here.
Q Getting back to the personnel announcements, does the President understand that these announcements have been made and sourced satisfactorily for most news organizations before he speaks up and he's not letting his
Press Gaggle by Press SecretaryJay Carmy, 4/27/2011 \The White House
White House corroborate? MR. CARNEY: Idon't have a comment on that for you, Bill. (Laughter.)
Q Imean, this is such BS. It's all out there and you guys are -- okay, the President is going to talk about this tomorrow so we can't say anything.
MR. CARNEY: Bill, you're free to make phone calls everywhere you can. I'm just saying that we don't have a personnel announcement for you today.
Q
And he'll tomorrow, he'll cover all the aforementioned switches?
MR. CARNEY: We'll have a personnel announcement tomorrow.
Q Jay, yesterday you talked about failsafe triggers as sort of a positive alternative to spending cuts. rm wondering if the White House has any openness to including that, because it's a White House proposal, including that in any legislation that would raise the debt ceiling limit.
MR. CARNEY: Well, what we've said very clearly, and Ithink Secretary Geithner said it eloquently yesterday, it is a dangerous, risky idea to hold hostage any other -- hold hostage, rather, raising the debt ceiling, a vote on raising the debt ceiling, to any other piece of legislation. The commitment this President has to moving aggressively ! will be clear again when the Vice President convenes a towards a comprehensive deficit reduction plan is clear. I meeting, bipartisan, bicameral meeting, next week. And he hopes that progress will be made on that very quickly. In terms of negotiating what that would look like, Ithink the negotiators should do that, led by the Vice President, Republicans and Democrats together. But again, explicitly linking or holding hostage the absolute necessity of raising the debt ceiling to any other piece of legislation and declaring that we'll tank the U.S. economy and perhaps the global economy if we don't get this specific thing that we want, Ithink is a dangerous and unprecedented thing to do. And we're confident, remain confident, that the leaders of both parties in Congress, as well as the President, will agree with the President, as Ihave said many times, that we do not have an alternative to raising the debt ceiling because, as many have said, outside observers, economists and businessmen and women, the impact of that would be calamitous at best.
Q So even though it's your own proposal that you guys endorsed you don't want to see it as part of the final
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 IThe White H o w
package? MR. CARNEY: I'm not negotiating individual pieces of apackage that we hope Republicansand Democrats can
come together around from this podium. But again, we believe it's essential to the President believes -- that's one
of the reasons why we're doing this right now -- we believe that these are big debates that need to be had. They can be contentious, argumentative, serious, comprehensive, detailed, because they're important; they're all about America's future. And they're about visions of this country and where we're going that need to be debated. And this debate was being crowded ou2 in many ways by a sideshow.
--
And he looks forward to having a debate on the real issues that Americans want us to talk about long-term economic plans, deficit reduction, investments in the kinds of things that will help this economy grow and create jobs, dealing with our energy needs, a long-termenergy plan. These are all issues that have been sidetracked at least in the public debate by some of the issues that we're talking about this morning. Q Is there a concern that more and more people were actually starting to believe its sideshow -- I mean, people have been asking about -MR. CARNEY: I will let the President speak for himself, but what Dan was saying and [think is important is that the issue here is that the President feels that this was bad for the country; that it's not healthy for our political debate, when we have so many important issues that Americans care about, that affect their lives, to be drawn into sideshows about fallacies that have been disproven with the full weight of a legal document for several years. So, again, as Dan said, and a lot of political pundits have said, you could say that it would be good politics, smart politics, for the President to let this play out. He cares more about what's good for the country. He wants the debate on the issues. He wants the focus on the issues that Americans care about.
Q Jay, the President yesterday said that he had been talking to oil exporters about increasing output. Who specifically has he been talking --
--
MR. CARNEY: Well, f said -- Iwant to clarify. Isaid several times Ibelieve from this podium when asked questions about our overall handling of the issue of high gas prices that we've had conversationswith oil-producing states and allies and those conversations continue. Idon't have specific "the President spoke with this leader or other government officials spoke with others," but those are ongoing conversations that, of course, we would be having in a situation like this.
Q Do you guys have any comment on the NATO soldiers that were killed in Afghanistan and any confirmation on whether there were Americans?
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carmy, 4/27/2011 1 The White House
MR. CARNEY: t don't have anything for you on that this morning.
Q Just quickly, back on the birth certificate, yesterday you said this was a settled issue. So --
MR. CARNEY: Well, as Dan said, again, it has been a settled issue. MR. PFEIFFER: From a factual point of view, it's absolutely a settled issue. But the fact that it was a settled issue did not keep it from becoming a major part of the political discussion in this town for the last several weeks here. So there's absolutely no question that what the President released in 2008 was his birth certificate and answered that question, and many of your organizations have done excellent reporting which proved that to be the case. But it continued; the President thought it was a sideshow and chose to take this step today for the reasons Bob laid out.
Q Aside from the policy distractions that was presented, did you have some concern because it was sort of reaching back into the mainstream news coverage that this could become a factor in the 2012 election with centrist voters?
MR. PFEIFFER: No.

Q Just to clarify what this document is
--
MR. PFEIFFER: This is the --the letter first and the two certified copies -- this is one of those. This is the same thing you have a copy of as the first page of your packet.
Q
How did it get here?
MR. PFEIFFER: As Bob said, it arrived by plane -- the President's personal counsel went to Hawaii and brought it back and we got it last night.
Q
Last night?
MR. PFEIFFER: Last night.

Q
What time?
MR. PFEIFFER: Between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Press GaggIe by Press SecretaryJay Carmy, 4/27/2011 l The White House
When did you decide to do this gaggle?
MR. PFEIFFER: What's that? Q When was this gaggle put on -- when was this planned? MR. PFEIFFER: Whatever time you receivedyour guidance suggesting that it would be "this time tomorrow mrning."
Q Are these letters supposed to demonstrate the legalsteps that were involved in releasing it to the White House counsel?
MR. BAUER: The tetters that you have, the personal request from the President, along with the accompanying letter from private counsel, is merely meant to document the legal path to getting the waiver of that policy so we could get the long-form certificate.
Q The waiver of Hawaii state government policy?
MR. BAUER: Right. The non-release of the long-form certificate, which has been in effect since the 1980s --a natural question would have been, well, what did you do to obtain the waiver, and those letters represent the request.
Q Well, isn't it true that anybody who was born in Hawaii can write this letter? Imean, that's all there is to the waiver process?
MR. BAUER: No. Let me just explain once again because I also noticed, by the way, in one report already the wrong certificate was actually posted on the website. The certificatewith the signatures at the bottom-- and that's a key difference between the short form and the long form --the long form has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, and the mother, is the original birth certificate, which sits in a bound volume in the State Departmentof Health. The short from is a computerized abstract, and that's the legal birth certificate we requested in 2008 and that Hawaiians are entitled to. Since the mid-1980s, the State Department of Health, for administrative reasons, only provides to people who request their birth certificate the short form. They do not provide the long form. So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiver. We had to actually determine that there was
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney,4/27/20111 The White H o s e
http:/lwww.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-ga~e-press-s~~et~y-jay-carne..,
a legal basis for providing it, and then ask them to exercise their authority to provide us with the long form. The steps requiredto accomplish that were a letter from the person with the direct and vital interest the President -- so you have a letter from the President, and then there was an accompanying letter from counsel basically formalizing the request. So the reason we included that is that those were legal steps we took to obtain the long form by way of this waiver.
--
Do we have the letter from the President --
MR. BAUER: It's in the packet.

Q
And you went to Hawaii?
MR. BAUER: 1 did not go to Hawaii. The counsel, Judy Corley, who signed the --the President's personal counsel at Perkins Coie, Judy Corley, whose letter --signed letter of request is in your packet, traveled to Honolulu and picked up the birth cerkificate.
Q A question on the situation regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. Yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder rejected attacks on Paul Clement, who is taking up defense of the statute on behalf of the U.S. House. Paul Clement has taken a lot of heat from the LGBT community for volunteeringto take up defense of DOMA. Eric Holder said, "Paul Clement is a great lawyer and has done a lot of really great things for this nation. In taking on the representation -- representingCongress in connection with DOMA, Ithink he is doing that which lawyers do when we're at our best. That criticism Ithink was very misplaced." And Holder went on to compare the criticism of Clement to attacks on the Justice Department lawyers for their past for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Does the President share Eric Holder's views on this?
MR. CARNEY: We do share Eric Holder's views on this. We think -- as we said from the beginning when we talked about when Idid from this podium about the decision no longer from the administration to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, that we would support efforts by Congress if they so chose to defend it. And so 1 have nothing to add to the Attorney General's comments.
--
--
Q Following Monday's Af-Pak Situation Room meeting, what is the President'sassessment of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan? And does he think that July drawdown is still on? MR. CARNEY: The President's policy, which included the beginning of a transition -- beginning of a drawdown of American troops, is absolutely still on track. Idon't have anything additionally from the meeting yesterday beyond what we've said. But the policy remains as it was.
Exhibit 6
FactCheckorg : Born in the U.S.A.
Home Mtcles Born in the U.S.k
Born in the U.S.A.

The truth about Obama's birth certificate.
Posted on August 21,2008, Updated on November I. 2008. &il27.2011
SHHPE
:'
Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a N interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake." We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said. Update, Nov. I : The director of Hawaii's Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.
Analysis
Update Nov. 1: The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally vefified that the health department holds ObamaG original birth certificate. Fukino also was quoted by several other news organizations. The Honolulu Advertiser quoted Fukino as saying the agency had been bombarded by requests, and that the registrar of statistics had even been called in at home in the middle of the night.
Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 1 2008: "This has gotten ridiculous," state health director Dr. Chiyolne Fukino said yesterday. "There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, eneqy." . . .Will this be enough to quiet the doubrers? "I hope so," Fukino said. 'We need to get some work done."
Fukino said she has 'personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's
original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." Update, April 27, 201 1: The White House released fhe long-form version of President Barack ObamaG birth certificate, confirming (yet again) that he was born in the United States. The Hawaii Department of Health made an exception in ObamaG case and issued copies of the "Certificateof Live Birth." Since we first wrote about Obama's birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace. Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate to his Web page. That charge leaped from the blogosphere to the mainstream media earlier this week when Jerome Corsi, author of a book attacking Obama, repeated the claim in with Steve Doocy on Fox News. an Aug. 15 i n t e ~ e w
Corsi: Well, what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release p r i m documents like his birth certificate.
The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anybody supposed to really piece together his life?
Doocy: What do you m a n they have a "false birth certificate"on their Web site?
Corsi: The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it.
APX
769

, ' .
htip:l/www.factcheckorg/2008/08Ibom-in-the-wa~
Doocy: Well, couldn't it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate?
Corsi: No, it's a -there's been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it's been shown to have watermarks from
Photoshop. It's a fake document that's on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce.
Corsi isn't the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are:
= The birth certificate doesn't have a raised seal.

It isn't signed. No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.
= In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters.
* The certificate number is blacked out.

* The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn't released until 2008.
The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth." Recently Factcheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it's stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.
The Obama birth certificate, held by FacfCheck writer Joe Miller
Alvin T. OnakaB signature stamp
APX
770
FactCheckorg :Born in the U.S.A.
The raised seal
Blowup of text You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven't been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes. The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent@),date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above. The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response. The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process. We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obarna's citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: " w e ] couldn't get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we've found out it's pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 - 010641.
APX - 771
Blowup of certificate number Some of the conspiracy theories that have circulated about Obama are quite imaginative. One conservative blogger suggested that the campaign might have obtained a valid Hawaii birth certificate, soaked it in solvent, then reprinted it with Obama's information. Of course, this anonymous blogger didn't have access to the actual document and presents this as just one possible "scenario" without any evidence that such a thing actually happened or is even feasible. We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect. Instead, some speculate that somehow, maybe, he was born in another country and doesn't meet the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen." We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world's biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything's possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what's reasonable has to take over." In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:
9I-?3* Kulaau St.. En* Oeach, Eaa,
Rf. and Mrs. Bnrack H. ObJm4. 4c m5 kalanl~naofsWlhy,, am. Auy d. S I Mr. and hlrl. Ficrrnan Alng, , I S r\nl Anthu St.. son. AVO. 4. t.<r, cod h ~ . t . Andrew 4. .
Obama's birth announcement
(I
, 7
The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu. Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcementjust in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a highquality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A. Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They
couldn?tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is
Obama's fatherb race listed as "African"?Kurt E u e at the DOH told us that father's race and mother's race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it
h~://www.fac~heckorg~2008/08/born-in-~-usd
reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thoughf of and reported himself as "African." It's certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be. When we asked about the security borders, which look different from some other examples of Hawaii certifications of live birth, Kurt said "The borders are generated each time a certified copy is printed. A citation located on the bottom left hand corner of the certificate indicates which date the form was revised. " He also confirmed that the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes. "
- by Jess Henig, with Joe Milter

Sources
United States Departmentof State. "Application for a U.S. Passport." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.
State of Hawaii Department of Health. "Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008. Hollyfield, Amy. "Obama's Birth Certificate: Final Chapter." Politifact.com. 27 Jun. 2008.
The Associated Press. "State declares Obarna birth certificate genuine" 31 Oct 2008.
Nakaso, Dan. "Obama's certificate of birth OK, state says; Health director issues voucher in response to 'ridiculous' barrage" Honolulu Advertiser 1 Nov 2008.
POSTED BY
A ' 244 PM FILED UNDER MICLES TAGGW WrrH BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE
The Right Side of Life )) Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn't Do Forensics; NH So... Page 2 of 58
Qualifications Who's checking up on officeholder eligibility? Find out here Home )> Activism, Eliaibilitv, New Hampshire, POTUS
Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn't Do Forensics; NH SoS and Certificates; British Policeman on Eligibility
TheObamaFile reports on what readers here have seen me promulgate all along regarding the FactCheck.org blog's credentials on making any sort of forensic document determination RE: Mr. Obama's Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth -they don't have the right background (update: see bios b): FactCheck.org identifies their anal-ists as Jess Henig and Joe Miller. OK, that's fine, but who and what are Jess Henig and Joe Miller? Are they qualified to perform an analysis of ANY document, or are they just a couple of guys hanging around FactCheck.orgYs office, or are they political operators? What are their bona fides? FactCheck.org doesn't say. Wonder why?
Well, I found out. The two FactCheck.org employees who were granted access to Obama's bogus Certification of Live Birth (COLB) are NOT document examiners or experts. Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy -so he's a political operative while Jess Henig has an M.A. in English Literature -I'm not sure her dye-job is a political or esthetic statement. They are a couple of partisan Obots -just what you'd expect -Jess took the photos presented on their webpage and did all of the writing, while Bob basically held the COLB open for Jess to photograph -suitable work for a Ph. D.
APX
774
-
--------
The Right Side of Life D Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn't Do Forensics; NH So... Page 3 of 58
Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination of any document, and FactCheck.org knows it - and so do Henig and Miller. Factcheck does say their, "representatives got a chance to spend some time with the 'birth certificate,' and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago." In my mind, that clearly shows they were working with and for the Obama Campaign and that Obama and his people are involved in this lie. Again, as I've said before, these individuals may be very well credentialed in their chosen fields, but it hardly seems fitting that individuals who are not trained in the science of document forensics like four otherwise credentialed examiners have bee^ -could possibly have a trained opinion of the document's legitimacy. Further, as certain opposition commenters have pointed out many times over, the page that allegedly speaks to the authenticity of the document can lead the casual observer to believe that quotes from the HI Department of Health are directIy related to the certification allegedly on hand with FactCheck.org. This is very much of a conclusory lead, as the HI DOHhas never made any direct connection between what they have on file versus what FactCheck.org claims to have on hand. There is no receipt of any such transaction ever having occurred back in 2007 and nobody but the above two individuals have come forward to actually physically handle the document (regardless of FactCheck.org7ssupposed willingness to allow such an inspection). Remember -this is the only direct evidence that has ever been claimed to be originally sourced to ' background. And even this is hardly a direct source; it is a speak on anything regarding Mr. Obama s "short-form" version of a "long-formy' birth certificate that could very well indicate a birth registration of an immigrant (see Sun Yat-sen for such an example). Following up on a story concerning New Hampshire State Rep. Lawrence Rappaport inquiring with the Secretary of State regarding Mr. Obama's legitimate candidacy on the ballot in the State, The Post & Email reports on some additional details:
In an email to supporters, Rappaport reports what transpired:
"Well, here's the sad news. Representative Vita, her husband and I met with New Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney and his assistant yesterday (Friday) at 10 am. We wanted an investigation for potential fiaud on either Obama or the Democratic Partly based mostly on our contention that since Obama ran for President in New Hampshire when we believe he was not eligible, we believe fraud was committed on the citizens of New Hampshire. We based our suspicions and allegations on:
APX
775
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLLATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 7
llnited Slatrrr Bapartmunt uf State

