CES Petition W SCOTUS Rule 20 W Exhibits and Rule 22 Application For Stay in Re SCOTUS 10-1170 050511

No.
___________
In The Supreme Court of the United States

Christopher Earl Strunk, John-Joseph Forjone, William Van Allen,
Petitioners,
V.
Thomas J. Spargo, et al.
Respondent(s)
APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF THE SCHEDULE TO HEAR THE

SCOTUS NO. 10-1170 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse

Petitioner w/o being an attorney
593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281
Brooklyn, New York 11238
Cell-845-901 -6767; chris@strunk.ws
Respondents:
Solicitor General of the United States James E. Long, Esq.

Room 561 4 Department of Justice 668 Central Avenue
950 Pennsylvania Avenue. N.W. Albany, New York 12206
Washington. DC 20530-0001
John-Joseph: Forjone in esse
Solicitor General of the State of New York 141 Harris Avenue
Office of Attorney General of New York Lake Luzerne, New York 12846
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224-0341 H. William Van Allen in esse
351 North Road
Hurley New York 12443
Table of Contents Page
Petitioner/s Affidavit in support of relief for Stay ………………………………………..1
Relief Requested:
A stay of the schedule to hear the SCOTUS No. 10-1170 petition for a Writ of
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with 28 USC
§2101(f), in which in any case in which the final judgment or decree of any court is
subject to review by the Supreme Court on writ of certiorari, the execution and
enforcement of such judgment or decree may be stayed for a reasonable time to
enable the party aggrieved to obtain a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court….2
SCOTUS Rules:
Rule 22. application to a single associate justice.. .................................................1,2,3
Rule 23. application for a stay…………………………………….....................................2
1
Rule 33.2, poor person use of 8 /2 by 11-Inch Paper Format ……………………..1,2,3
Rule 34, paper format parameters …………………………………………………………1
Rule 39, poor person relief………………………………………………………………1,2,3
Cases:
WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 (June 15, 1962). ........................ …………….
Related Case:
Strunk v NYS Board of Elections et al. NYS Supreme Court for

the County of Kings Index No. 6500-2011………………………………………………….5
Statutes:
28 USC §1651 - petition for extraordinary writ …………………………………..……1
28 U. S. C. §2101(f) - application for a stay………………………………………………..2
1
APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF THE SCHEDULE TO HEAR THE
SCOTUS NO. 10-1170 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
To the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Associate Justice of the

Supreme Court of the United States, supervising the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss.
COUNTY OF KINGS )
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say under
penalty of perjury:
1. Affirmant is a petitioner for a Writ of Prohibition affirmed April 5, 2011 and
requiring confirmation that Affirmant is doing so as a poor person to be relieved of
financial hardship in doing so.
2. That Affirmant is a petitioner in the petition for a Writ of Certiorari signed
March 9, 2011 by H. William Van Allen, John-Joseph Forjone, Christopher-Earl
Strunk and Application for Stay of the hearing of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari
SCOTUS 10-1170; and hereby presents this affidavit as a certificate of good faith
within the intent and meaning of SCOTUS Rules 39, 33.2, 20, and 28 USC §1651 for
a Mandamus of the Clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to
show cause why they must not follow the express terms and conditions of SCOTUS
Rule 20, Rule 33.2, Rule 34, and Rule 39 in re the petition for Writ of Prohibition
and the petition for Writ of Certiorari in SCOTUS NO. 10-1170.
3. That this application under Rule 22 is being filed more than 14 days prior to
2
than the hearing yet to be scheduled for petition for Writ of Certiorari with
SCOTUS No. 10-1170.
4. That Petitioner understands that SCOTUS Rule 23. for Stays provides that
quote:
“ 1. A stay may be granted by a Justice as permitted by law.

2. A party to a judgment sought to be reviewed may present to a Justice an
application to stay the enforcement of that judgment. See 28 U. S. C.
§2101(f).
3. An application for a stay shall set out with particularity why the relief
sought is not available from any other court or judge. Except in the most
extraordinary circumstances, an application for a stay will not be entertained
unless the relief requested was first sought in the appropriate court or courts
below or from a judge or judges thereof. An application for a stay shall
identify the judgment sought to be reviewed and have appended thereto a
copy of the order and opinion, if any, and a copy of the order, if any, of the
court or judge below denying the relief sought, and shall set out specific
reasons why a stay is justified. The form and content of an application for a
stay are governed by Rules 22 and 33.2.
4. A judge, court, or Justice granting an application for a stay pending
review by this Court may condition the stay on the filing of a supersede as
bond having an approved surety or sureties. The bond will be conditioned on
the satisfaction of the judgment in full, together with any costs, interest, and
damages for delay that may be awarded. If a part of the judgment sought to
be reviewed has already been satisfied, or is otherwise secured, the bond may
be conditioned on the satisfaction of the part of the judgment not otherwise
secured or satisfied, together with costs, interest, and damages. “
5. That pursuant to SCOTUS Rule 23, this application is done to obtain a stay
of the schedule to hear the petition for a Writ of Certiorari with SCOTUS No. 10-
1170, and is respectfully submitted for the following reasons:
a. Petitioner needs a stay so that the petition for Informa Pauperus Relief with
Rule 39 which may require up to 60 days to review is completed;
b. Petitioner needs a stay so that the petition for Writ of Mandamus of the
Clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to show cause
3
why they must not follow the express SCOTUS Rule 20, Rule 33.2, Rule 34,
and Rule 39 in re the Petition for Writ of Prohibition in re the Petition of
SCOTUS NO. 10-1170 may be reviewed and resolved;
c. Petitioner needs a stay so that in re Christopher-Earl Strunk in esse
petitioner with SCOTUS Rule 20 for an extraordinary Writ of Prohibition
with quo warranto inquest of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., de facto
Justice Elena Kagan, de facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor, de facto Solicitor
General of the United States Neal Katyal and de facto Attorney General of
the United States Eric Holder, in the absence of voluntary recusal from
hearing the petition for Writ of Certiorari in SCOTUS No. 10-1170, and or
that each is challenged in quo warranto to provide proof of authority to serve
by the void ab initio acts of Barack Hussein Obama II rather than Joseph R.
Biden who must show cause to serve may be reviewed and resolved.
6. That the stay may be granted by a judge of the court rendering the judgment
or decree or by a justice of the Supreme Court, and may be conditioned on the giving
of security, approved by such judge or justice, that if the aggrieved party fails to
make application for such writ within the period allotted therefor, or fails to obtain
an order granting his application, or fails to make his plea good in the Supreme
Court, he shall answer for all damages and costs which the other party may sustain
by reason of the stay.
7. This case presents a significant aspect of the present government crisis in
New York as a result of unconstitutional redistricting practice done by the New
4
York State Legislature and Executive starting no later than the April 2002
redistricting of Assembly, Senate and New York U.S. House of Representative
districts effecting the election of State Justices and thereby undermines citizen
subsidiarity in their local municipal Homerule guarantee with NYSC Article 9 and
related law.
8. That were the aforementioned application and petitions not reviewed and
acted on before the hearing is to be scheduled for the Petition for Writ of Certiorari
with SCOTUS No. 10-1170, that petitioner would be adversely affected not only
because there is an active case Strunk v NYS Board of Elections et al. NYS
Supreme Court in the County of Kings Index No. 6500-2011 that would also end-up
on appeal to the SCOTUS by on one of the parties therein and would actively
involve several SCOTUS Justices as material witnesses therein who should be
recused from hearing the petition for Writ of Certiorari with SCOTUS No. 10-1170.
Based upon the foregoing Petitioner wishes to have a stay imposed by Your Honor
subject to review of the aforementioned application and petitions before the Petition
for Writ of Certiorari with SCOTUS No. 10-1170 is scheduled for hearing
accordingly; ; and know the contents thereof apply to me by misapplication and
administration of laws in creation of the New York Electoral College going into and
following the General Election of November 4, 2008 as a continuing injury caused
by the scheme to defraud with unjust enrichment that affects Affirmant and
Affirmant’s AD HOC Brooklyn Home Rule Coalition along with those similarly
situated; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein
5
No. ___-_____
IN RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK IN ESSE
PETITION WITH RULE 20 FOR AN
EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS
OF THE CLERKS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(SCOTUS) TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY MUST NOT FOLLOW THE EXPRESS
SCOTUS RULE 20, RULE 33.2, RULE 34, AND RULE 39 IN RE THE PETITION
FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION IN RE THE PETITION OF SCOTUS NO. 10-1170.

Cell-845-901 -6767; chris@strunk.ws
i
Respondents
Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer De facto Solicitor General Neal Katyal

Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Department of Justice
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia Washington, DC 20530
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Solicitor General of the United States
Room 5614 Department of Justice
at One First Street NE, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20543. Washington, DC 20530-0001
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Solicitor General of the State of N.Y.

De facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor Office of Attorney General of New York
De facto Justice Elena Kagan The Capitol
at One First Street NE, Albany, New York 12224-0341
Washington, DC 20543.
James E. Long, Esq.
CLERK OF THE SCOTUS Bar Roll No. 506898
The Supreme Court of the United States 668 Central Avenue
at One First Street NE, Albany, New York 12206
Washington, DC 20543.
John-Joseph: Forjone in esse
Barack Hussein Obama II 141 Harris Avenue
at The White House Lake Luzerne, New York 12846
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington D.C. 20500 H. William Van Allen in esse
351 North Road
Joseph R. Biden Jr. Hurley New York 12231
at The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Congressman Ron Paul
Washington D.C. 20500 160 D Street NE
Washington D.C. 20002
De facto Attorney General Eric Holder
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Ronald C. Machen Jr.

De facto U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C.
United States Attorney's Office
555 4th Street, NW
ii
Table of Contents
Page
Petitioner’s Affidavit in support of Mandamus Relief ……………………………..........1
Petition Facts….…………………………………………………………………....................3
Petitioner Discussion…………………………………………………………………………..6
Petitioner Argument for Mandamus Relief………………………………………………...7
Conclusion in support of relief……………………………………………………………...13
Relief Requested:
A Writ of Mandamus with SCOTUS Rule 20 of the Clerks of the Supreme Court of
The United States (SCOTUS) to show cause why they must not follow the express
SCOTUS Rule 20, Rule 33.2, Rule 34, and Rule 39 in re the petition for Writ of
Prohibition in re the petition for Writ of Certiorari of SCOTUS NO. 10-1170.
SCOTUS Rules (with emphasis added by petitioner):
SCOTUS Rule 20. Procedure on a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ………,1-7, 13

1
SCOTUS Rule 33. Document Preparation: Booklet Format; 8 /2 by 11-Inch Paper
Format ………………………………………………………………………1-7,13
1. Booklet Format: (a) Except for a document expressly permitted by these
1
Rules to be submitted on 8 /2-by 11-inch paper, see, e. g., Rules 21, 22, and
1 1
39, every document filed with the Court shall be prepared in a 6 /8-by 9 /4-
inch booklet format using a standard typesetting process (e. g., hot metal,
photocomposition, or computer typesetting) to produce text printed in
typographic (as opposed to typewriter) characters. The process used must
produce a clear, black image on white paper. The text must be reproduced
with a clarity that equals or exceeds the output of a laser printer.
SCOTUS Rule 33.2 For petitions with 8.5 inch by 11 inch paper format
1
2. 8 ⁄2-by 11-Inch Paper Format: (a) The text of every document, including
any appendix thereto, expressly permitted by these Rules to be presented to
1
the Court on 8 ⁄2-by 11-inch paper shall appear double spaced, except for
iii
indented quotations, which shall be single spaced, on opaque, unglazed, white
paper. The document shall be stapled or bound at the upper left-hand corner.
Copies, if required, shall be produced on the same type of paper and shall be
legible. The original of any such document (except a motion to dismiss or
affirm under Rule 18.6) shall be signed by the party proceeding pro se or by
counsel of record who must be a member of the Bar of this Court or an
attorney appointed under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, see 18 U. S. C. §
3006A(d)(6), or under any other applicable federal statute. Subparagraph 1(g)
of this Rule does not apply to documents prepared under this paragraph.
1
(b) Page limits for documents presented on 8 ⁄2-by 11-inch paper are: 40
pages for a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, petition
for an extraordinary writ, brief in opposition, or motion to dismiss or affirm;
and 15 pages for a reply to a brief in opposition, brief opposing a motion to
dismiss or affirm, supplemental brief, or petition for rehearing. The
exclusions specified in subparagraph 1(d) of this Rule apply.
SCOTUS Rule 34. Document Preparation: General Requirements …………...1-7,13

