strunk response to defendants nom to renew summary judgment w exhibits usdc dc 08-cv-2234

144
PLAINTIFF STRUNK’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, declare, certify, verify, and state under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 1746 that: 1. I am the Plaintiff herein with my place for service located at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn New York 11238, Phone: 845-901-6767 and email: [email protected] . 2. This is my response as ordered by Richard J. Leon USDJ on Friday April 12, 2012 (see Exhibit A ).to respond to the remaining Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subdivision U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) counsel’s Renewed motion for summary judgment filed March 30, 2012 by no later than April 30, 2012 as to the travel records of Stanley Ann Dunham also with the married surnames Obama and or Soetoro of exit ingress around the period of August 4, 1961 of the purported birth date of the Usurper Muslim in Chief Strunk Response to Defendant’s Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 1 of 9

Upload: chris-strunk

Post on 29-Jul-2015

116 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Plaintiff Strunk response as ordered by Richard J. Leon USDJ on Friday April 12, 2012 (see Exhibit A).to respond to the remaining Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subdivision U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) counsel’s Renewed motion for summary judgment filed March 30, 2012 by no later than April 30, 2012 as to the travel records of Stanley Ann Dunham also with the married surnames Obama and or Soetoro of exit ingress around the period of August 4, 1961 of the purported birth date of the Usurper Muslim in Chief having been duly fired by Plaintiff January 23, 2009 (Usurper); however nevertheless the Usurper has direct control and authority over the executive branch departments and agencies including DHS and CBP and all records now withheld as the requested documents by Plaintiff.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

PLAINTIFF STRUNK’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, declare, certify, verify, and state under penalty of

perjury with 28 USC 1746 that:

1. I am the Plaintiff herein with my place for service located at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281

Brooklyn New York 11238, Phone: 845-901-6767 and email: [email protected].

2. This is my response as ordered by Richard J. Leon USDJ on Friday April 12, 2012 (see

Exhibit A).to respond to the remaining Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security

(DHS) subdivision U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) counsel’s Renewed motion for

summary judgment filed March 30, 2012 by no later than April 30, 2012 as to the travel records

of Stanley Ann Dunham also with the married surnames Obama and or Soetoro of exit ingress

around the period of August 4, 1961 of the purported birth date of the Usurper Muslim in Chief

Strunk Response to Defendant’s Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 1 of 9

Page 2: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

having been duly fired by Plaintiff January 23, 2009 (Usurper); however nevertheless the

Usurper has direct control and authority over the executive branch departments and agencies

including DHS and CBP and all records now withheld as the requested documents by Plaintiff.

3. That Plaintiff has reviewed the declaration of the Dorothy Pullo, the director of the FOIA

Division in Washington DC appointed by the Usurper on April 26, 2010; and object to her

declaration as incomplete in that she was not the director at the time I started this quest on

November 22, 2008.

4. Cutting to the chase Director Pullo cites the explanation for FOIA exemption asserted quote:

Strunk Response to Defendant’s Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 2 of 9

Page 3: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

5. That this FOIA quest was started in conjunction with my case Strunk v Paterson et al. in

New York State Supreme Court for the County Kings with Index No.: 2008-29642 still active

before the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. with a consolidation motion in the related case

Strunk v NYS Board of Election et al. with Index No.: 2011- 6500 filed March 22, 2011 assigned

to Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. who denied such consolidation as of April 11, 2012 and ordered

Strunk to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous case and levied the

costs of defendants litigation therein, see the decision and order at

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2012/2012-ny-slip-op-50614-u.html .

Despite the miscarriage of justice by a Judge who also voted for the Usurper, Strunk contends

that the Usurper has unclean hands because he and his agents are involved in crimes of forgery,

falsification of government documents, spoliation and concealment with admissions against

interest that in a sane world would bar any perpetrator’s outrageous motion to dismiss as it is

against public policy. However, as a matter of judicial notice herein were this Court to regain

composure and recognize that the pied piper Usurper is a bad actor and should order the release

Strunk Response to Defendant’s Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 3 of 9

Page 4: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

of the documents requested of CBP as a matter of public interest that such magnanimous act

would spare Strunk further injury and loss of liberty and assist the Maricopa County Arizona

Sheriff’s Department (MCSD) COLD CASE POSSE (CCP) as the first such authority of

competent jurisdiction criminal investigation of the Usurper and his henchmen as to forgery,

falsification of documents, spoliation and concealment among other things of a criminal nature.

6. That prior to the April 11, 2012, Strunk affirmed his motion (see Exhibit B) in provision of

Judicial Notice to Arthur M. Schack in the case Strunk v NYS BOE Et al. Index No.: 2011-6500

for presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint (see

Exhibit C) that by previous request for leave of that court had been denied at the October 25,

2011 hearing as to the right to file a first amended complaint by Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. on the

U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 “Natural Born Citizen” (NBC) eligibility Issue

controlling matters in Trial Court and pending claims at the Court of Claims as time is of the

essence with irreparable harm with a hearing scheduled on the Calendar for April 24, 2012.

7. That on April 24, 2012 Judge Schack adjourned the motion shown as Exhibit B along with

other motions for his recusal and leave to seek direct appeal to the New York State Court of

Appeals on a constitutional matter under CPLR 5601 (b)(2) until June 18, 2012 after the Order to

Show cause hearing pending May 7, 2012 where sanctions and punishment without trial or

minimal provision of substantive due process and or admission of substantial evidence of

suspicion of fraud will be decided.

8. That as shown in exhibit B sub-exhibit 1 the March 1, 2012 MCSD’s Press Release and

Press Conference established in the Preliminary Report by the Sheriff’s COLD CASE POSSE ,

as an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate fraud and crimes committed by

the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an affirmation in 2007, that the Usurper Obama

Strunk Response to Defendant’s Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 4 of 9

Page 5: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

affirmed compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 requirement for

eligibility for “Natural-born citizen” shown as Exhibit 2 is the subject of perjury, and currently

the submission is pending before the Arizona primary now in 2012; and that the attached

Preliminary Report of the Sheriff’s COLD CASE POSSE shown as Exhibit B sub-exhibit 3

supports the suspicion with sufficient evidence that the Usurper Barack Obama now in control of

the requested documents was not even born in Hawaii between August 1 1961 through August 7,

1961 and that the Usurper and his agents of the Executive act to spoliate evidence of a crime and

have caused further direct injury to Strunk– Quote:

“Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.

During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable cause to

believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama’s life history including: President Obama’s Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document;

To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, records from the days surrounding Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 w[h]ere these immigration cards cannot be found. “

9. That the requested ingress - egress archive documents showing the travel of Stanley Ann

Dunham Obama are included among thousands of other private individual travel records for the

period August 1, 1961 through August 7, 1961 are essential for Strunk’s defense against

Strunk Response to Defendant’s Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 5 of 9

Page 6: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

sanctions and punishment and germane to the law enforcement investigation being conducted by

the CCP and MCSD as a matter of compelling public interest.

10. That the Usurper Muslim in Chief OBAMA presently has complete control and authority

over the entire executive including Defendants and their records kept at the National Archives,

is the authority who spoliates and conceals evidence essential for the Court herein to finalize this

case; and as such the Defendant’s herein summary judgment must be rejected by the Court as

the Executive branch operates with unclean hands as long as the Usurper spoliates and conceals

evidence required as a paramount public interest.

11. Based upon the foregoing Exhibits and related records in this case the Usurper Obama

spoliates and concealed evidence crucial for this case to be finalized and Strunk to be

exonerated; and that according to the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary that defines

“spoliation” as, “the intentional destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence,

usu. a document” (1). Spoliation most commonly becomes an issue in product liability and

negligent installation/servicing claims, where the defective product or the item negligently

installed/serviced goes missing after the loss, thereby limiting and/or precluding plaintiff from

being able to prove its claim. This loss is usually due to negligence, but in some instances the

loss is occasioned by intentional and willful conduct.

Elements of Spoliation

Within the jurisdictions which have recognized a separate independent tort, there is

variation as to what acts are considered to be independently actionable spoliation and against

whom an action may lay. The variances usually arise out of two categories:

1) spoliation committed by a party which is or should have been in the underlying suit for

which the missing evidence was to be used (first party) versus committed by a third party whose

Strunk Response to Defendant’s Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 6 of 9

Page 7: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

only connection to the underlying suit was the loss of the evidence; and

2) whether the spoliation was intentional or negligent. As the less culpable “negligent”

spoliation claim is usually not recognized as a stand alone tort, and is usually disposed off via

discovery sanctions (first party), this article will focus on the more affirmative and egregious

intentional spoliation, which – as noted above – first gave rise to spoliation as an affirmative

claim. Although each jurisdiction adds its own nuances to elements of an independent intentional

spoliation claim, the following form the foundation for the claim:

1) pending or probable litigation involving the spoliation plaintiff;

2) knowledge on the part of the spoliation defendant that said litigation exists or is probable;

3) willful [intentional] destruction of evidence by defendant designed to disrupt the spoliation

plaintiff’s underlying case;

4) disruption of spoliation plaintiff’s underlying case; and

5) damages proximately caused by spoliation defendant’s acts.

12. The concept of spoliation applies generally to the destruction of evidence and, like

perjury, goes to the heart of the judicial process. By statute and procedural rules, states and the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCVP) provide various sanctions for failing to comply with

discovery obligations to produce evidence which cover most problems and provide remedies

ranging from monetary compensation or penalties to entry of judgment. In addition or to

complete the coverage, states and the federal courts provide remedies by application of the

spoliation concept either as a procedural remedy within the case or as a separate tort. In federal

courts, the spoliation concept was recognized as early 1817 in The FORTUNA---Krause et al.

Claimants, infra, is based on the inherent power of courts to control abuses in litigation, and

often arises from a request for a jury instruction re adverse inference. Lewy v. Remington Arms

Strunk Response to Defendant’s Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 7 of 9

Page 8: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

(8th Cir 1988), 836 F.2d 1104 , 1111. Wigington v. CB Richard Ellis (10/24/03 N.D.Ill) [p.7 slip

opinion. "A party has a duty to preserve evidence over which it had control and 'reasonably

knew or could reasonably foresee was material to a potential legal action.' ..."A party must

preserve evidence that is properly discoverable under Rule 26. Discoverable evidence includes

electronic data such as e-mail."..."A party does not have to go to extraordinary measures to

preserve all potential evidence...It does not have to preserve every single scrap of paper in its

business...But a party must preserve evidence that it has notice is reasonably likely to be the

subject of a discovery request even before a request is actually received.... Notice may be

received before a complaint is filed if a party knows that litigation is likely to begin, or a party

may be alerted by the complaint...."]

13. That Defendants as an extension of the Executive under the control 0f Barck Obama all

have Unclean Hands for withholding the very simple documents that would clearly satisfy this

and Strunk’s other cases where he is being punished without due process. The clean hands

doctrine is a rule of law that someone bringing a lawsuit or motion and asking the court for

equitable relief must be innocent of wrongdoing or unfair conduct relating to the subject matter

of his/her claim. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant may claim in effect that under 5

USC 552 for withholding requested documents of a long dead person when she was a private

citizen married to a foreign alien, that the British Foreign office has recently listed as a party in

interest among terrorists in the Mau Mau movement (see Exhibit D) between August 1, 1961

through August 10, 1961 and that somehow plaintiff has "unclean hands" for requesting such

records flies in the face of this court as a fraud upon this court too.

14. However, the Defendants’ defense may not be used to put in issue conduct of the plaintiff

unrelated to plaintiff's claim here and in related cases in state court. The defendant must show

Strunk Response to Defendant’s Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 8 of 9

Page 9: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

that plaintiff has no compelling public interest in this matter or somehow misled the defendant or

has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration can not show that.

15. In this case for all of the above reasons of concealment, spoliation, participating in

forging of public documents, fraud, admission against interest inter alia bar this Court from

granting any relief requested by Defendants and the Usurper Obama's agents in the April 30,

2012 Motion to renew for summary judgment must be denied and an order for the microfilm

records released for the period of August 1, 196 1 through August 10, 196 1 at least and all

records as a matter of public interest.

16. That Defendants answer or otherwise respond to the MCSD's evidence of spoliation and

concealment as compelling evidence as a matter of compelling interest; and that Plaintiff be

granted a sur-reply and for different and other relief deemed necessary for justice herein.

I declare, certify, verify, and state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is tru-orrect.

Dated: April 'g, 2012 Brooklyn New York -- *G%

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Self-represented without an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 28 1 Brooklyn, New York 11238 Phone - 845-901-6767 Email: [email protected]

Attachments Exhibits A through D

Cc: Brigham J. Bowen (DC Bar No. 4 18925) Civil Division, U.S. Justice Department Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883,20 Massachusetts Avenue., N.W. Washington D.C. 20044

Maricopa County Sheriff's Department Cold Case Posse 100 West Washington, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85003

Strunk Response to Defendant's Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 9 of 9

Page 10: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Strunk v. US DOS and DHS USDC DC 08-cv-2234 (RJL) PLAINTIFF STRUNK’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Exhibit A

Page 11: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, 1

1 Plaintiff, )

) v.

- . . - . 1 ) . Civil Action No. 08-2234 (RJL) )

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 1 OF STATE, et ai., . j

) Defendants. 1

ORDER Sr-

April 1% ,2012

Defendants have filed a renewed motion for s'wnmary judgment with respect to plaintiffs

FOIA-request to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. ~ i c a u s e resolution of the motion could

potentially dispose of this case, the Court will advise the pro se plaintiff of his obligations under

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the rules of this Court.

In Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453,456 @.C. Cir. 1992), the Court of Appeals stated that the

district court must inform pro se litigants that, on a motion for summary judgment, "any factual

assertion in the movant's affidavits will be accepted . . . as being true unless [the opposing party]

submits his own aflidavits or other documentary evidence contradicting the assertion." 963 F.2d

at -- 456 (quoting Lewis v. Faulkner&9 F.2& 100, 102 (7th Cir. 1982)): The court specified that

the "text of Rule 56(e) should be part of the notice" issued to thepro se litigant. Id. Rule 56(e) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails

Page 12: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the -court may: (1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact; (2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion; (3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials--including the facts considered undisputed--show that the movant is entitled to it; or (4) issue any other appropriate order.

Fed R Civ. P. 5qe). Rule 56(c) provides:

(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

(2) Objection That a Fact Is Not Supported by Admissible Evidence. A party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.

(3) Materials Not Cited. The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record.

(4) Affidavits or Declarations. An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Thus, a party, such as plaintiff, who is adverse t oa motion for summary

judgment must rebut the moving party's affidavits with other affidavits or documentary evidence;

simple allegations that the moving party's affidavits are inaccurate or incorrect are not sufficient. -- - - --

For these purposes, averified com~intmapserve as iin affidavit. See ~ & l , 963 F.2d at 457-58.

In addition, the plaintiffs attention is directed to Local Civil Rule 7(b), which states:

Within . . . such . . . time as the court may direct, an opposing party shall serve and file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motion. If such a memorandum is not filed within

Page 13: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

the prescribed time, the court may treat the motion as conceded.

Local Civil Rule 7(b). Thus, failure to respond to the defendants' motion in this case carries with

! it the risk that judgment will be entered for the defendants.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file his opposition or other response to the

defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment no later than April 30,2012. If plaintiff does

not respond by that date, the Court may treat the motion as conceded and may enter judgment for

the defendants.

SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

Page 14: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Strunk v. US DOS and DHS USDC DC 08-cv-2234 (RJL) PLAINTIFF STRUNK’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Exhibit B

Page 15: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - 11 COUNTY OF KINGS I.A.S. Part 27 Index No.: 6500-2011

I x (Hon. Arthur M. Schack J.S.C) 1 4

Christopher-Earl: . Strunk, in esse L,

Plaintiff,

NOTICE OF MOTION

.C -

-against-

*

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; Et al.." I <

Defendants.

X I PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk

in esse, affhmed April 10,20 12 with exhibits annexed and memorandum of law, . ' I maintiff will move with CPLR §3025(b) in support of the notice of motion for I presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint filed

March 22,20 1 1 that by request for leave of the court having previously denied at the

October 25, 201 1 hearing for the right to file a first amended complaint; with the 9

motion return date on 479

before the Justice Arthur M. Schack at 360 Adams Sheet Brooklyn New York 11201,

or at a time designated by the court or as soon thereafter as counsel cah be heard.

~ a t e d : April !Q, 2012 BrookIyn New York

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Plaintiff self-represented wlo attorney 1 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28k - I Brooklyn, New York 11238 Ph. 845-901-6767

[email protected] - I I 1

cc: see service list that follows: ,

I I

Page 16: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Erica Burke, Esq. of SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York. New York 10017-3954 Todd E. Phillips, Esq. of CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED One Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 HARRIS BEACH, PLLC By THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553 JAMES C. DUGAN Esq. of WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y. 10019-6099 MARSHAL BELL, Esq. of McGUIRWOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Americas, 7th Floor New York, New York 10105 WILEY REIN LLP - TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ. , 1776K Street, NW Washington D.C. 20006 RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, PC – Christopher J. Latell Esq. and Daniel S. Reich Esq. 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New York 10006-3791 ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of NYS by: JOEL GRABER, Esq. AAG Assistant Attorney General 120 BROADWAY – 24th Floor New York, New York 10271-0332 MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By: CHLARENS ORSLAND, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007

Page 17: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS IAS Part 27 Index No.: 6500-2011 ---------------------------------------------------------------------x Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse (Hon. Arthur M. Schack J.S.C) Plaintiff, -against- PLAINTIFF’S NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. AFFIDAVIT IN WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. SUPPORT OF THE PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; NOTICE OF MOTION ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMÍ COLÓN, in their Official and FOR PRESENTMENT individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; OF EVIDENCE PETER G. PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH OF FORGERY AND (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC SPOLIATION AS STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES SUPPLEMENT TO PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; RÓGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; THE COMPLAINT JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; BY REQUEST FOR THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF LEAVE OF THE COURT THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities. Defendants.

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

Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say

under penalty of perjury:

Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 1 of 9

Page 18: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

1. That Petitioner Christopher Earl Strunk (Plaintiff, Affirmant) submits this affidavit

under CPLR §3025(b), in support of the notice of motion for presentment of evidence of

forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint that by previous request for

leave of the court having been denied at the October 25, 2011 hearing the right to file

a first amended complaint by Arthur M. Schack J.S.C.

2. Petitioner is located for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -281 Brooklyn, New York

11238 (845) 901-6767 email: [email protected].; and is a duly registered voter in the

2008 and 2012 election cycle, and that Plaintiff has not sought this relief before.

3. That there are several motions pending a decision including the essential motion

for transfer and consolidation with the active case, Index No. 29642-2008 as yet

decided and the Motion for leave of direct appeal of constitutional issues to the Court

of Appeals involving the term “Born a Citizen” adjourned until Tuesday April 24, 2012.

EVIDENCE OF FORGERY, SPOLIATION AND CONCEALMENT

4. That subsequent to the October 25, 2011 hearing, that on March 1, 2012, the

Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff’s Press Release (see Exhibit 1) and Press Conference

established that there is the Preliminary Report by the Sheriff’s COLD CASE POSSE ,

as an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate fraud and crimes

committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an affirmation in 2008

that Respondent Obama affirmed compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2

Section 1 Paragraph 5 requirement for eligibility for “Natural-born citizen” with a

picture of the Sheriff’s webpage appended (see Exhibit 2) and currently before the

Arizona primary now in 2012; and that the attached Preliminary Report of the Sheriff’s

COLD CASE POSSE (see Exhibit 3) supports the suspicion with sufficient evidence

that Respondent Barack Obama was not even born in Hawaii between August 1 1961

through August 10, 1961 and acts to spoliate evidence of a crime – Quote:

Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 2 of 9

Page 19: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

“Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate. During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama’s life history including:. President Obama’s Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document; To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, records from the days surrounding Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 w[h]ere these immigration cards cannot be found. “ 5. Further, that according to the Preliminary Report of the COLD CASE POSSE

shown as Exhibit 3, the purported Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form (see

Exhibit 4) is a forged document as submitted to the entire nation by Respondent

Barack Obama and attorneys at his April 27, 2011 at the Washington DC Press

Conference according to the transcript (see Exhibit 5); and

6. The Forged document shown as Exhibit 4 also now joins the previously 2008

proffered CoLB short form document that is a forgery as well based upon the

admissions of the Respondent Obama and his attorneys there at the White House at

the April 27, 2011 press conference . In the transcript shown as Exhibit 5, that at the

April 27, 2011 press conference the White House attorney repeatedly said that

Respondent Obama had requested the short form CoLB in 2008 from the State of

Hawaii be released. However, examination by Petitioner of the supposed document

Hawaii supposedly released in 2008 is in fact is stamped June 6, 2007 (see Exhibit 6)

as shown by the FactCheck.org report on August 21, 2008; and the later as the

Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 3 of 9

Page 20: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

November 21, 2008 report appended shows the so-called Factcheck.org investigators,

depended on by members of Congress and Media, were partisan amateurs according

to “Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do Forensics; NH SOS and Certificates;

British Policeman on Eligibility”, and thereby all the foregoing provides sufficient

suspicion of fraud and or statements made as admission against interest as a bar

under clean hands doctrine of irrefutable presumption of wrong doing by Respondent

Obama and his agents in 2008 and continuing currently.

