cestrunk appellate brief combined with modified appendix in the appeal strunk v nys boe etal in nys...

8/12/2019 CESTRUNK Appellate Brief combined with modified Appendix in the Appeal Strunk v NYS BOE etal in NYS SC Appellate Div. 2nd Depart. 2014-00297 appeal

1/68


2/68

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND DEPARTMENT

_____________________________________________

Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse

Appellant / Plaintiff STATEMENT

Against PURSUANT

TO CPLR 5531

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS etal.

Appellees / Defendants

_____________________________________________

1.

The Index Number of this Case in Trial Court is 6500-2011.

2. The Full names of the Original Parties are unchanged.

3.

The action was commenced in NYS Supreme Court Kings County Part 27.

4.

The action was commenced on 22 March 2011.

5. The Nature of the Case is related to the 2008 presidential election and fraud

associated with it and derives from current active related cases with Index

No.: 29642-2008 and 21948-2012 in NYS Sup. Ct. Kings County Part 43.

6. The appeal is from the 9 December 2013 Decision and Order of Arthur M.

Schack denying the motion to reargue in reconsideration of Sanctions.

7. This appeal is on the Original Record subpoenaed from the County Clerk of

trial court and in the possession of the Clerk of this Appellate Court.


3/68


4/68


5/68


6/68


7/68


8/68


9/68


10/68

--------------------------------------------------------------------x

Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse

Plaintiff / Appellant, APPEAL CASE-against-

INDEX NO.:

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;JAMES A.WALSH, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chairmen, 2014-00297EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P.PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D.VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN;ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P.DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEM COLN, in their Official andindividual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.;Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ,JR.;PETER G. PETERSON, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI;MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH(a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II,a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATICSTATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIESPARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; RGER CALERO;

THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI;JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER;THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE;THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THEINDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OFTHE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE;PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR

AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND;MCCAIN VICTORY2008;MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does;and XYZ Entities.

Defendants/ Respondents.

APPELLANTS APPEAL BRIEF WITH COMBINED APPENDIX

Brief for Appeal No.: 14-00297 Page 1 of 35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calerohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calero


11/68

STATE OF NEW YORK )} ss:

COUNTY OF KINGS )

Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Sui juris agent debtor trust

transmitting utility CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Appellant (STRUNK),

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

Introduction

This third Appellants Brief for the appeal 2014-00297 with Notice filed

January 13, 2014 (APX-1) is taken from the 9 December 2013 Decision and Order

(APX-9 thru APX-22) of Arthur M. Schack JSC of Part 27 who denied Plaintiffs

Motion with CPLR 2221(f) for leave to renew and reargue the prior Decision and

Order dated March 29, 2013 entered by the Clerk of the Court on April 10, 2013

(Judgment), and in support of renewal, requested leave to supplement the

Complaint filed March 22, 2011 with new transactions to conform to evidence by

CPLR 3025(b)(c) and or to transfer to I.A.S. Part 1 in Petition 21948-2012 as

with CPLR 2217(c), and to vacate or modify the Judgment with CPLR 5015(a).

That Plaintiffs fraud challenge as to the New York State Board of Elections

et al as to state action under color of law is a result of the discovery of their willful

misuse of United States Constitution Article II Section 1 Clause 5 (A2S1C5) as to

the merits of the eligibility requirements for any candidate slate seeking ballot

access and election to the office of President and or Vice President of the United



12/68

States (POTUS) along with each of those entities or persons materially seeking to

impose candidates onto the New York State ballot in 2008, 2012 and in 2016 as a

continuing harm by State entities that despite being warned of ineligibility in 2008

placed Barack Hussein Obama II aka Barry Soetoro aka SOEBARKAH, aka Steve

Dunham, aka Barry Allen Owens with Joseph R. Biden as a slate, that of John

Sidney McCain III and the Palin slate and the Roger Calero slate onto the ballot at

the 2008 Presidential election cycle; and when all three Presidential candidate

slates were and are never to be eligible as natural-born Citizens of the United

States, and that all persons acted with intent of committing misprision of treason in

the commission of willful fraud against the beneficial interest of Plaintiffs

unalienable rights who along with voters have been denied any remedy available

under law; and as such requires pure equity relief under the maxims of equity here

as if it were a Bill of Particulars for the Appellate Panel and Court embanc to issue

a decree for equity relief. In that the need for a decree by reason of the lack of

POTUS eligibility defines the very existence of the Court in a matter of such

magnitude that has never been a more important case involving grave national

security with the current facts and constellation of parties represented by the nine

attorneys is quite unlike any prior time in our short 230 or so years of history.



