Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
___________
Petitioners,
V.
Respondent(s)
Respondents:
Relief Requested:
A stay of the schedule to hear the SCOTUS No. 10-1170 petition for a Writ of
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with 28 USC
§2101(f), in which in any case in which the final judgment or decree of any court is
subject to review by the Supreme Court on writ of certiorari, the execution and
enable the party aggrieved to obtain a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court….2
SCOTUS Rules:
1
Rule 33.2, poor person use of 8 /2 by 11-Inch Paper Format ……………………..1,2,3
Cases:
WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 (June 15, 1962). ........................ …………….
Related Case:
Statutes:
1
APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF THE SCHEDULE TO HEAR THE
SCOTUS NO. 10-1170 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say under
penalty of perjury:
1. Affirmant is a petitioner for a Writ of Prohibition affirmed April 5, 2011 and
Strunk and Application for Stay of the hearing of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari
SCOTUS 10-1170; and hereby presents this affidavit as a certificate of good faith
within the intent and meaning of SCOTUS Rules 39, 33.2, 20, and 28 USC §1651 for
a Mandamus of the Clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to
show cause why they must not follow the express terms and conditions of SCOTUS
Rule 20, Rule 33.2, Rule 34, and Rule 39 in re the petition for Writ of Prohibition
3. That this application under Rule 22 is being filed more than 14 days prior to
2
than the hearing yet to be scheduled for petition for Writ of Certiorari with
4. That Petitioner understands that SCOTUS Rule 23. for Stays provides that
quote:
5. That pursuant to SCOTUS Rule 23, this application is done to obtain a stay
of the schedule to hear the petition for a Writ of Certiorari with SCOTUS No. 10-
a. Petitioner needs a stay so that the petition for Informa Pauperus Relief with
b. Petitioner needs a stay so that the petition for Writ of Mandamus of the
Clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to show cause
3
why they must not follow the express SCOTUS Rule 20, Rule 33.2, Rule 34,
with quo warranto inquest of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., de facto
General of the United States Neal Katyal and de facto Attorney General of
the United States Eric Holder, in the absence of voluntary recusal from
hearing the petition for Writ of Certiorari in SCOTUS No. 10-1170, and or
by the void ab initio acts of Barack Hussein Obama II rather than Joseph R.
Biden who must show cause to serve may be reviewed and resolved.
6. That the stay may be granted by a judge of the court rendering the judgment
or decree or by a justice of the Supreme Court, and may be conditioned on the giving
of security, approved by such judge or justice, that if the aggrieved party fails to
make application for such writ within the period allotted therefor, or fails to obtain
an order granting his application, or fails to make his plea good in the Supreme
Court, he shall answer for all damages and costs which the other party may sustain
4
York State Legislature and Executive starting no later than the April 2002
districts effecting the election of State Justices and thereby undermines citizen
subsidiarity in their local municipal Homerule guarantee with NYSC Article 9 and
related law.
8. That were the aforementioned application and petitions not reviewed and
acted on before the hearing is to be scheduled for the Petition for Writ of Certiorari
with SCOTUS No. 10-1170, that petitioner would be adversely affected not only
because there is an active case Strunk v NYS Board of Elections et al. NYS
Supreme Court in the County of Kings Index No. 6500-2011 that would also end-up
on appeal to the SCOTUS by on one of the parties therein and would actively
recused from hearing the petition for Writ of Certiorari with SCOTUS No. 10-1170.
Based upon the foregoing Petitioner wishes to have a stay imposed by Your Honor
subject to review of the aforementioned application and petitions before the Petition
for Writ of Certiorari with SCOTUS No. 10-1170 is scheduled for hearing
administration of laws in creation of the New York Electoral College going into and
by the scheme to defraud with unjust enrichment that affects Affirmant and
Affirmant’s AD HOC Brooklyn Home Rule Coalition along with those similarly
situated; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein
5
No. ___-_____
(SCOTUS) TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY MUST NOT FOLLOW THE EXPRESS
SCOTUS RULE 20, RULE 33.2, RULE 34, AND RULE 39 IN RE THE PETITION
i
Respondents
ii
Table of Contents
Page
Petition Facts….…………………………………………………………………....................3
Petitioner Discussion…………………………………………………………………………..6
Relief Requested:
A Writ of Mandamus with SCOTUS Rule 20 of the Clerks of the Supreme Court of
The United States (SCOTUS) to show cause why they must not follow the express
SCOTUS Rule 20, Rule 33.2, Rule 34, and Rule 39 in re the petition for Writ of
SCOTUS Rule 33.2 For petitions with 8.5 inch by 11 inch paper format
1
2. 8 ⁄2-by 11-Inch Paper Format: (a) The text of every document, including
any appendix thereto, expressly permitted by these Rules to be presented to
1
the Court on 8 ⁄2-by 11-inch paper shall appear double spaced, except for
iii
indented quotations, which shall be single spaced, on opaque, unglazed, white
paper. The document shall be stapled or bound at the upper left-hand corner.
Copies, if required, shall be produced on the same type of paper and shall be
legible. The original of any such document (except a motion to dismiss or
affirm under Rule 18.6) shall be signed by the party proceeding pro se or by
counsel of record who must be a member of the Bar of this Court or an
attorney appointed under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, see 18 U. S. C. §
3006A(d)(6), or under any other applicable federal statute. Subparagraph 1(g)
of this Rule does not apply to documents prepared under this paragraph.
1
(b) Page limits for documents presented on 8 ⁄2-by 11-inch paper are: 40
pages for a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, petition
for an extraordinary writ, brief in opposition, or motion to dismiss or affirm;
and 15 pages for a reply to a brief in opposition, brief opposing a motion to
dismiss or affirm, supplemental brief, or petition for rehearing. The
exclusions specified in subparagraph 1(d) of this Rule apply.
iv
appearing pro se, in which case the party’s name, address, and
telephone number shall appear.
(g) The foregoing shall be displayed in an appropriate typographical
manner and, except for identification of counsel, may not be set in type
smaller than standard 11-point, if the document is prepared as
required by Rule 33.1.