7. That Plaintiff in his November 22,2008 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

request of the U.S. Department of State (US DOS) and related agency for the passport

and travel records of Respondent Obama’s mother Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama)

(Soetoro) for the period before and after August 4, 1961, received on July 29, 2010 a

transmittal of documents certified from the attorney for the U.S. DOS; and on the FS-

299 Application for renewal dated August 13, 1968 Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro

removed “Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah” from her subsequent Passport (see

Exhibit 7), therein proving that Respondent Obama had been renamed by his adoptive

father Lolo Soetoro, the Indonesian Army Lt. Colonel having married Stanley Ann

Dunham subsequent to her divorce from Barack Hussein Obama Sr. in 1963; and

8. Further, Plaintiff contends that the additional evidence of forgery of the

Selective Service record before the 2008 election along with the theft and tampering of

the US DOS Passport records by US DOS private contractor entity under the control of

John Brennan currently Respondent Obama’s White House Counter Terrorism advisor

having previously been assistant to Central Intelligence Director George Tenent, and

as such underlines the suspicion why the microfilm records from the National

Archives are missing now as well, as both agencies are under the direct authority and

control of Respondent Obama, the apparent usurper in the office of POTUS, and by his

Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 4 of 9

Page 21: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

refusal to make such microfilm and the missing U.S. DOS records referenced in the

cover letter shown in Exhibit 6 provide the Court herein with substantial direct

available proof that Respondent Obama is now directly acting in a continuing pattern

to spoliate evidence.

9. As Further evidence, Plaintiff provides additional proof that Respondent Obama,

in a continuing pattern acted to spoliate evidence of his adoptive status as an

Indonesian citizen and the ramifications that would have on his law license in Illinois

and plans to seek the office of US Senator in 2005 and POTUS in 2008, perjured

himself on the application for entry to the Illinois bar affirmed he had no other name

(see Exhibit 8).

10. That Affirmant testified in a ballot access hearing in Atlanta Georgia on

January 26, 2012 before Judge Malihi in Atlanta Georgia with the entire proceeding

video of sworn testimony at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Uuxq1i_CX-w

11. That Plaintiff was present during the sworn testimony of Witness John

Sampson, retired INS False Document Special Investigator, at the January 26, 2012

hearing as an expert witness who when asked if he would have issued an arrest

warrant of Barack Obama as a person having filed falsified documents to the

government based upon what the witness has seen said “YES!”

12. That in light of the compelling evidence provided by the Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office of forgery and spoliation associated with the Defendant Barack Obama

and his agents and as a precedent to date as the only authority of competent

jurisdiction to have an ongoing criminal investigation with press conferences releasing

additional evidence and continued findings every 30 days starting March 1, 2012 as

shown as Exhibit 1, an update released on March 31, 2012, related to the targeted

Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 5 of 9

Page 22: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

spoliation of the U.S. National Archive microfilm spool of all travel records dating

August 1, 1961 through August 10, 1961 and the concealment of records of Defendant

Obama’s Selective Service record proven as a criminal forgery by Defendant Obama

and or his agents carrying a jail term of five years and $250,000.00 fine in submission

of a forged document to the Selective service and in addition the forgery of a U.S.

Postal Service date stamp.

13. That in light of the compelling evidence provided by the Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office of forgery and spoliation associated with the Defendant Barack Obama

and his agents, Affirmant includes as germane in this supplement to the complaint

copies of letters U.S. Congressmen released to Affirmant by a journalist for publication

herein as demonstrative of statements by congressmen dating from November 11,

2008 through February 2009 that demonstrates Congressional confusion in what

constitutes eligibility with use of U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 for

office of POTUS in their conflation of the term “Born a Citizen” as a 14th amendment

with the term of art “natural-born Citizen”, see Exhibit 9 for the copy of the entire

content of each letter quoted below with excerpts as follows:

Senator Jim Bunning defers to INA, 14th Amend. and courts on November 11,

2008 wrote:

Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 6 of 9

Page 23: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Senator Sherrod Brown defers to BHO June 2008 CoLB on November 12, 2008 wrote:

Senator Jon Kyl defers to the internet on December 1, 2008 wrote:

Rep Ed Whitfield relies on News media & “proper authorities” on December 4, 2008

wrote:

Senator Sessions with disinterest relies on the courts on December 16, 2008 wrote:

Senator Sessions then relies on BHO June 2008 the CoLB on January 23, 2009

wrote:

Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 7 of 9

Page 24: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Senator Shelby relies on BHO June 2008 CoLB and Hawaii on January 29, 2009

wrote:

Rep. Steve King defers to the 14th Amendment on January 29, 2009 wrote:

Senator Feinstein deferring to the 14th Amendment on February 2, 2009 wrote:

Rep Sanford D. Bishop relies on Factcheck.org verification as shown at Exhibit 7 on

February 6, 2009 wrote:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff in support of the notice of motion for presentment of evidence

of forgery and spoliation as a supplement to the complaint wishes leave of the Court

and having previously been denied at the October 25, 2011 hearing the right to file a

first amended complaint, now as a matter of compelling state interest grant an order:

Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 8 of 9

Page 25: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

That this affidavit be admitted as a supplement to the complaint filed ~ & c h 22, -

2011.

That the copy of the purported Certificate of Live Birth long form dated April

25, 20 1 1 released by Defdndant Barack Obama at his April 27, 20 1 1 Press

Conference included in Exhibit by Plaintiff in his response to Defendant

Obama's motion to dismiss be deemed evidence of Defendant's release of a

forgery rather than a documentation of Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii and

that at this point is not only in question but supports suspicion of his birth

overseas according to the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office.

That Defendants answer or otherwise respond to the supplement with

compelling evidence as a matter of compelling state interest; and

for different and other relief deemed necessary for justice herein.

That the foregoing matter involves irreparable harm as time is of the essence

without any alternative forum for relief that cbmpounds Plaintiffs injury along with

those similarly situated; hereby verifies the evidence submitted wherewith and that

the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be

alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The

grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as

follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

Sworn to before me This /D day of April 20 12

HARRY HELFENBAUM Commissioner of Deeds

Commission Expires June 30,20

Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of Motion- . . . Page 9 of 9

Page 26: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT

Exhibit 1

Page 27: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081

Media Contact: [email protected]

1

SHERIFF ARPAIO RELEASES PRELIMINARY

FINDINGS ON

OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Arpaio suspects forgery

March 1, 2012

(Phoenix, AZ) Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a press conference today told

reporters, “A six month long investigation conducted by my cold case posse has lead

me to believe there is probable cause to believe that President Barack Obama’s long-

form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is a computer-

generated forgery. I do not believe that it is a scan of an original 1961 paper

document, as represented by the White House when the long-form birth certificate

was made public.”

This is the principle preliminary finding of a six-month on-going Sheriff’s Cold Case

Posse law enforcement investigation into the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate

and his eligibility to be president.

Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in

creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or

unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in

fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the

American public at large as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961

Hawaii long-form birth certificate.

During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable cause to

believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators

began examining other evidence of President Obama’s life history including:.

Page 28: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081

Media Contact: [email protected]

2

President Obama’s Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed

by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document;

To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United

States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service

cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights

that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those

records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly,

records from the days surrounding Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7,

1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 were these immigration cards

cannot be found.

When and Why Sheriff’s investigators became involved

In August 2011, 250 members of the Surprise Arizona Tea Party, residents of

Maricopa County, presented a signed petition asking Sheriff Arpaio to undertake this

investigation.

The Tea Party members petitioned under the premise that if a forged birth certificate

was utilized to obtain a position for Barack Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential

ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised.

Sheriff Arpaio agreed to accept the investigation and assigned it to his “Cold Case

Posse” at no expense to the tax payers for a thorough examination. The Sheriff’s Cold

Case Posse, consisting of former law enforcement officers and lawyers with law

enforcement experienced, spoke to dozens of witness and examined hundreds of

documents, and took numerous sworn statements from witnesses around the world.

Additional findings by investigators

Page 29: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081

Media Contact: [email protected]

3

Suspecting that the long form birth certificate is a computer generated forgery, they

now say they have identified persons of interest in the case.

Sheriff’s Investigator Mike Zullo says, “We have also determined during the course of

our investigation that the Hawaii Department of Health engaged in what we believe is

a systematic effort to hide any original 1961 birth records that they may have in their

possession.”

Sheriff Arpaio added, “A continuing investigation is needed to not only understand

more about the creation of the alleged birth certificate forgery, but also to determine

who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized it.”

The Matter of the Selective Service Registration Card

Sheriff’s Investigators were then led to investigate President’s Obama selective

service registration card allegedly filled out in Hawaii in 1980.

Investigators compared Obama’s card to others filled out in same year and to at least

two cards filled out in the same local.

The year stamp that is used on selective service registration cards should include all

four digits of the year, for example 1980, the year Obama may have registered with

selective service. However, investigators note that Obama’s registration card is highly

unusual having a year stamp including only two digits, “80” which appears to be an

inverted number. Additionally, those numbers are offset by a significant amount

suggesting that the stamp was somehow manually manipulated.

Investigators use video presentations to back up the evidence

The Cold Case Posse produced six technical videos to demonstrate why the Obama

long-form birth certificate is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery. The

videos were designed to display the testing used by the investigators to examine

Page 30: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081

Media Contact: [email protected]

4

various claims made when the April 27 document was posted on the White House

website for public dissemination. The videos consisted of step-by-step computer

demonstrations using a control document.

They also illustrate point-by-point the investigators conclusion that the features and

anomalies observed on the Obama long-form birth certificate were inconsistent with

features produced when a paper document is scanned, even if the scan of the paper

document had been enhanced by Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and optimized.

Additionally, the videos demonstrated that the Hawaii Department of Health

Registrar’s name stamp and the Registrar’s date stamp were computer-generated

images imported from an unknown source into an electronic document, as opposed to

actual rubber stamp imprints inked by hand or machine onto a paper document.

“The fact that we were able to cast reasonable suspicion on the authenticity of the

Registrar stamps is especially disturbing, since these stamp imprints are designed to

provide government authentication to the document itself,” Zullo said.” If the

Registrar stamps are forgeries, then the document itself is a forgery.”

“As I said at the beginning of the investigation,” Arpaio said, “the President can easily

put all of this to rest. All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health

release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic

examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm, and computer birth records the Hawaii

Department of Health has.”

Arpaio further stressed the Hawaii Department of Health needs to provide, as part of

the full disclosure, evidence regarding the chain of custody of all Obama birth records,

including paper, microfilm, and electronic records, in order to eliminate the possibility

that a forger or forgers may have tampered with the birth records.

“Absent the authentic Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack

Obama, there is no other credible proof supporting the idea or belief that this President

was born in Hawaii, or in the United States for that matter, as he and the White House

have consistently asserted,” Arpaio said.

Page 31: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081

Media Contact: [email protected]

5

Conclusive remarks

Sheriff Arpaio stresses that these are preliminary findings and concluded by

suggesting a Congressional investigation might be warranted. Arpaio asked that any

other law enforcement agency with information referencing this investigation be

forwarded to his office.

“I want to make this perfectly clear. I am not accusing the sitting President of the

United States of committing a crime. But there remain a lot of questions which beg for

answers and we intend to move forward with this investigation in pursuit of those

answers, hopefully with the cooperation of all parties involved,” Arpaio said.

Links to the Videos Used during the press conference are below.

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ID_KfcmG9gs

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S40WKxKSlHc

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jzDWmXNBvto

4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yQ0Wvp91JXg

5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3S6O_AjIln8

6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CHAM3hRI8_Y

Page 32: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 33: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT

Exhibit 2

Page 34: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 35: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

I 2001 1fE t 3 Pb! 3: 0 1

CANDIDATE NOMINATION PAPER (A.R.S. 5 16-/!42)

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 9 You are hereby notified that I, %rack

am seeking nomination as a candidate for the offid of President of the United States from the Democratic Pbrty, at the Presidential Preference Election

to be held on the 5th day of February 2008.

I am a natural born citlzen of the United ~ts/tes, am at least thirty-five years of age, and

have been a resident within the United States for at least fourteen years.

5046 South Greenwood Avenue, ~hiod~o. IL 60615 CandMate's actual residence address or description of p+ of residence (city or town) (zip)

Obama for America, 233 North ~ i c h j ~ a n Avenue. 11th Floor, Chicag Candidate's Post Office Address

, I (city or town) (zip)

8666i9

I

Candidate's Arizona committee information: 1 Chairman's Name Don B ivens 1

602-298-4200 Telephone I I

2910 N o r t h central1 Avenue, Phoen ix AZ 85012 Address

(number and street) (city or town) (zip)

Page 36: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

RECEIVED SECRETARY OF STATE

Q ~ a m 1

I am not )

a registered voter in the I stete in which I resi8@7 DEC 1 3 32 0 I

a member of the politiql party from which I am running as a

candidate for Re oRce (oi President of the United States.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that all the information in this Nomination Paper is true, that as to these and all other qualifications, 1 am qualifieq to hold the office that I seek, having fulfilled the United States constitutional requirements for holding said office. I further swear (or affirm) that I have fulfilled Arizona's statutory requirement for pldcing my name on its Election ballot.

i

I

Subscnied AND SWORN to (or affirmed) before me this lu0 \ IC~13~f? PJ 20 -

My Co+tmission Expires: "3 - 3 1 - 2 0 1 0

File with:

Arizona Secretary of State Election Services Division 1700 West Washington Street, Floor Phoenix, Atbna 85007

Dffice Revision 8/21/2007

Page 37: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT

Exhibit 3

Page 38: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 1 of 10

Opening Statement:

I, Mara Zebest, am preparing this report at the request of Maricopa County Sheriff ’s Offi ce in support of the Cold Case Posse investigation.

The PDF birth certifi cate document released by the White House (shown in Figure 1) is a completely manufactured and fabricated computer generated image. The same source fi le was used to print a copy handed to the AP (shown in Figure 2), in which the AP scanned in the version handed to them. A third photograph version (Figure 3) was touted by Savannah Guthrie who claimed to have held and felt the seal on the document, but the original Internet posted images have been scrubbed.

The White House wants us to believe the PDF document started out in printed form on security paper retrieved from Hawaii—but this is not possible. All three versions manifest itself as a printed document only when the PRINT button is pressed from within the original manufactured document fi le. This would account for the transformation of a document containing diff erent color backgrounds, and the ability to print with or without safety paper pattern (by turning a layer on or off ).

There is no doubt in my mind that this computer generated image never started out as a paper source document and was never scanned in as described by the White House—it was digitally created and manufactured.

The bulk of this report will explain the evidence to support this, which will include the following points:

Inconsistencies within text characters: All anti-aliased text (in a color scan), or all bitmapped text (in a black & white scan)—not a mixture of both which is impossible in a legitimate document. Image noise should also be consistent throughout.

Chromatic aberration absent: A color scanned document would display chromatic aberration. This is physics and occurs in all color scans but is absent in Obama’s PDF document.

Layers: A normal scan is a fl at fi le and does not contain multiple layers. The Obama PDF contains 9 layers and grouped to a clipping mask layer.

Links: Indicate that components were pasted into the fi le, rotated, and resized.

Clipping Mask Path hides image information: Proof of manipulation.

Safety paper and white halo: Manufactured in fi nal steps.

Figure 2: A printout was given to AP which they scanned

Blue background color

and no safety paper

Figure 1: PDF fi le released from White House

Green safety paper

background

Figure 3: Savannah Guthrie photo claim to verify document

Safety paper background

with a gray/blue color

Page 39: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 2 of 10

Figure 5: Font Properties of Obama’s PDF fi le

Document Font Properties

of original PDF fi le

Document Font Properties

after OCR Text Recognition

Figure 6: Font Properties dialog after OCR Text Recognition

Figure 4: Search for text is not recognized—No OCR applied

Search word in Find box

No text found in fi le

The OCR Argument Not a Factor!

OCR—which stands for Optical Character Recognition—will scan a document for text and convert any images of text to live (editable) text.

After OCR is applied to a PDF in Adobe Acrobat Pro, the text responds as if it is in a Word document. The OCR text can be selected, changed, copied and pasted. The Obama PDF document as downloaded cannot be edited in the aforementioned manner. Note: Adobe Acrobat Pro has PDF editing functions, but Adobe Acrobat Reader does not.

Additionally, if the PDF had been scanned using OCR software; one would be able to search the document with keywords and if the text exists in the document, then those keywords would be found.

Figure 4 shows the keyword “Live” typed in the FIND box, and even though the word “Live” exists in the Certifi cate of Live Birth title, a dialog box responds that “no matches were found.”

When viewing the font properties dialog box in Figure 5, no fonts are listed. If OCR was used, the image area would be converted to recognized fonts in the document and the fonts would be listed. The dialog box is empty, indicating that Obama’s PDF fi le does not recognize any text. This dialog box can be viewed by going to the File menu > Properties, then click on the Font tab in the Document Properties dialog box.

Font-based text can be created after a fi le has been processed through the OCR Text Recognition feature in Adobe Acrobat. To run the OCR feature, go to the Document menu and select OCR

Text Recognition, and then click Recognize Text Using OCR. Acrobat will then perform a scan on the document and convert any text found in the image to editable text. Note that applying OCR Text Recognition will alter the appearance of the characters in the conversion from image to text.

Figure 6 shows that all the fonts recognized during the process are now listed in the Font Properties dialog box.

Figure 7 shows another search (after OCR is applied) on the keyword “Live” typed in the FIND box. The word “Live” is found and highlighted within the Certifi cate of Live Birth title.

Figure 7: Search for text is recognized after OCR is applied

Search word in Find box

Text found in OCR fi le

Page 40: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 3 of 10

Introduction to Basic Terms

Let’s briefl y examine three terms related to graphic programs: Noise, Anti-aliasing, and Bitmap

Noise v No Noise

Scanned images will have a consistent noise. Any inconsistencies in noise would be a strong telltale sign of tampering. When looking at an image at a normal zoom level (100%) colors may appear as one color of any particular area of an image. Zooming in closer to the area, consistent noise is easily apparent in the slight variations of color from neighboring pixels that make up each color (shown in Figure 8). This is the natural noise level for this image. Note that it is consistent throughout the image; variations can be seen for neighboring pixels of each color area in the original image.

In contrast, Figure 8 also shows an example of no noise as a result of digital manipulation. Two pixels were sampled to match colors within the image. Using a paint brush tool in Adobe Photoshop, a streak of each sampled color is drawn across the image area. Clearly the lack of noise in the digital brush strokes is inconsistent with natural noise of the image. Components added digitally to an image do not contain noise. All neighboring pixels for the sample paint strokes in Figure 8 are solid in color with no variation—not even the slightest of variations. In order to avoid detection when editing an image, an experienced professional will need to mimic the noise to match the document. One common method used is to access the Add Noise fi lter found on the Photoshop Filter menu. This was not done in the Obama PDF fi le. If this was a legitimate color scan, noise would be consistently displayed throughout the entire document.

Bitmap (or Aliasing) v Anti-aliasing

Figure 9 off ers a visual explanation of aliasing (or bitmap text) contrasted with anti-aliasing. Notice that aliasing is the visual stair-stepping of edges that occurs in an image which yields a jagged edge. Anti-aliasing is the smoothing of jagged edges in digital images by averaging the colors of the pixels at the boundary edges.

Also notice the transition of pixel colors that occur in Figure 8 where contrast colors bump up next to each other. This color transition (averaging of color pixels) makes the lines appear smooth when viewed at a normal viewing level. Without anti-aliasing to soften this line edge transition of colors, images will have a choppy jagged edge quality (aliasing or bitmapped quality). Anti-aliasing is either applied globally (to an entire image) during scanning—or not at all.

Figure 10 is a perfect example of an inconsistency that occurs with image manipulation. The numerical characters 064 seen in the Figure are all aliased or bitmapped, and the 1 is anti-aliased as well as containing noise.