Wskmploa,
D.C:. IffJtii
In reply refer to: CAiJ"PT/L/LE - Case Control Number. 200804238

Christoptler E, St& 593 Vandcrbitt Avenue, #28 1 Bruoklyrz, NY 1 1 238
Dear Mr. Stmllk:
The fallowing is in response to your request to the Depafiment of State, dated Novcmbier 22.2008. requesting the release of material under %the geuvisians ofthe Freedom of Information Act ( 5 U.S.C. $ $52).
We have completed a search for records req-~nsivt: to your request.
The search resulted in the rerrieval of six documents that are responsive to your request. A k r careful review of these documents, we have detemined that aiI six documents may be released in full.
We did not locate a 1965 passport appfication referenced in an application for amendment of passport that is included in the released documents. Many passport applications and other nan-viral records from that period were destroyed during the 1980s in accclrdance with guidance: fim the General Services Administration.
Passport records typicalfy consist of applications for United States passports and supporting svidence of United States citizenship. Passpart ~ecords do not include evidence of travel such as entrance/exit stamps, visas, midence pemirs, etc., since this infomation is entered into the passport b o k aster issuance.
This completes the processing ofyour request.
Jonathan M, kolbin, Director Office of Legal Affairs and Law Enforcement Liaison Bureau of ConsuJas A-ffairs Passport Senricef
E~closures: As stated
APX
_
778
_---__/
APX
779
DOGUMENThA? EVIDENCE Sv~hilTTSb T O OEPIRTHCNT

aDCUMENTARY
8 Y t M J S U L & RDFFICER
EVIDENCE SEEN
AND
RETURNED
TO A P F L l C A H T B Y C W S U ~ A R U F F I C S R
- - -"-
THE
a a a
P&SI.POR+ C A R D O F 10EtITITT
WhS
URENEWEaTU
AMENOED 2 5 REQUESTEIj
GGR?tFIC&TE
fg L X T S N O I L I
TO
STAPLE OXE PHOTO HERE BO NOT MAR FACE
s,
5;
jI
fht- pdSrpOrl pharos rcquircd must he zppsaximertly 2% B y 2% inches in she. be an t b n woslated pspcr, s b r f u l l front PICY ef XPPLIC~UI W I ~ s I plain, liphr hackpround: .md hare tvea token sithrn 2 >ears
"
cludrd Lhry should 60 sbownm n.froup phocogrrph, The consul rtll oat accept ehsms char are ROC 3 cmd 31kcaess. Cotor phuinfi~phs &re rcccprablr. ni, ncrt sfwle s~eondphfo. Afrncb lwrrl, b W e r cKp.
b "---.
C-
--
REQUEST
-3 T ,*--r-~ ~a : .d ~ 332: ~ ~J-,J

-%--
I L , i , l ? .
Es~egr~c gr.sn;rJ n uaasr ? , CFR 5 5 ?In)
APX
---
782
-A
II
el--
D E P A R T M E N 1 OF STATE APPLICAflQM FOP AMENDMENT OF PdS$POR?
:W$iRbCStUClS. All caqutrts f e r inslurmn a f p w r s n s m w r bo r*n*r ro ( e r #iF.-mdj 5iara an L g m t PI rhc ii+gortmant uf S?o?c GI C!etk of Ccurt. Phate9tophs, whseh -st the re~urrccrienis&ria*, end zudance a4 c>tzrensh~p mvsf bc submsrrcd (01 .)I narxrnr ts b r r m had, nt Sasn rnclvdaj In. o pre'110~15 lrrziudcd by !hi% amendmanr. 1 6 such tarsons m pas~gwt, t ? rbuuie b s subtncrted rnar*cl o i athri dacur-tt. and k c r s o n G t?mpler+d.
Z f APL E ONE F'KOT5 HEEE M HOTklAR FACE
I $
4
u ,j Z
Phcro* muat b r ONLY sfperam* ts bo i n rSwd& byihrs.omcndmr?nt. ?ha two ohetez r m u l l he d~upl~cufmw,a p p r o x i m ~ ~ u i& y by 211 inches 1" s s t r , be on hi^, unp?@tud gaper w i t h B rrzo~n, t q h t baekgraund enif e v e bean taken wthin 2 yours el doir aubmttted, Photos shmofd ba irons v;ahi, Y bu? net iull-lerrgt'n, and mny nut k roo@- ! shot. PrJnrirEd, t r r - r a s o r *rim base prints. ' When mcrr-thon 1 p+rssn t e r~ kw mciudtd, e gravp phet* i s reqvtrad, &ID( pkatos ere scrreot&le.
1 3 8 MOT STAPLE SECOND PROTO ATTACH B Y PAPER CtfP
ta
I
0 " NATU4rtll;AIIOH
NO.
5 i D W Y $f TNE k S Z G M P 4 W Y * N j ZFP-'=lC.AiB
0 BE COtAPLCTED 3 ' 4N APPLICAFIT W H e i E WIFE YAS PREY$OCISL Y MaR4IEO a E F d P S MADLTU 3. 1931, *HU w140 1s 70 a 8 PASSPORT i l l nrorrccd nura r%er fL#iEeI l e v Iw:h i 3 z r s tn n zv~iliemc-tal s*aismer17>
W&I~EH N A M E WAS
rwcLvaEa
D Z T E 37
PRE4lJilh M A R S I A G f
5SMB;t HU=B*HD'D
P r A C P - - CF B I R T H
@ v & T E B
BV
ri4f
-3a
L~ a rest%
'8%
E'IENT ilr DEATH
OR a C c ~ f r f ~~F zTtl*
RCL*-
f * h U T ( M FULL.
E%Slr%~l
I-=EZT
I ~ C R L ~ SC , T - r ira-c
i nave oar irnd nr orncr ptrsoc .*cllded or m be mciudcd :n r5e pssapcvr has!, XRZC acqnz:iop. Lnmd Stares cirizen%5:p, beeti rmr.~ruirerda& a cxizen oi a iorrtp sra;+; caktn an oath of made dlr:matiot: VP o&er formvi ~ c i - ! ~ a r ~a ni a PIeg~nnrc iw a inr~:gn stare; eascrea ar scrtetdi t t me nmed forces a i a fareign srare; acccprad or perfamred she Acres oi s n y eftire, posc, ar empiay;;irnt under rbe garzsnpr,eirt *i 1 ?a:e$gn s r t s r s r r or polxdcal aubdirismn rltrrwi, .anted zn 3 poitiicd rltcrjon in a farc~p%.;race dr pwtrct~areii in riecrten or pfebrscirc ro derrmrne ?be soverel~n~y over i ~ r e i g niemtsni; made a terms1 sennte~arlonof narrooaficy sirher in rkc L'nreed stsics ar bebre a &~:omaric or eoawtar afftcrr af i h r Unxrrd Starex in a ferc~gnstate; ever sought or clntm. ad rhc trcneiitr sf the nar?oltaliv 6i m y hni@state: cr been conv~credby a caurt or c o u a menial a l ztr;opseae jtlrisjirtion aF mix~ing wg act nf irrzsnri xgainsr. crr arcnnpung bv !=fee u , overrhrow, or hculag lrms against, the !.!nice6 Stmes. O : fnnsp&~a# t~ s ~ ~ r r h r upsi w ~ down nr to destrov by tercr, the Gnucm~~.rai at $he Unr~cd Srries.
( I [ s,.r,. o i $he ae:tz-rntrnru?*d
+i&dcdo t
zu ?zz ra:!ulrd
;?
1
u n d e r oi;irt t . i * alrrrmo:aor.
s f l ~ nr rundtciear Itact: brrin p c r f J l m r d b ; U P +"it> ro the cppircaac, 6-r re d-3)- e r k ~ p$faitd r i ~ 16e passpzrr, iha PC*LI'IR % h l t h upp!zzs s h a ~ l i l 71 I : I L C ~ a u l , a l d 3 s ~ r i ~ f ? ~ e ~ C ~~s!a"lito.n;~rt slrzemrlilt J) rhr p r i e n r , :-; u k o r f r$e nurrtue :g u p p i a r s l l e riiocrd be ~ r r o c l s e d end m a d e c. par: a f t k i r pppircvainn J
i ralem~lyswear irifrmj rhar thr sraretnrnts h c i e b made nre ?me and that !hawc nor prcrir*.;sly askcti to have rbcso A&rioniii persans included m my passport, t'nst tijrv are noc oniv rn posseasion ~f i,ztid pass;ror:s, and 3iw they hare nae ma& ;yspi;coriorr hi: passports and becct refused.
APX - 784
-
I
M
" ~ '
COMPLETE DULY IF O T H E R S E T O BE IHCLUCED IN PASSPORT OF REGGTRATI(H1 a 0 SCVIT CROUP PHOTOCXAPA , . c SC~., 1 ~ ^ T . . l i i . a i ~ i l 'j :~ Ei'':.:.r-i ' 4 9 . 5. m : ~ ~ ~ - . T ' i'-: - :?:A_ NAU:
-"
WARNING: Fatsf sratPnents me xnc~ingtj mi alltuily in p ~ s p o i ag3lrcatrtns t ar i n afhiIa%tsor acket sbjzprttng wcmeat~ s~mt,lita ~tie(.?wi~e 8rc aunl'iflaLars9 tine am r o t i m m m e n t urrrler Ilte prodsi~mcf I$ r?fC Iffi?! m i h r !3 IfTc :jbZ Al$;atan D %ictltatmof a paspor: tspiied pu%vE;if to &is ~ F ~ ~ I C Ztz ~ pbnrzb I~O aMs by liim a${;w t m p t t ~ ~ m e rimier n t Me provista= oi 18 USC i543. The use GI a ffewn is ~idlatfan d the reslrrchons conia~ned Lwerfl or of 'he 3aapari fei:t!!&
'
SB~S. EwKnanlai h cafnpe!enl $SlSizBon01 ccnbnr::ind any ail beason b gat&, or a#ewhpg by toice to werttimvr, or oearcng arms agars$:, the e~nlta: to ~MMDW. put dows or to desaov 3y fme. tiie Gm?nrneflt d L?ifntted 5ia125.
"
post'oC~T(QN POST ACTION: PASSP?FT,YYED

Na.
">.a
?%<'t^;hsC&aI.~~2%.5
REGihTRATIOPJ APPSOVEU
D~
'C21 d-ii3iZL
O Submitzed nerewfth
Mbsncrtlad & R e N m e a
RECtUIREUENm F ONSTO BE INCLUDED)

Pkatos must be OMLY of p-rrr h l ba inetudcd t&mf *an ~ 3 s o p o r t
&mr),When mmtr b a n a m prraon
*wit of ma rmtmjow b tcquiisd,

OOWULATE W r L L STAPLE FWVCI OF tWCLLUSIO?@
ib TO bB inCtUW, r *reup pMtP
Seen sna rmrnar:
I
I
. .
T 0 BE COMPLETED 8Y ALL APPLICANTS
Two years
contract w i t h Ford Foundation f r o m January 1981
- December 1982.
Ths fnfomatton rtrnaOa available a5 aroutinv sse on 6 @to-know oasis to p a w n n d e l fhs O B P B - ~ T O ~ Stlt. aMI Whw pp~wnmunt aganci~ harlna praaton/ or e,th.ar lm&~1 archortry ro maio@rn such ioiotmstron 'n zhq pwfarrnarlre oi lhralr offitlal dud*; purmmt to u mrbpcmuor .our% ordrr: ar mrfcrtn m Psn cjs,-T~tl+2Z. C o d s ~Fsdoral f Replrlations (See FeUerat R a i s e r Vohzmc 40, page JS765.45758,47d1 bed d74ZQf.
f3
C ~ I t i f s c ~s fd e Na~vrat-
iratron cw cirtronrntp
$ s u e Date
ISSO4
!Jato'
PSme af
Other (Scrcrfri
SS%~Q.
Orruer'L Lleefis4
P&W af k s w ~
Imed zn %sm It:
isruea m Name ai
* U S tio*ornnen* hlnllns OW&
1S77-1&3-U7/123j
APX
790
Exhibit 8
ARDC
Lawyer Search: Attorney's Registration and Public Di... Page 1 of 2
Iawi~er Regiscmtbn
~ ~ ~ I s T ~ PUBLIC ~ T I o ~ ~ D DISCIPLINAARY RECORD

ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of March 4,2010 at 1: I521 PM:
Full Licensed Name: Full Former name@): Date of Admission as by Illinois Supreme Court:
Barack Hussein Obama None
December 17, 1991 Not available online online Not ava~lable
(Current as of date of registration; consult attorney for further
attorney is retired.
Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings:
None
Check carefully to be sure that you have selected the correct lawyer. At times, lawyers have similar names. The disciplinary results displayed above include information relating to any and all public discipline, court-ordered disability inactive status, reinstatement and restoration dispositions, and pending public proceedings. Investigations are confidential and information relating to the existence or status of any investigation is not available. For additional information regarding data on this website, please contact ARDC at (312) 565-2600 or, from within Illinois, at (800) 826-8625. ARDC makes every effort to maintain the currency and accuracy of Lawyer Search. If vou find any tvpoara~hical errors in the Lawver Search information. please email re~istra6on@iardc,org. For changes to contact information, including address, telephone or employer information, we require that the attorney submit a change of address form. Please consult our Address Chanae Reauests page for details. Name changes require the filing of a motion with the Supreme Court. Please consult our Name Chanqe Reauests
Exhibit 9
UPdPi'ED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Wdshnpton. DC 20115
Ms. Pnmela Bamett
Dear Ms. Bamett:

This i s in response to y&.n& of January i3,ZGlq concerning .vowrequest for idormation on eiected officials. You asked if background investigations were conducted on elected Fderal officials, including the President, Vidresidenf Senators, and Representatives,before or soon after they are sworn into office. Background investigations an:not conducted on elected Federal officials before or afterthey are s w o r n into office. The United Sates Constitution covers the election and sweating in process for Federal Government officials.
If you have any questions or need furher assistance:please contact me at (724) 794-5612.
Sincerely,
Colleen Crowley Executive Program &er Poky, Research, and Agency Support Federal Investigative Services
The following documents had prompted my request for the previous document. It is from the Office of Personnel Management (Federal Employees) webpage which discusses who must pass a background investigation. Ironically OPM requires
APX
--
794
-
McCain also failed to answer some of his constituents in writing regarding the eligibility issue.
DIANNE FEINSTEIN
C4
i3Hh.1
uBnited$5tates #matt DC
WASHINGTON.
hw
20510-0501
krstrn lrin'e
February 2.2005
Thanh you for wnttng regardrng Pressdent Barach Obaina's qualtficatlons to be Presrdent I apprec~ale hearrng from tou and 1 apologize for the delav in ntv response Aritcie 11. Sectson I of the U S Const~tutton specsfies the qudi~ficat~ons for thls executile ofice It states that 1x0person except for a natural born Amerrcan crtizen IS elig~ble to run fbr Pres~dentorthe Unrred States 4lso the cand~date rnust be at least thlrt>-five vears ot age and haw resided i n the C'nrred Stares fur at least fourteen vears President Obama meets these constitutional requirements He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4. 1961. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in the LFnited States are considered citizens of the United States, Under these criteria, President Obama, a 47-year old U.S. citizen, who has resided in the United States for longer than fourteen vears, is eligible to be President Once asain, thank you for wrrting If vou habe any furtfier cluesttons or comments, please do not besrtate to contact m\ Washington, 13 C staRat (202) 224-3811 Sincerely.
Dianne Feinstein United States Senator and the Nat~on or to For rnforniation about mv posltton on issues of concern to Cahforn~a subscribe to electron~c e-mat1 updates, please visit atg-1 t t j ~ l ~,enate t ~ l 3 , 311blrc: ~
United $tatee @ma~e

WASHINGTON. DC 20510
Dear-
'
Thank you for contacting me regarding Senator B w c k Obama.

