DC - Strunk - 2012-07-05 - Proposed Amended Complaint Wo Exhibits

Case 1:10-cv-00486-RCL Document 5-1 Filed 08/01/12 Page 1 of 464
Seill v Seal DCD 20 I O-cv-004S6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
----------------------------------------------------------------X
In the Quo Warranto and Qui Tam matter of the
United States of America (USA) and ex relator
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse,
593 Vanderbilt Avenue- #281
Brooklyn., New York 11238
(845) 901-6767 Email: cluis(i:z<strunk.ws
Civil Action: 10-cv-00486 (RCL)
Assign Date: March 24, 2010
SEALED CASE
0
Plaintiff,

!l .,
" " ..... ,,,
' '"' '
v.

Barack Hussein Obama II (a.k.a Barry Soetoro)
c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, District of Columbia 20500;
Defendant.

----------------------------------------------------------------X
(PROPOSED)
AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR QUO WARRANTO
INQUEST AND JURY
TRIAL ON DAMAGES
INTRODUCTION:
i ll : ....
Ex-relator Plaintiff Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse (Strunk), is self-represented without being
an attomey, having filed the Complaint assigned under seal to the Honorable Chief Judge Royce
C. Lamberth March 24, 2010, and that Strunk provided the required time for the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) to decide, but DOJ passed on intervention. And as such on July 13,
2010 Ex-relator Strunk filed a Motion to unseal and release the summons to respondent(s); and
to wit the Court on standing dismissed the complaint without prejudice by the Memorandum and
Order of January 5, 2011; and that the Court construes the Complaint in its own right, for
standing to restore to the calendar requires that Strunk prove a particularized personal injury with
a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained must be likely, as opposed to
merely speculative, and the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision (see Exhibit A).
Amended Verified Complaint Page I of 52
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Seal v Seal DCD 20 I 0-cv-00486
I. The gravamen of this action is that Strunk, as a registered voter enrolled in the New York
State Republican Party in the 2008 election cycle and remaining so in the 2012 cycle, wrongfully
suffers from pains and penalties punishment injury stripping individual civil rights and liberty
with damages imposed by the Federal and State Courts in New York; and that the injury to
Strunk is directly caused by Barack Hussein Obama II (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack
Hussein Obama Soebarkah, a.k.a. Barack Obama and hereinafter known as "'DefendanC) by
malicious spoliation and concealment of evidence of misprision of a felony, sedition and treason
involved with his ineligibility to hold the office of President of the United States (POTUS); and
JURISDICTION
2. Pursuant of the above Introduction Strunk has four (4) pm1icular injuries and four (4)
Federal issues described below and requests as an exception to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine to
be heard regarding injury to Strunk caused by Barack Hussein Obama II the punitive President of
the United States (POTUS) with Federal Rules for Civil Procedures (FRCvP) Rule 81 (A) (2), as
the USA and ex-relator Plaintiff who has additional Causes of action based upon his actual
injuries caused by Defendant Obama's failure to be eligible for the office of POTUS, and whose
acts of spoliation and concealment in the misprision of a felony to prevent discovety of his
ineligibility is defined with 18 USC 4 according to the investigation and June 12, 2012
Affidavit of Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joseph Arpaio (see Exhibit B) must be heard in a
Quo Warranto Inquest; and that Jurisdiction would be had for Strunk and the United States of
America (USA) as Ex-Relator(s) are Plaintiffs and or Ex-relator with 28 USC 1345 in which
the USA is in fact plaintiff, except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress. The district courts
shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United
States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress; and
Amended Verified Complaint Page 2 of 52
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
that this case is also done with 28 USC 1343 as a Civil1ights and elective franchise, in which
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to
be commenced by any person:
(1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of
any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any
conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42;
(2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any
wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur
and power to prevent;
(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom or usage, of any right, privilege or inununity secured by the Constitution of the
United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all
persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;
(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress
providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote;
that (b) For purposes of this section- (1) the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a
State; and (2) any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia; and as with State Action in Washington
DC with 42 USC 1983; and
That with 28 USC 1357 for injuries under Federal laws, the district court shall have
original jurisdiction of any civil action commenced by any person to recover damages tor any
injury to his person or property on account of any act done by him, under any Act of Congress,
for the protection or to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in any State; and
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
That with 28 U S C ~ 1361, this action is to compel a purp011ed ofiicer of the United States
to perform his duty, provides that the district cour1 shall have original jurisdiction of any action
in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency
thereof to perform a duty owed to the Plaintiff; and
That with 42 USC ~ 1985 for Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights of Plaintiff; and
with the U.S. Constitution in its entirety especially A11iclc 2 Section 1 with related State Law as
applies to appointment of an electoral college in each state, and the remedy available using the
F our1eenth Amendment for violation of rights and libe11y associated with the first 1 0
Amendments of Article 7, and the relief that shall be provided with the 25th Amendment.
And that Plaintiff by the nature of his particular injury has determined that Barack
Hussein Obama II has usurped the POTUS, and that all his actions are void ab initio, thereby
entitling that Ex-relator Strunk standing with Qui Tam provisions intends to recover for the USA
all the payments, reimbursements provided to Barack Hussein Obama II by the U.S. Department
of the Treasury and related agencies since 2008 through the present with punitive damages.
VENUE
3. Pursuant to the above Introduction and paragraphs I through 2, Venue is properly had in
this particular District Court for the District of Columbia that affords the proper venue under 28
USC 13 91 (e) ( 1) for this action in that Defendant Obama in esse is usurping the Corporate
otll.ce of the POTUS located within the District of Columbia, and the failure of Defendant
Obama in esse to act in good faith with his corporate duty within the District of Columbia, in
that Plaintiff's Ex-Relator(s) Petition (see Exhibit C) demands the Quo Warranto Act mandates
with the DC Code Chapter 35 Title 16 3503 that this Court create an inquest I jury trial to
determine the issue of facts: (i) whether or not both his parents were United States' Citizens at
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
his birth; (ii) the Defendant Obama cover-up, and thereafter, (iii) a jury trial on the of the
injury and damages that the Court as a matter of law must uphold the ''natural-born-Citizen
(NBC) requirement of At1icle 2 Section I paragraph 5 <
1
l of the United States Constitution.
PARTIES
4. Ex-Relator, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse (hereinafter "PiaintifY', ''Ex-Relator''), is an
individual with place for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue- #281 Brooklyn, NY 11238, Email:
chris@strunk.ws, SKYPE: cestrunk and Telephone (845) 90I-6767.
5. That Strunk depends upon the Law ofNations meaning of the United States Constitution
At1icle 2 Section I paragraph 5 term of art ''natural-born Citizen" (
2
) when after October 20,
2008 Sttunk petitioned in the U.S.D.C. in the Eastern District ofNew York (EDNY) Docket
No.: 08-cv-4289 assigned to Judge Allyne R. Ross before the November 4, 2008 General
Election in New York, and who decided sua sponte on October 28, 2008 to dismiss the complaint
with prejudice holding that it is sanction-ably frivolous (see Exhibit D) when quote:
" .. Plaintiff seeks (a) "public notice of every certified Presidential elector slate on the
ballot," (b) an order striking from the ballot any certified elector with more than one
public position, (c) an order restraining use of the state seal for any elector holding more
than one public position, and (d) proof that Senator Obama is a natural born citizen.
Compl. at li. On October 22, 2008, .. "
7/5/2012.---------
1 Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution lists the requirements for President:
No person except a natural born Cztizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President, neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of Years, and beenfourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
c The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the law of nature by Emer de Vattel and Joseph Chitty at Section 212. reads:
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to it authority.
they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-bom citizens, are those born in the counfly, o[
parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the
citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is
supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed as matter of
course, that each citizen , on entering into society, reserve to children the right of becoming members of it. The
country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."
(Emphasis added by Strunk)
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
''that the action is "(i) frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief." 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is frivolous if its "factual contentions are
clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy," or if it
is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory" - that is, when it lacks an arguable
basis in law ... or [when] a dispositive defense clearly exists on the face of the
complaint." Livingston v. Adirondack Bcv. Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998)
" .. To the extent plain.ti[{raiscs state lmv claims, those claims are dismissed without
prejudice. The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this
order would not be taken in good faith and therefore informa pauperis status is denied for
the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
(Emphasis by Strunk)
That according to Strunk's Affidavit "To Whom it may concern" affirmed on June 26, 2012 (see
Exhibit E), after Judge Ross' order shown as Exhibit D, Strunk then on October 29, 2008
petitioned as a matter of state law for a mandamus in the New York State Supreme Court for the
County of Kings with Index No.: 2008-29641 with a companion Complaint with Index No.:
2008-29642 seeking a law of the case review question of first impression then assigned to the
Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. at I.A.S. Elections Part 1, and after the November 3, 2008
substantive hearing of issues of state law with a transcript (see Exhibit F) on December 4, 2008
Justice Schmidt issued a decision and order as to the electoral college slate ofNew York State
Officers with two jobs for pay to vote (see Exhibit E Sub-exhibit I) as contrary to the NYS
Constitution despite the State of New York Legislature's exclusive power under the U.S.
Constitution Ar1icle 2 Section 1 as a newly found Federal right, and despite the fact that the
Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) unanimously held in McPherson v. Blacker,
146 U.S. l (1892), that any candidate for federal office is a matter of compelling state interest of
the State Legislature and therefore the People of the state ofNew York, with the proviso that any
change to the eligibility of a proposed candidate that fails to make sure of the eligibility ballot
status for office of POTUS other than ''natural-born Citizen" (NBC) eligibility of a POTUS
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
candidate status, would apply also to a naturalized citizen or even allow a permanent resident
alien ballot status illegally, and that according to the SCOTUS in the case U.S. Term Limits, Inc.
v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) no state exclusive power exists to change the eligibility of a
Federal and it is just plain outrageously ludicrous to suggest changing eligibility status
of any Federal officer especially the POTUS; and as such Justice Schmidt iiTespective of any
discussion of the merits of the ineligibility ofBarack Hussein Obama II wrongly deemed the
NBC issue a "Federal Question" stm1ing at transcript page 38 shown on Exhibit F quote:
THE COURT: I thought he proved that he was bom in Hawaii yesterday.
MR. STRUNK: There was no proof.
THE COURT: I thought he released the birth certificate.
MR. STRUNK: It was not a birth certificate. It was a certificate of live birth, which
Hawaii could accept from any country, a certificate of registration of a live birth.
It's just different than a
THE COURT: Was it accepted the same day he was bom?
MR. STRUNK: That according-- there is an exhibit 16 which Goes to that issue.
THE COURT: What does it have to do with me?
MR. STRUNK:
THE COURT: This is a Federal question as to whether or not he can serve as the
president.
