Motion Under FRAP 35 To Reconsider PETITION FOR WRIT W APPENDIX New York State BOE Website Born A Citizen Vs NBC USCA 16-0413

16- 0413-OP
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ARMED FORCES
__________________________________________________________________
In re: Christopher Earl Strunk, Christopher Blaise Garvey,

and Harold William Van Allen,
Petitioners.
__________________________________________________________________
NOTICE UNDER FRAP 35 TO RECONSIDER EN BANC FOR A MORE
DEFINITE DECISION TO DISMISS INCLUDING THE ALTERNATIVE
TO TRANSFER THE PETITION TO THE CO-EQUAL SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES ON NON MILITARY MATTERS
__________________________________________________________________
PETITION WITH 28 USC 1651 FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND
INJUNCTION EQUITY RELIEF IN THE MATTER OF THE NEW YORK
REPUBLICAN PARTY POTUS PRIMARY ON APRIL 19, 2016 AND
NATIONAL GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016; PURSUANT TO
THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANDATE BY THE DE-FACTO
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, UNDER THE:
HAGUE CONVENTION, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE,
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, AND
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
__________________________________________________________________
Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris,
in propria persona Petitioner Movant
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue - PMB 102
Brooklyn, New York Zip code excepted [11217]
Ph: 718-414-3760; Email: suretynomore@gmail.com
PETITIONERS
Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris, in propria persona
Christopher Blaise Garvey in esse, in propria persona
16 Nicoll Avenue
Amityville, New York 11701
Ph: 631-598-0752; Email: chrisgarveyl@verizon.net
Harold William Van Allen in esse, in propria persona
351 North Road
Hurley New York 12443
Ph: 845-389-4366; Email: hvanallen@hvc.rr.com
PARTIES IN INTEREST
Roger J. Bernstein, Esq.
535 Fifth Avenue, 35th Floor
New York, New York 10017
Brian L. Quail, Esq. and Kimberly Galvin, Esq.
for New York State Board of Elections
40 North Pearl Street, 5th Floor
Albany, New York 12207
Grant M. Lally, Esq.
Lally & Misir, LLP
for Ted Cruz
220 Old Country Road
Mineola, New York 11501
Marco Rubio
P.O. Box 558701
Miami Florida 33255 8701
i
JINDAL FOR PRESIDENT

P.O.BOX 5101
BATON ROUGE, LA 70821-5101
Barack Hussein Obama II
President of the United States'
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington DC 20500
THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
310 First Street SE
Washington DC 20003
202-863-8600
DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT
725 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK, New York 10022
Organization of American States Commission
17th Street and Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, D.C., 20006-4499
United States of America
Main Telephone: 1 (202) 370 5000
Permanent Court of Arbitration
International Bureau
Peace Palace
Carnegieplein 2
2517 KJ The Hague
Tel: 0031-(0)70-3024165
Fax: 0031-(0)70-3024167 Email: bureau@pca-cpa.org
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
NOTICE TO RECONSIDER EN BANC
Introduction
Petition Relief Sought
Facts in Support of Motion for Reconsideration En Banc
11
Conclusion
14
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP)

Rule 35
Statutes
28 USC 1651
28 USC 2201
10 U.S. Code 932 - Art. 132. Frauds against the United States
10 U.S. Code 907 - Art. 107. False official statements
10 U.S. Code 881 - Art. 81. Conspiracy
10 U.S. Code 878 - Art. 78. Accessory after the fact
10 U.S. Code 877 - Art. 77. Principals
12 USC 95(a): 50 USC App. 5(b) still a National Emergency of Executive Order
2039 and 2040 by authorization of Congress by 12 USC 95(b)
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)
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 17011707), 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.
US Constitution
U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 (A2S1C5)
U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10
iii
Cases
The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon 11 U.S. 116 (1812) ..............................9
Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393
Minor v.Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875)
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032
Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 210 (1935)
Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 319-20 (1958), or (2) impose an undue
burden on the ability of litigants to protect their federal rights, see, e.g., Felder v.
Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 138 (1988)
Treaties
Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV) of October 18, 1907,
especially Section III Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State
Articles 42 through 56
International Covenant of Civil And Political Rights (ICCPR) especially Articles 2
and 25
Other Sources
The Law of Nations, by Emer de Vattel (b. 25 April 1714 - d. 28 December 1767)
was published in 1758
Original Draft of the Declaration of Independence
PETITION and APPENDIX annexed with pages APX - 001 through APX - 434
Exhibit 1: Docketing 16--0413 and Order to Dismiss .......................................1
Exhibit 2: Korman v NYS BOE etal. Appeal 2016-00374 Order to uphold.........11
Exhibit 3: Article "...Ted Cruz "PROBABLY AN UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN"........12
Exhibit 4: Article "On the Victory of Dr. Seselj against the Word:..."...............12
iv

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE That the honorable judges of this Court: Charles E.
Chip Erdmann (Chief Judge.); Scott W. Stucky; Margaret A. Ryan; Kevin A.
Ohlson; William H. Darden; Walter T. Cox III; Eugene R. Sullivan; Susan J.
Crawford; H.F. "Sparky" Gierke; Andrew S. Effron; James E. Baker, are petitioned
with FRAP 35 to reconsider en banc the sua sponte Order to dismiss done without
attribution and without clarification of the decision (see Exhibit 1) at least requires
under 18 USC 2382 an order alternative with the Petition transfer to the co-equal
Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on non military matters.
INTRODUCTION
That the Undersigned Petitioner, Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris, a
member of the "pre-1933" Private National Citizen of the United States of America
posterity political class, is the beneficiary agent and attorney-in-fact in propria
persona (Strunk) for the registered Public US Citizen "CHRISTOPHER E.
STRUNK" (STRUNK) having exhausted remedies below with time as the essence
with imminent irreparable harm based upon the fraud and conspiracy damage to
individual fundamental personal rights and as the ONLY opportunity for active
service members to choose their commander-in-chief who must be constitutionally
eligible; and therefore, gives notice under Federal Rules for this Court en banc to
reconsider the 24 March 2016 sua sponte Order issued by the Clerk that adds
further infringement and insult despite the letter of the law under the National
Emergencies or during a time of war, is in error without any: (1) attribution and
(2) decision explaining the dismissal of Petitioners' application for equity relief
with use of 28 USC 1651 for Writ of Mandamus and Injunction Equity relief
submitted in the matter of the New York Republican Party Primary for Office of
President of the United States (POTUS) on April 19, 2016 (see APX - 093), and
as applies at the National General Election on November 8, 2016 with the New
York State Board of Elections actual fraudulent invention of the term "Born a
Citizen" versus the express term of art "natural born Citizen" (NBC) for candidate
eligibility contradicts the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, quote:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen. or a Citizen of the United States,
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office
of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not
have attained to the age of thirty five Years, and has been fourteen Years a
Resident within the United States."
That this Petition, 16-0413, was filed pursuant to pre-existing and current
National Emergency Mandates (see APX - 280) by the resident De-Facto
Commander-In-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama II, under: 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
2
(TWEA) by operation of Executive Orders: 2039
(1)
of 6 March 1933 and 2040
(2)
of 9 March 1933, e.g. 12 USC 95(a): 50 USC App. 5(b), still a National
Emergency of the Executive by perpetual authorization of Congress with 12 USC
95(b)(3); and that with four other Emergencies (see APX- 298) are still in effect (4),
Executive Order 2039 created the perpetual private trusts on March 6, 1933 mandated :
"...the Secretary of the Treasury. with the approval of the President and under such
regulations as he may prescribe. is authorized and empowered (a) to permit any or all of
such banking institutions to perform any or all of the usual banking functions, (b) to
direct, require or-permit the issuance of clearing house certificates or other evidences of
claims against assets of banking institutions , and {c) to authorize and direct the creation
in such banking institutions of special trust accounts for the receipt of new deposits
which shall be subject to withdrawal on demand without any restriction or limitation and
shall be kept separately in cash or on deposit in Federal Reserve Banks or invested-in
obligations of the United States." (emphasis added by Petitioners)
Executive Order 2040 created the perpetual temporary Military Government on March 9, 1933
mandated : "...in view of such continuing national emergency and by virtue of the authority
vested in me by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6 , 1917 (40 Stat. L 411), as amended by the
act of March 9, 1933, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and declare that all the terms and
provisions of said Proclamation of March 6, 1933, and the regulations and orders issued there
under are hereby continued in full force and effect until further proclamation by the
President..." (emphasis added by Petitioners)
3
That 12 USC 95(a): 50 USC App. 5(b) with Executive Orders 2039 and 2040 as the law of
the land approved by Congress under 12 USC 95(b) and as for all current and related
"...actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken,
promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the
Treasury since March 4. 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by section 95a of this title,
are approved and confirmed." (emphasis added by Petitioners)
See APX - 296, quote: The purpose of the TWEA was to "define, regulate and punish trading
with the enemy." Section 5(b) of the original act gave the President power to regulate or prohibit
transactions in foreign exchange and currency, and transfers of credit or property with any
foreign country or the resident of any foreign country during war. This section has been amended
four times. In 1933 Section 5(b) was amended to provide that its authorities could be used in
time of a national emergency declared by the President;6 previously, the grants of power could
be used only during wartime. President Roosevelt cited the emergency authority of 5(b) to
declare a bank holiday during the depression. The national emergency declared by Roosevelt is
still in effect today. (emphasis added by Petitioners)
3
WE are according to the US Senate Report 93-549 as to the temporary military

government under a continual national emergency occupation, stated:
"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared
national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially
proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national
emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the
national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950,
during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared
buy President Nixon on March 23, 1970 and August 15, 1971;
"These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These
hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers,
ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American
citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast .range of powers,
taken together,. confer enough authority to rule the country without
reference to normal Constitutional process"
"Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the - President may: seize
property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities;
assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all
transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private
enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the
lives of all American citizens..."
and when combined with The Emergency Powers Act of Sept. 14, 1976 PL 94412 (90 Stat. 1255) that expressly retained 12 USC 95(a) with 50 USC
Appendix 5(b) at Section 502(a)(1) (see APX - 286), with The International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1701-1707) enacted on
December 28, 1977 requires the repeal of 12 USC 95(a) amended 50 USC App.
5(b) as to any new emergency proclamations unless specified (see APX - 292);
as both enactments ensure that the EBRA remains the law of the land over
banking and international commerce cited by Maryland Journal of International
4
Law Vol. 3 Issue 2 Article 11 "Amendments to the Trading With the Enemy Act"
(see APX - 296), and Congressional Research Service Report to Congress 98-505
National Emergency Powers update September 18, 2001 (see APX - 300); and
thereby maintains and further triggers the emergency occupation of the territories
of the United States of America with use of the Laws of War: Laws and Customs
of War on Land (Hague IV) of October 18, 1907, Section III Military Authority
Over the Territory of the Hostile State Articles 42 thru 56 (see APX - 420); and
this serves as Petitioners' complaint that invokes the Uniform Code of Military
Justice for: 10 U.S. Code 932 - Art. 132. Frauds against the United States
(5)
Any person subject to this chapter
(1)who, knowing it to be false or fraudulent
(A) makes any claim against the United States or any officer thereof; or
(B) presents to any person in the civil or military service thereof, for approval or payment,
any claim against the United States or any officer thereof;
(2) who, for the purpose of obtaining the approval, allowance, or payment of any claim against
the United States or any officer thereof
(A) makes or uses any writing or other paper knowing it to contain any false or fraudulent
statements; (B) makes any oath to any fact or to any writing or other paper knowing the
oath to be false; or (C) forges or counterfeits any signature upon any writing or other paper,
or uses any such signature knowing it to be forged or counterfeited;
(3) who, having charge, possession, custody or control of any money, or other property of the
United States, furnished or intended for the armed forces thereof, knowingly delivers to any
person having authority to receive it, any amount thereof less than that for which he receives a
certificate or receipt; or
(4) who, being authorized to make or deliver any paper certifying the receipt of any property
of the United States furnished or intended for the armed forces thereof, makes or delivers to
any person such writing without having full knowledge of the truth of the statements therein
contained and with intent to defraud the United States; shall, upon conviction, be punished as
a court-martial may direct. (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 75.)
5
10 U.S. Code 907 - Art. 107. False official statements (6); 10 U.S. Code 881 Art. 81. Conspiracy (7); 10 U.S. Code 878 - Art. 78. Accessory after the fact (8);
(9)
; and related law, includes as notice
under the International Covenant of Civil And Political Rights (ICCPR)

especially Articles 2 and 25 (10), and based upon the use of the Constitution of the
10 U.S. Code 907 - Art. 107. False official statements-. Any person subject to this chapter
who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official
document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be
false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 71.)
7
10 U.S. Code 881 - Art. 81. Conspiracy. (a) Any person subject to this chapter who
conspires with any other person to commit an offense under this chapter shall, if one or more of
the conspirators does an act to effect the object of the conspiracy, be punished as a court-martial
may direct. (b) Any person subject to this chapter who conspires with any other person to
commit an offense under the law of war, and who knowingly does an overt act to effect the
object of the conspiracy, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by
death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct, and, if
death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a courtmartial or military commission may direct.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 66; Pub. L. 109
366, 4(b), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2631.)
8
Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter
has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his
apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 65.)
9
10 U.S. Code 877 - Art. 77. Principals - Any person punishable under this chapter who
(1) commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or
procures its commission; or (2) causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him
would be punishable by this chapter; is a principal. (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 65.)
10
ICCPR PART II Article 2:

1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals
within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant,
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to
the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional
processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures
as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.
6
United States of America with the Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10 (11) express terms
for use of the construction interpretation with the polar star and Four-corners
Rules (12) using definitions of The Law of Nations, by Emer de Vattel (b. 25 April
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated
shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons
acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto
determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other
competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities
of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
Article 25
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned
in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen
representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal
and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will
of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
see http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx 2/12
11
U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10: "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies
committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations." (emphasis by Petitioners)
12
Four Corners Rule requires to interpret the meaning and understanding of the provisions
contained in a document by considering the overall meaning and intention of that document, and
that in such an interpretation of document, the external factors will not influence the meaning.
But the meaning of a sentence or clause is influenced by the document as a whole that
under "four corners rule", intention of parties, especially that ofgrantor, is to be gathered from
instrument as a whole and not from isolated parts thereof. Davis v. Andrews,Tex.Civ.App., 361 S
.W.2d 419, 423 and construction per se for interpretation of statute, regulation, court decision or
other legal authority is the process, or the art, of determining the sense, real meaning, or proper
explanation of obscure, complex or ambiguous terms or provisions in a statute, written
Black's law dictionary; and whereas, pursuant to the polar star rule is the principle that a
written document which is ambiguous is to be construed according to the intent of the maker,
grantor, or devisor as gathered from the four corners of the instrument. Hanks v McDanell, 307
Ky 243, 210 SW2d 784, 17 ALR2d 1 Ballentine's law dictionary
7
1714 - d. 28 December 1767) was published in 1758
(13)
, and we include the
Original Table of Contents and Sections that apply (APX - 328 thru APX - 405);
and Dr. Benjamin Franklin on December 9th of 1775 wrote in French to Vattels
editor, C.G.F. Dumas, by translation stated:
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of
Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state
make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that
copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our
congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface,
and have entertained a high and just esteem for their
author. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0172
PETITION RELIEF SOUGHT:
A. Declaratory Judgment:
(1) on the jurisdictional status of the State's Court in regards to the continuing
National Emergency and obligation to enforce the letter and intent of the U.S.
Constitution especially A2S1C5 eligibility mandates;
(2) that during a national emergency all public officers of all branches of State
and Local Government / territory(s) including the Federal and State courts are a
defacto martial bodies by operation of law are under the POTUS Commander
13
Emer de Vattel (b. 25 April 1714 - d. 28 December 1767) was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat,
and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political
philosophy. He was born in Couvet in Neuchatel, Switzerland in 1714 and died in 1767 of
edema. He was largely influenced in his philosophy by Gottfried Leibniz and Christian Wolff
and strove to integrate their ideas into the legal and political system. He is most famous for his
1758 work Le Droit des gens; OU, Principes de Ia loi naturelle appliques a Ia conduite et aux
affaires des nations et des souverains (in English, The Law of Nations or the Principles of
Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns).
8
in-chief until the emergency(s) are terminated, and only at which time become
dejure civil bodies;
(3) the Framers of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution used
The Law of Nations in its framing and proper use as an International
declaration as consistently used by Justice John Marshall, i.e. The Schooner
Exchange v. McFaddon 11 U.S. 116 (1812) applies herein should be revisited;
(4) the Framers used "The Law of Nations" in US Constitution Article 1
Section 8 Clause 10 with intent to use the internationally unanimously accepted
Publication to be the basis for use in defining terms within the construction of
the Constitution that are within the polar star and four corners rule;
(5) that "natural born Citizen" means a person born in the United States of
U.S. Citizen parents, and the term is not the same as a statutory naturalized
citizen that would include "born a Citizen";
(6) that during a continuing National Emergency the Hague Convention
Section III Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State Articles 42
through 56 apply, and that the NYS BOE failed to adhere to the requirement
not to arbitrarily and capriciously change any law;
(7) that as the law of the land notwithstanding a National Emergency the
ICCPR Articles 2 and 25 apply and that the NYS BOE failed to adhere to the
requirement not to arbitrarily and capriciously change any law;
9
(8) that based upon the evidence and facts Petitioners as a result of the actual
fraud perpetrated by the NYS BOE and its agents were denied their 1st thru
14th Amendment rights to be protected by the State and Federal authorities;
B. Mandamus of the NYS Board of Elections to use "natural born Citizen" in its
instruction for running for Office of POTUS not the term "Born a Citizen";
C. Mandamus of the NYS Supreme Court Appellate Division for the 2nd JD to
expedite its hearing of the Appeal 14-10459 in Strunk v Paterson Etal to proceed
in its review using the finding that the NYS BOE has wrongly used "Born a
Citizen" and is mandated to use "natural born Citizen".
D. Mandamus of the NYS BOE to strike Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal,
and or any other person from the party and or General Election Ballot who is not
eligible for the Office of POTUS who is not a "natural born Citizen" as defined by
the Law of Nations who must be born in the United States of US Citizen parents.
E. That the NYS BOE is ordered to expedite the Absentee Military Ballot for the
Party Primaries and General Election without ineligible POTUS Candidates.
F. That based upon the foregoing findings the Respondents and De-facto
Commander-in-chief with a foreign alien student father is not a natural born
Citizen, and as such actions heretofore had by Barack Hussein Obama II Etal are to
be referred to the US Army Provost General for investigation under the UCMJ.
10
Facts in Support of Motion for Reconsideration En Banc

1.
That Strunk has discussed the intention to file this motion with his fellow
Petitioners and each has been served accordingly with the content of this notice.
2.
That Strunk on 18 March 2016 traveled to Washington DC to file the
Original and five copies of the Petition with the Clerk of the USCA for the Armed
Forces located at 450 "E" Street NW; and
3.
That the Clerk there accepted the application stamped my own copy and told
me that the Judge(s) assigned will be given the Petition for review; and
4.
However, the Clerk told Strunk to send an additional two copies, and that
were thereafter Mr. Van Allen sent them for delivery on Tuesday; and
5.
On 22 March 2016, Mr. Van Allen called the Clerk to confirm delivery of
the two copies and was told that the two were sent to the Pentagon for review.
6.
On Wednesday 23 March 2016, there was an expedited oral argument
hearing of the appeal of the Petitioners in Korman and Gallo v NYS BOE and Ted
Cruz from the Order shown at APX -001, and to no avail the Appellate panel on a
statutory technicality denied relief from the Order below and issued its decision
and order (see Exhibit 2); and NYS Appeals Court review is not contemplated.
7.
That time is of the essence with the 25 March 2016 deadline being reached
for any request for an absentee ballot, and that ballots, pending printing, are to be
mailed before the 19 April 2016 Primary, and that there is an immediate need to
11
expedite this motion for the relief sought above and or now to include transfer of
the Petition to the co-equal SCOTUS on non-military matters.
8.
On the 25 March 2016 the Clerk notified Petitioners by Email of the sua
sponte Order to Docket and dismiss shown as Exhibit 1;

9.
That on 27 March 2016, the Post and Email published an interview entitled
NALC Lead Attorney: Documents Obtained From Canada on Ted Cruz

PROBABLY AN UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN (see Exhibit 3) with Attorney
Stephen Pidgeon of the North American Law Center (NALC) who had published
the Proposed Bill of Impeachment of the Commander-in-chief shown at APX -422;
10. Further, would be fruitless and moronic to expect any timely justice and
relief for herein Petition from the so-called International Court of Justice in the
Hague as setup by the United Nations, and such is sadly evidenced by the decade
plus ordeal announced 31 March 2016 :On the Victory of Dr. Seselj against the
World: Disloyalty must be Punished and Restitution Provided by Dr. Jonathan
Levy, member International Criminal Court Bar (see Exhibit 4).
11. Further, it would be fruitless to expect any timely justice and or relief for
herein Petition from the slightly better oxymoronic Permanent Court of Arbitration
(PCA) as an international organization based in the Peace Palace, The Hague, the
Netherlands; for it is not a court, does not have permanent judges, and should not
be confused with the International Court of Justice, a separate institution also in the
12
Peace Palace. The PCA is a permanent bureaucracy that assists temporary tribunals
to resolve disputes among states (and similar entities), intergovernmental
organizations, or even private parties arising out of international agreements. The
cases span a range of legal issues involving territorial and maritime boundaries,
sovereignty, human rights, international investment, and international and regional
trade and of which issues raised herein under the Hague Convention and
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights as apply.
12. Furthermore, it would be academic to expect any effective justice from the
Organization of American States Commission in Washington DC since the exploits
of Air America, Iran-Contra and Reagan silenced their jurisdiction, and although
instructive as a record on human rights violations reported to Congress, Executive
and Judiciary, that culture is only motivated by wealth, sex, drugs and rock-n-roll.
13. That no court has gone to the merits of the use of the term of art "naturalborn Citizen" and as such the matter is ripe and must be heard in order to prevent
social turmoil and anarchy that involve 18 USC 2381 through 18 USC 2389, and
14. The self interest of this Court is to handle this Petition under Article 142 of
the UCMJ that provides each judge shall be appointed from civilian life. To
underscore the civilian nature of the Court, the statute provides that a person may
not be appointed as a judge of the Court within seven years after retirement from
active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.
13
15. Further, Undersigned asks this Court state where else would the active duty
service men and women seek to have a ballot reflect a constitutional choice for
their own commander-in-chief as their sole opportunity to speak out and uphold
their constitutional oath than here?
16. Furthermore, the honorable judges of this Court are hereby notified of their
duty to investigate and act upon 18 U.S. Code 2382 - Misprision of treason:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of
the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon
as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some
judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a
particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both. (June 25, 1948,
ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103322, title XXXIII, 330016(1)(H), Sept.
13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing and Petition with exhibits annexed, Strunk seeks the
above referenced relief from this court as he has expended remedies below against
the fraud and conspiracy, has damage to fundamental personal rights and vote
property as a postliminy issue seeks recovery relief, and because time is of the
essence with irreparable harm Petitioners are entitled to the above relief sought
along with different and other relief the court deems necessary.
I have read the foregoing and that time is of the essence with irreparable
harm; and know the contents thereof apply to me by misapplication and
administration of laws and that the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to
14
- - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - --
--- - - - - - - - -- -- - - - ------------ - - - - -
the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those
matters I believe it to be true, am available for testimony. 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 .
.!Jdl
Christopher Earl Strunk in esse

Sui juris beneficiary agent and private
National Citizen of the United States
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KINGS
BEFORE ME, on this day personally appeared Christopher Earl Strunk known to
me to be the person described herein NOTICE TO RECONSIDER EN BANC
FOR A MORE DEFINITE DECISION TO DISMISS INCLUDING THE
ALTERNATIVE TO TRANSFER THE PETITION TO THE CO-EQUAL
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ON NON MILITARY
MATTERS_and who solemnly affirmed under the penalties of perjury that every
statement given above was the whole truth to the best of his knowledge.
Subscribed and Affirmed before me on this
~x~
day of March, 2016
Notary Public
cc: Christopher Blaise Garvey

Harold William Van Allen
Clo/ of the Organization of American States Commission Washington DC
Clerk of the Permanent Court of Arbitration The Hague Netherlands
15
16- 0413-OP
__________________________________________________________________

Petitioners.
__________________________________________________________________
Exhibit 1
United States Court of Appeals

for the Armed Forces
Washington, D.C.
In re
Christopher E.
Strunk,
USCA Dkt. No. 16-0413
DOCKETING NOTICE
Christopher B.
Garvey,
and
and
ORDER
Harold W.
Van Allen,
Petitioners
Notice is hereby given that a petition under 28 USC 1651 for writ of
mandamus and injunction equity relief in the matter of the New York Republican
Party POTUS Primary on April 19, 2016, and the National General Election on
November 8, 2016, was filed under Rule 27(a) on March 18, 2016, and placed on
the docket this 24th day of March, 2016. On consideration thereof, it is, by the
Court this 24th day of March, 2016,
ORDERED:
That said petition is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
For the Court,
/s/ William A. DeCicco

Clerk of the Court
cc:
Petitioners (Pro Se)
16- 0413-OP
__________________________________________________________________

Petitioners.
__________________________________________________________________
Exhibit 2
MatterofKormanvNewYorkStateBd.ofElections
2016NYSlipOp02133
DecidedonMarch24,2016
AppellateDivision,ThirdDepartment
PublishedbyNewYorkStateLawReportingBureaupursuanttoJudiciaryLaw
431.
Thisopinionisuncorrectedandsubjecttorevisionbeforepublicationinthe
OfficialReports.
DecidedandEntered:March24,2016
522647
[*1]IntheMatterofBARRYKORMANetal.,Appellants,
v
NEWYORKSTATEBOARDOFELECTIONS,Respondent,andRAFAELEDWARD
("TED")CRUZ,Respondent.
CalendarDate:March23,2016
Before:Peters,P.J.,Lahtinen,Rose,LynchandAarons,JJ.
RogerJ.Bernstein,NewYorkCity,andEisner&Associates,PC,NewYorkCity
(BenjaminN.Dictorofcounsel),forappellants.
DanielM.Sullivan,NewYorkCity,andLally&Misir,LLP,Mineola(GrantM.
Lallyofcounsel),forRafaelEdward("Ted")Cruz,respondent.
MEMORANDUMANDORDER
AppealfromanorderoftheSupremeCourt(Weinstein,J.),enteredMarch7,2016
inAlbanyCounty,whichdismissedpetitioners'application,inaproceedingpursuantto
ElectionLaw16102,todeclareinvalidthecertificateofdesignationnaming
respondentRafaelEdward("Ted")CruzasaRepublicanPartycandidatefortheoffice
ofPresidentoftheUnitedStates
intheApril19,2016presidentialprimaryelection.
OnJanuary26,2016,respondentRafaelEdward("Ted")Cruzfiledthreeletters
withrespondentNewYorkStateBoardofElections,whichtheBoarddeemedto
constituteacertificateofdesignation,seekingtohavehisnameplacedontheballotfor
theApril19,2016presidentialprimaryelectionasaRepublicanPartycandidateforthe
officeofPresidentoftheUnitedStates(seeElectionLaw2122b[3][b]).Three
weekslater,petitionerseachfiledageneralobjectionandspecificationstoCruz's
certificateofdesignation,assertingthatCruzisnoteligibletobeacandidateforthe
officeofPresidentoftheUnitedStatesbecauseheisnotanaturalborncitizenofthe
UnitedStatesasrequiredbytheUSConstitution(seeUSConst,artII,1[5]Election
Law6122).Thereafter,onFebruary26,2016,petitionerscommencedthis
[*2]proceedingpursuanttoElectionLaw16102seekingtodeclareinvalidCruz's
certificateofdesignationonthebasisthatCruzisanaturalborncitizenofCanadaand
nottheUnitedStates[FN1].Intheinterim,theBoarddeterminedthatpetitioners'
objectionswereinvalid,reasoning,asisrelevantherein,thattheobjectionsraised
issuesthatwerebeyondtheministerialpurviewoftheBoardandthattheywerenot
timelyfiled(seeElectionLaw6154[2]).Respondentseachansweredthepetition
andasserted,amongotherdefenses,thatpetitionerslackedstandingtomaintainthis
proceedingwiththeBoardassertingthatpetitioners'lackofstandingwasdueto
theirfailuretofiletimelyobjections.SupremeCourtdismissedthepetition,finding,
amongotherthings,thatpetitionersfailedtofiletheirobjectionsinatimelymannerand
thatsuchfailuredeprivedthecourtofjurisdictionovertheproceeding.Petitioners
appeal.
Weaffirm."Itiswellsettledthatacourt'sjurisdictiontointerveneinelection
mattersislimitedtothepowersexpresslyconferredbystatute"(MatterofScaringev
Ackerman,119AD2d327,328[1986],affdonopbelow68NY2d885[1986][internal
quotationmarksandcitationsomitted]accordMatterofHoergervSpota,109AD3d
564,565[2013],affd21NY3d549[2013]MatterofNewYorkStateComm.ofthe
IndependencePartyvNewYorkStateBd.ofElections,87AD3d806,809[2011],lv
denied17NY3d706[2011]).ElectionLaw16102confersstandingtocontesta
certificateofdesignationbywayofajudicialproceedingon,amongothers,"aperson
whoshallhavefiledobjections,asprovidedin"theapplicableprovisionoftheElection
Law(ElectionLaw16102[1][emphasisadded]).ElectionLaw6154the
provisionbywhichpetitionersfiledtheirobjectionstoCruz'scertificateofdesignation
provides,inpertinentpart,thatwrittenobjectionstoacertificateofdesignationcan
befiledbyanyvoterregisteredtovoteforsuchpublicofficeandrequiresthatgeneral
objections"shallbefiled...withinthreedaysafterthefiling"ofthecertificateof
designation(ElectionLaw6154[2]).Afterthefilingofgeneralobjectionswithinthe
prescribedtimeperiod,ElectionLaw6154mandatesthat"specificationsofthe
groundsoftheobjectionsshallbefiledwithinsixdaysthereafter"anddictatesthat,if
suchspecificationsarenottimelyfiled,"theobjectionshallbenullandvoid"(Election
Law6154[2]).Failuretocomplywiththeseconstraintsdeprivesapetitionerof
standingtomaintainaproceedingpursuanttoElectionLaw16102(1)(seeMatterof
BennettvJustin,77AD2d960,961[1980],affdonopbelow51NY2d722[1980]
MackayvJohnson,20Misc3d1136[A],2008NYSlipOp51748[U],*4[SupCt,
NassauCounty2008],affd54AD3d428[2008]MatterofVillageofHerkimer
RepublicanParty,119Misc2d801,806[SupCt,HerkimerCounty1983]seealso
MatterofGreenvMahr,231AD2d480,480[1996]).
Here,withCruzhavingfiledhiscertificateofdesignationonJanuary26,2016,
petitionershaduntilJanuary29,2016tofiletheirgeneralobjectionsanduntilFebruary
4,2016tofiletheirspecifications(seeElectionLaw6154[2]seealsoElectionLaw
1106[1]).Itisundisputedthatpetitionersdidnotfiletheirgeneralobjectionsand
specificationsuntilFebruary17,2016,thusfailingtocomplywiththeprescribedtime
framesetforthinElectionLaw6154(2).Asaresult,petitionershavefailedtomeet
aconditionprecedenttostandingnamely,thattheyfileobjectionsincompliance
withElectionLaw6154(2)(seeElectionLaw16102[1]MatterofBennettv
Justin,77AD2dat961seealsoMatterofBushvSalerno,51NY2d95,97[*3]98
[1980]MatterofBreitensteinvTurco,254AD2d566,567[1998]).Underthese
circumstances,wearesimplyunabletorelaxthemandatoryfilingrequirementsof
ElectionLaw6154(2)orexcusepetitioners'noncompliancetherewith.Accordingly,
wefindnoreasontodisturbSupremeCourt'sdetermination.Ourholdingrenders
petitioners'remainingcontentionsacademic.
Peters,P.J.,Lahtinen,Rose,LynchandAarons,JJ.,concur.
ORDEREDthattheorderisaffirmed,withoutcosts.
Footnotes
Footnote1:ThisproceedingwasoriginallycommencedinNewYorkCounty,butit
wastransferredtoAlbanyCounty.Inaddition,theinitialpetitiononlynamedtheBoard
asarespondenthowever,petitionersamendedthepetition,withSupremeCourt's
permission,tonameCruzasanadditionalrespondent.
ReturntoDecisionList
16- 0413-OP
__________________________________________________________________

Petitioners.
__________________________________________________________________
Exhibit 3
ABOUTUS/COPYRIGHTPOLICY
PLACEANAD
DONATE
CONTACTUS
ArticlesByMonth
NALC Lead Attorney: Documents Obtained From Canada on Ted Cruz
PROBABLYANUNDOCUMENTEDALIEN
Tweet
bySharonRondeau
(Mar. 27, 2016) At approximately 6:21 p.m.
EDT, North American Law Center (NALC) lead
attorneyStephenPidgeonstatedontheTNALC
radio show that NALC has obtained
intelligence and documentation from Canada
showing that presidential candidate Sen. Ted
CruzwasstrictlyaCanadiancitizenthroughout
hislife.
PidgeontheorizedthatCruzscandidacy,which
he characterized as illegal and fraudulent,
has been endorsed by Jeb Bush and other
establishment figures to further the New
World Order takeover of the United States.
Pidgeon believes that international puppets
are dictating who controls the United States,
beginningwithBillClinton,whobeganapattern
ofwhatPidgeoncalledlooting.
CruzwasborninCalgary,Alberta,Canadatoa
Cuban father and American mother. He now
claims to be a natural born Citizen, as is
requiredbyArticleII,Section1,clause5ofthe
Constituionforthepresident.
AlsoraisedontheshowwasCruzssupporters
claim, including that of commentator Glenn
Beck, that Cruz has been anointed to be the
nextpresidentoftheUnitedStates.
Atty.StephenPidgeon
Pidgeon said that Cruz, although having presented himself as a Christian constitutionalist, is
actuallyanoperativeworkingfortheBushcabalandtheNorthAmericanUnion.
Heisprobablyanundocumentedalien,Pidgeonsaidat6:29p.m.
PidgeonsuspectsthatCruzisattemptingtosecurejustenoughdelegatestodenytheRepublican
nominationtoDonaldTrump,whoisleadingCruzbymorethan200delegates.
Pidgeon called Barack Hussein Obama, who he would like the House of Representatives to
impeach, a usurper to the office of the president. Since 2007, many Americans have questioned
Obamasconstitutionaleligibility,asnoU.S.hospitalhasclaimedtobeObamasbirthplace.
AfouryearcriminalinvestigationhasshownthatObamasonlypubliclyavailabledocumentationis
fraudulent.Theleadinvestigatorofthatprobe,MikeZullo,hasbeenresearchingCruzsresponses
tomediaquestionsandcitizenshiplawsasaprivatecitizenandfoundCruztobedeceptive.
Despite numerous requests, Cruz has refused to release documentation showing that he was
registeredbyhismotherorbothparentsasaU.S.citizenbornabroad.Zullohaspointedoutthat
Cruzsstoryhaschangedovertimeastohiscitizenshipstatus,withCruztellingaUnivisionreporter
in2013thathewasundoubtedlyaU.S.citizen.InJanuaryofthisyear,CruztoldCNNsDanaBash
thatheisanaturalbornCitizen.
AnumberoflawsuitsandballotchallengeshavebeenfiledaccusingCruzofseekingtheofficeas
anineligiblecandidate,withoneslatedforahearingatthePennsylvaniaSupremeCourt.
The Post & Email has attempted to obtain a certified copy of Cruzs birth certificate, citizenship
renunciationapplication,andnaturalizationrecord(s)ofhisfatherorbothparentsbutbeendenied
forprivacyreasonsbytheCanadiangovernment.
Tags:Atty.StephenPidgeon,BarackHusseinObama,Canadiangovernment,Cruz'seligibility,
Searchinsite...
16- 0413-OP
__________________________________________________________________

Petitioners.
__________________________________________________________________
Exhibit 4
RT
SerbLobby
Times
WashingtonPost
Poetry
SerbLobby
TV
Web
Balkanist
ExpatSerbia
GeneralDraaMihailovi
HeroesofSerbia
MeettheSerbs
Serbia'sAmbassadortotheWorld
SerbianBlog
Srebrenicahistoricalproject
Transconflict
TrekforTruth
WildRooster
GreatBritishSerbs
Nocategories
OntheVictoryofDr.SeseljagainsttheWorld:Disloyaltymust
bePunishedandRestitutionProvided
March31,2016
ByDr.JonathanLevy,memberInternationalCriminalCourtBar
Dr.VojislavSeseljhasjustwonSerbiasgreatestvictoryofthe21stCenturybytakingontheentire
UnitedNations,EuropeanUnionandNATOlegalapparatusandwinningastunningvictoryvirtually
singlehanded.ThisisavictoryforallSerbsandantiglobalistsworldwide.Dr.Seseljjoinstheranksof
otherworldclassleaderslikePutinandTrumpwhoareupsettingtheeliteglobalistorderinfavorofthe
peoplenotoligarchs.
IhavealwaysmaintainedthatDr.Seseljwasinnocentofthesepoliticallymotivatedallegations.Now
theremustbeapoliticalreckoninginSerbiaagainstthosewhoweredisloyaltoSerbiasgreatest
contemporarypatriotandalsoeconomicrestitutiontoDr.Seseljandhisfamily.
Firstandforemost,thosewhooncesworefalseloyaltytoDr.Seseljmustbepunished.Thismeanyou,
PrimeMinisterVucicandPresidentNikolic.IremembersittinginDr.SeseljsofficeinZemunin2007,
admiringthepatriotartworkwhileMr.Vucicextolledthevirtuesofhisleader.LittledidIknowatthe
timeIwaslookingintothefaceofabetrayer.
ThesegentlementhoughttheyhadsoldDr.Seseljtothehighestbidderandnowtheymustbe
dispossessedoftheirillgottengains.ItwasbetrayalinexchangeforbecomingtheEUpuppetmastersof
onceproudSerbia.ThesemenarelowerthantheNazicollaboratorMilanNediwhodidHitlersbidding
inWorldWarTwo.VucicandNikolichavegraduallyturnedSerbiaintoafloormatfortheEUandits
Germanyboundrefugeerabble.ThebordersofSerbiawereeffectivelydoneawaywith,Muslimswere
panderedtoevenastheybuildtheirstrengthandmasstheirjihadistsinBosnia,Albania,andKosovo
withSaudimoneyandbacking.
Second,Dr.Seseljandhisfamilyhavesufferedgreatprivation.AssetshavebeenseizedbytheUnited
StatesandEU.Thesemustbereturnedwithinterest.RestitutionmustbepaidbytheUNintheformof
millionsofEurostoDr.Seselj,hisfamily,hislegalteamandtheSerbianRadicalParty.TheUNcharade
hasbeenexposed,justicehasbegunandpaymentofrestitutionwhileitcanneverrestoretheyearslostto
Dr.Seselj,hisfamilyandSerbia,mustbeswiftlypaid.
AnewageisdawningintheBalkans.ThebanneroftheSerbianRadicalPartycanagainbeheldhigh.
MigrantswillnolongerdesecrateSerbia,openborderswillbeendedandthegovernmentwillsoon
changeforthebetter.TheEUandCIAlackeysarenowtheoneswhomusthideinshame.GodblessDr.
SeseljandGodblessSerbia!
TheauthorisaninternationallawyerandpoliticalscienceprofessorwhohaslongsupportedDr.Seselj
inhisstruggle.
OpinionPoliticsWorld
16- 0413-OP
__________________________________________________________________

Petitioners.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
PETITION WITH 28 USC 1651 FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND
INJUNCTION EQUITY RELIEF IN THE MATTER OF THE NEW YORK
REPUBLICAN PARTY POTUS PRIMARY ON APRIL 19, 2016 AND
NATIONAL GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016; PURSUANT TO
THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANDATE BY THE DE-FACTO
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, UNDER THE:
HAGUE CONVENTION, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE,
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
__________________________________________________________________
Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris,
in propria persona Petitioner Movant
PARTIES IN INTEREST
for New York State Board of Elections
Lally & Misir, LLP
for Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio
P.O. Box 558701
P.O.BOX 5101
BATON ROUGE, LA 70821-5101
Barack Hussein Obama II
President of the United States'
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington DC 20500
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction
Relief Sought
Petitioners
10
Issues Presented:
25
A The New York State Board of Elections illegally changed the eligibility of a
candidate for President of the United States (POTUS) without benefit of any law
B To be a "natural-born Citizen" under the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1
Clause 5 (A2S1C5) a person must be born in the United States of US Citizen
Parents pursuant to the definition in The Law of Nations Book I Section 212
C Notwithstanding a write-in vote as a speech issue, all US Citizens registered to
vote and who vote for office of POTUS have a personal right and are entitled to an
accurate ballot, must rely on the government to guarantee that all candidates are
eligible to protect against infringement and or taking of a Citizen's vote property
D. Notwithstanding whether we have a National Emergency defacto martial
process or have a dejure civilian due process, a Citizen is entitled to postliminy
relief for return of personal right property guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
E The Armed Forces Absentee Ballot for both the Primaries and General Election
must use only candidates who are "natural-born Citizens" have a write-in choice
F. The State Courts' decision imposes an undue burden on litigants Federal rights
Conclusion
27
Statutes
28 USC 1651
28 USC 2201
ii
12 USC 95(a): 50 USC App. 5(b) still a National Emergency of Executive Order
2039 and 2040 by authorization of Congress by 12 USC 95(b)
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)
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 17011707), 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.
US Constitution
U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 (A2S1C5)
U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10
Cases
Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393
Minor v.Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875)
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032
Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 210 (1935)
Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 319-20 (1958), or (2) impose an undue
Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 138 (1988)
Treaties
Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV) of October 18, 1907,
especially Section III Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State
Articles 42 through 56
and 25
Other Sources
The Law of Nations, by Emer de Vattel (b. 25 April 1714 - d. 28 December 1767)
was published in 1758
Original Draft of the Declaration of Independence
APPENDIX annexed with pages APX - 001 through APX - 434
iii
INTRODUCTION
This petition with use of 28 USC 1651 for Writ of Mandamus and Injunction
Equity relief
(1)
is submitted in the matter of the New York Republican Party
Primary for Office of President of the United States (POTUS) on April 19, 2016
(see APX - 093) and as applies at the National General Election on November 8,
2016 with the New York State Board of Elections actual fraudulent invention of
the term "Born a Citizen" versus the express term of art "Natural born Citizen" for
candidate eligibility in contradiction to the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1
Clause 5
(2)
(see APX - 095); and that this petition is filed herein pursuant to pre-
existing and current National Emergency Mandates (see APX - 280) by the
resident De-Facto Commander-In-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama II, under: 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.
28 U.S. Code 1651 - Writs:

(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs
necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and
principles of law.
(b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which
has jurisdiction.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 944; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, 90, 63 Stat. 102.)
2
U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, quote: "No Person except a natural born
Citizen. or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be
eligible to the Office of President ; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the age of thirty five Years, and has been fourteen Years a Resident within
the United States."
1
106, 40 STAT. 411 (TWEA) by operation of Executive Orders: 2039 (3) of 6 March
1933 and 2040 (4) of 9 March 1933, e.g. 12 USC 95(a): 50 USC App. 5(b), still a
National Emergency of the Executive by perpetual authorization of Congress with
12 USC 95(b)(5); and that with four other Emergencies (see APX- 298) are still in
effect
(6)
, WE are according to the US Senate Report 93-549 as to the temporary
military government under a continual national emergency occupation; stated:
Executive Order 2039 created the perpetual private trusts on March 6, 1933 mandated :
"...the Secretary of the Treasury. with the approval of the President and under such
regulations as he may prescribe. is authorized and empowered (a) to permit any or all of
such banking institutions to perform any or all of the usual banking functions, (b) \o
direct, require or-permit the issuance of clearing house certificates or other evidences of
claims against assets of banking institutions , and {c) to authorize and direct the creation
in such banking institutions of special trust accounts for the receipt of new deposits
which shall be subject to withdrawal on demand without any restriction or limitation and
shall be kept separately in cash or on deposit in Federal Reserve Banks or invested-in
obligations of the United States." (emphasis added by Petitioners)
Executive Order 2040 created the perpetual temporary Military Government on March 9, 1933
mandated : "...in view of such continuing national emergency and by virtue of the
authority vested in me by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6 , 1917 (40 Stat. L 411), as
amended by the act of March 9, 1933, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and declare that
all the terms and provisions of said Proclamation of March 6, 1933, and the regulations
and orders issued thereunder are hereby continued in full force and effect until further
proclamation by the President..." (emphasis added by Petitioners)
5
That 12 USC 95(a): 50 USC App. 5(b) with Executive Orders 2039 and 2040 as the law of
the land approved by Congress under 12 USC 95(b) and as for all current and related
"...actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore orhereafter taken,
promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the
Treasury since March 4. 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by section 95a of this title,
are approved and confirmed." (emphasis added by Petitioners)
6
See APX - 296, quote: The purpose of the TWEA was to "define, regulate and punish trading
with the enemy." Section 5(b) of the original act gave the President power to regulate or prohibit
transactions in foreign exchange and currency, and transfers of credit or property with any
foreign country or the resident of any foreign country during war. This section has been amended
four times. In 1933 Section 5(b) was amended to provide that its authorities could be used in
time of a national emergency declared by the President;6 previously, the grants of power could
2
"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared
national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially
proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national
emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the
national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950,
during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared
buy President Nixon on March 23, 1970 and August 15, 1971;
"These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These
hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers,
ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American
citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast .range of powers,
taken together,. confer enough authority to rule the country without
reference to normal Constitutional process"
"Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the - President may: seize
property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities;
assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all
transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private
enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the
lives of all American citizens..."
and when combined with The Emergency Powers Act of Sept. 14, 1976 PL 94-412
90 Stat. 1255, that expressly retained 12 USC 95(a) with 50 USC Appendix 5(b)
at Section 502(a)(1) (see APX - 286), with The International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1701-1707) enacted on December 28, 1977
requires that the 12 USC 95(a) amended 50 USC App. 5(b) be repealed as to
new emergency proclamations unless specified (see APX - 292), both enactments
make sure the EBRA remains the law of the land over banking and international
be used only during wartime. President Roosevelt cited the emergency authority of 5(b) to
declare a bank holiday during the depression. The national emergency declared by Roosevelt is
still in effect today. (emphasis added by Petitioners)
3
commerce cited by Maryland Journal of International Law Vol. 3 Issue 2 Article

11 "Amendments to the Trading With the Enemy Act" (see APX - 296), and the
Congressional Research Service Report to Congress 98-505 National Emergency
Powers update September 18, 2001 (see APX - 300); and thereby maintains and
further triggers the emergency occupation of the territories of the United States of
America with use of the Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague
IV) of October 18, 1907,
especially Section III Military Authority Over the
Territory of the Hostile State Articles 42 through 56 (see APX - 420); and this
serves as Petitioners' complaint that invokes the Uniform Code of Military Justice
for: 10 U.S. Code 932 - Art. 132. Frauds against the United States
7
(7)
, 10 U.S.
Any person subject to this chapter
(1)who, knowing it to be false or fraudulent
(A) makes any claim against the United States or any officer thereof; or
(B) presents to any person in the civil or military service thereof, for approval or payment,
any claim against the United States or any officer thereof;
(2) who, for the purpose of obtaining the approval, allowance, or payment of any claim against
the United States or any officer thereof
(A) makes or uses any writing or other paper knowing it to contain any false or fraudulent
statements; (B) makes any oath to any fact or to any writing or other paper knowing the
oath to be false; or (C) forges or counterfeits any signature upon any writing or other paper,
or uses any such signature knowing it to be forged or counterfeited;
(3) who, having charge, possession, custody or control of any money, or other property of the
United States, furnished or intended for the armed forces thereof, knowingly delivers to any
person having authority to receive it, any amount thereof less than that for which he receives a
certificate or receipt; or
(4) who, being authorized to make or deliver any paper certifying the receipt of any property
of the United States furnished or intended for the armed forces thereof, makes or delivers to
any person such writing without having full knowledge of the truth of the statements therein
contained and with intent to defraud the United States; shall, upon conviction, be punished as
a court-martial may direct.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 75.)
4
Code 907 - Art. 107. False official statements
(8)
, 10 U.S. Code 881 - Art. 81.
Conspiracy (9), 10 U.S. Code 878 - Art. 78. Accessory after the fact
Code 877 - Art. 77. Principals
(11)
(10)
, 10 U.S.
and related law, includes as notice under the
Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return,
regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false
official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 71.)
9

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who conspires with any other person to commit an
offense under this chapter shall, if one or more of the conspirators does an act to effect the
object of the conspiracy, be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who conspires with any other person to commit an
offense under the law of war, and who knowingly does an overt act to effect the object of the
conspiracy, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such
other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct, and, if death does not
result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial or
military commission may direct.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 66; Pub. L. 109366, 4(b), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2631.)
10
Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter
has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his
apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 65.)
11

Any person punishable under this chapter who
(1) commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or
procures its commission; or
(2) causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him would be punishable by this
chapter; is a principal.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 65.)
5
and 25
(12)
, and based upon the use of the Constitution of the United States of
America with the Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10
(13)
express terms for use of the
construction interpretation with the polar star and Four-corners Rules
(14)
using
12
ICCPR PART II
Article 2
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals
within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant,
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to
the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional
processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures
as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated
shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons
acting in an official capacity
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto
determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other
competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities
of judicial remedy
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
Article 25
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned
in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen
representatives
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal
and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will
of the electors
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
see http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx 2/12
13
U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10: "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies
committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations." (emphasis by Petitioners)
14
Four Corners Rule requires to interpret the meaning and understanding of the provisions
contained in a document by considering the overall meaning and intention of that document, and
that in such an interpretation of document, the external factors will not influence the meaning.
But the meaning of a sentence or clause is influenced by the document as a whole that
under "four corners rule", intention of parties, especially that ofgrantor, is to be gathered from
instrument as a whole and not from isolated parts thereof. Davis v. Andrews,Tex.Civ.App., 361 S
6
definitions of The Law of Nations, by Emer de Vattel (b. 25 April 1714 - d. 28

December 1767) was published in 1758
(15)
, and we include the Original Table of
Contents and Sections that apply (APX - 328 thru APX - 405).
RELIEF SOUGHT:
A. Declaratory Judgment:
(1) on the jurisdictional status of the State's Court in regards to the continuing
National Emergency and obligation to enforce the letter and intent of the U.S.
Constitution especially A2S1C5 eligibility mandates;
(2) that during a national emergency all public officers of all branches of State
and Local Government / territory(s) including the Federal and State courts are a
defacto martial bodies by operation of law are under the POTUS Commander-
.W.2d 419, 423 and construction per se for interpretation of statute, regulation, court decision or
other legal authority is the process, or the art, of determining the sense, real meaning, or proper
explanation of obscure, complex or ambiguous terms or provisions in a statute, written
Black's law dictionary; and whereas, pursuant to the polar star rule is the principle that a
written document which is ambiguous is to be construed according to the intent of the maker,
grantor, or devisor as gathered from the four corners of the instrument. Hanks v McDanell, 307
Ky 243, 210 SW2d 784, 17 ALR2d 1 Ballentine's law dictionary
15
Emer de Vattel (b. 25 April 1714 - d. 28 December 1767) was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat,
and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political
philosophy. He was born in Couvet in Neuchatel, Switzerland in 1714 and died in 1767 of
edema. He was largely influenced in his philosophy by Gottfried Leibniz and Christian Wolff
and strove to integrate their ideas into the legal and political system. He is most famous for his
1758 work Le Droit des gens; OU, Principes de Ia loi naturelle appliques a Ia conduite et aux
affaires des nations et des souverains (in English, The Law of Nations or the Principles of
Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns). This work
was his claim to fame and won him enough prestige to be appointed as a councilor to the court of
King Augustus III of Saxony.
7
in-chief until the emergency(s) are terminated, and only at which time become
dejure civil bodies;
(3) the Framers of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution used
The Laws of Nations in its framing and proper use as an International
declaration;
(4) the Framers used "The Law of Nations" in US Constitution Article 1
Section 8 Clause 10 with intent to use the internationally unanimously accepted
Publication to be the basis for use in defining terms within the construction of
the Constitution that are within the polar star and four corners rule;
(5) that "natural born Citizen" means a person born in the United States of US
Citizens parents, and the term is not the same as a statutory naturalized citizen
that would include "born a Citizen";
(6) that during a continuing National Emergency the Hague Convention
Section III Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State Articles 42
through 56 apply, and that the NYS BOE failed to adhere to the requirement
not to arbitrarily and capriciously change any law;
(7) that as the law of the land notwithstanding a National Emergency the
ICCPR Articles 2 and 25 apply and that the NYS BOE failed to adhere to the
requirement not to arbitrarily and capriciously change any law;
(8) that based upon the evidence and facts Petitioners as a result of the actual
fraud perpetrated by the NYS BOE and its agents were denied their 1st thru
14th Amendment rights to be protected by the State and Federal authorities;
B. Mandamus of the NYS Board of Elections to use "natural Born Citizen" in its
instruction for running for Office of POTUS not the term "Born a Citizen";
C. Mandamus of the NYS Supreme Court Appellate Division for the 2nd JD to
expedite its hearing of the Appeal 14-10459 in Strunk v Paterson Etal to proceed
in its review using the finding that the NYS BOE has wrongly used "Born a
Citizen" and is mandated to use "natural born Citizen".
D. Mandamus of the NYS BOE to strike Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal
and or any other person from the party and or General Election Ballot who is not
eligible for the Office of POTUS who is not a "natural born Citizen" as defined by
the Law of Nations who must be born in the United States of US Citizen parents.
E. That the NYS BOE is ordered to expedite the Absentee Military Ballot for the
Party Primaries and General Election without ineligible POTUS Candidates.
F. That based upon the foregoing findings the Respondents and De-facto
Commander-in-chief with a foreign alien student father is not a Natural Born
Citizen, and as such actions heretofore had by Barack Hussein Obama II Etal are to
be referred to the US Army Provost General for investigation under the UCMJ.
Petitioners
1.
Petitioner Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris (Strunk), in propria
persona, with place for service c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue - PMB 102 Brooklyn,
New
York
Zip
code
excepted
[11217]
Ph:
718-414-3760;
Email:
suretynomore@gmail.com, (hereinafter among the "Petitioners"); and

2.
That Strunk is a Vietnam Era Veteran having served honorably in the United
States Air Force with rank of E-5 from December 7, 1966 thru December 6, 1972.
3.
Strunk has a Public U.S. Citizen registration to vote in New York's General
Election scheduled for 8 November 2016 for the advisory selection of Electors for
a candidate eligible for Office of POTUS and Vice President and is an enrolled
member of the Republican Party entitled to vote at the Republican Primary
Election on 19 April 2016.
4.
Strunk to no avail starting in October 2008 challenged the NYS BOE,
various State Official and Candidate(s) and their agents to provide a true and
complete ballot for any POTUS candidate be eligible for the Office of POTUS and
whereas Barack Hussein Obama II was and is not eligible to be on the ballot at the
2008 General Election.
5.
That Strunk to no avail starting in August 22, 2011 challenged the NYS
BOE, various State Official and Candidate(s) and their agents to provide a true and
10
whereas Barack Hussein Obama II, Rick Santorum was and is not eligible to be on
the ballot at the party primaries and or at the 2012 General Election.; and that on
11 April 2012 Strunk was barred from further challenges in New York State court
without first obtaining permission from the Court to do so (see APX - 068).
6.
That unlike the other Petitioners, Strunk is a member of a political class of
"pre-1933" Private National Citizens of the United States of America protected by

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment when on January 21, 2014, at 4:22 AM in
WASHINGTON D.C. 20220, Strunk became a non combatant with a Treaty of
Peace duly registered with the Secretary of the Treasury during the ongoing time
of war and or emergency defined under the EBRA amended TWEA and as such is
no longer an enemy or ally of the enemy pursuant to the definition of 50 USC App.
Section 2(c) as 'Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be
natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war,
other than citizens of the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing
business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States or the
successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include
within the term enemy.';
7.
That Strunk on January 6, 2014 pursuant to the January 21, 2014 in
anticipation
of the registration cited above, Strunk filed an Amicus motion
demanding "Civilian due Process of Law" in the Appeal Case Strunk v NYS BOE
11
etal in the NYS Appellate Division for the 2nd JD (see APX - 314 w/o exhibits
herewith), and in response on 4 March 2014 (the 81st Anniversary of the FDR
inauguration and declaration of emergency occupation of the USA) the Appellate
four-judge panel issued its DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION M170416 denying provision "for civilian due process of law" on appeals from the NYS
Supreme Court (see APX - 313); and confirms de-facto martial due process under
the continuing national emergency occupation, that also explains why all
governmental bodies fly a fringed flag indoors pursuant to US Army Regulations
840-10. However, raises a question of why an un-fringed flag is flown out-of-doors
in contradiction to Hague Convention Article 23 Clause 7 (see APX -418).
8.
That Strunk to no avail on February 26, 2016 filed the Motion for
permission to intervene in Article 78 Petition Korman and Gallo v NYS BOE Etal.
NYS SC Albany Index No.: 707-16 (see APX - 066) to challenge the NYS BOE,
various State Officials and Candidate(s) and their agents to provide a true and
whereas as a result of the NYS BOE fraud as to eligibility using "Born a Citizen"
rather than the term of Art " natural born Citizen" and meaning that Barack
Hussein Obama II, Rick Santorum were and are not eligible to be on the ballot at
the party primaries and or at the 2008, 2012, 2016 General Election.
9.
That Strunk's contention for the last 8 years is that the French version of
12
The Law of Nations (1758) was the only primary universally accepted international
reference document used before and after the death of Vattel in 1767. That it was
translated into English and other languages
(16)
, and according to the French
speaking diplomat Dr. Benjamin Franklin and the French University erudite
Thomas Jefferson and attorney John Adams were able to translate French into
English as three of the five man committee who wrote the Declaration of
Independence, and used the French version of The Law of Nations (The Question:
is an original translation plagiarism?),
and according to Franklin who on
December 9th of 1775, wrote in French to Vattels editor, C.G.F. Dumas, quote
from an English translation of his letter stated:
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your
edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of
a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.
has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now
sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the
hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much
pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just
esteem for their author.
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0172
and further, Strunk contends The Law of Nations was used in the conduct of ALL
governments from the time of the Articles of Confederation until the adoption of
16
Vattel's Law of Nations was translated into English in 1760, based on the French original of
1758. A Dublin translation of 1787 does not include notes from the original nor posthumous
notes added to the 1773 French edition. Several other English editions were based on the edition
of 1760. However, , an English edition from 1793 includes Vattel's later thoughts, as did the
London 1797 edition, The 1797 edition has a detailed table of contents and margin titles for
subsections..
13
the U.S. Constitution in 1788 by New York. Further, it was discovered at George
Washington's Mount Vernon Library that he had two copies
(17)
, and according to
public records were used throughout the 19th century, and in anticipation of the
Union Army occupation of the South in 1863 used The Law of Nations to create
the Liber Code for the Commander-in-chief Abraham Lincoln, and thereafter was
used to write the Hague Convention starting with the 1899 Philippine occupation
under the Military Government of William Taft; and thereafter, was used for
drafting the Geneva treaty series in the twentieth century onward - the Law of
Nations is the pivotal current reference then and today.
10. In search of proof of the Law of Nations use, on 22 September 2008 Strunk
received a fax copy of historical document from Garvey (with an historical library)
entitled "The Writing of the Declaration of Independence" that is a letter to James
Madison from Thomas Jefferson (see APX - 406), and the letter replication
accompanies "Jefferson's Original Draft of the Declaration" (see APX - 408).
Jefferson first deals with charges of plagiarism leveled by Timothy Pickering and
others in which Thomas Jefferson corrects "a very careless and faulty statement "
17
Two notable copies of The Law of Nations owned by the New York Society Library have
been associated with US President George Washington. One copy had been borrowed by
Washington on 8 October 1789, along with a copy of Vol. 12 of the Commons Debates,
containing transcripts from Great Britain's House of Commons. When the staff of the
Washington museum at Mount Vernon heard about the overdue books, they were unable to
locate them, but purchased a second copy of the de Vattel work for US$12,000. This identical
copy was ceremoniously "returned" 221 years late on 20 May 2010. The library waived the
unpaid late-fees.
14
by John Adams of the circumstances attending the drafting of the Declaration. In

so far as Jefferson wrote the Declaration and kept copious notes to refresh his
memory, this undoubtedly is the correct and final word upon the subject. A
sensational charge of want of originality, which has been brought against the
famous document, may here be noticed. Jefferson declares that while drafting it he
consulted "neither book nor pamphlet," but that he did not consider it his business
to "invent new ideas altogether." Richard Henry Lee, one of the signers of the
Declaration, who was most vociferous in charging plagiarism, is revealed in
Randall's authorities "Life of Jefferson" as having been responsible himself for the
introduction of nearly all the alleged plagiarizations (The Question: is an original
translation plagiarism?).
11. Of importance in the Original Draft is shown at APX - 408 reveals that it
had 25% more text than the final Declaration of Independence, and that the parts
of the Declaration as originally written were struck out by Congress, are enclosed
in brackets, and the amendments are indicated at the bottom of the page. That those
members of the Congress associated with Charles Carroll (a very wealthy slave
trader family from Maryland whose cousin Fr. John Carroll S.J. went to school in
France with Jefferson and was a close associate of Dr. Franklin- was the first
Bishop of the Americas who founded Georgetown University with slave trade
money and with his family and associates provided the seven hills real property to
15
build Washington District of Columbia); all had threatened that Maryland would
not sign the Declaration were both King George and slavery per se to be
eliminated, and were the fledgling nation to receive Carroll Family funding the
framers may have one or the other choice but not both. These are the reasons for
eliminating 25% of the language and will allow the reader to understand what the
importance of using the Laws of Nations in the matter of "Piracies" at U.S.
Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10 means as shown in the bracketed
indictment taken out of the original at APX - 411 states quote:
"[He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow-citizens, with the
allurements for forfeiture and confiscation of our property.
He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most
sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never
offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another
hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This
piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the
Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where
men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for
suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable
commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of
distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among
us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering
the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes
committed against the liberties of one people with crimes which he urges
them to commit against the lives of another.]"
12.
That Strunk contends that the Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10 reference to
"Piracies" when the Law of Nations is searched is only found in a single location,
e.g. the Law Of Nations Book III Table of Contents shown at APX - 373, for 196
16
"Acquisition of movable property of the Chapter XIII Of Acquisitions by War, and

particularly of Conquests." There at APX - 377 in part states as to "piracies" quote:
"...At present it would be in vain to claim a ship taken by the Barbary
corsairs, and sold to a third party, or retaken from the captors; though it is
very improperly that the piracies of those barbarians can be considered as
acts of regular war. We here speak of the external right: the internal right
and the obligations of conscience undoubtedly require that we should restore
to a third party the property we recover from an enemy who had despoiled
him of it in an unjust war,provided he can recognise that property, and
will defray the expenses we have incurred in recovering it. Grotius quotes
many instances of sovereigns and commanders who have generously
restored such booty, even without requiring any thing for their trouble or
expense.* But such conduct is pursued only in cases where the booty has
been recently taken. It would be an impracticable task, scrupulously to seek
out the proprietors of what has been captured a long time back: and
moreover they have, no doubt, relinquished all their right to things
which they had no longer any hope of recovering. Such is the usual mode
of thinking with respect to captures in war, which are soon given up as
irrecoverably lost. " (emphasis by Strunk)
13. That Strunk contends that Congress must search and use the entirety of the
Law of Nations in order to follow its instructions at Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10
must include the definitions of Citizen / Property / Booty / Prize / Sea / restore /
among both just and unjust war definitions only are found at the Law of Nations
Book I starting at Tables of Contents APX - 328 thru APX - 333; and of course
Petitioners contend that Chapter XVII How a Nation may separate itself from the
State of which it is a Member, or renounce its Allegiance to its Sovereign when it is
not protected at APX - 334 applies through APX - 341 not least of which are
Sections 211 through 256 accordingly through APX - 361.
17
14. That Petitioners focus herein on the definitions of
Citizen, Native,
Naturalized, Children born in a foreign country as apply to Ted Cruz the Canadian
as apply to foreign alien resident Marco Rubio (anchor baby) plus given the
questionable birth location of Barry Soetoro, he however has been proven to be an
Indonesian who has sealed his records; we offer the definitions that follow from:
CHAPTER XIX : Of our Native Country, and several Things that relate to it.
211. What is our country. The whole of the countries possessed by a nation
and subject to its laws, forms, as we have already said, its territory, and is
the common country of all the individuals of the nation. We have been
obliged to anticipate the definition of the term, native country (122),
because our subject led us to treat of the love of our country,a virtue so
excellent and so necessary in a state. Supposing then this definition already
known, it remains that we should explain several things that have a relation
to this subject, and answer the questions that naturally arise from it.
212. Citizens and natives. 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 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, reserves to his
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. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years
of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the
society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country,
it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if
he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and
not his country. <102>
18
213. Inhabitants. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are

foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the
society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state, while
they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them
protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They
enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The
perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual
residence.
These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the
society, without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow
the condition of their fathers; and as the state has given to these the right
of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.
214. Naturalisation. A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant
to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the
political society. This is called naturalisation. There are some states in
which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens,
for example, that of holding public offices,and where, consequently, he
has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalisation. It is here a
regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In
other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalise a single
person, without the concurrence of the nation represented by its deputies.
Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single
circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a
foreigner.
215. Children of citizens, born in a foreign country. It is asked, whether the
children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have
decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be
followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their
fathers, and enter into all their rights (212); the place of birth produces no
change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking
from a child what nature has given him; I say of itself, for civil or political
laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the
father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he
has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another
society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members
of it also.
19
216. Children born at sea. As to children born at sea, if they are born in
those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the
country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction
between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our
extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children
are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its
territories; for it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its
territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its
jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received
custom, this jurisdiction is <103> preserved over the vessels, even in parts of
the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a
nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born
in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth
took place in a port belonging to their own nation: for the port is more
particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on
board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose
that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle
elsewhere.
217. Children born in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister
at a foreign court. For the same reasons also, children born out of the
country in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign
court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his
family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its
jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
218. Settlement. Settlement is a fixed residence in any place with an
intention of always staying there. A man does not then establish his
settlement in any place, unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of
fixing there, either tacitly, or by an express declaration. However, this
declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not
transfer his settlement elsewhere. In this sense, a person who stops at a place
upon business, even though he stay a long time, has only a simple habitation
there, but has no settlement. Thus the envoy of a foreign prince has not his
settlement at the court where he resides.
The natural or original settlement is that which we acquire by birth, in the
place where our father has his; and we are considered as retaining it, till we
have abandoned it, in order to chuse another. The acquired settlement
(adscititium) is that where we settle by our own choice.
20
15. That Strunk alleges based upon information and belief that the de-facto
Commander-in-chief will never get impeached by the present absolutely corrupt
Congress for anything that he has done but is nevertheless has committed a
multitude of high crimes as outlined by Stephen Pidgeon Esq. of the North
American Law Center, and who has for the past year transmitted and served upon
all levels of government officials their Articles of Impeachment of Barack Hussein
Obama (II) (see APX - 422); and that based upon a plethora of criminal evidence
is worthy of further investigation by the US Army Provost General for crimes
committed during the ongoing National Emergency Occupation whereby the
Commander-in-Chief
has authority over all government bodies and agents
accordingly.
16. That from August 22,. 2011, Strunk and Van Allen worked with Kevin
Richard Powell to produce a series of investigative reports with sworn affidavits of
experts in several published articles (see APX - 247 thru APX - 278) with
evidence and proof of misprision of Treason and felonies done by the NYS Board
of Elections and their agents Principals with the Internet Archives at Alexandrina
Egypt and the Presidio in San Francisco in association with the Global Crisis
Group created by George Soros with Zbigniew Kaimierz Brzezinski among a very
long list of other unsavory characters including those associated with the Muslin
Brotherhood.
21
17. Petitioner Christopher Blaise Garvey in esse, in propria persona (Garvey)

with place for service at 16 Nicoll Avenue Amityville, New York 11701 Ph: 631598-0752; Email: chrisgarveyl@verizon.net (hereinafter among the "Petitioners");
and
18. That Garvey is a currently qualified Merchant Mariner Master of Steam,
Motor, or Auxiliary Sail Vessels of Not More than 100 Gross Tons (Domestic
Tonnage) Upon Inland Waters, Authorized to engage in Commercial Assistance
Towing, and is in good standing pending license renewal.
19. Garvey has a Public U.S. Citizen registration to vote in New York's General
Election scheduled for 8 November 2016 for the advisory selection of Electors for
a candidate eligible for Office of POTUS / Vice President and is now an enrolled
member of the Green Party not entitled to vote at the Republican Primary Election
on 19 April 2016.
20. Garvey to no avail in February 2012, as a then enrolled member of the
Republican Party, filed the Article 78 Petition in State court (see APX - 225) to
challenge the NYS BOE, various State Official and Candidate(s) and their agents
to provide a true and complete ballot for any POTUS candidate be eligible for the
Office of POTUS and whereas Barack Hussein Obama II, Rick Santorum and Mitt
Romney were and are not eligible to be on the ballot at the 2012 and for now at the
2016 General Election Ballot.
22
21. Petitioner Harold William Van Allen in esse, in propria persona

(Van Allen) with place for service at 351 North Road Hurley New York 12443 Ph:
845-389-4366; Email: hvanallen@hvc.rr.com; and
22. That Van Allen is a service related disabled Vietnam Era Veteran having
served honorably in the United States Navy with rank of O-2 from June 1972
through June 1978.
23. That Van Allen starting in August 22, 2011 challenged the NYS BOE,
various State Official and Candidate(s) and their agents to provide a true and
complete ballot for any POTUS candidate be eligible for the Office of POTUS be
based upon the AS21C5 eligibility rather than the NYS BOE fraudulent invented
term "Born a Citizen" filed for intervention in the Case Strunk v Paterson Etal.
NYSSC Kings Index No.: 29642-08, and was denied (see APX - 173);
24. That Van Allen in February 2012 challenged the NYS BOE, with objections
to Barack Hussein Obama II, and Rick Santorum who were and are not eligible to
be on the ballot at the party primaries and or at the 2012 General Election and or
that of 2016 (see APX -115);
25. That Van Allen having been denied intervention in the case Strunk v
Paterson Etal. filed an Article 78 Petition Van Allen v NYS BOE NYSSC Albany
Index No.: 1787-12 challenging the fraudulent use of "Born a Citizen" rather than
"natural born Citizen" was denied relief there too with the Order (see APX - 217).
23
26. Then on February 2014 based upon the decision of July 9, 2012 in the
Article 78 Petition Van Allen v NYS BOE NYSSC Albany Index No.: 1787-12
Van Allen filed a Motion to renew the Motion to Intervene in Strunk v Paterson
Etal. (see APX - 169).
27. That based upon the denial of the Motion to Renew in the case Strunk v
Paterson Etal. NYSSC Kings Index No.: 29642-08 Strunk and Van Allen filed an
Appeal to the New York State Appellate Division of the 2nd JD from the Order
and that since the summer of 2015 remains in limbo awaiting a scheduling for oral
argument on the intervention as of right into the only venue for which the Born a
Citizen versus Natural Born Citizen has standing to be heard for Van Allen.
28. Petitioners contend that Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz was born December 22,
1970 to Rafael Cruz who was born in Cuba, of his father from the Canary
Islands in Spain. Ted Cruz's mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware, and is of
three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian ancestry and had a prior marriage to a
British subject and lived in England . His father left Cuba in 1957 to attend
the University of Texas and obtained political asylum in the United States after his
four-year student visa expired. Rafael Cruz earned Canadian citizenship in
1973 and ultimately became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005. His mother earned
an undergraduate degree from Rice University in the 1950s. Eleanor and Rafael
Cruz divorced in 1997. Ted Cruz is NOT a natural born Citizen.
24
Issues Presented:
A The New York State Board of Elections illegally changed the eligibility of a
candidate for President of the United States (POTUS) without benefit of any law
B To be a "natural-born Citizen" under the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1
Clause 5 a person must be born in the United States of US Citizen Parents pursuant
to the definition in The Law of Nations Book I Section 212
C Notwithstanding a write-in vote as a speech issue, all US Citizens registered to
vote and who vote for office of POTUS have a personal right and are entitled to an
accurate ballot, must rely on the government to guarantee that all candidates are
eligible to protect against infringement and or taking of a Citizen's vote property
D. Notwithstanding whether we have a National Emergency defacto martial
process or have a dejure civilian due process, a Citizen is entitled to postliminy
relief for return of personal right property guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
E The Armed Forces Absentee Ballot for both the Primaries and General Election
must use only candidates who are "natural-born Citizens" have a write-in choice
F. The State Courts' decision imposes an undue burden on litigants Federal rights.
That the adequate and independent state ground doctrine states that when a litigant
petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of a state court which
rests upon both federal and non-federal (state) law, the U.S. Supreme Court does
25
not have jurisdiction over the case if the state ground is (1) adequate to support
the judgment, and (2) independent of federal law. See Michigan v. Long, 463
U.S. 1032, 1038 (1983) (It is, of course, incumbent upon this Court to ascertain
for itself whether the asserted non-federal ground independently and adequately
supports the judgment. (internal quotation marks omitted)); Fox Film Corp. v.
Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 210 (1935) ([W]here the judgment of a state court rests
upon two grounds, one of which is federal and the other non-federal in character,
our jurisdiction fails if the non-federal ground is independent of the federal ground
and adequate to support the judgment.); Murdock v. City of Memphis, ("[W]hither
there exist other matters in the record actually decided by the State court which are
sufficient to maintain the judgment of that court, notwithstanding the error in
deciding the Federal question. In [that case] the court would not be justified in
reversing the judgment of the State court.").
The adequacy prong primarily focuses on state court dismissals of federal
claims on state procedural grounds, as procedural requirements are by definition
logically antecedent. Antecedent state-law grounds (i.e., state rules of procedure)
are adequate to support a judgment unless they (1) are arbitrary, unforeseen, or
otherwise deprive the litigant of a reasonable opportunity to be heard, see,
e.g., Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 319-20 (1958), or (2) impose an undue
26
Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 138 (1988).
The independence prong focuses on decisions where the state and federal
rules are not clearly distinct. If it is not "apparent from the four corners of the
opinion that the judgment rests on an independent state law rule, then, unless it is
necessary or desirable to obtain clarification from the state court itself, the
Supreme Court will presume that the decision rested in part on federal law, thereby
rendering it reviewable. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040 & n.6.
Furthermore, when federal law limits the states ability to change the definition of
state-created legal interests, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the state
courts characterization of the law both before and after the change. For example,
the U.S. Supreme Court routinely reviews state court determinations of state
property law to determine whether a litigant has been deprived of property
within the meaning of the Due Process clause.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing and exhibits annexed, Petitioners having not sought this
relief from this court before and have expended their remedies below against the
fraud and conspiracy, have damage to their fundamental personal rights, and
because time is of the essence with irreparable harm Petitioners are entitled to the
above relief sought along with different and other relief the court deems necessary.
27
PETITION VERIFICATION AFFIDAVIT

STATEOFNEWYORK
1c. tvvS
) ss.
COUNTY OF ~,.E.W YORK)
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say under
penalty of perjury:
I have read the foregoing Petition and Appendix Pages 1 thru 434 filed under 28
USC 1651 and related law for a writ of mandamus of the NYS BOE and its agents
to comply with the United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 as to
eligibility inherent in the New York State Legislature and or its public officer agents
instructions to each prospective candidate seeking the office of POTUS, to be
eligible shall be a "natural-born Citizen" rather than merely "Born a Citizen", at least
35 years of ages and 14 years resident by the respective 19 April 2016 Primary and
November 8, 2016 New York State General Election; and that Petitioner is
individually associated herein with Christopher Blaise Garvey and Harold William
Van Allen since 2003 in election law matters to seek equity relief and am a material
witness to events of this mandamus of the New York State Board of Elections and its
agents to publish the true and correct eligibility instructions - at the webpage entitled
"Running for Office" as defined by The Law of Nations for each POTUS candidate
selected at a Party Convention or otherwise for the New York State 2016 General
Election for Office POTUS shall be a "natural-born Citizen". And this affirmation is
in support of remand for criminal investigation by the US Army provost for the
arbitrary and collusive illegal use of "Born a Citizen" in conspiracy with foreign
enemy agents in Egypt, as a willful misprision of treason to aid and abet the enemies
of the United States under this continuing set of National Emergencies with
infringement of my personal rights otherwise to be protected by those public officers
directly under the authority of the de facto Commander-in-chief POTUS, the usurper,
and that time is of the essence with irreparable harm; and know the contents thereof
apply to me by misapplication and administration of laws 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, am available for
testimony. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information
and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and r rds, and persona
ledge.
_ __,_-.,/""
Christopher Earl Strunk
Subscribed and Sworn to before me
This ___lh!~day of March 20 16
, \ ){ l:fa,
0 \_>-- _--. __ --7-OJ / -... ~ ----.. ~--
Notary Public
KAMAL P. SONI
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01806089949
Qualified in Kings County
Commission Expires March 31,2019
.; -;-:_--
nc~
PETITION VERIFICATION AFFIDAVIT

STATEOFNEWYORK )
) ss.
COUNTY OF NEW YORK)
Accordingly, I, Harold William Van Allen, being duly sworn, depose and say under
penalty of perjury:
I have read the foregoing Petition and Appendix Pages 1 thru 434 filed under 28
USC 1651 and related law for a writ of mandamus of the NYS BOE and its agents
to comply with the United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 as to
eligibility inherent in the New York State Legislature and or its public officer agents
instructions to each prospective candidate seeking the office of POTUS, to be
eligible shall be a "natural-born Citizen" rather than merely "Born a Citizen", at least
35 years of ages and 14 years resident by the respective 19 April 2016 Primary and
November 8, 2016 New York State General Election; and that Petitioner is
individually associated herein with Christopher Blaise Garvey and Christopher Earl
Strunk since 2003 in election law matters to seek equity relief and am a material
witness to events of this mandamus of the New York State Board of Elections and its
agents to publish the true and correct eligibility instructions as at the webpage entitled
"Running for Office" as defined by The Law of Nations for each POTUS candidate
selected at a Party Convention or otherwise for the New York State 2016 General
Election for Office POTUS shall be a "natural-born Citizen". And this affirmation is
in support of remand for criminal investigation by the US Army provost for the
arbitrary and collusive illegal use of "Born a Citizen" in conspiracy with foreign
enemy agents in Egypt, as a willful misprision of treason to aid and abet the enemies
of the United States under this continuing set of National Emergencies with
infringement of my personal rights otherwise to be protected by those public officers
directly under the authority of the de facto Commander-in-chiefPOTUS, the usurper,
and that time is of the essence with irreparable harm; and know the contents thereof
apply to me by misapplication and administration of laws 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, am available for
testimony. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information
and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, d personal knowledge.
....
APPENDIX FOR PETITION WITH 28 USC 1651 FOR WRIT OF

MANDAMUS AND INJUNCTION EQUITY RELIEF IN THE MATTER OF
THE NEW YORK REPUBLICAN PARTY POTUS PRIMARY ON APRIL 19,
2016 AND NATIONAL GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016;
PURSUANT TO THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANDATE BY THE DEFACTO COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, UNDER
THE: HAGUE CONVENTION, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE,
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DATE
EXHIBIT
PAGE
7-Mar-16
DECISION AND ORDER NYSSC Albany Index No.: 707-16
3-Mar-16
HEARING TRANSCRIPT NYSSC Albany Index No.: 707-16
2-Mar-16
Strunk Judicial Notice to Court
11-Mar-16
NOTICE OF APPEAL from denial of Intervention NYSSC

Albany Index no,: 707-16
APX -056
2-Mar-16
DECISION AND ORDER denying intervention NYSSC

APX -058
11-Mar-16
PRE-CALENDAR STATEMENT
26-Feb-16
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE for Notice of Appeal
26-Feb-16
Court System Case Detail NYSSC Albany Index No.: 707-16
APX -066
26-Feb-16
STRUNK AFFIDAVIT in support of Intervention NYSSC

APX -067
11-Apr-12
DECISION AND ORDER in Strunk v NYS BOE et al NYSSC

Kings Index No.: 6500-2011
APX -068
22-Feb-16
KORMAN AND GALLO ARTICLE 78 PETITION NYSSC

APX -076
18-Aug-15
NYS Board of Elections CALLENDAR FOR THE APRIL 19,

2016 PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY
APX -093
18-Aug-15
NYS Board of Elections WEBSITE Instructions for RUNNING

FOR OFFICE
APX -095
11-Mar-16
HW VAN ALLEN FOIL request for the 2012 POTUS

Objection DETERMINATIONS
APX -102
APX -001
APX -016
APX -051
APX -061
APX -065
DATE
EXHIBIT
PAGE
3-Feb-12
CE STRUNK COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR PUBLIC

HEARING re BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
APX - 103
23-Feb-12
CE STRUNK GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO CANDIDATE

RICK SANTORUM
APX - 106
28-Feb-12
NYS BOE DETERMINATION re RICK SANTORUM
10-Feb-12
CE STRUNK GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE OBAMA

FOR AMERICA FILING
APX - 109
28-Feb-12
NYS BOE DETERMINATION re OBAMA FOR AMERICA

FILING
APX - 114
21-Feb-12
HW VAN ALLEN GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO

CANDIDATE RICK SANTORUM
APX - 115
23-Feb-12
10-Feb-12
HW VAN ALLEN GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE

OBAMA FOR AMERICA FILING
APX - 117
28-Feb-12

FILING
APX - 119
16-Feb-12
CB GARVEY GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE MITT

ROMNEY FILING
APX - 120
28-Feb-12
NYS BOE DETERMINATION re MITT ROMNEY FILING
13-Feb-12
CB GARVEY GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE OBAMA

FOR AMERICA FILING
APX - 139
28-Feb-12

FILING
APX - 143
25-Feb-12
CB GARVEY GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE RICK

SANTORUM FILING
APX - 144
28-Feb-12

FILING
APX - 154
6-Mar-12
ORDER denying Art 78 hearing re NYSSC Nassau Index no,:

2764-12
APX - 155
17-Feb-12
NYS BOE unofficial OBJECTION REPORT
28-Feb-12
TRANSCRIPT of the NYS BOE Commissioners meeting re

ballot access
APX - 108
APX - 116
APX - 138
APX - 156
APX - 158
DATE
EXHIBIT
PAGE
12-Mar-14
HW VAN ALLEN NOTICE of MOTION TO RENEW

INTERVENTION NYSSC Kings Index No.: 29642-08
APX -169
2-Mar-12
CB GARVEY ARTICLE 78 PETITION NYSSC Nassau Index

No.: 2764-12
APX -225
20-Sep-11
PUBLISHED ARTICLE "STATUTE IN NEW YORK LAW DEFINES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"
APX -247
5-Oct-11
PUBLISHED ARTICLE "New York State BOE Website

Cover-up"
APX -259
24-Oct-11
PUBLISHED ARTICLE "The Internet Archive & NYS BOE

Cover-up Widens"
APX -267
11-Mar-16
FEDERAL REGISTER SEARCH for "Continuation of the

National Emergency" 24 listed
APX -280
10-Mar-16
50 USC 1621: Declaration of national emergency by President;

publication Federal Register
APX -285
10-Mar-16
PUBLIC LAW by 94th Congress 94-412- September 14, 1976

90 STATUTE 1255
APX -286
10-Mar-16
PUBLIC LAW by 95th Congress 95-223- December 28, 1977

91 STATUTE 1625
APX -291
10-Mar-16
Maryland Journal of International Law Volume 3 Issue 2

Article 11 - Amendments to the Trading With the Enemy Act
APX -296
10-Mar-16
CRS Report for Congress Order Code 98-505 GOV - "National

Emergency Powers" Updated September 18, 2001
APX - 300
4-Mar-14
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION M170416 - NYSSC

Appellate Division 2nd JD re STRUNK v NYS BOE etal
APX - 313
6-Jan-14
CE STRUNK NOTICE OF MOTION re demand for 'Civilian

Due Process of Law" re STRUNK v NYS BOE etal.
APX - 314
10-Mar-16
LAW OF NATIONS (1758) - TABLE OF CONTENTS for

Book 1 through chapter XXII
APX - 328
10-Mar-16
LAW OF NATIONS (1758) - Book I Chapter XVII : Section

200 through Section 256
APX - 334
10-Mar-16
LAW OF NATIONS (1758) - TABLE OF CONTENTS Book 1

Chap. XXIII thru Book III Chap XIV
APX - 362
DATE
EXHIBIT
PAGE
10-Mar-16
LAW OF NATIONS (1758) - Book III Chapter XIII : Section

193 through Section 237
10-Mar-16
LAW OF NATIONS (1758) - TABLE OF CONTENTS Book

III Chap. XVI thru Book IV Chap IX
APX - 401
10-Mar-16
ORIGINAL DRAFT OF THE DECLARATION OF

INDEPENDENCE of June 1776
APX - 406
10-Mar-16
Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV);

October 18, 1907
APX - 414
10-Mar-16
North American Law Center Proposed Bill Of Impeachment of

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II
APX - 422
APX - 374
STATEOFNEWYORK
SUPREME COURT
COUNTY OF ALBANY
BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO,

Petitioners,
DECISION AND ORDER

IndexNo.:
707-16
01-16-120014
RJI No.:
-againstNEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS and

RAFAEL EDWARD ("TED") CRUZ,
Respondents.
(Supreme Court, Albany County All Purpose Term)
APPEARANCES:
Attorney for Petitioners
53 5 5111 A venue, 35Ul Floor

Allorneysfor Re~pondent Nel-v York State Board ofE!ections
40 North Pearl Street. sm Floor
Lally & Misir, LLP
Allorneysfor Respondent Ted Cruz
By: Grant M. Lally, Esq.
David A. Weinstein, J.:

This proceeding arises out of a petition filed by two New York State registered voters,
Barry Korman and William Gallo, who seek an order directing respondent New York State
Board of Elections ("BOE" or the "Board") "not to designate" Senator Rafael Edward ("Ted")
Cruz as a candidate in the Republican presidential primary, scheduled to take place on April 19,
2016.
The petition, brought by Order to Show Cause, was filed under Election Law 6-122.
That provisi:::>n states:
"A person shall not be destgnated or nominated for a public office or party position who
(1) is not a citizen of the state ofNew York; (2) is ineligible to be elected to such office
or position; or (3) who, if elected will not at the time of commencement of the tem1 of
such office or position, meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications thereof or, with
APX - 001
respect to judicial office, who will not meet such qualifications within thirty days of the
commencement of the term of such office.''
Petitioners contend that Senator Cruz is not eligible for the presidency because he is not a
"natural born citizen" of the United States, as required by Article Il, Section 1, Clause 5 of the
United States Constitution.' Specifically, they argue that Cruz is ineligible because he was
"naturally born" on Canadian soiL as a citizen of Canada and, so petitioners maintain, cannot
therefore be a natural born citizen ofthis country (see Bernstein Aff. of2117/ 16
,I 5).
The JBOE responded to the petition by filing a verified answer along with the afJirmation
of its deputy counsel and various supporting documents. The answer raised four objections in
point of law:: ( l) the Board has acted in compliance with all relevant federal and state statutes and
regulations; (2) the petition fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted; (3) the petition
failed to join Senator Cruz. who is a necessary party; and (4) the petitioners failed to"timely
make or serve objections.'' The Board's supporting affirmation states that Senator Cruz' letter
seeking placement on the ballot for the New York State Republican primary was filed on January
26, and the petitioners objections were received by the Board on February 17, 2016 (Quail Aff.
~~ 4-5).
Subsequent to the service of the Board's answer, petitioners filed a Verified Amended
Petition, in accordance with a Court order issued on February 29, 2016, adding Senator Cruz as a
respondent 2
Senator Cruz has submitted the affidavit of counsel and a memorandum of law in
response to 1the petition. lie echoes the Board's contention that the objections submitted by
petitioners were untimely. and argues as well that the petitioners failed to name certain necessary
parties. the Supremacy Clause bars state courts from construing federal constitutional law in this
context, and the question of Senator Cruz' eligibility for the presidency is a "political question,"
to be resolved by the political branches of government, and not by the cow"ls.
'The relevant portion ofthis clause provides: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or
a Citizen of the United States. at the time of the Adoption of tills Constitution, shall be eligible to
the 0 ffice of President . . .
2
Because the legal battle before me is joined primarily by petitioners and Cruz, all
references to "respondent" below are to the Senator, while references to 'respondents" are to
both Cruz and the BOE.
APX 2- 002
Oral argument was heard on the procedural objections to the petition on March 3. For
reasons set ti:>rth below, I fmd that the objections to Senator Cruz' participation in the New York
State Republ.ican primary were not timely ftled. Further, petitioners' arguments against
application of the time bar to this case rw1 headlong into the strict construction given by New
York courts to the Election Law procedural requirements for an eligibility challenge can be
brought, and I see no legal doctrine among those advanced by petitioners which would allow me
to dispense with such requirements in this case. Therefore, I must dismiss the petition, and do
not reach either respondents' remaining arguments or the substantive issues underlying this
proceeding.
Discussion
States have ..broad authority, absent valid congressional legislation, to establish rules
regulating the manner of conducting both primary and final elections (Maf!er ofFriedman v
Cuomo, 39 NY2d 81, 84 [1976] [citations omitted]). This Court's authority to intervene in
electoral matters. however, is "limited to the powers expressly conferred by statute" (see Malter
o.fScaringe v Ackerman. 119 AD2d 327, 328 [3d Dept 1986]). In particular. my jurisdiction to
address the substantive issues in this case is subject to the procedural requirements ofthe
Election Law.
Under Election Law 16-102, a challenge to a candidate's designation may be filed by a
person "who shall have filed objections, as provided by this chapter." The process for submitting
such objections is set forth in Election Law 6-154. Respondents contend that petitioners did
not comply with this provision's requirement that a voter's objection to a candidate 'shall be
filed with the officer or board with whom the original petition or certificate is filed within three
days after the filing of the petition or certificate to which objection is made. or within three days
after the last day to file such a certificate, if no such certificate is filed ... : (Eiec. Law 6154[2]). Specifically. respondents argue that the petitioners' objections were not filed within
these deadlines. The relevant chronology is as follows:
Senattor Cruz submitted paperwork to secure a place on the New York primary ballot
under a cover letter dated January 10,2016 (Quail Aff. Ex. A). The submission was filed with
the Board on January 26 (id.). No notice of such filing was posted on the BOE"s website, for
Cruz or any other Republican candidate, and the parties agree that no such posting was required
by law. For reasons not explained, however, the BOE did post information on the filings of the
3
APX - 003
candidates im the Democratic primary, as they were received.