A color scan would produce anti-aliased results universally. While it is possible to use a bitmap setting when scanning, the results would create a black and white image—no color present. A bitmap setting would turn every pixel to on or off —white or black. So if a bitmap setting was used in a scan, then there shouldn’t be a color background, along with varying colors in the text outside the grayscale range? All text color values have green tone values—not black or grayscale.

Figure 9: Aliasing (or bitmap) and anti-aliasing

Figure 8: Painted brush strokes in digital scan lack noise

Image noise

Paint strokes—no noise

Figure 10: Bitmap edges are jagged v smooth anti-aliased edge

Bitmap edges are jagged Anti-aliased edges are smooth

Noise

No noise

Page 41: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 4 of 10

Scanner Chromatic Aberration

What is chromatic aberration? This occurs when diff erent wavelengths of light are refracted diff erently as it goes through a lens or prism during the scanning process. Light is refracted diff erently as the scanner encounters one side of a contrasting color (particularly with text) compared to the opposite side of the contrasting color.

In simpler terms, Figure 11 is an example of Chromatic Aberration in which the scanner produced warm red-ish color values at the bottom and left edges of the text, and similarly the scanner produced cool blue-ish color values around the top and right edges of text transitions. Chromatic Aberration can be seen at a high zoom level in color scans such as the AP version of Obama’s BC—but this chromatic aberration is NOT present in Obama’s PDF released by the White House.

Because the AP version displays chromatic aberration, this is an indicator that the AP did receive a printed hard copy of the BC from the White House and scanned whatever was presented to them. AP did not do anything wrong. They simply scanned what was handed to them.

It’s important to note that the AP version does NOT have a security safety paper background pattern, but rather a baby blue colored background. This sudden diff erence in background color/pattern is another inconsistency that could NOT happen if the document was simply scanned with no further manipulation and released by the White House—but this inconsistency would only happen if the White House document is a manufactured fi le.

Applying the Terms Reviewed

A key problem with the document, as presented, is that it is riddled with inconsistencies. Scanning a document without manipulation produces an image with qualities that are consistent globally (throughout the entire image). Amateurish image manipulation will reveal local (specifi c areas) of inconsistencies or odd artifacts.

Another example of anti-aliased text containing noise for the letter “R” mixed with surrounding bitmap text in Figure 12. The white halo eff ect surrounding the text with no chromatic aberration is also a strong indicator that the document was manipulated (more on the white halo later).

Figure 13 displays text color inconsistencies in dates, along with a misspelling in the offi cial stamp text—”TXE” instead of “THE.” While it may be argued that the misspelling is merely a function of the stamp ink applied unevenly, the odds signifi cantly decrease that this would occur on both vertical bars that aff ect both sides of the “H” character. Both sides pull in substantially displaying an “X.” The stamp also sports suspicious markings in the “Alvin” signature that has been referred to as a “happy face.”

Figure 14 off ers a contrast image of Alvin Onaka’s stamp in which the words are spelled correctly and no “happy face” markings in the “Alvin” signature. The “Ph.” spacing between the “P” and “h” is diff erent in both signature images (the period spacing as well).

Also, the stamp version displayed in Figure 13 is a solid bitmap layer—no signs of texture (ink stamp on paper) can be detected. Some semblance of texture would be refl ected in an image scan (even with optimization applied), but this overall quality of texture—the ink stamp on paper as seen in Figure 14—is absent from the Obama PDF.

Figure 11: Scanned text and Chromatic Aberration

Cool blue color at the upper edges

Warm red color at the lower edges

Figure 14: http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

No spelling error

Alvin’s signature

without smiley face?

Figure 13: Examples of text inconsistencies

Color variation evidence of manipulation

Spelling error on stamp

Alvin’s signature suddenly

develops a smiley face

Green text color values

Figure 12: Obama PDF viewed in Acrobat at 1600% zoom level

Noise, anti-aliasing, bitmap inconsistency

in text—and no chromatic aberration

Page 42: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 5 of 10

Layers: Flat, Man-made, and Optimized

Attempts to suggest optimization explains the presence of layers in the Obama PDF is simply not true. While it is true that optimization can cause layers, it is not true that optimization explains the layers displayed in Obama’s PDF. The layers in Obama’s PDF clearly display a decision-making process that would be present with image manipulation.

A simple defi nition for optimization is a process that applies suitable compression settings to reduce fi le size.

As stated—optimization can cause layers—but in the case of optimization; the process of how the document is layered is completely computer-generated based on programming algorithms. Thus, there are certain predictable patterns.

Before examining the Figures, it might help to explain that there are two types of graphic programs: Raster-based and Vector-based. Raster-based is a fancy word for pixel-based which is the strength of a program like Adobe Photoshop. Whereas Adobe Illustrator is a vector-based program—meaning it relies on mathematical interpretations. Illustrator operates diff erently than Photoshop in that lines or shapes drawn in Illustrator are referred to as paths—the mathematical equations that defi ne the line, line segment, or shape. With this in mind, when a pixel-based image is opened in Illustrator, a path is generated to defi ne the outer boundary border of that object. This is why you will see sub-layers in the screen capture Figures with a Path title that corresponds to the visible blue (default color) rectangle-shaped border edges of an object (in the displayed image).

The AP fi le version of Obama’s PDF in Figure 15 will serve to represent a scanned document and when opened in Illustrator, there is only one link, and one layer; the layer breaks down to display the following sub-layers:

A boundary edge Path—the blue border surrounding the image

And the fl attened Image

Figure 16 shows a crucial diff erence in the number of layers displayed in Obama’s PDF fi le (compared to the AP fi le): Obama’s PDF has nine links and nine sub-layers (NOTE: The paths are actively displayed in the image). In addition to the nine sub-layer objects, a clipping path is at the top of the sub -layer list. The clipping path groups all the remaining sub-layers below. Note the location of the clipping path in the image, which will be explained further on the next page. It’s presence within the fi le and applied in a manner to hide portions of the image also refl ects image manipulation.

Another crucial diff erence in the number of layers occurs when optimization is applied to the AP scanned image in Figure 17. There is an unreasonable amount of layers generated. Note despite resizing the Links and Layers panels, there is still a scroll box which scrolls the length of the empty scrolling bar area (to off er a sense of how many layers extend beyond the current view).

Examine how the layers divide the image into pieces. It is analogous to taking a scissor and cutting the image into random rectangles.

Finally, notice that Figure 17 calls out the top layer as a bitmap layer (which means it contains one color value only), while all remaining layers are color layers (contains multiple color values). One bitmap layer and multiple color layers are typical optimization behavior; but the reverse is true in Obama’s PDF in which it contains multiple bitmap layers and only one color layer.

Figure 15: Normal one-layer scan document behavior

Layer 1 includes the following sub-layers:

Outside border edge boundary path

One Link

One fl at image layer

Outside border Path

One fl at image

Figure 16: Multiple layers and links in Obama’s PDF

Multiple links

Multiple sub-layers

Outside border path

Clipping Path

Clipping Path layer

Figure 17: AP layers and links after optimization is applied

Huge amount of links

Insane number of color sub-layers

No logic to layer

object decisions

Scroll box

Scroll box

One bitmap sub-layer at top

Page 43: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 6 of 10

The Clipping Mask Path

Let’s return to the previously mentioned Clipping Mask Path. The term mask refers to defi ning parts of an image to be hidden from view (rather than have to delete unwanted parts). Any vector shape can be used as a clipping path—in this case the rectangle path shape seen in Figure 18 defi nes an area that acts like a window: Anything within the shape border is visible, and anything that falls outside its boundary is not visible. A benefi t derived from using a clipping mask is it allows the mask to be reposition at any time to show or hide diff erent parts of the artwork. A clipping mask that hides image information from view only occurs in a manual process to manipulated a document. If a clipping mask is generated in an optimized fi le—it will never hide information.

Figure 18 displays the clipping mask as the only visible path when the Obama PDF is fi rst opened—all other path objects behave as a group attached to the clipping path. To move and see these objects separately—the clipping mask group needs to be released—or ungrouped.

Figure 19 shows an open Layers panel (to display the sub-layers). A right-click inside the clipping mask off ers a menu option to Release Clipping Mask. Notice that releasing this path not only exposes the other grouped path objects, but suddenly uncovers additional background pattern that spills outside (and beyond) the clipping mask path boundary—proof of image manipulation.

X-Ray Scanner Vision

Tom Harrison, a software designer, published a report that examines the top two sub-layer objects. Without a doubt, the implications of these two sub-layers are clear indications of image manipulation. This cannot happen in a normal document. At fi rst glance these layers appear to be empty—but this is not the case. These layers contain odd random white pixel information, while the pixels under the white dots show no disturbance of safety paper pattern (on the bottom layer). This is simply not possible in a normal scan and can only happen in image manipulation.

Tom Harrison off ers the following analogy in his report: Try to have someone take a picture of a person holding a football hidden behind their back, not visible to the camera. Will you ever be able to extract the person from the photograph and still see the football revealed? Of course not. However, if a picture is taken of a football, and a separate picture is taken of the person, layers can be used to “hide” the picture of the football behind the person (using a program like Photoshop). By placing the picture of a person on a layer “in front of”—or on top—of the layer containing the football in the document—the football would not be visible to the casual viewer unless the layer of the person is turned off .

Using the football analogy, look closely at Figure 20—a close-up view to reveal numerous white pixels in the top layer object. Additionally, these pixels are bitmapped rather than displaying a soft blending quality to transition into the background pattern—another indication that the white pixels are not a normal part of the background pattern.

Figure 21 shows the white dot layer turned off to expose the undisturbed safety pattern in the background (under the white pixel dots). To paraphrase Mr. Harrison, no scanner in the world has x-ray vision that can detect uninterrupted safety paper pattern under another object (such as the random white dots).

Figure 18: Obama PDF opened in Illustrator with clipping mask

Collapsed icon

Visibility icon

Clipping Path

Figure 19: Clipping Mask group released and sub-layers displayed

Expand icon

Release Clipping Mask Group

Clipping Path

Figure 20: Zoom view of top layer reveals white pixels

Top layer selected

First link actively selected

Layer object path

White pixels display

Layer visibility on

Figure 21: Layer turned off reveals uninterrupted pattern below

First link deselected

Layer object path turned off

White pixels disappear:

Pattern pixels uninterrupted

Layer visibility off

Page 44: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 7 of 10

Figure 22: Target layers and objects for date and certify stamps

Selected active layers

Selected active links

Date stamp Certifi cation stamp

Figure 23: Layers allow for moving the date and certify stamps

Date & certifi cation stamps moved

Figure 24: Background layer with white halos can also move

Background selected & moved

Stamp Layer Appearance

The main purpose and strength of layers is they allow parts of an image to be isolated to make it easy to repositioned, or adjust visibility (on or off ) independently of surrounding image layered parts—thus layers are a powerful image manipulation tool. It makes sense to have a date and a certifi cation stamp on separate layers—to move, rotate, or reposition for the purpose of manipulation and alteration. Figures 22–24 demonstrate how objects can be moved around independently. The Obama PDF has a clean separation of text isolated on each layer, unlike the AP optimization layer results for the same information in Figures 25–

26. The layer results seen in the Obama PDF cannot be duplicated through optimization, but can be easily duplicated (and explained) with an understanding of image manipulation.

The date stamp and certifi cation stamp are the selected layers in Figure 22. The Links and Layers panels verify the selection along with the active blue paths that display around the layered objects.

Figure 23 demonstrates that the objects can be moved independent of the background (or other text items). Note that in the Obama PDF, the text for the certifi cation stamp is completely and independently separated onto its own layer. The same is true of the date stamp. This is a clear and important indication of image manipulation in which each of these items can be manipulated independently of the surrounding background layer. This clean separation can only be accomplished through image manipulation of document elements.

Figure 24 shows the background layer can also be selected and moved independently from the stamp and date layer elements. The white halos are a part of the background layer since white is the typical color present when building a background layer. Thus, whenever the safety paper pattern is not present, the typical color displayed in the absence of pattern will be white.

Automation v Manual Manipulation

Figure 25 and Figure 26 shows the lack of predictability when an automation process chops up an image and generates layers during optimization. As previously mentioned, the AP fi le opens with the appearance of a normal scanned document containing only one layer. For this reason, the AP fi le was used to demonstrate what happens when optimization is applied. After the optimization process, the AP fi le displays a multitude of layers.

Most of the black text extracts onto one bitmap layer at the top of the layer list. This top text layer is turned off in Figure 25. Note that the text does not separate cleanly onto one layer. Remnants of text remain behind on a variety of the many multi-color layers in the list that still have their visibility turned on in Figure 25. Additionally, the top text layer contains a large portion of all document text and optimization fails to separate text according to usefulness. In other words, all the stamp text does not reside on its own layer—nor is there a diff erent layer for the date text—and again, no clean and complete separation.

Figure 26 has the top text layer visibility turned back on again, but instead, one of the bottom background layer’s visibility is turned off this time. The selected paths show how there’s no human quality to the logic in dividing information into layers—the machine is deciding based on an automated process.

Figure 25: Optimized lacks the human element in layering

Bottom layers selected—text layer off

Figure 26: Text layer turned on and one background layer off

Text layer on—one background layer off

Page 45: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 8 of 10

White Halo Creation

The white halo eff ect presents two common questions; why is there a white halo, and what caused it? Before answering the former question, let’s address the latter.

The white halo could simply be a function of a selection created around all the text—before fi lling the background layer with a green safety pattern.

The green safety pattern could have easily been applied to the background layer without any selection—thus a solid pattern would have covered the entire background layer—without a white halo. But for some reason, a white halo eff ect was generated—either through an active selection when creating the background, or through an enhancement process, or a combination of both. As might be expected, the creation of a background using a text selection is easily demonstrated with step-by-step Figures.

Figure 27 shows the demonstration fi le set-up. The stamp text from the Obama PDF fi le was copied (from Illustrator) and pasted into a new Photoshop fi le on a layer that is above a solid white background layer. Note the two layers in the Layers panel: Stamp Text layer and the Background layer (currently fi lled with white).

When working in a graphic program, if you want to apply any changes to an image, you have a choice to use a selection for the target area, or to make changes without a selection. If there is no selection, then any changes can be applied to the entire image without any restrictions. If a selection is created, the changes are limited to the selection area only. Analogous to selecting text in a Word program to apply a change, such as bold formatting; the text is fi rst selected, and the bold formatting is then applied to the selection only.

In this example, a selection will be created around the text as the next step shown in Figure 28. Any object separated on a layer can easily be used to create a selection of that object. Simply hold down the Ctrl key and click on the layer thumbnail—in this case click on the Stamp Text layer. A selection that resembles marching ants appears around the text. The next step is to expand the selection to include a little extra space surrounding the text. This can be accomplished from the Select menu, using Modify, and then choosing the Expand option (also seen in Figure 28).

The Expand Selection dialog box displays in Figure 29 which allows a user to specify how many pixels to expand the selection. Since, the idea is to surround the text by a small area, the amount entered in this example will be 2 pixels.

The expanded selection in Figure 30 currently surrounds the text. However, the current selection area needs to remain white since the ultimate goal is to apply a pattern fi ll to the surrounding background area—not the surrounding text area. Therefore, the selection needs to be reversed—also known as inverse—to ensure the pattern will fi ll everything on the background layer except the text area.

Go to the Select menu shown in Figure 30. The Inverse option is chosen. The selection is now ready to fi ll with a color, or a pattern, or even another scanned image (such as a scan of security safety paper). Everything but the text area is now selected. For purposes of this demonstration, the next step will defi ne a safety paper pattern and fi ll the background layer using the current active selection.

Figure 27: A two-layer stamp text fi le created to demonstrate

Bottom layer: White background

Top layer: Certifi cation stamp text

Figure 28: A text selection created and selection expanded

Text is selected

Ctrl+click on layer thumbnail

Figure 29: Expand Selection option—expanded 2 pixels

Expand Selection dialog box

Figure 30: Next the selection needs to be inversed

Text selection expanded by 2 pixels

Selection Inverse option

Page 46: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 9 of 10Safety Paper Creation

In a program such as Photoshop, a selection can be fi lled with a solid color of choice, an image, or a pattern can also be defi ned as a fi ll option. It should be noted that a full sheet of safety paper could have been scanned and used without going through steps to defi ne it as a pattern—but a pattern can be easily defi ned from an existing image as an alternative method. Most likely, there was access to a sample of safety paper when creating the Obama PDF. It’s not necessary to reinvent the wheel—the current Obama PDF fi le will be used as the source pattern for the purpose of this demonstration.

The Obama PDF is temporarily opened in Figure 31 and a square selection is made to isolate a portion of the pattern that will tile easily—which means that when the selected area is fi lled repeatedly next to each other, the pattern continues seamlessly—without any noticeable disruptions in the pattern. With the selection active, the Defi ne Pattern option is selected from the Edit menu. The Obama PDF fi le is closed and no longer needed.

Back to the demonstration fi le shown in Figure 32; with the Background selected as the active layer, the Fill option is chosen from the Edit menu.

In the Fill dialog box, the Pattern option from the Content list is chosen in Figure 33.

The safety paper pattern defi ned earlier in Figure 31 is also chosen in the Fill dialog box in Figure 34. Click OK to complete the eff ect.

The results in Figure 35 show a slight white halo outside the text.

In Figure 36—the Stamp Text layer’s visibility is turned off , and the marching ants are deselected (Ctrl+D). The white halo eff ect was easily manufactured in less than a minute, in less time than it took to read the explanation.

In summation, the security paper background layer was added as the last step to create the illusion of an image in which text was imprinted on security paper. However, the text had in fact been placed and arranged on a solid white background. This last application gives a created image the false appearance of being an offi cial document.

Figure 31: Selection used to defi ne a pattern

Selection of a sample pattern area

Defi ne the selection as a pattern

Figure 33: The Pattern option is used in the Fill dialog box

Pattern Fill option chosen

Figure 34: The defi ned pattern chosen from Custom Pattern list

Custom Pattern chosen

Figure 32: Use the Edit menu to launch the Fill dialog box

Selection inversed

Fill option chosen

Background

layer active

Figure 35: The pattern fi lls the selection area

Background

contains pattern fi ll

Figure 36: Turn off the text layer: White halo eff ect is displayed

Stamp Text visibility off

White halo eff ect

Page 47: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 10 of 10

Some Final Thoughts

The previous exercise demonstrated how the white halo could be created, but there can be a multitude of ways to accomplish the same task in a program such as Photoshop. Whether or not the exercise presented is the defi nitive method is not the main point.

The exercise was presented as a possible solution to the question: How did the white halo get into the document? But actually, the only question that matters is: why is the white halo there at all? Any offi cial document obtained by legitimate procedures and scanned would not have the white halo.

As previously stated, every anomaly can be easily explained as a manufactured document. Not only does this document display attributes that it was completely manufactured digitally, but there is strong evidence that a master fi le exists as a source fi le. What is meant by a master fi le? A master fi le is a fi le in which all the objects still exist on separate layers (in other words, more layers and information than seen in the Obama PDF sub-layers).

For example, in the Obama PDF, the bottom layer contains the background pattern with some text elements merged onto that layer. In the master fi le version, the text still remains on a separate layer—NOT merged with the background layer. It is highly probable that this master fi le also contains the short form certifi cate layers (which would explain the problems seen in the AP version of the fi le).

Figure 37 and Figure 38 demonstrate that the AP version of the long form certifi cate contains a diff erent set of problems as follows:

A sudden shift to a diff erent background

Safety paper pattern in the shadow at the left edge—but not in the document background

Short form embedded into the printout—Figure 38 is an enhanced version which allows the details to be seen more easily

Once again, all of these additional problems displayed in the AP version would not occur if the source document presented to the AP had been a legitimate scanned document without manipulation. However, all three problems would easily be a result of a manufactured source fi le—in which layers from a master fi le were turned off or mistakenly left on.

Figure 37: Some extra remnants visible in the AP version

Background color

magically shifts to blue

Forgot to turn off safety-paper

layer in manufactured shadow

Forgot to turn off a

short  form layer

Figure 38: Enhancement applied to easily see short form

Enhancement applied to

display short form elements

Page 48: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT

Exhibit 4

Page 49: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 50: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT

Exhibit 5

Page 51: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Get Email Updates Contact Us

Home • Briefing Room • Press Briefings Search WhiteHouse.gov

For Immediate Release April 27, 2011

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

8:48 A.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY: Good morning, everybody. You can read the paperwork we just handed out in a minute. Let me

just get started. Thank you for coming this morning. I have with me today Dan Pfeiffer, the President’s Director of

Communications, as well as Bob Bauer, the President’s White House Counsel, who will have a few things to say

about the documents we handed to you today. And then we'll take your questions. I remind you this is off camera

and only pen and pad, not for audio. And I give you Dan Pfeiffer.