Every document, whether prepared under Rule 33.1 or Rule 33.2, shall
comply with the following provisions:
1. Each document shall bear on its cover, in the order indicated, from the
top of the page:
(a) the docket number of the case or, if there is none, a space for one;
(b) the name of this Court;
(c) the caption of the case as appropriate in this Court;
(d) the nature of the proceeding and the name of the court from which
the action is brought (e. g., “On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit”; or, for a merits
brief, “On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit”);
(e) the title of the document (e. g., “Petition for Writ of Certiorari,”
“Brief for Respondent,” “Joint Appendix”);
(f) the name of the attorney who is counsel of record for the party
concerned (who must be a member of the Bar of this Court except as
provided in Rule 9.1) and on whom service is to be made, with a
notation directly thereunder identifying the attorney as counsel of
record and setting out counsel’s office address, e-mail address, and
telephone number. Only one counsel of record may be noted on a single
document, except that counsel of record for each party must be listed
on the cover of a joint appendix. The names of other members of the
Bar of this Court or of the bar of the highest court of State acting as
counsel, and, if desired, their addresses, may be added, but counsel of
record shall be clearly identified. Names of persons other than
attorneys admitted to a state bar may not be listed, unless the party is
iv
appearing pro se, in which case the party’s name, address, and
telephone number shall appear.
(g) The foregoing shall be displayed in an appropriate typographical
manner and, except for identification of counsel, may not be set in type
smaller than standard 11-point, if the document is prepared as
required by Rule 33.1.
2. Every document exceeding five pages (other than a joint appendix),
whether prepared under Rule 33.1 or Rule 33.2, shall contain a table of
contents and a table of cited authorities (i. e., cases alphabetically arranged,
constitutional provisions, statutes, treatises, and other materials) with
references to the pages in the document where such authorities are cited.
3. The body of every document shall bear at its close the name of counsel
of record and such other counsel, identified on the cover of the document in
conformity with subparagraph 1(f) of this Rule, as may be desired.
SCOTUS Rule 39. Proceedings In Forma Pauperis ………………………………1-7,13

1 A party seeking to proceed in forma pauperis shall file a motion
for leave to do so, together with the party’s notarized affidavit or declaration
(in compliance with 28 U. S. C. § 1746) in the form prescribed by the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure, Form 4. The motion shall state whether leave
to proceed in forma pauperis was sought in any other court and, if so,
whether leave was granted. If the United States district court or the United
States court of appeals has appointed counsel under the Criminal Justice Act
of 1964, 18 U. S. C. § 3006A, or under any other applicable federal statute, no
affidavit or declaration is required, but the motion shall cite the statute
under which counsel was appointed.
2 If leave to proceed in forma pauperis is sought for the purpose of
filing a document, the motion, and an affidavit or declaration if required,
shall be filed together with that document and shall comply in every respect
with Rule 21. As provided in that Rule, it suffices to file an original and 10
copies, unless the party is an inmate confined in an institution and is not
represented by counsel, in which case the original, alone, suffices. A copy of
the motion, and affidavit or declaration if required, shall precede and be
attached to each copy of the accompanying document.
3 Except when these Rules expressly provide that a document
shall be prepared as required by Rule 33.1, every document presented by a
party proceeding under this Rule shall be prepared as required by Rule 33.2
(unless such preparation is impossible). Every document shall be legible.
While making due allowance for any case presented under this Rule by a
person appearing pro se, the Clerk will not file any document if it does not
comply with the substance of these Rules or is jurisdictionally out of time.
4 When the documents required by paragraphs 1 and 2 of this
Rule are presented to the Clerk, accompanied by proof of service as required
v
by Rule 29, they will be placed on the docket without the payment of a docket
fee or any other fee.
5 The respondent or appellee in a case filed in forma pauperis
shall respond in the same manner and within the same time as in any other
case of the same nature, except that the filing of an original and 10 copies of a
response prepared as required by Rule 33.2, with proof of service as required
by Rule 29, suffices. The respondent or appellee may challenge the grounds
for the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate document
or in the response itself.
6 Whenever the Court appoints counsel for an indigent party in a
case set for oral argument, the briefs on the merits submitted by that
counsel, unless otherwise requested, shall be prepared under the Clerk’s
supervision. The Clerk also will reimburse appointed counsel for any
necessary travel expenses to Washington, D. C., and return in connection
with the argument.
7 In a case in which certiorari has been granted, probable
jurisdiction noted, or consideration of jurisdiction postponed, this Court may
appoint counsel to represent a party financially unable to afford an attorney
to the extent authorized by the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 18 U. S. C. §
3006A, or by any other applicable federal statute.
8 If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional
statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ is frivolous or malicious, the
Court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Cases:
Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391..……………………………...7
Boswell v. Otis, 9 Howard 336, 348………………………………………………………….7
World Wide Volkswagen Woodsen, 444 U.S. 286, 291;

National Bank v. Wiley, 195 U.S. 257; Pennoyer v. Nef, 95 U.S. 714……………….12
Related Case:
Strunk v NYS Board of Elections et al. NYS Supreme Court for

the County of Kings Index No. 6500-2011………………………………………………..11
Statutes:
28 U.S.C. § 1651. Writs (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act
of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective
jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. (b) An alternative
writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction.
18 U.S.C. § 2071…………………………………………………………………………….
vi
United States Constitution
U.S. Constitution Article IV Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled
to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. ….…………..
U.S. Constitution Article VII First Amendment. Congress shall make no law
respecting …abridging the freedom of speech, …; …, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances. …………………………………………………..5
U.S. Constitution Article VII Fifth Amendment No person …. be deprived of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken
for public use, without just compensation………………....………………….…………..5
U.S. Constitution Article VII Ninth Amendment. The enumeration in the

Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people………………………………………..…………………….….……..5
U.S. Constitution Article VII Tenth Amendment. …………………………………...11
U.S. Constitution Article VII Thirteenth Amendment. ……………………………….5
New York State Constitution
New York State Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 2 Section 2. Supreme
sovereignty in the people. No authority can, on any pretence whatsoever, be
exercised over the citizens of this state, but such as is or shall be derived from and
granted by the people of this state. …..
Questions Presented:
1. Does “e.g.” mean “for example” not “that is” as intended in the use of “i.e.”;
and therefore Rule 33.2 must include Rule 20 also to apply to Rule 33.1(a)
and 33.2; and in that Rule 33 for Document Preparation: Booklet Format;
1
8 /2 by 11-Inch Paper Format.” that States: “Booklet Format: (a) Except for a
1
document expressly permitted by these Rules to be submitted on 8 /2-by 11-
inch paper, see, e. g., Rules 21, 22, and 39,” must also include Rule 20?
vii
2. Does Rule 39 Proceedings in Forma Pauperis for those in prison infringe
inalienable rights of a free person with liberty that otherwise has an annual
gross income within the statutory definition of poverty calculated by region?
3. Does a person who qualifies for poor person relief with Rule 39, that obtains
loans and or donations for portions of fees and or expenses for a petition and
or application that may include rendering a fee to the SCOTUS to defray
costs to the taxpayer, and when in total still remains below the statutory
definition of the limit of poverty relief, keep the relief status?
4. Did the Clerk of the SCOTUS err in requiring Rule 33.1(a) and Rule 33.2 not
apply with a Rule 20 petition for extraordinary writ?
1
5. Did the Clerk of the SCOTUS err in disallowing 8 /2-by 11-inch paper copy of
facsimile Exhibits as part of a Rule 33.2 submission within the 40-page
petition for Writ when facsimile exhibits per se may not be typeset or be
reduced in size without destroying the intelligibility of the Exhibits per se?
6. Did the Clerk of the SCOTUS err with Rule 33.2 by prohibiting facsimile
exhibits that in effect require that a separate Rule 32 lodging of exhibits be
filed separately from a Petition for Writ that unnecessarily affects
intelligibility?
7. Does the SCOTUS have discretion to infringe a poor person’s first, fifth and
ninth amendment right to equal protection of the law by SCOTUS rules and
or arbitrary interpretation thereof?
viii
Other Sources:
• New-York July 26, 1788 Ratification of U.S. Constitution..……..………….…10,11
• George Washington’s Farewell Address………………………………………………10
• New York Chief Justice Robert Yates, Esq. - Notes of the Secret Proceedings And
Debates Of The Convention Assembled At Philadelphia, in the year 1787 for the
purpose of forming the Constitution of the United States of America, and copied
by John Lansing, Jr. Esq. late Chancellor of New-York, members in convention
Central Book Company 850 DeKalb Avenue Brooklyn New York 11221……10,11
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-
File posted by Heather Smathers of http://www.Heathersmathers.com..............8
Annexed Exhibits
Exhibit 1 - April 7, 2011 - CES Letter to Clerk with Check attached
Exhibit 2 - April 25, 2011 - BHO II Long Form Certificate of Live Birth
Exhibit 3 - June 2008 BHO II Certificate of Live Birth on www.Factcheck.org
Exhibit 4 - INS Fingerprint document for BHO Senior with birth date of 6-18-1934
Exhibit 5 - INS Memo confirms BHO II birth and marriage of SAD to BHO Senior
Exhibit 6 - Lucas Smith produced Mombasa Kenya birth certificate
Exhibit 7 – Stipulation by NYS / NYC / Strunk in NYS Case with index 6500-2011
ix
1
To the Honorable Associate Justices: Stephen G. Breyer; Samuel A. Alito; Clarence
Thomas; Antonin Scalia; Anthony Kennedy; and Ruth Bader Ginsburg supervising
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
PETITION WITH SCOTUS RULE 20 FOR
AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS
STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss.
COUNTY OF KINGS )
penalty of perjury:
1. Affirmant is a petitioner for: a Writ of Prohibition affirmed April 5, 2011 as a
poor person; a Writ of Certiorari signed March 9, 2011 by H. William Van Allen,
John-Joseph Forjone, Christopher-Earl Strunk and Application for Stay of the
hearing of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari SCOTUS 10-1170; and hereby presents
this affidavit as a certificate of good faith within the intent and meaning of
SCOTUS Rules 39, 33.2, 20, and 28 USC §1651 for a Mandamus of the Clerks of the
Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to show cause why they must not
follow the express terms and conditions of SCOTUS Rule 20, Rule 33.2, Rule 34,
and Rule 39 in re the petition for Writ of Prohibition and the petition for Writ of
Certiorari in SCOTUS NO. 10-1170.
Strunk’s Affidavit in Support of a Mandamus Page 1 of 13