2. Every document exceeding five pages (other than a joint appendix),
whether prepared under Rule 33.1 or Rule 33.2, shall contain a table of
contents and a table of cited authorities (i. e., cases alphabetically arranged,
constitutional provisions, statutes, treatises, and other materials) with
references to the pages in the document where such authorities are cited.
3. The body of every document shall bear at its close the name of counsel
of record and such other counsel, identified on the cover of the document in
conformity with subparagraph 1(f) of this Rule, as may be desired.
v
by Rule 29, they will be placed on the docket without the payment of a docket
fee or any other fee.
5 The respondent or appellee in a case filed in forma pauperis
shall respond in the same manner and within the same time as in any other
case of the same nature, except that the filing of an original and 10 copies of a
response prepared as required by Rule 33.2, with proof of service as required
by Rule 29, suffices. The respondent or appellee may challenge the grounds
for the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate document
or in the response itself.
6 Whenever the Court appoints counsel for an indigent party in a
case set for oral argument, the briefs on the merits submitted by that
counsel, unless otherwise requested, shall be prepared under the Clerk’s
supervision. The Clerk also will reimburse appointed counsel for any
necessary travel expenses to Washington, D. C., and return in connection
with the argument.
7 In a case in which certiorari has been granted, probable
jurisdiction noted, or consideration of jurisdiction postponed, this Court may
appoint counsel to represent a party financially unable to afford an attorney
to the extent authorized by the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 18 U. S. C. §
3006A, or by any other applicable federal statute.
8 If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional
statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ is frivolous or malicious, the
Court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Cases:
Related Case:
Statutes:
28 U.S.C. § 1651. Writs (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act
of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective
jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. (b) An alternative
writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction.
18 U.S.C. § 2071…………………………………………………………………………….
vi
United States Constitution
U.S. Constitution Article IV Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled
to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. ….…………..
U.S. Constitution Article VII First Amendment. Congress shall make no law
respecting …abridging the freedom of speech, …; …, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances. …………………………………………………..5
New York State Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 2 Section 2. Supreme
sovereignty in the people. No authority can, on any pretence whatsoever, be
exercised over the citizens of this state, but such as is or shall be derived from and
granted by the people of this state. …..
Questions Presented:
1. Does “e.g.” mean “for example” not “that is” as intended in the use of “i.e.”;
and therefore Rule 33.2 must include Rule 20 also to apply to Rule 33.1(a)
and 33.2; and in that Rule 33 for Document Preparation: Booklet Format;
1
8 /2 by 11-Inch Paper Format.” that States: “Booklet Format: (a) Except for a
1
document expressly permitted by these Rules to be submitted on 8 /2-by 11-
inch paper, see, e. g., Rules 21, 22, and 39,” must also include Rule 20?
vii
2. Does Rule 39 Proceedings in Forma Pauperis for those in prison infringe
inalienable rights of a free person with liberty that otherwise has an annual
3. Does a person who qualifies for poor person relief with Rule 39, that obtains
loans and or donations for portions of fees and or expenses for a petition and
costs to the taxpayer, and when in total still remains below the statutory
4. Did the Clerk of the SCOTUS err in requiring Rule 33.1(a) and Rule 33.2 not
1
5. Did the Clerk of the SCOTUS err in disallowing 8 /2-by 11-inch paper copy of
petition for Writ when facsimile exhibits per se may not be typeset or be
reduced in size without destroying the intelligibility of the Exhibits per se?
6. Did the Clerk of the SCOTUS err with Rule 33.2 by prohibiting facsimile
intelligibility?
7. Does the SCOTUS have discretion to infringe a poor person’s first, fifth and
ninth amendment right to equal protection of the law by SCOTUS rules and
viii
Other Sources:
• New York Chief Justice Robert Yates, Esq. - Notes of the Secret Proceedings And
Debates Of The Convention Assembled At Philadelphia, in the year 1787 for the
purpose of forming the Constitution of the United States of America, and copied
Central Book Company 850 DeKalb Avenue Brooklyn New York 11221……10,11
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-
Annexed Exhibits
Exhibit 2 - April 25, 2011 - BHO II Long Form Certificate of Live Birth
Exhibit 4 - INS Fingerprint document for BHO Senior with birth date of 6-18-1934
Exhibit 5 - INS Memo confirms BHO II birth and marriage of SAD to BHO Senior
Exhibit 7 – Stipulation by NYS / NYC / Strunk in NYS Case with index 6500-2011
ix
1
Thomas; Antonin Scalia; Anthony Kennedy; and Ruth Bader Ginsburg supervising
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say under
penalty of perjury:
1. Affirmant is a petitioner for: a Writ of Prohibition affirmed April 5, 2011 as a
poor person; a Writ of Certiorari signed March 9, 2011 by H. William Van Allen,
hearing of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari SCOTUS 10-1170; and hereby presents
this affidavit as a certificate of good faith within the intent and meaning of
SCOTUS Rules 39, 33.2, 20, and 28 USC §1651 for a Mandamus of the Clerks of the
Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to show cause why they must not
follow the express terms and conditions of SCOTUS Rule 20, Rule 33.2, Rule 34,
and Rule 39 in re the petition for Writ of Prohibition and the petition for Writ of
2. That pursuant to SCOTUS Rule 20, of the Clerks of the Supreme Court of
The United States (SCOTUS) to show cause why they must not follow the express
SCOTUS Rule 20, Rule 33.2, Rule 34, and Rule 39 in re the petition for Writ of
Prohibition in re the petition for Writ of Certiorari of SCOTUS NO. 10-1170. and is
respectfully submitted in conjunction with other relief for the following reasons:
a. Petitioner has a petition for Informa Pauperus Relief with Rule 39 which
b. Petitioner needs informa pauperus relief for relief of fees so that the petition
for Writ of Mandamus of the Clerks of the Supreme Court of the United
States (SCOTUS) to show cause why they must not follow the express
SCOTUS Rule 20, Rule 33.2, Rule 34, and Rule 39 in re the Petition for Writ
and resolved;
John G. Roberts Jr., de facto Justice Elena Kagan, de facto Justice Sonia
Sotomayor, de facto Solicitor General of the United States Neal Katyal and
de facto Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder, in the absence of
Hussein Obama II rather than Joseph R. Biden who must show cause to
FACTS
4. That on April 7, 2011 Affirmant wrote a letter to the Clerk of the SCOTUS to
accompany the money order for filing notice of the intent to file an extraordinary
5. That on April 12, 2011 Affirmant telephoned the clerk of SCOTUS associated
with the petition for Writ of Certiorari with SCOTUS No. 10-1170 to verify the
receipt of the letter and money order for intent to file the writ of prohibition and for
which Affirmant left a recorded message for the Clerk to respond with an answer.
