CES NOM for Enlargement of Time to File Appeal Brief w Aff and Ex 4-14-14 and or Quo Warranto equity...

7/22/2019 CES NOM for Enlargement of Time to File Appeal Brief w Aff and Ex 4-14-14 and or Quo Warranto equity relief in lieu of remedy at law

1/159

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT Appeal Case Nos:

---------------------------------------------------------------------x2012-05515

Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse 2013-063352014-00297

Appellant,

-against- NYS Sup. Ct. Kings CountyIndex No.: 6500-2011

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A.WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair,EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P.PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D.VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN;ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P.DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEM COLN, in their Official andindividual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.;Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ,JR.;PETER G. PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI;MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH(a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II,a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATICSTATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIESPARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; RGER CALERO;THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI;JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER;

THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE;THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THEINDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OFTHE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE;PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR

AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does;and XYZ Entities.

Respondents. NOTICE OF MOTION-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

PLEASE TAKE NOTICEthat upon the annexed affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in

esse Sui juris Agent of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Appellant with exhibits,

affirmed April 14, 2014 with exhibits annexed, for an Extension of time to file Appellants

Brief and Appendix for Appeal Cases Nos: 2013-06335 and 2014-00297 at the Courtroom

in the Courthouse at the State of New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second

1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calerohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calerohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calero


2/159


3/159


4/159

transmitting utility Debtor Trust owner of the Estate of christopher earl

strunk, with all Rights reserved without prejudice foran Extension of time to

file Appellants Brief and Appendix for Appeal Cases Nos: 2013-06335 and2014-00297 at the Courtroom in the Courthouse at the State of New York

Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Judicial Department located at 45

Monroe Place Brooklyn, NY 11201, on Friday the 25thday of April 2014, at

9:30 Oclock before Noon or at a time designated by the court or as soon

thereafter as counsel can be heard.

2.On 4 March 2014 the Honorable Appellate Panel of SKELOS, J.P.,DICKERSON, LEVENTHAL and HALL, JJ., ORDERED that on the Court's

own motion, the appellant's time to perfect the appeal from the order dated

March 29,201 3 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2013-06335), is enlarged until

May 5, 2014, and the record or appendix and the appellant's brief must be

served and filed on or before that date (See Exhibit A).

3.That on January 24, 2014 the Honorable David I. Schmidt Ordered partiesin active Case Index No.: 29642-2008, STRUNK v. DAVID PATERSON ET

AL. to appear 28 March 2014 to show cause why the case should not be

disposed (see Exhibit B).

4.That on 28 March 2014 parties appeared before the Honorable David I.Schmidt as Ordered shown with Exhibit B in active Case Index No.: 29642-

2 of 1


5/159

2008, STRUNK v. DAVID PATERSON ET AL. there taking oral arguments

and papers on submission; and to date there has been no decision.

5.That Appeal Cases Nos: 2012-05515, 2013-06335 and 2014-00297 are

taken from orders of Arthur M. Schack in the Case STRUNK v. NYS BOARD

OF ELECTIONS ET AL with Index 6500-2011, from three orders of the

Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 1l, 2012 (see Exhibit C), March 29,

2013 (see Exhibit D), and December 9, 2013, respectively (see Exhibit E) are

all related to the disposition of active Electoral College cases Index Nos.:

29642-2008 and 21948-2012.

6.That Clerk of the Supreme Court of Kings County has scheduled a pre-trialconference on 13 June 2014 for the Active Electoral College Case with Index

Nos.: 29642-2008 and that coincides with the trial schedule for 18 June 2014

for the Electoral College Case STRUNK v. JEFFERIES ET AL. with index No.

21948-2012.

7.That the decision as to the disposition of 29642-2008 and outcome of thetrial for 21948-2012 effects the appeal cases herein and for that reason the filing

date should be enlarged to a time to be ordered in July 2014.

8.That the Panel in its Order shown as Exhibit A when it ordered that may notprovide Appellant and or its Agent for civilian due process of law admits it

may only provide Appellant and its agent martial due process of lawunder the

3 of 1


6/159

statutory authority of 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b) with the direct

executive authority imposed by the present continuing National Emergency

declared by the President of the United States (POTUS) Commander-in-chief,herein Appellee BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II aka BARACK OBAMA

on 12 September 2013 (see Exhibit F).

9.That the Panel ordered and admitted such as shown in Exhibit Anotwithstanding that I am a Private Citizen of the United States of America

whose federal citizenship status has been secured by Article II, Section 1,

Clause 5; Article II, Section 3, Clause 5; and Article IV, Section 2, of the

Constitution of the United States of America, which de jurecitizenship status

has been broadened and made national by Section 1 of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; and having

been duly registered as such with the United States Secretary of the Treasury.

10. That the core substance of all the cases with Index Nos: 29642-2008.6500-2011, and 21948-2012 challenges the U.S. Constitutional eligibility

natural-born Citizen status of SOEBARKAH, aka BARRY SOETORO, aka

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 to serve

as POTUS and thereby the Commander-in-chief during war and national

emergency with executive authority over the de facto Federal and State court

system as applies to the continuing annual determination of the National

4 of 1


7/159

Emergency under 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b) extended by then POTUS

George W. Bush on September 12, 2008 and renewed ( )1 by BARACK

OBAMA on 11 September 2009 (see Exhibit G).11. That under the present national emergency the New York State

unified Court system is under the direct authority of the POTUS Commander-

in-chief with direct executive authority and the eligibility is directly a

controversy requiring equity relief otherwise without any other remedy at law;

1 Section 2502(a)(2) of Pub. L. 100-418 provided that:The authorities conferred upon the President by section 5(b) of the Trading With the EnemyAct [subsec. (b) of this section], which were being exercised with respect to a country on July 1,1977, as a result of a national emergency declared by the President before such date, and arebeing exercised on the date of the enactment of this Act [Aug. 23, 1988], do not include theauthority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly, any activity which, under section 5(b)(4)of the Trading With the Enemy Act, as added by paragraph (1) of this subsection, may not beregulated or prohibited.''

EXTENSION AND TERMINATION OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY POWERS UNDERTHE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT Section 101(b), (c) of Pub. L. 95-223 provided that:

(b) Notwithstanding the amendment made by subsection (a) [amending subsec. (b)(1) of thissection], the authorities conferred upon the President by section 5(b) of the Trading With theEnemy Act [subsec. (b) of this section], which were being exercised with respect to a country onJuly 1, 1977, as a result of a national emergency declared by the President before such date, maycontinue to be exercised with respect to such country, except that, unless extended, the exerciseof such authorities shall terminate (subject to the savings provisions of the second sentence ofsection 101(a) of the National Emergencies Act [section 1601(a) of this title]) at the end of thetwo-year period beginning on the date of enactment of the National Emergencies Act [Sept. 14,1976]. The President may extend the exercise of such authorities for one-year periods upon adetermination for each such extension that the exercise of such authorities with respect to suchcountry for another year is in the national interest of the United States.(c) The termination and extension provisions of subsection (b) of this section supersede theprovisions of section 101(a) [section 1601(a) of this title] and of title II [section 1621 et seq. ofthis title] of the National Emergencies Act to the extent that the provisions of subsection (b) ofthis section are inconsistent with those provisions.''

5 of 1


8/159

and in effect because the direct evidence and admissions of BARACK OBAMA

starting with his 1996 autobiography Dreams From My Father that was

published with his own biography stating that he was born in Mombasa Kenya,renders him simultaneously a dual subject of both the Sultanate of Zanzibar and

Thrown of Great Britain (see Exhibit H); and

12. Further, at trial on 18 June 2014 for case 21948-2012 testimony andevidence will prove that the supposed Birth Certificate tendered by BARACK

OBAMA on or about 25, April 2011 and beforehand in 2008 were and are

forgeries that are an estoppel to BARACK OBAMA under clean hands

doctrine; and

13. Furthermore at trial in the Case 29642-2008 were it to proceed byorder of Justice Schmidt, British Barrister and Immigration Judge Michael

Shrimpton as an unpaid expert intelligence analyst will tender direct testimony

that BARACK OBAMA is not eligible to be POTUS based upon his personally

involvement with US Government officials of the National Security Agency,

Central Intelligence AGENCY, Defense Intelligence Agency, Secret Service

and related conversations and offer of evidence in collection of DNA sample

being taken in 2007 of then US Senator OBAMA failing to be even related

genetically to the supposed Dunham grandparents of Barack OBAMA - see

overview by Michael Shrimpton at Exhibit I.

6 of 1


9/159

14. That as evidence of further concealment and spoliation by BARACKOBAMAs unclean hands, Barrister Michael Shrimptons visa has been

withdrawn by the POTUS and or his agents, and I endeavor to secure a foreignvisitor visa that limits aspects of the testimony (seeExhibit J).

15. That this Panel admits it is unable to provide for civilian due processof law under the defacto National Emergency declared shown by Exhibit F;

and knowing that I have proven that I am entitled to civilian due process of law

as I am a private citizen of the United States duly registered with the US

Secretary of the Treasury, am immune from the statutory effect of 12 USC 95

and 50 USC App. 5(b) by definition and practice, owe it to their oath of office

and duty to me and my fellow citizens to ascertain whether or not the National

Emergency as ordered continued by the POTUS finding shown as Exhibit F is

in fact void ab initio, meaning we have returned civilian due process of law as

guaranteed by Section 1 of the 14thAmendment with a State Constitution full in

force again along with the U.S. Constitution having been suspended and used as

advisory only to the military government as it is run by an ineligible

USURPER, or to the contrary that Mr. OBAMA is eligible to be POTUS

because he was born within a State of the United States of Citizen parents or at

least born within a State of the United States by a Citizen parent mother were it

found there was no marriage and then citizenship of the mother would apply.