Senator Obama has provided mveral news organi7ations with a copy ofhis birth c d c a t e , showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and dl individuals born in Hawaii &er its admission are considered nalural-burn United States citizens. The same is true for individuals, such as Senator McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zox.
Senate rules prohibit me &om commenting on the political implicationsof your letter.
Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Sherrod Brawn
Uuited States Senator
JIM BUNNING
KENTUCKY
c0MIIIIT-S~ ~ N M ~ C E
EN~GY AND NAIU~AL
RESOVRCIS
BNIKING.
HOUSING. A h 0
@nit& atate%&enate
WASHINGTON. DC 20510
URB~ ,&RuRs N
Eucm?
Thank you for contactmg me regarding a-oerson's ebgbility to rnfor the President of the Ui~itlited States. Jt is good to hear h n you. ~
The ability to receive United States citizenship is one of t.hc core pillars in our great den~ocracy.It is outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Scct~on 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (MA) (8 U.S.C. Section 1401 (a)), that zperson who is born in the Unitcd Statcs. subiect to its iurisdiction. is a citizen o f the United States regardless of the race, ethnicity, or alicnag of the parents. Additionally, according to the U.S. Constitution, only a ~latural born citizen or a citizen of the L:nited States of, at miaimurn, thirtyfive years of age and fourteen years of TJnited States residency. i s &@bible to run for the Presijcni of the 'Clmted States.
I n regard to Senator Obama, thae i s a federal lawsnlt pendulg in Pennsylvitnia addressing this m a w . However, as a United States Senator, I cannot intervene in the legal process and
must defer to the courts to make the appropriate decision about this case.
Thanks again for contactingme. 1hope rhis information was helpful. Please feel free to
cuntact me in the future.

Best pttrjonal r-qards,
United States Saiator

JB:cw
B 1MwSmti+
% , e n2
PJr.*,",
11mS a m ~ ~ n w s n r m
S ~ T:Z E
HDRYImxr I F . X-'
KY 412m
.ZZm
(603: 4?5-?Eb?
@ink88FiZ12
ED WHITFIELD
151
COMMITiEE ON
rnslaeT
<F..T I E W
ENERGY AND COMMERCE
.
dNTVdla\lOFRcE 2411 RAYS nlN I M F 06. h r . X=M\,-BI I h W70515--170-
20202,:2++ne FAX 1m2ll4->an

+WEPAGE
. , , a
how s e w n , l r n d
Congxis of l$e @klnitebstates'

%owe of %epres'etrtntibeti
Wlmbington, '83C20515-1701
December 4,2008
ENERGY rUY) Alil DUCIUN OUERS GHTAND INYESi6ATlOUS
Thank you for cnnfacting me regarding President-elect Obama. 1 have heard some of the same reports that you mention about Mr. O b ~ Of a come, the voters have spoken pretty clearly, and so now we will move on. I do expect that rhe news media and the proper authorities will look into any reports which have caused people concern, and that auy evidence of legitimate concern will be appropriately addressed. 1 1 \ 4 1 continue to monitor these issues closely, as well. Representing the First Conpssional District in the U.S. H o w of Reyrescntativesi s buly an honor. 1recognize tkat my voice is only here in Washington to represent my constituents. For this reason, your thoughts and opinions are of critical importance. I sincerely appreciateyour comments and look fmvard to bearing tiom you in the future. Sincerely,
Ed %%itfield Member of Congrcss

P.S If you u.ocrld like to receive my mnpthly e-newsletter, plea* sign up on my website at nwurwhittield house gov
EW: cf
APX
798
RICHARD BURR
% o R r r GAROL!N~ t
~.
January 23,2009
Thank you for contaaing me about President-Elect Barack Obama's cit~zenship.I appreciate $ov?-i~g ofy w concerns -- -- --- - + - - --The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S Constitution states that "dlpersons born or rtaiuralized ir? the United States. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the Un~ted States and of the state wherein they reside Hmvaii became a territory of the United States in 1898 and %as offic~atiy admitted as a State in 1959
"
It is my understanding that President-Elect Obama has released an official copy of his birth certificate. Since he was born in f 961 in Hawaii, he i s eligible under the Constitution to run for and hold the office of President ofthe United States. In additioa President-Elect Obama's birth
recards have been catifid and validated by the Hamaii Department of Health as well as by experts from the Cniversity of Pennsylvania. The U.S.Supren~e Court declined to hear the case and agreed uith the tower corns' rulings that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the legal challenges questioning President-Elect Qbama's atitenship.
-- - -.
+ =
SinmeIy,
Again, thank you for contacting me. Should you 1tav;e any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to let me know or visit my website at http:/fburr.senate.gov.
+-
--
- - .
--
--
Richard Burr United States Senator
APX
- 799
-
January 28,2009
T h & . you for contacting me about President Qbama's citizenship. I appreciate your interest in this issue and your views are important to me.
As a Member of Congress, it is essential that I know my constituents' thoughts and concerns xo I[ can best repsent their interests in Congress. I will continue to watch this issue closeiy ping forward t o determine if my Congressional action is necessary.
Once ilgain, tbmk you for expressing your concern on this very important issue. Z enjoyed hearing from you. For more infomation on my views on other issues, please
f d free to visit my webdte at h~~/connolly.house.gov.

Sincerely,
Cmrald E. Cornoily Member ofCongress 11"' ]District, Virginia
APX
800
JIM GERLACH
6w h s .
R~~~SYLWNU
HousrCOHMm~whUnMYrnm L.-mr W UFiAL-?s *M rri r-weur S 0 E*re->
s r ! , 5 * m
.,*hmYC*
cow.,SU
c.MT
308Cn~w Ho'dst 0% BWOINCI WASHUCIO~. DC Z0515 12021225-4315 F A E i2023 2 2 W
uo
QCongre$i% of @e @ntteb Statee'

December 4,2008
Thank you for contacting me regardingyour concern with President-Elect Barack Obama's atkenship; I appreciate the oppofrtunityto respond. Article Two of the Constitution stabas: "No person except a natural born Cizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirhpfive Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Numerous claims have been made that Senator Obama does not meet these qualifitions because he is not a natugral born citizen. In June, the Obama campaign released a copy of his birth certificate confirmingthat he was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21, 1959. Senator Obama therefore became a citizen at birth under the first section of the *14th Amendment which states that "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."
I hope this informationis responsive to your inquiry and please let me know if I can be of any assistance to you or yourfamify in the future. Wkh kind ~qards, I am
Sincerely,
Jim Geriach Member of Congress JG: KM P.S. Please visit me on the internet at _/ltf~Y~.verlach.house.uov.
580 Muu
a b Y a w & t w Eslc*rr STSEI, S Y t n4 T n r i r . PA 19426 (6101439-2780

Fax 15101409-79BB
APX
- 801
'Ibank you & colr(acting wifh pur coacsmsabout the President-electBarack Obama's eligibility to bc prcsjdent. $ap@&~tehaviag the benefit of pour views on- issue.
' 1 &
'
~rticle~~oftfie~&okoutl'~ther~u$ementsa~mustp sorhaveattaincdt6 a be eligible to besomp r d k r ) f the united m s . Dp&cally, it r e q a that the indiviM b s a n a t u r d b o m ~ a t ~ e a s ty 3e 5a r s o f ~ e , a a d h a v c l i v e d i n t h e ~ & ~ S W f ~ ~ a t l ~ the @ow 14 %a&, 1
A s y o u m a y ~ m o w , ~ ~ r e c e n t ~ i d ecamPaiP, n t i a ~ ocmeclairnedtbt~r. 0bamawas by the ~on~ri~tjoa, are thusnot eX@l/le t o be president In not & a born e&en June, his campaignk i d a wpy ofhis birth c e r t i f i c a t ewhich showed @ I $ he had been knn in Hawaii on ~ugucrt da1%1.,Hawii'was dmitkd to the Union on August 2,1959, d g it our born citizen. SO' state anil d $ g any +on twrn in t h e state on or after W date a Additionally, d iawsuhs have,b%enfiled asking courts to review any c&&enges to his citimship, i o no f w colpt,includingthee@mme Court, has &ided that there is any truthto rba fiegatit@ that W d t-&pdify Mr, O h a &om s d g as &sident.
w,
Thenk United
e8.
BWP d r2epe&tes
&w4i"$uzi,-
JUDICIARY
P'G 2115U-1515
POUGY
Thank you for expressing your concern about the legitimacyofPresident Bamck Obama's United States c i t i z e n s h i p . I appreciateyon taking the time to express to me your thoughts on this impotlmt matk.
W 1 1 1 1 e f do not understand why Presidem Obama has r e to produce &dence to clear up this question, my office has d~scovered confirmation that puts the quatian to rest. You uiil fmd attached it copy of Pres~dent Obama's birth anmmcement in t f Honolulu ~ A&&iser, dated August 13,1961. This shows that Piesideat Obama was born in the United States and i s thereforean hmencan citizen unciertke 14* Amendment to the Umted States Coostrtution
Please feel -free contact me in the future if you have additional comments o r concans I enjoy bearing
from you.
Sincerely:
Steve King. Member of Congress
T M k you f ~ your r remnt trequiry regamling Pmskknt Barack Obama's place id;
birth
A m wt o infarmation pmvideCl10 me by his formet &ma& 0 % ~ Pwsidsnt . Qhma was born in Heu@n om ALIgust 4.1 I1St. A spy d his birth cePtificale has k n made wsrlabla to the public, snel ycu can uEe# this dacument by visiting the f d b w g website. m f i z f a ~ t ~ ~ - . e ~ k . ~ r g ; ~ t i ~ the ~ ~ ~;sa.htrnl. - ~ o ~ I% am ~ aware m ~ ~ n that %ere were tawsub brought challenging the authemicify of his bath cerWiwle and
I wpf- you find th~s helpftrt and that you rzilI nat ~ of any asststance rm issues pendrng b e f a CaRg~m
a tO k% t rn k
m ~f I Gat@ b~3
W 1 k you again b r sharkng your views and c o i r ~ f f l s wittr me. t hope yau WI# mntmw to vert my website 5rt MtpJflie~efm~n.mte~gw f o r updakd w a s about my
war% on behalf of Gonnect~crrt and the na50n Please cantad ma !fyou have any atkfitb-relquerjtions or wrnrnmts abalrt oar worir m Camrra;.
Joseph t. Lebwmn
VNllXO STATES SENATOR
Thank you foi contacttng me slxtur the qt~alrfica:r~~ris of BarrtcL Obnma to be rlcctcd President ofttle Lnited Starcs I apprecrate hearing :our views and \\el~ornc thc opporninrr~tc ecsyc*ttd
4s )nu md? he dvare Presrdsnt Ohama uds b o ~ n a: the hapl'olant hlcdicai Center for kliomen S Chrldrcn on i'iuy. 4. 1961 in 1(onolultr, Hawaii 4% th11ttnrc !I&\,\ari had heen a C \ st~+te for &\ojean The rourteen~h'tmcndmcnr of !he C S Cona~tutlon state<. .'411 peiPoi+s hol'n or naturali~edIn the Lnited Slakes and suL.Jec to the jurisd~cttonthereof arc ciirzensni'thc 1 nrfed Staics and of %hi: Stnte uixrctn the? icctdc ' l'm\ident Ob~md k hrith m tfanari divne ioilrcrrcd upon hrm natural bonlcitrrenshrp to the I'nired Sutrs
On Ociohcr 3 I. 2008. thc 1)trer:oi ot tia~,ttt'sU~pdnrneiit ot 1 IcaitI~ sonfirmed that Prrsrdenr Obarna \\as in Tact hc-rn In Wiinohriu T h e i-feallh itirecror percnndII> berrfied that t i d ~ d lri Fiealth Department holds [tie tJrtsldenr \ ongmal b~rih cettlliiatc' The exhtence and accurscl of the brt~h certihcatc dlso Mar xcrified br the noil-parrlstin orpanwatton Fairfheck Grg ~ttiich sent a representailLe to Haaan to anaijze the birth ccenificate rn perwn -%dd~ttrtn&!l?. ntne dabs after P~esideni Uba~nds b ~ n ha , b ~ r t announcein-nl i~ $\aspubl~shed ia rhe tiot?olirl:< .lihrrtrw 1x1Sunda) \ug 13 i9hl
1 dpprecrale )oui taking >our time to contact mc ahoui th;s Important rssue I trust that qou \itit ccmlinue to share )our rhougln~c\irh me on othcr rrtarer5 irf conicrn IF I ma? br irk dn) turthr?~ asqistance to you, please do not hesitate ro call on me.
APX
805
--
And Ithought that Congress was supposed to vet the President elect? Senator Kyl seems to think that a married couple from California with no access to Obama's records is capable of vetting Obama. The site does have a disclaimer that you cannot rely upon their non-legally binding opinions.
APX
806
-12n ,iA*7 8.r.?z,F Of,* S L , L ,'~ iyr, Plivt,r#,r .W25510-'>lLi

%
g ~ J % * > .9 G , X ~ @
1207 315-DZ4 p a c i an=iiv +*,&a c.is
January 23,
2009
MS.
Terri
Stgrrn
P r ~ s x d e n LCEO i
Storm Consulsing Group 4524 P a r k Av@nue

Bessemer, Alabama
35027-4184
TnanK yac far cak~ng~ h e tine to rontacc me abcat President-eiecc B z r a c k Ohamaes citizenship status. Z always appreciate kearing from
my constituents,
Under the United S t a t e s Conseltutlon, Secclon 1 of A l t i c l e L I contains a clause that s t a r e s : "No Fersor- exccFr a na2ural b o r n Cltizen, c r a Citizen o f tte U n i t e 6 States, at the time sE t h e Ado9t;ttlon of his C c i r ~ s t i t u t l o r r , s h a l l be eligible to the Offife af President; nexther shall any Prrsoc be e l i g ~ b ? to ~ that Office who stal; not have actalced cO the Age OF thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a 2asident within t h e [Jni ted S t a t e s . ''
Many have contacted me regardi~gthe numelous c1?lms and lawsuics cxrculating on the inrernet assertrng char OSama i s n o : h nar~ralborc citxzerr and t b r e f s r e ineirgible to become U n i t e d S t a x e s President. Hawever, Presidenz-elect O k a m a h a s presented his b f r t h r e r t i f i c a t e , showing that he was barn in Eawa~i, an5 L Z has been v e r i f : e d a n 5 conf irwed by Hawaiian officials. Addxtionally, t h e Supretie ? n u r t kzrs daclified to act on any a f ehe cases concestrng Dbarna's citizenship. On J a n u a r y 5, 2 0 0 3 , MePkers o f Congress were givezr t k i ~ o p y s o r t i ~ n i t yr;a c s n t e s t t h e issue i n a jaint session of Congress, but no s u c h
sbjart~o~ ieaa ? raise6 i?uri;li; the
mec-ring.
By all accoucts,
President-elect Barack Obama meets those requlremencs. P l e a s e be assured that T wiii cor,tir?ue to monitor the sitxarion s h a u l d further is s u e s arise.
Thank you again for eoxtactiny rile. If 1 m a y be of azy I u r ~ h e r assistance, please do not hesltare c o contact m e .
Richard Shelby
APX
807
Mrs Terri Storm 4524 Park Avenue
Bessetner. &lahama 35072 Dear Mrs Storin Thank you for yaLlr recent ietter regarding President Barack Bbama
A s you are actale, stories irate circulated that call into question Presidetlt Oban7aTs citizenship Additionail?. \ anous laa*aiitshave been filed alleging that Q b a m is nrlt a natural bortl citizen ofthe United States. a t ~ d therefore is constitutio~lally ineligible for the of%ceof presiderzt Wo~ve~er, in June 2008, Presidenr Obarna reJeased a digitally scaltned jrnase of his birth ceniticare, arid Hawati's Director of the State Department offfcalth, Chiyotne Eukimo, has
-t
ltrifled its atithellticity
A s p u ma? knon. on January 8.2009. Congress certified and eaHied Ibe Eleclorai College results that verified President Obamiz's eiectiun as the next president uf the United Stales
The oftice of the presidency shoritd be held in hi s11 regard artd the presidenf treated wit11 nspea, no matter wiho occupies the pnsition. As we move forward, dtnenrntls should expect fanyress and the president to work tosether to find substantive solutions to the pressing issties that MIS nation Bces today
Thanh you agaiiin fur \;\.riting.Please do not hesitate to contact rile or a member of my staff if we may ever be of assistance ti, you
United States Senator
APX
-
808
Case 8.09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 78-1 Filed 10101/09 Page 1 of 2
The fuilsrdut~on ol the I:ntted States requires tliar dl candtdatc- fbr the oliicc of Prea!dcnt naii\i be .it Iras: 7 % \ & t i 5 or $c ?~atiiral 13~1n CliireI!\ ~rli! iebldentb 181 tile I nlteid hfnle, kti ilii pre. :CLI- I / \ enc, Lik LOU j\iinu ~ L Q ~ !ril\c C S ct~ctil~ted that s~il t:tia :jrrestlon Prwdert ulecl ODptna s c~li/crt.;hip To iirie en0 I:iriu:it> l ~ n b Pee51 r filed ailcgins that 0:tnota 7 % 11~21 a arraiuidi boin ~rtrzen of'ti~rLniicd Statcs and rherttore :s constrrur~c~il~ili:, ineiiglbfe i'or fir.; OIECP nt Plestdezit
One o f $!itn!ti>r ttlgt~l~ puhll~ired su~t\ \\as filed il\Ph~lip S t . : % or, .\u;uhf 3 : 2008 an L)!drtc: Cuurl foi 111eraucrn D~srnct al'Psnnn*b anza Thts k~titi t ? %dismissed on ilelnber 11 lOOS atld fiezg iuh\ei::irntl+ 17126 arr dppcdi Tlie decis~on ti? hear the cd\c 15 i c i i i pentfing hi-faie rlre i'ilrted S~;?htes Snprcnar fntrrr 4 rciatd itiit. filed b\ Leo Dorrnfrro.. .c.ia\ tccetrrl\i suhnl~i~ci! to rhe S:ipreme Couii Ori Dccemhe~ S SWS. the coui-i d~rlizicci l o iiear L>o11isfi to'%SUli
rile C
>
tctrnrr. ethics niles prccrude me from ~ C C O I I ~ ~pcrsttnslli :I~ in\ ol\ cd 113 pendirp iitrpdiron i stncerclv hupc ~ h i liiatter i can be tilii\ and prompil) resoi~ed bj tliz coirtts In iile rneaatirr?c pica~e do not Oiesitnicto c.oi7ract n;e In t!lr fisturr shotilrl iu;i ha\= E ijuenion tef:ardbns an isius oxei v.ilii11 I ha\c jti;rs(Iictinn
T*~,I:IL !rxi aydtn for wrrtri!~ yo111 co;nt\?cnr\slid itigsestronq arr n i n a y c ircicnrne
SUPRJ3ME COURT O F THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS U S Part 27 Index N o . : Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse
Plaintiff,
6500-201 1
PLAINTIFF'S
MEMORANDUM NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. IN SUPPORT OF THE PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. NOTICE OF MOTION VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEM1 COLON, i n their OfficiaI and FOR PRESENTMENT individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; OF EVIDENCE PETER G. PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH OF FORGERY AND (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama 11, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC SPOLLATION AS STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; SUPPLEMENT TO STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; THE COMPLAINT JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; BY REQUEST FOR THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE LEAVE OF THE COURT INDEPENDENCE PARTY, STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA, OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCALN-PALJN VICTORY 2008; J o h n a n d J a n e Does; and XYZ Entities. Defendants.
Plaintiff, Christopher-Eark Strunk, in esse self-represented without an attorney, provides this Memorandum with his affidavit with nine (9)exhibits annexed affirmed April 10, 2012 in support of his Notice of Motion for presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint that by previous request for leave of the court having been denied at the October 25, 201 1 hearing the right to file a first Plaintiffs MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement ... Page 1 of 22
APX
- 810
amended complaint by Arthur M . Schack J.S.C. on the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 "Natural Born Citizen" (NBC) eligibility Issue controlling matters in Trial Court and pending claims at the Court of Claims a s time is of the essence with irreparable harm with a hearing scheduled on the Calendar for April 24, 2012.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
U.S. Constitution
Article 1. Section 8 Clause 3................................................................................. 20 Article 2. Section 1 .............................................................................. 2 4 6 13.20
13thAmendment ................................................................................................. 1 3 14th Amendment ..................................................................................... 4 13-18
Federal Cases
Minor v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162 (1875)........................................................... .18.20