13/68

Executor Public Officer under martial process in lieu of civilian due process

On 4 March 2014 the Appellate Panel of Justices PETER B. SKELOS,

THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL,

issued the Decision and Order M170416 on the Motion by the Appellant, inter

alia, denying provision "for civilian due process of law" on appeals from three

orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County from Case with Index no.: 6500-2011,

dated April 1l, 2012, March 29, 2013, and December 9, 2013, respectively. 12-

5515, 13-6335 and 14-00297. The historical importance of the Decision and Order

M170416, whether to continue under martial process as we have for 81 years under

men or return to civilian due process with our State and Federal Constitutions fully

in force to protect our freedom and unalienable rights under GOD, is front and

center in this third and final Appellants Appeal Brief for Appeal 2014-00297 for

consolidated hearing together with Appeal 2012-5515 taken from the Order of

April 11, 2012 filed June 20, 2013, and Appeal 2013-6335 taken from the Order of

March 29, 2013 filed May 5, 2014 as against all defendants accompanies the

record subpoenaed for each of the Orders for use by the Court in deliberation.

Thus with the 4 March 2014 judicial notice given by Decision and Order

M170416, STRUNK became the duly appointed Executor public officer for the

Express Deed in Trust to the United States of Americaduly recorded with the

Superior Court of Georgia for Lamar County at BPA BOOK 32 PAGES 716 thru



14/68

754 on April 29, 2014 at 1:20 PM; and that STRUNKs duty to the beneficiaries of

theExpress Deed in Trust to the United States of Americawith a claim of

beneficial interest in and over all the public and private real,personal, tangibleand

intangibleproperty within the organic UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

geographic border to safeguard and secure for the posterity of WE the People of

the United States of America in the nation given by GOD for securing each private

Citizens unalienable rights and beneficial interest in pursuit of life liberty and

happiness in perpetuity, and with the Executor and Beneficiaries duty to the DEED

in TRUST shall guarantee that all incumbents and future candidate(s) for the

Office of President or Vice President of the United States (POTUS) shall be a

bonafideNatural-Born Citizen(NBC) private citizen of the United States agent

who is surety no more to the Debtor Trust Entity in compliance with the

Constitution for the United States Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 (A2S1C5), either

under 12 USC 95 with 50 USC App. 5(b) and related law with the Military

Government authority of the renewed annual National Emergency or otherwise

civil process.

Statement of the Case on Appeal

That were Plaintiff / Appellant on the merits found not to be as the Court

alleges in the subject Decision and Order shown at APX 16 paragraph 3 as quote

fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational and baseless claims about defendants is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_propertyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_propertyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangible_propertyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intangible_propertyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intangible_propertyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangible_propertyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_propertyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_property


15/68

frivolous then, now or in the future as Plaintiff was adjudged by Arthur M.

Schack JSC at the Trial court level with Kings County Index no: 6500-2011 on

April 11, 2012, 29 March 2013 and again reaffirmed 9 December 2013 then this

Court must reverse the outrageous decisions and return this matter to trial court

with a new unbiased Justice for further litigation, for this matter is not going away

anytime soon; and notwithstanding whether New York regards treason and sedition

per se as do other states of the several states, is a sacred Federal obligation of duty.

Summary of Judgment regarding Decision & Order of 9 December 2013

That although the Court granted fees and expenses for all Defendants

Counsels, only three of nine Defendants Counsel applied for reimbursement of

$167,707.88 to Defendants Counsel plus $10,000 to the Lawyers Fund for Client

protection for a grand total of $177,707.88 due within 30 days as follows:

McGuire Woods LLP counsel to Defendants ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ

BRZEZINSKI, MARK BRZEZINSKI and IAN J. BRZEZINSKI in the

total money amount of $75,600.00 for attorney fees and $2,446.74 for

disbursements for a total of $78,156.74

SIMPSON THATCHER & BARTLETT LLP representing PETER

GEORGE PETERSON in regards to the total money amount of

$72,696.39 for attorney fees, $4,610.00 for time of support staff, and

$6,657.39 for disbursements for a total of $82,943.64;



16/68

The New York State Attorney General in the absence of any appearance

of the named State Defendants appearing alone had expended 17.62

hours in conjunction with this case requesting a $375 per hour for timeexpended and that the Attorney General seeks $6,607.50 as part of the

direct costs to the State.

As to the Court Chief Administrator, 22 NYCRR 130-1.3, STRUNK

shall pay a sanction of $10,000.00 for his alleged frivolous conduct to the

Lawyers Fund for Client Protection, 119 Washington Avenue, Albany,

New York 12210.

And that STRUNK is denied his right to sue any of the named

Defendants in State Court without first obtaining permission.

New York must comply with Federal Law as to treason and sedition

New York must comply with Federal Law as to treason and sedition upon

notice of those associated with the acts of BARRY SOETORO SOEBARKAH, the

Indonesian born in Kenya using the name BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, must

color New York State actions as follows:

18 U.S. Code 2381 Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them oradheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United Statesor elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisonednot less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; andshall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.



17/68

18 U.S. Code 2382 - Misprision of treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of thecommission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may

be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of theUnited States, or to the governor or to some judgeorjustice of a particularState, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title orimprisoned not more than seven years, or both. (emphasis by Petitioner) (June25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103322, title XXXIII, 330016(1)(H),Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.) Historical and Revision NotesBased on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., 3 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, 3,35 Stat.1088). Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the alternative.Amendments 1994Pub. L. 103322substituted fined under this title forfined not more than $1,000. (emphasis by Appellant)

18 U.S. Code 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrectionagainst the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid orcomfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than tenyears, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the UnitedStates.