MR. STRUNK: I would like to get a restraint on who the electoral college, if he's not
qualified , a natural bom citizen , we can' t permit
THE COURT: You maybe in the wrong forum. Ifthe Federal-- if the Feds don't stop him
and are not enforcing that portion of the law that requires him to be a citizen
or at least proving that he is a citizen or was bom in the United States that you
know, a State judge will not be able to, in a back way, not allow the electors to

MR. STRUNK: Certainly the Federal Constitution would require that anybody unless--
electors are not private individuals, they're public officers , and therefore must
take an oath, at least be willing to take an oath to support the Constitution of the
State ofNew York and the US Constitution and part of that-- because there is no
statute that says somebody, somebody is going to collect this certificate of birth,
no where in any Federal Law does it say a senator must submit his certificate of
birth or anywhere, it's something where if a citizen doesn't have standing to say,
who has-
THE COURT: You may have standing in the wrong court though. I would think this
would be a Federal Court issue as to whether or not he is bom in the United States
per se. If they, if they validate it, then I would think that, you know, we can, they
can vote for (emphasis by Strunk- Court bias intends to votefor Obama)
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
MR. STRUNK: The electors, the voters on the fourth do not vote for any candidate
except tor the electoral slate and that's plain and simple. The real election occurs
starting the 15th and it's got to be completed by the 24th of December so there is a
possibility of seven, eight, nine days of per diem for the Electoral College to deal
with these questions. And based upon the winner take all process, we may have to
eliminate the public officers who have now become Federal Officers eight or nine
or ten from the Democrats, which brings it down to 20 Democrat electors, and
then the next highest number would come out of the vote getters, so there would
be 15 Republican electors and quite a battle tor maybe nine days who -- it's up to
them. They are the ones elected to solve those problems so that I'm interested in a
judicial subpoena of travel records from 1960, 1963.
THE COURT: You asked for that in your papers?
MR. GRABER: No.
MR. STRUNK: That is in my affidavit. Let's see. I'm asking that in my supporting
affidavit which it says on page- paragraph 16 of my supp011ing affidavit, page
five of seven, furthermore that preliminary injunction hearing with New York
State Board of Elections and its agent, including the Director of Elections and
New York State Secretary of State who must show why they should not
performed due diligence to ascertain whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is a
natural born citizen and affected by the allegations in the aforementioned case. On
paragraph 15, where the mother is is where the birth occurred. And that the
United States State Department has those records which are prima facie whether
she was inside or outside the country. And there is testimony recorded of Sarah
Obama, who is essentially -- was present at the birth in Mombasa and that there
was a restriction on airplane flight which did not permit a pregnant woman to
enter back into the country because of the pregnancy and the near giving bit1h.
And therefore, in Hawaii the actual original full certificate ofbirth showing
Mombasa Hospital presence is on record in Hawaii right now and that there is
only a registration, which is how Hawaii worked in 1961, they just become a
state. They were essentially a protectorate of the United States. It was entirely
structured of how people registered under a US protectorate so that a registration
of a live birth is what was issued and what was shown by the [A ]nnenberg
Foundation who had a conflict of interest being one of their attorneys in the first
place-
THE COURT: Just a minute. What do you have to say about that?
MR. GRABER: This is not part of the order to show cause that we're hearing this
morning. The State was not noticed that Mr. Strunk was making an application
with respect to Senator Obama's citizenship. It seems as though Mr. Strunk's
concerns with Obama's place of origins are mainly the focus of a separate action
which is under a separate index number. He provided a summons and complaint
in that action, but it's not a matter before Your Honor. Of course, everything that
Mr. Strunk has just said and everything that he's put in his papers with respect to
Senator Obama is derived from the Internet.
MR. STRUNK: That's not true.
MR. GRABER: Internet gossip.
MR. STRUNK: Not true.
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
MR. GRABER: Particularly from a lawsuit that was filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania which was dismissed on October 24th. That case is entitled Berg, B-
E-R-G, v. Obama. And the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the case for
lack of standing. Same thing is true here. Mr. Strunk doesn't have any interesting
whether Obama is the Democratic candidate or whom the electors are with
respect to Obama from the standpoint of Obama's citizenship. He has a
generalized interest that as any other person. That's not sufficient for standing.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania shouldn't be in this Court either.
MR. STRUNK: The only thing that we have in this Country that holds us together is the
Constitution, a social contract, and that fundamental ofthat social contract is
whether or not we're going to elect a man who would run this countly for four
years who is alleged to be a foreigner, illegal, illegal alien who is improperly in
this countty, according to his reentry after coming back with an Indonesian
passport when he entered back at age 18, that's covered in exhibit 16. Rather than
getting details, I believe, I'm the only one in the country whose really, through my
own experience, through the Department of Health, through my own tracking
down birth certificates and affiliations, all smts of skullduggery that I went to
court for a year and half, two years over in Manhattan, I think it's absolutely
essential that we see the travel records of the mother from 1960 to 1963 even in
camera, even in camera if there is a privacy issue, this woman and her record is
essentially the linchpin to whether or not we're going to have a man who,
according to the past Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, a man of good
standing with many courts, that somehow we should throw him-
MR. GRABER: It's simply not before Your Honor.
THE COURT: How is it before Justice Souter today?
MR. GRABER: According-
MR. STRUNK: According to Mr. Berg who was interviewed last night, he had submitted
five days ago to Souter, who is the justice, single justice who deals with the Third
Circuit, to order Obama to deliver a certificate ofbitth. That's what it's asking for.
THE COURT: Okay. Decision reserved.
Justice Schmidt shows bias in favor of Barack Obama as if eligible on the basis of being born in
Hawaii with his reference to the Annenberg Foundation (Factcheck.org) release of the Short
form CoLB, since proven to be a forgery, that goes to Defendant Obama's malicious spoliation
concealment and misrepresentation; as such Schmidt violates his oath uses a 14
1
h Amendment
definition of"Born a Citizen'" notwithstanding that Obama's legal father was a British subject.
6. That because Justice Schmidt would not grant a subpoena of the travels records of
Stanley Ann Dunham Obama (Soetoro) for the period at or around the year of Barack Hussein
Obama II's birth, on November 22, 2008 Strunk filed a Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA)
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
request ofthe U.S. Department of State (US DOS) and related agency for the passport and travel
records of Respondent Obama' s mother for the period before and after August 4, 1961. After
great delay by the Obama Administration, Strunk received on July 29, 2010 a transmittal of
documents certified from the attorney for the U.S. DOS; and on the FS-299 Application tor
renewal dated August 13, 1968 Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro removed "Barack Hussein Obama
Soebarkah" from her subsequent Passport (see Exhibit G), therein proving that Respondent
Obama had been renamed by his adoptive father Lolo Soetoro, the Indonesian Army Lt. Colonel
having married Stanley Ann Dunham subsequent to her divorce from Barack Hussein Obama Sr.
by the Decree of March 20, 1964; and
7. With sufficient cause in support of filing a False Claim Act- Qui Tam Action -against
Defendant Obama, Strunk filed the herein action under seal on March 24, 2010 and after the
January 5, 2011 dismissal without prejudice shown as Exhibit A, Strunk according to his
Affidavit "'To whom is may concern" shown as Exhibit E at paragraph 7 thru 11 affirmed:
7. That the action with Index No.: 2008-29642 remains active despite denial of
Plaintiff's attempt to perfect service nunc pro tunc and to amend was denied and is
dependent upon consolidation with the case challenging the scheme to defraud with Index
No.: 2011-6500.
8. That Justice Schmidt at the hearing the motions to perfect service nunc pro tunc and
amend the case 2008-29642 attended by Joel Graber of the NYS Attorney General's
Office for the State suggested Plaintiff file a new case after determining that Plaintiff
cause of action against JohnS. McCain is valid; and to wit on March 22, 2011 Plaintiff
filed the new Complaint with Index No.: 2011-6500 and served defendants.
9. That Affirmant as a duly registered voter in New York owns his vote as it is his
intangible property for his exclusive use at any election in the State that may not be
transferred or sold under penalty oflaw, and as such the only privity and or contract that
exists is between the respective candidate for whom the vote is cast; and is such privity
with the intangible property is central to the core of the merits of the underlying
Complaint with Index No.: 2011-6500, and no other complaint by Affinnant has named
any candidate.
10. That the breach of public officer fiduciary duty case with Index No.: 2008-29642 in
which there is Plaintiff's failure to perfect service is not prejudicial to the case with Index
No.: 2011-6500 for a scheme to defraud with a six year statutory window associated with
Amended Verified Complaint Page I 0 of 52
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Seal v Seal DCD 20 l 0-cv-00486
defendants interference with Plaintiffs liberty as is a result of State defendants malicious
facilitation.
11. That the Scheme to defraud case with Index No.: 2011-6500 assigned to Justice
A11hur M. Schack held a hearing on Defendants various motions to dismiss August 22,
2011, and other than the appearance of Joel Graber of the NYS Attomey General's Office
his appearance did not include the State of New York defendants either in their official or
individual capacity who had not answered to the summons upon stipulation agreed to
twice by Plaintiff previously.
8. That in the case with Index No.: 2011-6500 on August 22, 2011, Justice Schack held a
hearing on various motions with Transcript (see Exhibit H) by a less than stellar stenographer,
and even so therein it shows that Justice Schack is either plain stupid and or simply pure evil
when he created a Straw man Argument by cherry picking a question asked of Strunk regarding
what "'natural-born Citizen'' means in such a way as to make it appear that natural-born Citizen
may only mean '"Bom a Citizen'' with the 14
1
h Amendment definition separate from parental
citizen status permutations and develops the argument by conflating two questions at once rather
than asking each separately at Transcript page 30-31 as shown on Exhibit H actually says:
THE COURT: So essentially your argument is for someone to run for president of the
United States under Article 2 of the constitution, it says you have to be a natural
bom citizen. (stravt' man question): That means that not only you have to be born
within the United States of America, but both your parents have to be natural
bom citizens, is that what you're saying? (Emphasis by Strunk)
MR. STRUNK: Yes, your Honor
THE COURT: What if for argument's sake Mr. Obama's father would have been
naturalized?
MR. STRUNK: He would be naturalized.
THE COURT: So in other words, your parents have to be citizens?
MR. STRUNK: Yes, and as spelled out in New York State law and specifically in regards
to our history oflaw that's found in the real property law Section 18, that' s the
only location that the natural born citizen is mentioned and there's a basis of
legislative action to that basis where you cannot convey a piece of mining rights
to anybody who is not natural bom._Natural bom is also defined by the U.S.
Supreme Court in 1824 as it relates to the transition of the property rights after the
revolution where family would inherit. So in other domestic law in our surrogate,
in our law which passes property on to a family member, there's a definition in
New York State law which clearly defines that it's blood and soil law o(nations
definition and I say law o(nations because it's big letters in the U.S Constitution.
(Emphasis by Strunk)
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Seal v Seal DCD 201 0-cv-00486
9. Schack's argument uses flawed logic when applied to Strunk's own parental citizen status
permutations as what a natural-born Citizen is, and is represented by the Venn Diagram below:
Geograph<c Birthplace under
protection of U.S. Constrtuhon
lJ t\<ln l'l41SidPftt trnm hirl'n
UOT bnn tn n.vo U S.. C1t1rc-n Paf4"nb
requ1re-monts
1 Geographtc Btrth tn U.S.
2 Born to two U S Cttzen Parnts
3 Conbnulty of Natol Ctnzonohtp Status
1
__ Fr_om_B_r111_to __ E __ I.,_cH_o_n ----I B. Hawn not bom to 1WO
o,squaltficafton tnclud& U.S. Citizan Parent.
Bu1h abroad C. Lack of document ptoof
Buth to 4!ss th<m two U S P"'""ts of maintenance of U.S.
Non-U.S Cttzcn concepUon or Adoption Citizenahip after adopUon
Lo .. of NBC after birthbcforll ok:cUon and relocation to Indonesia
10. That Strunk is a natural-born Citizen ofNew York to Parents who were married U.S.
Citizens in the city ofNew York before Strunk's birth, and that his paternal grandfather was a
natural-born citizen, but his paternal grandmother and maternal grandparents were naturalized.
