SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT

---------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse

Appeal Case Nos: 2012-05515 2013-06335 2014-00297

-against-

Appellant,

NYS Sup. Ct. Kings County Index No.: 6500-2011

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEM COLN, in their Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; RGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities. NOTICE OF MOTION Respondents. -----------------------------------------------------------------------x PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Sui juris Agent of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Appellant with exhibits, affirmed April 14, 2014 with exhibits annexed, for an Extension of time to file Appellants Brief and Appendix for Appeal Cases Nos: 2013-06335 and 2014-00297 at the Courtroom in the Courthouse at the State of New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second

--------------------------------------------------------------------x Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse Plaintiff / Appellant, -againstNEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEM COLN, in their Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSON, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; RGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities. Defendants / Respondents. 2012-05515 2013-06335 2014-00297 APPEAL CASES

Affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Sui juris agent of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Appellant in support of the Motion to Enlarge the Time to File Appellants Brief and Appendix in Appeal Cases 1.That this is the Affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse sui juris agent of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Appellant with exhibits with name of war STRUNK, Christopher Earl and abbreviated derivatives, the
1 of 10

transmitting utility Debtor Trust owner of the Estate of christopher earl strunk, with all Rights reserved without prejudice for an Extension of time to file Appellants Brief and Appendix for Appeal Cases Nos: 2013-06335 and 2014-00297 at the Courtroom in the Courthouse at the State of New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Judicial Department located at 45 Monroe Place Brooklyn, NY 11201, on Friday the 25th day of April 2014, at 9:30 Oclock before Noon or at a time designated by the court or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard. 2.On 4 March 2014 the Honorable Appellate Panel of SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, LEVENTHAL and HALL, JJ., ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the appellant's time to perfect the appeal from the order dated March 29,201 3 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2013-06335), is enlarged until May 5, 2014, and the record or appendix and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date (See Exhibit A). 3. That on January 24, 2014 the Honorable David I. Schmidt Ordered parties in active Case Index No.: 29642-2008, STRUNK v. DAVID PATERSON ET AL. to appear 28 March 2014 to show cause why the case should not be disposed (see Exhibit B). 4.That on 28 March 2014 parties appeared before the Honorable David I. Schmidt as Ordered shown with Exhibit B in active Case Index No.: 296422 of 10

2008, STRUNK v. DAVID PATERSON ET AL. there taking oral arguments and papers on submission; and to date there has been no decision. 5.That Appeal Cases Nos: 2012-05515, 2013-06335 and 2014-00297 are taken from orders of Arthur M. Schack in the Case STRUNK v. NYS BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL with Index 6500-2011, from three orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 1l, 2012 (see Exhibit C), March 29, 2013 (see Exhibit D), and December 9, 2013, respectively (see Exhibit E) are all related to the disposition of active Electoral College cases Index Nos.: 29642-2008 and 21948-2012. 6.That Clerk of the Supreme Court of Kings County has scheduled a pre-trial conference on 13 June 2014 for the Active Electoral College Case with Index Nos.: 29642-2008 and that coincides with the trial schedule for 18 June 2014 for the Electoral College Case STRUNK v. JEFFERIES ET AL. with index No. 21948-2012. 7.That the decision as to the disposition of 29642-2008 and outcome of the trial for 21948-2012 effects the appeal cases herein and for that reason the filing date should be enlarged to a time to be ordered in July 2014. 8.That the Panel in its Order shown as Exhibit A when it ordered that may not provide Appellant and or its Agent for civilian due process of law admits it may only provide Appellant and its agent martial due process of law under the
3 of 10

statutory authority of 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b) with the direct executive authority imposed by the present continuing National Emergency declared by the President of the United States (POTUS) Commander-in-chief, herein Appellee BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II aka BARACK OBAMA on 12 September 2013 (see Exhibit F). 9.That the Panel ordered and admitted such as shown in Exhibit A notwithstanding that I am a Private Citizen of the United States of America whose federal citizenship status has been secured by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5; Article II, Section 3, Clause 5; and Article IV, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States of America, which de jure citizenship status has been broadened and made national by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; and having been duly registered as such with the United States Secretary of the Treasury. 10. That the core substance of all the cases with Index Nos: 29642-2008.

6500-2011, and 21948-2012 challenges the U.S. Constitutional eligibility natural-born Citizen status of SOEBARKAH, aka BARRY SOETORO, aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 to serve as POTUS and thereby the Commander-in-chief during war and national emergency with executive authority over the de facto Federal and State court system as applies to the continuing annual determination of the National
4 of 10

Emergency under 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b) extended by then POTUS George W. Bush on September 12, 2008 and renewed ( 1 ) by BARACK OBAMA on 11 September 2009 (see Exhibit G). 11. That under the present national emergency the New York State

unified Court system is under the direct authority of the POTUS Commanderin-chief with direct executive authority and the eligibility is directly a controversy requiring equity relief otherwise without any other remedy at law;

Section 2502(a)(2) of Pub. L. 100-418 provided that: The authorities conferred upon the President by section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act [subsec. (b) of this section], which were being exercised with respect to a country on July 1, 1977, as a result of a national emergency declared by the President before such date, and are being exercised on the date of the enactment of this Act [Aug. 23, 1988], do not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly, any activity which, under section 5(b)(4) of the Trading With the Enemy Act, as added by paragraph (1) of this subsection, may not be regulated or prohibited.'' EXTENSION AND TERMINATION OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY POWERS UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT Section 101(b), (c) of Pub. L. 95-223 provided that: (b) Notwithstanding the amendment made by subsection (a) [amending subsec. (b)(1) of this section], the authorities conferred upon the President by section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act [subsec. (b) of this section], which were being exercised with respect to a country on July 1, 1977, as a result of a national emergency declared by the President before such date, may continue to be exercised with respect to such country, except that, unless extended, the exercise of such authorities shall terminate (subject to the savings provisions of the second sentence of section 101(a) of the National Emergencies Act [section 1601(a) of this title]) at the end of the two-year period beginning on the date of enactment of the National Emergencies Act [Sept. 14, 1976]. The President may extend the exercise of such authorities for one-year periods upon a determination for each such extension that the exercise of such authorities with respect to such country for another year is in the national interest of the United States. (c) The termination and extension provisions of subsection (b) of this section supersede the provisions of section 101(a) [section 1601(a) of this title] and of title II [section 1621 et seq. of this title] of the National Emergencies Act to the extent that the provisions of subsection (b) of this section are inconsistent with those provisions.''

5 of 10

and in effect because the direct evidence and admissions of BARACK OBAMA starting with his 1996 autobiography Dreams From My Father that was published with his own biography stating that he was born in Mombasa Kenya, renders him simultaneously a dual subject of both the Sultanate of Zanzibar and Thrown of Great Britain (see Exhibit H); and 12. Further, at trial on 18 June 2014 for case 21948-2012 testimony and

evidence will prove that the supposed Birth Certificate tendered by BARACK OBAMA on or about 25, April 2011 and beforehand in 2008 were and are forgeries that are an estoppel to BARACK OBAMA under clean hands doctrine; and 13. Furthermore at trial in the Case 29642-2008 were it to proceed by

order of Justice Schmidt, British Barrister and Immigration Judge Michael Shrimpton as an unpaid expert intelligence analyst will tender direct testimony that BARACK OBAMA is not eligible to be POTUS based upon his personally involvement with US Government officials of the National Security Agency, Central Intelligence AGENCY, Defense Intelligence Agency, Secret Service and related conversations and offer of evidence in collection of DNA sample being taken in 2007 of then US Senator OBAMA failing to be even related genetically to the supposed Dunham grandparents of Barack OBAMA - see overview by Michael Shrimpton at Exhibit I.
6 of 10

14.

That as evidence of further concealment and spoliation by BARACK

OBAMAs unclean hands, Barrister Michael Shrimptons visa has been withdrawn by the POTUS and or his agents, and I endeavor to secure a foreign visitor visa that limits aspects of the testimony (see Exhibit J). 15. That this Panel admits it is unable to provide for civilian due process

of law under the defacto National Emergency declared shown by Exhibit F; and knowing that I have proven that I am entitled to civilian due process of law as I am a private citizen of the United States duly registered with the US Secretary of the Treasury, am immune from the statutory effect of 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b) by definition and practice, owe it to their oath of office and duty to me and my fellow citizens to ascertain whether or not the National Emergency as ordered continued by the POTUS finding shown as Exhibit F is in fact void ab initio, meaning we have returned civilian due process of law as guaranteed by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment with a State Constitution full in force again along with the U.S. Constitution having been suspended and used as advisory only to the military government as it is run by an ineligible USURPER, or to the contrary that Mr. OBAMA is eligible to be POTUS because he was born within a State of the United States of Citizen parents or at least born within a State of the United States by a Citizen parent mother were it found there was no marriage and then citizenship of the mother would apply.
7 of 10

16.

That this Court has held that any quo warranto challenge, as a matter

of equity is a plenary matter, to a State related office may be held in controversy for a finding under CPLR 213(1) within six years from the election and or time respondent assumed office, in this case when Mr. OBAMA as Commander-in-chef assumed direct executive authority over the NYS Unified Court System on January 20, 2009 thereby requiring provision of martial due process of law, is a matter of a fundamental duty of this court or any court to determine and decide as Mr. OBAMA as a result of the order of National Emergency thereby assumes direct authority of the State Court system must be eligible for the defacto State Office -must be done see (see Exhibit K) Demand of Proof of Claim from the Trial Court and or Moving Party THEREFORE, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk, still as a friend of this Court have previously put the Defendants and or Appellees and or moving party(ies) ON NOTICE of my constitutionally-protected, non-surety, private citizenship status which is a matter of public record. Further, as a friend of this Court, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk, a Private Citizen of the United States of America, DEMAND that the Defendants and or Appellees and or Attorneys for moving party(ies) response in equity not law;

8 of 10

In conclusion in favor of an enlargement of time to file appellants Briefs and Appendix, the Defendants/ Appellees have not proven the eligibility of the POTUS Commander-in-chief, the Court being bound by its oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and related law, must abate this martial due process mistakenly imposed on Christopher-Earl: Strunk due to a case of mistaken identity despite judicial notice to the contrary, said martial due process being a nuisance to Christopher-Earl: Strunk, a Private Citizen of the United States of America, who can only be given a civilian due process of law as a matter of constitutional right secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America and as defined by 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 2 and 5(b) ; and were such civilian process granted as relief herein that the appeal cases referenced be so ordered to proceed accordingly after a date in July along with such other and different relief that the Court herein deems necessary for justice and equal protection of law for Christopher-Earl: Strunk, a Private Citizen of the United States of America including provision of a civilian flag in such civilian Courtroom, must at least conduct, as if a prerogative extraordinary writ in equity, a quo warranto examination of the eligibility of BARACK OBAMA to issue the order shown as Exhibit F, and or provide an enlarged time for Appellant to duly submit his above referenced Brief Appendix for Appeal 2013-06335 and 2014-00297 until the hearing is had here in Chambers
9 of 10

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse v. THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. in the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT in re: NYS Sup. Ct. Kings County Index No.: 6500-2011

Affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Sui juris agent of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Appellant in support of the Motion to Enlarge the Time to File Appellants Brief and Appendix in Appeal Cases 2012-05515, 2013-06335, 2014-00297

Exhibit A

Bupreme Clhurt of the Btate of PQelu work Appellate liui~inn: beranh luhirial Department
MI70416 Elsl PETER B. SKELOS, J.P. THOMAS A. DICKERSON JOHN M. LEVENTHAL L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ. DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION Christopher-Earl Strunk, appellant, v New York State Board of Elections, et al., respondents. (Index No. 650011 1)

Motion by the appellant pro se, inter alia, "for civilian due process of law" on appeals from three orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 1l , 2 0 12, March 29,20 13, and December 9,2013, respectively. Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is ORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further, ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the appellant's time to perfect the appeal from the order dated March 29,2013 (Appellate Division Docket No. 201 3-06335), is enlarged until May 5, 2014, and the record or appendix and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date. SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, LEVENTHAL and HALL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Clerk of the Court March 4,201 4 STRUNK v NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse v. THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. in the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT in re: NYS Sup. Ct. Kings County Index No.: 6500-2011

Affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Sui juris agent of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Appellant in support of the Motion to Enlarge the Time to File Appellants Brief and Appendix in Appeal Cases 2012-05515, 2013-06335, 2014-00297

Exhibit B

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse v. THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. in the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT in re: NYS Sup. Ct. Kings County Index No.: 6500-2011

Affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Sui juris agent of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Appellant in support of the Motion to Enlarge the Time to File Appellants Brief and Appendix in Appeal Cases 2012-05515, 2013-06335, 2014-00297

Exhibit C

SUPREME COURT OF THE STAm OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS

Chrietopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse

Plain-

NOTICE OF APPEAL
Index N o . : 6500-2011

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A WALSH / Co-Chair,DOUGLAS A. KELLNER 1 Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA 1 Commissioner, GJXEGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC S C H N E I D E W , THOMAS P. , their Official and DINAPOLI, RUTH NO EM^ C O L ~ Nin inhvidual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O W E , S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, J R . ;SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama 1 1 , a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCR~~!IC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES CALERO; PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; R ~ G E R THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRmZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCMN WCTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VTCTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities. Defendants.

PLEASE TAKE N b n C E that Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse hereby appeals to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of .the State of New York; Second Judicial Department, from the April 11, 2012 decision and order to show cause (see attached with copies of entry) arid pending judgment for sanctions dismissing the complaint, thereby granting Defendants motions to dismiss, denying Plaintiffs Motion to consolidate, and rendering moot the motion of leave f& direct appeal on constitutional issue and motion with
1

evidence for leave to file a first supplement to the complaint, and appeal from every part and issues affected thereby in the related case 2 0 0 8 - 2 9 6 4 2 and application for OSC dated October 2 5 , 20 11, and duly entered by the Clerk of the Court starting after April 23, 20 12. Respectfully submitted by: Dated: Brooklyn, New York May 23,2012

&~a~
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Plaintiff self-represented without a n attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - # 2 8 1 ~rooklyn.' New York 11238 (845)90 1-6767; Email: chris@strunk.ws

Cc:
Erica Burke, Es of SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York. New York 10017-395%. Representing: PETER G. PETERSON Todd E. Phillips, Esq. of CAPLIN 86 DRYSDALE, CHARTERED One Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 Representing JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAINPALIN VICTORY 2008 HARRIS BEACH, PLLC By THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553 Representing: JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Bany Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama 11, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; PENNY S. PRITZKER; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; JAMES C . DUGAN Esq. of WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y. 10019-6099 Representing: GEORGE SOROS MARSHAL BELL, Esq. of McGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Americas, 7 t h Floor New York, New York 10105 Representing: ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI. WILEY REIN LLP - TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ. , JAN-WITHOLD BARAN ESQ. and THOMAS W. KIRBY ESQ. 1776K Street, NW Washington D.C. 20006 Representing: JOHN A. BOEHNER RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, PC - Christopher J. Latell Esq. and Daniel S. Reich Esq. 4 5 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New York 10'006-379 1 Representing: ; R~GER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of NYS by: JOEL GRABER, Esq. AAG Assistant Attorney General Special Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau 120 BROADWAY - 24th Floor New York, New York 10271-0332 Representing : NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NO EM^ COLON, in their Official a n d individual capacity; MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By: CHLARENS ORSLAND, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007 Representing: Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.

