CES NOM and Aff in Support of 2nd NOM To Renew and Reargue Service W Exhibits and Supplement To The Complaint 29642-2008

CPLR 2221(f) to renew and reargue the completion of service nunc pro tunc with new transactions and
with CPLR 3025(b) to supplement the complaint (COMBINED proposed Verified Supplement to the Complaint annexed) before the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. at the Part 47 Courtroom in the Courthouse at 360 Adams Street Brooklyn New York 10007, on the 28th day of March 2014, at 9:30 Oclock before Noon or at a time designated by the court or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard; and, 2. That Plaintiff in regards to the proposed intervener as a matter of housekeeping
resubmits (see Exhibit 7 herewith) his then response to the proposed intervener motion of November 4, 2011 attached here as a continuation of his own motion with Exhibits 1 thru 6; 3. Further in regards to Plaintiffs motion for completion of service motion NUNC PRO
TUNC, re-submits herewith my Notice of Motion for leave to file proof of service nunc pro tunc filed with the clerk of the court on November 28, 2011 with support affidavit shown as Exhibit 1 with sub--exhibits A through E, Mr. Van Allens affidavit of service of January 13, 2011 for service of the defendants having been completed on December 4, 2008, and as reaffirmed on March 26, 2014 (see Exhibit 8); and 4. Regards to Plaintiffs Reply to the AGs COMBINED RESPONSE that alleges:
That this Court dismissed this case on the merits on December 4, 2008 offering AGs COMBINED RESPONSE Exhibit A. That Plaintiff now seeks to reopen this case but offers no reason for this Court to do so. That Proposed Intervener William Van Allen also seeks to reopen this case and to intervene as co-plaintiff, but this Court has already denied his motion to intervene, and
That Van Allen offers no reason to revisit this Court's denial.
STRUNKs REPLY Affidavit to the AGs MOL IN OPPOSITION Page 2 of 9
5.
Plaintiff in REPLY based upon the affidavit and exhibit in support denies that the
Court dismissed the case that is why the Court ordered the Hearing on March 28, 2014 at the request of Mr. Van Allen to Judge Prudenti (see Exhibit 9) as the fact that the case remains active for more than five years has pre-empted his and my ability to appeal interlocutory orders and barred parties accordingly from seeking remedy elsewhere. 6. Plaintiff in REPLY based upon the affidavit and exhibit in support denies that
Plaintiff somehow offers no reason references his Exhibit 4 in which the Appellate Division on 4 March 2014 denied Appellant / Plaintiff provision for civilian due process of law, and in that Mr. Pepper is disingenuously because he personally represented the State Appellees in opposition to Appellants motion for guaranteed provision of Civilian Due Process rather than Martial dues process for all Public US Citizens, and as Appellant Plaintiff (notwithstanding Mr. Van Allen who remains the surety for his Public US Citizen) is entitled equal protection of the law under colour of Statute 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b) as a duly registered Private Citizen of the United States with the United States Secretary of the Treasury for both his 5th and Section 1 of the 14th Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution and related provisions of the NYS Constitution has been denied. 7. That at the heart of the reason for Plaintiffs motion in this instant matter is that
Mr. Obama by his own admission in his autobiography Dreams From my Father (1995) he is not a Natural-born Citizen because his legal father was both a British subject and then subject of the Sultanate of Zanzibar, and now appears that Mr. Obama is not a citizen of the United States at all based upon evidence that would be presented at a trial on say June 18, 2014, nevertheless based upon his own admission Mr. Obama is not eligible to be the President of the United States (POTUS) Commander-in-chief with direct authority over the martial law defacto executive Federal and States Court system accordingly; and as such Mr. Obama has been properly served as the POTUS Commander-in-Chief with direct
authority over the martial process in the defacto executive Federal and State Courts, with service by Certified mail with return receipt and by regular first class mail as a matter Personal and Confidential by service upon a State official of the New York State Unified Court System and also with service upon the Honorable Judge Prudenti, Chief Judge of the Office of Court Administration (OCA) under Mr. Obamas authority accordingly and who by service upon the OCA received Certified return receipt service along with ten (10) other respondent herein returned so far (see Exhibit 10). 8. Further, that at the time this case was filed Obama as a candidate was not POTUS
Commander-in-chief, notwithstanding his admission of a legal father British subject. 9. That Plaintiffs disability was created after the present case was filed, and was a
result of the wrongful use of the Individual Assignment System (I.A.S.) of the Unified Court system resulting in assignment of Judge Schack to 6500-2011 as if this active case 296422008 were dismissed / inactive and or unrelated and as has resulted in Plaintiffs disability and bar from not only speaking for all those surety-indentures wedded to their respective Public US Citizens, for which Mr. Van Allen proposes to speak for as a class in general, also may not speak for Private Citizens of the United States as Plaintiff and as was proven to Mr. Pepper in the Appellate Court as that panel addressed shown with Exhibit 4. 10. That as an administrative matter Plaintiff is entitled to a hearing and response as an OCA plenary matter effecting Plaintiff fundamental rights denied under color of law. 11. That as an administrative matter effecting Plaintiff, it has been confirmed by the Appellate Court with their 4 March 2014 order denying me civilian due process of law that Barack Hussein Obama II as Commander-in-chief, based upon the continuing national emergency under 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b), has direct executive authority over the provision for martial due process of law provided by the NYS Unified Court System and thereby is of a direct interest of this court to prove to Plaintiff that Mr. Obama is eligible
accordingly; and among other relief may be easily done by ordering that any State records under State Court jurisdiction be produced to prove Mr. Obamas eligibility or else be obligated to provide Plaintiff civilian due process of law, for without being NBC, all of Mr. Obamas acts are void ab initio as the national emergency that by statute is required to be renewed bi-annually have expired. 12. That when Mr. Obama went to Columbia University, according to David Patersons associate, Percy Sutton Esq. now deceased, Mr. Obama received foreign student funding and that record now is in the repository with the New York State Department of Education; and as such the pressing matter of whether or not the Unified State Court system is to provide civilian or martial due process of law may be decided by this Court by its order to release the record of foreign student funding and make a declaratory judgment thereafter. 13. Plaintiff in REPLY based upon all the motions affidavits and exhibits in support of relief, denies for the foregoing reason that somehow that Van Allen offers no reason to
revisit this Court's denial; and were Mr. Peppers allegation true then he would not have included in this record Mr. David Lewis, Esq. and Daniel Chill Esq., as they were parties to Mr. Van Allens cases in Albany without STRUNK and as Mr. Van Allen has shown in Acting Justice Platkins decision and order that in fact his intervention herein is the only place he may seek relief and serve the interest of all the voters of the State of New York in the matter of instructions for any candidate running for president and in the matter of the use of the NYS Constitution Article III in redistricting from the 2010 Census that the New York State Court of Appeals use of the Article III provisions says is merely academic and makes sense under the present provision of marital due process of law under the authority of Mr. Obama as Commander-in-chief, means that use of any municipal law or Constitutional provision whether at the state or federal level is advisory only as to the martial process
accordingly and thereby goes to Mr. Van Allens need for the OCA to provide proof of Mr. Obamas eligibility, inter alia as easily suggested above.
14. That in regards to Plaintiffs fundamental right to a hearing on his grievance as is his right to petition, and in light of the order shown as Exhibit 4 the new transactions and facts warrant that this Court grant Plaintiff relief herein and accept the annexed supplement to the complaint. 15. That as Judicial Notice herein because of the gravity of the constitutional question of first impression before this Court, that were Mr. OBAMA declared unable to fulfill the duties of the Commander-in-chief with direct authority over the State Court system that this has far ranging consequences to the presiding Justice of the State Supreme Court in this matter, as there is a duty to investigate and issue a declaratory judgment on the finding(s) as is associated with the following Judicial responsibility under the following Federal statutes accordingly, quote: 18 U.S. Code 2381 Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. 18 U.S. Code 2382 - Misprision of treason (Pub. L. 113-86, except 113-79.) Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both. (emphasis by Plaintiff)
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103322, title XXXIII, 330016(1)(H),Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.) Historical and Revision Notes Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., 3 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, 3,35 Stat. 1088). Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the alternative. Amendments 1994Pub. L. 103322substituted fined under this title for fined not more than $1,000. 18 U.S. Code 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection Current through Pub. L. 113-86, except 113-79. Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. 18 U.S. Code 2384 - Seditious conspiracy If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. 18 U.S. Code 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government Current through Pub. L. 113-86, except 113-79. Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. As used in this section, the terms organizes and organize, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons. Wherefore, Plaintiff wishes an order of the Court granting completion of service NUNC PRO TUNC and that is to accept the combined supplement to the complaint verified by STRUNK and VAN ALLEN, along with an order that: A. Mr. Van Allen be granted intervener status as a necessary party; B A notice of summons to all defendants along with supplemental defendants including BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II be joined as a necessary party is effected by publication methods acceptable to the Court; C. A subpoena for records possessed by the State of New York, its agents and other; D. That the 2008 service of the Summons & Complaint be deemed effected; E. Trial on the facts be joined with the June 18, 2014 trial for a bench trial; and F. For other and different relief as the Court deems necessary for justice herein I have read the foregoing Affidavit in support of the motion; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS -----------------------------------------------------------------------x Christopher Earl Strunk, Plaintiff, -against-
Index No.: 29642 / 08 I.A.S. Part 47 (Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)
David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo (NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli (NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of PLAINTIFFS AFFIDAVIT the Assembly), Malcolm Smith (NYS Senator), IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD), MOTION TO RENEW AND Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council), REARGUE COMPLETION OF William Thompson (NYC Comptroller), SERVICE NUNC PRO TUNC Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos WITH NEW TRANSACTIONS TO (President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their SUPPLEMENT THE COMPLAINT Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official Capacity and individually; The New York State Board of Elections and John Does and Jane Does Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
H. William Van Allen 351 North Road Hurley, NY 12443 hvanallen@hvc.rr.com Phone 845-389-4366 Thursday, January 16, 2014 Via Fax, email, and Certified Mail with Return Receipt To: The Honorable Gail Prudenti, J.S.C. Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts New York State Unified Court System Office of Court Administration 25 Beaver Street, Room 852 New York, NY 10004 Fax 212-428-2190 Re: NYS Supreme Court Kings County Index No.: 2008-29642, I.A.S. Part 1 STRUNK V. PATERSON ET AL. filed w RJI dated October 29, 2008 2008 POTUS ballot eligibility NYS Electoral College election Kings Civil Supreme case remains active six (6) years later preventing further motion intervention by petitioner-intervener at the Second Department Appellate Division and/or direct appeal of constitutional language issue to New York State Court of Appeals. Please investigate the administrative status of this matter as soon as possible. Subject matter is Presidential Electoral College Election Matter with national security ramifications now having given your office personal notice at Albany Empire State Plaza Office of Chief Administrative Judge Prudenti NYSUC Office of Court Administration. Respectfully submitted, /s/ H. William Van Allen
WebCivil Supreme - Case Detail

Court: Index Number: Case Name: Case Type: Track: RJI Filed: Date NOI Due: NOI Filed: Disposition Date: Calendar Number: Jury Status: Justice Name: DAVID SCHMIDT (PT. 47) Kings Civil Supreme 029642/2008 STRUNK,CHRISTOPHER EARL vs. PATERSON,DAVID A. Special Proceedings Standard 10/29/2008

Court: Index Number: Upstate Index Number: Case Name: Case Type: Track: RJI Filed: Upstate RJI Number: Date NOI Due: NOI Filed: Disposition Date: Calendar Number: Jury Status: Justice Name: Unknown RICHARD M. PLATKIN 08/20/2012 Albany Civil Supreme 001787/2012 1787-12 Van Allen vs. NYS Board Of Elections Spec Proceed-Election Standard 05/30/2012 01-12-107051
STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER
) ) ss. )
Accordingly, I, H. William Van Allen, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: I am H. William Van Allen, located at the above address and telephone number. That I had previously filed a motion to intervene in the above referenced civil case as a plaintiff-intervener dated November 22, 2011, as I still contend my interests were not properly represented by therein Plaintiff as to the constitutional issue still before that court, and subsequently was denied my intervention attempt to appeal to no avail as to the unsettled matter as a still ongoing injury to me personally; and I require at least as a matter of case administration as the case still is held active needs an explanation in the record of the court accordingly. That court administration there should show cause why the case should not be closed so that interlocutory orders may be taken on appeal to second department for hearing on the merits as to why with a continuing injury that started before the 2008 general election that it should not be remanded for amendment and hearing. The case remains designated as active with no explanation, and as Your Honor is the Administrative Judge with authority over that Supreme Court in Kings County this matter be resolved there. Thank you in advance for your attention to my request, and if there is need for further information please do not hesitate to contact me; as the above matter is true based upon the actual record of the court and my experience as such is an infringement upon my personally right to a speedy and fair treatment in this unified court system. Respectfully submitted by:
____________________________ H. William Van Allen

Subscribed and Affirmed to before me This ___ day of January 2014
_____________________ Notary Public
NYS Unified Court System Office of Court Administration 4 ESP, Suite 2001 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223-1450 By E-Mail: question@nycourts.gov By Phone: NYC Office: 212-428-2700 212-428-2190 fax Albany Office: 518-474-3828 Hon. A. Gail Prudenti is the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts. On behalf of the Chief Judge, the Chief Administrative Judge supervises the administration and operation of the State's trial courts. For further information call 212-428-2120.
Exhibit 10
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Petitioner, Index No. 29642108 Justice David I. Schmidt
- against DAVID PATERSON, et al., Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR RENEWAL OR REARGUMENT
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York 120 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, New York 10271 (212) 416-8567
JOSHUA PEPPER Assistant Attorney General o f Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The Attorney General of the State of New York submits this Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motions for Renewal or Reargument. This Court dismissed this case on the merits on December 4, 2008. See Exhibit A. Plaintiff now seeks to reopen this case but offers no reason for this Court to do so. Proposed Intervenor William Van Allen also seeks to reopen this case and to intervene as co-plaintiff, but this Court has already denied his motion to intervene, and Van Allen offers no reason to revisit this Court's denial. Plaintiff and Van Allen seek three forms of relief with their motions: renewal, reargument, and leave to amend the Complaint. Renewal is inappropriate because Plaintiff and Van Allen present no new facts that would have changed the prior result. This Court cannot grant reargument because Plaintiff and Van Allen identifj no legal or factual misapprehension by this Court in denying their motions previously, and their arguments are no more persuasive now than when first made. And this Court should not grant leave to amend because any proposed amendment would be meritless and palpably insuflicient as a matter of law. These motions should be denied.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On or about October 30, 2008, Plaintiff filed a petition (bearing Index Number 29641108) and a complaint (bearing Index Number 29642108). Ex. A at 2. Plaintiff alleged that President Barak Obama is not a "natural born citizen" and is thus ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States. Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of Notice of Motion To Renew and Reargue Completion of Service Nunc Pro Tunc with New Transactions To Supplement the Complaint ("Pl. Aff.")
34. Plaintiff further
alleged that Defendants, all of whom are public officials, were ineligible to serve as presidential electors. Ex. A at 2-3. This Court dismissed both actions on the merits on or about December 4,2008. See Ex. A. Plaintiff subsequently moved to renew or reargue, and this Court denied Plaintiffs motion on or about March 14,201 1. See Exhibit B. On or about March 22, 201 1, Plaintiff filed another complaint making the same allegations. Strunk v. N.Y.S. Bd. ofElections, 2012 WL 1205117, at *4 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Co. Apr. 11, 2012). Justice Arthur M. Schack dismissed this case on or about April 11, 2012. Id. at *2. In his decision, Justice Schack also imposed sanctions on. plaintiff: Justice Schack enjoined plaintiff from filing any m e r actions in this Court against any of the defendants in that action, including the Attorney General, the Governor, the Comptroller, and the State Board of Elections. Id. at * 19. On or about November 4, 201 1, Proposed Intervenor William Van Allen moved to intervene in this case. This Court denied Van Allen's motion on or about November 22,201 1. See Exhibit C. On or about November 14,2012, Plaintiff filed another case in this Court making the same allegations with respect to the presidential electors for the 2012 election. See Strunk v. Jeflies, Case No. 21948112 (Ex. D). This Court dismissed this case on May 9, 2013. Id. On or about January 24, 2014, this Court issued an order directing all parties to appear on March 28, 2014. As noted, this Court had already dismissed this case five years earlier, but the caption on the Order dismissing both Index Number 29641108 and Index Number 29642108 apparently contained the index number for the first case alone.
See Ex. A. This clerical error apparently prevented the clerk of the court from closing
this case. On March 17, 2014, the undersigned counsel received the instant motions from plaintiff and Van Allen. Plaintiff moves to "renew and reargue completion of service nunc pro tunc." P1. Aff. intervene.
I . Van Allen moves to renew or reargue his motion to
Petitioner's Affidavit in Support of Motion To Renew and Reargue
Intervention ("Van Allen Aff.").
ARGUMENT
I.
NEITHER PLAINTIFF NOR VAN ALLEN HAS IDENTIFIED ANY BASIS ON WHICH THIS COURT CAN GRANT RENEWAL.
To obtain an order of renewal, a party must demonstrate new facts that could not
have been ascertained at the time of the original motion. Schlesinger v. Harleysville
Worcester Ins. Co., 41 A.D.3d 692, 693 (2d Dep't 2007). The new facts must be such
that would have changed the prior determination. Cusimano v. Strianese Family Limited
P'ship, 97 A.D.3d 744, 746 (2d Dep't 2012); Cohen v. Wallace & Miwhenberg, 39
A.D.3d 690 (2d Dep't 2007). Plaintiff offers no new facts at all. He simply repeats his allegations that President Obarna was not born in the United States. Plaintiff also argues that the Court may allow completion of service nunc pro
tunc. PI. Aff. 7 49. But this Court dismissed Plaintiffs case on the merits, not for lack of
proper service. See Ex. A. Thus, the question of service is moot. Van Allen argues that because of the filing injunction against Plaintiff, Van Allen remains "the only Proposed Intervener [sic] capable of having standing herein." Van Allen Aff. 7 8. As this Court recognized in Strunk v. Jepies, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this case. See Ex. D. The same applies to Van Allen. Thus, Van Allen's new fact
would not have changed the prior determination, as required for renewal. See Cohen, 39 A.D.3d at 690. No basis for renewal exists.
11.
PLAINTIFF AND VAN ALLEN OFFER NO BASIS ON WHICH THIS COURT CAN GRANT REARGUMENT.
A motion for reargument is not an appropriate vehicle for raising new questions
not previously advanced. Simpson v. Loehmann, 21 N.Y.2d 990 (1968). Rather, the movant must demonstrate that the Court misapprehended the law or the facts in granting the prior motion. Pryor v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 17 A.D.3d 434, 435-36 (2d Dep't 2005); Amato v. Lord & Taylor, Inc., 10 A.D.3d 374, 375 (2d Dep't 2004). Neither Plaintiff nor Van Allen has identified any facts or law that this Court misapprehended in its previous orders. Nor does either of them attempt to do so. Thus, they are not entitled to reargument.
111.
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DENIED AS PALPABLY INSWFICIENT AND MERITLESS.
A court may deny leave to amend a pleading when the proposed amendment is
palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. Smith-Hoy v. AMC Prop. Evaluations, 52 A.D.3d 809, 81 1 (2d Dep't 2008); Probst v. Cacoulidis, 295 A.D.2d 331, 332 (2d Dep't 2002); Leszczynski v. Kelly & McGlynn, 281 A.D.2d 519, 520 (2d Dep't 2001). Although Plaintiff has not actually moved to amend his complaint, Plaintiff argues that his complaint "is insufficient to protect Plaintiffs liberty and rights causing personal injury; and therefore, requires a supplement." PI. Aff.
25.
Plaintiffs proposed
supplement alleges that '"Martial Process' was implemented by operation of law associated with the March 4, 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt assumption to the Office of President." PI. Aff., Ex. 6,7 4. Plaintiff further alleges that all courts are now imposing martial law. Id at 77 5 , 6. These allegations, besides being completely implausible, do 4
not allege any action by defendants in this case and thus do not state a cause of action against any of them even if true. Thus, Plaintiffs proposed supplement is palpably
I
insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiff may not supplement his complaint.
CONCLUSION
This Court has repeatedly dismissed Plaintiffs continual lawsuits and motions, and Plaintiff just keeps filing additional motions making the same allegations. Plaintiff offers this Court nothing new, and neither does Van Allen. Defendants respecthlly request that this Court deny both motions, direct the clerk of the court to close this case, and grant such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: New York, New York March 25,2014 Respectfully submitted,
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York

By: Assistant Attorney General 120 Broadway, 24" floor New York, NY 10271 tel: 1-212-416-8567 fax: 1-2 12-416-6075 Joshua.pepper@ag.ny.gov
'
* #
b
&*@'
W-rrpIIa
I.s.~
HOPI. DAVID I. SCHMIDT
I
4
SIJPREiGfE COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW Y8R.K G'OL%TV OF W G S
', .
L S
Yot~ce of MorionlOrder to Show Cdusei
Petition Grusr hlotron and "Iffidat. ~ t (Afimlations) s hexed
17)pposlng Affidldavttf,(Affirmations) lieply Affidavsts (Al'fimat~ons) 4fEdaavit (Affinnat1ot.i) Other Papers-
1-2, 3-4 5
Upon the t'oregoilsg gapers in this hrtlcle 75 proceeding, respondents Fel~x Orttz
and Ke1tl-t L T.Viiright moves to dismiss the petition against them. In a separate mutlon,
respondent 4lario (ailerato nlcrves to dismiss the petition agalast him,
O n It'ovember 14, 2012, petitioner Christopher-Ewi Stunk csarmenced this

proceeding by filing a petition with the County Clerk, Among other things, the petition
soilghr. an :n~jurictirrnbcaying the aeccrnber 15, 2012 vote
~.
i>f
"ie F;ew
Vork Electoral
Ck>iZrgc as \>,eel as a judgment decHzbsir:g that Prekidei~tiai Electors who c~rnpriseiht"
Elccroral College are precluded by thetr fiduciary and legal dutres from voting ft~r President Obama* In this regard, it is petirioner" contention that President Bbama
IS
not
qudlified to ;enre as President of the dlt~itedStates inasmuch as he is not a natural-born

citizen
of the t'n~tedStares as required under relevant prsvisiar?~ of the LTnited States
Constinrtion. ' Respondents Ortiz, tf:rigbt, and Cilento, aIf of \thorn are Presidential Electors and members of New York State" Electoral College, now move to dismiss the pet~tionas against them. In support of his motion, Cilento argues that: petitioner lacks standing: the petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be gantcd; the petitioner's clalms are barred by collateral estoppel, and that petitioner failed to properly serve the petirion. Respondent Ce1ent.o further arDes thgt petitioner should be sanctioned under 32 W C R R
130- 1.1(a) for engaging in frivolous conduct. In srrpport of their subject, respondents
Wright and Ortiz raise these same arguments. In addition, tVright and Ortiz argue that
the petit1011must be dismiqsed as xnoot rl~asmuchas the EIectoml College tote has already
taken place.
In opposition to the motion, pet1"eicbner contends that the subject respondents arc
'*de fact0 state officerc;," and as such, were properly semed ptkrsuimat to CPLR 307
Pcfitaener aBso argues that ci-rE!aterat estoppel does not bar his claxrns inasmuch there has never been a trial o f facts regarding his underiying claim - namely the Prcsadcnt Qbarna's
kiawa~iank9ah ~e~-t~d.lcake IS sl forgery
------
The ~etitioj-, ai:;o ~%"a so .vo;d

*.a
Pentloner further cilntcnds t3aa he aors habe

of Ne-i~. York
Senaai;ir*
i.:ection
Giliibradi,.
stdndlng In thts matter In his capac~tyas a prlvate c ~ t ~ under ~ e n the 1qth-4mzndtnent In

ddiiltlon, pettcloner argues that his clarrns are just~cidble:inasmuch as the tnenlbers o f the
Yew York State Electoral College are subject to the junsd~ctt&tn of $tale court, F~nralI>,
petrtloncr argues rhat bts claims are not moot tnasmuch as the llkel~hood of rcpet~ttonand
a continued injury requ~res a decision by the eoun.
Initially, t t is clear that respondent faded to properly scrvc the movrng respondents
u~ t k the petition, In particular, rt 1s undisputed rhat pet~tioner merely rnn~led a copy of the
nonce of petition and petition to the movants, ivh~ch does not sat~sfy the requirements for senlee upon an ~ndividuaIset forth
AU3d 730, '731 [2003j).
In
CPLR 308 (itlwtter o f Glrarte~ I1T ~ v Veginutte, 2
Moreoter, even rf the court were to deem the Inovlng
respondents to be state officers, petrtioner falied to properly serve s a d respondents In

accordance s l t h CPLR 397 Consequently, the petrtion must be dismrssed as agalnst the mot ing respondents based upon lack of personal j ~ r l ~ d i ~ t l o n Furlher, even if pctrtloner had properly served the petillon, the tnatter t+;t~ortld hake
to be ~
~ S M I ~ S based S C ~ upon
add~rriinal taral defects Spec~l'icdlly, ger~tlcrner lack standing

""a
In rhts regard, I n an A&rclc 78 proceedrng,
prrvate cltszen ~ h does o nor sh0.x 3ny
special f-lyhts or anterests III the matter rn controoiersy, other than these common to all tax-
p a y r s and zrtlaens, has no standrng rc $ue""-%f~ater-. of' Ifzchan
Colin0 ($ Wcsrc4el;er,
f 4D3d 533, 572% f$(W'4!)
Mere, pntati.orer has
pot
iemr.~lstra.icd any >ack speca~41 --~gk;es
or anterzst other "an those common to all c~szcns In add~t~spa, the perrtion fad3 to stare
ss3>
~csgnlzablz222srn ~ g a ~ me r;~ rno\rr;p rc-pandentls m d c r ?ither
"\t,.iz-
Yi:rki Srare
Etectlon Law, Federal Law, or the common-law. Mureocer, inasmuch as the New Vork
State Electoral Collcgc has already voted, pelrtl~ncr" claims against the n~otjing
respondents are moot {Srvntogn Co~ttlty Chanlber dcommerce, inc,v Patakr, 100 NV2d
As a final matter, uncler the ~ i r c u m ~ t a n presented, ~es the court declines to impose
sanctions against petitioner

Accordingly, the respondents' motions are granted to the extent that the petition is
dismissed as against respondents Ortiz, Wright, and Cilento,

This constitutes the decision and order of the court,
ENTER,
J, S,@,
HON.DAVID I. SCHNliDT
At an IAS Term, Special Election Part of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of K i n g s ,at the Courthouse, at Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York, on the 4&day of December, 2008.
PRESENT:
HON.DAVID I. SCHMIDT
Index N o . 29641108
Petitioner,
(NYS GOVERNOR), DAvm A. PATERSON ANDREW CUOMO ATTORNEY 06NBRAL), DEAN SKELOS (PRESCDEW PRO TEMPOREOF THE NYS SENATE AND IN LINE TO SUCCEBD THE G O V E R N O R ) ,
m O A 4 A S P.DNAPOLI WYS COMPTROLLER), AND LORRAINE A. CORTEZ-VAZQLJEZ (SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK),
Respondents.
follow in^ p m u m l l e r e t to 3 read on $hisrnotio~

Pa~ers Numbered
Notice of MotioniOrder to Show Causd PetitiodCross Motion and mdavits (Affirmations) Annexed Opposing AftIdavits ( ~ a t i o n s )
1-3
Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) A f f i d a v i t (Affirmation)

Other Papers
Upon the foregoing papers, pro se petitioner Christopher Earl Strunk hetitioner) moves, by order to show cause, dated October 30, 2008, for an order, purwant to CPLR Article 78, prohibiting respondents New York State Governor David A Paterson, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, New York State Senate President Pro Tempore
D e a n Skelos and New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli fiom serving as electors
of president and vice president of the United States' pursuant to Election Law 8 12-100.
Background
Petitioner has annexed a verified petition dated October 27,2008 (bearing index number 2964 1/08) and verified complaint dated October 27,2008 (bearing index number 29642108) to the order to show cause herein. The of the allegations set forth in
both the petition and complaint challenge the 2008 New York Presidential Electoral
College. In this regard, petitioner specifically alleges that the respondents New York State Governor David A. Paterson, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and New York State Senate President Pro Tempore Dean Skelos, who were among the designated electors of President and Vice ~residen?chosen in the general election on November 4,2008, violate the New
'Petitioner acknowledges in paragraph 4 of his verified petition that respondent New York State Secretary of State Lorraine A. Cortez-Vazquez is "not an elector candidate .."
The offices of President and Vice President of the United States, under our constitutional fonn of government, are chosen by electors selected by the voters in each State ( U . S . Const., art. 11, 4 1; see N.Y. Const., art. II, 19). A review of the Election Law reflects this indirect system of voting for President and Vice President, wherein the provisions consistently refer to the electors of president and vice president as the offices being chosen by the electorate of this State (Election Law 5 6-102; see Matter ofMahoney v Lomenzo, 21 AD2d 971 [1964], affd 14 NY2d 952 [I 9641).
York State Constitution by simultaneously holding two public officer positions and receiving compensation for both. It is petitioner's contention that the New York State Constitution bars the designated respondents from holding more than one public officer position for which he or she receives compensation. Additionally, petitioner argues that respondents, as duly elected public officials, all have a direct and substantive conflict of interest in also serving as electors in that "each are required to certie and or participate in their corporate duties in defending themselves and or approving their certification for employment as an elector and certification for payment of compensation and expenses"
(Strunk Affidavit at 3, 7). The October 30,2008 order to show cause therefore seeks a
temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction directing those respondents with
more than one public officer position to resign as an elector.
Dlscusslon
Petitioner raises the issue regarding an alleged conflict of interest (incompatibility)
in respondents' simultaneous holding of two public offices. However, one person may
hold two offices simultaneously unless (a) they are incompatible or (b) a constitutional or
statutory prohibition exists against dual office holding.
It is a welbsettled common law rule that a public officer cannot hold two
39.43 incompatible offices simultaneously (Matter o/Sntith v Dillon, 267 A~pDiv.
[I943 1). This rule seeks to prevent offices of public trust &om accumulating in a single
individual. Two offices are incompatible if one is subordinate to th'e other or there is an
inherent inconsistency behveen the two offices (see People ex rel. Ryan v Green, 58 NY 295,304-05 [18741; OIMalleyv Macejka, 44 NY2d 53 0,535 [ 19781; Matter o f h p r a s v
County of Clinton, 2 13 AD2d 952,953 [I 9951; Matter ofDykeman v S y m o d , 54 AD2d
159,162 [ 19761; Fauci v Lee, 38 Misc.2d 564,567 [1963], @db 19 AD2d 777 [1963]). Incompatibility ''has been said to exist when there is a built-in right of the holder of one position to interfere with that of the other.
.."(OIMalley,44 NY2d at 535). Where one
person holds both such posts then "the design that one act as a check on the other would be hstrated" (id.). Here, the court has not identified any per se constitutional or statutory prohibition on an individual simultaneously serving as a public officer while also serving as an elector of president and vice president. As an initial matter, the court notes that electors of president and vice president are not classified as "public officers" under New York's Public Officers Law. Section 2 of the Public Officers Law classifies public officers as either "state officers" or "local officers." However local officers include just those chosen "by the electors of a portion only of the state . inapplicable herein. Under the portion of the provision defining "state officer," electors of president and vice president are expressly excluded fiom such definition and therefore cannot be deemed a "public officer" under the statute. Section 2 provides, in pertinent part, that:
.."thereby making such category
"The tenn 'state officer' includes every officer for whom all the electors of the state are entitled to vote, members of the legislature, justices of the supreme court, regents of the university, and every officer, appointed by one or more state officers, or by the legislature, and authorized to exercise his official functions throughout the entire state, or without limitation to any political subdivision of the state, except United States senators, members of congress, and electomfor president and vice-president o f ihe United States" (emphasis added). Electors of president and vice president are thus specifically excluded fiom the
state officer definition set fonh in the Public Ofiicers Law. Hence, the designated
respondents, contrary to petitioner's claims, violate no New York State Constitutional provision by holding public officer positions while also serving as electors.
The court M e r concludes that the New York State Constitutional provisions
raised by petitioner do not prohibit the designated respondents from holding their respective public ofiices as well as simultaneously,sewing as electon even assuming that electors of president and vice president are public officer positions. In this regard, thc
court finds that petitioner's reliance upon Article 1 1 1 , 87 of the Ncw York State
Constitution as barring the respondents fiom serving as public officers while also serving
as electors of president and vice president is without merit.

