11-02-2008 – US Supreme Court – Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus Supporting Documents

Christopher Earl Strunk’s Declaration under SCOTUS Rule 22 in Support of Application to the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsberg for an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus under SCOTUS Rule 21 for a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ and Rule 23 Injunctive Relief with as of right a direct Emergency Appeal taken from 2nd Circuit Judge Robert A. Katzmann’s DENIAL of the Emergency Motion for a Panel to rehear THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS in the Original Proceeding in Second Circuit case 08-5422-OP, with a request for a Temporary Restraining Order under 28 USC §1651 of the New York Electoral College pending issuance of an order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia of records demanded of the U.S. Department of State under the Verified Complaint and Petition for Writ of Mandamus under F.O.I.A., and a Writ of Mandamus for remand for  preliminary hearing under FRCvP 65(b) in EDNY 08-CV-4289 with October 28, 2008 Civil Judgment from the Memorandum and Order of
District Judge Allyne R. Ross

I, Christopher Earl Strunk, a natural born sovereign citizen of the State of New York and United  States of America pr se without being an attorney, declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to  28 U.S.C. §1746 as follows:

1. Declarant makes this Declaration under SCOTUS Rule 22 in Support of Application to the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsberg or if the Justice were to recuse under 28 USC 455 the Honorable Clarence Thomas as the alternate for an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus that at the Justice’s discretion would apply under 28 USC §1651 for Temporary Restraining Order Injunctive Relief of the New York Electoral College pending issuance of an order by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia or court of competent jurisdiction of all the records demanded of the U.S. Department of State under the Verified Complaint and Petition for Writ of Mandamus under F.O.I.A. (see R22 –A- 463 thru 503), and

2. That declarant requests an expedited emergency Appeal taken from 2nd Circuit Judge Robert A. Katzmann’s DENIAL (see R22 –A- 417) of the Emergency Motion for a Circuit Panel to rehear THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS in the Original Proceeding in Second Circuit case 08-5422-OP as a matter of substantive due process involving fundamental rights, with request for remand to in EDNY 08-CV-4289 with October 28, 2008 Civil Judgment from the Memorandum and Order of District Judge Allyne R. Ross (see R22 –A-505 thru 512).

3. On November 26, 2008, in the 08-5422-OP original proceeding Judge Katzmann ordered that: “the emergency motion for panel reconsideration of the Court’s November 14, 2008 order denying a writ of mandamus and for a TRO of the NY Electoral College pending issuance by the District Court for the District of Columbia of records requested under the Freedom of Information Act is DENIED”.

4. That for the purposes of this SCOTUS Rule 22 application only, declarant provides the separate bound Appendix with pages marked from R22 -A-1 thru R22 –A-416 listed under the Appendix Index to Exhibits for the entire State and Federal record of my effort from October 16, 2008 thru November 19, 2008 only.

5. That annexed under this supporting declaration are the most current and germane exhibits that focus on this instant motion before the Court for expedited injunctive relief with Exhibits from November 19, 2008 through this date December 2, 2008 that are listed in the Table of Contents proceeding this Declaration for pages marked R22 –A- 417 through  R22 –A- 521.

6. That Declarant separately seeks an order of mandamus of the United State Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by an original proceeding under FRAP Rule 21   of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to expedite declarant’s application for poor person relief (see R22 –A-459 thru 462) that according to the U.S.P.S. was received by the Clerk in the District of Columbia on November 26, 2008 (see R22 –A- 515).

7. Declarant place for service is at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New Petitioner Declaration under SCOTUS Rule 22 – Page 2 of 9
York 11238; Email: uncasvotes2@yahoo.com Cell- (845) 901-6767.

8. Declarant is an active voter within the New York 57th Assembly District (AD) and NY 18th Senate District (SD) created in April 2002.

9. Declarant is an enrolled New York State Republican Party member having voted at the General Election of November 4, 2008, and

10. That on November 4, 2008, declarant cast an advisory vote for the Republican Party candidate slate for the Electoral College without knowledge that Republican candidate John S. McCain failed to have met the eligibility requirements to run for a Presidential Candidate and is prohibited like Barry Soetoro (a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama) to run for President.