U.S. v . Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) ........................................................18-20
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (18 14) ............................................................... -19 Elk v Wil7cins 112 US 94 (1884) ......................................................................... 18-20
Scott v Sanford, 19 Howard 393....................................................................... .14,21
Slaughterhouse Cases 16 Wall 36, 83 US 73...........................................................21 Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303, 100 US 306.................................................21 Respublica v DE LONGCHAMPS 1 US 111 (1784) 1 Dall. 111 ....................................19
Strunk v US DOS and DHS DCD 08-cv-2234............................................................. 5
OTHER SOURCES
The Law o f Nations: or. Principles o f the law o f nature by Emer de Vattel and Joseph Chitty at Section 2 12................................................................... 18-21
Congressional Globe of 1862 of the 37th Congress 2nd ses. p . 1639...........................15 The 39th Congress 1st session Senate 62. On January 5. 1866 and reported 15 out o f Committee on January 11. 1866.................................................................. the debates in 1866 Congressional Globes a t 2883.............................................16-18 The Civil Rights Act of 1866 ....................................................................... .13.14. 18
PlainWs MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement
... Page 2 of 22
APX . 811
. .
. . . . . . p
____-
New York State Citations MeUife Auto & Home v. Basdl Chevrolet, 303 A.D.2d 30. 33-34 (Fourth Dept . 2002); See also Kirkland v New York a t $ Hous. Autk. 236 A.D.2d 170 (First Dept. 1997) Wetzler v . Sisters o f Charity Hosp.. 17 A.D.3d 1088 (Fourth Dept. 2005).................. 10
Denoyelles v. Gallagher. 40 A.D.3d 1027 (Second Dept. 2007); See also Rogala v . Syracuse Hous. Auth.. 272 A.D.2d 888 (Fourth Dept . 2000)...................................1 0 Cohen Bros. Realty v. Rosenberg Elect. Contrs., 265 A.D.2d 242 (First Dept. 1999)....10 Cutroneo v. Dryer, 12 A.D.3d 811 (Third Dept. 2005); Cummings v . Central Tractor
Farn & Country. 281 A.D.2d 792 (Third Dept. 2001)............................................... 11

Y i Min Ren v. Professional SteamXZeaning. 27 1 A.D.2d 602 (Second Dept. 2000); See also Rogala v. Syracuse Hous. Auth., 272 A.D.2d 888 (Fourth Dept. 2000)................11 NYS CPLR CPLR 3025(b)..................................................................................................... .4. 5 ISSUES RAISED: Supplement and Amendment by leave of court 4 ........................................................
An Authority of Competent Jurisdiction Reports that The purported 201 1 Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) is a forgery................................6 An Authority Of Competent Jurisdiction Reports that all The Microfilm from August 1. 1961 through August 10. 1961 is missing from the National Archives ....... 7 That Respondent Obama 2007 CoLB is a forgery along with the 201 1 CoLB forgery....7 That Respondent Obama Spoliates and Conceals Evidence....................................... 8 Elements of Spoliation............................................................................................ 9 Spoliation a s a Cause of Action does not exist alone in New York .............................10 That Defendant Obama made Admissions against Interest...................................... 12 That Defendant Obarna has Unclean Hands.......................................................... 13 As for de facto "Born a Citizen" of the 14th Amendment versus de jure "Natural-Born Citizen" conflation contrary to the U.S. Constitution ...............14 In Conclusion for Leave to Supplement the Complaint .............................................21
Plaintiffs MEMORANDUM in Support o f Motion to Supplement ... Page 3 of 22
APX
A . p . .
. 812
-
Supplement and Amendment by leave of court
Supplement and Amendment by leave of court with CPLR 3025(b) provides that: " A party may amend his pleading, or supplement it by setting forth additional or subsequent transactions or occurrences, a t any time by leave of court or by stipulation of all parties. Leave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just including the granting of costs and continuances." "Supplemental" is defined a s adding something that has come about since the earlier pleading was served. The supplemental transaction that significantly revises the legal theory presented in the complaint filed March 22, 201 1 was provided on March 1, 2012 for the first time anywhere with the preliminary findings of a n authority of competent jurisdiction, the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office COLD CASE POSSE (CCP),while it conducting a criminal investigation that there was a crime of forgery and fraud committed in the 2008 Ballot Access of Barack Obama a t the Arizona Primary and General Election of proposed candidate for Office of President of the United States (POTUS). Previously Plaintiff had used a s if prima facie proof the purported Long Form Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) supposedly stamped April 25, 201 1 which was presented by Defendant Obama a t a Press Conference in Washington D.C. on April 27, 201 1; and as such would show that Defendant Barack Obama was at least born a citizen in Hawaii a s defined by the 14th Amendment; and however supported other evidence previously available that his father at his birth was a British Subject on a foreign alien student visa while married to his U.S. Citizen mother proving he is not a "natural-born Citizen" a s required by US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 and all the pleadings in this aspect of the cause of action also involving fraud were dependent upon such prima facia evidence. The supplemental transaction on March 1. 2012 by the Release of the preliminary findings by the CCP established substantial suspicion that the April 25, 201 1 CoLB is a forgery manufactured in a computer not a t the Hawaii Department of Health and bolstered the questionable Short Form CoLB supposedly stamped June 6,2007 a s also a forgery too. PlainWs MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement ... Page 4 of 22
APX
813
____-_--
The investigation continues in several countries according to the CCP press conference held March 31, 2012 in Sun City Arizona and will be further reported a s evidence is proven and established that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii and is now a suspicion not even in the USA rendering even the 14th Amendment argument of Born a citizen invalid also. In addition to the suspicion of forgeries being presented by Defendant Obama the CCP established further suspicion of spoliation and concealment a s Plaintiff had suspected when in the still active FOIA Case Strunk v US DOS and DHS DCD 08-cv-2234 presently before Judge Richard J. Leon; that the travel records have been maliciously withheld from Plaintiff by Border Control under the auspice of the Department of Homeland Security being concealed to favor the usurpation of the office of POTUS is now established a s so by the CCP. That with the addition of sworn affidavits of both an Hawaii Elections registrar and a U.S. Postal Carrier having met the foreign exchange student Barry Soetoro while delivering mail to the residence of the father and mother of Defendant Obama confidant Bill Ayers the domestic terrorist who brags about how easy it is to obtain false identification including social security numbers for clandestine domestic terrorist purposes, as such all now leads Plaintiff to believe that the mother was overseas a t the time of the birth when ever that occurred a s the exit ingress travel records of customs would establish, but are now concealed by Defendant Obama with direct control over the National Archives and the personnel doing concealment. Plaintiffs understanding is that CPLR 3025(b)amendment is discretionary with the court, can be made any number of times, has no time limit and is freely granted if there is no prejudice to the other side a s there clearly hasn't as Defendant Obama has unclean hands and directly participates in spoliation and concealment of evidence as a continuation of a crime and scheme to defraud Plaintiff along with those similarly situated.
Plaintiff's MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement ... Page 5 of 22
APX
816
AN AUTHORIm OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION REPORTS THAT THE PURPORTED
20 11 CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH (COLB) IS A FORGERY That subsequent to the March 22,201 1 Complaint filing with various motions pending a decision subsequent to the October 25, 201 1 preliminary hearing, on March
1, 2012, the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriffs Press Release shown a s Exhibit 1 and
Press Conference established in the Preliminary Report by the Sheriff's COLD CASE
POSSE, as a n authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate fraud and
crimes committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of a n affirmation in 2007, that Respondent Obama affirmed compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article
2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 requirement for eligibility for "Natural-born citizen" shown a s

Exhibit 2 is the subject of perjury, and currently the submission is pending before the Arizona primary now in 2012; and that the attached Preliminary Report of the Sheriffs COLD CASE POSSE shown a s Exhibit 3 supports the suspicion with sufficient evidence that Respondent Barack Obama was not even born in Hawaii between August 1 1961 through August 7, 1961 and acts to spoliate evidence of a crime Quote: "Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, a s a n officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public a t large a s "proof positive" of President Obama's authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate. During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama's life history including: President Obama's Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed by a n examination of the postal date stamp on the document; To quelI the popular idea that Obarna was actually born outside the United States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international
PlainWs MEMORANDUM in Support o f Motion to Supplement ... Page 6 of 22
APX
815
flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, records from the days surrounding Obama's birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 w[h]ere these immigration cards cannot be found. "
AN AUTHORITY OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION REPORTS THAT ALL THE

MICROFILM FROM AUGUST 1, 1961 THROUGH AUGUST 10,1961 IS MISSING FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
That in addition to the evidence of forgery of the Selective Service record before the 2008 election along with the theft and tampering of the US DOS Passport records by US DOS private contractor entity under the control of John Brennan currently Respondent Obama's White House Counter Terrorism advisor having previously been assistant to Central Intelligence Director George Tenent, and a s such underlines the suspicion why the microfilm records from the National Archives are missing now as well, a s both agencies are under the direct authority and control of Respondent Obama, the apparent usurper in the office of POTUS, and by his refusal to make such microfilm and the missing U.S. DOS records referenced in the cover letter shown in Exhibit 7 available provides the Court herein with substantial direct available proof that Respondent Obama is now directly acting in a continuing pattern to spoliate evidence and usurp the office of POTUS.
THAT RESPONDENT OBAlMA 2007 COLB IS A FORGERY ALONG WITH THE 2011 COLB FORGERY
That according to the Preliminary Report of the COLD CASE POSSE shown a s Exhibit 3, the purported Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form shown as Exhibit 4 is a forged document as submitted to the entire nation by Respondent Barack Obama and attorneys at his April 27, 201 1 a t the Washington DC Press Conference according to the transcript shown a s Exhibit 5; and
Plaintiffs MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement ... Page 7 of 22
APX
816
The Forged document shown as Exhibit 4 also now joins the previously 2007 proffered CoLB short form document as if in 2008 that is a forgery as well based upon the admissions of the Respondent Obama and his attorneys there at the White House a t the April 27, 201 1 press conference . In the transcript shown a s Exhibit 5, that a t the April 27, 201 1 press conference the White House attorney repeatedly said that Respondent Obama had requested the short form CoLB in 2008 from the State of Hawaii be released when in fact the forged CoLB shows the 2007 stamp before the alleged request was made to Hawaii. However, examination by Petitioner of the supposed document Hawaii supposedly released in 2008 is stamped June 6,2007 shown a t Exhibit 6 a s the FactCheck.org report on August 21, 2008; and the later a s the November 2 1, 2008 report appended shows the so-called Factcheck.org investigators, depended on by members of Congress and Media, were partisan amateurs according to "Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn't Do Forensics; NH SOS
and Certzjicates; British PoEiGernan on Eligibility", and thereby all the foregoing provides
sufficient suspicion of fraud and or statements made a s admission against interest a s a bar under clean hands doctrine of irrefutable presumption of wrong doing by Respondent Obama and his agents in 2008 and continuing currently.
THAT RESPONDENT OBAMA SPOLIATES AND CONCEALS EVIDENCE

Based upon the foregoing Respondent Obama Spoliates and Concealed Evidence according to the definition in Black's Law Dictionary that defrnes "spoliation" as, "the intentional destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence, usu. a document" (1).Spoliation most commonly becomes a n issue in product liability and negligent installation/servicing claims, where the defective product or the item negligently installed/serviced goes missing after the loss, thereby limiting and/or precluding plaintiff from being able to prove its claim. This loss is usually due to
PlaintiFs MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement ... Page 8 of 22
negligence, but in some instances the loss i s occasioned by intentional and willful conduct.
Elements of Spoliation
Within the jurisdictions which have recognized a separate independent tort, there is variation as to what acts are considered to be independently actionable spoliation and against whom a n action may lay. The variances usually arise out of two categories:
1)spoliation committed by a party which is or should have been in the underlying
suit for which the missing evidence was to be used (first party) versus committed by a third party whose only connection to the underlying suit was the loss of the evidence; and
2) whether the spoliation was intentional or negligent. As the less culpable

"negligent" spoliation claim is usually not recognized a s a stand alone tort, and is usually disposed off via discovery sanctions (first party), this article will focus on the more affirmative and egregious intentional spoliation, which - a s noted above - first gave rise to spoliation as a n affirmative claim. Although each jurisdiction adds its own nuances to elements of a n independent intentional spoliation claim, the following form the foundation for the claim:
1) pending or probable litigation involving the spoliation plaintiff;
2) knowledge on the part of the spoliation defendant that said litigation exists or is
probable;
3) willful [intentional] destruction of evidence by defendant designed to disrupt the
spoliation plaintiffs underlying case;

4) disruption of spoliation plaintiffs underlying case; and
5) damages proximately caused by spoliation defendant's acts.
PIainiifYs MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion t o Supplement ... Page 9 of 22
APX -
818
SPOLIATION AS A CAUSE OF ACTION DOES NOT EXIST ALONE IN NEW YORK