Article III, 1 7, in pertinent part, pravides that: 'Wo member of the legislature shall, during the rime for which he or she was elected, receive any civil appointment from
the governor, the governor and the senate, the legislahue or fiom any city government, to
an officewhich shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been
increased during such time" (emphasis added). Article 111, 4 7 further provides that acceptance of a permissible appointment thereunder "shall vacate his or her seat in the legislature" (emphasis added).
This constitutional provision expressly precludes a member of the legislature f r o m

accepting certain appointed as opposed to elected positions. Election Law 8 12-100
'
makes it clear that presidential and vice presidential electors are candidates for office and
therefore elected to said position, not appointed. Consequently, New York State Constitution Article III, 7 is inapplicable herein.' Additionally, the court rejects petitioner's argument that Article Xm,8 7 of the Constitution bars respondent public officers fiom holding more than one public office for Election Law 8 12-100 specifically states as follows:
"At the general election in November preceding the time fixed by
law of the United States for the choice of president and vice president of the United States, as many clectors of president and vice president of the United States shall be elected, as this state shall be entitled to. Each vote cast for the candidates of any party or independent body for president and vice president of the United States and each vota cast for MY write-in candidates for such offices shall be deemed to be cast for the candidates for elector of such party or independent body or the candidates for elector named in the certificate of candidacy of such write-in candidates."
The section remains equally inapplicable even considering the electors as appointed. Indeed, petitioner has failed to show that any legislative member serving as an elector herein gained such position by receiving a "civil appointment fiom the governor, the governor and the senate, the legislature or f r o m any city government .." In addition, petitioner has failed to show that the position of presidential and vice presidential elector constitutes, as specified in the section, "an office which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during [the time for which he or she was elected]." The constitutional section in all respects therefore has no application herein.
'
which he receives compensation. Article Xm, 7, entitled "Compensation of officers," provides as follows:
Each of the state officers named in this constitution shall, during his or her continuance in office, receive a compensation, to be fixed by law, which shall not be increased or diminished during the tenn for which he or she shall have been elected or appointed; nor shall he or she receive to his or her use any fees or perquisites of office or other compensation.
This constitutional provision governing compensation for state officers and legislative memben prohibits an officer from receiving extra (increased) compensation beyond his or her regular salary for performing their duties a3 said officer, and further bars any decrease in salary during his or her current term of office. This provision does not expressly forbid a public officer from receiving additional compensation attributable
o establish to simultaneously holding another public ofice. Clearly, petitioner has failed t
that there is any constitutional prohibition against respondents holding their respective public offices as well as simultaneously serving as electors of president and vice president. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the order to show cause is denied, and the petition is hereby
dismissed. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.
cc:
David A. Paterson 45 West 132nd Street Apt. 7N New York NY 10037 NYS BOE General Counsel New York State Board of Elections 40 NORTH PEARL STREET, SUITE 5 ALBANY, NY 12207-2729 ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of New York State by: JOSHUA PEPPER, Esq. AAG 120 BROADWAY 24th Floor New York, New York 10271-0332 Thomas P. DiNapoli Office of the State Comptroller 110 State Street Albany, NY 12236 Hakeem Jeffries 445 Neptune Avenue Amalgamated Warbasse #2 Brooklyn, NY 11224 Hakeem Jeffries 35 Underhill Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11238 Andrew Cuomo, Governor of the STATE OF NEW YORK The Capitol Albany, New York 12224
Sheldon Silver, The New York State Assembly The Capitol Albany New York 12224 Dean Skelos, The New York State Senate The Capital Room 501 Albany New York 12224 New York City Board of Elections Executive Office 32 - 42 Broadway, 7 Fl New York, NY 10004 H. William Van Allen
351 North Road Hurley, New York 12443

Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts
The Honorable Gail Prudenti, J.S.C.
New York State Unified Court System Office of Court Administration 25 Beaver Street, Room 852 New York, NY 10004
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II The WHITE HOUSE 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE N.W. WASHINGTON D.C. 20500-0003
David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo (NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli (NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of PLAINTIFFS AFFIDAVIT the Assembly), Malcolm Smith (NYS Senator), IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD), MOTION TO RENEW AND Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council), REARGUE COMPLETION OF William Thompson (NYC Comptroller), SERVICE NUNC PRO TUNC Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos WITH NEW TRANSACTIONS TO (President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their SUPPLEMENT THE COMPLAINT Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official Capacity and individually; The New York State Board of Elections and John Does and Jane Does Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------------x STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ) ) ss. )
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris secured beneficiary agent for debtor trust transmitting utility CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Plaintiff , being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: 1. That Plaintiff. subscribes to this affidavit in support of my notice of motion that
moves for leave with CPLR 2221(f) to renew and reargue the completion of service nunc pro tunc with new transactions and with CPLR 3025(b) to supplement the complaint (proposed Verified Supplement to the Complaint annexed) before the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. at the Part 47 Courtroom in the Courthouse at 360 Adams Street Brooklyn New York
STRUNKs Affidavit in support of Service NUNC PRO TUNC Page 1 of 15
10007, on the 28th day of March 2014, at 9:30 Oclock before Noon or at a time designated by the court or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard. 2. That Plaintiff re-submits herewith my Notice of Motion for leave to file proof of
service nunc pro tunc filed with the clerk of the court on November 28, 2011 with support affidavit and exhibits (See Exhibit 1 with sub--exhibits A through E); and 3. 4. After hearing having been denied on March 14, 2011 (See Exhibit 2). That the Order of this Court in Part 47 on January 24, 2014 proves this case
remains active an d that is a matter to be heard before the Court on March 28, 2014 (see Exhibit 3)as a related case to the active case Strunk v Jeffries et al NYS-SC for the County of Kings in Part 47 with Index No.: 2012-21948 having a Notice of Readiness for the Trial of the evidence of fraud at the 2012 General Election scheduled for June 18, 2014 perpetrated by the agents for Presidential Candidate Barack Hussein Obama, now the USURPER POTUS Commander-in chief, according to STRUNK, with authority and jurisdiction over this Court as a defacto executive martial rule court under 12 USC 95, 50 USC App 5(b) and related law associated with POTUS Commander-in-chief Franklin Delano Roosevelt s Proclamations 2039, 2040, 6201 with related proclamations and executive orders issues after March 4, 1933; and as further acknowledged by the NYS Supreme Court Appellate Division for the Second Department by the panel decision and order denying STRUNK his request for Civilian due process of law be provided in his Appeal Cases 12-5515, 13 6335 and 14-00297 taken from various Orders and Decisions in the case before Part 23 Strunk v NYS Board of Elections et al. NYS-SC for the County of Kings with Index No.: 6500-2011 now due to be submitted by May 5, 2014 (see Exhibit 4). 5. As background with the related Case Index No.: 6500-2011, it was maliciously
assigned with a perjured RJI petition to Part 23 rather than Part 47 against I.A.S. administrative procedure, even though this case 29642-2008 is listed as a related on the
first pages of the 6500-2011 Complaint. Clearly the circumstances have changed since March 22, 2011 with the misbehavior of Justice Arthur M. Schack in the Decision and Order for Case 6500-2011 barring STRUNK from any further action in a States court and or against any of the named defendants therein including the NYS Board of Elections even though the order(s) taken on appeal by Plaintiff Strunk to the Appellate Division with Appeal cases 12-5515, 13-6335 and 14-0297 remains unresolved accordingly; and 6. Thereby My hands are tied, and that makes the Petitioner for Intervention H.
William Van Allen the only Proposed Intervener capable of having standing herein as the necessary party for not only Plaintiff Strunk, but for the voters of New York and WE THE PEOPLE that would benefit by my intervention herein. 7. That on October 30, 2008 according to the RULES AND REGULATIONS of the STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS Current with amendments issued prior to 2008, TITLE 9 EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT SUBTITLE V STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS (NYS BOE) 6201.3 ELECTION LAW (2) the Complaint was duly served for the State Board staff to propose to the board an investigation of an alleged violation of the code; that accordingly that shall be filed by mailing to, or by personally serving, the Board of Elections at then address 40 Steuben St., Albany, NY 12207-2109. 8. That on March 14, 2011 the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. held in an order regarding both Plaintiffs reconsideration motion to file service nunc pro tunc and for an amended complaint that quote: All motions are denied. Mr. Strunk failed to join a necessary party President Obama & Senator McCain. & the statute of limitations to do so expired. In view of the above there would be no purpose to allow plaintiff to file passed service nunc pro tunc or for amended complaint. 9. That on October 25, 2011 the Honorable Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. held in the case Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. with Index 6500-2011 that the court would not claim jurisdiction
over matters transacted in regards to the 2008 Election cycle under the jurisdiction of the NYS BOE in the matter of ballot qualifications for office and declined to sign the order as to the NYS BOE wrote : "10/25/11 The Court declines to sign this OSC. This issue is not ripe until candidates file nominating petitions for public office for President of U.S. in several months. Further, the Court will [not] stop fund-raising by any candidate because candidates have a right to raise money pursuant to statute and the First Amendment. The issue of candidate qualification is subject to Court action after nominating petitions are submitted and candidates are challenged in Court."_s/AS " JSC" 10. That Plaintiff is a member of the de jure class of natural born citizens along with those similarly situated that include those who at birth are according to the de jure U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 ( 1 ) before the enactment of the 14th Amendment defined by law as expressed precedent in Minor. v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. by Justice Waite as natural born citizens (NBC) per se are so by virtue of birth on United States soil when both parents were Citizens of the United States ( 2 ).
United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 that mandates: 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.
[T]he Constitutionprovides that no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of PresidentThe Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or naturalborn citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words all children are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as all persons, and if 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 plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. (Emphasis added.)
2
11. That in New York only a person who is of the de jure class of natural born citizens may be nominated, designated and or certified accordingly by convention for candidacy for election by the duly elected electors of the electoral college required under NYS EL Article 12 and Article 14. 12. That based upon Plaintiff review of the NYS BOE Open Meetings record from 2007 forward until this date there has not been a mention of the term Natural born citizen or Born a Citizen in the record. 13. That Plaintiff in an effort to discover when and why the NYS BOE and or its agents maintain the improper eligibility / qualification instructions for a candidate to for office of POTUS in the 2012 election cycle as to Citizenship states born a citizen 14. Moreover, that the NYS BOE has the power under EL 3104. with enforcement powers that were bound to respond to when Plaintiff on October 30, 2008 effected service upon the NYS BOE with the efforts of H. William Van Allen with a complaint shown as Exhibit A-1 accompanied by a mandamus petition with Index 29641-08 served upon electors listed, to that NYS BOE agent(s) never responded under Election Law to the Plaintiff. 15. That the misstatement of Running for Office Qualification facilitates the violation of law campaign fund raising law as defined by EL 14-100 (7) for who may be a candidate for the office of POTUS determines who may seek contributions for the office of POTUS and or creation of an electoral college slate for 2008 and 2012 ballots. 16. That based upon Petitioner review of the NYS BOE Open Meetings record with Public Officers Law from 2007 forward until this date there has not been a mention of the term Born a Citizen in the record.
17. 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. That based upon the present NYS BOE website entitled Running for Office in regards to those seeking the Office of POTUS there is no use of the term of art Natural-born Citizen as required under U.S. Constitution Section 1, instead use the term Born a Citizen on the official webpage Running for Office appears as follows:
18. That based upon the requirement of Federal Law the instructions sent to the Governor of the State of New York for the formation of the New York Electoral College from New York in the 2008 Election cycle did not use the term Natural-born Citizen or Born a Citizen. 19. Therefore, the word of art Born a Citizen had to be created in the executive session of the NYS BOE and violates Public Officer Art. 7 103 Open Meetings Law. 20. That Petitioner requested by FOIL that the NYS BOE disclose the record of the executive session at which the term of Art Born a Citizen was invented and that the NYS BOE denied such information as privileged protected from public disclosure. 21. That Plaintiff had Mr. Van Allen request by FOIL that the NYS BOE disclose the
record of the communication between the Governors Office and or Attorney General office in regards to the use of the term of art Born a Citizen that was invented and that the NYS BOE denied such information as attorney client privileged protected from public disclosure as work product. 22. That Defendant NYS BOE has injured Plaintiff along with those similarly situated as a member of the class of those de jure citizens who are NBC. 23. That Defendant NYS BOE has injured Mr. Van Allen along with those similarly situated as a member of the minor State party that had performed a Wilson Picula endorsement of the Republican Party candidate for POTUS and denied an honest election by manipulating the qualifications to run for Office of POTUS. 24. That Plaintiff alleges the NYS BOE or agent(s) have failed to respond as required by EL 3-105 as relates to unequal protection of minor State party members afforded by special treatment for the major State Party Candidates with multiple lines on the Full Face Ballot with HAVA in State Election Law EL 6-120(3). 25. That Plaintiffs Complaint as with the Third Cause of Action is insufficient to protect Plaintiffs liberty and rights causing personal injury; and therefore, requires a supplement with subsequent transactions and incidents discovered after filing and before Defendants answer or otherwise respond and as is now the fact that the related action takes no jurisdiction of the evens and transactions relate to the 2012 and 2016 election cycles as a continuing injury. 26. Plaintiff alleges the NYS BOE and or its agents breach their oath of duty to the law by maintaining Born a Citizen and concealing the executive record of such political practice as an act of subversion that is undermining political parties and the electoral process including, but not limited to, the preparation or distribution of any fraudulent, forged or falsely identified writing or the use of any employees or agents who falsely
represent themselves as supporters of a candidate, political party or committee, that failed to respond as required by EL 3-106 (1). 27. That on or about October 3, 2011 State Attorney General Special Counsel to Defendant NYS BOE when presented with a request to stipulate and admit to use of the term of art Natural born Citizen to mean a person born on USA soil to two citizen parents under the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 rather than the term Born a Citizen refused to admit to the meaning or use of the express idiom for notification to a prospective candidate or committee use to disenfranchise voters and Petitioner with those similarly situated. 28. That a further Supplemental Cause of Action is required because of the onerous political activities of Defendant Cuomo, whom Plaintiff is barred from suing, first evidenced as the then US HUD Secretary that collapsed the economy in 2008 in coordination ACORN that went bankrupt and reemerged as a new threat to the People of New York along in partnership with Defendant Cuomo, who from before 2008 all worked together with then Attorney General, and now since 2010 when assuming the office of Governor having perpetrated a series of onerous unconstitutional ultra vires acts under colour of law that violate my Section 1 Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law that have escalated to public incoherent diatribes that threatened Petitioner as a conservative to leave the State or else be injured as the consequence of His continued wrath of the conga line of psychopathic disorders now overflowing from the Governors office and that must disqualify him from ever serving in elected office in New York again and bar his further action as an elected official that must be held as a threat to the life and safety of the general population. 29. That as a further supplemental cause of action, Plaintiff, who for years has been watchful of Judicial misbehavior, in contemplation of how the judiciary by enlarge is to be occupied by intelligent and well educated judges, is nevertheless so poorly trained and
instructed by the Unified Court system when either elected or appointed; and as such my curiosity as to the actual flaw in their training requested with a FOIL a copy of the public seminar used to train the Judges, and it is my understanding that in February 2014 Mr. Van Allen was told by the administrative response is not public 30. That like Plaintiff Strunks Freedom of Information Act efforts in Washington DC starting in 2008 to obtain the passport application records for Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, the Mother of Barack Hussein Obama, were hindered with only partially released documents with a huge scandal that emerged proving that spoliation and destruction of records were done and the reasons for destruction proffered and proven a crime of some proportions as my effort shows in the US Department of State release of directives as to the destruction of document proves that there will never be a protection of our 5th Amendment right under the US Constitution while the USURPER is in control of the Executive branch of government, leaving ONLY the respective State of Residence to provide the people equal protection under the law as must be done for private citizens of the United States in New York. 31. That I contend based upon the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution is suspended under the March 9, 1933 Proclamation 2040 for a continuing National Emergency shapes our history since March 4, 1933, and especially since the April 25, 1938 SCOTUS decisions ended the Lockner Era of common law rights; and that proves that WE the People of New York have been under a continuous siege of martial due process that has replaced Common Law Civilian due process , see explanation by Eric Jon Phelps and STRUNK at Exhibit 5. 32. That Plaintiff contends that this Court has discretion, given the inadequacy of Judicial instruction by refusal of the Office of Court Administration, to disclose what and when the elected judges may or may not know in regards to provision of martial due process rather that civilian due process, and that it appears true according to the Appellate Panel shown with Exhibit 4; and that affords this Court discretion to fashion a remedy as a matter of denial of administrative relief.
33. Further, Plaintiff contends that as a matter of law based upon the admission of the Appellate Panel in its decision and order shown as Exhibit 4 that the New York State Judiciary and this Court, although is a constitutional formed body here in the State as with the Federal Article III Courts are nevertheless in fact a defacto Executive Judicial body under the direct authority of the POTUS Commander-in Chief since March 6, 1933, and now BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II; and 34. Further, Plaintiff contends that while I am under this Martial Due Process I am entitled to directly challenge the eligibility of the Barack Hussein Obama II to hold the office of POTUS Commander-in chief with direct authority and control over the New York Judiciary and this Court per se, as BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. is not a natural-born citizen (NBC) by his own admission, because his father as a foreign alien student of Great Britain from Kenya with a US Visa here to study ONLY starting in 1959 was then a British Citizen at the Barack Hussein Obama Jr. birth, when ever and where ever that may have occurred; and that the official Hawaii index record of marriages shows that His Mother Stanley Ann Obama was duly married to His Father Barack Hussein Obama Sr. before she became married to Lolo Soetoro after she divorced Obama Sr.. 35. That after Defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II graduated from Occidental College he attended Columbia University and received foreign students funding with records under the supervision of the State of New York and or its agents. 36. That Defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II wrote an autobiography DREAMS FROM MY FATHER book published and copyrighted in 1995. 37. That the Publishers advertised BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II was born in Kenya. 38. That the copyright filing for DREAMS FROM MY FATHER listed BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II as born in Kenya. 39. That during the period leading up to 2008 General Election until sometime around April 2011 the copyright submission for DREAMS FROM MY FATHER listed BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II as born in Kenya was changed to born in the USA.
40. That during the period leading up to 2008 General Election until sometime around April 2011 there was a long form Certificate of Birth forged to indicate that BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II was born in the USA as will be proven at the 21948-2012 trial. 41. That during the period leading up to 2008 General Election the selective service registration form was forged to show that BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II had properly registered for the draft in 1980. 42. That during the period leading up to 2008 General Election the passport records with the birth certificate attachment for Stanley Ann Dunham, Stanley Ann Obama and Stanley Ann Soetoro were spoliated and destroyed by BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs agent John Brennan, the then CEO of the Corporation under contract with the US Department of State to maintain and use passport records. 43. Further, based upon the SCOTUS seminal decision in Minor v Happersett to be a Natural-born citizen without any question of national loyalties, one must be born of U.S. Citizen Parents, in which BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. is not. 44. Further supporting Plaintiffs contention that the Commander-in chief is an unconstitutional USURPER controlling the New York State Judiciary as a defacto Executive court without authority to do so, because BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II is not NBC; that every proclamation and executive order extending the National Emergency starting with the Iranian Crisis national emergency since 1979 is now void ab initio due to the USURPER Commander-in-chief, and that as such the New York State Judiciary and this Court without a constitutional Commander-in chief mandate for martial process to continue in place of civilian due process under colour of law violates Plaintiffs Section 1 Fourteenth Amendment equal protection of the law. 45. Further, in support of Plaintiffs contention that BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II is now USURPING the POTUS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF executive authority over the martial rule dispensed by New York State Court as a matter of contention posed by the
New York State Appellate Division order shown as Exhibit 4, is the video ( 3 ) released on Friday evening February 26, 2014, for the disclosure by the Honorable Michael Shrimpton barrister to HER MAJESTYS BENCH ( 4 ) in regards to the ineligibility of BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. to be POTUS, stating unequivocally that Barack Hussein Obama "was born in Mombasa, Kenya."; wishes to join BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II as a necessary party herein. 46. That I have been in touch with Barrister Michael Shrimpton, and he has agreed to testify at trial (see Exhibit 6). 47. That in light of the newly disclosed allegation from credible authorities, Plaintiff has never asked for this relief before, and in that I have been rendered incapable of joining this matter himself as a result of the outrageous actions by ARTHUR M. SCHACK, that Mr. Van Allen is entitled to relief herein and that the supplement to this complaint annexed herewith be accepted accordingly. 48. That in Mr. Van Allens case 1787-2012 when he went to Albany before Acting Judge Richard Platkin re: the New York State BOE refusal to use express instructions of the
http://wwil was w.birtherreport.com/2014/02/official-wikipedia-scrubs-michael.html Boom: Wikipedia Scrubs Michael Shrimpton Profile; Kenyan Obama Caught On Tape
BIOGRAPHY of Michael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983 and is a specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and CounterTerrorism. He has wide ranging connections both in Western Intelligence agencies and amongst exSoviet Bloc agencies. Michael has earned respect in the intelligence community for his analysis of previously unacknowledged post WWII covert operations against the West by organisations based in Washington, Munich, Paris and Brussels and which are continuing in post 9-11. He is Adjunct Professor of intelligence Studies, Department of National Security, Intelligence and Space Studies, American Military University, teaching intelligence subjects at Masters Degree level to inter alia serving intelligence officers. He has represented US and Israeli intelligence officers in law and has briefed staffers on the Senate select Committee on Intelligence and Joint Congressional inquiry into 9-11, also addressing panels on terrorism in Washington DC and Los Angeles. His active assistance to Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies in the Global War on Terror has produced some notable success including the exposure of the Abu Graib hood photograph as a fake. His work in strategic intelligence takes him on regular trips to the Pentagon and he also met with senior advisors to the President of the Russian Federation in Moscow in November 2005. He participated in the Global Strategic Review conference in Geneva in 2005 and is a contributor at conferences such as Intelcon and the Intelligence Summit Washington DC February 2006. http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/shrimpton/
4
Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and held in the order to dismiss that: In view of petitioner's lack of standing to maintain the instant proceeding, there is no reason to consider respondent's additional contentions that this proceeding is barred by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel based upon prior litigation undertaken by Christopher-Earl Strunk, an alleged privy of petitioner, and that the petition is non-justiciable insofar as the Electoral College is the sole and exclusive forum in which objections to the selection of a President may be determined. (Emphasis added by Petitioner) 49. Further, affords this court discretion to allow Service completion nunc pro tunc that the CPLR as follows:
2001. Mistakes, omissions, defects and irregularities. At any stage of an action, the court may permit a mistake, omission, defect or irregularity to be corrected, upon such terms as may be just, or, if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced, the mistake, omission, defect or irregularity shall be disregarded.
2004. Extensions of time generally. Except where otherwise expressly prescribed by law, the court may extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown, whether the application for extension is made before or after the expiration of the time fixed. 2005. Excusable delay or default. Upon an application satisfying the requirements of subdivision (d) of section 3012 or subdivision (a) of rule 5015, the court shall not, as a matter of law, be precluded from exercising its discretion in the interests of justice to excuse delay or default resulting from law office failure. Rule 2221.(f) A combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew shall identify separately and support separately each item of relief sought. The court, in determining a combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew, shall decide each part of the motion as if it were separately made. If a motion for leave to reargue or leave to renew is granted, the court may adhere to the determination on the original motion or may alter that determination. 50. And given the nature of the matter before this Court that the case with Index No.: 21948-2012 with a note of issue and trial schedule for June 18, 2014 should be afforded consolidation of the bench trial with CPLR 602. Consolidation. (a) Generally. When actions involving a common
question of law or fact are pending before a court, the court, upon motion, may order a joint trial of any or all the matters in issue, may order the actions consolidated, and may make such other orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. 51. And furthermore, due to the nature of the constitutional question of first impression before the court and the difficulty of service that the court has discretion to allow service by publication under CPLR: 315. Service by publication authorized. The court, upon motion without notice, shall order service of a summons by publication in an action described in section 314 if service cannot be made by another prescribed method with due diligence. Rule 316. Service by publication. (a) Contents of order; form of publication; filing. An order for service of a summons by publication shall direct that the summons be published together with the notice to the defendant, a brief statement of the nature of the action and the relief sought, and, except in an action for medical malpractice, the sum of money for which judgment may be taken in case of default and, if the action is brought to recover a judgment affecting the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property, a brief description of the property, in two newspapers, at least one in the English language, designated in the order as most likely to give notice to the person to be served, for a specified time, at least once in each of four successive weeks, except that in the matrimonial action publication in one newspaper in the English language, designated in the order as most likely to give notice to the person to be served, at least once in each of three successive weeks shall be sufficient. The summons, complaint, or summons and notice in an action for divorce or separation, order and papers on which the order was based shall be filed on or before the first day of publication. 52. That in regards to Plaintiffs fundamental right to a hearing on his grievance as is his right to petition, and in light of the order shown as Exhibit 4 the new transactions and facts warrant that this Court grant Plaintiff relief herein and accept the annexed supplement to the complaint. Wherefore, Plaintiff wishes an order of the Court granting completion of service NUNC PRO TUNC, along with an order that: A. A notice of summons to all defendants along with supplemental defendants
Exhibit 1
-.
--
.-
Strunk v Pat
.29642-08
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS

Christopher Earl Strunk,
. .
Index No.: 29642 108

(Hon. Justice David I. Schmidt)
-against-
Plaintiff,
David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo (NYS Attornev General). Thomas P. DiNa~oli
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OF SERVICE
. -
. C q
Candidate Presidential Electors as ;class, in their Ca acity and individually; The New York State Bo of lections and John Does and Jane Does
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexeckdfidavit ~ M ~ h e r - ~ a St~unk r l :in esse,
affirmed February 18,2011 with proof of service annexed, will move for leave to file the
.
..
_I
Original Proof of Service upon Defehdants NYS Board of Elections, NYS Secretary of State and NYS Attorney General nunc pro tunc before the Honorable David I. Schmidt at courtr-the
" ~ o u r t h o u s ~360 a t Adams Street Brooklyn New York 11201, i n 1lL day of
9:30 O'clock before Noon o r at a time designated by the court or as soon

thereafter as counsel can be heard.
593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28 1 Brooklyn, New York 11238 Ernail: chris @ strunk.ws Ph. 845-90 1-6767
Kimberly A. Galvin, Esq. for the New York State Board of Elections 40 Steuben Street. Albany ,NY ,12207 Andrew Cuomo, NYS Governor The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN NYS Office of ATTORNEY GENERAL by: JOEL GRABER, ESQ.AAG Assistant Attorney General 120 BROADWAY New York, New York 10271
'
RUTH NO EM^ C O L ~ N Acting Secretary of

State for the NYS Department of State One Commerce Plaza 99 Washington Ave, Albany, NY 12231-0001
Notice of Motion
Strunk v Paterson et al. NYS Supreme Court of Kings Index No. 29642-08

---------------------------------------------------------------------------x Christopher Earl Strunk, Plaintiff, -againstDavid A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo (NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli (NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of the Assembly), Malcom Smith (NYS Senator), th Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57 AD), Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council), William Thompson (NYC Comptroller), Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos (President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official Capacity and individually; The New York State Board of Elections and John Does and Jane Does Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Index No.: 29642 / 08
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF OF THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE PROOF OF SERVICE NUNC PRO TUNC
STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS
) ) ss. )
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:
1. That I am the self represented Plaintiff, Christopher Earl Strunk in esse (Affirmant, Strunk) with place for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue 281 Brooklyn New York 11238 telephone (845) 901 -6767 and email: chris@strunk.ws. 2. This affirmation supports the Notice of Motion by CPLR 2214 with 2004 for leave under CPLR 2005 to file Proof of Service with the Clerk of the Court nunc pro tunc, for the Summons and Complaint with Index 29642-08 filed on or about October 29, 2008, in addition to Express Mail ordered with CPLR 304, duly served December 1, 2008 upon NYS Board of Elections, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, and Secretary of State Lorraine A. Cortez-Vazquez, complying with CPLR 307, 308 and related law; and that there is no previous request for this relief, nor is there another to benefit.
Affidavit in support of leave to file Proof of Service Page 1 of 4
3. On January 11, 2011, at the hearing of the Notice of Motion for leave to file a first amended complaint in the case with index 29642-08, argued that Plaintiff is in good faith with the requirements of the CPLR rules for service, based upon the information and belief that the original proof of service had been filed during December 2008 by the third party server H, William Van Allen who had confirmed having served specific Defendants to Plaintiff on December 2, 2008 by email (see Exhibit A). 4. Plaintiffs prior experience with a third party server is that such due process requirement is to be completed by that service provider accordingly with an affidavit of service is by mail or in person delivery upon the clerk of the court; however in this case service was accomplished but the proof of service was not filed within ten days from service as required was not done. 5. On January 11, 2011 after the hearing Affirmant went to the court clerk to discover if the third party server H, William Van Allen had filed the Proof of Service with the clerk; 6. That Affirmant did find the double captioned proof of service ordered with CPLR 304 done by Plaintiff Express Mail (see Exhibit B) is marked for 29642-08 as required notice to Defendants as a related action, was there filed in the folder for 29641-08, and Affirmant requested the records clerk create a copy (see Exhibit C); but that no Proof of Service as with CPLR 307 and 308 by the third party server H, William Van Allen was discovered for 29642-08 in the 29641-08 folder. 7. That on January 11, 2011, Affirmant contacted H, William Van Allen who had in fact not produced the affidavit within tens days of the December 1, 2008 service as an honest mistake due to Plaintiff failure to follow-up; and that on January 13, 2011
H. William Van Allen affirmed the Affidavit for Proof of Service done on December 1, 2008 upon NYS Board of Elections, NYS Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, and NYS Secretary of State and attached the December 2, 2008 email confirmation thereto (see Exhibit D). 8. That Plaintiff contends that the 29641-08 Article 78 Petition, with time of the essence, was absolutely related to further action in the Complaint with Summons 29642-08 and relied directly upon the Original Disposition of Law in the 29642-08 that would be created by the court in the matter of first impression by the 29641-08 Petition (see Exhibit E) that determines the degree that Breach of Public Officers fiduciary duty alleged in the Complaint if Criminal Sedition and Treason is involved in the civil matter, thereby requires proper simultaneous due notice to those Defendants of criminal allegations requiring dual notice to Defendants as well as the NYS Attorney General, since Plaintiff has no authority to proceed in any criminal matters, 9. But Plaintiff contends, there is a responsibility to provide due notice to those in authority to properly proceed in the civil matter to seek remedy for injury and damages, and therefore, accordingly Petitioner / Plaintiff had to simultaneously serve both the Petition of 29641-08 and the Summons with the Complaint 29642-08 on Respondents / Defendants in order to proceed thereafter or else create a hybrid petition - complaint that is inadvisable generally. 10. Plaintiff contends that proper service was accomplished on ALL Defendants as shown by Exhibit C and that the follow-up personal service as under CPLR 307 and 308 shown in Exhibit D is ancillary to the civil action 29642-08 that depend upon the original disposition of first impression with the 29641-08 Petition.
Sbumk v Patersoa e t al. NYS Supreme Court of K i n g s IndexNo. 29642-08
11.That DeSendant rights have not been infringedby recognition of the ancillary
peraonal proof a f f d c e filing nunc pro tunc, and depended upon supplemental more
dejinite statememt t o be made in the civil injury and damages that are directly subject
t o the to the notiice given simultaneous with the Article 78 petition as the injury to
Plaintiff r e m h ongoing by the effects of the .fraud alleged by the Defendants

malfeasance in kihe 2008 Election cycle for President and Vice President. 12.That Affhnant knows the foregoing content8 apply to me and my civil injury with damages a ~ a s a State quegtion involving the questionable seating of the New York ballot access afforded by arbitrary and Electoral Collegge after the que~tionable capricious actiom afthe NYS Board of Elections et a l . for the various P a r t y Presidential
Cmdidate S l a b a t the General Election of Nwember 4,2008; the same is true to my

own knawledge;,cexcept as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and aes to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as
to all matters ncdt stated upon intonnation and belief are as follows: third parties, books
and records, and lpersanalknowledge.
Wherefire Wlaintiff wishes an order of the Court gran(1)

(2)
that Defemdants were properly sewed in individual and official capaci* Plaintiff lkave to me the Roof of Service with the clerk of the court nunc pro tunc;
fl I
Sworn T h i s *pP"f0m-420, day o f IFe
ARNOLD I. TlSHFlELD Notary Public State Of New York N0.41-4611662 Qualified In Queens County Certified In Kings County Commission Expires March 30, 2 0 g
-- - .
MTkbit in support of leave to file Proof of Service Page 4 of 4
--.<*
L I -
"
--.
---'
Strunk v Paterson et al. NYS Supreme Court of Kings Index No. 29642-08 Motion for Leave to file Proof of Service NUNC PRO TUNC
Exhibit A
Plaintiff / Server E-Mail of December 2, 2008
Print
Page 1 of 2
From: Bill Van Allen (hvanallen@hvc.rr.com) To: hvanallen@hvc.rr.com; cestrunck@yahoo.com; Date: Thu, December 4, 2008 9:04:02 AM Cc: Subject: RE: Personal Service of the NYSSC 29641-08 Art 78 Petition and NYSSC 29642-08 Summons and Complaint
Chris: The NYS-SOS lawyer accepting service of your papers was Gary Trechel, Associate Atty, NYS DoS From: Bill Van Allen [mailto: hvanallen@hvc.rr.com ] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 8:13 PM To: ' cestrunck@yahoo.com ' Subject: RE: Personal Service of the NYSSC 29641-08 Art 78 Petition and NYSSC 29642-08 Summons and Complaint Under penalty of perjury, I make the following declaration of proof of personal service. On Dec 1 in Albany NY I service one copy of each Strunk state supreme court case one Article 78 petition and Notice of Petition as well as one copy of Summons and Complaint as follows: on staff counsel for at 3PM
Lorraine A. Cortes-Vazquez, Secretary of State New York Department ...