At an IAS Term, Part 27 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York, on the 1 1th day of April 20 12 PRESENT: HON. ARTHUR SCHA Justice. CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK, in esse Plaintiff,
DECISION & ORDER

GK 4SbC u.$W

-againstIndex No. 650011 1 NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSHICo-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNERICo-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILAI Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON1 Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMI COLON, in their Official and individual capacity, Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A. 0. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIE W KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH ( a k a Barry Soetoro, a.1c.a.Baraclc Hussein Obaina, a.1~. a Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW

YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; JOHN A N D JANE DOES; and XYZ ENTITIES. Defendants.

The following papers nuinbered 1 to 25 read on this motion: Notice of Motion and Notice of Cross-Motion and and Affidavits (Affirinations) Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) Reply Affidavits (Affirmations)

Papers Numbered: 1 - 13 14 - 21
22 - 25

If the coinplaint in this action was a inovie script, it would be entitled The
Manchurian Candidate Meets The Da Vinci Code. Pro se plaintiff CHRISTOPHER-

EARL STRUNK brings this action against nuinerous defendants, including President BARACK OBAMA, Vice President JOSEPH BIDEN, Senator JOHN MCCAIN, Spealcer of the House of Representatives JOHN BOEHNER, former House of Representatives Spealcer NANCY PELOSI, Governor ANDREW CUOMO, Attorney General ERIC

SCHNEIDERMAN, Coinptroller THOMAS DI NAPOLI, the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, billionaires PETER PETERSEN, PENNY PRITZKER, GEORGE SOROS and six New Yorlc State political parties. Thirteen motions are pending before the Court. Plaintiff STRUNK's coinplaint is a rambling, forty-five page variation on "birther" cases, containing 150 prolix paragraphs, in at tiines a streain of consciousness. Plaintiffs central allegation is that defendants President OBAMA and Senator McCAIN, despite not citizens of the United States according to plaintiffs interpretation of being "natural bori~" Article 11, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, engaged with the assistance of other defendants in an extensive conspiracy, on behalf of the Roinan Catholic Church to defraud the American people and usurp control of the Presidency in 2008. Most of plaintiff STRUNK's coinplaint is a lengthy, vitriolic, baseless diatribe against defendants, but inost especially against the Vatican, the Roman Catholic Church, and particularly the Society of Jesus (the Jesuit Order). Plaintiff STRUNK alleges seven causes of action: breach of state constitutional fiduciary duty by the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS and public officer defendants; denial of equal protection for voter expectation of a correct ballot; denial of substantive due process for voter expectation of a correct ballot; interference with the right to a republican forin of government by the two Jesuit defendants and defendant F.A.O. SCHWARZ, JR., who were all members of the New Yorlc City Campaign Finance

Board; interference with plaintiffs election franchise; a scheme to defraud plaintiff of a reasonable expectation of successfU1 participation in the suffrage process; and, a scheme
by all defendants for unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment and a preliminary injunction against defendants, including: enjoining the NEW YON< STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS froin putting Presidential candidates on the ballot for 20 12 unless they provide proof of eligibility, pursuant to Article 11, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution; ordering that this eligibility certification be submitted to the Court for proof of compliance; enjoining the Jesuits froin interfering with the 20 12 elections; ordering expedited discovery to determine the scope of damages, alleged to be inore than $12 billion; and, ordering a jury trial for punitive treble dainages. Various defendants or groups of defendants, all represented by counsel, present eleven inotions to disiniss and one motion to adinit an attorneypro hace vice for this action. The eleven individual defendants or groups of defendants are, in chronological order of filing their inotions to dismiss: defendants President BARACK OBAMA, Vice President JOSEPH BIDEN, OBAMA FOR AMERICA and the OBAMA VICTORY

FUND; defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 200 8, MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 and

Senator JOHN MCCAIN; defendants MARK BRZEZINSKI and IAN BRZEZINSKI; defendant Representative NANCY PELOSI; defendant GEORGE SOROS; defendants

THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY and ROGER CALERO; defendant Speaker

JOHN BOEHNER; defendant ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI; defendants Father JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J., Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J. and FREDERICK A. 0. SCHWARZ, JR.; defendant PENNY PRITZICER; and defendant PETER G. PETERSEN. The eleven motions to dismiss assert: plaintiff STRUNK lacl<sstanding; plaintiff STRUNK fails to state a claiin upon which relief can be granted; plaintiff STRUNIC fails to plead fraud with particularity; the action is frivolous; plaintiff STRUNK is barred by collateral estoppel froin pursuing this action; and, the Court lacks both personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this action. The motion to adinit counsel pro hace vice for the instant action, by counsel for defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 200 8, MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 200 8 and Senator JOHN MCCAIN, for Todd E. Phillips, Esq., a ineinber in good standing of both the California and District of Columbia bars, is granted. Further, plaintiff STRUNK cross-moves to consolidate the instant action with a similar "birther" action filed by him, Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642108, in the Kings County Special Election Part, before Justice David Schmidt. Many of the defendants oppose consolidation because Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642108, is a disposed case. The cross-motion to consolidate this action with Stvunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642108, is denied. Defendants who oppose plaintiffs cross-motion are correct. Justice Schmidt disposed of Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642108, on the grounds

of collateral estoppel, failure to join necessary parties and laches. The eleven motions to dismiss are all granted and plaintiff STRUNK's instant coinplaint is dismissed with prejudice. It is clear that plaintiff STRUNK: laclts standing; fails to state a claiin upon which relief can be granted; fails to plead fraud with particularity; and, is barred by collateral estoppel. Also, this Court laclts subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over most, if not all, defendants. Furthermore, plaintiff STRUNIC's instant action is frivolous. As will be explained, plaintiff STRUNIC alleges baseless claims about defendants which are fanciful, fantastic, delusional and irrational. It is a waste of judicial resources for the Court to spend time on the instant action. Moreover, the Court will conduct a hearing to give plaintiff STRUNK a reasonable opportunity to be heard, pursuant to 22 NYCRR

130- 1.1, as to whether or not the Court should award costs and/or impose sanctions upon plaintiff STRUNIC for his frivolous conduct. At the hearing, an opportunity will be given to counsel for defendants to present detailed records of costs incurred by their clients in the instant action. Therefore, plaintiff STRUNK, who is not a stranger in the courthouses of New York, is enjoined froin coininencing hture litigation in the New Yorlc State Unified Court Systein against: the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSHI Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNERICo-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILAI

Coinmissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON/Coininissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, and Deputy Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI and RUTH NOEMI COLON, in their Official and individual capacity; Father JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICIC A. 0. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW ICAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSICI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; BARACK H. OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI; the DEOMCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW Y O N STATE; ROGER CALERO; the
.

SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSICI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; the NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; the NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORIC STATE; PENNY S. PRITZICER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; and MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; without prior approval of the appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge.
Background

Plaintiff STRUNK previously coinmenced similar actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and this Court, the Supreme Court of

the State of New Yorlc, Kings County. In Strunk v New York State Board of Elections, et
al., Index No. 08-CV4289 (US Dist Ct, EDNY, Oct. 28, 2008, Ross, J.), the Court

dismissed the action because of plaintiffs lack of standing, failure to state a claiin and frivolousness. In that action, plaintiff STRUNK accused the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS of "misapplication and inisadininistration of state law in preparation for the November 4, 2008 Presidential General Election" by, among other things, in 7 5 1 of the complaint, of "failure to obtain and ascertain that Barraclc Hussein Obaina is a natural citizen, otherwise contrary to United States Constitution Article 2 Second 1 Clause 5 [sic]" and demanded "Defendants are to provide proof that Barrack Hussein Obaina is a natural born citizen and if not his electors are to be stricken froin the ballot [sic]." Judge Ross, at page 6 of her decision, held "the court finds that portions of plaintiffs affidavit rise to the level of the irrational" and, in footnote 6, Judge Ross cited two prior 2008 Eastern District cases filed by plaintiff STRUNIC in which "the court has determined that portions of plaintiffs coinplaints have contained allegations that have risen to the irrational."

My Kings County Supreine Court colleague, Justice Schmidt, in Strunk v Pate~pson,

et al, Index No. 29642108, as cited above, disposed of that matter, on March 14,20 1 1, by denying all of plaintiffs motions and noting that the statute of limitations expired to join necessary parties President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN. Further, Justice Schinidt

denied plaintiff an opportunity to file affidavits of service nuncpro tune and to amend the complaint. Then, plaintiff STRUNK, eight days later, on March 22, 20 11, commenced the instant action by filing the instant verified complaint. Plaintiff STRUNK's coinplaint recites numerous baseless allegations about President OBAMA. These allegations are familiar to anyone who follows the "birther" movement: President OBAMA is not a "natural-born" citizen of the United States; the President is a radical Muslim; the President's Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth does not prove that he was born in Hawaii; and, President OBAMA is actually a citizen of Indonesia, the United Kingdom, Kenya, or all of the above. For example, Plaintiff STRUNK alleges, in 7 24 of the complaint, that President OBAIvlA: is a Madrasah trained radical Sunni Musliin by birth right . . . practices Shariah law . . . with the full laowledge and blessing of Defendants: Peter G. Peterson; Zbigniew Brzezinslci; his sons Mark and Ian; Penny S. Pritzlcer; George Soros; Jesuits Fathers: Joseph P. O'Hare, Joseph P. Parlces; Brennan Center Executive Frederick A. 0. Schwarz, Jr.; Nancy Pelosi, John Sidney McCain 111; John A. Boehner; Hillaiy Clinton; Richard Durbin and others. [sic]

Then, in 7 28 of the complaint, plaintiff STRUNK alleges that President OBAMA "or his agent(s) as part of the scheme to defraud placed an iinage of Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (COLB) on the Interest . . . and as a priina facie fact ineans the Hawaii issued COLB does not prove 'natural born' citizenship or birth in Hawaii, only a longforrn docuinent would [sic.1" Plaintiffs alleged vast conspiracy implicates dozens of political and religious figures, as well as the 2008 presidential candidates froin both inajor parties, with numerous absurd allegations. They range froin claiming that an associate at the large law firm of Icirlcland and Ellis, LLP masterminded the conspiracy because she wrote a law review article about the U. S. Constitution's natural born citizen requirement for the office of President to the assertion that Islam is a seventh century A.D. invention of the Vatican. Further, plaintiff STRUNK alleges, in 7 129 of the complaint, that he: is the only person in the USA to have dulyJiredJiredfired BHO [President OBAMA] on January 23, 2009 by registered inail (rendering BHO the

USURPER as Plaintiff is entitled to characterize BHO as) on the grounds

that he had not proven hiinself eligible . . . and all acts by the usurper are void ab initio - a serious problem! [sic] Plaintiffs allegations are strongly anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and xenophobic. The

complaint weaves the occasional true but irrelevant fact into plaintiffs rambling stream of consciousness. Moreover, plaintiff STRUNK alleges, in 7 22 of the complaint, that defendant Vice President BIDEN knew that President OBAMA was "not eligible to run for president because he is not a Natural-Born Citizen with a British Subject Father with a student visa, however in furtherance of CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] foreign policy initiatives in the mid-east supported Soebarlcah [President OBAMA] as a Muslim [sic]." Also, Plaintiff STRUNK discusses, in the complaint, then-Senator OBAMA's April 2008 co-sponsorship of Senate Resolution 5 11. This resolved unanimously that Senator MCCAIN, born in 1936 in Panama, while his father was on active duty in the United States Navy at Coco Sola Naval Air Station, is a natural born citizen of the United States. This resolution put to rest questions about Senator MCCAIN'S eligibility to run for President. However, plaintiff STRUNK alleges, in 7 43 of the complaint, that Senate Resolution 5 11 "is part of the scheme to defraud" and "a fraud upon Congress and the People of the several states and territories contrary to the facts." Then, plaintiff STRUNK, in 7 44 of the complaint, cites Senate Resolution 5 11's text as evidence that President OBAMA concedes that the definition of natural born citizenship for President requires both parents of a candidate be U.S. citizens at birth. Further, the complaint

alleges that JOHN MCCAIN and ROGER CALERO, presidential candidate of the SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY, were also ineligible, like then-Senator OBAMA, for President because of their failure to qualify under the natural born citizen requirement. Plaintiffs alleged injury, in 7 47 of the complaint, is "[tlhat on November 4, 2008, Plaintiff, as a victim of the scheme to defraud, voted for the electors representing . . . McCain . . . not a natural-born U.S. citizen." Further, in 7 49 of the complaint, "as part of the scheme to defraud, Plaintiff voted for Candidate McCain despite the fact that his wife is a most devoted Roinan Catholic whose two sons were educated by Jesuit priests." Plaintiff alleges, in 7 5 1 of the complaint, that Senator MCCAIN, was born in Colon Hospital, Colon, Panama, which was not in the Panama Canal Zone. Further, plaintiff alleges, in 7 52 of the complaint, that according to the November 18, 1903 HayBunau Varilla Treaty, by which the United States obtained the Canal Zone, Senator MCCAIN is not a natural-born citizen. Plaintiff STRUNK, in his final twenty pages of the complaint, alleges that the massive conspiracy to defraud American voters was perpetrated by hundreds of individuals, at the behest of the Roinan Catholic Church and especially the Jesuits, with the aiin of bringing about the Apocalypse through the destruction of the A1 Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and the re-building a new Jewish Temple on that site. Ainong the entities that Plaintiff STRUNK implicates in his alleged conspiracy are: the Musliin Brotherhood;

the Carlyle Group; the CFR; Halliburton; Kirlcland and Ellis, LLP; and, the Brennan Center for Justice at N W . For example, in 7 91 of the complaint, plaintiff STRUNK states: That ineinbers of the Council on Foreign Relations including Peter G. Petersen as then Chairinan that act with the Jesuit Order by the oath of allegiance superior to the United States Constitution, Treaties, and various States' Constitutions that starting no later than January 2006 sought to usurp the executive branch of governinent using Baraclc Hussein Obaina I1 and John S. McCain 111, as a matched set of contenders then under joint coininand and control, to preclude any other contender in preparation for a banking and sub-prime mortgage collapse that requires subsuming the sovereignty of the people of the united States of America and New Yorlc to International Monetary Fund conditionality with loss of the dollar reserve currency status, and collapse of the living standards of the vast majority of the Americans to that of a third world status. [sic] Plaintiff STRUNK, in 7 139 of the complaint, alleges that defendant GEORGE SOROS "proves his allegiance to Rome by promoting Musliin Brotherhood overt control

of Egypt . . . We cannot forget that the Jesuits in Cairo created the Musliin Brotherhood in 1928, the same year the Order created Opus Dei in Spain [sic]." Further, plaintiff STRUNK, in 7 145 of the coinplaint alleges that "Defendants Pritzlcer and Soros have inanaged a crucial role for the Vatican State as a ineinber of the CFR and high level Freemasonry and in conjunction with King Juan Carlos (the King of Jerusalem) to create global regionalism that subsuines national sovereignty of the USA and the People of New York state to the detriment of plaintiff and those similarly situated [sic]." Eleven defendants or groups of defendants filed inotions to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff STRUNIC: laclcs standing; failed to state a claiin upon which relief can be granted; failed to plead fraud with particularity; and, is barred by collateral estoppel. Further, defendants argue that the Court laclcs both personal and subject matter jurisdiction and the instant coinplaint is frivolous. Plaintiff, in response, filed an affidavit in opposition to the inotions to dismiss and moved to consolidate the instant action with
Strunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642108.