18 U.S. Code 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to thejurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroyby force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or tooppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delaythe execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or

possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, theyshall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or

both.

18 U.S. Code 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty,necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying thegovernment of the United States or the government of any State, Territory,District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision

http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:June%2025,%201948ch:645statnum:62_807http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=103-322http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:Sept.%2013,%201994ch:nonestatnum:108_2147http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:nonech:nonestatnum:35_1088http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:nonech:nonestatnum:35_1088http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=103-322http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=103-322http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:nonech:nonestatnum:35_1088http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:nonech:nonestatnum:35_1088http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:Sept.%2013,%201994ch:nonestatnum:108_2147http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=103-322http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:June%2025,%201948ch:645statnum:62_807


18/68

therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any suchgovernment; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any suchgovernment, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or

publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teachingthe duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying anygovernment in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, orassembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow ordestruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is amember of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons,knowing the purposes thereof

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, orboth, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or anydepartment or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section,each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or

both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or anydepartment or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms organizes and organize, with respect toany society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of newmembers, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existingclubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

The Trial court in the absence of State provision of law as to treason and sedition,

other than in State Military Law, having been notified of the duty to enforce

Federal law, maliciously violates the express purpose and intent of performance of

duties under law by inaction and or worse cover-up, and the trial court instead

aided and abetted the New York State Attorney General, Governor and fellow

justices to avoid compliance with Federal law regarding forms of treason and



19/68

sedition for enforcement and stalked Plaintiff STRUNK in an organized fashion to

be singled out for public ridicule and punishment to chill speech.

Discovery after fraud accrual for Amending after 22 March 2011 filing

STRUNK contends that Judge Schack had a duty to dismiss the complaint sui

sponte if He, like Judge Ross for different reasons, by cursory review deemed the

criteria for establishing fraud were not met would give Plaintiff an opportunity to

cure by supplement and or amendment; but instead Judge Schack decided to

grandstand for self aggrandizement, as an ideology to never let an opportunity go

to waste, proceeded to fashion a straw man to ridicule and use Plaintiff as his

example for others nationally who he terms Birthers and thereby Judge Schack

became a biased participant and is acknowledged bias accordingly in his decisions

quote:

Plaintiff STRUNK presents in his complaint fraud accusations that can be,at best, described as bare assertions. He does not allege that he relied uponany statements of defendants and fails to allege that he suffered any

pecuniary loss as a result of the statements of any defendant. Actualpecuniary loss must be alleged in a fraud action. (Dress Shirt Sales, Inc, vHotel Murtiniqzle Assoc., 12 NY2d 339, 343 [1963]; Rivera v WyckoffHeights Hosp., 184 AD2d 55 8, 56 1 [2d Dept 19921). The mere use of theword "fraud" in a complaint is not sufficient to comply with the specificrequirements of CPLR 3016(b) that fraud be plead with particularity.

Therefore, plaintiff STRUNK fails to allege the necessary elements for afraud cause of action.

That despite a matter of fraud has a six year statute of limitations with NYS CPLR

213, the 22 March 2011 Complaint was duly filed well within that time limit, and



20/68

that Judge Schack acknowledged there is an active related case 29642-08; and

despite being told that the case had already been subjected to judicial review by

Judge Schmidt who urged in open court that it be filed separately, but Judge

Schack nevertheless in service of his biased effort to grand stand to ridicule and

hold STRUNK out as an example to other Birthers to chill speech, silence

speech and infringe the right to petition for relief from grievances, and as a matter

of State malicious action done to suppress first, fifth, sixth and ninth amendment

rights otherwise protected by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee to

a private citizen of the United States of America, Judge Schack states quote:

My Kings County Supreme Court colleague, Justice David Schmidt, inStrunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642/08, as cited above, disposed ofthat matter, on March 14, 2011, by denying all of plaintiff's motions andnoting that the statute of limitations expired to join necessary partiesPresident OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN. Further, Justice Schmidt denied

plaintiff an opportunity to file affidavits of service nunc pro tunc and toamend the complaint.

The Federal statute of limitations also follows that of CPLR 213 in that regard

according to 28 USC 2401 (b) for a matter accruing within 6 years, just as 42 USC

1983 is for State acts under color of law three years from accrual, Schack states:

Then, plaintiff STRUNK, eight days later, on March 22, 2011, commenced

the instant action by filing the instant verified complaint. PlaintiffSTRUNK's complaint recites numerous baseless allegations about PresidentOBAMA. These allegations are familiar to anyone who follows the "birther"movement: President OBAMA is not a "natural born" citizen of the UnitedStates; the President is a radical Muslim; the President's HawaiianCertificate of Live Birth does not prove that he was born in Hawaii; and,President OBAMA is actually a citizen of Indonesia, the United Kingdom,



21/68

Kenya, or all of the above. In my April 11, 2012 decision and order, at * 14,I noted that: "[a] complaint containing as it does both factual allegations andlegal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis" and"embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fancifulfactual allegation." (Neitzke v Williams, 490 US 319, 325 [1989]). Then,

plaintiff STRUNK, eight days later, on March 22, 2011, commenced theinstant action by filing the instant verified complaint.