Department of State One Commerce Plaza , 99 Washington Avenue Albany , NY 12231-0001 Phone: (518) 474-4752 Fax: (518) 474-4597
For Andrew Cuomo NYS Attorney General at 3:10 PM on William Collins Legal Record Supervisor NYS-OAG
Office of the Attorney General The Capitol Albany , NY 12224-0341

For NYS Board of Elections 44 Steuben Street, at 3:20 PM on Paul Collins, staff attorney for the state BOE
Kimberly A. Galvin, Esq. Special Counsel for The New York State Board of Elections, Deputy Director Todd D. Valentine , Deputy Director Stanley Zalen,
NYS BOARD OF ELECTIONS 40 STEUBEN STREET ALBANY, NY 12207-2108 /s/ H. William Van Allen 351 North Road Hurley, NY 12443
http://us.mg2.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.gx=1&.rand=bda968rm2bee5
1/5/2011
Print
Page 2 of 2
From: Chris topher Strunk [mailto: cestrunck@yahoo.com ] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 8:10 PM To: BILLVANALLEN Subject: Personal Service of the NYSSC 29641-08 Art 78 Petition and NYSSC 29642-08 Summons and Complaint
As per your efforst on December 1, 2008 please confirm by retunring this email for you effort to Personally Serve the NYS Secretary of State, NYS BOE, and NYSAG Andrew Cuomo with a package each of: the Article 78 action 29641-08 Notice of Peition and Verified Petition with exhibit A and The Summons and Verified Complaint in NYSSC County of Kings 29642-08. Chris Strunk
http://us.mg2.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.gx=1&.rand=bda968rm2bee5
1/5/2011
Exhibit B
ORDER with CPLR 304 done by Plaintiff Express Mail
sP&#if&/6''&4';-
At IAS Part /' of tbe Supreme Court of the State of New York Held in and for the County of Kings, at the courthouse at 360 Adsms Street on the 3 3 Day of October 2008
''
PRESENT:
~ 0 " .3
d SAM/& Justice of the Supreme Court

~ 1

Petitioner, -against-
Index No.:
27~; 4 - 0&)
David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo (NYS Attorney General), Dean Skelos (President pro Tempore of the NYS Senate and in line to succeed the governor),Thomas P. QiNapoli (NYS Comptroller), and Lorraine A. Cortez-Vazquez (Secretary of the State of New York), Respondents.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WIT11 TRO IN THE CPLR ARTICLE 78 CIVIL ACTION
Upon reading and filing the affidavit of Christopher Earl Strunk affirmed to on the 28Ih day of October 2008, and upon the exhibits, verified petition and verified complaint attached to the affidavit, and memorandum of law under jurisdiction of the CPLR Article 78 in conjunction with the New York State Election Law Article 5 16-100 in which Election Law Article 12 applies from before the November 4,2008 General Election thru December 25,2008 for emergency equity relief, as a matter of state of New York Constitutional Law. Let the respondents or their attorney show cause at the IAS Part
/ -jpie,@ P / ! C / , C ~ ,Room
d+'l ,of this Court, to be held at the Courthouse, 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on
the
3day of
hl 0 V
,2008. at
q.":Joo'clock in the
f i < r noon or as soon
as counsel may be heard why an Order should not be made affecting the Electoral College,
M N G COUNW ~ CLERK
FEEPDS4680
a. of Governoi Paterson to resign as elector and stay operation of EL $12-102 until

directed otherwise by the Court, as he is now in conflict of interest with the State; b. of the Comptroller DiNapoli to resign as elector and stay operation of EL $12- 1 10 until directed otherwise by the Court, as he is in conflict of interest with the State; c. of the Attorney General Cuomo to resign as elector to be able to act in his State constitutional responsibility and that he is now in conflict with State interest and is stayed from krther involvement in this matter until directed otherwise by the Court,. d. of the President pro tempore, Senator Skelos, to resign as elector, and who must carry out the duties of the Lieutenant Governor vacancy until after the election pending the January 1,2009 oath of a new Lieutenant Governor;
e. of the Secretary of State to stay operation of EL 5 12-102 and EL 12-1 10 until

directed otherwise by the Court,
f. the New York State Board of Elections to strike from the ballot any winner-take-all
'4.~'
..-.C . .
candidate elector slate with one or more public officers therein; g. And for further and different relief as the Court may deem necessary herein. As it is alleged that no public officer shall hold more than one public officer position for compensation under the State Constitution; and that were an Electoral College candidate to be elected at the November 4, 2008 General Election under Election Law Article 12 while already
being a public officer for compensation, would thereafter also by the operation of EL Article 12
participate as the authority with responsibility to both certify and or be a beneficiary of public
policy and or funds. Pending the hearing of this motion it is ORDERED that Respo&are to notify the
Assembly and vacancies in the various presidential
elector candidate slate's certified by September 4, 2008 to appear on the Novemb General Election ballot statewide for elect' g a winner-take-all slate that may e disqualified by this Court; and fbrther,
e affecting the Electoral College,
Sufficient cause appearing therefore, let p e m d - s m i c e of this order, and the papers
<
C3 u &#(6~'-7-
upon which this order is granted, upon the respondents David A. Paterson, Andrew Cuomo, Dean Skelos, Thomas P. DiNapoli, Lorraine A. Cortez-Vazquez, and public officers: Sheldon Silver, Malcom Smith, Hakeem Jeffries, Christine Quinn, William Thompson, Jim Tedisco,
r d 4fld 4%1"/4'~~2&
, & i -
Dean Skelos, and of the New York State Board of Elections'bn or before the
day of
October, 2008 be deemed good and sufficient. An affidavit or other proof of service shall be presented to this Court on the return date directed in the second paragraph of this order.
Exhibit C
double captioned proof of service ordered with CPLR 304 done by Plaintiff Express Mail marked for 29642-08
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS
X
~hristopher Earl Strunk,
-against-
Petitioner,
.
Index No.: 29641 / 08
David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo S Attorney General), Dean Skelos (President ro empore of the NYS Senate and in line to succee the (NYS Comptroller), and Governor), Thomas P. D~Napoli Lorraine A. Cortez-Vazquez (Secretary of the State of New York), Respondents.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
COUNTY OF KINGS
p..,
......
.'\
Plaintiff,
Index No.: 29642 1 08
David A. Paterson (NYS Governor ,Andrew Cuomo S Attorney General) Thomas DtXa oli K S Compholler) sheidon SilverPS gpeakcr of the Assembl ), ~ a l c o m Smith Hakeern ~ef&es (NYS Assemb yman Senator)9 for the 57' AD), Christine Quinn (NYC S eaker of the Council), William Thom son (NY Comptroller), S Assemblyman), Dean Skelos Tedisco President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their fficial Ca acities and individually, the Democrat Candidate residential Electors as a class, in their official Ca acity and individually; The New York State Board of lect~ons and John Does and Jane Does Defendants.
J.
(&
yw
fr
STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss.
COUNTY OF KINGS
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: a. That pursuant to the order issued October 30,2008 by the Honorable Justice David I. Schmidt for expedited service of the Order to Show cause and associated supporting papers in the referenced cases listed in the caption above, affirmant was ordered to let o v d g h t service of this order, and the papers upon which this order is granted, upon David A. Paterson, Andrew Cuomo, Dean Skelos, Thomas P. DiNapoli, Lorraine A. Cortez-Vazquez, and public officers: Sheldon
Silver, Malcom Smith, Hakeem Jeffiies, Christine Quim, William Thompson, Jim Tedisco, Dean Skelos, and of the New York State Board of Elections. b. That on October 30,2008, I assembled and placed a true and correct conformed copy of: (i) the Order to Show Cause with supporting papers issued October 30,2008; (ii) the Notice of Petition and Verified Petition af3kmed October 27,2008; (iii) the Summons and Verified Complaint with index 29642-08 afhned 10127108; (iv) the Request for Judicial intervention for each of Index 29641-08 and Index 29642-08 purchased 10129108; to each of the following individuals: David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), The Capitol Albany New York 12224 Andrew Cuomo (NYS Attorney General), The Capitol Albany New York 12224 Thomas P. DiNapoli (NYS Comptroller), 110 State Street Albany NY 12236 Lorraine A. Cortez-Vazquez (Secretary of the State of New York), One Commerce Plaza 99 Washington Avenue Albany NY 12231-0001 5. Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of the Assembly), The Capitol Albany New York 12224 6. Malcom Smith (NYS Senator), The Capitol Albany New York 12224 7. Hakeem JefKies (NYS Assemblyman for the 57h AD), The Capitol Albany New York 12224 8. Christine Quim (NYC Speaker of the Council), 440 West 24" Street, Apt 2A, New York NY 10011 9. Urilliarn Thompson (NYC Comptroller), One Centre Street New York NY 10007 10. Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), 1710 Guilderland Avenue Schenectady NY 12306 P./ 2 11. Dean Skelos (President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) The Capital Room 501 Albany New York 12224 12. The New York State Board of Elections, 40 Steuben Street Albany, New York 12207-2109 1. 2. 3. 4.
9 D / Y m&((
i
with a complete package to each deposited with the United States Postal Service in a Express Mail AMb envelope with properly addressed with postage to be delivered by USPS Emergency Mail Service.
w k ? -
lu dtC
dd
9
/
Sworn to before me This,& day of November 2008
MAITHEWS HUGGINS Notary Public, State of New YO& No. 01HU6103403 Qualified in Kings County . Comrnisrioa Expires Dec. 29,201
EXPRESS
:,
,J
1
Customer Copy
bbel :l-B. Uarcn 2004
I
I
". .
z :
, -, -+;
',
,
\
.-.,?. l*
I
I
.
,
..... < . . -, > ,.,
. > ,
,
-,
.- .
,. ,
WAN-
, :.
r.
!
I
,'
','
GI_
..
--
... .
',\,
,
-.. ,
. . . . . . . . . . . 1.
OF SIQWNRE (Domesbc Meal Only)
. - - . .. ..-, .,
* .
,
.(.',.'I'
n i
-i
...
F 'ywcY Postill S b ~ i c ; % ACCl.
Na.
NO.
~uslomertwquests waher of slgnsh... I wtsh del!vety lo be made wlfhwt oblanlng wgnah.. of Wdressee o r addressee 3 agent (rl deI~ery employm pages that article can be leh m secure laaton) and I autCoore that deltrery employ~#s sqnature constnlnes vaao prool .if drlivmy.
.
I
4
. A .
I 3Weekend
.
nol~dwO
1
F R 0 M : m m s ~ ~ m wm I
EXPRESS
......
Customer c o p y,
. .: ; .
..
0:':' I , ,
!"..:,.I,:
...
7'
. .
. . ,.. a.- . . . . . < ':. ,

5 7
.:::Jl<,.v
......:
i< . . , A >
; , :
. .., ., . . . . .
PAYMENT 81 ACCOUNT , , *.'a C,,rc, ~ r r ~o l
..-.
r WANER OF SIGNATURE lOomnf.c h f a l On!,, IM r~wsurtsrmal

E M l O W r.qU.1.
*.YrU
ef
A -
i1
!
S'
..
+
- -- ......
I FOH INIERNATGNAL DESTlNATlONS, ' m T E COUNTRV NAME W L O W .
. . . . . . . "..,-..- . . . . . . . . . . . . ..- . ..-- ..
.......
. . .-. . . . -- --
- -- ...
:. .
.
I
e
-
a,
W A M R OT .SIGNATURE ,Domerwh Ma11 Only, Add~one(mwch.ndl.olnwma rod n customer requests walvar of S i g M l u n . I wish delnvety to be made v~lhout obtalntng sqmure of addressee cx addrwee's agent (n e s l ~ v e t y e m w e e ludges tnat anmcle can be len I" secure b t t o n ) and I
author~ze lhat ddaery employee's %nature constlfu1es
,
. I
' I .
. .
, I . .
-*,
.
. ..
PAYKENT ACCOUNTAcct .ic . r r , c '.'BY :-.;2.rd!e
.
,
.
+ I: -
b 1 * 3 u r ~Agcrcy , Accl.
No. or
Po%lalS B N ~ C B Acct. NO
. i
.
~alld prwf of dellvwy
.
.
PHONE I
)
. . . ..
. .-.,.
J:!,
NO DELIVERY
, ..
)M: [PLEASE PRINT1
. ..:
1:
!
EH 309343032 US
:'-
4,-
. ;
FOR lNTRNAnONAL DESTlNATIONf. WRITE COUNTRY NAME BELOW.
1 111/11llfiil~/ll lllil!/ ll[l~~ll l[l~~/ 11

s
I ,
EXPRESS
m m ~
-,
Customer copy
Law n
Marcn .'OM
~ .
~ -sts
Offiie~o ~ ~ ~ Addreswe ~ 7
'
c I
.,, .
. ..
, . .
t
OC SrnkAnJRE f O m w s k J * u ~wuears --,, cuatormr orignemn.

W R I V ~
Mad Only)
-..
Poardl Q m ~ c k r c t , No.
i d u r ~ ik l i r m 1 Arc?. 5-
OT
c . w .&at ~ y t s Carl ~ tr w t .n .;YU,.,

ault'urz@ that d d l w an^^ + a M pm1 CJ <%Iwru
T
1 WSh C % r w 0' *r=sos
w ailclr--
to Dn ir?;xka rnhollt ufi!a,nnrg rqMtln RVenr ,n oeh.w
iacatwnl
-------.--.---.-
__ --m~im
P w C
L.
..
.
slotultue c-tnuc,,
aDmyw
M:IRLISC
----. . . ..
9
.
wwm.
NO DELIVERY
m*.-
. .'
:
;'
-'.
.
. .
1
.
"
,
.,I!.':;.
.. ' .
...
, ,
., .*
.?
.,,3 i
"
"
, I,;:. '
. --
J Il! llIll1111llll1 lli1lll!l Illllll1 1

EH 30939l1003 US
1 Day of Mivq
' O a P Cod.
.
~~
EXPRESS
Wrre,Mnh2a)4
Delksry Attempt
FdYrd*qsncyAlxi N 0 . u poaUIs.NlwAcct No.
Cp"-It"U-?
3 - -
TO. c r ~ u n r rnlw
mow I
f~.utt)n prl-c~dwJm/ T# '

q-03 Cn-PI
--- --
--
--
, 'Z
q m m m m @ m x i i r w
wn~p IJY ~~i-z~f
1\1 NY '2224 -2 Express Wai 1 dd Flat Rate
$16.50
-----------_--____ ------------------=:===--------------JAMES A . FARLEY nAIN OFFICE NEW YORK, N e w York
-------_-----C_
3558250028-0096 10/30/2008 ( 1t30)027-5877 05 :40:09 p# =======-----------------------------------I----"'=======:= Sales Receipt Product Sale Unit Final Description O t y Price Price
jsue P V I :
A4 Y ORK NY 10011 )ne-1 Express Mai 1 3-ddd Flat Rate
$76.50
$16.50
ALBANY MY 12207 Zone-2 Express Mail PO-Add Flat Rate 1 Ib. 5.30 0 ; : -
$16.50
Issue PVI :
Total :
?aid by: Cash Change Due:
Label 11: EH30939 1015US Next Day Noon / Norma 1 De I ivery
Issue PVI:
ALBANY NY 12224 Zone-2 Express Ma i l PO-Add Flat Rate 1 lb. 5.30 oz.
$16,50
Label
Next
#:
EH309391001US Noon / Norma 1 001ivery
Issue P V I:
ALBANY N Y 12231 $16.50 L~ne-2Express M a il PO-Add Flat Rate 1 Ib. 5.80 oz. Label #: EH30939 1032LIS Next Day NoMl / Norma? Oel ivery
Order stanps at U S P S . C O ~ S ~ O ar P c a l l 1-800-Stamp24. G o to !JSPS .com/clicktishi~ t o print shipping labels with W S ~ W Far . ather information 1-800-ASK-USPS .
~ 1 sales 1 final on stamps and postage. Ref upds for guaranteed services ~ n l ~ . Thank you for your business.
**$****.t**$$***********.):***t****ct**
I******t*4**tn***t**f******;I:C.Irt**lt
Issue PVT:
ALBANY NY 12236 Lone4 Express Ma i 1
HELP
$16.50
US
SERVE YOU B R TER
PO-Add Flat Rate 1 Ib. 5.20 o t .
Label #: EH309390995US Next Day Noon / Normal Delivery
Issue FVI:
ALBANY NY 12224 $16.50 Zone-2 Express Ma il PO-Add F l a t Rate 1 Ib. 5.20 132. !.&el #: CH309291jgSIijS k t Cay Yon!, .; Ni,, !43 i ;ji?i ,,srt.
t
3
I
' I
......................................
_____--------------------------em-----
Sales Receipt Product Sale Unit Description Qty Price
Issue PVI :
______-------------------------------Final Price
I
JAF 31st STREET WS T-1 NEW YORK, New York 101999004 3558250157-0095 I 0/30/200B (212)330-2183 08: 10:39 P M
ALBANY NY 12224 916.50 Zone-2 Express Maj 1 PO-Add Flat Rate 1 lb, 5,10 oz, d Label #: EH31580370ds 2nd Day 3PM / Normal Delivery
i
i I
Issue PVI:
I
-------$16.50 $16.50
-I
--------------$5.45
I
NEW YORK NY 10007 Zone-1 Express Mai 1 , PO-Add Flat Rate 1 lb. 5.50 oz. +' Label #: . EH30939104dUS Next Day Noon / Normal Delivery
Issue PVI:
-------\ $16.50
SCHENECTADY NY 12306 $4.00 Zone-2 P r i o r i t y Mai 1 Flat Rate Env 13,90 02. Delivery Confirmation $0.65 Label #: 0308 1400000225333404
I
:
i
ALBANY NY 12224 616.50 Zone-2 Express Mai 1 PO-Add Flat Rate 1 lb, 5,20 oz. Label #: EH315803695US 2nd Day 3PM / Normal Del i v e r ~
',
J
1
--------------C
ALBANY NY 12224 $16.50 Zone-2 Express Mai 1 PO-Add Flat Rate 1 lb. 5.20.0~. Label I: EH315803687US INormal Del ivery 2nd Day 3PM -------Issue PVI : $16450
$10.50 ALBANY NY 12224 Zone-2 Express Mai 1 PO-Add Flat Rate 1 lb, 5.10 oz. Label #: EH315803700US Ihrmal Del iverv 2nd Day 3PM --------
Issue PvI: Total : Paid by: Cash
$ s lo , l
_-------
i
j
I
------------------$71.45 $71.45
t;
1
1
i
!
-------$16.50
I
/
t
Order stamps a t USPS.corn/shop or c a l l 1-800-Stamp24. G o to USPS.com/clicknship t o p r i n t shipping labels with postage. For other. information c a l l 1-800-ASK-USPS . Bi11# :1000500544985 Clerk: 12
I I
Issue PVI :
!
I
I
MEW YORK NV 10007 $16.50 Zone- 1 Express Mai 1 PO-Add Flat Rate 1 Ib. 5.50 02, Label #: EH309391046US Next Day Noon / Normal Delivery -------Issue PVI: $16.50
1
I
A 1 1 sales f i n a l on stamps. and postage. Refunds for guaranteed services only. Thank you f o r your business.
! I.
,
i
II
....................................
SSSSS~S*SSSSSSSSSSS***~***J:******~**
--------
HELP U S SERVE Y O U BETTER
1
(
G o to: http://gx.gal lup.com/pos TELL U S ABOUT Y O U R RECENT POSTAL EXPERIENCE
I (
'I
ALBANY NY 12224 $16.50 zone-2 Express Mai 1 PO-Add Flat Rate 1 Ib, 5,20 02, Label #: iH3 15803695US indOay?PM /Norm1 Delivery
?-*,
___---_~i9.30
.................................... ....................................
Customer Copy
Y O U R OPINION COUNTS
__-----I
.J.>L~
? ! I :

COUNTY OF KINGS
X
-against-
Petitioner,
Index No.: 29641 108
David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo (NYS Attorney General), D e a n Skelos (President pro tempore of the NYS Senate and in line to succeed the Governor), Thomas P. DiNapoli (NYS Comptroller), and Lorraine A. Cortez-Vazquez (Secretary of the State of New York), Respondents.
----
m e -
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK comm OF KINGS

.-
Index No.:
29642 108
Plaintiff,
David A. Paterson (NYS Governor ,Andrew Cuomo S Attorney General) Thomas . DtNa oli F S Comptroller), ~heldon Silver S gpeaker of the Assembl ), Malwin Smith fNY g n a t o r ) , Hakeem lefXles (NYS Assemb yman for the 57& AD), Christine Quinn (NYC S eaker of the Council), William Thorn son (NY8 Comptroller), S Assemblyman), Dean Skelos 'disco President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their ficial Ca acities and individually, the Democrat Candidate residential Electors as a class, in their official Ca acity and individually; The New York State Board of lcctions and John Does and Jane Does Defendants.
&
!$
COPIES OF USPS EXPRESS MAIL RECEIPTS
Dated:
Novernber
n , '
\,
s7:uIHIT SZAON8002_\
593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28 1, Brooklyn, New York 1 1238.
Exhibit D
January 13, 2011 Affidavit of H. William Van Allen affirmed for Proof of Service done on December 1, 2008
--------------------------.-Christopher Earl Strunk,

Plaintiff,
-against-
SUPTtEME COURT OF TWE STATE OF NEW YORK. COUNTY OF KINGS

X
Index No.: 29642 / 08

David A. Paterson et al.

Defendants.
STATE OF NEW YORK )

COUNTY OF ULSTER
) ss. )
Accordingly, I, H. William Van Allen, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:
a. Am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. b. My place of business is located at 35 E North Road Hzlrley New York 12443. c. On November 30,2008, Christopher Strunk gave me instructions to personally serve three (3) copies of Summons and Verified Complaint affirmed 10128108 with exhibits annexed for the case Strunk v Paterson et aI. W S County of Kings Supreme Court with index 29642-08, for personal service upon defendants Andrew Cuomo, Lorraine A. Cortez-Vazquez, and NYS Board of Elections. d. On Monday, December 1,2008, J personally served a complete set upon:
1. At 3:10 PM. - I personally served Andrew Cuomo at his place of business The Capitol Albany New York 12224 received by Wiffiam Collins Legal Record Supervisor NYS-OAG who accepted service.
2. At 3:00 PM - I personally served Lomine A. Cortez-Vazquez at her place of business at One Commerce Plaza 99 Washington Avenue Albany NY 12231-000 1 received by Gary Trechel, Associate A m , NYS DoS.
3. At 3:20 PM - I personally served The New York State Board of Elections, c/o of Kimberly A. Galvin, Esq. at 40 Steuben Street Albany, New York 12207-2109 received by Paul Collins staff attorney for the State BQE.
e. On Tuesday, December 4,2008, Affirmant notified pl
Sworn to before me day of January 201 1

. . ,.k.
>,LL ,
., .--. : i -: .
,
, .
! --
,>..
,-,
, ' .
Notary Public
L-.
-,.,
JUbfTHS. MAYHOH NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF F I NY m K
NO 01M60S5585 QUALIFIED I N ULSTER C O U m a WMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 14,20-
Print
Page 1 of 2
From: Bill Van Allen @vanallen@hvc.rr.com) To: cestrunck@yahoo.com; Date: Tue, December 2,2008 8:12:34 PM Cc: Subject: RE:Personal Service of the W S S C 29641-08 Art 78 Petition and NYSSC 29642-08 Summons and Complaint
Under penalty ofpejury, I make the following declaration of proof of personal sewice.
On Dec 1 in Albany NY 1 setvice one copy of each Strunk state supreme court case - one Article 78 petition and
Notice of Petition as wet1 as one copy of Summons and Complaint as follows:
at 3PM
on staff counsel for
Lorraine A. Codes-Vazauez, Secrehrv of State New York Department

Department of State One Commerce Plaza , 99 Washington Avenue Albany , NY 12231-0001 Phone: (518) 474-4752 Fax: (5 18 ) 474-4597
...
For Andrew Cuomo NYS Attorney General at 3:10 PM on William Collins Legal Rcord Supervisor NYS-OAG
m c e of the Attorney General The Capitol Albany ,NY 12224-0341

For NYS Board of Elections44 Steuben Street, at 320 PM on Paul Collins, staff attorney for the state BOE
Kimberly A. Galvin, Esq. Special Counsel for The New York State Board of Elections, Deputy Director Todd D.Valentine, Deputy Director Stanley Zalen,
NYS BOARD OF ELECTIONS
40 STEUBEN STREET
351 North Road Hurley, NY

12443
From: Chris topher Strunk [ r n a i ~ ~ n c k @ y a h o o . c o m ] Sent: Tuesday, December 02,2008 8:10 PM To: BILLVANAUEN S u b j m Personal Senrice o f the N Y S X 2964148 Art 78 Petitjon and NYSSC 2964248 Summons and Gomplaint
As per your efforst on December 1,2008 please G O -
by relamkg this email for you effort to
Print
Page 2 of 2
Personally Serve the NYS Secretary of State, NYS BOE, and NYSAG Andrew Cuomo with a package each of:
the Article 78 action 29641-08 Notice of Peition and Verified Petition with exhibit A
and
The Summons and Verified Complaint in NYSSC County of Kings 29642-08.
Chris Strunk
Exhibit E
Decision and ORDER of 29641-08 Article 78 Petition, Original Disposition of Law in the matter of first impression as to Public Offices for payment
DEC-4-2008
05340P FR0N:HON GERRLD HELD
7186437845
At an IAS Term, Special Election Part of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of K i n g s ,at the Courthouse, at Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York, on the 4* day of December, 2008.
PRESENT:
WON.DAVID I. SCHMIDT
......................................
Justice.
-X
Index No. 29641108
Petitioner,
DAVID A. PATERSON (NYS GOVERNOR), ANDREW CUOMO O\JYSATTORNEY~ ~ ) DEAN SKELOS (PRESIDENT PROTEMPORE OF THE NYS SENATEAND I N LINE TO SUCCEED THE GOVERNOR), THOMAS P. DINAPOLI O\JYSCOMPTROLLER), AND LORRAINE A. CORTEZ-VAZQUEZ (SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF NEWYORK), Respondents.
s :
Pa~ers Numbered
Notice of MotionIOrder to Show Cause1 PetitionJCrossMotion and Affidavits (mrmations) Annexed Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) Affidavit (Affirmation) Other Papers
1-3
DEC-4-2008 05:40P Ff?UM:HON GERRLD HELD
7186437845
Upon the foregoing papers, pro se petitioner Christopher Earl Strunk (petitioner) moves, by order to show cause, dated October 30, 2008, for an order, pursuant to CPLR Article 78, prohibiting respondents New York State Governor David A. Paterson, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, New York State Senate President Pro Tempore Dean Skelos andNew York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli f r o m serving as electors of president and vice president of the United States' pursuant to Election Law 4 12-100.
Background
Petitioner has annexed a verified petition dated October 27,2008 (bearing index number 29641108) and verified complaint dated October 27,2008 (bearing index number 29642108) to the order to show cause herein. The gravamen of the allegations set forth in both the petition and complaint challenge the 2008 New York Presidential Electoral College. In this regard, petitioner specifically alleges that the respondents New York State Governor David A. Paterson, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and New York State Senate President Pro Tempore Dean Skelos, who were among the designated electors of President and Vice President2 chosen in the general election on November 4,2008, violate the New Petitioner acknowledges in paragraph 4 of his verified petition that respondent New York State Secretary of State Lorraine A. Cortez-Vazquez is "not an elector candidate . . ."
I
The offices of President and Vice President of the United States, under our constitutional form of government, are chosen by electors selected by the voters in each State (U.S. Const., art. 11, 5 1; see N.Y. Const., art. II,5 9). A review of the Election Law reflects this
indirect system of voting for President and Vice President, wherein the provisions consistently refer to the electors of president and vice president as the offices being chosen by the electorate of this State (Election Law 6 6-102; see MafferofMahoney v Lomenzo, 21 AD2d 971 [1964],
a m 1 4 NY2d 952 [ I 9641).
DEC-4-2008 05:41P FR0M:HON CERRLD HELD
7186437845
York State Constitution by simultaneously holding two public officer positions and receiving compensation for both. It is petitioner's contention that the New York State Constitution bars the designated respondents fiom holding more than one public officer position for which he or she receives compensation. Additionally, petitioner argues that respondents, as duly elected public officials, all have a direct and substantive conflict of interest in also serving as electors in that "each are required to certify and or participate in their corporate duties in defending themselves and or approving their certification for employment as an elector and certification for payment of compensation and expenses"
(Strunk Affidavit at 3,7 7). The October 30,2008 order to show cause therefore seeks a
temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction directing those respondents with more than one public officer position to resign as an elector.
Discussion
Petitioner raises the issue regarding an alleged conflict of interest (incompatibility) i n respondents' simultaneous holding of two public offices. However, one person may hold two offices simultaneously unless (a) they are incompatible or (b) a constitutional or statutory prohibition exists against dual office holding. It is a well-settled common law rule that a public officer cannot hold two incompatible offices simultaneously (Matter ofsmith v Dillon, 267 App.Div. 39,43
[19431). This rule seeks to prevent ofices of public trust fiom accumulating in a single
individual. Two ofices are incompatible if one is subordinate to the other or there is an
DEC-4-2008
05:41P FR0H:HON GERQLD HELD
inherent inconsistency between the two offices (see People ex rel. Ryan v Green, 58 NY 295,304-05 [1874]; OfMalleyv Macejka, 44 NY2d 530,535 [19781; Matter of Dupras v
County of Clinton, 213 AD2d 952,953 [1995]; Matter of Dykeman v S y m o d , 54 AD2d

159, 162 [1976]; Fauci v Lee, 38 Misc.2d 564,567 [1963], affd.19 ADZd 777 [1963]). Incompatibility "has been said to exist when there is a built-in right of the holder of one position to interfere with that of the other . . ." (OfMalley,44 NY2d at 535). Where one person holds both such posts then "the design that one act as a check on the other would be frustrated" (id.). Here, the court has not identified any per se constitutional or statutory prohibition on an individual simultaneously serving as a public officer while also serving as an elector of president and vice president. As an initial matter, the court notes that electors
of president and vice president are not classified as "public officers" under New York's
Public Officers Law. Section 2 of the Public Officers Law classifies public officers as either "state officers" or "local oficers." However local officers include just those chosen "by the electors of a portion only of the state . . ." thereby making such category inapplicable herein. Under the portion of the provision defining "state officer," electors of president and vice president are expressly excluded from such definition and therefore cannot be deemed a "public officer" under the statute. Section 2 provides, in pertinent part, that:
DEC-4-2008
05:42P FROM:HON GERALD
HELD
"The term 'state officer' includes every officer for whom all the electors of the state are entitled to vote, members of the legislature, justices of the supreme court, regents of the university, and every officer, appointed by one or more state officers, or by the legislature, and authorized to exercise his official functions throughout the entire state, or without limitation to any political subdivision of the state, except United States senators, members of congress, and electors for president and vice-president o f the United States" (emphasis added). Electors of president and vice president are thus specifically excluded from the state officer definition set forth in the Public Officcrs Law. Hence, the designated respondents, contrary to petitioner's claims, violate no New York State Constitutional provision by holding public officer positions while also serving as electors. The court further concludes that the New York State Constitutional provisions raised by petitioner do not prohibit the designated respondents fiom holding thcir respective public offices as well as simultaneously serving as electors even assuming that electors of president and vice president are public officer positions. In this regard, the court finds that petitioner's reliance upon Article 1 1 1 , $7 of the New York State Constitution as barring the respondents fiom serving as public officers while also serving
as electors of president and vice president is without merit.

Article 111, 5 7, in pertinent part, provides that: "No member of the legislature shall, during the time for which he or she was elected, receive any civil appointment from the governor, the governor and the senate, the legislature or froin any city government, to
an ofice which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been
DEC-4-2008
85:42P FRMI:HON GERFHD HELD
increased during such time" (emphasis added). Article 1 1 1 , 8 7 further provides that acceptance of a permissible appointment thereunder "shall vacate his or her seat in the legislature" (emphasis added). This constitutional provision expressly precludes a member of the legislature from accepting certain appointed as opposed to elected positions. Election Law 4 12-100
'
makes it clear that presidential and vice presidential electors are candidates for office and therefore elected to said position, not appointed. Consequently, New York State Constitution Article 111, 6 7 is inapplicable hereinS4 Additionally, the court rejects petitioner's argument that Article XIII, 5 7 of the Constitution bars respondent public offlcee fiom holding more than one public office for
' Election Law 4 12-100 specifically states as follows:

"At the general election in November preceding the time fixed by law of the United States for the choice of president and vice president of the United States, as many electors of president and vice president of the United States shall be elected, as this state shall be entitled to. Each vote cast for the candidates of any party or independent body for president and vice president of the Unitcd States and each vote cast for m y write-in candidates for such offices shall be deemed to be cast for the candidates for elector of such party or independent body or the candidates for elector named in the certificate of candidacy of such write-in candidates."
' The section remains equally inapplicable even considering the electors as appointed. Indeed, petitioner has failed to show that m y legislative member serving as an elector herein gained such position by receiving a "civil appointment fiom the governor, the governor and the senate, the legislature or from any city government . . ." In addition, petitioner has failed to show that the position of presidential and vice presidential elector constitutes, as specified in the section, "an office which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during [the time for which he or she was elected]." The constitutional section in all respects therefore has no application herein.
DEC-4-2008
85:42P FR0N:HON GERRLD HELD
7186437845
which he receives compensation. Article MII, 7, entitled "Compensation of officers," provides as follows: Each of the state officers named in this constitution shall, during his or her continuance in office, receive a compensation, to be fixed by law, which shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which he or she shall have been elected or appointed; nor shall he or she receive to his or her use any fees or perquisites of office or other compensation. This constitutional provision governing compensation for state officers and legislative members prohibits an officer from receiving extra (increased) compensation beyond his or her regular salary for performing their duties as said officer, and further bars any decrease in salary during his or her current term of office. This provision does not expressly forbid a public officer from receiving additional compensation attributable to simultaneously holding another public office. Clearly, petitioner has failed to establish that there is any constitutional prohibition against respondents holding their respective public offices as well as simultaneously serving as electors of president and vice president. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the order to show cause is denied, and the petition is hereby dismissed. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.
hp officejet 7130 printer/fax/scanner/copier
Fax-History Report for Carl Person 2 12-307-0247 Dec 04 2008 4:56pm
Last Transaction
Time
Identification
Duration Pages Result
Dec 4 4 : 51pm Received
7 18M37845
253
OK
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ChristopherEarl Strunk,
Index No.: 29642/08 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
Plaintiff, -against-
David A. Paterson et al.

Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------------x
STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER
) ) ss. )
Accordingly, I, H. William Van Allen, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: a. Am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. b. My place of business is located at 351 North Road Hurley New York 12443. c. On February 20, 2011, Christopher Strunk gave me four (4) copies each of the NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE NUNC PRO TUNC TO REARGUE THE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE FIRST AMENDED SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT with affidavit in support affirmed 02118111, with five exhibits annexed thereto for service by USPS mail upon parties to the action. d. On Tuesday, February 22, 2011, Affirmant placed a complete set in a properly addressed envelope with proper postage for service by the USPS with confirmation of delivery upon:
Kimberly A. Galvin, Esq. for the
New York State Board of Elections
Andrew Cuomo, NYS Governor

The Capitol
40 Steuben Street. Albany , NY , 12207 RUTH NOEMI COLON Acting Secretary of State for the NYS Department of State One Commerce Plaza 99 Washington Ave, Albany, NY 12231-0001
Albany, New York 12224 ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN NYS Office of ATTORNEY GENERAL by: JOEL GRABER, ESQ. AAG Assistant Attorney General 120 BROADWAY New York, New York 10271
/),
/
-"'
,./
,.",
1/ / /
-"
/.
"'-7
~I
/
/4:--i.
/,.-
(7~,:
/'
..'r _-r~
>
'A,'" (',/,~;'
Sworn to before me This day of February 2011
/ H. Wl1liifm Van
Alleii"
N !aryPublic
JUDtTH S.MAHON NOTARY PUBLIC.$TATEOfNEw YORK NO,01MA6095585 QUALIFIED IN ULSTER COUNTY i COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 14. 20_'
_'1_
Strunk v Paterson et al. NYS Supreme Court of Kings Index No. 29642-08 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------x Index No.: Christopher Earl Strunk, Plaintiff, -againstDavid A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo (NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli (NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of the Assembly), Malcom Smith (NYS Senator), th Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57 AD), Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council), William Thompson (NYC Comptroller), Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos (President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official Capacity and individually; The New York State Board of Elections and John Does and Jane Does Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------x
29642 / 08
MEMORANDUM OF LAW COMBINED IN SUPPORT OF LEAVE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE NUNC PRO NUNC,
LEAVE TO REARGUE NOM FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO REARGUE
I am plaintiff Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, self represented without being an attorney, respectfully submit this combined Memorandum of Law in support of: Notice of Motion for leave to reargue leave to file a first amended complaint (see Exhibit 1), declined January 11, 2011 by ORDER and Notice of Entry (see Exhibit 1 sub-exhibit B); motion for leave to file proof of service nunc pro tunc (see Exhibit 2); and here reargues in support of the First Amended Complaint on the basis of Court misapprehension of issues raised at the hearing without transcript memorialized by the Plaintiff January 18, 2011 (see Exhibit 3): First, the Original Disposition of Law from the Decision and Order in Article 78 Petition 29641-08 that is germane herein (see Exhibit 2 sub-exhibit E) is a matter of first impression that the disposition in the original order by the Court becomes, in effect, the law of the case, a doctrine that operates like an intra-action collateral estoppel. The conclusion of the Decision and Order states: Electors of president and vice president are thus specifically excluded from the state officer definition set forth in the Public Officers Law. Hence, the designated
Combined Memorandum of Law Page 1 of 12
respondents, contrary to petitioner's claims, violate no New York State Constitutional provision by holding public officer positions while also serving as electors. The court further concludes that the New York State Constitutional provisions raised by petitioner do not prohibit the designated respondents from holding their respective public offices as well as simultaneously serving as electors even assuming that electors of president and vice president are public officer positions. In this regard, the court finds that petitioner's reliance upon Article III, 7 of the New York State Constitution as barring the respondents from serving as public officers while also serving as electors of president and vice president is without merit. Article III, 7, in pertinent part, provides that: "No member of the legislature shall, during the time for which he or she was elected, receive any civil appointment from the governor, the governor and the senate, the legislature or from any city government, to an office which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time" (emphasis added). Article III, 7 further provides that acceptance of a permissible appointment thereunder "shall vacate his or her seat in the legislature" (emphasis added). This constitutional provision expressly precludes a member of the legislature from accepting certain appointed as opposed to elected positions. Election Law 12-100 3 makes it clear that presidential and vice presidential electors are candidates for office and therefore elected to said position, not appointed. Consequently, New York State Constitution Article III, 7 is inapplicable herein. 4 Additionally, the court rejects petitioner's argument that Article XIII, 7 of the Constitution bars respondent public office from holding more than one public office for which he receives compensation. Article XIII, 7, entitled "Compensation of officers," provides as follows: Each of the state officers named in this constitution shall, during his or her continuance in office, receive a compensation, to be fixed by law, which shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which he or she shall have been elected or appointed; nor shall he or she receive to his or her use any fees or perquisites of office or other compensation. This constitutional provision governing compensation for state officers and legislative members prohibits an officer from receiving extra (increased) compensation beyond his or her regular salary for performing their duties as said officer, and further bars any decrease in salary during his or her current term of office. This provision does not expressly forbid a public officer from receiving additional compensation attributable to simultaneously holding another public office. Clearly, petitioner has failed to establish that there is any constitutional
prohibition against respondents holding their respective public offices as well as simultaneously serving as electors of president and vice president.
Collateral estoppel technically operates only on a final judgment, and is not involved when only an interlocutory order is the subject. (Siegel, New York practice 448 (4th ed. 2005)). Under the law of the case doctrine (1), [t]he decision being
followed need not to be reduced to an order before it can be given preclusive effect later in the proceeding. In re Estate of Levinson, 11 A.D.3d 826, 7xx N.Y.S.2d 165 (3rd Dept. 2004), lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 704, 7xx N.Y.S.2d 1 (2005). When the law of the
case doctrine is involved as it is when Judge One renders a decision, it makes the decision binding upon all courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and they are not to
arrogate to themselves powers of appellate review. G. W. Collins, Inc. v. OlskerMcLain Indus., Inc., 22 A.D.2d 485, 257 N.Y.S.2d 201, 205 (4th Dept. 1965). CPLR
2221(a), in effect implements the spirit of the law of the case doctrine by a prevailing party who was heard on a motion from attempting to use the order by an inconsistent ruling from Judge Two. Second, that Plaintiff was obligated in the companion Complaint to the Petition to allege criminal wrongdoing by defendants with those similarly situated in order for authorities to act; as Plaintiff has the duty to establish whether or not a criminal action against defendant/ respondents exists within the question of first impression presented in the Petition and thus affecting the complaint thereafter; and that the
The law of the case doctrine precludes reconsideration of a previously decided issue unless one of three "exceptional circumstances" exists: (1) when substantially different evidence is raised at a subsequent trial; (2) when a subsequent contrary view of the law is decided by the controlling authority; or (3) when a decision is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice. Combined Memorandum of Law Page 3 of 12
phrase sufficient cause within a statute that would require [the court] to hold a defendant to answer if it appears from examination that public offense has been committed and there is sufficient cause within statute providing that information must be set aside where defendant has been committed without reasonable or probable cause. Wests Ann.Pen.Code, 872, 995. People v. Brice, 44 Cal.Rptr.
231, 234 Cal.App.2d 258.Criminal Law 238(2) with a New York equivalent in
related law. Third, that service of both the Petition and Complaint had to be effected simultaneously due to the nature of criminal allegations to give the defendants and respondents fair and reasonable notice as the Court ORDER granted (see Exhibit 2 sub-exhibit B); That those with authority over matters of malfeasance of public officers and involving a constitutional tort gave Petitioner/Plaintiff the obligation to serve notice upon such authorities with responsibility and duty to determine if there is cause or sufficient cause to authorize a removal from office of an official mean legal cause, and not any cause which the council [Plaintiff] may think sufficient. Zurich
General Acc. & Liability Ins. Co. v. Kinsler, 81 P.2d 913, 12 Cal.2d 98 with a New
York equivalent in related law. That Plaintiff had to establish that there is sufficient cause and reasonable and probable cause to hold accused for offense charged means such statement of facts would lead to men of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain strong suspicion of accuseds guilt, and sufficient cause may exist although there may be some room for doubt. Hendrix v. Superior Court Combined Memorandum of Law Page 4 of 12
in and for Los Angeles County, 21 Cal.Rptr. 616, 203 Cal Aped 421Criminal law 238(2) with a New York equivalent in related law.
Plaintiff civil cause of action (the Complaint shown as Exhibit 4) with allegations of criminal participation of those Defendants named in the civil complaint that would require State officers removed from office by a statute authorizing the removing of an officer for sufficient cause, including incapacity and official misbehavior, contemplates a cause relating to the administration of his office, affecting the rights and interests of the public.Lancaster v. Hill, 71 S.E. 731, 136
Ga. 405, Am.Ann.Cas. 1912C, 272 with a New York equivalent in related law.
Fourth, that notwithstanding the meritorious nature of Plaintiffs case with simultaneous service of both the Petition and Complaint by Court ORDER shown as Exhibit 2 sub-exhibit B, Plaintiff in good faith with CPLR 307 and 308 on December 1, 2008 did effect Summons and Verified Complaint personal service upon the Counsel designated for the NYS Board of Elections with authority over conduct of elections, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo with authority over investigation of criminal matters and civil injury infringement, and non-defendant Secretary of State Lorraine A. Cortez-Vazquez that the Help America to Vote Act (HAVA) Section 213 (a) (1) (A) grants State Officer authority with Federal Officer authority over elections and electoral college slates to be transmitted to Congress to be a supplemental defendant after the election of November 4, 2008 without appropriate action taken.
It is Plaintiffs understanding in the matter of completion of Service that jurisdiction under CPLR 308(2) attaches when the two steps delivery and mailing are
performed. Nevertheless, the state imposes a requirement that proof of service be filed with the clerk of the court as a step in making service complete. Completion of service is the event that starts the running of defendant 30-day time limit to appear in the action see CPLR 320(a). The plaintiff is directed to file the proof of service within 20 days whichever service step---delivery or mailing---is performed second. Service is complete 10 days after the filing of the proof of service. Proof of service is described in CPLR 306. With respect to service under CPLR 308(2), the proof of service must contain a proper description of the person to whom delivery is made and statement of date, time and place of service. The filing of proof of service under CPLR 308(2) is not jurisdictional in nature. It is merely a step in making service complete which in turn triggers the defendants responsive obligation under CPLR 320(a). Helfand v. Cohen,
1985, 110 A.D.2d. 7x, 487 N.Y.S.2d 177 (1st Dept.). See also Conde v. Zaganjor, 20x 66
A.D.3d 947, 886 N.Y.S.2d 829(2nd Dept.) (Same rule application under CPLR 308(4)). Thus delaying filing of proof of service is nothing more than a procedural irregularity that can be cured by order of the court allowing the filing nunc pro tunc See
Weininger v. Sassower, 1994 xx A.D.2d 715, 612 N.Y.S.2d 249 (2nd Dept). The only
procedural consequence of belated filing is postponement of defendant time to appear. See, e.g. Rosato v. Ricciardo, 1991, 174 A.D.2d 937, 571 N.Y.S.2d 633 (3rd Dept.) (Plaintiffs failure to file proof of service could be corrected nunc pro tunc, but retroactive entry of a default judgment would be improper because defendants time to appear never began to run). That tardy plaintiff seeks to actually obtain a court order permitting a late filing of proof of service. The court in Zareef v. Wong, 2009, 61 A.D.3d
749, 877 N.Y.S.2d 182 (2nd Dept), held that a plaintiffs unilateral filing of an untimely
proof of service was a nullity that did not trigger the defendants time to answer. The
plaintiff, therefore, was precluded from entering a judgment against defendant(s). Fifth, Plaintiff good faith mistake when he failed to complete the Proof Service filing with the clerk of the court within ten days of the personal service accomplished on December 1, 2008 (see Exhibit 2 sub-exhibit D), that as within the meaning of CPLR 205(a) required leave within six months to file such proof nunc pro tunc, and therefore bars Defendant(s) and Plaintiff application for default judgment as to Defendant(s) or Plaintiff without leave unless service effect on October 30, 2008 were deemed sufficient as the ORDER stated, Defendant NYS Board of Elections defaulted on both an answer. Sixth, that the Decision and Order (shown as Exhibit 2 sub-exhibit E) determined how to apply the Original Disposition of Law in a required supplement to the complaint to be filed after the finding of law and discovery; Seventh, that Plaintiffs request for subpoena discovery of facts that would determine what supplement would be required was declined by this Court, and then with no alternative Plaintiff sought FOIA discovery as to the whereabouts of the mother at the time of the BHO birth, then filed the case in U.S.D.C. in Washington D.C. Strunk v. U.S. Department of State et al. 08-cv-2234 for release of documents; with a portion released July 29, 2010 allowing Plaintiff to supplement the complaint by the November 11, 2010 proposed Amendment (see Exhibit 1 sub-exhibit A) and then with the CPLR 3016(b) more definite statement of February 15, 2011 (see Exhibit 5) by verified civil complaint of (i) breach of fiduciary duty as to Public officers ultra vires malfeasance, (ii) scheme to defraud and (iii) unjust enrichment, without the allegations of criminal wrongdoing. To avoid dismissal of a complaint for failure to enter default judgment within one year after default that occurred, a plaintiff must offer a reasonable excuse for delay in
moving for leave to enter default, and must demonstrate that complaint is meritorious.
DuBois v. Roslyn Nat. Mortg. Corp. (2nd Dept. 2008) 52 A.D.3d 564, 861 N.Y.S.2d 73.
Plaintiff has sufficient cause for delay for more that one year in moving for default judgment, in that various parties [Plaintiff] were [was] pursuing their [his] interests in federal action involving same issues. 222 First Ave. Realty Inc. v. Vijax Fuel Oil Corp. (1st Dept. 1995) 213 A.D.2d 238, 623 N.Y.S.2d 250. Eighth, that there is sufficient cause for Plaintiff failure to file for a default judgment within one year even were all the other procedural issues of completion of filing of the proof of service, and also, if filing of the supplement to amend the complaint and summons were already done; That a sua sponte dismissal of complaint and action on ground that plaintiff had failed to enter judgment within one year following default is not mandatory and may not be had where plaintiff establishes sufficient cause for delay. Maidenbaum v. Ellis
Hospital (3rd Dept. 1975) 47 A.D.2d 683, 364 N.Y.S.2d 233.

Defendant was not entitled to dismissal of action on ground that plaintiff failed to enter default judgment within one year of time that defendant allegedly defaulted; because proof of service had yet to be filed, defendant never defaulted in appearing, and plaintiff thus could not have properly entered default judgment. Parcha v. County of
Nassau (2 Dept. 1996) 228 A.D.2d 422, 643 N.Y.S.2d 637.

That the failure of NYS Board of Elections to provide the FOIL request of evidence of ballot certification has delayed Plaintiff unnecessarily, and is evidence that should sustain trial courts finding plaintiff actively prosecuted the claim and that defendants were not prejudiced by the delay, and defendants argument that the failure to enter default against them within one year entitled them to dismissal was not persuasive,
since plaintiff had been engaged in lengthy discovery, frustrated in part by a principal of both partnership defendants [NYS BOE]. Cerrato v. Thurcon Const. Corp. (1st Dept.
1983) 94 A.D.2d 642, 462 N.Y.S.2d 198.

Ninth, that there is sufficient cause for Plaintiff failure to perfect the case before filing a note of issue for trial. Were Plaintiff to make an application without necessary prima facie facts would have been denied and would require that on application for default judgment, submission must make prima facie showing that relief prayed for is granted. Worldwide
Asset Purchasing, LLC v. Karafotias, 2005, 9 Misc.8d 390, 801 N.Y.S.2d 721.
In the matter of Appeal and Error, the Court has discretion in the matter of defaults not entered within one year. Although the determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse for delay in seeking default judgment lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, reversal is warranted if that discretion is improvidently exercised. Staples v. Jeff Hunt Developers, Inc. (2nd Dept. 2008) 56 A.D.3d 459, 866
N.Y.S.2d 756.
In one applicable case, a plaintiff State had applied for judgment with an affidavit of facts supplied by the state in connection with its application for default judgment, which merely asserted, in one sentence, that basis for action against defendant, which had delivered fuel to gasoline service station, was failure to pay or repay costs incurred by state for cleanup and removal of petroleum discharge, did not make a prima facie showing of states case against defendant as alleged discharger of petroleum on land, as required to support the application for default judgment. State v. Williams
(3rd Dept. 2007) 44 A.D. 3d 1149, 843 N.Y.S.2d 722, on remand 20 Misc.3d 1106(A), 866 N.Y.S.2d 95.
To avoid dismissal of complaint as abandoned, plaintiff must offer reasonable excuse for more-than-one year delay in moving for leave to enter default judgment, and must demonstrate that complaint is meritorious. Key Waterproofing Corp. v. Ray Realty
Fulton, Inc. (2nd Dept. 2005) 23 A.D.3d 624, 804 N.Y.S.2d 815.
Plaintiff has a meritorious case As a result of the July 29, 2010 U.S. Department of State release of some of the requested documents associated with Stanley Ann Dunham, for the first time anywhere Soebarkah has been authenticated to be the given name, of what till now has been alleged only to be Barack Hussein Obama, when he was adopted by an Indonesia stepfather that would have occurred in the USA rather than Indonesia, and thereby supports Plaintiffs theory of failure of BHO to be NBC or even naturalized. That in September 2010, as a result of Clark Hamblin of Arizona contacting Plaintiff in regards to the Treaty conditions defining the jurisdiction over Colon Panama that was not a part of the USA territorial claim of the USA, and with the authentication by Donald Lynn Lamb, Esq., the representative of the Panama Railroad Company, having jurisdiction over the Colon Hospital where the birth certificate was issued for John Sidney McCain III, it has been discovered that Plaintiff along with those similarly situated were injured as a result of a much bigger scheme to defraud beyond that of merely those persons who have foisted the native versus natural born citizen Soebarkah as Barack Hussein Obama II, and also shows, foisted John Sidney McCain III upon the voters at the 2008 election cycle- Plaintiff has a direct injury. Of the five causes of action alleged in the underlying civil complaint, shown as Exhibit 4, are now reduced to three in the proposed amended summons and complaint shown as Exhibit 5, and that as a result of the Decision and Order in Article 78 Petition
29641-08 germane herein there remain three plausible, prima facie injuries to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated by maladministration of the 2008 Election cycle: (i) Breach of fiduciary duty as to Public Officer injury to plaintiff along with those similarly situated in the NYS BOE maladministration of regulations when certification for presidential candidate slate ballot access is had from the NYS BOE and notice of allegations for the respective candidates and committees response, will be prima facie evidence sufficient to require a partial summary judgment with declaratory relief in the matter of a. unequal treatment of ballot certification under law; b. breach of fiduciary duty to ascertain compliance with regulations as to U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 Clause 5 in the candidate ballot access of Soebarkah, McCain and Calero; and (ii) Scheme to defraud plaintiff along with those similarly situated requires discovery before a note of issue may be filed for a jury trial; and then with
(iii)
A finding by jury trial to determine defendants joint and several liabilities as well as for punitive damages unjust enrichment as injury to plaintiff along with those similarly situated requires discovery before a note of issue; and
(iv)
Other and different relief the Court deems necessary for grant of relief.
Conclusion in support of relief

That the Court in 2008 declined a subpoena for discovery of information germane herein and then in 2009 also now involves: the FOIA action with the motion for summary judgment opposed in Strunk v. DOS et al. DCD 08-cv-2234 (RJL); the matter of not filing the Proof of Service for the NYS Board of Elections, as the Attorney General had already appeared and responded starting November 3, 2008;
Stnmk v Pate
k d et al. N Y S Supreme Court of Kings ~ndekdo. 29642-08

,
I
there is no prejudice to defendant NYS BOE not E h g a default even were the proof of s e ~ c e completed. d A default judgment within the year allotted would have been premature for Plaintiff required an inquest as the FOIA evidence supports such and therefore supports the requirement for sdicient cause in CPLR $3215(c),and that therein affords discretion by the Court to grant an extensioIi of time for perfecting the complaint with an action involving: CPLR $2001 for mistakes, omissions, defects and irregularities, a t any stage of an action; CPLR $2004 for extensions of time generally, except where otherwise expressly prescribed by law, the court may extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown, whether the application for extension is made before or after the expiration of the time fixed; CPLR $2005 for excusable delay or default; that upon an application satisfying the requirements of subdivision (d) of section 3012 or subdivision (a)of rule 5015, the court shall not, as a matter of law, be precluded from exercising its discretion in the interests of .justice to excuse delay and or default resulting from law office failure were third party service considered such. Plaintiff respectfully wishes relief were granted.
1I I/ I1
I
Dated: February Brooklyn New York
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 281 Brooklyn, New York 1 1238 (845) 901-6767; c h r i s @ s t r u n l c . w s
~hristo~her- armt trunk in esse

---------------------------------------------------------------------------x Christopher Earl Strunk, Plaintiff, -againstDavid A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo (NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli (NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of the Assembly), Malcom Smith (NYS Senator), th Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57 AD), Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council), William Thompson (NYC Comptroller), Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos (President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official Capacity and individually; The New York State Board of Elections and John Does and Jane Does Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Index No.: 29642 / 08