2
2. That pursuant to SCOTUS Rule 20, of the Clerks of the Supreme Court of
The United States (SCOTUS) to show cause why they must not follow the express
SCOTUS Rule 20, Rule 33.2, Rule 34, and Rule 39 in re the petition for Writ of
Prohibition in re the petition for Writ of Certiorari of SCOTUS NO. 10-1170. and is
respectfully submitted in conjunction with other relief for the following reasons:
a. Petitioner has a petition for Informa Pauperus Relief with Rule 39 which
may require up to 60 days to review is completed;
b. Petitioner needs informa pauperus relief for relief of fees so that the petition
for Writ of Mandamus of the Clerks of the Supreme Court of the United
States (SCOTUS) to show cause why they must not follow the express
SCOTUS Rule 20, Rule 33.2, Rule 34, and Rule 39 in re the Petition for Writ
of Prohibition in re the Petition of SCOTUS NO. 10-1170 may be reviewed
and resolved;
c. Petitioner needs informa pauperus relief and mandamus so that in re
Christopher-Earl Strunk in esse petitioner with SCOTUS Rule 20 for an
extraordinary Writ of Prohibition with quo warranto inquest of Chief Justice
John G. Roberts Jr., de facto Justice Elena Kagan, de facto Justice Sonia
Sotomayor, de facto Solicitor General of the United States Neal Katyal and
de facto Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder, in the absence of
voluntary recusal from hearing the petition for Writ of Certiorari in
SCOTUS No. 10-1170, and or that each is challenged in quo warranto to
provide proof of authority to serve by the void ab initio acts of Barack

3
Hussein Obama II rather than Joseph R. Biden who must show cause to
serve may be reviewed and resolved.
FACTS
3. That on April 5, 2011 Affirmant solicited a donation of $300 to help defray
the expense of filing the Petition for an extraordinary Writ of Prohibition.
4. That on April 7, 2011 Affirmant wrote a letter to the Clerk of the SCOTUS to
accompany the money order for filing notice of the intent to file an extraordinary
writ of Prohibition (see Exhibit 1).
5. That on April 12, 2011 Affirmant telephoned the clerk of SCOTUS associated
with the petition for Writ of Certiorari with SCOTUS No. 10-1170 to verify the
receipt of the letter and money order for intent to file the writ of prohibition and for
which Affirmant left a recorded message for the Clerk to respond with an answer.
6. That on April 13, 2011 Affirmant having not received a verification again
telephoned the clerk of SCOTUS associated with the petition for Writ of Certiorari
with SCOTUS No. 10-1170 to verify the receipt of the letter and money order for
intent to file the writ of prohibition and was transferred to said Clerk who
confirmed that the letter and money order had been received; however stated that
1
the SCOTUS would not accept a Rule 33.2 8 ⁄2-by 11-Inch Paper Format because
Affirmant had tendered a $300 fee, further that Rule 33.2 was only available for an
approved informa pauperus filer and furthermore that Affirmant may not use
1
SCOTUS a Rule 33.2 8 ⁄2-by 11-Inch Paper Format for a Rule 20 petition for Writ of
Prohibition in any case must be on a Rule 33.1 Booklet Format only;

4
7. That Affirmant said that it is impossible to typeset the Exhibits that are in
1
8 ⁄2-by 11-Inch Paper Format because to do so would destroy the intent and
substance of the exhibit meaning were it either typeset or reduced in format size
and were it separated from the body of the affidavit as if in the form of a separate
appendix (1).
8. That the Clerk of the Court stated that SCOTUS would not accept a Petition
1
for Writ of Prohibition with Rule 20 for 8 ⁄2-by 11-Inch Paper Format (Paper
Format) anyway, and that embedding a reduced size facsimile of the exhibits into a
Booklet Format was also not acceptable to the Clerk other that by typeset method.
1
9. That Affirmant explained that the facsimile Exhibits must be in a 8 ⁄2-by 11-
Inch Paper Format or else lose the meaning of the exhibit itself, to wit the Clerk
said that once a fee for filing is received informa pauper us of Rule 33.2 is not
possible and that intent to use anything other than a Rule 33.1 format for a Rule 20
Petition for Writ of Prohibition is unacceptable;
10. That Affirmant stated to the clerk to speak to the Clerks Supervisor and
when transferred but there was no persons to answer other than a recorded
1
Rule 32. Models, Diagrams, Exhibits, and Lodgings
1 Models, diagrams, and exhibits of material forming part of the evidence taken in a case and
brought to this Court for its inspection shall be placed in the custody of the Clerk at least two weeks
before the case is to be heard or submitted.
2 All models, diagrams, exhibits, and other items placed in the custody of the Clerk shall be
removed by the parties no more than 40 days after the case is decided. If this is not done, the Clerk will
notify counsel to remove the articles forthwith. If they are not removed within a reasonable time
thereafter, the Clerk will destroy them or dispose of them in any other appropriate way.
3 Any party or amicus curiae desiring to lodge non-record material with the Clerk must set out in a
letter, served on all parties, a description of the material proposed for lodging and the reasons why the
non-record material may properly be considered by the Court. The material proposed for lodging may not
be submitted until and unless requested by the Clerk.

5
message for which Affirmant requested a return call and expressed frustration with
the wrongful treatment by the misreading of the SCOTUS Rules; and to wit there
has not been a return call by the Clerk or supervisor and as such this petition is
filed as a result;
11. Affirmant alleges that the Clerks of the SCOTUS have wrongfully denied
Affirmant equal protection of the law as a poor person who has made every attempt
to defray the costs of filing such Rule 20 Petition for Writ of Prohibition and the
burden 0n the taxpayer solicited a donation for the filing fee of $300 and has been
treated with arbitrary and capricious disregard;
12. That the Clerk of SCOTUS have arbitrarily interpreted Rule 33.1 as if Rule
33.2 were to exclude a Rule 20 petition for Writ of Prohibition, arbitrarily by mis-
reading of the abbreviated phrase “e.g.” as if it were to mean “i.e.” thereby inter alia
deny Affirmant the right to petition the government as guaranteed by the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
13. That the Clerk of the SCOTUS has arbitrarily interpreted Rule 39 as to
what constitutes the parameters of who a poor person as a matter of disposable
income is, and being absolutely different that from a person in involuntary
servitude being incarcerated having been convicted of a crime without liberty taken
with due process of law as required by the 13th Amendment, and therefore the
Clerk of the Court has taken Affirmant’s Liberty without due process of law in
violation of the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
14. That were the Clerk of the SCOTUS actually following the dicta of the

6
SCOTUS rules as directed by the Court to deny Affirmant the opportunity for a
Rule 20 petition filing with Rule 33.2 paper format because Affirmant has rendered
a $300 fee despite being qualified for informa pauperus relief then the SCOTUS and
the Clerks are disparaging Affirmant rights and liberty as guaranteed by the 9th
Amendment protection against such injury by the agents of the Government as well
as the trespass against Affirmant’s First and Fifth Amendment guarantees by the
US Constitution against a tyrannical government acting ultra vires without the
consent of the governed.
DISCUSSION
15. That the questionably imperious nature of the detachment of the SCOTUS
from the central role of the third branch in the defense of individual liberty as a
guaranteed to the people rendering the purpose of the Judiciary moot as to the
exercise of reporting on the historical basis for use and safeguard of the liberties
existing outside of the narrow definition of what good government shall be, has
therefore been questionably suborned by the imperious and obnoxious progressive
William Howard Taft having acted with impunity to exceed the intent and purpose
of U.S. Constitution Article III requirements of Judicial fiduciary duty.
16. That within SCOTUS Rule 33. Document Preparation for Booklet Format
Sub-Section 1 clause (a) quote “Except for a document expressly permitted by these
1
Rules to be submitted on 8 /2-by 11-inch paper, see, e. g., Rules 21, 22, and 39,” -- “
e.g.” means “for example” NOT “that is” and therefore, Rule 20 for Petition for
Extraordinary Writ also applies to Rule 33.2.

7
17. Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law.”
And “[a] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so
vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and
differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.”
Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391
18. Courts enforcing mere statutes do not act judicially, but ministerially, having
no immunity, and unlike Courts of Law, do not obtain jurisdiction by service of
process nor even by Arrest and Compelled Appearance.” Boswell v. Otis, 9 Howard
336, 348.
ARGUMENT FOR MANDAMUS RELIEF
19. Affirmant contends in conformance with SCOTUS Rule 39 Clause 8 quote:
“If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or
petition for an extraordinary writ is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis.“ that the nature of Affirmant’s Petition for Writ
of Prohibition is substantial and fundamental to the very fundament of the
continued existence of the relationship of the People of New-York as with the
several states to that of the Federal Government is at risk.
20. That on or about April 25, 2011, that respondent Barack Hussein Obama at
a Press Conference in Washington D.C. publicly released a supposed Long Form
(LF) Certification of Live Birth (CoLB) that confirm the facts of his birth on August
4, 1961 in Honolulu Hawaii (see Exhibit 2) and are according to the CoLB released
three years earlier by his Presidential Campaign are the same (see Exhibit 3).

8
21. Affirmant contends in the recent release of the questionable LF BC stamped
4/25/11 shown as Exhibit 2 is that it clearly is not properly verified as true,
primarily because BHO Sr. was born in 1934 not 1936 making him 27 when BHO II
was born NOT 25, with the reasoning that the hospital would have checked BHO
Sr. passport that clearly states 1934 not 1936.
22. That on or about April 29, 2011 Affirmant received notice of the release on
the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) record release of non-immigrant
student alien Barack Hussein Obama Senior as a result of a FOIA request by a
Heather Smathers who posted the released records on the internet at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File .
23. That at page 52 of the posting by Heather Smathers (see Exhibit 4) the INS
finger print document on which the INS officer verified that Barack Hussein Obama
Senior was born in Kenya on June 18, 1934 shown on the Exhibit as “6-18-1934”.
24. That on August 31, 1961, at page 34 (see Exhibit 5) the INS officer verified
that Barack Hussein Obama Senior was married to the minority age U.S. Citizen
Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and they have a newborn child born in Honolulu
Hawaii by the name of Barack Hussein Obama II living at a specific address.
25. That were Barack Hussein Obama II born in Honolulu Hawaii at the specific
institution named on the LF CoLB shown as Exhibit 2 then the respective registrar
of the birth made an error as to the age of Barack Hussein Obama Senior on or
about August 4, 1961 as if 25 years of age, which is wrong, and should have been
recorded as 27 years because of the June 18, 1934 birth date not 25 years which

9
would coincide with say the wrong date of June 18, 1936 instead.
26. That were the Hawaii Hospital registrar to make such a two year mistake is
possible were the father not present and or if the information were taken from only
the mother under duress is not clear.
27. However there is further proof that the Hawaii Hospital registrar would not
use 1936 rather that the actual June 18, 1934 date and that the 1936 date is
questionable; because there is a third questionable document that alleges that
Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Mombasa Kenya on August 4, 1961 that
publicly surfaced in early 2009 as provided by Lucas Smith (see Exhibit 6) who
would neither verify that he had traveled to Mombasa Kenya by providing his own
passport as proof, nor even allow expert authentication of the validity of such
document shown on Exhibit 6 as to the year of the Father birth shown as 1936.
28. That Affirmant does not believe for one moment that a registrar in Mombasa
Kenya then subject to British administrative supervision would make such an error
to put 1936 rather than 1934 when in fact the year of the Father’s birth record is
readily available to that registrar.
29. For the reason that the INS has confirmed that BHO II was born in Hawaii
stated in the August 31, 1961 Memo, shown as Exhibit 5, therefore the alleged
documentation by Lucas Smith is a forgery that relied upon the 1936 year of the
Father’s birth and not the actual date of 1934 that for two registrars and the INS
Hawaii District Officer to all be wrong is highly unlikely.
30. Furthermore, the Fact that Barrack Hussein Obama Senior is a Non-

10
immigrant alien student temporarily visiting the United State for the purpose of
study as a British subject is confirmed by the INS verification shown as Exhibit 4
renders Barack Hussein Obama II ineligible to be a candidate for President of the
United States (POTUS), because he is not a Natural-born citizen (NBC) as
mandated by the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.
31. Furthermore, Affirmant petitions for a Writ of Prohibition as well as his
applications for informa pauperus and stay relief, and that to file same is not
frivolous and in fact requires an urgency of major constitutional proportions; just as
if the facts of the POTUS Usurper Chester Arthur’s fraud upon the Voters had been
previously released and adjudicated, must be done now as to the present Usurper.
32. That George Washington as to the important in the sanctity of the executive
office in his Farwell address at the end of this second term as president stated:
"But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance,
may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free
governments are destroyed." (Emphasis added by Affirmant)
33. That based upon the New-York July 26, 1788 ratification of the U.S.
Constitution, in which the present form was drafted in the New York Convention,
with New York as the new Capital of the USA and in New-York where George
Washington was sworn in as the first President of the USA; and on which date the
anti-Federalists and Federalists agreed to join the Union as expressed in the
ratification document that the necessity that eligibility for both the Executive and
Congress requires each candidate to be a Natural-born citizen - however, in the
actual U.S. Constitution only mandates the NBC requirement for the Executive.

