DCD (RCL) 2010 CV 00486 EX RELATOR STRUNK V OBAMA Et Al. - Quo Warranto - Qui Tam - Conspiracy To Violate Civil Rights

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In the Quo Warranto and Qui Tam matter of the United States of America (USA) and ex relator Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn., New York 1 1238 (845) 90 1-6767 Email: chris@,strunk.ws
8
Civil Action: 10-cv-00486 (RCL)
9 5 9

v.
Barack Hussein Obama I1 (a.k.a Barry Soetoro) 5 C/O The White House 9 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 4 Washington, District of Columbia 20500; 9
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) $j Washington Navy Yard Bldg 41 0, 245 Murray Drive W.S.W. Washington DC 20528 5 9 U.S. Department of Treasury (DOT) 9 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. .3 Washington, DC 20220; 9 and John and Jan Doe(s); XYZ Entities Defendants.
................................................................
EX RELATOR CHRISTOPHER-EARL: STRUNK IN ESSE NOTICE OF MOTION TO

REARGUE FOR RELEASE OF SUMMONSES AND TO FILE THE FIRST
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse by Special-Appearance, affirmed August 8,201 2 will move this Court as EX-relator-plaintiffto reargue the July 31,2012 order to dismiss and unseal by Chief District Judge Royce C. Lamberth
and to file the first supplement to the proposed first amended complaint and for release of Summonses at a time afforded by the Court if necessary at the United States Courthouse, at 333
t
Constitution Avenue NW Washington District of Columbia, on the day and month in 20 12, at a time and courtroom designated by the court, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard. Dated: August ,2012 Brooklyn New York EX RE: Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 Email: chris@strunk.ws Cell-845-901-6767
cc: listing of service to follow
Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General The US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Barack Hussein Obama I1 in esse C/O The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Richard L. Skinner Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington Navy Yard Bldg 410, 245 Murray Drive W.S. W. Washington DC 20528 Eric M. Thorson Inspectbr General for the U.S. Department of Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20220 Marco Ciavolino Enktesis, LLC 1603 Belvue Drive Forest Hill, MD 2 1050-2508
.
EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

----------------------------------------------------------------x In the Quo Warranto and Qui Tam matter of the United States of America (USA) and ex relator Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, Civil Action: 10-cv-00486 (RCL) 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn., New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws Plaintiff, v. Barack Hussein Obama II (a.k.a Barry Soetoro) c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20500; U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Washington Navy Yard Bldg 410, 245 Murray Drive W.S.W. Washington DC 20528 U.S. Department of Treasury (DOT) 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20220; and John and Jan Doe(s); XYZ Entities Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------------------x EX RELATOR CHRISTOPHER-EARL: STRUNK IN ESSE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION TO REARGUE FOR RELEASE OF SUMMONSES AND TO FILE THE FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT.
STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS
) ) ss. )
Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:
EX RE Plaintiffs Affidavit in support of re-argument
Page 1 of 6

1. That EX RELATOR Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse hereby files this affidavit in support of Plaintiffs notice of motion to reargue for release of summonses and to file the annexed first supplement with Exhibits a-a- through f-f referenced herein as to the proposed amended complaint with Exhibits A through Z affirmed July 5, 2012 that on July 31, 2012, the Honorable Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth dismissed and unsealed as filed March 24, 2010 (see Exhibit a-a). 2. That Plaintiff has safely uploaded the record of this axction along with the Dopcket through August 2, 2012 with the proposed Amended Complaint affirmed July 5, 2012 then responded to by the Court on July 31, 2012 see http://www.scribd.com/doc/101963433/2010-Cv-00486-RCL-STRUNK-vOBAMA-Et-Al-Jan-2011-Unsealed-Order-With-NOM-for-Proposed-Amended-Comolaint
3.
Ex-relator Plaintiff Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse (Strunk), whistleblower in privity with
Barack Hussein Obama II and his agents as an individual citizen member of the People of the USA, is the USA Quo Warranto - Qui Tam Ex relator that represents the USA for Joseph R. Biden to act with the 25th Amendment, and provides this First Supplement with Exhibits a-a through f-f to the proposed Amended Complaint with Demand for an inquest on the injury and damages with a Declaratory Decision and Order as to Strunks innocence of wrongdoing and hereby avers three additional germane transactions and cause of action to clarify the misapprehension by the Court as the first supplement and proposed amended complaint with Exhibit A through Z affirmed July 5, 2012, 4. That on July 17, 2012 as an additional transaction subsequent to the filing affirmed July 5, 2012 that Defendant Obamas malicious spoliation and concealment of evidence of misprision of a felony, sedition and treason involved with his ineligibility to hold the office of POTUS thereby directly injures Strunk and posses a national security threat to be addressed by the US Department of Homeland Security was exposed by Sheriff Joseph Arpaios Cold Case Posse (CCP) when investigators held a press conference with evidence of the misprision of a felony with a Press Release (see Exhibit b-b) entitled EXHAUSTIVE INQUIRY LEADS TO NEW INFORMATION SHERIFFS INVESTIGATORS: PRESIDENTS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS UNDOUBTEDLY A FRAUD HAWAII IMMIGRATION LOOPHOLE COULD POSE NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERN, SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO SAYS
Page 2 of 6

5. That the Sheriffs press release of July 17, 2012 shown as Exhibit b-b states that Investigator Michael Zullo told reporters that the information he developed confirms that the document presented to the American public by the White House in April 2011 is undoubtedly fraudulent. The information developed during this stage of the investigation which underscores the fraudulent nature of the LFBC (Long Forn Birth Certificate) certificate was based partially upon an interview with the person whose signature actually appears on it. Furthermore, the investigators conducted a close examination of Hawaiis laws pertaining to registered births. Those laws essentially provide easy access to a Hawaii birth certificate, even if neither parent is a U.S. citizen. A birth certificate is a legal document which provides proof that an individual was born in the United States. It automatically grants a person U.S. citizenship. The investigation shows the way in which Hawaii officials currently distribute birth certificates may pose a serious flaw to our national security 6. Further, as shown on Exhibit b-b at pages 2 through 3 Investigator Michael Zullo told reporters that since the public disclosure of those initial findings in March, Sheriffs investigators tracked down a number of witnesses including persons of interest during a trip to the State of Hawaii in the furtherance of their investigation. The Sheriffs Cold Case Posse uncovered the following information which advances the assertion that a fraud has occurred: Investigators learned that Hawaii Department of Health utilizes a coding system defined by the federal government to categorize and code the required information on all Birth Certificates registered by the state including those registered in 1961. This process involves writing specific number codes by hand and in pencil, placed next to relevant information contained on the birth certificate. The coding numbers seen on the Presidents LFBC are not consistent with the coding responses required by the federal government to match the information presented. The incorrect codes indicate that the Presidents LFBC has been altered or amended. (click here for video explanation) Investigators tracked down the person who was the local registrar at the time of Obamas birth who allegedly signed and coded the document which Obama now says proves his birth place as Hawaii. Verna K. Lee, now a 95 year-old woman, allegedly signed the document on August 8, 1961. She provided information about the vital information codes and their corresponding meanings. The information she provided challenges the Presidents claim that his birthplace in 1961 was the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital. Sheriffs investigators in Hawaii were stymied by the state registrar of the Hawaii Department of Health, Alvin Onaka, as well as the Attorney Generals Office in Honolulu when investigators asked to compare the White House version of the LFBC to the original document presumably held in Hawaii. Investigators met with the Hawaii Assistant Attorney General, Jill Nagamine. Nagamine refused to give Sheriffs investigators permission to see the original birth documentation held by the Hawaii Department of Health which was used to create the Presidents
Page 3 of 6

long form birth certificate. Furthermore, Nagamine refused to verify whether the PDF birth certificate released by the White House is in fact an exact copy of the document released to the Presidents attorneys 7. Further, as shown on Exhibit b-b at pages 3 through 4 Investigator Michael Zullo told reporters that perhaps more alarming than anything else, in the course of this investigation, lead investigator Mike Zullo came across information which demands immediate action by the federal government and this court as to eligibility of Defendant Obama as a matter of national security. 8. Further, the preponderance of evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt as referenced above referenced in Exhibit b-b raises the question of the manner of fraud used to cause the sanction of Strunk for daring to question Obamas eligibility in the New York State Supreme Court proceeding with Index no.: 2011-6500 Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. in that on May 31, 2012 Dr. Jerome Corsi was interviewed by past governor and named defendant David Paterson in Strunk v Paterson et al. with Index 2008-29641 and 29642 as to BHO eligibility quoted by World Net Daily (WND) (see Exhibit c-c) having said: Even if he (Obama) wasnt born in the United States at this point, Paterson said. Its kind of like he got away with it. He continued, A lot of people get away with a lot of things. Paterson compared Obamas actions to those of President Richard Nixon. We learned later that Nixon spied on Johnsons Paris peace talks, Paterson said. That was actually an act of uh I mean it was against the interests of the U.S. government. Youve got to say that before you would say its treason. But he got away with it. Decided it wasnt a good thing to bring up at that particular time. Not only did he get away with it, he won the election. 9. Further, that Strunk (Chris) on August 7, 2012 to verify the veracity of the WND reporting of the statements of Governor David Paterson as to the eligibility question shown on Exhibit c-c called the Governors WOR radio program at 4:45 PM from Queens to ask Mr. Paterson the truth of the statement made on May 31, 2012 about the eligibility question for several minutes be heard on the podcast at http://wor710.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=5974346 starting at 40:40 Gov David Paterson (DP) takes my phone call and question regarding the Corsi / Paterson interview and I paraphrase in part quote: DP- Chris in Queens Chris Yes Gov I heard the interview with J. Corsi
Page 4 of 6

DP - I do not believe he was born on Foreign Soil I think he is born in Hawaii you have to give it up and find a way to beat him (BHO) because people get away with things I would not put BHO in the book of those who got away with things. DP There has never been a court resolution that has determined that OBAMA with a British subject father or George Romney who was born in Mexico could run for POTUS they are both in the gray area tie goes to the runner 10. Furthermore, that based upon the above evidence Strunk has beyond a preponderance of evidence standard without a reasonable doubt that Governor Paterson has no basis to reasonably believe any longer that BHO is born in Hawaii without further evidence of such birth location provided and as such underscores Strunks injury as a result of spoliation, concealment, misrepresentation and fraud, Barack Hussein Obama II and his agents usurp POTUS, and legally lack constitutional consent to exercise authority over the power of attorney to administer the United States of America and duties of commanderin-chief, and have intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Ex Relator Whistleblower among those similarly situated. 11. That Defendants Obama, Obamas agents with various John Jane Doe(s) and XYZ entities including the US Department of Homeland Security and US Department of Treasury have intentionally inflicted emotional distress injury of Whistleblower Strunk along with those similarly situated including those with different claims and damages by non/mis and malfeasance have by breach of their fiduciary duties and oath to uphold the law of the land outrageously injure Plaintiff by their intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); and that Defendant(s) acted intentionally or recklessly to injure Plaintiff; Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous; Defendants act is the cause of the distress; and Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of Defendants conduct along with that of their counsel has acted in bad faith.
12. That as a result of spoliation, concealment, misrepresentation and fraud, Barack Hussein Obama
II and his agents usurp POTUS, and legally lack constitutional consent to exercise authority over the power of attorney to administer the United States of America and duties of commanderin-chief, and as a supplemental eighth cause of action have intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Ex Relator Whistleblower among those similarly situated and warrants a rehearing to clarify the matter for the Court.
Page 5 of 6

WHEREFORE, Ex-relator, Christopher Earl Strunk in esse, on his own behalf as whistleblower and on behalf of the Government of the United States of America and Vice President Joseph R.
C
Biden requests this Honorable Court to order: a. That grants the re-argument with renewal to calendar with notice to the parties in interest listed including the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. .Departmentof Homeland Security and the U.S. ~ e ~ a r t m eof tTreasury; n b. That the First Supplement and proposed Amended Complaint be filed by the clerk c. That the clerk release the Summonses for immediate service by the U.S. Marshal Service; d. That Let the expedited Quo Warranto inquest be done and attended by the named parties before the National Conventions of either party;
e. .That Strunk is innocent of any frivolous conduct in his use of the NBC Federal
issue associated with Strunk's injuries f. Once an order has been rendered let Ex-relator proceed with the appointment of
an attorney or special master to recover funds from Barack Obama and his
agents if any under Qui Tam provisions presented before a Jury g. and for different and other relief that the Court deems necessary.
esse Christopher-Earl : ~ t r u n l i n Sworn to efore me This d a y of August 2012

ABRAHAM HELFENBAUM Commissioner of Deeds Ciiy Of New York No. 2-9363 Certificate Filed in Kings C ~ u n Commission Expires July i'O&
. ?
Page 6 of 6

----------------------------------------------------------------x In the Quo Warranto and Qui Tam matter of the United States of America (USA) and ex relator Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, Civil Action: 10-cv-00486 (RCL) 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn., New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws Plaintiff, v. Barack Hussein Obama II (a.k.a Barry Soetoro) c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (PROPOSED) Washington, District of Columbia 20500; FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Washington Navy Yard Bldg 410, THE PROPOSED AMENDED 245 Murray Drive W.S.W. Washington DC 20528 COMPLAINT FOR U.S. Department of Treasury (DOT) 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. QUO WARRANTO TRIAL Washington, DC 20220; ON DAMAGE RECOVERY and John and Jan Doe(s); XYZ Entities INQUEST AND JURY Defendant. TRIAL ON DAMAGES ----------------------------------------------------------------x
INTRODUCTION: Ex-relator Plaintiff Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse (Strunk), whistleblower in privity with Barack Hussein Obama II and his agents as an individual citizen member of the People of the USA, is the USA Quo Warranto - Qui Tam Ex relator that represents the USA for Joseph R. Biden to act with the 25th Amendment, and provides this First Supplement with Exhibits a-a through f-f to the proposed Amended Complaint with Demand for an inquest on the injury and damages with a Declaratory Decision and Order as to Strunks innocence of wrongdoing and hereby avers three additional germane transactions and cause
First Supplement to the proposed Amended Complaint
Page 1 of 10

of action to clarify the misapprehension by the Court as the first supplement and proposed amended complaint with Exhibit A through Z affirmed July 5, 2012, and on July 31, 2012, the Honorable Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth dismissed and unsealed the Complaint filed March 24, 2010 (see Exhibit a-a). AS AND FOR THE THE FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSACTION TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (For Defendant Obamas malicious spoliation and concealment of evidence of misprision of a felony, sedition and treason involved with his ineligibility to hold the office of POTUS thereby directly injures Strunk and posses a national security threat to be addressed by the US Department of Homeland Security) 72(a) Pursuant of the above Introduction Strunk and the proposed Amended Complaint with Exhibit A through Z affirmed July 5, 2012, and in which Strunk has four (4) particular injuries and four (4) Federal issues described below and requests as an exception to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine to be heard regarding injury to Strunk caused by Barack Hussein Obama II the punitive President of the United States (POTUS) with Federal Rules for Civil Procedures (FRCvP) Rule 81 (A) (2), as the USA and exrelator Plaintiff who has additional Causes of action based upon his actual injuries caused by Defendant Obamas failure to be eligible for the office of POTUS, and whose acts of spoliation and concealment in the misprision of a felony to prevent discovery of his ineligibility is defined with 18 USC 4 according to the investigation and June 12, 2012 Affidavit of Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joseph Arpaio shown in Exhibit B in the proposed Amended Complaint affirmed July 5, 2012 that must be heard in a Quo Warranto Inquest as aa matter intertwined with Whistleblower Strunks Qui Tam Claim and for those similarly situated as whistleblowers against the incapacitated President of the Untied States (POTUS) usurping the duties as Commander in -chief. 94 (a) That on July 17, 2012 as an additional transaction subsequent to the filing affirmed July 5, 2012 that Defendant Obamas malicious spoliation and concealment of evidence of misprision of a felony, sedition and treason involved with his ineligibility to hold the office of POTUS thereby directly injures Strunk and posses a national security threat to be addressed by the US Department of Homeland Security
Page 2 of 10

was exposed by Sheriff Joseph Arpaios Cold Case Posse (CCP) when investigators held a press conference with evidence of the misprision of a felony with a Press Release (see Exhibit b-b) entitled EXHAUSTIVE INQUIRY LEADS TO NEW INFORMATION SHERIFFS INVESTIGATORS: PRESIDENTS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS UNDOUBTEDLY A FRAUD HAWAII IMMIGRATION LOOPHOLE COULD POSE NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERN, SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO SAYS 94 (b) That the Sheriffs press release of July 17, 2012 shown as Exhibit b-b states that Investigator Michael Zullo told reporters that the information he developed confirms that the document presented to the American public by the White House in April 2011 is undoubtedly fraudulent. The information developed during this stage of the investigation which underscores the fraudulent nature of the LFBC (Long Forn Birth Certificate) certificate was based partially upon an interview with the person whose signature actually appears on it. Furthermore, the investigators conducted a close examination of Hawaiis laws pertaining to registered births. Those laws essentially provide easy access to a Hawaii birth certificate, even if neither parent is a U.S. citizen. A birth certificate is a legal document which provides proof that an individual was born in the United States. It automatically grants a person U.S. citizenship. The investigation shows the way in which Hawaii officials currently distribute birth certificates may pose a serious flaw to our national security 94 (c) Further, as shown on Exhibit b-b at pages 2 through 3 Investigator Michael Zullo told reporters that since the public disclosure of those initial findings in March, Sheriffs investigators tracked down a number of witnesses including persons of interest during a trip to the State of Hawaii in the furtherance of their investigation. The Sheriffs Cold Case Posse uncovered the following information which advances the assertion that a fraud has occurred: Investigators learned that Hawaii Department of Health utilizes a coding system defined by the federal government to categorize and code the required information on all Birth Certificates registered by the state including those registered in 1961. This process involves writing specific number codes by hand and in pencil, placed next to relevant information contained on the birth certificate. The coding numbers seen on the Presidents LFBC are not consistent with the coding responses required by the federal government to match the information presented. The incorrect codes indicate that the Presidents LFBC has been altered or amended. (click here for video explanation) Investigators tracked down the person who was the local registrar at the time of Obamas birth who allegedly signed and coded the document which Obama now says proves his birth place as Hawaii. Verna K. Lee, now a 95 year-old woman, allegedly signed the document on August 8, 1961. She provided information about the vital information codes and their corresponding
Page 3 of 10

meanings. The information she provided challenges the Presidents claim that his birthplace in 1961 was the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital. Sheriffs investigators in Hawaii were stymied by the state registrar of the Hawaii Department of Health, Alvin Onaka, as well as the Attorney Generals Office in Honolulu when investigators asked to compare the White House version of the LFBC to the original document presumably held in Hawaii. Investigators met with the Hawaii Assistant Attorney General, Jill Nagamine. Nagamine refused to give Sheriffs investigators permission to see the original birth documentation held by the Hawaii Department of Health which was used to create the Presidents long form birth certificate. Furthermore, Nagamine refused to verify whether the PDF birth certificate released by the White House is in fact an exact copy of the document released to the Presidents attorneys 94 (d) Further, as shown on Exhibit b-b at pages 3 through 4 Investigator Micheal Zullo told reporters that perhaps more alarming than anything else, in the course of this investigation, lead investigator Mike Zullo came across information which demands immediate action by the federal government. If a nations security is only as strong as its weakest link, then America may be in serious trouble. Hawaii may be our weakest link and could have a serious impact on our nations immigration policy, Arpaio says. Arpaio and his investigators have learned that for decades and remaining today, Hawaii has extremely loose policies regarding birth records - who can acquire them and how they are distributed. Additionally, those policies in Hawaii state law appear to be in direct contradiction to U.S. Immigration policy. Under Hawaii statute, a person only has to be an established resident of Hawaii, not necessarily a U.S. citizen, in that state and pay taxes there for one year to be able to register an out of state or foreign born person with an official Hawaii birth certificate. The law, Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 states: Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child. Sheriff Arpaio and his investigators have grave concerns about this Hawaii Revised Statute believing it could be a gaping loophole that makes it possible for foreign born people to legally establish U.S. citizenship even if neither parent is an American citizen. It is important to note that although this state law was not established until the early 1980s long after President Obamas birth, the laws that were in effect in 1961 were also researched by investigators and contain many similar concerns which allowed unattended births to be registered by persons simply knowing of the births occurrence. ..
Page 4 of 10

94 (e) Further, the preponderance of evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt as referenced above referenced in Exhibit b-b raises the question of the manner of fraud used to cause the sanction of Strunk for daring to question Obamas eligibility in the New York State Supreme Court proceeding with Index no.: 2011-6500 Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. in that on May 31, 2012 Dr. Jerome Corsi was interviewed by past governor and named defendant David Paterson in Strunk v Paterson et al. with Index 2008-29641 and 29642 as to BHO eligibility quoted by World Net Daily (WND) (see Exhibit c-c) having said: Even if he (Obama) wasnt born in the United States at this point, Paterson said. Its kind of like he got away with it. He continued, A lot of people get away with a lot of things. Paterson compared Obamas actions to those of President Richard Nixon. We learned later that Nixon spied on Johnsons Paris peace talks, Paterson said. That was actually an act of uh I mean it was against the interests of the U.S. government. Youve got to say that before you would say its treason. But he got away with it. Decided it wasnt a good thing to bring up at that particular time. Not only did he get away with it, he won the election. 94 (f) Further, that Strunk (Chris) on August 7, 2012 to verify the veracity of the WND reporting of the statements of Governor David Paterson as to the eligibility question shown on Exhibit c-c called the Governors WOR radio program at 4:45 PM from Queens to ask Mr. Paterson the truth of the statement made on May 31, 2012 about the eligibility question for several minutes be heard on the podcast at http://wor710.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=5974346 starting at 40:40 Gov David Paterson (DP) takes my phone call and question regarding the Corsi / Paterson interview and I paraphrase in part quote: DP- Chris in Queens Chris Yes Gov I heard the interview with J. Corsi DP - I do not believe he was born on Foreign Soil I think he is born in Hawaii you have to give it up and find a way to beat him (BHO) because people get away with things I would not put BHO in the book of those who got away with things. DP There has never been a court resolution that has determined that OBAMA with a British subject father or George Romney who was born in Mexico could run for POTUS they are both in the gray area tie goes to the runner 94 (f) Furthermore, that based upon the above evidence Strunk has beyond a preponderance of evidence standard without a reasonable doubt that Governor Paterson has no basis to reasonably believe any longer
Page 5 of 10

that BHO is born in Hawaii without further evidence of such birth location provided and as such underscores Strunks injury as a result of spoliation, concealment, misrepresentation and fraud, Barack Hussein Obama II and his agents usurp POTUS, and legally lack constitutional consent to exercise authority over the power of attorney to administer the United States of America and duties of commanderin-chief, and have intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Ex Relator Whistleblower among those similarly situated.
AS AND FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Defendant Obama, Obamas agents with various John Jane Doe(s) and XYZ entities including the US Department of Homeland Security and US Department of Treasury have intentionally inflicted emotional distress injury of Whistleblower Strunk along with those similarly situated including those with different claims and damages) 139. Strunk repeats each and every allegation contained in the above supplement as well as the proposed amended complaint introduction and paragraphs 1 through 138 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length however omits it for brevity and economy. 140. That Defendants Obama, Obamas agents with various John Jane Doe(s) and XYZ entities including the US Department of Homeland Security and US Department of Treasury have intentionally inflicted emotional distress injury of Whistleblower Strunk along with those similarly situated including those with different claims and damages by non/mis and malfeasance have by breach of their fiduciary duties and oath to uphold the law of the land outrageously injure Plaintiff by their intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); and that Defendant(s) acted intentionally or recklessly to injure Plaintiff; Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous; Defendants act is the cause of the distress; and Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of Defendants conduct along with that of their counsel has acted in bad faith.
141.
That Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous (1) there was a pattern of
conduct, not just an isolated incident; (2) the plaintiff was vulnerable and the Defendant(s) knew
Page 6 of 10
EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486 it; (3) the Defendant(s) was in a position of power; (4) epithets birther, frivolous, delusion were
used and (5) Defendant(s) owed plaintiff a fiduciary duty in privity with Defendant Obama. 142. That on August 22, 2011, Strunk established on the record of the proceeding shown as Exhibit H on page 56 starting at line 10 that his oath taken as an Eagle Scout motivates his court action against Defendants and in the interchange expresses his emotional distress states: Strunk: Well, they were part of a scheme to defraud me and the voters, those who decided to vote who haven't given up." kind there are a lot of people out there who have given up and they don't want to be a part of whats going on. But as a Eagle Scout, I'm going to be prepared, if necessary, to go the ten points. I'm a boy scout. I am not going to back down. THE COURT: There are 12 points to scout law not ten. MR. STRUNK: Well, I've broken two . [Obedience and Reverence added by Strunk] THE COURT: I wouldn't get too -- well, then are 12, not ten. I'll take judicial notice of that. MR. STRUNK: Certainly the requirement is that a citizen stand up and defend his vote even when it's only a privilege. 143. That Plaintiffs commitment as an Eagle Scout dedication to God and Country shaped his value character and integrity as the Oath To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law as Congressional protected statutory national organization committed to God and Country. 144. That Plaintiff lifetime commitment to God and Country promulgated his voluntary service as an enlisted member of the US Air Force from 1966 through 1972, a redacted copy of DD 214 honorable discharge papers herewith (see Exhibit d-d), and whose oath makes him just as duty-bound as officers to uphold and defend the Constitution, as well as Gods natural laws (i.e. so help me God), to NOT OBEY UNLAWFUL ORDERS, and that anyone who has taken an oath to God and Country has the selfsame duty to NOT OBEY UNLAWFUL ORDERS! 145. That Strunk as an enlisted member of the military with the required proof of education and intelligence as with the Rank of Eagle Scout took a Lifetime Oath and can show a pattern of service and devotion to the People of the State of New York evidenced by the 1985 Commendation by the New York State Legislature for dedication beyond the call of duty (see Exhibit e-e) and as such is evidence of his vulnerability and unwavering commitment that he has suffered IIED in a way that is similar to that of any
Page 7 of 10

commissioned officer(s) in the United States military that took the following oath of office when appointed by Congress to the U.S. active military branch the Oath for Officers of the US Military: I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God. (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) And that the enlisted oath also begins by swearing that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; first, and secondarily that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,. It can logically, reasonably, and forensically be determined by anyone with a 12th grade education (as required to enlist in the military), that 1) All military orders originate with the Office of the President and Commander in Chief, and 2) A unlawful President and Commander in Chief cannot issue anything but unlawful orders, which all active duty military personnel have a duty not to obey (see Nuremberg Trials of 1945-46); the Oath for Enlisted Service Members I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). 146. That EX Relator Strunk as the whistleblower herein Enlisted Oath does carry just as much weight in unseating the usurper as the Officers oath under the Boy Scouts Promise and Law adds more weight to Plaintiffs commitment and tenacity as a member of a special class as an Eagle Scout that gives the rank of a General in this fight and more than suggests that there is a class of whistleblowers who have been retaliated against by Defendant Obama and his agents with equal; and or worse pain and penalty damages with Emotional injuries. 147. That Strunk as an intelligent and resourceful citizen member of the People of the USA acted in privity with Barack Hussein Obama when he failed to offer proof of his eligibility and as such Strunk
Page 8 of 10
EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 201 0-cv-00486

formally blew the whistle and duly complained as required with the Qui Tam Act as shown at Exhibit C..
148. That there is a range of whistle blowers who are in privity with Strunk and who have to varying
degrees been retaliated against for making claims; and that the most egregious example of which is the Pain and Penalty damages and injury imposed by a fraudulent prosecution of active duty USAF staff officer Lt. Col . Terry Lakin MD , on 11//20/09 filed a UCMJ Article 138 Complaint (see Exhibit f-f) against Defendant Obama as fraudulently in the Chain of Command; as such.Terry Lakin was railroaded by a military court marshal that disallowed evidence proving that the usurper was in the Chain of Command and by eliminating the possibility of discovery was convictiePrillegally stripped of his rank, his pension seized, imprisoned, dishonorably discharged, stripped of any pension benefits, barred from practicing medicine as a licensed medical doctor, barred from owing a hand gun because of imprisonment and stigmatized for lifetime ridicule and stolen opportunity of economic livelihood as a doctor certainly falls into Strunk's class of whistleblowers with commensurate standing to recover for not only the US DOT but as interpleader requiring this court to determine the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama 11. WHEREFORE, Ex-relator, Christopher Earl Strunk jn esse, on his own behalf as whistleblower and on behalf of the Government of the United States of America and Vice President Joseph R. Biden requests this Honorable Court to order: a. That Let the expedited Quo Warranto inquest be done and attended by the named parties before the National Conventions of either party; b. That Strunk is innocent of any frivolous conduct in his use of the NBC Federal issue associated with Strunk's injuries c. Once an order has been rendered let Ex-relator proceed with the appointment of an attorney or special master to recover funds from Barack Obama and his agents if any under Qui Tam provisions presented before a Jury d. and for different and other relief that the Court deems necessary.
e4
9.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: August , 2 0 1 2 Brooklyn, New York

'
EX RE Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse 593 ~ a n d e r b i l t . ~ v e n - #281 ue Brooklyn., New York 11238 Phone (845) 90 1-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws Page 9 of 1 0
First Supplement t o the proposed Amended Complaint
VERIFICATION
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 USA Quo Warranto - Qui Tam Ex-Relator, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, whistleblower, with place for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238. 2. Affirmant duly represents the USA for Joseph R. Biden as the Ex Relator in the Quo Warranto and Qui Tam matter before this Court seeks a judicial determination that Barack Hussein Obama I1 (BHO) is not a natural-born citizen whose acts are void ab initio; and therefore, BHO is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office of POTUS, thereby empowers Vice President Joseph R. Biden to act with the 2 5 Amendment in that BHO notwithstanding where he was born is incapacitated to ~ serve as POTUS, first because at birth his father was a British subject married to his U.S. Citizen mother, and therefore is not a natural-born Citizen required by U.S. Constitution Article 2 61 paragraph 5; and 3. Secondly, as of July 17,2012 there is a preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the birth record is insufficient to prove BHO's birth in Hawaii because the state registration methods are not in accordance with USA National Security standards to be afforded full faith and credit status. 4. Ex relator is a whistleblower citizen of the People of the USA, who in privity duly fired Barack Hussein Obama I1 for cause on January 23,2009 after he took the oath of office by timely return of the offer of contract wishing no contract thereby revoked power of attorney due to his failure to prove eligibility as a natural born citizen and have been wrongly punished in the exercise of my duly and liberty otherwise to be protected by the US Constitution and thereby entitled to Qui Tam whistleblower fees for the recovery of funds wrongly obtained from the US Department of Treasury from 2009 until the present. 5. That as a result of spoliation, concealment, misrepresentation and fraud, Barack Hussein Obama I1 and his agents usurp POTUS, and legally lack constitutional consent to exercise authority over the power of attorney to administer the United States of America and duties of commander-in-chief, and have . intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Ex Relator Whistleblower among those similarly situated. 6. I have read the above First Supplement with Exhibits a-a through f-f to the proposed Amended Complaint with Demand for an inquest on the injury and damages with a Declaratory Decision and Order 'asto Strunk's innocence of wrongdoing and aver that the first supplement and proposed amended complaint with Exhibit A through Z affirmed July 5,2012 are in support of the EX RE Plaintiff's efforts that has no dispute on the facts and issues before the Court thereby warrant the Qui Tam reimbursement by BHO for damages and injuries, and I know its contents; the facts stated in the Complaint herein are true to my own personal knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not . stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3**parties, books and records, and pers nal knowledge. except as to those stated upon information and belief, whic believe to be true.
LLpL
Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse
Sworn to before me This @day of August 2012
ABRAHAM HELFENBAUM Commissioner of Deeds
Page 10 of 10
First Supplement to Amended Complaint for Quo Warranto Inquest and Jury trial on Damages
Exhibit a-a
Case 1:10-cv-00486-RCL Document 6 Filed 08/01/12 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:10-cv-00486-RCL Document 6-1 Filed 08/01/12 Page 1 of 5
Exhibit b-b
July 17, 2012 EXHAUSTIVE INQUIRY LEADS TO NEW INFORMATION
SHERIFFS INVESTIGATORS: PRESIDENTS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS UNDOUBTEDLY A FRAUD HAWAII IMMIGRATION LOOPHOLE COULD POSE NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERN, SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO SAYS
(Phoenix, AZ) Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, along with Cold Case Posse Lead Investigator Mike Zullo, held a news conference today regarding information stemming from an exhaustive examination into President Obamas long form birth certificate. Zullo told reporters that the information he developed confirms that the document presented to the American public by the White House in April 2011 is undoubtedly fraudulent. The information developed during this stage of the investigation which underscores the fraudulent nature of the LFBC certificate was based partially upon an interview with the person whose signature actually appears on it. Furthermore, the investigators conducted a close examination of Hawaiis laws pertaining to registered births. Those laws essentially provide easy access to a Hawaii birth certificate, even if neither parent is a U.S. citizen. A birth certificate is a legal
100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
Media Contact: MediaRequest@MCSO.Maricopa.Gov
1
document which provides proof that an individual was born in the United States. It automatically grants a person U.S. citizenship. The investigation shows the way in which Hawaii officials currently distribute birth certificates may pose a serious flaw to our national security. The Sheriffs investigation into the Presidents birth certificate authenticity question began in October, 2011, after 250 concerned Maricopa County citizens approached Sheriff Arpaio saying they had reason to believe that the electronic document presented in an April, 2011, news conference from the White House to the American public, as well as the citizens of Maricopa County, was a forgery. Arpaio promised to look into the matter. Six months into the investigation, Sheriffs Cold Case Posse concluded that there is probable cause to believe that the Obamas birth certificate as well as his Selective Service registration card were, in fact, suspected forgeries. How the investigators reached that conclusion was detailed in a March 1, 2012 press conference held by Sheriff Arpaio and Mike Zullo, the lead investigator in the matter. (March 1 press release) Since the public disclosure of those initial findings in March, Sheriffs investigators tracked down a number of witnesses including persons of interest during a trip to the State of Hawaii in the furtherance of their investigation. The Sheriffs Cold Case Posse uncovered the following information which advances the assertion that a fraud has occurred: Investigators learned that Hawaii Department of Health utilizes a coding system defined by the federal government to categorize and code the required information on all Birth Certificates registered by the state including those registered in 1961. This process involves writing specific number codes by hand and in pencil, placed next to relevant information contained on the birth certificate. The coding numbers seen on the Presidents LFBC are not consistent with the coding responses required by the federal government to match the information presented. The incorrect codes indicate that the Presidents LFBC has been altered or amended. (click here for video explanation)
2
Investigators tracked down the person who was the local registrar at the time of Obamas birth who allegedly signed and coded the document which Obama now says proves his birth place as Hawaii. Verna K. Lee, now a 95 year-old woman, allegedly signed the document on August 8, 1961. She provided information about the vital information codes and their corresponding meanings. The information she provided challenges the Presidents claim that his birthplace in 1961 was the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital. Sheriffs investigators in Hawaii were stymied by the state registrar of the Hawaii Department of Health, Alvin Onaka, as well as the Attorney Generals Office in Honolulu when investigators asked to compare the White House version of the LFBC to the original document presumably held in Hawaii. Investigators met with the Hawaii Assistant Attorney General, Jill Nagamine. Nagamine refused to give Sheriffs investigators permission to see the original birth documentation held by the Hawaii Department of Health which was used to create the Presidents long form birth certificate. Furthermore, Nagamine refused to verify whether the PDF birth certificate released by the White House is in fact an exact copy of the document released to the Presidents attorneys. Perhaps more alarming than anything else, in the course of this investigation, lead investigator Mike Zullo came across information which demands immediate action by the federal government. If a nations security is only as strong as its weakest link, then America may be in serious trouble. Hawaii may be our weakest link and could have a serious impact on our nations immigration policy, Arpaio says. Arpaio and his investigators have learned that for decades and remaining today, Hawaii has extremely loose policies regarding birth records - who can acquire them and how they are distributed. Additionally, those policies in Hawaii state law appear to be in direct contradiction to U.S. Immigration policy. Under Hawaii statute, a person only has to be an established resident of Hawaii, not necessarily a U.S. citizen, in that state and pay taxes there for one year to be able to register an out of state or foreign born person with an official Hawaii birth certificate.
3
The law, Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 states: Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child. Sheriff Arpaio and his investigators have grave concerns about this Hawaii Revised Statute believing it could be a gaping loophole that makes it possible for foreign born people to legally establish U.S. citizenship even if neither parent is an American citizen. It is important to note that although this state law was not established until the early 1980s long after President Obamas birth, the laws that were in effect in 1961 were also researched by investigators and contain many similar concerns which allowed unattended births to be registered by persons simply knowing of the births occurrence. Sheriff Arpaio says, Often investigations into one matter lead law enforcement officials to other issues of serious concern. This Hawaiian law may be a serious threat to national security and needs to be immediately addressed by the U.S. Government. Considering the fact that Hawaii appears to be very lax in its distribution of birth certificates, it is possible, though certainly not proven, that President Obama, through the actions of others, may have benefitted by the ease with which one can obtain a birth certificate proving U.S. citizenship. Arpaio says his investigators will continue to delve into this matter but ultimately this investigation needs to be given to the proper authority to further. Through the hard work of Mike Zullo and his team of investigators we have pointed out some inconsistencies, or oddities, relating to the Presidents birth certificate. Taken one by one they may not be terribly concerning. But put them altogether and they paint a picture of deception that requires a federal inquiry, Arpaio says.
4
My hope is that the U.S. Congress will take over from here if not to further the birth certificate forgery possibility, then at least to examine the state of Hawaiis laws in regards to the issuance of birth certificates which may be permitting untold numbers of foreign born people to wrongly gain U.S. citizenship, Arpaio says. For more information regarding the analysis of the computerized document, click here.
5
Exhibit c-c
WND Gov. Paterson to interview Corsi on air Print
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/author-to-governor-its-the-constitution/print/
This is WND printer-friendly version of the article which follows. To view this item online, visit http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/author-to-governor-its-the-constitution/
WND EXCLUSIVE
GOV. PATERSON TO INTERVIEW CORSI ON AIR

'Threshold question is whether or not you're eligible' Published: 05/30/2012 at 9:47 PM
by BOB UNRUH Email | Archive

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for sever Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays church worship band.
Jerome Corsi, author of the best-selling Wheres the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama is Not Eligible to be President, will be a guest tomorrow on former New York Gov. David Patersons WOR New York City radio program to talk about the importance of the Constitution. The invitation to Corsi came after Paterson stirred up a hornets nest by suggesting Barack Obama could be ineligible for the Oval Office and got away with it. Paterson also compared Obamas actions to those of President Richard Nixon, which he likened to treason. On his show, he was asserting, along with NBC Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd, that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney should have distanced himself more from developer Donald Trump and his doubts about Obamas eligibility. Even if he wasnt born in the United States, at this point, its kind of like he got away with it, Paterson said. A lot of people get away with a lot of things. Paterson compared Obamas actions to those of President Nixon. We learned later that Nixon spied on Johnsons Paris peace talks, Paterson said. That was actually an act of uh I mean it was against the interests of the U.S. government. Youve got to say that before you would say its treason. But he got away with it. Decided it wasnt a good thing to bring up at that particular time. Not only did he get away with it, he won the election. Corsi told WND he had agreed to be on the Paterson show to discuss the eligibility issue, which he defined succinctly as being the Constitution itself. The threshold question [over the Obama issue] is whether or not youre eligible, Corsi told WND. The rest is irrelevant.
1 of 3
7/31/2012 5:51 PM
The Paterson comments have been posted online by WOR. The focal point of the dispute over Obamas tenure in the White House has been whether he meets the Constitutions requirement of being a natural born citizen. The term is not defined in the Constitution but most likely was considered by those who wrote it to mean the offspring of two U.S. citizens. According to that interpretation, Obama is not eligible to be president, because his father, Barack Obama Sr., never was a citizen of the United States. The questions revolve around his birth location, because he has claimed his birth in Hawaii makes him a natural-born citizen. Obama repeatedly has refused to release a long list of documents that likely would shed like on the controversy, which heated up two weeks ago when Breitbart.com released a 1990s publicity brochure from a publishing house advertising Obama as an author. The bio plainly stated that Obama was born in Kenya. We just cant ignore the Constitution, Corsi told WND. The issue also has been shoved back into the headlines this week by multiple comments from billionaire Donald Trump, who earlier in the week blasted CNN for not reporting on the issue more accurately. The businessman told lead political anchor Wolf Blitzer the network would improve its dismal viewer ratings if it would only report the issue of Obamas eligibility accurately. Obama does not like the issue of where he was born, Trump told Blitzer in the interview. Theres something that bothers Obama very much. I will tell you: Its not an issue that he likes talking about, so what he does is use reverse psychology on people like you. He does not like that issue because its hitting very close to home. You know it, and he knows it but you dont report it accurately. The heated exchange between Blitzer and Trump can be seen here. Sign the petition now to show members of Congress how many Americans demand constitutional integrity. Many media commentators believe Trumps comments have put Romney in an awkward position. Romney has said he believes Obama was born in the U.S., but Democrats have criticized him for not distancing himself from Trump. Even Obama took aim at the pair by releasing a video highlighting Mitt Romneys failure to condemn Donald Trumps over-the-line rhetoric. If Mitt Romney lacks the backbone to stand up to a charlatan like Donald Trump because hes so concerned about lining his campaigns pockets, the Obama campaign said, what does that say about the kind of president he would be? Romney has refused to condemn Trump, saying, You know, I dont agree with all the people who support me. My guess is they dont agree with everything I believe in. But I need to get 50.1 percent or more and Im appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people. For more than a year, Trump has consistently maintained he has doubts the Obama birth certificate released by the White House is genuine. As WND reported in March 2011, Trump said Obamas presidency could be illegal if legitimate proof is not provided demonstrating he is indeed a natural born citizen of the U.S. Trump also wondered why no doctors or nurses have come forward to announce their presence at Obamas birth. In March and April of 2011, Trump staged a weeks-long public campaign questioning Obamas eligibility to be president, rising to the top of the pool of potential candidates for the 2012 GOP nomination as a result. I always said I wanted to know if it was real, Trump told WND senior reporter Corsi.
2 of 3
7/31/2012 5:51 PM
During their conversation, Trump told Corsi his own computer expert told him that the image posted online was a computergenerated document. Then, in March, the famous billionaire heaped praise on Sheriff Joe Arpaio for the Arizona lawmans probe into the authenticity of Obamas purported birth certificate and his eligibility for office. Following the Maricopa County sheriffs Cold Case Posse news conference March 1 in Phoenix, Trump personally penned a handwritten note of congratulations to Arpaio. Having printed out an Associated Press report of the event that featured a photograph of Arpaio, Trump penned diagonally in the upper left hand corner, Joe Great going You are the only one with the guts to do this Keep up the good fight Donald Trump. Corsi also told WND an intelligence source in Hawaii who warned early last year that a forged Obama birth record would be released also is reporting a forged original birth certificate intended to pass forensic inspection by using 1961 materials is being prepared and could be released as an October surprise. The source, who has contact with Hawaii government officials, was questioned by Mike Zullo, the head of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaios Cold Case Posse team. Zullo recently returned from a trip to Hawaii to follow up on leads in the posses investigation of Obamas eligibility for the 2012 election ballot in Arizona. Arpaio announced March 1 that his team found probable cause that the document posted by the White House April 27, 2011, is a forgery. Zullo told WND that regardless of whether the Hawaii sources information pans out, he wants to see the original microfilm record of Obamas birth. If they decide to try to produce a document, were going to be skeptical, he said. Weve been calling for the microfilm from the beginning. The Hawaii source said ink and paper from 1961 have been secured to create an original document that would correspond with the digital copy posted on the White House website. As WND reported one year ago, radical supporters of Obama have openly admitted their role in the forging of a Kenyan Obama birth certificate.
3 of 3
7/31/2012 5:51 PM
Exhibit d-d
.- *--. . ..
'
*
f
't
/.
C .
/
L +
,
. T _ _ . - --.-- f i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m i --..r-. u ~ ~ ~
*,,
..
> '
4
._
SAFEGUARD IT.
-.
.._.
..
-.
I LAST NAME. FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAMK
SERVICE NUMBER
3. SOCIAL SECURITY NUYOER
1 DEPARTMENT. COMPONENT A N D BRANCH OR C U S S
Sa
ORADS. RATE OR RANK
7. U
5 CITIZEN
=NO
8 PLACE O F BIRTH
f ed Slodl b) Coun-) C
'rE
I
CODE
PAT
D, AE
$LK
L,
YES
I
1 0 a SELECTIVE SERVICE NUMBER
I
c
SELECrnrE SERVICE L O W BOARD NUMBER. CIT*. COUNTY. J I A T l AND ZIP
DATE INDUCTED
I t P TYPE O F TRANSFER OR DISCHARGE
blew f ' m active d ~ w

c R U S O N A N D AUTWORIW
I
U
I
STAl'lON OR INSTALLATION A
I
-i lk
CDIB
AM
I2
-0 1,
chap 3 S4c B Para , ,
(SDQI
m3)a AFM3S5
a W A R I C I E R O r SUVICE
LAST DUTY ASSIGNMENT A N 0 M N O R COYMAND
I4
01STRICT. AREA COMMAND OR CORPS T O WIO( RESERVIST TRANSFERRED
USAFR
Ls,
TERMINAL DATE OF RESERVE/ uMT~S OBLIGATION MONTH
YAR
17 C
RTLRM U r oc
SERVICE
1 I* C
8.)
REENLISTMENT
CODE
DA~C
- - *TRY
YEA-
DAY
SOURCE O F ENTRY2
MONTH
4
10. PRIOR
REGULAR
ENL~~TYENTS19. GRADE. RATE OR RINK
AT TIME OF
aa
PUCE
OF ENTRY ~ N T O CURRENT ACTWE SERVKE
~d S-J
- WILBUR A. LEVIN
'ps10.0~
30 REMARUS
nss*XXI
tj G N . ~ '
* Caep
Z
LY
E
Completed 1 year. mood O ~ l r f f s . 0 9 *-95, ~ 4 , - , B-95 BAC, 9~-67, WD RAC Center, Flla # OohnP, Ft BoWird, E. . D
'
..
ate
.
~ I J W S E SAFTER T M N S C U ) OR DISCWARE
LIBERA@&,- PP.cE./
Z
aI
p E n M ~ N E N r \ O D w s S FOR ~
UilLlN0
37 SIGNATURE O t PERSON OelNO TRANSFERRED OR DISCHARGED ..
1'i'
-.i: -
; '
(.
DD,,xgl. 2 1 4
P~EV~OU~DITIO~ OP
"
FORM AREORSO
"
ARMED FORCES OF M UNITED STATES E
Exhibit e-e
12-28-80
1S:47
CE
STRUNK
4 .'
Stare of New York
L e g i s l a t i v e Resolution
Senate No. 1073
BY: Smnator Connor
Aaaambly No. 1249
BY: Mr. Lmntol
COMMENDING Chrirtapher Strunk and the Naw York state Facilities Davalopment Corporation by Rabbi Ch. M. Struberg Christopher Stpunk and the CorpoPation, It is the *ens. englneer and staff of t r u l y
WEREAS Attmndant to the praise expressed ~ ~ . c u t l v m i r & t o rof Perach Tikvah, Inc honorin ~ effort of t h e Naw York State Facrlit~erdevelopmen? of this Assembled Body to commend a construction magnanimous conduct and bearlng; and
WEREAS. Christopher Strunk, a c o n ~ t r u c t i o nengineer f o r the New York State Fsctlltlcs Development Corporation and his comp0tmnt stpff did, so sin ularl labor t o assure the sucterrful devalopment of the community rasldence a t $74-271 Division Avenue, Brooklyn, New York; and
WHEREAS This rasidanoe is a facility, with s home-like decor. housing fourtmnn femare rasidentr, each of whom is emotionally disadvanta ad; thm f l c l l i t y is p a r t of Pesach Tikvah, Inc., under the direction of Rabbi M. Staubar. Executive Director; and
c%.
of WHEREAS, This Assembled Body Is justly ~ r o u d i t 8 c m y i t m e n t t o t h e emotionully di$advantagmd. It 1 s moreover, s e r ~ o u r l y camrnltted t o t h e consummate efflorescenca o/ human &nity; and
I
WHEREAS Perach Tlkvah, Inc. so t r u l y mirrors an unramittlng retolvn, a total commitmht t o those suffering from ematlonal retardation; and WHEREAS Chriatophar Strunk did perform abbve and beyond the rssponribllitids of job and duty; Chris' parsonal concern f o r the ruccessful implementation of the program of Pesach Tikvah, Inc. honors every citizen o f this Empire State; and WHEREAS It is for his perception of the value and worth of others, f o r hla innate and i n ~ e n u o u s eonearn for tho preservation and anhancement of human dignity that this Arsembled Body commends Christophar Strunk and t h e competent staff of the New York State Facilities Development Corporatlon; and WHEREAS. The ,dedication ceremony for the facility is tentrtlvely planned for Thursday June thlrtmmnth n~natean hundred eighty-five; Christopher Strunk will ba cited for special honAr; and WHEREAS Through his unselfish dedication and competent discharge of d u t y c h r i s t i p h s r Strunk has brought enduring honor to t h e New York Stat* ~aclllt~es DevelOprhent COrporrtion; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED That this Legislative Body pause i n Its deliberations and most o y o u ~ l y ,comm;nd Christopher Strunk and the staff o f the Naw York State kacliities Dsveloprnant Carparatian, extending, In turn, our most rlneere wish f o r succars of Pesach Tikvah, Inc.; and be I t further the con~$Inmate
P.02 S:48
C E STRUNK
ID=718 574 7701
Exhibit f-f
Document Provided by the American Patriot Foundation
safeguardourconstitution.com
November 20, 2009 Primary Care DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic MEMORANDUM FOR General Casey, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army SUBJECT: Complaint of Wrongs Under Article 138, UCMJ (AR 27-10) 1. I would like to officially submit a complaint under Article 138, UCMJ against General Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army. I believe General Casey is following and promulgating invalid and/or illegal orders from a person that is not eligible to be the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces. 2. I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Barrack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen to be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States and Commander-inChief of our Armed Forces. Therefore, all orders directed by or guidance followed by order of Barrack Obama are invalid orders, and General Casey is violating his Oath of Office. General Casey is also making it impossible for all Officers under him to uphold their Oath of Office. 3. I request that General Casey formally address all Officers of the Army with a statement and verifiable evidence that we are not in violation of our sworn Oath of Office, UCMJ, or the Constitution, by serving under our current Commander-in-Chief. The verifiable evidence could consist of Barrack Obamas long form (vault copy) of his Birth Certificate, school transcripts, applications for financial aid, selective service records and Passport records. In the absence of verifiable evidence of eligibility for Barrack Obama to hold the Office of President, he should be given no more rights or privileges than another citizen or resident (legal or illegal). He would not be able to relieve any Officer nor would he require impeachment by Congress, as he should not have been eligible to be elected. 4. I believe that if our Commander-in-Chief is not eligible to hold the Office of the President, there is a core breakdown in our chain of command. This leads to concerns that all Officers in the military are no longer upholding their Oath of Office, and may be directly or indirectly carrying out orders given by a person that does not lawfully hold a position of Command, thereby bringing to question whether the orders are lawful orders. These orders may not be direct orders, but most likely are indirect, strategic and organizational, but nonetheless, are orders that can have direct effects upon all Soldiers and me. 5. I believe there could be a violation of law or regulation by requiring me and other Officers to follow commands that are issued by someone that may not be a lawful Commander. This personally affects me and could affect my loyalty to uphold the Constitution and orders from my chain of command. There is significant evidence or unanswered speculation that Mr. Obama is not eligible to have been elected to the Office of the President and serve as our Commander In Chief.
6. Reviewing FM 6-22 Army Leadership (especially most of chapter 2, para 4-73 thru 4-77) grounds me in my belief that I have a duty to submit this concern. I have agreed to live by the Army Values of LDRSHIP, and these values directly apply: Loyalty- Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit, and other Soldiers; Selfless ServicePut the welfare of the Nation, the Army, and subordinates before your own. Integrity- Do whats rightlegally and morally. I also have agreed to expect the same from my Leaders. 7. I have not received formal guidance from supervisors, chain of command, nor military legal advisors as of yet. My request from these sources for guidance has been lacking in my perception. I state this fact only as requesting leniency if there is some procedural error that I may need to correct, or the need to add, delete or change any supporting documentation. I attempted to make this complaint within 90 days of recognizing the wrong through my previous chain of command, but was told I had no recourse. 8. If General Casey were unable to address this complaint, I would expect that this complaint be forwarded to the Commander exercising court-martial jurisdiction over General Casey. I would expect appropriate action to be taken to correct the possibility that General Casey is following and promulgating invalid/un-Constitutional orders and therefore subjugating all Army Officers to unlawful orders and inability to uphold their Oath of Office. 9. I have attached 2 supporting documents that I believe are open source or permission has been implied that they may be used for purposes similar to this request. I believe they provide a quick summary of concerns and provide links to other sources of information. I do not necessarily subscribe to all the information or views contained in them, only that they serve as a concise source of opinion and other references that may be explored. If any are deemed not admissible, I would ask for a few days allowance to obtain official permission or find other sources of information. 10. This is an important issue for me to address and I think it affects all Officers and Soldiers. I will continue to be the valued Soldier/Officer that I think I have been for the past 15 years. I do not seek any grandstanding or publicity for this action; I only feel that this is important enough to my Oath of Office and my loyalty to our Country and Constitution to address this. 11. If this complaint cannot be addressed in a proper manner under the Constitutional Laws or UCMJ, I will have to conclude that my Oath of Office has been made impossible for me to uphold, by action or inaction of the U.S. Army. My Oath, and all contractual agreements will be invalidated. I would retain the right to consider legal recourse to recover all pay and future benefits that would be lost by the one-sided alteration/invalidation of my Oath/contracts with the Army, DoD and the U.S. Government.
Terry L. Lakin DO, MPH LTC, MC Chief, Primary Care, DTHC

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD CASE 10-cv-0486 (RCL)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On August 9, 201 2,1, Christopher Earl Strunk, under penalty of perjury pursuant to
28 USC 1746,
caused the service of a copy of the EX RE Plaintiff Notice of Motion to Re-argue and file a first supplement with supporting affidavit affirmed August 8,2012with to the Proposed Amended the Complaint with the proposed first supplement affirmed August 8,201 2 annexed with exhibits a-a through f-f with a complete set placed in a sealed folder properly addressed with proper postage served with Urgent Legal Service Personal and ConJidentialunder seal written in the envelope lower left comer for delivery by the USPS certified with return receipt mail upon: Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General The US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530
031%
Ug6d Q - l
,270
Barack Hussein Obama I1 in esse C/O The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Wa hington C 20500
O ~
odP,
Z
000) ,270
1584
Richard L. Skinner Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington Navy Yard Bldg 41 0, 245 Murray Drive W.S.W. Washin ton DC 20528
%s*
omt 7879
WJ-
Eric M. Thorson Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20220 7011 W 0 @ a Z - 7 8 7 Y Marco Ciavolino Enktesis, LLC 1603 Belvue Drive Forest Hill, MD 21050-2508
'
ypd
1 do declare and certify under penalty of perjury: Dated: August 9 , 2 0 12 Brooklyn, New York 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn., New York 11238 (845) 901 -6767 Email: chris@,strunk.ws (
U.S. Postal Service"~elhrery Confinnation"Receipt
+ Posta~ostageand DellveryConffrmatknfees mustbe paid befwe mailing.

F dJ
P
Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) (Endorsement Required)
ru
0 Restr!cted Delivery Fee
POSTAL CUSTOMER: Keep this receipt. For Inqulrles:

Access internetwebsite at www.usps.com or call 1-800-222-1811
@
CMCK ONE ( O T LUSE omr) P SA
IIIUI
Description
Qty Price
Price
Product / Service Rate Inquiries WASHINGTON D 20001 C $18.95 Zone-3 Express Mai 1 PO-Add Flat Rate Env 8.50 02. Label # :EI000765202US Sat 08/11/12 12:OOPM - Expected Delivery Money Back Guarantee Signature Requested
-------$18.95
Issue PVI:
WASHINGTON D 20500 C $5,15 Zone-! P r i o r i t y Mai 1 F l a t Rate Env 8.50 oz. Expected Delivery: Sat 08111/12 Del ivery Conf irmat ion $0,75 Label # : 03120860000 172701589 Issue PVI: $5,90
--------
WASHINGTON DC 20220 $5,15 Zone-3 P r i o r i t y Mail Flat Rate Env 8.60 oz, Expected Delivery: Sat 08/11/12 Return Rcpt (Green $2.35 Card) $2,95 Certified Label #: 70 113500000278744508 Issue PVI: FOREST HILL M 21050 D Zone-2 P r i o r i t y Mail Flat Rate Env 8.50 or. Issue PVI: $10.45
ij oJ
Y *L-
1
2
a-,
-------$5,15
WASHINGTON D 20530 C $5.15 Zone-3 P r i o r i t y Mai 1 F l a t Rate Env 8.50 02. Expected Delivery : Sat 08111/12 Del ivery Confirmation $0.75 Label #:- --- - 03 1208600001727019 16 --------------Issue PVI: $5.90 WASHINGTON D 20528 C $5,15 Zone-3 P r i o r i t y Mai 1 Flat Rate Env 8.60 02, Expected Delivery: Sat 08/11/12 Return Rcpt (Green $2.35 Card) Certified $2.95 Label #: 70 11350000027874451 5 --------------Issue PVI: $10.45
1:10-cv-00486-RCL STRUNK v. OBAMA et al

Royce C. Lamberth, presiding Date filed: 03/24/2010 Date terminated: 01/06/2011 Date of last filing: 08/01/2012 CLOSED,JURY,PROSE-NP,TYPE-F
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:10-cv-00486-RCL
STRUNK v. OBAMA et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth Demand: $22,000,000 Cause: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights Date Filed: 03/24/2010 Date Terminated: 01/06/2011 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK United States ex rel. represented by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK 593 Vanderbilt Avenue Apartment 281 Brooklyn, NY 11238 (845) 901-6767 PRO SE
V. Defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II also known as BARRY SOETORO Defendant OBAMA FOR AMERICA Defendant OBAMA VICTORY FUND Defendant FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (FEC) Defendant
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY (DOT) Defendant JOHN AND JAN DOE(S) Defendant XYZ ENTITIES
Date Filed
# Docket Text
03/24/2010 1 COMPLAINT against FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, JOHN AND JAN DOE(S), BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA, OBAMA VICTORY FUND, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616028454) filed by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1 - 10, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(zrdj) (Entered: 03/25/2010) 03/24/2010 SUMMONS Not Issued as to FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, JOHN AND JAN DOE(S), BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA, OBAMA VICTORY FUND, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, XYZ ENTITIES (zrdj) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
03/24/2010 2 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK. Case related to Case No. 10-151. (zrdj) (Entered: 03/25/2010) 10/28/2010 3 Judicial NOTICE by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK ("Let this be filed" by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 10/28/10)(zrdj) (Entered: 11/03/2010) 01/06/2011 4 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (This document is un-SEALED pursuant to 6 Memorandum and Order)Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 1/5/11.(zrje) Modified on 8/1/2012 (rdj). (Entered: 01/06/2011) 08/01/2012 5 MOTION for Leave to File an Amended Complaint by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amended Complaint(Note: Portions of these exhibits are illegible on ECF.))(zrdj) (Treated as Motion per Court's 6 Memorandum and Order) (Entered: 08/01/2012) 08/01/2012 6 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Denying 5 Motion for Leave to file Amended Complaint ; The entire file in this case is hereby UNSEALED, sua sponte, and the Court's prior order shall be filed on the public record as an attachment to this order. The proposed Amended Complaint is frivolous. Plaintiff has no more standing now than he had in 2011, and plaintiff has set forth no proper basis for this Court to require the President of the United States - as the only named party herein- to appear and defend against this frivolous action... Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 7/31/2012.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Court's prior order) (zrdj) (Entered: 08/01/2012) 08/01/2012 ***Case Unsealed pursuant to 6 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER filed 8/1/2012. (zrdj) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
08/01/2012 7 ORDER unsealing entire case and all documents. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 8/1/12. (jeb, ) (Entered: 08/02/2012)
Case 1:10-cv-00486-RCL Document 6 Filed 08/01/12 Page 1 of 1
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 845-901-6767 chris@strunk.ws The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth Chief Judge for the United States Court for the District of Columbia 333 Constitution Avenue NW Washington D.C. 20001 Regarding: Seal v Seal DCD 10-cv-00486 Subject: Request for leave to Reopen and Amend the Complaint For a Quo Warranto Inquest of Barack Hussein Obama II The Honorable Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth, I am Plaintiff, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse (Petitioner), self represented without an attorney in the above sealed case filed March 24, 2010 and having been dismissed without prejudice by the Memorandum and Order of January 5, 2011 (see Exhibit A); and hereby declare and say under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 1746 that to the extent that this case remains sealed it may be reopened according to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCvP) based upon the accrual of facts of actual personal injury since dismissal without prejudice. That FRCvP Rules and related statutes allow the Court discretion with jurisdiction to afford Plaintiff to renew and amend the Complaint in the proposed simplified form of Quo Warranto inquest for Barack Hussein Obama II to show cause why he should not be considered ineligible for the Office of President of the United States (POTUS), and upon further finding in camera the Court should unseal this case and order that Plaintiff Christopher-Earl Strunk is innocent of wrongdoing for contending that to be eligible under U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 a person must be born in the USA of two US Citizen parents to be deemed a natural-born Citizen (NBC) as the SCOTUS precedent of Minor. v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627 says; and that the Court may issue an order as an exception to the RookerFeldman Doctrine on the basis that in the NBC Federal matter the State Court wrongly sanctioned Christopher Earl Strunk for his meritorious contention that Barack Hussein Obama II is not NBC because he has a British Subject father then married to US Citizen Stanley Ann Obama when born on or about August 4, 1961, and with further findings of fact(s). Petitioner hereby establishes that Strunks particularized injury as of this date is based upon the legal standards explained in the Order shown as Exhibit A.; and in that this Court construes Strunk's filing as a complaint in its own right remains unchallenged, and addresses the fact that as of January 5, 2011 had not established individual injury as a requirement for a case or controversy Article III Standing that must be solved as a threshold matter, - now has cured pleading defects that warrants expedited relief and remedy. As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing standing. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 104; Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. The "irreducible constitutional minimum of standing" consists of three elements. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. Petitioner contends his affidavit of June 26, 2012 To Whom it May Concern (see Exhibit E) demonstrates all three elements to establish his standing requirement. Personal Injury #1: That described at paragraph 3 of Petitioners Affidavit shown as Exhibit E, Strunk has been deprived his First Amendment and civil rights with use of 42 USC 1983 from ever seeking relief in USDC of the EDNY in the matter of his challenge to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II and or his New York Elector slate of 2008 and or in the 2012 Election cycle as to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II of US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 by Judge Allyne Ross order (see Exhibit D).
Strunk Request to Reopen and Amend the Complaint Page 1 of 3
Personal Injury #2: That described at paragraph 21 through paragraph 22 of Petitioners Affidavit shown as Exhibit E, Strunk has been sanctioned with deprivation of his civil right to ever file any case in the State of New York Supreme Court and is barred from ever challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II and or his New York Elector slate of 2008 and or in the 2012 Election cycle as to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II of US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 (see Exhibit N). Personal Injury #3: That described at paragraph 1 through paragraph 19 as a compelling NBC Federal issue of Petitioners Affidavit shown as Exhibit E, that as a result of the arbitrary Federal and State court orders shown as Exhibits N and D, Strunk has been deprived his First, 4th , 5th 6th , 7th , 8th 9th and 10th Amendment civil rights, when spurious Court actions deem any challenge to the NBC eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II sanction able, and renders moot the required notice of intent to file a claim at the New York State Court of Claims (see Exhibit E sub Exhibit 3) for the personal damages $358,410.00 accrued as a result of the unlawful facilitation and alleged misprision of a felony by the New York State Board of Elections and its agents in the 2008 presidential election cycle through the present 2012 election cycle with the NBC Federal issue of their malicious malfeasance with use of the required instruction to a candidate for the office of POTUS use Born a Citizen rather that natural-born Citizen as required under US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 and the State continues with impunity as if by a Star Chamber. Personal Injury #4: That described at the hearing transcript of May 7, 2012 of NYS SC County of Kings Case with Index No.: 2011-6500, Strunk was before Justice Arthur M. Schack on the matter of Sanctions and Court costs (see Exhibit O) and that as a result Petitioner is subject to further levy pending perfection of Plaintiffs Notice of Appeal to the Second Department Appellate Division taken from the order shown as Exhibit N, and beyond the civil rights sanction to date there is no less than an accrued costs levy of no less than say $150,000 to say as much as $1,000,000 with the perfection of the appeal. As the First requirement. the Plaintiffs injury is concrete and particularized, as well as actual and or with imminent additional ongoing damage injury and harm, Petitioner is entitled to an expedited Quo Warranto Inquest relief and remedy to effect a personal defense in State Court with time as the essence. That the Petitioner has suffered no less than four (4) particularized injuries in fact involving the NBC Federal issue left unresolved by any State or Federal Court to date. The First Federal issue to be heard at a quo warranto inquest of Barack Hussein Obama II: Was and is Barack Hussein Obama II eligible as a natural-born Citizen to the office of POTUS when born in the United States with a British subject father while married to a US Citizen on or about August 4, 1961? The Second Federal Issue to be heard at a quo warranto inquest of Barack Hussein Obama II: Is Barack Hussein Obama II involved in spoliation and concealment in the misprision of a felony in regards to his release of the purported long-form birth certificate and other federal documents further injuring Petitioner Strunk and as proven by the investigation by Sheriff Arpaios affidavit of June 12, 2012 (see Exhibit B)? At Paragraph 7 of the Arpaio Affidavit shown as Exhibit B the Sheriff affirms: Upon close examination of the evidence, it is my belief that forgery and fraud was likely committed in key identity documents including President Obama's long form birth certificate, his Selective Service Registration card, and his Social Security number. The Third Federal issue to be heard at a quo warranto inquest of Barack Hussein Obama II: Is Barack Hussein Obama II eligible as a natural-born Citizen to the office of POTUS, as now suspected as a result of the investigation by Sheriff Arpaio, guilty of spoliation and willful concealment as a high crime meant
Strunk Request to Reopen and Amend the Complaint Page 2 of 3
to personally injure Plaintiff, and as Strunk noticed to the Albany County District Attorney andsthe New York State Board of Elections on February 3,2012 to no avail (see Exhibit M) depends on this Court? The Fourth Federal issue to be heard at a quo wananto inquest of Barack Hussein Obama 11: Is Barack Hussein Obama I1 eligible as a natural-born Citizen to the office of POTUS when born outside of the United States as now suspected as a result of the investigation by Sheriff Arpaio and by spoliation and concealment meant to further injure Plaintiff? That according to above paragraph and causes of action associated with the actual injury to Petitioner, all do satisfy the second element of standing that requires the plaintiff to show "a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of." That were this Court to hold an expedited quo warranto inquest in camera under seal involving Barack Hussein Obama 11's right to hold office as to the authority of the office of POTUS were to determine the answer to the above four federal questions affirmatively then Petitioner Strunk would be able to return to the State Court to perfect his actions, and thereby this request for leave to renew meets the Third and finally, "it must be 'likely,' as opposed to merely 'speculative,' that the injury will be 'redressed by a favorable decision."' Id. at 561 (quoting Simon v. E.Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26,41-42 (1976)). The matter of the upcoming August 2012 Democratic and Republican conventions to place their respective candidate for office of POTUS on the respective state general election ballot on November 6, 2012, requires an expedited inquest hearing on the attached simplified amended Complaint; and that as of this mailing has been provided to the respective US Attorney General and Respondent accordingly; let the expedited inquest be done in camera and remain under seal until the Court renders a decision and order. I have read the foregoing; and know the contents thereof apply to me as a continuing injury; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3d parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.
Dated: July 2012 Brooklyn New York 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 1.1238 845-901-6767 chris(ii),strunk.ws Attached: Proposed Amended Complaint with Exhibits A through Z Cc: Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General The US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Barack Hussein Obama I1 The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500
Stsunk Request to Reopen and Amend the Complaint Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SEAL v SEAL DCD CASE 10-cv-0486 (RCL) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On July 5, 2012, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC 1746, caused the service of a copy of the Strunk Letter Notice of Motion to Reopen and Amend with a Proposed Amended the Complaint for a Quo Warranto Inquest and Jury Trial on Damages affirmed July 5, 2012 with Exhibits A through Z annexed supporting the Letter Declaration signed July 5, 2012 with Exhibits annexed with a complete set placed in a sealed folder properly addressed with proper postage served with Urgent Legal Service Personal and Confidential under seal written in the envelope lower left corner for delivery by the USPS certified with return receipt mail upon:
Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General The US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Barack Hussein Obama II The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500
I do declare and certify under penalty of perjury:
Dated: July ___ , 2012 Brooklyn, New York
_________________________ Christopher- Earl : Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn., New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws
I.
F E E 2 258L_2UDD DOSE TTDL
U.S. Postal ~ e ~ c # ~ e l l v e r y rmation'Receipt Confi

r7
n~ Postageand Delhmy Confirmationfees must be paid before mailing.

3
g"
-iiF-ruoctr vrpc @pi ~ ( S f n ~ " r c ~ L v ~ ~ T ~ & c F ' ~ 9 3 3 c&&- A V ~ W

POSTAL CUSTOMER:
35
w *d*ecr
m l Sent To: (to be completed by mailer) c e
eoycr
c. h & n * , 4 r rh
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486

----------------------------------------------------------------x In the Quo Warranto and Qui Tam matter of the United States of America (USA) and ex relator Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn., New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws Plaintiff, v. Barack Hussein Obama II (a.k.a Barry Soetoro) c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20500; Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------------------x Civil Action: 10-cv-00486 (RCL) Assign Date: March 24, 2010
SEALED CASE
(PROPOSED)
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR QUO WARRANTO INQUEST AND JURY TRIAL ON DAMAGES
INTRODUCTION: Ex-relator Plaintiff Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse (Strunk), is self-represented without being an attorney, having filed the Complaint assigned under seal to the Honorable Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth March 24, 2010, and that Strunk provided the required time for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to decide, but DOJ passed on intervention. And as such on July 13, 2010 Ex-relator Strunk filed a Motion to unseal and release the summons to respondent(s); and to wit the Court on standing dismissed the complaint without prejudice by the Memorandum and Order of January 5, 2011; and that the Court construes the Complaint in its own right, for standing to restore to the calendar requires that Strunk prove a particularized personal injury with a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, and the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision (see Exhibit A).
Amended Verified Complaint
Page 1 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 1. The gravamen of this action is that Strunk, as a registered voter enrolled in the New York State Republican Party in the 2008 election cycle and remaining so in the 2012 cycle, wrongfully suffers from pains and penalties punishment injury stripping individual civil rights and liberty with damages imposed by the Federal and State Courts in New York; and that the injury to Strunk is directly caused by Barack Hussein Obama II (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah, a.k.a. Barack Obama and hereinafter known as Defendant) by malicious spoliation and concealment of evidence of misprision of a felony, sedition and treason involved with his ineligibility to hold the office of President of the United States (POTUS); and JURISDICTION 2. Pursuant of the above Introduction Strunk has four (4) particular injuries and four (4) Federal issues described below and requests as an exception to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine to be heard regarding injury to Strunk caused by Barack Hussein Obama II the punitive President of the United States (POTUS) with Federal Rules for Civil Procedures (FRCvP) Rule 81 (A) (2), as the USA and ex-relator Plaintiff who has additional Causes of action based upon his actual injuries caused by Defendant Obamas failure to be eligible for the office of POTUS, and whose acts of spoliation and concealment in the misprision of a felony to prevent discovery of his ineligibility is defined with 18 USC 4 according to the investigation and June 12, 2012 Affidavit of Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joseph Arpaio (see Exhibit B) must be heard in a Quo Warranto Inquest; and that Jurisdiction would be had for Strunk and the United States of America (USA) as Ex-Relator(s) are Plaintiffs and or Ex-relator with 28 USC 1345 in which the USA is in fact plaintiff , except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress; and
Page 2 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 that this case is also done with 28 USC 1343 as a Civil rights and elective franchise, in which (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: (1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42; (2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent; (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; (4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote; that (b) For purposes of this section (1) the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a State; and (2) any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia; and as with State Action in Washington DC with 42 USC 1983; and That with 28 USC 1357 for injuries under Federal laws, the district court shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action commenced by any person to recover damages for any injury to his person or property on account of any act done by him, under any Act of Congress, for the protection or to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in any State; and
Page 3 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 That with 28 USC 1361, this action is to compel a purported officer of the United States to perform his duty, provides that the district court shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the Plaintiff; and That with 42 USC 1985 for Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights of Plaintiff; and with the U.S. Constitution in its entirety especially Article 2 Section 1 with related State Law as applies to appointment of an electoral college in each state, and the remedy available using the Fourteenth Amendment for violation of rights and liberty associated with the first 10 Amendments of Article 7, and the relief that shall be provided with the 25th Amendment. And that Plaintiff by the nature of his particular injury has determined that Barack Hussein Obama II has usurped the POTUS, and that all his actions are void ab initio, thereby entitling that Ex-relator Strunk standing with Qui Tam provisions intends to recover for the USA all the payments, reimbursements provided to Barack Hussein Obama II by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and related agencies since 2008 through the present with punitive damages. VENUE 3. Pursuant to the above Introduction and paragraphs 1 through 2, Venue is properly had in this particular District Court for the District of Columbia that affords the proper venue under 28 USC 1391 (e) (1) for this action in that Defendant Obama in esse is usurping the Corporate office of the POTUS located within the District of Columbia, and the failure of Defendant Obama in esse to act in good faith with his corporate duty within the District of Columbia, in that Plaintiff s Ex-Relator(s) Petition (see Exhibit C) demands the Quo Warranto Act mandates with the DC Code Chapter 35 Title 16 3503 that this Court create an inquest / jury trial to determine the issue of facts: (i) whether or not both his parents were United States Citizens at
Page 4 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 his birth; (ii) the Defendant Obama cover-up, and thereafter, (iii) a jury trial on the facts of the injury and damages that the Court as a matter of law must uphold the natural-born-Citizen (NBC) requirement of Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 (1) of the United States Constitution. PARTIES 4. Ex-Relator, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse (hereinafter "Plaintiff", Ex-Relator), is an individual with place for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn, NY 11238, Email: chris@strunk.ws, SKYPE: cestrunk and Telephone (845) 901-6767. 5. That Strunk depends upon the Law of Nations meaning of the United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 term of art natural-born Citizen (2) when after October 20, 2008 Strunk petitioned in the U.S.D.C. in the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) Docket No.: 08-cv-4289 assigned to Judge Allyne R. Ross before the November 4, 2008 General Election in New York, and who decided sua sponte on October 28, 2008 to dismiss the complaint with prejudice holding that it is sanction-ably frivolous (see Exhibit D) when quote: ..Plaintiff seeks (a) "public notice of every certified Presidential elector slate on the ballot," (b) an order striking from the ballot any certified elector with more than one public position, (c) an order restraining use of the state seal for any elector holding more than one public position, and (d) proof that Senator Obama is a natural born citizen. Compl. at 11. On October 22, 2008,.. 7/5/2012
1
Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution lists the requirements for President:
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.
2
The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the law of nature by Emer de Vattel and Joseph Chitty at Section 212. reads:
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to it authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed as matter of course, that each citizen , on entering into society, reserve to children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. (Emphasis added by Strunk)
Page 5 of 52
that the action is "(i) frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is frivolous if its "factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy," or if it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory" - that is, when it lacks an arguable basis in law ... or [when] a dispositive defense clearly exists on the face of the complaint." Livingston v. Adirondack Bev. Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) ..To the extent plaintiff raises state law claims, those claims are dismissed without prejudice. The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore informa pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Emphasis by Strunk) That according to Strunks Affidavit To Whom it may concern affirmed on June 26, 2012 (see Exhibit E), after Judge Ross order shown as Exhibit D, Strunk then on October 29, 2008 petitioned as a matter of state law for a mandamus in the New York State Supreme Court for the County of Kings with Index No.: 2008-29641 with a companion Complaint with Index No.: 2008-29642 seeking a law of the case review question of first impression then assigned to the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. at I.A.S. Elections Part 1, and after the November 3, 2008 substantive hearing of issues of state law with a transcript (see Exhibit F) on December 4, 2008 Justice Schmidt issued a decision and order as to the electoral college slate of New York State Officers with two jobs for pay to vote (see Exhibit E Sub-exhibit 1) as contrary to the NYS Constitution despite the State of New York Legislatures exclusive power under the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 as a newly found Federal right, and despite the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) unanimously held in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), that any candidate for federal office is a matter of compelling state interest of the State Legislature and therefore the People of the state of New York, with the proviso that any change to the eligibility of a proposed candidate that fails to make sure of the eligibility ballot status for office of POTUS other than natural-born Citizen (NBC) eligibility of a POTUS
Page 6 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 candidate status, would apply also to a naturalized citizen or even allow a permanent resident alien ballot status illegally, and that according to the SCOTUS in the case U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) no state exclusive power exists to change the eligibility of a Federal officer and it is just plain outrageously ludicrous to suggest changing eligibility status of any Federal officer especially the POTUS; and as such Justice Schmidt irrespective of any discussion of the merits of the ineligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II wrongly deemed the NBC issue a Federal Question starting at transcript page 38 shown on Exhibit F quote: THE COURT: I thought he proved that he was born in Hawaii yesterday. MR. STRUNK: There was no proof. THE COURT: I thought he released the birth certificate. MR. STRUNK: It was not a birth certificate. It was a certificate of live birth, which Hawaii could accept from any country, a certificate of registration of a live birth. It's just different than a THE COURT: Was it accepted the same day he was born? MR. STRUNK: That according -- there is an exhibit 16 which Goes to that issue. THE COURT: What does it have to do with me? MR. STRUNK: Well THE COURT: This is a Federal question as to whether or not he can serve as the president. MR. STRUNK: I would like to get a restraint on who the electoral college, if hes not qualified , a natural born citizen , we can' t permit a THE COURT: You maybe in the wrong forum. If the Federal -- if the Feds don't stop him and are not enforcing that portion of the law that requires him to be a citizen or at least proving that he is a citizen or was born in the United States that you know, a State judge will not be able to , in a back way, not allow the electors to vote MR. STRUNK: Certainly the Federal Constitution would require that anybody unless -electors are not private individuals, they're public officers , and therefore must take an oath, at least be willing to take an oath to support the Constitution of the State of New York and the US Constitution and part of that -- because there is no statute that says somebody, somebody is going to collect this certificate of birth, no where in any Federal Law does it say a senator must submit his certificate of birth or anywhere, it's something where if a citizen doesn't have standing to say, who has THE COURT: You may have standing in the wrong court though. I would think this would be a Federal Court issue as to whether or not he is born in the United States per se. If they, if they validate it, then I would think that, you know, we can, they can vote for him (emphasis by Strunk Court bias intends to vote for Obama)
Page 7 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 MR. STRUNK: The electors, the voters on the fourth do not vote for any candidate except for the electoral slate and that's plain and simple. The real election occurs starting the 15th and it's got to be completed by the 24th of December so there is a possibility of seven, eight, nine days of per diem for the Electoral College to deal with these questions. And based upon the winner take all process, we may have to eliminate the public officers who have now become Federal Officers eight or nine or ten from the Democrats, which brings it down to 20 Democrat electors, and then the next highest number would come out of the vote getters, so there would be 15 Republican electors and quite a battle for maybe nine days who -- it's up to them. They are the ones elected to solve those problems so that I'm interested in a judicial subpoena of travel records from 1960, 1963. THE COURT: You asked for that in your papers? MR. GRABER: No. MR. STRUNK: That is in my affidavit. Let's see. I'm asking that in my supporting affidavit which it says on page paragraph 16 of my supporting affidavit, page five of seven, furthermore that preliminary injunction hearing with New York State Board of Elections and its agent, including the Director of Elections and New York State Secretary of State who must show why they should not performed due diligence to ascertain whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is a natural born citizen and affected by the allegations in the aforementioned case. On paragraph 15, where the mother is is where the birth occurred. And that the United States State Department has those records which are prima facie whether she was inside or outside the country. And there is testimony recorded of Sarah Obama, who is essentially -- was present at the birth in Mombasa and that there was a restriction on airplane flight which did not permit a pregnant woman to enter back into the country because of the pregnancy and the near giving birth. And therefore, in Hawaii the actual original full certificate of birth showing Mombasa Hospital presence is on record in Hawaii right now and that there is only a registration, which is how Hawaii worked in 1961, they just become a state. They were essentially a protectorate of the United States. It was entirely structured of how people registered under a US protectorate so that a registration of a live birth is what was issued and what was shown by the [A]nnenberg Foundation who had a conflict of interest being one of their attorneys in the first place THE COURT: Just a minute. What do you have to say about that? MR. GRABER: This is not part of the order to show cause that we're hearing this morning. The State was not noticed that Mr. Strunk was making an application with respect to Senator Obama's citizenship. It seems as though Mr. Strunk's concerns with Obama's place of origins are mainly the focus of a separate action which is under a separate index number. He provided a summons and complaint in that action, but it's not a matter before Your Honor. Of course, everything that Mr. Strunk has just said and everything that he's put in his papers with respect to Senator Obama is derived from the Internet. MR. STRUNK: That's not true. MR. GRABER: Internet gossip. MR. STRUNK: Not true.
Page 8 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 MR. GRABER: Particularly from a lawsuit that was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which was dismissed on October 24th. That case is entitled Berg, BE-R-G, v. Obama. And the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the case for lack of standing. Same thing is true here. Mr. Strunk doesn't have any interesting whether Obama is the Democratic candidate or whom the electors are with respect to Obama from the standpoint of Obama's citizenship. He has a generalized interest that as any other person. That's not sufficient for standing. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania shouldn't be in this Court either. MR. STRUNK: The only thing that we have in this Country that holds us together is the Constitution, a social contract, and that fundamental of that social contract is whether or not we're going to elect a man who would run this country for four years who is alleged to be a foreigner, illegal, illegal alien who is improperly in this country, according to his reentry after coming back with an Indonesian passport when he entered back at age 18, that's covered in exhibit 16. Rather than getting details, I believe, I'm the only one in the country whose really, through my own experience, through the Department of Health, through my own tracking down birth certificates and affiliations, all sorts of skullduggery that I went to court for a year and half, two years over in Manhattan, I think it's absolutely essential that we see the travel records of the mother from 1960 to 1963 even in camera, even in camera if there is a privacy issue, this woman and her record is essentially the linchpin to whether or not we're going to have a man who, according to the past Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, a man of good standing with many courts, that somehow we should throw him MR. GRABER: It's simply not before Your Honor. THE COURT: How is it before Justice Souter today? MR. GRABER: According MR. STRUNK: According to Mr. Berg who was interviewed last night, he had submitted five days ago to Souter, who is the justice, single justice who deals with the Third Circuit, to order Obama to deliver a certificate of birth. That's what it's asking for. THE COURT: Okay. Decision reserved. Justice Schmidt shows bias in favor of Barack Obama as if eligible on the basis of being born in Hawaii with his reference to the Annenberg Foundation (Factcheck.org) release of the Short form CoLB, since proven to be a forgery, that goes to Defendant Obamas malicious spoliation concealment and misrepresentation; as such Schmidt violates his oath uses a 14th Amendment definition of Born a Citizen notwithstanding that Obamas legal father was a British subject. 6. That because Justice Schmidt would not grant a subpoena of the travels records of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama (Soetoro) for the period at or around the year of Barack Hussein Obama IIs birth, on November 22, 2008 Strunk filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Page 9 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 request of the U.S. Department of State (US DOS) and related agency for the passport and travel records of Respondent Obamas mother for the period before and after August 4, 1961. After great delay by the Obama Administration, Strunk received on July 29, 2010 a transmittal of documents certified from the attorney for the U.S. DOS; and on the FS-299 Application for renewal dated August 13, 1968 Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro removed Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah from her subsequent Passport (see Exhibit G), therein proving that Respondent Obama had been renamed by his adoptive father Lolo Soetoro, the Indonesian Army Lt. Colonel having married Stanley Ann Dunham subsequent to her divorce from Barack Hussein Obama Sr. by the Decree of March 20, 1964; and 7. With sufficient cause in support of filing a False Claim Act - Qui Tam Action -against Defendant Obama, Strunk filed the herein action under seal on March 24, 2010 and after the January 5, 2011 dismissal without prejudice shown as Exhibit A, Strunk according to his Affidavit To whom is may concern shown as Exhibit E at paragraph 7 thru 11 affirmed: 7. That the action with Index No.: 2008-29642 remains active despite denial of Plaintiffs attempt to perfect service nunc pro tunc and to amend was denied and is dependent upon consolidation with the case challenging the scheme to defraud with Index No.: 2011-6500. 8. That Justice Schmidt at the hearing the motions to perfect service nunc pro tunc and amend the case 2008-29642 attended by Joel Graber of the NYS Attorney Generals Office for the State suggested Plaintiff file a new case after determining that Plaintiff cause of action against John S. McCain is valid; and to wit on March 22, 2011 Plaintiff filed the new Complaint with Index No.: 2011-6500 and served defendants. 9. That Affirmant as a duly registered voter in New York owns his vote as it is his intangible property for his exclusive use at any election in the State that may not be transferred or sold under penalty of law, and as such the only privity and or contract that exists is between the respective candidate for whom the vote is cast; and is such privity with the intangible property is central to the core of the merits of the underlying Complaint with Index No.: 2011-6500, and no other complaint by Affirmant has named any candidate. 10. That the breach of public officer fiduciary duty case with Index No.: 2008-29642 in which there is Plaintiffs failure to perfect service is not prejudicial to the case with Index No.: 2011-6500 for a scheme to defraud with a six year statutory window associated with
Page 10 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 defendants interference with Plaintiffs liberty as is a result of State defendants malicious facilitation. 11. That the Scheme to defraud case with Index No.: 2011-6500 assigned to Justice Arthur M. Schack held a hearing on Defendants various motions to dismiss August 22, 2011, and other than the appearance of Joel Graber of the NYS Attorney Generals Office his appearance did not include the State of New York defendants either in their official or individual capacity who had not answered to the summons upon stipulation agreed to twice by Plaintiff previously. 8. That in the case with Index No.: 2011-6500 on August 22, 2011, Justice Schack held a hearing on various motions with Transcript (see Exhibit H) by a less than stellar stenographer, and even so therein it shows that Justice Schack is either plain stupid and or simply pure evil when he created a Straw man Argument by cherry picking a question asked of Strunk regarding what natural-born Citizen means in such a way as to make it appear that natural-born Citizen may only mean Born a Citizen with the 14th Amendment definition separate from parental citizen status permutations and develops the argument by conflating two questions at once rather than asking each separately at Transcript page 30-31 as shown on Exhibit H actually says: THE COURT: So essentially your argument is for someone to run for president of the United States under Article 2 of the constitution, it says you have to be a natural born citizen. (straw man question): That means that not only you have to be born within the United States of America, but both your parents have to be natural born citizens, is that what you're saying? (Emphasis by Strunk) MR. STRUNK: Yes, your Honor THE COURT: What if for argument's sake Mr. Obamas father would have been naturalized? MR. STRUNK: He would be naturalized. THE COURT: So in other words, your parents have to be citizens? MR. STRUNK: Yes, and as spelled out in New York State law and specifically in regards to our history of law thats found in the real property law Section 18, that' s the only location that the natural born citizen is mentioned and there's a basis of legislative action to that basis where you cannot convey a piece of mining rights to anybody who is not natural born. Natural born is also defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1824 as it relates to the transition of the property rights after the revolution where family would inherit. So in other domestic law in our surrogate, in our law which passes property on to a family member, there's a definition in New York State law which clearly defines that it's blood and soil law of nations definition and I say law of nations because it's big letters in the U.S. Constitution. (Emphasis by Strunk) Amended Verified Complaint Page 11 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 9. Schacks argument uses flawed logic when applied to Strunks own parental citizen status permutations as what a natural-born Citizen is, and is represented by the Venn Diagram below:
10. That Strunk is a natural-born Citizen of New York to Parents who were married U.S. Citizens in the city of New York before Strunks birth, and that his paternal grandfather was a natural-born citizen, but his paternal grandmother and maternal grandparents were naturalized. Using Schacks argument it would be impossible for Strunks parents to be natural-born Citizens. 11. That on November 22, 2011 in 2008-29642 Justice Schmidt declared in open court during the hearing on a motion to intervene filed by H. William Van Allen in regards to the October 25, 2011 pre-hearing in the case with Index No.: 2011-6500 before Justice Schack that he disagrees with Justice Schack in his reason for declining to sign Strunks application in regards to the New York State Board of Elections facilitation of fraud by admission to the use of the term Born a Citizen rather than natural-born Citizen for an order to show cause that according to Strunks Affidavit To whom is may concern shown as Exhibit E paragraph 13 Justice Schack says:
"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"
12. That in regards to the alleged ineligibility of Defendant Obama to be POTUS, Strunk depends upon the series of SCOTUS cases associated with what the precedent of Minor. v.
Page 12 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 Happersett: 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627 says (3); and that Strunk believes the Congressional record history of the creation of the 14th Amendment, proves that at best Barack Obama, were he actually born in the USA under the 14th Amendment is merely Born a Citizen not NBC, and were he born to a single U.S. Citizen out of USA jurisdiction overseas where the 14th Amendment does not apply, Defendant Obama is at best naturalized and at worst an alien upon his failure to declare at majority age used a forged selective service form. 13. That Strunk believes there is a Federal ineligibility issue because ipsa dixit and ipso facto Barack Obama admits to dual allegiance in his autobiography Dreams from my Fathers A story of Race and Inheritance published in 1995 by Crown Publishing that features on the front cover a picture (see Exhibit I ) that depicts Defendants British subject Father Barack Hussein Obama Sr. in Defendants Grandmothers arms and Defendants American Citizen Mother Stanley Ann Dunham in Defendants Grandfathers arms, even goes further to admit in his Author Biography for 13 years carried by Crown Publishers as Born in Kenya (see Exhibit J). 14. That Defendant Obamas admission to having a British subject father is corroborated with evidence of such admission is proven by the U.S. INS file number A 11 938 537 (see Exhibit K with Sub exhibits A-1 through A-12) on August 9, 1959 admitted a foreign alien non-immigrant Barack Hussein Obama, born June 18, 1934 in Kisumu Nyanza Kenya, student visa, as was then he was confirmed on August 31, 1961 by the INS (see Subexhibit A-8 ) to be 7/5/2012
3
Minor. v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens. As distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their (p168) parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have not to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizen (Emphasis added)
Page 13 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 married to U.S. Citizen Stanley Ann Dunham Obama February 2, 1961 (see Sub exhibit A-7) and on the August 31, 1961 the memo to file by the INS file officer says (see Sub exhibit A-10) when Barack Hussein Obama II was born August 4, 1961 is a reconfirmed when on March 20, 1964 the parents obtain a Hawaii divorce decree (see Exhibit L). 15. That Strunk contends there are Federal issue that must be heard at an expedited quo warranto inquest of Barack Hussein Obama II to grant Strunk relief and remedy from his injury and damages wrongly imposed . The First Federal issue to be heard: Was and is Barack Hussein Obama II eligible as a natural-born Citizen to the office of POTUS when born in the United States with a British subject father while married to a US Citizen on or about August 4, 1961? The Second Federal Issue to be heard: Is Barack Hussein Obama II involved in spoliation and concealment in the misprision of a felony in regards to his release of the purported long-form birth certificate and other federal documents further injuring Petitioner Strunk and as proven by the investigation by Sheriff Arpaios affidavit of June 12, 2012 shown as Exhibit B?
At Paragraph 7 of the Arpaio Affidavit shown as Exhibit B the Sheriff affirms: Upon close examination of the evidence, it is my belief that forgery and fraud was likely committed in key identity documents including President Obama's long form birth certificate, his Selective Service Registration card, and his Social Security number. The Third Federal issue to be heard: Is Barack Hussein Obama II eligible as a natural-born Citizen to the office of POTUS, as now suspected as a result of the investigation by Sheriff Arpaio, guilty of spoliation and willful concealment as a high crime meant to personally injure Plaintiff, and as Strunk noticed to the Albany County District Attorney and the New York State Board of Elections on February 3, 2012 to no avail (see Exhibit M) depends on this Court?
Page 14 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 The Fourth Federal issue to be heard: Is Barack Hussein Obama II eligible as a naturalborn Citizen to the office of POTUS when born outside of the United States as now suspected as a result of the investigation by Sheriff Arpaio and by spoliation and concealment meant to further injure Plaintiff? 16. That Strunk based upon the foregoing and his June 26, 2012 Affidavit To whom it may Concern shown as Exhibit E with sub-exhibits 1 through 3, has suffered no less than four (4) particularized injuries in fact involving the NBC Federal issue caused by the malice of Barak Obama left unresolved by any State or Federal Court to date as the First requirement Plaintiffs injury is concrete and particularized, as well as actual and or with imminent additional ongoing damage injury and harm, and that Strunk is entitled to an expedited Quo Warranto Inquest relief and remedy to effect a personal defense in State Court with time as the essence. Personal Injury #1: That described at paragraph 3 of Strunks Affidavit shown as Exhibit E, Strunk has been pre-maturely deprived without being able too face his accusers his First Amendment and civil rights with use of 42 USC 1983 by the Star Chamber of Judge Allyne R. Ross like that of Justice Schack (4) from ever seeking relief in USDC of the EDNY in the matter of his challenge to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II and or his New York Elector 7/5/2012
The historical abuses of the Star Chamber are considered a primary motivating force behind the protections against compelled self-incrimination embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The meaning of compelled testimony under the Fifth Amendmenti.e., the conditions under which a defendant is allowed to take the Fifthis thus often interpreted via reference to the inquisitorial methods of the Star Chamber. Judge Schack not only invented the alleged violation ipse dixit, for which he charged me of frivolous conduct for daring to allege that BHO Jr. has a British Subject father on August 4, 1961 or when ever it happened, is therefore not NBC; that Justice Schack shamelessly poses as the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one . Without the ability to call the judge as a witness to the crime that he is committing, as my own counsel I may seek an appeal on the merits of the sanctions wrongly held against me. As the U.S. Supreme Court described it, the Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required, defendants to have counsel. The defendants answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821-22 (1975)
4
Page 15 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 slate of 2008 and or in the 2012 Election cycle as to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II of U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 by Judge Allyne Ross order shown as Exhibit D. Personal Injury #2: That described at paragraph 21 through paragraph 22 of Strunks Affidavit shown as Exhibit E, Strunk has been outrageously sanctioned with deprivation of his civil right to ever file any case in the State of New York Supreme Court and is barred from ever challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II and or his New York Elector slate of 2008 and or in the 2012 Election cycle as to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II of US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 (see Exhibit N). Therein Justice Schack uses the cherry picked Straw Man Argument at page 7 of the Order rather than quote the exact interchange shown on the actual transcript shown as Exhibit H: However, plaintiff STRUNK, at tr., pp. 30 - 31, argued that a "natural born citizen," eligible to run for President of the United States, pursuant to Article II, Section I Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, means that not only the candidate is natural born, but both of the candidate's parents are natural born. Personal Injury #3: That described at paragraph 1 through paragraph 19 as a compelling NBC Federal issue of Strunks Affidavit shown as Exhibit E, that as a result of the arbitrary Federal and State court orders shown as Exhibits D and N, Strunk has been deprived his First, 4th , 5th 6th , 7th , 8th 9th and 10th Amendment civil rights, when spurious Court actions deem any challenge to the NBC eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II sanction able, and renders moot the required notice of intent to file a claim at the New York State Court of Claims (see Exhibit E sub Exhibit 3) for the personal damages $358,410.00 accrued as a result of the unlawful facilitation and alleged misprision of a felony by the New York State Board of Elections and its agents in the 2008 presidential election cycle through the present 2012 election cycle with the NBC Federal issue of their malicious malfeasance with use of the required instruction to a candidate for the office of POTUS use Born a Citizen rather that natural-born Citizen as required
Page 16 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 under US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 and the State continues with impunity as if by a Star Chamber. Personal Injury #4: That described at the hearing transcript of May 7, 2012 of NYS SC County of Kings Case with Index No.: 2011-6500, Strunk was before Justice Arthur M. Schack on the matter of Sanctions and Court costs (see Exhibit O) and that as a result Strunk is subject to further levy pending perfection of Strunks Notice of Appeal to the Second Department Appellate Division taken from the order shown as Exhibit N, and beyond the civil rights sanction to date there is no less than an accrued costs levy of no less than say $150,000 to say as much as $1,000,000 with the perfection of the appeal. As Strunk complains of the Court delay, Strunk refutes the Courts Straw man Argument for which Strunk is being sanctioned for being frivolous at page 23 of the transcript : THE COURT: The point is it takes time to write this and to do this. I also did some research, and I noticed that for whatever reason, despite your argument about you have to have your parents born in the United states as well as you -MR. STRUNK: That's not my argument. That's your argument. That's the straw man argument. You're absolutely wrong. You should recuse yourself. I have nothing else to say. 17. Defendant Barack Hussein Obama in esse (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), hereinafter Defendant Obama, place for service is in care of The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20500; 18. Mr. Obama is not a USA "natural born" citizen eligible to serve as the United States President, pursuant to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. 19. Although Mr. Obama claims to have been born in two (2) separate hospitals in Hawaii, we have yet to discover where he was actually born to his mother a U.S. Citizen and his father a Kenyan National British subject of United Kingdom with that law and Monarchy that governs. 20. That Mr. Obama Jr.s natural father Mr. Obama Senior, was a British Citizen governed
Page 17 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 under the laws of the United Kingdom married to Mr. Obama Jr.s mother Stanley Ann Dunham at the time of Mr. Obama Jr.s birth on August 4, 1961 as shown within Exhibit I. 21. Defendant Obama admits that his father at the time of his birth was a subject of the United Kingdom and that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governs dual citizenship at birth. 22. That Mr. Obama acknowledges by endorsing Senate Resolution 511 that you need two (2) U.S.A. Citizen parents at birth to be qualified to be a natural born citizen (see Exhibit P). 23. That Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, Congressional Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., pg 1291 (March 9, 1866) stated: every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen. 24. As it is essential for this Court to know Strunks position on how and why the 14th amendment was is germane as evidence of his innocence from any frivolous wrongdoing and as evidence of Defendant Obamas ineligibility to POTUS, Strunk shows below that Defendant Obama and Obamas agents with propagandists including those principals at Justia.org and Factcheck.org have willfully perverted the intended use of 14th Amendment with their Birthright Citizenship lie. Therefore, to truly understand the 14th Amendment and what the framers original intent was when writing it, must go back to the framers writings and the congressional debates. 25. That in the matter of what does Born a Citizen, as shown by Justice Schmidts lack of
comprehension at above paragraph 5, has as an intentionally political relation to what the questionable term Anchor Baby means in regards to who is to be considered an inhabitant of New York and the USA for the purpose of seeking office of the POTUS (currently germane as Marco Rubio is not NBC under wet/dry foot INA policy his parents were aliens) and according to the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraphs 5 is germane herein before this Court.
Page 18 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 26. The truth about the 14th amendment has been out there for so long but no one seems to
care what the framers said, and the facts are 100% ignored WE do not need the courts to figure out what a naturalized and natural-born Citizen (NBC) means as used in NYS Real Property Law 18 and as NBC status was forced by New York upon the Constitutional Convention in the second draft of the Constitution or do we need Congress to do an investigation because the truth is already available all we need to do is look at the facts. No amendment to the NBC term exists. 27. For the record: the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery was adopted on December 6,
1865; The Civil Rights Act of 1866 which granted former slaves citizenship was enacted April 9 1866; and, the 14th amendment which made the Civil Rights Act constitutional was proposed on June 13, 1866 and after much debate, as adopted on July 9, 1868. 28. So the question then raised were all dealt with, during the same time frame, with the same
Congressman involved, in each bill. The 14th amendment represented the overruling of the Dred Scott decision ruling that black people former slaves were not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. 29. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in
the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. Which means the Civil Rights Act of 1866 still stands because the 14th amendment was never repealed. 30. Obviously the logical people to research in regard to debates would be Senator Lyman
Trumbull who was the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Co-author of the 14th
Page 19 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 Amendments citizenship clause and co-author of the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery was an Illinois Supreme Court Justice 1848-1853. 31. Senator Jacob Howard worked with Lincoln to draft the 13th amendment. Served on the
Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and was co-author of the 14th Amendments Citizenship Clause. 32. The Honorable John Bingham was the principle Framer of the 14th Amendment, Judge
advocate in the Lincoln assassination trial and prosecutor on the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. So getting to the facts, and the easiest way is established by the chronological order of the legislative debate presentation starting with Representative John Bingham in 1862 recorded in the Congressional Globe of the 37th Congress 2nd session page 1639 stated: There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and the compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born Within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exceptions to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relation to Indians... 33. The next would be the Civil Rights Act of 1866; the original bill was introduced on
January 5, 1866 according to the 39th Congress 1st session Senate 62, that was reported out of Committee on January 11, 1866 A BILL to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication. And it read: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory A week later there was an amendment offered by Mr. Trumbull to wit: In section 1, line 3, after the word That, insert, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States with distinction of color; and,
Page 20 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 34. On the question to agree to the amendment proposed by Mr. Trumbull, It was determined
in the affirmative, Yeas 31 Nays 10. The Bill as an Act went over to the House of Representatives where it passed, along with Howard and Trumbulls amendment. John Bingham, speaks on the amendment to the bill : I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory or what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; 35. The bill was then sent, to President Andrew Johnson and Johnson vetoed it. It was sent
back to Congress, where both houses, passed the bill, overriding the Presidents veto. 36. Next Chronologically on to the 14th Amendment, as the congressional debates while they
were debating the 14th Amendment as with that for the Civil Rights act will reveal how the present use has been 100% perverted. The Bill as proposed for the 14th amendment at first did not provide for a jurisdictional statement in Article 1 Section 1 quote: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities if citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. During the debates in 1866 Congressional Globes at 2883 Mr. Latham stated quote: Mr. Speaker, we seem to have fallen upon an age of theories. We are told from day to day with much seeming sincerity and an air of the most profound political sagacity that the Union when restored must be restored upon the basis which will make it as permanent as the everlasting hills and as invulnerable as the throne of the Eternal, and with such safeguards that even treason will no longer be possible within its jurisdiction.
37.
Then Senator Edgar Cowen gave a speech telling why the citizenship clause was need
and certainly was not to be used to make anyone born here a citizen, stated Mr. Cowen. The honorable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have no doubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legal definition of citizenship of the United States. What does it mean? What is its length and breath? I
Page 21 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 would be glad if the honorable Senator in good earnest would favor us with some such definition. Is the child of the Chinese Immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the United States? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same as it is to kill another man. You cannot commit an assault and battery on him, I apprehend. He has a right to the protections of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word. It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. He is not entitled, by virtue of that, to be an elector. .. And he goes further to state: I have supposed, further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a broad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the country of California, and if another people of a different race, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have free right to locate there and settle among them, and if they have an opportunity of pouring in such an immigration as in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? I do not know that the contingency will ever happen, but it may be well to consider it while we are on this point. As I understand the right of the States under the Constitution at present, California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she chooses who is not a citizen of some one of the United States I think the Honorable Senator from Michigan would not admit the right that the Indians of his neighborhood would have to come in upon Michigan and settle in the midst of that society and obtain the political power of the State, and wield it, perhaps, to his exclusion. I do not believe anybody would agree to that. 38. Now who among the framers of the 14th Amendment had no clue or inclination on the
issue of illegal immigration and inclusion of anchor babies? Howard and Trumbull argued for the
Page 22 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 inclusion of the term and subject to the jurisdiction would be applied and agreed that there would not be a new definition of the term jurisdiction to be interpreted and applied in the proposed amendment to be declaratory of the current law, the Civil Rights Act, and that as such Mr. Howard said of the citizenship clause quote: This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and 39. What exactly did subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean to the framers of the 14th
Amendment? Mr. Lyman Trumbull in 1866, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and author of 13th Amendment, in the Congressional Globe 2893 said The provision is, that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. That means subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. Now does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.? Not owing allegiance of anybody else. That is what it means. 40. In response Senator Jacob Howard responds in concurrence: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction. That question has long since been adjudicated, so far as the usage of the Government is concerned 41. The Supreme Court of the United State (SCOTUS) in Minor v Happersett states The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a
Page 23 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 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 and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their (p168) parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have not to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizen (Emphasis added) 42. The SCOTUS Case Respublica v DE LONGCHAMPS 1 US 111 (1784) 1 Dall. 111 MKean, Chief Justice. This is a case of the first impression in the United States. It must be determined on the principles of the laws of nations, which form a part of the municipal law of Pennsylvania; and , if the offenses charged in the indictment have been committed, there can be no doubt, that those laws have been violated. The Chief Justice goes on to say: Therefore, we conclude, that the Defendant cannot be imprisoned, until his most Christian Majesty shall declare, that the reparation is satisfactory 3. The answer to the last question is rendered unnecessary by the above answer to the second question. The foregoing answers having been given, it only remains for the Court to pronounce sentence upon you. This sentence must be governed by a due consideration of the enormity and dangerous tendency of the offences you have committed, of the willfulness, deliberation, and malice, wherewith they were done, of the quality and degree of the offended and offender, the provocation given, and all other circumstances which may anyway aggravate or extenuate the guilt. The first crime in the indictment is an infraction of the law of Nations. This law, in its full extent, is part of the law of this State, and is to be collected from the practice of different Nations, and the authority of writers. 43. Further search will verify that the term Law of Nations is mentioned at least a
dozen times on the page and the author Vattel is sighted along with each and no other authorities related to law of nations is cited only that of Vattel. 44. That in the SCOTUS case The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Mr. Chief Justice
Marshal stated Vattel who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantage. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the
Page 24 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. 45. As is to be found in The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the law of nature by Emer de
Vattel Joseph Chitty at Section 212. reads: The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to it authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed as matter of course, that each citizen , on entering into society, reserve to children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. 46. That the question posed is why do the usurpers propagandists use the decision in regards
to Wong Kim Ark where the law went astray? They are pulled towards corruption in that nearly 100 years earlier then usurper Chester Arthur (5) appointed Justice Gray to chief justice to succeed Oliver Wendell Holms, Jr. and Gray had sabotaged his later ruling in Wong Kim Ark from that held in Minor v Happersett of 1874. That in Elk v Wilkins 112 US 94 (1884) Argued April 28, 1884 and Decided November 3, 1884 it seems that Justice Horace Gray knew the law in 1884 but by the time Wong Kim Ark came along 15 years later he had forgotten it! Quoting Justice Gray from the SCOTUS Elk v. Wilkins: The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which no person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President. And The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Constitution, Article II Section 1; Article 1, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the 7/5/2012
5
Chester Arthur was born in Fairfield Vermont in 1829, but looking at his fathers naturalization papers he didnt become a citizen until August 31, 1843 meaning that Chester Arthur was not born to citizen parents therefore was not a natural-born Citizen. It seems that the people challenging Chester Arthur then were right all along.
Page 25 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v Sanford, 19 Howard 393) , and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white of black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases 16 Wall 36, 83 US 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303, 100 US 306. 47. In the matter of the immigrant taking the Oath to be a citizen of the United States of
America: I hereby declare, an oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentiate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United states of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same , that I will bears arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, that I perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United states when required by the law that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion so help me God. 48. Immigrants becoming citizens must take an oath of sole allegiance to the USA. Now
why would that not be expected also of citizens born here? If you are born to two citizens parents, your allegiance is passed down. If you are not born to two citizen parents, you must take the oath, simple as that! Vattels authority as an institutional writer extended to the USA where he was cited in court cases between 1789 and 1820 no less than 92 times on matters pertaining to the law of nations. 49. That in July 1787 the New York Judiciary Chief Justice Lansing withdrew from the
Constitutional Convention convened in Philadelphia and reported to Governor George Clinton that New York had better not participate in the proposed Federal Union as New York had too much to lose; and thereafter New York recommended that any Federal officer eligibility requires each be a natural-born Citizen as a matter of express New York state interest, and that resulted
Page 26 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 in the 1788 changes made to the draft of the U.S. Constitution merely for the Office of POTUS without including members of Congress too; and 50. That in the Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton of the New York delegation explained
that the President was a person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. He advocated that the Electoral College will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicate an investigation. Further said that because the President was so an important agency in the administration of the government, tumult and disorder were to be avoided in selecting the President. What better way than for the states to aid in this complex investigation of that person who should want to run for that most important office. Surely by requiring any such candidate to produce documentary evidence of his or her identity and place of birth is a first step in producing that needed information which is so vital to such a complicated investigation. The states therefore serve a vital role in the beginning stages of the vetting of any presidential candidate. Such vetting should start as soon as possible so as to avoid parties becoming entrenched in their selections and wanting to win at all costs at the expense of the people and their Constitution. 51. That Petitioner correctly argues that "born Citizen" is not the same as "natural born
Citizen.". 52. That the first step in constitutional interpretation is textual analysis of the clause in
question. In that analysis, we have to look at each and every word of the clause which includes "natural" and define that word. By using born Citizen rather than natural born Citizen, would be saying that we do not need to consider and define "natural," that the Framers just threw that word in as surplusage.
Page 27 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 53. On the contrary, the word "natural" is part and parcel of the full clause, "natural born
Citizen." The clause as a whole is a word of art, an idiom. The historical record shows that it has always been used as such and that it has never been used in some expanded way as born Citizen suggests. Indeed, the clause is a unitary phrase with a unitary meaning. Hence, "natural" cannot be separated from the clause. Rather what needs to be done is to search for the meaning of the whole clause and not its parts. 54. In this textual analysis, we cannot simply take that idiom and say that it means some
other manufactured definition of the clause. We cannot simply proclaim without evidence that the meaning of that idiom equates to the manner in which Congress and the Fourteenth Amendment allows persons to acquire the status of a citizen of the United States as of the moment of birth. No U.S. Supreme Court case or Justice has adopted such a manufactured definition or even said that such a meaning prevailed at the time of the Founding. That someone acquires his or her citizenship from the moment of birth simply does not equate to that person being a "natural born Citizen." Even Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) tell us that persons may be naturalized from the moment of birth. We accept that naturalized person are not natural born Citizens. Furthermore, that Wong Kim Ark included the clause natural born subject in the context of its discussion of what is a Fourteenth Amendment citizen of the United States does not through some amazing feat of logic convert a citizen of the United States into a natural born Citizen. As Minor aptly explained, a natural born Citizen is neither created by the Constitution nor depended upon it. Hence, neither Fourteenth Amendment nor its debates on who shall be a citizen of the United States does not control who shall be natural born Citizens. 55. Hence, simply having a status of a citizen from the moment of birth does not
Page 28 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 necessarily equate to one being a natural born Citizen. The fact that the Framers included the word natural as an additional qualifier tells us that quite plainly, for if such an interpretation were correct the Framers would simply have said born Citizen. So, any person that is a born Citizen who claims to be a natural born Citizen still has to show that he or she satisfies the idiomatic meaning of the clause which the historical record and U.S. Supreme Court case law show to be a child born in the country to parents who are citizens of that country. This definition is exactly what our United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett in 1875 and Wong Kim Ark in 1898 confirmed is the correct American common law definition of natural born Citizen. 56. For this time-honored natural law/law of nations/American common-law and New
York State definition of a natural born Citizen, also see Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875) (decided after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 and holding that "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners"). What Minor said about a natural born Citizen was confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (acknowledging and confirming Minors American common law definition of a natural-born citizen but adding based on the English common law that since [t]he child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle [birth in the country] (bracketed information supplied), a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a Fourteenth Amendment citizen of the United States). This American common law definition of a natural born Citizen has never been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment (only uses the clause "citizen of the United States" and does not mention "natural born Citizen") or Wong Kim Ark, and therefore still prevails today. Both those U.S. Supreme Court cases define a "natural
Page 29 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 born Citizen" as a child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country. 57. This American common law definition of a natural born Citizen has also been
recognized and accepted by a Founder and member of our U.S. Supreme Court as early as 1814 in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall dissenting and concurring for other reasons). It was also again confirmed by Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) and Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830). It was again confirmed by Justice Daniels in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). 58. Arguendo Strunk has shown that the original American common-law definition of a
natural born Citizen was not changed by either the Fourteenth Amendment or Wong Kim Ark, which only deal with a citizen of the United States and not a natural born Citizen. Hence, the same original definition of a natural born Citizen was again expressly confirmed by the whole U.S. Supreme Court in Minor and Wong Kim Ark, and a lower federal court in Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) and United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890). Finally, this same definition was implicitly confirmed by Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964). 59. Given the meaning of the clause since time immemorial; the enlightened intellectual
mindset of the Founding period which focused on natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Cicero, Pufendorf, Burlamaqui, John Locke, Rousseau, Emer de Vattel; the motivating spirit of the American Revolution; the Founders and Framers desire to preserve the constitutional republic for Posterity; the way that founding era legal scholars such as Chief Justice John Marshall, David Ramsay, St. George Tucker, and James Wilson defined American
Page 30 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 citizenship; Congressional acts on naturalization; U.S. Supreme Court case law; and the historical record as a whole, this is the most natural interpretation of the clause.
60.
Regarding the citizenship status of the parents of a natural born Citizen, the
Constitution and Congressional Acts clearly and without question show that a citizen may be one either by being natural born or naturalized either at birth or after birth. 61. Furthermore, recently in Tennessee, the Federal District Court just recently stated: The Court finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase 'natural born citizen' as a qualification for the Presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial. The issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the Presidency is certainly substantial. It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obamas qualifications for the office are actually disputed and substantial. It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitutions definition of natural born citizen and the Supreme Courts decision in Minor. the Liberty Legal Foundation et al v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc. et al, Case No. 12-2143-STA. federal court found the issue of whether Obama is a natural born Citizen to be important and not trivial, substantial, and disputed. 62. That were the Court to disagree with Petitioners definition of a natural born Citizen,
because the Constitution does not define the clause, were to cite Hollander v. McCain at 65 which cited Minor and Charles Gordon, Who can be President of the United States: An Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L.Rev. 1, 5 (1968). If that were a valid reason for disagreeing with someones definition of a constitutional clause, we basically would have virtually no interpretation of the Constitution at all. As is often said, the Constitution is not a dictionary of legal terms. Its meaning has to be gleaned from its text, if possible, and when not possible, from sources outside the Constitution. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment does not tell us what subject to the jurisdiction means. Yet, our nation has arrived at a meaning of the clause by looking outside the Constitution. That the Constitution does not define a natural born Citizen
Page 31 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 were is the only argument that the Court were to make to discount Petitioners position as to what is the meaning of a natural born Citizen were to offer no other authorities showing that Petitioner is wrong despite the long record of New York State related actions as to the use of the term natural-born Citizen as with use of the NYS Real Property Law Section 18 and as to surrogate matters. Also, we should know that Charles Gordon in the very same article states that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Arks holding defined a natural born Citizen. Surely, all this shows that Petitioner properly alleges a particular cause of action and gave sufficient notice of both the facts and the law that support his cause of action. 63. As such Strunk complains of personal injury caused directly by Barack Hussein Obama II with a federal questions that deserve available relief and remedy by this Court as follows: AS AND FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (For Defendant Obamas default and Failure to Reply to the return of contract further acts are void ab initio) 64. Strunk repeats each and every allegation contained in the above introduction and paragraphs 1 through 63 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length however omits it for brevity and economy. 65. That on January 23, 2009 within 72-hours from Barack Hussein Obamas offer of His contract of Oath received by Strunk on 20 January 2009 and again on 21 January 2009 respectively, Strunk provided a timely return response by Registered mail with the United States Postal Service (USPS) in care of the Agent in Charge of the united States Secret Service with NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT and FOR THE RECORD, and that both were accepted for value, timely without dishonor and with consideration returned redrafted in the offer of contract of Strunks choosing wishing no contract in full accord with the Unified Commercial Code (U.C.C.); for a
Page 32 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 true copy of the original is annexed shown in the Exhibit C. 66. That Strunks return response shown as Exhibit C Sub-exhibit A by Registered mail with the USPS in care of the Agent in Charge of the Secret Service with Registered mail Label/Receipt Number: RE40 0301 908US was delivered at 8:07 AM on January 27, 2009 in WASHINGTON, DC 20223, for a copy of the USPS Tracking record and proof of service by registered mail shown as Exhibit C Sub Exhibit B. 67. That Defendant Obama in esse is the usurper that has seized the corporate office of the United States of America Presidency in a wide-ranging conspiracy. 68. That Defendant Obama in esse is the usurper whose actions while pretending as if the corporate office of the United States of America Presidency are void ab initio. 69. That Strunks Verified Complaint with two (2) causes of action affirmed May 19, 2009 shown as Exhibit C with Sub-Exhibits A through B was duly served upon Barack Hussein Obama II, as first offered to Jeffery Taylor the U.S. Attorney for Washington District of Columbia and Eric Holder the U.S. Attorney General in official capacity did not respond, defer to Strunks ex-relator further action and inquest with DC Code Chapter 35 Title 16 3503. 70. That on or about August 26, 2009, Defendant Obama through his agent after due notice required by law responded in writing with a special demurrer (See Exhibit Q); however, the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Jeffery Taylor and or his replacement have failed to respond or otherwise appear, and that Affirmant has exhausted the administrative process and other available remedy to appear as the ex-relator afforded by law. 71. That Strunk would not have suffered the injuries listed above in paragraph 16 as injury 2 through 4, were it not for the act of the refusal by Defendant Obama to forgo his usurpation of the office of the POTUS after due notice after January 23, 2009 and then again after my May 13,
Page 33 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 2009 notice of a Quo Warranto Complaint, and even when after August 26, 2009 Defendant and his agents acknowledged Strunks notice refused to step aside invited further litigation, as such promulgated Strunk to commit to further action in this Quo Warranto / FCA filing of March 24, 2010 and after the dismissal without prejudice shown as Exhibit A, Strunk proceeded to transfer various campaign committee defendants as shown listed in Exhibit N and others referenced in the original verified complaint of March 24, 2010 previously listed herein to be adjudicated in the action Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections et al. in New York State Supreme Court for the County of Kings with Index No.: 2011-6500 having jurisdiction there under state law with a request that the new case be consolidated with the prior state case 2008-29642 still active as to the responsibility of state officers also serving as electors in the electoral college too. That were the Federal issue answered in the affirmative such state case with Index No.: 2011-6500 and 2008-29642 and the time barred claim in the New York State Court of Claims would proceed accordingly for resolution. AS AND FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (For Defendant Obamas malicious spoliation and concealment of evidence of misprision of a felony, sedition and treason involved with his ineligibility to hold the office of POTUS thereby directly injures Strunk) 72. Strunk repeats each and every allegation contained in the above introduction and paragraphs 1 through 71 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length however omits it for brevity and economy. 73. That as referenced Defendant Obamas malicious spoliation and concealment of evidence of misprision of a felony, sedition and treason involved with his ineligibility to hold the office of POTUS thereby directly injures Strunk and evidence is independently investigated by Sheriff Joseph Arpaio in the June 12, 2012 affidavit shown as Exhibit B affirms:
Page 34 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 74. That on March 1, 2012, the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriffs Press Release (see Exhibit R) and Press Conference established that there is the Preliminary Report by the Sheriffs COLD CASE POSSE , as an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate fraud and crimes committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an affirmation in 2008 that Respondent Obama affirmed compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 requirement for eligibility for natural-born Citizen with a picture of the Sheriffs webpage appended (see Exhibit S) and currently before the Arizona primary now in 2012; and that the attached Preliminary Report of the Sheriffs COLD CASE POSSE (see Exhibit T) supports the suspicion with sufficient evidence that Respondent Barack Obama was not even born in Hawaii between August 1, 1961 through August 10, 1961 and acts to spoliate evidence of a crime Quote: Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large as proof positive of President Obamas authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate. During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obamas life history including:. President Obamas Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document; To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, records from the days surrounding Obamas birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 w[h]ere these immigration cards cannot be found. 75. Further, that according to the Preliminary Report of the COLD CASE POSSE shown as Exhibit T, the purported Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form (see Exhibit U) is a forged
Page 35 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 document as submitted to the entire nation by Respondent Barack Obama and attorneys at his April 27, 2011 at the Washington DC Press Conference transcript (see Exhibit V); and 76. The Forged document shown as Exhibit U also now joins the previously 2008 proffered CoLB short form document that is a forgery as well based upon the admissions of the Respondent Obama and his attorneys there at the White House at the April 27, 2011 press conference . In the transcript shown as Exhibit V, that at the April 27, 2011 press conference the White House attorney repeatedly said that Respondent Obama had requested the short form CoLB in 2008 from the State of Hawaii be released. However, examination by Petitioner of the supposed document Hawaii supposedly released in 2008 is in fact is stamped June 6, 2007 (see Exhibit W) and then depicted differently by the FactCheck.org report on August 21, 2008 and reference by Justice Schmidt as the basis to vote for Defendant Obama in above paragraph 6; and then later as the November 21, 2008 report appended shows the so-called Factcheck.org investigators, depended on by members of Congress and Media, were partisan amateurs according to Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesnt Do Forensics; NH SOS and Certificates; British Policeman on Eligibility (see Exhibit X), and thereby all the foregoing provides sufficient suspicion of fraud and or statements made as admission against interest as a bar under clean hands doctrine of irrefutable presumption of wrong doing by Respondent Obama and his agents in 2008 and continuing currently. 77. Further, Plaintiff contends that the additional evidence of forgery of the Selective Service record before the 2008 election along with the theft and tampering of the US DOS Passport records by US DOS private contractor entity under the control of John Brennan currently Respondent Obamas White House Counter Terrorism advisor having previously been assistant to Central Intelligence Director George Tenent, and as such underlines the suspicion why the
Page 36 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 microfilm records from the National Archives are missing now as well, as both agencies are under the direct authority and control of Respondent Obama, the apparent usurper in the office of POTUS, and by his refusal to make such microfilm and the missing U.S. DOS records referenced in the cover letter shown in Exhibit G provide the Court herein with substantial direct available proof that Respondent Obama is now directly acting in a continuing pattern to spoliate evidence. 78. As Further evidence, Plaintiff provides additional proof that Respondent Obama, in a continuing pattern acted to spoliate evidence of his adoptive status as an Indonesian citizen and the ramifications that would have on his law license in Illinois and plans to seek the office of US Senator in 2005 and POTUS in 2008, perjured himself on the application for entry to the Illinois bar affirmed he had no other name (see Exhibit Y) 79. That Affirmant testified in a ballot access hearing in Atlanta Georgia on January 26, 2012 before Judge Malihi in Atlanta Georgia with the entire proceeding video of sworn testimony at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Uuxq1i_CX-w 80. That Plaintiff was present during the sworn testimony of Witness John Sampson, retired INS False Document Special Investigator, at the January 26, 2012 hearing as an expert witness who when asked if he would have issued an arrest warrant of Barack Obama as a person having filed falsified documents to the government based upon what the witness has seen said YES! 81. That in light of the compelling evidence provided by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office of forgery and spoliation associated with the Defendant Barack Obama and his agents and as a precedent to date as the only authority of competent jurisdiction to have an ongoing criminal investigation with press conferences releasing additional evidence and continued findings every 30 days starting March 1, 2012 as shown as Exhibit R, an update released on March 31, 2012, related to the targeted spoliation of the U.S. National Archive microfilm spool of all travel
Page 37 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 records dating August 1, 1961 through August 10, 1961 and the concealment of records of Defendant Obamas Selective Service record proven as a criminal forgery by Defendant Obama and or his agents carrying a jail term of 5 years and $250,000.00 fine in submission of a forged document to the Selective service and in addition the forgery of a U.S. Postal Service date stamp. 82. That in light of the compelling evidence provided by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office of forgery and spoliation associated with the Defendant Barack Obama and his agents, Affirmant includes as germane in amended complaint copies of letters U.S. Congressmen released to Affirmant by a journalist for publication herein as demonstrative of statements by congressmen dating from November 11, 2008 through February 2009 that demonstrates Congressional confusion in what constitutes eligibility with use of U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 for office of POTUS in their conflation of the term Born a Citizen as in 14th amendment with term of art natural-born Citizen, see Exhibit Z for the copy of the entire content of each letter quoted below with excerpts as follows: Senator Jim Bunning defers to INA, 14th Amend. and courts on November 11, 2008 wrote:
Senator Sherrod Brown defers to BHO June 2008 CoLB on November 12, 2008 wrote:
Page 38 of 52

