Strunk: CES Petition w SCOTUS Rule 20 w Exhibits in re SCOTUS 10-1170 040511

8/7/2019 Strunk: CES Petition w SCOTUS Rule 20 w Exhibits in re SCOTUS 10-1170 040511

1/40

i

No. ___-_____

In The Supreme Court of the United StatesIN RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK IN ESSE

PETITIONER WITH SCOTUS RULE 20 FORAN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF PROHIBITION

WITH QUO WARRANTO INQUEST

OF CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS Jr., DE FACTO JUSTICE ELENA

KAGAN, DE FACTO JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, DE FACTO SOLICITOR

GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES NEAL KATYAL AND DE FACTO

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ERIC HOLDER, IN THE

ABSENCE OF VOLUNTARY RECUSAL FROM HEARING THE PETITION FOR

WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN SCOTUS NO. 10-1170, AND OR THAT EACH IS

CHALLENGED IN QUO WARRANTO TO PROVIDE PROOF OF AUTHORITY TO

SERVE BY THE VOID AB INITIO ACTS OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II

RATHER THAN JOSEPH R. BIDEN WHO MUST SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in essePetitioner w/o being an attorney

593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281

Brooklyn, New York 11238

Cell-845-901 -6767 ; [email protected]


2/40

ii

Respondents

John-Joseph: Forjone in esse

H. William Van Allen in esse

c/o 351 North Avenue

Hurley, New York 12231

Chief Justice John G. Roberts

De facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor

De facto Justice Elena Kagan

at One First Street NE,

Washington, DC 20543.

Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer

Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia

Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy

Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

at One First Street NE,

Washington, DC 20543.

Barack Hussein Obama IIat The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington D.C. 20500

Joseph R. Biden Jr.

at The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington D.C. 20500

De facto Attorney General Eric Holder

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

Ronald C. Machen Jr.De facto U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C.

United States Attorney's Office555 4th Street, NWWashington, DC 20530

De facto Solicitor General Neal Katyal

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.


Solicitor General of the United States

Room 5614 Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Solicitor General of the State of N.Y.

Office of Attorney General of New York

The Capitol

Albany, New York 12224-0341

James E. Long, Esq.

Bar Roll No. 506898

668 Central AvenueAlbany, New York 12206


3/40

iii

Table of Contents PagePetitioners Affidavit in support of relief ...............................1

Respondents Concurring Declaration in support of relief ................13

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

for Writ of Certiorari in SCOTUS No. 10-1170.

SCOTUS Rules:SCOTUS Rule 20. Procedure on a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ

SCOTUS Rule 33. For petitions with 8.5 inch by 11 inch paper format

Cases:McCreery's Lessee v Somerville22 US 354 (1824)2

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145 (1968)..11

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 County118 U.S. 425, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886). .

People v. Gersch, 135 Ill. 2d 384, 399 (1990) ("An unconstitutional law 'confers no

right, imposes no duty and affords no protection. It is *** as though no such law had

ever been passed," quoting People v. Schraeberg, 347 Ill. 392, 394 (1932), in turn

citing Board of Highway Commissioners v. City of Bloomington, 253 Ill. 164, 176

(1911), in turn citing Norton, 118 U.S. 425, 30 L. Ed. 178, 6 S. Ct. 1121). Thus,

under the Nortonrule, an unconstitutional statute is void ab initio, i.e., void "from

the beginning." See Black's Law Dictionary 1604 (8th ed. 2004).

Perlstein v. Wolk, Ill S.Ct., February 17, 2006

Ineligibility of officer is insufficient ground for refusal to administer the oath.

People v. Dean, 3 Wend. (N.Y.) 438


4/40


5/40

v

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

fiduciaryhas a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party

to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the

outcome of the proceeding; (5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree

of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: (i) Is a party to the

proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; (iii) Is known by the judge to

have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the

proceeding; (iv) Is to the judges 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. 459. Administration of oaths and acknowledgments. Each justice orjudge of the United States may administer oaths and affirmations and take

acknowledgments.