Notice of Motion for Leave to File Proof Of Service NUNC PRO TUNC Affidavit in Support of Motion for Leave to File Proof of Service Nunc Pro Tunc Exhibit A: Server Email confirming personal service December 2, 2008 Exhibit B: Order to serve by Express Mail October 30, 2008 Exhibit C: Express Mail Proof of Service Affirmed November 3, 2008 Exhibit D: Affidavit proof of personal service January 13, 2011 Exhibit E: Decision and ORDER dismissing 29641-08 Affidavit of Service
Dated: February _______, 2011 Brooklyn New York
_______________________________ Christopher-Earl; Strunk in esse Plaintiff 593 Vanderbilt Avenue 281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845) 901-6767; chris@strunk.ws
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Romes Coup detat over the Accursed United States of America (2014) by Eric Jon Phelps with edits by Christopher Earl Strunk
On March 4, 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) assumes the Office of President of the United States (POTUS) and with his Inaugural Address seizes and gives ALL Property and persons as collateral for the debt of the United States in consecration to its prime Creditors, the Vatican State and Crowns City of London, and then on March 9, 1933, as POTUS Commander in chief Roosevelt, were HE the Military Conqueror Augustus Caesar of the American Republic, with the doctrine of necessity issues Proclamation 2040, Declaring a State of perpetual National Emergency via War Powers And Based upon the FDR Proclamation 2039 of 6 March 1933, Congress Passes the Emergency Banking Relief Act 48 Stat. Law 1 Thereby Amending the notorious World War I Statute Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, 40 Stat. L 411 (TWEA), Codified as 12 USC 95b and 50 USC App. 5(b) Thereby approving and confirming Proclamation 2040, And Bringing the TWEA Inland, Imposing Military Government This Amended WWI Statute in fact regards all PERSONS within the United States as seized property of the federal government to be treated as enemy and or enemy ally belligerents and rebels by US Army Regulations devised during the Spanish /American War. These belligerents and rebels as the enemy and or ally of the enemy are publicly residing in the several States now considered to be conquered territories. By 1939 all American Common Law Civil Process will be gone. In its place will be Roman Civil Law Martial Process Imposed on all PERSONS (natural and artificial) subject to the Conquerors De facto Equity Jurisdiction of the United States. This Martial Process will apply to all Public United States Citizens. This Martial Process cannot apply to Private Citizens of the United States, Privately residing on the land at Common Law, while holding Private State Citizenship pursuant to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. 1 of 10
The Emergency Banking Relief Act This Act accomplished the Design of the Society of Jesus in the Companys Great Conspiracy against the Liberties of the United States set forth in Samuel Morses Nineteenth century masterpiece, Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States (1835). Just as the Order had brought the Admiralty (possessing both a criminal and civil jurisdiction unlike American Admiralty with only a civil jurisdiction) inland in the days of Jesuit-ruled King Charles Stuart I of England thereby attempting to do away with the English Common Law on the land, the Jesuits accomplished essentially the same thing here in America with this wicked Act aided by the Roosevelt Court. In the passing of this Act which the emotionally distressed Congress never read, the following must be understood: 1. The Trading With the Enemy Act, as passed originally in 1917, was made to apply to any enemy of the United States. 2. The enemy was defined to be any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals of any nationality, resident within the territory of any nation with which the United States is at war. 3. Other enemy individuals were defined as natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States. These citizens of the United States in 1917 held Private citizenship of the United States without having been reduced to the inferior citizenship status of being property of and surety for the Statecreated Public citizen of the United States, which public citizenship status was imposed on March 9, 1933. 4. The Trading With the Enemy Act also defined the term person. A person was deemed to mean an individual, partnership, association, company, or other unincorporated body of individuals, or corporation or body politic. Therefore a person could only be an artificial person in privilege, not a natural person at law. 5. Therefore, a person as defined by the Trading with the Enemy Act DID NOT INCLUDE a citizen of the United States, which at the time was a Private citizen of the United States. 6. The Emergency Banking Relief Act of March 9, 1933, amended the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, to bring the Trading With the Enemy Act inside the United States by applying it to any person within the United States. 2 of 10
7. The Emergency Banking Relief Act defined any person to mean an individual, partnership, association or corporation. The term person was not defined to mean a citizen of the United States. The term person excludes a citizen of the United States, specifically, a Private citizen of the United States. 8. Therefore, both the Trading with the Enemy Act and the Emergency Banking Relief Act defined a person to be an artificial entity (obviously being a partnership, association, or corporation) to include an individual American to be treated as artificial entity. 9. For that individual American to be treated as an artificial entity, his Private citizenship of the United States had to be reduced by an implied, constructive contract by operation of law to the inferior grade of corporate citizenship. 10. The corporation that is a citizen is a Public citizen of the United States. It is created for the benefit of the public. The corporation is not a Private citizen of the United States. Only individual Men and Women can be Private citizens of the United States as intended by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. 11. Therefore, neither the Trading With the Enemy Act nor the Emergency Banking Relief Act defined an enemy person to include a Private citizen of the United States. The term citizen of the United States is silently excluded from being defined as a person within both acts. 12. Therefore, the Private citizen of the United States is protected in his citizenship status by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 13. Because the individual Private citizen of the United States is protected by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, he was specifically EXCLUDED by definition from the Emergency Banking Relief Act, which act of FDRs War Powers Congress (by way of the amended Trading With the Enemy Actit operating upon any person within the United States), imposed a martial process upon the courts, federal and state, after April 25, 1938. 14. Therefore the good news is, all Private citizens of the United States are protected in their private right to a civilian due process of law on a federal level by the Fifth Amendment and a civilian due process on a state level by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. 15. And therefore, all Private citizens of the United States are not subject to the provisions of the Emergency Banking Relief Act including a martial due process imposed by the Trading With the Enemy Act upon any artificial person within the United States.
3 of 10
A Word for Word Comparison Between 50 USC App. Section 5(b) of the The Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, 40 Stat. Law 411 as Amended on March 28, 1918, and Section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act The Emergency Banking Relief Act of March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. Law 1 __________________________________________________________________ This Word for Word Comparison is critical in understanding how The Emergency Banking Relief Act (1933) Amended The Trading With the Enemy Act (1917) as Amended (1918) in substance making The Trading With the Enemy Act the Law of the Land of the United States of America. The Trading With the Enemy Act as Amended on March 9, 1933, imposed a de facto Emergency War Powers Military Government, while ousting de jure Civilian Constitutional Government. All Courts, Federal and State, now impose a Martial Due Process instead of a Civilian Due Process on every Person Within the United States, Natural and Artificial. Trading With the Enemy Act, Section 5(b), 40 Statute Law 411 1917That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, 1933During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, Change 1. TWEA is now imposed inside the geographic United States during a declared state of national emergency.
Change 2. The President may now create agencies to investigate, regulate or prohibit. These agencies will be created during the 1930s. The Securities and Exchange Commission is created in 1933; its first director is Knight of Malta Joe Kennedy. A host of other agencies will be created as a result of the Jesuit Orders Fabian Socialist New Deal. 4 of 10
1917under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or 1933under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or
1917otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export or ear-markings of gold 1933otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold Change 3. Banking institutions within the United States are totally regulated by Congress without limitation. No Individual may hoard his gold. All gold will be taken from any person within the United States on June 5, 1933, via HJR-192 ( 1 ).
1 When the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 outlawed the use of gold,
such contracts became sources of controversy. In the gold clause case Norman vs. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that gold clauses were invalid. However, Congress later reinstated the option to use gold clauses for obligations (new contracts) issued after October 1977 in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5118(d)(2). The United States Gold Reserve Act of January 30, 1934 required that all gold and gold certificates held by the Federal Reserve be surrendered and vested in the sole title of the United States Department of the Treasury. The Gold Reserve Act outlawed most private possession of gold, forcing individuals to sell it to the Treasury, after which it was stored in United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox and other locations. The act also changed the nominal price of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35. A year earlier, in 1933, Executive Order 6102 had made it a criminal offense for U.S. citizens to own or trade gold anywhere in the world, with exceptions for some jewelry and collector's coins. These prohibitions were relaxed starting in 1964 gold certificates were again allowed for private investors on April 24, 1964, although the obligation to pay the certificate holder on demand in gold specie would not be honored. By 1975 Americans could again freely own and trade gold. The Gold Reserve Act authorized the Exchange Stabilization Fund to use such assets as were not needed for exchange market stabilization to deal in government securities. The Gold Reserve Act had economic ramifications far beyond national finance. At that time many contracts stipulated that their monetary terms could be demanded in gold. Such gold clauses were intended to protect against the United States devaluing the dollar. When the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 outlawed the use of gold, such contracts became sources of controversy. In the gold clause case Norman vs. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that gold clauses were invalid. However, Congress later reinstated the option to use gold clauses for obligations (new contracts) issued after October 1977 in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5118(d)(2). The 2008 decision 216 Jamaica Avenue, LLC vs S&R Playhouse Realty Co. established that a gold clause in contracts signed before 1933 was only suspended not erased, and under certain limited circumstances might be reactivated.
5 of 10
1917or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States), and transfers of evidences of indebtedness or of the ownership of property between the United States and any foreign country, whether enemy, ally of enemy or otherwise, or between residents of one or more foreign countries, by any person within the United States; 1933or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States
Change 4. The provision excluding the TWEA (of October 6, 1917, as amended on March 28, 1918) from regulating transactions executed wholly within the United States is eliminated. All foreign and domestic transactions of any person within the United States is to be investigated, regulated or prohibited.
1917and he may require any such person engaged in any such transaction to furnish 1933or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish Change 5. The new jurisdiction of the United States established by the emergency war powers military government of the United States under Proclamation 2040 approved and confirmed by the EBRA amending the TWEA, now extends to all states and territories. 1917under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production 1933under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production
1917of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection 1933of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection
6 of 10
1917therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after 1933therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after
1917such transaction is completed. 1933such transaction is completed.
1917[End of Statute] 1933Whoever willfully violates any of the provisions of this subdivision or of any license, order, rule or regulation issued thereunder, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both; and any officer, director, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in such violation may be punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both. As used in this subdivision the term person means an individual, partnership, association, or corporation. [End of Statute]
Change 6. New penalties are imposed for violating the amended TWEA extended into the United States affecting any person within the United States (natural or artificial) subject to the jurisdiction thereof, namely, to the newly imposed, non-civilian, emergency war powers, martial jurisdiction of the United States. Note: Person as defined under the TWEA is identical to a Person defined in the EBRA. However, an individual natural Person under the TWEA was a Private Citizen of the United States under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. The natural Person under the EBRA amending the TWEA and thereby extending the TWEA into the United States is a Public U.S. citizen treated like a corporation in commercial privilege.
7 of 10
CONCLUSION Citizenship Status and Jurisdiction of the United States
I. Private Citizenship of the United States, Section 1, 14th Amendment All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. A. An individual is a natural person. B. That individual natural person is born or naturalized in the United States (the geographic United States composed of the states in union under the Constitution of the United States). C. That individual natural person is subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the jurisdiction of the United States. D. The jurisdiction thereof (jurisdiction of the United States) is the constitutionallyestablished, constitutionally-limited, de jure, civilian jurisdiction of the United States that began on March 4, 1789, and that ended on March 6, 1933, confirmed and approved on March 9, 1933, by the Emergency Banking Relief Act. E. The citizenship of the citizen of the United States is private, not public. F. Therefore, the Private citizen of the United States under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is a person . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That jurisdiction is a civilian jurisdiction.
II. Public Citizenship of the United States, Section 1, 14th Amendment A. A corporation is a person under Section 1, 14th Amendment. B. A corporation is a citizen under Section 1, 14th Amendment. C. A corporation is created by a state for the benefit of the public. D. A corporation is a public citizen of the United States.
8 of 10
E. By operation of law, the Certificate of Live Birth, on the day it was filed with a public office of the state of natural birth, created an individual corporate/trust entity, a Public citizen of the United States, its property being the Private citizen of the United States. F. On March 6, 1933 (approved and confirmed on March 9, 1933, via the EBRA), all registered property (land, labor and businesses) were seized as booty of war by Proclamation 2039 of President Franklin D. Roosevelt acting under the World War I statutory authority of the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, as amended 14 times up to and including March 10, 1930. G. On March 6, 1933 (approved and confirmed on March 9, 1933, via the EBRA), the constitutional, limited, de jure, civilian government of the United States was ousted and replaced with a statutory, unlimited, de facto, military government of the United States. H. On March 6, 1933 (approved and confirmed on March 9, 1933, via the EBRA), the civilian jurisdiction of the United States under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was removed and replaced with the military jurisdiction of the United States under the Emergency Banking Relief Act now codified as 12 USC 95a based upon the military Trading With the Enemy Act now codified a 50 USC App. 5(b).
I. Therefore, the Public citizen of the United States under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is a person . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Emergency Banking Relief Act (12 USC 95a) based upon the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 USC App. 5(b)). That jurisdiction is a military jurisdiction imposing martial process in every action, state and federal, civil and criminal. FINAL CONCLUSION The Private citizen of the United States is a person subject to the constitutional, de jure, peacetime, jurisdiction of the United States under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. That peacetime jurisdiction of the United States is a civilian jurisdiction using civilian process to gain in personam jurisdiction. On the other hand: The Public citizen of the United States is a person subject to the statutory, de facto, wartime jurisdiction of the United States under the Emergency Banking Relief Act (codified as 12 USC 95a) based upon the military Trading With the Enemy Act (codified as 50 USC App. 5(b)). 9 of 10
All actions, federal and state, criminal and civil, using martial process to confer in personam jurisdiction of the emergency war powers courts are founded upon these two statutes. That wartime jurisdiction of the United States is a military jurisdiction using martial process to gain in personam jurisdiction.
You are either a Constitutional Private citizen of the United States Or You are a Statutory Public citizen of the United States __________________________________________________________________ You are either a person under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment Or You are a person under the commercial Emergency Banking Relief Act (1933) (12 USC 95a) Based upon the martial Trading With the Enemy Act (1917) (50 USC App. 5(b)) __________________________________________________________________ You are either subject to a civilian jurisdiction of the United States Under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment Or You are subject to a martial jurisdiction of the United States Under the Emergency Banking Relief Act (1933) and The Trading With the Enemy Act (1917) (12 USC 95a and 50 USC App. 5(b))
You are one of the Sovereign People of the United States of America Or You are one of the conquered people of the United States of America The End 10 of 10
David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo (NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli (NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of PLAINTIFFS AFFIDAVIT the Assembly), Malcolm Smith (NYS Senator), IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION TO RENEW AND Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD), Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council), REARGUE COMPLETION OF William Thompson (NYC Comptroller), SERVICE NUNC PRO TUNC Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos WITH NEW TRANSACTIONS TO (President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their SUPPLEMENT THE COMPLAINT Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official Capacity and individually; The New York State Board of Elections and John Does and Jane Does Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit 6
Workspace Webmail :: Print
https://email06.secureserver.net/view_print_multi.php?uidArray=3719|I...
Print | Close Window Subject: RE: ABREVIATED EMAIL without attachments "Are YOU available to testify here in Brooklyn New York June 18, 2014" From: chris@strunk.ws Date: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 8:36 am To: michael@mshrimpton.co.uk Cc: "Dr. Levy" <jonlevy@hargray.com> Bcc: "Eric Phelps" <ForexJon@comcast.net>, "Christopher Strunk" <cestrunck@yahoo.com>
Definition of COADJUTOR : one who works together with another : assistant Coadjutor Brennan trained at Fordham University among other things: http://www.fordham.edu/campaign_home/why_a_campaign/faces_of_fordham/john_o_brennan_77223.asp Excelsior | Ever Upward | The Campaign For Fordham photo John O. Brennan, FCRH 77 John O. Brennan is a 1977 alumnus of Fordham College at Rose Hill. The day starts early for John Brennan, FCRH 77, the Obama administrations deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security. Brennans driver greets him at 6 a.m. at his home in suburban Virginia with a binder brimming with the latest intelligence from around the world. He scours the reports during the 40-minute drive to his office in the West Wing of the White House. By 9.30 a.m., hes in the Oval Office for the president's daily intelligence briefing, with President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, National Security Adviser James Jones Jr. and other top officials. After the intelligence briefer completes his presentation, the group spends the next half-hour discussing the latest threats to America's security. We talk about what threats are out there, what we are doing to address them, Brennan says one July afternoon in his windowless office in the basement of the West Wing. Its a rather full thirty minutes. Having studied in Indonesia and Egypt while he was an undergraduate at Fordham, Brennan has emerged as a moderate voice on Middle East issues, urging face-to-face talks with Iran and engagement with American Muslims. John Entelis, Ph.D., professor of political science at Fordham and director of the Universitys Middle East Studies program, taught Brennan at Rose Hill in the 1970s. He has a subtle and sophisticated understanding of the complexity of the issues in the Middle East, Entelis says. Hes neither an apologist nor an extremist advocate. He has a good, balanced view of the issues. For Brennan, the White House appointment in 2009 capped a career that has included 25 years in the Central Intelligence Agency, with a four-year stint as Middle East station chief in Saudi Arabia. In 2004, he was named director of the federal government's National Counterterrorism Center, which was established that year to better coordinate intelligence from the myriad agencies collecting data around the world. Three years later, he served as an adviser to Obamas presidential campaign. After the election, President Obama asked him to join the White House national-security team, where 16-hour workdays are the norm. The son of Irish immigrants, Brennan was raised in North Bergen, N.J., and commuted to Rose Hill, where he became enthralled with the Middle East through Entelis' lectures. He traveled to Indonesia in the summer following his freshman year to work at the U.S. Embassy there and to research the politics of oil. Entelis later encouraged him to spend his junior year studying in the Middle East, so he attended the American University in Cairo. Brennan found his niche there, gaining a firsthand understanding of Muslim worldviews and the motivation to speak out against discrimination as he works to diffuse threats of terrorism at home and abroad. Ive lived in countries with Muslim majorities, and these issues have been at the center of my government career for more than twenty-five years," he says. Terrorism, unfortunately, is found in the Middle East, so it's been a driving force in my career and in my life. I have found that when searching on the internet for any leader it is helpful to put a suffix "Jesuit" after the name and am always well rewarded with Intel. There is NO leader allowed to rise in the ranks who is not in some way associated with a Jesuit here and everywhere else. The Jesuit influence control is ubiquitous as their military church is there 35 years of training and the need for the uneducated to secure
1 of 7
3/13/2014 12:01 PM
answers. My associate Eric Jon Phelps is a well known expert on the matter at vatican assassins.com
I never do a new lawsuit anymore without naming the specific Jesuit connected to the problem - usually the Provincial. Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris agent
"SURETY NO MORE" WEBSITE: http://associationforsovereignhomerulewithin.org/
REPLY TO cestrunck@yahoo.com or chris@strunk.ws All contents including but not limited to attachments are confidential, Do not disclose to third parties. PUBLIC NOTICE: PRIVATE: This is Not A Public Communication. This private email message, and any attachment(s) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains privileged and/or confidential information.
-------- Original Message -------Subject: Re: ABREVIATED EMAIL without attachments "Are YOU available to testify here in Brooklyn New York June 18, 2014" From: michael@mshrimpton.co.uk Date: Thu, March 13, 2014 2:30 am To: chris@strunk.ws Cc: "Dr. Levy" <jonlevy@hargray.com> makes sense, are we sure Brennan is a Jesuit?
Quoting chris@strunk.ws: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FYI Jesuit coadjutor John Brennan, the past assistant to George Tenet, was the Private contractor for the US DOS who personally is held responsible (by the DOS OIG) as the corporate chief executive for the illegal entry into US DOS passport records for BHO, McCain and Clinton, there "cauterized" the BHO passport records and based upon my own discovery in my own FOIA case those portions of Stanley Ann Dunham's records possibly because she was working for the CIA). Brennan converted to Islam when the then CIA station chief in Riyadh Saudi Arabia, and has consistently defended the Muslim Brotherhood; now as the Dir CIA he is sitting on the documents along with who ever else you reference, ie NSA Hayden is no longer there. How do you know that these critters have THE respective DOCUMENT(s) in their respective safe? Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris agent
"SURETY NO MORE" WEBSITE: http://associationforsovereignhomerulewithin.org/
REPLY TO cestrunck@yahoo.com or chris@strunk.ws All contents including but not limited to attachments are confidential, Do not disclose to third parties. PUBLIC NOTICE: PRIVATE: This is Not A Public Communication. This private email message, and any attachment(s) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains privileged and/or confidential information.
-------- Original Message --------
2 of 7
3/13/2014 12:01 PM
>>> am in the process of doing including the supplement to the 2008 case >>> that will include BHO as the POTUS USURPER COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF without >>> the authority to renew the national emergency among other things. >>> >>> I am in the midst of writing the supplement to the original complaint >>> with new transactions and will give you the gist of the issue after >>> Friday when service is due. >>> >>> I have a lot to consider over the next two days and am coordinating one >>> intervener and other cases. I listened to your hearsay presentation and >>> believe that were you to say the same with some direct knowledge >>> especially as to conversations with those you mention in the video , I >>> believe I am able to defeat the hearsay rule. Now if you have sen the >>> documents of which you speak that would be great, and if you could bring >>> a certified copy well heaven has come to earth. >>> >>> I will ask the court for permission for a televised testimony from >>> England but am sure I will be able to raise money and security for you >>> here if this goes ahead for say June 18, 2014 when I also have an >>> Publisher who was once a NSA typist flying in from Belize to testify as >>> to forgeries the CoLB and Copyright paperwork. >>> >>> I will answer your question at the beginning of next week. >>> >>> >>> Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris agent >>> >>> >>> "SURETY NO MORE" WEBSITE: >>> >>> http://associationforsovereignhomerulewithin.org/ >>> >>> >>> REPLY TO cestrunck@yahoo.com or chris@strunk.ws >>> >>> All contents including but not limited to attachments are confidential, >>> Do not disclose to third parties. >>> >>> PUBLIC NOTICE: >>> >>> PRIVATE: This is Not A Public Communication. >>> >>> This private email message, and any attachment(s) is covered by the >>> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is >>> for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains privileged >>> and/or confidential information. >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message ------->>> Subject: Re: ABREVIATED EMAIL without attachments "Are YOU available to >>> testify here in Brooklyn New York June 18, 2014" >>> From: michael@mshrimpton.co.uk >>> Date: Tue, March 11, 2014 4:43 pm >>> To: chris@strunk.ws >>> Cc: "Dr. Levy" <jonlevy@hargray.com> >>> >>> Thanks, what are the issues in the case? Are you represented, or are >>> you an attorney, and how is it proposed I give evidence, video link or >>> flying to New York? >>> >>> best wishes, >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting chris@strunk.ws: >>> >>>> Sorry, misunderstood. I never have had anyone request "plain text" >>>> before. >>>> >>>> >>>> Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris agent >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message ------->>>> Subject: Re: ABREVIATED EMAIL without attachments "Are YOU available to >>>> testify here in Brooklyn New York June 18, 2013" >>>> From: michael@mshrimpton.co.uk >>>> Date: Tue, March 11, 2014 2:24 pm >>>> To: chris@strunk.ws >>>> Cc: "Dr. Levy" <jonlevy@hargray.com> >>>> >>>> Can't read, I'm afraid, cd you send something in plain text? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Quoting chris@strunk.ws: >>>>
4 of 7
3/13/2014 12:01 PM
>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
June 18, 2014... in the bench trial in the case before the Honorable David I. Schmidt JSC for the County of Kings in case 21948-2012 (with note of issue and readiness for trial) consolidated with 29642-2008 with my pending motions due by 3/14/14 for a hearing scheduled 3-28-14 in re: * Further, Petitioner contends that as a matter of law based upon the admission of the Appellate Panel in its decision and order shown as Exhibit D that the New York State Judiciary and this Court, although is a constitutional formed body here in the State as with the Federal Article III Courts are nevertheless in fact a defacto Executive Judicial body under the direct authority of the POTUS Commander-in Chief since March 6, 1933, and now BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II; and * Further, Petitioner contends that while I am under this Martial Process I am entitled to directly challenge the eligibility of the Barack Hussein Obama II to hold the office of POTUS Commander-in chief with direct authority and control over the New York Judiciary and this Court per se, as BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. is not a natural-born citizen (NBC) by his own admission, because his father as a foreign alien student of Great Britain from Kenya with a US Visa here to study ONLY starting in 1959 was then a British Citizen at the Barack Hussein Obama Jr. birth, when ever and where ever that may have occurred; and that the official Hawaii index record of marriages shows that His Mother Stanley Ann Obama was duly married to His Father Barack Hussein Obama Sr. before she became married to Lolo Soetoro after she divorced Obama Sr. (see _EXHIBIT J_); and * Further, based upon the SCOTUS seminal decision in /_Minor v Happersett_/ to be a Natural-born citizen without any question of national loyalties, one must be born of U.S. Citizen parents, in which BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. is not. * Further supporting Petitioners contention that the Commander-in chief is an unconstitutional USURPER controlling the New York State Judiciary as a defacto Executive court without authority to do so, because BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II is not NBC, that every proclamation and executive order extending the National Emergency starting with the Iranian Crisis national emergency since 1979 is now void ab intitio due to the USURPER Commander-in-chief, and that as such the New York State Judiciary and this Court without a constitutional Commander-in chief mandate for martial process to continue in place of civilian due process done under colour of law violates Petitioners Section 1 Fourteenth Amendment Right to equal protection of the law. * Further, in support of Petitioners contention that BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II is now USURPING the POTUS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF executive authority over the martial rule dispensed by New York State Court as a matter of contention posed by the New York State Appellate Division order shown as Exhibit D, is the VIDEO[1] ([1][2]) released on Friday evening February 26, 2014, for the disclosure by the Honorable Michael Shrimpton barrister to HER MAJESTYS BENCH ([2][3]) in regards to the ineligibility of BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. to be POTUS, stating unequivocally that Barack Hussein Obama "was born in Mombasa, Kenya."; wishes to join BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II as a necessary party herein.That in light of the newly disclosed allegation from credible authorities, ------------------------[1][4] http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/02/official-wikipedia-scrubs-michael.html Boom: Wikipedia Scrubs Michael Shrimpton[5] Profile; Kenyan Obama Caught On Tape [2][6] BIOGRAPHY of Michael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983 and is a specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism. He has wide ranging connections both in Western Intelligence agencies and amongst ex-Soviet Bloc agencies. Michael has earned respect in the intelligence community for his analysis of previously unacknowledged post WWII covert operations against the West by organisations based in Washington, Munich, Paris and Brussels and which are continuing in post 9-11. He is Adjunct Professor of intelligence Studies, Department of National Security, Intelligence and Space Studies, American Military University, teaching intelligence subjects at Masters Degree level to inter alia serving intelligence officers. He has represented US and Israeli intelligence officers in law and has briefed staffers on the Senate select Committee on Intelligence and the Joint Congressional inquiry into 9-11, also addressing panels on terrorism in Washington DC and Los Angeles. His active assistance to Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies in the Global War on Terror has produced some notable success including the exposure of the Abu Graib hood photograph as a fake. His work in strategic intelligence takes him on regular trips to the Pentagon and he also met with senior advisors to the President of the Russian
5 of 7
3/13/2014 12:01 PM
>>>>> Federation in >>>>> Moscow in November 2005. He participated in the Global Strategic Review >>>>> conference in Geneva in 2005 and is a contributor at conferences such as >>>>> Intelcon and the Intelligence Summit Washington DC February 2006. >>>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/shrimpton/ >>>>> >>>>> text of appellate panel order: >>>>> >>>>> STRUNK V NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS >>>>> Motion No: 2012-05515 >>>>> Slip Opinion No: 2014 NY Slip Op 65425(U) >>>>> Decided on March 4, 2014 >>>>> Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision >>>>> Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau[7] pursuant to Judiciary >>>>> Law 431. >>>>> This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the >>>>> Official Reports. >>>>> >>>>> Supreme Court of the State of New York >>>>> Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department >>>>> >>>>> M170416 >>>>> E/sl >>>>> PETER B. SKELOS, J.P. >>>>> THOMAS A. DICKERSON >>>>> JOHN M. LEVENTHAL >>>>> L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ. >>>>> >>>>> 2012-05515, 2013-06335, 2014-00297 >>>>> Christopher-Earl Strunk, appellant, >>>>> v New York State Board of Elections, >>>>> et al., respondents. >>>>> (Index No. 6500/11) >>>>> >>>>> DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION >>>>> >>>>> Motion by the appellant pro se, inter alia, "for civilian due process of >>>>> law" on appeals from three orders of the Supreme Court, Kings >>>>> County, dated >>>>> April 11, 2012, March 29, 2013, and December 9, 2013, respectively. >>>>> Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in >>>>> opposition thereto, it is >>>>> ORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further, >>>>> ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the appellant's time to perfect >>>>> the appeal from the order dated March 29, 2013 (Appellate Division Docket >>>>> No. 2013-06335), is enlarged until May 5, 2014, and the record >>>>> or appendix >>>>> and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before >>>>> that date. >>>>> SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, LEVENTHAL and HALL, JJ., concur. >>>>> ENTER: >>>>> Aprilanne Agostino >>>>> Clerk of the Court >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have skype account : CESTRUNK >>>>> >>>>> Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris agent >>>>> >>>>> "SURETY NO MORE" WEBSITE: >>>>> >>>>> http://associationforsovereignhomerulewithin.org/ >>>>> >>>>> REPLY TO cestrunck@yahoo.com or chris@strunk.ws >>>>> >>>>> All contents including but not limited to attachments are >>>>> confidential, Do >>>>> not disclose to third parties. >>>>> >>>>> PUBLIC NOTICE: >>>>> >>>>> PRIVATE: This is Not A Public Communication. >>>>> >>>>> This private email message, and any attachment(s) is covered by the >>>>> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for >>>>> the sole use of the intended recipient and contains privileged and/or >>>>> confidential information. >>>>> >>>>>> -------- Original Message ------->>>>>> Subject: Re: ABREVIATED EMAIL without attachments "Are YOU available to >>>>>> testify here in Brooklyn New York June 18, 2013" >>>>>> From: michael@mshrimpton.co.uk >>>>>> Date: Tue, March 11, 2014 12:57 pm >>>>>> To: chris@strunk.ws >>>>>> Cc: Christopher Strunk <cestrunck@yahoo.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, I am wary with respect of opening the attachments, are you asking >>>>>> me to testify in New York on 18th June? In which case, and in which >>>>>> court? >>>>>>
6 of 7
3/13/2014 12:01 PM
>>>>>> As an English barrister I am always at the disposal of the proper US >>>>>> legal authorities,i.e. in principle the answer is yes, if it is felt >>>>>> that I can give material evidence. >>>>>> >>>>>> best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Michael Shrimpton >>>>>> >>>>>> Quoting chris@strunk.ws: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Mar 10 at 10:38 PM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Michael Shrimpton, Esq. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You seem to have a real good sense of humor. I have agreed with your EU >>>>>>> Fourth Reich analysis for many years. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have been one of the few fighting the NBC matter here in the US of A >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> have been the only litigant with a unique USA approach THAT WRAPS A >>>>>>> PRETTY >>>>>>> RIBBON AROUND THE CENTRAL ISSUE of why we have had to fight two world >>>>>>> wars >>>>>>> in the last century - killing two of my great uncles - and why we are >>>>> now >>>>>>> facing the dither we are in because very few understand and use history >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> it should be used. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I urge you to be available to testify here in Brooklyn New >>>>>>> York June 18, >>>>>>> 2013 on the matter of which you spoke on February 26. I am a close >>>>> friend >>>>>>> of one of your fellow barristers who with some coaxing would I am sure >>>>>>> assist at trial were you to appear. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have been busy in several matters and may peak your interest: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The best I can say at the moment is that I am involved with something >>>>>>> having to do with the book I am writing >>>>>>> >>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/157112633/Social-Justice-Doctrine-the-New-World-Order-and-Operation-Heavy-Freedom >>>>>>> and with >>>>>>> >>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/79111728/UPDATE-with-Voluntary-Withdrawal-of-Complaint-by-Keenan-in-re-CES-NOM-to-Intervene-With-Exhibits-and-MOL-USDC-SDNY11-Cv-8500-and-proposed-supplement >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris agent >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "SURETY NO MORE" WEBSITE: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://associationforsovereignhomerulewithin.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> REPLY TO cestrunck@yahoo.com or chris@strunk.ws >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All contents including but not limited to attachments are confidential, >>>>>>> Do >>>>>>> not disclose to third parties. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PUBLIC NOTICE: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PRIVATE: This is Not A Public Communication. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This private email message, and any attachment(s) is covered by the >>>>>>> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is >>>>> for >>>>>>> the sole use of the intended recipient and contains privileged and/or >>>>>>> confidential information. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Links: >>>>> ----->>>>> [1] >>>>> http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/02/official-wikipedia-scrubs-michael.html >>>>> [2] file://#_ftn1 >>>>> [3] file://#_ftn2 >>>>> [4] file://#_ftnref1 >>>>> [5] http://www.birtherreport.com/search?q=Michael+Shrimpton >>>>> [6] file://#_ftnref2 >>>>> [7] http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/ Copyright 2003-2014. All rights reserved.
7 of 7
3/13/2014 12:01 PM
present in preparation for the 2016 cycle, as and for his Complaint filed October 29, 2008 under jurisdiction of New York State Election Law Article 16-100 over Article 12 and related law for the November 4, 2008 General Election for emergency equity relief, and to the extent that the New York State Board of Elections and its agents (NYS BOE) have yet to respond to service of the underlying Complaint and as required with NYS Election Law (EL) and as to the related cases Strunk v Jeffries et al 21948-2012 and Strunk v NYS BOE et al 6500-2011 accordingly, hereby provide seven (7) supplement causes, five of which are as to the Second and Third Cause of action from paragraphs 29 thru 38 with facts of subsequent transactions that upon information and belief and at all times hereinafter mentioned, respectfully alleges of captioned Defendants as follows: 1. That as a new transaction effecting the case herein, Plaintiff on March 22, 2011 filed a separate complaint Strunk v NYS Board of Elections et al. with Index No: 6500-2011, and that on April 11, 2012 Judge Arthur M. Schack ordered that STRUNK is barred from filing a suit in the New York State Unified Court System and or against the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / CoChair, 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, 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
Verified Supplement to the Complaint Page 2 of 35
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; without permission to do so and or until the 2. That this case is effected when the New York State Supreme Court Appellant Division for the Second Department hears and decides the Appeals 2012-05515, 201306335, 2014-00297 taken from three orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County Case with Index No.: 6500-2011, dated April 11, 2012, March 29, 2013, and December 9, 2013, respectively; and that STRUNK has by Decision and Order M170416 of March 4, 2014 until May 5, 2014 for the record or appendix and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date; and that 3. As a further new transaction effecting this case herein, as a constitutional legal question of first impression, is the Decision and Order M170416 of March 4, 2014 regarding the Appeals 2012-05515, 2013-06335, 2014-00297, STRUNKS motion therein as the appellant is denied "civilian due process of law" on appeals from the three orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 11, 2012, March 29, 2013, and December 9, 2013, respectively, and as such the Appellate panel has admitted that the New York State Unified Court System may only afford litigant parties and especially STRUNK; and 4. That notwithstanding STRUNKs status as a private citizen of the United States, Martial Process was implemented by operation of law associated with the March 4, 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) assumption to the Office of President of the United States (POTUS), who with his Inaugural Address seizes and gives ALL Property and persons as collateral for the debt of the United States in consecration to its prime Creditors, the Vatican State and Crowns City of London, and then on March 9, 1933, as POTUS
Commander in chief Roosevelt, with the doctrine of necessity, issues Proclamation 2040, Declaring a State of perpetual National Emergency via War Powers; and that based upon the FDR Proclamation 2039 of 6 March 1933, Congress Passes the Emergency Banking Relief Act 48 Stat. Law 1, thereby Amending the notorious World War I Statute Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, 40 Stat. L 411 (TWEA), Codified as 12 USC 95b and 50 USC App. 5(b), thereby approving and confirming Proclamation 2040, and bringing the TWEA Inland, Imposing Military Government; and thereby as a matter of critical understanding how The Emergency Banking Relief Act (1933) Amended The Trading With the Enemy Act (1917) as Amended (1918) in substance making The Trading With the Enemy Act the Law of the Land of the United States of America. The Trading With the Enemy Act as Amended on March 9, 1933, imposed a de facto Emergency War Powers Military Government, while ousting de jure Civilian Constitutional Government; and 5. That ALL Courts, Federal and State, now impose a Martial Due Process instead of a Civilian Due Process on every Person Within the United States, Natural and Artificial as confirmed by the US Senate in 1973 its SR 93-549, such Martial status as is admitted by the Decision and Order M170416 of March 4, 2014. 6. Therefore by operation of law under the continuing National Emergency, the New York State Unified Court System (NYSUCS) may only provide for Martial Due Process and administered accordingly by its Office of Court Administration directed by The Honorable GAIL PRUDENTI, J.S.C. Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts of the New York State Unified Court System with the Office of Court Administration located at 25 Beaver Street, Room 852 New York, NY 10004, and that the entire NYSUCS is under the exclusive authority and jurisdiction of the POTUS Commander-in-chief, now since January 20, 2009 BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, at The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Washington D.C. 20500-0003 and
7. By reference Plaintiff includes as supplement defendants, the NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF ELECTIONS and its Commissioners that play an inordinate role in effecting the formation of the Electoral College from the State of New York as a New York Subdivisions that exceeds the New York State Constitution total allowable persons to be a state subdivision, and as such the effect upon the general elections as supplemental Defendants herein with their Executive Office located at 32 - 42 Broadway, 7 Fl New York, NY 10004. 8. That other than the NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF ELECTIONS and its Commissioners (NYC BOE) having already been joined by permission of the Court in related case before Part 47 with Index No.: 21948-2012, Plaintiff is unable to add necessary supplemental defendants and actions pursuant without permission by the bar imposed by the April 11, 2012 Order of Case 6500-2011, and that such bar for the provisions of justice herein requires admission of the supplemental plaintiff H. William Van Allen. 9. That H. William Van Allen, Intervener Plaintiff was duly registered to vote and enrolled in the New York State Independence Party for the 2008 New York Election Cycle and is currently for the 2012 Election cycle. 10. That Mr. Van Allens place for service is located 351 North Road Hurley New York 12443, with telephone number (845) 389-4366 and email hvanallen@hvc.rr.com. 11. That on October 30, 2008 according to the RULES AND REGULATIONS of the STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS Current with amendments issued prior to 2008, TITLE 9 EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT SUBTITLE V STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS (NYS BOE) 6201.3 ELECTION LAW (2) the Complaint was duly served for the State Board staff to propose to the board an investigation of an alleged violation of the code; that accordingly that shall be filed by mailing to, or by personally serving, the Board of Elections at then address 40 Steuben St., Albany, NY 12207-2109.
12. That pursuant EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT SUBTITLE V STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS (NYS BOE) 6201.3 ELECTION LAW, Intervener Plaintiff on December 1, 2008, while not a party to this action also duly served the Summons and Complaint for Plaintiff upon the NYS BOE and others as required under CPLR; however, Plaintiff failed to follow-up completion service with the clerk of the court. 13. That on March 14, 2011 the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. held in an order regarding both Plaintiffs reconsideration motion to file service nunc pro tunc and for an amended complaint that quote: All motions are denied. Mr. Strunk failed to join a necessary party President Obama & Senator McCain. & the statute of limitations to do so expired. In view of the above there would be no purpose to allow plaintiff to file passed service nunc pro tunc or for amended complaint. 14. That on October 25, 2011 the Honorable Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. held in the case Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. with Index 6500-2011 that the court would not claim jurisdiction over matters transacted in regards to the 2008 Election cycle under the jurisdiction of the NYS BOE in the matter of ballot qualifications for office and decline to sign the order as to the NYS BOE wrote : "10/25/11 The Court declines to sign this OSC. This issue is not ripe until candidates file nominating petitions for public office for President of U.S. in several months. Further, the Court will [not] stop fund-raising by any candidate because candidates have a right to raise money pursuant to statute and the First Amendment. The issue of candidate qualification is subject to Court action after nominating petitions are submitted and candidates are challenged in Court."_s/AS " JSC" 15. That Intervener-Plaintiff is a member of the minor State party New York State Independence Party and unlike Plaintiff who is an enrolled member of the majority State party the New York State Republican Party in bipartisan control of the NYS BOE Intervener-Plaintiff is subject to their indifferent bi-partisan self-serving arbitrary and capricious manipulation favoring major State parties in control of elections.
16. That Intervener-Plaintiff voted for the Republican POTUS Candidate John S. McCain III at the November 4, 2008 election primarily because the IPNY convention nominated with EL 6-156 ( 2 ) the Republican candidate relying upon the fact that the NYS BOE had placed he and his running mate on the ballot as to eligibility. 17. That starting in August 21, 2008 Intervener-Plaintiff relied upon the litigation conducted by Philip J. Berg Esq. the past Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania to challenge the eligibility status of the Democratic Candidate Barack Hussein Obama II and deferred to his experience, high profile press coverage and impact such litigation would have before the 72 hour, EL 6-158 ( 3 ) Certificate ballot access challenge. 18. Clearly, something went wrong with due process at the NYS BOE and judiciary, Plaintiff filed the October 2008 catch-up action with meritorious constitutional issues.
EL 6156. Party nominations; certification: Certificates of nominations, made otherwise than at a primary, shall contain the name of the political party making the nomination, the title of the office for which such person is nominated, the name and residence of the nominee, the committee, if any, appointed to fill vacancies in the nominations, and shall be signed by the presiding officer and a secretary of the body making the nomination. When a nomination is made by a committee other than one composed of members of a state committee or a county committee, a certified copy of the rule or resolution constituting such committee, shall, if a copy thereof shall not have been filed previously, be attached to the certificate. (L.1976, c. 233, 1. Amended L.1996, c. 160, 2.) EL 6158. Nominating and designating petitions and certificates, conventions; times for filing and holding 6. A certificate of a party nomination made other than at the primary election for an office to be filled at the time of a general election shall be filed not later than seven days after the fall primary election, except that a certificate of nomination for an office which becomes vacant after the seventh day preceding such primary election shall be filed not later than fourteen days after the creation of such vacancy and except, further, that a certificate of party nomination of candidates for elector of president and vice-president of the United States shall be filed not later than fourteen days after the fall primary election, and except still further that a certificate of party nomination made at a judicial district convention shall be filed not later than the day after the last day to hold such convention and the minutes of such convention, duly certified by the chairman and secretary, shall be filed within seventytwo hours after adjournment of the convention. A certificate of party nomination for an office to be filled at a special election shall be filed not later than ten days following the issuance of a proclamation of such election. (L.1976, c. 233, 1. Amended L.1978, c. 373, 63; L.1982, c. 703, 1; L.1984, c. 434, 8; L.1986, c. 378, 2; L.1986, c. 517, 5; L.1988, c. 16, 4; L.1992, c. 79, 20.)
3
19. That Intervener-Plaintiff is a member of the de jure class of natural born citizens along with those similarly situated that include Plaintiff, who at birth are according to the de jure U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 ( 4 ) before the enactment of the 14th Amendment defined by law as expressed precedent in Minor. v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. by Justice Waite as natural born citizens (NBC) per se are so by virtue of birth on United States soil when both parents were Citizens of the United States
( 5 ).
20. That any person who is an alien with foreign allegiance to a foreign state, or who is a naturalized citizen of the United States, or a denizen of the United States at the time of birth to a parent or parents who are not citizens as such are not of the de jure class of natural born citizens, and belong to the class that are not be eligible to be a candidate to qualify for the office of the President of the United States (POTUS).
[T]he Constitutionprovides that no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of PresidentThe Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words all children are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as all persons, and if 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 plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. (Emphasis added.)
21. That in New York only a person who is of the de jure class of natural born citizens may be nominated, designated and or certified accordingly by convention for candidacy for election by the duly elected electors of the electoral college required under NYS EL Article 12 and Article 14. 22. That Mr. Van Allen has considerable experience with Election Law matters including campaign finance procedures since the early 1990s , as follows a. In 1992 Perot 92 campaign volunteer;
b. 1993 Elected officer (secretary) UWSA 26th CD (Hincheys Congressional District stretching from Ithaca , Tioga, Broome-Binghamton, Delaware, Sullivan, Orange, Ulster-Kingston, Dutchess-Beacon) c. 1994 Schulz 94 NYS Governor campaign volunteer co-plaintiff on Schulz v Berman federal lawsuit d. 1994 IPNY gained ballot access (Golisano) campaign appointed me IPNY Ulster County Chairman e. 1996 nominated/elected Perot 96 IPNY presidential elector on statewide General Election ballot f. 1996 removed from Ulster County Chairman due to challenging WilsonPicula fusion for $$$ by IPNY state executive committee while helping fellow Dutchess County chairperson Fairlene Rabenda successfully form the first constituted (local independent) IPNY county Committee that also assisted and challenged based on State Assembly (Miller) purchasing the IPNY fusion ballot line. g. 1997 volunteer assisting ACTA public meetings regarding the NYS constitutional convention ballot question h. 1998 to present volunteer focus on NYS Voter Registration Form and nonVerified Supplement to the Complaint Page 9 of 35
affiliated voter legal defense effort vs. NYS-BOE using administrative (FOIL) as well as federal court i. j. at least six original cases in USDC-NYND and USCA2C 2002 to present -- collaboration with Chris Strunk on election law organization and state and federal litigation efforts including redistricting conformance with NYS constitution. 23. That according to the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2 states: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. (Emphasis added) 24. The New York election cycle for selecting the slate of electors for a candidate for office of POTUS and Vice President of a particular political committee is notwithstanding any right the voters may expect to have, in fact the voters cast a vote ONLY as an advisory referendum on the POTUS candidate, for the actual electoral slate when passing state legislative muster may vote as they see fit notwithstanding anything the advisory referendum may reflect as a popular vote. 25. The State Legislature without need of approval of the Governor and or voters has plenary power to select the electoral college with or without the advisory referendum vote of the citizens however has enacted the Election Law assigning the NYS BOE with certain duties and responsibilities according to Election Law Article 3 of express ministerial duty without discretion to administer and form the electoral college at the time required by Congress using candidate(s) with eligibility and qualifications defined by EL 6-122 ( 6 ) in
EL 6122. 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 Verified Supplement to the Complaint Page 10 of 35
conjunction with Article 6 requirements for the Wilson Picula ( 7 ) nomination (EL 6-120) ( 8 )
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. (L.1976, c. 233, 1. Amended L.1978, c. 373, 55; L.1993, c. 511, 9.) Wilson Picula Act of 1947, authored by Assemblyman Malcolm Wilson and Senator Irwin Pakula, which forbids candidates from receiving the nomination of a political party if they are not registered as a member of that party, unless they receive permission to enter the primary from party officials representing a majority of the vote in the jurisdiction. Martin v. Alverez (Supreme Court, State of New York, Suffolk County 2005). Prior to the law's passage, candidates often ran in primary elections of multiple parties, creating a "Fusion ticket". Initially it was thought that the law could end these fusion candidacies. However, in practice, it has allowed smaller parties in New York to remain relevant as candidates from the major parties often seek their endorsements to expand their appeal. This is largely because of the unusual New York practice of allowing a candidate to have his name on the ballot once for each party who nominates him, and to have all the votes for him on whatever line added together. (While less common, Wilson Pakula certificates have been given by major parties as well. In 2008, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who became an independent after winning two elections as a Republican, had to obtain a Wilson Pakula in order to run with the Republican nomination a third time. More recently, the New York Republican Party chairman, Edward F. Cox, spearheaded an effort to get a Wilson Pakula for Steve Levy, a Democrat, to run on the Republican line. His effort was unsuccessful as Levy received only 43% of the vote at the Republican state convention, short of the majority he needed. Challenges to the law's constitutionality have been denied in a number of cases in New York State. In Werbel v Gernstein (1948), the court held that "the Wilson-Pakula Law was designed to protect the integrity of political parties and to prevent the invasion into or the capture of control of political parties by persons not in sympathy with the principles of such political parties (Ibid)
7
EL 6120. Designation and nomination; restrictions. 1. A petition, except as otherwise herein provided, for designating any person as a candidate for party nomination at a primary election shall be valid only if the person so designated is an enrolled member of the party referred to in said designating petition at the time of the filing of the petition. 2. Except as provided in subdivisions three and four of this section, no party designation or nomination shall be valid unless the person so designated or nominated shall be an enrolled member of the political party referred to in the certificate of designation or nomination at the time of filing of such certificate. 3. The members of the party committee representing the political subdivision of the office for which a designation or nomination is to be made, unless the rules of the party provide for another committee, in which case the members of such other committee, and except as hereinafter in this subdivision provided with respect to certain offices in the city of New York, may, by a majority vote of those present at such meeting provided a quorum is present, authorize the designation or nomination of a person as candidate for any office who is not enrolled as a member of such party as provided in this section. In the event that such designation or nomination is for an office to be filled by all the voters of the city of New York, such authorization must be by a majority vote of those present at a joint meeting of the executive committees of each of the county committees of the party within the city of New York, provided a quorum is present at such meeting. The certificate of authorization shall be filed not later than four days after the last day to file the designating petition, certificate of nomination or certificate of substitution to which such authorization relates. The certificate of authorization shall be signed and acknowledged by the presiding officer and the secretary of the meeting at which such
8
by convention (EL 6-126) ( 9 ) , Designation (EL 6-134) ( 10 ), Nomination (EL 6-138) ( 11 ) of
authorization was given. 4. This section shall not apply to a political party designating or nominating candidates for the first time, to candidates nominated neither by party caucus, nor to candidates for judicial offices. (Emphasis added) EL 6126. Conventions; rules for holding: 1. The time and place of meeting of a convention shall be fixed, within the times prescribed herein, by a committee appointed pursuant to the rules of the state committee. The room designated for the meeting place of a convention shall have ample seating capacity for all delegates and alternates. Every convention shall be called to order by the chairman of the committee from which the call originates or by a person designated in writing for that purpose by such chairman, or, if he fails to make such designation, then, by a person designated in such manner as the rules of the party shall prescribe. Such chairman or person designated shall have the custody of the roll of the convention until it shall have been organized. No such convention shall proceed to the election of a temporary chairman or transact any business until the time fixed for the opening thereof nor until a majority of the delegates or respective alternates named in the official roll shall be present. The roll call upon the election of a temporary chairman shall not be delayed more than one hour after the time specified in the call for the opening of the convention, provided a majority of delegates, including alternates sufficient to make up such majority by substitution, are present. The person who calls the convention to order shall exercise no other function than that of calling the official roll of the delegates upon the vote for temporary chairman and declaring the result thereof. 2. The temporary chairman shall be chosen upon a call of the official roll. The committees of the convention shall be appointed by the convention, or by the temporary chairman, as the convention may order. Where only one candidate is placed in nomination for any office, the vote may be taken viva voce. When more than one candidate is placed in nomination for an office the roll of the delegates shall be called and each delegate when his name is called shall arise in his place and announce his choice, except that the chairman of a delegation from any unit of representation provided for by party rules, unless a member of such delegation objects, may announce the vote of such delegation. The convention may appoint a committee to nominate candidates to fill vacancies in nominations made by the convention and caused by the death, declination or disqualification of a candidate. The permanent officer shall keep the records of the convention. [3. Repealed.] (L.1976, c. 233, 1. Amended L.1983, c. 29, 1; L.1986, c. 378, 1.)
10
EL 6134. Designating petition; rules: 1. A designating petition may designate candidates for nomination for one or more different public offices or for nomination for election to one or more party positions or both, but designations or nominations for which the petitions are required to be filed in different offices or petitions for the same public office or party position in different political subdivisions may not be combined in the same petition. If two or more offices having the same title are to be filled for different terms, the terms of office shall be included as part of the title of the office. 2. Sheets of a designating petition shall be delivered to the board of elections 3. If a voter shall sign any petition or petitions designating a greater number of candidates for public office or party position than the number of persons to be elected thereto his signatures, if they bear the same date, shall not be counted upon any petition, and if they bear different dates shall be counted in the order of their priority of date, for only so many designees as there are persons to be elected. 4. A signature made earlier than thirty-seven days 5. 6 7. A signer need only place his signature upon the petition, and need not himself fill in the other required information. 8. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the failure to list a committee to fill vacancies or the failure to list at least three eligible voters as a committee to fill vacancies shall not invalidate the petition unless a vacancy occurs which, under law, may be filled only by such a committee. 9. 10. The provisions of this section shall be liberally construed, not inconsistent with substantial compliance thereto Verified Supplement to the Complaint Page 12 of 35
candidate(s) that also by primary election if applicable must be certified (EL 6-144) ( 12 ) as
and the prevention of fraud. 11 12 13 (Added L.1996, c. 709, 3. Amended L.2009, c. 71, 1, eff. June 24, 2009.)
11 EL 6138. Independent nominations; rules: 1. Independent nominations for public office shall be made by a petition containing the signatures of registered voters of the political unit for which a nomination is made who are registered to vote. The name of a person signing such a petition for an election for which voters are required to be registered shall not be counted if the name of a person who has signed such a petition appears upon another valid and effective petition designating or nominating the same or a different person for the same office. 2. Except as otherwise provided herein, the form of, and the rules for a nominating petition shall conform to the rules and requirements for designating petitions contained in this article. 3. a. The name selected for the independent body making the nomination shall be in English characters and shall not include the name or part of the name or an abbreviation of the name or part of the name, nor shall the emblem or name be of such a configuration as to create the possibility of confusion with the emblem or name of a then existing party, or the emblem or name of an independent body selected by a previously filed independent nominating petition for the same office. b. notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this subdivision, if the emblem or name selected for an independent body on any independent nominating petition is the same c. A person who has been nominated or who expects to be nominated as the candidate of an independent body for the office of President of the United States at any election for such office may, not later than three days after the last day to file nominating petitions, file with the state board of elections, a special certificate which shall be irrevocable, stating that such person does not wish to permit candidates for any other office, except the office of Vice-President of the United States, to appear on the ballot with the same name and emblem as the independent body which has nominated or will nominate such candidate for the office of President. d. Not later than seven days after the last day to file nominating petitions, the state board of elections shall notify each local board of elections of the name of each candidate for President of the United States who has filed such a special certificate, together with the name and emblem of the independent body selected on the petition which nominated such candidate. e. If any candidate has been nominated for any other office by a petition which selected the same name or emblem for an independent body as the name or emblem selected on the petition which nominated a candidate for President of the United States who has filed a special certificate pursuant to paragraph c of this subdivision, the board of elections with which the petition nominating such candidate for such other office was filed shall, not later than ten days after the last day to file nominating petitions, send to each such candidate, by first class mail, notice that a special certificate pursuant to paragraph c of this subdivision has been filed and that the candidate to whom such notice is sent may file with such board of elections, not later than seven days after such notice was mailed, a certificate selecting a different name and emblem. f. If such a petition shall not show an emblem,selected by a party. g. Nothing contained in this subdivision shall preclude a court of competent jurisdiction from rejecting an independent nominating petition if the court determines that fraud was involved in the selection of a name or emblem. (L.1976, c. 233, 1. Amended L.1978, c. 9, 48; L.1992, c. 79, 16; L.1992, c. 305, 1; L.1992, c. 306, 1; L.1995, c. 88, 2; L.1996, c. 709, 4.)
12
EL 6144. Nominating and designating petitions and certificates; place for filing: Petitions, certificates and minutes specified in this article shall be filed in the office of the Board of elections of the county, except as follows: for an office or position to be voted for wholly within the city of New York, in the office of the Board of Elections of that city; for an office or position to be voted for in a district greater than one county, or portions of two or more counties, in the office of the state board of elections; for a village office to be filled in a Verified Supplement to the Complaint Page 13 of 35
qualified for holding office of POTUS on the ballot for eligible voters to choose between at the General Election. 26. That to collect signatures by petition to nominate or designate and hold out a candidate as eligible and who would meet the qualifications for the respective office when that person is not eligible or would be able to meet the qualifications upon election be qualified for taking the oath of office is an actual; fraud and involves the petition signers in constructive fraud were they merely to rely upon the presenter. 27. That when the political committee collects signatures and or holds a convention for certifying a candidate for ballot access, also solicit funds with NYS EL Article 14 as defined with EL 14-100 ( 13 ) for the purposes of such nominating, designating, convention certifying