On August 22, 20 11, I held oral arguments on the record with respect to the thirteen instant motions. At the hearing, plaintiff STRUNK agreed with the Court that President OBAMA, with the release of his long-forin Hawaiian birth certificate, was born in Honolulu, Hawaii [tr., p. 231. However, plaintiff STRUNIC, at tr., pp. 30 - 3 1, argued that a "natural born citizen," eligible to run for President of the United States, pursuant to

Article 11, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, means that not only the candidate is natural born, but both of the candidate's parents are natural born. The following exchange at the oral arguments took place, at tr., p. 34, line 25 - p. 35, line 16: MR. STRUNK: THE COURT: MR. STRUNIC My injury, I voted for McCain. Is that an injury? My injury is he did not challenge Mr. Obaina

after he went through the whole exercise. THE COURT: Obaina's presidency? MR. STRUNK: Absolutely, and the ballot. The onus is on me You're saying he should have challenged Mr.

because he violated his agreement with me. You can't challenge the eligibility until he's up to be sworn. McCain, since everybody in Congress, since they didn't want to lcnow about anything, so it was my responsibility. I fired hiin by registered inail within 72 hours. THE COURT: I saw your letter that you fired the President.

I guess he didn't agree with you because he's still there.

A discussion ensued as to how plaintiff STRUNIC alleges that President OBAMA is a Muslim [tr., pp. 36 - 381. The following colloquy took place at tr., p. 37, lines 4 - 8: THE COURT: a radical Sunni Muslim? MR. STRUNIC Because that's what his records show and that's How could you come to the conclusion that he's

what the testimony of individuals who were in class with hiin show. The following portions of the exchange, at tr., p. 39, line 9 - p. 43, line 8 demonstrates the irrational anti-Catholic bias of plaintiff STRUNIC THE COURT: What I find fascinating, first of all you said

there was a connection there where you say Cindy McCain says she's a Catholic. I don't lmow if she is. I think you said she's Catholic faith, Cindy McCain. MR. STRUNK: THE COURT: necessarily. MR. STRUNIC those connections. It's the connection that counts. Your don't get She is the largest distributor of Budweiser.

I know that. That doesn't inalte her a Catholic

THE COURT:

. . . I don't l a o w if the Busch family is Catholic.

I don't care.
MR. STRUNIC: THE COURT: That's big business. That's big business selling beer . . . Let's put

Anheuser-Busch to the side. You said she's a Catholic and you get into this whole riff or rant, whatever you want to call it, about the Catholic Church and Father O'Hare, the Vatican. You go on and on about the Vatican . . . but it seems to me you have this theory that everything is a conspiracy and it always falls back to Rome. MR. STRUNIC THE COURT: MR. STRUNK: That's a matter of public record. Oh, okay. What the key is here, Ms. McCain is on the

Board of Directors for a Jesuit run school where her children are going to school.

THE COURT: MR. STRUNK:

Could very well be. I don't know.

. . . In fact, it turns out in the discovery of the

connection to the Jesuits it was so coinpelling that when I started really digging into the background of this scheine of defraud, putting up two Manchurian candidates at once, which would talte advantage of New Yorlc State's weakness in our law which required honesty. We require to have honesty and didn't get it. THE COURT: MR. STRUNK: THE COURT: Your case is more The Da Vinci Code.

The Da Vinci Code is a phoney book.

With all due respect to John Franlcenheiiner,

The Manclzurian Candidate according to you and the school of the Vatican,
by that way it describes the gist of your argument. MR. STRUNIC: THE COURT: movie. MR. STRUNK: THE COURT: MR. STRUNIC THE COURT: The old? With Franlc, not Denzel. Franlcenheiiner? 1962 movie. Fraizltenheiiner? He directed the original Manclzurian Candidate

MR. STRUNK: THE COURT: MR. STRUNIC THE COURT: MR. STRUNIC THE COURT: have it in the inovie. MR. STRUNIC THE COURT:

I was aware of the inovie at that point, but - Okay, forget it. This is the one with Frank Sinatra? And Laurence Harvey. The Queen of Diainondsl Now you've brought - You mentioned The Manchurian Candidate. They

I've used it as a pejorative. I understand that, and I think that The Da Vinci

Code, to inalte some interesting argument, that's a work of fiction. At least I thinli it's a worli of fiction. MR. STRUNK: The Manchurian Candidate was not a work of

fiction. The worli - - I didn't want to get into this area. THE COURT: Let's not get into analogies. I understand you

have various arguments but it seeins to all come back to Rome. MR. STRUNK: No, it coines back to New Yorli State and

whether I have standing in the Supreme Court of the State of New York

on the question of who's going to take responsibility to enforce the law which has not been done.

THE COURT:

Olcay, that's your argument.

Standard for a motion to dismiss

"When determining a motion to dismiss, tlze court must 'accept the facts as alleged in the cornplaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and cletern~ilze only w11eflter tlte fncts cis allegedfit wit11in n11ycognizable
legcrl theory' (see Arnav Ilzdzls., IIIC. Retirement Trust v Brown, Rayslnarz, Milstein,

Felder & Steinel., 96 NY2d 300, 303 [2001]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88
[ 19941) [Enzphasis adden] ." (Goln'ma~z v Metropolitarz Life Ins. Co., 5 NY3d 56 1,

570-571 [2005]). Further, the Court, in Morris v Morris (306 AD2d 449,451 [2d Dept 2003]), instructed that: In determining whether a complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion pursuant to CPLR 321 1 (a) (7), "the sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if froin its four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law a motion for dismissal will fail" (Guggenheinzer

v Ginsburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]. Tlze court must accept the facts

alleged in the coinplaint to be true and determine only wlzetlzer tlze facts
allegedfiZ witlzin any cognizable Iegril tlzeory (see Dye v Catholic Med.

Ctr. of Broolclyn & Queens, 273 AD2d 193 [2000]). However, bnre
legal conclusions (ire not entitled to tlze benefit of tlze presumption of trutlz and are not accorded every favorable inference (see

Doria v Masucci, 230 AD2d 764 [20001). [Emplzasis adden] For a plaintiff to survive a inotion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the factual allegations in the claiin cannot be "merely conclusory and speculative in nature and not supported by any specific facts." (Residentsfor a More Beautiful Port Washington, Inc. v Town ofNorth Hempstead, 153 AD3d 727,729 [2d Dept 19891). "The allegations in the coinplaint cannot be vague and conclusory." (Stoianoffv Gahona, 248 AD2d 525 [2d Dept 19981, app dislnissed 92 NY2d 844 [1998], cert denied by Stoianoffv New Yorlc Times, 525 US 953 [1998]). (See LoPresti v Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 30 AD3d 474 [2d Dept 20061; Levin v isayeu, 27 AD3d 425 [2d Dept 20061; Hart v Scott, 8 AD3d 532 [2d Dept 20041). Plaintiff STRUNK's coinplaint inust be dismissed because the "Court need not, and should not, accept legal conclusions, unwarranted inferences, unwarranted deductions, baseless conclusions of law, or sweeping legal conclusions cast in the forin of

factual allegations. (Ulmann v Norma Kamali, Inc., 207 AD2d 69 1 [Id Dept 19941; Marlc Hampton, Inc, v Bergreen, 173 AD2d 220 [Id Dept 199 I])." (Goode v Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 8 Misc 3d 1023[A], at 2 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 20051). It is clear that the facts alleged by plaintiff STRUNK do not fit into any cognizable legal theory. Plaintiff STRUNK'S complaint is more of a political manifesto than a verified pleading. Siinilar lawsuits challenging the eligibility of President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN for the presidency based upon plaintiffs incorrect interpretation of the terin "natural born Citizen" in Article 11, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution have been dismissed as a matter of law. (See Drake v Obama, 664 F 3d 774 [9th Cir 201 11; Barnett v Obama, 2009 WL 3861788 [US Dist Ct, CD CA 20091; Berg v Obama, 574 F Supp 2d 509 [ED Pa 20081, affd 586 F3d 234 [3d Cir 20091; Robinson v Bowen, 567 F Supp 2d 1144 [ND Ca 20081; Hollander v McCain, 566 F Supp 2d 63 [D NH 20081).
Plaintiff STRUNK lacks standing

Plaintiff STRUNIC lacks standing to sue in state court, having suffered no injury. "Standing to sue is critical to the proper functioning of the judicial system. It is a threshold issue. If standing is denied, the pathway to the courthouse is blocked. The plaintiff who has standing, however, inay cross the threshold and seek judicial redress." (Saratoga County Chanzber o f Congmeuce, Inc, v Pataki, 100 NY2d 80 1 8 12 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1017 [2003]). Professor David Siegel, in NY Prac,

5 136, at 232 [4d ed]

instructs that: [ilt is the law's policy to allow only an aggrieved person to bring a lawsuit . . . A want of "standing to sue," in other words, is just another way of saying that this particular plaintiff is not involved in a genuine controversy, and a simple syllogism takes us froin there to a "jurisdictional" dismissal: (1) the courts have jurisdiction only over controversies; (2) a plaintiff found to lack "standing" is not involved in a controversy; and (3) the courts therefore have no jurisdiction of the case when such a plaintiff purports to bring it. "Standing to sue requires an interest in the claiin at issue in the lawsuit that the law will recognize as a sufficient predicate for determining the issue at the litigant's request." (Caprer v Nussbaun?, 36 AD3d 176, 181 [2d Dept 20061). "An analysis of standing begins with a determination of whether the party seeking relief has sustained an injury (see Society o f Plastic indus. v County o f Suffolk, 77 NY2d 76 1, 762-773 [I99 l])." (Mahonej~ v Pataki, 98 NY2d 45, 52 [2002]). "The Court of Appeals has defined the standard by which standing is measured, explaining that a plaintiff, in order to have standing in a particular dispute, must demonstrate an injury in fact that falls within the relevant zone of interests sought to be protected by law." (Caprer v Nussbaum at 183).

A plaintiff, to have standing, "must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." (Allen v Wright, 468 US 737, 75 1 [19841). If a plaintiff lacks standing to sue, the plaintiff inay not proceed in the action. (Stark v Goldberg, 297 AD2d 203 [lst Dept 20021). Plaintiff STRUNIC clearly lacks standing to sue because he cannot establish an injury in fact. Plaintiffs claiin that his November 2008 vote for Senator MCCAIN for President was his injury is the type of generalized grievance that is foreclosed by the U.S. Constitution's particularized injury requirement. "We have consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government-claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no inore directly and tangibly benefits hiin than it does the public f Wildlife, at large-does not state an Article I11 case or controversy." (Lujan v Defenders o 504 US 5 55, 572 [ 19921). "Thus, a private citizen who does not show any special rights or interests in the matter in controversy, other than those coininon to all taxpayers and citizens, has no standing to sue." (Matter o f Meehan v County o f Westchester, 3 AD3d 533, 534 [2d Dept 20041). (See Diederich v Rockland County Police Chiefs' Ass 'n, 33 AD3d 653, 654 [2d Dept 20061; Concerned Taxpayers ofstony Point v Town o f Stony Point, 28 AD3d 657, 658 [2d Dept 20061). Plaintiff STRUNK's coinplaint alleges nothing inore than non-justiciable abstract and theoretical claims. Therefore, the instant complaint, failing to state any allegation of a particularized injury, is dismissed with

prejudice. (Silver v Patalci at 539; Mahoney v Pataki at 52).

Plaintiff Strunk's failure to state a cause of action

Alternatively, plaintiff STRUNIC's coinplaint must be dismissed for his failure to state a cause of action. The Court is under no obligation to accept as true plaintiffs complaint, full of legal conclusions and bald assertions cloalted as facts. (Rzqjfino v New

Yorlc City Tr. Autl?., 55 AD3d 8 17, 8 18 [2d Dept 20081). As noted above, in Morris v Morris at 45 1, "bare legal conclusions are not entitled to the benefit of the presumption of
truth and are not accorded every favorable inference." Moreover, plaintiff has failed to plead any facts that fit within any cognizable legal theory. (Goldman v Metropolita~zLife

111s. Co.. at 570-571).

Further, plaintiff STRUNICs often rambling and allnost incoinprehensible coinplaint fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of CPLR $30 13 and CPLR Rule 3014. CPLR fj 3013 requires statements in a pleading to be "sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the inaterial elements of each cause of action or defense." CPLR Rule 30 14 imposes additional pleading requirements that "[elvery pleading shall consist of plain and concise stateinents in consecutively nuinbered paragraphs. Each paragraph shall contain, as far as practicable, a single allegation . . . Separate causes of action or defenses shall be separately stated and nuinbered and inay be

stated regardless of consistency ." In Sibershy v New Youk City (270 AD2d 209 [Id Dept 20001, the Court disinissed an amended petition for its "complete failure to follow the dictates of CPLR 30 13 or 3 0 14." The Sibe14slycoinplaint consisted of "seven pages of single-spaced, unnuinbered paragraphs, the iinport of which is unascertainable," and the Court held that "[plleadings that are not particular enough to provide the court and the parties with notice of the transaction or occurrences to be proved inust be disinissed." Coinplaints that do not ineet the pleading requireinents of CPLR

5 30 13 and CPLR Rule 30 14 will be disinissed if

"devoid of specific factual allegations" and do not "indicate the inaterial eleinents of a claiin and how they would apply to the case." (Megna v Becton Dickinson & Co., 2 15 AD2d 542 [2d Dept 19951). In Peri v State (66 AD2d 949 [3d Dept 1979]), a f d 48 NY2d 734 [1979]), apvo se plaintiffs coinplaint was dismissed for failure to coinply with CPLR

8 3013.