Senator Jon Kyl defers to the internet on December 1, 2008 wrote:
Rep Ed Whitfield relies on News media & proper authorities on December 4, 2008 wrote:
Senator Sessions with disinterest relies on the courts on December 16, 2008 wrote:
Senator Sessions then relies on BHO June 2008 the CoLB on January 23, 2009 wrote:
Senator Shelby relies on BHO June 2008 CoLB and Hawaii on January 29, 2009 wrote:
Page 39 of 52

Rep. Steve King defers to the 14th Amendment on January 29, 2009 wrote:
Senator Feinstein deferring to the 14th Amendment on February 2, 2009 wrote:
Rep Sanford D. Bishop relies on Factcheck.org verification as shown at Exhibit 7 on February 6, 2009 wrote:
83.
That Petitioner objection to the ballot access of Barack Obama shown as Exhibit M never
questioned the place of birth of Barack Obama per se as purported in the April 25, 2011 Long Form Birth Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) merely asserted the fact admitted to by all parties that Barack Hussein Obamas father married to Stanley Ann Obama was a British Subject on a foreign alien student visa, as shown on Exhibit I, in itself precludes a path to citizenship and therefore Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not a Natural-born Citizen at best Born a Citizen as defined by the 14th Amendment the birthplace in the Complaint is not at issue the issue is dual allegiance with Barack Obama being a British Subject at Birth, as well as a Kenyan citizen thereafter, and a triple allegiance when Barack Obama Soebarkah gained Indonesian relinquished USA allegiance too! 84. The NYS BOE and its agents willful disregard of both history and facts herein is
outrageous, and as such requires Petitioner to recite the history of what dual allegiance
Page 40 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 associated with the de facto Born a Citizen versus the single allegiance of the de jure Naturalborn Citizen means as is controlling subject before this court that must be resolved as a matter of provision of substantive due process herein to afford equal protection to Petitioner and among others similarly situated, and as for the de facto born a citizen of the 14th amendment and the term anchor baby per se without full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the State and USA is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and New York State Constitution too, goes to NYS BOE, agents and quasi State Officer candidates breach of fiduciary duty, shifts the strict burden of responsibility for their arbitrary acts to use the term Born a Citizen . 85. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents are the forgers who committed no less than two crimes of forgery and misprision of a felony that with such is misprision of sedition and treason having the capital punishment of death. 86. That the agents of Defendant Barack Obama created a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and 87. That Barack Obama and his the agents fraudulently present a forged document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large including Plaintiff along with those similarly situated here in New York as proof positive of President Obamas authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate. 88. That Barack Obama and his agents manufactured the long-form birth certificate presented to the public on April 27, 2011 as a computer-generated forgery. 89. That Barack Obama and his agents forged the President Obamas Selective Service card by forging the U.S. postal date stamp on the purported selective service document; 90. That Barack Obama and his agents spoliate and conceal Records of Immigration and
Page 41 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. 91. That Barack Obama and his agents spoliate and conceal those records of travel referenced from August 1961 housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. 92. That The National Archives in Washington DC and all their employees are directly under the authority of Barack Obama and the executive. 93. That Barack Obama and his agents spoliate and conceal the records from the days surrounding Obamas birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 that are missing. For the only week in 1961 where these immigration cards cannot be found. 94. That Barack Obama had met a US Postal Carrier while entering the residence of the Ayers Family in Chicago and at which time he admitted he was a foreign exchange student that the William Ayers family was assisting and he was selected to become a candidate for president. 95. For the above aforementioned reasons, the above requested documents are of great public interest and without receiving eligibility proof, Plaintiff liberty remains at risk were the usurper of the POTUS administrator which constitutes a huge National Security dilemma to continue and as Strunk along with those similarly situated suffers irreparable harm with time as the essence is deserving of equity relief of a preliminary injunction with Declaratory Judgment. AS AND FOR THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Barack Obama and his agents intentionally mislead and misrepresented facts to injure Plaintiff personally
96. That Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction paragraphs 1 through 95 with each allegation with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length and further alleges that Barack Obama and his agents intentionally mislead and misrepresented facts to injure Plaintiff personally.
Page 42 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 97. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents at his April 27, 2011 Washington DC Press Conference shown as Exhibit U purport the Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form as if a government document knowing it was a forged document as submitted to the entire nation. 98. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents at the April 27 2011 Press Conference proffered the CoLB short form document as well based upon the admissions of the Respondent Obama and his attorneys there at the White House at the April 27, 2011 press conference . 99. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents at the April 27 2011 Press Conference repeatedly said that Barack Obama had requested the supposed short form CoLB in 2008 from the State of Hawaii be released. 100. That the supposed short form CoLB alleged requested in 2008 from the State of Hawaii be released in fact is stamped June 6, 2007. 101. That Defendant Barack Obama agents coordinated defense of the supposed short form CoLB with agents of FactCheck.org who report on August 21, 2008 in favor of authenticity. 102. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents knew that the Factcheck.org and Justia.org citations report would be depended on by members of Congress and Media. 103. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents knew that the so-called Factcheck.org investigators were partisan amateurs unlike the Justia.org principal associated with Sidley Austin Law firm where Defendant Obama once worked and was support in his campaign fund raising. 104. That Defendant Barack Hussein Obama was adopted by his Indonesian step father Lolo Soetoro who named him Soebarkah and was also otherwise known as Barry Soetoro, and Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah. 105. That Strunk discovered that Justia.org principals have conspired with Defendant Obama and his agents to conceal, and spoliate SCOTUS citations as to NBC to injure Strunk personally.
Page 43 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 AS AND FOR THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Barack Obama and his agents intentionally forged a selective service and passport records to mislead and misrepresented facts to injure Plaintiff personally 106. That Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction paragraphs 1 through 105 with each allegation with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length and further alleges that Barack Obama and his agents intentionally forged a selective service and passport records to mislead and misrepresented facts to injure Plaintiff personally. 107. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents forged the Selective Service record misrepresenting Defendant Obamas status before the 2008 election 108. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents act by theft and tampering of the US DOS Passport records by US DOS private contractor entity under the control of John Brennan currently Respondent Obamas White House Counter Terrorism advisor having previously been assistant to Central Intelligence Director George Tenent, 109. That Barack Obama and his agents knowingly acted to conceal his adoptive status as an Indonesian citizen. 110. That Barack Obama and his agents intentionally lied to conceal his Indonesian names and foreign student financial status when he applied for his Illinois law license. 111. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents filed False Documents with the government and knowing such documents filed are falsified government documents. 112. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents spoke with Congressmen and the media to promote a Born a Citizen 14th Amendment status for Defendant Obama. 113. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents spoke with agents of the Justia.org organization to spoliate prior decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States to change the definition of natural-born Citizen to that of Born a Citizen.
Page 44 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 AS AND FOR THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (For Defendant Obamas actions in conspiracy with others to use the campaign organization entities Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund to solicit and obtain foreign donations in violation of 42 USC 1971 administered by the FEC) 114. Strunk repeats each and every allegation contained in the above introduction and paragraphs 1 through 113 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length however omits it for brevity and economy. 115. That Plaintiff moves with leave of the court to eliminate any additional defendants herein including Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund, and various John and Jane Doe(s), XYZ Entities as material parties in interest now associated with the scheme to defraud with unjust enrichment in the case Strunk v. The New York State Board of Elections et al. in the New York State Supreme Court for the County of Kings with Index No.: 2011-6500 filed March 22, 2011 after Plaintiff received the order to dismiss this case without prejudice on January 5, 2011; AS AND FOR THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Conspiracy defined with 42 USC 1985 by Defendant Obama, Obamas agents with various John Jane Doe(s) and XYZ entities to violate Strunks rights and liberty along with those similarly situated including Plaintiff ) 116. Strunk repeats each and every allegation contained in the above introduction and paragraphs 1 through 115 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length however omits it for brevity and economy. 117. Subject to the finding of the Quo Warranto Inquest, that there is a conspiracy defined with 42 USC 1985 by Defendant Obama, Obamas agents including the Campaign funding organization with various John / Jane Doe(s) and XYZ entities to violate Strunks rights and liberty along with those similarly situated including Taitz to further the fraud to violate the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 and to cover-up that Defendant Obama not only has dual
Page 45 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 allegiance but was born outside the USA conceal the Microfilm record of travel of the mother as requested by Strunkin the ongoing FOIA case before Judge Richard J. Leon DCD 08-cv-2234. 118. Defendant Obama and his agents associated with his campaign and administration are Preventing officer(s) from performing duties in New York and Washington D.C. in the matter of the 2008 General Election cycle, and after by coercing various members of the Congress not challenge during the electoral college tally required in Article 2, and by not calling for a challenge if any there; and to conceal treason or felony by one not participating in the crime, and by seditious conduct against New York and United States of America governments. 119. That Obama and his agents in New York and Washington DC as if a State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threaten, Joseph Biden and other candidates from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties; 120. Defendant Obama and his agent(s) in his campaign and administration act to Obstruct justice; intimidate a party, witness, or juror such as Judge Carter and Judge Land and suborned witnesses to proceedings promote a breach of fiduciary duties of public officials. 121. That Obama and his agent(s) in New York and other States conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified,
Page 46 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 or to influence the verdict, presentment, in any such court, lawfully assented to by him; and 122. That Obama and his agent(s) of his campaign and administration conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws; 123. Defendant Obama and his agents of his campaign and administration as misprisors deprive persons of rights or privileges of Strunk and those similarly situated. 124. That Obama and his agents in New York and other States conspire against Governor Paterson, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, Strunk and the class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of laws; 125. That the fruit of the poison tree by frustration of effort and cover-up by Mr. Obama in commission of a fraud has been asked for his "vault" version birth certificate; however, he has refused, which has prompted lawsuits across the United States and is liable for damages. 126. Obama and his agents including Eric Holder and his agents act and conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress; 127. Obama and his agents injure Strunk and his property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby
Page 47 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, 128. Thereby Strunk as the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any of the conspirators; 129. To resolve the Quo Warranto inquest, for if Obama were born in Mombasa Kenya is ineligible to the office of POTUS by Obamas own admission. 130. Ex-relator(s) require with 28 USC 1361 a writ of mandamus of at the discretion of the court: of DHS, to ascertain the facts alleged under penalty of perjury by Lucas Smith as to Defendant Obama, the various Campaign committees, agents and or John Does(s) Jane Doe(s) and or XYZ entities conspiring as defined with 42 USC 1971, 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986, the False Claims Act with 31 U.S.C. 37293733 pursuant to the notice given to the FEC, DOT and DOJ by the Journalist Ken Timmerman related to Obamas support of genocide in Kenya and related law in entirety; and with FRCvP Rule 65 and LCvR 65.1 a TRO restraining Defendant Obama, the Supplemental Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund and or agents use of any account(s) to be placed under the control and investigation of a court appointed special master with FRCvP Rule 53(a)(b) to ascertain facts of wrong doing as to injury AS AND FOR THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unjust enrichment of Defendant Obama, Obamas agents with various John Jane Doe(s) and XYZ entities to violate Strunks rights and liberty along with those similarly situated including Plaintiff with different claims and damages) 131. Strunk repeats each and every allegation contained in the above introduction and paragraphs 1 through 130 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length however omits it for brevity and economy. 132. Subject to the finding of a Quo Warranto Inquest of Barack Hussein Obama II, that the
Page 48 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 Unjust enrichment of Defendant Obama, Obamas agents with various John Jane Doe(s) and XYZ entities that have injured Strunks rights and liberty along with those similarly situated including Plaintiff with different claims and damages; and as Ex-Relators are whistleblowers representing the People of the USA as a Qui Tam matter, individually claim a portion of the total amount and other sources yet to be determined under the Courts control; 133. Strunk wishes a judgment of the value of the return of: a. Property and all mesne profits and damages, based upon an accounting by the Department of treasury. b. all the False Claim disbursements from the DOT to date; c. all Campaign matching funds and funds taken under false pretense; d. Reimbursement of all damages caused by the conspiracy to be determined at a jury trial including punitive treble damages prescribed by law; e. Reimbursement of all the expense of a special master and associated costs of investigation and litigation to date; f. And for other and different relief as the court and jury deems just. 134. That Strunk is aware of the need for a skilled attorney to handle the intricacies of this action with both DOJ Criminal and Civil investigative experience and trusted by the Court. As such, I have reviewed the background of George Washington University Professor Stephen A. Saltzburg with previous experience that is acceptable to Plaintiff as the special master appointed in this matter before the court. 135. That were this Court to hold an expedited quo warranto inquest in camera under seal involving Barack Hussein Obama IIs right to hold office as to the authority of the office of POTUS were to determine the answer to the above four federal questions affirmatively then Petitioner Strunk would be able to return to the State Court to perfect his actions, and thereby this request for leave to renew meets the Third and finally, "it must be 'likely,' as opposed to
Page 49 of 52
Seal v Seal DCD 2010-cv-00486 merely 'speculative,' that the injury will be 'redressed by a favorable decision."' Id. at 561 (quoting Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26,41-42 (1976)). 136. The matter of the upcoming August 2012 Democratic and Republican conventions to place their respective candidate for office of POTUS on the respective state general election ballot on November 6, 2012, requires an expedited inquest hearing on the attached simplified amended Complaint; and that as of this mailing has been provided to the respective US Attorney General and Respondent accordingly; and in the best of all possible worlds with eyes wide open, 137. As judicial notice to this Court, were this proposed amendment by motion denied without affording relief to Strunks injury under the NBC Federal issue an original proceeding would ensue in a challenge that would be find the SCOTUS and would necessitate the recusal of Justices John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan for cause, as all have a conflict of interest from hearing this matter; and notwithstanding the fact that Justice Roberts has a real and complete subservience to the Holy See, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and their Praetorian Guard Jesuit General Adolph Nicholass twist of his vulnerability regarding his own adopted children; thereby only leaves 6 Justices to hear my or Defendant Obamas direct appeal. 138. The Court has discretion with jurisdiction to afford Plaintiff to renew and amend the Complaint in the proposed simplified form of Quo Warranto inquest for Barack Hussein Obama II to show cause why he is eligible for the Office of President of the United States (POTUS), and upon further finding in camera that this Court should unseal this case and order that Plaintiff Christopher-Earl Strunk is innocent of wrongdoing for contending that to be eligible under U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 a person must be born in the USA of two US Citizen parents, and this Court should use the RookerFeldman Doctrine exception to address the NBC Federal matter that the Star Chamber of Justice Schack used to wrongly sanction Strunk.
Page 50 of 52
WHEREFORE, Ex-relator, Christopher Earl Strunk in esse, on his own behalf and on behalf of
the Government of the United States of America requests this Honorable Court to order: a. That Strunk is innocent of any frivolous conduct in his use of the NBC Federal issue associated with Strunk's injuries b. Release the Summonses for immediate service by the U.S. Marshal Service; c. Let the expedited Quo Warranto inquest be done in camera attended by the named parties before the August Conventions of either party; d. Let this case remain under seal until the Court renders a decision and order e. Once an order has been rendered let Ex-relator proceed with a special master to recover funds fiom Barack Obama and his agents if any under Qui Tam provisions presented before a Jury f. and for different and other relief that the Court deems necessary.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Respectfully submitted by, Dated: July ,2012 Brooklyn, New York 593 ~aiderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn., New .York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@,strunk.ws Cc: Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General The US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Barack Hussein Obama I1 The White House N.W. 1600 Pennsylvania Washington, D.C. 20500
venue;
Page 5 1 of 52
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.
COUNTY-OF KINGS
Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, by special-appearance being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: 1. That I am the Ex-Relator, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, with place for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28 1 Brooklyn, New York 11238. 2. That may four basic particular injuries are personal and have been caused directly by Barack Hussein Obama I1 and or his agents by malice to usurp POTUS and wrongfully exercises authority over my denial of grant of power of attorney consent given to administer the United States of America Inc. 3. I duly fired Barack Hussein Obama for cause on January 23,2009 after he took the oath of office by timely return of the offer of contract wishing no contract thereby revoked power of attorney due to his failure to prove eligibility as a natural born citizen and have been wrongly punished in the exercise of my duly and liberty otherwise to be protected by the US Constitution. 4. That Respondent Obama in esse usurps the office of POTUS and presumably wishes to have a Quo Warranto forum to prove his eligibility to be able to return to office if elected. 5. I hereby give my permission for a sealed Quo Warranto inquest on the issue of facts. 6. I have read the above Amended Complaint with Demand for an in camera inquest on the injury and damages after a Declaratory Decision and Order is issued on the question of Strunk's innocence of wrongdoing and aver that the complaint with Exhibit A through Z are in support of the Plaintiffs efforts nonetheless has a dispute on the facts to be issues before the court as well as to the source of Qui Tam reimbursement for damages and injuries, and I know its contents; the facts stated in the Complaint herein are true to my own personal knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3'(l parties, books and records, and personal knowledge. except as to those stated upon information and belief, which I believe to be true.
I -
- .. .
-.
-.
Christopher-Earl : Strunk O in esse
r Sworn to before me
- .
- This-- day of July 20 12 :-5
Commission Expires June 30, 20
Page 52 of 52
Amended Complaint for Quo Warranto Inquest and Jury trial on Damages
Exhibit A

CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK, Plaintiff
v.
1
'
) ) )
Civil Action No. 10-486 UNDER SEAL
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, et al. Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Before the Court is Christopher-Earl Strunk's complaint [l] seeking to supplement the complaint filed in Taih v. Obama, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010). Upon consideration of the complaint and the applicable law, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice for the reasons set forth below.
I,
LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Nature of Stunk's Filing Strunk styles his filing as an "Interpieader Verified Complaint" under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 22. He seeks to supplement the complaint filed in Taitz v. Obama, 707 F. Supp. 2010), with additional causes of action. As to these causes of action, Strunk asks 2d 1 (D.D.C. the Court-for suntmary judgment, declaratory judgment; mbarious writs of mandamus. Rule 22 is not the proper vehicle for Stunk's filing. Under Rule 22(a)(l), "[plenons with claims that may expose a plaintiff to double or multiple liability may be joined as defendants and required to interplead." Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(a)(l). Strunk does not seek to join any person as a defendant; rather, he seeks to supplement a complaint filed in a separate case. Under Rule 22(a)(2), "[a] defendant exposed to similar liability may seek interpleader through a crosscl& or munterclaim." Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(a)(2). Strunk is not a defendant exposed to liability here.
Because S
W cannot satisfy either test for interpleader, he cannot file under Rule 22.
As apro se litigant, however, his filing is entitled to a liberal construction. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.519, 520 (1972) (recognizing that pro se filings are held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"); Richardson v. United States, 193 F.3d 545, 548 @.C. Cir. 1999). The Court will thus construe Strunk's filing as a complaint in its own right.
B. Article III Shnding

.--~
- -. -
.-
~-
Article 111 of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to cases or controversies. U S Const. art. 111, $2, cl. 1. Consequently, "a showing of standing 'is an essential .. and unchanging' predicate to any exercise of [a court's] jurisdiction." Flu. Audubon Soc 'y v. Bensten, 94 F.3d 658, 663 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders o Wildlife, 504 U.S. f 555, 560 (1992)). In other words, "Article I11 standing must be resolved as a threshold matter." Raytheon Co. v. Ashborn Agencies, Ltd., 372 F.3d 451,453 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 102 (1998)). Indeed, the requirement that courts liberally interpret pro se pleadings does not dispense with the constitutional requirement of standing. See Dorsey v. Dist. o Columbia, No. 10-0741,2010 WL 43 13334, *4 (D.D.C. Nov. 2, f 2010) (dismissing apro se plaintiffs claims for lack of standing).
-
As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing
-
standing. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 104; Lujan, 504 U.S.at 561. The "irreducible constitutional minimum of standing" consists of three elements. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. The plaintiff must demonstrate all three elements to establish standing. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury .in fact. Id The injury must be concrete and particularized, as well as actual or imminent. Id. The Supreme Court has "consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government--claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper
application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large-does not state an Article I11 case or controversy."
The second element of standing requires the plaintiff to show "a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of." Id at 560. Third and finally, "it must be 'likely,' as opposed to merely 'speculative,' that the injury will be 'redressed by a favorable
.-
~-
--
decision."' Id. at 561 (quoting Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26,41-42 (1976)).
C. Failure to State a Claim under Rule 12(b)(6)
A district court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim under
-
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) where "it is patently obvious that [the plaintiffJ could not have prevailed on the facts alleged in his complaint." Baker v. Dir., US. Parole Comm'n, 916 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Even under a liberal pro se standard, dismissal is appropriate where the plaintiffs complaint provides no factual or legal basis for the requested relief, Prince v. Purdue, No. 10-240, 2010 'INL 724705, *2 (D.D.C. 24, 2010) (dismissing Feb. plaintiffs pro se complaint sua sponte because it "provide[d] no factual or legal basis for her various requests for relief and fail[ed] to specify any alleged wrongdoing by defendants that would support a viable claim for relief'); Perry v. Discover Bank, 514 F . Supp. 2d 94, 95 (D.D.C. 2007) (same).
11.
DISCUSSION
A. President's AIkged Ineligibilityfor Orwe .In his first cause of action, plaintiff asserts that the President is ineligible for office
because he has dual allegiance and is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. Plaintiff contends that the President's acts are thus void ab initio. He claims to have suffered an
"informational injury as a voter and member of the public." Plaintiff asserts only a generalized grievance here, rather than a particularized injury. He thus lacks standing to bring his claim. See Lujan, 504 U.S.at 573-74.
B. Federal Fraud Claim and Replevin Action

I
Plaintiff alleges that the President "is paying the debt of the USA with debt, which is a
----
federal crime fraud." He claims that the President is taking his property, and seeks to recover that - - - -- ----- - .property through a state law replevin action. To the extent that plaintiff attempts to state a claim under federal law, he lacks standing
I
-
to do so. He apparently claims injury as a taxpayer, which is generally an insufficient basis for standing. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83,85 (1968). Furthermore, he invokes no federal law and has thus failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Because there is no federal claim over which the Court can exerci& jurisdiction, plaintiff cannot initiate a state law replevin action. See United Mine Workers o America v. Gibbs,383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966) (holding that a federal court has f jurisdiction over a state law claim only when that claim shares "a common nucleus of operative fact" with a federal claim over which the court already has jurisdiction).
C. Conspiracy in Violation of 42 U S C 1971 ...

Plaintiff also alleges that the President has conspired to use various campaign committees
to solicit and obtain foreign donations in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1971. He contends that this
constitutes a national security dilemma that will harm him and similarly situated individuals. Again, plaintiff asserts only a generalized grievance here. He thus lacks standing to bring his claim. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74. Furthermore,
8 1971 prohibits discrimination against
voters and interference with voting rights. Plaintiff, whose allegations pertain to campaign fundraising, simply has not stated a claim under this statute.
D. Conspiracy in Violation of 42 U S C 8 1985 ...

Plaintiff claims that the President has conspired to violate his civil rights by covering up his alleged dual allegiance. Specifically, he alleges that he has .ken "directly injured by those who have been deployed in support of the conspiracy to surround, channel and mis-direct [sic] Taitz's legal actions." Plaintiff firher claims, among other allegations, that the President has
-
--
conspired to prevent officials fiom performing their duties, to prevent candidates from accepting - -- -- - - - office, and to intimidate judges and witnesses.
- - A
Plaintiff has not shown that he has suffered a particularized injury, nor has he demonstrated a causal conne!ction between his injury and the President's alleged conduct. See
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. Moreover, he cannot establish standing by asserting the injuries of
others. See id He thus lacks standing to bring his claims.
Plaintiff seeks damages, claiming that the President has been unjustly enriched through plaintiffs injuries. Because plaintiff lacks standing to assert any of the claims in his complaint, there is no basis upon which to award him damages.
For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs complaint [I] is DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Signed by Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge, on January 5,201 1.
Exhibit B
State of Arizona County of Maricopa
) ) ss.
AFFIDAVIT
I, the undersigned, being first duly sworn, do hereby state under oath and under penalty of perjury that the facts are true:
1. I am over the age of 18 and am a resident of Arizona. The information contained in this affidavit is based upon my own personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, could testify competently thereto. I am the duly elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, and I have been a law enforcement officer and official, in both state and federal government, for 5 1 years.
2. In August of last year, a group of citizens from the Surprise Arizona Tea Party
organization met with me in my office and presented a petition signed by approximately 250 residents of Maricopa County, asking if I would investigate the controversy surrounding President Barrack Obama's birth certificate authenticity and his eligibility to serve as the President of the United States.
3. This group expressed its concern that, up until that point, no law enforcement
agency in the country had ever gone on record indicating that they had either
looked into this or that they were willing to do so, citing lack of resources and jurisdictional challenges.
4. The Maricopa County Sheriffs Office is in a rather unique position. Under the
Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes, as the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, I have the authority to request the aid of the volunteer posse, located in the county, to assist me in the execution of my duties. Having organized a volunteer posse of approximately 3,000 members, I, as the Sheriff of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, can authorize an investigation go forward to answer these questions at virtually no expense to the tax payer.
5. The Cold Case posse agreed to undertake the investigation requested by the 250
citizens of Maricopa County. This posse consists of former police officers and attorneys who have worked investigating the controversy surrounding Barack Obama. The investigation mainly focused on the electronic document that was
presented as President Obama's long form birth certificate to the American people and to citizens of Maricopa County by the White House on April 27,201 1.
6. The investigation led to a closer examination of the procedures regarding the

registration of births at the Hawaii Department of Health and various statements made by Hawaii government officials regarding the Obama birth controversy over the last five years.
7. Upon close examination of the evidence, it is my belief that forgery and fraud was
likely committed in key identity documents including President Obama's longform birth certificate, his Selective Service Registration card, and his Social Security number.
8. My investigators and I believe that President Obama's long-form birth certificate

is a computer-generated document, was manufactured electronically, and that it did not originate in a paper format, as claimed by the White House. Most importantly, the "registrar's stamp" in the computer generated document released by the White House and posted on the White House website, may have been imported from another unknown source document. The effect of the stamp not being placed on the document pursuant to state and federal laws means that there is probable cause that the document is a forgery, and therefore, it cannot be used as a verification, legal or otherwise, of the date, place or circumstances of Barack Obama's birth.
9. The Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into Barack Obarna's birth
certificate and his eligibility to be president is on-going. The on-going nature of the investigation is due to additional information that has come to light since we held the press conference in March, 2012. As soon as that information has been properly verified by the Cold Case Posse, I will release that information to the public. Executed this Ld_ day of June, 20 1 Maricopa County, Arizona. Joseph M. Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff
Sworn to and subsc ibed before me this \%?dayof $-lx\e ,2012.
Exhibit C
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 213 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 214 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 215 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 216 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 217 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 219 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 220 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 221 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 222 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 223 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 224 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 225 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 226 of 243
QUO WARRANTO COMPLAINT WITH DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND DECISION ON QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION EXHIBIT A
593 Vsmdertrilt Avenue -281
Ia atre of:
Brookrlp New York Zip Code exempt DMM 122-32 CI~k~pher-Earl: Stm& Q Not a c a p a t i o z i
Livhg-snul
Deelarant
h c kH & &a Bany S ~
a l k (
O
a
h in @8@,
a we,
~ ~ ~ ~
No Tid P d e s hr
~
& ~ ~
m in as%,
DBA BARACE:HSJSSEIN O B U INC.

-VEOR(S), MSLCI?(S]
W S ) , AGENTCS),
InanE~f: the AGENT m* CHARGE OF THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE 9tJF~e oft3avmmmf rmd Pubficflairs 245 M.lrpay Drive* Budding 410, Washingtan, DC 20223
NOTICE TO THE AGENT I NOTICE TO PWCIPAL NOTICE TO PRFNCIPAL S IS NOTICE TO AGENT RE:OFFER OF CONTRACT Received 20 January 2009 and received 2 January 2009 1
FOR TEE RECORD

RlETURN AM) REDRAPT
TIMELY1WITHOUT DISHONOR WrrH THE l W S l 3 U m SPECIAL-APPlURANCE NOT A COWORATION The Lming-Soul
Atmhents:
* Oath of21 darmary 2009 off= for csntract IReturnd & R * * Notice to the Clerk of Records
Judicial Notice b
e 1 of 2)
Oath of 20 January 2009 offer for mntrmt /Returned & R e d d b d
* Judicial Notice @age 2 of21
Ohms md US chief
mx d S~te3.'' ie
R&m "And will to toe best &my abiiity."

President Obama; "And will t the best of my abili o
P r e s i h t O W a : "Pmewe,pratect and defend the cm

States. "
Robertr;: "So help me e d . "

Pm'sidet O b a :'Sb help me Go&"
Roberts, O b d ' l
hm!
~ P Wt i j d yi
:PmidWal Qath FOX News
Bmck Bbma 3tirmE:ed $qhllj wwr brief,awkward m m w d i an o t h e w b n

ing fine,tT* whi& BE preS&if repab
n m on Jm. 20
TRANSCRIPT O A T ~ ~ E ~ OF
CJ Roberts. BHO :
m g la@ TechniGalty, i m n m i pmidenf begins at m f i g
-Are you p&ai#l

"I a. m'
sJ
--.-----'
BHO :
to t h e b BHO: "#at 1 will &xGicuPe.. CJ Roberts: "faithfully...the OfF1~3 President of W Uniied Sd.of e BHO : 'fhe W e of President o the United States faitbfullfl f CJRobeW "andl wltotlie besfofmyability... BHO: 'en= !wi ta a&hest o my stiility.. ! f CJ Roberts: *...preserve protectand defend fheCai~stitutioA 8HO: " ". .preseTve protect arro'defend the Cmstifufr"0n the t . of . C Roberts: "So he:^ ybti God" J BHO : *So help me Gad",
U.S: Cadtutioion ArWe 2 Section 1 Clause 8. .. 'I do solernnlv swear tor aHim -- the Offlce of President of the ljnitea States, and I will to the k t of my
8
7 - -
'4'
the ~o~wfttutionthe united ~ t a ~ s . " of
w;JP-d~
NOTlCE TO W E CLERK OF RECORDS
Ttit minnteyon d v e any recod, document, paper, proceeding, map, book or o d ~ m thing depOsitea with you, you are commhhg aim= against justice d m Revised S W t s of the United Stam First Section 43 Congms, Sections 5403,5407 aad 5408 totaling up to $9,000 in h w and up to 12 years in prison pm a&hvityaufailtoremrd T i t l e l 8 U S C ~ m 2 0 7 1 atsocaui-kqimpriisonmentand dkplification of&If p u t county attorney toid you not to file any documents like mine, yon are still rsspomible, as I da no acmpt rd-party-intebvenem. Any attorney, district attorney, or q m e parties and do not have a licu~se make a legal detmmhation in to h m the hwydng d am d l t i matter as they do not represent M e and Yau, the oomty c l e do not have the authority to r e p m t hs Me. Should You fail to uphold Your swom o& and +rm your duties I will h v e no choice but to rcwrd aaAiiaaVit ofC r i m i d Complaint agahtst Your amd Liend a mpy to Your bonding company.
Title I X X 4 ~ , - C W . 4 . CIUMES AGAINST JUSTICE

50 . -3
Every person who w l f l y destroys Mattempts to deshoy, or, with intent to steal or d m y , ilul takes and carries away any mmd, paper, or promding of a c o w of justice, filed or deposited with any c l d or oEcer of so& court, or any papa, or document, o record fled or depasikd i any public ofice, r n or wid^ any judicial or public officer, &dl, withunt rehmce to the vaIue of the record,paper, d o m e d , or procGediag srr taken, pay a h e ofnot more than two thousand dollars, or s * imprisonment, at hard l a b , aot mwe thaa tree ywm, or both: [S* Q 8 54083411,54 t 4.1J Titie =.C - . - CH.4. CRIMES AGAINST msnm h, pablic-ds.)
SC5407. I two or more peasons i my State or Taritory conspire for the purpose ofimpeding f n hindering.o b c h g or defeating,ia any mthed m come ofjustice in any State or Territory, with , intent d q to my citizenthe equd protection of the laws, or to i* him or his property fur lawhlly n wforcin& or att~tllpting enforce, the right of any person, or class of person, to the equal protection of to thelaws, ewhofsochpersonshall beprmishedby a f i n e o f n o t l ~ t b a n ~ e h m d r e d n o r m o r e ~ f i v e thomaad dollam, or by imprkoammt, witb or w i t h u t harrl I&ra wt less than six month nor more tban six years, or by both sueh h e and imprisonmeai. S w 5 9 1977-1991,20042010,5506-5510.1 Tide LXX CIUMES. CK.4. CRIMES AGAINST JUSTICE (Conspiracy to defeat enfammart ofthe laws.)
SEC5408. Evwy officer, having the custody of m m r d , document, paper, or proceding specified i y n e m fifty-fim hundrcd and three,who f m d d d y takes away, o withdraws, or destroys any soah r rwmd, docmmt, paper, or p m c d k g f l d in his OEM depsitsd with him or in his cmtody, shall ie or pay a fine of not more fhan two thougand dollars, or d e r imigrisoammtat bard labor not more than three yms, boband W moreaver, Wcit h s office and be foreva d k w a r d disqualified froan holding or i arry ofice u a d a the Govmment of the United S a e . @esbyiug record by oEca in charge.) tts
S d o n 2071. Concealment, ternoval, or mutilation geblmlly

(a) Whoever wiifulIy and unlawfUfly c m c d s , removes, mutilates, obliterab, or d a m p , w attmnpts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and canim away my record, proceeding, map, book, paper, documen5 or other thing, flbd or dtposited with any clak or o f i c a ofany mnd of the United W,or in any public office, or with any jdicia! orpublic o 5 c a ofh e United States, shall be ha under ihs title w imprisoned not more tban kyears, or both
(b) Wh,
M g the wstody ofmy such reed., proceeding, map, book, doarmeat, paper, or other thing, wiIlllly and d a w f d y conads, removes, mutilates, obliterates, fddies, or destroys the same, Bhall be fined unda this title or imprimned mot more than tbrae years, Mhth; d s h d forfeit his office andbe disqualified ftwn ho?di~~g office mdu the United States. As used in any this subsection, the t m u~ffi~e" not include the oftice held by my pason as a reaired officer does ofthe Armed F o m of the United States.
[While the misrcpresentetiw of a m t n fact, pgst or present may eonslim basis ae d for an infof 11 Viad." any act omission o r &ih holves a breach oflewl duty, mo cmf~dencc r justly r e p o d and is injurious m another. or hy which an undue advantage is taken of another, may become the hundation far t o o ~ l m e r rofa matetiid k t i n f of~fraud, aud wtren them is a duty to fact may b equally rts wrongful as t positive misctpnsenhtbn.T x Civ. App. 1943 e. Ruebeck t*, Hrt~tt.171 SW2d 895, Wwmed I v6 S1Ud 7382 I42 T m 167i I50 A. L.R
""5.1
(Party having supmior knowWge who takes ahan-
of mother's ignoramx of the law t deceiivs him by studied canceatment or mismpremtatiwr can be held reqmo sible fbr that conduct. rex. 1987. FinaSup&. Im v. rfbileneNati~~nul k 726 h SW2d S3A
[We(judge5j have na mom right t decline ttu3 exercise ofjraisdiction which is given, a (thb will include the county court of recodjradgg Victw CariIlo) than lo usurp tha~ which is n d given. The one or the other would be I to the C.nnstitution." Chhm v. 6 Kkut 264. (1821); U.S v. WiIJ, 499 US.2M.I
rWh a governmwa becomes a patw i my imdhp company, i r diva^^ h l f , ( )e a ' n s l far tls tmcenc~ ( the mwactim of dmt cornparry. of its sovereign c b t c r , and t a b that ofa private c m . .-It &ends t a level with t b a with whom it associate o i ~ i fand rakes the c , w which b b g s to its asxxiahts and to the business
which is to be transacted.* &rnk tfUhiledSIata v. PI MI^ ' Bank rlfUmr~iu 22 US.904(lrP24I.J
["The United States as drawee of cdmmemial p p r stands in no dierent light tfian any o h r drawee." "The IJpited S t a t u does business on busirmtss terms.It is not exem@ fKHn the gem1 rules governing the ii@mand duties of drawees by the largmts of its deaIinp and its having& employ agents to do what ifdone by a principal in p m m would kave no mom for dmMW CI@& Mt C h v. United ,SCLICRP.iLS. 36311943),] 318
1C-
enforcing mem saaates do m t act judicially, but rninkwialiy, having na o judieial lmulunky, and unlike Corpts o LAW, do not obtainjlPisdition by m i c e of f p mnor even by A m s t and Compelled Appemme." BanueII v. Qrir, 9 HOW& m 336, 34x1
VWant uf jurisdiction may not be cured by mm ofthe ~ ' e s . I ~ i d . t r l r l i i t > n s t " Asstxiation E CL R.323 US 310.3 13.1
[ Judicial Notice ]
1. ["A judgment rendered i violation of due process is void" World Wde VoIKrwagot n W d e r r , 444 US.286,29 I ; National Bmtk v. WiZey, 195 US 257; Penmyer v. Ne_t 95 US 7143
[ ". the .mpkmmtsofdue process must b met Wore the court can properly assert in ,. persomnt j ~ c t i o n " WeZIsFargo v. W e b Fargo,556 F2d 406,416.1
essential of due process of law." [. Notification of legal respnsibiity is w e C o d & v Geaeral Combwdion Co., 269 US 385,3911 .
[. w A ~ w h i c h e i t h e r f o r b i & o r r e q ~ ~ d o ' m g o f m ~ i n ~ s o v a g u e t h a t men ofcommon intelligence must necessarily guess a its meaning and differ as to its t
application, violates the tmntial of due process of law." C o d I y v. General Comimction Co.. 269 U.S. 3 8539I]
[. nWheneverit appears that the court lacks subject matterjuzisdiction, the ant is obliged t dismiss the actiua" Elly v. Coastal Cop., 503 U.S. 131,136-37; U S. v. o Texar, 252 F. Supp 234,2541 n s [. " O n o e ~ c t i o i challenged, the court cannotproceed when it clearly s p p e a ~ s that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority t reach merits, but, rather o should d i e the & ' Melo v, US, F.2d 10261 m' 505
is no d i d o n to ignore lack o f ~ c t i c m " Joyce v. US, 474 F 26 2151
QUO WARRANTO COMPLAINT WITH DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND DECISION ON QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION EXHIBIT B
I I Pnrn your name
i SranthelCmtta
W Attachthiioaudtbthebrdcdthemaitpiece,
~ m e m S 1 . 2 a n d 3 . A L s o ~ ~41~DelhreryIsdesLed t W Print y a w name and address on Um meme

?mrrritmlCikrtff~pmJla
1 .
a m
"Add=-q
klwn-e
! .
I
D.bcMwly~~franRBm1? OYes No If YES. enter delivery address bebw:
I
I
--
4.
insured Mall r \C.O.D. -mivay)mJaw
O b
'ps
am-3811 ~ebnrary 0 ~ . 2
brmsstic ~etum ~eceipt
W .mplete items 1.2, and 3 Aiso complete .

'
item4ifReshictedDelhmryisdeshed. Print you name and address on the m m e e so that m,can mtum the card to you. Attach this card to the back o the mallpiece, f aonlhefmnt if space permits.
_
---
--
n YES, enter
<
.PSFcmn3811. ~etxuary2004
-%
~anestlc ~etum ~eceipt
rcag54~&im*-
INTERPLEADER VERIFIED COMPLAINT IN USA & EX REL STRUNK V OBAMA ET AL. DCD
EXHIBIT 2
THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON
August 26,2009
Mr. Christopher Strunk Unit 28 1 593 Vanderbilt Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11238
Dear Mr. Strunk:

Thank you for contacting the office of President Barack Obama. The President appreciates your taking the time to voice your concerns and opinions. We would like to be of assistance to you; however, due to the separation of powers, it is not within our authority to become involved in legal matters. You must resolve this issue through the judicial system. Please be aware that you can visit www.usa.Pov or call 1-800-FEDINFO for information about Federal Government assistance. We hope your concerns are resolved to your satisfaction. Again, thank you for your correspondence. Sincerely,
..
F. Michael Kelleher Special Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Correspondence
Exhibit D
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------x
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Plaintiff, -againstNew York State Board of Elections, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN and LORRAINE A. CORTEZ-VAZQUEZ, Secretary of the State of New York, each in their official and individual capacity,' Defendants.
NOT FOR PRINT OR ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION
08-CV-4289 (ARR)(LB) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
----------------------------------------------------------x
ROSS, United States District Judge: On October 20,2008, plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk," appearing pro se, commenced this action pursuant to 42 US.C. 1983, 1985, 1988 and state law. He seeks a "restraining order and preliminary injunction" to prevent the general election on November 4,2008 based on an allegedly invalid slate of presidential electors. On October 22,2008, plaintiff filed a proposed "order to show cause." The court grants plaintiffs request to proceed informa pauperis pursuant to 28 US.c.
1915(a) solely for the purpose ofthis order. As set forth below, the complaint is dismissed and the order to show cause is denied.
I Plaintiff also names the New York State Attorney General, The United States Department of State and the United States Attorney General as "Parties-in-interest." CompI. at 1.
2 Plaintiff is no stranger to this Court. He has filed the following actions: Strunk v. United States House of Rep., No. 99-CV-2168 (NG); Strunk v. United States Dep't of Housing and Urban Dev., No. 99-CV-6840 (NG); Strunk v. United States House of Rep., No. 00-CV-7177 (JBW); Strunk v. United States CIA, No. 08-CV -1196 CARR); Strunk v. United States Postal Svce, No. 08-CV-1744 CARR).
'--.
'.
;':~R ,--) .,...
Backeround Plaintiff challenges the 2008 New York Presidential Electoral College and questions whether Senator Obarna can run for President of the United States. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the New York State Board of Elections ("BOE") has failed to provide him with a list of the presidential elector list and that it is not available on the BOE's website.' Compl, at 5. As a result, plaintiff argues that the BOE has "infringed Strunk's first amendment right to speech and association and burden[s] his expectation of effective participation in the general election." Compl, at 6, ~ 25.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants Todd D. Valentine and Stanley Zalen, BOE deputy directors, failed to comply with various state elections laws. Compl. at 6-9. Plaintiff speculates that defendant Lorraine Cortez-Vazquez, improperly. Secretary of the State of New York, may use the Seal of New York
Compl. at 10. Finally, plaintiff alleges that "defendants and their agents have
misapplied and misadministered their duties by failure to obtain and ascertain proof that Barrack Hussein Obama is a natural citizen, otherwise contrary to United States Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5." Compl, at 10. Plaintiff seeks (a) "public notice of every certified Presidential elector slate on the ballot," (b) an order striking from the ballot any certified elector with more than one public position, (c) an order restraining use of the state seal for any elector holding more than one public position, and (d) proof that Senator Obama is a natural born citizen. Compl. at 11. On October 22, 2008, plaintiff filed an order to show cause seeking a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. He seeks to prevent, inter alia, certain electors from appearing on the November 4,2008 ballot and the delivery of the Seal to the New York Governor after the election.
3 On October 20, 2008, plaintiff received "a seven-page list ... of the certified Presidential Elector Slates of 'Candidates' ...." Strunk Affidavit at 2, ~ 5.
Standard of Review In reviewing the complaint, the court is mindful that plaintiff is proceeding pro se and that his pleadings should be held "to less stringent standards that formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); see also McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197,200 (2d Cir. 2004) ("[W]hen the plaintiff proceeds pro se ... a court is obliged to construe his pleadings liberally, particularly when they allege civil rights violations." (citation omitted. However, pursuant to the
informa pauperis statute, the court must dismiss a complaint if it determines that the action is "0) frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is frivolous if its "factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy," or if it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory" - that is, when it lacks an arguable basis in law ... or [when] a dispositive defense clearly exists on the face of the complaint." Livingston v. Adirondack Bev. Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotations omitted). Discussion A. Standing Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts have jurisdiction only over "cases" and "controversies." U.S. Const., art. III, 2; Allen v. Wright 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984); Warth v.
Seldin 422 U.S. 490,498 (1975); Jaghoryv. New York State Dept. ofEduc., 131 F.3d 326,329-330 (2d Cir. 1997). Standing "is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,560 (1992). Standing requires that (i) plaintiff have suffered an injury in fact, (ii) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (iii) likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Id. at 560-61; see also Lee v. Board ofGovemors of the Fed. Reserve System, 118 FJd 905, 910 (2d Cir. 1997). Moreover, the Supreme Court has "consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government - claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large - does not create an Article III case or controversy." Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-75 (citing cases); ~ also Lance v. Coffman, 127 S.Ct. 1194, 1198 (2007)
(dismissing Elections Clause challenge for lack of standing as plaintiffs stated a "generalized grievance about the conduct of government. "). Here, plaintiff seeks to challenge the New York State slate of presidential electors based on the alleged violation of state constitutional law; he has not sufficiently alleged an injury in fact, but rather a generalized grievance. As such, it is plain on the face of the complaint that there is no actual "case" or "controversy" and therefore plaintiff lacks standing to bring this lawsuit." B. Failure to State A Claim Even if plaintiff did have standing to bring this action, the complaint fails to state a claim since the crux of his complaint is that defendants have allegedly violated the State of New York's Constitution in aIIowing some electors to hold more than one public office. See CompI. at 6-10. A civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 requires plaintiff to establish that the chaIIenged conduct was committed by persons acting under color of state law and that it deprived plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Pitchell v. CaIIan, 13 F.3d 545, 547 (2d Cir. 1994).
Plaintiffs prior chaIIenge, on a different theory, to New York's method of selecting presidential electors was unsuccessful. See Strunk v. United States House of Rep., No. OO-CV7177 (JBW), affd, 24 Fed. Appx. 21 (2d Cir. Nov. 8,2001).
4
_u:
"Section 1983 'is not itself a source of a substantive rights,' but merely provides 'a method for vindication offederal rights elsewhere conferred. ", Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (citation omitted); Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515, 519 (2d Cir. 1993) (citation omitted) ("the plaintiff must show that the defendant's conduct deprived him of a federal right."). Thus, "[t]he first step in any such claim is to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed." Albright, 510 U.S. at 271 (citation omitted). Here, plaintiffs complaint relies on the purported misapplication of New York State's Constitution and not on any violation of federal law. Plaintiffs conclusory citation to the First Amendment in unavailing and insufficient. Similarly, plaintiff fails to show how defendants violated the conspiracy statute pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1985. For example, 1985 generally prohibits conspiracies to interfere with civil rights. Section 1985(1) prohibits conspiracies to prevent federal officials from performing their duties. Weiss v. Feigenbaum, 558 F.Supp. 265, 272 (E.D.N.Y. 1982). Section 1985(2) prohibits
conspiracies aimed at deterring witnesses from participating in either federal or state judicial proceedings. See Chahal v. Paine Webber Inc., 725 F.2d 20, 23 (2d Cir. 1984). Section 1985(3)
prohibits conspiracies to deprive "any person or class of persons of equal protection of the laws, or
of equal privileges and immunities under the laws ... whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right ofa citizen ofthe United States." Brown v. City of Oneonta 221 F.3d 329, 341 (2d Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). Here, plaintiff provides no facts to support a
conspiracy under any ofthe aforementioned sections.'
5 As plaintiff has not retained an attorney, 1988 is inapplicable to this case. Under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b), the court "in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ... a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs." See~, LaRouche v. Kezer, 20 F.3d 68,71 (2d Cir. 1994); Tsombanidis v. City of West Haven, Connecticut, 208 F.Supp.2d 263,270 (D.Conn. 2002).
__ '~,~e .L,
C. Frivolous Claims Finally, the Supreme Court has observed that a "finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." Denton v. Hernandez, 504
u.s. 25,33
(1992); Shoemaker v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 164 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 1998). Here, plaintiff
makes the following allegations: The foot dragging going on there is quite remarkable, and appears more like a snipe hunt to throw the attention off of the obvious - was Barrack Hussein Obama born in Hawaii at all?; and other than the appearance of fast slight of hand in the then new created fiftieth state being easier to accomplish there than in New York, which from personal experience it is very possible to fool around with any birth record in New York and do it below the radar of public policy. That Bishop John Carroll built Georgetown University with slave trade blood money, without any apology mind you, so that seamlessly the Jesuits until this day control the politics of slavery and use it to fashion their liberation theology/new age ecumenism, and herd events in the election cycle with the purpose to enrich ventures on the continent of Africa south of the equator under the control of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) and Rome. Some months ago I discovered that Democratic Party Candidate Barrack Hussein Obama is a 32 level Freeman, which in Masonic parlance means that he is eligible to become a Shriner and able to rub shoulders with the movers and shakers of America, including George H.W. Bush and notable members of the SMOM with all the symbolic and actual advantages associated with that fact. Strunk Affidavit at~~26, 33-34. After construing plaintiff's pleadings liberally and interpreting them as raising the strongest arguments they suggest, Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241,248 (2d Cir. 2006), the court finds that portions of plaintiff's affidavit rise to the level of the irrational."
In prior cases, the court has determined that portions of plaintiff's complaints have contained allegations that have risen to the irrational. See Strunk v. United States CIA, No. 086
i'
",
I.)
r;
t': r /
':~ '-. ...
,i
"j ..J:
r ./
Conclusion Accordingly, the complaint, filed informa pauperis, is dismissed for lack of standing, failure to state a claim and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Therefore, the court denies plaintiffs temporary restraining order. order to show cause seeking a preliminary injunction and a
To the extent plaintiff raises state law claims, those claims are
dismissed without prejudice. The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.c. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore informa pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 43~5 SO ORDERED.
\
(1962).
AI~eR~~;~ United States District Judge Dated: Brooklyn, New York October 28, 2008
CV-1196 (ARR), slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26,2008); Strunk v. United States Postal Svce, No. 08CV-1744 CARR), slip op. (E.D.N.Y. May 9, 2008).
Exhibit E
AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK in esse
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS
) ) ss. )
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: 1. Am over 18 years of age, was before the 2008 Primary and General Election and am presently a duly registered voter with place for service located at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue 281 Brooklyn New York 11238, telephone 631-745-6402, 845-901-6767; Email chris@strunk.ws. 2. This affidavit is intended to be used as a partial chronology of events associated with the injury to Affirmant with a federal matter under seal to be resolved before the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth Chief Judge of the United States District Judge for the District of Columbia. 3. On or about October 20, 2008 I filed a complaint under 42 USC 1983 with request for poor person relief in the USDC of the EDNY before Judge Allyne Ross that was denied sua sponte with prejudice as a civil rights challenge to the public officers of the BOE and Electoral slate of the Republicans and Democrats at the 2008 General Election.; and was also denied any civil rights relief at 2nd circuit as a result of Affirmants inability to afford the fee to appeal. 4. That a denial of the 42 USC 1983 challenge does not preclude a challenge in New York Supreme Court by Complaint of an elector under NYS EL 16-100 and or by petition for mandamus with CPLR Article 78. 5. That upon denial of a civil rights action with prejudice in EDNY, on or about October 29, 2008, I applied under NYS EL 16-100 and CPLR Article 78 with the Petition 2008-29641 and the Complaint 2008-29642 in anticipation of an amendment to be determined by the declaratory
Christopher-Earl Strunk Affidavit Page 1 of 5
decision on the Petition relief at I.A.S. Part 1 assigned to Justice David I. Schmidt of the NYS Supreme Court for the County of Kings. 6. Justice Schmidt issued a declaratory decision on the Petition sought in 2008-29641 (see Exhibit 1) in effect finding that a state officer may hold two positions for pay in the instance of an electoral college elector member of the respective winning slate for the office of President of the United States (POTUS) as is the exclusive power of the State legislature under U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1, see McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892) . 7. That the action with Index No.: 2008-29642 remains active despite denial of Plaintiffs attempt to perfect service nunc pro tunc and to amend was denied and is dependent upon consolidation with the case challenging the scheme to defraud with Index No.: 2011-6500. 8. That Justice Schmidt at the hearing the motions to perfect service nunc pro tunc and amend the case 2008-29642 attended by Joel Graber of the NYS Attorney Generals Office for the State suggested Plaintiff file a new case after determining that Plaintiff cause of action against John S. McCain is valid; and to wit on March 22, 2011 Plaintiff filed the new Complaint with Index No.: 2011-6500 and served defendants. 9. That Affirmant as a duly registered voter in New York owns his vote as it is his intangible property for his exclusive use at any election in the State that may not be transferred or sold under penalty of law, and as such the only privity and or contract that exists is between the respective candidate for whom the vote is cast; and is such privity with the intangible property is central to the core of the merits of the underlying Complaint with Index No.: 20116500, and no other complaint by Affirmant has named any candidate. 10. That the breach of public officer fiduciary duty case with Index No.: 2008-29642 in which there is Plaintiffs failure to perfect service is not prejudicial to the case with Index No.:
2011-6500 for a scheme to defraud with a six year statutory window associated with defendants interference with Plaintiffs liberty as is a result of State defendants malicious facilitation. 11. That the Scheme to defraud case with Index No.: 2011-6500 assigned to Justice Arthur M. Schack held a hearing on Defendants various motions to dismiss August 22, 2011, and other than the appearance of Joel Graber of the NYS Attorney Generals Office his appearance did not include the State of New York defendants either in their official or individual capacity who had not answered to the summons upon stipulation agreed to twice by Plaintiff previously. 12. That on or about September 15, 2011, Joel Graber of the State sought an additional stipulation of extension of time to answer to the summons and complaint, and in that Plaintiff required the perfection of discovery as to the State refused an additional stipulation until the State defendants admit to and change the basis for instructions of respective candidates for ballot access in New York for the office of POTUS from born a Citizen to natural-born Citizen (NBC) (see Exhibit 2) and to wit the State admitted to use and refused to makes changes. 13. That on October 25, 2011, Affirmant submitted an application in the Case with Index No.: 2011-6500 before Justice Arthur M. Schack to sign an Order to Show Cause (see http://www.scribd.com/doc/69647960/UPDATE-for-OSC-in-re-Plaintiff-s-Affidavit-in-Supportof-OSC-w-exhibits-an-MOL-in-NYS-SC-Kings-Index-6500-2011) , and to which the Court denied to sign with the note:
"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"
14. That other than the 10-25-2011 Judicial Notice to Justice Schack, the issue of born a Citizen versus natural-born Citizen was never an issue submitted by Affirmant to any Court.
15. That the Notice of Appeal taken from the refusal to sign the application for OSC to the Court on October 25, 2012 was as an interlocutory decision, and therefore dismissed sua sponte by the 2nd Department Appellant division , and as such remains to be heard in a Court. 16. That on December 14, 2011, Affirmant filed a Notice of Intent to file a claim with the NYS Attorney General for damages associated with the NYS BOE and its agents regarding use of the instruction born a Citizen rather than natural-born Citizen (see Exhibit 3). 17. That the Original Complaint with Index No.: 2011-6500 never raised the issue of Born a Citizen versus natural-born Citizen other than that the State officers are facilitating those who are not NBC ballot access are ultra vires. 18. That the State Legislature has exclusive power to form the electoral college for the respective States candidate(s) for office of POTUS in the time frames determined by Congress; however, neither the State Legislature nor its agents may change the eligibility and or qualification(s) of any Federal officer including that of the Office of President and Vice President unless allowed by an amendment to the Federal Constitution, see U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). 19. That all public officers including those of the New York State Board of Elections as well as the Public Officer Defendants took the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ......, according to the best of my ability;" 20. That Affirmant has no privity of interest with either Harold (H.) William Van Allen or
Christopher Blaise Garvey. 21. That Affirmant filed a notice of appeal from the decision of Arthur M. Schack entered
after April 11, 2012 and has yet to be perfected see http://www.scribd.com/doc/94586470/Filed-
22.
That on May 24,20 12, Affirmant made the following statement in part at
http://vuzol .bloasvot.coml2012/05/new-vork-state-court-should-not.htm1regards to the Star in Chamber abuse and judicial malice done by sinecure Justice Arthur M. Schack in 201 1-6500: "The historical abuses of the Star Chamber are considered a primary motivating force behind the protections against compelled self-incrimination embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The meaning of "compelled testimony" under the Fifth Amendment-i.e., the conditions under which a defendant is allowed to "take the Fifth"-is thus often interpreted via reference to the inquisitorial methods of the Star Chamber. Judge Schack not only invented the alleged violation ipse dixit, for which he charged me of frivolous conduct for daring to allege that BHO Jr. has a British Subject father on August 4, 1961 or when ever it happened, is therefore not NBC; that Justice Schack shamelessly poses as the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one . Without the ability to call the judge as a witness to the crime that he is committing, as my own counsel I may seek an appeal on the merits of the sanctions wrongly held against me. As the U.S. Supreme Court described it, "the Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required, defendants to have counsel. The defendant's answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed." Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806,821-22 (1975)..."
I have read the foregoing; and know the contents thereof apply to me as a continuing injury; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are a s follows: 3rd parties, books
....
-
ARNOLD I. TISI-{FIEI-D Notary Public Statc Cf New ~ o r k N0.41-4611662 Qualified In Queens County Certified In Kings County ission Expires March SO, 20
.--... _, .
.
Y
\ -
,-
-.
x.
/
-.
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit F
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 2OUNTY OF KINGS - CIVIL TERM: PART: 1
SHRISTOPHER STRUNK, IND. NO. -against29641/08
DAVID A. PATERSON (NYS GOVENOR), ANDREW CUOMO (NYS 4TTORNEY GENERAL) , DE1X SKELOS (PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE NYS SENATE AND IN LINE TO SUCCEED THE SOVERNOR), THOMAS P . DINAPOLI (NYS COMPTROLLER), AND LORRAINE A. CORTEZ-VASQUEZ (SECRETARY OF THE STATE
3F NEW YORK),, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Defendants.
360 Adams Street Brooklyn, New York 11201 November 3rd, B E F O R E : DAVID SCHMIDT,
Justice
2008
A P P E A R A N C E S : CHRISTOPHER STRUNK Appearing Pro Se OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271-0332 Assistant Attorney General BY : JOEL GF@..FR, ESQ Deputy Attorney General BY: LEONARD A. COHEN, ESQ. Jennie Fantasia, Senior Court Reporter
THE CLERK:
Index number 29641 of '08,
Christopher Earl Sirunk against David A. Patterson, et al.

MR. GRABER:
Joel Graber, Assistant
Attorney General, Special Litigation Counsel, Litigation Bureau. York.

MII. COHEN:
120 Broadway, New York New
Leonard A Cohen, Deputy
Attorney General, Division of State Counsel, 120 Broadway.
THE COURT:
talk.
You made the motion, now
MR. STRUNK: You had tasked me to answer
what a public officer was.
The Public
--
Officer's Law, in fact, does exclude
State
Public Office Law does exclude the electorate once they're elected from the public officer. That's also -- we agreed that's the case. The fact though is that once they're elected and they're certified on, I think, December Ist, they're federal officers under the Federal Constitution, they are holding a federal job for compensation paid for by the State
--
from being a
PROCEEDINGS Legislature. NOW, as far as pay, there is a question of whether it's diminimous. The pay was, when they rewrote the election law in the 701s, they carried over the same amount of money that was previously paid in the 60's. Now I worked as a soda jerk for one dollar an hour, minimum pay, and certainly $15 an hour is twice minimum pay so that's more diminimous
in terms of 1960, ' 5 2 .
The question of being a federal officer under the Federal Constitution, which is in Article two, section one, clause two, which can be found in the memoranda of law on page three, on page three of -- four of five on the back, all the way in the back on the memorandum of law, all the way in the back, four of five, four of five, states that the United States Constitution, article two, section one, clause two, each State shall appoint in such -THE COURT: Where are you?
MR. STRUNK: Right here.
(Indicating.)
MR. STRUNK:
Each State shall appoint in
PROCEEDINGS a 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 Congress, but no senator or representative or person, which I'm saying is an electorate once they've been certified and it becomes federal officers, holding an office of trust or profit under the United States and they're getting paid by the State $15 per diem shall be appointed an elector. They are a -- this is all carried over from the 60's on the diminimous question when they rewrote the law in the 70's and that there are a series of constitutional cases regarding the relationship of party involvement to State, public interest and State action. That being submitted 1944 in which the Jaybird Democratic Party as a select insider's group were fixing the process of who ended up to be candidates in the primary so they were excluding others. In 1953, again the Jaybird Democratic Party was, that's exhibit number 11, was held that they could not, they had to have an open
PROCEEDINGS primary, they had to not have the inner circle of the party control that which the people themselves were being excluded from in terms of competing for the internal positions. And that's what has been carried forward in State Law in that the inner circles have controlled the Electoral College. It's changed in the primary. The
people, the common man who are party members, run on a CD by CD basis, delegates at the convention and the party insiders take over to control the vote. Because they
are, it's to their benefit to control it because they have the most to gain by patronage, by being on the insider to vote whoever they've agreed to vote for no matter what and that those who are on the outside who can't get on the inside who were in the primaries, who went to the convention, who did cast their votes, they are not allowed to participate. So I'm comparing it to the Jaybird Democratic Party in this case in 1953. It's exclusionary. It's a violation of equal protection for party members as an
PROCEEDINGS
association. There is two classes within the party structure. And that so, that's the consideration which I think is extremely important to bring us up into the 21st century and in the same way as the per diem would be brought up.
I mean a juror, you asked me to answer, is
the juror a public officer?
I say
unequivocally absolutely not. The whole process of a jury, of checking excesses of government, is to make sure that the citizen is the check against excesses and overreaching by public officers. At the point that a juror becomes
a public officer, we're in deep trouble.
So certainly jury nullification is a serious ongoing problem, but you asked me if I thought a juror was a public officer,
I say absolutely not.
It's against the
fundamentals of the Constitution to even consider a juror as a public officer. Furthermore, Justice Douglas who, although I don't agree with many of the things he did as a very high level mason
PROCEEDINGS
who worked with FDR, who was the SEC boss after Joseph Kennedy, certainly understood and profited in going into that whole process in 1933 when the Security Exchange Commission was set up. He, in a concurrence in Baker v. Carr made a very important presentation which brings the issues that I'm referring to into consideration on the question of political questions and whether or not the Court can intervene. And, in other words, if the Court can't intervene on something as important as election law, this is like
--
election law
is different than sitting in the back of a bus and certainly that is the fundamental that we are moving ahead on. And certainly notwithstanding what Churchill had to say when he said you measure demacracy based upon a ten minute conversation with an American, that's our education system. You can't blame the fact that we have an education system which would almost prompt the inner circle, the Jaybird sort of party
PROCEEDINGS structure which as an autocracy and plutocracy and controls public policy from THE COURT:
--
What statute deals with how
the electors are elected?
MR. STRUNK:
In the convention or in In
the -- this is election law, specifically. the primary process? THE COURT: Forget the primary.
MR. STRUNK: That's article 12. THE COURT: president. MR. STRUNK: Article 12. candidates. THE COURT: Article 12 of? They are In the vote for the
MR. STRUNK: The Election Law.

THE COURT: Right. MR. STRUNK: That they are seated under
12
--
12-100, they are getting certified. THE COURT: 5ow are they picked?
MR. STRUNK: They are picked by the --
at large.
This is a State
--
we go from
a primary, which is a CD by CD basis, and at large basis which 31 electors are chosen at large so you have no choice to say I don't want that elector, but I'll take that elector.
PROCEEDINGS It's winner take all and we have no choice whatsoever when the -THE COURT:
How do you pick the =lectors?
MR. STRUNK: At the general election on
a general
--
on a ballot by party that the
party has their electors slate. We vote for that and they may vote -- once they're elected the majority vote comes from the elector. Once they get certified and get in that room on December 15th, they can vote for whomever they like. So that there is no bargains. So, in other words, the
THE COURT:
voters on election day vote for the electors.

MR. STRUNK:
For the elector's slate,
yes. THE COURT: Okay.
MR. STRUNK: But they have no choice.
In other words, those who ran in the primary, in other words, they're excluded and the party insiders take it over and that's the comparison I am making to the Jaybird Democratic Party structure which was found by the Supreme Court to be a violation of the 15th Amendnent .
PROCEEDINGS THE COURT: I t was -- the Jaybird case
was regarding what, the primary or regarding the general election?

MR. STRUNK:
Regarding the general
election. They controlled the primary. They
controlled who appeared on the ballot in the general election. There was no process
that would allow competition and that the common party members were not allowed to compete because it was all done on the inside and then by the time, in other words, there was nobody on the ballot which was, from a party standpoint, which was representative of the vast majority of the common party members. THE COURT: Jaybird is the one who the
suit was brought against?

MR. STRUNK:
Terry v. Adarns in Texas.
Texas' a Republic and still has the ability to secede. It's a Republic constitution and
it was, next to Georgia, the most -THE COURT:
Just a minute.
I'm still at
Jaybird. What was the lawsuit there, who brought
PROCEEDINGS i t , Jaybird?
MR. STRUNK: I t was brought by a --
r e f e r r i n g t o a negro v o t e r who was of t h e s a n e p a r t y and t h a t he was

--
h e was s a y i n g
t h a t he was unable t~ p u t somebody on t h e b a l l o t o t h e r t h a n t h e i n s i d e r s who were t o l d i n ' 4 4 t o s t o p doing i t . T h i s i s t h e same p a r t y coming back n i n e y e a r s l a t e r t o c o n t i n u e on t h i s s o r t of i n n e r sanctum of t h e p l u t o c r a c y which c o n t i n u e d t o pack the g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n ballots. Whether o r n o t a Black man can be i n c l u d e d t o v o t e i n a primary, t h a t ' s ' 4 4 , t h e y were p r e v e n t e d from v o t i n g even though t h e y were Democrats.
THE COURT:
The q u e s t i o n was whether a
Black man can v o t e i n t h e p r i m a r y .

MR. STRiTNK:
I n t h e p r i m a r y t o which
he i s a member and t h a t t h e r e was an i ~ e r grouping w i t h i n t h e p a r t y t h a t were c o n t r o l i n g t h e o v e r a l l d i r e c t i o n of t h e p a r t y i n general.
THE COURT:
I h e a r d enough.
What do you have t o say?
PROCEEDINGS
MR. GRABER:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Nothing Mr. Strunk has said so far has anything to do with the special proceedings, with the motion that is before Your Honor. The premise of the motion is that electors are p S l i c officers and that for those electors who are public officers in some other capacity, there is a conflict of interest as between their two roles. The problem with this premise is that it's false. Electors are not public officers. Section two of the Public Officer's Law defines who is a public officer. THE COURT: He agreed to that. He said
that it excludes electors. However, he is pointing to the Federal Constitution in four of five of his motion.
MR. GRABER:
That's not the contention
on this motion or in this proceedings as a whole as to whether they're Federal Public Officers. We haven't briefed that because
it isn't in the moving papers.
MR. STRUNK: Your Honor, I have it in my

affidavit in support.
PROCEEDINGS
May I read i t ?
THE COURT:
J u s t a minute b e f o r e you r e a d
it.
Has any c a s e d e a l t with what i s c o n s i d e r e d an o f f i c e of t r u s t o r p r o f i t ? What does i t
mean, an o f f i c e of t r u s t o r p r o f i t ?
MR. STRUNK:
Somebody who i s i n a
p o s i t i o n t o speak f o r t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e S t a t e o r f o r -THE COURT:
Why d i d n ' t i t j u s t s a y
holding an o f f i c e , holding a p u b l i c o f f i c e ? What's an o f f i c e of t r u s t o r p r o f i t ? does i t mean? N one has d e f i n e d t h a t e v e r ? o Was What
t h e r e any commentaries a t t h e time t h e y wrote

it?
MR. STRUNK: I c a n ' t speak t o t h a t .
THE COURT:
I d o n ' t even know b a s i c a l l y
what i t means p e r s e . You're s a y i n g t h a t t h a t means any o f f i c e r of t h e S t a t e who g e t s p a i d , b u t I d o n ' t know t h a t i t means t h a t . T h a t ' s t h e number one.
MR.
STRUNK:
But i t ' s c e r t a i n l y i n a
p o s i t i o n of t r u s t , they a r e -- although t h e y
PROCEEDINGS can vote for whomever they like, some electors are under contract to vote specifically as under contract with the State per se. As the State of New York, they're not under contract. There is an element of trust because they are basically party members. And although they are State officers as well as a party member, this is a system run by the two major parties. THE COURT:
I understand that.
So what
do you have to say about that?

MR. GRABER:
It's not a position of
trust with respect to the people as a whole because the electors are designated by candidates. And in comeccion with the primary that was held in September, the various presidential candidates designated slates of electors who were going to represent them in the New York Electoral if that candidate should prevail in the primary. That's the source of the delegates. The designated electors in the case of the Democrats, Senator Obama, it's 32
PROCEEDINGS persons, members of the public that he designated as electors. THE COURT: Then Senator McCain has
different electors.
MR. GRABER:
Yes, and the other
candidates that are going to be on the ballot tomorrow have their own designated electors.
MR. STRUNK: My rebuttal to that,
certainly if you can find anybody who was in the original primary slate on the ballot,
I would agree with the gentleman except for

the fact these are insiders who have taken over the process. They're not longer taken They are a It's a bait and
forward from the primary. different set of people. switch. THE COURT: people?
MR. GRABER:
Is i t a different set of
N c , it's not, Your Honor.
It's for the candidates, the primary, presidential primary candidates designate their electors and what they have before Your Honor this morning are the electors who were designated by the candidates who
PROCEEDINGS prevailed in their respective party primaries. The 31 electors designated by
Senator Obama are the 31 electors that we are talking about this morning. They were
Senator Obama's choice and Obama was the Democratic voter's choice in September.
MR. STRUNK: Your Honor, the party

rules really are - - you can write and state law based upon the actual rules of the party and the rules of the party are inconsistent with the
--
with that switch from whoever
gets elected in the primary and who ends up into the final slate of candidates. THE COURT:
I think basically there are
three points you're making, okay. One point is that there is a conflict. The other point is that they're public officers and therefore they can't have two offices. And the third point is that there is a bait and switch. Is that correct?
MR. STRUNK: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Just a minute.
MR. STRUNK: Sc --
PROCEEDINGS
THE COURT: Let's assume that there is
a conflict. Does it say anywhere that that conflict prohibits him from voting? Where does it say that that person with z conflict can't vote?
I note that there are other cases
with conflicts, but I'm sure that it deals with some sort of law. Where does it say
that a person with a conflict can't vote?
MR. STRUNK: The problem comes in that

who are they voting for. In other words, somebody becomes a Democrat per se so that they can vote in the primary. And that it's the najority party as a State function since they're controling the Government that put forward the slate. THE COURT: again. You're mixing the arguments
There is three, maybe four possible
arguments. One, there is a conflict. on the conflict. The other one is that the State Law states you can't have -- hold two pdlic offices. The third one is it was a bait and
I pressed you
PROCEEDINGS switch in the sense that the people who were elected originally are not the same people and it violates the Supreme Court of United States Jaybird case. third one. You possibly have a fourth one, that electors can't be, according to the Federal Constitution, can be someone who holds an office. That's basically it.
--
That's the
That's probably
it's simiiar to
the argument that the State Law doesn't allow. That's where I see your argument.
Who says there is a conflict, it can't be done? Let's assume, I see it more as ministerial. Let's say it's a Republican
who has to certify the election results of a Democrat. Let's assume that for a minute. There is a conflict. Let's say there was one.
MR. STRUNK:
We are on the second
question, we are on to the question of whether or not somebody who is an elector can certify himself. THE COURT: Who says he can't? Let's
PROCEEDINGS assume there is a conflict as you say. MR. STRUNK: The question of public policy, in the same way, it's specifically singled out, that a notary cannot notarize his own signature.
THE COURT:
It says by a notary, And
doesn't say it anyplace else.
obviously if they say that you could certify, then they couldn't prohibit so maybe they prohibit by a notary and didn't prohibit in election law. MR. STRUNK: of the law as
--
It would be an interpretation
THE COURT:
I understand that.
Then the other argument about the Jaybird, if they can appoint whoever they feel like, each State appoints and each legislator may direct so there may not have to be an election as to the electors, all they have to do is appoint. This would be seem to similar to the Lopez Torres case in which they tried to knock out the way they picked Supreme Court Justices in which the Court stated they don't understand what the argument is, if
PROCEEDINGS you can pick him, if the party leader can pick it directly, then why can't they make the election in a way that they want. So, I'm down
KO
your last argument
which we are talking about is that no senator or representative or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States shall be appointed an elector.
MR. GRABER: IL's not clear to us how a

State Public Officer is a person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States. That sounds like the
definition of a federal officer rather than a state public officer, Your Honor.
MR. STRUNK: The governor serves as the

Commander in Chief of the State military. THE COURT: Not when the National Guard is federalized, he doesn't.
MR. STRUNK:
Well -Just a minute. It says,
THE COURT:
You know I buy that argument.
it says office of trust or profit under the United States. The governor does not serve
as the officer of trust or profit under the United States. And so this federal thing
PROCEEDINGS would not outlaw it so the question here is, you stated there is in the State Constitution that you can't hold two public offices.
MR. STRUNK: In the legislative section

of article three of the State Constitution, specifically, and t h ~ n under article 13 which -THE COURT: You want to show it to me.
MR. STRUNK:
Yes.
(Pause.)
MR. STRUNK: This is the legislative
portion. On tke following page under article 13, seven in regards to shall have been elected nor shall he or she be paid or receive, on the third line, any other extra compensation which goes to what
--
TXE COURT: Where is the next one?

MR. STRUNK: Next page over. Right
here.
) (Indicating.
THE COURT: Neither -- okay.

MR. STRUNI<: The public officer which
would cover the governor.
PROCEEDINGS THE COURT : I don't know what you ' re
referring to. Neither the salary -MR. STRUNK: Yes. (Pause.)

MR. STRUNK: As a federal, as a federal
officer, the elector is paid, the Government would be -- the governor would be paid and it's in violation of that specifically because he's receiving money that he wouldn't normally be getting as part of his governor's job, whether it be a dollar, diminimous, or 2008 per diem. THE COURT:
MR. GRABER:
Okay. The electors are not
receiving the $15 as public officers because the Public Officers Law states that they're not public officers. They are receiving the money solely as electors. So it can't implicate any provision of the State Constitution psrtaining to public officers. When article three, section seven, article three being the legislature article of the State Constitution, that members of the legislature can't be appointed to any
PROCEEDINGS other office which entails compensation, it doesn't concern the status of electors because elector is not a public office. And, of course, the second point, the $15 doesn't constitute legally cognizable compensation. It's diminimous.
HR. STRUNK: Whsre article 12 of the
Election Law deals with after -- before and after they've been certified, so it's dealing with the question of the behavior and the job of the certified elector 2s a federal officer at that point which the comptroller says how much they're to be paid and the Secretary Of State certifies that. That's 110. So this is the State paying the elector who is covered as a federal officer at that point, the payment of money. It's digitated.
It's a pass off from the State to the official position as the federal -- as the assemblage of the Electoral College which is presented to the House. THE COURT:
What else?
Is it important that this thing be done
before the election that I have to make a
PROCEEDINGS decision before the election or can this be made after the election? MR. STRUNK: Well, certainly the question as to whether or not the governor - - it goes to the Jaybird party situation. General public, I tried to get the legislator list. They have these insiders publish addresses, their home addresses, they didn't want to publish it and make it available to the general public, we don't know who we're voting -THE COURT: My question is, does it have to be done before the election? That's the question.
MR. STRUNK: There should have been

absolutely, the election's halfway over. It's absentee ballot for two weeks.
--
THE COURT: Can this be decided before the elector's vote or does it have to be done today? MR. STRUNK:
It should be decided now.
THE COURT: Why?

MR. STRUNK: Because the general
population should know who the electors are.
PROCEEDINGS In previous elections, they voted for the slate of electors. And it is absolutely not the case that -- it is a bait and switch absolutely. To think that they're voting for McCain or Biden, they're not, in fact. It is absolut3ly misinformation to the general population and promotes the position insiders. That's what this is really all about. And the fact that they didn't publish the names separate from the addresses, I take -THE COURT: Now let's contrast it. of the Jaybird Democratic Party
Assuming I decide it today and before November 15th where would the the difference be? what would happen?
--
where would
If I decided today, I decided for you,
let's say, hypothetically, what would happen? It would be toc late to change anything. You did wait until the last second so nothing would change. And if
I would decide it before November 15th,
you know, whatever kappened, it's too late to do anything.
PROCEEDINGS Let's assume that you claim that it's a bait and switch.
MR. GRABER:
With all due respect, it's
December -THE COURT: Yes, I made an error. So
now I agree with you, it's bait and switch, hypothetically, Jaybird Supreme Court decision is on all four's hypothetically. Now what? Are you going co change the election poll, the polls. They're going to -- they
have time to do that? They don't have time to do that. In essence, it's really whatever I do doesn't make a difference today.
MR. STRUNK: Your Honor, the eight days

ago or eight days from tomorrow was the last date which you can fill vacancies and -THE COURT: anymore. You can't fill vacancies
MR. STRUNK: That's not true.

According to the federal law the filling of any vacancy up to the point that they're to vote -THE COURT: You can fill a vacancy
PROCEEDINGS until Decenber 15th?
MR. STRUNK: Yes.

THE COURT: You can?
MR. STRUNK: Yes, sir.
THE COURT:
If you can fill it till
December 15th, you just answered my question.

So then, in essence, there is no urgency
to this because, assuming that you're right, then the vacancy can be filled afterwards.
MR. STRUNK: It's up to the legislature
according
--
THE COURT: Assuming that bait and switch
is found
--
MR. STRUNK: I did this, I was
essentially thrown in the barrel eight years ago on a totally unrelated matter. And I was told that I had to come back before the election for it to be properly considered. THE COURT: Let's assume that you had to
come back before the election. The decision doesn't have to be before the election because it's not going to make *rence. any diff,
MR. STRUNK:
I think it's essential to
PROCEEDINGS give a Justice of the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the matter and I think -THE COURT: So I have jurisdiction.
MR. STRUNK: Yes, sir. THE COURT: The question is when the
decision has to be made. Does it have to be made in a rush manner just off the cuff, seat of the pants? So it can be made in a more deliberate manner so that if there is no difference as to whether it's made today or not being that the electors can be changed afterwards -MR. STRUNK: correct.
I agree. That's absolutely
THE COURT: What do you have to say? MR. G M E R :

Certainly the machines
have already been delivered to the polling places. THE COURT: You can't change anything, I may not
so it doesn't make a difference.
make a decision today, although I may.

I just want
--
there is a little more
argument on what's considered.
PROCEEDINGS
IS a Commissioner of Deeds a p u b l i c
officer?
MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT:
Yes, according t o - A Commissioner of Deeds i s a
public officer?
MR. GRABER:
I d o n ' t know i f i t does o r
d o e s n ' t , Your Honor.

MR. STRUNK:
The S t a t e a r t i c l e 13 ---
i e g i s i a t i v e iaw considers a (Pause. )

MR. STRUNK:
Back under a r t i c l e t h r e e ,
s e c t i o n seven, no member of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s h a l l , and i t says however t h e member of l e g i s l a t u r e maybe appointed Commissioner of Deeds. N w Commissioner of Deeds i s a p u b l i c o o f f i c e r p o s i t i o n because t h e y a c t u a l l y t a k e t e s t s under t h e p u b l i c o f f i c e r law, p e r s e . So t h a t Commissioner of Deeds and Notary, which a r e two d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s , a r e p u b l i c officers. of f a c t .
MR. GRABER:
They're S t a t e O f f i c e r s a s a m a t t e r
One t h i n g i s c l e a r from t h e
d e f i n i t i o n s e c t i o n of t h e P u b l i c O f f i c e r ' s Law, t h a t Commissioner of Deeds are n o t
PROCEEDINGS mentioned, but that electors for president and vice president are specifically mentioned and excluded.
MR. STRUNK: Under article two, section

two, which is exhibit number eight on the declaration. MR. GRABER: In section two of the New
York Public Officer's Law, Commissioners of Deeds are not mentioned as public officers or not, but electors of president and vice president are specifically excluded by the legislature. THE COURT: That's the point.
Assuming they are excluded, you would think that the Commissioner of Deeds, being that it's not mentioned, is also excluded and then the question is why does it mention the Commissioner of Deeds here, which is, in essence, not a public office. If it's not a public office, then that sort of cuts into your argument that it's not a public office. MR. GPJBER: There isn't any argument
that can subtract from section two of the Public Officer's Law, the exclusion of
PROCEEDINGS electors. No argument can. THE COURT: He is saying that the
Constitution trumps that section under the Public Officer Law.

MR. GRABER:
There isn't
--
MR. STRUNK: Bozh constitutions. MR. GRABER: There isn't anything in
the New York State Constitution that prohibits -THE COURT:
I will tell you his
argument because I want to get it clear so I hear your argument, that's why I'm debating his argument. If a member of the legislature be elected to Congress or appointed to any office, civil, I guess this is a civil office, or military under the Government of the United States, which it's not, or the State of New York, so we have talked zbout legislator appointed to a civil office in the Stace of New York, or under any City government, his or her accepting that shall vacate his or seat in the legislature and they specifically exclude Commissioner of Deeds or any office that he or she receive
PROCEEDINGS no compensation. That's the question. He is saying, in essence, that it is, there is a legislator. It is a civil office
and they're getting paid under the State of New York. MR. GRABER: First of all, this argument
would only apply to the members of the legislature. Second, this THE COURT:
--
Hang on, but there are
members of the legislature on it.

MR. STRUNK: Yes.
MR. GRABER: There are?

MR. STRUNK: Yes. THE COURT: Just hang on. I don't know
So, I hear his argument.
which electors you are talking about. Let's talk abouc the governor. The
governor is not a member of the legislature. MR. STRUNK: He was the President of the Senate. THE COURT : He was, but he isn ' t
Who
else is a member of the legislature? MR. STRUNK:

Off the top of my head, the
Speaker of the Assembly, Minority Leader of the Assembly, Tedesco.
PROCEEDINGS
THE COURT:
You have i t t h e r e .
What a r e
you showing me t h e r e ?
MR. G M E R :
A c l o s e r e a d i n g of t h e
s e c t i o n seven, a r t i c l e t h r e e , t a l k s about members of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e who r e c e i v e an appointment from t h e governor, t h e s e n a t o r , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e of any C i t y government. And
r e a l l y an e l e c t o r d o e s n ' t f a l l i n t o any of those categories.

MR.
STRUNK:
The appointment of
governor -MR. G2AE3ER:
The governor d o e s n ' t The r e s u l t s
c e r t i f y a n y t h i n g , Your Honor.
of t h e e l e c t i o n tomorrow a r e c e r t i f i e d by t h e S t a t e Board of E l e c t i o n s .
THE COURT:
You s e e t h e p o i n t a s f o l l o w s ,
l e t ' s go a l i t t l e f u r t h e r , on t h e f o u r t h l i n e , i f a member of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e be e l e c t e d t o Congress o r a p p o i n t e d t o any o f f i c e , i t d o e s n ' t s a y by t h e governor.

MR. GRABER:
Okay. You know, you mentioned t h a t
THE COURT:
i t ' s o n l y t h e governor, i t ' s n o t .

MR. GRABER:
THE COURT:
A s we
--
The q u e s t i o n i s , what i s
PROCEEDINGS considered compensation, compensation?

MR. STRUNK:
LO
define
According to Bloomberg,
he had to take a dollar in lieu of the actual salary that he was to be paid. If he were
not to take the dollar, it would be an unfulfilled contract. THE COURT: It may be a contract without
consideration. You are citing to Bloomberg and I'm sure he would be happy to hear that, the question is, what is -- who says that Bloomberg needed to take the dollar, number one. Let's assume that he needed take the dollar. If he wants to take the dollar's
compensation, what's tconsidered compensation? If it cost them a lot more than $15 to serve in that office, you know the gas and whatever, would expenses be compensation, reimbursement of compensation, would that be compensation?
MR. STRUNK: Yes.

THE COURT:
Where would it state that
would be compensation? That could be it's reimbursement. I'm not serving for
PROCEEDINGS compensation.
MR. STRUNK: Reimbursement, 13 cents a

mile, which is part of article 12's, 110 is the separate reimbursement from compensation per diem, it's 13 cents a mile. THE COURT: Constitution?
MR. STRUNK:
Who separates it, the
The Election Law. The Election Law separates
TZE COURT:
it, but I don't know if the Constitution -we're not going under the Election Law. Under the Election Law it says an elector is excluded. We're doing it Scalia, we're going right into the Constitution itself. Who says what's considered compensation? Would a dollar be? Okay, taking your argument, with Bloomberg, you would say a dollar is compensation?
MR. STRUNK: Absolutely.

THE COURT:
Possibly a dollar would not
be compensation if, in a sense, that they're really taking a loss because whatever it's going to cost him, I could take judicial
PROCEEDINGS notice it's going to cost them more than
$15. $15 may not be compensation.

MR. STRUNK: Well, the word shall, this is not may or can, it says shall. essentially says shall. THE COURT: it. Shall has nothing to do with The law
Shall receive no compensation and I don't
know what compensation means. Does it mean reimbursement? Does it mean a compensation that I get money over and above my expenses or even if they pay my expenses, is that considered compensation?
MR. STRUNK: Well, the general reading

of compensation, you're getting something in return for services or -- it's a contract. Something is returned. There can be no claim as long as there is something traded, whether it be a subway token or whatever, that would be considered compensation, generally. But they, under Election Law, they specifically delineate, from an accounting standpoint, that which is expenses and that which would show up as income or wages.
PROCEEDINGS Expenses are not wages. This is where
the comptroller comes in under the Election Law. The comptroller is brought in to audit
the difference between expenses and per diem per se. THE COURT: Do you have under the Income Tax Law, do they get a 1099 for it? MR. STRUNK: When I do jury duty, I
do. THE COURT:
You get a 1099 for jury
duty?
MR. STRUNK: Well, it's a -- I did

two years ago.
I got something in return.
It's been a long time. I did get -- no, I can't speak to that. THE COURT: Okay. Anything else?
MR. GRABER: No, Your Honor.
MR. STRUNK: Yes.

matter which I There is an ~rlderlying would like to have heard on the 15th of November. THE COURT: December or November? MR. STRUNK: November. It's going to a controversy which is now
PROCEEDINGS before the Supreme Court on the matter of -it's up before Justice Souter this morning as to whether or not Obarna should prove that he's born -THE COURT:
I thought he proved that he
was born in Hawaii y2sterday.

MR. STRUNK:
There was no proof. I thought he released the
THE COURT:
birth certificate. MR. STRUNK: It was not a birth
certificate. It was a certificate of live birth, which Hawaii could accept from any country, a certificate of registration of a live birth. It's just different than a --
THE COURT: Was it accepted the same day he was born?

MR. STRUNK: That according -- there is
an exhibit 16 which Goes to that issue. THE COURT: What does it have to do with me?
MR. STRUNK: Well - -
THE COURT:
This is a Federal question
as to whether or not he can serve as the president.
MR. STRUNK: I would like to get a
PROCEEDINGS
. r e s t r a i n t on who t h e e l e c t o r a l c o l l e g e , 11
P
h e ' s not q u a l i f i e d , a n a t u r a l born c i t i z e n , we c a n ' t p e r m i t a - THE COURT:
You maybe i n t h e wrong
forum.
I f t h e Federal -- i f t h e Feds d o n ' t
s t o p him and a r e n o t e n f o r c i n g t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e law t h a t r e q u i r e s him t o b e a c i t i z e n o r a t l e a s t p r o v i n g hat he i s a c i t i z e n o r was b o r n i n t h e United S t a t e s t h a t you know, a S t a t e judge w i l l not be a b l e t o , i n a back way, n o t a l l o w t h e e l e c t o r s t o v o t e -MR. STRUNK:
Certainly t h e Federal
C o n s t i t u t i o n would r e q u i r e t h a t anybody u n l e s s -- e l e c t o r s a r e n o t p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s , t h e y ' r e p u b l i c o f f i c e r s , and t h e r e f o r e must t a k e an o a t h , a t l e a s t be w i l l i n g t o t a k e an o a t h t o s u p p o r t t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e S t a t e of New York and t h e US C o n s t i t u t i o n and p a r t of t h a t -because t h e r e i s no s t a t u t e t h a t s a y s somebody, somebody i s going t o c o l l e c t t h i s c e r t i f i c a t e of b i r t h , no where i n any F e d e r a l Law does i t say a s e n a t o r must submit h i s c e r t i f i c a t e of b i r t h o r anywhere,
i t ' s something where i f a c i t i z e n d o e s n ' t
PROCEEDINGS have standing to say, who has -THE COURT: You may have standing in I would think this
the wrong court though.
would be a Federal C m r t issue as to whether or not he is born in the United States per
se.
If they, if they validate it, then I
would think that, you know, we can, they can vote for him -MR. STRUNK: The electors, the voters
on the fourth do not vote for any candidate except for the electoral slate and that's plain and simple. The real election occurs starting the 15th and it's got to be completed by the 24th of December so there is a possibility of seven, eight, nine days of per diem for the Electoral College to deal with these questions. And based upon the winner take all process, we may have to eliminate the public officers who have now become Federal Officers eight or nine or ten from the Democrats, which brings it down to 20 Democrat electors, and then the next highest number would come out of the
PROCEEDINGS vote getters, so there would be 15 Republican electors and quite a battle for maybe nine days who -- it's up to them. They
are the ones elected to solve those problems so that I'm interested in a judicial subpoena of travel records from 1960, 1963. THE COURT: papers?
MR. GRABER: No. MR. STRUNK:
You asked for that in your
That is in my affidavit.
Let's see. I'm asking that in my supporting affidavit which it says on page -- paragraph
16 of my supporting affidavit, page five

of seven, furthermore that preliminary injunction hearing with New York State Board of Elections and its agent, including the Director of Elections and New York State Secretary of State who must show why they should not perform d ~ e diligence to ascertain whether or not Barack Hussein Obarna is a natural born citizen and affected by the allegations in the
aforementioned case. On paragraph 15, where the mother
PROCEEDINGS
is is where the birth occurred. And that the United States State Department has those records which are prima facie whether she was inside or outside the country. And there is testimony recorded of Sarah Obarna, who is essentially -- was present at the birth in Mombasa and that there was a restriction on airpl~neflight which did not permit a pregnant woman to enter back into the country because of the pregnancy and the near giving birth. And therefore, in Hawaii the actual original full certificate of birth showing Mombasa Hospital presence is on record in Hawaii right now and that there is only a registration, which is how Hawaii worked in
1961, they just becone a state.
They were
essentially a proteczorate of the United States.

It was entirely structured of
how people registered under a US protectorate so that a registration of a live birth is what was issued and what was shown by the Ennenberg Foundation who had a conflict of interest being one of their attorneys in the first place
--
PROCEEDINGS THE COURT: Just a minute.
What do you have to say about that?

MR. GRABER:
This is not part of the
order to show cause that we're hearing this morning. The State was not noticed that
Mr. Strunk was making an application with respect to Senator Obarna's citizenship. It seems as though Mr. Strunk's concerns with Obama's place of origins are mainly the focus of a separate action which is under a seplrate index number. He provided a summons and complaint in that action, but it's not a matter before Your Honor. Of course, everything that Mr. Strunk has just said and everything that he's put in his papers with rsspect to Senator Obama is derived from ths Internet. MR. STRUNK: That's not true.
MR. GRABER: Internet gossip. MR. STRUNK: Not true.

MR. GRABER:
Particularly from a lawsuit
that was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which was dismissed on October 24th.
PROCEEDINGS That case is entitled Berg, B-E-R-G, v. Obama. And the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the case for lack of standing. Same thing is true here. Mr. Strunk doesn't have any interest in whether Obama is the Democratic candidate or whom the electors are with respect to Obama from the standpoint of Obama's citizenship. He has a generalized interest that as any other person. sufficient for standing. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania shouldn't be in this Court either. MR. STRUNK: The only thing that we have in this Country that holds us together is the Constitution, a social contract, and that fundamental of that social contract is whether or not we're going to elect a man who would run this country for four years who is alleged to be a foreigner, illegal, illegal alien who is improperly in this country, according to his reentry after coming back with an Indonesian passport when he entered back at age 18, that's covered in exhibit 16. That's not
PROCEEDINGS Rather than getting details, I believe, I'm the only one in the country whose really, through my own experience, through the Department of Health, through my own tracking down birth certificates and affiliations, all sorts of skullduggery that I went to court for a year and half, two years over in Manhattan, I think it's absolutely essential that we see the travel records of the mother from 1960 to 1963 even in camera, even in camera if there is a privacy issue, this woman and her record is essentially the linchpin to ave a man whether or not we're going to hwho, according to the past Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, a man of good standing with many courts, that somehow we should throw him MR. GRABER: Your Honor.
THE COURT: How is it before Justice
--
It's simply not before
Souter today?
MR. GRABER: According -MR. STRUNK: According to Mr. Berg,
who was interviewed last night, he had
PROCEEDINGS submitted five days ago to Souter, who is the justice, single justice who deals with the Third Circuit, to order Obama to deliver a certificate of birth. asking for. THE COURT: MR. G M E R : THE COURT: Okay. Decision reserved. That's what it's
Thank you, Your Honor.

Be well.
Have a good day.
I don't think I'm going to issue a decision today because it's really -- it's not urgent.
MR. STRUNK:
I'm not an attorney, the only
way I can get any documents that would be the basis for a November 15th hearing would be if there is going to be a restraint issued before the certification of the electors that all we need to see is dates and the dates are -THE COURT: reserved.
I uqderstand that.
Decision
Certified to be a true and accurate transcript of the foregoing proceedings.
JENNIE FANTASIA,
.a/
Exhibit G
I l reply rderto: l
CMFT/ULE - h i e Coawl Nun& 2UiB0723
The following is in respmmto w g q e o t to the Deptmmt of r! m5uNmmkqaD&m*bd-ofm&fid~the; p v i s b m ofthe Prwhrn of Mrmb Act (5 U.S,C. 5552). 6
W have w&eW s search for mm& respomiva to your r q u e e The sa&resulted the* d ofsix doGwmb are reapcmdve to R W ~ W of &% d0=bX We h~ m & W.
*z a y W m 1 d i n f d l . &d~~n
w did not looate a 1965 p@ortappbtim mfizmced in an e

applitadofl far a m m h t o f p a s m tlult is i n c in~ ~ the -e-d documents. Many passpert iipabtims and o h r non-vital mods @am te that periodwefe destmyed during t 1980sin a a m h w with g u i b w b W n the G m d Sewiceti Administastion.
Passport ~ r d QpMy ~onsist spplimtions k UUrirted States s of r and supporting m i d w e of fZ&W S W citbmship. Pastpmt m d s da n& inch& & d f W -sr vi5w, r e s i a ~ permitsI a, this infbfimtim is a & into Z e as m e she& & h p sp b a is-= o-
audsht s U r t 6 A U No. 47-RllT.S
FORM APPROVED
APPLlCATiUN FOR
AMENDED A S REQUESTED
E be+ m m @ ~ ~ L + ~ h + i # & ~ @ ~ W&thet t 1 *~ 4irP%cmcm* & h& &&a*WMW~es-gij stare; e n m 6 m m h m a r * m i h rn m . ~ a ~ t C d c i w e m v t a fo+* h d &weomof d ~ ~ i m i c c r +rti&P -%o +mrtd w suy$$p die d form-of a fbr* a~atsi; c p p t ard ~ ~ erf-d rhe &ties af arky &wr pqw, q alp rhs ~ * ~ i n t a r m k e i g a st* & p o l l i c d s ~ b a h l a i o n a f heteof; voted ia potiticd eieaian i a B fnr&n stere or pap plepmzat ad*& i = ClrplDn q p-,lo q Lbe .-m.osq m= i r fomd*rir(a o f n t i ~ ~ l i @set tn i t ttni~ed n k rates crr Lime a-dhpl~~at3.cmsulardWcw of tke Unite Ssr+r i a ~-I$EP tifacc; CVI smghl:w claimed or n bane fizs of , E r~rtrhudt.rp & nfstuy b&gm ,smt; or-tmmictrd %s c o w w k n u r z martis1 of r a m p a e n r ~ & E & c I ~ ~ Pmhmktinyan$ acr of of u-'s~a agaim+o agtmptine by Fmce r4 almnhhmw, QF kaeiag arms &g~- thc Udtd State, os -$pitis& m wmkow, alrr down r UI r a , ~ , b , t O q e i ~ * ~ ~ th*q%&etl SnqEq t . d fff m y of k sba-iand a t s or concfiHwr tvrw hsen am-krmed b w w l y to the c p p l l G t , or SO my a # w R-UI incldd W+RS dl.uldb. n d o u ; d . r. k 8 m q -M -qt& s rh. pe r , ~ & w i o h ~orfian )o iWi% h~ ~ H S T S l i & o ~ h . & d LP &&d m& &ti* ~ d md # ~+kr e $ (qr d U h & i ~ ) Lp .
fy
w~nn,
1
NAME
PAGE
A M E N D T O IHCLUDE ( E X C L W O E I tWIFEI(HUSBAND)
BIRTHPLACE
BlRTHOATE
I
I
I
I
I
"REVIOYSLV
MARRIED T O
1
ATT*CHED
P R E V I O U I M A R R I A G E T E R M I N A T E D 81
DIVORCE:
DEATH
DISPOSITION O F M Y SPOUSE'S PREVIOUS PaS5DORT
Cj
CAHCELED
LnATFI
AMEND TO INCLUDE I E X C L U O E ! CHILDREN
AMEND T O A E A O
IN
MARRIED HAME
I
MARRIED TO
I
DATE MARRIED
PLACE MARRIED
CITIZENSHIP O F H U l e A N O
[7 U.
9. C I T I Z E N
ALIEN-CITIZEN O F
OTHER RMENDMENT~S~ (DESCRIBE IN DETAlL A C T I O N REQUE5TEDl

I
DOCUMENTARY EVIDEYCP SUBMIT TED Y a DEP&RTIAEhlT B Y C D H I U LAR OFFICER
DOCUMEHTARY EVIDENCE SEEN AND R E T U R N E D T 0 A P P L I C A N T B Y C13HSULAROFFICER
STATEMENT O F ACTION BY POST UPOH DEPARTMENT'S AUTHOR1 ZATIOH (70 h eaecwtd only In c o n n c d o n 4 t h costs r e f a d to Dcpt.)
I
X
THE
P A SS P O R T
C4RD O F IOENTITY WAS
RENEWEO TO
09TE
[3 A M E N D E D
4 5 REQUESTED
1 1
I:
i
I
AUTHOR1 T Y
(Consul OPINlQN OF CONSULAR O F F I C E R
*I the U n i d S t ~ e s f A r n r r l t f f ) o
(Y born ? e ~ ' ? c d irarlmiensJ /ot
t
I FJ 3 : 3
STAPLE ONE P H O W HERE DO NOT MAR FACE
1*
2
k n:
Z
Thc passpon photos requifcd must bc approxirmtdy 2% by 2% inches in r i i c ; bc on thin unglazed papcr, s b w lull front view of applicant with a plain, lidht background: and h a w been taken within 2 years o f &tc s u b m i r t d . When dependents asc inc l d r d they should be shown inaproup photograph. The consul will nor accept photos rhnr e r e nor z gmd likeness. Color photographs arc acccptablc.
1"
FORM , . , o a
(Consul o f ihe Unitmd Stales ef Arnericol
I n certain c a s e s specific auihorizatiom by the lllepaltmcnt will bc rcquized. In chcse r a s e s an extra copy of rhe form should be prcpnrcd. L'pon receipt of ihc Pepnnmcnt's rcplp the t x r r n copy should bc rtaasmittcd mith a nota'ien o ihc scrion inken+ f
L~ZBARTMENT STATE QF
WEWaT BY UNITED STATES PIATIQflAL FOR ktd0 REPORT OF EXCEPTION TD SECTION Bfl,TITLE 22 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
REWST 4-r~ ' c k e n rfifomd that m). PBSS~W~, i Q ~ d i d d thgr a valid pasispart is required by Irw m dater the s F tTr:red Srnr*~. reyrasr chat aa ezeptt~11 gwted w me, as ~ r a ~ i d e d% o 1 be in & n 5 . ( 1 +Tide 22 09 &e Code 32h, t r 6 i;rJem1 W ~ ~ ~ F P ~ * I D P ~ I kadgrs~aad& a ~ fee aF $25 is a?qakdWder SeeSon 53JfhJ and t w i d r a d r such h e B & h* PYY+@~C CiSfic= DepSmmt d &areqW w b i n g i m , D.
TC
D~mema,P a ~ s p m P~GCQ
ITqamncfit of Sase
Wa+imran, D, C. a 3 2 4 rt-tm; FTJM

rt6BJECT
.W M E
IQEERIPT~DPI
5 x 6 ~
&f&SP
20, 39'71 D
, 5&&nsb
% ~ p a & 8s shorn above

DF m R R RI ' E
PLl@#T NUMBER OR VEMEL
.-
--
- -.
PLACE flnmhpaf*lc
W I Wurmlt~&tio?t ~ 5m?e#]
SCIN~TWREf lmm iusafim Q f f i s t t
FORM A'
3VED
BUDGET B U R E A U NO, 47-2059.
DEPARTMEN l O F STATE
,Pusspart O f f i c e U s s Only)
Amend a s shown
-,
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF PASSPORT
in
snctionr
requests for inclusion nf pergons must be sworn to (or ofFirrned) 5sfare an Agent of the I ) e p ~ r t . m e n t F Stafe or Clerk of C o w t . Photogro hs. which meet tha O requirements below, and avidsncs of c r t i z e n h i p must be submifted i&r d l parsons to ba ipcfudsd by this amendment. It such persons L a v e had, or bssn included in, a prsviqus paraport, i t should ba s u b r n l ~ a dInatscd o f ather docurnants. und Section G tomplmted.
INSTRUCTIONS: All
El5 Add visa
0 0
a=
pngss.
F I E
P3
SEEM
I W I FE'SI
CERT-
-PASSPORT NO. O F A P P L I C A N T
1 DATE 155UED
BIRTH tERTIFlCATE(5I
CHILOIREHI'S
M t R R I A G E CERT.
INATZ'N.
tHUSBAPI0'~)
-'R -
t l TY
STATE
rn
I CARE OF N
(PLEASE P R I N T N A M E I N F U L L )
( F i r s t nwra)
(Middle n a m l
( L o s t nanej
w
1,
af
t h s United Motas, do h sb
lndicnted
below.
9 / y
rs usst that
h/7
my passport, which i s snclossd, bs amended o s
INCLUDE MY CHILD(REH), A S FOLLOWS: (Also cornpletn Sect+on H +f child(ren)

citizenship b y noturolizatibn, and have not hod a previous passpott.)
NAME IN FULL
acquired
"o " t
-quiremem+s
STAPLE
for
~ ~ C I U S ~ M ~
PLACE O F El R T H (city, St&=)
DATE O F B I R T H
II
<
i
,
1
ONE PHOTO HERE DO NOT MAR FACE
I u
r w
Photos must be ONLY of persons +a bm includsd b y thi s omsdrnant. Ths t w o p h d o s must be duplicutes. u p p r n x i m ~ m f y by 3 inches in size; bs on thin, unglozed
I
PLACE O F B I R T H (City, S m h )
INCLUDE MY (WIFE] (HUSBAND), AS FOLLOWS: (Also aornpltts Section H if (wife) lhus bundl acquired cit lzsnship by natwollzotion, and/or Section I if wife w a s prmviouslv horr~sd &for; Marrh 3, 193l.j
(WIFE'S} ( H E B A H D ' S ) FULL LEGAL N A M E
paper with a plmin, light b c k g r w n d and hove bemn tatsn within 2 vows of date I submittad. Photos should front VIEW, m but n e t full-langfh, and m y not L s n q she?, Pol arold, =atme or film bass prints. When more then 1 person i s t o he Included, a group ~ b t i s roquirsd. Color photos o arr occsptnbls.
&=
DATE OF B I R T H
D A T E OF MARRIAGE
DO NOT STAPLE SECOND PHOT0 ATTACH B'f P A P E R C L I P
1
7
EXCLUDE PERSCNS, AS FOLLOWS:

WHO I S / A R E
OHY WIFE
[
(GI* n&J)
A
[=I T O
A P P L Y FOR SEPARATE PASSPORT
0MY
-
CHILDREN
CHANCE T O READ I N M A R R I E D NAME, A 5 FOLLOWS:

-.. .
PLACE
O F MARRlAc
-.
W A N G E TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
' ~ C H I L D ~ R E N ~ * S ) FE'SI IWI

NUMBER
~ H U S B A N D ~ SLAST U, 5. PASSPORT I
D A T E ISSUED
I N NAME O F
UI9 S U B M I T T E O HEREWITH
0OTMER
(OVER)
DISPOSITIOH
(rim*]
-
tQ 3E COMPLETED BY AFI A P R L r M T R WETTING IWCLUSlBt4 IH THE FAGPORT O F A% E RELPITIY E'WHO - E @D

TMROUDH WTU%ALfZATWH
ClTILEMs)+fP
1.
TQ B E CQMPLHED BY AH APILICAHT WHOSE Wl FE %'& PREVIWSLI '~IRIEo BEFORE M A R C H 3. lml, ANQ W O IS TO BE INCLUDE? [el F I - m D R f (If &wi*d M U thwr tweq, e forth t w fn v wp.L-tal t h mrarm~). ukze o r ~r(crlsbUs yn&hiie HER M*YE WU
' P O ~ B R HUS~IMWS Pcace w m t R f n

-
M A M I M E Y 4 8 TaRMINATEO Sx
DATE
[3 DE*ll+
DlrYQRQL
{a THE
EVENT
DEATH 0. AEE~QENT NOTIPT

U L M S 1 PULL u
REL*TlDMYWf
STREET A P Q R W ,
STATB
I h*e nor (arid q~ whet ,ptrson h d & d o ts khclnded io dt* p q o r t has), &ce at k g United &axes citirmstJp, r h e n s=rurrllizsd ar; a e i f i z ~ l a fareign aar~ n taken rn oath w made w d t i r m ~ s n e r wl ctechmidtl qf Pttgimtc fo 0s n entered b@ip s-d i a &c m e d hrtrs uf ma foreign mate; r-aed nr p a f e e d h e &ties of q ~kfiee,posti sr rmploy~wnr -dm &e $""went uf w &ti@ s w e o p ~ i i e c a~ M ~ i s Q-t; r l b n Y Qi ~ n ap&ti$d eieorbb h a b + r or p&&pin fi erctia ar pletj~d trr tIem.hc the mmeignc;gaver 4 4 k t q ,& & a d t~aunci*tianbf n3um=Ite d a ;m iq either ua tb* U m e d ? t ~ s , , w W f a r i dipl~at2r = d s ~4tm &C &zed SD==S in a &lpn a q ewe a g h r pr dSm* . r c ? . ~ ~ ~ a e f l r a d & e n ~ o n & ~ o f ~ & * i ~ ~ ; s r b ~ ~ c ~ a B ~ d b y a c s ~ r t toj u r ~sm ~ei ~ n o~ c ~m n r i di dB P f f ~ mi+g a a 01 n.1w C I ~ ~ W m we-q, w u n -3s rs h e, & U or m.pixiw t . orwdusw, pur down ar i t j d e s q & b9.rt%, the Gbv.cmmlnr of rhc Uaaited States,
1 sdemlly s m (dim) ht m a t a t s h i d e art enrc m d tbar I h m e ~ c previoarly a a k d ta h ~ v M e addi. rbe & m u e &td perseas b c I o d d i * y @ w w lb a t drey we m ROW in pssesaiea df valirEpsspa@p,4 n t that Q w h ~ e made wliwt e d o n for passp~ttsd bccn t e w d -
'
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE PENCIL NOT A C C t P J A B t E j

DEPARTMENT
'
I
a
DF STATE
- .
LarT,oN
POST ACTION
Jakarta. Indonesia
1 I
I
I
For Deparhent Decision
June 2
76
Ex,,,,,
TO BE CONIPLW BY AN APPLICANT WHO BECAME A CITIZEN THROUGH NATURALIZATION

1IMMtERATEDTOTHEU.S.IREStDEDCO~TIFIUDL?SLYINTHEU.S. From ( Y e a r ) T 0 [Yaar) (Month, y*ar) NATURALlZATlOWCEFITIFICATENO.
USubmrlted hersrirh
0k e n and t d w n e d
0Previau.ly
PLACE NATURAL ZED (Ciry, starel
1
aubmittd
11
NATURAL1 ZATIDN COURT
DATE NATURALIZED
I
1 I
COMPLETE OHLY IF OTHERS ARE TO B INCLUDED IH PASSPORT OR REGlUMTION AN0 S P M K GROUP PHOTOGRAPH E
IWI FE'SJ(HUSBAND'SJ FULL LEGAL N ~ M E
PLACE NATURA LlZEiJ ( C i t y , ~ t u t e )
I
I
ur
NAfURALITATlON
N A T I V E BORN
NATURALIZdTlON
' L
NATURALIZED
u s e e n and mrurnnp
COURT
DATE US BIRTH (Ma..
-
I
I
DATE NATURALfLED
I W l ~ d 5 1 H U S B A N ~ ' PLACE OF BIRTH Iclty, Stat* ( ~)
Provlnc-, Enuntryl
-
Boy, Y m r )
- ..
NAME IN FULL OF CHlLDRFH IMCLUDEO
I
DATE OF B I R T H
--
..
---,
PLACE OF B I R T H (City, s t ~ T p r o u i n c o ,cauntw)
RESIDED I N U.S. (From-To)
-- NAMES
.-
PASSPORT NO.
C A N C E L E O O? OTHER DISP3SlTlUN
EVIDENCE O PRIOR DOCUMEHTAnON DF ABOVE-HAMEI) PERSORS TO BE IIYCLUDED (For completion by Colrsular Dfficel F
D A T E OF IS SUE
LOCATION D F OFFICE
3 A T E OF REGISTRATION OR BLRTH R E P O R T
OTHER E v i D EMCE OF V.5. OTIZCN5HiP PRESENT m TState dirposttlwr)
,PP.TW~EF~.UEEA"ED
F~THEZ FS$D~~JG AT
FXHM
u s s i m ru r r , ~
rmm
z4 3 R
Pj?&sS&& 7
m . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f
MPTWER'S MMD& M M E
M ~ D L L Y N MYAK
P M C E MAT URALIZEUGI*, S-ha
D NQT U.L. C~T~ZEM
D4TE NATURALKC@
WARNMQ: ~ a sabmwr#Pazkhndqglyi ldflttlh @WtW l ~ m h #Mum er in & a b nr otket ~upmrtli~c m m s m r c e a m a a~ grmmlwre 9 dM m ar wn k d wl /or 1 & andsr he prnvtsio~s 1 DSS: of 8 w ~ l& USC UQ. Ahation w mtttllatim of a pr imwtpufiuaat$ # l w l &oi pmlsbIa 1c i n s $I hWDF k m e !unQermtfte I F o An w Wiskrs.ef18 11% tH3- W u s a d a mwodTn UbI&n of !tip Wetrow cmihU th&o k sf lhe ps a mgdaapr k finas Isptmkisahla tr)l tiw mdJw imPrrwentuoder U ~94. * ,h#nat ahdf~ll&&@!+wincWinb plie@ionhas)I Jnqmuir~~gIJwlW~ciK~b,~mn~mlizedasadlirtlndrferaign~te;~~s m a h r n ~ a n o r s * + ~ w m a f k l a r r l n ~ i l ~ r i * l l r i s a ~ r D T m ~ O r~ t~ c & d ~ h r ~ i a ~ n sbkuwredor @mdWduWd
a :
%Ca.WtWWlqmlaZ~~8PYebllRIM0fm3hn n ~ a r p i ~ a a I 1 * l i ~ 1 m ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ a ~ ~ ~ w c i a Y m ~ w ~ i ~ i 1
or cq~ina awguax.)ddan w lodeshy gy l m ; ~ o t x ! m r naa~unit6dw& IQ ~ l

f l f q d t h ~ m m & ~ c r r d b b h , p ~ b y a r s g p r y w & Iw * &A* d d d h - d u J ~ ,d * U l i * I M e b p l m & * . l a r
waWorrlJc~1cm~ubrdaieet~th8MW~~, ah~@a~~~solrgtli$~~iaid~he~ibgftk~~m~i~daay#oreigns~tat$;m t ld WHhrmi w Wg Irmswimt,thl Ufllbl Lbs i cslqar y f r l n#s( alunebn)iul&~d6Pnnr ~ y . a cBhsan a&%,x &h&rtp by
m m k m p w r d r k l s ~ t ~ ]
En ~i m
araM
s d
i~&orwaryr[t+
b w 1 M 1
E k h l b * n~ne L + tpdc~ !~i df! e s#hjw~l dn , f h + md W i ~ ~k s

&chee
is a krrrof rn a l l of t a P ~ M I br
t o b e t dedklIllsC~a
wear (or a ) & I &emtb W #I all C p p v f Ibis . ~ ~ l ~ ~rt 1 ntbt the p o & r mat + m a r Bh 1 kb
.
T O BE COMPLETED BY AN APPLICANT WHO BECAME A CITIZEN THROUGH NAftlRALIZATIOM lMMlG RATED T 3 f HE r R E S I D E D CONTINUQCjSLY I N TuE N A T c l R 1LIZATION CERf 4 F I C A 7 E NO. J.S. (Monrh, year) U.S. From (Year) T o (Year) 0 Subm bed hermlm
I2 Ssen and returned
Previou~ly subrnltred
'LACE HATURALISEU (Citv, statel
U 2 i l J R ' A L l Z A T 1 3 N COURT
I
TO BE COMPtEf ED BY ALL APPLICANTS
3CCUPATION
IDATE
NATURALIZED
V I S I B L E DtSTIIVGUISHIb4G MARKS
PROGRAM OFFICER, FORD FOUNDATION

-EN
none
W T a P m E WLLOYVlNG fF CHILDREU OF A PREVIOCR MARRIAGE ARE WLUPED OR 1F PRVW.SlY W R E D BEFORE W W 3 " 1931 I WAS PREVIOUSI,Y MARRIED ON \ T O (Fult legal name) (WHO W A S BORN A T ( C i t y , S * t , Countrv)
[ FORMER HUSBAND WAS U.S. ClSlZEN [PREVIOUS M A R R I A G E TERMINATED B Y I DEATH DIVORCE FORMER HUSBAND WAS NOT U.S. CIRZEN l o l ~ ID-, ~ ~ N P L ~ I F A F P U C A N F D R A N Y P E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ I D N B W P S N O T ~ N I W ~ U +If E D T H E U.S. EA {Mon~h) (Year) I F FAT HER NATURALIZED: I IF KNOWN, FATHER'S R S I D E N C E
ON
(Date of bimh)
0 Applizam
W ~ B
Date
Certiflcats No.
PHYSICAL PRESENCE 1N U.S. From (Year) f a (Year)
13 Husbsnd
Child
Before ( N m of Court)
Place IClty, Stme)
RESIDP~~~CE/CONTINUOUS PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN U.S. F r ~ r n ( Y s a r T o (Yssr) j

Appliant
1F MOTHER NATURALIZED:
Dete
Certificate No.
IF KNOW, WTHEUS RESIDEME PHYSICAL PFlESENCE I N U.S.