28 U.S.C. 1651. Writs (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Actof 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.

Washington DC Code Chapter 35 Article 16 Section 3503 Refusal of AttorneyGeneral or United States attorney to act: If the Attorney General or United Statesattorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person

interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for

leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set

forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by

any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested

person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to

security for costs,4,5,12

United States ConstitutionU.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 Clause 5.....2,3,5U.S. Constitution Article VII Twenty-fifth Amendment Section 4 (1967)..iv,2

New York State ConstitutionNew York State Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 2 Section 2...............................


6/40

vi

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 hearSCOTUS 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?

3. Were Barack Hussein Obama II (BHO) acts Void ab initiobecause BHO isineligible for POTUS in conflict with U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause

5 as BHOs 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 servewithout a conflict of interest with Affirmant and SCOTUS No. 10-1170?

5. Must BHO in a Quo Warranto proceeding show cause why he has authority asPOTUS rather than Joseph R. Biden Jr. under the 25th Amendment Section 4?

6. Should de facto Justice Sotomayor show cause why having heard seven caseswhile in the Second Circuit she should not recuse for hearing SCOTUS 10-1170?

7. Would legal malpractice issue as to Chief Justice Roberts, de facto JusticesKagan, 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?


7/40

AFFIDAVIT In Re: Christopher-Earl: Strunk Petition Page 1 of 12

To the Honorable Associate Justices: Stephen G. Breyer; Samuel A. Alito; ClarenceThomas; Antonin Scalia; Anthony Kennedy; and Ruth Bader Ginsburg supervising

the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

IN RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK IN ESSEPETITIONER WITH SCOTUS RULE 20 FOR

AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF PROHIBITIONWITH QUO WARRANTO INQUEST

STATE OF NEW YORK )) ss.COUNTY OF KINGS )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.William Van Allen, John-Joseph Forjone, Christopher-Earl Strunk and presents

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

Holder de facto U.S. Attorney for Washington District of Columbia Ronald C.

Machen Jr. from participation except as respondent parties-in-interest in an inquest

hearing and or in the SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Certiorari No. 10-1170 as a

matter of personal bias in an extra judicial forum of impropriety in a matter that


8/40

Affidavit in re: Christopher-Earl: Strunk Petition Page 2 of 12

may appear before each in the matter of the questionable eligibility of Barack

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

since January 20, 2009 as a material witness.

2. Respondent John Glover Roberts, Jr. is the 17th and current Chief Justice ofthe United States (Chief Justice Roberts). He has served since 2005, having been

nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist.

3. Respondent Barack Hussein Obama II (Respondent Obama) was the 2008Democratic 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,

and as such according to the SCOTUS opinion in McCreery's Lessee v Somerville22

US 354 (1824) that explains the difference between a Natural-born andNative-born

U.S. Citizen as is to be applied with U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5,

Barack Hussein Obama and all the names he uses is not a Natural-born citizen and

by his own allegation only a native born-citizen therefore is not eligible to POTUS.

4. That Respondent Chief Justice Roberts before administering the oath of officefor 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 afterNoon on January 20, 2009 at 12:05 pm, and failed to timely take the Oath of office


9/40


as administered by Respondent Chief Justice Roberts.

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 firedBHO on January 23, 2009 (see Exhibit 1) servedby registered mail; thereby rendering BHO the USURPER to the POTUS; and as

Petitioner is now entitled to characterize BHO as.

8. That Respondent Obama was fired on the grounds that he had admitted thathe 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

is ineligible to be the administrator / trustee of Plaintiffs private account at the

U.S. Treasury as required by U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 clause 5, that as

1Article 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."