village election not conducted by the board of elections, in the office of the village clerk. All such petitions and certificates shall at the time of filing thereof be endorsed by such officer or board with the day, hour and minute of such filing. Such officer or board shall keep a book, which shall be open to public inspection in which shall be entered the times of filing all such petitions and certificates; the names and residences of all candidates named therein; the names and residences of all candidates certified to such officer or board; the title of the office or party position; the name of the party or independent body to which the petition or certificate relates and a memorandum of any objections to such petition or certificate. Forthwith upon the filing of a petition or certificate designating or nominating a person or persons for public office, such officer or board shall mail notice thereof to each such person. Such notice shall also state the last day to decline such designation or nomination, and include a statement that the candidates name shall appear on the ballot as it appears in such notice. (L.1976, c. 233, 1. Amended L.1986, c. 378, 3; L.1990, c. 635, 4; L.1996, c. 150, 1.) EL 14100. Definitions As used in this article: 1. political committee means any corporation aiding or promoting and any committee, political club or combination of one or more persons operating or co-operating to aid or to promote the success or defeat of a political party or principle, or of any ballot proposal; or to aid or take part in the election or defeat of a candidate for public office or to aid or take part in the election or defeat of a candidate for nomination at a primary election or convention, including all proceedings prior to such primary election, or of a candidate for any party position voted for at a primary election, or to aid or defeat the nomination by petition of an independent candidate for public office; but nothing in this article shall apply to any committee or organization for the discussion or advancement of political questions or principles without connection with any vote or to a national committee organized for the election of presidential or vice-presidential candidates; provided, however, that a person or corporation making a contribution or contributions to a candidate or a political committee which has filed pursuant to section 14118 shall not, by that fact alone, be deemed to be a political committee as herein defined. 7. candidate means an individual who seeks nomination for election, or election, to any public office or party position to be voted for at a primary, general or , whether or not the public office or party position has been specifically identified at such time Verified Supplement to the Complaint Page 14 of 35
13
effort for a candidate that is not eligible to qualify for POTUS are committing a fraud. 28. That when the political committee collects contribution(s) for the candidate(s) it falls under EL - 14114 ( 14 ). Contributions and receipt limitations and is subject to
and whether or not such individual is nominated or elected, and, for purposes of this subdivision, an individual shall be deemed to seek nomination for election, or election, to an office or position, if he has (1) taken the action necessary to qualify himself for nomination for election, or election, or (2) received contributions or made expenditures, given his consent for any other person to receive contributions or make expenditures, with a view to bringing about his nomination for election, or election, to any office or position at any time whether in the year in which such contributions or expenditures are made or at any other time; and 9. contribution means: (1) any gift, subscription, outstanding loan (to the extent provided for in section 14114 of this chapter), advance, or deposit of money or any thing of value, made in connection with the nomination for election, or election, of any candidate, or made to promote the success or defeat of a political party or principle, or of any ballot proposal, (2) any funds received by a political committee from another political committee to the extent such funds do not constitute a transfer, (3) any payment, by any person other than a candidate or a political committee authorized by the candidate, made in connection with the nomination for election or election of any candidate, or any payment made to promote he success or defeat of a political party or principle, or of any ballot proposal including but not limited to compensation for the personal services of any individual which are rendered in connection with a candidates election or nomination without charge; provided however, that none of the foregoing shall be deemed a contribution if it is made, taken or performed by a candidate or his spouse or by a person or a political committee independent of the candidate or his agents or authorized political committees. For purposes of this article, the term independent of the candidate or his agents or authorized political committees shall mean that the candidate or his agents or authorized political committees did not authorize, request, suggest, foster or cooperate in any such activity; and provided further, that the term contribution shall not include: (A) the value of services provided without compensation by individuals who volunteer a portion or all of their time on behalf of a candidate or political committee, (B) the use of real or personal property and the cost of invitations, food and beverages voluntarily provided by an individual to a candidate or political committee on the individuals residential premises for candidate-related activities to the extent such services do not exceed five hundred dollars in value, and (C) the travel expenses of any individual who on his own behalf volunteers his personal services to any candidate or political committee to the extent such expenses are unreimbursed and do not exceed five hundred dollars in value. EL - 14114. Contributions and receipt limitations: 1. The following limitations apply to all contributions to candidates for election to any public office or for nomination for any such office, or for election to any party positions, and to all contributions to political committees working directly or indirectly with any candidate to aid or participate in such candidates nomination or election, other than any contributions to any party committee or constituted committee: a. In any election for a public office to be voted on by the voters of the entire state, or for nomination to any such office, no contributor may make a contribution to any candidate or political committee, and no candidate or political committee may accept any contribution from any contributor, which is in the aggregate amount greater than: (L.1976, c. 233, 1. Amended L.1978, c. 8, 3943; L.1978, c. 9, 101; L.1986, c. 517, 8; L.1986, c. 689, 1; L.1992, c. 79, 23 to 25; L.1993, c. 418, 4; L.1994, c. 659, 51; L.1997, c. 128, 1, eff. June 24, 1997.) Verified Supplement to the Complaint Page 15 of 35
14
eligibility and qualification of the candidate(s) even if not yet nominated or designated merely is dependent upon a declaration of intent. 29. That when the political committee solicits, collects and expends funds with an ineligible candidate who is unable to qualify to take the oath of office such acts are in fact a personal use of funds that the Election Law prohibits as a conversion of campaign funds to personal uses. In its relevant part it states: EL 14-130. Campaign funds for personal use. Contributions received by a candidate or a political committee may be expended for any lawful purpose. Such funds shall not be converted by any person to a personal use which is unrelated to a political campaign or the holding of a public office or party position. 30. That despite the fact that the Voters at the General Election for POTUS were not presented with a list if the slate of electors of the respective candidate( 15 ), the voters were presented the names of the POTUS candidates as eligible and would be qualify for office of POTUS when not eligible or would qualify to take the oath is fraud. 31. That when on December 1, 2008, Intervener-Plaintiff duly served the Summons and Complaint for Plaintiff upon the NYS BOE as is required under EL 3-104(2), EL 3-105 and EL 3-106 and related law, according to Plaintiff NYS BOE has not responded as required by Election Law. 32. That the NYS BOE statutory requirement to investigate or otherwise answer and respond the Complaint is notwithstanding the action herein, but has nevertheless not been
15
EL 12100. Electors of president and vice president- At the general election in November preceding the time fixed by law of the United States for the choice of president and vice president of the United States, as many electors of president and vice president of the United States shall be elected, as this state shall be entitled to. Each vote cast for the candidates of any party or independent body for president and vice president of the United States and each vote cast for any write-in candidates for such offices shall be deemed to be cast for the candidates for elector of such party or independent body or the candidates for elector named in the certificate of candidacy of such write-in candidates. (L.1976, c. 233, 1. Amended L.1988, c. 13, 6; L.1988, c. 175, 8.) (Emphasis added)
done and therefore a basis to obtain relief herein for Plaintiff for Intervener along with those persons similarly situated as an injured class suffering continuing harm. 33. That Intervener-Plaintiff along with those similarly situated as a de jure class have been singled out disenfranchised of rights and privileges protected by the NYS Constitution Article 1 Bill of Rights 1. of Rights and privileges secured mandates: No member of this state shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his or her peers 34. That Intervener-Plaintiff along with those similarly situated as a de jure class have been singled out disenfranchised of rights and privileges protected by the NYS Constitution Article II SUFFRAGE 1. [Qualifications of voters] Every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for all officers elected by the people and upon all questions submitted to the vote of the people provided that such citizen is eighteen years of age or over and shall have been a resident of this state, and of the county, city, or village for thirty days next preceding an election. (Amended Nov. 8, 1938; Nov. 2, 1943; Nov. 6, 1945; Nov. 6, 1951; Nov. 8, 1966, eff. Jan. 1, 1967; Nov. 7, 1995, eff. Jan. 1, 1996. Amended Nov. 6, 2001, eff. Jan. 1, 2002.) (Emphasis added)\ 35. That Intervener-Plaintiff along with those similarly situated as a de jure class have been singled out by the NYS BOE and its agents for disenfranchisement of rights and privileges protected by the NYS Constitution Article II SUFFRAGE 3. [Persons excluded from the right of suffrage] No person who shall receive, accept, or offer to receive, or pay, offer or promise to pay, contribute, offer or promise to contribute to another, to be paid or used, any money or other valuable thing as a compensation or reward for the giving or withholding a vote at an election, or , shall vote at such election; and upon challenge for such cause, the person so challenged, before the officers authorized for that purpose shall receive his or her vote, shall swear or affirm before such officers that he or she has not received or offered, does not expect to receive, has not paid, offered or promised to pay, contributed, offered or promised to contribute to another, to be paid or used, any money or other valuable thing as a compensation or reward for the giving or withholding a vote at such election, and has not made any promise to influence the giving or withholding of any such vote, nor made or become directly or indirectly interested in any bet or wager depending
upon the result of such election. The legislature shall .. (Formerly 2, renumbered 3, Nov. 8, 1938, eff. Jan. 1, 1939. Amended Nov. 6, 2001, eff. Jan. 1, 2002.) 36. That the Complaint Second Cause of Action reads: SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of oath of Office by Public Officers, Public Officer Defendants and NYS BOE) 29New York State Board of Elections, (NYS BOE) with four commissioners two appointed from each major state party and who have authority over their agents and the local boards of election both for ballot access and the certification of the Presidential Elector Candidates slates shown on Exhibit A is located at the New York State Board of Elections 40 Steuben Street Albany, NY 12207. 30..That NYS BOE and its agents certified the Public Officers Defendants to be on the ballot at the November 4, 2008 general election for election to the New York Electoral College. 31..Public Officer Defendants by reason of their actions to seek election to the Electoral College on November 4, 2008 without expressing intention to resign from public office simultaneous with the certification of the winning Electoral College slate under EL 12-102 by December 1, 2008, intentionally are in breech of their oath of office and subject to impeachment. 32..That public officers of the NYS BOE Defendant and the Public Officer Defendants intentionally Breech their oath of Office to be placed on the November 4, 2008 ballot as candidates for electors of the Electoral College. 33..Plaintiff, along with those similarly situated, suffers injury to his sovereignty as guaranteed under New York State Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Section 2 as 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 as is or shall be derived from and granted by the people of this state. 34..That Plaintiff individually as a natural person as with those similarly situated as We The People as natural persons of the State of New York (a corporate entity), 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 as further guaranteed by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Federal Constitution, and Magna Carta. 35..That nunc pro tunc Plaintiff inherits all the sovereign rights, privileges and property that a living natural human inures from the creator Yahweh whose son Jesus Christ guarantees the sovereign Freedom from Almighty God against corporate fiction and Public Officer Defendants and their agents who are ultra vires and bent on enslaving plaintiff and those similarly situated. As a First Supplement Cause of Action to the Second Cause of Action (NYS BOE has failed to respond as required by EL 3-104 (2)) 37. That Intervener- Plaintiff and Plaintiff (PETITIONERS) allege the NYS BOE and
or its agents failed to respond as required by EL 3-104 (2) as a First Supplement Cause of Action to the Second Cause of Action repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction paragraphs 1 through 36 with each allegation of the Second Cause of Action with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length. 38. That the NYS BOE has the power under EL 3104. with enforcement powers that were bound to respond to when Intervener- Plaintiff on October 30, 2008 duly served the NYS BOE for plaintiff with a complaint shown as Exhibit 1 accompanied by a mandamus petition with Index 29641-08 served upon electors listed at Exhibit A, to which the NYS BOE agent(s) have never responded under Election Law to the Plaintiff. 39. That the complaint alleged that the NYS BOE failed in its ministerial duties to properly notify a candidate for then electoral college that the respective candidate for nomination designation and or certification as the candidate for either the office of POTUS or Vice President had to be Natural born Citizen pursuant to the precedent decision of the SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett cited above at footnote 5. 40. That PETITIONERS in an effort to discover when and why the NYS BOE and or its agents maintain the improper eligibility / qualification instructions for a candidate to for office of POTUS in the 2012 election cycle as to Citizenship states born a citizen 41. 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. 42. That based upon Intervener-Plaintiff review of the NYS BOE Open Meetings record from 2007 forward until this date there has not been a mention of the term Natural born citizen in the record. That based upon the present NYS BOE website entitled Running for Office in regards to those seeking the Office of POTUS there is no use of the term of art Natural-born Citizen as required under U.S. Constitution Section 1, instead use the term Born a Citizen on the official webpage Running for Office appears as follows:
43. That the misstatement of Running for Office Qualification facilitates the violation of law campaign fund raising law as defined by EL 14-100 (7) for who may be a candidate for the office of POTUS cited in footnote 12 above and that determines who may seek contributions for the office of POTUS and or creation of an electoral college slate in creation of a ballot in 2008 and 2012. 44. That Intervener Plaintiff believes that use of the term Born a citizen rather than Natural-born Citizen is conclusive evidence of the breach of fiduciary duty by the NYS BOE and or its agents alleged that goes to a breach of oath and duty alleged against the agents of the NYS BOE in the underlying Complaint. 45. That based upon PETITIONERS review of the NYS BOE Open Meetings record with EL 3-212 and 3-100 with Public Officers Law Art. 7 103 for Open Meetings from 2007 forward until this date there has not been a mention of the term Born a Citizen in the record. 46. That based upon the requirement of Federal Law the instructions sent to the Governor of the State of New York for the formation of the New York Electoral College from
New York in the 2008 Election cycle did not use the term Natural-born Citizen or Born a Citizen. 47. Therefore, the word of art Born a Citizen had to be created in the executive session of the NYS BOE violate EL 3-212 and Public Officer Art 7 Open Meetings Law. 48. That Intervener Plaintiff requested by FOIL that the NYS BOE disclose the record of the executive session at which the term of Art Born a Citizen was invented and that the NYS BOE denied such information as privileged protected from public disclosure. 49. That Intervener Plaintiff requested by FOIL that the NYS BOE disclose the record of the communication between the Governors Office and or Attorney General office in regards to the use of the term of art Born a Citizen that was invented and that the NYS BOE denied such information as attorney client privileged protected from public disclosure as work product. 50. That when there is a complaint duly served upon 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, has failed to due so notwithstanding the complaint before this court. 51. That whenever the state board of elections or other board of elections shall determine in either open meeting or Executive session, 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 there under 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 no such determination was reported to Plaintiff and or Intervener Plaintiff as an interested party. 52. That Defendant NYS BOE has injured IntervenerPlaintiff along with those similarly situated as a member of the class of those de jure citizens who are natural born citizens. 53. That defendant NYS BOE has injured intervener plaintiff along with those similarly situated as a member of the minor State party that had performed a Wilson Picula endorsement of the Republican party candidate for POTUS and denied an honest election by manipulating the qualifications to run for Office of POTUS.
As a Second Supplement Cause of Action to the Second Cause of Action (NYS BOE or agent(s) have failed to respond as required by EL 3-105 as relates to unequal protection of minor party members afforded by special treatment for the major State Party Candidates with multiple lines on the Full Face Ballot with HAVA in State Election Law w/ EL 6-120(3)) 54. That Intervener- Plaintiff alleges the NYS BOE or agent(s) have failed to respond as required by EL 3-105 as relates to unequal protection of minor party members afforded by special treatment for the major State Party Candidates with multiple lines on the Full Face Ballot with HAVA in State Election Law EL 6-120(3) as a Second Supplement Cause of Action to the Second Cause of Action repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction paragraphs 1 through 53 with each allegation of the Second Cause of Action with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length. 55. That as a matter of HAVA protections as enacted in NYS Election Law, the Wilson
Picula practice notwithstanding fusion per se when it is largely because of the unusual New York practice of allowing a candidate to have his name on the ballot once for each party who nominates him, and to have all the votes for him on whatever line added together affords the Major Party Candidate under the condition of a full face ballot greater advantage than if the candidate name were referenced only once in the same type face with the list of nominating endorsement listed thereafter. 56. That when under the condition of NYS BOE failure of ministerial duty to properly inform the voter and potential candidates of the requirement that all proposed candidates for office of POTUS must be a Natural born Citizen facilitates subversion of the election process eligibility and thereby are inhibiting or interfering with the right of every qualified person and political party to full and equal participation in the electoral process both in 2008 and continuing now into the 2012 election cycle As a Third Supplement Cause of Action to the Second Cause of Action (NYS BOE or agents has failed to respond as required by EL 3-106 and 6201.1 Fair Campaign Code) 57. That Intervener- Plaintiff and Plaintiff (PETITIONERS) allege the NYS BOE and or its agents failed to respond as required by EL 3-106 (1) and 6201.1 Fair Campaign Code as a Third Supplement Cause of Action to the Second Cause of Action repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction paragraphs 1 through 56 with each allegation of the Second Cause of Action with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length. 58. That as both a civil and criminal matter the term sedition is intended for use interchangeably with the term subversion as used by the State Legislature in EL 3-106 requirement for a Fair Campaign Code. 59. That NYS BOE and its agents have breached their oath of duty by misapplying and
misadministration of the law by providing improper qualifications of the candidates for the office of POTUS and thereby are inhibiting or interfering with the right of every qualified person and political party to full and equal participation in the electoral process both in 2008 and continuing now into the 2012 election cycle. 60. That the State Legislature provides EL 3-106 for authority to protect voters against sedition or subversion as defined in election law by the State Legislature and with 6201.1 Fair Campaign Code and related code as provided for by the defendants with Executive regulation for related substantive administrative procedure and due process. 61. That the RULES AND REGULATIONS of the STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS Current with amendments issued prior to 2008 and through January 1, 2011 TITLE 9 EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT SUBTITLE V STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS 6201.1 Fair Campaign Code In order that all political campaigns be conducted under a climate promoting discussion of the issues and presentation of the records and policies of the various candidates, stimulating just debate with respect to the views and qualifications of the candidates and without inhibiting or interfering with the right of every qualified person and political party to full and equal participation in the electoral process, the following is hereby adopted by the New York State Board of Elections pursuant to section 3106 of the Election Law as the fair campaign code for the State of New York. No person, political party or committee during the course of any campaign for nomination or election to public office or party position shall, directly or indirectly, whether by means of payment of money or any other consideration, or by means of campaign literature, media advertisements or broadcasts, public speeches, press releases, writings or otherwise, engage in or commit any of the following: (b) Political practices involving subversion or undermining of political parties or the electoral process including, but not limited to, the preparation or distribution of any fraudulent, forged or falsely identified writing or the use of any employees or agents who falsely represent themselves as supporters of a candidate, political party or committee. 62. That the Complaint Third Cause of Action reads as follows: THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Sedition, as against all Defendants) 36..Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the Supplement Second Cause of Action with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length. 37That Democrat Party Elector Candidate Defendants, Public Officer Defendants, the
NYS BOE and their agents John and Jane Does as an enterprise commit acts of sedition in an agreement, communication or other preliminary activity aimed at inciting treason or some lesser commotion against public authority and policy, as has with state action undermined the State and Federal election as under 42 USC 1983 and 1985. 38That plaintiff is being denied his sovereignty and a republican form of government. First Supplement Cause to the Third Cause of Action (NYS BOE / NYC BOE or agents political practice involve subversion by inventing qualifications to run for office of POTUS) 63. That PETITIONERS as a First Supplement Cause of Action to the Third Cause of Action repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction paragraphs 1 through 62 with each allegation of the Third Cause of Action as to NYS BOE / NYC BOE or agents political practice involve subversion by inventing qualifications to run for office of POTUS with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length. 64. PETITIONERS alleges the NYS BOE / NYC BOE and or its agents breach their oath of duty to the law by maintaining Born a Citizen and concealing the executive record of such political practice as an act of subversion that is undermining political parties and the electoral process including, but not limited to, the preparation or distribution of any fraudulent, forged or falsely identified writing or the use of any employees or agents who falsely represent themselves as supporters of a candidate, political party or committee, that failed to respond as required by EL 3-106 (1). 65. That on or about October 3, 2011 State Attorney General Special Counsel to Defendant NYS BOE when presented with a request to stipulate and admit to use of the term of art Natural born Citizen to mean a person born on USA soil to two citizen parents under the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 rather than the term Born a Citizen refuse to admit to the meaning or use of the express idiom for notification to a prospective candidate or committee use to disenfranchise voters and PETITIONERS with those similarly situated.
Second Supplement Cause to the Third Cause of Action (Defendants with NYS BOE / NYC BOE or agents subversive political practice facilitates illegal fund raising) 66. That PETITIONERS as a Second Supplement Cause of Action to the Third Cause of Action repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction paragraphs 1 through 65 with each allegation of the Third Cause of Action as to NYS BOE or agents subversive political practice facilitates illegal fund raising with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length. 67. Intervene-Plaintiff alleges the NYS BOE and or its agents breach their oath of duty to the law by maintaining Born a Citizen and concealing the executive record of such political practice as an act of subversion that is undermining minor State political parties and the electoral process including, but not limited to, the preparation or distribution of any fraudulent, forged or falsely identified writing or the use of any employees or agents who falsely represent themselves as supporters of a candidate, political party or committee, that facilitates illegal fund raising with EL Article 14 for POTUS candidates who are not eligible with EL 6-122 as to NBC. 68. That Defendant BOE and agents facilitate the major State Party elector slates to vote for an ineligible candidate for office of POTUS to disenfranchise voters and PETITIONERS with those similarly situated.
Third Supplement Cause to the Third Cause of Action (DEFENDANTS with NYS BOE / NYC BOE or agents subversive political practice facilitates major party candidates to detriment of minor State party ballot line support with the EL 6-120 (3) Wilson-Picula law) 69. That PETITIONERS as a Third Supplement Cause of Action to the Third Cause of Action repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction paragraphs 1
through 68 with each allegation of the Third Cause of Action NYS BOE or agents subversive political practice facilitates major party candidates to detriment of minor State party ballot line support with the EL 6-120 (3) Wilson-Picula law with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length. 70. PETITIONERS alleges the NYS BOE and or its agents by maintaining Born a Citizen and concealing the executive record of such political practice as an act of subversion that is undermining political parties and the electoral process including, but not limited to, the preparation or distribution of any fraudulent, forged or falsely identified writing or the use of any employees or agents who falsely represent themselves as supporters of a candidate, political party or committee. 71. That NYS BOE or agents facilitate minor State party support of an illegal major State party elector slate for illegal candidate for office of POTUS to disenfranchise minor State party member voters and PETITIONERS with those similarly situated.
As and for the Fourth Supplement Cause to the Third Cause of Action
(That all Defendants in coordination with the NYS BOE / NYC BOE or agents subversive political practice include those Commissioners past and present to facilitate major party to maintain BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II the son of a foreign born British Subject with dual allegiance as the USURPER POTUS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF with authority over of the NYSUCS.) 72. That PETITIONERS as a Forth Supplement Cause of Action to the Third Cause of Action repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction paragraphs 1 through 71 with each allegation of the Third Cause of Action as against all Defendants using the NYS BOE / NYC BOE or agents subversive political practice including those Commissioners past and present of facilitates major party to maintain BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II the son of a foreign born British Subject with dual allegiance as the USURPER
POTUS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF with authority over of the NYSUCS, in the selection and preparation of elected and or appoint judicial candidates to administers Martial process under the authority of the USURPER POTUS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF; and 73. That PETITIONERS contend that as a matter of law based upon the admission of the Appellate Panel in its decision and order shown as Exhibit D that the New York State Judiciary and this Court, although is a constitutional formed body here in the State as with the Federal Article III Courts are nevertheless in fact a defacto Executive Judicial body under the direct authority of the POTUS Commander-in Chief since March 6, 1933, and now BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II; and 74. Further, PETITIONERS contend that while WE ARE under this Martial Process WE are entitled to directly challenge the eligibility of the Barack Hussein Obama II to hold the office of POTUS Commander-in chief with direct authority and control over the New York Judiciary and this Court per se, as BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. is not a naturalborn citizen (NBC) by his own admission, because his father as a foreign alien student of Great Britain from Kenya with a US Visa here to study ONLY starting in 1959 was then a British Citizen at the Barack Hussein Obama Jr. birth, when ever and where ever that may have occurred; and that the official Hawaii index record of marriages shows that His Mother Stanley Ann Obama was duly married to His Father Barack Hussein Obama Sr. before she became married to Lolo Soetoro after she divorced Obama Sr.; and 75. Further, based upon the SCOTUS seminal decision in Minor v Happersett to be a Natural-born citizen without any question of national loyalties, one must be born of U.S. Citizen parents, in which BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. is not. 76. Further supporting Petitioners contention that the Commander-in chief is an unconstitutional USURPER controlling the New York State Judiciary as a defacto Executive court without authority to do so, because BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II is not
NBC, that every proclamation and executive order extending the National Emergency starting with the Iranian Crisis national emergency since 1979 is now void ab intitio due to the USURPER Commander-in-chief, and that as such the New York State Judiciary and this Court without a constitutional Commander-in chief mandate for martial process to continue in place of civilian due process under colour of law violates Petitioner Section 1 Fourteenth Amendment equal protection of the law. 77. Further, in support of Petitioners contention that BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II is now USURPING the POTUS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF executive authority over the martial rule dispensed by New York State Court as a matter of contention posed by the New York State Appellate Division order referenced above is supported by the video ( 16 ) released on Friday evening February 26, 2014, for the disclosure by the Honorable Michael Shrimpton barrister to HER MAJESTYS BENCH ( 17 ) in regards to the ineligibility of BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. to be POTUS, stating unequivocally that Barack Hussein Obama "was born in Mombasa, Kenya."; and as such BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II is a
16
BIOGRAPHY of Michael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983 and is a specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and CounterTerrorism. He has wide ranging connections both in Western Intelligence agencies and amongst exSoviet Bloc agencies. Michael has earned respect in the intelligence community for his analysis of previously unacknowledged post WWII covert operations against the West by organisations based in Washington, Munich, Paris and Brussels and which are continuing in post 9-11. He is Adjunct Professor of intelligence Studies, Department of National Security, Intelligence and Space Studies, American Military University, teaching intelligence subjects at Masters Degree level to inter alia serving intelligence officers. He has represented US and Israeli intelligence officers in law and has briefed staffers on the Senate select Committee on Intelligence and Joint Congressional inquiry into 9-11, also addressing panels on terrorism in Washington DC and Los Angeles. His active assistance to Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies in the Global War on Terror has produced some notable success including the exposure of the Abu Graib hood photograph as a fake. His work in strategic intelligence takes him on regular trips to the Pentagon and he also met with senior advisors to the President of the Russian Federation in Moscow in November 2005. He participated in the Global Strategic Review conference in Geneva in 2005 and is a contributor at conferences such as Intelcon and the Intelligence Summit Washington DC February 2006. http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/shrimpton/
17
necessary party as the Chief Administrator of the Martial Process provided by NYSUCS.
As and for the Fifth Supplement Cause to the Third Cause of Action
(That all Defendants in coordination with the NYS BOE / NYC BOE or agents subversive political practice include those Commissioners past and present to facilitate major party to maintain BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II the son of a foreign born British Subject with dual allegiance as the USURPER POTUS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF with authority over of the NYSUCS by concealing New York State Documents as part of USURPATION of the NYSUCS.) 78. That PETITIONERS as a Fifth Supplement Cause of Action to the Third Cause of Action repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction paragraphs 1 through 77 with each allegation of the Third Cause of Action as against all Defendants using the NYS BOE / NYC BOE or agents subversive political practice including those Commissioners past and present of facilitates major party to maintain BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II the son of a foreign born British Subject with dual allegiance as the USURPER POTUS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF with authority over of the NYSUCS, in the selection and preparation of elected and or appoint judicial candidates to administers Martial process under the authority of the USURPER POTUS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF with authority over of the NYSUCS by concealing New York State Documents as part of USURPATION of the NYSUCS. and 79. That after Defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II graduated from Occidental College he attended Columbia University and received foreign students funding with records under the supervision of the State of New York and or its agents. 80. That Defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II wrote an autobiography DREAMS FROM MY FATHER book published and copyrighted in 1995. 81. That the Publishers advertised BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II was born in Kenya.
82. That the copyright filing for DREAMS FROM MY FATHER listed BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II as born in Kenya. 83. That during the period leading up to 2008 General Election until sometime around April 2011 the copyright submission for DREAMS FROM MY FATHER listed BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II as born in Kenya was changed to born in the USA. 84. That during the period leading up to 2008 General Election until sometime around April 2011 thee was a long form Certificate of Birth forged to indicate that BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II was born in the USA as will be proven at the 21948-2012 trial . 85. That during the period leading up to 2008 General Election the selective service registration form was forged to show that BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II had properly registered for the draft in 1980. 86. That during the period leading up to 2008 General Election the passport records with the birth certificate attachment for Stanley Ann Dunham, Stanley Ann Obama and Stanley Ann Soetoro were spoliated and destroyed by BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II agent John Brennan, the then CEO of the Corporation under contract with the US Department of State to maintain and use passport records. 87. That Defendants and agents were aware of Defendant OBAMAs birth in Kenya. 88. That in light of the newly disclosed allegation from credible authorities, Petitioners have never asked for this relief before and in that Plaintiff has been rendered incapable of joining this matter himself as a result of the outrageous actions by ARTHUR M. SCHACK, Petitioners are entitled to relief herein accordingly. 89. That Mr. VAN ALLENs case 1787-2012 in Albany before Acting Judge Richard Platkin re: the New York State BOE refusal to use express instructions of the Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and held in the order to dismiss that:
In view of petitioner's lack of standing to maintain the instant proceeding, there is no reason to consider respondent's additional contentions that this proceeding is barred by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel based upon prior litigation undertaken by Christopher-Earl Strunk, an alleged privy of petitioner, and that the petition is non-justiciable insofar as the Electoral College is the sole and exclusive forum in which objections to the selection of a President may be determined. (emphasis added by Petitioner) 90. Further, that in regards to Petitioners; fundamental right to a hearing on his grievance as is his right to petition, see The History, Meaning, Effect, and Significance of the Right to Petition Government for Redress of Grievances analysis by Robert L. Schulz (2014), and in light of the order to dismiss that the new transactions and facts under provisions of Administrative Process relief and equity remedies that this Court grant relief.. 91. That PETITIONERS under the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 and the Declaratory Relief Act of 1934 are entitled to extensive discovery and remedy herein; including but not limited to Declaratory Judgment in regards to whether with an ineligible POTUS who is unable to be the commander-in-chief under an annually or bi-annually declared continuation of the National Emergency and with authority over ALL courts that we are rightfully to operate under marital due process or civilian due process; for if the POTUS Commander-In Chief is not eligible to be POTUS, then all his acts are not only void ab initio but that the martial due process expired as a requirement of Congressional statute, rendering the suspended Constitutions re-established by operation of law then to guarantee civilian due process guaranteed under both the 5th and Section 1 of the 14th Amendments to the US Constitution. Wherefore, PETITIONERS wish an order by the Court of Defendant(s) and or agents: A. To provide candidates for the Office of POTUS notification with the express term of art Natural born Citizen of the United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1; B. To provide any and all communication including executive session records as to the
cc:
David A. Paterson 45 West 132nd Street Apt. 7N New York NY 10037 NYS BOE General Counsel New York State Board of Elections 40 NORTH PEARL STREET, SUITE 5 ALBANY, NY 12207-2729 ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of New York State by: JOSHUA PEPPER, Esq. AAG 120 BROADWAY 24th Floor New York, New York 10271-0332 Thomas P. DiNapoli Office of the State Comptroller 110 State Street Albany, NY 12236 Hakeem Jeffries 445 Neptune Avenue Amalgamated Warbasse #2 Brooklyn, NY 11224 Hakeem Jeffries 35 Underhill Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11238 Andrew Cuomo, Governor of the STATE OF NEW YORK The Capitol Albany, New York 12224
Sheldon Silver, The New York State Assembly The Capitol Albany New York 12224 Dean Skelos, The New York State Senate The Capital Room 501 Albany New York 12224 New York City Board of Elections Executive Office 32 - 42 Broadway, 7 Fl New York, NY 10004 Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238
Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts
The Honorable Gail Prudenti, J.S.C.
New York State Unified Court System Office of Court Administration 25 Beaver Street, Room 852 New York, NY 10004
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II POTUS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF The WHITE HOUSE 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE N.W. WASHINGTON D.C. 20500-0003
David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo (NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli (NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of PETITIONERS AFFIDAVIT the Assembly), Malcolm Smith (NYS Senator), IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD), Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council), William Thompson (NYC Comptroller), RENEW AND REARGUE Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos (President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their INTERVENTION Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official Capacity and individually; The New York State Board of Elections and John Does and Jane Does Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------------x STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER ) ) ss. )
Accordingly, I, H. William Van Allen, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: 1. That Petitioner, H. (Harold) William Van Allen, is self-represented without an attorney petitions as of right with CPLR 2221(f) and 1012(a)(2) to protect my own liberty and rights including right to petition for a redress of grievances in periods under the NYS Constitution and declared political emergency and necessity, with below exhibit, against an ongoing injury that started from before the 2008 New York General Election cycle and by this motion renews my prior motion to intervene as the circumstances and transactions have changed entitling me to do so. The NYSUCS
Van Allen Affidavit in support of Motion to Renew Intervene Page 1 of 16
Chief Administrative Judge has been requested and has in fact taken a direct role in monitoring this entire matter. 2. Including Van Allen v NYSBOE 1787-2012 (born a citizen case) and Van Allen
v Silver message of necessity passed legislations. All related to NYS Electoral College delegate selection based upon unconstitutional state and federal legislative redistricting; as well as notice of related unconstitutional process message of necessity and constitutional convention delegate cases; i.e. Schulz v Cuomo (NYS constitutional convention delegate eligibility, Schulz v State of New York Executive (message of necessity passed NYS SAFE Act) and Schulz v New York State Executive (message of necessity passed NYSBOE unconstitutional language of 2013 constitutional ballot question). All constitutional Albany Civil Supreme cases assigned to emergency Acting State Supreme Court Justices i.e. un-elected Court of Claims appointed judges nomination confirmed by unconstitutionally districted state legislators. SCOTUS Motion/Application pending for expansion of time to file petitions of certiorari pending the disposition of this proposed intervention motion. 3. That Petitioner re-submits herewith a copy of the Verified Supplement of
November 4, 2011 to Plaintiffs Complaint filed October 29, 2008 (See Exhibit A with sub--exhibits 1 through 6) as to jurisdiction of New York State Election Law Article 16-100 over Article 12 and related law for the November 4, 2008 General Election for emergency equity relief, and to the extent that the New York State Board of Elections and its agents (NYS BOE) have yet to respond to service of the underlying Complaint and as required with NYS Election Law (EL), hereby provide five (5) supplement causes to the Second and Third Cause of action shown in Exhibit A-1 from paragraphs 29 thru 38 with facts of subsequent transactions disclosed subsequent to the October 29 2008 filing and before Defendants answer and or response.
4.
That Part 47 on November 22, 2011 in its order denying my previous
intervention held that Plaintiff Christopher Strunk quite capable of representing all alleged aggrieved parties in the case (see Exhibit B) 5. That the Order of this Court in Part 47 on January 24, 2014 proves this case
remains active an d that is a matter to be heard before the Court on March 28, 2014 (see Exhibit C)as a related case to the active case Strunk v Jeffries et al NYS-SC for the County of Kings in Part 47 with Index No.: 2012-21948 having a Notice of Readiness for the Trial of the evidence of fraud at the 2012 General Election scheduled for June 18, 2014 perpetrated by the agents for Presidential Candidate Barack Hussein Obama, now the USURPER POTUS Commander-in chief with, according to Mr. Strunk, authority and jurisdiction over this Court as a defacto executive martial rule court under 12 USC 95, 50 App USC 5(b) and related law associated with POTUS Commander-in-chief Franklin Delano Roosevelt s Proclamations 2039, 2040, 6201 with related proclamations and executive orders issues after March 4, 1933; and as further acknowledged by the NYS Supreme Court Appellate Division for the Second Department by the panel decision and order denying Mr. Strunk his request for Civilian due process of law be provided in his Appeal Cases 12-5515 13 6335 and 14-00297 taken from various Orders and Decisions in the case before Part 23 Strunk v NYS Board of Elections et al. NYS-SC for the County of Kings with Index No.: 65002011 now due to be submitted by May 5, 2014 (see Exhibit D). 6. That the Case 6500-2011 was maliciously assigned with a perjured RJI petition
(see Exhibit E) to Part 23 rather than Part 47 against I.A.S. administrative procedure even though this case 29642-2008 is listed as a related on the first page of the 65002011 Complaint; and
7.
That clearly the circumstances have changed since November 22, 2011 with the
misbehavior of Justice Arthur M. Schack in the Decision and Order for Case 65002011 barring Mr. Strunk from any further action in States court and or against any of the named defendants therein including the NYS Board of Elections (Exhibit F) even though the order(s) taken on appeal by Plaintiff Strunk to the Appellate Division with Appeal cases 12-5515, 13-6335 and 14-0297 remain unresolved accordingly; and 8. Thereby Mr. Strunks hands are tied, and making Petitioner the only Proposed
Intervener capable of having standing herein as the necessary party for not only Plaintiff Strunk, but for the voters of New York and WE THE PEOPLE that would benefit by my intervention herein. 9. That Petitioner was duly registered to vote and enrolled in the New York State Independence Party for the 2008 and 2012 New York Election Cycle and is currently in the enrollment lock box as constitution monitors party for the 2014 Election cycle. 10. That Petitioners place for service is located at 351 North Road Hurley New York 12443, with telephone number (845) 389-4366 and email hvanallen@hvc.rr.com. 11. That on October 30, 2008 according to the RULES AND REGULATIONS of the STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS Current with amendments issued prior to 2008, TITLE 9 EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT SUBTITLE V STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS (NYS BOE) 6201.3 ELECTION LAW (2) the Complaint was duly served for the State Board staff to propose to the board an investigation of an alleged violation of the code; that accordingly that shall be filed by mailing to, or by personally serving, the Board of Elections at then address 40 Steuben St., Albany, NY 12207-2109 (see Exhibit A-2). 12. That pursuant EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT SUBTITLE V STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS (NYS BOE) 6201.3 ELECTION LAW, Petitioner on December 1, 2008, while not a party to this action also duly served the Summons and Complaint for
Plaintiff upon the NYS BOE and others shown in Exhibit A-2 as required under CPLR; however, Plaintiff failed to follow-up completion with the clerk of the court. 13. That on March 14, 2011 the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. held in an order (see Exhibit A-3) regarding both Plaintiffs reconsideration motion to file service nunc pro tunc and for an amended complaint that quote: All motions are denied. Mr. Strunk failed to join a necessary party President Obama & Senator McCain. & the statute of limitations to do so expired. In view of the above there would be no purpose to allow plaintiff to file passed service nunc pro tunc or for amended complaint. 14. That on October 25, 2011 the Honorable Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. held in the case Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. with Index 6500-2011 that the court would not claim jurisdiction over matters transacted in regards to the 2008 Election cycle under the jurisdiction of the NYS BOE in the matter of ballot qualifications for office and decline to sign the order as to the NYS BOE (see Exhibit A-4) wrote : "10/25/11 The Court declines to sign this OSC. This issue is not ripe until candidates file nominating petitions for public office for President of U.S. in several months. Further, the Court will [not] stop fund-raising by any candidate because candidates have a right to raise money pursuant to statute and the First Amendment. The issue of candidate qualification is subject to Court action after nominating petitions are submitted and candidates are challenged in Court."_s/AS " JSC" 15. That Petitioner is a member of the minor State party New York State Independence Party and unlike Plaintiff who is an enrolled member of the majority State party the New York State Republican Party in bipartisan control of the NYS BOE Petitioner is subject to their indifferent bi-partisan self-serving arbitrary and capricious manipulation favoring major State parties in control of elections. 16. That Petitioner is a member of the de jure class of natural born citizens along with those similarly situated that include Plaintiff, who at birth are according to the de
jure U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 ( 1 ) before the enactment of the 14th Amendment defined by law as expressed precedent in Minor. v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. by Justice Waite as natural born citizens (NBC) per se are so by virtue of birth on United States soil when both parents were Citizens of the United States ( 2 ). 17. That in New York only a person who is of the de jure class of natural born citizens may be nominated, designated and or certified accordingly by convention for candidacy for election by the duly elected electors of the electoral college required under NYS EL Article 12 and Article 14. 18. The New York election cycle for selecting the slate of electors for a candidate for office of POTUS and Vice President of a particular political committee is notwithstanding any right the voters may expect to have, in fact the voters cast a vote ONLY as an advisory referendum on the POTUS candidate, for the actual electoral
[T]he Constitutionprovides that no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of PresidentThe Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or naturalborn citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words all children are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as all persons, and if 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 plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. (Emphasis added.)
2
slate when passing state legislative muster may vote as they see fit notwithstanding anything the advisory referendum may reflect as a popular vote. 19. That when the political committee collects signatures and or holds a convention for certifying a candidate for ballot access, also solicit funds with NYS EL Article 14 as defined with EL 14-100 as to the meaning of political committee, candidate and contribution for the purposes of such nominating, designating, convention certifying effort for a candidate that is not eligible to qualify for POTUS are committing a fraud. 20. That when the political committee collects contribution(s) for the candidate(s) it falls under EL - 14114. Contributions and receipt limitations and is subject to eligibility and qualification of the candidate(s) even if not yet nominated or designated merely is dependent upon a declaration of intent; and when the political committee solicits, collects and expends funds with an ineligible candidate who is unable to qualify to take the oath of office such acts are in fact a personal use of funds that the Election Law prohibits as a conversion of campaign funds to personal uses. In its relevant part it states: EL 14-130. Campaign funds for personal use. Contributions received by a candidate or a political committee may be expended for any lawful purpose. Such funds shall not be converted by any person to a personal use which is unrelated to a political campaign or the holding of a public office or party position. 21. That despite the fact that the Voters at the General Election for POTUS were not presented with a list if the slate of electors of the respective candidate, the voters were presented the names of the POTUS candidates as eligible and would qualify for office of POTUS when not eligible or would not qualify to take the oath is fraud. 22. That when on December 1, 2008, Petitioner duly served the Summons and Complaint for Plaintiff in this case upon the NYS BOE as is required under EL 3104(2), EL 3-105 and EL 3-106 and related law, according to Plaintiff NYS BOE has
not responded as required by Election Law causing a continuing harm to Petitioner. 23. That Plaintiffs Complaint shown in Exhibit D-1 with Second Cause of Action reads is insufficient to protect Petitioners liberty an rights causing personal injury to Petitioner along with those similarly situated and therefore requires a supplement with subsequent transactions and incidents discovered after filing and before Defendants answer or otherwise respond and as is now the fact that the related action takes no jurisdiction of the evens and transactions relate to the 2008 election cycle injury. 24. That Petitioner alleges unlike Plaintiff that the NYS BOE and or its agents failed to respond as required by EL 3-104 (2) as is required in the Second Cause of Action absent the need of any other defendant or party to be joined, falls entirely upon Defendant NYS BOE as a duty and responsibility of the NYS BOE agents oath. 25. That based upon Petitioner review of the NYS BOE Open Meetings record from 2007 forward until this date there has not been a mention of the term Natural born citizen or Born a Citizen in the record. 26. That Petitioner in an effort to discover when and why the NYS BOE and or its agents maintain the improper eligibility / qualification instructions for a candidate to for office of POTUS in the 2012 election cycle as to Citizenship states born a citizen 27. Moreover, that the NYS BOE has the power under EL 3104. with enforcement powers that were bound to respond to when Petitioner on October 30, 2008 duly served the NYS BOE for Plaintiff with a complaint shown as Exhibit A-1 accompanied by a mandamus petition with Index 29641-08 served upon electors listed at Exhibit A1 (A), to that NYS BOE agent(s) never responded under Election Law to the Plaintiff. 28. 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. That based upon the present NYS BOE website entitled Running for Office in regards
to those seeking the Office of POTUS there is no use of the term of art Natural-born Citizen as required under U.S. Constitution Section 1, instead use the term Born a Citizen on the official webpage Running for Office appears as follows:
29. That the misstatement of Running for Office Qualification facilitates the violation of law campaign fund raising law as defined by EL 14-100 (7) for who may be a candidate for the office of POTUS determines who may seek contributions for the office of POTUS and or creation of an electoral college slate for 2008 and 2012 ballots. 30. That based upon Petitioner review of the NYS BOE Open Meetings record with Public Officers Law from 2007 forward until this date there has not been a mention of the term Born a Citizen in the record. 31. That based upon the requirement of Federal Law the instructions sent to the Governor of the State of New York for the formation of the New York Electoral College from New York in the 2008 Election cycle did not use the term Natural-born Citizen or Born a Citizen. 32. Therefore, the word of art Born a Citizen had to be created in the executive session of the NYS BOE and violates Public Officer Art. 7 103 Open Meetings Law.
33. That Petitioner requested by FOIL that the NYS BOE disclose the record of the executive session at which the term of Art Born a Citizen was invented and that the NYS BOE denied such information as privileged protected from public disclosure (see Exhibit A-5). 34. That Petitioner requested by FOIL that the NYS BOE disclose the record of the communication between the Governors Office and or Attorney General office in regards to the use of the term of art Born a Citizen that was invented and that the NYS BOE denied such information as attorney client privileged protected from public disclosure as work product (see Exhibit A-6). 35. That Defendant NYS BOE has injured Petitioner along with those similarly situated as a member of the class of those de jure citizens who are NBC. 36. That Defendant NYS BOE has injured Petitioner along with those similarly situated as a member of the minor State party that had performed a Wilson Picula endorsement of the Republican party candidate for POTUS and denied an honest election by manipulating the qualifications to run for Office of POTUS. 37. That Petitioner alleges the NYS BOE or agent(s) have failed to respond as required by EL 3-105 as relates to unequal protection of minor State party members afforded by special treatment for the major State Party Candidates with multiple lines on the Full Face Ballot with HAVA in State Election Law EL 6-120(3). 38. That Plaintiffs Complaint shown in Exhibit A-1 with the Third Cause of Action reads is insufficient to protect Petitioners liberty an rights causing personal injury to Petitioner along with those similarly situated and therefore requires a supplement with subsequent transactions and incidents discovered after filing and before Defendants answer or otherwise respond and as is now the fact that the related action takes no jurisdiction of the evens and transactions relate to the 2008 election cycle as a continuing injury. 39. Petitioner alleges the NYS BOE and or its agents breach their oath of duty to
the law by maintaining Born a Citizen and concealing the executive record of such political practice as an act of subversion that is undermining political parties and the electoral process including, but not limited to, the preparation or distribution of any fraudulent, forged or falsely identified writing or the use of any employees or agents who falsely represent themselves as supporters of a candidate, political party or committee, that failed to respond as required by EL 3-106 (1). 40. That on or about October 3, 2011 State Attorney General Special Counsel to Defendant NYS BOE when presented with a request to stipulate and admit to use of the term of art Natural born Citizen to mean a person born on USA soil to two citizen parents under the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 rather than the term Born a Citizen refuse to admit to the meaning or use of the express idiom for notification to a prospective candidate or committee use to disenfranchise voters and Petitioner with those similarly situated. 41. That a further Supplemental Cause of Action is required because of the onerous political activities of Defendant Cuomo, whom Plaintiff is barred from suing, first evidenced as the then US HUD Secretary that collapsed the economy in 2008 in coordination ACORN that went bankrupt and reemerged as a new threat to the People of New York along in partnership with Defendant Cuomo, who from before 2008 all worked together with then Attorney General, and now since 2010 when assuming the office of Governor having perpetrated a series of onerous unconstitutional ultra vires acts under colour of law that violate my Section 1 Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law that have escalated to public incoherent diatribes that threatened Petitioner as a conservative to leave the State or else be injured as the consequence of His continued wrath of the conga line of psychopathic disorders now overflowing from the Governors office and that must disqualify him from ever serving in elected office in New York again and bar his further action as an elected official that must be held as a threat to the life and safety of the general population.
42. That as a further supplemental cause of action Petitioner who for years has been watchful of Judicial misbehavior in contemplation of how the judiciary by enlarge is to be occupied by intelligent and well educated judges is nevertheless so poorly trained and instructed by the Unified Court system when either elected or appointed and as such my curiosity as to the actual flaw in their training requested with a FOIL a copy of the public seminar used to train the Judges (see Exhibit G); and on February, 2014 was told by the administrative response is not public 43. That like Plaintiff Strunks Freedom of Information Act efforts in Washington DC starting in 2008 to obtain the passport application records for Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, the Mother of Barack Hussein Obama, were hindered with only partially released documents with a huge scandal that emerged proving that spoliation and destruction of records were done and the reasons for destruction proffered and proven a crime of some proportions as my effort shows in the US Department of State release of directives (see Exhibit H) as to the destruction of document proves that there will never be a protection of our 5th Amendment right under the US Constitution while the USURPER is in control of the Executive branch of government, leaving ONLY the respective State of Residence to provide the people equal protection under the law as must be done for private citizens of the United States in New York. 44. I agree with what Plaintiff Strunk contends, and I am sure he will explain, that the US Constitution is suspended under the March 9, 1933 Proclamation 2040 for a continuing National Emergency shapes our history since March 4, 1933, especially since the April 25, 1938 SCOTUS decisions ended the Lockner Era of common law rights, and that proves that WE the People of New York have been under a continuous siege of martial process that has replaced Common Law Civilian due process; and 45. Further, that although Petitioner remains his named entity registered in his birth state of (Indiana City of Lafayette) the product of natural born citizen father (Penn. City of Pittsburg) and natural born citizen mother (Illinois City of Chicago),
Petitioner may not speak for Mr. Strunks class too; 46. Further however, Petitioner may speak as member of my class per se, and now contend that this Court has discretion, given the inadequacy of Judicial instruction shown with Exhibits G refusal of the Office of Court Administration to disclose what and when the elected judges may or may not know in regards to provision of martial process rather that civilian due process, that it appears true according to the Appellate Panel shown with Exhibit D, and that affords this Court discretion to at least fashion a remedy in chambers if not in open court that will afford Petitioner relief, as well as for Plaintiff Strunk whose altered status is a private citizen of the United States secured party beneficiary agent for the Debtor Trust CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK transmitting utility registered with the United States Secretary of Treasury. Further, Petitioner contends that as a matter of law based upon the admission of the Appellate Panel in its decision and order shown as Exhibit D that the New York State Judiciary and this Court, although is a constitutional formed body here in the State as with the Federal Article III Courts are nevertheless in fact a defacto Executive Judicial body under the direct authority of the POTUS Commander-in Chief since March 6, 1933, and now BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II; and 47. Further, Petitioner contends that while I am under this Martial Process I am entitled to directly challenge the eligibility of the Barack Hussein Obama II to hold the office of POTUS Commander-in chief with direct authority and control over the New York Judiciary and this Court per se, as BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. is not a natural-born citizen (NBC) by his own admission, because his father as a foreign alien student of Great Britain from Kenya with a US Visa here to study ONLY starting in 1959 was then a British Citizen at the Barack Hussein Obama Jr. birth, when ever and where ever that may have occurred; and that the official Hawaii index record of marriages shows that His Mother Stanley Ann Obama was duly married to His Father Barack Hussein Obama Sr. before she became married to Lolo Soetoro after she
divorced Obama Sr. (see Exhibit I); and 48. Further, based upon the SCOTUS seminal decision in Minor v Happersett to be a Natural-born citizen without any question of national loyalties, one must be born of U.S. Citizen parents, in which BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. is not. 49. Further supporting Petitioners contention that the Commander-in chief is an unconstitutional USURPER controlling the New York State Judiciary as a defacto Executive court without authority to do so, because BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II is not NBC, that every proclamation and executive order extending the National Emergency starting with the Iranian Crisis national emergency since 1979 is now void ab intitio due to the USURPER Commander-in-chief, and that as such the New York State Judiciary and this Court without a constitutional Commander-in chief mandate for martial process to continue in place of civilian due process under colour of law violates Petitioner Section 1 Fourteenth Amendment equal protection of the law. 50. Further, in support of Petitioners contention that BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II is now USURPING the POTUS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF executive authority over the martial rule dispensed by New York State Court as a matter of contention posed by the New York State Appellate Division order shown as Exhibit D, is the video
(3)
released
on Friday evening February 26, 2014, for the disclosure by the Honorable Michael Shrimpton barrister to HER MAJESTYS BENCH
3
(4)
in regards to the ineligibility of
BIOGRAPHY of Michael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983 and is a specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and CounterTerrorism. He has wide ranging connections both in Western Intelligence agencies and amongst exSoviet Bloc agencies. Michael has earned respect in the intelligence community for his analysis of previously unacknowledged post WWII covert operations against the West by organisations based in Washington, Munich, Paris and Brussels and which are continuing in post 9-11. He is Adjunct Professor of intelligence Studies, Department of National Security, Intelligence and Space Studies, American Military University, teaching intelligence subjects at Masters Degree level to inter alia serving intelligence officers. He has represented US and Israeli intelligence officers in law and has briefed staffers on the Senate select Committee on Intelligence and Joint Congressional inquiry into 9-11, also addressing panels on terrorism in Washington DC and Los Angeles.
4
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. to be POTUS, stating unequivocally that Barack Hussein Obama "was born in Mombasa, Kenya."; wishes to join BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II as a necessary party herein. 51. That in light of the newly disclosed allegation from credible authorities, Petitioner has never asked for this relief before and in that Plaintiff has been rendered incapable of joining this matter himself as a result of the outrageous actions by ARTHUR M. SCHACK, Petitioner is entitled to relief herein and that the supplement to this complaint annexed herewith be accepted accordingly. 52. That Petitioners case 1787-2012 in Albany before Acting Judge Richard Platkin re: the New York State BOE refusal to use express instructions of the Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and held in the order to dismiss (see Exhibit J) that: In view of petitioner's lack of standing to maintain the instant proceeding, there is no reason to consider respondent's additional contentions that this proceeding is barred by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel based upon prior litigation undertaken by Christopher-Earl Strunk, an alleged privy of petitioner, and that the petition is non-justiciable insofar as the Electoral College is the sole and exclusive forum in which objections to the selection of a President may be determined. (emphasis added by Petitioner) 53. Further, that in regards to Petitioners fundamental right to a hearing on his grievance as is his right to petition, see The History, Meaning, Effect, and Significance of the Right to Petition Government for Redress of Grievances analysis by Robert L. Schulz (2014) (see Exhibit K), and in light of the order to dismiss shown in Exhibit J, that the new transactions and facts warrant that this Court grant Petitioner intervention as of right and or as an essential party herein.
His active assistance to Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies in the Global War on Terror has produced some notable success including the exposure of the Abu Graib hood photograph as a fake. His work in strategic intelligence takes him on regular trips to the Pentagon and he also met with senior advisors to the President of the Russian Federation in Moscow in November 2005. He participated in the Global Strategic Review conference in Geneva in 2005 and is a contributor at conferences such as Intelcon and the Intelligence Summit Washington DC February 2006. http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/shrimpton/ Van Allen Affidavit in support of Motion to Renew Intervene Page 15 of 16
David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo (NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli (NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of PETITIONERS AFFIDAVIT the Assembly), Malcolm Smith (NYS Senator), IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD), Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council), William Thompson (NYC Comptroller), RENEW INTERVENTION Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos (President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official Capacity and individually; The New York State Board of Elections and John Does and Jane Does Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit A
2964212008 Surnm. &cornpl, (Page 17 of 25)
m
ws
I)EIB
BEIII
m
taEWl
3EY
tlfsF
D m
m n E w
B M U
m rn
D m
E W r O I E Y
D m
D m
D m
M W
mu
PEM
OLUI
rn
DEMl D m
D m o m
D M
rn
D m
w
Ras
RlEP Rrn R e
REP
R W
REP,
REP
REP
RUP
REP
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL' ~NTERYENTION