7 of 1


10/159

16. That this Court has held that any quo warrantochallenge, as a matterof equity is a plenary matter, to a State related office may be held in

controversy for a finding under CPLR 213(1) within six years from the electionand or time respondent assumed office, in this case when Mr. OBAMA as

Commander-in-chef assumed direct executive authority over the NYS Unified

Court System on January 20, 2009 thereby requiring provision of martial due

process of law, is a matter of a fundamental duty of this court or any court to

determine and decide as Mr. OBAMA as a result of the order of National

Emergency thereby assumes direct authority of the State Court system must be

eligible for the defacto State Office -must be done see (see Exhibit K)

Demand of Proof of Claim from the Trial Court and or Moving Party

THEREFORE, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk, still as a friend of this Court have

previously put the Defendants and or Appellees and or moving party(ies) ON

NOTICE of my constitutionally-protected, non-surety, private citizenship status

which is a matter of public record.

Further, as a friend of this Court, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk, a Private

Citizen of the United States of America, DEMAND that the Defendants and or

Appellees and or Attorneys for moving party(ies) response in equity not law;

8 of 1


11/159

In conclusion in favor of an enlargement of time to file appellants

Briefs and Appendix, the Defendants/ Appellees have not proven the eligibility of

the POTUS Commander-in-chief, the Court being bound by its oath to uphold theConstitution of the United States of America and related law, must abate this

martial due processmistakenly imposed on Christopher-Earl: Strunk due to a

case of mistaken identitydespite judicial notice to the contrary, said martial due

process being a nuisance to Christopher-Earl: Strunk, a Private Citizen of the

United States of America, who can only be given a civilian due process of lawas

a matter of constitutional right secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to

the Constitution of the United States of America and as defined by 12 USC 95 and

50 USC App. 2 and 5(b) ; and were such civilian process granted as relief herein

that the appeal cases referenced be so ordered to proceed accordingly after a date in

July along with such other and different relief that the Court herein deems

necessary for justice and equal protection of law for Christopher-Earl: Strunk, a

Private Citizen of the United States of America including provision of a civilian

flag in such civilian Courtroom, must at least conduct, as if a prerogative

extraordinary writ in equity, a quo warranto examination of the eligibility of

BARACK OBAMA to issue the order shown as Exhibit F, and or provide an

enlarged time for Appellant to duly submit his above referenced Brief Appendix

for Appeal 2013-06335 and 2014-00297 until the hearing is had here in Chambers

9 of 1


12/159


13/159

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse v. THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF

ELECTIONS ET AL. in the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT in re:

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

Affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Sui juris agent of

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK Appellant in support of the

Motion to Enlarge the Time to File Appellants Brief and Appendix in

Appeal Cases 2012-05515, 2013-06335, 2014-00297

Exhibit A


14/159

Bupreme Clhurt of the Btate of PQelu workAppellate l iu i~ i n n eranh luhirial Department MI70416Elsl

PETER B. SKELO S, J.P.THOMAS A. DICKERSONJOHN M. LEVENTHALL. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.

Christopher-Earl Strunk, appellant,v New York State Board of Elections,et al., respondents.(Index N o. 650011 1)

DECISION ORDER ON MOTION

M otion by the appellant pro se, inter alia, for civilian due process of law on appealsfrom three orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 1 , 2 0 12, March 29 ,20 13, andDecember 9,2013, respectively.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion an d the papers filed in oppositionthereto, it isOR DER ED that the motion is denied; and it is further,OR DER ED that o n the Court's own motion, the appellant's time to perfect the appealfrom the order dated March 29 ,201 3 (Appellate Division Docket N o. 201 3-06335), is enlarged untilMay 5, 2014, and the record or appendix and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on orbefore that date.

SKELOS, J.P., DICKE RSON , LEVENTHAL and HALL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Clerk of the CourtMarch 4,201 4 STRUNK NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS


15/159








Appeal Cases 2012-05515, 2013-06335, 2014-00297

Exhibit B


16/159


17/159


18/159








Appeal Cases 2012-05515, 2013-06335, 2014-00297

Exhibit C


19/159

SUPREMECOURTOF THE STAmOF NEWYORKCOUNTY OFKINGS

Chrietopher-Earl: Strun k, in essePlain- NOTICEOFAPPEAL

Index No : 6500-2011NEW YORK STATE BOARD O F ELECTIONS; JAM ES AWALSH / Co-Chair, OUGLAS A. KELLN ER Co-Chair,EVELYN J. AQUILA Com mission er, GJXEGORY P.PETERSON / Com missioner, Dep uty Director TODD D.VALEN TINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN;ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC S C H N E I D E W , THOMAS P.DINAPOLI, RUT H NO M^ C O L ~ N ,n the ir Official andinhvidual capacity; Fr. JO S E P H A. O W E , S.J.;Fr. JO SE PH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.;PETER G. PET ERS EN , ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI;MARK BRZEZINSKI; JO SE PH R. BIDEN, JR ; OEBARKAHa.k.a.Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack HusseinObama 11a.k.a. SteveDunham ;NANCY ELOSI; DEMOCR~~ ICSTATE COMMITTEE O F THE STATE O F NEW YORK;STATE COMMITTEE OF TH E WORKING FAMILIESPARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; R ~ G E R ALERO;TH OCIA LIST WORK ERS PARTY; I N J. BRmZINSKI;JO HN SIDNE Y MCCAIN 111; JO HN A. BOEHNER;TH E NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE;TH E NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE O F THEINDE PEND ENC E PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OFTHE CONSERVATIVE PARTY O F NEW YORK STATE;PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SORO S; OB M FORAMERICA; OB M VICTORY FUND; MCCMN WCTORY2008; MC CAIN -PALIN VTCTORY 2008; J o h n and an e Does;and XYZ Entities. Defendants.

PLEASE TAKE Nbn E that Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse hereby appeals to theAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; Second JudicialDepartment, from the April 11 2012 decision and order to show cause see attached withcopies of entry) arid pending judgment for sanctions dismissing the complaint, therebygranting Defendants motions to dismiss, denying Plaintiffs Motion to consolidate, andrendering moot the motion of leave f direct appeal on constitutional issue and motion with


20/159

evidence for leave to file a first supplement to the complaint, and appeal from every partand issues affected thereby in the related case 2008-29642 and application for OSC datedOctober 25, 20 11 and duly entered by the Clerk of the Court starting after April 23, 20 12.

Respectfully submitted by:

Dated: Brooklyn, New YorkMay 23,2012 hristopher-Earl:Strunk~a~n essePlaintiff self-represented without a n attorney593 Vanderbilt Avenue 2 8 1~rooklyn.' ew York 11238(845)90 1-6767;Email: [email protected]

CcErica Burke, Es of SIMPSON THACHER BARTLETT LLP 4 25 Lexington Avenue New York. NewYork 10017-395%. Representing: PETER G. PETERSONTodd E. Phillips, Esq. of CAPLIN 8 DRYSDALE, CHARTERED One Thom as Circle, N.W., Su ite 1100,Washington, DC 20005 Representing JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008HARRIS BEACH, PLLC By THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901Uniondale, New York 11553 Representing: JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. anySoetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obam a 11, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; PENNY S.PRITZKER; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORYFUNDJAMES C DUGAN Esq. of WILLKIE FARR GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y.10019-6099 Representing: GEORGE SOROSMARSHAL BELL, Esq. of McGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Americas, 7 th Floor New York, NewYork 10105 Representing: ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; IAN J.BRZEZINSKI.WILEY REIN LLP TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ. AN-WITHOLD BARAN ESQ. and THOMAS W.KIRBY ESQ. 1776K Street, W Washington D.C. 20006 Representing: JOHN A BOEHNERRABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY LIEBERMAN, PC Chr is topher J. Latell Esq. andDaniel S. Reich Esq. 4 5 Broadway, Sui te 1700 New York, New York 10'006-3791 Representing: ;R ~ G E RALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTYERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of NYS by: JOEL GRABER, Esq. AAG Assistant AttorneyGeneral Specia l Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau 120 BROADWAY - 24th Floor New York, NewYork 10271-0332 Representing :NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSH /Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P.PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEYZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NO M^ COLON, intheir Official and individual capacity;MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By: CHLARENS ORSLAND, Esq .Assi stant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Chu rch Stree t New York, NewYork 1 0007 Representing: Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J .; JOSEPH P. PARKES, S .J .; FREDERICK A.O.SCHWARZ, JR.