The Court instructed that "[alt a ininimuin, a valid coinplaint must

include all inaterial eleinents of the cause of action." Plaintiff STRUNICs rambling, forty-five page prolix complaint, with its irrelevant, scatter-shot inorass of alleged historical references, virulent anti-Catholic rhetoric and extensive political rant fails to plead his alleged causes of action in a inanner that is "sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the

inaterial eleinents of each cause of action [CPLR 5 30131" and organized in "plain and concise statements in consecutively nuinbered paragraphs [CPLR Rule 30 141." "While a refined and attenuated analysis inight arguably spell out a shadow of a cause of action, neither the defendants nor the trial court should be subject to the difficulties." (Kent v Truman, 9 AD2d 649 [Id Dept 19591). (See Geist v Rolls Royce Limited, 18 AD2d 63 1 [1d Dept 19621; Safer Beef Co., Inc. v Northern Boneless BeeJ Inc., 15 AD2d 479 [Id Dept 19611). In a case, such as this one, in which "the amended coinplaint is prolix, confusing, and difficult to answer" and the coinplaint contains "a conhsing succession of discrete facts, conclusions, coininents . . . and considerable other subsidiary evidentiary inatter whose relevance to a particular cause of action is frequently obscure . . . Defendants should not be required to answer such a jumble." (Rapaport v Diamond Dealers, Club, Inc., 95 AD2d 743, 744 [Id Dept 19831). (See Etu v Cumberland Farms, Inc., 148 AD2d 821, 824 [3d Dept 19891).
Plaintiff STRUNK fails to plead fraud with particularity

"The eleinents of fraud are narrowly defined, requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence (cf, Vernzeer Owners v Guterman, 78 NY2d 1114, 1 116 [I99 I])." (Gaidon v Guardian Life Ins. Co. o f America, 94 NY2d 330, 349-350 [1999]). Mere conclusory stateinents alleging the wrong in the pleadings are insufficient. (McGovevn v Nassau County Dept, o f Social Services, 60 AD3d 10 16 [2d Dept 20091; Sargiss v

Magarelli, 50 AD3d 1117 [2d Dept 20081; Dumas v Firoito, 13 AD3d 332 [2d Dept 20041; Sforza v Health Ins. Plan o f Greater New York, 2 10 AD2d 2 14,215 [2d Dept 19941). The Appellate Division, Second Department, in Giurdanella v Giurdanella (226 AD2d 342, 343 [1996], held that: to establish a priina facie case of fraud, the plaintiff must establish

(1) that the defendant inade inaterial representations that were false,

(2) that the defendant knew the representations were false and inade thein with the intent to deceive the plaintiff, (3) that the plaintiff justifiably relied on the defendant's representations, and (4) that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the defendant's representation. (See Kerusa Co., LLC v WIOZ/515 Real Estate Ltd. Partnership, 12 NY3d 236 [2009]; Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc. 94 NY2d 43 [1999]; Channel Master Corp. v Aluminwn Limited Sales, Inc., 4 NY2d 403 [1958]; Smith v Ameviquest Mortg. Corp., 60 AD3d 1037 [2d Dept 20091; Cash v Titan Financial Services, Inc. 58 AD3d 785 [2d Dept 20091). Plaintiff STRUNK presents in his coinplaint fraud accusations that can be, at best, described as bare assertions. He does not allege that he relied upon any statements of defendants and fails to allege that he suffered any pecuniary loss as a result of the

-2 8-

statements of any defendant. Actual pecuniary loss must be alleged in a fraud action. (Dress Shirt Sales, Inc, v Hotel Murtiniqzle Assoc., 12 NY2d 339, 343 [1963]; Rivera v WyckoffHeights Hosp., 184 AD2d 55 8, 56 1 [2d Dept 19921). The inere use of the word "fraud" in a coinplaint is not sufficient to coinply with the specific requirements of CPLR

5 30 16 (b) that fraud be plead with particularity.

Therefore, plaintiff STRUNK fails to

allege the necessary elements for a fraud cause of action.

This Court lacks jurisdiction

Plaintiffs complaint essentially challenges the qualifications of both President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN to hold the office of President. This is a non-justiciable political question. Thus, it requires the dismissal of the instant coinplaint. "The "nonjusticiability of a political question is priinarily a fbnction of the separation of powers." (Baker v Carr, 369 US 186,210 [1962]). Under separation ofpowers, "[tlhe constitutional power of Congress to regulate federal elections is well established." (Buckley v Valeo, 424 US 1, 13 [1976]). (See Oregon v Mitchell, 400 US 112 [1970]; Burroughs v United States, 290 US 534 [1934]). Under New York law, "[tlhis judicial deference to a coordinate, coequal branch of government includes one issue of justiciability generally denominated as the 'political question' doctrine." (Matter o f New York State Inspection, Security & Law Enforcenzent Employees, District Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 233,239 [1984]). The fraineworl<for the Electoral College and its voting procedures for President

and Vice President is found in Article 11, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. This is fleshed out in 3 USC

1 et seq., which details the procedures for Presidential elections.

More specifically, the counting of electoral votes and the process for objecting for the 2009 Presidential election is found in 3 USC fj 15, as modified by Pub L 1 10-430, fj 2, 122 US Stat 4846. This required the meeting of the joint session of Congress to count the 2008 electoral votes to be held on January 8,2009. On that day, after the counting of the Electoral College votes, then-Vice President Diclt Cheney made the requisite declaration of the election of President OBAMA and Vice President BIDEN. (1 55 Cong Rec H76 [Jan. 8 20091). No objections were made by members of the Senate and House of Representatives, which would have resolved these objections if made. This is the exclusive ineans to resolve objections to the electors' selection of a President or a Vice President, including objections raised by plaintiff S T R U M . Federal courts have no role in this process. Plainly, state courts have no role. Thus, this Court laclts subject matter jurisdiction to determine the eligibility and qualifications of President OBAMA to be President, as well as the same for Senator MCCAIN or ROGER CALERO. If a state court were to involve itself in the eligibility of a candidate to hold the office of President, a determination reserved for the Electoral College and Congress, it inay involve itself in national political matters for which it is institutionally ill-suited and interfere with the constitutional authority of the Electoral College and Congress. Accordingly, the political question doctrine instructs this Court

and other courts to refrain froin superseding the judgments of the nation's voters and those federal governinent entities the Constitution designates as the proper forums to determine the eligibility of presidential candidates. Justice Robert Jackson, concurring in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer (343 US 579, 635 19521, in discussing separation of powers stated that "the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty." Justice Thurgood Marshall, in his majority (495 US 385, 394 [1990]), on the subject of separation of opinion in U S v Mz~noz-Flores powers, quoted froin Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in Morrison v Olson, 487 US 654, 697 [1988], in which Justice Scalia observed that "[tlhe Framers of the Federal Constitution . . . viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government." This Court will not disrupt the separation of powers as enunciated in the U.S. Constitution and articulated by Justices Jacltson, Marshall and Scalia. Further, plaintiff STRUNK has failed to properly serve defendants, including President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN, pursuant to the CPLR. With numerous other grounds present for dismissing the instant action, the Court will not elaborate upon how plaintiff STRUNK failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendants.
Plaintiff STRUNK is precluded by collateral estoppel

Collateral estoppel or "issue preclusion," as observed by Prof. Siegel, in NY Prac

5443, at 748-749, [4th ed], "scans the first action and taltes note of each issue decided in it. Then if the second action, although based on a different cause of action, attempts to reintroduce the same issue, collateral estoppel intervenes to preclude its relitigation and to bind the party, against whoin the doctrine is being invoked, to the way the issue was decided in the first action." In Ryan v New York Telephone Company (62 NY2d 494, 500 [1984]), the Court of Appeals, held that "[tlhe doctrine of collateral estoppel, a narrower species of res judicata, precludes a party froin relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or tlzose in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same [Emplznsis ndden]." Two prerequisites must be met before collateral estoppel can be raised. The Court of Appeals, in Buechel v Bain (97 NY2d 295 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]), instructed at 303-304, that: There must be an identity of issue which has necessarily been decided in the prior action and is decisive of the present action, and there must have been a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now said to be controlling (see, Gilberg v Barnieri, 53 NY2d 285, 291 [I98 11). The litigant seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel must demonstrate that the decisive issue was necessarily decided irz tlze prior

nction agrrirzst a party, or one in privity with n prrrty (see, id.). The
party to be precluded froin relitigating the issue bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination. [Emphasis adden] (See D 'Arata v New Yorlc Cent. Mztt. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659, 664 [1990]; Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez, 46 ~ ~ 48 1,485 2 dsupra; Westchester County Correction

Oficers Benevolent Ass 'n, Inc. v County of Westchester, 65 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2d Dept 20091; Franklin Dev. Co. Inc. v Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 897, 899 [2d Dept 20091; Luscher ex. re1 Luscher v Arrua, 21 AD3d 1005 [2d Dept 20051). Plaintiff STRUNIC litigated inany of the issues in the instant action in US District Court, but also in the previously cited Strunlc v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642108, before Justice Schmidt. He aclaowledged this, in 7 2 of the instant complaint, by stating: That this coinplaint is fairly traceable to the events and actions leading up to the Party primaries during the 2008 election cycle for the ballot access of the Presidential slates at the November 4, 2008 General Election as complained of in the related election law case, Strunl<v Paterson, et al. NYS Supreme Court in the County of Icings with Index No. 29642-08 before the Honorable David I Schinidt of Part 1

as an election law matter. [sic] As mentioned above, Justice Schinidt disposed of Strunlc v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642108, on March 14, 201 1, by denying all of plaintiffs motions and noting that the statute of limitations expired to join necessary parties President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN. Therefore, collateral estoppel precludes plaintiff STRUNIC froin pursuing the instant action.
Denial of plaintiff's cross-motion to consolidate

Plantiff's cross-motion to consolidate this action with Strunlc v Pnterson, et al, Index No. 29642108, and transfer the instant action to Justice Schinidt is denied. Justice Schmidt, on Noveinber 19,2008, in Strunk v Paterson, et al, declined to sign plaintiff STRUNK's order to show cause to enjoin Governor Paterson from convenii~gNew York's December 2008 meeting of the Electoral College, because "plaintiff is collaterally estopped." This refers to the Eastern District action dismissed by Judge Ross, in which she foulld the coinplaii~t frivolous. After a hiatus of several years, plaintiff STRUNK, by order to show cause. attempted to ainend his complaint. Justice Schinidt, in his January 1 1, 201 1 short-for111 order, denied this motion in its entirety. Then, plaintiff STRIJNIC moved to reargue. On March 14, 20 11, Justice Schmidt, in a short-form order, denied rearguinent because plaintiff "failed to join a necessary

party President OBAMA and Senator MCCAIN and the statute of limitations to do so expired." Finally, on Novenlber 9, 20 1 1, H. Willialn Van Allen, ail ally of plaintiff

STRIJNIC, inoved to intervene as a plaintiff to challenge President OBAMA's placement

on the upcorning 20 12 ballot. In his November 22, 201 1 short-form order, Justice Schnlidt denied Mi-. Van Allen's intervention "in all respects." Further, Justice Schinidt helcl "[tlhis is an action that was coii~inenced in 2008 and has rernaiiled inactive for to allo~v plaintiff to raise new matters before the several years and it would be i~nproper Court after the extended period of inactivity." Plaintiff's frivolous conduct "A coinplaint containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it laclts an arguable basis" and "embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation." (Neitzlze v WWiarns, 490 US 3 19, 325 [1989]). Plaintiff STRUNK, as cited above, alleges numerous fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational and baseless claims about defendants. The U.S. Supreme Court, citing Neitzlce, held in Denton v Hernandez (504 US 25, 32-33 [1992]), that: A court inay disiniss a clairn as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are "clearly baseless," 490 US at 127, 109 S Ct at 1833, a category encoinpassing allegations that are "fanciful," id., at 325, 109 S Ct at 183 1, "fantastic," id., at 328, 109 S Ct at 1833, and

-3 5-

"delusional," ibid. As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible. In Denton, the plaintiff alleged that he had been repeatedly raped by a number of inmates at several different prisons, all using the same modus operandi. The Court concluded that these allegations were "wholly fanciful" and dismissed the claiin as frivolous as a result. In Shoemaker v U S , Department of Justice (164 F 3d 6 19, 6 19 [2d Cir 1998]), plaintiff alleged that the government and television stations conspired to: "(1) broadcast information about his feces on national television; and (2) file and publicized false charges of child abuse against him." The Court, citing Neitzke and Denton, dismissed the action as frivolous because plaintiffs "factual claims are irrational and incredible." Another case applying the frivolous standards of Neitzke and Denton is Perri
v Bloonzberg (2008 W L 2944642 [US Dist Ct, ED NY 2008]), in which plaintiff alleged

that a secret unit of the NYPD was attempting to kill hiin and his cats. The Court dismissed the case, finding that plaintiffs coinplaint has "a litany of sensational allegations pertaining not only to the NYPD, but also to various arms of government, both state and federal. Accordingly, Perri has not established that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction, because his allegations of irreparable harm are unsupported and bizarre."

Plaintiff STRUNK'S complaint, as well as his opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss, alleges that the correct interpretation of the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution requires a natural born citizen to have been born on United States soil and have two United States born parents. Despite plaintiffs assertions, Article 11, Section 1, Clause 5 does not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the natural born citizen clause ineans what plaintiff STRUNIC claims it states. "The phrase 'natural born Citizen' is not defined in the Constitution, see Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 [1875]), nor does it appear anywhere else in the document, see Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President o f the United States: An Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 5 (1968)" (Hollander v McCain at 65). Plaintiff STRUNIC cannot wish into existence an interpretation that he chooses for the natural born citizen clause. There is no arguable legal basis for the proposition that both parents of the President must have been born on U.S. soil. This assertion is as frivolous as the multitude of alleged allegations outlined above. Moreover, President OBAMA is the sixth U. S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil. Plaintiff STRUNK and his fellow "birthers" inight not realize that: both parents of President Andrew Jacltson were born in what is now Northern Ireland; President Jaines Buchanan's father was born in County Donegal, Ireland; President Chester A. Arthur's father was born in what is now Northern Ireland;

President Woodrow Wilson's mother was born in Carlisle, England; and, President Herbert Hoover's mother was born in Norwich, Ontario, Canada. Therefore, the prosecution of the instant action by plaintiff STRUNK, with its fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational and baseless claims about defendants appears is frivolous. 22 NYCRR

130-1.1 (a) states that "the Court, in its discretion inay impose

financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct as defined in this Part, which shall be payable as provided in section 130- 1.3 of this Subpart." 22 NYCRR conduct is frivolous if: (I) it is coinpletely without inerit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable arguinent for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertalcen primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or inaliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts inaterial factual statements that are false. Conduct is frivolous and can be sanctioned, pursuant to 22 NYCRR

130- 1.1 (c) states:

130- 1.1 (c), if "it

is coinpletely without inerit . . . and cannot be supported by a reasonable arguinent for an extension, inodification or reversal of existing law." (Gordon v Mavuone, 202 AD2d 104, 1 10 [2d Dept 19941 Zv denied 84 NY 2d 8 13 [1995]). (See RKO Pvoperties, Inc. v Boynzelgreen, 77 AD3d 721 [2d Dept 20101; Finkelman v SBRE, LLC, 7 1 AD3d 1081 [2d

Dept 20 101; Glenn v Annunziata, 53 AD3d 565, [2d Dept 20081; Miller v Dugan, 27 AD3d 429 [2d Dept 20061; Greene v Dora1 Conference Center Associates, 18 AD3d 429 [2d Dept 20051; Ojnan v Campos, 12 AD3d 581 [2d Dept 20041). It is clear that plaintiff STRUNICs complaint: "is coinpletely without inerit in law;" "is undertaken primarily
. . . to harass" defendants; and, "asserts inaterial factual statements that are false."