11. Declarant’s vote at any public election is  proprietary intangible property that the owner under penalty of law may not sell or give for another’s use, and as such is a solitary perishable piece of property that is fragile and subject to degradation, dilution and wasting as a result of the malicious acts of those with fiduciary responsibly under a public trust who have not preformed due diligence to ascertain the eligibility of McCain and or Soetoro (a/k/a Obama) to be a candidate for president, and as such have by spoliation takes my republican party vote.

12. Declarant seeks to provide as is my right under the first amendment to the Federal Constitution the necessary travel and FOIA information with which to further inform the electoral college of New York, in that they have the fiduciary responsibility to me and those similarly situated as a public office of trust or profit to perform due diligence to ascertain whether or not Mr. Soetoro is eligible for the Presidency; and in which I believe he is not and am suffering from denial of my right to petition the Electors in the most effective way with the necessary records that would provide prima facie proof of whether he was a natural born citizen within the United States or its possession under United States jurisdiction as required in the 14th Amendment Section 1 to and Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

13. That the matter presented herein for a temporary restraining order of the Electoral College of New York is time barred and would result in irreparable harm if not freely issued by the court by December 15, 2008, and or until the presidential eligibility matter is resolved with real proof of being a natural born citizen of the United States or its territories as under U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 Clause 5.

14. That pending further order of this court or one of competent jurisdiction declarant requests that it be ORDERED of the duly elected 31 candidates of the New York Electoral College slate having been Certified on or about December 1, 2008 including persons filling any vacancies for those listed for the Democratic Party Committee Presidential Elector Slate under the names of: Velda Jeffrey, June F. O’Neill, Dennis Mehiel, David A. Paterson, Andrew
Cuomo, Thomas P. DiNapoli, Sheldon Silver, Malcom Smith, Maria Luna, Robert Master, Pamela Green-Perkins, Helen D. Foster, Jon Cooper, Hakeem Jeffries, Richard Fife, Deborah A. Slott, Terrence Yang, George Arthur, George Gresham, Alan Van Capelle, Inez Dickens, Suzy Ballantyne, Alan Lubin, Bethaida Gonzalez, Christine Quinn, William Thompson, Stuart Applebaum, Maritza Davila, Ivan Young, Barbara Fiala, Frank A. Bolz, III (“New York
Electoral College”), are to be restrained from voting for candidate Barack Hussein Obama until the eligibility question is satisfied; and furthermore,

15. That on October 17, 2008 I filed the FOIA request of the U.S. Department of State for travel records (see R22 –A- 482 thru 489).

16. That as of this date Declarant has received no response whatsoever from the U.S. Department of State in regards to the October 17, 2008 FOIA request or the request made on November 22, 2008, see R22 –A-490 thru 499.

17. On November 10, 2008 I filed an original proceeding 08-5422-OP for a writ of Mandamus at the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals to obtain a Judicial Subpoena of public travel records from the United States Department of State under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. subsection 552; and

18. On November 14, 2008, Circuit Judge Katzman denied my petition 08-5422-OP without comment; see R22 –A- 441.

19. On November 17, 2008, in light of the denial from 2nd Circuit for a Judicial Subpoena Duces Tecum I filed a proposed Order to Show Cause for a TRO and Stay in the New York State Supreme Court in the County of Kings Strunk versus Paterson et al. with Index no.: 29642/08, that on November 19, 2008 the Honorable Justice David I. Schmidt declined to sign due to collateral estoppel because Circuit Judge Katzman had denied me the same relief there in
Federal Court, see R22 –A- 445 thru 450.

20. At the Cornell Law School Website for the annotated United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 for Presidential qualifications quote:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

21. Cornell summarizes the qualification dicta as follows by stating that all Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Independence. The only issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause, which appears to be susceptible of argument, is whether a child born abroad of American parents is “a natural born citizen” in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute. Whatever the term “natural born” means, it no doubt does not include a person who is “naturalized.” Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens. Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .” This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects,
would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural–born subjects of the crown. There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a “case or controversy” as well as how it might decide it can only be speculated about?

22. The case proof turned on an awaited FOIA request information to be provided by the U.S. Department of State under 5 USC § 552, and for which the court did not deem important enough to consider; notwithstanding that anyone denied information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. (1994) has standing to sue regardless of his or her reasons.  Akins vs.FEC, 322 US. App. D.C. 58; 101 F.3d 731; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 31253 (1996), 524 U.S. 11 (1998);  Public Citizen vs. FTC, 276 U.S. App. D.C. 222, 869 F.2d 1541(D.C. Cir. 1989).