21/159

At an IAS Term, Part 27 ofthe Supreme Court of theState of New York, held inand for the County ofKings, at the Courthouse,at Civic C enter, Brooklyn,New York, on the 11 h dayof April 20 12

P R E S E N T : K SbCu WHON . ARTHUR SCHA

Justice.CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK, n esse

Plaintiff,DE ISION ORDER-against- Index N o. 650011 1NEW YORK STAT E BOARD O F ELECTIONS;JAMES A. WALSHICo-Chair, DOUGLAS A .KELLNER ICo-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILAICommissioner, GREG OR Y P. PETERSON1

Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D.VALENT INE, Deputy Director STAN LY ZALEN;ANDREW C UOMO , ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN,THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMI COLON,in their Official and individual capacity, Fr. JOSE PH A .O HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P . PARKES, S.J.;FREDERICK A. 0 SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G .PETERSEN; ZBIGNIE W KAIMIERZ BRZE ZINSKI;M RK BRZE ZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.;SOEBARK AH ( a k a Barry Soetoro, a.1c.a. BaraclcHussein Obaina, a.1~ . Steve Dunham); NANCYPELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OFTHE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEEOF THE WORKING FAM ILIES PARTY OF NEW


22/159

YORK STATE; ROGE R CA LERO; THE SOCIALISTWOR KERS PARTY ; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHNSIDN EY MCC AIN 111; JOH N A . BOEHN ER; TH ENEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATECOMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATECOMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY;STATE COMMITTEE OF TH E CONSERVATIVEPARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S.PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FORAMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND ; MCCAINVICTORY 2008; MCCAIN PALIN VICTORY 2008;JOHN A N D JANE DOE S; and XYZ ENTITIES.

Defendants.

The following papers nuinbered 1 to 25 read on this motion : Papers Num bered:Notice of Motion and Notice o f Cross-Motion andand Affidavits Affirinations) 1 13Opposing Affidavits Affirmations) 14 21Reply Affidavits Affirmations) 22 25

If the coinplaint in this action was a inovie script, it would be entitled TheManchurian Candidate Meets The Da Vinci Cod e. Pro se plaintiff CHRISTOPHER-EA RL STRU NK brings this action against nuinerous defendants, including PresidentBARACK OBAM A, Vice President JOSEPH BIDEN, Senator JOHN M CCAIN , Spealcerof the House of Representatives JO HN BO EHNE R, former Ho use of RepresentativesSpealcer NAN CY PE LOS I, Governor ANDREW CUO MO , Attorney G eneral ERIC


23/159

SCHN EIDERM AN, Coinptroller THOM AS DI NAPOLI, the NE W YORK STATEBO ARD OF ELE CTION S, bill ionaires PETER PETERSEN, PEN NY PRITZKER,GE OR GE SO RO S and six Ne w Yorlc State political parties. Thirteen motions arepending before the Court.

Plaintiff STR UN K's coinplaint is a rambling, forty-five pag e variation on birthercases, containing 150 prolix paragraphs, in at tiines a streain of consciousne ss. Pla int iff scentral allegation is that defendants President OBA MA and Sen ator Mc CA IN, despite notbeing natural bo ri~ itizens of the United States according to pla int iffs interpretation ofAr ticle 11, Sectio n 1, Clause 5 of the U .S. Constitution, eng aged w ith the assistance ofother defenda nts in an extensive conspiracy , on behalf of the Ro inan Catholic Church todefraud the Am erican people and usurp control of the Presidency in 2008. Most ofplaintiff S TR UN K's coinplaint is a lengthy, vitriolic, baseless diatrib e against defendants,but inost especially a gainst the Vatican, the Rom an C atholic Church , and particularly theSociety of Jesus (th e Jesuit Order).

Plaintiff ST RU NK alleges seve n causes of action: breach o f state constitutionalfiduciary duty by the NE W Y ORK STA TE BOARD O F ELECT ION S and public officerdefendan ts; denial of equa l protection for voter exp ectation of a correct ballot; denial ofsubstantive due proce ss for voter ex pectation of a correct ballot; interference with theright to a republican forin of governm ent by the two Jesuit defenda nts and defendantF.A .O. SCHW ARZ , JR., who we re all members of the New Yorlc City Campaign Finance


24/159

Board; interference with pl ain tiff s election franchise; a schem e to defraud plaintiff of areasonable e xpec tation o f successfU1 participation in the suffrag e process; an d, a schemeby all defendants for unjust enrichmen t.

Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgm ent and a preliminary injunction againstdefendants, including: enjoining the NEW Y O N < STA TE BOAR D OF ELECTIONSfroin putting Pres idential candidates on the ballot for 20 12 unless the y prov ide proof ofeligibility, pursu ant to A rticle 11, Section 1, Clau se 5 of the U S Constitution; orderingthat this eligibility ce rtification be subm itted to the Co urt for pro of o f compliance;enjoining the Je suits froin interfering w ith the 20 12 elections; ord ering ex pediteddiscovery to determin e the scope of damages, alleged to be inore than 12 billion; and,ordering a jury trial for punitive treble dainages.

Various defendants or groups of defendants, all represented by counsel, presenteleven inotions to disiniss a nd one motion to adinit an attorn eyp ro h ce vi e for thisaction. Th e eleve n individual defendants or groups of defendants are, in chronologicalorder of filing their inotions to dismiss: defendants President B AR AC K OB AM A, VicePresident JOS EPH BIDE N, OBA MA FO R AMERICA and the OBAM A VICTORYFUND; defendants M CCA IN VICTORY 200 8, MCCAIN-PALIN VICTOR Y 2008 andSenator JOHN M CC AIN ; defendants MARK BR ZEZINSK I and IAN BRZEZINSKI;defendant Representative NANCY PELOSI; defendant GEORGE SOROS; defendantsTHE SOCIALIST WO RKER S PART Y and ROGER CALE RO; defendant Speaker


25/159

JOHN B OEH NER ; defendant ZBIGNIEW BRZEZ INSKI; defendants Father JOSEPH A.O'HAR E, S.J. , Father JOSEPH P. PARKE S, S.J. and FREDERICK A. 0 SCHWARZ,JR .; defendant PEN NY PRITZICER; and defendant PETER G . PETE RSE N. The elevenmotions t o dism iss assert: plaintiff STR UNK lacl


26/159

of collateral esto ppel, failure to join necessary parties and laches.The eleven motions to dismiss are all granted and plaintiff STRUNK s instant

coinplaint is dism issed with prejudice. It is clear that plaintiff ST RU NK : laclts standing;fails to state a c laiin upon which relief can be granted; fails to plead fraud withparticularity; an d, is barred by collateral estoppel. Also, this Cou rt laclts subject matterjurisdiction and perso nal jurisdiction over most, if not all, defend ants.

Fur therm ore, plaintiff STRUNIC s instant action is frivolous. As will beexplained, plaintiff STRUNIC alleges baseless claims ab out defend ants which arefanciful, fantastic, delusional and irrational. It is a waste of judicial resources for theCourt to spen d time on the instant action. Moreover, the Court will conduct a hearing togive plaintiff ST RU NK a reasonable opportunity to be heard, pursuant to 22 NYCRR130-1.1, as to wheth er or not the Co urt should award costs and/or im pose sanctions uponplaintiff STRU NIC for his frivolous conduct. At the hearing, an opp ortunity will be givento counsel for def end ants to present detailed records of costs incurred by their clients inthe instant action.

Therefore, plaintiff STR UN K, who is not a stranger in the courthouses of NewYork, is enjo ined froin co ininencing h t u r e litigation in the New Yorlc State Unified Court

Systein against: the NE W YORK STATE BOARD OF ELEC TIONS, JAMES A.WALSHI Co-Chair, DOUGL AS A . KELLNERICo-Chair, EV ELY N J. AQUILAI


27/159

Coinmissioner, GREG ORY P . PETERSON/Coininissioner, Deputy Director TODD D .VALENTINE, and Deputy Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOM O, ERICSCHNEIDERM AN, THOM AS P. DINAPOLI and RUTH NOEM I CO LON, in theirOfficial and individual capacity; Father JOSEPH A O HARE, S . .; Father JOSEPH P .PARKES, S . .; FREDERICIC A. 0 SCHW ARZ, JR.; PETER G . PETERSEN;ZBIGNIEW ICAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSICI; JOSEPH R. BID EN,JR.; BARACK H OBAM A, NANCY PELOSI; the DEOMCRATIC STATE

COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THEW O RK IN G F AM IL IE S P A RT Y OF N EW Y O N STATE; ROG ER CALERO; theSOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSICI; JOHN SID NE Y MC CA IN 111;JOHN A. BOEHNER; the NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMM ITTEE;the NEW YO RK STATE COM MITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PA RTY; the

STATE COM MITTE E OF THE CONSER VATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORIC STATE;PENNY S. PRITZICER; GEOR GE SO ROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMAVICTORY FUN D; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; and MCCAIN PALIN VICTORY 2008;without prior approval o f the appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge.

ackgroundPlaintiff STRU NK previously coinm enced similar actions in the United States

District Court for the Eastern D istrict of New York and this Court, the Supreme Court of


28/159

the State of Ne w Yorlc, Kings County. In Strunk v New York State Board of Elections etal . Index No . 08-CV 4289 (U S Dist Ct, EDN Y, O ct. 28, 2008, Ross, J.), the Courtdismissed th e action because of plain tiff s lack of standing, failure to state a claiin andfrivolousness. In that action, plaintiff STRUN K accused the N EW YORK STATEBOARD O F EL EC TIO NS of misapplication and inisadininistration of state law inpreparation for the Novem ber 4, 2008 Presidential General Election by, among otherthings, in 5 1 of the com plaint, of failure to obtain and ascertain that Barraclc HusseinObaina is a natural citizen, otherwise c ontrary to United States Constitution Article 2Second 1 Clause 5 [sic] and demanded Defendants are to provide proof that BarrackHussein Ob ain a is a natura l born citizen and if not his electors are to be stricken froin theballot [sic]. Judg e Ross, at page 6 of her decision, held the court finds that portions ofpla int iff s affidavit rise to the level of the irrational and, in footnote 6, Judge Ross citedtwo prior 2008 Easte rn District cases filed by plaintiff STRUN IC in which the court hasdetermined that portions of pla int iff s coinplaints have con tained allegations that haverisen to the irrational.