That although the State of New York does not recognize a separate cause of action for spoliation the facts nevertheless support both the admissions against interest, and unclean hands in the matter of a bar against Defendant Obama from using the defenses that were referenced in the respective motion to dismiss a s a matter of defense claimed. That Spoliation has usually been defined a s the "intentional destruction, mutilation, alteration or concealment of evidence, [usually] a document," Meage Auto & Home v. Basd Chevrolet, 303 A.D.2d 30, 33-34 (Fourth Dept. 2002); See also Kirkland v. New York City Hous. Auth., 236 A.D.2d 170 (First Dept. 1997). That CPLR 3 126 sets forth the statutory basis for seeking sanctions against a party who
f Charitzj Hosp., 17 A.D.3d 1088 fails to preserve evidence, see also Wetzler v. Sisters o
(Fourth Dept. 2005). The common law doctrine of spoliation provides that "when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, thereby depriving the non-responsible party from being able to prove its claim or defense, the responsible party may be sanctioned by the striking of its pleading, Denoyelles v. Gdlagher, 40 A.D.3d 1027 (Second Dept. 2007); See also Rogala v. Syracuse Hous. Auth., 272 A.D.2d 888 (Fourth Dept. 2000). The obligation to preserve evidence first arises upon notice that a potential claim may be made, Cohen Bros. Realty v. Rosenberg Elect. Contrs., 265 A.D.2d 242 (First Dept. 1999). This duty arises even if the spoliator was not yet a party, Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Federal Pac. Elec. Co., 14 A.D.3d 213 (First Dept. 2004). The obligation also arises when a party is on notice that litigation has been commenced and evidence of related incidents is destroyed, O'Brien v. Clark Equip. Co., 25 A.D.3d 958 (Third Dept. 2006). The most severe sanction for willful destruction of critical evidence is striking of the pleading, O'Brien v. Clark Equip. Co., 25 A.D.3d
Plaintiffs MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement ... Page 10 o f 22
APX
819
--
958 (Third Dept. 2006); D i Domenico v, C&SAeromatik Supplies, 252 A.D.2d 4 1 (Second Dept. 1998).This is particularly appropriate where what is lost is "the very instrumentality giving rise to the plaintiffs injuries," Cutroneo v. Dryer, 12 A.D.3d 81 1 (Third Dept. 2005); Cummings v. CentreE Tractor F a n & Country, 281 A.D.2d 792 (Third Dept. 2001). Preclusion of evidence concerning that which was lost or destroyed either intentionally or negligently is also an appropriate sanction, Y i Min Ren u. Professional Steam-Cleaning, 271 A.D.2d 602 (Second Dept. 2000); See also Rogala v. Syracuse Hous. Auth., 272 A.D.2d 888 (Fourth Dept. 2000). If the court refuses to either strike the pleading or preclude certain evidence, then one can still request that the court charge the jury with an adverse inference pursuant to New York Pattern Jury Instructions (PJI) [section] 1.77.1. However, as this case may be the OBAMA White House website has removed the multilayer CoLB release as a forgery on or about April 27, 20 11 and has not only "flattened the" pdf image but concealed it. The concept of spoliation applies generally
to the destruction of evidence and, like pejury, goes to the heart of the judicial
process. By statute and procedural rules, states and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCVP)provide various sanctions for failing to comply with discovery obligations to produce evidence which cover most problems and provide remedies ranging from monetary compensation or penalties to entry of judgment. In addition or to complete the coverage, states and the federal courts provide remedies by application of the spoliation concept either as a procedural remedy within the case or as a separate tort.
That Defendant Obama made Admissions against Interest

That Defendant Obama's mother in August 13, 1968 as shown on Exhibit 7 as well as Respondent Obama personally committing perjury as shown on Exhibit 2 and
Plaintiffs MEMORANDUM in S u p p o r t of Motion t o Supplement ... Page 11of 22
Exhibit 8 affirms having never used another name on his law license application, and further that Respondent Obama agents a s shown in the transcript Exhibit 5 in regards to Exhibit 6 are all an admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule which allows a person to testify to a statement of another that reveals something incriminating, embarrassing, or otherwise damaging to the maker of the statement. It is allowed into evidence on the theory that the lack of incentive to make a damaging statement is a n indication of the statement's reliability. In criminal law, it is a statement by the defendant which acknowledges the existence or truth of some fact necessary to be proven to establish the guilt of the defendant or which tends to show guilt of the defendant or is evidence of some material fact, but not amounting to a confession.
That Defendant Obama has Unclean Hands

The clean hands doctrine is a rule of law that someone bringing a lawsuit or motion and asking the court for equitable relief must be innocent of wrongdoing or unfair conduct relating to the subject matter of his/her claim. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant may claim the plaintiff has "unclean hands". However, this defense may not be used to put in issue conduct of the plaintiff unrelated to plaintiffs claim. Therefore, plaintiffs unrelated corrupt actions and general immoral character would be irrelevant. The defendant must show that plaintiff misled the defendant or has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. The wrongful conduct may be of a legal or moral nature, a s long a s it relates to the matter in issue. For example, if a seller sues a customer for payments on a contract, defendant may claim plaintiff has unclean hands because he fraudulently induced him to sign the contract. A court of equity will not decide issues of fairness and justice if it is shown that the person asking for such justice has acted wrongly in regard to the issue
Plaintiffs MEMORANDUM in Support o f Motion to Supplement ... Page 12 of 22
at hand. In another example, when a brokerage f i r m claimed that its confidential client information was being pilfered by the competition, the court held that the firm did not come to court with "clean hands" since the court found that firm demonstrated a similar lack of regard for the competitor's confidential client information when it snared the same broker six years earlier. The doctrine has often been applied in the context of family law issues, specifically in cases of financial misconduct. Fraudulent conduct has been a factor in awarding support and division of property, among other issues. In this case for all of the above reasons of concealment, spoliation, participating in forging of public documents, fraud, admission against interest inter alia bar this Court from granting any relief requested by Respondent Obama and his agents in the May 201 1 Motion to Dismiss presently pending a decision before the court since August 22, 201 1.
A s for de facto "Born a Citizen" of the
14th Amendment versus
de jure
"Natural-BornCitizennconflation contrary to the U.S. Constitution

As the Plaintifps affirmation confirms a s shown with Exhibit 9 in the various letters of the members of Congress they have conflated the term "Born a Citizen", as relates use of the 14th Amendment , with the term of art unatural-born Citizen". That a s such the truth about the 14th amendment has been out there for so long but no one seems to care what the framers said, and the facts are 100% ignored WE do not need the courts to figure out what natural-born Citizen (NBC) means or do we need Congress to do a n investigation because the truth is already available all we need to do is look at the facts. For the record: the
1 3 t h Amendment
to abolish slavery was
adopted on December 6, 1865; The Civil Rights Act of 1866 which granted former slaves citizenship was enacted April 9 1866; and, the 14th amendment which made
Plaintiff's MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement ... Page 13 of 22
the Civil Rights Act constitutional was proposed on June 13, 1866 and after much debate, was adopted on July 9, 1868. So the question then raised were all dealt with, during the same time frame, with the same Congressman involved, in each bill. The 14th amendment represented the overruIing of the Dred Scoff decision ruling that black people former slaves were not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S.citizenship to all persons born in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. Which means the Civil Rights Act of 1866 still stands because the 14th amendment was never repealed. The left/progressives and the Defendant Obama's propagandists have totally perverted the 14th Amendment with their Birthright Citizenship lie. Therefore, to truly understand the 14th Amendment and what the framers original intent was when writing it, you must go back to the framers writings and the congressional debates. Obviously the logical people to research in regard to debates would be Senator Lyman Trumbull who was the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Co-author of the 14th Amendment's "citizenship clause" and co-author of the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery - was a n Illinois Supreme Court Justice 1848-1853. Senator Jacob Howard worked with Lincoln to draft the 13th amendment. Served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted the 14th Amendment
to the United States Constitution, and was co-author of the 14th Amendment's "Citizenship Clause". The Honorable John Bingharn was the principle Framer of the 14th Amendment, Judge advocate in the Lincoln assassination trial and prosecutor on the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. So getting to the facts, and the easiest way is established by the chronological order of the legislative debate presentation starting with Representative John Bingham in 1862 recorded in the Congressional Globe of the 37th Congress 2nd session page 1639 stated: "There is no such word a s white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and the compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; a l l other persons born Within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exceptions to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relation to Indians.. ." The next would be the Civil Rights Act of 1866; the original bill was introduced on January 5, 1866 according to the 39th Congress 1st session Senate 62, that was reported out of Committee on January 11, 1866 "A BILL to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication." and it
read:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory "
A week later there was a n amendment offered by Mr. Trumbull to wit:
l l persons born in the "In section 1, line 3, after the word That,' insert, 'that a United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States with distinction of color; and,' "
On the question to agree to the amendment proposed by Mr. Trumbull, It was determined in the affmative, Yeas 31 Nays 10. The Bill a s a n Act went over to the
P l a i n t i f f ' s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement ... Page 15 of 22
APX
/
824
___---_-
House of Representatives where it passed, along with Howard and Trumbull's amendment. John Bingham, speaks on the amendment to the bill saying
" I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory or what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen;"
The bill was then sent, to President Andrew Johnson and Johnson vetoed it. It was sent back to Congress, where both houses, passed the bill, overriding the President's veto. Next Chronologically on to the 14" Amendment, a s the congressional debates while they were debating the 14th Amendment as with that for the Civil Rights act will reveal how the present use has been 100% perverted. The Bill as proposed for the 14th amendment a t first did not provide for a jurisdictional statement in Article 1 Section 1 quote: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities if citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." During the debates in 1866 Congressional Globes at 2883 Mr. Latham stated quote:
"Mr. Speaker, w e seem to have fallen upon an age of theories. We are told from
day to day with much seeming sincerity and a n air of the most profound political sagacity that the Union when restored must be restored upon the basis which will make it a s permanent a s the everlasting hills and a s invulnerable a s the throne of the Eternal, and with such safeguards that even treason will no longer be possible within its jurisdiction." Then Senator Edgar Cowen gave a speech telling why the citizenship clause was need and certainly was not to be used to make anyone born here a citizen, stated
...
"Mr. Cowen. The honorable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have no doubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legal definition of "citizenship of the United States." What does it mean? What is its length and breath? I would be glad if the honorable Senator in good earnest would favor u s with some such definition. Is the child of the Chinese Immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If Plaintiffs MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement ... Page 16 of 22
so, what rights have they? Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the United States? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same as it is to kill another man. You cannot commit a n assault and battery on him, I apprehend. He has a right to the protections of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word." "It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. He is not entitled, by virtue of that, to be an elector. .." And he goes further to state:
"I have supposed, further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a broad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the country of California, and if another people of a different race, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have free right to locate there and settle among them, and if they have a n opportunity of pouring in such an immigration as in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? I do not know that the contingency will ever happen, but it may be well to consider it while we are on this point.
"As I understand the right of the States under the Constitution a t present,
California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she chooses who is not a citizen of some one of the United States... "I think the Honorable Senator from Michigan would not admit the right that the Indians of his neighborhood would have to come in upon Michigan and settle in the midst of that society and obtain the political power of the State, and wield it, perhaps, to his exclusion. I do not believe anybody would agree to that." Now who among the framers of the 14th Amendment had no clue or inclination on the issue of illegal immigration and inclusion of anchor babies? Howard and Trumbull argued for the inclusion of the term "and subject to the jurisdiction" would

I
APX - 826
-
be applied and agreed that there would not be a new definition of the term jurisdiction to be interpreted and applied in the proposed amendment to be declaratory of the current law, the Civil Rights Act, and that as such Mr. Howard said of the "citizenship clausen quote "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and ..." What exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the 14th Amendment? Mr. Lyman Trumbull in 1866, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and author of the 13th Amendment, in the Congressional Globe 2893 said "The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' Now does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.?' Not owing allegiance of anybody else. That is what it means." In response Senator Jacob Howard responds in concurrence:
"I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word Surisdiction,' a s here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction. That question has long since been adjudicated, so far as the usage of the Government is concerned..."
The SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett states : "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a countni of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or Plaintiffs MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement ... Page 18 of 22
natural-born citizens.As distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include a s citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference and include a s citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their (p168) parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never a s to the first. For the purposes of this case it not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have not to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizen" (Emphasis added) The SCOTUS Case Respublica v DE LONGCHAMPS 1 US 1 11 (1784) 1 Dall. 111 "M'Kean, Chief Justice. This is a case of the first impression in the United States. It must be determined on the principles of the laws of nations, which form a part of the municipal law of Pennsylvania; and , if the offenses charged in the indictment have been committed, there can be no doubt, that those laws have been violated." The Chief Justice goes on to say: "Therefore, we conclude, that the Defendant cannot be imprisoned, until his most Christian Majesty shall declare, that the reparation is satisfactory '3. The answer to the last question is rendered unnecessary by the above answer to the second question.' The foregoing answers having been given, it only remains for the Court to pronounce sentence upon you. This sentence must be governed by a due consideration of the enormity and dangerous tendency of the offences you have committed, of the willfulness, deliberation, and malice, wherewith they were done, of the quality and degree of the offended and offender, the provocation given, and all other circumstances which may anyway aggravate or extenuate the guilt. The first crime in the indictment is a n infraction of the law of Nations. This law, in its full extent, is part of the law of this State, and is to be collected from the practice of different Nations, and the authority of writers. " Further search will verify that the term Law of Nations is mentioned a t least a dozen times on the page and the author Vattel is sighted along with each and no other authorities related to law of nations is cited - only that of Vattel. That in the SCOTUS case The Vertus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Mr. Chief Justice Marshal stated "Vattel who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactofy on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantage. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself
otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. " As is to be found in The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the law of nature by Emer de Vattel Joseph Chitty a t Section 212. reads; "The citizen are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to it authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed as matter of course, that each citizen , on entering into society, reserve to children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent." That the question posed is why do the usurper's propagandists use the decision in regards to Wonq Kim Ark where the law went astray? They are pulled towards corruption in that nearly 100 years earlier then usurper Chester Arthur
(1)
appointed
Justice Gray to chief justice to succeed Oliver Wendell Holms, Jr. and Gray had sabotaged his later ruling in Wong Kim Ark from that held in Minor v Happersett of
1874. That in Elk v Wilkins 112 US 94 (1884)Argued April 28, 1884 and Decided
November 3, 1884 it seems that Justice Horace Gray knew the law in 1884 but by the time Wong Kim Ark came along 15 years later he had forgotten it! Quoting Justice Gray from the SCOTUS Elk v. Wilkins: "The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which 'no person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States a t the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President.' And "The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Constitution, Article I1 Section 1; Article 1, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the
Chester Arthur was born in Fairfield Vermont in 1829, but looking at his father's naturalization papers he didn't become a citizen until August 3 1, 1843 meaning that Chester Arthur was not born to citizen parents therefore was not a natural-born Citizen. It seems that the people challenging Chester Arthur then were right all along.
PlainWs MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement ... Page 20 of 22
APX
-
829
--
question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, a s to the citizenship of free negroes (SC& v Sanford, 19 Howard 393) , and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white of black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases 16 Wall 36, 8 3 US 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303, 100 US 306. In the matter of the immigrant taking the Oath to be a citizen of the United States of America:
"I hereby declare, an oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentiate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United states of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same , that I will bears a n n s on behalf of the United States when required by the law, that I perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United states when required by the law that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion so help me God."
Immigrants becoming citizens must take a n oath of sole allegiance to the USA. Now why would that not be expected also of citizens born here? If you are born to two citizens parents, your allegiance is passed down. If you are not born to two citizen parents, you must take the oath, simple a s that! Vattel's authority as a n institutional writer extended to the USA where he was cited in court cases between 1789 and 1820
no less than 92 times on matters pertaining to the law of nations.
In Conclusion for Leave to Supplement the Comphint

That in light of the compelling evidence provided by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office of forgery and spoliation associated with the Defendant Barack Obarna and his agents, Affirmant includes a s germane in this supplement to the complaint copies of letters U.S. Congressmen released to Affirmant by a journalist for publication herein as demonstrative of statements by congressmen dating from November 11, 2008 through February 2009 that demonstrates Congressional confusion in what constitutes eligibility with use of U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 for
Plaintiffs MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement ... Page 2 1 of 22
APX
830
office of POTUS in their conflation of the term %om a Citizenw as a 14* amendment
with the term of a r t ''n&txal-bom Citizen"; Plaintiff in support of the notice of motion
f forgery and spoliation as a supplement to the complaint for presentment of evidence o
wishes leave of the Court and having pwiously been denied at the October 25,20 11 hearing the right to file a first mended complaint, now as a matter of compelling state interest grant an order: That t h i s affidavit be admitted as a supplement to the complaint f i l e d March 22,
That the copy of t h e purported Certificate of Live B i r t h long form dated April 25,201 1released by Defendant Barack Obama at his April 27,201 1Press Conference included in W b i t by Plaintiff in his response to Defendant Qbama's motion to dismiss be deemed evidence of Defendant's release of a forgery rather than a documentatidn of Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii &d that at this poiat is not only in questi6h but supports suspicion of his birth
overseas a
t x o to ~the Maricopa Counw.Sheriffs Office.
That Defendants answer or otherwise respond to the supplement with corn-
evidence as a matter of compeIIing state interest; and
for different and other relief deemed necessary for justick herein.
n
D a t d April
2012 Brooklyn New York

Christopher-Eark Strunk in esse self-rq&esentedwithout an attorney 593 Vmderbilt Avenue 281
@,
Brooklyn, New York 11238