Kom1an and Gallo both submitted identically worded general and specific objections with
the Board, which were sent to the Board by Federal Express on February 16, 2016, and were filed
with the Board the following day (see Bernstein Aff. of2/29/l6, Ex. C). ln their general
objections, Korman and Gallo stated their opposition "to the certificate of designation filed with
tbe Board of Elections'' and 'purport[ing] to name' Ted Cruz as a candidate for president (id. ).
The specific objection fleshed this out in detail, asserting: ''Rafael Edward Cruz is not eligible to
run for President of the United States because he is not a natural born citizen of the United States
as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires. Instead, Cruz is a natural born
citizen ofCatnada" (id. ). The objections go on to state that. at the time the Constitution was
adopted, a ..natural born citizen.. of any country was understood to be one 'born within the
boundaries of that country" (id. ). and Cruz was only born a citizen due to a "later naturalization
statute" enacted by Congress, which gave him US citizenship because his mother was a citizen.
This. the objectors argued, did not meet the ConstitutionaJ eligibility criteria for the presidency.
On February 23, the Board issued a Determination on each objection. which read in its
entirety as follows:
"After an examination of the specific objections of[objector] to the designating
certificate of the Republican Party purporting to nominate delegates for TED CRUZ as a
candidate for the office of the President of the United States, and the matter having been
considered by the Commissioners of the State Board of Elections on February 23, 2016.
the State Board finds that the objection raises issues which are beyond the ministerial
scop1e of the State Board to determine and such o~jection is made in the incorrect venue.
as no direct election for President of the United States occurs via election day ballots.
Rather, the April 19, 2016 Presidential Primary is the ballot access process which
provides for the election of delegates to a national party convention or a national pruty
convention or a national party conference in 2016. Further, the objection was received
after the deadline set in statute, as it was postmarked on February 16, 20 16 and received
on February 17, 2016. February 4, 2016 was the last day to file specific objections?
The BOE's Verified Answer makes clear that this deadline was calculated as follows:
the general objections were due on January 29 (tltree days after the filing of Cruz' submission).
and the specific objections were due six days from that deadline, or February 4 . The Board's
determination made no reference to the deadline for general objections, although under its
calculations, they were clearly untimely. Petitioners do not raise this omission, and as noted the
lmtimeliness of both the general and specific objections has been raised with specificity in the
Board' s answer and by Senator Cruz. Even had petitioners raised the issue, it does not appear
that the Board's failure to mention the deadline for general objections in its administrative
4
APX - 004
Addi1tionally, no proof of service of the objections was provided as required by statute.

for the reasons cited herein, the objection is determined to be invalid and the designating
certificate retains its presumption of validity."
Petitioners submitted a second round of objections, following the initiation of this
proceeding. That step was apparently prompted by the Board's posting on its website of a list of
all the Republican candidates. indicating that each had submitted his candidate "petitions" on
F'ebruary 24~ (see Bernstein Aff. of 2/29116 Ex. H). Peti6oners filed the same general and
specific objections as they had before, mailing them to the Board on February 29, so that they
were received for filing on March 1 (id. Ex. I). The record does not reflect that any response to
these objec6ons was made by the Board.
Petitioners make several arguments for the timeliness oftheir objections. First, they
claim that the three-day deadline is not jurisdictional. and that the Court has discretion to waive
it. They cite a number of reasons why this is warranted in this case, including what they deem to
be the unfair and misleading nature of the Board's disclosure (i.e., posting the date of the
Democratic candidates' submissions on-line while keeping information regarding the Republican
candidates only on
paper)~
the futility of such filing, since the Board could not, given its
ministerial wle, address the objections; and what petitioners contend to be the ''liberal
construction" required of the Election Law. Second. they claim, via their parsing of the statutory
language, that objections are timely so long as they are made within three days of the last day on
which the ce:rtificate under challenge could legally have been filed, which occurred on February
16,2016. Alternatively, they contend that the clock for filing objections actually began to tick on
F'ebruary 24, the date on which the BOE website indicated that the Cruz candidate petitions had
been filed, and that their second set of objections was timely filed if counted from that date.
I address each of these arguments, in tum, below.
The _premise underlying the first argument - that the three-day deadline is discretionary-
determination absolves petitioners of their failure to meet the deadline, since the time limitations
of the statut'! crumot be altered (see Matter of Breitenstein v Turco, 254 AD2d 566 [3d Dept
1998]lcourt''s extension of deadline for specific objections was a nullity, and objections filed in
compliance therewith were untimely]).
4
As discussed infra, this statement regarding the date of filing appears inaccurate. Since
it was first revealed in the petitioners' submissions in response to the BOE's answer. the Board
bas not addressed this issue.
APX - 005
is without support in the caselaw. In particular, the Third Department has held, in an opinion
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that failure to submit objections within tllis period is a bar to a
later suit challenging a candidate's eligibility (see Mafler ofBennett v Justin. 77 AD2d 960 (Jd
Dept 19801, a.ffd 51 NY2d 722 [1980]).
Petitioners contend that Bennet/ is ambiguous in tllis regard, but a reading of the decision
does not support that view. ln Bennett, the Third Department dismissed two of the petitioners on
the ground that they were not enrolled in the party whose primary was at issue. The Court then
stated the folllowing:
The designating petition at issue herein was filed on July 25, 1980. Objections must be
filed within tluee days after the filing of the petition to which objection is made. The
time starts to run from the date of tiling of the petition and not the last day on which
petitions may be filed. No objections herein were filed until after July 28. 1980 and thus
they were untimely. Moreover, objectors .. failed to deliver or mail a duplicate copy of
the specifications to the candidate, as required by the rules of the Board of Elections.
FailUire to comply with the rules of the board has been held to be a fatal defect. Thus,
objectors ... lack standing" (id at 961 [citations, internal quotation marks and ellipses
omitted]).
Petitioners' protestations to the contrary. I find no ambiguity in this language. While the
term "fatal dlefect'' refers specifically to the Board's rules, and thus to the failure to mail a
duplicate copy of tl1e objections. the Court clearly held the petition "w1timely'' as well, stated that
general objections "must'' be filed within three days, and presented petitioners failure to comply
with this time frame as one of the bases for dismissal. It is unclear why, moreover, failure to
comply with the Board's rules would be fatal to a challenge petition, but failure to comply with
the procedures mandated by statute would not be. Nowhere did the Third Department - or U1e
Court of Appeals in adopting the Appellate Division ruling - intimate that the three-day period
was flexible , subject to exceptions or enforced only in the Court's discretion. Rather. such
caselaw as exists on this question confirms the reading that a petitioner's failure to meet this
deadline deprives the Court of jwisdiction to address his or her objections (see Matter of Green v
Mahr. 23 1 AD2d 480. 480 [2d Dept 1996] [when petitioner filed no general objection. and the
specifications she filed challenging designating petition "were filed more than three days'' after it
was filed, p1etitioner "was not a proper objector"]~ Mackay v Johnson, 20 Mise 3d 1136[A) [Sup
Ct, Nassau Cty 2008], a.ffd 54 AD3d 428 [2d Dept 2008] [because individual "did not file an
objection to [candidate's] designating petition within three days of the filing of the petition. [she]
APX - 006
is without standing to bring this proceed ing"]) .

Petitioners note that the statute provides that the failure to make timely specific
objections renders them ''null and void." but contains no similar language regarding general
objections (see Elec. Law 6-154[21). On this basis, they contend that the failure to timely file
general objections is not a jurisdictional detect (see Pet. Mem. of Law at 7-9). Such a reading is
at odds with the caselaw cited above, and inconsistent with the exceedingly strict construction
given by the courts to Election Law procedural requirements governing objections to candidate
petitions. Indeed. highly technical defects in the filing of objections have repeatedly been found
to
constitute an absolute bar to suit (see e.g Matter of Maniscalco v Power, 3 NY2d 918 [1957]
[eligibility challenge invalid when not served on first person named on the Committee on
Vacanciesl: Maller of Raimone v Sanchez, 253 AD2d 506 (2d Dept 1998] [absence of postmark
on envelope containing objections was ''fatal defect"]; lvfaller c~('Sgambati v New York City Bd of
Elections, 224 AD2d 564 [2d Dept 1996] fobjections dismissed for failul'e to include "addresses
of the candidates being objected to"]: Matter o.fZogby v Longo, 154 AD2d 889 14th Dept 1989]
[objections invalid for failure to serve copy on candidate and file certificate of service]). The
statutes and rules at issue in these cases did not spell out that failure to comply with the
procedures at issue rendered the objections null and void,'' but the Court still fow1d the legal
challenges al issue barred by such infirmities.
Further. an entirely plausible alternative explanation presents itselffor the inclusion of the
''null and void" language only in regard to specific objections. Specific objections are required
only once a general
o~jection
has been timely filed, and the clock for filing the former begins to
tick with the' submission of the latter. The import of the statutory language is to clarify that both
components must be filed within the statutory deadline before the objections may be considered:
that is, even if a general objection is timely, that objection is rendered a nullity i f the
specifications are filed more than six days later. Such a reading is far more consistent with the
statutory language and the caselaw than petitioners alternati ve - that the three-day period is
"discretionary," and only the six-day deadline is jurisdictional.
Petitioners also contend that the provisions of the Election Law must be "liberally
construed," so that it should not be read to raise technical barriers to eligibility challenges. But
the law evinces no such intent. While there are two potentially relevant sections of the Election
Law that require liberality in construction, neither is of assistance to petitioners.

7
APX - 007
Article 6 of the Election Law includes language mandating that it be "liberally construed,
not inconsistent with substantial compliance thereto and the prevention of fraud" (see Election
Law 6-134[1 0 J). But that provision is aimed at "all rules relating to the validity and
submission o,{petitions, (Governor's Approval Memorandum, Chapter 709 of the Laws of 1996
[emphasis added]; see also Association of the Bar ofthe City of New York, Committee on
Election Law, Memorandum in Support of S. 7856-a of 1996 at 4 [provision of bill 'expand[s]
the provision .. . for liberal construction ... to apply to the entire section of the Election Law
prescribing the rules governing the preparation and filing of petitions''] [emphasis added). It was
enacted as part of legislation ''to make ballot access simpler and fairer for candidates in politicalparty primary elections. . ." (Mem. in Support, S. 7856-A of 1996; see also Governor's
Approval Memorandum, supra [noting that New York's ballot access laws "have generated
frequent, costly and time-consuming legal challenges"]). In short, the legislative history makes
clear that this language, while not intended to prevent challenges to improper candidates, was
inserted to ease the process for getting on the ballot, not to facilitate challenges to eligibility.
The second such provision. in Election Law 16-100, states in regard to the Supreme
Court's juris:diction to "summarily determine any question of law or fact as to any subject"
arising under the Election Law. that such jurisdiction "shall be construed liberalJy" (Election Law
16-1 00[ 1]') The caselaw is clear, however, that this statutory admonition is not intended to
waive or soften the deadlines and other procedural requirements ofthe Election law. Thus, in
Matter ofBreiienstein v Turco (254 AD2d 566 [3d Dept 1998]), petitioners were granted an
extension of time beyond the six-day statutory period to file additional speciJic objections to a
nominating petition, and met the extended deadline. Yet the Third Department still held these
objections to be untimely. Noting the 'liberal construction" mandate of section 16-100, the
Court nonetheless fow1d that in a special proceeding under Article 16 "a party may seek relief
only in the torm and to the extent that Election Law article 16 expressly permits" 5 (id. at 567).
Breitenstein noted the "null and void" language regarding the six-day deadline for
specitlc obj(~ctions in its holding. It made clear, however, that its holding applied more broadly
to other filing periods set forth in the Election Law, reasoning that "relaxing the mandatory filing
requirements would not only render the various deadlines set forth in the Election Law utterly
meaningless. but wouJd also interject confusion and inequality into a process where the
Legislature plainly intended stability and uniformity to prevail" (254 AD2d at 567 [citation
omitted]).
APX - 008
Because no provision is made in the article to extend the time for filing specific objections, the
petitioners were time-barred from raising them, liberal construction notwithstanding (;d.; see also
Matter
~(Cuillinan
v Ahern. 212 AD2d 103, 107 [4th Dept 1995] [while the Legislature
mandated liberal construction of Article 16, [a]t the same time. the Legislature recognized that
such judicial review would only be effective if it was achieved exped itiously," and this goal "is
further reflected in the time constraints" of Article 16]; Matter ofSpencer, 71 AD2d 1062 [4th
Dept 1979] [liberal construction does not relieve the Court of obligation to dismiss petition
suffering from a ''fatal defect"]).
The Election Law is strewn with numerous procedural pitfalls that can prevent a court
from hearing a meritorious challenge. But the caselaw cited above makes clear that they are to
be enforced :strictly. This approach is in line with a key purpose of the Election Law: to avoid
''costly delays and interruptions in the election process" (see lvfaUer of Village ofHerkimer
Republican Party, 119 Mise 2d 801, 804 [Sup Cl, Herkimer Cty 1983]). In sum, there is no
apparent authority to support the argument that principles of liberal construction should relieve
the petitioners of the technical requirements of the Jaw.
Having found that the three-day time limit is not discretionary, r consider petitioners'
arguments that the deadline was, in fact, met in this case, or alternatively, that it should not apply
based on principles of estoppeL or because filing timely objections would have been futile.
There are two bases for the contention that petitioners' objections were submitted within
the three-day period- neither of which is supported by the statutory language or the record.
First, petitioners assert that the three days can be measured from the last date on which a
candidate's certificate was allowed to be filed - in this case, February 16 (see Pet. Mem. of Law
at 10). This ignores the specific language of the statute, which provides that the deadline is
calculated in this manner only if"no such certificate was filed." While petitioners' counsel
maintains that the statute' s phrasing is ambiguous in this regard, reading the provision in the way
petitioners request would leave no role to play for the deadline from actual filing - since the later
deadline would always apply - as well as leave the phrase " if no such certificate was filed" an
orphan. Thi1s reading was, in any case, rejected in Bennett, wh ich stated definitively: 'The time
[for general objections] starts to run from the date of filing of the petition and not the last day on
which the p;!tition may be filed'' (77 AD2d at 961 ).
Equally unavailing is the claim that the three-day period should run from febmary 24,
9
APX - 009
2016. That contention is based on a printout of the Board's website for February 29, which lists
February 24 as the "received date" for petitions for every Republican candidate. As a result of
this posting, petitioners refiled their objections by sendi ng them to the Board on February 29, and
now claim that the second set of objections is timely.
Assuming that these objections are properly before me- although they post-date the filing
of the petition and are not addressed therein - I find that they cannot undo the bar created by the
late filing of the first set. The precise meaning of the infonnation displayed on the website is not
clear from the record. It appears, though, that the website now lists the same default information
for all Republican candidates. This information is directly contradicted as to Senator Cruz by the
Board's submission in this case; it indicates that each candidate filed petitions eight days after the
deadline~
and their petitions are all listed as ''0" pages long. In any event, the Board' s
submission states unequivocally that the Cruz letter seeking access was filed on .January 26. and
Senator Cruz presented a copy ofhis submission file-stamped on that date. Petitioners submitted
their objections thereto, and the Board made a determination thereon -all before this new date
was listed. Thus, even asswning that the February 24 date is anything but a website error, it has
no meaning, as the time for submission of objections cannot be extended, nor are petitioners
entitled to a second bite at the apple once the initial three-day period has expired (see Marter of
Breitenstein, supra).
As to petitioners' argument that the disclosure on the BOE website was misleading
because it initially li sted only one party's subm issions, petitioners acknowledge that there is no
legal requirement that the BOE give notice via the Internet at all. Korman and Gallo contend,
however, that in making a web posting of the date on which the Democratic candidates
certificates were ftled, the Board led potential objectors to believe the same would be done for
the
Republi<~an
candidates. That argument is unconvincing, on several grounds.
First, 1n two prior cases objectors have sought to escape the impact of technical defects in
their submis.s ions on the ground that they were the result of the Board's purportedly misleading
disclosure. In both cases, the courts declined to excuse the error on such basis (see Matter of
Young v Thalmann. 286 AD2d 550 [3d Dept 200 I] [rejecting argument that petition should not
be dismissed for failure to meet service requirements in local rule, and that rule should be
waived, because Board did not follow ''usual procedure" of providing copy of rule to petitioners
at time obje,~tions were
tiled]~
Matter ofHayon v Carrion, 41 Mise 3d 356 [Sup Ct, Kings Cty

10
APX - 010
2013] [rejecting argument that failure to file objections alleging fraud should be excused,
because petitioners were "misled'' by statement in the Board' s rules that Supreme Court, not the
Board, was appropriate forum for determining allegations of fi-aud]).
Second, petitioners make no allegation that the information regarding Cruz' submission
was unavailable to them. As respondent points out - and petitioner does not dispute- petitioners
could have fcJund out if the certificate had been filed on any given day via any local BOE office
(Resp. Mem,. of Law at 6). 6
Third, petitioners do not set forth any legal doctrine that would allow for waiver of the
statutory deadlines on the basis of this record. In their memorandum of law, Kom1an and Gallo
intimate that they are relying on principles of estoppel (see Pet. Mem. of Law.~ 2 l"The Board is
estopped from raising this issue by its arbitrary failure to provide any statewide notice of the
Republican candidates' filings for the primary ballot even while providing statewide notice of the
Democratic candidates ' filings ... "1). But estoppel is "not available against a governmental
agency in the exercise of its governmental functions and respondent may not be estopped by the
erroneous acts of its admin istrative employees" (see Matter ofDear v New York State & Local
Retirement~0;s.,
115 AD3d 1141. 1143 [3d Dept 20141, /v denied23 NY3d 905 (2014] [internal
quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]). While an exception to this principle is made
upon a showing that petitioner reasonably relied on the agency's "fraud, misrepresentation,
deception or similar affirmative misconduct" (see Jvfaller ofAtlantic States Legal Found.. Inc. v
New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 11 9 AD3d 1172, 1173 [3d Dept 20 14]), there has
been no such showing here. For one thing. there is no allegation that the Board made any
misleading s.tatements at all regarding the status of Cruz' filing or the rules for making
objections. At most, petitioners assert that they were lulled by the postings regarding Secretary
Clinton and Senator Sanders into believing that - contrary to general practice - the BOE would
post information about Senator Cruz on-line, although there was no announcement by the Board
that this would be done. In addition, there is no evidence of reliance set forth in petitioners'
papers, and 1the record calls into question whether such reliance was even possible. Petitioners'
submission states that the Democratic petitions were received between February 1 (for Senator
Indeed, one individual did file a timely objection to Cruz' candidacy. but he is not a party
to this proce:eding (see Resp. Mem. of Law at 2).
11
APX - 011
Sanders) and. February 4 (for Senator Clinton) (see Bernstein Aff. of2/29/ 16 ~ 8 & Ex. G).
Senator Cruz' designating certificate was filed on January 26 - six days before the first
Democratic candidate's filing was reflected on-line. Thus, the deadline for timely objections had
expired before the information regarding the Democratic office-seekers had ever been posted.
In the absence of any affirmative misrepresentation by the Board, or any evidence of

reliance by petitioners on the Board's statements, petitioners cannot succeed on their estoppel
argument (see Matter ofHayon. 41 Mise Jd at 358 [rejecting estoppel argument against BOE
because petittioner failed to show affirmative misrepresentation]).
Petitiioners also contend that the objection requirement should be waived in this case,
because submitting an objection would have been "futile." That is because the Board has stated
m its determination on petitioners' objection that it will only rule on ministerial issues, and did
not consider the legal definition of natural born citizenship to be within its purview (see
Bernstein A iff. of 2/29/16, Ex. A ["the State Board finds that the objection raises issues which are
beyond the ministerial scope of the State Board to detennine . .." 1). According to petitioners.
this is in kce:ping with the Court of Appeals' holding that where the validity of the objection
cannot be de~termined on the face of the petition, such matters ''are to be detem1ined in Court
proceedings only'' (see Schwartz v Heffernan, 304 NY 474. 480 11952]). Since the Board said
that it was without power to rule on the objection, petitioners argue, it would have been futile to
place it for the Board's consideration, and thus it was unnecessary for them to object at the
administrative level.
When a party is required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to commencing suit, he
or she need not do so 'when resort to an administrative remedy would be futile" (see Watergate
11 Apartmenls ,. Buffalo Sewer Authority. 46 NY2d 52. 57 [ 1978J). Exhaustion is "futile;

however, only when the agency has already rejected the argument in question (see Lehigh
Portland Cement Co. v New York State Dept. ofEnvtl. Conservation, 87 NY2d 136, 141-142
l1995l [exhaustion futile when it involves challenge to a "long-standing agency position," but
not when "a.gency had not passed on the issue"]). Resort to administrative remedies is not
excused merely because "the contention is made that the administrative body lacked power over
the subject matter New York fnst. for Educ. of Blind v United Fedn. o,(Teachers' Comm. for
NY lnst. for Educ. of Blind, 83 AD2d 390, 403 [1st Dept 1981 ], affd 57 NY2d 982 [1982)).
The futility doctrine has never been applied to the process for challenging candidates
12
APX - 012
under the Election Law. and adopting it here would upend settled law. The upshot of finding that
the filing of objections with the Board can be excused as "futile'' would not simply be to allow
petitioners to avoid the timeliness requirements in such cases~ it would be to waive the objection
requirement altogether. But that outcome would be at odds with the established principle that the
filing of objections is a jurisdjctional prerequisite to suit (see Matrer of Nicolai v Kelleher, 45
AD3d 960 [2d Dept 2007] [individuals' failure to tile objections ''deprives them of standing to
maintain this proceeding'']; see also Marter of Hayon, 41 Mise 3d at 358 [City Board of
Elections rule that Board did not have authority to consider tiaud claims did not excuse petitioner
from filing an objection regarding such claim before proceeding into Court]).
MorE:over, to the extent that futility could be a reason not to submit objections in some
instance, I would sOil find it inapplicable here. Petitioners make no showing that the BOE had
ever addressed the issue of its authority to rule on a candidate s constitutional eligibility for the
presidency in response to an objection, or even said that it would refrain from interpreting a
constitutional provision. 7 Instead, Korman and Gallo point to the general propositions set forth
in Schwartz regarding the allocation of authority between the Board and the cow-ts as the ground
for their futility argument. and the position taken by the Board in this case. Schwartz, however.
addressed the Board' s inability to adjudicate factual matters outside the record, and did not
specifically 1::onsider its authority to rule on disputed legal questions. Absent some evidence that
the position taken by the Board in tills instance pre-dated the current dispute, petitioners cannot
plead f-utility on a mere assumption about how the BOE would address an issue that it had never
before considered. And rather than ensuring the expeditious treatment of cases required by the
E lection Law, adoption of this doctrine would lead to litigation over side issues as to whether the
filing of objections is necessary in particular cases. Such an outcome is unsupported by any
authority construing the Election Law, and would be inconsistent with its aim that eligibility
challenges be resolved expeditiously.
In sum, despite the many arguments proiTered by petitioners, none can get them around
the irnmovalble object standing in the way of this petition: their failure to have filed objections
within the statutory deadline. Indeed, each argument they advance- that the time period for
The Board noted at the March 3 hearing that it believed it had the authority to determine
a presidential candidate's eligibility based on age, but viewed the question of natural born
citizenship as entailing legal interpretation beyond its purview.
13
APX - 013
general objeetions is discretionary rather than jurisdictional; that there is no need to make
objections if they are futile; and that the time limitations of the Election Law can give way if the
BOE acted in a manner that might mislead a petitioner - is made in the absence of a single case
so holding.
Finally. petitioners put forward what is essentially an equitable argument for the exercise
of the Courf'sjurisdiction: the voters ofNew York ''have a compelling interest in exercising
their fundrunental right to vote for candidates that meet the qualifications for public office and
not for canditdates that are ineligible" (Pet. Mem. ofLaw, 1). To the extent that petitioners can
be understood to say that the Court should rule notwithstru1ding the technical infirmities in the
petition. because of the importance of this issue, I find no legal basis to do so for the reasons set
f011h above. Moreover, were I to address the substantive questions underlying this case
notwithstanding the apparent procedural bar of petitioners' untimely objections, and rest
jurisdiction o n a series of exceedingly thin legal reeds that have never been adopted by any court
in this State. it would as likely create chaos and uncertainty as provide clarity.
In sum, for all of the reasons set forth above, the petitioners' failure to submit timely
objections deprives this Court of jurisdiction over the petition, and it is hereby dismissed. I need
not, therefore, address respondents' alternative arguments for dismissal.
ENTER
Dated: Alb<:my, New York

March 7. 20 L6
David A. Weinstein
Acting Supreme Court Justice
Papers Considered:
1.
Petitioners' Order to Show Cause, dated February 18, 2016, Affirmation of Roger J.
Bernstein, Esq., and supporting papers annexed thereto;
2.
Respondent Board of Elections letter to the Court, dated February 26, 2016:
3.
The Courrs Order dated February 26, 2016;
14
APX - 014
4.
Respondent New York State Board of Elections' Verified Answer, dated February 26,
2016. Affirmation of Brian L. Quail, Esq., with Exhibits A through C annexed thereto:
5.
Petitioners' Amended Verified Petition. dated February 26,2016. with Exhibit A armexed
thereto;
6.
Petitioners' Memorandum of Law, dated February 29. 2016, Affirmation of Roger J.

Bernstein. Esq .. with Exhibits A through J annexed thereto;
7.
Respondent Ted Cruz' Answer, dated March 2, 2016:
8.
Respondent Ted Cruz' Reply Memorandum, dated March 2. 2016, with Exhibits A
through G annexed
9.
thereto~
and
Petit[oners ' Reply Memorandum ofLaw. dated March 3. 2016.
15
APX - 015
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT
COUNTY OF ALBANY
3
4
Board of Electiors
40 North Pearl Street , 5th Floor
Albany , NY 12207
BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO ,
-against -
BY : Kimberly Galvin , Esq . and Brian L . Quail , Esq .

Attorneys for Respondent , NYS Boa r d of Elections
Petitioners ,
Index No . 707-16
RJI No . 01 - 16- 120014
Lally & Misir , LLP

220 Old Country Road , n2
Mineola , New York 11501
APX - 016
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS
BY :
and RAFAEL EDWARD (" TED" ) CRUZ ,
Also present : Dr . John Vafai and Anna Andreescu
10
GRANT M. LALLY , ESQ .
Attorney for Respondent Cruz
10
Respondents .
11
11
- ORAL ARGUMENT -
12
BEFORE :
14
HON . DAVID A . WEINSTEIN

Acting Supreme Courc Justice
15
16
12
Suzanne T . Harringcon , Sr . Court Reporter
13
13
14
15
Transcript of the Proceedings held on the
16
17
record on March 3 , 2016 , at the Albany Coun c y Cou r thouse ,
17
18
Albany , New York .
18
19
r-,
A-P-P-E-A-R-A-N-C-E-5 (Continued) :
5
6
19
20
A-P-P-E -A- R-A-N - C-E- 5:
20
21
21
22
Roger J . Bernstein, Esq .

535 5th Avenue , 35ch floor
New York , NY 10017
23
Also Present :
23
24
Judith Hancock, Esq .
25
22
24
25
SUZANNE T . HARRINGTON
SENIOR COURT REPORTER
(518} 285-8739
(518) 285-8739
P- R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
THE COURT :
Let ' s go on the record .
We ' re
MR . LALLY :
Thank you .
THE COURT :
And for the Board of
here today for a proceeding on the Electoral Law in
the matter of Korman and Gallo versus the New York
State Board of Elections and Rafael Edward "Ted"
name is Kimberly Galvin .
Cruz , index number 707 - 16 .
Can counsel for the
the New York State Board of Elections .
parties introduce themselves , starting with the
petitioner?
APX - 017
MR . BERNSTEIN :
Good afternoon , your
10
Honor .
I ' m Roger Bernstein .
Appreciate the Court
11
having us here .
12
Honor, and your right .
13
a colleague in my office who ' s played an
14
instrumental role in preparing our papers .
Elections?
MS . GALVIN :
MR . QUAIL :
Thank you, your Honor .
My
I ' m one of the counsel for
I ' m Brian Quail , also
representing the Board of Elections .

THE COURT :
Good afternoon .
So as I
10
indicated to the parties , I don ' t -- it ' s not
11
generally my practice to have an allocated amount of
12
time .
13
particular issues to both parties and ask them some
And, if
14
questions .
15
I may, Mr . Gallo and his wife are here as well , the
15
16
petitioners .
16
At the end of the proceeding I will give you
17
whatever opportunity you wish to cover any
18
additional issues that you think would be helpful to
19
do orally .
17
18
Judith Hancock is to my left, your
THE COURT :
Judith Hancock is a lawyer ,
Good afternoon .
And for the
respondents , let 's start with Senator Cruz .

MR . LALLY :
19
Good afternoon , your Honor .
What I would prefer to do is direct
Everyone will have a chance to respond .
20
I ' m Grant Lally of Lally and Misir, 220 Old
21
Road Mineola , New York appearing for Senator
Cr~z .
21
if you coulc just tell me your arguments .
22
Together with me today is Dr . John Vafai and
An~a
22
to me that they may have shifted in some of the
23
Andreescu .
23
reply papers .
24
your arguments as to why the timing of the
25
objections should not preclude you from bringing
24
25
THE COURT :
Thank you very much .
afternoon .
(518) 285-8739
Cou~try
Gooc
20
So let me just start with Mr . Bernstein ,

It seems
I think it would be helpful to set up
SUZANNE T. HARRINGTON
(518) 285- 8739
I
1
this case .
MR . BERNSTEIN :
to be any shift in the arguments .
I d i dn ' t intend for there
2
3
The papers
objection, they did not say so .

THE COURT :
What is then the consequence ,
if that were the case , of not filing within three

days'?
submitted this morning were a summary of the

5
MF. . BERNSTEIN :
want to address that
APX - 018
arguments submitted previously, your Honor .
believe the best place to start with t h is analysis
very specifically , because it leaves the Court with
is the text of Section 6-154 itself .
the discretion as to determining that consequence ,
is aware , there ' s a differen t iation between the
and what we know is that the Election Law requires
three day objection rule and the six day specific
the Court tc make a liberal interpretation of the
10
So I
As your Honor
objection rule .
10
Election Law, and that informs what the consequence
11
may be .
I ' m going to answer the question , but --
11
The three day rule for specific
12
objections , the Legislature said that not
13
that renders the specifications , the t h ree day
13
~pologi7.e
14
specification , null and void .
14
i nterpretation apply here where the time period is
15
Legislature made no such determination as to the
15
actually to try to remove someone from the ballot?
16
initial general objection time limit .
16
follo~ing
However , the
12
THE COURT :
just want to ask you , and I
for the interruption , but does the liberal
MR . BERNSTEIN :
It applies in the context
17
of this case for a particular reason .
Election Law cited in our papers , which I believe
18
Electi ons has made it very clear that it ' s not going
19
from memory are in Section 1- 104 , there ' s also
19
to get involved with these objections .
20
the Legislature said very specifically that it would
20
t he Court in its papers -- it has told in its own
21
be a fatal defect not to provide the filings
21
decision on February 23rd , that this is outside its
22
referred to in that section, and they ' re numerous ,
22
jurisdiction .
23
but the point is that if the Legislature would have
23
correctly said it is not in a position to decide .
24
wanted the Courts to cease their involvement , they
24
think that goes back to 1952 when the Court of
25
wou l d have said .
25
Appeals made the ruling that questions of law are
17
18
Furthermore, in other sections of the
And in the case o( Lhe Lhree day
(518) 285-8739
The Board of
It has told
This is a question of law that it has
SSNIOR COURT REPORTER
(518) 285-8739
for the Courts and not for the Board of Elections .

So what is the purpose of those time
Elections , and it ' s an extremely well established
part of administrative law , affirmed more than once
by the Court of Appeals , that an administrative
procedure need not be exhausted when to do so would
frames?
of Elections has a job to do .
of the more traditional procedures , petiti ons of
be futile .
hundreds of thousands of pages are filed with the
that the objection process is devoid of
Board of Elections .
significance .
APX - 019
Those time frames are there when the Board
For example , in some
I ' m sure your Honor is somewhat familiar

with them; 20 signatures per page , the pages must be
The Board of El ections has demonstrated
It would be futile because they ' re not

going to rule on it , so it is a little short of - - I
10
in the perfect order, they must be stapled
10
don ' t want to use words that are harsh , but it ' s a
11
correctly, all the signatures have to be checkec .
11
little short of , shall we say, a difficult exercise
12
The witnesses have to be the right witnesses .
12
to say that you have to be kicked out of Court for
13
That ' s a procedure that could be time consuming
13
something that we ' re not going to look at , I don ' t
14
therefore , the statute requires that a certain
14
find that to be appropriate , especially in a
15
schedule be followed .
15
situation where the Constitutional issues of being
16
qualified to be on the balloc are at stake .
16
~nrl
But in the context of a pure question of

law , and given the Court ' s discretion that ' s been
17
18
afforded, there ' s no reason -- there ' s no reason for
18
consequence in this case should not be dismissal .
19
that three day time period to have any negative
19
As I said, the Legislature did not provide for a
20
consequence .
20
negative consequence here .
21
ought to be weighed , given that the Legislature has
21
suggests that there should not be a negative
22
given your Honor room to make a decision , what are
22
consequence , but it ' s a pure question of law .
23
the factors we should weigh?
23
Some of the Courts some other day can deal
This is an
24
with the significance of a three day objection issue
administrative proceeding before the Board of
25
when a factual issue has been represented to the
17
24
25
And when we look at the factors that
First of all, futility .
(518) 285-8739
So there are a number of reasons why the
The futility doctrine
(518! 285-8739
10
Board of Elections that people have to l ook at
but there ' s nothing put up there about the
petitions and so forth, but we don ' t have that here .
Republican filings .
There ' s a further aspect of the particular
THE COURT :
If your position is that they
APX - 020
case before your Honor that should inform the
Court ' s discretion in this particular situation, and
that is the disparate treatment that the Board has
cannot act in an arbitrary manner under Article 78 .
given to Republican and Democratic filings in this
An administrative agency, as a matter of law, cannot
case .
be arbitrary and capricious in how it handles its
proceedings , especially not when it deals with the
I ' m sure your Honor has seen in our papers
don ' t have to file , why is that relevant?

MR . BERNSTEIN :
Because once they do , they
10
that it is not our position that the Board of
10
voting public .
11
Elections has to put everything up on the internet .
11
the position that the public is entitled to rely
12
It ' s not our position that they have to scan
12
upon , then it can ' t turn around and say , don ' t rely
13
anything .
13
on what we do .
14
having moved into the modern age , they have a
14
THE COURT :
15
website visible from Tonawanda to Montauk for people
15
MR . BERNSTEIN :
16
who are not going to travel to Albany .
And on that ,
16
is that on February 24th , the Board of Elections put
17
they tell the voters of the State , this document has
17
up on its website that it had received on that day
18
been filed with us , the Democratic petitions have
18
the filing of Senator Cruz to be on the ballot .
19
been filed with us .
19
Now, they want to tell your Honor it was actually
20
filed on January 26th .
20
But the Board of Elections does now ,
For no viable reason -- and it ' s a one --
If an administrative agency takes
And if I may -Go ahead .

What ' s even more striking
We could argue forever which
21
it ' s not even a full sentence , I don ' t think-- I
21
day i t was filed upon , but what we ' re talking about
22
think it just says filing and the date ; but it is no
22
is the right of the public to rely upon the public
23
effort to put up on that website -- no burden -- the
23
statements to the Board of Elections .
24
filing of the date ; Secretary Cli nton has filed on
24
25
Lhis date , Senator Sanders has filed on this date;
25
(518) 285- 8739
These are hard working folks that have a

big job to do , no one is pointing a critical finger .
(518) 285- 8739
12
11
What we ' re saying is they cannot treat the
three day thing was just sort of stuck in the middle
Republicans and Democrats differently for this
of the decision , it wasn't -- they didn ' t apply the
purpose and allow Democratic voters the opportunity
fatal defect concept there .
to object to filings and effectively make it
impossible for a Republican voter to meet the very
where the three day rule has ever been the subject
tiny three day deadline that has no significance to
of a dismissal ruling .
them .
APX - 021
THE COURT :
But certainly, your
Honor , that is the only case that they can cite
Can I ask -- so I actually
understand the argument -- is it your position that
As I pointed out in our papers , the case
cited by the Board of Elections, never said that
three day rule would require dismissal .
I think the
10
your clients actually relied on these postings or
10
11
just that they ' re inhe rent ly misleading?
11
because they didn ' t have the following
12
circumstances .
13
in the statute between the three day pnrtion and the
14
six day specification portion .
12
MR . BERNSTEIN :
Both , both .
13
it ' s inhArntly misleading .
14
myself , relied upon it .
15
THE COURT :
Okay .
First,
Secondly, their agent ,
Let me just ask you -- there
Bennett case from 1980 is not controlling here
They didn ' t analyze the difference
I don ' t believe I need to say for your
15
16
are a whole series of cases that are cited in the
16
Honor exactly what those are .
17
respondents -- in Senator Cruz's brief that seem to
17
has that .
18
apply very stringent ru les .
18
situation where the Board of Elections gave
19
Bennett case which includes , among several things , a
19
different treatment to one party than the other
20
failure to meet the three day rule as a fatal
20
arbitrarily .
21
defect .
21
with a question of law .
22
In particular, a
Why don ' t - MR . BERNSTEIN :
Actually what the Bennett
22
I think your Honor
The Bennett case was not dealing with a
And the Bennett case was not dealing
so - - and finally they were not dealing
23
case said, as I read it , as a fatal defect was not
23
with a question of constitutional eligibility to be
24
sending a copy of the objections to the candidate by
24
on the primary ballot .
25
the prescribed--under the rules of the Board - - the
25
reasons would be very sufficient grounds for the
(518) 285- 8739
So I think any of those four
(518) 285 - 8739
14
13
Appellate Courts in the state not to reach the
conclusion urged by the r espondents that your Honor
should cut this proceeding off, close i t down and
same website that he ' s referencing, there was a
not look at the merits .
political presidential primary calendar that did
specifically l ist the dates ; so any simple inquiry
So I ' m very-- in the order of what ' s
i n order to grant transparency .

However , I would point out that on the
APX - 022
important in this case , we should be looking at the
would have lead Mr . Bernstein to realize which
Constitutional issues and -- and because your Honor
letters had been filed on which date .
has the discretion under Section 6-154 not to
dismiss the case , the Court should not dismiss it .
why don ' t I first give you an opportunity to respond
10
to whatever you wish that was said by Mr . Bernstein .
10
THE COURT :
I will give you a chance to
THE COURT :
Okay, thank you .
Mr . Lally,
11
speak further , Mr . Bernstein, but let me just hear
11
12
first -- before I go to the other side, I neglected
12
A couple things I wanted to address as to the points
13
to mPnt ion -- if anyone has
13
raised by counocl .
14
please make sure the sound is off on those .
14
the Election Law liberally ; yes , in the 2010
15
Lally, I ' ll give you a chance to respond, but let me
15
amendment in the Election Law that was definitely
16
ask the Board of Elections , as a fact ual matter, if
16
inserted,
17
it ' s accurate that the Democratic and Republ i can
17
objections .
18
postings were different , and if there ' s any reason
18
19
you want to indicate for that .
19
burden backwards .
20
MS . GALVIN :
20
the ballot to be applied liberally , and objections
21
to be dealt with strictly .
22
mischaracterization of what the liberality rule

ac tually is.
elect~onic
dcvicco ,
Mr .
That is true, your Honor .
MR . LALLY :
b~t
Sure .
Thank you , your Honor .
When he talked about r.onstruing
it wasn 't inserted to interpret
It was the opposite , actually .
He has the
It was to allow people access to
21
The petitions were posted on the website.
22
letters for Republican ballot access were not .
23
the gentleman stated, it ' s the ordinary course of
23
24
business that we receive petitions for various
24
And the other issue to address -- the
25
electi ons , and we were in the habit of posting them
25
question you just put to the Board and that Mr .
(518) 285- 8739
The
As
So I think that was a
(518) 285-8739
15
16
Be r nstein had raised; the Republican and Democratic
electi on cycles prior to the amendment to the
elect i on-- the primary election processes are under
Election Law -- t hey did have to file names of
two completely separate and different sections of
de l egates who will be elected in particu lar
law .
districts .
The Republican parties here in New York
The Democratic party has chosen basically
APX - 023
chose one particular course of selecting their
plan A, the Republican parties chose plan B.
delegates .
was enacted by the Legislature in 2015 , so we ' re
course .
talking
2015 , the Election Law was amended .
10
11
The Democratic party chose a di fferent
And in consultation with the Legislature in

So there ' s
actually nothing similar between the two processes .

The Democratic parties has -- and I
abo~t
That
two whole different sections of law .
THE COURT :
Let me as k you on that ; is it
10
your positicn that something in those distinctions
11
lead to these different postings or j u st that
12
attached as one of the exhibits , I believe it ' s t he
12
there ' s a rational basis for trea t i ng them
13
last one on my memorandum, it lays out the
13
diffP.rP.nt.ly?
14
particular standards , the particular burdens , the
14
15
filing requirements , and they ' re different for the
15
did what , but I can say these are not the same
16
two parties .
16
thing, and I wanted the Court to be advised of that .
17
So to say that treating one party the same
17
MR . LAL LY:
THE COURT :
I can ' t speak to why the Board
Can you talk to the - -
18
as the other party is somehow arbitrary and
18
essential ly the futility argument that the
19
capricious , these are two separate sections of law .
19
Petitioner ' s make that the Board -- since the Board
20
The Democratic party sel ection is under Election Law
20
takes the position t hat it ' s not going to inte r pret
21
Section 2-122-a .
21
this Constitutional iss ue , there ' s no real l y purpose
22
process is under 2- 122- b , two completely different
22
in filing t hese objecti ons , and it would have been
23
areas of l aw .
23
futile to have done so in a timely manner?
24
25
The Republican party selecti on
The Republican party-- Republican

candidates , for example , do not -- although in prior
(518) 285-8739
24
25
MR . LALLY :
Judge , that goes to -- I laid
it out in my reply, in my memorandum to the order La
COURT REPORTER
(516) 285- 8739
S~NIOR
17
Republican plan , the Republican plan as enacted by
hurdles , several major hurdles that the petitioners
the Legislature as requested by the Republican party
here have to overcome .
and enacted by the Legisla ture then chosen by the
Republican party , does not actually have the
delegates selected on primary day .
some ways is a beauty contest .
show cause .
2
3
There ' s several laye rs - - several
The first hurdle , and it ' s been talked
about, is they filed 19 days late .
has very strict deadlines .
They ' re time barred , that ' s it .
The Election Law
They filed late .
I mean we have statutes of lLmitations, we
APX - 024
18
have time limits in the state .
These, by
The primary in
The delegates are actually appointed
pursuant to a correlation of how the votes are cast
on primary day, but the actual delegates are
10
interpretation of multiple courts, have been deemed
10
appointed by the Republican state Committee .
11
to be strict deadlines that must be met .
So that ' s
11
the legal entity that's appointing the delegates ,
12
the first one, they ' re out of the box if they don ' t
12
some of the delegates .
13
file .
13
And I have an opinion of Justice Lally,
14
The rest of the delegates
~rP.
That ' s
actually
appointed by individual state committee members
15
Nassau County Supreme Court , which was affirmed by
15
sitting in convention in each of the congressional
16
the Second Department citing the Bennett case .
That
16
distr icts .
17
was only a couple years ago .
I think it lays it out
17
assembly district .
18
very clearly, if you don ' t meet three day objection
18
Each congressional district can contain
19
fili ng deadline, you're out of the box .
19
anywhere from 4 to 15 -- overlap 4 to 15 assembly
20
have standing to go in court later on .
20
districts , so you ' re going to have essentially--
21
you may have 27 Congressional districts, you ' ll have
22
27 meetings in New York State of the individual
23
states comnlittees who overlap those congressional
24
districts and they will be
25
authority who ' s appointing Republicans .
THE COURT :
21
22
You don ' t
That's the Independent party ' s
case?
MR . LALLY :
23
Yes , the Independent party
24
case .
So that ' s clear .
Secondly, there ' s a
25
necessary party issue here .
If you review the
(518) 285- 8739
The committee members are selected by
they are the legal
(518) 285-8739
20
19
a~d
Let me stop you for a second .
delegates ,
In order for the commitlee to be a necessary pa=ty,
to the 2015
you either have to have the potential that they have
actually play that role .
to be negatively impacted by this proceeding or they
have to be necessary to provide relief .
What ' s the
candidates get on the ballot in two ways
argument that they ' re one of those two?
I'm not
generally get on the ballot in two ways ; either they
sure I understand .
file petitions, which are sheets signed by voters
who are registered in a particular party or
nominating papers signed by any voter who hasn ' t
THE COURT :
APX - 025
MR . LALLY :
The legal authority who's
actually doing the appointing is the state committee
only in t he Republican party pursuant
~lection
Law does the Republican party
Most candidates in New York State
10
or its members in these regional conventions .
10
previously signed a petition , that meets the
11
They ' re the ones doing the appointing, so certainly
11
requisite number of signatures of people for that
12
this impacts their rights and responsibilities as
12
district .
13
thP.
13
lPgal
14
authority .
THE COURT :
Does that mean there's a
So you file petitions -- or in the case of
14
the Supreme Court , judicial delegates are selected
15
necessary party issue the committee- men also have ,
15
in the normal election process .
16
or committee persons , always have to be joined in a
16
delegates then meet in judicial convention , then
17
proceeding whenever there is any action to try to
17
nominate the Supreme Court Justices .
18
strike anyone f rom the primary ballot for any
18
19
reason?
19
have a role in any of those elections because
This isn ' t the same issue?
Those judicial
so the Republican state committee does not
20
MR . LALLY :
No .
20
they ' re not part of that selection process .
21
THE COURT :
Wouldn ' t the same issue come
21
plenty of cases , your Honor, where a Republican
22
state committee does have a role .
23
the granting of Wilson Pakula .
24
was passed, I believe in 1952 if my memory serves me
25
-- and that ' s an academic memory
22
23
up in any case?
MR . LALLY :
Your Honor, that is an
24
excellent question .
25
is because only for the selection of presidential
The answer is no .
(5181 285-8739
The reason
There ' s
For instance , in
Wilson Pakula law
(518) 285-8739
but what that
22
21
authorizes is one party to authorize by the vote of
that executive committee to authorize people
enrolled in other parties to run in a party ' s
primary .
THE COURT :
Let me just ask you a
question .
of the primary that are affiliated with Senator
Cruz?
Is there a set list of delegates as part
APX - 026
MR . LALLY :
They ' re not , at this point .
10
THE COURT :
So there ' s no issue about
11
delegates being -- your argument is solely as to the
12
committee?
11
MR. LALLY :
That ' s correct .
14
THE COURT :
Let me give Mr . Bernstein a
THE COURT :
1qas that apparent before
has the issue of Constitutional challenge to
you
the eligibility of a presidential candidate ever
come up previously?
Or has the Board of Elections
ever previously taken the position that it ' s not--
that it ' s not capable of interpreting this issue?

MR . BERNSTEIN :
No and yes .
To my
knowledge , having read quite a few of the cases , I
don ' t believe that they ' ve specifically dealt with
10
Federal constitutional questions as to candidate
11
eligibility, but they ' ve deale with many questions
12
as to a candidate's eligi bility .

There arc ~ large number of cases in which
14
the Board of Elections has taken the position that
15
it ' s not empowered or capable -- I mean legally
16
capable of interpreting the law , and it goes back to
Yes, but I want -- I first
17
the 1952 case , which I ' m goes to mis-cite the name
18
want to come back to the quest ion asked of Mr . Lally
18
of it if I don ' t look at my papers .
19
about the futility arguments .
20
very apparent is there was no answer to the question
21
about the futility argument .
15
chance .
16
what ' s been said about the necessary party issue?
17
22
Mr . Bernstein , do you want to respond to
MR . BERNSTEIN :
The point that was
No counsel for the respondents has ever
23
contended , today or i n any papers , that it would not
24
be futile to have the Board of Elections look at
25
those objections .
(518) 285-8739
THE COURT :
19
The Schwartz case?
MR . BERNSTEIN :
20
Yes , the Schwartz case ,
21
exactly .
22
recognized very specifically that the functions of
23
so back in 1952 , the Court of Appeals
the Board of Elections as an administrative agency
24
are ministerial, but that ' s why it would be futile ,
25
and no one here has disagreed with that argument .

(518) 285-8739
24
23
THE COURT :
So any time that somebody
for example , your Honor, the candidate were to put
raises an issue with the Board that ' s not a
down I 'm 27 years old
ministerial issue , that requires some fact finding
or whatever it may be , they don ' t have to go
the objection process because it would be futile to
do so?
they ' ve told the Court it ' s a pure question of law,
whether or not that person is disqualified from
MR . BERNSTEIN :
th~ough
THE COURT :
That ' s a question I had coming
up.
There are issues before
MR . BERNSTEIN :
Okay .
The Board --
APX - 027
the Board that might not require fact finding .
For
running for president .
e xample, there 's been candidates that have put down
in every case where a question of law arises , pure
So far that we ' ve now seen
10
an address on their petiti on which discloses the
10
question of law , the Board has declined to consider
11
relevant fact on which they can make a legal ruling,
11
it .
12
but that ' s an unusual type of --
12
13
THE C()(JR'I' :
I ' m trying to understand ,
In any event , in this case there ' s been no
13
fact finding by the Board, and there was no
14
because the Schwartz case differentiates betweer the
14
potential for fact finding by the Board, so
15
Board of Eleccions and the Court .
The Board of
15
16
Elections has a ministerial role , but does that
16
17
is that relevant to the question about futility ,
17
18
excusing the need to make an objection?
18
the birth certificate ; but they said we 're not going
19
to look at it .
19
That would have to mean that every time
THE COURT :
They rejected the objection as
untimely .
MR. BERNSTEIN :
Right .
And we did attach
Your Honor , actually you could come
20
there's no-- a decision is not ministerial, there ' s
20
up with a large number of woulds and shoulds and
21
no need to make the objection .
21
maybe could haves for the Board to rethink how it
22
position?
22
may handle any of these questions.
23
MR . BERNSTEIN :
Is that your
Let me narrow this down .
24
When there ' s a pure issue of law , as we have here,
25
then the objection process is clearly futile .

(518) 285- 8739
If
23
...--.._
But where we stand in this case is that
24
the Board has said, we ' re not going to consider it .
25
so if we want to rewrite the whole procedure for the

(518) 285-8739
26
25
Board, that ' s appropriate for another day , about how
Is your position that the committee ' s role is
it may handle facts that become apparent in one way
entirely ministerial and mechanical and actual
or another , but we ' re not really in that case .
members of the committee don ' t actually play any
We ' re really in che case where they ' ve said, we
role?
won ' t look at it .
change that , can we?
THE COURT :
We're stuck with that .
We can ' t
I understand your position in
APX - 028
this regard .
necessary party issue, and tell me why the committee
Let me then ask you to return to the
They ' ve set the
rules and they don ' t know who the candidates are
going to be , they don ' t know what the vote is going
to be ; but of necessity they had to set up a formula
beforehand , so that they would know how to allocate
persons are not necessary parties .
10
11
MR . BERNSTEIN :
11
For the simple
Correct .
10
Sure .
MR . BERNSTEIN :
the delegates .
That ' s a rule that they have adopted .
No
12
reason that they already set up their allocation
12
one is asking for that rule to be changed .
13
formulas .
13
only-- all of the cases cited by Mr . Lally, and in
14
formula .
14
particular the case of Regan v . - - I ' m not sure I
15
Exhibit F.
15
will get the right case --
Mr. Lally said there ' s a corrcl"tion by

It ' s an exhibit to our papers , it ' s
16
17
18
I ' m going to start, but I ' m not goi ng to

finish .
" If a candidate receives more than 50
16
THE COURT :
17
MR . BERNSTEIN :
The
The Regan case, okay .

Yes .
In that case the
percent or only one candidate receives 20 percen: or
18
19
more of the vote , that candidate receives all three
19
Republican State Committee .
20
delegates .
Otherwise , if at least two presidential
20
change any rule in the Republican State Committee .
21
contenders receive 20 percent or more of the votes ,
21
Nothing abou: this case involved changing the rules
22
the candidate with the most votes receives two
22
of the committees .
23
delegates , and the candidate with the second most
23
Instead, it ' s a mathematical formula .
24
votes receives one delegate ."
24
drop out a candidate , you add a candidate , they
25
THE COURT :
25
apply the rules accordingly .
Let me just stop you there .
{518) 285- 8739
petitioner ' s sought to change Rule 18 of the

We ' re not seeking to
This argument about
!518) 285- 8739
You
27
28
necessary party falls into the category of a red
the notion that the Board is ministerial and that it
herring .
doesn ' t engage in fact findi ng on issues of
interpretation of law, the applications of law to
those sort of situations is true .
THE COURT :
Let me just stop you there for
APX - 029
a second .
asking more for factual issues from the Board,
because I understand your position is to take more
Mr . Quail , so I understand correctly ; it ' s not the
of a back seat in this , but if you want to respond
position of the Board that you don ' t have the
to any of the arguments , feel free to .
authority tc rule on the eligibility of a candidate
for president .
I wanted to ask the Board again , and I ' m
But I want to understand if, in
TEE COURT :
Let me just ask you though ,
10
particular, Mr . Bernstein has correctly has
10
11
characterized your position , that you believe it is
11
obvious on its face without getting into the
12
within your purview, if I ' m recalling correctly , to
12
details .
13
reject a presidential candidate on the grounds that
14
on their face , for example , they ' re under 35 ; but
14
the Board would have the authority to rule on that
15
you would not do so if it involves a question of
15
issue?
16
legal interpretation -- or am I mis - stating it?
16
But the problem here is not that it ' s in a
17
presidential election or federal election, it ' s that

it doesn ' t fall within the ministerial
17
MR . QUAIL :
Your Honor, the issue of at
It would have to be something that is
If there were something the commissioners
were to discern is obvious on its face , you believe
18
what exact point a qualification issue is so
18
19
manifest and apparent on its face that it doesn ' t
19
20
require any fact finding and therefore falls within
20
think of a couple times a state or county board has
21
the ministerial purview of the Board really is a
21
ruled on eligibility based on age , for example .
22
very fact specific inquiry .
22
23
And if the commissioners are actually
MR . QUAIL :
THE COURT :
Yes, your Honor .
But I can
All right, thank you .
So Mr .
23
Lally, let me first give you a chance to respond to
24
approached with it, it ' s difficult to say precisely
24
anything Mr . Bernstein said, then I want to address
25
how they would come down .
25
the whole practicality political question issue .
The general substance ,
(518) 285-8739
(518) 285- 8739
29
30
Judge , if I could just give an
determi nation and that determination is before the
additional answer to what the Board had sai d , I know
Board , it speaks for itsel f .
of an instance where the Board invalidated petitions
exhibit .
that were obviously fraudulent .
For example , I know
I just want to add, there ' s two additional
in 2014 someone submitted a petition for Congress , I
issues which I know were mentioned in my papers , the
think i t was 800 or 900 pages long , witnessed by the
federal preemption and federal political question .
candidate .
MR . LALLY :
APX - 030
The first page, your Honor , was original .

The second was a xe r ox copy of the first and the
THE COURT :
It ' s attached as an
So let me ask you -- I know
you said you didn ' t have a ful l chance to see the
reply, but I would have asked the same quest i on as
10
third was a xerox copy of the first and 800 pages
10
was raised in the reply; which is that state courts
11
xeroxed off of one ten signature sheet .
11
all the t i me interpret issues of federal law .
12
I know that the Board disqualified that .
13
I bel ieve i t was American Sove r eign ty Party .
14
petition was submitted that year .
15
16
17
12
Their 1983 claim, for example , is brought
13
from the state court .
14
of Federal Constitution Law .
to give the Court that additional information of
15
them in the reply brief .
which I was aware .
16
THE COURT :
The
So I just wanted
Do you have anything to
It requires an interpretation
So what exactly
There ' s a long list of
can you explain what
17
your position is in terms of where the limits are on
18
respond in terms of what Mr . Bernstein said or
18
this Court ' s ability to rule on the question of the
19
should we move on to the
19
meaning of the Constitutional information?
20
MR . LALLY :
Regarding the futility?
20
MR . LALLY :
Your Honor, in the shape of
21
THE COURT :
Yes .
21
the Federal preemption doctrine -- I will repeat it
22
MR . LALLY :
Obviously the Board looks at
22
for all parties here ; under the United States
23
the petitions that come in ; there are good
23
Constitution, the supremacy clause of the United
24
petitions , bad petitions , obvious issues to more
24
States Con stitution says that the laws of the United
25
complex legal issues , and they ' ve rendered a
25
States
(518) 285- 8739
I Hill paraphrase - - are the supreme law

S~ZANNE T . HARRINGTON
(518) 285- 8739
32
31
of the land , and anything in state law or in the
that is contrary to -- and I had it sent to me and I
constitutions of any states notwithstanding .
can give it to the Court -- but I had about a ten
page documer.t of the various birther suits that have
That has been interpreted and applied by
APX - 031
the Federal Government , by the Federal Court , tc
been submitted to federal district courts by state
mean the state courts cannot regulate in certain
courts concerning not only Senator Cruz -- and this
areas , and certainly cannot act in ways that are
is early in the process for him; but there were
contrary to Federal Law and clearly stated Federal
scores of cases and complaints and objections filed
policy .
against Senator John McCain, who was 2008 Republican
nominee .
And there are areas of jurisdictional
10
competence where state legislatures and state courts
10
11
may not intrude .
11
military, he served this country honorably .
12
United States v . AZ which concerned Arizona ' s
12
born in Panama in the canal zone , which those
13
attempts to essentially adopt its own immigration
13
nhjA~rnrA
14
policy within the State of Arizona .
14
United States and therefore he should not be allowed
15
to run for president .
15
Recently there was a case of
The Federal Government sued Arizona to
He was a senator, he was an admiral in the

He was
thought was nutside the territory of the
THE COURT :
So is the preemption issue
16
enjoin those practices , and the United States
16
17
federal trial courts and subsequently the United
17
here-- I mean the provision we're talking about is
18
States Supreme Court ruled that Arizona was acting
18
the provision of the United States Constitution --
19
in an unconsti tutional manner because the area of
19
does the preemption issue here have to do because
20
Immigration and Nationality Law are the exclusive
20
it's a matter of immigration
21
purview of the Federal Government .
21
immigration , naturalization ; is that what it comes
22
down to?
22
And I think this case is actually quite
23
similar in that what the petitioners here are asking
23
24
you -- this Court to do is make a ruling on the
24
the Petitioners are asking this Court is do is make
25
meaning of federal statutes, and to act in a way
25
a state court ruling in one state on what ' s the
(518) 285- 8739
MR. LALLY :
of construction of
Yes, your Honor, because what
(518) 285- 8739
33
federal law .
Certainly at the t ime that Senator
34
and make a ruling contrary to what is the plain
Cruz was born , the federal la w when Senator Cruz was
language of the statute and is the application by
born is clear .
the Federal Government , by an executive branch of
Government -- the Federal Government has determined
through statements and policy positions of different
string of federal court cases which have ruled that
agencies of the Federal Government .
this is not a matter for state courts ; that this is
purely a federal issue .
And more than that, the American
And I have attached the implementation of

I
the Federal Government ; and contrary to a long
APX - 032
that by the United States Department of State .
have attached the interpretation -- an application
10
of that law by th e United States Department of the
10
only a matter for the Federal Government, it ' s not
ll
Census -- by the United States Department of
ll
even a matter for the Federal District Courts .
12
Commerce , Bureau of the Census .
12
a matter for the United States Congress and for the
13
THE COURT :
13
Electoral College .
I ' m sure Mr . Bernstein will
And under its political question doctrine ,
the courts have ruled consistently that this is not
It ' s
14
say it ' s not a question of immigration laws , because
14
And they ' ve c ited to a case in whi c h the
15
it ' s a question of who was a natural born citizen .
15
court -- and I will paraphrase -- basically told a
16
A different -- a natural born citizen being a
16
petitioner that was seeking to have a presidential
17
Constitutional provision , wh ich is distinct from the
17
candidate disqualified as president ; told him, look
18
citizen provisions of the fed eral law .
18
if you have a complaint , take it to the United
19
respond to that?
19
States Congress, because they may determine the
20
qualifications of the President of the United

States .
20
MR . LALLY :
Thank you .
How do you
The federal law at
21
the time in 1970 , at the time that Senator Cruz was
21
22
born , was crystal clear .
22
23
language is black letter and plain .
24
American citizen .
25
interpretation or have this Court start to examine
He was born -- the

He was born an
So they ' re seeking to find an
(518) 285-8739
THE COURT :
I will ask Mr . Bernstein that
23
question about some of the practical problems of
24
wha t he ' s suggesting .
25
LhaL Court suggested is the statute of the electoral
But let me ask you , if what
(518) 285-8739
36
35
college meeting at that point , you would then
must apply federal law .
potentially have their objectors following the
that you can ' t examine a federal question .
presidenti al e lection ; then that's the time to
means is that you must decide a federal question
disqualify a candidate?
consisten tly with federal law .
THE COURT :
MR . LALLY :
I did not make a ripeness
Preemption doesn ' t mean

What it
That ' s all it means .
Is there no concern raised
APX - 033
question , in part because I thought there was more
here about the fact that t he quintessential federal
than ample issues rendering this petition invalid
issue is immigration and nationality would be
and subject to dismissa l , but there is certainly a
decided by a state court?
question of ripeness as to whether this is the time
10
11
12
13
and place to be filing .

THE COURT :
Let me ask Mr. Bernstein if
you want to respond to anything and -MR . BERNSTEIN :
So your Honor, the first
MR. BERNSTEIN :
That ' s not a
10
quintessential federal issue .
11
federal issue , like any othe r federal issue like the
12
FELA, Federal Employer Liability Act , or innumerable
13
social security cases that the state courts have
It ' s a garden variety
14
thing we have to do is separate the different
14
decided .
15
constitutional questions .
15
certainly there's noth i ng so recondite or arcane
16
questions are not overlapping issues, and
16
17
unfortunately confounded in our adversary ' s
17
18
presentation .
18
19
non-argument because this Court ' s responsibility in
19
vs . Board of Education, the State Court of Delaware ,
20
this case is to apply federal law .
20
a chief justice cites -- a very distinguished
21
Judge -- cited the responsibility of the s tate
21
Supremacy and political
But the supremacy argument is a
The supremacy clause, as enumerable cases
I don ' t have all the examples at hand, but
THE COURT :
In terms of deciding who is a
citizen or not -MR. BERNSTEIN :
Well , your Honor, in Brown
22
have held and as I think your Honor recognizes ,
22
courts in interpreting the 14th amendment of the
23
requires all the courts of the United States ,
23
Constitution, which is as profound as you can get in
24
Federal and State, to apply federal law .
It ' s been
24
Federal Law --
25
the law since Lhe Civil War, LhaL every state court
25
(518) 285-8739
THE COURT :
Not to press the issue , but I
SJZANNE T . HARRINGTON
(518) 285-8739
38
37
guess the question is not whether it ' s profound or
Court in Manhattan, i s that they ' ve had to deal with
not , but whether it ' s a matter that falls within the
these issues .
purview of the Federal Government and --
verse , but it ' s clear enough that adoption, for
example , has been regulated in different ways at
MR . BERNSTEIN :
There ' s no doctrine that
As I said , I don ' t have chapter and
APX - 034
said that the nature of the federa l statute moves
different times by the federal immigration laws .
the state courts out of the way .
And adoption, of course , is a quintessential state
political question doctrine .
matter .
never said that there are categories of federal
questions that are too complex or difficult or
10
There ' s a separate
The Supreme Court has
federal for state courts to decide .
11
THE COURT :
Let's take this a step
applying the l aw just because o f t he federal statute
11
involved .
12
Alabama , where the Alabama court re f used to apply

the federal law concerning railroad liability .
further .
13
I have the authority to ultimatel y rule on this
13
14
question .
14
15
There will be issues-- there ' s a question
Supreme Court has never excused state courts from
10
12
Let ' s say I was to , after today, rule that
So I j ust go back to the point , the
The case I cited to your Honor in
The Supreme Court said , the State Court
15
may not refuse to decide a question of federal law
16
about whether or not it ' s common law defin i tion of
16
because it ' s a question of federal law .
17
citizen, statutory definition .
17
exactly what they said .
18
another case where the state court would interpret
18
a moment
19
the question of who is a citizen of the United
19
20
States and interpret the immigration laws , but
20
21
MR . BERNSTEIN :
I can ' t thin k of
Wel l , that's not always
THE COURT :
21
MR . BERNSTEIN :
22
THE COURT :
I want to go onto the --
I want to ask you a broader
23
cite chapter and verse , bu t I believe it ' s come up
23
24
in family law litigation, divorces, tax obligations .
24
MR . BERNSTEIN :
25
My understanding , actually from the Clerk of the
25
THE COURT :
(518) 285-8739
Let me ask you
about --
been the case .
And I can -- if you give me
That ' s okay .
22
I believe it ' s come up , and I can ' t
That ' s
question , which is that ultimately -The McKnett case .
In your brief , you go through
(518) 285- 8739
40
39
each of these different doctrines, the preemption,
the issue that Mr . Gallo retained me for, the
supremacy .
purpose of getting these issues clarified;
doctrines , but there ' s a broader concern -- a
concern I have of where this all leads .
Republican voter in New York should be able to go to
the polls knowing that they're voting for a
It doesn ' t fall within any of these
Right now you are making a challenge to a
Because every voter in New York, every
APX - 035
candidate in a primary in a particular state .
candidate who's actually eligible for candidacy of
Whether or not that challenge is successful here or
President of the United States, and not one whose
in other states -- because what happens with the
competency to be president is called into disrepute
challenge if essentially there ' s not going to be a
if he's president ;
10
11
determination of eligibility or not eligibility<

It will be a determination of eligibility
State
But to be more specific about the issue of
10
11
the different states making rulings on this
12
question, there's a very practical answer to that .
12
in this case, not eligible in this case .
13
delegates count in this state, not in this state .
13
There ' s a expedited appeal process in New York for
14
Why shouldn ' t I be concerned that if I ultimately
14
all Election Law cases .
15
were to grant this petition, it doesn ' t actually
15
The Supreme Court has demonstrated by the
16
clarify the issue or provide a road map for
16
Montana vs . u . s . Department of Commerce case that I
17
clarifying the issue for the elections, but instead
17
cited, has expedited the briefing of Election Law
18
would just create chaos?
18
cases .
19
MR . BERNSTEIN :
19
always better to read it , if I may .
Well , first of all , it
In that case they said that because -- it ' s
20
would clarify the issue because if your Honor
20
THE COURT:
21
addresses the legal issues and spelled it out one
21
MR . BERNSTEIN :
22
way or the other way, either the argument I make or
22
do a table of cases .
23
Mr . Lally makes, I ' m sure your Honor would make it
23
us today is political in the same sense that Baker
24
quite clear in a written decision, for once
24
v . Carr was
25
addressing the issues , that would absolutely clarify
25
(518) 285-8739
MS . HANCOCK :
Which page are you on?

Sorry, I didn ' t have time
Here we are .
The case before
Give him the page .
(518) 285- 8739
41
42
The case before us today
resolve the issue before votes are cast .
is political, in the same sense that Baker v . Carr
about the opposite situation , if the question is
was political .
reserved until the electors meet here in the
was to expedite briefing -- on the bottom of page
Capitol .
13 - - open quote , in view of the importance of the
moment, I ' m sure your Honor is aware there ' s no
issues and its significance in this year ' s
Electoral College in the United States .
Congressional and Presidential elections .
MR . BERNSTEIN :
And what the Supreme Court did there
Let ' s talk
I think -- if I could digress for a
The electors meet over at the State
APX - 036
There ' s no question that it is the role of
Capitol , and the legislators call that our mini
the United States Supreme Court to establish uniform
electoral college because they meet there and they
There ' s no
10
sign lists of names of electors that are Democratic
11
or Republican .
10
law on constitutional questions .
11
question in my mind .
12
rule on the merits of this case, the Appellate
12
13
process will expeditiously resolve and settle the
13
in
14
question of whether or not Senator Cruz is
14
meeting in the Sistine Chapel ready to discuss the
15
ineligible or eligible to be president of the United
15
qualifications for the leadership of the Church .
16
States .
16
But if this Court proceeds to
They don ' t consider eligibility .
There is no college of electors that meets

W~shington.
This is not the College of
Cardin~l5
These are lists of paper that come to
17
Washington in the month of December after an
18
election, and then their lists are opened and
19
counted .
20
have looked at this question of what would happen if
21
you waited until after the national election and
Because the New York State
22
then decided to look at these kinds of issues .
23
Legislature has given your Honor that responsibility
23
24
under the Election Law .
24
Donohue , it's D-o-n-o- h- u- e, that ' s in our papers .
25
Legislature has wisely said, this is the time to
25
That case was before Judge Mishler in the Eastern
17
18
THE COURT :
Why isn ' t this an issue just
to be raised in Federal Court?
19
MR . BERNSTEIN :
20
THE COURT :
I ' m sorry?
Why is this not an issue to be
21
raised in federal court?
22
MR . BERNSTEIN :
The New York State
(518) 285- 8739
That ' s all that happens .
But the courts
A very important case we cited called
(518) 285- 8739
44
43
District .
2
3
The plaintiffs, I think they were the
a president-elect , rather, on the grounds of
Independence Party, said there is so much fraud in
ineligibility .
the President Carter election in New York State ,
change the facts around .
that we should throw it out and do it over again .
Democrat becomes president-elect in November and a
Let ' s posi t for a moment , let ' s just

Let ' s posit that a
APX - 037
And the Judge said, I have the power as a
Congress with a Democratic maj ority in both houses .
Court of Equity to throw out the New York elections
Is the party going to reject the candidate, the
and have it done over again .
selected candidate of its own party on the grounds
amount of disrup tion that would cause in the
of ineligibility to be president?
presidential selection process, the Court wil l
position to do that .
refrain from exercising its power to do that .
10
THE COURT :
10
11
THE COURT:
But because of the
You don ' t think that granting
They're not in a
Well , one potential
11
argument -- and I just raise it to play Devil ' s
12
your application here wouldn ' t cause disruption in
12
advocate , is that -- just as in whether or not the
13
the presidential selection process?
13
political question doctrine applies here plus the
No , because if we had a
14
political question ; sometimes the remedy is in the
15
rapid decision that we ' re entitled to get, before
15
political process .
16
people vote -- before more people vote
16
MR . BERNSTEIN :
17
18
19
20
21
22
MR . BERNSTEIN :
The answer to the
17
political question doct ri ne is this is a legal
because obviously the nomination process is long
18
doctrine .
under way .
19
case is that in that case Congress had redistricted
the other way or raise concern in the other
20
the districts amongst different states .
direction?
21
said to Congress , you didn ' t do it right, the
22
districts aren ' t equal .
THE COURT :
Well , not before people vote,
So doesn ' t the case you just cited c J t
MR . BERNSTEIN :
Well , what that case --
The interesting thing about the Montana
And Montana
And they went to court and the case --
23
what really happens if we waited, t here would be no
23
24
remedy at al l .
24
this is the case I was talking about -- went to the
25
the electors rejecting a candidate on the grounds --
25
Supreme Court, and the argument was this is up to
I ' m unable to imagine, your Honor ,
(518) 285- 8739
(518) 285 - 8739
45
46
to determine who is a natural born citizen, so it ' s
no , it ' s a legal question of interpreting the
not a political question for that reason .
Constitution .
Congress to do the districting .
2
3
Supreme Court said
There ' s
It ' s not a question that has ever been
APX - 038
We are in the same position here .
no competency i n a legislative body to determine the
could just go a little further here on political
meaning of the qualifications for being president .
question, because I think your Honor is focusing on
In particular, there is no competency to determine
that .
the legal meaning of natural born citizen .
can pass resolutions , but it has always been the
10
function of the Courts to determine questions of
10
Congress or to the electors .
11
law .
11
commitment of it to the electoral college because
12
the Constitution does not have the words electoral

col l Pge
Congress
This , your Honor , would be asking to
12
committed to a legislative body to decide .
And if I
There ' s no , as they say, textual

commitment in the Constitution of this question to
There should be no
13
repeal Marbury v. Madison , if you were not to
11
14
adjudicate the question of law here .
Because under
14
The Constitution contemplates --as I said ,
15
the political question doctrine -- I will return to
15
the electors meet in several states, and they send a
16
your Honor ' s point -- when do the political question
16
list of votes to Washington .
17
doctrines not apply?
17
in that scenario whether someone i s qualified or
18
policy?
18
not?
19
when legal standards exist .
When there ' s no issue of
When there ' s no issue of competency , and
Who ' s going to decide
It ' s not even a political question .
19
Legal standards for addressing this
20
in it.
If the Court were to rule tha t this could
20
only be decided in the vote counting process , in the
21
question have existed for centuries , literally
21
electoral process , nobody would ever decide the
22
centuries .
22
question of whether or not a candidate was
23
Un ited States v . Wong Kim Ark others are referred to
23
qualified .
24
in Luria v . United States .
24
25
cases .
Many of them are referred to in the
We have cited these
Your Honor unquestionably has the competency

(518) 285-8739
25
Now maybe we could be more practical about

this .
In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the

(518) 285-8739
47
48
plaintiff, Miss Lindsey, came along and said, I want
THE COURT :
to be on the ballot and run for president .
MR . BERNSTEIN :
a little hard to understand, but she was 27 years
THE COURT :
old, said I belong on the ballot .
And it ' s
Well the Court
16-154?
That deals with --
No, 16 --
I understand, but the language
on eligibility --
had no difficulty in saying , you don ' t meet one of
the qual i fications .
The Supreme Court , your Honor , is vested with
should not be on the ballot .
jurisdictior. to summarily determine any question of
In that case it upheld the
law or fact arising as to any subject set forth in
decision of the Board of Election , had made that
th i s article .
THE COURT :
APX - 039
10
We can rule right now that you
determination .
10
MR . BERNSTEIN :
MR . BERNSTEIN :
It ' s 16-100 , I ' m sorry .
And one of the subjects set forth in
the article is under 6- 122 .
That was California law,
11
12
whatever California law allocated responsibilities
12
the Board of Elections process is not appropriately
13
to the Board of Elections .
13
followed,
14
of the decision was not based upon the Board of
14
authority tc rule on this question .
15
Elections .
15
MR . BERNSTEIN :
11
17
They interpreted the Constitution .

THE COURT :
16
But New York law allocates for
the Board of Elections --
18
MR . BERNSTEIN :
19
THE COURT :
20
21
But your Honor , the part
No, I don ' t agree .
So tell me why you don ' t agree
with that .
MR . BERNSTEIN :
Because Election Law
THE COURT :
So your position is even if
that the Court would stil l have the
I am not saying the Board
16
of Elections process was inappropriately followed .
17
They followed the Schwartz case and said, we can ' t
18
decide this case .
19
Election
20
is a decision that must be made by the Courts .
21
La~ ,
Our position is under the
and particularly Section 16-100 , this
THE COURT :
I just want to understand your
22
16- 100, I believe it is , gives the Court -- and I
22
reading of 16-100 is that there ' s a process in terms
23
won ' t say it verbatim, the power to determine any
23
of the Board of Elections determining eligibility .
24
question of law or fact arising out of the Election
24
Is it your
25
Law -- not 16 -- just a second .
25
going back Lo some degree , there are issues we
(518) 285-8739
~osition
that under 16- 100, the Court
(518) 285- 8739
50
49
talked about , that the Court has a l ways had some
type of inherent authority under 16-100 to make a
And this is regarding the federal jurisdictional
decision on -- any decision other than the Election
issue .
Law .
which specifically allocate the power to make the
Are there certain things allocated to the
MR . LALLY :
Sure , Judge, a couple things .
There are several places in the Constitution
APX - 040
Board of Elections , and if they ' re not appropriately
determination for qualifications and -- to the
proper for the Board of Elections , then the Court is
federal government , to the Congress , and politically
without the power to decide them?
to the bodies of the electoral college and the
MR . BERNSTEIN :
United States Congress - - first of all , Mr .
Bernstein is right , the electoral college does not
I think where your
question could be appropriately addressed would be
10
deferring to administrative procedures .
11
10
meet at one college .
administrative agency acts within its competency and
11
colleges in the state legislative Capitol .
12
makes certain decisions , those cannot always be
12
13
second guessed by the Court .
13
to -- and this goes to the ripeness issue, but if he
14
wishes to make a challenge -- if Senator Cruz is to
11
THE COURT :
When an
And your position is this is
It meets at 50 separate
I would submit if Mr . Bernstein wishes
15
not such a case , because this is not a matter that ' s
15
win New York State in this November , and the
16
within the competency of the Board of Elections?
16
electors are then going to meet here in Albany, that
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MR . BERNSTEIN :
That ' s correct .
That the
Board of Elections -- that ' s the Board ' s position .

THE COURT :
Well , let me give you -- you
have gone for a long time , Mr . Bernstein .

MR . BERNSTEIN :
I don ' t want to finish
I ' m not concl uded on the electoral college -THE COURT :
I will give you an opportunity
17
would be the time for him to make that kind of
18
challenge .
20
state court , but ought to be in federal court ,
21
because this is the more appropriate venue if he
22
wants to .
23
I ' m saying is this is clearly not the t i me or place .
24
to finish any point , but you said a lot of things .
24
25
I want to give Mr . Lally the opportunity to respond .
25
(518) 285-8739
Frankly, I would suggest it not be done in
19
And I ' m not conceding that point , what
THE COURT :
Thi s is the point in time?
The nation already voted, everyone already selected

(518) 285 - 8739
51
the president .
chaos it could result in .
raised issues about the potential
MR . LALLY :
Your Honor , the 20th amendment
52
phenomenon .
I think it ' s called a birther
phenomenon .
This phenomenon has occurred for
several presidential cycles , the eligibility for
was passed specifically for the purpose of dealing
with i ssues of presidential qualifications .
U. S . Constituti on speaks to the question of whether
hundreds of courts , and the administrative bodies
a p r esident is capabl e o f staying in office .
across the United States .
cases and these claims - - these objections are
dismissed for the reasoning that we set forth
APX - 041
Those issues have been contemplated ,

anticipated and are actually written into the
10
Constitution .
11
12
13
The
So it isn ' t the role of us here ,
president is challenged across the country .

5
It ' s legally invalid, has been ruled on by
And consistently these
10
certainly on the substantive federal question ,
prior to a party primary vote for president , to be
11
preemption doctrine , and political questions issues .
making those determinations .
12
THE COURT :
13
on standing grounds .
THE COURT :
The 20th amendment deals with
lot of these are dismissed
Also in this case there is --
14
the issue if there is a vacancy in the Office of the
14
the Election Law gives the voters standing to
15
President for some reason .
15
challenge the e ligibility of the candidate
16
issue of dealing with the appropriate time to
16
17
challenge eligibility .
17
is replete with cases where they simply say that
18
this is not -- you do not have standing to make this
18
It doesn ' t deal with the
I t isn ' t a motion that eligibility -- that
MR . LALLY :
Understood, but the case law
19
we should go through an entire electoral process ,
19
challenge to the political institutions
20
then at the end of that have a determination on the
20
determinatio~s .
21
eligibility .
21
elected, their federal functions are they ' re acting
22
problems with that .
22
in a federal capacity .
23
capital , they may cast their votes in the state ' s
24
capital , but they ' re federal officials for that
25
particular purpose and they ' re not bound - - they are
I think you could see some of the
23
MR . BERNSTEIN :
24
MR . LALLY :
25
Your Honor --
Your Honor , I understand , but
again this is not occurring in isolation , this

(518) 285-8739
And the electors , when they ' re
They may meet in the state ' s
(518) 285-8739
53
independent elected officials when they ' re selected .

And history is replete with examples cf
54
the votes of that state .
it ' s ac t ually a felony for an elector to not vote as
directed by the election in that state .
And in some of the states
APX - 042
electors being elected pledged to one candidate , who
then when they vote for another candidate -- Ronald
Reagan received an elector in 1976 although he was
States specifically controlli ng how their electors
not a candidate on the ballot for election, but the
vote, and yet those electors are supposed to stand
elector choose to vote for him .
up and say, you know what , I just realized that the
individuals .
candidate I ' m supposed to vote for can ' t be
particular presidential candidate .
president .
11
They ' re not bound to vote for any
THE COURT :
10
They ' re independent
Anything else you wish to
respond to of what Mr . Bernstein said?

MR . LALLY :
12
No, I think I have covered the
So we have virtually half of the United
10
Nhat am I going to do?

THE COURT :
We have talked about potential
11
remedies .
We ' re not dealing with a general
12
election , we ' re dealing a party primary .
Each party
13
issues, and I don ' t know if you had any other
13
is capable of having a process to evaluate
14
questions , your Honor .
14
eligibility to ensure that candidate for that
15
party ' s office is not ineligible for office , with
counsel for the Board of Elections if they have
16
all the risks that entails .
17
anything else to say .
17
18
list of questions I want to make sure they ' re all
18
process here, why i s this now the time?
19
addressed here .
19
it an issue for the party to assess the potential
20
Bernstein .
20
eligibility, and then the potential challenge could
21
be made late= on by a voter once the party has
22
nominated the person for office?
THE COURT :
15
16
21
Let me ask Mr . Bernstein and
Then I want
I have a long
Why don ' t you go ahead , Mr .
You had something else?

MR . BERNSTEIN :
My colleague at the bar
Why, if we're dealing with a primary

Why isn ' t
22
misspoke , your Honor , as to who ' s bound .
23
20 states -- we gave your Honor an appendix -- in
23
24
which the electors are bound by la w to vote for the
24
are parties that hold private caucuses in some of
25
party that they were selected by in accordance with
25
the States of the Union; in this case , Wyoming .
(518) 285-8739
There are
~he
MR . BERNSTEIN :
Here ' s the answer .
(518) 285- 8739
There
In
56
55
the majority of the states, the parties have yielded
to the states the respons i bility of running an
election , the primary election under rules set by
vote is wasted because they voted for an ineligible
the states .
candidate , isn't your argument on the back end that
there ' s no further process to address ineligibility?
The Republican party in New York State,
won ' t vote for him, thinking he's disqualified .

THE COURT :
When you say essentially their
APX - 043
were it so advised, could say we don't want our
So if they discern that there 's no ultimate remedy,
primary to be run by the state.
then it ' s only in the theoretical sense that they ' re
caucus , private caucus , and therefore we can set
voting for someone ineligible
rules as we wish .
10
We'll have a
But in New York State when they ceded
10
MR . BERNSTEIN :
THE COURT :
No , it ' s not --
So you think at some point --
11
control of the primary process to the Legislature ,
11
is there a point down the road in which there ' s a
12
the Legislature was empowered to set rules .
12
potential that the votes would be determined for a
13
its rules is, we will not let New York ' s votcr3 go
13
candidace that would be unable to serve?
14
to an election, be it primary or general, and be
14
15
offered the opportunity to vote for an ineligible
15
that potential , your Hono r .
16
candidate .
16
last eight years, if you vote for a candidate for
17
miscast and useless ballots .
17
president whose eligibility and qualifications for
18
president are called into question, and your
19
candidate is weakened in office because of
18
One of
We ' re protecting our voters from a
If I could just elaborate or that point ,
MR . BERNSTEIN :
Well certainly there is

We've seen over the
19
there ' s several interests here .
20
voter who ' s -- to stick with our case, a voter who
20
legitimacy questions repeated l y -- they are foreign
21
supports Mr . Rubio will be adversely affected if Mr .
21
born , they did not qualify under the Constitution,
22
Cruz is on the ballot yet ineligible , because
22
maybe they should step aside in favor of the
23
inevitably Mr . Rubio would have been the second
23
vicepresident .
24
choice of a Cruz voter .
24
25
adversely affected because some people will vote
For example , a
Mr . Cruz ' s voters are
(518) 285- 8739
25
I recognize, your Honor , what you're

saying , which is there's a possibility that you'll
(518) 285- 8739
57
And i f your
58
THE COURT :
So let ' s just --are there
votes for an ineligible candidate .
Honor didn ' t take that candidate off t he ballot ,
nobody migh t take them off the ballot .
MR . BERNSTEIN :
THE COURT :
MR . BERNSTEIN :
That ' s not a
good basis to make a ruling .

The Court has to apply the law as the
other points you wish to raise?

Overall , you mean?
Yes .
Well , I may be repeating
APX - 044
Legislature prepared it , wrote it and said , you have
myself slightly .
to make this decision now .
this case are the Republican voters of the State of
reasons to make the decision now .
New York who are approaching a primary April 19th of
will know thac the candidate they voted for is
this year .
10
eligible .
11
vote .
12
13
There are very good

Clarity; people
Every voter has a fundamental right to
10
The people who are interested in
Under the Election Law, this Court is very
11
wel l empowered to make the decision we ' re asking it
should be allowed to vote for ineligible candidates .
12
to make , and the decision can be quickly reviewed
I can ' t think of one .
13
throughout the Appellate process , and t hat ' s the
14
normal way these things are done .
There ' s no compelling reason why voters
In fact , I can ' t think of why Mr . Cruz
14
The point I would like to make is this .
15
doesn ' t welcome your Honor deciding this quest i on,
15
16
because if they think they ' re right about the issue ,
16
If this was a question of age -- if, for example --
17
they should welcome a decision clarifying this .
17
your Honor knows , of course , that Thomas Jefferson
16
It ' s very hard to imagine why Respondent Cruz is
18
was merely 30 years old when he wrote the
19
opposing this .
19
Declaration of Independence -- 32 , I stand
20
resolved .
20
corrected, our historian is here to my left .
21
22
23
It ' s in his interest to get it
THE COURT :
Well that ' s obviously not a
question that the Court has to address in this case .

MR . BERNSTEIN :
Of course not , but it goes
21
We could at least have a candidate with a
22
high level of capability come forward and say, I ' m
23
ready to run for president, I have had lots of
24
to-- I ' m not saying you do , but it goes to the
24
political experience , law school education,
25
significance of what we ' re doing .
25
whatever ; and steps up and says , I have got a big
(518) 285-8739
(518) 285-8739
60
59
following in my party, soundings familiar with t h is
one after
case , but I happen to be only 33 years old .
disclosed on the website on the 26th that petitions
had been accepted ---
Does anybody t hi nk that the Court should
3
4
let that go by?
qua l ified .
in New York vote for someone that ' s not qualified,
including a weekend, which made it time l y .
by law, to be president?
still your argument that the clock began to run
again?
They don ' t refrain
I understand that argument .
10
from enforcing it , even if practical problems ensue .
10
11
In the Montana case I referred to , they had to go
11
One we already addressed, which is the three day --
12
back and redo the districts after the Supreme Court
12
we don ' t have to go over this again .
13
addressed the ques t ion .
13
issue does r.ot apply to the obj ections filed .
Should the Court sit back and let voters
That means the opposite of what the Courts
APX - 045
We know that person is not
the second one was after the -- it was
do .
The Court s enforce the l aw .
There ' s nothing different
about natural born -15

16
THE COURT :
think
ME . BERNSTEIN :
THE COURT :
14
Let me just -- because I
I want to give you t he opportunity and Mr .
Actually --
It was five days later ,
Can you explain that?
MR . BERNSTEIN :
Is it
Because I ' m not sure
There are three arguments .
The three day
Tte second argument , chronologically
15
before we get to the one your Honor articulated, is
16
that a portion of Section 6-154 opens up a second
17
Lally the opportunity to close , which I think is
17
period a t the end of the filing time for
18
where you ' re headi ng .
18
certificates of designation; and it says , no
I was part way through --
19
certifi cate -- it says that "an objection can be
J ust to address any techn i cal
20
fi l ed within three days a f ter the end of the period
21
quest i ons , then you can sum up any questions I have
21
for the cancidate to file certificates of
22
for the parties .
22
designation , if no certi fica t e has been filed ," then
23
Mr . Bernstein , there was a second filing made that
23
it goes on .
24
was made five days later, I think on the 29th?
24
25
There ' s two sets of objections filed .
25
19
MR . BERNSTEIN :
20
THE COURT :
Are you still making the argument ,
(5181 285-8739
The second
That ' s in our papers .
THE COURT :
Right , but in this case I
didn ' t see the application of that , because Lhe one

(518) 285-8739
62
61
that was filed seemed to apply --
voters , as rr.uch as to the Democratic voters ; and
MR . BERNSTEIN :
therefore we f iled objections in a timely manner and
that -- those were filed after this case was fi l ed .
We filed it i n t hat time
frame .
THE COURT :
But doesn ' t the law say that
I could refile this case .
It ' s not a
it ' s three days from the time of the certificate
completely clear situation , and I don 't maintain
that the designation is filed , or i f no certificate
that it is , but I maintain that we have
is filed , then the end of the period?
substantially complied with every obligation we can ,
given what the Board of Elections has done .
MR . BERNSTEIN :
But you see the ambiguity
APX - 046
is in the comma i n the statute , and it seems to
10
modify what comes after it as much as what comes
10
11
before it .
11
12
had -- I don ' t know if you have to really reach this
12
understandir.g .
13
point .
13
before made reference to checking wi th the Board of
Your argument
14
Elections .
15
is that the statute can be read to mean three days
15
El ections , telephone them every 21 to 22 days to
16
from either the end of the period or the time of the
16
find out whether or not a cer tificate had been
17
certificate of designation is filed?
17
filed , even though they ' re putting it up on the
18
website for the other party, you know
I ' d suggest to yo ur Honor that if you
I hope you don ' t .

THE COURT :
14
I understand .
18
MR . BERNSTEIN :
19
THE COURT :
20
Precisely .
That ' s the way you read the
statute?
MR . BERNSTEIN :
22
THE COURT :
23
MR . BERNSTEIN :
Precisely .
Tell me about the third .