10/40


a Replevin matter pending to be resolved in the District of Columbia along with all

BHOs 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. AttorneyJeffrey Taylor for Washington D.C. and present de facto Attorney General Eric

Holder, shown in Exhibit 1; and that Respondents Holder and BHO forced the de

jure U.S. Attorney of Washington DC to resign in order for the Usurper to replace

that U.S. Attorney Office with the present de facto U.S. Attorney for Washington

District of Columbia Ronald C. Machen, Jr.,; and together Respondents Holder,

Machen and Katyal act in concert for the Usurper without responding to

Affirmants application for a Quo Warranto inquest with DC Code Chapter 35

Article 16 Section 3502.

10.That Affirmant is the interested person required with DCC Chapter 35 16-3503: meets the condition (2) that the Usurpers demurer Letter of August 2009 (see

Exhibit 2), in which Respondent Obama pleads the special general issue ofseparation 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 beingsomething 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.


11/40


majority age British subject father on a student visa an undisputed fact, and as a

matter of law is not eligible for the Office of President contrary to U.S. Constitution

Article II Section 1 Clause 5, a copy of the Petition Memorandum annexed; meets

the condition (3) the law requires a declaratory judgment as to the finding on those

facts only absent further discovery; and (4) that Affirmant with DCC Chapter 35

16-3544 is ready for the inquest and Affirmant waives a jury for a bench trial.

11.That Respondent Obamas appointments of Respondents: Eric Holder, ElenaKagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Neal Katyal Ronald C. Machen Jr. among others are a

nullity and void ab initio.

12.Affirmant has a duty to make this petition to protect a judicial right againstany 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 Obamaand 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 factoJustice 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


12/40


Affirmant is a petitioner therein also being effected and must be excluded from

hearing the matter of a writ of prohibition with quo warranto inquest too.

13.That Respondents Chief Justice Roberts, de facto Justices Kagan andSotomayor, 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

the malice by Respondent Obama.

14.That Affirmant has conferred in the petition herein with Petitioners VanAllen and Forjone in the SCOTUS petition No. 10-1170 and that both state

hereafter agreement with Affirmants allegations and demand, state by their

declaration attached, and have designated that Affirmant support this motion to

recuse from hearing the Strunk et al v Thomas J. Spargo et alPetition for Writ of

Certiorari SCOTUS No. 10-1170.

15.That Affirmant heard credible allegations during the 2005 confirmationprocess 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 2005confirmation hearing, which is bad enough in itself, in that the OPUS DEI member

oath is to exclusively serve the Vatican State over any other commitment or

allegiance, Affirmant was also notified of the disturbing posting by agents of


13/40


Congressman Ron Paul at http://dailypaul.com/154751/slush-fund-of-top-politicians-

found-at-vatican-bank-obama-clinton-roberts-legatus-split (3)

17.That on February 3, 2011, Affirmant confronted the outrageous posting byagents of Representative Ron Paul to either retract the allegation otherwise

without support or investigate the claim, as Mr. Paul is on the House Banking

Committee with subpoena power to investigate accordingly; and that to date there

has never been a response to what Affirmant requested as follows quote:

Ron Paul duty to authenticate the allegations or remove the postSubmitted by Chris Strunk on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 16:20.Mr. Paul Sr. as a member of the House Banking committee having

been a Presidential candidate in 2008 has a duty to advance an immediate

investigation of the allegations included herein the "Slush Fund" post.

Especially since Media reports from the 2008 campaign cycle (supported by

actual fines levied by the FEC against BHO and his finance committees)

allege that BHO had received large sums of campaign funds from foreign

sources during the campaign that were never reported.

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 & LawWhat 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 Obamas

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...


14/40


Further allegations that Chief Justice Roberts and others within the

Congress and Executive also maintain an account is terribly troubling

especially since many of those listed are active supernumeraries of Opus Dei

and as such makes those members that are also in government service and

elected officers agents of the sovereign Vatican State a huge conflict of

interest.It is my understanding from actual testimony of Vatican Bank

representatives that the Vatican Bank's IOR is a limited depository

institution, that is not open to the public in the sense that the depositors are

essentially limited to Vatican State employees, members of the Holy See,

religious orders, and persons who deposit money destined, at least in part, for

works of piety.