F m m IYeer)
To 1Year)
I INTEND TO CONTINUE TO R E S I D E ABROAD F O R THE FOLLOWTNG PERrOD A N D PURPOSE
Two years c o n t r a c t w i t h Ford Foundation f r o m January 1981

II~TENDTORETURNTDTHEUNITEDSTATESPEAMANENTLV
December 1982.
DATEOFDEPARTURE
4 YEARS 1
MONTHS
PRlVACY ACT STATEMENT
T& Information snlieln?d an this f d m is authorized by but n o t limited to, tho= statutes codified In T i t l m 8, 18, and 2% 4JnimdSt.TosCodq m d *I1 pmdecmsor rt;lu.ttes wketker or n o t codified, and s)t re&lation$ issued pursuant to Ewmcutiue D r h r 11295 of August 5, 1966. The p r l m put'PUM for ~ ~ .ollciting the information Is t o esrablish citizenshipr Identiq and e n t i t l m e m to Issuance 8+ a Unlwd States P m p o n or raja& ftsllity, and t o prupetly admlnisrer and enforce tha E m s psrtaining rherato. The i n f o m a t i a n ismade available as a routine urn on a need-*know ba~ke p s r s ~ n n eof the C h p a r t m e n t of S m and ethw gwwnmmnt agenele~ t l hwlng statutory o r other lewful authoriw t o maintain mch information i n t h e perfmmanfa af their officlal dutias; purarantm ambpoenr 8 r court ardor; and, ~s sat forth i n Parr 6 4 Titye 22, Code of Federal Regukitions {Sea Federal Register Volume do, pages 45755, 45156, 47419 and 67420).
Failure t8 prwids the lrrfwmffio~ requested ~xrt h i s form may rmlt I n the denial of a United Srateo P w o r t , rel~t9d docurnant or 5 a ~ k O h tO 6 indlvldusl seeking w c h psgspoq docwmenr Qr service.
NOTE: The dischsurs of your Sacial Security hlurnbw or d the identin, and locattan r ~ a p e m t m bs no~ifisd t h m went Of dmath mT rcidmnt JI f In entirely voluntary. H owwwr, failure to pmvida this in+wmadon may p r w e n t the Depanment of State f r m prwiding y w wWh rlmely armlstance or p r o m t i o n i n the went you s h w l d anceunrer an emergency s i r u a e - 1 whFle oumlde The United Stams.
ACTS
OR CONDITIONS
(IF m y of me baluwmentioned acts or conditions have b m n parfwmed by e r q p l y t o the applieanf o t o any other p-n r t bn lncluded i n t h m a passport, the pOrtIcxl which appli- should be s m c k out. and a supplemenmry e*otanatnry statement undw oath (or affirmation) by t k e par-n t o whom t h e partion is applicable should be attsched and made a p a r t af fhiq application.) 1 have not (end no other wrron included i n ?his appllcatlan has}, since acqulrlng Vnimd S citizenship, m n naturatizedas a citlren M a f w o i g n m ; taken an ash Or made an affirmation or oMsr formal declaration 0 7 allegiance m a f o r e g n stare: enrered or mwud I t h e armad forcm nf sforeinn smm; n a c e p t e d or performed the dutiee of any office, post, o r employment under the govwnment of 8 forelgn rtam or political subdivl~ion thererrf: made s fo~rnatranunclatiun of nationality either in the United S tams or b d o r e a diplomatic or conwlar officer of t h e United S t a a s in a toreign State; svsr W Q h t o claimed the twnefirs of the netionaliry of any foreign %taw:or been convicted by a court or court rnartlal of compefant jurisdiction r committing anv a ~ of meason aga;nst. or atrsmpting by force to overthrow, o r beaing arms ageinst, t,a UniTed Stares, or conspiring t ovmrthrm, put down or t o t o desnoy by force, rhe Government of rhe United States W k R N I N G : False starementr made knowingrv and willfully i n pasport applicwions or i n aFTi&vits Or rimer flupporting doturnsnu rubrnltQdTherewith are punishabla by f i v e and/or imprlwnmenr under the provisions uf 18 USC t W and/or 18 USC 7542. Alteration or rnurilalon of a paaaort I n l md pursuant t o t h i s application is punishable by fine and/or irnprlaonmsnt under the pmvisians o 18 USC 1563. T h e use of a p a w a r t in wiolstim Of the f restriction5 contained therein or Of the p a s p o r t regulations is punishable by fine and/or imprisunment under 18 USC 1544. A lr stetemmts end documents submirwd are rubjeet m verificaricn.
IFOR USE OF OFFICE TAKING APPLlCATlONl

- -
~PPL~CANT'S IDENTIFYING O O C U M E N T ~ I
CeMfieate of Naturallzation or Citizenship PBSSPOTT
I D E N T I F Y l N G DOCUMENT lS)OF WIFEIHUSBAFTD
T 0 BE INCLUDED
I N PASSPORT
No.:
1 ~
Certificam of Natural-
izarion or Cirirenshlp
No.:
lreue Oa*: Plaee of ! w e : lasued i n Name of:
D ~ :9 m OE
Passpart
Urivefs Liceme
Place o Issue: f
!$mud In Name
, n Driver's
License
Tthur lSc;acifyJ:
C] 0rhet ( S P ~ C W Y ) :
c l t y . - w d COLOR OF WAtR
W/CM/T&
~ F ( O F ~
Exhibit H
PROCEEDINGS
30
he had a British born father, Mr. McCain did n o t

challenge that.
T h e r e f o r e , my contract to vote, one
person-one vote, where I cannot sell my vote, I can't
give it away.
I can go to j a i l f o r that.
There's a
o t h e r side to my vote.
It means something i n t h e S t a t
of N e w York and it better mean something because New
York State is in d i r e condition p o l i t i c a l l y .
We cannc
s u s t a i n a voting assembly where people do n o t vote.

Upstate, N e w York is emptying o u t because they a r e n o t
being represented properly, that's germane. that aside -THE COURT:
Putting
So essentially your argument i s
for someone to run for president of the United States

under Article 2 of the constitution, it says you have
to be a natural born citizen.
That means that not o n 1
you have to be born.within the United States of

America, b u t both your parents have to be natural born
citizens, is that what you're saying?
MR. STRUNK: THE COURT:
Yes, your Honor.

What if for argument's sake
Mr. Obama"
father would have been naturalized?

MR. STRUNK: THE COURT:
He would be naturalized.
So in other words, your parents
have to be citizens?
MR. STRUNK:
Yes, and as spelled out in New
SW
Y
PROCEEDINGS
31
York State law and specifically i n regards t o our

h i s t o r y of l a w t h a t r s found i n t h e real p r o p e r t y law
Section 18, that'a the only Location that the n a t u r a l

b o r n citizen is mentioned and there's a basis of
legislative action to that basis where you cannot
convey a piece of mining rights to anybody who is n o t

n a t u r a l born.
Natural born is also defined by the U.S.

Supreme Court i n 1824 as it r e l a t e s to the transition
of the p r o p e r t y r i g h t s a f t e r the revolution where
family would inherit.
So
in other domestic law in our
s u r r o g a t e , i n o u r law which passes property on to a

family member, there's a definition in New York State
law which clearly defines that it's blood and soil law
of nations definition and I s a y l a w of nations because
it's b i g l e t t e r s in.the U.S. Constitution.
It is the.
basis of how we carried on t r a d e , how we carried on

commerce, how we were a b l e to borrow money to r u n the
revolution that we had to operate under international law that was commensurate with o u r ability to exist as
a nation after we broke from the k i n g .
So a l J this
comes to bear to the legislature which I deem them
lazy, you know, bad habits.
Mr. Goldwater was the last one on t h e ballot
in 6 4 who was not born on U.S. soil.

SW
Y
He was born i n
Exhibit I
Exhibit J
Exhibit K
Exhibit L
Exhibit M
Complaint and Demand for Public Hearing on the Eligibility of the declared candidate Barack Hussein Obama I1 for Office of POTUS at the 2012 Election Cycle in New York
N W YORK STATE BOARD OF E L E C T ~ N S , E 40 Steuben Street Albany New York 12207 Attention: JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J; AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner,
STATE OF NEW YORK
)
)
CEIYI'IFIED RETURN RECEIPT No:70111570000033846626
COUNTY OF KINGS
1 8%
Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: 1. Petitioner is located for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845)9016767 email: chris@strunk.ws.; and is a duly registered voter in the 2008 and 2012 election cycle. 2. That Petitioner with Election Law (EL) 3-104 hereby complains of the declared candidate Barack Hussein Obama I as not being eligible for the Office of President of the United States (POTUS)and 1 demands a hearing on the declared candidates eligibility on 21 14112 or as soon thereafter as the Chairman and Commissioners may chose to convene to take evidence and testimony to bar Barack Hussein Obama I from the 2012 Presidential Election cycle ballots as time is of the essence. 1 3. That Petitioner references the N S BOE schedule issued on January 9 2012 for the 2012 Y Presidential Election cycle that designates the start of the DEMOCRATIC DELEGATE SELECTION P A FILING DATES: L N 21 14112 Last day for candidates to decline designations. 82-122-a(2) 21 14112 Last day, for CBOE to notify SBOE candidates which filed at CBOE. 82-122-a(6)(h) 212 1112 Last day for party committee to file certificate of candidacies for delegate and alternate delegate candidates. 82-122-a(7)(a-b) 3/ 1/ 12 Last day for SBOE to notify party committee of candidates who will appear on ballot. 82-122-a(7)(d) 3/21 12 Last day for boards of election to notify party committee of candidates who will appear on ballot. 82-122-a(7)(d) 4. That based upon information and belief Barack Hussein Obiuna I1 (BHO 11) has already declared himself a candidate for the office of President of the United States here in the New York 2012 election cycle. 5. That based upon the admission of Barrack Hussein Obama I1 with the release of his autobiography. "Dreams From M Father" (1995)the British subject at his birth was Barack Hussein Obama Sr. y 6. That according to the INS record signed by Barrack Hussein Obama Sr. he is a Foreign Alien nonimmigrant with a student visa and never was at anytime a US Citizen or even had a "Green Card" 7. That according to the divorce decree issued from the Hawaii court of competent jurisdiction British subject Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was married to the US Citizen Stanley Ann Obama being of minor age at the time of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama 11; 8. That according to the Certificate of Live Birth released by Barack Hussein Obama I1 during a press conference in April 20 11, BHO I1 was born in Hawaii to U.S. Citizen Stanley Ann Dunham Obama the mother, and British Subject Barack Hussein Obama Sr. the father on August 8, 1961. Strunk Complaint and Demand for Hearing with EL 3-104 Page 1 of 2
9. That Barack Hussein Obama I1 is merely a native born naturalized citizen not a Natural-Born
L
a .
Citizen (NBC)a person born in the country of US Citizen parents) a s defined by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)in the precedent set in Minor. v. Hcwpersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875),21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. by Justice Waite holding that natural born citizens (NBC) se are so per by virtue of birth on United States soil when both parents were Citizens of the United States according to the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 de jure citizens without reaching the need of use of the 14th Amendment or the power of Congress granted with Article 1 Section 8 % paragraph 4 to define3aturaljzation and immigration status person other than NBC persons. 6 10. That Barack Hussein Obama I1 is m t a Natural- born Citizen however may be classified a s "Born a Citizen" depending upon the power of Congress granted to define such status other than NBC. 11.That Barack Hussein Obama I1 is a declared candidate with EL 14-100(1)(7)(9) here in New York, and has illegally directed his campaign fund raising here in New York to proceed starting last summer as with EL 14-114; 13 b 12. That BHO I1 as an ineligible declared candidate,,seeking a ballot line in the Democratic Rimary and General Election ballot starting February 14, 20 12. 13.That BHO I1 a s an ineligible declared candidate illegally participates within the state and personally directed his fund raising agents to proceed as defined under N S EL 14-114 and the fraudulent Y w conversion of the funds as defined by EL 14-130 in relevant parts with related law. 14. That the N S BOE is willfully facilitating BHO I1 a s an ineligible declared candidate since no later Y than the 2008 election cycle continuing now with malicious facilitation using instructions on the N S BOE website page "Running for Office" contrary to the law of the land and the requirements set Y by the State Legislature stating therein as to citizenship status that a declared candidate need only be "Born a Citizen" rather than a "Natural-born Citizen" to be eligible for the office of POTUS. 15. That Petitioner alleges that the Chairman and Commissioners are involved in the misprision of a . felony by facilitating the declared candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama I1 and others, and that 4 duplicate of this complaint affidavit is simultaneously filed with the Albany District Attorney for investigation; and that 16. On January 26, 2012, Petitioner was a material witness a t the ballot access hearing held by the Georgia Secretary of State before a Justice of that Court to bar Barack Hussein Obama I1 from that ballot and BHO I1 nor his attorney attended by default relinquish 16 electoral votes from Georgia. 17. Petitioner knows the wrongful acts to facilitate the'continued fund raising and attempt for ballot access by the declared candidate is an irreparable harm with time as the essence that applies to me by misapplication and administration of laws; the same is true to my own knowledge, except a s to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and a s to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs a s to all matters not stated upon information and belief are a s follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.
~?b'Idopher-~arl: Strunk ARNOLD I. TISHFIELD Notary Public State Of New York N0.41-4311662 Qualified In Queens County Certified In Kings County Commission Expires March 30, 20
@ +
'
-. .
, -
.-
-.
'..-. _ T
' 4
CC: Office of the District Attorney . Albany County Judicial Building 6 Lodge Street Albany, NY 12207 Cert RR No: No: 70 111570000033846633ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of New York State The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Page 2 of 2
Strunk Complaint and Demand for Hearing with EL 3-104
DATE'
Page:
1
February 17, 2012
TIME
. .
2 34 PM
-
Office:
President
0
DEMOCRATIC 342476 Secondary District : o
Candidate Name Barack Barack Barack Barack Barack Barack Barack Barack Barack Barack
~
Districl :
Party :
Pet Id :
. .. -.. .
Supporting
Objection Filed
Objection Postmarked
Specification s Due -
Specifications Filed
. ----
Specifications Postmarked ~- .
Objector's Name
Candidate Status -
Hear~ng Date
Heanng Result
Obama Obama Obarna Obarna Obarna Obama Obama Obarna Obarna Obarna
Pany : REPUBLICAN Pel Id :
10 FEB 2012 10 FEB 2012 14 FEB 2012 14 FEB 2012 15 FEB 2012 15 FEB 2012 15 FEE 2012 15 FEB 2012 16 FEB 2012 16 FEB 2012
09 FEE 2012 11 FEB 2012 13 FEB 2012 13 FEE 2012 13 FEB 2012 13 FEB 2012 13 FEB 2012 13 FEB 2012 13 FEB 2012
15 FEB 2012 16 FEB 2012 17 FEE 2012 21 FEB 2012 13 FEB 2012 21 FEB 2012 21 FEB 2012 21 FEB 2012 21 FEE 2012 21 FEB 2012
15 FEE 2012 10 FEE 2012 14 FEE 2012 15 JUL 2012 16 FEB 2012
13 FEB 2012 11 FEB 2012 13 JUL 2012 14 FEE 2012
16 FEB 2012
14 FEB 2012
Christopher H W~ll~am Chiislopher Arnee Thomas Leonard John Natal~e Jul~anne Alton
J
J
M
M
Gamey Van Allen Strunk F~tzgerald Dean Volodarsky Allegato Allegato Thompson 'fee
v v v v v v v v
v v
342620
Secondary Dislricl : 0
Candidate Name Romney Mitt
Supporting _
Objection
- F~led 15 FEB 2012
Objection Postmarked
Specif~catioil _s D_ue--
Spec~ficat~ons Spec~ficat~ons Postmarked __ _ Elizabeth
Objector's Name
Cand~date Status V
Heanng Date-
Heanng Result
13 FEB 2012
21 FEB 2012
Chamberlain
Specific Objections to the OBAMA FOR AMERICA Filing with the N S Board of Elections on February 9,2012 Y
N W Y R STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, E OK 40 Steuben Street \ Albany New York 12207 Attention: JAMES A. WALSH / CO-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / CO-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, . GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT No:70111570000033846640
STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTYOFKINGS
1 881
Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: Objector is located for senrice at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -28 1 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845) 9016767 email: chris@strunk.ws.; and is a duly registered voter in the 2008 and 2012 election cycle. That Objector has already filed a complaint and demand for hearing with Election Law (EL)3- 104 of the declared candidate Barack Hussein Obama I1 a s not being eligible for the Office of President of the United States (POTUS)and demands a hearing on the declared candidates eligibility on 2/ 14112 or a s soon thereafter a s the Chairman and Commissioners may chose to convene to take evidence and testimony to bar Barack Hussein Obama I1 from the 2012 Presidential Election cycle ballots as time is of the essence. Y That Objector references the N S BOE notice that agents of the OBAMA FOR AMERICA campaign filed designating petitions on February 9, 2012 that designates Barack Hussein Obama I1 for ballot access at the Democratic Party F'rimary in the start of the DEMOCRATIC DELEGATE SELECTION P A FILING. L N l That Objector challenges the Certification of both the declared candidate BHO I1 and a l the petitions and filing documents as a nullity against public policy in that Barack Hussein Obama I1 is not eligible for the Office of the President of the United States (POTUS)because he is not a "Natural Born Citizenm(NBC)as is required under New York State law in compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 and New York provision of law defining "Natural born Citizen" and therefore all the designating petitions must be rejected as defective. That objections are based upon the admission of Barrack Hussein Obama I1 with the release of his autobiography. "Dreams From M Father" (1995)the British subject at his birth was Barack y Hussein Obama Sr. - as such BHO I1 is not NBC and ineligible for POTUS. That objections are based upon the INS record signed by Barrack Hussein Obama Sr. that BHO 11's father was a Foreign Alien non-immigrant with a student visa and never was at anytime a US Citizen or even had a "Green Card" - a s such BHO I1 is not N C and ineligible for POTUS. B That objections are based upon the record of the divorce decree issued from the Hawaii court of competent jurisdiction British subject Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was maqied to the U.S. Citizen Stanley Ann Obama being of minor age at the .time of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama 11; That objections are based upon the supposed Certificate of Live Birth (COLB)released by Barack Hussein Obama I1 during a press conference in April 201 1, alleging BHO I1 was born in Hawaii to U.S. Citizen Stanley Ann Dunhain Obama, the mother, and British Subject Barack Hussein Obama Sr. the father on August 8, 1961. The evidence shows that at best, Barack Hussein Obama I1 may merely be a native born naturalized citizen not a "Natural-Born Citizenn,a-person born in the country of US Citizen parents as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)in the precedent set in Minor. v. Hapversett 88 and Demand for eari in^ G t h EL 3-104 Page 1 of 2 Strunk
U.S. 162 (1875), 1 Wall. 162,and 22 L Ed. 627.by Justice Waite holding that natural born citizens 2 . (NBC) se are so by virtue of birth on United States soil when both parents were Citizens of the per United States according to the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 de jure citizens without reaching the need of use of the 1t Amendment or the power of Congress granted with 4h Article 1 Section 8 paragraph 4 to define naturalization and immigration status person other than NBC persons; and a s upheld by New York State jurisprudence a s to NBC defined in state law. 10.That Barack Hussein Obama I is not a Natural- born Citizen however may be classified a s "Born a 1 Citizen" depending upon the power of Congress granted to define such status other than NBC. 11. That objector challenges Barack ~ u s s e i n Obama I1 and or his agents to prove both the place of birth and that both of his parents at the time of his birth were US Citizens. 1 .That on February 9, 2012,Objector duly filed in the N S Supreme Court County of Kings I.A.S. Part 2 Y 27 in Case Strunk v. N S BOE et a 201 1-6500a notice of motion for leave of direct appeal to the Y 1 New York State Court of Appeals a s of right with a stay of the trial court proceedings until the sole . US Constitutional issue being Barack Hussein Obama 11's ineligibility is +
@,hb
Christopher-Earl: Strunk
ms:R .....
.
'
Sworn to before me day of February 2012
-8
..
Commissioner o Deeds f City of New York - No.5-883 CertificateFiled in Richmond County Cofnmission Expires June 30, 204.3
HARRY HELFENBAUM
OBAMA FOR AMERICA (OFA) Headquarters 25 E. 21st St

Office of the District Attorney Albany County Judicial Building 6 Lodge Street Albany, NY 12207
5fiflRC.K d m m A
SO%
C GI-W
oov
f i e
~ C A G Q (, L . bob'' C&T f l 1 7 0 /I 2000 uooi 6311 ~
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of New York State The Capitol Albany, New York 12224
Row7 mCwD 118 6 . '43'!$7-, fit7 I D
WrZW wSSt?~d~ S A V ' M A 6
THE W H ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ t - f
/60b
v ~ - , w .L ~ & ~A&r~p~rnd . ads00 9 pD.C

~ ~
b RQ 7011 o d o w .
PA
byr
7g(~b
agscen9EJs
Strunk Gksq&&lt
and Demand for Hearing with EL 3-104
Page 2 of 2
i l
m a
CertlRed Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required)
03
Postma* 'Here
03
.
Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required)
postma* Here
0 Restricted Delhrery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
0%' delivery Fee

(Endorsement Required)
; I
Postage
Cerfifled Fee
4
+ I
Certified Fee
Return Reca[pt,Fee (Endorsement Requ#red) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required)
-0 0 d
0
Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required)
03
Postma*
. Total Postage & ~ e e
Exhibit N
Vv'estlaw
Slip Copy Slip Copy (Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported Disposition (Cite as: Slip Copy) XYZ ENTITIES., Defendants. Strunk v New York State Bd. of Elections Slip Copy N.Y.Sup.2012. Slip Copy, 35 Misc.3d 1208(A), 1205117,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 50614(U) 2012 WL 6500/11 Supreme Court, Kings County Decided on April 11, 2012 CITE TITLE AS: Strunk v New York State Bd. of Elections This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. ABSTRACT Strunk, in esse, Plaintiff, v. ew York State Board of Elections; JAMES A. WALSH/Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER! Co-Chair, EVELYN 1. AQUILAI Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSONI Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director ST ANL Y ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMI COLON, in their Official and individual capacity, Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, SJ.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A. O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama, a.k.a Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERV ATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; JOHN AND JANE DOES; and Christopher-Earl Parties Standing Political Claims against Defendants Were Nonjusticiable, Abstract and Theoretical Actions Frivolous Actions Page I
Strunk v New York State Bd. of Elections, 2012 NY Slip Op 50614(U). Parties-Standing-Political Claims against Defendants Were Nonjusticiable, Abstract and Theoretical. Actions-Frivolous Actions. (Sup Ct, Kings County, Apr. 11, 2012, Schack,1.)
APPEARANCES
OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk, plaintiff pro se Brooklyn NY Defendants: Joel Graber, Esq. State of NY, Office of Attorney General Atty for all NYS Government Defendants NY NY Chlarens Orsland, Esq. NYC Law Department Atfty for Defendants FAO Schwarz and O'Hare NY Y Sarah Dunn, Esq.
2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Slip Copy Slip Copy (Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported Disposition (Cite as: Slip Copy) Simpson Atty for NY NY Marshall McGuire Atty for NY NY Thomas Thacher & Bartlett, LLP Peter Peterson Beil, Esq. Woods, LLP the Brzezinskis 1. Garry, Esq.
Page 2
Harris Beach, PLLC Atty for President Obama, VP Biden Obama for America Obama Victory Fund, Nancy Pelosi and Penny Pritzker Uniondale NY Daniel S. Reich, Esq. Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, PC Atty for the Socialist Workers and Roger Calero NY NY Rita C. Tobin, Esq. Caplin and Drysdale Atty for John McCain III NY NY Thomas W. Kirby, Esq. Wiley Rein, LLP Atty for John A. Bohner Washington DC John R. Oller, Esq. Wilkie Farr & Gallagher, LLP Atty for George Soros NY NY OPT ION OF THE COURT Arthur M. Schack, J. The following papers numbered 1 to 25 read on this motion:Papers Numbered: Notice of Motion and Notice of Cross-Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) 1 - 13 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) 14 - 21 Reply Affidavits (Affirmations)22 - 25 and
If the complaint in this action was a movie script, it would be entitled The Manchurian Candidate Meets The Da Vinci Code. Pro se plaintiff CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK brings this action against numerous defendants, including President BARACK OBAMA, Vice President JOSEPH BIDEN, Senator JOHN MCCAIN, Speaker of the House of Representatives JOHN BOEHNER, former House of Representatives Speaker NANCY PELOSI, Governor ANDREW CUOMO, Attorney General ERIC SCH EIDERMAN, Comptroller THOMAS DI NAPOLI, the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, billionaires PETER PETERSEN, PENNY PRITZKER, GEORGE SOROS and six New York State political parties. Thirteen motions are pending before the Court. Plaintiff STRUNK's complaint is a rambling, fortyfive page variation on "birther" cases, containing 150 prolix paragraphs, in at times a stream of consciousness. Plaintiffs central allegation is that defendants President OBAMA and Senator McCAIN, despite not being "natural born" citizens of the United States according to plaintiffs interpretation of *2Articlc 11.Section I, Cia Lise .5 of the U.S. Constitution, engaged with the assistance of other defendants in an extensive conspiracy, on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church to defraud the American people and usurp control of the Presidency in 2008. Most of plaintiff STRUNK's complaint is a lengthy, vitriolic, baseless diatribe against defendants, but most especially against the Vatican, the Roman Catholic Church, and particularly the Society of Jesus (the Jesuit Order). Plaintiff STRUNK alleges seven causes of action: breach of state constitutional fiduciary duty by the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS and public officer defendants; denial of equal protection for voter expectation of a correct ballot; denial of substantive due process for voter expectation of a correct ballot; interference with the right to a republican form of government by the two Je-
Slip Copy Slip Copy (Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported (Cite as: Slip Copy)
Page 3
Disposition
suit defendants and defendant F.A.O. SCHWARZ, JR., who were all members of the New York City Campaign Finance Board; interference with plaintiffs election franchise; a scheme to defraud plaintiff of a reasonable expectation of successful participation in the suffrage process; and, a scheme by all defendants for unjust enrichment. Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment and a preliminary injunction against defendants, including: enjoining the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS from putting Presidential candidates on the ballot for 2012 unless they provide proof of eligibility, pursuant to Article TT. Section I, Clause 5 of the U. S. Cousriruuon; ordering that this eligibility certification be submitted to the Court for proof of compliance; enjoining the Jesuits from interfering with the 2012 elections; ordering expedited discovery to determine the scope of damages, alleged to be more than $12 billion; and, ordering a jury trial for punitive treble damages. Various defendants or groups of defendants, all represented by counsel, present eleven motions to dismiss and one motion to admit an attorney pro hace vice for this action. The eleven individual defendants or groups of defendants are, in chronological order of filing their motions to dismiss: defendants President BARAeK OBAMA, Vice President JOSEPH BIDEN, OBAMA FOR AMERICA and the OBAMA VICTORY FUND; defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 and Senator JOHN MCCAIN; defendants MARK BRZEZINSKI and IAN BRZEZINSKI; defendant Representative NANCY PELOSI; defendant GEORGE SOROS; defendants THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY and ROGER CALERO; defendant Speaker JOHN BOEHNER; defendant ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI; defendants Father JOSEPH A. O'HARE, SJ., Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J. and FREDERICK A. O. SCHWARZ, JR.; defendant PENNY PRITZKER; and defendant PETER G. PETERSEN. The eleven motions to dismiss assert: plaintiff STRUNK lacks standing; plaintiff STRUNK fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted; plaintiff STRUNK fails to plead fraud with particularity; the action is frivolous; plaintiff STRUNK is barred by collateral estoppel from pursuing this action; and, the Court lacks both personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this action. The motion to admit counsel pro hace vice for the instant action, by counsel for defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 and Senator JOHN MCCAIN, for Todd E. Phillips, Esq., a member in good standing of both the California and District of Columbia bars, is granted. Further, plaintiff STRUNK cross-moves to consolidate the instant action with a similar "birther" action filed by him, Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642/08, in the Kings County Special Election Part, before Justice David Schmidt. Many of the defendants oppose *3 consolidation because Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642/08, is a disposed case. The cross-motion to consolidate this action with Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642/08, is denied. Defendants who oppose plaintiffs crossmotion are correct. Justice Schmidt disposed of Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642108, on the grounds of collateral estoppel, failure to join necessary parties and laches. The eleven motions to dismiss are all granted and plaintiff STRUNK's instant complaint is dismissed with prejudice. It is clear that plaintiff STRUNK: lacks standing; fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; fails to plead fraud with particularity; and, is barred by collateral estoppel. Also, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over most, if not all, defendants. Furthermore, plaintiff STRUNK's instant action is frivolous. As will be explained, plaintiff STRUNK alleges baseless claims about defendants which are fanciful, fantastic, delusional and irrational. It is a waste of judicial resources for the Court to spend
2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. ___ . . ._~ . .~ - ._. __ __ 0._--_-_-----
Slip Copy Slip Copy (Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported (Cite as: Slip Copy)
Page 4
Disposition
time on the instant action. Moreover, the Court will conduct a hearing to give plaintiff STRUNK a reasonable opportunity to be heard, pursuant to 22 NYCRR ~ 130-1.1, as to whether or not the Court should award costs and/or impose sanctions upon plaintiff STRUNK for his frivolous conduct. At the hearing, an opportunity will be given to counsel for defendants to present detailed records of costs incurred by their clients in the instant action. Therefore, plaintiff STRUNK, who is not a stranger in the courthouses of New York, is enjoined from commencing future litigation in the New York State Unified Court System against: the NEW YORK ST ATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSH! Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER! Co-Chair, EVELY J. AQUILA/ Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON/Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, and Deputy Director ST ANL Y ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI and RUTH NOEMI COLON, in their Official and individual capacity; Father JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A. O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; BARACK H. OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI; the DEOMCRA Trc STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK ST ATE; ROGER CALERO; the SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER; the NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN ST A TE COMMITTEE; the NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; and MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; without prior approval of the appropriate Ad-
ministrative Justice or Judge.
BACKGROUND Plaintiff STRUNK previously commenced similar actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and this Court, the Supreme Court of*4 the State of New York, Kings County. In Strunk v New York State Board of Elections, et al., Index No. 08-CV4289 (US Dist Ct, ED NY, Oct. 28, 2008, Ross, J.), the Court dismissed the action because of plaintiffs lack of standing, failure to state a claim and frivolousness. In that action, plaintiff STRUNK accused the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS of "misapplication and misadministration of state law in preparation for the November 4, 2008 Presidential General Election" by, among other things, in ~ 51 of the complaint, of "failure to obtain and ascertain that Barrack Hussein Obama is a natural citizen, otherwise contrary to United States Constitution Article 2 Second 1 Clause .5 [sic]" and demanded "Defendants are to provide proof that Barrack Hussein Obama is a natural born citizen and if not his electors are to be stricken from the ballot [sic]." Judge Ross, at page 6 of her decision, held "the court finds that portions of plaintiffs affidavit rise to the level of the irrational" and, in footnote 6, Judge Ross cited two prior 2008 Eastern District cases filed by plaintiff STRUNK in which "the court has determined that portions of plaintiffs complaints have contained allegations that have risen to the irrational." My Kings Schmidt, 29642/08, on March County Supreme Court colleague, Justice in Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. as cited above, disposed of that matter, 14, 2011, by denying all of plaintiffs moex-
tions and noting that the statute of limitations pired to join
necessary parties President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN. Further, Justice Schmidt

_ ..
-----_._._-_._---
--_._----------
Slip Copy Slip Copy (Table, Text in WEST LA W), Unreported Disposition (Cite as: Slip Copy) denied plaintiff an opportunity to file affidavits of service nunc pro (ZInc and to amend the complaint. Then, plaintiff STRUNK, eight March 22, 2011, commenced the days later, on
Page 5
Hawaii issued COLB does not prove natural born' citizenship or birth in Hawaii, only a long form document would [sic.]" Plaintiff's alleged vast conspiracy implicates dozens of political and religious figures, as well as the 2008 presidential candidates from both major parties, with numerous absurd allegations. They range from claiming that an associate at the large law firm of Kirkland and Ellis, LLP masterminded the conspiracy because she wrote a law review article about the U. S. Constitution's natural born citizen requirement for the office of President to the assertion that Islam is a seventh century A.D. invention of the Vatican. Further, plaintiff STRUNK alleges, in ~ 129 of the complaint, that he: is the only person in the USA to have duly fired fired fired BHO [President OBAMA] on January 23, 2009 by registered (rendering BHO the USURPER as Plaintiff is entitled BHO as) on the grounds mail
instant action by filing the instant verified complaint. Plaintiff STRUNK's complaint recites numerous baseless allegations about President OBAMA. These allegations are familiar to anyone who follows the "birther" movement: President OBAMA is not a "natural-born" citizen of the United States; the President is a radical Muslim; the President's Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth does not prove that he was born in Hawaii; and, President OBAMA is actually a citizen of Indonesia, the United Kingdom, Kenya, or all of the above. For example, Plaintiff STRUNK alleges, in ~ 24 of the complaint, that President OBAMA: is a Madrasah trained radical birth right ... practices Sunni Muslim by
to characterize
Shariah law ... with the full knowledge and blessing of Defendants: Peter G. Peterson; Zbigniew Mark and Ian; Penny Brzezinski; his sons
that he had not proven himself eligible ... acts by the usurper are void ab initio -- a serious problem' [sic]
and all
S. Pritzker; George Soros; Jesuits Fathers: Joseph P. O'Hare, Joseph P. Parkes; Brennan Center Executive Frederick O. Schwarz, Jr.; Nancy Pelosi, John Sidney McCain Boehner; Hillary Clinton; Richard Durbin and others. [sic] A.
Plaintiff's allegations are strongly anti-Muslim and xenophobic. The
anti-Catholic,
complaint weaves the occasional true but irrelevant fact into plaintiffs rambling stream of consciousness. Moreover, plaintiff STRUNK alleges, in ~ 22 of the complaint, that defendant Vice President BIDEN knew that President
III; John A.
Then, in ~ 28 of the complaint, plaintiff STRUNK alleges that President OBAMA "or his agent(s) as part of the scheme to defraud placed an image of Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth *5 (COLB) on the Interest ... and as a prima facie fact means the
OBAMA was "not eligible to run for president because he is not a Natural-Born Citizen with a British Subject Father with a student visa, however in furtherance of CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] foreign policy initiatives in the mid-cast supported
Slip Copy Slip Copy (Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported Disposition (Cite as: Slip Copy) Soebarkah [President OBAMA] as a Muslim [sic]." Also, Plaintiff STRU. K discusses, plaint, then-Senator OBAMA's in the com-
Page 6
Senator MCCAIN is not a natural-born citizen. Plaintiff STRUNK, in his final twenty pages of the complaint, alleges that the massive conspiracy to defraud American voters was perpetrated by hundreds of individuals, at the behest of the Roman Catholic Church and especially the Jesuits, with the aim of bringing about the Apocalypse through the destruction of the AI Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and the re-building a new Jewish Temple on that site. Among the entities that Plaintiff STRUNK implicates in his alleged conspiracy are: the Muslim Brotherhood; the Carlyle Group; the CFR; Halliburton; Kirkland and Ellis, LLP; and, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU. For example, in , 91 of the complaint, plaintiff STRUNK states: That members of the Council on Foreign Relations including Peter G. Petersen as then Chairman that act with the Jesuit Order by the oath of allegiance superior to the United States Constitution, Treaties, and various States' Constitutions later than January 2006 that starting no
April 2008 co-sponsorship of Senate Resolution 511. This resolved unanimously that Senator MCCAIN, born in 1936 in Panama, while his father was on active duty in the United States Navy at Coco Sola Naval Air Station, is a natural born citizen of the United States. This resolution put to rest questions about Senator MCCAIN'S eligibility to run for President. However, plaintiff STRUNK alleges, in' 43 of the complaint, that Senate Resolution 511 "is part of the scheme to defraud" and "a fraud upon Congress and the People of the several states and territories contrary to the facts." Then, plaintiff STRUNK, in , 44 of the complaint, cites Senate Resolution 511 's text as evidence that President OBAMA concedes that the definition of natural born citizenship for President requires both parents of a candidate be U.S. citizens at birth. Further, the complaint alleges that JOHN MCCAIN and ROGER CALERO, presidential candidate of the SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY, were also ineligible, like then-Senator OBAMA, for President because of their failure to qualify under the natural born citizen requirement. *6 Plaintiffs alleged injury, in , 47 of the complaint, is "[tjhat on November 4, 2008, Plaintiff, as a victim of the scheme to defraud, voted for the electors representing ... McCain ... not a natural-born U.S. citizen." Further, in' 49 of the complaint, "as part of the scheme to defraud, Plaintiff voted for Candidate McCain despite the fact that his wife is a most devoted Roman Catholic whose two sons were educated by Jesuit priests." Plaintiff alleges, in , 51 of the complaint, that Senator MCCAIN, was born in Colon Hospital, Colon, Panama, which was not in the Panama Canal Zone. Further, plaintiff alleges, in' 52 of the complaint, that according to the November 18, 1903 Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty, by which the United States obtained the Canal Zone,
sought to usurp the executive branch of government using Barack Hussein Obama II and John S. McCain III, as a matched set of contenders then under joint command and control, to preclude any other contender in preparation for a banking and sub-prime mortgage collapse that requires subsuming the sovereignty united States of America and New York to International of the people of the
Monetary Fund con-
Slip Copy Slip Copy (Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported Disposition (Cite as: Slip Copy) ditionality with loss of in Honolulu,
Page 7
Hawaii [tr., p. 23]. However, plaintiff
STRUNK, at tr., pp. 30 - 31, argued the dollar reserve currency status, and collapse of the living standards of the vast majority of the Americans to that of a third world status. [sic] Plaintiff STRUNK, in 'Il 139 of the complaint, leges that defendant GEORGE althat a "natural born citizen," eligible to run for President of the United States, pursuant to Article [1, Section L Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, means that not only the candidate is natural born, but both of the candidate's parents are natural born. The following exchange at the oral arguments took place, at tr., p. 34, line 25 - p. 35, line 16: MR. STRUNK:My injury, Ivoted for McCain.
SOROS "proves his allegiance to Rome by promoting Muslim Brotherhood overt control of Egypt. . We cannot forget that the Jesuits III Cairo created the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928, the same year the Order created Opus Dei in Spain [sic]." Further, plaintiff STRUNK, in 'Il 145 of the complaint alleges that "Defendants Pritzker and Soros have managed a crucial role for the Vatican State as a member of the CFR and high level Freemasonry and in conjunction with King Juan Carlos (the King of Jerusalem) to create global regionalism that subsumes national *7 sovereignty of the USA and the People of New York state to the detriment of plaintiff and those similarly situated [sic]." Eleven defendants or groups of defendants motions to dismiss, arguing that filed
THE COURT:ls that an injury? MR. STRUI K:My injury is he did not challenge Mr. Obama after he went through the whole exercise. THE COURT:You're lenged Mr. Obama's presidency? MR. STRUNK:Absolutely, is on me and the ballot. The onus saying he should have chal-
plaintiff STRUNK: lacks standing; failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; failed to plead fraud with particularity; and, is barred by collateral estoppel. Further, defendants argue that the Court lacks both personal and subject matter jurisdiction and the instant complaint is frivolous. Plaintiff, in response, filed an affidavit in opposition to the motions to dismiss and moved to consolidate the instant action with Strunk v Paterson, et af , Index No. 29642/08. On August 22, 2011, I held oral arguments on the record with respect to the thirteen instant motions. At the hearing, plaintiff STRUNK agreed with the Court that President OBAMA, with the release of his long-form Hawaiian birth certificate, was born
because he violated his agreement with me. You can't challenge the eligibility until he's up to be sworn. McCain, since everybody in Congress, since they didn't want to know about anything, so it was my responsibility. I fired him by registered mail within 72 hours. THE COURT:I saw your letter that you fired the President. I guess he didn't agree with you because he's still there. A discussion ensued as to how plaintiff STRUNK alleges that President OBAMA
Slip Copy Slip Copy (Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported Disposition (Cite as: Slip Copy) is a Muslim [tr., pp. 36 - 38]. The following loquy took place at tr., p. 37, lines 4 - 8: THE COURT:How sion that he's colTHE COURT:That's Let's put Anheuser-Busch to the side.
Page 8
big business selling beer.
could you come to the conclu-
a radical Sunni Muslimv=S MR. STRUNK:Because show and that's that's what his records
You said she's a Catholic whole riff or rant,
and you get into this
whatever you want to call it, about the Catholic Church and Father O'Hare, the Vatican. You go on and on about the Vatican .. . but it seems to me you have this theory that everything is a conspiracy and it always falls back to Rome.
what the testimony of individuals who were in class with him show. The following portions of the exchange, at tr., p. 39, line 9 - p. 43, line 8 demonstrates the irrational anti-Catholic bias of plaintiff STRUNK: THE COURT:What you said I find fascinating, first of all
MR. STRUNK:That's
a matter of public record.
there was a connection there where you say Cindy McCain says she's a Catholic. I don't know if she is. I think you said she's Catholic faith, Cindy McCain. MR. STRUNK:She weiser. is the largest distributor of Bud-
THE COURT:Oh, okay. MR. STRUNK:What is on the the key is here, Ms. McCain
Board of Directors for a Jesuit run school where her children are going to school. THE COURT:Could MR. STRUNK: ... covery of the very well be. I don't know. In fact, it turns out in the dis-
THE COURT:I know that. That doesn't make her a Catholic necessarily. MR. STRUNK:It's the connection that counts. Your don't get those connections. THE COURT: ... is Catholic. I don't care. MR. STRUNK:That's big business. I don't know if the Busch family
connection to the Jesuits it was so compelling that when I started really digging into the background fraud, putting up two*9 of this scheme of de-
Manchurian candidates at once, which would take advantage of New York State's weakness honesty. We require to
111
our law which required
have honesty and didn't get it.
Slip Copy Slip Copy
Page 9
(Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported (Cite as: Slip Copy)

THE COURT:Your case more
Disposition
IS
The Do
Vinci
Code, to make some interesting

work of fiction. At least
argument,
that's
Code.
MR. book. STRU K: The Da
Vinci Code is a phoney
I think it's a work of fiction. MR. STRUNK:The
Manchurian
Candidate was not
THE COURT:With heimer,
all due respect
to John Franken-
a work of fiction. The work - - I didn't want to get into this
The Manchurian
the school
Candidate
according
to you and
area. THE COURT:Let's not get into analogies. I under-
of the Vatican, the gist of your argument. stand you have the original various arguments but it seems to all come
by that way it describes
MR. STRUNK:Frankenheimer? THE COURT:He directed
back to Rome.
Manchurian
MR. STRUNK:No, it comes back to New York State and
Candidate
movie.
whether MR. STRUNK:The THE COURT:With old? Frank, not Denzel.
I have standing
in the Supreme
Court
of
the State of New York*10 on the question ity to enforce which of who's the law going to take responsibil-
MR. STRUNK:Frankenheimer? THE COURT: MR. point, STRUNK:I but - forget it. is the one with Frank Laurence Queen Harvey. of Diamonds/ Now Sinatra?
1962
movie. of the movie at that
has not been done. that's your argument.
was aware
THE COURT:Okay,
THE COURT:Okay, MR. STRUNK:This THE COURT:And MR. you've THE STRUNK:The brought - -
STANDARD "When
FOR A MOTION a motion
TO DISMISS
determining plaintiffs
to dismiss,
the court
as
must accept the facts as alleged

true, accord favorable the benefit inference,
in the complaint
of every possible
and determine only whether the
COURT:You
mentioned
The
Manchurian
Candidate. They
have it in the movie. MR. STRUNK:I've THE COURT:I used it as a pejorative. understand that, and I think that
facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory' (see Arnav indus .. Inc. Retirement Trust \, Brown, Raysman. Milstein. Felder & Steiner. 96 NY::d 300. 303 [2001 ]:Lcoil v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83. 87-88 [1994]) [Emphasis added)." (Goldman \' Metropolitan Lifi! Ins. Cu .. 5 NY 3d 56l. 570-571 [2005]). Further, the Court, in Morris \' Morris (306
AD2c! 449,451 In determining withstand [2d Dept 2003]), whether instructed that: to
a complaint to CPLR
is sufficient
The Da Vinci
a motion
pursuant
3211 (a) (7),
2012 Thomson
Reuters.
No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
-'---
--------------_._----------'--
-----------_."
"-
,---------------------
- - ---_.-----_
...
__ ._--
Slip Copy Slip Copy
Page 10
(Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported Disposition (Cite as: Slip Copy)
"the cause sole criterion of action, are is whether discerned will the pleading which fail" taken states factual together at law a
l'
I023[A.j,
at 2 [Sup Cl. Nassau
County
2005]). STRUNK
It is do
and if from its four corners of action cognizable
clear that the facts alleged not fit into any cognizable Plaintiff suits based Clause missed STRUNK'S challenging and Senator upon plaintiffs 5 of rile U.S.
by plaintiff legal theory.
allegations manifest motion

Gillshllrg.
any cause for dismissal 43
(GlIggellheirner 11977].The the facts court
complaint the
is more of a politicpleading. Similar of lawPresident of the l. dis-
'-JY2d
26g,
275
al manifesto OBAMA
than a verified
must accept within otic
the facts alleged
in the complaint
to be
eligibility
true and determine .HeJ
only whether
alleged fit
MCCAIN incorrect
for the presidency interpretation have Droke been

F
any cognizable
ClI
legal theory
(see Dye v Cuth-
o( Brooklvn
& Queens.
273 AD?d
are of infer-
term "natural
born Citizen"
in Article II. Section
193 [2000]lHowever, bare legal conclusions not entitled to the benefit of the presumption
truth and are not accorded added] to survive a motion be "merely to dismiss conclusory eve,y favorable ence (see Dorio [Emphasis For v Masucci, 230 AD2d
Constitution
764 [1000]),
a plaintiff
for and POri
failure
to state a cause in nature

I'
of action,
the factual
allega-
Obamu, 664 F 3d 774 [9th Cir 2011]; Barnett F Ohama, 2009 WL 3861788 [US Dist CL CD CA 2009]; Rerg F Obarna. 574 F Supp 2eI 509 [ED Pa 2008], aJfd586 F3d 234 [3d Cir 2009]; Robinson t' BOllen. 567 F Supp 2d 1144 [ND Ca 2008]; Hollander v I/",C(//II. 566 F Supp 2L163 [D NH 2008]).
as a matter of law. (See
tions in the claim cannot speculative cific facts."
and not supported

(I
by any spePLAINTIFF Plaintiff ( court, critical pathway STRUNK lacks LACKS standing STANDING to sue in state to sue is systhe
(Residents [or 729 [2d Dept cannot
More Bemttifu!
Washington, Inc.
/\D3c1 727, Stoiauoffv Stoianoff AD3d AD3d in the complaint app dismissed92 See Lol'rcsti 474
Town ofNorth
1989]).
l Irmpstvad,
"The
1.53
STRUNK having suffered to the proper no injury. functioning "Standing
allegations
be vague and conclusory."
COhOIlO,
248 A D2c1 525 [2d Dept 1998], NY?d 844 [1998].cert denied by
525 US 953 [1998]).
AIlIt.
of the judicial is denied,
tem, It is a threshold who has standing, and seek judicial [2003 ].cert
issue. If standing is blocked,

(SuwlUga
\. 'veil York Tillles,

v :\/(JSsucizllselis
to the courthouse however, redress."

i:
The plaintiff
CO/I/Ill: Chant-
Lilt' Ins. Co., 30

v lsayeu, 27
may cross the threshold
[2d
Dept
2006];
Levin
425 [2d Dept

l'
bel' of CUII1t71C1'('C. l nc.
Pataki.
100 N Y2d 80 I 812

[2003]). Professor
denied540
US [017
2006]; Hurt Plaintiff because
Scott, 8 AD3d 532 [2d Dept 2004]). complaint need not, must be dismissed
David instructs
Siegel, that:
in NY Prac, 136, at 232 [4d ed]
STRUNK's the "Court
[i]t is the law's and should not, accept legal conclusions, unwarranperson to bring ted inferences, deductions, unwarranted a lawsuit. baseless conclusions of law, or sweepwords, another factual Inc. allegations.
(UI!i101111
policy
to allow
only an aggrieved
, , A want of "standing
to sue," in other
is just way of saying that this particular plaintiff is
ing legal conclusions
cast in the form of v Norma

Kaniali.
Inc.;
not involved in a genuine controversy, and a simple syllogism
207 AD2d 691 [ld Dept 1994]; *lHlark Hampton, v Bergreen, 173 AD2d220 [Id Dept 1991])."( Goode v Charter Dok Fire l ns Co., 8 l\fisc 3d
takes us from there
2012 Thomson
Reuters.
Slip Copy Slip Copy (Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported (Cite as: Slip Copy) to a "jurisdictional" jurisdiction only over controversies; "standing" is not dismissal: (l) the courts have Disposition
Page 11
(2) a plaintiff
found to lack
involved in a controversy; fore have no
and (3) the courts there-
jurisdiction of the case when such a plaintiff purports to bring it. "Standing to sue requires an interest in the claim at issue in the lawsuit that the law will recognize as a sufficient predicate for determining the issue at the litigant's request." (Caprcr " Nussbaum, 36 ADJd 176. 181 [2d Dept 2006]). "An analysis of standing begins with a determination of whether the party seeking relief has sustained an injury (see Society of Plastic Indus. I' COllllly 0/ Suffolk, 77 \iY2d 761. 76'2-773 [1991])" pIa/IOII!.:'Y I' Patoki. s :\'r"2J 45. 52 [2002]). "The Court of Appeals has defined the standard by which standing is measured, explaining that a plaintiff, in order to have standing in a particular dispute, must demonstrate an injury in fact that falls within the relevant zone of interests sought to be protected by law." (Caprer v Nussbaum at 183).
ance about government-claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large-does not state an Article III case or controversy." iLujan I' De/enders 0/ Wildlijt,. 504 US 555. 572 [1992]). "Thus, a private citizen who does not show any special rights or interests in the matter in controversy, other than those common to all taxpayers and citizens, has no standing to sue." (Mallei' ()j.\l~~eh{{n v COIlI1I)'of Westchester, 3 AD3d 533. 534 [2d Dept 2004]). (See Diederich I' Rockland COIIII/V Pulice C"i4~'! Ass 'II. 33 AD3d 653. 654 [2d Dept 2006]; Concerned Taxpovcrs (I{ StOIlY Point I' Tml.'110/ SUI!lI' Point, 28 AD3d 657. 658 [2d Dept 2006]). Plaintiff STRUNK's complaint alleges nothing more than non-justiciable abstract and theoretical claims. Therefore, the instant complaint, failing to state any allegation of a particularized injury, is dismissed with prejudice. (Silver v Pataki at 539; Mahoney v Pataki at 52).
PLAINTIFF STRUNK'S FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION plaintiff STRUNK's complaint must be dismissed for his failure to state a cause of action. The Court is under no obligation to accept as true plaintiffs complaint, full of legal conclusions and bald assertions cloaked as facts. (RII/fino F N(;')I' York Citv Tr. Attth., 55 AD3d 817,818 [2d Dept 2008]). As noted above, in Morris v Morris at 451, "bare legal conclusions are not entitled to the benefit of the presumption of truth and are not accorded every favorable inference." Moreover, plaintiff has failed to plead any facts that fit within any cognizable legal theory. (Goldman v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., at 570-571). Further, plaintiff STRUNK's often rambling and almost incomprehensible complaint fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of CPLR 30 13 and CPLR Rule 3014. CPLR 3013 requires statements in a pleading to be "sufficiently particular to give Alternatively,
*12
A plaintiff, to have standing, "must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." (Alten I' Wright, 468 US 737, 751 [1984]1. If a plaintiff lacks standing to sue, the plaintiff may not proceed in the action. (SUlik I: Goldberg. ~97 AD2d 203 [1st Dept 2002]). Plaintiff STRUNK clearly lacks standing to sue because he cannot establish an injury in fact. Plaintiffs claim that his November 2008 vote for Senator MCCAIN for President was his injury is the type of generalized grievance that is foreclosed by the U.S. Constitution's particularized injury requirement. "We have consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available griev-
Slip Copy Slip Copy (Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported (Cite as: Slip Copy) the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action or defense." CPLR Rule 3014 imposes additional pleading requirements that "[eJvery pleading shall consist of plain and concise statements in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Each paragraph shall contain, as far as practicable, a single allegation ... Separate causes of action or defenses shall be separately stated and numbered and may be stated regardless of consistency." In Sibersky v Ne\I' York Citv (270 AD2d 209 [Id Dept 2000J, the Court dismissed an amended petition for its "complete failure to follow the dictates of CPLR 3013 or 3014" The Sibersky complaint consisted of "seven pages of single-spaced, unnumbered paragraphs, the import of which is unascertainable," and the Court held that "[p [leadings that are not particular enough to provide the court and the parties with notice of the transaction or occurrences to be * 13 proved must be dismissed." Complaints that do not meet the pleading requirements of CPLR ~ 3013 and CPLR Rule 3014 will be dismissed if "devoid of specific factual allegations" and do not "indicate the material elements of a claim and how they would apply to the case." ( Megna v Becton Dickinson & Co .. 215 AD2e! 542 [2d Dept 1995]). In Peri v State (66 ,\ Dld 949 [3d Dept 1979]),affd48 \iY]d 734 [J 979]), a pro se plaintiffs complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with CPL R ~ 3013. The Court instructed that "[a]t a minimum, a valid complaint must include all material elements of the cause of action." Plaintiff STRUNK's rambling, forty-five page prolix complaint, with its irrelevant, scatter-shot morass of alleged historical references, virulent antiCatholic rhetoric and extensive political rant fails to plead his alleged causes of action in a manner that is "sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action [CPLR Disposition
Page 12
3013]" and organized in "plain and concise statements in consecutively numbered paragraphs [ CPLR Rule 3014]." "While a refined and attenuated analysis might arguably spell out a shadow of a cause of action, neither the defendants nor the trial court should be subject to the difficulties." (Kent \' Truman, 9 AD]d 649 [Id Dept 1959]). (See Geist v Rolls Royce Limited, 18 ;\D2d 631 [Id Dept 1962]; Safer Beef Co .. Inc. \' Northern Boneless Beef. lnc., IS AD2d .:J. 79 [1 d Dept 1961. In a case, such as this one, in which "the amended complaint is prolix, confusing, and difficult to answer" and the complaint contains "a confusing succession of discrete facts, conclusions, comments ... and considerable other subsidiary evidentiary matter whose relevance to a particular cause of action is frequently obscure .. Defendants should not be required to answer such a jumble." (Rapaport \' Diamond Dealers, Club. lnc .. 95 AD2d 743, 744 [I d Dept 1983 J). (See Etu \' Cumberland Farms. 1I7e .. 148 AD2d 82 J , 3~.:J.[3d Dept 1989]).
PLAINTIFF STRUNK FAILS TO PLEAD FRAUD WITH PARTICULARITY "The elements of fraud are narrowly defined, requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence (c{, Vermeer Owners v Uutcrman. 78 NY2d I I 14, II 16 1.1991]). " (Gaidon v Guardian Life Ins. Cu. of America. 94 NY~d 330, 349-3.50 [1999]). Mere conclusory statements alleging the wrong in the pleadings are insufficient. (McGovern v Nassau Co 1111 tv Dept. o/Sucial Services. 60 AD3d 1016 [2d Dept 2009]; Sargiss v
Magarelli, 50 AD3d 1117 [2d Dept 2008J; Dumas v
FiroilO, 13 AD3d 332 [2d Dept 2004]; Sforza v Health Ins. Pion of Greater Nell' York. 210 AD2d 214, 215 [2d Dept 1994]). The Appellate Division, Second Department, urdanella v Giurdanella (226 AD2d 342,343 [1996J, held that: in Gi-
2012 Thomson Reuters.
Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Slip Copy Slip Copy (Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported Disposition (Cite as: Slip Copy) to establish a prima facie case of fraud, the plaintiff must establish (1) that the defendant made material representations that were false, (2) that the defendant knew the representations were false and made them with the intent to deceive the plaintiff, (3) that the plaintiff justifiably relied on the defendant's that the plaintiff was*14 representations, and (4) ifications of both President
Page 13
OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN to hold the office of President. This is a non-justiciable political question. Thus, it requires the dismissal of the instant complaint. "The "nonjusticiability of a political question is primarily a function of the separation of powers." (Baker v CUrl', 369 US I ill'), 21 ()
[1962]). Under separation of powers, "[t]he constitutional power of Congress to regulate federal elections is well established." (Buckler " Valeo, 424 US 1,13 [1976]). (See Oregon ]\.filchl'lI. 400 US u: [I970]:BlIlTollghs v United SImes. 290 US 534 [1934]). Under New York law, "[tjhis judicial deference to a coordinate, coequal branch of government includes one issue of justiciability generally denominated as the political question' doctrine." ( Mauer of New York State Inspection, Security & Law Enforcement Employee, District Council 8}, A FSC\IE. AFL-CfO I' C1l01ll(}. 64 N'{2cl 233. 239 [ 1994]).
injured as a result of the defendant's representation. (See Kerusa c.: LLC t' WI0Z/515 Real E.,lule Ltd. Partnership, J 2 NY3d 236 [2009j:Snwll \' l.orill ard Tobacco Co.. lnc 94 N Y2d 43 [1999J;Challllel Master C()Ip. F Aluminum Limited Sales. lilt' .. 4 NY2d 403 [195S]:Smilh v Ameriqucst MONg. Corp. ,60 AD3d 1037 [2d Dept 2009]; Cash v tu. Finuncial Services. file. 58 AD3d 785 [2d Dept 2009]), Plaintiff STRUNK presents in his complaint fraud accusations that can be, at best, described as bare assertions. He does not allege that he relied upon any statements of defendants and fails to allege that he suffered any pecuniary loss as a result of the statements of any defendant. Actual pecuniary loss must be alleged in a fraud action. (Dress Shirl Sales, Inc. \' Hotel Martinique ..Issoc .. NY2d 339, 343 [1963J; Rivera I' IF1'L'ko/f Heights Ilosp., 184 AD2d 558. 561 [2d Dept 1992]). The mere use of the word "fraud" in a complaint is not sufficient to comply with the specific requirements of CPLR 3016 (b) that fraud be plead with particularity. Therefore, plaintiff STRUNK fails to allege the necessary elements for a fraud cause of action.
]2
THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION Plaintiffs complaint essentially challenges the qual-
The framework for the Electoral College and its voting procedures for President and Vice President is found in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution. This is fleshed out in 3 USC ~ 1 1'1 seq., which details the procedures for Presidential elections. More specifically, the counting of electoral votes and the process for objecting for the 2009 Presidential election is found in 3 use IS, as modified by rub L 110-430, 2, 122 US Stat 4846. This required the meeting of the joint session of Congress to count the 2008 electoral votes to be held on January 8, 2009. On that day, after the counting of the Electoral College votes, then-Vice President Dick Cheney made the requisite declaration of the election of President OBAMA and Vice President BIDEN. (ISS Cong Rec H76 [Jan. 8 2009]). No objections were made by members of the Senate and House of Representatives, which would have resolved these objections if made. This is the exclusive means to resolve objections to the electors' selection of a President or a Vice President, including objections raised by plaintiff STRUNK. Federal courts have no role in this pro-
Slip Copy
Page 14
Slip Copy
(Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported (Cite as: Slip Copy)

cess. Plainly, Thus, ident for state courts have no role. lacks subject to be President,
Disposition
this Court OBAMA
matter jurisdiction
to
PLAINTIFF
STRUNK LATERAL
IS PRECLUDED ESTOPPEL preclusion," Prac
BY COL-
determine Senator
the eligibility MCCAIN to hold reserved
and qualifications or ROGER
of PresIf a of a deCollateral served
as well as the same CALERO.
estoppel
or "issue in
as ob-
state court were to involve a candidate termination College tional thority this those ill-suited cordingly, Court seding designates eligibility Justice
itself in the eligibility of President,
by Prof. Siegel,
the office
443, at 748-749, [4th ed], "scans

and takes note of each action, attempts estoppel invoked, issue decided based the second sue, collateral is being although
the first action in it. Then on a different the same isits the Vorl; whom
,VCII'
for the Electoral*15 it may involve for which with College question courts of the itself in naauAcsuperand the
if
and Congress, political and matters interfere
it is institutionally and Congress. doctrine nation's from voters
cause of action, relitigation doctrine decided
to reintroduce intervenes against
the constitutional
to preclude
of the Electoral the political and other the judgments federal government as the proper of presidential Robert Jackson,
and to bind the party, in the first

CO/l1pOI/)'
instructs
to the way the issue was In

RV((I/
to refrain entities
action."
Telephone
(62 NY2d 494. 500 held that "[t]he a narrower species from relitigating an issue docof in a
the Constitution to determine
[1984]), the Court of Appeals,

trine of collateral action estoppel, a party
forums candidates. concurring
res judicata, precludes

in subsequent
YO/l/lg,t(}\\'n
or proceeding action
clearly or not [Em-
Sheet
19 )2],in "the jority quoted
& Tube Co.

discussing Justice Constitution opinion from Justice
I' SOllyer
(343
US )79. stated
63) that
raised against
in a prior
or proceeding of action
and decided
separation diffuses Thurgood
of powers Marshall,
that party or those in privity, whether or causes estoppel

I'
power
the better
to se-
the tribunals fore collateral
are the same
cure liberty." 394 (19901).
in his maof powers, dissent Framers central will in
phasis added]. " Two prerequisites

Appeals, in Buechel eert denied535 US 303-304, that:
must be met beThe Court of
in Li.S. v\1l1t1o::-FloICS on the subject Justice Scalia of separation Scalia's Antonin observed ...
(495 US 3~).
can be raised. 1096 [2002J).
Bain (97 NY2d 295 [200!

instructed
I.
at
Morrison
which
\' Olson. 487 US 654, 697 [I nx.J. in

that "[t]he viewed This Constitution of powers the separation the principle Court
There must be an identity sarily been decided in the prior action tion, and there must have been
of issue which
has neces-
of the Federal of separation guarantee not disrupt Jackson, Further, serve Senator merous stant diction plaintiff
as the absolutely of powers and articulated
of a just
Government."
and is decisive
of the present
ac-
as enunciated by Justices
in the U.S. Constitution Marshall plaintiff defendants, MCCAIN,
and Scalia. STRUNK including pursuant present failed has failed President to properly OBAMA and
a full and fair opportunity now
to con-
test the decision
said to be controlling
(see, Gilberg \' Barnicri. 53
to the CPLR. for dismissing
With nuthe injurisupon how
NY2e1 285,291 [1981 D. The litigant

al estoppel demonstrate must*16 that the decisive issue was necessarily seeking the benefit of collater-
other grounds the Court STRUNK
action,
will not elaborate to obtain
personal
over defendants.
decided in the prior
2012 Thomson
Reuters.
Slip Copy Slip Copy (Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported (Cite as: Slip Copy) action against a parry, or one in privity party (see, id.). The party to be precluded bears the burden of from relitigating
Page 15
Disposition
with a
the issue
demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination. [Emphasis added]
As mentioned above, Justice Schmidt disposed of Smink v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642/08, on March 14, 2011, by denying all of plaintiffs motions and noting that the statute of limitations expired to join necessary parties President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN. Therefore, collateral estoppel precludes plaintiff STRUNK from pursuing the instant action.
(See D'Arata t Nell' York Cent. +Iut, Fire Ins. Co .. 76 NY1d 659. 664 11990J;Gl'UlI/ururt Home 111ves iors Clip. v Lopez: 46 '.!Y1d '-1-81, -+o5sllpra; Westchester COlIll/1' Correction Officers Benevolent Ass'iI. Inc. F County of IVes{clit'ster. 65 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2d Dept 2009]; Franklin Dcv. Co. [11('. v Atlantic Mill. ins. Co., 60 AD3J 897, 899 [2d Dept 2009]; Luscher e.Y. rei Luscher l' ..:J/'I'/Ii./, 11 AD3d IOOS [2d Dept 2005]). Plaintiff STRUNK litigated many of the issues in the instant action in US District Court, but also in the previously cited Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642/08, before Justice Schmidt. He acknowledged this, in ~ 2 of the instant complaint, by stating: That this complaint is fairly traceable to the events and actions leading up to the Party primaries during the 2008 election cycle for the ballot access of the Presidential November 4,2008 General Election as complained law case, Strunk v slates at the
DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION CONSOLIDA TE
TO
Plantiffs cross-motion to consolidate this action with Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642i08, and transfer the instant action to Justice Schmidt is denied. Justice Schmidt, on November 19, 2008, in Strunk v Paterson, et ai, declined to sign plaintiff STRUNK's order to show cause to enjoin Governor Paterson from convening New York's December 2008 meeting of the Electoral College, because "plaintiff is collaterally estopped." This refers to the Eastern District action dismissed by Judge Ross, in which she found the complaint frivolous. After a hiatus of several years, plaintiff STRUNK, by order to show cause, attempted to amend his complaint. Justice Schmidt, in his January 11, 2011 short-form order, denied this motion in its entirety. * 17 Then, plaintiff STRUNK moved to reargue. On March 14, 2011, Justice Schmidt, in a short-form order, denied reargument because plaintiff "failed to join a necessary party President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN and the statute of limitations to do so expired." Finally, on November 9, 2011, H. William Van Allen, an ally of plaintiff STRUNK, moved to intervene as a plaintiff to challenge President OBAMA's placement on the upcoming 2012 ballot. In his November 22, 2011 short-form order, Justice Schmidt denied Mr. Van Allen's intervention "in all respects." Further, Justice Schmidt held "[t]his is an action that was commenced in 2008
of in the related election
Paterson, et al. NYS Supreme Court in the County of Kings with Index No, 29642-08 before the Honorable David I Schmidt of Part 1 as an election law matter. [sic]
Slip Copy Slip Copy (Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported Disposition (Cite as: Slip Copy) and has remained inactive for several years and it would be improper to allow plaintiff to raise new matters before the Court after the extended period of inactivity."
Page 16
frivolous as a result. In Shoemaker v US. Department of Justice (164 F 3d 619. 619 [2d Cir 1998]), plaintiff alleged that the government
PLAINTIFF'S
FRIVOLOUS
CONDUCT
"A complaint containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis" and "embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation. " (Neitzke \ fFi//ioll1s, 490 US 319, 325 [19K9J). Plaintiff STRUNK, as cited above, alleges numerous fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational and baseless claims about defendants. The U.S. Supreme Court, citing Neitzke, held in Denton \' Hernande: (504 US 25, 32-33 [1992]). that: A court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are "c1early baseless," 490 US at 127, 109 S Ctat 1833,a category "fanciful," encompassing id., at 325, allegations that are
and television stations conspired to: "(1) broadcast information about his feces on national television; and (2) file and publicized false charges of child abuse against him." The Court, citing Neitzke and Denton, dismissed the action as frivolous because plaintiffs "factual claims are irrational and incredible. " Another case applying the frivolous standards of Neitzke and Denton is Perri \' Sloomherg (2008 WL 2944642 [US Dist Ct, ED NY 200~]), in which plaintiff alleged that a secret unit of the NYPD was attempting to kill him and his cats. The Court dismissed the case, finding that plaintiffs complaint has "a litany of sensational allegations pertaining not only to the NYPD, but also to various arms of government, both state and federal. Accordingly, Perri has not established that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction, because his allegations of irreparable harm are unsupported and* 18 bizarre." Plaintiff STRUNK'S complaint, position to defendants' motions as well as his op-
109 S Ct at 1831. "fantastic,"

at 1833, and
id., at 328, 109 S Ct
to dismiss, alleges that the correct interpretation of the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution requires a natural born citizen to have been born on United States soil and have two United States born parents. Despite plaintiffs assertions, Article II, Section I, Clause 5 does not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the natural born citizen clause means what plaintiff STRUNK claims it states. "The phrase natural born Citizen' is not defined m the Constitution, Minor v llapperseu, 88 US 162, 167 [1875]), see nor
"delusional," of factual
ibid.As those words suggest, a finding
frivolousness is appropriate rise to the level
when the facts alleged
of the irrational or the wholly incredible. In Denton, the plaintiff alleged that he had been repeatedly raped by a number of inmates at several different prisons, all using the same modus operandi. The Court concluded that these allegations were "wholly fanciful" and dismissed the claim as
does it appear anywhere else in the document, see Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: An Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1,5 (1968)." (Hollander v
Slip Copy Slip Copy (Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported Disposition (Cite as: Slip Copy)
Me Cain at 65). Plaintiff STRUNK cannot wish into
Page 17
existence an interpretation that he chooses for the natural born citizen clause. There is no arguable legal basis for the proposition the President that both parents of must have been born on U.S. soil.
Conduct is frivolous and can be sanctioned, pursuant to 22 l\'{CRR 130-1.1 (c), if "it is completely without merit ... and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. " (Cordo;/ \' Marrone, 202 A D2d 104. 110 [2d Dept 1994] lv denied84 'TY2d 813 [1995]). (SeeRKO Properties. l nc. v Bovmelgrecn. 77 AD 3d 721 [2d Dept 2010]; Finkelman \' SBRE. LLC. 71 AD3d 1081 [2d Dept 2010]; Glenn \' AIIII/II7::iu/CI. 53 AD.3d 565, [2d Dept 2008]; Miller \/ Dugan, 27 ,\D3d 429 [2d Dept 2006]; Greene \' Do 1'(/1 Conference Center Associates. 18 A D3d 429 [2d Dept 2005]; Ofinun v Campos. 12 AD3d 581*19 [2d Dept 2004]). It is clear that plaintiff STRUNK's complaint: "is completely without merit in law;" "is undertaken primarily ... to harass" defendants; and, "asserts material factual statements that are false." Several years before the drafting and implementation of the Part 130 Rules for costs and sanctions, the Court of Appeals (A. G. Ship Maintenance C(!lF I' Lezak . 69 :--.i Y2d I, 6 [1986 J) observed that "frivolous ing the litigation is so serious a problem affect-
This assertion is as frivolous as the multitude of alleged allegations outlined above. Moreover, President OBAMA is the sixth U. S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil. Plaintiff STRUNK and his fellow " birthers " might not realize that: both parents of President Andrew Jackson were born in what is now Northern Ireland; President James Buchanan's father was born in County Donegal, Ireland; President Chester A. Arthur's father was born in what is now Northern Ireland; President Woodrow Wilson's mother was born in Carlisle, England; and, President Herbert Hoover's mother was born in Norwich, Ontario, Canada. Therefore, the prosecution of the instant action by plaintiff STRUNK, with its fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational and baseless claims about defendants appears is frivolous. 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (a) states that "the Court, in its discretion may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a
civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous
conduct as defined in this Part, which shall be payable as provided in section l30-1.3 of this Subpart." 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) states: conduct is frivolous if: (J) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily the resolution of the litigation, er; or to delay or prolong
proper administration of justice, the courts may proscribe such conduct and impose sanctions in this exercise of their rule-making powers, in the absence of legislation to the contrary (see N'r' Canst, art VI, 30, Judiciary Law G 211 [1] [b] )." Part 130 Rules were subsequently January 1, 1989, to give the created, effective
or to harass or maliciously
injure anoth-
courts an additional remedy to deal with frivolous conduct. In Levy \' Carol Management Corporation (260 AD2d 27. 33 [1st Dept 1999]) the Court stated that in determining if sanctions are appropriate the Court must look at the broad pattern of conduct by the offending attorneys or parties. Further, "22 NYCRR 130-1.1 allows us to exercise our discretion to impose costs and sanctions on an errant party." (Levy at 33). Moreover, "[s]anctions are re-
(3) it asserts material false.
factual statements
that are
Slip Copy Slip Copy (Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported Disposition (Cite as: Slip Copy) tributive, in that they punish past conduct. They also are goal oriented, in that they are useful in deterring future frivolous conduct not only by the particular parties, but also by the Bar at large." (Levy at 34). The Court, in
Kel"/l;'\I1I1.
Page 18
examine whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent [or] should have been apparent' (22 N'{CRR 130-1.1 [cD." Therefore, the Court will examine the conduct of plaintiff STRUNK in a hearing, pursuant to 22 NY CR R 130-1 .J, to determine if plaintiff STRUNK engaged in frivolous conduct, and to allow plaintiff STRUNK a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Further, at the hearing, an opportunity will be given to counsel for defendants to present detailed records of *20 costs incurred by their clients in the instant action.
M.D.
\' Tavlor
(171
AD2d
869 [2d Dept 1991)), noted that the intent of the Part 130 Rules "is to prevent the waste of Judicial resources and to deter vexatious litigation and dilatory or malicious litigation tactics tcf. Mil/isle!". Elders & Deacons of Refin. Prof. Church of Citv of New York v 11)8 Broadwuv, 76 NY2d 411 .see Steiner \i Bonhamer, 146 011 isc 2d 10) [Emphasis added ]." To adjudicate the instant action, with the complaint replete with fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational and baseless allegations about defendants, combined with plaintiff STRUNK's lack of standing, the barring of this action by collateral estoppel and the Court lacking personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction over many of the defendants, is "a waste of judicial resources." This conduct, as noted in Levy, must be deterred. In IYl'instock v Weinstock (253 .AD2d i:>73[2d Dept 1998)) the Court ordered the maximum sanction of S 10,000.00 for an attorney who pursued an appeal "completely without merit," and holding, at 874, that "[ w]e therefore award the maximum authorized amount as a sanction for this conduct (see,22 NYCRR 130-1.1) calling to mind that frivolous litigation causes a substantial waste of Judicial resources to the detriment of those litigants who come to the Court with real grievances [Emphasis added]," Citing Weinstock, the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Bernadette P(fIlZe!!U. P. C. v De Santis (36 AD3d 734 [2d Dept 2007]) affirmed a Supreme Court, Richmond County $2,500.00 sanction, at 736, as "appropriate in view of the plaintiffs waste of Judicial resources [Emphasis added]." In Navin l' Mosquera (3D AD3d 1183, 883 [3d Dept 2006]) the Court instructed that when considering if specific conduct is sanctionable as frivolous, "courts are required to
PLAINTIFF PRECLUDED FROM RELITIGATION OF THE SAME CLAIMS The Court is concerned that plaintiff STRUNK continues to use the scarce resources of the New York State Unified Court System to fruitlessly pursue the same claims. He is no stranger to litigation in Supreme Court, Kings County, Civil Term. Further, plaintiff STRUNK has had several bites of the same apple in U.S. District Court, which resulted in findings of his engagement in frivolous conduct with, as stated by Judge Ross, complaints that "have contained allegations that have risen to the irrational." The Court should not have to expend resources on the next action by Mr. STRUNK that will be a new variation on the same theme of defendants' alleged misdeeds and misconduct. The continued use of the New York State Unified Court System for the personal pursuit by plaintiff STRUNK of irrational complaints against defendants must cease. Our courts have an interest in preventing the waste of judicial resources by a party who knows that his or lawsuit has no legitimate basis in law or fact and continues to attempt to relitigate resolved claims and issues. (Martin-Trigona \' Capital Cities/Ali C. Inc, 145 Mise 2d 405 [Sup Ct, New York County 1989]). The Court, in Sassower v Signorelli (99 AD2d 358, 359 [2d Dept 1984]), noted that "public
Slip Copy Slip Copy (Table, Text in WEST LA W), Unreported (Cite as: Slip Copy)
Page 19
Disposition
policy mandates free access to the courts. . and, ordinarily, the doctrine of former adjudication will serve as an adequate remedy against repetitious suits." Then, the Sassower Court observed, in the next paragraph, that: "[ n[onetheless, a litigious plaintiff pressing a frivolous claim can be extremely costly to the defendant and can waste an inordinate amount of court time, time that this court and the trial courts can ill afford to lose (see Harrclson t' United States. 613 F2d 114)." Pro se litigants whom abuse judicial process have had their access to the courts limited. In Sprcmo v Bubcliik (155 Mise 2d 796 (Slip Ct. Queens County 199(1), the Court, in enjoining a pro se litigant from instituting any further actions and proceedings in any court in the New York State Unified Court System, citing Sassower and KOlle v Citv of Nell' Y()rk, 468 f Supp 586 [SD NY 1979], affd614 f2d 1288 [2d Cir 1979]). The Kane Court, at 592, held: The fact that one appears pro se is not a license to abuse the process of the Court and to use it without restraint as a weapon of harassment and libelous bombardment. tion herein ordered The injunc-
lawsuit against the State Bar Association upon various conspiracy theories. The Court in dismissing the action, based upon *21 res judicata, observed, at 903, that "all litigants have a right to impartial and considered justice. Insofar as any litigant unnecessarily consumes inordinate amounts of judicial time and energy, he or she deprives other litigants of their proper share of these resources. A balance must be kept." Therefore, plaintiff STRUNK, with his history of abusing the civil justice system, by bringing pro se actions devoid of merit against the same defendants, is precluded from relitigating the same claims and issues which waste court resources and is enjoined from bringing any future actions in the New York State Unified Court System against: the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSH/ Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER/Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA/Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON/Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, and Deputy Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI and RUTH NOEMI COLON, in their Official and individual capacity; Father JOSEPH A. O'HARE, s.r., Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, s.r., FREDERICK A. o. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; BARACK H. OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI; the DEOMCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK ST ATE; ROGER CALERO; the SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSK1; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER; the NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; the NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE
is fully warranted to put an end to such activity ... Commencement of action upon action based on the same facts dressed in different garb, after thrice being rejected on the merits and having been repeatedly warned that the claims were barred by res judicata, can only be explained as malicious conduct. In Muka I' New York Stale Bar Association (120 Misc 2d 897 [Sup Ct. Tompkins County 1983]), a pro se plaintiff commenced a fourth unsuccessful
Slip Copy Slip Copy (Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported (Cite as: Slip Copy) PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE;
Page 20
Disposition
PE0INY
S,
Conclusion Accordingly, it is
PRITZKER;
GEORGE
SOROS;
OBAlvfA
FOR
AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCUN VICTORY 2008; and MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; without the prior approval of the appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge, The Court instructed, in I'ogelgesang l' Vogelgesang (71 AD3d 1132, I 134 [2d Dept 2010]), that: The Supreme Court providently cretion in enjoining exercised its dis-
ORDERED, that the motion by counsel for defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 and Senator JOHN MCCAIN, to admit Todd E. Phillips, Esq., a member in good standing of both the California and District of Columbia bars, for the instant action pro hace vice is granted; and it is further ORDERED, that the motions to dismiss plaintiff CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK's instant complaint by: defendants President BARACK OBAMA, Vice President JOSEPH BIDEN, OBAMA FOR AMERICA and the OBAMA VICTORY FUNO; defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 and Senator JOHN MCCAIN; defendants MARK BRZEZINSKI and IAN BRZEZINSKI; defendant Representative NANCY PELOSI; defendant GEORGE SOROS; defendants THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY and ROGER CALERO; defendant Speaker JOHN BOEHNER; defendant ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI; defendants Father JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J" Father JOSEPH r. PARKES, S.J. and FREDERICK A. O. SCHWARZ, JR.; defendant PENNY PRITZKER; and defendant PETER G. PETERSEN; are all granted, with the instant complaint dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the cross-motion of plaintiff CHRISTOPHER EARL-STRUNK to consolidate the instant action with Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642/08, before Justice David Schmidt, is denied; and it is further ORDERED, that plaintiff CHRISTOPHER EARLSTRUNK is hereby enjoined from commencing any future actions in the New York State Unified Court System against: the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. W ALSHI Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER/Co-Chair, EVELYN r.
the appellant from filing any further actions or motions in the, , , action without prior written approval, Public policy generally mandates free access to the courts (see ,~\D2d 358. 359
S(fSS01l'er 1
Signorcll'. 99
[1984 D. However, a party may forfeit that right if he or she abuses the judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will (see Du!J.i' l'
Holt-Harris.
260 /\D2d 595 [2d
Dept 1999]; Shreve v Shreve, 229 ,,\D2d 1005 [2d Dept 1996]). There is ample basis in this record to support the Supreme Court's determination to prevent the appellant from engaging in further vexatious litigation. (See Scholar l' Tintinskv, 87 AD3d 577 [2d Dept 2011]; Dimervv Ulster S(/I'. Balik. 82 AD3d 1034 [2d Dept 2011]; Capogrosso \' Kansas. 60 AD3d 522 [1 d Oept 2009]; Simpson \.' Ptaszvnska. 41 AD3d 607 [2d Dept 2007]; Pignataro \' Davis, 8 AD3d 487 [2d Dept 2004]; *22 Cangro \' Cangro. 288 AD2d 417 [2d Dept 2001]; Mancini \' Mancini, 269 AD2d 366 [2d Dept 2000]; Broten \' Finkelstein. 23 5 A Dld 513 [2d Dept 1997]).
2012 Thomson Reuters, No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Slip Copy Slip Copy (Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported (Cite as: Slip Copy) AQUILA/Commissioner, PETERSON/Commissioner, TODD D. VALENTINE, STANLY ZALEN;
Page 21
Disposition
GREGORY P. Deputy Director and Deputy Director CUOMO, ERIC
able opportunity to be heard," this Court will conduct a hearing affording plaintiff CHRISTOPHER EARL-STRUNK "a reasonable opportunity to be heard" and counsel for all defendants may present to the Court detailed records of costs incurred by their clients in the instant action, before me in Part 27. on Monday, May 7, 2012, at 2:30 P.M., in Room 479, 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, NY 1120 I; and it is further ORDERED, that Ronald D. Bratt, Esq., my Principal Law Clerk, is directed to serve this order by firstclass mail, upon CHRISTOPHER EARL-STRUNK, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue, No. 281, Brooklyn, New York, 11238 and upon counsel for all defendants in this action. This constitutes Court. the Decision and Order of the
ANDREW
SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI and RUTH NOEMI COLON, in their Official and individual capacity; Father JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A. O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; BARACK H. OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI; the DEOMCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; the ST ATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK ST ATE; ROGER CALERO; the SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER; the NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; the NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSER VA TIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; and MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; without prior approval of the appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge; and it is further
ENTER
HON. ARTHUR M. SCHACKJ. S. C. Copr. (C) 2012, Secretary of State, State of New York N.Y.Sup.2012. Strunk v New York State Bd. of Elections Slip Copy, 35 Misc.3d 1208(A)70502012 WL 12051172012 WL 1205117 (Table)(Table, Text in WESTLA W), Unreported Disposition9992012 N.Y. Slip Op. 50614(U)4603, 35 Misc.3d 1208(A)70502012 WL 12051172012 WL 1205117 (Tab1e)(Table, Text in WESTLAW), Unreported Disposition9992012 NY. Slip Op. 50614(U)4603, 35 Misc.3d 1208(A)70502012 WL 12051172012 WL 1205117 (Table)(Table, Text in WESTLAW), Unreported Disposition9992012 N.Y. Slip Op. 50614(U)4603 END OF DOCUMENT
ORDERED, THAT ANY VIOLATION OF THE ABOVE INJUNCTION BY CHRISTOPHEREARL STRUNK MAY SUBJECT CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK TO COSTS, SANCTIONS AND CONTEMPT *23 PROCEEDINGS; AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that it appearing that plaintiff CHRISTOPHER EARL-STRUNK, engaged in "frivolous conduct," as defined in the Rules of the Chief Administrator, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c), and that pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Administrator, 22NYCRR 130.1.1 (d), "[a]n award of costs or the imposition of sanctions may be made ... upon the court's own initiative, after a reason-

.----- -----_.-
---
.------_ ..- .-- .. ---
Exhibit O
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF K I N G S : C I V I L TERM : PART 27

p p p p p
--
CHRISTOPHER-EARL
STRUNK,
i n esse,
~l t i f f , ain
- against NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A . WALSH/CO-CHAIR, DOUGLAS A . KELLNER/~O-C~~~~, EVELYN J . A UA Q L/ I ~ o m msi s i o n e r , GREGORY P. PETERSON/ Commi s s i oner, D e p u t y ~i t o r , TODD D . rec V A L E N T I N E , D e p u t y ~ i r e c t o r ,STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, E R I C SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P . D I N A P O L I , RUTH NOEMI COLON,
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
)
Fr. ) Index ~urnber JOSEPH P . PARKES, 5 . 7 ; FREDERICK A.O., 1 6500/11 SCHWARZ, J R . ; PETER G. PETERSEN; Z B I G N I E W ) E l e c t i o n ~ e a rng i KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI ; M A ~ KBRZEZINSKI ; 1 JOSEPH R. B I D E N , J R . ; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a 1 B a r r y S o e t o r o , a . k . a ~ a r a c kH u s s e i n Obama, ) a.k.a S t e v e D u n h a m ) ; NANCY P E L O S I ; 1 DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE.OF THE STATE 1 OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORK) I N G F A M I L I E S PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; 1 ROGER CALERO; THE S O C I A L I S T WORKERS PARTY; ) I A N 7 . B R Z E Z I N S K I ; JOHN S I D N E Y MCCAIN, 111;) JOHN A . BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUB- ) L I C A N STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE ) COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE ) COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S . P R I T Z K E R ; GEORGE ) SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY 1 FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2 0 0 8 ; M C C A I N - P A L I N 1 VICTORY 2 0 0 8 ; JOHN AND JANE DOES; and XYZ ) ENTITIES, 1
i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l and i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y , F r . JOSEPH A . O ' H A R E , S . J . ;
1 1
K i n g s Supreme C o u r t 3 6 0 dams S t r e e t ~ r o o k l y n , New Y o r k 1 1 2 0 1 M a y 7, 2 0 1 2 B E F O R E : HONORABLE ARTHUR M. SCHACK, Justice A P P E A R A N C E S : ( S e e n e x t page.)
11
Attorney f o r p l a i n t i f f :
(Pro se)
Attorneys
f o r Defendants z b i g n i e w ,
ark, and I a n B r z e z i n s k i :
lo or
M C G U I R E WOODS, LLP 1345 Avenue o f t h e Americas - Seventh New Y o r k , New Y o r k 10105-0106 B y : 'MARSHALL BEIL, ESQ.
A t t o r n e y s f o r ~ e f e n d a n t sP r e s . Barach Obama,
v i c e Pres.
~ o s e p h ide en, Obarna v i c t o r y Fund, Obama f o r A m e r i c a , Rep. Nancy ~ e l o s,i and Penny S. P r i t z k e r : HARRIS BEACH, PLLC 333 E a r l e Ovi n g t o n ~ l v d ,. S u i t e 9 0 1 u n i o n d a l e , New Y o r k 11553 By: KEITH M. CORBETT, ESQ.
A t t o r n e y s f o r Sen.
John ~ c C a i n e f e n d a n t s and V i c t o r y 2008: D
CAPLIN & DRYSDALE One D horn as C i r c l e , NW washi n g t o n , D c 20005 By: TODD E. PHILLIPS,
S u i t e 1100
ESQ.
A t t o r n e y s f o r D e f e n d a n t George Soros: WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER, LLP 787 s e v e n t h Avenue New ~ o r k ,New Y o r k 10019-6099 By: TERI SEIGAL, ESQ. A t t o r n e y s F o r D e f e n d a n t G r e g o r y G. Peterson:
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP 425 ~ e xn ig t o n Avenue 10017-3954 New y o r k , New Y o r k By: ERIKA H . BURK, ESQ.
A P P E A R A N
s :
(cont'd)
A t t o r n e y s f o r ~ e f e n d a n t s~ o s e p h . O ' ~ a r e , A ~ o s e p hP. Parks, and A . O . Schwarz, J r . :

NEW YORK CITY L W DEPARTMENT A o f f i c e o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n counsel 100 c h u r c h S t r e e t New ~ o r k ,New York 10007-2601 By: CHLARENS ORSLAND, ACC
A t t o r n e y s f o r Governor, C o n t r o l l e r , S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e , Commi s s i o n e r o f S t a t e ~ o a r d f ~ l e c t i o n sand s e v e r a l o i S t a t e Board 0 f f i c e r s , A t t o r n e y General , Thomas D i ~ a p o l, and ~ u t h Noemi Colon: STATE OF NEW Y R O K O f f i c e o f t h e A t t o r n e y General 120 roadway New Y o r k , New y o r k 10271-0332 By: JOEL GRABER, AAG A t t o r n e y s f o r Defendants Soci a1 is t Roger Cal e r o :
workers P a r t y and
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, K R I N S K Y & LIEBERMAN,. P.C. 45 roadway - S u i t e 1700 New York, New York 10006-3791 By: DANIEL S . R E I C H , ESQ. DIANE D I X O N , RPR, CSR, RMR o f f i c i a l Court Reporter.
p r o c e e d i ng A-F-T-E-R-N-0-0-N
THE COURT:
4
S-E-S-S-I-0-N
L e t me f i g u r e o u t who we have we have M r . S t r u n k .

Ir e p r e s e n t
h e r e ; i n no p a r t i c u l a r o r d e r .
MR.
BEIL:
~ a r s h a l lB e i l .
zbigniew Brzezi nski ,
ark ~ r z e znis k i , and
I a n ~ r z e z i n s k i ,and Is e r v e d on M r .
trunk t o d a y an
a f f i davi t / a f f i rmation o f service i n connection w i t h the Court's request f o r a d e t a i l e d statement o f services.

Ican hand t h a t up t o t h e c o u r t .
THE COURT:
T h a t would be a p p r e c i a t e d .
why
d o n ' t you hand i t t o t h e o f f i c e r ? ~ n Id' m l o o k i n g a t a copy f r o m t h e S t a t e reporter o f t h i s particular action. so you a r e h e r e M r . c o r b e t t , and w e ' l l g e t t o you i n a moment.
MR.
CORBETT:
Your Honor, ~ e i t h o r b e t t , Law C
o f f i c e o f H a r r i s seach; and we r e p r e s e n t Pres. ~ a r a c hobama, v i c e Pres. los,eph s i d e n , t h e obama V i c t o r y ~ u n d ,obama F o r ~ m e r i c a , as w e l l as we r e p r e s e n t Nancy P e l o s i and a l s o Penny S . ~ r i t z k e r .
MR.
PHILLIPS:
odd
p h i 1l i p s , C a p l i n &
THE COURT:
You r e p r e s e n t Sen. ~ c ~ a and t h e i n
others; r i g h t ?
MR. PHILLIPS:
Correct.
v i c t o r y 2008,
~ c ~n a i odd p h i 11ips THE COURT:

MR.
.
You were a d m i t t e d p r o hac v i c e ? Yes. C o r b e t t , do you have any
PHILLIPS:
Mr.
THE COURT:
b i l l s o r r e c o r d s t h a t you want t o s u b m i t a t t h i s time?

MR.
CORBETT:
A t t h i s time,
y o u r Honor, we do
not.
we a r e a w a i t i n g c l a r i f i c a t i o n f r o m o u r c l i e n t s t o
see t h a t t h e y a r e g o i n g t o go f o r w a r d and want t o submi t any document. THE COURT:

Mr.
P h i l l i p s , do you want t o
submit anything t o t h e c o u r t ?
MR.
PHILLIPS:
Ido n o t have a u t h o r i z a t i o n .
THE COURT:
MR.
Y o u ' r e g o i n g t o seek c o s t s ?
NO.
PHILLIPS: SEIGAL:
MS.
Your Honor, T e r i S e i g a l , w i l l k i e
Farr & Gallagher.

MS. BURKi
Ir e p r e s e n t d e f e n d a n t George Soros.
E r i k a Burk, Simpson ~ h a c h e r &
~ a r t l e t t . W r e p r e s e n t M r . Gregory- P e t e r s o n , and I e d i d -THE COURT: ~ h a c h e ri s h e r e .

MS.
L e t me j u s t f i n d where Simpson
BURK:
Excuse me, y o u r Honor.
I did
b r i n g a copy. THE COURT:

MR.
You can hand t h a t up. Chl arens o r s l and, t h e Campaign
ORSLAND:
Proceedi ng Finance ~ o a r d e f e n d a n t s . d Your Honor, we d e c l i n e t o r e q u e s t c o s t s f o r

Mr.
Strunk i n t h i s matter.
MR.
we a p p r e c i a t e t h e o f f e r .
GRABER:
70el Graber. A t t o r n e y General? Assistant Attorney ~ e n e r a l . I
THE COURT:
MR.
GRABER:
represent t h e governor, t h e C o n t r o l l e r , t h e s e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e , t h e Commissioner o f S t a t e Board o f ~ l e c t i o n s and s e v e r a l o f f i c e r s of t h e S t a t e Board; and A t t o r n e y ~ e n e r a li s a l s o a named d e f e n d a n t .

Mr.
I believe
~i p oi; and Ms. Colon i s s t i 11 S e c r e t a r y o f ~a l
State. As Is t a t e d l a s t October, y o u r Honor, we represent t h e o f f i c e r s , not the i n d i v i d u a l s . THE COURT: You. r e p r e s e n t v a r i o u s i n d i v i d u a l
defendants who a r e i n d i v i d u a l o f f i c e r h o l d e r s o f t h e S t a t e o f New ~ o r k :

MR. GRABER:
Because t h e y - ' r e a l l sued i n t h e
o f f i c i a l capacity. submission. THE COURT:

Mr.
he A t t o r n e y General does have a
You want t o hand t h a t t o
s t r u n k i f he h a s n ' t r e c e i v e d i t , and. t o t h e
officer?
hank you.
~t was handed up t o me.
~t was c l o c k e d i n on
May 3 .
He probably submitted i t on Thursday.

MR.
STRUNK:
correct.
I t h i n k you submitted t h i s
THE COURT:
~ h u r s d a yt o t h e Court.
MR. STRUNK:
C h r i s t o p h e r - ~ a r l Strunk, t h e
plaintiff.
MR.
REICH:
Dan Rei ch , ~ a bnowi t z , ~ o u dni , i
standard, ~ r i n s k y ~ i e b e r r n a non b e h a l f o f s o c i a l i s t & workers P a r t y , and Roger Calero.

THE COURT:
And you were here p r e v i o u s l y ;
right?
(NO
v e r b a l response .)
Are you s u b m i t t i n g any papers?

MR.
REICH:
Not a t t h i s t i m e ,
we'd l i k e t o
reserve t h e r i g h t t o do so i f p o s s i b l e .
THE COURT:
At
t h e end o f t h i s 1'11 e x p l a i n
how much t i m e you have t o submit something.
~ li g h t , j u s t so we a r e - c l e a r why we're r l
here today, and Iw i l l read i n t o t h e r e c o r d t h a t I i s s u e d a d e c i s i o n which was covered on ~ p r i 1 , 2012, l1 p u b l i s h e d by t h e S t a t e Reporter a t 3 5 Misc 3d 1 2 0 8 ( ~ ) ; o r more s p e c i f i c a l l y 2012 NY S l i p Op 50614(u) union.
SO
as i n
t h i s i s why we're here. Now, Ifound t h a t M r . s t r u n k ' s o r i g i n a l
motion and h i s p e t i t i o n a c t u a l l y i s dismissed.
I'm
~ r o c e e dng i sorry.
I s h o u l d n ' t say p e t i t i o n .
is a c t i o n seeking
v a r i o u s forms o f r e l i e f was denied i n i t s e n t i r e t y and g r a n t e d i n .numerous motions t o d i Jmiss t h e a c t i o n .

SO
o b v i o u s l y h i s case went away, and I a l s o
e n j o i n e d him f r o m commencing any f u r t h e r a c t i o n i n t h e New York S t a t e u n i f i e d C o u r t System w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n . o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e admi n i s t r a t i v e j u d g e dependi ng upon what t h e j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t i n t e n d e d t o f i l e . ~ n a l s o I c a l l e d t h i s h e a r i n g because I d found t h a t M r . s t r u n k ' s a c t i o n was f r i v o l o u s , and I wanted t o g i v e him an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be heard p u r s u a n t t o 2 2 NYCRR 1 3 O - l . l [ ~ ] . .
I wanted t o be heard, so I c a n ' t - - as t o

whether o r n o t I s h o u l d award c o s t s and/or s a n c t i o n s because o f t h e f r i v o l o u s papers t h a t he had, and o b v i o u s l y he was served, and he knows about i t . we have, I b e l i e v e , a v a r i o u s combi n a t i o n o f
'
defendants. three, four,
we have p r e s e n t i n t h e - room, one, two, f i v e , s i x , seven -- l o o k s l i k e e i g h t s e t s
o f defendants.
~ r i g h t , I read t h r o u g h y o u r papers, l l
Mr.
Strunk.
~ i r s o f f , I b e f o r e I g i v e you t h e t
o p p o r t u n i t y t o be heard, I want you t o know t h a t . t h i s i s not -- we're not holding a hearing f o r m t o -- f o r e you t o renew o r reargue my d e c i s i o n , because t h e papers
~roceedi ng were i n response t o whether o r n o t I should s a n c t i o n you.

AS
I read through your papers, most o f i t
was - - we1 1 , 1'1 1 c a l l i t a r e i t e r a t i o n o f why you d i d , o r you went through numerous reasons why you disagree w i t h my d e c i s i o n t o p u t i t m i l d l y , and argue about my . o r i g i n a l decision. You c a n ' t do t h a t .
YOU
can f i l e a
motion t o renew o r reargue my d e c i s i o n t h a t I i s s u e d l a s t month, b u t t h i s i s s u e b e f o r e us today i s whether o r n o t I should s a n c t i o n you f o r engaging i n f r i v o l o u s conduct, b u t I ' m going t o g i v e you an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be heard.
MR. STRUNK:
Yes.
~ e f 0 t - eIg e t s t a r t e d here
I want t o e n t e r i n as an amicus something t h a t was

noted t o m by an a t t 0 r n e . y who has been f o l l o w i n g t h i s e case v e r y c l o s e l y because h e ' s g o t cases a l l over i n v a r i o u s c i r c u i t s ; i n f e d e r a l and i n v a r i o u s s t a t e s and t h a t he wants t o make s u r e t h a t your Honor knows why, and I agree w i t h him, why y o u ' r e o v e r r e a c h i n g on your h o l d i n g t h a t 1 should be s a n c t i o n e d i n some manner, shape, o r form.
THE COURT:
So i n o t h e r w o r d s , . y o u want t o
p r e s e n t a document by another a t t o r n e y - - by an attorney?

.
MR.
STRUNK:
An amicus ; yes.
~ r o c e e dng i THE COURT: Can Isee what you have; and you
10
have c o p i e s f o r everyone?
MR.
STRUNK:
Everyone has been served and
t h e y were n o t i f i e d as o f y e s t e r d a y .
THE COURT:
M a r i o ~ p u z z o ,and i t ' s Jamesburg,
New J e r s e y .
his i s e n t i t l e d - - w r i t t e n y e s t e r d a y
a c c o r d i n g t o t h i s , and i t says something t h a t I shouldn't -- t h e t i t l e i s i n boldface.
he New ~ o r k t a t e C o u r t Should Not S a n c t i o n S

Pro Se p l a i n t i f f c h r i s t o p h e r ~ a r 1 t r u n k f o r h i s s " ~ a t i o n a lBorn C i t i z e n " . 1it i g a t i on.
Id o n ' t know whether t h i s gentleman i s an
a t t o r n e y whether i t ' s New York, New J e r s e y o r what. c o u l d be a member o f New .York l a w . know. 1'11 t a k e a l o o k a t i t .
He
I r e a l l y don't
know how
Id o n ' t
p e r s u a s i v e i t ' s g o i n g t o be o r n o t , b u t 1'11 t a k e a look a t it.

~t l o o k s a l i t t l e b i t , o u t o f o r d e r , b u t
1'11 t a k e a l o o k a t i t .
MR. STRUNK: Ido n o t o b j e c t t o t h a t b e i n g
p u t i n as an amicus.
THE COURT:
Maybe t h e o t h e r f o l k s w i l l ~ n y b o d yo b j e c t ?
object.
1 d o n ' t know.
(NO
v e r b a l response .)
~ li g h t , t h e n 1'11 t a k e a l o o k a t i t . r l
~ r o c e e dng i
MR.
11
STRUNK:
he f i r s t t h i n g I ' d l i k e t o do
i s f i n d o u t what t h e s t a t u s o f t h e o t h e r m o t i o n s a r e t h a t were f i l e d t o e n t e r i n t o e v i d e n c e t h a t would m i t i g a t e your decision.
here was a m o t i o n f i l e d i n on
~ e b r u a r y9 r e q u e s t i n g 1 eave.
THE COURT:
Iknow t h a t subsequent t o t h i s o r
p r i o r t o w h i l e t h i s was b e i n g w r i t t e n b y m y s e l f you f i l e d something o r o t h e r t o e i t h e r f o r f e i t as I r e c a l l , s e v e r a l weeks ago.

MR.
You d i dn ' t show up in A p r i 1 .
STRUNK:
I showed up. I b e l i e v e we marked i t o f f

Where t h i s i s you went on
THE COURT:
because you d i d n ' t appear.
and on a b o u t -- 1 b e l i e v e i t was a case i n G e o r g i a as I r e c a l l , as I r e a d i t where i n e f f e c t I b e l i e v e - - I d o n ' t know i f i t was an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l a w judge i n G e o r g i a o r i t was a t r i a l c o u r t .

1 ' m n o t sure, b u t
someone i n ~ e o r g i a ' b a s i c a l l yr u l e d t h a t o r d i s m i s s e d a c h a l l e n g e a b o u t Pres. Obama n o t b e j n g a b l e t o be p r e s i d e n t , and i t was b a s i c a l l y a d i a t r i b e b y you a g a i n s t whatever t h i s Judge d i d .

MR.
STRUNK:
I o b j e c t t o t h a t language.
I read your papers.
To me i t was
YOU
THE COURT: a diatribe.

YOU
can o b j e c t t o what I say,

~t was ir r e l e v a n t t o what
have a
r i g h t t o do t h a t .
I did
l a t e r , and t h e n you had one sentence i n t h e r e t h a t I
s h o u l d recuse m y s e l f and you never e x p l a i n e d why.

MR.
STRUNK:
You d i d r e a d t h a t .
I read i t , b u t you never showed
THE COURT: up i n c o u r t .
I read i t because 1 wanted t o be ready
f o r you when you appeared t o speak t o you a b o u t i t , b u t - - I read i t , b u t you d i d n ' t appeared i n C o u r t , so.
I marked i t o f f .
MR.
STRUNK:
I t was a d j o u r n e d .
THE COURT:
You b e l i e v e i t was a d j o u r n e d ,
My r e c o l l e c t i o n i s t h a t i t
t h i s I n d e x Number 6500/11? was marked o f f .

MR.
STRUNK:
I t was a d j o u r n e d .
THE COURT:
We'll f i n d out.
You w e r e n ' t
here. COURT CLERK: THE COURT: COURT CLERK: THE COURT: adjourned?
MR.
~ p r1 i 2 3 . what d i d we do? Marked i t o f f . what made y0.u- t h i n k i t was
STRUNK:
I t was a d j o u r n e d t o t h e
1 8 t h o f June. COURT CLERK:

MR.
No i t w a s n ' t . Not t h a t one?
N o t t h a t one.
STRUNK:
COURT CLERK:
his was sequence 16.
hat i s
a relief.
hat c o u l d be a n o t h e r one.
THE
COURT:
I s t h a t on t h a t i n d e x number,
June 18?
MR.
STRUNK:
~ u i tt was a m o t i o n f o r l e a v e
t o -THE COURT:
I s t h a t t h e one t o go t o t h e
court o f ~ppeals?
MR.
STRUNK:
Yes, which i s e s s e n t i a l l y moot
i n any case. THE COURT: 1 t ' s moot, b u t 1 ' v e g o t t o t e l l
you, t h a t s t a t u t e t h a t you c i t e d says b a s i c a l l y t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f the law i s i n question.

~t c o u l d
be a d i r e c t appeal from t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o t h e c o u r t o f Appeals, and t h a t was i n v o k e d l a s t week, t h e case
in v o l v i ng t h e 6 3 r d senate d i s t r i c t .
hat's ir r e l e v a n t
t o t h i s case, b u t t h a t ' s .how i t was used. However, I d o n ' t t h i n k t h a t ' s c o r r e c t i n t h a t y o u ' r e n o t a t t a c k i n g t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o r any s t a t u t e . Y o u ' r e a t t a c k i n g whether o r n o t p r e s . Obama i s e l i g i b l e t o be p r e s i d e n t . a n y t h i ng .
MR.
hat i s n o t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f
STRUNK:
hat's n o t what t h e problem w i t h
t h e case i s .
he appeals c o u r t -You can go t o t h e a p p e l l a t e
THE COURT:
d i v i s i o n i f you've g o t a problem.
he p o i n t i s ~ ' m o t n
Id o n ' t see
sending t h i s t o t h e C o u r t o f Appeals.
Proceedi ng where t h e r e i s any a t t a c k on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f the statute.