Several years before the drafting and iinpleinentation of the Part 130 Rules for costs and sanctions, the Court of Appeals (A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1, 6 [1986]) observed that "frivolous litigation is so serious a problem affecting the proper adininistration of justice, the courts may proscribe such conduct and iinpose sanctions in this exercise of their rule-making powers, in the absence of legislation to the contrary (see NY Const, art VI,

5 30, Judiciary Law 5 2 11 [I] [b] )."

Part 130 Rules were subsequently created, effective January 1, 1989, to give the courts an additional remedy to deal with frivolous conduct. In Levy v Carol Management Corporation (260 AD2d 27, 33 [1st Dept 19991) the Court stated that in determining if sanctions are appropriate the Court inust look at the broad pattern of conduct by the offending attorneys or parties. Further, "22 NYCRR 130-1.1 allows us to exercise our discretion to iinpose costs and sanctions on an errant party." (Levy at 33). Moreover., "[s]anctions are retributive, in that they punish past conduct. They also are goal oriented, in that they are useful in deterring future frivolous conduct not only by the particular parties, but also by the Bar at large." (Levy at 34).

The Court, in Kernisan, MD. v Taylor (17 1 AD2d 869 [2d Dept 199I]), noted that the intent of the Part 130 Rules "is to prevent tlze waste o f judicial resources and to deter vexatious litigation and dilatory or inalicious litigation tactics (cf Minister, Elders & Deacons ofRefm. Prot. Clgzirch of City o f New York v 198 Broadway, 76 NY2d 41 1; see Steiner v Bonhamer, 146 Misc 2d 10) [Emplzasis adden]." To adjudicate the instant action, with the coinplaint replete with fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational and baseless allegations about defendants, combined with plaintiff STRUNK's lack of standing, the barring of this action by collateral estoppel and the Court lacking personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction over inany of the defendants, is "a waste of judicial resources." This conduct, as noted in Levy, must be deterred. In Weinstock v Weinstock (25 3 AD2d 873 [2d Dept 19981) the Court ordered the maxiinuin sanction of $10,000.00 for an attorney who pursued an appeal "coinpletely without merit," and holding, at 874, that "[wle therefore award the maxiinuin authorized amount as a sanction for this conduct (see, 22 NYCRR 130- 1.1) calling to mind that frivolous litigatiorz causes a substarztial waste of judicial resources to the detriment of those litigants who come to the Court with real grievances [Emphasis adden]." Citing Weinstock, the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Bernadette Panzella, P.C. v De Santis (36 AD3d 734 [2d Dept 20071) affirmed a Supreme Coui-t, Richmond County $2,500.00 sanction, at 736, as "appropriate in view of the plaintiffs waste o f judicial resources [Emplzasis adden] ."

In Nuvin v Mosquera (30 AD3d 883, 883 [3d Dept 20061) the Court instructed that

when considering if specific conduct is sanctionable as frivolous, "courts are required to exainine 'whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent [or] should have been apparent' (22 NYCRR 130- 1.1 [c])." Therefore, the Court will exainine the conduct of plaintiff STRUNK in a hearing, pursuant to 22 NYCRR

130- 1.1, to determine if plaintiff STRUNIC engaged in frivolous

conduct, and to allow plaintiff STRUNIC a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Further, at the hearing, an opportunity will be given to counsel for defendants to present detailed records of costs incurred by their clients in the instant action.
Plaintiff precluded from relitigation of the same claims

.The Court is concerned that plaintiff STRUNIC continues to use the scarce resources of the New York State Unified Court Systein to fruitlessly pursue the saine claims. He is no stranger to litigation in Supreine Court, Kings County, Civil Terin. Further, plaintiff STRUNIC has had several bites of the saine apple in U.S. District Court, which resulted in findings of his eilgageinent in frivolous conduct with, as stated by Judge Ross, coinplaints that "have contained allegations that have risen to the irrational." The Court should not have to expend resources on the next action by Mr. STRUNK that will be a new variation on the saine theine of defendants' alleged inisdeeds and misconduct. The continued use of the New Yorlc State Unified Court Systein for the personal pursuit by plaintiff STRUNIC of irrational coinplaints against defendants inust cease. Our courts have an interest in preventing the waste of judicial resources by a party

who lcnows that his or lawsuit has no legitimate basis in law or fact and continues to attempt to relitigate resolved claims and issues. (Martin-Trigona v Capital Cities/ABC,

Inc., 145 Misc 2d 405 [Sup Ct, New Yorlc County 19891). The Court, in Sassower v
Signorelli (99 AD2d 358, 359 [2d Dept 1984]), noted that "public policy inandates free access to the courts . . . and, ordinarily, the doctrine of former adjudication will serve as an adequate remedy against repetitious suits." Then, the Sassower Court observed, in the next paragraph, that: "[nlonetheless, a litigious plaintiff pressing a frivolous claiin can be extremely costly to the defendant and can waste an inordinate ainount of court time, time that this court and the trial courts can ill afford to lose (see Harrelson v United States, 6 13 F2d 114)." Pro se litigants whoin abuse judicial process have had their access to the courts limited. In Sprenzo v Babchik (155 Misc2d 796 (Sup Ct, Queens County 1996]), the Court, in enjoining a p r o se litigant froin instituting any further actions and proceedings in any court in the New Yorlc State Unified Court System, citing Sassower and Kane v City ojNew York, 468 F Supp 586 [SD NY 19791, affd 614 F2d 1288 [2d Cir 19791). The ICane Court, at 592, held: The fact that one appears pro se is not a license to abuse the process of the Court and to use it without restraint as a weapon of harassment and libelous bombardment. The injunction herein ordered

is fully warranted to put an end to such activity . . . Coininenceinent of action upon action based on the same facts dressed in different garb, after thrice being rejected on the inerits and having been repeatedly warned that the claiins were barred by res judicata, can only be explained as inalicious conduct. In Muka v New York State Bar Association (120 Misc 2d 897 [Sup Ct, Toinpkins County 1983]), apvo se plaintiff coininenced a fourth unsuccessful lawsuit against the State Bar Association upon various conspiracy theories. The Court in dismissing the action, based upon res judicata, observed, at 903, that "all litigants have a right to impartial and considered justice. Insofar as any litigant unnecessarily consuines inordinate ainounts of judicial tiine and energy, he or she deprives other litigants of their proper share of these resources. A balance inust be kept." Therefore, plaintiff STRUNK, with his history of abusing the civil justice system, by bringingpro se actions devoid of merit against the saine defendants, is precluded froin relitigating the saine claiins and issues which waste court resources and is enjoined froin bringing any future actions in the New Yorlc State Unified Court Systein against: the NEW YO= STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSHI Co-Chair,

DOUGLAS A. KELLNEWCo-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA/Coininissioner, GREGORY

P. PETERSONICoininissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, and Deputy

Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI and RUTH NOEMI COLON, in their Official and individual capacity; Father JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A. 0. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW ICAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; BARACK H. OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI; the DEOMCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; the SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSICI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; the NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; the NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; O B A M FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; and MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; without the prior approval of the appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge. The Court instructed, in Vogelgesang v Vogelgesang (7 1 AD3d 1132, 1134 [2d Dept 20 1O]), that: The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in enjoining the appellant from filing any further actions or motions in the . . . action without prior written approval. Public policy generally inandates free

access to the courts (see Sassower v Signorelli, 99 AD2d 35 8, 359 [1984]). However, a party inay forfeit that right if he or she abuses the judicial process by engaging in ineritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will (see D u f j v Holt-Harris, 260 AD2d 595 [2d Dept 19991; S l ~ e v e v Sl~reve, 229 AD2d 1005 [2d Dept 19961). There is ainple basis in this record to support the Supreme Court's determination to prevent the appellant froin engaging in further vexatious litigation. (See Scholar v Tinzinsky, 87 AD3d 577 [2d Dept 201 11; Dinleryv Ulster Sav. Bank, 82 AD3d 1034 [2d Dept 201 11; Capogrosso v Kansas, 60 AD3d 522 [ I d Dept 20091; Simpsol? v Ptnszj~rzslcn, 41 AD3d 607 [2d Dept 20071; Pignutaro v Davis, 8 AD3d 487 [2d Dept 20041; Cangro v Cangro, 288 AD2d 417 [2d Dept 20011; Mancini v Mnncini, 269 AD2d 366 [2d Dept 20001; Braten v Finkelstein, 235 AD2d 513 [2d Dept 19971).
Conclusion

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the motion by counsel for defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 and Senator JOHN MCCAIN, to adinit Todd E. Phillips, Esq., a member in good standing of both the California and District of Coluinbia bars, for the instant actionpro lzace vice is granted; and it is further ORDERED, that the motions to dismiss plaintiff CHRISTOPHER-EARL

STRUNIC's instant coinplaint by: defendants President BARACK OBAMA, Vice President JOSEPH BIDEN, OBAMA FOR AMERICA and the OBAMA VICTORY FUND; defendants MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 and Senator JOHN MCCAIN; defendants MARK BRZEZINSKI and IAN BRZEZINSKI; defendant Representative NANCY PELOSI; defendant GEORGE SOROS; defendants THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY and ROGER CALERO; defendant Spealter JOHN BOEHNER; defendant ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI; defendants Father JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J., Father JOSEPH P. P A N E S , S.J. and FREDERICK A. 0. SCHWARZ, JR.; defendant PENNY PRITZICER; and defendant PETER G. PETERSEN; are all granted, with the instant coinplaint dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the cross-motion of plaintiff CHRISTOPHER EARL-STRUNK to consolidate the instant action with Stvunk v Paterson, et al, Index No. 29642108, before Justice David Schmidt, is denied; and it is further ORDERED, that plaintiff CHRISTOPHER EARL-STRUNIC is hereby enjoined froin cominencing any future actions in the New Yorlc State Unified Court Systein against: the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSHI CoChair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNERICo-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA/Cominissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSONICoininissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, and Deputy Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI and RUTH NOEMI COLON, in their Official and individual

capacity; Father JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A. 0. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW ICAIMIERZ BRZEZINSICI; MARK BRZEZINSICI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; BARACIC H. OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI; the DEOMCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YON<; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; the SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; the NEW YON< STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; the NEW Y O N STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; and MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; without prior approval of the appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge; and it is hrther ORDERED, that any violation of the above injunction by CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRIJNIC may subject CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK to costs, sanctions and contempt proceedings; and it is further ORDERED, that it appearing that plaintiff CHRISTOPHER EARL- STRUNK, engaged in "frivolous conduct," as defined in the Rules of the Chief Administrator, 22 NYCRR NYCRR

5 5

130-1.1 (c), and that pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Administrator, 22 130.1.1 (d), "[aln award of costs or the imposition of sanctions may be made

. . . upon the court's own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard," this Court

will conduct a hearing affording plaintiff CHRISTOPHER EARL-STRUNK "a reasonable opportunity to be heard" and counsel for all defendants inay present to the Court detailed records of costs incurred by their clients in the instant action, before me in Part 27, on Monday, May 7, 2012, at 2:30 P.M., in Rooin 479, 360 Adains Street, Brooklyn, NY 1 120 1; and it is fbrther
ORDERED, that Ronald D. Bratt, Esq., my Principal Law Clerk, is directed to serve

this order by first-class mail, upon CHRISTOPHER EARL-STRUNK, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue, # 28 1, Brooklyn, New York, 1 1238 and upon counsel for all defendants in this action. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse, Plaintiff, v.

--

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A : WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, : EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. : DINAPOLI, RUTH NO EM^ C O L ~ Nin , their Official and : individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, : JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ : Index No. 6500-201 1 BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, : JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obarna 11, a.k.a. Steven Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; : NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF : DECISION & ORDER NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING : FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. : BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF : THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF : THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; : PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR : AMERICA; OBAM VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY : 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and ~ k Does; e : and XYZ Entities. Defendants. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the within is a true copy of the Decision & Order that was duly made and entered by the Clerk of the Court, New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, on the 13" day of April, 2012.

Dated: Nera Y eb Yort April 25,2012

WILLlUE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP

By:

New York, New York 10019-6099 (212)728-8000

1.

Attorneys for Defendant George Soros

TO:

Christopher-Ekl Strunk Plaint% pro se 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845)901-6767 Thomas J. Garry, Esq. Keith M. Corbett, Esq. HARRIS BEACH, PPLC The Omni 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 1 1553 ( 516) 880-8484 Marshall Beil, Esq. Jacob Hildner, Esq. McGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of the Americas, 7th Floor New York, New York 10105 (212) 548-7004 James P. Wehner, Esq. CAPLN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED One Thomas Circle, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202)862-5000 Rita C. Tobin, Esq. 375 Park Avenue, 35th Floor

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS

..............................................................
CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK in esse, Plaintiff, -against-

Index No. 6500/2011 NEW YORK STATE BOARTI OF ELECTIONS; (Judge Arthur M. Schack) JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVEL.YN J. AQUILA 1 Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / NOTICE OF ENTRY Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERlC SCHNEIDERMAN, TH0MAS.P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMI COLON, their Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW,KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obarna 11, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF "THESTATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZTNSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND;MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities,

...............................................................