However, it has been proven in the Federal civil case GEORGE DALE

et. al. v. EMILIO COLAGIOVANNI et al. (SDMS) 3:01-cv-00663-WHB-LRA,

that there was the use of the Vatican Bank / IOR as a straw-man for

conducting money laundering and insurance fraud in the United States. Thatthe deposition of Thomas A. Bolan on July 19, 2004 (see

http://www.vaticanbankclaims.com/dale.pdf ) shows that the Vatican Bank

and IOR cooperate with investors as a straw-man to conduct business for

persons who deposit money, "at least in part" for works of piety - are proven

in the civil case to fit money laundering and other RICO predicates that form

a corrupt enterprise; and were they involved in financing the BHO 2008

campaign is a serious international scandal up with Oil for Food and the

BCCI matter of money laundering associated with the collapse of Franklin

National Bank in the early eighties.

Mr. Ron Paul must respond immediately to this post and to the follow-

up letter of demand to be sent registered mail.Sincerely yours, Chris Strunk ( [email protected] )

18. In support of clear and convincing evidence of why Respondent Obama, anddefendants 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

dual allegiance matter that is an ongoing matter of malpractice. Affirmant based

upon information received, believes that with the exception of Tulane University,

which offers an option because Louisiana is a civil law jurisdiction adopted from


15/40


their French roots, all other law schools teach the common law of England.

19.That every state of the several states, except Louisiana, has adopted thecommon law of England by constitutional provision or statutory act. As such, all

attorneys learn the common law of England. That presents a big problem; the

United States has never adopted the common law of England. While many terms

used in the constitution were also part of the common law of England, there was no

such thing in that law regarding a natural-born citizen. The closest was a natural-

born subject. As such, these attorneys conflated the two terms.

20.The people who really knew what a natural-born citizen is were those whodealt with foreign relations. After all, being identified as a natural-born citizen

really doesnt have any distinct purpose while within the U.S., save that of being

President. It does, however, have great importance in terms of foreign relations.

21. In regards to U.S. Foreign relations: A natural-born citizen, being born onU.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 toGeneral 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


16/40


the services of the President, as seen provided by BHO with dual allegiance.

23. As early as 1862 representative John Bingham acknowledged congressionalplenary 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).

24.The Representative Binghams statement is significant because it confirmscongressional plenary authority over citizenship and that the doctrine of which

Rep. Bingham again in 1872 confirms.

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. Binghams testimony reliable? Here is what

Justice Hugo Black (a former U.S. Senator from Alabama) said in 1968:

Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative

experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what wassaid, and

most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in

the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to

men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the

House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members

of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered.

And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and

those who oppose it tell them it means. -Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145 -

Supreme Court 1968


17/40


And here is what Henry Fletcher (who established the Minnesota Law Review) had

to say in 1919 about citizenship and allegiance as published in the Atlantic Monthly

(1919) OUR DIVIDED COUNTRY by Henry J Fletcher:

Our country furnishes many examples of that curious phenomenon, double

allegiance. All persons born within the United States and subject to its

jurisdiction are declared by the Constitution to be citizens. This is true of the

children of non-naturalized aliens domiciled here. But the children of aliens

have the same nationality as their parents, according to the laws of nearly all

foreign countries, and such children are therefore subject to a double

allegiance. In this way, if a German living in this country chooses not to

accept the citizenship which we so generously urge upon him, his children

born here may, when they grow up, disclaim their American citizenship. A

young man born here of alien parents may, if he goes to Europe for study, beforced into the army, and the United States will be powerless to protect him,

even though he intends to return and reside here. Even if the alien father be

naturalized here, the minor son born here before the father's naturalization,

if he returns to his father's native country, is liable to be seized and

compelled to perform military service, and his American citizenship will

prove to be a mere fiction. If a German domiciled here is so attached to the

memories of the fatherland as to refuse the proffer of American citizenship,

and his children while growing up are diligently nurtured in the same

sentiments of loyalty, they cannot be relied on by the United States in time of

war as Germany and France are now relying on their subjects at home. If in

addition to this consciousness of divided allegiance, there are family ties andexpectations of inheritance in the old country, it is clear that the

Americanism of such persons, considered as an asset in time of war with

Germany, must be charged off as worthless, if it be not an actual liability.