Phone 845-9014767 Em& chris@strunk.ws
mainWs MEMORANDUM in Support ofMotion to Supplement
... Page 22 of 22
SUPREME COURT OF T I & STATE OF NEW YORK C O v OF KINGS
MexN o , :6500-2011
-against-
NEW YORK STATE BOARD O F ELl$TIONS et al.,
Defendants.
STATE OF NEW YORK )

ss*
COUNTYOFKINGS
~cdordingl~, I,~WB w
b.
* d w
duly sworn, dcpme a d say mdcr penalty of perjury:
a . Am over 18 years of age and not a p a r t y to t h i s action. Mir ~ I a c of e business is located at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue Brookhm NY 11238.. On ~ i r i12,2012. i Christopher Strunk instructed me to serve a true conformed copy o f the P M m S
NOTICE OFMOIION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT W@!H SUPPORmG ARFtDAVZTAND B4EMORANDUM 0 F L A W A F . D A P E 19, &It2 WITH NINE EXHIBIT'S m D AND WlTH THE PROPOSED FIRST SUPPLEMENTTO THE COMPU.INT for the case Smmk v NYSBUE e t d. NYS County of Kiags
c.
Supreme Court with index 6500-2011, by USPS Bwvice upon Defendants' Counsels. On April 12,2012, I caused each copy with proper postage for service by regular m a i l of listed counsels and where each envelop was deposited with the USPS fm service upon:
Erica B y h , Esq. of SIMPSON 'M3ACHER 8s BARTIJZTT W 425 Lexmgton Avenue New York New Yo& 10017-3954
RITA C. TQBIN, of W N Bc DRYSDALE, CHARTERED 375 Park Avenue%* Floor New York. New York 10152-3500
HARRIS BEACH.PLLC fty THOhfAS J . GARKY, E8s. The OMNI 333 Eark Bhrd., Suite 901 uniondalc, New York
JAMES C. S U W Esq. of WaL3CIEFARR 8s GALJAGHER W 787 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y. 10019-6099
MARSHAL BELL,Esq. of McGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345Avenue of Americast 7th Floor New York, New York 10105
WlLEY REIN LLP - TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ., IAN WlTHOLb BARAW ESQ. and THOMAS W .KWBY ESQ. 1 7 7 6 K SheeSNW W&ington D.C. UKW)6
R A B I N o w K & BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, PC- Christopha J. Lsteu Esq. and Daniel S. Rcicb Esq. 45 B w ,Sldte 1700New Y& New YO& 1 0 0 0 6 3 7 9 1
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN~Attom~ Oeneral of NYS ' b y : JOEL ORABER, AAG'Adstant Attorney Qeneral Special Litigation Coun!3e1-Liti@oa Bureau 120B R O A D W A Y 24th Ro%ewYork, N e y York LMllOSS2
MICHAEL -20 Corporation Counsel of City of New York By: CHLARENS ORS-, E s q . Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City L9a7 Department 100 Church S t r e e t New York, New York 10007 '
Sworn t o before me
p a t m s is o in
W Public, State of New Yo& -N NO. OlffU6103403 Puakfi m Kings Cou
MAmlEWS HUGGINS
ws b c .t m
SUP]&E:M.E
mum oa THE S
' I O ~ F'NEW~RK
COUNTY OF g L N W I.A.S. Part 21
-.. Index.NckA .- .6600-2011

x
@OIL
Arthur M.Schack J . S . C )
Chrkto*her- ark
in esse
>
NOTICE OF MOTION
Plaintiff,
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELJ3CTIONS; Et a l . .
Defendants.
Hotice of Motion for7presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as supplement

-7
to the cdmgilaini
."-
- .. ..
:.
?.
.
' -
forgery and spoliakon as.supplement to the complaint

Errhibit 1 Mariwqk County AZ S h e r i f f ' s Oflice Press Release March 1,2012 Ifsrhfbit 2 AZ SOS Certified =davit by Barack Obama for AZ Ballot access 2007 Exhibit 3 Sheriff Arpaio's COLD ~ A S E POSSE Preliminary Report March 1,2012 Exhibit 4 Forged Certificate of Live girth {CoLB) long form dated April 25,2011 m i b i t 5 TRANSCIUPT of Barack Obama April 27,2011 Ress Conference &&bit 6 Forged CoLB -Shortform staxnped Jwle 6,2007with Factche&org analysis
Exhibit7. July 29,2010 certSed U.S. DOS FOIA release of Stanley Ann Dunham w i t 8 Barack Obama pejured application for-en- to the Utinois bar Exhibit 9 statements by congressmen from November 11,2008 thru February 2009
P l a h W s Memolcapdrm
mpport o f Notice of motion for pesentment of evidence

- .
of forg+anh
s&iiation .as &pP1em&nt~ to the .complaint
. .
..
~ ~ i i of T WkviCe t
~ & d : ~~'ri1.10,2012 - Brooklyn New York

, -593VanderbiltAven&:#281 Brooklyn; New York 11238 Phi 845-901-6767
Ed.
NEW YORg STkWE BOARD OF SIBCTIOWS;JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNE'R / Co-Chair, EVELYN J.A Q W / Commissimer, GREGORY P. , PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, D e p u t yD j r e c t ~ STANLEY ZALEN;. ANDFtEW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOU, RUTH NOEM COL6N, in their OEcial and individual c a p e , Fr. JOSEPH A O'HARE, SJ.; Fr, JOSEPH P, PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSON, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BFCZEZNSKI; MARK BRZEZINSM; JOSEPH R BIDEN, JR.; SOEBMWAH (ak.a. B a r r y Soetoro, ak.a. Barack Hussein O h m a 1 1 , a k . a Steve Dunham);NANCY PELOSI;DEMOCRATIC F I R S T STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE COMMITTEE OF 'ME WORKING FAMILIES * ~ ~ PAWrY OF m W YORK STATE; ROGER CALERQ THE-SOCLALIST WORKERS PA#rY, IAN J. B E B Z l N $ m , JOHN s m m MCCAIN m, JOHN A. BOEHNER, THE NEW YORK STATE FtEPWLICAN S A T E C O E ; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMI'MEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PAWI"Y, STATE CBMMmTEE OF THE C O N S E R V A ~ P A W ~OF Y NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRll'ZKER; GEORGE SOROS; 0B;AUA MSR AMERICA; O B M VICTORYm7 MCXXW VICTORY - - - - 2008; M C W - P A L m r VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Dots, , and XYZ Entities.
a
P
h :
2 ~ : r y r c , , . Z
r :;<,;
sl
< ; -+, -;.a n

r.rT-i. -p a?. .
*.
,~g S "
'=r
; S I-
8
,
b c a f t --~
..
That plaintiff Christopher Earl Stnu& ~~, ! 3 t m n k ) submits this Veriiied First Supplement with CPLR 3025(b) to the V d e d Complaint hied M a r c h 22,201 1 with trandMiri subsequent to the &st 22, boll hear& WO& Justice Arthur M. various motimrs peadinlg adecisldn, and air hch addifionallyalleges of Defendant SOEBARKRH 4a.k.a Barry &tom, aka B m c k Hussein Obama II, aka Steve Dunham) and Berraclr Obama's agents zmd associates of the caption dong with thbseJohn and Jane boes and XnEntities y& nained t h a t :
Schaclc
Plaintifpa FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAMT Pa& 1 of 7'
APX - 834
1. Plaintiff remains located for service a t 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -281 Brooklyn, New
York 11238 (845) 901-6767 email: chris@strunk.ws.; is self represented without an attorney and is a duly registered voter in the 2008 and 2012 election cycle 2. that on March 1, 2012, the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriffs Press Release and Press Conference established that there is the Preliminary Report by the Sheriffs
COLD CASE POSSE, a s a n authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate
fraud and crimes committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of a n affirmation in 2008 that Respondent Obama a f f i e d compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 requirement for eligibility for "Naturalborn citizen" and currently before the Arizona primary now in 2012; and
3. That the Preliminary Report of the Sheriffs COLD CASE POSSE supports the
suspicion with sufficient evidence that Defendant Barack Obama was not even born in Hawaii between August 1, 1961 through August 10, 1961 and in fact appears born outside of the USA, and Barack Obama and or his agents spoliate evidence of a crime.
As and for the First Supplemental Cause of Action to the Complaint Sixth Cause of Action
(Scheme to defraud Plaintiff and those similarly situated as against all Defendants) Barack Obama and his agents maliciously conceal and spoliate evidence to further fraud against Plaintiff along with those similarly situated
4.
That Raintiff alleges that Barack Obama and his agents maliciously conceal
and spoliate evidence to further fraud against Plaintiff along with those similarly situated a s and for the First Supplement Cause of Action to the Complaint Sixth Cause of Action repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction paragraphs 1 through 3 with each allegation of the Sixth Cause of Action with the same force and effect a s though herein set forth at length.
5. That the agents of Defendant Barack Obama are the forgers who committed two
PlaintifPs FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 2 o f7
APX
835
crimes. 6. That the agents of Defendant Barack Obama created a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as a n officially produced governmental birth record; and
7. That Barack Obama and his the agents fraudulently present a forged document
to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public a t large including Plaintiff along with those similarly situated here in New York a s "proof positiven of President Obama's authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.
8. That Barack Obama and his agents manufactured the long-form birth
certificate presented to the public on April 27, 201 1 as a computer-generated forgery. 9. That Barack Obama and his agents forged the President Obama's Selective Service card by forging the U.S.'postal date stamp on the purported selective service document; 10.That Barack Obama was actually born outside the United States not in Hawaii. 11.That Barack Obama and his agents spoliate and conceal Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States
in the month of August 1961.

12.That Barack Obama and his agents spoliate and conceal those records of travel referenced from August 1961 housed a t the National Archives in Washington, D.C. 13.That The National Archives in Washington DC and all their employees are directly under the authority of Barack Obama and the executive. 14.That Barack Obama and his agents spoliate and conceal the records from the days surrounding Obama's birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 that are missing. For the only week in 1961 where these immigration cards cannot be found.
PJaintWs FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 3 of 7
APX
836
15. That Barack Obama had met a US Postal Carrier while entering the residence of
the Ayers Family in Chicago and a t which time he admitted he was a foreign exchange student that the William Ayers family was assisting and that he was selected to become a candidate for president.
As and for the Second Supplemental Cause of Action
to the Complaint Sixth Cause of Action (Scheme to defraud Plaintiff and those similarly situated as against all Defendants) Barack Obama and his agents intentionally mislead and misrepresented to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated
16. That Plaintiff alleges that Barack Obarna and his agents maliciously conceal and spoliate evidence to further fraud against Plaintiff along with those similarly situated a s and for the Second Supplement Cause of Action to the Complaint Sixth Cause of Action repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction paragraphs 1 through 15 with each allegation of the Sixth Cause of Action with the same force and effect a s though herein set forth a t length.
17. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents at his April 27, 201 1
Washington DC Press Conference purported the Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form a s if a government document knowing it was a forged document a s submitted to the entire nation. 18.That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents a t the April 27 201 1 Press Conference proffered the CoLB short form document a s well based upon the admissions of the Respondent Obama and his attorneys there a t the White House at the April 27, 201 1 press conference . 19. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents at the April 27 201 1 Press Conference repeatedly said that Barack Obama had requested the supposed short form CoLB in 2008 from the State of Hawaii be released.
PlainWs FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 4 of 7
APX
837
20. That the supposed short form CoLB alleged requested in 2008 from the State of Hawaii be released in fact is stamped June 6, 2007.
2 1. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents coordinated defense of the
supposed short form CoLB with agents of the FactCheck.org who then report on August 2 1,2008 in favor of the authenticity. 22. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents knew that the Factcheck.org org report would be depended on by members of Congress and Media. 23. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents knew that the so-called Factcheck.org investigators were partisan amateurs
24. That Defendant Barack Hussein Obama was adopted by his Indonesian step
father Lolo Soetoro who named him Soebarkah and was also otherwise known as Barry Soetoro, and Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah. 25. That the Hawaii Board of Elections registrar Tim Adams discovered that there is no birth record for Barack Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health showing that he had been born in Hawaii...
As and for the Third Supplemental Cause of Action to the Complaint Sixth Cause of Action (Scheme to defraud Plaintiff and those similarly situated as against all Defendants) Barack Obama and his agents forged a selective service and passport records to mislead Plaintiff along with those similarly situated
26. That Plaintiff alleges that Barack Obama and his agents maliciously conceal
and spoliate evidence to further fraud against Plaintiff along with those similarly situated as and for the Third Supplement Cause of Action to the Complaint Sixth Cause of Action repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction paragraphs 1 through 25 with each allegation of the Sixth Cause of Action with the same force and effect a s though herein set forth a t length.
P l a i n m s FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 5 of 7
APX
838
27. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents forged the Selective Service
record misrepresenting Defendant Obama's status before the 2008 election
28. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents act by theft and tampering of
the US DOS Passport records by US DOS private contractor entity under the control of John Brennan currently Respondent Obama's White House Counter Terrorism advisor having previously been assistant to Central Intelligence Director George Tenent, 29. That Barack Obama and his agents knowingly acted to conceal his adoptive status a s a n Indonesian citizen. 30. That Barack Obama and his agents intentionally lied to conceal his Indonesian names and foreign student financial status when he applied for his law license in Illinois. 31. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents filed False Documents with the government and knowing such documents filed are falsified documents to the government.
32. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents spoke with Congressmen and
the media to promote a "Born a Citizen" 14" Amendment status for Defendant Obama.
33. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents spoke with agents of the
Justia.org organization to spoliate prior decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States to change the definition of "natural-born Citizen" to that of "Born a Citizen."
Wherefore, Plaintiff wishes an order by the Court of all defendants:

Answer or otherwise respond to the supplemental allegations; Defendant Obama and his agents release all concealed evidence under penalty of sanctions or worse; for different and other relief deemed necessary for justice herein.
PlainWs FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 6 of 7
APX
839
VERIFICATION AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF lUEW YORK
c o m O F m 0 8
1 == 1,
Accordingly, I, Christopher Ear1 Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say
under penalty o f perjury:
That the foregoing matter of the First Supplementto the Complaint including
the allegations of the above introduction througb paragraphs 33, and wherefore relief
involves irreparable harm as time is of the essence withaut any a l t e d v e forum for
relief that compounds PlainWs injury along with those similarly situated;and as
such Afhnant hereby verifies the three supplemental causes of action to the Sixth Cause of Action to the Complaint filed March 22,20 11, and that the same is true to
my own bowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on
information and 'belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds o f my belit?fsas to all mattem not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd
parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.
Sworn&obefore me This day of A p
ARNOLD L TfSHFIELD " Public State Of New Y o r k N0.41-4611662 . Qualifjed h Queens Caumy Cetiiied In Kings County commission Expires March 30, 20
' -
_CC(
Haintiffs FIRST SUPPLEMENTTO THE COMPLAINT Page T o f7
SUPREWE COWRT OF ?'FIE STATE OF HEW YO= COUWTYOF KINGS Inam
----------- ------------------------ -----* *-*
--------------*
-------x
ma.:
6860-201 I
Christopher-Earl: m n k in csse,
Haiatfff,
Aled: March 22,2011
HEW 3K)TtK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIOIPS: JAMES A. PIaintdf designates JSrAL-31-I / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A E L L N E R E Co-Chair, The County of Kings as the EVELYN J. AQU1LA / Commissioner, GREGORY P . Race ofjury trial. PETERSON / Commissioner, Depuiy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY Z L E N ; ANDREW CWOMO, ERIC SCHNWDERMAN, THOMAS P. The basis of venue i s the DINAPOLI, RLTII NOEM! COLON, in their Official and PtaintifFs place for suffrage indit1dua.I capaciw? Fi. JOSEPI l h O ' I W , S.J.; &JOSEPH P. PARKES. S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G . PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW WClMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK Bl?ZEZINSKT; JOSEPH R . BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAM (~.k.a. I3amy Swtom, a.k.a. B m c k Hussein Obama 11, n.k.a. Stme nunham);NANCY PEZOST; DE?.fOCRATIC STATE CC)!if?dl'TTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW PORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKlNG EAMlLlES PAKlY OF NEW YORK STATE; RdGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. RRZEZTNSFCT; JOI-IN SIDNEY MCCAlN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YOZK STATE COMMJ5TEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF AMENDED THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; O B W FOR AMERICA; OR4MA W C T O R I T M ~ C W mWRY 2008;lbfCCA.lN-PACI.iI:VECTYlRY 2008;; John m d Jane W s ; and XYZ Entities. PIainWs place for service: 503 Vanderbilt Avenue- 28 1 Defendants. Brooklyn, New York 11238
s!!mx~~~
To the above-xi-ed
Defendants:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint vtrifkd March 22,20 11 , that i s the supplement to the complaint with index no.: 29G42-08 m e x e d thereto to be consolidated herein, and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served \vilh Chis a m w d d summons, to sent?a noticr: or appamnce, on B e P!aintiff within 20 days after t ! e s e l ~ i c e of this s-ons. c~c!.uc!usive d *he day of service [or w i t h i n 30 dzys after thc service i s complete if this amended summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York; and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will bc taken against you by default fw the relief demanded in the complaint.
..,
-APX
-.
-.
841
Chrino~her-Earl: Smmk in esse ~lainti5

593 ~aAderbilt Avertue #281,
'
Brooklyn, New Yark 1 173 8. (345) 901 -6?5? E-mail: chrra~stmkwg
NEW YOKK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, 40 Steuben Sm& Albany New Yark 12207
r
Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, SJ.,

106 Wegt56m S & e t
New York NcwYwk 10019
FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR

at the Brerman b a r for J d c t 161 Avenue of the Americas, 1 2 t h Floor
+
'
JAMES A . WALSH / Cb-ehILtr. DOUGLAS k KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J.AQUI LA / C o e m t ? ~ , GREGORY P.PETERSON / Commissiaaer,
New York, NY 1003 3.