Plaintiff STRUNK's complaint recites numerous baseless allegations aboutPresident OBAMA. These allegations are familiar to anyone who followsthe "birther" movement: President OBAMA is not a "naturalborn" citizen ofthe United States; the President is a radical Muslim; the President'sHawaiian Certificate of Live Birth does not prove that he was born inHawaii; and, President OBAMA is actually a citizen of Indonesia, the

United Kingdom, Kenya, or all of the above. In my April 11, 2012 decisionand order, at * 14, I noted that: "[a] complaint containing as it does bothfactual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks anarguable basis" and "embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, butalso the fanciful factual allegation." (Neitzke v Williams, 490 US 319, 325[1989]).

That Justice Schacks proclivity to grandstand for self aggrandizement with

his social justice tactics, declares the absence of truth that the end is justified by

any means necessary, ridicules his opposition as the Birthers. That in effect

Arthur M. Schack as a member of high culture practices a form of "Organized

stalking", in the current-day sense, is surveillance and harassment of a designated

target by stalker members of networked groups ( )1 .

1 Organized stalking has three essential elements: Organized stalking is harassment by asubstantial number of people, not by an obsessed single stalker, nor by helpers recruited by anobsessed single stalker. Organized stalking group members are given targets' names and/orhave the target identified for them; they do not usually know the target beforehand. Organizedstalking community groups are tightly networked with stalking groups in other communities.



22/68

Standard of evidence regarding scheme to defraud

That Plaintiff / Appellant in this civil case is to be based on a clear and

convincingstandard of evidence that has been met by a plaintiff to win a civil

action that was elevated since 22 March 2011 from a preponderance standard, and

that such clear and convincing evidence of fraud that applies to the third standard

of proofBeyond a Reasonable Doubtused in criminal cases and very few civil

cases. But since 27 April 2011 is now proven that Barack Hussein Obama II has

committed several crimes of fraud.

It is my understanding that in a civil case, a plaintiff has a duty of good faith,

the burden of proving the facts and claims asserted in the complaint. When a party

has theBurden of Proof, the party must present, through testimony and exhibits,

enough evidence to support the claim. The amount of evidence required varies

from claim to claim. For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary

standards:preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincingevidence. A

third standard, proofBeyond a Reasonable Doubt, is used in criminal cases and

very few civil cases, it necessary to take into account absent any indictment.

It is my understanding under the circumstance of the ongoing crime of

concealment and spoliation that has been proven the quantumof evidence that

constitutes a preponderance cannot be reduced to a simple formula. A

preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubthttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Burden+of+Proofhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubthttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubthttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Burden+of+Proofhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt


23/68

more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult

to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition

serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant

has carried his or her burden of proof.

Plaintiff contends that the majority of civil claims are subjected to a

preponderance of evidence standard and are however, as of right reasonably to be

granted the opportunity to amend and or supplement the complaint in order to

perfect the complaint to a clear and convincing standard of evidence as to fraud

was denied plaintiff by the court. That if a court or legislature seeks to make a civil

claim more difficult to prove, it may raise the evidentiary standard to one of clear

and convincing evidence with the opportunity to supplement and or amend the

Complaint. That although under some circumstances use of the low preponderance

of evidence standard may be a violation of constitutional rights this complaint

involves a constitutional tort of gigantic proportions with a cover-up, concealment

and spoliation involved that requires a closer scrutiny of review for justice to be

done. The Court has a burden to allow plaintiff to show clear and convincing

evidence refers to more than a mere preponderance but something just short of

conclusive (which would be more tantamount to the beyond a reasonable doubt

burden used in criminal cases). However, in reality with the presence of crimes

committed and the refusal politically of those charged with enforcement refuse, the



24/68

clear and convincing burden of proof that generally requires proof which leaves

no reasonable doubt concerning the truth of matters in a civil at issue must stand.

This higher burden is generally employed when the alleged offense has

special elements to establish, such as in a claim for fraud, with usurpation of the

Office of POTUS and in which State non / mis / malfeasance under colour of law

applies combined with gross negligence in application and administration of law.

In these and other cases, the stakes at risk are high and that the defending party

must show a potential lose of a substantial benefit, property, and reverse as a

matter of equal protection especially applies to Plaintiffs personal or fundamental

liberty such as those protected under the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth

Amendments applicable herein.

As for the preponderance of proof required to file in the Federal case

wherein it was deemed in the wrong jurisdiction in that Federal elections are a duty

of the State per se that in the matter of the case filed in forma pauperus that went

before Judge Allyne Ross of the Eastern District of New York with case 08cv4289

that the trial court dismissed sui sponte as being frivolous only as to Federal

matters but as to State matters directed Plaintiff seek standing for relief in State

jurisdiction.