Defendants.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached is a true copy of a Decision and Order in this matter that was entered in the office of the County Clerk, Kings County, on the 13" day of April 20 12. Dated: New York, New York April 26,2012 Respectfully submitted,

~abcnowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C. By: Daniel S . Reich ~ k o r n e for ~ s Defendants The Socialist Workers Party and R6ger Calero 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10006 Tel: 212-254-1 111 TO: THE KINGS COUNTY C L E M Supreme Court Building 360 Adams Street, Room 189 Brooklyn, NY 11201 CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK 593 Vanderbilt Ave., #281 Brooklyn, NY 11238

Marshall Beil Jacob Hildner McGUIREWOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of the Americas, 7th Floor New York, New York 10105 (212) 548-7004 Attorneys for Defendants Zbigniew Brzezinski, Mark Brzezinski, and Ian Brzezinski

....................................................................
CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK,
Plaintiff,

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS

X
Index No. 65001201 1 NOTICE OF ENTRY

v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached is a true copy of the Decision and Order of the Hon. Arthur M. Schack, J.S.C., dated April 11,2012, that was entered by the County Clerk of Kings County on April 13,2012. Dated: New York, New York April 26,2012

By: Jacob ~ i k n e r 1345 Avenue of the Americas, 7th Floor New York, New York 10105 (2 12) 548-7004 Attorneys for Defendants Zbigniew Brzezinski, Mark Brzezinski, and Ian Brzezinski

TO: Christopher-Earl Strunk 593 Vanderbilt Avenue, #28 1 Brooklyn, New York 11238 Plaint@ pro se Eric T. Schneiderman Attorney General of the State of New York By: Joel Graber Assistant Attorney General Special Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau 120 Broadway - 24th Floor New York, New York 10271 (212) 416-8645 Michael Cardozo Corporation Counsel of the City of New York By: Chlarens Orsland Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church St. New York, New York 10007 (212) 788-0904 Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered James P. Wehner One Thomas Circle, NW Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 862-5000 And Rita C. Tobin 375 Park Avenue, 35thFloor New York, New York 10152 (212) 319-7125 Attorneys for Defendants McCain Victory 2008, McCain-Palin Victory 2008, and John S. McCain Harris Beach, PLLC Thomas J. Barry, Esq. Keith M. Corbett, Esq. The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11533 Attorneys for President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Obamafor America, Obama Victory Fund, and Nancy Pelosi Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky, & Lieberman, P.C. Daniel S. Reich Christopher J. Klatell 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New York 10006 Attorneys for Defendants Socialist Workers Party and Roger Calero Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Paul C. Gluckow Sarah L. Dunn 425 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017-3954 (212) 455-2000 Attorneys for Defendant Peter G. Peterson Willkie Farr & Gallagher James C. Dugan 787 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10019 (212) 728-8000 Attorneys for Defendant George Soros

SUPREME COURT OF T H E STA'T'E (IF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS Christopher-Earl: Strunk in e.rse, Plaintiff, -againstNEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSH 1 Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER 1 Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA I Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON 1 Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN,, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NO EM^ COLON, in their Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAJN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PWTZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AAIERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities. Defendants. Index No. 65001201 1 Honorable Arthur M. Schack

NOTICE OF ENTRY

!
L

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the annexed is a true copy of a Decision and Order dated
April 11,2012 duly made in the above-captioned action and entered and filed in the Clerk's
..=

Office of the Supreme Cour( of the State of New York, Kings County, on ~ ~ r13, i 2012. l

Dated: May 2,20 12 Washington, D.C.

By:

James P. &her, Esq Todd E. Phillips, Esq. (admittedpro hac vice) One Thomas Circle, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 862-5000 . Facsimile: (202) 429-330 1
'

Rita C. Tobin, Esq. 375 Park Avenue 35th Floor New York, NY 10152-3500 Telephone: (2 12) 3 19-7 125 Facsimile: (2 12) 644-6755
Attorneys for Defendants McCain Victory 2008, McCain-Palin Victory 2008, and John S. McCain

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, Plaintiff, -againstNEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, , THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NO EM^ C O L ~ N in their Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCI-IWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PAR'TY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE C O M M I n E E OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities. Defendants. Index No. 6500t2011 Honorable Arthur M. Schack

NOTICE OF ENTRY

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the annexed is a true copy of a Decision and Order dated
April 11,2012 duly made in the above-captioned action and entered and filed in the Clerk's Office of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, on April 13,2012.

May 2,2012

, 2 2 7
To A. Bromberg Thomas Kirby WILEY REIN LLP 1776 KStNW Washington, D.C. 20006

Ph. 202 719 7000 Fx. 202 719 7049

Attorneys for John A. Boehner

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ......................................................... X CHRISTOPHER-EARL: STRUNK,

Plaintiff,

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSH, Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. ORDER WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY KELLNER, Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA, Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON, Commissioner, DEPUTY DIRECTOR TODD D. VALENTINE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR Index No.: 6500-2011 STANELY ZALEN, ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NAOMl COLUN, in their official and individual capacities, FR. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J., FR. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J., FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR., PETER G. PETERESEN, ZBlGNlEW KAlMlERZ BRZEZINSKI, MARK BRZEZINSKI, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., SOEBARKAH (a/Wa Barry Soetro, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama II, a/Wa Steve Dunham), NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE, ROGER CALEBRO, THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY, IAN J. BRZEZINSKI, JOHN SIDENY MCCAIN Ill; JOHN A. BOEHNER, THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE, THE NEW YORK STATE COMMllTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY, STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE, PENNY S. PRITZKER, GEORGE SOROS, OBAMA FOR AMERICA, OBAMA VICTORY FUND, MCCAIN VICTORY 2008, MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008, JOHN AND JANE DOES and XYZ ENTITIES,

........................................................................
COUNSELORS:

Defendants.

I11
HARRIS BEACH 3
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the within is a true copy of a Decision and Order

duly entered in the Office of the Clerk of the within named Court on April 13, 2012.

Dated: Uniondale. New York May 7,2012

HARRIS BEACH, PLLC Aftomeys for Defendant Penny S. Prifiker

BY Keith M. Corbett, Esq. The OMNl 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553 (516) 880-8484 To: Christopher-Earl Strunk Plaintiff, pro se 593 Vanderbilt Avenue # 281 1238 Brooklyn, New York I Eric T. Schneiderman, Esq. New York State Attorney General 120 ~ r o a d w a ~ , 2 Floor 4~~ New York, New York 10271 Attn: Joel Graber, Esq. Michael Cardozo, Esq. Corporation Counsel of the City of New York I00 Church Street New York, New York 10007 Caplin & Drysdale One Thomas Circle, NW Washington, DC 20005 Attn: Todd E. Phillips, Esq. Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C. 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New York 10006 Attn: Christopher J. Klatell, Esq. Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett, LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017-3954 Attn: Sarah L. Dunn, Esq.

HARRIS BEACH 3
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

County Clerk's Index No:6500/11 New York Supreme Court County of Kings
(\

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a Decision and Order, of which the within is a copy, w a s duly entered in the Ofice of the Clerk of Kings County Supreme Court on the 13th day of April 2012. MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel Attorneyfor Respondent 100 Church Sheet New York, New York 10007 Tel: 0 1 2 ) 788-0904 A

CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK. in esse,

Plaintiff,

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OFELECTIONS,

et al. Defendants
I

Assistant Corporation Counsel

To:

Christopher-Earl S W 593 Vanderbilt Avenue, #281 B r o o k l y n ,New York 11238 Plaintiff Pro Se Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered James P. Wehner One Thomas Circle, NW Washington, D.C.20005 (212) 862-5000

DECISION, ORDER AND NOTICE OF ENTRY

MZCRAEL A. CARD020 Corporation Counsel Attorney for Respondents 100 Church Street New York, N.Y.10007
Due and timely service of a copy of the within Order and Notice of Entry is hereby admitted New York N. Y.

*list of co-defendants attached

.........................................................

200 ...

SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS IAS PART 27

........................................

X
I n d e x No. 6500/2011 Schack)

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Plaintiff,

(Hon. A r t h u r M.

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,

e t al.,
Defendants.

ORDER WITH NOTICE

OF ENTRY

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE t h , a t t h e w i t h i n i s a t r u e copy o f a n o r d e r o f t h e Supreme C o u r t o f t h e S t a t e o f N e w York, Kings County (Hon. Arthur M. S c h a c k ) , duly f i l e d and e n t e r e d i n t h e

o f f i c e o f t h e C l e r k o f Kings County on t h e 1 3 t h day o f A p r i l ,

at e d ' :

N e w York, N e w York May 10, 2012

ERIC Ti SCHNEIDERMAN A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l of t h e S t a t e of New York A t t o r n e y for S t a t e Defendan

~$b-&&bJ
JOEL GRABER S p e c i a l L i t i g a t i o n Counsel L i t i g a t i o n Bureau 120 Broadway - 24th F l o o r N e w York, .NY 10271-0332 (212) 416-8645

SUPREME COURT OF TRE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS

x
Christopher-Earl:

Index N o . : 6500-2011

Strunk in esse,

Plaintiff,

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al.,

Defendants.
X

STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KINGS )

Accordingly, I, hkWl h/

6~ & T ' ,being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:

a. Am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. b . My place of business is located at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue Brooklyn NY 11238.. c. On May 23,2012, Christopher Strunk instructed me t o serve a m e conformed copy of the PLAIliTWFS NOTICE OF APPEAL with Notices of Entry, DECSIONAND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE and RADI forms with I s e s on Appeal Attached for the case Shunk v NYS BOE et a 2 . NYS County of Kings Supreme Court with index 6500-2011, by USPS service upoll Defendants' Counsels. d. On May 23,2012, I caused each copy with proper postage for service by regular mail of listed counsels and
where each envelope was deposited with the USPS for service upon: Erica Burke, Esq. of SIMPSON THACHER 8s BARTLEIT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York. New York 10017-3954 .
RITA C. TOBIN, Esq. of CAPLIN 8s DRYSDALE, CHARTEWD 375 Park Avenue 35th Floor New York. New York 10152-3500

HARRIS BEACH, PUC By THOMAS J. GARFN, Esq. r k The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, ~ k ~ o 11553 JAMES C. DUGAN Esq. of WILLME FARR 8s GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y. 10019-6099 MARSHAL BELL, Esq. of McGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Americas, 7th Floor New York. New York 10105 .
WILEY REIN U P TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ., JAN WITHOLD BARANESQ. and THOMAS W. KIRBY ESQ. 1776K Street, NW Washington D . C .20006

RABINOWITZ,BOUDIN, STANDARD,KIUNSKY & LIEBERMAEI, PC -Christopher J. &tell Esq. and Daniel S. Reich Esq.45 Broadway, Suite 1700New York, New York 10006-3791

ERIC T . SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of NYS by: JOEL GRABEX Esq. AAG Assistant Attorney General
Special Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau 120 BROADWAY - 24th Floor New York, New York 10271-0332
MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By: CHLARENS ORSLAND, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NewYork 10007

Sworn to before me.. T h i s a day ofMay2012

Notary Public, State of New York

NO. 01HA6044027 Qualified in Kinna r l n
~ t h

EDDIE

AMPTO TON JR.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse v. THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. in the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT in re: NYS Sup. Ct. Kings County Index No.: 6500-2011

Affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Sui juris agent of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Appellant in support of the Motion to Enlarge the Time to File Appellants Brief and Appendix in Appeal Cases 2012-05515, 2013-06335, 2014-00297

Exhibit D

Mmhall Beil Jacob Hildner

McGUEREWOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of the Americas, 7th Floor New York, New k-ork 10105 (2 12) 54 8-7004 Attorneys for Defendant. Zbigniw B~ezinski, Mark Rrrezinski, uand lm Brzezinskj

SUPEME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW Y O K COUhrTY OF KINGS

-------"---------h---+-h+h-*--------------*----m-----.--------------

X
Plninfi,fJ

CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRLNK,

Index No. 6500120 11 NOTICE OF ENTRY

v.

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ET-ECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.
-r----fr---"--------*-------------*---------------------------------

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached is a true copy of the Decision and Order of
the Hon. M h u r M. Schack, J,S.C., dated March 29,2013, that was entered by the County Clerk

of Kings County on April 10,20 13.

Dated: New York, New York

April 18,2013

qz$r/~
Marsh I1 Beil Jacob Hildner L I 3 4 5 Avenue of the Americas, 7th Floor New York, New York I0 105 (2 E 2) 548-7004 Attorneys for Defendants Zbignimu Brzezin~ki~ +Mark Brzezinski, and Icrn Erzezinskl

TO:

Christopher-Earl Strunk 593 Vanderbilt Avenue, ff2&1 Brooklyn, New York 11238 Phintix pro se

Eric T.Schneiderman Attorncy General of the State ofNetv York By: Joel Grabcr
Assistant Attorney Gcneral

Special Litigalion Counsel

Litigation I31weau I20 Broadway - 24th Floor New York, New Ynrk 10271 (21 2) 416-8645

Harris Beach, PLLC Thomas J. B q ,Esq. Kcith M. CorbM, Esq. The 0;MNI: 333 Fade Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11533 Attorneys for Presidenr Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jp,, Obarnafor America, Obama Victory Fzmd, ovld lcJnncy Pelmi
Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky, & Liebeman, P.C. Daniel S. Rcich Cluistopher J. Klatell 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 Ncw York, New York 10006 Allorneys for Defendants Socialis! Worke~s Purp nnd Roger Col'ero

Michael Cardoto Corporation Counsel of Ithe City of New York By: CI~larens Orsland Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Dcpastmcnt 100 Church St. Sew York, New York 10007 (2 12) 7&8-0904
Caplin & Drysdalc, Chnrtercd James P.Wehner One TI~omas Circle, N W Nrashington,D.C. 26005 (202) 862-5000 And Eta C. Tobin 375 Park Avenue, 35h Floor New York, Ncw York 10 152 (212) 319-7125 A lforneysfor Defenda~is McCain Vicfory 2008, iMcCain-Palin Victory 2005, and

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Paul C. Gluckotv Sad1 L. Durn 425 Lexington Avenue New Yo&,New York 10017-3954
(212) 455-2000

Affomeys for Defendcrnt Perer G. Peterson

WiIZkie F a n & Gallagher

James C. Dugan 787 Seventh Avenue New York, New Ynrk 10019 (2 12) 728-8000 Attorneys for Defendant George Soros

John S .McCain

At an IAS Tern, Part 27 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, heid in attd for thc County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at Civic Center, Rrooklyn, New York, on the 29th day of March 2013

Justice.