MR.
THE
14
STRUNK: COURT:
1 t ' s been d i s p o s e d o f . 1 t ' s disposed o f .
I dismissed
y o u r case.
MR.
STRUNK:
So i t ' s moot.
hank you.
THE COURT: t o make. ~ t ' s moot.

MR. STRUNK:
It h i n k t h a t ' s t h e p o i n t
I wanted
Now, t h e second m o t i o n has been
a d j o u r n e d u n t i l June 18, Ib e l i e v e ?
COURT CLERK:
THE COURT:
MR.
Yes. Yes.
STRUNK:
hat was a m o t i o n s u b m i t t e d f o r
evidence o f t r a n s a c t i o n s t h a t o c c u r r e d a f t e r f i l i n g and a f t e r t h e ~ u g u s th e a r i n g ,which would b o t h m i t i g a t e damages and m i t i g a t e t h e d e c i s i o n on y o u r p a r t .

THE COURT:
1s t h a t i n reference t o t h e f a c t
t h a t I w o u l d n ' t s i g n t h a t emergency- o r d e r t o show cause back i n o c t o b e r ?

MR.
STRUNK:
No.
hat i s a f a c t t h a t an
a u t h o r i t y o f competent j u r i s d i c t i o n has found t h a t t h e r e i s reason t o b e l i e v e and i s s u s p i c i o u s o f f o r g e r y and f r a u d , and t h a t s p o l i a t i o n has o c c u r r e d , and - t h e r e i s concealment which would a f f e c t y o u r d e c i s i o n . THE COURT:
Id o n ' t know what you a r e
Proceedi ng referring to.

MR.
15
STRUNK:
You a d j o u r n e d i t sua sponte.

I m i g h t n o t have a d j o u r n e d i t .
THE COURT:
he c l e r k s m i g h t have a d j o u r n e d i t ; k i c k e d i t o v e r
because, you know, I d o n ' t do m o t i o n s on a ~ u e s d a y . So i n any case one a r b i t r a r i l y p i c k s a d a t e , t h e c l e r k s k i c k them o v e r t o a n o t h e r d a t e . p u t on adjourned.
SO
t h a t ' s why t h i s was
You p i c k e d t h e d a t e o f A p r i l 24, and
t h e n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y , n o t me, t h e c l e r k s i n m o t i o n s u p p o r t a d j o u r n e d i t t o June 18.

MR.
STRUNK:
W e l l , i t ' s my e r r o r i n t h i n k i n g
t h a t t h e o t h e r m o t i o n was t o be heard on t h a t d a t e a l s o which was sua sponte a d j o u r n e d . o f any adjournment .

THE COURT:
I g o t no n o t i f i c a t i o n
he. c o l d Case Posse.
he
~ a r i c o p aCounty, A r i z o n a s h e r i f f s i s s u e o f p r e s s r e l e a s e about a c o l d Case Posse, Joe A r p a i o . the s h e r i f f o f ~aricop-a County, ~ r j z o n a .
hat's
his i s t h e
one t h a t goes on about t h i s ~ u d g ei n A t l a n t a .

his comes back t o you know, I made a r u l i n g
about whether, you know, you had t h i s case, and I s u b m i t t e d i t about p r e s . ~ b a m a . we're g e t t i n g f a r a f i e l d .
YOU
know, ydu were
found by l u d g e Ross i n -- I d o n ' t have t h e e x a c t d a t e i n f r o n t o f me, i n 2008 t o have f i l e d a f r i v o l o u s
Proceedi ng m o t i o n i n ~ e d e r a lc o u r t . You t h e n b r i n g i t o v e r t o
16
s t a t e C o u r t and you go on and on, and you know, I have certain beliefs.
YOU
have t h e r i g h t t o have t h e
b e l i e f s about Pres. Obama and about Sen. ~ c c a i n where t h e y were b o r n and whether o r n o t t h e y a r e e l i g i b l e t o be p r e s i d e n t o f t h e u n i t e d S t a t e s , b u t we have many
cases t h a t a r e n o t f r i v o l o u s t h a t I and o t h e r ludges i n t h i s c o u r t have t o h a n d l e , and I d o n ' t know how many t i m e s you have had a case d i s m i s s e d b e f o r e you know you r e a l i z e d y o u ' r e n o t g o i n g t o g e t anywhere w i t h t h i s .
MY p o i n t i s t h a t u n l e s s an a p p e l l a t e
a u t h o r i t y t e l l s m o t h e r w i s e , you have an i n c o r r e c t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f what t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n says, t h e r e f o r e

I r u l e d y o u r a c t i o n t o be f r i v o l o u s , b u t you c o n t i n u e
t o move f o r w a r d .
I want .you t o know t h a t ' s why I found
t h i s t o be f r i v o l o u s .
MR.
STRUNK:
T h i s i s t h e m o t i o n t h a t we a r e
discussing?
THE COURT:
We're t a l k i n g about my r u l i n g and
why I r u l e d t h a t you have been engaging i n f r i v o l o u s conduct. y o u ' r e t e l l i n g m why I s h o u l d n o t now, e
s a n c t i o n you.
he f a c t , is I found you a r e p r e c l u d e d
a1 so b y c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l based on what happened i n Federal C o u r t , y e t you d e c i d e t o use t h e s t a t e c o u r t f o r y o u r own use, and you go on and on w i t h a
b a s e l e s s - - what I c a l l a b a s e l e s s a c t i o n , and you know, Federal C o u r t s t a y e d y o u r a c t i o n as i r r a t i o n a l . L e t m g e t t o ~ u d g eRoss and h e r f i n d i n g s i n Federal e Court.

YOU
had a s i m i l a r case i n 2008. STRUNK:
MR.
he case was never heard, and
t h e marked - - a l l t h e papers were d e f e c t i v e , and t h a t t h e l u d g e o n l y f o r purposes -- t h e r e was an a c t u a l m o t i o n f o r i n f e r r i n g an improper purpose. THE COURT: Judge Ross i n h e r d e c i s i o n i n
E a s t e r n ~ i s t r i c on October 28, 2008 i n t h e case o f t s t r u n k v . New ~ o r k t a t e ~ o a r d f ~ l e c t i o n s t h i c a l S o ~ ~ n d e x umber 08-CV-4289 d i s m i s s e d y o u r a c t i o n , s a y i ng you f a i l e d - - no. L e t m back up. e
Judge Ross i n page s i x i n f o o t n o t e s i x c i t i n g two p r i o r E a s t e r n ~ i s t r i c . cases t h a t you f i l e d s a y i n g t
he C o u r t has determined t h a t p o r t i o n s o f p l a i n t i f f -t h a t ' s you -- p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t have c o n t a i n e d a1 l e g a t i o n s t h a t have r i sen t o t h e , ir r a t i o n a l . "

MR.
STRUNK:
which case a r e you r e f e r r i n g t o ,
y o u r Honor?
THE COURT:
MR.
he case b y Judge - ~ h fe d e r a l r e s e r v e case? e
STRUNK:
THE COURT:
I d o n ' t know.
I have h e r
'
d e c i s i o n i n f r o n t o f me.
hat's h e r f i n d i n g i n t h e
case o f S t r u n k v . New y o r k S t a t e Board o f ~ l e c t i o n sa t
Proceedi ng ~ n d e x umber 08-CV-4289, o c t o b e r 28, 2008. Judge

ROSS
18
i n t h e E a s t e r n ~ic t d i s m i s s e d t h e a c t i o n . re you d i d n ' t have s t a n d i n g . and i t was f r i v o l o u s .

MR.
YOU
She s a i d
f a i l e d t o s t a t e a claim
STRUNK:
~ e t ' sd e a l w i t h s t a n d i n g .
know you c a n ' t r e v i e w a d e c i s i o n , b u t l e t ' s d e a l w i t h standing. THE COURT:

MR.
T h a t ' s what she s a i d .
I read i t .
STRUNK:
The ~ e d e r a lC o u r t s have no
o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a s t a t e e l e c t i o n , and t h a t ' s -- f o r t h a t reason a l o n e , she i s e s s e n t i a l l y t e l l i n g m t o go t o s t a t e c o u r t . e THE COURT: She a l s o s a i d t h a t y o u r
c o m p l a i n t s i n t h a t case - MR.
STRUNK:
There was wrong. Contai ned a1 1e g a t i o n s have r i sen
THE COURT:
t o the i r r a t i o n a l .
'
she found t h a t y o u r c o m p l a i n t i s
ir r a t i o n a l .
MR.
STRUNK:
Judge Ross was one o f t h e s e n i o r
c o r p o r a t i o n counsels f o r ~ e n e r a lM o t o r s . THE COURT: As f o r Judge Ross, what does t h a t
have t o do w i t h a n y t h i n g ?
MR.
STRUNK:
he p r i o r case i s t h e v e r y
reason t h e sub p r i m e mortgage s t u f f was g o i n g on.
hat's what i t has t o do w i t h i t .
So when I sued
Proceeding
19 ~elieve me.
I was
old man sachs she g o t p i s s e d o f f .

r i g h t on t a r g e t . THE COURT: Goldman sachs.
MR.
1 ' m g l a d you a r e on t a r g e t w i t h
However, I have t o d e a l w i t h t h i s case.

STRUNK:
She was r e a c t i n g t o t h a t .
So
t h e p o i n t i s -THE COURT: And I agree w i t h t h e d e c i s i o n
w r i t t e n by J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l which If o u n d v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g , t h a t j u s t i c e ' s d e c i s i o n in 1989 c a l l e d ~ e i t z k e . w i l l i a m s , 419 US 319 a t page 325. v ~ h u r g o o d a r s h a l lremarked t h a t , "A c o m p l a i n t ~ c o n t a i n i n g as i t does b o t h f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s and 1e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s , is f r i v o l o u s where i t 1acks a r g u a b l e basis--" and f u r t h e r l u s t i c e ~ a r s h a l lw r o t e - - "and
embraces n o t o n l y t h e i n a r g u a b l e 1e g a l c o n c l u s i o n , b u t a1 so t h e f a c t u a l a1 1e g a t i on.
I agree ~i Thurgood M a r s h a l l . th
Ib e l i e v e
t h a t y o u r c o m p l a i n t was f a n c i f u l delusional.
MR.
, f a n t a s t i c , and
~ h one b e f o r e e
So now t h e q u e s t i o n i s - STRUNK:
which one?
l u d g e Ross? THE COURT: C o u r t ; t h i s case.

MR.
I mean t h e one y o u have i n my
STRUNK:
YOU'
r e s a n c t i o n i n g me on?
THE COURT:
I h a v e n ' t s a n c t i o n e d you y e t .
~ r o c e e dng i
20
1'11 g i v e you t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o be heard, and t h e n i f

It h i n k you s h o u l d n ' t - MR. STRUNK:
LOO~.
Idemand
t h a t you recuse
yourself.
THE
COURT:
STRUNK:
On what grounds? On what grounds? Yes. You c h e r r y p i c k e d t h i s whole
MR.
THE COURT: MR.
STRUNK:
thing.
YOU
r e w r o t e t h e c o m p l a i n t on t h e r e c o r d i n t h e You committed something t h a t no
~ u g u s t2 2 h e a r i n g .
s i t t i n g l u d g e s h o u l d do i n terms o f you gave f a v o r where f a v o r was n o t t o be g i v e n . THE COURT:

~ ' mh e l u d g e . t
Id i d n ' t g i v e f a v o r t o anybody.
I was p r e s e n t e d w i t h y o u r c o m p l a i n t and
w i t h motions t o d i s m i s s , and 1 have t o make a d e c i s i o n based upon t h e case.

MR.
STRUNK:
he appearance, t h e i m p r o p r i e t y
i s overwhelming.
his -- t h a t M r . , Graber o v e r h e r e had
you as a defendant i n y o u r pay r a i s e , and t h a t -- j u s t t h e f a c t t h a t t h a t was g o i n g on, a l l o f t h e a d d i t i o n a l e x t e n s i o n s o f t i m e -- i t ' s q u i d p r o quo. THE COURT:
Mr.
Graber r e p r e s e n t s v a r i o u s
defendants i n t h e case t h a t I sued; i s t h a t c o r r e c t ?
hat ' s compari ng apples w i t h oranges.

MR.
STRUNK:
But he was t h e l e a d a t t o r n e y .
THE COURT:
I d o n ' t b e l i e v e he was t h e l e a d
attorney.
A guy named ~ o l a n ,I b e l i e v e i s t h e l e a d
I
a t t o r n e y , and i t went t o t h e C o u r t o f Appeals. d i d n ' t go t o -MR. MR.
STRUNK:
GRABER:
~ h Attorney General's o f f i c e . e No, y o u r Honor. W certified e
o u t s i d e counsel.
we c e r t i f i e d o u t s i d e c o u n s e l .
S-C-H-L-A-U-M
Mr.
THE COURT:
and Gold.
I forget
t h e g e n t l e m a n ' s f i r s t name.
D01an argued a g a i n s t
my case i n t h e C o u r t o f Appeals even though I won t h a t case, b u t t h a t ' s n e i t h e r h e r e n o r t h e r e . irrelevant. two years.
MR.
hat's
~ o o k nother a
we g o t a p e r i o d o f v i c t o r y .
STRUNK:
I n a record o f the t r a n s c r i p t o f
~ u g u s t22nd o f l a s t summe.r, t h e C o u r t d i d a s t r a w man argument making my X argument y o u r Y argument d e f e a t i n g my
x argument.
THE COURT:
I ' m sorry t o interrupt.
I want
t o see i f we can g e t a few more m i n u t e s t o c o n t i n u e this. (off-the-record

MR.
d i s c u s s i o n .)
STRUNK:
I demand a s e p a r a t e j u d g e t o
h e a r t h e s a n c t i o n s when t h i s s h o u l d be. THE COURT:
here i s a case.
I ' d have t o
l o o k up t h e c i t e i n C o u r t o f ~ p p e a l s , People v . Moreno.
Proceedi ng
22
I d o n ' t have t h e c i t e i n f r o n t o f me, b u t a t t h e t i m e

~ u d g e~ e l l a c o s a h e n on t h e c o u r t o f ~ p p e a l ss a i d t h a t t a judge i s t h e s o l e a r b i t e r o f h i s o r h e r own r e c u s a l
I don't believe t h a t I ' m u n f a i r o r prejudiced against

you, and ~ ' m o t g o i n g t o recuse m y s e l f . n
MR.
STRUNK:
hat s c e n a r i o o f s t r a w man
argument s h o u l d i m m e d i a t e l y recuse what you d i d i n r e w r i t i n g t h e complaint.

THE COURT:
MR.
whatever Ido t o d a y o r i n t h i s -On t h e t r a n s c r i p t , t h e
STRUNK:
transcript o f ~ u g u s t 22nd, t h a t ' s what you s a i d .

w i l l t a k e i t on and t u r n i t o u t i n s i x weeks.
six
weeks went by.
~ i g h weeks went by. t
I g e t an o r d e r t o
he whole
show cause i n October.
S t i l l correcting.
q u e s t i o n o f you d e l a y i n g and denying j u s t i c e i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n s h o u l d be i n i t s e l f a reason f o r y o u r recusal
.
THE COURT:
Mr.
S t r u n k , w i t h a l l due r e s p e c t
y o u r case i s one o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1600 cases Ihave i n my i n v e n t o r y .
~ ' r none person and I have scarce
r e s o u r c e s , and y e t 1 have t o p u t y o u r case t o t h e d e t r i m e n t o f o t h e r cases, w r i t e t h i s d e c i s i o n and o t h e r cases t h a t a r e n o t f r i v o l o u s . reasons.

SO
t h a t ' s one o f t h e
I can o n l y do one t h i n g a t a t i m e 1 ike

SO It o o k
anybody e l s e .
time t o w r i t e i t .
YOU
didn't
~ r o c e e dng i go t o t h e Law Department b y t h e way.

MR.
23
STRUNK:
Ican see
-I did a l l
THE COURT:
MY l a w s e c r e t a r y s i t t i n g t h e r e ,
he g o t t o l o o k a t i t when I p r o o f r e a d i t . t h i s so no one e l s e g e t s t h e blame.

MR.
STRUNK:
I ' m g l a d i t ' s on t h e r e c o r d .
THE COURT:
he p o i n t i s i t t a k e s t i m e t o
Ia l s o d i d some r e s e a r c h ,
w r i t e t h i s and t o do t h i s .
and In o t i c e d t h a t f o r whatever reason, d e s p i t e y o u r argument a b o u t you have t o have y o u r p a r e n t s b o r n i n t h e U n i t e d s t a t e s as w e l l as you

MR.
-That's You're
STRUNK:
T h a t ' s n o t my argument.
y o u r argument. a b s o l u t e l y wrong.
hat's t h e s t r a w man argument.

You s h o u l d recuse y o u r s e l f .
I have
n o t h i n g e l s e t o say. THE COURT: Okay, Iw i l l n o t e f o r t h e r e c o r d
t h a t p r e s . Obama i s t h e s i x t h P r e s i d e n t t o have one o r b o t h p a r e n t s n o t b o r n i n t h e u n i t e d ' s t a t e s , so i t i s what i t i s .

NOW,
I know Ihave papers h e r e f r o m v a r i o u s
d e f e n d a n t s and t h e a c t i o n has been d i s m i s s e d c o n c e r n i n g costs. Does any counsel o r any d e f e n d a n t want t o p u t
a n y t h i n g on t h e r e c o r d ?
MR.
CORBETT:
K e i t h c o r b e t t o f t h e law f i r m
o f Harris ~each.
~ r o c e e dng i
24
we j u s t want t o r e s e r v e o u r r i g h t t o p o s s i b l y b r i n g documents s e e k i n g c o s t s . c l a r i f i c a t i o n from our c l i e n t . THE COURT: client? You have t o c o n s u l t w i t h your we have t o a w a i t
L e t m ask you, M r . c o r b e t t , how much t i m e do e
you t h i n k you need f o r a f i n a l d e c i s i o n o f y o u r c l i e n t 3

MR.
CORBETT:
I hope t o have t h e d e c i s i o n by
30 days. THE COURT:
I t h i n k t h a t ' s f a i r f o r anybody.
I w i l l w a i t 30 days from t o d a y which would be June --
w h a t ' s t h a t , June 7, f o r any defendants who have n o t s u b m i t t e d b u t r e s e r v e t h e i r r i g h t t o submit any a f f i d a v i t f o r costs.

MR.
CORBElT:
Thank you, y o u r Honor. ~ n y b o d yh a v i n g a n y t h i n g e l s e t o
THE COURT: say?

(NO
v e r b a l response.)
w e l l , you have t h e f i n a l . word, M r . S t r u n k .

MR.
STRUNK:
The f i n a l word?
1 ' m g o i n g t o l e t you go on.
THE COURT:
They
I
d o n ' t want t o say a n y t h i n g , so you can conclude. have g i v e n them an o p p o r t u n i t y t o speak.

I ' m now
g i v i n g you t h e f i n a l o p p o r t u n i t y t o speak f u r t h e r .
MR.
STRUNK:
My papers speak l o u d l y .
he
p o i n t i s t h a t you a r e a man s i t t i n g on t h e bench
e l e c t e d by t h e people o f ~ r o o k l y n . THE COURT:

MR.
hank you.
hat's c o r r e c t .
STRUNK:
And t h a t you have n o t
a d m i n i s t e r e d t h i s case i n t h e way t h a t my r i g h t s s h o u l d be p r o t e c t e d , and t h a t t h a t i s a m a t t e r t h a t ' s g o i n g t o be p u t i n f r o n t o f t h e j u d i c i a l commission.

THE COURT:
MR.
DO
whatever you want.

Iam, and I
STRUNK:
Ia d o i n g t h a t . m
d o n ' t need y o u r p e r m i s s i o n t o do t h a t .
THE COURT:
Mr.
s t r u n k , you have v a r i o u s
rights.
YOU
can do whatever you deem t o be

YOU
appropriate.
MR.
can t h r e a t e n me.
I d o n ' t care.
STRUNK:
I ' m n o t t h r e a t e n i n g you, your
Honor.
~ ' mu s t t e l l i n g you my i n t e n t . j THE COURT: Go ahead. You d o n ' t l i k e my
ruling?
Go t o t h e A p p e l l a t e D i v i s i o n .
MR.
STRUNK:
I d o n ' t t h i n k I can o t h e r t h a n
p u t t i n g up a bond.
THE COURT:
YOU
do whatever you want t o do.
A n y t h i n g e l s e you want t o t e l l me?

MR. STRUNK:
Yes; t h a t you d o n ' t know y o u r
history.
YOU
p u t t h e l e g a l q u e s t i o n a s i d e based upon
'
y o u r own s t r a w man s t o r y and argument w h i c h has
a b s o l u t e l y n o t h i n g t o do w i t h t h i s case, and t h a t i t ' s g o i n g t o be on t h e r e c o r d , and i t ' s g o i n g t o be known
Proceedi ng around t h e n a t i o n as t h a t , and i t ' s i m p o r t a n t t h a t you c o n s i d e r what y o u ' r e d o i n g f o r t h e purpose o f o t h e r p r o se p l a i n t i f f s who g i v e n a u t h o r i t y . THE COURT: i n f r o n t o f me. y o u r case. O t h e r p r o se p l a i n t i f f s a r e n o t
26
T h i s i s a s p e c i f i c a c t i o n , 6500/11;
hat's w h a t ' s b e f o r e me, and t h e r e f o r e ,
whatever happens i n o t h e r cases happens i n o t h e r cases.

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

MR.
STRUNK:
Your Honor, y o u r e n t i r e d e c i s i o n
Ii n s i s t t h e r e c o r d o f
i s based upon o t h e r cases.
t h o s e cases be p u t i n on t h i s case. THE COURT: ~ 1 right. 1
I know t h e r e a r e ~f you f e e l you want t o
numerous cases t h a t a r e c i t e d .
appeal whatever I r u l e , t h e judges w i l l d e a l w i t h t h a t and t h e ~ p p e l l a t e~ i v i s i o n can c e r t a i n l y l o o k up t h e s e cases. ~ h e y ' r ec a p a b l e o f d o i n g t h a t .
hey d o n ' t have
t o be p r o v i d e d an e n t i r e d e c i s i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r case c i t e d b y me.
MR.
hey have t h e c i t a t i o n .
STRUNK:
he r e c o r d i n w h i c h you have,
because you can go g e t t h e r e c o r d down i n t h e a r c h i v e s , o r you can go t o l u d g e Schmidt and g e t t h e r e c o r d .
hat r e c o r d i s t h i s deep now.

THE COURT:
MR.
Could v e r y we1 1 be.

Iwant t h a t o r i g i n a l r e c o r d
STRUNK:
Proceedi ng t r a n s f e r r e d and t o be t h e b a s i s f o r any appeal. THE COURT:
27
~i ne.
Go t o t h e r e c o r d room. ~ t ' s o t my j o b t o n
photocopy t o y o u r h e a r t ' s c o n t e n t . p u t t o g e t h e r an a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d .
MR.
STRUNK:
Y o u ' r e u s i n g o t h e r cases and
making d e c i s i o n s on l e g a l m a t t e r s o f n a t u r a l -born c i t i z e n s h i p which you d i d n ' t t o u c h w i t h a t e n - f o o t pole.

YOU
i n v e n t y o u r own d e f i n i t i o n t o c o n s t i t u t i o n s ,
n o t a d i c t i onary. THE COURT: Happersett.

It h i n k you m i s r e a d Minor v .
in or v. H a p p e r s e t t does n o t d e f i n e
n a t u r a l -born c i t i z e n .
MR.
STRUNK:
he c o n s t i t u t i o n i n t h a t case
~t must be sought t h r o u g h ~t must be l o o k i n g a t
s a i d does n o t d e f i n e i t ?
l o o k i n g a t t h e e n t i r e document.
t h e h i s t o r y o f how t h a t document was p u t t o g e t h e r .
e he
s t a t e o f New York was t h e one who f o r c e d n a t u r a l - b o r n c i t i z e n , because i n 1787 we walked o u t and Is a i d we a r e - - New y o r k S t a t e i s under r i s k o f s e e i n g ~ r i t a i n t a k e o v e r t h e p r e s i d e n c y , and t h a t Judge
an sing
i n s i s t e d t h a t n a t u r a l - b o r n c i t i z e n s be p l a c e d i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l document. 1788. New York i s t h e b a s i s f o r n a t u r a l b o r n . t h e b a s i s o f our law today.

YOU
T h a t was t h e n r a t i f i e d i n
~ t ' s
look a t real property
~ r o c e e dng i l a w s e c t i o n 18 where you cannot own o r l e a s e a copper mine i n t h e c o u n t y o f s a i n t Lawrence u n l e s s y o u ' r e a
28
n a t u r a l - b o r n c i t i z e n , and t h a t means y o u ' v e g o t t o have p a r e n t s who a r e c i t i z e n s when y o u ' r e b o r n , and t h a t you must be a c i t i z e n a t t h e t i m e t h a t you l e a s e o r own a copper mine i n S a i n t Lawrence County. documented b e f o r e t h e rev01 u t i o n .
THE COURT:
That i s w e l l
I d o n ' t know how many mines a r e
located there.
I l o o k e d a t r e a l p r o p e r t y l a w , I b e l i e v e 18
t h a t you c i t e d ; H a p p e r s e t t , 88 US 162 and page 167. c l e a r l y states t h a t the c i t i z e n s h i p i s not defined constitutionally. defined.
A n a t u r a l -born c i t i z e n i s n o t
It
hat's what i t s a i d .
SO
i f t h e r e i s . n o t h i n g e l s e , we can a d j o u r n ; I w i l l g i v e you one
u n l e s s you have a n y t h i n g e l s e . l a s t chance.

MR.
STRUNK:
Your i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s a l l
wrong, and a g a i n , Ib e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e has n o t been a hearing i n t h i s matter, a f a i r hearing; a f a i r hearing; t h a t you s h o u l d be recused, and I t h i n k t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t you a r e c h e r r y p i c k i n g t h i s whole t h i n g f r o m b e g i n n i ng t o end is unconscionable .
THE COURT:
~ 1 r i g h t , one l a s t o b s e r v a t i o n . 1
YOU
I d i d i t i n a h e a r i n g back l a s t ~ u g u s t .
Proceedi ng make a l l these comments i n c o u r t and y o u ' r e g o i n g t o w a l k o u t o f here a f r e e man. wonderful c o u n t r y . and everybody e l s e .
29
I t h i n k America i s a
Have a p l e a s a n t day, M r . s t r u n k ,
T h i s concludes t h e h e a r i n g .
...
$ :
CERTIFIED THAT THE FOREGOING I S A TRUE AND
THESE PROCEEDINGS.
o f f i c i a1 C o u r t R e p o r t e r
Exhibit P
S2950
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE

Whereas innovative research is progressing faster and is being conducted more aggressively than ever before, due, in part, to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundations establishment of a model clinical trials network; Whereas, although the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation continues to fund a research pipeline for more than 30 potential therapies and funds a nationwide network of care centers that extend the length and quality of life for people with cystic fibrosis, lives continue to be lost to this disease every day; Whereas education of the public about cystic fibrosis, including the symptoms of the disease, increases knowledge and understanding of cystic fibrosis and promotes early diagnosis; and Whereas the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation will conduct activities to honor National Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month in May 2008: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate (1) honors the goals and ideals of National Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month; (2) supports the promotion of further public awareness and understanding of cystic fibrosis; (3) encourages early diagnosis and access to quality care for people with cystic fibrosis to improve the quality of their lives; and (4) supports research to find a cure for cystic fibrosis by fostering an enhanced research program through a strong Federal commitment and expanded public-private partnerships. f
April 10, 2008
to originate student loans or finance student loan-related activities. This will provide funds for banks to help provide critically-needed student loans during these difficult economic times. The Federal Home Loan Banks are today an essential source of stable, low-cost funds to financial institutions for home mortgage, small business, and rural and agricultural loans. With their members, the Federal Home Loan Banks represent one of the largest sources of home mortgage and community credit. There are twelve Federal Home Loan Banks, including one in Boston, each located in different regions of the country. Their cooperative structure is ideal for serving the systems 8,100 member lenders. Today, the Federal Home Loan Banks provide billions of dollars of primary liquidity to approximately 80 percent of the Nations financial institutions. By providing this additional student loan authorization to its members, member institutions will be able to remain active in the student loan marketplace and help students pay for their education. This legislation is absolutely vital to securing the opportunity of higher education for all who choose to pursue it.
f
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS SENATE RESOLUTION 510SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL CYSTIC FIBROSIS AWARENESS MONTH Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Mr. INHOFE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
S. RES. 510 Whereas cystic fibrosis is one of the most common life-threatening genetic diseases in the United States and one for which there is no known cure; Whereas the average life expectancy of an individual with cystic fibrosis is 37 years, an improvement from a life expectancy in the 1960s where children did not live long enough to attend elementary school, but still unacceptably short; Whereas approximately 30,000 people in the United States have cystic fibrosis, more than half of them children; Whereas 1 of every 3,500 babies born in the United States is born with cystic fibrosis; Whereas more than 10,000,000 Americans are unknowing, symptom-free carriers of the cystic fibrosis gene; Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that all States consider newborn screening for cystic fibrosis; Whereas the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation urges all States to implement newborn screening for cystic fibrosis to facilitate early diagnosis and treatment which improves health and life expectancy; Whereas prompt, aggressive treatment of the symptoms of cystic fibrosis can extend the lives of people who have the disease; Whereas recent advances in cystic fibrosis research have produced promising leads in gene, protein, and drug therapies beneficial to people who have the disease;
SENATE RESOLUTION 511RECOGNIZING THAT JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III, IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. RES. 511 Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a natural born Citizen of the United States; Whereas the term natural born Citizen, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States; Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their countrys President; Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the natural born Citizen clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congresss own statute defining the term natural born Citizen; Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders; Whereas previous presidential candidates, were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
mmaher on PROD1PC76 with CONG-REC-ONLINE
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join Senator CLAIRE MCCASKILL in introducing a resolution to express the common sense of everyone here that Senator MCCAIN is a natural born Citizen, as the term is used in the Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution contains three requirements for a person to be eligible to be Presidentthe person must have reached the age of 35; must have resided in America for 14 years; and must be a natural born Citizen of the United States. Certainly there is no doubt that Senator MCCAIN is of sufficient years on this earth and in this country given that he has been serving in Washington for over 25 years. However, some pundits have raised the question of whether he is a natural born Citizen because he was born outside of the official borders of the United States. JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN, III, was born to American citizens on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. Numerous legal scholars have looked into the purpose and intent of the natural born Citizen requirement. As far as I am aware, no one has unearthed any reason to think that the Framers would have wanted to limit the rights of children born to military families stationed abroad or that such a limited view would serve any noble purpose enshrined in our founding document. Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens. It is interesting to note that another previous presidential candidate, George Romney, was also born outside of the United States. He was widely understood to be eligible to be President. Senator Barry Goldwater was born in a U.S. territory that later became the State of Arizona so some even questioned his eligibility. Certainly the millions of Americans who voted for these two Republican candidates believed that they were eligible to assume the office of the President. The same is true today. Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator MCCAIN is a natural born citizen. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge, if he had any doubts in his mind. He did not. I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate and I thank the Senator from Missouri for working with me on this. I ask unanimous consent that the relevant excerpt from the Judiciary Committee hearing where Secretary Chertoff testified be made a part of the RECORD.
EXCERPT OF SECRETARY CHERTOFF TESTIMONY FROM APRIL 2, 2008 Chairman LEAHY. We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believeand we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law
VerDate Aug 31 2005
04:51 Jun 26, 2008
Jkt 069060
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4624
Sfmt 0634
J:\CRONLINE\2008BA~2\2008NE~2\S10AP8.REC
S10AP8
April 10, 2008
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE

to his family and his Nation will not be forgotten: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate (1) honors the life, achievements, and contributions of Charlton Heston; and (2) extends its deepest sympathies to the family of Charlton Heston for the loss of such a great and generous man, husband, and father. f
S2951
passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mindI mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President? Secretary CHERTOFF. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen. Chairman LEAHY. That is mine, too. Thank you. f
SENATE RESOLUTION 512HONORING THE LIFE OF CHARLTON HESTON Mr. DEMINT (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. RES. 512 Whereas the United States has lost a great patriot with the passing of Charlton Heston; Whereas Charlton Heston first became beloved by the Nation as a great actor and portrayed many heroic figures, including Moses, Michelangelo, Andrew Jackson, John the Baptist, Mark Antony, and El Cid in epic movies of the 1950s and 1960s, and won the 1959 Best Actor Academy Award (Oscar) for playing the title character in Ben-Hur; Whereas Charlton Heston was a leader in many areas of life outside of acting, including serving as president of the Screen Actors Guild, which he helped to integrate with Ronald Reagan, and as chairman of the American Film Institute; Whereas Charlton Heston was an active supporter of the civil rights movement, including protesting the showing of his film at a segregated movie theater in Oklahoma City and participating in and leading the Arts Group in the 1963 civil rights march on Washington; Whereas, in the last major public role of his life, Charlton Heston was president of the National Rifle Association from June 1998 until April 2003; Whereas, as president of the National Rifle Association, Charlton Heston was a stalwart defender of the 2nd Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms and was an active and effective promoter of wildlife management through hunting; Whereas in 2003 Charlton Heston was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nations highest civilian honor; Whereas Charlton Heston was born in Evanston, Illinois, on October 4, 1923, and his parents moved to St. Helen, Michigan, where he grew up; Whereas in 1943 Charlton Heston enlisted in the Army Air Forces and served as a radio-gunner in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska, and in 1947 he was discharged from the Army; Whereas in 1944 Charlton Heston married the love of his life, Lydia Clarke, to whom he had been married 64 years at his death; Whereas Charlton and Lydia Heston are the parents of 2 children, Fraser Heston and Holly Heston Rochell; Whereas Charlton Heston passed away on April 5, 2008, and the contributions he made
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 75EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SHOULD TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TO APPOINT DOCTORS OF CHIROPRACTIC AS COMMISSIONED OFFICERS IN THE ARMED FORCES Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Mr. HARKIN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services:
S. CON. RES. 75 Whereas the Secretary of Defense has statutory authority under section 3070 of title 10, United States Code, to appoint doctors of chiropractic as commissioned officers in the Armed Forces, but has not yet made such appointments; Whereas the urgent needs of military personnel in the field of operations include access to the widest possible range of health care options, especially in the area of care of the spine and related structures of the body; Whereas providing military personnel in the field of operations with access to chiropractic care will increase the cost effectiveness of military health care expenditures by taking advantage of the conservative, drugless, and non-surgical care option offered by chiropractic care; Whereas back injuries are the leading cause of lost service time and disability in the Armed Forces; Whereas military personnel in the field of operations or on shipboard can access chiropractic care only through commissioned chiropractic officers; Whereas access to chiropractic care through commissioned chiropractic officers will enhance the combat readiness of military personnel by offering a non-pharmaceutical option for the health care needs of such personnel; and Whereas the appointment of doctors of chiropractic as commissioned offices will make use of a highly skilled and trained pool of health care professionals and help to meet the growing demand for chiropractic care in the Armed Forces: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should take immediate steps to establish a career path for doctors of chiropractic to be appointed as commissioned officers in all branches of the Armed Forces for purposes of providing chiropractic services to members of the Armed Forces. f
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation. SA 4524. Mr. NELSON of Nebraska submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2739, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the Department of Energy, to implement further the Act approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, to amend the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table. f
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS SA 4523. Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. SHELBY) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 3221, moving the United States toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protection consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation; as follows:
Amend the title so as to read: To provide needed housing reform and for other purposes.
SA 4524. Mr. NELSON of Nebraska submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2739, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the Department of Energy, to implement further the Act approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, to amend the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, and for other purposes.; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 335. f
NOTICE OF HEARING
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED

SA 4523. Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. SHELBY) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 3221, moving the United States toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure, and to amend the
smartinez on PRODPC60 with SENATE
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, May 1, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the military buildup on Guam: impact on the civilian community, planning, and response. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 205106150, or by e-mail to Rosemarie Calabro@energy.senate.gov.
VerDate Aug 31 2005
04:52 Apr 11, 2008
Jkt 069060
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4624
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A10AP6.087
S10APPT1
Exhibit Q
THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON
August 26,2009
Dear Mr. Strunk:

..
Exhibit R
SHERIFF ARPAIO RELEASES PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ON OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Arpaio suspects forgery
March 1, 2012 (Phoenix, AZ) Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a press conference today told
reporters, A six month long investigation conducted by my cold case posse has lead me to believe there is probable cause to believe that President Barack Obamas longform birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is a computergenerated forgery. I do not believe that it is a scan of an original 1961 paper document, as represented by the White House when the long-form birth certificate was made public. This is the principle preliminary finding of a six-month on-going Sheriffs Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into the authenticity of Obamas birth certificate and his eligibility to be president. Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large as proof positive of President Obamas authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate. During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obamas life history including:.
1
President Obamas Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document; To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, records from the days surrounding Obamas birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 were these immigration cards cannot be found.
When and Why Sheriffs investigators became involved In August 2011, 250 members of the Surprise Arizona Tea Party, residents of Maricopa County, presented a signed petition asking Sheriff Arpaio to undertake this investigation. The Tea Party members petitioned under the premise that if a forged birth certificate was utilized to obtain a position for Barack Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised. Sheriff Arpaio agreed to accept the investigation and assigned it to his Cold Case Posse at no expense to the tax payers for a thorough examination. The Sheriffs Cold Case Posse, consisting of former law enforcement officers and lawyers with law enforcement experienced, spoke to dozens of witness and examined hundreds of documents, and took numerous sworn statements from witnesses around the world.
Additional findings by investigators
2
Suspecting that the long form birth certificate is a computer generated forgery, they now say they have identified persons of interest in the case. Sheriffs Investigator Mike Zullo says, We have also determined during the course of our investigation that the Hawaii Department of Health engaged in what we believe is a systematic effort to hide any original 1961 birth records that they may have in their possession. Sheriff Arpaio added, A continuing investigation is needed to not only understand more about the creation of the alleged birth certificate forgery, but also to determine who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized it. The Matter of the Selective Service Registration Card Sheriffs Investigators were then led to investigate Presidents Obama selective service registration card allegedly filled out in Hawaii in 1980. Investigators compared Obamas card to others filled out in same year and to at least two cards filled out in the same local. The year stamp that is used on selective service registration cards should include all four digits of the year, for example 1980, the year Obama may have registered with selective service. However, investigators note that Obamas registration card is highly unusual having a year stamp including only two digits, 80 which appears to be an inverted number. Additionally, those numbers are offset by a significant amount suggesting that the stamp was somehow manually manipulated.
Investigators use video presentations to back up the evidence The Cold Case Posse produced six technical videos to demonstrate why the Obama long-form birth certificate is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery. The videos were designed to display the testing used by the investigators to examine
3
various claims made when the April 27 document was posted on the White House website for public dissemination. The videos consisted of step-by-step computer demonstrations using a control document.
They also illustrate point-by-point the investigators conclusion that the features and anomalies observed on the Obama long-form birth certificate were inconsistent with features produced when a paper document is scanned, even if the scan of the paper document had been enhanced by Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and optimized. Additionally, the videos demonstrated that the Hawaii Department of Health Registrars name stamp and the Registrars date stamp were computer-generated images imported from an unknown source into an electronic document, as opposed to actual rubber stamp imprints inked by hand or machine onto a paper document. The fact that we were able to cast reasonable suspicion on the authenticity of the Registrar stamps is especially disturbing, since these stamp imprints are designed to provide government authentication to the document itself, Zullo said. If the Registrar stamps are forgeries, then the document itself is a forgery. As I said at the beginning of the investigation, Arpaio said, the President can easily put all of this to rest. All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm, and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has. Arpaio further stressed the Hawaii Department of Health needs to provide, as part of the full disclosure, evidence regarding the chain of custody of all Obama birth records, including paper, microfilm, and electronic records, in order to eliminate the possibility that a forger or forgers may have tampered with the birth records. Absent the authentic Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other credible proof supporting the idea or belief that this President was born in Hawaii, or in the United States for that matter, as he and the White House have consistently asserted, Arpaio said.
4
Conclusive remarks Sheriff Arpaio stresses that these are preliminary findings and concluded by suggesting a Congressional investigation might be warranted. Arpaio asked that any other law enforcement agency with information referencing this investigation be forwarded to his office. I want to make this perfectly clear. I am not accusing the sitting President of the United States of committing a crime. But there remain a lot of questions which beg for answers and we intend to move forward with this investigation in pursuit of those answers, hopefully with the cooperation of all parties involved, Arpaio said.
Links to the Videos Used during the press conference are below.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ID_KfcmG9gs http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S40WKxKSlHc http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jzDWmXNBvto http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yQ0Wvp91JXg http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3S6O_AjIln8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CHAM3hRI8_Y
5
Exhibit S
I
CANDIDATE NOMINATION PAPER
(A.R.S.
2001 1fE t 3
5 16-/!42)
9
Pb! 3: 0 1
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
You are hereby notified that I,
%rack
Pbrty, at the Presidential Preference Election
am seeking nomination as a candidate for the of of President of the United States from the fi d
Democratic
to be held on the 5th day of February 2008.
I am a natural born citlzen of the United ~ts/tes, at least thirty-five years of age, and am have been a resident within the United States for at least fourteen years.
5046
South
Greenwood Avenue, ~ h i o d ~ oIL 60615 .

of residence (city or town)
(zip)
CandMate's actual residence address or description of p+
Obama for America, 233 North ~ i c h j ~ Avenue. 11th Floor, Chicag a n

Candidate's Post Office Address
,
I
(city or town)
(zip)
8666i9
Candidate's Arizona committee information: Chairman's Name Address

(number and street)
Don Bivens
1
(city or town)
I
2910 N o r t h central1 Avenue, P h o e n i x AZ 85012

(zip)
Telephone
602-298-4200
SECRETARY OF STATE
a registered voter in the stete in which Iresi8@7DEC
RECEIVED
13
3 0I 2
Q~am
I am not
1
)
a member of the politiql party from which I am running as a
candidate for Re oRce (oi President of the United States.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that all the information in this Nomination Paper is true, that as to these and all other qualifications, 1 am qualifieq to hold the office that I seek,having fulfilled the United States constitutional requirements for holding said office. I further swear (or affirm) that I have fulfilled Arizona's statutory requirement for pldcing my name on its Election ballot.
i
I
Subscnied AND SWORN to (or affirmed) before me this
l u 0 \ I C ~ 1 3 ~ f ?PJ 20 -
My Co+tmissionExpires:
"3
- 31 -
2 0 10
File with: Arizona Secretary of State Election Services Division 1700 West Washington Street, Phoenix, A t b n a 85007
Floor
Dffice Revision 8/21/2007
Exhibit T
REPORTBARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Opening Statement:
Page 1 of 10
I, Mara Zebest, am preparing this report at the request of Maricopa County Sheriff s Office in support of the Cold Case Posse investigation. The PDF birth certificate document released by the White House (shown in Figure1) is a completely manufactured and fabricated computer generated image. The same source file was used to print a copy handed to the AP (shown in Figure2), in which the AP scanned in the version handed to them. A third photograph version (Figure3) was touted by Savannah Guthrie who claimed to have held and felt the seal on the document, but the original Internet posted images have been scrubbed. The White House wants us to believe the PDF document started out in printed form on security paper retrieved from Hawaiibut this is not possible. All three versions manifest itself as a printed document only when the PRINT button is pressed from within the original manufactured document file. This would account for the transformation of a document containing different color backgrounds, and the ability to print with or without safety paper pattern (by turning a layer on or off ).
Green safety paper background
There is no doubt in my mind that this computer generated image never started out as a paper source document and was never scanned in as described by the White Houseit was digitally created and manufactured. The bulk of this report will explain the evidence to support this, which will include the following points:
Figure1: PDF file released from White House
Inconsistencies within text characters: All anti-aliased text (in a color scan), or all bitmapped text (in a black & white scan) not a mixture of both which is impossible in a legitimate document. Image noise should also be consistent throughout. Chromatic aberration absent: A color scanned document would display chromatic aberration. This is physics and occurs in all color scans but is absent in Obamas PDF document. Layers: A normal scan is a flat file and does not contain multiple layers. The Obama PDF contains 9 layers and grouped to a clipping mask layer. Links: Indicate that components were pasted into the file, rotated, and resized. Clipping Mask Path hides image information: Proof of manipulation. Safety paper and white halo: Manufactured in final steps.
Blue background color and no safety paper
Safety paper background with a gray/blue color
Figure2: A printout was given to AP which they scanned
Figure3: Savannah Guthrie photo claim to verify document
Page 2 of 10
The OCR Argument Not a Factor!

OCRwhich stands for Optical Character Recognitionwill scan a document for text and convert any images of text to live (editable) text. After OCR is applied to a PDF in Adobe Acrobat Pro, the text responds as if it is in a Word document. The OCR text can be selected, changed, copied and pasted. The Obama PDF document as downloaded cannot be edited in the aforementioned manner. Note: Adobe Acrobat Pro has PDF editing functions, but Adobe Acrobat Reader does not. Additionally, if the PDF had been scanned using OCR software; one would be able to search the document with keywords and if the text exists in the document, then those keywords would be found. Figure4 shows the keyword Live typed in the FIND box, and even though the word Live exists in the Certificate of Live Birth title, a dialog box responds that no matches were found.
Search word in Find box
No text found in file
Figure4: Search for text is not recognizedNo OCR applied
When viewing the font properties dialog box in Figure5, no fonts are listed. If OCR was used, the image area would be converted to recognized fonts in the document and the fonts would be listed. The dialog box is empty, indicating that Obamas PDF file does not recognize any text. This dialog box can be viewed by going to the File menu > Properties, then click on the Font tab in the Document Properties dialog box. Font-based text can be created after a file has been processed through the OCR Text Recognition feature in Adobe Acrobat. To run the OCR feature, go to the Document menu and select OCR Text Recognition, and then click Recognize Text Using OCR. Acrobat will then perform a scan on the document and convert any text found in the image to editable text. Note that applying OCR Text Recognition will alter the appearance of the characters in the conversion from image to text. Figure6 shows that all the fonts recognized during the process are now listed in the Font Properties dialog box. Figure7 shows another search (after OCR is applied) on the keyword Live typed in the FIND box. The word Live is found and highlighted within the Certificate of Live Birth title.
Document Font Properties of original PDF file
Figure5: Font Properties of Obamas PDF file
Search word in Find box Document Font Properties after OCR Text Recognition
Text found in OCR file
Figure6: Font Properties dialog after OCR Text Recognition
Figure7: Search for text is recognized after OCR is applied

Introduction to Basic Terms
Paint strokesno noise
Page 3 of 10
Lets briefly examine three terms related to graphic programs: Noise, Anti-aliasing, and Bitmap
Noise v No Noise
Scanned images will have a consistent noise. Any inconsistencies in noise would be a strong telltale sign of tampering. When looking at an image at a normal zoom level (100%) colors may appear as one color of any particular area of an image. Zooming in closer to the area, consistent noise is easily apparent in the slight variations of color from neighboring pixels that make up each color (shown in Figure8). This is the natural noise level for this image. Note that it is consistent throughout the image; variations can be seen for neighboring pixels of each color area in the original image. In contrast, Figure8 also shows an example of no noise as a result of digital manipulation. Two pixels were sampled to match colors within the image. Using a paint brush tool in Adobe Photoshop, a streak of each sampled color is drawn across the image area. Clearly the lack of noise in the digital brush strokes is inconsistent with natural noise of the image. Components added digitally to an image do not contain noise. All neighboring pixels for the sample paint strokes in Figure8 are solid in color with no variationnot even the slightest of variations. In order to avoid detection when editing an image, an experienced professional will need to mimic the noise to match the document. One common method used is to access the Add Noise filter found on the Photoshop Filter menu. This was not done in the Obama PDF file. If this was a legitimate color scan, noise would be consistently displayed throughout the entire document.
Image noise
Figure8: Painted brush strokes in digital scan lack noise
Bitmap (or Aliasing) v Anti-aliasing

Figure9 offers a visual explanation of aliasing (or bitmap text) contrasted with anti-aliasing. Notice that aliasing is the visual stair-stepping of edges that occurs in an image which yields a jagged edge. Anti-aliasing is the smoothing of jagged edges in digital images by averaging the colors of the pixels at the boundary edges. Also notice the transition of pixel colors that occur in Figure8 where contrast colors bump up next to each other. This color transition (averaging of color pixels) makes the lines appear smooth when viewed at a normal viewing level. Without anti-aliasing to soften this line edge transition of colors, images will have a choppy jagged edge quality (aliasing or bitmapped quality). Anti-aliasing is either applied globally (to an entire image) during scanningor not at all.
Noise
Figure9: Aliasing (or bitmap) and anti-aliasing

No noise
Figure10 is a perfect example of an inconsistency that occurs with image manipulation. The numerical characters 064 seen in the Figure are all aliased or bitmapped, and the 1 is anti-aliased as well as containing noise. A color scan would produce anti-aliased results universally. While it is possible to use a bitmap setting when scanning, the results would create a black and white imageno color present. A bitmap setting would turn every pixel to on or offwhite or black. So if a bitmap setting was used in a scan, then there shouldnt be a color background, along with varying colors in the text outside the grayscale range? All text color values have green tone valuesnot black or grayscale.
Bitmap edges are jagged
Anti-aliased edges are smooth
Figure10: Bitmap edges are jagged v smooth anti-aliased edge

Scanner Chromatic Aberration
Cool blue color at the upper edges
Page 4 of 10
What is chromatic aberration? This occurs when different wavelengths of light are refracted differently as it goes through a lens or prism during the scanning process. Light is refracted differently as the scanner encounters one side of a contrasting color (particularly with text) compared to the opposite side of the contrasting color. In simpler terms, Figure11 is an example of Chromatic Aberration in which the scanner produced warm red-ish color values at the bottom and left edges of the text, and similarly the scanner produced cool blue-ish color values around the top and right edges of text transitions. Chromatic Aberration can be seen at a high zoom level in color scans such as the AP version of Obamas BCbut this chromatic aberration is NOT present in Obamas PDF released by the White House. Because the AP version displays chromatic aberration, this is an indicator that the AP did receive a printed hard copy of the BC from the White House and scanned whatever was presented to them. AP did not do anything wrong. They simply scanned what was handed to them. Its important to note that the AP version does NOT have a security safety paper background pattern, but rather a baby blue colored background. This sudden difference in background color/pattern is another inconsistency that could NOT happen if the document was simply scanned with no further manipulation and released by the White Housebut this inconsistency would only happen if the White House document is a manufactured file.
Warm red color at the lower edges
Figure11: Scanned text and Chromatic Aberration
Noise, anti-aliasing, bitmap inconsistency in textand no chromatic aberration
Figure12: Obama PDF viewed in Acrobat at 1600% zoom level

Color variation evidence of manipulation
Applying the Terms Reviewed

A key problem with the document, as presented, is that it is riddled with inconsistencies. Scanning a document without manipulation produces an image with qualities that are consistent globally (throughout the entire image). Amateurish image manipulation will reveal local (specific areas) of inconsistencies or odd artifacts. Another example of anti-aliased text containing noise for the letter R mixed with surrounding bitmap text in Figure12. The white halo effect surrounding the text with no chromatic aberration is also a strong indicator that the document was manipulated (more on the white halo later). Figure13 displays text color inconsistencies in dates, along with a misspelling in the official stamp textTXE instead of THE. While it may be argued that the misspelling is merely a function of the stamp ink applied unevenly, the odds significantly decrease that this would occur on both vertical bars that affect both sides of the H character. Both sides pull in substantially displaying an X. The stamp also sports suspicious markings in the Alvin signature that has been referred to as a happy face. Figure14 offers a contrast image of Alvin Onakas stamp in which the words are spelled correctly and no happy face markings in the Alvin signature. The Ph. spacing between the P and h is different in both signature images (the period spacing as well). Also, the stamp version displayed in Figure13 is a solid bitmap layerno signs of texture (ink stamp on paper) can be detected. Some semblance of texture would be reflected in an image scan (even with optimization applied), but this overall quality of texturethe ink stamp on paper as seen in Figure14is absent from the Obama PDF.
Alvins signature suddenly develops a smiley face Spelling error on stamp Green text color values
Figure13: Examples of text inconsistencies

No spelling error
Alvins signature without smiley face?
Figure14: http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
Page 5 of 10
Layers: Flat, Man-made, and Optimized

Attempts to suggest optimization explains the presence of layers in the Obama PDF is simply not true. While it is true that optimization can cause layers, it is not true that optimization explains the layers displayed in Obamas PDF. The layers in Obamas PDF clearly display a decision-making process that would be present with image manipulation. A simple definition for optimization is a process that applies suitable compression settings to reduce file size. As statedoptimization can cause layersbut in the case of optimization; the process of how the document is layered is completely computer-generated based on programming algorithms. Thus, there are certain predictable patterns. Before examining the Figures, it might help to explain that there are two types of graphic programs: Raster-based and Vector-based. Raster-based is a fancy word for pixel-based which is the strength of a program like Adobe Photoshop. Whereas Adobe Illustrator is a vector-based programmeaning it relies on mathematical interpretations. Illustrator operates differently than Photoshop in that lines or shapes drawn in Illustrator are referred to as pathsthe mathematical equations that define the line, line segment, or shape. With this in mind, when a pixel-based image is opened in Illustrator, a path is generated to define the outer boundary border of that object. This is why you will see sub-layers in the screen capture Figures with a Path title that corresponds to the visible blue (default color) rectangle-shaped border edges of an object (in the displayed image). The AP file version of Obamas PDF in Figure15 will serve to represent a scanned document and when opened in Illustrator, there is only one link, and one layer; the layer breaks down to display the following sub-layers:
Multiple links
Layer 1 includes the following sub-layers:
Outside border edge boundary path One flat image layer
One Link One flat image
Outside border Path
Figure15: Normal one-layer scan document behavior
Clipping Path layer
Multiple sub-layers
Outside border path Clipping Path
boundary edge Paththe blue border surrounding the image A And the flattened Image Figure16 shows a crucial difference in the number of layers displayed in Obamas PDF file (compared to the AP file): Obamas PDF has nine links and nine sub-layers (NOTE: The paths are actively displayed in the image). In addition to the nine sub-layer objects, a clipping path is at the top of the sub-layer list. The clipping path groups all the remaining sub-layers below. Note the location of the clipping path in the image, which will be explained further on the next page. Its presence within the file and applied in a manner to hide portions of the image also reflects image manipulation.
Scroll box
Figure16: Multiple layers and links in Obamas PDF
One bitmap sub-layer at top No logic to layer object decisions
Another crucial difference in the number of layers occurs when optimization is applied to the AP scanned image in Figure17. There is an unreasonable amount of layers generated. Note despite resizing the Links and Layers panels, there is still a scroll box which scrolls the length of the empty scrolling bar area (to offer a sense of how many layers extend beyond the current view). Examine how the layers divide the image into pieces. It is analogous to taking a scissor and cutting the image into random rectangles.
Huge amount of links Scroll box Insane number of color sub-layers
Figure17: AP layers and links after optimization is applied
Finally, notice that Figure17 calls out the top layer as a bitmap layer (which means it contains one color value only), while all remaining layers are color layers (contains multiple color values). One bitmap layer and multiple color layers are typical optimization behavior; but the reverse is true in Obamas PDF in which it contains multiple bitmap layers and only one color layer.

Visibility icon
Page 6 of 10
The Clipping Mask Path

Lets return to the previously mentioned Clipping Mask Path. The term mask refers to defining parts of an image to be hidden from view (rather than have to delete unwanted parts). Any vector shape can be used as a clipping pathin this case the rectangle path shape seen in Figure18 defines an area that acts like a window: Anything within the shape border is visible, and anything that falls outside its boundary is not visible. A benefit derived from using a clipping mask is it allows the mask to be reposition at any time to show or hide different parts of the artwork. A clipping mask that hides image information from view only occurs in a manual process to manipulated a document. If a clipping mask is generated in an optimized fileit will never hide information. Figure18 displays the clipping mask as the only visible path when the Obama PDF is first openedall other path objects behave as a group attached to the clipping path. To move and see these objects separatelythe clipping mask group needs to be releasedor ungrouped. Figure19 shows an open Layers panel (to display the sub-layers). A right-click inside the clipping mask offers a menu option to Release Clipping Mask. Notice that releasing this path not only exposes the other grouped path objects, but suddenly uncovers additional background pattern that spills outside (and beyond) the clipping mask path boundaryproof of image manipulation.
Collapsed icon
Clipping Path
Figure18: Obama PDF opened in Illustrator with clipping mask

Release Clipping Mask Group
Expand icon Clipping Path
X-Ray Scanner Vision

Figure19: Clipping Mask group released and sub-layers displayed
First link actively selected Layer visibility on
Tom Harrison, a software designer, published a report that examines the top two sub-layer objects. Without a doubt, the implications of these two sub-layers are clear indications of image manipulation. This cannot happen in a normal document. At first glance these layers appear to be emptybut this is not the case. These layers contain odd random white pixel information, while the pixels under the white dots show no disturbance of safety paper pattern (on the bottom layer). This is simply not possible in a normal scan and can only happen in image manipulation. Tom Harrison offers the following analogy in his report: Try to have someone take a picture of a person holding a football hidden behind their back, not visible to the camera. Will you ever be able to extract the person from the photograph and still see the football revealed? Of course not. However, if a picture is taken of a football, and a separate picture is taken of the person, layers can be used to hide the picture of the football behind the person (using a program like Photoshop). By placing the picture of a person on a layer in front ofor on topof the layer containing the football in the documentthe football would not be visible to the casual viewer unless the layer of the person is turned off. Using the football analogy, look closely at Figure20a close-up view to reveal numerous white pixels in the top layer object. Additionally, these pixels are bitmapped rather than displaying a soft blending quality to transition into the background pattern another indication that the white pixels are not a normal part of the background pattern. Figure21 shows the white dot layer turned off to expose the undisturbed safety pattern in the background (under the white pixel dots). To paraphrase Mr.Harrison, no scanner in the world has x-ray vision that can detect uninterrupted safety paper pattern under another object (such as the random white dots).
Layer object path White pixels display
Top layer selected
Figure20: Zoom view of top layer reveals white pixels

First link deselected Layer visibility off
Layer object path turned off White pixels disappear: Pattern pixels uninterrupted
Figure21: Layer turned off reveals uninterrupted pattern below

Selected active links
Page 7 of 10
Stamp Layer Appearance

The main purpose and strength of layers is they allow parts of an image to be isolated to make it easy to repositioned, or adjust visibility (on or off) independently of surrounding image layered partsthus layers are a powerful image manipulation tool. It makes sense to have a date and a certification stamp on separate layersto move, rotate, or reposition for the purpose of manipulation and alteration. Figures 2224 demonstrate how objects can be moved around independently. The Obama PDF has a clean separation of text isolated on each layer, unlike the AP optimization layer results for the same information in Figures 25 26. The layer results seen in the Obama PDF cannot be duplicated through optimization, but can be easily duplicated (and explained) with an understanding of image manipulation. The date stamp and certification stamp are the selected layers in Figure22. The Links and Layers panels verify the selection along with the active blue paths that display around the layered objects.
Date & certification stamps moved
Selected active layers Date stamp Certification stamp
Figure22: Target layers and objects for date and certify stamps
Figure23: Layers allow for moving the date and certify stamps
Figure23 demonstrates that the objects can be moved independent of the background (or other text items). Note that in the Obama PDF, the text for the certification stamp is completely and independently separated onto its own layer. The same is true of the date stamp. This is a clear and important indication of image manipulation in which each of these items can be manipulated independently of the surrounding background layer. This clean separation can only be accomplished through image manipulation of document elements. Figure24 shows the background layer can also be selected and moved independently from the stamp and date layer elements. The white halos are a part of the background layer since white is the typical color present when building a background layer. Thus, whenever the safety paper pattern is not present, the typical color displayed in the absence of pattern will be white.
Background selected & moved
Automation v Manual Manipulation

Figure25 and Figure26 shows the lack of predictability when an automation process chops up an image and generates layers during optimization. As previously mentioned, the AP file opens with the appearance of a normal scanned document containing only one layer. For this reason, the AP file was used to demonstrate what happens when optimization is applied. After the optimization process, the AP file displays a multitude of layers. Most of the black text extracts onto one bitmap layer at the top of the layer list. This top text layer is turned off in Figure25. Note that the text does not separate cleanly onto one layer. Remnants of text remain behind on a variety of the many multi-color layers in the list that still have their visibility turned on in Figure25. Additionally, the top text layer contains a large portion of all document text and optimization fails to separate text according to usefulness. In other words, all the stamp text does not reside on its own layernor is there a different layer for the date textand again, no clean and complete separation. Figure26 has the top text layer visibility turned back on again, but instead, one of the bottom background layers visibility is turned off this time. The selected paths show how theres no human quality to the logic in dividing information into layersthe machine is deciding based on an automated process.
Figure24: Background layer with white halos can also move
Bottom layers selectedtext layer off
Figure25: Optimized lacks the human element in layering

Text layer onone background layer off
Figure26: Text layer turned on and one background layer off

White Halo Creation
Page 8 of 10
Top layer: Certification stamp text
The white halo effect presents two common questions; why is there a white halo, and what caused it? Before answering the former question, lets address the latter. The white halo could simply be a function of a selection created around all the textbefore filling the background layer with a green safety pattern. The green safety pattern could have easily been applied to the background layer without any selectionthus a solid pattern would have covered the entire background layerwithout a white halo. But for some reason, a white halo effect was generated either through an active selection when creating the background, or through an enhancement process, or a combination of both. As might be expected, the creation of a background using a text selection is easily demonstrated with step-by-step Figures. Figure27 shows the demonstration file set-up. The stamp text from the Obama PDF file was copied (from Illustrator) and pasted into a new Photoshop file on a layer that is above a solid white background layer. Note the two layers in the Layers panel: Stamp Text layer and the Background layer (currently filled with white). When working in a graphic program, if you want to apply any changes to an image, you have a choice to use a selection for the target area, or to make changes without a selection. If there is no selection, then any changes can be applied to the entire image without any restrictions. If a selection is created, the changes are limited to the selection area only. Analogous to selecting text in a Word program to apply a change, such as bold formatting; the text is first selected, and the bold formatting is then applied to the selection only. In this example, a selection will be created around the text as the next step shown in Figure28. Any object separated on a layer can easily be used to create a selection of that object. Simply hold down the Ctrl key and click on the layer thumbnailin this case click on the Stamp Text layer. A selection that resembles marching ants appears around the text. The next step is to expand the selection to include a little extra space surrounding the text. This can be accomplished from the Select menu, using Modify, and then choosing the Expand option (also seen in Figure28). The Expand Selection dialog box displays in Figure29 which allows a user to specify how many pixels to expand the selection. Since, the idea is to surround the text by a small area, the amount entered in this example will be 2 pixels. The expanded selection in Figure30 currently surrounds the text. However, the current selection area needs to remain white since the ultimate goal is to apply a pattern fill to the surrounding background areanot the surrounding text area. Therefore, the selection needs to be reversedalso known as inverseto ensure the pattern will fill everything on the background layer except the text area. Go to the Select menu shown in Figure30. The Inverse option is chosen. The selection is now ready to fill with a color, or a pattern, or even another scanned image (such as a scan of security safety paper). Everything but the text area is now selected. For purposes of this demonstration, the next step will define a safety paper pattern and fill the background layer using the current active selection.
Bottom layer: White background
Figure27: A two-layer stamp text file created to demonstrate
Ctrl+click on layer thumbnail
Text is selected
Figure28: A text selection created and selection expanded
Expand Selection dialog box
Figure29: Expand Selection optionexpanded 2 pixels

Selection Inverse option
Text selection expanded by 2 pixels
Figure30: Next the selection needs to be inversed

Safety Paper Creation
Page 9 of 10
Selection of a sample pattern area
In a program such as Photoshop, a selection can be filled with a solid color of choice, an image, or a pattern can also be defined as a fill option. It should be noted that a full sheet of safety paper could have been scanned and used without going through steps to define it as a patternbut a pattern can be easily defined from an existing image as an alternative method. Most likely, there was access to a sample of safety paper when creating the Obama PDF. Its not necessary to reinvent the wheelthe current Obama PDF file will be used as the source pattern for the purpose of this demonstration. The Obama PDF is temporarily opened in Figure31 and a square selection is made to isolate a portion of the pattern that will tile easilywhich means that when the selected area is filled repeatedly next to each other, the pattern continues seamlesslywithout any noticeable disruptions in the pattern. With the selection active, the Define Pattern option is selected from the Edit menu. The Obama PDF file is closed and no longer needed. Back to the demonstration file shown in Figure32; with the Background selected as the active layer, the Fill option is chosen from the Edit menu. In the Fill dialog box, the Pattern option from the Content list is chosen in Figure33.
Define the selection as a pattern
Figure31: Selection used to define a pattern
Fill option chosen
The safety paper pattern defined earlier in Figure31 is also chosen in the Fill dialog box in Figure34. Click OK to complete the effect. The results in Figure35 show a slight white halo outside the text.
Background layer active
Selection inversed
In Figure36the Stamp Text layers visibility is turned off, and the marching ants are deselected (Ctrl+D). The white halo effect was easily manufactured in less than a minute, in less time than it took to read the explanation. In summation, the security paper background layer was added as the last step to create the illusion of an image in which text was imprinted on security paper. However, the text had in fact been placed and arranged on a solid white background. This last application gives a created image the false appearance of being an official document.
Figure32: Use the Edit menu to launch the Fill dialog box
Pattern Fill option chosen
Background contains pattern fill
Figure33: The Pattern option is used in the Fill dialog box
Figure35: The pattern fills the selection area
Custom Pattern chosen
Stamp Text visibility off
White halo effect
Figure34: The defined pattern chosen from Custom Pattern list
Figure36: Turn off the text layer: White halo effect is displayed

Some Final Thoughts
Page 10 of 10
The previous exercise demonstrated how the white halo could be created, but there can be a multitude of ways to accomplish the same task in a program such as Photoshop. Whether or not the exercise presented is the definitive method is not the main point. The exercise was presented as a possible solution to the question: How did the white halo get into the document? But actually, the only question that matters is: why is the white halo there at all? Any official document obtained by legitimate procedures and scanned would not have the white halo. As previously stated, every anomaly can be easily explained as a manufactured document. Not only does this document display attributes that it was completely manufactured digitally, but there is strong evidence that a master file exists as a source file. What is meant by a master file? A master file is a file in which all the objects still exist on separate layers (in other words, more layers and information than seen in the Obama PDF sub-layers). For example, in the Obama PDF, the bottom layer contains the background pattern with some text elements merged onto that layer. In the master file version, the text still remains on a separate layerNOT merged with the background layer. It is highly probable that this master file also contains the short form certificate layers (which would explain the problems seen in the AP version of the file). Figure37 and Figure38 demonstrate that the AP version of the long form certificate contains a different set of problems as follows: sudden shift to a different background A Safety paper pattern in the shadow at the left edgebut not in the document background Short form embedded into the printoutFigure38 is an enhanced version which allows the details to be seen more easily Once again, all of these additional problems displayed in the AP version would not occur if the source document presented to the AP had been a legitimate scanned document without manipulation. However, all three problems would easily be a result of a manufactured source filein which layers from a master file were turned off or mistakenly left on.
Forgot to turn off a short form layer
Forgot to turn off safety-paper layer in manufactured shadow
Background color magically shifts to blue
Figure37: Some extra remnants visible in the AP version
Enhancement applied to display short form elements
Figure38: Enhancement applied to easily see short form
Exhibit U
Exhibit V
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...
Get Email Updates
Contact Us
Home Briefing Room Press Briefings
Search WhiteHouse.gov
The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release April 27, 2011
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 8:48 A.M. EDT MR. CARNEY: Good morning, everybody. You can read the paperwork we just handed out in a minute. Let me just get started. Thank you for coming this morning. I have with me today Dan Pfeiffer, the Presidents Director of Communications, as well as Bob Bauer, the Presidents White House Counsel, who will have a few things to say about the documents we handed to you today. And then we'll take your questions. I remind you this is off camera and only pen and pad, not for audio. And I give you Dan Pfeiffer. MR. PFEIFFER: Thanks, Jay. What you have in front of you now is a packet of papers that includes the Presidents long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, the original birth certificate that the President requested and we posted online in 2008, and then the correspondence between the Presidents counsel and the Hawaii State Department of Health that led to the release of those documents. If you would just give me a minute to -- indulge me a second to walk through a little of the history here, since all of you weren't around in 2008 when we originally released the Presidents birth certificate, I will do that. And then Bob Bauer will walk through the timeline of how we acquired these documents. In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the Presidents campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of
B L O G PO ST S ON T H I S I SS UE
March 11, 2012 8:04 PM EDT
Call with President Karzai Following the Report of Afghan Civilian Casualties
President Obama reached out to President Karzai Sunday following the reported killing and sounding of Afghan civilians.
March 11, 2012 9:00 AM EDT
From the Archives: Tsunami in Japan
1 of 15
3/11/2012 11:00 PM
Hawaii. We received that document; we posted it on the website. That document was then inspected by independent fact checkers, who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document -- independent fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii. To be clear, the document we presented on the Presidents website in 2008 is his birth certificate. It is the piece of paper that every Hawaiian receives when they contact the state to request a birth certificate. It is the birth certificate they take to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get their drivers license and that they take to the federal government to get their passport. It is the legally recognized document. That essentially -- for those of you who followed the campaign closely know that solved the issue. We didnt spend any time talking about this after that. There may have been some very fringe discussion out there, but as a campaign issue it was settled and it was -Q When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is?
A look back at the U.S. response to the devastating earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan in March of 2011.
March 10, 2012 6:30 AM EDT
Weekly Address: Investing in a Clean Energy Future

Speaking from a factory in Virginia, President Obama talks about how companies are creating more jobs in the United States, making better products than ever before, and how many are developing new technologies that are reducing our dependence on foreign oil and saving families money at the pump.
MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. Q Because it is not here and that's been an issue.
VIEW ALL RELATED BLOG POSTS
MR. PFEIFFER: We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by -- the fact checkers came to headquarters and actually examined the document we had. That settled the issue. In recent weeks, the issue has risen again as some folks have begun raising a question about the original -- about the long-form birth certificate you now have in front of you. And Bob will explain why -the extraordinary steps we had to take to receive that and the legal restraints that are in place there. But it became an issue again. And it went to -- essentially the discussion transcended from the nether regions of the Internet into mainstream political debate in this country. It became something that when both Republicans and Democrats were talking to the media they were asked about. It was a constant discussion on mainstream news organizations. And the President believed that it was becoming a distraction from the major issues we're having in this country. And he was particularly struck by the fact that right after the Republicans released their budget framework and the President released his, we were prepared to have a very important, very vigorous debate in this country about the future of the country, the direction were going to take, how were doing to deal with very important issues like education, Medicare, how were going to deal with taxes in this country. And that should -- thats the debate we should be having yet.
Facebook Twitter Flickr Google+
YouTube Vimeo iTunes LinkedIn
2 of 15
3/11/2012 11:00 PM
What was really dominating a lot of discussion was this fake controversy, essentially, a sideshow, that was distracting from this real issue. And an example of that would be when major Democrats and Republicans went onto mainstream news organizations to talk about their budget plans -- including the President -- they were asked about this. They were asked about what they thought about the controversy. They were asked if they believed the President was born in the United States. And it was really a distraction. That really struck the President, led him to ask his counsel to look into whether we could ask the state of Hawaii to release the long-form certificate, which is not something they generally do. And he did that despite the fact that it probably was not in his long-term -- it would have been in his -- probably in his long-term political interests to allow this birther debate to dominate discussion in the Republican Party for months to come. But he thought even though it might have been good politics, he thought it was bad for the country. And so he asked counsel to look into this. And now Ill have Bob explain that, and then well take your questions. MR. CARNEY: I just want to -- sorry, I meant to mention at the top, as some of you may have seen, the President will be coming to the briefing room at 9:45 a.m., making a brief statement about this -- not taking questions, but just wanted to let you know. MR. PFEIFFER: And he will use this as an opportunity to make a larger point about what this debate says about our politics. Go ahead, Bob. MR. BAUER: Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate. And so we undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to make that request. And by Thursday of last week, I spoke to private counsel to the President and asked her to contact the State Department of Health and to have a conversation about any requirements, further requirements, that they thought we had to satisfy to lodge that waiver request. She had that conversation with the state Department of Health on Thursday -- counsel in question is Judy Corley at the law firm of Perkins Coie, and you have a copy of the letter she subsequently sent to the department with the Presidents written request. The department outlined the requirements for the President to make this request. He signed a letter making that request on Friday afternoon upon returning from the West Coast. And private counsel forwarded his written request -- written, signed request -- along with a letter from counsel, to the state Department of Health on Friday.
3 of 15
3/11/2012 11:00 PM
The department, as I understood it, after reviewing the law and reviewing the grounds asserted in the request, came to the conclusion that a waiver could be appropriately granted. We were advised that the long-form birth certificate could be copied and made available to us as early as Monday, April 25th -- the day before yesterday. And we made arrangements for counsel to travel to Honolulu to pick it up and it was returned to the White House yesterday afternoon. Let me emphasize again, there is a specific statute that governs access to and inspection of vital records in the state of Hawaii. The birth certificate that we posted online is, in fact, and always has been, and remains, the legal birth certificate of the President that would be used for all legal purposes that any resident of Hawaii would want to use a birth certificate for. However, there is legal authority in the department to make exceptions to the general policy on not releasing the long-form birth certificate. The policy in question, by the way, on non-release has been in effect since the mid-1980s, I understand. So while I cannot tell you what the entire history of exceptions has been, it is a limited one. This is one of very few that I understand have been granted for the reasons set out in private counsels letter. MR. PFEIFFER: We'll be happy to take some questions. Q I guess I just want to make sure that were clear on this. Even though this one says certificate of live birth on here, this is different than the other certificate of live birth that weve seen? MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. The second page there is the one that was posted on the Internet. Q Okay.
MR. PFEIFFER: And that is a copy of the one that has been kept at the Hawaii Department of Health. Q Okay. And this is the one that would be referred to -- that people have been asking for that is the birth certificate? MR. PFEIFFER: They are both -- the second one is the birth certificate. The one on the top is what is referred to as the long-form birth certificate. As you can see -- and Bob can walk you through it -- it contains some additional information that is not on the second page, which was the birth certificate which was released during the campaign. If you could just explain the difference.
4 of 15
3/11/2012 11:00 PM
MR. BAUER: Theres a difference between a certificate and a certification. The certification is simply a verification of certain information thats in the original birth certificate. The birth certificate, as you can see, has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, who essentially oversees the maintenance of the records. It contains some additional information also -- that is to say, the original birth certificate -- it contains some additional information like the ages of the parents, birthplaces, residence, street address, the name of the hospital. The core information thats required for legal purposes and that is put into the actual certification thats a computer-generated document, which we posted in 2008, that information is abstracted, if you will, from the original birth certificate, put into the computerized short-form certification, and made available to Hawaiian residents at their request. So the long form, which is a certificate, has more information, but the short form has the information thats legally sufficient for all the relevant purposes. Q This first one has never been released publicly, correct?
MR. BAUER: Thats correct. It is in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii. Q Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years? Was it Donald Trump that prompted you to issue this? MR. BAUER: Ill let Dan -MR. PFEIFFER: Sure. Q I know you expected that question, right? (Laughter.) MR. PFEIFFER: He even said you would be the one who would ask it. (Laughter.) I dont think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved -- for those of you who remember the campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008. And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called about it, reported on it until the last few weeks. And as I said earlier, it probably would have been -- a lot of the pundits out there have talked about the fact that this whole birther debate has been really bad for the Republican Party and would probably be good for the President politically. But despite that, the President, as I said, was struck by how this was crowding out the debate,
5 of 15
3/11/2012 11:00 PM
particularly around the budget, on important issues, and was an example of the sort of sideshows that our politics focuses on instead of the real challenges that we have to confront as a country. And so thats why he made this decision now, because it became an issue that transcended sort of this -- it essentially was something that was talked about, as I said, from the nether regions of the Internet onto mainstream network newscasts. In fact, Jay has been asked about this just yesterday in this room. Q So I guess the implication is that you did get political advantage by having not released this until today, over the course of the last four years? MR. PFEIFFER: There has been -- no one that I can recall actually asked us to -- we were asked to release the Presidents birth certificate in 2008. We did that. And then no one -- it never -- up until a few weeks ago, there was never an issue about that that wasnt the birth certificate from any credible individual or media outlet. And it hasnt been until -- I mean, Jay was asked about this yesterday -Q When you say that, you mean certification -- you released the certification?
MR. PFEIFFER: When any Hawaiian wants -- requests their birth certificate because they want to get a drivers license, they want to get a passport, they do exactly what the President did in 2008. And thats what that is. And we released that. And thats what any Hawaiian would do to release their birth certificate. And that was good enough for everyone until very recently this became a question again. And so the President made this decision. Hell talk to you more about his thinking on that. Q And this is going to sound -- I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to -- remain unconvinced. Theyre going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper, you could have typed anything in there. Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any -- (laughter.) Q Will the President be holding it?
MR. PFEIFFER: He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so. But it will -- the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a -- what they have on file. As Bob said, its in a book in Hawaii. MR. BAUER: And youll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to -Q But do you understand that this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?
6 of 15
3/11/2012 11:00 PM
MR. PFEIFFER: There will always be some selection of people who will believe something, and that's not the issue. The issue is that this is not a discussion that is just happening among conspiracy theorists. Its happening here in this room; its happening on all of the networks. And its something that, as I said, every major political figure of both parties whos actually out trying to talk about real issues is asked about this by the media. And so the President decided to release this. And I'll leave it to others to decide whether theres still -- there will be some who still have a different -- have a conspiracy about this. Q Youve got two certified copies, according to this study. You have these physical --
MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. I showed you one. Just one. Q You showed us a photocopy of one.
MR. PFEIFFER: No, I showed you -Q Does that have a stamp?
MR. PFEIFFER: It has a seal on it. Q Why does this rise to the level of a presidential statement?
MR. PFEIFFER: The President -- this in itself -- when you hear the President I think youll understand the point hes making. That will be in not too long. Q Did the President change his own mind about this? In other words, was he advocating during the campaign lets just put it out there and get it over with, or was this an internal shift in thinking based -- in other words, was it the President who steadfastly during the campaign said this is ridiculous, I don't want to give this any more ground, and has now changed his mind? Or is this the -MR. PFEIFFER: Lets be very clear. You were there for the campaign. There was never a question about the original birth certificate during the campaign. It was a settled issue. I was there for the original decision to release the birth certificate. I was there when we posted it online. I'm not sure I even knew there was an original one that was different than the one we posted online because it wasnt an issue. So it wasnt like -- lets be very clear. We were asked for the Presidents birth certificate in 2008; we released the Presidents birth certificate; and it was done. That was it.
7 of 15
3/11/2012 11:00 PM
And so there hasnt been a discussion about this other document for years. Its only been in the last few weeks. And so to your second question, the President decided to do this and he'll talk about this when he gets here -decided to do it at the timeline that Bob laid out because it was a -- this was a sideshow that was distracting from the real challenges that we're facing. Its not just a sideshow for him; its a sideshow for our entire politics that have become focused on this. Q Not to give Donald Trump more publicity than he has, but is he the person who sort of -- sort of that bridge between what you're calling a fringe and the mainstream? Do you think that hes the reason why this tripped the switch to a level where you now have to deal with something you thought was dealt with? MR. PFEIFFER: Its not for me to say why mainstream media organizations began to cover this debate. Theyll have to answer that for themselves. Q How concerned were you about running against Donald Trump in a general election?
MR. PFEIFFER: I'd refer any questions on the election to the campaign. Q Can you address the reports of Petraeus to the CIA and DOD --
MR. PFEIFFER: You get points for that, Carol. (Laughter.) MR. CARNEY: Yes. I don't have -- but youll be disappointed to learn that I don't have a personnel announcement for you. The President will be addressing this -- questions about personnel tomorrow. Q Dan, was there a debate about whether or not this deserved being discussed by the White House, whether or not -- and I'm going back to the birth certificate. I lose points, I understand. But was there debate about whether or not this was worthy of the White House? MR. PFEIFFER: The point I'd make is that we weren't the ones who -- we're not the first ones to bring this up in this room. Jay has been asked questions about this; the President has been asked about it in media interviews. And so that wasnt a decision that we made, and the President made the decision to do this and he made the decision to -- and when he comes down here this morning he'll talk to you about why he thinks theres an important point to be made here. Q Getting back to the personnel announcements, does the President understand that these announcements have been made and sourced satisfactorily for most news organizations before he speaks up and hes not letting his
8 of 15
3/11/2012 11:00 PM
White House corroborate? MR. CARNEY: I don't have a comment on that for you, Bill. (Laughter.) Q I mean, this is such BS. Its all out there and you guys are -- okay, the President is going to talk about this tomorrow so we can't say anything. MR. CARNEY: Bill, you're free to make phone calls everywhere you can. I'm just saying that we don't have a personnel announcement for you today. Q And he'll tomorrow, he'll cover all the aforementioned switches?
MR. CARNEY: We'll have a personnel announcement tomorrow. Q Jay, yesterday you talked about failsafe triggers as sort of a positive alternative to spending cuts. I'm wondering if the White House has any openness to including that, because its a White House proposal, including that in any legislation that would raise the debt ceiling limit. MR. CARNEY: Well, what we've said very clearly, and I think Secretary Geithner said it eloquently yesterday, it is a dangerous, risky idea to hold hostage any other -- hold hostage, rather, raising the debt ceiling, a vote on raising the debt ceiling, to any other piece of legislation. The commitment this President has to moving aggressively towards a comprehensive deficit reduction plan is clear. It will be clear again when the Vice President convenes a meeting, bipartisan, bicameral meeting, next week. And he hopes that progress will be made on that very quickly. In terms of negotiating what that would look like, I think the negotiators should do that, led by the Vice President, Republicans and Democrats together. But again, explicitly linking or holding hostage the absolute necessity of raising the debt ceiling to any other piece of legislation and declaring that we'll tank the U.S. economy and perhaps the global economy if we don't get this specific thing that we want, I think is a dangerous and unprecedented thing to do. And we're confident, remain confident, that the leaders of both parties in Congress, as well as the President, will agree with the President, as I have said many times, that we do not have an alternative to raising the debt ceiling because, as many have said, outside observers, economists and businessmen and women, the impact of that would be calamitous at best. Q So even though its your own proposal that you guys endorsed you don't want to see it as part of the final
9 of 15
3/11/2012 11:00 PM
package? MR. CARNEY: I'm not negotiating individual pieces of a package that we hope Republicans and Democrats can come together around from this podium. But again, we believe its essential to -- the President believes -- that's one of the reasons why we're doing this right now -- we believe that these are big debates that need to be had. They can be contentious, argumentative, serious, comprehensive, detailed, because theyre important; theyre all about Americas future. And theyre about visions of this country and where we're going that need to be debated. And this debate was being crowded out in many ways by a sideshow. And he looks forward to having a debate on the real issues that Americans want us to talk about -- long-term economic plans, deficit reduction, investments in the kinds of things that will help this economy grow and create jobs, dealing with our energy needs, a long-term energy plan. These are all issues that have been sidetracked at least in the public debate by some of the issues that we're talking about this morning. Q Is there a concern that more and more people were actually starting to believe its sideshow -- I mean, people have been asking about -MR. CARNEY: I will let the President speak for himself, but what Dan was saying and I think is important is that the issue here is that the President feels that this was bad for the country; that its not healthy for our political debate, when we have so many important issues that Americans care about, that affect their lives, to be drawn into sideshows about fallacies that have been disproven with the full weight of a legal document for several years. So, again, as Dan said, and a lot of political pundits have said, you could say that it would be good politics, smart politics, for the President to let this play out. He cares more about whats good for the country. He wants the debate on the issues. He wants the focus on the issues that Americans care about. Q Jay, the President yesterday said that he had been talking to oil exporters about increasing output. Who specifically has he been talking -MR. CARNEY: Well, I said -- I want to clarify. I said several times I believe from this podium when asked questions about our overall handling of the issue of high gas prices that we've had conversations with oil-producing states and allies and those conversations continue. I don't have specific the President spoke with this leader or other government officials spoke with others, but those are ongoing conversations that, of course, we would be having in a situation like this. Q Do you guys have any comment on the NATO soldiers that were killed in Afghanistan and any confirmation on whether there were Americans?
10 of 15
3/11/2012 11:00 PM
MR. CARNEY: I don't have anything for you on that this morning. Q Just quickly, back on the birth certificate, yesterday you said this was a settled issue. So --
MR. CARNEY: Well, as Dan said, again, it has been a settled issue. MR. PFEIFFER: From a factual point of view, its absolutely a settled issue. But the fact that it was a settled issue did not keep it from becoming a major part of the political discussion in this town for the last several weeks here. So theres absolutely no question that what the President released in 2008 was his birth certificate and answered that question, and many of your organizations have done excellent reporting which proved that to be the case. But it continued; the President thought it was a sideshow and chose to take this step today for the reasons Bob laid out. Q Aside from the policy distractions that was presented, did you have some concern because it was sort of reaching back into the mainstream news coverage that this could become a factor in the 2012 election with centrist voters? MR. PFEIFFER: No. Q Just to clarify what this document is --
MR. PFEIFFER: This is the -- the letter first and the two certified copies -- this is one of those. This is the same thing you have a copy of as the first page of your packet. Q How did it get here?
MR. PFEIFFER: As Bob said, it arrived by plane -- the Presidents personal counsel went to Hawaii and brought it back and we got it last night. Q Last night?
MR. PFEIFFER: Last night. Q What time?
MR. PFEIFFER: Between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
11 of 15
3/11/2012 11:00 PM
When did you decide to do this gaggle?
MR. PFEIFFER: Whats that? Q When was this gaggle put on -- when was this planned?
MR. PFEIFFER: Whatever time you received your guidance suggesting that it would be this time tomorrow morning. Q Are these letters supposed to demonstrate the legal steps that were involved in releasing it to the White House counsel? MR. BAUER: The letters that you have, the personal request from the President, along with the accompanying letter from private counsel, is merely meant to document the legal path to getting the waiver of that policy so we could get the long-form certificate. Q The waiver of Hawaii state government policy?
MR. BAUER: Right. The non-release of the long-form certificate, which has been in effect since the 1980s -- a natural question would have been, well, what did you do to obtain the waiver, and those letters represent the request. Q Well, isnt it true that anybody who was born in Hawaii can write this letter? I mean, that's all there is to the waiver process? MR. BAUER: No. Let me just explain once again because I also noticed, by the way, in one report already the wrong certificate was actually posted on the website. The certificate with the signatures at the bottom -- and that's a key difference between the short form and the long form -- the long form has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, and the mother, is the original birth certificate, which sits in a bound volume in the State Department of Health. The short from is a computerized abstract, and that's the legal birth certificate we requested in 2008 and that Hawaiians are entitled to. Since the mid-1980s, the State Department of Health, for administrative reasons, only provides to people who request their birth certificate the short form. They do not provide the long form. So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiver. We had to actually determine that there was
12 of 15
3/11/2012 11:00 PM
a legal basis for providing it, and then ask them to exercise their authority to provide us with the long form. The steps required to accomplish that were a letter from the person with the direct and vital interest -- the President -- so you have a letter from the President, and then there was an accompanying letter from counsel basically formalizing the request. So the reason we included that is that those were legal steps we took to obtain the long form by way of this waiver. Q Do we have the letter from the President --
MR. BAUER: Its in the packet. Q And you went to Hawaii?
MR. BAUER: I did not go to Hawaii. The counsel, Judy Corley, who signed the -- the Presidents personal counsel at Perkins Coie, Judy Corley, whose letter -- signed letter of request is in your packet, traveled to Honolulu and picked up the birth certificate. Q A question on the situation regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. Yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder rejected attacks on Paul Clement, who is taking up defense of the statute on behalf of the U.S. House. Paul Clement has taken a lot of heat from the LGBT community for volunteering to take up defense of DOMA. Eric Holder said, Paul Clement is a great lawyer and has done a lot of really great things for this nation. In taking on the representation -- representing Congress in connection with DOMA, I think he is doing that which lawyers do when were at our best. That criticism I think was very misplaced. And Holder went on to compare the criticism of Clement to attacks on the Justice Department lawyers for their past for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Does the President share Eric Holders views on this? MR. CARNEY: We do share Eric Holders views on this. We think -- as we said from the beginning when we talked about -- when I did from this podium -- about the decision no longer from the administration to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, that we would support efforts by Congress if they so chose to defend it. And so I have nothing to add to the Attorney Generals comments. Q Following Mondays Af-Pak Situation Room meeting, what is the Presidents assessment of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan? And does he think that July drawdown is still on? MR. CARNEY: The Presidents policy, which included the beginning of a transition -- beginning of a drawdown of American troops, is absolutely still on track. I dont have anything additionally from the meeting yesterday beyond what weve said. But the policy remains as it was.
13 of 15
3/11/2012 11:00 PM
MR. EARNEST: Jay, we should wrap it up here. MR. CARNEY: Yes. Last one, yes. Q Given the comments of the Pakistani official quoted in the Wall Street Journal, is Pakistan still a U.S. ally, and to what extent? MR. CARNEY: Pakistan is still a U.S. ally. Thanks. END 9:18 A.M. EDT
14 of 15
3/11/2012 11:00 PM
Exhibit W
Exhibit X
FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
Home Articles Born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.

The truth about Obama's birth certificate.
Posted on August 21, 2008 , Updated on November 1, 2008; April 27, 2011
Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the documents authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake." We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said. Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaiis Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.
Analysis
Update Nov. 1: The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obamas original birth certificate. Fukino also was quoted by several other news organizations. The Honolulu Advertiser quoted Fukino as saying the agency had been bombarded by requests, and that the registrar of statistics had even been called in at home in the middle of the night. Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 1 2008: "This has gotten ridiculous," state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. "There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy." . . . Will this be enough to quiet the doubters? "I hope so," Fukino said. "We need to get some work done." Fukino said she has personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obamas original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." Update, April 27, 2011: The White House released the long-form version of President Barack Obamas birth certificate, confirming (yet again) that he was born in the United States. The Hawaii Department of Health made an exception in Obamas case and issued copies of the "Certificate of Live Birth." Since we first wrote about Obamas birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace. Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate to his Web page. That charge leaped from the blogosphere to the mainstream media earlier this week when Jerome Corsi, author of a book attacking Obama, repeated the claim in an Aug. 15 interview with Steve Doocy on Fox News. Corsi: Well, what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate. The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anybody supposed to really piece together his life? Doocy: What do you mean they have a "false birth certificate" on their Web site? Corsi: The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it.
1 of 5
3/13/2012 12:23 PM
Doocy: Well, couldnt it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate? Corsi: No, its a theres been good analysis of it on the Internet, and its been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. Its a fake document thats on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce. Corsi isnt the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are: The birth certificate doesnt have a raised seal. It isnt signed. No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version. In the zoomed-in view, theres a strange halo around the letters. The certificate number is blacked out. The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasnt released until 2008. The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth." Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that its stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.
The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller
Alvin T. Onakas signature stamp
2 of 5
3/13/2012 12:23 PM
The raised seal
Blowup of text You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which havent been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes. The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above. The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Healths birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response. The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process. We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because thats when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didnt release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obamas citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldnt get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then weve found out its pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 010641.
3 of 5
3/13/2012 12:23 PM
Blowup of certificate number Some of the conspiracy theories that have circulated about Obama are quite imaginative. One conservative blogger suggested that the campaign might have obtained a valid Hawaii birth certificate, soaked it in solvent, then reprinted it with Obamas information. Of course, this anonymous blogger didnt have access to the actual document and presents this as just one possible "scenario" without any evidence that such a thing actually happened or is even feasible. We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect. Instead, some speculate that somehow, maybe, he was born in another country and doesnt meet the Constitutions requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen." We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the worlds biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anythings possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of whats reasonable has to take over." In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:
Obamas birth announcement The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu. Of course, its distantly possible that Obamas grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A. Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldnt tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obamas fathers race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that fathers race and mothers race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it
4 of 5
3/13/2012 12:23 PM
reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African." Its certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be. When we asked about the security borders, which look different from some other examples of Hawaii certifications of live birth, Kurt said "The borders are generated each time a certified copy is printed. A citation located on the bottom left hand corner of the certificate indicates which date the form was revised." He also confirmed that the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes." by Jess Henig, with Joe Miller
Sources
United States Department of State. "Application for a U.S. Passport." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.
State of Hawaii Department of Health. "Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008. Hollyfield, Amy. "Obamas Birth Certificate: Final Chapter." Politifact.com. 27 Jun. 2008. The Associated Press. "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine" 31 Oct 2008. Nakaso, Dan. "Obamas certificate of birth OK, state says; Health director issues voucher in response to ridiculous barrage" Honolulu Advertiser 1 Nov 2008.
POSTED BY JESS HENIG ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2008 A 2:44 PM FILED UNDER ARTICLES. TAGGED WITH BARACK OBAMA, BIRTH CERTIFICA T TE.
5 of 5
3/13/2012 12:23 PM
The Right Side of Life Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesnt Do Forensics; NH So... Page 2 of 58
Qualifications Whos checking up on officeholder eligibility? Find out here Home Activism, Eligibility, New Hampshire, POTUS
Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesnt Do Forensics; NH SoS and Certificates; British Policeman on Eligibility
Submitted by Phil on Tue, Nov 24, 2009472 Comments
TheObamaFile reports on what readers here have seen me promulgate all along regarding the FactCheck.org blogs credentials on making any sort of forensic document determination RE: Mr. Obamas Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth they dont have the right background (update: see bios here): FactCheck.org identifies their anal-ists as Jess Henig and Joe Miller. OK, thats fine, but who and what are Jess Henig and Joe Miller? Are they qualified to perform an analysis of ANY document, or are they just a couple of guys hanging around FactCheck.orgs office, or are they political operators? What are their bona fides? FactCheck.org doesnt say. Wonder why?
Well, I found out. The two FactCheck.org employees who were granted access to Obamas bogus Certification of Live Birth (COLB) are NOT document examiners or experts. Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy so hes a political operative while Jess Henig has an M.A. in English Literature Im not sure her dye-job is a political or esthetic statement. They are a couple of partisan Obots just what youd expect Jess took the photos presented on their webpage and did all of the writing, while Bob basically held the COLB open for Jess to photograph suitable work for a Ph. D.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/11/24/eligibility-update-factcheck-org-doesnt-do-f... 4/23/2010
The Right Side of Life Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesnt Do Forensics; NH So... Page 3 of 58
Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination of any document, and FactCheck.org knows it and so do Henig and Miller. FactCheck does say their, representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. In my mind, that clearly shows they were working with and for the Obama Campaign and that Obama and his people are involved in this lie. Again, as Ive said before, these individuals may be very well credentialed in their chosen fields, but it hardly seems fitting that individuals who are not trained in the science of document forensics like four otherwise credentialed examiners have been could possibly have a trained opinion of the documents legitimacy. Further, as certain opposition commenters have pointed out many times over, the page that allegedly speaks to the authenticity of the document can lead the casual observer to believe that quotes from the HI Department of Health are directly related to the certification allegedly on hand with FactCheck.org. This is very much of a conclusory lead, as the HI DoH has never made any direct connection between what they have on file versus what FactCheck.org claims to have on hand. There is no receipt of any such transaction ever having occurred back in 2007 and nobody but the above two individuals have come forward to actually physically handle the document (regardless of FactCheck.orgs supposed willingness to allow such an inspection). Remember this is the only direct evidence that has ever been claimed to be originally sourced to speak on anything regarding Mr. Obamas background. And even this is hardly a direct source; it is a short-form version of a long-form birth certificate that could very well indicate a birth registration of an immigrant (see Sun Yat-sen for such an example). Following up on a story concerning New Hampshire State Rep. Lawrence Rappaport inquiring with the Secretary of State regarding Mr. Obamas legitimate candidacy on the ballot in the State, The Post & Email reports on some additional details: In an email to supporters, Rappaport reports what transpired: Well, heres the sad news. Representative Vita, her husband and I met with New Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney and his assistant yesterday (Friday) at 10 am. We wanted an investigation for potential fraud on either Obama or the Democratic Partly based mostly on our contention that since Obama ran for President in New Hampshire when we believe he was not eligible, we believe fraud was committed on the citizens of New Hampshire. We based our suspicions and allegations on:
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/11/24/eligibility-update-factcheck-org-doesnt-do-f... 4/23/2010
Exhibit Y
ARDC | Lawyer Search: Attorney's Registration and Public Di... Page 1 of 2
LAWYER SEARCH: ATTORNEY'S REGISTRATION AND PUBLIC DISCIPLINARY RECORD

ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of March 4, 2010 at 1:15:21 PM: Full Licensed Name: Full Former name(s): Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: Registered Business Address: Registered Business Phone: Illinois Registration Status: Malpractice Insurance: (Current as of date of registration; consult attorney for further information) Barack Hussein Obama None
December 17, 1991 Not available online Not available online Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law No malpractice report required as attorney is retired.
Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings:
None
Check carefully to be sure that you have selected the correct lawyer. At times, lawyers have similar names. The disciplinary results displayed above include information relating to any and all public discipline, court-ordered disability inactive status, reinstatement and restoration dispositions, and pending public proceedings. Investigations are confidential and information relating to the existence or status of any investigation is not available. For additional information regarding data on this website, please contact ARDC at (312) 565-2600 or, from within Illinois, at (800) 826-8625. ARDC makes every effort to maintain the currency and accuracy of Lawyer Search. If you find any typographical errors in the Lawyer Search information, please email registration@iardc.org. For changes to contact information, including address, telephone or employer information, we require that the attorney submit a change of address form. Please consult our Address Change Requests page for details. Name changes require the filing of a motion with the Supreme Court. Please consult our Name Change Requests
https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=640861630
3/5/2010
Exhibit Z
The following documents had prompted my request for the previous document. It is from the Office of Personnel Management (Federal Employees) webpage which discusses who must pass a background investigation. Ironically OPM requires
McCain also failed to answer some of his constituents in writing regarding the eligibility issue.
And I thought that Congress was supposed to vet the President elect? Senator Kyl seems to think that a married couple from California with no access to Obamas records is capable of vetting Obama. The site does have a disclaimer that you cannot rely upon their non-legally binding opinions.
RICHARD SHELBY
A-MA
Rnultr~ro m m - m m BANKINO, Hcwma, ~
& U A W APFRlRS
CoMumeP~-b N m u G MwmeR-6uBOdMwmE
IP COmBRCe, I l
JUmce,*eMcE.&
RELXtI3I1AmiPlAQs S l r H w m r n A W ~ ~
United Statp S n t e ae
WASHINGTON, ~d 20510-0103
710 k h T S N A E
&UOlNG WASHIMWH, W 2 t l C NWC I (2021224-6744
January 2 9 ; Z O O 9
Ms. Texri Storm
~ r e ident/c~o s
Storm Consulting G r o u p
4524
Park Avenue
Bessemer, Alabama 35023-4184
Dear Ma. Storm:

ThaIF-yau -far takiw the time to[ Tantact -me a w t -PreBdant - elect Barack Qbama1s citizenship s t a t u s . I always appreciate hearing from my constituents.
Under the United States Constitution, Section 1 of Article I1 contains a clause that states:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a C i t i z e n of the United States, at t h e time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be e l i g i b l e to that Office w o shall not have attained to h the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident w i t h i n the United States. l1 Many have contacted me regarding t h e numerous claims and lawsuits circulating an the i n t e r n e t asserting that Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore ineligible to become United States President. However, Pxesident-elect Obama has presented his b i r t h certificate, showing that he was b ~ m Hawaii, and it has been verified and in confirmed by Bawaiim o f f i c i a l s . Additionally, the Supreme Court has declined to a c t on any of the cases contesting Obamars citizenship. Un January 8 , 2009, Me&rs of Cangress were given the opportunity to contest t h e iasue -in a j o i n t session of Congress, but no such objecFion was raised during txe-meeting. B y a l l accounFs, President-elect Barack 0bama meeta those requirements. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor t h e situation should further
iesues arise.
Thank you again f o r contacting me. IE I may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Richard Shelby
JEFF SESSIONS
m
Snited Stata S n t e ae
WASHINGTON, DC 20610-0104
January 23,2009
Mrs. Terri Stam 4524 Park Avenue Besserna, Alabama 3 5022
Dear Mrs. Stom:

Thank you for your recent le?derregarding President B m k Obama.
-
As you are aware, stories have circulated that call into question President Qbama's citizenship. Additionally, various lawsuits have b&n filed alleging that Obama i not a natural s born citizen ofthe United States, and therefore is constitutiodly ineligible for the office of president. However, in June 2008, President Obama released a digitally scanned image of his birth certscate, and Hawaii's Director of the State Department ofHealth, Chiyome Fukimo, has verified its authenticity.
As you may know, on January 8,2009,Congress certified and tallied the Electoral College results that verified President O a a s election as the next president of the United bm'
States.
---
The office of the presidency should be held in high regard and the president treated with respect, no m t e who occupies the position As we move forward, Americans should expect atr Congress and the president to work together to find substantive solutions to the pressing issues that our nation faces today.
Thank you again for writing. Please do not hesitate to mntact me or a member of my staff if we may ever be of assistance to you.
-
JS: cd
sions United States Senator
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 78-1
Filed 10/01/09 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ----------------------------------------------------------------x In the Quo Warranto and Qui Tam matter of the United States of America (USA) and ex relator Civil Action: 10-cv-00486 (RCL) Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 SEALED CASE Brooklyn., New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws Plaintiff, v. Barack Hussein Obama et al. Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------x JUDICIAL NOTICE IN REGARDS TO THE NOTICE OF MOTION TO UNSEAL THE CASE, RELEASE OF SUMMONS AND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE TO PERMIT RELATOR TO PROCEED WITH COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT AND RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION PLEASE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE that upon the annexed support Declaration of October 21, 2010, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, for Judicial Notice to this Court with a pending motion to unseal the case before Chief District Judge Royce C. Lamberth at a time afforded by the Court if necessary at the United States Courthouse, at 333 Constitution Avenue NW Washington District of Columbia, on the day and month in 2010, at a time and courtroom designated by the court, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard. Dated: October ____ 2010 Brooklyn New York
Cc:
__________________________ Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws
Christopher Herren Acting Chief of the Voting Rights Section Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA -------------------------------------------------------------------x In the Quo Warranto and Qui Tam matter of the United States of America (USA) and ex relator Civil Action: 10-cv-00486 (RCL) Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 SEALED CASE Brooklyn., New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws Plaintiff, v. Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a Barry Soetoro) c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20500; Obama for America by Martin H. Nesbitt, Treas. PO Box 8102 Chicago, IL 60680; Obama Victory Fund by Andrew Tobias, Treas. 430 South Capitol Street SE Washington DC 20003; Federal Election Commission (FEC), 999 E Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20463; U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Washington Navy Yard Bldg 410, 245 Murray Drive W.S.W. Washington DC 20528 U.S. Department of Treasury (DOT) 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20220; and John and Jan Doe(s); XYZ Entities Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------x DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF JUDICIAL NOTICE IN REGARDS TO THE NOTICE OF MOTION TO UNSEAL THE CASE, RELEASE OF SUMMONS AND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE TO PERMIT RELATOR TO PROCEED WITH COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT AND RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION I Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, hereby state and declare under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 1746: 1. Declarant is self-represented without being an attorney, in this matter has
requested on or about July 13, 2010 that the Honorable Court to Unseal this Case, release of summons and extend the time for service to permit relator to proceed with the complaint pursuant to Federal False Claims Act and related causes of action and permit him as Relator to Proceed with the Complaint herein and avers as follows: 2. If it please the court during deliberations on the motion to unseal, This is
judicial notice as a related matter subsequent to Declarant having served the motion upon Mr. Herren as the Voting Rights Section for a response from that department to no avail as of this date. 3. It is obvious to me that the White House is mocking the Court when the White
House complains of alleged use of foreign funds provided to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a private entity that in the current election cycle is promoting and supporting the election of various declared candidates for office. 4. The White House agent David Axelrod on CBSs Face the Nation of Sunday
October 10, 2010 alleged Foreign Funds are used by the US Chamber of Commerce in the 2010 election campaign cycle, see the transcript Exhibit annexed from which Declarant has extracted excerpts germane to the sealed case herein (with emphasis added by Declarant): BOB SCHIEFFER: Lets switch to politics. Last week, of course, the Presidents on the campaign trail. Hes on the campaign trail just virtually all the time now. While he was out there, the Democrats put out a-- an ad thats released this morning that blames the Republicans and specifically the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for injecting foreign money into campaigns. The Presidents words on the trail last week were, groups that received foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections. Well, lets just look at this ad that the Democrats put out today. (Excerpt from Democratic National Committee Ad) BOB SCHIEFFER: Now I want to ask you about that because the New York Times looked into the Chamber specifically and said the Chamber really isnt
putting foreign money into the campaign. That it does charge its foreign affiliates dues that bring in less than a hundred and thousand dollars a year. A lot of organizations including Labor Unions doing-- do that. But the Chamber has an annual budget of two hundred million dollars and it says, along with that, it keeps these foreign dues separate. They do spend heavily in politics, twenty-five million so far. They expect to spend fifty million. But this part about foreign money, that appears to be peanuts, Mister Axelrod, I mean, do you have any evidence that its anything other than peanuts? DAVID AXELROD: Well, do you have any evidence that its not, Bob? The fact is that the Chamber has asserted that but they wont release any information about where their campaign money is coming from. And thats at the core of the problem here. What weve seen in part because of a loophole that the Supreme Court allowed earlier this year, we now see tens of millions of dollars being spent by the Chamber and a number of organizations some of which just cropped up. Ed Gillespie and Karl Rove won-- run one of them. Tens of millions of dollars from undisclosed donors under benign names like the American Crossroads fund. And theyre-- and theyre spending heavily in all of these elections. And one race in Colorado, therethere are six different organizations running negative ads against the Democratic senator there, Michael Bennett. And no one knows where the money is coming from. So I guess, my question back to you and for your next guess is-- guest is, why not simply disclose where this money is coming from? And then all of these questions will be answered. BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, that will certainly be fine with me. But I want to go back to this thing about the-- the Chamber of Commerce. If theyre only taking in a hundred thousand dollars a year DAVID AXELROD (overlapping): If they are. BOB SCHIEFFER: But you-- you question that. You say they may-DAVID AXELROD (overlapping): Well, I dont know. No one knows, Bob. The point is youthey can-- I can assert anything I want. But you have as a good journalist youd ask me, well, how do we know thats true? Do you have documentation to prove that? If the Chamber opens up its books and says heres where our political money is coming from, here are the million dollar, two million or three million dollar contributions weve gotten from this company or that industry, then well know. But until they do that, all we have is their assertion. BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you-- I guess I would put it this way. If-- if-- if the only charge, three weeks into the election that the Democrats can make is that theres somehow this may or may not be foreign money coming into the campaign, is that the best you can do?
5.
Following David Axelrod on CBSs Face the Nation of Sunday October 10,
2010 where he alleged Foreign Funds are used by the US Chamber of Commerce in the 2010 election campaign cycle, appeared ED GILLESPIE, Chairman of the Republican State Leadership Committee, who stated a rebuttable to David Axelrod starting at page 7 shown on the Exhibit annexed from which Declarant has extracted excerpts germane to the sealed case herein (with emphasis added by Declarant): BOB SCHIEFFER: And were back now with Ed Gillespie, former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a man who turns out as one of the key strategists in these midterm elections. Well, I guess, we need to go first to what Mister Axelrod said and that ad that the Democrats are reporting about Republicans injecting a lot of foreign money into this campaign. ED GILLESPIE (Chairman, Republican State Leadership Committee): Yeah. BOB SCHIEFFER: Your answer. ED GILLESPIE: Well, my answer, Bob, is that David Axelrod is either willfully uninformed or willfully deceptive, and dishonest because the fact is on three points he made here. Lets start with the first. Karl Rove and I dont run American Crossroads as he said on this program. Were fully supportive of it. Ive helped to raise money for it. I encourage it to come together because I think we need something like that on the conservative side because theres so much money on the liberal side. You know, four hundred million dollars was spent in 2008 to help elect Barack Obama. We didnt hear Mister Axelrod or others complaining that much of that money was undisclosed. And this year, there are organizations on the right who are playing by the same rules. But Im not on the board. Im not a paid consultant. I dont have any formal role. And Im not responsible for its decisions. Second, I am responsible for the Republican State Leadership Committee. Ive chaired that group. We helped to elect candidates to state House and Senate offices around the country and attorney general offices. We disclose all of our donorseighty-five thousand of them, all of them American. Third, the Washington Post and the New York Times both completely repudiated this charge of foreign money being funneled through the Chamber of Commerce into American campaigns--the charge of illegal criminal activity. That was based on a blog posting that the President of the United States repeated that was put on a website thats affiliated with Center for American Progress, a liberal nonprofit advocacy group that does not disclose its donors. So the fact is that this is the kind of abuse of power in a lot of ways and the kind of attacks that most Americans are rejecting. And its one of the reasons theyre in such tro-- trouble in this election.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, lets-- lets just go back to the original premise though. It may be legal and-- and apparent-- well, it is. ED GILLESPIE: Sure. BOB SCHIEFFER: It is-ED GILLESPIE: Yeah. BOB SCHIEFFER: --it is legal. But wouldnt it be better for all concerned if we disclosed who was giving what money to who? Why not make these disclosures possible? ED GILLESPIE: Well, Bob, that-- thats a debate for Congress to have. And you know the-- the--Mister Schumer and Mister Van Hollen, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee tried to jam through a bill at the end of this session of Congress. It didnt work. And now that-- these groups are playing by the very same rules that the law that they had passed earlier and tried to reform but were unable to, theyre leveling charges all over the place. Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is calling for an IRS investigation. Theres already a Treasury Department inspector general investigation of the White House trying to find out how it is they came to get access to private tax information by Coke industries, the Coke brothers are on their enemies list apparently because they opposed their agenda. They support free market policies. And then, how is it that the Presidents top economic advisor made that confidential information public, an inspector general investigation that-- which is rightly being done. But thats the kind of steps they take. The-- Al Franken, the senator from Minnesota-Democratic senator for Minnesota calling for a criminal investigation of the Chamber of Commerce. BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But-- yeah. ED GILLESPIE (overlapping): You know, I mean thats-- this kind of intimidation to silence political opponents, Bob, you wonder why people may not want to be disclosed? I mean, look what theyre BOB SCHIEFFER: But-ED GILLESPIE: --doing to folks who are stepping up and saying were going-were going to challenge you in the electoral process. BOB SCHIEFFER: I take your point on all of that. But I still go back to the basic question. Wouldnt it be a good idea to know who is putting money into campaigns? I mean, how do we not know that foreigners arent pouring money
in, because now it is possible under the law. Wouldnt that be a good thing to change that law? ED GILLESPIE: Well, if everybody plays by the same rules Im for everybody playing by the same rules. But again, in 2008, four hundred million dollars went to help elect Barack Obama from liberal nonprofit advocacy groups much of it non-disclosed the-- the sources of thatof that. If people want to change the rules and have that debate thats fine. But dont accuse those who are playing by the rules of somehow doing something unethical or illegal. And the notion that David Axelrod, one of the highest ranking officials, a-- a sworn official in the White House would sit on this set and say, Im going to lob these charges and let them prove its wrong. What if I accuse the cameraman here, hey, youve taken some foreign money. Lets, you know, prove that thats wrong. That is an unbelievable mentality and it is the kind of grasp on power. You know, this-- these-- these ads are not a threat to democracy, Bob. They may be a threat to their power. But their power and democracy are not the same thing and its very revealing that they see it that way. 6. That Declarant has been doing both State Court work pro se since 1995 and
based upon my experience am in this Court as it is a proper venue for the questions raised in the complaint to be answered. Declarant realizes the difficulties the Court faces. However, there are aspects of the foreign funds involvement in the 2008 election cycle that as a compelling state interest may be heard in State Court under State Elections and Banking Law too. Respectfully submitted by, Dated: October ____, 2010 Brooklyn New York
__________________________ Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws
Cc: Christopher Herren Acting Chief of the Voting Rights Section Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530
2010, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS CBS TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "CBS NEWS' FACE THE NATION."
October 10, 2010 Transcript