11
34. That the People of New-York maintain the express right as then guaranteed
under the 10th amendment to secede as is required were the express mandates of
the U.S. Constitution not followed, and that New-York would remain separate such
trespass until made whole again.
35. The INS does NOT make the type of mistakes that registrars may do, and or
as a prima facia matter of convincing evidence requires further discovery as to the
CoLB of three years ago shown as Exhibit 3 were it to use 25 years of age for the
Father as did Mr. Smith on his artwork shown as Exhibit 6; and therefore, as such
the latest so-called LF CoLB that uses 25 years instead of 27 years as shown on
Exhibit 2 that is the certification that Barack Hussein Obama II is not NBC with a
British subject alien student father, and is a dilemma for the perpetrator of the
1936 errors, that if shown otherwise by Hawaii would have been an immediate
cause for indictment of BHO II and his cohorts at the CIA especially the Jesuit Co-
adjutor John Brenan whose operative destroyed DOS records in 2007 / 2008.
36. The abovementioned matters are germane to Chief Justice Roberts, de facto
Justice Kagan and de facto Sotomayor et al. who are material witnesses subject to a
subpoena in the active case Strunk v NYS BOE et al. in the New York State
Supreme Court for the County of Kings with Index No. 6500-2011, and in which Mr.
Obama and his associates including Mark Brzezinski with a common attorney are
appearing with a pending motion to dismiss according to the New-York Assistant
Attorney General assigned to State Defendants therein with a stipulation for
additional time to answer (see Exhibit 7).

12
37. "A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void" World Wide
Volkswagen Woodsen, 444 U.S. 286, 291; National Bank v. Wiley, 195 U.S. 257;
Pennoyer v. Nef, 95 U.S. 714.
38. Judges have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction that is given
than to usurp that which is not given. Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat 264 (1821). U.S.
v. Will, 499 U.S. 200.
39. While the misrepresentation of a ministerial fact, past or present may
constitute basis for an interference of legal “fraud”. An act, omission or concealment
which involves a breach of legal duty, trust or confidence, justly reposed and is
injurious to another, or by which an undue advantage is taken of another, may
become the foundation for interference of fraud, and when there is a duty to speak,
the concealment of a material fact may be equally as wrongful as a positive
misrepresentation. Tex Civ. App 1943 Ruebeck v. Hunt, 171 SW2d 895, affirmed
176 SW2d 7382 142 Tex. 1671 150 A.L.R. 775.
40. A Party having superior knowledge who takes advantage of another’s
ignorance of the law to deceive him by studied concealment or misrepresentation
can be held responsible for that conduct. Tex. 1987, Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene
National Bank, 726 SW2d 537.
41. Courts enforcing mere statutes do not act judicially, but ministerially,
having no judicial immunity, and unlike Courts of Law, do not obtain jurisdiction by
service of process nor even by Arrest and Compelled Appearance. Boswell v. Otis, 9
Howard 336, 348.

PETITIONER WITH SCOTUS RULE 20 FOR
Exhibit 1
Christopher-Earl; Strunk in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281
845-901-6767; chris@strunk.ws
Clerk of the Court for the

Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
In Re Christopher-Earl Strunk in esse Petition

Subject: Fee for Petition for Writ of Prohibition
Dear Clerk of the Court,
I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, state under penalty of perjury with 28

USC §1746 that I am a Petitioner for Writ of Certiorari in the SCOTUS Case
No. 10-1170 with an urgent related matter that requires me to Petition for a
Writ of Prohibition with SCOTUS Rule 20 in lieu of recusal of several justices
who are material witnesses related to a current New York State Supreme
Court case here in Brooklyn County of Kings with Index No. 6500-2011.
Attached with the good grace of my fellow petitioner, H. William Van Allen in
SCOTUS No. 10-1170 is my tender of payment of the $300 filing fee for the
Petition for Writ of Prohibition in lieu of recusal. I am in the process of
printing fifty copies of the original petition of 40 pages in 8.5 inch by 11 inch
format with Rule 33.2 and 34 accordingly; and that 40 plus the original will
be forwarded with certificate of service after the eight respondents other than
the Justice and both Messrs. Van Allen and Forjone in regards to SCOTUS
10-1170 are duly served. I trust that with this payment and notice the Clerk
will be prepared to process the forth coming submission when received in due
course by mail. Respectfully submitted by,
Dated: April 7, 2011

Brooklyn, New York _____________________________
593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281
845-901-6767; chris@strunk.ws
Attached Check for $300
Cc:
H. William Van Allen in esse
John-Joseph Forjone in esse
DedI' Llerh. or trie Gourt,
I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, state under penalty of perjury with 28