MR. PFEIFFER: Thanks, Jay. What you have in front of you now is a packet of papers that includes the

President’s long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, the original birth certificate that the President

requested and we posted online in 2008, and then the correspondence between the President’s counsel and the

Hawaii State Department of Health that led to the release of those documents.

If you would just give me a minute to -- indulge me a second to walk through a little of the history here, since all

of you weren't around in 2008 when we originally released the President’s birth certificate, I will do that. And then

Bob Bauer will walk through the timeline of how we acquired these documents.

In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of

BLOG POSTS ON THI S I SSUE

March 11, 2012 8:04 PM EDT

Call with President Karzai Following theReport of Afghan Civilian Casualties

President Obama reached

out to President Karzai

Sunday following the

reported killing and

sounding of Afghan

civilians.

March 11, 2012 9:00 AM EDT

From the Archives: Tsunami in Japan

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

1 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Page 52: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Hawaii. We received that document; we posted it on the website. That document was then inspected by

independent fact checkers, who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document -- independent

fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii.

To be clear, the document we presented on the President’s website in 2008 is his birth certificate. It is the piece

of paper that every Hawaiian receives when they contact the state to request a birth certificate. It is the birth

certificate they take to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get their driver’s license and that they take to the federal

government to get their passport. It is the legally recognized document.

That essentially -- for those of you who followed the campaign closely know that solved the issue. We didn’t

spend any time talking about this after that. There may have been some very fringe discussion out there, but as a

campaign issue it was settled and it was --

Q When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is?

MR. PFEIFFER: Yes.

Q Because it is not here and that's been an issue.

MR. PFEIFFER: We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by -- the fact checkers came

to headquarters and actually examined the document we had.

That settled the issue. In recent weeks, the issue has risen again as some folks have begun raising a question

about the original -- about the long-form birth certificate you now have in front of you. And Bob will explain why --

the extraordinary steps we had to take to receive that and the legal restraints that are in place there.

But it became an issue again. And it went to -- essentially the discussion transcended from the nether regions of

the Internet into mainstream political debate in this country. It became something that when both Republicans and

Democrats were talking to the media they were asked about. It was a constant discussion on mainstream news

organizations. And the President believed that it was becoming a distraction from the major issues we're having in

this country.

And he was particularly struck by the fact that right after the Republicans released their budget framework and

the President released his, we were prepared to have a very important, very vigorous debate in this country about

the future of the country, the direction we’re going to take, how we’re doing to deal with very important issues like

education, Medicare, how we’re going to deal with taxes in this country. And that should -- that’s the debate we

should be having yet.

Facebook

Twitter

Flickr

Google+

YouTube

Vimeo

iTunes

LinkedIn

A look back at the U.S. response to the devastating

earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan in March of

2011.

March 10, 2012 6:30 AM EDT

Weekly Address: Investing in a CleanEnergy FutureSpeaking from a factory in Virginia, President

Obama talks about how companies are creating

more jobs in the United States, making better

products than ever before, and how many are

developing new technologies that are reducing our

dependence on foreign oil and saving families

money at the pump.

VIEW ALL RELATED BLOG POSTS

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

2 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Page 53: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

What was really dominating a lot of discussion was this fake controversy, essentially, a sideshow, that was

distracting from this real issue. And an example of that would be when major Democrats and Republicans went onto

mainstream news organizations to talk about their budget plans -- including the President -- they were asked about

this. They were asked about what they thought about the controversy. They were asked if they believed the

President was born in the United States. And it was really a distraction.

That really struck the President, led him to ask his counsel to look into whether we could ask the state of Hawaii

to release the long-form certificate, which is not something they generally do. And he did that despite the fact that it

probably was not in his long-term -- it would have been in his -- probably in his long-term political interests to allow

this birther debate to dominate discussion in the Republican Party for months to come. But he thought even though

it might have been good politics, he thought it was bad for the country. And so he asked counsel to look into this.

And now I’ll have Bob explain that, and then we’ll take your questions.

MR. CARNEY: I just want to -- sorry, I meant to mention at the top, as some of you may have seen, the

President will be coming to the briefing room at 9:45 a.m., making a brief statement about this -- not taking

questions, but just wanted to let you know.

MR. PFEIFFER: And he will use this as an opportunity to make a larger point about what this debate says about

our politics.

Go ahead, Bob.

MR. BAUER: Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the

longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate. And so we

undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to

make that request.

And by Thursday of last week, I spoke to private counsel to the President and asked her to contact the State

Department of Health and to have a conversation about any requirements, further requirements, that they thought

we had to satisfy to lodge that waiver request. She had that conversation with the state Department of Health on

Thursday -- counsel in question is Judy Corley at the law firm of Perkins Coie, and you have a copy of the letter she

subsequently sent to the department with the President’s written request.

The department outlined the requirements for the President to make this request. He signed a letter making that

request on Friday afternoon upon returning from the West Coast. And private counsel forwarded his written request

-- written, signed request -- along with a letter from counsel, to the state Department of Health on Friday.

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

3 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Page 54: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

The department, as I understood it, after reviewing the law and reviewing the grounds asserted in the request,

came to the conclusion that a waiver could be appropriately granted. We were advised that the long-form birth

certificate could be copied and made available to us as early as Monday, April 25th -- the day before yesterday. And

we made arrangements for counsel to travel to Honolulu to pick it up and it was returned to the White House

yesterday afternoon.

Let me emphasize again, there is a specific statute that governs access to and inspection of vital records in the

state of Hawaii. The birth certificate that we posted online is, in fact, and always has been, and remains, the legal

birth certificate of the President that would be used for all legal purposes that any resident of Hawaii would want to

use a birth certificate for.

However, there is legal authority in the department to make exceptions to the general policy on not releasing the

long-form birth certificate. The policy in question, by the way, on non-release has been in effect since the

mid-1980s, I understand. So while I cannot tell you what the entire history of exceptions has been, it is a limited

one. This is one of very few that I understand have been granted for the reasons set out in private counsel’s letter.

MR. PFEIFFER: We'll be happy to take some questions.

Q I guess I just want to make sure that we’re clear on this. Even though this one says “certificate of live birth”

on here, this is different than the other certificate of live birth that we’ve seen?

MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. The second page there is the one that was posted on the Internet.

Q Okay.

MR. PFEIFFER: And that is a copy of the one that has been kept at the Hawaii Department of Health.

Q Okay. And this is the one that would be referred to -- that people have been asking for that is the birth

certificate?

MR. PFEIFFER: They are both -- the second one is the birth certificate. The one on the top is what is referred

to as the long-form birth certificate. As you can see -- and Bob can walk you through it -- it contains some additional

information that is not on the second page, which was the birth certificate which was released during the campaign.

If you could just explain the difference.

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

4 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Page 55: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

MR. BAUER: There’s a difference between a certificate and a certification. The certification is simply a

verification of certain information that’s in the original birth certificate. The birth certificate, as you can see, has

signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, who essentially oversees the maintenance

of the records. It contains some additional information also -- that is to say, the original birth certificate -- it contains

some additional information like the ages of the parents, birthplaces, residence, street address, the name of the

hospital.

The core information that’s required for legal purposes and that is put into the actual certification that’s a

computer-generated document, which we posted in 2008, that information is abstracted, if you will, from the original

birth certificate, put into the computerized short-form certification, and made available to Hawaiian residents at their

request.

So the long form, which is a certificate, has more information, but the short form has the information that’s legally

sufficient for all the relevant purposes.

Q This first one has never been released publicly, correct?

MR. BAUER: That’s correct. It is in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii.

Q Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years? Was it Donald Trump that

prompted you to issue this?

MR. BAUER: I’ll let Dan --

MR. PFEIFFER: Sure.

Q I know you expected that question, right? (Laughter.)

MR. PFEIFFER: He even said you would be the one who would ask it. (Laughter.)

I don’t think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved -- for those of you who remember the

campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008. And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called

about it, reported on it until the last few weeks.

And as I said earlier, it probably would have been -- a lot of the pundits out there have talked about the fact that

this whole birther debate has been really bad for the Republican Party and would probably be good for the

President politically. But despite that, the President, as I said, was struck by how this was crowding out the debate,

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

5 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Page 56: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

particularly around the budget, on important issues, and was an example of the sort of sideshows that our politics

focuses on instead of the real challenges that we have to confront as a country.

And so that’s why he made this decision now, because it became an issue that transcended sort of this -- it

essentially was something that was talked about, as I said, from the nether regions of the Internet onto mainstream

network newscasts. In fact, Jay has been asked about this just yesterday in this room.

Q So I guess the implication is that you did get political advantage by having not released this until today, over

the course of the last four years?

MR. PFEIFFER: There has been -- no one that I can recall actually asked us to -- we were asked to release the

President’s birth certificate in 2008. We did that. And then no one -- it never -- up until a few weeks ago, there was

never an issue about that that wasn’t the birth certificate from any credible individual or media outlet. And it hasn’t

been until -- I mean, Jay was asked about this yesterday --

Q When you say that, you mean certification -- you released the certification?

MR. PFEIFFER: When any Hawaiian wants -- requests their birth certificate because they want to get a driver’s

license, they want to get a passport, they do exactly what the President did in 2008. And that’s what that is. And we

released that. And that’s what any Hawaiian would do to release their birth certificate. And that was good enough

for everyone until very recently this became a question again. And so the President made this decision. He’ll talk to

you more about his thinking on that.

Q And this is going to sound -- I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to -- remain

unconvinced. They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper, you could have typed anything

in there. Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any -- (laughter.)

Q Will the President be holding it?

MR. PFEIFFER: He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so. But it will -- the State Department of

Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a -- what they have on file. As Bob said, it’s in a book in Hawaii.

MR. BAUER: And you’ll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states that she oversaw

the copy and is attesting to --

Q But do you understand that this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

6 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Page 57: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

MR. PFEIFFER: There will always be some selection of people who will believe something, and that's not the

issue. The issue is that this is not a discussion that is just happening among conspiracy theorists. It’s happening

here in this room; it’s happening on all of the networks. And it’s something that, as I said, every major political figure

of both parties who’s actually out trying to talk about real issues is asked about this by the media. And so the

President decided to release this. And I'll leave it to others to decide whether there’s still -- there will be some who

still have a different -- have a conspiracy about this.

Q You’ve got two certified copies, according to this study. You have these physical --

MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. I showed you one. Just one.

Q You showed us a photocopy of one.

MR. PFEIFFER: No, I showed you --

Q Does that have a stamp?

MR. PFEIFFER: It has a seal on it.

Q Why does this rise to the level of a presidential statement?

MR. PFEIFFER: The President -- this in itself -- when you hear the President I think you’ll understand the point

he’s making. That will be in not too long.

Q Did the President change his own mind about this? In other words, was he advocating during the campaign

let’s just put it out there and get it over with, or was this an internal shift in thinking based -- in other words, was it

the President who steadfastly during the campaign said this is ridiculous, I don't want to give this any more ground,

and has now changed his mind? Or is this the --

MR. PFEIFFER: Let’s be very clear. You were there for the campaign. There was never a question about the

original birth certificate during the campaign. It was a settled issue. I was there for the original decision to release

the birth certificate. I was there when we posted it online. I'm not sure I even knew there was an original one that

was different than the one we posted online because it wasn’t an issue. So it wasn’t like -- let’s be very clear. We

were asked for the President’s birth certificate in 2008; we released the President’s birth certificate; and it was

done. That was it.

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

7 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Page 58: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

And so there hasn’t been a discussion about this other document for years. It’s only been in the last few weeks.

And so to your second question, the President decided to do this and he'll talk about this when he gets here --

decided to do it at the timeline that Bob laid out because it was a -- this was a sideshow that was distracting from

the real challenges that we're facing.

It’s not just a sideshow for him; it’s a sideshow for our entire politics that have become focused on this.

Q Not to give Donald Trump more publicity than he has, but is he the person who sort of -- sort of that bridge

between what you're calling a fringe and the mainstream? Do you think that he’s the reason why this tripped the

switch to a level where you now have to deal with something you thought was dealt with?

MR. PFEIFFER: It’s not for me to say why mainstream media organizations began to cover this debate. They’ll

have to answer that for themselves.

Q How concerned were you about running against Donald Trump in a general election?

MR. PFEIFFER: I'd refer any questions on the election to the campaign.

Q Can you address the reports of Petraeus to the CIA and DOD --

MR. PFEIFFER: You get points for that, Carol. (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY: Yes. I don't have -- but you’ll be disappointed to learn that I don't have a personnel

announcement for you. The President will be addressing this -- questions about personnel tomorrow.

Q Dan, was there a debate about whether or not this deserved being discussed by the White House, whether

or not -- and I'm going back to the birth certificate. I lose points, I understand. But was there debate about whether

or not this was worthy of the White House?

MR. PFEIFFER: The point I'd make is that we weren't the ones who -- we're not the first ones to bring this up in

this room. Jay has been asked questions about this; the President has been asked about it in media interviews.

And so that wasn’t a decision that we made, and the President made the decision to do this and he made the

decision to -- and when he comes down here this morning he'll talk to you about why he thinks there’s an important

point to be made here.

Q Getting back to the personnel announcements, does the President understand that these announcements

have been made and sourced satisfactorily for most news organizations before he speaks up and he’s not letting his

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

8 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Page 59: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

White House corroborate?

MR. CARNEY: I don't have a comment on that for you, Bill. (Laughter.)

Q I mean, this is such BS. It’s all out there and you guys are -- okay, the President is going to talk about this

tomorrow so we can't say anything.

MR. CARNEY: Bill, you're free to make phone calls everywhere you can. I'm just saying that we don't have a

personnel announcement for you today.

Q And he'll tomorrow, he'll cover all the aforementioned switches?

MR. CARNEY: We'll have a personnel announcement tomorrow.

Q Jay, yesterday you talked about failsafe triggers as sort of a positive alternative to spending cuts. I'm

wondering if the White House has any openness to including that, because it’s a White House proposal, including

that in any legislation that would raise the debt ceiling limit.

MR. CARNEY: Well, what we've said very clearly, and I think Secretary Geithner said it eloquently yesterday, it

is a dangerous, risky idea to hold hostage any other -- hold hostage, rather, raising the debt ceiling, a vote on

raising the debt ceiling, to any other piece of legislation. The commitment this President has to moving aggressively

towards a comprehensive deficit reduction plan is clear. It will be clear again when the Vice President convenes a

meeting, bipartisan, bicameral meeting, next week. And he hopes that progress will be made on that very quickly.

In terms of negotiating what that would look like, I think the negotiators should do that, led by the Vice President,

Republicans and Democrats together. But again, explicitly linking or holding hostage the absolute necessity of

raising the debt ceiling to any other piece of legislation and declaring that we'll tank the U.S. economy and perhaps

the global economy if we don't get this specific thing that we want, I think is a dangerous and unprecedented thing to

do.

And we're confident, remain confident, that the leaders of both parties in Congress, as well as the President, will

agree with the President, as I have said many times, that we do not have an alternative to raising the debt ceiling

because, as many have said, outside observers, economists and businessmen and women, the impact of that would

be calamitous at best.

Q So even though it’s your own proposal that you guys endorsed you don't want to see it as part of the final

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

9 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Page 60: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

package?

MR. CARNEY: I'm not negotiating individual pieces of a package that we hope Republicans and Democrats can

come together around from this podium. But again, we believe it’s essential to -- the President believes -- that's one

of the reasons why we're doing this right now -- we believe that these are big debates that need to be had. They

can be contentious, argumentative, serious, comprehensive, detailed, because they’re important; they’re all about

America’s future. And they’re about visions of this country and where we're going that need to be debated. And this

debate was being crowded out in many ways by a sideshow.

And he looks forward to having a debate on the real issues that Americans want us to talk about -- long-term

economic plans, deficit reduction, investments in the kinds of things that will help this economy grow and create

jobs, dealing with our energy needs, a long-term energy plan. These are all issues that have been sidetracked at

least in the public debate by some of the issues that we're talking about this morning.

Q Is there a concern that more and more people were actually starting to believe its sideshow -- I mean,

people have been asking about --

MR. CARNEY: I will let the President speak for himself, but what Dan was saying and I think is important is that

the issue here is that the President feels that this was bad for the country; that it’s not healthy for our political

debate, when we have so many important issues that Americans care about, that affect their lives, to be drawn into

sideshows about fallacies that have been disproven with the full weight of a legal document for several years.

So, again, as Dan said, and a lot of political pundits have said, you could say that it would be good politics,

smart politics, for the President to let this play out. He cares more about what’s good for the country. He wants the

debate on the issues. He wants the focus on the issues that Americans care about.

Q Jay, the President yesterday said that he had been talking to oil exporters about increasing output. Who

specifically has he been talking --

MR. CARNEY: Well, I said -- I want to clarify. I said several times I believe from this podium when asked

questions about our overall handling of the issue of high gas prices that we've had conversations with oil-producing

states and allies and those conversations continue. I don't have specific “the President spoke with this leader or

other government officials spoke with others,” but those are ongoing conversations that, of course, we would be

having in a situation like this.

Q Do you guys have any comment on the NATO soldiers that were killed in Afghanistan and any confirmation

on whether there were Americans?

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

10 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Page 61: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

MR. CARNEY: I don't have anything for you on that this morning.

Q Just quickly, back on the birth certificate, yesterday you said this was a settled issue. So --

MR. CARNEY: Well, as Dan said, again, it has been a settled issue.

MR. PFEIFFER: From a factual point of view, it’s absolutely a settled issue. But the fact that it was a settled

issue did not keep it from becoming a major part of the political discussion in this town for the last several weeks

here. So there’s absolutely no question that what the President released in 2008 was his birth certificate and

answered that question, and many of your organizations have done excellent reporting which proved that to be the

case. But it continued; the President thought it was a sideshow and chose to take this step today for the reasons

Bob laid out.

Q Aside from the policy distractions that was presented, did you have some concern because it was sort of

reaching back into the mainstream news coverage that this could become a factor in the 2012 election with centrist

voters?

MR. PFEIFFER: No.

Q Just to clarify what this document is --

MR. PFEIFFER: This is the -- the letter first and the two certified copies -- this is one of those. This is the same

thing you have a copy of as the first page of your packet.

Q How did it get here?

MR. PFEIFFER: As Bob said, it arrived by plane -- the President’s personal counsel went to Hawaii and brought

it back and we got it last night.

Q Last night?

MR. PFEIFFER: Last night.

Q What time?

MR. PFEIFFER: Between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

11 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Page 62: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Q When did you decide to do this gaggle?

MR. PFEIFFER: What’s that?

Q When was this gaggle put on -- when was this planned?

MR. PFEIFFER: Whatever time you received your guidance suggesting that it would be “this time tomorrow

morning.”

Q Are these letters supposed to demonstrate the legal steps that were involved in releasing it to the White

House counsel?

MR. BAUER: The letters that you have, the personal request from the President, along with the accompanying

letter from private counsel, is merely meant to document the legal path to getting the waiver of that policy so we

could get the long-form certificate.

Q The waiver of Hawaii state government policy?

MR. BAUER: Right. The non-release of the long-form certificate, which has been in effect since the 1980s -- a

natural question would have been, well, what did you do to obtain the waiver, and those letters represent the

request.

Q Well, isn’t it true that anybody who was born in Hawaii can write this letter? I mean, that's all there is to the

waiver process?

MR. BAUER: No. Let me just explain once again because I also noticed, by the way, in one report already the

wrong certificate was actually posted on the website. The certificate with the signatures at the bottom -- and that's a

key difference between the short form and the long form -- the long form has signatures at the bottom from the

attending physician, the local registrar, and the mother, is the original birth certificate, which sits in a bound volume

in the State Department of Health.

The short from is a computerized abstract, and that's the legal birth certificate we requested in 2008 and that

Hawaiians are entitled to. Since the mid-1980s, the State Department of Health, for administrative reasons, only

provides to people who request their birth certificate the short form. They do not provide the long form.

So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiver. We had to actually determine that there was

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

12 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Page 63: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

a legal basis for providing it, and then ask them to exercise their authority to provide us with the long form. The

steps required to accomplish that were a letter from the person with the direct and vital interest -- the President -- so

you have a letter from the President, and then there was an accompanying letter from counsel basically formalizing

the request. So the reason we included that is that those were legal steps we took to obtain the long form by way of

this waiver.

Q Do we have the letter from the President --

MR. BAUER: It’s in the packet.

Q And you went to Hawaii?

MR. BAUER: I did not go to Hawaii. The counsel, Judy Corley, who signed the -- the President’s personal

counsel at Perkins Coie, Judy Corley, whose letter -- signed letter of request is in your packet, traveled to Honolulu

and picked up the birth certificate.