Using Schack's argument it would be impossible for Strunk's parents to be natural-born Citizens.
11. That on November 22, 2011 in 2008-29642 Justice Schmidt declared in open court during
the hearing on a motion to intervene filed by H. William Van Allen in regards to the October 25,
2011 pre-hearing in the case with Index No.: 2011-6500 before Justice Schack that he disagrees
with Justice Schack in his reason for declining to sign Strunk's application in regards to the New
York State Board of Elections facilitation of fraud by admission to the use of the term ''Born a
Citizen" rather than natural-born Citizen'' for an order to show cause that according to Strunk's
Affidavit "To whom is may concern" shown as Exhibit E paragraph 13 Justice Schack says:
"10/25/11 The Court declines to sign this OSC. This issue is not ripe until
candidates file nominating petitions for public office for President of U.S. in several
months. Further, the Court will [not] stop fund-raising by any candidate because
candidates have a right to raise money pursuant to statute and the First
Amendment. The issue of candidate qualification is subject to Court action after
nominating petitions are submitted and candidates are challenged in Court."_s/ AS
"JSC"
12. That in regards to the alleged ineligibility of Defendant Obama to be POTUS, Strunk
depends upon the series of SCOTUS cases associated with what the precedent of Minor. v.
Amended Verified Complaint Page 12 of 52 F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
!Jappersett: 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627 says (JJ; and that Strunk
believes the Congressional record history of the creation ofthe 14th Amendment, proves that at
best Barack Obama, were he actually born in the USA under the 14th Amendment is merely
''Born a Citizen" not NBC, and were he born to a single U.S. Citizen out of USA jurisdiction
overseas where the 14th Amendment does not apply, Defendant Obama is at best naturalized and
at worst an alien upon his failure to declare at majority age used a forged selective service form.
13. That Strunk believes there is a Federal ineligibility issue because ipsa dixit and ipso facto
Barack Obama admits to dual allegiance in his autobiography "Dreams from my Fathers- A
story o(Race and Inheritance" published in 1995 by Crown Publishing that features on the front
cover a picture (see Exhibit I) that depicts Defendant's British subject Father Barack Hussein
Obama Sr. in Defendant's Grandmother's arms and Defendant's American Citizen Mother
Stanley Ann Dunham in Defendant's Grandfather's arms, even goes further to admit in his
Author Biography for 13 years carried by Crown Publishers as Born in Kenya (see Exhibit J).
14. That Defendant Obama's admission to having a British subject father is corroborated
with evidence of such admission is proven by the U.S. INS file number A II 938 537 (see
Exhibit K with Sub exhibits A-1 through A-12) on August 9, 1959 admitted a foreign alien
non-immigrant Barack Hussein Obama, born June 18, 1934 in Kisumu Nyanza Kenya, student
visa, as was then he was confirn1ed on August 31, 1961 by the INS (see Subexhibit A-8) to be
7/5/2012.---------
3 Minor. v. Happenett: 88 U.S. 162 ( 1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627
"The Constitution does not, in words, 5.ay who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to
ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was
never doubted that all children born in a countrv o[parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their
birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-horn citizens. As distinguished from ahens or foreigners. Some
authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference and include as
citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the Citizenship of their (p 168) parents. As to this
class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it not necessary to solve these
doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have not to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the
jurisdiction are themselves citizen" (Emphasis added)
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
manied to U.S. Citizen Stanley Ann Dunham Obama February 2, 1961 (see Sub exhibit A-7)
and on the August 31, 1961 the memo to tile by the INS file officer says (see Sub exhibit A-10)
when Barack Hussein Obama II was born August 4, 1961 is a reconfi1med when on March 20,
1964 the parents obtain a Hawaii divorce decree (see Exhibit L).
15. That Strunk contends there are Federal issue that must be heard at an expedited quo
warranto inquest of Barack Hussein Obama II to grant Shunk relief and remedy from his injury
and damages wrongly imposed .
The First Federal issue to be heard: Was and is Barack Hussein Obama II eligible as a
natural-born Citizen to the office ofPOTUS when born in the United States with a British
subject father while married to a US Citizen on or about August 4. 1961?
The Second Federal Issue to be heard: Is Barack Hussein Obama II involved in spoliation
and concealment in the misprision of a felony in regards to his release of the purported long-form
birth certificate and other federal documents further injuring Petitioner Strunk and as proven by
the investigation by Sheriff Arpaio's affidavit ofJune 12, 2012 shown as Exhibit B?
At Paragraph 7 of the Arpaio Affidavit shown as Exhibit B the Sheriff affirms:
"' Upon close examination of the evidence, it is my belief that forgery and fraud was
likely committed in key identity documents including President Obama's long form birth
certificate, his Selective Service Registration card, and his Social Security number."
The Third Federal issue to be heard: Is Barack Hussein Obama II eligible as a natural-born
Citizen to the office of POTUS, as now suspected as a result of the investigation by Sheriff
Arpaio, guilty of spoliation and willful concealment as a high crime meant to personally injure
Plaintiff, and as Strunk noticed to the Albany County District Attorney and the New York State
Board of Elections on February 3, 2012 to no avail (see Exhibit M) depends on this Court?
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
The Fourth Federal issue to be heard: Is Barack Hussein Obama II eligible as a natural-
bom Citizen to the of1ice of POTUS when bom outside of the United States as now suspected as
a result of the investigation by Sheriff Arpaio and by spoliation and concealment meant to
further injure Plaintiff?
16. That Stmnk based upon the foregoing and his June 26, 2012 Affidavit "To whom it may
Concem" shown as Exhibit E with sub-exhibits 1 through 3, has suffered no less than four ( 4)
particularized injuries in fact involving the NBC Federal issue caused by the malice of Barak
Obama left unresolved by any State or Federal Court to date as the First requirement Plaintiffs
injury is concrete and particularized, as well as actual and or with imminent additional ongoing
damage injury and harm, and that Strunk is entitled to an expedited Quo Warranto Inquest relief
and remedy to effect a personal defense in State Court with time as the essence.
Personal Injury #1: That described at paragraph 3 of Stmnk's Affidavit shown as Exhibit E,
Strunk has been pre-maturely deprived without being able too face his accusers his First
Amendment and civil rights with use of 42 USC 1983 by the Star Chamber of Judge Allyne R.
Ross like that of Justice Schack (
4
J from ever seeking relief in USDC of the EDNY in the matter
of his challenge to the eligibility ofBarack Hussein Obama II and or his New York Elector
7/5/2012----------
4 "The historical abuses of the Star Chamber are considered a primary motivating force behind the protections
against compelled self-incrimination embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The
meaning of"compelled testimony" under the Fifth Amendment-i.e., the conditions under which a defendant is
allowed to "take the Fifth"-is thus often interpreted via reference to the inquisitorial methods of the Star Chamber.
Judge Schack not only invented the alleged violation ipse dixit, for which he charged me of frivolous conduct for
danng to allege that BHO Jr. has a British Subject father on August 4, 1961 or when ever it happened, is therefore
not NBC; that Justice Schack shamelessly poses as the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one .
Without the ability to call the judge as a witness to the crime that he is committing, as my own counsel I may seek
an appeal on the merits of the sanctions wrongly held against me.
As the U.S. Supreme Court described it, "the Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic
individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required, defendants to have counsel. The defendant's
answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer,
for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed." Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821-22
(1975) ... "
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
slate of 2008 and or in the 2012 Election cycle as to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II
of U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section I by Judge Allyne Ross' order shown as Exhibit D.
Personal lnjurv #2: That described at paragraph 21 through paragraph 22 of Strunk's
Affidavit shown as Exhibit E, Strunk has been outrageously sanctioned with deprivation of his
civil right to ever file any case in the State ofNew York Supreme Court and is barred from ever
challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II and or his New York Elector slate of
2008 and or in the 2012 Election cycle as to the eligibility ofBarack Hussein Obama II of US
Constitution Atiicle 2 Section l (see Exhibit N). Therein Justice Schack uses the cheny picked
Straw Man Argument at page 7 of the Order rather than quote the exact interchange shown on
the actual transcript shown as Exhibit H:
'"However, plaintiff STRUNK, at tr., pp. 30-31, argued that a "natural born citizen,"
eligible to run for President of the United States, pursuant to Article II, Section I Clause
5 of the U.S. Constitution, means that not only the candidate is natural born, but both of
the candidate's parents are natural born."
Personal Injury #3: That described at paragraph 1 through paragraph 19 as a compelling
NBC Federal issue of Strunk's Affidavit shown as Exhibit E, that as a result ofthe arbitrary
Federal and State court orders shown as Exhibits D and N, Strunk has been deprived his First,
4
th
5
th
6
th
7
th
8
th
9
th d
10
th A d . -
1
. h h c d
, , , an men ment ctvt ng ts, w en spunous ourt acttons eem any
challenge to the NBC eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II sanction able, and renders moot the
required notice of intent to file a claim at the New York State Court of Claims (see Exhibit E sub
Exhibit 3) for the personal damages $358,410.00 accrued as a result ofthe unlawful facilitation
and alleged misprision of a felony by the New York State Board of Elections and its agents in
the 2008 presidential election cycle through the present 2012 election cycle with the NBC
Federal issue of their malicious malfeasance with use of the required instruction to a candidate
for the office of POTUS use ''Born a Citizen" rather that ''natural-born Citizen" as required
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
under US Constitution Article 2 Section I and the State continues with impunity as if by a Star
Chamber.
Personal Injury #4: That described at the hearing transcript of May 7, 2012 ofNYS SC
County of Kings Case with Index No.: 2011-6500, Strunk was before Justice Arthur M. Schack
on the matter of Sanctions and Court costs (see Exhibit 0) and that as a result Strunk is subject
to further levy pending perfection of Strunk's Notice of Appeal to the Second Department
Appellate Division taken from the order shown as Exhibit N, and beyond the civil rights sanction
to date there is no less than an accrued costs levy of no less than say $150,000 to say as much as
$1,000,000 with the perfection of the appeal. As Strunk complains of the Court delay, Strunk
refutes the Court's Straw man Argument for which Strunk is being sanctioned for being frivolous
at page 23 of the transcript :
THE COURT: The point is it takes time to write this and to do this. I also did some
research, and I noticed that for whatever reason, despite your argument about you
have to have your parents born in the United states as well as you --
MR. STRUNK: That's not my argument. That's your argument. That's the straw man
argument. You're absolutely wrong. You should recuse yourself. I have nothing
else to say.
17. Defendant- Barack Hussein Obama in esse (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), hereinafter
"Defendant Obama'', place for service is in care of The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W. Washington, District ofCo1umbia 20500;
18. Mr. Obama is not a USA "natural born" citizen eligible to serve as the United States
President, pursuant to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
19. Although Mr. Obama claims to have been born in two (2) separate hospitals in Hawaii,
we have yet to discover where he was actually born to his mother a U.S. Citizen and his father a
Kenyan National British subject of United Kingdom with that law and Monarchy that governs.
20. That Mr. Obama Jr.'s natural father Mr. Obama Senior, was a British Citizen governed
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
under the laws of the United Kingdom married to Mr. Obama Jr.'s mother Stanley Ann Dunham
at the time of Mr. Obama Jr.'s bit1h on August 4, 1961 as shown within Exhibit I.
21. Dcfendant Obama admits that his father at the time of his birth was a subject ofthc
United Kingdom and that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governs dual citizenship at birth.