USC §1746 that I am a Petitioner for Writ of Certiorari in the SCOTUS Case
No. 10-1170 with an urgent related matter that requires me to Petition for a
Writ of Prohibition with SCOTUS Rule 20 in lieu of recusal of several justices
who are material witnesses related to a current New York State Supreme
Court case here in Brooklvn COlmbT of Kjna" =.ii.hlndDv>~. m;oo 0LU.L_n _
Mailing label
1111111111\111111 11I1I 1\11\1111111111 1111\ \\11111111111111111 \\\11111 1\1II1 Label 11-8, March 2004
EG 220611174 US
UNITED STIlTES POSTJ.lL SERVICE ®
~~tJf,mi:C;;j:m!rm~Y~"B~~
PAYMENT D
BY ACCOUNT WAIVER OF SIGNATURE (Domestic Mail Only)
Express CUS:;'~~~.~~~lu~:~~~a~~~~:aO~n~~~~~~~~
Mail Corporate Acct. No. void if
I wish delivery to be made without obtain,ing signature
of addressee or addressee's agent (if delivery employee
~~~~~~~erVice N~~' or ~~g~~i~~~~~~~~~vCea~ ~~~~~~:'~Csj~~~~~~~i~~~~~1?u~es

valid proof of delivery.
LiJ
n:
.'(
8>- I
I fRCHV1: (PLEASE PRINT)
/f1J
(j"""t
(jJ
W
rr
J51 IVt;I/J
n, I 'i e a»
~~--~> ~~
FOR INTERNATIONAL DESTINATIONS, WRITE COUNTRY NAME BELOW.

H- C. o.-;:E i:-) -:',t:- ~i- ---.:;,0 UJ c:. t-) 0 -<: TJ --I c~-,
f'E-co a cJ ro '11~ ~:i ; '-!-::J(J)C't:l'--,. !--j p)
Ur---I~":'
1=:i~:1 ! i!
Co ;--1 en G""J ::s: r- r0 0 0 ~ •.. 1'1 (l) II r
~ '"0 >< ::; r+ '* -:.t- 0:; --0
:::s --" D- _.J !'-., --I 3>
:z:", cn ~, ~,. " , 1 -i'-
a" ~".C: 0 ·OJ- 0) , (.lJ 0 ! ! ---.., ii
~ 'J) r+t- -"k -3{- 0 rn TI (f) --> CD co } "0
rJ »- 0_ p; (1';
':=i
1'(",),-,1,
,If- • 0.....:::: -)E' -::-f- CJ +s TI -; !D OJ ~ cr-'3>(D:::c:. C:> if
'U:) 0)-':::'i (") c; ~--o; roOO"'.~1
II-n (/) ~'O .;", "* I .......J, c-) ---'" ~, II -s c II I CD 1,
0::: +s 0 (f) OJ PJ CL G3
........ II
It-a -,. r+ C -3(-
-3'~. :,c:... ---z-:::5 0 J tlJ G..~U, 0 C •.c; = -' =
'to :3 fD -~ -;~ ....-~C/):J!D:3 r-r:::l -~ ("J G) I! -0' ~ 'I : r-.:: ;,
0),......,.
•.. C))O><::::. -0 :c: r-e- ...."""-:;'"~ N "In--i
E--,~:E: -}f.- -if- :;;::;;;::-h '"-_ CJ £,.\,\ --:~ C) 0,' ~~. <=> II
-c::: -, m -~,., ~ ><; 0 ;' II id'
-' I I
,f D '~':3-l1i- ~- ~ -0 ----10 -::J3 ~•......
) ,t- --' •...-, II
f-O;;::rl-0l~t' *!...--=l'Q}-...:iD -f~ -,. -:::~; G:' ro -'-:n CJ'O:Z: /
; o' I I ,-,- ::c Ii
c... ...•.........
s:;;) ,-4- .--:;
~t- ::ru :::;- -...1, "* II:::; i 1 C
3 c.r
~'" cr: _I,
(1) co u' C; :::t:1_:.-- :::0 f'v
............•. ("0 0
~:;--0 Q; ("D C) e-c- _ I; ! .....
-., G.) ::"'0
t 0 ~.* C., ro D.-a. t-:: -:;0 cr, n Ii n
!-x-+.O> -l>~ ~}.f- c/) r-t- ---' "A- 01 ,1:":1..' =- ! 0) u' r= ::c. i!
x: CD C' OJ \"(,: 11 U) I OW-'me:
rrDO ::E.~X- * ........I. tr: :J 3;-;- 'e,ic- II
~= -' -,. CD .-;- h ...
j : (J) I C) C) r-....) -< ::::r.J Ii
1- (fl -; CD :::y
-l>" ~i- 0 u) TJ CD --" r,,) -~'. [0 ~::'. c::.' , -' I --•......
' cC) ~. ..... " II
~ CD CD -J;:- 7f- ~:E::;- Iv C to < ---' r..\..l c.:r, I I C) (.../) (D I ~''':'I()) _l--"':o., ,rT1
f 0> D ::;; ''" ~~- ---'. -I.
+..... Cl) I'
:-,'--fn l-=-;' ---', n-'I ---~,_';::.•.. 1 .-:-- (:'l) U) I -:' :~::) (,,) :'2: -<
t C -""f- -;it- C") ri- U -0 \"1) -..0.0; C_) ::5 ---' C,"':) i c, < .__.. : t.:n 1'-.) LO CD u
~ 0-,0;-* ?'f QQ zs: C/J (A) c» X. i-:-;' '< <:: ,I1 m:::o I f -J!:.,- (D ~' ~
a rn :=J -H" -:It- _...Jl ri'- to 0;,< Ii
>< r.::L. *. -}1:- -~ -0 0 ~;;;) () b ro mO:l(D u II
u -l{- ~:- t..:;: 0 0 en 2:~
en en ,,..-
.... C) , -"I i OJ -c: C.J Ii
, ..•• __~ CD ! -~I 0 a
OO:E-jf ",;~f- U) D :3 H
-H' r-v...• ---.; r+--..... co :>< :
II -:?~, ._1. _'. -I. J -..l 0 } II
::'i (I) ::r- -):- rn .x
---' ,-t- CD -~(- ~~ lJi.~ --", 0 (.n !Or--".-Ul ~O »: il
~, -, .:'t-'
:x ~""'iDC..D II
~~ JD:J-:3- ~< I ,~~
!Ii:m
~ C) CD -~E -n- ro:-t- CJ II
t7J -+. *. -:;.;- D 5~~ II ,'\ 11 ! ;: Ii
-h «: * -}f- II Ii
>< I: i
w ~'O * o >< II !1 cS
rl- (") C. 7t· * -n .....• 1'-.) ~~, -w n -.s.~> , li
u) ~+ '* -8' ii
'I -0 '''1t : I r-o II
o N --', ~ -'> j ! 1
:..•
, c...n co , I! ,~, I'I , ,. II
~(- ~.f- CO II " cc en
* '** ...:;,!-
-.....; . II I 1 -1:)
(... .•..} (,.) II 0.:....":> i! n'
II CA} !! CD ,--I I 3:.
~ 1\!
* o 0 Ii CI !I o Ii <i I
Ii fl It i
fE)U"pY\~n:;;;)~ Label M
11 B, March 2004
GVHIJUiL !Post Office "["0 Addressee

UMITED STIlTES POSTlll. SERV!C1i®
I1\11\1\ 11111IEGlll 11\1\220611174

Illll1\11\111\1 11I11 11I11US11\111II11 I1I1 111\111\ II1II1
"
WAIVER OF SIGNATURE (Domestic Mail Only)

PAYMENT BY ACCOUNT O Additional merchandise insurance is void if
Express Mail Corporate Acct. No. customer requests waiver of signature-
I wish delivery to be made WH.hOLlt obtaining signature
of addressee or addressee's agent (if delivery employee
Federal Agency Acct. No. or ~~~~~i~~~~:~~~~;:~ ~~~~~~;c~~;~~~~~i~~)n~tl~utes

postal Service Acct. No.
valid proof of delivery.
o wee~?n~EUVE~~day 0 Mailer Signature
11
________ 1 I TO: (PLEASE PRINT) ?HONE { I--
PHONE (
FROM: (PLEASEPRINT)
! +!
;=OR iNTERNATIONAL DESTINATIONS. WRlii: COUNTRY NAME BELOW.
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Page 1 of 1
http://www2.az-independent.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ObamaDoc.jpg 4/29/2011
Exhibit 7
No. ___-_____
AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF PROHIBITION
WITH QUO WARRANTO INQUEST
OF CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS Jr., DE FACTO JUSTICE ELENA
KAGAN, DE FACTO JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, DE FACTO SOLICITOR
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES NEAL KATYAL AND DE FACTO
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ERIC HOLDER, IN THE
ABSENCE OF VOLUNTARY RECUSAL FROM HEARING THE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN SCOTUS NO. 10-1170, AND OR THAT EACH IS
CHALLENGED IN QUO WARRANTO TO PROVIDE PROOF OF AUTHORITY TO
SERVE BY THE VOID AB INITIO ACTS OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II
RATHER THAN JOSEPH R. BIDEN WHO MUST SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE.

Cell-845-901 -6767 ; chris@strunk.ws
i
Respondents
John-Joseph: Forjone in esse Ronald C. Machen Jr.

H. William Van Allen in esse De facto U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C.
United States Attorney's Office
c/o 351 North Avenue 555 4th Street, NW
Hurley, New York 12231 Washington, DC 20530
Chief Justice John G. Roberts De facto Solicitor General Neal Katyal

De facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor Department of Justice
De facto Justice Elena Kagan 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
at One First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20543. Solicitor General of the United States
Room 5614 Department of Justice
Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Washington, DC 20530-0001
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia Solicitor General of the State of N.Y.
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy Office of Attorney General of New York
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224-0341
at One First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20543. James E. Long, Esq.
Bar Roll No. 506898
Barack Hussein Obama II 668 Central Avenue
at The White House Albany, New York 12206
Washington D.C. 20500 Congressman Ron Paul
The U.S. House of Representatives
Joseph R. Biden Jr. 160 D Street NE
at The White House Washington D.C. 20002
Washington D.C. 20500
De facto Attorney General Eric Holder

U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
ii
Table of Contents Page
Petitioner’s Affidavit in support of relief ……………………………...............................1
Respondents Concurring Declaration in support of relief …………………................13
Relief Requested:
A Writ of Prohibition with Quo warranto inquest of Chief Justice John Roberts, de
facto Justice Elena Kagan, de facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor, de facto Solicitor
General of the United States Neal Katyal, de facto Attorney General of the United
States Eric Holder, and de facto U.S. Attorney for Washington District of Columbia
Ronald C. Machen Jr. in the absence of voluntary recusal from hearing the Petition
for Writ of Certiorari in SCOTUS No. 10-1170.
SCOTUS Rules:
SCOTUS Rule 20. Procedure on a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ
SCOTUS Rule 332.: For petitions with 8.5 inch by 11 inch paper format
Cases:
McCreery's Lessee v Somerville 22 US 354 (1824)………………………………………2
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145 (1968)………………………………………………..11
United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1199 (7th Cir. 1985) Liberty Lobby, Inc.
v. Dow Jones Co., 838 F.2d 1287, 1301 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (citing cases)………………...
Norton v. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886). ………………………… .
Perlstein v. Wolk, Ill S.Ct., February 17, 2006
Ineligibility of officer is insufficient ground for refusal to administer the oath.

People v. Dean, 3 Wend. (N.Y.) 438
iii
Failure due to another, where failure to take the oath within the time prescribed is
due to the refusal of the officer designated to administer it the office does not
become vacant. State v. Kraft, 20 Or. 28, 23 Pac. 663.
Oath does not confer office. A candidate without even a prima facie right to
municipal office cannot give himself the right to the office by taking the oath.
Walker v. Quillian, 118 Ga. 152, 44 S.E. 987.
Path—failure to take oath within prescribed time renders office vacant. Douglas v.
Essex Co., 38 N.J. L. 214: Branham v. Long, 78 Va. 352; People v. McKinney, 52
N.Y. 374.
A person elected to office… who failed to take the oath prescribed by statute, never
obtained title to the office. Hayter v. Benner, 67 N.J.L. 359, 52 Atl. 351.
Statutes:
28 U.S.C. § 1 Number of justices; quorum. The Supreme Court of the United States
shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any
six of whom shall constitute a quorum.
28 USC §144 Bias or prejudice of judge. Whenever a party to any proceeding in a

district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before
whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or
in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but
another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 453. Oaths of justices and judges. Each justice or judge of the United
States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his
office: “I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without
respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will
faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as
XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
28 USC §455 (a) Any justice… of the United States shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also
disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or
prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding; (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and
in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the
proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in
controversy; (4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary…has a financial
interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any
other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (5)
He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them,
iv
or the spouse of such a person: (i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or
trustee of a party; (iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge
likely to be a material witness in the proceeding. (c) A judge should inform himself
about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to
inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children
residing in his household.
28 U.S.C. § 459. Administration of oaths and acknowledgments. Each justice or

judge of the United States may administer oaths and affirmations and take
acknowledgments.
28 U.S.C. § 1651. Writs (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act
of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective
jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law..
Washington DC Code Chapter 35 Title 16 Section 3503 Refusal of Attorney General

or United States attorney to act: If the Attorney General or United States attorney
refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the
interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ
issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are
sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of
the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the
condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs....................4,5,12
United States Constitution

U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 Clause 5………………………………..……...2,3,5
U.S. Constitution Article VII Twenty-fifth Amendment Section 4 (1967)………..vi,2
New York State Constitution

New York State Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 2 Section 2...............................
Exhibit One annexed: May 20, 2009 CES Letter to Washington DC US Attorney
Jeffery Taylor May 20, 2009 with attachment:
• CES v BHO Verified Quo Warranto Complaint May 19, 2009;
• CES Fires BHO January 22, 2009;
• Proof of Service of January 23, 2009 of CES Firing of BHO;
• Proof of Service of Letter w/ attachments to Jeffery Taylor US Attorney et al.
Exhibit Two annexed: August 26, 2009 Letter from BHO to CES
Exhibit Three annexed: March 22, 2011 filing; Strunk v NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Cty Kings
Index 6500-2011
Exhibit Four annexed: Affidavit of Service of BHO and Biden with Strunk v NYS BOE
et al. NYSSC Cty Kings Index 6500-2011
v
Questions Presented:
1. Does Chief Justice John G. Roberts have a conflict of interest and not hear
SCOTUS 10-1170, must show cause why he is not a material witness to the
scheme to defraud by BHO et al. filed in New York State Supreme Court in
Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. in the County of Kings Index No. 6500-2011?
2. Does de facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor have a conflict of interest must not hear
SCOTUS 10-1170, must show cause why she is not a material witness to the
scheme to defraud by BHO et al. filed in New York State Supreme Court in
Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. in the County of Kings Index No. 6500-2011?
3. Were Barack Hussein Obama II (BHO) acts Void ab initio because BHO is
ineligible for POTUS in conflict with U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause
5 as BHO’s birth where ever that may have been on August 4, 1961 is to natural
father who is a British subject on a student visa married to Stanley Ann Obama?
4. Are de facto officers appointed by BHO to show cause why they may serve
without a conflict of interest with Affirmant and SCOTUS No. 10-1170?
5. Must BHO in a Quo Warranto proceeding show cause why he has authority as
POTUS rather than Joseph R. Biden Jr. under the 25th Amendment Section 4?
6. Should de facto Justice Sotomayor show cause why having heard seven cases
while in the Second Circuit she should not recuse for hearing SCOTUS 10-1170?
7. Would legal malpractice issue as to Chief Justice Roberts, de facto Justices
Kagan, Sotomayor, Defacto Solicitor, Attorney General and U.S. Attorney would
issue if any were to proceed as to the Writ of Certiorari SCOTUS No. 10-1170?
