Strunk and Phelps- Amicus Curiae Brief and Appendix USCA 9th Circuit 15-15343

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFFor Appeal from the Final Judgment of the United States District Court. Northern District of California, Oakland (Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton) U.S.D.C. No. 4:14-cv-04125-PJH INTRODUCTIONThis Amicus Curiae Brief is jointly submitted by Undersigned Christopher Earl Strunk (Strunk), Candidate ID No.: P60007010 for Office of President of the United States (POTUS) registered with the Federal Election Commission, who is Executor of THE EXPRESS DEED IN TRUST TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (see combined Appendix page A-1) for its Posterity beneficiaries, and by Undersigned beneficiary Eric Jon Phelps (Phelps) – an expert on the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) and their 82 year global time of war or state of Emergency under 12 USC 95 with 50 USC Appendix 5(b). Strunk and Phelps contend as friends of this Court that Parties herein are also properly within the jurisdiction of this Court with 50 USC Appendix 17 under 12 USC 95(a) with 50 USC Appendix 5(b) (A-18); however may not have jurisdiction, were Strunk’s promise to repeal The Emergency Banking Relief Act of 9 March 1933 (48 Stat. 1) (EBRA) that brought inland jurisdiction of The Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, CH. 106, 40 STAT. 411 (TWEA) by operation of Executive Orders: 2039 of 6 March 1933 (A-16) and 2040 of 9 March 1933 (A-17), to be done by Congress as explained below. Congress had an opportunity to repeal the EBRA following the United States Senate Report 93-549 “Emergency Powers Statutes” (A-21), but kept the EBRA and Military government of occupation when it enacted The Emergency Powers Act of Sept. 14, 1976 PL 94-412 90 Stat. 1255, expressly retained 12 USC 95(a) with 50 USC Appendix 5(b) (A-49), even maintains EBRA in 1977 with The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1701-1707), EBRA remains the law of the land over banking and commerce internationally cited by the Congressional Research Service Report to Congress 98-505 “National Emergency Powers” update September 18, 2001 (A-51). Therefore, Strunk and Phelps contend the Court is well served by judicial review done in the case Markham v. Cabell – 326 U.S. 404 (1945) (A-75); and that there is a requirement for discovery based upon the history of bad faith dealing by Defendant that the CONCERN OF THE UNITED STATES OVER ENEMY ATTEMPTS TO SECRETE FUNDS OR OTHER ASSETS IN NEUTRAL COUNTRIES: INCEPTION OF THE SAFE-HAVEN PROGRAM pages 213 thru 251 Correspondence of February 22, 1944 thru January 6, 1945 (A-87) apply in the commingling of Plaintiff’s beneficiary funds by Defendant’s investments under Executive Order 6073 requirements associated with the Gold Reserve Act of January 30, 1934 Pub.L. 73–87 (48 Stat. 337) in the Exchange Stabilization Fund and or private trust for United States securities, such review applies herein.