22. That Mr. Obama acknowledges by endorsing Senate Resolution 511 that you need two
(2) U.S.A. Citizen parents at birth to be qualified to be a natural born citizen (see Exhibit P).
23. That Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, Congressional Globe, 39th, 1st
Sess., pg 1291 (March 9, 1866) stated: " ... every human being born within the jurisdiction of the
United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of
your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen.''
24. As it is essential for this Court to know Strunk's position on how and why the 14th
amendment was is germane as evidence of his innocence from any frivolous wrongdoing and as
evidence of Defendant Obama' s ineligibility to POTUS, Strunk shows below that Defendant
Obama and Obama's' agents with propagandists including those principals atJustia.org and
Factcheck.org have willfully perverted the intended use of 14th Amendment with their Birthright
Citizenship lie. Therefore, to truly understand the 14th Amendment and what the framers original
intent was when writing it, must go back to the framers writings and the congressional debates.
25. That in the matter of what does "Born a Citizen", as shown by Justice Schmidt's lack of
comprehension at above paragraph 5, has as an intentionally political relation to what the
questionable term "Anchor Baby" means in regards to who is to be considered an inhabitant of
New York and the USA for the purpose of seeking office ofthe POTUS (currently germane as
Marco Rubio is not NBC under wet/dry foot INA policy his parents were aliens) and according
to the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section I Paragraphs 5 is germane herein before this Court.
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
26. The truth about the 14
1
h amendment has been out there for so long but no one seems to
care what the framers said, and the facts are 100% ignored WE do not need the coutis to figure
out what a naturalized and natural-born Citizen (NBC) means as used in NYS Real Property Law
18 and as NBC status was forced by New York upon the Constitutional Convention in the
second draft of the Constitution or do we need Congress to do an investigation because the truth
is already available all we need to do is look at the facts. No amendment to the NBC term exists.
27. For the record: the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery was adopted on December 6,
1865; The Civil Rights Act of 1866 which granted former slaves citizenship was enacted April 9
1866; and, the 14th amendment which made the Civil Rights Act constitutional was proposed on
June 13, 1866 and after much debate, as adopted on July 9, 1868.
28. So the question then raised were all dealt with, during the same time frame, with the same
Congressman involved, in each bill. The 14th amendment represented the overruling of the Dred
Scott decision ruling that black people former slaves were not, and could not become, citizens of
the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.
29. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in
the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the framers of the
Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court
from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional
authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority
vote. Which means the Civil Rights Act of 1866 still stands because the 14th amendment was
never repealed.
30. Obviously the logical people to research in regard to debates would be Senator Lyman
Trumbull who was the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Co-author of the 14th
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Amendment's citizenship clause .. and co-author of the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery-
was an Illinois Supreme Court Justice 1848-1853.
31. Senator Jacob Howard worked with Lincoln to draft the 13th amendment. Served on the
Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted the 14
1
h Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and was co-author of the 14th Amendment's 'Citizenship Clause".
32. The Honorable John Bingham was the principle Framer of the 14th Amendment, Judge
advocate in the Lincoln assassination trial and prosecutor on the impeachment of Andrew
Johnson. So getting to the facts, and the easiest way is established by the chronological order of
the legislative debate presentation starting with Representative John Bingham in 1862 recorded
in the Congressional Globe of the 3ih Congress 2nd session page 1639 stated:
"There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not
depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of
office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and the compliance with
their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other
persons born Within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty,
are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exceptions to this statement touching
natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relation to Indians ... ''
33. The next would be the Civil Rights Act of 1866; the original bill was introduced on
January 5, 1866 according to the 39
1
h Congress 1st session Senate 62, that was reported out of
Committee on January 11, 1866 "A BILL to protect all persons in the United States in their civil
rights, and furnish the means of their vindication." And it read:
"'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or
immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory"
A week later there was an amendment offered by Mr. Trumbull to wit:
"In section 1, line 3, after the word 'That,' inseti, 'that all persons born in the United
States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby
declared to be citizens of the United States with distinction of color; and,' "
Amended Vetified Complaint Page 20 of 52
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
34. On the question to agree to the amendment proposed by Mr. Trumbull, It was determined
in the affirmative, Yeas 31 Nays 10. The Bill as an Act went over to the House of
Representatives where it passed, along with Howard and Trumbull's amendment. John Bingham,
speaks on the amendment to the bill :
I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory or what is
written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the
United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the
language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen;''
35. The bill was then sent, to President Andrew Johnson and Johnson vetoed it. It was sent
back to Congress, where both houses, passed the bill, overriding the President's veto.
36. Next Chronologically on to the 14th Amendment, as the congressional debates while they
were debating the 14th Amendment as with that for the Civil Rights act will reveal how the
present use has been I 00% perverted. The Bill as proposed for the 14th amendment at first did
not provide for a jurisdictional statement in Article I Section 1 quote:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
if citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person oflife liberty, or
property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws."
During the debates in 1866 Congressional Globes at 2883 Mr. Latham stated quote:
"Mr. Speaker, we seem to have fallen upon an age of theories. We are told from day to
day with much seeming sincerity and an air of the most profound political sagacity that
the Union when restored must be restored upon the basis which will make it as permanent
as the everlasting hills and as invulnerable as the throne of the Eternal, and with such
safeguards that even treason will no longer be possible within its jurisdiction."
37. Then Senator Edgar Cowen gave a speech telling why the citizenship clause was need
and certainly was not to be used to make anyone born here a citizen, stated ...
"Mr. Cowen. The honorable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have no
doubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legal definition of
''citizenship of the United States." What does it mean? What is its length and breath? I
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
would be glad if the honorable Senator in good eamest would favor us with some such
definition. Is the child of the Chinese Immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a
Gypsy hom in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? Have they any more
rights than a sojoumer in the United States? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from
Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the
laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same as it is to
kill another man. You cannot commit an assault and battery on him, I apprehend. He has
a right to the protections of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of
the word.''
''It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore
entitled him to the right to exercise political power. He is not entitled, by virtue of that, to
be an elector. .. ''
And he goes further to state:
"I have supposed, further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and
particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not
only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it
were ovenun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel
them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it
proposed that the people ofCalifomia are to remain quiescent while they are ovenun by a
flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and
home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people ofCalifomia, in a
broad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in
possession of the country of California, and if another people of a different race, of
different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and
sympathies are to come there and have free right to locate there and settle among them,
and ifthey have an opportunity of pouring in such an immigration as in a short time will
double or treble the population of California, I ask are the people of California powerless
to protect themselves? I do not know that the contingency will ever happen, but it may be
well to consider it while we are on this point.
"As I understand the right of the States under the Constitution at present, California has
the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she
chooses who is not a citizen of some one ofthe United States ...
''I think the Honorable Senator from Michigan would not admit the right that the Indians
of his neighborhood would have to come in upon Michigan and settle in the midst of that
society and obtain the political power of the State, and wield it, perhaps, to his exclusion.
1 do not believe anybody would agree to that."
38. Now who among the framers of the 14th Amendment had no clue or inclination on the
issue of illegal immigration and inclusion of anchor babies? Howard and Trumbull argued for the
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
inclusion of the tenn "and subject to the jurisdiction would be applied and agreed that there
would not be a new definition of the termjurisdiction to be interpreted and applied in the
proposed amendment to be declaratory of the current law, the Civil Rights Act, and that as such
Mr. Howard said of the citizenship clause" quote:
'This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law
ofthe l a n ~ already that every person born within the limits of the United States, and
subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the
United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are
foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of
persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and ... ''
39. What exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof' mean to the framers of the 14
1
h
Amendment? Mr. Lyman Trumbull in 1866, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and author of
13
1
h Amendment, in the Congressional Globe 2893 said
"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction
thereof. Now does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians
are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by
'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.?' Not owing allegiance of anybody else.
That is what it means.''
40. In response Senator Jacob Howard responds in concurrence:
''I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word
'jurisdiction,' as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete
jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the
constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the
executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and
quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot
contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is
subject to this full and complete jurisdiction. That question has long since been
adjudicated, so far as the usage of the Govemment is concerned ... "
41. The Supreme Court of the United State (SCOTUS) in Minor v Happersett states
'The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must
be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the
framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
country o{parents H'ho Herc its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens
also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens. As distinguished from aliens or
foreigners. Some authorities go fm1her and include as citizens children born within the
jurisdiction without reference and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction
without reference to the citizenship of their (p 168) parents. As to this class there have
been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it not necessary to
solve these doubts. It is sufTicient for everything we have not to consider that all children
born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizen" (Emphasis added)
42. The SCOTUS Case Respublica v DE LONGC,HAMPS l US Ill (1784) 1 Dall. 111
"M'Kean, Chief Justice. This is a case ofthe first impression in the United States. It must
be determined on the principles of the laws of nations, which form a part ofthe municipal
law of Pennsylvania; and, if the offenses charged in the indictment have been committed,
there can be no doubt, that those laws have been violated.''
The Chief Justice goes on to say:
"Therefore, we conclude, that the Defendant cannot be imprisoned, until his most
Christian Majesty shall declare, that the reparation is satisfactory '3. 'The answer to the
last question is rendered unnecessary by the above answer to the second question.' The
foregoing answers having been given, it only remains for the Court to pronounce
sentence upon you. This sentence must be govemed by a due consideration of the
enormity and dangerous tendency of the offences you have committed, of the willfulness,
deliberation, and malice, wherewith they were done, of the quality and degree of the
offended and offender, the provocation given, and all other circumstances which may
anyway aggravate or extenuate the guilt. The first crime in the indictment is an infraction
ofthe law ofNations. This law, in its full extent, is pm1 of the law of this State, and is to
be collected from the practice of different Nations, and the authority of writers. "
43. Further search will verify that the tenn Law ofNations is mentioned at least a
dozen times on the page and the author Vattel is sighted along with each and no other authorities
related to law of nations is cited- only that of Vattel.
44. That in the SCOTUS case The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Mr. ChiefJustice
Marshal stated
vattel who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it
than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties,
and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantage. The natives or
natural-born citizens are those born in the countly of parents who are citizens. As the
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens,
those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their
rights.''
45. As is to be found in The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the law of nature by Emer de
Vattel Joseph Chitty at Section 212. reads:
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties,
and subject to it authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or
natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the
society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens,
those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their
rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own
preservation; and it is presumed as matter of course, that each citizen , on entering into
society, reserve to children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the
fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their
tacit consent."
46. That the question posed is why do the usurper's propagandists use the decision in regards
to Wong Kim Ark where the law went astray? They are pulled towards corruption in that nearly
I 00 years earlier then usurper Chester Arthur (SJ appointed Justice Gray to chiefjustice to
succeed Oliver Wendell Holms, Jr. and Gray had sabotaged his later ruling in Wong Kim Ark
from that held in Minor v Happersett of 1874. That in Elk v Wilkins 112 US 94 (1884) Argued
April28, 1884 and Decided November 3, 1884 it seems that Justice Horace Gray knew the law
in 1884 but by the time Wong Kim Ark came along 15 years later he had forgotten it! Quoting
Justice Gray from the SCOTUS Elk v. Wilkins:
"The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly
marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which 'no person, except a natural born
citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution
shall be eligible to the office of President.'
And "The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."