vi
To the Honorable Associate Justices: Stephen G. Breyer; Samuel A. Alito; Clarence
Thomas; Antonin Scalia; Anthony Kennedy; and Ruth Bader Ginsburg supervising
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss.
COUNTY OF KINGS )
penalty of perjury:
1. Affirmant is a petitioner for Writ of Certiorari signed March 9, 2011 by H.
William Van Allen, John-Joseph Forjone, Christopher-Earl Strunk and presents
this affidavit as a certificate of good faith within the intent and meaning of 28 USC
144 and 28 USC 455(a) 28 USC §1651 for the recusal of Chief Justice John Roberts,
and de facto Justice Elena Kagan and de facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor as well as
the de facto U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, de facto Attorney General Eric
Holder de facto U.S. Attorney for Washington District of Columbia Ronald C.
Machen Jr. from participation except as respondent parties-in-interest in an inquest
hearing and or in the SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Certiorari No. 10-1170 as a
matter of personal bias in an extra judicial forum of impropriety in a matter that
AFFIDAVIT – In Re: Christopher-Earl: Strunk Petition Page 1 of 12

may appear before each in the matter of the questionable eligibility of Barack
Hussein Obama II to serve as POTUS and of Chief Justice Roberts aiding and
abetting the usurpation of the POTUS office along with those similarly situated
since January 20, 2009 as a material witness.
2. Respondent John Glover Roberts, Jr. is the 17th and current Chief Justice of
the United States (Chief Justice Roberts). He has served since 2005, having been
nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist.
3. Respondent Barack Hussein Obama II (Respondent Obama) was the 2008
Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States (POTUS) without
being eligible under U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, as his natural
father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was a British Subject with a student Visa at the
birth August 4, 1961 by his minor aged U.S. Citizen mother Stanley Ann Obama,
and as such according to the SCOTUS opinion in McCreery's Lessee v Somerville 22
US 354 (1824) that explains the difference between a Natural-born and Native-born
U.S. Citizen as is to be applied with U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5,
Barack Hussein Obama and all the names he uses is not a Natural-born citizen and
by his own allegation only a native born-citizen therefore is not eligible to POTUS.
4. That Respondent Chief Justice Roberts before administering the oath of office
for POTUS on January 20, 2009, met with the Associate Justices of the SCOTUS,
presumably to discuss the pending oath taken by a person ineligible for POTUS.
5. That Respondent Obama being ineligible illegally took the oath of office after
Noon on January 20, 2009 at 12:05 pm, and failed to timely take the Oath of office
Affidavit in re: Christopher-Earl: Strunk Petition Page 2 of 12

as administered by Respondent Chief Justice Roberts.
6. The Oath mandated by the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 8 (1)
was botched in its delivery by Respondent Chief Justice Roberts who said the oath
incorrectly, while Respondent Obama paused and gave Chief Justice Roberts an
opportunity to correct it. The Chief Justice Roberts said it wrong a second time, in
another way. Then Respondent Obama repeated the incorrect first version of the
oath; and because the oath was incorrect, the next day, at 7:35 pm in every report
Affirmant could find, Respondent Obama and Respondent Chief Judge Roberts
repeated the oath in private on January 21, in the White House Map room.
7. That Affirmant Petitioner is the only person in the United States of America
(USA) to have duly fired fired fired BHO on January 23, 2009 (see Exhibit 1) served
by registered mail; thereby rendering BHO the USURPER to the POTUS; and as
Petitioner is now entitled to characterize BHO as.
8. That Respondent Obama was fired on the grounds that he had admitted that
he was not eligible for POTUS by the admission that his natural father is a British
Subject on a student visa, making BHO a Native-born citizen at best if born within
the full and complete jurisdiction of the USA, we do not know; and therefore, BHO
is ineligible to be the administrator / trustee of Plaintiff’s private account at the
U.S. Treasury as required by U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, that as
1
Article II Section 1 Clause 8. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the
following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute
the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States."

a Replevin matter pending to be resolved in the District of Columbia along with all
BHO’s acts as the Usurper from January 20, 2009 heretofore are void ab initio (2).
9. That May 20, 2009 Affirmant provided due notice to then U.S. Attorney
Jeffrey Taylor for Washington D.C. and present de facto Attorney General Eric
Holder, shown in Exhibit 1; and that Respondents Holder and BHO forced the de
jure U.S. Attorney of Washington DC to resign in order for the Usurper to replace
that U.S. Attorney Office with the present de facto U.S. Attorney for Washington
District of Columbia Ronald C. Machen, Jr.,; and together Respondents Holder,
Machen and Katyal act in concert for the Usurper without responding to
Affirmant’s application for a Quo Warranto inquest with DC Code Chapter 35 Title
16 Section 3502.
10. That Affirmant is the interested person required with DCC Chapter 35 §16-
3503: meets the condition (2) that the Usurper’s demurer Letter of August 2009 (see
Exhibit 2), in which Respondent Obama pleads the special general issue of
separation of powers doctrine; and that as a matter of law did not deny the facts
presented in the petition shown as Exhibit 1, and in that Affirmant - fired the
Usurper on January 22, 2009, making his dual allegiance issue at birth with a
2 Ab Initio - prep. Latin phrase meaning "from the start"; literal meaning being
something done 'from scratch'. In legal parlance it stands from: 1.) if any legal
agreement is void ab initio then it stands null and void from the very beginning of
its intended existence and not just from the instant its declared as void. 2.) if a
person enters onto someone's private property (real estate) by authority of law but
later maltreats that authority then he becomes a trespasser ab initio.

majority age British subject father on a student visa an undisputed fact, and as a
matter of law is not eligible for the Office of President contrary to U.S. Constitution
Article II Section 1 Clause 5, a copy of the Petition Memorandum annexed; meets
the condition (3) the law requires a declaratory judgment as to the finding on those
facts only absent further discovery; and (4) that Affirmant with DCC Chapter 35
§16-3544 is ready for the inquest and Affirmant waives a jury for a bench trial.
11. That Respondent Obama’s appointments of Respondents: Eric Holder, Elena
Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Neal Katyal Ronald C. Machen Jr. among others are a
nullity and void ab initio.
12. Affirmant has a duty to make this petition to protect a judicial right against
any waiver that may without application accrue; and that Affirmant has a direct
injury ongoing here in Brooklyn New York involving de facto Justice Sonia
Sotomayor as a 2nd Circuit Judge that from no later than 2004 since January 20,
2009 with Chief Justice John Roberts and Sotomayor are material witnesses to the
Complaint filed by Affirmant in New York State Supreme Court in the County of
Kings with Index No. 6500-2011 in the matter of a scheme to defraud Plaintiff along
with those similarly situated as voters in New York state filed on March 22 2011
(see copy of blue back page Exhibit 3); and duly served upon Respondents Obama
and Biden on Thursday, March 31 2011, by a third party server whose affidavit is
herewith (see Exhibit 4), and as with the questionable appointment of de facto
Justice Elena Kagan is sufficient cause for their consideration with 28 USC §144
and §455 to recuse from hearing the SCOTUS petition No. 10-1170, and in which

Affirmant is a petitioner therein also being effected and must be excluded from
hearing the matter of a writ of prohibition with quo warranto inquest too.
13. That Respondents Chief Justice Roberts, de facto Justices Kagan and
Sotomayor, as well as the de facto U.S. Attorney for Washington DC, de facto
Attorney General Holder and de facto Solicitor General are material witnesses to
the malice by Respondent Obama.
14. That Affirmant has conferred in the petition herein with Petitioners Van
Allen and Forjone in the SCOTUS Petition No. 10-1170 and that both state
hereafter agreement with Affirmant’s allegations and demand, state by their
declaration attached, and have designated that Affirmant support this motion to
recuse from hearing the Strunk et al v Thomas J. Spargo et al Petition for Writ of
Certiorari SCOTUS No. 10-1170.
15. That Affirmant heard credible allegations during the 2005 confirmation
process for Chief Justice Roberts that surfaced that John G. Roberts is possibly a
member of OPUS DEI the secular organization established by the Jesuit Order in
1928; and the allegations are that John G. Roberts is a member of Opus Dei that
was the subject raised during the confirmation proceeding were never answered:
http://www.charm.net/~profpan/2005/07/is-judge-roberts-opus-dei.html
16. In the context of such disturbing unanswered allegation during the 2005
confirmation hearing, which is bad enough in itself, in that the OPUS DEI member
oath is to exclusively serve the Vatican State over any other commitment or
allegiance, Affirmant was also notified of the disturbing posting by agents of

Congressman Ron Paul at http://dailypaul.com/154751/slush-fund-of-top-politicians-
found-at-vatican-bank-obama-clinton-roberts-legatus-split (3)
17. That on February 3, 2011, Affirmant confronted the outrageous posting by
agents of Representative Ron Paul to either retract the allegation otherwise
without support or investigate the claim, as Mr. Paul is on the House Banking
Committee with subpoena power to investigate accordingly; and that to date there
has never been a response to what Affirmant requested as follows quote:
“Ron Paul duty to authenticate the allegations or remove the post

Submitted by Chris Strunk on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 16:20.
Mr. Paul Sr. as a member of the House Banking committee having
been a Presidential candidate in 2008 has a duty to advance an immediate
investigation of the allegations included herein the "Slush Fund" post.
Especially since Media reports from the 2008 campaign cycle (supported by
actual fines levied by the FEC against BHO and his finance committees)
allege that BHO had received large sums of campaign funds from foreign
sources during the campaign that were never reported.
3 Slush fund of top politicians found at Vatican Bank, Obama, Clinton, Roberts?
Legatus split! Submitted by ACinMA on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 21:22 in Politics & Law
What do you think? Slush fund of top politicians found at Vatican Bank, Obama,
Clinton, Roberts? Legatus split!
Slush fund accounts of major US politicians identified and seized at Vatican
Bank (Rome). Connection established with Daniel Dal Bosco RICO indictment,
which cites Giancarlo Bruno, Silvio Berlusconi & Ban Ki Moon. On Wednesday 5th
January 2011, it emerged that US establishment-related slush fund accounts had
been located in, and seized from, the Vatican Bank in Rome.
The source of funds for these accounts in almost every instance was found to
be the US Treasury. Beneficiaries of the covert Vatican accounts include Barack
Obama, Michelle Obama and each of the Obama children, Michelle Obama’s
mother, all the Bushes and the Clintons, including Chelsea Clinton, Joe Biden,
Timothy Geithner, Janet Napolitano, several US Senators, including Mitch
McConnell, several US Congressmen including John Boehner, several US Military
Chiefs of Staff, the US Provost Marshal, the US Judge Advocate General, the US
Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts, several US Judges, the Pope, and
several cardinals. Big money was found in each of the accounts. Cont:
http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/bob-chapman-newsle...

Further allegations that Chief Justice Roberts and others within the
Congress and Executive also maintain an account is terribly troubling
especially since many of those listed are active supernumeraries of Opus Dei
and as such makes those members that are also in government service and
elected officers agents of the sovereign Vatican State a huge conflict of
interest.
It is my understanding from actual testimony of Vatican Bank
representatives that the Vatican Bank's IOR is a limited depository
institution, that is not open to the public in the sense that the depositors are
essentially limited to Vatican State employees, members of the Holy See,
religious orders, and persons who deposit money destined, at least in part, for
works of piety.
However, it has been proven in the Federal civil case GEORGE DALE
et. al. v. EMILIO COLAGIOVANNI et al. (SDMS) 3:01-cv-00663-WHB-LRA,
that there was the use of the Vatican Bank / IOR as a straw-man for
conducting money laundering and insurance fraud in the United States. That
the deposition of Thomas A. Bolan on July 19, 2004 (see
http://www.vaticanbankclaims.com/dale.pdf ) shows that the Vatican Bank
and IOR cooperate with investors as a straw-man to conduct business for
persons who deposit money, "at least in part" for works of piety - are proven
in the civil case to fit money laundering and other RICO predicates that form
a corrupt enterprise; and were they involved in financing the BHO 2008
campaign is a serious international scandal up with Oil for Food and the
BCCI matter of money laundering associated with the collapse of Franklin
National Bank in the early eighties.
Mr. Ron Paul must respond immediately to this post and to the follow-
up letter of demand to be sent registered mail.
Sincerely yours, Chris Strunk ( chris@strunk.ws )”
18. In support of clear and convincing evidence of why Respondent Obama, and
defendants in the Complaint shown on the caption with Exhibit 3, John S. McCain
and Roger Calero are not eligible for POTUS either, because of dual allegiance or
birth in a foreign nation outside the full and complete jurisdiction of the United
States of America, and why most lawyers do not get the natural-born-citizen and
dual allegiance matter that is an ongoing matter of malpractice. Affirmant based
upon information received, believes that with the exception of Tulane University,
which offers an option because Louisiana is a civil law jurisdiction –adopted from

their French roots, all other law schools teach the common law of England.
19. That every state of the several states, except Louisiana, has adopted the
common law of England by constitutional provision or statutory act. As such, all