The third is that we
MR . BERNSTEIN :
23
That ' s the correct
I must say, your Honor , Mr . Lally
You would have to call the Board of
THE COURT :
But you acknowl edge they
could - MR . BERNSTEIN :
21
22
I just want to understand your
argument .
19
20
21
THE COURT :
-- put it up on their
website?
THE COURT :
But you acknowledge -- if I
24
relied upon the Board of Elections ' public
24
understand correctl y , your position is t hat it was
25
statements that they finally made to the Republican
25
misleading because Lhey didn ' t--
(518) 285-8739
(518) 285- 8739
63
MR . BERNSTEIN :
THE COURT :
Correct .
64
If they wished to , under the
vote .
That the most important things that
la w, they can have a situation where you have to
control this case , and which I believe the Court
call , both parties have to call --
should address are the merits , because I think it ' s
MR . BERNSTEIN :
very easy to say if a candidate -- an issue arose as
both parties , then we couldn ' t--
to whether or not a candidate for president had been
a resident of New York for 14 years or less , or
THE COURT :
Right , if they did it for
Wha t do you say to Mr . Lally ' s
APX - 047
argument that there are differences -- that the two
whether they 're really 35 or younger, that wou ld not
parties are subject to entirely different --
be at all surprising that the Court would address
MR . BERNSTEIN :
10
That has nothing to do
10
that .
11
with the public notice , that has nothing to do with
11
12
the kind of thing they file to get on the ballot ,
12
different is that natural born citizen sounds
13
but nothing to do with the public .
13
recondite, it doesn ' t sound obvious .
14
answer to that argument .
14
duration of residency or citizenship , those are
15
matters that are quintessential for the Courts to

address as legal questions .
THE COURT :
15
That ' s the
Let me keep going through and
16
make sure I have addressed all the issues that 1
16
17
wanted to .
17
18
is there anything you want to say in closing?
19
So I will ask you then, Mr . Bernstein ,
MR . BERNSTEIN :
You know, in many ways I
What superficially makes this case
But whether
They ' ve been entrusted to your Honor on
18
the federal level by Marbury v . Madison , which helps
19
us understand what a political question is not .
20
have addressed these points already, the overriding
20
They ' ve been entrusted to your Honor by the
21
factor in this case is that the voters of the
21
Legislature , 6-1 . 22 to decide and 16-100 .
22
Republican party who are exercising their final
22
would be a disservice to my clients and to the
23
right to vote need clarity when they cast their
23
Republican voters of the State of New York if your
24
votes when they go to the voting block to cast their
24
Honor were not to decide the fundamental issue in
25
voles , they know that they ' re not wasting their
25
front of you .
(518) 285-8739
(518) 285-8739
And i t
65
THE COURT :
Thank you very much , Mr .
Let me just turn to the Board of
66
state court which does not have jurisdiction to make
these determinations , and it ' s been done in
contravention of express clauses in the United
Bernstein .
Elections , because I left you out .
essentially your role in this is to take a back seat
when there are two candidates, two parties arguing .
decision-making power to other branches , not even
Is there anything else you wish to add , anything
the Judiciary .
else you wish to say in regard to this proceeding?
in progress .
APX - 048
MS . GALVIN :
THE COURT :
As I understand,
No , your Honor .
States Constitution which allocate this
This should not disrupt this election .
The candidate -- the Republican party
Mr . Lally , I will give you the
But at this point , the election is
nominee for President of the United States isn ' t
10
last word so you can close with whatever you wish,
10
11
whatever points you wish to address .
11
to be selected when the Republican party meets
12
sometime in May to actually select the delegates .
MR . LALLY :
12
13
try to keep it brief .
Thank you, your Honor .
I will
This election , we ' re in the

The horse is out
going to be selected in this election, isn ' t going
The Republican nominee for president will
13
14
middle of a presidential election .
14
be selected this summer in Cleveland when the
15
of the barn, there ' s been millions of votes cast in
15
Republican
16
the presidential primaries in the United States .
16
from all 50 states , Puerto Rico and the Virgin
17
Islands all meet to select a candidate for President

of the United States .
Senator Cruz has , at this point , won four
17
Na~ional
Convention meets when de l egates
18
of those primaries ; Alaska , Iowa , Texas and
18
19
Oklahoma , and come very, very close in several other
19
And, your Honor, with all due respect to
20
primaries .
20
this Court , the state courts of New York ought not
21
now for the Republican nomination .
21
to interfere in this process .
22
track .
23
other states, they ' ve been dismissed , they have not

interfered with the elections in any other state .
22
He ' s one of the two top contenders right
This application , this petition to this
23
Court is late .
The petitioners don ' t have standing .
24
It has been done without including necessary
24
25
parties , it ' s been done in the wrong forum, in a
25
(518) 285 - 8739
This process is on
These objections have been made in dozens of
Senator Ted Cruz is a sitting United

(518) 285 - 8739
67
States senator .
APX - 049
I appreciate -- you have done an excellent job in
States, the Senate has exclusive authority to
responding to my questions .
determine the qualifications of its members .
some sense of the timing of this so the parties know
have not seen fit to question his qualifications ,
what to expect .
and there are other bodies that have been empowered
to review the qualifications of a president-elect or
ruling on this portion of the case , which may be the
President of the United States , should that
last portion of the case or may not, depending on
situation arise .
what the ruling is on the appropriate questions and
authority of this Court to rule on this by Monday, I
Were he not a citizen of the Un ited
68
Ttey
With all due respect , the most fundamental
I just want to give
I would anticipate that I will have a
10
issues and the easiest for this Court to determine ,
10
11
the Election Law has very strict rules .
11
12
petitions here were filed nearly three weeks late .
12
out tomorrow .
13
They have a three day objection rule .
13
expediting it to that degree , but I will have a
ruling to the parties , I expect , early on Monday .
The
They blew it .
14
They didn't just blow it close, they blew it by a
14
15
mile .
15
The Election Law is to be strictly
16
~onday
morning .
I don ' t think that I'll have a decision

I know there was some interest in
I f the case continues to go forward before
16
we reach the substantive issue of natural born
17
citizen, I will set up -- or I will contact the
17
construed and applied as to objectors .
18
that yes , the ballot access should be liberally
18
parties on Monday morning to set up a briefing
19
applied .
19
schedule which I believe would lead to an oral
20
be President of the United States and clearly
20
argument again following the Friday of the same week
21
qualified to be on the ballot in November for
21
of the decision .
22
President of the United States , and I would ask this
22
23
Court to please dismiss this petition .
23
then it will be up to the Appellate courts at that
24
point to -- go ahead, Mr . Bernstein .
25
question?
24
25
The rule is
would hope
Senator Ted Cruz is clearly qualified to
THE COURT :
Thank you both .
three of you very much .
I thank all
This has been a huge help .
(518) 285- 8739
If not, and I dismiss the case , obviously
(518) 285-8739
You have a
70
69
MR . BERNSTEIN :
If I could ask the
C E R T I F I C A T I 0 N
Court ' s indulgence, i wil l be away the first half
the week , so if your Hono r we re to make oral
argument on Monday and have simultaneous briefings
Reporter for the Onified Court System, Third Judicial
submit ted on Friday, if that 1oorks for your Honor .
District of the State of New York , do hereby certify that
I attended and reported the foregoing proceedings ; that
it is a true and accurate transcript of the proceedings
therein to the best of my knowledge and ability .
THE COURT :
I will take that under
APX - 050
consideration .
I just wanted to give the parties
some sense of the timing of this .
in talking about hypotheticals .
10
MR . BERNSTEIN :
11
THE COURT :
12
schedule .
10
The reason
It's good to know your
11
12
Okay .
MR . BERNSTEIN :
13
There ' s no sense
Sure .
The reason I --
13
having looked at this issue and briefs that Mr . Cruz
14
15
has previously filed, it ' s clear that simultaneous
15
16
briefings could be helpful .
16
14
17
THE COURT :
la
under consideration .
19
to raise?
20
day .
21
I, Suzanne Harrington , an Official Court
will take those suggestions
Anything else any party needs
Thank you all very much .
Have a great
Dated : 3-14-16
1a
19
20
(Whereupon the proceedings in the
21
22
above-entitled matter were concluded for
22
23
the day.)
23
24
24
25
25
(518) 2a5-a739
{5laJ 285- 8739
G,
...
~~
iI
strunk Intervention Korman.v. Board of Elections,, Index No. 707~16

4 m1111agea
wad. Mr 2. 2018 811:16 PM

Good anen-t,
Attached plea8e find a Decision and,Older algned 11; Han. David A. W81nataln adlt8sslng yru mellen lei' 1-e
to I~ In the aiiCWe matter.
Best,
Kelll
Itlll A Demoyela
Sedew1 IDHon. Dad!. A. We!n....tn
.A.:tiDg SaptEiiht Court Jtutlu

P.0. 11m< 7344. Capital St.iti011
Alban,,"""' y Cllk 12224

P: 516.2J42.37C6
F: 518,242.S708
AeliD& Sup- Court~

P.O. llolL' 7344. <Apitol St.iti011
Albany, New Yslm4

P: 516.2J42.370$
APX - 051
Gmail- strunk Intervention- Kaman v. Board of Elections, Index No. 707-16
3/S'2016
F: 518.242.3708
Kdesnoye@nycourts.gov
Strunk Intervention in Korman v. Board of Elections - Decision and Order.3.2.16.pdf

51 0K
Christopher Strunk <suretynomore@gmail.com>

Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:11 PM
To: Kelli Desnoyers <kdesnoye@nycourts.gov>
Cc: Roger Bernstein <rbernstein@~blaw.com>, ben@eisnerassociates.com, tvalentine@elections.state.ny.us
Bee: bill vanallen <hvanallen@hvc.rr.corn>, pamelabarnett <pamelabarnett@hushmail.com>, michael
<michael@mshrimpton. co. uk>, jrtc <j rtc@optonl in e. net>, Michael Volin <m ike@wheresobamasbirthcertificate. com>,
TWEETY <TWEETY@fastmail.us>, rbpbchurch <rbpbchurch@comcast.net>, Francisco Pohole
<unpopularwisdom@gmail.com>, Dimitry Recio <deltawolf32@gmail.com>
Thank you for getting back to me so promptly.
As the court has treated me as less than a friend as was my minimal request. I will await the courts decision
based upon the outcome of the hearing tomorrow. One way or another I must exhaust my remedies to protect
my rights (under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights to assure a true un-corrupted ballot at the
April 19, 2016 election; and thus accordingly, in that I have redress available under the Hague Convention during
the present national emergency for which the court operates under, as such I must go to the next level at the
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
I am delivering proper judicial notice to all the parties herein for a hard copy hand delivered by another regarding
the following:
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL:

As a friend of this Court FYI you may be interested in some background on the "Born a Citizen" vs "natural born
Citizen" issue that I am prepared to reference in court tomorrow:
NBC and the NYS RPL sec 18 see http:l/pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/09/statute-in-new-york-state-law-defines.

html
NYS BOE Website re BAC rather than NBC see: http:l/pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/10/new-york-state-boewebsite-cover-up. html
NYS BOE bad faith fraud see: http:l/pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/10/intemet-archive-nys-boe-cover-up.html
Underlying cases:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/72199261Nan-AIIen-NOM-to-lntervene-in-Strunk-v-Paterson-NYSSC-Index-2964208-w-AFF-Exhibits-MOL-and-Amended-Summons-w-Supplement-to-the-Complaint-with-Piai
https://www.scribd.com/doc/83697963/0SC-w-Garvey-v-NYS-BOE-NYCPLR-Article-78-w-Exhibits-NYS-SC-CtyNassau-l ndex-12-002764
I am prepared to go to the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces under the present national emergency in
which the Court including Justice Weinstein is under direct authority of the Commander-in-chief to deliver
martial due process rather than civil due process; and therefor the Court is subject to the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) under the terms and conditions of occupation defined by the Hague Convention during the
APX - 052
https:l/mail.google.com/mailnui=2&ik=a479fd9275&view= pt&secrch=sent&th= 153388ab291bfa77&si ml= 153388ab291bfa77&si ml= 153392c17e30b94f&siml=15...
215
3/S'2016
emergency occupation, that requires that no law may be arbitrarily changed without proper due process-eg
natural born Citizen to Born a citizen.
The requirement to use the requirements of NBC rather than the 14th amendment and or Naturalization statutes
for Born a Citizen" to proceed, is covered under the Hague convention during the present national emergency
and or otherwise be seen as part of a collusive action under bad faith and fraud requiring equity review.
Also of note is that the Appellate Second Division on March 4, 2014 (81st anniversary of the inauguration of FDR)
four judge panel found it was unable to provide " for Civilian due process of Law" see attached rather than
martial due process required under the ongoing national emergency declared by the POTUS Commander-in-chief
with respect to 12 USC 95a: 50 USC App. Sb
[Quoted text hidden]
http://associationforsovereignhomerulewithin.org/i ndex. html

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
315 Flatbush Avenue- #102 Brooklyn NY 11217
suretynomore@gmail.com 718-414-3760
mcHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK as POTUS will Retum the REPUBLIC to We the
People who are only those pre-1933" Private National Citizens of the
United States of America ... Versus ... The EMPIRE of 12 USC 95 with 50 USC App.
5(b) under the Executive Order 2040 time of war or emergency using the
SURETY INDENTURE SERF to pay the Debt for the Creditor.
2 attachments
tj
NYS Appellate Panel denial of civil due process of law.pdf

56K
fj
Strunk Intervention in Korman v. Board ... ctions- Decision and Order.3.2.16.pdf

989K

To: policy@donaldtrump.com, sforbes@forbes.com
Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:51 PM
2 attachments
fj
NYS Appellate Panel denial of civil due process of law.pdf

56K
fj
Strunk Intervention in Korman v. Board .. ctions - Decision and Order.3.2.16.pdf

989K
APX - 053
315
3/S'2016

To: bill vanallen <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com>
Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:46 PM
Han. David A. Weinstein

P.O. Box 7344, Capitol Station
JUDICIAL NOTICE in regards to BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO VS NYS BOARD OF ELEITION and RAFAEL
EDWARD {"TED"} CRUZ NYSSC Albany Index No.: 0707-2916
I am a party-in-interest to the use of EL 6-122 in defense ofthe enforcement of the letter and intent of the Legislature in
the April 19, 2016 and General Election of November 8, 2016.
There is one active case on appeal that effects this case herein in which I am a party in Strunk v Paterson 10459-2014 with
Motions in the Second Appellate Division with an order for Expedited Calendar Advancement to the Attorney General see
attached.
http://associationforsovereignhomerulewithin.org/i ndex. html

315 Flatbush Avenue- #102 Brooklyn NY 11217
suretynomore@gmail.com 718-414-3760
mcHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK as POlUS will Return the REPUBLIC to We the
People who are only those pre-1933" Private National Citizens of the
United States of America ... Versus ... The EMPIRE of 12 USC 95 with 50 USC App.
5(b) under the Executive Order 2040 time of war or emergency using the
SURETY INDENTURE SERF to pay the Debt for the Creditor.
APX - 054
415
3/S'2016
Strunk Intervention in Korman v. Board of Elections - Decision and Order.3.2.16.pdf

51 0K
APX - 055
&5
Bruce A. Hidley
Albany County Clerk
County Courthouse, Room 128
16 Eagle Street
Albany, NY 12207-1077
Phone: (518) 487-5100 Fax: (518) 487-5 099
Email: www.albanycounty.com/clerk
Receipt
Receipt
Da~e :
03/11/2016 03 : 08 : 57 PM
RECEIPT # 20160031197
Recording Clerk : SP
Cash Drawe r : COUNTERl
Rec ' d Frm : KORMAN & GALLO VS NYS BOE
707 - 16
Docket for Case# : 707-16
DOC : NOTICE OF APPEAL
Recordi:1g Fees
$65.00
DOCUMENT TOTAL: ---->
$65 . 00
Rece~pt
Summary
TOTAL RECEIPT :
---->
$65 . 00
TOTAL
---->
$65 . 00
---->
$0 . 00
RECEIV~D :
CASH BACK :
PAYMENTS
Check # 2032 ->
$65 . 00
NATIONAL BORN CITIZEN PARTY
APX - 056
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF ALBANY
Index No.: 0707-2016
----x
RJl No.: 01-16-120014
BARRYKORMANand~L~GALLO
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Petitioners,
-againstNEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
Respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------lll
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris in propria persona, the
beneficiary agent for Public US Citizen CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK hereby appeals to the
Appellate Division ofthe Supreme Cou:rtofthe State ofNew York, Third Judicial Department, from each
and every part ofthe decision denying the motion to intervene (attached}, ofthe New York State Supreme
Court for the County of Albany All Purposes Term of David A. Weinstein, A.J.S.C., dated March 2, 2016
and entered by the Clerk of the Court hereby.
Dated:
March~
Re~~ffi Uy sub:ttOO~ ~
2016
Brooklyn, New York
C
er Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris Beneficiary Agent for
Public US Citizen CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
c/o 315 FJatbush Avenue, PMB 102
Brooklyn New York Zipcode excepted [11217]
Ph: 718-414-3 760 Email: suretynomore@gmail.com
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
Attached: Decision and Order, Preliminary Appellant Statement

Cc:

Lally & Mjsir, LLP

Marco Rubio
P.O. Box 558701
APX - 057
STATE OF NEW YORK

SUPREME COURT
COUNTY OF ALBANY
BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO,

Petitioners,
DECISION AND ORDER
Index No.:
707-16
RllNo.:
01-16-120014
-againstNEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS and

Respondents.
(Supreme Court, Albany County All Purpose Term)
APPEARANCES:
Christopher Earl Strunk
Movant Pro Se
315 Flatbush A venue, PMB 102
Brooklyn, New York 11217
David A. Weinstein, J.:
This proceeding was commenced under the New York Election Law by petitioners Barry
Korman and William Gallo on February 22, 2016. Petitioners seek an order directing the New
York State Board of Elections not to designate Senator Rafael Edward ("Ted") Cruz as a
candidate for president of the United States on the ballot for the Republican primary election to
take place on April 19, 2016, on the grow1d that he is not a "natural born citizen," and therefore
unable to meet the constitutional qualifications for the presidency. By Amended Verified
Petition dated February 26, petitioners added Senator Cruz as a respondent. Briefing has been
scheduled on various procedural matters, and a hearing is to take place before the Court on
March 3 at 2:30p.m.
Movant prose Christopher Earl Strunk now seeks leave to intervene in this matter,
claiming among other things that he is a registered voter and enrolled member of the Republican
party, as well as "Executor for the Express Deed in Trust to the United States of America, duly
recorded by the Superior Court of Georgia on April 29, 2014 ... with the duty, inter alia, to
certify any candidate seeking the Office of POTUS" (Aff. in Supp. ~ 7). By joining this
proceeding as a party, he further seeks the opportunity to challenge the eligibility not only of
Senator Cruz, but also of Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal to compete in the
APX - 058
Republican primary 1 (see id.
1 16).
As an initial matter, Mr. Strunk - who has been a frequent visitor to the Courthouse on
matters related to particular individuals' eligibility for the presidency - is barred by order of
Justice Arthur Schack of Kings County Supreme Court from suing the Board of Elections
without ''prior approval of the appropriate ... Judge'' (see Strunk v New York State Bd. of
Elections, 35 Mise 3d 1208[A] [Sup Ct, Kings Cty 2012]) . It appears from his papers that
Stnmk believes that a law clerk's request that he make this application in writing meets this
requirement. lt does not. No judge has granted him the requisite leave. But 1 need not delve into
this issue, since I fmd that the motion must be denied in any case.
Strunk cites CPLR 7802(d) as the basis for his motion. That provision concerns Article
78 proceedings, while the present petition was filed w1der the Election Law, and is therefore
governed by the CPLR (see Matter of Fink v Salerno, 105 AD2d 489, 490 [3d Dept 1984], lv
dismissed 63 NY2d 907[1984] [applying CPLR 1013 to Election Law intervention motion]).
Intervention is, in any event, not warranted under either standard.

For one thing, CPLR 1014 requires that a party seeking intervention submit a proposed
pleading. None is included with the present motion. That omission. alone, requires that the
motion be denied (see Matter ofZehnder v State ofNe..,v York, 266 AD2d 224 [2d Dept 1999]).
Further, in determining whether to permit intervention in the exercise of the Court's discretion, I
must consider whether or not intervention would ..unduly delay'' the proceeding. That is
certainly the case here, where one stated purpose of the proposed intervention is to bring in
additional parties, who would then need to appear and make their own submissions and
arguments. Undoubtedly, the parties to this case would also raise procedural challenges to
Strunk's participation, as there is no indication in his papers that he has filed any objections with
the Board of Elections to the candidates he would challenge. This would significantly hamper
the ability of the court system to address the petition in advance of the looming primary date.
Nor would granting the motion be of any apparent benefit to the Court's consideration of
this matter. To the extent movant seeks to intervene as a registered Republican Party voter, that
interest is already represented among petitioners. To the extent he wishes to challenge other
candidates, there is no reason to fold such issues into this proceeding.
Governor Jindal, who is no longer seeking the Republican nomination, is not among
those listed as having submitted candidate petitions on the New York Board of Elections website
{see http://www.elections.ny.gov:8080/reports/rwservlet?cmdkey=whofUed).
APX - 059
Accordingly, the motion to intervene is hereby denied. Mr. Strunk is cautioned that any
further filings by him in this case without prior leave and adequate legal basis will result in the
imposition of costs or other sanction.
In light of petitioner' s prose status, this Decision & Order is being transmitted to counsel
for petitioners for filing and service. A copy thereof shall be provided to all parties, and to
movant, via electronic mail.
Dated: Albany, New York
March 2, 2016
David A. Weinstein
Distribution List:
535 5th A venue, 35th Floor
40 North Pearl Street, 51h Floor
Lally & Misir, LLP
APX - 060
PRE-CALENDAR STATEMENT
State of New York
Supreme Court -Appellate Division
Third Judicial Department
1. Case Title:
Set forth the full case title as it appears on the order or judgment appealed from. If there are
more than two case titles, please use Case Title Addendum .
State of New York
Supreme Court
Court
Coun~of
Albany
BARRY KORMAN and WILLIAM GALLO
County Index No.:

RJI No.:
Date of
Commencement:
-against-
0707-2016
01-16-120014
23 February 2016
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,

2. Parties Involved:
Set forth the full names of the original parties and any change in parties. If you need more
space for parties, please use Additional Parties Addendum .
Party Name
(e.g., John Doe)
New York State Board of Elections
RAFAEL EDWARD ("TED") CRUZ
Revised: January 2014
Original Status
(e.g., Defendant)
Petitioners
Respondent
Respondent
Petitioner Intervener
APX - 061
Appellate Status
(e.g., Appellant)
Appellee
Appellee
Appellee
Appellant
3. Counsel for Appellant(s}:

Set forth the name, address, e-mail address, telephone number and facsimi le telephone
number of counsel for appellant(s). If you need more space for counsel for appellant(s),
please use Counsel for Appellant(s) Addendum .
1
Christopher Ear. Strunk in esse Sui juris in propria persona
Name
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue PMB 102 Brooklyn NY 11217
Address
E-mail address
Ph 718-414-3760 Email suretynomore@gmail.com
Telephone
Fax
4. Counsel for Respondent(s) and Counsel for Other Parties:

Set forth the name, address, e-mail address, telephone number and facsimile telephone
number of counsel for respondent(s) and for each other party. If you need more space for
counsel for respondent(s) or counsel for other parties, please use Counsel for Respondent(s)
or Other Parties Addendum .
Name
Address
Roger J. Bernstein, Esq. Attorney for Petitioners 535 Fifth Avenue, 35th Floor New York, New York 10017 Tel: (212) 748-480(
Fax: 646 964 6633 reerAsteiA@rjelew.eeffl
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS Brian L. Quail, Esq. and Kimberly Galvin, Esq. 40 North Pearl Street, 5th Floor
Albany, New York 12207 518-474-6220
Cruz for President Grant Nl. Lally, Esq. Lally & MISir, LLP 220 Old
E-mail address
Telephone
Fax
APX - 062
country Roaa Mineola, New York 11501
5. Court, Judge and County:

Ide ntify the court, judge or justice, and the county from which the appeal is taken.
the New York State Supreme Court for the County of Albany All Purposes
Term of Davia A We i-nstein, z:. J S C ,
6. Nature and Object of Action or Proceeding:
Concisely set forth the nature and object of the underlying action or proceeding.
Strunk should have been granted permission to intervene under CPLR 7802 (d) as a necessary party because the NYS B~ illegally
chnaged the eligibility requirements for a candidate running of the office of POTUS and not raised by Petitioners
That Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz along with Bobby Jindal must be barred from the Republican Primary Ballot for each at
best is o1lly a 11atUJ alized "bo11 1a Citize11" 110l a "11alUJ al b01 11 Citizel !" acco1 dil 19 to Sods' 11a!UJ al lavo a1 1d tl le defil 1ilio1 1s
mandated to be used by Congress at the US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 reference mandated use of The Law of Nations
7. Appellate lssue(s):
Set forth a clear and concise statement of the issue(s) to be raised on the appeal, the grounds
for reversal or modification to be advanced and the specific relief sought on the appeal. If you
need more space to state appellate issue(s), please use Appellate Issues Addendum .
That actual fraud per se by NYS BOE bipartisan collusion added to their claim that they have no discretion to bar ballot access as to
eligibility per se is outside of the statutory law thereby requires equity review and relief as time is of the essence with irreparable harm
8. Additional Information:
Please set forth any information you deem relevant to the determination of whether the matter
is appropriate for a Civil Appeals Settlement Program (CASP) conference. If you need more
space to state appellate issue(s), please use Additional Information Addendum .
APX - 063
9. Other Related Matters:

Indicate if there is another related action or proceeding , identifying and briefly describing
same.
Appeal 2014 10459 2nd Appellant Division active awaiting a calendar for oral argument in the matter of H Van Allen
Intervention as of right denied in the Case 29642-2008 in Kings County Supreme Strunk v Paterson
regarding
NYS BOE illegal changing POTUS candidate qualifications from Natiural Citizen to Born a Citizen
Submitted
b:~
s~-~-
Signature
Print Name:
Attorney for:
CH-7 ttS' '16J1.fuvl tAt(.L cfr,t.,lfA..Yc

lr-l
Date:
fJLo I'J;L! A t1rnSO/...JA
f\1 !ttf,.C t-1
tr,
>
~'/?
10. Attachments
Check
1. Copy of order or judgment appealed from
---
2. Copy of opinion or decision.
)(
attached
does not exist
3. Copy of notice of appeal or order granting leave to appeal.

....[
'1 "l
t .
"
Attach copies, not or ,g, ..:..::.
attached
File this original form with attachments when original notice of appeal is filed in the office where the
judgment or order of court of original instance is entered.
A copy of this document must be served upon all counsel and pro se parties.
The Civil Appeals Settlement Program (CASP) functions independently of the appeals function
of the Appellate Division, Third Department with the intent to assist the parties in
pragmatically resolving their disputes by agreement. The progress of and communications in
matters in CASP are not shared with the Court as part of the appeal and play no role in the
Court's resolution of an appeal. The communications and opinions expressed at a CASP
conference are considered confidential and may not be communicated to the Court as part of
the merits of an appeal. The consideration of an appellate matter by CASP does not excuse
compliance with any Appellate Division, Third Department rule concerning the timely
perfection of the appeal.
APX - 064
.._.....;.

COUNTY OF ALBANY
Index No.: 0707-2016

RJI No.: 01-16-120014
--------------------------------------X
Hon. David A Weinstein, AJSC
Petitioners,
-against-
AFFIDAVJT OF SERVICE

Respondents.
----------------------------------------x
STATEOFNEWYORK )
tAb;~
} ss
COUNTY OF DTITCQFSS)
I, Harold William Van Allen, a1Tmn under penalty of perj ury that:
am over 21 years of age and not a party to this action.
1.
That I
2.
My place for service is at 351 North Road Hurley New York 12443.
3.
On March 11 , 20 16, Christopher Earl Strunk provided me with bjs Notice of Appeal with Decision & Order and
Preliminary Appeal Statement signed March 11 , 20 16, for service upon tbe P etitioners and Respondents by the United
States Postal Service (USPS) delivery.
4.
On March I I, 2016, Affinnant placed a bound copy of the subject motion papers in an envelope addressed to each
recipient with proper postage for delivery by the USPS with tracking (attached) upon:

Lally & Misir, LI .P


P.O. Box 558701

Marco Rubio
Grant M. L ally, Esq.
Subscribed and Sworn to before me

On this~ day of March 2016
' l i William Van Allen
~fh.-~?'A
~ary
Pubhc ,
j
OOAEEN MEYER
Not1ry Public, State of NeW York
No. 01ME6287439
Qualified in Ulster County
My Commission Expires Aug. 12, 2017
APX - 065
Service List:
Tel: (212) 748-4800
Fax: (646) 964-6633
rbernstein@rjblaw.com
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS
Attn: Executive Directors, Todd Valentine and Robert A. Brehm
Suite 5
40 North Pearl Street
Albany New York 12207
518-474-6220
Cruz for President
P.O. Box 25376
Houston, TX 77265
Marco Rubio
P.O. Box 558701
P.O.BOX 5101
BATON ROUGE, LA 70821
APX - 066

COUNTY OF ALBANY
Index No.: 0707-2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
:
:
:
Petitioners,
:
:
-against: AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
:
:
NOTICE OF MOTION for
:
Respondents.
:
CPLR 7802(d) -Intervention
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Citizen" eligibility for office of POTUS rather than merely being a naturalized "born a Citizen"
as presently used as the fraudulent instruction in bad-faith that is contrary to the letter and intent
of Election Law 6-122 and related requirements; and
4. In that the Petitioners have relied wrongly upon such fraud, have objected only to Ted
Cruz's ballot access (see Exhibit 2 without exhibits), must be afforded an opportunity along with
those members of the Republican Party as a class also having objected to Marco Rubio as well as
Ted Cruz who are both ineligible with Bobby Jindal to the Office of POTUS (see Exhibit 3),and
5. As such Marco Rubio, along with Bobby Jindal with non citizen parents must be barred
from the Republican Primary Ballot for each at best is only a naturalized "born a Citizen" not a
STATE OF NEW YORK )

} ss
COUNTY OF KINGS )
"natural born Citizen" according to Gods' natural law and that Ted Cruz may not even be a
I, Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris (Strunk), the beneficiary agent for Public US Citizen
naturalized US Citizen at all as required of being born within the United States of Citizen parents
from whom each would inherit citizenship status as a matter of blood not by the law of men; and
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK (STRUNK) swear under penalty of perjury that:
6. That Respondents ultra vires acts violate the International Covenant of Civil and
1. STRUNK is duly registered to vote and enrolled as a member of the Republican Party as
a party in interest to the Republican Primary for choosing Candidates for President of the United
Political Rights, related law and Legislative intent that must be sanctioned under equity review.
7. That Strunk is the Executor for the Express Deed in Trust to the United States of
States (POTUS) on April 19, 2016,

2. On February 25, 2016, in compliance with the April 11, 2012 Order of Arthur M. Schack
JSC (see Exhibit 1), Strunk sought permission to apply as an intervener under CPLR 7802 (d)
and related law from Edward Shapiro, Esq., the Law Clerk to the Hon. David A Weinstein
America, duly recorded by the Superior Court of Georgia on April 29, 2014 at 11:20 PM at BPA
Book 32 Pages 719 thru 734 (see Exhibit 4), with the duty, inter alia, to certify any candidate
seeking the Office of POTUS;
8. Therein Exhibit 4 expresses in keeping with God's natural law, not the law of men, that
AJSC, subject to CPLR rules and who granted permission to appear to petition the Court on
Tuesday March 1, 2016 at 10 AM at the Courthouse at 16 Eagle Street Albany New York.
3. That Strunk seeks relief from CPLR 7803 (1)(2)(3)(4) damage caused by Respondents
am seeking a declaratory judgment with mandamus of the Respondents to adhere to the US
Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 mandate that any POTUS candidate meet "natural-born
on July 4, 1776 with the Declaration of Independence the founders, beforehand being the
subjects of the King, were thereby naturalized to be Citizens of the new republic in adoption of
Greco Roman principles of governance, as expressed in the international publication entitled The
Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel published in 1758, and released themselves and their Posterity
forever from the surety indentures to the King and or any person(s); and
9. Therein Exhibit 4 expresses that with the New York Ratification of the US Constitution
on July 26 1788 the People of New York demanded governance only by those who are natural
therefore, this prima facie evidence by operation of law proves that Ted Cruz was born wholly a
Citizen of Canada and Subject of the Queen- is not a US Citizen at birth and or by any US law.
born Citizens - not those who were merely naturalized.
15. That on or about May 14, 2014 the Minister with authority certified that "RAFAEL
10. That The Law of Nations publication based upon the 1758 volume was used to draft the
Declaration of Independence starting in 1775
(1)
, is the primary reference source used by the
EDWARD CRUZ" formally renounced Canadian citizenship and pursuant to the Citizenship Act
ceased to be a citizen (see Exhibit 6); and with such evidence shown as Exhibit 5, thereby
Framers starting in 1787 during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and New York
proves that Ted Cruz had been a Canadian citizen at birth until renunciation, was and is not a US
and is the mandated authority in the US Constitution at Article 1 Section 8 for the duties of
Citizen unless he has since been properly naturalized by the US Secretary of State, and would
Congress to use as shown by use of the proper noun "The Law of Nations".
mean he is not even a citizen and has fraudulently been posing as a Public elected official in the
11. The 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment like the Declaration of Independence is a
United States just like the present defacto POTUS Indonesian usurper being protected by the
agents of the Central Intelligence Agency along with the actual covert German
naturalization enactment to make foreign resident aliens naturalized citizens.

12. That without the statutory benefit of the 14th Amendment ratification Marco Rubio,
Bobby Jindal just like Wong Kim Ark would merely be resident foreign aliens subject to the
plenary authority of Congressional statutes for naturalization.
DeutscherVerteidigiungsDienst intelligence organization (2) gumming up the works since 1945.

16. This relief has not been requested, that time is of the essence and poses irreparable harm.
WHEREFORE, not to belabor the point, Strunk prays of the Court for an order granting
intervention as an essential party in interest herein, and a further order
13. That Ted Cruz was never able to use the benefit of the naturalization process associated
with the enactment of the 14th Amendment, and in fact may be an illegal alien unless he were to
any POTUS candidate meet "natural-born Citizen" eligibility for office of POTUS rather than
submit proof that he has met the requirements of naturalization under the plenary authority of
merely being a naturalized "born a Citizen" and find that Respondents present use of "Born a
Congressional statutes for naturalization.
Citizen" is a fraudulent instruction in bad-faith that is contrary to the letter and intent of
14. That Ted Cruz's Mother and Father were both Canadian citizens and subjects of the
Queen of Great Britain and the Commonwealth because the Canadian voting records show that
both were registered to vote in Canada before and after Ted Cruz was born (see Exhibit 5); and
Benjamin Franklin letter--- On December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattels editor, C.G.F.
Dumas, I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us
in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law
of Nations. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly,
that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who
are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their
author. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0172
That Respondents adhere to the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 mandate that
Election Law 6-122 and related requirements under Article 12 and elsewhere.
x
That the Petitioners have relied wrongly upon such fraud, are afforded an opportunity along
with those members of the Republican Party as a class that also objected to Marco Rubio as
well as Ted Cruz who are both ineligible along with Bobby Jindal to the Office of POTUS
According to the lifetime intelligence work of my British associate Barrister Michael Shrimpton
whose book Spyhunter: The Secret History of German Intelligence (2014) and also available as an
ebook version exposure of the actual covert German DeutscherVerteidigiungsDienst intelligence
organisation in existence since 1945.
2
APX - 067

COUNTY OF ALBANY
Index No.: 0707-2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
:
:
:
Petitioners,
:
:
:
:
:
Respondents.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit 1
APX - 068
Auy for Pcu:r Peterson

NYNY
John ll Oiler, "-"!-
MotSIIall Bcil. F~..q.
WiUJe Fon ~ li11111\gll<r Ll.l'
McGui"' Woods, l.LP
l\uy for Gcotl:le Soros
Auy for rhe Brl.t.?:inskis:
NYNY
NYNY
1\rthw M. '-><lwc~. J .
Thomas J. Gony. Esq.

Harris ll<nch. PLLC Any for Presidcnl Obama.
VP Biden Otxlma ror America
Olxuna Vicrory Fund, Nnncy Pelosi
Md Pettny Pritt.Jcer
Uniondale NY
If the cumpluint in thl ~ ncti\111 \WS a 111(1\' it "3CrifJ1, h would be c-ntfllt'd 7"hrJ Mun.chur,un
I ,mJid"'" \ 1,<1> lhr I"Ju Vttct C~~<lr. f>rn >< plaomiO flh< ll<>lbC ~fllcpre>cn lnli>es lOili-."
BOUlNER. fumoto JJou,.,ofRepre!>:olallve> ~pc:.l.cr NANCY PELOSI. Ol'"""'ur ANDRE"\\
CUOMO. Ali""'Y <;mend I!RIC
DanielS. Reich. Esq.
Rabinowit7. Boudin. Sllllldard. Krinsky & l.ieberman. PC

Atty for 1hc: Soc.::inlist Workers and Roger Calero
NYNY
SCJ INiliDI;RMAN. Comp4n>llcrTIIOMAS 01 NAPOI I the Nt;W YORKS II\ I L llOAIID 01

ELECTIONS. billlt1no11c> PE rER VETF.RSPN. WNNY PRITKim. OJOKGF SORIJS nnd 11>
New Yotk Sta.Jt political ~ies.. Thlrtcct'\ m''jufl"'f ~ pendins bu(ucc. thl'" ( tlVri
Rotn C. Tobin. Esq.

C:oplin and Orysd;ole
Plniuu fi'STRliNK'~ t:OnlflluiniiS ll ramb1tll&, f~Jny fh< p:i.:: \'W'UIIiun (>n "hinhcr"
Any for John McCain Ill

~ oontmnl.ng
ISU prulix pllf'UgUpl'l.... in at limes n .stream Qf "ons.:iousnt:-5$. Plaintifl's crntn.l

1.dlcgution is 1h.d dc=fendnnt'> President OBAMA and Sq]a1or McCAIN, des-pile not bcin~ oatuttll
bont" citi?.en.~ of the tlniu.:d Stutes AC\.-arclln!l. 11 plnintilf~ in1aprt_hstimt of Anic:lt II. Scx:tion 1.
t "'1CIBuse5 ol the U.S. Cott.\titution. cru~agrd wfl1t thca.ui;:t.uncc ufot.ncr dt:fl"'lda.nlS ih an
c:QOilSi'\'e ca,nsplCbC)'.OQ bchatr uf the Rvman clhul1' Chu,f\.:h to dc:froud lhc Am~..-ncan f>OOI' Ic
a00tt5lllp control of lhc Prt$1dt'nc:) tn 2008 Mo.q I' f'L:untilT ~"'TRUNK's c.rmpluint 1& ll h:ngt.lw
vitnolic. ba:.<ll'$$ diatribe- uJ;Jiir~Jt1 d~fcndo.inl'i. but mmt ~.-sptd;dly eg;unst tbt Vntic:UJ, the Rom m
C.at11oJ1e Churdt. otnd punl"-uhuly lht Soci....oty cf Jc:su..: (llteJe:wlt Order).
NYNY
Thomas W. Kirby. l:.sq.

Wiley Rein. LLP
Ally for John A. Bohner
l'l.alt11itrS'rRllNK Alh:ges ...C\IC'n CQI~ or octlon hrtuch Of'iUltC CQMIJtuuonal iidut.:l.&ty dul)' b)'
1hc N~W YOilK S r 1\Tii BOA ll D Of fiUlCllOI\'S and p<ohli< ollie<r J<fc-..Janls; dcmul of
C!({U:&I f'R)lCC-tron fiH \'OIC"I (.'XflOO'lU.Iiml n( :l Ct'tl'l"tCI btlllol: cknio.l O( 'u~ti\'t: do"C process (or
voter CXJ)IXUIIUJII of !l COnftl bJIIOt: intcrfe~nce with the right 1011 re:rublitw! form of
~t.t't'C..111111C.'Ill b} Ihe 1\~t Jc:suit deti.!Jhl~nts 11ml det~t:.nr F.A 0. SCIIWAK.Z. JR., "'' ho "ere oll
ntcwbcn uf the New York Cll,)' C~tmp.t1.~t feniUICC" B<mrd: irul!rfCnmc:t" "'i1h rtiJ&intit1' ctcctlon
(llillCh1$t!; ij sctw:-mt: '" Ucfm.ult rhaimirr tlf lt ~m.abh: e'tpt.:t:.LIItlun f'lsu~ceuNI pwrttCIJXUIOUID
ihc ~uiTrnge (W'W:tss.; and. "-Chdne h_y 1111 tlefcndanr.s (r'lr U!lJUSI enrkhrnt:nl
llntntirfn.-qm.-st!\ "dlu.mtor)' ludwnem und u prt!flm.nary injunttlon .a.plll:.'i:t dcf~,.-ndanls.
Ultlu~lug; <IUOIOIII~ di<: Nl IV YORKs f'A m BOARD OP bf.E.CnoNh from JliiUiiiG
P'n:$Jdi:nlial a mdhJat,t:;> on 1h.= 1;(-tl$lll'(r 2,()12 uqlc.s.o. thl.1) provide: pf"UV(of diyib,lh)., J)UrsiJlln' t
Artic;lr.o_ II, Section I, ClauseS of the U. S. Constiunlon; on:lcri.ng 1.bm1his elir:,ibiJity ccttiticatioQ
be !iUbmiU.:d IU the C"oun fi>r proof$( 4..'UmpliAn~ rujomir~ the Jesuihr frmn mtcriCring_ with tro.
.:.012 tJicctiun3', unJcung c:cproi1t.'\l dtlti,:O'"ct)' ltt dth~rnuuc Un~ !iCUpc: ufWuu11~ca. IIC!gctl to 00
ffijlrt th,oo $.12hillhul; tllld~ ,,rckrin~ ajwy trinl for n-unhi\e trtble J.n.ll\Oi;.o.
V'ariou~ tkfencLUIL"- or g.roup.'4 nf \ltfcndllms, 1111 n.p~nl< h)' OOUit.~l pre.\l.:nl clC'\c:n molimt'i.
todiS;JniS.S:.tud f..\t.c rnutiutt tltiJuul llU uUumcy pr11 J~ vic.* fot this th."tiun. I be t:h:VC'n
fDdlvidWiJ d...fcndtl1lts or gte.1.1p5 of dt:fc~~nb i~ m chnll!llO:I;,icnJ ofJJt:r 11( nting their 1nution:.
'" disnm:s: defcnd:Ulb l'rcsideru BARAC K OBAMA. Vi r~ollcnl JOSWIIBIDI1N. OI!AMA
I'Oit 1\MPRICA and 1hc OIIAMA VIC"WK V 1'11Nl>; d<f<noiM" MCCAIN VICTORY 200~.
\1CCAINPAliN VICTORY 200K und Smtlor J()IIN MC"C"AIN: dcfcndllm MARK
l.IIVI:.l.fi'<SKI nnd IAN BRJ'.bZJN~K I: dcfendllnl Kcpi\:>CuiOtlvc NI\Nt'V l<l I OSI: dcfcndillll
<iEORGEiSOROS; dcfcodiUlt> "Ill SOCIALIST WORKCRS PAR fY w1~ ROO~R oAt.hRO.

d<fl"11<lanl Sp<akor JOliN BOEJ INE~ dclondanl 7.1GNIEW DRZE71NSKl, Jefcn.l.nc- ~Oli o.:
JOSEPB ,\. O"H AHh. SJ- l"ulbcr JOSePH P. I'ARKE.S. SJ. 11nd FRFJ)t-:H I< ._ .\ 0 .
SCHWARZ. JR.: dcfcnduut I'ENNY PRITZKITR; .tnd dcfcndtun PETI:R G PP.TERSFN I he
dcvc:.n motions o djsmi!'S as$CO: pl11mliff SlRUNK ltti.!b 'w.ndlng: pl,mti(l'")(f(UNI\. [o,!l~ tr,
stute:. c(ajm UJXlD wiucb n:lic(I:Wl bl: tmnlcd; pauu\litl S I RUNK (1llbUO pl~ fnu.w.l "i1h
.. c:titoppellfom
particuhuity: 1he: acuon h.ti'holoU51 p111fn1irT'S I'RliNK i~ bllm:d hy cnllaU"r.\1
f!UJ'PoUin.g thi!t a.!'tion: und. the t~1un lac._$ bolh persnnnl and subj~.:c~ mn.ttc:r jun1Chc;lu.m in UUs
_ll.1i on~
1h~: nmliotl cu a.J.mh ~'-WM:l Pf"" ;,.,. t VI\.T fr1r the in~tMt ll4;.tion, bj cnutt.M:l itr ~fc.ndrulb
\I('(' AIN VlCfnR \' 200~. M("f"AINI'AliN VI('lORY lOOM un.l Stnnlvr JOliN MCCAIN.
(Ill' rodd fi l'hilliJ'IS, 1 ~ 11111CII\~r in ll,tlOdSW.A\lio~ (l("""lh 1hc: Ca.lif1'fOIH .md l)tstriC1 n(
rntumbia hUB. is f&nlllh:,J
SlrrmA "'/1(1/t.'r'Mm. iii ul.., lnJa Nt1.lq6A:UO~. on the gtOutlll'i ~~r wllulcmJ estoppel. fullun.o fu j\,itt
~
pMtlts cUlJ lud\a.
Tht ch:vrn mmion.s co disntiss nre aU gr.:antcc.l uod plaintifTSTRUNK'lMr.:un et~nl pbtitn i.i
dimtr.std with PtTJUtfice. IIi~ clear thin phlintlrTSlfUJNK~ llt(k.;..sumding.; (nits"' snue a cb"uu
upon "'luch tclitf~" be ,l,.'ltlnlcd: fnll!e h) plc.ud tmud with I)O.~ iculnn ty~ und. i~ bourcd by
coli.J.tk.-rul ~ioppel. Alsu.thu<~ C'oun 1u.c1.... ~ubject maucr Jun.sdictiln tutd ptr~onAJ Jttrisdl...bon
''''a m.ost ifl\\)1 lilt, Jc(l'n.JaiU!J,
Funhcnnort', plrnntiiTSTRUNKJt in..,.cont ncti\m i~ (rivolou!i. ;\5 will he expl~in((). plnitlllfT
S I RUNK.a~l lc:ges basc-lt"fis cb5ims. obout dd~11t.lwtt5 whic.nnro fauciful, filnla>1ic. delu:ctiuna.l n1KI
frrahQru.\1, his o '"11514' ofjudicial fQOUl'\X.) fl.tr 1lu: t'oun If' .sp:.nd time Pn \he insli:U11 uc:rion
M<l"-"'',. ll\e C<owt "1iloondu.:1u herui ng 10 ~,. pl>inliffSTRtlNK a ltOS<lnol>l< OJlll<lflunll)
In be heard, pllnunntco 22NYC'RR f10l . l. ~ lO\\hcthcror Ol)tthc: C.t)UR.shtmld U\\rfU\1 CQ:\.1~
nnd!or tmpw.o: SIJUctimt,. upon plinlifTSTRUNK for hb: fnn,Juw' culkluel. At UK' IM:J~tring.wl
'lf'POn\1011)' ,~yj)l b-,:. iVcn In wunScl (i'r d.:.f1.-rultU1~ lv p~nl lft:f:.~.ilt:IJ 1\."C\f\1)
hy th~,..; ,. clltnt.s in the inMutu 3Ction.
or C4.t$b lntUrrt~.>
I hcrctUrc .. phwdJJrSl RlfNk. wllo IS ltu' o 1tm11~t1 IIJ tJK: \.'UUT1huu5\.!S u( Nc'' Yurl. 15 dlJUU,._.d
from C:tlfl111lC'l'lntg l'uluro litigation m lh .... NC\\ v.t(k. ~tate: I '"if\N (\!Lin Sy~fet"'l a~ln$1: 1ht.
NbW V() ~ K STAT!, BOARD 0~ llLEC TIONS,JAMeS A. WI\ I SHI C~CIIaor l lOII\oLAS
'' KI!II.NI!R/C.,CIIair. llVEI YN J AQI III.A
CoonniS!>J,,fll.:r, c'lR.fOOR'" v
rmnn~.sC>Ntc ~~"nn'l..._....,~\~~~er-. lArut.Y Oto:cll)r ll Jno n

VAl hNIINF ~~nd llq>UI.)IIlin."\JWSII\NLY .lALEN;ANil~llW CI I()~IC).I:RIC
SC"HNiliDIZRMAN. n IUMAS P I)INI\J'OI.I nd Rl m I NOEMl COLON, ln their f!Ricinl 101d

ondivl~11111 co.podty. lt<lhct JOSI'.I'II A ; )'1(1\RI. sJ Folh<t JOSIPI I P YARKI''>. ~J.;
fREDERICK A. 0 . SC:liWARL JR.; Pl!TllR G. PCfcRSr.N. 7JllGNIJ'i W KAIMI.hlU
BRLI:.ZINSKJ; MARK llllZEZINSKJ; JOSEI'I I R. Ill DEN. JR.: JlARAC.. tl. 01!1\Mil,
l-IANCY rEI.OSI; lh< DF.OMCRAl lC STATF. COMMrnt=:l! OF TilE ~"TATE Of NEW
YORK; lh< SrATI!COMMiil"Ff!UPTIU7 WORK!Nti l'AMIUI!.S PARlY 0~ NhW YOI<~
STATli; 110\oER CALERO. tl>< SOCIA UST WORK~RS PARTY: IAN J. flRZGl.INSKI:
JOliN S IDNEY MCCAIN Ill: JOHI< ,\. BUhiiNIR; the NEW YORI: S rA1., R t. PIJlli.ICI\~
SIATFC<IMMI ITbf~lh<NEW YORI' SrAI t CI)MMITil'.E Of 1111' INDl:.l1 hNIJbN<"I
PAK fV,;h< 'll\fb COMM11"1"1Zf: OF Tllr t 'ONSI(R.Vi\TIVE PARTY OF NI-\1 Y()RK
Sl i1 ll); l'liNNY S. I<RJ17J(R: Or:.OROl SOilOS; 0/IAMA YOR AAIEJUCA; </llAMA
1'/t TORr f UN/); Mit AIN VK7"0RY :ZIHI/1: 01/d IffY ",1/N-/'A/JN Vlr'IDRI" 1/H~'I: wi<hout
pnHr rtpprn..-111 oftJ1c 'l,ppi'Oprinlc Admin odtativ~: Ju.hcc ur Judr.:
Funtwr. phaittliff S f It liNk. cnw.-tl"'"es 110 <'Onsohd.llt the l ll'iUutl 1\Cliun Wlth a )lmilw- hln.ber"'
IICHun fill:d by him.$.1n#rl vi'/Jh'f\11/J t!t ul ludell Nu. 29642108. io 1hto: KIQijS (1lUH1y~l~il
Flcctiwl l'an, t-..Jf;~ Jlbtle: n.wld Schmidt. MW1)' f\( lhi! dufi!OO:uU!oppo...c
tcon'iOhdatitlfl
bcatll.)c.Stnmk vPo~trwm 1'1 rll.lnd~.\ Nt'. 19ft-t2/0it ttodt3posed c.uc.
rtw. ~r('l\5-rtu"lti4~n Co cao~li"lttle til's actiJ)I\ \\'l1h .\'mmk 1' ruun"'" ~~ u/, l!ldex. Nn 21.,1>(1.1.2/tUt tt
.J.t:rucd. fl<lfcndisnll wh' Qp~~ J11ahl1H 1s c.nm~motiuu.,l\' oom,'C.I Justiec Schmidt \St~pc!C,t ul
fJhatutifrS11tlJNK. f)lc"iuusly t.'\Jffiml."fli:..:JJ simiJur ..ction.s in fht. l lnlltd $1\t~ Oi,lrict ( 1.urt ri
lh&: t-.usti!'Ol 1)~1rklc~f'le\\ Yofl. and ll\isC"o~ the Su)'lf~mot.Counu l
APX - 069
Nru~
the Suue of New York. Kings Count). In Strunk~ J'V~w )'ork Stall! Baurd of/:.'Jcctum, t!l aL,
lnde. No. 08-CV4289 (US DiMCt. EDI'IY. Oct. 28,2008. Ross.J.), theCoun dismissed the
11ction because of pla.inUfrs l:tck of ~tanding, failure 10 swre a claim and frivolousness. In that
action. plruntifTSTRUNK oeeused the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF EI.ECTIONS of
"mi$itpplicution and misadminislration of stale law in preparution for lhc November 4. 2008
PrcsidentW GeocmJ Election" by. among olher things. in 1 51 of1he <.'Omplaint. of*fui l~ to
obtain and !l."'C'nnin that Barmck HIJ.SSCin Obama i$ B oaturnJ citizen. olhcr'\\ise contmry to
L'nited Sttues Con.sthution Anicle 2 Second I Cluuse 5 (sicj"' and demanded '"Oefendnnls ore to
provide proof that Bamlcl. llussein Obama is a natuml born citizen and if not 1\i.s electoi"S ~to
be striclen from the ballot (sic)." Judge Ross, :u JXll.'" 6 of her de<ision. held "the coun finds th31
portions ofpJajntifl's aOidavil rise to lhc le\''CI of the irrational'" and. in footnote 6. Judge Ross
cilt-d two prior 2008 F.as1em Oistric:t cases filed by plaintiff STRUNK in which "the court has
detcnnincd that pon:ions of plnin1irrs complaint$ have contained a11egations thttt have risen 10 the
irration:tl."
My Kings County S1,1preme Court colleogue. Justice Schmidt. in Slru11k '' Pa1~rson. fl al. lndcx
No. 29642/08, asci!OO above, disposed oftha1muer, on MiliCh 14. 2011. by denying all of
plaintiffs motions and noting that the .suuute oflimitations cxpin:d to join
l'el0>1, Jolrn Sidn~ McComlll; John A ll,l<hntr; llilhtty t linton:
Richonl Durb.n!U\d othw>~. licj

n~en. tn, 28 ofthc<omplaint, pl:linJIO"SIII.UN,_alk~ 11\Jt Pn:.,t.Jcul OUAMA '.-.r Jus
llt,ttnt(!}a" J).:Ui urthO:!iChcnlC IQ tkfntud placed lm ifni~'(: nffftmailrm Ct.-rtilic-.Ui<m ofl.i\i~ liinh
" i~COUJJ unlhCI Jnta~~
nnd IU u primu rude filet u.rons. the
lla\\ll.il i.ssbw.l tOLIJ dt\!.~ bot pN\it nmural t>oru chU..msh.1p urbir1h m Hzt\'lili~ onl) -alomz
/firm dc'L1umcru V.'ilUid [sic.l"
Plau1dfl's WIQbrcd vut c:oru;pintcy lmplic:ucs dt,7.e:~ of PQlltic;aJ nnd adig~ou.' figufi-"""5, iiS we: IIIIi
tlk: :mos f1lt"'idCT~I i.a' cundidalo from bcl lh major partiQ,. with nv~"t'Vu. t:absu.rd aJicgaJion.:...
1 hey r:mgc from dllin\ing thdt :10 .19WlciBtt: urI he lnr_ge hm lirm ofKirt.:laud tt:nd tJhs.. I..LI'
ITL1MCm\lnJtd the CU11$pimc)' lJeeUU.'iC !!he: WWIC' iS lOW n:Vit'W Jrtide oboUI. tbCt U. S.
('Oll~'litulion's muunal bona C:tli7t.."n n."rqUt.n:mcnt fOt tbc office uftrc~l(fCnt 10 the a~ion lhui
l!llttJtf j_!~; a~e"'o'C'.n1h ttnlut} A.D. inveolinn of the Vatican furt.her, phsintill'S'ffi.UNK nllcg,cs, ill "
129 ofrhc \!omplaint. Ul#t he:
necessary parties Preside-nt OBAMA and Senmor MCCArN. Further. Justice Sclumdt
denit.'<l plrtintiff an oj)p()rtunil,y tO file affidavit~ of SL"TVice mmc pro lutte and to umend the
complainL
rllcrL pl .ain~iffS"I RUNK. eight days later. on M11rch 22. 2011 . commenced the
~o id ab
illSUlnl action by filing the in.'i'IMI "crificd complaint. Pln.intifTSTRUNK's romplaint recites
numerous bascle::..,;; nJicgation..-. nbout President OBAMA. These allegations nre familiar 10 anyone
wbo follows the binher" mo"cme-nt: President OBAMA is not a "natunllborn" citizen of the
Uni1cd Stnt.cs; lhc l)rcsld(.-nl is a mdical Muslim; the President's I lnwaiian Certificate of Live
Birth does not prove lh.at he was born in llowu.ii: and. J>rcsident OBAMA is aetually a citizen of
Indonesia, the United Kingdom. Kenya, or all of the abo''"- For example. Plain tifT STRUNK
ollcgC>. in, 24 oftbe comploint.that Pt<Sidcnt OBAMA:
is n Madrasah uJined rodical Sunni Muslim by birth right proctices
inil.io - o..serious probltfnl fstcj
oomrluinJ WM\<d Lbe U\,.c:ru-Jnn.tl trut- but: iffdev.mtl'ttc.t into plwnt.ifrs ntmblin~ ~tram 11)
t.lO~cmu~.
Vke l'tl..--sldcm BrDN lnC\\ thiU P~idc:m OllAMA was "not ditD"'hlc tn nm far president
bcctu."Uh-c i~ nota 1\murniBoru Citt1cn v. 1th 11 8rttlsh Subj~c' F1n~r with 1.1. ~tudent 'Yi~a
h11wcv,-r in furthTIIllCe ofCFR !Council "" Furei!!H l<loli<MIIul"ign policy inltiath..,. in 1M
ml~_.,._,t >opportell Sucbh tp..,.idenl 0 131\MA1.. o MU<Iim (.<icJ."
Sharioh law ... with tbe fulllnowledge and blessing ofDcfcndMI>:

rC"tcr G. l)ctcrson: Zbignit:w Bro:zinski; his sons Mark and lun; Penny
AIM'. PlatnairT STRUNK di:r;c~ in th~ complaint, th~nScMtor ORAMA ...
S. Pritzkcr, George Soros: Jesuits Pothers: Joseph P. O'lllltC. Joseph

Apnl 2.0ct8 "''l-->1Jt1050rship oJ'$c:nn(e Rt~tutlot\ 51 I Th!SresQI\ed urmnunoU."ity tt\ul ~u~tfll(lr
MCCAIN. IJotn in 19J6 i.n Pan:un~ \\rhil c his rather wns on ar:tlvt duty tn the Unit~ Stftl~
~.IV)' ut t.:clCo S.C.In Ntavul Afr Station. i!ict tuuural hom citl-ten or the- Unil~o.-<1 Stat~. rhis
P. l,arkes: Brennan Center Exccuti\'t Fnxleriek A. 0 . Schwan. Jr.:
n:.501Ulinn puiiiJ n:SI qucsttoos about Senator MCCAIN'S cli~ribllity tt run fin President
Ho,,c,"ef, rlalruiO'STRUNK 11Jit-ges. in ~ 43 uf &he comp!aiuL thlll ~cn1te Rc.\OiuUun 511 a~
portofthc:schem~ to d.:tr:uul"' tuld Ito. fru ud upon C'on~uand the Pplt" of thc$Cwrul Mat~
nod t-ni1orie. eootrary 1t1 the fn<u." l"ben. ~lainti!TSTRVI"K. i.o f 4-1 urlhoc.mpirunt. clte
Scunt~ Rcsohtlion ~1 J's te.x1 ns eviclcrM."C that Prcs.idd\t OBAM1' conuc<.ft:!. LMI tbt: definition ol
rutCumt born chit.f'11~hip for l'l"'$1drnt ~quit~ hath pJUt!lltil. ortt (.-:indicLm: he U.S. chi?.enS ul
birth. FUJ1J'"' tJ1c """'PIIlim
anJ Sew\ olt to lnttmatiun~d
Monettu~
t-und .:CinditJ~lNifily v. ith 1\'JSOJ (lr
the dullar reserve cum:t.IC'y Stltl\1.~. wtd cuilapse ufOiC II'Yillg ~ndttnb ol
ulloges lh:U JOI IN MCCAIN .uld ROGER CALERO, pr<Sid.:ntilcdi~at< ol the SOCIALIST
WORKI RS PARTY. \\ere Ohio incftgilll<. liketb<nSenaur ()fiAMA. lor l'resldc'lll beenus< ol
lhc:ir roilurc tOttUlllify under i.hc UlthrmJ tJUtnl'ih/.01 fl:qUirt nt~nl til
l'lmtill"SfRVNK.ln IJQ nfthc comphtlol, ullcg1.-. that Jcf<nclruu OEORGI.i
riA!tltl0'> 11<6N inJury, m 1 ~ 7 \)I lhc~>lnplaln~ h "(tJhl "" N'"''mhcr ~.11}()8, l'llutllf."' H
vic1im oJ the i4::hcme h:t dcti'lnKI. vol.e\1 fnr thctlccto~ n..~n1iug
Md:tlln , no1 ttiJUu1tl
bom 11$. citixco 1-unhc:r, -i n ~ 49 ufthc '-'OO'IJllaint, a., pan of lhc: scheme todcfntod. PlauuiO
Vtted for c~lndidnlll' Mt(uln. despite tbi: \ract Ihell his ~ife i1 n n~ ck\otod (ontnn Co.t.huJiC'
who.5c: twu som. Y.crott.h..ct!ll.'CI b) Jesuit pric::~~~b.." PloinJifTnJicgC't. in 4J Sl oflhc compl41nt.,. tha\
Scnamr MCC.:AIN, WitS hom in Colon I fospiln.l. Colon.l,anama. Whlcb Y.'ISS not in the PUMma
C.utal/..onc. 1 urt11cr. ptnlntiff nll\!J:."t'S.. in ..- 51 ttfl~ compluinl, thn' ut:rordinu m ttk:-Novc:rnber
18, I<l(l) llny-Bunnu Vwillo Trtoly. b) ,..hicb the Voilll<l Sidles obtained the Cao11l/vne.
Sttt:IJOI r..1CeAIN isoot-a narurnl--bon\ cilih.""n.
ofl:.gypt .. We e:moot IUry,c:r lh111 the Jesuits in Cairo tn::1t<d 1hc MusJim Brotbcrhood '" 192",
th< ,.,..,. yc:ur the Or~cr c""ncd Opm D<!t in Spain (Slc]." FUJ1J..,r. plointl!fSlRUNK. in 1 145 nl
the oomplaint.Ues<> lhol 'O<Ii:nclanb Prit.zlccr~nd 5.Jo hoYI: roanagcJ o cru.:icll role for the
Vntknn Statt u.~a memberofthe-CFR and high lt:\el F~Utnry ttnd in oonjuoctioo with ..:.Jug
Juan CJrl~ ~the King cf Jerusalem) ICI cnoutc glolx:tl rtQiorwlismlh:llliUkllltlC$ n.uional
"'"'l.!IO\'erci~l)' ufthc USA und the l'cftplc ofNtw Yur\ :s:wtc to the lfetrimcut \JI'plll.mllh 1u1d
thnst< simiJll.Tiy -Sll'W\.I:d lsfoV
l'l;tlntin'S fRUNK.. in his fin:d twenty ~cs uf1JI~ compll:,iltl. All~o 1h11.1 the m~ive
oonsptrll\-")' to dcfmud Am~:riron \'()teN \.."U ~f'P':IIUlcd b) ln111~f\.'tts ufiudi.,.nlunls. ollhe bche->4
ofU1 Roman Ctbolic Church11!ld e.~~Uy tho Jo;ull$, "ilh dl 11m orb<illllif~~ul the
Apocal>'l"" thtu"gh the dtstru<tioo oftl)e AI Aqsa MO"'l"~
plomiiiTSTRUNK: lacks \1allding; faii..U to 51nl< a claim up<lo wiuch relt~f c:un h< grllnled: faik:d
(I I rlt.-&.1 (rauJ \vill1 pwrticuterity; and, l$ b.:uwd by co11ateml i:)t(lpptl. Fortht.", t,ktJi..-ndanls at\K
in Jeru.sal~mnnd tt'H: re--building u ni!'A Jew~h Ten1plt: un thm sue. Amon~ tht> C4llilies li1Jt1
l'lcunurf~'l'RliNK lruplu:ot-:, tn Ius aiJ ~~t..*d vn"J''m~l' o.re: 1hc \1as1im 6mthurh()()f..l.
1hat dle Cour1 I~CU both ptTSOnal and su bjl mntiC'f jurisdictioo and the- imttmt c-:~mplainl1.s
frihih)U$ l'fnmtifT. in rc!ipc>n~. filtXI M ~ffidttvh in npptlS-ition to the mmions to di~niss ond
""'"t:d tO con!ill.llid!Jic the instant wion with Strunk~ f'uut'-'Un, 111 ul. tudcx'Nu. 29642/08.
lhc CurlylcUmup; 1he t'l-1{; Hn11ibunnn ~irk lmW nnd Ellis,ll?; ftOd. thr: Hrem1:u1 (~nh:r Mr
Justice ul NYU. ftlfe!'AIIhlplr. in Ql ufaJtc: t't1111plaim. p1D.uuiO"STR.UN..:: \"lUI~
El~en dtftnd;ln'3 or grou~ nfckofcnd:nt~ lik.-d
On
Aug:uo~;L ~ ~Ot 1. I held pru) a.rg.um~u on
mntlon.s to di~mil!oS. ctfUing Utllt
the ~ru '"illl l'U...,fJtct to~ lhn1tot:D tn.!o1MI
mt>ti""". At the he&ring. plolntilTS1 RLINK ngNtd whh the t...,un """ P""i<k:n1 OBAMA, wit'>
lht' .ft'ICBfit' uf hi~ lonsform JWwtulun binh certifiCill.C,. WU!- boro
in I lunolult,_ liuWill1 (tr. p l3 I Ho""'"' pwintilTSTRUNK. ul tr, 1'1' 30 J I. UfllU'<~

lluu a "t1JllWUI born cnil:ot.: cligJbk 1u nm tor P1esidcnr ol tbc UniteJ .Sttuc:s. pursuam lo Anu:tr
J1, Section I, Cl111,111C' 5 ufth.: t r.s. Cu~ilutioll. oc:an.tthat ooLunly lhc: ca.rtdiWue ts n~tuml helm~
hut both of the can..fiilill:e'5 Jt.l.rtn ~ lite natutaJ bom.
.mtt ,'AJ.ious Suu=s' Curuaitutions tbtU ~tllrtrng 110 htter tMn January lf)Oc
TI1e follnwln~ txthnngc- t11
.!iUUg.httn ll.'iOfTllhC. cxeculhc: brunch ur guvcnmtent usiug Burack
1~ onllllrgUn1r-nts took place. 111 1r
llu.~m
Mil. Sl ll\fN)(M)' lllfUI). I vota.l lbr Mcl"llln
undc.r j~lnt cnmm;md and cnnuot. tu f1rt'CI!Jd(! AU)" other CMII1 ten~r in
APX - 070
p. 34, line:!$ f'
MR. STRUNK:Shc is !he lurgest di<tributor ofBudwci,.,r.
filE COUll hi thm an injury?

MR.
STRIJN~ :My
llil:: COURT:I know lh31. That docSil't tnal<e h<r o Ollholic
injury i he did 001 challt:ngc Mr Ohruna
necessarily.
MR. STRUNK:It's lhc connc:ction tbmoouniS. Yourdon'l get
I liE COURT: You're ..yi.ng h.:Sho\Jld h1ve d"'lh:n~aJ Mr
tho:ie COI1JJt.t:tions.
Mtl STR.LINK:Absolutel). ond <he bill lor. The onW< IS on me
Tt IE COURT:.
b-.UJ~ be viohlh.!d his aa;rc~:menl \Yith
I don't care.
'-.Wt\f'n,
mc: You cun't clutUtngc tlu: cl.iglhility ulltll he$ up tu he:
I don't know if !he Busch frunily IJ Oltholic
Mc.Cttin. sin~ CWf') body in Con~ si:ncc tho)
MR. STRUNK:Tha1's big business.

H I COURT:Thafs big bu<incss><lling hecr . . l.ct's put
Anheu..ser-Busdt to the side.

fill' COUR'I :t <aw yuur IcHor lblll )Oll fired lhc Prcsidcm.
You said she's n Catholic n.nd you get into this \\hole riff or rant.
\\hauwer you wan110 call it. aboutlhe Catholic ChutCh nnd FatherO'IInre.
A diS<:ulOrit!n <n5ucd ._, ICIIKI" pluin(oO' STRUNK all<'j!tslhat P=idenl OBAMA
the Varico.n. You go on and on ahoUllhe Vatican . . but it StCnt$ to me
i> o Muslim ltr.. pp, 16 381. lltc rollowing colloquy roo~ pl~~t< nt tr,. p, 37, litl<l> I 8:
you bO\'C this thoory tbat everylhing i$ a conspiracy :md i1 always falls
IIIli t'OUR'J :llmv,"'O.Jd you come. to IJic Clnclusiun lb111 he's

back to Rome.
MR. STRUNK:Th:u' a mJlller of public record.
Tt IE COURT:Oh. okay.
whnt the tesumnny ufindt\idual~ ~hu wtrc in thes.s with hhn :dlow
MR. STRUNK:What the key is horc. Ms. McCain is on <he
n.. lollo"in& p<rtt<>ns o(lhe O.o:llWlgc. ot tr. p. 39.1inc 9- p. 43.llnc 8 tkmU<ISl<UlL.. lhc
tnutional nnri-Clllholie bin.< or ~l inti!T:)Il!UNK;
Boord of Directors ror a Jcsull run sthool where her childn."tt are going to
1111: COURl Wtuu I find fitsetnllllng. lil$t n( oil you "'id
scbool.
TI 11:: COURT:Could very well be. t don't know.
MR. STRUNK:.. . In fact. iltuflbOUI in the dbco..,c-ryofthe
connec1ion to the Jesuits h was so compelling thol when I s1aned really
Cindy McCain
digg.ang in1o lk boclt.ground ofthi,;-schc:mc ardetroW~ fl'uttin~ up 1"~'1 '1 'f

Ma:~hurinn GU\t:Udllh!$ at I)~ whi~ Vt\JUM tulc ~Wl.U.i.Jtb~ or N~
YQrt.. Stu:tc:,.~euknt:tim our l~'' whkh n:qtjU"elJ bo"'-~- We ~"quh~ h
C<~e. to m.tlJI;c SQUI-C' tnlc:~wg: urJ:&Un1C'J1L th.ul"S 4 work of ficlinn. At taut
1-wv~ OOncsly Wld ditln'l &;~i!t n.
1think it's a \\-of\, of f.clio11-
'I I lE COURTYour c;ase is more 11rc Du J1n<l CINI.
MR. S'J RUNK 1'M-.Afuftcfmrflm Cundidm~ WBS no~ -a Wt,itk 01
fiction. The ~or1. I didn't v.anllO t,>et inln Ihis al\."3,