JOSEPH ROBINETTE *JOEnBIDEN: JR. a t The White House 1600 REnnJyhraniaAvenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20500
Deputy Director TODD b .VALEmNE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN,
At tht New York State Board o f El40 Steubcn Stncl
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA 11

at The A'hite House ! 600 k3TI~hmYZZ'kd,%~Xlu& N.ti'.
Albany New York 12207
A n & Cuomo lWS Govrmorl. The Capitol Albany New York 12224
Etic Schncidcmran fW3A The Copit01 A Z W .New York 12224
-ral),
W m h h g t m , District o f Columbia 20500
NANCY PECOS1 At the Oflice ofthe Democdc b d o r H 2 0 4 , US Capitol Washington, DC 20515

DEMOCRATIC STATE COMIUICrrEB OF
Thomas P .IXNapoli (NYS CompaoIler), Office of the NYS Controller

110 Statt Sattt NF;=y. 3 ' 12256
THE STATE OF N E W YORK

46 1 Pwk Avcnue South New York. NY 100 16 STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES P A m OP XEW YORK STATE 2-4 ~ e v i ns s e t noor 3 BROOKLYN, NY 1 12 I 7
THE DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE PRESIDENTAL EtECTORS AS by R ~ NOEM H COLXSN a t K k -ult of M e One Conmwrm P h m 99 Washington Ate, hlban~:, &T;1-'?22z!-9001
CLhSS
JOHN SIDNEYMCCAINnI
At 24 1 R U M Senate Office Building
W a d i q t o n , DC 20510
F r .JOSEPH A O'HARE, SJ.

106 W e s t 56" Street
New York New York 10019
J O H N R BOEHNER,
IAN J. BEEZINSKI
a t The Atlantic Coundl H e a d g u a r t a 1101 15thSl~eet, NW, 11th Flmr Wa&&t0*1, D.C. 200U5 MARK BlaEZINSKI a t Mdxte w o o d s LLP 2001 K. Strret N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 2006-1040
7969 Cincinnati-Dam R d Suite B

West Chester, OH 45069
JOHN A BOEHNER
12 South Plum 3 m t
Troy, OH 45373 JOHN A. BOEHNER,

1 9 1 l Longworth H.O.13. Washington, DC 20515
PENNY SUE m K E R
Pritzker real.^ Group, C. L.C. 71 S. Wacker Drive 47th Hoot Chicago, FL 60606
at
THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN

STATE COMMITTEE 5 15 STATE ST, ALBANY, i l T 122 10-2001
THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY By F;ank MacK&y;Ch&man PO BOX871
Lindenhurst, NY 11757
GEORGE SOROS a t S m Management 888 7th Avenue Suite 3300 New York, W 10 106
O B M FOR AMERICA hy Martin H. N~shitt, Tress.
PO Box 8102
STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PAaPI OF NEW YORK STATE By Michael Long 486 78"'n STREW BROOKLYN, NY 11209
Chicago, I L 60680;
OBAiU.4 FOR M W C A by M e N. Ncsbitt

a t PRG Parkhg Management LLC 200 West M o m Street L5Th Floor Chi-, Ittinois 60606
R ~ E CALERO R of THE SQCIALIST WORKERS PARTI at 1000 Grand Concourse, 84A Bronx, NY 10451
THE SOCWISI' WORKERS PARlY a t 1OQO Grand Concourse, #4A Bronx, NY 1045 l
0BA.M VICTOAY FUND by Andrew Tobias, Tre-.

430 South Capitol Strnet SE W a s w o n DC 20003
M C C M WCTORY 2008 228 S WASHINGTON ST STE 115

ALEXANDRJA, VA 223 14
PETER G . PETERSEF! at the Peter Petersen Foundation 1 383 Avenue of Americas POB 278 New Yark New York 1 0 019
ZBIGNIEW KAIMERZ REXZINSKT, at the Center for S w c I n t e d o d Studies 1800 K Stieet, NW Washington, DC 2WOG
MCCAllY-PAWN VICTORY 2008

Ba h e New York F i m m C m ' W Road to @ d o 7 Tour 228 S WASHINGTON ST STE 1 15 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
- - - - - .-
--
APX - 843
Oct. 15 2007 Joint
- Senate Standing Committee on Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs

Senator Thomas W. Libous Public Hearing: Protecting our State's Security Room A, Legislative Office Building,
2nd
Chair:
Chair:
Senator Vincent t Leibell Ill and Senate Standing Committee on Transportation Van Buren Hearing
Place:
Floor, Albany, New York
Time:
10:OO AM. Contact: Robert T. Farfey f Marianne Reiliy - fax (518) 426-6977
In appreciation of the opportunip to speak on Protecrif?gour Stare 's Security as a matter of national security with global significance. I Christopher Earl S t m k am a Vietnam Era Veteran. born in Manhattan, resident in Brooklyn- devoted to God and Country, have taken the oath to defend and protect the USA and the constitutions on which the Federal republic is based against any enemq foreign or domestic: as such give warning of Governor Eliot Spitzer's sedition as an enemy whose treachery is in conspiracy with others aiding and abetting with sanctuary for illegal aliens in New York against federal law must be impeached pursuant to NYS Articles IV and VI.
Warning herein is done in good faith with the M a y 1985 adoption of Senate 1073 and Assembly 1249 commitment to the consummate efflorescence of human dignity with \\-hi&they did praise my -'unse(fish dedication and competent discharge ofdue . . above . and beyond the responsibilities ofjob and dut y . . . perception of the vafueand worth ofothers,for his innate and ingenious concernfor the preservation and enhancement of human dignity".
That beyond the honor and praise of 22 years ago, I am vigilant to maintain individual inalienable freedoms given by Almighty God, urge this Committee to support my action with Attomq Carl E Person for an independent investigation of the perfidy unleashed on 9-11-01 against the sovereign People of the state New York: we urge the State Legislature to bring sunlight upon treason and sedition as a matter of protecting our State's Security.
That as a matter of s e c u r i ~ and justice denied after 9-1 1-01 involves the matter of providing sanctuary for illegal aliens with impunity in siofation of federal and state la\\?,that then Attorney Genera1 Spitzer by seamless acts of sedition now as Governor reaches the level of treason subject to impeachment under NYS Article VI section 24, and that pursuant to Article TV must be removed; Mr. Spitzer shall give testimony without immunity pursuant to Article I section 6.
That nomjthstanding the w - o r i p vote of our Assembly controlled by a topdown corporatist elite. nith political districts genymandered beyond the letter and intent of State Constitution Article IX Homerule, this committee nevertheless must act as a matter of our State's Security to review the population size of the city of New York, which as a Home-rule entity has 26 of 62 Senators violative of NYSC Article III Section 4: and as a home-rule entih esceeds the maximum size of persons determined by the census allo\vable by the NYS Constitution; and as such Brooklyn must have Homerule again for our State's Security.
A review of the facts will show that Governor Eliot Spitzer is a globalist driven by oxymoronic Liberation Theology in conspiraq with the Cuomo and Clinton dynasty, whose modernistprogressive praxis is that of Fr. George Tyrell, S.3. ( 1 861-1909) and Fr. Pierre Teilhard De Chardin. S.J. (1881-1955).
That bv using the God and Country principle as our inalienable foundation for continuation of our federal republic with 50 sovereign states is apposed by the Governor. as if New York were a
APX
844
province of un pto\inces, merely as a subset among 83 provinces globally, and the multicultd co-squality ir supposes rather than rhe fiercely bdependent Country under an Almighty God vrhosc citizens of one State are sovereign among the fifty Federal members with borders language and culture distinct from the whoIe world.
Further, only our Congress sets the agenda under Article 1 Section 8 clause 4 for the naruralizatioa ofcitizens per se, not tbe governor or kgislame$as if once under the Articles of Confederation. -4s such goes to Mr. Spitzeis violation of the Logan Act by offering residency tbal undermines each citizen's vote and right to have each vote counted in the sunshine.
Funhermore, were illegal aliens or aliens s ( drivers licenses by the Owernor's sedition and treason, (I mateed that only the Federal govenunent may issue a license to an alien whether here legaHy or not) the People's sovereignty guaranteed in our State Bill of Rights Law in all matters is affected, especially for the sanctity of the vote under Article If would b~ undermined and stolen by dilution and h u d My associate the Honorable Robert K. Doman has suffered since the 1 9 % stolen e l d o n by rbe @dy of globalist Republicam and Democrats who in California aMt elsewhere use illegal aliens to vote as a weapon against our sovereignty, a copy of Mr. Donran's letter to the Court in the F e d e d case in Westan District of New Yark WDMlO6cv-0080 case Forjone v . Catifomia et al. is herewith attached (now transferred to NDNY 06-c~1 002 assigned to Judge L a m e E. Kahn).
Like m e . hIr. Doman puts God and Country before part).politics dedicated to the sanctity of o m individual vote demands that the laws of each state be enforced and the right to vote by each citizen be accompanied by the right of knowing t h a teach vote is duly counted intbe sunshine as a matter of national security. Alive on the public record sufhge perfidy exists in New York that allows aliens to vote. Here in Albany, were Mr. Soares to compare the graveyards of Albany that rise as if by command of Mayor Corning's ghost on election day with those who do vok, likewise ,Mr. Hjnes comparing voting roles census in NYC grows accordingly each election day with votes fiom all over the world. That elections in New York proceed as if by remote control at a distance and brings into question the use of NVRA ("motor-voter act") and HAVA ("Mp anyone to vote act'% and as such the standard for review by this Committee shall be strict and thorough as a State and national security matter.
($
I n deference for the time of the Committee 1am not going to burden the reader with copious and readily available facts about the danger the sanctuary policy for illegaf &ens imposes upon the citizens, states and nation. I am at the beck and call of this Committee for providing supporting evidence for what I contend, and am available for
Dated: October IS. 2007 Brooklyn. New York 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn. New Yo* 1 1238 63 1-745-6602 ernail : kbrooklvnre~ubf ic@yahooahoocorn
.Amchment: RKD fetter to the Court
cc: the Honorable Robert K. Dornan Carl E . Person, Esq.
APX
-- --
--
845
--
3 1 541
.+nJ~rPiro Roxd
C ; w Jtian C'rptstr~uo,Coi~l'mnra *>2h75
fhc Hon.rmhlc i ' l ~ i c f f r d g e Richard J. .4rcara : F e i rhr- C'niicd S I ~ I LDi3rrist X Court ! \Yc-cn> i k t r i c t ofXcw Yo& I 314L'.S.C ~>unkcise
!
July 5.21M
.t
I!
r?S Caun S r r ~ ~ t
ButTilo. hew Yclr), 1 4 2 ~ 2
Re:
I-*,,~~j,ur,~.r.lrl.1%.EiC'cr u/. W DYY ~ X w v - * ) (RT.4)
Subject:
fnCmcatioa a.eC
&xcvPR
The Honilratrlc i'lrtcf J u i g Richard J. .4trara.
f am f o m I!. S. Housc Rcprescntative R & K. Doman. pro sc wirhuur kuig an attormy. who was o u ~ ~&feated l y illqully by Dcrnocrat L01.cttaStt~cllcz by a ~ninirntltn o f 2.369 alien \CHS. and according lo I.C.E. (I.N.S.) rmr\lr 4.023 ~ I x \ot~'s n ~lkgally cast in the I'M6 California G c n r ~ aEl~~iicln: l m ~ chat l by cortscnsxt* d b t h tllc Rcpuhirwn ;,nJ Dcruocr;ltrc partie, behind the scenes ill violation o i t h c rnsjority o f votcrs' rights cornpired then and rww fm cotltml owr illegal alien vutil~g po\\cr in Califmia and wemingly nstion\\idc. A l i a s illegal, w i n g with impunity and \\hcwa.i ucrt i~ singlc individual \\-J\ ~ * s g c d u rth thc+wnds c t f feliuum; ha\ irtg hfen c i m i t t d , to directlj bring iibout m y lusi by rllnc l a c s not\\ itltztrtndlng rhc I.C.E. rccorJI to the c m m r y . 1 j r ~ i r c to rcstify a d intemct~c ifit >uppan of tk m~haztl~z pm u :Plxintifh kcin. both in rn! onrr alf-intrrc.t 3rd for thc sun-itnl of our nation as
-
c o r ~ ~ ~ r t t ~ trcpi~hfic. ilzn~l Aty dircct injury in 1 L)im ;IIIJ ~ f i c r \ \ ~ i~ i rrhc d SII~JCL?of PIaintrfTk- Amc.n&d Conlplaint garagr~ph~ 91. 1 17 thru I IS and i47. .\> buch tnl intcn-cntion is rcqtiircd to ~'zlablish accuracy in rhc- record o f thc 1111A-rlpin~ priwccdinp rl~ttng tuck inorr than tcrt ycurs. a d that f rlw cmtcnd w11l 3 u p p n anJ h r m the h*i\ Tor pro\ing t k pattern and conduct nssnriated with both harboring o f ~ l i c pa i i i c m arul \ i o I u k n of U.S. C : i t i m pr~~pricqary \i~ing rrghts c a m p h i d of by PLtin~iEs unJer zAil RlCO provisions. n'ith Icirc of h Crslrt after dispo.itron of th- crrrrcnt Jrmz 1.21.RX text o r h o f Dcfcmfant . t o t - ~ \ ~ r nE in dtht- '-Rcmnrtc" Dockct #73 ~thcrcin reque~ting 3 qsccial w a t e r to zsccrtxin authoriry ;u~Jjuri.jiction ovcr &fcil&nts \vithin thL. 'itatc' O ~ N C York W qwxificnlly prior to PlainritX rarr.iolida~cdrccponsc in cppmition tn the various n~otianu to dkmiss). if Plointi* survive I dirirc to intcrrcnc f i ~ r ~ ~ ~under . t l i ) - pv1'iio11?iof FRc(:P Rule ?&a) and or be +en s t ' d i n ~ to k-tify mder iaath on t k record of the pr11c"cding accordingly. That by I ~ x a rides l 1 havc causd rllir c~rr*ponck-mc t~ be duly scned rrpon parties k n and that a Jt~plicate ~ r w cmificatc l of w m i e :z ~ I P I - C ~ tS ~h a-hcd. R~%pec~fuily subm~trcd fer y t i o n b y
3
Strunk's Reply to Defendants' Response to Remark Page 40 of 42
Christopher Earl Strunk 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (434) 825-9901 fax service (845) 339 2835 uncasvotes~,hotmail.com
December 11,2003 By FAX Courtney Hayden, Legislative Committee Assistant Assembly Committee on Education Room 5 13 - Capitol Albany, New York 12248 E-Mail: haydenc@,assembly.state.ny.us (518) 455 - 4881 Fax: (518) 455 - 4128 Regarding :TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK ON DECEMBER 9,2003 AT THE ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING the
implementation of the Court of Appeals decision in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity Lawsuit.
Dear Courtney Hayden,
I spoke with your assistant in preparation for my scheduled testimony out in Syracuse on December 9,2003 and at that time I stated that I may have transportation problems and as such I did have difficulty. Attached to this transmission is my testimony as promised and I hope it will be of use for the Committee. I already know it will not be popular, but nevertheless, my analysis must be considered in the overall mix of deliberative process.
The gist of the testimony: Aliens are a Federal problem not a State problem and therefore not only as an equal treatment question, aliens must be given an education at the expense of the Federal Government shared with Federal Taxpayers as a whole not just the PEOPLE of the State of New York, in which the PEOPLE are only those US Citizens qualified to vote. Please feel free to contact me as necessary for any clarification or follow-up. Sincerely,
,
--
C~~STOPHE EARL R STRUNK