Q A question on the situation regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. Yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder

rejected attacks on Paul Clement, who is taking up defense of the statute on behalf of the U.S. House. Paul

Clement has taken a lot of heat from the LGBT community for volunteering to take up defense of DOMA. Eric

Holder said, “Paul Clement is a great lawyer and has done a lot of really great things for this nation. In taking on the

representation -- representing Congress in connection with DOMA, I think he is doing that which lawyers do when

we’re at our best. That criticism I think was very misplaced.” And Holder went on to compare the criticism of

Clement to attacks on the Justice Department lawyers for their past for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Does the

President share Eric Holder’s views on this?

MR. CARNEY: We do share Eric Holder’s views on this. We think -- as we said from the beginning when we

talked about -- when I did from this podium -- about the decision no longer from the administration to defend the

Defense of Marriage Act, that we would support efforts by Congress if they so chose to defend it. And so I have

nothing to add to the Attorney General’s comments.

Q Following Monday’s Af-Pak Situation Room meeting, what is the President’s assessment of the situation in

Afghanistan and Pakistan? And does he think that July drawdown is still on?

MR. CARNEY: The President’s policy, which included the beginning of a transition -- beginning of a drawdown

of American troops, is absolutely still on track. I don’t have anything additionally from the meeting yesterday beyond

what we’ve said. But the policy remains as it was.

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

13 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Page 64: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

MR. EARNEST: Jay, we should wrap it up here.

MR. CARNEY: Yes. Last one, yes.

Q Given the comments of the Pakistani official quoted in the Wall Street Journal, is Pakistan still a U.S. ally,

and to what extent?

MR. CARNEY: Pakistan is still a U.S. ally.

Thanks.

END 9:18 A.M. EDT

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...

14 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM

Page 65: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT

Exhibit 6

Page 66: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 67: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Born in the U.S.A.The truth about Obama's birth certificate.

Posted on August 21, 2008 , Updated on November 1, 2008; April 27, 2011

Summary

In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that

he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document’s

authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth

certificate the campaign has is "fake."

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth

certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.

Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of

the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has

always said.

Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.

Analysis

Update Nov. 1: The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital

statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.

Fukino also was quoted by several other news organizations. The Honolulu Advertiser quoted Fukino as saying the

agency had been bombarded by requests, and that the registrar of statistics had even been called in at home in the

middle of the night.

Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 1 2008: "This has gotten ridiculous," state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday.

"There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy." . . . Will this be enough to quiet

the doubters? "I hope so," Fukino said. "We need to get some work done."

Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s

original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

Update, April 27, 2011: The White House released the long-form version of President Barack Obama’s birth

certificate, confirming (yet again) that he was born in the United States. The Hawaii Department of Health made an

exception in Obama’s case and issued copies of the "Certificate of Live Birth."

Since we first wrote about Obama’s birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace.

Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate to his Web page. That charge leaped from the blogosphere to

the mainstream media earlier this week when Jerome Corsi, author of a book attacking Obama, repeated the claim in

an Aug. 15 interview with Steve Doocy on Fox News.

Corsi: Well, what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate.

The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anybody supposed to really piece together

his life?

Doocy: What do you mean they have a "false birth certificate" on their Web site?

Corsi: The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it.

Home • Articles • Born in the U.S.A.

FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

1 of 5 3/13/2012 12:23 PM

Page 68: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Doocy: Well, couldn’t it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate?

Corsi: No, it’s a — there’s been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it’s been shown to have watermarks from

Photoshop. It’s a fake document that’s on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to

produce.

Corsi isn’t the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on

forums, blogs and e-mails are:

The birth certificate doesn’t have a raised seal.

It isn’t signed.

No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.

In the zoomed-in view, there’s a strange halo around the letters.

The certificate number is blacked out.

The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn’t released until 2008.

The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth."

Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the

fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers

that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka

(who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few

photographs.

The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller

Alvin T. Onaka’s signature stamp

FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

2 of 5 3/13/2012 12:23 PM

Page 69: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

The raised seal

Blowup of text

You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven’t been edited in any way, except that some have been

rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes.

The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport:

"your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal

or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all

evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.

The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the

hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents’ hometowns. The short form is printed by

the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form

does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough

information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short

form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.

The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text

might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the

close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital

artifact from the scanning process.

We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is

stamped June 2007, because that’s when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document

and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn’t release

its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama’s citizenship. The campaign

then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna:

"[We] couldn’t get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information,

and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we’ve found out it’s pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The

document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 – 010641.

FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

3 of 5 3/13/2012 12:23 PM

Page 70: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Blowup of certificate number

Some of the conspiracy theories that have circulated about Obama are quite imaginative. One conservative blogger

suggested that the campaign might have obtained a valid Hawaii birth certificate, soaked it in solvent, then reprinted it

with Obama’s information. Of course, this anonymous blogger didn’t have access to the actual document and presents

this as just one possible "scenario" without any evidence that such a thing actually happened or is even feasible.

We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence

that the information on it is incorrect. Instead, some speculate that somehow, maybe, he was born in another country

and doesn’t meet the Constitution’s requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen."

We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is

possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people

and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming

evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."

In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to

dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on

Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:

Obama’s birth announcement

The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was

born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.

Of course, it’s distantly possible that Obama’s grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their

grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who

choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack

Obama was born in the U.S.A.

Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They

couldn’t tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is

Obama’s father’s race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are

supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it

FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

4 of 5 3/13/2012 12:23 PM

Page 71: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African." It’s certainly

not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.

When we asked about the security borders, which look different from some other examples of Hawaii certifications of

live birth, Kurt said "The borders are generated each time a certified copy is printed. A citation located on the bottom

left hand corner of the certificate indicates which date the form was revised." He also confirmed that the information

in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes."

– by Jess Henig, with Joe Miller

Sources

United States Department of State. "Application for a U.S. Passport." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.

State of Hawaii Department of Health. "Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.

Hollyfield, Amy. "Obama’s Birth Certificate: Final Chapter." Politifact.com. 27 Jun. 2008.

The Associated Press. "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine" 31 Oct 2008.

Nakaso, Dan. "Obama’s certificate of birth OK, state says; Health director issues voucher in response to ‘ridiculous’

barrage" Honolulu Advertiser 1 Nov 2008.

POSTED BY JESS HENIG ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2008 AT 2:44 PM FILED UNDER ARTICLES. TAGGED WITH BARACK OBAMA, BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

5 of 5 3/13/2012 12:23 PM

Page 72: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Qualifications

Who’s checking up on officeholder eligibility? Find out here

Home » Activism, Eligibility, New Hampshire, POTUS

Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do Forensics; NH SoS and Certificates; British Policeman on EligibilitySubmitted by Phil on Tue, Nov 24, 2009472 Comments

TheObamaFile reports on what readers here have seen me promulgate all along regarding the FactCheck.org blog’s credentials on making any sort of forensic document determination RE: Mr. Obama’s Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth — they don’t have the right background (update: see bios here):

FactCheck.org identifies their anal-ists as Jess Henig and Joe Miller. OK, that’s fine, but who and what are Jess Henig and Joe Miller? Are they qualified to perform an analysis of ANY document, or are they just a couple of guys hanging around FactCheck.org’s office, or are they political operators? What are their bona fides? FactCheck.org doesn’t say. Wonder why?

Well, I found out. The two FactCheck.org employees who were granted access to Obama’s bogus Certification of Live Birth (COLB) are NOT document examiners or experts. Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy — so he’s a political operative — while Jess Henig has an M.A. in English Literature — I’m not sure her dye-job is a political or esthetic statement.

They are a couple of partisan Obots — just what you’d expect — Jess took the photos presented on their webpage and did all of the writing, while Bob basically held the COLB open for Jess to photograph — suitable work for a Ph. D.

Page 2 of 58The Right Side of Life » Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do Forensics; NH So...

4/23/2010http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/11/24/eligibility-update-factcheck-org-doesnt-do-f...

Page 73: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination of any document, and FactCheck.org knows it — and so do Henig and Miller.

FactCheck does say their, “representatives got a chance to spend some time with the ‘birth certificate,’ and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.” In my mind, that clearly shows they were working with and for the Obama Campaign and that Obama and his people are involved in this lie.

Again, as I’ve said before, these individuals may be very well credentialed in their chosen fields, but it hardly seems fitting that individuals who are not trained in the science of document forensics — like four otherwise credentialed examiners have been — could possibly have a trained opinion of the document’s legitimacy.

Further, as certain opposition commenters have pointed out many times over, the page that allegedly speaks to the authenticity of the document can lead the casual observer to believe that quotes from the HI Department of Health are directly related to the certification allegedly on hand with FactCheck.org. This is very much of a conclusory lead, as the HI DoH has never made any direct connection between what they have on file versus what FactCheck.org claims to have on hand. There is no receipt of any such transaction ever having occurred back in 2007 and nobody but the above two individuals have come forward to actually physically handle the document (regardless of FactCheck.org’s supposed willingness to allow such an inspection).

Remember — this is the only direct evidence that has ever been claimed to be originally sourced to speak on anything regarding Mr. Obama’s background. And even this is hardly a direct source; it is a “short-form” version of a “long-form” birth certificate that could very well indicate a birth registration of an immigrant (see Sun Yat-sen for such an example).

Following up on a story concerning New Hampshire State Rep. Lawrence Rappaport inquiring with the Secretary of State regarding Mr. Obama’s legitimate candidacy on the ballot in the State, The Post & Email reports on some additional details:

In an email to supporters, Rappaport reports what transpired:

“Well, here’s the sad news. Representative Vita, her husband and I met with New Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney and his assistant yesterday

(Friday) at 10 am. We wanted an investigation for potential fraud on either Obama or the Democratic Partly based mostly on our contention that since Obama ran for President in New Hampshire when we believe he was not eligible, we believe fraud was committed on the citizens of New Hampshire.

We based our suspicions and allegations on:

Page 3 of 58The Right Side of Life » Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do Forensics; NH So...

4/23/2010http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/11/24/eligibility-update-factcheck-org-doesnt-do-f...

Page 74: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT

Exhibit 7

Page 75: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

United $tala, DsplubMnt d State

w- D.C.

h reply f&rto: CA/FPTIL&E - Case ConW Number: 21Q0807238

-her E. S t m k 593 Vmddilt Avenue, #28 1 Brooklyn, NY 11238

The follawing is in reapme to your q u e s t to the Departmat of State, datd Nwembenr 22,22008, mqucstkg the release ofmate&I under the pmvisions of thc F e r n of lnfbrmation Act (5 U.S.C. 8 552).

We have mmp1ete&a seareh fin rwds responsive to yaurrequ@ The semh m t h d in the retried of six doEwmnts that are responsive: to yQW wUWL A f h lWkW of dla~ d-% we ha\~e~de&JBlkd ht.d six do amen^ may be d e a d 4 full.

We did not locate a 1965 passp~rt application referenced in an appliclttion fa fordmat of passpat mat is ia~Iuded in the dead documats. Many passport rrpplicatiom and other non-vital m r d s fmm that period were dmtmyed during tb 1980s in acconhor= with guidange fmn the General Services Achhhmion.

Pwspoxt mads typidly consid of applicstj0118 fix United States -8 and of Udted SWCS CibLlm* p w f l

do IIQ~ ~ G I U & €W&XlmOf&&Vd such aS -S, *, residence @ts, ek, since this infomdm is atfmIl into the pawport book aRg issuance,

Page 76: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 77: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 78: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

I SPOUSE W A S P A E V I O Y J L Y M A R R I E D T O

-

P A G E 2

AMEND T O INCLUDE I E X C L M D E l lWlFElIHUSBAWD)

P R E V 1 6 U I M A R R I A G E TERMINATED B Y

DIVORCE DEATH

N A M E

I AMEHD TO INCLUDE IEXCLUDE) C A t L D R E N I

RHENO TO A E k O I N HARRIED H A M E

H A U L I

B I R T H P L A C E BlRTHahTE

1 I CITIZENSHIP OP HUSBAND I I - A T E MARRrEU

tlOCUMEt4TARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO DEPAATMEHT B Y COHSU LAFI OFFICER

I U. I. C l T l Z E H a ALIEM-CtTNZEM O F

OTHER AMENDMEALTtSj ~ D E S C R ~ B E IN DETAlL ACTION REQUESTED1

S f A? EMEHT OF ACTIOM BY POST UPOU O E P A R T MEHT'S AUTHOR1 ZAT lOH (70 br erccuted only In eanrrccrlon with cure. r e f e d frr h p 1 . l

P L A C E M A R R I E D

!

rue a P ~ S S P O R T [7 RENEWCO TO OPTE

C A R D UP l O t N T l T Y WAS AMENOEI) h S A C O U E S T E D

0 C E R T I F I C A T E 0 EXTENPEB TO

MARRIET) T O

STAPLE: OW? PHOTO HERE 00 NOT MAR FACE

A U T H O R I T Y -

lConsul el ?he Uni ted Stmes o f Arnerlcd

Thc pisspon photos required must

X ( P h b nrqrrirtd/or irrrlununm J

be appmximately 2% by 2s inches in size:

OPlHlON O F CONSULAR OFFlCER

bc an thin un~larcc! papcr, show l u l l Ironr view of applicant with a plain, lipht buck- ground: and have b t rn taken ai thin 2 years ol &tc submirtd , When drpcndcnts are in-

cludrd they shou ld bc showninnpmup pho-

tograph. Thc c.onsul will not accept photos char are not a g m d likeness. Colnr phoio- firsphs are acrcptablt.

h mr sfqple semd pbora A~tach IcofcIy by mn clip.

x x (Consul o f fh. Unhsd Stmer of AmerIcol 1 FS-299

In ccrrsin cases spccilic auihorizarion by the ~ c p a r t m c n t wil l be rcquitctl. In rhesc c a s t s an extra copy e l the form should 7 - 64 bc prcpnrcrl. I'pm reccipr 8 l rhr Pepsnmcnt's rcpl y the fx t rn copy should be rr~nsmiitcd with s notarlnn 01 the s c r i m inken,

Page 79: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 80: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

REQUE5T BY U-HJT€D 5TA.ES WAfllQsafAt F a AND REPORT'W ERC€PTt.Obl TQ SECTIGR 53-1, TITLE 22 OF ME <WE OF FEDERAL REGULATIQNS

REQUEST 1 hr ,T bra rrthnnd that m y @ ~ r r - i s hoe galid and rhaf a d i d p a - 0 ~ is t m p t i d by law *D +nm the

I r set! Sn ces. 1 rn+~c% that la cxrrprimT be &mu crd m me, as pcoildrd i a !kcdon 13*21k)> Tide 22 af the Cad. rr C I.r$emI Ie~gu?a%~um 1 wkr&tand dm P -PEE g $ 2 5 is zeFBd upder &rtipn 33. ah) a d L iwriji rrpmh such h e r t ~ It* Pavsprt PRipc pep$-at of Em=, WA-~, D.

A - ~ P E iB =T. 9 D 3 & b m 3 WWW , 7437 %Q@i ,am%@& # ID aml* ' P

WSSFOW ND,, BATE A@ P U C E QF ESU'iC! L

F -

BlWrtlPWICE

t mww.I -S E

mt6fsreF f*# E~noluxta, I k W H DjakzPka, mm0W h

'#CIWT NUMBER OR VESSEL NME O f GAMIER A

Page 81: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

c-

IHSTIIUCTlOarS: All rrqwrts b tnelw-a uFpcrwns mon k. t~ rar uIFrrM) bo- h a a Asrnt mi Xha Dlpmrtm*n* d %ah or a& of Co&. Photwa r, -t th. rqui-* ~ a . -xi+. 4 s R h * r ~ l l p mus+ &tt.d it -11 pr-s b bm in~1ud.d this O W ~ ~ W I T . If t#w had, w ~ V I M t w k i l kt, o mviaur , v ~ p w t , tt should bm *hlt++d i , ~ t m z d of athr dmwm#rta, ~ * e t ~ o i G e o m p f h .

WRY V >\leb BUO%ET BUREAU ~ g . 4?-RWg ,Passper+ O.ffrc* Us. O n l y )

IN C A W OF

IPLe*nr PRrHT N*HC 1 1 PULL) (Ffd -1 {Mlddib 4 tL- -l

i d t d Ww.

g IHCLUDZ MY MiLD(REH), & FOLLOWS: (Also cumpl.t* %&on H ZT &Ild{wfi) aeqGd ahweskip by ~ohzaHt3an . ad h0.w nu! h d a pn*vtMs par+.)

HAME JH FWL P L A M UF #tT(*n fclth #All! DF B t R f !4 STAPLE ONE PYOm HERE oo MOT MAC( FACE

MTE op ermn DATE ar YAIIRI-E DO NOT STAPLE SEaLIND PHOTO

ATTACH BY PAPER CLIP

Page 82: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

'P, 5E WPtETE D BY. AW 4PFi.lCAHT W H F MFE W ~ S ' P ~ E V I ~ J MMlEI) BEFORE 3, I#!, W p W B 70 BE l b m 1 3 ~ E ~ P ,%#PP~ jlf &&d - the --TI sit Forth In o rn#-Wat -1 1

Page 83: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE - PENCIL NOT ACCEPTABLE) ' ' - . I / For DepahleM Oec i t i .~ I I I

I DEPARTMENT OF Sf ATE I ,,;: ,,,,,,,, Jakar ta . Indonesia

POST A C f l O H

REGISTZATIPH A P P R W t

,a,, June 2 , 1 9 7 6 ,,,;,,, A ~ * p l t * g ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 9 8 1 C A j i D O F I D f h T I T Y AND RE<.

TO 8E COMPLETED 8Y AN APPLICANT WHO BECAME P, C l T l E H THROUGH HAlURALIZAnON 1 IMMtGRATEI) T O THE U.S. (MonVh, fern)

COMPLETE OHLY IF OTHERS ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN PASSPORT OR REGISTRATION AND S P M r t GROUP PHOTCGRAPH /WIFE'S) IhUSBAND'S) =ULL LEGAL MAME ENATIVE BQRN

NATURALIZED

I 1

I REStDED CDNTINUDUSLY IN THE U.S. Frcm (Year \ T a IYaar)

HATURALIZASION ~ E R T I P I C A ? € NO.

a seam a d ~ ~ ~ . n o g

LWIFFS) (MUSI3AH3'5) PLACE OF BIRTH (clly, stow or ~ w v i n c m , ~ o u n t t l l

- . - I - - - -,

NATURALIZATION CESTIF ICATE NO. U S~brn~ritrd haravirh 0 Scrn and rafurned a Pwviaur ly submorrmd

PLACE NA TUAAL ZED (City, rlormJ

3ATF Of BIRTH (Mo., DUY, Y - l r )

" -- - .- -

PLACE NATURAL12 ED (CTly, atete)

R E S I O ED IN U.S. (Frqm-To)

-

E

M A T U R A t l Z A T I O H C W R T

NATURALITATION COURT OATE NATURALIZFD

2 ~ ~ , 2 ~ ~ ' ~ 2 ~ HAME Ifd FULL OF C H I L ~ R E W INCLUDED

DATE H A f U R A L t Z f D

PLACE OF B I R T H (Clty, s * o ~ / p r w r m m , ~ s d n r w l

4 -

QTHER EvloENCE OF: U.S. OTlZENSHlP PRESENTED 15tatr diswsl t ion)

I

H M E S C CNCE LE r O3

OTHER DISP351TIOtd

PASSPOST NO. DATE OF ISSUE 3 A T E O r ZEG15TRA-

TlON OR a l R f H P E P O R T

LOCATION CF OFFICE

Page 84: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

FORM FS-lX 9 4 4 # P-2

F ! ~ ~ ~ M R ' S HXWP: I PATHEWS P U C E O F BIRW @bI st@*, P+wlnc= C-I 1 MU.& C ~ Z W

YOfHER'S DATE F 61 RTH a MaFHF! DEC W E D W H E R REStPEO IH US.

A M* ' ~ B X W E R .suD~H~*T Ww 04 V&U I # I ( F r n F ~ R 7~ ~r $ ~ R ~ E * I 7 'a I WAS MEYEU MARRIED PIIESEa P U ~ LEGlll19b)lE QP M w 011 WlfL

sl WAS wsr v r ~ l m w ww MA 1~ I IS, J H C I L O ~ o ~ a c r , rn HPBBAHW~ 08 WIPE*$ PUCE 09 W M H wwI t r m j fiFtYS%*E18 OR WIFE 1s U.S. Cil7Z.W

1 MpE)&sr& mND OR WIFE IS NOT us ClIlZEN I

ron QF ON)$# Wm4 PATE DP meed

HAME DP w e OR Atrtwe h u e a: l976

?&A, A.(ul I

Page 85: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

1~ br brcaedrd (mhw t)wn prrport -3. Whmn mon Cn wr p*r#n k#b.Inoludrd,.ptWPpm g n p h M I h r w n d m 8 B -

, W f e W I W r n L E m o OF I#cuslQ& HERE

OPTIONAL FO!W lm (WRMERLY FStTB).