GUESTS: DAVID AXELROD White House Senior Adviser ED GILLESPIE Chairman, Republican State Leadership Committee MODERATOR/ PANELIST: Mr. Bob Schieffer CBS News
This is a rush transcript provided for the information and convenience of the press. Accuracy is not guaranteed. In case of doubt, please check with FACE THE NATION - CBS NEWS (202) 457-4481
TRANSCRIPT
BOB SCHIEFFER: Today on FACE THE NATION, the Presidents top advisor David Axelrod, and a key Republican strategist and former chairman of the Republican National Committee Ed Gillespie. With just three weeks to go until the mid-term elections the Republicans are smelling blood. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: Do we have to take it? CROWD (in unison): No. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: Hell no, you dont. BOB SCHIEFFER: With more analysts predicting the Republicans will regain control of the House, the President and the vice president are on the campaign trail now virtually nonstop. Do they have a plan to reenergize the supporters who propelled President Obama into office? Well ask David Axelrod, one of the main architects of the Obama victory in 2008. Then well turn to Ed Gillespie, one of the Republicans key strategists this year. Finally, Ill have some thoughts on those who protest at military funerals. Do they have a right to intrude on grief in the name of free speech? But first, coming down to the election wire on FACE THE NATION. ANNOUNCER: FACE THE NATION with CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer. And now from CBS News in Washington, Bob Schieffer. BOB SCHIEFFER: And good morning again. And welcome to FACE THE NATION. David Axelrod is the senior advisor to President Obama. Mister Axelrod, lets just start with the headline news. And just when we thought the housing crisis which was--let us not forget the beginning of our economic problem. Just when we thought it couldnt get any worse now we find that this sloppy paperwork by the lenders may have made some of these foreclosures now that are being contemplated invalid. Some of the biggest lenders are now freezing foreclosures until they can get all this straightened out. I guess the first question I would have is does the administration favor some kind of national moratorium on these foreclosures to get this all sorted out? DAVID AXELROD (White House Senior Advisor): First of all, Bob, it is a serious problem. Its thrown a lot of uncertainty into the housing market that is, you know is already fragile. And its-and its bad for the housing market and its bad for these institutions which is why theyre scrambling-BOB SCHIEFFER: Hm. DAVID AXELROD: --now to-- to go back through and-- and-- and through their documentation for all of this as they should. The President was concerned enough to veto a bill that came to him last Thursday, that would have unintentionally made it perhaps easier to make mistakes. And, so we are concerned. Were working with these institutions. Im not sure about a national
moratorium because there are, in fact, valid foreclosures that-- that-- that probably should go forward. And where the documentation and paperwork is-- is proper, but we are working closely with these institutions to make sure that they expedite the process of going back and reconstructing these and throwing out those that dont work. BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I mean, I guess people are worried about what do you think the impact this is going to have on an economy thats pretty shaky right now anyway? DAVID AXELROD: Well, look, our hope is that this moves rapidly and that this gets unwound very, very quickly and that they-- they-- they can go back reconstruct their paperwork and what weve stressed to them is that they need to expedite that process and work very, very quickly to get it done. And were going to continue to-- to push for them. BOB SCHIEFFER: Lets switch to politics. Last week, of course, the Presidents on the campaign trail. Hes on the campaign trail just virtually all the time now. While he was out there, the Democrats put out a-- an ad thats released this morning that blames the Republicans and specifically the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for injecting foreign money into campaigns. The Presidents words on the trail last week were, groups that received foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections. Well, lets just look at this ad that the Democrats put out today. (Excerpt from Democratic National Committee Ad) BOB SCHIEFFER: Now I want to ask you about that because the New York Times looked into the Chamber specifically and said the Chamber really isnt putting foreign money into the campaign. That it does charge its foreign affiliates dues that bring in less than a hundred and thousand dollars a year. A lot of organizations including Labor Unions doing-- do that. But the Chamber has an annual budget of two hundred million dollars and it says, along with that, it keeps these foreign dues separate. They do spend heavily in politics, twenty-five million so far. They expect to spend fifty million. But this part about foreign money, that appears to be peanuts, Mister Axelrod, I mean, do you have any evidence that its anything other than peanuts? DAVID AXELROD: Well, do you have any evidence that its not, Bob? The fact is that the Chamber has asserted that but they wont release any information about where their campaign money is coming from. And thats at the core of the problem here. What weve seen in part because of a loophole that the Supreme Court allowed earlier this year, we now see tens of millions of dollars being spent by the Chamber and a number of organizations some of which just cropped up. Ed Gillespie and Karl Rove won-- run one of them. Tens of millions of dollars from undisclosed donors under benign names like the American Crossroads fund. And theyre-and theyre spending heavily in all of these elections. And one race in Colorado, there-- there are six different organizations running negative ads against the Democratic senator there, Michael Bennett. And no one knows where the money is coming from. So I guess, my question back to you and for your next guess is-- guest is, why not simply disclose where this money is coming from? And then all of these questions will be answered. BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, that will certainly be fine with me. But I want to go back to this thing about the-- the Chamber of Commerce. If theyre only taking in a hundred thousand dollars a year-DAVID AXELROD (overlapping): If they are.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But you-- you question that. You say they may-DAVID AXELROD (overlapping): Well, I dont know. No one knows, Bob. The point is you-- they can-- I can assert anything I want. But you have as a good journalist youd ask me, well, how do we know thats true? Do you have documentation to prove that? If the Chamber opens up its books and says heres where our political money is coming from, here are the million dollar, two million or three million dollar contributions weve gotten from this company or that industry, then well know. But until they do that, all we have is their assertion. BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you-- I guess I would put it this way. If-- if-- if the only charge, three weeks into the election that the Democrats can make is that theres somehow this may or may not be foreign money coming into the campaign, is that the best you can do? DAVID AXELROD: No. I think that we have a more fundamental concern, Bob, which is that the Republican Party and these interest groups who are now the-- the major force in some of these campaigns want to turn the clock back to the very same policies that got us into this mess in the first place, that exploded our deficits, that put the special interests in control or write their own rules, the oil industry, Wall Street, insurance industry. That-- that presided over economic policies that punished the middle class. Their incomes dropped by five percent during the eight years before we got here. And that ultimately crashed our economy. And now they want to turn the clock back to those policies. And we just cant afford to do that. But these-- this-- this issue of this special interest spending is very important. Its never happened before that-- that-- that organizations are spending this kind of money and-- and the American people need to ask why are-- why is the-- why are the-- why is the oil industry, the Wall Street and others spending this kind of money to defeat candidates and elect others in this-- in this sort of secretive way? And, you know, that is a-- that is a threat to our democracy. BOB SCHIEFFER: What do you think would happen, Mister Axelrod, if the Republicans do take the House, because more and more analysts are saying it looks like thats going to happen? Do you believe itll force Democrats and Republicans to start working together or do you see something more gridlock perhaps? DAVID AXELROD: Well, let me say I dont-- you know, I dont think that that is going to be the outcome of the election. But my hope is that you will see more cooperation. As you know, Bob, the-- the posture of the Republican Party from the moment we got here has been basically to deprive the President of bipartisan support so they could accuse him of not being bipartisan. The day that the President went up to talk to the Republican caucus about the Recovery Act in the House, they issued a release on-- on the way up, on his-- on his way up to the Hill saying they werent going to give him one vote. At a time when we had a national crisis that-- that we needed to address. So Im hoping that with more seats, the Republicans will feel a greater sense of responsibility to work with us to solve some of these problems. BOB SCHIEFFER: I-- Im told youve become a serious student of the Tea Party. Bill Clinton said the other day that Sarah Palin is a force to be reckoned with. What do you make of Sarah Palin? Do you take her seriously? DAVID AXELROD: Well, she certainly has a following. And shes an interesting personality. So, you know Im not going to pass judgment on-- on the-- the-- the level of force she represents in her politics. But she has, you know, when she sends out a tweet on Twitter or puts something on her Facebook, you guys cover it. People respond to it and so that makes her a-- a player in our politics.
4
BOB SCHIEFFER: And the Tea Party itself. Do you believe as some Democrats do that it is simply a motivator for Democrats? DAVID AXELROD: Well, I think some of the positions that some of the Tea Party supported candidates have taken eliminating Social Security, eliminating Medicare, eliminating the Department of Education, dismantling laws to protect our air and water, these are not positions that most Americans support, certainly most Democrats dont support that. And I think that is motivating. I dont discount the impulse of millions of people who have supported these candidates who are frustrated with some of the things that theyve seen over the years here in Washington and who are frustrated with the-- with the economy. But I dont think-- whats interesting is youve got a Republican Party that is sort of bifurcated between those rank-and-file people who have that impulse and these sort of corporate Republicans here who are kind of factotums for special interest. The day of the Tea Party Convention in-- in Nashville, John Boehner was up on Wall Street telling the-- the big finance houses there that he was the only one who stood between them and financial reform. Well, I dont think and that they should give him millions of dollars which they apparently are. I dont think thats what those folks bargained for but thats-- thats where we are. BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you a final question. When John Boehner, the Republican leader of the House was here I asked him, I said, talked to him about things where the two sides could work together. I said, Why dont you and the President announce jointly that the two of you will pledge to try to stop smoking. He said hed take it under consideration or thanked me for the suggestion. Do you think the President would be willing to join in some kind of a campaign like that? DAVID AXELROD: Well, you know, we sort of started that campaign, Bob, because we-- we waged a big battle in the Congress to get the FDA to regulate tobacco so that we could stop the marketing of these products to children. BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But he still smokes. DAVID AXELROD: Yeah. But Mister-- the President has-- is doing a pretty good job on that by the way. But-- but the bigger issue is this. They can be role models for sure. But if we allow the tobacco companies to market their products to children, then were creating a whole new generation of people who are addicted to tobacco. Thats why we waged that fight. Mister Boehner and the Republican Party were on the other side of that fight. BOB SCHIEFFER: But what about just a pledge the two of them working together? Do you think the President would consider something like that? DAVID AXELROD: Well, I think Mi-- we-- we want to work together on any constructive-BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): All right. DAVID AXELROD: --thing we can. BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Thank you, Mister-DAVID AXELROD (overlapping): Okay.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --Axelrod for being with us. DAVID AXELROD (overlapping): Good to be with you. BOB SCHIEFFER: Back in a minute. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) BOB SCHIEFFER: And were back now with Ed Gillespie, former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a man who turns out as one of the key strategists in these midterm elections. Well, I guess, we need to go first to what Mister Axelrod said and that ad that the Democrats are reporting about Republicans injecting a lot of foreign money into this campaign. ED GILLESPIE (Chairman, Republican State Leadership Committee): Yeah. BOB SCHIEFFER: Your answer. ED GILLESPIE: Well, my answer, Bob, is that David Axelrod is either willfully uninformed or willfully deceptive, and dishonest because the fact is on three points he made here. Lets start with the first. Karl Rove and I dont run American Crossroads as he said on this program. Were fully supportive of it. Ive helped to raise money for it. I encourage it to come together because I think we need something like that on the conservative side because theres so much money on the liberal side. You know, four hundred million dollars was spent in 2008 to help elect Barack Obama. We didnt hear Mister Axelrod or others complaining that much of that money was undisclosed. And this year, there are organizations on the right who are playing by the same rules. But Im not on the board. Im not a paid consultant. I dont have any formal role. And Im not responsible for its decisions. Second, I am responsible for the Republican State Leadership Committee. Ive chaired that group. We helped to elect candidates to state House and Senate offices around the country and attorney general offices. We disclose all of our donors--eightyfive thousand of them, all of them American. Third, the Washington Post and the New York Times both completely refudiated this charge of foreign money being funneled through the Chamber of Commerce into American campaigns--the charge of illegal criminal activity. That was based on a blog posting that the President of the United States repeated that was put on a website thats affiliated with Center for American Progress, a liberal nonprofit advocacy group that does not disclose its donors. So the fact is that this is the kind of abuse of power in a lot of ways and the kind of attacks that most Americans are rejecting. And its one of the reasons theyre in such tro-- trouble in this election. BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, lets-- lets just go back to the original premise though. It may be legal and-- and apparent-- well, it is. ED GILLESPIE: Sure. BOB SCHIEFFER: It is-ED GILLESPIE: Yeah. BOB SCHIEFFER: --it is legal. But wouldnt it be better for all concerned if we disclosed who was giving what money to who? Why not make these disclosures possible?
ED GILLESPIE: Well, Bob, that-- thats a debate for Congress to have. And you know the-- the-Mister Schumer and Mister Van Hollen, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee tried to jam through a bill at the end of this session of Congress. It didnt work. And now that-- these groups are playing by the very same rules that the law that they had passed earlier and tried to reform but were unable to, theyre leveling charges all over the place. Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is calling for an IRS investigation. Theres already a Treasury Department inspector general investigation of the White House trying to find out how it is they came to get access to private tax information by Coke industries, the Coke brothers are on their enemies list apparently because they opposed their agenda. They support free market policies. And then, how is it that the Presidents top economic advisor made that confidential information public, an inspector general investigation that-- which is rightly being done. But thats the kind of steps they take. The-- Al Franken, the senator from Minnesota-- Democratic senator for Minnesota calling for a criminal investigation of the Chamber of Commerce. BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But-- yeah. ED GILLESPIE (overlapping): You know, I mean thats-- this kind of intimidation to silence political opponents, Bob, you wonder why people may not want to be disclosed? I mean, look what theyre-BOB SCHIEFFER: But-ED GILLESPIE: --doing to folks who are stepping up and saying were going-- were going to challenge you in the electoral process. BOB SCHIEFFER: I take your point on all of that. But I still go back to the basic question. Wouldnt it be a good idea to know who is putting money into campaigns? I mean, how do we not know that foreigners arent pouring money in, because now it is possible under the law. Wouldnt that be a good thing to change that law? ED GILLESPIE: Well, if everybody plays by the same rules Im for everybody playing by the same rules. But again, in 2008, four hundred million dollars went to help elect Barack Obama from liberal nonprofit advocacy groups much of it non-disclosed the-- the sources of that-- of that. If people want to change the rules and have that debate thats fine. But dont accuse those who are playing by the rules of somehow doing something unethical or illegal. And the notion that David Axelrod, one of the highest ranking officials, a-- a sworn official in the White House would sit on this set and say, Im going to lob these charges and let them prove its wrong. What if I accuse the cameraman here, hey, youve taken some foreign money. Lets, you know, prove that thats wrong. That is an unbelievable mentality and it is the kind of grasp on power. You know, this-- these-- these ads are not a threat to democracy, Bob. They may be a threat to their power. But their power and democracy are not the same thing and its very revealing that they see it that way. BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Lets-- lets talk about David Axelrod. I asked him, what did he think a Republican takeover of the House would mean. He said, well, he doesnt think its going to happen but he would hope it would lead to cooperation. Do you think it would lead to cooperation or-- or should we expect more gri-- gridlock, more opposition? ED GILLESPIE: I think there will be areas where theres cooperation areas where theres opposition. Look, the Republicans if they take control of the House and get very close in the
7
Senate are going to try to put the brakes on all this reckless spending. We just saw this week alone they announced that there was the-- the debt going up 1.3-- 3 trillion dollars-- by the way, partly, because eighteen billion dollars of stimulus money went to seventy-two thousand dead people. We just saw this week that ninety-five thousand Americans lost their jobs and the unemployment rate remains at 9.6 percent, above nine percent for the fourteenth straight month. We just saw that this administration is-- well, we know that this administration has incurred more debt in eighteen months than President Bushs administration incurred in eight years. So Republicans are going to put the brakes on that. But on areas maybe like free trade agreements, I think there may be some common ground if they can find areas where you can get spending restraint with this administration, Republicans would be happy to go along with that. BOB SCHIEFFER: Talk a little bit about the Tea Party. You heard what Mister Axelrod had to say about it. I mean, he basically takes them seriously. Are they a problem for Republicans? ED GILLESPIE: Well, theyve been a little disruptive in the primary process to some candidates and-- and we have un-- some unconventional candidates now because of Tea Party participation in the process. Thats the right kind of problem. Weve got nineteen million people who voted in Republican primaries this past year versus fifteen million in Democratic primaries. Four million more people voted in Republican primaries than in Democrat primaries. Thats the first time I think since FDR, Republicans have outpaced Democrats in primary voting. Thats a very good harbinger for whats going-- going to come on November 2nd. So the fact is there are some growing pains that are going on here with these new folks coming into the political process, coming into the Republican Party primary. But growing pains are better than shrinking pains, and as a former RNC chairman, Id rather see that any day. And so the fact is the best thing for us is that these folks are voting in Republican primaries, not backing third party candidates, Tea Party candidates is a third party which would hinder our ability to elect Republicans. BOB SCHIEFFER: And whats your take on Sarah Palin? We heard what Mister Axelrod said. Do you think she is actually trying to run for President here? ED GILLESPIE: You know, I-- I dont know, Bob. I have a lot of respect for Sarah Palin. I think shell be a force if she does run in the Republican Party primary for the-- the nomination. Im not privy to her thinking on that. She leaned into it a little bit recently. And I can tell you there are a lot of voters and I think she, you know, especially in Iowa, who-- to whom she has strong appeal. And the question is, you know, would that-- would-- for-- I think for Governor Palin, as is the question for all potential nominees is, can you go beyond your original base of support and build on it to, you know, to win enough votes in other states to get the nomination. BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Ed Gillespie. Thanks so much for coming. ED GILLESPIE: Thank you. BOB SCHIEFFER: We get your side of the story this morning. ED GILLESPIE (overlapping): Appreciate the opportunity. BOB SCHIEFFER: Well be back with some final thoughts in a moment.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS) BOB SCHIEFFER: Finally, if you know me, you know I take second to no one in my defense of the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech is our most important freedom. Without it, we could not defend the others. But as I watched the lawyer for those Kansas protesters argue before the Supreme Court, that her group had a right to hold protests at the funerals of American soldiers. I was reminded that no freedom is possible without some limit. The courts decided long ago that free speech does not allow someone to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. This group believes its soldiers are dying because God is punishing America for tolerating gays. So they argue they have the right to show up at any soldiers funeral and shout and wave disgraceful signs as long as they stay in a public area. I understand that in a free society even a group as vile as the Nazis has the right to publicize its cause. I dont like it. But I recognize that even flagburning is a form of legal political expression. But does the First Amendment give anyone the right to open the heart of a dead soldiers parent and invade that persons privacy and grief with hateful noise and sights? Im no lawyer. But I know enough about our Constitution to know it is base on the premise of fairness. What these people are doing is not just unfair, it is wrong. If we can bar political parties from campaigning at polling places, surely there is a way to stop those who wish for their own selfish purpose to harass those who have given their children in the cause of freedom. Back in a minute. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) BOB SCHIEFFER: And thats it for today. Well be right here next week with FACE THE NATION. Thanks for being with us. ANNOUNCER: This broadcast was produced by CBS News, which is solely responsible for the selections of todays guests and topics. It originated in Washington, D.C.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SEALED CASE 10-cv-0486 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On October 22, 2010, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC 1746, caused the service of a copy of the JUDICIAL NOTICE WITH DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF JUDICIAL NOTICE IN REGARDS TO
THE NOTICE OF MOTION TO UNSEAL THE CASE, RELEASE OF SUMMONS AND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE TO PERMIT RELATOR TO PROCEED WITH COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT AND RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION signed October 21, 2010 with Exhibit annexed with a complete set
placed in a sealed folder properly addressed with proper postage served by USPS mail upon: Christopher Herren Acting Chief of the Voting Rights Section Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530 I do declare and certify under penalty of perjury: Dated: October ___ , 2010 Brooklyn, New York
_________________________ Christopher- Earl : Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn., New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ----------------------------------------------------------------x In the Quo Warranto and Qui Tam matter of the United States of America (USA) and ex relator Civil Action: 10-cv-00486 (RCL) Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 SEALED CASE Brooklyn., New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws Plaintiff, v. Barack Hussein Obama et al. Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------x NOTICE OF MOTION TO UNSEAL THE CASE, RELEASE OF SUMMONS AND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE TO PERMIT RELATOR TO PROCEED WITH COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT AND RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed support Declaration of July 13, 2010, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, will move this Court to unseal the case before Chief District Judge Royce C. Lamberth at a time afforded by the Court if necessary at the United States Courthouse, at 333 Constitution Avenue NW Washington District of Columbia, on the day and month in 2010, at a time and courtroom designated by the court, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard. Dated: July 13th 2010 Brooklyn New York /s/ __________________________ Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws
Cc:
Christopher Herren Acting Chief of the Voting Rights Section Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA -------------------------------------------------------------------x In the Quo Warranto and Qui Tam matter of the United States of America (USA) and ex relator Civil Action: 10-cv-00486 (RCL) Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 SEALED CASE Brooklyn., New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws v. Plaintiff,
Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a Barry Soetoro) c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20500; Obama for America by Martin H. Nesbitt, Treas. PO Box 8102 Chicago, IL 60680; Obama Victory Fund by Andrew Tobias, Treas. 430 South Capitol Street SE Washington DC 20003; Federal Election Commission (FEC), 999 E Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20463; U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Washington Navy Yard Bldg 410, 245 Murray Drive W.S.W. Washington DC 20528 U.S. Department of Treasury (DOT) 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20220; and John and Jan Doe(s); XYZ Entities Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------x DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE NOTICE OF MOTION TO UNSEAL THE CASE, RELEASE OF SUMMONS AND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE TO PERMIT RELATOR TO PROCEED WITH COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT AND RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION I Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, hereby state and declare under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 1746: Declarant is self-represented without being an attorney, in this matter requests this Honorable Court to Unseal this Case, release of summons and extend the time for
service to permit relator to proceed with the complaint pursuant to Federal False Claims Act and related causes of action and permit him as Relator to Proceed with the Complaint herein and avers as follows: 1. On March 24, 2010 Plaintiff, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, self represented
without being an attorney filed the case (see Exhibit A) in person herein on his own behalf and on behalf of the Government of the United States of America based upon a cause of action arising under the Federal False Claims Act found at 31 U.S.C. Sections 3729 through 3733 and upon doing so the Clerk sealed the case under local rules. 2. That on April 12, 2010 Declarant made a statutory submission involving the
FCA matter (see Exhibit B) to the Chief of the Voting Section c/o WAN J. KIM United States Attorney Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division Room 7254 NWB Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530; and as at that time, there was no actual Chief of the Voting Rights Section appointed and for whom this FCA matter is under their authority as campaign filings were made to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by the various named parties in this case. 3. The Acting Chief of the Voting Rights Section Christopher Herren knows that
Declarant from several Voting Rights actions here in Second Circuit, and that the submission was sent by certified mail with a Return Receipt request by the USPS that was received by the Voting Rights Section on April 26, 2010 (see Exhibit C). 4. After Declarant received the Return Receipt shown as Exhibit C, Declarant
attempted to reach the Acting Chief by telephone and left a message for Mr. Herren to return the call in response; and to date there is no response. 5. That Declarant starting in 2002 became familiar with the work of Joseph D.
Rich ( 1 ) of the Voting Rights Section who in 2005 resigned in protest of political tampering with the effectiveness and mission of the Civil Rights Division especially the Voting Section. 6. That as a continuing undermining of the Civil Rights Division under Eric Holder
the Voting Rights Section has outrageously failed to protect fundamental voting rights. 7. That Declarant has sufficient direct and intimate knowledge of the events
complained of herein, and as Relator, has standing pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3730(b). The statute specifically says: "[a] person may bring a civil action for a violation of 3729 for the person and for the United States Government." The Supreme Court has held the 1986 Amendments, which expanded standing to private relators in situations where private suits were previously foreclosed, created a new cause of action.
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex Rel Schirmer, 520 U.S. 939, 945 (1997).
8. In the spring of 2008 Declarant became directly involved with the multi-month
trip to the USA by Leo Lyon Zagami, a high level Rex Templars member of the Ordo
Joseph D. Rich speaking in 2007 of the weakening of the Voting Rights Section of the civil rights division http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOi6jJ_YsIo . Before joining the Lawyers' Committee, Mr. Rich spent his entire legal career in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, where he litigated and supervised hundreds of civil rights cases. From 1999 to 2005, he served as the chief of the Voting Section, where, in 2004, he directed and coordinated the most extensive election-monitoring program in the history of the Civil Rights Division, involving coverage of 86 jurisdictions and election monitoring by over 1,000 federal employees. As Voting Section chief, Mr. Rich also was responsible for the coordination of the Department of Justice's response to the extraordinary events surrounding the 2000 election; preparation and implementation of the Department's responsibilities concerning redistricting plans after the 2000 Census, including overall responsibility for review of redistricting plans under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA); enforcement of vote dilution and other cases brought under Section 2 of the VRA; and enforcement of the language assistance provisions of the VRA.
Illuminatorum Universalis (OTO) related to Queen Elizabeths Mother and the next King Prince William, then the acting Grand Master of Propaganda Due (P2) Monte Carlo Lodge serving after the death of Licio Gelli and for the Jesuits (for whom Mr. Zagami had been trained in the Vatican Library from the age of 12 years) using esoteric Freemasonry to influence fund raising for the Barack Hussein Obama Campaign to ensure the vote for their asset in November 2008. 9. Mr. Zagamis trip was in part financed by what he refers to on the Troy Space
April 30, 2008 internet broadcast as the Russian Broadcasting Corporation, which is the unitary enterprise ( 2 ) All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (Russian: , Vserossiyskaya gosudarstvennaya televizionnaya i
radioveshchatelnaya kompaniya, abbr. VGTRK) is a state-owned Russian television

and radio company which owns several television and radio stations. It was founded A Unitary enterprise is a form of a business in Russia and some other post-Soviet states. Unitary enterprises are business entities that have no ownership rights to the assets they use in their operations. This form is only possible for state and municipal enterprises, which operate state or municipal property, respectively. The owners of the property of a unitary enterprise have no responsibility for its operation and vice versa.
2
The legal status of unitary enterprises in Russia is defined in Federal Law No. 161-FZ "On State and Municipal Unitary Enterprises", which was approved by the State Duma on October 11, 2002 and signed by President Putin on November 14, 2002. The assets of unitary enterprises belong to the federal government, a Russian region, or a municipality. A unitary enterprise holds assets under economic management (for both state and municipal unitary enterprises) or operative management (for state unitary enterprises only), and such assets may not be distributed among the participants, nor otherwise divided. A unitary enterprise is independent in economic issues and obliged only to give its profits to the state. Unitary enterprises have no right to set up subsidiaries, but, with the owner's consent, can open branches and representation offices.
in 1990 in an effort to give the president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, and its own voice, independent of the Soviet channels. 10. That in June 2008 Declarant has spoken with Leslie A. Lewis the Grand
Master of the Prince Hall Masons Lodge 459 in the USA through a former Cistercian Nun of St. Josephs Abbey in Massachusetts who introduced me in conjunction with the work she and I were doing with Mr. Zagami; and as to the chartering of a New Masonic Lodges, in which The Prince Hall Grand Master was willing to assist and did (see Exhibit D). 11. Mr. Zagami recorded his description on Troy Space in April and June 2008
regarding his attendance at Democratic Party events in his Grand Master capacity of the P-2 Lodge, OTO and VGTRK to influence attendees of various State level Democratic Party Conventions including that of Texas in preparation for the Democratic Party convention of BHO in August of 2008. 12. That Mr. Zagami stated on the Troy Space recordings ( 3 ) as done with
Declarant in telephone conversations that his USA trip was protected and operating with full support of the Central Intelligence Agency, State Department and FBI for working with the militias at a high level, in which militias have given support meeting with commanders, that contacts at such high level were working with FBI; and that there are a large group of members, about 12000 militia members, in more than that 36 militias so far. That cooperation is coming into place in that the bunch of corporates and families not caring for the USA The Plan is to establish a clear link to security contractors in various states and militias and deal with the gangs and
3
http://leozagami.wordpress.com/category/leo-zagami-exclusive-interview-by-troy2008-06-0507/
especially those with weapons who now are following the wrong path to target the real enemies. 13. In June 2008 Declarant spoke by telephone with Clinton Torrez ( 4 ) who had
provided security for Leo Lyon Zagami while in the USA and especially regarding Mr. Zagamis security detail in the Midwest event that resulted in multiple casualties to the security staff including Mr. Torrez. 14. I spoke at length with Mr. Zagami in multiple telephone conversations including
one exceeding three hours in length involving International freemasonry, the Jesuits and occult (hidden) matters involving the 2008 election. 15.
4
Mr. Zagami is involved with Fethullah Gulen ( 5 ) a Turkish expatriate in self-
Clinton Torrez is formerly of the U.S. Army involved in securing nuclear weapons facilities and discharged with a service-connected disability. Mr. Torrezs uncle is a very wealthy Mexican oligarch who owns a large Marina in Mexico on the Gulf of Mexico and involved in the Iran-Contra special operations of Oliver North. The Glen movement is a transnational civic society movement inspired by the teachings of Turkish Islamic theologian Fethullah Glen. His teachings about hizmet (altruistic service to the "common good") have attracted a large number of supporters in Turkey and Central Asia and increasingly in other parts of the world. The Nature and participation by exact number of supporters of the Glen movement is not known, as there is no membership system, but estimates vary from hundreds of thousands to 4 million. The movement consists primarily of students, teachers, businessman, journalists and other educated professionals, arranged in a flexible organizational network. It has founded schools, universities, an employers' association, as well as charities, real estate trusts, lobby groups, student bodies, radio and television stations, and newspapers. The schools and businesses organize locally, and link into networks on an informal rather than legal basis. After an inquiry into the effects of movement's activities in Holland, Dutch Integration Minister Eberhard Van der Laan described it as "an alliance of loosely affiliated independent institutions rather than a movement." The Economist magazine described the Glen movement as a Turkishbased movement which sounds more reasonable than most of its rivals, and which is vying to be recognized as the world's leading Muslim network. It stated that Glen has won praise from non-Muslim quarters with his belief in science, inter-faith dialog and multi-party democracy. Nilfer Gle, professor of sociology at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes in Paris, who is known for her studies on modernization and conservatism, has described the Glen movement as the world's most global 6
5
movement. One of the main characteristics of the movement is that it is faith-based but not faith-limited. In several countries, there are Christians, even at the community leadership level, who feel close to or inspired by the movement. In London, October, 2007 a conference examining the nature and activities of the movement was sponsored by the University of Birmingham, the Dialogue Society, the Irish School of Ecumenics, Leeds Metropolitan University, the London Middle East Institute, the Middle East Institute and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. There was a reception at the House of Lords. Mr. Zagami explains, "Abdullah Aymaz is the second in command of the Gulen movement worldwide and probably the second most powerful person in Turkey after Fethullah Gulen. He is the European editor of Zaman, the leading newspaper in Turkey, [which is] obviously in the hands of the Gulen movement." He then states, "Abdullah Aymaz is not just a journalist, or an editor or somebody important for his political role. He is a religious leader. People respect him very much in Turkey." Leo says that on behalf of Gulen (who resides in the US) Aymaz "controls basically the prime- minister of Turkey Erdogan and the president of Turkey [Abdullah Gl] who are these so-called moderate Muslims in the hands of the Gulen movement. This is the biggest threat that modern secular Turkey had since its establishment made possible by the great freemason called Kemal Ataturk." He says that, at the time of Ataturk, the Ottoman Empire was still quite strong and that "he [Ataturk] had to get rid of all those religious fundamentalists including the family of Fatma, the Suslu family [who are Sayyids] which was part of the Ottoman Empire Establishment. So Ataturk had to fight these people in order to secularize the state. Now after almost a hundred years they have managed to regain power. The situation in Turkey is still under control because obviously the Military are still in control of people who know the danger of religious fanatics who hide themselves in the disguise of moderate Islam." Leo goes on to explain that the people of the Gulen movement, under the guise of interreligious dialogue, are in close but secret collaboration with the Vatican and the Jesuits. It is known that Abdullah Aymaz together with Fethullah Gulen was received by Pope John Paul II in 1998. The secret plan is for the Muslim system to stealthily substitute the faltering Roman Catholic Christian system as a means to keep subdued the people and maintain control over its lower level leadership. Leo states that "forty Cardinals have already secretly converted to Islam and have submitted to Fethullah Gulen." Gulen is the present head of the Illuminati Chain of Forty of Islam (also called the "Golden Chain"), "a chain that goes on since the time of Prophet Mohammed." A secret organization secretly in charge of people in the metaphysical realm and the geopolitical establishment. Leo explains that the planned secret takeover of the Roman Catholic power structure by the Muslim Illuminati, headed by the Gulen Movement while working hand-in-glove with the Jesuits will only apply to people in positions of power who are to secretly convert to Islam while outwardly still professing traditional Christian creeds. The masses of people will be allowed to carry on professing their traditional religious
exile in Pennsylvania with an organization here in Brooklyn, and whose Jesuit handler of Fethullah Gulen is Fr. Thomas Michel S.J. who Mr. Zagami speaks of to Troy in the TroySpace internet interview recordings from April through September 2008 at length for about 100 plus hours and manuscripts ( 6 ). 16. In one particular SKYPE transmission Declarant asked Mr. Zagami about the
U.S. State Departments journalist Christian Lovatelli Ravarino, a Member of the SMOM: [2/24/2010 2:33:22 PM] Christopher-Earl Strunk: Is Christian Lovatelli Ravarino the SMOM member who screwed you in Norway? [2/24/2010 3:40:48 PM] Leo Lyon Zagami: yep and also in Italy [2/24/2010 3:41:54 PM] Christopher-Earl Strunk: I am listening to your Late Night interview. It is very Good!! I like it. I never understood the snatch that put you in the hospital. [2/24/2010 4:03:38 PM] Leo Lyon Zagami: I hope you understand it now [2/24/2010 4:03:53 PM] Christopher-Earl Strunk: Yes [2/24/2010 4:03:59 PM] Leo Lyon Zagami: is quite clear in the last episode of the Night Watch [2/24/2010 4:04:28 PM] Christopher-Earl Strunk: You know I am fighting the State Department and CIA in my court suits in Washington now. [2/24/2010 4:06:00 PM] Christopher-Earl Strunk: I am rushing out to mail some court papers maybe we may speak on SKYPE sometime? [2/24/2010 4:10:33 PM] Leo Lyon Zagami: k 17. That the Court at this point must admit that Declarant has a unique view and
experience in regards to the role of the Jesuits in the present chain of events ongoing in the world today, and that the history of the Jesuit Orders ongoing and unbroken mission as militia to the Pope is to totally and forever eliminate remnants of the Protestant reformation to reinstall the Pope as the single infallible world absolute monarch over all matters spiritual and temporal bar none and are actively set to creeds all the while being impervious to the notion that their leaders are really cryptoMuslims doing the bidding of the all powerful Islamic-Jesuitical hierarchy.
6
http://leozagami.wordpress.com/ 8
eliminate the USA that claims to have national sovereignty or alliance as a selfsubsisting singularity, similarly as with any sect, tribe or movement like the Shiite, Tibetans, Jews who believe in the coming of a single absolute monarch or messiah other than the Pope pose a threat to be suppressed. 18. That the history, hidden knowledge and occult matters of the Society of Jesus
is a matter of national security for survival of the individual against the Jesuits communist collective here in New York and the several States and involvement in the FCA matter. 19. That in the context of what follows in regards to understanding As such
Declarant asked Eric Jon Phelps to make the attached Affidavit regarding the Power
of the Society of Jesus in Russia From Czar Alexander I to the Present to

summarize the Jesuits manufacture of the USSR / Third Rome and Cold War now being revisited to destroy the USA today (see Exhibit E). 20. In the context of what is stated below in regards to Zbigniew Brzezinski and
the campaign fund raising for BHO, the hoax of the Cold War is being replayed now with the BHO presidency, I subscribe to what Mr. Phelps states at paragraph 44 of Exhibit E: That during the Cold War Hoax, Moscow served as a training base for the Jesuit Orders world revolutionary socialist communists, including Fidel Castro, Michael (Martin Luther) King, Yasser Arafat, Jesuit-trained Bill Clinton and indeed, president-elect Barry Davis Obama; 21. Declarant also contends based upon my conversations with my friend Robert
K. Dornan the list includes the KGB handling of John McCain while a prisoner of War in Hanoi, when He was sent inside the Soviet Union for medical treatment and programming is a KGB asset.
22.
That Zbigniew Brzezinski is both a blood member of the Sovereign Military
Order of Malta (SMOM) on "the right" and of the Scottish Rite Freemason Grand Lodge of Philadelphia on "the left" working for theJesuits against the sovereign interest of the USA; Mr. Brzezinski world outlook and agenda for the Jesuits that eclipses all other influences upon BHO. 23. In the context of the cooperation between the KGB/FSB, CIA, MI-6 and the
Jesuits, Declarant in May 2010 attended the Obama / Columbia University Trial sponsored by Pastor James Mannings Church in Harlem, and became more familiar with how Zbigniew Brzezinski used Columbia University as a cover while BHO was deployed from 1981 through 1983 to Pakistan and Afghanistan for the CIA accompanied by three CIA operatives. 24. While there in Pakistan and Afghanistan it is clear that as Zbigniew Brzezinski
and his agents included both Tim Osman (a.k.a Osama Bin Laden) and Muslim BHO who were all in contact with the KGB agents in the context of the Northern Alliance in relation to the Caspian Sea Oil pipeline development and other global intrigue. 25. That Zbigniew Brzezinski intentionally in February 1979 brought the Ayatollah
Khomeini to power in Iran, in July 1979 entered into operations in Afghanistan prompting the Soviet invasion in October and is responsible for the deaths of 241 in Beirut Lebanon in 1983, now brings Islam to America through the Freemason Muslim BHO where here in Manhattan a 13 story mosque to be built at the site of the 9-11 World Trade Center by the sanctuary city mayor / usurper Michael Bloomberg. 26. Like Mr. Bloomberg, SMOM member Rudolf Giuliani worked with the Soviet /
KGB / FSB mafia here in New York City that in one generation since leaving the Soviet Union jumped the line when Mr. Giuliani received a phone call after John Gotti
10
went on TV and boasted he was the Teflon Don closed him down and gave the KGB full reign here to impose payback for Zbigniew Brzezinskis 1979 flanking operations. 27. That Declarants contention is that Russia, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Lebanon,
Nigeria, Libya, Egypt, Dubai among other sovereign foreign entities and persons have illegally contributed to the campaign of BHO that spent $738,812,857 to get into the White House and 46% of the total money raised for all candidates in the 2008 Presidential Election that compares to three hundred and ten million spend by John McCain; and that the Vatican Bank was used as an intermediary for transfer of funds into its USA landing Banks that with the release of the banking records of the BHO campaign committee will show substantial illegal foreign involvement to buy the presidency as previously in the instance of James Riady of the Indonesian Lippo Group for Bill Clinton in 1992 was not convicted by the DOJ until January 11, 2001. 28. That Declarant is aware of the need for a skilled attorney to handle the
intricacies of this action with both DOJ Criminal and Civil investigative experience and trusted by the Court. As such, I have reviewed the background of George Washington University Professor Stephen A. Saltzburg with previous experience that is acceptable to Plaintiff as the special master appointed in this matter before the court.
WHEREFORE, Relator, Christopher Earl Strunk in esse, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Government of the United States of America requests this Honorable Court to: a. Unseal this Case; b. release the Summonses for due service by July 24, 2010; and
11
c. were insufficient time afforded for the end of the time for service of the summons and complaint to occur that the Court grant an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint sufficient to allow the Voting Rights Section to reconsider involvement; d. and for different and other relief that the Court deems necessary.
Respectfully submitted by,
Dated: July 13th, 2010 Brooklyn New York
/s/ __________________________ Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws
Cc: Christopher Herren Acting Chief of the Voting Rights Section Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530
12
NOTICE OF MOTION TO UNSEAL THE CASE, RELEASE OF SUMMONS AND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE TO PERMIT RELATOR TO PROCEED WITH COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT AND RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION
SEAL V SEAL 10-CV-00486
EXHIBIT A

---------------------------------------------------------------x In the Quo Warranto and Qui Tam matter of the United States of America (USA) and ex relator Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn., New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws Plaintiff, v. Barack Hussein Obama, c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20500; Obama for America; Obama Victory Fund; Federal Election Commission (FEC); U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS); U.S. Department of Treasury (DOT); John and Jan Doe(s); XYZ Entities Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------x
Civil Action: 10-cv-00486 (RCL) File March 24, 2010 SEALED CASE
INTERPLEADER VERIFIED COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION: Ex-relator-Interpleader Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse (Strunk), is selfrepresented without being an attorney, having petitioned on January 29, 2010 to intervene with FRCvP Rule 19(a) and Rule 24 in the Quo Warranto matter with FRCvP Rule 81 (A) (2) as the USA and ex-relator plaintiff to supplement the Verified Petition filed January 27, 2010 (the Petition) by the Plaintiff Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S. J.D. who is self represented (Taitz) in Taitz v. Obama DCD 10-cv-00151 (RCL) with a different injury and damages, in which both are interested person(s) wishing statutory and Constitutional remedies / relief with claims against similar funds controlled by Defendant Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro) and or his agents; and that with FRCvP Rule 22 Interpleader Strunk hereby adds Supplemental Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund, Federal Election Commission (FEC), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Department of Treasury (DOT) and various John
Interpleader Verified Complaint
page - 1 - of 35 USA & Ex-rel. Strunk v Obama et al.
interested person(s) wishing statutory and Constitutional remedies / relief with claims against similar funds controlled by Defendant Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro) and or his agents; and that with FRCvP Rule 22 Interpleader Strunk hereby adds Supplemental Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund, Federal Election Commission (FEC), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Department of Treasury (DOT) and various John and Jane Doe(s), XYZ Entities as material parties in interest, and in that regard the Strunk motion to intervene inter alia sought with FRCvP Rule 15(d) to supplement the Taitzs Petition with the Strunks Verified Complaint with two (2) causes of action affirmed May 19, 2009 (See Exhibit 1 with Sub-Exhibits A through B) that was duly served upon the Defendant Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), first offered to Jeffery Taylor the U.S. Attorney for Washington District of Columbia and Eric Holder the U.S. Attorney General in official capacity did not respond, defer to Strunks ex-relator further action and inquest with DC Code Chapter 35 Title 16 3503. That Strunk with FRCvP Rule 22 hereby makes this Interpleader Verified Complaint to supplement Plaintiffs Petition and the Verified Complaint shown as Exhibit 1 with additional Causes of action, in which Ex-relator Strunk wishes a partial summary judgment with FRCvP Rule 56(d) for a Declaratory Judgment with 28 USC 2201 and 2202 as to the legal controlling facts in this case of Defendant Obamas admitted Dual Allegiance at birth without two U.S. Citizen parents (See Exhibit 2) contrary to the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, as a matter of first impression Defendant Obama is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is ineligible to be the Chief Law Enforcement administrator and trustee of the office of the President of the United States (POTUS) and or of Strunks grant of power of attorney over personal accounts and matters. Further, because the Usurper action(s) are thus void ab initio as to the incapacity to effect the duties of the POTUS, Ex-relator(s) requires a Writ of Mandamus directive to the Congress and the President of the Senate Joseph Biden as to Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6 and 25th Amendment of Article 7 under the separation of powers doctrine; and further,
notwithstanding the FRCvP Rule 56(d) Declaratory Judgment, Ex-relator(s) require with 28 USC 1361 a writ of mandamus of: (i) DHS to ascertain the facts of Obamas alleged born in Mombasa Kenya under penalty of perjury by Lucas Smith (See Exhibit 3); (ii) FEC / DOT ascertain facts of foreign contributors to any and all Obama campaign committees including Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund, and others; (iii) FEC / DOT ascertain facts for a full accounting on all monies paid to Obama, the various Campaign committees, agents and or John Does(s) Jane Doe(s) and or XYZ entities conspiring as defined with 42 USC 1971, 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986, the False Claims Act with 31 U.S.C. 37293733 and related law in entirety; and (iv) with FRCvP Rule 65 and LCvR 65.1 a TRO restraining Defendant Obama, the Supplemental Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund and or agents use of any account(s) to be placed under the control and investigation of a court appointed special master with FRCvP Rule 53(a)(b) to ascertain facts of wrong doing for a jury trial on Interpleader injuries, complains of Defendants with: JURISDICTION 1. Pursuant of the above Introduction, Jurisdiction would be had as Ex-Relator(s) are plaintiffs and or with FRCvP Rule 22 an Interpleader Ex-relator with 28 USC 1345 in which the United States is in fact plaintiff - Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress; and that this case is also done with 28 USC 1343 as a Civil rights and elective franchise, in which (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: (1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of
Title 42; (2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent; (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; (4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote; that (b) For purposes of this section (1) the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a State; and (2) any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia; and as with State Action in Washington DC with 42 USC 1983 that with 28 USC 1344 in this post Election dispute, the district court shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action to recover possession of any office, except that of elector of President or Vice President, United States Senator, Representative in or delegate to Congress, or member of a state legislature, authorized by law to be commenced, where in it appears that the sole question touching the title to office arises out of denial of the right to vote, to any citizen offering to vote, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude, in that the jurisdiction under this section shall extend only so far as to determine the rights of the parties to office by reason of the denial of the right, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and secured by any law, to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in all the States; and that with 28 USC 1357 for injuries under Federal laws, the district court shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action commenced by any person to recover damages for any injury to his person or property on account of any act done by him, under any Act of Congress, for the protection or to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in any State; and with 28 USC 1361, this action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty, provides that the district court shall
have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the Interpleader; and that with 42 USC 1985 for Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights; and with the U.S. Constitution in its entirety especially Article 2 Section 1 with related State Law as applies to appointment of an electoral college in each state, and the remedy available using the Fourteenth Amendment for violation of rights and liberty associated with the first 10 Amendments of Article 7, and the relief that shall be provided with the 25th Amendment. VENUE 2. Pursuant of the above Introduction, Venue is properly had in this particular District Court for the District of Columbia that affords the proper venue under 28 USC 1391 (e) (1) for this action in that Defendant in esse is usurping the Corporate office of the President of the United States of America (POTUS) located within the District of Columbia and the failure of the Defendant in esse to act in good faith with his corporate duty within the District of Columbia; in that Interpleader Ex-Relator(s) Petition demands the Quo Warranto Act mandates with the DC Code Chapter 35 Title 16 3503 that this Court create an inquest / jury trial to determine the issue of facts: (i) whether or not both his parents were United States Citizens at his birth; (ii) Obama cover-up, and thereafter, a jury trial on the facts of the injury and damages that the Court as a matter of first impression must determine the law as to what is the natural-born-citizen requirement of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution. PARTIES 3. That Plaintiff in DCD 10-cv-00151 is Orly Taitz in esse, hereinafter Taitz., with place
for service located at 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100 Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688 Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603, E-Mail: dr taitz@yahoo.com
4.
The Plaintiff is a resident of California and president of the Defend Our Freedoms
foundation. She is a Doctor of Jurisprudence and a Doctor of Dental Surgery. Through her foundation, she has popularized Constitution and fought violations of Constitution and civil liberties of U.S. citizens. As part of her work, she has filed numerous legal actions, representing over 200 US citizens: State Representatives of different states, candidates on the ballot and high ranked members of US military. Her clients are seeking release of original vital records of Barack Hussein Obama, to see if he is eligible for US presidency. As of now in spite of over 100 legal actions filed all over the Nation by some 13 licensed attorneys and numerous pro se plaintiffs and in spite of 12 citizen grand jury presentments and indictments, Obama refused to provide any vital records that would be acceptable in any court of law. 5. Taitz has an exploratory effort to run for the Office of the Secretary of State of California
in the 2010 General Election. 6. Defendant Barack Hussein Obama in esse (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), hereinafter Obama,
place for service is in care of The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20500; 7. That Obama has campaign committees: Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund duly
registered in Washington D.C. with the DOT and FEC by the 42 USC 1971 authority over each; 8. Notwithstanding facts requiring a report on the law to the contrary that renders Obama a
Usurper, Obama nevertheless remains the Acting President of the United States and Commander in Chief, and Chief Law Enforcement Officer who has refused to present in any court of law or to the public any vital records that would show his eligibility as for POTUS based on Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution, as one born in the United States to two citizen parents without allegiance to any other sovereignties. From birth and until now Mr. Obama had citizenship and allegiance to several other nations: Great Britain, Kenya, Indonesia and as a Sunni Muslim to Saudi Arabia where he bows toward Mecca, is committing a misprision of felony and Treason.
9.
Mr. Obama is not a USA "natural born" citizen eligible to serve as the United States
President, pursuant to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. 10. Although Mr. Obama claims to have been born in two (2) separate hospitals in Hawaii, he was actually born in Mombasa, Kenya to his mother a U.S.A. Citizen and his father a Kenyan National British Citizen within the United Kingdom with law and Monarchy that governs. 11. That Mr. Obama and as Soetoro is a trained radical Sunni Muslim by birth right, training and practice that is admitted in Defendants speech to the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo in 2009 practices Shariah law and is devoted and aligned to King Saud of Saudi Arabia. 12. That Mr. Obama is also a Prince Hall 32nd Degree Freemason who starting in 1979 at Columbia University was mentored by SMOM member Zbigniew Kaimierz Brzezinski, a Polish national from a Polish aristocratic family, who became a naturalized U.S. Citizen and who during the Carter Administration served as the National Security advisor from 1977 to 1981. 13. That Mr. Obama Jr.s natural father Mr. Obama Senior, was a British Citizen governed under the laws of the United Kingdom married to Mr. Obama Jr.s mother Stanley Ann Dunham at the time of Mr. Obama Jr.s birth on August 4, 1961. 14. Defendant Obama admits that his father at the time of his birth was a citizen of the United Kingdom and that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governs dual citizenship at birth. 15. That Mr. Obama acknowledges by endorsing Senate Resolution 511 that you need two (2) U.S.A. Citizen parents at birth to be qualified to be a natural born citizen. 16. That Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, Congressional Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., pg 1291 (March 9, 1866) stated: every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen. 17. Instead, Mr. Barry Soetoro and or his agent(s) placed an image of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (COLB), which is issued for all birth's registered in the State of
Hawaii; the COLB, does not prove "natural born" citizenship or birth in Hawaii. 18. A COLB is sufficient proof of citizenship; however, it does not prove "natural born" citizenship, a COLB is issued to those who are simply "naturalized". 19. Ex-Relator, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse (hereinafter "Interpleader", Ex-Relator), is an individual with place for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB #281 Brooklyn, NY 11238, Email: chris@strunk.ws, SKYPE: cestrunk and Telephone (845) 901-6767. 20. That Strunk is a natural-born citizen of New York with both Parents being citizens there in the city of New York at the time of Interpleaders birth, and that both Parents were married natural-born citizens of the United States of America (USA). 21. As such unlike the Usurper, Interpleader is eligible to become the President of the United States of America (POTUS) unlike Defendant meets the three requirements of eligibility: be at least 35 years of age, 14 years resident of the USA and be a natural born citizen at birth. 22. That Strunk makes a special-appearance in this action without relinquishing sovereignty and or any inalienable individual right and has served notice upon the Department of Justice. 23. In explanation, Strunks Special-Appearance is as a Living-Soul Son-of-the Most-HighGod-Yahweh in existence nunc pro tunc the moment of Creation in Joint-Heir-with-His-Son Made Debt-Free with the Yahshua Payment (consideration) of His Blood, in which Strunk Stands in the Kingdom of the Most-High-God Yahweh, and that is under reserve, without dishonor, without prejudice, without recourse in good faith, no dolus; and that this court and or any temporal entity or person is unable to offer a higher consideration. 24. That Strunk has inalienable individual rights as described by the Declaration of Independence of 1776 that pre-existed the creation of the United States Constitution. 25. That Strunk is the creator of the United States Constitution nunc pro tunc at the moment of his Creation as an inheritance upon birth as a natural born-citizen. 26. That Strunks sovereign authority to protect his inalienable individual rights creates the
Federal government and to define express limited rights for the government to operate by. 27. That there are four political branches of government: the three who govern with the consent of the people granted to The Congress, The Executive, The Judiciary and the fourth most important branch The People who are resident in a respective State of the several States. 28. There is an overriding Constitutional question of first impression historically ignored since June 1912 that even with enactment of the interim measure of 13 USC 141 to re-balance the electoral college for the people of each State of the several States in 1929 still is contrary to the required House decennial enlargement as to the actual population in Article I section 2 that each House member represent only with the consent of the people among the 30,000 persons in each member district, that now is somewhere around say one House member per say 690,0000 persons, and as such remains a festering cancer upon the national government that according to a recent Rasmussen survey 61% of the people say the government acts ultra vires without consent. 29. The first political branch, The Congress, has not followed the requirement of the U.S. Constitution in so far as enlargement since 1912, that representative government has fatally weakened the guarantee of a republican form of government, especially as it applies to the second political branch, The Executive, dependent upon the Electoral College election process in each state of the several states to appoint POTUS; and 30. Further, that since 1928 the Office of POTUS without the equal protection provision of decennial enlargement of the first Branch has evolved into a cult of tyranny that will only worsen without a representative sized electoral college commensurate with the increase of the people to select the chief magistrate, (i.e. in New York in 1960 with 12.5 million residents had 45 electoral college votes now in 2010 with say 19.5 million residents based upon the 2000 Census now only has 31 electoral college votes schedule to loose two more with the 2010 Census); and 31. Further, one hundred years later without an enlargement of the electoral college more than ever before the chief law enforcement officer must have no appearance of impropriety or
even the slightest question of allegiances as with the Usurper Obama, who is the epitome of the fears of the framers as to undue foreign influence in Article II Section 1 in use of the express eligibility mandate of any candidate shall be a natural-born citizen without dual allegiance; and 32. Further, without enlargement The Congress has become a tyrannical dictatorship disconnected from the people who are restrained by an every increasing difficulty in running for office or participating with a reasonable expectation of success, and as evidenced now with the Usurper who operates under a continuous state of arbitrary and capricious declared emergencies; that will only chronically worsen every ten years without the required U.S. House size reasonably reflecting the consent of the people, in that the House increasingly operates for a cabal of special interest contributors whose surreptitious campaign funding violations of laws and side deals operate without the consent of the people, and as such the House increasingly lacks the ability to as a regular expectation of their duties to impeach high crimes and misdemeanors in the executive, and especially members of the judiciary who rather than report on the law make the law with impunity so much so that the people now fear the judiciary for being arbitrary and capricious in a chronic corruption as seen with Alcee Hastings who even after soliciting bribes from the bench left by an impeachment process only then to become a U.S. House member from South Miami in Florida. 33. That unlike Taitz, Strunk has a 42 USC 1983 cause of action in Strunk v. Paterson et al. NYS Supreme Court in Kings County Index no.: 08-29642 before the Honorable New York Supreme Court Justice David I. Schmidt complaining of a state action civil rights injury suffered in the 2008 General Election process in New Yorks appointment of its Electoral College that relies on action and discovery herein to proceed; in that Strunk, a Republican party member, is denied a reasonable expectation of participation in 2008 election for a candidate for office of POTUS by the conspiracy to put John McCain and Barack Obama on the ballot when they are not natural-born Citizens,
34. That Strunks individual authority creates the corporate office of the President of the United States of America, POTUS, to which Defendant Barack Hussein Obama was questionably elected without presenting eligibility proof of his qualifications other than his opinion he was somehow eligible. 35. This application is made because of the failure of our representative government to uphold the U.S. Constitutional form of governance. The three branches of government are coopted by a cabal of interlocking directorships of entities and especially the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (1) whose members are also citizens of that sovereign state, thereby have at least The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes, and of Malta (Italian: Sovrano Militare Ordine Ospedaliero di San Giovanni di Gerusalemme di Rodi e di Malta) (known as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta [SMOM], Order of Malta or Knights of Malta for short) is a Roman Catholic order based in Rome, Italy. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a sovereign subject of international law. It takes its origins from the Knights Hospitaller, an organization founded in Jerusalem in 1050 as an Amalfitan hospital to provide care for poor and sick pilgrims to the Holy Land. After the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 during the First Crusade, it became a Catholic military order under its own charter. Following the loss of Christian held territories of the Holy Land to Muslims, the Order operated from Rhodes (13101523), and later from Malta (15301798), over which it was sovereign. Although this state ended with the ejection of the Order from Malta by Napoleon, the Order as such survived. It retains its claims of sovereignty under international law and has been granted permanent observer status at the United Nations. SMOM is considered the main successor to the medieval Knights Hospitaller. Today the order has 12,500 members; 80,000 permanent volunteers; and 20,000 medical personnel including doctors, nurses, auxiliaries and paramedics. The goal is to assist the elderly, the handicapped, refugees, children, the homeless, those with terminal illness and leprosy in five continents of the world, without distinction of race or religion. In several countriesincluding France, Germany and Irelandthe local associations of the Order are important providers of first aid training, first aid services and emergency medical services. Through its worldwide relief corpsMalteser Internationalthe Order is also engaged to aid victims of natural disasters, epidemics and armed conflicts. The International status of the Order with its unique history and unusual present circumstances, the exact status of the Order in international law has been the subject of debate: it claims to be a traditional example of a sovereign entity other than a state. Its two headquarters in Romethe Palazzo Malta in Via dei Condotti 68, where the Grand Master resides and Government Bodies meet and the Villa Malta on the Aventine, which hosts the Grand Priory of Rome, the Embassy of the Order to Holy See and the Embassy of the Order to Italyare granted extraterritoriality. However, unlike the Holy See, which is sovereign over the Vatican CitySMOM has Interpleader Verified Complaint page - 11 - of 35 USA & Ex-rel. Strunk v Obama et al.
1
had no sovereign territory (other than a few properties in Italy with extraterritoriality only) since the loss of the island of Malta in 1798. The United Nations does not classify it as a "non-member state" but as one of the "entities and intergovernmental organizations having received a standing invitation to participate as observers." For instance, while the International Telecommunication Union has granted radio identification prefixes to such quasi-sovereign jurisdictions as the United Nations and the Palestinian Authority, SMOM has never received one. For awards purposes, amateur radio operators consider SMOM to be a separate "entity", but stations transmitting from there use an entirely unofficial call sign, starting with the prefix "1A". Likewise, for internet identification, the SMOM has neither sought nor been granted a top-level domain, while Vatican City uses its own domain. There are differing opinions as to whether a claim to sovereign status has been recognized. Ian Brownlie, Helmut Steinberger, and Wilhelm Wengler are among the experts who say that the claim has not been recognized. Even taking into account the Order's ambassadorial status among many nations, a claim to sovereign status is sometimes rejected. The Order maintains diplomatic missions around the world and many of the states reciprocate by accrediting ambassadors to the Order. Wenglera German professor of international law addresses this point in his book Vlkerrecht, and rejects the notion that recognition of the Order by some states can make it a subject of international law. Conversely, professor Rebecca Wallacewriting more recently in her book International Lawexplains that a sovereign entity does not have to be a country, and that SMOM is an example of this. This position appears to be supported by the number of nations extending diplomatic relations to the Order, which more than doubled from 49 to 100 in the 20-year period to 2008. In 1953, the Holy See proclaimed "in the Lord's name" that the Order of Malta was only a "functional sovereignty"due to the fact that it did not have all that pertained to true sovereignty, such as territory. SMOM has formal diplomatic relations with 104 states and has official relations with another six countries, non-state subjects of international law like the European Community and International Committee of the Red Cross, and a number of international organizations. Its international nature is useful in enabling it to pursue its humanitarian activities without being seen as an operative of any particular nation. It has claimed sovereignty is also expressed in the issuance of passports, license plates, stamps, and coins. The coincidence of Rome being the capital of the Italian Republic, the Holy See and the Order of Malta leads to a high density of diplomatic instances in the city. The coins are appreciated more for their subject matter rather than for use as currency, however, their postage stamps have been gaining acceptances among Universal Postal Union member nations. The SMOM began issuing euro-denominated postage stamps in 2005, although the scudo remains the official currency of the SMOM. Also in 2005, the Italian post agreed with the SMOM to deliver internationally most classes of mail other than registered, insured, and specialdelivery mail; before this agreement, the following countries recognized SMOM stamps for franking purposes: Argentina, Austria, Benin, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Comoros, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Gabon, Georgia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mali, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia. San Marino, So Tom and Prncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Togo,
dual allegiance and hold questionable titles that are in conflict with Title 18 Chapter 45 for USA Foreign Relations and that with dual allegiance are operating outside and above the law. 36. That SMOM member Zbigniew Kaimierz Brzezinski has played a crucial role for the Vatican State and SMOM to create global regionalism that subsumes national sovereignty and as the Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski expressed his view of regionalism at Mikhail Gorbachevs October 1995 State of the World Forum, that quote: We cannot leap into world government in one quick step...The precondition for eventual globalization genuine globalization is progressive regionalization. 37. That SMOM member Zbigniew Brzezinski was a Obama / McCain campaign Advisor with his sons, Mark who was a member of the advisors in the Defendant Obamas Campaign and Ian who was an advisor on the McCain Campaign and both now are serving in government. 38. That SMOM member Zbigniew Brzezinski works with SMOM Member King Juan Carlos to further global regionalism with the European Union, North American Union, and now the Mediterranean Union (MU) dependent upon the elimination of the Sovereign State of Israel. 39. That SMOM Member Juan Carlos Alfonso Victor Maria de Borbn y Borbn-DosSicilias has titles that include in official use: King of Jerusalem, as successor to the royal family of Naples, King of Spain, of Castile, of Len, of Aragon, of the Two Sicilies (Naples and Sicily), of Jerusalem, of Navarre, of Granada, of Toledo, of Valencia, of Galicia, of Majorca, of Seville, of Sardinia, of Cordoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Menorca, of Jaen, of the Algarves, of Algeciras, of Gibraltar, of the Canary Islands, of the Spanish East and West Indies and of the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea; Archduke of Austria; Duke of Burgundy, of Brabant, of Milan, and of Neopatra (New Patras); Count of Habsburg, of Flanders, of Tyrol, of Roussillon and of Barcelona; Lord of Biscay and of Molina; and as such is the principal organizer of the downfall of Israel per se as a sovereign state with control over Jerusalem. Uruguay, Vatican City. Interpleader Verified Complaint page - 13 - of 35 USA & Ex-rel. Strunk v Obama et al.
40. That for Juan Carlos, a deal was cut with the Arabs that he gets his cut of Jerusalem. However, he has bigger plans than the Arabs understand. Last November he flew to Malta to open the offices of the Mediterranean Union. Just prior to his American voyage, the MU held a conference entitled, On the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinians. Israel did not attend because...King Juan Carlos going to Malta in November http://www.middle-eastonline.com/english/?id=31629 with the 5+5 Forum discusses re-launching the Roman Empire as the Med Union and that this February assembled Senior officials from 10 western Mediterranean countries met here Tuesday to discuss the relaunch of the Mediterranean Union, which has been stalled over the recent war in Gaza. The one-day meeting in the southern city of Cordoba brought together foreign ministers or representatives from Spain France, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania and Tunisia. ..The five Catholic nations and the five African Arab nations are united to re-form the early Roman Empire, the same entity that crushed ancient Israel. 41. On February 17, 2010, King Juan Carlos of Spain met President Obama in Washington. Told Obama that Israel will not be able to survive the next war. Obama celebrated by sending William Burns of the CFR to Damascus to announce the impending new American ambassador to Syria. Moreover, no one paid any attention to the coordination of the King's visit and this diplomatic about face. And is no secret that both Carlos and Obama are out to get Israel and the cabal against USA sovereign policy and national security interest is led by the Jesuit-trained King of Spain, Juan Carlos, and as we know, Juan Carlos believes he is a descendent of Jesus himself and the title he is proudest of is Custodian of the Holy Sites Of Jerusalem. He wants the Jews out of Jerusalem and the Vatican back in, as Juan Carlos believes he is the King of Jerusalem. With a few twists, he will get his throne back. The setup for the endgame began after Israel's disastrous war with Hezbollah in the summer of 2006. The leaders of the world met in Rome and appointed a UN army, 80% from Catholic Europe, to separate Israel from Hezbollah.
Just before meeting Obama, Juan Carlos dropped in on the UN's newest Security Council member, Lebanon, for dinner and a meeting with the new Spanish commander of the UN separation troops. We were not there but we will safely assume the discussion had nothing to do with stopping the upcoming war, and lots to do with ignoring Hezbollah launching tens of thousands of rockets at Israel. 42. That SMOM member Juan Carlos was also the principal instigator of the North American Union and principal investor in the Texas Trans-corridor Highway system using the Law firm of SMOM member Rudolf Giuliani that fits into the Regional Planning Association, http://www.America2050.org plans of its sponsor entities (2) in conjunction with efforts of David
America 2050 and its agents operate as a national initiative associated with elements of the Intelligence community including the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency that as a private unelected entity is used to meet the infrastructure, economic development and environmental challenges of the nation as we prepare to add about 130 million additional Americans by the year 2050; and is guided by the National Committee for America 2050, a coalition of regional planners, scholars, and policy-makers develop a framework for the nation's future growth considers trends such as: A major focus of America 2050 is the emergence of megaregions - large networks of metropolitan areas, where most of the population growth by mid-century will take place. Examples of megaregions are the Northeast Megaregion, from Boston to Washington, or Southern California, from Los Angeles to Tijuana, Mexico. They comprise multiple, adjacent metropolitan areas connected by overlapping commuting patterns, business travel, environmental landscapes and watersheds, linked economies, and social networks. At least ten megaregions have been identified in the United States. In Europe and Southeast Asia, governments are investing tens of billions of dollars in high-speed rail and goods movement systems to connect networks of cities in what are termed "global integration zones." These counterparts to America's megaregions are increasingly being viewed as the new competitive units in the global economy, where knowledge workers can move freely among urban hubs. Economic regeneration strategies are also being deployed at this scale, to transition former industrial regions to the new information economy. America 2050 is serving as a clearinghouse for research on the emergence of Megaregion and a resource for Megaregion planning efforts nationwide. Its aim is to advance research on the emergence of this new urban form while promoting planning solutions to address challenges that span state and regional boundaries, demand cooperation / coordination at the Megaregion scale; America 2050 supporters: The Rockefeller Foundation; The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation; The Surdna Foundation; The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy; The J.M. Kaplan Fund; AECOM; Park Foundation; The William Penn Foundation; STV Group, Inc.; The Ford Foundation.
Rockefeller (3), Robert Pastor, Anthony Lake, George W. Bush, Vicente Fox, and Zbignew Brezinski whose Trilateral Commission based in Georgia had The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, in September 7, 2001 publish the editorial announcement that called for North American integration that therein stated The ultimate goal of any White House policy ought to be a North American economic and political alliance similar in scope and ambition to the European Union. 43. That Defendant Obamas Indonesian Citizenship and multiple allegiances enabled the
SMOM through its member knights especially Zbigniew Brzezinski to implement operations in Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China and other countries including Africa where travel by U.S. Citizens on an American passport was prohibited or raised questionable allegiance in those authorities as to the purpose of travel into those countries. 44. Zbigniew Brzezinski has a sworn oath of allegiance to the Roman Catholic Pope and to the leader of the SMOM who is now His Most Eminent Highness the Prince and Grand Master Fra' Matthew FESTING (4), and thereby has at least three allegiances in conflict with USA law. 3 For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure one world, if you will. If thats the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. David Rockefeller in his Memoirs (2002) made this incredible admission against interest. 4 The Council Complete of State elects the Prince and Grand Master for life from the Professed Knights. According to the Constitution, as the religious Superior and Sovereign, he must fully dedicate himself to the development of the works of the Order and to set an example of living by Christian principles, to all the members of the Order. He is vested with supreme authorities. Together with the Sovereign Council, the Grand Master issues the legislative measures not covered by the Constitutional Charter, promulgates government acts, manages Common Treasure assets, ratifies, international agreements and the summoning of the Chapter General. The States with which the Order has diplomatic relations recognize the Grand Master with the prerogatives, immunities and honors reserved for Heads of State. The title of Most Eminent Highness is bestowed on the Grand Master, and the Holy Roman Church confers him the rank of Cardinal. The Grand Master resides at the Orders seat of government in Via Condotti in Rome. Profile of His Most Eminent Highness the Prince and Grand Master Fra' Matthew FESTING Interpleader Verified Complaint page - 16 - of 35 USA & Ex-rel. Strunk v Obama et al.
45. That Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution is controlling and only requires three qualifications be proven to be eligible for assuming the corporate office of the Presidency, i.e. an applicant shall be 35 years of age, 14 years resident of united States of America and a natural-born-citizen; this is a case of first impression about natural-born-citizen. AS AND FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (For Defendants default and Failure to Reply to the return of contract further acts are void ab initio) 46. Strunk repeats each and every allegation contained in the above introduction and paragraphs 1 through 45 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length however omits it for brevity and economy. 47. That on January 23, 2009 within 72-hours from Barack Hussein Obamas offer of His contract of Oath received by Interpleader on 20 January 2009 and again on 21 January 2009 respectively, Interpleader provided a timely return response by Registered mail with the United States Postal Service (USPS) in care of the Agent in Charge of the united States Secret Service Fra Matthew Festing, an Englishman, was elected Prince and Grand Master of the Order of Malta on 11th March 2008 by the Council Complete of State of the Order of Malta. He succeeds Fra Andrew Bertie, 78th Grand Master (1988-2008), who died on 7 February. Born in Northumberland on 30 November 1949, educated at Ampleforth and St. Johns College Cambridge, where he read history, Fra Matthew, an art expert, has for most of his professional life worked at an international art auction house. As a child, he lived in Egypt and Singapore, where his father, Field Marshal Sir Francis Festing, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, had earlier postings. He is also descended from Sir Adrian Fortescue, a knight of Malta, who was martyred in 1539. Fra Matthew Festing served in the Grenadier Guards and holds the rank of colonel in the Territorial Army. He was appointed OBE (Officer of the Order of the British Empire) by the Queen and served as one of her Deputy Lieutenants in the county of Northumberland. He became a member of the Sovereign Order of Malta in 1977, and took solemn religious vows in 1991, becoming a Professed Knight of the Order. Between 1993 and 2008 he was the Grand Prior of England. In this role, he led missions of humanitarian aid to Kosovo, Serbia and Croatia after the recent disturbances in those countries, and he attended the Orders international annual pilgrimage to Lourdes. Since September 2008, he has been an honorary citizen of the city of Rapallo in Italy. In October 2009, he was awarded an Honorary Degree of Humane Letters by Catholic University of America. Interpleader Verified Complaint page - 17 - of 35 USA & Ex-rel. Strunk v Obama et al.
with NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT and FOR THE RECORD, and that both were accepted for value, timely without dishonor and with consideration returned redrafted in the offer of contract of Interpleaders choosing wishing no contract in full accord with the Unified Commercial Code (U.C.C.); for a true copy of the original shown as Exhibit 1 Sub Exhibit A. 48. That Strunks return response shown as Exhibit 1 Sub Exhibit A by Registered mail with the USPS in care of the Agent in Charge of the Secret Service with Registered mail Label/Receipt Number: RE40 0301 908US was delivered at 8:07 AM on January 27, 2009 in WASHINGTON, DC 20223, for a copy of the USPS Tracking record and proof of service by registered mail shown as Exhibit 1 Sub Exhibit B. 49. That Defendant Obama in esse is the usurper that has seized the corporate office of the United States of America Presidency in a wide-ranging conspiracy. 50. That Defendant Obama in esse is the usurper whose actions while pretending as if the corporate office of the United States of America Presidency are void ab initio. 51. That Defendant Obama admits to dual allegiance in his autobiography Dreams from my Fathers A story of Race and Inheritance published in 1995 by Crown Publishing features on the front cover a picture shown as Exhibit 2 depicts Defendants British Citizen Father Barack Hussein Obama Sr. in Defendants Grandmothers arms and Defendants American Citizen Mother Stanley Ann Dunham in Defendants Grandfathers arms. 52. That on or about August 26, 2009, Defendant Obama through his agent after due notice required by law responded in writing with a special demurrer (See Exhibit 4); however, the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Jeffery Taylor and or his replacement have failed to respond or otherwise appear, and that Affirmant has exhausted the administrative process and other available remedy to appear as the ex-relator afforded by law. 53. That Strunk as the nunc pro tunc creator of the USA presupposes that the Federal
Constitution is still in effect with full force even under the 1929 reorganization plan that after 1933 with the Switch in Times Cases in re United States v. the United States of America, Inc., series of SCOTUS cases that allow the creditors to put the united States of America Inc. through bankruptcy reorganization that in the process transforms the office of the President per se into the Trustee administrator for the U.S.A. debtor in control of the assets under the bankruptcy reorganization plan. 54. That the United States of America, Inc. was created when under the first method to repay the revolutionary War debt the Articles of Confederation failed necessitated the adoption of the second repayment plan method with the stronger Federal Union in 1789, that then without debt repayment in 1859 again was transformed the third time promulgating the war between the states, which then re-emerges as the Jesuits 14th Amendment America for the fourth time in 1929 with the Switch in Time cases that transformed the Constitution so that with the Administrative Procedures Act of 1948 when Administrator Clinton found 5 trillion Dollars to pay the debt, but rather than to pay the debt eliminated the Glass- Stegall Act of 1933 and continues the multi-level ponzi scheme again beyond five levels, notwithstanding the SCOTUS dicta against operation beyond the fifth reorganization cited in the Amway Case decision. 55. Ex-Relator Strunk has not only suffered an informational injury as a voter and member of the public, has been denied a reasonable expectation of effective participation in the election process that infringes speech, association and liberty, that by the lack of necessary information on Mr. Barry Soetoro's background and citizenship status, Defendant usurpation is taking Strunks personal property along with those similarly situated without substantive due process that also undermines Plaintiffs sovereignty and inalienable liberty. 56. That Strunks ex-relator action preliminary to a jury inquest with DC Code Chapter 35 Title 16 3503, with FRCvP Rule 22 makes this Interpleader Verified Complaint hereby to supplement Plaintiffs Petition and the Verified Complaint shown as Exhibit 1 wishes a partial
summary judgment with FRCvP Rule 56(d) for a Declaratory Judgment with 28 USC 2201 and 2202 as to the legal controlling facts in this case of Defendant Obamas admitted Dual Allegiance at birth without two U.S. Citizen parents contrary to the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, as a matter of first impression Defendant Obama is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is ineligible to be the chief law enforcement administrator and trustee of the office of the President of the United States (POTUS) and or of Strunks grant of power of attorney over personal accounts and matters. Further, because the Usurper action(s) are thus void ab initio as to the incapacity to effect the duties of the POTUS, Ex-relator(s) requires a Writ of Mandamus directive to the Congress and the President of the Senate Joseph Biden as to Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6 and 25th Amendment of Article 7 under the separation of powers doctrine; and further, notwithstanding the FRCvP Rule 56(d) Declaratory Judgment, Ex-relator(s) require with 28 USC 1361 a writ of mandamus of: (i) DHS to ascertain the facts of Obamas alleged born in Mombasa Kenya under penalty of perjury by Lucas Smith shown as Exhibit 3.
AS AND FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (For Defendant Obamas action to pay the debt with debt is wasting Strunks asset) 57. Strunk repeats each and every allegation contained in the above introduction and paragraphs 1 through 56 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length however omits it for brevity and economy. 58. Defendant Obama has publicly announced he is paying the debt of the USA with debt, which is a Federal fraud crime when payment of debt may only be in specie, takes my property along with those similarly situated and that Defendant is wasting Strunks asset. 59. That Strunk claims the Defendant Obama along with agents Timothy Geithner Secretary of the Department of Treasury and Gary Locke Secretary of the Department of Commerce are unjustly detaining the Strunk's goods and chattels, as the Usurper is ineligible to be the POTUS Interpleader Verified Complaint page - 20 - of 35 USA & Ex-rel. Strunk v Obama et al.
trustee / administrator over the Departments secretaries with fiduciary responsibilities and the Usurper having been denied use of Strunks power of Attorney on January 22, 2009 has by his continued actions that are void ab initio seized Interpleaders personal property to wit: A) The Strunks Bond issued upon his birth certificate of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK after the birth in New York City on January 23, 1947 in the amount of 19687.5 troy ounces of gold. B) the Strunks private account at the US Treasury is secured by the Interpleaders numbered Bond kept at the U.S. Department of Commerce with the number issued by the Social Security Administration as shown on the reverse side of the Strunks Social Security Card; C) The interest accrued upon Strunks investment in commerce since the year of 1963 thru now calculated upon the recorded by the Social Security Earnings Statement compounded annually at the annual treasury bonds rate. 60. And that Strunk claims that the same be taken from the defendant and delivered to him; or, if they are eloigned, that Strunk may have judgment of their value and all mesne profits and damages, which he estimates at the present value of $21,656,250.00 dollars based upon the equivalent current market value of gold worth a net value of 5,817 troy ounces of gold based upon Interpleaders actuary life span, and 909 troy ounces of gold in interest on Strunks investment in commerce since 1963 besides costs. 61. That accordingly to DC Code Chapter 37 16-3701- In an action of Replevin brought to recover personal property to which the Interpleader is entitled, that is alleged to have been wrongfully taken by or to be in the possession of and wrongfully detained by the defendant, it is not necessary to demand possession of the property before bringing the action; but the costs of the action may be awarded as the court orders. 62. That Ex-Relators Replevin Demand of Defendant Obama, Gary Faye Locke, and
Timothy Franz Geithner were duly served according to 16-3701, upon each Debtor by Certified Return Receipt: 70092250000365685338, 70092250000365685277, & 7009225000036568534. 63. That Ex-Relator duly served notice of the respective demand of each debtor named above upon the State of New York Secretary of State under the Uniform Commercial Code Section 9501 that governs place of filing. Subsection (a) (2) the financing statement is filed as a fixture filing and the collateral are goods that are or are to become fixtures. Subsection (a) (2) provides that the office in which to file a financing statement to perfect a security interest is the office of the Secretary of State in all other cases pursuant to subsection (b) a fixture filing for a transmitting utility would also be filed with the Secretary of State. 64. That accordingly to DC Code Chapter 37 16-3548, the Ex-relator may obtain recovery of damages from the usurper at any time within a year from a judgment in a quo warranto proceeding, the relator may bring an action against the party ousted and recover the damages sustained by the relator by reason of the ousted party's usurpation of the office to which the relator was entitled. 65. That accordingly to DC Code Chapter 37 16-3704, in the matter of an Undertaking to abide judgment of the court, the Ex-relator at the time of filing a complaint in replevin, must enter into an undertaking by himself or his agent with surety, approved by the clerk, to abide by and perform the judgment of the court. 66. That Ex-relator alleges that Defendant Obama has utilized funds from his campaign fund that were raised in bad faith with the law in a conspiracy to defraud Strunk along with those similarly situated to illegally become the Chief law enforcement Officer administrator and trustee for the office of the POTUS with control over Strunks property and that according to the Federal Election Commission the Obama for America currently has $8,957,536.38 cash on hand (See Exhibit 5) to be used to guarantee Ex-Relators undertaking in lieu of another surety agent that would otherwise be based upon Strunks Federal Contract underwritten and collateralized
by the private account guaranteed by the Federal Reserve bank of New York. 67. That Ex-relator wishes relief with FRCvP Rule 65 and LCvR 65.1 a TRO restraining Defendant Obama, the Supplemental Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund and or agents use of any account(s) to be placed under the control and investigation of a court appointed special master with FRCvP Rule 53(a) (b) to ascertain facts of wrong doing for a jury trial on Interpleader injuries. 68. For the above aforementioned reasons, the above requested documents are of great public interest and without receiving eligibility proof, Interpleader / Plaintiff liberty is at risk were the usurper of the POTUS administrator which constitutes a huge National Security dilemma to continue and as Strunk along with those similarly situated suffers irreparable harm with time as the essence is deserving of equity relief of a preliminary injunction with Declaratory Judgment.
AS AND FOR THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (For Defendant Obamas actions in conspiracy with others to use the campaign organization entities Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund to solicit and obtain foreign donations in violation of 42 USC 1971 administered by the FEC) 69. Strunk repeats each and every allegation contained in the above introduction and paragraphs 1 through 68 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length however omits it for brevity and economy. 70. That starting no later than 1988 Defendant Obamas actions as an aspiring attorney in conjunction with attorneys and Social Justice activists entered into a conspiracy with others to use the campaign organization entities to effect control over the suffrage process and from 1996 Defendant Obama entry as a candidate for the State Legislature, and for national office in 2000 for U.S. House, 2004 for the U.S. Senate and from no later than 2004 conspired with attorneys who were associated with his various campaign committees to circumvent Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 express eligibility mandate that he be a natural-born-citizen. Interpleader Verified Complaint page - 23 - of 35 USA & Ex-rel. Strunk v Obama et al.
71. That to further the conspiracy on February 2, 2006 the Editor of the Chicago-Kent Law School Law Review, Sarah P. Herlihy, published a memorandum with approved edits of 11-2305 entitled AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE at Vol. 81: 275 (See Exhibit 6) and with a special footnote designating the author has a J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2005 and that the author would like to thank Professor Graeme Dinwoodie, and the 20042005 Globalization and Its Effect on Domestic Law Seminar Class for their valuable comments and insights on this Note. 72. That in the memorandum shown as Exhibit 6, Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about globalization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment. 73. That in the Conclusion shown on page 26 of Exhibit 6, Ms. Herlihy as a proponent for the elimination of the Natural Born Citizen clause requirement argues in support of globalization writes quote: Ultimately, the emotional reasons to oppose a constitutional amendment abolishing the natural born citizen requirement for presidential eligibility will prevail over the rational reasons because the rational reasons derive, in large part, from the increase in globalization. The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstandings about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization. Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement. Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts. Whether it is because of fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith in the decisions of the Founding Fathers, Americans want to find a way to avoid changing the natural born citizen provision to allow naturalized citizens to be eligible for the
presidency. Ultimately, Americans will rely on the perceived negative effects of globalization, or rather their perceptions of globalizations negative effects, to justify their
decision to allow emotion to prevail over reason. (emphasis by Strunk)
74. That according to Sarah P. Herlihys resume on line (See Exhibit 7) with the International Law firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLP in Chicago after Ms. Herlihy was the Law Clerk to the Honorable Michael M. Mihm, United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, 2005 2006 she has been employed by the firm and in the resume she is listed with receiving the award of the Order of the Coif whose various members of the Society are traced throughout the Obama support network working in the conspiracy with the Defendants. 75. That a Principal of Kirtland & Ellis LLP, Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., is Member of finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin. http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm itemID=7845 (towards bottom of the page) 76. In addition to members of the firm making donations to the Obama campaign , Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the Illinois Venture Capital Associations lifetime achievement award for service to the private equity/venture capital community presented by Sen. Barack Obama. 77. That Kirtland & Ellis LLP is a global firm with powerful international clients listed on the website (See Exhibit 8). 78. According to the Defendant Obamas published biography, in late 1988, Obama entered Harvard Law School. He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year, and president of the journal in his second year. During his summers, he returned to Chicago, where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990. After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago. Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review gained national media attention and led to a publishing contract and advance for a book about race relations, which evolved into a personal memoir. The manuscript
was published in mid-1995 as Dreams from My Father with the cover page shown as Exhibit 2. 79. In 1991, Obama accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School to work on his first book, and alleges He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 teaching constitutional law. In fact, Obama's teaching career at Chicago applied for a position as an adjunct and wasnt even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didnt have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct. The other professors hated him because He was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to a full professor, Obama had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if He was, He would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (Publication is requirement). 80. From April to October 1992, Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote, a voter registration drive with a staff of ten and 700 volunteers associated with ACORN and related Social Justice organizations in part funded by the Catholic Church; and it achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state, and led to Crain's Chicago Business naming Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be. 81. In 1993, Obama joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 13-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development (in partnership with Syrian Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born July 1955, is a political fundraiser, restaurateur, and real estate developer / slumlord in Chicago, Illinois, convicted on several counts of fraud and bribery in 2008 and who is involved in fundraising for Obama), where Obama was an associate for three
years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002. 82. Obama served from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. He served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1999. 83. Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn. 84. Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998, defeating Republican Yesse Yehudah in the general election, and was reelected again in 2002. 85. In 2000, Obama lost a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives to four-term incumbent Bobby Rush by a margin of two to one. 86. That Defendant Obama, his agents and committees for his election to POTUS used various campaign fund raising entities including Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund to solicit and obtain both domestic and foreign donations violating the 42 USC 1971 administered by the FEC. 87. That on February 26, 2010 according to the FEC on the matter under review MUR # 6127 (See Exhibit 9) fined Obama for America and Martin H. Nesbitt in his official capacity as treasurer (associate of Chicago billionaire Penny S. Pritzker who lost $400 plus million of depositors money in the sub-prime mortgage scandal); Barack Obama; Obama Victory Fund and Andrew Tobias, in his official capacity as treasurer; Democratic National Committee and Andrew Tobias, in his official capacity as treasurer; VIDA Fitness; Urban Salons, Inc. doing business as Bang Salon Spa; David von Storch; and Saul Ewing, LLP.
88. The complaint to the FEC alleged that Obama for America (OFA) and Nesbitt, in his official capacity as treasurer, converted campaign funds to Obamas personal use by paying some of his personal travel expenses during the 2008 presidential campaign. It alleged further that VIDA Fitness facilitated the making of contributions and made prohibited contributions to the Obama Victory Fund (OVF), a joint fundraising committee comprised of OFA and the Democratic National Committee, by using a corporate email list to distribute OVF fundraising solicitations and allowing OVF to use VIDAs facilities for a fundraiser. The complaint also alleged that OFA failed to disclose the transfer of a donor list to Project Vote, an affiliate of ACORN, and that OFA intended to accept and Saul Ewing LLP intended to make an excessive contribution in the form of pro bono legal services. 89. In Monday September 29, 2008 NewsMax published an article entitled Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign by Ken Timmerman (See Exhibit 10) reported that quote: More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose. And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate. Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report. But because of Obamas high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage at least, not yet. The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners. In July and August, the head of the Nigerias stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigerias largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners. At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000. The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter. Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities. In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming
foreign nationals were donating to his campaign. All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man, the Libyan leader said. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..." Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were legitimate, the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign. The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200. Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to root out fraud, including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online. One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store. .. A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show. Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaigns year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned. The Edwan brothers listed their address as GA, as in Georgia, although they entered Gaza or Rafah Refugee camp as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms. Many of the Edwan brothers contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups. The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December. A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million. But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date. Many of the small donors participated in online matching programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs. Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program. Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out. 90. That for the above aforementioned reasons, the above referenced documents are of great public interest and require investigation, in that Interpleader liberty is at risk were the Usurper POTUS administrator to remain which constitutes a huge National Security dilemma to continue and as Strunk along with those similarly situated suffers irreparable harm with time as the
essence is deserving of equity relief of a preliminary injunction with Declaratory Judgment and TRO of various accounts. 91. Ex-relator(s) require with 28 USC 1361 a writ of mandamus of: DHS, DOT and FEC to ascertain the facts of foreign contributors to any and all Obama campaign committees including Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund, and others; and of the DOT to ascertain the facts for a full accounting on all monies paid to Obama, the various Campaign committees, agents and or John Does(s) Jane Doe(s) and or XYZ entities conspiring as defined with 42 USC 1971, 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986, the False Claims Act with 31 U.S.C. 37293733 pursuant to the notice given to the FEC, DOT and DOJ by the Journalist Ken Timmerman shown as Exhibit 10 and related law in entirety; and with FRCvP Rule 65 and LCvR 65.1 a TRO restraining Defendant Obama, the Supplemental Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund and or agents use of any account(s) to be placed under the control and investigation of a court appointed special master with FRCvP Rule 53(a)(b) to ascertain facts of wrong doing for a jury trial on Interpleader injuries because the FEC has admitted it is unable to do so. AS AND FOR THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Conspiracy defined with 42 USC 1985 by Defendant Obama, Obamas agents with various John Jane Doe(s) and XYZ entities to violate Strunks rights and liberty along with those similarly situated including Plaintiff ) 92. Strunk repeats each and every allegation contained in the above introduction and paragraphs 1 through 91 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length however omits it for brevity and economy. 93. There is a conspiracy defined with 42 USC 1985 by Defendant Obama, Obamas agents including the Campaign funding organization with various John / Jane Doe(s) and XYZ entities to violate Strunks rights and liberty along with those similarly situated including Taitz to further the fraud to violate the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 and to cover-up that Defendant
Obama not only has dual allegiance but was born in Mombasa Kenya on August 4, 1961 as alleged under penalty of perjury by Lucas Smith as shown in Exhibit 3 when he went to Kenya bribed a Kenyan official to obtain a copy of the actual birth certificate there. 94. Defendant Obama and his agents associated with his campaign and administration are Preventing officer(s) from performing duties in New York and Washington D.C. in the matter of the 2008 General Election cycle, and after by coercing various members of the Congress not challenge during the electoral college tally required in Article 2, and by not calling for a challenge if any there; and to conceal treason or felony by one not participating in the crime, and by seditious conduct against New York and United States of America governments. 95. That Obama and his agents in New York and Washington DC as if a State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threaten, Joseph Biden and other candidates from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties; 96. Defendant Obama and his agent(s) in his campaign and administration act to Obstruct justice; intimidate a party, witness, or juror such as Judge Carter and Judge Land and suborned witnesses to proceedings promote a breach of fiduciary duties of public officials. 97. That Obama and his agent(s) in New York and other States conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified,
or to influence the verdict, presentment, in any such court, lawfully assented to by him; and 98. That Obama and his agent(s) of his campaign and administration conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws; 99. Defendant Obama and his agents of his campaign and administration as misprisors deprive persons of rights or privileges of Strunk and those similarly situated. 100. That Obama and his agents in New York and other States conspire against Governor Paterson, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, Strunk and the class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of laws; 101. That the fruit of the poison tree by frustration of effort and cover-up by Mr. Obama in commission of a fraud has been asked for his "vault" version birth certificate; however, he has refused, which has prompted lawsuits across the United States and is liable for damages. 102. Obama and his agents including Eric Holder and his agents act and conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress; 103. Obama and his agents injure Strunk and his property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or
privilege of a citizen of the United States, 104. Thereby Strunk as the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any of the conspirators; 105. That Interpleader liberty and fundamental rights have been violated and Plaintiff has been directly injured by those who have been deployed in support of the conspiracy to surround, channel and mis-direct Taitzs legal actions as evidenced by the combined sorted background of each provocateur including those being convicted criminals including document forgery and perjury; as it is even more important to Intervener and those similarly situated to know as a matter of National Security to have DHS and or its agents with authority to verify the Kenyan document shown as Exhibit 3, not only as a matter of continued good relations with the Nation of Kenya whose officials are alleged to have been instrumental in the conspiracy to destroy USA / Kenya affairs in violation of the Logan Act, 18 USC 953 and related law under Title 18 Chapter 45 for Foreign Relations to resolve the Quo Warranto inquest, for if Obama were born in Mombasa Kenya is ineligible to the office of POTUS by Obamas own admission. 106. Ex-relator(s) require with 28 USC 1361 a writ of mandamus of: DHS, to ascertain the facts alleged under penalty of perjury by Lucas Smith as to Defendant Obama, the various Campaign committees, agents and or John Does(s) Jane Doe(s) and or XYZ entities conspiring as defined with 42 USC 1971, 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986, the False Claims Act with 31 U.S.C. 37293733 pursuant to the notice given to the FEC, DOT and DOJ by the Journalist Ken Timmerman shown as Exhibit 10 and related law in entirety; and with FRCvP Rule 65 and LCvR 65.1 a TRO restraining Defendant Obama, the Supplemental Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund and or agents use of any account(s) to be placed under the control and investigation of a court appointed special master with FRCvP Rule 53(a)(b) to ascertain facts of wrong doing for a jury trial on Interpleader injuries.
AS AND FOR THE F F H CAUSE OF ACTION IT (Unjust enrichment of Defendant Obama, Obama's agents with various John Jane Doe(s) and XYZ entities to violate Strunk's rights and liberty along with those similarly situated including Plaintiff with different claims and damages) 107.Strunk repeats each and every allegation contained in the above introduction and para&aPhs 1 through 106 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length however omits it for brevity and economy. 108.That the Unjust enrichment of Defendant Obama, Obama's agents with vari~us John Jane
- 8
.h
Doe(s) and XYZ entities that have injured Strunk's rights and liberty along with those 'similarly situated including Plaintiff with different claims and damages; and as Ex-Relators are whistleblowers representing the People of the USA as a Qui Tam matter, individually claim a portion of the $8,957,536.38 and other sources yet to be determined under the Court's control; 109.Strunk wishes a judgment of the value of the return of: a. Property and all mesne profits and damages, which he estimates at the present value of $21,656,250.00 dollars based upon the equivalent current market value of gold. b. all the False Claim disbursements from the DOT to date; c. all Campaign matching funds and funds taken under false pretense; d. Reimbursement of all damages caused by the conspiracy to be determined at a jury trial including punitive treble damages prescribed by law;
e. Reimbursement of all the expense of a special master and associated costs of investigation and litigation to date; f. And for other and different relief as the court and jury deems just.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and coned. Respectfully
submitted by, Dated: March ,2010 Brooklyn, New York Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn., New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris0,strunk.w~ -
1 8
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KTNGS
Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, by special-appearance being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: 1. That I am the Interpleader 1 Ex-Relator, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, with place for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238. 2. That I am the sovereign employer of the POTUS who exercises authority over my grant of power of attorney consent given to administer the United States of America Inc. 3. I duly fired Barack Hussein Obama for cause on January 23,2009 after he took the oath of office by timely retum of the offer of contract wishing no contract thereby revoked power of attorney due to his failure to prove eligibility as a natural born citizen. 4. That Respondent in esse usurps that ofice and presumably wishes to have a Quo Warranto forum to prove his eligibility to be able to return to the corporate ofice capacity. 5. I hereby give my permission for a Quo Warranto jury trial of the issue of facts. 6. I have read the above Interpleader Verified Complaint with Demand for Jury Trial on the injury and damages after a Declaratory Decision and Order is issued on the question of first impression with exhibits attached and aver that Interpleader is in support of the Plaintiffs efforts nonetheless has a dispute on the facts to be issues before the court as well as to the source of reimbursement for damages and injuries and the manner of obtaining the extraordinary relief in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, and I know its contents; the facts stated i the Complaint n herein are true to my own personal knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on idbrmation and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3'* parties, b k s and records, and personal knowledge. except as to those stated upon information and
Sworn t before me f - l , sm day ofofarch2010
--:.--. -
--._._..-. _ - - .-- .. :-.p------X&Glt?'&er Verified Complaint
. .. -
>. < :- :
. . L
%
. ..
C .
fr10.Gi HA6088323 Qualifted In Kings County Commission Expires March 3. 2$/
Notary P u t 4 3 , State Of New York
page
,-
35 - of 35 USA &
Obama et al.
EXHIBIT 1
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 213 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 214 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 215 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 216 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 217 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 219 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 220 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 221 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 222 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 223 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 224 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 225 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 226 of 243
Ia atre of:
Livhg-snul
Deelarant
a l k (
O
a
h in @8@,
a we,
~ ~ ~ ~
No Tid P d e s hr
~
& ~ ~
m in as%,

-VEOR(S), MSLCI?(S]
W S ) , AGENTCS),
FOR TEE RECORD

RlETURN AM) REDRAPT
Atmhents:
Judicial Notice b
e 1 of 2)
Ohms md US chief
mx d S~te3.'' ie


States. "

Roberts, O b d ' l
hm!
~ P Wt i j d yi

n m on Jm. 20
CJ Roberts. BHO :
-Are you p&ai#l

"I a. m'
sJ
--.-----'
BHO :
8
7 - -
'4'
w;JP-d~

50 . -3

(b) Wh,
""5.1
1C-
[ Judicial Notice ]
I I Pnrn your name
i SranthelCmtta

1 .
a m
"Add=-q
klwn-e
! .
I
I
I
--
4.
O b
'ps
am-3811 ~ebnrary 0 ~ . 2

'
_
---
--
n YES, enter
<
-%
rcag54~&im*-
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN) DIVISION Captain Pamela Barnett, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle L.R. Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and President of the Senate, Defendants.
Civil Action: SACV09-00082-DOC (Anx)
28 U.S.C. 1746 Declaration of Lucas Daniel Smith with Exhibit
1.
My name is Lucas Daniel Smith. I am over 18 years old, am of
sound mind and free of any mental disease or psychological impairment of any kind or condition. 2. 3. I am a citizen of the United States of America, I am 29 years old and I have personal knowledge of all the facts and circumstances I was born and raised in the state of Iowa. described herein below in this declaration and will testify in open court to all of the same. 4. 5. On February 19, 2009 I visited the Coast General hospital in I visited the hospital accompanied by one more person, a natural Mombasa, Kenya. born citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly known as Zaire and before independence as the Belgian Congo). 6. I traveled to Kenya and Mombasa in particular with the intent to obtain the original birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama, as I was told previously that it was on file in the hospital and under seal, due to the
28 U.S.C. 1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 Notices of Filing Declaration & Attorneys Change of Address
- 4
DR. ORLEY TAITZ FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211 MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691 (949) 683-5411 E-MAIL: DR_TAITZ@YAHOO.COM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Exhibit A: Lucas Daniel Smiths Photocopy of Birth Certificate from the Coastal Hospital; District of Mombasa Kenya, obtained in February 2009
- 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Charles Edward Lincoln, III charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com Tel: (512) 923-1889 Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law (California SBN 223433) Orly Taitz Law Offices Telephone: (949) 683-5411 E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
PROOF OF SERVICE I the undersigned Charles Edward Lincoln, being over the age of 18 and not a party to this case, so hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this, Friday, September 4, 2009, I provided facsimile or electronic copies of the Plaintiffs aboveand-foregoing Notice of Filing of the 28 U.S.C. 1746 Declaration of Lucas Daniel Smith with attached Exhibit, as a supplement to Plaintiffs FIRST AMENDED SPECIAL MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTERS ROGATORY AND FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT PRE-RULE 26(f) DISCOVERY TO DEFENDANT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, etc., TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY, PRESERVE EVIDENCE, and TRANSMIT LETTERS ROGATORY PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. 1781(a)(2)-(b)(2) to all of the following non-party attorneys whose names were affixed to the STATEMENT OF INTEREST who have appeared in this case in accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit: THOMAS P. OBRIEN LEON W. WEIDMAN ROGER E. WEST roger.west4@usdoj.gov (designated as lead counsel for President Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009) DAVID A. DeJUTE FACSIMILE (213) 894-7819 DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS Friday the 4h day of September, 2009.
- 3
EXHIBIT 4
THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON
August 26,2009
Dear Mr. Strunk:

..
EXHIBIT 5
REPORT FOR OBAMA FOR AMERICA
Page 1 of 5
HOME / CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS AND DATA / PRESIDENTIAL REPORTS / 2009 OCTOBER QUARTERLY / REPORT FOR C00431445
REPORT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS

By An Authorized Committee of a Candidate For the Office of President or Vice President (Summary Page, FEC FORM 3P)
FILING FEC-436016
1. OBAMA FOR AMERICA

PO Box 8102 Chicago, Illinois 60680
2. FEC Committee ID #: C00431445 3. This report contains activity for a Primary Election 4. Report Type: October Quarterly
Filed 10/15/2009
SUMMARY DETAILED SUMMARY PAGE ALLOCATIONS BY STATE CONTRIBUTIONS BY EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS BY STATE CONTRIBUTIONS BY ZIP CONTRIBUTIONS BY DATE CONTRIBUTIONS BY ELECTION DISBURSEMENTS BY PURPOSE DISBURSEMENTS BY PAYEE DISBURSEMENTS BY DATE DEBTS BY VENDOR
SUMMARY
5. Covering Period 07/01/2009 Through 09/30/2009
6. Cash on Hand at BEGINNING of the Reporting Period
8,919,953.56
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q3/C00431445.html
2/22/2010

7. Total Receipts This Period 8. Subtotal (6 + 7) 9. Total Disbursements This Period 10. Cash on Hand at CLOSE of the Reporting Period 11. Debts and Obligations Owed TO the Committee Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D 12. Debts and Obligations Owed BY the Committee Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D 13. Expenditures Subject To Limitation 14. NET Contributions (Other than Loans) 15. NET Operating Expenditures
Treasurer: Martin H. Nesbitt Date Signed: 10/15/2009
Page 2 of 5
895,304.40 9,815,257.96 857,721.58 8,957,536.38 0.00
0.00
0.00 -549,888.04 50,881,580.91
(End Summary, FEC FORM 3P)
DETAILED SUMMARY Of Receipts And Disbursements

Column A This Period I. Receipts 16. Federal Funds (Itemize on Schedule A-P) 17. Contributions (other than loans) From: (a) Individuals/Persons Other than Political Committees (b) Political Party Commitees (c) Other Political Committees (d) The Candidate (e) Total Contributions (11(a) + (b) + (c) + (d)) 18. Transfers From Other Authorized Committees 19. Loans Received: -92.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 -92.22 -434,681.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 -434,681.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Column B Election Cycle-ToDate Column C
0.00
3,500,000.00
0.00
2/22/2010

(a) Loans Received From or Guaranteed By Candidate (b) Other Loans (c) Total Loans (19(a) + (b))
Page 3 of 5
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
20. Offsets to Expenditures (Refunds, Rebates, etc): (a) Operating (b) Fundraising (c) Legal and Accounting (d) Total Offsets To Expenditures (20(a) + (b) + (c)) 21. Other Receipts (Dividends, Interest, etc) 22. Total Receipts 140,451.23 754,945.39 6,775,608.39 0.00 0.00 6,775,608.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
754,945.39 0.00 0.00
227,654.27
0.00
895,304.40 10,068,580.97 II. Disbursements
0.00
23. Operating Expenditures 24. Transfers to Other Authorized Committees 25. Fundraising Disbursements 26. Exempt Legal and Accounting Disbursements 27. Loan Repayments Made (a) Repayments of loans Made or Guaranteed By Candidate (b) Other Loans (c) Total Loans (27(a) + (b)) 28. Refunds of Contributions To: (a) Individuals/Persons Other Than Political Committees (b) Political Party Committees (c) Other Political Committees (d) Total Contribution Refunds (28 (a) + (b) + (c)) 29. Other Disbursements
696,524.05 57,657,189.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
-3,816.48 0.00 0.00 -3,816.48
115,206.35 0.00 0.00 115,206.35
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
165,014.01 12,022,264.50
0.00
2/22/2010
Page 4 of 5
30. Total Disbursements
857,721.58 69,794,660.15
0.00
III. Contributed Items (stock, Art Objects, Etc.) 31. Items On Hand To Be Liquidated 0.00
(End Detailed Summary Page, FEC FORM 3P)
ALLOCATION OF PRIMARY EXPENDITURES BY STATE For A Presidential Candidate

2. FEC Committee ID #: C00431445
Allocation By State
Allocation State Total Allocation This period Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 To Date 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma State Allocation Total Allocation This period 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 To Date 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delaware District of Columbia Florida
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
2/22/2010

Georgia Hawaii 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Oregon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 5 of 5
Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico Guam Virgin Islands TOTALS
Idaho
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Illinois
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(End Allocation of Primary Expenditures Page, FEC FORM 3P)