Constitution, Article II Section 1; Article 1, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of
the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the
7/5/2012---------
5 Chester Arthur was born in Fairfield Vermont in 1829, but looking at his father's naturalization papers he didn't
become a citizen until August 31, 1843 meaning that Chester Arthur was not born to citizen parents therefore was
not a natural-born Citizen. It seems that the people challenging Chester Arthur then were right all along.
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a
difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of
free negroes (Scott v Sanford, 19 Howard 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all
persons, white of black, and whether fmmerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the
United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the
United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases 16 Wall 36, 83
US 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303, 100 US 306.
47. In the matter of the immigrant taking the Oath to be a citizen of the United States of
America:
'"I hereby declare, an oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all
allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentiate, state or sovereignty, of whom or
which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the
Constitution and laws of the United states of America against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same , that I will bears arms on
behalf of the United States when required by the law, that I perform noncombatant
service in the armed forces of the United states when required by the law that I will
perfmm work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;
and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion
so help me God."
48. Immigrants becoming citizens must take an oath of sole allegiance to the USA. Now
why would that not be expected also of citizens born here? If you are born to two citizens
parents, your allegiance is passed down. If you are not born to two citizen parents, you must take
the oath, simple as that! Vattel's authority as an institutional writer extended to the USA where
he was cited in court cases between 1789 and 1820 no less than 92 times on matters pertaining to
the law of nations.
49. That in July 1787 the New York Judiciary Chief Justice Lansing withdrew from the
Constitutional Convention convened in Philadelphia and reported to Governor George Clinton
that New York had better not pm1icipate in the proposed Federal Union as New York had too
much to lose; and thereafter New York recommended that any Federal officer eligibility requires
each be a "natural-born Citizen" as a matter of express New York state interest, and that resulted
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
in the 1788 changes made to the draft of the U.S. Constitution merely for the Otlice of POTUS
without including members of Congress too; and
50. That in the Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton of the New York delegation explained
that the President was a ""person to whom so important a trust was to be confided.'' He advocated
that the Electoral College ''will be most likely to possess the infonnation and discernment
requisite to so complicate an investigation.'' Further said that because the President was 'so an
important agency in the administration of the government," "tumult and disorder" were to be
avoided in selecting the President. What better way than for the states to aid in this complex
investigation of that person who should want to run for that most important office. Surely by
requiring any such candidate to produce documentary evidence of his or her identity and place of
birth is a first step in producing that needed information which is so vital to such a complicated
investigation. The states therefore serve a vital role in the beginning stages of the vetting of any
presidential candidate. Such vetting should start as soon as possible so as to avoid parties
becoming entrenched in their selections and wanting to win at all costs at the expense of the
people and their Constitution.
51. That Petitioner correctly argues that "born Citizen" is not the same as "natural bom
Citizen.".
52. That the first step in constitutional interpretation is textual analysis of the clause in
question. In that analysis, we have to look at each and every word of the clause which includes
"natural" and define that word. By using "bom Citizen'' rather than ''natural bom Citizen,'' would
be saying that we do not need to consider and define "natural," that the Framers just threw that
word in as surplusage.
Amended V e1ified Complaint Page 27 of 52
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
53. On the contrary, the word "natural" is part and parcel of the full clause, "natural born
Citizen." The clause as a whole is a word of art, an idiom. The historical record shows that it has
always been used as such and that it has never been used in some expanded way as "born
Citizen'' suggests. Indeed, the clause is a unitary phrase with a unitary meaning. Hence, "natural"
cannot be separated from the clause. Rather what needs to be done is to search for the meaning
of the whole clause and not its parts.
54. In this textual analysis, we cannot simply take that idiom and say that it means some
other manufactured definition of the clause. We cannot simply proclaim without evidence that
the meaning of that idiom equates to the manner in which Congress and the Fourteenth
Amendment allows persons to acquire the status of a "citizen of the United States" as of the
moment ofbirth. No U.S. Supreme Court case or Justice has adopted such a manufactured
definition or even said that such a meaning prevailed at the time of the Founding. That someone
acquires his or her citizenship from the moment of birth simply does not equate to that person
being a "natural born Citizen." Even Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Be !lei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
tell us that persons may be "naturalized" from the moment of birth. We accept that "'naturalized"
person are not "natural born Citizens.'' Furthermore, that Wong Kim Ark included the clause
"natural born subject" in the context of its discussion of what is a Fom1eenth Amendment
"citizen of the United States" does not through some amazing feat of logic convert a "citizen of
the United States" into a "'natural born Citizen." As Minor aptly explained, a "natural born
Citizen'' is neither created by the Constitution nor depended upon it. Hence, neither Fourteenth
Amendment nor its debates on who shall be a "citizen of the United States" does not control who
shall be "natural born Citizens."
55. Hence, simply having a status of a "citizen'' from the moment of birth does not
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
necessarily equate to one being a ''natural born Citizen.'' The fact that the Framers included the
word "natural" as an additional qualifier tells us that quite plainly, for if such an interpretation
were conect the Framers would simply have said ''born Citizen." So, any person that is a "born
Citizen" who claims to be a "natural born Citizen" still has to show that he or she satisfies the
idiomatic meaning of the clause which the historical record and U.S. Supreme Court case law
show to be a child born in the country to parents who are citizens of that country. This definition
is exactly what our United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett in 1875 and Wong Kim
Ark in 1898 confirmed is the conect American common law definition of"natural born Citizen."
56. For this time-honored natural law/law of nations/American "common-law" and New
York State definition of a ''natural born Citizen", also see Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21
Wall.) 162 (1875) (decided after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 and holding
that "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon
their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens
or foreigners"). What Minor said about a ''natural born Citizen" was confirmed in US. v. Wong
Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (acknowledging and confirming Minor's American common law
definition of a ''natural-born citizen" but adding based on the English common law that since
'"[t]he child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a
citizen, and by operation of the same principle [birth in the country]"' (bracketed information
supplied), a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a Fourteenth
Amendment "citizen of the United States"). This American common law definition of a "natural
born Citizen'' has never been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment (only uses the
clause "citizen of the United States" and does not mention "natural born Citizen") or Wong Kim
Ark, and therefore still prevails today. Both those U.S. Supreme Court cases define a "natural
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
born Citizen" as a child born in a countty to parents who are citizens of that country.
57. This American common law definition of a ""natural born Citizen" has also been
recognized and accepted by a Founder and member of our U.S. Supreme Court as early as 1814
in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall dissenting and
concurring for other reasons). It was also again confirmed by Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 28
U.S. 99 (1830) and Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830). It was again confitmed by
Justice Daniels in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).
58. Arguendo Strunk has shown that the original American "common-law" definition of a
"natural born Citizen'' was not changed by either the Fourteenth Amendment or Wong Kim Ark,
which only deal with a "citizen of the United States" and not a "natural born Citizen." Hence, the
same original definition of a "natural born Citizen" was again expressly confirmed by the whole
U.S. Supreme Court in Minor and Wong Kim Ark, and a lower federal court in EY parte
Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582,5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) and United States v.
Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890). Finally, this same definition was implicitly confirmed by
Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), Perkins v. Elg,
307 U.S. 325 (1939) and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964).
59. Given the meaning of the clause since time immemorial; the enlightened intellectual
mindset of the Founding period which focused on natural law and the law of nations as
commented upon by Cicero, Pufendorf, Burlamaqui, John Locke, Rousseau, Emer de Vattel; the
motivating spirit of the American Revolution; the Founders and Framers desire to preserve the
constitutional republic for Posterity; the way that founding -era legal scholars such as Chief
Justice John Marshall, David Ramsay, St. George Tucker, and James Wilson defined American
Amended Vetified Complaint Page 30 of 52
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
citizenship; Congressional acts on naturalization; U.S. Supreme Com1 case law; and the
historical record as a whole, this is the most natural interpretation of the clause.
60. Regarding the citizenship status of the parents of a '"natural bom Citizen," the
Constitution and Congressional Acts clearly and without question show that a ''citizen" may be
one either by being "natural bom'' or ''naturalized" either at birth or after birth.
61. Furthermore, recently in Tennessee, the Federal District Court just recently stated:
"The Court finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase 'natural
bom citizen' as a qualification for the Presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution,
is important and not trivial." "The issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally
qualified to run for the Presidency is certainly substantial." "It is clear that the stated
federal issue of President Obama' s qualifications for the office are 'actually disputed
and substantial."' "It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution's
definition of 'natural bom citizen' and the Supreme Court's decision in Minor."
the Liberty Legal Foundation eta! v. National Democratic Party o(the USA, Inc. et al, Case No.
12-2143-STA. federal court found the issue of whether Obama is a "natural bom Citizen" to be
"'important and not trivial," "substantial,'' and "disputed.''
62. That were the Court to disagree with Petitioner's definition of a "natural bom Citizen,"
because the Constitution does not define the clause, were to cite "Hollander v. McCain at 65''
which cited Minor and Charles Gordon, Who can be President o(the United States: An
Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L.Rev. I, 5 ( 1968). If that were a valid reason for disagreeing with
someone' s definition of a constitutional clause, we basically would have virtually no
interpretation of the Constitution at all. As is often said, the Constitution is not a dictionary of
legal terms. Its meaning has to be gleaned from its text, if possible, and when not possible, from
sources outside the Constitution. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment does not tell us what
"subject to the jurisdiction" means. Yet, our nation has arrived at a meaning of the clause by
looking outside the Constitution. That the Constitution does not define a "natural bom Citizen''
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
were is the only argument that the Com1 were to make to discount Petitioner's position as to
what is the meaning of a '"natural born Citizen'" were to offer no other authorities showing that
Petitioner is wrong despite the long record of New York State related actions as to the use of the
term natural-born Citizen as with use of the NYS Real Property Law Section 18 and as to
sunogate matters. Also, we should know that Charles Gordon in the very same article states that
neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark s holding defined a ''natural bom
Citizen." Surely, all this shows that Petitioner properly alleges a particular cause of action and
gave sutlicient notice of both the facts and the law that support his cause of action.
63. As such Strunk complains of personal injury caused directly by Barack Hussein Obama
II with a federal questions that deserve available relief and remedy by this Court as follows:
AS AND FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Defendant Obama's default and Failure to
Reply to the return of contract further acts are void ab initio)
64. Strunk repeats each and every allegation contained in the above introduction and
paragraphs l through 63 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length
however omits it for brevity and economy.
65. That on January 23, 2009 within 72-hours from Barack Hussein Obama's offer of His
contract of Oath received by Strunk on 20 January 2009 and again on 21 January 2009
respectively, Strunk provided a timely return response by Registered mail with the United States
Postal Service (USPS) in care of the Agent in Charge of the united States' Secret Service with
NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS
NOTICE TO AGENT and FOR THE RECORD, and that both were accepted for value, timely
without dishonor and with consideration returned redrafted in the offer of contract of Strunk's
choosing wishing no contract in full accord with the Unified Commercial Code (U.C.C.); for a
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
true copy of the original is annexed shown in the Exhibit C.
66. That Sttunk's return response shown as Exhibit C Sub-exhibit A by Registered mail with
the USPS in care of the Agent in Charge ofthe Secret Service with Registered mail
Label/Receipt Number: RE40 0301 908US was delivered at 8:07AM on January 27, 2009 in
WASHINGTON, DC 20223, for a copy of the USPS Tracking record and proof of service by
registered mail shown as Exhibit C Sub Exhibit B.
67. That Defendant Obama in esse is the usurper that has seized the corporate office of the
United States of America Presidency in a wide-ranging conspiracy.