Page 86: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

wr-mtm n-r- PAGE . TO BE COMPLETED By AN APPLICANT WHO BECAME A ClTlZEFI TSIROCIOH NATURALIZATION

L (MMIGRATED T3 THE I RESlWED cONT INUOUSLY IN T Y E YATuFE ALtZATlON CERTl F lCATE NO. U.S. (Month, ycar) U.S. F r l m l Y To ( Ylar ) 0 Sub, ined herwlm

Seen and returned 0 Previouuly submitted

PLACE NATURALIZED (tify. state) N A ~ > S A C I Z A T ~ ~ N C O U R T DATE NATURALIZED

I/ TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL APPLICAMTS --

IO~CUPATION 1 V I S I BLE DISTINGUISHING MARKS

PROGRAM OFFICER. FORD FOUNDATION 1 -. -

W E N llrlffT OWPLETE W L L m N G IF CHILDREN OF k P R M O l R hMRRMGf ARE MLUDED OR 1F PR-V W R I E D BEWRE W W 3 1331

1 S WAS PREVIOLiSl-Y MARRIED ON ] T O (Flrlt legal nama) I IN~O *AS BORN AT IClry. State, Countw)

( FORMER HUSBAND WAS NOT US. C ~ Z E N ~ O N ID-) : ~ I F A F P U C A N T O R A N Y R R S M U ~ F I C U A ~ E I ~ ~ N ~ W ~ N B W S N O F B D R N I N T H E U N W S T A ~ M Q C W ~ I P ' R R O W ; H P A R ~

EnlTERElO T H E U.S. (nnanth) (Year ) I F FATHER NATURALIZED: IF *%OWN, FATHEFI'S RESiDENCE

Applicant P H Y S ~ C A L PRESENCE IN U.S.

Date Certrflcgta No. WFe

From (Year) To (Yaar)

a H M S M ~ 1

Before (Name of Court) Place KiW, Statel u ChJld

RESIDENCE/MNTSNUC3US PHVSlCAL IF MOT HER NATURALIZED: IF m. MOTHER'S A E S I M M E PRESENCE IN U.S. FmmlYmar) To (Yaar )

Carrifieam No. PHYSICALPRESENCE IN U S , C] Appliant

Dam Fmrn IYear) To IYear)

( ae70re (Name 0.f coum, I

Plws (Ciry, Stat%)

B 7 J I I I

r \ PROPOSED TRAVEL PWNS mot Mandatary) 1 I lNT END TO CONTINUE T O RESIDE ABROAD FOR THE FOLLOWING PE RlOD AND PURPOSE

Two years contract w i t h Ford Foundation from January December 1982.

INTEND TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES PERMANENTLY DATE OF DEPARTURE T RESIDE WIT HIM I f 6 YEARS MONTHS

I f 1 PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT

f h*a ln fmat ion s~ l ic i lSd O n this f&m 1s autherrizftl by, Wr not limited to. mose statures codif iad In TRI- 8, 18, mnd 22, U n i m d S m CodO, md all prtdecc-ersor statures whether or not l+rrdifled, and ell regulations issued pursuant ro E X ~ C ~ T N B Order 7 1295 of August 5, 1966. The p r l r n m pumom for mI6citlng the informotion Is tv ssrabliph citit+nship, Identlq an4 enritlrmenr to issuance a i a Unlred Stat- P m o n ar rslatud fnclli*y, and to properly d m lnisrer n n d enfarce ma I m s perralning hereto.

The informmdon is mede mallable t6 a roudne up. 8f1 needtltnuw baris t~ pwsonnd of ihm Oapnmant Of Srsa and ethw gwwnrnmnt qnneim hwlna statutory or other lsnrfur BU thor~ty to rnainmin S U C ~ Inlormarion in the pedormance of their afficlsl dutfw: purarmt to a lubpwnl ar mum order: and, ar sat f orth In Part 6e, T i t l e 22, Code of Federal Regulmionr {See Federal Raginar Volume do. pages 45755, 45756,45419 and 47420).

I Failure to provide tho l r r f ~ m t i ~ ~ r m q u ~ t s d m this form may rarult 3n rho dsnlal erf a Unimd State* P s s p o q dsmd doeurnant or m w h to t h m individual seeking such passpon, document or Sarvl~a.

NOTE: The di~clasuru of your S a i a l Security Number or af tha -&ntity find lwttan of 8 p e w w be n0~ifi.d tn the Wmt nf dnth or -1-t 3* entirely voluntary. Woweutlr, feilwru m provide th is inforrnatlm may pnrvcnt the Depwonent of St- from p r m l d q you with tlmaly mslst-nc. or prowctlon in the event you should enmunrer an mergemy rimer: -I whlle o u ~ i d e the U~iOedStsrea

I 4 l f m y of the Muwmandomd aets or conditions have bemn pmrfnmed by or applv rn the apptieant, or m any 0d-m p w n to k lneluded In t h m passport, the parrim which appfies should be snuck out, and a supplementary ex planstory aaternent under oath Lor &firmmion) by tho parson to wham

I t he portion is @glicable should be stteched snd made a w r r of this application.)

1 hsva no t (snd no other permn intruded i n this sppllentign had, since acquiring United S m c*d2mnshlp. men n+turmtkd ma 3 cltlrm d a lwalpn m; taken an Dam or made an uffirmation o r other formal declerari~n of allegiance to a fnreign stew: enrered or mrvd in the -mad forcsl of a formign stetm; acmted or performed the dutiar af any Office, post, or srnploymenr under the oovernment of 8 forelm smte or political subdivl*ion thereclf: made m formd renunciation of natlenality either in the U n r l e d Statas or M o r a s diplomatic or consular aWker 0 1 tho Unit& S tams in s taraign ¶ t a u ; wsr mupht or cta~med the benefits of rhe nationality of any f waign state: or been convicted by s coun Dr eown m e d a l of cornpstenr Jurisdiction D f committing anv act of t r a m n aga;mr, or atrernprlng by forcc TO OveRhraw, or bearing arms egainn, lhe United Stares, or conrpir~ng to wenhrow, put down or to dmtroy by force, me Govarnmenr of the U n i t s d S r a t ~ . WARNrNG: False staremtnn made tnowinglv and willfwlly Fn p-orr epplice*lons er in ~ d a v i n or omer wpportinpl dmumma wbrnfmd themWith are puni~hable by fine and/or irn~risonrnent under the provisions ot 18 USC t 0 0 1 nnWw 18 VSC 1542. Almrat im or mutilalon Of r pgsron iaumd punuunt to t h i s application is pu ni*ahle by fine sndlor imprisonmeni u ndcr The pr~vis iona Of 18 USC t543. Tho ura of a pasport In violetion Of the restricrionr contained therein or of the pa%port regularions is punishable by fine andfor imprisonment under 18 USC 1544. Alr rtatsment3 and dmurnents submitted are rubiecr ta VerificasiLn.

(FOR USE OF OFFlCf

APFLlCANT'S I O E N T ~ F ~ ~ N G DBCUMENT(SI

Certificme mf NarurJ- lzation or Clrizenshig No.:

. l,J Pasgporr l m e Dm?:

0 Drivsfs Liceme place a+ lssue:

Vrher (S~~ .ac i fy k: I twed In Name of: - O US. Q o w n m n t RlnlIm C

APPLICATION)

IDENTIFYING DOCUMENT (S) OF WIFElHUSBAND f 0 BE INCLUDED IN PASSPORT

Certif icam of Natural- n iaarion ar CitMenshlp No.: Parwon Iuue Darn:

C] ?her [Spsclfv): rwed in ~ m m a of:

Page 87: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 88: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 89: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT

Exhibit 8

Page 90: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

LAWYER SEARCH: ATTORNEY'S REGISTRATION AND PUBLIC DISCIPLINARY RECORD

ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of March 4, 2010 at 1:15:21 PM:

Check carefully to be sure that you have selected the correct lawyer. At times, lawyers have similar names. The disciplinary results displayed above include information relating to any and all public discipline, court-ordered disability inactive status, reinstatement and restoration dispositions, and pending public proceedings. Investigations are confidential and information relating to the existence or status of any investigation is not available. For additional information regarding data on this website, please contact ARDC at (312) 565-2600 or, from within Illinois, at (800) 826-8625.

ARDC makes every effort to maintain the currency and accuracy of Lawyer Search. If you find any typographical errors in the Lawyer Search information, please email [email protected]. For changes to contact information, including address, telephone or employer information, we require that the attorney submit a change of address form. Please consult our Address Change Requests page for details. Name changes require the filing of a motion with the Supreme Court. Please consult our Name Change Requests

Full Licensed Name: Barack Hussein Obama

Full Former name(s): None

Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: December 17, 1991

Registered Business Address:

Not available online

Registered Business Phone: Not available online

Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law

Malpractice Insurance: (Current as of date of registration; consult attorney for further information)

No malpractice report required as attorney is retired.

Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings: None

Page 1 of 2ARDC | Lawyer Search: Attorney's Registration and Public Di...

3/5/2010https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=640861630

Page 91: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT

Exhibit 9

Page 92: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

The following documents had prompted my request for the previous document. It is from the Office of Personnel Management (Federal Employees) webpage which discusses who must pass a background investigation. Ironically OPM requires

Page 93: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

McCain also failed to answer some of his constituents in writing regarding the eligibility issue.

 

Page 94: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 95: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 96: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 97: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 98: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 99: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 100: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 101: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 102: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 103: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234
Page 104: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

And I thought that Congress was supposed to vet the President elect? Senator Kyl seems to think that a married couple from California with no access to Obama’s records is capable of vetting Obama. The site does have a disclaimer that you cannot rely upon their non-legally binding opinions.

Page 105: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

RICHARD SHELBY A-MA

Rnultr~ro m m - m ~ m BANKINO, Hcwma, & UAW APFRlRS

CoMumeP~-- b N m u G MwmeR-6uBOdMwmE IIPl COmBRCe,

JUmce,*eMcE.& RELXtI3I1AmiPlAQs S l r H w m r n A W ~ ~

710 k h T S N A E &UOlNG WASHIMWH, W 2NtWlCCI

(2021 224-6744

United Statp Senate WASHINGTON, ~d 20510-0103

Ms. Texri Storm ~ r e s ident/c~o Storm Consulting G r o u p 4524 Park Avenue Bessemer, Alabama 35023-4184

Dear Ma. Storm:

January 2 9 ; Z O O 9

ThaIF-yau -far takiw the time to[ Tantact -me awt- PreBdant - elect Barack Qbama1s citizenship status. I always appreciate hearing from my constituents.

Under the United States Constitution, Section 1 of Article I1 contains a clause that states:

"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 el igible 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. l1

Many have contacted me regarding the numerous claims and lawsuits circulating an the i n t e rne t asserting that Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore ineligible to become United States President. However, Pxesident-elect Obama has presented his bi r th certificate, showing that he was b ~ m in Hawaii, and it has been verified and confirmed by Bawaiim officials . Additionally, the Supreme Court has declined to act on any of the cases contesting Obamars citizenship. Un January 8 , 2009, Me&rs of Cangress were given the opportunity to contest the iasue - - in a joint session of Congress, but no such objecFion was raised during txe-meeting. B y a l l accounFs, President-elect Barack 0bama meeta those requirements. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor the situation should further iesues arise.

Thank you again for contacting me. IE I may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Richard Shelby

Page 106: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

JEFF SESSIONS m

Snited Stata Senate WASHINGTON, DC 20610-0104

January 23,2009

Mrs. Terri Stam 4524 Park Avenue Besserna, Alabama 3 5022

Dear Mrs. Stom:

Thank you for your recent le?der regarding President B m k Obama.

- - - As you are aware, stories have circulated that call into question President Qbama' s - --- citizenship. Additionally, various lawsuits have b&n filed alleging that Obama is not a natural born citizen ofthe United States, and therefore is constitutiodly ineligible for the office of president. However, in June 2008, President Obama released a digitally scanned image of his birth certscate, and Hawaii's Director of the State Department of Health, Chiyome Fukimo, has verified its authenticity.

As you may know, on January 8,2009, Congress certified and tallied the Electoral College results that verified President Obama's election as the next president of the United States.

The office of the presidency should be held in high regard and the president treated with respect, no matter who occupies the position As we move forward, Americans should expect Congress and the president to work together to find substantive solutions to the pressing issues that our nation faces today.

Thank you again for writing. Please do not hesitate to mntact me or a member of my staff if we may ever be of assistance to you.

-

sions - United States Senator

JS: cd

Page 107: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 78-1 Filed 10/01/09 Page 1 of 2

Page 108: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS IAS Part 27 Index No.: 6500-2011 ---------------------------------------------------------------------x Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse (Hon. Arthur M. Schack J.S.C) Plaintiff, -against- PLAINTIFF’S NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. MEMORANDUM WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. IN SUPPORT OF THE PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; NOTICE OF MOTION ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMÍ COLÓN, in their Official and FOR PRESENTMENT individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; OF EVIDENCE PETER G. PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH OF FORGERY AND (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC SPOLIATION AS STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES SUPPLEMENT TO PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; RÓGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; THE COMPLAINT JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; BY REQUEST FOR THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF LEAVE OF THE COURT THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities. Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------------------------x Plaintiff, Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse self-represented without an attorney,

provides this Memorandum with his affidavit with nine (9) exhibits annexed affirmed

April 10, 2012 in support of his Notice of Motion for presentment of evidence of forgery

and spoliation as supplement to the complaint that by previous request for leave of the

court having been denied at the October 25, 2011 hearing the right to file a first

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 1 of 22

Page 109: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

amended complaint by Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. on the U.S. Constitution Article 2

Section 1 paragraph 5 “Natural Born Citizen” (NBC) eligibility Issue controlling matters

in Trial Court and pending claims at the Court of Claims as time is of the essence with

irreparable harm with a hearing scheduled on the Calendar for April 24, 2012.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

U.S. Constitution

Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3………………………………………………………………………20

Article 2, Section 1 ………………………………………………………………………2,4,6,13,20

13th Amendment……………………………………………………………………………………..13

14th Amendment……………………………………………………………………………4,5,13-18

Federal Cases

Minor v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162 (1875)……………………………………………………18-20

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)………………………………………………..18-20

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)……………………………………………………….19

Elk v Wilkins 112 US 94 (1884)……………………………………………………………….18-20

Scott v Sanford, 19 Howard 393………………………………………………………………14,21

Slaughterhouse Cases 16 Wall 36, 83 US 73………………………………………….……….21

Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303, 100 US 306………………………………….………21

Respublica v DE LONGCHAMPS 1 US 111 (1784) 1 Dall. 111……………………….……..19

Strunk v US DOS and DHS DCD 08-cv-2234…………………………………………………….5

OTHER SOURCES

The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the law of nature by Emer de Vattel and Joseph Chitty at Section 212……………………………………………………………18-21 Congressional Globe of 1862 of the 37th Congress 2nd ses. p. 1639……………………...15 The 39th Congress 1st session Senate 62. On January 5, 1866 and reported out of Committee on January 11, 1866…………………………………………………..…….15 the debates in 1866 Congressional Globes at 2883………………………………………16-18 The Civil Rights Act of 1866 ………………………………………………………………13,14,18

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 2 of 22

Page 110: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

New York State Citations Metlife Auto & Home v. Basil Chevrolet, 303 A.D.2d 30, 33-34 (Fourth Dept. 2002); See also Kirkland v. New York City Hous. Auth., 236 A.D.2d 170 (First Dept. 1997) Wetzler v. Sisters of Charity Hosp., 17 A.D.3d 1088 (Fourth Dept. 2005)………………10

Denoyelles v. Gallagher, 40 A.D.3d 1027 (Second Dept. 2007); See also Rogala v.

Syracuse Hous. Auth., 272 A.D.2d 888 (Fourth Dept. 2000)………………………………10

Cohen Bros. Realty v. Rosenberg Elect. Contrs., 265 A.D.2d 242 (First Dept. 1999)….10

Cutroneo v. Dryer, 12 A.D.3d 811 (Third Dept. 2005); Cummings v. Central Tractor

Farm & Country, 281 A.D.2d 792 (Third Dept. 2001)………………………………………..11

Yi Min Ren v. Professional Steam-Cleaning, 271 A.D.2d 602 (Second Dept. 2000); See

also Rogala v. Syracuse Hous. Auth., 272 A.D.2d 888 (Fourth Dept. 2000)…………….11

NYS CPLR

CPLR 3025(b)…………………………………………………………………………………………4,5

ISSUES RAISED:

Supplement and Amendment by leave of court ……………………………………...………..4 An Authority of Competent Jurisdiction Reports that The purported 2011 Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) is a forgery…………………….…….6 An Authority Of Competent Jurisdiction Reports that all The Microfilm from August 1, 1961 through August 10, 1961 is missing from the National Archives ….…7 That Respondent Obama 2007 CoLB is a forgery along with the 2011 CoLB forgery….7 That Respondent Obama Spoliates and Conceals Evidence…………………………………8 Elements of Spoliation………………………………………………………………………………..9 Spoliation as a Cause of Action does not exist alone in New York………………………..10 That Defendant Obama made Admissions against Interest………………………………...12

That Defendant Obama has Unclean Hands…………………………………………………..13

As for de facto “Born a Citizen” of the 14th Amendment versus de jure “Natural-Born Citizen” conflation contrary to the U.S. Constitution……………14 In Conclusion for Leave to Supplement the Complaint…………………………………..….21

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 3 of 22

Page 111: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Supplement and Amendment by leave of court Supplement and Amendment by leave of court with CPLR 3025(b) provides that:

“A party may amend his pleading, or supplement it by setting forth additional or subsequent transactions or occurrences, at any time by leave of court or by stipulation of all parties. Leave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just including the granting of costs and continuances.”

“Supplemental” is defined as adding something that has come about since the earlier

pleading was served. The supplemental transaction that significantly revises the legal theory

presented in the complaint filed March 22, 2011 was provided on March 1, 2012 for the first

time anywhere with the preliminary findings of an authority of competent jurisdiction, the

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office COLD CASE POSSE (CCP), while it conducting a criminal

investigation that there was a crime of forgery and fraud committed in the 2008 Ballot Access

of Barack Obama at the Arizona Primary and General Election of proposed candidate for

Office of President of the United States (POTUS). Previously Plaintiff had used as if prima

facie proof the purported Long Form Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) supposedly stamped

April 25, 2011 which was presented by Defendant Obama at a Press Conference in

Washington D.C. on April 27, 2011; and as such would show that Defendant Barack Obama

was at least born a citizen in Hawaii as defined by the 14th Amendment; and however

supported other evidence previously available that his father at his birth was a British

Subject on a foreign alien student visa while married to his U.S. Citizen mother proving he is

not a “natural-born Citizen” as required by US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5

and all the pleadings in this aspect of the cause of action also involving fraud were

dependent upon such prima facia evidence.

The supplemental transaction on March 1. 2012 by the Release of the preliminary

findings by the CCP established substantial suspicion that the April 25, 2011 CoLB is a

forgery manufactured in a computer not at the Hawaii Department of Health and bolstered

the questionable Short Form CoLB supposedly stamped June 6, 2007 as also a forgery too.

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 4 of 22

Page 112: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

The investigation continues in several countries according to the CCP press conference held

March 31, 2012 in Sun City Arizona and will be further reported as evidence is proven and

established that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii and is now a suspicion not even in

the USA rendering even the 14th Amendment argument of Born a citizen invalid also. In

addition to the suspicion of forgeries being presented by Defendant Obama the CCP

established further suspicion of spoliation and concealment as Plaintiff had suspected when

in the still active FOIA Case Strunk v US DOS and DHS DCD 08-cv-2234 presently before

Judge Richard J. Leon; that the travel records have been maliciously withheld from Plaintiff

by Border Control under the auspice of the Department of Homeland Security being

concealed to favor the usurpation of the office of POTUS is now established as so by the CCP.

That with the addition of sworn affidavits of both an Hawaii Elections registrar and a U.S.

Postal Carrier having met the foreign exchange student Barry Soetoro while delivering mail to

the residence of the father and mother of Defendant Obama confidant Bill Ayers the domestic

terrorist who brags about how easy it is to obtain false identification including social security

numbers for clandestine domestic terrorist purposes, as such all now leads Plaintiff to believe

that the mother was overseas at the time of the birth when ever that occurred as the exit

ingress travel records of customs would establish, but are now concealed by Defendant

Obama with direct control over the National Archives and the personnel doing concealment.