6. That on April 13, 2011 Affirmant having not received a verification again
telephoned the clerk of SCOTUS associated with the petition for Writ of Certiorari
with SCOTUS No. 10-1170 to verify the receipt of the letter and money order for
intent to file the writ of prohibition and was transferred to said Clerk who
confirmed that the letter and money order had been received; however stated that
1
the SCOTUS would not accept a Rule 33.2 8 ⁄2-by 11-Inch Paper Format because
Affirmant had tendered a $300 fee, further that Rule 33.2 was only available for an
approved informa pauperus filer and furthermore that Affirmant may not use
1
SCOTUS a Rule 33.2 8 ⁄2-by 11-Inch Paper Format for a Rule 20 petition for Writ of
7. That Affirmant said that it is impossible to typeset the Exhibits that are in
1
8 ⁄2-by 11-Inch Paper Format because to do so would destroy the intent and
substance of the exhibit meaning were it either typeset or reduced in format size
and were it separated from the body of the affidavit as if in the form of a separate
appendix (1).
8. That the Clerk of the Court stated that SCOTUS would not accept a Petition
1
for Writ of Prohibition with Rule 20 for 8 ⁄2-by 11-Inch Paper Format (Paper
Format) anyway, and that embedding a reduced size facsimile of the exhibits into a
Booklet Format was also not acceptable to the Clerk other that by typeset method.
1
9. That Affirmant explained that the facsimile Exhibits must be in a 8 ⁄2-by 11-
Inch Paper Format or else lose the meaning of the exhibit itself, to wit the Clerk
said that once a fee for filing is received informa pauper us of Rule 33.2 is not
possible and that intent to use anything other than a Rule 33.1 format for a Rule 20
10. That Affirmant stated to the clerk to speak to the Clerks Supervisor and
when transferred but there was no persons to answer other than a recorded
1
Rule 32. Models, Diagrams, Exhibits, and Lodgings
1 Models, diagrams, and exhibits of material forming part of the evidence taken in a case and
brought to this Court for its inspection shall be placed in the custody of the Clerk at least two weeks
before the case is to be heard or submitted.
2 All models, diagrams, exhibits, and other items placed in the custody of the Clerk shall be
removed by the parties no more than 40 days after the case is decided. If this is not done, the Clerk will
notify counsel to remove the articles forthwith. If they are not removed within a reasonable time
thereafter, the Clerk will destroy them or dispose of them in any other appropriate way.
3 Any party or amicus curiae desiring to lodge non-record material with the Clerk must set out in a
letter, served on all parties, a description of the material proposed for lodging and the reasons why the
non-record material may properly be considered by the Court. The material proposed for lodging may not
be submitted until and unless requested by the Clerk.
message for which Affirmant requested a return call and expressed frustration with
the wrongful treatment by the misreading of the SCOTUS Rules; and to wit there
has not been a return call by the Clerk or supervisor and as such this petition is
filed as a result;
11. Affirmant alleges that the Clerks of the SCOTUS have wrongfully denied
Affirmant equal protection of the law as a poor person who has made every attempt
to defray the costs of filing such Rule 20 Petition for Writ of Prohibition and the
burden 0n the taxpayer solicited a donation for the filing fee of $300 and has been
12. That the Clerk of SCOTUS have arbitrarily interpreted Rule 33.1 as if Rule
33.2 were to exclude a Rule 20 petition for Writ of Prohibition, arbitrarily by mis-
reading of the abbreviated phrase “e.g.” as if it were to mean “i.e.” thereby inter alia
deny Affirmant the right to petition the government as guaranteed by the First
13. That the Clerk of the SCOTUS has arbitrarily interpreted Rule 39 as to
income is, and being absolutely different that from a person in involuntary
servitude being incarcerated having been convicted of a crime without liberty taken
with due process of law as required by the 13th Amendment, and therefore the
Clerk of the Court has taken Affirmant’s Liberty without due process of law in
14. That were the Clerk of the SCOTUS actually following the dicta of the
SCOTUS rules as directed by the Court to deny Affirmant the opportunity for a
Rule 20 petition filing with Rule 33.2 paper format because Affirmant has rendered
a $300 fee despite being qualified for informa pauperus relief then the SCOTUS and
the Clerks are disparaging Affirmant rights and liberty as guaranteed by the 9th
Amendment protection against such injury by the agents of the Government as well
as the trespass against Affirmant’s First and Fifth Amendment guarantees by the
DISCUSSION
15. That the questionably imperious nature of the detachment of the SCOTUS
from the central role of the third branch in the defense of individual liberty as a
guaranteed to the people rendering the purpose of the Judiciary moot as to the
exercise of reporting on the historical basis for use and safeguard of the liberties
existing outside of the narrow definition of what good government shall be, has
William Howard Taft having acted with impunity to exceed the intent and purpose
16. That within SCOTUS Rule 33. Document Preparation for Booklet Format
Sub-Section 1 clause (a) quote “Except for a document expressly permitted by these
1
Rules to be submitted on 8 /2-by 11-inch paper, see, e. g., Rules 21, 22, and 39,” -- “
e.g.” means “for example” NOT “that is” and therefore, Rule 20 for Petition for
17. Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law.”
And “[a] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so
vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and
differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.”
18. Courts enforcing mere statutes do not act judicially, but ministerially, having
process nor even by Arrest and Compelled Appearance.” Boswell v. Otis, 9 Howard
336, 348.
petition for an extraordinary writ is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis.“ that the nature of Affirmant’s Petition for Writ
20. That on or about April 25, 2011, that respondent Barack Hussein Obama at
(LF) Certification of Live Birth (CoLB) that confirm the facts of his birth on August
4, 1961 in Honolulu Hawaii (see Exhibit 2) and are according to the CoLB released
three years earlier by his Presidential Campaign are the same (see Exhibit 3).
primarily because BHO Sr. was born in 1934 not 1936 making him 27 when BHO II
was born NOT 25, with the reasoning that the hospital would have checked BHO
22. That on or about April 29, 2011 Affirmant received notice of the release on
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File .