23. Petitioner / Plaintiff has suffered an informational injury as a voter and member of the public; and the lack of information on Mr. Soetoro’s citizenship, caused by the U.S. Department of State action and of the named parties in the caption that limited the information available to him as a voter and impaired his ability to influence and inform the public and policymakers, which is clearly a first amendment right issue afforded standing under the Civil Rights Act.

24.  If a party is denied information that will help it in making a voting decision that party is obviously injured in fact; and as stated in Akins, the court noted that: “[a] voter deprived of useful information at the time he or she votes suffers a particularized injury in some respects unique to him or herself just as a government contractor, allegedly wrongfully deprived of information to be made available at the time bids are due, would suffer a particularized injury even if all other bidders also suffered an injury.”

25. As of Monday, November 17, 2008, licensed attorneys had filed four (4) separate lawsuits in PA, NJ, CT and CA to prevent Mr. Obama from assuming the Office of the President of the United States unless he provides documentary evidence proving he is a natural born citizen of the United States.

26. Attorney Phil Berg filed his suit in federal court in Pennsylvania on behalf of himself. He sued Mr. Obama and the Democrat National Committee. His primary arguments are:

a) if Mr. Obama was born in Kenya as the facts indicate, he is ineligible because his father was a Kenyan citizen and his mother had not been a US citizen for five years following the age of 14;

and b) whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii, his mother relinquished her (and therefore his) American citizenship when he was 4 years of age and she married an Indonesian citizen, moved to Indonesia and became a naturalized Indonesian citizen. His case was dismissed for “lack of standing.”

He has appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States by filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari (a plea to SCOTUS to hear an appeal from the lower Court’s decision).

Defendants have notified SCOTUS they will not be filing a memorandum in opposition to Berg’s plea. Within a few weeks after December 1st, the nine justices of the SCOTUS will decide if they will hear Berg’s case. Berg v Obama, 08A391

27. Attorney Leo Donofrio filed his suit in federal court in New Jersey on behalf of himself. He sued the New Jersey Secretary of State, Nina Mitchell Wells. His argument is based on the historical context and purpose (the “original intent”) of the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution. He argues that to be a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, Mr. Obama’s father and mother both had to be US citizens and Mr. Obama had to be born on US soil. Mr. Obama’s father was not Kenyan citizen and Mr. Obama may have been born in Kenya. Donofrio v Wells, 08A407

28. Attorneys Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep from the United States Justice Foundation filed their suit in State Court in California on behalf of a presidential candidate and his running mate who were on the ballot in California on the American Independent Party line – i.e., Alan Keyes and Willey Drake. They sued the CA Secretary of State and each of the 55 state electors (CA members of the Electoral College scheduled to cast their votes for Mr. Obama on December 15). Their principle argument is that they not only have standing to sue, the 55 state electors cannot cast their votes for Mr. Obama until the Secretary of State completes her ministerial task of determining if Mr. Obama is eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, a task
she failed to undertake prior to the Primary and General Elections.

29. On November 19, 2008 I spoke with the attorney Orly Taitz co-counsel with Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation in the case Keyes et al. v Bowen et al. stated in response to my efforts to obtain the travels records of Mr. Obama’s mother from the US Department of State that their investigator had been working on obtaining the same records for the last six weeks starting from the week of October 5, 2008 with no success.

30. Declarant understands that on December 5, 2008 there are three related natural born eligibility cases that will be presented at conference by the Honorable Clarence Thomas and as such I desire that this also be considered there.

31. These issues can be easily resolved; the documents requested will either prove that Mr. Obama is in fact a “natural born” U.S. Citizen or they will prove he is not, at which point he will have to be removed as the Presidential candidate and requires a restraint upon the Electoral College vote cast and certified on or after December 15.2008.

32. For the above aforementioned reasons, the FOIA requested documents are of great public interest and without receiving said docwnents by order of the US Department of State: our military is at risk of allowing an illegal candidate to serve as President of the United States which constitutes a huge National Security dilemma.

Wherefore relief is respectfully requested by.