ATTACHMENT: 9 PAGES TESTIMONY Cc: Everyone
TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK ON DECEMBER 9,2003 AT THE ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING the implementation of the Court of Appeals decision in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity Lawsuit.
PURPOSE: To obtain public input and hear comment regarding the implementation of the Court of Appeals decision in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity Lawsuit.
Regarding NYS Const. Article X I Education Article 1 "The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system offiee common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educated.
"
Good morning, I am Christopher Earl Strunk, pro se without being an attorney, here to provide my testimony so that the State Legislature may get balanced public input and hear comment regarding the implementation of the Court of Appeals decision in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity Lawsuit, which without my input it wouldn't otherwise get. The question I bring here this morning is- Under the Federal and State Constitutions are all the children of this state may be educated to be considered to also include alien / non-citizen children who undisputedly fall exclusively under the authority of the Federal government for which "it occupies the field1" not the State Government? For the Legislature to avoid this question of State and Federal law is to omit the rule of law in favor of the whim of personality and prevailing prejudice. My conclusion in advance of testimony herein is that all aliens fall under the authority of Federal Law ONLY and that the Federal government is responsible for all due process associated with each alien person under its authority, and only to the extent that the State acts under the 1oth amendment does it have powers reserved exclusively to the State or to the people. The Federal government must pay for the education of all alien children by Federal users fees upon all aliens who reside in the State of New York and by this action take the burden off the State financially.
Hines v. Davidowitz, 3 12 US 52 (1940)
APX
848
-
-- -
---
I have read the Court decision and many of the associated papers and as such draw
from my understanding and my knowledge of the Original New York State Contitution of April especially therein Article XLII quote: 20, 1 7 7 7 ~
'And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that it shall be in the discretion of the legislature to naturalize all such persons, and in such manner, as they shall think proper: Provided, All such of the persons so to be by them naturalized, as being born in parts beyond sea, and out of the United States of America, shall come to settle in and become subjects of this State, shall take an oath of allegiance to this State, and abjure and renounce all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and State in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil."
Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon New York State ratification on July 26, 1788 of the Federal Constitution any State legislative powers3 were relinquished then to the Federal authority under the Federal Constitution Article I Section 8 clause 4 exclusively regarding Rule of naturalization now consolidated in statute; pursuant to the above I fast forward to use modifications to the otherwise unchanging authority granted by the Original 1777 Constitution which I here reference for use by the Committee and Court, wherein the above applies to the related articles of current New York State Constitution Article I Bill o f Rights section 1 thru 17 Article 11, Article 111 Sections 4 thru 5a, Article VI generally as related Article I1 section 1,
http:/www.yale.edu/lawweb/Avalon/states/nyO 1.htm http :/www.yale.edu/lawweb/Avalon/states/ratny # 1htm
APX
849
however under Article I11 Legislature section 44 specifically retained powers to enumeration related as to Article IX Local Government generally Section 3[dl definition of who are the
PEOPLE under clause (3)
"People." Persons entitled to vote as provided in section one of article two of this constitution.
And especially important to Article XI Education Section 1 cited above, and not least which the importance to sections 2 thru 3 regarding funding and use of public money. To say the least this is otherwise a daunting task with the ten minutes allot however I will try to comply with time restraints and shorten my comments, so that the argument made be read separately and if needed elaborated for further use, at the committees request.
S 4. Except as herein otherwise provided, the federal census taken in the year nineteen hundred thirty and each federal census taken decennially thereafter shall be controlling as to the number of inhabitants in the state or any part thereof for the purposes of the apportionment of members of assembly and readjustment or alteration of senate and assembly districts next occurring, in so far as such census and the tabulation thereof purport to give the information necessary therefore. The legislature, by law, shall provide for the making and tabulation by state authorities of an enumeration of the inhabitants of the entire state to be used for such purposes, instead of a federal census, if the taking of a federal census in any tenth year from the year nineteen hundred thirty be omitted or if the federal census fails to show the number of aliens or Indians not taxed. If a federal census, though giving the requisite information as to the state at large, fails to give the information as to any civil or territorial divisions which is required to be known for such purposes, the legislature, by law, shall provide for such an enumeration of the inhabitants of such parts of the state only as may be necessary, which shall supersede in part the federal census and be used in connection therewith for such purposes.
As for my experience, I was born here in New York State on Manhattan Island in January 1947; as such I am both a U.S. Citizen and a State of New York Citizen at the same time. Except for a span of time during my early education was spent in the Florida school system from 1954 thru 1959, as an above average student, I then returned to New York State, attended a Westchester County public high school from 1960 thru 1965, before entering national service in the USAF from 1966 thru 1972; thereafter, with a college education, I have resided continuously here in New York City since 1974. In 1974 I had the opportunity for tuition free night school training at the City College of New York School of Architecture until I ran out of money when in 1975 tuition was imposed by the City bankruptcy and whose destiny was turned over to the bondholders and New York State Legislature. Thereafter, in New York City under the effects of the bankruptcy, for eight years I raised a child not my own from 4 thru 12 years of age, who even with straight A's in the Public School system from 1975 thru 1981, did not satisfy her mother. She and I both considered the public school system as well as the private schools system here in New York City fatally flawed and regretfully for me, she and her mother moved out of State and now years later, the little girl is 33 years old, a very successful materials engineer out on the west coast - as such I agree with the decision made by her mother in 1981. Fast forward to 2003, in 1993 I married a Soviet medical doctor immigrant, who for reasons out of our control under the authority of the Federal government ineptitude, after ten years of marriage to me she has not been able to use her experience and training here. We have a nine years old son; Dimitry attends a recently constructed magnet school here in the fourth grade. There at that school he is surrounded by alien children at ratio of what appears to me to be one US Citizen to two non-citizens, and as such no matter how intelligent each child may be, the needs for this school vary greatly from schools with entirely children of US Citizens. Now, all appear to have extensive problems beyond just the simple ABC's, which go to the structural learning problems associated not just multi-languages, but social and cultural difficulties, which on a daily basis slosh over into the needs of all the citizen children there; citizen children who otherwise in schools with just US Citizen children per se would not be subjected to such
APX
851
problems. My son is a bright and caring person who in self defense speaks in three languages, however if I were able to pay would receive a private education somewhere else- doesn't- and as such I am very frustrated and provide this testimony in an attempt to assist my son into the fbture with a better shake than the school system is providing now. Now without belaboring the point, the State Legislature HAS violated the State Constitution Article I11 Section 4 cited above, have not enumerated aliens in lieu nunc pro tunc that failure of the Clinton Administration in doing the 2000 Census enumeration only enumerated supposed "races", whatever that means, failed to ask the simple question of inhabitants "ARE YOU A CITZEN?'. Thereafter, the State legislature also failed and now I don't know how many alien children there are, may only guess, and provide estimates based upon approximate statistical studies and the fact that the Federal Immigration and Naturalization Act ("INA") prohibits any alien child under 17 years from filing an application until he or she reaches the age of 16 years, and thereafter any such application for citizenship must jump many hurdles of due process, that would only permit such child to become citizen -or one of the PEOPLE as defmed above- in their 1 7 year. ~ ~ According to the INA there is upon enforcement of such provisions a requirement for deportation as with any alien documented or not if the provisions of law are not followed to the letter. In effect I argue the special case that Alien children are not afforded equal treatment under law for either adult aliens or even for the due process that should be afforded for citizens under 18 years of age and therefore represents serious violation of whatever protection uch alien children would be guaranteed under the Federal Bill of Rights - now in this State shoul be afforded protection under the 1 4 amendment ~ ~ and as provided for in the State Bill of Rights accordingly, as has till now been unreasonably imposed by the State legislature upon the PEOPLE - being as cited above all those US Citizens qualified to register to vote in New York State under Suffrage Article 11. Therefore, I provide the following Five Charts as an analysis for consideration by the reader and State Legislature (Chart 5 considered) even with all the flaws in availability of data on aliens being solely based upon the use of registered voters as of April 1,
APX
852
'
2003 from the State Board of Elections and my experience based upon the announced statistic that in New York City there are approximately 1,100,000 students in the entire education system from kindergarten to College.
CHART 1
1,083,908 US Citizens over 17 years unregistered to vote estimated at 10% of total registered 10,839,077 US Citizens over 17 years registered to vote actual from BOE as of April 1,2003 4,613,026 Estimated US Citizens 0 to 17 years old 1,913,990 Estimated Aliens over 17 years old 275,000 School age aliens estimated 5 to 17 years old 275,000 Under school age aliens estimated 0 to 5 years old
--------
19,000,000 Total censused New York State inhabitants at of April 1,2000
Estimated relationship of Aliens inside New York City and outside New York City with Aliens minors under the age of 18 years:
CHART 2
Total Aliens in NYC Total Aliens outside NYC Total US Citizens over 17 years Total US Citizens under 18 years Total censused New York State inhabitants Total US Citizens over 17 years Outside NYC Total US Citizens under 18 years outside NYC Total aliens outside NYC 2,239,991 223,999 11,922,985
-------19,000,000
4,613,026
7,481,751 3,294,250 223,999
--------------11,000,000
Total Inhabitants outside NYC Total US Citizens over 17 years inside NYC Total US Citizens under 18 years inside NYC Total Aliens in NYC Total NYC Inhabitants Total censused New York State inhabitants
4,441,234 1,318,776 2,239,991
--------
-------19,000,000
8,000,000
APX
853
Financial Impact upon New York State US Citizens of Federal unequal treatment of Alien Children between 5 years and 17 years of age compared inside and outside New York City
CHART 3
Alien Children in NYC Schools US Citizen Children in NYC Schools US Citizens over 17 years in NYC Schools Total Students in NYC Schools
250,000 659,388
------1,100,008 *
250,000
"2003 Published total to the nearest 100,000

CHART 4
Children 5 Number of to 17 years years in who are aliens public school
Yearly Education cost for one alien child
Yearly cost of education per child in NYC
Total cost for 12 years

I ~ s tOne . year total cost for ALL a1ie;children in NYC schools
1 12
$ $
~~,~~~ $ ~~,~~~ $
10,000 120,000
I
250000
1
$
I
2,500,000,000
10,000 $
ITotal Years that an Alien Child from 5 to 17 years with Schooling in NYC
Est. 10% additional Alien Children outside of NYC
1
250000
25000 12
$
10,000 $
30,000,000,000(
-----------
Est. Total Twelve Year Education Cost for all alien children
($
33,000,000,000
APX
854
CHART 5
SO WHAT IS THE COST BURDEN FOR DEALS BY DOWNSTATE PARTISANS TO BUYOFF UPSTATE ASSEMBLYMEN TO GET WHAT DOWNSTATE WANTS? AND WHAT IS THE OVERALL INCENTIVE TO VIOLATE THE STATE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE Ill SECTION 4 REQUIREMENT TO ENUMERATE ALIENS OTHERWISE USE GERRYMANDERING TO ACCOMPLISH?
ASSEMBLY UPSTATE to DOWNSTATE RATIO /~ssemb Seats l ~ NYC total lnhabitants with aliens
WINNING 76 VOTE MARGIN
SUPER 101 MAJORITY VOTE MARGIN
(38)
LEAST
Assembly Seats outside NYC total lnhabitants with aliens
87
(14)
76
$$
--Total Assembly Seats ssembly Seats In NYC using only US

MORE
150
Assembly Seats outside NYC using only US Citizens over 17 years
94
$$
Total Assembly Seats Assembly Seats In NYC using all US Citizens on1 Assembly Seats outside NYC using all US Citizens only
150
MOST
98
22
$$
150
Total Assembly Seats
76
In s m a r y , as a possible solution I recommend that we find out how many alien children there are in New York State. That we insist of the US Senators and US Representatives fiom New York, that they demand payment fiom the Federal government in the amount of no less than $33 billion dollars in back payments, and present legislation in Congress for yearly appropriation of future funds based upon a yearly user fee imposed upon every alien of any age or the Citizen sponsors of such aliens say in the nominal amount of $1000 per person yearly, as long as they may be here in this country without becoming a citizen; and that the Federal government shoulder the burden of the education of these deserving children until they become citizens, or are departed back to their own country where they are already citizens of that foreign nation. Without fail any plan by the State Legislature which may impose any fwther unequal tax burden upon the PEOPLE of the State of New York without taking into accol~nt the above facts must be challenged in Federal Court using the foregoing reasoning, and certainly is not subject to all the bad lawyering and lack of academic prowess displayed by the New York State Court of Appeals have certainly failed academically in the subject decision. Feel free to request any further testimony or backup on this matter, to the extent that I am
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, pro se 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (434) 825-9901 fax service (845) 339-2835 uncasvotes@,hotrnail.com
APX
856
----- --
12-2@-@1
PB:4T
CE STRUNE
fB=71t3 914 4 7 8 %
F.61
4 ""
State of N e w Yo&
A$$@rnbfy.I Z t s . 1249
BV: ~ s r. +nt~l
Ocn+t+ Ma.
1073: BY: Sanetor GS~DAW=
c ~ W H D I E ~ Ehrittwhar~ G I$'SFBR~ and h b f h m ref k 5 ~ a t . rf aailrlicl D w s B p g ~ m Caqwra*imn t

C
Th3n remi&nse i a he id^%^ ~ 8 t h8 fmafe rrssidt;nbr eazk sf v r W if m6~nslipr iw pet% Pf B l ~ m ~Tikvahr h fvlc,, undler the di+retle& Ercmu%r/aB i a t e r ; r m d
$811WER@S
fwr'aslcm
Iotrl r-$&mn.t
WBRWS, PPararh T i k v r h , Ins. +a twl m i m m un~mMingmalyr, ta t b ruffarbng ~ tmm rc4lntgnal mbP.datl@&; BFB~
cpf
irrr$cmnzerha sf the p-safa tRIa E w s r p G t ~ t a ; a d
rn anribilifirs
WEREAS,
Chrlsbaahnt 5 t r s o k Pi$ ~a~frzrnrrbbv.~ bayetfb PRa i+ and drrfy; C k m ~itblena! ee~56bm fer %be rume$ful af Pesach Tikwitr, !fir;- hbnrrta avslrrsy siiClrsn d
WWKREAs, tt ir fp* his wrs-s~tk~ 5 l fh9 PC[@* aa& w r t h -rPf athers, fer A1.q lawla a&# Oh$e~wrrs i?mwzdm fat- the pr*sdmafacLta a d W I ~ B A ~ L CBP R ~ humwn bT@&Cty that this. Anorr*rihfttd Bedy f b m r u r l s CR~bsX@ha* SPrank arr;d t k a -@ant staCd d the Wew Y a r k State Flrdlitisr bvwlopaat Carprzeim: and
WEBEAS, T h a drsdisatisn ssssmny fk*a ithe fwslilry # a tssrbiitvaly piamnrd f s r Thursday, Sun* &frii=amnth, ntnalan hrrrad~dslgRfy*Flvr; Ch~isCrspharS i l ~ k u~ ~kjt)trk m s-a 9 t a r d far t ~ . f a &mer; l end
dub, =ts+twhsr
Strun k be~u~h rr~rdurins t herlor FaSlR1W @vtf.fgah+nS %r;rgwb.@Cien, new, .thw$.fpre;, b~ it

REPOLWEB, That Phta Lesislatltre @ M y P&USC h iZa elallbsmkf*hrr a& f cr~au~fr. smmznsf e h r i ~ 6 s p h ~$trunk r and the staff of &a P(law v ~ r kState ~ ~ d D~~ ~ ~fam ~n n .i C n te r .p l n ~ l b n . estendisg. in tunt, w r rinur* wish tk+ &~-rshs~mrsastr: SUEC~XLS af b s a t h Tikwak, 3ns.; and k 1.t tuvbber
WER%-AS, TkmugR iris cies;erhfir;b d&imiatten and
APX
857
APX
-
858
----------

Appellant's BRIEF and APPENDIX - NYS Appellate Division 2nd Dept Appeal 2012-05515

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Appellant's BRIEF and APPENDIX - NYS Appellate Division 2nd Dept Appeal 2012-05515

Загружено:

Авторское право:

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

APPEAL CASE INDEX NO.:

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;

Defendants / Respondents. APPELLANTS APPEAL BRIEF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPEAL CASE INDEX NO.:

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;

APPELLANTS APPEAL BRIEF

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

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

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

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

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

shall provide Plaintiff due process to investigate a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SIJMMARY OF THE DECISION AND ORDER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAILURE TO HAVE STANDING?

FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION?

FAILURE TO PLEAD FRAUD WITH PARTICULARITY?

FAILURE TO SHOW THAT THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION?

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

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

THAT STRUNK'S COMPLAINT IS FRIVOLOUS?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council for National Policy

along with the

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

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

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is not only BORN A CITIZEN