4
n fE COURT:Wilh aU due rusp~.--c:t to Juhn fran)icnhem1Cr
rt fI! <.'OURT:Lcl''~ ndt t:;cl into 311o.lpgics..l urtderstaml )'~
v,h.ich 11M not bt.'Cntklne.

~~~~
SIKIINK: I11ould1
till
l'UliR I :WiO fronk. nm ll<ntcl.
n IE COIJRT:Oluty.lhru'< your argument.

Swndmd rhr 11 mminlliO dismis.~
"When dclcrmmio a motion to dismiss, tire Nun m.u.rt aco:p1lhc: tucu us a.Jkyed m the.
complainlld ~ BCco111 plahujlf.s the l"'cncf1.1 of t."\'ef')' ~"'ible: (ti\'CrrMI\! toftl1.:nt'c., nntl
tiJttrtnitW mJiy whc1her '"e fitcu W< ulli!fettljlt wilhin t~ny co~nr;~1hlr lt1tulll"{)f)' (-\Ct Anlul'
lnd45.. lttc Hturemem Ftw.J ,. Brmnr, Huyx"uur, .\ll/.,t&.in.. Fl'ldt-r cf: .~C!inl'r. tJ6 NY~ 300. )O;
(ZOO II; /.eon 1 .lfurtiorc, R4 'IY2d !11. R7-RR [ 19941) (Emplto.fi<udrldj ." l &ol<iiJ!~!!..!.
MR. STRUNK:Frunkcnbeomer'l
TilE COURT: l'IG:! movie.
MR. SlKUN.KJ v;'US aW'.u~ or the: rtHJ\'Ie-iltitlnl ~rn, but ~.
AftttuiNlrtun I ll!; h r.a n, ~. 57fl...S71 1200SIJ.

(306 AD'ld 449. 4SI[2d D<t112o03J),In,1ru<ted rhl:
rt IF t:OI IR I :Olut), forget II
Futt.her.lh ~
f'UJ'Sunnt tn ('r1t..R J2l l (ul (7), ''thcsnte criterion is \\hetber tbc

MR. STRIJNK:TI~e Q""'n of Oimnooo.t N~"
)OU-. bmu~hr
..
plcadiug st~h.:s a l'Uuse oroction. and if f~t~m il$ fttur con.e,., rtK:uml
nil I l)liR'I :You lllCilliot,.,,J lite \fouH'Imrlmr ( 'mll.ktl< Ill<)
APX - 071
Cowt..m \/()rrJs
~ ~lorr11
PluintiO'STRVNK U.Cb sau:ndh1~ ,;ue 'io.si.Otc t..-oun. h~l\'ltllt suffered nt1lnjury "StW1l1ing to
sue i! critic.ltl In dlC pi'D(h!r fun~,.'lionin, oftbe judic:iuJ s>'stc.m (t Is o t.htc5hold iJSUC, lf ~IGlklJng 1\
deni<.'tl, lht pmh\WY 10 the: COUJ'tbou)IQ ts- hlocl.:cd. '11~ pi::.Inti!Twho hili !IIWlding.. bO\Oit"\l~.o"t. ltUi;
em~ the l.hrcsb\td und :.'Ck judir:i;ll rud~"!ii - (Stlrtitf;gtl Cmml\1 t 'hambt:r ifCommut:e. /m:. v
Parul;i, 100 Nv:!d 801 81212110JJ, n'rl tlmat/540 US IUI7120()3j). l'mfcs."'r J)avi<l Sicgpl, in
NY f'r.oc. J 1>6. ut1J2 [4<lr<IJ
Or u{Hrooll)n&QuOI/o,21JADM
l 93fl000f~
liulro'''" hun!
IJ11rl11 >' olln<Uli'i. llO AOld 764(21100]), (E.'mf1/ru.ru llolil..o/1

For~ plaimitrro survive n motionlu dismi.~Jhr fnifu.-., tt1 Sllltc: u c:su~ of ~ion. the fat:tuul
nUegaJiQi\$1n t.he ~luim ~Rot ~ ""fm.rcly conciU:tOry and .speculative in no1.nut" and no1
11
~Upporlt.od ~ M) .spa."ific. fzl.:t5. (J..'tMtft Ids fur a A!IJI't 8t.uJilifiJ Puf'/ Wut:hirq;ton, Inc l'
IJ0ttmh 1/cnt/tdrtN/, li.l /\Old 727, 129 (2d Dept 1989)), '"The 3llc.gtttions in tbl: \.'"00\plainl
t:UlllOI be V"'!U< and oonciU><>t}." (.~l<>twJ!v Gllhotmt, 248 i\02d S25 l!d Dept l'l'>!r), tlflfl
1(''"
Juw/,oJ91 ~Y2d 844 (11198), "" J,,.(.,lby Sln/umdfv Nr,. llHA lim<'>. S25 US QSJfl<l<l8Jl
t_.,Prc.rll , . ~fun uo:hlu~ ltJ .\lui_ 1.1/rt ll#t. { u 30_.:\UJ J .. i'.tJ2d lA~ l()()(,). ltti~-~ }.iil):.IJ..
tld ~,.
lU a '"jun~ltl l in!l.l tH.STn ~.
f'.
the OJI.U1-\ hl.l\1!-JUriStltCdlltl ,n.l)
n\-cr contrO\'fflJcr. f2):. pl1lintiff round'"' II.Wk '"<nding" l.s nol
(.~!.'
~7 AO_hl~
jurisdiction of the case when Sllth b plninrtfTpurporlb> to bring it.
oactUAiullcgatlllns !Uinum!lv Vtrmu ~tJmlllt.lm. , 207 AD2d 6VIIId Dcp4 11194): ~lurk
' . Hutplom lne. dhrgrr<n,I73Al)M:!Ztlfl0 Dept I<I<II)!,"(Gou,lc vl"IIIJI'IcrtJ<J,. fi,...
/n, Co, &Mi:!C Jd 102J)AJ.ooliSupC~ N"""'u C<tunty 1005]), Ill< oii.'Jir tl1uJ lite facualle~t.-d
oy ptuimiiTSTR\mK do ntll 1111n10 uny ""l'lli"'bl< I<I!JIIIheury.
PbuotiffSl'RtiNK'S complninl i~ more oro )XlhtiCDI m:~ni(~(l dwno vcnfit.:d pteuding. $;nlita.t
low<UiiS cb"ll""ging lbe oligib1Ut)l of l'n:sideut 013/\MA Wld Scn..oor MCCAIN far !he
pn:slderwy h:i..'il'd upun pl11intin~ inc."QITC-ct interprt-l!lhon <1f d1e u..-rm ..oaturul born CitiJ:eO" io
Arude ft. Section J. C'btu..-,e 5 of the U.S. Conslitution ha\c been dismiS:ied A.-1 lllnntteruflav.
(&c /Nukr Vlwmo, bM r Jdn4)91b Cir2011J: &tml'lt vObumu. 200'l WU8bi?~S Jl!S
0<1 Cl. CD CA 1009); lkrg Obumu, S1~ F SuP!' 2d 509IIID Pa 2008f,ulfd S86 fld 2.l4(3d
t:r 20091; N.Wfrtfitm 11 Bowen. Sb1 F Sup(! 2IJ l14..J (~I) Cat 2UClM1~ llnllnmltf' \' Ht:CtiJJt, 566 f;
Supp 2d 63 ID Nl1 2008j).
apphCt.li,m of t.he Con.'iHuliun W1d lows. and ieeku1g relief Uud nu more tfin.'Ctly und tnngJ'bly
hem tits him than il~ tl1iL" rYUblic al lar,sc-iJ()Q nol ~IteM 1\rth:l.c Ill~ or \."UnlWVm)'.
(Lujan v D<fonller. oJWi/JJif- 504 us !>SS, sn ftWZfi n,..,, pn\1ltetiti""" who does not
1d1(lW any sp..'tial rights or inlcrtSt5 in thi: maucr i:n controvmy, ollkt than m,~_se ccul.rn.on 1.0 uU
li.1Xp3Yt'J$llnd citizen$, h;l" no !11.Unding 10 sue. ~.. tlttt \ ( .,,.,11\ '' Wt'.Vcl~< da l
Affid ~H. 534 f2d D<pt1W41~ (.<,, /)w /ql'h &~'!.lum/DluJJIJ.J!tlliH..Ch!Ji.tlj~
6lllsl..9.t.l.. 65~ l,:!d lkpt20001; f "t'' trlrj.l.e_rtl!ll1"(l uf .Xw_nt PtJmt r
11; .\,Jum Pqlnt. 2
~~. 658 f1d D<pt 2006j). PlalnliiT~IRliNK' complaint ollcg"" oothio~ muno than noojusticinhlc abstracao.~nd lhto~tical chtirru... '1hetefott. t.l.tc il'lW~nt ClltnpJ.:tfnl, litiUn~ t.o ~ale UJJ)
z-,,.,
ulll'l!fllion ol panitulan/xd l"jury. i!>di~nli~ with rf':Judlcc. IS/hff 11 /'t.IUJI:I "' SJij:
Muhomot.v v Purukl oJ Sll.
A1U11llllivc:ly,
..
phnniHfS rRUNl\:'$t.."'mp1ultU HIWI.t be dismi~d l''r his hulurt' 10 JR:Ur: .1 cause:
:acuon.. 111eCoun is under no ubli~tioo ' u tn:~cplu ltUt' plairuitl'sc:utuplnmt.. rut I urlcwll
cood\.ISiOO$ 11nJ. b!Jid llSSCI1ions doo.l:o.l ut fuel\. tRtclfln!J~<l!-t!vA (to It ''''" U QJS 11~
.!tl.:.. lfl8(2d Orpt !OOS]).As norN ~:~txn-e.in Mrll"fl,, v .MtN"rl,tut <151 , ..bot..: l c~ rum.llL"iof'l.\tl,tC"
nut cmhlcJ to lht- brnclit o(thc pl't'.:llumpl.ion uftrUth nnd tm: nUl occt\1\led cwry fitvon1blc
m(c:rcnc~ M~Jn.:O\'Cf", pl3inlifflws tAiled tu f!leud. an,)' fa\:ts lhnl f'it within any CO~IJINC.IeWJt
lt\e()l') (C,'hiflmml \ Mdrnpo/lllm IJ/~ IM ( 'd..., AI57(}.j7J 1
Funh~r.
plainliffSTRUNK's oft~n
mmblln~ :and u1most irM:flmpn:hen~ibJe comphnnt fnll~ 10
,...;,ry the plcadlng 1\'quiremcms u(CPI.R t30P :lll<ll' I'JJI Ruld014 l'rll( ~lUll requtN:
>C.U.menl> in u pl01oding 10 lx 'suOicitnlly purticular w gi1c Uoo wun dnd punk' notice "f01<
"Sttu"M.Iin~ Cn sue n:quir61UI intCf1!4tt in the clnJm u\ l~lM:! in the IJw~uat th1111h<- tnw wttl
recogniu as a suffic.icnt fWJI~.!~tc furdctcrmbtin~ 1be i..'>S\It' al Ou.: litiQ~W,-'s reqUCSL I' (~''f'!c , ,
~tlo_n.;ui~'!>")_!J.!<l.lli. 181 pd Dc')'l2()()(.1). 'An otW)oi!of<IMilin~ bcjlins w!lh u
detmnirnal.ioo ,,r whtther the- p;1rt.y seeking n:litfha:t ;<~;tiStairw:d lin mjury (.s:rr StH.w.ry D) Plrwlc
/llllu,t I' Coomtyt.fSIfttl*.11 NY2d 761. 762-773 l l'l'liJ)-" (MIIhO!N')' t/'.tlnki. 98 NY2d 4S, 52
[20011). "The t'oun f Appeals bus defined lbc >landanl by which !>1llllding "IIICWiUr<<i.
C..~pta.i nut~ lhu,t a piBtntiff. in oM:r lo ha\t: 'Slandint~-md pa:rtku.l.ar dispute, rol1S1 dcrtw.mstru.Le ~
injury il'l f3Ct !hut ftJJl-1 V. ithin the rcJe\11R.t Mile orinte1CS15$0UQ.h1 10 he prniCCicd ht l~w.'
(Cilf"tl'l' ."'U$l'IHiflmtU IKl),
'I
ll<lcndn's ullegollly unluwlul ottnduet und ltkeJy tub< nodn:sscd b) Ihe I'<I!IIC>I<':ed in !he ;"'tion. (Sla't I lliltt'K, 191 AD2d 203 Jill D<p12tl(l2j)
Plaintiff s1-RUNK \!h:arl)' hlC.ks ~nding 10 61JC bISUst' liC CWinOt cs'ttlhlish o~~~injury in r~r.
Pfaimlffs duln1 1hnl ht~ No,crnbcr ZOOS \'Ute fur ScmaJor MCCJ\JN fut PfeStdcn' 'VIS lU"b lDJut:1
it tht typc.ott;_t.-ncrofj,t:\J f\t\IOXII::~ !hul l$ ri U'\."Ch)~ h) the U.5. (OM;dlul.ilr\ ~ rru-ucuJari~

ihjul') n:quirt(lh:nL "\Ve h1l'-'t ntti.su:ntl} hdd duu 11 plainliO' mls-lng only .;l ~oerw..-rally available
~e\'Jlncc :sbout gflwnmlt<nH:Inhnillij only hum1 to his: .t.nd e\'C1')' ctlil'Cu's- intcrcs11n proper
ralls iu plead hl:i ullcged ctt.U~ of !M!Ii,>n i1111 nnmncr tha1 iJ "~uOillicml) panil..'u.lur to gl\'e rhe
lind purtic."S DOiiC'e or the tra~hU!U, \JIL'Cum:UC~. ttr :.~::riet of lransuc:LiUO$ fU' tM."CUIT~UCdo..
ont<O\J'<llo be P"'"'d and tho:
COUO
matcn:tl c-Jemen'5 ~fca"h c:.usc. ol .-wltmlll'l'l K ~ 30tJr llntl orwn11U'd m "phun a.nd cClncl:.c-aalancnJs in con!~cuth'\!ly numbei'L-d. pll.ill!,!I'Uph.'tjCPI R Rulc:l014t:' "Whilt tt tCfined und
utltouttlcd onolysis might llll!UObl} sr<ll out shodow of o e<>IJ50 of action, neitl~<r Chc dcrwdrulb
nw the t.riaJ CWJ1 should be subject lo tllt: djOicultiQ." (Kr,rl v Tn~~Pro~r. q ADZd 64Q [Jd lXpl
195Ql).(&c (o<l"l vRoiL Nto)'c< Lmlllcd, IH AD206ll lid Dept 1%2J:SuforBttfCo, Inc '
Nunltrrn ~~;,,..r..- Ht<(. Inc IS AD2d 47<1 fld Depc 1911 J), loU<'U.'IC. >ucb as Ibis tml'. in which
"dlC: ttnk'nd~ compJaitll i~ pnJiix. c:unrusiny. 11nd dinit.uh to answd' uftd 1he ootnp1nlnt conltli113''u contusing sue..~un li'fdiim:lt rae Is. cvnoh.IStun_o,., oommt:llts .- and nmsidcrn.ble o!kr
$Ub~idiruy a,nidmli.ary n1.1dlet whose n:luvunce: I" oi particUJtirCII.USt of uction iS fttquet,tJ)
"bscure .. Oc-fendums should no~ be required In .m.'C'Wer MJCh n jumble." 4Rapapurt v Ditunnml
D<ulr., Club, 111<'.. ~; /\DM 743, 7~4 jld D<pl 1983]), (Sr< E/11 v C'mi><Tillnll tttrm. ltl<'., I ~K
ADZ~ ~ll , ~24)3d Ocpl l'l~Qj) ,
1'1,1iJnili'S llWNio. fail> Ill plcud li':ttkl wilh p;ortlcubtnly
'"The ,-lt.:t11C!'IIL~ t'f fmud :u....- nanowly defi 11ctl 1'\"\\lll!lu~:: t>rwfby dcru- and cunvincin,g. cvidcntt
((.f.. l 't'-ntJCet' 0h'f'WT\ v Gut~rrnan.. 18 NYli.l 1114, , , ,,. rJQ4)) ll " (Guidnn ,, CirllJ.TdJun Lifo ln.\.Co ufA.n1C!TI..'O, 94 NY2d 330 .349350 II mu Mtre conclusory ~1111emt'nl$ ~~~c~[ng the \Ym(\.:;
in the. p1e:ldings :!re inJ~uffieient. f Vt.l.;,~~-d.l l~tu. .J.!.!IIIIill~IJ!l}~JJ.:i;,~1S l'h@ .\~
!.!!12 120 l:kj)( lOO'JJ; Survrtv ,,
lmrL"ttCfl,tf\.'1.. Qt'cu:rrc:n(.'\."$, 0' $C:Qi3 of tmrunctiun$ Ct.r tn."'l..ntnCC:..~ in~,.:-DdeJ Ill ~ prttvcd :tnJ the
,\(uca'ci/J, SO
mutcri!\1 ulcmcnts orelh:b CiiUSC:fl( UC::U(In orck:ICn!\C.... <.:11 1.R ltulc lOIt lnlptlSCS fldditinnal
tleadia~ mtulrtn1C'11L\ dmt ''jc)vcry p!C".klinw, shall cun.'illlt nf p1tain urwJ etmci~ ~tntemt:nt..-.ln
C'Ott5CI.lUJivcly numbcn:d p~TIIpbs. i!.'leh poragh\J1h 'ihnll Cl'ntlun,l.tS IW ll.!i rroot.it-ablc. a sanglc.
AU~~.nion .. $epomk ctlUst$ or1lCIIOn ur d~::(t:r\$0 .ShALl f,e \(..."J'iinUeJy .Slaf~Q lli'IJ numbero,llithl
UlU.)' 1M: SllUCd rtglrdless or ~'USil\U,"Dcy."
..ft{hr:.o ,~ ll~.t'llth IJu
~Old
In Sih<rskl' I' N<w l'urA Cfty 1210 AD2d 20<1)1 d fA.'J'I 2UOOJ, lhc Cuun dil<ltoi~-d WI "''"'nded
peliliou ltor ll< "romplett full""' to foll(lwde di<UJIC.sofe"Pl,K 3013 or J0t4 The Sll-.*>
comphnnt ('()1\Sisted o( 5e\l~o<n fl:\&t:S f sin,gl..~f.'<l. unnumbered parngrnphs. the IMfl''" nt
\,,h kh is Ull!l...:ertainublc!..n uud Ihe Ccum lle:td thal tplh:~ding..-. Uw:l n~ not partitulnr COUUi!-h to
provi+Jc: tile roun u.nd the pllnl\~S V! tlh OO[ice or the ti'UI\.\UCtion Of OOtum:OCCS to bt:
Jprovcd
m1J51 ~Ji;mi<t:<d." C(1mf11aln~ lhlttlfo L'kll MI:'J."S the plcadlogl'\'qutn-':lna~L~ofCI'lR t-J013 amt
CPLR Mule Jnld will be d.isniiJ>d udeofd orspoc.lfic IOO.UJJ oU<1181ions ond do nt>l
indkau: lhe nwh.-'fiAt dement of :1 C'laim and how the) "'~HJid nppl)l to !he cu,~... 1Mtgnu ,.
aetmn /Jickinllln & 0>.. 21S ADM 542 )2d D<p4 19Q5J), lul'<rlv SiuJe \6(1 \J}2d 949 fJd Dctlt
1?7111. <!Od~~ NV<<I714(t'17ll), Of/I'IJ " plaintin'H>>mploi"t ",.. dlsm"'-<cd lor foil= to
~m.ply with CI'LR ~ 30tJ T11e Court in.s~mcn:d !lull "IC\11; ltli,lmum. tt vnlitl C'(lmphtinl mnsl
include .dltniUerilll tltl~nts or the CIU~ of tktJcm
w cstublildl u nrimn fucic: CUSt' of fraud. Lltc pln.inl.iff mL&St e.\labliilh
1117fld O.:ptliJOK], Olof""-' f'lmilo, 13 AOJd lJ2fM lk>pt 201).1(,
l'lm; nfG,tnltt Nn1 Ynr.t , 210 AD2d
~ 14.
215 J2d l>cptliJOotl),
AIY.ld 342, 343 fl'l<l6J, held !hal
11
with thu UIICIII IU d<IVC tho plointi0: t3) !hut !he phointi!TjU$!lJinh!y
injured as u resull nf 1h~: dcfi!ndlsnl*s mprcseauauon.

(Su.:..K~
Plaintiff~1'RtJNK's-rumhllno l\.'r1) -fh~:o ~~ rrOii\ o)mpliiint, Wllh ~~ ~n,:ft"'n l, :ScnH~>f':iht\1

,."'-,~ nf dll~ol hi~lnric:nl fd'Cten~'Oi , vfnden1 nnrit"alholic dl<.:t('lric .1nd el(lcn,'\hC: cxtlilic.ld mm
/ll _
I[Jl!/.tl.l}_&tJJ~~J!JJ_.t4.__ f'll, l t14 lli1U.
1~ NYlt.J ..Jb (20dQ}; Smn/1 ,~

\' Abm1in11n1 I.Jm/ti'tl
l..nrll/a.I'J Tobl1C'C'O C'u.. 1m. . Q.11\~"2d ..t3 1199fl]; Cllf111n1~1 MrMt~r ('t~tfl.
APX - 072
Soles. Inc., 4 NY2d 403 [ 1958): Smith v An,.riqwst Mortg. Corp.. 60 AD3d I037[2d Dept
2009[: Cash\' Titan Financial S<m.<. Inc. 58 A03d 785 l2d Dcp< 2009[).
College .uld Congr~ ll ma)' lnvoiW: i~lfin outiuwd polibcn.l trtlllters fhr whkh +ll~
Pl~intiffSTRUNK ~nts
in his complaint froud ucx:usahons that can be. at bc:se. described as
bare 3SSC:rtions. lie docs not nllcge tluu he relied upon any Statements of defendants and fails 10
allege lha.l he suffered an) pecuniary loss as a result orlhe srrucmcnts ofany defccu.L.mt. Actual
pecuniary IO$$ must be ollcgcd in o frttud action.
R:fntin from Slqx.'Thediuy thcJud~mCJIIs ul1 lhc nutnm'1 \olen amt u~ fcdcnd go\cmment
cotiti~ tb~:- Constttutiun tJcsiww(CJ as the rrupc:r (CJl\U11)-Il1 dt'll'T1Uinc UK' dfyjbillty of
pre....idLrttiAI cunJiiJnh:.s.
"u:. ,.
(Dms S/!frr Sale.<.

Hotel Martinique Assoc.. 12 NY2d 339. 343 I 1963]: Rlw1ra v Wyr:k/Jff
1/cighls llt><p., 184 AD2d 558, 561 [2d Dept 1992]). The m<re usc of the word "fiuud" in a
complaint is not sullicieot to comply ~ith tbc: specific requit'l.-mcnL~ ortPLR 3016 (b) lhm
fmud be plead with particularity. Then: fore. plnintirrsm.UNK rails to allege the ncc:ess;~.ry
clemcnLs for a rraud cause of ace ion.
This Cowt looksjuri:ldiction
Jusrice Roht-11 Jnt.lo;nn. oollC!urri~ in rtumRsWWit SIM!I & T11M tu \' ..\O'Wl'f fl43 US 579. 6.:-S
1951J.io disc:ussjn,g scpar'.ltiolt ofpo\.,t1"i stulcd tlu1l "IN. ConstJtuli<'ln dimlSCS pu\\t.'T t~ hctt~:r ''
!oc<:t= libcny lusti: Thuw><J<l \lt~J>hu.ll , m hi muJurily op.nioo in U.S ,. Mur~t~:-~1'"'' t495
US 385-. J94 (IQ90j), on the- ~ubjoet or~ram"'"' \\ff'V\\~u,;,. quob:(l from Ju.~Ctice Anlonin
Sc:1tio' di...,t ill .1/urrl.,nn v m.w11. 481 US 6S~. 697 [ 1988] in which JuStice S.::.h observt<l
ttw lithe FnwKnoflh~ Ytdt:rul Cons1iwtiuu . \'icm~d the principle. o l SCp!lmtltm o(po"t.'l'l
.. the *lutoly <'l:nlml ~uatliDit:< of jU>t G<>vommenl ftus.Coun
r~ Jlw11111tt
.,,)1
scparatiub of f'J\\~u"D M en11UC.lutl!'d inlht: U.S. Cutt~llJJjon ~ Artkulatt.:\1 b~ Justh:cs J~tCUon,
l,laiotifrs complaint essentially challenges the qualifications ofbolh President
Mmhall nnd Scallu.
OBAMA and Scnruor MCCAJN 10 hold the office of PresidcfU. This is n non~j~1ieiable political
question. Thus. it n:quires the dismissal or the ins1an1 compl.ainL "The "nonjusticiability of a
political question is primarily a function of the scpnrntion of powers." (Baker l' Ctur, 369 US
186.210 (1962]). Undcrscp:ltllrion of powers, "[tjhc constituriolllll pow~:TofCongr<ss to
rogulotc fcdcrnlelections is Mil established." (Buck/""" Valeo. 424 US I, 13 (1976]). (S<<
Ortgortl' .11/tr;lll'l/,400 US 112 11970); Ourrouglu '' UrriredStatt.>, 2'XJ US 534 [1934)), Under
New York l3w. "(tjbis judiciaJ defercnoc to a coordiMte. coequal btanch of govemn.1ent includes
one issue ofjU$liC:iubility generally denominmed Mthe pOlitical question' doctrine." (Mollfr of
NtH' )'ork SloJe /nsJWCiiun. S~C~Jriry & l..nw Enforc~mtnl Emplu~~s. DLwrict Counci/81,
AFSCME!. AFI..C/0 Cuomo, 641'<Y2d 233,239 I 1984[).
The fr.urum'Ork for the Flcctorul Coltcgc Md it~ 'lOting procedures for President a.nd Viec:
President is fotmd in Aniclcll, Section I of the U.S. Constitution. This is fleshed out in 3 USC
I ~tleq., which detuils the procedures for Prc:s.identinl elections.. More specific,Jlly. the counling
of electoral votes and the process for objecting for the 20091'residential eJection is found in 3
USC 15, as modi lied by Pub I. I 10430, 2, 122 US Stm 4846. Thi ""!ired the m<..,tin& of
tbc joint session of Congress to count thc2008 electoral votes to be held on January 8. 2009. On
that dtty. after the counting of the: EJoctornJ College votes. tht!n-Vicc: Pn:sident Oic:.k Cheney
made the rcquisitcdct:l=tion of the clc:ction ofPr<:$idcnt OBIIMA and Vice Pm.idcnt BID EN.
(155 Cong Rcc 1176[Jnn. 8 2009[). No objections "ere mnde by members of the Senate and
llouseofRcprcsenunivcs. which would have resolved these objections if made. 'J11is is the
cxclusi.,e means 10 n:solvc objections 10 the clccto~ selection ofa Prc$idcnt or a Vice P~idcnL.
including objections raised by plaintiff STRUNK. federal courts l:mve no role in this process.
Plninly. suue couns have no role.
'lltus.. this Coun lacks subjm maltcr jurisdictioo to determine the eligibility and qu~lificotions of
l'r<:$idcnt OBAMA tQ be Presi<k.'!lt, ._,"ell liS the same for Senator MCCAIN or RCXiER
CALI:.RO.Ifnstatc court Y,'Crt' to im:ohc it~lfin the cligihilhyofa.candidatc LO hold Lht offiec
'r
furll"". rl>toiiiT~ I RIJNK bas fnilcd lo popc1l~ """" dcfcodwns, 11\Ciu<hng l'rc>rdtttt OUAM \
-ru...t Sem\161' ~ I CCAJN, purnuanl to thr.1 C li'l R. Wh.h n:urru:I'OI.L-<~"0\her gtou:nJ..c, rrae111 thor
dlsnii!;.)ing th!!" Ubtunt ac1inn1 1hc C.A'nlrt will Mt c:l:,hmm~ upon how ph:dmln' Sl it UN~\ fi1ili.>d 4
oMnln pcr.r.on.tJ jurl!tlictic>JI over tkfendm.nt
PlmntiO'STRIINK Is pn.ooluJL'\1 hy ct>llllh:ntl <<IHflflt'l
443. ill 7l8N9. J4tb cdl. "'l'CiltlS thC!I rii'Sl ucuon u.nd lli.kt:S nme uf ~.:ii41h i~ut' da.iddlln u llttu
ir the sccnnJ act1on. nJthoU,gh bllS\"<1 Ol'\ u diflm."' cmJ.SC ofoc,ion.-~Hcmpts t4' 1'\:tQlodl ~ec: Lhc
oollatl.!flll d1oppcl iUiet"Vcnes to P'"--cludt!' ilS retili_,gf&r.il"'n wld lu Mod tJ\t' pi.1rty, agah.""t
whnm 1he dl'K!Inne i!\. hcing i1wok...'tl. 10 1he Wa) 1hc b.suc \l,oliJI decid'-xl in Ihe: fiffi't atlidn." In
/()'WI,. .Vuw l"rk 1'</cp/tutl< CUIII/MinY (/.2 NY2d 494.500
S<Jn~ i.~ut.
[I@Ill, the Cowt of Appeals, held thnt "[ljhc doctrin<: ofcx>Uilli:rnl "''"rpd. nnnuwcrspcci<>,
afl'e\'jUtflnUtJ, pn.."Ciudco; ll pzin)' fn:~m rclhigatin~ ln :t Sll~tU.:nll\Ciion nr proceeding ~Ul i$SUt'
,ll,:uly n11sn! in a rrlor actioo or p~ccl.lin,g and d~.-~id\!d a,paiUSt ilia\ fktt\)' ur lhotcf w prfw(J.
whclhcr .~,WI th~: tribonul.s ''r 1-11~ ur ru.:ti1'1n are Ihe Sl1l1L' lf.lr1plw,1, w/d('JJ .. I \\tt
pr..n:~ui:dlt..\ musc b.: met bettlre c:ollmtnd t:\l()(lpC-1can he mist<~. t'he Coun nr Af'(lt.llls~ tn
8!X'riHII\{fmn(91 NY:ld ~95[2CXI I[ .I'trllietlll't/535 IJS 1091 POO~[). inMNCt<'d Itt 303304,
that
In the priur l.Ctinn twd i5 ~ee"l!il\'t 01 tho ~m :K.1ion
nn~
thm
l)lanuO's ci'U!IS--mol.ion 1u cun54.hdu1e thi.~~~;.k'tiun with Smmk\' l'nttn'J'tm. c;tol; lndcx No.
1%42./0tt anJ trnm:fcr dM:;nstaui 11Clion tt> Justice Schnudlls dcnkd. Justice-S<lhmidl, on
N'l\"Cmbcr- IQ-. 2008. in Stnmkv PfJferif!rt. r/ u/. Ui.dinc<llo sil;!..n pluuuirfS rR UN~"sntder tn
abn\\t- CGlbC w cl\join Oo"~mf'r PtlJt:r.k'!n fml1 ~;''""emf!~ New Yorl'sDcccrnbcr 2008 111\.<.elin~dl
the f..lc.'c:hjr.l' Colltgc.. bt."CIJOM! "plotintiffis-l'Oil~tftro.U) GhlprnJ.." n1~~ren. hl,,l; l!.a,,.U..'m
said I() be- c-"nlrt\Uing t.\ t:e, Gilhcrx &rniuri, Sl NY"'..d 285. 29 1
dcmon~r.ltt. th:u l~
instilulionll11)' ill~ited und imerfcft' with the cotu-ticmianaluutbllrity o( 1M hlccturaJ College

IIDtll:ottgn-:.:ss. Actordin~:ly. the poliCic"t i.ltlttllllnn t1.1nnc 1n~trutts thi~ t:ou.n Atl.d mhcr oourb 111
decisive issttt: \tnl.--s ~san1y rl~-ct;/c!llln 111~ priUr
Di~tricl
net lOll dlsmi~d b) Jutlgc lt(.-r, HI \\hic:h sbc found tht (,'Ulllflhth\1 rrivfllctu,..
tA:Ucm a,t!l.llml u puny. ur OIW ''' prl'.'i/J' with u pcvl)' (,)~~. f.tt. Ole'
1\ft.:t hJOIUS uf liCV<rnl yan, pluintiiT ~ rRUNK. b) UNCI to h"' CUllS<.

tkrnu~mtifli the oth~rM:t: of11 fullmuJ
t.1a D'Aratn N< YMk Ctnl
Mm.
aucmpted 111 r:uneod ru~ complo.iot Justice ScllmidL to hisJarturuy I I. 201 J !oh-.V'Ifll'm -rder..
tlcnicd thi5 nKU.ioo '" il!> cntir"CI).I 1 1
l'ilit tpportunity to \:Uill~t
Ftr~
Ins. Cn., 16 NY2~ M9, 6&11 1990]; Vmmmm1 llo111e
/m'(!,tlfN'~ Ct;rp. v WJKI. 46 NY~tl-181, 4K5 .t1tpt"JJ: ~ru !t.Li111X.il_~llh~ I ;m, ~a

~.liJ-I~~, IU7(2diXpi2.009J.i.::J.wJJ.u!
/m " .ftlaalic .\fjd Itt' Co. hO AO.l&.l ~117~ X9'J lld Oeptl009J: Lu.w::ltf!r a ttl
1 \-:\
ru
LI<Mr '' lrnm, 21 AOld I 005 [2d Dept 200S] I.

lll.aintiiT~'TR.UNK liti t:~;(l].i.ld many ufthc r~in the 1nstw1t uc:tJon in US Distri1.1 Coun. bul uJ .... ,
ih thc- pf'\!:YiClli.\l) e:httl SlnlnACv Puler.H.m. d tJI, Jnda. No.1964ll08. befor.: JUb1icc Sc:!bmidl. lleJtloo\'tlcd,WXI this. in 12 nfthe insmnt c.C"mpl:tim. b_) Jl,f1in{.;
Then. plamtitfSTRUNK moved to n.'W"g;uc. f)n Murch 14,101 I. Ju.qfcc Schnudt. 111 u ~hunfOIIU
order. denied n:~&rgume.u hfe-.J\JSQ plninli IT"fllll\:d 10 jaiu a f'k."'I::\~'-Q pm1y Pn..~dCfll OBAMA
&ind Senator MCCAIN nnd the Stmutc of limttrn.ions 10 do;!IO expired."' filnully, Pn Novcmber9.
1011.11. William Vwt All'-"ll,an odly ofpluinlifT~TRUNK. moved tointc:n~ne uaplaimUfto
cb<1lknge P""'idc:nt OBAMfl'oplocL'tllelll on tho upwming 2012 bolloc In bis'lo,cmbcr22.
2011 :Sltmt..rorm onier~Josticc: Sdunidt Jtoied Mr. Van Ali<..'D'Ilnh:nntioo ""in aJI respects."
Funher. Ju!llit't Schmkh hc:ld (tlhi b ''" m:llcln dml \YM commc-n.,'OIJ in 2008 omd hitS remainN
hUM:Iiv< fot Sc:.vcrnl )"carl nu~t it woukf be'- Ull11ro(XIr to ulluw Jdnmtill '"raise new mc1ttcr~rbcfur!
tho:
Coun 111.f\er the extended period nl inucd\uy"

l'loinlill' rnvolous conduct
fcodin~ up
A wl'llplliJnt conunning tb it tlu~ both factual o.lh.gntion! il.nd tcpl coQclvsi.nm, l5 rn\1dh'IIJ~
whcnt i11atki un drguablebasis" dlld ~cmbr'aco not oct)) th~t frwguable: lcgnl corw.huf,ln, hm
.,1,., the fiuKiful f<Wnll~ nltq;otiun. tNm:u ,. ll'il/iwm.490 US 319. 3~ I19K91~ PlointiiT
51 RLfNK.-U3 cittd ubo\t.llllcgcs numCKIUS fancifi1l. (nnlnst.tc. ddustonal.lrnuional and basclt>."clalms u'x!Ul dt.:.fe11diiOIS. '"'"' u..~. Su)1!m\! Co.urc. citin~ ,\',:ll;kc, hl'-ld 10 (Jenintt" /foi'J(m_t.lcc
(SQ.l u~ !5 J2-JJ [1992]). thlll:
It'! tl:lc Party primari~during thc1008 l!loctio'' C): de (QI' the
baUOIOOCd.'\Ofthc Presidenti-al ~hUe$ at
1~
Nmcmbd 4, 2008 Gcm:ml
Election 11.\ oompbuncd ofin the rcllcd elt<~lon to" c-. Stru11~ v
lndt.'< Nu. 29642...08 before dtt ttouuruhlt D:lvid f Scbnudtor ran I
utlcgcdnre"dl'MiyboselC>S,"49CliiS.u 127.1fl9SL'tat 18JJ,o
,\.OJ; mdlttoncd llbtwc. Jl1~icc Sclmudt Jls~ cf S/nutk v Put.-rstl/4 c1 ul. lode:( Nv. 29<w.l2/08.
l\n Mardi l4.101 J. by .knying IIIJ orpfai.ntifl'-S moliont end ntlling t.h!tl \heflt-tlUle (If Hml1ttll\1rlt,
1(11) ~ ClaJ 1~3 I. "lunlll51it:.
c:xpi.W t(' joln CM.-..'4...~ J'ilf\ICS Pn:sidcnl OQAMA aniJ Sertalot

M( '(. 'AJN. 11lcrt-fi'lf..:-, ~oltall'nll otoppel precludes pl:undfTSTRUNK front puNUJng tbc inswnt
:1(.'1101\.
l..lreniuJ ur plnintiO's C'f'IMSmotion 10 consoHdatt
APX - 073
id. ul32~. 109 S 0 ttt ;gn.llllll
In I 'Htllttlll,lhe plainlifrnllit!l-d. lhlll be t~JtiJ ~"CC\ n.:pc:uu:dly ml)l."i;l hy n HWnbcr or 111l11idCS "
:;c,,."tUJ djO'cfem pri!it.ms, .all \.ISing_ll)( S&ut fmHfltA wwrmult. lbc t ''o un oontluckd thtn tbrw
tillt:t;\tliOR.'i ~en: 11 Whully rancifu.l 11 wtd di.su1l)SC(I Ut~: dulm liS
T~Wor'\:. tlk' proM.-culton or the ms:wnt uc.tion hy pluintiffS"ffitJNK. Y.ith i1$ f11111.:iru1. fru1UtStlc.
and ho.scJ:s:s clolmsubouJ dcfcndu.nl$ appears JS !ri"oluus. 21 NYCRR 9

130 U (a) sc.ues lbut me- COllrt. in i~ discn."llon mu~ lru~ firumcilll omn~i~>n."i upop ooy put:ly
in chtll tac~ian or proceeding'' hn engugcs in (ri\'olo\&6 conduct -a.~ ddined in lhh.
r'an. wl.itch ~ha.tl t)i! pt~yublc:oo pfovil.!oJ tn ~iun 130-1.3 tlf1his Subpclr1." 22 NYCRR 130
l.llcl>11U""
tldlL~Qnal , irmti~~n:~l
Of ttlllii'OO)'
fnvofous ItS~ ll::!'iU11 In Shtknwter ,. l(S, l.A'fXII'Itllt'lll il}JU.)IM: (1M f )d t!IY. bl'l (ld
Cir 1998]1, plaintlff:tllogcd that the government w>d tdcvos>OII "AI>OIU conspired w: "( I)
bn.mrJcns' jnfOimllliOn uboa,d h~ few..'\ op nalloll41telcvis.un; and(.:!) file und pubhciZI.<d fttlk
cbo:IJl!I!S of thUd ttlm!ir agairu.l him." lbe- COurl. citinw: Nrlt4;; Md Vt!nJm, di!\t11{M,ed the actioo
as frivolnus buu.o.;c pl:dntifl's "fttctual ctaims IU'C' lrr.uiomtl ;md locredihle.... Another~
tpplyin~ th" 1'\ivoiUtiS ~nd.lll'\ls of Nell:k.t und Dtnfon i) l't.'rrl ,. BltHIIIJf!t!l~f.t ~2(K~ Wl :!')4464t
111s Oist L,,ll~ NV li)Q~p. io which plointi!f alleged that n Y:cf<l unit of~>< l'l) 110,...,
.t.IU!mptfno fo ~ill him nntl1u~ cnts.. ThC" Court di..\mi~ thi! ~ fimling thn.t pl.t.inliOt,.
CC'liUflllliiU has "u liutn_)' nr sens::uiomllullt:.g~uian.s ('CI111lning n01 only U> Ihe NYI'O. butaloo 10
vurinu:o.- :trm.-: ofg.o'fonuncm. bo'.h State und rc.dml 1\et..-ortling.l)'. Perri bw. not CSlnbUJdn:d \h:J1
lte is cntitJW lU" ~lnninW)' tfl)Ul'lt;liun. ~Uk ln~: ~allq:>'.liltM uftm-pttrnble honn IV'!
unsuppar1cd llnJ tt ~ I
T.l" lrivotou.~ if: (I 1il ~ll ounf!(ctet) \\ ithout mm1 1n lo'\ ond a::uunul hi: ~u,purtt'\1
r~Mh1tiJrgUJ'nen l fur-ant.'l:l&<lon. modlfic.,lion or reveTSl.l o(~i.M.IL\g.ldw:
l!ondutt
t,"ly u
Cunduetls fri'''IOIJSond cun be sant,ill~t~t.d. pu~uant to22 NYCRR t 1'30-t.l (clll( t, Is

CXJn1ple\cl} WilJ10UJ md'il . _-unJcmJn<tt, be supported by 8 CeMOMblc tltgUmCl'\1 (()( M
t':\li:!m.TCUl~ modilie~~1Mn Hf rcv~r.wii~Jfc:U!Sting l:m.* (CiMJrm v Mlll'ftHN\ 201 A02d 1().4, 110
)2d lkpti'JI>.I( /t<kr~l<ds.l NY1J 813)1995)), l.'""r R/\1)/'mt~<rllr.lt" . v /Jqym<lxrwt. n
1\PJd n1 [lJ lkpl ~010]; fmMI""lD~f#ll . 11< _ 11
1\lHJ 12.! D.:pt 1010). <1lm11
ofm,wck~W 1J \ IJ,d 5fl!i, 12d l.kpt200:Mii Wl/t't \' Dm:11o. 17\l."ll d ~1 19l2d Oepi200611
G~ttM v Dnrul Cmrf~Nik:~ c'tm~r JIUIH.'Itllt!t, IM AD3d -42'~ 1~ Oc:r,t 1WSI: t.!bJt!l!~~
~~ 1 Vllld I'J<:pt 20o~ 1~ II iHieortba plointiiT~l l<lJNK's mJ>iunl J,
~plctd} witfl\IUI n>mt in Juw;" u Ulltk-rtai:OQ pnmrily
'"'J
~1 dl~mis.s:. n.llegt$ that ltk: CtM'lttt lnlc:rp~tnuon ol the n1Uuntl bum cttfzcn ckut5e uf1hc U.S
CutlliiHu:tiUII rcquJ~ u onturot born e~uzen lo f\3yc t'ai."Cn bom on tln!l.:d Stales ~il
..tnJ hu~e I"-'\' UmlaJ Slalc:s bom pottna lk~rnlt plninull'~ as.sertions. Anicle U, ScctJ,,n T
t'l.uL<;t- 5 does. notstnte 1hi.:;. No lcwtl aullu)lity h1:1..~ cHr sUli<:d tlt.11 the nnluml bam c:itit.cn dau:u.
IUc!..Ul\ v..'htatrdnintifrSTRVNK dAims il SUddl. "Tbe: phm.ie narurnl born
S.:vcml years b...-.tbrc thedmslin.s iUld impl~lC'TlblliOit or-the 11 on 130 Rules rur CVSLS ru10
Cilk--;n' is no' dcJin.."l.l in the Con.stjtulion, .tt-c .\IJJKJrvJ/ap{!f!TSIIII, 88 (JS 162,. 167IIM75J), no
dO it O.pPC:3t anywhere ci$C' in tlk.l' f.k:lcunw-.1, ) 'n! t'hariClS Cordna, Wllfl t 'wr
8t j)r~\/(fct~l oj lhf! { fn(Jet./ Wulcs. (,. l.mu.mJwd f:nignm~'1S
~M.
I Re\ .
I~ ~
(llvJ/oHJt:r\ Mt:C'aln Ul 6S). Pla.mtiiTSTRiiN~ Cflli11nt v.hh 1nli' exiSI1.'1lCC' ;an
( IW~l~
ln!Crp~ll'llinnthnt
he t.l~aeseb for 1~ muuru1 hom eili'leo cllllKC. n,erc '"no :ut;u:ablt lcwal bcni! (Of 11\t! propusidttll
Uuu bulh J)!lrcniX u(thc Prcstdc.m m~ havr: l"CCtl bum un l _s_ !lOti r!IL~t3$$1..'C1Iflo 1a> Gb frhQlo\
...,.ction.<-d< C""" ol' 1\pp<!!ls(,tG- SMpMo/,.,.mux{.'<NJ 1 /paA,MNV:W I, 6(19~61)

observOO ll:~t rn,ntousliligntion is so ~rious n 1>roble1n all'ccring lhe
p.ropet MimirWU1l:dun ofjUS1jet.:. t.hero.wismuy pru~rihcst tch Clmlllt.1 uJ mpo5e s:mc11(fl'15'b
th~ Q"c!rti$C qflbcirrulc-mul.'ill,l; po'\"crs. in tl-=: ohst:llcc llflcg~lotJJ,n 10 tltt.! to111mry (ste NV
Cnnst, nn VI, t JO, JudicIU) l~" 211 Ill fbi I-
a<t lltt:. utulhtlldc ofnllegc=d u.Ucgi:dl4.msoulllu~ abo\t

Morto,er. l~~knl t)l1AMA U.the-si;\ttll ~ . 5. l"r6idcn' to h<~lle hud tHle-<Jr hn1h Mhi\ pclm'll.!.
oot born em '-i S. Mlll. t'laintiiTS'fRIJNK and his fc:llo\\ birthtf'!lt.. might not reoli;o.e tJ-.:,1: both
parents o( P~,-i'ticul Amh-cw Jnt-ksuu ~eu: b.,\m m wl'tAI JS oow Nflr1ht:m Ireland~ Pn:mdcnt
JunlC:S Ouclwulf11$ fi1ha- v.M '-"'m h C"'nuot) Dnt"\Cgal. II"'Atld..lt'Qide:n' Cheslt:r A. ,\nhur'-s
fatbL., \\lth bom in '""hat is ''m" Northern Ireland:
Pidc:nt WoudtOVI Witsous moU'k.:r ''fL~ born m Curfisi('.. fnclmd. and.. ~;dttl, llc:rb~:n
Ilu<m:(t muthcr ms born in lllurwi<h, (lntwio. Clllln<i<L
-
lllc C'oun, in Kmlrorr. M_D 7((1'/oq 171 l\1)2d 6~ (~d Dept 19111)). nmcd t1cu lh<' lnoent ol
the l'w11 JO RuJ~,. '"iJ to prr~'i!,t (/k1 WaJi t 4!./Jr;tftuu/ re.,uurcl':r :tnd tu defer \CXtniuus llllg;&tiuu
and dllatory or m.1lidous Utigrulon lltCtie.s tr:/ \fJ,H(~r f1tlr.rs .t-l~nmt~ 41( Rc:Jm /tru;, t 'ltmdt
of\ityufM.ttt~ Y11rk '' I!JIJ BrtH1flway. 16 NY2d ~II .-~ Slttint:r \1 8c)nhwlwr1 1.46 Mise 2d !())
(Emphalr!f udtltttfJ ," To :sdjudTcau:: the 1m.u'"L 1n:uon. wlth till: complm\1 rcpiC'h! with lttn(!i(ul.
(antn.'itic. d~:lusiorwl. n-.nionaJ w1tJ ~ess allcg.~utm1l' aboUI fal>tJdtll~. contbitlt'd \'ilh ph1hnll\
S'rRUNK'J io.;k of stondiug.lbe boning ofthls oction by collattml cstuppd ~~nJ the Coun
lucking P'!rs.mnl JUriSdit1-ion QliJ )ubjcte mnUtt Jurisdkuon o:Vt:r mun)' ,_.( Htt' ddi.mdlml' Is a
wa..-te
ofjuilicltil rc:wlti'C\:s." Tbb CC\odoet..a~ nmN ut /.r''J' mu.s.t be- delt:ITN~ In Wtfnst(N:k ,.
"''ill.'ftMk (253 AUld 873 {2d Ocpl 19981) lhC' Cnun ordered lhe mnx-imutn ~In\ tinn nor
\10.000.-00 for -an altCJntC) \\ho pot'$IJdd cut ttf'pr-41 compktdy "ithuut mtrit," llll4llwldluy.. ul
874. 1hut(wJ~ ih.crehtrc IH~unJ tru: ~i nlllfll._i\llfaorb.cd amxon m tt SllDI.'li,,n IN 1his c\'ndool
(h1JI. n NVCRR 1~0 I I) ailllng 10 mind Wt /fh~tlvw.\ /II(>Julltmcmt.H!.~ u tUIHIIIfl-llu'l rfl\lt' tt/
j u;/klflf rttffm!'C.'t..t co thL' tktrimern nfU~ Utigont:-. \\ho o :tmc to dlt t'nun wilh real _gri"\<,11\CL-:.
J/:.ntfJhtl.' "' 00dcdj.11 Ching WeJllr.tUJd. ttw: Appcii~Jt Oi\'lslun. S-und O<:pan.monr, in 84-!rnodeu,
/ 1unullu. /' ( I' ll< Sont<,rlG AD 3d 134 (ld ll.:pt2007]l >~Oinnl >Suprcmc f 'uurl. Ricbm011J
(\)~ty S2.50U.00 .sru1c.tiun.. ut7J6, Lt!'i "npptupriotc in view of We rhunlltl's ~tt.tH~4(f1UhdaJ
OOI.l.J'U rm tldWtioMlc:m.."<ly to dtaJ \\itb friv~IUU$ oonJucc. In lA\') ,, (tiM/ M.J~ng.mnm

CmJ,.,r,lliMt (260 A02d 27.).) [tid Dept 19?9)) lht Cowt suuOO thut iu dttcnninlug tr $amctJOII!i
"re APPNfJC"IAic the Coun n1us1loo~ Ill t.be bi"O(U.! pitll\."rn or conduct by lh~ oiTtmdJTtg ntllmiCys 11t
f1Uf1tcs. Punher. 22 NYCRR 130-l.laii'W\ w.luo.crcisc ourdi)Crch,llllil h"nrubC' tuSb- u.mt
soncticu'-.-: on un l!l"l"i1nt p.ut}." (L_.~ 111 3)). -\ioroovcr. ~lsl.mtlioru, are r.:tributivc-~ in rh:u tht')
punish past oouch101 11ley 111S<P Ju~ gn:d unenh.~. In th:u they Jtrr usc.Rd m detcrnns. futur-e
fri\<nlou.s eonduc:lnut \)l\1)' b) the purtitu.l.~&r put\l\o'S1 btu ulsv by thc-ll:ar nllaritc.~" (/.l't')' ol 14}.
r~.;lved a:lr.Urn.<-tl1ld i.blJc:$. (_

Murlfu-1"ri,llrmo ,, U/p1I1JI Cillf'fMDC lt~e.. 14.S .Mlsc2d 4051Sup
l"t, Sow Vorl:. County 1989)) The: C'oun.,m.""-<.<Dir<r vSfJI/ltJr<lli t'i'l I\OZd 3S8. 35Q f:W Ocr I
19M)), nmoo ll1:tt "poblic poticy m:mdotes f~tt
thcllOiltt> _ ond, ordillllrily, ~>c
dodrin~ of fomC'f ndjudicati"n will ~'1'\-c: B:, un Ddc:quaz.: n:rncdy agailb1. rcpclitioUI' suit<t.,.. n~u
lhc ."tuJ.rmt'tlf c,.un O~rvod. in lht"llCXI fl3n!gmph. tluu; ..~ n)onc11u:lcs.s. :1 liligJC'IUS JlhlinufT
"'""''"to
Pll:S:S111):t 1.1 (motuu!S d!Jilll C'llll tx CXtr\:UII.:Iy eo.<Uty 10 the dcftnJ:uu J-lld Colli wa:st' Wl illOI\ItUIIIC
lliiJUurn t..tf wun. time. time that thts court nn,J the tt1-al tu01t ilCUt illtaOtmJ tu hlSt f~ llllrritbtvt
v 1/mtJStut<"S, 613 F2d 1141.
l'rv1 xe H11W'rll'( '"hom abu.....e JUdicull proees.tt httvc h:t.d their ilCCGS.'i h:) 'he courts limit~d. In
SfnnKJ v l!tlhchlk ('155 Mlsc2d 796 (Sup(~. Queens C'uwu~ 1~96]l, llle Court. Ill ctymuut).l.a
f'unhcr ac1inns nnd pr~:tdings-m aoy coun ln1J.c- 1\t\\ Y\irl
Stilt.: flhitltd Coun Sy:nctn.. ciOngSru.\'IJh'trand 1\r~ '' CII~ of Nd\ )'ork. 46& r !-\upr SR(+ (Sll
NY 191llj.,!ffdol4 f"..d 1l88(2d Cir 1979)), Tit< /.'on Coun.ot502.hc:ld:
J)fiJ 'l lihgliul from inslit\JJing an)'
H!~t1Ur'"r1t!.'t fPmpiHI.:<Uafidii"ff],
In lri!:JILr..lf!"'LI'''hll liJ ~. SSl (3d D.:p< 2006)!tltc C<>urt IO>tro<t<J tlllu wh1n
if spt'Cilit: c.oAdutt is 58J~Ho03hlei1S frivoJolb. ~~.'fluru. dl'a: o:qWrcd co
hllr:USlucmltmd libc:luus buttlbcudmeut. 1he UIJWM1hun herem onJtR:..t
~1Sidc.ring
.:Jbunmc- \\bctht."tur not ttk- ct...,rtdut"t '~ con1inucd when It$ luck ofltg.nl or likhwl bw!.i~ \W:t
"PI""'"' Iori >110ulu IJ l>o<n apparent' Ol NYC'RR 130-1 I tcJt.
n~1tnn
upon :11:tfnn M.'Oc..'tl on the SI!IUl" fJIUll' dre;~ in difT~ru ~rb..
l l,c:rdim:,the.(o-tn1 \.\111 ~m.i t'IC the cunJI,lct ,,rplaJmiO'~TR.\ INK Ina hdSiing.. pum.wnl tv 22
NYCRJl 130.1_1. to d<tiCflllinelf plain> iO'S'I ItUNK onjlllt!td in fri>olou.
conduct. itnd to 11lluw pl~ttr~lifrS"rRI INK u ~tbteorptrtunicy tn tlc h~ . Furtlu:r, It Ihe:
.h(o-d.Ji.ng.. 4.11 uppctnunii.Y ~....mbe givt'lli(J C\)UJtSd ror dell:odWU$- w WektU Jcwiled records or
I .1Ut('()Sib tncllm.'tt hy &heir clients in tbc: insu~nl ~'liOn
t'lW.utiff p.rcchxlcJ bum n-JitigatiQn or the sw.ne dWut!
!Itt: C,un b euoc:auctJ thai pla:int.UrSTR UNK oontinuor to tJSe the !.'C!4U'Cc ft'..SOt.tr:'CeS of the Ne\\
Ynrk Srme t 'nlriod Cnun Sys~C!m t('l fruitlessly ptti"MIC ,~ S'.'lmc th1irm . l ie iJJ: no srronger u1
lltl~tiun tn Su}'lrefnc Coun. Kings County, t~i"1l t enn. .-unhtr. plninl.iffSTRUNK bo.fj- b:td
t:"urtl l:l!tcso(dlc sanlC apple in t 1.S- Uit.1ril-1' C'uort. Yohlth n:$UJt~.:d itt findings or hi>
all.)~s~n''" ltivo1oUll conduct with. ru. JlllWd h} Jodgt- R.oS$. tom plaints lhru ''buvc contaioc_d
r~llegtninn.s thnl huvc risen Ulthc: irruttUrull ... I he.! Coun l\hould not h~t\'t co opcnd J'f!S()Urces ()n
Ihe next ~dun. by Mr. STRUNK uw will be u new VIU'Uihon on lhe SUUlt' theme ur d~:(cndllJWi'
ulteucd tlli~t'Cds Qlld m.l!cond~J~:t. Ttw o.untmuc.J u..<ie ot'lhc New Y(Jl. State l 1nifit:d C(uJ(l
S) .,1cm lot 1hi;l pc:t:s-,tnul p~llit b) pliijn.tiffSTI(IINK t.)(lrrallurtalctunpJuJnU-aijllinst tler~nl
11\I.ISI USt.
Ouroourb lwvonu hHcl'\.-~ In prevcwuing lht: \lo"tl.SlC-('IJ JuJkiot tauUrt:es: b~ D port~ who ~ntHt
lbal hi$ or 1:3\\-).Uil I\AS "" lc:~tlnllllc lx'l:li~tu t..w (JI' focJi.illd coruiml4."l Ul111h1llpt
..
lfl rdUi~Ht:
a.'i &rudiciou.~QOnducc .
ln \Mu ,, Nc )utk ~<.tt 8(1t .f,,<,oUJ/mn ( 1211 Ml"' :W 1197 [Sup rt, rnmp~n> t"unt) 1081' ),
u J!n' <1f p1!1intiff oOtm<.fkX-d a fourth WbUOt.;(::):.ful hw..su1t against !ho SUite Am A~oci;~tiC>u
upon \""Jriml$ con:;:plmc:y theories. fllc Ct'JtU't iu dismi~ng !he :"'tion. b:.a.~l u~\C'N"I
r'i'.V
]Wicmu. obsctved. u:t (){)),\hat "ttll Uti[f.!lllls have a nghl h l_ 'illipftltial und ~~nsidnt\J JU..,.if;c..
ln~-ntur- tt.S"') litigant unn.:<tcsSUtil) ootblilll.~ IO(lfdinwc amount! ot rudicinl Lime tlltd enc~)' ~'
or she <kprives other liog.mts nfthdr Pf'OI>I!f s.h.trc <f thc!M: rt:sman-~. A b:'llnncc nut5t be lcpl.
Th~fUrc.JllniruilT\""TRtSNK. with h11 h L\t.\try of tthwm,g lhc civjl JU.~tc~ sya:t~m. b)' bnuwn~
pro \t! '~lioM dc\'UtJ vf"matt ~.~gain,, the- o;am..: \I~(C-Il\.I.Ulb, l.s prcctuded frum n.:tllitahng the
same clainJS noJ lS>"Ues which t.<t'l\...1~ ~'tiUr1ti:SOurt1.".$ ru.J 1.) ~joinoJ (tOm brirt.g.inJ: M) futun:
ocr!ore. in theNow V<1>\ SUttcUniOoo C>OunS}'lllemugt<lnst thcNI'.W VORKSTI\ IE 801\IUJ
OF liLE.CI10NS, JI\MIJS 1\. W\I.SIV 1'<>-l:hwr, OOIIGI.I\S 1\. K171.1 NFRIC'a-Chllir
EVet VN J. 1\QOII.I\IC'onuni!t'lltll>er, GRI'OURY I' PI llRSONIC'omntissionor, l'<:puty
Dlr01:tor I Ol>D [}, VAJ.I-.NliNI ~ 11nJ O.puty t)jn:ewr SI "NI Y :rALFN: 1\NDitEW
CIIOMO, IOIUC' SCilNI'IUEIIM"N, IMOMM I' lliNAI~ll.l und Rt.rfli NOFMI ('()I.ON. In
1heir Otricral nnd individual cntMtcity;
APX - 074

COUNTY OF ALBANY
Index No.: 0707-2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
:
:
:
Petitioners,
:
:
:
:
:
Respondents.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit 2
APX - 075
TM'i:.,.-P....:x;~"'>t;
.<\t~
__.o rebc-Suprc:ttK
CI.')Ut1 orlhe Stale or New Yor.k,

h<ld in .ad for tho Coontyof Ncw
Yo.rk, tl1he Counhou~ thec~f,
loca!.ed at 60 Ctut~ S ucct~_ljs;w
vor~r. Nm h ~
~ot
.2016
fiU'. SENT:
I~No,
BARRY KORMAN und WIWAM GALLO.
_ __ /2016
Cllllli( R TO S IIOW C,\USE
loll'\\' YURK STATE BOARD m FIJ'Cll\tN,
.,
irt tt,i.c II C:t.t "" ,.r~ r" f'1"' ~d ttr.,l\~f'll
Countv of trfb;,..'(, 1ttlltf'A4 l"'t( ~u ""r tt r,..u r~,
1"41"&Tf'l
.oon thert>ulltr tounsel can be ht-.ud, why nn onler <h<>uld nol be tn>dcand entered hcleln
ordering the New York Sllllc lloan:l ol' Elcc1ion! not to dcsignote Rllfacl Edward (''Tcdj Crun.s
SNOWI313 J;) o~voa
candida!< 1\Jr PmMl'~.Ururo!d Stata in rheltcpubllcan Pre.idcnrlol Primary Election 14
61 'b jij 8 1 BJJ 91U'
0311:!
'
tiEWVURK
COlfoo'TV Cli'1'IC'O ""''C<
tr.~
l8 t
SliPREME COURT Of THSSTA'I'EOP N~WYOR~
NO!~_,,..o
COUNI'Y OF NEW YORK
~COI"tAI.f
SAIUlY KOI<JdAN n<l WILUAM GALLO,
VRIFI< D PETITION
"-EW YORl' STt.TE SOARD OF ELECTION,
lk>pond""'
By deli"-ery 10 411 twcmigtu de~ . ~ltc ;JO FtbRW)' 1.8, 2016 (ur "m-day d~ll \IWY to
lho Nev. Yorl< SlUt< ~or!;kK1 ... 40 North Ptllrl St""l Sulto: S. Albon)l, NY
11207: and
-
By
h~ if'l pason lu the Ofrtce: ortbc Attorney Oentr.il at the locauon
~b)..,~~iliiii~O UiOiJW!Illii* Moor. Now \or(
NV
TO THESUPRF.ME COURT O F l'H o STATI'. OF NEW YORK>

Pctttion~r.;
A copy dUIII abo be dd1w:n:J ~ o\lrml~tl ~Icc: hi ( nu.1~1t P~t,:01,2 4 0rfti:'\\Y flla:tii.
"'"'~"-~""'
~"'"
r,1!).2/JB/!6
TO INVAUDt.Tt
CANDIDATt DESIGNATION
FOR PlUMARY ELECTION
O"rry Korman and W1lli~m C.tUu ("~tltiwwr> ,, b)' "nd th.Nugh
tht!u- attdr'nt.-')', Rogt!r J 64!nutt.!.m. bnng thi~ Vt.nRl'd 1\.-Utwn pu~oant CU Atttdl! 1~ 116
(1t
t,u New Yc"k Elrcnon L.lw tlod AWr ~ fnUo\o\'.'t
rcth!1tlll.!f'\ arc duly
HON. ARTHUR F. ENGORON

2.
~~~~nod Y\\t~rs tn
the S11llt:' ul New Vor~
On inf,mnar\on and bebei-, Ro;lael Edward ("'Tlod"') Ctot, ".!iclt..dnlg(lah:~d
G.tncHda.tt. ft~t U\0 ~Wpul:'oliti\fl
~ldt..,tiat
nomlnahun m ttw Nt:'" Ymk RepubJl,"iln
Pre:ilJcntldJ rtimAt') RK-cti,m, h.lJ publld)' allmith.<d th't hr Wt)l bom t.n Cau.nSa A
cvr}' Ul
t\1~ C'lnMhan b1rth
Augu~t
JS. 2013 is .1ttacbcd as x)\lbH A
3.
(\.'ftlnr.Ht h pu.ttlishl."\1 by lh.C! Dalt.ls MC'Imln~ Nr\\1'\ 00
Purtu.ult tu Artldc !>. Sl'Ciion 122 or lh Nw Yllrk Eleclttm uw, "IaI
~1'1'0l' 2hAII nt,l be ~h~t~N tcd ~Jf
nununAtl !or a publ!c office or rarr,o ptlbthon wlw (1}
Is not dtian of the s!\1-tl'..,r Ni!W y,,rJ..; (llls. mc\i~lh1 h1 OOdect..-..1 tu ~uch offict 111
po!~-ttiuf\
APX - 076
or \3) who,. If ~edcU wUI not _.t th~. time o( ("QQ''nlMtcmtnt ol ~ torm o! .5uch.
olfire or posihon, m4..~t the ronsbtutiurutl or statutory quaUfkations."'

Art1do ll, I, 0>1150< 5 ol tl., Constlttldon of tlle Unltod Statos Qf Amen<&
4.
>lATE OF N~'W VQRK
spifies thM:
No Per:~on except a rwturAI born Clt.iT.A.'n. or CitU.M of thtt

United States, at the time or the Adoption or tlu.
Coru.tittltlon, shall be tHgtble co the OfflC<! of l'resid.,c; .
By rea<on of bei11J! bom ~>utsic!J< the tcrrltoriolluri>diction of the Unit<<!
5.
State<.. in C.1n.,d0t, Cru~ is not A natt~ral ~m ciH-..:cn tl{ the UnJted S~tt-5. Since Cn.~YIJ
"
li1.1rry Kt1rmo1n, btirq; .;iuly o;w"m, deJ'IOfel #l'h.i f.lys: des~..met11 ts lhr p('t1t~tlf'll!"r
hcrl.14n; depano!O: hns T&.V.:i Uw.lton!!g111ns p..tthon and kl1ow" the nmtt:s'~ thcrruf, th~:
s.1me ~~ lrul'lO dl'p!JN.'nt'sown knawlttdge. rXC\"~11 ~~"~ h;~ the mdtt.e"' thi.!rcln s.tated to be
~IIL<gcd IXl inf\mflatkm o1nd bf.llef or nutt.:D or l~w, .'lnd At. 10 lhCl~ m"m''' dl'pun>!nt
bclle..-tt lhem to ~ true.
nnt a nlltural bom dti.l.cn of the Unhed States. he Is con.stitutfOtlO)lly Ineligible for thto
5~o... urn
office of Pre!Jdmt ot th~ Uni~ States;
WHERf.FORE llu r..pcctfully oubmltted ch<>t the New York State Board ol
tu bt-Jorc M~ I hit
n!i"nv ,,( h-bruary,lJJl~
::7, J lfCHtfUH
Elections l>hould be ordered 110110 deslS"ato Rafael Edward (Ted) CNd Stotes in tl-w: Republ.lan
~ld\!'nt~.J1
Prlmary
.,, ~-'Q!~f?fi~~\~1'1\C'y ddmltttd h\ prtH~tire !n tht' C'OUrt.t l'f New YN!t.:
Stnt.,, hct't'hy .t(flrms4> K';lt~;W"A u1ulcr ('\..'flwllie-sc.fpc!fjury: lam the .atton1cy vJ rC'tord
IM J"-'htiuner Willi<'m Cillo l haVl' re.d thl! tQfi."&'-'mg Pchhon .md know the ronh:n~
tht:m.lf titlil tfbrm thnt the~me 1.& tru~ tt m~ knuw),.odgl' except
the TH'll.:t'en!
dM..f't'ltt Sti\l~ t<J b\! o1l~l'.d tm t.nfomt.\llon .md hl-.L.d. nu.. venlf.c:ation t5 tnadc by
ol!ur tna.nt Gt~d no~ by pt:titloncr bt.'CU.5t! ~ulirrnanl m:dntl\ins tuJ offices ln ~ munty olher
than the nddrtn c-,f J>Utihntlt-r
[!ectiQ!l lObe lteld 011 Aprill9, 2011>.

O.at~:
~ OUhtl.,J;~
a..,"'
N-:o"' York. New York

Fcbrury 17,2016
Roger J. Bernstein. Esq
Attorntyjdr Pttillontrt
535 Fifth Avcnuc,35 F1oor
Nl"W York,. N~..ow Ymk 10017
Do1h.>d: t\cw \'<uk.
N~w Ynr~
F<-l>rury 1i l!ll6
Td: (212) 7<8-1500

fax: (6461904-6633
Olf:ID.,.km
1~1
SUPREME COURT OF n-tESTATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
BARRY KORMAN ond WILUAM CALLO,

Petitioners,
Index No.___/21)16
NEW YORK STATE IJOARDOF ELECTION,
Respondent.
R~cr
Stat\.~ in
AfFIRMATION OF
ROGER). BERNSTEIN
Cmad.tL Cru,.. ~nut a &wtural bomci.trt~o.>o afthe Urul!ld.S\Ato. 11\sttad. Mlso
J.lkn'btct.n. an attorney admitted to pt.lcti~ before the courts: of the State
o( New Yorl<. affinn> "-"follows und<'< penolcy of perjury

I.
I am not ~ party to thls action iUld am over 18 ye.1rs of age. (have porsonal
l'vrsunnt to An1cle c.. Section 122 ol the New York Elecdun lAw. '"laj
2.
1~n shall
not b4:!: dt'Signated or nomuuted for a publicofftcc or party ('O"Ition who (1)
is not .t citlzM ()/the ~tilt~ t""~f ~ew York; (2) is i.ncUgiblc to be clcr:ted tQ ~uch olR<:c or
poslrlfm; ur (3) who. If e!~~ wUI n()t 01t the time ('I( commamO!mcnt of the term o! .such
Election co be held un Apnl 19, llll6
office or posltlon. me<!t thtt con.stiluttonal or ~t:atutory qualifl.:atioru.."

3.
candldacelnr rr..1d<'lll ,,(the Ul\llod Slat.,. Ullh, RopubUGtn rre<Jdontiall'rlmry
Article II, 1, Ou:.c 5 of the Con>tltut>on of tho United State> ol America
Ootct..>d New \"uric. too:~w Yor),

F<bnmy 17. 201&
spt!afie-- that:
No Ptr><IO cxrept a notural bom Cibz.en. or a Citizen olthe

United State$, at the time or thr Adop~on of this
Constittlli.>n. shnll be eligible to the Office or Prc>idcn~
CJndidatt.' lttr th~ Rcpublk'an J'residcntl.-1 nomlnahon ln the-N~ York RepublJQn
APX - 077
ROGEII.J. BERNSTEIN
.-..,,.....,~c sa
~"1,......,
,__~
.,._.. .~
GENERAL 0QJECI!ON fORM

Tho Rtwd urf.lectlOOJ.Uflhc St.ut orNew Yoc\
r~
O>t,
,Lt,.l".......... ,...... ~
Nom'",
-~l':l_ ~P.."'-"1'1
~' c~~M))
e:"'
IW>d:n<e .\d4r.n:
__:i~L_~-l,!L N
,_., ==--+--
........ .J,.,
1(
February 16. '::Ulb
Bv fNrt
0rC'f'lltsi!l 5rt'tlltr
N""'' YoYk SQtt' Boilrd hf FW<h~
40 North Pcul $L1t.1.:L Sutw 5
S.H Fif\h A''ef'lue.l~ Ftr

New Vorl<, NY 10017
Albnv. NY 1221l7-27l'l
Tetephc>nt Nwnt>co
tl121748-410
Fu Number:
Enuul Addrftlo
1.
G~Ml!r.tl ObjttL\n of
ISoury Konn.M to n'ltihC8-IO of de.iiJno'Uon for
R.tloel Edward ("Ted") Cnn (With Afilfli\Ariono/S..rvlr.);

2.
The Objmt hmby Ob.)~ wlhe mt~fitllt of 6C$11nn.tlon nted Wilh lhc BOinl nr
SpiUc Obje<Uoo 10 Co..dldacy ~IIWel \\l.lw;>rd nwl CTw

ubmllt< bv Mr. Kom"n In Juppc>rt ol hu t;.,trnl Obllion (whn
Adlrmaboo ol ~rvtC\!);
El~~onswhith
purpons 10 name: the: foiJo\vina:asaQndidue: tn tbe Primat) f.lec&lon 111 br hckJ
on ~pntl. 201~ ror Ute oiTu:c !lldlo:a.cd.
Gen.,.l Qbtecr.on ol WU!Wn C11lo '" C't'tl1fi~ of dc.igN.IIO!llor

r\.lhiV' Ed ware\ t""Tfrd"'JCru1 (whh AfhmuIU'M"' ofC.tl'\'~<'o)
Cf\i1 fo.- Pn=J1dcm
Spctific Objbon roCndJacyofR&f..,t &!word ("Ted/Crot

subaUned by Mr, C.Uo m >Vppor\ ol his Cenenl Ol>jomon (with
AffmnaliOtt of S..rvltt)
P.O. Boxl5J7b
Ho"'IOO. TX 7'126S
f'ublleOOlc:c
Vny tnaJy youn.
Pofilia.lflClJl)'.
Enclosutb (41
SesuiOT Rafd \\l.lward Csw. W.shio~t"", IX
n:
C(\t( lor l'n>1dtmt, tlOtlstul\. Tao~>
Sgec!Oc Ob!!!Ctlon to Clndlc!acv of Rafael
Edward !Jed") Cng
Immigration and Nationality Aa, 8 U.S.C. 1431(a).' However, while conferring United
Rafael Edwald Clutts not ellglble to run ror Pres1dent or the United Stall!S
States clliZenshlp as such, this sl<!tute did not - and COUkl not - transform cruz Into a
betause he Is not a natural bom citizen of the United states as Article II, Sec11on 1,
natural bom o~zen or the United States. Indeed, the lmmlgnuon and NatiOOaUty A<l
Oause 5 of the U.S. ConstlttJtlon requlnes.' Instead, Cruz Is a nat\Jral bom citizen ot
never described him as such. By its own terms the statute only made Cruz a dtizen of
ca.-
the United States", not a nat\Jral bom dtm!n of the Unled States.
In canada (In the city ol C..lgary in the Prov\nce of Alberta) on
1'11e S<Jptetne Court has cl<!arly determined that, as a matter or law, a natural
December 31, 1970. See Exhibit A(cruz' canae!ian birth c:ertftlcate). Ileal use ne was
bam Clt!W> Is a person born on United stat.. te<rito<y, not a person born In another
born In canada, cruz Is a natural bom d~zen of canada as
countJy. tn llrllw Slatt's v. W""9 Kim M. 169 u.s.
Ciul was born
a matter of canadian law.
~9. 662,
18 s.a. 456, 462
canadian Otizenslllp fod. 3(1Xa). Hels also consldered to be a natural bom dti:ren ot
(1898), the SUpreme Court stated that the term narural born Citizen" In the
canada under Unltl!d States Jaw, betaiiSe place of birth determines wl1ethet a person Is
Conslltut!on was used "In refe~ to that l)(indple or public law, well under>tood in
a natural born dlllen under Un~e<l States law.
this <XIUntJy at the time of the adoption of the co~, whktl referred dtlzensl1lp to
Under p<eValllng legal rules at the time the U.S. Constitution was adoptl!d, a
the p1ace or birth."
natural born dtlzen of a countJy Is a person born within the boundaries of that country.
1'11e Unltl!d States Constlt\J~on makes an unambiguous diSilnctlon between be:ng
Sino! Cru: was not born In the Unltl!d States, he Is not a natural born dtlzen of the
a dtlzen and being a natural born dUzen. A1tlde I d the COnstitution proyldes that a
Un1ted StateS. Instead, Ouz is deemed to be a United States citltM - not a naturel
"Cit!wl ol the Unltl!d States" may be a member ol Congress. However, Attlde U of tile
born d!IU!n - only by reason ala laler naturalllaUon !.taMe enacted by Congress.
Const!Mion required that only a "natural bom O~zen may be President or tile United
Cruz' mother, Stanor Elizabeth Wilson, was a native-born Unhed States dUzen from
States. 1'111s olstlnctlon necessarily means that a citizen Is legally different from a
Delaware llvfng In canada When CI\IZ was bam there. Bealuse or nls motner's Unite<!
nallnl bom citizen.
States dt12enshlp, and only for that reason, Cruz was able 10 beccme a cltm!n or the
United States under a law passed by Congress, !hat Is, Sec11on 320(a) or the
The Board of Elections Is required to give effect to the ConstJMtonal

~rement
t11at a candidate ror President of the Unlie<l States be a natural bam
0\llen. Section 6122 or the N.Y. ElectiOf\ Low requires that a candidate be eligible to
ArtiCle n, S<d!On 1, oause 5 or me u.s. Corut>Mion provides: "No...,_ except a

IIIJl\lral
bom Oltlen, ot a 0~ ol the United States, at the time ol the Adoption oll!>ls
Constitution, snail be eligible to tlte Offl<e of Pn!siden~ neltlter sllalarty be

tll\llble to lllat Office who shall nor have at!!llnod to the Age olllllrty nve Years, ond
Men four'teen Years 1 Resident wlhln the Uolted stilte5."
be
elected to the Pt.Jblle otllce he seeks and able to meet the coost!Mional
quatl!lcadons lor that offlce. Since Mr. Cl\ltls not a natural bam c~lzen of the Unrte<l
OUl' tattler, Rafid 81en\lfi'1Jdo Ctuz, w.s a ~ natiON! When Cl\1% was born In
~a.
APX - 078
Stat!s, "" does net meet tne CXlM!Mional Quanttcat1o!ls to be Presldel1t of 111e Unl!l!d
St>ru and >hoYict be ,..,..,ed from the Now Y0<1< Pre<lclenUI Prlnwy ~ 1>1Wot.
t~
AFFIRMATION
Rag~ J. Bem$11..!41\ i1n tfl.ll"nt!)'
admhh.'d 10 prAchC\- before ttw ('()Urt5 -of clw St.)tt

ofNN Ycrk. atnrmJ M follow WldeT penal')' of pt..\ftvry
Jam not 1 pu1y to lhls Jction M\d am ovtt ll' )'Nrs ot Jge
Name:
Mailing ~ress:
On Fcbn..uy 16 2!ll6.
:!.
llCger J. llemsl!!!n
535 1'11\n Ave<we, 35" Aocr
New YO!t. NY 10017
tru cupy ol thA. within c....,..., Ob1L'<IIM
by h-d.(:x- overnight J~ivt:1y to Cf\lltOt 11residen1, P.o. &~ J.$)16,

totous1on. TX 7n6-': ilnd
Telephone Number: (212) 748--1800

Fax Number:
Emal~ Address:
,,,,.n~~,.J,
ful'lll ISJ"'d by llm)llCun'l'ln aM Sjx!afu: Obltctlon to Cnd1dacy of Edwitd R.Uaol

t..T~d'') Cruz signed by U.ury komun 4i foUow~:
(646) 9~33
rbemstetoC!:rtblow com
h)
by fedc;. O\ltrnighr d"h\IU)' I<' Sentlur R.atat-1 E.dw;ard Crux.
Unlt<'d Stolt" SPN~to, Runoll

W""'"'SIO<\ DC 10510.
s,.,.,,, Offi"' Buildin& Room ~0.
Dated rww \'o1\., Ne:w 'at\'
fbr\lry IO, llll6
:;oeclllc Ob1ectlon to Qnd!dacy or Batyl Edward lied"\ Cruz

Rafael Edward Cruz Is not eligible to l\ltl for President oll!le UMed States
be<.ouse"" Is not a nlltlJI'III born
Q~
of the United Slat!!$ as Miele II, Section I,
Clause 5 of the U.S. Con5ti\\J~on requires.' lnst.ad, Cruz is a natural born dbzen of
CENE!!ALO!IIECIION fORM
canada.
~""''""
""""'
u,
R""'""<Addr=
lo(
Cruz wos born in Canada (In the dty of Qlgary In 11\e PI'O\Iince ol Al>erta) on
G1
f(; t;I(IIU/#f
December 31, 1970. See Exhibit A (Cruz' Q - birth certifiCate). Because he was
1vF
bom in canada, Cruz Is a natural born ciiiZen of canada as a matter of Canadian laW.
~r.rdz ~/YII&"~p
tJitil(.1fUl 1SCOSTAt.'l
canadian Olizenshlp Act, )( tXa). Hels also comk!ered to be a natural born ddztn o1
f'otM>
canada under United Slates law, beaose plaa! of birth cletennl-les ,..,.!her a pet50n Is
a natural born CltiZen under U11led Slates law.
''illfljl AJdra,.
53S Fifth A'!t'IIUC, ts- nou1

""" Yollc, NV 10011
Under preva'llng tegal rules at the time the u.s. Constitution was adopted, a
natural bom citizen of a COIMir'f is a person born Within the boundaries of that counlry.
Sinc.e Cruz was not born In the United Slates, he Is not a natural born -n of l!le
United StatM. Instead, CNliS deemed to be a United States od;ren- not a natural
bom Clbzen -only by rusan of a later naturalizlldan statute enacted by Congress.
Cruz' mother, Eleano< Ellzabe(h Wilson, Wil> a native-born United Sl21te5 cltlun from
Dellw""' liVIng in a.nada when Cruz w.>s bom th....,. Because of hiS mo<he<"s U<>lted
States auzensh1), and only for that reason, Cruz was atJie to become a "oUz.t.n" of the
Un~ed
States lllder a law passed by Congress. that Is, Sedloo 320(a) of the
t,;nu rot Y~ldcr~t

P.O IWII.l~376
Houl1on TX 11ltiS
P<Iblcan
~
~ ,
,r
#3
r's:
--~
APX - 079
Al1lcle U, SecUon I, O.use Sol !he U.S. ~proYicles: "Hol'o<sonm:opt 1

natural born omen, 0< a Cltllon d t11e Unltl!d Slate>, aLihe Ume d the .AdopCion tl !his
Conslftul;;on. ~~ be elgitlle to the omc. ot Prt$1dent; netther shM anv perton be
dQiblt to lhotOIIIa!who""'U """""""'"ln<to the Age dlhlrtyiM! Years, and
been fou.uen Years a Resldt!nt Witt\ the U~ Stato.
lmmtgratlon and Nabonality All, 8 U.S.C. 143l(a).' However, while conferTtng United
SIB~, M ~- reX meol the consuMional Qualrficabons CD be Pruldont d t1Wi United
States dllzenst.p as sum, this statute did not- and COIJld not - U'ansform Cruz Into
s~
ll1d shoUld be ....-ed from lho New Yort. Pr.sldenUAI ~.., flec1lon ()do(.
It/~
"natural born Citizen" of the Unlt;!d States. Indeed, tile Immigration and Natllollty All
never descrt>ed him as such. By its own terms tile statute only made Ctuz a dtizen of
the United States", not a natural born cithen of l!le UnRed States.
Otllm'<l't'S Cotrf;,cr P!r>fj;
The SUpfeme Court has clearly detennlned that, as a matter of law, a "n.Wral
bam atlten"ls person born on UAitl!d States tetntofV, not a person born In another
country, In IJIJ/ledSiatesv. YlongJCtmAIII, 169U.S. 649,662, 185.0.456,%2
(1898), the SUpreme Court ~tl!d tluot the term natural born cltJzen' in lhe
Name:
MaiWng Mdl'esls:
Roger l. ~eln
535 Flftll1.venuo, 15" Roar
New Yor1<, NY 10017

Tdephone Numlla'; (212) 748-4600
F Number:
(6-16) 96<16633
EmaU.A<I<In!s!i:
11
or
Constitution was used 1n refere1<e to !hat pnnclp4e of public law, well understood In
thiS country at tile time of l!le adoption of lhe constitution, which referred c!t1zenshlp to
the place cl birth.

The United States Constitution makes an unambiguous diSllnction between being
a c~izen and being a natural born Citizen. Artlde 1 of the constitutlcn prC)';!Oes that
"Crtlzen ollhe Un1ted Stateo" moy be a member of eoog...,.., However, Artlde 11 cl the
Ccnst~utlon
required !hot only a natural born Otlzon" may be President of the United
SCates. This dbtlnction """""'"ly means that a citizen Is legally dllrerent from a
natural born otllen.
The lloord of Eioctlons Is req.rlred to g~ ellect tc the Constrnr!JOnal
requirement that a candidate fer President cllhe United States be a natural born
citiZen. SO<tion 6-122 of l!le N.Y. Election l.llw requires that a candidate be eligible to
be elettl!d to the public clfoce he see1cs and able to meet the consliMional
quafrlicatlcns lor !hat olla. Stru Mr. Ctuz Is rClt a natural born atlzen ol the Un1ted
CNI" ractter, Rafael
5envenldo en.a, """ a OA::Ian net1cna1 when Cruz was bomln
Qooada.

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
AFFIRMATION
Rngor J, S.mst= ll\4llt>m<)' dnutt-d IO p11Kii bdore the <WriJof tho S"IY
ut New York. Affirm> ufollow> under penalty of pe~ury :
BARRY KORMAN nd WllUAM GALLO,

Petitiont:~.
I am not A pJrty tu fhls actk\n itnd -am C)V~r 11' )IV.Ir-<. nf .:tgl'.
l.
IndO>< No. 100240/2016
On fcbn.t f}' 16, ltltt\.. t ~rwU \\ h'U"- Ct'lpy of dw wit.hln G.:twr-al 0\~u
r~~1g~~);~:t=~n~~:!:':~,~L~~:r}:,~~titm
to COU\dldacy of Edwrc Ra~~1
j)
by Fl-dnU\t'mlg_hJ dclJ~,ol!ry foli"U.ot for Pf'C;C~d,ont, P.O. l)ol( 2537f\.

Ito...,..,, TX m&s; nd
ii)
by F~ex u\'t..'might dl1livuy '" Smatt\r R.Ai~-1 &Jwa.rd Cruz.

Unil-..>d SliiCISoenAt~, Rus.."t-0 SeNti' Offt~ BuUdLng Room ~ r
NEW'IORKSTATEBOARDOFELECTION,
Respondent
W .ul\ln~t<m, DC 20510
Dot!: New Y01k,. New York

Febru.vy 10. 2016
/.lSre-S"'~'--l
Rogetl. Bemstdn
PETTilONER'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW

IN OPPOSmON TO DESICNA'riON OF RAFAEL EDWARD
(''TED") CRUZ FOR REPUBLICAN PRESlDEN1lAL PRIMARY
535 Fifth Awmre, 35 Floor

Tel: (212) 743-4800

Fare (6-16) 96U633
rbyrnUein!trlb.1w com
BenjAmin Dioor. Esq.

Eisner & AssociAtes, P.C.
113 University Pbc:e
New York.. f\ry lCXMn
Tc~
(2.12) 473-8'700
Wn!clsnfmsmjo!N rom
llllorn<ys for l'etitfonm
APX - 080
distinction between being a dtizen and being 1 naturolbom dli?.cn. To be a membero(
StaiCJM)I o( Facts
[h. .ole fact reJ<ovunt iO tJUs prc><eedlng is the fact that RafAel Edward ("Too)
Congmslt is """""""l'IO be "ctti.7.m or the United Stat... U.S. Constitution, Artiele
Cruz was not born Inside the territorial furbdlctionof the United States of America Ted
I, 1, Cls. 2 & 3. Howew:r. Art1de ll of the Cons:htution requires th<lt only a ..natural
Cru.t was born in Calgary, PI'O\'!n<r of Alberto, Canada. See Bernsl<!in All., Exhibit A
born Cltizen may be l'res!deot of the Urutoo Stot.._ TbJs cllstinctlon neaosariJy means
(CN>'s Canadion b1rlh wrtilicote). AcoordlnglyCnrz Is 1 ootunl bom CruudiAn dtiu'n
!hat 1 citilen Is legaUy dlllcrent from o naturol bom dtu.cn.
at common law and illso by tatute under the Canadian Citizenship Ad. 3{l)(a).
More spocifially, the part of Article II which Is periinent to this ease reds
Although Cruz notes th.tt one of hls parents witS on Americon dtiu'n" the time
follows:
of hi< Canadian birth', th.lt fct Is irrelevant bee""' it does not make htm a "naturally
No person oxcept rutural bom Citizen . of U.. Unit<-d

Srat... shall be eligible to the Offic:e of President .
born Amcttc.m dti:tA!n. A child can be natu,..lly born in only one plac:e. Cruz ......
natuntUy bom on the soD of Canad>. not in the United States ol America. Moreover, in
Art. U, 1, Cl. 5. Pctitloocrs havcsubmlttcd unront.,.tod evidence that Cruz wasbomln
Ameria.n oommon law, hel<dllary dti7A'Mhlp from pamuto child dOOf not o>dsl
Canada. As we show bclow. this means that Cna was not a ,.natural born Citizen" of
'Therefore the (ado Cnu.'s molher's American dti7.enship hao; nu bt!aring on whetlwr
the United Sc-ates. He is therefore ineligible for the o(fi~ of United btates Presidenl.
Cruz Is a ruuural born db7.on of the Unltc<l Sta,.. of Ameriat.
Cnu.ls Not., ''NnturalBom Citi.7..cn.. of the

lJnhrdSCjttrslJndrtArii(k'IJ Stlonl CI01tt!t(5
Natural bom ci!U.enshlp is, quite simply, d!U.onshlp which arises naturally. Th.'t
The 1\llL'S for cliglblllty to be President of the United Slllt.. ore sp<dlkaUy
IJ to say, It
enumerated in lhe U.S. Constitution:

No pel"'O expt a natural born Citmm. or a Cihun or t.heo
Untt.C States, at the tune ol tlw Adoption ol !Ius
Constitution, shaO be eUgible to the Offioe of Pre$ident;
neither shall any Por.son be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of tlurty-li"" Yean>, and been
fourteen Year$ a Ra:tdent withm thf: Uruted States.
U.S. ConsUIUtion, Article
pertains to a dtlz.onslup which arises by Ji>clf without the need for ony
interve.nbonon the pan of the government. such os by an Acto( Congrct\S. Jnstead, ir

arises of its own nttturalacoord. th.lt is, birth, .mel is thus ppropdately called nou.nl
bum ati.r.em.tup. Tile only other form of citite.nshlp ariSeS .solely by lntervenhon or the-
govmunenr through on Act of Congress. Sw:h dtizel>ohip does 1101 occur naturally, ol
u.s own accord. Thls Is NtumUzcd atizcmhip. No amount of semantic go~uJ~rrunship
n. 1, Cl S. The Constitution makes an unambiguous
Qn convert naturali.r.ed c:ili:tcn into a natural bom citi7...en. The Supreme Court hou fuJly
Ctu:z.' s motht"r, Elun.or tliubeth \.Vllsor\. w~t 1 Mtav.....tx>m United St3tes dlizen born in
OeJt~ware. ~ wM llvtng In CAn:.d whtn Cru:t was bom thl!re4 CruZ's fathff, bfael
81erwcnJdo Cru~ was a Cuban national when Cruz wu bom ln Ca.n.ada.
Ills :lX'Iomatk that lenns m the US. Conshtvtlon that M"-e a common law hisiOT)'
""' to be lnrerpreted in accordance with theJr meaning at the time the Constitution wos
dopled. "!'he language of the Constitution and of many acts of Congress could not be
undCJ>tood without reference to the common 1.1w. M..,.. v. UniU:d StaiQ, 91 U.S. 270,
274,23 LEd.346, 1875 WL 17916 at "3 (1875); ~WErP"TitCros.<m"- 267 US. rn,
108-09 (1925) ("'[I]M statesmen and lawyer$ of the Convention who jUbmilted il to the
ratiHcation ott~ Conventions of the thirteen States, Wert!' bom and btottght up In the
.:cepted thls dhtinction. as outlined ~)0\1.'.
Sttes Co'W"""; the rwo routes at< mutually exdU5ivc and there is no her"<<1tary
ddun.l>lp,
[Unlted Stat~ dtiuM r~rc) such only as are ell!wr bom or made so, born
within the limits and under the jurlo;diction o( the United States, or
nattaaliz.ed by the authority of law, either in one or the St~Hes before the
Constitution. or si.noe that time, by virtue of an octo( the Congress of the

United States .. The right ol dtlb.'t1Siup ntlltl' dl!<t11ds urtht ltgnl so11t,
either by the comnwn law, or under the common natura!Wrtlon acto. It is
incident to birth in the country, or It is glvon persoMUy by statute.
Unittol St#ltll o. Wng Klm Art, 169 U.S. 649, 665 (1898} (emphasfs suppUedc Internal
atmo:sphere o! the comnlon law.. and thoug.ht and spoke ln.Its vOOlbuJAJ"y'").
quotahOnB and citatlo"" orruttod). The Court further explamcd th.lt "[t)he fundamentAl
ln 1788 tl'lt' tt'nn ..natural bOmdtlzcn.. had only onemcanlng :H common Jaw:
tht fUJ'bd.iction in wtuch a person is born is the sole criterion (or determ.Jl'W"8 dtiunship.
n.dc of dtlzenship by bir1h within the dominion of the United States.. nota.tithJtlfnding
Put otherwise, the ,us soh (law of rho <oil) determined dti7.enshipm1788.
alrcng of,.,,.,!$, has been ffltmed.ln well consider"<! opinions o( U1e exectrti~
In 1789, Jme> Madison. known lor his central role In the dro!tlng of the
Con.11itutlon, had UU. to
dcp.,rtments o( the Covemment, sirtcJe the adophon of the Fourlecnth Amendment o(
Y in a poodl before Congress:
the Constitution." /d ot 688 (emphasio dded).
It b an cstablicitwd maxim tNt birth is a oicerlon of

olk-giance. Birth . . . den"'eS it!l fota': a.omet:lme!l (rom
plac., and sometimes from parentage; but . . . plAce is
the most certain aiterion; it is what app~ in th<!- United
States
lmpomntly, the Supreme Court reoognlZed th.lt so far ass the oommon law IS
roncemed, the rule of JUS J<l/1 did not UlCiudo c:onlening citv.enshlp on children bom
abroad oi American parents:
. ...:
Many roW'IS haw identtlled plaoe of binh as the sole fac:t that detennned
whether person was a natural born citizen 11t the lime the CONtitution was drafted..
The US. Supreme Court has spoken to this"'""" One key pomt stn!OSed by tl.e Court
I!
t!Us; United Stoles otizonshtp ori..,. olther by Yirh"' or being bom within the tenitori.ll
limito of rho United Sroreo, or by an 11<1 of nal\lrlll.,.~on provided lor by the United
McManamon, 'I'M Nttm.l 8Dm Cui:tJt CluSt'as Orig1'natly Uutla'5Jood, 64 C.lh. Uruv. LAw
Reonew317,,tp,Jlij
The notion that thc:rc is ony oommqn-law prlnriJ;Ile to naturalize 1hc:

cbi1drton bom in foreign 5Mllrla of native-born Amedam lather 'and'
mother~ father 'or' mothor, must be di$c:arded. Dwre ls not ttod n">'('t was
any such common-law pdndpk.' Binney, Alienigenac. 14. 20; 2 Am. Law
Reg. 199, 203. And the SJ''<lt weight of the Engli.oh oulhorltles, before and
~rnce he wrote. appca.rs to support his conclll!o'iun. CAl~n't COM.. 7 Coke,
t7o, 18a; Co. Utt. 8a. and Hotgrl''e'S note 36; I 81. Comm. 373; Barnngton.
Statutes (5th gd.) 268; l..ord Kenyon, in Doc v. jones, 4 Term R. 300, 308;
Lunl ChA,..Uor Cranworlh.ln Shedden v. Patricl<. I Ma<q. 535, 611;
Coekb. Nat. 7. 9; De Geet v. Stone, 22 Ch Otv. 243, 252; Oicey, Conl1
t..aw. t78, 741. 'The acquisition.' oaya Mr. Dicey (page 741}, 'ol MtionaUty
by dol;omt,ls foreign to the principles of the eommon law, and IS based
APX - 081
whoUy upon statu.toT)' cruu:tm~nts.'
for the sake of emphasis, however.tet us consider agam wh:Jt the Court so ad
W011g Kl"' Ark. 169 US. at 670 (emphAsis supplied~
about whether at common law Unltcd Stotos citizenshlp rould ll!ise by VU'IUt of being
Jn 19'71the Court was (aced with 11 test. pt"rtalning to a man who wu bom
~::ad to 1
bom to a mothel' or father who was a United StOtt~ dtlzc:n;
US. citizen mother, u is the ca..,e with Cruz. 'The man failed to ~t a
'"l"ht.re Is not. and newr was, any s.udt rommon-law pnndplt."
condiHonsub<c!quenttohis birth tNt was~ by the natutallza~onstature in order
Wong Kmt Ark. 169 U.S. at670 (dtations omi!!ed). The Court's statement of the law of
for him to retaln the U.S. atlunship which he wouJd othc:rwlse ha\ie by st1tute. ln
cih.ZKnship ls a statement about an accepred common hn'<' role of abzenship which
docidlng his c-ase, the Court rejeacd the claim that p.>renbll dll=>ship conforred
predol.. the Fourteenth Amendment and. in fact. Is "ancient in nature. 169 US. at667.
~statements
Not UJ'Iil 1934 wouJd Wt person hove httd any OOf'l(.'etvable

claim to United States dtizenship. For mo~ than a century
and a twf no statute was oC assistance. Maternal dtizcnsNp
o((orded no benelf
dlild.l'\!fl of U.S. citWm:s obtain atb:cmhip u,rt<Jer a naturalization statute

U.
RDgm v. Belki, 401 U.S. 815, 826 (1971). Citing Wo11g Kim Ark. the Court gin oonduded
tNt ..naturalization by descent' ws not a comtnonlaw cc-~1 but was dependent,

Instead, upon statutory en.1ctment."
must be tak.cn as belng the defuULive statement by the Court on how
natural bom ollzcnship is aoquired: It is not acqwrod by birth when lot<ign bom
f!osm, 401 US. at 828 (lnblmal dtoHuns otnittecl).
'The NaturlllizatiOJ\ Act of 1790 Does Not

Convert Natwalj1ltjon to Niltttml Birth
Tho Naturlllization Act of !790, ltls ..ttl supports the ld that Cruz Is naturn
bom dfuen of tho United St>tes. Prodsely tho oppoo!tc Is the ca.."" Ni will be'"""'- the
wry XI>!enat of that Act reinforces the prindplc that indlvldUAis bom abtOlld.
Till: Court in Wong Kim Ark summed up 1ts conclustOm: as foUows;
regardless of parenblge, must be naturalized pursuant to stotute and do not meet the
foregoing 0009:idtratio:ns ond tulhoriUcs irresistibly lead

us to t.hcR o:mdus;ons: The fourteenth amendment affm"r1.S
the andrnt and fundamc:ntal rulg o( dtiz&rnituR ~birth
within thf: tnrUocy in the allegiance and undq be
protertioa gf tbt: coU!ltry. including oO childron hero bom of
resodentallerl:l. with the e><ceptions or quolifications (u old
;lit the ruk itkll) o chUd.n-rl of foreign &O~tel.gn.; or tho:Jr
auni$-ters, or hom on foreign public shlp5. oro enemles
within and dur.ing a hostil~ O<'nlpation of part of OW'
!en:ltOl')'. , , ,
common law dfinltion of a natvraUy bom dt~t.m. Only Ieight of hand"''" convert
ctttremtup by statutory Mlu:rallzaUon into common law dttt.,m!<htp arising from. birth
within the relevant Jurisdlcbon.
The specifiC prOV>SiOn of lhe1790 Act whlch Is daimed to support the Idea that
"natural born citizen.. somehow included m.:hviduals not bom within the Unitl>d States
but having an American citizen poreru was as follow$: And the children of citiuns or
169 US. at 693 (emphasis suppO.d).
the Urut~d States th:t,t may be born beyond Scla, or out of the limita of the United St.ates.
shdU be oonsjdsrnsf at n.:l.tural bom Oti.z.tns"" (emphasis supplied).' It 1s said that thL!i
[n (ad ,
:u McMa.namonhu pouued ou~
tl~ wtN ~vcr.al
ckudes m the-
1~
provtston shed! light on till! meantng of "natural born'" Ln Article n beclusc tome (not
whl--n there Wol!t nn JotJtule 1\ aU on tN! books togw US. atiunship to dUldrcn bom
liJ or tho outhor.; of Article u O)nSiitutcd a rcw (agaU\ not all) or the Senato.. and
abroJd tu US.cttlr"""' So tlth<-thoaryaboullho 179<1Act <mbroced by Cruz is
Cong,...men in the First Co~~ are many Ows m thl! ilne of argumenL
First. the: Naturalization Acto 1'790 was repeaitd i.n l19S at the behest of Jam~
Madi-.on. a key author o( the ConslttutJon. lt was ~ctro in the Natutilliz;ation Ad o
coOt'\.-t. tht.m this would be an ex;1mpli~ oi OmJ.,rre.ss c:tcnyrttt; n.Atunl hom ~hlp al
1ht consUI..l.rtKmAJ level d~ mud' of the n.tnCfecnth cotury,
With that in mlnd., let w look On<.'~;' mon: ~amine the Suprem~ Court ded6iuu 111
17'15. Thore the Fourth Congreso changed the wording pertaining to dtizrnship for
RnJ!""' v. 8dln. 6c.Ilej wao; OOm r:n lt.l.ly tn 1q39 ton US. dti7.en mol her 41J1 U.S
children born abrood to AmortCl1tl diU~ns soy that those bom abrood to children of
Lndrt tht: nttur'tlliz;a;tlon ~hltute ln tof(teta~l hi& btrth. Bcllci tmmechately ~ined U.S
Americn parents "'.. shall be consad~ as ati~ of the Urult'd Statts"':
oll<OMhlp; howo..,r. that sttul< lbo prolli<J<.d that S.Uoi wotJd low hi> U.S.
Tho delehon o( the phro"" "Nturl'll bom" that had.,.,.,. wed in the 1790 A<'t,ls
l!t 817.
t;thl.nslup '' UJ'lle..~. e.her age 14 and bcfor~ liKe 28r he 6ha11 come tC'I tll@' UnitOO States.
slTlldng. Following the logic of the Cruz positio11. one must conclude tNt the members
l1nd be physkallvpr~thereronhnuouslyfcrrall~l Ov.:}~;.!Js." IIDJ U.S. tK1~17.
of the Fourth cong....._ ln delotmg the plva"' "naturn born cifuen"lrom the
&lie! lollo.'<l to rumply wtth this rond.lllon 1\Jboo.-qu''"~ nd ., tho Supton\< Cowt beiJ,
naf\.U'aUution statule ln 1795, intended to prevt:r~t the acqu.lsilion of Mturll bom
lherelon: lost h15 US. dll:z:enstup. It!
dti?-""ltip lor po150nsbom a(ter l'I'JSsudusCruz. Porifthe Act olt790 had
lilw Cntt. outomJ~~c-aOy gatns U5 oti>-""""'P ta'oder -'tute b) re&.'!Qn ol being born to
10mehow transJonncd naturali:zed atbzn$ born abroad into natur.a.l bom dttt.cns bom
~ A.tn.!rlcan
in lhe United Statl!S, then 1t follows that Congress w.. p"""'nting nalurn bom
would Mt Jooc hi; oliUS\illtip by'""""" ol Uving abroad).
atiz.,nshlp from ariolng Yi.l noturallz.,tion by deletJng that phr.,. in 17'15 CnllO ha. no
answ('f' tu this ina:mYeOJent c:oroUary to h1.s effort to lnvoke the Naturallution Ad of
17'10.
The~
proves th.tto thUd bom a.b1'04d Wl'D.
parent,. d{lft not llt all gnin the st~ILIS of' naturiJUy bam otfzen (who
Orw must a..sk "'U tht dUz.enshlp which ame. by sbtute 1! rea.ti)' natwa.l born
otJunshtp t the rorutl!ut.JOnolleocl, then how Llt !hal Congreso cvuld dony such
blatus (Of yoon at a llme by rc>t J>l"l>idlng lor .'lll<:ll ;tH.,. by >tlut. ar by providing 1\
Qnty wheosut,ed 10 O:U"tain Statitlorylitrutatkin.s. Mm the 8dlt'i~to.t.1 Otrort\l.'.J'Stl:ly.ll
1.4. There Is te"~n to tNnk that lhf ~ w.u simply the C'Orrectlon of an erroneous
use of thett-rm ..natura.! bom. "'Rtfemng to 'lht Wdvtrte\t \1$t"Of the rerm
nahual-bom in the Ad o( 1790: one Juthor ave~Ttd that u wu Mr. Madison who
had parllci~ted m the drafhng of the Con.slJtuUon who had discovered !he error ilnd
uthorlzed lhtbUI tocorrtd h bydtle-tlng tht term from thea<"l of 1795.'"
McM:u\..1l't'IOf\ Tlst Ntwnl &rn Cit&Utr ClhM., Or'lgmll) Untlmtood. ntpr, ill p. 336.
fn.l37
ru~rural bom """"an bo denied l>y the """""'<>I Coogro r~ prol'ld<! for tl by
then bow can U h.a\'!' tnt:.lrting M
...
ut.
4p0dlic n:quin.*ment ,, the C,..mhhJlion it.orclfl Thctte
hun.. ka""' wnAh''"''P'""' run\ yplttll'\rr..tJ.....-1.qu,l!!jOsM~ItgJl"r=t:tr:b,11HC\fdttUilU!t.l\)

1!11Jil\t!a7a1U.b71 ti+~P. liHI )tl?'!ht#l ~ohvxbnn!
APX - 082
questions P.NWcr lhmtlldvef.
and WAihng period or NtumlizAti<m for olllCr immigrants._ Con~ty.
In ~hort, the plw.-.e nalur.tl bom Cit~'" tnl'!nnJ90n1ttthur& more lhaJ1 slmply
'h<rmll Otl1.1tn' or"'" Cittt.en U~ce buth' !tis ""tead 1 term of atl U\ OOIJ\mon 13w U
tuch W\.trtt not
the~~
rhen why would nor the Constitution haw bl"-lM wor<kod to
t.'OA~J.'I
roquJMru..,,. In Artlcle 0
of the Con<tllldlOO (fir>t by "'Pro<"'diY granting m;h
ronsttluU011aJ $tt\U.'I by llitalui.,-. and then by dt~lh'lg it), Nor cUd Congfl".Ss have any
Nll<rt ~1At7 Why would not tl1c CGr$tution ..,y: "No~"""'" I.'Xrept I""""" who hA<>
"""' cihun '""""biM shall be ll,glblo
ll i6 hardly
IO.UOI1Abk' IO condudo tlut C~ tomehow Wlll1tfld to clutnge the cllglbility
., The Constitution dOo!S not"""" tto.
pow~
m~
(whidl b. th' one &dYC)(;\ted by Cruz); lNI~Jd, II ~p~y l"t\.l~ th:u Ih.
to am1a1.d a provr-;ton (It the! COMbt\ltion by st.-rutc!'; only a supcr-mtt)'Qriiy oi tJM:
or ll-onttilut.iUN) run\'cntiun may amend It U.S.
ThUd. the langUAg uf
P~rdrnt be ,;ctur.U bom dh1.cn.
c,..,_.,, ,Art. V.
t"" Notw:alluhon Act ur 11'10 llilcll dces not 5Uppon the
idt'"a lhet those who are m.~de: cilb.cn:s Ul'1(ier the auuuu. are U\ fua nnrur41 born c.tl7~
SC'cond.- thR.r\> IS" rogcot o.ltl::m.JtJve exptuutllon to 1~ idt".l th.tt tlwAs lhc e;talute: .say_,., duklu.m bom broad to Unit:rd Stacs otizcn5: and who an. made
N>tutftl!Uhan Act of 1790 """"\dod narusol born ClliWl<tt"' the ...m.Ututionol

otit-*'Jb. u;n.df!t \hit ~tJ~\de ~
shiU be cgnsidemd ao;~ n.atun.l born dli'.tt!nJ {e,npl\&51!o
lcwl Ccrnsider what t.hL' A~1.at.w:lf lud 'o qy about how Utsmigranb g~ could
:ruppi.W!d). In like ma.nrw!f. onemigN ~v th:Jt on.! shaH m.:~t 4ft attif.id.\l ilow~ I ! it it
be:ome Un.ittd Stato dtllin.,.~
Be it ~c.ted by the ~tc .1tkl HoUSf: of JWprcs.etttath~ 01

thr lJ.nhed Sl.tt6 of Am~ itt Cungt~ At.:oteroblf\t TNt
nny AU<t1 being fn.'e while~"'"""' who Nll ""'"' resi<kd
wllhln tho ltmitil .md undor the junsdlclion ol t"" Unltod
Slott:$ lor tJw ''""' o( two Y"""' =y be admutd to boc-o""'
111 otb.c1.1 ttk-rNf tnt4ppUation to ony oollUhOn l~w Court of
""'ord fn >ny one of lh! Sta"" wherein he shallluvt> ""tdL'ct!onoludi.Olurt t!Uit h<>l< pe:soo of good
dl."'""'' and t>ldng tJw oath or afllnNtlon pl\..aibed by
lw to 51.1PP0Tt tl1o c..,.utution ollhe Unltod Stot .., wlllch
Oath or A(Ctnn.~tlm\ sud1 Court JWiadmlnlsw, and U...
Clotk of -<;1ch Court sb.UJ "'cord aud\ Applic:ati>n, and too
PJ"<'<"''Illng UleN<'I1; and lbeTL'\Jp(>O ODh """"" .J<all be
m'r\.'iid~red as A Citiun of tl~ Untied Sllltes.l6
1t
t... c,lca.r that Con~~ '""a! wnp}y ttru.un.llnl.n,g W
p~
wtr~ 4 re.11
tlow'-"'' But tl\1\1 does 001 af co~ tnulllotTnlt mtu 14 TNl Oow.!r. l.llus, tho
w~rdJng of
tho tututo it>cll ptrinala the rondu.Jou thot udt dtU.en<hip Is nolln.w.!
ta&lur..J bum dtkl.'ttiWp. but rn~ UYtlhox who a.t'e tn4dt'- cltizent under the l\ct WD
... in\ply bt! rn"t~r.Uu:J a n.tiural bam dt.izcrw fot n.Atnraliutlun pul"J'ORI'
fourth, pothaps the str.mgest &Spt'<t ol thb whole deb.lto Ucs in too foct thai
tOO.. who tJunJ. thAI tJ,e 1\.'lttUr.tliz.Jtion Act of 1790 >~<pports the idt tho I Cnu a a
O.Atllttl born dti7..cn camp1etely 0\oerlook..tl'k' v~~ MOW of the Jiotl11.Ue. itsclf>liw
Nantraliution Acl o1790 (~phasi.1 rupplfud). Natur.sllution and natural bom. ft..4 w~
for d\i.Jd.n!n bom abroad to
haw O<er\ re >nbtlwtlc:all..,.al conn.>p~>.
US. dht.en pa.n:nl!i to bolt- abk 10 t.ontef" l.lit! rountry ;and UOJOY .illlh! right, ot dtl2.er\ship
(t~.g.,
th1.. ngtu h.J ~~~~ p,..,..~.rty) WJthttut fl"'t havUlg to gu lhto~Jlh !.he eonttre proC'C"!i'i
LD.
10
The Coaunon Law Meaning ul tht> Mmu~e ...Natural Born CUitc.n ..

cannot br Oetwniru;d. by Rel.,el'JCC '0 lhe Ci.n:~laQCU of
l.ab.D..JA~
rertamly knew of the exception to I"' $011 for children of a country's diplomats whon
McCain L(!l; AJonr Coytmor Crorsc Romney
those diplomats were stationed abro.td (an embassy being an C!Xterts.10n of a oounuys
lt opp.mmtly was john jay who flr.1t Stlggt'Stl'd that tho C<lOStltulll>ll should
ownjurisd.tebon). Thus W argument based on)ohnjay Sllbsilmtio conteDlpJating his
c:ontatn a natural bom dti7.m rcquuemmt m orde.r to hoJd chrt- oslk~ or Pre.ident of the
Unued Stille\. At lhl? "'On\ll'tlllon ln rhilo~d~lphia In
1787 when:. 11-! Cc:nutitutlon Wiall
Another cont.cntlon J5lhat ~ mc.arung nf natural born dtlzenship was somehow
bt_.tng dtnfh.d )\e made a n.'qUCSI In WTitu'l& I:J) Ccorgeo w~._hingtan thiJ1 the Constitution
contain e>o~cUy tlUs rcquuemmt.' One lh1e otargwnent
chiklren's careers has no merit.
Y" tha~ as good p>rt:nt Joy
.setl1rd wbe:n John McCain ran (or President of the United States m 2006. McCain wu
bom in withm the Coco Solo Naval Air Station. a Umled States military instafialion in
11\An!ly rould not tuw ln"'nd<d to haw his own I""-~8J>obom dilldn!n b nudt Ul<!llglblo
the Panama Cam! Zone, while his Cather was serving there as an o(fkrt in the United
to hold t"" Qlficr uf t'11!S1dcnt.
St~t<.'! N&vy,
The- V'e'()' onusu~' prent.L.~ i.s that thepn-<oS"D l" ~ o{ his children w~ patt or
loy's.obj\."Ct t.n n.."C<<tn~ llw. ~nof ~ 10nat'\I.RJ bom dtnentt
~'J1'\en1
tor
lhe I'N;Id..._-y. Wel.now, ~.... Uut ~'"' iJ not the COR: IY wgod ad<>Piion ol the
tmng chl'd: to the odmk.<lon of forcl!lJl"'" into tlu>

adnuNstr<lt:.lQ.ll qf
our Ntional Gow.mmi.!Jl.l: txpn"&l~]ly th.u thor Commond in chie!f of
lhe.{Afm~n Mmy ~h.,U
not be gl\.-en tn. nor devolve on. anv btU Ntural bom
3.nd on thai basis some questioned whe:Wr M4'Cai.n was a natura1 born
ci117.cn. Howewr, a militouy InstallAtion in th<> Canal Zone w>S inc!isputnbly Unltf/d
States k>rritory to which the pnnciplt of jus soli t.l{t:ended. 1'1le McCain situation has no
pteeedential slgn.ffh:anct" for this case, ln whkh Cnn a1 birth w.1s a natural bom dtizen
of a forl!i&n sowrcign.. As to Georg~ Romney's brief campaign for~ Pn!:s:idcncy, lhl!-re

was no~ for any court tb rule on his clig:lbllity bclore he withdrew.
rv.
G~"''
Article 0 of the ConstitutlonCalls for tht:States, Not the Eltoral

Collqr tg [)vrcrmJne Candjdtlts Eligibility In Stale Primacy l}Ja;tlpn;)
NY Election Law, 6-1.22 pro'lldes that: "'lal pmon shall not be df<ilputrd
for a pubUc office who (2) l1 ineligible tq 00 eJected so sud\ office .. ; ~
'liW~V" CONidton!d childr.m or the dJplollFib.C~rvMtJ 1,.1( ~ gO\'E'tnmcnt who atl!