UCS-640 (3nOll)
I
Supreme
Index No: 6500-2011
COURT, COUNTY OFKings

Date Index 1ssued:March22,201 1
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse,
I.ylalnst-
INEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUllA / I ommissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON/Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW UOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMI COL6N, in their Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, J . ; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBlGNlEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; R. BIDEN, JR., SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama 11, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC TATE COMMITTEEOF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OFTHEWORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER LERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN Ill; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE JRI lCAN STATF COMMITTFF! THF NFW YORK CTATF COMMllTFF OFTHF INDFPFNDFNCF PARTY. STATF COMoM,'~$F,~~J~fSI)nnd8nt,S,
IRFP~
mI
1 0Contested
1 0Business Entity (including corporations, partnerships, LLCs, etc.)
0 Contract
0 insurance (where insurer is a party, except arbitretion) Q UCC (including sales, negotiable instruments) 0 Other Commercial:
(spedfyl
(3 Breast Implant
0 Environmental:
Street Address
0Other ProfessionalMalpractice:
@ other
Fraud, unjust enrichment

(sped@)
0 Tax Certiorari - Secti 0 Other Real Property:

SPECW PROCEEDINGS
,OTHER MAllERS
0Cert~ficateof lncorporat~onlDissolutlon [see NOTE under Cornmercieij
0 CPLR Article 75 (Arbitration) [see NOTE under Commercial] 0 CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)
0 MHL Article 9.60 (Kendra's Law) 0 MHL Article 10 (Sex Offender Confinement-ln~bsl) 0 MHL Article 10 (SexOffender Confinement-Review) 0 MHL Article 81 (Guardianship) 0 Other Mental Hygiene:
Has a summons and complaint or summons wlnotice been filed? Is thls action/proceedingbeing filed post-judgment?
if yes, judgment date
[NATURE -
c w UO~CW WTERVENVON: 0 lnfaws Canpranise

0 N d e d Issue andlor Certificate of Readiness 0 NotiQ of Medical, Dental, or Pediatric Malpractice
@ Notice of Motion
Relief
~
a ,
*check ONE box only AND enter a w i i information where tdbttxl.
Date Issue Joined.

f
" l a
Return Date. June 2 l 201 Return Date' Return Date'
ought:^"""'^
0 Notice of Petrtion 0 Order to Show Cause 0 Other Ex Parte Application

0 Poor Person Application 0 Request for Preliminary Conference
sought. ~ l Alternate ~ Service ~ ~ ~sought, l i ~ Alternate f Serv~ce ~ ~ sought: l i ~ Alternate f Servlce
0 Residential Mortgage ForeclosureSettlement Conference 0 Wnt of Habeas Cocpus
I
PARTI=:
-
I
Issue Jolned (WN):
If additional space is required, complete and attach the RJI Addendum. For parues *out an attorney, check "Un-Rep.box AND enter party address, phone number and e-mail address in 'Attorneys* I space
Parties:
Attorneys:
Prwide name, firm name, business address, phone number and e-mail h t have appeared in the case. a * d dl
L u t Name
Firm Name
un- List parlies in caption order and Rep indicate Party role(s) (e.g. defendant; 3rd-party plaintiff)
Last Name
Insurance Carrieds):
New York
Stmet Addnss
11230
James
Last Name
Flrst Name
First Name
Districtof Colun 20005
Last Name
plin & Drysdale, Chartered

First Name Primary Role:
Secondary Role (ifany):
F~nn Name
OneThomasCircle
Street Addresa
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered

Fint Name Primary Role
Finn Name
One Thomas C~rcle
ERVENTION PREVIOUSLY BEEN
Dated:
May 2,201 1 RitT-L'-
RCT5413 ATTORNEY REGISTRATION NUMBER
PRINT OR TYPE NAME

1
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
Print
https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=1jmoregiq194o#mail
Subject: From: To: Date:
FW: FOIL: entire document package of court education and indoctrination required of every NYSUCS supreme court (acting appointed or elected) judge Bill Van Allen (hvanallen@hvc.rr.com) cestrunck@yahoo.com; Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:44 PM
From: FOIL@nycourts.gov [mailto:FOIL@nycourts.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:24 PM To: Allen, Bill Van Subject: Re: FOIL: entire document package of court education and indoctrination required of every NYSUCS supreme court (acting appointed or elected) judge
Dear Mr. Van Allen:
Your FOIL appeal will be forwarded for processing to the FOIL Appeals Officer, Ronald Younkins.
Very truly yours, Shawn Kerby Assistant Deputy Counsel
..Please consider the environment before printing this email. >>> Bill Van Allen <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com> 2/6/2014 7:11 PM >>> I hereby appeal your denial of requested documents to chief administrative judge NYSUCS Prudenti
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 6, 2014, at 12:39 PM, FOIL@nycourts.gov wrote: Dear Mr. Van Allen:
Please be advised that FOIL does not require the performance of legal research, or the compilation of information to respond to a request. See Public Officers Law 89(3).
To the extent that you seek to compile your own research or information, you may wish to visit the following links concerning judicial education and training: http://www.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefjudge/17.shtml http://www.nycourts.gov/ip/jcec/training_faq.shtml
For information concerning the Independent Judicial Education Qualification Commissions: http://www.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefadmin/150.shtml http://www.ny-ijeqc.org/index.shtml
1 of 2
2/11/2014 5:58 PM
Print
https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=1jmoregiq194o#mail
Examples of related forms at particular judicial districts, which also are available for other districts you can search for on the court system's website: http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad2/IJEQC/IJEQC2.shtml http://www.ny-ijeqc.org/process.shtml
For information concerning convention delegates and the Election Law, you may wish to contact the NYS Board of Elections, or the local Boards of Elections.
Very truly yours, Shawn Kerby Assistant Deputy Counsel
<mime-attachment>..Please consider the environment before printing this email. >>> "Bill Van Allen" <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com> 2/5/2014 3:33 PM >>>
NYSUCS OCA FOIL OFFICER: Under NYS FOIL (freedom of information law) please provide me access to documents and if available electronically linked access to documents being currently employed/used to indoctrinate and or formally familiarize each and every NYSUCS elected or appointed acting justice of the supreme court (including appellate justices if different) This comprehensive documentation/ package would include all formal standardized NYSUCS approved screening committee packages of nominated judicial election or appointed acting candidates. including any formal standardized documents or electronic resource documents if any given to partisan judicial nominating convention delegates. I am also especially seeking any and all standardized NYSUCS documentation and electronic links to orientation and training regarding judicial behavior and in concordance with each judges sworn/affirmed oath of office regarding his/her conduct towards both the NYS constitution and the US constitutions. /s/ H. William Van Allen 351 North Road Hurley, NY 12443 8453894366 hvanallen@hvc.rr.com
2 of 2
2/11/2014 5:58 PM
Exhibit H
United States Denartment of State

l
D.C. 20520
Dear Requester,
This is in response to your request dated ~,t..S \ 1; We have assigned Case Control Number 2-D ~\, (y~ Z-Ci and will begin the processing of your based upon the information provided in your communication. The cut-off date is the date the search is initiated unless you have provided a specific timeframe. Unusual circumstances (including the number and location of Department components involved in responding to your request, the volume of requested records, etc.) may arise that would require additional time to process your request. We will notify you as soon as responsive material has been retrieved and reviewed. Should you want to contact us, you may call our FOIA Service Center at (202) 261-8484 or send an email to FOIAstatus@state.gov. Please refer to the Case Control Number in any communication. Sincerely,
I'
'I
17\)
X~Karen G. Br?t.hersi \'~ Requester LIaISOnDIvIsIOn

.;
_<. .
Office of Information Programs and Services Us. Department of State, SA-2 Washington, DC 20522-8100 Website: www.foia.state.gov
Inquiries: Phone: 1-202-261-8484 FAX: /-202-261-8579 E-mail: F01AStatus@state.gov
Fees The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires agencies to assess fees to recover the direct costs of processing requests, unless a fee waiver has been granted. According to our regulations, by making a FOIA request, you have agreed to pay all applicable fees up to $25 unless a fee waiver has been granted. You may specify a willingness to pay a greater amount. If the estimated fees exceed this limit, you will be notified.
-L You have statec!t~5Jll\r willingness to pay the fees incurred in the processing
request up to $1
uU .
of this
Please let us know if you are willing to pay the fees that will be incurred in the processing of your request. You may set a limit of the maximum amount that you wish to pay. Please be advised that, without an agreement to pay fees, your request will be processed without cost up to the required first 2 hours of search time (for all other requester category only) and duplication of the first 100 pages. Based upon the information that you have provided, we have placed you in the requester category checked below. This request will be processed in accordance with the fee schedule designated for that category. Commercial Use Requesters - Requires us to assess charges that recover the full direct costs of searching for, reviewing for release, and duplicating the record(s) sought. Educational Institution Requesters - Requires us to assess charges that recover the cost of duplicating the record(s) sought only, after the first 100 pages of duplication. Non-commercial Scientific Institution Requesters - Requires us to assess charges that recover the cost of duplicating the record(s) sought only, after the first 100 pages of duplication. Representatives of the News Media - Requires us to assess charges that recover the cost of duplicating the record(s) sought only, after the first 100 pages of duplication. All Other Requesters - Requires us to assess charges that recover the full reasonable direct cost of searching for and duplicating the record(s) sought, after the first 100 pages of duplication, and the first two hours of search time. You have indicated your inclusion in a category different than the one indicated above. Please forward the information requested on the enclosed sheet titled "Requester Categories" to substantiate your inclusion in a particular category of requester. We will notify you of the costs incurred in processing your request as soon as the search for, and review of, any responsive documents have been completed.
United States Denartment of State

l
D.C. 20520
Dear Requester,
This is in response to your request dated ~,t..S \ 1; We have assigned Case Control Number 2-D ~\, (y~ Z-Ci and will begin the processing of your based upon the information provided in your communication. The cut-off date is the date the search is initiated unless you have provided a specific timeframe. Unusual circumstances (including the number and location of Department components involved in responding to your request, the volume of requested records, etc.) may arise that would require additional time to process your request. We will notify you as soon as responsive material has been retrieved and reviewed. Should you want to contact us, you may call our FOIA Service Center at (202) 261-8484 or send an email to FOIAstatus@state.gov. Please refer to the Case Control Number in any communication. Sincerely,
I'
'I
17\)
X~Karen G. Br?t.hersi \'~ Requester LIaISOnDIvIsIOn