CONCLUSION IN SUPPORT OF RELIEFThis petition shows that the writ of prohibition and quo warranto inquest will

be in aid of the Courts appellate or original jurisdiction in that exceptional

circumstances warrant the exercise of the Courts 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


18/40


19/40


20/40



Exhibit 1


21/40

1

593 Vanderbilt Avenue, #281

Brooklyn, New York 11238

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse

The Honorable Jeffrey Taylor

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia,

United States Attorney's Office

555 4th Street, NW


Re: U.S. and ex rel. Strunk v Barack Hussein Obama in esse

Subj: NOTICE of Verified Quo Warranto Complaint with Title 16

Chapter 35 of The District Of Columbia Code in its entirety

The Honorable Jeffrey Taylor

I, Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse, relator, am the interested-party in the above

referenced matter and hereby demand that your office institute a proceeding against in the name of

the United States against the individual Barack Hussein Obama in esse (a/k/a Barry Soetoro) who within

the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully exercises, a franchise conferred by the

corporate United States office of the President (POTUS) for failing to prove eligibility as a natural-born-

citizen with Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the united States Constitution as a matter of first impression.

That Relators original Verified Complaint is attached herewith, with the proviso that relator will use the

duplicate to demand a jury trial on the issues of fact and decision on question of first

impression with the District Judge in Strunk v DOS et al. 08-cv-2234 by Cross Motion to the

Defendants motion to dismiss on or before June 1, 2009 if within seven days your office has not

responded in the affirmative, nevertheless will go to the District Court as of right.

Relator refers your Honor to what the Supreme Court of the united States (SCOTUS) held as

instructive:

The seminal SCOTUS case which has interpreted the Quo Warranto statute is Newman v.

United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915). The opinion serves as a thorough education

on the history of quo warranto as well as the proper statutory interpretation. According to

SCOTUS, Newman at 552, the statute applies to any public office:

The Revised Statutes declare that the District of Columbia shall be the seat ofgovernment, and all offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the

District of Columbia. The Code provides that the c ourt shall have jurisdiction to

grant quo warranto against a person who unlawfully holds or exercises within theDistrict a . . . public office, civil or military. It was probably because of this fact that

national officers might be involved that the Attorney General of the United States was

given power to institute such proceedings

2

the District Code, in proper cases, instituted by proper officers or persons, may beenforceable against national officers of the United States. The sec tions are therefore to

be treated as general laws of the United States, not as mere local laws of the District.

Being a law of general operation, it can be reviewed on writ of e rror from this Court.American Co. v. Commissioners of the District, 224 U. S. 491; McGowan v. Parish, 228

U. S. 317.

The next essential decision is in Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 at 546

(1915), the Supreme Court interpreted the role of the AG and US attorney as follows:

The District Code still treats usurpation of office as a public wrong which can be

corrected only by proceeding in the name of the government itself. It permits those

proceedings to be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States and by the

attorney for the District of Columbia. By virtue of their position, they, at their discretionand acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any

case they deem proper. But there are so many reasons of public policy against permittinga public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office that the Codenot only does not authorize a private c itizen, on his own motion, to attack the

incumbents title, but it throws obstacles in the way of all such private attacks. It

recognizes, however, that there might be instances in which it would be proper to allowsuch proceedings to be instituted by a third person, but it provides that such third

person must not only secure the consent of the law officers of the government, but the

consent of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia before he can use the name ofthe government in quo warranto proceedings.