23. That at page 52 of the posting by Heather Smathers (see Exhibit 4) the INS
finger print document on which the INS officer verified that Barack Hussein Obama
Senior was born in Kenya on June 18, 1934 shown on the Exhibit as “6-18-1934”.
24. That on August 31, 1961, at page 34 (see Exhibit 5) the INS officer verified
that Barack Hussein Obama Senior was married to the minority age U.S. Citizen
Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and they have a newborn child born in Honolulu
25. That were Barack Hussein Obama II born in Honolulu Hawaii at the specific
institution named on the LF CoLB shown as Exhibit 2 then the respective registrar
of the birth made an error as to the age of Barack Hussein Obama Senior on or
about August 4, 1961 as if 25 years of age, which is wrong, and should have been
recorded as 27 years because of the June 18, 1934 birth date not 25 years which
would coincide with say the wrong date of June 18, 1936 instead.
26. That were the Hawaii Hospital registrar to make such a two year mistake is
possible were the father not present and or if the information were taken from only
27. However there is further proof that the Hawaii Hospital registrar would not
use 1936 rather that the actual June 18, 1934 date and that the 1936 date is
Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Mombasa Kenya on August 4, 1961 that
publicly surfaced in early 2009 as provided by Lucas Smith (see Exhibit 6) who
would neither verify that he had traveled to Mombasa Kenya by providing his own
passport as proof, nor even allow expert authentication of the validity of such
document shown on Exhibit 6 as to the year of the Father birth shown as 1936.
28. That Affirmant does not believe for one moment that a registrar in Mombasa
Kenya then subject to British administrative supervision would make such an error
to put 1936 rather than 1934 when in fact the year of the Father’s birth record is
29. For the reason that the INS has confirmed that BHO II was born in Hawaii
stated in the August 31, 1961 Memo, shown as Exhibit 5, therefore the alleged
documentation by Lucas Smith is a forgery that relied upon the 1936 year of the
Father’s birth and not the actual date of 1934 that for two registrars and the INS
30. Furthermore, the Fact that Barrack Hussein Obama Senior is a Non-
immigrant alien student temporarily visiting the United State for the purpose of
applications for informa pauperus and stay relief, and that to file same is not
if the facts of the POTUS Usurper Chester Arthur’s fraud upon the Voters had been
previously released and adjudicated, must be done now as to the present Usurper.
32. That George Washington as to the important in the sanctity of the executive
office in his Farwell address at the end of this second term as president stated:
"But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance,
may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free
governments are destroyed." (Emphasis added by Affirmant)
33. That based upon the New-York July 26, 1788 ratification of the U.S.
Constitution, in which the present form was drafted in the New York Convention,
with New York as the new Capital of the USA and in New-York where George
Washington was sworn in as the first President of the USA; and on which date the
ratification document that the necessity that eligibility for both the Executive and
actual U.S. Constitution only mandates the NBC requirement for the Executive.
34. That the People of New-York maintain the express right as then guaranteed
under the 10th amendment to secede as is required were the express mandates of
the U.S. Constitution not followed, and that New-York would remain separate such
35. The INS does NOT make the type of mistakes that registrars may do, and or
CoLB of three years ago shown as Exhibit 3 were it to use 25 years of age for the
Father as did Mr. Smith on his artwork shown as Exhibit 6; and therefore, as such
the latest so-called LF CoLB that uses 25 years instead of 27 years as shown on
Exhibit 2 that is the certification that Barack Hussein Obama II is not NBC with a
British subject alien student father, and is a dilemma for the perpetrator of the
1936 errors, that if shown otherwise by Hawaii would have been an immediate
cause for indictment of BHO II and his cohorts at the CIA especially the Jesuit Co-
adjutor John Brenan whose operative destroyed DOS records in 2007 / 2008.
36. The abovementioned matters are germane to Chief Justice Roberts, de facto
Justice Kagan and de facto Sotomayor et al. who are material witnesses subject to a
subpoena in the active case Strunk v NYS BOE et al. in the New York State
Supreme Court for the County of Kings with Index No. 6500-2011, and in which Mr.
Obama and his associates including Mark Brzezinski with a common attorney are
37. "A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void" World Wide
Volkswagen Woodsen, 444 U.S. 286, 291; National Bank v. Wiley, 195 U.S. 257;
38. Judges have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction that is given
than to usurp that which is not given. Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat 264 (1821). U.S.
which involves a breach of legal duty, trust or confidence, justly reposed and is
become the foundation for interference of fraud, and when there is a duty to speak,
misrepresentation. Tex Civ. App 1943 Ruebeck v. Hunt, 171 SW2d 895, affirmed
can be held responsible for that conduct. Tex. 1987, Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene
41. Courts enforcing mere statutes do not act judicially, but ministerially,
having no judicial immunity, and unlike Courts of Law, do not obtain jurisdiction by
service of process nor even by Arrest and Compelled Appearance. Boswell v. Otis, 9
Exhibit 1
Christopher-Earl; Strunk in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281
Brooklyn, New York 11238
845-901-6767; chris@strunk.ws
Attached with the good grace of my fellow petitioner, H. William Van Allen in
SCOTUS No. 10-1170 is my tender of payment of the $300 filing fee for the
Petition for Writ of Prohibition in lieu of recusal. I am in the process of
printing fifty copies of the original petition of 40 pages in 8.5 inch by 11 inch
format with Rule 33.2 and 34 accordingly; and that 40 plus the original will
be forwarded with certificate of service after the eight respondents other than
the Justice and both Messrs. Van Allen and Forjone in regards to SCOTUS
10-1170 are duly served. I trust that with this payment and notice the Clerk
will be prepared to process the forth coming submission when received in due
course by mail. Respectfully submitted by,
Cc:
H. William Van Allen in esse
John-Joseph Forjone in esse
DedI' Llerh. or trie Gourt,
Mailing label
1111111111\111111 11I1I 1\11\1111111111 1111\ \\11111111111111111 \\\11111 1\1II1 Label 11-8, March 2004
EG 220611174 US
UNITED STIlTES POSTJ.lL SERVICE ®
~~tJf,mi:C;;j:m!rm~Y~"B~~
PAYMENT D
BY ACCOUNT WAIVER OF SIGNATURE (Domestic Mail Only)
Express CUS:;'~~~.~~~lu~:~~~a~~~~:aO~n~~~~~~~~
Mail Corporate Acct. No. void if
I wish delivery to be made without obtain,ing signature
of addressee or addressee's agent (if delivery employee
8>- I
I fRCHV1: (PLEASE PRINT)
/f1J
(j"""t
(jJ
W
rr
J51 IVt;I/J
n, I 'i e a»
~~--~> ~~
fE)U"pY\~n:;;;)~ Label M
11 B, March 2004
"
11
________ 1 I TO: (PLEASE PRINT) ?HONE { I--
PHONE (
FROM: (PLEASEPRINT)
! +!