Plaintiff’s understanding is that CPLR 3025(b) amendment is discretionary with the

court, can be made any number of times, has no time limit and is freely granted if there is no

prejudice to the other side as there clearly hasn’t as Defendant Obama has unclean hands

and directly participates in spoliation and concealment of evidence as a continuation of a

crime and scheme to defraud Plaintiff along with those similarly situated.

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 5 of 22

Page 113: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

AN AUTHORITY OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION REPORTS THAT THE PURPORTED

2011 CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH (COLB) IS A FORGERY

That subsequent to the March 22, 2011 Complaint filing with various motions

pending a decision subsequent to the October 25, 2011 preliminary hearing, on March

1, 2012, the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff’s Press Release shown as Exhibit 1 and

Press Conference established in the Preliminary Report by the Sheriff’s COLD CASE

POSSE , as an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate fraud and

crimes committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an affirmation in

2007, that Respondent Obama affirmed compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article

2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 requirement for eligibility for “Natural-born citizen” shown as

Exhibit 2 is the subject of perjury, and currently the submission is pending before the

Arizona primary now in 2012; and that the attached Preliminary Report of the Sheriff’s

COLD CASE POSSE shown as Exhibit 3 supports the suspicion with sufficient

evidence that Respondent Barack Obama was not even born in Hawaii between

August 1 1961 through August 7, 1961 and acts to spoliate evidence of a crime –

Quote:

“Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.

During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable

cause to believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama’s life history including: • President Obama’s Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery,

revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document; • To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United

States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 6 of 22

Page 114: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, records from the days surrounding Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 w[h]ere these immigration cards cannot be found. “

AN AUTHORITY OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION REPORTS THAT ALL THE

MICROFILM FROM AUGUST 1, 1961 THROUGH AUGUST 10, 1961 IS MISSING

FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

That in addition to the evidence of forgery of the Selective Service record before

the 2008 election along with the theft and tampering of the US DOS Passport records

by US DOS private contractor entity under the control of John Brennan currently

Respondent Obama’s White House Counter Terrorism advisor having previously been

assistant to Central Intelligence Director George Tenent, and as such underlines the

suspicion why the microfilm records from the National Archives are missing now as

well, as both agencies are under the direct authority and control of Respondent

Obama, the apparent usurper in the office of POTUS, and by his refusal to make such

microfilm and the missing U.S. DOS records referenced in the cover letter shown in

Exhibit 7 available provides the Court herein with substantial direct available proof

that Respondent Obama is now directly acting in a continuing pattern to spoliate

evidence and usurp the office of POTUS.

THAT RESPONDENT OBAMA 2007 COLB IS A FORGERY

ALONG WITH THE 2011 COLB FORGERY

That according to the Preliminary Report of the COLD CASE POSSE shown as

Exhibit 3, the purported Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form shown as Exhibit 4

is a forged document as submitted to the entire nation by Respondent Barack Obama

and attorneys at his April 27, 2011 at the Washington DC Press Conference according

to the transcript shown as Exhibit 5; and

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 7 of 22

Page 115: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

The Forged document shown as Exhibit 4 also now joins the previously 2007

proffered CoLB short form document as if in 2008 that is a forgery as well based upon

the admissions of the Respondent Obama and his attorneys there at the White House

at the April 27, 2011 press conference . In the transcript shown as Exhibit 5, that at

the April 27, 2011 press conference the White House attorney repeatedly said that

Respondent Obama had requested the short form CoLB in 2008 from the State of

Hawaii be released when in fact the forged CoLB shows the 2007 stamp before the

alleged request was made to Hawaii. However, examination by Petitioner of the

supposed document Hawaii supposedly released in 2008 is stamped June 6, 2007

shown at Exhibit 6 as the FactCheck.org report on August 21, 2008; and the later as

the November 21, 2008 report appended shows the so-called Factcheck.org

investigators, depended on by members of Congress and Media, were partisan

amateurs according to “Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do Forensics; NH SOS

and Certificates; British Policeman on Eligibility”, and thereby all the foregoing provides

sufficient suspicion of fraud and or statements made as admission against interest as

a bar under clean hands doctrine of irrefutable presumption of wrong doing by

Respondent Obama and his agents in 2008 and continuing currently.

THAT RESPONDENT OBAMA SPOLIATES AND CONCEALS EVIDENCE

Based upon the foregoing Respondent Obama Spoliates and Concealed Evidence

according to the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary that defines “spoliation” as, “the

intentional destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence, usu. a

document” (1). Spoliation most commonly becomes an issue in product liability and

negligent installation/servicing claims, where the defective product or the item

negligently installed/serviced goes missing after the loss, thereby limiting and/or

precluding plaintiff from being able to prove its claim. This loss is usually due to

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 8 of 22

Page 116: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

negligence, but in some instances the loss is occasioned by intentional and willful

conduct.

Elements of Spoliation

Within the jurisdictions which have recognized a separate independent tort, there

is variation as to what acts are considered to be independently actionable spoliation

and against whom an action may lay. The variances usually arise out of two

categories:

1) spoliation committed by a party which is or should have been in the underlying

suit for which the missing evidence was to be used (first party) versus committed by a

third party whose only connection to the underlying suit was the loss of the evidence;

and

2) whether the spoliation was intentional or negligent. As the less culpable

“negligent” spoliation claim is usually not recognized as a stand alone tort, and is

usually disposed off via discovery sanctions (first party), this article will focus on the

more affirmative and egregious intentional spoliation, which – as noted above – first

gave rise to spoliation as an affirmative claim. Although each jurisdiction adds its own

nuances to elements of an independent intentional spoliation claim, the following form

the foundation for the claim:

1) pending or probable litigation involving the spoliation plaintiff;

2) knowledge on the part of the spoliation defendant that said litigation exists or is

probable;

3) willful [intentional] destruction of evidence by defendant designed to disrupt the

spoliation plaintiff’s underlying case;

4) disruption of spoliation plaintiff’s underlying case; and

5) damages proximately caused by spoliation defendant’s acts.

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 9 of 22

Page 117: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

SPOLIATION AS A CAUSE OF ACTION

DOES NOT EXIST ALONE IN NEW YORK

That although the State of New York does not recognize a separate cause of action

for spoliation the facts nevertheless support both the admissions against interest, and

unclean hands in the matter of a bar against Defendant Obama from using the

defenses that were referenced in the respective motion to dismiss as a matter of

defense claimed. That Spoliation has usually been defined as the "intentional

destruction, mutilation, alteration or concealment of evidence, [usually] a document,"

Metlife Auto & Home v. Basil Chevrolet, 303 A.D.2d 30, 33-34 (Fourth Dept. 2002); See

also Kirkland v. New York City Hous. Auth., 236 A.D.2d 170 (First Dept. 1997). That

CPLR 3126 sets forth the statutory basis for seeking sanctions against a party who

fails to preserve evidence, see also Wetzler v. Sisters of Charity Hosp., 17 A.D.3d 1088

(Fourth Dept. 2005). The common law doctrine of spoliation provides that "when a

party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, thereby depriving the

non-responsible party from being able to prove its claim or defense, the responsible

party may be sanctioned by the striking of its pleading, Denoyelles v. Gallagher, 40

A.D.3d 1027 (Second Dept. 2007); See also Rogala v. Syracuse Hous. Auth., 272

A.D.2d 888 (Fourth Dept. 2000). The obligation to preserve evidence first arises upon

notice that a potential claim may be made, Cohen Bros. Realty v. Rosenberg Elect.

Contrs., 265 A.D.2d 242 (First Dept. 1999). This duty arises even if the spoliator was

not yet a party, Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Federal Pac. Elec. Co., 14 A.D.3d 213 (First

Dept. 2004). The obligation also arises when a party is on notice that litigation has

been commenced and evidence of related incidents is destroyed, O'Brien v. Clark Equip.

Co., 25 A.D.3d 958 (Third Dept. 2006). The most severe sanction for willful destruction

of critical evidence is striking of the pleading, O'Brien v. Clark Equip. Co., 25 A.D.3d

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 10 of 22

Page 118: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

958 (Third Dept. 2006); Di Domenico v. C&S Aeromatik Supplies, 252 A.D.2d 41

(Second Dept. 1998). This is particularly appropriate where what is lost is "the very

instrumentality giving rise to the plaintiff's injuries," Cutroneo v. Dryer, 12 A.D.3d 811

(Third Dept. 2005); Cummings v. Central Tractor Farm & Country, 281 A.D.2d 792

(Third Dept. 2001). Preclusion of evidence concerning that which was lost or destroyed

either intentionally or negligently is also an appropriate sanction, Yi Min Ren v.

Professional Steam-Cleaning, 271 A.D.2d 602 (Second Dept. 2000); See also Rogala v.

Syracuse Hous. Auth., 272 A.D.2d 888 (Fourth Dept. 2000). If the court refuses to

either strike the pleading or preclude certain evidence, then one can still request that

the court charge the jury with an adverse inference pursuant to New York Pattern

Jury Instructions (PJI) [section] 1.77.1.

However, as this case may be the OBAMA White House website has removed the

multilayer CoLB release as a forgery on or about April 27, 2011 and has not only

“flattened the” pdf image but concealed it. The concept of spoliation applies generally

to the destruction of evidence and, like perjury, goes to the heart of the judicial

process. By statute and procedural rules, states and the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure (FRCVP) provide various sanctions for failing to comply with discovery

obligations to produce evidence which cover most problems and provide remedies

ranging from monetary compensation or penalties to entry of judgment. In addition or

to complete the coverage, states and the federal courts provide remedies by application

of the spoliation concept either as a procedural remedy within the case or as a

separate tort.

That Defendant Obama made Admissions against Interest

That Defendant Obama’s mother in August 13, 1968 as shown on Exhibit 7 as

well as Respondent Obama personally committing perjury as shown on Exhibit 2 and

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 11 of 22

Page 119: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Exhibit 8 affirms having never used another name on his law license application, and

further that Respondent Obama agents as shown in the transcript Exhibit 5 in regards

to Exhibit 6 are all an admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule

which allows a person to testify to a statement of another that reveals something

incriminating, embarrassing, or otherwise damaging to the maker of the statement. It

is allowed into evidence on the theory that the lack of incentive to make a damaging

statement is an indication of the statement's reliability.

In criminal law, it is a statement by the defendant which acknowledges the

existence or truth of some fact necessary to be proven to establish the guilt of the

defendant or which tends to show guilt of the defendant or is evidence of some

material fact, but not amounting to a confession.

That Defendant Obama has Unclean Hands

The clean hands doctrine is a rule of law that someone bringing a lawsuit or

motion and asking the court for equitable relief must be innocent of wrongdoing or

unfair conduct relating to the subject matter of his/her claim. It is an affirmative

defense that the defendant may claim the plaintiff has "unclean hands". However, this

defense may not be used to put in issue conduct of the plaintiff unrelated to plaintiff's

claim. Therefore, plaintiff's unrelated corrupt actions and general immoral character

would be irrelevant. The defendant must show that plaintiff misled the defendant or

has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. The wrongful

conduct may be of a legal or moral nature, as long as it relates to the matter in issue.

For example, if a seller sues a customer for payments on a contract, defendant

may claim plaintiff has unclean hands because he fraudulently induced him to sign

the contract. A court of equity will not decide issues of fairness and justice if it is

shown that the person asking for such justice has acted wrongly in regard to the issue

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 12 of 22

Page 120: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

at hand. In another example, when a brokerage firm claimed that its confidential client

information was being pilfered by the competition, the court held that the firm did not

come to court with “clean hands” since the court found that firm demonstrated a

similar lack of regard for the competitor's confidential client information when it

snared the same broker six years earlier.

The doctrine has often been applied in the context of family law issues,

specifically in cases of financial misconduct. Fraudulent conduct has been a factor in

awarding support and division of property, among other issues. In this case for all of

the above reasons of concealment, spoliation, participating in forging of public

documents, fraud, admission against interest inter alia bar this Court from granting

any relief requested by Respondent Obama and his agents in the May 2011 Motion to

Dismiss presently pending a decision before the court since August 22, 2011.

As for de facto “Born a Citizen” of the 14th Amendment versus de jure

“Natural-Born Citizen” conflation contrary to the U.S. Constitution

As the Plaintiff’s affirmation confirms as shown with Exhibit 9 in the various

letters of the members of Congress they have conflated the term “Born a Citizen”, as

relates use of the 14th Amendment , with the term of art “natural-born Citizen”. That

as such the truth about the 14th amendment has been out there for so long but no one

seems to care what the framers said, and the facts are 100% ignored WE do not need

the courts to figure out what natural-born Citizen (NBC) means or do we need

Congress to do an investigation because the truth is already available all we need to

do is look at the facts. For the record: the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery was

adopted on December 6, 1865; The Civil Rights Act of 1866 which granted former

slaves citizenship was enacted April 9 1866; and, the 14th amendment which made

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 13 of 22

Page 121: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

the Civil Rights Act constitutional was proposed on June 13, 1866 and after much

debate, was adopted on July 9, 1868.

So the question then raised were all dealt with, during the same time frame,

with the same Congressman involved, in each bill. The 14th amendment represented

the overruling of the Dred Scott decision ruling that black people former slaves were

not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges

and immunities of citizenship.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons

born in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign

power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the

Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to

be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to

prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. Which means the

Civil Rights Act of 1866 still stands because the 14th amendment was never repealed.

The left/progressives and the Defendant Obama’s propagandists have totally

perverted the 14th Amendment with their Birthright Citizenship lie. Therefore, to truly

understand the 14th Amendment and what the framers original intent was when

writing it, you must go back to the framers writings and the congressional debates.

Obviously the logical people to research in regard to debates would be Senator

Lyman Trumbull who was the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Co-author of

the 14th Amendment’s “citizenship clause” and co-author of the 13th Amendment to

abolish slavery – was an Illinois Supreme Court Justice 1848-1853.

Senator Jacob Howard worked with Lincoln to draft the 13th amendment.

Served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted the 14th Amendment

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 14 of 22

Page 122: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

to the United States Constitution, and was co-author of the 14th Amendment’s

“Citizenship Clause”.

The Honorable John Bingham was the principle Framer of the 14th Amendment,

Judge advocate in the Lincoln assassination trial and prosecutor on the impeachment

of Andrew Johnson. So getting to the facts, and the easiest way is established by the

chronological order of the legislative debate presentation starting with Representative

John Bingham in 1862 recorded in the Congressional Globe of the 37th Congress 2nd

session page 1639 stated:

“There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and the compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born Within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exceptions to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relation to Indians...”

The next would be the Civil Rights Act of 1866; the original bill was introduced

on January 5, 1866 according to the 39th Congress 1st session Senate 62, that was

reported out of Committee on January 11, 1866 “A BILL to protect all persons in the

United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication.” and it

read:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory “

A week later there was an amendment offered by Mr. Trumbull to wit:

“In section 1, line 3, after the word ‘That,’ insert, ‘that all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States with distinction of color; and,’ ”

On the question to agree to the amendment proposed by Mr. Trumbull, It was

determined in the affirmative, Yeas 31 Nays 10. The Bill as an Act went over to the

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 15 of 22

Page 123: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

House of Representatives where it passed, along with Howard and Trumbull’s

amendment. John Bingham, speaks on the amendment to the bill saying

” I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory or what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen;”

The bill was then sent, to President Andrew Johnson and Johnson vetoed it. It was

sent back to Congress, where both houses, passed the bill, overriding the President’s

veto.

Next Chronologically on to the 14th Amendment, as the congressional debates

while they were debating the 14th Amendment as with that for the Civil Rights act will

reveal how the present use has been 100% perverted. The Bill as proposed for the 14th

amendment at first did not provide for a jurisdictional statement in Article 1 Section 1

quote:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities if citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

During the debates in 1866 Congressional Globes at 2883 Mr. Latham stated quote:

“Mr. Speaker, we seem to have fallen upon an age of theories. We are told from day to day with much seeming sincerity and an air of the most profound political sagacity that the Union when restored must be restored upon the basis which will make it as permanent as the everlasting hills and as invulnerable as the throne of the Eternal, and with such safeguards that even treason will no longer be possible within its jurisdiction.”

Then Senator Edgar Cowen gave a speech telling why the citizenship clause was need

and certainly was not to be used to make anyone born here a citizen, stated …

“Mr. Cowen. The honorable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have no doubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legal definition of “citizenship of the United States.” What does it mean? What is its length and breath? I would be glad if the honorable Senator in good earnest would favor us with some such definition. Is the child of the Chinese Immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 16 of 22

Page 124: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

so, what rights have they? Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the United States? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same as it is to kill another man. You cannot commit an assault and battery on him, I apprehend. He has a right to the protections of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word.”

“It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. He is not entitled, by virtue of that, to be an elector. ..”

And he goes further to state:

“I have supposed, further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a broad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the country of California, and if another people of a different race, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have free right to locate there and settle among them, and if they have an opportunity of pouring in such an immigration as in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? I do not know that the contingency will ever happen, but it may be well to consider it while we are on this point.

“As I understand the right of the States under the Constitution at present, California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she chooses who is not a citizen of some one of the United States…

“I think the Honorable Senator from Michigan would not admit the right that the Indians of his neighborhood would have to come in upon Michigan and settle in the midst of that society and obtain the political power of the State, and wield it, perhaps, to his exclusion. I do not believe anybody would agree to that.”

Now who among the framers of the 14th Amendment had no clue or inclination

on the issue of illegal immigration and inclusion of anchor babies? Howard and

Trumbull argued for the inclusion of the term “and subject to the jurisdiction” would

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 17 of 22

Page 125: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

be applied and agreed that there would not be a new definition of the term jurisdiction

to be interpreted and applied in the proposed amendment to be declaratory of the

current law, the Civil Rights Act, and that as such Mr. Howard said of the “citizenship

clause” quote

“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and …”

What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the

14th Amendment? Mr. Lyman Trumbull in 1866, Chairman of the Judiciary

Committee and author of the 13th Amendment, in the Congressional Globe 2893 said

“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ Now does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.?’ Not owing allegiance of anybody else. That is what it means.”

In response Senator Jacob Howard responds in concurrence:

“I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction. That question has long since been adjudicated, so far as the usage of the Government is concerned…”

The SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett states :

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 18 of 22

Page 126: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

natural-born citizens. As distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their (p168) parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have not to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizen” (Emphasis added)

The SCOTUS Case Respublica v DE LONGCHAMPS 1 US 111 (1784) 1 Dall. 111 –

“M’Kean, Chief Justice. This is a case of the first impression in the United States. It must be determined on the principles of the laws of nations, which form a part of the municipal law of Pennsylvania; and , if the offenses charged in the indictment have been committed, there can be no doubt, that those laws have been violated.”

The Chief Justice goes on to say:

“Therefore, we conclude, that the Defendant cannot be imprisoned, until his most Christian Majesty shall declare, that the reparation is satisfactory ‘3. ‘The answer to the last question is rendered unnecessary by the above answer to the second question.’ The foregoing answers having been given, it only remains for the Court to pronounce sentence upon you. This sentence must be governed by a due consideration of the enormity and dangerous tendency of the offences you have committed, of the willfulness, deliberation, and malice, wherewith they were done, of the quality and degree of the offended and offender, the provocation given, and all other circumstances which may anyway aggravate or extenuate the guilt. The first crime in the indictment is an infraction of the law of Nations. This law, in its full extent, is part of the law of this State, and is to be collected from the practice of different Nations, and the authority of writers. “

Further search will verify that the term Law of Nations is mentioned at least a

dozen times on the page and the author Vattel is sighted along with each and no other

authorities related to law of nations is cited – only that of Vattel.

That in the SCOTUS case The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Mr. Chief

Justice Marshal stated

“Vattel who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantage. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 19 of 22

Page 127: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. “

As is to be found in The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the law of nature by Emer de

Vattel Joseph Chitty at Section 212. reads;

“The citizen are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to it authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed as matter of course, that each citizen , on entering into society, reserve to children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

That the question posed is why do the usurper’s propagandists use the decision

in regards to Wong Kim Ark where the law went astray? They are pulled towards

corruption in that nearly 100 years earlier then usurper Chester Arthur (1) appointed

Justice Gray to chief justice to succeed Oliver Wendell Holms, Jr. and Gray had

sabotaged his later ruling in Wong Kim Ark from that held in Minor v Happersett of

1874. That in Elk v Wilkins 112 US 94 (1884) Argued April 28, 1884 and Decided

November 3, 1884 it seems that Justice Horace Gray knew the law in 1884 but by the

time Wong Kim Ark came along 15 years later he had forgotten it! Quoting Justice

Gray from the SCOTUS Elk v. Wilkins:

“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President.’