My Kings County Supreine Court colleague, Justice Schmidt, in Strunk v Pate~psonet al, Index No . 29642108, as cited above, disposed of that matter, on March 1 4, 20 11, by

denying all of p lai nti ffs motions and noting that the statute of limitations expired to joinnecessary parties President OBA MA and Senator M CC AIN . Further, Justice Schinidt


29/159

denied plaintiff an o pportunity to file affidavits of service nun pro tune and to amend thecomplaint.

Then, plaintiff STR UN K, eight days later, on March 22, 20 1 1, comm enced theinstant action by filing the instant verified co mp laint. Plaintiff STR UN K's coinplaintrecites numerous base less allegations about President OBA M A. Thes e allegations arefamiliar to anyone wh o follows the birther mov ement: President OB AM A is not anatural-born citizen of the United States; the President is a radical Mu slim; the

Preside nt's H awaiian C ertificate of Live Birth does not prov e that he was born in Hawaii;and, President O BA M A is actually a citizen of Indonesia, the United Kingd om, K enya, orall of the above. For ex amp le, Plaintiff STR UN K alleges, in 24 of the com plaint, thatPresident OBAIvlA:

is a Mad rasah trained radical Sun ni Mu sliin by birth right practicesShariah law with the full la ow le dg e and blessing of Defendants:Peter G. Peterson; Z bigniew Brzezinslci; his sons Mark and Ian ; PennyS. Pritzlcer; Ge org e Soros; Jesuits Fath ers: Joseph P. O'Ha re, Josep hP . Parlces; Brennan Center Executive Frederick A . 0 Schwarz, Jr.;Nancy Pelosi, John Sidney McCain 111; John A . Boehner; H illaiy Clinton;Richard Durbin and others. [sic]


30/159

Then, in 28 of the complaint, plaintiff ST RUN K alleges that President OBAM A"or his agent(s) as part of the sch eme to defraud placed an iinage of HawaiianCertification of Liv e Birth (CO LB ) on the Interest and as a priina facie fact ineans theHawaii issued COL B do es not prov e 'natu ral born' citizenship or birth in Haw aii, only alongforrn docuinent would [sic.1

Pla int iff s alleg ed vast conspiracy implicates dozens of political and religiousfigures, as well as the 200 8 presidential candidates froin both inajor parties, withnum erous absurd alleg ations. They range froin claiming that an associate at the large lawfirm of Icirlcland and Ellis, LL P m asterminded th e conspiracy because she wro te a lawreview article abou t the U . S. Constitution's natural born citizen requirement for theoffice of President to the assertion that Islam is a seventh century A .D . invention of theVatican. Further, plaintiff STR UN K alleges, in 129 of the complaint, that he:

is the only person in the USA to have dulyJiredJire dfired BHO [PresidentOBAMA] on January 23, 2009 by registered inail (rendering BHO theUSURPER as Plaintiff is entitled to characterize B HO as) on the groundsthat he had not pro ven hiinself eligible and all acts by the usurper are

void ab initio a serious problem [sic]Plain tiffs allegations are strongly anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and xenopho bic. Th e


31/159

complaint weaves the o ccasional true but irrelevant fact into pla int iffs rambling streamof consciousness.

Moreover, plaintiff S TR UN K alleges, in 22 of the com plaint, that defendantVice President BIDE N knew that President OBAM A was not eligible to run forpresident be cause he is not a Natural-Born Citizen with a British Subject Father with astudent visa, however in furtherance of CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] foreignpolicy initiatives in the mid-ea st sup porte d Soebarlcah [Presid ent OB AM A] as a Muslim[sic]

Also, Plaintiff STR UN K discusses, in the complaint, then-Senator OBA MA 'sApril 2008 co-sponsorship of Senate Resolution 5 11. This resolved unanimously thatSenator MCC AIN , born in 1936 in Panam a, while his father was on active duty in theUnited States Navy at Coco Sola Naval A ir Station, is a natural born citizen of the UnitedStates. This resolution put to rest questions about Senator M CC AI N'S eligibility to runfor President. How ever, plaintiff STR UN K alleges, in 43 of the complaint, that SenateResolution 5 11 is part of the schem e to defraud and a fraud upon Congress and thePeop le of the several states and territories contrary to the facts. Th en , plaintiffSTR UN K, in 44 of the complaint, cites Senate Resolution 5 1 1's text as evidence thatPresident O BA M A concedes that the definition of natural born citizenship for Presidentrequires both parents of a cand idate be U .S. citizens at birth. Furth er, the complaint


32/159

alleges that JOH N M CC AIN and ROG ER CAL ERO , presidential candidate of theSOCIALIST W OR KE RS PA RTY , were also ineligible, like then-Senator O BAM A, forPresident because o f their failure to qualify under the natural born citizen requirement.

Pla int iff s alleged injury, in 47 of the complaint, is [tlhat on No vem ber 4, 2008,Plaintiff, as a victim o f the sche me to defraud, voted for the electors representingMcC ain not a natural-born U.S . citizen. Further, in 49 of the complaint, as part ofthe schem e to defraud, Plaintiff voted for Candidate M cCain despite the fact that his wife

is a most devoted Ro inan Catholic whose tw o sons were ed ucated by Jesuit priests.Plaintiff alleges, in 7 1 of the com plaint, that Senator MCC AIN , was born in

Colon Hospital, Colon, Panama, which was not in the Panama Canal Zone. Further,plaintiff alleges, in 52 of the complaint, that according to the Novem ber 18, 1903 Hay-Bun au Varilla Trea ty, by which the United States obtained the Canal Zon e, SenatorMC CAIN is not a natural-born citizen.

Plaintiff STR UN K, in his final twenty pages of the complaint, alleges that themassive conspiracy to defraud American voters was perpetrated by hundreds ofindividuals, at the be hest of the Roinan Ca tholic Church a nd especially the Jesuits, withthe aiin of bringing abou t the Apocalypse through the de struction of the A1 Aq sa Mo squein Jerusalem and the re-building a new Je wish Tem ple on that site. Aino ng the entitiesthat Plaintiff STR UN K implicates in his alleged conspiracy are: the Musliin Brotherhood;


33/159

the Carlyle Group; the C FR ; Halliburton ; Kirlcland and Ellis, LLP; and, the BrennanCenter for Justice at NW For example, in 91 of the com plaint, plaintiff STRUN Kstates:

That ineinbers of the C ouncil on Foreign Relations includingPeter G Petersen as the n C hairinan that act with the Jesuit O rder bythe oath of allegianc e superio r to the United States Co nstitution, Treaties,and various States ' Con stitutions that starting no later than January 2006sought to usurp the execu tive branch of governinent using B araclc HusseinObaina I1 and Jo hn S. Mc Ca in 111, as a matched set o f contend ers thenunder joint coinin and and control, to preclude any other co ntend er inpreparation for a bank ing and sub-prim e mortgage collapse that requiressubsuming the sov ereignty o f the people of the united States of Americaand New Yorlc to International M onetary Fund conditionality w ith loss ofthe dollar reserve cu rrency status, and collapse of the living standards o fthe vast majority of the Am ericans to that of a third world status. [sic]

Plaintiff ST RUN K, in 139 of the complaint, alleges that defendant G EOR GESOR OS proves his allegiance to Rom e by promoting Musliin Brotherhood overt control


34/159

of Egypt W e cann ot forget that the Jesuits in Cairo created the Musliin Brotherhood in1928, the same yea r the Order created Opus Dei in Spain [sic]. Further, plaintiffSTRU NK , in 145 of the coinplaint allege s that Defendants Pritzlcer and Soro s haveinanaged a crucial role for the Vatican State as a ineinber of the CF R and high levelFreemasonry and in conjunction with King Juan Carlos (the King of Jerusalem) to createglobal regionalism that subsuines national sov ereignty of the US A an d the People of NewYork state to the detrime nt o f plaintiff and th ose similarly situa ted [sic].

Eleven d efen dan ts or groups o f defenda nts filed inotions to dismiss, arguing thatplaintiff STRU NIC: laclcs standing; fa iled to state a claiin upon wh ich re lief can begranted; failed to plead fraud w ith particu larity; and, is barred by collateral estoppel.Further, defe nda nts argue that the Court laclcs both personal and su bject matterjurisdiction and the instant coinplaint is frivolous. Plaintiff, in response , filed an affidavitin opposition to the inotions to dismiss and moved to consolidate the instant action withStrunk v Paterson et a l Index No . 29642108.

On A ugust 22, 20 1 1, I held oral argum ents on the record with respect to thethirteen instant mo tion s. At the hearing, plaintiff STR UN K agreed with the Court thatPresident OBAMA, with the release of his long-forin Hawaiian birth certificate, was bornin Hon olulu, Ha wa ii [tr., p . 231. Ho we ver, plaintiff STRUNIC, at tr., pp . 30 3 1, arguedthat a natural born citizen, eligible to run for President of the United S tates, pursuant to


35/159

Article 11, Sec tion 1, Clau se 5 of the U. S. Constitution, me ans that not only the candidateis natural born, but both of the candidate s pare nts are natural born.