;=OR iNTERNATIONAL DESTINATIONS. WRlii: COUNTRY NAME BELOW.
IN RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK IN ESSE
Exhibit 2
IN RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK IN ESSE
Exhibit 3
IN RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK IN ESSE
Exhibit 4
IN RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK IN ESSE
Exhibit 5
IN RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK IN ESSE
Exhibit 6
Page 1 of 1
http://www2.az-independent.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ObamaDoc.jpg 4/29/2011
IN RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK IN ESSE
Exhibit 7
No. ___-_____
i
Respondents
ii
Table of Contents Page
Relief Requested:
A Writ of Prohibition with Quo warranto inquest of Chief Justice John Roberts, de
facto Justice Elena Kagan, de facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor, de facto Solicitor
General of the United States Neal Katyal, de facto Attorney General of the United
States Eric Holder, and de facto U.S. Attorney for Washington District of Columbia
Ronald C. Machen Jr. in the absence of voluntary recusal from hearing the Petition
SCOTUS Rules:
SCOTUS Rule 332.: For petitions with 8.5 inch by 11 inch paper format
Cases:
United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1199 (7th Cir. 1985) Liberty Lobby, Inc.
v. Dow Jones Co., 838 F.2d 1287, 1301 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (citing cases)………………...
Norton v. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886). ………………………… .
iii
Failure due to another, where failure to take the oath within the time prescribed is
due to the refusal of the officer designated to administer it the office does not
become vacant. State v. Kraft, 20 Or. 28, 23 Pac. 663.
Oath does not confer office. A candidate without even a prima facie right to
municipal office cannot give himself the right to the office by taking the oath.
Walker v. Quillian, 118 Ga. 152, 44 S.E. 987.
Path—failure to take oath within prescribed time renders office vacant. Douglas v.
Essex Co., 38 N.J. L. 214: Branham v. Long, 78 Va. 352; People v. McKinney, 52
N.Y. 374.
A person elected to office… who failed to take the oath prescribed by statute, never
obtained title to the office. Hayter v. Benner, 67 N.J.L. 359, 52 Atl. 351.
Statutes:
28 U.S.C. § 1 Number of justices; quorum. The Supreme Court of the United States
shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any
six of whom shall constitute a quorum.
28 U.S.C. § 453. Oaths of justices and judges. Each justice or judge of the United
States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his
office: “I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without
respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will
faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as
XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
28 USC §455 (a) Any justice… of the United States shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also
disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or
prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding; (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and
in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the
proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in
controversy; (4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary…has a financial
interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any
other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (5)
He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them,
iv
or the spouse of such a person: (i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or
trustee of a party; (iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge
likely to be a material witness in the proceeding. (c) A judge should inform himself
about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to
inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children
residing in his household.
28 U.S.C. § 1651. Writs (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act
of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective
jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law..
Exhibit One annexed: May 20, 2009 CES Letter to Washington DC US Attorney
Jeffery Taylor May 20, 2009 with attachment:
• CES v BHO Verified Quo Warranto Complaint May 19, 2009;
• CES Fires BHO January 22, 2009;
• Proof of Service of January 23, 2009 of CES Firing of BHO;
• Proof of Service of Letter w/ attachments to Jeffery Taylor US Attorney et al.
Exhibit Two annexed: August 26, 2009 Letter from BHO to CES
Exhibit Three annexed: March 22, 2011 filing; Strunk v NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Cty Kings
Index 6500-2011
Exhibit Four annexed: Affidavit of Service of BHO and Biden with Strunk v NYS BOE
et al. NYSSC Cty Kings Index 6500-2011
v
Questions Presented:
1. Does Chief Justice John G. Roberts have a conflict of interest and not hear
SCOTUS 10-1170, must show cause why he is not a material witness to the
scheme to defraud by BHO et al. filed in New York State Supreme Court in
Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. in the County of Kings Index No. 6500-2011?
2. Does de facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor have a conflict of interest must not hear
SCOTUS 10-1170, must show cause why she is not a material witness to the
scheme to defraud by BHO et al. filed in New York State Supreme Court in
Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. in the County of Kings Index No. 6500-2011?
3. Were Barack Hussein Obama II (BHO) acts Void ab initio because BHO is
ineligible for POTUS in conflict with U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause
5 as BHO’s birth where ever that may have been on August 4, 1961 is to natural
father who is a British subject on a student visa married to Stanley Ann Obama?
4. Are de facto officers appointed by BHO to show cause why they may serve
5. Must BHO in a Quo Warranto proceeding show cause why he has authority as
POTUS rather than Joseph R. Biden Jr. under the 25th Amendment Section 4?
6. Should de facto Justice Sotomayor show cause why having heard seven cases
while in the Second Circuit she should not recuse for hearing SCOTUS 10-1170?