68. That Defendant Obama in esse is the usurper whose actions while pretending as if the
corporate office of the United States of America Presidency are void ab initio.
69. That Strunk's Verified Complaint with two (2) causes of action affirmed May 19,2009
shown as Exhibit C with Sub-Exhibits A through B was duly served upon Barack Hussein
Obama II, as first offered to Jeffery Taylor the U.S. Attorney for Washington District of
Columbia and Eric Holder the U.S. Attorney General in official capacity did not respond, defer
to Strunk's ex-relator further action and inquest with DC Code Chapter 35 Title 16 3503.
70. That on or about August 26, 2009, Defendant Obama through his agent after due notice
required by law responded in writing with a special demmTer (See Exhibit 0); however, the U.S.
Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Jeffery Taylor and or his replacement have
failed to respond or otherwise appear, and that Affirmant has exhausted the administrative
process and other available remedy to appear as the ex-relator afTorded by law.
71. That Strunk would not have sufTered the injuries listed above in paragraph 16 as injury 2
through 4, were it not for the act of the refusal by Defendant Obama to forgo his usurpation of
the office of the POTUS after due notice after January 23, 2009 and then again after my May 13,
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
2009 notice of a Quo Wananto Complaint, and even when after August 26, 2009 Defendant and
his agents acknowledged Strunk's notice refused to step aside invited tl.n1her litigation, as such
promulgated Strunk to commit to further action in this Quo Wananto I FCA filing of March 24,
20 I 0 and after the dismissal without prejudice shown as Exhibit A, Strunk proceeded to transfer
various campaign committee defendants as shown listed in Exhibit N and others referenced in
the original verified complaint of March 24, 2010 previously listed herein to be adjudicated in
the action Strunk v. New York State Board o(Elections eta!. in New York State Supreme Com1
for the County of Kings with Index No.: 2011-6500 having jurisdiction there under state law
with a request that the new case be consolidated with the prior state case 2008-29642 still active
as to the responsibility of state officers also serving as electors in the electoral college too. That
were the Federal issue answered in the affirmative such state case with Index No.: 2011-6500
and 2008-29642 and the time baned claim in the New York State Court of Claims would
proceed accordingly for resolution.
AS AND FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Defendant Obama's malicious spoliation and concealment of evidence of misprision of
a felony, sedition and treason involved with his ineligibility to hold the office of POTUS
thereby directly injures Strunk)
paragraphs 1 through 71 with the same force and efTect as though herein set forth at length
73. That as referenced Defendant Obama's malicious spoliation and concealment of
evidence of misprision of a felony, sedition and treason involved with his ineligibility to hold the
office ofPOTUS thereby directly injures Strunk and evidence is independently investigated by
Sheriff Joseph Arpaio in the June 12, 2012 affidavit shown as Exhibit B affirms:
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
74. That on March I, 2012, the Maricopa County Arizona SherifTs Press Release (see
Exhibit R) and Press Conference established that there is the Preliminary Repmt by the
Sheriffs COLD CASE POSSE, as an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate
fraud and crimes committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an affi1mation in
2008 that Respondent Obama affi1med compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section
1 Paragraph 5 requirement for eligibility for "natural-born Citizen" with a picture of the
Sheriff's webpage appended (see ExhibitS) and currently before the Arizona primary now in
2012; and that the attached Preliminary Report of the Sheriffs COLD CASE POSSE (see
Exhibit T) supports the suspicion with sufficient evidence that Respondent Barack Obama was
not even born in Hawaii between August 1, 1961 through August 10, 1961 and acts to spoliate
evidence of a crime ~ Quote:
"Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating
a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as
an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting that
document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large as "proof
positive" of President Obama' s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.
During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable cause to
believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators began
examining other evidence of President Obama's life history including:.
President Obama's Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed by an
examination of the postal date stamp on the document;
To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United States, we
examined the Records oflmmigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by
airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States
in the month of August 1961. Those records are housed at the National Archives in
Washington, D.C. Interestingly, records from the days surrounding Obama's birth, August 1,
1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 w[h ]ere these immigration
cards cannot be found. ''
75. Further, that according to the Preliminary Report of the COLD CASE POSSE shown as
Exhibit T, the purported Ce1tificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form (see Exhibit U) is a forged
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
document as submitted to the entire nation by Respondent Barack Obama and attorneys at his
April27, 2011 at the Washington DC Press Conference transcript (see Exhibit V); and
76. The Forged document shown as Exhibit U also now joins the previously 2008 profiered
CoLB short form document that is a forge1y as well based upon the admissions of the
Respondent Obama and his attorneys there at the White House at the April27, 2011 press
conference. In the transcript shown as Exhibit V, that at the April27, 2011 press conference the
White House attorney repeatedly said that Respondent Obama had requested the short form
CoLB in 2008 from the State of Hawaii be released. However, examination by Petitioner of the
supposed document Hawaii supposedly released in 2008 is in fact is stamped June 6, 2007 (see
Exhibit W) and then depicted differently by the F actCheck. org report on August 21, 2008 and
reference by Justice Schmidt as the basis to vote for Defendant Obama in above paragraph 6; and
then later as the November 21,2008 report appended shows the so-calledFactcheck.org
investigators, depended on by members of Congress and Media, were partisan amateurs
according to "Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn't Do Forensics; NH SOS and
Certificates; British Policeman on Eligibility'" (see Exhibit X), and thereby all the foregoing
provides sufficient suspicion of fraud and or statements made as admission against interest as a
bar under clean hands doctrine of irrefutable presumption of wrong doing by Respondent Obama
and his agents in 2008 and continuing currently.
77. Further, Plaintiff contends that the additional evidence of forgery of the Selective Service
record before the 2008 election along with the theft and tampering of the US DOS Passport
records by US DOS private contractor entity under the control of John Brennan currently
Respondent Obama" s White House Counter Terrorism advisor having previously been assistant
to Central Intelligence Director George Tenent, and as such underlines the suspicion why the
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
microfilm records from the National Archives are missing now as welL as both agencies are
under the direct authority and control of Respondent Obama, the apparent usurper in the office of
POTUS, and by his refusal to make such microfilm and the missing U.S. DOS records referenced
in the cover letter shown in Exhibit G provide the Court herein with substantial direct available
proof that Respondent Obama is now directly acting in a continuing pattern to spoliate evidence.
78. As Further evidence, Plaintiff provides additional proof that Respondent Obama, in a
continuing pattern acted to spoliate evidence of his adoptive status as an Indonesian citizen and
the ramifications that would have on his law license in Illinois and plans to seek the office of US
Senator in 2005 and POTUS in 2008, perjured himself on the application for entry to the Illinois
bar aflirmed he had no other name (see Exhibit Y)
79. That AHirmant testified in a ballot access hearing in Atlanta Georgia on January 26, 2012
before Judge Malihi in Atlanta Georgia with the entire proceeding video of sworn testimony at
httn://www.youtubc.com/watch?featurc=player detailpagc&v='lll1.2illlj __ CX-\v
80. That Plaintiff was present during the sworn testimony of Witness John Sampson, retired
INS False Document Special Investigator, at the January 26, 2012 hearing as an expert witness
who when asked if he would have issued an anest wanant of Barack Obama as a person having
filed falsified documents to the government based upon what the witness has seen said "'YES!"
81. That in light of the compelling evidence provided by the Maricopa County Sheriffs
Office of forgery and spoliation associated with the Defendant Barack Obama and his agents and
as a precedent to date as the only authority of competent jurisdiction to have an ongoing criminal
investigation with press conferences releasing additional evidence and continued findings every
3 0 days starting March I, 20 12 as shown as Exhibit R, an update released on March 31, 20 12,
related to the targeted spoliation of the U.S. National Archive microfilm spool of all travel
Amended Ye1ified Complaint Page37of 52
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
records dating August l, l 961 through August l 0, 1961 and the concealment of records of
Defendant Obama' s Selective Service record proven as a criminal forgery by Defendant Obama
and or his agents can)'ing a jail term of 5 years and $250,000.00 fine in submission of a forged
document to the Selective service and in addition the forgery of a U.S. Postal Service date stamp.
82. That in light of the compelling evidence provided by the Maricopa County Sheriffs
Office of forgery and spoliation associated with the Defendant Barack Obama and his agents,
Affirmant includes as germane in amended complaint copies of letters U.S. Congressmen
released to Affirmant by a journalist for publication herein as demonstrative of statements by
congressmen dating from November 11, 2008 through Febtuai)' 2009 that demonstrates
Congressional confusion in what constitutes eligibility with use of U.S. Constitution Article 2
Section 1 paragraph 5 for office of POTUS in their conflation of the term "Born a Citizen'' as in
14th amendment with tern1 of art "'natural-born Citizen", see Exhibit Z for the copy of the entire
content of each letter quoted below with excerpts as follows:
Senator Jim Bunning defers to INA, 14th Amend. and courts on November 11, 2008 wrote:
The abiky to receive Untied States citl7enship is one oft he cPre pillars in cu: g:-ca(
democr3Cy. [tis outlined in the Fo;r:-tcemh of the U.S. Constitution and Sectwn
JOlla) ofthc Immigmt[on and Nationality Act (INA) (SU.S.C Section 1-tOl(a)), that person
who is bon m the Ur:itcd States, snbje<::t to tts jurisdiction, i5 a citizcr oftlJt:. tJnitecl
rega;dless the race, cthnicity, or alienage o:'"the parents. Additionally, act:urdi11g to lhe LLS
Conslitutlon, on!:;- a natllral born citizen or a citu;e;n ofthe Lnited States at minimuu., thirty-
f1ve years of age and fourteen of United States n;sidency, is eligible to run for the
of the Ln1ted States.
ln to Senator Obamn, a pending in Penusylvauia
this matter Howcvc1, as a Pni!cd States Sena!nr, I .:c:mnot intl'tvcr.c in the legi ami
mt:5t r.efel" to tho C0tuis to muke the a.ppmpriak dc:cisio:1 ;;hout this case.
Senator Sherrod Brown defers to BHO June 2008 CoLB on November 12, 2008 wrote:
Senator Ohamn has provided s;:vcrnl news organizations wit!: a copy of his birth ecriificatc,
:-howiug he was butn in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 196 I. Hawaii became a stale in 1959,
all inllividua s ';lorn in Hawaii alk:r i.s adml;;;;ion are cunsidenxl nalural-b.;rn Unitt-d
citizens. 11u.: is tL:e for indiiduals, such as Senal0r l'vkCain, bom it: the Panama Ca:1al
Zone.
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Senator Jon Kyl defers to the internet on December 1, 2008 wrote:
Pre),.idc:nt-el..:ct th;: constituLimml f(tr prc:.idcnti:tl otfkc.
Rumors to his c1ti:tJ::nship :.W.tus been cirt:ulating <m the lntemet. and this
infonnation ha:; <.h:'bunked by which invc!itigates 6e trutft behi.ud lntcmct
rwnun.. r \J'f mult: Ltl.fi..>rJlKltj(ltl, you may W:.lnt to visit

for 1he legal dt1ll to the l> dt.Uen:.hip. on.;; of ell.'::. b
pcudin.g before the Snprcm:: Court.