CI-IRISTOPHER-EAIII, STRUA'K, in esse

DEClSlON & ORDER Tr~des No, 6500/11 hFTV YORK STATE BOARD OT:EtECnONS; JAMES A. RriXSIUCo-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KE1,LNER;Co-Chair, EVE1,W J. R Q U L N Commissioner, GREGORY P.PETERSON Co~nrnissioner, Deputy Director 'TODD Q. V.+21TdF;NTINE, Deputy Director S'TtViYLY ZAZ,EN; ANIISREW CUOMO, ERIC SCI-NEIIIERhZAN, 'I'ROMAS P. DWAPQLI, RUT1 I NOEMI COLON, irr thcir Omcia1 and individual capacity? FR. JOSEPH A. QqR4RE. S.J.; FI'I.JOSEPH P. PAKKES, S.3.; FWDESUCK A, 0.SCHWARZ. JR.; P E E R Ci. PB'fEltS13N; ZBIGNIEW KAI h ! [ERZ RRZEZINSKI ; MARK RRZEZNSKI; JOSFPFl R. BIDEN, R.; SOEl3AKKATI (a.k.3 Barry Soeroro Lf!@@m$744~ EIOZ I russein Oberna, a.k.a Steve Dunlzar r A, C PELOS[; DE.bj.IOCmTIC STATE C O ~ ~ F OF?'' E E '' THE STATE OF NEW Y O N ; STATE C O T \ ~ ~ % ! ! ~ E OF THE JVOWhTG FAMILIES PARTY OF N E\lf

award to any party of ahlorney in any civil action or proceeding before the court . . . costs in the forin o r reimbursemerat fix ackllal expcnscs rc~sollakly incuficd and reasonable attorney's fees, resultiazg from frivolous conduct as detined in this Part." Xlrr analyzing these billing records and affictavitsor aflirm:itions: the Court Grids that these fees are reasorlable in light of Bfrc: tirnc and labor required: novelty and difficulty ofthe questions invotved; skiill reqtrisi~c tu perform the legal se~-vices properly; performance of these servi~es prcclrriting ernploynlcnt of attorneys ox1 other rraattcrs; fees customarily charged

for 3imilar Begrzl services; n;itrrrc of the irrstaixt action; resrrlts obtai~ed; nature arid length
o f the profession:il re ii~tiirncilips with clients: and, exgserienee, repti tation azd ability uf

attorneys and s~mppum.b btofrperfc:clmliug services. Mtlrecrver, plairntirf SSTRtmK did not
crbject to the proposed costs prese~xred to the C o i ~ t .

McGrrire, tlioods U P , counsel for dek-ndaratsZBIGNIEpJkF KAIMTERZ UJSEZINSKI, MARK If3X$%E:%INSKT and IAN S. RRZEZINSKF bilXed defenkt~tllts
2I3IGNIK'LY KAIXLTIEItZ BRItZEZINSKT, MARK MRZEZNSKI and IAN J.

UKZEZXNSKI $7S,CiI3(1

OCI

for ;ittortxcy"s fees and $1,446.74 fix disbursements, f ~ + artotal

of $78,156.74, "Therehre, the Court awards to det'etldants ZBIIGNIGtV IChIMTRW,

RRZEZINSKI; MARK BR2PZINSMI arid IAN d. R=G%INSKI $78,156.74 for ""costs in the fbrtn uf relrnbrirstnlcrit for ~ C T L ~ C ; BXI ~ ~ I I S Crcasonclbly S iancurrcd and reasonal~lc
atton~cy'sfees, resullifzg from Ckolouh conctuct" ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C H N S T C ~ P H E R ?; X'ISIINK.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse v. THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. in the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT in re: NYS Sup. Ct. Kings County Index No.: 6500-2011

Affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Sui juris agent of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Appellant in support of the Motion to Enlarge the Time to File Appellants Brief and Appendix in Appeal Cases 2012-05515, 2013-06335, 2014-00297

Exhibit E

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ---------------------------------------------------------------------x

Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse

Plaintiff, -against-

NOTICE OF APPEAL
Index No.: 6500-2011

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEM COLN, in their Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; RGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities. Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------------x

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse agent for debtor Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK hereby appeals within 35 calendar days to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department, from every part of the December 9, 2013 Decision and

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse v. THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. in the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT in re: NYS Sup. Ct. Kings County Index No.: 6500-2011

Affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Sui juris agent of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Appellant in support of the Motion to Enlarge the Time to File Appellants Brief and Appendix in Appeal Cases 2012-05515, 2013-06335, 2014-00297

Exhibit F

Presidential Determination -- Continuation of the Exercise of Certain Auth...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/12/presidential-det...

Get Email Updates

Contact Us

Home Briefing Room Statements & Releases

Search WhiteHouse.gov

The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release September 12, 2013

Presidential Determination -- Continuation of the Exercise of Certain Authorities Under the Trading With the Enemy Act
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY SUBJECT: Continuation of the Exercise of Certain Authorities Under the Trading With the Enemy Act Under section 101(b) of Public Law 95-223 (91 Stat. 1625; 50 U.S.C. App. 5(b) note) and a previous determination on September 10, 2012 (77 FR 56753, September 13, 2012), the exercise of certain authorities under the Trading With the Enemy Act is scheduled to terminate on September 14, 2013.
April 14, 2014 10:41 AM EDT

LATEST BLOG POSTS

April 14, 2014 2:24 PM EDT

President Obama Hosts Annual Easter Prayer Breakfast at the White House
In the East Room of the White House, President Obama hosts an annual prayer breakfast to mark the beginning of Holy Week.

I hereby determine that the continuation for 1 year of the exercise of those authorities with respect to Cuba is in the national interest of the United States. Therefore, consistent with the authority vested in me by section 101(b) of Public Law 95-223, I continue for 1 year, until September 14, 2014, the exercise of those authorities with respect to Cuba, as implemented by the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 515.

Connecting Young African Leaders with the U.S. and One Another
The Young African Leaders Initiative Network - or YALI Network - is a virtual community that connects young African leaders with resources from the U.S. government and to one another.
April 12, 2014 6:00 AM EDT

The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal Register. BARACK OBAMA

Weekly Address: Ensuring Equal Pay for Equal Work

The President underscores the importance of ensuring equal pay for equal work and highlights the steps his Administration has taken to expand opportunity and narrow the pay gap that exists between men and women.

VIEW ALL RELAT ED BLOG POST S

Facebook Twitter Flickr Google+

YouTube Vimeo iTunes LinkedIn

1 of 2

4/14/2014 3:23 PM

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse v. THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. in the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT in re: NYS Sup. Ct. Kings County Index No.: 6500-2011

Affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Sui juris agent of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Appellant in support of the Motion to Enlarge the Time to File Appellants Brief and Appendix in Appeal Cases 2012-05515, 2013-06335, 2014-00297

Exhibit G

the 1461: Memorandum: Continuation of the Exercise of Certain Authoriti...

http://1461days.blogspot.com/2009/09/memorandum-continuation-of-exer...

Following the Current Administration for the Official 4 year Term of 1,461 days and focusing on the use of Executive Orders, Presidential Memorandum and Executive Direction by the sitting President of the United States.

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 11

Memorandum: Continuation of the Exercise of Certain Authorities Under the Trading With the Enemy Act September 11 2009
Posted by 1461 Days
Like 533 people like this. Be the first of your friends.

Windows XP Driver Updates

windows-xp.driverupdate.net Windows XP Drivers Latest Download. Microsoft Certified. (Recommended)

THE WHITE HOUSE - Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release: September 11, 2009 Presidential Determination No. 2009-27 MEMORANDUM FOR: THE SECRETARY OF STATE THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY SUBJECT: Continuation of the Exercise of Certain Authorities Under the Trading With the Enemy Act Under section 101(b) of Public Law 95-223(91 Stat. 1625; 50 U.S.C. App. 5(b) note), and a previous determination on September 12, 2008 (73 FR 54055, September 17, 2008), the exercise of certain authorities under the Trading With the Enemy Act is scheduled to terminate on September 14, 2009. I hereby determine that the continuation for 1 year of the exercise of those authorities with respect to Cuba is in the national interest of the United States. Therefore, consistent with the authority vested in me by section 101(b) of Public Law 95-223, I continue for 1 year, until September 14, 2010, the exercise of those authorities with respect to Cuba as implemented by the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 515. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal Register. BARACK OBAMA
Message *
Custom Search Grab this Headline Animator

GOOGLE+

THE 365 - TODAY IN US POLITICAL HISTORY

SEARCH THE 1461 THE 1461 CONTACT FORM Name

Custom Search

Email *

Search the Web

Review the full list of President Obama's Memorandum here.

THE 1461 BY EMAIL

Send

Like what you found here? Help get the message out! Share the list with your friends on FaceBook!
Like 533 people like this. Be the first of your friends.

THE 1461 ARCHIVE

TRANSLATE

Share this post with your followers on Twitter. Join the conversation and post your thoughts in the comments!
Translate

Powered by

1,461 DAYS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION (Video) President Obama signs the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act - Friday, April 04, 2014 Pending Legislation: H.R. 4275 - Cooperative and Small Employer Charity Pension Flexibility Act - Friday, April 04, 2014 President Obama on the 2nd shooting at Ft. Hood - Friday, April 04, 2014 Executive Order 13664: Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan - Friday, April 04, 2014 The Hague Declaration - Tuesday, March 25, 2014

RECENT POSTS

1461 is currently being read over 47,000 in over 108 country's and spreading! Help spread the 1461!
Under the Capitol Dome George M. White New $19.95 Nine 2008 votes from the... The Nation's Healt... New $9.95

Like

Tweet

Recom m end t hi s on G oogl e

No comments: Post a Comment

Welcome to the 1461. Join the conversation. If this is your first visit - read the Comment Guidelines Remember you have a Constitutionally protected right to anonymous political free speech, not a free pass to be an ass.

THE 1461 TOP POSTS President Obama's Executive Orders List

What Presidents have used Executive Orders

1 of 3

4/14/2014 3:33 PM

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse v. THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. in the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT in re: NYS Sup. Ct. Kings County Index No.: 6500-2011

Affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Sui juris agent of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Appellant in support of the Motion to Enlarge the Time to File Appellants Brief and Appendix in Appeal Cases 2012-05515, 2013-06335, 2014-00297

Exhibit H

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse v. THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. in the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT in re: NYS Sup. Ct. Kings County Index No.: 6500-2011

Affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Sui juris agent of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Appellant in support of the Motion to Enlarge the Time to File Appellants Brief and Appendix in Appeal Cases 2012-05515, 2013-06335, 2014-00297

Exhibit I

Print

https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=7i3n3vkbcia5m#mail

Subject: From: To: Date:

Fwd: STRUNK,CHRISTOPHER EARL vs. PATERSON,DAVID A. June 13th trial conference Bill Van Allen (hvanallen@hvc.rr.com) cestrunck@yahoo.com; Saturday, April 5, 2014 2:30 PM

Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: michael@mshrimpton.co.uk Date: April 5, 2014 at 1:16:25 PM EDT To: Bill Van Allen <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com> Cc: Orly Taitz <orly.taitz@gmail.com>, robertlaity@roadrunner.com, Carl Swennsson <prevere@riseupforamerica.com>, Kevin Richard Powell <kevinrichardpowell@yahoo.com>, pamelabarnett <pamelabarnett@hushmail.com>, George Miller <microcapmaven@aol.com>, "Mario Apuzzo Esq." <apuzzo@erols.com>, Sharon Rondeau <art2pat35@hotmail.com>, Chris Garvey <ChrisGarvey1@verizon.net>, Richard Winger <richardwinger@yahoo.com>, Kenneth L Allen <kenandbetseyallen@msn.com> Subject: Re: STRUNK,CHRISTOPHER EARL vs. PATERSON,DAVID A. June 13th trial conference Dear Bill, Thank you. I have no middle initial by the way, but as a barrister the title 'Esq.' is correct! Your courtesy is appreciated. I would respectfully invite the court to excuse my attendance at the pre-trial conference. Subject to reaching agreement on reasonable expenses, and the grant of a visa by the US Embassy in London, I understand that my role is to appear as a witness in New York on either or both June 18th and 19th. I have saved those dates in my diary, together with the 17th for travel to New York, and the 20th, for travel back to the UK. I have limited diary flexibility, but I have saved June 21st, to allow for an over-run. At this time my understanding is that I am a witness of fact, limited to the specific issue of advice I gave in late 2007/early 2008 to the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency in London, also made available to those very nice people with respect, the National Security Agency, concerning the advisability of a DNA test on then Senator Barack Hussein Obama. I also passed on concerns in the UK intelligence community about the Senator's eligibility for the office of President of the United States. Ultimately of course these are matters for the proper US judicial authorities and, if so advised, the United States Congress, which of course has power to impeach any President who has misled state electoral authorities, Congress itself and the American electorate as to his or her eligibility for office.

1 of 2

4/5/2014 5:55 PM

Print

https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=7i3n3vkbcia5m#mail

There would of course need to be appropriate disclosure, e.g. of potential conflicts of interest, such as my membership of the Conservative and Unionist Party in Great Britain. The court and all involved may assume that I understand my duty to give me evidence fully and fearlessly, free of any political or racial bias. The court may also assume that whilst I am not an officer of the New York State Supreme Court, I would not regard my duties to an American court to be any less onerous than my duties to a court in my own country.

2 of 2

4/5/2014 5:55 PM

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse v. THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. in the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT in re: NYS Sup. Ct. Kings County Index No.: 6500-2011

Affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Sui juris agent of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Appellant in support of the Motion to Enlarge the Time to File Appellants Brief and Appendix in Appeal Cases 2012-05515, 2013-06335, 2014-00297

Exhibit J

Workspace Webmail :: Print

https://email06.secureserver.net/view_print_multi.php?uidArray=26137|...

Print | Close Window Subject: Re: American Spring From: michael@mshrimpton.co.uk Date: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 6:22 am To: chris@strunk.ws Cc: "Dr. Levy" <jonlevy@hargray.com> Hi Chris, Checked with the Embassy, also the State Department website. I would not envisage any difficulty in obtaining a B1/B2 visa, which would cover appearance as a witness, provided I am not paid a fee, which I am not asking. Indeed unless I were an expert witness and the fee were solely to cover the preparation of a report and my time a fee would be quite inappropriate. The fee is only $160. If you were willing to cover that I will send over my USD account co-ordinates. It sounds like you are close to confirming my attendance. I have e-mailed our friend with the air miles and am waiting to hear back. Air miles can be tricky for specific routes on specific dates, as you may know, so we need to address feasibility pretty quickly. I assume you will book the hotel. I do need to know with respect on what basis I am appearing - witness of fact, or expert witness. If the latter I will have obligations to the court and the other side. It would be helpful to have a short summary of the issues and the relief sought, as well as the basic court papers, briefs etc. very best wishes, looking forward to seeing you in New York in June! Michael

Quoting chris@strunk.ws: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael No word yet from Judge Schmidt - if figure before Passover. You are a bit of a hot potato now I suppose - Gordon Duff certainly is outspoken on Veterans Today - can not say that I agree with all his positions. Let me know what I can do, and what the fee is. If you need a sponsor letter I am able to get together a petition. I am on good terms with the judge also and he may write an order that would help to grant you status in regards to appearance at a trial. I have a client with oodles of frequent flyer miles - who has pledged them for use of your travel. Mr. Van Allen has resources too. Everyone in his Family was associated with ONI and or the Pentagon (ret.).

1 of 8

4/14/2014 3:47 PM

Workspace Webmail :: Print

https://email06.secureserver.net/view_print_multi.php?uidArray=26137|...

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris agent

"SURETY NO MORE" WEBSITE: http://associationforsovereignhomerulewithin.org/

REPLY TO cestrunck@yahoo.com or chris@strunk.ws All contents including but not limited to attachments are confidential, Do not disclose to third parties. PUBLIC NOTICE: PRIVATE: This is Not A Public Communication. This private email message, and any attachment(s) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains privileged and/or confidential information.