Kagan, Sotomayor, Defacto Solicitor, Attorney General and U.S. Attorney would
issue if any were to proceed as to the Writ of Certiorari SCOTUS No. 10-1170?
vi
To the Honorable Associate Justices: Stephen G. Breyer; Samuel A. Alito; Clarence
Thomas; Antonin Scalia; Anthony Kennedy; and Ruth Bader Ginsburg supervising
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say under
penalty of perjury:
1. Affirmant is a petitioner for Writ of Certiorari signed March 9, 2011 by H.
this affidavit as a certificate of good faith within the intent and meaning of 28 USC
144 and 28 USC 455(a) 28 USC §1651 for the recusal of Chief Justice John Roberts,
and de facto Justice Elena Kagan and de facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor as well as
the de facto U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, de facto Attorney General Eric
hearing and or in the SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Certiorari No. 10-1170 as a
Hussein Obama II to serve as POTUS and of Chief Justice Roberts aiding and
abetting the usurpation of the POTUS office along with those similarly situated
2. Respondent John Glover Roberts, Jr. is the 17th and current Chief Justice of
the United States (Chief Justice Roberts). He has served since 2005, having been
nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States (POTUS) without
being eligible under U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, as his natural
father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was a British Subject with a student Visa at the
birth August 4, 1961 by his minor aged U.S. Citizen mother Stanley Ann Obama,
US 354 (1824) that explains the difference between a Natural-born and Native-born
Barack Hussein Obama and all the names he uses is not a Natural-born citizen and
by his own allegation only a native born-citizen therefore is not eligible to POTUS.
4. That Respondent Chief Justice Roberts before administering the oath of office
for POTUS on January 20, 2009, met with the Associate Justices of the SCOTUS,
presumably to discuss the pending oath taken by a person ineligible for POTUS.
5. That Respondent Obama being ineligible illegally took the oath of office after
Noon on January 20, 2009 at 12:05 pm, and failed to timely take the Oath of office
6. The Oath mandated by the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 8 (1)
was botched in its delivery by Respondent Chief Justice Roberts who said the oath
incorrectly, while Respondent Obama paused and gave Chief Justice Roberts an
opportunity to correct it. The Chief Justice Roberts said it wrong a second time, in
another way. Then Respondent Obama repeated the incorrect first version of the
oath; and because the oath was incorrect, the next day, at 7:35 pm in every report
Affirmant could find, Respondent Obama and Respondent Chief Judge Roberts
repeated the oath in private on January 21, in the White House Map room.
7. That Affirmant Petitioner is the only person in the United States of America
(USA) to have duly fired fired fired BHO on January 23, 2009 (see Exhibit 1) served
by registered mail; thereby rendering BHO the USURPER to the POTUS; and as
8. That Respondent Obama was fired on the grounds that he had admitted that
he was not eligible for POTUS by the admission that his natural father is a British
Subject on a student visa, making BHO a Native-born citizen at best if born within
the full and complete jurisdiction of the USA, we do not know; and therefore, BHO
1
Article II Section 1 Clause 8. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the
following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute
the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States."
BHO’s acts as the Usurper from January 20, 2009 heretofore are void ab initio (2).
9. That May 20, 2009 Affirmant provided due notice to then U.S. Attorney
Jeffrey Taylor for Washington D.C. and present de facto Attorney General Eric
Holder, shown in Exhibit 1; and that Respondents Holder and BHO forced the de
jure U.S. Attorney of Washington DC to resign in order for the Usurper to replace
that U.S. Attorney Office with the present de facto U.S. Attorney for Washington
Machen and Katyal act in concert for the Usurper without responding to
Affirmant’s application for a Quo Warranto inquest with DC Code Chapter 35 Title
16 Section 3502.
10. That Affirmant is the interested person required with DCC Chapter 35 §16-
3503: meets the condition (2) that the Usurper’s demurer Letter of August 2009 (see
Exhibit 2), in which Respondent Obama pleads the special general issue of
separation of powers doctrine; and that as a matter of law did not deny the facts
presented in the petition shown as Exhibit 1, and in that Affirmant - fired the
Usurper on January 22, 2009, making his dual allegiance issue at birth with a
2 Ab Initio - prep. Latin phrase meaning "from the start"; literal meaning being
something done 'from scratch'. In legal parlance it stands from: 1.) if any legal
agreement is void ab initio then it stands null and void from the very beginning of
its intended existence and not just from the instant its declared as void. 2.) if a
person enters onto someone's private property (real estate) by authority of law but
later maltreats that authority then he becomes a trespasser ab initio.
matter of law is not eligible for the Office of President contrary to U.S. Constitution
the condition (3) the law requires a declaratory judgment as to the finding on those
facts only absent further discovery; and (4) that Affirmant with DCC Chapter 35
§16-3544 is ready for the inquest and Affirmant waives a jury for a bench trial.
Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Neal Katyal Ronald C. Machen Jr. among others are a
12. Affirmant has a duty to make this petition to protect a judicial right against
any waiver that may without application accrue; and that Affirmant has a direct
injury ongoing here in Brooklyn New York involving de facto Justice Sonia
Sotomayor as a 2nd Circuit Judge that from no later than 2004 since January 20,
2009 with Chief Justice John Roberts and Sotomayor are material witnesses to the
Complaint filed by Affirmant in New York State Supreme Court in the County of
Kings with Index No. 6500-2011 in the matter of a scheme to defraud Plaintiff along
with those similarly situated as voters in New York state filed on March 22 2011
(see copy of blue back page Exhibit 3); and duly served upon Respondents Obama
and Biden on Thursday, March 31 2011, by a third party server whose affidavit is
herewith (see Exhibit 4), and as with the questionable appointment of de facto
Justice Elena Kagan is sufficient cause for their consideration with 28 USC §144
and §455 to recuse from hearing the SCOTUS petition No. 10-1170, and in which
hearing the matter of a writ of prohibition with quo warranto inquest too.