The following exc hang e at the oral arguments took place, at tr., p. 34, line 25 p.35, line 16:

MR . S TR UNK: My injury, I voted for McCain.THE C OUR T: Is that an injury?MR . STRUNIC My injury is he did not challenge M r. Obaina

after he went throu gh the whole exercise.THE C OUR T: You re saying he should have challenged M r.

Obaina s pre sidency?MR . STRUNK: Absolutely, and the ballot. The onus is on me

because he violated h is agreement with me. You can t challenge the eligibilityuntil he s up to be swo rn. Mc Cain, since everybody in Congress, since theydidn t w ant to lcnow abou t anything, so it was my responsibility. I fired hiinby registered inail with in 72 hours.

THE C OUR T: I saw your letter that you fired the Presiden t.I guess he didn t agree with you because he s still there.


36/159

A d iscussion ensued as to how plaintiff STRUNIC alleges that President O BAM Ais a M uslim [tr., pp. 36 381. Th e followin g colloquy took place at tr., p. 37 , lines 4 8:

THE COURT: Ho w could you come to the conclusion that he sa radical Sun ni Muslim?

M R. STRUNIC Beca use that s what his records show and that swhat the testimony of individuals who were in class with hiin sho w.The following portions of the exchange, at tr., p. 39, line 9 p. 43, line 8

demon strates the irrational anti-Catho lic bias of plaintiff STR UN ICTHE COURT: What I find fascinating, first of all you said

there was a connection there where you say Cindy McCain says sh e s aCatholic. I don t lmow if she is. I think you said she s Catholic faith,Cindy McCain.

MR . STRU N K : She is the largest distributor of Bud weiser.THE COURT: I kno w that. That doesn t inalte her a Catholic

necessarily.

M R . STRUN IC It s the connection that counts. Your don t getthose connections.


37/159

T H E CO U R T : I don t l a o w if the Busch family is Catholic.I don t care.

M R . STRUNIC: That s big business.T H E CO U RT : That s big business selling beer Le t s put

Anheuser-Busch to the side.Yo u sa id she s a Catholic and you get into this whole riff or rant,

whatever y ou w ant to call it, about the Catholic Church and Fa ther O Hare,the Vatican. You go on and on about the Vatican but it seems to meyou hav e this theory that everything is a conspiracy and it always fallsback to Ro me .

M R . STRU NIC That s a matter of public record.TH E COU RT: Oh, okay.M R . ST RU NK : What the key is here, M s. Mc Cain is on the

Board of Dire ctors for a Jesuit run school where her children a re going toschool.

THE COURT: Could very w ell be. I don t know .MR STRUNK: In fact, it turns out in the discovery of the


38/159

connection to the Jesuits it was so coinpelling that when I started reallydigging into the background of this scheine of defraud, putting up two

Manchurian candidates at once, which would talte advantage of NewYorlc State s w eakn ess in our law which required honesty . W e require tohave honesty and didn t get it.

TH E COU RT: Your case is more The Da Vinci Cod eMR. ST RU N K : The Da Vinci Code is a phoney book.THE COURT: W ith all due respect to Jo hn Franlcenheiiner,

The Manclzurian Candidate according to you an d the school of the Vatican,by that way it describes the gist of your argum ent.

M R . STRUNIC: Fraizltenheiiner?TH E COU RT: He directed the original Manclzurian Candidate

movie.MR . STRUN K: The old?T H E CO U RT : With Franlc, not D enze l.M R. STRU NIC Franlcenheiiner?TH E COU RT: 1962 movie.


39/159

M R. STRUNK: I was aw are of the inovie at that point, butT H E COU RT: Okay, forget it.

M R. STRUNIC This is the one with Frank Sinatra?TH E COU RT: And Laurence Harvey.M R. STRUNIC The Queen of Diainondsl Now you ve broughtTH E CO U RT: You mentioned The M anch urian C andidate. They

have it in the inovie.M R. STRUNIC I ve used it as a pejorative.TH E CO U RT: I understand that, and I think that The Da Vinci

Code, to inalte som e interesting argument, that s a work of fiction. At leastI thinli it s a worli of fiction.

MR . STRUNK: The Manchurian Cand idate was not a work offiction. T he worli I didn t w ant to get into this area.

TH E CO U RT: Let s not get into analogies. I understand youhave various arguments but it seeins to all come back to Rom e.

M R. STRUN K : No, it coines back to New Yorli State andwhether I h ave standing in the Supreme Court of the State of New York


40/159

on the question of who 's going to take responsibility to enforce the lawwhich has not been don e.

TH CO UR T: Olcay, that's you r argum ent.tandard for a m otion to dismiss

When determining a motion to dismiss, tlze court must 'accept the facts asalleged in the cornp laint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorab leinference, and cletern~ilze nly w11eflter tlte fncts cis all eg ed fi t wit11 n n11y cogn izab lelegcrl theory (see A rna v Ilzdzls.,IIIC etirement Trust v Brown , Rayslnarz, Milstein,Felder Steinel., 96 NY2d 300, 303 [2001]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY 2d 83, 87-88[19941) [Enzphasis adden] . (Goln'ma~z Metropolitarz Life Ins. C o., 5 NY3d 56 1,570-571 [2005]). Further, the Court, in M orr is v Morris (306 AD2d 449 ,451 [2d Dept2003]), instructed that:

In determ ining whethe r a com plaint is sufficient to withstand a motionpursuant to CP LR 321 1 (a) (7), the sole criterion is whethe r thepleading s tates a caus e of action, and if froin its four corners fa ctualallegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause ofaction cog nizab le at law a motion for dismissal will fail (Guggenheinzer

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


41/159

alleged in the coinplaint to be true and determ ine on ly wlzetlzer tlze factsalleged fiZ witlzin any cogn izab le Iegril tlzeory (see Dye v Catholic Med.

Ctr . of Broolclyn Qu eens , 273 AD 2d 193 [20 00]). How ever, bnrelegal con clusion s ire not en titled to tlze benefit of tlze presump tionof trutlz a nd are not accorde d every favora ble inferen ce (seeDoria v Masu cci, 230 AD2d 764 [20001). [Em plzasis adden]For a pla intiff to surv ive a inotion to dism iss for failure to state a cause of action,

the factual allega tions in the claiin cannot be merely co nclusory and speculative innature and not supported by any specific facts. (Residentsfor More Beautiful Po rtWashington, Inc. v Town ofNorth Hem pstead, 153 AD 3d 7 27 ,7 29 [2d Dept 19891).The allegations in the coinplaint cannot be vague and c onclu sory. (Stoianoffv Gahona,

248 AD 2d 525 [2d Dept 19981, ap p dislnissed 92 NY 2d 844 [1998], cert denied byStoianoffv New Yorlc Times, 525 US 953 [199 8]). (See Lo Pre sti v Ma ssachusetts Mut.Life Ins. C o., 30 AD 3d 474 [2d Dept 20061; Levin v isayeu , 27 AD3d 425 [2d Dept20061; H ar t v Scott, 8 AD 3d 532 [2d Dept 20041).

Plaintiff STR UN K's coinplaint inust be dismissed because the Court need not,and should not, accept legal conclusions, unwarranted inference s, unwarranteddeductions, baseless conclusions of law, or swe eping legal co nclusions cast in the forin of


42/159

factual allegations. (Ulman n v Norm a K amali, In c., 207 AD2d 69 1 [ Id D ept 19941; MarlcHampton, Inc, v Bergreen, 173 AD2d 220 [I d Dept 199 I]). (Goode v Charter ak Fire

Ins. C o., 8 M isc 3 d 1023[A ], at 2 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 20051). It is clear that the factsalleged by plaintiff S TR UN K do not fit into any cognizable legal theory .

Plaintiff STRUNK'S complaint is more of a political manifesto than a verifiedpleading. Siinilar lawsuits challenging the eligibility of President OB AM A and SenatorMCC AIN for the presidency based up on pla int iffs incorrect interpretation of the terinnatural born Citizen in Artic le 11, Sec tion 1, Clause 5 of the U.S . Constitution have

been dismissed as a matter of law. (See Dr ake v Obam a, 664 F 3d 774 [9th Cir 201 11;Barnett v Obama, 2009 WL 3861788 [US Dist Ct, CD CA 20091; Be rg v Obama, 574 FSupp 2d 509 [ED Pa 20081, affd 586 F3 d 234 [3d Cir 20091; Rob inson v Bowen, 567 FSupp 2d 1144 [N Ca 20081; Ho llander v McCain, 566 F Supp 2d 63 [D N H 20081).

Plaintiff STRUN lacks standingPlaintiff STRUNIC lacks standing to sue in state court, havin g suffered no injury.

Standing to sue is critical to the proper functioning of the judicial system . It is athreshold issue . If stand ing is denied, the pathway to the courth ouse is blocked. Theplaintiff wh o has standing, how ever , inay cro ss the threshold an d see k judicial redress.(Sara toga County Chanzber of Congmeuce, Inc, v Patak i, 100 NY 2d 80 1 8 12 [2003], certdenied 540 US 1017 [2003]). Professor David Siegel, in NY Prac, 136, at 232 [4d ed]


43/159

instructs that:[ilt is the law 's policy to allow only an aggrieve d person to bringa lawsuit wa nt of standing to sue, in other words, is justanother way of saying that this particular plaintiff is not involvedin a gen uine co ntrove rsy, and a simp le syllogism takes us froin thereto a jurisdictional dism issal: (1) the courts have jurisdiction onlyover contro versie s; (2) a plaintiff found to lack standing is notinvolved in a controve rsy; and (3) the courts therefore have nojurisdiction of the case w hen such a plaintiff purports to bring it.