That as to a preponderance of prima facie evidence Plaintiff relied upon:



25/68

Barack Hussein Obama II in his autobiography Dreams From My

Father published by Random House in 1995 advertised the authors

biography for the purpose of book sales for 15 plus years that stated thatBarack Obama, the first African American president of the Harvard

Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia.; and that

Plaintiff had no basis to question the Publisher.

That Barack Hussein Obama II released a short form Certificate of Live

Birth (COLB) that stated that his father was not a U.S. Citizen however

shows therein He was registered as born in Hawaii that as a matter of

unique Hawaii state practice, as similarly done with Sun Yat-sen having

been born in China, that allows a foreign birth with a Hawaii state

registry that in fact does not negate the veracity of the Publisher

commercial statement for sales;

That Phil Berg, Esq. had in August 2008 filed a case challenging the

eligibility of Barack Obama regarding A2S1C5 in Federal Court and as

such gave Plaintiff a good faith confidence to do so for New York before

Judge Ross who in fact directed Plaintiff to State jurisdiction as also later

was done with the Federal Court case with Phil Berg Esq. as its plaintiff.

That the Indonesian school record for Barry Soetoro was published in

August 2008 indicating not only that he has an Indonesian name but was



26/68

registered with the religion of Islam and that his father is Lolo Soetoro;

and by that record it established that Barack Obama had lied under

penalty of perjury when he stated on the application for his Illinois Law

license that he had never had another name became prima facia evidence.

That with the above preponderance of evidence Plaintiff filed an article 78 Petition

29641-08 to determined whether or not there had been a violation of the State

Constitution as to state officers also serving a second paid public officer job as an

elector for a presidential slate too and as an issue of first impression dependent

upon the Petition finding that would become the law of the case for the

companion Complaint challenging the State officer electors for the 2008 general

election with Index No.: 29642-08 that is still active nearly six years later and is

the related case to this one on appeal herein; and

That Plaintiff from 2008 through 2011 sought a clear and concise improvement

of the preponderance of evidence by filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

request for the passport application records of the alleged mother Stanley Ann

Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama II to find out whether either had a US

Passport during the period 1960 through 1983 and lacking any response at ALL

after several written attempts, which in itself is highly suspicious, I filed the case

on 22 November 2008, Strunk v DOS and DHSUSDC DCD 08-cv-2234 (RJL),

and after spitting much blood in the process on July 29, 2010, I received a partial



27/68

record release from the DOS only, with the allegation from the DOS Counsel that

the records prior to 1968 had been destroyed by order of the General Service

Administration; and I continued my efforts over the next 18 months to discover the

DOS Counsels allegation was a complete fabrication, and further proof of

spoliation of evidence in support of suspicion of a crime-----but nevertheless

established clear and convincing evidencethat:

Barry Soetoro was in fact is also named SOEBARKAH

Supposedly according to the DOS, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro never had

a passport in the name of Stanley Ann Dunham and or Stanley Ann Obama,

and the only application established to exist was in the name Stanley Ann

Dunham Soetoro in 1965; notwithstanding alleged to be destroyed;

And when I sought a Vaughn Index (a simple chronological list by date of

all applications during a period) it was denied me by the court as being a

unnecessary interference with DOS methods and security sources;

However, when Phil Berg himself had later sought a simple affirmation of

such a Vaughn Index that existed for any US Passport for Barack Hussein

Obama II without actually seeking to see a copy of either the Vaughn

Index or the actual application record, the response by DOS was that there

is no record of a passport for Barack Hussein Obama II before 1983

thereby establishing at best that Barack Hussein Obama II traveled to



28/68

Indonesia with his newly divorced legal mother having legal custody

accompanied her new husband Lolo Soetoro, and that Barack Hussein

Obama II traveled on her passport as a child based upon the divorce decree;

that the legal mother Stanley Ann Obama having been married in February

1961 to Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (legal father) in Hawaii is proven with

the Hawaiian Court Decree of March 1964 that acknowledged a child,

Barack Hussein Obama II, for whom the legal father was given liberal

visitation despite the divorce and gave legal custody to the mother Stanley

Ann Obama.

However, after being adopted in Indonesia by Lolo Soetoro, Barack Hussein

Obama II was no longer to be listed on his mothers passport, and at which

time she amended her own passport on August 13, 1968 removed Barack

Hussein Obama / SOEBARKAH from it, presumably so that she could

travel separately from her Indonesian citizen son Barry Soetoro

SOEBARKAH.

That Barry Soetoro (SOEBARKAH) returned to Hawaii from Indonesia

using an Indonesian Passport of his own to live with his Grandparents and

there attended school as a foreign student in Hawaii, California, New York

and Massachusetts using multiple names from that point forward including

at Columbia University with evidence of a crime now under State control;



29/68

That in 1977 His Grandmother, the Trust officer in charge of the trust

accounts for the Bank of Hawaii, upon the death of one of its depositors,

born in 1890 overseas and being without issue or ever having filed forbenefits, glommed use of the Social Security number (SSN) for Barry

Soetoro who had attained the age to seek employment and would need to

register with Selective Service with the SSN, done as such in 2008 with false

instruments;

That Barry Soetoro attended Columbia University, and obtained foreign

student funding assistance; and that such records are in the custody of the

New York State Higher Education Services Corporation that by law may

never release any record without a court order, and can neither confirm nor

deny the existence of a record.