13. That Respondents Chief Justice Roberts, de facto Justices Kagan and
Sotomayor, as well as the de facto U.S. Attorney for Washington DC, de facto
Attorney General Holder and de facto Solicitor General are material witnesses to
14. That Affirmant has conferred in the petition herein with Petitioners Van
Allen and Forjone in the SCOTUS Petition No. 10-1170 and that both state
declaration attached, and have designated that Affirmant support this motion to
recuse from hearing the Strunk et al v Thomas J. Spargo et al Petition for Writ of
15. That Affirmant heard credible allegations during the 2005 confirmation
process for Chief Justice Roberts that surfaced that John G. Roberts is possibly a
member of OPUS DEI the secular organization established by the Jesuit Order in
1928; and the allegations are that John G. Roberts is a member of Opus Dei that
was the subject raised during the confirmation proceeding were never answered:
http://www.charm.net/~profpan/2005/07/is-judge-roberts-opus-dei.html
16. In the context of such disturbing unanswered allegation during the 2005
confirmation hearing, which is bad enough in itself, in that the OPUS DEI member
oath is to exclusively serve the Vatican State over any other commitment or
found-at-vatican-bank-obama-clinton-roberts-legatus-split (3)
without support or investigate the claim, as Mr. Paul is on the House Banking
Committee with subpoena power to investigate accordingly; and that to date there
3 Slush fund of top politicians found at Vatican Bank, Obama, Clinton, Roberts?
Legatus split! Submitted by ACinMA on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 21:22 in Politics & Law
What do you think? Slush fund of top politicians found at Vatican Bank, Obama,
Clinton, Roberts? Legatus split!
Slush fund accounts of major US politicians identified and seized at Vatican
Bank (Rome). Connection established with Daniel Dal Bosco RICO indictment,
which cites Giancarlo Bruno, Silvio Berlusconi & Ban Ki Moon. On Wednesday 5th
January 2011, it emerged that US establishment-related slush fund accounts had
been located in, and seized from, the Vatican Bank in Rome.
The source of funds for these accounts in almost every instance was found to
be the US Treasury. Beneficiaries of the covert Vatican accounts include Barack
Obama, Michelle Obama and each of the Obama children, Michelle Obama’s
mother, all the Bushes and the Clintons, including Chelsea Clinton, Joe Biden,
Timothy Geithner, Janet Napolitano, several US Senators, including Mitch
McConnell, several US Congressmen including John Boehner, several US Military
Chiefs of Staff, the US Provost Marshal, the US Judge Advocate General, the US
Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts, several US Judges, the Pope, and
several cardinals. Big money was found in each of the accounts. Cont:
http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/bob-chapman-newsle...
18. In support of clear and convincing evidence of why Respondent Obama, and
defendants in the Complaint shown on the caption with Exhibit 3, John S. McCain
and Roger Calero are not eligible for POTUS either, because of dual allegiance or
birth in a foreign nation outside the full and complete jurisdiction of the United
States of America, and why most lawyers do not get the natural-born-citizen and
upon information received, believes that with the exception of Tulane University,
which offers an option because Louisiana is a civil law jurisdiction –adopted from
19. That every state of the several states, except Louisiana, has adopted the
attorneys learn the common law of England. That presents a big problem; the
United States has never adopted the common law of England. While many terms
used in the constitution were also part of the common law of England, there was no
such thing in that law regarding a natural-born citizen. The closest was a natural-
20. The people who really knew what a natural-born citizen is were those who
dealt with foreign relations. –After all, being identified as a natural-born citizen
really doesn’t have any distinct purpose while within the U.S., save that of being
U.S. soil, of parents who were both citizens, means that no other country can
obligate you to allegiance. By the Law of Nations, the law voluntarily adopted by all
civilized nations in order to resolve disputes, no other country can require you to
join their military. Those who are born of parents who are not citizens acquire the
condition of their father by inheritance of blood. –Even if born on U.S. soil, they
have, by jus sanguinis, a dual character. They can be claimed by two countries.
22. Chief Justice John Jay knew what he was doing when he suggested to
General Washington that only a natural-born citizen should hold the position of
Commander-in-Chief. It was the only way that no other power could legally require
plenary authority over citizenship and the constitutional restraints on those powers,
stating:
“ All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a
compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of
the United States; all other persons born within the Republic owing
allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens… [There is] no
exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said
in the Constitution relating to Indians. 37 CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE 1639
(1862).”
congressional plenary authority over citizenship and that the doctrine of which
“Mr. BINGHAM. If the gentleman will only let me go on I will answer all his
questions. As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts
in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born
citizen of the United State there is not room for the showdown of a doubt. He
was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States,
and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is
declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”
And further should we consider Rep. Bingham’s testimony reliable? Here is what
Justice Hugo Black (a former U.S. Senator from Alabama) said in 1968:
to say in 1919 about citizenship and allegiance as published in the Atlantic Monthly
This petition shows that the writ of prohibition and quo warranto inquest will
circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers, and that
adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court.
Affirmant has read the foregoing petition for a 28 USC §1651 extraordinary writ of
Exhibit 1
CES Letter to Washington DC US Attorney Jeffery Taylor May 20, 2009
1 2
revised statutes of 1878 vested jurisdiction in these courts of proceedings brought by the 5. The nature of my injury caused by the Usurper is the subject of my response in
United States Attorney for the removal of persons holding office contrary to the opposition to a partial dismissal as to the Usurper now in default and whose actions
Fourteenth Amendment. Rev.Stat., Sections 563(14), 626(14), (1786). This Act was are void ab initio, and that the Defendant DOS answer to my complaint there
repealed in the Judicial Code of 1911, 36 Stat. 1168. In 1901, Congress specifically demands further discovery with production of documents and interrogatories, and that
authorized the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to issue quo this action is intertwined and inseparable.
warranto in the name of the United States. Act of March 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1419, Title 16,
Section 1601 of the D.C. Code (1940). However, this grant is strictly limited and is I would be more than willing on or after June 1, 2009, to elaborate on this demand with
confined solely to situations involving franchises and public offices held within the an expanded memorandum that would also encompass the respectable work of the attorney Leo
District of Columbia. There is no other specific statutory provision vesting original Donofrio, Esq. of New Jersey, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. of California, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. of New
jurisdiction in the district courts in quo warranto actions. Jersey and John D. Hemenway, Esq. of Washington District of Columbia as none represent
relator. However this is the required statutory notice of a pre-existing intent required of me.
Furthermore, before the Quo Warranto statute existed there is a precedent for a sitting, voted in, On a personal note of great importance to me, I am a natural-born citizen of two married
sworn in, Senator, Albert Gallatin was thrown out of office in 1793 for being constitutionally natural-born born citizens that makes me eligible to become president, however my son when
ineligible to be a Senator, not having the 9 year requirement as a U.S. citizen. The full reaching 35 and having resided in the USA for 14 years at election may not be a natural-born
congressional link and the procedure they used follows: citizen because my wife at the time of his birth in New York was not a citizen and as such
because there is no interpretation as to the nature of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is a matter of
http://books.google.com/books?id=qkMFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA223-IA8&lpg=PA223- first-impression dear to me and is effecting my liberty now onward.