Generated Thu Oct 15 14:24:43 2009
Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463 (800) 424-9530 In Washington (202) 694-1100 For the hearing impaired, TTY (202) 219-3336 Send comments and suggestions about this site to: webmaster@fec.gov.
2/22/2010
EXHIBIT 6
HERLIHY AUTHOR APPROVED EDITS 11-23-05 (H)(P).DOC
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT
279
280
CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW
[Vol 81:275
posed an amendment that would allow a citizen who has lived in the United States for thirty-five years to become eligible for the presidency.27 In addition to Congressional action, Arnold Schwarzenegger supporters have developed a website and advertised on television advocating a Constitutional amendment to help the amendment process gain momentum.28 Yet, regardless of the recent political action and the political popularity of Arnold Schwarzenegger, the natural born citizen requirement has yet to be changed. II. WHY THE INCREASE IN GLOBALIZATION PRESSES FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT Although varying definitions of globalization exist and considerable debate continues regarding the true meaning of globalization, for the purposes of this paper, the term globalization refers to the concept of goods and services, or social and cultural influences, gradually becom[ing] similar in all parts of the world.29 In other words, globalization can be seen as the process by which cultures and societies are becoming more and more similar because of the increase in communication, ease of travel, media access, and immigration. The process of globalization provides a number of attractive reasons why the natural born citizen requirement should be abolished. This section of the paper identifies some of the reasons why supporters of a Constitutional amendment seek to abolish the natural born citizen requirement and also identifies why the increase of globalization makes each of these reasons more persuasive. Specifically, the natural born citizen requirement is discriminatory, the requirement is outdated and undemocratic, and a persons place of birth is not an effective means of determining whether he or she will be a good president. A. The Natural Born Citizen Requirement Is Discriminatory
vents over 12.8 million Americans, including two governors, numerous statesmen, and 700 Medal of Honor winners, from having the same opportunities as their natural born counterparts.31 Therefore, the natural born citizen requirement does not promote equality[,] which ought to be the basis of every law.32 This lack of equality is especially abhorrent when one recognizes that the difference between a naturalized citizen and a natural born citizen is arbitrary. For example, many Americans, if asked whether the natural born citizen requirement should be repealed may respond, No, of course not, only an American should be President. However, this response fails to recognize that naturalized citizens are American citizens. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.33 Moreover, many people would probably agree that a naturalized citizen who is born abroad and adopted by American parents at the age of three months and goes to American schools would have better qualifications to be president than a person who is born in the United States but moves to France at the age of three months, attends French schools, moves back to the United States at the age of forty, enters politics, and runs for the presidency at the age of fifty-four.34 Allowing the natural born citizen in the preceding example to be eligible for the presidency discriminates against the naturalized citizen because it provides the natural born citizen with an opportunity that is not available to the naturalized citizen. In addition to limiting the opportunities available to one class of citizens and therefore harming those individuals, this type of discrimination also harms America as a whole. Advocates of a Constitutional amendment argue that this provision relegates naturalized citizens to second-class status.35 Discrimination harms the country because it creates an additional
and I will show you a bigot, pure and simple. John W. Dean, The Pernicious Natural Born Clause of the Constitution: Why Immigrants Like Governors Schwarzenegger and Granholm Ought to be Able to Become Presidents, FINDLAW, Oct. 8, 2004, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20041008.html. [I]t is absurd that [Arnold Schwarzenegger] and other foreign-born citizens of the U.S. do not have the right to run for president. Joanne Madden, Editorial, No Right to Run for President, TORONTO STAR, Jan. 21, 2005, at A17. 31. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A. 32. Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 854 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring) (quoting James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, (June 20, 1785), http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html). 33. Post, supra note 1, at 193 (quoting Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913)). 34. Article II of the Constitution also requires that a person be a resident of the United States for fourteen years in order to be eligible for the Presidency. U.S. CONST. art. II, 1, cl. 5. 35. Safire, supra note 3, at E15. Representative Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts said that the natural born citizen clause tells immigrants they are somehow flawed. Drive Aims to Let Foreign-Born Seek Presidency, TULSA WORLD, Dec. 13, 2004, at A14. See also Kennedy, supra note 1, at 175 (discussing the natural born citizen clause and noting [o]ne concrete way of measuring the
The most frequently cited reason for abolishing the natural born citizen provision is that the provision is discriminatory.30 This provision pre27. Joe Mathews, Maybe Anyone Can Be President: Support Is Growing to Amend the Constitution to Let Foreign-Born Citizens Lead the Nation. So, Which Governor Comes to Mind?, L.A. TIMES, Feb. 2, 2005, at A1. 28. See AmendforArnold&Jen, http://www.amendforarnold.com (last visited June 17, 2005). 29. Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp ?key=33184&dict=CALD (last visited June 17, 2005). 30. Some people feel quite strongly that the natural born citizen requirement is discriminatory. John Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, noted, It will never be known how many potentially great presidents have never even aspired to the office because of the constitutional prohibition. Show me a person who believes that the natural born qualification clause should remain in the Constitution,
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
281
282
[Vol 81:275
dividing line separating one class of Americans from another. In a country divided by race, religion, abortion, and countless other issues, an unjustifiable distinction based on a persons place of birth merely contributes to the internal divisions that already pervade America. Amending the Constitution to abolish this arbitrary distinction would eliminate one more division amongst Americans and would help to ensure that all Americans are treated equally under the law. Although discrimination between natural born and naturalized citizens has existed since the ratification of the Constitution, globalization dictates that we amend the natural born citizen clause now because discriminating against naturalized citizens in favor of natural born citizens is no longer justified. In 1789, the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause because they were afraid of a foreigner becoming president.36 They were allegedly afraid that a person who was born abroad, in a foreign culture, and with foreign influences would come to America, become president, and take over the country. Today, unlike in 1789, discriminating against naturalized citizens based solely on the fact that they were not born in the United States is no longer justified because globalization has lessened the differences between natural born citizens and foreign-born citizens. The increase in travel, the growth of international economic markets, and the increase in the number of people who are multi-lingual contribute to making people in the world more similar. Globalization is breaking down the differences amongst cultures because people throughout the world now have access to the same information, buy and sell the same products, and frequently travel or move out of their home countries during their lifetimes. Accordingly, the natural born citizen requirement no longer serves the same purpose that it did in 1789 when travel was extremely limited and foreign cultures were, in many cases, very different than the culture in America. In addition to minimizing the differences between cultures, globalization is also one of the reasons37 why discrimination against naturalized citizens is as widespread as it is today. Globalization and the homogenization of the world have led to an increase in the number of foreign compa-
nies doing business in America, the number of Americans adopting foreign-born children, and the number of people moving from one country to another.38 These increases result in the number of people being discriminated against being higher than ever. For example, in 2000, there were over nine million naturalized American citizens. However, in 2004, there were over 12.8 million naturalized Americans.39 Therefore, even if there was previously no urgency to amend the natural born citizen requirement because the provision did not discriminate against very many people, the increase of globalization should now compel Americans to pass a Constitutional amendment because the natural born citizen requirement discriminates against more Americans with each passing year. B. The Natural Born Citizen Clause Is Outdated
Those opposed to the natural born citizen clause also argue that the clause is outdated.40 Specifically, the increase of globalization has made this provision a relic of the past. Over 200 years have passed since the original drafting of the natural born citizen clause. During those 200 years, technological innovations have made it possible for people to travel and move from one country to another during their lifetimes, and the growth and development of the world market has created a need for people to move from one country to another because companies have to staff their offices, manufacturing facilities, and retail outlets throughout the world. Additionally, considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a foreigner coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland. The successful implementation and maintenance of a separation of power amongst the
38. See Let Arnold Run, ECONOMIST, Dec. 18, 2004, at 16 (noting that the need to abolish the natural born citizen clause has become more pressing with the ever larger numbers of people flowing into the country). Compare James C. Ho, Unnatural Born Citizens and Acting Presidents, 17 CONST. COMMENT. 575, 575 n.2 (2000) (noting that in 1997, there were over nine million naturalized citizens in the United States), with Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A (recognizing that there are currently over 12.8 million naturalized citizens in the United States). 39. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A. 40. Proponents of a constitutional amendment argue that the prohibition against naturalized citizens being president is archaic and even xenophobic. Drive Aims to Let Foreign-Born Seek Presidency, supra note 35, at A14. See also Madden, supra note 30, at A17 (referring to the natural born citizen requirement as a relic from the past and stating that the Constitutions qualifications for the office of president have become outdated and out of step with modern American society).
extent to which people affiliated with different social groups are full and equal members of this nation is to ask whether a person associated with that group could plausibly be elevated to the highest office in the land); Editorial, A More Perfect Democracy: Why Not a Naturalized Citizen for President?, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, Sept. 28, 2004 (It doesnt make sense to keep the 12 percent of the U.S. population that was born overseas in a second-class political category.). 36. See supra p. 27779. 37. The United States policy on immigration could also be cited as a reason why discrimination is as widespread as it is today.
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
276
[Vol 81:275
AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE SARAH P. HERLIHY
INTRODUCTION The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the stupidest provision in the Constitution,1 undecidedly un-American,2 blatantly discriminatory,3 and the Constitutions worst provision.4 Since Arnold Schwarzeneggers victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policymakers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency.5 Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:
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.6
Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.7 In addition to Governor
J.D. Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2005. The author would like to thank Professor Graeme Dinwoodie, and the 20042005 Globalization and Its Effect on Domestic Law Seminar Class for their valuable comments and insights on this Note. 1. When asked to identify the stupidest provision in the Constitution for a symposium issue of Constitutional Commentaries, two separate constitutional scholars independently chose the natural born citizen clause. Robert Post, What is the Constitutions Worst Provision?, 12 CONST. COMMENT. 191, 192 (1995); Randall Kennedy, A Natural Aristocracy?, 12 CONST. COMMENT. 175, 175 (1995). 2. Editorial, Dont Rush to Change Constitution, GREEN BAY PRESS-GAZETTE, Jan. 4, 2005, at A5. 3. William Safire, Essay, The Constitutions Flaw, N.Y.TIMES, Sept. 6, 1987, at E15. 4. Post, supra note 1, at 191. 5. See Martin Kasindorf, Should the Constitution be Amended for Arnold?, USA TODAY, Dec. 3, 2004, at 1A. 6. U.S. CONST. art. II, 1, cl. 5. 7. Editorial, Time for a Change?: Should Concerns Rooted Firmly in the 18th Century Still Disqualify Immigrants from Serving as President?, CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER, Jan. 10, 2005, at B6. 275
Schwarzenegger, the natural born citizen clause prohibits many other prominent Americans from becoming president, including Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm,8 former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao,9 and over 700 Medal of Honor Winners.10 Even though many of these individuals have served in high political positions or fought in a war on behalf of America, they are not able to become president simply because they were not born in the United States.11 The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty. The increased globalization of the world continues to make each of these reasons more persuasive. As the world becomes smaller and cultures become more similar through globalization, the natural born citizen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal system. However, even though globalization strengthens the case for a Constitutional amendment, many Americans argue against abolishing the requirement. In a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken November 1921, 2004, only 31% of the respondents favored a constitutional amendment to abolish the natural born citizen requirement while 67% opposed such an amendment.12 Although some of the reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion. Therefore, although globalization is one impetus that should drive Americans to rely on reason and amend the Constitution, this paper argues that common perceptions about globalization ironically will convince Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment. Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for
8. Jennifer Granholm was born in Canada and moved with her family to the U.S. when she was four years old. Myriam Marquez, Editorial, No Terminating Inevitable Tugs of the Heart, ORLANDO SENTINEL, Oct. 24, 2004, at G3. 9. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A (noting that Madeleine Albright was born in Czechoslovakia and Henry Kissinger was born in Germany); Time for a Change?: Should Concerns Rooted Firmly in the 18th Century Still Disqualify Immigrants from Serving as President?, supra note 7, at B6 (noting that Elaine Chao was born in Taiwan). 10. Vicki Haddock, President Schwarzenegger?: Some Think Its Time to Stop Excluding Foreign-Born Citizens from Serving in the Oval Office, S. F. CHRON., Nov. 2, 2003, at D1. 11. A Constitutional Anachronism, Editorial, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 6, 2003, at A10. The United States Code clarifies some of the ambiguities regarding who is and who is not considered a natural born citizen. See 8 U.S.C. 14011408 (2000). 12. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A.
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
277
278
[Vol 81:275
abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about globalization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment. I. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND OF THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT
For a provision that excludes millions of Americans from having the opportunity to become the next American president, the natural born citizen requirement was added to the Constitution with surprisingly little fanfare. Unlike many other Constitutional provisions that were debated during the Constitutional Convention or analyzed in the Federalist Papers, very little written evidence exists regarding the addition of the natural born citizen requirement to the presidential eligibility clause.13 Despite the lack of clear evidence, many commentators trace the origin of the provision to a letter written by John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention in 1787.14 The letter recommended that the drafters provide a strong check against the admission of foreigners into the government and expressly require that the commander-in-chief be a natural born citizen.15 Specifically, Jay wrote:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.16
Poland and carved up that country for themselves.18 Additionally, some believe that the Founding Fathers were concerned about the possibility that the power of the new government would end up in the hands of a single leader.19 Furthermore, at the time of the Constitutions drafting, each state defined citizenship in its own way; therefore, some historians speculate that the natural born citizen provision was adopted in an effort to ensure that every citizen who was eligible for the presidency achieved citizenship in the same manner.20 Yet, even though commentators, scholars, and historians have tried to determine exactly why the Founding Fathers adopted this phrase, no explanation of the origin or purpose of the presidential qualification clause appears anywhere in the recorded deliberations of the Convention.21 Despite the fact that limited information exists about why the founding fathers included the natural born citizen requirement in the Constitution, Article II has never been amended since the adoption of the Constitution in 1789. Throughout the years, several members of Congress have proposed changing the natural born citizen requirement to allow naturalized citizens to become President,22 but none of these proposed amendments has generated two-thirds of the Congressional votes needed to be presented to the states for ratification.23 Most recently, Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, proposed an amendment that would allow an immigrant who has been naturalized for twenty years to run for President.24 The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the amendment in October 2004 but took no action.25 United States Representative Dana Rohrabacher from California has also introduced a similar Constitutional amendment in the House.26 Additionally, Representative Vic Snyder from Arkansas has pro18. Haddock, supra note 10, at D1. 19. It is reported that the fear of foreign influence gave rise to the Electoral College because people believed that foreign agents would find it impossible to penetrate and corrupt a presidential election due to the existence of the Electoral College system. Ray OHanlon, Arnie Could Break Presidential Mould; Letter From New York, IRISH NEWS, Oct. 14, 2003, at 8. 20. Haddock, supra note 10, at D1. 21. J. Michael Medina, The Presidential Qualification Clause in this Bicentennial Year: The Need to Eliminate the Natural Born Citizen Requirement, 12 OKLA. CITY U. L. REV. 253, 260 (1987) (quoting Gordon, supra note 14, at 4). 22. The idea of abolishing the natural born citizen requirement has died in Congress more than two dozen times since the 1870s. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A. 23. Id. The requirements for amending the Constitution are set forth in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. CONST. art. V. 24. Chris Andrews, White House out of Reach: Not All Americans Are EqualPath to Presidency Blocked for Naturalized Citizens, LANSING ST. J., Jan. 9, 2005, at 1A. 25. Id. 26. Id.
Many commentators believe that Jay wrote this letter to respond to a rumor that the Convention was secretly designing a monarchy to be ruled by a foreign power.17 Regardless of whether this letter prompted the inclusion of the natural born citizen requirement, many believe that, at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, Americans had a general fear of foreign influence after witnessing how Austria, Prussia, and Russia infiltrated
13. Time for a Change?: Should Concerns Rooted Firmly in the 18th Century Still Disqualify Immigrants from Serving as President?, supra note 7, at B6. 14. Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MD. L. REV. 1, 5 (1968). 15. Id. 16. Id. 17. Id.
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
283
284
[Vol 81:275
branches of government as well as the effective checks and balances in todays government make this scenario extremely unlikely. Therefore, because the basis for initially including the natural born citizen clause is no longer as necessary as it once may have been, the requirement has become an outdated remnant from a previous era. It is a remnant that should be repealed because globalization has caused the world to change significantly since the time of the drafting of the Constitution, and because the federal government is no longer as open to the possibility of foreign subversion as it might have been in the late 18th century.41 C. Place of Birth Is Not a Proxy for Loyalty
The Constitution should be amended because birthplace is not a proxy for loyalty. One of the reasons for having presidential eligibility requirements is to ensure that the person that Americans choose to be their leader is a good American. The leader of the free world needs to have numerous qualities, and arguably the most important is that the individual be loyal to America. Unfortunately, where a person is born tells nothing of a persons loyalty or whether that person will be a good president. Moreover, place of birth is not something that a person chooses. For example, many Americans view the actor Tom Hanks as a loyal and arguably good American, while those same Americans may perceive the actor Martin Sheen as decidedly un-American or disloyal because of his political views. However, both Martin Sheen and Tom Hanks are natural born Americans.42 Similarly, many people consider the comedian Bob Hope to have been a good Americanafter all, he spent countless holidays traveling around the world entertaining U.S. soldiers; yet Bob Hope was not a natural born American citizen. He was born in England.43 In contrast, John Walker Lindh, the twenty-year-old American who was captured while fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan was born in Washington, D.C., and therefore is eligible to run for President.44 Ultimately, the natural born citizen requirement is illogical because it requires a persons birthplace to act as a proxy for determining an individ41. See Let Arnold Run, supra note 38, at 16 (referring to the natural born citizen requirement as an outdated and pointless piece of discrimination). 42. Tom Hanks was born in Concord, California. Tom Hanks, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Hanks (last visited Sept. 2, 2005). Martin Sheen was born in Dayton, Ohio. Martin Sheen, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Sheen (last visited Sept. 2, 2005). 43. Charlie LeDuff, Bob Hope Turns 100, With Quiet Thanks for the Memories, N.Y. TIMES, May 30, 2003, at A18. 44. Paul Bradley, Lindh, Who Fought For Taliban, Gets 20 Years, RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH, Oct. 5, 2002, at A6.
uals loyalty to America. Birthplace may at one time have been a more accurate indicator of persons loyalty to their native country than it is today because 200 years ago people rarely moved from one country to another. In todays world, people are much more likely to move from one country to another and to raise their children in a country different from the country that is their homeland. This increased movement of people in the world and the resulting lack of differences between cultures decreases the effectiveness of using a persons place of birth as an indicator of that persons loyalty.45 Accordingly, the natural born citizen provision should be repealed because it does not determine whether a person is a loyal American and therefore does not provide insight into whether a person should be eligible for the presidency. D. The Natural Born Citizen Requirement Is Undemocratic
America is a land of opportunity.46 People come to America for the opportunities that it provides. They leave their homelands, leave their families, and move to America because they know that they will be treated fairly and have the same opportunities as their next-door neighbors. After all, the Pilgrims originally left England and moved to America to have the opportunity to practice their religion without fear of retaliation. The practice of limiting the opportunities available to people in one segment of the population simply because those people were born in a foreign country runs counter to the American concept of equality. More importantly, limiting presidential eligibility based on place of birth is contrary to the American concept of democracy. The American government is a representative democracy, where American voters vote for the candidate that they choose. Currently, Americans cannot do that. For example, even if every voter wanted to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger in the next presidential election (implausible as that may be), Governor Schwarzenegger would not be able to become the next President of the United States solely because he was not born in this country. Preventing Americans from being able to vote for the candidate that they choose is undemocratic. Although some may argue that the other presidential qualifications prevent American voters from having
45. The natural-born citizen requirement embodies the presumption that some citizens of the United States are a bit more authentic, a bit more trustworthy, a bit more American than other citizens of the United States, namely those who are naturalized. Kennedy, supra note 1, at 176. 46. Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 486 (1979) (Powell, J., dissenting) (referring to America as the land of opportunity for diverse ethnic and racial groups); President William Jefferson Clinton, State of the Union 1995, Jan, 24, 1995 reprinted in The Presidents Address: We Heard America Shouting, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 25, 1995, at A17 (America has always been a land of opportunity, a land where, if you work hard, you can get ahead.).
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
285
286
[Vol 81:275
the ability to vote for the candidate of their choice, the natural born citizen requirement is inherently different than the other requirements. For example, Americans cannot vote for someone who is under the age of thirty-five or for someone who has not lived in the United States for fourteen years. However, the requirement that someone be a natural born citizen is inherently different than the other qualifications because a persons place of birth is immutable. Barring calamity, a thirty-three-year-old will eventually become thirty-five years old. Similarly, a person who is unable to meet the fourteen-year residency requirement could move to the United States and live here for fourteen years in order to be eligible for the presidency. A persons age and length of residency are not immutable. They can change as time progresses, and when they do, the American public will be able to use the democratic system to vote for the candidate of their choice. In contrast, the requirement that a person be a natural born citizen is undemocratic because it prevents Americans from ever having the opportunity to vote for a naturalized citizen. Additionally, globalization is the impetus that should compel Americans to change this practice of only allowing natural born citizens to be president because one of Americas major exports is its belief in democracy and the beliefs surrounding the democratic system. Specifically, throughout its history, America has consistently tried to encourage other nations to adopt democratic systems and to convince other countries that freedom of speech, free press, and equality for every citizen are necessary ingredients for a successful democracy.47 Globalization and the increase of movement of people between countries make the American concept of democracy more and more visible throughout the world, resulting in other countries looking towards America as an example of a successful democracy.48 The existence of an anti-democratic and discriminatory provision such as the natural born citizen requirement in the American Constitution means that Americans do not practice what they preach.49 To continue to set the
47. The current situation in Iraq is the most recent example of America exportation of democracy to other countries. 48. As one commentator testifying before the House Judiciary Committee noted: Eliminating the natural-born citizen requirement from the Constitution would also send a powerful message to people around the world about this nations commitment to equal rights. We will judge all or [sic] our citizens on their merits, this change would say, not on their place of birth. In these troubled times, a statement of this type can only serve to enhance our reputation as the worlds standard bearer for democratic values. Maximizing Voter Choice: Opening the Presidency to Naturalized Americans: Before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee (Oct. 5, 2004) (written testimony of Professor John Yinger, Trustee Professor of Public Administration and Economics, The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University) available at http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=3885. 49. This conflict between what America preaches by exporting democracy and what America practices by maintaining an undemocratic requirement such as the natural born citizen requirement
right democratic example for others to follow, globalization dictates that America should lead by example and amend the Constitution to end discriminating against citizens based on their place of birth. III. ARGUMENTS AGAINST A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND WHY COMMON AMERICAN PERCEPTIONS OF GLOBALIZATION WILL PREVENT THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT FROM BEING ABOLISHED Although the increase in globalization has made the natural born citizen clause a relic of the past, the reality is that American perceptions about globalization will permit Americans to rely on their illogical fears and insecurities and reject any attempt to abolish the requirement. The first portion of this section will identify reasons why many Americans will choose not to abolish the natural born citizen requirement and highlight why many of these reasons are based on emotion rather than on reason. The second half of this section will identify some common reactions and beliefs about globalization and argue that these beliefs will be the justification that Americans seek to allow them to rely on their irrational fears rather than logic when they vote against a Constitutional amendment. A. Reasons to Oppose Abolishing the Natural Born Citizen Requirement
The following section will identify some of the reasons that Americans will rely on for not amending the Constitution. Not all of these reasons are illogical; however, many of them are based on emotional beliefs about what it means to be a natural born citizen, and others are based simply on generalized fear. Additionally, although I would prefer to refer to the reasons in this section as the most popular or the most frequently cited reasons that Americans cite for not amending the Constitution, the truth is that some of these reasons are not things that people openly admit. People rarely write law review or newspaper articles touting their personal racist beliefs and admitting that the reason why they would not want to see a
could affect how the world views America. Joseph Nye, Dean of Harvards Kennedy School of Government believes that soft power, the ability to get what you want by attracting and persuading others to adopt your goals, is a powerful tool to be used in foreign relations. Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Soft Power: Propaganda Isnt the Way, INTL HERALD TRIB., Jan. 10, 2003, at 6. However, this ability to attract others depends on your credibility. Id. If you are not credible, it will be increasingly difficult to convince others to do what you want through soft power alone and you will have to resort to hard power, the ability to use the carrots and sticks of economic and military might to make others follow your will, in order to achieve your goals. Id. Accordingly, if one of Americas goals is to export democracy without having to resort to economic sanctions or military action, the existence of this antidemocratic provision in our Constitution detracts from Americas credibility. This lack of credibility could cause other countries to view America negatively, thereby limiting the effectiveness of our soft power, which may prevent America from achieving its goal of exporting democracy.
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
287
288
[Vol 81:275
naturalized citizen in the White House is because they believe that a naturalized citizen is more likely to be a race other than Caucasian. Therefore, although not all of the following reasons are frequently discussed in articles debating the merits of amending the Constitution, I believe that they carry significant force and play an important role in a persons decision-making process. 1. Fear of Change
have faith that the Founding Fathers made the best decisions for America.54 Ultimately, whether fear of amending the Constitution is rational or irrational, the reality is that many Americans will oppose a Constitutional amendment to the natural born citizen clause because they are afraid that a Constitutional amendment will diminish the stability of the law in America and will move America further away from its roots.55 2. This provision just does not affect that many people.
Many Americans fear change. Admittedly, Americans do not fear all change. Although Americans tend to embrace change in certain areas such as technology, medicine, and manufacturing, a large number of Americans are hesitant to tinker with traditional American institutions such as the Constitution50 because of the possible consequences that may result.51 Specifically, people fear that passing a constitutional amendment will somehow destabilize the American legal system because any amendment to the Constitution opens the door for others to push forward Constitutional amendments to advance their own causes.52 The thought of an onslaught of amendments to the Constitution scares people into thinking that the Constitution will soon become nothing more than the United States Codea set of laws that changes based on the whims of societyrather than the supreme law of the land to be amended only when absolutely necessary.53 Moreover, people are afraid that each amendment represents a movement away from the original intent of the Founding Fathers. A substantial number of Americans believe in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and
Additionally, opponents of a Constitutional amendment argue that even if it makes logical sense to allow naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency, the natural born citizen clause simply does not affect enough people to justify a constitutional amendment. Unlike the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, or the Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, the number of citizens that the natural born citizen clause discriminates against is relatively minimal. In addition to not affecting a huge class of people like the Thirteenth or Nineteenth Amendments, preventing someone from being eligible for the presidency is not as extreme as denying someone the right to be free or the right to vote because of the unlikelihood that a naturalized citizen will ever become president. When slavery was abolished, every slave was liberated. When women were given the right to vote, every woman was able to vote. In contrast, if the natural born citizen requirement is passed, not every naturalized citizen will run (or even want to run) for president. Only forty-three people have ever been president of the United States, and even though this provision discriminates against naturalized citizens, many argue that this discrimination is so limited in scope that it does not warrant the extraordinary remedy of a Constitutional amendment.56
50. Tom Blackburn, Amending the Constitution Hard, for a Reason, COX NEWS SERVICE, Nov. 28, 2004 (Most Americans are averse to tinkering with the Constitution.). 51. This fear of change can be seen in the recent debate over whether the phrase under God should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Even though this phrase was only inserted into the Pledge in 1954, many people believe that it has become part of the social fabric of America and should not be removed; however, others argue that it should be removed because the phrase violates the division between church and state. See KeepThePledge.com, Defending the Pledge of Allegiance and American Freedom, http://keepthepledge.com (last visited June 20, 2005); see also Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004). 52. See Michael McGough, Editorial, Guns and the Governator: Two Reasons to Amend the U.S. Constitution, but Some Liberals Dont Want to Alter a Jot or Tittle of that Scripture, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, Jan. 3, 2005, at A-15 (recognizing that Americans desire to change the Constitution may be dulled because the Constitution is under assault by various zealots who would amend itin order to ban the virtually non-existent problem of flag burning, to make discrimination official with a gay-marriage prohibition, to take powers away from the Supreme Court to rule on such issues as the Pledge of Allegiance). 53. Although this slippery slope argument has some basis in reason, the fact remains that the difficult amendment process should prevent an amendment such as removing the natural born citizen requirement from opening the floodgates for an influx of other constitutional amendments.
54. See Editorial, Unnatural Act?/Foreign-Born Citizens Dont Need to Become President, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, Oct. 11, 2004, at A-10 (It is a brave person who contradicts the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.). 55. It could be argued that this fear of change is one of the primary reasons why the Constitution has been amended only 27 times in the last 225 years. See Haddock, supra note 10, at D1 (noting that a constitutional amendment requires a swell of public support); see also Mathews, supra note 27, at A1 (noting that only twenty-seven of more than 10,000 proposed Constitutional amendments have succeeded). 56. See Unnatural Act?/Foreign Born Citizens Dont Need to Become President, supra note 54 ([A] good reason exists why other generations havent rushed to change the situationthis isnt a problem and it doesnt need the drastic remedy of a constitutional overhaul. . . . President and vice president are the only offices in the land that naturalized citizens cant aspire to, but millions of Americans, by virtue of their circumstances and talents, cant reasonably expect to either. Only 43 men have been president, so the injustice of Article II is very marginal.).
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
289
290
[Vol 81:275
3.
Fear of Foreigners
Although people arguing against a Constitutional amendment do not typically admit that they oppose abolishing the natural born citizen requirement because they are afraid that a naturalized citizen might actually be working for a foreign government, the fear of foreigners amongst Americans has increased in the wake of the September 11th attacks. Similar to the fears that the Founding Fathers felt and the fear that John Jay mentioned in his letter to George Washington, the possibility that a foreigner will come in and somehow take over America continues to exist in America, albeit in a slightly different form.57 Although it seems unlikely and has even been called ludicrous that a foreign power would conspire to place someone with foreign allegiances in the White House,58 some Americans more legitimately fear that a naturalized citizen will somehow try to change America by promoting his own culture to the exclusion of others. For example, a foreign-born president could soften immigration policies towards immigrants coming from his home country, or allow his previous ties to a different country to influence certain foreign policy decisions such as whether to attack another country, when to issue economic sanctions against that country, or when to provide that country with American aid.59 Although these concerns may appear reasonable,60 this argument fails to recognize that a person seeking to become president will face intense public scrutiny during the election process, making it doubtful that anyone would be able to come to the presidency with a hidden agenda regarding a foreign country. Therefore, although people may claim that they do not want a foreign-born person in the White House because of the influ57. Unlike the situation today, the Founding Fathers were presumably afraid of foreigners out of fear that they were working for another sovereign. In contrast, today people are afraid of terrorists who are not working for a foreign government. Typically, todays terrorists are groups of people who share the same ideological beliefs and goals. See generally FRONTLINE, infra note 63. 58. Time for a Change?: Should Concerns Rooted Firmly in the 18th Century Still Disqualify Immigrants from Serving as President?, supra note 7, at B6. 59. As one commentator noted: Heres another scenario. Lets say foreigners are allowed to run for president, and someone from France gets elected. Hes a great, upstanding individual with great ideas for this countrys future. How do you think he would react if, during his term, we had to go to war against France, his homeland, a place where many of his relatives still reside? Will Gardner, Editorial, Foreign-Born Not Fit for Presidency, THE POST ONLINE, Jan. 31, 2005, http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/E.php?article=E4&date=013105. 60. If this generalized fear of foreigners was a rational reason to oppose amending the Constitution, one would assume that the natural born citizen requirement would extend to other high-ranking political positions in the United States. However, the prohibition against naturalized citizens only applies to the president and the vice-president. Naturalized citizens are eligible to run for the Senate, to sit on the Supreme Court, and to be the Secretary of State. See Lawrence J. Siskind, Editorial, Arnold for Prez: Fix the Constitution and Let Foreign-Born Citizens Run for the White House, LEGAL TIMES, Jan. 3, 2005, at 28, 29.
ence that a persons foreign status may have on that persons policy decisions, the truth is that many people simply distrust foreigners.61 Distrust of foreigners is nothing new. The Founding Fathers distrusted foreigners so much that they included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution initially. Although some people argue that a general distrust of foreigners is merely thinly veiled racism,62 older Americans may believe that their fear of foreigners is legitimate after having lived through World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. Although people hope that this fear diminishes as these events fade into history, events such as September 11th continue to bring this fear back to the forefront in the minds of Americans. Accordingly, even though being afraid of foreigners may seem warranted and rational in the wake of September 11th, relying on this fear as a reason not to amend the natural born citizen requirement is irrational because it is doubtful that a threat to America today would come from a foreign country. It is more likely that a threat would come from a group of people who are not officially sanctioned by any one particular foreign government, but instead are trying to achieve an agenda that includes destroying America.63 However, because the fear of terrorism often translates into a generalized fear of everything non-American,64 and some Americans believe that naturalized citizens are not as American as natural born citizens because of their ties to another country, fear of foreigners may be one of the main reasons why people will refuse to vote for a constitutional amendment regarding presidential eligibility.
61. According to Forrest McDonald, a retired University of Alabama professor of American History, Most Americans have an instinctive distrust of foreigners . . . and this has not changed appreciably in the last two, three, four years. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A. 62. See Dean, supra note 30. 63. For example, Osama bin Ladens movement against America is not meant to defend a foreign country; the purpose is to defend Muslim land. As Osama bin Laden stated in an interview with John Miller from ABC: Allah has ordered us to glorify the truth and to defend Muslim land, especially the Arab peninsula . . . against the unbelievers. After World War II, the Americans grew more unfair and more oppressive towards people in general and Muslims in particular. . . . The Americans started it and retaliation and punishment should be carried out following the principle of reciprocity, especially when women and children are involved. Through history, American [sic] has not been known to differentiate between the military and the civilians or between men and women or adults and children. Those who threw atomic bombs and used the weapons of mass destruction against Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the Americans. . . . We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. Interview by John Miller with Osama bin Laden, in Afghanistan, May 1998, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html. 64. Recent polls suggest that two-thirds of the country is not ready for a foreign-born president. And broad anecdotal evidence, admittedly less scientific, indicates that we pretty much still hate immigrants. Gersh Kuntzman, American Beat: Hyphenated in the U.S.A., NEWSWEEK, Oct. 27, 2003.
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
291
292
[Vol 81:275
A good illustration of Americans fear and distrust of foreigners can be seen through an analysis of Americas views on racial profiling both before and after September 11th. Prior to September 11th, many Americans believed that racial profiling was merely a method of discriminating against foreigners.65 However, post-September 11th, public opinion on this topic shifted markedly.66 Post-September 11th, many Americans came to believe that the need to protect national security justified the use of racial profiling. People throughout the country became suspicious of foreigners, even those foreigners who were actually American citizens.67 Ultimately, this fear, whether rational or irrational, will most certainly affect whether Americans abolish the natural born citizen requirement. 4. Loyalty
Along the same lines as a generalized fear of foreigners, opponents of a constitutional amendment argue that foreign-born citizens should not be eligible for the presidency because foreign-born citizens retain an emotional attachment and a sense of loyalty to their homelands. As California Senator Diane Feinstein noted, I dont think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen. . . . Your allegiance is driven by your birth.68 Accordingly, Americans fear that a president who has an attachment to another country may allow that attachment to affect the decisions that he or she makes.69 Americans expect the
65. According to Professor Ramirez, [N]ational surveys conducted prior to September 11 indicated that a majority of Americans, regardless of race, believed that racial profiling was a significant social problem. According to a national Gallup Poll released on December 9, 1999, fifty-nine percent of the adults polled believed that the police actively engaged in racial profiling and, more significantly, eightyone percent said that they disapproved of the practice. Deborah Ramirez et al., Defining Racial Profiling in a Post-September 11 World, 40 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 1195, 11991200 (2003). 66. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center towers, racial profiling has taken on new significance and has left people who were previously committed to eradicating racial profiling less sure of where they stand. Id. at 1224. A practice that once was considered by many to be a blatant civil rights violation is now accepted by some as a necessary tactic during a time of terrorism. Id. According to a Gallup Poll, forty-nine percent of Americans would support a practice of Arabs and Arab-Americans, United States citizens or not, being forced to carry a special identification card; fifty-eight percent would support requiring Arabs to undergo more security checks at airports. Id. at 1225. 67. See Phil Hirschkorn & Michael Okwu, Airline Faces Post 9/11 Racial Profiling, Discrimination Suits, June 4, 2002, CNN.COM, http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/04/airlines.discrimination/ (explaining how three American citizen passengers are suing four U.S. airlines for allegedly discriminating against them based on race). 68. Siskind, supra note 60, at 29. 69. Along these same lines, it is impossible to know whether a person who was born in Mexico and came to live in America as a child has more or less of an emotional tie to Mexico than a person who was born in America to a Mexican-American family and culture.
president to put the United States above everything else. The American president must be prepared to make decisions for the good of the country. Whether a candidate is prepared to do that should be one of the primary inquiries of each presidential hopeful, not where the individual was born. Although the argument that naturalized citizens will have emotional ties to their homeland seems like a rational reason to oppose amending the natural born citizen clause, this argument fails to take into account the various situations under which many immigrants come to the United States. Many immigrants come to the United States to escape persecution in their own countries. Many naturalized Americans have been forced to risk their own lives and the lives of their children to escape tyrannical governments in their home country. Accordingly, these individuals may be more likely than natural born citizens to be loyal to America, the country that provided them with an opportunity to live free from fear of persecution.70 Secondly, deciding not to vote for an amendment abolishing the natural born citizen requirement because a potential presidential candidate may be loyal to his place of birth ignores the fact that many naturalized citizens believe very strongly in America and the opportunities available to immigrants in America because they did not have those same opportunities in their homelands. As Arnold Schwarzenegger stated in his speech at the Republican National Convention:
[I]n this country, it doesnt make any difference where you were born. It doesnt make any difference who your parents were. It doesnt make any difference if, like me, you couldnt even speak English until you were in your 20s. America gave me opportunities, and my immigrant dreams came true. I want other people to get the same chances I did, the same opportunities.71
Furthermore, voting against an amendment abolishing the natural born citizen requirement ignores the fact that many naturalized citizens made a conscious decision to live in the United States. They are not here simply by an accident at birth. Many of these immigrants risked their lives and left their family, friends, and culture to make America their home. These people often do not know anyone in the United States, are unfamiliar with the culture, and cannot even speak the language. Additionally, a naturalized citizen, unlike a natural born citizen, makes a conscious decision to become
70. Siskind, supra note 60, at 29 (Foreign-born Americans, particularly those from totalitarian countries, tend to be the most fiercely loyal of all citizens.). 71. Todd S. Purdum, Upbeat Republicans Revive Bush Theme of Compassion, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 1, 2004, at A1.
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
293
294
[Vol 81:275
a U.S. citizen and has to take an oath of allegiance to the United States.72 Citizenship is not automatic like it is for natural born citizens. Therefore, although believing that a foreign-born citizen should not be president because he has an emotional tie to his homeland may be a valid reason to vote against amending the constitution, this belief fails to take into account the rigors and sacrifices that naturalized citizens make in order to have the opportunities of American citizenship. 5. Failing to Understand What It Means to Be a Natural Born Citizen
criminatory practice, the failure of Americans to fully understand who is and who is not a natural born citizen may very well prevent a Constitutional amendment from passing simply because people do not truly understand what they are being asked to vote for. 6. Racism and Religious Intolerance
Additionally, Americans may oppose amending the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to run for president because they do not understand the difference between being a natural born citizen and being a naturalized citizen. Specifically, they do not understand what it takes to become a naturalized citizen.73 Therefore, when asked if the Constitution should be amended to allow naturalized citizens to run for president, many people may respond, No, I dont want a foreigner to be president. An American should be president. Even though naturalized citizens are Americans who have satisfied very strict requirements before being eligible to become citizens, requirements that natural born citizens have not had to satisfy, some Americans believe that naturalized citizens are less American than natural born citizens. Although the ignorance of the American people sounds like a foolish and embarrassing reason for refusing to doing away with this dis72. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America, http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/history/teacher/oath.htm (last visited June 20, 2005). The naturalization oath states: I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. Id. 73. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services website lists the following general requirements for a person to become a naturalized citizen: 1. Live in the U.S. as a permanent resident for a specific amount of time (Continuous Residence). 2. Be present in the U.S. for specific time periods (Physical Presence). 3. Spend specific amounts of time in your state or district (Time in District or State). 4. Behave in a legal and acceptable manner (Good Moral Character). 5. Know English and information about U.S. history and government (English and Civics). 6. Understand and accept the principles of the U.S. Constitution (Attachment to the Constitution). United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Becoming a U.S. Citizen, http://uscis.gov/graphics/citizenship/becoming.htm (last visited June 20, 2005).
It is an unfortunate truth that many Americans are racist. Although tremendous progress has been made in race relations throughout this countrys history, and especially within the last fifty years, racism continues to exist in American politics. For example, black candidates rarely generate enough votes to be elected, and researchers believe that this is primarily because white voters are reluctant to vote for a black candidate.74 This reluctance to vote for a non-white candidate75 may cause voters to oppose amending the natural born citizen clause because they fear that this is a first step toward having someone who is not white occupying the White House. This fear is irrational because non-white citizens are just as capable of being president as white citizens, and non-white natural born citizens, under the existing language of Article II, are eligible to be president. Despite these facts, it is possible that some Americans will oppose a Constitutional amendment because of their racist beliefs. Similarly, there is a chance that Americans will not vote to amend the natural born citizen requirement for religious reasons.76 America faced the
74. See Patrick Reddy, For Black Candidates, A Ceiling of Their Own, WASH. POST, Jan. 19, 2003, at B4. Reddy highlights the impact that racism plays on politics and attempts to answer the question, Why do mediocre white candidates often win the highest-level jobs while stellar black candidates succeed only when everything goes right? There seems to be a tinted glass ceiling preventing black candidates from reaching the top officesa ceiling held in place by a hard-core group of white voters who, in the words of former Congressional Black Caucus chairman Parren Mitchell, wouldnt vote for you, if you were black, even if you walked on water. Id. 75. Id. This reluctance to vote for a non-white candidate is apparent through an analysis of preelection and post-election polling figures. Id. Pollsters have found that it is common for white voters [to tell] interviewers that they are undecided and then [to vote] 10 to 1 against a black candidate. Id. Moreover, research demonstrates that on average, the margin in the actual election results differs from the margin in the pre-election poll by 10 percentage points to the white candidates favor. Id. When Anglo voters were asked by a pollster, they would indicate that they were supporting [the black candidate] because they didnt want to be perceived as a bigot. But in the privacy of the voting booth, they may have voted differently. Matt Hendrix, Suppressed Prejudices Could Dash Kirks Senate Bid, DAILY TEXAN, Oct. 14, 2002, at 4. 76. A recent posting on a weblog included what its author would like to see if the presidential eligibility clause were to be amended. Given the choice to amend the Constitution I would place the following requirements on the Presidential Nominee and the same for VP or a member of the Presidential Cabinet. Parents: Both US born, Christian, raised and educated, Nominee: US born, Christian, raised and educated with four years active military service. (preferably one who has seen combat on the ground and the fighting from a foxhole when an enemy was trying to kill him.) I want a President who knows and understands that America was founded under the Christian philosophy, not Hindu or Muslim.
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
295
296
[Vol 81:275
religion question when John Fitzgerald Kennedy ran for President in 1960. Kennedy was the first Catholic ever to serve as President and many people in the country feared that this would somehow influence him while he was in office.77 Although it is doubtful today that Americans would have much to say if a Catholic was running for President, religion would likely be a central issue if a Muslim were to run for the highest office in America. Even though this concern is not a legitimate reason to vote against abolishing the natural born citizen clause because many natural born Americans are Muslims, many Americans may oppose a Constitutional amendment because of the possibility that a naturalized citizen would be more likely to be a Muslim, Hindu, or some other religion besides Christian. 7. The Signal this Amendment Would Send to the Rest of the World
policy indicates otherwise. Specifically, the United States government, led by the President who is elected by the people, takes great care in preserving its position as the worlds only superpower.80 In light of this consistent policy, it is doubtful that Americans will support an amendment to the presidential eligibility clause because this could send the wrong signal to the rest of the world. 8. The President as a Symbol of America
Americans may oppose a Constitutional amendment because of the international perception that it would create. Even though the increase of globalization dictates that America should amend the natural born citizen requirement, Americans may oppose a Constitutional amendment because this type of change would signal to the rest of the world that America is willing to be one country of many and that Americans are interested in becoming part of a global world culture. Commentators refer to the symbolic nature of the law as the expressive function of law and recognize that Constitutional amendments may have a dual effect.78 For example, a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning may not only deter people from burning American flags but also signal how important patriotism is to America.79 Similarly, opponents of a Constitutional amendment to amend the natural born citizen clause may believe that such an amendment would have dual effects. In addition to allowing naturalized citizens to become president, this amendment would signal to the global community that Americans want to become integrated with the rest of the world and that Americans no longer feel the need to be the leading country in the world but are content in being on equal footing with every other country. Although some Americans may believe that the expressive function of a Constitutional amendment is a positive signal to send, United States foreign
Posting of B4Ranch to Free Republic, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1294714/posts (Dec. 5, 2004, 5:28 PST). 77. Herbert G. Klein, Bushs Win, Bushs Challenge, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Nov. 14, 2004, at G6. 78. See Cass R. Sunstein, On the Expressive Function of Law, 144 U. PA. L. REV. 2021, 2023 (1996). 79. Id.
Another powerful argument against abolishing the natural born citizen clause is based on the American tradition and history surrounding the presidency. Americans view the presidency not only as a symbol of America and American values but also as a symbol of Americas power and strength. Symbols such as flags, ribbons, songs, and phrases have been important parts of the American cultural landscape, and although some people may not believe that the president is a symbol simply because he is a human being, the president and the presidency represent the traditions of America. Not only is the president the direct product of the American democratic system, but in his position as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the president symbolizes the strength of Americas military power and supremacy in the world. Accordingly, some Americans may believe that any change to the requirements for presidential eligibility will begin to chip away at the traditions and values of America that the presidency represents.81 Although this may seem like an irrational reason for not abolishing discrimination against naturalized citizens, Americans may find that the symbolism behind the presidency is more important than the limited discrimination that the natural born citizen provision causes. An interesting situation arises when one stops to consider what impact globalization will have on symbols such as flags, songs, and the presidency. Although Americans need for symbols may lessen as the world becomes smaller and nations become more homogenized, it is possible that the continued expansion of globalization will force Americans to cling to these symbols in order to preserve the American identity. This need to preserve the American identity may very well be one of the main reasons why
80. See CHI. COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, GLOBAL VIEWS 2004: AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION AND FOREIGN POLICY 1 (2004) (The United States is the worlds undisputed military and economic superpower. It has a more formidable global presence than ever, maintaining approximately 700 military installations abroad in 2003 and spending as much on defense in 2004 as the next 20 nations combined.). 81. Whoever holds this office represents our country to the world. He or she is the embodiment of what we are all about. In my eyes, for someone to fit the aforementioned criteria, he or she has to be a natural-born U.S. citizen. Gardner, supra note 59.
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
297
298
[Vol 81:275
Americans will view globalization in a negative light. Once this occurs, the impetus for repealing the natural born citizen clause ceases to have much force. Accordingly, Americans may rely on their belief that globalization is effectively eating away at America by lessening the strength of symbols such as the presidency to justify their decision to leave the natural born citizen requirement in place. B. Common Perceptions About Globalization
As noted previously, globalization provides a number of rational reasons to amend the Constitution and abolish the natural born citizen requirement. However, globalization and Americans perceptions regarding globalization will also be a reason why Americans irrational beliefs will prevail over the rational reasons.82 Whether these perceptions about globalization are valid or are actually misconceptions is not really the issue. Regardless of their validity, these perceptions about globalization will convince the American public to oppose a Constitutional amendment. This section will identify some of these common beliefs83 about globalization and identify why these beliefs will cause Americans to fall back on their emotional beliefs and lead them to vote against a proposed Constitutional amendment. 1. Americans do not understand globalization.
have trouble understanding this because he sees globalization as it is portrayed on television. He is likely to see globalization as the idea of spreading McDonalds and Hollywood throughout the world.84 As Thomas Friedman recognized, [G]lobalization is in so many ways Americanization: globalization wears Mickey Mouse ears, it drinks Pepsi and Coke, eats Big Macs, [and] does its computing on an I.B.M. laptop with Windows 98.85 Because these Americans do not understand that globalization is a two way street, including not only the exportation of American ideals and products but also the importation of foreign influences, products, and technology into America, many Americans are unlikely to feel that an increase in globalization is a good reason to change a 216-year-old presidential eligibility requirement. This failure to appreciate that globalization is about more than just spreading American products, ideals, and values throughout the world will effectively prevent people from understanding why the increase in globalization makes the natural born citizen requirement objectionable. 2. America as the World Leader
One common belief about globalization that may influence whether Americans rely on the rational reasons versus the emotion-based reasons is that globalization is really nothing more than the Americanization of the world. Many Americans simply do not understand the nature of the global economy and the concept of a global culture. Although it may be clear to scholars and economists that globalization is about the world coming together both culturally and economically, a typical American citizen may
82. It is important to remember the difficulty that any Constitutional amendment faces. The sheer groundswell of support needed to have an amendment pass by two-thirds of the Congress and then to be ratified by three-fourths of the states is an enormous hurdle. See supra notes 22, 23 and accompanying text. 83. It should be noted that these beliefs about globalization are certainly not the only beliefs about globalization, and some would argue that more positive beliefs about globalization are slowly replacing the negative or indifferent views expressed in this paper. See infra note 86. However, this paper does not argue whether Americans view globalization positively versus negatively; this paper argues that the negative or indifferent beliefs about globalization are plentiful enough to justify Americans reliance on irrational fears rather than logical reasoning to avoid amending the Constitutions natural born citizen requirement. Therefore, even though Americans may be slowly becoming more accepting of globalization, there is simply not enough positive public support for globalization to make a Constitutional amendment a likely possibility.
Additionally, a common reaction to globalization from Americans is that globalization can only bring America down. Although globalization, from an academic standpoint, sounds impressive and useful, the idea that America will benefit from cultural globalization when viewed from a practical standpoint is somewhat questionable. Americans already see America as the worlds only superpower because of the strength of the American economy and the American military. Accordingly, when faced with whether to vote for a constitutional amendment abolishing the natural born citizen clause, globalization is unlikely to pressure Americans into doing so. Americans are likely to recognize that America is the leader of the world and that America achieved this position without having to change its cultural institutions to be more global; therefore, the only place that America can go by attempting to assimilate with the rest of the world is down. From a practical and short-term standpoint, a belief that globalization is unnecessary may cause Americans to rely on their emotional beliefs rather than reason and oppose amending the Constitution.
84. Thomas L. Friedman, Op-Ed, Angry, Wired, and Deadly, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 22, 1998, at A15. See also Kurt Kuehn, Managing the Brand in an Age of Anti-Americanism, SHIPPING DIG., Oct. 4, 2004, at 78. We know that, increasingly, the line is blurred between globalization and Americanization. For many people, the terms are synonymous. For some, globalization is an American-led phenomenon designed to benefit the U.S. Id. 85. Friedman, supra note 84, at A15.
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
299
300
[Vol 81:275
3.
Americans are not prepared to give up the American identity in favor of globalization.
In addition to not wanting to change the Constitution because America is already the world leader, many Americans simply do not believe that globalization is necessary because they see globalization as a process that will cause America to lose its identity. American history, traditions, values, and morals took America from a fledging group of colonies and made America into a superpower. A movement towards globalization, especially cultural globalization, could be seen as stripping America of the attributes that led to her rise in power. As seen in the aftermath of September 11th, Americans are proud of their heritage and proud of their country. Any attempt to change that identity will certainly be viewed with skepticism and this skepticism may concern Americans enough to convince them to leave the Constitution as it is. 4. Globalization as a Threat
and morality. The millions of immigrants in this country bring with them their own cultures, languages, and ways of life. Therefore, the combination of lost jobs and perceived cultural erosion may scare Americans into believing that globalization is not a good thing, and that they should resist globalization by voting against a Constitutional amendment that would essentially be a movement towards globalization. CONCLUSION Ultimately, the emotional reasons to oppose a constitutional amendment abolishing the natural born citizen requirement for presidential eligibility will prevail over the rational reasons because the rational reasons derive, in large part, from the increase in globalization. The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstandings about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization. Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement. Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts. Whether it is because of fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith in the decisions of the Founding Fathers, Americans want to find a way to avoid changing the natural born citizen provision to allow naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency. Ultimately, Americans will rely on the perceived negative effects of globalization, or rather their perceptions of globalizations negative effects, to justify their decision to allow emotion to prevail over reason.
Another issue with globalization is that many Americans see globalization in a negative light because it negatively affects their individual lifestyle.86 Specifically, many Americans believe that Americans are losing their jobs because of economic globalization and the resulting movement of American manufacturing jobs to places in the world where labor is less expensive. Additionally, many people view globalization in terms of Americas immigration policy, believing that allowing widespread immigration directly affects them because many immigrants are willing to work for lower wages than their American counterparts.87 Therefore, increased immigration results in American employers hiring immigrants rather than natural born citizens because employers are able to pay immigrants lower wages. Ultimately, the perception is that a natural born citizen must either accept lower wages in order to compete for jobs with immigrants or lose his job. In addition to these tangible economic perceptions about globalization,88 Americans may also see globalization as a threat to American values
86. Interestingly, although polls indicate that 62% Americans believe that globalization has a good effect on the United States, these same polls indicate that 64% of Americans believe that their way of life needs protection from foreign influence. PEW GLOBAL PROJECT ATTITUDES, VIEWS OF A CHANGING WORLD 85, 94 (June 2003). 87. CHI. COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, supra note 80, at 13, fig. 1-2 (noting that 78% of Americans polled believe that protecting the jobs of American workers should be a very important goal of U.S. foreign policy). 88. See generally Michael Sasso, Little Local Effect Seen on Moving Jobs Abroad, TAMPA TRIB., Oct. 26, 2004, at 1 (recognizing that public perception holds that globalization is hurting the economy and job market).
EXHIBIT 7
Kirkland & Ellis LLP > Herlihy, Sarah P.
Page 1 of 2
First or Last Name
Keyword
Professional Profile Sarah Herlihy is an associate in the litigation practice group. Publications Note, Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle, 81 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 275 (2006) Sarah P. Herlihy sarah.herlihy@kirkland.com Download V-Card Chicago Phone: +1 312-862-7089 Fax: +1 312-862-2200 Featured in Chicago-Kent Report from the Dean: Six Standout Professionals Reinvent Themselves as Law Students Prior Experience Manager of Guest Relations, The Field Museum of Natural History, 2001-2002 Manager of Training and Operational Services, International Theme Park Services, Inc., 1995-2001
Litigation
Courts
2005, Illinois
United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois
Law Clerk to the Honorable Michael M. Mihm, United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, 2005 - 2006
Illinois Institute of Technology, ChicagoKent College of Law, J.D., 2005 with High Honors Order of the Coif Kent Legal Scholar Chicago-Kent Law Review, Executive Articles Editor Moot Court Honor Society: Winner - 2004 Herbert Wechsler National Criminal Law Moot Court Competition Buffalo, New York Second Place Brief 2004 Herbert Wechsler National Criminal Law Moot Court Competition Buffalo, New York
http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=220&itemID=8909
2/28/2010
EXHIBIT 8
Kirkland & Ellis LLP > Clients
Page 1 of 2
First or Last Name
Keyword
Kirkland has been privileged to represent a wide array of corporate, individual and governmental interests in complicated litigation, corporate and tax, intellectual property, restructuring and counseling matters for major national and international clients. In every year since 1995, Kirkland has ranked as one of the most frequently used firms by Fortune 100 companies in The National Law Journal survey, "Who Represents Corporate America."
3M Abbott Laboratories AES Corporation Agere Systems Alcon Laboratories Aon Apple Bain Capital Bank of America Barr Laboratories BellSouth Blue Cross and Blue Shield Boeing BP America Inc. CIVC Partners Colgate-Palmolive Collins & Aikman Concord EFS Conseco Constellation Energy DIRECTV Dow Chemical Exide Forstmann Little General Motors GTCR Honeywell International Illinois Tool Works Infineon Technologies AG International Paper Kraft Kubota Tractor
Madison Dearborn Partners McDonald's Merisant Molson Coors Brewing Company Morgan Stanley Motorola Nationwide Insurance Navistar NRG Energy Oracle R.J. Reynolds Raytheon Repsol YPF S.A. S.C. Johnson & Son Samsung Sara Lee Schering-Plough ServiceMaster Siemens Solutia Starwood Hotels & Resorts Sun Capital Partners Tenet Healthcare Terra Industries Thoma Cressey Bravo Time Warner United Airlines Verizon Vestar Capital Partners Whirlpool William Blair & Company Willis Stein & Partners
http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=181
2/28/2010
EXHIBIT 9
20100226MUR
Page 1 of 5
Skip Navigation
ABOUT THE FEC

HOME / PRESS OFFICE / NEWS
PRESS OFFICE
QUICK ANSWERS enter search here SITE M
News Releases
Campaign Finance Reports and Data Meetings and Hearings Enforcement Matters Help with Reporting and Compliance Law & Regulations
For Immediate Release Contact: Judith Ingram Julia Queen Christian Hilland FEC TAKES FINAL ACTION ON SIX CASES WASHINGTON The Federal Election Commission recently made public its final action on six matters under review (MURs). In one matter, respondents agreed to pay a civil penalty of $5,500; the Commission found no reason to believe a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the Act), occurred in connection with another allegation and it dismissed the remaining allegations. In another case, respondents agreed to pay a civil penalty of $3,600. The Commission exercised its prosecutorial discretion and dismissed the other four matters. Under the law, the FEC must attempt to resolve its enforcement cases, or MURs, through a confidential investigative process that may lead to a negotiated conciliation agreement between the Commission and the individual or group.Additional information regarding MURs can be found on the FEC web site at http://www.fec.gov/em/mur.shtml. This release contains only summary information.For additional details, please consult publicly available documents for each case in the Enforcement Query System (EQS) on the FEC web site at http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqs/searcheqs. MUR 6127 RESPONDENTS: Obama for America and Martin Nesbitt, in his official capacity as treasurer; Barack Obama; Obama Victory Fund and Andrew Tobias, in his official capacity as treasurer; Democratic National Committee and Andrew
February 26, 2010
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2010/20100226MUR.shtml
3/1/2010
20100226MUR
contributions outside VIDA Fitnesss and Bang Salons restricted class. In a conciliation agreement, VIDA Fitness, Urban Salons, Inc., d/b/a Bang Salon Spa, and von Storch agreed to pay a civil penalty of $5,500.
Page 3 of 5
MUR 6227 RESPONDENTS: Susan B. Anthony List, Inc. Candidate Fund and Frank Cannon, in his official capacity as treasurer Self Initiated Susan B. Anthony List, Inc. Candidate Fund and Frank Cannon, in his official capacity as treasurer, disclosed information to the Commission after an internal audit revealed that the committee had misreported the receipt, disbursement, and cash balance amounts on FEC campaign finance reports from 2005 to 2008. Under the Act, a political committee is required to disclose accurate financial records of campaign-related activity. The Commission found reason to believe the respondents violated the Act. In a conciliation agreement, respondents agreed to pay a civil penalty of $3,600.
COMPLAINANT: SUBJECT:
OUTCOME:
MUR 6175 RESPONDENTS: Obama Victory Fund and Andrew Tobias, in his official capacity as treasurer Jane B. Freidson The complaint alleged that Obama Victory Fund and Tobias, in his official capacity as treasurer, incorrectly processed a $500, online contribution made by Freidson, and instead charged $5,000 to her credit card. The respondents acknowledged the mistake in processing the original contribution and issued a $4,500 refund to Freidson. The Commission exercised
OUTCOME:
3/1/2010
20100226MUR
its prosecutorial discretion and dismissed the matter.
Page 4 of 5
MUR 6165 RESPONDENTS: Patriots for Crimmins and William Baber, in his official capacity as treasurer Barry Baron The complaint alleged that the Crimmins Committee and Baber, in his official capacity as treasurer, failed to report a disputed debt owed to Baron, a political consultant who performed services for the campaign. The complaint alleged further that the Crimmins Committee tried to settle the dispute in an improper and possibly illegal manner. Crimmins was a 2008 candidate for Californias 53rd Congressional District. The Committee amended its FEC report to disclose the disputed debt and denies that improper action was taken to settle the debt. The Commission exercised its prosecutorial discretion and dismissed the matter.
OUTCOME:
MUR 6149 RESPONDENTS: Hillary Clinton for President and Shelly Moskwa, in her official capacity as treasurer Daniel H. Weiner and Elizabeth A. Fuerstman The complaint alleged that former Senator Clintons presidential campaign failed to issue a refund to Weiner and Fuerstman for their contribution to Clintons general election campaign. Under the Act, general election contributions must be refunded if the person seeking office is not a candidate in that particular election. The Clinton campaign appears to have issued a second refund check promptly
COMPLAINANTS:
SUBJECT:
OUTCOME:
3/1/2010
20100226MUR
after being notified that the first refund check apparently had not been delivered. The Commission exercised its prosecutorial discretion and dismissed the matter.
Page 5 of 5
MUR 6155 RESPONDENTS: Hillary Clinton for President and Shelly Moskwa, in her official capacity as treasurer Michael Reznik The complaint alleged that former Senator Clintons presidential campaign committee failed to issue a refund to Reznik for his contribution to Clintons general election campaign. The Clinton campaign stated that a refund check was cashed after it was mailed to the complainant's "address of record" on August 28, 2008, and attached a copy of the endorsed check to its response. The Commission exercised its prosecutorial discretion and dismissed the matter.
OUTCOME:
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that administers and enforces federal campaign finance laws. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Established in 1975, the FEC is composed of six Commissioners who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. ###
Whats New Library FOIA Inspector General No Fear Act
USA.gov Privacy Subscribe
Links
eFiling
Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463 (800) 424-9530 In Washington (202) 694-1000 For the hearing impaired, TTY (202) 219-3336 Send comments and suggestions about this site to the web manager.
3/1/2010
EXHIBIT 10
Newsmax - PrintTemplate
Page 1 of 6
Newsmax Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign

Monday, September 29, 2008 09:23 PM
By: Ken Timmerman More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose. And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate. Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report. But because of Obamas high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage at least, not yet. The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money. But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret. Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark. Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold. Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed, said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. They dont appear anywhere, so theres no way of knowing who they are. The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified. It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.
http://newsmax.com/PrintTemplate?nodeid=35666
2/22/2010
Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obamas coffers with no public reporting. But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money. We feel comfortable that it isnt the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign, he told Newsmax. But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors. Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers. We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors, he said. The Obama campaign never responded, whereas the McCain campaign makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online. The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud. But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse. While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years, said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center. Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum. FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaigns finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor. Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to redesignate contributions in excess of the finance limits. Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can redesignate the contribution to the general election on its books. In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as Will, Good from Austin, Texas. Mr. Good Will listed his employer as Loving and his profession as You. A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them
Page 2 of 6
2/22/2010
for $25. In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375. Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 still well over the $4,600 limit. There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obamas Sept. 20 report specified that Good Wills cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375. In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, theres no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election. Similarly, a donor identified as Pro, Doodad, from Nando, NY, gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as Loving and his profession as You, just as Good Will had done. But in some of them, he didnt even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by VCX and that his profession was VCVC. Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600. Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date. In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later. In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each. Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodads cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965. Foreign Donations And then there are the overseas donations at least, the ones that we know about. The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $3.38 million. More than 520 listed their state as IR, which the FEC often uses as an abbreviation for "information requested." Another 63 listed it as UK, the United Kingdom. More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel,
Page 3 of 6
2/22/2010
who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680. But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France. Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Unlike McCains or Sen. Hillary Clintons online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clintons presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted. With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners. In July and August, the head of the Nigerias stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigerias largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners. At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000. The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter. Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities. In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign. All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man, the Libyan leader said. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..." Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were legitimate, the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign. The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200. Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to root out fraud, including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online. One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store.
Page 4 of 6
2/22/2010
In response to an investigation conducted by blogger Pamela Geller, who runs the blog Atlas Shrugs, the Obama campaign has locked down the store. Geller first revealed on July 31 that donors from the Gaza strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza. The online campaign store allows buyers to complete their purchases by making an additional donation to the Obama campaign. A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show. Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaigns year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned. The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30. The Edwan brothers listed their address as GA, as in Georgia, although they entered Gaza or Rafah Refugee camp as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms. According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made. Many of the Edwan brothers contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups. The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December. A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million. But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date. Many of the small donors participated in online matching programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs. The Obama Web site described the matching contribution program as similar to a public radio fundraising drive. Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight, campaign manager David Plouffe e-mailed supporters on Sept. 15. And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate. FEC spokesman Biersack said he was unfamiliar with the matching donation drive. But he said that if donations from another donor were going to be reassigned to a new donor, as the campaign suggested, the two people must agree to do so.
Page 5 of 6
2/22/2010
This type of matching drive probably would be legal as long as the matching donor had not exceeded the $2,300 per-election limit, he said. Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program. Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out. CLARIFICATION The original version of this story, published on this Web site Sept. 29, reported that the "IR" listed on 520 overseas donations is "often an abbreviation for Iran." However, FEC spokesman Bob Biersack said Oct. 7 that IR generally means information requested, not Iran. Thats often, but not always, what it means, he said.
Page 6 of 6
copyright
Newsmax. All rights reserved.
2/22/2010
EXHIBIT B
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 email: chris@strunk.ws Chief of the Voting Section c/o WAN J. KIM United States Attorney Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division Room 7254 - NWB Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (800) 253-3931 Re: Seal v. Seal DCD 10-486 (RCL) Subject: Due Notice with the FCA Dear Mr. Kim, This is follow-up to the required Notice with the False Claims Act. I am Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse the petitioner relator in the above referenced case that is sealed until June, and that this is privileged communication under seal by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; and as such make this declaration under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 1746 accordingly. That prior to the March 17, 2010 filing of Seal v Seal, on March 6, 2010 Declarant notified Assistant U.S. Attorney Alan Burch of my claim in the related case Taitz v Obama DCD 10-151 (RCL), and that because Mr. Burch already represents Barack Obama, he must recuse himself from review of the submission differed to you. You are acquainted with me through the case Loeber et al. v Spargo et al 04cv-1193 from the NDNY with a 2nd Circuit appeal case 08-4323-cv involving gerrymandering related to the 2000 Census under color of the 13 USC 141 allotment and reduction of the New York Electoral College seats and the State of New York in April 2002 apportionment thereafter of political districts; and the questionable reduced Electoral College size without substantive due process required by the 14th Amendment Section 2 and the Voting Rights Act accordingly. The on-going injury complained of in Strunk v US House et al. 00-cv-7177 went to the 2nd Circuit Panel in 01-6021-cv with a decision urging a timely challenge to the Electoral College from New York accordingly (See Exhibit A), and has been repeated every four years thereafter; and that in October 2008
1
Declarant filed a timely challenge in New York State Supreme Court in the County of Kings Strunk v Paterson et al. 2008-29642 election law case before the Honorable Supreme Court Justice David I. Schmidt for the New York State Board of Elections breach of fiduciary duty to prevent the fraud committed by the Republican Party candidate John McCain and Democratic Party candidate Barack Hussein Obama. Neither candidate is eligible for the Office of POTUS with Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 for ballot access at the 2008 General Election, within the already reduced size of the New York Electoral College that went from 47 members with about 10 millions persons to the present 31 with 19 million members thereby infringing my reasonable expectation of success in the 2008 Primary and General Election participation along with those similarly situated. That on January 23, 2009 Declarant duly fired Barack Hussein Obama for cause in that he is not eligible for POTUS with his admitted dual allegiance that is a matter of first impression; and therefore, Obama the usurper is not eligible to administer my power of attorney as the POTUS trustee. Thereafter, all Obamas actions are void ab initio. Further, Declarant is the only person in the country to have duly fired the Usurper is entitled to a False Claims Act relator fee and whatever statutory penalty and expenses on all funds recovered from the Usurper who has falsely billed the U.S. Treasury for his annual salary and expenses starting in 2009. That the fraud was accomplished using the predicate acts of Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings in violation of the VRA and related law for not only the U.S. Senate in 2006 from the State of Illinois, but then the POTUS filing for the 2008 election cycle too, and both are inseparable components of the False Claims Act fraud notwithstanding whether there were matching funds or not. That as a matter of background associated with Relators FCA petition, NYS Justice Schmidt sent me to Washington D.C. US District Court to file a FOIA request in Strunk v US DOS et al. DCD 08-cv-2234 (RJL), and with a life of its own due to the corruption of the POTUS usurper control of the on-going 2010 Census Declarant filed the 09-cv-1295 challenge to the Census enumeration (which was dismissed alleging lack of standing) and now is in District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals with the petition 10-5077-OP in that the usurpers bifurcated census enumeration with two separate tracks of data collection under color of 13 USC 141 will lead to a further reduction of the New York Electoral College further than the 47 members down from the present 31 members to 29 members; and that Declarant challenges without the provision of substantive due process since December 2000 as required with the 14th Amendment Section 2 now when the 2010 census enumeration under color of 13 USC 141 and allotment with 2 USC 2a for Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed with the proviso may ONLY
2
be reduced when Declarants right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. That the Petition 10-5077-OP in the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals is for a writ of mandamus and injunction that complains that neither Declarant nor any one else in New York has either committed an act of rebellion or associated crime in that regard; and therefore Declarant demands restoration of the New York Electoral College size to at least that of 47 that existed before the 1950 Census allotment under color of 13 USC 141 for New York when it had in excess of 10 million persons and now more than 19 million persons with an anticipated reduction to 29 from the 31 as challenged in 2000; Voting Rights Section participation is invited. With the foregoing introduction, the Voting Rights Section is not part of the Quo Warranto matter complained of to the Department of Justice in May 2009, as the Usurpers Dual Allegiance ineligibility with Article 2 Section 1 Clause as a matter of first impression has been deferred to Ex-Relators action with District of Columbia Code Chapter 35 Title 16 Section 3503 and Chapter 37 Title 16 section 3701 thru 3704 accordingly. That it is up to the District Judge to declare as to the matter of law. However beyond the fact that the Usurper has already admitted a dual allegiance at birth, Ex-Relator is requesting an inquest jury review of the facts as to various documents that appear he is also not a U.S. Citizen at birth and never took an oath of allegiance as a naturalized citizen perpetrated the False Claims Act fraud matter against the U.S. Treasury and Federal Election Commission with the Usurpers 2006 and 2008 campaign fund raising; and as such Relator petitions the Voting Rights Section to act accordingly to investigate in just the same way as it prosecuted James Riady (see Exhibit B) for donating the $2 million in foreign funds to the Clinton Campaign Fund raising in 1992, that in January 2000 Mr. Riady was convicted in absentia and banned from re-entering the USA again - until recently when Riadys fellow Indonesian Barry Soetoro lifted the ban in a quid pro quo with Lippo Groups intersection with Clark Cliffords (see Exhibit C) Clifford Companies operated by Stephen R. Mann (see Exhibit D) and there overlapping the Vatican Bank nexus in New York (see Exhibit E).
This FCA petitions urges Voting Rights Section investigation of concerns alleged Monday September 29, 2008 NewsMax published an article entitled Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign by Ken Timmerman (See Exhibit F) who reported in part that quote: More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose. And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate. That from April to October 1992, Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote, a voter registration drive with a staff of ten and 700 volunteers associated with ACORN (see Exhibit G) and related Social Justice (1) organizations funded by the Catholic Church until 2008; and it achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state, and led to Crain's Chicago
1
The term "social justice" was coined by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in the 1840s, based on the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. He wrote extensively in his journal Civilt Cattolica, engaging both capitalist and socialist theories from a natural law viewpoint. His basic premise was that the rival economic theories, based on subjective Cartesian thinking, undermined the unity of society present in Thomistic metaphysics; neither the liberal capitalists nor the communists concerned themselves with public moral philosophy. The official Catholic doctrine on social justice can be found in the book Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, published in 2004 and updated in 2006, by the Pontifical Council Iustitia et Pax. Pope Leo XIII, who studied under Taparelli, published in 1891 the encyclical, Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of the Working Classes), rejecting both socialism and capitalism, while defending labor unions and private property. He stated that society should be based on cooperation and not class conflict and competition. In this document, Leo set out the Catholic Church's response to the social instability and labor conflict that had arisen in the wake of industrialization and had led to the rise of socialism. The Pope taught that the role of the State is to promote social justice through the protection of rights, while the Church must speak out on social issues in order to teach correct social principles and ensure class harmony. The encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (On Reconstruction of the Social Order, literally "in the fortieth year") of 1931 by Pope Pius XI, encourages a living wage, subsidiarity, and teaches that social justice is a personal virtue as well as an attribute of the social order: society can be just only if individuals and institutions are just. Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical Deus Caritas Est ("God is Love") of 2006 teaches that justice is the defining concern of the state and the central concern of politics, and not of the church, which has charity as its central social concern. The laity has the specific responsibility of pursuing social justice in civil society. The church's active role in social justice should be to inform the debate, using reason and natural law, and by providing moral and spiritual formation for those involved in politics. 4
Business naming Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be. That from 1917 onward under the Wilson Administration and from 1922 when the Harding Administration intervened into the USSR using Georgetown Universitys Jesuit Fr. Edmund Walsh S.J. for famine relief and Vatican oversight of the USSR resulting in the Metz Pact negotiated by Jesuit Cardinal Bea before 1960 and to wit the Vatican agreed never to attack Communism per se in exchange for free operational access to the East block countries including the USSR. That when the Freemason Cardinal Montini, known for his pastoral social justice progressivism, became Pope Paul VI (2), he supported Catholic membership in the Freemasonic Grand Orient Lodge of Italy, reversing the edict of 1738 that banned Catholic membership by threat of excommunication used confessional infiltration, and especially the Vatican Bank efforts associated with Propaganda Due (3).
Pope Paul VI (Latin: Paulus PP. VI; Italian: Paolo VI), born Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini (26 September 1897 6 August 1978), reigned as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and Sovereign of Vatican City from 1963 to 1978. Succeeding Pope John XXIII, who had convened the Second Vatican Council, he decided to continue it. He fostered improved ecumenical relations with Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants, which resulted in a number of historic meetings and agreements. He attended the Cesare Arici, which was a school run by Jesuits, and in 1916, he received a diploma from the state school of Arnaldo da Brescia. His education was often interrupted by bouts of illness. In 1916, he entered the seminary to become a Roman Catholic priest. He was ordained priest on 29 May 1920 and celebrated his first Holy Mass in Concesio in the Church Madonna delle Gracie which was near his parental house. Propaganda Due (Italian pronunciation: [propa-anda -due]), or P2, was a Masonic lodge operating under the jurisdiction of the Grand Orient of Italy from 1945 to 1976 (when its charter was withdrawn), and a pseudo-Masonic or "black" or "covert" lodge operating illegally (in contravention of Italian constitutional laws banning secret lodges, and membership of government officials in secret membership organizations) from 1976 to 1981. During the years that the lodge was headed by Licio Gelli, P2 was implicated in numerous Italian crimes and mysteries, including the nationwide bribe scandal Tangentopoli, the collapse of the Vaticanaffiliated Banco Ambrosiano, and the murders of journalist Mino Pecorelli and banker Roberto Calvi. P2 came to light through the investigations into the collapse of Michele Sindona's financial empire. P2 was sometimes referred to as a "state within a state" or a "shadow government". The lodge had among its members prominent journalists, parliamentarians, industrialists, and military leadersincluding the then-future Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi; the Savoy pretender to the Italian throne Victor Emmanuel; and the heads of all three Italian intelligence services. When searching Licio Gelli's villa, the police found a document called the "Plan for Democratic Rebirth", which called for a consolidation of the media, suppression of trade unions, and the rewriting of the Italian Constitution. Beside Italy, P2 was also active in Uruguay, Brazil and in Argentina, with Ral Alberto Lastiri, Argentina's interim president (between July 13, 1973 to October 12, 1973) during the 5
3
Pope Paul VI from the early 1920s developed a close friendship and collaboration with Jacques Maritain (18 November 188228 April 1973) (4), a
height of the "Dirty War" among its members. Emilio Massera, who was part of the military junta led by Jorge Rafael Videla from 1976 to 1978, Jos Lpez Rega, minister of Social Welfare in Pern's government and founder of the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance ("Triple A"), and General Guillermo Surez Mason were also members. Jacques Maritain (18 November 188228 April 1973) was a French Catholic philosopher. Raised as a Protestant, he converted to Catholicism in 1906. An author of more than 60 books, he is responsible for reviving St. Thomas Aquinas for modern times and is a prominent drafter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pope Paul VI presented his "Message to Men of Thought and of Science" at the close of Vatican II to Maritain, his long-time friend and mentor. Maritain's interest and works spanned many aspects of philosophy, including aesthetics, political theory, the philosophy of science, metaphysics, education, liturgy and ecclesiology. From the Angelic Doctor (the honorary title of St. Aquinas), he was led to "The Philosopher" as St. Thomas christened him, Aristotle. Still later, to further his intellectual development, he read the neo-scholastics. Beginning in 1912, Maritain taught at the Collge Stanislas and later moved to the Institut Catholique de Paris. For the 19161917 academic years, he taught at the Petit Sminaire de Versailles. In 1933, he gave his first lectures in North America in Toronto at the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. He also taught at Columbia University; at the Committee on Social Thought, University of Chicago; at the University of Notre Dame, and at Princeton University. From 1945 to 1948, he was the French ambassador to the Vatican. According to Jesuit historian Giovanni Sale, Maritain was one of the creators of the "black legend" on Pope Pius XII's alleged silence during the Second World War. Learning the death of his friend Maritain, Pope Paul VI cried. Jacques and Raise Maritain are buried in the cemetery of Kolbsheim, a little French village where he had spent many summers at the estate of his friends, Antoinette and Alexander Grunelius. In 1917, a committee of French bishops commissioned Jacques to write a series of textbooks to be used in Catholic colleges and seminaries. He wrote and completed only one of these projects titled Elements de Philosophie (Introduction of Philosophy) in 1920. It has been a standard text ever since in many Catholic seminaries. He wrote in his introduction:
"If the philosophy of Aristotle, as revived and enriched by St. Thomas and his school, may rightly be called the Christian philosophy, both because the church is never weary of putting it forward as the only true philosophy and because it harmonizes perfectly with the truths of faith, nevertheless it is proposed here for the reader's acceptance not because it is Christian, but because it is demonstrably true. This agreement between a philosophic system founded by a pagan and the dogmas of revelation is no doubt an external sign, an extra-philosophic guarantee of its truth; but from its own rational evidence, that it derives its authority as a philosophy".
4
Up to and during WWII, Jacques Maritain protested the policies of the Vichy government while teaching at the Pontifical Institute for Medieval Studies in Canada. "Moving to New York, Maritain became deeply involved in rescue activities, seeking to bring persecuted and threatened academics, many of them Jews, to America. He was instrumental in founding the cole Libre des 6
French Catholic philosopher and together both Pope Paul VI and Maritain were instrumental for the rise and success of Saul Alinsky (5) (see Exhibit H) and his
Hautes tudes, a kind of university in exile that was, at the same time, the center of Gaullist resistance in the United States". (1) After the war, he tried unsuccessfully to have the Pope speak on the issue of anti-semitism and the evils of the Holocaust. Many of his American papers are held by the University of Notre Dame, which established The Jacques Maritain Center in 1957. The Cercle d'Etudes Jacques & Rassa Maritain is an association founded by the philosopher himself in 1962 in Kolbsheim (near Strasbourg, France), where the couple is also buried. The purpose of these centers is to encourage study and research of Maritains thought and expands upon them. It is also absorbed in translating and editing his writings. Maritain was a strong defender of a natural law ethics. He viewed ethical norms as being rooted in human nature. For Maritain the natural law is known primarily, not through philosophical argument and demonstration, but rather through "Connaturality". Connatural knowledge is a kind of knowledge by acquaintance. We know the natural law through our direct acquaintance with it in our human experience. Of central importance, is Maritain's argument that natural rights are rooted in the natural law. This was key to his involvement in the drafting of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
5
From 1940 to 1960 Saul Alinsky, based in Chicago, is credited with originating the term community organizer during this time period. Alinsky wrote Reveille for Radicals, published in 1946, and Rules for Radicals, published in 1971. With these books, Alinsky was the first person in America to codify key strategies and aims of community organizing. He also founded the first national community organizing training network, the Industrial Areas Foundation, now led by one of his former lieutenants, Edward Chambers. The following quotations from Alinskys 1946 "Reveille for Radicals" gives a good sense of his perspective on organizing and of his public style of engagement: A Peoples Organization is a conflict group, [and] this must be openly and fully recognized. Its sole reason in coming into being is to wage war against all evils, which cause suffering and unhappiness. A Peoples Organization is the banding together of large numbers of men and women to fight for those rights, which insure a decent way of life. . . . A Peoples Organization is dedicated to an eternal war. It is a war against poverty, misery, delinquency, disease, injustice, hopelessness, despair, and unhappiness. They are basically the same issues for which nations have gone to war in almost every generation. . . . War is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils, there are no rules of fair play. . . . A Peoples Organization lives in a world of hard reality. It lives in the midst of smashing forces, dashing struggles, sweeping cross-currents, ripping passions, conflict, confusion, seeming chaos, the hot and the cold, the squalor and the drama, which people prosaically refer to as life and students describe as society.
community organizing networks across the country. The community organizing embraced by Defendant Obama before and while Senator Obama is an inheritance from Saul Alinsky who founded the Industrial Areas Foundation (6) and wrote about his organizing principles in two books, Reveille for Radicals that he dedicates to Lucifer (7), and Rules for Radicals. Todays major organizing networks ACORN (8), PICO (9), DART (10),
The Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), Chicago-based network established in 1940 that provides training and consultation, furnishes organizers, and develops National strategy for its affiliated broad-based community organizations. There are currently 57 IAF Affiliates functioning in 21 states, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany. It describes its chief purpose as power and its chief product as social change. Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom Lucifer." 8 ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is a community-based organization in the USA that advocates for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues. ACORN has over 400,000 members and more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in over 100 cities across the United States,[1] as well as in Argentina, Canada, Mexico, and Peru. ACORN was founded in 1970 by Wade Rathke and Gary Delgado. Maude Hurd has been National President of ACORN since 1990. ACORN's priorities have included: better housing and wages for the poor, more community development investment from banks and governments, better public schools, and other social justice issues. ACORN pursues these goals through demonstration, negotiation, lobbying for legislation, and voter participation. ACORN is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization that typically champions liberal and progressive causes. It is made up of numerous legally distinct parts including local non-profits, a national lobbying organization, and the ACORN Housing Corporation. ACORN has been the subject of public controversy involving embezzlement, management fights, voter registration fraud committed by its workers, and an undercover expos on employee misconduct The PICO National Network, established by Fr. John Bauman, S.J. that provides training and consultation and develops national strategy for its affiliated congregation-based community organizations. As the Pacific Institute for Community Organization (PICO), headquartered in Oakland, California. In the late 1960s, Baumann had worked with community organizing projects in Chicago, where he became familiar with Saul Alinskys ideas. During the 1970s, PICO worked with five neighborhood-based organizations, recruiting individuals and families. As neighborhoods experienced the economic and social upheavals of that decade, the neighborhood-based model of organizing became less viable as communities fractured. Following a staff retreat in 1984, PICO shifted to a congregation-based model based in part on 8
9
7
Gamaliel (11) and, of course, Alinskys own Industrial Areas Foundation owe
the experience of COPS, a federation in San Antonio, Texas developed by Alinskys Industrial Areas Foundation. As it expanded beyond the West Coast, in 2004 PICO characterized its acronym as standing for People Improving Communities through Organizing. In 2005, it renamed itself PICO National Network, emphasizing the autonomy of its affiliated organizations, and its role developing national strategy, training, and consultation. The shift to faith-based organizing has emphasized the importance of religious culture to PICO. Its base in northern California meant that PICO could draw on the traditions of a variety of denominations. As Richard Wood writes, this includes the social Christianity of the historic black churches, the Social Gospel and Christian realist perspectives in moderate and liberal Protestantism, the strongly evangelical but socially responsible orientation of the Church of God in Christ, and the intellectual resources, working-class commitments, and Hispanic cultural ties of Roman Catholicism. PICOs vision of faith-based or broad-based organizing sees power flowing from relationships grounded in values, not specific issues. The Direct Action and Research Training Center (DART) provides training and consultation for its affiliated congregation-based community organizations, in the tradition pioneered by the Industrial Areas Foundation. Founded in 1982, DART is headquartered in Miami, Florida. As of 2008, DART has 20 affiliated organizations in six states. John Calkins is the executive director. DART is the fourth largest congregation-based community-organizing network in the United States, after the Industrial Areas Foundation, Gamaliel Foundation, and PICO National Network. That In 1977 the United Church of Christs Homeland Ministries Board hired John Calkins to organize a senior citizens organization in Miami. Concerned Seniors of Dade helped organize African American congregations in Miami following a three-day riot in 1980. The DART Center was incorporated in 1982 to build a statewide network of congregationbased organizations throughout Florida, and Calkins was hired as executive director. In the 1990s DART was invited to help build organizations in Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky. And in the 2000s, DART added organizations in Virginia and Indiana. Whose Governance has a tenperson board of directors, and four professional national staff. And has a current program in which DART affiliates typically have a broad agenda of issues, including public education improvement, crime and drug reform, healthcare provisions, affordable housing, economic opportunity, accessible public transportation, neighborhood revitalization, minority rights, and youth and elderly services. DART has joined with the Center for Community Change, Gamaliel Foundation, and ACORN to work at the national level for immigration reform. The Gamaliel Foundation (GF), established by Fr. Gregory Galluzzo, S.J., is "to be a powerful network of grassroots, interfaith, interracial, multi-issue organizations working together to create a more just and more democratic society." Predicated on the notion that America is a land rife with injustice, GF agitates for social change by supporting the efforts of a network of organizations (the Gamaliel Network) whose goal is to allow for individuals to "effectively participate" in the political, environmental, social and economic arenas. GF offers, for its network affiliates, programs to teach techniques and methodologies for bringing about social change; ongoing consultations; and organizer recruitment campaigns. The Gamaliel Network receives much of its funding from the leftist group Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). Yet according to the Roman Catholic Faithful website, GF's "goals and philosophies 9
11 10
their structures and their methodologies to Alinsky. The old time organizers who founded these networks were trained either through the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) or by veterans of the IAF program. Alinskys principles are based upon Jesuit methods that in politics, the ends justify the means, and that organizers are to seek political power by any means that accomplishes that end. Local agendas are used to serve a larger, organizational agenda that is sometimes diametrically opposed to the values of its membership. Faith-based institutions are evangelized into liberationist theory through a variety of mechanisms. These are serious problems for the religious bodies who have become institutional members of the Alinskyian networks. An analysis of Catholic Campaign for Human Development grants demonstrates that over the decades, about 33% of its beneficence goes to Alinskystyle, church-based community organizations sporting highly politicized, left-wing agendas. This means the ACORN network receives approximately 5% of the national CCHD annual budget. The Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) network receives approximately 16% of the national CCHD annual budget. These figures, however, do not include the dues paid by member churches, the money given to network affiliates through local Catholic Campaign for Human Development grants, nor the grants coming into the networks through other Catholic bodies. Nor does it account for the money raised by other religious groups through similar poverty programs From the start, Alinskys peoples organisations were very closely tied to the Catholic Church. An auxiliary bishop of Chicago, Bernard J. Sheil, was one of his main backers, as would later be Cardinal Bernardin. Alinsky was close friends with the French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain, who encouraged Alinsky to write his best-selling Reveille for Radicals in 1946. The great Thomist often considered the intellectual father of European Christian democracy saw in Alinskys peoples organisations a microcosm for renewed spirituality and democratic citizenship. In 1958 Maritain arranged for Alinsky to meet Archbishop Montini in Milan because the philosopher thought Alinksy could give Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, some organizational tips for stopping the Italian Communist Party from making further inroads among Catholic workers. The U.S. Catholic Churchs Campaign for Human Development (CHD) which financed the DCPs projects in the 1980s, and therefore indirectly paid for Obamas organizing these days spends almost all of its $8 Million budget on community organizing efforts. The embrace of Alinskys ideas by both the CHD
are at fundamental odds with Church teaching." GF endorses "scriptural relativism and "encourage[s] a wide range of scriptural interpretations."
10
and the Catholic bishops have led more than one theologian to claim that Alinsky has had the most decisive impact on the American Catholic social justice movement over the last 20 years. In the midst of all the intrigue, in December 2009 Declarant petitioned to intervene into the deceptively friendly suit ACORN et al. v USA et al. EDNY 09cv-4888 before the Fabian Progressive Rhodes Scholar District Judge Nina Gershon, who thereafter denied the petition now on appeal to the Second circuit in that in regard to the ACORN conglomerate properly characterized as a racketeering enterprise by the Congress as to the 350 interlocking corporations and the Service Employees International Union (S.E.I.U.) (see Exhibit I) that compose the fund raising network that was setup by the Jesuits Fabian progressive Saul Alinsky with the assistance of Cardinal Montini in the fifties who becoming the Pope initiated extensive networks of Rome Catholic Church funding stream through the Vatican Bank(s) and subsidiaries in Europe and the United States. The Vatican Bank mechanism for funding subversive movements and crime is well documented historically and essential for the Obama regime rise to power starting in the 1996 election in Illinois. There are three direct Vatican Banking mechanisms used to channel money into the United States: (i) The Vatican Bank number UID# 014780 BIC/SWIFT : IOPRVAVX a.k.a ISTITUTO PER LE OPERE DI RELIGIONE of VATICAN CITY in the VATICAN CITY STATE and for which there are seven (7) banking participants as the landing banks for international wire transfers into the USA and who directly benefited by putting Obama into office: 0001 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON; 0002 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; 0008 CITIBANK, N.A.; 0103 DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST CO AMERICAS; 0108 HSBC BANK USA; 0256 STANDARD CHARTERED BANK; 0509 WELLS FARGO NY INTL FKA WACHOVIA; needless to say the Vatican Bank and the participating banks are generally owned by the Vatican through the Rothschild who have managed the Vatican asset since 1824 and keep that control tightly within the family circle even as far back as Alexander Hamilton who having married a Rothschild cousin setup the Bank of New York in 1784 that only after great effort became chartered after 1791 when he became the US Treasurer; and (ii) further, the International Catholic Union of the Press (UCIP) is used for the World Forum of Professionals and Institutions in Secular and Religious Media with the Address: UCIP, CP 197, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland and the Vatican name of the account holder: UCIP with the name of the Bank: IOR, Vatican Swiftcode: IOPRVAVX Account number in Europe: 16586001 http://www.ucip.ch/une/ib.htm and in which the Vatican Interbank clearing account in the US is with JPM CHASE MANHATTAN BANK NEW YORK Account no.: 001-1-97500; and
11
(iii) further yet, The Vatican Bank: ISTITUTO PER LE OPERE DI RELIGIONE = INSTITUTE FOR THE RELIGION WORKS in which the Institute for Works of Religion (Italian: Istituto per le Opere di Religione - IOR) commonly known as Vatican Bank was formed during World War 2 and is located inside the Vatican City (12). The Bank has been involved in numerous scandals
The Origin of The Istituto per le Opere di Religione was founded on 27 June 1942 by Pope Pius XII. It absorbed the Amministrazione delle Opere di Religione (Administration of the Works of Religion), which was in no sense a bank, having been established by Pope Leo XIII on 11 February 1887 to manage the much reduced funds at the disposal of the Pope after the complete loss of the Papal States in 1870; these funds were greatly increased as part of the settlement of the Roman Question by the Lateran Pacts of 1929. The purpose of the Istituto per le Opere di Religione is "to provide for the safekeeping and administration of movable and immovable property transferred to entrusted to it by physical or juridical persons and intended for works of religion or charity". It is thus not a department of the Roman Curia, and is therefore not among the departments of this central administrative structure of the Roman Catholic Church. Nor is it a central bank responsible for a country's monetary policy and for maintaining the stability of a currency and money supply. It is unlike a normal bank also in that any profit it makes does not go to shareholders, which in this case do not exist, but is used instead for religious and charitable purposes. The Organization is according to the norms of its present statutes, which came into effect in 1990, the IOR is directed by a supervisory council and by an oversight commission of cardinals. As of 23 September 2009 the supervisory council is composed of President: Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, Vice-President: Ronaldo Hermann Schmitz; Carl A. Anderson; Giovanni De Censi; Manuel Soto Serrano. The Vatican Bank is said to be a successful and profitable bank. By the 1990s, the Bank had invested somewhere over US $10 billion in foreign companies. In 1968 Vatican authorities hired Michele Sindona as a financial advisor, despite Sindona's questionable past. It was Sindona who was chiefly responsible for the massive influx of money when he began laundering the Gambino crime family's heroin monies (taking a 50% cut) through a shell corporation "Mabusi". This laundering was accomplished with the help of another banker, Roberto Calvi, who managed the Banco Ambrosiano. Both Calvi and Sindona were members of the P2 Lodge. P2 lodge was headed by Licio Gelli, and was implicated in numerous Italian crimes and mysteries, including the nationwide bribe scandal Tangentopoli, the collapse of the Vaticanaffiliated Banco Ambrosiano, and the murders of journalist Mino Pecorelli and banker Roberto Calvi. P2 came to light through the investigations into the collapse of Michele Sindona's financial empire. When searching Licio Gelli's villa, the police found a document called the "Plan for Democratic Rebirth", which called for a consolidation of the media, suppression of trade unions, and the rewriting of the Constitution. When Pope John Paul I became Pope in 1978 he was informed about the allegations of wrongdoing at the Vatican Bank, and instructed Jean-Marie Villot, Cardinal Secretary of State and head of the papal Curia, to investigate the matter thoroughly. Pope John Paul I died after only 33 days in office, leading to claims that he had been murdered as a result of discovering a scandal. Pope John Paul I is generally accepted to have died from natural causes, although some medical experts believe that he may have died from a pulmonary embolism or an adverse 12
12
including money laundering of drug dealer funds and Nazi war crime loot. IOR follows the typical extreme corruption found in the Roman Catholic Empire and is run by a professional bank CEO who reports directly to a committee of cardinals,
reaction to the medication that he was taking rather than from a heart attack as was stated in original press reports of his death. The Banco Ambrosiano scandal in which The Vatican Bank was Banco Ambrosiano's main share-holder. Father Paul Marcinkus, head of the Institute for Religious Works from 1971 to 1989, was indicted in Italy in 1982 as an accessory in the $3.5 billion collapse of Banco Ambrosiano, one of the major post-war financial scandals. Banco Ambrosiano was accused of laundering drug money for the Sicilian Mafia, which used Propaganda Due (aka "P2"), a mobbed up Masonic lodge, as an intermediary. P2 and its Worshipful Master, Licio Gelli, were also involved in financing right wing terror groups during the 1970s. As for Fr. Marcinkus, he would never come to trial in Italy, where courts ruled that he possessed diplomatic immunity. He lived in retirement in Sun City, Arizona (US) until his death on February 21, 2006. The Vatican Bank has denied having legal responsibility for the Ambrosiano's downfall but did acknowledge "moral involvement", and paid $241m (169m) to creditors. As of 2006, investigations are continuing concerning the murder of Ambrosiano's chairman, Roberto Calvi, which, according to Ernest Backes, former #3 of Clearstream, may have been linked to the death of Grard Soisson, who used to work for Clearstream, a "bank of banks" which practices financial clearing. According to recent wiretap information, however, Calvi's death was almost certainly decreed by the Cupola, the ruling council of the Sicilian Mafia, which had come to view Calvi as a liability since the bank's collapse. Other allegations in several books, such as Unholy Trinity: How the Vatican's Nazi Networks Betrayed Western Intelligence to the Soviets, Genocide in Satellite Croatia 1941-1945 and The Vatican's Holocaust, which appeared during the 1980s and 1990s were highly critical of the Vatican Bank's historical relations with right-wing governments and especially with the collaborationist regime of the Independent State of Croatia during World War II. Sources such as these engendered initial defensive hostility and controversy, which centers on conclusions drawn from the documentation rather than the documents themselves. According to a 1998 report issued by the US State Department, the Nazi Croatian treasury was illicitly transferred to the Vatican Bank and other banks after the end of World War II. For its part, the Vatican has repeatedly denied any Franciscan participation in Ustashi crimes or the disappearance of the Croatian Treasury, yet has refused to open its wartime records to substantiate its denial. On October 21, 1946, a Top Secret report from US Treasury Agent Emerson Bigelow (called "The Bigelow Report"), which was declassified in 1997, quoted a "reliable source in Italy" (who corroborated evidence already obtained by CIC intelligence officials of the Army) [13] , who alerted his superior that Croatian officials had sent 350 million confiscated Swiss francs (CHF) to the Vatican Bank "for safekeeping", a sum largely in the form of gold coins. On the way some CHF 150 million were allegedly seized by British authorities at the border between Austria and Switzerland, which brought the secret transfer into the open. "There is no basis in reality to the report", said Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls, as reported in Time magazine. The Vatican Bank has been accused of funding the Solidarity Polish trade-union as well as the Contras, managing U.S. covert funds.
13
and ultimately to the Pope (or the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church during a vacancy). Since its assets are not considered property of the Holy See, the Prefecture does not oversee it for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See; The Institute was involved in a number of major criminal, political and financial scandals. In the 1980s, concerning the 1982 $3.5 billion collapse of Banco Ambrosiano, of which it was a major share-holder. The head of the Vatican Bank from 1971 to 1989, Chicago Archbishop Paul Marcinkus (friend of John McCain while he lived in exile in Sun City Arizona until he died) (see Exhibit J), was under consideration for indictment in 1982 in Italy as an accessory of the bankruptcy; however, he was never brought to trial due to the Italian courts' ruling that the priest, being a high-ranking prelate of the Vatican, had diplomatic immunity from prosecution. According to his public biography, in 1993, Obama joined Davis, Miner (Chicago Corporation Counsel until 1989), Barnhill (Order of the Coif and Kirkland & Ellis LLP connection) & Galland (Order of the Coif), a 13-attorney law, at which William P Dixon (see Exhibit K) is of counsel represented ACORN in 2002, firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development that was in partnership with Syrian Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born July 1955 and where Obama was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002; Rezko is a political fundraiser, restaurateur, and real estate developer / slumlord in Chicago, Illinois, was convicted on several counts of fraud and bribery in 2008 and was involved in fundraising for Obama, Obama served from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. He served on the board of directors of Walter Annenburgs (see Exhibit L) Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1999. Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn. Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998, defeating Republican Yesse Yehudah in the general election, and was reelected again in 2002. In 2000, Obama lost a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives to four-term incumbent Bobby Rush by a margin of two to one. That according to Sarah P. Herlihys resume on line with the International Law firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLP in Chicago after Ms. Herlihy was the Law Clerk to the Honorable Michael M. Mihm, United States District Court for the
14
Central District of Illinois, 2005 2006 she has been employed by the firm and in the resume she is listed with receiving the award of the Order of the Coif whose various members of the Society are traced throughout the Obama support network working in the conspiracy with the Defendants. That a Principal of Kirtland & Ellis LLP, Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., is Member of finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin. http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm itemID=7845 (towards bottom of the page) In addition to members of the firm making donations to the Obama campaign , Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the Illinois Venture Capital Associations lifetime achievement award for service to the private equity/venture capital community presented by Sen. Barack Obama. That Kirtland & Ellis LLP is a global firm with powerful international clients listed on the website (See Exhibit M). In the context of the above background, that a Republican Party filed a complaint with the FEC alleging that Obama for America (OFA) and treasurer Martin H. Nesbitt, in his official capacity as treasurer, converted campaign funds to Obamas personal use by paying some of his personal travel expenses during the 2008 presidential campaign. It alleged further that VIDA Fitness facilitated the making of contributions and made prohibited contributions to the Obama Victory Fund (OVF) and treasurer Andrew Tobias (see Exhibit N) , a joint fundraising committee comprised of OFA and the Democratic National Committee, by using a corporate email list to distribute OVF fundraising solicitations and allowing OVF to use VIDAs facilities for a fundraiser. The complaint also alleged that OFA failed to disclose the transfer of a donor list to Project Vote, an affiliate of ACORN, and that OFA intended to accept and Saul Ewing LLP intended to make an excessive contribution in the form of pro bono legal services. That on February 26, 2010, according to the FEC on the matter under review MUR # 6127 (See Exhibit O) fined Obama for America and Martin H. Nesbitt in his official capacity as treasurer (associate of Chicago billionaire Penny S. Pritzker who lost $400 plus million of depositors money in the sub-prime mortgage scandal); Barack Obama; Obama Victory Fund and Andrew Tobias, in his official capacity as treasurer; Democratic National Committee and Andrew Tobias, in his official capacity as treasurer; VIDA Fitness; Urban Salons, Inc. doing business as Bang Salon Spa; David von Storch; and Saul Ewing, LLP. That Chicago billionaire Penny S. Pritzker who serves as a gatekeeper for funding on the Obama transition team is an insider associated with the international enterprise coordinated by the Ernst Young Company (see Exhibit P) whose overlap with the Vatican and the Obama transition team put Obama into power in 2008. A chart of the enterprise involved since no later than 1992 only
15
lists in part, notwithstanding those who are deceased, the interrelation of persons, networks and entities associated in the Obama Administration for unjust enrichment in the racketeering enterprise. That of those names disclosed to the FEC they are being reviewed by computerized comparison for incongruence as to the existence of actual named persons, correlated with location and interrelation to the networks referenced above. Since less than half of the contributors have been disclosed and the report of money coming from Nigeria, Syria, Libya, Indonesia, and many other foreign countries the persons involved who are not US citizens must be ascertained. I will be continuing an independent investigation with my associates during the Voting Rights Section review and am available for further discussions at your convenience. Respectfully submitted by,
Dated: April 12, 2010
/s/ Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 email: chris@strunk.ws
Brooklyn, New York _________________________________
16
COINFIDENTIAL
UNDER SEAL
Re: Seal v. Seal DCD 10-486 (RCL) Subject: Due Notice with the FCA
EXHIBIT A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 8th day of November , two thousand and one. PRESENT:
15 16 17
HON. ELLSWORTH VAN GRAAFEILAND, HON. RALPH K. WINTER, HON. ROBERT D. SACK,
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Circuit Judges. -----------------------------------------CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Plaintiff-Appellant, - v No. 01-6021
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DENNIS HASTERT, RICHARD GEPHARDT, BERNARD SAUNDERS, ADOLPHUS TOWNS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, WILLIAM M. DALEY, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES CENSUS MONITORING BOARD, MARK JOHNSON, FRED ASBELL, THE STATE OF NEW YOTK, ATTORNEY GENERAL, GOVERNOR, SECRETARY, SENATOR PRO TEMPORE, ASSEMBLY SPEAKER, NEW YORK REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE, NEW YORK STATE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE DICK ARMEY, Defendant-Appellees. ------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Appearing for Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Brooklyn, NY, pro se. DAVID L. GOLDBERG, Assistant United States Attorney (Varuni Nelson, of counsel), for Loretta A. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY.
Appearing for Appellees:
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Jack B. Weinstein, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of December 26, 2000 be, and it hereby is, AFFIRMED. The plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk filed an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order should not be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a) and (b), preventing the defendants from seating the State's electors for the 2000 presidential election at the December 18, 2000 meeting of the electoral college. Strunk contends that New York's method of selecting presidential electors, whereby all of the State's electoral college positions are given to individuals representing the candidate who wins the State's popular vote, violates inter alia the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; the Privileges and Immunities Clause of U.S. Const. Art. IV, 2; the right to a republican form of government under U.S. Const. Art. IV, 2, cl. 5; the First Amendment; New York's Constitution; and New York statutory and common law. The defendants made oral motions, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss all of the plaintiff's claims, and the district court granted the motions. The district court held that states have authority to determine the method of selecting presidential electors and that Strunk offered no evidence of fraud as a predicate for judicial intervention. Strunk's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. The district court was correct to reject all of Strunk's claims. Strunk's request for injunctive relief is moot because the presidential electors were already seated at the December 18, 2000 meeting of the electoral college and the President and Vice-President of the United States have been 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
elected. See United States v. Mercurris, 192 F.3d 290, 293 (2d Cir. 1999). Thus, it is "impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party." In re Kurtzman, 194 F.3d 54, 58 (2d Cir. 1999); see also Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); Fox v. Bd. of Trs. of the State Univ. of N.Y., 42 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1169, 115 S.Ct. 2634, 132 L.Ed.2d 873 (1995). Nor does the instant case fall within the limited exception wherein a controversy may be "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975). Although the same controversy may arise in connection to the 2004 elections, Strunk can file a timely petition for relief at that time. The district court in this instance reached the merits of the plaintiff's claims, and rejected all of them. We note that the district court correctly stated the proposition of law that states are constitutionally empowered to determine how to select electors: "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." U.S. Const. Art. II, 1, cl. 2 (emphasis added). Thus, "[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the president of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College." Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000) (citing U.S. Const. Art. II 1); see also McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892). For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
COINFIDENTIAL
UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT B
NameBase Proximity Search
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?Na=Riady%2C+James+
register
order copies
what is this diagram?
Java diagram
no diagram
The names below are mentioned on the listed pages with the name RIADY JAMES T Click on a name for a new proximity search: ABBOUD A ROBERT Truell,P. Gurwin,L. False Profits. 1992 (366) BAMIEH SAM Truell,P. Gurwin,L. False Profits. 1992 (366) BENSON GEORGE C Progressive 1997-05 (19) BOGGS THOMAS HALE JR Truell,P. Gurwin,L. False Profits. 1992 (366) BRADBURY RAY (WORTHEN BANK)
1 of 6
4/12/2010 3:49 PM
New Republic 1994-04-04 (18) BROWN RONALD HARMON Washington Times 1996-10-16 (4) BUSH GEORGE H.W. Truell,P. Gurwin,L. False Profits. 1992 (366) CHEN CHAO-PING Washington Times 1996-11-06 (4) CLINTON HILLARY RODHAM New Republic 1994-04-04 (17-18) EAGLEBURGER LAWRENCE SIDNEY Truell,P. Gurwin,L. False Profits. 1992 (366) EFTIMIADES NICHOLAS Washington Times 1997-03-17 (10) FIREMAN SIMON C Washington Times 1996-10-24 (4) FOSTER VINCENT W JR New Republic 1994-04-04 (18) GIROIR C JOSEPH New Republic 1994-04-04 (17-18) Washington Times 1997-03-17 (10) GLICKEN HOWARD Lewis,C. The Buying of the President 2000. 2000 (168) GORE ALBERT JR (D-TN) Lewis,C. The Buying of the President 2000. 2000 (168) GROBMYER MARK W Washington Times 1996-11-06 (4) Washington Times 1997-03-17 (10) HALEY MARIA L Washington Times 1996-10-25 (16) HSIA MARIA Lewis,C. The Buying of the President 2000. 2000 (168)
2 of 6
4/12/2010 3:49 PM
New York Times 1998-02-16 (15) HUANG JOHN Lewis,C. The Buying of the President 2000. 2000 (168) Mother Jones 1997-02 (12-13) New York Times 1998-02-16 (15) Washington Times 1996-10-16 (4) Washington Times 1996-10-25 (16) Washington Times 1997-03-17 (10) HUBBELL WEBSTER LEE New Republic 1994-04-04 (17-18) Washington Times 1996-10-16 (4) Washington Times 1997-03-17 (10) JETT JIM New Republic 1994-04-04 (17) JIMENEZ MARK (FUGITIVE) Lewis,C. The Buying of the President 2000. 2000 (168) KANCHANALAK PAULINE Washington Times 1997-03-17 (10) KLAYMAN LARRY Washington Times 1996-10-16 (4) KRONENBERG DUANGNET (GEORGIE) Washington Times 1997-03-17 (10) LAXALT PAUL D (R-NV) Truell,P. Gurwin,L. False Profits. 1992 (366) LILLEY JAMES RODERICK Washington Times 1997-03-17 (10) LIPPO GROUP New York Times 1998-02-16 (15) Washington Times 1996-10-16 (4) Washington Times 1996-10-24 (4) Washington Times 1996-10-25 (16) Washington Times 1997-03-17 (10) LIU TAI-YING Washington Times 1996-11-06 (4) LO CHONG
3 of 6
4/12/2010 3:49 PM
Washington Times 1997-03-17 (10) MASTERS EDWARD EUGENE Progressive 1997-05 (19) MCCURRY MICHAEL Washington Times 1996-11-06 (4) MIDDLETON MARK E New York Times 1998-02-16 (15) Washington Times 1996-11-06 (4) Washington Times 1997-03-17 (10) MOSS MELISSA Washington Times 1996-10-16 (4) RIADY MOCHTAR Mother Jones 1997-02 (12-13) New Republic 1994-04-04 (17-18) Truell,P. Gurwin,L. False Profits. 1992 (366) Washington Times 1996-10-16 (4) Washington Times 1996-10-24 (4) RIADY STEPHEN Washington Times 1996-10-24 (4) ROSE LAW FIRM New Republic 1994-04-04 (17-18) SAID WAFIC Truell,P. Gurwin,L. False Profits. 1992 (366) SCOWCROFT BRENT Truell,P. Gurwin,L. False Profits. 1992 (366) SHULTZ GEORGE PRATT Progressive 1997-05 (19) SIREGAR ARIFIN Progressive 1997-05 (19) STEPHENS GROUP INC New Republic 1994-04-04 (17-18) New York Times 1998-02-16 (15) STEPHENS JACKSON THOMAS
4 of 6
4/12/2010 3:49 PM
Truell,P. Gurwin,L. False Profits. 1992 (366) Washington Times 1996-10-24 (4) STEPHENS WITT (WILTON ROBERT) Washington Times 1996-10-24 (4) SUHARTO GEN. Mother Jones 1997-02 (12-13) TRIE CHARLIE (YAH LIN) New York Times 1998-02-16 (15) Washington Times 1997-03-17 (10) UNITED STATES INDONESIA SOCIETY Progressive 1997-05 (19) WANG CHIAO JEN Washington Times 1997-03-17 (10) WARD SETH SR New Republic 1994-04-04 (18) WARNER MARVIN New Republic 1994-04-04 (18) WEAVER A VERNON Washington Times 1996-10-24 (4) WIRIADINATA ARIEF Washington Times 1996-10-16 (4) Washington Times 1997-03-17 (10) WIRIADINATA SORAYA Washington Times 1996-10-16 (4) WOLFOWITZ PAUL D Progressive 1997-05 (19) WORTHEN NATIONAL BANK New Republic 1994-04-04 (17-18) Washington Times 1996-10-24 (4) YEE MELINDA C Washington Times 1996-10-16 (4)
5 of 6
4/12/2010 3:49 PM
RIADY JAMES T pages searched: 13 These names share the indicated number of pages with the above name. Click on a name below (or on the one above) for a standard name search:
HUANG JOHN 7 RIADY MOCHTAR 7 LIPPO GROUP 5 HUBBELL WEBSTER LEE 4 GIROIR C JOSEPH 3 MIDDLETON MARK E 3 STEPHENS GROUP INC 3 WORTHEN NATIONAL BANK 3 CLINTON HILLARY RODHAM 2 GROBMYER MARK W 2 HSIA MARIA 2 ROSE LAW FIRM 2 STEPHENS JACKSON THOMAS 2 SUHARTO GEN. 2 TRIE CHARLIE (YAH LIN) 2 WIRIADINATA ARIEF 2 ABBOUD A ROBERT 1 BAMIEH SAM 1 BENSON GEORGE C 1 BOGGS THOMAS HALE JR 1 BRADBURY RAY (WORTHEN BANK) 1 BROWN RONALD HARMON 1 BUSH GEORGE H.W. 1 CHEN CHAO-PING 1 EAGLEBURGER LAWRENCE SIDNEY 1 EFTIMIADES NICHOLAS 1 FIREMAN SIMON C 1 FOSTER VINCENT W JR 1 GLICKEN HOWARD 1 GORE ALBERT JR (D-TN) 1 HALEY MARIA L 1 JETT JIM 1 JIMENEZ MARK (FUGITIVE) 1 KANCHANALAK PAULINE 1 KLAYMAN LARRY 1 KRONENBERG DUANGNET (GEORGIE) 1 LAXALT PAUL D (R-NV) 1 LILLEY JAMES RODERICK 1 LIU TAI-YING 1 LO CHONG 1 MASTERS EDWARD EUGENE 1 MCCURRY MICHAEL 1 MOSS MELISSA 1 RIADY STEPHEN 1 SAID WAFIC 1 SCOWCROFT BRENT 1 SHULTZ GEORGE PRATT 1 SIREGAR ARIFIN 1 STEPHENS WITT (WILTON ROBERT) 1 UNITED STATES INDONESIA SOCIETY 1 WANG CHIAO JEN 1 WARD SETH SR 1 WARNER MARVIN 1 WEAVER A VERNON 1 WIRIADINATA SORAYA 1 WOLFOWITZ PAUL D 1 YEE MELINDA C 1
Back to NameBase search page
6 of 6
4/12/2010 3:49 PM
COINFIDENTIAL
UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT C
Social Network Diagram for CLIFFORD CLARK MCADAMS
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?_CLIFFORD_CLARK_MCADAMS
register
order copies
Java diagram
no diagram
The names below are mentioned on the listed pages with the name CLIFFORD CLARK MCADAMS Click on a name for a new proximity search: ABEDI AGHA HASAN Covert Action Information Bulletin 1992-#39 (47) Covert Action Quarterly 1993-#44 (44) Ehrenfeld,R. Evil Money. 1992 (166) Stich,R. Defrauding America. 1994 (413) Trento,J. Prelude to Terror. 2005 (105) Trento,S. The Power House. 1992 (369) Washington Post 1991-02-03 (28 29) ACHESON DEAN G Adams,S. War of Numbers. 1994 (218) Jeffreys-Jones,R. The CIA and American Democracy. 1989 (38) Scott,P.D. Deep Politics. 1993 (223) Shoup,L. Minter,W. Imperial Brain Trust. 1977 (242) Washington Times 1990-01-18 (7)
1 of 12
4/12/2010 3:53 PM
ADHAM KAMAL Covert Action Information Bulletin 1992-#39 (47) Covert Action Quarterly 1993-#44 (44-45) Ehrenfeld,R. Evil Money. 1992 (166) Emerson,S. The American House of Saud. 1985 (117) Trento,J. Prelude to Terror. 2005 (101 105) Unger,C. House of Bush, House of Saud. 2004 (52 125) Washington Post 1991-02-03 (28 29) ALTMAN ROBERT A Ehrenfeld,R. Evil Money. 1992 (179) Seagrave,S.& P. Gold Warriors. 2003 (98) Stich,R. Defrauding America. 1994 (404-406 413) Trento,S. The Power House. 1992 (370) Washington Post 1991-02-03 (28 29) Washington Post 1991-05-05 (1 26-27) Washington Post 1991-09-23 (5) Washington Times 1993-12-03 (1 19) ANDERSON GEORGE W JR (ADM) Corson,W. The Armies of Ignorance. 1977 (372) Marchetti,V. Marks,J. The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. 1974 (315) ANDERSON ROBERT BERNERD Domhoff,G.W. Who Rules America? 1967 (105) Sale,K. Power Shift. 1976 (136) Seagrave,S.& P. Gold Warriors. 2003 (96 98) ANGLETON JAMES JESUS Eveland,W.C. Ropes of Sand. 1980 (322) Thomas,E. The Very Best Men. 1996 (328) AWAN AMJAD Trento,S. The Power House. 1992 (370) Washington Post 1991-02-03 (29) BAKER BOBBY (ROBERT GENE) Birnbaum,J. The Lobbyists. 1992 (15) Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (103) Hersh,S. The Dark Side of Camelot. 1997 (116) Lasky,V. It Didn't Start With Watergate. 1978 (143-144) Thomas,E. The Man to See. 1991 (182) Winter-Berger,R. The Washington Pay-Off. 1972 (220) BAKER WILLIAM O Cookridge,E.H. Gehlen: Spy of the Century. 1972 (205) Corson,W. The Armies of Ignorance. 1977 (372) Marchetti,V. Marks,J. The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. 1974 (315) BAKHSH ABDULLAH TAHA
2 of 12
4/12/2010 3:53 PM
Hicks,S. The Big Wedding. 2005 (26) Unger,C. House of Bush, House of Saud. 2004 (125) BALL GEORGE W Adams,S. War of Numbers. 1994 (218) Bird,K. The Color of Truth. 1998 (332) Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (106) Jeffreys-Jones,R. The CIA and American Democracy. 1989 (171) Shoup,L. Minter,W. Imperial Brain Trust. 1977 (241-242) BANK CREDIT COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL Covert Action Information Bulletin 1992-#39 (47) Covert Action Quarterly 1993-#44 (44-45) Ehrenfeld,R. Evil Money. 1992 (166 179 183) Hicks,S. The Big Wedding. 2005 (25-26) Reed,T. Cummings,J. Compromised. 1994 (245) Ruddy,C. The Strange Death of Vincent Foster. 1997 (144) Seagrave,S.& P. Gold Warriors. 2003 (98) Stich,R. Defrauding America. 1994 (404-406 413) Trento,J. Prelude to Terror. 2005 (105) Trento,S. The Power House. 1992 (369-370) Unger,C. House of Bush, House of Saud. 2004 (125) Washington Post 1991-02-03 (1 28-29) Washington Post 1991-05-05 (1 26-27) BARBOUR WALWORTH Loftus,J. Aarons,M. The Secret War Against the Jews. 1994 (285) Prados,J. Keepers of the Keys. 1991 (178) BARR WILLIAM PELHAM Reed,T. Cummings,J. Compromised. 1994 (244-245) BIN MAHFOUZ KHALID Hicks,S. The Big Wedding. 2005 (26) Stich,R. Defrauding America. 1994 (405) BLAUVELT LOUIS L Hersh,S. The Dark Side of Camelot. 1997 (332 339) BLOUGH ROGER M Birnbaum,J. The Lobbyists. 1992 (15) Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (99-100) BOGGS THOMAS HALE JR Birnbaum,J. The Lobbyists. 1992 (81) Smith,H. The Power Game. 1989 (230) BRADLEE BENJAMIN C Davis,D. Katharine the Great. 1987 (269)
3 of 12
4/12/2010 3:53 PM
Hersh,S. The Dark Side of Camelot. 1997 (332-333 339) BRADLEY OMAR N (GEN) Adams,S. War of Numbers. 1994 (218) Shoup,L. Minter,W. Imperial Brain Trust. 1977 (242) BROWN GEORGE R Domhoff,G.W. Who Rules America? 1967 (105) Sale,K. Power Shift. 1976 (136) BROWN HAROLD (DEFENSE SEC) Dye,T. Who's Running America? 1983 (89) Hanahoe,T. America Rules. 2003 (71) BUNDY MCGEORGE Adams,S. War of Numbers. 1994 (218) Hersh,S. The Dark Side of Camelot. 1997 (219) Jeffreys-Jones,R. The CIA and American Democracy. 1989 (171) Shoup,L. Minter,W. Imperial Brain Trust. 1977 (242) Weiner,T. Legacy of Ashes. 2007 (263) BUSH PRESCOTT SHELDON Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (71-72) CALIFANO JOSEPH A JR Bird,K. The Color of Truth. 1998 (366) Kilian,M. Sawislak,A. Who Runs Washington? 1982 (198) Winter-Berger,R. The Washington Pay-Off. 1972 (203) CARTER LYNDA Ehrenfeld,R. Evil Money. 1992 (179) Trento,S. The Power House. 1992 (370) CHAPMAN OSCAR Bradlee,B. A Good Life. 1995 (127) Kelly,T. The Imperial Post. 1983 (106) CHENNAULT ANNA CHAN Hitchens,C. The Trial of Henry Kissinger. 2001 (10) Trento,S. The Power House. 1992 (107) CHERNE LEO Corson,W. The Armies of Ignorance. 1977 (372) Marchetti,V. Marks,J. The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. 1974 (315) Wise,D. Ross,T. The Invisible Government. 1974 (188) CHRISTIANA SECURITIES COMPANY
4 of 12
4/12/2010 3:53 PM
Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (93-94) CLINE RAY STEINER Bird,K. The Color of Truth. 1998 (287) Jeffreys-Jones,R. The CIA and American Democracy. 1989 (151) Seagrave,S.& P. Gold Warriors. 2003 (98) Weiner,T. Legacy of Ashes. 2007 (263) CLOSE RAYMOND H Covert Action Information Bulletin 1992-#39 (47) Covert Action Quarterly 1993-#44 (45) Trento,J. Prelude to Terror. 2005 (105) COHEN SHELDON S Thomas,E. The Man to See. 1991 (165) Winter-Berger,R. The Washington Pay-Off. 1972 (203) COMMUNIST PARTY USA Burnham,D. Above the Law. 1996 (302-303) CONNALLY JOHN BOWDEN (B.1917-02-27) Corson,W. The Armies of Ignorance. 1977 (372) Marchetti,V. Marks,J. The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. 1974 (315) Sale,K. Power Shift. 1976 (136) CORCORAN THOMAS GARDINER Domhoff,G.W. Who Rules America? 1967 (105) Sale,K. Power Shift. 1976 (136) Scott,P.D. Deep Politics. 1993 (223) Thomas,E. The Man to See. 1991 (260) Trento,S. The Power House. 1992 (107) CULVER JOHN C (D-IA) Stich,R. Defrauding America. 1994 (413) Unger,C. House of Bush, House of Saud. 2004 (125) CUTLER LLOYD N Kilian,M. Sawislak,A. Who Runs Washington? 1982 (198) Thomas,E. The Man to See. 1991 (260) DARR ALICIA Hersh,S. The Dark Side of Camelot. 1997 (116-117) DEAN ARTHUR H Adams,S. War of Numbers. 1994 (218) Shoup,L. Minter,W. Imperial Brain Trust. 1977 (241-242) DILLON C DOUGLAS
5 of 12
4/12/2010 3:53 PM
Adams,S. War of Numbers. 1994 (218) Colby,G. Dennett,C. Thy Will Be Done. 1995 (585) Colby,G. DuPont Dynasty. 1984 (429-430) Shoup,L. Minter,W. Imperial Brain Trust. 1977 (242) DONOVAN WILLIAM JOSEPH Corn,D. Blond Ghost. 1994 (29) CounterSpy 1980-SU (2) Jeffreys-Jones,R. The CIA and American Democracy. 1989 (28) ELSEY GEORGE M Jeffreys-Jones,R. The CIA and American Democracy. 1989 (37) Weiner,T. Legacy of Ashes. 2007 (526-527) FEINBERG ABRAHAM Hersh,S. The Samson Option. 1991 (95 190-191) FIRST AMERICAN BANKSHARES Reed,T. Cummings,J. Compromised. 1994 (244-245) Washington Post 1991-02-03 (1 28-29) Washington Post 1991-05-05 (1 26-27) FORRESTAL JAMES VINCENT CounterSpy 1980-SU (2) Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (82) Hanahoe,T. America Rules. 2003 (71) Loftus,J. Aarons,M. The Secret War Against the Jews. 1994 (178) Pyadyshev,B. The Military-Industrial Complex of the USA. 1977 (58) Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (71) Yakovlev,N. Washington Silhouettes. 1985 (72) FORTAS ABE Adams,S. War of Numbers. 1994 (218) Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (95 102-103) Lasky,V. It Didn't Start With Watergate. 1978 (143-144 206-207) Sale,K. Power Shift. 1976 (136) Shoup,L. Minter,W. Imperial Brain Trust. 1977 (242) FULBRIGHT J WILLIAM Bird,K. The Color of Truth. 1998 (287 366) Jeffreys-Jones,R. The CIA and American Democracy. 1989 (155) Levins,H. Arab Reach. 1983 (12) GALVIN ROBERT WILLIAM Corson,W. The Armies of Ignorance. 1977 (372) Marchetti,V. Marks,J. The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. 1974 (315) Wise,D. Ross,T. The Invisible Government. 1974 (188) GATES THOMAS S JR
6 of 12
4/12/2010 3:53 PM
Dye,T. Who's Running America? 1983 (88) Hanahoe,T. America Rules. 2003 (71) Pyadyshev,B. The Military-Industrial Complex of the USA. 1977 (58) Woodmansee,J. The World of a Giant Corporation. 1975 (28) GENERAL ELECTRIC Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (97-98) Woodmansee,J. The World of a Giant Corporation. 1975 (28 64) GRAY GORDON Corson,W. The Armies of Ignorance. 1977 (372) Marchetti,V. Marks,J. The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. 1974 (315) Prados,J. Presidents' Secret Wars. 1988 (209) GREENEWALT CRAWFORD H Birnbaum,J. The Lobbyists. 1992 (15) Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (94-95) HARRIMAN W AVERELL Perry,M. Four Stars. 1989 (195) Smith,J. The Idea Brokers. 1993 (111) Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (71-72) Washington Times 1990-01-18 (7) HELMS RICHARD MCGARRAH Covert Action Quarterly 1993-#44 (45) Jeffreys-Jones,R. The CIA and American Democracy. 1989 (171) Thomas,E. The Man to See. 1991 (343) Trento,J. The Secret History of the CIA. 2001 (397) JENKINS WALTER W Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (103) Lasky,V. It Didn't Start With Watergate. 1978 (143-144 206-207) Sale,K. Power Shift. 1976 (136) JOHNSON LYNDON BAINES Drosnin,M. Citizen Hughes. 1985 (217-218) Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (102 107-108) Hendrickson,K. Collins,M. Profiles in Power. 1993 (146) Hersh,S. The Dark Side of Camelot. 1997 (125-126) Jeffreys-Jones,R. The CIA and American Democracy. 1989 (171) Kessler,R. The Sins of the Father. 1997 (325) Maheu,R. Next to Hughes. 1993 (245) Sale,K. Power Shift. 1976 (136) Scott,P.D. Deep Politics. 1993 (223) KAMPELMAN MAX M Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (100-101 278) KENNAN GEORGE FROST
7 of 12
4/12/2010 3:53 PM
Washington Times 1990-01-18 (7) Yakovlev,N. CIA Target -- the USSR. 1984 (31) Yakovlev,N. Washington Silhouettes. 1985 (72-73) KERR ROBERT SAMUEL (D-OK) Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (84 90) Thomas,E. The Man to See. 1991 (182) LAIRD MELVIN R Dye,T. Who's Running America? 1983 (89) Hanahoe,T. America Rules. 2003 (71) PNRC. Rockwell International. 1975 (6) LANCE BERT Dye,T. Who's Running America? 1983 (142) Ehrenfeld,R. Evil Money. 1992 (179) Emerson,S. The American House of Saud. 1985 (117) Hicks,S. The Big Wedding. 2005 (26) Stich,R. Defrauding America. 1994 (406) Trento,S. The Power House. 1992 (369) Unger,C. House of Bush, House of Saud. 2004 (29) LAND EDWIN H Cookridge,E.H. Gehlen: Spy of the Century. 1972 (205) Corson,W. The Armies of Ignorance. 1977 (372) Marchetti,V. Marks,J. The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. 1974 (315) LOVETT ROBERT ABERCROMBIE Corson,W. The Armies of Ignorance. 1977 (372) Hanahoe,T. America Rules. 2003 (71) Pyadyshev,B. The Military-Industrial Complex of the USA. 1977 (58) Seagrave,S.& P. Gold Warriors. 2003 (96) Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (71-72) MALCOLM DURIE Hersh,S. The Dark Side of Camelot. 1997 (332-333 339) MARSHALL GEORGE C (GEN) CounterSpy 1980-SU (2) Hanahoe,T. America Rules. 2003 (71) Jeffreys-Jones,R. The CIA and American Democracy. 1989 (38) Loftus,J. Aarons,M. The Secret War Against the Jews. 1994 (178) Pyadyshev,B. The Military-Industrial Complex of the USA. 1977 (58) Raviv,D. Melman,Y. Friends in Deed. 1994 (30-31) Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (72) MATHIAS CHARLES M JR (R-MD) Ellsberg,D. Secrets. 2002 (336) Washington Post 1991-05-05 (26) Washington Post 1991-09-23 (5)
8 of 12
4/12/2010 3:53 PM
MCCLOY JOHN JAY Seagrave,S.& P. Gold Warriors. 2003 (96) Shoup,L. Minter,W. Imperial Brain Trust. 1977 (241-242) Washington Times 1990-01-18 (7) MCELROY NEIL H Dye,T. Who's Running America? 1983 (88) Hanahoe,T. America Rules. 2003 (71) Pyadyshev,B. The Military-Industrial Complex of the USA. 1977 (58) Woodmansee,J. The World of a Giant Corporation. 1975 (28) MCNAMARA ROBERT STRANGE Bird,K. The Color of Truth. 1998 (287 332 366) Dye,T. Who's Running America? 1983 (88) Hanahoe,T. America Rules. 2003 (71) Pyadyshev,B. The Military-Industrial Complex of the USA. 1977 (58) MURPHY ROBERT DANIEL Adams,S. War of Numbers. 1994 (218) Corson,W. The Armies of Ignorance. 1977 (372) Jeffreys-Jones,R. The CIA and American Democracy. 1989 (171) NAQVI SWALEH Ehrenfeld,R. Evil Money. 1992 (166) Stich,R. Defrauding America. 1994 (413) Washington Post 1991-02-03 (28 29) NILES DAVID K Green,S. Taking Sides. 1984 (30) Raviv,D. Melman,Y. Friends in Deed. 1994 (30-31) NIXON RICHARD MILHOUS Hitchens,C. The Trial of Henry Kissinger. 2001 (9-11) PATTERSON ROBERT PORTER Corn,D. Blond Ghost. 1994 (29) Weiner,T. Legacy of Ashes. 2007 (18) Yakovlev,N. Washington Silhouettes. 1985 (73) PEARSON DREW Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (91) Hersh,S. The Dark Side of Camelot. 1997 (116-117) Kessler,R. The Sins of the Father. 1997 (325-326) PHARAON GHAITH RASHAD Ehrenfeld,R. Evil Money. 1992 (179) Washington Post 1991-02-03 (28 29)
9 of 12
4/12/2010 3:53 PM
QUESADA ELWOOD R (GEN) Emerson,S. The American House of Saud. 1985 (117) Washington Post 1991-02-03 (28 29) Washington Post 1991-05-05 (26) Winter-Berger,R. The Washington Pay-Off. 1972 (220) RABORN WILLIAM FRANCIS JR Jeffreys-Jones,R. The CIA and American Democracy. 1989 (151 155) Weiner,T. Legacy of Ashes. 2007 (263) REVSON CHARLES H Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (100-102) REYNOLDS DON B Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (103) Lasky,V. It Didn't Start With Watergate. 1978 (143-144) ROCKEFELLER NELSON ALDRICH Corson,W. The Armies of Ignorance. 1977 (372) Hitchens,C. The Trial of Henry Kissinger. 2001 (11) Marchetti,V. Marks,J. The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. 1974 (315) ROSTOW WALT WHITMAN Adams,S. War of Numbers. 1994 (218) Hersh,S. The Dark Side of Camelot. 1997 (219-220) Prados,J. Presidents' Secret Wars. 1988 (209) Weiner,T. Legacy of Ashes. 2007 (263) ROWE JAMES H JR Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (102) Scott,P.D. Deep Politics. 1993 (223) Thomas,E. The Man to See. 1991 (260) SORENSEN THEODORE C Council on Foreign Relations. Annual Report. 1988 (39 129) Kessler,R. The Sins of the Father. 1997 (326) STEELMAN JOHN R Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (82) Smith,J. The Idea Brokers. 1993 (111-112) STEPHENS JACKSON THOMAS Hicks,S. The Big Wedding. 2005 (26) Reed,T. Cummings,J. Compromised. 1994 (244-245) SYMINGTON STUART W (D-MO) Emerson,S. The American House of Saud. 1985 (117)
10 of 12
4/12/2010 3:53 PM
Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (68 75-76 90-91 104-105) Hersh,S. The Dark Side of Camelot. 1997 (125-126) Washington Post 1991-05-05 (26) TAYLOR MAXWELL D (GEN) Adams,S. War of Numbers. 1994 (218) Corson,W. The Armies of Ignorance. 1977 (372) Marchetti,V. Marks,J. The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. 1974 (315) Wise,D. Ross,T. The Invisible Government. 1974 (188) TRUMAN HARRY S Burnham,D. Above the Law. 1996 (302-303) Cockburn,A.& L. Dangerous Liaison. 1991 (26) Findley,P. They Dare to Speak Out. 1989 (117) Jeffreys-Jones,R. The CIA and American Democracy. 1989 (28) Loftus,J. Aarons,M. The Secret War Against the Jews. 1994 (178) Prados,J. Presidents' Secret Wars. 1988 (20) Raviv,D. Melman,Y. Friends in Deed. 1994 (30-31) Seagrave,S.& P. Gold Warriors. 2003 (96) Smith,J. The Idea Brokers. 1993 (111-112) Yakovlev,N. Washington Silhouettes. 1985 (53) TURKI PRINCE (TURKI BIN FAISAL AL SAUD) Covert Action Quarterly 1993-#44 (44) Trento,J. Prelude to Terror. 2005 (101) Unger,C. House of Bush, House of Saud. 2004 (29) VANCE CYRUS ROBERTS Dye,T. Who's Running America? 1983 (89) Shoup,L. Minter,W. Imperial Brain Trust. 1977 (242) Trento,J. Prelude to Terror. 2005 (164) VANDENBERG HOYT SANFORD (GEN) Corn,D. Blond Ghost. 1994 (29) Jeffreys-Jones,R. The CIA and American Democracy. 1989 (37) Prados,J. Presidents' Secret Wars. 1988 (20) Riebling,M. Wedge. 1994 (76) Seagrave,S.& P. Gold Warriors. 2003 (96) Weiner,T. Legacy of Ashes. 2007 (18) VARDAMAN JAMES K JR Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (76-77 86) WHEELER EARLE G (BUZZ) Perry,M. Four Stars. 1989 (190-195) WILLIAMS EDWARD BENNETT Blumenthal,S. Rise of the Counter-Establishment. 1988 (81) Scott,P.D. Deep Politics. 1993 (223) Trento,J. Prelude to Terror. 2005 (164)
11 of 12
4/12/2010 3:53 PM
Unger,C. House of Bush, House of Saud. 2004 (29) WILSON CHARLES EDWARD (GE) Goulden,J. The Superlawyers. 1972 (97-98) Woodmansee,J. The World of a Giant Corporation. 1975 (28)
CLIFFORD CLARK MCADAMS pages searched: 252 These names share the indicated number of pages with the above name. Click on a name below (or on the one above) for a standard name search:
BANK CREDIT COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL 25 ALTMAN ROBERT A 15 JOHNSON LYNDON BAINES 13 TRUMAN HARRY S 13 ADHAM KAMAL 11 SYMINGTON STUART W (D-MO) 11 FORTAS ABE 10 ABEDI AGHA HASAN 8 FIRST AMERICAN BANKSHARES 8 MARSHALL GEORGE C (GEN) 8 BAKER BOBBY (ROBERT GENE) 7 FORRESTAL JAMES VINCENT 7 LANCE BERT 7 BALL GEORGE W 6 JENKINS WALTER W 6 LOVETT ROBERT ABERCROMBIE 6 MCNAMARA ROBERT STRANGE 6 VANDENBERG HOYT SANFORD (GEN) 6 WHEELER EARLE G (BUZZ) 6 ACHESON DEAN G 5 BUNDY MCGEORGE 5 CORCORAN THOMAS GARDINER 5 DILLON C DOUGLAS 5 HARRIMAN W AVERELL 5 PEARSON DREW 5 QUESADA ELWOOD R (GEN) 5 ROSTOW WALT WHITMAN 5 ANDERSON ROBERT BERNERD 4 BRADLEE BENJAMIN C 4 CLINE RAY STEINER 4 FULBRIGHT J WILLIAM 4 GATES THOMAS S JR 4 GENERAL ELECTRIC 4 HELMS RICHARD MCGARRAH 4 KENNAN GEORGE FROST 4 MCCLOY JOHN JAY 4 MCELROY NEIL H 4 NAQVI SWALEH 4 TAYLOR MAXWELL D (GEN) 4 WILLIAMS EDWARD BENNETT 4 BAKER WILLIAM O 3 BLOUGH ROGER M 3 CALIFANO JOSEPH A JR 3 CHERNE LEO 3 CLOSE RAYMOND H 3 CONNALLY JOHN BOWDEN (B.1917-02-27) 3 DEAN ARTHUR H 3 DONOVAN WILLIAM JOSEPH 3 ELSEY GEORGE M 3 FEINBERG ABRAHAM 3 GALVIN ROBERT WILLIAM 3 GRAY GORDON 3 GREENEWALT CRAWFORD H 3 KAMPELMAN MAX M 3 KERR ROBERT SAMUEL (D-OK) 3 LAIRD MELVIN R 3 LAND EDWIN H 3 MALCOLM DURIE 3 MATHIAS CHARLES M JR (R-MD) 3 MURPHY ROBERT DANIEL 3 NILES DAVID K 3 NIXON RICHARD MILHOUS 3 PATTERSON ROBERT PORTER 3 PHARAON GHAITH RASHAD 3 RABORN WILLIAM FRANCIS JR 3 REVSON CHARLES H 3 REYNOLDS DON B 3 ROCKEFELLER NELSON ALDRICH 3 ROWE JAMES H JR 3 SORENSEN THEODORE C 3 STEELMAN JOHN R 3 STEPHENS JACKSON THOMAS 3 TURKI PRINCE (TURKI BIN FAISAL AL SAUD) 3 VANCE CYRUS ROBERTS 3 VARDAMAN JAMES K JR 3 WILSON CHARLES EDWARD (GE) 3 WILSON CHARLES ERWIN (GM & DEFENSE SEC) 3 ANDERSON GEORGE W JR (ADM) 2 ANGLETON JAMES JESUS 2 AWAN AMJAD 2 BAKHSH ABDULLAH TAHA 2 BARBOUR WALWORTH 2 BARR WILLIAM PELHAM 2 BIN MAHFOUZ KHALID 2 BLAUVELT LOUIS L 2 BOGGS THOMAS HALE JR 2 BRADLEY OMAR N (GEN) 2 BROWN GEORGE R 2 BROWN HAROLD (DEFENSE SEC) 2 BUSH PRESCOTT SHELDON 2 CARTER LYNDA 2 CHAPMAN OSCAR 2 CHENNAULT ANNA CHAN 2 CHRISTIANA SECURITIES COMPANY 2 COHEN SHELDON S 2 COMMUNIST PARTY USA 2 CULVER JOHN C (D-IA) 2 CUTLER LLOYD N 2 DARR ALICIA 2 FINNEY THOMAS D 2 FORD HENRY II 2 FOSTER JOHN S JR 2 GLASS CARSON M 2 GRAY ROBERT KEITH 2 HALPERIN MORTON H 2 HARKEN ENERGY CORPORATION 2 HOLBROOKE RICHARD C.A. 2 HOOPES TOWNSEND W 2 HULL JOHN E (GEN) 2 JACOBSON EDDIE 2 JENSEN HENRY 2 KHALIL ABDUL RAOUF 2 KILLIAN JAMES R JR 2 KISSINGER HENRY A 2 KRUG JULIUS (CAP) 2 LACEY FREDERICK B 2 LASHLEY JACOB 2 LEVI EDWARD H 2 LILIENTHAL DAVID E 2 LUCE CLARE BOOTHE 2 MACARTHUR DOUGLAS (GEN) 2 MARSHALL BURKE 2 MCPHERSON HARRY C JR 2 MITCHELL JOHN N 2 MONTAGUE LUDWELL LEE 2 MOYERS BILL D 2 NITZE PAUL HENRY 2 PARKER BARRINGTON DANIELS JR 2 RADIO FREE EUROPE 2 RASKIN HYMAN B 2 ROGERS WILLIAM PIERCE 2 ROSENMAN SAMUEL I 2 RUSK DEAN 2 SALINGER PIERRE 2 SCHLESINGER JAMES RODNEY 2 SHACKLEY THEODORE GEORGE 2 SHULTZ GEORGE PRATT 2 STANS MAURICE H 2 STUECK FREDERICK 2 TELLER EDWARD 2 WALKER CHARLS EDWARD 2 WALLACE MIKE 2 WARNKE PAUL C 2 WASHINGTON POST 2 WESTMORELAND WILLIAM C (GEN) 2
12 of 12
4/12/2010 3:53 PM
COINFIDENTIAL
UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT D
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?Na=mann%2C+stephen
register
order copies
Java diagram
no diagram
The names below are mentioned on the listed pages with the name MANN STEVEN ROBERT Click on a name for a new proximity search: AGUILAR CARLOS JUAN Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) ALVAREZ RIVERA PEDRO Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) AUGUSTINE ROBERT CHARLES Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) BALLUCI GERALD MICHAEL
1 of 10
4/12/2010 3:57 PM
Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) BEDFORD ERNEST SWINDLE Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) BELTZ DAVID DENIS Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) BENFORD CLYDE MYRON NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) BENFORD KATHERINE NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) BESON DONALD GUEFT NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) BILLINGSLEY JOSEPH HERBERT Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) BOWMAN FRANCINE L NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) BRAMSON BRIAN HUGH Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) BRANCH ANTHONY DOUGLAS Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) BREINDENFELD JERRY H Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) BRENNAN RICHARD MICHAEL NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) BRENNAN VIRGINIA SUSAN NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92)
2 of 10
4/12/2010 3:57 PM
BROOKER WESLEY J Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) BULLOCK FREDERICK Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) CALLAWAY GILBERT ROY Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) CASEBEER CHERYL AMY NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) CHAPMAN MICHELE ANN Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) CHEEVERS JOSEPH P Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) CHIOCCO RALPH DOMINICK NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) CLINE MICHAEL KENT NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) COOPER ROBERT LEROY Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) COPPERSMITH DAVID FRANK NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) COPPERSMITH TERRY (MS) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) COUGHENOUR LARRY EUGENE NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) COWART CLAYTON LEVERETTE NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92)
3 of 10
4/12/2010 3:57 PM
COWART MICHELLE THU NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) DALY RHONDA GUNKLE Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) DAVIDSON RICHARD MICHAEL NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) DAVIS KATHLEEN R Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) DAVIS LLOYD (CIA) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) DELISI SCOTT H State Dept. Key Officers of Foreign Service Posts 1994-SP (112) EVANS DUANE THOMAS NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) EVANS KAREN ELIZABETH NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) FAZ GEORGE State Dept. Key Officers of Foreign Service Posts 1994-SP (112) FERGUNSON ROBERT DAVID Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) FIALA RAYMOND F NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) FLOXI MARK ANTHONY Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) FREEMAN ROGER M State Dept. Key Officers of Foreign Service Posts 1994-SP (112) GALLUCI GERALD MICHAEL Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5)
4 of 10
4/12/2010 3:57 PM
NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) GEFTER JOAN NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) GEFTER SAUL STUART NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) GEIS ROBERT KOENIG Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) GRAHAM BARBARA LEE Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) GRAVES MARTIN EUGENE Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) HARTJE JAMES A Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) HEILEMAN CAROLEE State Dept. Key Officers of Foreign Service Posts 1994-SP (112) HULL GORDON ALONSON Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) HUNTER WALTER HOWE Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) INDAHL BERNE MICHAEL NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) JACCARINO JOSEPH MICHAEL NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) JORDAN ROBERT (CIA)
5 of 10
4/12/2010 3:57 PM
NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) JUNKER DELVIN W State Dept. Key Officers of Foreign Service Posts 1994-SP (112) KELLY RONALD (CIA) Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) KENT ROBIN SEYK Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) KING DAVID JOHN Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) KORAN DONALD WILLIAM Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) KURLP HARRY RONALD Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) LANDERS DANIEL FRANCIS Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) LANDY GERALD ANTHONY Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) LE BEAU JOHN JOSEPH NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) LUTKUS ANTHONY JOSEPH Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) LUTTER DOROTHY L State Dept. Key Officers of Foreign Service Posts 1994-SP (112) MACIDROWSKY CHRISTINE
6 of 10
4/12/2010 3:57 PM
Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) MANSON JENNIE COLLEN Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) MCCANDLE JAMES THOMAS Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) MCCHANE JOHN Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NELSON DAVID DANIEL Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) NORDHOLM LANE ADELA NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) PATTERSON IVONNE Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) PEAVY ANGIER M State Dept. Key Officers of Foreign Service Posts 1994-SP (112) PERRY ROBERT CEPLIAS NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) PETERS CHARLES DOUGLAS Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) PHERSON RANDOLPH HOWARD Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) PRICHARD HIRAM W Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) PRUITT CHARLES LUCIAN
7 of 10
4/12/2010 3:57 PM
NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) RIEGG NICHOLAS H State Dept. Key Officers of Foreign Service Posts 1994-SP (112) SAUCEDO FELIX Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) SAVARESE FREDERICK CHARLES NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) SCHAFFER TERESITA C State Dept. Key Officers of Foreign Service Posts 1994-SP (112) SCHRIBER KENNETH L Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) SHEEHAN DONALD FRANCIS NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) SLOTNICK MICHELE RENEE Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) SOLIS FRANK K Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) SOLLEDER GABRIELLE MARGARET Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) STANKOVITZ CASIMIR JOHN Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) STRUCK WILLIAM WEBSTER NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) SWINDLE BEDFORD ERNEST Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) TIPTON JOHN BRUCE
8 of 10
4/12/2010 3:57 PM
NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) TONER ROBERT JOSEPH NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) TOWELL TIMOTHY LATHROP NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) UNTHANK EDGAR STEPHEN Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) VINEYARD WILLIAM NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118) WALLAGE RICHARD Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) WILHELM JOHN J JR Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) NIS (Havana). The CIA's War Against Cuba. 1988 (92) WOJCIECHOWSKI BARBARA ANNE Granma Weekly Review (Havana) 1987-07-19 (5) Ridenour,R. Back Fire. 1991 (118)
MANN STEVEN ROBERT pages searched: 4 These names share the indicated number of pages with the above name. Click on a name below (or on the one above) for a standard name search:
AGUILAR CARLOS JUAN 3 BILLINGSLEY JOSEPH HERBERT 3 BRAMSON BRIAN HUGH 3 BREINDENFELD JERRY H 3 BULLOCK FREDERICK 3 COOPER ROBERT LEROY 3 DALY RHONDA GUNKLE 3 GEIS ROBERT KOENIG 3 GRAHAM BARBARA LEE 3 HULL GORDON ALONSON 3 HUNTER WALTER HOWE 3 KELLY RONALD (CIA) 3 KENT ROBIN SEYK 3 KURLP HARRY RONALD 3 LANDY GERALD ANTHONY 3 MACIDROWSKY CHRISTINE 3 PATTERSON IVONNE 3 PETERS CHARLES DOUGLAS 3 PHERSON RANDOLPH HOWARD 3 SOLIS FRANK K 3 UNTHANK EDGAR STEPHEN 3 ALVAREZ RIVERA PEDRO 2 BEDFORD ERNEST SWINDLE 2 BELTZ DAVID DENIS 2 BRANCH ANTHONY DOUGLAS 2 BROOKER WESLEY J 2 CALLAWAY GILBERT ROY 2 COUGHENOUR LARRY EUGENE 2 DAVIS KATHLEEN R 2 FLOXI MARK ANTHONY 2 GALLUCI GERALD MICHAEL 2 GRAVES MARTIN EUGENE 2 HARTJE JAMES A 2 JACCARINO JOSEPH MICHAEL 2 KORAN DONALD WILLIAM 2 LANDERS DANIEL FRANCIS 2 LUTKUS ANTHONY JOSEPH 2 MANSON JENNIE COLLEN 2 MCCANDLE JAMES THOMAS 2 NELSON DAVID DANIEL 2 PERRY ROBERT CEPLIAS 2 SAUCEDO FELIX 2 SAVARESE FREDERICK CHARLES 2 SCHRIBER KENNETH L 2 SOLLEDER GABRIELLE MARGARET 2 STANKOVITZ CASIMIR JOHN 2 TONER ROBERT JOSEPH 2 VINEYARD WILLIAM 2 WALLAGE RICHARD 2 WILHELM JOHN J JR 2 WOJCIECHOWSKI BARBARA ANNE 2 AUGUSTINE ROBERT CHARLES 1 BALLUCI GERALD MICHAEL 1 BENFORD CLYDE MYRON 1 BENFORD KATHERINE 1 BESON DONALD GUEFT 1 BOWMAN FRANCINE L 1 BRENNAN RICHARD MICHAEL 1 BRENNAN VIRGINIA SUSAN 1 CASEBEER CHERYL AMY 1 CHAPMAN MICHELE ANN 1 CHEEVERS JOSEPH P 1 CHIOCCO RALPH DOMINICK 1 CLINE MICHAEL KENT 1 COPPERSMITH DAVID FRANK 1 COPPERSMITH TERRY (MS) 1 COWART CLAYTON LEVERETTE 1 COWART MICHELLE THU 1 DAVIDSON RICHARD MICHAEL 1 DAVIS LLOYD (CIA) 1 DELISI SCOTT H 1 EVANS DUANE THOMAS 1 EVANS KAREN ELIZABETH 1 FAZ GEORGE 1 FERGUNSON ROBERT DAVID 1 FIALA RAYMOND F 1 FREEMAN ROGER M 1 GEFTER JOAN 1 GEFTER SAUL STUART 1 HEILEMAN CAROLEE 1 INDAHL BERNE MICHAEL 1 JORDAN ROBERT (CIA) 1
9 of 10
4/12/2010 3:57 PM
JUNKER DELVIN W 1 KING DAVID JOHN 1 LE BEAU JOHN JOSEPH 1 LUTTER DOROTHY L 1 MCCHANE JOHN 1 NORDHOLM LANE ADELA 1 PEAVY ANGIER M 1 PRICHARD HIRAM W 1 PRUITT CHARLES LUCIAN 1 RIEGG NICHOLAS H 1 SCHAFFER TERESITA C 1 SHEEHAN DONALD FRANCIS 1 SLOTNICK MICHELE RENEE 1 STRUCK WILLIAM WEBSTER 1 SWINDLE BEDFORD ERNEST 1 TIPTON JOHN BRUCE 1 TOWELL TIMOTHY LATHROP 1 WILSON ARLEN R 1
10 of 10
4/12/2010 3:57 PM
COINFIDENTIAL
UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT E
Social Network Diagram for VATICAN BANK (INSTITUTE RELIGIO...
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?_VATICAN_BANK_%28INST...
register
order copies
Java diagram
no diagram
The names below are mentioned on the listed pages with the name VATICAN BANK (INSTITUTE RELIGIOUS WORKS) Click on a name for a new proximity search: ABS HERMANN JOSEF Covert Action Information Bulletin 1986-#25 (35) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (214) ADHAM KAMAL Stich,R. Defrauding America. 1994 (419) AGINTER-PRESS Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (69) AGNELLI GIOVANNI (GIANNI) Tosches,N. Power on Earth. 1986 (127)
1 of 10
4/10/2010 4:44 PM
AHEARN CORNELIUS Stich,R. Defrauding America. 1994 (419) AMERICARES FOUNDATION Covert Action Information Bulletin 1986-#25 (35) ANDREATTA BENIAMINO Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (132) ANDREOTTI GIULIO Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (253) Sterling,C. Octopus. 1991 (191) ANGLETON JAMES JESUS Seagrave,S.& P. Gold Warriors. 2003 (105) ANTI-BOLSHEVIK BLOC NATIONS Lernoux,P. People of God. 1989 (290) ANTINUCCI MARK Tosches,N. Power on Earth. 1986 (123) ARAMCO Loftus,J. Aarons,M. The Secret War Against the Jews. 1994 (63) ARDUINO GIOVANNI Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (208-209) ARICO WILLIAM JOSEPH Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (208) ARMAO ROBERT Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (216) AVANGUARDIA NAZIONALE Christie,S. Stefano Delle Chiaie. 1984 (43) BAGGIO SEBASTINO Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (216) BANCO AMBROSIANO Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (69) Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (135-146)
2 of 10
4/10/2010 4:44 PM
BANK CREDIT COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL Stich,R. Defrauding America. 1994 (419) BANK INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS Loftus,J. Aarons,M. The Secret War Against the Jews. 1994 (62-63) BARBIE KLAUS Vankin,J. Whalen,J. The 60 Greatest Conspiracies. 1998 (115) BENELLI GIOVANNI Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (226) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (175) BERLUSCONI SILVIO Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) BONTATE STEFANO Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) BORGHESE VALERIO Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (211) Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (69) BOTTA GIACOMO Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (140) BRENNAN JOSEPH Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (209) Covert Action Information Bulletin 1986-#25 (35) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (134) BRUGHERA MINO Tosches,N. Power on Earth. 1986 (44) BUSH PRESCOTT JR Covert Action Information Bulletin 1986-#25 (35) CALOIA ANGELO Washington Post 1989-06-21 (16) CALO PIPPO (GIUSEPPE) Intelligence (Paris) 1998-07-13 (9) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) CALTEX PETROLEUM
3 of 10
4/10/2010 4:44 PM
Loftus,J. Aarons,M. The Secret War Against the Jews. 1994 (63) CALVI CARLO Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (171-172) CALVI ROBERTO Christie,S. Stefano Delle Chiaie. 1984 (112) Intelligence (Paris) 1998-07-13 (9) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (191-209 215) Mantius,P. Shell Game. 1995 (101-102) Vankin,J. Whalen,J. The 60 Greatest Conspiracies. 1998 (115 117) Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (135-146) CARBONI FLAVIO Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (208) Intelligence (Paris) 1998-07-13 (9) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (191-192 194) CARLES RICARDO MARIA Washington Times 1996-06-02 (7) CARNELUTTI TITO Tosches,N. Power on Earth. 1986 (45-46) CASAROLI AGOSTINO CARDINAL Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (225-230) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (134 169-170) CASILLO VINCENZO Intelligence (Paris) 1998-07-13 (9) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) CATAIN JACK M JR Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (135) CERUTTI CARLO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (209) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (134) CIOLINI ELIO Christie,S. Stefano Delle Chiaie. 1984 (112) CIPPICO EDOARDO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (56) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (173)
4 of 10
4/10/2010 4:44 PM
COMMITTEE DEFENSE MEDITERRANEAN Mantius,P. Shell Game. 1995 (102) CONNALLY JOHN BOWDEN (B.1917-02-27) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (12) Mantius,P. Shell Game. 1995 (102) CONS-BOUTBOUL ELIZABETH Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (265) CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NATIONAL BANK Christie,S. Stefano Delle Chiaie. 1984 (43) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (12) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (52) CORNFELD BERNIE Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (252) DALLA CHIESA CARLO ALBERTO Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (211) DAUBUISSON ROBERTO Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (69) DE BENEDETTI CARLO Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (142) DE BONIS DONATO Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (210) DE LUCA GIUSEPPE Tosches,N. Power on Earth. 1986 (46) DE STROBEL PELLEGRINO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (54) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (25 169 171 208) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (211-213) Tosches,N. Power on Earth. 1986 (123) DE WECK PHILIPPE Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (209) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (134) Washington Post 1989-06-21 (16) DELLE CHIAIE STEFANO Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (69)
5 of 10
4/10/2010 4:44 PM
DI CARLO FRANCESCO Intelligence (Paris) 1998-07-13 (9) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) DI JORIO ALBERTO CARDINAL Tosches,N. Power on Earth. 1986 (46) DULLES ALLEN WELSH Loftus,J. Aarons,M. The Secret War Against the Jews. 1994 (62-63) DUNN JOSEPH P Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (174) ELMO FRANCESCO Washington Times 1996-06-02 (7) EUROPEAN FREEDOM COUNCIL Lernoux,P. People of God. 1989 (290) FARBEN I.G. COMPANY Loftus,J. Aarons,M. The Secret War Against the Jews. 1994 (63) FELICI PERICLE Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (175) FIAT COMPANY Tosches,N. Power on Earth. 1986 (127) FORRESTAL JAMES VINCENT Loftus,J. Aarons,M. The Secret War Against the Jews. 1994 (63) FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (25) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (52) GELLI LICIO Christie,S. Stefano Delle Chiaie. 1984 (112) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (25) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (201-211 217) Mantius,P. Shell Game. 1995 (102) Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (69) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (126 253) Tosches,N. Power on Earth. 1986 (172) Vankin,J. Whalen,J. The 60 Greatest Conspiracies. 1998 (115 117) Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (146)
6 of 10
4/10/2010 4:44 PM
GIUDICE RAFFAELE Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (210) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (253) GUARINO PHILIP A Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (201 217) HAMBROS BANK Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (58) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (12) JOHN PAUL I (POPE) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (175) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) Vankin,J. Whalen,J. The 60 Greatest Conspiracies. 1998 (114-115 117) JOHN PAUL II (POPE) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (174-177) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (211-215 219) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (126-127) Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (144) KENNEDY DAVID MATTHEW Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (53) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (12) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (80) KNIGHTS MALTA Covert Action Information Bulletin 1986-#25 (35) Lernoux,P. People of God. 1989 (290) KUNZ HANS ALBERT Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (192-193) LEDEEN MICHAEL A Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (216-217) LEONI FILIPPO Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (171) Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (140) LOPEZ REGA JOSE (MINISTER OF SOCIAL WELFARE) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (203-205) MACCHI PASQUALE Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (26)
7 of 10
4/10/2010 4:44 PM
Tosches,N. Power on Earth. 1986 (123) MARCINKUS PAUL CASIMIR Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (50-58 208-209 225-227 231-233) Covert Action Information Bulletin 1986-#25 (35) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (13 26 69 132 134 168-177 208) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (191 195-201 211-213) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (80 119-120 253) Vankin,J. Whalen,J. The 60 Greatest Conspiracies. 1998 (115 117) Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (136-146) Washington Post 1989-06-21 (16) MASSERA EMILIO EDUARDO Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (204-207) MENNINI ALESSANDRO (ALEX) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (26 69) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (199 211-213) MENNINI LUIGI Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (54) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (12 26 69 169 208) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (199) Tosches,N. Power on Earth. 1986 (123) MONTINI GIOVANNI (POPE PAUL VI) Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (52) Covert Action Information Bulletin 1986-#25 (35) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (12-13 174) Sterling,C. Octopus. 1991 (191) OPUS DEI Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (177) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (215-216) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (127) ORTOLANI UMBERTO Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (208) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (203 208-209) Lernoux,P. People of God. 1989 (290) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (126) PAZIENZA FRANCESCO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (232-233) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (69 208) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (216-217) PERON ISABEL
8 of 10
4/10/2010 4:44 PM
Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (203-206) PERON JUAN DOMINGO Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (203-204) Vankin,J. Whalen,J. The 60 Greatest Conspiracies. 1998 (115) PERTINI SANDRO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (228) Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (144) PESENTI CARLO Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (26) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (127 252) POLETTI UGO Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (210) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (253) PROPAGANDA DUE (P2) Christie,S. Stefano Delle Chiaie. 1984 (112) Covert Action Information Bulletin 1986-#25 (35) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) Lernoux,P. People of God. 1989 (290) Mantius,P. Shell Game. 1995 (102) Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (69) Vankin,J. Whalen,J. The 60 Greatest Conspiracies. 1998 (115 117) Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (146) RIZZOLI ANGELO Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (205-206) SIEGENTHALER PIERRE Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (50 71) SINDONA MICHELE Christie,S. Stefano Delle Chiaie. 1984 (43) Covert Action Information Bulletin 1986-#25 (35) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (11-13 25-26 174 208) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (194-195) Lernoux,P. People of God. 1989 (290) Mantius,P. Shell Game. 1995 (101-102) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (52 80 253) Sterling,C. Octopus. 1991 (191) Vankin,J. Whalen,J. The 60 Greatest Conspiracies. 1998 (115) Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (136-138) SOLIDARITY UNION Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (237) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (134 176)
9 of 10
4/10/2010 4:44 PM
SPADA MASSIMO Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (12) Lernoux,P. People of God. 1989 (290) Tosches,N. Power on Earth. 1986 (42-46 123)
VATICAN BANK (INSTITUTE RELIGIOUS WORKS) pages searched: 135 These names share the indicated number of pages with the above name. Click on a name below (or on the one above) for a standard name search:
MARCINKUS PAUL CASIMIR 64 CALVI ROBERTO 39 GELLI LICIO 23 SINDONA MICHELE 22 BANCO AMBROSIANO 14 JOHN PAUL II (POPE) 14 CASAROLI AGOSTINO CARDINAL 9 DE STROBEL PELLEGRINO 9 PROPAGANDA DUE (P2) 9 MENNINI LUIGI 8 SPADA MASSIMO 8 CARBONI FLAVIO 6 MENNINI ALESSANDRO (ALEX) 6 MONTINI GIOVANNI (POPE PAUL VI) 6 ORTOLANI UMBERTO 6 PAZIENZA FRANCESCO 6 JOHN PAUL I (POPE) 5 MASSERA EMILIO EDUARDO 4 OPUS DEI 4 PERON ISABEL 4 BRENNAN JOSEPH 3 CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NATIONAL BANK 3 DE WECK PHILIPPE 3 KENNEDY DAVID MATTHEW 3 LOPEZ REGA JOSE (MINISTER OF SOCIAL WELFARE) 3 PERON JUAN DOMINGO 3 PESENTI CARLO 3 SOLIDARITY UNION 3 ABS HERMANN JOSEF 2 ANDREOTTI GIULIO 2 ARDUINO GIOVANNI 2 BANK INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS 2 BENELLI GIOVANNI 2 BORGHESE VALERIO 2 CALO PIPPO (GIUSEPPE) 2 CALVI CARLO 2 CARNELUTTI TITO 2 CASILLO VINCENZO 2 CERUTTI CARLO 2 CIPPICO EDOARDO 2 CONNALLY JOHN BOWDEN (B.1917-02-27) 2 DI CARLO FRANCESCO 2 DULLES ALLEN WELSH 2 FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK 2 GIUDICE RAFFAELE 2 GUARINO PHILIP A 2 HAMBROS BANK 2 KNIGHTS MALTA 2 KUNZ HANS ALBERT 2 LEDEEN MICHAEL A 2 LEONI FILIPPO 2 MACCHI PASQUALE 2 PERTINI SANDRO 2 POLETTI UGO 2 RIZZOLI ANGELO 2 SIEGENTHALER PIERRE 2 ADHAM KAMAL 1 AGINTER-PRESS 1 AGNELLI GIOVANNI (GIANNI) 1 AHEARN CORNELIUS 1 AMERICARES FOUNDATION 1 ANDREATTA BENIAMINO 1 ANGLETON JAMES JESUS 1 ANTI-BOLSHEVIK BLOC NATIONS 1 ANTINUCCI MARK 1 ARAMCO 1 ARICO WILLIAM JOSEPH 1 ARMAO ROBERT 1 AVANGUARDIA NAZIONALE 1 BAGGIO SEBASTINO 1 BANK CREDIT COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL 1 BARBIE KLAUS 1 BERLUSCONI SILVIO 1 BONTATE STEFANO 1 BOTTA GIACOMO 1 BRUGHERA MINO 1 BUSH PRESCOTT JR 1 CALOIA ANGELO 1 CALTEX PETROLEUM 1 CARLES RICARDO MARIA 1 CATAIN JACK M JR 1 CIOLINI ELIO 1 COMMITTEE DEFENSE MEDITERRANEAN 1 CONS-BOUTBOUL ELIZABETH 1 CORNFELD BERNIE 1 DALLA CHIESA CARLO ALBERTO 1 DAUBUISSON ROBERTO 1 DE BENEDETTI CARLO 1 DE BONIS DONATO 1 DE LUCA GIUSEPPE 1 DELLE CHIAIE STEFANO 1 DI JORIO ALBERTO CARDINAL 1 DUNN JOSEPH P 1 ELMO FRANCESCO 1 EUROPEAN FREEDOM COUNCIL 1 FARBEN I.G. COMPANY 1 FELICI PERICLE 1 FIAT COMPANY 1 FORRESTAL JAMES VINCENT 1 FREDA FRANCO 1 GENERAL ANILINE FILM 1 GIUNCHIGLIA EZIO 1 GRACE J PETER JR 1 HAIG ALEXANDER M JR 1 HAMBRO JOCELYN O 1 HARMON JAMES D 1 INVESTORS OVERSEAS SERVICES 1 KROL JOHN CARDINAL 1 KUHRMEIER ERNST 1 KUNZ ALBERT 1 LA BRUNA ANTONIO 1 LOLLI ETTORE 1 LUCE CLARE BOOTHE 1 LUPIS GIUSEPPE (JOSEPH) 1 MACIOCE THOMAS M 1 MANNOIA FRANCESCO MARINO 1 MARINOTTI FRANCO 1 MAROCCO RICCARDO 1 MASSAGRANDE ELIO 1 MENZIES STEWART GRAHAM 1 MERLINO MARIO 1 MINKOW BARRY 1 MOIZZI ERNESTO 1 MORATTI ANGELO 1 NAPOUT MIGUEL ANGEL 1 NESI NERIO 1 NICARAGUAN FREEDOM FUND 1 NITZE PAUL HENRY 1 OCCHIUTO ANTONINO 1 ORDINE NUOVO 1 ORLANDO ANTONIO 1 ORLANDO GAETANO 1 ORMANNI ALFREDO 1 PECORELLI MINO 1 PEDDE GIACOMO 1 PERROT JACQUES 1 PHILBY HARRY ST.JOHN (JACK) 1 PIETZCER THEODOR 1 PIMPO MARIO 1 PIUS XII (POPE) 1 QUINTI PIERANGELO 1 RAINBOW WARRIOR 1 REBOZO CHARLES G (BEBE) 1 RIND MAURICE 1 ROCKEFELLER JOHN D JR 1 ROGERS EDWARD M JR 1 ROSONE ROBERTO 1 SAMARITANI ALDO 1 SANCHEZ ASIAIN JOSE ANGEL 1 SANDOVAL ALARCON MARIO 1 SCHMITZ HERMANN 1 SESSIONS WILLIAM S 1 SICILIA CLAUDIO 1 SICLARI BRUNO 1 SIMON WILLIAM EDWARD 1 SISMI (ITALIAN INTELLIGENCE) 1 SOCAL OIL 1 SPADOLINI GIOVANNI 1 SPELLMAN FRANCIS CARDINAL 1 STANDARD OIL CALIFORNIA 1 STANDARD OIL NEW JERSEY 1 STROESSNER ALFREDO 1 SUAREZ MASON CARLOS GUILLERMO 1 TEXACO 1 TONDINI AMLETO 1 TONELLO ANTONIO 1 UNIFICATION CHURCH 1 VENTURA GIOVANNI 1 VETCO INDUSTRIES 1 VIEZZER ANTONIO 1 VIGGIANO ROBERT 1 VILLOT JEAN 1 VIOLA ROBERTO EDUARDO 1 VITTOR SILVANO 1 WALLENBERG JACOB 1 WALLENBERG MARCUS 1 WALLENBERG RAOUL 1 WALTERS VERNON ANTHONY 1 WORLD ANTI-COMMUNIST LEAGUE 1 ZHIRINOVSKY VLADIMIR V 1 ZOPPI EMILIO 1
10 of 10
4/10/2010 4:44 PM
COINFIDENTIAL
UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT F
Page 1 of 6