That Barry Soetoro SOEBARKAH traveled back to Indonesia while

attending Columbia University as part of his studies, and there renewed his

passport in Indonesia before traveling into Pakistan and Afghanistan while

working for Zbigniew Brzezinski.

With the above preponderance of evidence, I went back to Justice Schmidt

in regards to Complaint for 29642-08 to amend it in regards to the fraud involved

and therein after several attempts was instructed by Justice Schmidt to just file a

new case, because under oath in the presence of Assistant Attorney General Joel



30/68

Graber, where I affirmed that in June 2010 I had just discovered that John Sidney

McCain III was not born in the Canal Zone to US Citizen parents but born in

Colon Republic of Panama that had jurisdiction over Colon under the US / Panama

Treaty not the United States, and therefore as suggested by Justice Schmidt I filed

a new cause 6500-2011 involving a scheme to defraud plaintiff and voters at the

2008 General Election that among other things is a related case to 29642-08; and

however without $95 to purchase the RJI myself it fell upon the good faith of the

opposing counsel for a Defendant to not commit perjury and simply state there is a

related case, and that John Sidney McCain III s counsel lied just like his client and

set this whole matter on edge and is an issue before this Court in the first brief for

appeal 12-5515.

Thereafter, as a matter of upgrading the clear and convincing evidence

tantamount to the beyond a reasonable doubt criminal standard proof for fraud:

On December 2012 the purported long form birth certificate was proven by

document expert Paul Edward Irey a forged false instrument with proof

included in the Note of Issue filed Petition 21948-12 active before the

Honorable David I. Schmidt with a pretrial conference scheduled for 11

September 2014.



31/68

That in 2013 I discovered that Barry Soetoro SOEBARKAH is a member of

the SUBUD cult founded in Indonesia practicing transgender homosexual

rituals and that SUBUD cult has a major presence in Chicago and Hawaii with its leader

by the surname FUDDY (now alleged deceased in a mysterious December

2013 plane crash) a non physician put in charge of Hawaiis Department of

Health who participated in the forgery of the false instrument purported to

be the long form birth certificate released by Barack Hussein Obama at the

White House press conference on 27 April 2011;

That STRUNK has attempted since December 2013 to obtain a certified

copy of the copyright document from the US Copyright Office using an

established Patent, Trademark and Copyright attorney who regularly

practices in Washington; and to date the agency has denied a certified copy

even though it would only cost $30.

The copyright filed originally said Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

That since December 4, 2012, Mr. IREY has done further analysis of the

false instrument shown in the Note of Issue for 21948-2012, and confirmed

that there is further proof of a crime that involves the purported CoLB by the

false instrument of JOHANNA SOLANGE SIERRA OK-HEE ANNEE.

That on June 23, 2014 Mr. IREY forwarded to me his expert analysis of the



32/68

further proof that the same forger did both false instruments of JOHANNA

SOLANGE SIERRA OK-HEE ANNEE and those of Defendant OBAMA.

That STRUNK proves that there is a false instrument purported to be theDreams From My Father copyright of 1995 involving Random House

agents that had been faxed to someone in the US Copyright Office working

with whomever forged or tendered the instrument and that based upon the

anomaly left by the faxed thermal sensitive roll paper low red stripe on the

left side of both pages that it had been there before the forger added

certification appliqus that is proven by the stark difference in the before and

after letter / line degradation, and alleges that Barack Hussein Obama II was

born in the USA rather than Kenya.

That in addition to the proof of the no less than four false instruments, Short

form COLB, two (2) Long Form COLBs, Selective Service form, there is the

glaringly forged copyright form purported to be that of 1995 done by

Random House for Dreams From My Father having been faxed (it is

illegal to fax an original application for a copyright) and leaving a signature

of that mechanical operation of low thermal sensitive roll paper, the

document expert Mr. IREY performed an analysis with the same methods

used on all to find a common forger.



33/68

Court opposes Definition of natural-born Citizen that did not derive

from the term natural-born Subject

That remaining at the heart of this case is the fact that the natural-born

Citizen clause does NOT derive from the term of art natural-born Subject, but

instead was derived from ancient consideration of GODs Natural Law as

expressed in Greece by the works of Aristotle and carried forward for use in

Roman law by the works of Cicero.

Aristotle did not define citizenship like the English did in the English

common law in which they did not give any relevancy to the citizenship of the

childs parents, provided the parents were not diplomats or military invaders.