Rep Ed Whitfield relies on News media & "proper authorities" on December 4, 2008
wrote:
Thank you for contacting me regarding President-elect Oban:a. l ha\..: ht:arJ ofllu:
sa>Ju: reports that you mention about ::VIr. Obama Of course. the voters i1ave spoken pretty
clearly, .me so no-w \Ve will move on. I do e'l"pect thnt the news mt>dia and the proper authorities
will look into any reports which ha,c camcd people concern. that any evidence of legitimate
concern '>viii be appropriately addTessed. J continue to monitor these issues closely, as well
Senator Sessions with disinterest relies on the courts on December 16, 2008 wrote:
Senate ethics rule,; prt>dude rne frorr l"lecoming rcn;ona!lv iwoh eel in pending liti;>;,tinn
l stncerdy hope this matter can be ti.rllv am! prtirlptly resc>lvcd bv t;1c couns. ln !he mcm1tt:nc.
dn not hes:tate lo contact me in the fi.Jmc ;;Lou;d von hnw a question rC'gr-rding m:ue
v\:llch ! ha\c jmisdiction
Senator Sessions then relies on BHO 2008 the CoLB on January 23, 2009
wrote:
.'\s vou are aware. stones have circulated that call into question Prestdent Obama's
..:ni_;:enship. AJditionally, varinus lawsuits have heen filed alleging that Obama is not a natural
born citizen of the United States, and constitutionally indigible for the office of
president HO\vever. in June 2008, President Obama releato-ed a digitally &canned image of his
birth certitlcate. and Hawaii's Director of the State Department of Health, Chiyome Fukimo, has
verified its authenticity
As you may know. on January ll. 20tN. l ongrcss certified and tallied the Electoral
College results that verified President Obama 's electron as the next president oft he Cnited
States
Senator Shelby relies on BHO June 2008 CoLB and Hawaii on January 29, 2009
wrote:
Many have contacted rcgardin? the 1wmerous claims and lawsuits
circc:.lating on the 1:-:ter!lct asser-::i.nq that Obama 1s not a natural :8orn
dr,izen a:1d therefor;o ine1igib1e to beco:'lB :Jni:-,ed S:.<'ttes Presiden::.
However, PreHident elect Obama presented his birth certificate,
showing that he w3s .:corn in Hawa:i, ar:c it has been verif:ed anci
conf.1.rraed by Hav .. alia:-1 Additionally, the Court :1as
O.e::lined to act on an'/ of the cases co:1testing
1
Jbar.u's citizenship.
On ,_Tanu:iry R, :_'009, Ytr-:mbers ct Co:-HJcess were giver;. rhe oppo:;:::t:.:;tily to
contest the in a loint sessjon ot Congress, but no such
ob"jec:.i:,n was rznsed the meetlnq. By all acco:onts,
President-elect Barack Cbana neets those P:ease be
assured that I .vi l L c:ontir:ue t::J mcni ::or tl1P slt.Uat.ion sh-uld fut ther

F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Rep. Steve King defers to the 14
1
h Amendment on January 29, 2009 wrote:
While I do not understand why Presidcm Obama has refused to pmdm:c cvi(knee to clear up rhis
question, my oftlce hJ1s discovered confirmation that puts the question to rest. You 1.1.;!1 find attached a
copy of President Obama' s birth rumouncement in the Honolulu Advertiser, datt.:d Augu:;L 13, 1961.
Th.is shows that President Obama was born in the United States and is therefore an American citizen
under the 14'h Amendment to tbe Umted States Constitution.
Senator Feinstein deferring to the 14th Amendment on February 2, 2009 wrote:
Prcsrdcm Ohama mcc!-> these .:nnstitutlonal n>)UJtcmcn:s l k \\'.h horn i1 H,lnolulL..
H.-1'.\:Jit, on .\ugu;,t 4 9hl Accordtng rn tbv folftc<'nth :\mcndmcnt. all pu:,orb horn th,
Lnit c:J Sta16 ar.c cnm,iJcrcd ci1i1cns oftr1e t:lllted Stale' ! fndf;'r cr ireria.
Obama, a 47-:.car nlc! I S citi;cn. \\t.o La> n:,ickd in fht '-;tate' for longlr than l;,,nrteen
year;;, IS el:pihie to he Pre-sident
Rep Sanford D. Bishop relies on Factcheck.org verification as shown at Exhibit 7 on
February 6, 2009 wrote:
On Octotu:r 31. 2008, th-: Director nf f!tm 'Iii'' ot I klllh ctml!nncd tlut
President Obama >>as in tllct born in J lono!u[ u. ['he f !ealth I }m:et.;r per5onJil) ><:rilicd that 1 icth\ aii's
! lcalth Department hokb tht: Prtsidenr s original birth cerl i fk.:lle. The ex and accuran of the
hir(h certificate ai>o v .. 1s \eri!ied b) !he fa-::Chetk L'r:.:: \\hich sent:;
representative to l l;n>aii l(J ;malye the brrth cenilicatc ttl ;:.:r:-.mt. Additictall\, dav, atter
Prc..,iden! Obmna's birth. a b1rth annnum::emni! ruhiished in the nn Sumlav.
Aug. 13, 1961.
83. That Petitioner objection to the ballot access ofBarack Obama shown as Exhibit M never
questioned the place of birth ofBarack Obama per seas purported in the April25, 2011 Long
Form Birth Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) merely asserted the fact admitted to by all parties
that Barack Hussein Obama's father married to Stanley Ann Obama was a British Subject on a
foreign alien student visa, as shown on Exhibit I, in itself precludes a path to citizenship and
therefore Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not a "Natural-born Citizen'' at best "Born a Citizen" as
defined by the 14
111
Amendment- the birthplace in the Complaint is not at issue the issue is dual
allegiance with Barack Obama being a British Subject at Birth, as well as a Kenyan citizen
thereafter, and a triple allegiance when Barack Obama Soebarkah gained Indonesian relinquished
USA allegiance too!
84. The NYS BOE and its agents willful disregard of both history and facts herein is
outrageous, and as such requires Petitioner to recite the history of what dual allegiance
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
associated with the de facto "Born a Citizen" versus the single allegiance ofthe de jure "Natural-
born Citizen" means as is controlling subject before this court that must be resolved as a matter
of provision of substantive due process herein to afford equal protection to Petitioner and among
others similarly situated, and as for the de facto "born a citizen'' of the 14
111
amendment and the
term ''anchor baby" per se without full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the State and
USA is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and New York State Constitution too, goes to NYS
BOE, agents and quasi State Officer candidates breach of fiduciary duty, shifts the strict burden
of responsibility for their arbitrary acts to use the term "Born a Citizen'' .
85. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents are the forgers who committed no less
than two crimes of forgery and misprision of a felony that with such is misprision of sedition and
treason having the capital punishment of death.
86. That the agents of Defendant Barack Obama created a fraudulent document which the
White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental
birth record; and
87. That Barack Obama and his the agents fraudulently present a forged document to the
residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large including Plaintiff along with
those similarly situated here in New York as "proof positive" of President Obama's authentic
1961 Hawaii long-form bi1th certificate.
88. That Barack Obama and his agents manufactured the long-form birth certificate presented
to the public on April27, 2011 as a computer-generated forgery.
89. That Barack Obama and his agents forged the President Obama's Selective Service card
by forging the U.S. postal date stamp on the purported selective service document;
90. That Barack Obama and his agents spoliate and conceal Records oflmmigration and
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers aniving on international
flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961.
91. That Barack Obama and his agents spoliate and conceal those records of travel referenced
from August 1961 housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
92. That The National Archives in Washington DC and all their employees are directly under
the authority of Barack Obama and the executive.
93. That Barack Obama and his agents spoliate and conceal the records from the days
sunounding Obama s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 that are missing. For the only
week in 1961 where these immigration cards cannot be found.
94. That Barack Obama had met a US Postal Canier while entering the residence of the
Ayers Family in Chicago and at which time he admitted he was a foreign exchange student that
the William Ayers family was assisting and he was selected to become a candidate for president.
95. For the above aforementioned reasons, the above requested documents are of great
public interest and without receiving eligibility proof, Plaintiff liberty remains at risk were the
usurper of the POTUS administrator which constitutes a huge National Security dilemma to
continue and as Strunk along with those similarly situated suffers irreparable harm with time as
the essence is deserving of equity relief of a preliminary injunction with Declaratory Judgment.
AS AND FOR THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Barack Obama and his agents intentionally mislead and misrepresented facts to
injure Plaintiff personally
96. That Plaintifi repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction paragraphs
1 through 95 with each allegation with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at
length and further alleges that Barack Obama and his agents intentionally mislead and
misrepresented facts to injure Plaintiff personally.
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
97. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents at his April27, 2011 Washington DC
Press Conference shown as Exhibit U purport the Cetiificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long fotm as
if a government document knowing it was a forged document as submitted to the entire nation.
98. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents at the April27 2011 Press Conference
proffered the CoLB short fonn document as well based upon the admissions of the Respondent
Obama and his attorneys there at the White House at the April 27, 2011 press conference .
99. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents at the April 27 2011 Press Conference
repeatedly said that Barack Obama had requested the supposed short form CoLB in 2008 from
the State of Hawaii be released.
I 00. That the supposed short form CoLB alleged requested in 2008 from the State of Hawaii
be released in fact is stamped June 6, 2007.
1 01. That Defendant Barack Obama agents coordinated defense of the supposed short form
CoLB with agents of FactCheck.org who report on August 21, 2008 in favor of authenticity.
102. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents knew that the Factcheck.org and
Justia.org citations report would be depended on by members of Congress and Media.
103. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents knew that the so-called Factcheck.org
investigators were partisan amateurs unlike the Justia.org principal associated with Sidley Austin
Law firm where Defendant Obama once worked and was support in his campaign fund raising.
104. That Defendant Barack Hussein Obama was adopted by his Indonesian step father Lolo
Soetoro who named him Soebarkah and was also otherwise known as Barry Soetoro, and Barack
Hussein Obama Soebarkah.
105. That Strunk discovered that Justia.org principals have conspired with Defendant Obama
and his agents to conceal, and spoliate SCOTUS citations as to NBC to injure Strunk personally.
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
AS AND FOR THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Barack Obama and his agents intentionally forged a selective service and passport records
to mislead and misrepresented facts to injure Plaintiff personally
I 06. That PlaintifT repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction paragraphs
l through 105 with each allegation with the same force and efTect as though herein set forth at
length and fm1her alleges that Barack Obama and his agents intentionally forged a selective
service and passport records to mislead and misrepresented facts to injure Plaintiff personally.
I 07. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents forged the Selective Service record
misrepresenting Defendant Obama's status before the 2008 election
108. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents act by theft and tampering of the US DOS
Passport records by US DOS private contractor entity under the control of John Brennan
currently Respondent Obama's White House Counter Tenorism advisor having previously been
assistant to Central Intelligence Director George Tenent,
1 09. That Barack Obama and his agents knowingly acted to conceal his adoptive status as an
Indonesian citizen.
110. That Barack Obama and his agents intentionally lied to conceal his Indonesian names and
foreign student financial status when he applied for his Illinois law license.
Ill. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents filed False Documents with the
government and knowing such documents filed are falsified government documents.
112. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents spoke with Congressmen and the media to
promote a "Born a Citizen" 14
111
Amendment status for Defendant Obama.
113. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents spoke with agents of the Justia.org
organization to spoliate prior decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States to change the
definition of "natural-born Citizen" to that of"Born a Citizen.