Further, in ANDRADE v. LAUER, 729 F.2d 1475, 234 U.S.App.D.C. 384 (1984), theCourt of Appeals for the District of Columbia has held that the defacto officers doctrine does

not prohibit collateral attacks of official actions based upon a public officers lack of

eligibility. These are not quo warranto suits to remove the official, they are civil suits tochallenge a specific action of that official.

In the Andrade case, the plaintiffs were Government employees who lost their jobs to

reduction in force ordinances which cut whole departments from the Government budget. Theplaintiffs sued alleging those who did the cutting were not Constitutionally qualified to make

such decisions in that their appointments violated the appointments clause of the US

Constitution.The DC District Court held that the plaintiffs had no standing other than to bring a direct

attack in quo warranto to remove the alleged usurper. But the DC Court of Appeals reversed

and said the plaintiffs, who had suffered real injuries, could bring such an action on a case by

case basis if they could prove their injury in fact (being fired) was caused by a Governmentofficial who was not eligible to serve.

Further, in UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN v. FIRSTFEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, 248 F.2d 804 (1957), the US court ofAppeals, 7th Circuit, provided an on point discussion of quo warranto in the district courts:

There have been submitted to this court only two instances in which original quowarranto jurisdiction has been specifically conferred upon federal district courts. The

3

revised statutes of 1878 vested jurisdiction in these courts of proceedings brought by the

United States Attorney for the removal of pe rsons holding office contrary to theFourteenth Amendment. Rev.Stat., Sections 563(14), 626(14), (1786). This Act was

repealed in the Judicial Code of 1911, 36 Stat. 1168. In 1901, Congress specificallyauthorized the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to issue quowarranto 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). Howev er, this grant is strictly limited and is

confined solely to situations involving franchises and public offices held within theDistrict of Columbia. There is no other specific statutory provision vesting original

jurisdiction in the district courts in quo warranto actions.

Furthermore, before the Quo Warranto statute existed there is a precedent for a sitting, voted in,

sworn in, Senator, Albert Gallatin was thrown out of office in 1793 for being constitutionally

ineligible to be a Senator, not having the 9 year requirement as a U. S. citizen. The full

congressional link and the procedure they used follows:

http://books.google.com/books?id=qkMFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA223-IA8&lpg=PA223-

IA8&dq=Albert+Gallatin+ineligible+Senator&source=bl&ots=GO4Ii8iPv7&sig=NVpzF

2CVNYUnIWYpNdjESd9gvYA&hl=en&ei=YIiwSaOeOteitgfYiIHEBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA221,M1

Relator in consideration of the above referenced SCOTUS and other decisions comes

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.

1. That relator is the sovereign employer of the POTUS who exercises authority overmy personal grant of power of attorney permission given to administer the united

States of America (Inc.);

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

contract wishing no contract thereby revoked power of attorney due to his failure to

prove eligibility as a natural born citizen;

3. That Barack Hussein Obama in esse usurps that office and presumably wishes to havea Quo Warranto forum to prove his eligibility to be able to return to the corporate

office capacity as evidenced by the fact he simulates the corporate POTUS duties.

4. Further as to relator standing, as the particularized injury different than the generalpublic, is evidenced by the related FOIA case where I complaint of injury and as a

result of irreparable harm caused by the Us urper personally not only the particular

speech injury and informational injury, but according to the opposition counsel I amto 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.

4

5. The nature of my injury caused by the Usurper is the subject of my response in

opposition to a partial dismissal as to the Usurper now in default and whose actionsare void ab initio, and that the Defendant DOS answer to my complaint there

demands further discovery with production of documents and interrogatories, and thatthis action is intertwined and inseparable.

I would be more than willing on or after June 1, 2009, to elaborate on this demand with

an expanded memorandum that would also encompass the respectable work of the attorney LeoDonofrio, Esq. of New Jersey, Dr. Orly T aitz, Esq. of California, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. of New

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.