attorneys learn the common law of England. That presents a big problem; the
United States has never adopted the common law of England. While many terms
used in the constitution were also part of the common law of England, there was no
such thing in that law regarding a natural-born citizen. The closest was a natural-
born subject. As such, these attorneys conflated the two terms.
20. The people who really knew what a natural-born citizen is were those who
dealt with foreign relations. –After all, being identified as a natural-born citizen
really doesn’t have any distinct purpose while within the U.S., save that of being
President. It does, however, have great importance in terms of foreign relations.
21. In regards to U.S. Foreign relations: A natural-born citizen, being born on
U.S. soil, of parents who were both citizens, means that no other country can
obligate you to allegiance. By the Law of Nations, the law voluntarily adopted by all
civilized nations in order to resolve disputes, no other country can require you to
join their military. Those who are born of parents who are not citizens acquire the
condition of their father by inheritance of blood. –Even if born on U.S. soil, they
have, by jus sanguinis, a dual character. They can be claimed by two countries.
22. Chief Justice John Jay knew what he was doing when he suggested to
General Washington that only a natural-born citizen should hold the position of
Commander-in-Chief. It was the only way that no other power could legally require

the services of the President, as seen provided by BHO with dual allegiance.
23. As early as 1862 representative John Bingham acknowledged congressional
plenary authority over citizenship and the constitutional restraints on those powers,
stating:
“ All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a
compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of
the United States; all other persons born within the Republic owing
allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens… [There is] no
exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said
in the Constitution relating to Indians. 37 CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE 1639
(1862).”
24. The Representative Bingham’s statement is significant because it confirms
congressional plenary authority over citizenship and that the doctrine of which
Rep. Bingham again in 1872 confirms.
“Mr. BINGHAM. If the gentleman will only let me go on I will answer all his
questions. As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts
in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born
citizen of the United State there is not room for the showdown of a doubt. He
was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States,
and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is
declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”
And further should we consider Rep. Bingham’s testimony reliable? Here is what
Justice Hugo Black (a former U.S. Senator from Alabama) said in 1968:
“Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative

experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and
most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in
the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to
men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the
House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members
of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered.
And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and
those who oppose it tell them it means.” -Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145 -
Supreme Court 1968…”

And here is what Henry Fletcher (who established the Minnesota Law Review) had
to say in 1919 about citizenship and allegiance as published in the Atlantic Monthly
– (1919) “OUR DIVIDED COUNTRY” by Henry J Fletcher:
“Our country furnishes many examples of that curious phenomenon, double

allegiance. All persons born within the United States and subject to its
jurisdiction are declared by the Constitution to be citizens. This is true of the
children of non-naturalized aliens domiciled here. But the children of aliens
have the same nationality as their parents, according to the laws of nearly all
foreign countries, and such children are therefore subject to a double
allegiance. In this way, if a German living in this country chooses not to
accept the citizenship which we so generously urge upon him, his children
born here may, when they grow up, disclaim their American citizenship. A
young man born here of alien parents may, if he goes to Europe for study, be
forced into the army, and the United States will be powerless to protect him,
even though he intends to return and reside here. Even if the alien father be
naturalized here, the minor son born here before the father's naturalization,
if he returns to his father's native country, is liable to be seized and
compelled to perform military service, and his American citizenship will
prove to be a mere fiction. If a German domiciled here is so attached to the
memories of the fatherland as to refuse the proffer of American citizenship,
and his children while growing up are diligently nurtured in the same
sentiments of loyalty, they cannot be relied on by the United States in time of
war as Germany and France are now relying on their subjects at home. If in
addition to this consciousness of divided allegiance, there are family ties and
expectations of inheritance in the old country, it is clear that the
Americanism of such persons, considered as an asset in time of war with
Germany, must be charged off as worthless, if it be not an actual liability.”
CONCLUSION IN SUPPORT OF RELIEF
This petition shows that the writ of prohibition and quo warranto inquest will
be in aid of the Court’s appellate or original jurisdiction in that exceptional
circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers, and that
adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court.
Affirmant has read the foregoing petition for a 28 USC §1651 extraordinary writ of

Exhibit 1
CES Letter to Washington DC US Attorney Jeffery Taylor May 20, 2009
CES v BHO Verified Quo Warranto Complaint May 19, 2009
CES Fires BHO January 22, 2009
Proof of Service of January 22, 2009 Firing of BHO
Proof of Service of Letter w/ attachments to Jeffery Traylor US Attorney et al.

593 Vanderbilt Avenue, #281 …the District Code, in proper cases, instituted by proper officers or persons, may be
Brooklyn, New York 11238 enforceable against national officers of the United States. The sections are therefore to
Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse be treated as general laws of the United States, not as mere local laws of the District.
Being a law of general operation, it can be reviewed on writ of error from this Court.
American Co. v. Commissioners of the District, 224 U. S. 491; McGowan v. Parish, 228
U. S. 317.
The Honorable Jeffrey Taylor
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, The next essential decision is in Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 at 546
United States Attorney's Office (1915), the Supreme Court interpreted the role of the AG and US attorney as follows:
555 4th Street, NW
The District Code still treats usurpation of office as a public wrong which can be
corrected only by proceeding in the name of the government itself. It permits those
proceedings to be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States and by the
Re: U.S. and ex rel. Strunk v Barack Hussein Obama in esse
attorney for the District of Columbia. By virtue of their position, they, at their discretion
Subj: NOTICE of Verified Quo Warranto Complaint with Title 16 and acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any
Chapter 35 of The District Of Columbia Code in its entirety case they deem proper. But there are so many reasons of public policy against permitting
a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office that the Code
The Honorable Jeffrey Taylor not only does not authorize a private citizen, on his own motion, to attack the
incumbent’s title, but it throws obstacles in the way of all such private attacks. It
I, Christopher-Earl : Strunk © in esse, relator, am the interested-party in the above recognizes, however, that there might be instances in which it would be proper to allow
referenced matter and hereby demand that your office institute a proceeding against in the name of such proceedings to be instituted by a third person, but it provides that such “third
the United States against the individual Barack Hussein Obama in esse (a/k/a Barry Soetoro) who within person” must not only secure the consent of the law officers of the government, but the
the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully exercises, a franchise conferred by the consent of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia before he can use the name of
corporate United States office of the President (POTUS) for failing to prove eligibility as a natural-born- the government in quo warranto proceedings.
citizen with Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the united States’ Constitution as a matter of first impression.
That Relator’s original Verified Complaint is attached herewith, with the proviso that relator will use the Further, in ANDRADE v. LAUER, 729 F.2d 1475, 234 U.S.App.D.C. 384 (1984), the
duplicate to demand a jury trial on the issues of fact and decision on question of first Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has held that the defacto officer’s doctrine does
impression with the District Judge in Strunk v DOS et al. 08-cv-2234 by Cross Motion to the not prohibit “collateral attacks” of official actions based upon a public officer’s lack of
Defendant’s motion to dismiss on or before June 1, 2009 if within seven days your office has not eligibility. These are not quo warranto suits to remove the official, they are civil suits to
responded in the affirmative, nevertheless will go to the District Court as of right. challenge a specific action of that official.
Relator refers your Honor to what the Supreme Court of the united States (SCOTUS) held as In the Andrade case, the plaintiffs were Government employees who lost their jobs to
instructive: “reduction in force” ordinances which cut whole departments from the Government budget. The
plaintiffs sued alleging those who did the cutting were not Constitutionally qualified to make
such decisions in that their appointments violated the appointments clause of the US
The seminal SCOTUS case which has interpreted the Quo Warranto statute is Newman v.
Constitution.
United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915). The opinion serves as a thorough education
The DC District Court held that the plaintiffs had no standing other than to bring a “direct
on the history of quo warranto as well as the proper statutory interpretation. According to
attack” in quo warranto to remove the alleged usurper. But the DC Court of Appeals reversed
SCOTUS, Newman at 552, the statute applies to any public office: and said the plaintiffs, who had suffered real injuries, could bring such an action on a case by
case basis if they could prove their injury in fact (being fired) was caused by a Government
The Revised Statutes declare that the District of Columbia shall be the seat of official who was not eligible to serve.
government, and “all offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the Further, in UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN v. FIRST
District of Columbia.” The Code …provides that the… court shall have jurisdiction to FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, 248 F.2d 804 (1957), the US court of
grant quo warranto “against a person who unlawfully holds or exercises within the Appeals, 7th Circuit, provided an on point discussion of quo warranto in the district courts:
District a . . . public office, civil or military.” It was probably because of this fact that
national officers might be involved that the Attorney General of the United States was There have been submitted to this court only two instances in which original quo
given power to institute such proceedings… warranto jurisdiction has been specifically conferred upon federal district courts. The
1 2
revised statutes of 1878 vested jurisdiction in these courts of proceedings brought by the 5. The nature of my injury caused by the Usurper is the subject of my response in
United States Attorney for the removal of persons holding office contrary to the opposition to a partial dismissal as to the Usurper now in default and whose actions
Fourteenth Amendment. Rev.Stat., Sections 563(14), 626(14), (1786). This Act was are void ab initio, and that the Defendant DOS answer to my complaint there
repealed in the Judicial Code of 1911, 36 Stat. 1168. In 1901, Congress specifically demands further discovery with production of documents and interrogatories, and that
authorized the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to issue quo this action is intertwined and inseparable.
warranto in the name of the United States. Act of March 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1419, Title 16,
Section 1601 of the D.C. Code (1940). However, this grant is strictly limited and is I would be more than willing on or after June 1, 2009, to elaborate on this demand with
confined solely to situations involving franchises and public offices held within the an expanded memorandum that would also encompass the respectable work of the attorney Leo
District of Columbia. There is no other specific statutory provision vesting original Donofrio, Esq. of New Jersey, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. of California, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. of New
jurisdiction in the district courts in quo warranto actions. Jersey and John D. Hemenway, Esq. of Washington District of Columbia as none represent
relator. However this is the required statutory notice of a pre-existing intent required of me.
Furthermore, before the Quo Warranto statute existed there is a precedent for a sitting, voted in, On a personal note of great importance to me, I am a natural-born citizen of two married
sworn in, Senator, Albert Gallatin was thrown out of office in 1793 for being constitutionally natural-born born citizens that makes me eligible to become president, however my son when
ineligible to be a Senator, not having the 9 year requirement as a U.S. citizen. The full reaching 35 and having resided in the USA for 14 years at election may not be a natural-born
congressional link and the procedure they used follows: citizen because my wife at the time of his birth in New York was not a citizen and as such
because there is no interpretation as to the nature of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is a matter of
http://books.google.com/books?id=qkMFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA223-IA8&lpg=PA223- first-impression dear to me and is effecting my liberty now onward.
IA8&dq=Albert+Gallatin+ineligible+Senator&source=bl&ots=GO4Ii8iPv7&sig=NVpzF Your immediate response to this urgent matter is warranted and by way of a copy the