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
AS AND FOR THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Defendant Obama's actions in conspiracy with others to use the campaign
organization entities Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund to solicit and obtain
foreign donations in violation of 42 USC 1971 administered by the FEC)
paragraphs I through I 13 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length
115.That Plaintiff moves with leave ofthe com1 to eliminate any additional defendants herein
including Obamafor America, Obama Victory Fund, and vatious John and Jane Doe(s), XYZ
Entities as material parties in interest now associated with the scheme to defraud with unjust
enrichment in the case Strunk v. The New York State Board o{Elections et al. in the New York
State Supreme Court for the County of Kings with Index No.: 2011-6500 filed March 22, 2011
after Plaintiff received the order to dismiss this case without prejudice on January 5, 20 I I;
AS AND FOR THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Conspiracy defined with 42 USC 1985 by Defendant Obama, Obama's agents with
various John Jane Doe(s) and XYZ entities to violate Strunk's rights and liberty along
with those similarly situated including Plaintiff)
paragraphs 1 through 115 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length
117.Subject to the finding of the Quo Warranto Inquest, that there is a conspiracy defined
with 42 USC 1985 by Defendant Obama, Obama s agents including the Campaign funding
organization with various John I Jane Doe(s) and XYZ entities to violate Strunk's rights and
liberty along with those similarly situated including Taitz to further the fraud to violate the U.S.
Constitution Article 2 Section 1 and to cover-up that Defendant Obama not only has dual
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Seal v Seal DCD 20 I O-cv-004R6
allegiance but was bom outside the USA conceal the Microfilm record of travel of the mother as
requested by Strunkin the ongoing FOIA case before Judge Richard J. Leon DCD 08-cv-2234.
118. Defendant Obama and his agents associated with his campaign and administration are
Preventing officer(s) from performing duties in New York and Washington D.C. in the matter of
the 2008 General Election cycle, and after by coercing various members of the Congress not
challenge during the electoral college tally required in Article 2, and by not calling for a
challenge if any there; and to conceal treason or felony by one not participating in the crime, and
by seditious conduct against New York and United States of America governments.
119. That Obama and his agents in New York and Washington DC as if a State or Territory
conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threaten, Joseph Biden and other candidates from
accepting or holding any oftice, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from
discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to
leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or
to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his
office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest,
interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
120.Defendant Obama and his agent(s) in his campaign and administration act to Obstruct
justice; intimidate a party, witness, or juror such as Judge Carter and Judge Land and suborned
witnesses to proceedings promote a breach offiduciary duties of public officials.
121. That Obama and his agent(s) in New York and other States conspire to deter, by force,
intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such
court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure
such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified,
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Seal v Seal DCD 20 I O-cv-004R6
or to inf1uence the verdict, presentment, in any such court, lawfully assented to by him; and
122.That Obama and his agent(s) of his campaign and administration conspire for the purpose
of impeding, hindering, obstmcting, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any
State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure
him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or
class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
123.Defendant Obama and his agents of his campaign and administration as misprisors
deprive persons of rights or privileges of Stmnk and those similarly situated.
124.That Obama and his agents in New York and other States conspire against Governor
Paterson, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, Stmnk and the class of
persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws;
or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory
from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of laws;
125.That the fruit of the poison tree by frustration of effcn1 and cover-up by Mr. Obama in
commission of a fraud has been asked for his "vault" version birth certificate; however, he has
refused, which has prompted lawsuits across the United States and is liable for damages.
126. Obama and his agents including Eric Holder and his agents act and conspire to prevent by
force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support
or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person
as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress;
127.0bama and his agents injure Stmnk and his property on account of such support or
advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged
therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby
Amended Ye1ified Complaint Page 47 of 52
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any tight or
privilege of a citizen of the United States,
128. Thereby Strunk as the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of
damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any of the conspirators;
129.To resolve the Quo Warranto inquest, for ifObama were born in Mombasa Kenya is
ineligible to the office ofPOTUS by Obama's own admission.
130.Ex-relator(s) require with 28 USC 1361 a writ of mandamus of at the discretion ofthe
court: ofDHS, to ascertain the facts alleged under penalty of perjury by Lucas Smith as to
Defendant Obama, the various Campaign committees, agents and or John Does(s) Jane Doe(s)
and or XYZ entities conspiring as defined with 42 USC 1971, 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986,
the False Claims Act with 31 U.S.C. 3 7 2 9 ~ 3 7 3 3 pursuant to the notice given to the FEC, DOT
and DOJ by the Journalist Ken Timmerman related to Obama' s support of genocide in Kenya
and related law in entirety; and with FRCvP Rule 65 and LCvR 65.1 a TRO restraining
Defendant Obama, the Supplemental Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund and
or agents use of any account(s) to be placed under the control and investigation of a court
appointed special master with FRCvP Rule 53(a)(b) to ascertain facts of wrong doing as to injury
AS AND FOR THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unjust enrichment of Defendant Obama, Obama's agents with various John Jane
Doe(s) and XYZ entities to violate Strunk's rights and liberty along with those similarly
situated including Plaintiff with different claims and damages)
paragraphs 1 through 130 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length
132. Subject to the finding of a Quo Warranto Inquest of Barack Hussein Obama II, that the
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
Unjust enrichment of Defendant Obama, Obama 's agents with various John Jane Doe(s) and
XYZ entities that have injured Strunk s rights and liberty along with those similarly situated
including Plaintiff with different claims and damages; and as Ex-Relators are whistleblowers
representing the People of the USA as a Qui Tam matter, individually claim a portion of the total
amount and other sources yet to be detetmined under the Com1's control;
133. Strunk wishes a judgment of the value of the return of:
a. Property and all mesne profits and damages, based upon an accounting by the
Department of treasury.
b. all the False Claim disbursements from the DOT to date;
c. all Campaign matching funds and funds taken under false pretense;
d. Reimbursement of all damages caused by the conspiracy to be determined at a
jury trial including punitive treble damages prescribed by law;
e. Reimbursement of all the expense of a special master and associated costs of
investigation and litigation to date;
f. And for other and different relief as the court and jury deems just.
134. That Strunk is aware of the need for a skilled attorney to handle the intricacies of this
action with both DOJ Criminal and Civil investigative experience and trusted by the Com1. As
such, I have reviewed the background of George Washington University Professor Stephen A.
Saltzburg with previous experience that is acceptable to Plaintiff as the special master appointed
in this matter before the court.
135.That were this Court to hold an expedited quo warranto inquest in camera under seal
involving Barack Hussein Obama II's right to hold office as to the authority of the office of
POTUS were to detetmine the answer to the above four federal questions affirmatively then
Petitioner Strunk would be able to return to the State Court to perfect his actions, and thereby
this request for leave to renew meets the Third and finally, "it must be 'likely,' as opposed to
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
merely 'speculative,' that the injury will be 'redressed by a favorable decision."' I d. at 561
(quoting Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26,41-42 (1976)).
136. The matter of the upcoming August 2012 Democratic and Republican conventions to
place their respective candidate for otlice of POTUS on the respective state general election
ballot on November 6, 2012, requires an expedited inquest hearing on the attached simplified
amended Complaint; and that as of this mailing has been provided to the respective US Attorney
General and Respondent accordingly; and in the best of all possible worlds with eyes wide open,
13 7. As judicial notice to this Court, were this proposed amendment by motion denied
without affording relief to Strunk's injury under the NBC Federal issue an original proceeding
would ensue in a challenge that would be find the SCOTUS and would necessitate the recusal of
Justices John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan for cause, as all have a conflict of
interest from hearing this matter; and notwithstanding the fact that Justice Roberts has a real and
complete subservience to the Holy See, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and their
Praetorian Guard Jesuit General Adolph Nicholas's twist of his vulnerability regarding his own
adopted children; thereby only leaves 6 Justices to hear my or Defendant Obama's direct appeal.
138. The Court has discretion with jurisdiction to afford Plaintiff to renew and amend the
Complaint in the proposed simplified form of Quo Warranto inquest for Barack Hussein Obama
II to show cause why he is eligible for the Office of President of the United States (POTUS), and
upon further finding in camera that this Court should unseal this case and order that Plaintiff
Christopher-Earl Strunk is innocent of wrongdoing for contending that to be eligible under U.S.
Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 a person must be born in the USA of two US
Citizen parents, and this Court should use the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine exception to address the
NBC Federal matter that the Star Chamber of Justice Schack used to wrongly sanction Strunk.
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
WHEREFORE, Ex-relator, Christopher Earl Strunk in esse, on his own behalf and on behalf of
the Government of the United States of America requests this Honorable Court to order:
a. That Strunk is innocent of any frivolous conduct in his use of the NBC Federal
issue associated with Strunk's injuries
b. Release the Summonses for immediate service by the U.S. Marshal Service;
c. Let the expedited Quo Wananto inquest be done in camera attended by the
named parties before the August Conventions of either party;
d. Let this case remain under seal until the Court renders a decision and order
e. Once an order has been rendered let Ex-relator proceed with a special master to
recover funds from Barack Obama and his agents if any under Qui Tam
provisions presented before a Jury
f. and for different and other relief that the Court deems necessary.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and conect.
Cc:
Dated: July r; , 2012
Brooklyn, New York .
Eric Holder,
U.S. Attorney General
The US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Barack Hussein Obama II
The \\'hite House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Respectfully submitted by,
it:tz c ~ & F i / z
s opher-Earl : Strunk in esse ~
593 Vanderbilt Avenue- #281
Brooklyn., New York 11238
(845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KINGS )
Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, by special-appearance being duly sworn,
depose and say under penalty of perjury:
1. That I am the Ex-Relator, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, with place for service at 593
Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238.
2. That may four basic particular injuries are personal and have been caused directly by
Barack Hussein Obama II and or his agents by malice to usurp POTUS and wrongfully exercises
authority over my denial of grant of power of attorney consent given to administer the United
States of America Inc.
3. I duly fired Barack Hussein Obama for cause on January 23, 2009 after he took the oath
of office by timely return of the offer of contract wishing no contract thereby revoked power of
attorney due to his failure to prove eligibility as a natural born citizen and have been wrongly
punished in the exercise of my duly and liberty otherwise to be protected by the US Constitution.
4. That Respondent Obama in esse usurps the office of POTUS and presumably wishes to
have a Quo Warranto forum to prove his eligibility to be able to return to office if elected.
5. I hereby give my permission for a sealed Quo Warranto inquest on the issue of facts.
6. I have read the above Amended Complaint with Demand for an in camera inquest on the
injury and damages after a Declaratory Decision and Order is issued on the question of Strunk's
innocence of wrongdoing and aver that the complaint with Exhibit A through Z are in support of
the Plaintiffs efforts nonetheless has a dispute on the facts to be issues before the court as well
as to the source of Qui Tam reimbursement for damages and injuries, and I know its contents; the
facts stated in the Complaint herein are true to my own personal knowledge, except as to the
matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it
to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are
as follows: 3rct parties, books and records, and personal knowledge. except as to those stated upon
information and belief, which 1 believe to be true. ~ ~ Q'". /. ,
x:!__KiJL .. c ~
Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse
Sworn to before me
This -:'" day of July 2012
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

t
h
e
F
o
g
b
o
w
.
c
o
m

DC - Strunk - 2012-07-05 - Proposed Amended Complaint Wo Exhibits

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DC - Strunk - 2012-07-05 - Proposed Amended Complaint Wo Exhibits

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:10-cv-00486-RCL Document 5-1 Filed 08/01/12 Page 1 of 464

Seill v Seal DCD 20 I O-cv-004S6

You might also like