2/22/2010
Page 2 of 6
2/22/2010
Page 3 of 6
2/22/2010
Page 4 of 6
2/22/2010
Page 5 of 6
2/22/2010
Page 6 of 6
copyright
2/22/2010
COINFIDENTIAL
UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT G
Social Network Diagram for ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY ORGANIZ...
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?ASSOCIATION_COMMUNIT...
register
order copies
Java diagram
no diagram
The names below are mentioned on the listed pages with the name ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS REFORM NOW Click on a name for a new proximity search: ALINSKY SAUL D Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (5) ASSOCIATION TRIAL LAWYERS AMERICA Wilcox,D.A. The Left Guide. 1996 (78) ASSOCIATION UNION DEMOCRACY Wilcox,D.A. The Left Guide. 1996 (77) BENSON HERMAN Wilcox,D.A. The Left Guide. 1996 (77) BIERS CARL
1 of 5
4/10/2010 4:23 PM
Wilcox,D.A. The Left Guide. 1996 (77) BOBO KIM Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (138) BOOTH HEATHER Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (5) CINCOTTA GALE Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (349) CITICORP Timmerman,K. Shakedown. 2002 (292) CITIZEN ACTION Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (138) CLOWARD RICHARD A Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (345) DE LEEUW BERT Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (346) DELGADO GARY Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (139) Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (345-346) DEWITT JESSE Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (138) DOLEY HAROLD E JR Timmerman,K. Shakedown. 2002 (292) ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (138) ECONOMIC RESEARCH ACTION PROJECT Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (5) FLACKS RICHARD E Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (5) GAUDETTE TOM Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (349)
2 of 5
4/10/2010 4:23 PM
HAYDEN TOM E (SDS) Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (5) HURD MAUDE Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (348) Wilcox,D.A. The Left Guide. 1996 (77) INDUSTRIAL AREAS FOUNDATION Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (345) INTERFAITH CENTER CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (140-141) JENNIK SUSAN Wilcox,D.A. The Left Guide. 1996 (77) KORNBLUM WILLIAM Wilcox,D.A. The Left Guide. 1996 (77) LEVY PAUL ALAN Wilcox,D.A. The Left Guide. 1996 (77) LIVING WAGE CAMPAIGN Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (140) MIDWEST ACADEMY Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (5) NATIONAL INTERFAITH COMMITTEE WORKER JUSTICE Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (138) NATIONAL ORGANIZATION WOMEN Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (141) NATIONAL TRAINING INFORMATION CENTER Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (349) NATIONAL WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (5 138-139) PIVEN FRANCES FOX Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (345) PREAMBLE CENTER PUBLIC POLICY
3 of 5
4/10/2010 4:23 PM
Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (138) RATHKE WADE (ACORN) Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (139) Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (345-348) Wilcox,D.A. The Left Guide. 1996 (77) SCHNEIDER JUDITH R Wilcox,D.A. The Left Guide. 1996 (77) SIERRA CLUB Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (141) SPITZ RUTH Wilcox,D.A. The Left Guide. 1996 (77) STUDENTS DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (5) SUMMERS CLYDE Wilcox,D.A. The Left Guide. 1996 (77) SWEENEY JOHN J (AFL-CIO) Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (138) TABANKIN MARGERY Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (346) TILLMAN JOHNNIE Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (345) TRAPP SHEL Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (349) UNITED STATES PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (141) UNITED AUTO WORKERS Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (5) WEILL SANFORD I Timmerman,K. Shakedown. 2002 (292) WILEY GEORGE Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (139)
4 of 5
4/10/2010 4:23 PM
Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (345)
ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS REFORM NOW pages searched: 13 These names share the indicated number of pages with the above name. Click on a name below (or on the one above) for a standard name search:
RATHKE WADE (ACORN) 6 DELGADO GARY 3 NATIONAL WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION 3 HURD MAUDE 2 INTERFAITH CENTER CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY 2 WILEY GEORGE 2 ALINSKY SAUL D 1 ASSOCIATION TRIAL LAWYERS AMERICA 1 ASSOCIATION UNION DEMOCRACY 1 BENSON HERMAN 1 BIERS CARL 1 BOBO KIM 1 BOOTH HEATHER 1 CINCOTTA GALE 1 CITICORP 1 CITIZEN ACTION 1 CLOWARD RICHARD A 1 DE LEEUW BERT 1 DEWITT JESSE 1 DOLEY HAROLD E JR 1 ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE 1 ECONOMIC RESEARCH ACTION PROJECT 1 FLACKS RICHARD E 1 GAUDETTE TOM 1 HAYDEN TOM E (SDS) 1 INDUSTRIAL AREAS FOUNDATION 1 JENNIK SUSAN 1 KORNBLUM WILLIAM 1 LEVY PAUL ALAN 1 LIVING WAGE CAMPAIGN 1 MIDWEST ACADEMY 1 NATIONAL INTERFAITH COMMITTEE WORKER JUSTICE 1 NATIONAL ORGANIZATION WOMEN 1 NATIONAL TRAINING INFORMATION CENTER 1 PIVEN FRANCES FOX 1 PREAMBLE CENTER PUBLIC POLICY 1 SCHNEIDER JUDITH R 1 SIERRA CLUB 1 SPITZ RUTH 1 STUDENTS DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY 1 SUMMERS CLYDE 1 SWEENEY JOHN J (AFL-CIO) 1 TABANKIN MARGERY 1 TILLMAN JOHNNIE 1 TRAPP SHEL 1 UNITED AUTO WORKERS 1 UNITED STATES PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP 1 WEILL SANFORD I 1
5 of 5
4/10/2010 4:23 PM
COINFIDENTIAL
UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT H
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?Na=alinsky%2C+saul
register
order copies
Java diagram
no diagram
The names below are mentioned on the listed pages with the name ALINSKY SAUL D Click on a name for a new proximity search: AFL-CIO Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (162) AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (10) ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS REFORM NOW Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (5) BOOTH HEATHER Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (292) Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (5 13)
1 of 6
4/10/2010 4:21 PM
BOOTH PAUL Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (292) CENTER STUDY DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS EIR. Dope, Inc. 1992 (137) CERMAK ANTON Scheim,D. Contract on America. 1988 (9) CHAMBERS EDWARD T Greider,W. Who Will Tell the People. 1993 (225) Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (343) CHAVEZ CESAR E McCann,T. An American Company. 1976 (157) Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (343) COPELAND LAMMOT DU PONT JR Turner,W. Rearview Mirror. 2001 (87) CORPORATE DATA EXCHANGE Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (13) DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (10) DUCOTE JEROME Turner,W. Rearview Mirror. 2001 (87) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (12) Sykes,C. The Hollow Men. 1990 (152) ECONOMIC RESEARCH ACTION PROJECT Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (5) FIRE POLICE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION Turner,W. Rearview Mirror. 2001 (87) FLACKS RICHARD E Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (5) GALVIN ROBERT WILLIAM Turner,W. Rearview Mirror. 2001 (87)
2 of 6
4/10/2010 4:21 PM
GAUDETTE TOM Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (343) GREFE EDWARD Rampton,S. Stauber,J. Banana Republicans. 2004 (208) HARMON DICK Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (343) HAYDEN TOM E (SDS) Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (5) HEARST GEORGE RANDOLPH JR Turner,W. Rearview Mirror. 2001 (87) HONEYWELL CORPORATION Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (10-11) HUERTA DOLORES McCann,T. An American Company. 1976 (157) Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (343) HUTCHINS ROBERT MAYNARD EIR. Dope, Inc. 1992 (137) INDUSTRIAL AREAS FOUNDATION Greider,W. Who Will Tell the People. 1993 (224-225) Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (11-12) Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (342-343) JONES DONALD (REV) Morris,R. Partners in Power. 1996 (119) KENNEDY JOSEPH PATRICK EIR. Dope, Inc. 1992 (137) KENNEDY ROBERT FRANCIS Scheim,D. Contract on America. 1988 (9) LAUER WILL McCann,T. An American Company. 1976 (157) LEWIS KATHRYN Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (343)
3 of 6
4/10/2010 4:21 PM
LINSKY MARTIN (REPUBLICAN PARTY ACTIVIST) Rampton,S. Stauber,J. Banana Republicans. 2004 (208) LOCKER MICHAEL D Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (162) LOESCH FRANK J Scheim,D. Contract on America. 1988 (9) LYLE JOHN Scheim,D. Contract on America. 1988 (9) LYND STAUGHTON Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (10) MCCARTHY JOSEPH R Cooney,J. The American Pope. 1984 (221) MIDWEST ACADEMY Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (5 13) MILLER S.M. (FORD FOUNDATION) Roelofs,J. Foundations and Public Policy. 2003 (137) MOORE NORMAN H Turner,W. Rearview Mirror. 2001 (87) MOTOROLA INC Turner,W. Rearview Mirror. 2001 (87) MOYNIHAN DANIEL PATRICK (D-NY) Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (12) NATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (10) NATIONAL COUNCIL CHURCHES Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (10) NATIONAL WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (5) NITTI FRANK EIR. Dope, Inc. 1992 (137)
4 of 6
4/10/2010 4:21 PM
NORTH AMERICAN CONGRESS LATIN AMERICA Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (162) PACE FELICE Rampton,S. Stauber,J. Banana Republicans. 2004 (208) PEW J HOWARD Turner,W. Rearview Mirror. 2001 (87) REICH ROBERT B Sykes,C. The Hollow Men. 1990 (152) ROGERS RAYMOND FRANKLIN Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (162) ROSS FRED Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (343) ROYBAL EDWARD (D-CA) Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (343) SCHECHTER ALAN Morris,R. Partners in Power. 1996 (133-134) SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (292) SHEIL BERNARD J Cooney,J. The American Pope. 1984 (221) Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (343) SHERMAN GORDON Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (343) SILBERMAN CHARLES Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (343) SLOAN ALFRED P Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (292) STERN ANDREW L (SEIU) Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (292) STUDENTS DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY
5 of 6
4/10/2010 4:21 PM
Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (5) TUOHY ROGER Scheim,D. Contract on America. 1988 (9) UNITED AUTO WORKERS Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (5) VON HOFFMAN NICHOLAS Walls,D. The Activist's Almanac. 1993 (343) WECHSLER JAMES A Cooney,J. The American Pope. 1984 (221) WOODLAWN ORGANIZATION Roelofs,J. Foundations and Public Policy. 2003 (137)
ALINSKY SAUL D pages searched: 22 These names share the indicated number of pages with the above name. Click on a name below (or on the one above) for a standard name search:
INDUSTRIAL AREAS FOUNDATION 6 BOOTH HEATHER 3 CHAMBERS EDWARD T 2 CHAVEZ CESAR E 2 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY 2 HONEYWELL CORPORATION 2 HUERTA DOLORES 2 MIDWEST ACADEMY 2 SCHECHTER ALAN 2 SHEIL BERNARD J 2 AFL-CIO 1 AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE 1 ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS REFORM NOW 1 BOOTH PAUL 1 CENTER STUDY DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS 1 CERMAK ANTON 1 COPELAND LAMMOT DU PONT JR 1 CORPORATE DATA EXCHANGE 1 DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY 1 DUCOTE JEROME 1 ECONOMIC RESEARCH ACTION PROJECT 1 FIRE POLICE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION 1 FLACKS RICHARD E 1 GALVIN ROBERT WILLIAM 1 GAUDETTE TOM 1 GREFE EDWARD 1 HARMON DICK 1 HAYDEN TOM E (SDS) 1 HEARST GEORGE RANDOLPH JR 1 HUTCHINS ROBERT MAYNARD 1 JONES DONALD (REV) 1 KENNEDY JOSEPH PATRICK 1 KENNEDY ROBERT FRANCIS 1 LAUER WILL 1 LEWIS KATHRYN 1 LINSKY MARTIN (REPUBLICAN PARTY ACTIVIST) 1 LOCKER MICHAEL D 1 LOESCH FRANK J 1 LYLE JOHN 1 LYND STAUGHTON 1 MCCARTHY JOSEPH R 1 MILLER S.M. (FORD FOUNDATION) 1 MOORE NORMAN H 1 MOTOROLA INC 1 MOYNIHAN DANIEL PATRICK (D-NY) 1 NATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX 1 NATIONAL COUNCIL CHURCHES 1 NATIONAL WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION 1 NITTI FRANK 1 NORTH AMERICAN CONGRESS LATIN AMERICA 1 PACE FELICE 1 PEW J HOWARD 1 REICH ROBERT B 1 ROGERS RAYMOND FRANKLIN 1 ROSS FRED 1 ROYBAL EDWARD (D-CA) 1 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION 1 SHERMAN GORDON 1 SILBERMAN CHARLES 1 SLOAN ALFRED P 1 STERN ANDREW L (SEIU) 1 STUDENTS DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY 1 TUOHY ROGER 1 UNITED AUTO WORKERS 1 VON HOFFMAN NICHOLAS 1 WECHSLER JAMES A 1 WOODLAWN ORGANIZATION 1
6 of 6
4/10/2010 4:21 PM
COINFIDENTIAL
UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT I
Social Network Diagram for SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONA...
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?_SERVICE_EMPLOYEES_IN...
register
order copies
Java diagram
no diagram
The names below are mentioned on the listed pages with the name SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION Click on a name for a new proximity search: ADONIS JOE Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (296) ALINSKY SAUL D Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (292) ALTERIE LOUIS (TWO GUN) Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (296) AMALGAMATED CLOTHING TEXTILE WORKERS UNION Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (121) AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY
1 of 6
4/10/2010 4:42 PM
Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (76) BALANOFF TOM Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (302) BAMBRICK JAMES Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (298) BEVERLY ENTERPRISES INC Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (69-71) BEVONA GUS Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (301-303) BEVONA PETER Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (303) BLAGOJEVICH ROD Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (306-307) BOBO KIM Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (77) BOOTH HEATHER Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (292) BOOTH PAUL Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (292) CAPONE AL Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (296) CARFANO ANTHONY (LITTLE AUGIE) Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (296) CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (76-78) CHARTIER HENRY Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (298) CHARTIER ROBERT Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (298) COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS AMERICA
2 of 6
4/10/2010 4:42 PM
Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (119 168) CORDTZ RICHARD W Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (301) Washington Times 1996-03-08 (7 9) DARCO ALPHONSE (LITTLE AL) Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (302-303) DONAHUE THOMAS R Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (298) DURANT WILLIAM CRAPO Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (299) FAIRCHILD GEORGE (SEIU) Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (297) FISHMAN MIKE Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (302) FOOD LION INC Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (76) GARCIA MIKE (LOCAL 1877) Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (302 305) HAHN JAMES K Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (311) HENRY MARY KAY Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (77) HERNANDEZ ERNEST (COLORADO) Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (258) HORAN JERRY Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (296-297) INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (121) INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (69)
3 of 6
4/10/2010 4:42 PM
JACKSON JESSE L (REV) Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (78) KELLEHER KEITH Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (307) LABOR EDUCATION RESEARCH PROJECT Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (170) LABOTZ DAN Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (170 256) LEONARD RICHARD (OCAW) Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (170) LEWIS JOHN L (UMW) Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (293) LEWIS TOMMY (SEIU) Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (298) MCENTEE GERALD W Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (306) MCFETRIDGE WILLIAM Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (297-298) MCGINNIS PAT Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (313) MEYERSON HAROLD Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (293) NIKE INC Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (71) NITTI FRANK Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (296) OIL CHEMICAL ATOMIC WORKERS Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (170) OREGON STEEL MILLS Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (258)
4 of 6
4/10/2010 4:42 PM
OSULLIVAN TERENCE M JR Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (294) PEGLER WESTBROOK Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (297) PERRY CHARLES R Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (256) PIORE MICHAEL Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (300) QUESSE WILLIAM Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (296-297) SCALISE GEORGE (POKER FACE) Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (297-298) SLOAN ALFRED P Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (292 299-300 313) SMITH MATT (SAN FRANCISCO WEEKLY) Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (312-313) STERN ANDREW L (SEIU) Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (290-314) Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (70 76 119-120) Washington Times 1996-03-08 (7 9) SULLIVAN EDDIE JR (BOSTON) Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (302) SUTTER HEALTH Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (78) SWEENEY JOHN J (AFL-CIO) Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (298 301-303) Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (119 168) THOMPSON JAMES ROBERT JR Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (307) UNION NEEDLETRADES INDUSTRIAL TEXTILE EMPLOYEES Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (121)
5 of 6
4/10/2010 4:42 PM
UNITED STEELWORKERS AMERICA Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (258) WELLS FARGO BANK Manheim,J. The Death of a Thousand Cuts. 2001 (258) WILHELM JOHN W (UNION LEADER) Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (294) YAROSLAVSKY ZEV Fitch,R. Solidarity for Sale. 2006 (311)
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION pages searched: 42 These names share the indicated number of pages with the above name. Click on a name below (or on the one above) for a standard name search:
STERN ANDREW L (SEIU) 31 SWEENEY JOHN J (AFL-CIO) 6 SLOAN ALFRED P 4 BEVERLY ENTERPRISES INC 3 BEVONA GUS 3 CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST 3 CORDTZ RICHARD W 3 BLAGOJEVICH ROD 2 COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS AMERICA 2 DARCO ALPHONSE (LITTLE AL) 2 GARCIA MIKE (LOCAL 1877) 2 HORAN JERRY 2 LABOTZ DAN 2 MCFETRIDGE WILLIAM 2 QUESSE WILLIAM 2 SCALISE GEORGE (POKER FACE) 2 SMITH MATT (SAN FRANCISCO WEEKLY) 2 ADONIS JOE 1 ALINSKY SAUL D 1 ALTERIE LOUIS (TWO GUN) 1 AMALGAMATED CLOTHING TEXTILE WORKERS UNION 1 AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY 1 BALANOFF TOM 1 BAMBRICK JAMES 1 BEVONA PETER 1 BOBO KIM 1 BOOTH HEATHER 1 BOOTH PAUL 1 CAPONE AL 1 CARFANO ANTHONY (LITTLE AUGIE) 1 CHARTIER HENRY 1 CHARTIER ROBERT 1 DONAHUE THOMAS R 1 DURANT WILLIAM CRAPO 1 FAIRCHILD GEORGE (SEIU) 1 FISHMAN MIKE 1 FOOD LION INC 1 HAHN JAMES K 1 HENRY MARY KAY 1 HERNANDEZ ERNEST (COLORADO) 1 INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION 1 INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY 1 JACKSON JESSE L (REV) 1 KELLEHER KEITH 1 LABOR EDUCATION RESEARCH PROJECT 1 LEONARD RICHARD (OCAW) 1 LEWIS JOHN L (UMW) 1 LEWIS TOMMY (SEIU) 1 MCENTEE GERALD W 1 MCGINNIS PAT 1 MEYERSON HAROLD 1 NIKE INC 1 NITTI FRANK 1 OIL CHEMICAL ATOMIC WORKERS 1 OREGON STEEL MILLS 1 OSULLIVAN TERENCE M JR 1 PEGLER WESTBROOK 1 PERRY CHARLES R 1 PIORE MICHAEL 1 SULLIVAN EDDIE JR (BOSTON) 1 SUTTER HEALTH 1 THOMPSON JAMES ROBERT JR 1 UNION NEEDLETRADES INDUSTRIAL TEXTILE EMPLOYEES 1 UNITED STEELWORKERS AMERICA 1 WELLS FARGO BANK 1 WILHELM JOHN W (UNION LEADER) 1 YAROSLAVSKY ZEV 1
6 of 6
4/10/2010 4:42 PM
COINFIDENTIAL
UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT J
Social Network Diagram for MARCINKUS PAUL CASIMIR
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?_MARCINKUS_PAUL_CASIMIR
register
order copies
Java diagram
no diagram
The names below are mentioned on the listed pages with the name MARCINKUS PAUL CASIMIR Click on a name for a new proximity search: ABS HERMANN JOSEF Covert Action Information Bulletin 1986-#25 (35) AGCA MEHMET ALI Intelligence/Parapolitics (Paris) 1985-07 (5) ALBERTINI ISIDORO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (169) AMBROSOLI GIORGIO Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (46) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (187)
1 of 10
4/10/2010 4:16 PM
AMERICARES FOUNDATION Covert Action Information Bulletin 1986-#25 (35) ANDREATTA BENIAMINO Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (132) ANDREOTTI GIULIO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (245) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (70) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (253) ANTONUCCI MARK DiFonzo,L. St.Peter's Banker. 1983 (10) ARDUINO GIOVANNI Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (208-209) ARICO WILLIAM JOSEPH Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (208) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (171) ARMAO ROBERT Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (101) Parapolitics/USA 1983-03-01 (6) BAFFI PAOLO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (245) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (46) BAGNASCO ORAZIO Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (119-120) BANCO AMBROSIANO DiFonzo,L. St.Peter's Banker. 1983 (260) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (74) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (81-82 89 91 114) Scheim,D. Contract on America. 1988 (322) Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (136-146) BARBIE KLAUS Vankin,J. Whalen,J. The 60 Greatest Conspiracies. 1998 (115) BASIC RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (194) Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (75)
2 of 10
4/10/2010 4:16 PM
BELLATRIX COMPANY Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (75) BENELLI GIOVANNI Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (226) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (175) BERLUSCONI SILVIO Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) BERMUDEZ ENRIQUE V Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (75) BONTATE STEFANO Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) BORGHESE VALERIO Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (178 211) BOTTA GIACOMO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (245) Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (140) BRENNAN JOSEPH Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (209) Covert Action Information Bulletin 1986-#25 (35) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (134) BUSH PRESCOTT JR Covert Action Information Bulletin 1986-#25 (35) CALOIA ANGELO Washington Post 1989-06-21 (16) CALO PIPPO (GIUSEPPE) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) CALVI CARLO Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (70 171-172) Parapolitics/USA 1983-03-01 (6) CALVI CLARA Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (70) CALVI ROBERTO
3 of 10
4/10/2010 4:16 PM
DiFonzo,L. St.Peter's Banker. 1983 (260) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) Intelligence/Parapolitics (Paris) 1985-07 (5) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (178 187 191 195-201) Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (74-75) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (81-82 89 91 114) Parapolitics/USA 1983-03-01 (2-3 6-7) Parapolitics/USA 1983-06-01 (23) Scheim,D. Contract on America. 1988 (322) Vankin,J. Whalen,J. The 60 Greatest Conspiracies. 1998 (115-117) Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (136-146) CAPRIO GIUSEPPE CARDINAL DiFonzo,L. St.Peter's Banker. 1983 (8 12) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (46) CARBONI FLAVIO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (177-178) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (101-103 208) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (191) CASAROLI AGOSTINO CARDINAL Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (177 225-227) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (46 102 134 169-170) CASILLO VINCENZO Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) CEFIS EUGENIO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (40) CERUTTI CARLO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (209) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (134) CESAR ALFREDO Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (74) CHAMOUN CAMILLE Intelligence/Parapolitics (Paris) 1987-04 (10) CHELI GIOVANNI Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (70) Parapolitics/USA 1983-03-01 (6-7) CIARRAPICO GIUSEPPE Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (70)
4 of 10
4/10/2010 4:16 PM
CIPPICO EDOARDO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (56) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (173) CODY JOHN PATRICK DiFonzo,L. St.Peter's Banker. 1983 (8) Giancana,S.& C. Double Cross. 1992 (338) COSTA CARLO (AMBROSIANO) Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (245) CRAXI BETTINO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (245) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (70) CRIMI JOSEPH MICELI DiFonzo,L. St.Peter's Banker. 1983 (260) CRUZ ARTURO JOSE Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (74) CUCCIA ENRICO Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (46) CUTOLO RAFFAELE Intelligence/Parapolitics (Paris) 1985-07 (5) DAGOSTINI LUIGI Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (102) DALLA CHIESA CARLO ALBERTO Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (211) DE BENEDETTI CARLO Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (142) DE BONIS DONATO Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (171) DE STROBEL PELLEGRINO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (54) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (83 169 171 208) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (171 187 211-213) DE WECK PHILIPPE
5 of 10
4/10/2010 4:16 PM
Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (209) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (134) Washington Post 1989-06-21 (16) DELLE CHIAIE STEFANO Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (178) DI CARLO FRANCESCO Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) DORMESSON ANDRE DiFonzo,L. St.Peter's Banker. 1983 (10) DUNN JOSEPH P Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (174) EAGLEBURGER LAWRENCE SIDNEY Copetas,A.C. Metal Men. 1986 (212) FELICI PERICLE Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (175) FELTRINELLI GIANGIACOMO DiFonzo,L. St.Peter's Banker. 1983 (10) FIORINI FLORIO Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (101) FRANCO HILARY Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (177) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (102) GAMBINO GIUSEPPE Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (171) GAMBINO JOHN Mother Jones 1983-07 (37) GAMBINO ROSARIO Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (171) GELLI LICIO DiFonzo,L. St.Peter's Banker. 1983 (260) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (15) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) Intelligence/Parapolitics (Paris) 1985-07 (5)
6 of 10
4/10/2010 4:16 PM
Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (178 187 201 211) Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (74-75) Mother Jones 1983-07 (37) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (253) Parapolitics/USA 1983-03-01 (2-3 6-7) Vankin,J. Whalen,J. The 60 Greatest Conspiracies. 1998 (115 117) Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (146) GENGHINI MARIO Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (74) GIUDICE RAFFAELE Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (253) GIUNCHIGLIA EZIO Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (132) GOLDSMITH JAMES MICHAEL Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (75) GUARINO PHILIP A Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (201) Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (75) GUERRI SERGIO CARDINAL DiFonzo,L. St.Peter's Banker. 1983 (8 12) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (46) JOHN PAUL I (POPE) Giancana,S.& C. Double Cross. 1992 (171) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (175) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) Scheim,D. Contract on America. 1988 (322) Vankin,J. Whalen,J. The 60 Greatest Conspiracies. 1998 (115-117) JOHN PAUL II (POPE) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (174-177) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (211-213) Parapolitics/USA 1983-03-01 (6) Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (144) KENNEDY DAVID MATTHEW Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (53) DiFonzo,L. St.Peter's Banker. 1983 (10) Mother Jones 1983-07 (37) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (80) KNIGHTS TEMPLAR
7 of 10
4/10/2010 4:16 PM
Parapolitics/USA 1983-03-01 (6 7) LEEMANS MICHEL Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (119-120) LEONI FILIPPO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (245) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (119 171) Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (140) MACCHI PASQUALE Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (26 103) MENNINI ALESSANDRO (ALEX) Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (142) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (26 69) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (199 211-213) MENNINI LUIGI Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (16 54) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (26 69 83 103 169 208) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (171 187 199) MONTINI GIOVANNI (POPE PAUL VI) Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (52) Covert Action Information Bulletin 1986-#25 (35) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (13 174) OPUS DEI Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (177) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (102 177) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (114) Parapolitics/USA 1983-03-01 (3 6 6) ORTOLANI UMBERTO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (16) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (15 208) PALAZZINI PIETRO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (177) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (102) PAZIENZA FRANCESCO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (16 232-233) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (69-70 101 208) Intelligence/Parapolitics (Paris) 1985-07 (5) Parapolitics/USA 1983-03-01 (6)
8 of 10
4/10/2010 4:16 PM
PESENTI CARLO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (16) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (26 101) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (89) PROPAGANDA DUE (P2) Covert Action Information Bulletin 1986-#25 (35) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (15) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (74-75) Scheim,D. Contract on America. 1988 (322) Vankin,J. Whalen,J. The 60 Greatest Conspiracies. 1998 (115 117) Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (146) ROSONE ROBERTO Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (16) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (119-120) SIEGENTHALER PIERRE Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (50 178) SINDONA MICHELE Covert Action Information Bulletin 1986-#25 (35) Giancana,S.& C. Double Cross. 1992 (338) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (13-15 26 46 174 208) Intelligence/Parapolitics (Paris) 1985-07 (5) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (178 182-183 187 195) Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (75) Mother Jones 1983-07 (37) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (80-82 253 314) Parapolitics/USA 1983-03-01 (2-3 6) Parapolitics/USA 1983-06-01 (23) Scheim,D. Contract on America. 1988 (322) Vankin,J. Whalen,J. The 60 Greatest Conspiracies. 1998 (115-116) Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (136-138) SOLIDARITY UNION Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (103 134 176) SPADA MASSIMO DiFonzo,L. St.Peter's Banker. 1983 (260) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (187) STRITCH SAMUEL CARDINAL Giancana,S.& C. Double Cross. 1992 (171 338) TONELLO ANTONIO Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (194) Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (75)
9 of 10
4/10/2010 4:16 PM
VATICAN BANK (INSTITUTE RELIGIOUS WORKS) Cornwell,R. God's Banker. 1984 (50-58 208-209 225-227 231-233) Covert Action Information Bulletin 1986-#25 (35) Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (13 26 69 132 134 168-177 208) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (191 195-201 211-213) Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (80 119-120 253) Vankin,J. Whalen,J. The 60 Greatest Conspiracies. 1998 (115 117) Walter,I. The Secret Money Market. 1990 (136-146) Washington Post 1989-06-21 (16) WALTERS VERNON ANTHONY Gurwin,L. The Calvi Affair. 1984 (194) Intelligence (Paris) 1999-01-11 (22) Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (75) WILSON WILLIAM A Copetas,A.C. Metal Men. 1986 (212) Scheim,D. Contract on America. 1988 (322)
MARCINKUS PAUL CASIMIR pages searched: 115 These names share the indicated number of pages with the above name. Click on a name below (or on the one above) for a standard name search:
VATICAN BANK (INSTITUTE RELIGIOUS WORKS) 64 CALVI ROBERTO 40 SINDONA MICHELE 32 BANCO AMBROSIANO 20 GELLI LICIO 19 MENNINI LUIGI 11 DE STROBEL PELLEGRINO 10 JOHN PAUL II (POPE) 10 CASAROLI AGOSTINO CARDINAL 9 PAZIENZA FRANCESCO 9 PROPAGANDA DUE (P2) 9 CARBONI FLAVIO 8 JOHN PAUL I (POPE) 7 MENNINI ALESSANDRO (ALEX) 7 OPUS DEI 7 CALVI CARLO 4 KENNEDY DAVID MATTHEW 4 LEONI FILIPPO 4 MONTINI GIOVANNI (POPE PAUL VI) 4 PESENTI CARLO 4 ANDREOTTI GIULIO 3 BRENNAN JOSEPH 3 CAPRIO GIUSEPPE CARDINAL 3 CHELI GIOVANNI 3 DE WECK PHILIPPE 3 GUERRI SERGIO CARDINAL 3 ORTOLANI UMBERTO 3 ROSONE ROBERTO 3 SOLIDARITY UNION 3 WALTERS VERNON ANTHONY 3 AMBROSOLI GIORGIO 2 ARDUINO GIOVANNI 2 ARICO WILLIAM JOSEPH 2 ARMAO ROBERT 2 BAFFI PAOLO 2 BAGNASCO ORAZIO 2 BASIC RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL 2 BENELLI GIOVANNI 2 BORGHESE VALERIO 2 BOTTA GIACOMO 2 CERUTTI CARLO 2 CIPPICO EDOARDO 2 CODY JOHN PATRICK 2 CRAXI BETTINO 2 FRANCO HILARY 2 GUARINO PHILIP A 2 KNIGHTS TEMPLAR 2 LEEMANS MICHEL 2 MACCHI PASQUALE 2 PALAZZINI PIETRO 2 SIEGENTHALER PIERRE 2 SPADA MASSIMO 2 STRITCH SAMUEL CARDINAL 2 TONELLO ANTONIO 2 WILSON WILLIAM A 2 ABS HERMANN JOSEF 1 AGCA MEHMET ALI 1 ALBERTINI ISIDORO 1 AMERICARES FOUNDATION 1 ANDREATTA BENIAMINO 1 ANTONUCCI MARK 1 BARBIE KLAUS 1 BELLATRIX COMPANY 1 BERLUSCONI SILVIO 1 BERMUDEZ ENRIQUE V 1 BONTATE STEFANO 1 BUSH PRESCOTT JR 1 CALO PIPPO (GIUSEPPE) 1 CALOIA ANGELO 1 CALVI CLARA 1 CASILLO VINCENZO 1 CEFIS EUGENIO 1 CESAR ALFREDO 1 CHAMOUN CAMILLE 1 CIARRAPICO GIUSEPPE 1 COSTA CARLO (AMBROSIANO) 1 CRIMI JOSEPH MICELI 1 CRUZ ARTURO JOSE 1 CUCCIA ENRICO 1 CUTOLO RAFFAELE 1 DAGOSTINI LUIGI 1 DALLA CHIESA CARLO ALBERTO 1 DE BENEDETTI CARLO 1 DE BONIS DONATO 1 DELLE CHIAIE STEFANO 1 DI CARLO FRANCESCO 1 DORMESSON ANDRE 1 DUNN JOSEPH P 1 EAGLEBURGER LAWRENCE SIDNEY 1 FELICI PERICLE 1 FELTRINELLI GIANGIACOMO 1 FIORINI FLORIO 1 GAMBINO GIUSEPPE 1 GAMBINO JOHN 1 GAMBINO ROSARIO 1 GENGHINI MARIO 1 GIUDICE RAFFAELE 1 GIUNCHIGLIA EZIO 1 GOLDSMITH JAMES MICHAEL 1 GRACE J PETER JR 1 GULF-WESTERN 1 HAMBROS BANK 1 HERNANDEZ CARTAYA GUILLERMO 1 KNIGHTS MALTA 1 KROL JOHN CARDINAL 1 LA MALFA UGO 1 LABADE JEAN-PHILIPPE 1 LASTIRI RAUL ALBERTO 1 LOPEZ REGA JOSE (MINISTER OF SOCIAL WELFARE) 1 LUCE CLARE BOOTHE 1 MACIOCE THOMAS M 1 MALPICA RICCARDO 1 MANNOIA FRANCESCO MARINO 1 MARIGHELLA CARLOS 1 MASSERA EMILIO EDUARDO 1 MAZZOTTA MAURIZIO 1 MICELI VITO 1 MORATTI ANGELO 1 MORLION FELIX 1 NESI NERIO 1 NICARAGUAN FREEDOM FUND 1 NICORA GIUSEPPE 1 OCCHIUTO ANTONINO 1 ORDINE NUOVO 1 PARISI VINCENZO 1 PERON JUAN DOMINGO 1 PERTINI SANDRO 1 PIETZCER THEODOR 1 POLETTI UGO 1 PORCO DANIEL A 1 PRISCO GIUSEPPE 1 REAGAN RONALD W 1 RIZZOLI ANGELO 1 ROBELO ALFONSO 1 ROOSEVELT KERMIT (KIM) 1 SANCHEZ ASIAIN JOSE ANGEL 1 SANDOVAL ALARCON MARIO 1 SARCINELLI MARIO 1 SHADDICK PETER 1 SICILIA CLAUDIO 1 SICLARI BRUNO 1 SIMON WILLIAM EDWARD 1 SMITH WILLIAM FRENCH 1 SPADOLINI GIOVANNI 1 SPELLMAN FRANCIS CARDINAL 1 TASSAN DIN BRUNO 1 VAGNOZZI CARDINAL 1 VETCO INDUSTRIES 1 VILLOT JEAN 1 WILLIAMS EDWARD BENNETT 1 WORLD FINANCE CORPORATION 1 ZORZA LORENZO 1
10 of 10
4/10/2010 4:16 PM
COINFIDENTIAL
UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT K
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?Na=dixon%2C+william+p
register
order copies
Java diagram
no diagram
The names below are mentioned on the listed pages with the name DIXON WILLIAM P Click on a name for a new proximity search: CLINTON HILLARY RODHAM Zeifman,J. Without Honor. 1995 (176) DOBROVIR WILLIAM A Zeifman,J. Without Honor. 1995 (175) EILBERG JOSHUA Zeifman,J. Without Honor. 1995 (175) HALPERIN MORTON H Zeifman,J. Without Honor. 1995 (175) KISSINGER HENRY A Zeifman,J. Without Honor. 1995 (175)
1 of 2
4/10/2010 3:32 PM
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?Na=dixon%2C+william+p
NEW YORK TIMES Zeifman,J. Without Honor. 1995 (175) POLK FRANK (HOUSE STAFF) Zeifman,J. Without Honor. 1995 (111) WEICKER LOWELL P JR (R-CT) Zeifman,J. Without Honor. 1995 (176)
DIXON WILLIAM P pages searched: 5 These names share the indicated number of pages with the above name. Click on a name below (or on the one above) for a standard name search:
CLINTON HILLARY RODHAM 1 DOBROVIR WILLIAM A 1 EILBERG JOSHUA 1 HALPERIN MORTON H 1 NEW YORK TIMES 1 POLK FRANK (HOUSE STAFF) 1 WEICKER LOWELL P JR (R-CT) 1 KISSINGER HENRY A 1
2 of 2
4/10/2010 3:32 PM
COINFIDENTIAL
UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT L
Social Network Diagram for ANNENBERG WALTER HUBERT
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?_ANNENBERG_WALTER_H...
register
order copies
Java diagram
no diagram
The names below are mentioned on the listed pages with the name ANNENBERG WALTER HUBERT Click on a name for a new proximity search: ANDREAS DWAYNE ORVILLE Cockburn,A. Silverstein,K. Washington Babylon. 1996 (106) Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (10) Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) ANNENBERG LEONORE (LEE) Hitchens,C. Blood, Class, and Nostalgia. 1990 (12 58-60) Moldea,D. Dark Victory. 1987 (302) Parade Magazine 1988-10-30 (2) ANNENBERG MOSES L Davis,J. Mafia Dynasty. 1993 (340) Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). Extra! 1988-10 (16) Hitchens,C. Blood, Class, and Nostalgia. 1990 (57)
1 of 6
4/10/2010 4:10 PM
Moldea,D. Dark Victory. 1987 (84-85) Moldea,D. Interference. 1989 (69) Parade Magazine 1988-10-30 (2) Scott,P.D. Deep Politics. 1993 (155) Weissman,S. Big Brother and the Holding Company. 1974 (217) Winter-Berger,R. The Washington Pay-Off. 1972 (126) ARGYROS GEORGE LEON Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) Washington Post 1992-09-28 (15) ARVEY JAKE Sale,K. Power Shift. 1976 (201) Scott,P.D. Deep Politics. 1993 (155) BENSON BRUCE D Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) Washington Post 1992-09-28 (15) BRUCE DAVID K.E. Hitchens,C. Blood, Class, and Nostalgia. 1990 (57-58) State Dept. United States Chiefs of Mission 1778-1973. 1973 (161) BRUCE EVANGELINE BELL Hitchens,C. Blood, Class, and Nostalgia. 1990 (57-58 60) CHOTINER MURRAY M Sale,K. Power Shift. 1976 (202 223) COOK LODWRICK MONROE Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (10) Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) CROSBY JAMES M Sale,K. Power Shift. 1976 (202 223) DU PONT FAMILY Bagdikian,B. The Media Monopoly. 1990 (42) Parenti,M. Inventing Reality. 1993 (34) FIRESTONE LEONARD K Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (10) Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) Weissman,S. Big Brother and the Holding Company. 1974 (217) FISHER MAX MARTIN Cockburn,A. Silverstein,K. Washington Babylon. 1996 (106)
2 of 6
4/10/2010 4:10 PM
Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (10) GOLDMARK PETER C JR Hawks,J. For a Good Cause? 1997 (67) New York Times 1992-09-08 (14) HAMBURG DAVID A Hawks,J. For a Good Cause? 1997 (67) New York Times 1992-09-08 (14) HILLMAN HENRY LEA Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) Washington Post 1992-09-28 (15) HOLDEN GLEN A Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) Washington Post 1992-09-28 (15) HUIZENGA H WAYNE Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) Washington Post 1992-09-28 (15) IRVINE REED JOHN Kelly,T. The Imperial Post. 1983 (286-287) JOHNSON ROBERT WOOD IV Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) Washington Post 1992-09-28 (15) KENNEDY JOSEPH PATRICK Davis,J. Mafia Dynasty. 1993 (340) Oglesby,C. The Yankee and Cowboy War. 1976 (29) LANSKY MEYER Moldea,D. Dark Victory. 1987 (85) Sale,K. Power Shift. 1976 (201-202) LAXALT PAUL D (R-NV) Maheu,R. Next to Hughes. 1993 (258) Moldea,D. Dark Victory. 1987 (302) LUCE HENRY ROBINSON Bagdikian,B. The Media Monopoly. 1990 (42) Parenti,M. Inventing Reality. 1993 (34) MARTIN MYRON Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4)
3 of 6
4/10/2010 4:10 PM
Washington Post 1992-09-28 (15) MURDOCH RUPERT Bagdikian,B. The Media Monopoly. 1990 (23 41) Hitchens,C. Blood, Class, and Nostalgia. 1990 (60) NIXON RICHARD MILHOUS Sale,K. Power Shift. 1976 (202) Winter-Berger,R. The Washington Pay-Off. 1972 (241) Yakovlev,N. Washington Silhouettes. 1985 (310) ODONNELL PETER JR Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) Washington Post 1992-09-28 (15) PETRIE MILTON J Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) Washington Post 1992-09-28 (15) PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (10) Saloma,J. Ominous Politics. 1984 (74) PRICE DAVID G (AMERICAN GOLF CORP) Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) Washington Post 1992-09-28 (15) RAGEN JAMES M Moldea,D. Interference. 1989 (69) Scott,P.D. Deep Politics. 1993 (155) RAININ KENNETH Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) Washington Post 1992-09-28 (15) REBOZO CHARLES G (BEBE) Sale,K. Power Shift. 1976 (201 223) ROBERTS DUANE Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) Washington Post 1992-09-28 (15) ROCKEFELLER DAVID SR Sampson,A. The Money Lenders. 1982 (239) Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) ROLLINS JOHN W SR
4 of 6
4/10/2010 4:10 PM
Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) Washington Post 1992-09-28 (15) ROSSELLI JOHN Moldea,D. Dark Victory. 1987 (84-85) Moldea,D. Interference. 1989 (69) SHALES TOM Kelly,T. The Imperial Post. 1983 (286-287) SMITH CONRAD ARNHOLT Sale,K. Power Shift. 1976 (201 223) STEINBERG SAUL PHILLIP Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (10) Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) STONE W CLEMENT Allen,M.P. The Founding Fortunes. 1989 (282) Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (10) Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) THOMAS FRANKLIN A Hawks,J. For a Good Cause? 1997 (67) New York Times 1992-09-08 (14) TIMKEN WILLIAM R (TIM) Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) Washington Post 1992-09-28 (15) WALLACE MIKE Kelly,T. The Imperial Post. 1983 (286-287) WATSON ARTHUR K Allen,M.P. The Founding Fortunes. 1989 (282) Yakovlev,N. Washington Silhouettes. 1985 (310) WATSON THOMAS J JR Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) Washington Post 1992-09-28 (15) WESTMORELAND WILLIAM C (GEN) Kelly,T. The Imperial Post. 1983 (286-287) WHITEHEAD JOHN CUNNINGHAM Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) Washington Post 1992-09-28 (15)
5 of 6
4/10/2010 4:10 PM
WILLIAMS CARL M Washington Post 1989-01-24 (4) Washington Post 1992-09-28 (15)
ANNENBERG WALTER HUBERT pages searched: 49 These names share the indicated number of pages with the above name. Click on a name below (or on the one above) for a standard name search:
ANNENBERG MOSES L 10 ANNENBERG LEONORE (LEE) 6 ANDREAS DWAYNE ORVILLE 3 BRUCE DAVID K.E. 3 BRUCE EVANGELINE BELL 3 FIRESTONE LEONARD K 3 LANSKY MEYER 3 MURDOCH RUPERT 3 NIXON RICHARD MILHOUS 3 ROSSELLI JOHN 3 STONE W CLEMENT 3 ARGYROS GEORGE LEON 2 ARVEY JAKE 2 BENSON BRUCE D 2 CHOTINER MURRAY M 2 COOK LODWRICK MONROE 2 CROSBY JAMES M 2 DU PONT FAMILY 2 FISHER MAX MARTIN 2 GOLDMARK PETER C JR 2 HAMBURG DAVID A 2 HILLMAN HENRY LEA 2 HOLDEN GLEN A 2 HUIZENGA H WAYNE 2 IRVINE REED JOHN 2 JOHNSON ROBERT WOOD IV 2 KENNEDY JOSEPH PATRICK 2 LAXALT PAUL D (R-NV) 2 LUCE HENRY ROBINSON 2 MARTIN MYRON 2 ODONNELL PETER JR 2 PETRIE MILTON J 2 PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY 2 PRICE DAVID G (AMERICAN GOLF CORP) 2 RAGEN JAMES M 2 RAININ KENNETH 2 REBOZO CHARLES G (BEBE) 2 ROBERTS DUANE 2 ROCKEFELLER DAVID SR 2 ROLLINS JOHN W SR 2 SHALES TOM 2 SMITH CONRAD ARNHOLT 2 STEINBERG SAUL PHILLIP 2 THOMAS FRANKLIN A 2 TIMKEN WILLIAM R (TIM) 2 WALLACE MIKE 2 WATSON ARTHUR K 2 WATSON THOMAS J JR 2 WESTMORELAND WILLIAM C (GEN) 2 WHITEHEAD JOHN CUNNINGHAM 2 WILLIAMS CARL M 2
6 of 6
4/10/2010 4:10 PM
COINFIDENTIAL
UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT M
Page 1 of 2
First or Last Name
Keyword
2/28/2010
COINFIDENTIAL
UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT N
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?Na=Tobias%2C+Andrew+
register
order copies
Java diagram
no diagram
The names below are mentioned on the listed pages with the name TOBIAS ANDREW Click on a name for a new proximity search: BARKER JAMES (GREEN STEWART FARBER) Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) CLINTON BILL Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) DIXON CARLIE SORENSEN Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) DIXON LEE Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) DOCKSER WILLIAM Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) KOBACKER ARTHUR Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) KOHL SIDNEY Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45)
1 of 4
4/10/2010 3:15 PM
LAU JOANNA Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) LERACH WILLIAM S Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) MCCOY NEAL (SKADDEN ARPS) Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) MOORES JOHN JAY Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) NIXON DENNIS Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) OCONNOR PATRICK J Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) ODEEN PHILIP A Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) PICOWER JEFFREY Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) RAINER WILLIAM Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) ROBERTSON SANFORD R Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) ROBINSON MACK Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) ROGERS CHRISTOPHER Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) ROSE ROBERT (CREDIT AGRICOLE FUTURES) Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) RZEPKA FRED Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45)
2 of 4
4/10/2010 3:15 PM
SAGNER ALAN Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) SAMUELS ROBERT Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) SANCHEZ A.R. (TONY) Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) SCHIBELL RICH Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) SEEVAK SHELDON Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) SHAW DAVID E Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) SHUMAN STANLEY S Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) SIEGEL JEROME (NEW YORK) Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) SPENCE ROY Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) STERN RICHARD (CHICAGO) Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) SWID STEPHEN CLAAR Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) TISCH THOMAS Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) TRABULSI JUDI Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) WEST LEAH Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45)
3 of 4
4/10/2010 3:15 PM
WIGMORE BARRIE A Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) WINOKUR HERBERT S JR (PUG) Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45) WYATT OSCAR S JR Lewis,C. The Buying of the President. 1996 (45)
TOBIAS ANDREW pages searched: 1 These names share the indicated number of pages with the above name. Click on a name below (or on the one above) for a standard name search:
CLINTON BILL 1 DIXON CARLIE SORENSEN 1 DIXON LEE 1 DOCKSER WILLIAM 1 KOBACKER ARTHUR 1 KOHL SIDNEY 1 LAU JOANNA 1 LERACH WILLIAM S 1 MCCOY NEAL (SKADDEN ARPS) 1 MOORES JOHN JAY 1 NIXON DENNIS 1 OCONNOR PATRICK J 1 ODEEN PHILIP A 1 PICOWER JEFFREY 1 RAINER WILLIAM 1 ROBERTSON SANFORD R 1 ROBINSON MACK 1 ROGERS CHRISTOPHER 1 ROSE ROBERT (CREDIT AGRICOLE FUTURES) 1 RZEPKA FRED 1 SAGNER ALAN 1 SAMUELS ROBERT 1 SANCHEZ A.R. (TONY) 1 SCHIBELL RICH 1 SEEVAK SHELDON 1 SHAW DAVID E 1 SHUMAN STANLEY S 1 SIEGEL JEROME (NEW YORK) 1 SPENCE ROY 1 STERN RICHARD (CHICAGO) 1 SWID STEPHEN CLAAR 1 TISCH THOMAS 1 BARKER JAMES (GREEN STEWART FARBER) 1 TRABULSI JUDI 1 WEST LEAH 1 WIGMORE BARRIE A 1 WINOKUR HERBERT S JR (PUG) 1 WYATT OSCAR S JR 1
4 of 4
4/10/2010 3:15 PM
COINFIDENTIAL
UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT O
20100226MUR
Page 1 of 5
Skip Navigation
ABOUT THE FEC

PRESS OFFICE
News Releases
February 26, 2010
3/1/2010
20100226MUR
Page 3 of 5
OUTCOME:
OUTCOME:
3/1/2010
20100226MUR
Page 4 of 5
OUTCOME:
COMPLAINANTS:
SUBJECT:
OUTCOME:
3/1/2010
20100226MUR
Page 5 of 5
OUTCOME:
Links
eFiling
3/1/2010
COINFIDENTIAL
UNDER SEAL
EXHIBIT P
NameBase Cluster Search
Page 1 of 3
This diagram "zooms in" on the previous diagram, but it was generated solely from the pages cited for all names that were inside the selected circle. Clicking on a name or cluster above produces a new diagram, while the names below produce a standard name search. The numbers below indicate the page overlap count for that name with the names inside the previous circle. These encircled names have red labels above. They often show the highest numbers, but this may simply mean that their pages overlapped with themselves. ADELSON MERVYN LEE 1 ALEXANDER NORMAN E 1 APPLE COMPUTER INC 2 ARRAJJ DAVID 1 ARTHUR ANDERSEN COMPANY 1 ARTHUR YOUNG COMPANY 1 BARRON ALVIN 1 BASKES ROGER S 1 BELZBERG MARC 1 BELZBERG SAMUEL 1 BERNSTEIN STANLEY D 1 BLOCK PHILIP D JR 1 BOBROW RICHARD S 1 BOND ALAN (AUSTRALIAN FINANCIER) 1 BRIMMER ANDREW (HEALTHSOUTH) 1 BRUCE CAMPBELL COMPANY (CAYMAN ISLANDS) 1 BYRNE ALFRED J.T. 2 CARR FRED 1 CARTER ZACHARY W 1
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nbbe.cgi?idf=xpMon231391518.j2&3=3&4=4&5=5
4/5/2010

CASTLE BANK 4 CENDANT CORPORATION 1 CURTIS TONY 1 DAVIS MARVIN HAROLD 1 DILLER BARRY 1 DITULO PETER 1 DOPP PAUL A 2 DORFMAN ALLEN M 1 DUNLAP ALBERT J 1 DWORMAN ALVIN 1 EISENBERG CALVIN 1 ELY BERT 1 ERICKSON LARRY 1 ERNST YOUNG COMPANY 25 ESREY WILLIAM T 3 EVERSON MARK W 1 FARLEY WILLIAM FRANCIS 1 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD 1 FORD CRISTINA 1 FORD HENRY II 1 GAMBARDELLA ROSEMARY 1 GARDY MARK 1 GATOR CORPORATION 1 GENEEN HAROLD SYDNEY 1 GERBER CHARLES EVANS 1 GLUCK HENRY 1 GOKAL FAMILY 1 GOLDSMITH JAMES MICHAEL 1 GORE ALBERT JR (D-TN) 2 GRACE J PETER JR 1 GROVES RAY J 2 HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION 2 HEFNER HUGH 4 HELLIWELL PAUL LIONEL EDWARD 2 HEYMANN ROBERT L 1 HEYMAN SAMUEL J 1 HIRSCHBERG JEFFREY 1 HOFFA JIMMY (JAMES RIDDLE) 1 HOWARTH DONALD 2 HYATT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 1 IACOCCA LEE A 1 ICAHN CARL CELIAN 1 INGERSOLL RALPH II 1 INTERNATIONAL CREDIT INVESTMENT COMPANY 1 IRANI RAY R 1 JACOBS IRWIN L 1 JACOB MARVIN E 1 JENSEN BOB (PROF) 1 KANTER BURTON WALLACE 3 KENNEDY DAVID MATTHEW 1 KERKORIAN KIRK 1 KIRK DONALD J 1 KLEINMAN MORRIS 1 KLUGE JOHN WERNER 1 KORSHAK SIDNEY R 1 KRAVIS HENRY R 1 KROVATIN GERALD 1 LANSKY MEYER 1
Page 2 of 3
4/5/2010