On a personal note of great importance to me, I am a natural-born citizen of two marriednatural-born born citizens that makes me eligible to become president, however my son when

reaching 35 and having resided in the USA for 14 years at election may not be a natural-born

citizen because my wife at the time of his birth in New York was not a citizen and as suchbecause there is no interpretation as to the nature of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is a matter of

first-impression dear to me and is effecting my liberty now onward.

Your immediate response to this urgent matter is warranted and by way of a copy the

additional parties-in interest listed below they too are duly notified. I may be reached during the

day at (845) 901-6767.

Sincerely yours,

Dated: May 20th, 2009 /s/ Christopher-Earl : Strunk, in esseBrooklyn, New York _________________________________

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse

Attached: Verified Quo Warranto Complaint with Demand for Jury Trial and Decision on

Question of First Impression with exhibits

Cc:

The Honorable Eric Holder

U.S. Attorney GeneralU.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Barack Hussein Obama in esse

c/o The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington, DC 20500

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]


22/40

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



23/40




24/40

Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 19-2 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 227 of 243


25/40


26/40


27/40


28/40


29/40


30/40


31/40



32/40


33/40


34/40



35/40



Exhibit 2


36/40

THE WHITE HOU SEWASHINGTON

August 26,2009

Mr. Christopher StrunkUnit 28 1593 Vanderbilt AvenueBrooklyn, New York 11238

Dear Mr. Strunk:Thank you for contacting the office of President Barack Obama. The

President appreciates your taking the time to voice your concerns and opinions.We would like to be of assistance to you; however, due to the separationof powers, it is not within our authority to become involved in legal matters. You

must resolve this issue through the judicial system.Please be aware that you can visit www.usa.Pov or call 1-800-FEDINFO

for information about Federal Government assistance.We hope your concerns are resolved to your satisfaction.Again, thank you for your correspondence.

Sincerely,

F. Michael Kelleher. . Special Assistant to the President andDirector of Presidential Correspondence


37/40



Exhibit 3


38/40

SUPREMECOURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF KINGS Index NO.: b---------------------------------------------XChristopher-Earl:Strunk, in esse Plaintiff, Filed:March 22,2011-again&-NEWYORK STATEBOARD OF ELECTIONS;JAMES A.WALSH I Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair,EVELYN J.AQUILA 1Commissioner, GREGORY P.PETERSON / Comm issioner, Depu ty Director TODD D.VALENTINE,Depu ty Director STANLEY ZALEN;ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P.DINAPOLI, RUTH NO EM^ COLON, in th eir Official an dindiv idua l capacity; Fr. JO SE PH A. O'HARE, S.J.;Fr. J O S E P H P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.;-PETER G. PETERSEN ; ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI;MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH( a k a . Ba rry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack H ussein Obam a 11,a.k.a. Ste ve Dunh am); NANCY PELO SI; DEMOCR ATICSTATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;STATE COMMITTEE O F THE WORKING FAMILIESPARTYOF NEW YORK STATE; R ~ G E RCALERO;TH E SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI;JO HN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111;JO HN A. BOEHNER;TH E NE W YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE;TH E NE W YORK STATE COMMI?TEE O F THEINDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OFTH E CONSERVATIVE PARTY O F NEW YORK STATE; .PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FORAMERICA; OBAMA WCTORYFUAQ MCCAIN WCTORY2008; MCCRTN-PUN PTCTORY2008;;John a nd J an e Does;a n d XYZ Entities.

Defendants.................................................................................. XSUMMONSVERIFIED COMPLAINT

Dated: March 22,2011Brooklyn, New York

=*:--..-I;,

C h r i s to p h e r - E a rl : S t r u n k , in esse pla in t i f f593 V a n d e r b i l t A v e n u e #281,Brooklyn , New Y o r k 11238(845) 901-6767E-mail: [email protected]


39/40



Exhibit 4


40/40

Strunk: CES Petition w SCOTUS Rule 20 w Exhibits in re SCOTUS 10-1170 040511

Documents

Transcript of Strunk: CES Petition w SCOTUS Rule 20 w Exhibits in re SCOTUS 10-1170 040511