Standing to su e requires a n interest in the claiin at issue in the lawsuit that the lawwill recognize as a suf ficient predicate for determ ining the issue at the litigant's request.(Caprer v Nussbaun?, 36 AD 3d 176, 18 1 [2d Dept 20061). An analysis of standingbegins w ith a de termination o f whether the party see king relief has sustained an injury(see Society of Plastic ind us. v County of Suffolk, 77 N Y2d 76 1, 762-773 [I9 9 l]).(M ah on ej~ Patak i, 98 NY 2d 45, 52 [2002]). The Court of Appe als has defined thestandard by w hich standin g is measu red, explaining that a plaintiff, in order to havestanding in a particular dispu te, must demo nstrate an injury in fact that falls within therelevant zone of interests sought to be protected by law . (C apr er v Nussbaum at 183).


44/159

A plaintiff, to have sta nding , must allege personal injury fair ly traceable to thedefendant's allegedly unlawful conduc t and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.(Allen v Wright, 468 US 737 , 75 1 [19841). If a plaintiff lacks stand ing to sue, the plaintiffinay not proceed in the action. (Stark v Goldberg , 297 AD2d 203 [l st Dept 20021).

Plaintiff STRUNIC clearly lack s stand ing to sue because he c annot establish aninjury in fact. Pla int iff s claiin that his Novem ber 2008 vote for Senator MC CA IN forPresident was his injury is the type o f generalized grievance that is foreclosed by the U.S.Constitution's particu larized injury requ irem ent. We have consistently held that aplaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government-claiming onlyharm to his and every citizen 's interest in prop er app lication of the Constitution and laws,and seeking relief that no ino re directly and tangibly ben efits hiin than it does the publicat large-does not state an Article I11 case or controversy. (Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife,504 US 55 5, 572 19921). Thus, a private citizen wh o does not sho w any special rightsor interests in the matter in controversy, other than those co ininon to all taxpayers andcitizens, has no standing to sue. (Matter of Meehan v County of Westchester, 3 AD3d533, 534 [2d De pt 20041). (See Die derich v Roc kland County Poli ce Chiefs' Ass 'n, 33AD3d 653, 654 [2d Dept 20061; Con cerne d Taxpayers ofstony Po int v Town of StonyPoint, 28 AD 3d 657, 65 8 [2d Dept 20061). Plaintiff ST RU NK 's coinplaint allegesnothing inore than non-justiciable abstract and theoretical cla ims. The refore , the instantcomplaint, failing to state any allegation o f a particularized injur y, is dismissed with


45/159

prejudice. Sil ver v Patalci at 53 9; Mahoney v Pataki at 52).

Plaintiff Strunk s failure to state a cause of actionAlternatively, plaintiff STRU NIC's coinplaint m ust be dismissed for his failure to

state a cause of action. Th e Court is under no obligation to accept as true pl ai nt iff scomplaint, full of legal conclu sions and bald assertions cloalted as facts. Rzqjfino v ewYorlc City Tr. Autl? ., 55 A D3 d 8 17, 8 18 [2d Dep t 20081). A s noted abov e, in Morris vMorris at 45 1, bare leg al conclusions are not entitled to the benefit of the presumption oftruth and are not accorded every favorable inference. M oreov er, plaintiff has failed toplead any facts that fit within an y cognizable legal theory. Goldman Metropolita~zLife111s.Co.. at 570-571).

Further, plaintiff STR UN ICs often ramb ling and allnost incoinprehensiblecoinplaint fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of C PLR $30 13 and CPL R Rule3014. CPLR j 3013 requires statements in a pleadin g to be sufficiently particular togive the court and parties n otice of the transactions, o ccurrences, or series o f transactionsor occurrences, intended to be pro ved and the inaterial elem ents of each cause of action ordefense. CP LR Rule 30 14 imp oses additional pleading requirements that [elvery

pleading shall consist of plain and co ncise stateinents in consecutively nuinberedparagraphs. Each parag raph shall contain, as far as practicable, a single allegationSeparate causes of action or defenses shall be separately stated and nuinbered and inay be


46/159

stated regardless of consistency .In Sibershy v New Youk City (270 AD2d 209 [ Id Dept 20001, the Court disinissed

an amen ded petition for its com plete failure to follow the dictates of CPL R 30 13 or30 14. The Sibe14slycoinp laint consisted of seven pages of single- spac ed, unnuinberedparagraph s, the iinport of wh ich is unascertainable, and the Court held that [plleadingsthat are not particular en oug h to provide the court and the parties wit h notice of thetransaction or occurrences to be proved inust be disinissed. Coin plaints that do not ineet

the pleading requireinents of CPL R 30 13 and CPLR Rule 30 14 wi ll be disinissed ifdevoid of specific factual allegations and do not indicate the inateria l eleinents of a

claiin and ho w they w ould apply to the case. Megna v Becton Dickinson Co., 2 15AD 2d 542 [2d Dept 19951). In Peri v State (66 AD2d 94 9 [3d De pt 1979]), fd 48NY2d 734 [1979]), apv o se pl ai nt iff s coinplaint was dismissed for failure to coinply

with CPLR 8 3013. Th e Court instructed that [alt a ininimuin, a valid coinplaint mustinclude all inaterial eleinents o f the cause o f action.

Plaintiff STR UN ICs ram bling, forty-five page prolix comp laint, with its irrelevant,scatter-shot inorass of alleged historical references, virulent anti-C atholic rhetoric andextensive political rant fa ils to plead his alleged causes of a ction in a inan ner that issufficiently particular to give the c ourt and parties notice of the trans action s,

occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be prov ed and the


47/159

inaterial eleinents of each caus e of action [CP LR 30131 and organized in plain andconcise statements in consecutively nuinbered paragraphs [CPLR Rule 30 141 While arefined and attenuated a nalysis inight arguably sp ell out a shadow of a cause of action,neither the defendants nor the trial court shou ld be subject to the difficulties. (Kent vTruman, 9 AD 2d 649 [ I d Dept 19591). (See Geist v Rolls Royce Limited, 18 AD 2d 63 1[1d Dep t 19621; Safer Beef Co ., Inc. v No rthern Boneless BeeJ Inc ., 15 AD 2d 479 [I dDept 19611). In a case, such as this one, in wh ich the amen ded coinplaint is prolix,confusing, and difficult to answer and the coinplaint contains a c on hs in g succession ofdiscrete facts, conclusions, coininents . . and con siderable other subsidiary evidentiaryinatter who se relevance to a particular c ause of action is frequently obsc ure . .Defendants should not be required to answer such a jumble. (Ra papo rt v Diam ondDe alers, Club, Inc ., 95 AD 2d 743, 744 [I d Dept 19831). (See tu v C umbe rland Farms,In c., 148 AD 2d 8 21, 824 [3d Dept 19891).

Plaintiff STRUN fails to plead fraud with particularityThe eleinents of fraud are narrowly defined, requiring proof by clear and

convincing evidence cf, Vernzeer Owners v Guterman, 78 N Y2d 1 1 14, 1 1 16 [I99 I]).(Gaidon v Gu ard ian Life Ins. Co. of America, 94 NY 2d 330, 349-350 [1999 ]). Mereconclusory stateinents a lleging the wron g in the pleadings are insuffic ient. (McGovevn vNassau County Dept, of Socia l Services, 60 AD3d 10 16 [2d Dept 20091; Sarg iss v


48/159

Ma garelli , 50 AD3d 1 117 [2d Dept 20081; Dum as v Firoito, 13 A D3 d 332 [2d Dept20041 ; Sforza v Health Ins. Pla n of Greater New York, 2 10 AD 2d 2 1 4 , 215 [2d Dept19941).

Th e Appellate Division, Second Department, in Giurda nella v Giurdanella (226AD 2d 34 2, 343 [1996], held that:

to establish a priina fac ie case of fraud, the plaintiff must establish(1 ) that the defendant inade inaterial representations that were false,

(2) that the defendant knew the representations were false and inade theinwith the intent to dece ive the plaintiff, (3) that the plaintiff justifiablyrelied on the defe nda nt s representations, and (4) that the plaintiff wasinjured as a result of the defendan t s representation.

(See Kerusa Co., LLC v WIOZ 515 Re al Estate Ltd. Pa rtne rship , 12 NY 3d 236 [2009];Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc. 94 NY2d 43 [1999]; Ch anne l M aster C orp. vAluminwn Limited Sales, In c., 4 NY 2d 403 [1958]; Smith v Ameviquest Mortg. Cor p., 60AD 3d 1037 [2d Dept 20091; Cash v Titan Financ ial Services, In c. 5 8 AD3d 785 [2d Dept20091).