LAXALT PAUL D (R-NV) 1 LEISENRING JAMES 1 LEMAY RONALD T 2 LEMONS TERRY L 1 LEVITT ARTHUR JR 1 LINDNER CARL HENRY JR 1 LINDY JULIE 1 LORENZO FRANK 1 MAGOWAN PETER ALDEN 1 MAXWELL ROBERT (PUBLISHER) 1 MAY PETER W 1 MCCAW CRAIG O 1 MERCANTILE BANK TRUST LTD 2 OLMSTED GEORGE H 2 PERINO MICHAEL A 2 PRATT RICHARD T 2 PRICE WATERHOUSE 2 PRITZKER ABRAM NICHOLAS 2 PRITZKER FAMILY 11 PRITZKER JAY ARTHUR 7 SPRINT CORPORATION 3 WEINSTEIN HARRIS 2 WYNN STEPHEN ALAN 2 Back to home page
Page 3 of 3
4/5/2010
EXHIBIT C
W Completeltem1.2,and3.Atsaannplete . ,
t t e m 4 H R ~ ~ f s Print your n a m e d address on the r m w so that we cah reRvn the card to you.
Attachthismtothebeckdthe~, or on the fmnt H space pennlts.
R Insured Mel
C.O.D.
4.Restr#edDeBvBrli?(Exbew
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
Affidavit Power of the Society of Jesus in Russia From Czar Alexander I to the Present I, Eric Jon Phelps, Author of Vatican Assassins: Wounded In The House Of My Friends, Third Edition, concerning the history of the ubiquitous, Counter Reformation Society of Jesus in Russia, do solemnly state: 1. That in 1723 AD Czar Peter the Great expelled the Society of Jesus from Orthodox Russia for attempting to usurp the Romanov throne and reduce its citizens to the absolute Temporal Power of the Pope of Rome; 2. That by the mid-Eighteenth Century the power of the Society of Jesus had grown so great, that nearly every monarch in Europe was under the power of a Jesuit confessor or adviser directing affairs of state; 3. That due to this vast Jesuit power employed by the Jesuit Superior General to create commercial monopolies as well as assassinate selected enemies of the Society, be they popes or kings, the Order was expelled from Roman Catholic Portugal in 1759, from Roman Catholic France in 1764, from Roman Catholic Spain in 1767, and from Roman Catholic Malta in 1768; 4. That due to the most powerful European Roman Catholic monarchs, including the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta, expelling the Company of Jesus from their nations and empires, Franciscan Pope Clement XIV, after a four-year investigation, promulgated the lengthy Bull, Dominus ac Redemptor Noster, forever suppressing and extinguishing the Society of Jesus in 1773; 5. That because of the papacys suppression of the Society of Jesus, Pope Clement XIV was poisoned with a measured dose of aquetta, subjecting the Vicar of Christ to excruciating pain and prolonged suffering before he died in 1774;
6. That because of the Orders suppression throughout the Holy Roman Empire as well as the entire Roman Catholic world, the Society sought and received protection from non-Roman Catholic monarchs. Three of those monarchs (all of whom were racial Germans) were Frederick II the Great of Prussia, Protector of the German Lutheran Church; Catherine II the Great of Russia, Protector of the Russian Orthodox Church; and King George III, Protector of the English Anglican Church and Protestant Faith of Great Britain; 7. That as a result of the Orders protection from both Frederick and Catherine, Roman Catholic Poland was partitioned by those monarchs, eliminating the rule of Polands Roman Catholic monarch, thereby rendering the popes Bull of none effect in that nation, saving the Orders massive property holdings and treasure from confiscation; 8. That as a result of the Orders admittance into Russia, the Company established its headquarters therein, and began to plot the neutralization of all anti-papal priests and nuns within the Russian Orthodox Church; 9. That as a result of the Orders admittance into Russia, the Company sought to usurp and control the power of the Romanov monarchy, proposing to submit both Czar and Orthodox Patriarch to the Temporal Power of a future pope of Rome within the control of the Order; 10. That as a result of the Orders admittance into Russia, Empress Catherine created the Pale of Settlement for Russian Jews, forcing them into a specific geographical region, later to be exterminated by Masonic Jesuit Temporal Coadjutors Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin whose Gestapo and NKVD worked together during World War II; 11. That as a result of the Orders suppression by Pope Clement XIV, the Company founded a host of other secret societies including the Bavarian Illuminati in 1776; 12. That having founded the Bavarian Illuminati from Ingolstadt College near Munich, Bavaria, the Company used its new occult secret society to consolidate all Masonic power into its hands, thereby creating Illuminized Freemasonry, directed at its apex by the Jesuit General; 2 of 9
13. That having established its invisible power in Russia, Prussia, Poland and England, the Company then launched the Masonic French Revolution and subsequent Napoleonic Wars, taking vengeance on all enemies daring to curtail the power of the Order; 14. That during the Napoleonic Wars, Masonic Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Napoleon Bonaparte I drove the Knights of Malta from Malta, the Order finding refuge in Russia via the power of Czar Paul I, later murdered by the Company for refusing to wage war on Lutheran Germany; 15. That during the time of the Napoleonic Wars, the acting Jesuit General in Russia reduced the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta to his service in anticipation of the Orders formal restoration by the pope, which restoration would come in 1814; 16. That as a result of Napoleons Jesuit War on the Vatican, on the Roman Catholic monarchs of Europe, and on the Protestant nations of Europe, including Germany and the Calvinist Republic of the United Netherlands, Pope Pius VII restored the Society of Jesus to its former power in August of 1814, one month prior to the commencement of the Congress of Vienna that restored the Papal States to the rule of the Pope; 17. That as a result of the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815), the Company of Jesus set out to destroy all constitutional republics, especially the Constitutional Republic of these United States of America, considered to be the font of all anti-divine right and anti-papal movements in Europe; 18. That as a result of the Congress of Vienna and the Orders quest to control the Romanov monarchy in Russia, Czar Alexander I issued his famous ukase in 1820 expelling the Society of Jesus from all the Russias. Knowing the Order would then seek to secretly overthrow his imperial power via Grand Orient Freemasonry, in 1822 Bible-friendly Alexander closed every Masonic lodge in the empire; 19. That as a result of the expulsion of the Society of Jesus from Russia and the closing of all Masonic lodges within the empire, Czar Alexander I was given the poison cup in 1825 in accordance with the bloody Fourth Vow taken by the highest of the Professed Jesuits within the Order; 3 of 9
20. That as a result of the Congress of Vienna, the Secret Treaty of Verona was convened by Prussia, Austria and Russia (1822), plotting the overthrow of the Protestant-Calvinist, constitutionally limited, antiabsolute monarchy, government of these United States of America; 21. That as a result of the Secret Treaty of Verona, James Monroe issued his beloved Monroe Doctrine (1823), warning all European Powers to stay out of the Western Hemisphere to the chagrin of the Jesuit Order; 22. That as a result of the Orders past expulsion from Orthodox Russia by Czars Peter the Great and Alexander I, the Jesuits contrived another means by which it would be able to reduce the Russian Orthodox monarchy and peoples, to the Temporal Power of the Pope now governed by the Jesuit General: that means would be Marxian SocialistCommunism. For the Company had perfected the socialist tenets of Sir Thomas Mores Utopia while the Order had operated its 59 socialistcommunist Reductions in Paraguay (1609-1759). These tenets were codified into The Communist Manifesto, its penholder being Masonic Jew Karl Marx, its authors being the Jesuits resident in England; 23. That as a result of the practical effects of Napoleons war on papal political tyranny coupled with the preaching of the Reformation Bible throughout Europe and America during the 19th Century, the Jesuit Order was suppressed once again throughout Europe, so much so, the Company has called it the Century of Disaster; 24. That during the Century of Disaster, the Jesuit Order remained formally expelled from Russia since 1820. Beginning with the reign of the great Alexander II, Russia was beginning to experience political liberty at the hand if her greatest of Czars. But on the day he was to sign a written Constitution limiting the power of the monarchy and abolishing the secret police (the Okhrana), he was assassinated by the Anarchists, hired assassins of the Jesuits, later to murder President McKinley; 25. That as a result of Alexander IIs brutal murder, the assassination having succeeded on the fifth attempt, the only Jew involved in the murder was blamed by successor Alexander III who then launched a bloody pogrom killing tens of thousands of Jews throughout Russia; 4 of 9
26. That as a result of Alexander IIIs pogroms, the Order instilled a hatred for the Romanov dynasty in the hearts of Russian Jews. This was necessary as the Order was to use its obedient Masonic Jews to lead the Bolshevik Revolution giving the appearance to the world that Bolshevik Communism was in fact Jewish Bolshevik Communism; 27. That as a result of Alexander IIIs pogroms, his son and successor, Czar Nicholas II, would launch the bloodiest pogroms in Russian history, further driving the Jews of Russia into the Orders Bolshevik Communist revolutionary camp; 28. That in preparation for the Orders overthrow of Orthodox Russia pursuant to the Council of Trent, Moscow being the Third Rome, the Jesuits trained their prize student for the task, Josef Stalin. Educated by Roman Catholic Capuchin priests in Gori, Georgia, Stalin was given a scholarship by those priests to attend the Orthodox Tiflis Seminary in Tiflis, Georgia. There, under the tutorship of secret Jesuit, Orthodox Father Demetrius, Stalin was taught the doctrines of Marxian Communism in preparation for the Bolshevik Revolution (1917); 29. That as a result of the Orders control of Czars Alexander III and Nicolas II, while exciting anti-Czarist fury among the Jews of Russia, the Bolshevik Revolution was a success. From 1920 to 1922 the Order conducted a Bolshevik Civil War throughout Russia, killing off all nationalist resistance led by Orthodox patriots. The Jesuit-led Bolsheviks totally decapitated all leaders within the Russian Orthodox Church who were against the Papacy, over 5,000 priests and nuns losing their lives; 30. That as a result of the successful Red Bolshevik Civil War against the White Russian Orthodox, Masonic President Warren G. Harding gave over 60 million dollars to the Reds in 1922---the same year Stalin readmitted the Jesuits into Russia---further entrenching their rule; 31. That as a result of the successful Red Bolshevik Revolution, Edmund A. Walsh, an American Jesuit priest from Georgetown University, was dispatched to Moscow to negotiate for the Vatican with the Bolsheviks. From 1922 to 1924 Walsh resided in the new, Jesuit slave state of the USSR naming Josef Stalin Secretary of the Communist Party; 5 of 9
32. That as a result of the elimination of the Romanov Dynasty and the subordination of the Russian Orthodox clergy, Edmund Walsh, in his Total Empire: The Roots and Progress of World Communism (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1951), page 28, wrote about the Russian Revolution of 1917, that it was, . . . the most significant single political event in the history of Western civilization since the decline and disappearance of the Roman Empire.; 33. That the reason Jesuit Edmund Walsh put such tremendous weight upon the success of the Bolshevik Revolution lay in the fact the Order had used its Marxist Socialist-Communism to submit its old enemy, Orthodox Moscow, the Third Rome, to the Roman Papal Caesar. Constantinople, the Second Rome, had fallen to Romes apparent enemy of Islam in 1453 AD, thereby conveniently benefitting the papacy; Moscow, had fallen to Romes apparent enemy of Communism in 1917 AD, also conveniently benefitting the papacy, the world in fact to be deprived of the truth that both Islam and Communism are creations of the Vatican; 34. That the Jesuits were now in total control of the Bolshevik Communists ruling the USSR with deadly cruelty, the Julian calendar was replaced with the Gregorian calendar (1917) composed by the Jesuit Christopher Clavius; that every Jewish leader during the Revolution was slowly and systematically executed or murdered save one, Lazar M. Kaganovitch; that Jesuit Coadjutor Josef Stalin launched a murderous inquisition against the Orthodox peoples of the Ukraine, starving from 7 to 10 million people in one year; that the inquisition extended to Protestant Mennonites, Lutherans and Baptists throughout the USSR in accordance with the Black Popes Counter Reformation Council of Trent; 35. That the Jesuits were now in control of the USSR, Jesuit Edmund A. Walsh sat in the White House next to his servant, Masonic American President Franklin D. Roosevelt, when the president formally recognized the USSR as a sovereign nation in 1933; 36. That as a result of FDR recognizing the USSR, massive projects were begun by American cartel-capitalists, including Masonic Henry Ford furnishing the Gorky auto plant mechanizing the Soviet War Machine; 6 of 9
37. That because the Jesuit Order plotted to use the White Protestant, Baptist and Roman Catholic Middle Class of its American Empire to build Romes Red Communist monster in Moscow, the USSR was made a partner of the Allies during World War II, FDR giving 11.3 billion dollars in Lend Lease funds and materials to Stalin, never to be repaid to the American people; 38. That as a result of the Jesuit Order being in total control of its CFRdirected American government since no later than 1865 with Romes assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, FDR gave all of Eastern Europe into the hands of the USSR at the Yalta Conference at the command of Jesuits Harry Hopkins and Averell Harriman, in preparation for the ensuing Cold War Hoax during which the Society of Jesus would use its CIA and KGB to destroy all genuine, Eastern European /Russian Bible-believers as well as all true nationalists, furthering the Orders quest for world government under a Jesuit-directed Pope of Rome; 39. That during the Popes Cold War Hoax (premised upon the hoax of mutual airborne nuclear war as explained in VAIII) the Orders CFRcontrolled American government provided the financing and technology for the building of the Black Popes Soviet War Machine, erecting the Kama River truck factory during the 1970s facilitated by Jesuit Fordham University-trained Knight of Malta William J. Casey before becoming the Director of Romes pro-Nazi, Central Intelligence Agency; 40. That upon the conclusion of the Jesuit Generals Second Thirty Years War (1914-1945), the American OSS/CIA continued to work together with the Soviet NKVD/KGB throughout the entirety of the Cold War Hoax; that this secret alliance is referred to in the Jesuit Orders Hollywood Theater release, The Good Shepherd (2006); 41. That during this time of secret, mutual collaboration between the American, Soviet and British intelligence agencies, stupendous acts of treason were committed against the American people, including CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton giving many of the Agencys top secrets over to Anatoli Golitsin, a Soviet KGB officer in the US. Anthony Cave Brown makes this clear in his Treason in the Blood (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994), page 555: 7 of 9
Angleton . . . demonstrated his confidence in Golitsin [a supposed defector] by making available to him the CIA files on the personnel of the main operating section of the CIA in the Cold War with Russia, the thousand-odd men and women of the Soviet Division.; 42. That during the Cold War Hoax, both the American and Soviet intelligence agencies were manned with ex-Nazis, the papacy saving its Nazi Gestapo/SS/SD inquisitional mass-murderers from justice under the guise of fighting either Communism in the East or Capitalism in the West as proven by author John Loftus in his Unholy Trinity: How the Vaticans Nazi Networks Betrayed Western Intelligence to the Soviets (New York: St. Martins Press, 1991); 43. That during the Cold War Hoax, former Nazi intelligence chief Reinhard Gehlen ran the West German BND in conjunction with the East German SSD, Stasi. For ex-SS Nazi Hans Felfe, Gehlens right-hand man in the BND, also worked for the East German SSD/Stasi for over twenty years; thus, BND Chief Reinhard Gehlen and SSD Chief Marcus Wolf worked together for over twenty years perfecting the East-West united intelligence community subject to the Jesuit Papacy, partitioned Berlin serving as a foremost rendezvous for East-West agencies: 44. That during the Cold War Hoax, Moscow served as a training base for the Jesuit Orders world revolutionary socialist communists, including Fidel Castro, Michael (Martin Luther) King, Yasser Arafat, Jesuittrained Bill Clinton and indeed, president-elect Barry Davis Obama; 45. That during the Popes Cold War Hoax the Jesuit Papacy in control of both East and West, was perfecting its internationalist/anti-nationalist socialist-communist revolution; its Unified International Intelligence Community; its International Banking Cartel; its International Mafia Organized Crime Syndicate; its International Drug Trade; its plot to assemble a military coalition of nations to one day attack and subjugate the heretic and liberal American peoples, said coalition having been built and financed by the Popes CFR-controlled American government; that the culmination of this plot will be a Sino-Soviet-Muslim invasion into North America ending what is left of the Grand and Glorious White Northern European Protestant Reformation; 8 of 9
46. That I, Eric Jon Phelps, am willing to testify as to the accuracy of every statement above in any venue permissible.
FURTHER Affiant Saith Not.
Affirmed and so Subscribed before me on this in the year of 20 10.
day of June,
Eric Jon a l p s , Affiant 7 203 South Fort Zellers Rd. Apt. D Newmanstown, PA 17073
L& h w
AClllA N L A EW Notary hrbllc
bOROWiH,aeRKsCOUMY
My Comml~lon Explrsr Apr 21,201 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SEALED CASE 10-cv-0486 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On July 13, 2010, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC 1746, caused the service of a copy of the Notice of Motion to Unseal the Case with supporting Declaration signed July 13, 2010 with Exhibits annexed with a complete set placed in a sealed folder properly addressed with proper postage served by USPS mail upon: Christopher Herren Acting Chief of the Voting Rights Section Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530
I do declare and certify under penalty of perjury: Dated: July 13th , 2010 Brooklyn, New York /s/ _________________________ Christopher- Earl : Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn., New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws
interested person(s) wishing statutory and Constitutional remedies / relief with claims against similar funds controlled by Defendant Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro) and or his agents; and that with FRCvP Rule 22 Interpleader Strunk hereby adds Supplemental Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund, Federal Election Commission (FEC), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Department of Treasury (DOT) and various John and Jane Doe(s), XYZ Entities as material parties in interest, and in that regard the Strunk motion to intervene inter alia sought with FRCvP Rule 15(d) to supplement the Taitzs Petition with the Strunks Verified Complaint with two (2) causes of action affirmed May 19, 2009 (See Exhibit 1 with Sub-Exhibits A through B) that was duly served upon the Defendant Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), first offered to Jeffery Taylor the U.S. Attorney for Washington District of Columbia and Eric Holder the U.S. Attorney General in official capacity did not respond, defer to Strunks ex-relator further action and inquest with DC Code Chapter 35 Title 16 3503. That Strunk with FRCvP Rule 22 hereby makes this Interpleader Verified Complaint to supplement Plaintiffs Petition and the Verified Complaint shown as Exhibit 1 with additional Causes of action, in which Ex-relator Strunk wishes a partial summary judgment with FRCvP Rule 56(d) for a Declaratory Judgment with 28 USC 2201 and 2202 as to the legal controlling facts in this case of Defendant Obamas admitted Dual Allegiance at birth without two U.S. Citizen parents (See Exhibit 2) contrary to the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, as a matter of first impression Defendant Obama is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is ineligible to be the Chief Law Enforcement administrator and trustee of the office of the President of the United States (POTUS) and or of Strunks grant of power of attorney over personal accounts and matters. Further, because the Usurper action(s) are thus void ab initio as to the incapacity to effect the duties of the POTUS, Ex-relator(s) requires a Writ of Mandamus directive to the Congress and the President of the Senate Joseph Biden as to Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6 and 25th Amendment of Article 7 under the separation of powers doctrine; and further,
notwithstanding the FRCvP Rule 56(d) Declaratory Judgment, Ex-relator(s) require with 28 USC 1361 a writ of mandamus of: (i) DHS to ascertain the facts of Obamas alleged born in Mombasa Kenya under penalty of perjury by Lucas Smith (See Exhibit 3); (ii) FEC / DOT ascertain facts of foreign contributors to any and all Obama campaign committees including Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund, and others; (iii) FEC / DOT ascertain facts for a full accounting on all monies paid to Obama, the various Campaign committees, agents and or John Does(s) Jane Doe(s) and or XYZ entities conspiring as defined with 42 USC 1971, 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986, the False Claims Act with 31 U.S.C. 37293733 and related law in entirety; and (iv) with FRCvP Rule 65 and LCvR 65.1 a TRO restraining Defendant Obama, the Supplemental Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund and or agents use of any account(s) to be placed under the control and investigation of a court appointed special master with FRCvP Rule 53(a)(b) to ascertain facts of wrong doing for a jury trial on Interpleader injuries, complains of Defendants with: JURISDICTION 1. Pursuant of the above Introduction, Jurisdiction would be had as Ex-Relator(s) are plaintiffs and or with FRCvP Rule 22 an Interpleader Ex-relator with 28 USC 1345 in which the United States is in fact plaintiff - Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress; and that this case is also done with 28 USC 1343 as a Civil rights and elective franchise, in which (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: (1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of
Title 42; (2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent; (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; (4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote; that (b) For purposes of this section (1) the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a State; and (2) any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia; and as with State Action in Washington DC with 42 USC 1983 that with 28 USC 1344 in this post Election dispute, the district court shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action to recover possession of any office, except that of elector of President or Vice President, United States Senator, Representative in or delegate to Congress, or member of a state legislature, authorized by law to be commenced, where in it appears that the sole question touching the title to office arises out of denial of the right to vote, to any citizen offering to vote, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude, in that the jurisdiction under this section shall extend only so far as to determine the rights of the parties to office by reason of the denial of the right, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and secured by any law, to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in all the States; and that with 28 USC 1357 for injuries under Federal laws, the district court shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action commenced by any person to recover damages for any injury to his person or property on account of any act done by him, under any Act of Congress, for the protection or to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in any State; and with 28 USC 1361, this action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty, provides that the district court shall
have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the Interpleader; and that with 42 USC 1985 for Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights; and with the U.S. Constitution in its entirety especially Article 2 Section 1 with related State Law as applies to appointment of an electoral college in each state, and the remedy available using the Fourteenth Amendment for violation of rights and liberty associated with the first 10 Amendments of Article 7, and the relief that shall be provided with the 25th Amendment. VENUE 2. Pursuant of the above Introduction, Venue is properly had in this particular District Court for the District of Columbia that affords the proper venue under 28 USC 1391 (e) (1) for this action in that Defendant in esse is usurping the Corporate office of the President of the United States of America (POTUS) located within the District of Columbia and the failure of the Defendant in esse to act in good faith with his corporate duty within the District of Columbia; in that Interpleader Ex-Relator(s) Petition demands the Quo Warranto Act mandates with the DC Code Chapter 35 Title 16 3503 that this Court create an inquest / jury trial to determine the issue of facts: (i) whether or not both his parents were United States Citizens at his birth; (ii) Obama cover-up, and thereafter, a jury trial on the facts of the injury and damages that the Court as a matter of first impression must determine the law as to what is the natural-born-citizen requirement of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution. PARTIES 3. That Plaintiff in DCD 10-cv-00151 is Orly Taitz in esse, hereinafter Taitz., with place
for service located at 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100 Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688 Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603, E-Mail: dr taitz@yahoo.com
4.
The Plaintiff is a resident of California and president of the Defend Our Freedoms
foundation. She is a Doctor of Jurisprudence and a Doctor of Dental Surgery. Through her foundation, she has popularized Constitution and fought violations of Constitution and civil liberties of U.S. citizens. As part of her work, she has filed numerous legal actions, representing over 200 US citizens: State Representatives of different states, candidates on the ballot and high ranked members of US military. Her clients are seeking release of original vital records of Barack Hussein Obama, to see if he is eligible for US presidency. As of now in spite of over 100 legal actions filed all over the Nation by some 13 licensed attorneys and numerous pro se plaintiffs and in spite of 12 citizen grand jury presentments and indictments, Obama refused to provide any vital records that would be acceptable in any court of law. 5. Taitz has an exploratory effort to run for the Office of the Secretary of State of California
in the 2010 General Election. 6. Defendant Barack Hussein Obama in esse (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), hereinafter Obama,
place for service is in care of The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20500; 7. That Obama has campaign committees: Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund duly
registered in Washington D.C. with the DOT and FEC by the 42 USC 1971 authority over each; 8. Notwithstanding facts requiring a report on the law to the contrary that renders Obama a
Usurper, Obama nevertheless remains the Acting President of the United States and Commander in Chief, and Chief Law Enforcement Officer who has refused to present in any court of law or to the public any vital records that would show his eligibility as for POTUS based on Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution, as one born in the United States to two citizen parents without allegiance to any other sovereignties. From birth and until now Mr. Obama had citizenship and allegiance to several other nations: Great Britain, Kenya, Indonesia and as a Sunni Muslim to Saudi Arabia where he bows toward Mecca, is committing a misprision of felony and Treason.
9.
Mr. Obama is not a USA "natural born" citizen eligible to serve as the United States
President, pursuant to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. 10. Although Mr. Obama claims to have been born in two (2) separate hospitals in Hawaii, he was actually born in Mombasa, Kenya to his mother a U.S.A. Citizen and his father a Kenyan National British Citizen within the United Kingdom with law and Monarchy that governs. 11. That Mr. Obama and as Soetoro is a trained radical Sunni Muslim by birth right, training and practice that is admitted in Defendants speech to the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo in 2009 practices Shariah law and is devoted and aligned to King Saud of Saudi Arabia. 12. That Mr. Obama is also a Prince Hall 32nd Degree Freemason who starting in 1979 at Columbia University was mentored by SMOM member Zbigniew Kaimierz Brzezinski, a Polish national from a Polish aristocratic family, who became a naturalized U.S. Citizen and who during the Carter Administration served as the National Security advisor from 1977 to 1981. 13. That Mr. Obama Jr.s natural father Mr. Obama Senior, was a British Citizen governed under the laws of the United Kingdom married to Mr. Obama Jr.s mother Stanley Ann Dunham at the time of Mr. Obama Jr.s birth on August 4, 1961. 14. Defendant Obama admits that his father at the time of his birth was a citizen of the United Kingdom and that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governs dual citizenship at birth. 15. That Mr. Obama acknowledges by endorsing Senate Resolution 511 that you need two (2) U.S.A. Citizen parents at birth to be qualified to be a natural born citizen. 16. That Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, Congressional Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., pg 1291 (March 9, 1866) stated: every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen. 17. Instead, Mr. Barry Soetoro and or his agent(s) placed an image of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (COLB), which is issued for all birth's registered in the State of
Hawaii; the COLB, does not prove "natural born" citizenship or birth in Hawaii. 18. A COLB is sufficient proof of citizenship; however, it does not prove "natural born" citizenship, a COLB is issued to those who are simply "naturalized". 19. Ex-Relator, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse (hereinafter "Interpleader", Ex-Relator), is an individual with place for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB #281 Brooklyn, NY 11238, Email: chris@strunk.ws, SKYPE: cestrunk and Telephone (845) 901-6767. 20. That Strunk is a natural-born citizen of New York with both Parents being citizens there in the city of New York at the time of Interpleaders birth, and that both Parents were married natural-born citizens of the United States of America (USA). 21. As such unlike the Usurper, Interpleader is eligible to become the President of the United States of America (POTUS) unlike Defendant meets the three requirements of eligibility: be at least 35 years of age, 14 years resident of the USA and be a natural born citizen at birth. 22. That Strunk makes a special-appearance in this action without relinquishing sovereignty and or any inalienable individual right and has served notice upon the Department of Justice. 23. In explanation, Strunks Special-Appearance is as a Living-Soul Son-of-the Most-HighGod-Yahweh in existence nunc pro tunc the moment of Creation in Joint-Heir-with-His-Son Made Debt-Free with the Yahshua Payment (consideration) of His Blood, in which Strunk Stands in the Kingdom of the Most-High-God Yahweh, and that is under reserve, without dishonor, without prejudice, without recourse in good faith, no dolus; and that this court and or any temporal entity or person is unable to offer a higher consideration. 24. That Strunk has inalienable individual rights as described by the Declaration of Independence of 1776 that pre-existed the creation of the United States Constitution. 25. That Strunk is the creator of the United States Constitution nunc pro tunc at the moment of his Creation as an inheritance upon birth as a natural born-citizen. 26. That Strunks sovereign authority to protect his inalienable individual rights creates the
Federal government and to define express limited rights for the government to operate by. 27. That there are four political branches of government: the three who govern with the consent of the people granted to The Congress, The Executive, The Judiciary and the fourth most important branch The People who are resident in a respective State of the several States. 28. There is an overriding Constitutional question of first impression historically ignored since June 1912 that even with enactment of the interim measure of 13 USC 141 to re-balance the electoral college for the people of each State of the several States in 1929 still is contrary to the required House decennial enlargement as to the actual population in Article I section 2 that each House member represent only with the consent of the people among the 30,000 persons in each member district, that now is somewhere around say one House member per say 690,0000 persons, and as such remains a festering cancer upon the national government that according to a recent Rasmussen survey 61% of the people say the government acts ultra vires without consent. 29. The first political branch, The Congress, has not followed the requirement of the U.S. Constitution in so far as enlargement since 1912, that representative government has fatally weakened the guarantee of a republican form of government, especially as it applies to the second political branch, The Executive, dependent upon the Electoral College election process in each state of the several states to appoint POTUS; and 30. Further, that since 1928 the Office of POTUS without the equal protection provision of decennial enlargement of the first Branch has evolved into a cult of tyranny that will only worsen without a representative sized electoral college commensurate with the increase of the people to select the chief magistrate, (i.e. in New York in 1960 with 12.5 million residents had 45 electoral college votes now in 2010 with say 19.5 million residents based upon the 2000 Census now only has 31 electoral college votes schedule to loose two more with the 2010 Census); and 31. Further, one hundred years later without an enlargement of the electoral college more than ever before the chief law enforcement officer must have no appearance of impropriety or
even the slightest question of allegiances as with the Usurper Obama, who is the epitome of the fears of the framers as to undue foreign influence in Article II Section 1 in use of the express eligibility mandate of any candidate shall be a natural-born citizen without dual allegiance; and 32. Further, without enlargement The Congress has become a tyrannical dictatorship disconnected from the people who are restrained by an every increasing difficulty in running for office or participating with a reasonable expectation of success, and as evidenced now with the Usurper who operates under a continuous state of arbitrary and capricious declared emergencies; that will only chronically worsen every ten years without the required U.S. House size reasonably reflecting the consent of the people, in that the House increasingly operates for a cabal of special interest contributors whose surreptitious campaign funding violations of laws and side deals operate without the consent of the people, and as such the House increasingly lacks the ability to as a regular expectation of their duties to impeach high crimes and misdemeanors in the executive, and especially members of the judiciary who rather than report on the law make the law with impunity so much so that the people now fear the judiciary for being arbitrary and capricious in a chronic corruption as seen with Alcee Hastings who even after soliciting bribes from the bench left by an impeachment process only then to become a U.S. House member from South Miami in Florida. 33. That unlike Taitz, Strunk has a 42 USC 1983 cause of action in Strunk v. Paterson et al. NYS Supreme Court in Kings County Index no.: 08-29642 before the Honorable New York Supreme Court Justice David I. Schmidt complaining of a state action civil rights injury suffered in the 2008 General Election process in New Yorks appointment of its Electoral College that relies on action and discovery herein to proceed; in that Strunk, a Republican party member, is denied a reasonable expectation of participation in 2008 election for a candidate for office of POTUS by the conspiracy to put John McCain and Barack Obama on the ballot when they are not natural-born Citizens,
34. That Strunks individual authority creates the corporate office of the President of the United States of America, POTUS, to which Defendant Barack Hussein Obama was questionably elected without presenting eligibility proof of his qualifications other than his opinion he was somehow eligible. 35. This application is made because of the failure of our representative government to uphold the U.S. Constitutional form of governance. The three branches of government are coopted by a cabal of interlocking directorships of entities and especially the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (1) whose members are also citizens of that sovereign state, thereby have at least The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes, and of Malta (Italian: Sovrano Militare Ordine Ospedaliero di San Giovanni di Gerusalemme di Rodi e di Malta) (known as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta [SMOM], Order of Malta or Knights of Malta for short) is a Roman Catholic order based in Rome, Italy. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a sovereign subject of international law. It takes its origins from the Knights Hospitaller, an organization founded in Jerusalem in 1050 as an Amalfitan hospital to provide care for poor and sick pilgrims to the Holy Land. After the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 during the First Crusade, it became a Catholic military order under its own charter. Following the loss of Christian held territories of the Holy Land to Muslims, the Order operated from Rhodes (13101523), and later from Malta (15301798), over which it was sovereign. Although this state ended with the ejection of the Order from Malta by Napoleon, the Order as such survived. It retains its claims of sovereignty under international law and has been granted permanent observer status at the United Nations. SMOM is considered the main successor to the medieval Knights Hospitaller. Today the order has 12,500 members; 80,000 permanent volunteers; and 20,000 medical personnel including doctors, nurses, auxiliaries and paramedics. The goal is to assist the elderly, the handicapped, refugees, children, the homeless, those with terminal illness and leprosy in five continents of the world, without distinction of race or religion. In several countriesincluding France, Germany and Irelandthe local associations of the Order are important providers of first aid training, first aid services and emergency medical services. Through its worldwide relief corpsMalteser Internationalthe Order is also engaged to aid victims of natural disasters, epidemics and armed conflicts. The International status of the Order with its unique history and unusual present circumstances, the exact status of the Order in international law has been the subject of debate: it claims to be a traditional example of a sovereign entity other than a state. Its two headquarters in Romethe Palazzo Malta in Via dei Condotti 68, where the Grand Master resides and Government Bodies meet and the Villa Malta on the Aventine, which hosts the Grand Priory of Rome, the Embassy of the Order to Holy See and the Embassy of the Order to Italyare granted extraterritoriality. However, unlike the Holy See, which is sovereign over the Vatican CitySMOM has Interpleader Verified Complaint page - 11 - of 35 USA & Ex-rel. Strunk v Obama et al.
1
had no sovereign territory (other than a few properties in Italy with extraterritoriality only) since the loss of the island of Malta in 1798. The United Nations does not classify it as a "non-member state" but as one of the "entities and intergovernmental organizations having received a standing invitation to participate as observers." For instance, while the International Telecommunication Union has granted radio identification prefixes to such quasi-sovereign jurisdictions as the United Nations and the Palestinian Authority, SMOM has never received one. For awards purposes, amateur radio operators consider SMOM to be a separate "entity", but stations transmitting from there use an entirely unofficial call sign, starting with the prefix "1A". Likewise, for internet identification, the SMOM has neither sought nor been granted a top-level domain, while Vatican City uses its own domain. There are differing opinions as to whether a claim to sovereign status has been recognized. Ian Brownlie, Helmut Steinberger, and Wilhelm Wengler are among the experts who say that the claim has not been recognized. Even taking into account the Order's ambassadorial status among many nations, a claim to sovereign status is sometimes rejected. The Order maintains diplomatic missions around the world and many of the states reciprocate by accrediting ambassadors to the Order. Wenglera German professor of international law addresses this point in his book Vlkerrecht, and rejects the notion that recognition of the Order by some states can make it a subject of international law. Conversely, professor Rebecca Wallacewriting more recently in her book International Lawexplains that a sovereign entity does not have to be a country, and that SMOM is an example of this. This position appears to be supported by the number of nations extending diplomatic relations to the Order, which more than doubled from 49 to 100 in the 20-year period to 2008. In 1953, the Holy See proclaimed "in the Lord's name" that the Order of Malta was only a "functional sovereignty"due to the fact that it did not have all that pertained to true sovereignty, such as territory. SMOM has formal diplomatic relations with 104 states and has official relations with another six countries, non-state subjects of international law like the European Community and International Committee of the Red Cross, and a number of international organizations. Its international nature is useful in enabling it to pursue its humanitarian activities without being seen as an operative of any particular nation. It has claimed sovereignty is also expressed in the issuance of passports, license plates, stamps, and coins. The coincidence of Rome being the capital of the Italian Republic, the Holy See and the Order of Malta leads to a high density of diplomatic instances in the city. The coins are appreciated more for their subject matter rather than for use as currency, however, their postage stamps have been gaining acceptances among Universal Postal Union member nations. The SMOM began issuing euro-denominated postage stamps in 2005, although the scudo remains the official currency of the SMOM. Also in 2005, the Italian post agreed with the SMOM to deliver internationally most classes of mail other than registered, insured, and specialdelivery mail; before this agreement, the following countries recognized SMOM stamps for franking purposes: Argentina, Austria, Benin, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Comoros, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Gabon, Georgia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mali, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia. San Marino, So Tom and Prncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Togo,
dual allegiance and hold questionable titles that are in conflict with Title 18 Chapter 45 for USA Foreign Relations and that with dual allegiance are operating outside and above the law. 36. That SMOM member Zbigniew Kaimierz Brzezinski has played a crucial role for the Vatican State and SMOM to create global regionalism that subsumes national sovereignty and as the Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski expressed his view of regionalism at Mikhail Gorbachevs October 1995 State of the World Forum, that quote: We cannot leap into world government in one quick step...The precondition for eventual globalization genuine globalization is progressive regionalization. 37. That SMOM member Zbigniew Brzezinski was a Obama / McCain campaign Advisor with his sons, Mark who was a member of the advisors in the Defendant Obamas Campaign and Ian who was an advisor on the McCain Campaign and both now are serving in government. 38. That SMOM member Zbigniew Brzezinski works with SMOM Member King Juan Carlos to further global regionalism with the European Union, North American Union, and now the Mediterranean Union (MU) dependent upon the elimination of the Sovereign State of Israel. 39. That SMOM Member Juan Carlos Alfonso Victor Maria de Borbn y Borbn-DosSicilias has titles that include in official use: King of Jerusalem, as successor to the royal family of Naples, King of Spain, of Castile, of Len, of Aragon, of the Two Sicilies (Naples and Sicily), of Jerusalem, of Navarre, of Granada, of Toledo, of Valencia, of Galicia, of Majorca, of Seville, of Sardinia, of Cordoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Menorca, of Jaen, of the Algarves, of Algeciras, of Gibraltar, of the Canary Islands, of the Spanish East and West Indies and of the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea; Archduke of Austria; Duke of Burgundy, of Brabant, of Milan, and of Neopatra (New Patras); Count of Habsburg, of Flanders, of Tyrol, of Roussillon and of Barcelona; Lord of Biscay and of Molina; and as such is the principal organizer of the downfall of Israel per se as a sovereign state with control over Jerusalem. Uruguay, Vatican City. Interpleader Verified Complaint page - 13 - of 35 USA & Ex-rel. Strunk v Obama et al.
40. That for Juan Carlos, a deal was cut with the Arabs that he gets his cut of Jerusalem. However, he has bigger plans than the Arabs understand. Last November he flew to Malta to open the offices of the Mediterranean Union. Just prior to his American voyage, the MU held a conference entitled, On the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinians. Israel did not attend because...King Juan Carlos going to Malta in November http://www.middle-eastonline.com/english/?id=31629 with the 5+5 Forum discusses re-launching the Roman Empire as the Med Union and that this February assembled Senior officials from 10 western Mediterranean countries met here Tuesday to discuss the relaunch of the Mediterranean Union, which has been stalled over the recent war in Gaza. The one-day meeting in the southern city of Cordoba brought together foreign ministers or representatives from Spain France, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania and Tunisia. ..The five Catholic nations and the five African Arab nations are united to re-form the early Roman Empire, the same entity that crushed ancient Israel. 41. On February 17, 2010, King Juan Carlos of Spain met President Obama in Washington. Told Obama that Israel will not be able to survive the next war. Obama celebrated by sending William Burns of the CFR to Damascus to announce the impending new American ambassador to Syria. Moreover, no one paid any attention to the coordination of the King's visit and this diplomatic about face. And is no secret that both Carlos and Obama are out to get Israel and the cabal against USA sovereign policy and national security interest is led by the Jesuit-trained King of Spain, Juan Carlos, and as we know, Juan Carlos believes he is a descendent of Jesus himself and the title he is proudest of is Custodian of the Holy Sites Of Jerusalem. He wants the Jews out of Jerusalem and the Vatican back in, as Juan Carlos believes he is the King of Jerusalem. With a few twists, he will get his throne back. The setup for the endgame began after Israel's disastrous war with Hezbollah in the summer of 2006. The leaders of the world met in Rome and appointed a UN army, 80% from Catholic Europe, to separate Israel from Hezbollah.
Just before meeting Obama, Juan Carlos dropped in on the UN's newest Security Council member, Lebanon, for dinner and a meeting with the new Spanish commander of the UN separation troops. We were not there but we will safely assume the discussion had nothing to do with stopping the upcoming war, and lots to do with ignoring Hezbollah launching tens of thousands of rockets at Israel. 42. That SMOM member Juan Carlos was also the principal instigator of the North American Union and principal investor in the Texas Trans-corridor Highway system using the Law firm of SMOM member Rudolf Giuliani that fits into the Regional Planning Association, http://www.America2050.org plans of its sponsor entities (2) in conjunction with efforts of David
America 2050 and its agents operate as a national initiative associated with elements of the Intelligence community including the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency that as a private unelected entity is used to meet the infrastructure, economic development and environmental challenges of the nation as we prepare to add about 130 million additional Americans by the year 2050; and is guided by the National Committee for America 2050, a coalition of regional planners, scholars, and policy-makers develop a framework for the nation's future growth considers trends such as: A major focus of America 2050 is the emergence of megaregions - large networks of metropolitan areas, where most of the population growth by mid-century will take place. Examples of megaregions are the Northeast Megaregion, from Boston to Washington, or Southern California, from Los Angeles to Tijuana, Mexico. They comprise multiple, adjacent metropolitan areas connected by overlapping commuting patterns, business travel, environmental landscapes and watersheds, linked economies, and social networks. At least ten megaregions have been identified in the United States. In Europe and Southeast Asia, governments are investing tens of billions of dollars in high-speed rail and goods movement systems to connect networks of cities in what are termed "global integration zones." These counterparts to America's megaregions are increasingly being viewed as the new competitive units in the global economy, where knowledge workers can move freely among urban hubs. Economic regeneration strategies are also being deployed at this scale, to transition former industrial regions to the new information economy. America 2050 is serving as a clearinghouse for research on the emergence of Megaregion and a resource for Megaregion planning efforts nationwide. Its aim is to advance research on the emergence of this new urban form while promoting planning solutions to address challenges that span state and regional boundaries, demand cooperation / coordination at the Megaregion scale; America 2050 supporters: The Rockefeller Foundation; The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation; The Surdna Foundation; The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy; The J.M. Kaplan Fund; AECOM; Park Foundation; The William Penn Foundation; STV Group, Inc.; The Ford Foundation.
Rockefeller (3), Robert Pastor, Anthony Lake, George W. Bush, Vicente Fox, and Zbignew Brezinski whose Trilateral Commission based in Georgia had The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, in September 7, 2001 publish the editorial announcement that called for North American integration that therein stated The ultimate goal of any White House policy ought to be a North American economic and political alliance similar in scope and ambition to the European Union. 43. That Defendant Obamas Indonesian Citizenship and multiple allegiances enabled the
SMOM through its member knights especially Zbigniew Brzezinski to implement operations in Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China and other countries including Africa where travel by U.S. Citizens on an American passport was prohibited or raised questionable allegiance in those authorities as to the purpose of travel into those countries. 44. Zbigniew Brzezinski has a sworn oath of allegiance to the Roman Catholic Pope and to the leader of the SMOM who is now His Most Eminent Highness the Prince and Grand Master Fra' Matthew FESTING (4), and thereby has at least three allegiances in conflict with USA law. 3 For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure one world, if you will. If thats the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. David Rockefeller in his Memoirs (2002) made this incredible admission against interest. 4 The Council Complete of State elects the Prince and Grand Master for life from the Professed Knights. According to the Constitution, as the religious Superior and Sovereign, he must fully dedicate himself to the development of the works of the Order and to set an example of living by Christian principles, to all the members of the Order. He is vested with supreme authorities. Together with the Sovereign Council, the Grand Master issues the legislative measures not covered by the Constitutional Charter, promulgates government acts, manages Common Treasure assets, ratifies, international agreements and the summoning of the Chapter General. The States with which the Order has diplomatic relations recognize the Grand Master with the prerogatives, immunities and honors reserved for Heads of State. The title of Most Eminent Highness is bestowed on the Grand Master, and the Holy Roman Church confers him the rank of Cardinal. The Grand Master resides at the Orders seat of government in Via Condotti in Rome. Profile of His Most Eminent Highness the Prince and Grand Master Fra' Matthew FESTING Interpleader Verified Complaint page - 16 - of 35 USA & Ex-rel. Strunk v Obama et al.
45. That Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution is controlling and only requires three qualifications be proven to be eligible for assuming the corporate office of the Presidency, i.e. an applicant shall be 35 years of age, 14 years resident of united States of America and a natural-born-citizen; this is a case of first impression about natural-born-citizen. AS AND FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (For Defendants default and Failure to Reply to the return of contract further acts are void ab initio) 46. Strunk repeats each and every allegation contained in the above introduction and paragraphs 1 through 45 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length however omits it for brevity and economy. 47. That on January 23, 2009 within 72-hours from Barack Hussein Obamas offer of His contract of Oath received by Interpleader on 20 January 2009 and again on 21 January 2009 respectively, Interpleader provided a timely return response by Registered mail with the United States Postal Service (USPS) in care of the Agent in Charge of the united States Secret Service Fra Matthew Festing, an Englishman, was elected Prince and Grand Master of the Order of Malta on 11th March 2008 by the Council Complete of State of the Order of Malta. He succeeds Fra Andrew Bertie, 78th Grand Master (1988-2008), who died on 7 February. Born in Northumberland on 30 November 1949, educated at Ampleforth and St. Johns College Cambridge, where he read history, Fra Matthew, an art expert, has for most of his professional life worked at an international art auction house. As a child, he lived in Egypt and Singapore, where his father, Field Marshal Sir Francis Festing, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, had earlier postings. He is also descended from Sir Adrian Fortescue, a knight of Malta, who was martyred in 1539. Fra Matthew Festing served in the Grenadier Guards and holds the rank of colonel in the Territorial Army. He was appointed OBE (Officer of the Order of the British Empire) by the Queen and served as one of her Deputy Lieutenants in the county of Northumberland. He became a member of the Sovereign Order of Malta in 1977, and took solemn religious vows in 1991, becoming a Professed Knight of the Order. Between 1993 and 2008 he was the Grand Prior of England. In this role, he led missions of humanitarian aid to Kosovo, Serbia and Croatia after the recent disturbances in those countries, and he attended the Orders international annual pilgrimage to Lourdes. Since September 2008, he has been an honorary citizen of the city of Rapallo in Italy. In October 2009, he was awarded an Honorary Degree of Humane Letters by Catholic University of America. Interpleader Verified Complaint page - 17 - of 35 USA & Ex-rel. Strunk v Obama et al.
with NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT and FOR THE RECORD, and that both were accepted for value, timely without dishonor and with consideration returned redrafted in the offer of contract of Interpleaders choosing wishing no contract in full accord with the Unified Commercial Code (U.C.C.); for a true copy of the original shown as Exhibit 1 Sub Exhibit A. 48. That Strunks return response shown as Exhibit 1 Sub Exhibit A by Registered mail with the USPS in care of the Agent in Charge of the Secret Service with Registered mail Label/Receipt Number: RE40 0301 908US was delivered at 8:07 AM on January 27, 2009 in WASHINGTON, DC 20223, for a copy of the USPS Tracking record and proof of service by registered mail shown as Exhibit 1 Sub Exhibit B. 49. That Defendant Obama in esse is the usurper that has seized the corporate office of the United States of America Presidency in a wide-ranging conspiracy. 50. That Defendant Obama in esse is the usurper whose actions while pretending as if the corporate office of the United States of America Presidency are void ab initio. 51. That Defendant Obama admits to dual allegiance in his autobiography Dreams from my Fathers A story of Race and Inheritance published in 1995 by Crown Publishing features on the front cover a picture shown as Exhibit 2 depicts Defendants British Citizen Father Barack Hussein Obama Sr. in Defendants Grandmothers arms and Defendants American Citizen Mother Stanley Ann Dunham in Defendants Grandfathers arms. 52. That on or about August 26, 2009, Defendant Obama through his agent after due notice required by law responded in writing with a special demurrer (See Exhibit 4); however, the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Jeffery Taylor and or his replacement have failed to respond or otherwise appear, and that Affirmant has exhausted the administrative process and other available remedy to appear as the ex-relator afforded by law. 53. That Strunk as the nunc pro tunc creator of the USA presupposes that the Federal
Constitution is still in effect with full force even under the 1929 reorganization plan that after 1933 with the Switch in Times Cases in re United States v. the United States of America, Inc., series of SCOTUS cases that allow the creditors to put the united States of America Inc. through bankruptcy reorganization that in the process transforms the office of the President per se into the Trustee administrator for the U.S.A. debtor in control of the assets under the bankruptcy reorganization plan. 54. That the United States of America, Inc. was created when under the first method to repay the revolutionary War debt the Articles of Confederation failed necessitated the adoption of the second repayment plan method with the stronger Federal Union in 1789, that then without debt repayment in 1859 again was transformed the third time promulgating the war between the states, which then re-emerges as the Jesuits 14th Amendment America for the fourth time in 1929 with the Switch in Time cases that transformed the Constitution so that with the Administrative Procedures Act of 1948 when Administrator Clinton found 5 trillion Dollars to pay the debt, but rather than to pay the debt eliminated the Glass- Stegall Act of 1933 and continues the multi-level ponzi scheme again beyond five levels, notwithstanding the SCOTUS dicta against operation beyond the fifth reorganization cited in the Amway Case decision. 55. Ex-Relator Strunk has not only suffered an informational injury as a voter and member of the public, has been denied a reasonable expectation of effective participation in the election process that infringes speech, association and liberty, that by the lack of necessary information on Mr. Barry Soetoro's background and citizenship status, Defendant usurpation is taking Strunks personal property along with those similarly situated without substantive due process that also undermines Plaintiffs sovereignty and inalienable liberty. 56. That Strunks ex-relator action preliminary to a jury inquest with DC Code Chapter 35 Title 16 3503, with FRCvP Rule 22 makes this Interpleader Verified Complaint hereby to supplement Plaintiffs Petition and the Verified Complaint shown as Exhibit 1 wishes a partial
summary judgment with FRCvP Rule 56(d) for a Declaratory Judgment with 28 USC 2201 and 2202 as to the legal controlling facts in this case of Defendant Obamas admitted Dual Allegiance at birth without two U.S. Citizen parents contrary to the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, as a matter of first impression Defendant Obama is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is ineligible to be the chief law enforcement administrator and trustee of the office of the President of the United States (POTUS) and or of Strunks grant of power of attorney over personal accounts and matters. Further, because the Usurper action(s) are thus void ab initio as to the incapacity to effect the duties of the POTUS, Ex-relator(s) requires a Writ of Mandamus directive to the Congress and the President of the Senate Joseph Biden as to Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6 and 25th Amendment of Article 7 under the separation of powers doctrine; and further, notwithstanding the FRCvP Rule 56(d) Declaratory Judgment, Ex-relator(s) require with 28 USC 1361 a writ of mandamus of: (i) DHS to ascertain the facts of Obamas alleged born in Mombasa Kenya under penalty of perjury by Lucas Smith shown as Exhibit 3.
AS AND FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (For Defendant Obamas action to pay the debt with debt is wasting Strunks asset) 57. Strunk repeats each and every allegation contained in the above introduction and paragraphs 1 through 56 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length however omits it for brevity and economy. 58. Defendant Obama has publicly announced he is paying the debt of the USA with debt, which is a Federal fraud crime when payment of debt may only be in specie, takes my property along with those similarly situated and that Defendant is wasting Strunks asset. 59. That Strunk claims the Defendant Obama along with agents Timothy Geithner Secretary of the Department of Treasury and Gary Locke Secretary of the Department of Commerce are unjustly detaining the Strunk's goods and chattels, as the Usurper is ineligible to be the POTUS Interpleader Verified Complaint page - 20 - of 35 USA & Ex-rel. Strunk v Obama et al.
trustee / administrator over the Departments secretaries with fiduciary responsibilities and the Usurper having been denied use of Strunks power of Attorney on January 22, 2009 has by his continued actions that are void ab initio seized Interpleaders personal property to wit: A) The Strunks Bond issued upon his birth certificate of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK after the birth in New York City on January 23, 1947 in the amount of 19687.5 troy ounces of gold. B) the Strunks private account at the US Treasury is secured by the Interpleaders numbered Bond kept at the U.S. Department of Commerce with the number issued by the Social Security Administration as shown on the reverse side of the Strunks Social Security Card; C) The interest accrued upon Strunks investment in commerce since the year of 1963 thru now calculated upon the recorded by the Social Security Earnings Statement compounded annually at the annual treasury bonds rate. 60. And that Strunk claims that the same be taken from the defendant and delivered to him; or, if they are eloigned, that Strunk may have judgment of their value and all mesne profits and damages, which he estimates at the present value of $21,656,250.00 dollars based upon the equivalent current market value of gold worth a net value of 5,817 troy ounces of gold based upon Interpleaders actuary life span, and 909 troy ounces of gold in interest on Strunks investment in commerce since 1963 besides costs. 61. That accordingly to DC Code Chapter 37 16-3701- In an action of Replevin brought to recover personal property to which the Interpleader is entitled, that is alleged to have been wrongfully taken by or to be in the possession of and wrongfully detained by the defendant, it is not necessary to demand possession of the property before bringing the action; but the costs of the action may be awarded as the court orders. 62. That Ex-Relators Replevin Demand of Defendant Obama, Gary Faye Locke, and
Timothy Franz Geithner were duly served according to 16-3701, upon each Debtor by Certified Return Receipt: 70092250000365685338, 70092250000365685277, & 7009225000036568534. 63. That Ex-Relator duly served notice of the respective demand of each debtor named above upon the State of New York Secretary of State under the Uniform Commercial Code Section 9501 that governs place of filing. Subsection (a) (2) the financing statement is filed as a fixture filing and the collateral are goods that are or are to become fixtures. Subsection (a) (2) provides that the office in which to file a financing statement to perfect a security interest is the office of the Secretary of State in all other cases pursuant to subsection (b) a fixture filing for a transmitting utility would also be filed with the Secretary of State. 64. That accordingly to DC Code Chapter 37 16-3548, the Ex-relator may obtain recovery of damages from the usurper at any time within a year from a judgment in a quo warranto proceeding, the relator may bring an action against the party ousted and recover the damages sustained by the relator by reason of the ousted party's usurpation of the office to which the relator was entitled. 65. That accordingly to DC Code Chapter 37 16-3704, in the matter of an Undertaking to abide judgment of the court, the Ex-relator at the time of filing a complaint in replevin, must enter into an undertaking by himself or his agent with surety, approved by the clerk, to abide by and perform the judgment of the court. 66. That Ex-relator alleges that Defendant Obama has utilized funds from his campaign fund that were raised in bad faith with the law in a conspiracy to defraud Strunk along with those similarly situated to illegally become the Chief law enforcement Officer administrator and trustee for the office of the POTUS with control over Strunks property and that according to the Federal Election Commission the Obama for America currently has $8,957,536.38 cash on hand (See Exhibit 5) to be used to guarantee Ex-Relators undertaking in lieu of another surety agent that would otherwise be based upon Strunks Federal Contract underwritten and collateralized
by the private account guaranteed by the Federal Reserve bank of New York. 67. That Ex-relator wishes relief with FRCvP Rule 65 and LCvR 65.1 a TRO restraining Defendant Obama, the Supplemental Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund and or agents use of any account(s) to be placed under the control and investigation of a court appointed special master with FRCvP Rule 53(a) (b) to ascertain facts of wrong doing for a jury trial on Interpleader injuries. 68. For the above aforementioned reasons, the above requested documents are of great public interest and without receiving eligibility proof, Interpleader / Plaintiff liberty is at risk were the usurper of the POTUS administrator which constitutes a huge National Security dilemma to continue and as Strunk along with those similarly situated suffers irreparable harm with time as the essence is deserving of equity relief of a preliminary injunction with Declaratory Judgment.
AS AND FOR THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (For Defendant Obamas actions in conspiracy with others to use the campaign organization entities Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund to solicit and obtain foreign donations in violation of 42 USC 1971 administered by the FEC) 69. Strunk repeats each and every allegation contained in the above introduction and paragraphs 1 through 68 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length however omits it for brevity and economy. 70. That starting no later than 1988 Defendant Obamas actions as an aspiring attorney in conjunction with attorneys and Social Justice activists entered into a conspiracy with others to use the campaign organization entities to effect control over the suffrage process and from 1996 Defendant Obama entry as a candidate for the State Legislature, and for national office in 2000 for U.S. House, 2004 for the U.S. Senate and from no later than 2004 conspired with attorneys who were associated with his various campaign committees to circumvent Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 express eligibility mandate that he be a natural-born-citizen. Interpleader Verified Complaint page - 23 - of 35 USA & Ex-rel. Strunk v Obama et al.
71. That to further the conspiracy on February 2, 2006 the Editor of the Chicago-Kent Law School Law Review, Sarah P. Herlihy, published a memorandum with approved edits of 11-2305 entitled AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE at Vol. 81: 275 (See Exhibit 6) and with a special footnote designating the author has a J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2005 and that the author would like to thank Professor Graeme Dinwoodie, and the 20042005 Globalization and Its Effect on Domestic Law Seminar Class for their valuable comments and insights on this Note. 72. That in the memorandum shown as Exhibit 6, Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about globalization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment. 73. That in the Conclusion shown on page 26 of Exhibit 6, Ms. Herlihy as a proponent for the elimination of the Natural Born Citizen clause requirement argues in support of globalization writes quote: Ultimately, the emotional reasons to oppose a constitutional amendment abolishing the natural born citizen requirement for presidential eligibility will prevail over the rational reasons because the rational reasons derive, in large part, from the increase in globalization. The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstandings about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization. Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement. Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts. Whether it is because of fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith in the decisions of the Founding Fathers, Americans want to find a way to avoid changing the natural born citizen provision to allow naturalized citizens to be eligible for the
presidency. Ultimately, Americans will rely on the perceived negative effects of globalization, or rather their perceptions of globalizations negative effects, to justify their
decision to allow emotion to prevail over reason. (emphasis by Strunk)
74. That according to Sarah P. Herlihys resume on line (See Exhibit 7) with the International Law firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLP in Chicago after Ms. Herlihy was the Law Clerk to the Honorable Michael M. Mihm, United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, 2005 2006 she has been employed by the firm and in the resume she is listed with receiving the award of the Order of the Coif whose various members of the Society are traced throughout the Obama support network working in the conspiracy with the Defendants. 75. That a Principal of Kirtland & Ellis LLP, Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., is Member of finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin. http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm itemID=7845 (towards bottom of the page) 76. In addition to members of the firm making donations to the Obama campaign , Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the Illinois Venture Capital Associations lifetime achievement award for service to the private equity/venture capital community presented by Sen. Barack Obama. 77. That Kirtland & Ellis LLP is a global firm with powerful international clients listed on the website (See Exhibit 8). 78. According to the Defendant Obamas published biography, in late 1988, Obama entered Harvard Law School. He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year, and president of the journal in his second year. During his summers, he returned to Chicago, where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990. After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago. Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review gained national media attention and led to a publishing contract and advance for a book about race relations, which evolved into a personal memoir. The manuscript
was published in mid-1995 as Dreams from My Father with the cover page shown as Exhibit 2. 79. In 1991, Obama accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School to work on his first book, and alleges He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 teaching constitutional law. In fact, Obama's teaching career at Chicago applied for a position as an adjunct and wasnt even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didnt have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct. The other professors hated him because He was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to a full professor, Obama had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if He was, He would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (Publication is requirement). 80. From April to October 1992, Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote, a voter registration drive with a staff of ten and 700 volunteers associated with ACORN and related Social Justice organizations in part funded by the Catholic Church; and it achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state, and led to Crain's Chicago Business naming Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be. 81. In 1993, Obama joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 13-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development (in partnership with Syrian Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born July 1955, is a political fundraiser, restaurateur, and real estate developer / slumlord in Chicago, Illinois, convicted on several counts of fraud and bribery in 2008 and who is involved in fundraising for Obama), where Obama was an associate for three
years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002. 82. Obama served from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. He served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1999. 83. Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn. 84. Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998, defeating Republican Yesse Yehudah in the general election, and was reelected again in 2002. 85. In 2000, Obama lost a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives to four-term incumbent Bobby Rush by a margin of two to one. 86. That Defendant Obama, his agents and committees for his election to POTUS used various campaign fund raising entities including Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund to solicit and obtain both domestic and foreign donations violating the 42 USC 1971 administered by the FEC. 87. That on February 26, 2010 according to the FEC on the matter under review MUR # 6127 (See Exhibit 9) fined Obama for America and Martin H. Nesbitt in his official capacity as treasurer (associate of Chicago billionaire Penny S. Pritzker who lost $400 plus million of depositors money in the sub-prime mortgage scandal); Barack Obama; Obama Victory Fund and Andrew Tobias, in his official capacity as treasurer; Democratic National Committee and Andrew Tobias, in his official capacity as treasurer; VIDA Fitness; Urban Salons, Inc. doing business as Bang Salon Spa; David von Storch; and Saul Ewing, LLP.
88. The complaint to the FEC alleged that Obama for America (OFA) and Nesbitt, in his official capacity as treasurer, converted campaign funds to Obamas personal use by paying some of his personal travel expenses during the 2008 presidential campaign. It alleged further that VIDA Fitness facilitated the making of contributions and made prohibited contributions to the Obama Victory Fund (OVF), a joint fundraising committee comprised of OFA and the Democratic National Committee, by using a corporate email list to distribute OVF fundraising solicitations and allowing OVF to use VIDAs facilities for a fundraiser. The complaint also alleged that OFA failed to disclose the transfer of a donor list to Project Vote, an affiliate of ACORN, and that OFA intended to accept and Saul Ewing LLP intended to make an excessive contribution in the form of pro bono legal services. 89. In Monday September 29, 2008 NewsMax published an article entitled Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign by Ken Timmerman (See Exhibit 10) reported that quote: More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose. And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate. Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report. But because of Obamas high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage at least, not yet. The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners. In July and August, the head of the Nigerias stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigerias largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners. At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000. The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter. Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities. In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming
foreign nationals were donating to his campaign. All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man, the Libyan leader said. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..." Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were legitimate, the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign. The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200. Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to root out fraud, including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online. One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store. .. A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show. Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaigns year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned. The Edwan brothers listed their address as GA, as in Georgia, although they entered Gaza or Rafah Refugee camp as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms. Many of the Edwan brothers contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups. The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December. A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million. But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date. Many of the small donors participated in online matching programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs. Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program. Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out. 90. That for the above aforementioned reasons, the above referenced documents are of great public interest and require investigation, in that Interpleader liberty is at risk were the Usurper POTUS administrator to remain which constitutes a huge National Security dilemma to continue and as Strunk along with those similarly situated suffers irreparable harm with time as the
essence is deserving of equity relief of a preliminary injunction with Declaratory Judgment and TRO of various accounts. 91. Ex-relator(s) require with 28 USC 1361 a writ of mandamus of: DHS, DOT and FEC to ascertain the facts of foreign contributors to any and all Obama campaign committees including Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund, and others; and of the DOT to ascertain the facts for a full accounting on all monies paid to Obama, the various Campaign committees, agents and or John Does(s) Jane Doe(s) and or XYZ entities conspiring as defined with 42 USC 1971, 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986, the False Claims Act with 31 U.S.C. 37293733 pursuant to the notice given to the FEC, DOT and DOJ by the Journalist Ken Timmerman shown as Exhibit 10 and related law in entirety; and with FRCvP Rule 65 and LCvR 65.1 a TRO restraining Defendant Obama, the Supplemental Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund and or agents use of any account(s) to be placed under the control and investigation of a court appointed special master with FRCvP Rule 53(a)(b) to ascertain facts of wrong doing for a jury trial on Interpleader injuries because the FEC has admitted it is unable to do so. AS AND FOR THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Conspiracy defined with 42 USC 1985 by Defendant Obama, Obamas agents with various John Jane Doe(s) and XYZ entities to violate Strunks rights and liberty along with those similarly situated including Plaintiff ) 92. Strunk repeats each and every allegation contained in the above introduction and paragraphs 1 through 91 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length however omits it for brevity and economy. 93. There is a conspiracy defined with 42 USC 1985 by Defendant Obama, Obamas agents including the Campaign funding organization with various John / Jane Doe(s) and XYZ entities to violate Strunks rights and liberty along with those similarly situated including Taitz to further the fraud to violate the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 and to cover-up that Defendant
Obama not only has dual allegiance but was born in Mombasa Kenya on August 4, 1961 as alleged under penalty of perjury by Lucas Smith as shown in Exhibit 3 when he went to Kenya bribed a Kenyan official to obtain a copy of the actual birth certificate there. 94. Defendant Obama and his agents associated with his campaign and administration are Preventing officer(s) from performing duties in New York and Washington D.C. in the matter of the 2008 General Election cycle, and after by coercing various members of the Congress not challenge during the electoral college tally required in Article 2, and by not calling for a challenge if any there; and to conceal treason or felony by one not participating in the crime, and by seditious conduct against New York and United States of America governments. 95. That Obama and his agents in New York and Washington DC as if a State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threaten, Joseph Biden and other candidates from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties; 96. Defendant Obama and his agent(s) in his campaign and administration act to Obstruct justice; intimidate a party, witness, or juror such as Judge Carter and Judge Land and suborned witnesses to proceedings promote a breach of fiduciary duties of public officials. 97. That Obama and his agent(s) in New York and other States conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified,
or to influence the verdict, presentment, in any such court, lawfully assented to by him; and 98. That Obama and his agent(s) of his campaign and administration conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws; 99. Defendant Obama and his agents of his campaign and administration as misprisors deprive persons of rights or privileges of Strunk and those similarly situated. 100. That Obama and his agents in New York and other States conspire against Governor Paterson, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, Strunk and the class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of laws; 101. That the fruit of the poison tree by frustration of effort and cover-up by Mr. Obama in commission of a fraud has been asked for his "vault" version birth certificate; however, he has refused, which has prompted lawsuits across the United States and is liable for damages. 102. Obama and his agents including Eric Holder and his agents act and conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress; 103. Obama and his agents injure Strunk and his property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or
privilege of a citizen of the United States, 104. Thereby Strunk as the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any of the conspirators; 105. That Interpleader liberty and fundamental rights have been violated and Plaintiff has been directly injured by those who have been deployed in support of the conspiracy to surround, channel and mis-direct Taitzs legal actions as evidenced by the combined sorted background of each provocateur including those being convicted criminals including document forgery and perjury; as it is even more important to Intervener and those similarly situated to know as a matter of National Security to have DHS and or its agents with authority to verify the Kenyan document shown as Exhibit 3, not only as a matter of continued good relations with the Nation of Kenya whose officials are alleged to have been instrumental in the conspiracy to destroy USA / Kenya affairs in violation of the Logan Act, 18 USC 953 and related law under Title 18 Chapter 45 for Foreign Relations to resolve the Quo Warranto inquest, for if Obama were born in Mombasa Kenya is ineligible to the office of POTUS by Obamas own admission. 106. Ex-relator(s) require with 28 USC 1361 a writ of mandamus of: DHS, to ascertain the facts alleged under penalty of perjury by Lucas Smith as to Defendant Obama, the various Campaign committees, agents and or John Does(s) Jane Doe(s) and or XYZ entities conspiring as defined with 42 USC 1971, 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986, the False Claims Act with 31 U.S.C. 37293733 pursuant to the notice given to the FEC, DOT and DOJ by the Journalist Ken Timmerman shown as Exhibit 10 and related law in entirety; and with FRCvP Rule 65 and LCvR 65.1 a TRO restraining Defendant Obama, the Supplemental Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund and or agents use of any account(s) to be placed under the control and investigation of a court appointed special master with FRCvP Rule 53(a)(b) to ascertain facts of wrong doing for a jury trial on Interpleader injuries.
AS AND FOR THE F F H CAUSE OF ACTION IT (Unjust enrichment of Defendant Obama, Obama's agents with various John Jane Doe(s) and XYZ entities to violate Strunk's rights and liberty along with those similarly situated including Plaintiff with different claims and damages) 107.Strunk repeats each and every allegation contained in the above introduction and para&aPhs 1 through 106 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length however omits it for brevity and economy. 108.That the Unjust enrichment of Defendant Obama, Obama's agents with vari~us John Jane
- 8
.h
Doe(s) and XYZ entities that have injured Strunk's rights and liberty along with those 'similarly situated including Plaintiff with different claims and damages; and as Ex-Relators are whistleblowers representing the People of the USA as a Qui Tam matter, individually claim a portion of the $8,957,536.38 and other sources yet to be determined under the Court's control; 109.Strunk wishes a judgment of the value of the return of: a. Property and all mesne profits and damages, which he estimates at the present value of $21,656,250.00 dollars based upon the equivalent current market value of gold. b. all the False Claim disbursements from the DOT to date; c. all Campaign matching funds and funds taken under false pretense; d. Reimbursement of all damages caused by the conspiracy to be determined at a jury trial including punitive treble damages prescribed by law;
e. Reimbursement of all the expense of a special master and associated costs of investigation and litigation to date; f. And for other and different relief as the court and jury deems just.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and coned. Respectfully
submitted by, Dated: March ,2010 Brooklyn, New York Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn., New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris0,strunk.w~ -
1 8
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KTNGS
Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, by special-appearance being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: 1. That I am the Interpleader 1 Ex-Relator, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, with place for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238. 2. That I am the sovereign employer of the POTUS who exercises authority over my grant of power of attorney consent given to administer the United States of America Inc. 3. I duly fired Barack Hussein Obama for cause on January 23,2009 after he took the oath of office by timely retum of the offer of contract wishing no contract thereby revoked power of attorney due to his failure to prove eligibility as a natural born citizen. 4. That Respondent in esse usurps that ofice and presumably wishes to have a Quo Warranto forum to prove his eligibility to be able to return to the corporate ofice capacity. 5. I hereby give my permission for a Quo Warranto jury trial of the issue of facts. 6. I have read the above Interpleader Verified Complaint with Demand for Jury Trial on the injury and damages after a Declaratory Decision and Order is issued on the question of first impression with exhibits attached and aver that Interpleader is in support of the Plaintiffs efforts nonetheless has a dispute on the facts to be issues before the court as well as to the source of reimbursement for damages and injuries and the manner of obtaining the extraordinary relief in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, and I know its contents; the facts stated i the Complaint n herein are true to my own personal knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on idbrmation and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3'* parties, b k s and records, and personal knowledge. except as to those stated upon information and
Sworn t before me f - l , sm day ofofarch2010
--:.--. -
--._._..-. _ - - .-- .. :-.p------X&Glt?'&er Verified Complaint
. .. -
>. < :- :
. . L
%
. ..
C .
fr10.Gi HA6088323 Qualifted In Kings County Commission Expires March 3. 2$/
Notary P u t 4 3 , State Of New York
page
,-
35 - of 35 USA &
Obama et al.
EXHIBIT 1
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 213 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 214 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 215 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 216 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 217 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 219 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 220 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 221 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 222 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 223 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 224 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 225 of 243
Document 19-2
Filed 06/01/2009
Page 226 of 243
Ia atre of:
Livhg-snul
Deelarant
a l k (
O
a
h in @8@,
a we,
~ ~ ~ ~
No Tid P d e s hr
~
& ~ ~
m in as%,

-VEOR(S), MSLCI?(S]
W S ) , AGENTCS),
FOR TEE RECORD

RlETURN AM) REDRAPT
Atmhents:
Judicial Notice b
e 1 of 2)
Ohms md US chief
mx d S~te3.'' ie


States. "

Roberts, O b d ' l
hm!
~ P Wt i j d yi

n m on Jm. 20
CJ Roberts. BHO :
-Are you p&ai#l

"I a. m'
sJ
--.-----'
BHO :
8
7 - -
'4'
w;JP-d~

50 . -3

(b) Wh,
""5.1
1C-
[ Judicial Notice ]
I I Pnrn your name
i SranthelCmtta

1 .
a m
"Add=-q
klwn-e
! .
I
I
I
--
4.
O b
'ps
am-3811 ~ebnrary 0 ~ . 2

'
_
---
--
n YES, enter
<
-%
rcag54~&im*-
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN) DIVISION Captain Pamela Barnett, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle L.R. Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and President of the Senate, Defendants.
Civil Action: SACV09-00082-DOC (Anx)
28 U.S.C. 1746 Declaration of Lucas Daniel Smith with Exhibit
1.
My name is Lucas Daniel Smith. I am over 18 years old, am of
sound mind and free of any mental disease or psychological impairment of any kind or condition. 2. 3. I am a citizen of the United States of America, I am 29 years old and I have personal knowledge of all the facts and circumstances I was born and raised in the state of Iowa. described herein below in this declaration and will testify in open court to all of the same. 4. 5. On February 19, 2009 I visited the Coast General hospital in I visited the hospital accompanied by one more person, a natural Mombasa, Kenya. born citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly known as Zaire and before independence as the Belgian Congo). 6. I traveled to Kenya and Mombasa in particular with the intent to obtain the original birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama, as I was told previously that it was on file in the hospital and under seal, due to the
- 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Exhibit A: Lucas Daniel Smiths Photocopy of Birth Certificate from the Coastal Hospital; District of Mombasa Kenya, obtained in February 2009
- 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Charles Edward Lincoln, III charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com Tel: (512) 923-1889 Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law (California SBN 223433) Orly Taitz Law Offices Telephone: (949) 683-5411 E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
PROOF OF SERVICE I the undersigned Charles Edward Lincoln, being over the age of 18 and not a party to this case, so hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this, Friday, September 4, 2009, I provided facsimile or electronic copies of the Plaintiffs aboveand-foregoing Notice of Filing of the 28 U.S.C. 1746 Declaration of Lucas Daniel Smith with attached Exhibit, as a supplement to Plaintiffs FIRST AMENDED SPECIAL MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTERS ROGATORY AND FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT PRE-RULE 26(f) DISCOVERY TO DEFENDANT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, etc., TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY, PRESERVE EVIDENCE, and TRANSMIT LETTERS ROGATORY PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. 1781(a)(2)-(b)(2) to all of the following non-party attorneys whose names were affixed to the STATEMENT OF INTEREST who have appeared in this case in accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit: THOMAS P. OBRIEN LEON W. WEIDMAN ROGER E. WEST roger.west4@usdoj.gov (designated as lead counsel for President Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009) DAVID A. DeJUTE FACSIMILE (213) 894-7819 DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS Friday the 4h day of September, 2009.
- 3
EXHIBIT 4
THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON
August 26,2009
Dear Mr. Strunk:

..
EXHIBIT 5
Page 1 of 5
HOME / CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS AND DATA / PRESIDENTIAL REPORTS / 2009 OCTOBER QUARTERLY / REPORT FOR C00431445
REPORT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS

By An Authorized Committee of a Candidate For the Office of President or Vice President (Summary Page, FEC FORM 3P)
FILING FEC-436016

2. FEC Committee ID #: C00431445 3. This report contains activity for a Primary Election 4. Report Type: October Quarterly
Filed 10/15/2009
SUMMARY DETAILED SUMMARY PAGE ALLOCATIONS BY STATE CONTRIBUTIONS BY EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS BY STATE CONTRIBUTIONS BY ZIP CONTRIBUTIONS BY DATE CONTRIBUTIONS BY ELECTION DISBURSEMENTS BY PURPOSE DISBURSEMENTS BY PAYEE DISBURSEMENTS BY DATE DEBTS BY VENDOR
SUMMARY
5. Covering Period 07/01/2009 Through 09/30/2009
6. Cash on Hand at BEGINNING of the Reporting Period
8,919,953.56
2/22/2010

7. Total Receipts This Period 8. Subtotal (6 + 7) 9. Total Disbursements This Period 10. Cash on Hand at CLOSE of the Reporting Period 11. Debts and Obligations Owed TO the Committee Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D 12. Debts and Obligations Owed BY the Committee Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D 13. Expenditures Subject To Limitation 14. NET Contributions (Other than Loans) 15. NET Operating Expenditures
Treasurer: Martin H. Nesbitt Date Signed: 10/15/2009
Page 2 of 5
895,304.40 9,815,257.96 857,721.58 8,957,536.38 0.00
0.00
0.00 -549,888.04 50,881,580.91
(End Summary, FEC FORM 3P)
DETAILED SUMMARY Of Receipts And Disbursements

Column A This Period I. Receipts 16. Federal Funds (Itemize on Schedule A-P) 17. Contributions (other than loans) From: (a) Individuals/Persons Other than Political Committees (b) Political Party Commitees (c) Other Political Committees (d) The Candidate (e) Total Contributions (11(a) + (b) + (c) + (d)) 18. Transfers From Other Authorized Committees 19. Loans Received: -92.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 -92.22 -434,681.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 -434,681.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Column B Election Cycle-ToDate Column C
0.00
3,500,000.00
0.00
2/22/2010

(a) Loans Received From or Guaranteed By Candidate (b) Other Loans (c) Total Loans (19(a) + (b))
Page 3 of 5
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
20. Offsets to Expenditures (Refunds, Rebates, etc): (a) Operating (b) Fundraising (c) Legal and Accounting (d) Total Offsets To Expenditures (20(a) + (b) + (c)) 21. Other Receipts (Dividends, Interest, etc) 22. Total Receipts 140,451.23 754,945.39 6,775,608.39 0.00 0.00 6,775,608.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
754,945.39 0.00 0.00
227,654.27
0.00
895,304.40 10,068,580.97 II. Disbursements
0.00
23. Operating Expenditures 24. Transfers to Other Authorized Committees 25. Fundraising Disbursements 26. Exempt Legal and Accounting Disbursements 27. Loan Repayments Made (a) Repayments of loans Made or Guaranteed By Candidate (b) Other Loans (c) Total Loans (27(a) + (b)) 28. Refunds of Contributions To: (a) Individuals/Persons Other Than Political Committees (b) Political Party Committees (c) Other Political Committees (d) Total Contribution Refunds (28 (a) + (b) + (c)) 29. Other Disbursements
696,524.05 57,657,189.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
-3,816.48 0.00 0.00 -3,816.48
115,206.35 0.00 0.00 115,206.35
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
165,014.01 12,022,264.50
0.00
2/22/2010
Page 4 of 5
30. Total Disbursements
857,721.58 69,794,660.15
0.00
III. Contributed Items (stock, Art Objects, Etc.) 31. Items On Hand To Be Liquidated 0.00
(End Detailed Summary Page, FEC FORM 3P)
ALLOCATION OF PRIMARY EXPENDITURES BY STATE For A Presidential Candidate

2. FEC Committee ID #: C00431445
Allocation By State
Allocation State Total Allocation This period Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 To Date 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma State Allocation Total Allocation This period 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 To Date 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delaware District of Columbia Florida
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
2/22/2010

Georgia Hawaii 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Oregon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 5 of 5
Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico Guam Virgin Islands TOTALS
Idaho
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Illinois
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(End Allocation of Primary Expenditures Page, FEC FORM 3P)

Generated Thu Oct 15 14:24:43 2009
Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463 (800) 424-9530 In Washington (202) 694-1100 For the hearing impaired, TTY (202) 219-3336 Send comments and suggestions about this site to: webmaster@fec.gov.
2/22/2010
EXHIBIT 6
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
279
280
[Vol 81:275
posed an amendment that would allow a citizen who has lived in the United States for thirty-five years to become eligible for the presidency.27 In addition to Congressional action, Arnold Schwarzenegger supporters have developed a website and advertised on television advocating a Constitutional amendment to help the amendment process gain momentum.28 Yet, regardless of the recent political action and the political popularity of Arnold Schwarzenegger, the natural born citizen requirement has yet to be changed. II. WHY THE INCREASE IN GLOBALIZATION PRESSES FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT Although varying definitions of globalization exist and considerable debate continues regarding the true meaning of globalization, for the purposes of this paper, the term globalization refers to the concept of goods and services, or social and cultural influences, gradually becom[ing] similar in all parts of the world.29 In other words, globalization can be seen as the process by which cultures and societies are becoming more and more similar because of the increase in communication, ease of travel, media access, and immigration. The process of globalization provides a number of attractive reasons why the natural born citizen requirement should be abolished. This section of the paper identifies some of the reasons why supporters of a Constitutional amendment seek to abolish the natural born citizen requirement and also identifies why the increase of globalization makes each of these reasons more persuasive. Specifically, the natural born citizen requirement is discriminatory, the requirement is outdated and undemocratic, and a persons place of birth is not an effective means of determining whether he or she will be a good president. A. The Natural Born Citizen Requirement Is Discriminatory
vents over 12.8 million Americans, including two governors, numerous statesmen, and 700 Medal of Honor winners, from having the same opportunities as their natural born counterparts.31 Therefore, the natural born citizen requirement does not promote equality[,] which ought to be the basis of every law.32 This lack of equality is especially abhorrent when one recognizes that the difference between a naturalized citizen and a natural born citizen is arbitrary. For example, many Americans, if asked whether the natural born citizen requirement should be repealed may respond, No, of course not, only an American should be President. However, this response fails to recognize that naturalized citizens are American citizens. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.33 Moreover, many people would probably agree that a naturalized citizen who is born abroad and adopted by American parents at the age of three months and goes to American schools would have better qualifications to be president than a person who is born in the United States but moves to France at the age of three months, attends French schools, moves back to the United States at the age of forty, enters politics, and runs for the presidency at the age of fifty-four.34 Allowing the natural born citizen in the preceding example to be eligible for the presidency discriminates against the naturalized citizen because it provides the natural born citizen with an opportunity that is not available to the naturalized citizen. In addition to limiting the opportunities available to one class of citizens and therefore harming those individuals, this type of discrimination also harms America as a whole. Advocates of a Constitutional amendment argue that this provision relegates naturalized citizens to second-class status.35 Discrimination harms the country because it creates an additional
and I will show you a bigot, pure and simple. John W. Dean, The Pernicious Natural Born Clause of the Constitution: Why Immigrants Like Governors Schwarzenegger and Granholm Ought to be Able to Become Presidents, FINDLAW, Oct. 8, 2004, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20041008.html. [I]t is absurd that [Arnold Schwarzenegger] and other foreign-born citizens of the U.S. do not have the right to run for president. Joanne Madden, Editorial, No Right to Run for President, TORONTO STAR, Jan. 21, 2005, at A17. 31. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A. 32. Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 854 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring) (quoting James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, (June 20, 1785), http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html). 33. Post, supra note 1, at 193 (quoting Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913)). 34. Article II of the Constitution also requires that a person be a resident of the United States for fourteen years in order to be eligible for the Presidency. U.S. CONST. art. II, 1, cl. 5. 35. Safire, supra note 3, at E15. Representative Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts said that the natural born citizen clause tells immigrants they are somehow flawed. Drive Aims to Let Foreign-Born Seek Presidency, TULSA WORLD, Dec. 13, 2004, at A14. See also Kennedy, supra note 1, at 175 (discussing the natural born citizen clause and noting [o]ne concrete way of measuring the
The most frequently cited reason for abolishing the natural born citizen provision is that the provision is discriminatory.30 This provision pre27. Joe Mathews, Maybe Anyone Can Be President: Support Is Growing to Amend the Constitution to Let Foreign-Born Citizens Lead the Nation. So, Which Governor Comes to Mind?, L.A. TIMES, Feb. 2, 2005, at A1. 28. See AmendforArnold&Jen, http://www.amendforarnold.com (last visited June 17, 2005). 29. Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp ?key=33184&dict=CALD (last visited June 17, 2005). 30. Some people feel quite strongly that the natural born citizen requirement is discriminatory. John Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, noted, It will never be known how many potentially great presidents have never even aspired to the office because of the constitutional prohibition. Show me a person who believes that the natural born qualification clause should remain in the Constitution,
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
281
282
[Vol 81:275
dividing line separating one class of Americans from another. In a country divided by race, religion, abortion, and countless other issues, an unjustifiable distinction based on a persons place of birth merely contributes to the internal divisions that already pervade America. Amending the Constitution to abolish this arbitrary distinction would eliminate one more division amongst Americans and would help to ensure that all Americans are treated equally under the law. Although discrimination between natural born and naturalized citizens has existed since the ratification of the Constitution, globalization dictates that we amend the natural born citizen clause now because discriminating against naturalized citizens in favor of natural born citizens is no longer justified. In 1789, the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause because they were afraid of a foreigner becoming president.36 They were allegedly afraid that a person who was born abroad, in a foreign culture, and with foreign influences would come to America, become president, and take over the country. Today, unlike in 1789, discriminating against naturalized citizens based solely on the fact that they were not born in the United States is no longer justified because globalization has lessened the differences between natural born citizens and foreign-born citizens. The increase in travel, the growth of international economic markets, and the increase in the number of people who are multi-lingual contribute to making people in the world more similar. Globalization is breaking down the differences amongst cultures because people throughout the world now have access to the same information, buy and sell the same products, and frequently travel or move out of their home countries during their lifetimes. Accordingly, the natural born citizen requirement no longer serves the same purpose that it did in 1789 when travel was extremely limited and foreign cultures were, in many cases, very different than the culture in America. In addition to minimizing the differences between cultures, globalization is also one of the reasons37 why discrimination against naturalized citizens is as widespread as it is today. Globalization and the homogenization of the world have led to an increase in the number of foreign compa-
nies doing business in America, the number of Americans adopting foreign-born children, and the number of people moving from one country to another.38 These increases result in the number of people being discriminated against being higher than ever. For example, in 2000, there were over nine million naturalized American citizens. However, in 2004, there were over 12.8 million naturalized Americans.39 Therefore, even if there was previously no urgency to amend the natural born citizen requirement because the provision did not discriminate against very many people, the increase of globalization should now compel Americans to pass a Constitutional amendment because the natural born citizen requirement discriminates against more Americans with each passing year. B. The Natural Born Citizen Clause Is Outdated
Those opposed to the natural born citizen clause also argue that the clause is outdated.40 Specifically, the increase of globalization has made this provision a relic of the past. Over 200 years have passed since the original drafting of the natural born citizen clause. During those 200 years, technological innovations have made it possible for people to travel and move from one country to another during their lifetimes, and the growth and development of the world market has created a need for people to move from one country to another because companies have to staff their offices, manufacturing facilities, and retail outlets throughout the world. Additionally, considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a foreigner coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland. The successful implementation and maintenance of a separation of power amongst the
38. See Let Arnold Run, ECONOMIST, Dec. 18, 2004, at 16 (noting that the need to abolish the natural born citizen clause has become more pressing with the ever larger numbers of people flowing into the country). Compare James C. Ho, Unnatural Born Citizens and Acting Presidents, 17 CONST. COMMENT. 575, 575 n.2 (2000) (noting that in 1997, there were over nine million naturalized citizens in the United States), with Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A (recognizing that there are currently over 12.8 million naturalized citizens in the United States). 39. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A. 40. Proponents of a constitutional amendment argue that the prohibition against naturalized citizens being president is archaic and even xenophobic. Drive Aims to Let Foreign-Born Seek Presidency, supra note 35, at A14. See also Madden, supra note 30, at A17 (referring to the natural born citizen requirement as a relic from the past and stating that the Constitutions qualifications for the office of president have become outdated and out of step with modern American society).
extent to which people affiliated with different social groups are full and equal members of this nation is to ask whether a person associated with that group could plausibly be elevated to the highest office in the land); Editorial, A More Perfect Democracy: Why Not a Naturalized Citizen for President?, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, Sept. 28, 2004 (It doesnt make sense to keep the 12 percent of the U.S. population that was born overseas in a second-class political category.). 36. See supra p. 27779. 37. The United States policy on immigration could also be cited as a reason why discrimination is as widespread as it is today.
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
276
[Vol 81:275
AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE SARAH P. HERLIHY
INTRODUCTION The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the stupidest provision in the Constitution,1 undecidedly un-American,2 blatantly discriminatory,3 and the Constitutions worst provision.4 Since Arnold Schwarzeneggers victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policymakers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency.5 Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:
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.6
Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.7 In addition to Governor
J.D. Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2005. The author would like to thank Professor Graeme Dinwoodie, and the 20042005 Globalization and Its Effect on Domestic Law Seminar Class for their valuable comments and insights on this Note. 1. When asked to identify the stupidest provision in the Constitution for a symposium issue of Constitutional Commentaries, two separate constitutional scholars independently chose the natural born citizen clause. Robert Post, What is the Constitutions Worst Provision?, 12 CONST. COMMENT. 191, 192 (1995); Randall Kennedy, A Natural Aristocracy?, 12 CONST. COMMENT. 175, 175 (1995). 2. Editorial, Dont Rush to Change Constitution, GREEN BAY PRESS-GAZETTE, Jan. 4, 2005, at A5. 3. William Safire, Essay, The Constitutions Flaw, N.Y.TIMES, Sept. 6, 1987, at E15. 4. Post, supra note 1, at 191. 5. See Martin Kasindorf, Should the Constitution be Amended for Arnold?, USA TODAY, Dec. 3, 2004, at 1A. 6. U.S. CONST. art. II, 1, cl. 5. 7. Editorial, Time for a Change?: Should Concerns Rooted Firmly in the 18th Century Still Disqualify Immigrants from Serving as President?, CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER, Jan. 10, 2005, at B6. 275
Schwarzenegger, the natural born citizen clause prohibits many other prominent Americans from becoming president, including Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm,8 former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao,9 and over 700 Medal of Honor Winners.10 Even though many of these individuals have served in high political positions or fought in a war on behalf of America, they are not able to become president simply because they were not born in the United States.11 The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty. The increased globalization of the world continues to make each of these reasons more persuasive. As the world becomes smaller and cultures become more similar through globalization, the natural born citizen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal system. However, even though globalization strengthens the case for a Constitutional amendment, many Americans argue against abolishing the requirement. In a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken November 1921, 2004, only 31% of the respondents favored a constitutional amendment to abolish the natural born citizen requirement while 67% opposed such an amendment.12 Although some of the reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion. Therefore, although globalization is one impetus that should drive Americans to rely on reason and amend the Constitution, this paper argues that common perceptions about globalization ironically will convince Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment. Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for
8. Jennifer Granholm was born in Canada and moved with her family to the U.S. when she was four years old. Myriam Marquez, Editorial, No Terminating Inevitable Tugs of the Heart, ORLANDO SENTINEL, Oct. 24, 2004, at G3. 9. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A (noting that Madeleine Albright was born in Czechoslovakia and Henry Kissinger was born in Germany); Time for a Change?: Should Concerns Rooted Firmly in the 18th Century Still Disqualify Immigrants from Serving as President?, supra note 7, at B6 (noting that Elaine Chao was born in Taiwan). 10. Vicki Haddock, President Schwarzenegger?: Some Think Its Time to Stop Excluding Foreign-Born Citizens from Serving in the Oval Office, S. F. CHRON., Nov. 2, 2003, at D1. 11. A Constitutional Anachronism, Editorial, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 6, 2003, at A10. The United States Code clarifies some of the ambiguities regarding who is and who is not considered a natural born citizen. See 8 U.S.C. 14011408 (2000). 12. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A.
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
277
278
[Vol 81:275
abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about globalization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment. I. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND OF THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT
For a provision that excludes millions of Americans from having the opportunity to become the next American president, the natural born citizen requirement was added to the Constitution with surprisingly little fanfare. Unlike many other Constitutional provisions that were debated during the Constitutional Convention or analyzed in the Federalist Papers, very little written evidence exists regarding the addition of the natural born citizen requirement to the presidential eligibility clause.13 Despite the lack of clear evidence, many commentators trace the origin of the provision to a letter written by John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention in 1787.14 The letter recommended that the drafters provide a strong check against the admission of foreigners into the government and expressly require that the commander-in-chief be a natural born citizen.15 Specifically, Jay wrote:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.16
Poland and carved up that country for themselves.18 Additionally, some believe that the Founding Fathers were concerned about the possibility that the power of the new government would end up in the hands of a single leader.19 Furthermore, at the time of the Constitutions drafting, each state defined citizenship in its own way; therefore, some historians speculate that the natural born citizen provision was adopted in an effort to ensure that every citizen who was eligible for the presidency achieved citizenship in the same manner.20 Yet, even though commentators, scholars, and historians have tried to determine exactly why the Founding Fathers adopted this phrase, no explanation of the origin or purpose of the presidential qualification clause appears anywhere in the recorded deliberations of the Convention.21 Despite the fact that limited information exists about why the founding fathers included the natural born citizen requirement in the Constitution, Article II has never been amended since the adoption of the Constitution in 1789. Throughout the years, several members of Congress have proposed changing the natural born citizen requirement to allow naturalized citizens to become President,22 but none of these proposed amendments has generated two-thirds of the Congressional votes needed to be presented to the states for ratification.23 Most recently, Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, proposed an amendment that would allow an immigrant who has been naturalized for twenty years to run for President.24 The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the amendment in October 2004 but took no action.25 United States Representative Dana Rohrabacher from California has also introduced a similar Constitutional amendment in the House.26 Additionally, Representative Vic Snyder from Arkansas has pro18. Haddock, supra note 10, at D1. 19. It is reported that the fear of foreign influence gave rise to the Electoral College because people believed that foreign agents would find it impossible to penetrate and corrupt a presidential election due to the existence of the Electoral College system. Ray OHanlon, Arnie Could Break Presidential Mould; Letter From New York, IRISH NEWS, Oct. 14, 2003, at 8. 20. Haddock, supra note 10, at D1. 21. J. Michael Medina, The Presidential Qualification Clause in this Bicentennial Year: The Need to Eliminate the Natural Born Citizen Requirement, 12 OKLA. CITY U. L. REV. 253, 260 (1987) (quoting Gordon, supra note 14, at 4). 22. The idea of abolishing the natural born citizen requirement has died in Congress more than two dozen times since the 1870s. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A. 23. Id. The requirements for amending the Constitution are set forth in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. CONST. art. V. 24. Chris Andrews, White House out of Reach: Not All Americans Are EqualPath to Presidency Blocked for Naturalized Citizens, LANSING ST. J., Jan. 9, 2005, at 1A. 25. Id. 26. Id.
Many commentators believe that Jay wrote this letter to respond to a rumor that the Convention was secretly designing a monarchy to be ruled by a foreign power.17 Regardless of whether this letter prompted the inclusion of the natural born citizen requirement, many believe that, at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, Americans had a general fear of foreign influence after witnessing how Austria, Prussia, and Russia infiltrated
13. Time for a Change?: Should Concerns Rooted Firmly in the 18th Century Still Disqualify Immigrants from Serving as President?, supra note 7, at B6. 14. Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MD. L. REV. 1, 5 (1968). 15. Id. 16. Id. 17. Id.
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
283
284
[Vol 81:275
branches of government as well as the effective checks and balances in todays government make this scenario extremely unlikely. Therefore, because the basis for initially including the natural born citizen clause is no longer as necessary as it once may have been, the requirement has become an outdated remnant from a previous era. It is a remnant that should be repealed because globalization has caused the world to change significantly since the time of the drafting of the Constitution, and because the federal government is no longer as open to the possibility of foreign subversion as it might have been in the late 18th century.41 C. Place of Birth Is Not a Proxy for Loyalty
The Constitution should be amended because birthplace is not a proxy for loyalty. One of the reasons for having presidential eligibility requirements is to ensure that the person that Americans choose to be their leader is a good American. The leader of the free world needs to have numerous qualities, and arguably the most important is that the individual be loyal to America. Unfortunately, where a person is born tells nothing of a persons loyalty or whether that person will be a good president. Moreover, place of birth is not something that a person chooses. For example, many Americans view the actor Tom Hanks as a loyal and arguably good American, while those same Americans may perceive the actor Martin Sheen as decidedly un-American or disloyal because of his political views. However, both Martin Sheen and Tom Hanks are natural born Americans.42 Similarly, many people consider the comedian Bob Hope to have been a good Americanafter all, he spent countless holidays traveling around the world entertaining U.S. soldiers; yet Bob Hope was not a natural born American citizen. He was born in England.43 In contrast, John Walker Lindh, the twenty-year-old American who was captured while fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan was born in Washington, D.C., and therefore is eligible to run for President.44 Ultimately, the natural born citizen requirement is illogical because it requires a persons birthplace to act as a proxy for determining an individ41. See Let Arnold Run, supra note 38, at 16 (referring to the natural born citizen requirement as an outdated and pointless piece of discrimination). 42. Tom Hanks was born in Concord, California. Tom Hanks, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Hanks (last visited Sept. 2, 2005). Martin Sheen was born in Dayton, Ohio. Martin Sheen, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Sheen (last visited Sept. 2, 2005). 43. Charlie LeDuff, Bob Hope Turns 100, With Quiet Thanks for the Memories, N.Y. TIMES, May 30, 2003, at A18. 44. Paul Bradley, Lindh, Who Fought For Taliban, Gets 20 Years, RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH, Oct. 5, 2002, at A6.
uals loyalty to America. Birthplace may at one time have been a more accurate indicator of persons loyalty to their native country than it is today because 200 years ago people rarely moved from one country to another. In todays world, people are much more likely to move from one country to another and to raise their children in a country different from the country that is their homeland. This increased movement of people in the world and the resulting lack of differences between cultures decreases the effectiveness of using a persons place of birth as an indicator of that persons loyalty.45 Accordingly, the natural born citizen provision should be repealed because it does not determine whether a person is a loyal American and therefore does not provide insight into whether a person should be eligible for the presidency. D. The Natural Born Citizen Requirement Is Undemocratic
America is a land of opportunity.46 People come to America for the opportunities that it provides. They leave their homelands, leave their families, and move to America because they know that they will be treated fairly and have the same opportunities as their next-door neighbors. After all, the Pilgrims originally left England and moved to America to have the opportunity to practice their religion without fear of retaliation. The practice of limiting the opportunities available to people in one segment of the population simply because those people were born in a foreign country runs counter to the American concept of equality. More importantly, limiting presidential eligibility based on place of birth is contrary to the American concept of democracy. The American government is a representative democracy, where American voters vote for the candidate that they choose. Currently, Americans cannot do that. For example, even if every voter wanted to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger in the next presidential election (implausible as that may be), Governor Schwarzenegger would not be able to become the next President of the United States solely because he was not born in this country. Preventing Americans from being able to vote for the candidate that they choose is undemocratic. Although some may argue that the other presidential qualifications prevent American voters from having
45. The natural-born citizen requirement embodies the presumption that some citizens of the United States are a bit more authentic, a bit more trustworthy, a bit more American than other citizens of the United States, namely those who are naturalized. Kennedy, supra note 1, at 176. 46. Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 486 (1979) (Powell, J., dissenting) (referring to America as the land of opportunity for diverse ethnic and racial groups); President William Jefferson Clinton, State of the Union 1995, Jan, 24, 1995 reprinted in The Presidents Address: We Heard America Shouting, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 25, 1995, at A17 (America has always been a land of opportunity, a land where, if you work hard, you can get ahead.).
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
285
286
[Vol 81:275
the ability to vote for the candidate of their choice, the natural born citizen requirement is inherently different than the other requirements. For example, Americans cannot vote for someone who is under the age of thirty-five or for someone who has not lived in the United States for fourteen years. However, the requirement that someone be a natural born citizen is inherently different than the other qualifications because a persons place of birth is immutable. Barring calamity, a thirty-three-year-old will eventually become thirty-five years old. Similarly, a person who is unable to meet the fourteen-year residency requirement could move to the United States and live here for fourteen years in order to be eligible for the presidency. A persons age and length of residency are not immutable. They can change as time progresses, and when they do, the American public will be able to use the democratic system to vote for the candidate of their choice. In contrast, the requirement that a person be a natural born citizen is undemocratic because it prevents Americans from ever having the opportunity to vote for a naturalized citizen. Additionally, globalization is the impetus that should compel Americans to change this practice of only allowing natural born citizens to be president because one of Americas major exports is its belief in democracy and the beliefs surrounding the democratic system. Specifically, throughout its history, America has consistently tried to encourage other nations to adopt democratic systems and to convince other countries that freedom of speech, free press, and equality for every citizen are necessary ingredients for a successful democracy.47 Globalization and the increase of movement of people between countries make the American concept of democracy more and more visible throughout the world, resulting in other countries looking towards America as an example of a successful democracy.48 The existence of an anti-democratic and discriminatory provision such as the natural born citizen requirement in the American Constitution means that Americans do not practice what they preach.49 To continue to set the
47. The current situation in Iraq is the most recent example of America exportation of democracy to other countries. 48. As one commentator testifying before the House Judiciary Committee noted: Eliminating the natural-born citizen requirement from the Constitution would also send a powerful message to people around the world about this nations commitment to equal rights. We will judge all or [sic] our citizens on their merits, this change would say, not on their place of birth. In these troubled times, a statement of this type can only serve to enhance our reputation as the worlds standard bearer for democratic values. Maximizing Voter Choice: Opening the Presidency to Naturalized Americans: Before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee (Oct. 5, 2004) (written testimony of Professor John Yinger, Trustee Professor of Public Administration and Economics, The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University) available at http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=3885. 49. This conflict between what America preaches by exporting democracy and what America practices by maintaining an undemocratic requirement such as the natural born citizen requirement
right democratic example for others to follow, globalization dictates that America should lead by example and amend the Constitution to end discriminating against citizens based on their place of birth. III. ARGUMENTS AGAINST A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND WHY COMMON AMERICAN PERCEPTIONS OF GLOBALIZATION WILL PREVENT THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT FROM BEING ABOLISHED Although the increase in globalization has made the natural born citizen clause a relic of the past, the reality is that American perceptions about globalization will permit Americans to rely on their illogical fears and insecurities and reject any attempt to abolish the requirement. The first portion of this section will identify reasons why many Americans will choose not to abolish the natural born citizen requirement and highlight why many of these reasons are based on emotion rather than on reason. The second half of this section will identify some common reactions and beliefs about globalization and argue that these beliefs will be the justification that Americans seek to allow them to rely on their irrational fears rather than logic when they vote against a Constitutional amendment. A. Reasons to Oppose Abolishing the Natural Born Citizen Requirement
The following section will identify some of the reasons that Americans will rely on for not amending the Constitution. Not all of these reasons are illogical; however, many of them are based on emotional beliefs about what it means to be a natural born citizen, and others are based simply on generalized fear. Additionally, although I would prefer to refer to the reasons in this section as the most popular or the most frequently cited reasons that Americans cite for not amending the Constitution, the truth is that some of these reasons are not things that people openly admit. People rarely write law review or newspaper articles touting their personal racist beliefs and admitting that the reason why they would not want to see a
could affect how the world views America. Joseph Nye, Dean of Harvards Kennedy School of Government believes that soft power, the ability to get what you want by attracting and persuading others to adopt your goals, is a powerful tool to be used in foreign relations. Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Soft Power: Propaganda Isnt the Way, INTL HERALD TRIB., Jan. 10, 2003, at 6. However, this ability to attract others depends on your credibility. Id. If you are not credible, it will be increasingly difficult to convince others to do what you want through soft power alone and you will have to resort to hard power, the ability to use the carrots and sticks of economic and military might to make others follow your will, in order to achieve your goals. Id. Accordingly, if one of Americas goals is to export democracy without having to resort to economic sanctions or military action, the existence of this antidemocratic provision in our Constitution detracts from Americas credibility. This lack of credibility could cause other countries to view America negatively, thereby limiting the effectiveness of our soft power, which may prevent America from achieving its goal of exporting democracy.
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
287
288
[Vol 81:275
naturalized citizen in the White House is because they believe that a naturalized citizen is more likely to be a race other than Caucasian. Therefore, although not all of the following reasons are frequently discussed in articles debating the merits of amending the Constitution, I believe that they carry significant force and play an important role in a persons decision-making process. 1. Fear of Change
have faith that the Founding Fathers made the best decisions for America.54 Ultimately, whether fear of amending the Constitution is rational or irrational, the reality is that many Americans will oppose a Constitutional amendment to the natural born citizen clause because they are afraid that a Constitutional amendment will diminish the stability of the law in America and will move America further away from its roots.55 2. This provision just does not affect that many people.
Many Americans fear change. Admittedly, Americans do not fear all change. Although Americans tend to embrace change in certain areas such as technology, medicine, and manufacturing, a large number of Americans are hesitant to tinker with traditional American institutions such as the Constitution50 because of the possible consequences that may result.51 Specifically, people fear that passing a constitutional amendment will somehow destabilize the American legal system because any amendment to the Constitution opens the door for others to push forward Constitutional amendments to advance their own causes.52 The thought of an onslaught of amendments to the Constitution scares people into thinking that the Constitution will soon become nothing more than the United States Codea set of laws that changes based on the whims of societyrather than the supreme law of the land to be amended only when absolutely necessary.53 Moreover, people are afraid that each amendment represents a movement away from the original intent of the Founding Fathers. A substantial number of Americans believe in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and
Additionally, opponents of a Constitutional amendment argue that even if it makes logical sense to allow naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency, the natural born citizen clause simply does not affect enough people to justify a constitutional amendment. Unlike the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, or the Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, the number of citizens that the natural born citizen clause discriminates against is relatively minimal. In addition to not affecting a huge class of people like the Thirteenth or Nineteenth Amendments, preventing someone from being eligible for the presidency is not as extreme as denying someone the right to be free or the right to vote because of the unlikelihood that a naturalized citizen will ever become president. When slavery was abolished, every slave was liberated. When women were given the right to vote, every woman was able to vote. In contrast, if the natural born citizen requirement is passed, not every naturalized citizen will run (or even want to run) for president. Only forty-three people have ever been president of the United States, and even though this provision discriminates against naturalized citizens, many argue that this discrimination is so limited in scope that it does not warrant the extraordinary remedy of a Constitutional amendment.56
50. Tom Blackburn, Amending the Constitution Hard, for a Reason, COX NEWS SERVICE, Nov. 28, 2004 (Most Americans are averse to tinkering with the Constitution.). 51. This fear of change can be seen in the recent debate over whether the phrase under God should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Even though this phrase was only inserted into the Pledge in 1954, many people believe that it has become part of the social fabric of America and should not be removed; however, others argue that it should be removed because the phrase violates the division between church and state. See KeepThePledge.com, Defending the Pledge of Allegiance and American Freedom, http://keepthepledge.com (last visited June 20, 2005); see also Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004). 52. See Michael McGough, Editorial, Guns and the Governator: Two Reasons to Amend the U.S. Constitution, but Some Liberals Dont Want to Alter a Jot or Tittle of that Scripture, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, Jan. 3, 2005, at A-15 (recognizing that Americans desire to change the Constitution may be dulled because the Constitution is under assault by various zealots who would amend itin order to ban the virtually non-existent problem of flag burning, to make discrimination official with a gay-marriage prohibition, to take powers away from the Supreme Court to rule on such issues as the Pledge of Allegiance). 53. Although this slippery slope argument has some basis in reason, the fact remains that the difficult amendment process should prevent an amendment such as removing the natural born citizen requirement from opening the floodgates for an influx of other constitutional amendments.
54. See Editorial, Unnatural Act?/Foreign-Born Citizens Dont Need to Become President, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, Oct. 11, 2004, at A-10 (It is a brave person who contradicts the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.). 55. It could be argued that this fear of change is one of the primary reasons why the Constitution has been amended only 27 times in the last 225 years. See Haddock, supra note 10, at D1 (noting that a constitutional amendment requires a swell of public support); see also Mathews, supra note 27, at A1 (noting that only twenty-seven of more than 10,000 proposed Constitutional amendments have succeeded). 56. See Unnatural Act?/Foreign Born Citizens Dont Need to Become President, supra note 54 ([A] good reason exists why other generations havent rushed to change the situationthis isnt a problem and it doesnt need the drastic remedy of a constitutional overhaul. . . . President and vice president are the only offices in the land that naturalized citizens cant aspire to, but millions of Americans, by virtue of their circumstances and talents, cant reasonably expect to either. Only 43 men have been president, so the injustice of Article II is very marginal.).
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
289
290
[Vol 81:275
3.
Fear of Foreigners
Although people arguing against a Constitutional amendment do not typically admit that they oppose abolishing the natural born citizen requirement because they are afraid that a naturalized citizen might actually be working for a foreign government, the fear of foreigners amongst Americans has increased in the wake of the September 11th attacks. Similar to the fears that the Founding Fathers felt and the fear that John Jay mentioned in his letter to George Washington, the possibility that a foreigner will come in and somehow take over America continues to exist in America, albeit in a slightly different form.57 Although it seems unlikely and has even been called ludicrous that a foreign power would conspire to place someone with foreign allegiances in the White House,58 some Americans more legitimately fear that a naturalized citizen will somehow try to change America by promoting his own culture to the exclusion of others. For example, a foreign-born president could soften immigration policies towards immigrants coming from his home country, or allow his previous ties to a different country to influence certain foreign policy decisions such as whether to attack another country, when to issue economic sanctions against that country, or when to provide that country with American aid.59 Although these concerns may appear reasonable,60 this argument fails to recognize that a person seeking to become president will face intense public scrutiny during the election process, making it doubtful that anyone would be able to come to the presidency with a hidden agenda regarding a foreign country. Therefore, although people may claim that they do not want a foreign-born person in the White House because of the influ57. Unlike the situation today, the Founding Fathers were presumably afraid of foreigners out of fear that they were working for another sovereign. In contrast, today people are afraid of terrorists who are not working for a foreign government. Typically, todays terrorists are groups of people who share the same ideological beliefs and goals. See generally FRONTLINE, infra note 63. 58. Time for a Change?: Should Concerns Rooted Firmly in the 18th Century Still Disqualify Immigrants from Serving as President?, supra note 7, at B6. 59. As one commentator noted: Heres another scenario. Lets say foreigners are allowed to run for president, and someone from France gets elected. Hes a great, upstanding individual with great ideas for this countrys future. How do you think he would react if, during his term, we had to go to war against France, his homeland, a place where many of his relatives still reside? Will Gardner, Editorial, Foreign-Born Not Fit for Presidency, THE POST ONLINE, Jan. 31, 2005, http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/E.php?article=E4&date=013105. 60. If this generalized fear of foreigners was a rational reason to oppose amending the Constitution, one would assume that the natural born citizen requirement would extend to other high-ranking political positions in the United States. However, the prohibition against naturalized citizens only applies to the president and the vice-president. Naturalized citizens are eligible to run for the Senate, to sit on the Supreme Court, and to be the Secretary of State. See Lawrence J. Siskind, Editorial, Arnold for Prez: Fix the Constitution and Let Foreign-Born Citizens Run for the White House, LEGAL TIMES, Jan. 3, 2005, at 28, 29.
ence that a persons foreign status may have on that persons policy decisions, the truth is that many people simply distrust foreigners.61 Distrust of foreigners is nothing new. The Founding Fathers distrusted foreigners so much that they included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution initially. Although some people argue that a general distrust of foreigners is merely thinly veiled racism,62 older Americans may believe that their fear of foreigners is legitimate after having lived through World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. Although people hope that this fear diminishes as these events fade into history, events such as September 11th continue to bring this fear back to the forefront in the minds of Americans. Accordingly, even though being afraid of foreigners may seem warranted and rational in the wake of September 11th, relying on this fear as a reason not to amend the natural born citizen requirement is irrational because it is doubtful that a threat to America today would come from a foreign country. It is more likely that a threat would come from a group of people who are not officially sanctioned by any one particular foreign government, but instead are trying to achieve an agenda that includes destroying America.63 However, because the fear of terrorism often translates into a generalized fear of everything non-American,64 and some Americans believe that naturalized citizens are not as American as natural born citizens because of their ties to another country, fear of foreigners may be one of the main reasons why people will refuse to vote for a constitutional amendment regarding presidential eligibility.
61. According to Forrest McDonald, a retired University of Alabama professor of American History, Most Americans have an instinctive distrust of foreigners . . . and this has not changed appreciably in the last two, three, four years. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A. 62. See Dean, supra note 30. 63. For example, Osama bin Ladens movement against America is not meant to defend a foreign country; the purpose is to defend Muslim land. As Osama bin Laden stated in an interview with John Miller from ABC: Allah has ordered us to glorify the truth and to defend Muslim land, especially the Arab peninsula . . . against the unbelievers. After World War II, the Americans grew more unfair and more oppressive towards people in general and Muslims in particular. . . . The Americans started it and retaliation and punishment should be carried out following the principle of reciprocity, especially when women and children are involved. Through history, American [sic] has not been known to differentiate between the military and the civilians or between men and women or adults and children. Those who threw atomic bombs and used the weapons of mass destruction against Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the Americans. . . . We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. Interview by John Miller with Osama bin Laden, in Afghanistan, May 1998, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html. 64. Recent polls suggest that two-thirds of the country is not ready for a foreign-born president. And broad anecdotal evidence, admittedly less scientific, indicates that we pretty much still hate immigrants. Gersh Kuntzman, American Beat: Hyphenated in the U.S.A., NEWSWEEK, Oct. 27, 2003.
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
291
292
[Vol 81:275
A good illustration of Americans fear and distrust of foreigners can be seen through an analysis of Americas views on racial profiling both before and after September 11th. Prior to September 11th, many Americans believed that racial profiling was merely a method of discriminating against foreigners.65 However, post-September 11th, public opinion on this topic shifted markedly.66 Post-September 11th, many Americans came to believe that the need to protect national security justified the use of racial profiling. People throughout the country became suspicious of foreigners, even those foreigners who were actually American citizens.67 Ultimately, this fear, whether rational or irrational, will most certainly affect whether Americans abolish the natural born citizen requirement. 4. Loyalty
Along the same lines as a generalized fear of foreigners, opponents of a constitutional amendment argue that foreign-born citizens should not be eligible for the presidency because foreign-born citizens retain an emotional attachment and a sense of loyalty to their homelands. As California Senator Diane Feinstein noted, I dont think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen. . . . Your allegiance is driven by your birth.68 Accordingly, Americans fear that a president who has an attachment to another country may allow that attachment to affect the decisions that he or she makes.69 Americans expect the
65. According to Professor Ramirez, [N]ational surveys conducted prior to September 11 indicated that a majority of Americans, regardless of race, believed that racial profiling was a significant social problem. According to a national Gallup Poll released on December 9, 1999, fifty-nine percent of the adults polled believed that the police actively engaged in racial profiling and, more significantly, eightyone percent said that they disapproved of the practice. Deborah Ramirez et al., Defining Racial Profiling in a Post-September 11 World, 40 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 1195, 11991200 (2003). 66. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center towers, racial profiling has taken on new significance and has left people who were previously committed to eradicating racial profiling less sure of where they stand. Id. at 1224. A practice that once was considered by many to be a blatant civil rights violation is now accepted by some as a necessary tactic during a time of terrorism. Id. According to a Gallup Poll, forty-nine percent of Americans would support a practice of Arabs and Arab-Americans, United States citizens or not, being forced to carry a special identification card; fifty-eight percent would support requiring Arabs to undergo more security checks at airports. Id. at 1225. 67. See Phil Hirschkorn & Michael Okwu, Airline Faces Post 9/11 Racial Profiling, Discrimination Suits, June 4, 2002, CNN.COM, http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/04/airlines.discrimination/ (explaining how three American citizen passengers are suing four U.S. airlines for allegedly discriminating against them based on race). 68. Siskind, supra note 60, at 29. 69. Along these same lines, it is impossible to know whether a person who was born in Mexico and came to live in America as a child has more or less of an emotional tie to Mexico than a person who was born in America to a Mexican-American family and culture.
president to put the United States above everything else. The American president must be prepared to make decisions for the good of the country. Whether a candidate is prepared to do that should be one of the primary inquiries of each presidential hopeful, not where the individual was born. Although the argument that naturalized citizens will have emotional ties to their homeland seems like a rational reason to oppose amending the natural born citizen clause, this argument fails to take into account the various situations under which many immigrants come to the United States. Many immigrants come to the United States to escape persecution in their own countries. Many naturalized Americans have been forced to risk their own lives and the lives of their children to escape tyrannical governments in their home country. Accordingly, these individuals may be more likely than natural born citizens to be loyal to America, the country that provided them with an opportunity to live free from fear of persecution.70 Secondly, deciding not to vote for an amendment abolishing the natural born citizen requirement because a potential presidential candidate may be loyal to his place of birth ignores the fact that many naturalized citizens believe very strongly in America and the opportunities available to immigrants in America because they did not have those same opportunities in their homelands. As Arnold Schwarzenegger stated in his speech at the Republican National Convention:
[I]n this country, it doesnt make any difference where you were born. It doesnt make any difference who your parents were. It doesnt make any difference if, like me, you couldnt even speak English until you were in your 20s. America gave me opportunities, and my immigrant dreams came true. I want other people to get the same chances I did, the same opportunities.71
Furthermore, voting against an amendment abolishing the natural born citizen requirement ignores the fact that many naturalized citizens made a conscious decision to live in the United States. They are not here simply by an accident at birth. Many of these immigrants risked their lives and left their family, friends, and culture to make America their home. These people often do not know anyone in the United States, are unfamiliar with the culture, and cannot even speak the language. Additionally, a naturalized citizen, unlike a natural born citizen, makes a conscious decision to become
70. Siskind, supra note 60, at 29 (Foreign-born Americans, particularly those from totalitarian countries, tend to be the most fiercely loyal of all citizens.). 71. Todd S. Purdum, Upbeat Republicans Revive Bush Theme of Compassion, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 1, 2004, at A1.
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
293
294
[Vol 81:275
a U.S. citizen and has to take an oath of allegiance to the United States.72 Citizenship is not automatic like it is for natural born citizens. Therefore, although believing that a foreign-born citizen should not be president because he has an emotional tie to his homeland may be a valid reason to vote against amending the constitution, this belief fails to take into account the rigors and sacrifices that naturalized citizens make in order to have the opportunities of American citizenship. 5. Failing to Understand What It Means to Be a Natural Born Citizen
criminatory practice, the failure of Americans to fully understand who is and who is not a natural born citizen may very well prevent a Constitutional amendment from passing simply because people do not truly understand what they are being asked to vote for. 6. Racism and Religious Intolerance
Additionally, Americans may oppose amending the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to run for president because they do not understand the difference between being a natural born citizen and being a naturalized citizen. Specifically, they do not understand what it takes to become a naturalized citizen.73 Therefore, when asked if the Constitution should be amended to allow naturalized citizens to run for president, many people may respond, No, I dont want a foreigner to be president. An American should be president. Even though naturalized citizens are Americans who have satisfied very strict requirements before being eligible to become citizens, requirements that natural born citizens have not had to satisfy, some Americans believe that naturalized citizens are less American than natural born citizens. Although the ignorance of the American people sounds like a foolish and embarrassing reason for refusing to doing away with this dis72. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America, http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/history/teacher/oath.htm (last visited June 20, 2005). The naturalization oath states: I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. Id. 73. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services website lists the following general requirements for a person to become a naturalized citizen: 1. Live in the U.S. as a permanent resident for a specific amount of time (Continuous Residence). 2. Be present in the U.S. for specific time periods (Physical Presence). 3. Spend specific amounts of time in your state or district (Time in District or State). 4. Behave in a legal and acceptable manner (Good Moral Character). 5. Know English and information about U.S. history and government (English and Civics). 6. Understand and accept the principles of the U.S. Constitution (Attachment to the Constitution). United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Becoming a U.S. Citizen, http://uscis.gov/graphics/citizenship/becoming.htm (last visited June 20, 2005).
It is an unfortunate truth that many Americans are racist. Although tremendous progress has been made in race relations throughout this countrys history, and especially within the last fifty years, racism continues to exist in American politics. For example, black candidates rarely generate enough votes to be elected, and researchers believe that this is primarily because white voters are reluctant to vote for a black candidate.74 This reluctance to vote for a non-white candidate75 may cause voters to oppose amending the natural born citizen clause because they fear that this is a first step toward having someone who is not white occupying the White House. This fear is irrational because non-white citizens are just as capable of being president as white citizens, and non-white natural born citizens, under the existing language of Article II, are eligible to be president. Despite these facts, it is possible that some Americans will oppose a Constitutional amendment because of their racist beliefs. Similarly, there is a chance that Americans will not vote to amend the natural born citizen requirement for religious reasons.76 America faced the
74. See Patrick Reddy, For Black Candidates, A Ceiling of Their Own, WASH. POST, Jan. 19, 2003, at B4. Reddy highlights the impact that racism plays on politics and attempts to answer the question, Why do mediocre white candidates often win the highest-level jobs while stellar black candidates succeed only when everything goes right? There seems to be a tinted glass ceiling preventing black candidates from reaching the top officesa ceiling held in place by a hard-core group of white voters who, in the words of former Congressional Black Caucus chairman Parren Mitchell, wouldnt vote for you, if you were black, even if you walked on water. Id. 75. Id. This reluctance to vote for a non-white candidate is apparent through an analysis of preelection and post-election polling figures. Id. Pollsters have found that it is common for white voters [to tell] interviewers that they are undecided and then [to vote] 10 to 1 against a black candidate. Id. Moreover, research demonstrates that on average, the margin in the actual election results differs from the margin in the pre-election poll by 10 percentage points to the white candidates favor. Id. When Anglo voters were asked by a pollster, they would indicate that they were supporting [the black candidate] because they didnt want to be perceived as a bigot. But in the privacy of the voting booth, they may have voted differently. Matt Hendrix, Suppressed Prejudices Could Dash Kirks Senate Bid, DAILY TEXAN, Oct. 14, 2002, at 4. 76. A recent posting on a weblog included what its author would like to see if the presidential eligibility clause were to be amended. Given the choice to amend the Constitution I would place the following requirements on the Presidential Nominee and the same for VP or a member of the Presidential Cabinet. Parents: Both US born, Christian, raised and educated, Nominee: US born, Christian, raised and educated with four years active military service. (preferably one who has seen combat on the ground and the fighting from a foxhole when an enemy was trying to kill him.) I want a President who knows and understands that America was founded under the Christian philosophy, not Hindu or Muslim.
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
295
296
[Vol 81:275
religion question when John Fitzgerald Kennedy ran for President in 1960. Kennedy was the first Catholic ever to serve as President and many people in the country feared that this would somehow influence him while he was in office.77 Although it is doubtful today that Americans would have much to say if a Catholic was running for President, religion would likely be a central issue if a Muslim were to run for the highest office in America. Even though this concern is not a legitimate reason to vote against abolishing the natural born citizen clause because many natural born Americans are Muslims, many Americans may oppose a Constitutional amendment because of the possibility that a naturalized citizen would be more likely to be a Muslim, Hindu, or some other religion besides Christian. 7. The Signal this Amendment Would Send to the Rest of the World
policy indicates otherwise. Specifically, the United States government, led by the President who is elected by the people, takes great care in preserving its position as the worlds only superpower.80 In light of this consistent policy, it is doubtful that Americans will support an amendment to the presidential eligibility clause because this could send the wrong signal to the rest of the world. 8. The President as a Symbol of America
Americans may oppose a Constitutional amendment because of the international perception that it would create. Even though the increase of globalization dictates that America should amend the natural born citizen requirement, Americans may oppose a Constitutional amendment because this type of change would signal to the rest of the world that America is willing to be one country of many and that Americans are interested in becoming part of a global world culture. Commentators refer to the symbolic nature of the law as the expressive function of law and recognize that Constitutional amendments may have a dual effect.78 For example, a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning may not only deter people from burning American flags but also signal how important patriotism is to America.79 Similarly, opponents of a Constitutional amendment to amend the natural born citizen clause may believe that such an amendment would have dual effects. In addition to allowing naturalized citizens to become president, this amendment would signal to the global community that Americans want to become integrated with the rest of the world and that Americans no longer feel the need to be the leading country in the world but are content in being on equal footing with every other country. Although some Americans may believe that the expressive function of a Constitutional amendment is a positive signal to send, United States foreign
Posting of B4Ranch to Free Republic, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1294714/posts (Dec. 5, 2004, 5:28 PST). 77. Herbert G. Klein, Bushs Win, Bushs Challenge, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Nov. 14, 2004, at G6. 78. See Cass R. Sunstein, On the Expressive Function of Law, 144 U. PA. L. REV. 2021, 2023 (1996). 79. Id.
Another powerful argument against abolishing the natural born citizen clause is based on the American tradition and history surrounding the presidency. Americans view the presidency not only as a symbol of America and American values but also as a symbol of Americas power and strength. Symbols such as flags, ribbons, songs, and phrases have been important parts of the American cultural landscape, and although some people may not believe that the president is a symbol simply because he is a human being, the president and the presidency represent the traditions of America. Not only is the president the direct product of the American democratic system, but in his position as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the president symbolizes the strength of Americas military power and supremacy in the world. Accordingly, some Americans may believe that any change to the requirements for presidential eligibility will begin to chip away at the traditions and values of America that the presidency represents.81 Although this may seem like an irrational reason for not abolishing discrimination against naturalized citizens, Americans may find that the symbolism behind the presidency is more important than the limited discrimination that the natural born citizen provision causes. An interesting situation arises when one stops to consider what impact globalization will have on symbols such as flags, songs, and the presidency. Although Americans need for symbols may lessen as the world becomes smaller and nations become more homogenized, it is possible that the continued expansion of globalization will force Americans to cling to these symbols in order to preserve the American identity. This need to preserve the American identity may very well be one of the main reasons why
80. See CHI. COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, GLOBAL VIEWS 2004: AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION AND FOREIGN POLICY 1 (2004) (The United States is the worlds undisputed military and economic superpower. It has a more formidable global presence than ever, maintaining approximately 700 military installations abroad in 2003 and spending as much on defense in 2004 as the next 20 nations combined.). 81. Whoever holds this office represents our country to the world. He or she is the embodiment of what we are all about. In my eyes, for someone to fit the aforementioned criteria, he or she has to be a natural-born U.S. citizen. Gardner, supra note 59.
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
297
298
[Vol 81:275
Americans will view globalization in a negative light. Once this occurs, the impetus for repealing the natural born citizen clause ceases to have much force. Accordingly, Americans may rely on their belief that globalization is effectively eating away at America by lessening the strength of symbols such as the presidency to justify their decision to leave the natural born citizen requirement in place. B. Common Perceptions About Globalization
As noted previously, globalization provides a number of rational reasons to amend the Constitution and abolish the natural born citizen requirement. However, globalization and Americans perceptions regarding globalization will also be a reason why Americans irrational beliefs will prevail over the rational reasons.82 Whether these perceptions about globalization are valid or are actually misconceptions is not really the issue. Regardless of their validity, these perceptions about globalization will convince the American public to oppose a Constitutional amendment. This section will identify some of these common beliefs83 about globalization and identify why these beliefs will cause Americans to fall back on their emotional beliefs and lead them to vote against a proposed Constitutional amendment. 1. Americans do not understand globalization.
have trouble understanding this because he sees globalization as it is portrayed on television. He is likely to see globalization as the idea of spreading McDonalds and Hollywood throughout the world.84 As Thomas Friedman recognized, [G]lobalization is in so many ways Americanization: globalization wears Mickey Mouse ears, it drinks Pepsi and Coke, eats Big Macs, [and] does its computing on an I.B.M. laptop with Windows 98.85 Because these Americans do not understand that globalization is a two way street, including not only the exportation of American ideals and products but also the importation of foreign influences, products, and technology into America, many Americans are unlikely to feel that an increase in globalization is a good reason to change a 216-year-old presidential eligibility requirement. This failure to appreciate that globalization is about more than just spreading American products, ideals, and values throughout the world will effectively prevent people from understanding why the increase in globalization makes the natural born citizen requirement objectionable. 2. America as the World Leader
One common belief about globalization that may influence whether Americans rely on the rational reasons versus the emotion-based reasons is that globalization is really nothing more than the Americanization of the world. Many Americans simply do not understand the nature of the global economy and the concept of a global culture. Although it may be clear to scholars and economists that globalization is about the world coming together both culturally and economically, a typical American citizen may
82. It is important to remember the difficulty that any Constitutional amendment faces. The sheer groundswell of support needed to have an amendment pass by two-thirds of the Congress and then to be ratified by three-fourths of the states is an enormous hurdle. See supra notes 22, 23 and accompanying text. 83. It should be noted that these beliefs about globalization are certainly not the only beliefs about globalization, and some would argue that more positive beliefs about globalization are slowly replacing the negative or indifferent views expressed in this paper. See infra note 86. However, this paper does not argue whether Americans view globalization positively versus negatively; this paper argues that the negative or indifferent beliefs about globalization are plentiful enough to justify Americans reliance on irrational fears rather than logical reasoning to avoid amending the Constitutions natural born citizen requirement. Therefore, even though Americans may be slowly becoming more accepting of globalization, there is simply not enough positive public support for globalization to make a Constitutional amendment a likely possibility.
Additionally, a common reaction to globalization from Americans is that globalization can only bring America down. Although globalization, from an academic standpoint, sounds impressive and useful, the idea that America will benefit from cultural globalization when viewed from a practical standpoint is somewhat questionable. Americans already see America as the worlds only superpower because of the strength of the American economy and the American military. Accordingly, when faced with whether to vote for a constitutional amendment abolishing the natural born citizen clause, globalization is unlikely to pressure Americans into doing so. Americans are likely to recognize that America is the leader of the world and that America achieved this position without having to change its cultural institutions to be more global; therefore, the only place that America can go by attempting to assimilate with the rest of the world is down. From a practical and short-term standpoint, a belief that globalization is unnecessary may cause Americans to rely on their emotional beliefs rather than reason and oppose amending the Constitution.
84. Thomas L. Friedman, Op-Ed, Angry, Wired, and Deadly, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 22, 1998, at A15. See also Kurt Kuehn, Managing the Brand in an Age of Anti-Americanism, SHIPPING DIG., Oct. 4, 2004, at 78. We know that, increasingly, the line is blurred between globalization and Americanization. For many people, the terms are synonymous. For some, globalization is an American-led phenomenon designed to benefit the U.S. Id. 85. Friedman, supra note 84, at A15.
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM
2006]
299
300
[Vol 81:275
3.
Americans are not prepared to give up the American identity in favor of globalization.
In addition to not wanting to change the Constitution because America is already the world leader, many Americans simply do not believe that globalization is necessary because they see globalization as a process that will cause America to lose its identity. American history, traditions, values, and morals took America from a fledging group of colonies and made America into a superpower. A movement towards globalization, especially cultural globalization, could be seen as stripping America of the attributes that led to her rise in power. As seen in the aftermath of September 11th, Americans are proud of their heritage and proud of their country. Any attempt to change that identity will certainly be viewed with skepticism and this skepticism may concern Americans enough to convince them to leave the Constitution as it is. 4. Globalization as a Threat
and morality. The millions of immigrants in this country bring with them their own cultures, languages, and ways of life. Therefore, the combination of lost jobs and perceived cultural erosion may scare Americans into believing that globalization is not a good thing, and that they should resist globalization by voting against a Constitutional amendment that would essentially be a movement towards globalization. CONCLUSION Ultimately, the emotional reasons to oppose a constitutional amendment abolishing the natural born citizen requirement for presidential eligibility will prevail over the rational reasons because the rational reasons derive, in large part, from the increase in globalization. The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstandings about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization. Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement. Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts. Whether it is because of fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith in the decisions of the Founding Fathers, Americans want to find a way to avoid changing the natural born citizen provision to allow naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency. Ultimately, Americans will rely on the perceived negative effects of globalization, or rather their perceptions of globalizations negative effects, to justify their decision to allow emotion to prevail over reason.
Another issue with globalization is that many Americans see globalization in a negative light because it negatively affects their individual lifestyle.86 Specifically, many Americans believe that Americans are losing their jobs because of economic globalization and the resulting movement of American manufacturing jobs to places in the world where labor is less expensive. Additionally, many people view globalization in terms of Americas immigration policy, believing that allowing widespread immigration directly affects them because many immigrants are willing to work for lower wages than their American counterparts.87 Therefore, increased immigration results in American employers hiring immigrants rather than natural born citizens because employers are able to pay immigrants lower wages. Ultimately, the perception is that a natural born citizen must either accept lower wages in order to compete for jobs with immigrants or lose his job. In addition to these tangible economic perceptions about globalization,88 Americans may also see globalization as a threat to American values
86. Interestingly, although polls indicate that 62% Americans believe that globalization has a good effect on the United States, these same polls indicate that 64% of Americans believe that their way of life needs protection from foreign influence. PEW GLOBAL PROJECT ATTITUDES, VIEWS OF A CHANGING WORLD 85, 94 (June 2003). 87. CHI. COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, supra note 80, at 13, fig. 1-2 (noting that 78% of Americans polled believe that protecting the jobs of American workers should be a very important goal of U.S. foreign policy). 88. See generally Michael Sasso, Little Local Effect Seen on Moving Jobs Abroad, TAMPA TRIB., Oct. 26, 2004, at 1 (recognizing that public perception holds that globalization is hurting the economy and job market).
EXHIBIT 7
Kirkland & Ellis LLP > Herlihy, Sarah P.
Page 1 of 2
First or Last Name
Keyword
Professional Profile Sarah Herlihy is an associate in the litigation practice group. Publications Note, Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle, 81 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 275 (2006) Sarah P. Herlihy sarah.herlihy@kirkland.com Download V-Card Chicago Phone: +1 312-862-7089 Fax: +1 312-862-2200 Featured in Chicago-Kent Report from the Dean: Six Standout Professionals Reinvent Themselves as Law Students Prior Experience Manager of Guest Relations, The Field Museum of Natural History, 2001-2002 Manager of Training and Operational Services, International Theme Park Services, Inc., 1995-2001
Litigation
Courts
2005, Illinois
United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois
Law Clerk to the Honorable Michael M. Mihm, United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, 2005 - 2006
Illinois Institute of Technology, ChicagoKent College of Law, J.D., 2005 with High Honors Order of the Coif Kent Legal Scholar Chicago-Kent Law Review, Executive Articles Editor Moot Court Honor Society: Winner - 2004 Herbert Wechsler National Criminal Law Moot Court Competition Buffalo, New York Second Place Brief 2004 Herbert Wechsler National Criminal Law Moot Court Competition Buffalo, New York
http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=220&itemID=8909
2/28/2010
EXHIBIT 8

----------------------------------------------------------------x In the Quo Warranto and Qui Tam matter of the United States of America (USA) and ex relator Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn., New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws Interpleader, v. Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a Barry Soetoro) c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20500; Obama for America by Martin H. Nesbitt, Treas. PO Box 8102 Chicago, IL 60680; Obama Victory Fund by Andrew Tobias, Treas. 430 South Capitol Street SE Washington DC 20003; Federal Election Commission (FEC), 999 E Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20463; U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Washington Navy Yard Bldg 410, 245 Murray Drive W.S.W. Washington DC 20528 U.S. Department of Treasury (DOT) 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20220; and John and Jan Doe(s); XYZ Entities Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------x
Civil Action:
INTERPLEADER VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR QUO WARRANTO INQUEST AND JURY TRIAL ON DAMAGE RECOVERY
INTRODUCTION: Ex-relator-Interpleader Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse (Strunk), is selfrepresented without being an attorney, having petitioned on January 29, 2010 to intervene with FRCvP Rule 19(a) and Rule 24 in the Quo Warranto matter with FRCvP Rule 81 (A) (2) as the USA and ex-relator plaintiff to supplement the Verified Petition filed January 27, 2010 (the Petition) by Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S. J.D. who is self represented (Taitz, Plaintiff) in Taitz v. Obama DCD 10-cv-00151 (RCL) with a different injury and damages, in which both are
Page 1 of 2
First or Last Name
Keyword
2/28/2010
EXHIBIT 9
20100226MUR
Page 1 of 5
Skip Navigation
ABOUT THE FEC

PRESS OFFICE
News Releases
February 26, 2010
3/1/2010
20100226MUR
Page 3 of 5
OUTCOME:
OUTCOME:
3/1/2010
20100226MUR
Page 4 of 5
OUTCOME:
COMPLAINANTS:
SUBJECT:
OUTCOME:
3/1/2010
20100226MUR
Page 5 of 5
OUTCOME:
Links
eFiling
3/1/2010
EXHIBIT 10
Page 1 of 6

2/22/2010
Page 2 of 6
2/22/2010
Page 3 of 6
2/22/2010
Page 4 of 6
2/22/2010
Page 5 of 6
2/22/2010
Page 6 of 6
copyright
2/22/2010

DCD (RCL) 2010 CV 00486 EX RELATOR STRUNK V OBAMA Et Al. - Quo Warranto - Qui Tam - Conspiracy To Violate Civil Rights

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

DCD (RCL) 2010 CV 00486 EX RELATOR STRUNK V OBAMA Et Al. - Quo Warranto - Qui Tam - Conspiracy To Violate Civil Rights

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EX RELATOR CHRISTOPHER-EARL: STRUNK IN ESSE NOTICE OF MOTION TO

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS

EX RE Plaintiffs Affidavit in support of re-argument

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

Ex-relator Plaintiff Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse (Strunk), whistleblower in privity with

EX RE Plaintiffs Affidavit in support of re-argument

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

EX RE Plaintiffs Affidavit in support of re-argument

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

EX RE Plaintiffs Affidavit in support of re-argument

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

EX RE Plaintiffs Affidavit in support of re-argument

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

esse Christopher-Earl : ~ t r u n l i n Sworn to efore me This d a y of August 2012

EX RE Plaintiffs Affidavit in support of re-argument

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

First Supplement to the proposed Amended Complaint

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

First Supplement to the proposed Amended Complaint

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

First Supplement to the proposed Amended Complaint

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

First Supplement to the proposed Amended Complaint

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

First Supplement to the proposed Amended Complaint

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

First Supplement to the proposed Amended Complaint

First Supplement to the proposed Amended Complaint

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

First Supplement to the proposed Amended Complaint

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 201 0-cv-00486

Dated: August , 2 0 1 2 Brooklyn, New York

First Supplement t o the proposed Amended Complaint

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse

Sworn to before me This @day of August 2012

ABRAHAM HELFENBAUM Commissioner of Deeds

First Supplement to the proposed Amended Complaint

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

Case 1:10-cv-00486-RCL Document 6 Filed 08/01/12 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:10-cv-00486-RCL Document 6-1 Filed 08/01/12 Page 1 of 5

Case 1:10-cv-00486-RCL Document 6-1 Filed 08/01/12 Page 2 of 5

Case 1:10-cv-00486-RCL Document 6-1 Filed 08/01/12 Page 3 of 5

Case 1:10-cv-00486-RCL Document 6-1 Filed 08/01/12 Page 4 of 5

Case 1:10-cv-00486-RCL Document 6-1 Filed 08/01/12 Page 5 of 5

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

July 17, 2012 EXHAUSTIVE INQUIRY LEADS TO NEW INFORMATION

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

WND Gov. Paterson to interview Corsi on air Print

GOV. PATERSON TO INTERVIEW CORSI ON AIR

by BOB UNRUH Email | Archive

WND Gov. Paterson to interview Corsi on air Print

WND Gov. Paterson to interview Corsi on air Print

EX RE Strunk v Obama et al. DCD 2010-cv-00486

I LAST NAME. FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAMK

3. SOCIAL SECURITY NUYOER

1 DEPARTMENT. COMPONENT A N D BRANCH OR C U S S

ORADS. RATE OR RANK

1 0 a SELECTIVE SERVICE NUMBER