2CVNYUnIWYpNdjESd9gvYA&hl=en&ei=YIiwSaOeOteitgfYiIHEBw&sa=X&oi=boo additional parties-in –interest listed below they too are duly notified. I may be reached during the
k_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA221,M1 day at (845) 901-6767.
Relator in consideration of the above referenced SCOTUS and other decisions comes Sincerely yours,
forth here with a direct not collateral attack upon the usurper intransigence who after all is in
esse and merely poses as the corporate administrator POTUS. The Usurper as an individual in
esse only has it in his interest to regain his corporate office were the issues of fact adjudicated. Dated: May 20th, 2009 /s/ Christopher-Earl : Strunk, in esse
Brooklyn, New York _________________________________
1. That relator is the sovereign employer of the POTUS who exercises authority over Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse
my personal grant of power of attorney permission given to administer the united
States of America (Inc.); Attached: Verified Quo Warranto Complaint with Demand for Jury Trial and Decision on
Question of First Impression with exhibits
2. Relator duly fired Barack Hussein Obama in his corporate capacity for cause on
January 23, 2009 after he took the oath of office by timely return of the offer of Cc:
contract wishing no contract thereby revoked power of attorney due to his failure to
prove eligibility as a natural born citizen; The Honorable Eric Holder
U.S. Attorney General
3. That Barack Hussein Obama in esse usurps that office and presumably wishes to have U.S. Department of Justice
a Quo Warranto forum to prove his eligibility to be able to return to the corporate 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
office capacity as evidenced by the fact he simulates the corporate POTUS duties. Washington, DC 20530-0001
4. Further as to relator standing, as the particularized injury different than the general Barack Hussein Obama in esse
public, is evidenced by the related FOIA case where I complaint of injury and as a c/o The White House
result of irreparable harm caused by the Usurper personally not only the particular 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
speech injury and informational injury, but according to the opposition counsel I am Washington, DC 20500
to be sanctioned for something which as of right under statute I am entitled too and
having been wrongly withheld by the POTUS Executive while under the Usurper. president@whitehouse.net, AskDOJ@usdoj.gov, dc.outreach@usdoj.gov
3 4
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 19-2 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 219 of 243 Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 19-2 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 220 of 243
Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 19-2 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 227 of 243
NOTlCE TO W E CLERK OF RECORDS
Ttit minnteyon d v e any recod, document, paper, proceeding, map, book or o d ~ mthing depOsitea with
you, you are commhhg aim= against justice d m Revised S W t s of the United Stam First Section
43 Congms, Sections 5403,5407 aad 5408 totaling up to $9,000 in h w and up to 12 years in prison pm
a&hvityaufailtoremrd T i t l e l 8 U S C ~ m 2 0 7 1atsocaui-kqimpriisonmentand
dkplification of&- If p u t county attorney toid you not to file any documents like mine, yon are
still rsspomible, as I da no acmpt
h m the hwydng d am dl e rd-party-intebvenem. Any attorney, district attorney, or q m e
parties and do not have a licu~seto make a legal detmmhation in
this matter as they do not represent M e and Yau, the oomty c l e do not have the authority to r e p m t
Me. Should You fail to uphold Your swom o& and +rm your duties I will h v e no choice but to
rcwrd aaA€iiaaVit ofC r i m i d Complaint agahtst Your amd Liend a mpy to Your bonding company.
Title I X X 4 ~ , - C W . 4 . CIUMES AGAINST JUSTICE
5-03. Every person who willfully destroys Mattempts to deshoy, or, with intent to steal or d m y ,
takes and carries away any mmd, paper, or promding of a c o w of justice, filed or deposited with any
c l d or oEcer of so& court, or any papa, or document, or record fled or depasikd in any public ofice,
or wid^ any judicial or public officer, &dl, withunt rehmce to the vaIue of the record,paper, d o m e d ,
or procGediag srr taken, pay a h e ofnot more than two thousand dollars, or s* imprisonment, at hard
l a b , aot mwe thaa tree ywm, or both: [S* Q 8 54083411,54 t 4.1J Titie =.- C - . - CH.4.
CRIMES AGAINST msnm h,pablic-ds.)
SC5407. Iftwo or more peasons in my State or Taritory conspire for the purpose ofimpeding
hindering.o b c h g or defeating,ia any m ,thed m come ofjustice in any State or Territory, with
intent d q to my citizenthe equd protection of the laws, or to in* him or his property fur lawhlly
wforcin& or att~tllptingto enforce, the right of any person, or class of person, to the equal protection of
thelaws, ewhofsochpersonshall beprmishedby a f i n e o f n o t l ~ t b a n ~ e h m d r e d n o r m o r e ~ f i v e
thomaad dollam, or by imprkoammt, witb or w i t h u t harrl I&ra wt less than six month nor more tban
six years, or by both sueh h e and imprisonmeai. S w 5 9 1977-1991,20042010,5506-5510.1 Tide LXX
- -
CIUMES. CK.4. CRIMES AGAINST JUSTICE (Conspiracy to defeat enfammart ofthe laws.)
SEC5408. Evwy officer, having the custody of my m r d , document, paper, or proceding specified in
e m fifty-fim hundrcd and three,who f m d d d y takes away, or withdraws, or destroys any soah
rwmd, docmmt, paper, or p m c d k g filed in his OEM or depsitsd with him or in his cmtody, shall
pay a fine of not more fhan two thougand dollars, or d e r imigrisoammtat bard labor not more than three
yms,or bo€band W moreaver, Wcit his office and be foreva d k w a r d disqualified froan holding
arry ofice u a d a the Govmment of the United States. @esbyiug record by oEca in charge.)
S d o n 2071. Concealment, ternoval, or mutilation geblmlly
(a) Whoever wiifulIy and unlawfUfly c m c d s , removes, mutilates, obliterab, or d a m p , w

attmnpts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and canim away my record, proceeding, map,
book, paper, documen5 or other thing, flbd or dtposited with any clak or o f i c a ofany mnd of
the United W,or in any public office, or with any jdicia! orpublic o 5 c a ofh e United
States, shall be ihep under ihs title w imprisoned not more tban kyears, or both
(b) W
h-, M g the wstody ofmy such reed., proceeding, map, book, doarmeat, paper, or
other thing, wiIlllly and d a w f d y conads, removes, mutilates, obliterates, fddies, or destroys
the same, Bhall be fined unda this title or imprimned mot more than tbrae years, Mhth; d s h d
forfeit his office andbe disqualified ftwn ho?di~~gany office mdu the United States. As used in
this subsection, the t m u~ffi~e" does not include the oftice held by my pason as a reaired officer
ofthe Armed F o m of the United States.
[ Judicial Notice ]
1. ["A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void" World Wde VoIKrwagot
W d e r r , 444 US.286,29 I ; National Bmtk v. WiZey, 195 US 257; Penmyer v. Ne_t
95 US 7143
[ ",.. the .mpkmmbofdue process must b met Wore the court can properly assert in
persomnt j ~ c t i o n "WeZIsFargo v. W e b Fargo,556 F2d 406,416.1
[. Notification of legal xespnsibiity is we essential of due process of law."

C o d & v. Geaeral Combwdion Co., 269 US 385,3911
[. w A ~ w h i c h e i t h e r f o r b i & o r r e q ~ ~ d o ' m g o f m ~ i n ~ s o v a g u e t h a t
men ofcommon intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application, violates the tmntial of due process of law." Godly v. General
Comimction Co.. 269 U.S. 3 8539I]
[. nWheneverit appears that the court lacks subject matterjuzisdiction, the ant is
obliged to dismiss the adios" Elly v. Coastal Cop., 503 U.S. 131,136-37; U S. v.
Texar, 252 F. Supp 234,2541
[. " O n o e ~ c t i o is n challenged, the court cannotproceed when it clearly s p p e a ~ s

that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach maits, but, rather
should dismis~the &OIL'' Melo v, US,505 F.2d 10261
is no d i d o n to ignore lack ofjwidictio~~"

Joyce v. US,474 F 26 2151
Exhibit 2
August 26, 2009 Letter from BHO to CES
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 26,2009
Mr. Christopher Strunk

Unit 28 1
593 Vanderbilt Avenue
Dear Mr. Strunk:
Thank you for contacting the office of President Barack Obama. The
President appreciates your taking the time to voice your concerns and opinions.
We would like to be of assistance to you; however, due to the separation

of powers, it is not within our authority to become involved in legal matters. You
must resolve this issue through the judicial system.
Please be aware that you can visit www.usa.Pov or call 1-800-FEDINFO

for information about Federal Government assistance.
We hope your concerns are resolved to your satisfaction.
Again, thank you for your correspondence.
Sincerely,
F. Michael Kelleher
.. Special Assistant to the President and
Director of Presidential Correspondence
Exhibit 3
March 22, 2011 filing; Strunk v NYS BOE etal. NYSSC Cty Kings Index 6500-2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS Index NO.: b
-------------------------------------------------
X
Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse
Plaintiff, Filed: March 22,20 11
-again&-
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;JAMES A.

WALSH I Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair,
EVELYN J. AQUILA 1 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 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 11,
a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC -
-
=*:
..-
STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; I
;, 1
STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES
PARTYOF NEW YORK STATE; R ~ G E RCALERO;
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 COMMI?TEE OF THE
INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF
THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; .
PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR
AMERICA; OBAMA WCTORYFUAQ MCCAIN WCTORY
2008; MCCRTN-PUN PTCTORY2008;; John and Jane Does;
and XYZ Entities.
Defendants.
................................................................................. X
SUMMONS
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Dated: March 22,2011
Brooklyn, New York
Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse plaintiff
593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281,
(845) 901-6767 E-mail: chris@strunk.ws
Exhibit 4
Affidavit of Service of BHO and Biden with Strunk v NYS BOE et al.

CES Petition W SCOTUS Rule 20 W Exhibits and Rule 22 Application For Stay in Re SCOTUS 10-1170 050511

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CES Petition W SCOTUS Rule 20 W Exhibits and Rule 22 Application For Stay in Re SCOTUS 10-1170 050511

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

No.

In The Supreme Court of the United States

Thomas J. Spargo, et al.

APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF THE SCHEDULE TO HEAR THE

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse

Solicitor General of the United States James E. Long, Esq.

Petitioner/s Affidavit in support of relief for Stay ………………………………………..1

enforcement of such judgment or decree may be stayed for a reasonable time to

Rule 22. application to a single associate justice.. .................................................1,2,3

Rule 23. application for a stay…………………………………….....................................2

Rule 34, paper format parameters …………………………………………………………1

Rule 39, poor person relief………………………………………………………………1,2,3

Strunk v NYS Board of Elections et al. NYS Supreme Court for

28 USC §1651 - petition for extraordinary writ …………………………………..……1

28 U. S. C. §2101(f) - application for a stay………………………………………………..2

To the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Associate Justice of the

STATE OF NEW YORK )

requiring confirmation that Affirmant is doing so as a poor person to be relieved of

financial hardship in doing so.

2. That Affirmant is a petitioner in the petition for a Writ of Certiorari signed

March 9, 2011 by H. William Van Allen, John-Joseph Forjone, Christopher-Earl

and the petition for Writ of Certiorari in SCOTUS NO. 10-1170.

SCOTUS No. 10-1170.

“ 1. A stay may be granted by a Justice as permitted by law.

1170, and is respectfully submitted for the following reasons:

Rule 39 which may require up to 60 days to review is completed;

and Rule 39 in re the Petition for Writ of Prohibition in re the Petition of

SCOTUS NO. 10-1170 may be reviewed and resolved;

c. Petitioner needs a stay so that in re Christopher-Earl Strunk in esse

petitioner with SCOTUS Rule 20 for an extraordinary Writ of Prohibition

Justice Elena Kagan, de facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor, de facto Solicitor

that each is challenged in quo warranto to provide proof of authority to serve

by reason of the stay.

7. This case presents a significant aspect of the present government crisis in

New York as a result of unconstitutional redistricting practice done by the New

redistricting of Assembly, Senate and New York U.S. House of Representative

involve several SCOTUS Justices as material witnesses therein who should be

accordingly; ; and know the contents thereof apply to me by misapplication and

following the General Election of November 4, 2008 as a continuing injury caused

In The Supreme Court of the United States

IN RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK IN ESSE

PETITION WITH RULE 20 FOR AN

EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS

OF THE CLERKS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION IN RE THE PETITION OF SCOTUS NO. 10-1170.

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse

Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer De facto Solicitor General Neal Katyal

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Solicitor General of the State of N.Y.

Ronald C. Machen Jr.

Petitioner’s Affidavit in support of Mandamus Relief ……………………………..........1

Petitioner Argument for Mandamus Relief………………………………………………...7

Conclusion in support of relief……………………………………………………………...13

Prohibition in re the petition for Writ of Certiorari of SCOTUS NO. 10-1170.

SCOTUS Rules (with emphasis added by petitioner):

SCOTUS Rule 20. Procedure on a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ………,1-7, 13

SCOTUS Rule 34. Document Preparation: General Requirements …………...1-7,13

SCOTUS Rule 39. Proceedings In Forma Pauperis ………………………………1-7,13

Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391..……………………………...7

Boswell v. Otis, 9 Howard 336, 348………………………………………………………….7

World Wide Volkswagen Woodsen, 444 U.S. 286, 291;

Strunk v NYS Board of Elections et al. NYS Supreme Court for

U.S. Constitution Article VII Fifth Amendment No person …. be deprived of life,

U.S. Constitution Article VII Ninth Amendment. The enumeration in the