Plaintiff STRUN prese nts in his coinplaint fraud ac cusa tions that can be, at best,described as bare assertions. H e does not allege that he relied upo n any statements ofdefendants and fails to allege that he suffered any pecuniary loss as a result of the

2


49/159

statements of any defend ant. Actual pecu niary loss must be alleged in a fraud action.(Dress Shirt Sales, Inc, v H ote l Murtiniqzle Assoc., 12 NY2 d 339 , 343 [19 63]; Rivera vWyckoffHeights H osp ., 184 AD 2d 55 8, 56 1 [2d Dept 19921). Th e inere use of the wordfraud in a coinp laint is not sufficient to coinply with the specific requireme nts of CPLR30 16 (b) that fraud be plead with particularity. Therefore, plaintiff ST RUN K fails to

allege the necessary elements for a fraud ca use of action.This ourt lacks jurisdiction

Pla int iff s com plaint essentially ch allenges the qualifications of both PresidentOB AM A and S enator MCCA IN to hold the office of President. This is a non-justiciablepolitical ques tion. Thu s, it requires the dismissal of the instant coinp laint. Thenonjusticiability o f a political question is priinarily a fbnction of the sepa ration of

powers. (Baker v Ca rr, 369 US 186 ,210 [1962]). Under separation ofpow ers, [tlheconstitutional powe r of Cong ress to regu late federal elections is well established.(Buckley v Valeo, 424 U S 1, 13 [1976]). (See Oregon v Mitchell, 40 0 U S 1 12 [1970];Burroughs v United States, 290 U S 534 [1934]). Under New York law, [tlhis judicialdeference to a coord inate, coequal branch of government includes on e issue ofjusticiability generally denom inated as the 'political question' doc trine. (Matter o NewYork Sta te Inspe ction, Security Law Enforcenzent Employees, Dis trict Coun cil 82AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 2 33 ,2 39 [1984]).

Th e frainew orl< for the Electoral C ollege and its voting pro cedu res for President


50/159

and Vic e President is foun d in Article 11, Section 1 of the U .S . Constitution. This isfleshed out in 3 USC 1 et seq ., which details the procedures for Presidential elections.M ore spe cifically, the c ounting o f electoral votes and the process for o bjecting for the2009 Presidential election is found in 3 USC j 15, as modified by P ub L 1 10-430, j 2,122 US Stat 4846 . This required the me eting of the joint se ssion of Congress to count the2008 electoral votes to be held on January 8, 20 09 . On that day, after the counting of theElectoral College votes, then-Vice President Diclt Cheney m ade the requ isite declarationof the election of President OBA MA and Vice President BID EN . (1 55 Cong Rec H76[Jan. 8 20091). N o o bjections were made by mem bers of the Senate and House ofRepresentatives, wh ich wou ld have resolved these objections if made. This is theexclus ive ineans to resolve objections to the electors selection of a President or a VicePresident, including objections raised by plaintiff S T R U M . Federal courts have no rolein this process. Plainly, state courts have no role.

Thus, this C ourt laclts subject matter jurisdiction to de termin e the eligibility andqualifications of President O BA M A to be President, as well as the sam e for SenatorMC CA IN or RO GE R C AL ER O. If a state court were to involve itself in the eligibility ofa candidate to hold the o ffice of President, a determination reserved for the ElectoralCollege and Congress, it inay involve itself in national political matters for which it isinstitutionally ill-suited and interfere with the constitutional authority o f the ElectoralColleg e and Con gress. Ac cording ly, the political question doctrine instructs this Court


51/159

and other courts to refrain froin supe rseding the judgments of the nation's voters andthose federal governinent entities the Constitution designates as the proper forum s todeter min e the eligibility of presidential cand idates.

Justice Robert Jackson, concurrin g in Youngstown Shee t Tube Co. v Sawyer(343 US 579, 635 19521, in discussing separation of powers sta ted that the Constitutiondiffuse s powe r the better to secure liberty. Justice Thurgo od Marsh all, in his majorityopi nion in U S v Mz~ noz-Flores 495 U S 385, 394 [1990]), on the subject of separation ofpow ers, quoted froin Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in Mo rrison v Olson, 487 US 654,697 [1988], in which Justice Scalia observed that [tlhe Framers of the FederalConstitution viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely centralguarantee of a just G overnment. This Court will not disrupt the separation of powers asenunciated in the U.S. Constitution and articulated by Justices Jacltson, Marshall andScalia.

Further, plaintiff STRU NK has failed to properly serve defendants, includingPresident OB AM A and Senator MC CAIN , pursuant to the CPLR . With numerous othergrou nds present for dismissing the instant action, the Court will not elaborate upon howplaintiff STR UN K failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendan ts.

Plaintiff STRUN is precluded by collateral estoppelCollateral estoppel or issue preclusion, as observed by Pro f. Siegel, in NY Prac


52/159

5443, at 748 -749 , [4th ed], scans the first action and taltes note of each issue decided init. Then if the sec ond ac tion, although based on a different cause of action, attempts toreintroduce the sam e issue, collateral estop pel intervenes to preclude its relitigation and tobind the party, agains t whoin the doctrine is being invoked, to the way the issue wasdecided in the first action . In Ryan v New York Telephone Company (62 NY2d 494, 500[1984]), the Cou rt of Ap peals, held that [tlhe d octrine of collateral estoppel, a narrowerspecies of res ju di ca ta , precludes a party froin relitigating in a subsequent a ction or

proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior a ction or proceeding and decided against thatparty or tlzose in privity, whether or not the tribunals or ca uses of action ar e the sam e[Emplznsis ndden]. Tw o prerequisites mu st be met before collateral estoppel can beraised. The Court of Appe als, in Bueche l v Bain (97 NY 2d 295 [2001], cer t den ied 535US 1096 [2002]), instructed at 303-3 04, that:

There m ust be an identity of issue which h as necessarily been decidedin the prior action and is decisive of the present ac tion, and theremust have been a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision nowsaid to be controlling (see, Gilberg v Bar nieri, 53 NY2d 285 , 291[ I 9 811). Th e litigant seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel mustdemo nstrate that the decisive issue was necessarily decid ed rz tlze pr or


53/159

nction agrrirzst a party or one in privi ty with n prrrty (see, id.). Theparty to be preclude d froin relitigating the issue bears the burden of

demo nstrating the absen ce o f a full and fair opportunity to contestthe prior determination. [Emphasis adden

(See D Arata v New Yorlc Cent. Mztt. F ir e Ins. C o., 76 NY2 d 659, 664 [1990]; G ram atanHome Investors Corp. v Lopez, 46 ~ ~ 2 d8 1, 48 5 sup ra; Westchester County CorrectionOficers Benevolent Ass n, Inc . v County of Westchester, 65 AD 3d 1226, 1227 [2d Dept20091; Franklin Dev. Co. Inc. v Atlantic M ut. Ins. Co., 60 AD 3d 897, 899 [2d Dep t20091; Luscher ex. re1 Lus cher v Ar rua , 21 A D3d 1005 [2d Dept 20051).

Plaintiff STR UNIC litigated inany of the issues in the instant action in US D istrictCo urt, but also in the previou sly cited Strunlc v Pater son, et al, Index No. 29642108,before Justice Schmidt. He aclao wled ged this, in 7 2 of the instant comp laint, by stating:

Tha t this coinp laint is fairly traceable to the events and ac tionsleading up to the Party primaries during the 2008 election cy cle for theballot access of the Presidential slates at the Nov ember 4, 2008 GeneralElection as comp lained of in the related election law case, Strunl


54/159

as an election law matter. [sic]As men tioned abov e, Justice Schinidt dispo sed of Strunlc v Paterson, et al , Index No.

29642108, on M arch 14, 201 1, by den ying all of pla in tif fs m otions and noting that thestatute of limitations expired to join necessary parties President OBA MA and SenatorM CC AIN . The refore, collateral estoppel precludes plaintiff STRUNIC froin pursu ing theinstant action.

Denial of plaintiff s cross-motion to consolidatePlantiff's cross-motion to conso lidate this action with Strunlc v Pnterson, et al

Index No . 29642108, and transfer the instant action to Justice Schinidt is denied. JusticeSchmidt, on Noveinber 19,2008, in Strunk v Pate rso n, e t al , declined to sign plaintiffSTR UN K's o rder to show cause to enjoin Governor Paterson from con ven ii~gNewYor k's Dece mb er 2008 meeting of the Electoral College, becau se plaintiff is collaterallyestopped. This refers to the Eastern District action dismissed by Judg e Ross, in whichshe foulld the coin plaii~ t rivolous.

After a hiatus of several years, plaintiff STRUNK, by order to show cause.attempted to ainend his complaint. Justice Schinidt, in his January 11, 201 1 short-for111order, denied this m otion in its entirety.