.;
_<. .
Office of Information Programs and Services Us. Department of State, SA-2 Washington, DC 20522-8100 Website: www.foia.state.gov
Inquiries: Phone: 1-202-261-8484 FAX: /-202-261-8579 E-mail: F01AStatus@state.gov
Fees The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires agencies to assess fees to recover the direct costs of processing requests, unless a fee waiver has been granted. According to our regulations, by making a FOIA request, you have agreed to pay all applicable fees up to $25 unless a fee waiver has been granted. You may specify a willingness to pay a greater amount. If the estimated fees exceed this limit, you will be notified.
-L You have statec!t~5Jll\r willingness to pay the fees incurred in the processing
request up to $1
uU .
of this
Please let us know if you are willing to pay the fees that will be incurred in the processing of your request. You may set a limit of the maximum amount that you wish to pay. Please be advised that, without an agreement to pay fees, your request will be processed without cost up to the required first 2 hours of search time (for all other requester category only) and duplication of the first 100 pages. Based upon the information that you have provided, we have placed you in the requester category checked below. This request will be processed in accordance with the fee schedule designated for that category. Commercial Use Requesters - Requires us to assess charges that recover the full direct costs of searching for, reviewing for release, and duplicating the record(s) sought. Educational Institution Requesters - Requires us to assess charges that recover the cost of duplicating the record(s) sought only, after the first 100 pages of duplication. Non-commercial Scientific Institution Requesters - Requires us to assess charges that recover the cost of duplicating the record(s) sought only, after the first 100 pages of duplication. Representatives of the News Media - Requires us to assess charges that recover the cost of duplicating the record(s) sought only, after the first 100 pages of duplication. All Other Requesters - Requires us to assess charges that recover the full reasonable direct cost of searching for and duplicating the record(s) sought, after the first 100 pages of duplication, and the first two hours of search time. You have indicated your inclusion in a category different than the one indicated above. Please forward the information requested on the enclosed sheet titled "Requester Categories" to substantiate your inclusion in a particular category of requester. We will notify you of the costs incurred in processing your request as soon as the search for, and review of, any responsive documents have been completed.
Exhibit I
Exhibit J
Print
https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=23391ahvss3ih#mail
Subject: From: To: Date:
Van Allen vs. NYS Board Of Elections Bill Van Allen (hvanallen@hvc.rr.com) cestrunck@yahoo.com; Monday, March 10, 2014 5:51 PM

Court: Index Number: Upstate Index Number: Case Name: Case Type: Track: RJI Filed: Upstate RJI Number: Date NOI Due: NOI Filed: Disposition Date: Calendar Number: Jury Status: Justice Name: Unknown RICHARD M. PLATKIN 08/20/2012 Albany Civil Supreme 001787/2012 1787-12 Van Allen vs. NYS Board Of Elections Spec Proceed-Election Standard 05/30/2012 01-12-107051
Attorney/Firm For Plaintiff: H. William Van Allen SRL Attorney/Firm For Defendant: NYS Board Of Elections 40 N. Pearl Street-5th Fl. Albany, NY 12207 (518)474-81 Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman AG The Capitol-Dept Of Law Albany, NY 12224 (518)474-2138 Douglas J. Goglia AAG The Capitol-Dept Of Law Albany, NY 12224 (518)474-6800 Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record Atty. Status: Active Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record Atty. Status: Active Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record Atty. Status: Active Attorney Type: Pro se Atty. Status: Active
1 of 1
3/12/2014 10:40 AM
Print
Subject: From: To: Cc: Date:
Van Allen v New York State Bd. of Elections 2012 NYSlipOp 51255(U) Bill Van Allen (hvanallen@hvc.rr.com) jcaher@alm.com; jstashenko@alm.com; richardwinger@yahoo.com; oYaniv@nydailynews.com; jafitzgerald@optonline.net; prevere@riseupforamerica.com; pamelabarnett@mail.com; chrisgarvey1@verizon.net; cestrunck@yahoo.com; honoramericaforever@gmail.com; kenandbetseyallen@msn.com; kevinrichardpowell@yahoo.com; apuzzo@erols.com; ORLY.TAITZ@GMAIL.COM; bob@givemeliberty.org; van@libertylegalfoundation.com; walkerftodd@gmail.com; williamrichardson10@gmail.com; Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:29 AM
Slip Decisions Search Results

Search Criteria Party Name : van and allen
Total number of records found: 6 Decision Party Name In the Matter of H. William Van Allen et petitioners v Sheldon Silver et In the Matter of H. William Van Allen et petitioners v Sheldon Silver et In the Matter of H. William Van Allen et petitioners v Sheldon Silver et In the Matter of H. William Van Allen et petitioners v Sheldon Silver et In the Matter of H. William Van Allen et petitioners v Sheldon Silver et Van Allen v New York State Bd. of Elections Date 10/12/2012 10/12/2012 10/12/2012 10/12/2012 10/12/2012 07/09/2012 Court App Div, 3d Dept App Div, 3d Dept App Div, 3d Dept App Div, 3d Dept App Div, 3d Dept Other Courts 36 Misc 3d 1212(A) Official Citation Slip Number 2012 NYSlipOp 87 2012 NYSlipOp 87 2012 NYSlipOp 87 2012 NYSlipOp 87 2012 NYSlipOp 88 2012 NYSlipOp 51
Van Allen v New York State Bd. of Elections 2012 NY Slip Op 51255(U) [36 Misc 3d 1212(A)] Decided on July 9, 2012 Supreme Court, Albany County Platkin, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on July 9, 2012 Supreme Court, Albany County
H. William Van Allen, Petitioner, against New York State Board of Elections, Respondent.
1 of 3
3/12/2014 10:43 AM
Print
1787-12
H. William Van Allen Self-Represented Petitioner Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General Attorney for Respondent (Douglas J. Goglia, of counsel) The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Richard M. Platkin, J.
This is a special proceeding brought by petitioner H. William Van Allen pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking a writ of mandamus, emergency injunctive relief and declaratory relief. Respondent New York State Board of Elections ("SBOE") moves to dismiss the petition and also seeks the imposition of monetary and non-monetary sanctions upon petitioner. The United States Constitution provides that "[n]o person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President" (US Const, art II, 1, clause 5 ["Natural Born Citizen Clause"]). Petitioner alleges that eligibility instructions on the SBOE internet web site erroneously advise that a candidate for the Office of President need only be "born a citizen" of the United States, rather than a "natural born Citizen", as required by the text of the Constitution. In particular, petitioner objects to the "ballot access of [President] Obama as it is wrongfully facilitated by the [SBOE's] arbitrary use of the instruction Born a Citizen'". Among other things, petitioner seeks an order: (a) enjoining the SBOE from using the term "Born a Citizen" with respect to the eligibility of presidential candidates; and (b) requiring each presidential [*2]candidate on the 2012 general election ballot to establish that he or she is a "Natural Born Citizen" of the United States in order to remain on the ballot. The standing of a party to institute or maintain a judicial proceeding is a threshold issue that must be determined by the Court at the outset of litigation (see Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6 [1975]). To establish standing to challenge an administrative action in a proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, petitioner must show that he would suffer an injury in fact "that is in some way different from that of the public at large" (Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk (77 NY2d 761, 773-774 [1991]). In other words, petitioner must show that he actually will suffer a concrete and particularized harm as a result of the challenged action (id.; New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello, 2 NY3d 207, 211 [2004]; Matter of Hassig v New York State Dept. of Health, 5 AD3d 846 [3d Dept 2004]). In opposing respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner maintains that he brings this proceeding "to protect[] his personal intangible vote property in this 2012 election cycle" (Petitioner's Response in Opposition, 23). However, the allegedly faulty instruction given by the SBOE regarding the Natural Born Citizen Clause in no way denies petitioner his right to vote in the 2012 general election. Petitioner, who is not an enrolled member of the Democratic party, remains free to support and vote for a candidate of his choosing (see Berg v Obama, 586 F3d 234, 239-240 [3d Cir 2009]; Hollander v McCain, 566 F Supp2d 63, 69-70 [D NH 2008]; see also Crist v Comm'n on Presidential Debates, 262 F3d 193, 195 [2d Cir 2001]). And it is clear that petitioner's interest in compelling the SBOE to adopt his interpretation of the Natural Born Citizen Clause and to use his preferred terminology in its publications is in no "way different from that of the public at large" (Society of Plastics, 77 NY2d at 773-774). As such, petitioner's interest is far too generalized and unparticularized to support standing under the facts and circumstances of this case (see Berg at 240
2 of 3
3/12/2014 10:43 AM
Print
[collecting authorities]). In view of petitioner's lack of standing to maintain the instant proceeding, there is no reason to consider respondent's additional contentions that this proceeding is barred by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel based upon prior litigation undertaken by Christopher-Earl Strunk, an alleged privy of petitioner, and that the petition is non-justiciable insofar as the Electoral College is the sole and exclusive forum in which objections to the selection of a President may be determined. Finally, the branch of respondent's motion seeking the imposition of monetary and non-monetary sanctions is denied. While respondent's counsel refers to "repetitive" and "numerous vexatious and harassing lawsuits" commenced by petitioner, nothing in the record confirms this assertion. And the mere fact that a trial court of coordinate jurisdiction rejected similar claims advanced by an alleged privy of petitioner does not render the instant petition frivolous within the meaning of Part 130 of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the branch of respondent's motion seeking dismissal of the petition is granted; and it is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed in all respects; and finally it is ORDERED that the branch of respondent's motion seeking the imposition of monetary and non-monetary sanctions is denied. [*3] This Decision, Order & Judgment is being transmitted to the counsel for respondent and all other papers are being transmitted to the Albany County Clerk for filing. The signing of this Decision, Order & Judgment shall not constitute entry or filing underCPLR 2220. Counsel are not relieved from the applicable provisions of that section respecting filing, entry and notice of entry. Dated: Albany, New York July 9, 2012 RICHARD M. PLATKIN A.J.S.C.
3 of 3
3/12/2014 10:43 AM
Exhibit K
2014 by Robert L. Schulz. All rights reserved.
THE HISTORY, MEANING EFFECT AND SIGNIFGANCE OF THE RIGHT TO PETITION GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
By Robert L. Schulz
On every question of the construction of the Constitution, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Johnson, Supreme Court Justice (1823) No Court has ever declared the meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment that is, the Rights of the People and the Obligations of the Government. We must look, therefore, to the intent of the framers of the First Amendment: what was the situation before the First Amendment was added, what were the framers saying as they framed the First Amendment and what was the situation in the years following the adoption of the First Amendment? Chapter 61 of the Magna Carta (the cradle of Liberty, upon which all of western civilization has evolved, signed at a time when King John was sovereign) reads in relevant part:
61. Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. (emphasis added by the People).
Chapter 61 was a procedural vehicle for enforcing the rest of the Charter. It spells out the Rights of the People and the obligations of the Government, and the procedural steps to be taken by the People and the King, in the event of a violation by the King of any provision of that Charter: the People were to transmit a Petition for a Redress of their Grievances; the King had 40 days to respond; if the King failed to respond in 40 days, the People could non-violently retain their money or violence could be legally employed against the King until he Redressed the alleged Grievances.1
1
See Magna Carta Chapter 61. See also William Sharp McKechnie, Magna Carta 468-77 (2nd ed. 1914)
The 1689 Declaration of Rights proclaimed, [I]t is the Right of the subjects to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning is illegal. This was obviously a basis of the shall make no law abridging the right to petition government for a redress of grievances provision of our Bill of Rights. In 1774, the same Congress that adopted the Declaration of Independence unanimously adopted an Act in which they gave meaning to the Peoples Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances and the Right of enforcement as they spoke about the Peoples Great Rights. Quoting:
If money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility. "Continental Congress To The Inhabitants Of The Province Of Quebec." Journals of the Continental Congress 1774, Journals 1: 105-13.
In 1775, just prior to drafting the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson gave further meaning to the Peoples Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances and the Right of enforcement. Quoting:
The privilege of giving or withholding our moneys is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative which if left altogether without control may be exercised to our great oppression; and all history shows how efficacious its intercession for redress of grievances and reestablishment of rights, an how improvident would be the surrender of so powerful a mediator. Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:225.
In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congress. The bulk of the document is a listing of the Grievances the People had against a Government that had been in place for 150 years. The final Grievance on the list is referred to by scholars as the capstone Grievance. The capstone Grievance was the ultimate Grievance, the Grievance that prevented Redress of these other Grievances, the Grievance that caused the People to non-violently withdraw their support and allegiance to the Government, and the Grievance that eventually justified War against the King, morally and legally. The Congress gave further meaning to the Peoples Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances and the Right of enforcement. Quoting the Capstone Grievance:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by with repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is thus unfit to be the ruler of a free people.We, thereforedeclare, That these United Coloniesare Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown. Declaration of Independence, 1776
The courts would err to the extent they would in any way be influenced by the hypothesis of Lawson and Seidman,2 who theorized that Government is not obligated anymore to respond to Petitions for Redress of Grievances3 due to modern notions of representative governmentmodern notions of separation of powers[todays absence of] sound pragmatic reasons for taking petitions seriously [Lawson and Seidman give as examples the absence of any threat of loss of formal power over money matters and the absence of any threat from the
2
Gary Lawson and Guy Seidman, Downsizing the Right to Petition, 93 Nw. U.L. Rev. 739, 756 3 They make no distinction between grievances relating to constitutional torts and grievances relating to political or policy making matters.
2014 by Robert L. Schulz. All rights reserved. point of a bayonet]. Lawson and Seidman also suggest that Petitions were merely devices for communication (not for the People to bind the Government to the Constitution), and that the Constitutions express provisions for periodic election of legislative officials somehow provide the People with the adequate means to affect government choice. Lawson and Seidman ignore the self-evident fact that the Rights of individuals and the minority to cure constitutional torts they suffer cannot possibly be placed in the hands of the majority that elects our representatives. The People did not lose any of their unalienable, Natural Rights when they reorganized Government and adopted the principle of separate powers. Nor have they given up their power over money matters or their Right to keep and bear arms. In response to any notion that the People have lost a guarantee to one of their Rights under the Petition Clause because the Petition Clause is now superfluous, I argue they do not, EVER, lose any guarantees to any fundamental Rights until they voluntarily agree to give them up under the procedures of Article Five of the Constitution of the United States of America, and if a Natural Right, they can never lose it.
It cannot be presumed, that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect.
Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 139 (1803)

On every question of the construction of the Constitution, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Johnson, Supreme Court Justice (1823)

And the Constitution itself is in every real sense a law-the lawmakers being the people themselves, in whom under our system all political power and sovereignty primarily resides, and through whom such power and sovereignty primarily speaks. It is by that law, and not otherwise, that the legislative, executive, and judicial agencies which it created exercise such political authority as they have been permitted to possess. The Constitution speaks for itself in terms so plain that to misunderstand their import is not rationally possible. 'We the People of the United States,' it says, 'do ordain and establish this Constitution.' Ordain and establish! These are definite words of enactment, and without more would stamp what follows with the dignity and character of law. The framers of the Constitution, however, were not content to let the matter rest here, but provided explicitly-'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' (Const. art. 6, cl. 2.) The supremacy of the Constitution as law is thus declared without qualification. That supremacy is absolute; the supremacy of a statute enacted by Congress is not absolute but conditioned upon its being made in pursuance of the Constitution. And a judicial tribunal, clothed by that instrument with complete judicial power, and, therefore, by the very nature of the power, required to ascertain and apply the law to the facts in every case or proceeding properly brought for adjudication, must apply the supreme law and reject the inferior statute [298 U.S. 238, 297] whenever the two conflict. In the discharge of that duty, the opinion of the lawmakers that a statute passed by them is valid must be given great weight, Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525, 544 , 43 S.Ct. 394, 24 A.L.R. 1238; but their opinion, or the court's opinion, that the statute will prove greatly or generally beneficial is wholly irrelevant to the inquiry. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 549 , 550 S., 55 S.Ct. 837, 97 A.L.R. 947.
Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936). And from Hamilton, Federalist No. 78:
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
In We The People v United States, it appears the DC Appeals Court may have been deterred from a reversal by what it (incorrectly) perceived was a serious debate among the scholars regarding the obligation of the Government to respond to Petitions for Redress of Grievances, due to the hypothesis of Lawson and Seidman. Indeed, the Panel concluded its opinion stating, We need not resolve this debate, however, because we must follow the binding Supreme Court precedent [in Smith and Knight].4 Though the Rights to Popular Sovereignty and its protector Right, the Right of Petition for Redress have become somewhat forgotten, they took shape early on by Governments response to Petitions for Redress of Grievances.5 The Right is not changed by the fact that the Petition Clause
4
The Opinion listed most of the Law Review articles that the People relied on. However, the Panel overlooked one important historical review referenced by Appellants in their Brief to the Court; The Vestigial Constitution: The History and Significance of the Right to Petition by Gregory A. Mark, 66 Fordham L. Rev. 2153 (May, 1998). 5 See A SHORT HISTORY OF THE RIGHT TO PETITION GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, Stephen A. Higginson, 96 Yale L.J. 142(November, 1986); "SHALL MAKE NO LAW ABRIDGING . . .": AN ANALYSIS OF THE NEGLECTED, BUT NEARLY ABSOLUTE, RIGHT OF PETITION, Norman B. Smith, 54 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1153 (1986);"LIBELOUS" PETITIONS FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES -- BAD HISTORIOGRAPHY MAKES WORSE LAW, Eric Schnapper, 74 Iowa L. Rev. 303 (January 1989);THE BILL OF RIGHTS AS A CONSTITUTION, Akhil Reed Amar, 100 Yale L.J. 1131 (March, 1991); NOTE: A PETITION CLAUSE ANALYSIS OF SUITS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT: IMPLICATIONS FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 1111 (MARCH, 1993); SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND THE RIGHT TO PETITION: TOWARD A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PURSUE
2014 by Robert L. Schulz. All rights reserved. lacks an affirmative statement that Government shall respond to Petitions for, It cannot be presumed, that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect. Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 139 (1803). For instance, the 26th Amendment guarantees all citizens above the age of 18 the Right to Vote, it does not contain an affirmative statement that the Government shall count the votes. The Right to Petition is a distinctive, substantive Right, from which other First Amendment Rights were derived. The Rights to free speech, press and assembly originated as derivative Rights insofar as they were necessary to protect the preexisting Right to Petition. Petitioning, as a way to hold Government accountable to natural Rights, originated in England in the 11 th century6 and gained recognition as a Right in the mid 17th century.7 Free speech Rights first developed because members of Parliament needed to discuss freely the Petitions they received.8 Publications reporting Petitions were the first to receive protection from the frequent prosecutions against the press for seditious libel.9 Public meetings to prepare Petitions led to the Right of Public Assembly.1 The Right to Petition was widely accorded greater importance than the Rights of free expression. For instance, in the 18th century, the House of Commons, 2 the American Colonies, 3 and the first Continental Congress4 gave official recognition to the Right to Petition, but not to the Rights of Free Speech or of the Press.5 The historical record shows that the Framers and Ratifiers of the First Amendment also understood the Petition Right as distinct from the Rights of free expression. In his original proposed draft of the Bill of Rights, Madison listed the Right to Petition and the Rights to speech and press in two separate sections.6 In addition, a considerable majority of Congress defeated a
JUDICIAL CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, James E. Pfander, 91 Nw. U.L. Rev. 899 (Spring 1997);THE VESTIGIAL CONSTITUTION: THE HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RIGHT TO PETITION, Gregory A. Mark, 66 Fordham L. Rev. 2153 (May, 1998); DOWNSIZING THE RIGHT TO PETITION, Gary Lawson and Guy Seidman, 93 Nw. U.L. Rev. 739 (Spring 1999); A RIGHT OF ACCESS TO COURT UNDER THE PETITION CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT: DEFINING THE RIGHT, Carol Rice Andrews, 60 Ohio St. L.J. 557 (1999) ; MOTIVE RESTRICTIONS ON COURT ACCESS: A FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE, Carol Rice Andrews, 61 Ohio St. L.J. 665 (2000). 6 Norman B. Smith, Shall Make No Law Abridging: Analysis of the Neglected, But Nearly Absolute, Right of Petition, 54 U. CIN. L. REV. 1153, at 1154. 7 See Bill of Rights, 1689, 1 W & M., ch. 2 Sections 5,13 (Eng.), reprinted in 5 THE FOUNDERS CONSITUTION 197 (Philip B. Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds., 1987); 1 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES 138-39. 8 See David C. Frederick, John Quincy Adams, Slavery, and the Disappearance of the Right to Petition , 9 LAW & HIST. REV. 113, at 115. 9 See Smith, supra n.4, at 1165-67. 1 See Charles E. Rice, Freedom of Petition, in 2 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION 789, (Leonard W. Levy ed., 1986) 2 See Smith, supra n4, at 1165. 3 For example, Massachusetts secured the Right to Petition in its Body of Liberties in 1641, but freedom of speech and press did not appear in the official documents until the mid-1700s. See David A. Anderson, The Origins of the Press Clause, 30 UCLA L. REV. 455, 463 n.47 (1983). 4 See id. at 464 n.52. 5 Even when England and the American colonies recognized free speech Rights, petition Rights encompassed freedom from punishment for petitioning, whereas free speech Rights extended to freedom from prior restraints. See Frederick, supra n6, at 115-16. 6 See New York Times Co. v. U.S., 403 U.S. 670, 716 n.2 (1971)(Black, J., concurring). For the full text of Madisons proposal, see 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 434 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834).
2014 by Robert L. Schulz. All rights reserved. motion to strike the assembly provision from the First Amendment because of the understanding that all of the rights in the First Amendment were separate Rights that should be specifically protected.7 Petitioning Government for Redress has played a key role in the development and enforcement of popular sovereignty throughout British and American history. 8 In medieval England, petitioning began as a way for barons to inform the King of their concerns and to influence his actions.9 Later, in the 17th century, Parliament gained the Right to Petition the King.10 This broadening of participation culminated in the official recognition of the right of Petition in the People themselves.11 The People used this newfound Right to question the legality of the Governments actions,12 to present their views on controversial matters,13 and to demand that the Government, as the creature and servant of the People, be responsive to the popular will.14 In the American colonies, disenfranchised groups used Petitions to seek government accountability for their concerns and to rectify Government misconduct.15 By the nineteenth century, Petitioning was described as essential to a free government,16 an inherent feature of a republic17 and a means of enhancing Government accountability through the participation of citizens.
7 8
See 5 BERNARD SCHWARTZ, THE ROOTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS at 1089-91 (1980). See Don L. Smith, The Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances: Constitutional Development and Interpretations 10-108 (1971) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation) (Univ. Microforms Intl); K. Smellie, Right to Petition, in 12 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 98, 98-101 (R.A. Seiligman ed., 1934). 9 The Magna Carta of 1215 guaranteed this Right. See MAGNA CARTA, ch. 61, reprinted in 5 THE FOUNDERS CONSTITUTION, supra n.5, at 187. 10 See PETITION OF RIGHT chs. 1, 7 (Eng. June 7, 1628), reprinted in 5 THE FOUNDERS CONSTITUTION, supra n5 at 187-88. 11 In 1669, the House of Commons stated that, it is an inherent right of every commoner in England to prepare and present Petitions to the House of Commons in case of grievances, and the House of Commons to receive the same. Resolution of the House of Commons (1669), reprinted in 5 THE FOUNDERS CONSTITUTION, supra n5 at 188-89. 12 For example, in 1688, a group of bishops sent a petition to James II that accused him of acting illegally. See Smith, supra n4, at 1160-62. James IIs attempt to punish the bishops for this Petition led to the Glorious Revolution and to the enactment of the Bill of Rights. See Smith, supra n15 at 41-43. 13 See Smith, supra n4, at 1165 (describing a Petition regarding contested parliamentary elections). 14 In 1701, Daniel Defoe sent a Petition to the House of Commons that accused the House of acting illegally when it incarcerated some previous petitioners. In response to Defoes demand for action, the House released those Petitioners. See Smith, supra n4, at 1163-64. 15 See RAYMOND BAILEY, POPULAR INFLUENCE UPON PUBLIC POLICY: PETITIONING IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY VIRGINIA 43-44 (1979). 16 THOMAS M. COOLEY, TREATISE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS WHICH REST UPON THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION 531 (6 th ed. 1890). 17 See CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Session. 1293 (1866) (statement of Rep. Shellabarger) (declaring petitioning an indispensable Right without which there is no citizenship in any government); JOSEPH STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 707 (Carolina Academic Press ed. 1987) (1833) (explaining that the Petition Right results from [the] very nature of the structure [of a republican government]).
2014 by Robert L. Schulz. All rights reserved. Government accountability was understood to include response to petitions.18 American colonists, who exercised their Right to Petition the King or Parliament, 19 expected the Government to receive and respond to their Petitions.20 The Kings persistent refusal to answer the colonists grievances outraged the colonists and as the capstone grievance, was a significant factor that led to the American Revolution.21 Frustration with the British Government led the Framers to consider incorporating a peoples right to instruct their Representatives in the First Amendment.22 Members of the First Congress easily defeated this right-of-instruction proposal.23 Some discretion to reject petitions that instructed government, they reasoned, would not undermine Government accountability to the People, as long as Congress had a duty to consider petitions and fully respond to them.24 Congress viewed the receipt and serious consideration of every Petition as an important part of its duties.25 Congress referred Petitions to committees26 and even created committees to deal with particular types of Petitions.27 Ultimately, most Petitions resulted in either favorable legislation or an adverse committee report. 28 Thus, throughout early Anglo-American history, general petitioning (as opposed to judicial petitioning) allowed the people a means of direct political participation that in turn demanded government response and promoted accountability.
Conclusion
In sum, if the People have some evidence that the Government is violating some restriction, prohibition, mandate or principle underlying their State or Federal Constitutions they have the Right to Petition for Redress of their Grievance, citing the provision thought to be in violation together with a factual overview of the violation and demanding a Remedy.
18
See Frederick, supra n7 at 114-15 (describing the historical development of the duty of government response to Petitions). 19 See DECLARATION AND RESOLVES OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 3 (Am. Col. Oct. 14, 1774), reprinted in 5 THE FOUNDERS CONSTITUTION, supra n5 at 199; DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF THE STAMP ACT CONGRESS 13 (Am. Col. Oct. 19, 1765), reprinted in id. at 198. 20 See Frederick, supra n7 at 115-116. 21 See THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE para. 30 (U.S. July 4, 1776), reprinted in 5 THE FOUNDERS CONSTITUTION, supra n5 at 199; Lee A. Strimbeck, The Right to Petition, 55 W. VA. L. REV. 275, 277 (1954). 22 See 5 BERNARD SCHWARTZ, supra n15, 1091-105. 23 The vote was 10-41 in the House and 2-14 in the Senate. See id. at 1105, 1148. 24 See 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 733-46 (Joseph Gales ed., 1789); 5 BERNARD SCHWARTZ, supra n15, at 1093-94 (stating that representatives have a duty to inquire into the suggested measures contained in citizens Petitions) (statement of Rep. Roger Sherman); id. at 1095-96 (stating that Congress can never shut its ears to Petitions) (statement of Rep. Elbridge Gerry); id. at 1096 (arguing that the Right to Petition protects the Right to bring non-binding instructions to Congresss attention) (statement of Rep. James Madison). 25 See STAFF OF HOUSE COMM. ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 99 TH CONG., 2D SESS., PETITIONS, MEMORIALS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF CONGRESS, MARCH 4, 1789 TO DECEMBER 15, 1975, at 6-9 (Comm. Print 1986) (including a comment by the press that the principal part of Congresss time has been taken up in the reading and referring Petitions (quot. omitted)). 26 See Stephen A. Higginson, Note, A Short History of the Right to Petition the Government for the Redress of Grievances, 96 YALE L. J. 142, at 156. 27 See H.J., 25th Cong., 2d Sess. 647 (1838) (describing how petitions prompted the appointment of a select committee to consider legislation to abolish dueling). 28 See Higginson, n34 at 157.
2014 by Robert L. Schulz. All rights reserved. Government is obligated to respond. If the Government fails to refute the facts and fails to comply with the Petitions remedial instructions the Government becomes unrecognizable, not the government the People instituted to secure their Rights, thus giving the People justification for engaging in non-violent Civic Action. To be sure, a communication designated as a Petition for Redress and requiring a formal, specific response from the Government, would have to embody certain components to ensure that the document was a petition and not a "pretended petition." Not all communications, nor any document, can be regarded as a constitutionally protected Petition for Redress of Grievances.
To be protected, a Petition for Redress should: be serious and documented, not frivolous; contain no falsehoods; not be absent probable cause; have the quality of a dispute; come from people outside of the formal political culture; contain both a "direction" and a "prayer" for relief; be punctilious; address public, collective grievances; involve constitutional principles not political talk; be signed only by a citizen(s); be dignified; have widespread participation and consequences; be instruments of deliberation not agitation; provide new information; not advocate violence or crime; provide legal Notice of the existence of a constitutional tort(s); seek substantive Redress to cure such constitutional tort.

CES NOM and Aff in Support of 2nd NOM To Renew and Reargue Service W Exhibits and Supplement To The Complaint 29642-2008

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CES NOM and Aff in Support of 2nd NOM To Renew and Reargue Service W Exhibits and Supplement To The Complaint 29642-2008

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CPLR 2221(f) to renew and reargue the completion of service nunc pro tunc with new transactions and

That Van Allen offers no reason to revisit this Court's denial.

STRUNKs REPLY Affidavit to the AGs MOL IN OPPOSITION Page 2 of 9

STRUNKs REPLY Affidavit to the AGs MOL IN OPPOSITION Page 6 of 9

STRUNKs REPLY Affidavit to the AGs MOL IN OPPOSITION Page 7 of 9

STRUNKs REPLY Affidavit to the AGs MOL IN OPPOSITION Page 8 of 9

Index No.: 29642 / 08 I.A.S. Part 47 (Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)

Index No.: 29642 / 08 I.A.S. Part 47 (Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)

Index No.: 29642 / 08 I.A.S. Part 47 (Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)

WebCivil Supreme - Case Detail

WebCivil Supreme - Case Detail

STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER

____________________________ H. William Van Allen

_____________________ Notary Public

Index No.: 29642 / 08 I.A.S. Part 47 (Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)

- against DAVID PATERSON, et al., Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR RENEWAL OR REARGUMENT

JOSHUA PEPPER Assistant Attorney General o f Counsel

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

34. Plaintiff further

I . Van Allen moves to renew or reargue his motion to

Petitioner's Affidavit in Support of Motion To Renew and Reargue

Intervention ("Van Allen Aff.").

insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiff may not supplement his complaint.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York

SIJPREiGfE COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW Y8R.K G'OL%TV OF W G S

Yot~ce of MorionlOrder to Show Cdusei

Petition Grusr hlotron and "Iffidat. ~ t (Afimlations) s hexed

17)pposlng Affidldavttf,(Affirmations) lieply Affidavsts (Al'fimat~ons) 4fEdaavit (Affinnat1ot.i) Other Papers-

respondent 4lario (ailerato nlcrves to dismiss the petition agalast him,

O n It'ovember 14, 2012, petitioner Christopher-Ewi Stunk csarmenced this

Ck>iZrgc as \>,eel as a judgment decHzbsir:g that Prekidei~tiai Electors who c~rnpriseiht"

qudlified to ;enre as President of the dlt~itedStates inasmuch as he is not a natural-born

of the t'n~tedStares as required under relevant prsvisiar?~ of the LTnited States

The ~etitioj-, ai:;o ~%"a so .vo;d

Pentloner further cilntcnds t3aa he aors habe

stdndlng In thts matter In his capac~tyas a prlvate c ~ t ~ under ~ e n the 1qth-4mzndtnent In

CPLR 308 (itlwtter o f Glrarte~ I1T ~ v Veginutte, 2

Moreoter, even rf the court were to deem the Inovlng

respondents to be state officers, petrtioner falied to properly serve s a d respondents In

add~rriinal taral defects Spec~l'icdlly, ger~tlcrner lack standing

In rhts regard, I n an A&rclc 78 proceedrng,

prrvate cltszen ~ h does o nor sh0.x 3ny

p a y r s and zrtlaens, has no standrng rc $ue""-%f~ater-. of' Ifzchan

f 4D3d 533, 572% f$(W'4!)

Mere, pntati.orer has

iemr.~lstra.icd any >ack speca~41 --~gk;es

~csgnlzablz222srn ~ g a ~ me r;~ rno\rr;p rc-pandentls m d c r ?ither

sanctions against petitioner

dismissed as against respondents Ortiz, Wright, and Cilento,

follow in^ p m u m l l e r e t to 3 read on $hisrnotio~

Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) A f f i d a v i t (Affirmation)

more than one public officer position to resign as an elector.

.."(OIMalley,44 NY2d at 535). Where one

.."thereby making such category

as electors of president and vice president is without merit.

This constitutional provision expressly precludes a member of the legislature f r o m

351 North Road Hurley, New York 12443

The Honorable Gail Prudenti, J.S.C.

Index No.: 29642 / 08 I.A.S. Part 47 (Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)

STRUNKs Affidavit in support of Service NUNC PRO TUNC Page 1 of 15

STRUNKs Affidavit in support of Service NUNC PRO TUNC Page 3 of 15

STRUNKs Affidavit in support of Service NUNC PRO TUNC Page 4 of 15

1 111/11llfiil~/ll lllil!/ ll[lll l[l/ 11