"~Hof\('(i
abtd to br ~!ural hom ctiuM. Wl'rJS 10-m. .<\rJ 169 U.S. at6&.'\-68S, Thl.s ~
"'' """"'' prlnaple uf- "8111- <<>mmon io~<. 5 McMAromot~. '"~"' ot p. 331. loy
l! c.lcctcd mll...n:2t.at. the Ume: o( romtnenct"mcnt of the term or .5\IC:h ofiiw OT po&itiol\
mtts the mnstitutiOfiAI. qu~UBatigm tbgrgof ..... (emphasis supplied). Hence the
Legislature has YeStod in this Court jurts<liction to detennino the eligibilily of Cnu (or
Me.\Ci!nfl;n'\tth, wpnt. ill p. :+29 n,SO
tlw of6c. 11<> is seclcing
' W ..upp 32&.2CJ.

It
t2
APX - 083
The Cruz campaign apparently contend< \hot the Elcrtorol Colk-ge procedures
Colq,tt- o( Co~ as to wht-:the.r a C"andidate meets the Constitutional qua:lilicatfon)
contained m the TweUth AmL'nd~nt are the exdush-c Corum for deu~rminlng a
lor tho Pre$1dency. That 1tatute simply outhoriz.es considerntion of irregul.aritiesln !he
c;sndldates qu.tlifi<arion. to hold the office of Presid<nt of the Untt<.-d S!at<s This
costing of Etectorol Col""e ballots.
contention hos no merit. The Twt>lf!h Amendment provkf..:
Tho suggested. proo!dW\' of owiltUtg post-<!lcction proet't'dings o the 61ectoral
The Elertol5 shall meet in their ~ive stati!S, and vote by
College is shot through with practic;a.l W10U oslegol dlsutor potential. The gist of the
ballot for Pre$ident and VicePresident, one of whom. at

least.,. shill not be an inhabitant of the 5ame state \\lith
themselves; theyshaU name in lheirbollotsthe ~"''"""voted
argum~t lS that- after having
for as Preskl(!f'lt, and in dbtfnrt ballots the penon voted for

""Vice-P,...ldent. lllld they hall l1lllk1: d.C!unct llsLS of II
pc_r10ns voted for as Pretiident, and all persons voted for as
Vice--President and of the numbu of votes for e;;~c:h. which
Usts they shall sign and ccrllly, and tr"'"'it ,.,,led to the
..., of the govmtrn<nt of the United States. directed to tho
gone through the entire general election p~ leading
up to Nowmber of !he P""'ldrotl31electlon l"'ar, ond lhe gl:l1etol volin!; public Mvlng
sclected rr..JdontEl<'ct. and !he Electors havmg been deslgnat<-<1 to 'ote for the
<andidate prevailmg is> lheirstale (NY Election Law 12-100 t1
"'l- tho Eltoral
Pt<sident of tho Senote.
College shAll be the fits! pl<lce to consider whether !he President-elect is too young (age
The President of the Senats shatJ in the pl'CSCJlCC o the

Senal~ and House of Representatives, oprn all the certificotm
:U); or not residmt ln the Uruted States ror the n.."quired Courteen yecus. or not a natural
and tht votN &hall thrn b myotrd
bom dtiu:n of~ Urutcd States.

1t would beabrawm~bcrofCortgre5S mdeed who, in the fa~ of tht:- post
The person h.tVlns the patest Numbe;r oC yots:s for

Prrs!dtmt shall tb Prg:ddrnt jfsudl number be II
majority g( lbe wbo)e numbgr gf Eln;tom apoointcd and if
electjon momentum .Uord<.-<1 o President..lect. would challenge the Pn!<idcnt..,lt's
no pe150n have such mojority,lhen from lhe pci'50ilS having

!he high""' numberS not ""et't'ding three on the list of tho6c
volt_"CC for IS PNsid~nt. the House o Representatives mau
qua!Ule>tionuo Ia!< in the process; !here would instanlly be a hugo cry ol "foul".
choose immediately. by ballot, tho President.
Moceove.r, the mull would to create ongoing lDlD:rtainty as to who the nl!xt p~t
Oearty there is no provision In the 1\\c.Ulh Amendment for the elcctolli to determnlC'
would be.ltls not reali.<dc to thlnlt ritot lhe ElcrtoraiCallege hould be lhe 6rst pl.,.,
whether o Presidenl-clert meets !he Article II qUillifie<~Uons (or tho oficr; their job is
\hot considerS eligibility for !he office or Pruid....t. ~Cruz oont..,tlon that this
limit'-'d to voting for the c.andldate: that ~a.Ued in the election hcld in their st~t<!'. Stc.
fundaottntal il.s-ue should nol bot ht-21-rd until alter the ~lcd:ion 1s a thtnlyvclk.-d cl!ort to
U1SUt<> that the ls;ruo of meli8Jbility ~uw he is nola n.ttur.al born United S~~ttes dtiz.en
tg. NY Ele<tion Law. 12100tt"''

Nor does 3 U.S.C 15, 19"'
""''"'Y stotute enacted in tho woke of !he Hay<>-
ltfden rontcst~ clcctaon of 1876. provide for a dete-musvnlon by eitlll-r the Ete<:tUnd
hMwrdecidl'd.
A legally i.nelfgible candidate: cannot be allowed to participate in a presidential
13
eiOOion without domg &"'""
14
v!o...,., to the Con.titutional qwlilicot.ions douse.
Certainly !he uthoiS or the Constitution and its omendments did not intl!nd to leav.
U.. entia! issue to be detemuned only ojlu an eledlon h.. o!relldy taken pl<lce.lndeed,
the~ is not
one wocd ut thr 't'wcllth or Twcruielh Amendtncnt:s: thlt dlspla~ or ~.'!~
seelcs to displatl), st~te ju.rlsdiction over elections within a state.ln fact presidential
Tho peu1Jt>t1!hould be f!"'Oied and the Now York Sottt Board or Eltion should
I> ordvred not to lnclude Cruz It\~"' April 1\1. Wl6 R<!"''>llan l'rlmory I!IK!lon
Pt..S New Yor]., Nw Vorl<
Ftl>ru..ry 17, W\6
etectlonsare ..an .:srea owr which the Constitution gives Co~ no authority
whatsoever ..
1\n~na v. Inter Tnlml Counol
ofAriwn11., Inc..,_ U.S._. 1335. CL 2247.
J. lkr)\>t<.n. F.aq
~fe-wY~
6y O:mtrast.. ArtiCle U of Ule Constitution not only dchvers to~ states full
conttol o- tho method of pickmg Presidential elmo,.; it ""'uiros !hem to eJ<crcise !hat
power: EArn State~ appoint, in such Manner as !he t..gislatlln' thereof may direct,
Nwnbet of Electors, (cmphosis supplied). It Is therdore abundntly cloar \hot
the: Cc:mtltuhon was wtitlen to confer on the states the p<)'WCI". indeed U'le obligation, to
onct Jw !ltrchu NY Election Law 6-122 which pertain to !he -ntlal clec:tlon
process within each stat"- There Is no rea.oon that W.. power should (ail to include
detemUnma, whether u candldak' for Pretident in a primary ell!dlon m~ts the

fundammtal ConsutuHonal rt_-quin.!mc:nlt for thAt Qfflce. Othenvw voters could readily
cost their vot.. for an incliglble penon during tho ptinwy- ond only aftor the g.,.,.l
tltlon would they 8nd out \hot their eandldote w .. dlsquolilled. At that pomt it
would, or course. be tar too late to VOl? U\ a
Ro~c<r
~ Fifth A\otm\1~. 3511
2268 n.2(21l13) (Abto. J,. dissenlinS on other gi"OUlllh).
primary (or onother candidate who is
ebgible
t5
APX - 084
Aoor
Nw\otk 10017
tel flll) 748-4WJ
h ...- (646) 'J64.6b33
1\'
Tl).ltjll!l rth-An
Uti!
BnJ>rnln Dlctor. sq
l!!sn<r t.r Auoclole, P.C.
IJ31Jn!Verolty Placr
Nw York, NY 10003
fel (212) 47J.l11011
t
..:.r.,. biY rut
'1o1ft
'IT'

COUNTY OF ALBANY
Index No.: 0707-2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
:
:
:
Petitioners,
:
:
:
:
:
Respondents.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Staff Report on February 2016 Presidential Ballot Access Filing Period as of February 19, 2016
Type of
Document
Candidate
PRIMA
FACIE
REVIEW
B. Sanders
and Sheralyn
Goodman, et
al
President and
Pledged Delegates
to National
Convention
Bernie
Sanders
President of the
US
DEM
PETITION
Bernie
Sanders
President of the
US
DEM
PETITION
Cristin Griskie
President of the
US
DEM
PETITION
PETITION
Office
District
Party
Description of issue
SBOE staff
Decision
recommendation
On/Off
PRIMA FACIE REVIEW

CD 17
DEM
Insufficient signatures on its face.
Invalid Petition
5000 signatures required, and filing consists of 4 pages only. A valid

petition is on file
Insufficient signatures on its face
Invalid Petition
5000 signatures required, and filing consists of 6 pages only. A valid

petition is on file
Insufficient signatures on its face
Invalid Petition
5000 signatures required, and filing consists of 1 page only. A valid

petition is on file
Petition filed late: due 2/4 and received by 2/5 petition was
postmarked 2/4 but received on 2/9. Insufficient signatures on its face.
Invalid Petition
5000 signatures required, and filing provides cover letter claiming 172
signatures filed.
PETITION
Roque
Rocky
DeLaFuente
President of the
US
DEM
Petition received late. Due 2/4 and received by 2/5 but petition bears
no postmark or similar shipping date, and was received 2/8
DECLINATION
Patrick
Mulholland
Sanders Delegate
to National
Convention
DECLINATION
Vilma TorresMulholland
SUBSTITUTE
SUBSTITUTE
Invalid Petition
CD 18
DEM
Declination received late. Due 2/8 and received by 2/9 but declination
was postmarked 2/9 and received 2/11
Invalid
Declination
Sanders Delegate
to National
Convention
CD 18
DEM
Declination received late. Due 2/8 and received by 2/9 but declination
was postmarked 2/9 and received 2/11
Invalid
Declination
M. Sussman
Sanders Delegate
to National
Convention
CD 18
DEM
No certificate of substitution filed. Declination on which substitution is

based was late (see above).
Invalid
Substitution
K. Levering
Sanders Delegate
to National
Convention
CD 18
DEM
No certificate of substitution filed. Declination on which substitution is

based was late (see above).
Invalid
Substitution
ACCEPTANCE/DECLINATION SUMMARY
Exhibit 3
APX - 085
Type of
Document
Candidate
Office
District
Party
SBOE staff
Decision
recommendation
On/Off
Type of
Document
Candidate
Office
District
Party
SBOE staff
Decision
recommendation
On/Off
of service.
OBJECTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS LATE/FAULTY
NH =
OBJECTION
OBJECTION
Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio,
Ted Cruz and
Bobby Jindal
President of the
US
President of the
US
REP
REP
Objector Fischer Objection received late due 1/29, but was

postmarked 1/30 and received 2/4 Natural born citizen. Objection is
beyond the ministerial scope of the board Objection is made in
incorrect venue, as no direct election for president occurs via election
day ballots.
Invalid
Objection
Objector Laity Natural born citizen. Objection is beyond the

ministerial scope of the board. Objection is made in incorrect venue, as
no direct election for president occurs via election day ballots.
Invalid
Objection
SPECS
RE SPECS: SUMMARY OF STAFF FINDINGS
N/A
HEARINGS CONDUCTED: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

N/A
SPECS
Ted Cruz
President of the
US
REP
Objector Fischer Objection received late due 1/29, but was

postmarked 1/30 and received 2/4. Specifications provide no proof of
service. Natural born citizen. Objection is beyond the ministerial scope
of the board. Objection is made in incorrect venue, as no direct
election for president occurs via election day ballots.
Invalid
Objection and
Specs
SPECS
Ted Cruz and

Marco Rubio
President of the
US
REP
Objector Laity Natural born citizen. Objection is beyond the

ministerial scope of the board Objection is made in incorrect venue, as
Specifications provide no proof of service.
Invalid
Objection and
Specs
OBJECTION
and SPECS
Piyash
Bobby
Jindal
President of the
US
REP
Objector Laity No ballot access certificate filed. Natural born citizen.

Objection is beyond the ministerial scope of the board Objection is
made in incorrect venue, as no direct election for president occurs via
election day ballots. Specifications provide no proof of service.
Invalid
Objection and
Specs
OBJECTION
and SPECS
Ted Cruz
President of the
US
REP
Objector Korman - Natural born citizen. Objection is beyond the

ministerial scope of the board Objection is made in incorrect venue, as
Objection received late due 1/29, but was postmarked 2/16 and
received 2/17. Specifications are late due 2/4, and provide no proof
of service.
Invalid
Objection and
Specs
OBJECTION
and SPECS
Ted Cruz
President of the
US
REP
Objector - Gallo Objector Natural born citizen. Objection is beyond

the ministerial scope of the board Objection is made in incorrect venue,
as no direct election for president occurs via election day ballots.
Objection received late due 1/29, but was postmarked 2/16 and
received 2/17. Specifications are late due 2/4, and provide no proof
Invalid
Objection and
Specs

COUNTY OF ALBANY
Index No.: 0707-2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
:
:
:
Petitioners,
:
:
:
:
:
Respondents.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit 4
APX - 086
No hearing
required/held
LAMAII COUNTY. GA. SUPRIO'\ COOI!T
teU\~EQ"mf'rca
SPABOOk~AG5~
llEAA'i CWU<
'That \VE the Peop1~ IU'C only thoee prwo.te Cadwra undar COO .out Jiublic cluun! under men. and that
guarantee w1tb'u t..hi.s Notion that each Privat~ Cttit.en'a utlo..lienable right.& and bcnftrclal inht.rtst illl
~ure in JMlfJK!tut()' aP lonw tu~ tht.' Su\'!!reiln Peopt~ of thia N~mon 11ct undar GOO u ~xP~ in cht>
Book or ltoLRh Chapter 6.5 Verse 1 thru 5, bt>reaflctr quotinr from the J(jng ,Jamn Vtr.tic)n. of th ~ Btble:
.....
ThAI thc- ..nalurl~rn
txp~ed b
1. Ao, every one thot lhtr.Rte-1-h. come ye to the woter!IJ. and he thnt hath no money, come ye, buy, and
!!8.
est; yea, oome, b\lV wane rmd milk wnhout monoy and "''thout praec.
2. Whcrt>ore do ye r5pend money Cor that wbJch ts not breed~ and your labour Cor thot wh.ch
t.atillfif'th not? ht.arken dilhtontly unto me, Anti eat }'C that whJeh ut 1f0Qd, nnd let your .oul deli1:ht
t\.IKI:lf an (at.neu.
d.tspleA~JUretn tbt!July
17a6 nttifitnnoo dlJCIUDWOt uf'
"''hsit tbould h..we boon, quoU!

~ "" &t4QM orrm autum! hum
Cj'i.;., ,.,. 4t'h cu t~>e~Y ~on
~{tift tlv (ourlh dt;ty o( July ,,.~
(tr
itrn1J.J~Jd tt"I~YJ. ~wltl:irrd OJfll MA"Itl)'

t~U. 11r tufh. 01 l1rtd Cqmtnjpt!llt.t
3. lncll.nt!: your t:llr-. and come unw me: hear, and y{tur soul ~hnU hve; nnd I wall make on everlaating
CO\'eOil.nt dth )'OU, 4.\V(!O the IIW'O ml'rctC8 of David.
1. Behold, I hA'-e: &1\'e.n him fur o. wito~ to the poop1o, n. Jt>ador ond eommAndt>r to th~ pooplo.
fi. Behold, thou shah. call a nation that. Lbou k:nowe.s:t. not., and wations that. knew not thee
aball rl,.ID unto t.hM but'AUSe or the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he
bath g lorilhtd
Cit.i~en'"'
Cl4u,.t' cqma;.-!Se'd in tOO nuifitd l1$.

Con.n1tu.Lion .A.rtie't- j Slrtk)n I
Ct.lbC 6 WIUI uDPI)llttd by lhe P(.-opl~,ol
mNow York Wlth 1!.1Dphns~ Lhnt Wll&
th~e.
That the iographlo bo~der and ol oftblll NATION of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
mcluding at.s popula.uan accarditlg lo thP ~WI ol2010 18 dl'pJetM in t.ho mllp and chart below with a
nmp ahowmc public 11nd pn\'Dt~ l.und that mcludos the eoa&ual waters out to the limit. of200 n1ilea u.s
.And lha Prople oC New York
warned:
rollowo;
Federal Go,crnmcot Lands In the U.S.
lbtJt th.- Pb"~agfGqrvnmrnt mqy
be
muermrd
wluuwlft.'fr
Ehr
hJ
tlytlJ
,,
&ntde
bmunc
fH:qpqn lo thrjc JlqpmnW.: IIWJ
t"ryry Pou'f'.r~ JuriMlidion aM riRhl,

u./ddt ~ nul ey Ill~ tolrl
~d,.,:tdd'!l<llrtllo ""
f'onlfn:~d(tlw! (!rritt"(/ Slntr-.or lhr
;/~tp.lrtmr;;t.,~o. of f{lf! Gf,M<;fYtttW.ttt
IIJt!W>{. N..,tOtn.J.lo lilt Ftot~ ol tht
Mwnol S'UJI,s, nr to tliNt ru6pt-(I1Vt!
St11lr t;.,..._.,.,.,,.f'nl tq ,, ho1" t!u.-y
may hmlc )trUHttd tit,. ..Jmt', And

1/lol thOM t.Hnu~s i111 tlu *'id
!tMrh dv.kur1, llurl
..-..._. ..,......,..............
_tllW.._ .....,_.......
Ct>ntrea iJhol/ not hal~ q.r ~
._
,_.._,
----
fl"rlOIIl ~~.
do
_,_ ______ .
- ~ .. o....
_____
__
. u . ...... ~,.,..,.._,...
.,..._
......,.. ""
~S"-.e""T
Page 2
......_.
impl,i thai
tillY
F\tr{W'f
C-f'HUtitult~on;
ro ~ ......,,,&trw'cl
,Rk"" b.t lhr .Ud
but &ucl; Clau.-.A a,...
Exhibit A
(101
C',ottgf"..41 &. tcnWinl lo

Ml
rttht~r
~pU()n.Jj
tn
rniwft
IPI"Ci{Jai l-bi4''nt, or .u ana..r..U
....,.
mrtYIJ fur grftllff CouJion
ExbibilA
or 15
lAMAR COUNTY. QA Sli>eqiOA COOAT
A;~~~~i
ll&VTY CW<
That th~ Naturl-born Citiu"n clause doe.- NOT derive &om the term or art "natura\..
boro Subject" but mtrill!'ud W'J!Ui" dl'rivt-d &om nntientroM.ider~~;b.Qn o CiOD'Il Natural Lo!tYo fl!t txJ'"'.ate-d
m On.~ by the work of .-\ri"totl~ and tamed forwprd (or UI'O m ft(lmnn law by 'he worb of~ro.
Artitot.le dtd oot deline citil'J..hip Ub the En~lillb dtd In the En&]!.eh <OllliDOD lw 10 which they
did nOt'fO\"e a~ relevan~ to tho Cltlztnfitup or tlw child' pa.rente, ))rovadod the paroote \\'en!< not
dJplDmats or malila.ry Jn,odera. Anttotle U\Ciud~ U1 the d~:~fin11ion or a cui.tA.. a penon ..of J.'hom OOih
thcpoi'r.nU Oft! ctl&.:-tn."' !II Jt iB thts deflrut.uln wh..icl\ Wft.rl, hAildt!d dowo through r.bemillMOJtl through
cba law olru&bonA IUld 't\'ht.ch th(! 1-"'uun&~ all(]. P:rtUUt<rt~ adop~ ror the new rt'publW. W nllo 4t!ll! that
Lilt' t~l $Uftn!Uitf CUurtufdw Uu.iWl Sl;.el.uo(S(IOTUS)
Ui
MwY' ,. Mumrrt\'fl
aa u..s
t21 W.as.ll) 102
(18761 <M!!w:) (deetd'.-d a(teT tbt! four~1nth Amendm~nt WBI'> adopted IP 1868) held thru ofl childnn
b.Jrn ur o country of poN'nlf ulw t("n' tlk<"~litt# br:-comr tllf'm,;eh-r, upq,. thnr b~rlh, c'trzM~ol.t. 'I"Jr.eM
utrt noltun or Mtumlbam cUi=f'll8,.,. di#linJPtihNI from uli~>M or {orfJf/nfr(o infcnmed thor-n pan10n
who boctun~ o citi-r.eo by bCl'lnlt born u:a the Q'!Ountry w "citi.un"' porentA wow known to common law w-.lh
.,., hach tbc l'"'rrutHH'" wcre ranuluu AS" a "n.otJ.;rolb()rn citi...~n." Row do we know th11t rbe ltotmden &nd
Fro.mrn.lookod to Antttotle'e
Yl(l.W
o( CJ.ti.1.c.rulup? We leur:n. tom the
h.unoncall'l'C:Ord thatSupnmH" Ct.urt
.1\aeuco Jamc Wilton wrot~ &.n 1791 GtMrollytJX!Okln.g1 '10n th~ groot pohtiMI outhoritj, ~4n&.tot~ 'a
rW.z-eiii8Cilft" ptJI'W}Wt1J.l'QI'Ol{y (lj p(HtrranJ of f#Ubord!nn/wn ,. ln Wil~m Vlt>W, o rUut'n. tt/
t\o.ttn.ByltorulJ '"he, u'hD hM r~&Jdctl ,,. rhr ,...lalt' lub)'mT6, nttd, u'~'" llmltma~. ho. poid o ttot,e or
tmmty tu:c or hf iA bnU't't'"n thr CJi(H of w..-ll.(-.' 0'"' rmd tll'f'nt;l IU'(I.Vttfro, ond tJu. Mn ofa ati.rtn. Jamce
WU~Wn. Lit commenane.o; on the: C<..n"btutlrm. a~re we ch.!.arl> ..ee Wdr.on referr1n& to w"hat oould onl)'ile
a "nntuml b.lrn C'iti:ttn u"/111 .1011 ofncllizttn"
We also kno. that thQ Founders and Fnune,...stud.ted Romnn law. The Prn.men-..~re well n:nd in
rh.,_ Roman ond Oreti~k clniSS!I:.Iii a. L"l ~poundoc,l upoa m Lhet-r wrab.ntcl!lt.D Lhe Fed.er&.h.llr Po.pera; Joffenten
I .Ariiiode rliJIO ,.,.. 04. d.t.fi.Dlll(.!l) tiL IJ PIILWAI born CI.Ult'Q. tn "PoUtaU. &ok Tht~.
150 R.C.J.t, "M trarb-14ti!'d by 8cnJItrUn JOW\!lt, t;ave 1.b hu. dto6ruUon (l( OUJ'i'Mhlp
PartU
r.rc. II '\rl.!ftosle. Wntitl(l"'
Sua m prac.uc:e a QW;rn "thOnl tg bc one afwhom both lhr oarrntl ace cW;cne, CKhe-NIIn.t"ltt em
ICQJOI(.lul'th..~r bwldt; ...,_v to two or ~aor mort .anoectD,.,. Th~ lla hart.nnd pracbea.l dl'fin.U1Cln but thi.'l"tt
ca~ 10mt1 who rnt.l:'l'! d~ot- !dnhtrquHuon HJJW tlue t.Nrd.or fourth 11ncea.toreame co be a eibxcn?(ku1{iuor
kootull, pArtly bHav.~o:: ht' Wilt u1 ~ dll1ic\llty. plrtly m U'QD)'0 aud 'MortaTS.aft whAt bl mutU- b)' th~
mmv.r--outb.D. ;1nd tbt tllW!P!Jo!Lan&IJI AI'(! thoP.-- ,.,hom m.a~ by~ ma(lAU'ate; for illl tlwt:r tradt~- to
au1.k41 l..ariJ;.u(lnns..' Yot dill! qUH.UOn lf. really 1$ple. for. if llalOrdmr to the dcfinabonj1.1i.tt IJ\'t!ll they Mtted
In tht pwrnmtnt, t.hby
tal&X4DL Tb.ut.,. o hflttf>rclufirutaon Llum c.btother. For tht word~. 'born of a.
.C..U.bt.r or modwr who ~ a mttnon.' Cl.nD()t po1bb' apply t4 tbl! 6rtt mbtJtitant.t or roundc-h- or 6 .to,le.
""'rfl
TIM!n~,. a aruu,r difficuhy m t:.l:ll' cat~t or~ v.-bv biYt be.n tMIU! c:a:twmafu..r 1 K'YOiuuon . ..,. by
C:W~ IJU At.b41n.~afUir tlw t~.puJsaonoft.hc. tyn.nt.t. lor bco NlroUud 1n tr-ibH: JDADY metw, both
t.....,Kt'rtJ"nd t.ltt\t"& Tht.doublw ~auu..., ao: hull. buL\Iobocht.rhr wbollou.htto.,.,.rad.u~
bt a (\lrc.hnu.w O.r ..ur.e. whtlhf.r~t o:rU.iA~ \JUr 11 noc..a.n ~:t.of"t.he urte: (or WhAt
tJugbt rwt to bu ~ wb.ot &a f.alle-. so.,.., thent
toCOl~ wild bold oiJiot.. ADd '!ICL uu.cbt aot co hold ol!i.:e. wholo
"'!<r dua1.b, d.!l.rulmg. btu .rul1ne WlJUf:t.l~ .A.nd tbe~!J..W,tn ...ude-fw~ by Ow:' ("d.oftu..boJr!&.naJrOml! \t.nd o(
ni.lc cw llffioo be wbo holda 1ud.toalor leCJtlab.Ye officr ru(fiu. bW" dtd'i.oitioo o( a~.U.Cn It;., CrYld.CIOI,
\b~ that the- ou.~a aboul whom the doubt h.u a,..n mua& be Cill}ed cat;ltOP~
-.Qd thr~ ,..LllUlJ
blU.t
Exhibit A
*'"
~mJLrd!.k'At"!.f"kJPPluaa btml
Page 4 oflS
11nd udw.r Foun.dnn h.Ad tt IO\ to for Roma.n h.l&tury and t"ducru)on Tho ..Pot.t.nd.el'* dru,l.f'H.mt!n -waro gn-!at.
lldma~ofCteuro and rend nuut.y of his wctrk..... It lE- nM uwoncl!!1\'o.biD that t.bey would hn\'l' .read this
EnRii.ah tre..Mlauon t1! TJ~ Proposal 'J e.n.d ef'Gn the C'l.oWJe ..nolutal born Cit~,.n-." 'rhu ~~;bi'K' a thot tboy
d1d nol nee-d c.n tx~rrow the c)uu..e &urn Ent:lHoh comm<Jn law~-; "natural I.Hmt ~Jbjt-rt" Ralh~r. lhu)' had
toe~urcoa. that they read wluc:.b c:anuined the lJMr:t chm.e.. ,JrJI1~rol bnrn CUU'I'tt." wb1ch cluu~te 11lio .bod tU!
('IWn ttuarung whJ<th \\'1\A dt.ffeteOI from t.hn 0 an E.nclath "lh)IUtal born. I.J;bjftr whJoh Allo'-00 cb.i.ld.t\otn
born tn tht' Ktng~~ dom.uuon and. under 1m aUot~uuu;t> Wal1uu to bt.1 Eugl..l.:th noluml bortt u.t.J~t...
" dl"6nlll()n of a nolutallxtrn Cili:~:n Wa.& al!<J pttwtdod b~ tbt- wurldl'(!nownC!d Lmtt do Vatt~ll.D
bJ.$-ThcLaw qfNnlfo/11. S.tlon !t12 (l...Cindun 1791) (I"-' l"tL N~uc.butcl 1768). VtHwl h11d n ~1
anDueru:o on tho Founden. and Frame~ 1.n thear "uatJtut1ng t.ht> nt;~ republic and wntmg thu
fommtulitm See. (m oxamp)~. J.S ~\~!o Tb~ lnllwntr pi thr Lwc. ofNqWcr LfpAA lntrmquonbl Ln~t
intJu Unjtrd Stbtr1 3Am..l.lnt'J L. 5471.\L !MeQ. p116tim (1909) (V.auru bcrted aueb. a prQrqund polltic.al
1nOuttnr.e chrn n.., arten pcnn1<'d aut 1h1tt hu t.heorte.a fi4!TWd n.s the bttc:kbcllll' for Am~ncan 1nde:pendeneo)
lAit A CaSE'y, Ovvid B. lltvlun. Jr. und Donn It Bormun. l."olu" lui Btll,Mfrenry qad It ltrwhrotron
lllldq lakrnoUpnnJ f4),w, {JUnt()))\'ft fi-.dMIS!.otgll>yhlicv.lliliU!dlui;!IP U!41pub dtLul n~ (conoorrung US.
aontatuuvn.a.l aual,:.lit. ""ro1~ it' lushJ.o;,,..portor,l. Ht '""' probobl:r tit,. ""'"'1t.oto,ollau np.rt 11101t
,iJ,dtl) f'fOd omong tht!FNJ"'~rs--t. ld r_,ez. \'"a~l continued t.O he prooueally applied i.n our n.11tion ror wcll
owr 100 )'l,ar.. a.ftn the b1n.b C\f rht rt'p.ublic:F.S. Rudd> Tl!t AQt'~'nlgtu!l of \f"qtttl Orouan&tlcty
Pp., 11072) (\'art! ,... Ol!Uo>ln!lll!l polilu,al phtlooophy duritl~ th
ohbo C<>ruttiluOon. ~
LaUI ofNqUog wa~ ~gnificantl,y the at08t ot.ed. ie-lll80u.J'OC- w Am<U"u:u J~pru.diml'e batwecn l760 and
1820). Thu Founders and F'ram.~.~rsttudl~d u.od "\\D~ groatl.'' ..n.Oucnred by Voue.l R..O NJJtlU&Cin, XJH.
Original Ctm&tilurion 1!'1 und G9 (~OJO) (... l'ottel ua, prolmbl.v thr Fomtdt"N' {nl'On~nutlum:, c)n
w~mol141tullow
"and hat. trentwe, The Lau ptf\'quon.t, was- tbt.u.r (Avotno)
What Mi4tlUJ.d about a ~nawrol bor1t Cit,un~ \811 confirmed tn li.&. tt, Ujlu K1m drlt. 169 U.S
6-1.9 ( 1898) (llckDbWI.~d~Ol( and COn.fiJ'OUJlf:t M.uwr'tt- Atncncan C</m.UlUn law d~fi.ruuon or. n.alural-born
cili.z.,.n bul~tddlng ba.M"d on t.ht' .ogU11b C(ltai.ID.On tnw t.bllf ttnc& ~{c )li" thild of tm aliPn 1 if horu rn the
"'nil"'
of'""
CGunt,.,# ,., aa muclt a cluc.rt ullt; flUiu..rul...born r:h.ild of o tit~" Ulid by Optftll1on
"!fiJm!!pnnc.iplt!
(bJ.rth m the countty]- (br6t:~blt.'d IDfO"rrrtbbon uppht'd), a c:lnM ltonl Ul ~e Ur:rt~d S!Mleti t,o dum.IQled
~than pArt'DtM wM.n Fou.rtct!nth .1\.m~ndmtt.nl eitizcn vi lltt' f'rtlt.llfl SUJlf'i'), Tht5 Arn~nCftn common In~
d!fin1lwn ot a ~IWLJrnllxmt Cit~M.. baA oaver been ehangc>d. not even by the FoW""t.Ceot.h Anu;odmeot
(only u~~ t.ht! clAu!W' ciJizl'n of tht Pnlt.ffl Stot~3 and dUC& not me.ruion ~notmul born Cut:tn) or by
UPne Kuu \r' and thert~(unur;tiU p~vult today. Both llto&e U.$. Supremo.l.."'<Jun caset de!.lme 11 n.otural
born Ciliunlt -'.if 1 ch1ld born 1n n. country to po.nmtA who arc ctll.Ze1UI of tbAf country.
~ Roman l&tw ptOVidttcl. ~~ ME.NSIA lJtAu.Jdl11d hQ;yld be hcld...u..A...fgnU~t ..J(,r,;itbrr oflhft ptfCAIJ
DL& Bul if both ptrtnll W..(l_~oa.I\UIUl.marzfttil....~bUdrpp alwayw gblAinrdt.be.omkphht ratbor
!.PfiiU.W ~uuntur Ub.r1, t..f,. 'V 1.) t.nd 1f un.mrned 4.1hb. mOlbr. Vrp-um," ..\lt!XaJUI.G.r Ad.am. Roman anuquuiea:
oc-,An a-o:;uunLcJthe atan.ato!DiiQd eutocoloflbo Rota~~on. J10(6thod. corroccd Ui07). Clecrro wrote mA Pmpout
w.,..
1'ht ColQpbOrua.o..t d.&uo Utmaer Al!'t.bw o~o fl:w.~ t>o.wwu c.be C'ban cha.Ut.ow(" him ..
tbi. Salaauniant
di:!.Ul.a.nd blm CUUl Mr thr!tr I.JW"II but~ SO).frQt.all.& Uf(!rt. him to bt> tbtrt.r nat.una'J bam r,won: and t.b..l~!Cft b.n\'(1
~ dt>d"~Urted a T~:~~ple co ht.m w t.MP- Towg ofS10yrwt TheN" ue r1. vern tz:l4.t\)' bttJ.~ t OGI\ttttdramJ amon.c
tbem.~!Yto and cooiJCOd lor b,u;o
,\Pro~&) Fc.w Pn:oun~ tn !n~etu.b. 'rbl'! s,.II'C;t (JriiOOIHol ~latt18 1--u.!Uu.r; Ctce,.,. ~rd.IDIJ tO the lw!lOdord
Schoon 17 (llenry Eelbeck tram London 1720)
APX - 087
Exhihit
Pogo 6 of lfi
to the mnttr r of Romq's Coup d'etat oyer lht: ...AccursAA" Uni hd Stotes ofAmerhm
In thq Jl.llllorO&nl(uftlu~ Act wh1ch tbe ei1)Gt:tonttUy dUltrcl!wlto~t Coo&:rtWt n~wr rt'l\d the followm,r mWJt
llf' und."'tood
by Eric J on Phe lps wttb edlto by CbrllltA>pbi!J' En.rl Strunk (2011)

On ;\far eb 4, 1933 Fr anklin Dolo n o Roosevelt (FOR) n""ume tho Offioo of PreSident of tho
United Sww., 11nd wnh lri lnnugurn l AdtlteHS >llllw nd IllVet! ALL Prol"'rly tUid pe~n
coUtttcnl fur the deb I of che United Sua tea in noti.onnJ "'cnnsecrnuon.. to its prun~ Crcditort1, t.be
Vouca.n St.aw and Crown's City or London. and as Commander in chief FDR iss u es
Proolnmntlon 2089 on l\tarcb 6, 1933,1utthe Military Conqueror"" if he wc>:C "Auguatus
Ca.,...r ortb American Republic, declnng o ~>tc of Notional Emergency b....-d upoo
The "T r ading Wit h th e Enemy Act" of October 6. 1917 (10 S totutc Low ~ 11):
., Tho enenv" wn dc:!:fiiU'd to lw u.n.y ut.dJVldunl. pB.tfne.n;lup, or o&lwr bt.dl of tnd.Jviduala of

11ny nUUdOillny. ~ldf"rlt wttlunthe t.vmt<ny ofAI'I)' ntttt4>n w1th whwh the lJnstNI Sw~ Ul ot.
wur.
CongnltiB ot tbo domuod of owty Govruor o n M11rcb !l, 1933 pai!SI'o tho "Emergency Banking
Rnlief Act~ (12 USC 96n), thoreby Am""dtn the notoriowt World War I Statute "'''rnding With
tbo E n e my Ac t.. uf Ootoh<\r 6, 1..q11 (fiO USC App. n(b)) l'l'WEA), and theD F'OR i,;s..ee
Proclamat i o n 20 40 on MRroh 9. 193i'l, also <'Onlirml'd by "Emergency Banking Relief Act"
(12 USC 95b) and lmn!Png the 'lWEA inland, imp06mg Militllr:l' Go>t!rnmon t
a . Olhfr rnemv jndJvtdua.l Wt+n! dtfinl.'d ft8 " nntl\"('".i>, citi-Mnfl. (r tUbJt.IC"ta orony u~tttun with
whkh t.bL' lfru1t...~ S!Ateto til 111 wnr. othC!r thn c.h.lt.tus or &he United S t..atce .. Tht:.I!IC
..dtu.l!U!'' uf the. Uuit(d Sttl:tei""' m 1917 held Priv,_li' dtit..cn..-hlp nf tht> Umted S tuk'IJ withaul
huvn~ bPcn l"('(iuet.'CI tu the in&"'llOr citJ.wnhp lft:ttu~ of~t~ f)r'UJ>f' ft.)' o( and atttetv fot th(t
S~t~.~.crentod
.
Publ1c 'CJllt.L'It of thtt Un1ted Stat~. "'bkh public cltillHboh1p I.Ot.Us .-IU
Tbt' "'TI'tldin~ Wrtll thi. Jo~n~m>' AeL. rt pJt~~>ed otit;u1all,y U1 HH 1 ttnd amended in 1918. was
mMdt! to apply w any .e.oe:my" ur lhe United St.tttt-.
""""""' un Mordt 9, 1933.
Tlui Amended WWl St.nlutc m Cucn regard.t nD "PERS ONS" "Within the United S tates" u
"<'i>.cod l)l'oporty of the federalll""ornxoenr to b<> ttt>at<'<l <m oneo:ny" aod "en crt\) ally" or
' be lllg" r" n \5 nod ebe lof' by th< C<lnqucrcr' ?.lililltry ao... rnmunt..
1"1w "'rrodma W1tb Lhl"l 1.1numy o~\ct~ a..l8o d.(lfincd thL ten ..per&Oo . A "pcl"50n" \\"'M ol"""'med
[0 mean an md1v1dWI.I. p~rstup, !WtOODtion, comp.an~. ur ot htor utu.Aellrpu.ta.led bod)' of
tndJvLdua.J-. or oorpumt.ion or bod.t pohw: ... 1'htlrt!l'ort H\ 1917 penJOn could mc...n bot.h u
nittut"'l P'-'non/Pnvtttt Ctti:r.cn of thQ Umtl-d S!Jtt4:1J Jt.Od an ~rtific:mt 1)4'ntOniPubhc dt~n uf
rho Unuod St.ot~-& In ~ri Vlll.ogo.
Tbolo(> l)elllge renl.8 aDd rebeltl" .are publiely """dlalf an tho Sc,~rni g,...,_ Now <'on.<odered
ca be "'conqUel"ffd
~rrl t.ori es:
By WJ9 ol!l Am<tn"'tn Common Law CiVIl ~'roc:<:"" will be gonl!. ln il.,; p inee wiU be Raman
Civil Lnw )fA.J'tlol Proceu imposed on aU "PERSONS" (naturnl and nmfinailoubJoct to
tho CuaqulOl" D facto Equity .Jurisdic tion of the "'U nited State !I.'
Tluii Martial Proce.. wlllapply t-u oU Publil: "United St<oteJi Cifueo "
6. 'f'hcnr(o..., n ' t><>rw n defined b, the ' 1'rtl(hng W\lh tho Encmy Act' 010 INCLUDE a
oit.o:cn of the United Stnt~~: whK:h a t the unw ~as o Pnvnto citiz.on oft he UniU!d Statt'tL"
r. Th 'P.mel'l:onay 1.\nJ\Jdnll: Relief Act" o(Mon:h 9. tu38, Kmonded lbe "Tnodlng With tit<:
t:ncmy 1\cc. or t917 (prt'YJOU:!dy amunded fouri.on tJmoe rrom March 2G. 1918. to Mareh 10,
1930). hri.ngmJI' tbe 1'n~d.io& Wtth the Enl\my Act tn111~ tht! Umt~ Su.tt.~ ltpplying ll to "any
plouub)l to th.}urhldl<:lion th<rwr Jull lll<'Stol<&tlrthl,.r h~ UrUu!d Su.Iu] when
provtbUtLty. under the. -rrndi.ng W1Lh tbc Enemy Act, ,.JltroMft<:ti(,na euclllrd U"'holl,v
Ulithin lhr United S tatelf wcn.o uxtluded
Tluo Marti ni Process co.nntn apply to Pm'<IW "Citl cn>s of the Unite d S ta.tCll," Pnvotcly
I'Hidtlllt on tho land t<l C<lmmon l.ilw. wlul~ holcionc Pn vnw Slat<> c,w,rulup PUro\IIUll\0
Sccboo loftbul4AmundmenL
'"!'he Emergc nC)' Banking R e lie f Act" !EBRAJ 148 S t atute L.1w 1)
a...,..
Thi. Act aooompb!lhed the Desit<n of the Society o! J eou U1 the C<lmpuny'"
ConJill'BD)'
OgDltl$.l th~ Ulx>rt."W.s the Vrutod StolCI- SPt farcb 10 Su.m.ue) Mo~'J Nmetoonth ccnrury
mn~tcTPiocc, foorpn Cmypitntt Agnim;l tht UberltttJ oflht United Scnt~t ( It)$5). Ju11t ~the Ordot
hnd brou11ht tilt> Bnt"h AdlJIU't\lty u-...nng h<>tb aunmnl and civil JUrudicllon unhlce Amel"'CCW
Adnural\y '"th only n ciil JUrtodittoon) mla.nd 10 th du)'fo of JMuit..ruled King Chari.. StuBrt l "f
En1lund LMI't'hy ulttatpllog to do uwu) with the En~boh Common Law "n tho loud, tbe JeBUltB
ooconlpliobrd Moentu.U, tbt AAmt thtnl! hr,...ln Amoncn "~'b th,. wtckd Act ntdcd by the
Roo,..,.veh Ooutl
or
, '11M! "Kmtf'I:L~nc.:y &n.ki.nt Rei.HJ"Att dtfint....J nt\f per .on Ill mm~n ""n mdtvtdu:d.
Jlo(tri!WrMl'li!J1 n.lf6(,11ttlat:ion Of corpomtwm ~term "pei"'In" wu defini\CI \0 mean Publk
"at.l.lJ:n c-(thu Umtc.-d Statcd.* The ~nm "parson e:c.eludL,. a PnV11W ~t.-t'l.en of L~.J Urutcd
Suu.,.
s.
v..t th the Enemy Acl" d,,(inNi ij "'J)('rseon" to fndude--n Pr1vnw Ctu:wn Qr

tb" t lmlvd Stot....., 1'bu "1-;mc.tgC.J."'C')' Btmkna: tt..lw( Act d~finud a persoo to~ ~Jn andir"LI.ll
Th~M:!roro. th, ...rrud.uu;
Pg 7 or 15
EshibitA
EshibitA
Pnge G or l5
LAMAR COUI<TY, G~ S\IPERIOR COURT
f/Mft~DEfr'<~CL~~m
BPA SOOK:=::::a.g::PAGES
bEPUTY CLERk
ttJlte!
en my (obviously be in!' a part.aerolup, a.!IU<Wltion. or ..,rpornt10n) to tnolude an .. individual"

"p erson"' to be t::reoted e.R an on.iJicial Mtity which cannot Ulclude tbc Pnvote Citb.en ol the
United SU>tOf..
9. For that "Individual" Amoricun to be treated.,. an an:tlicmlentiry. biB Private "citizenshtp of
the United St.ate8" lmd to be rlrllu<led by un implied, conmctw oontrnct hy operntkm or law
10 the inf~nOT l(rnde- of qud-5\C:Uf"PPI'B~ btl7.C.Mhip.
10. Tb oorporauon tlutt 15 a au.en i.o a PubUc" mtiwn of tbr Um.ted Stat.,, Lt oa created for the
benefit ufthr publio, The corporntiou,. DDt a ' P r ivate" Ciureo of the United Stat~ 0~
1ndavidu.o1 MPn nr1d \Vbrnon eo-rt be Priv ate" Cili7i!nt\ or thtl Unh ed State-a ag m ronded by
Seotioo 1 of Lht! Fuuttoonth Amt~nd.m~nt
11. Therefore, the Privlite "nut~lJ oCtbe Umted St1Ht"ti' as prot.e<:ted m hH; cJb.V..t"nship ~tat-u..r; by
Sec't:ton 1 of the FourLeenlh .Amoudm~nl to lhc Coot-tJtuuon the Uruted Suates. FederOI
or
"'"'""' 12 USC 95a nmeuclnuo and resting upon iiO USC f)(b) does not apply to the Pr~Yill~
Citizen of the Untrod Sl.atos.
A to nt Cor \\'oat Compg rison
1141twoon 50 USCApp. Soctlon 5(b) or tho

"Th Troding\11th the Enemy Act" or October 6, 191 7, <0 S taL Law 4t I
n Amto.ndcd on Morch
1918. 8l'ld Seclio.a 6(b) of the ""Troding \Vit.b the Ene m..r Ace
Tht~: \)toni Co r Word Comoari"on lfi cribeal in unden;tnnding how Tho l=!mcrg,,mcy Bonkuu.-; Rcl.i.u(
1\cc'' (1933) Amended -The 'l'rnding Wit.h c.tw Enemy :-\ct ( 19 li') n11 Amenclecf 10 sub~t&nn.ce 1ntllrin~
"Tbt Trndwg With <h Entmy At1" the Law oft he Lend o(tbe Llnn<-'<1 State or Amonon_
"'The- 'J'rn.dtng W1th t.h~ .Emuuy Act.'" a~JA.uumdcd on .Mat'\:h 9. 1933. a:mpo.M.'d n d(oclt~ Ernco;l'ncy
War Powtr, MUl-.ary Govam tnent.,. whili! ou.toung d(' JUI'I! Oivilla.n Conslitutionll1 Cov~n1 meoL.
All Court.s. Fedcre.l nnd Sun.e, now rmJ)Cit!V n Ma.rt.l1l1 Ota.u PI"'OCt'ul:rU!tend ot e Civilian Oue PJ'OC('iC,i
-~NitM Jtit/un llu (.'ntt~l Stntn.... Natural und .-\rliRcl.al.
on e\'NY
the ondoVJdunJ Pnvate ' Ctti""n oft he United S<ate!o" 11 protected by Sccuon I o.flho
Foo.rt.,.,nth Amondment_ he """ spooifioaUy E.XCLUDED by dofiruUj!n !rom the "Emergency
Banking Roher A<;t," whtcb not. of FOR'sEml'llDC,)' War Powrro CongreM (by way of the
nmended 4'rndmg Wnh ttw Ene-my Aot: Sct:uon 17), atni)08(!d 11 martlul proceu upon t.he
1~. 8<'Cnu..,
cou,.... f.d~rnl nnd otllt<l, afior April 26. 1938.
14. Tbel't'fure every Privme "Citl)'.t'n of 1be Onit.cd Sb,re8:" ~ oe_ttber a ..person... not --propertY'
w b}l't!t to thd urlKdl<tion of the Unlt.ed Stute l'fforred to ln tho Emergency Bo.nlang
R<ltof ..~~ (12 USC' 96a) p....d by tM Emo'IC"nt.')' Wor Puwero C<lnl(l'e'.an ~1nreh 9, 1933.
II; ..o\Qd tbt.,..fo"' sU Pnvnte "mti>rns of the Urutt'd St.a""'" nre not iUbJl'<'t w t.be proVJotinruo of
th "Eme,..ency Baohng 8ehcl' Act" (12 USC !>Ua) boving omended the "Tradie~ With tht
EDCmy Acl- o{ October 6. 1917, M previou.<lynmvnded on Much 2S, 1918, now ooclilied 60
USC ,\pp. 61b)). lneludoag n mA.r tllll duo pl'OC!eu aflAw imp...,d by the amended "Tmdmg
\\"lth tht Enemy A<;t" upon MY ar\l{icwl"person " wtt.hJn the United State& ond ubjectto
the j urlJUilcllofl lh.,.,of," "Aub)<l<'t to the d {acto Emel'llency Wnr I'O\Yono jutiJ!chcllon
tb~rr-of."
='J'tadjng With the Enemv Act " Scctiqn

1917-"'Tbat tbe
Prc ~ idenLmny tn-vWrtlgat..e~
1933--..DittltJr Um Ul ~
(b)
40 S tatute Law 411
rt.'gu.laue .. or proWbi'-'
Or' tlUIIO~ IU.,. ttl h
I" h. oJ uf 1 ~o~ttitlll turJ:'''W' tf(l~t,,,..-d lt.)
Lh.. &n~>tdt nt lhe. P~s ld t. n t JUAy. i.h1uH 'h oh )'

utht he io.veatigatc, regulate. or prob.lbh.
13. Therefore tho (!ood new 1-. all PriVIIW c atnena or I ht Umt..d SIJlt.eo" - prowctod tn thOU'
pnvate r1gbt to a ci viJjan due proces oflaw on n Cederallovel by t he Fifth Amendment, and
toR civi lian due prOC~I\S <)11$ !'lll\te IJ.vel by &cuo:a l or Ihe Fourtoenrh Asnendment.
tt\l~UC)
thur hr
w,., dl"n.-t . or
~.
1WF.A ire now impos-ed in!flde the ga.og:raphic United S t11te8 during u dec.la.d
s tAte or notional e me rgency.
~.
Tbe Prd ident DU\Y no w create ngenci f'B 10 '"inv<! li~l\i.e, regutnte or prohibit.''
The&e agencie. wUI be! t:.rcated du.rlng the l930s. The Securities a.nd .E.xehango
Commi6sion itf cre ated in 1933: hs flr~t dlt~cLOr l.s KnJgh.t or l\faJt-a Joe K ennedy. A host of
o ther ltgenc.le& will be created u u re~ult or the Jeault O tder'"o~~ Fabian Sucl..U..L New Dea L
191 7-~nd~r euc b
l'ules nnd re gutntio niJ ns he mf\V preliQribc, by m -:nns oCUccnseJi o r
1933-''wJde.r gu cb rules a nd
rc.gu.J a t.i o n~
a s be ma y prescribe, by means ofl.i c:eos t"k nr
1011-"'othel'wi.so. any t-rnru;.uc:tlonN-In foreign e eha.uge., ~.xport or ea.r--m.t'lrkingi of gold

19:13-""otherwisc, a ny t-rnM .nctionl in for~ig:n dJte ba.n g~ tr n rN .1t.L.r.
Exb.lbltA
Exhibit A
28~
"The Emergency Bonltlng Rc Utr Act" of MJtrclo 9. 1983, 43 Sl.llt, Law 1
Pagc.8 of t5
APX - 088
Page 9 of I&
tfi
h1
APX - 089

COUNTY OF ALBANY
Index No.: 0707-2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
:
:
:
Petitioners,
:
:
:
:
:
Respondents.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit 5
APX - 090

COUNTY OF ALBANY
Index No.: 0707-2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
:
:
:
Petitioners,
:
:
:
:
:
Respondents.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit 6
APX - 091
APX - 092
CALENDAR FOR THE

APRIL 19, 2016
PRESIDENTIAL
PRIMARY ELECTION
for
SELECTING DELEGATES
to a
NATIONAL CONVENTION
Requirements and dates herein are
provided for in Chapters 87 and 88
of
the Laws of 2015
40 North Pearl Street, Suite 5
(518) 474-6220
www.elections.ny.gov
August 18, 2015
APX - 093
DELEGATE SELECTION PLAN

Pursuant to Chapters 87 and 88 of the Laws of 2015, a state
committee providing for the selection of delegates and alternate
delegates to a national party convention or conference must
select either the 3 plan or the 4 plan contained in the act.
12/1/15
11/1/15
DEMOCRATIC DELEGATE SELECTION

PLAN FILING DATES
REGISTRATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL

PRIMARY ELECTION
2/8/16
Last day for candidates to decline designations.

2-122-a(2)
Last day for other political parties to choose

Republican plan. 2-122-b(1)
2/8/16
Last day for CBOE to notify SBOE of candidates

which filed at CBOE. 2-122-a(6)(h)
Last day for a party to select their delegate

selection method. 2 Chapter 87 of Laws of 2015
2/16/16
Last day for party committee to file certificate of

candidacies for delegate and alternate delegate
candidates. 2-122-a(7)(a-b)
3/25/16
Mail Registration: Last day to postmark application

and last day it must be received by board of elections
is March 30. 5-210 (3)
3/25/16
In Person Registration: Last day application must be

received by board of elections to be eligible to vote in
primary election. 5-210, 5-211 & 5-212
3/30/16
Change of address. 5-208 (3)
FILING REQUIREMENTS 1-206(1)(a)

For the 2016 Federal Primary Election and General Election,
all certificates and petitions of designation or nomination,
certificates of acceptance or declination of such designations
and nominations, certificates of authorization for such
designations, certificates of disqualification, certificates of
substitution for such designations or nominations and objections
and specifications of objections to such certificates and petitions
required to be filed with the State Board of Elections or a board
of elections outside of the city of New York shall be deemed
timely filed and accepted for filing if sent by mail or overnight
delivery service (as defined in CPLR 2103(b)(6)) in an envelope
postmarked or showing receipt by the overnight delivery service
prior to midnight of the last day of filing, and received no later
than one business day after the last day to file such certificates,
petitions, objections or specifications.
REPUBLICAN DELEGATE SELECTION

PLAN FILING DATES
1/26/16 2/16/16
Dates for nationally-known candidates or matching

fund eligible candidates to file certificate with State
Board requesting to appear on ballot.
2-122-b(3)(a-b)
2/24/16
Last day for SBOE to certify nationally-known or

matching fund candidates. 2-122-b(3)(b)
3/22/16
Last day for presidential candidate to file certificate

to have their name removed from the primary
ballot. 2-122-b(3)(d)
4/18/16
Last day for presidential candidate to file

certificate deeming any vote for such candidate to
be a void vote. 2-122-b(3)(d)
2/25/16
Last day for SBOE to notify party committee of

candidates who will appear on ballot.
2-122-a(7)(d)
2/26/16
Last day for CBOEs to notify party committee of

2-122-a(7)(d)
ABSENTEE VOTING FOR PRESIDENTIAL

PRIMARY ELECTION
4/12/16
Last day to postmark application for ballot.

8-400 (2)(c)
4/18/16
Last day to apply in person for ballot.

8-400 (2)(c)
THE FOLLOWING DATES APPLY TO ALL DELEGATE

SELECTION PLANS
4/18/16
Last day to postmark ballot and date it must be

received by the board of elections is April 26.
8-412 (1)
DESIGNATING PETITIONS
4/19/16
Last day to deliver ballot in person to county

board. 8-412 (1)
12/29/15
First day for signing designating petitions.

6-134 (4)
2/1/16 2/4/16
Dates for filing designating petitions.

6-158 (1)(a)
2/8/16
Last day to decline a designation.

6-158 (2)
2/12/16
Last day to fill vacancy after declination.

6-158 (3)
MILITARY/SPECIAL FEDERAL VOTERS

FOR PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ELECTION
3/25/16
Last day for a BOE to receive application for

ballot if not previously registered.
10-106 (5) & 11-202 (1)(a)
4/12/16
Last day for a BOE to receive application if

previously registered.
10-106 (5) & 11-202(1)(b)
4/18/16
Last day to apply personally

registered. 10-106 (5)
3/5/16
Date for county boards to transmit Military/Special

Federal ballots. 10-108 (1) & 11-204
4/18/16

received by the board of elections Is April 26.
10-114(1) & 11-212
CERTIFICATION
2/25/16
Certification of Primary ballot by

designations filed in its office. 4-110
SBOE
of
2/26/16
Certification of Primary ballot by

designations filed locally.
4-114
CBOE
of
APX - 094
if
previously
APX - 095
APX - 096
APX - 097
APX - 098
APX - 099
APX - 100
APX - 101
APX - 102
APX - 103
---
Complaint and Demand for Public Hearing on the Eligibility
of the declared candidate Barack Hussein Obama II for Office
of POTUS at the 2012 Election Cycle in New York
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTioNS,
40 Steuben Street
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT

No:70111570000033846626
Attention:
JAMES.A. WALSH I Co-Chair,

DOUGLASA. KELLNER I Co-Chair,
EVELYN J. AQUILA I Commissioner,
GREGORY P. PETERSON I Commissioner,
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
)
)
)
...
Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse being duly swom, depose and say under penalty of
petjucy:
1. Petitioner.is located for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845) 9016767 email: chris@strunk.ws.; and is a duly registered voter in the 2008 and 2012 election cyde.
2. That Petitioner with Election Law (EL) 3-104 hereby complains of the declared candidate Barack
Hussein Obama II as not being eligible for the Office of President of the United States (POTUS) and
demands a hearing on the declared candidates eligibility on 2114112 or as soon thereafter as the
Chairman and Comniissioners may chose to convene to take evidence and testimony to bar Barack
HusseinObama II from the 2012 Presidential Election cycle ballots as time is of the essence.
3. That Petitioner references the NYS BOE schedule issued on January 9 2012 for the 2012
Presidential Election cycle that designates the start of the DEMOCRATIC DELEGATE SELECTION
PLAN FILING DATES:
2114112 Last day for candidates to decline designations. 2-122-a(2) .
2114112 Last day, for CBOE to notify SBOE candidates which filed at CBOE. 2-122-a(6)(h)
2121112 Last day for party comniittee to ftle certificate of candigacies for delegate and
altemate delegate candidates. 2-122-a(7)(a-b)
311112 Last day for SBOE to notify party committee of candidates who will appear on ballot.
2-122-a(7)(d)
312112 Last day for boards of election to notify party committee of candidates who will
appear on ballot. 2-122-a(7)(d)
That based upon information and belief Barack Hussein Obama II (BHO II) has already declared
himself a candidate for the office of President of the United States here in the New York 2012
election cycle.
That based upon the adniission of Barrack Hussein Obatna II with the release of his autobiography.
"Dreams From My Father" (1995) the British subject at his birth was Barack Hussein Obama Sr.
That according to the INS record signed by Barrack Hussein Obama Sr. he is a Foreign Alien nonimmigrant with a student visa and never was at anytime a US Citizen or even had a "Green Card"
That according to the divorce decree issued from the Hawaii court of competent jurisdiction British
subject Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was married to the US Citizen Stanley Ann Obama being of
minor age at the time of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama II;
That according to the Certificate of Live Birth released by Barack Hussein Obama II during a press
conference in Apri12011, BHO II was bom in Hawaii to U.S. Citizen Stanley Ann Dunham Obama
the mother, and British Subject Barack Hussein Obama Sr. the father on August 8, 1961.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Strunk Complaint and Demand for Hearing with EL 3-104
APX - 104
Page 1 of2
9. That Barack Hussein Obama II is merely a native born naturalized citizen not a Natural-Born
Citizen (NBC) a person born in the country of US Citizen parents) as defmed by the Supreme Court
of the United States (SCOTUS) in the precedent set in Mirwr. v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21
Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. by Justice Waite holding that natural born citizens (NBC) per se are so
by virtue of birth on United States soil when both parents were Citizens of the United States
according to the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 de jure citizens without reaching
the need of use of the 14th Amendment or the power of Congress granted with Article 1 Section 8
t paragraph 4 to defme;paturalization and immigration status person other than NBC persons. ~
10. That Barack Hussein Obama II is not a Natural- born Citizen however may be classified as "Born a
Citizen" depending upon the power of Congress granted to defme such status other than NBC.
11. That Barack Hussein Obama II is a declared candidate with EL 14-1 00( 1)(7)(9) here in New York,
and_has illegally directed his campaign fund raising here in New York to proceed starting last
summer as with EL 14-114;
J!J
12. That BHO II as an ineligible declared candidate"seeking a ballot line in the Democratic Primary and
General Election ballot starting February 14, 2012.
13. That BHO II as an ineligible declared candidate illegally participates within the state and personally
directed his fund raising agents to proceed as defmed under NYS EL 14-114 and the fraudulent
conversion of the funds as defmed by EL 14-130 in relevant parts with related law.
14. That the NYS BOE is willfully facilitating BHO II as an ineligible declared candidate since no later
than the 2008 election cycle continuing now with malicious facilitation using instructions on the
NYS BOE website page "Running for Office" contrary to the law of the land and the requirements set
by the State Legislature stating therein as to citizenship status that a declared candidate need orily
be "Born a Citizen" rather than a "Natural-born Citizen" to be eligible for the office of POTUS.
15. That Petitioner alleges that the Chairman and Commissioners are involved in the misprision of a
~/
felony by facilitating the declared candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama II and others, and that a.. "25
duplicate of this complaint affidavit is simultaneously filed with the Albany District Attorney for
investigation; and that
16. On January 26, 2012, Petitioner was a material witness at the ballot access hearing held by the
Georgia Secretary of State before a Justice of that Court to bar Barack Hussein Obama II from that
ballot and BHO II nor his attorney attended by default relinquish 16 electoral votes from Georgia.
17. Petitioner knows the wrongful acts to facilitate the continued fund raising and attempt for ballot
access by the declared candidate is an irreparable harm with time as the essence that applies to me
by misapplication and administration of laws; 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.
~~trunk
ARNOLD I. TISHFIELO
Notar-Y Public State Of New York
No.41-4311662
Qualified In Queens County
!/
Certified In Kings County
Commission Expires March 30, 20
.J..9
CC:
Office of the District Attorney
Albany County Judicial Building
6 Lodge Street
Albany, NY 12207
CertRRNo: No:70111570000033846633.
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of New York State
The Capitol
Strunk Complaint and Demand for Hearing with EL 3-104
APX - 105
Page 2 of2
Specific Objections to the RICK SANTORUM FUing with the

NYS Board of Elections on February 21, 2012
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPI'
No:70111570000033846664

40 Steuben Street
Attention:
JAMES A. WALSH I Co-Chair,
DOUGLAS A. KELLNER I Co-Chair,
STATE OP NBW YORK
)
)
COtnrrY OP KINGS
-..:
...
, _ Accordirigly, I, Christopher.,.Earl: Strunk in esse being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of peljuxy:
1. Objector is located for service at -593 Vanderbilt Avenue -281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845) 901-6767
email: chris@sttunk.ws.; and is a duly registered voter in the 2008 and 2012 election cycle.
2. That Objector's_Objection to Document(s) by Rick Santorum Requesting his Placement as a Nationally
Known Candidate, and/ or a Candidate Receiving Federal Matching Funds,- on the ballot m a Republican
Primary for President of the U.S., and or any Republican Party Designating Petition in New York,
Designating Rick Santorum, as filed with the NYS Board of Elections on February 21, 2012 is based
upon the fact that Mr. Santorum has not provided proof that he was born to citizen parents in the USA in
1958 and therefore, isa Natural-born Citizen (NBC).
3. That based upon information and belief Mr. Santorum has been contacted to produce documents to prove
he is a NBC to date he has done nothing; and also his mother was contacted toproduce a birth certificate
for her son she has done nothing. Therefore objector suspects Mr. Santorum is not a NBC especially
when even World Net Daily has the documents for the parents but does not prove their citizenship at the
time of their son being born in USA.
4. Objector is aware that the Document filed February 21, 2012, by Rick Santorum, AKA Richard John
"Rick" Santorum, requests ballot placement of based upon he being: a Nationally Known Candidate, and
or a Candidate Receiving Federal Matching Funds however does not provide proof of his NBC eligibility to
office of POTUS.
5. Further, that based upon information believe Richard John "Rick" Santorum is a member of the
Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) having sworn allegiance to both_ the Roman Catholic Church
(RCC) Pope of the Holy See and the Jesuit General Nicolas as members of a sovereign foreign nation; and
6. -Furthermore, to the extentfuat the majority if not all the Chairmen and Commissioners of the NYS Board
of Elections are members of the RCC and have allegiance to the Pope and that Mr. Kellner in particular
also served as the attorney for the New York Province for Society of Jesus and that for nearly a century
the Governors have either been members of the SMOM and or RCC devotees with allegiance to the Holy
See with direct Jesuit oversight that Mr. Santorum's fort
tprovision of NBC
of eligibility for
Office ofPOTUS is that more compelling. _
Sworn to before me
Thi&l.-_J_ day of February 2012

HELFENBAUM
-----rcommissioner of Deeds
City of New York No.5883
.
Certificate Filed in Richmond Cou~
Commission ~xpires June 30, 20
""'f'5
>
CC. RICK SANTORUM- PO BOX 37 VERONA PA 15147.............. Cert rr No: 70111570000033846657
APX - 106
$0.45
$
Cl
. Cl
Cl
Cl
ee.tffiedFee
$2.95
Retum Receipt Fee

(Endorsement Required)
$2. 35
Cl
r-
Reslr1cted Delivery Fee r--~:-----~
$() 00
r------~
Ll'l
......
I .
PS Form JSOO, August 2006
See ReversP for Instructions
r-
Ll'l
..D
..D
:::r
c:O
ITI
Postage
1'1'1
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
$0.45
Certified Fee
$2.95
Retum Receipt Fee

$2.35
Restricted Delivery Fee

$0.00
r-
Ll'l
.-'I
.-'I
.-'I
Cl
r-
APX - 107
APX - 108
Specific Objections to the OBAMA FOR AMERICA Filing with

the NYS Board of Elections on February 9, 2012
40 Steuben Street
,
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPf

No:70111570000033846640
Attention:

STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
) sa.
Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of
perjury:
1. Objector is located for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845) 901-
6767 email: chris:@strunk.ws.; and is a duly registered voter in the 2008 and 2012 election cycle.
2. That Objector has already filed a complaint and demand for hearing with Election Law (EL) 3-104
of the declared candidate Barack Hussein Obama II as not being eligible for the Office of President of
the United States (POTUS) and demands a hearing on the declared candidates eligibility on 2114112
or as soon thereafter as the Chairman and Commissioners may chose to convene to take evidence
and testimony to bar Barack Hussein Obama II from the 2012 Presidential Election cycle ballots as
time is of the essence.
3. That Objector references the NYS BOE notice that agents of the OBAMA FOR AMERICA campaign
flled designating petitions on February 9, 2012 that designates Barack Hussein Obama II for ballot
access at the Democratic Party Primary in the start of the DEMOCRATIC DELEGATE SELECTION
PLAN FILING.
4. That Objector challenges the Certification of both the declared candidate BHO II and all the petitions
and filing documents as a nullity against public policy in that Barack Hussein Obama II is not
eligible for the Office of the President of the United States (POTUS) because he is not a "Natural Born
Citizen"' (NBC) as is required under New York State law in compliance with the U.S. Constitution
Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 and New York provision of law defining "Natural born Citizen" and
therefore all the designating petitions must be rejected as defective . .
5. That objections are based upon the admission of Barrack Hussein Obama II with the release of his
autobiography. "Dreams From My Father" {1995) the British subject at his birth was Barack
Hussein Obama Sr.- as such BHO II is not NBC and ineligible for POTUS.
6. That objections are based upon the INS record signed by Barrack Hussein Obama Sr. that BHO II's
father was a Foreign Alien non-immigrant with a student visa and never was at anytime a US
Citizen or even had a "Green Card"- as such BHO II is not NBC and ineligible for POTUS.
7. That objections are based upon the record of the divorce decree issued from the Hawaii cou.rt of
competent jurisdiction British subject Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was manjed to the U.S. Citizen
Stanley Ann Obama being of minor age at the .t ime of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama II;
8. That objections are based upon the supposed Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) released by Barack
Hussein Obama II during a press conference in Apri12011, alleging BHO II was born in Hawaii to
U.S. Citizen Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, the mother, and British Subject Barack Hussein Obama
Sr. the father on August 8, 1961.
9. The evidence shows that at best, Barack Hussein Obama II may merely be a native born naturalized
citizen not a "Natural-Born Citizen", a-person bom in the country of US Citizen parents as defined
by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the precedent set in Minor. v. Happersett 88
Strunk ~Jatrrr and Demand for Hearing f.rith EL 3-104
Page 1 of 2
0
B'Jec.;Jt9\J.S
15
APX - 109
U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. by Justice Waite holding that natural bom citizens
(NBC) per se are so by virtue of birth on United States soil when both parents were Citizens of the
United States according to the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 de jure citizens
without reaching the need of use of the 14th Amendment or the power of Congress granted with
Article 1 Section 8 paragraph 4 to defme naturalization and immigration status person other than
NBC persons; and as upheld by New York State jurisprudence as to NBC defmed in state law.
Citizen" depending upon the power of Congress granted to defme such status other than NBC.
11. That objector challenges Barack Hussein Obama II and or his agents to prove both the place of birth
and that both of his parents at the time of his birth were US Citizens.
12. That on February 9, 2012, Objector duly flied in the NYS Supreme Court County of Kings I.A.S. Part
27 in Case Strunk v. NYS BOE et a12011-6500 a notice of motion for leave of direct appeal to the
New York State Court of Appeals as of right with a stay of the trial court proceedings until the sole
US Constitutional issue being Barack Hussein Obama II's ineligibility is ~:rep
Christopher-Earl: Strunk
Sworn to before me
T.hls:~ day of February 2012
:
-~
-~:.. ~C:-
HARRY HELFENBAUM
Commissioner of Deeds
City of New York - No.5-883
Certificate Filed in Richmond Counw
Commission Expires June 30,
_..
Ce~~ mi'li' 6N V4-e~ct~ 4/0
20--i:J>
f( .
OBAMA FOR AMERICA (OF A) Headquarters
:ie!~!;;_~Y,IOO!O
ce(l"T
/Oll 0001
&311 I ~73

AlbanyCountyJudicialBuilding
6 Lodge Street
Albany, NY 12207
5 Ptfl..fJC.K.
so%~
rou
l.%1 I CA
d f3A tn A
GflEt-J{,UOO/J
(To
IL
(po" J [ '
CC:lt:1' /lfl.. ~ 7oll ioo(J ooo( G,3ff
1?oeae1 PIFifllotJP
na e, cy3RP-tf-" AfT
The Capitol
;D
(Jlj (Ulj /012-f-/6~
~rzAac fiV~.reu-J ~f3~..4 JC

T rlf uJ It fr.e' f-((JVt/t
f' o~ p@J,u St-f t..-'li.A-NIA Av~ IV .. w.
WMHtfV"r:tTO,J p, l, ~oSo o 9
t Q. : 1 ofl 1.oou ooot tb:;t t -r8toh
f!J:frL-/ fl.
~ 7011
ttJt'O ooo{ 031 I
dJ !;'Jt::f..{ld"-J..S
Strunk ~mplaifit and Demand for Hearing with EL 3-104
AVe,
APX - 110
Page 2 of 2
7&ry
. ,.
U.S. Postal ServicerM
CERTIFIED MAILrM RECEIPT

(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
I A L USE
Postage
$0.45
1 - - - - - --
$2.95
Certlfled Fee
Return Receipt Fee
CJ
-4
0354
03
$2.35
Postage
Certified Fee
Postmark
Here
1---
$0,45
--'------l
$2.95
OJ
Postmark
Here
f---- -____:=----l
Restricted Delivery Fee

$(),()()
(Endorsement Required) 1-----~--4
CJ
CJ
CJ
ru r-=-.=-4~~ntt~nr~~~~~~~~~~--,
~.
.-:1
M
CJ
1'-
>-<c, c ,...-,,-,/l--~r -.-,,---.: ::: ~-.~-=-">=- -
Postage
.-:1
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
$0.45
0354
$2 95
03
1---_:..._..:.....:..::..__J
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee

Restricted Delivery Fee t----'-"=:..._--1
$2,35>
Total Postage & Fees
0354
Postmark
Here
-r'l
CJ
CJ
CJ
1---.:..
$():::...:.:00
~--1
$5,75
0211012012
ru~~--~----------~~----~~----__,
.-:1 i ~entTo
8
1'-
B~c_ (jgJ4ffl~
~t't~::::~:.::-ro~---s:-(in.~-~"bAv<r-cirY:siare:zi;;<x;;.-------------------------------------------------------------.:.
L f-(1 C/Cl-Go ( (_ ~ . b C) 6 /0
PS Form 3800, August 2006
See Reverse for lnstructoons
APX - 111
03
Postmarl<
Here
Is dllvlrY .~ cllfarlnt from 1tlem .1?.

.. If Yes. enter delivery addreaa b8loW:
-~ R.o\6~T t)'A~~~~ _,
ri~ fi: ~ .c:r:rflP.Jt./ltJ7i.o~u==_==~=======!

{\)u,7 . '~i_.,.{.
J-1. 'iot22~f.t;,G
Y
.
.C
'~.!:ptfor_ ~
-
-Cc.o.o.
DYes
2
Aitlcte o.;-.:..> ~
1:
!< : -
' :
.. .
!> \;;
'. -.~ ,m...

.. }r.':r"t~-i.U.
..~~
~.... ~~.F. .y_ ... 71]11,
. . . ].570
. . OIJOIJ 3384 664(]
APX - 112
..;.
Complete Items '1, 2, and 3. NeQ complete

.
Item' 4 ~ Restrtcted Delivery Ia deelrad~
, Prtnt
name~~ o.n the nwerse
so that we:can 'l'8lUm the can:l to you.
~ Attach thiB 08i'd. to the' ta::kd the mallplece,
or on ttl&~ If apace permits.
your
: 1.~~to:
: ~ f{tl-~J~O~IJJ!'
, ~~ w~. 11s-~~
f(51-JfV, AVB- !Jw
.: ~f.ft Prf'Yll-i/IJ c lelfad ~~~~~~;;:;;-;;~
tioo -
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
, Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete

Item 41f Restricted Delivery Is desired.
Print your name and addr8ss on the reverse
so that we can return the C8ld to you.

Attach this card to the back of the malplece,
or ori the front If 8pace permits.
D. Is~ adchaa
1. Artlcle.Add181188d to:
ctS>~~fT'rezf
bN.
VA.cAJ}CtlfiJ
,'i
ltan 1?
If YES, enter delivery addresa below:
; a~-dB~ik:~;~~~~)n~tc~ -_
; 2(" 'eMT ~J')r:;t:St;_..:-~~- '~~-
fJ~
fA-1
Joo I cJ .
Vee
7011
I
6311 7873
IIi~~~-
APX - 113
APX - 114
Specification of Objections to
the Letter from Rick Santo rum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santo rum as a
Request for Ballot Access
in the New York Primary Election
for Republican Candidate for President of the United States
or any other named Republican Nominating or Designating Certificate or Petition or Request
Designating Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum as a Candidate for President
Filed with the NYS Board of Elections on February 21, 2012
H. William Van Allen
Objector
351 North Road
Hurley, NY 12443
phone 845 389 4366
email objector hvanallen@hvc.rr.com
February 21,2012
,......_,
: -:-....;
To:
Election Operations
40 Steuben Street
~--:
c::; :.:. ~
..
.:-.:::>
,.___,
......,
:-; 1
co
t-~)
r.-~ :<~
-o
:::.:c
-..
{_ ')
-n
r
m
0
Further to my General Objections,

I, H. William Van Allen (Objector) specifically object to the:
Letter from Rick Santo rum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santo rum as a Request for Ballot Access in the
New York Primary Election for Republican Candidate for President of the United States based on being
a nationally known candidate, naming delegates and alternates, and giving as his return address:
Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum, and any other nan1ed Republican Nominating or
Designating Certificate or Petition or Request Designating Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick"
Santorum as a Candidate for President, filed with the NYS Board ofElections on February 21,2012.
I refer for document identification to:
http://www.elections.ny.gov:8080/reports/rwservlet?cmdkey=whofiled
List of Filings for the Presidential Primary
Office: President
Republican
Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum 02/21/2010 Vols. 0 Pages 0 Supporting
Objector resides and is registered to vote as an Independence Party member:

Specific Objection Santorum
page 1 of9
APX - 115
APX - 116
Specific Objections to the OBAMA FOR AMERICA Filing with

the NYS Board of Elections on February 9, 2012

40 Steuben Street
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT

No:
Attention:

GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner,
;-..)
C.::J
c--..)
"1'"1
r;--,
STATE OF NEW YORK
) ss.
COUNTY OF ULSTER
-~
i1
r -,"4
~- :i
(.;"')
:e:-;
--~
....---
--~
-o
3:
m
0
.....- .~ )>
(~_) f"l-i
Accordingly, I, H. William Van Allen in esse being duly sworn, depose and say under peumty of R5tiury:
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Objector is located for service at 351 North Road Hurley, New York 11238 (845) 894-4366 email:
hvanallen@hvc.rr.com; and is a duly registered voter in the 2008 and 2012 election cycle.
That Objector as with Election Law (EL) 3 - 104 demands a hearing on the objections of the declared
candidate Barack Hussein Obama II as not being eligible for the Office of President of the United
States (POTUS) on 2 f 141 12 or as soon thereafter as the Chairman and Commissioners may chose to
convene to take evidence and testimony to bar Barack Hussein Obama II from the 2012 Presidential
Election cycle ballots as time is of the essence.
That Objector references the NYS BOE notice that agents of the OBAMA FOR AMERICA campaign
filed designating petitions on February 9, 2012 that designates Barack Hussein Obama II for ballot
access at the Democratic Party Primary in the start of the DEMOCRATIC DELEGATE SELECTION
PLAN FILING.
That Objector challenges the Certification of both the declared candidate BHO II and all the petitions
and filing documents as a nullity against public policy in that Barack Hussein Obama II is not
eligible for the Office of the President of the United States (POTUS) because he is not a "Natural Born
Citizen"' (NBC) as is required under New York State law in compliance with the U .S. Constitution
Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 and New York provision of law defining "Natural born Citizen" and
therefore all the designating petitions must be rejected as defective.
Those objections are based upon the admission of Barrack Hussein Obama II with the release of his
autobiography. "Dreams From My Father" (1995) the British subject at his birth was Barack
Hussein Obama Sr. -as such BHO II is not NBC and ineligible for POTUS.
That objections are based upon the INS record signed by Barrack Hussein Obama Sr. that BHO II's
father was a Foreign Alien non-immigrant with a student visa and never was at anytime a US
Citizen or even had a "Green Card"- as such BHO II is not NBC and ineligible for POTUS.
That objections are based upon the record of the divorce decree issued from the Hawaii court of
competentjurisdiction British subject Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was married to the U.S. Citizen
Stanley Ann Obama being of minor age at the time of th e birth of Barack Hussein Obama II;
That objections are based upon the supposed Certificate of Live Birth (COLB} released by Barack
Hussein Obama II during a press conference in April 2011, alleging BHO II was born in Hawaii to
U.S. Citizen Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, the mother, and British Subject Barack Hussein Obama
Sr. the father on August 8, 1961.
The evidence shows that at best, Barack Hussein Obama II may merely be a native born naturalized
citizen not a "Natural-Born Citizen", a person born in the country of US Citizen parents as defmed
by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the precedent set in Minor. v. Happersett 88
U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. by Justice Wai te holding that natural bom citizens
(NBC} per se are so by virtue of birth on United States soil when both parents were Citizens of the
Van Allen Objections and Demand for Hearing Page J of 2
APX - 117
United States according to the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 de jure citizens
without reaching the need of use of the 14thAmendment or the power of Congress granted with
Article 1 Section 8 paragraph 4 to define naturalization and immigration status person other than
NBC persons; and as upheld by NewYork State jurisprudence as to NBC defined in state law.
Citizen" depending upon the power of Congress granted to define such status other than NBC.
11. That objector challenges Barack Hussein Obama II and or his agents to prove both the place of birth
and that both of his parents at the time of his birth were US Citizens.
12. That on February 3,2012, Objector duly filed with the NYSCourt of Appeals in re: Case Strunk v.
David A. Paterson et al. 2008-29642 for an appeal as of right along with a notice of motion for leave
of the NYSSupreme Court Appellate Division 2ndDepartment in appeal 2012-00766 for appeal to
the New York State Court of Appeals as of right with a stay of the trial court proceedings until the
sole U.S. Constitutional issue being Barack Hussein Obama II's ineligibility is settled.
p~
/ H. William Van Allen
Sworn to before me
This
day of February 2012
/t1
~.J~TnUN
NOTAR i PU!:luC SlAT ~ OF NEW YORK

NO 01MA6095585
c;
QUALIFIED IN ULSTER COUNTY /'

COMMISSIONEX.f'IRES
JULY 14, 20
_
CC:
OBAMA FOR AMERICA (OF A) Headquarters

25 E. 21st St
New York, NY, 10010
Albany County Judicial Building

6 Lodge Street
Albany, NY 12207
The Capitol
Van Allen Objections and Demand for Hearing
APX - 118
Page 2 of 2
APX - 119
the Document from Mitt Romney as a Request for Ballot Access
or any other named Republican Nominating or Designating Certificate or Petition or
Request Designating Mitt Romney as a Candidate for President
Christopher B. Garvey
(Republican Objector)
16 Nicoll Ave.
Amityville, NY 11701-3018
phone 1 631 598 0752
February 16, 2012
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT #7011 1570 0003 5313 ______
To:
Election Operations
40 Steuben Street
Further to my General Objection mailed on
____________________________________________,
I, Christopher B. Garvey (Objector) specifically object to the:
Letter from Mitt Romney as a Request for Ballot Access in the New York
Primary Election for Republican Candidate for President of the United States
based on being a nationally known candidate, naming delegates and alternates, and
giving as his only return address,
Miss Megan Sowards
Deputy General counsel for Mitt Romney
585 Commercial Street
Boston, MA 02109
and any other named Republican Nominating or Designating Certificate or Petition or Request
Designating Mitt Romney as a Candidate for President
Filed with the NYS Board of Elections on February 17, 2012.
Office: President
Republican
Specific Objections to Romney
page 1 of 18
APX - 120
Mitt Romney 02/10/2010 Vols. 0 Pages 0 Supporting
Objector resides and is registered to vote as a Republican at:

16 Nicoll Ave.
phone 1 631 598 0752
Objector is a duly registered Republican New York voter in the 2012 election cycle, and is
qualified to vote for in the New York Primary for President of the United States.
I hereby specify the following objections:

The designated candidate Mitt Romney is not eligible for the Office of President of the United
States and is therefore not eligible to run in the next New York Primary for President of the
United States.
Objector references the NYS BOE notice that a document was filed on February 10, 2012 that
designates Mitt Romney for ballot access in the next New York Primary as the Republican Party
Candidate for President of the United States.
Objector challenges the Certification of both the declared candidate Mitt Romney and all the
petitions and filing documents as a nullity, against the Constitution of the United States, and
against public policy, in that Mitt Romney is not eligible for the Office of the President of the
United States because he is not a Natural Born Citizen as is required under New York State
law in compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 and New York
provision of law defining Natural born Citizen.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person
be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been
fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
A Natural Born Citizen is a person born in the United States of two United States
Citizens.
Therefore all the designating petitions must be rejected as defective.
New York State has case law on the term Natural Born Citizen because New York State Law
prohibited all but Natural Born Citizens from owning mines:
Real Property Law 18
Mines in Saint Lawrence county.
18. Mines in Saint Lawrence county. The proprietors of any mines or
veins of lead or copper in the county of Saint Lawrence, may demise,
lease, or rent the same for a period not to exceed twenty-one years from
the date of any such lease, to any foreign individual or company, and
such lessee may take, hold, work, use or convey the same during the said
page 2 of 18
APX - 121
term, in the same manner and subject to the same liabilities as if such
lessee were a natural born citizen.
Objections are based upon the following timeline, constructed on information and belief, which
shows that Mitt Romney's father George Romney, was a Mexican Citizen or a British Subject.
1757
Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations Section 212:

The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents [both] who
are citizens.
The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that
book, the following definition of a natural born citizen appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, 212,
of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):
212. Citizens and natives.
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 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 French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:
Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .
The terms natives and natural born citizens are terms; used to translate the idea conveyed by
the French phrase les naturels, ou indigenes: but both referred to the same category of citizen:
one born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.
In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term naturels refers to citizens who are such by the
natural circumstances of their birth which they did not choose; the term indigenes is from
the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, indigenous, means begotten from within (indegenes), as in the phrase the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived
there for generations. Hence the meaning the the term, natural born citizen, or naturels ou
indigenes is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country.
1775
Benjamin Franklin wrote [Exhibit 1] from Philadelphia Dec. 19, 1775 that the members of the
Congress were consulting a copy of Vattels book to complete their work .
I'm much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It
came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary
frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy which I kept... has been
continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much
pleased with your notes, and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for
their author....
page 3 of 18
APX - 122
See Exhibits 1 - 4 attached.

1787 - Vattel's term, natural born citizen appears in a letter [Ex 4] of the future Supreme Court
Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention.
John Jay wrote:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and reasonable to provide as a
strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national
government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army
shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. ---...
1787 July 25 New York, Letter from John Jay to His Excellency General Washington, [Exhibit 4]
1794 The Senate made its first purchases: Blackstone's Commentaries and Vattel's Law of
Nature and Nations. Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 5 is a my own Venn diagram of types of citizen in early America.
Marriage gave women their husband's citizenship automatically. So both parents had the same
nationality [except out-of-wedlock]: that of the husband-father. There was no divided loyalty
page 4 of 18
APX - 123
objection, because there was no divided parent citizenship. So the father's citizenship meant both
parents' citizenship. In 1922 a change in US law eliminated marriage's automatic change of the
wife's citizenship, Married Women's Act (the Cable Act). Today, it is possible to have one parent
who is not a US citizen, which creates a divided loyalty obstruction to becoming Commander-inchief.
For example, such a conflict of divided loyalty might arise if one's adopted father was an official
of the Indonesian Army and a Citizen of Indonesia. For such an example, see: Obama Dreams of
My Father.
1814
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated
with the American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:
Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 till Nov.
26, 1829.
John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 till July 6, 1835.
William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, till Aug. 4,
1834.
Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20,
1807 till March 18, 1823.
Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 till Feb. 7, 1826.
Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 till Jany 14,
1835.
Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 till Sept. 10,
1845.
Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph
Storys father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the
army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792.
During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the
New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latters defection to
the British. William Johnsons father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served
as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First
Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutemen of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian
Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for
ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington
was George Washingtons nephew and heir.
Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the
Constitution had intended.
The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus,
belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the
War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case
page 5 of 18
APX - 124
said about citizenship, is what matters here.

WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP
In The Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire
212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
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 advantages. The natives
or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being
able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children
naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle
and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the
laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it
1806 Miles Archebald Romney, b. Dalton-in-Furness, co. Lancaster, 13 July 1806, d. St.
George, Utah, 3 May 1877 m. Dalton-in-Furness, co. Lancaster, 16 Nov. 1830 (Mitt Romneys
Great Great Grandfather), Miles Archebald Romney married in Liverpool to Elizabeth, both
British Subjects.
1809 Elizabeth Gaskell, b. Dalton-in-Furness, co. Lancaster, 8 Jan. 1809, d. St. George, Utah,
11 Oct. 1884
1830 Miles Archebald Romney & Elizabeth Gaskell married. Dalton-in-Furness, Co.
Lancaster, 16 Nov. 1830
1837 Romneys convert to Mormons
1839-Joseph Smith is in Nauvoo, IL.
1841 Great Great grandfather [Mitts] arrives in US. Miles Archebald Romney with wife
Elizabeth and 5 children.
1841 Miles Archebald Romney moved to Nauvoo, IL.
I have found no indication that Miles Archebald Romney ever became a Citizen of the United
States of America, . Miles Romney (1806-1877) and his wife Elizabeth Gaskell (1809-1884)
lived in the Liverpool area. Following their baptism, they sailed for New Orleans and made their
way up the Mississippi by steamboat arriving at Nauvoo in 1841. T
----------------------------------Becoming a Citizen
For most aliens the naturalization process was a two part process that took a minimum of
five years though there were some exceptions. First an alien would file a declaration of
intent. The court would keep a copy of the declaration and the alien would be given a
copy to keep with him. After a proscribed period of residence an alien would file his
petition for naturalization. When the alien filed his petition of naturalization, he returned
page 6 of 18
APX - 125
his copy of his declaration of intention to the court. Following a change in the law in
1906 an alien also had to receive a certificate of arrival from the Immigration and
Naturalization Service that verified his or her legal immigration. When an alien's petition
was granted the court issued a certificate of citizenship to the alien. This document was
the alien's official proof that he or she was now a U.S. citizenship.
http://www.ourarchives.wikispaces.net/Naturalization
There is no indication that the above Miles Archebald Romneys ever became US citizens.
1842 Hannah Hood Hill, (Mitts Great grandmother) born in Tosoronto Township, Simcoe,
Ontario, 9 July 1842, d. Colonia Juarez, Chihuahua, Mxico, 29 Dec. 1928. She was a British
Subject.
1842
Hill family arrived in Nauvoo with Hannah Hood Hill.
1843
Joseph Smith visited England.
1843 Miles Park Romney, Mitts Great grandfather (1843-1904) born in 1843-Aug-18: Birth in
Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, USA of two British Subjects (Miles Archebald Romney &
Elizabeth Gaskell) is therefore himself a British Subject under US and International Law.
1850 The Territory of Utah was an organized incorporated territory of the United States that
existed from September 9, 1850, until January 4, 1896, when the final extent of the territory was
admitted to the Union as the State of Utah.
1855 From 1855 to 1922, a married woman automatically assumed the citizenship of her
husband; if an American woman married a foreign national, she lost her U.S. citizenship.
Similarly, if a foreign national married a U.S. citizen, she automatically became a citizen. Her
only documentation would be her marriage license and the naturalization (or birth) record of her
husband. After 1922, a married woman was required to meet the naturalization laws although no
declaration of intention was needed and residency changed from five years to one.
http://archives.utah.gov/research/guides/naturalizations.htm
Miles Archebald Romney Moved to Utah
1862 The federal government in Washington passed the Morrell Act outlawing polygamy. (The
bill was signed by Abraham Lincoln in the middle of the civil war.) This law was not enforced as
can be seen from the 1880 census where multiple wives are listed.
1862 March 10
Miles Park Romney marries to Hannah Hood Hill (1842-1929 Mitts Great
Grandmother) in Salt Lake City - She was born in Canada. Miles and Hannah had eleven [or
possibly thirteen] children including Gaskell Romney (1871-1955).
1862 or 1863? Miles Park Romney was sent on a mission to England before their first child
(Isabell 1863-1919) was born. While in England he preached for several years in the area around
page 7 of 18
APX - 126
Liverpool (former home of his parents). He came back to Salt Lake City with a boatload of new
English converts.
1863 New York State Court of Appeals in Ludlum v Ludlum , 26 N.Y. 356 (1863 March Term),
defines Natural Born Citizen.
1866 Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, Congressional Globe, 39th , 1st Sess.
Pg 1291 (March 9, 1866) stated:
...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.
Note the reference to a singular child of plural parents, not owing allegiance to any foreign
sovereignty. Both parents must not owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty for the child to be
a Natural Born Citizen.
This quote also demonstrates that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the children of British
Subjects, who retained their own parent's nationality.
1867 In 1867 the Romney family moved from Salt Lake City to Saint George, Utah. St. George
is in the southwest corner of the state on the Arizona border.
1867 -Mar-23 Miles Park Romney: Marriage to Caroline Lambourne (1846-1879) in Salt Lake
City - two children
1868
14th Amendment -Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of 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.
The purpose of this Amendment was to prevent former slaves from being denied citizenship
rights by their states. It was not intended to abrogate the right of citizenship of nationals of other
Countries by usurping their right to give their own nationality to their children.
The Amendment refers to any State, not to territories.
-------------------------------Discussion:
Gaskell and Anna were born in the Territory of Utah, but they were not born in the state of Utah.
Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt Romney were both born of British Parents in the
Territory of Utah in 1871 and 1876 respectively.
Gaskells father (Mitts great grandfather) Miles Romney was a polygamist. The 1882 Edmunds
Act stripped polygamists of the basic rights of U.S. citizenship.
Since the Romneys lived in the Territory of Utah at that time, did they have any US citizenship?
If so, was it stripped by the Edmunds Act?
In 1884 Miles Romney moved his multiple wives and children from the Territory of Utah to
page 8 of 18
APX - 127
Mexico. Then in 1896 the Territory of Utah became a state. Since the Romneys moved to Mexico
before 1896, they could not have received US citizenship, since they were no longer residents of
the Territory of Utah when it became a state.
When George W. Romney (Mitts father) was born in Mexico in 1907, George W. became a
native Mexican (based on the location of his birth), whether or not he was legally recognized as
such. Some argue that George W. Romney was in fact a Mexican citizen at birth. He may have
been a British Subject, like his parents.
How did those in the Territory of Utah naturalize to become US citizens? One source states,
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who applied for naturalization
during the 1870s and 1880s were often denied because of polygamy.
https://www.familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Utah_Naturalization_and_Citizenship
Another article states that when the Territory of Utah became a state in 1896, resident noncitizens did not automatically become U.S. citizens even if they had filed declarations of
intention of becoming U.S. citizens. The article also stated We know from a contemporaneous
news story that as of October 15 1967, George W. Romney hadnt filed any particular papers to
make himself a citizen. http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/mitt-romney-natural-borncitizenship-and-media-bias/
So since Mitts grandparents, Gaskell (born of British Subjects) and Anna Romney were born in
the Territory of Utah (which did not automatically make them US citizens) and had left the
Territory of Utah before it became a state, where is the proof that Gaskell and Anna Romney had
US citizenship to pass on to their son George W. Romney when he was born in Mexico in 1907?
Where is the proof that George W. Romney had US citizenship to pass on to his son Mitt
Romney when he was born in 1947?
---------------------1870 Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870.
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude.
1871 Gaskell Romney (Mitts Grandfather) was born in Utah, the son of Miles Romney and
Elizabeth Gaskell two British Subjects; thereby becoming a British Subject.
7 FAM 1121.3 Status of Inhabitants of Territories, Absent Laws Defining Status
(TL:CON-66; 10-10-96) c. A child born in an outlying possession before January 13,
1941, whose father (or mother if the child was born out of wedlock) was a non-citizen
U.S. national, was held to have acquired the parents status, and a child born there to alien
parents was held not to have acquired U.S. Nationality.
Therefore Gaskell Romney was not a US National.
1873 -Sep-15 Miles Park Romney: Marriage to Catharine Jane Cottam (1855-1918) in Salt
Lake City - 10 children
1877 Aug-01 Miles Park Romney: Marriage to Annie Marie Woodbury (1858-1930) in St
page 9 of 18
APX - 128
George Utah - 8 children

The United States census lists Miles Park Romney, his two wives Hannah Hood Hill and
Catherine Jane Cottam, and six of Hannahs children, including her son Gaskell who was eight
years old at the time.
1881
1881
Miles Park Romney Moved to St George, Utah to build Temple.

Miles Park Romney Moved to Az.
1882 The Edmunds Act stripped polygamists of the basic rights of U.S. citizenship, denying
them the right to vote, serve on juries or hold office. Not dissimilar to current immigration raids,
U.S. federal agents hunted and arrested polygamists. Polygamists were forced to leave the
country or risk jail.
1886 Miles Park Romney started for Mexico with his family, Tom Mahoney The Story Of
George Romney (1960).
Gaskell Romney (Mitts Grandfather) was 15 years old; too young to ratify his citizenship in a
US Court. His intention, and that of his parents, seems to be to become a permanent Mexican
national or citizen.
According to Mahoney:
Mitt Romneys great-grandfather fled with his three wives to Mexico so they could
continue their polygamist lifestyle with a multitude of other Mormon polygamists and
settled there, cutting land deals with Mexican president, Porfirio Diaz using funds that
came from The Mormon Church. President Diaz was happy to have the Mormon settlers
there as a buffer against the Apache Indians. (pg.51)
With others, Helaman Pratt obtained permission from Diaz for Miles Park Romney and
other Mormon refugees to buy lands and establish colonies in Mexico. Partly with funds
advanced by the Church, they purchased large, mostly undeveloped tracts in Sonora and
Chihuahua. Diaz was happy to have colonists there as buffers against the Apache Indians
1887 The Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 was enforced. Archibald Newell Hood (Hannahs
father) and her brother (Samuel) were arrested, fined, and imprisoned for several months in Salt
Lake City for practicing polygamy. About 1,300 Mormon men were imprisoned in the late
1880s.
1890 9/24/1890 Mormon Church advised Mormons to refrain from polygamy. In 1890, The
Mormon Church lost their case to the Supreme Court which upheld Edmunds-Tucker Act, so
Utah came out with their Manifesto soon afterward which condemned plural marriage:
The 1890 Manifesto, sometimes simply called The Manifesto, is a statement which
officially disavowed the continuing practice of plural marriage in The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Issued by church president Wilford Woodruff
in September 1890, the Manifesto was a response to mounting anti-polygamy pressure
from the United States Congress, which by 1890 had disincorporated the church,
escheated its assets to the U.S. federal government, and imprisoned many prominent
page 10 of 18
APX - 129
polygamist Mormons.
The Manifesto was a dramatic turning point in the history of the LDS Church. It
officially prohibited church members from entering into any marriage prohibited by the
law of the land, and made it possible for Utah to become a U.S. state.
Nevertheless, even after the Manifesto, the church quietly continued to perform a small
number of plural marriages in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, thus necessitating
a Second Manifesto during U.S. congressional hearings in 1904.
In regards to the missionaries, the expatriate Mormons had to become Mexican citizens since
missionary work by foreigners was prohibited by Mexican law at the time.
Mexico only allowed citizens to conduct missions/missionary work. The Mormons operated
missions in Mexico.
1891= 5 years + 1886 Under the operative immigration law of nations at the time, each
government had a tacit agreement about such expatriates to avoid being put into delicate
situations of having to defend Americans on foreign soil. This was operative when the Mormons
fled Utah. The standard was that if an American stayed five or so years, each country would
consider he had rejected his native countrys citizenship. This made Miles Park Romney and his
son George Romney both Mexican Citizens.
George W. Romney was born in Mexico, son of the head elder (Gaskell Romney), who was in
Mexico for about 3 decades before George W. Romney's birth, said Gaskell Romney must have
been a Mexican [or British] citizen. Therefore, Gaskell Romney could not bestow American
citizenship, much less natural born citizenship to George W. Romney. Since George W.
Romney [Mexican or British] was therefore not an American citizen, George W. Romney could
not eventually bestow natural born citizen status to his son Mitt Romney.
1892 Gaskell Romney (Mitts Grandfather) became 21 years old; old enough to declare his
citizenship in a US Court. But he lived in Mexico. His intention and that of his parents seemed
to be to become a permanent Mexican national or citizen. He did not live in the United States for
at least 5 years before his 23rd birthday in 1894.
----------------------------Minors (Children)
Minor children were granted derivative citizenship when their father, or after 1922 their
parent, was naturalized. This practice remained in place for children under the age of 21
from 1790 to 1940. There usually will be no record of a minor child's derivative
citizenship unless he/she applied to the INS after 1929 for a certificate of citizenship.
Between 1824 and 1906 an alien who arrived as a minor, had lived in the United States
for at least 5 years before their 23rd birthday, and whose father had not become a U.S.
naturalized citizen could file his declaration and petition at the same time. Although the
forms used for this process varied from court to court, the declaration of intention and
petition for naturalization are usually found on one form.
page 11 of 18
APX - 130
There is no evidence that Gaskell ever:
arrived as a minor in the US,
lived in the United States for at least 5 years before his 23rd birthday,
filed his declaration or petition to be a US Citizen.
Therefore, Gaskell was not a US Citizen.
1895 -Feb-20 Miles Park Romney married Anna Amelia Pratt (1876-1926) in Dublan,
Chihuahua, Mexico. She was the grand daughter of Mormon Pioneer Parley Pratt.
1896
Utah becomes a State Jan 4, 1896
1897 -Feb-02 : Miles Park Romney married Emily Henrietta Eyring (1870-1947) in Dublan
Mexico, widow of William Snow. They begat no children, but she already had two children from
the Snow marriage.
1904 Miles Park Romney (Mitt's Great Grandfather) died at Colonia Dublan, Chihuahua,
Mexico, evidencing his intent to remain a Mexican for life.
-----------------------------------Women
Early naturalization laws did not restrict naturalization for women and in theory alien
women could apply for citizenship. However a variety of laws began to limit a woman's
rights to naturalization culminating in a 1855 law that effectively restricted naturalization
for women. The 1855 act held that "[a]ny woman who is now or may hereafter be
married to a citizen of the United States, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized,
shall be deemed a citizen." Essentially the law said that a woman held the citizenship of
her husband. For instance if a German woman immigrated to the United States and
married a U.S. citizen, she automatically became a citizen. Or if a German couple
immigrated to the United States and the husband was naturalized, his wife was
considered a citizen by virtue of his naturalization. A strange quirk of this law was that
if a woman who was a native-born U.S. citizen married a foreigner, the U.S.
government considered that she had given up her U.S. citizenship in favor of her
husband's citizenship. This was a matter of debate for some time but an act in March of
1907 codified it in law.
Few women pursued naturalization before 1920 because women couldn't vote - the major
right of citizenship - and in many places couldn't own property. Following the passage of
the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote, there was a movement to
change the laws relating to naturalization of women. Many asked why a woman should
automatically be granted the right to vote through marriage. Congress passed the Married
Women's Act (the Cable Act) on September 22, 1922. Women were now able to apply for
naturalization on their own. Included in the Cable Act, was a provision to allow American
born women who had lost their citizenship due to their marriages to foreigners to file
petitions to become citizens. Many U.S. born women who had married foreign citizens
page 12 of 18
APX - 131
did not believe they should have to file for a citizenship to which they had been born. In
1936 Congress passed a new act that allowed U.S. born women who had married
foreigners between 1907 and 1922 to take an oath of allegiance (sometimes mistakenly
called a repatriation petition).
http://www.ourarchives.wikispaces.net/women
--------------1904 Second Manifesto of Church during U.S. congressional hearings in 1904 rejecting
Polygamy.
1907 George W. Romney (Mitt's father) was born in Mexico. George W. Romney was born in
a Mormon Colony, Colonia Dubln, in Galeana, State of Chihuahua, Mexico, on July 8, 1907.
His parents were Gaskell and Anna Amelia Pratt Romney, both ex-patriot British citizens who
were born in Utah and who met and married in Mexico, and who seem to have become Mexican
Citizens.
George W. Romney's birth on foreign soil, raises the question of citizenship by descent of
children born to American citizens on foreign soil. Citizenship lies in two concepts of
international law:
a) birth in-country, or jure soli (by right of the soil) by which George would be Mexican;
or
b) from birth outside the country to parents who are citizens, jure sanguinis (by right of blood).
George was born in Mexico of British Subjects or Mexican Citizens, so he is either:
by jure soli (by right of the soil) a Mexican Citizen, or
by jure sanguinis (by right of blood), a British Subject or Mexican Citizen.
1908 Mitts mother, Lenore Romney, was born in Logan, Utah on November 9, 1908. She was
an American citizen at birth.
1913 George & parents move to El Paso refugee center. They were temporary exiles. George
said: "We were the first displaced persons of the 20th century." Mitt Romney has repeated this
admission and thus adopted it as his own.
A displaced person (sometimes abbreviated DP) is a person who has been forced to leave his or
her native place, a phenomenon known as forced migration. Displaced person - Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displaced_person
displaced person n. One who has been driven from one's homeland by war or internal upheaval.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright 2000
by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All
rights reserved.
displaced person
a person forced from his or her country, esp. as a result of war, and left homeless elsewhere
page 13 of 18
APX - 132
Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc.,
Cleveland, Ohio. Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
displaced person
noun
a person driven or expelled from his or her homeland by war, famine, tyranny, etc.
Abbreviation: DP, D.P. Origin: 194045 Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2012.
Definition of DISPLACED PERSON
: a person expelled, deported, or impelled to flee from his country of nationality or habitual
residence by the forces or consequences of war or oppression abbr. DP
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/displaced%20person
displaced person
noun
1. someone who has been forced to leave their own country and live somewhere else, for
example because there is a war in their own country
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/displaced-person
The use by George Romney of the phrase: Displaced Person is thus an admission that George
Romney regarded his native place, country of nationality, own country, nationality, and
homeland as Mexico.
1938 Twenty-six years after the Romneys were forced from Mexico, the case of "Gaskell
Romney vs. United States of Mexico" was heard in Salt Lake City in 1938. Gaskell requested
$28,753 in damages. He was awarded $9,163, court records show a sizable amount then.
The records say Gaskell gave half of the award to his son, George, which would have helped
to put him on his road to becoming chairman of American Motors and governor of Michigan.
1947 Mitt Romney was born in Detroit, Michigan on March 12, 1947. His parents were
George W. Romney [Mexican or British by blood or Mexican by birth in Mexico] and Lenore
LaFount Romney, who married in Salt Lake City on July 2, 1931. At the time of his birth, Mitts
father served as general manager of the Automobile Manufacturers Association, in Detroit.
1967 According to an October 15, 1967 New York Times interview with George Romney, who
was then seeking the 1968 Republican nomination for President of the United States, it appears
that he did not at any time apply for naturalization.
According to the Times report, Governor Romney said today that the question of his
constitutional eligibility for office had been studied by lawyers and that he believed it
posed no problem Governor Romney said that he did not have to file any papers to
become an American citizen since both his parents had been born in the United States
page 14 of 18
APX - 133
However, both George's parents were Mexican Citizens, or British Subjects, when George was
born.
Wherefore: Objector challenges Mitt Romney and or his agents to prove that both of
his parents at the time of his birth were US Citizens; particularly Mexican born George Romney.
I specifically object to the the Letter to designate the unqualified candidate, Mitt Romney, as a
candidate for President on the NY Primary Ballot.
Objector objects on the basis of the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 (1) eligibility
natural-born Citizen.
Objector cautions the New York State Board of Elections against using as a criteria the novel
inapplicable phrase Born a Citizen (under Running for Office at BOE website), instead of the
Constitutional term natural born Citizen.
The Natural Born Citizen idiom was selected by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution to conform with
the concerns of the People of New York who were intent to safeguard sovereignty, to reflect history and
practice of the Law of Nations(2) since Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York, July
26, 1788, and that as defined by the Legislature by statute example in the Real Property Law Article 2
Section 18 (3),and as relates to matters of inheritance, that have since been upheld by the State of New
York Court of Appeals in its precedents that also conform with precedents of the Supreme Court of the
United States (SCOTUS) before and after the addition of the 14th amendment that did not amend the
Natural Born Citizen idiom, or warrant any assertion by the NYS BOE, other than natural-born Citizen.
The BOE may not paraphrase the Constitution to change its meaning to some ill-defined or differently
defined born a citizen term, as indicated on the BOE's website this election for the very first time.
There is no state statutory provision warranting NYS BOE to use Born a Citizen per se rather than
Natural Born Citizen; and therefore, is strictly a U.S. Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5
Natural Born Citizen eligibility issue that the NYS BOE must conform to, in compliance with the body of
common law of the New York Courts (4), and in accordance with SCOTUS precedents (5) that are contrary
to Born a Citizen idiom use.
Objector notes that my mother explained to me, when I was a child:

that she could never be President, because she was a naturalized citizen; but,
the fact that she had naturalized before the birth of her children, and married a another
U.S. citizen, meant that I could be President.
It is interesting that this once-common Constitutional knowledge, of an immigrant, seems to
have been somehow obscured by the last few decades.
As required, prior to filing this Specification of Objections, a true and correct copy of it, together
with any and all attachments was mailed by, registered or certified mail
Certificate 7011 1570 0003 5313 __________
to the only person and address named on the Romney's Document as the Representative of the
Candidate for service of this notice:
Miss Megan Sowards
page 15 of 18
APX - 134

Boston, MA 02109
Proof of such Service is attached hereto in the form of a copy of the certified mailing receipt for
the same and Certificate of Service.
Feb. 27, 2012
Signed
Christopher B. Garvey (Republican Objector)
Endnotes
Exhibits 1 to 5
page 16 of 18
APX - 135
U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 paragraph 5:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
2
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758)
NYS RPL 18. Mines in Saint Lawrence county. The proprietors of any mines or veins of lead or copper in the county
of Saint Lawrence, may demise, lease, or rent the same for a period not to exceed twenty-one years from the date of
any such lease, to any foreign individual or company, and such lessee may take, hold, work, use or convey the same during
the said term, in the same manner and subject to the same liabilities as if such lessee were a natural born citizen.
4
New York Miscellaneous Reports
PEOPLE v. QUIROGA-PUMA, 18 Misc.3d 731 (2007) No. LX6701631.

MATTER OF BROWN, 132 Misc.2d 811 (1986) July 7, 1986 .
AGOSTINI v. DE ANTUENO, 199 Misc. 191 (1950) February 20, 1950.
PEOPLE EX REL. CHOOLOKIAN v. MISSION OF IMMAC. VIRGIN, 192 Misc. 454 (1947) December 30, 1947.
New York Appellate Division Reports
WILLIAMS v. VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER, 97 App. Div. 84 (1904) July, 1904
New York Court of Appeals Reports
MUNRO v. MERCHANT, 28 N.Y. 9 (1863) September Term, 1863
LUDLAM v. LUDLAM, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) March Term, 1863.
WADSWORTH v. WADSWORTH, 12 N.Y. 376 (1855) March Term, 1855
McCARTHY v. MARSH, 5 N.Y. 263 (1851) September Term, 1851
HOYT v. THOMPSON, 5 N.Y. 320 (1851) September Term, 1851
Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand.Ch. 583, 659-663 (N.Y. 1844)
5
Minor. v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627
Cases citing Minor: Boyd. v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971); City of Mobile v.
Bolden, 446 U.S 55 (1980); Baldwin v. Fish & Game Commm of Montana, 436 U.S 371 (1978) ; Breedlove v. Suttles, 302
U.S. 277 (1937); US v. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935); Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S.
559 (1911); Hague v. Committee For Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939); Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245
(1934); Harris v. Mcrae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980); Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S 47 (1907); Kepner v. U.S., 195 U.S. 100 (1904);
Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705 (1962); N.Y. Ex Rel. Bryant v.
Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63 (1928); Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1 (1982); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 816
(1971); Schick v. U.S., 195 U.S. 65 (1904); Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944); South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437
(1905); In Re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23
(1968)
Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894), that is essentially the holy grail of support for Minor v. Happersett, as it
states:In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word citizen is often used to convey the idea of
membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States,
have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of
the constitution as since (Emphasis added) and also the City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980)
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
APX - 136
Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830) therein C.J. John Marshal on how New York law
and British common law apply before and after 1776 Independence affects the right to take land in controversy by descent
in New York:
APX - 137
APX - 138
Democratic Party
Designating Petition
Designating Barack Obama
02/13/12
CERTIFIED mail RETURN RECEIPT # 7011 1570 0003 5313 5080
To:
Election Operations
40 Steuben Street
Attention:
JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair,
DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair,
EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner,
Further to my General Objection mailed on Feb. 9, 2012, and an Amended General Objection
mailed herewith today,
I, Christopher B. Garvey (Objector) object to the above identified petition, and I hereby specify the
following reasons:
1. Objector resides at 16 Nicoll Ave., Amityville, NY 11701-3018.
Phone: 631 598 0752.
2. Objector is a duly registered New York voter in the 2012 election cycle, and is qualified to vote for
President.
3. The designated candidate Barack Obama (Obama) is not eligible for the Office of President of the
United States (POTUS). Objector demands a hearing on the declared candidate's eligibility on
2/14/12 or as soon thereafter as the Chairman and Commissioners may chose to convene to take
evidence and testimony to bar Barack Obama from the 2012 Presidential Election cycle ballots, as
4. Objector references the NYS BOE notice that agents of the OBAMA FOR AMERICA campaign filed
designating petitions on February 9, 2012 that designates Barack Obama for ballot access as the
Democratic Party Candidate for President of the United States.
Objector challenges the Certification of both the declared candidate Barack Obama and all the
petitions and filing documents as a nullity, against public policy, and against the Constitution of
the United States, in that Barack Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President of the
United States (POTUS) because he is not a Natural Born Citizen as is required under New
York State law in compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 and New
York provision of law defining Natural born Citizen.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption
of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible
to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a
Resident within the United States.

Specific Objections to Obama Designating Petition
APX - 139
Page 1 of 4
5. Objections are based upon the admission of Barack Obama , AKA Barack H. Obama (AKA Barrack
Hussein Obama II) with the release of his autobiography. Dreams From My Father (1995).
Barack Obama's father was Barack H. Obama Sr., a British subject at the time of the Candidate's
birth. This non-US Citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama Sr. makes Barack Obama not a
Natural Born Citizen, and therefore Obama is ineligible for the Office of President of the United
States.
6. Objections are based upon the INS record signed by Barrack Hussein Obama Sr. that Barack
Obamas father was a Foreign Alien non-immigrant with a student visa and never was at anytime a
US Citizen or even had a Green Card as such Barack Obama is not Natural Born Citizen and
ineligible for POTUS.
7. objections are based upon the record of the divorce decree issued from the Hawaii court of competent
jurisdiction British subject Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was married to the U.S. Citizen Stanley
Ann Obama being of minor age at the time of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama II;
These objections are based upon the supposed Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) released by
Barack Obama during a press conference in April 2011, alleging Barack Obama was born in
Hawaii to U.S. Citizen Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, the mother, and British Subject Barack
Hussein Obama Sr. the father on August 8, 1961.
8. The evidence shows that at best, Barack Obama may merely be a native born or naturalized citizen,
not a Natural Born Citizen. A Natural Born Citizen is a person born in the United States, of US
Citizen parents, as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the precedent
set in Minor. v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. Justice Waite
holding that natural born citizens per se are so by virtue of birth on United States soil when both
parents were Citizens of the United States.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere
to ascertain [***10] 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 natural-born citizens, as
distinguished from aliens or foreigners. id. http://www.osah.ga.gov/documents/Cases/Cite-minor
%20v%20happersett.pdf, at page 2 of the decision.
9. This is the definition which applies to the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5. It is the
definition commonly accepted under international law at the time the Constitution was drafted and
ratified. When the delegates from New York insisted on this clause, they did not wish to have a
British Subject or his offspring becoming Commander-in-chief, and then, by surrender, returning
the United States to being subject to the King of England.
10. Natural Born Citizen is a Constitutionally different term than the terms used in the 14thAmendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the State wherein they reside....
The 14thAmendment is irrelevant to the term Natural Born Citizen.

11. Natural Born Citizen is defined without reaching the need of use of the 14th Amendment or the
power of Congress granted with Article 1 Section 8 paragraph 4 to define naturalization and
immigration status of persons other than Natural Born Citizen persons; and as upheld by New
York State jurisprudence as to Natural Born Citizen, defined in state law.
12. Barack Obama is not a Natural- born Citizen. However he may possibly be classified as Born a
Citizen depending upon the power of Congress granted to define citizen status, other than
Natural Born Citizen.
13. On information and belief, Barack Obama renounced his citizenship at various times.
Obama received a public education In Indonesia, where public education was only provided to
APX - 140
Page 2 of 4
Indonesian Citizens and where dual citizenship was not permitted.

Obama applied for financial aid as a foreign student within the United States.
Said application[s] was evidence that he is not a US Citizen.
Said application[s] as a foreign student operatively served as his renunciation of his US
Citizenship.
15. On information and belief, Obama traveled as an Indonesian Citizen, with an Indonesian Passport,
when dual citizenship was not permitted. This was either evidence of renunciation, or operative
renunciation of his citizenship, or both.
16. Barack Obama is ineligible to be President because he has violated his oath of office to protect and
defend the Constitution.:
17. By pretending to be President, when he is not a Natural Born Citizen, he has violated U.S.
Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5.
18. Obama has attacked the First Amendment by arresting persons and members of the press at peaceful
assemblies.
19. Obama has attacked the First Amendment by forcing religious organizations to act in violation of
their beliefs,
20. Obama has used the ATF to violate the Second Amendment.
21. Obama has attacked the Fourth Amendment by, without warrant, using agents to conduct
unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, houses, places and effects, including data and
private communications.
Obama has attacked the Fourth Amendment by depriving American Citizens of life, liberty, and
property, without due process of law.
22. Barack Obama has attacked the Sixth Amendment, by denying accused persons a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
23. Barack Obama has attacked the Sixth Amendment, by arresting and imprisoning trial Counsel.
24. Barack Obama has violated the Seventh Amendment, by imposing Civil penalties on persons,
where the value in controversy exceeded twenty dollars, without the right of trial by jury
25. Barack Obama has violated Amendment 8 -by requiring excessive bail, imposing excessive fines, and
inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
26. Barack Obama has violated Amendment 9 by denying and disparaging other rights retained by the
people.
27. Barack Obama has violated Amendment 10, by usurping powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, which are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.
28. Barack Obama declined to become president the last time he was elected by not taking his oath of
office. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=274_VdeckAU
What Obama said may be an oath that he has violated, but was not quite what the Constitution, Article
II, Sec. 1 requires:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will
to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
29. Wherefore: objector challenges Barack Obama and or his agents to prove both the place of birth and
that both of his parents at the time of his birth were US Citizens, and that Barack Obama has never
renounced his US Citizenship, nor violated his oath of office.
APX - 141
Page 3 of 4
30. I object that there is no summary page on the Designating Petition.

31. I specifically object to all volume numbers, all page numbers, and all line numbers containing any
signatures, and to all the signatures, in that they purport, in the language of the petition at the top
of each page, to designate the unqualified candidate, Barack Obama.
32. I have no objections to any signature other than to the candidate they purport to designate.
33. I have no objections to any portion of any petition or any signature line or witness statement, nor any
other reasons for any such objection, other than: that the Candidate they purport to designate is
unqualified.
34. I object to the the total number of signatures submitted, because the Candidate they purport to
designate is unqualified.
35. All the signatures are grouped together in one group, for the above reasons, because the Candidate
they purport to designate is unqualified.
No specifications of objections to any petition will be considered by the Board unless the objector filing the
specifications personally delivers or mails by registered or certified mail a duplicate copy of the specifications to each
candidate for public office named on the petition. In the case of a petition containing candidates for party position,
service of the specifications shall be made on either the named candidates or the first person named on the petition's
committee to fill vacancies. Service shall be made on or before the date of filing of any specifications with the Board.
Proof of service shall accompany the specifications or be received by the end of business two days following the filing
of the specifications, whichever is later.
As required, prior to filing this Specification of Objections, a true and correct copy of it, together with any
and all attachments was mailed by, registered or certified mail to:
the first person named on the Petition's committee to fill vacancies:
Robert Diamond
118 East 93rdStreet
New York, NY 10128
and to the Candidate:
Barack Obama
5064 S. Greenwood Ave.
Chicago, Illinois 60515
Proof of such Service is attached hereto in the form of a copy of the certified mailing receipt for the each
and a Certificate of of Service.
Signed
_________________________________
Christopher B. Garvey Objector
APX - 142
Page 4 of 4
Febru~ry 28. 2012
STATE OF NEW YORK

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS
In the Matter of the objections of CHRISTOPHER GARVEY,

to the designating petition of the Democratic
DETERMINATION
Party purporting to designate BARACK OBAMA
as a candidate for the office of President of the
United States
After an examination of the des~nating petition of the Democratic Party

purporting to nominate SARACK OBAMA as a candidate for the office of President of
the United States, and the matter having been considered by the Commissioners of the
State Board of Elections on February 28, 2012, the State Board finds that the objector
has no standing to object to the party position as the objector is not an enrolled member
of the Democratic Party (Election Law 6-154(2)). Further, the objection raises issues
which are beyond the ministerial scope of the State Board to determine and such
objection is made in the incorrect venue, as no direct election for President of the
United States occurs via election day ba llots. Rather, the April 24, 2012 Presidential
Primary is the ballot access process which provides for the election of delegates to a
national party convention or a national party conference in 2012.
For the reasons cited
herein, the objection is overruled and the petitio n is valid.
APX - 143
the Letter from Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum as a
Republican Objector
16 Nicoll Ave.
phone 1 631 598 0752
email objectorCG@verizon.net
02/25/12
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT #7011 1570 0003 5313 _____
To:
Election Operations
40 Steuben Street
Further to my General Objection mailed on Tuesday, 02/21/2012,
I, Christopher B. Garvey (Republican Objector) specifically object to the:
Letter from Rick Santorum, a Request for Ballot Access in the New York Primary Election for
Republican Candidate for President of the United States, and giving no return address, and
document[s] naming delegates and alternates:
Office: President
Republican
Rick Santorum 02/21/2010 Vols. 0 Pages 0 Supporting

16 Nicoll Ave.
phone 1 631 598 0752
Objector is a duly registered Republican New York voter in the 2012 election cycle, and is qualified to
vote for in the New York Primary for President of the United States.
page 1 of 10
APX - 144

The Document contains no return address for the service of objections, or of summons and complaint,
on the Candidate.
The designated candidate Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum is not eligible for the
Office of President of the United States and is therefore not eligible to run in the next New York
Primary for President of the United States.
Objector challenges the Certification of both the declared candidate Rick Santorum AKA Richard John
"Rick" Santorum and all the filing documents as a nullity, against the Constitution of the United States,
and against public policy, in that Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum is not eligible
for the Office of the President of the United States because he is not a Natural Born Citizen as is
required under New York State law in compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1
paragraph 5 and New York provision of law defining Natural born Citizen.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of
this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that
Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident
within the United States.
Citizens.
Rick Santorum's father was an Italian Citizen, who immigrated to the United States.
Rick Santorum is the middle of the three children of Aldo Santorum (1923
2011), a clinical psychologist who immigrated to the United States at age seven
from Riva del Garda, Italy,[15] and Catherine (Dughi) Santorum (1918), an
administrative nurse[15][16][17] of Italian American and Irish American descent.
[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum
On Feb. 7, 2012, Rick Santorum publicly admitted that he is a first generation American:
I never thought as a first-generation American whose parents and grandparents
loved freedom and came here because they didn't want the government telling
them what to believe and how to believe it.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1202/07/acd.02.html
I found no information indicating that the Candidate's father, Aldo Santorum, ever
naturalized as a United States Citizen.
Therefore, Candidate Rick Santorum is not a A Natural Born Citizen ... a person born
in the United States of two United States Citizens. Therefore he is not Constitutionally
page 2 of 10
APX - 145
qualified to be President of the United States. He must not be placed on any New York
ballot for election to that office.
Therefore all the designating documents must be rejected as defective.
New York State has case law on the term Natural Born Citizen because among other reasons, New
York State Law prohibited all but Natural Born Citizens from owning mines:
Law of Nations
According to Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations Section 212: (1757)
The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents [both] who are
citizens.
The Law of Nations, was written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that
book, the following definition of a natural born citizen appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, 212, of the
English translation of 1797 (p. 110) see Exhibit 2 [annotations of uncertain origin]:
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 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 terms natives and natural born citizens are English terms; used to render the idea conveyed by
the French phrase les naturels, ou indigenes: but both referred to the same category of citizen: one
born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.
In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term naturels refers to citizens who are such by the Law of
Nature, that is by the natural circumstances of their birth which they did not choose; the term
indigenes is from the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, indigenous, means begotten from
within (inde-genes), as in the phrase the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and
lived there for generations. Hence the meaning the the term, natural born citizen, or naturels ou
Vattel's term, natural born citizen appears in a letter [Ex 4] of the future Supreme Court Justice, John
page 3 of 10
APX - 146
Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention.

John Jay wrote, 1787 July 25 New York, Letter from John Jay to His Excellency General Washington,
[Exhibit 4]:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and reasonable to provide as a strong
check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to
declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor
devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. --- .
Continental Congress were consulting a copy of Vattels book to complete their work .
I'm much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us
in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult
the law of nations. Accordingly that copy which I kept... has been continually in the hands of
the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes, and preface,
and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author....
1794 The Senate made its first purchases: Blackstone's Commentaries and Vattel's Law of Nature and
Nations. Exhibit 3.
page 4 of 10
APX - 147
Marriage gave women their husband's citizenship automatically. So both parents had same nationality
[except out-of-wedlock]: that of the husband-father. There was no divided loyalty objection, because
there was no divided parent citizenship. So father's citizenship meant both parents' citizenship. In 1922
a change in US law eliminated marriage's automatic change of the wife's citizenship, Married Women's
Act (the Cable Act). Today, it is possible to have one parent who is not a US citizen, which creates a
divided loyalty obstruction to becoming Commander-in-chief.
For example, such a conflict of divided loyalty might arise if one's adopted father was an official of the
Indonesian Army and a Citizen of Indonesia.
For such an example, see: Obama Dreams of My Father.
Decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, decided by men who were intimately associated
with the American Revolution. In that year the following judges sat on the Supreme Court:
Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26,
1829.
John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.
William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.
Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til
March 18, 1823
page 5 of 10
APX - 148
Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.
Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jan. 14, 1835.
Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845
Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Storys
father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the
British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary
War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-decamp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latters defection to the British. William Johnsons father,
mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the
line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutemen of Virginia,
and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General
George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General
Assembly. Bushrod Washington was George Washingtons nephew and heir.
Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had
intended.
The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named The Venus,
belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War
of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about
citizenship, is what matters here.
In The Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire 212nd
paragraph from the French edition of Vattel supra, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
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 advantages. The natives or indigenes
are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and
to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the
condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and
stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the
state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it
In 1863, the New York State Court of Appeals in Ludlum v Ludlum , 26 N.Y. 356 (1863 March Term)
defined Natural Born Citizen.
In 1866, Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, in the Congressional Globe, 39th , 1st Sess.
...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.
This demonstrates that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the children of Italian Citizens, who
retained their own nationality. Note the reference to a singular child of plural parents, not owing
allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. Both parents must not owe allegiance to any foreign
page 6 of 10
APX - 149
sovereignty for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen.

Aldo Santorum was an Italian Citizen born on Italian soil.
If Aldo didn't naturalize, then Aldo never became a US citizen.
His son Rick Santorum, may or may not be a Citizen, by his birth May 10, 1958 in Winchester,
Virginia,: jure soli (by right of the soil).
If Rick took his Italian Father's Italian citizenship, then Rick is an Italian Citizen.
If Rick took his mother's citizenship, and his mother is a US Citizen, then then Rick is a US Citizen.
But, Aldo's son, Rick Santorum, lacks two US citizen parents who were citizens at the time of Rick's
birth. He is not a Natural Born Citizen as required by the Constitution.
He has at least one parent who is not a US citizen, which creates a divided loyalty obstruction to
becoming Commander-in-chief.
Objector objects on the basis of the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 (1) eligibility natural-born
Citizen.
Objector cautions the New York State Board of Elections (BOE) against using as a criteria the novel
The Natural Born Citizen idiom was selected by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution to conform with the
concerns of the People of New York who were intent to safeguard sovereignty, to reflect history and practice of
the Law of Nations(2) since Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York, July 26, 1788, and that
as defined by the Legislature by statute example in the Real Property Law Article 2 Section 18 (3),and as relates
to matters of inheritance, that have since been upheld by the venerable State of New York Court of Appeals in its
own most stringent precedents that also conform with precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States
before and after the addition of the 14th amendment that did not amend the Natural Born Citizen idiom, or
warrant any assertion by the NYS BOE, other than natural-born Citizen. The BOE may not paraphrase the
Constitution to change its meaning to some ill-defined or differently defined born a citizen term, as indicated
on the BOE's website this election for the very first time.
There is no state statutory provision warranting NYS BOE to use Born a Citizen per se rather than Natural
Born Citizen; and therefore, is strictly a U.S. Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 Natural Born Citizen
eligibility issue that the NYS BOE must conform to, in compliance with the body of common law of the New
York Courts (4), and in accordance with SCOTUS precedents (5) that are contrary to Born a Citizen idiom use.
Objector notes that my mother explained to me, when I was a child, that she could never be President,
because she was a naturalized citizen. But, the fact that she had naturalized before the birth of her
children, and married a another U.S. citizen, meant that I could be President. It is interesting that this
once-common Constitutional knowledge, of an immigrant, seems to have been somehow obscured by
the last few decades.
Wherefore: Objector challenges Rick Santorum and or his agents to prove that both of his
parents, especially his father, at the time of his birth, were US Citizens.
page 7 of 10
APX - 150
Should Rick Santorum be unable or unwilling to provide this NY State Board of Elections his
Father Aldo Santorum's Certificate of Naturalization, dated before Rick's birth on May 10, 1958,
then this board must not place Rick Santorum on the ballot for President, because he is
Constitutionally unqualified for that Office.
As required, prior to filing this Specification of Objections, a true and correct copy of it, together with
any and all attachments was mailed by, registered or certified mail
Certificate 7011 1570 0003 5313 5110
to the address named on the Santorum Document as the Representative of the Candidate for service of
this notice:
Rick Santorum
Post Office Box 37
Verona, PA 15147
The Santorum document lacks a committee to fill vacancies.
Proof of such Service is attached hereto in the form of a copy of the certified mailing receipt for the
same and Certificate of Service.
Feb. ____, 2012
Signed
Christopher B. Garvey (Objector)
Endnotes follow
Attached: Exhibits 1-5
page 8 of 10
APX - 151
2
4

5
(1968)
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
page 9 of 10
APX - 152
and British common law apply before and after 1776 Independence affects the right to take land in controversy by decent in
New York:
page 10 of 10
APX - 153
APX - 154
P.02/02
'
..
.
l'lU,U.l"A.R'f: 10
'
'
'
,
r
NASsAU CO'UNTY .
, '
INDEX NO onl7'6._:li.
..
. . ., '
~_st~
NEW VORK.STAT'E BOAl'W OF ELE:C'I10l'fSI;

RO'BUT DIAMOND; :DARACK 01\&"'A..;
MITT ..ltOMNEY; BlCJ( SM'i'I'ORTJM1
"":.
f.. ~ J
.. ,
' .. .
..
.t .-
Re~pO'UellU,
...'
..
. ..
J'
'
,.r '
'
."
the ~oo~d~ tG Bigulh,eo,Mecto~w cause and ~i.fid.p.e.titi.Cin brougl)t~~tio-net
W. CPLR. .s~ng inJUTJ.di"-'e rclW ~ the New YOlk ~ ,Beard of'

EI~onti because ofU'nprope;r venue. l\rrsumt to CP'l,A 506 ('o) and i7i04 (b), venue tbtthi!
I
.i
'
~ :~
. .
"
,.
"' ;..f~
,.
tho ~lion e:ompl~ ot'was n!Ad~ u:~d. 'die ~cipal office oft;hr. .c~.ikntis
iliiCEib!d. f&~.
..
Mmcft of'Rybac~ :n AD2d 9lj}.
I.
Arr!Glf: 7lt proc~aarmsttht N$W Ycrkswe Bomi ~ properlylir:.s in .Albcmy.(:~T

w~
..
''
~ J\rticl~ ?! of
0'
Thu oo.n.rtirute.s. the d~i.sion and ordft of 1his Coll!t.
' t
of'.
':
..
-~.
.' .' ..
I
'
'
""... ..
.{"
'
''.~=
"j't,
,__ .
'"'.
lt
.. , l
~011i:AlU'B:ua. r4. Dl'A.MOND

:r. S.C-
'l
I '
.i:
..
l
To:
. I
J
Pmiti~et
Pro Se
CURlST'OPBER B~ GARVEY
lo Ntcoll Av-e.
Am.II:)'Vlile. New Yom ll70J
~~
AlW.moyff:Jr~po~
, . .
. ~{.
OFJIICEOPTUEATTOltNE'V~, . ~.*~.
200 Old Co\lntty Road, Suitt: 2IW . .
.
- : .~. :..,.~
MiuQOb., Ne-w Ycrk 11501
.. ..
I
'
I .,
:.-
. ...
~
'
APX - 155
..
1' I
o I I
~..~... ~,
'.~_;:
I
I
~I ~
.. .
'"'
' " _(;'.
Page
---------
' - - - - - -- _______._,_,
Romney
___
Mitt
Candidate Name
Secondary District :
REPUBLICAN
Pet ld : 342620
Party :
Candidate Name
- -Barack
Barack
Barack
Barack
Barack
Barack
Barack
Barack
Barack
Barack
upport[l1.9
13 FEB 2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
15FEB2012
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
FEB
Objection
Postmarked
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Objection
Postmarked
------09 FEB 2012
Objection
Filed
10FEB2012
10 FEB 2012
14 FEB 2012
14 FEB 2012
15 FEB 2012
15 FEB 2012
15FEB2012
15 FEB 2012
16 FEB 2012
16 FEB 2012
Filed
---------------
Objection
- - - - - - - ----- ----- - ---- - - - - - - - -- - -- - - --
--------
DEMOCRATIC
342476
Secondary District :
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Pet ld:
Party:
President
District:
Office:
I ------------
( ---- -
APX - 156
21 FEB 2012
Specification
s Due
Specification
s Due
----------
15FEB2012
16 FEB 2012
17 FEB 2012
21 FEB 2012
13 FEB 2012
21 FEB 2012
21 FEB 2012
21 FEB 2012
21 FEB 2012
21 FEB 2012
Specifications
Filed
14 FEB 2012
16 FEB 2012
Specifications
Postmarked
13 JUL 2012
14 FEB 2012
15 JUL 2012
16 FEB 2012
Specifications
Filed
11 FEB 2012
__
13FEB2012
Specifi cations
Postmarked
________
________
15 FEB 2012
10 FEB 2012
14 FEB 2012
-- - - - ---~-
Elizabeth
J.
J.
B.
Chamberlain
Objector's Name
Christopher
H. William
Christopher
Aimee
Thomas
Leonard
John
Natalie
Julianne
Alton
Candidate
Status
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
Candidate
Status
-.-- --Garvey
Van Allen
Strunk
Fitzgerald
Dean
Volodarsky
Allegate
Allegata
Thompson
Yee
Objector's Name
TIME:
DATE :
Hearing
Date
Hearing
Date
2:34 PM
Hearing
Result
Hearing
Result
February 17 , 2012
Thursday, February 9 2012
Page 1 of 6

Office: President
Democratic
Name
Barack Obama
Received date
02/09/2012
Vols
Pages
24
5006
Vols
Pages
Supporting
Supporting
Status
Valid
Republican
Name
Newt Gingrich
Received date
02/02/2012
Supporting
Supporting
APX - 157
Status
Valid
APX - 158
2012-02-28 NYS Board of Elections

Page 1 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

Page 2 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________
Jim Walsh:*RRGDIWHUQRRQHYHU\RQH:HOFRPHWRRXUPHHWLQJRIWKH1HZ<RUN6WDWH
%RDUGRI(OHFWLRQV6RUU\IRUWKHGHOD\EXWEXVLQHVVVRPHWLPHVJHWVPRUHFRPSOLFDWHG,
ZRXOGOLNHWRVWDUWRIIWKHPHHWLQJLI\RXZRXOGSOHDVHE\LQWURGXFWLRQV0\QDPHLV-LP
:DOVK,OOEHDFWLQJDVWKH&KDLUPDQRIWKH%RDUGWRGD\7RP\OHIWP\ULJKW,PVRUU\
P\&RFKDLUPDQ'RXJ.HOOQHU(YHO\Q$TXLOD*UHJ3HWHUVRQ7RGG9DOHQWLQH3DXO
&ROOLQV3KLO%XUQV$QQD6YL]]HUR7RP&RQQROO\-RKQ&RQNOLQ'DQ9DOYR%LOO
0F&DQQ&KHU\O&RXVHU%RE%UHKP7HUU\%UHDGV%RE:DUUHQ*XHVWOLVWDWWDFKHG

Jim Walsh: 7KDQN\RXDOO7KHILUVWLWHPRIEXVLQHVVLVWKHPLQXWHVRIWKH-DQXDU\
PHHWLQJ

Doug Kellner,PRYHWKHDGRSWLRQRIWKHPLQXWHVDVUHDG

Evelyn Aquila6HFRQG

Jim Walsh$OULJKWDOOLQIDYRU

All:$\H

Jim Walsh2SSRVHG&DUULHG

Jim Walsh:8QLWXSGDWHV([HFXWLYH%RE%UHKPDQG7RGG9DOHQWLQH

Todd Valentine: :HOOZHFRQWLQXHWRSODQZLWKRXUUHVWDFNLQJFRPPLWWHHUHVWDFNLQJ
LVVKRUWKDQGIRUWKHPRYLQJRIWKHDJHQF\6R\RXNQRZULJKWQRZZHKDYHPHWZLWKRXU
2IILFHRI*HQHUDO6HUYLFHVGHVLJQDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQVHFWLRQDQGWKH\DUHZRUNLQJRQVRPH
SODQVIRUDSURSRVHGPRYHWR,GRQWNQRZLIWKDWKDVEHHQDQQRXQFHGSXEOLFO\RUQRWVR
\HDKZHOOPRYLQJ\HVEXWWKHORFDWLRQ,GRQWNQRZLIWKH\DUHUHOHDVLQJWKDW\HWRUQRW
<HDKLWVQRWIDUDZD\EXWZHUHZRUNLQJRQWKHGHVLJQSODQVEHFDXVHLWFRXOGFKDQJH
EXW,DVVXPHWKDWZHDUHVWLOOJRLQJWKHUH7KH\H[SHFWWRKDYHUHYLVHGSODQVWRRXUSODQ
WRXVDWWKHHQGRIWKLVZHHNDQGWKHQZHOOUHYLHZWKDWDQGPDNHDQGVHH7KHUHVKRXOG
EHDPSOHVSDFHLQWKHDUHDZHDUHORRNLQJDW,WVMXVWWKHQDWWKDWSRLQWZHOOGULOOGRZQ
IRUHDFKXQLWWRORFDWHWKHLUSDUWLFXODUHPSOR\HHVZLWKLQHDFKOLWWOHVXEXQLWRIRXURZQ
ERDUG7KHUHVKRXOGEHDPSOHVSDFHWKHUH7KHUHLVREYLRXVO\VSDFHIRUD%RDUGURRP
PHHWLQJVIRUDUHJXODUFRQIHUHQFH, VSDFH

Evelyn Aquila$Q\SULYDWHRIILFHV"

Todd Valentine7KHUHDUH7KDWLVRQHRIWKHSOXVIDFWRUVWRWKLVORFDWLRQ,WGLGKDYH
WKDW7KHUHLVDELWPRUHSULYDF\DVIDUDVWKDWLVFRQFHUQHGDQGRIFRXUVHDPSOHVWRUDJH
IRUWKHSHWLWLRQVURRPIRUZRUNLQJRQWKHYRWLQJPDFKLQHVDQGZHDUHDOVRFRQVROLGDWLQJ
RXUVWRUDJH:HKDYHDQRWKHURIIVLWHVWRUDJHIDFLOLW\MXVWQRUWKRI$OEDQ\LQDQRWKHUVWDWH
IDFLOLW\,WLVDUHQWHGIDFLOLW\DQGZHOOEHDEOHWRFRQVROLGDWHWKLVDQGVDYHDGGLWLRQDO
PRQH\

Evelyn Aquila:KDWZLOOEHWKHUH"

Todd Valentine:,WVDEDFNVWRUDJHZHKDYHIRUYRWHUUHJLVWUDWLRQIRUPVWKDWJHWPDLOHG
RXW,WVDOVREDFNVWRUDJHIRUFDPSDLJQILQDQFHSULPDULO\ROGSHWLWLRQVWKDWZHZLOOVWRUH
XQWLORXUFRQVWUXFWLRQGDWHFRPHVXVZHZRXOGVWRUHWKHUH6RWKRVHZLOODOOQRZEH
FRQVROLGDWHGLQWRWKHVDPHEXLOGLQJDGLIIHUHQWORFDWLRQWKDQZKHUHZHDUH7KH\ZLOOEH
RQDGLIIHUHQWIORRUEXWWKHUHLVDPSOHVWRUDJHVSDFHVRZHZLOOEHDEOHWRQRWRQO\VDYH
WKHUHQWIURPRXUFXUUHQWOHDVHGVSDFHEXWDOVRZHGROHDVHVSDFHLQWKDWZDUHKRXVHWKDW
ZHZLOOEHDEOHWRFRQVROLGDWHWRRQHORFDWLRQ6RWKDWZRXOGEHWKDWFRXOGEHXQLTXH
ZLWKRQO\LQRQHEXLOGLQJ:HGRQWKDYHDQ\SHUVRQQHOSHUPDQHQWO\ORFDWHGDWWKDW
ZDUHKRXVHEXWZHGRKDYHWRJRGRZQWKHUHRQDUHJXODUEDVLVWRQRWRQO\ILOHWKLQJVEXW
DOVRWRUHWULHYHGRFXPHQWVRXWRIRXUDUFKLYDOVWRUDJH

Evelyn Aquila: $QGWRFKHFNRQWKHPDLO

Todd Valentine:<HDK6RWKDW

Evelyn Aquila: <RXFDQWKURZHYHU\WKLQJRXWDQGQRWNQRZZKRWKH\EHORQJWR

Todd Valentine:HOORXUVSDFHLVVHFXUH1RERG\LVWKURZLQJLWRXW,PHDQLWLVLQD
ORFNHGVWRUDJHVSDFHVRQRERG\DFFHVVHVLWDQGWKHVDPHZLOOEHWKHUHDUHSURYLVLRQVIRU
DVHFXUHORFDWLRQZLWKLQVHJUHJDWHGZLWKLQWKLVVWRUDJHIDFLOLW\LQWKLVEXLOGLQJDQGZH
FRQWLQXHWRZRUNZLWKWKH2IILFHIRU7HFKQRORJ\WRGHWHUPLQHDORFDWLRQIRUWKHVLWHIRU
WKHVHUYLFHIRUWKHGDWDEDVHVWKDWZHUXQDQGWKHQIRUFRQQHFWLYLW\WRWKHFRXQW\ERDUGVWR
NHHSWKDWRSHUDWLQJLQDVPRRWKVHDPOHVVPDQQHU,PHDQREYLRXVO\ZHOOKDYHWRJR
RIIOLQHDWDFHUWDLQSRLQWEXWZHZDQWWRPLQLPL]HWKDW$QGVRZHKDYHWRXUHGQRWPH
SHUVRQDOO\EXWZHKDYHKDGVHYHUDOSHRSOHWRXUDYDULHW\RIORFDWLRQVWKDWWKH\KDYH
RIIHUHGWRKRXVHWKHVHUYHUV1RQHRIWKHPDUHSHUIHFW\HWDOORIWKHPQHHGVRPHW\SHRI
ZRUNHLWKHUIRUVSDFHZLVHRUZHOOQHHGWRSXWVHFXULW\IRURXUVHUYHUVRUFRQQHFWLYLW\
RXWWRWKHFRXQWLHVDQGWKHUHVWRIWKHZRUOG$FRQQHFWLRQEHWZHHQRXUGRZQWRZQ
ORFDWLRQZKLFKZLOOEHDQGZKHUHZHDUHDQWLFLSDWLQJORFDWLQJWKHGDWDEDVHLVDQRWKHUHQG
RI$OEDQ\7KDWFRQQHFWLRQDOUHDG\H[LVWVVRDTXHVWLRQRIMXVWPDNLQJLWZRUNLVDOOZH
KDYHWRGR%XWWKDWLVQRWVHWWOHG\HWHLWKHUDQGRIFRXUVHZHDUHVWLOOZDLWLQJIRUWKH
EXGJHWWREHDSSURYHG\RXNQRZRXUSURSRVHGEXGJHWZKLFKGRHVKDYHDORWRIWKHVH
VDYLQJVDOUHDG\LQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRLW6RWKHVRRQHUWKDWZHFDQFRPSOHWHWKHUHVWDFNLQJ
WKHOHVVRIDQLVVXHWKDWZHOOKDYHJRLQJLQWRWKHQHZILVFDO\HDUDQGZHKDYH
HYHU\WKLQJHOVHJRLQJRQ

Bob Brehm2QHELWRIJRRGQHZVWKDWGRHVQWKDSSHQRIWHQLQWKHZRUOGRIEXGJHWLVWKH
)HGHUDO(OHFWLRQ$VVLVWDQFH&RPPLVVLRQQRWLILHGWKHVWDWHVWKDWWKHUHZDVDQRWKHUURXQG
RIUHTXLUHPHQWPRQH\YHU\VPDOODPRXQWVIRUZKDWHYHUVWDWHVIDLOHGWRXVHWKHLUOHYHU
UHSODFHPHQWPRQH\E\WKHWLPHWKDWZDVH[WHQGHGXQGHU+$9$,IWKH\GLGQWFRPSOHWH
LWE\WKHGDWHFHUWDLQWKH\IRUIHLWHGWKHPRQH\DQGWKH+HOS$PHULFD9RWH$FWKDGD
APX - 159

Page 3 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

Page 4 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________
IRUPXODWRUHDOORFDWHLWWRWKHUHPDLQLQJVWDWHV2XUVKDUHRIWKDWLV:HPDGH
DSSOLFDWLRQDVZHZRXOGZDQWWRJHWRXUPXFKIDLUVKDUHFRPSOHWHGDOOWKHDSSOLFDWLRQ
DQG7RP-DURVHMXVWJDYHPHQRWLFHZLWKLQWKHODVWWZRGD\VLVWKDWWKHPRQH\WUDQVIHUUHG
DQGLWKDVEHHQUHFHLYHG6RWKDWLVPRQH\WKDWLVKHUH:HKDYHWKHVSHQGLQJ
DXWKRUL]DWLRQXQGHUWKHVWDWHDFFRXQWWRXVHWKDWIRUZKDWHYHURWKHUNLQGRISXUSRVHVZH
KDYHVRWKDWLVWKHOLWWOHELWRIJRRGQHZVWKDWZHKDYH2WKHUWKDQWKDWZHGLGKDYH
DQRWKHUIROORZXSPHHWLQJZLWKWKH6WDWH'HSDUWPHQWRI0RWRU9HKLFOHV7KH\DUH
ZRUNLQJRQDSURJUDPDVSDUWRIWKHLUUHYLHZRIPLVVLRQFULWLFDOSURJUDPVDQGWKH
UHGXFWLRQDQGVWDWVWKDWWKH\KDYHWKURXJKWKHDWWULWLRQDQGIXQGLQJ7KH\KDYHLGHQWLILHG
WKHHOHFWURQLFYRWHUUHJLVWUDWLRQDFWLYLW\LQWHJUDWHGGXULQJWKH'09WUDQVDFWLRQDVD
SULRULW\WKDWWKH\WKLQNZLOOLPSURYHVHUYLFHV6RWKH\PHWZLWKXVKHUHRQ)HEUXDU\WK
WRUHYLHZ7KH\KDGDIHZTXHVWLRQVDQGZHUHYLHZHGWKHSURFHVVDQGZKDWWKH\ZHUH
SURSRVLQJWRZRUNWKURXJKLW,WORRNVYHU\LQWHUHVWLQJ,WLVDZD\WRUHDOO\VWUHDPOLQH
WKRVHSLHFHVRISDSHUIURPWKHYDULRXV'09LQWDNHVGLUHFWO\WRWKH&RXQW\%RDUGRI
(OHFWLRQV<RXNQRZZKHQZHORRNDWWKH195$DQQXDOUHSRUWDQGRIWKHSHUFHQWDJHRI
GHEWZHKDGEXWJHQHUDOO\RIWKH195$DJHQFLHVRIWKHSDSHUZRUNFRPHVIURPWKH
'09VLWHRQDYHUDJH6RWKDWLIZHFDQIDFLOLWDWHWKDWJHWWLQJIURPD'09VLWHWRWKH
FRXQWLHVTXLFNHUDQGLQDPRUHHIILFLHQWZD\WKH\FDQXVHLW,WKLQNWKDWZLOOKHOSWKHP
6RZHVWLOODUHZRUNLQJDJJUHVVLYHO\RQWKDWSURJUDPDQG,WKRXJKWLWZDVDSURGXFWLYH
PHHWLQJ2WKHUWKDQWKDW,WKLQNLWZRXOGEHHDV\WRVD\ZHVSHQWDJUHDWGHDORIWLPH
VLQFHRXUODVWPHHWLQJZRUNLQJRQYDULRXVSROLWLFDOFDOHQGDUVDQGUHVSRQVHVWRIHGHUDO
FRXUWWKDW,NQRZLVELJRQWKHFRXQFLOVDJHQGDDOVR

Jim Walsh:7KDWLVDJRRGOHDGLQWRRXUQH[WLQWURGXFWLRQ7KDQN\RXYHU\PXFKIRUWKDW
%REDQG7RGG/HJDO3DXO&ROOLQVSOHDVH

Paul Collins::HOOZHIRXQGDQDFWXDOZULWWHQUHSRUWWKDWWKHERDUGKDVDOUHDG\DGRSWHG
WKLVPRQWK6XEVHTXHQWWRWKHILOLQJRIWKDWUHSRUWZHUHFHLYHGQRWLFHIURPWKH
'HSDUWPHQWRI-XVWLFHDQGRXUDSSOLFDWLRQIRUSUHFOHDUDQFHRIWKHRYHUYRWHVFUHHQV
GHYLVHGE\(6 6RQDQLQWHULPEDVLVRQERWKWKHVFDQQHUDQGWKHEDOORWPDUNLQJGHYLFH
KDVUHFHLYHGSUHFOHDUDQFHRIWKH'HSDUWPHQWRI-XVWLFH7KDWPHDQVLQWKHVSHFLDO
HOHFWLRQVLQ1HZ<RUN&LW\RQ0DUFKWKWKH\ZLOOEHDEOHWRXVHWKRVHVFUHHQVZKLFKLV
JRRGQHZV$OVRWKHDFWXDORYHUYRWHFDVHLWVHOIKDVEHHQUHVROYHG:HQRZKDYHDFRXUW
EOHVVLQJRIWKHUHVROXWLRQWKRVHVFUHHQVKDYHJRQHWRWKH'HSDUWPHQWRI-XVWLFHIRUSUH
FOHDUDQFHDVZHOOWKDWLVSHQGLQJ7KHELJWKLQJWKDWZHKDYHSHQGLQJZLWK'2-LVWKH
EOHVVLQJRIWKH'HSDUWPHQWRI-XVWLFHVVHFWLRQSUHFOHDUDQFHXQLWRI-XGJH6KDUSV
RUGHURIWKH-XQHQRQSUHVLGHQWLDOIHGHUDOSULPDU\LQ1HZ<RUNEXW,IXOO\DQWLFLSDWHWKDW
WKH\ZLOOVLJQRIIRQWKDWLQUHODWLYHO\VKRUWIDVKLRQ)LQDOO\WKH$SSHOODWH'LYLVLRQKDV
LVVXHGDQRUGHUZLWKUHJDUGWRRQHRIWKHWKUHH1DVVDXFRXQW\HOHFWLRQPDFKLQHFDVH
DSSHDOVDQG1DVVDXILQDOO\KDVWRILOHDEULHI,WKLQNE\WKH0DUFKWKVRWKDWLVKHDWLQJ
XS7KH6FKXOW]FDVHZKLFKVRXJKWWREDQDQ\YRWLQJPDFKLQHLQ1HZ<RUNZKHWKHUWKH
ROGOHYHUPDFKLQHVRUWKHQHZHOHFWURQLFPDFKLQHVWKH\KDYHILOHGWKHLUEULHIDQG
DSSHQGL[LQWKHVHFRQGFLUFXLWDQGZHOOILOHRQRUEHIRUH0DUFKWKRXUUHSO\$JDLQ
&RPPLVVLRQHU:DOVKLWLVDOZD\VQLFHWREHRQWKHUHVSRQGHQWVVLGHEHFDXVHZHZRQLQ
WKH'LVWULFW&RXUW$QGILQDOO\WKH*UDPDOLF&DVHZKLFKVRXJKWWRFKDOOHQJHWKHEDQRI
WKHXVHRIQRQUHVLGHQWSHWLWLRQHUSHWLWLRQJDWKHUHUVLQ1HZ<RUNKDVEHHQPDUNHG
VXEPLWWHGRQWKHWKRI0DUFKWRDVHFRQGFLUFXLWSDQHO$JDLQWKHUHVSRQGHQWWKHUH
KDYLQJZRQLQWKHGLVWULFWFRXUWDQGRWKHUWKDQWKDWHYHU\WKLQJHOVHLVSUHWW\PXFKLQRXU
ZULWWHQUHSRUW

Jim Walsh:7KDQN\RXYHU\PXFK(OHFWLRQ2SHUDWLRQV$QQDSOHDVH

Anna Svizzero: 7KDQN\RX&RPPLVVLRQHU*RRGPRUQLQJ*RRGDIWHUQRRQ,QDGGLWLRQ
WRRXUZULWWHQUHSRUWZHGRKDYHDFRXSOHRILWHPVWRDGG:HDUHSUHSDULQJSDSHUZRUN
WKDWZLOOFHUWLI\WKHSUHVLGHQWLDOSULPDU\EDOORWEDVHGRQWKHRXWFRPHRIWRGD\VERDUG
PHHWLQJ:HDUHZRUNLQJZLWK2*6RQRXUFRQWUDFWUHQHZDOV7KDWLVTXLWHDQH[WHQGHG
SURFHVVVRZHDUHWU\LQJWRJHWLQYROYHGLQWKDWDVHDUO\DVSRVVLEOH:HDUHORRNLQJDWWKH
FRQWUDFWVIRUWKHWHVWLQJODEVIRU1<67(&DQGDOVRWKHYRWLQJV\VWHPV7KHYRWLQJ
V\VWHPVFRQWUDFWVKDYHDRQH\HDUH[WHQVLRQLQWKHPDQGWKDWKDVEHHQWULJJHUHG:HDUH
DOVRGLVFXVVLQJZD\VWRFRQVLGHUWKHSURFXUHPHQWRIFHQWUDOFRXQWYRWLQJV\VWHPVVRWKHVH
FRQYHUVDWLRQVDUHMXVWEHJLQQLQJZLWK2*6:HDUHUHYLHZLQJWKHUHJXODWLRQVWKDWDUHLQ
H[LVWHQFHWKDWFRYHUHGFHQWUDOFRXQWV\VWHPVXSXQWLOQRZ%RE:DUUHQDQG-RKQ)HUUL
KDYHUHYLHZHGWKRVHDQGZHDUHORRNLQJWRPDNHVXUHWKDWHYHU\UHTXLUHPHQWLQWKHROG
UHJVLVFRYHUHGE\DUHTXLUHPHQWLQWKHQHZSDUWDQGWRPDNHVXUHWKDWZH
GRQWKDYHDQ\RPLVVLRQVDQGWKDWZHKDYHLQFRUSRUDWHGDOORIWKHEHVWSUDFWLFHVWKDWZH
KDYHOHDUQHGRYHUWKH\HDUVXVLQJWKHFHQWUDOFRXQWV\VWHPZHKDYHULJKWQRZ:H
REYLRXVO\ZRUNHGWKURXJKDOORIWKHREMHFWLRQSURFHVVDQGZRUNHGZLWKWKHFRXQFLOV
RIILFHWRUHYLHZWKRVHLWHPVDQGSUHSDUHWKRVHGRFXPHQWVIRUWRGD\VPHHWLQJDQG,GRQW
EHOLHYHWKDW,KDYHDQ\WKLQJHOVH-RHGR\RXKDYHDQ\WKLQJWRDGG"
:HFDQDQVZHUTXHVWLRQVLI\RXKDYHDQ\

Doug Kellner: $QQDWKHUHDUHWZRPDFKLQHIDLOXUHLVVXHVWKDWDUHRXWVWDQGLQJWKDWKDYH
FRPHXSUHFHQWO\2QHLVLQWKHFLW\RI7RQDZDQGD7KHPDQXDOFRXQWWKH\GLVFRYHUHG
WKDWWKHUHZDVDEDOORWLQWKHEDOORWER[WKDWKDGQRWEHHQUHFRUGHGE\WKHYRWLQJPDFKLQH
DQGODWHURQLQWKHPHHWLQJ,DPJRLQJWRFRPPHQWPRUHRQWKHFRXUWUXOLQJVLQWKH
7RQDZDQGDFDVH%XWLWLVP\XQGHUVWDQGLQJWKDWWKH(ULH&RXQW\&RPPLVVLRQHUVDUH
GRLQJDQLQYHVWLJDWLRQDQG,ZRXOGDVNWKDWWKHVWDWHERDUGDOVRJHWLQYROYHGLQWKDW
EHFDXVH,WKLQNWKDWLWLVYHU\LPSRUWDQWWKDWZHIROORZXSRQHYHU\VLQJOHLVVXHZKHUH
WKHUHLVDPDFKLQHIDLOXUH$QGREYLRXVO\DEDOORWJHWWLQJLQWRWKHEDOORWER[ZLWKRXW
EHLQJFRXQWHGE\WKHPDFKLQHLVVLJQLILFDQW,WKLQNWKH(ULH&RXQW\WKHRU\ULJKWQRZLV
WKDWWKHUHPD\KDYHEHHQDSDSHUMDPDQGVRPHKRZRURWKHULQFOHDULQJWKHMDPWKH
EDOORWZHQWWKURXJKZLWKRXWWKHYRWHEHLQJUHJLVWHUHG%XW,WKLQNZHQHHGWRLQYHVWLJDWH
WKDWIXUWKHU$QGWKHQWKHRWKHULVWKHLVVXHRIWKHODUJHQXPEHURIRYHUYRWHVWKDWKDYH
EHHQUHFRUGHGRQDPDFKLQHLQWKH%URQ[DQG,XQGHUVWDQGWKDW%RE:DUUHQLVJRLQJ
GRZQWRWKH%URQ[DQGLVILQDOO\JHWWLQJDFFHVVWRWKHHOHFWLRQPDWHULDOVRQWKDW$QG,
ZRXOG DSSUHFLDWHDUHSRUWRIZKDWZHNQRZVRIDUDQGH[DFWO\ZKDWZHDUHSODQQLQJWRGR
DWWKHVWDWHERDUGOHYHORQWKDWLVVXH
APX - 160

Page 5 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

Page 6 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________
Anna Svizzero:,FDQKDYH%REVSHDNWRWKDWUDWKHUWKDQPHLQWHUSUHWKRZ%REKDV
EULHIHG-RHDQG,VR

Bob Warren::HDUHJRLQJWRJRGRZQWRPRUURZDQG,KDYHWDONHGWRWKH%URQ[DQG
DVNHGWKHPWRPDNHDYDLODEOHWKHHOHFWLRQWKHEDOORWGHILQLWLRQHOHFWLRQWKHLPDJHVIRU
WKDWPDFKLQHWKDWZHUHFROOHFWHGWKHSK\VLFDOEDOORWVWKDWZHUHPDUNHG$QGWKH\DUH
JRLQJWRKDYHVRPHH[WUDEDOORWVWKDWZHFDQKDYHIRUWHVWVDQGWKH\DUHJRLQJWRKDYHWKH
PDFKLQHLQWKHUHWKDWLVLQTXHVWLRQ:HDUHDOVRJRLQJWRORRNDWWKHLUWHVWGHFNPDNH
VXUHWKDWWKH\FUHDWHGWKHLUWHVWGHFNSURSHUO\DQGWKHUHVXOWVRIWKHWHVWGHFNSURFHVVLQJ
$QGZKDWZHFDQWJHWWKURXJKZHDUHJRLQJWREULQJEDFNZLWKXVDOOWKHLPDJHVWKDW
WKH\KDYHVRWKDWLIZHKDYHWRGRIXUWKHUH[DPLQDWLRQZHOOKDYHWKHPKHUHDQGZHOOWU\
WRGHWHUPLQHZKHWKHULWZDVDKXPDQHUURULQGHVLJQLQJWKHEDOORWZKHWKHULWZDVD
SULQWLQJHUURULQSULQWLQJWKHEDOORWRUZKHWKHULWZDVWUXO\DPDFKLQHHUURU,WFRXOGHQG
XSEHLQJRQHRIWKRVHRUDQGWKHRWKHUSRVVLELOLW\LVWKH\DUHDOORYHUYRWHGEDOORWV$QG
WKHQLWLVDTXHVWLRQRIXVDELOLW\RUWKHGHVLJQRIWKHEDOORWWKDWFDXVHGWKHSUREOHP
%HFDXVHWKLVLVIURPWKH*RYHUQRUVHOHFWLRQDQG,KDYHEHHQGRLQJVRPHDQDO\VLV
RQVRPHRIWKHRWKHUFRXQWLHVWKDWKDGVRPHLQFLGHQWVRIRYHUYRWHVDQGVRPH\RXFDQ
PDNHDQDUJXPHQWWKDWPD\KDYHEHHQFDXVHGEHFDXVHRIWKHZUDSSLQJ7KHVHDUHRQWKH
ODQGVFDSHWKHLUVLVWKHSRUWUDLWVRWKDWPD\FRPHLQWRSOD\LQWKHLUV

Evelyn Aquila:%REZKDW,ZDQWHGWRDVNLVWKDWWKHDUHHLWKHURIWKHVHFDVHVWKHRYHU
YRWHLQWKH%URQ[RUPD\EH3DXOZRXOGKDYHWRDQVZHUWKLVLQWKH7RQDZDQGDFDVHDUH
WKH\SDUWRIDQ\RIWKHVHODZVXLWVWKDW\RXMXVWPHQWLRQHG",VQWWKHUHDODZVXLWWRVD\\RX
MXVWJRWRWKHSDSHUEDOORW"

Paul Collins&HUWDLQO\(YHO\Q&RPPLVVLRQHU$TXLODWKHRYHUYRWHFDVHZKLFKZDV
EURXJKWE\WKH1$$&3ZLWKLQWKHFRQWH[WRIGLVFRYHULQJLQWKDWFDVH1HZ<RUN&LW\ZDV
REOLJHGWRUHSO\WRGLVFRYHU\UHTXHVWIURPWKH1$$&3DQGWKDWLVZKHQWKLVDQRPDO\LQ
WKHWZRVFDQQHUVDWRQHSROOVLWHLQWKH%URQ[FDPHLQWRSOD\7KHFDVHKDVEHHQUHVROYHG
DVDJDLQVWWKH6WDWH%RDUGRI(OHFWLRQV,WKDVQRWEHHQUHVROYHGDVDJDLQVWWKH1HZ<RUN
&LW\%RDUGRI(OHFWLRQVDQGLVRQJRLQJLQWKHHYHQWWKDWWKHUHLVVRPHXQZLOOLQJQHVVRQ
WKHSDUWRIWKH1HZ<RUN&LW\%RDUGWRLPSOHPHQWWKHQHZZDUQLQJVFUHHQVWKDWZHKDYH
DJUHHGRQZLWKWKHSODLQWLII,QWKH7RQDZDQGD&DVHLVQRWRQRXUUDGDUVFUHHQDQGLW
LQYROYHGDORFDOHOHFWLRQRXWLQ(ULH&RXQW\

Doug Kellner: %RE,KDYHWZRDGGLWLRQDOLWHPVWKDWPD\EH\RXKDYHDOUHDG\FRQVLGHUHG
RQWKLV2QHLVZLOO\RXKDYHDFFHVVWRWKHRULJLQDOFDQYDVUHSRUWVWKHRULJLQDOFDQYDV
WDSHVWRFRQILUPWKDWWKHFDQYDVWDSHVDFWXDOO\VKRZHGWKHQXPEHUVWKDW

Bob Brehm:7KH\GLGQWPHQWLRQWKDWEXW,FDQFDOOZKHQ,JHWGRZQVWDLUV

Doug Kellner:2ND\DQGWKHQVHFRQGLVWRUHYLHZ1HZ<RUN&LW\VSURFHGXUHVWKHLU
SRVWHOHFWLRQSURFHGXUHV1RWMXVWIROORZLQJWKHOHWWHURIRXUSRVWHOHFWLRQWHVWLQJUXOHVEXW
DOVRZKHWKHUWKH\KDYHDQ\WKLQJLQSODFHVRWKDWZKHQWKHUHDUHDQRPDORXVUHVXOWVWKDW
WKDWZRXOGWULJJHUDVSHFLDOUHYLHZ$QGLWVHHPVWRPHWKDWZKHQ\RXKDYHDQDQRPDO\
RIWKDWVL]HWKDWLWVKRXOGEHKDQGOHGVRPHWKLQJGLIIHUHQWO\WKDQMXVWLJQRULQJLWDQGXVLQJ
WKHVDPHPDFKLQHDVHFRQGWLPHZLWKRXWIROORZLQJXS

Bob Warren:2ND\

Evelyn Aquila:'R\RXWKLQN%REWKDWWKLVFRXOGKDYHMXVWEHHQDIDXOW\PDFKLQH"

Bob Warren: ,WFRXOGEH,WFRXOGEHSHRSOHDFWXDOO\RYHUYRWHGWKDWPXFK<RXNQRZ
OLNH,VDLG,GLGQRWLFHWKDWWKHZUDSSLQJGRHVVHHPWRDSSHDUWKDWLWFDXVHGSHRSOHWR
RYHUYRWHWKDWPD\QRWKDYHRYHUYRWHG<RXGRQWNQRZIRUVXUH

Doug Kellner: 0D\EHZHQHHGWRH[SODLQWKDWDOLWWOHELWEHFDXVHZKHQ\RXKDYHD
KRUL]RQWDOEDOORWZKLFKLVXVHGHYHU\ZKHUHH[FHSWLQ1HZ<RUN&LW\ZKHUHWKH
FDQGLGDWHVDUHOLVWHGE\SROLWLFDOSDUW\DFURVVDURZVRWKDWULJKWQRZDOOWKH'HPRFUDWLF
FDQGLGDWHVZRXOGEHRQURZ$DOORIWKH5HSXEOLFDQFDQGLGDWHVZRXOGEHRQURZ%DQG
VRRQ

Bob Warren: 6RZKHQWKHUHDUHQWHQRXJKURZVIRUDOOWKHSDUWLHVWKDWDUHDYDLODEOH
WKHQ\RXKDYHWREHJLQWRJHWDVHFRQGFROXPQOLNHLQWKLVFDVHIRUWKH*RYHUQRUVUDFH
WKHQ\RXVWDUWIURPWKHERWWRPZUDSSLQJWKHFDQGLGDWHVFRPLQJXSWKHEDOORW6RIRU
VRPHERG\WKDWPD\QRWKDYHEHHQSD\LQJDWWHQWLRQWKH\FRXOGHDVLO\WKLQNWKDWLWLVMXVW
DQRWKHUFROXPQDQGWKH\DUHMXVWPDUNLQJDVWKH\JRDORQJDQGWKH\PDUNLQHYHU\
FROXPQWKDWWKH\VHHDQGJRRQWKHLUZD\

Doug Kellner: 1RZWKDWGRHVQWKDSSHQWRWKDWH[WHQWLQ1HZ<RUN&LW\EHFDXVH1HZ
<RUN&LW\XVHVDEDOORWRQWKHRSSRVLWHDFFHVVVRWKDWWKHSROLWLFDOSDUWLHVDUHOLVWHGLQ
FROXPQVDQGWKHEDOORWRQO\KDVHLJKWFROXPQV$QGLQ1HZ<RUN&LW\IRUPDQ\\HDUVZH
KDYHKDGWKHSURFHGXUHWKDWWKHILUVWWZRFROXPQVDUHUHVHUYHGIRUWKH'HPRFUDWVDQGWKH
5HSXEOLFDQVZKLFKHYHUJHWVFROXPQ$DQGWKHZUDSSLQJRQO\JRHVLQWKHVL[FROXPQVWR
WKHULJKWRIWKRVHVRWKDWLIWKH\QHHGWZRRUWKUHHURZVWKHUHZLOOQRWEHDPLQRUSDUW\
FDQGLGDWHOLVWHGLQFROXPQLQZKDWZRXOGDSSHDUWREHFROXPQ$RULQFROXPQ%$QGVR
\RXGRQWKDYHWKDWVRLIVRPHERG\LVYRWLQJDVWUDLJKWWLFNHWLWLVREYLRXV

Evelyn Aquila: 7RJRGRZQ

Doug Kellner: $QG,WKLQNWKDWLVDQRWKHULVVXHRIEDOORWGHVLJQ,GRQWNQRZZKHWKHU
\RXFDQLQFRUSRUDWHWKDWVDPHSURFHGXUHLQWKHODQGVFDSHEDOORWWKDWHYHU\ERG\HOVHXVHV
EXWLWFHUWDLQO\ZRXOGDYRLGWKHSUREOHPEHFDXVHOHDYLQJWKHILUVWWZRFROXPQVEODQN
KLJKOLJKWVWKHIDFWWKDWLWLVDVLQJOHRIILFHDQGWKDWWKHUHDUHPXOWLSOHURZV

Bob Warren7KDWLVZKDWZHGREHFDXVHZHEHJLQIURPWKHERWWRPXSVR\RXQHYHUJHW
XSWRWKHWRSZKHUHWKHWZRPDMRUSDUWLHVDUHWKHUH
APX - 161

Page 7 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

Page 8 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________
Doug Kellner: 6R\RXDUHVD\LQJWKDWDOOWKHRYHUYRWHVRFFXULQWKHRWKHUSDUWLHV

Bob Warren:7KH\RFFXUUHG\RXNQRZLWZRXOGHLWKHUEH'HPRFUDW5HSXEOLFDQRU
&RQVHUYDWLYHDQGWKHQVRPHERG\ZRXOGKDYHDPDUNGRZQLQWKH7D[SD\HUV3DUW\RU
VRPHWKLQJEHFDXVHLWZDVLQWKDWRWKHUFROXPQVRWKH\ZHUHMXVWJRLQJ\RXNQRZKHUH
KHUHKHUH6RPHSHRSOHYRWHGVWUDLJKWDFURVVRQWKHURZWKH\GLGVWUDLJKWSDUW\YRWH
DFURVVDWWKHERWWRP7KHUHZHUHMXVWYDULRXVWKLQJVWKDWZRXOGKDYHWKDW\RXFDQORRNDW
WKHEDOORWDQG\RXDUHRQO\DVVXPLQJWKDWWKHSHUVRQGLGQWGRLWLQWHQWLRQDOO\

Doug Kellner: 2ND\ZHOO,ORRNIRUZDUGWRJHWWLQJDGHWDLOHGUHSRUWRQWKH1HZ<RUN
&LW\%URQ[RYHUYRWHVLWXDWLRQEHFDXVH,WKLQNLWLVVLJQLILFDQW

Bob Warren2ND\

Jim Walsh: $OOVHW"2XU195$3,2-RKQ&RQNOLQ

John Conklin:7KDQN\RX&RPPLVVLRQHU,UHDOO\GRQWKDYHPXFKWRDGGWRWKHZULWWHQ
UHSRUW,MXVWZDQWHGWRKLJKOLJKWWKDW7RPDQG,KDYHEHHQZRUNLQJRQWKHUHVWDFNLQJ
VWXIIDVZHOOZLWK%REDQG7RGG,Q*HRUJHVDEVHQFH7RPDQG,KDYHNLQGRIEHHQ
ZRUNLQJRQVRPHGHFLVLRQVZLWK,7DQGZHKDYHEHHQLQYROYHGLQYLVLWLQJWKHVLWHVIRU
ZKHUHWKHVHUYHUVPD\EHVRZHKDYHEHHQGRLQJDORWRIWKDWNLQGRIVWXII,MXVWZDQWHG
WRKLJKOLJKWWKDW'R\RXKDYHDQ\WKLQJWRDGG7RP"

Tom: 1RZHUHJRRG

Jim Walsh: 7KDQN\RXJHQWOHPHQ&DPSDLJQ)LQDQFH%LOO0F&DQQ

Bill McCann7KDQN\RX&RPPLVVLRQHU-XVWDFRXSOHRIKLJKOLJKWVIURPRXUUHSRUWZH
GLGILOHIRUWKH-DQXDU\SHULRGLFRUGHUWRVKRZFDXVHRQWKHUGDQGWKDWLVUHWXUQDEOHLQ
0DUFKRQWKHQGQDPLQJWKHILOHUVWKDWWKH\ILOHSURFHVVLQJRIWKDW:HGLG
FRPSOHWHRXULQLWLDOGDWDWHVWLQJIRURXU2SHUDWLRQV6\VWHP1HXWUDO6RIWZDUHDQGWKH\DUH
GRLQJDSRVWXVHDQDO\VLVDQGWKDWLVJRLQJZHOO:HDUHZDLWLQJRQWKHUHVSRQVHIRURXU
FRQWLQXLQJOHJDOHGXFDWLRQDSSOLFDWLRQZKLFKWDNHVVHYHUDOPRQWKVLQWKHQRUPDOSURFHVV
VRZHDUHKRSLQJWRJHWWKDWDSSURYDOLQOLQHZLWKRXUVHPLQDUVZKLFKZHDUHVFKHGXOLQJ
QRZIRUWKHVSULQJZKLFKZLOOWDNHSODFHLQ0D\DQG-XQH$OVRZRUNLQJRQRXUILOHU
XSGDWHZKLFKZHVHQGRXWHDFKVSULQJLQDQWLFLSDWLRQRIWKHVHPLQDUVIRUDOORIRXUILOHUV
DVZHOODVPDNLQJDQ\PRGLILFDWLRQVWRRXUKDQGERRNDQGEHHQZRUNLQJRQWKHVHPLQDU
VFKHGXOHVRWKDWLVDOOJRLQJDFFRUGLQJWRSODQ7KHQODVWEXWFHUWDLQO\QRWOHDVWRXU
LQGHSHQGHQWH[SHQGLWXUHUHJXODWLRQVPDQGDWHGE\&KDSWHURIZHUHSXEOLVKHGLQ
WKH6WDWH5HJLVWHURQ)HEUXDU\QGDQGWKDWSXEOLFFRPPHQWSHULRGUXQVWKURXJK$SULO
WKHWKDQGVRZHZLOOZDLWDQGVHHZKDWFRPPHQWVZHJHWDQGWKHQSURYLGHWKDWWRWKH
%RDUGIRUDSSURYDO7KDWLVRXUUHSRUW4XHVWLRQV"7KDQN\RX

Jim Walsh,7'DQ9DOYR

Dan Valvo,KDYHQRWKLQJWRDGGWRWKHDOUHDG\VXEPLWWHGUHSRUW:KDW,ZDVJRLQJWR
DGGZDVSUHHPSWHGE\ERWK7RGGDQG-RKQVR
Jim Walsh6R,OOJLYH\RXDWKLUGRIWKHFUHGLWIRUWKDW)RUROGEXVLQHVVGLVFXVVWKH
SURSRVHGOHJLVODWLRQLV3DXO&ROOLQV

Paul Collins: .LPLVQRWKHUHDQGVKHLVVRUWRIVKHSKHUGLQJWKDWGULYHVR,DPJRLQJWR
GHIHU2ND\

Jim Walsh: 7KDWVILQH

Doug Kellner:$OULJKWZHOO,KDYHWZRWKLQJVWKDW,ZDQWWRVD\

Bob Brehm,WKLQNIRURQHDWRXUPHHWLQJWKDWZHGLVFXVVHGWKLVODVWZKLFKLVWZR
PHHWLQJVDJR,EHOLHYH\RXUHTXHVWHGWKDWZHVHQGLWRXWWRWKH(OHFWLRQV&RPPLVVLRQHUV
$VVRFLDWLRQ6RZHKDGVHQWWKDWRXWWRWKHRIILFHUVDQGWKHOHJLVODWLYHFRPPLWWHHEHFDXVH
WKH\ZHUHKDYLQJDPHHWLQJWKH\ZHUHJRLQJWRGLVFXVVLWDQGVKDUHWKHYLHZV:HGLG
UHFHLYHDFRXSOHRIFRPPHQWVEDFNWKDW,NQRZ$QQDDQG.LPZKHQVKHVKHUHKDYHWR
UHYLHZ7KH\ZHUHQWYHU\VXEVWLWXWHDQGWKHUHZHUHVRPHLVVXHVWKDWWKH\UHFRPPHQGHG
EXWLWZDVQWH[WHQVLYHVXEVWDQFHVLQRUGHUWRLQFRUSRUDWHWKHLUYLHZVEXWRWKHUWKDQWKDW,
WKLQNZHVWLOOKDYHVRPHZRUNWRGRLQWHUQDOO\RQDELOOWKDWORRNVOLNH,PHDQWKDWRQHLV
SUHWW\FORVHWKH$UWLFOHELOOLWLVMXVWDPDWWHURIDFRXSOHRIGD\V7KHUHDUHDFRXSOHRI
LVVXHVZLWKWKHXVDELOLW\WKDWZHQHHGDOLWWOHELWRIWLPHMXVWWRVLWGRZQ7KLVVKRXOGQWEH
RYHUO\FRPSOLFDWHGWRWU\DQGGHDOZLWKVRPHRIWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVWKDWDUHRXWWKHUH
WRZKDWEHWWHUFDQZHGRWRPDNHWKHEDOORWDOLWWOHELWHDVLHUHVSHFLDOO\IURPWKH
LQVWUXFWLRQSRLQWRIYLHZ,WKLQNWKDWLVZKHUHZHKDYHVHHQDORWRILQIRUPDWLRQIURP
VRPHRIWKHJURXSV<RXNQRZZKHQ\RXUHDGWKRVHLQVWUXFWLRQVWKH\DUHTXLWHODERULRXV
DQGZHUHFRPPHQGWKDWVRPHLGHDVWKHUHRWKHUWKDQWKDW,NQRZWKDWLVZKDWZHKDYH
EHHQZRUNLQJRQVLQFHRXUODVWGLVFXVVLRQRQLW

Doug Kellner:,KRSHWKDWZHFDQJHWWKHVWDIIWRPDNHWKLVDSULRULW\QRZWRJHWWKLV
GRQHE\WKHQH[WPHHWLQJ%DVLFDOO\WKHRXWOLQHVRIWKLVZHUHVXEPLWWHGLQ1RYHPEHUDQG
\RXDUHUDLVLQJLWHDFKPRQWKDQGZHNHHSSXWWLQJLWRYHUDQGEHIRUHZHNQRZLWWKH
OHJLVODWLYHVHVVLRQLVJRLQJWREHRYHUDQGLWVJRLQJWREHWRRODWH$QG,WKLQNLWLV
LPSRUWDQWWRDGGUHVVWKLV7KHRWKHUWKLQJWKDW,ZRXOGOLNHWRGRLI\RXZRXOGEHDUZLWK
PHLVWRMXVWUHYLHZIRUDPLQXWHP\UHDFWLRQRQWKHUHFHQW&LW\&RXQFLO5DFHLQWKHWKLUG
ZDUGLQ7RQDZDQGDZKLFKUHVXOWHGLQOLWLJDWLRQWKDWZDVHYHQWXDOO\UHVROYHGEXW,WKLQN
WKHUHZHUHVLJQLILFDQWLVVXHVWKDWFDPHXSWKDWDUHZRUWKUHYLHZLQJ,QWKDWUDFHWKH
LQLWLDOFDQYDVRIDOOEDOORWVLQFOXGLQJWKRVHVFDQQHGDWWKHSROHVLWHVWKHRSWLFDOVFDQZDV
WKH(6 6'6DQGWKHDEVHQWHHPLOLWDU\DQGSURYLVLRQDOEDOORWVZKLFKDUHVFDQQHGRQ
VHSDUDWHVFDQQHUVDWWKH(ULH&RXQW\%RDUGRI(OHFWLRQVKDGDUDFHWKDWUHFRUGHG
YRWHVIRU&DQGLGDWH%\HUDQGYRWHVIRU&DQGLGDWH6OL]ZLWKEDOORWVWKDWZHUH
GHHPHGEODQNRUYRLG6RWKHORVLQJFDQGLGDWH6OL]FRPPHQFHGDSURFHHGLQJLQ(ULH
APX - 162

Page 9 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

Page 10 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________
&RXQW\6XSUHPH&RXUWSXUVXDQWWR(OHFWLRQ/DZWRREWDLQDPDQXDODXGLWRIWKH
YRWHUYHULILDEOHDXGLWUHFRUGVRIDOOWKHEDOORWVFDVWLQWKHHOHFWLRQ$QGWKHWULDOMXGJH
LQLWLDOO\GLVPLVVHGWKHSURFHHGLQJHVVHQWLDOO\IRUIDLOXUHWRVWDWHDFDXVHRIDFWLRQUHO\LQJ
RQWKH&RXUWRI$SSHDOVGHFLVLRQLQ-RKQVRQYV0DUWLQVWKDWZDVWKHGHFLVLRQRYHU
WKH6HQDWH5DFH:KHUHWKH&RXUWRI$SSHDOVKDGUXOHGWKDWWKHGLVFUHSDQF\UDWHWKDW
ZKHUHWKHUHLVQRPDQXDOFRXQWZKHQWKHGLVFUHSDQF\UDWHLVVLJQLILFDQWO\EHORZWKH
PDUJLQRIYLFWRU\VXFKDVWKHUHLVQRVXEVWDQWLDOOLNHOLKRRGWKDWWKHUHVXOWRIWKHHOHFWLRQ
ZRXOGEHDOWHUHGE\WKHFRQGXFWRIDIXOOPDQXDODXGLW7KLV\HDUWKH$SSHOODWH'LYLVLRQ
LQWKHWKGHSDUWPHQWUHYHUVHGWKHUXOLQJRIWKH(ULH&RXQW\&RXUWDQGUHPDQGHGWKHFDVH
IRUWULDODQGDOWKRXJKWKH$SSHOODWH'LYLVLRQGLGQRWDGGUHVV-RKQVRQYV0DUWLQVWKH
FRXUWGLGQRWHWKDWLWZDVXQGLVSXWHGWKDWWKHUHZHUHQRXQUHVROYHGGLVFUHSDQFLHVGXULQJ
WKHPDQGDWRU\DXGLWDQGWKXVQREDVLVIRUIXUWKHUYHULILDEOHDXGLWUHFRUGXQGHUHOHFWLRQ
ODZZKHUHUHJXODWLRQ$QGWKHQWKHFRXUWZHQWRQWRQRWHWKDWWKH
SHWLWLRQHUKDGQRWDOOHJHGDQ\RIWKHGLVFUHSDQFLHVGHILQHGXQGHUHOHFWLRQODZDQG
VRWKHRQO\EDVLVIRUDPDQXDODXGLWLVWKDWWKHUHLVDOLNHOLKRRGRIDPDWHULDOGLVFUHSDQF\
EHWZHHQWKHPDQXDODXGLWWDOO\DQGWKHYRWLQJPDFKLQHVV\VWHPWDOO\ZKLFKLVODQJXDJHRI
HOHFWLRQODZVXEGLYLVLRQ$QGWKHQWKH$SSHOODWH'LYLVLRQDGGHGWKDWEHFDXVH
RQO\RQHYRWHVHSDUDWHGWKHWZRFDQGLGDWHVWKHSHWLWLRQHULVFRQWHQGLQJWKDWWKHUHLVD
VXEVWDQWLDOSRVVLELOLW\WKDWWKHZLQQHURIWKHHOHFWLRQLVUHIOHFWHGLQWKHYRWLQJPDFKLQHV
V\VWHPWDOO\FRXOGFKDQJH$QGWKH$SSHOODWH'LYLVLRQUXOHGWKDWWKHORVLQJFDQGLGDWH
VKRXOGEHJLYHQDQRSSRUWXQLW\WRSURYHWKHFDVHHYHQWKRXJKLWGLGQWDFWXDOO\RUGHUD
PDQXDOFRXQW6RRQUHPDQGREYLRXVO\WKHUHZDVFRQVLGHUDEOHLQWHUHVWDPRQJHOHFWLRQ
RIILFLDOVWKURXJKRXWWKHVWDWHEHFDXVH1HZ<RUNGRHVQWKDYHDQ\EODFNDQGZKLWH
JXLGHOLQHVRQZKHQDPDQXDOFDQYDVLVDSSURSULDWH$QGULJKWQRZWKHUHLVQRVWDWHZLGH
VWDQGDUGDQGPRVWFRXQWLHVKDYHQRVWDQGDUGDWDOOZLWKWZRH[FHSWLRQVWKDW,NQRZDERXW
&ROXPELD&RXQW\GRHVDPDQXDOFDQYDVLQHYHU\FRQWHVWDQG1HZ<RUN&LW\KDVD
ZULWWHQSURFHGXUHWKDWUHTXLUHVDPDQXDOFDQYDVZKHUHWKHPDUJLQLVOHVVWKDQDSHUFHQW
RUWHQYRWHV

Evelyn Aquila: ,VWRSSHGWKHUHDQGGLGPDQ\P\VHOI.