IA8&dq=Albert+Gallatin+ineligible+Senator&source=bl&ots=GO4Ii8iPv7&sig=NVpzF Your immediate response to this urgent matter is warranted and by way of a copy the
2CVNYUnIWYpNdjESd9gvYA&hl=en&ei=YIiwSaOeOteitgfYiIHEBw&sa=X&oi=boo additional parties-in –interest listed below they too are duly notified. I may be reached during the
k_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA221,M1 day at (845) 901-6767.
Relator in consideration of the above referenced SCOTUS and other decisions comes Sincerely yours,
forth here with a direct not collateral attack upon the usurper intransigence who after all is in
esse and merely poses as the corporate administrator POTUS. The Usurper as an individual in
esse only has it in his interest to regain his corporate office were the issues of fact adjudicated. Dated: May 20th, 2009 /s/ Christopher-Earl : Strunk, in esse
Brooklyn, New York _________________________________
1. That relator is the sovereign employer of the POTUS who exercises authority over Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse
my personal grant of power of attorney permission given to administer the united
States of America (Inc.); Attached: Verified Quo Warranto Complaint with Demand for Jury Trial and Decision on
Question of First Impression with exhibits
2. Relator duly fired Barack Hussein Obama in his corporate capacity for cause on
January 23, 2009 after he took the oath of office by timely return of the offer of Cc:
contract wishing no contract thereby revoked power of attorney due to his failure to
prove eligibility as a natural born citizen; The Honorable Eric Holder
U.S. Attorney General
3. That Barack Hussein Obama in esse usurps that office and presumably wishes to have U.S. Department of Justice
a Quo Warranto forum to prove his eligibility to be able to return to the corporate 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
office capacity as evidenced by the fact he simulates the corporate POTUS duties. Washington, DC 20530-0001
4. Further as to relator standing, as the particularized injury different than the general Barack Hussein Obama in esse
public, is evidenced by the related FOIA case where I complaint of injury and as a c/o The White House
result of irreparable harm caused by the Usurper personally not only the particular 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
speech injury and informational injury, but according to the opposition counsel I am Washington, DC 20500
to be sanctioned for something which as of right under statute I am entitled too and
having been wrongly withheld by the POTUS Executive while under the Usurper. president@whitehouse.net, AskDOJ@usdoj.gov, dc.outreach@usdoj.gov
3 4
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 19-2 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 219 of 243 Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 19-2 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 220 of 243
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 19-2 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 221 of 243 Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 19-2 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 222 of 243
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 19-2 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 223 of 243 Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 19-2 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 224 of 243
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 19-2 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 225 of 243 Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 19-2 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 226 of 243
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 19-2 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 227 of 243
NOTlCE TO W E CLERK OF RECORDS
Ttit minnteyon d v e any recod, document, paper, proceeding, map, book or o d ~ mthing 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 1atsocaui-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
h m the hwydng d am dl e rd-party-intebvenem. Any attorney, district attorney, or q m e
parties and do not have a licu~seto make a legal detmmhation in
this 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
Me. Should You fail to uphold Your swom o& and +rm your duties I will h v e no choice but to
rcwrd aaA€iiaaVit ofC r i m i d Complaint agahtst Your amd Liend a mpy to Your bonding company.
5-03. Every person who willfully destroys Mattempts to deshoy, or, with intent to steal or d m y ,
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, or record fled or depasikd in any public ofice,
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. Iftwo or more peasons in my State or Taritory conspire for the purpose ofimpeding
hindering.o b c h g or defeating,ia any m ,thed m come ofjustice in any State or Territory, with
intent d q to my citizenthe equd protection of the laws, or to in* him or his property fur lawhlly
wforcin& or att~tllptingto enforce, the right of any person, or class of person, to the equal protection of
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 my m r d , document, paper, or proceding specified in
e m fifty-fim hundrcd and three,who f m d d d y takes away, or withdraws, or destroys any soah
rwmd, docmmt, paper, or p m c d k g filed in his OEM or depsitsd with him or in his cmtody, shall
pay a fine of not more fhan two thougand dollars, or d e r imigrisoammtat bard labor not more than three
yms,or bo€band W moreaver, Wcit his office and be foreva d k w a r d disqualified froan holding
arry ofice u a d a the Govmment of the United States. @esbyiug record by oEca in charge.)
(b) W
h-, 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~~gany office mdu the United States. As used in
this subsection, the t m u~ffi~e" does not include the oftice held by my pason as a reaired officer
ofthe Armed F o m of the United States.
[ Judicial Notice ]
1. ["A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void" World Wde VoIKrwagot
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 .mpkmmbofdue 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
[. 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 at its meaning and differ as to its
application, violates the tmntial of due process of law." Godly v. General
Comimction Co.. 269 U.S. 3 8539I]
[. nWheneverit appears that the court lacks subject matterjuzisdiction, the ant is
obliged to dismiss the adios" Elly v. Coastal Cop., 503 U.S. 131,136-37; U S. v.
Texar, 252 F. Supp 234,2541
Exhibit 2
August 26, 2009 Letter from BHO to CES
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 26,2009
Thank you for contacting the office of President Barack Obama. The
President appreciates your taking the time to voice your concerns and opinions.
Sincerely,
F. Michael Kelleher
.. Special Assistant to the President and
Director of Presidential Correspondence
IN RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK IN ESSE
Exhibit 3
March 22, 2011 filing; Strunk v NYS BOE etal. NYSSC Cty Kings Index 6500-2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS Index NO.: b
-------------------------------------------------
X
Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse
Plaintiff, Filed: March 22,20 11
-again&-
Defendants.
................................................................................. X
SUMMONS
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Dated: March 22,2011
Brooklyn, New York
Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse plaintiff
593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281,
Brooklyn, New York 11238
(845) 901-6767 E-mail: chris@strunk.ws
IN RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK IN ESSE
Exhibit 4
Affidavit of Service of BHO and Biden with Strunk v NYS BOE et al.