Aristotle included in the definition of a citizen a person of whom both the

parents are citizens. ( )2 It is this definition which was handed down through the

2 Aristotle also gave us a definition of a natural born Citizen. In Politics, Book Three, Part II,Aristotle, writing in 350 B.C.E., as translated by Benjamin Jowett, gave us his definition ofcitizenship:

Part II

But in practicea citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;others insist on going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors. This is a shortand practical definition but there are some who raise the further question: How this thirdor fourth ancestor came to be a citizen? Gorgias of Leontini, partly because he was in a

difficulty, partly in irony, said- 'Mortars are what is made by the mortar-makers, and thecitizens of Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to makeLarissaeans.' Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the definition justgiven they shared in the government, they were citizens. This is a better definition thanthe other. For the words, 'born of a father or mother who is a citizen,' cannot possiblyapply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state. (emphasis by appellant)

There is a greater difficulty in the case of those who have been made citizens after arevolution, as by Cleisthenes at Athens after the expulsion of the tyrants, for he enrolled



34/68


35/68


36/68


37/68

Court erroneously maintains 14th

Amendment of 1868 supplants A2S1C5

natural-born Citizen with born a citizen.

Also central to the errors by the Court is that Judge Schack continues to

contend that the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment somehow amends the term of art

natural-born Citizen and he is absolutely wrong. The status of de jurePrivate

American citizenship of the United States, federal citizenship, is secured by Article

IV, Section 2, and merely broadened into national citizenshipby Section 1 of the

14thAmendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, and with the

amendment is meant to overthrow the liberties of Private Citizens of the United

States by imposing a State-created, statutory, de factoPublic U.S. citizenship.

That the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has clearly defined

the term of art in case decisions before and after the enactment of the Fourteenth

Amendment that show that the natural born Citizen clause remains unchanged:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and moresatisfactory 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 bycertain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in itsadvantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents

who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself butby the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the conditionof their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, andher father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death



38/68


39/68

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of theConstitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in acountry of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their

birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, asdistinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the

United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S.

soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost

if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that

upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to

return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that

she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision

that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the

USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

"But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill ofcomplaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the groundthat she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below,

properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with thedefendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S.227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural borncitizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decreeshould include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. Thedecree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of theSecretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but wouldsimply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elghad lost her American citizenship."

The SCOTUS has never applied the term natural born citizen to any other

category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof



40/68

Arguments in support of remand to Part 43 instead of Part 27

Let me be quite clear to this court, Barack Hussein Obama II is not natural

born in the USA of US Citizen parents not even of one US Citizen, HE is by birth

to his legal Kenyan Muslim Father a Muslim of a Muslim Indonesian mother as yet

unknown by name, and that by practice upon His adoption by the Indonesian

Muslim Lolo Soetoro, where HE remains an Indonesian citizen and has never

renounced such citizenship to be a U.S. Citizen (unlike Senator Cruz who has

renounced his Canadian citizenship recently), and HE publicly expresses with his

Arabic inscribed Islamic ring that He remains wedded to political Islam; and

further as a radical Muslim beyond the fact of his Freemasonic 32rdlevel endorsed

by Prince Hall Mason Colin Powell right before the 2008 election, HE is a member

of the Muslim Brotherhood International and Islamic SUBUD Cult through his

training in Indonesia and glaringly provides the basis for collaboration with his

fellow Islamist Muslim Brother Fethullah Glen of Turkey (living in the

Pennsylvania Poconos), whose members are afforded carte blanch entry and

employment in the White House since 2009 (thanks to Fr. Thomas Michel SJ); and

together these Muslim Brothers use Jihadist principles of Sword, word, pen and

donation a malicious practice of al Takiafor enemy deception mandated by the

Koran, to the end of establishing the global Caliphate, and whose every act to

imperil the USA British Special Relationship is to reverse the efforts of Winston



41/68

Churchill and Thomas Edward Lawrence who having defeated the Kaisers

Ottoman Caliphate ally redrew Mideast borders in 1921, and that Obama having

banished Churchills Bust from the White House, in June 2009 ordered

reinstatement of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization (banned

since the murder of Anwar Sadat); and togetherDeutscher Verteidigungs der

Dienst(DVD) agents Obama, Biden, Soros, Peterson, Pritzker, Pelosi, named

Brzezinski Defendants, John S. McCain III and others under the direction of papa

Bush 41, the DVD Obermeister Fuhrer, who while operating with the Correa

Group of Frankfurt West Germany previously under the Allen and John Dulles

brothers and the General Operations Group 2 (GO2) in London with the General

Reinhart Gehlen Organization, succeeded Dwight Eisenhower before him; and

ALL presently act to overthrow the USA secular allies in Africa and Mideast

nations using the sinister malice of fellow Jihadist John O. Brennan who according

to retired FBI Agent John Guandola confirmed ( )4 that Fordham Jesuit trained

4 Mr. Brennan did convert to Islam when he served in an official capacity on the behalf of theUnited States in Saudi Arabia, Guandolo told interviewer and radio host Tom Trento.

Guandolo, who retired from the FBI in 2008, told the United States Trento Radio Show

Brennan without a doubt converted to Islam in Saudi Arabia and visited Mecca and Medinaduring the hajj season along with Saudi officials. He went on to say that these Saudi officialsmay have been that catalyst to Brennans conversion.