-------- Original Message -------Subject: Re: American Spring From: michael@mshrimpton.co.uk Date: Wed, April 09, 2014 8:09 am To: chris@strunk.ws Dear Chris, As I predicted my ESTA authorization has been pulled, which means I will need a non-immigrant visa. Shouldn't be a biggy, I used to have a 10 year multiple entry US visa, but there will be a fee, and it will take time. Realistically I think you need to have your funding in place by say the end of this month. Does that work for you? In the meantime I will ring a Secret Service contact at the Embassy and see what the timetable might be for a visa. They are probably using a bogus allegation against me in the UK, organized by a German asset in the Cabinet Office as an excuse, US INTELCOM are well aware it's a phony and will no doubt advise State. Customs and Border Protection are giving no explanation and are not saying who authorized it. It's not Director Shepherd, who's nice, I suspect it's coming from Mr O's people at the White House. An alternative would be evidence by video link. best wishes, Michael best wishes Mi

Quoting chris@strunk.ws:

2 of 8

4/14/2014 3:47 PM

Workspace Webmail :: Print

https://email06.secureserver.net/view_print_multi.php?uidArray=26137|...

> >> Michael, >> >> FYI >> >> Just so you as an analyst may know with whom I am embedded also includes >> COL Terry Lakin. >> >> I am trying to bring the National Emergency perspective by operation of 12 >> USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b) to bare and have done so with the writer and >> several important characters listed. What happens with Judge Schmidt will >> determine whether or not the situation resolves or deepens. >> >> There are plenty of angry professionals ready for further action that I am >> trying to avoid. >> >> >> Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris agent >> >> "SURETY NO MORE" WEBSITE: >> >> http://associationforsovereignhomerulewithin.org/ >> >> REPLY TO cestrunck@yahoo.com or chris@strunk.ws >> >> All contents including but not limited to attachments are confidential, Do >> not disclose to third parties. >> >> PUBLIC NOTICE: >> >> PRIVATE: This is Not A Public Communication. >> >> This private email message, and any attachment(s) is covered by the >> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for >> the sole use of the intended recipient and contains privileged and/or >> confidential information. >> >>> -------- Original Message ------->>> Subject: RE: American Spring >>> From: "Carl Swensson" <prevere@riseupforamerica.com> >>> Date: Wed, April 02, 2014 3:26 pm >>> To: "'gewinners'" <gewinners@suddenlink.net>, "'pc Nelson >>> Hultberg'" <nelshultberg@aol.com> >>> Cc: "'Catherine Ricker'" <rickercatherine@gmail.com>, "'Arnie >>> Rosner'" <arnie@arnierosner.com>, "'Mike Escuela'" >>> <Lkndwnatu2@yahoo.com>, "'Athena Gartrere'" >>> <jgartrere@gmail.com>, "'Keith Broaders'" >>> <keithbroaders@gmail.com> >>> >>> #wmQuoteWrapper /* Font Definitions */ @font-face >>> {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} >>> #wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 >>> 4 3 2 4;} #wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 >>> 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} #wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:"Comic >>> Sans MS"; panose-1:3 15 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 4;} #wmQuoteWrapper /* Style >>> Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, #wmQuoteWrapper li.MsoNormal, >>> #wmQuoteWrapper div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; >>> font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} >>> #wmQuoteWrapper a:link, #wmQuoteWrapper span.MsoHyperlink >>> {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} >>> #wmQuoteWrapper a:visited, #wmQuoteWrapper span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed >>> {mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} >>> #wmQuoteWrapper p {mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto;

3 of 8

4/14/2014 3:47 PM

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse v. THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. in the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT in re: NYS Sup. Ct. Kings County Index No.: 6500-2011

Affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Sui juris agent of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Appellant in support of the Motion to Enlarge the Time to File Appellants Brief and Appendix in Appeal Cases 2012-05515, 2013-06335, 2014-00297

Exhibit K

i People of the State of New York v Larry Delgado i |

http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/cs/Satellite?c=Article_C&childpag...

NOT FOR REPRINT Click to Print or Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document. Page printed from:

APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT Civil Practice

New York Law Journal

November 24, 2003

Decided Nov. 17, 2003 Before Altman, J.P.; Goldstein, Adams and Mastro, JJ. APPEAL by the defendant Glen S. Hockley from an order of the Supreme Court (Francis A. Nicolai, J.), entered March 5, 2003, in Westchester County, which, in a quo warranto action commenced by the Attorney-General pursuant to Executive Law 63-b to determine the defendants' rights to the public office of member of the City of White Plains Common Council pursuant to an election held on November 6, 2001, denied his motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. Thomas J. Abinanti, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Marion R. Buchbinder and Joel Graber of counsel), for respondent. GOLDSTEIN, J. - At issue here is the statute of limitations applicable to a quo warranto action pursuant to Executive Law 63-b. We hold that such actions are governed by CPLR 213(1) which provides for a six-year statute of limitations for "an action for which no limitation is specifically prescribed by law." The defendants Larry Delgado and Glen S. Hockley were candidates in the November 6, 2001, general election for the public office of member of the City of White Plains Common Council. After the Westchester County Board of Elections reported that Hockley secured 47 more votes than Delgado, Delgado challenged the results in a proceeding pursuant to Election Law article 16, on the ground that a malfunctioning voting machine deprived him of a sufficient number of votes to affect the outcome of the election. The Supreme Court converted the proceeding into an action for a declaratory judgment and directed a new election in the election district served by the malfunctioning voting machine. This court modified the final order, and directed a City-wide

1 of 4

4/14/2014 4:01 PM

i People of the State of New York v Larry Delgado i |

http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/cs/Satellite?c=Article_C&childpag...

election between Hockley and Delgado (see Matter of Delgado v. Sunderland, 290 AD2d 440). The Court of Appeals reversed the order of this court and dismissed the proceeding on the ground that the exclusive remedy was a plenary action in the nature of quo warranto commenced by the Attorney-General pursuant to Executive Law 63-b (see Matter of Delgago v. Sunderland, 97 NY2d 420; Matter of Hanington v. Coveney, 62 NY2d 640). Hockley took office on March 15, 2002, one day after the Court of Appeals rendered its decision. Following an investigation, a three-member panel consisting of two Assistant Attorneys-General and one Assistant Solicitor-General issued a report dated November 14, 2002, which found that at least 103 votes were cast for Delgado on the malfunctioning voting machine, but only 39 were recorded. Based upon that finding, the report recommended that a quo warranto action be instituted. The instant action against Hockley and Delgado was commenced on or about December 3, 2002. Hockley moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was time-barred by the four-month statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 217(1) for a "proceeding against a body or officer." The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that a quo warranto action "is a plenary action not subject to the four-month statute of limitations." We affirm. The common-law remedy of quo warranto is based upon the prerogative of the sovereign against "one who usurped, misused, or failed to exercise some office or franchise" (Matter of Smith v. Dillon, 267 App Div 39, 41-42; People v. Miner, 2 Lans 396, 398). Executive Law 63-b codified the common-law remedy of quo warranto but failed to specify the applicable statute of limitations. In Matter of Delgado v. Sutherland (97 NY2d at 424), the Court of Appeals held that "[t]he power to commence a quo warranto action is vested in the Attorney General, to be used only after the alleged 'usurper' has taken office," but did not rule on what constituted the applicable statute of limitations. Where a statute codifies or implements a common-law cause of action and does not specify a statute of limitations, the statute of limitations for the common-law cause of action applies (see Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 96 NY2d 201, 208). In People v. Williamsburgh Turnpike & Bridge Co. (47 NY 586) the Court of Appeals outlined the history of the statute of limitations for a quo warranto action. The statute of limitations for a "common relator" was 20 years but "no length of time" would bar an action brought by the Attorney-General on behalf of the Crown (People v. Williamsburgh Turnpike& Bridge Co., supra at 590). The 1829 Revised Statutes of the State of New York provided that the State was subject to the same statute of limitations as individuals (see 1829 Rev Stat of NY, part III, ch IV, tit II, 28). The Code of Procedure, known as the Field Code, which was originally enacted in 1848 (L 1848, ch 379), reiterated this provision (Code of Procedure 98; L 1849, ch 438) and enacted a 10-year statute of limitations for actions for which no specific statute of limitations was otherwise provided (see Code of Procedure 97). The common-law writs of quo warranto and scire facias were abolished and the Legislature provided that "the remedies heretofore obtainable in those forms, may be obtained by civil actions" (Code of Procedure 428). The common-law writ of scire facias was somewhat similar to quo warranto in that its purpose was to revoke or annul grants improperly made by the sovereign or forfeited by the grantee (see People v. Miner, supra at 398). With the enactment of the CPLR, the so-called residual statute of limitations for actions for which no specific statute of limitations was otherwise provided was shortened from 10 years to six years (see CPLR 213[1]). In State of New York v. Cortelle Corp. (38 NY2d 83), the Court of Appeals

2 of 4

4/14/2014 4:01 PM

i People of the State of New York v Larry Delgado i |

http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/cs/Satellite?c=Article_C&childpag...

applied the six-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213(1) to an action in the nature of scire facias or quo warranto brought by the Attorney-General, inter alia, to dissolve corporations engaged in fraudulent practices. The four-month statute of limitations now set forth in CPLR 217(1) was originally enacted in 1880 as part of Code of Civil Procedure, also known as the Throop Code (see State of New York v. Cortelle Corp., supra). Code of Civil Procedure 2125 provided that "a writ of certiorari to review a determination [of a body or officer] must be granted and served, within four calendar months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding" (see L 1880, ch 178; People ex rel. Smith v. Cooper, 22 Hun 515). That provision was carried over into the Civil Practice Act as 1288 (see L 1920, ch 925). In 1937, the common-law writs of mandamus and prohibition were abolished (see Civil Practice Act 1283; L 1937, ch 526) and replaced by proceedings pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act (see Civil Practice Act 1284-1306). Civil Practice Act 1288 was renumbered 1286 and made applicable to "[a] proceeding under this article to review a determination or to compel performance of a duty specifically enjoined by law." Historically, the Legislature has treated quo warranto actions as separate and distinct from mandamus and certiorari proceedings (see 1880 Code of Civil Procedure 1983-1990, 20672090, 2120-2148; 1920 Civil Practice Act articles 75, 78, 79; 1937 Civil Practice Act articles 75, 78). With the enactment of the CPLR, Civil Practice Act article 78 became CPLR article 78, while the statutory provisions relating to quo warranto were moved to the Executive Law (see Executive Law 63-b). There is no indication that the Legislature ever intended that the four-month statute of limitations should apply to quo warranto actions (see generally Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v. Pataki, 100 NY2d 801). Case law indicates that a quo warranto action should be "commenced prior to the expiration of the term of office that is contested" (Matter of Duncan v. Board of Commrs. of Port Washington Police Dist., 207 AD2d 834, 836; see Matter of Garufi v. Bennett, 150 Misc 2d 799, 806; Demarest v. Fire Dept. Of City of Norwalk, 76 Conn App 24, 817 A2d 1285; Carleton v. Civil Serv. Comm. of City of Bridgeport, 10 Conn App 209 522 A2d 825, 828). Once the term of office has expired, the controversy is rendered academic, except for ancillary issues. The nature of the controversy, if any, is no longer over who is entitled to the office (see Goldstein v. Kenville, 124 NYS2d 1). Accordingly, we hold that an action in the nature of quo warranto must be commenced within six years of the time that the alleged usurper assumed public office or prior to the expiration of the term of office, whichever occurs first. Where the petitioner merely seeks a recanvass of the ballots, a proceeding pursuant to Election Law 16-106, with a statute of limitation shorter than four months (see Election Law 16-106[5]), is the proper course (see Matter of Corrigan v. Board of Elections of Suffolk County, 38 AD2d 825, 827, affd without opn 30 NY2d 603). A proceeding pursuant to Election Law 16- 106 was not available here since the dispute could not be resolved merely by recanvassing the ballots (see Matter of Delgado v. Sunderland, 97 NY2d at 423). Under certain circumstances, where only a question of law is involved, title to public office may be determined in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus governed by a four-month statute of limitations (see e.g. Ellis v. Eaton, 136 AD2d 890; Matter of Dykeman v. Symonds, 54 AD2d 159, 161; Matter of Cullum v. O'Mara, 43 AD2d 140, 145, affd sub nom Matter of Taylor v. Sise, 33 NY2d 357). Mandamus was never available here, since resolution of the instant controversy requires testimony of electors to establish the number of votes cast for the

3 of 4

4/14/2014 4:01 PM

i People of the State of New York v Larry Delgado i |

http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/cs/Satellite?c=Article_C&childpag...

candidate on the defective machine and findings of fact based thereon. As previously noted, the Court of Appeals has already determined that an action in the nature of quo warranto is both the appropriate and the exclusive remedy here (see Matter of Delgado v. Sunderland, 97 NY2d at 424425). The cumbersome nature of the remedy of quo warranto was recognized years ago, when the Legislature authorized commencement by a private person of a summary proceeding to contest a corporate election (see General Corporation Law 27; L 1892, ch 687;1829 Rev Stat of NY, part 1, ch 18, tit 4, 5) "to give the court power to test in a summary manner the title of corporate officers without resorting to the cumbersome action of quo warranto" (Matter of Lake Placid Co., 274 App Div 205, 207). Such summary proceedings were governed by article 78 of the Civil Practice Act (see Matter of Hoe & Co., 14 Misc 2d 500, affd 285 App Div 927, affd 309 NY 719). The authorization for such summary proceedings is now incorporated in Business Corporation Law 619 (see Matter of Uranian Phalanstery 1st N.Y. Gnostic Lyceum Temple, 155 AD2d 302). A proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law 619 is separate and distinct from an action in the nature of quo warranto brought by the Attorney-General (see Matter of Schmidt, 97 AD2d 244, 249). No such alternative summary proceeding is available to challenge the results of the general election in issue here. The Court of Appeals noted that the exclusivity of the quo warranto action, which may only be commenced after the alleged usurper has taken office, averts "the risk of leaving the contested office vacant for a protracted period" (Matter of Delgado v. Sunderland, 97 NY2d at 424). Instead, we are faced with a scenario where the contested office has been filled for a protracted period of time by a person who allegedly was never validly elected to the office. The cumbersome nature of the remedy and the suitability of applying the six-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213(1) is a question for the Legislature, not the courts. The law with respect to quo warranto actions and the applicable statute of limitations was, for the most part, set in the 19th century or earlier. It is time that the Legislature re-examine these issues in light of 21st century considerations. In view of the foregoing, the order appealed from is affirmed. ALTMAN, J.P., ADAMS and MASTRO, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. Copyright 2014. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.

4 of 4

4/14/2014 4:01 PM