Doug Kellner: 6RP\RZQSHUVRQDOYLHZZDVWKDWWKHUHVKRXOGEHQRGLVSXWHWKDWZKHUH
WKHUHLVDRQHYRWHPDUJLQLQDQ\FRQWHVWWKDWWKDWLVFORVHHQRXJKWRWULJJHUDPDQXDO
FDQYDV7KH(ULH&RXQW\&RPPLVVLRQHUVZKR,WKLQNDFWHGYHU\UHVSRQVLEO\DQG
WKRURXJKO\LQWKLVSURFHVV'HQQLV:DUGDQG5DOSK0RRUHZHUHDZDUHWKDWDQ\WKLQJWKDW
DQ\GHFLVLRQWKDWWKH\PDGHVKRXOGEHSDUWRIWKHIRUPXODWKDWZRXOGKDYHDELQGLQJ
SUHFHGHQWLDODIIHFW$QG,WKLQNWKH\DUHDOVRFRQFHUQHGDERXWHTXDOSURWHFWLRQLVVXHVRI
KDYLQJDFRXQW\VHWWKHLURZQVWDQGDUGZLWKRXWDQ\VWDWHZLGHVWDQGDUGEHFDXVHWKHQ\RX
JHWLQWRLVVXHVRILVHYHU\ERG\EHLQJWUHDWHGWKHVDPHDFURVVWKHVWDWH(YHQWXDOO\WKH
FDQGLGDWHVZKRIHOWWKDWWKH\ZHUHVSHQGLQJXQGXHUHVRXUFHVIRUDUHODWLYHO\
LQFRQVHTXHQWLDOORFDORIILFHGHFLGHGWKDWLWZDVQWZRUWKIXUWKHUOLWLJDWLRQDQGFRQGXFWHG
DPDQXDOFDQYDVDQGEHFDXVHLWZDVFRQGXFWHGRQFRQVHQWLWGRHVQWKDYHDQ\UHDO
SUHFHGHQWLDOHIIHFWVEXWWKHDFWXDOUHVXOWVRIWKDWPDQXDOFDQYDVVWLOOIRUFHGXVWRWDNH
QRWLFHRIVLJQLILFDQWLVVXHVEHFDXVHLQWKHPDQXDOFDQYDVWZRYRWHVFKDQJHG:HDOUHDG\
GLVFXVVHGRQHRIWKHPZKHUHWKH(ULH&RXQW\%RDUGKDGSUHYLRXVO\QRWHGWKDWWKHUHZDVD
PLVVLQJEDOORWDQGLWWXUQHGRXWWKDWWKHUHZDVRQHPRUHEDOORWLQWKHEDOORWER[WKDQWKH
PDFKLQHKDGUHFRUGHGDQGLWWXUQHGRXWWKDWWKDWEDOORWZDVIRUFDQGLGDWH6OL]VRWKDW
EURXJKWWKHUDFHXSWRDWLHDQGWKHQWKHUHZDVDVHFRQGEDOORWWKDWWKHVFDQQHUKDG
FRXQWHGDVDEODQNYRWHEXWRQORRNLQJDWWKHEDOORWPDQXDOO\WKHYRWHUKDGFLUFOHGWKH
FDQGLGDWHER[ZLWKRXWSXWWLQJDQ\PDUNLQVLGHWKHYRWLQJEXEEOH6RWKHPDFKLQH
FRUUHFWO\GLGQWFRXQWLWEXWXQGHURXUUXOHVEHFDXVHWKHYRWHUVLQWHQWZDVFOHDUWKDW
FRXQWHGDVDQRWKHUYRWHIRUWKHFDQGLGDWHZKRVHQDPHKDGEHHQFLUFOHGDQGWKDWJDYHKLP
WKHRQHYRWHPDUJLQWKDWDFWXDOO\IOLSSHGWKHUHVXOWV6RZKDWWKLVLOOXVWUDWHVLVZKLOHRXU
PDFKLQHVKDYHDQH[FHOOHQWUHFRUGRXWRIWKHDXGLWVWKDWZHKDYHGRQHVRIDUWKHUHKDV
RQO\EHHQRQHEDOORWRXWRIWKHPLOOLRQVWKDWKDYHEHHQDXGLWHGZKHUHWKHPDFKLQH
PLVFRXQWHGWKHEDOORWDQGWKDWZDVEHFDXVHWKHEDOORWZDVZHWZKHQLWZHQWWKURXJKWKH
PDFKLQHDQGLWFDPHRXWDVDEOXUU\LPDJHLQWKHLPDJHV%XWZHVHHWKLVLVVXHRIZKHUH
WKHUHDUHSDSHUMDPVRUSHUKDSVVRPHRWKHUH[SODQDWLRQZKHUHEDOORWVFDQJHWLQWRWKH
EDOORWER[ZLWKRXWEHLQJUHFRUGHGVRWKDWLVRQHH[DPSOHKHUHRIWKHSUREOHP$QG
EHFDXVHWKLVLVDUHDOLVVXH,WKLQNLWKLJKOLJKWVIRUXVWKHQHHGWRGHYHORSDVWDWHZLGH
VWDQGDUGRQZKHQDUDFHLVVRFORVHWKDWWKHUHVKRXOGEHDPDQXDOFDQYDV$QG,WKLQNLWLV
DVXEMHFWWKDWZHVKRXOGEHWDONLQJDERXW7KDWZHVKRXOGJHWWKHSROLWLFDOSDUWLHVDQGWKH
HOHFWLRQODZ\HUVWRWDONDERXWDQGWU\WRFRPHWRVRPHDJUHHPHQWRQDVWDQGDUGVRWKDW
WKHUHLVDVLQJOHVWDWHZLGHVWDQGDUGDQGQRWVRPHWKLQJWKDWLVDVREVFXUHQRZDVMXVW
VD\LQJWKHSRVVLELOLW\RIWKDWLWZRXOGFKDQJHWKHRXWFRPH

Evelyn Aquila: ,WKLQNZHVKRXOG.,WKLQNWKDWLVDYHU\JRRGLGHD

Doug Kellner: $QGWKHQWKHVHFRQGWKLQJLVVLPSO\WKHFRPPHQWWKDW,KDYHIRUHOHFWLRQ
SUDFWLWLRQHUVLVWKDWWKHEDOORWLPDJHVDUHUHFRUGHG,WLVUHODWLYHO\HDV\WRJDLQDFFHVVWR
WKHEDOORWLPDJHVIRUWKHLPDJHVFDQPDFKLQHV,WLVPRUHGLIILFXOWWRJDLQDFFHVVWRWKH
LPDJHVIRUWKH'6DOWKRXJK,XQGHUVWDQGWKDWRQHRIWKHSURMHFWVWKDWZHKDYHLQWKH
ZRUNVLVWRPDNHLWHDVLHUWRJHWWKHEDOORWLPDJHVIRUWKH'6%XWWKDWRQHZD\RI
DGGUHVVLQJWKLVLVVXHLVWKDWLIHOHFWLRQODZ\HUVJHWGLVFRYHU\RIWKHEDOORWLPDJHVWKHQWKH
EXUGHQRQILQGLQJWKHPLVFRXQWHGEDOORWVFRXOGEHRQWKHODZ\HUVDQGWKDWWKH\VKRXOG
KDYHWRJRWKURXJKWKHEDOORWLPDJHVDQGVD\+H\,YHIRXQG;QXPEHURIEDOORW
LPDJHVRIEDOORWVWKDWDSSO\LQJRXUUXOHVKRXOGEHFRXQWHGGLIIHUHQWO\WKDQWKH
PDFKLQHFRXQWHGDQGWKDWZRXOGVSDUHWKH%RDUGRI(OHFWLRQVWKHREOLJDWLRQRIGRLQJD
PDQXDOFRXQWDQGSODFHWKHREOLJDWLRQDWOHDVWLQWKHLQLWLDOOHYHORQWKHFDQGLGDWHZKRLV
FKDOOHQJLQJWKHUHVXOWVRIWKHFDQYDVWRVKRZWKDWWKHEDOORWLPDJHVZRXOGUHYHDODFKDQJH
LQWKHUHVXOWEHIRUHLWJRHVWRFRXUW,DPMXVWWKURZLQJWKHVHRXWDVLGHDVWKDWZHVKRXOG
H[SORUH,DSSUHFLDWH\RXUSDWLHQFHLQEHDULQJZLWKPHRQWKDWORQJSUHVHQWDWLRQEXW,GLG
ZDQWWRPDNHLWIRUWKHUHFRUGVRWKDWZHFRXOGJHWWKLVGLVFXVVLRQVWDUWHG

Evelyn Aquila: &RXOG,PDNHMXVWRQHYHU\TXLFNFRPPHQW",DJUHHZLWKERWKRI\RXU
VXJJHVWLRQV,MXVWZRQGHULVWKHUHDQ\WKLQJDWDOOLQWKHVWDWHODZWKDWUHVWULFWVXVIURP
GRLQJWKDWWKDWWKHFRXQWLHVKDYHWKHULJKW"
APX - 163

Page 11 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

Page 12 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________
Bob Brehm,WLVFOHDUO\WKHXQLIRUPVWDQGDUGZRXOGEHZKDWZHDUHORRNLQJIRU7KHUH
LVDTXHVWLRQDQG,HYHQZHQWDQGWDONHGWR&RPPLVVLRQHU:DUG\HVWHUGD\DQGZKDWKH
JHWVLQWRLVLWFOHDUWKDWLVLWDFRXQW\E\FRXQW\DXWKRULW\RULVLWDVWDWHDXWKRULW\",ILWLV
FRXQW\E\FRXQW\\RXDUHJRLQJWRKDYHDFRQWHVWWKDWJRHVEH\RQGDFRXQW\ERUGHUWKDW
DUHJRLQJWREHFRXQWHGGLIIHUHQWO\IURPFRXQW\WRFRXQW\6RZKDWHYHUWKHVWDQGDUGLV
PDNHVVHQVHWRGRLWVWDWHZLGH,PHDQFOHDUO\VLQFHZHKDYHDEVROXWHO\QRUHFRXQW
SURYLVLRQLQWKHVWDWXWHZKDWVRHYHUHYHU\ERG\LVPLQLQJWKHILHOGRIWKHDXGLWWU\LQJWR
ILQGDZD\WRXVHWKHDXGLWWRJHWDUHFRXQWDVRSSRVHGWRDQH[SDQGHGDXGLW6R\RX
NQRZDORWRIWKHLVVXHVDQGWKHZRUGLQJRIWKHVWDWXWHORRNVWR\RXKDYHWRGHWHFW\RX
KDYHWRSURYHWKDW\RXKDYHGHWHFWHGDQHUURUDQGWKHHUURULVSURMHFWHGWRFDXVHWKH
FKDQJH:HOOLI\RXKDYHGRQHDVPDOODXGLWDQGWKHUHLVQRGHWHFWHGHUURUWKHQLWLVQRW
HDVLO\LWKDVQWEHHQVXFFHVVIXOLQJHWWLQJZKDWWKH\ZDQWZKLFKLVDUHFRXQW:KHQ
HYHU\ERG\LVDOOGRQHUHFRXQWLQJDQGWKHQWKH\PLQGWKHRQO\VHFWLRQWKDWOHWVWKHP
ZKLFKLVWKHDXGLW6RDFOHDUVWDQGDUG\RXNQRZHYHQIURPWDONLQJWR&RPPLVVLRQHU
:DUG,GLGQWKDYHDFKDQFHWRWDONWR5DOSKLWLVFOHDUO\ZKDWWKH\DUHORRNLQJIRUVR
WKDWWKH\GRQWJHWLQWRDSUREOHPZKHUH\RXNQRZZHMXVWZDQWWRGRZKDWZHDUH
VXSSRVHWRGRDQGZHZDQWWRGRLWULJKW

Evelyn Aquila: %RE,UHPHPEHUPDQ\\HDUVDJRZHGLVFXVVHGWKLVKDYLQJVWDWHZLGH
UHTXLUHPHQWVIRUZKHQWKHUHZRXOGEHDUHFRXQWDQGDWWKDWWLPHZHDEDQGRQHGLWEHFDXVH
LWVHHPHGWREHWKHULJKWDORQJZLWKWKHFRXQWLHVZKHWKHUWKH\KDGDULJKWIRULWDWWKDW
WLPHRUQRWEXWLWVHHPHGWREHORQJWKHUH

Bob Brehm: ,WVNLQGRIDWZRSDUWSUREOHPEHFDXVHZHKDYHQRVSRWDWWKHVWDWHOHYHO
IRUKDYLQJDFFXUDWHRUUHOLDEOHLQWHULPUHVXOWV\RXNQRZIRUWKRVHFRXQWLHVZKRXVHWKH
SRUWDEOHPHPRU\GHYLFH<RXNQRZ\RXKDYHWREHDEOHWRJHWWKHQXPEHUVLILWLVWRWDOO\
ZLWKLQWKHFRXQW\,UHPHPEHUZKHQZHKDGWKHDXGLWSURYLVLRQVWKDW+RZDUG6WDQLVOHYLF
DQGRWKHUVZHUHFDOOLQJIRUZHKDGDJUHDWGLVFXVVLRQDWWKDWWLPHEHFDXVHZKDWWKH\
ZHUHORRNLQJIRUXVWRSXWLQSODFHZDQWHGWREHWULJJHUHGEDVHGRQKRZFORVHDQHOHFWLRQ
ZDVDQGZHKDYHQRZD\ULJKWRIUHDVRQDEO\ZHKDYHHQRXJKWURXEOHRIJHWWLQJWKH
GD\GHDGOLQHIRU\RXWRFHUWLI\PXFKOHVVDQDFFXUDWHSUHOLPLQDU\QXPEHUWKDWJRHV
EH\RQGWKHFRXQW\WKDW\RXFRXOGWKHQVD\LVWKHDXWRPDWLFWULJJHU6R\RXNQRZWKH
KDUGSDUWLV,JXHVVIRU1HZ<RUNZKHUHRXUDXGLWLVXSIURQWDQGVRPHRIWKHRWKHUVWDWHV
WKDWKDYHWKDWSURYLVLRQ\RXFHUWLI\WKHUHVXOWVWKHQ\RXGRWKHDXGLWDQGWKHQ\RXXVHWKH
UHVXOWVSHUKDSVWRFKDQJHWKHFHUWLILFDWLRQ2XUVKDVWREHFRPSOHWHGEHIRUHZHFDQ
FRPSOHWHWKHFHUWLILFDWLRQVRLWLVNLQGRIZHZRXOGQHHGVRPHZD\ZKHQWKHFRQWHVW
JRHVEH\RQGWKHERUGHUWRUHDVRQDEO\NQRZDQXPEHUVRWKDWLVZK\WKHQXPEHULV
LPSRUWDQWDQGWKHSURFHVVLVLPSRUWDQW$QGLWOLWHUDOO\LVDIWHUHYHU\HOHFWLRQZHJHW
WKHVHFDOOVDQGLWLVVRPHWKLQJWKDWKDVQWEHHQDGGUHVVHG\HWDQGHLWKHUZHFRPHXSZLWK
DIRUPXODRUSURFHVVWKDWZHFDQZRUNZLWKRUSHUKDSVWKHFRXUWZLOOKDYHDKRGJHSRGJH
DFURVVWKHVWDWH

Evelyn Aquila: ,IHHOZHWULHGWRDGGUHVVLWVHYHUDO\HDUVEDFNEXWLWJRWQRZKHUH
EHFDXVHRIVRPHRIWKHSUREOHPVWKDWZHUHMXVWVWDWHG,ZRXOGWKLQNWKDWLWLVVRPHWKLQJ
WKDWZHVKRXOGDEVROXWHO\GRDQG,EHOLHYHWKDWDWWKDWWLPHLWZDVWKDW,WKLQNWKDW
FRQVLGHULQJKDYLQJWKUHHRUIRXUSULPDULHVDQGDQLQWHUQDOHOHFWLRQPD\EHZHQHHGWRGR
LWVWDUWLQJ'HFHPEHUIRUWKHQH[W\HDUDQGWKHQZHFDQORRN,GRQWNQRZLIWKHUHLV
HQRXJKVWDIIKHUHWRUHDFKLQJRXWWRWKHFRXQWLHVDWWKLVWLPHWRZRUNZLWKXVRQWKLV,W
PD\EHDKDUGWLPHLWPLJKWEHDGLIILFXOWWLPHEXWLWDEVROXWHO\KDVWREHDGGUHVVHG%XW
ZHKDGWRWDNHLWRIIWKHWDEOHVHYHUDO\HDUVEDFN<RXPLJKWKDYHEHHQRQWKH%RDUGDW
WKDWWLPH

Jim Walsh:7KDQN\RX

Evelyn Aquila: ,WLVDJUHDWLGHDDQGYHU\LPSRUWDQW

Jim Walsh: 8QGHUQHZEXVLQHVVYRWHRQSHWLWLRQUXOLQJVZHKDYHWZRYRWHVWRFRQGXFW
KHUH2QHLVRQWKHODUJHVKHHWVRISDSHU\RXKDYH:HZLOODFFHSWDPRWLRQRIDFFHSWWKH
VWDIIUHSRUW5HJDUGLQJREMHFWLRQVKDYHEHHQILOHGZLWKUHVSHFWWRWKHSUHVLGHQWLDOSULPDU\

Doug Kellner6RPRYHGDQGLWVQRWMXVWWKHVWDIIUHSRUWEXWWKHUHDUHWKHGUDIW
GHWHUPLQDWLRQVWKDWZHUHDOVRFLUFXODWHG

Jim Walsh:$OULJKWVHFRQG

Gregory Peterson: 6HFRQG

Jim Walsh: 1RRSSRVHG"

Jim Walsh: 6HFRQGLWHPZHKDYHDPRWLRQWRLQYDOLGDWHWKHUHTXHVWWRDSSHDURQWKH
5HSXEOLFDQ3UHVLGHQWLDO3ULPDU\%DOORWE\5LFN6DQWRUXPIRUIDLOXUHWRFRPSOHWHVHWRI
GHOHJDWHVDQGDOWHUQDWHVDVUHTXLUHGE\VWDWXWHVXEMHFWWRKHDULQJE\ILOLQJDFRPSOHWH
VODWH&DQ,KDYHDPRWLRQ"

Gregory Peterson,OOPDNHWKDWPRWLRQ

Gregory Peterson:-XVWE\ZD\RIH[SODQDWLRQZHJRWDOHWWHUWRGD\IURP0HLOLQ7DQRI
)OXVKLQJ,OOMXVWUHDGLWVRWKDWZHKDYHFOHDUXQGHUVWDQGLQJDVWRZK\KLVVODWHZDVQRW
FRPSOHWH6KHVD\VWKDW,WKDVFRPHWRP\DWWHQWLRQWKDWP\QDPHKDVEHHQVXEPLWWHG
E\5LFN6DQWRUXPDVDSURSRVHGDOWHUQDWHGHOHJDWHIRUWKHWKFRQJUHVVLRQDOGLVWULFW
VXSSRUWLQJKLVFDQGLGDF\LQWKH1HZ<RUN5HSXEOLFDQ3UHVLGHQWLDO3ULPDU\3OHDVHEH
DGYLVHGWKDW,QHYHUFRQVHQWHGWRWKLVVXEPLVVLRQDQGWKDWLQIDFW,GRQRWVXSSRUWDQG
DPQRWFRPPLWWHGWR5LFN6DQWRUXPV3UHVLGHQWLDO&DQGLGDF\3OHDVHUHPRYHP\QDPH
DVDSURSRVHG6DQWRUXPDOWHUQDWHGHOHJDWHWRWKHWK&RQJUHVVLRQDO'LVWULFW7KDQN\RX
IRU\RXUFRRSHUDWLRQDQGLWLVVLJQHGE\KHURUKLP6RWKDWEHLQJWKHFDVHWKDWOHDYHV
WKHVODWHLQYDOLG:HKDYHQRFKRLFHEXWWRSDVVDPRWLRQOLNHWKLVVXEMHFWWRWKHPFXULQJ
LW
APX - 164

Page 13 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

Page 14 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________
Doug Kellner:&RPPLVVLRQHUMXVWVRZHUXQWKURXJKWKHOHJDOLVVXHVKHUHLWLVP\
XQGHUVWDQGLQJWKDWZKLOHWKHVWDWXWHWKDWDSSOLHVKHUHLVHOHFWLRQODZEZKLFKLVWKH
PHWKRGIRU3UHVLGHQWLDO3ULPDU\1RPLQDWLRQVWKDWDUHXVHGE\WKH5HSXEOLFDQ3DUW\
ULJKW"$QGXQGHUVXEGLYLVLRQEWKDWWKHWZR5HSXEOLFDQ&RPPLVVLRQHUVKDYHFHUWLILHG
WKHFDQGLGDF\RI5LFN6DQWRUXPDVDSHUVRQZKRLVQDWLRQDOO\NQRZQDQGUHFRJQL]HGVR
WKHQZHJRGRZQWKHQWRVXEGLYLVLRQGZKLFKVD\VWKDWWKDWWKHFDQGLGDWHZKRKDVPHW
WKDWUHTXLUHPHQWKDVWRILOHDFHUWLILFDWHZLWKWKH6WDWH%RDUGRI(OHFWLRQVSURYLGLQJD
FRPSOHWHHOHFWLRQSULRULWL]HGOLVWRISURSRVHGFRQJUHVVLRQDOGLVWULFWGHOHJDWHVDQG
FRQJUHVVLRQDOGLVWULFWDOWHUQDWHGHOHJDWHVVXSSRUWLQJDQGFRPPLWWHGWRWKHLUSUHVLGHQWLDO
FDQGLGDF\IRUHDFKVXFKSRVLWLRQIURPWKHFRQJUHVVLRQDOGLVWULFWVWREHHOHFWHGDWWKH
SULPDU\HOHFWLRQ6RDJDLQLWLVP\XQGHUVWDQGLQJWKDW5LFN6DQWRUXPLQLWLDOO\ILOHGWKDW
OLVWDQGWKHUHZHUHPDQ\GHIHFWVRQWKHOLVWULJKW"

Gregory Peterson5LJKW

Evelyn Aquila: 2KDEXQFK

Doug Kellner:$QGWKDWKHUHFHLYHGDQRWLFHWRFXUHRQ)HEUXDU\QGZLWKDOLVWRIWKH
ZHOOZKDWLVLWLWLVDOPRVWWZRGR]HQGHOHJDWHVWKDWZHUHLQYDOLGDQGWKDWDIWHUUHFHLYLQJ
WKDWQRWLFHWRFXUHRQ)HEUXDU\QGWKH6DQWRUXPFDPSDLJQWKHQILOHGDQHZOLVWWKDW
DWWHPSWHGWRFXUHEXWWKHQHZOLVWEXWWKHQMXVWWKLVPRUQLQJWKH6WDWH%RDUGUHFHLYHG
WKLVOHWWHUIURPWKHFDQGLGDWH

Gregory Peterson: 2QHRIWKHGHOHJDWHV0HLOLQ7DQ

Doug Kellner: 6RWKHFRPPLVVLRQHUUHDGDQGVRWKHUHIRUHLWZRXOGDSSHDUWKDWLQIDFW
WKH6DQWRUXPFDPSDLJQKDVQRWILOHGDFRPSOHWHOLVWRIGHOHJDWHVDQGDOWHUQDWHGHOHJDWHV
VXSSRUWLQJDQGFRPPLWWHGWRWKH3UHVLGHQWLDO&DQGLGDF\DQGWKHUHIRUHZHJRGRZQ
DJDLQWRWKHVWDWXWHLQWKDWVDPHVXEGLYLVLRQLWVD\VWKDWWKHVWDWHERDUGVKDOOUHYLHZHDFK
VODWHDQGLILWGHWHUPLQHVWKDWWKHVODWHLVQRWFRPSOHWHRULVQRWRWKHUZLVHLQFRPSOLDQFH
ZLWKWKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKHSDUDJUDSKLWVKDOOQRWLI\WKH3UHVLGHQWLDO&DQGLGDWHRIDQ\
GHIHFWVIRUWKZLWKDQGSURYLGHVXFK3UHVLGHQWLDO&DQGLGDWHZLWKILYHEXVLQHVVGD\VWRFXUH
DQ\GHIHFWV$QGVLQFHZHRQO\JRWWKHQRWLFHIURPWKLVGHOHJDWHWKLVPRUQLQJWKDWZDV
QRWRQWKHRULJLQDOOLVWRIFXUHVRE\WKLVUHVROXWLRQZHDUHJLYLQJWKH6DQWRUXPDVHFRQG
DWWHPSWWRFXUHZKLFKZHRUGLQDULO\ZRXOGQWGR,ILWZHUHRQWKHILUVWOLVWDQGKHKDGQW
FXUHGLWZRXOGEHWRRODWH%XWVLQFHLWZDVQWRQWKHILUVWOLVWZHDUHJLYLQJLWWKLVFXUH
RSSRUWXQLW\%XWWKHQDOVRZHKDYHGLVFXVVHGDPRQJRXUVHOYHVWKHIDFWWKDW0DUFKVW
ZKLFKLVWKLV7KXUVGD\LVWKHGHDGOLQHIRUWKH6WDWH%RDUGWRFHUWLI\WKHEDOORWVWRWKH
FRXQW\ERDUGVVRWKDWWKHEDOORWVFDQEHSULQWHGLQWLPHWREHPDLOHGWRPLOLWDU\DQG
RYHUVHDVYRWHUVDQGVRHYHQWKRXJKWKHVWDWXWHJLYHVWKHFDQGLGDWHILYHGD\VWKH
FDQGLGDWHLVRIIWKHEDOORWXQWLOKHFXUHVDQGLIZHGRQWJHWWKHFXUHEHIRUHWKH0DUFKVW
FXUHGDWHWKHQWKHERDUGZLOOFHUWLI\WKHEDOORWDVLWLV,IZHGRJHWWKHFXUHEHIRUH0DUFK
VWWKHQWKDWZLOOEHRQWKHFHUWLILFDWLRQWKDWJRHVRXW
Evelyn Aquila: 0DUFKVWLVWRRODWH,WKRXJKWWKDWWKH\KDG0DUFKVW

Bob Brehm: %\0DUFKVW

Doug Kellner: :HOOKDYH,RYHUORRNHGVRPHWKLQJLQWKLV"

Paul Collins5HVSHFWIXOO\&RPPLVVLRQHUDQG,GRQWZDQWWRJRGRZQWKHURDGVZH
VKRXOGQWJREXWDQREYLRXVTXHVWLRQSUHVHQWVLWVHOILISULRUWR0DUFKVWZHUHFHLYHGD
SLHFHRISDSHUSXUSRUWHGWRFXUHWKLVGHIHFWWKDWLVWHUULILF:KRLVJRLQJWRPDNHWKH
GHWHUPLQDWLRQDVWRZKHWKHULWGRHVFXUHWKHGHIHFW"

Todd Valentine: :HOOLWZRXOGEHWKHLQLWLDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQOLNHZHGRZKHQLWLVILOHG
RND\"

Paul Collins,WKLQNWKHUHVROXWLRQRXJKWWRFRYHUWKDWLVVXHEHFDXVHWKDWLVDQREYLRXV
TXHVWLRQ

Todd Valentine: 6LQFHWKLVZDVQWDQLQLWLDOILOHWKHERDUGGRHVQWUXOHRQWKHLQLWLDOILOH
DQGWKH\RQO\UXOHRQWKHSURMHFWLRQZLWKUHJDUGVWREDOORWGHWHUPLQDWLRQV

Doug Kellner$QGZHKDYHKDGFXUHVLQWKHSDVWULJKW"

Todd Valentine: <HDK

Doug Kellner: &RYHUVKHHW"

Todd Valentine: :HKDYHKDGFRYHUVKHHWVLQWKHSDVW

Doug Kellner: $QGLQWKHSDVWZKRUXOHVRQZKHWKHURUQRWWKH\DUHFXUHG"

Bob Brehm: 7KHVWDIIGRHV

Evelyn Aquila: $OZD\VWKHVWDII

Todd Valentine6RLWZRXOGEHWKHVDPHSURFHVV

Todd Valentine,WKLQNDGHWHUPLQDWLRQKDVEHHQPDGHDQGLWVRQO\LIVRPHWKLQJLV
ZURQJZLWKWKHFXUHRU,VXSSRVH\RXZRXOGQWKDYHWREULQJZHZRXOGQWKDYHWRFRPH
EDFNLWMXVWGLGQWPDNHLW

Bob Brehm5LJKW

Gregory Peterson: ,WLVP\XQGHUVWDQGLQJWKDWWKHUHLVDUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIWKH6DQWRUXP
&DPSGULYLQJXSDVXEVWLWXWHWRGD\ZKRKDVEHHQSURPLVHGE\RFORFNWKLVDIWHUQRRQ
APX - 165

Page 15 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

Page 16 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________
1RZREYLRXVO\WKH\GLGQWGRWKHLUKRPHZRUNZKLFKLVZK\WKLVWKLQJFDPHWRRXU
GRRUVWHSWRGD\$QGWKHUHFHUWDLQO\QHHGVWREHDEHWWHUGHOLQHDWLRQRIZKDWLVUHTXLUHGRI
FDQGLGDWHVLQRUGHUWRSXWWKHLUQDPHRQDEDOORW&HUWDLQO\QRWZLOO\QLOO\MXVWJUDEELQJ
VRPHERG\DQGWKURZLQJWKHLUQDPHRQDEDOORWDQGNHHS\RXUILQJHUVFURVVHGWKDWWKH\
DUHJRLQJWRDFFHSW7KHUHVKRXOGEHVRPHVRUWRIFHUWLILFDWLRQE\WKRVHZKRDUHQDPHG
DQGWKDWWKH\KDYHLQGHHGDFFHSWHGWKDWZKLFKZRXOGPDNHRXUMREDORWHDVLHUDQG
FHUWDLQO\WKLVNLQGRIVLWXDWLRQZRXOGQRWSUHVHQWLWVHOI,WLVDOZD\VGLIILFXOWWRWXUQ
DURXQGDQGVD\WRVRPHRQHWKDWVRUU\\RXGRQWTXDOLI\DQGRIWHQ,NQRZLQ1HZ<RUN
ZHKDYHEHHQFULWLFL]HGIRUSLFN\ZKDWKDVDOOHJHGO\KDVEHHQSLFD\XQHGHWDLOLQJRID
SURFHVV+RZHYHULQDVLWXDWLRQOLNHWKLVZKHUHWKHUHLVREYLRXVO\VRPHERG\ZKRKDV
VDLG+H\\RXGLGQWDVNPH,GRQWVXSSRUWJHWP\QDPHRIIWKDWOD\VLWLQRXUODSWR
GRWKHULJKWWKLQJDQGIUDQNO\DWWKDWSRLQW\RXUGHOHJDWHOLVWLVQRWFRPSOHWHDQG\RXDUH
RIIWKHEDOORW6RDVZHYRWHWRGD\DQGDWWKLVKRXUDVVXPLQJWKDWWKDWLVZKDWKDSSHQV
ERWWRPOLQHLVKHLVRIIXQWLOWKDWLVFXUHGDQG,DVVXPHKRSHIXOO\E\WKLVDIWHUQRRQWKDW
ZHZLOOKDYHIRXQGDFXUHIRUWKDW%XWREYLRXVO\WKHUHLVDGHIHFWLQWKHSURFHVVWKDWZH
KDYHWRDGGUHVVZLWKLQWKHQH[WIRXU\HDUV
RUGHUWKDWWKHFRXUWFRXOGFRQVLGHU,WPD\KHOSXVWUHPHQGRXVO\,NQRZLWZDVVRPHWKLQJ
ZHGLVFXVVHGZKHQZHSXWWRJHWKHUWKHZDLYHUDSSOLFDWLRQZKLOHLWZDVWKHDSSOLFDWLRQ
ZDVQRWDFFHSWHGDQG,WKLQN\RXNQRZLWZRXOGEHKHOSIXOWRGRWKDW$QG,DPJRLQJWR
JXHVVLWZLOOWDNHPRUHWKDQRQFHWKLV\HDUEHFDXVH,DPQRWSHUFHQWVXUHWKDWWKH
FDOHQGDULVDOOVHW
Doug Kellner: :HFRXOGWHDVH\RXDQGVD\WKDWWKHGHPRFUDWLFUXOHVUHTXLUHZULWWHQ

All:/RWVRIODXJKWHUDQGWDONLQJ

Gregory Peterson:<RXNQRZZKDWDQG,DJUHHZLWK\RX

Doug Kellner:%XWWKHNH\ZRUGVKHUHDUHWKDWWKHVWDWXWHUHTXLUHVWKDWWKHGHOHJDWHVEH
VXSSRUWLQJDQGFRPPLWWHGWRWKH3UHVLGHQWLDO&DQGLGDF\DQGLQYLHZRIWKHZULWWHQ
VWDWHPHQWRIWKHGHOHJDWHWKDWVKHLVQRWVXSSRUWLQJ6DQWRUXP,GRQWWKLQNZHKDYHDQ\
FKRLFHEXWWRVHQGKLPWKHFXUHQRWLFH

Jim Walsh:7KDQN\RX7KDQN\RXDOO:HKDYHDPRWLRQPDGHDQGVHFRQGHGRQWKH
PRWLRQ$OOLQIDYRUSOHDVHVD\D\H

All:$\H

Jim Walsh: 2SSRVHG"&DUULHG

Jim Walsh:,WHP%PHHWLQJZLWKFKLHIDGPLQLVWUDWLYHMXGJHUHJDUGLQJWKH
&DOHQGDULVVXHV%RE%UHKPDQG7RGG9DOHQWLQH

Bob Brehm:,NQRZWKLVLVRQWKHDJHQGDDQGZHWDONHGDERXWLWEULHIO\DQGEHIRUH,
WKLQNLWVRQHRIWKRVHLWHPVLQWKHSDVWWKHERDUGKDVDWWHPSWHGWRUHDFKRXWWRWKHFRXUW
DQGJRWKURXJKWKHFDOHQGDULVVXHV,WKLQNLWLVKHOSIXOWRUHGRWKDWDVVXPLQJZHKDYHD
VWDEOHSROLWLFDOFDOHQGDUDVLWVSHDNV-XVWEHFDXVHWKHUHLVVRPXFKFKDQJHLWZRXOGUHDOO\
EHKRRYHXVZLWKDFRPSUHVVHGFDOHQGDUWRPHHWZLWKWKHFRXUWH[SODLQWRWKHFRXUWWKH
FDOHQGDUDQGWKHSUHVVXUHWKDW\RXNQRZWRPHHWWKRVHGHDGOLQHVDQGDQ\SURFHVVLQJ
Todd Valentine::HQHHGWRRSHQDGLDORJXHWKLV\HDUVSHFLILFDOO\EHFDXVHWKHUHDUHVR
PDQ\HOHFWLRQVWKDWDUHRFFXUULQJDFFRUGLQJWKDWWKHUHFRUGLQJFRQYHQWLRQPD\RFFXUDQG
WKHFRXUWQHHGVWREHDSSUDLVHGRIWKHWLPHWDEOHVWKDWDUHLQYROYHGWKDWLWLVGLIIHUHQWWKDQ
SUHYLRXV\HDUV,PHDQ,PVXUHWKH\UHDGSUHVVUHSRUWVEXWZHQHHGWRJHWWKHPWRIRFXV
RQWKDWDQGMXVWJHWWKDWGLDORJXHRSHQLQJ:HPD\VWDUWZLWKWKHOHWWHUREYLRXVO\
LQWURGXFLQJWKHVXEMHFWDQGWKHQJRIURPWKHUHDQGVHHZKDWWKH\DUHJRLQJWRGR%XW
\RXNQRZZHKDYHGRQHWKLVLQWKHSDVWWRPHHWZLWKWKHFRXUWV\VWHP1RWVRPXFKQRW
WRUHPLQGWKHPRIWKHLUREOLJDWLRQVEXWWRH[SODLQWKHVLWXDWLRQVRWKDWWKH\XQGHUVWDQGWKH
QHHGIRUILQDOLW\DQGVRWKDWZHFDQJHWEDOORWVRXWDQGJHWYRWHGRQVR

Doug Kellner:7KHUHDUHWKUHHWKLQJVWKDW,ZRXOGOLNHWRHPSKDVL]HLQDSSURDFKLQJWKLV
DQG,WKLQNWKDW-XGJH3UXGHQWLZLOOEHYHU\UHVSRQVLYHWKDWVKHKDVDIDLUDPRXQWRI
HOHFWLRQODZVH[SHULHQFHDQGZLOOXQGHUVWDQGWKHVHLVVXHV7KHILUVWLVWKHFDOHQGDULVVXHV
WKDW\RXKDYHGLVFXVVHGDQGREYLRXVO\ZHGRQWUHDOO\NQRZZKDWLVJRLQJWRKDSSHQ
EHFDXVHWKHSULPDULHVFRXOGUHDOO\KDSSHQDQ\GDWHEHWZHHQ-XQHWKDQG$XJXVWWK,W
LVUHDOO\XSWRWKHOHJLVODWXUHLIWKH\DUHJRLQJWRJHWDURXQGWRFRPELQLQJWKHPDQGVRLW
PD\EHSUHPDWXUH\HWWRWDONDERXWWKHFDOHQGDULVVXHV7KHVHFRQGWKLQJLVVRPHWKLQJZH
KDYHGLVFXVVHGLVWRHPSKDVL]HWRWKHFRXUWVWKDWWKHUHQHHGVWREHDUHDOGDWHWKDWLVWKH
ODVWGD\WKDWWKHFRXUWFDQRUGHUDFKDQJHLQWKHEDOORWEHFDXVHRIWKHQDWXUHRIWKH
VFDQQLQJPDFKLQHV,WVQRWOLNHWKHOHYHUYRWLQJPDFKLQHVZKHUH\RXFDQGRDQRUGHUWKH
GD\EHIRUHWKHHOHFWLRQDQGJHWFRPSOLDQFHDQG,PRIWKHYLHZWKDWZHZRXOGEHZHOO
VHUYHGE\JHWWLQJDELSDUWLVDQDJUHHPHQWLQDGYDQFHRQZKDWWKDWFXWRIIGDWHUHDOO\LVVR
WKDWWKHUHLVQRDUJXPHQWODWHURQE\RQHVLGHRUWKHRWKHUDVWRZKHWKHULWLVIHDVLEOHWR
UHSULQWEDOORWVDQGGRWKHQHFHVVDU\WHVWLQJLQRUGHUWRFKDQJHWKHPDFKLQHV%XWWKHRQH
WKLQJWKDWWRPHLVDEVROXWHO\FULWLFDOLVWKDWQRYRWLQJPDFKLQHVKRXOGEHXVHGZLWKRXW
KDYLQJJRQHWKURXJKWKHORJLFDQGDFFXUDF\WHVWLQJWKDWLVUHTXLUHGE\WKHVWDWXWHLQRXU
UXOHV1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJDFRXUWRUGHUFKDQJLQJWKHEDOORW$QGWKHQWKHWKLUGLVVXHLVWR
DVNLI-XGJH3HUGHQWLZRXOGEHZLOLQJWRVHQGDUHPLQGHUWRWKHMXGJHVWKDWHOHFWLRQGD\
RUGHUVVXFKDVWKHLPSRXQGPHQWRUGHUVWKDWDUHW\SLFDOO\VRXJKWH[SDUWHXQGHUWKH
FRXUWVRZQUXOHVDUHUHTXLUHGWREHRQQRWLFHWRWKHERDUGRIHOHFWLRQVDQGSDUWLFXODUO\
ZKHUHWKHVHRUGHUVVXVSHQGWKHRSHUDWLRQRIWKHVWDWXWRU\VFKHPHWKDWWKHMXGJHVVKRXOG
QRWGRWKDWDVOLJKWO\DVWKH\GRLWQRZ-XVWEHFDXVHDODZ\HUVXEPLWVDQRUGHUWKDWDOWHUV
WKHVWDWXWRU\VFKHPHRQKRZWKHEDOORWVVKRXOGEHFDQYDVVHGVKRXOGQRWEHWDNHQZLWKRXW
QRWLFHWRWKH%RDUGVRI(OHFWLRQV6R,ZRXOGKRSHWKDWZHFRXOGLQFOXGHWKDWLQRXU
GLDORJXHZLWKWKH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH-XGJH
APX - 166

Page 17 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

Page 18 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________
Doug Kellner:7KH\SXWWKHUXOHLQWKDWVD\V,PHDQWKHUHLVDFRXUWUXOHWKDWVD\V\RX
DUHQRWVXSSRVHWRGRLWH[SDUWHDQGLWVMXVWWKHQHHGWR

Evelyn Aquila,NQRZ:KHQSHRSOHUXVKLQWRWKHFRXUWWKDWQLJKWDQGWKH\IDLO

Bob Brehm::HGLGJHWRQHODVW\HDUWKDWZDVDVXUSULVHWRXVWKDWDVXUSULVHRXWRIDOO
RIWKHPWKDWZHJHWRQHDFWXDOO\IROORZHGWKHUXOHVVRLWZDVGLIIHUHQW

Paul Collins:7KDWZRXOGEH-XGJH/\QFKIURP$OEDQ\&RXQW\

Evelyn Aquila:<RXUHDJRRGIULHQG

All:/DXJKWHUDQGORWVRIFRPPHQWVWRJHWKHU

Bob Brehm:,WPDGHIRUDQLQWHUHVWLQJKHDULQJWKH\JRWWKURXJKWKHSURFHVVHYHU\WKLQJ
ZRUNHGIROORZLQJUXOHVDOVR

Doug Kellner:1RZLQWKHODVWWZR\HDUVZHKDYHJRWWHQH[SDUWHRUGHUVWKDWZHUH
FRQWUDU\WRWKHVWDWXWRU\VFKHPHDQGDWOHDVWZHZHUHVXFFHVVIXOLQWDONLQJWRWKH
DWWRUQH\VZKRVXEPLWWHGWKHRUGHUVWRJHWWKHPWRUHLQWHUSUHWWKHLURUGHUVWRFRPSO\ZLWK
WKHVWDWXWHEXW,WKLQNWKDWLVOHVVGHVLUDEOHWKDQDWOHDVWDOHUWLQJWKHMXGJHVLQWKHILUVW
LQVWDQWWKDWWKH\VKRXOGQWEHVLJQLQJWKRVHRUGHUVZLWKRXWFKHFNLQJ

Evelyn Aquila: ,GRQWVHHPXFKKRSHLQJHWWLQJLW

Jim Walsh:2ND\WKDQN\RXYHU\PXFK,WHPQXPEHU&YRWHRQUHVROXWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
DGGLWLRQDOH[SHQGLWXUHVRIKDYLQJIXQGVIRUFRXUWRUGHUHGYRWLQJPDFKLQHPRGLILFDWLRQV
DQGWHVWLQJ$QQDDQG-RH%XUQVDQ\FRPPHQW"

Doug Kellner:,PRYHWKHUHVROXWLRQVSHDNVIRULWVHOI

Evelyn Aquila:,VHFRQG

Jim Walsh:$OOLQIDYRUVD\D\H

All:$\H

Jim Walsh:2SSRVHG"&DUULHG7KHUHLVQRQHHGIRUH[HFXWLYHVHVVLRQ,EHOLHYHLVWKHUH"

Doug Kellner:1R

Evelyn Aquila:7KHUHLVRQHFDVH

Evelyn Aquila:2KLWZDV"

Jim Walsh:2ND\,ZLOOVHWWKHGDWHIRURXUQH[WPHHWLQJ

Todd Valentine:)RU7KXUVGD\0D\UGLVZKDWZHDUHORRNLQJDWIRUWKHQH[WPHHWLQJ
DQGWKHUHZRXOGEH\RXNQRZRWKHUEXVLQHVV

Evelyn Aquila:1R0DUFKRU$SULO"

Todd Valentine::HOOWKHEHJLQQLQJRI$SULO\RXKDYH(DVWHUVR(DVWHUDQG3DVVRYHU
\RXKDYHWRGHDOZLWKDQGWKHQZHKDYHWKHILOLQJSHULRGRIWKHWKDQGWKHWKLV
FXUUHQWO\VFKHGXOHGDQGDOORZLQJWZRZHHNVIRUREMHFWLRQVDQGVSHFLILFDWLRQVVR
DVVXPLQJWKLVLVDOOVWLOOJRLQJRQWKDWFDOHQGDUWKDWLVKRZZHFDOFXODWHGWKDWLVKRZZH
FDPHXSZLWKWKDWZHHN

Evelyn Aquila: 1R,XQGHUVWDQG

Doug Kellner:<HDK0D\UGLVILQH0\SUREOHPLVQRWJHWWLQJWKHOHJLVODWLYHSDFNDJH
GRQH

Todd Valentine:HOOZHKDYHWKDWLVVXHWRR

Doug Kellner,WKLQNZHVKRXOGPHHWPRQWKO\

Evelyn Aquila::LOOZHEHUHDG\E\0D\UG

Doug Kellner:1RZHVKRXOGGRLWLQ$SULO:HVKRXOGPHHWWKHILUVWZHHNRI$SULO

Evelyn Aquila:7KDWV(DVWHULVQWLW"

Bob Brehm:7KDWVWKHVHFRQGZHHN"

Doug Kellner::HFDQPHHWRQWKDW0RQGD\MXVWVRWKDWZHGRQWLQWHUIHUHZLWKWKH
3DVVRYHU

Evelyn Aquila:,ZRXOGSUHIHUWRVWLFNZLWK7KXUVGD\7XHVGD\RU7KXUVGD\

Bob Brehm:$SULOUGRUWK

Doug Kellner::HOOLI,WKRXJKWZHZRXOGKDYHWKHOHJLVODWLYHSDFNDJHGRQHZLWKRXW
VHWWLQJDGHDGOLQHIRUWKHPHHWLQJ

Jim Walsh:,VWKHUHVRPHZD\WKDWZHFDQDFFRPSOLVKWKDW"
Doug Kellner:7KHUHZDVRQHFDVHDQGLWZDVDVNHGWREHKHOGRYHUWRDQRWKHUVHVVLRQ
APX - 167

Page 19 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

Page 20 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

Doug Kellner::K\GRQWZHFDQFHOWKHPHHWLQJWKHQLIZHJHWLWGRQH"

Todd Valentine::HFRXOGVFKHGXOHLWIRUWKHWKRI$SULO

Paul Collins&RPPLVVLRQHUWKHWKRI$SULOLV+RO\7KXUVGD\1R

Evelyn Aquila:1RZHDUHQRWJRLQJWRKDYHLWRQ+RO\7KXUVGD\

Paul Collins:,WKRXJKWWKDWPLJKWEHDFRQFHUQ

Doug Kellner:/HWVGRLWWKHQGRUWKHUG

Evelyn Aquila:7KHUGKRZDERXWWKHUG

Todd Valentine:,ZRXOGSUHIHU7XHVGD\VWR0RQGD\V

Evelyn Aquila:<RXSUHIHU7XHVGD\V,GRWR<RXFDQWEHWKHUHRQ7XHVGD\"

Jim Walsh:,FDQWEHKHUH

Evelyn Aquila:<RXFDQWEHWKHUHRQ7XHVGD\"

Jim Walsh:7KHUGRI$SULO"

Doug Kellner:7KHQG"

Evelyn Aquila:7KHQGLVYHU\EDGIRUPH

Gregory Peterson:7KHQG,KDYH

Evelyn Aquila:7KHQGLVYHU\EDGEXWLI,KDYHWR,KDYHWR,OOKDYHWRFDQFHO
VRPHWKLQJ
Doug Kellner:7KDWLIZHFDQJHWWKLVOHJLVODWLYHSDFNDJHDJUHHGWREHIRUHWKHQPD\EH
ZHFDQFDQFHOWKHPHHWLQJ

Evelyn Aquila:7KDWZHFDQJREDFNWRWKHUG

Doug Kellner:7KHQZHGRQWQHHGWRDOOFRPHWR$OEDQ\EHFDXVHZHGRQWQHHGWR
IRUPDOO\YRWH

Todd Valentine:6RZK\GRQWZHVFKHGXOHDPHHWLQJIRU0D\UG

Evelyn Aquila:7KDWVDGHILQLWH$QGWKHWKLVLIQHHGHG
Bob Brehm:,WORRNVOLNHWKHWKVRIDU,GLGQWNQRZWKDWLWZDVDOUHDG\EDG

Gregory Peterson::HGQHVGD\"

Doug Kellner:6RZK\GRQWZHKDYHLWRQWKHWK"

Bob Brehm:2ND\
Jim Walsh:7KLVLVVWLOOSHQGLQJWKDWLI
Todd Valentine:$QGDERXWWKHVFKHGXOHIRUWKHSULPDU\FKDQJHV

Doug Kellner:3RVVLEOH

Evelyn Aquila:<HDK,NQRZ

Todd Valentine:7KHQZHOODGMXVWWKHPDLQPHHWLQJ

Jim Walsh:2ND\

Todd Valentine:7KDWVWRDOORZWLPHWRSURFHVV
Bob Brehm:7KDWVWKHODVWGD\WKDWZHKDYHWRFHUWLI\

Doug Kellner:/HWVVHHLIZHFDQJHWDJUHHPHQWRQWKHOHJLVODWLYHSDFNDJHVRWKDWZH
GRQWQHHGWRFRPHLQ$SULO2WKHUZLVH,WKLQNZHQHHGWRFRPHEHFDXVHLIZHGRQWVHWD
GHDGOLQHLWVMXVWQRWJRLQJWRKDSSHQLWVVL[PRQWKVQRZ

Evelyn Aquila:,V0D\UGDOULJKWIRU\RX"

Gregory Peterson:<HV

Jim Walsh:$PRWLRQWRDGMRXUQSOHDVH

Doug Kellner:6RPRYHG

Jim Walsh:6HFRQG
Jim Walsh:$OULJKWERWKFDUULHG:HDUHDGMRXUQHG


Page 21 of 21
Male, Female
_______________________________________________________

APX - 168
cc:
David A. Paterson
45 West 132nd Street Apt. 7N
New York NY 10037
NYS BOE General Counsel
New York State Board of Elections
40 NORTH PEARL STREET, SUITE 5
ALBANY, NY 12207-2729
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney
General of New York State
by: JOSHUA PEPPER, Esq. AAG
120 BROADWAY 24th Floor
New York, New York 10271-0332
Thomas P. DiNapoli
Office of the State Comptroller
110 State Street
Albany, NY 12236
Hakeem Jeffries
445 Neptune Avenue
Amalgamated Warbasse #2
Brooklyn, NY 11224
Hakeem Jeffries
35 Underhill Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11238
Andrew Cuomo, Governor
of the STATE OF NEW YORK
The Capitol

COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher Earl Strunk,
Dean Skelos,
The New York State Senate
The Capital Room 501
New York City Board of Elections
Executive Office
32 - 42 Broadway, 7 Fl
New York, NY 10004
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281
Brooklyn, New York 11238
The Honorable Gail Prudenti, J.S.C.
Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts
New York State Unified Court System

Office of Court Administration
25 Beaver Street, Room 852
New York, NY 10004
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II
POTUS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
The WHITE HOUSE
1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE N.W.
WASHINGTON D.C. 20500-0003
Chief Administrative Judge has been requested and has in fact taken a direct role in
monitoring this entire matter.
Index No.: 29642 / 08
2.
Plaintiff,
Sheldon Silver,
The New York State Assembly
The Capitol
Including Van Allen v NYSBOE 1787-2012 (born a citizen case) and Van Allen
I.A.S. Part 47
v Silver message of necessity passed legislations. All related to NYS Electoral College
-against-
(Hon. David I. Schmidt J.S.C.)
David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo

(NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli
(NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of
PETITIONERS AFFIDAVIT
the Assembly), Malcolm Smith (NYS Senator),
th
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57 AD),
Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council),
William Thompson (NYC Comptroller),
RENEW AND REARGUE
Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos
(President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their
INTERVENTION
Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat
Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official
Capacity and individually; The New York State Board
of Elections and John Does and Jane Does
Defendants.
COUNTY OF ULSTER
districting; as well as notice of related unconstitutional process message of necessity

and constitutional convention delegate cases; i.e. Schulz v Cuomo (NYS
constitutional convention delegate eligibility, Schulz v State of New York Executive
(message of necessity passed NYS SAFE Act) and Schulz v New York State Executive
(message of necessity passed NYSBOE unconstitutional language of 2013
constitutional ballot question). All constitutional Albany Civil Supreme cases assigned
to emergency Acting State Supreme Court Justices i.e. un-elected Court of Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
STATE OF NEW YORK
delegate selection based upon unconstitutional state and federal legislative re-
appointed judges nomination confirmed by unconstitutionally districted state
)
) ss.
)
legislators. SCOTUS Motion/Application pending for expansion of time to file petitions

of certiorari pending the disposition of this proposed intervention motion.
Accordingly, I, H. William Van Allen, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty
of perjury:
1. That Petitioner, H. (Harold) William Van Allen, is self-represented without an
attorney petitions as of right with CPLR 2221(f) and 1012(a)(2) to protect my own
liberty and rights including right to petition for a redress of grievances in periods
under the NYS Constitution and declared political emergency and necessity, with
below exhibit, against an ongoing injury that started from before the 2008 New York
General Election cycle and by this motion renews my prior motion to intervene as the
circumstances and transactions have changed entitling me to do so. The NYSUCS
3.
That Petitioner re-submits herewith a copy of the Verified Supplement of
November 4, 2011 to Plaintiffs Complaint filed October 29, 2008 (See Exhibit A with
sub--exhibits 1 through 6) as to jurisdiction of New York State Election Law Article
16-100 over Article 12 and related law for the November 4, 2008 General Election for
emergency equity relief, and to the extent that the New York State Board of Elections
and its agents (NYS BOE) have yet to respond to service of the underlying Complaint
and as required with NYS Election Law (EL), hereby provide five (5) supplement causes
to the Second and Third Cause of action shown in Exhibit A-1 from paragraphs 29
thru 38 with facts of subsequent transactions disclosed subsequent to the October 29
2008 filing and before Defendants answer and or response.
Van Allen Affidavit in support of Motion to Renew Intervene Page 1 of 16
APX - 169
4.
That Part 47 on November 22, 2011 in its order denying my previous
7.
That clearly the circumstances have changed since November 22, 2011 with the
intervention held that Plaintiff Christopher Strunk quite capable of representing all
misbehavior of Justice Arthur M. Schack in the Decision and Order for Case 6500-
alleged aggrieved parties in the case (see Exhibit B)
2011 barring Mr. Strunk from any further action in States court and or against any of
5.
That the Order of this Court in Part 47 on January 24, 2014 proves this case
the named defendants therein including the NYS Board of Elections (Exhibit F) even
remains active an d that is a matter to be heard before the Court on March 28, 2014
though the order(s) taken on appeal by Plaintiff Strunk to the Appellate Division with
(see Exhibit C)as a related case to the active case Strunk v Jeffries et al NYS-SC for
Appeal cases 12-5515, 13-6335 and 14-0297 remain unresolved accordingly; and
8.
the County of Kings in Part 47 with Index No.: 2012-21948 having a Notice of
Thereby Mr. Strunks hands are tied, and making Petitioner the only Proposed
Readiness for the Trial of the evidence of fraud at the 2012 General Election scheduled
Intervener capable of having standing herein as the necessary party for not only
for June 18, 2014 perpetrated by the agents for Presidential Candidate Barack
Plaintiff Strunk, but for the voters of New York and WE THE PEOPLE that would
Hussein Obama, now the USURPER POTUS Commander-in chief with, according to
benefit by my intervention herein.
Mr. Strunk, authority and jurisdiction over this Court as a defacto executive martial
9. That Petitioner was duly registered to vote and enrolled in the New York State
rule court under 12 USC 95, 50 App USC 5(b) and related law associated with POTUS
Independence Party for the 2008 and 2012 New York Election Cycle and is currently in
Commander-in-chief Franklin Delano Roosevelt s Proclamations 2039, 2040, 6201
the enrollment lock box as constitution monitors party for the 2014 Election cycle.
with related proclamations and executive orders issues after March 4, 1933; and as
10. That Petitioners place for service is located at 351 North Road Hurley New
further acknowledged by the NYS Supreme Court Appellate Division for the Second
York 12443, with telephone number (845) 389-4366 and email hvanallen@hvc.rr.com.
11.That on October 30, 2008 according to the RULES AND REGULATIONS of the
Department by the panel decision and order denying Mr. Strunk his request for
Civilian due process of law be provided in his Appeal Cases 12-5515 13 6335 and
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS Current with amendments issued prior to 2008,
14-00297 taken from various Orders and Decisions in the case before Part 23 Strunk
TITLE 9 EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT SUBTITLE V STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS
v NYS Board of Elections et al. NYS-SC for the County of Kings with Index No.: 6500-
(NYS BOE) 6201.3 ELECTION LAW (2) the Complaint was duly served for the State
2011 now due to be submitted by May 5, 2014 (see Exhibit D).
Board staff to propose to the board an investigation of an alleged violation of the code;
6.
That the Case 6500-2011 was maliciously assigned with a perjured RJI petition
(see Exhibit E) to Part 23 rather than Part 47 against I.A.S. administrative procedure
that accordingly that shall be filed by mailing to, or by personally serving, the Board of
Elections at then address 40 Steuben St., Albany, NY 12207-2109 (see Exhibit A-2).
12.That pursuant EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT SUBTITLE V STATE BOARD OF
even though this case 29642-2008 is listed as a related on the first page of the 6500-
ELECTIONS (NYS BOE) 6201.3 ELECTION LAW, Petitioner on December 1, 2008,
2011 Complaint; and
while not a party to this action also duly served the Summons and Complaint for
Plaintiff upon the NYS BOE and others shown in Exhibit A-2 as required under CPLR;
jure U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 ( 1 ) before the enactment of the 14th
however, Plaintiff failed to follow-up completion with the clerk of the court.
Amendment defined by law as expressed precedent in Minor. v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162
13.That on March 14, 2011 the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. held in an order
(1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. by Justice Waite as natural born citizens
(see Exhibit A-3) regarding both Plaintiffs reconsideration motion to file service nunc
(NBC) per se are so by virtue of birth on United States soil when both parents were
pro tunc and for an amended complaint that quote:
Citizens of the United States ( 2 ).
All motions are denied. Mr. Strunk failed to join a necessary party President
Obama & Senator McCain. & the statute of limitations to do so expired. In view
of the above there would be no purpose to allow plaintiff to file passed service
nunc pro tunc or for amended complaint.
17.That in New York only a person who is of the de jure class of natural born
citizens may be nominated, designated and or certified accordingly by convention for
candidacy for election by the duly elected electors of the electoral college required
14.That on October 25, 2011 the Honorable Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. held in the
case Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. with Index 6500-2011 that the court would not claim
under NYS EL Article 12 and Article 14.

18.The New York election cycle for selecting the slate of electors for a candidate for
jurisdiction over matters transacted in regards to the 2008 Election cycle under the
jurisdiction of the NYS BOE in the matter of ballot qualifications for office and decline
office of POTUS and Vice President of a particular political committee is

notwithstanding any right the voters may expect to have, in fact the voters cast a
to sign the order as to the NYS BOE (see Exhibit A-4) wrote :
vote ONLY as an advisory referendum on the POTUS candidate, for the actual electoral
"10/25/11 The Court declines to sign this OSC. This issue is not ripe until
candidates file nominating petitions for public office for President of U.S. in
several months. Further, the Court will [not] stop fund-raising by any candidate
because candidates have a right to raise money pursuant to statute and the
First Amendment. The issue of candidate qualification is subject to Court action
after nominating petitions are submitted and candidates are challenged in
Court."_s/AS " JSC"
15.That Petitioner is a member of the minor State party New York State
Independence Party and unlike Plaintiff who is an enrolled member of the majority
State party the New York State Republican Party in bipartisan control of the NYS BOE
Petitioner is subject to their indifferent bi-partisan self-serving arbitrary and
capricious manipulation favoring major State parties in control of elections.
16.That Petitioner is a member of the de jure class of natural born citizens along
with those similarly situated that include Plaintiff, who at birth are according to the de
United States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 that mandates:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any
Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years,
and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
2 [T]he Constitutionprovides that no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the

United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of
PresidentThe 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 naturalborn citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as
citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162,
168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this
case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to
consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves
citizens. The words all children are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as all
persons, and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the
last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
(Emphasis added.)
APX - 170
slate when passing state legislative muster may vote as they see fit notwithstanding
anything the advisory referendum may reflect as a popular vote.
not responded as required by Election Law causing a continuing harm to Petitioner.

23.That Plaintiffs Complaint shown in Exhibit D-1 with Second Cause of Action
19.That when the political committee collects signatures and or holds a convention
reads is insufficient to protect Petitioners liberty an rights causing personal injury to
for certifying a candidate for ballot access, also solicit funds with NYS EL Article 14 as
Petitioner along with those similarly situated and therefore requires a supplement with
defined with EL 14-100 as to the meaning of political committee, candidate and
subsequent transactions and incidents discovered after filing and before Defendants
contribution for the purposes of such nominating, designating, convention certifying
answer or otherwise respond and as is now the fact that the related action takes no
effort for a candidate that is not eligible to qualify for POTUS are committing a fraud.
jurisdiction of the evens and transactions relate to the 2008 election cycle injury.
20. That when the political committee collects contribution(s) for the candidate(s)
24. That Petitioner alleges unlike Plaintiff that the NYS BOE and or its agents
it falls under EL - 14114. Contributions and receipt limitations and is subject to
failed to respond as required by EL 3-104 (2) as is required in the Second Cause of
eligibility and qualification of the candidate(s) even if not yet nominated or designated
Action absent the need of any other defendant or party to be joined, falls entirely upon
merely is dependent upon a declaration of intent; and when the political committee
Defendant NYS BOE as a duty and responsibility of the NYS BOE agents oath.
solicits, collects and expends funds with an ineligible candidate who is unable to
25.That based upon Petitioner review of the NYS BOE Open Meetings record from
qualify to take the oath of office such acts are in fact a personal use of funds that the
2007 forward until this date there has not been a mention of the term Natural born
Election Law prohibits as a conversion of campaign funds to personal uses. In its
citizen or Born a Citizen in the record.
relevant part it states:
26. That Petitioner in an effort to discover when and why the NYS BOE and or its
EL 14-130. Campaign funds for personal use. Contributions received by a

candidate or a political committee may be expended for any lawful purpose.
Such funds shall not be converted by any person to a personal use which is
unrelated to a political campaign or the holding of a public office or party
position.
21.That despite the fact that the Voters at the General Election for POTUS were not
agents maintain the improper eligibility / qualification instructions for a candidate to

for office of POTUS in the 2012 election cycle as to Citizenship states born a citizen
27. Moreover, that the NYS BOE has the power under EL 3104. with enforcement
powers that were bound to respond to when Petitioner on October 30, 2008 duly
presented with a list if the slate of electors of the respective candidate, the voters were
served the NYS BOE for Plaintiff with a complaint shown as Exhibit A-1 accompanied
presented the names of the POTUS candidates as eligible and would qualify for office
by a mandamus petition with Index 29641-08 served upon electors listed at Exhibit A-
of POTUS when not eligible or would not qualify to take the oath is fraud.
1 (A), to that NYS BOE agent(s) never responded under Election Law to the Plaintiff.
22. That when on December 1, 2008, Petitioner duly served the Summons and
28. That the statement as to Citizenship Born a citizen conflicts with the law of
Complaint for Plaintiff in this case upon the NYS BOE as is required under EL 3-
the land and must be removed and replaced with Natural born Citizen to conform.
104(2), EL 3-105 and EL 3-106 and related law, according to Plaintiff NYS BOE has
That based upon the present NYS BOE website entitled Running for Office in regards
to those seeking the Office of POTUS there is no use of the term of art Natural-born
Citizen as required under U.S. Constitution Section 1, instead use the term Born a
Citizen on the official webpage Running for Office appears as follows:
33. That Petitioner requested by FOIL that the NYS BOE disclose the record of the
executive session at which the term of Art Born a Citizen was invented and that the
NYS BOE denied such information as privileged protected from public disclosure (see
Exhibit A-5).
34. That Petitioner requested by FOIL that the NYS BOE disclose the record of the
communication between the Governors Office and or Attorney General office in
regards to the use of the term of art Born a Citizen that was invented and that the
NYS BOE denied such information as attorney client privileged protected from public
disclosure as work product (see Exhibit A-6).
35. That Defendant NYS BOE has injured Petitioner along with those similarly
situated as a member of the class of those de jure citizens who are NBC.
36. That Defendant NYS BOE has injured Petitioner along with those similarly
situated as a member of the minor State party that had performed a Wilson Picula
29.That the misstatement of Running for Office Qualification facilitates the

violation of law campaign fund raising law as defined by EL 14-100 (7) for who may
be a candidate for the office of POTUS determines who may seek contributions for the
office of POTUS and or creation of an electoral college slate for 2008 and 2012 ballots.
30. That based upon Petitioner review of the NYS BOE Open Meetings record with
Public Officers Law from 2007 forward until this date there has not been a mention of
endorsement of the Republican party candidate for POTUS and denied an honest
election by manipulating the qualifications to run for Office of POTUS.
37. That Petitioner alleges the NYS BOE or agent(s) have failed to respond as
required by EL 3-105 as relates to unequal protection of minor State party members
afforded by special treatment for the major State Party Candidates with multiple lines
on the Full Face Ballot with HAVA in State Election Law EL 6-120(3).
38.That Plaintiffs Complaint shown in Exhibit A-1 with the Third Cause of Action
the term Born a Citizen in the record.

31. That based upon the requirement of Federal Law the instructions sent to the
reads is insufficient to protect Petitioners liberty an rights causing personal injury to
Governor of the State of New York for the formation of the New York Electoral College
Petitioner along with those similarly situated and therefore requires a supplement with
from New York in the 2008 Election cycle did not use the term Natural-born Citizen
subsequent transactions and incidents discovered after filing and before Defendants
or Born a Citizen.
answer or otherwise respond and as is now the fact that the related action takes no
32. Therefore, the word of art Born a Citizen had to be created in the executive
session of the NYS BOE and violates Public Officer Art. 7 103 Open Meetings Law.
jurisdiction of the evens and transactions relate to the 2008 election cycle as a
continuing injury.
39. Petitioner alleges the NYS BOE and or its agents breach their oath of duty to
APX - 171
the law by maintaining Born a Citizen and concealing the executive record of such
42.That as a further supplemental cause of action Petitioner who for years has
political practice as an act of subversion that is undermining political parties and the
been watchful of Judicial misbehavior in contemplation of how the judiciary by enlarge
electoral process including, but not limited to, the preparation or distribution of any
is to be occupied by intelligent and well educated judges is nevertheless so poorly
fraudulent, forged or falsely identified writing or the use of any employees or agents
trained and instructed by the Unified Court system when either elected or appointed
who falsely represent themselves as supporters of a candidate, political party or
and as such my curiosity as to the actual flaw in their training requested with a FOIL
committee, that failed to respond as required by EL 3-106 (1).
a copy of the public seminar used to train the Judges (see Exhibit G); and on
40. That on or about October 3, 2011 State Attorney General Special Counsel to
February, 2014 was told by the administrative response is not public

43.That like Plaintiff Strunks Freedom of Information Act efforts in Washington
Defendant NYS BOE when presented with a request to stipulate and admit to use of
the term of art Natural born Citizen to mean a person born on USA soil to two citizen
DC starting in 2008 to obtain the passport application records for Stanley Ann
parents under the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 rather than the term Born a
Dunham Obama, the Mother of Barack Hussein Obama, were hindered with only
Citizen refuse to admit to the meaning or use of the express idiom for notification to a
partially released documents with a huge scandal that emerged proving that spoliation
prospective candidate or committee use to disenfranchise voters and Petitioner with
and destruction of records were done and the reasons for destruction proffered and
those similarly situated.
proven a crime of some proportions as my effort shows in the US Department of State
41.That a further Supplemental Cause of Action is required because of the onerous
release of directives (see Exhibit H) as to the destruction of document proves that
political activities of Defendant Cuomo, whom Plaintiff is barred from suing, first
there will never be a protection of our 5th Amendment right under the US Constitution
evidenced as the then US HUD Secretary that collapsed the economy in 2008 in
while the USURPER is in control of the Executive branch of government, leaving ONLY
coordination ACORN that went bankrupt and reemerged as a new threat to the People
the respective State of Residence to provide the people equal protection under the law
of New York along in partnership with Defendant Cuomo, who from before 2008 all
as must be done for private citizens of the United States in New York.
44. I agree with what Plaintiff Strunk contends, and I am sure he will explain, that
worked together with then Attorney General, and now since 2010 when assuming the
office of Governor having perpetrated a series of onerous unconstitutional ultra vires
the US Constitution is suspended under the March 9, 1933 Proclamation 2040 for a
acts under colour of law that violate my Section 1 Fourteenth Amendment right to
continuing National Emergency shapes our history since March 4, 1933, especially
equal protection of the law that have escalated to public incoherent diatribes that
since the April 25, 1938 SCOTUS decisions ended the Lockner Era of common law
threatened Petitioner as a conservative to leave the State or else be injured as the
rights, and that proves that WE the People of New York have been under a continuous
consequence of His continued wrath of the conga line of psychopathic disorders now
siege of martial process that has replaced Common Law Civilian due process; and
45. Further, that although Petitioner remains his named entity registered in his
overflowing from the Governors office and that must disqualify him from ever serving
in elected office in New York again and bar his further action as an elected official that
birth state of (Indiana City of Lafayette) the product of natural born citizen father
must be held as a threat to the life and safety of the general population.
(Penn. City of Pittsburg) and natural born citizen mother (Illinois City of Chicago),
Petitioner may not speak for Mr. Strunks class too;
divorced Obama Sr. (see Exhibit I); and

48.Further, based upon the SCOTUS seminal decision in Minor v Happersett to be
46.Further however, Petitioner may speak as member of my class per se, and now
contend that this Court has discretion, given the inadequacy of Judicial instruction
a Natural-born citizen without any question of national loyalties, one must be born
shown with Exhibits G refusal of the Office of Court Administration to disclose what
of U.S. Citizen parents, in which BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. is not.

49.Further supporting Petitioners contention that the Commander-in chief is an
and when the elected judges may or may not know in regards to provision of martial
process rather that civilian due process, that it appears true according to the Appellate
unconstitutional USURPER controlling the New York State Judiciary as a defacto
Panel shown with Exhibit D, and that affords this Court discretion to at least fashion a
Executive court without authority to do so, because BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II is
remedy in chambers if not in open court that will afford Petitioner relief, as well as for
not NBC, that every proclamation and executive order extending the National
Plaintiff Strunk whose altered status is a private citizen of the United States secured
Emergency starting with the Iranian Crisis national emergency since 1979 is now void
party beneficiary agent for the Debtor Trust CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
ab intitio due to the USURPER Commander-in-chief, and that as such the New York
transmitting utility registered with the United States Secretary of Treasury. Further,
State Judiciary and this Court without a constitutional Commander-in chief mandate
Petitioner contends that as a matter of law based upon the admission of the Appellate
for martial process to continue in place of civilian due process under colour of law
Panel in its decision and order shown as Exhibit D that the New York State Judiciary
violates Petitioner Section 1 Fourteenth Amendment equal protection of the law.

50.Further, in support of Petitioners contention that BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II
and this Court, although is a constitutional formed body here in the State as with the
Federal Article III Courts are nevertheless in fact a defacto Executive Judicial body
is now USURPING the POTUS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF executive authority over the
under the direct authority of the POTUS Commander-in Chief since March 6, 1933,
martial rule dispensed by New York State Court as a matter of contention posed by the
and now BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II; and
New York State Appellate Division order shown as Exhibit D, is the video
47.Further, Petitioner contends that while I am under this Martial Process I am

entitled to directly challenge the eligibility of the Barack Hussein Obama II to hold the
office of POTUS Commander-in chief with direct authority and control over the New
(3)
released
on Friday evening February 26, 2014, for the disclosure by the Honorable Michael
Shrimpton barrister to HER MAJESTYS BENCH
(4)
in regards to the ineligibility of
York Judiciary and this Court per se, as BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. is not a
http://wwil was w.birtherreport.com/2014/02/official-wikipedia-scrubs-michael.html Boom:

Wikipedia Scrubs Michael Shrimpton Profile; Kenyan Obama Caught On Tape
natural-born citizen (NBC) by his own admission, because his father as a foreign
alien student of Great Britain from Kenya with a US Visa here to study ONLY starting
in 1959 was then a British Citizen at the Barack Hussein Obama Jr. birth, when ever
and where ever that may have occurred; and that the official Hawaii index record of
marriages shows that His Mother Stanley Ann Obama was duly married to His Father
Barack Hussein Obama Sr. before she became married to Lolo Soetoro after she
BIOGRAPHY of Michael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983 and is a
specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and CounterTerrorism. He has wide ranging connections both in Western Intelligence agencies and amongst exSoviet Bloc agencies. Michael has earned respect in the intelligence community for his analysis of
previously unacknowledged post WWII covert operations against the West by organisations based in
Washington, Munich, Paris and Brussels and which are continuing in post 9-11.
He is Adjunct Professor of intelligence Studies, Department of National Security, Intelligence and
Space Studies, American Military University, teaching intelligence subjects at Masters Degree level
to inter alia serving intelligence officers. He has represented US and Israeli intelligence officers in
law and has briefed staffers on the Senate select Committee on Intelligence and Joint Congressional
inquiry into 9-11, also addressing panels on terrorism in Washington DC and Los Angeles.
APX - 172
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. to be POTUS, stating unequivocally that Barack

Hussein Obama "was born in Mombasa, Kenya."; wishes to join BARACK HUSSEIN
OBAMA II as a necessary party herein.
51.That in light of the newly disclosed allegation from credible authorities,
Petitioner has never asked for this relief before and in that Plaintiff has been rendered
incapable of joining this matter himself as a result of the outrageous actions by
ARTHUR M. SCHACK, Petitioner is entitled to relief herein and that the supplement to
this complaint annexed herewith be accepted accordingly.
52.That Petitioners case 1787-2012 in Albany before Acting Judge Richard Platkin
re: the New York State BOE refusal to use express instructions of the Constitution
Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and held in the order to dismiss (see Exhibit J) that:
In view of petitioner's lack of standing to maintain the instant proceeding,
there is no reason to consider respondent's additional contentions that this
proceeding is barred by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel based
upon prior litigation undertaken by Christopher-Earl Strunk, an alleged privy
of petitioner, and that the petition is non-justiciable insofar as the Electoral
College is the sole and exclusive forum in which objections to the selection of a
President may be determined. (emphasis added by Petitioner)
53.Further, that in regards to Petitioners fundamental right to a hearing on his
grievance as is his right to petition, see The History, Meaning, Effect, and Significance
of the Right to Petition Government for Redress of Grievances analysis by Robert L.
Schulz (2014) (see Exhibit K), and in light of the order to dismiss shown in Exhibit J,
that the new transactions and facts warrant that this Court grant Petitioner
intervention as of right and or as an essential party herein.
His active assistance to Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies in the Global War on Terror
has produced some notable success including the exposure of the Abu Graib hood photograph as a
fake. His work in strategic intelligence takes him on regular trips to the Pentagon and he also met
with senior advisors to the President of the Russian Federation in Moscow in November 2005. He
participated in the Global Strategic Review conference in Geneva in 2005 and is a contributor at
conferences such as Intelcon and the Intelligence Summit Washington DC February 2006.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/shrimpton/

COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Index No.: 29642 / 08
Plaintiff,
-against-
I.A.S. Part 47

Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD),
RENEW INTERVENTION
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit A
APX - 173
APX - 174
APX - 175
APX - 176
APX - 177
APX - 178
APX - 179
APX - 180
APX - 181
APX - 182
APX - 183
APX - 184
APX - 185
APX - 186
APX - 187
APX - 188
APX - 189
APX - 190
APX - 191
APX - 192
APX - 193
APX - 194
APX - 195
APX - 196
APX - 197
APX - 198
APX - 199

COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Index No.: 29642 / 08
Plaintiff,
-against-
I.A.S. Part 47

RENEW INTERVENTION
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit B

COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Index No.: 29642 / 08
Plaintiff,
-against-
I.A.S. Part 47

RENEW INTERVENTION
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit C
APX - 200

COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Index No.: 29642 / 08
Plaintiff,
-against-
I.A.S. Part 47

RENEW INTERVENTION
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit D

COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Index No.: 29642 / 08
Plaintiff,
-against-
I.A.S. Part 47

RENEW INTERVENTION
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit E
APX - 201

COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Index No.: 29642 / 08
Plaintiff,
-against-
I.A.S. Part 47

RENEW INTERVENTION
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit F
APX - 202
APX - 203
APX - 204
APX - 205
APX - 206
APX - 207
APX - 208
APX - 209
APX - 210
APX - 211
APX - 212
APX - 213

COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Index No.: 29642 / 08
Plaintiff,
-against-
I.A.S. Part 47

RENEW INTERVENTION
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit G
APX - 214
Print
https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=1jmoregiq194o#mail
Print
https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=1jmoregiq194o#mail
Examples of related forms at particular judicial districts, which also are available for other districts you can search for on the court system's website:
http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad2/IJEQC/IJEQC2.shtml
http://www.ny-ijeqc.org/process.shtml
For information concerning convention delegates and the Election Law, you may wish to contact the NYS Board of Elections, or the local Boards of
Elections.
Very truly yours,
From: FOIL@nycourts.gov [mailto:FOIL@nycourts.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:24 PM
To: Allen, Bill Van
Subject: Re: FOIL: entire document package of court education and indoctrination required of every NYSUCS supreme court (acting appointed or
elected) judge
Shawn Kerby
Assistant Deputy Counsel
Dear Mr. Van Allen:
Your FOIL appeal will be forwarded for processing to the FOIL Appeals Officer, Ronald Younkins.
<mime-attachment>..Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>>> "Bill Van Allen" <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com> 2/5/2014 3:33 PM >>>
Very truly yours,
NYSUCS OCA FOIL OFFICER:
Shawn Kerby
Under NYS FOIL (freedom of information law) please provide me access to documents and if available electronically
linked access to documents being currently employed/used to indoctrinate and or formally familiarize each and every
NYSUCS elected or appointed acting justice of the supreme court (including appellate justices if different)
Assistant Deputy Counsel
This comprehensive documentation/ package would include all formal standardized NYSUCS approved screening
committee packages of nominated judicial election or appointed acting candidates.
..Please consider the environment before printing this email.

>>> Bill Van Allen <hvanallen@hvc.rr.com> 2/6/2014 7:11 PM >>>
I hereby appeal your denial of requested documents to chief administrative judge NYSUCS Prudenti
including any formal standardized documents or electronic resource documents if any given to partisan judicial
nominating convention delegates.
Sent from my iPhone
I am also especially seeking any and all standardized NYSUCS documentation and electronic links to orientation and
training regarding judicial behavior and in concordance with each judges sworn/affirmed oath of office regarding
his/her conduct towards both the NYS constitution and the US constitutions.
/s/
On Feb 6, 2014, at 12:39 PM, FOIL@nycourts.gov wrote:
Dear Mr. Van Allen:
351 North Road

Hurley, NY 12443
Please be advised that FOIL does not require the performance of legal research, or the compilation of information to respond to a request. See Public
Officers Law 89(3).
8453894366
hvanallen@hvc.rr.com
To the extent that you seek to compile your own research or information, you may wish to visit the following links concerning judicial education and
training:
http://www.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefjudge/17.shtml
http://www.nycourts.gov/ip/jcec/training_faq.shtml
For information concerning the Independent Judicial Education Qualification Commissions:

http://www.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefadmin/150.shtml
http://www.ny-ijeqc.org/index.shtml
1 of 2
2/11/2014 5:58 PM

COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Index No.: 29642 / 08
Plaintiff,
-against-
2 of 2
I.A.S. Part 47

RENEW INTERVENTION
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit H
APX - 215
2/11/2014 5:58 PM

COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Index No.: 29642 / 08
Plaintiff,
-against-
I.A.S. Part 47

RENEW INTERVENTION
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit I
APX - 216

COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Index No.: 29642 / 08
Plaintiff,
I.A.S. Part 47
-against-

RENEW INTERVENTION
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit J
Print
https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=23391ahvss3ih#mail
Print
WebCivil Supreme - Case Detail

Court:
Albany Civil Supreme
Index Number:
001787/2012
Upstate Index Number:
1787-12
Case Name:
Van Allen vs. NYS Board Of Elections
Search Criteria
Case Type:
Spec Proceed-Election
Party Name : van and allen
Track:
Standard
RJI Filed:
05/30/2012
Upstate RJI Number:
01-12-107051
Slip Decisions Search Results
Total number of records found: 6
Date NOI Due:
Decision
NOI Filed:
Disposition Date:
Party Name
08/20/2012
Calendar Number:
Date
Court
Official Citation
Slip Number
In the Matter of H. William Van Allen et petitioners v Sheldon Silver et
10/12/2012
App Div, 3d Dept
2012 NYSlipOp 87
Jury Status:
Unknown
10/12/2012
App Div, 3d Dept
2012 NYSlipOp 87
Justice Name:
RICHARD M. PLATKIN
10/12/2012
App Div, 3d Dept
2012 NYSlipOp 87
10/12/2012
App Div, 3d Dept
2012 NYSlipOp 87
10/12/2012
App Div, 3d Dept
Van Allen v New York State Bd. of Elections
07/09/2012
Other Courts
Attorney/Firm For Plaintiff:

H. William Van Allen SRL
Attorney Type: Pro se
Atty. Status: Active
2012 NYSlipOp 88
36 Misc 3d 1212(A)
2012 NYSlipOp 51
Attorney/Firm For Defendant:

NYS Board Of Elections
Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record
40 N. Pearl Street-5th Fl.