The n, plaintiff STRIJNIC mov ed to reargu e. On March 14, 20 11, Justice Schmidt,in a short-form order , denied rearguinent because plaintiff failed to join a necessary


55/159

party President OB AM A and Senator M CC AIN and the statute of limitations to do soexpired. Finally, on Novenlber 9, 20 1, H. Willialn Van Alle n, ail ally o f plaintiffSTRIJNIC, inoved to intervene as a plaintiff to challenge President OB AM A's placementon the upcorning 20 12 ballot. In his Nov em ber 22, 201 1 short-form order, JusticeSchnlidt denied Mi-. V an Al len 's interven tion in all respects. Furthe r, Justice Schinidthelcl [tlhis is an action that was coii ~i ne nc edn 2008 an d has rernaiiled inactive forseveral years and it would be i~n prop ero a ll o~ v laintiff to raise new matters before the

Court after the extended period of inactivity.Plaintiff s frivolous conduct

A coinp laint contain ing as it does both factual allega tions and legal conclusions, isfrivolous where it laclts an arguable basis and embraces not only the inarguable legalconclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation. Neitzlze v WWiarns, 490 US 3 19,325 [1989]). Plaintiff STRUNK, as cited above, alleges numerous fanciful, fantastic,delusional, irrational and baseless claims about defendants. Th e U.S. Suprem e Court,citing Neitzlce, held in Den ton v Hernandez (504 US 25, 32-33 [1992]), that:

A co urt inay disiniss a clairn as factually frivolous only if the factsalleged ar e clearly baseless, 490 US at 127, 109 S Ct at 1833, acategory encoinpassin g allegations that are fanciful, id., at 325,109 S Ct at 183 1, fantastic, id., at 328, 109 S Ct at 18 33, and

-3 5


56/159

delusional, ibid. As those w ords suggest, a finding of factualfrivolousness is appro priate when the facts alleged rise to the level

of the irrational or the wholly incredible.In Denton the plaintiff alleged that he had been repeatedly raped by a number of

inm ates at several different prisons, all using the sa m e modus operandi. The Courtconcluded that these allegations were wholly fanciful and dismissed the claiin asfrivolo us as a result. In Shoemaker v U S Department of Justice (164 3d 6 19, 6 19 [2dCir 1998]), plaintiff alleged that the governm ent and television stations conspired to: (1)broadcast information abo ut his feces on national television ; and (2) file and publicizedfalse charges of child abuse against him . The Court, citing Neitzke and Dentondism issed the action as frivolous becau se pl ain tif fs factual claims are irrational andincredible. An other case applying the frivolous standar ds of Neitzke and Denton is Perriv Bloonzberg (2008 W 2944642 [U Dist Ct, ED N Y 2008]), in which plaintiff allegedthat a secret unit of the NYP D was attempting to kill hiin and his cats. The Courtdismissed the case, finding that pl ai nt iff s coinplaint has a litany of sensationalallegations pertaining no t only to the NYPD, but also to various a rms of gov ernm ent, bothstate and federal. Acco rdingly , Perri has not established that he is entitled to apreliminary injunction, because his allegations of irreparable harm are unsupported andbizarre.


57/159

Plaintiff ST RU NK 'S com plaint, as well as his opposition to defendants' motionsto dismiss, alleges that the correct interpretation of the natural b orn citizen clause of the

U .S. Constitution requires a natural born citizen to have been born on United States soiland have two United States born parents. Despite pla in tif fs assertions, Article 11, Section1, Clause 5 does n ot state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the natural borncitizen clause inea ns what plaintiff STRUNIC claims it states. The phrase 'natural bornCitizen' is not define d in the Constitution, see Minor v Hap persett, 88 US 162, 167[1875]), nor does it appe ar anyw here else in the docume nt, see C harles Gordon, Who Ca nBe President of the United States: An Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev . 1, 5 (1968)(Hollander v M cC ain at 65). Plaintiff STRUNIC cannot wish into existence aninterpretation that he choo ses for the natural born citizen clause. The re is no arguablelegal basis for th e propo sition that both parents of the President must have been born onU.S . soil. This ass ertion is as frivolous as the multitude o f alleged allegations outlinedabove.

Moreove r, President O BA MA is the sixth U. S. President to have had one or bothof his parents no t born on U .S. soil. Plaintiff STRU NK and his fellow birthers inightnot realize that: both parents of President Andrew Jacltson w ere b orn in what is nowNorthern Ireland; President Jaines Buchanan's father was born in County Donegal,Ireland; President C hester A. Arthu r's father was born in what is now Northern Ireland;


58/159

President Woodrow Wilson's mother was born in Carlisle, England; and, PresidentHerbert Hoover 's m other was born in Norw ich, Ontario, Canada.

Therefore, the prosec ution of the instant action by plaintiff ST RU NK , with itsfancifu l, fantastic, delusiona l, irrational and baseless claims about defenda nts a ppears isfrivolous. 22 NY CR R 130-1.1 (a) states that the Court, in its discretion inay imposefinancial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proce eding w ho engagesin frivolous co nduc t as defined in this Part, wh ich shall be payable a s provided in section130- 1.3 of this Subpart. 22 NY CR R 130- 1.1 (c) states:

conduct is frivolou s if:( I) it is coinpletely w ithout inerit in law and can not be suppo rted by areasonable arguin ent for an extension, modification or reversal o f existinglaw;(2) it is undertalcen primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of thelitigation, or to harass or inaliciously injure anothe r; or(3) it asserts inaterial factual s tatem ents that are fa lse.

Conduct is frivolous and can be sanctioned, pursuant to 22 NY CR R 130- 1.1 (c), if itis coinpletely witho ut inerit and cannot be supported by a reaso nable arguinent for anextension, inodifica tion or reversal of existing law. (Go rdon v Mavuone, 202 AD2d 104,1 10 [2d Dept 19941 v denied 84 NY 2d 8 13 [1995]). (See R O Pvoperties, Inc. vBoynzelgreen, 77 A D3 d 721 [2d Dept 20101; Finkelman v SBRE LLC, 71AD3d 1081 [2d


59/159


60/159

The C ourt, in Kernisan, MD v Taylor (17 1 AD2d 869 [2d Dept 199 I]), noted thatthe intent of the Part 130 Rules is to pre ven t tlze waste of jud icia l re sou rce s and to deter

vexa tious litigation and dilatory or inaliciou s litigation tactics (cf Minister, Eld er sDeaco ns ofRefm. P ro t. Clgzirch of City of New York v 198 Broadw ay, 76 NY2d 41 1; seeSteiner v Bonham er, 146 M isc 2d 10) [Emplzasis adden]. To adjudicate the instantaction, with the coinpla int replete with fan ciful, fantastic, delu sional, irrational andbaseless allegations about defendants, combined with plaintiff STRUNK's lack of

standing, the barring of this action by collateral estoppel and the Co urt lacking personaljurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction over inany of the defend ants, is a waste ofjudicial resources. This conduc t, as noted in Levy, must be deterre d. In Weinstock vWeinstock (25 3 A D2 d 873 [2d Dept 19981) the C ourt ordered the m axiinuin sanction of$10,000.00 for an attorney wh o pursu ed an appeal coinpletely witho ut merit, andholding, at 874, that [wle therefore aw ard the maxiinuin author ized am ount as a sanctionfor this con duct (see, 22 N Y C RR 130- 1.1) calling to mind that friv olou s litigatiorz cause sa substarztial waste of ju di ci al r es ou rc es to the detriment of those litigants wh o come tothe Court with real grieva nces [Em ph as is adden]. Citing Weinstock, the AppellateDivision, S econd Departm ent, in Bernade tte Panzella, P C v De San tis (36 AD3d 734[2d Dept 20071) affirmed a Su prem e Coui-t, Richm ond C ounty $ 2,5 00. 00 sanction, at 736,as appropriate in view of the pla int iffs waste of judic ial reso ur ce s [Emplzasis adden] .

In Nuvin v M osq uer a (30 AD 3d 883, 883 [3d Dept 20061) the C ourt instructed that


61/159

wh en considering if specific conduct is sanctionable as frivolous, courts are required toexainine 'w hethe r or not the conduct was continued w hen its lack of legal or factual basiswas apparent [or] should have been apparent' (22 NY CR R 130- 1.1 [c]).

Therefore, the Co urt will exainine the con duct of plaintiff ST RU NK in a hearing,pursuant to 22 NY C R R 130- 1.1, to determine if plaintiff STRUNIC engaged in frivolousconduct, and to allo w plaintiff STRUNIC a reasonable oppo rtunity to be heard . Further, atthe hearing, an op portun ity will be given to coun sel for defendants to present detailedrecords of costs inc urred by their clients in the instant action.

laintiff precluded from relitigation of the sam e claims.The Cou rt is con cerne d that plaintiff STRUNIC continues to use the scarce

resources o f the N ew York State Unified Court Systein to fruitlessly pursue the saineclaim s. He is no strange r to litigation in Supreine Court, Kings Coun ty, Civil Terin.Furthe r, plaintiff STR UNIC has had seve ral bites of the saine apple in U.S . District Court,wh ich resulted in finding s of his eilgageinent in frivolous condu ct with, as stated by JudgeRoss, coinplaints that have contained allegations that have risen to the irrational. TheCourt should not hav e to expen d resources on the next action by M r. ST RU NK that willbe a new variation on the saine theine of defen dants' alleged inisdeeds and misconduct.Th e continued use of the New Yorlc State Unified C ourt S ystein for the personal pursuitby plaintiff S TRUN IC of irrational coinplaints against defen dants inust cease .

Our courts h ave an interest in preventing the w aste of judicial resources by a party


62/159

wh o lcnows that his or lawsuit ha s no legitimate basis in law or fact and continues toattempt to relitigate resolved claims and issues. (M artin-T rigon a v C ap ita l Cities/ABC,

Inc. 145 M isc 2d 405 [Sup Ct, New Yorlc County 19891). Th e C ourt, in Sassower vSignorelli (99 AD 2d 35 8, 359 [2d Dept 1984]), noted that public policy inandates freeacc ess to the courts and , ordin arily, the doctrine of former adjudication will serve asan adequate remed y against repetitious suits. Then, the Sasso we r Court observed, in thenext paragraph, tha t: [nlonetheless, a litigious plaintiff pressin g a frivolous claiin can be

extremely costly to the de fend ant and can waste an inordinate aino unt of court time,time that this court and the trial courts can

CES NOM for Enlargement of Time to File Appeal Brief w Aff and Ex 4-14-14 and or Quo Warranto equity...

Documents

Transcript of CES NOM for Enlargement of Time to File Appeal Brief w Aff and Ex 4-14-14 and or Quo Warranto equity...