That fact alone is not what is most disturbing, Guandolo continued. His conversion toIslam was the culmination of a counterintelligence operation against him to recruit him. The factthat foreign intelligence service operatives recruited Mr. Brennan when he was in a verysensitive and senior U.S. government position in a foreign country means that he either a traitor [or] he has the inability to discern and understand how to walk in those kinds ofenvironments, which makes him completely unfit to be the director of Central Intelligence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2277524/Obamas-choice-CIA-chief-converted-Islam-says-FBI-agent.html#axzz2KQZes1ushttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2277524/Obamas-choice-CIA-chief-converted-Islam-says-FBI-agent.html#axzz2KQZes1us


42/68

coadjutor John Owen Brennan, from 1996 through 1999 while the CIA Station

Chief in Riyadh Saudi Arabia converted to Wahhabi Islam, and who by his own

admission made the Hadj to Mecca, an act reserved for practicing Muslims under

penalty of death; then served from 1999 to 2001 as Chief of Staff to George Tenet

preparing for Saudi involvement in the September 11, 2001 attack on the USA; and

who was Obamas first choice for DCI rather than Papal Knight Leon Panetta

leveraged into office by Hillary Clinton instead using DNA blackmail evidence

controlled by the CIA / DIA / NSA -- that Obama was born in Kenya.

Plaintiff contends with more than ample proof shows that because of

Defendants acts from before the 2008 general election and thereafter until the

present the scheme to defraud Plaintiff and the people of the State of New York

along with the posterity of the sovereign people of the United States of America

for whom this Executor represents as a public officer, and who has been

outrageously harmed by this massive fraud in our 230 year history bar none.

That Plaintiff Executor has accumulated damages financial and personal far

exceeding anyone else in the state of New York bar none and ranks in the top ten

nationally for those who upon my observation of Arthur M. Schacks practice of

Social Justice doctrine that really springs from the Secret Instructions of the Jesuits

printed verbatim from the London copy of 1725 and republished without the Latin

- See more at: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/islam/did-john-brennan-convert-islam-being-picked-president-obama-new-cia-chief#sthash.jtu8f7sP.dpuf

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/islam/did-john-brennan-convert-islam-being-picked-president-obama-new-cia-chief#sthash.jtu8f7sP.dpufhttp://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/islam/did-john-brennan-convert-islam-being-picked-president-obama-new-cia-chief#sthash.jtu8f7sP.dpufhttp://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/islam/did-john-brennan-convert-islam-being-picked-president-obama-new-cia-chief#sthash.jtu8f7sP.dpufhttp://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/islam/did-john-brennan-convert-islam-being-picked-president-obama-new-cia-chief#sthash.jtu8f7sP.dpuf


43/68

text in Princeton, New Jersey by J. & T. Simpson in 1831, that as a matter of

overthrowing the liberties of the United States was plotted during the Congress of

Vienna (1814-1815) and the subsequent Secret Treaty of Verona(1822) because of

which President James Monroe issued his Monroe Doctrine (1823)and for

which he was poisoned on July 4, 1831, and that American inventor Samuel F. B.

Morse warned of this diabolical Jesuit Conspiracy against America in his work,

Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States, published in 1835.

Conclusion in support of Relief

Based upon the record subpoenaed and delivered to the Clerk of this Court as a

record associated with matters of elections law with willful fraud perpetrated upon

Plaintiff, and heretofore, there has not been any legal relief or remedy for Plaintiff

or anyone else in the Country either in Federal or State jurisdiction in the matter of

the usurpation of the Office of POTUS, that this is a matter of grave national

security involving high crimes outrageously ignored by Federal / State judges and

State authorities despite notice of misprision of treason.

That Appellant wishes pure equity remedy herein pursuant to the Bill of

Particulars expressed in the 13-6335 Brief that would include sealing this case and

issuing subpoenas and testimony for a broad solution decree under the maxims of

equity and Appellant wishes further and different relief this Panel deems necessary

for complete justice including affording oral argument and sur-reply.



44/68


45/68

APPELLANTS COMBINED 22 page APPEAL APPENDIX for

Appeal 2014-00297 after the Brief Jurat page 35

That the original record of the case 6500-2011 associated with the ORDERs of

April 11, 2012, March 29, 2013 and December 9, 2013 were subpoenaed and were

delivered to the Clerk of the Appellate Court for the Second Judicial Department

APPELLANTS COMBINED 22 page APPEAL APPENDIX

In addition to the original record on appeal with the Clerk of the Court The

Abbreviated APPENDIX is annexed herewith that includes:

The Notice of Appeal from the Order of 9 December 2013..Apx 1

Request for Appellate Division Intervention...Apx 3

The Decision and Order of 9 December 2013....Apx 9


46/68


47/68


48/68


49/68


50/68


51/68


52/68


53/68


54/68


55/68


56/68


57/68


58/68


59/68


60/68


61/68


62/68


63/68


64/68


65/68


66/68


67/68


68/68

cestrunk appellate brief combined with modified appendix in the appeal strunk v nys boe etal in nys...

Documents