And “The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II Section 1; Article 1, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the

1 Chester Arthur was born in Fairfield Vermont in 1829, but looking at his father’s naturalization papers he didn’t become a citizen until August 31, 1843 meaning that Chester Arthur was not born to citizen parents therefore was not a natural-born Citizen. It seems that the people challenging Chester Arthur then were right all along.

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 20 of 22

Page 128: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v Sanford, 19 Howard 393) , and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white of black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases 16 Wall 36, 83 US 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303, 100 US 306.

In the matter of the immigrant taking the Oath to be a citizen of the United States of

America:

“I hereby declare, an oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentiate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United states of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same , that I will bears arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, that I perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United states when required by the law that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion so help me God.”

Immigrants becoming citizens must take an oath of sole allegiance to the USA.

Now why would that not be expected also of citizens born here? If you are born to two

citizens parents, your allegiance is passed down. If you are not born to two citizen

parents, you must take the oath, simple as that! Vattel’s authority as an institutional

writer extended to the USA where he was cited in court cases between 1789 and 1820

no less than 92 times on matters pertaining to the law of nations.

In Conclusion for Leave to Supplement the Complaint

That in light of the compelling evidence provided by the Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office of forgery and spoliation associated with the Defendant Barack Obama

and his agents, Affirmant includes as germane in this supplement to the complaint

copies of letters U.S. Congressmen released to Affirmant by a journalist for publication

herein as demonstrative of statements by congressmen dating from November 11,

2008 through February 2009 that demonstrates Congressional confusion in what

constitutes eligibility with use of U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 for

Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 21 of 22

Page 129: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

office of POTUS in their conflation of the term "Born a Citizen" as a 14th amendment

with the term of art "natural-born Citizen"; Plaintiff in support of the notice of motion

for presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as a supplement to the complaint

wishes leave of the Court and having previously been denied at the October 25, 20 11

hearing the right to file a *st amended complaint, now as a matter of compelling state

interest grant an order:

That this affidavit be admitted as a supplement to the complaint fded March 22,

That the copy of the purported Certihcate of Live Birth long form dated April

25,20 1 1 released by Defendant Barack Obama at his April 27,201 1 Press

Conference included in Exhibit by Haintiff in his response to Defendant

Obama's motion to dismiss be deemed evidence of Defendant's release of a

forgery rather than a documentati&n of Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii and

that at this point is not only in questi6n but supports suspicion of his birth

overseas according to the Maricopa County, Sheriff's Office.

m a t Defendants answer or otherwise respond to the supplement with

compelling evidence as a matter of compelling state interest; and

for different and other relief deemed necessary for justice herein.

Dated: April m, 20 12 Brooklyn New York

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Self-represented without an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 28 1 Brooklyn, New York 1 1238 '

Phone - 845-90 1A6767 Email: [email protected]

Plaintif'f's MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement .. . Page 22 of 22

Page 130: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

SUPREME COURT OF THk STATE OF NEW YORK COr?rry OF KINGS Index No.: 6500-201 1

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse'; * Plaintiff,

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al.,

b Defendants. x

STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.

COUNTY OF KINGS 1

~&ordingly, I, Mwp wm(d@d<being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:

a. Am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. b. My place of business is located at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue Brooklyn NY 11238.. On April 12,2012, Christopher Strunk instructed me to serve a true conformed copy of the PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT WfTH SUPPORTING AFETDAVIT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAWAFFIRMED APRIL 10,2012 WITH NINE EXHIBITS ANNEXED AND WITH THE PROPOSED FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT for the case Strunk v NYS BOE et al. NYS County of Kings Supreme Court with index 6500-201 1, by USPS service upon Defendants' Counsels. c. On April 12,2012, I caused each copy with proper postage for senrice by regular mail of listed counsels and

where each envelope was deposited with the USPS for service upon:

Erica Burke, Esq. of SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLE'IT U P 425 Lexington Avenue New York. New Yofk 100 17-3954

RITA C. TOBIN, Esq. of CAPLIN 86 DRYSDALE, CHARTERED 375 Park Avenue 35th Floor New York. New York 10 152-3500

HARRIS BEACH, PLLC By THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553

JAMES C. .DUGAN Esq. of WILLKIE.F'ARR &i GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y. 10019-6099

MARSHAL BELL, Esq. of McGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Americas, 7th Floor New York, New York 101 05

WILEY REIN LLP - TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ., JAN WITHOLD BARAN ESQ. and THOMAS W. WRBY ESQ. 1776K Street, NW Washington D.C. 20006

RABINOWTTZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, PC - Christopher J. Latell Esq. and Daniel S. Reich Esq. 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New York 100063791

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN,Attorney General of NYS ' by: JOEL GRABER, Esq. AAG Assistant Attorney General Special Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau 120 BROADWAY - 24th Floor New York, New York 10271-0332

MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By: CHLARENS ORSIAND, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007 '

Sworn to before me CL/( L L I @ -Ww&/~87&

MAITHEWS HUGGINS Notary Public, State of New York - No. 01HU6103403

Qualified in Kings County Commission Expires Dec. 29,20

Page 131: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

SUPREME' COURT OF THE S'PATE OF NEW YORK +. COUNTY OF KINGS I.A.S. Part 27 Index No.: 6500-2011

x @on. Arthur M. Schack J.S.C)

christkher- ark ~tknk, in esse NOTICE OF MOTION

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; Et al..

Notice of Motion for presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as supplement

to the compl&t , + , .- 2 ,

Plaintiff Amdavit in support of Notice of motion for presentment of evidence of I L .

forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint

Exhibit 1 Maricopa ~ o u n k AZ Sheriffs Ofice Press Release March 1,2012 Exhibit 2 AZ SOS Certified Affidavit by Barack Obama for AZ Ballot access 2007 Exhibit 3 Sheriff Arpaio's COLD CASE POSSE Preliminary Report March 1, 20 12 Exhibit 4 Forged Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form dated April 25, 201 1 Exhibit 5 TRANSCRIPT of Barack Obama April 27, 201 1 Press Conference Exhibit 6 Forged CoLB Short form stamped June 6, 2007 with Factcheckorg analysis Exhibite7 July 29,2010 certified U.S. DOS FOIA release of Stanley Ann Dunham Exhibit 8 Barack Obama perjured application for-entry to the Illinois bar Exhibit 9 statements by congressmen from November 11,2008 thru February 2009

- Plaintiffs Memorandum support of Notice of motion for pr&entment of evidence . of forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint

~ffidadt-of Senrice

~ a t e d : April 10,2012 - Brooklyn New York

Plaintiff self-represented wlo attoniey , 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28 1

Brooklyn, New York 11238 Ph. 845-901-6767 Email: chri&strunk.ws

Page 132: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Strunk v. US DOS and DHS USDC DC 08-cv-2234 (RJL) PLAINTIFF STRUNK’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Exhibit C

Page 133: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

- -.A. 5 I , . i . .

+t C

8- C~URT%OF THE. ~ A Y E . E F ~ O F W E ~ f r i o ~ ~ COUNTY OF KINGS IAS Part 27 Index No.: 6500-201 1

~~sbi;h&-Eii'l: ~tnihk, in &se (Hon. &ur M. Schack J.S.C)

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. , PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMf COmN, in their Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSON, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama 11, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC FIRST SUPPLEMENT STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;

STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES - TO THE CO* .- r PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; $3 , r < , ,.,$

THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; 2 :zr?< ,- , .. .‘c JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; - .j? *.+ h? ;<:&=v, THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; - r. -:I. . THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE -c ---I: =-> , INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF $ -L

I '. .. t d 5 THE CO'NSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; o ~2 Qy

PENNY S. PRITZKER, GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR (D

AMERICA, OBAlMA WCTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY , - 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; . - and XYZ Entities.

Defeadants. . >.

That lai in tiff Christopher Earl Strunk (Plainw, Strunk) submits this Verified First

Supplement with CPLR §3025@) to the Verified Complaint filed March 22,20 1 1 with

transactions subsequent to the August 22,201 1 hearing before Justice Arthur M.

S ~ h a c k with various motions penditig-a decisidn, and as guch addihnally alleges of

Defendant SOEBARKAI-I (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama 11,

a.k.a. Steve Dunham) and Barack Obama's agents and associates of the caption along

with those John and Jane ~ o e s and XYZ Entities yet naked that:

mainW8 FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 1 of 7'

Page 134: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

1. Plaintiff remains located for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -281 Brooklyn, New

York 11238 (845) 901-6767 email: [email protected].; is self represented without an

attorney and is a duly registered voter in the 2008 and 2012 election cycle

2. that on March 1, 2012, the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff’s Press Release

and Press Conference established that there is the Preliminary Report by the Sheriff’s

COLD CASE POSSE , as an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate

fraud and crimes committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an

affirmation in 2008 that Respondent Obama affirmed compliance with the U.S.

Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 requirement for eligibility for “Natural-

born citizen” and currently before the Arizona primary now in 2012; and

3. That the Preliminary Report of the Sheriff’s COLD CASE POSSE supports the

suspicion with sufficient evidence that Defendant Barack Obama was not even born in

Hawaii between August 1, 1961 through August 10, 1961 and in fact appears born

outside of the USA, and Barack Obama and or his agents spoliate evidence of a crime.

As and for the First Supplemental Cause of Action

to the Complaint Sixth Cause of Action

(Scheme to defraud Plaintiff and those similarly situated as against all Defendants) Barack Obama and his agents maliciously conceal and spoliate evidence to further fraud against Plaintiff along with those similarly situated

4. That Plaintiff alleges that Barack Obama and his agents maliciously conceal

and spoliate evidence to further fraud against Plaintiff along with those similarly

situated as and for the First Supplement Cause of Action to the Complaint Sixth

Cause of Action repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction

paragraphs 1 through 3 with each allegation of the Sixth Cause of Action with the

same force and effect as though herein set forth at length.

5. That the agents of Defendant Barack Obama are the forgers who committed two

Plaintiff’s FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 2 of 7

Page 135: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

crimes.

6. That the agents of Defendant Barack Obama created a fraudulent document

which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially

produced governmental birth record; and

7. That Barack Obama and his the agents fraudulently present a forged document

to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large including

Plaintiff along with those similarly situated here in New York as “proof positive” of

President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.

8. That Barack Obama and his agents manufactured the long-form birth

certificate presented to the public on April 27, 2011 as a computer-generated forgery.

9. That Barack Obama and his agents forged the President Obama’s Selective

Service card by forging the U.S. postal date stamp on the purported selective service

document;

10. That Barack Obama was actually born outside the United States not in Hawaii.

11. That Barack Obama and his agents spoliate and conceal Records of

Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane

passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States

in the month of August 1961.

12. That Barack Obama and his agents spoliate and conceal those records of travel

referenced from August 1961 housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

13. That The National Archives in Washington DC and all their employees are

directly under the authority of Barack Obama and the executive.

14. That Barack Obama and his agents spoliate and conceal the records from the

days surrounding Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 that are missing.

For the only week in 1961 where these immigration cards cannot be found.

Plaintiff’s FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 3 of 7

Page 136: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

15. That Barack Obama had met a US Postal Carrier while entering the residence of

the Ayers Family in Chicago and at which time he admitted he was a foreign exchange

student that the William Ayers family was assisting and that he was selected to

become a candidate for president.

As and for the Second Supplemental Cause of Action

to the Complaint Sixth Cause of Action

(Scheme to defraud Plaintiff and those similarly situated as against all Defendants) Barack Obama and his agents intentionally mislead and

misrepresented to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated

16. That Plaintiff alleges that Barack Obama and his agents maliciously conceal

and spoliate evidence to further fraud against Plaintiff along with those similarly

situated as and for the Second Supplement Cause of Action to the Complaint Sixth

Cause of Action repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction

paragraphs 1 through 15 with each allegation of the Sixth Cause of Action with the

same force and effect as though herein set forth at length.

17. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents at his April 27, 2011

Washington DC Press Conference purported the Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long

form as if a government document knowing it was a forged document as submitted to

the entire nation.

18. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents at the April 27 2011 Press

Conference proffered the CoLB short form document as well based upon the

admissions of the Respondent Obama and his attorneys there at the White House at

the April 27, 2011 press conference .

19. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents at the April 27 2011 Press

Conference repeatedly said that Barack Obama had requested the supposed short

form CoLB in 2008 from the State of Hawaii be released.

Plaintiff’s FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 4 of 7

Page 137: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

20. That the supposed short form CoLB alleged requested in 2008 from the State of

Hawaii be released in fact is stamped June 6, 2007.

21. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents coordinated defense of the

supposed short form CoLB with agents of the FactCheck.org who then report on

August 21, 2008 in favor of the authenticity.

22. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents knew that the Factcheck.org org

report would be depended on by members of Congress and Media.

23. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents knew that the so-called

Factcheck.org investigators were partisan amateurs

24. That Defendant Barack Hussein Obama was adopted by his Indonesian step

father Lolo Soetoro who named him Soebarkah and was also otherwise known as

Barry Soetoro, and Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah.

25. That the Hawaii Board of Elections registrar Tim Adams discovered that there

is no birth record for Barack Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health showing that

he had been born in Hawaii...

As and for the Third Supplemental Cause of Action

to the Complaint Sixth Cause of Action

(Scheme to defraud Plaintiff and those similarly situated as against all Defendants) Barack Obama and his agents forged a selective service and passport

records to mislead Plaintiff along with those similarly situated

26. That Plaintiff alleges that Barack Obama and his agents maliciously conceal

and spoliate evidence to further fraud against Plaintiff along with those similarly

situated as and for the Third Supplement Cause of Action to the Complaint Sixth

Cause of Action repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction

paragraphs 1 through 25 with each allegation of the Sixth Cause of Action with the

same force and effect as though herein set forth at length.

Plaintiff’s FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 5 of 7

Page 138: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

27. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents forged the Selective Service

record misrepresenting Defendant Obama’s status before the 2008 election

28. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents act by theft and tampering of

the US DOS Passport records by US DOS private contractor entity under the control of

John Brennan currently Respondent Obama’s White House Counter Terrorism advisor

having previously been assistant to Central Intelligence Director George Tenent,

29. That Barack Obama and his agents knowingly acted to conceal his adoptive

status as an Indonesian citizen.

30. That Barack Obama and his agents intentionally lied to conceal his Indonesian

names and foreign student financial status when he applied for his law license in

Illinois.

31. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents filed False Documents with the

government and knowing such documents filed are falsified documents to the

government.

32. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents spoke with Congressmen and

the media to promote a “Born a Citizen” 14th Amendment status for Defendant Obama.

33. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents spoke with agents of the

Justia.org organization to spoliate prior decisions of the Supreme Court of the United

States to change the definition of “natural-born Citizen” to that of “Born a Citizen.”

Wherefore, Plaintiff wishes an order by the Court of all defendants:

• Answer or otherwise respond to the supplemental allegations;

• Defendant Obama and his agents release all concealed evidence under

penalty of sanctions or worse;

• for different and other relief deemed necessary for justice herein.

Plaintiff’s FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 6 of 7

Page 139: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

STATE OF NEW YORK ) 1 8s.

COUNTY OF KINGS 1,

Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say

under penalty of perjury:

That the foregoing matter of the First Supplement to the Complaint including

the allegations of the above introduction through paragraphs 33, and wherefore relief

involves irreparable harm as time is of the essence withgut any alternative forum for

relief that compounds Plaintiff's injury along with those similarly situated; and as

such Affirmant hereby verifies the three supplemental causes of action to the Sixth

Cause of Action to the Complaint filed March 22,20 1 1, and that the same is true to v

my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on

information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of

my belids as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd

parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

ARNOLD I. TISHFIELD " Public State Of New York

N0.41-4611662 '-

, Qualified In Queens County Certified In Kings County

Commission Expires March 30, 20

Plaintiffs FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 7 of 7

Page 140: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Strunk v. US DOS and DHS USDC DC 08-cv-2234 (RJL) PLAINTIFF STRUNK’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Exhibit D

Page 141: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

Main page content2:15pm, Wed 18 Apr 2012

- last updated Wed 18 Apr 2012

UKColonial files

Tweet

Colonial records published of Barack Obama's father was going to be a student in the US. Photo:National Archive/PA Wire

Thousands of 'lost' colonial era files believed to have been destroyed have finally been made public.

The documents which were secretly sent back to the UK when former colonies became independent, shednew light on how British officials ran overseas territories.

The archives even include some well-known names. Barack Obama's Kenya-born father, who had the samename as his son, features in the archives. The president's father came to America in 1959 to begin a degree.

2Recommend

'Lost' files detailing colonial crimes made public - ITV News http://www.itv.com/news/2012-04-18/lost-files-detailing-colonial-crime...

2 of 6 4/27/2012 2:46 PM

Page 142: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

National Archives reveal record of Barack Obama's father Credit: Reuters/Jim Young

The National Archives released today more than 1,200 out of 8,800 of these records in Kew, west London, thefirst of six tranches in a process due to be completed by November 2013.

They record how colonial administrators planned to burn other classified papers- potentially revealing abusescommitted under the British rule in territories including Kenya, Cyprus, present-day Malaysia and theBahamas.

Wambugu Nyingi, Jane Muthoni, Paul Nzili and Ndiku Mutua accused the British government oftorture during the Mau Mau uprising Credit: Reuters/Suzanne Plunkett

The "migrated" archives came to light in January last year after four elderly Kenyans brought a High Courtcase against the UK Government over the alleged torture of Kenyan Mau Mau rebels in British camps in the1950s. Only a third of the Kenyan files were released today.

'Lost' files detailing colonial crimes made public - ITV News http://www.itv.com/news/2012-04-18/lost-files-detailing-colonial-crime...

3 of 6 4/27/2012 2:46 PM

Page 143: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

The Kenyan ministry of defence files state that British officials were told to divide all documents into thecategories of "legacy" material, which could be left behind, and "watch" material, which could not. One memodated April 1961 noted:

"'Watch' material can only be seen by 'authorised' officers. An 'authorised' officer is defined in thedraft as a servant of the Kenya government who is a British subject of European descent, andwho has been security cleared to see classified documents."

To obviate a too laborious scrutiny of 'dead' files, emphasis is placed on destruction - a vastamount of paper in the Ministry of Defence secret registry and classified archives could be burntwithout loss, and I should be surprised if the same does not apply to the CS's (chief secretary's)Office."

– Memo from the colonial archives dated April 1961

Two Kenyan "Mau Mau" freedom fighters are pictured Credit: Reuters/Kenya National Archives

There are similar references to the destruction of classified material in the files relating to Malaya, whichbecame independent in 1957 and joined with three other states to form Malaysia in 1963.

Tony Badger, a Cambridge University history professor who has been appointed by the Foreign Office as anindependent reviewer of the archive's release, acknowledged that there was a "legacy of suspicion" about thedocuments among journalists and academics.

But he stressed that so far no files have been withheld from release at the National Archives, and significantlyless than 1% of the content has been redacted.

Advertisement

'Lost' files detailing colonial crimes made public - ITV News http://www.itv.com/news/2012-04-18/lost-files-detailing-colonial-crime...

4 of 6 4/27/2012 2:46 PM

Page 144: Strunk Response to Defendants NOM to Renew Summary Judgment w Exhibits USDC DC 08-cv-2234

CERTIFICATE O F SERVICE

Strunk v US DOS and DHS USDC DC 08-cv-2234 (RJL)

I HEREBY CERTIFY that oh this 27'h day April, 2012, I caused a true and correct.copy

of the foregoing Strunk Response To DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, to be served upon Defendant Counsel and the Cold Case

Posse of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department by first class United States mail

postage prepaioid marked for delivery to:

Brigham J. Bowen (DC Bar No. 41 8925) Civil Division, U.S. Justice Department Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883,20 Massachusetts Avenue., N.W. Washington D.C. 20044

Maricopa County Sheriffs Department Cold Case Posse 100 West Washington, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85003

I declare, certify, verify, and state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: April g 2 0 1 2 Brooklyn New York a@&-;

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse - urnsm p-1 Service"Delivery ~ ~ n f f n n a t i o # ~ ~ ~ i ~ t \ Self-represented without an attorney

A Postage and ~eRvery Oonfimmtion fees must be paid before mailing. P- A mat Sent Te (to be canpkbd by mailer)

593 ~aiderbi l t Avenue - 281 Brooklyn, New York 1 1238 Phone - 845-90 1-6767 Email: chris@,strunk.ws -