Albany, NY 12207
(518)474-81
Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman AG
Van Allen v New York State Bd. of Elections

2012 NY Slip Op 51255(U) [36 Misc 3d 1212(A)]
The Capitol-Dept Of Law

Albany, NY 12224
Decided on July 9, 2012
(518)474-2138
Douglas J. Goglia AAG
Supreme Court, Albany County

Platkin, J.
The Capitol-Dept Of Law

Albany, NY 12224
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 431.
(518)474-6800
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on July 9, 2012

Supreme Court, Albany County
H. William Van Allen, Petitioner,

against
1 of 1
APX - 217
3/12/2014 10:40 AM
1 of 3
New York State Board of Elections, Respondent.
3/12/2014 10:43 AM
Print
Print
[collecting authorities]).
In view of petitioner's lack of standing to maintain the instant proceeding, there is no reason to consider respondent's additional
1787-12
contentions that this proceeding is barred by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel based upon prior litigation undertaken
by Christopher-Earl Strunk, an alleged privy of petitioner, and that the petition is non-justiciable insofar as the Electoral College is
the sole and exclusive forum in which objections to the selection of a President may be determined.
Finally, the branch of respondent's motion seeking the imposition of monetary and non-monetary sanctions is denied. While
Self-Represented Petitioner
respondent's counsel refers to "repetitive" and "numerous vexatious and harassing lawsuits" commenced by petitioner, nothing in the
record confirms this assertion. And the mere fact that a trial court of coordinate jurisdiction rejected similar claims advanced by an
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General
alleged privy of petitioner does not render the instant petition frivolous within the meaning of Part 130 of the Rules of the Chief
Administrative Judge.
Attorney for Respondent
Accordingly, it is
(Douglas J. Goglia, of counsel)
ORDERED that the branch of respondent's motion seeking dismissal of the petition is granted; and it is further
The Capitol
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed in all respects; and finally it is
ORDERED that the branch of respondent's motion seeking the imposition of monetary and non-monetary sanctions is denied.
[*3]
Richard M. Platkin, J.
This Decision, Order & Judgment is being transmitted to the counsel for respondent and all other papers are being transmitted to
the Albany County Clerk for filing. The signing of this Decision, Order & Judgment shall not constitute entry or filing underCPLR
This is a special proceeding brought by petitioner H. William Van Allen pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking a writ of
2220. Counsel are not relieved from the applicable provisions of that section respecting filing, entry and notice of entry.
mandamus, emergency injunctive relief and declaratory relief. Respondent New York State Board of Elections ("SBOE") moves to
dismiss the petition and also seeks the imposition of monetary and non-monetary sanctions upon petitioner.
Dated: Albany, New York
The United States Constitution provides that "[n]o person except a natural born Citizen
July 9, 2012
RICHARD M. PLATKIN
. . . shall be eligible to the Office of President" (US Const, art II, 1, clause 5 ["Natural Born Citizen Clause"]). Petitioner alleges that
eligibility instructions on the SBOE internet web site erroneously advise that a candidate for the Office of President need only be
A.J.S.C.
"born a citizen" of the United States, rather than a "natural born Citizen", as required by the text of the Constitution. In particular,
petitioner objects to the "ballot access of [President] Obama as it is wrongfully facilitated by the [SBOE's] arbitrary use of the
instruction Born a Citizen'". Among other things, petitioner seeks an order: (a) enjoining the SBOE from using the term "Born a
Citizen" with respect to the eligibility of presidential candidates; and (b) requiring each presidential [*2]candidate on the 2012
general election ballot to establish that he or she is a "Natural Born Citizen" of the United States in order to remain on the ballot.
The standing of a party to institute or maintain a judicial proceeding is a threshold issue that must be determined by the Court at
the outset of litigation (see Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6 [1975]). To establish standing to challenge an
administrative action in a proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, petitioner must show that he would suffer an injury in fact
"that is in some way different from that of the public at large" (Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk (77 NY2d 761, 773-774
[1991]). In other words, petitioner must show that he actually will suffer a concrete and particularized harm as a result of the
challenged action (id.; New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello, 2 NY3d 207, 211 [2004]; Matter of Hassig v New
York State Dept. of Health, 5 AD3d 846 [3d Dept 2004]).
In opposing respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner maintains that he brings this proceeding "to protect[] his personal
intangible vote property in this 2012 election cycle" (Petitioner's Response in Opposition, 23). However, the allegedly faulty
instruction given by the SBOE regarding the Natural Born Citizen Clause in no way denies petitioner his right to vote in the 2012
general election. Petitioner, who is not an enrolled member of the Democratic party, remains free to support and vote for a candidate
of his choosing (see Berg v Obama, 586 F3d 234, 239-240 [3d Cir 2009]; Hollander v McCain, 566 F Supp2d 63, 69-70 [D NH
2008]; see also Crist v Comm'n on Presidential Debates, 262 F3d 193, 195 [2d Cir 2001]). And it is clear that petitioner's interest
in compelling the SBOE to adopt his interpretation of the Natural Born Citizen Clause and to use his preferred terminology in its
publications is in no "way different from that of the public at large" (Society of Plastics, 77 NY2d at 773-774). As such, petitioner's
interest is far too generalized and unparticularized to support standing under the facts and circumstances of this case (see Berg at 240
2 of 3
3/12/2014 10:43 AM
3 of 3
3/12/2014 10:43 AM
2014 by Robert L. Schulz. All rights reserved.
THE HISTORY, MEANING EFFECT AND SIGNIFGANCE OF THE RIGHT TO

PETITION GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
By Robert L. Schulz
On every question of the construction of the Constitution, let us carry ourselves back to
the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against
it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
Thomas Jefferson,
Letter to William Johnson, Supreme Court Justice (1823)
No Court has ever declared the meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment that is,
the Rights of the People and the Obligations of the Government.
We must look, therefore, to the intent of the framers of the First Amendment: what was the
situation before the First Amendment was added, what were the framers saying as they framed
the First Amendment and what was the situation in the years following the adoption of the First
Amendment?
COUNTY OF KINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Chapter 61 of the Magna Carta (the cradle of Liberty, upon which all of western civilization has
evolved, signed at a time when King John was sovereign) reads in relevant part:
Plaintiff,
-against-
61. Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of
the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions,
desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to
them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the
kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold,
and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by
this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers,
shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this
peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and
twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and,
laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay.
And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm,
if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been
intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid
shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons
shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible
ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until
redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of
our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old
relations towards us. (emphasis added by the People).
Index No.: 29642 / 08

I.A.S. Part 47

RENEW INTERVENTION
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Exhibit K
Chapter 61 was a procedural vehicle for enforcing the rest of the Charter. It spells out the Rights
of the People and the obligations of the Government, and the procedural steps to be taken by the
People and the King, in the event of a violation by the King of any provision of that Charter: the
People were to transmit a Petition for a Redress of their Grievances; the King had 40 days to
respond; if the King failed to respond in 40 days, the People could non-violently retain their
money or violence could be legally employed against the King until he Redressed the alleged
Grievances.1
1
See Magna Carta Chapter 61. See also William Sharp McKechnie, Magna Carta 468-77 (2nd ed. 1914)
APX - 218
The 1689 Declaration of Rights proclaimed, [I]t is the Right of the subjects to petition the King,
and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning is illegal. This was obviously a basis
of the shall make no law abridging the right to petition government for a redress of grievances
provision of our Bill of Rights.
point of a bayonet]. Lawson and Seidman also suggest that Petitions were merely devices for
communication (not for the People to bind the Government to the Constitution), and that the
Constitutions express provisions for periodic election of legislative officials somehow provide
the People with the adequate means to affect government choice. Lawson and Seidman ignore
the self-evident fact that the Rights of individuals and the minority to cure constitutional torts
they suffer cannot possibly be placed in the hands of the majority that elects our representatives.
In 1774, the same Congress that adopted the Declaration of Independence unanimously adopted
an Act in which they gave meaning to the Peoples Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances
and the Right of enforcement as they spoke about the Peoples Great Rights. Quoting:
If money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may
retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without
trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility. "Continental Congress To
The Inhabitants Of The Province Of Quebec." Journals of the Continental Congress 1774, Journals
1: 105-13.
In 1775, just prior to drafting the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson gave further meaning to
the Peoples Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances and the Right of enforcement. Quoting:
In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congress. The bulk of
the document is a listing of the Grievances the People had against a Government that had been in
place for 150 years. The final Grievance on the list is referred to by scholars as the capstone
Grievance. The capstone Grievance was the ultimate Grievance, the Grievance that prevented
Redress of these other Grievances, the Grievance that caused the People to non-violently
withdraw their support and allegiance to the Government, and the Grievance that eventually
justified War against the King, morally and legally. The Congress gave further meaning to the
Peoples Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances and the Right of enforcement. Quoting the
Capstone Grievance:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms.
Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by with repeated injury. A Prince, whose
character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is thus unfit to be the ruler of a
free people.We, thereforedeclare, That these United Coloniesare Absolved from all
Allegiance to the British Crown. Declaration of Independence, 1776
The courts would err to the extent they would in any way be influenced by the hypothesis of
Lawson and Seidman,2 who theorized that Government is not obligated anymore to respond to
Petitions for Redress of Grievances3 due to modern notions of representative
governmentmodern notions of separation of powers[todays absence of] sound pragmatic
reasons for taking petitions seriously [Lawson and Seidman give as examples the absence of any
threat of loss of formal power over money matters and the absence of any threat from the
In response to any notion that the People have lost a guarantee to one of their Rights under the
Petition Clause because the Petition Clause is now superfluous, I argue they do not, EVER, lose
any guarantees to any fundamental Rights until they voluntarily agree to give them up under the
procedures of Article Five of the Constitution of the United States of America, and if a Natural
Right, they can never lose it.
It cannot be presumed, that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect.
Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison,

5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 139 (1803)
The privilege of giving or withholding our moneys is an important barrier against the
undue exertion of prerogative which if left altogether without control may be exercised to
our great oppression; and all history shows how efficacious its intercession for redress of
grievances and reestablishment of rights, an how improvident would be the surrender of so
powerful a mediator. Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:225.
The People did not lose any of their unalienable, Natural Rights when they reorganized
Government and adopted the principle of separate powers. Nor have they given up their power
over money matters or their Right to keep and bear arms.
On every question of the construction of the Constitution, let us carry ourselves back to the time
when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of
trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William

Johnson, Supreme Court Justice (1823)
And the Constitution itself is in every real sense a law-the lawmakers being the people
themselves, in whom under our system all political power and sovereignty primarily resides, and
through whom such power and sovereignty primarily speaks. It is by that law, and not otherwise,
that the legislative, executive, and judicial agencies which it created exercise such political
authority as they have been permitted to possess. The Constitution speaks for itself in terms so
plain that to misunderstand their import is not rationally possible. 'We the People of the United
States,' it says, 'do ordain and establish this Constitution.' Ordain and establish! These are definite
words of enactment, and without more would stamp what follows with the dignity and character of
law. The framers of the Constitution, however, were not content to let the matter rest here, but
provided explicitly-'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' (Const. art. 6, cl. 2.) The supremacy
of the Constitution as law is thus declared without qualification. That supremacy is absolute; the
supremacy of a statute enacted by Congress is not absolute but conditioned upon its being made in
pursuance of the Constitution. And a judicial tribunal, clothed by that instrument with complete
judicial power, and, therefore, by the very nature of the power, required to ascertain and apply the
law to the facts in every case or proceeding properly brought for adjudication, must apply the
supreme law and reject the inferior statute [298 U.S. 238, 297] whenever the two conflict. In the
discharge of that duty, the opinion of the lawmakers that a statute passed by them is valid must be
given great weight, Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525, 544 , 43 S.Ct. 394, 24 A.L.R.
1238; but their opinion, or the court's opinion, that the statute will prove greatly or generally
beneficial is wholly irrelevant to the inquiry. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S.
495, 549 , 550 S., 55 S.Ct. 837, 97 A.L.R. 947.
Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936).
Gary Lawson and Guy Seidman, Downsizing the Right to Petition,

93 Nw. U.L. Rev. 739, 756
They make no distinction between grievances relating to constitutional torts and grievances relating to
political or policy making matters.
And from Hamilton, Federalist No. 78:

lacks an affirmative statement that Government shall respond to Petitions for, It cannot be
presumed, that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect. Chief Justice
Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 139 (1803). For instance, the 26th
Amendment guarantees all citizens above the age of 18 the Right to Vote, it does not contain an
affirmative statement that the Government shall count the votes.
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated
authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No
legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to
affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that
the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by
virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
The Right to Petition is a distinctive, substantive Right, from which other First Amendment
Rights were derived. The Rights to free speech, press and assembly originated as derivative
Rights insofar as they were necessary to protect the preexisting Right to Petition. Petitioning, as a
way to hold Government accountable to natural Rights, originated in England in the 11 th century6
and gained recognition as a Right in the mid 17th century.7 Free speech Rights first developed
because members of Parliament needed to discuss freely the Petitions they received.8 Publications
reporting Petitions were the first to receive protection from the frequent prosecutions against the
press for seditious libel.9 Public meetings to prepare Petitions led to the Right of Public
Assembly.1
If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own
powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other
departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not
to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be
supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to
substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the
courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in
order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The
interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is,
in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them
to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the
legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that
which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other
words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the
intention of their agents.
The Right to Petition was widely accorded greater importance than the Rights of free expression.
For instance, in the 18th century, the House of Commons, 2 the American Colonies, 3 and the first
Continental Congress4 gave official recognition to the Right to Petition, but not to the Rights of
Free Speech or of the Press.5
The historical record shows that the Framers and Ratifiers of the First Amendment also
understood the Petition Right as distinct from the Rights of free expression. In his original
proposed draft of the Bill of Rights, Madison listed the Right to Petition and the Rights to speech
and press in two separate sections.6 In addition, a considerable majority of Congress defeated a
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative
power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of
the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the
Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to
regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
In We The People v United States, it appears the DC Appeals Court may have been deterred from
a reversal by what it (incorrectly) perceived was a serious debate among the scholars regarding
the obligation of the Government to respond to Petitions for Redress of Grievances, due to the
hypothesis of Lawson and Seidman. Indeed, the Panel concluded its opinion stating, We need
not resolve this debate, however, because we must follow the binding Supreme Court precedent
[in Smith and Knight].4
Though the Rights to Popular Sovereignty and its protector Right, the Right of Petition for
Redress have become somewhat forgotten, they took shape early on by Governments response to
Petitions for Redress of Grievances.5 The Right is not changed by the fact that the Petition Clause
4
The Opinion listed most of the Law Review articles that the People relied on. However, the Panel
overlooked one important historical review referenced by Appellants in their Brief to the Court; The
Vestigial Constitution: The History and Significance of the Right to Petition by Gregory A. Mark, 66
Fordham L. Rev. 2153 (May, 1998).
5
See A SHORT HISTORY OF THE RIGHT TO PETITION GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES, Stephen A. Higginson, 96 Yale L.J. 142(November, 1986); "SHALL MAKE NO LAW
ABRIDGING . . .": AN ANALYSIS OF THE NEGLECTED, BUT NEARLY ABSOLUTE, RIGHT OF
PETITION, Norman B. Smith, 54 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1153 (1986);"LIBELOUS" PETITIONS FOR REDRESS
OF GRIEVANCES -- BAD HISTORIOGRAPHY MAKES WORSE LAW, Eric Schnapper, 74 Iowa L. Rev.
303 (January 1989);THE BILL OF RIGHTS AS A CONSTITUTION, Akhil Reed Amar, 100 Yale L.J. 1131
(March, 1991); NOTE: A PETITION CLAUSE ANALYSIS OF SUITS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT:
IMPLICATIONS FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 1111 (MARCH, 1993); SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY AND THE RIGHT TO PETITION: TOWARD A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PURSUE
JUDICIAL CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, James E. Pfander, 91 Nw. U.L. Rev. 899 (Spring
1997);THE VESTIGIAL CONSTITUTION: THE HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RIGHT TO
PETITION, Gregory A. Mark, 66 Fordham L. Rev. 2153 (May, 1998); DOWNSIZING THE RIGHT TO
PETITION, Gary Lawson and Guy Seidman, 93 Nw. U.L. Rev. 739 (Spring 1999); A RIGHT OF ACCESS
TO COURT UNDER THE PETITION CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT: DEFINING THE
RIGHT, Carol Rice Andrews, 60 Ohio St. L.J. 557 (1999) ; MOTIVE RESTRICTIONS ON COURT
ACCESS: A FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE, Carol Rice Andrews, 61 Ohio St. L.J. 665 (2000).
6
Norman B. Smith, Shall Make No Law Abridging: Analysis of the Neglected, But Nearly Absolute,
Right of Petition, 54 U. CIN. L. REV. 1153, at 1154.
7
See Bill of Rights, 1689, 1 W & M., ch. 2 Sections 5,13 (Eng.), reprinted in 5 THE FOUNDERS
CONSITUTION 197 (Philip B. Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds., 1987); 1 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE,
COMMENTARIES 138-39.
8
See David C. Frederick, John Quincy Adams, Slavery, and the Disappearance of the Right to Petition, 9
LAW & HIST. REV. 113, at 115.
9
See Smith, supra n.4, at 1165-67.
1
See Charles E. Rice, Freedom of Petition, in 2 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE AMERICAN
CONSTITUTION 789, (Leonard W. Levy ed., 1986)
2
See Smith, supra n4, at 1165.
3
For example, Massachusetts secured the Right to Petition in its Body of Liberties in 1641, but freedom of
speech and press did not appear in the official documents until the mid-1700s. See David A. Anderson, The
Origins of the Press Clause, 30 UCLA L. REV. 455, 463 n.47 (1983).
4
See id. at 464 n.52.
5
Even when England and the American colonies recognized free speech Rights, petition Rights
encompassed freedom from punishment for petitioning, whereas free speech Rights extended to freedom
from prior restraints. See Frederick, supra n6, at 115-16.
6
See New York Times Co. v. U.S., 403 U.S. 670, 716 n.2 (1971)(Black, J., concurring). For the full text of
Madisons proposal, see 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 434 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834).
APX - 219
motion to strike the assembly provision from the First Amendment because of the understanding
that all of the rights in the First Amendment were separate Rights that should be specifically
protected.7
Government accountability was understood to include response to petitions.18 American

colonists, who exercised their Right to Petition the King or Parliament, 19 expected the
Government to receive and respond to their Petitions.20 The Kings persistent refusal to answer
the colonists grievances outraged the colonists and as the capstone grievance, was a
significant factor that led to the American Revolution.21
Petitioning Government for Redress has played a key role in the development and enforcement of
popular sovereignty throughout British and American history. 8 In medieval England, petitioning
began as a way for barons to inform the King of their concerns and to influence his actions.9
Later, in the 17th century, Parliament gained the Right to Petition the King.10 This broadening of
participation culminated in the official recognition of the right of Petition in the People
themselves.11
The People used this newfound Right to question the legality of the Governments actions,12 to
present their views on controversial matters,13 and to demand that the Government, as the
creature and servant of the People, be responsive to the popular will.14
In the American colonies, disenfranchised groups used Petitions to seek government
accountability for their concerns and to rectify Government misconduct.15 By the nineteenth
century, Petitioning was described as essential to a free government,16 an inherent feature of
a republic17 and a means of enhancing Government accountability through the participation of
citizens.
Frustration with the British Government led the Framers to consider incorporating a peoples
right to instruct their Representatives in the First Amendment.22 Members of the First Congress
easily defeated this right-of-instruction proposal.23 Some discretion to reject petitions that
instructed government, they reasoned, would not undermine Government accountability to the
People, as long as Congress had a duty to consider petitions and fully respond to them.24
Congress viewed the receipt and serious consideration of every Petition as an important part of its
duties.25 Congress referred Petitions to committees26 and even created committees to deal with
particular types of Petitions.27 Ultimately, most Petitions resulted in either favorable legislation or
an adverse committee report. 28 Thus, throughout early Anglo-American history, general
petitioning (as opposed to judicial petitioning) allowed the people a means of direct political
participation that in turn demanded government response and promoted accountability.
Conclusion
In sum, if the People have some evidence that the Government is violating some restriction,
prohibition, mandate or principle underlying their State or Federal Constitutions they have the
Right to Petition for Redress of their Grievance, citing the provision thought to be in violation
together with a factual overview of the violation and demanding a Remedy.
See 5 BERNARD SCHWARTZ, THE ROOTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS at 1089-91 (1980).
8
See Don L. Smith, The Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances: Constitutional Development and
Interpretations 10-108 (1971) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation) (Univ. Microforms Intl); K. Smellie, Right
to Petition, in 12 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 98, 98-101 (R.A. Seiligman ed., 1934).
9
The Magna Carta of 1215 guaranteed this Right. See MAGNA CARTA, ch. 61, reprinted in 5 THE
FOUNDERS CONSTITUTION, supra n.5, at 187.
10
See PETITION OF RIGHT chs. 1, 7 (Eng. June 7, 1628), reprinted in 5 THE FOUNDERS
CONSTITUTION, supra n5 at 187-88.
11
In 1669, the House of Commons stated that, it is an inherent right of every commoner in England to
prepare and present Petitions to the House of Commons in case of grievances, and the House of Commons
to receive the same. Resolution of the House of Commons (1669), reprinted in 5 THE FOUNDERS
CONSTITUTION, supra n5 at 188-89.
12
For example, in 1688, a group of bishops sent a petition to James II that accused him of acting illegally.
See Smith, supra n4, at 1160-62. James IIs attempt to punish the bishops for this Petition led to the
Glorious Revolution and to the enactment of the Bill of Rights. See Smith, supra n15 at 41-43.
13
See Smith, supra n4, at 1165 (describing a Petition regarding contested parliamentary elections).
14
In 1701, Daniel Defoe sent a Petition to the House of Commons that accused the House of acting
illegally when it incarcerated some previous petitioners. In response to Defoes demand for action, the
House released those Petitioners. See Smith, supra n4, at 1163-64.
15
See RAYMOND BAILEY, POPULAR INFLUENCE UPON PUBLIC POLICY: PETITIONING IN
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY VIRGINIA 43-44 (1979).
16
THOMAS M. COOLEY, TREATISE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS WHICH REST
UPON THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION 531 (6 th ed. 1890).
17
See CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Session. 1293 (1866) (statement of Rep. Shellabarger) (declaring
petitioning an indispensable Right without which there is no citizenship in any government); JOSEPH
STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 707 (Carolina
Academic Press ed. 1987) (1833) (explaining that the Petition Right results from [the] very nature of the
structure [of a republican government]).
18
See Frederick, supra n7 at 114-15 (describing the historical development of the duty of government
response to Petitions).
19
See DECLARATION AND RESOLVES OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 3 (Am. Col. Oct. 14,
1774), reprinted in 5 THE FOUNDERS CONSTITUTION, supra n5 at 199; DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
OF THE STAMP ACT CONGRESS 13 (Am. Col. Oct. 19, 1765), reprinted in id. at 198.
20
See Frederick, supra n7 at 115-116.
21
See THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE para. 30 (U.S. July 4, 1776), reprinted in 5 THE
FOUNDERS CONSTITUTION, supra n5 at 199; Lee A. Strimbeck, The Right to Petition, 55 W. VA. L.
REV. 275, 277 (1954).
22
See 5 BERNARD SCHWARTZ, supra n15, 1091-105.
23
The vote was 10-41 in the House and 2-14 in the Senate. See id. at 1105, 1148.
24
See 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 733-46 (Joseph Gales ed., 1789); 5 BERNARD SCHWARTZ, supra n15, at
1093-94 (stating that representatives have a duty to inquire into the suggested measures contained in
citizens Petitions) (statement of Rep. Roger Sherman); id. at 1095-96 (stating that Congress can never shut
its ears to Petitions) (statement of Rep. Elbridge Gerry); id. at 1096 (arguing that the Right to Petition
protects the Right to bring non-binding instructions to Congresss attention) (statement of Rep. James
Madison).
25
See STAFF OF HOUSE COMM. ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 99 TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
PETITIONS, MEMORIALS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE CONSIDERATION
OF CONGRESS, MARCH 4, 1789 TO DECEMBER 15, 1975, at 6-9 (Comm. Print 1986) (including a
comment by the press that the principal part of Congresss time has been taken up in the reading and
referring Petitions (quot. omitted)).
26
See Stephen A. Higginson, Note, A Short History of the Right to Petition the Government for the Redress
of Grievances, 96 YALE L. J. 142, at 156.
27
See H.J., 25th Cong., 2d Sess. 647 (1838) (describing how petitions prompted the appointment of a select
committee to consider legislation to abolish dueling).
28
See Higginson, n34 at 157.

Government is obligated to respond. If the Government fails to refute the facts and fails to
comply with the Petitions remedial instructions the Government becomes unrecognizable, not
the government the People instituted to secure their Rights, thus giving the People justification
for engaging in non-violent Civic Action.
To be sure, a communication designated as a Petition for Redress and requiring a formal, specific
response from the Government, would have to embody certain components to ensure that the
document was a petition and not a "pretended petition." Not all communications, nor any
document, can be regarded as a constitutionally protected Petition for Redress of Grievances.
To be protected, a Petition for Redress should:

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
be serious and documented, not frivolous;

contain no falsehoods;
not be absent probable cause;
have the quality of a dispute;
come from people outside of the formal political culture;
contain both a "direction" and a "prayer" for relief;
be punctilious;
address public, collective grievances;
involve constitutional principles not political talk;
be signed only by a citizen(s);
be dignified;
have widespread participation and consequences;
be instruments of deliberation not agitation;
provide new information;
not advocate violence or crime;
provide legal Notice of the existence of a constitutional tort(s);
seek substantive Redress to cure such constitutional tort.
APX - 220
APX - 221
APX - 222
APX - 223
APX - 224
APX - 225
APX - 226
APX - 227
Christopher B. Garvey v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
WITH TRO AND INJUNCTION
Exhibit A

Exhibit B
APX - 228
DELEGATE SELECTION PLAN:

PLAN FILING DATES:
STATE OF NEW YORK

Pursuant to Chapter 147 of the Laws of 2011, a state committee
providing for the selection of delegates and alternate delegates
to a national party convention or conference must select either
the 3 plan or the 4 plan contained in the act.
12/6/11
11/1/11

REGISTRATION FOR PRIMARY ELECTION

3/30/12;
4/4/12
Mail Registration:
Last day to postmark application and last day it
must be received by board of elections. 5-210 (3)
3/30/12
In Person Registration:
Last day application must be received by board of
elections to be eligible to vote in primary election.
5-210, 5-211 & 5-212
2/14/12

2-122-a(2)
2/14/12
Last day for CBOE to notify SBOE candidates

2/21/12

4/4/12
3/1/12

2-122-a(7)(d)
ABSENTEE VOTING FOR PRIMARY ELECTION:
3/2/12
Last day for boards of election to notify party

committee of candidates who will appear on ballot.
2-122-a(7)(d)
Last day for a party to select the delegate selection

method. 2 Ch. 147 of 2011
4/17/12
CALENDAR FOR THE

PLAN FILING DATES:
APRIL 24, 2012

PRESIDENTIAL
PRIMARY ELECTION
for
SELECTING DELEGATES
to a
NATIONAL CONVENTION
provided for in Chapter 147 of
the Laws of 2011

SELECTION PLANS:
2/21/12
Last day for matching funds candidate to

file certificate with State Board requesting ballot
access. 2-122-b(3)(a)

8-400 (2)(c)
4/23/12

8-400 (2)(c)
4/23/12;
5/1/12

received by the board of elections. 8-412 (1)
4/24/12

board. 8-412 (1)
1/31/122/21/12
Dates for nationally known candidate to file

certificate with State Board requesting to appear
on ballot. 2-122-b(3)(b)
1/3/12

6-134 (4)
1/31/12
Last day for party to certify the number of

delegates for the convention. 2-122-b(2)
2/6/12 2/9/12

6-158 (1)(a)
2/21/12
Last day for presidential candidate to certify slate

of delegates and alternate delegates.
2-122-b(3)(d)
2/14/12

6-158 (2)
2/21/12
4/17/12
Last day for presidential candidate to invalidate

their candidacy. 2-122-b(3)(e)

6-158 (3)
40 STEUBEN STREET
ALBANY, NY 12207
(518) 474-6220
January 9, 2012
APX - 229

FOR PRIMARY ELECTION:
3/30/12

10-106 (5) & 11-202 (1)(a)
4/17/12

10-106 (5) & 11-202(1)(b)
4/23/12
Last day to apply personally if previously

3/9/12
Date for county boards to send out Military/Special

Federal ballots. 10-108 (1) & 11-204
4/23/12;
5/1/12

received by the board of elections.
10-114(1) & 11-212
CERTIFICATION
3/1/12
Certification of Primary ballot by SBOE of

3/2/12
Certification of Primary ballot by CBOE of

4-110
APX - 230
APX - 231
STATE OF NEW YORK
CALENDAR FOR THE

APRIL 24, 2012
PRESIDENTIAL
PRIMARY ELECTION
for
SELECTING DELEGATES
to a
NATIONAL CONVENTION
provided for in Chapter 147 of
the Laws of 2011
40 STEUBEN STREET
ALBANY, NY 12207
(518) 474-6220

January 9, 2012

Exhibit C
DELEGATE SELECTION PLAN:
Pursuant to Chapter 147 of the Laws of 2011, a state committee

providing for the selection of delegates and alternate delegates
to a national party convention or conference must select either
the 3 plan or the 4 plan contained in the act.
12/6/11
11/1/11


PLAN FILING DATES:
REGISTRATION FOR PRIMARY ELECTION

3/30/12;
4/4/12
Mail Registration:
Last day to postmark application and last day it
must be received by board of elections. 5-210 (3)
3/30/12
In Person Registration:
Last day application must be received by board of
elections to be eligible to vote in primary election.
5-210, 5-211 & 5-212
2/14/12

2-122-a(2)
2/14/12
Last day for CBOE to notify SBOE candidates

2/21/12

4/4/12
3/1/12

2-122-a(7)(d)
ABSENTEE VOTING FOR PRIMARY ELECTION:
3/2/12
Last day for boards of election to notify party

committee of candidates who will appear on ballot.
2-122-a(7)(d)
Last day for a party to select the delegate selection

method. 2 Ch. 147 of 2011

PLAN FILING DATES:
SELECTION PLANS:
2/21/12
Last day for matching funds candidate to

file certificate with State Board requesting ballot
access. 2-122-b(3)(a)
1/31/122/21/12
Dates for nationally known candidate to file

certificate with State Board requesting to appear
on ballot. 2-122-b(3)(b)
1/3/12

6-134 (4)
1/31/12
Last day for party to certify the number of

delegates for the convention. 2-122-b(2)
2/6/12 2/9/12

6-158 (1)(a)
2/21/12
Last day for presidential candidate to certify slate

of delegates and alternate delegates.
2-122-b(3)(d)
2/14/12

6-158 (2)
2/21/12
4/17/12
Last day for presidential candidate to invalidate

their candidacy. 2-122-b(3)(e)

6-158 (3)
4/17/12

8-400 (2)(c)
4/23/12

8-400 (2)(c)
4/23/12;
5/1/12

received by the board of elections. 8-412 (1)
4/24/12

board. 8-412 (1)
FOR PRIMARY ELECTION:
3/30/12

10-106 (5) & 11-202 (1)(a)
4/17/12

10-106 (5) & 11-202(1)(b)
4/23/12
Last day to apply personally if previously

3/9/12
Date for county boards to send out Military/Special

Federal ballots. 10-108 (1) & 11-204
4/23/12;
5/1/12

received by the board of elections.
10-114(1) & 11-212
CERTIFICATION
3/1/12
Certification of Primary ballot by SBOE of

3/2/12
Certification of Primary ballot by CBOE of

4-110

Exhibit D
APX - 232
Democratic Party
Designating Petition
Designating Barack Obama
02/13/12
CERTIFIED mail RETURN RECEIPT # 7011 1570 0003 5313 5080
To:
Election Operations
40 Steuben Street
Attention:
JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair,
DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair,
EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner,
Further to my General Objection mailed on Feb. 9, 2012, and an Amended General Objection
mailed herewith today,
I, Christopher B. Garvey (Objector) object to the above identified petition, and I hereby specify the
following reasons:
1. Objector resides at 16 Nicoll Ave., Amityville, NY 11701-3018.
Phone: 631 598 0752.
2. Objector is a duly registered New York voter in the 2012 election cycle, and is qualified to vote for
President.
3. The designated candidate Barack Obama (Obama) is not eligible for the Office of President of the
United States (POTUS). Objector demands a hearing on the declared candidate's eligibility on
2/14/12 or as soon thereafter as the Chairman and Commissioners may chose to convene to take
evidence and testimony to bar Barack Obama from the 2012 Presidential Election cycle ballots, as
4. Objector references the NYS BOE notice that agents of the OBAMA FOR AMERICA campaign filed
designating petitions on February 9, 2012 that designates Barack Obama for ballot access as the
Democratic Party Candidate for President of the United States.
Objector challenges the Certification of both the declared candidate Barack Obama and all the
petitions and filing documents as a nullity, against public policy, and against the Constitution of
the United States, in that Barack Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President of the
United States (POTUS) because he is not a Natural Born Citizen as is required under New
York State law in compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 and New
York provision of law defining Natural born Citizen.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption
of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible
to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a
Resident within the United States.

5. Objections are based upon the admission of Barack Obama , AKA Barack H. Obama (AKA Barrack
Hussein Obama II) with the release of his autobiography. Dreams From My Father (1995).
Barack Obama's father was Barack H. Obama Sr., a British subject at the time of the Candidate's
birth. This non-US Citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama Sr. makes Barack Obama not a
Natural Born Citizen, and therefore Obama is ineligible for the Office of President of the United
States.
6. Objections are based upon the INS record signed by Barrack Hussein Obama Sr. that Barack
Obamas father was a Foreign Alien non-immigrant with a student visa and never was at anytime a
US Citizen or even had a Green Card as such Barack Obama is not Natural Born Citizen and
ineligible for POTUS.
7. objections are based upon the record of the divorce decree issued from the Hawaii court of competent
jurisdiction British subject Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was married to the U.S. Citizen Stanley
Ann Obama being of minor age at the time of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama II;
These objections are based upon the supposed Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) released by
Barack Obama during a press conference in April 2011, alleging Barack Obama was born in
Hawaii to U.S. Citizen Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, the mother, and British Subject Barack
Hussein Obama Sr. the father on August 8, 1961.
8. The evidence shows that at best, Barack Obama may merely be a native born or naturalized citizen,
not a Natural Born Citizen. A Natural Born Citizen is a person born in the United States, of US
Citizen parents, as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the precedent
set in Minor. v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627. Justice Waite
holding that natural born citizens per se are so by virtue of birth on United States soil when both
parents were Citizens of the United States.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere
to ascertain [***10] 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 natural-born citizens, as
distinguished from aliens or foreigners. id. http://www.osah.ga.gov/documents/Cases/Cite-minor
%20v%20happersett.pdf, at page 2 of the decision.
9. This is the definition which applies to the US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5. It is the
definition commonly accepted under international law at the time the Constitution was drafted and
ratified. When the delegates from New York insisted on this clause, they did not wish to have a
British Subject or his offspring becoming Commander-in-chief, and then, by surrender, returning
the United States to being subject to the King of England.
10. Natural Born Citizen is a Constitutionally different term than the terms used in the 14thAmendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the State wherein they reside....
The 14thAmendment is irrelevant to the term Natural Born Citizen.

11. Natural Born Citizen is defined without reaching the need of use of the 14th Amendment or the
power of Congress granted with Article 1 Section 8 paragraph 4 to define naturalization and
immigration status of persons other than Natural Born Citizen persons; and as upheld by New
York State jurisprudence as to Natural Born Citizen, defined in state law.
12. Barack Obama is not a Natural- born Citizen. However he may possibly be classified as Born a
Citizen depending upon the power of Congress granted to define citizen status, other than
Natural Born Citizen.
13. On information and belief, Barack Obama renounced his citizenship at various times.
Obama received a public education In Indonesia, where public education was only provided to
Page 1 of 4
Indonesian Citizens and where dual citizenship was not permitted.

Obama applied for financial aid as a foreign student within the United States.
Said application[s] was evidence that he is not a US Citizen.
Said application[s] as a foreign student operatively served as his renunciation of his US
Citizenship.
15. On information and belief, Obama traveled as an Indonesian Citizen, with an Indonesian Passport,
when dual citizenship was not permitted. This was either evidence of renunciation, or operative
renunciation of his citizenship, or both.
16. Barack Obama is ineligible to be President because he has violated his oath of office to protect and
defend the Constitution.:
17. By pretending to be President, when he is not a Natural Born Citizen, he has violated U.S.
Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5.
18. Obama has attacked the First Amendment by arresting persons and members of the press at peaceful
assemblies.
19. Obama has attacked the First Amendment by forcing religious organizations to act in violation of
their beliefs,
20. Obama has used the ATF to violate the Second Amendment.
21. Obama has attacked the Fourth Amendment by, without warrant, using agents to conduct
unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, houses, places and effects, including data and
private communications.
Obama has attacked the Fourth Amendment by depriving American Citizens of life, liberty, and
property, without due process of law.
22. Barack Obama has attacked the Sixth Amendment, by denying accused persons a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
23. Barack Obama has attacked the Sixth Amendment, by arresting and imprisoning trial Counsel.
24. Barack Obama has violated the Seventh Amendment, by imposing Civil penalties on persons,
where the value in controversy exceeded twenty dollars, without the right of trial by jury
25. Barack Obama has violated Amendment 8 -by requiring excessive bail, imposing excessive fines, and
inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
26. Barack Obama has violated Amendment 9 by denying and disparaging other rights retained by the
people.
27. Barack Obama has violated Amendment 10, by usurping powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, which are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.
28. Barack Obama declined to become president the last time he was elected by not taking his oath of
office. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=274_VdeckAU
What Obama said may be an oath that he has violated, but was not quite what the Constitution, Article
II, Sec. 1 requires:
Page 2 of 4
30. I object that there is no summary page on the Designating Petition.

31. I specifically object to all volume numbers, all page numbers, and all line numbers containing any
signatures, and to all the signatures, in that they purport, in the language of the petition at the top
of each page, to designate the unqualified candidate, Barack Obama.
32. I have no objections to any signature other than to the candidate they purport to designate.
33. I have no objections to any portion of any petition or any signature line or witness statement, nor any
other reasons for any such objection, other than: that the Candidate they purport to designate is
unqualified.
34. I object to the the total number of signatures submitted, because the Candidate they purport to
designate is unqualified.
35. All the signatures are grouped together in one group, for the above reasons, because the Candidate
they purport to designate is unqualified.
No specifications of objections to any petition will be considered by the Board unless the objector filing the
specifications personally delivers or mails by registered or certified mail a duplicate copy of the specifications to each
candidate for public office named on the petition. In the case of a petition containing candidates for party position,
service of the specifications shall be made on either the named candidates or the first person named on the petition's
committee to fill vacancies. Service shall be made on or before the date of filing of any specifications with the Board.
Proof of service shall accompany the specifications or be received by the end of business two days following the filing
of the specifications, whichever is later.
As required, prior to filing this Specification of Objections, a true and correct copy of it, together with any
and all attachments was mailed by, registered or certified mail to:
the first person named on the Petition's committee to fill vacancies:
Robert Diamond
118 East 93rdStreet
New York, NY 10128
and to the Candidate:
Barack Obama
5064 S. Greenwood Ave.
Chicago, Illinois 60515
Proof of such Service is attached hereto in the form of a copy of the certified mailing receipt for the each
and a Certificate of of Service.
Signed
_________________________________
Christopher B. Garvey Objector
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will
to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
29. Wherefore: objector challenges Barack Obama and or his agents to prove both the place of birth and
that both of his parents at the time of his birth were US Citizens, and that Barack Obama has never
renounced his US Citizenship, nor violated his oath of office.
Page 3 of 4
APX - 233
Page 4 of 4
the Document from Mitt Romney as a Request for Ballot Access
or any other named Republican Nominating or Designating Certificate or Petition or
Request Designating Mitt Romney as a Candidate for President
(Republican Objector)
16 Nicoll Ave.
phone 1 631 598 0752
February 16, 2012
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT #7011 1570 0003 5313 ______
To:
Election Operations
40 Steuben Street
Further to my General Objection mailed on
____________________________________________,
I, Christopher B. Garvey (Objector) specifically object to the:
Letter from Mitt Romney as a Request for Ballot Access in the New York
Primary Election for Republican Candidate for President of the United States
based on being a nationally known candidate, naming delegates and alternates, and
giving as his only return address,

Exhibit E
Miss Megan Sowards

Boston, MA 02109
and any other named Republican Nominating or Designating Certificate or Petition or Request
Designating Mitt Romney as a Candidate for President
Filed with the NYS Board of Elections on February 17, 2012.
Office: President
Republican
page 1 of 18
Mitt Romney 02/10/2010 Vols. 0 Pages 0 Supporting

16 Nicoll Ave.
phone 1 631 598 0752
Objections are based upon the following timeline, constructed on information and belief, which
shows that Mitt Romney's father George Romney, was a Mexican Citizen or a British Subject.
1757
Objector is a duly registered Republican New York voter in the 2012 election cycle, and is
qualified to vote for in the New York Primary for President of the United States.

The designated candidate Mitt Romney is not eligible for the Office of President of the United
States and is therefore not eligible to run in the next New York Primary for President of the
United States.
Objector references the NYS BOE notice that a document was filed on February 10, 2012 that
designates Mitt Romney for ballot access in the next New York Primary as the Republican Party
Candidate for President of the United States.
Objector challenges the Certification of both the declared candidate Mitt Romney and all the
petitions and filing documents as a nullity, against the Constitution of the United States, and
against public policy, in that Mitt Romney is not eligible for the Office of the President of the
United States because he is not a Natural Born Citizen as is required under New York State
law in compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 and New York
provision of law defining Natural born Citizen.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person
be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been
fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Citizens.
New York State has case law on the term Natural Born Citizen because New York State Law
prohibited all but Natural Born Citizens from owning mines:
page 2 of 18
Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations Section 212:

The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents [both] who
are citizens.
The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that
book, the following definition of a natural born citizen appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, 212,
of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):
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 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 terms natives and natural born citizens are terms; used to translate the idea conveyed by
the French phrase les naturels, ou indigenes: but both referred to the same category of citizen:
one born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.
In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term naturels refers to citizens who are such by the
natural circumstances of their birth which they did not choose; the term indigenes is from
the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, indigenous, means begotten from within (indegenes), as in the phrase the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived
there for generations. Hence the meaning the the term, natural born citizen, or naturels ou
1775
Congress were consulting a copy of Vattels book to complete their work .
I'm much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It
came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary
frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy which I kept... has been
continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much
pleased with your notes, and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for
their author....
APX - 234
page 3 of 18
See Exhibits 1 - 4 attached.

1787 - Vattel's term, natural born citizen appears in a letter [Ex 4] of the future Supreme Court
Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention.
John Jay wrote:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and reasonable to provide as a
strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national
government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army
shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. ---...
objection, because there was no divided parent citizenship. So the father's citizenship meant both
parents' citizenship. In 1922 a change in US law eliminated marriage's automatic change of the
wife's citizenship, Married Women's Act (the Cable Act). Today, it is possible to have one parent
who is not a US citizen, which creates a divided loyalty obstruction to becoming Commander-inchief.
For example, such a conflict of divided loyalty might arise if one's adopted father was an official
of the Indonesian Army and a Citizen of Indonesia. For such an example, see: Obama Dreams of
My Father.
1787 July 25 New York, Letter from John Jay to His Excellency General Washington, [Exhibit 4]
1794 The Senate made its first purchases: Blackstone's Commentaries and Vattel's Law of
Nature and Nations. Exhibit 3.
1814
Decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated
with the American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:
Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 till Nov.
26, 1829.
John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 till July 6, 1835.
William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, till Aug. 4,
1834.
Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20,
1807 till March 18, 1823.
Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 till Feb. 7, 1826.
Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 till Jany 14,
1835.
Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 till Sept. 10,
1845.
Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph
Storys father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the
army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792.
During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the
New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latters defection to
the British. William Johnsons father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served
as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First
Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutemen of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian
Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for
ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington
was George Washingtons nephew and heir.
Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the
Constitution had intended.
Marriage gave women their husband's citizenship automatically. So both parents had the same
nationality [except out-of-wedlock]: that of the husband-father. There was no divided loyalty
The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus,
belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the
War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case
page 4 of 18
said about citizenship, is what matters here.

In The Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire
212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
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 advantages. The natives
or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being
able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children
naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle
and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the
laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it
1806 Miles Archebald Romney, b. Dalton-in-Furness, co. Lancaster, 13 July 1806, d. St.
George, Utah, 3 May 1877 m. Dalton-in-Furness, co. Lancaster, 16 Nov. 1830 (Mitt Romneys
Great Great Grandfather), Miles Archebald Romney married in Liverpool to Elizabeth, both
British Subjects.
1809 Elizabeth Gaskell, b. Dalton-in-Furness, co. Lancaster, 8 Jan. 1809, d. St. George, Utah,
11 Oct. 1884
1830 Miles Archebald Romney & Elizabeth Gaskell married. Dalton-in-Furness, Co.
Lancaster, 16 Nov. 1830
1837 Romneys convert to Mormons
1839-Joseph Smith is in Nauvoo, IL.
1841 Great Great grandfather [Mitts] arrives in US. Miles Archebald Romney with wife
Elizabeth and 5 children.
his copy of his declaration of intention to the court. Following a change in the law in
1906 an alien also had to receive a certificate of arrival from the Immigration and
Naturalization Service that verified his or her legal immigration. When an alien's petition
was granted the court issued a certificate of citizenship to the alien. This document was
the alien's official proof that he or she was now a U.S. citizenship.
There is no indication that the above Miles Archebald Romneys ever became US citizens.
1842 Hannah Hood Hill, (Mitts Great grandmother) born in Tosoronto Township, Simcoe,
Ontario, 9 July 1842, d. Colonia Juarez, Chihuahua, Mxico, 29 Dec. 1928. She was a British
Subject.
1842
Hill family arrived in Nauvoo with Hannah Hood Hill.
1843
Joseph Smith visited England.
1843 Miles Park Romney, Mitts Great grandfather (1843-1904) born in 1843-Aug-18: Birth in
Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, USA of two British Subjects (Miles Archebald Romney &
Elizabeth Gaskell) is therefore himself a British Subject under US and International Law.
1850 The Territory of Utah was an organized incorporated territory of the United States that
existed from September 9, 1850, until January 4, 1896, when the final extent of the territory was
admitted to the Union as the State of Utah.
1855 From 1855 to 1922, a married woman automatically assumed the citizenship of her
husband; if an American woman married a foreign national, she lost her U.S. citizenship.
Similarly, if a foreign national married a U.S. citizen, she automatically became a citizen. Her
only documentation would be her marriage license and the naturalization (or birth) record of her
husband. After 1922, a married woman was required to meet the naturalization laws although no
declaration of intention was needed and residency changed from five years to one.
http://archives.utah.gov/research/guides/naturalizations.htm
1841 Miles Archebald Romney moved to Nauvoo, IL.

I have found no indication that Miles Archebald Romney ever became a Citizen of the United
States of America, . Miles Romney (1806-1877) and his wife Elizabeth Gaskell (1809-1884)
lived in the Liverpool area. Following their baptism, they sailed for New Orleans and made their
way up the Mississippi by steamboat arriving at Nauvoo in 1841. T
----------------------------------Becoming a Citizen
For most aliens the naturalization process was a two part process that took a minimum of
five years though there were some exceptions. First an alien would file a declaration of
intent. The court would keep a copy of the declaration and the alien would be given a
copy to keep with him. After a proscribed period of residence an alien would file his
petition for naturalization. When the alien filed his petition of naturalization, he returned
Miles Archebald Romney Moved to Utah
page 6 of 18
page 5 of 18
1862 The federal government in Washington passed the Morrell Act outlawing polygamy. (The
bill was signed by Abraham Lincoln in the middle of the civil war.) This law was not enforced as
can be seen from the 1880 census where multiple wives are listed.
1862 March 10
Miles Park Romney marries to Hannah Hood Hill (1842-1929 Mitts Great
Grandmother) in Salt Lake City - She was born in Canada. Miles and Hannah had eleven [or
possibly thirteen] children including Gaskell Romney (1871-1955).
1862 or 1863? Miles Park Romney was sent on a mission to England before their first child
(Isabell 1863-1919) was born. While in England he preached for several years in the area around
APX - 235
page 7 of 18
Liverpool (former home of his parents). He came back to Salt Lake City with a boatload of new
English converts.
1863 New York State Court of Appeals in Ludlum v Ludlum , 26 N.Y. 356 (1863 March Term),
defines Natural Born Citizen.
1866 Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, Congressional Globe, 39th , 1st Sess.
...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.
Note the reference to a singular child of plural parents, not owing allegiance to any foreign
sovereignty. Both parents must not owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty for the child to be
a Natural Born Citizen.
This quote also demonstrates that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the children of British
Subjects, who retained their own parent's nationality.
1867 In 1867 the Romney family moved from Salt Lake City to Saint George, Utah. St. George
is in the southwest corner of the state on the Arizona border.
1867 -Mar-23 Miles Park Romney: Marriage to Caroline Lambourne (1846-1879) in Salt Lake
City - two children
1868
14th Amendment -Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of 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.
The purpose of this Amendment was to prevent former slaves from being denied citizenship
rights by their states. It was not intended to abrogate the right of citizenship of nationals of other
Countries by usurping their right to give their own nationality to their children.
The Amendment refers to any State, not to territories.
-------------------------------Discussion:
Gaskell and Anna were born in the Territory of Utah, but they were not born in the state of Utah.
Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt Romney were both born of British Parents in the
Territory of Utah in 1871 and 1876 respectively.
Gaskells father (Mitts great grandfather) Miles Romney was a polygamist. The 1882 Edmunds
Act stripped polygamists of the basic rights of U.S. citizenship.
Since the Romneys lived in the Territory of Utah at that time, did they have any US citizenship?
If so, was it stripped by the Edmunds Act?
Mexico. Then in 1896 the Territory of Utah became a state. Since the Romneys moved to Mexico
before 1896, they could not have received US citizenship, since they were no longer residents of
the Territory of Utah when it became a state.
When George W. Romney (Mitts father) was born in Mexico in 1907, George W. became a
native Mexican (based on the location of his birth), whether or not he was legally recognized as
such. Some argue that George W. Romney was in fact a Mexican citizen at birth. He may have
been a British Subject, like his parents.
How did those in the Territory of Utah naturalize to become US citizens? One source states,
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who applied for naturalization
during the 1870s and 1880s were often denied because of polygamy.
https://www.familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Utah_Naturalization_and_Citizenship
Another article states that when the Territory of Utah became a state in 1896, resident noncitizens did not automatically become U.S. citizens even if they had filed declarations of
intention of becoming U.S. citizens. The article also stated We know from a contemporaneous
news story that as of October 15 1967, George W. Romney hadnt filed any particular papers to
make himself a citizen. http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/mitt-romney-natural-borncitizenship-and-media-bias/
So since Mitts grandparents, Gaskell (born of British Subjects) and Anna Romney were born in
the Territory of Utah (which did not automatically make them US citizens) and had left the
Territory of Utah before it became a state, where is the proof that Gaskell and Anna Romney had
US citizenship to pass on to their son George W. Romney when he was born in Mexico in 1907?
Where is the proof that George W. Romney had US citizenship to pass on to his son Mitt
Romney when he was born in 1947?
---------------------1870 Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870.
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude.
1871 Gaskell Romney (Mitts Grandfather) was born in Utah, the son of Miles Romney and
Elizabeth Gaskell two British Subjects; thereby becoming a British Subject.
7 FAM 1121.3 Status of Inhabitants of Territories, Absent Laws Defining Status
(TL:CON-66; 10-10-96) c. A child born in an outlying possession before January 13,
1941, whose father (or mother if the child was born out of wedlock) was a non-citizen
U.S. national, was held to have acquired the parents status, and a child born there to alien
parents was held not to have acquired U.S. Nationality.
Therefore Gaskell Romney was not a US National.
In 1884 Miles Romney moved his multiple wives and children from the Territory of Utah to
1873 -Sep-15 Miles Park Romney: Marriage to Catharine Jane Cottam (1855-1918) in Salt
Lake City - 10 children
1877 Aug-01 Miles Park Romney: Marriage to Annie Marie Woodbury (1858-1930) in St
page 8 of 18
George Utah - 8 children

The United States census lists Miles Park Romney, his two wives Hannah Hood Hill and
Catherine Jane Cottam, and six of Hannahs children, including her son Gaskell who was eight
years old at the time.
1881
1881
Miles Park Romney Moved to St George, Utah to build Temple.

Miles Park Romney Moved to Az.
1882 The Edmunds Act stripped polygamists of the basic rights of U.S. citizenship, denying
them the right to vote, serve on juries or hold office. Not dissimilar to current immigration raids,
U.S. federal agents hunted and arrested polygamists. Polygamists were forced to leave the
country or risk jail.
1886 Miles Park Romney started for Mexico with his family, Tom Mahoney The Story Of
George Romney (1960).
Gaskell Romney (Mitts Grandfather) was 15 years old; too young to ratify his citizenship in a
US Court. His intention, and that of his parents, seems to be to become a permanent Mexican
national or citizen.
According to Mahoney:
Mitt Romneys great-grandfather fled with his three wives to Mexico so they could
continue their polygamist lifestyle with a multitude of other Mormon polygamists and
settled there, cutting land deals with Mexican president, Porfirio Diaz using funds that
came from The Mormon Church. President Diaz was happy to have the Mormon settlers
there as a buffer against the Apache Indians. (pg.51)
With others, Helaman Pratt obtained permission from Diaz for Miles Park Romney and
other Mormon refugees to buy lands and establish colonies in Mexico. Partly with funds
advanced by the Church, they purchased large, mostly undeveloped tracts in Sonora and
Chihuahua. Diaz was happy to have colonists there as buffers against the Apache Indians
1887 The Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 was enforced. Archibald Newell Hood (Hannahs
father) and her brother (Samuel) were arrested, fined, and imprisoned for several months in Salt
Lake City for practicing polygamy. About 1,300 Mormon men were imprisoned in the late
1880s.
1890 9/24/1890 Mormon Church advised Mormons to refrain from polygamy. In 1890, The
Mormon Church lost their case to the Supreme Court which upheld Edmunds-Tucker Act, so
Utah came out with their Manifesto soon afterward which condemned plural marriage:
The 1890 Manifesto, sometimes simply called The Manifesto, is a statement which
officially disavowed the continuing practice of plural marriage in The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Issued by church president Wilford Woodruff
in September 1890, the Manifesto was a response to mounting anti-polygamy pressure
from the United States Congress, which by 1890 had disincorporated the church,
escheated its assets to the U.S. federal government, and imprisoned many prominent
page 10 of 18
page 9 of 18
polygamist Mormons.
The Manifesto was a dramatic turning point in the history of the LDS Church. It
officially prohibited church members from entering into any marriage prohibited by the
law of the land, and made it possible for Utah to become a U.S. state.
Nevertheless, even after the Manifesto, the church quietly continued to perform a small
number of plural marriages in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, thus necessitating
a Second Manifesto during U.S. congressional hearings in 1904.
In regards to the missionaries, the expatriate Mormons had to become Mexican citizens since
missionary work by foreigners was prohibited by Mexican law at the time.
Mexico only allowed citizens to conduct missions/missionary work. The Mormons operated
missions in Mexico.
1891= 5 years + 1886 Under the operative immigration law of nations at the time, each
government had a tacit agreement about such expatriates to avoid being put into delicate
situations of having to defend Americans on foreign soil. This was operative when the Mormons
fled Utah. The standard was that if an American stayed five or so years, each country would
consider he had rejected his native countrys citizenship. This made Miles Park Romney and his
son George Romney both Mexican Citizens.
George W. Romney was born in Mexico, son of the head elder (Gaskell Romney), who was in
Mexico for about 3 decades before George W. Romney's birth, said Gaskell Romney must have
been a Mexican [or British] citizen. Therefore, Gaskell Romney could not bestow American
citizenship, much less natural born citizenship to George W. Romney. Since George W.
Romney [Mexican or British] was therefore not an American citizen, George W. Romney could
not eventually bestow natural born citizen status to his son Mitt Romney.
1892 Gaskell Romney (Mitts Grandfather) became 21 years old; old enough to declare his
citizenship in a US Court. But he lived in Mexico. His intention and that of his parents seemed
to be to become a permanent Mexican national or citizen. He did not live in the United States for
at least 5 years before his 23rd birthday in 1894.
----------------------------Minors (Children)
Minor children were granted derivative citizenship when their father, or after 1922 their
parent, was naturalized. This practice remained in place for children under the age of 21
from 1790 to 1940. There usually will be no record of a minor child's derivative
citizenship unless he/she applied to the INS after 1929 for a certificate of citizenship.
Between 1824 and 1906 an alien who arrived as a minor, had lived in the United States
for at least 5 years before their 23rd birthday, and whose father had not become a U.S.
naturalized citizen could file his declaration and petition at the same time. Although the
forms used for this process varied from court to court, the declaration of intention and
petition for naturalization are usually found on one form.
APX - 236
page 11 of 18
There is no evidence that Gaskell ever:
arrived as a minor in the US,
lived in the United States for at least 5 years before his 23rd birthday,
filed his declaration or petition to be a US Citizen.
Therefore, Gaskell was not a US Citizen.
1895 -Feb-20 Miles Park Romney married Anna Amelia Pratt (1876-1926) in Dublan,
Chihuahua, Mexico. She was the grand daughter of Mormon Pioneer Parley Pratt.
1896
Utah becomes a State Jan 4, 1896
1897 -Feb-02 : Miles Park Romney married Emily Henrietta Eyring (1870-1947) in Dublan
Mexico, widow of William Snow. They begat no children, but she already had two children from
the Snow marriage.
1904 Miles Park Romney (Mitt's Great Grandfather) died at Colonia Dublan, Chihuahua,
Mexico, evidencing his intent to remain a Mexican for life.
-----------------------------------Women
Early naturalization laws did not restrict naturalization for women and in theory alien
women could apply for citizenship. However a variety of laws began to limit a woman's
rights to naturalization culminating in a 1855 law that effectively restricted naturalization
for women. The 1855 act held that "[a]ny woman who is now or may hereafter be
married to a citizen of the United States, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized,
shall be deemed a citizen." Essentially the law said that a woman held the citizenship of
her husband. For instance if a German woman immigrated to the United States and
married a U.S. citizen, she automatically became a citizen. Or if a German couple
immigrated to the United States and the husband was naturalized, his wife was
considered a citizen by virtue of his naturalization. A strange quirk of this law was that
if a woman who was a native-born U.S. citizen married a foreigner, the U.S.
government considered that she had given up her U.S. citizenship in favor of her
husband's citizenship. This was a matter of debate for some time but an act in March of
1907 codified it in law.
Few women pursued naturalization before 1920 because women couldn't vote - the major
right of citizenship - and in many places couldn't own property. Following the passage of
the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote, there was a movement to
change the laws relating to naturalization of women. Many asked why a woman should
automatically be granted the right to vote through marriage. Congress passed the Married
Women's Act (the Cable Act) on September 22, 1922. Women were now able to apply for
naturalization on their own. Included in the Cable Act, was a provision to allow American
born women who had lost their citizenship due to their marriages to foreigners to file
petitions to become citizens. Many U.S. born women who had married foreign citizens
page 12 of 18
did not believe they should have to file for a citizenship to which they had been born. In
1936 Congress passed a new act that allowed U.S. born women who had married
foreigners between 1907 and 1922 to take an oath of allegiance (sometimes mistakenly
called a repatriation petition).
http://www.ourarchives.wikispaces.net/women
--------------1904 Second Manifesto of Church during U.S. congressional hearings in 1904 rejecting
Polygamy.
1907 George W. Romney (Mitt's father) was born in Mexico. George W. Romney was born in
a Mormon Colony, Colonia Dubln, in Galeana, State of Chihuahua, Mexico, on July 8, 1907.
His parents were Gaskell and Anna Amelia Pratt Romney, both ex-patriot British citizens who
were born in Utah and who met and married in Mexico, and who seem to have become Mexican
Citizens.
George W. Romney's birth on foreign soil, raises the question of citizenship by descent of
children born to American citizens on foreign soil. Citizenship lies in two concepts of
international law:
a) birth in-country, or jure soli (by right of the soil) by which George would be Mexican;
or
b) from birth outside the country to parents who are citizens, jure sanguinis (by right of blood).
George was born in Mexico of British Subjects or Mexican Citizens, so he is either:
by jure soli (by right of the soil) a Mexican Citizen, or
by jure sanguinis (by right of blood), a British Subject or Mexican Citizen.
1908 Mitts mother, Lenore Romney, was born in Logan, Utah on November 9, 1908. She was
an American citizen at birth.
1913 George & parents move to El Paso refugee center. They were temporary exiles. George
said: "We were the first displaced persons of the 20th century." Mitt Romney has repeated this
admission and thus adopted it as his own.
A displaced person (sometimes abbreviated DP) is a person who has been forced to leave his or
her native place, a phenomenon known as forced migration. Displaced person - Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displaced_person
displaced person n. One who has been driven from one's homeland by war or internal upheaval.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright 2000
by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All
rights reserved.
displaced person
a person forced from his or her country, esp. as a result of war, and left homeless elsewhere
page 13 of 18
Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc.,
Cleveland, Ohio. Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
However, both George's parents were Mexican Citizens, or British Subjects, when George was
born.
displaced person
noun
a person driven or expelled from his or her homeland by war, famine, tyranny, etc.
Abbreviation: DP, D.P. Origin: 194045 Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2012.
Wherefore: Objector challenges Mitt Romney and or his agents to prove that both of
Definition of DISPLACED PERSON

: a person expelled, deported, or impelled to flee from his country of nationality or habitual
residence by the forces or consequences of war or oppression abbr. DP
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/displaced%20person
displaced person
noun
1. someone who has been forced to leave their own country and live somewhere else, for
example because there is a war in their own country
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/displaced-person
The use by George Romney of the phrase: Displaced Person is thus an admission that George
Romney regarded his native place, country of nationality, own country, nationality, and
homeland as Mexico.
1938 Twenty-six years after the Romneys were forced from Mexico, the case of "Gaskell
Romney vs. United States of Mexico" was heard in Salt Lake City in 1938. Gaskell requested
$28,753 in damages. He was awarded $9,163, court records show a sizable amount then.
The records say Gaskell gave half of the award to his son, George, which would have helped
to put him on his road to becoming chairman of American Motors and governor of Michigan.
1947 Mitt Romney was born in Detroit, Michigan on March 12, 1947. His parents were
George W. Romney [Mexican or British by blood or Mexican by birth in Mexico] and Lenore
LaFount Romney, who married in Salt Lake City on July 2, 1931. At the time of his birth, Mitts
father served as general manager of the Automobile Manufacturers Association, in Detroit.
1967 According to an October 15, 1967 New York Times interview with George Romney, who
was then seeking the 1968 Republican nomination for President of the United States, it appears
that he did not at any time apply for naturalization.
According to the Times report, Governor Romney said today that the question of his
constitutional eligibility for office had been studied by lawyers and that he believed it
posed no problem Governor Romney said that he did not have to file any papers to
become an American citizen since both his parents had been born in the United States
page 14 of 18
his parents at the time of his birth were US Citizens; particularly Mexican born George Romney.
I specifically object to the the Letter to designate the unqualified candidate, Mitt Romney, as a
candidate for President on the NY Primary Ballot.
Objector objects on the basis of the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 (1) eligibility
natural-born Citizen.
Objector cautions the New York State Board of Elections against using as a criteria the novel
The Natural Born Citizen idiom was selected by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution to conform with
the concerns of the People of New York who were intent to safeguard sovereignty, to reflect history and
practice of the Law of Nations(2) since Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York, July
26, 1788, and that as defined by the Legislature by statute example in the Real Property Law Article 2
Section 18 (3),and as relates to matters of inheritance, that have since been upheld by the State of New
York Court of Appeals in its precedents that also conform with precedents of the Supreme Court of the
United States (SCOTUS) before and after the addition of the 14th amendment that did not amend the
Natural Born Citizen idiom, or warrant any assertion by the NYS BOE, other than natural-born Citizen.
The BOE may not paraphrase the Constitution to change its meaning to some ill-defined or differently
defined born a citizen term, as indicated on the BOE's website this election for the very first time.
There is no state statutory provision warranting NYS BOE to use Born a Citizen per se rather than
Natural Born Citizen; and therefore, is strictly a U.S. Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5
Natural Born Citizen eligibility issue that the NYS BOE must conform to, in compliance with the body of
common law of the New York Courts (4), and in accordance with SCOTUS precedents (5) that are contrary
to Born a Citizen idiom use.
Objector notes that my mother explained to me, when I was a child:

that she could never be President, because she was a naturalized citizen; but,
the fact that she had naturalized before the birth of her children, and married a another
U.S. citizen, meant that I could be President.
It is interesting that this once-common Constitutional knowledge, of an immigrant, seems to
have been somehow obscured by the last few decades.
As required, prior to filing this Specification of Objections, a true and correct copy of it, together
with any and all attachments was mailed by, registered or certified mail
Certificate 7011 1570 0003 5313 __________
to the only person and address named on the Romney's Document as the Representative of the
Candidate for service of this notice:
Miss Megan Sowards
APX - 237
page 15 of 18

Boston, MA 02109
Proof of such Service is attached hereto in the form of a copy of the certified mailing receipt for
the same and Certificate of Service.
Feb. 27, 2012

Signed
Christopher B. Garvey (Republican Objector)

Endnotes
Exhibits 1 to 5

5
(1968)
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
page 16 of 18
and British common law apply before and after 1776 Independence affects the right to take land in controversy by descent
in New York:
APX - 238
APX - 239
the Letter from Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum as a
Republican Objector
16 Nicoll Ave.
phone 1 631 598 0752
email objectorCG@verizon.net
02/25/12
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT #7011 1570 0003 5313 _____
To:
Election Operations
40 Steuben Street
Further to my General Objection mailed on Tuesday, 02/21/2012,
I, Christopher B. Garvey (Republican Objector) specifically object to the:
Letter from Rick Santorum, a Request for Ballot Access in the New York Primary Election for
Republican Candidate for President of the United States, and giving no return address, and
document[s] naming delegates and alternates:
Office: President
Republican
Exhibit F
Rick Santorum 02/21/2010 Vols. 0 Pages 0 Supporting

16 Nicoll Ave.
phone 1 631 598 0752
Objector is a duly registered Republican New York voter in the 2012 election cycle, and is qualified to
vote for in the New York Primary for President of the United States.
APX - 240
page 1 of 10

The Document contains no return address for the service of objections, or of summons and complaint,
on the Candidate.
qualified to be President of the United States. He must not be placed on any New York
ballot for election to that office.
Therefore all the designating documents must be rejected as defective.
The designated candidate Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum is not eligible for the
Office of President of the United States and is therefore not eligible to run in the next New York
Primary for President of the United States.
Objector challenges the Certification of both the declared candidate Rick Santorum AKA Richard John
"Rick" Santorum and all the filing documents as a nullity, against the Constitution of the United States,
and against public policy, in that Rick Santorum AKA Richard John "Rick" Santorum is not eligible
for the Office of the President of the United States because he is not a Natural Born Citizen as is
required under New York State law in compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1
paragraph 5 and New York provision of law defining Natural born Citizen.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of
this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that
Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident
within the United States.
Citizens.
Rick Santorum's father was an Italian Citizen, who immigrated to the United States.
Rick Santorum is the middle of the three children of Aldo Santorum (1923
2011), a clinical psychologist who immigrated to the United States at age seven
from Riva del Garda, Italy,[15] and Catherine (Dughi) Santorum (1918), an
administrative nurse[15][16][17] of Italian American and Irish American descent.
[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum
New York State has case law on the term Natural Born Citizen because among other reasons, New
York State Law prohibited all but Natural Born Citizens from owning mines:
Law of Nations
According to Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations Section 212: (1757)
The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents [both] who are
citizens.
The Law of Nations, was written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that
book, the following definition of a natural born citizen appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, 212, of the
English translation of 1797 (p. 110) see Exhibit 2 [annotations of uncertain origin]:
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 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. . . .
On Feb. 7, 2012, Rick Santorum publicly admitted that he is a first generation American:
I never thought as a first-generation American whose parents and grandparents
loved freedom and came here because they didn't want the government telling
them what to believe and how to believe it.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1202/07/acd.02.html
I found no information indicating that the Candidate's father, Aldo Santorum, ever
naturalized as a United States Citizen.
Therefore, Candidate Rick Santorum is not a A Natural Born Citizen ... a person born
in the United States of two United States Citizens. Therefore he is not Constitutionally
The terms natives and natural born citizens are English terms; used to render the idea conveyed by
the French phrase les naturels, ou indigenes: but both referred to the same category of citizen: one
born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.
In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term naturels refers to citizens who are such by the Law of
Nature, that is by the natural circumstances of their birth which they did not choose; the term
indigenes is from the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, indigenous, means begotten from
within (inde-genes), as in the phrase the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and
lived there for generations. Hence the meaning the the term, natural born citizen, or naturels ou
Vattel's term, natural born citizen appears in a letter [Ex 4] of the future Supreme Court Justice, John
page 2 of 10
page 3 of 10
Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention.

John Jay wrote, 1787 July 25 New York, Letter from John Jay to His Excellency General Washington,
[Exhibit 4]:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and reasonable to provide as a strong
check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to
declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor
devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. --- .
Continental Congress were consulting a copy of Vattels book to complete their work .
I'm much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us
in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult
the law of nations. Accordingly that copy which I kept... has been continually in the hands of
the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes, and preface,
and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author....
1794 The Senate made its first purchases: Blackstone's Commentaries and Vattel's Law of Nature and
Nations. Exhibit 3.
Marriage gave women their husband's citizenship automatically. So both parents had same nationality
[except out-of-wedlock]: that of the husband-father. There was no divided loyalty objection, because
there was no divided parent citizenship. So father's citizenship meant both parents' citizenship. In 1922
a change in US law eliminated marriage's automatic change of the wife's citizenship, Married Women's
Act (the Cable Act). Today, it is possible to have one parent who is not a US citizen, which creates a
divided loyalty obstruction to becoming Commander-in-chief.
For example, such a conflict of divided loyalty might arise if one's adopted father was an official of the
Indonesian Army and a Citizen of Indonesia.
For such an example, see: Obama Dreams of My Father.
Decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, decided by men who were intimately associated
with the American Revolution. In that year the following judges sat on the Supreme Court:
Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26,
1829.
John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.
William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.
Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til
March 18, 1823
page 4 of 10
APX - 241
page 5 of 10
Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.
Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jan. 14, 1835.
Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845
Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Storys
father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the
British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary
War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-decamp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latters defection to the British. William Johnsons father,
mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the
line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutemen of Virginia,
and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General
George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General
Assembly. Bushrod Washington was George Washingtons nephew and heir.
Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had
intended.
The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named The Venus,
belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War
of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about
citizenship, is what matters here.
In The Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire 212nd
paragraph from the French edition of Vattel supra, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
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 advantages. The natives or indigenes
are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and
to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the
condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and
stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the
state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it
In 1863, the New York State Court of Appeals in Ludlum v Ludlum , 26 N.Y. 356 (1863 March Term)
defined Natural Born Citizen.
In 1866, Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, in the Congressional Globe, 39th , 1st Sess.
...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.
This demonstrates that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the children of Italian Citizens, who
retained their own nationality. Note the reference to a singular child of plural parents, not owing
allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. Both parents must not owe allegiance to any foreign
sovereignty for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen.

Aldo Santorum was an Italian Citizen born on Italian soil.
If Aldo didn't naturalize, then Aldo never became a US citizen.
His son Rick Santorum, may or may not be a Citizen, by his birth May 10, 1958 in Winchester,
Virginia,: jure soli (by right of the soil).
If Rick took his Italian Father's Italian citizenship, then Rick is an Italian Citizen.
If Rick took his mother's citizenship, and his mother is a US Citizen, then then Rick is a US Citizen.
But, Aldo's son, Rick Santorum, lacks two US citizen parents who were citizens at the time of Rick's
birth. He is not a Natural Born Citizen as required by the Constitution.
He has at least one parent who is not a US citizen, which creates a divided loyalty obstruction to
becoming Commander-in-chief.
Objector objects on the basis of the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 (1) eligibility natural-born
Citizen.
Objector cautions the New York State Board of Elections (BOE) against using as a criteria the novel
The Natural Born Citizen idiom was selected by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution to conform with the
concerns of the People of New York who were intent to safeguard sovereignty, to reflect history and practice of
the Law of Nations(2) since Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York, July 26, 1788, and that
as defined by the Legislature by statute example in the Real Property Law Article 2 Section 18 (3),and as relates
to matters of inheritance, that have since been upheld by the venerable State of New York Court of Appeals in its
own most stringent precedents that also conform with precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States
before and after the addition of the 14th amendment that did not amend the Natural Born Citizen idiom, or
warrant any assertion by the NYS BOE, other than natural-born Citizen. The BOE may not paraphrase the
Constitution to change its meaning to some ill-defined or differently defined born a citizen term, as indicated
on the BOE's website this election for the very first time.
There is no state statutory provision warranting NYS BOE to use Born a Citizen per se rather than Natural
Born Citizen; and therefore, is strictly a U.S. Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 Natural Born Citizen
eligibility issue that the NYS BOE must conform to, in compliance with the body of common law of the New
York Courts (4), and in accordance with SCOTUS precedents (5) that are contrary to Born a Citizen idiom use.
Objector notes that my mother explained to me, when I was a child, that she could never be President,
because she was a naturalized citizen. But, the fact that she had naturalized before the birth of her
children, and married a another U.S. citizen, meant that I could be President. It is interesting that this
once-common Constitutional knowledge, of an immigrant, seems to have been somehow obscured by
the last few decades.
Wherefore: Objector challenges Rick Santorum and or his agents to prove that both of his
parents, especially his father, at the time of his birth, were US Citizens.
page 6 of 10
Should Rick Santorum be unable or unwilling to provide this NY State Board of Elections his
Father Aldo Santorum's Certificate of Naturalization, dated before Rick's birth on May 10, 1958,
then this board must not place Rick Santorum on the ballot for President, because he is
Constitutionally unqualified for that Office.
page 7 of 10
As required, prior to filing this Specification of Objections, a true and correct copy of it, together with
any and all attachments was mailed by, registered or certified mail
Certificate 7011 1570 0003 5313 5110
to the address named on the Santorum Document as the Representative of the Candidate for service of
this notice:
Rick Santorum
Post Office Box 37
Verona, PA 15147
The Santorum document lacks a committee to fill vacancies.

Proof of such Service is attached hereto in the form of a copy of the certified mailing receipt for the
same and Certificate of Service.

Feb. ____, 2012

Signed
Christopher B. Garvey (Objector)
Endnotes follow
Attached: Exhibits 1-5

5
(1968)
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
page 8 of 10
APX - 242
page 9 of 10
and British common law apply before and after 1776 Independence affects the right to take land in controversy by decent in
New York:
page 10 of 10
APX - 243

Exhibit G
APX - 244

Exhibit H


Exhibit I
Exhibit J
APX - 245
APX - 246
APX - 247
APX - 248
APX - 249
APX - 250
APX - 251
APX - 252
APX - 253
APX - 254
APX - 255
APX - 256
APX - 257
APX - 258
APX - 259
APX - 260
APX - 261
APX - 262
APX - 263
APX - 264
APX - 265
APX - 266
APX - 267
APX - 268
APX - 269
APX - 270
APX - 271
APX - 272
APX - 273
APX - 274
APX - 275
APX - 276
APX - 277
APX - 278
APX - 279
1. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran

Notice of March 9, 2016 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Iran On )of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for
from the emergencyrenewal of November 2015. This notice shall be published
in the Federal
o
O
A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 03/10/2016

PDF
2. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Venezuela

of March 3, 2016 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Venezuela On March 8, 2015 ) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.
1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year thenational emergency declared in Executive
Order
o
O
O

PDF
3. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran

Notice of November 10, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect
to Iran On 14, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for
o
O
O

PDF
4. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect

to theProliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
o
Notice of November 12, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With
Respect to theProliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I
am continuing the national emergency declared
o
O
O

PDF
5. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Sudan

Notice of October 28, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Sudan On to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,
expanded the scope of thenational emergency to ) of the National Emergencies Act
(50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuingfor
o
O

PDF
APX - 280
6. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to theSituation in or in

Relation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Notice of October 21, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect
to theSituation in or in Relation to the Democratic
) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for
o
O

PDF
7. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Narcotics

Traffickers Centered in Colombia
Notice of October 19, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Significant Narcotics 21, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
202(d) of the NationalEmergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for
o
O
O

PDF
8. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Persons Who Commit,

Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism
Notice of September 18, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With
Respect to Persons Who 23, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
202(d) of the National EmergenciesAct (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for
PDF
9. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Certain Terrorist
Attacks
Notice of September 10, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With
Respect to Certain Terrorist ) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I
am continuing for threat of further attacks on the United States. Because the terrorist
threat continues, the nationalemergency declared
o
O
o
O
O

PDF
10. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Export Control

Regulations
Notice of August 7, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Export Control 17, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
o
O

PDF
APX - 281
11. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Lebanon

Notice of July 29, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Lebanon On August 1, 2015. In accordance with section
o
O
O

PDF
12. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Transnational Criminal

Organizations
Notice of July 21, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Transnational Criminal 24, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
o
O

PDF
13. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Former Liberian
Regime of Charles Taylor
Notice of July 17, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect
to the Former Liberian Regime of Charles 22, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with
section 202(d) of the NationalEmergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I
am continuing for
o
O

PDF
14. Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Resulting

From the Termination of the National Emergency Declared in Executive Order
13348
, 2015, the President signed Executive Order 13710,
terminating the national emergency in Executive Order
13348 of the National Emergency With Respect to the Conflict in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. These individuals continue
A Notice by the Foreign Assets Control Office on 12/04/2015
O PDF
15. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Western Balkans
Notice of June 22, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect
to theWestern Balkans On June 26, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
o
o
O

PDF
APX - 282
16. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to North Korea

Notice of June 22, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
North Korea to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United
States posed by thecontinued ) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)),
I am continuing for
o
O

PDF
17. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Actions and
Policies of Certain Members of the Government of Belarus and Other Persons to
Undermine Belarus's Democratic Processes or Institutions
of June 10, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect
to the Actions and Policies of Certain Members of the Government of Belarus
O
O
PDF
18. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to theStabilization of Iraq

Notice of May 19, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect
to theStabilization of Iraq On May the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by obstacles to the continued
) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I amcontinuing for
o
O

PDF
19. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Burma

of May 15, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Burma
On May 20, 1997, the of the Government of Burma continue to pose an unusual and
extraordinary threat tothe national ) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.
1622(d)), I am continuing for
o
O
O

PDF
20. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Yemen

Notice of May 13, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Yemen On 16, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
o A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 05/15/2015
O PDF
O
APX - 283
21 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Central African

Republic
Notice of May 8, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect
to the Central African Republic On 12, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
o
O
o
O
O

PDF
22. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Actions ofthe Government of Syria
Notice of May 6, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Actions ofthe Government of Syria On am continuing for 1
year the national emergency declared with respect
to the actions of the Government of
PDF
23 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Somalia
Notice of April 8, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
Somalia On 12, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
o
O
O

PDF
24. Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to South Sudan
Notice of March 31, 2015 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to
South Sudan 3, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section
o
O

PDF
APX - 284
APX - 285
PUBLIC LAW 94-412-SEPT. 14. 1976
90 STAT. 1255
Public Law 94-412

94th Congress
An Act
To terminate certuln authorities with respect to national emergeDciea still in
~f!'ect, and to provide fl>r or<lPrly lmplemantMlon and termii1at1on Of future
national emergencies.
Be it en<Icted by tlte Senate and House of Rep1'e8entativea of the

U,nited States of Ame1ica in Oo,ngr688 assembled, T hat this Act may
be cited as the "~atiomtl Emergencies Act".
TI T LE
I-TER.ML~ATING
EXISTING DECLARED
EMERGENCIES
Sept. H, 1976
[H.R. 3884]
National
Emergencies Act.
50
1601
usc
note.
SEa. 101. (a) All powers and authorities poss~:>ssed by the President, 50 usc l60l.
any oth~:>r officer or emp1oyf?e of the Federal Government, or any
executive agency, as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States
Code, ns a. result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency in effect on thl' date of enactment of this Act are terminated two
vpars from the da.l:(>. of such enactment. Such termination shall not
affect( 1) tmy action taken or proceeding pending not :finally concluded or cletenninPd on such date;
(2) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior
to snch date ; or
(3) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were
incurred prior to such date.
(b) For the purpose of this section, the wotds 11any national emer- ''Any national
gency in effect" means a genl'ral dl'claration of emergency made by emergency in
effect."
the President.
TITLE II-DECLARATIONS OF FUTURE NATIONAL
EUERGENCIES
SEc. 201. (a) With respect to Acts of Congress authorizing the
exercise, during the period of a national emergency, of any special
or extraordinary power, the President is authorized to declare such
n.ntional emergency. Such proclamation shAll immediately be tran smitted to the CongLess and published in the Federal R egister.
. (b) Any provisions of law conferring powers and authorities to be
ex(}rcisccl during a nationnl emel'gency shall be effective and remain
in effect (1) on]y when the Pr11sident (in accordat1ce with snbsection
(a) oft~ section), spec~cally declares a national emergency, and
(2) only m accordance w1th this A ct. No law enacted after the date
or enactment ot this Act shall supersede tJliS title unless it does $0 in
specific terms, refening to this title, and oeclaring that the new law
supersedes the {)rovisions of this title.
SEC. 202. (a) Any national emergency declared by the P resident
in nccordance with this title shall term.i:rulte if. (1) Congress terminates the emergency by concurrent resolutiOn; or
(2) t.he President issues a proclamation terminating the
emergency.
APX - 286
50 US<. 1621.
Presidential
pToclamation,
transmittal to
Congress;
publication in
Fedenl Register.
Tennination.
50
1622.
usc
90 STAT. 1256
Termination date.
Concurrent
resolution,
referral to
congressional
committees.
Conference
committee, filing
of report.
PUBLIC LAW 94-412- SEPT. 14, 1976

Any national emergency dechtred by the President shall be terminated
on the date specified in any concurrent resolution referred to in clause
(1) or on the date specified in a proclamation by the President terminating the emergency as provided in clause (2) of this subsection,
whichever date is earlier, and any powers or authorities exercised by
r~>.ason of said emergency shall cease to be exercised after such specified
date, except that such termination shall not affect(A) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date; .
(B) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior
to such date; or
. (C) any .rights or dnties that matured or penalties that were
mcurred pr1or to such date.
(b) Not Inter than six months after a national emel'gency is
clPclllled, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall
mPet to consider a vote on a, concurrent resolution to determine
whether that emergency shall be terminated.
(c) (1) A concurrent resolution to terminate a national emetgency
declared by the President shaH be referred to the appropriate committee o t'he House of Representatives or the Senate, ns the case may
be. One such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days
after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee,
unless such House :;'Lull otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
(2) Any concUl'rent resolution so reported shall become the pend
ing business of the House in question (in the case o the Senate the
lime for debate shnlJ be equn.lly divided between the proponents and
the opponents) and shall be voted on within three calendar days after
the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall
otherwise determine by yens and nays.
(3) Such a concu l'l'ent resolution passed by one House shall be
referred to the appropriate committP,e of the other House and shall be
reported out by such committee together with its recommendations
w.itbin fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution -is
referred to such committee and shall thereupon become the pending
busiooss of such House and shall be voted upon within three calendar
days afte1 the day on .whiCh such resolution is reported, unless such
House shall otherwise determine by yeas and na.ys.
(4) In the case of any disagreement between the cwo Houses of
Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses,
conferees shall be promptly apP.ointed and the committee of conference
shall make and 1ile a report w1th respect to such concurrent resolution
within six calendar days after the day on which managers on the part
of the Senate and the House have been a;Ppointed. Notwithstanding
any rule in either House concerningthe pnnting of conference reports
or concerning any delay in the consideration of such re,Ports, such
report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than s1x calendar
days after the conference report is .filed in the House in which such
re,~>ort is filed first. In the event the conferees are unable to agree
wxthin forty-eight hours, they shall report back to their respective
Houses in disagreement.
APX - 287
PUBUC LAW 94-412- SEPT. 14, 1976
90 STAT. 1257
(5) Paragraphs (1)-(4) of this subsection, subsection (b) of this

section, and section 502 (b) of thls Act are enacted by CongressPos4 p. 1258.
(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such they a1-e
deemed a pa.rt of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in the
Houso in tho case of resolutions Clescribed by this subsection; and
they supersede other rules only to the extent tha:t they are inconsistent therewith; and
(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either
H<mse to cltange the rules (so far as relating to the procedure of
.that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same
extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.
(d) Any national emergency declared by the President in accord- Publication in
&nee with this title, and not otllerwise previously terminated, shall Federal Register,
terminate on the anniversary of the declaration of that emergency if, transmittal to
within the ninety-day period prior to eacil anniversary date, the Presi- Congress.
dent does not publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the
Congress a notice stating that such emergency is to continue in effect
after such anniversary.
TITLE TIT-EXERCISE OF EMERGENCY POWERS AND

AUTHORITIES
SEc. 301. When the President declares a national emergency, no 50 usc 1631.
powei"S or authorities made available by statute fo:r use in the event of
an emergency shalJ be exercised unless and until the President specifies
the provisions of law ttnder which he proposes that he, or other officers
will act. Such specification may be made either in .the declaration of a Executive orders;
nntional emergency, or by one or more cont.P.mporll.neou;; or snhsequent publication in
Register,
Executive orders published in the Federal Register and transmitted to Federal
tr8Jil!mittal to
the Congress.
Congress.
TITLE IV-ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING

REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRESIDENT
SEc. 401. (a) When the President dechues a national emergency, or Presidential
Congress declares war, the Ptesident shaJl be r('sponsible for maintain- orders, rules and
ing n file a.nd index of all significant orders of the President, including regulations, ile
maintenance.
E xecutive orders n.nd proclamations, and each Executive agency shall 50
usc 1641.
maintn.in a file and index of all rules and regulations, issued during
such emergency or war issued pmsuant to suCh declarations.
(b) All such significant orders of the President, including E.""{ecu- Presidential
tive orders, and such rules and regulations shall be transmitted to orders,
the Congress promptly under means to assure confidentiality where transmittal to
Congress.
ttppropnate.
(c) When the President declares a national emergency or Con~ Expenditures,
declares war, the President shall trliJlSJllit to Congress, within nmety reports to
days after the end of each six-month period after such declaration, a Congress.
report on tl1e total expenditures incurred by the United States Government during such six-month period which are directly attributable to
the exercise of powers and authorities conferred by such declaration.
Not later than ninety days after the termination of each such emergency or war, the President shall transmit a final report on all such
expenditures.
APX - 288
PUBUC LAW 94-412- SEPT. 14, 1976
90 STAT. 1258
TITLE V-REPEAL AND CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN

EMERGENCY POWER AND OTHER STATUTES
Loss of
nationality.
Leases, non
excess property.
Repeal.
SEc. 501. (a) Section 349 (a) o:f the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C.1481(a)) is amended(1) at the end of paragraph (9), by striking out "; or'' and
inserting in lieu thereof a. per1od; and
(2) by striking out paragraph (10).
(b) Section 2667(b) of title 10 of the United States Code is
amended(1) by inserting "and" at the end of paragraph (3);
(2) by sGriking out paragraph (4); and
(3) by redesigno.Ling pamgraph (5) as (4).
(c) The joint resolution entitled "Joint resolution to authorize the
~mpo1'nry
Repeal.
Repeal.
Repeal.
Savings
provision.
50
usc 1601
note.
contiltulltlon of regulation of consumer Cl'edit", n.pp1oved
August 8,1947 (12 U.S. C. 249), is I'epealed.

(d) Sectiml 5( m} of tbe Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933
as amended (16 U.S.C. 831d (m) is repealed.
(e) Section 1383 o title 18, tnited States Code, is repealed.
(:f) Section 6 of the Act entitled "An Act io amend the Public
Health Service Act in regard to certain mattei'S of personnel and
administration, and :for other puL'poses" t approved February 28 1 1948,
is amended by striking out subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), a1'td ( ) ( 42
u.s.c. 2llb).
(g) Sertion 9 of the Merchant Shlp Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C.
App. 1742) is repealed.
(h) This section shn.ll not aifect(1) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined at the hme of repeal;
(2) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior
to repeol; or
50 usc 1651.
(3) any rights or duties that matured o1 penalties that were

inem-red prior to repeal.
SEc. 502. (a) The provisions o this Act shall not apply to the following pxovisions of law, the powers and authorities conferred
thereby, and actions taken thereunder:
( 1) Section 5 (b) of the Act o October 6, 1917, as amended (12
ssa; 5o
App. 5 (b)) ;
(2) Act of April 28, 1042 (40 U.S.C. 278b) ;
(3) Actof Jtme30,194.9 (41 U.S.C.252);
( 4) Section 34/77 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C.
203);
(5) Section 3737 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (41
u.s.c. 15);
(6) Public Law 85-804 (Act of Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 972;
5o
aai-1435);
(7) Section 2301(a.) (1) of title 10, United States Code;
(8) Sections 3313, 6386(c), and 8313 of title 10, United States
Code.
u.s.a.
u.s.a.
u.s.a.
APX - 289
PUBLIC LAW 94-412-SEPT. 14, 1976
90 STAT. 1259
(b) Ea~h committee of the House of Representatives and the Senate Congressional
having jurisdictjon with respect to any provision o law referred to committees,
report to
in subsection (a) of-this section shall make a complete study and inves- study;
Congress.
tigation concernin~ that provision of law and make a report-, including
any recommendations and proposed revisions such. committee may
have, to its respective House of Congress within two hundred and
seventy days after the date of enactment of this A ct.
Approved September 14, 1976.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
HOUSE REPORT No. 94-238 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
SENATE REPORT No. 94-1168 (Comm. on Government Operations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
Vol. 121 (1975): Sept. 4, considered and passed House.
Vol. 122 (1976): Aug. 27, considered and passed Senate, amended.
Aug. 31, Bouse concurred in Senate amendm.ents.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS:

Vol. 12, No. 38 {1976): Sept. 14, Presidential statemen1.
APX - 290
PUBLIC LAW 95-223-DEC. 28, 1977
91 STAT. 1625
Public Law 95- 223

95th Congress
An Act
Wltb respect to tbe powers or the President in time of war or national emergency.
Dec. 28, 1977

(H.R. 7738]
Be it enacted by thr Senate ond Houae of Repruentatives of the

Wartime or
Unitrd States of Amerira in Oongrus aJJsemlJlecl,
natioru~l
TITLE
I-.DlEND~lEXTS
RtThlOVAL OJ,'
TO THE TRADING WITH THE

ENEMY ACT
NATIO~AL
emergencies.
Presidential
powers.
EMERGE.."fCY POWERS UNDER Tllll TRADING WlTH

THE Eli.'EMY ACT
SEc. 101. (a) ~C'ction 5(b) (1) of tl1e Trading With the Enemy Act
is amended Ly striking out. "or during any other pt>riod of national
emergency declared by the President" in the text prect>ding bUbparagraph (A).
(I)) Notwithstanding ll1e amendment made by subsection (a~, the
authorities confel'red upon the President by sectton 5 (b) of the Trading With the Enemy .Act, which were being exercised with respect
to a country on ,July 1, 1977, as a result of a nation1tl emergency
dcclarrd by the Pr<>sidcnt before such date, may continue to l>e exercised
with respect to such country, except that, unless extended, the exercise
of such authorities shall terminate (subject to the savings provisions of Lhe second scnt<'nce of section 101 (a) of the Na tiona) Emergencies Act) at the end of the two-year period beginning on the date
of enactment of the National Emergencies Act. The President may
extend the exercise of such author::ities for one-year periods upon a
determination for each such extension that the exercise of such
autl1oritics with respect to such country 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 the provisions of section lOl(a} and of title
II of the Nationn.l Emergencies .Act to the extent that the provisions
of subsection (b) of this section are inconsistent with those provisions.
(d) Para#!mph (1) of section 5Q-2(a) of the National Emergencies
.Act is repealed.
SO USC app. 5.
Termination or
extension,
effective date.
50 USC app. 5
note.
50 usc 1601.
50 usc 1601
note.
50
usc 1621.
Repeal.
50
usc 1651.
WARTIME AUTHOlUTJES
SEc. 102. Section 5(b) (1) of the Trading With the Enemy Act is Supra.
amcndetl(1) in the text preceding subparagraph (A), by striking out
"or otherwise," the .first time it appe&rs; and
(2) by striking out "; and the President may, in the manner
1H'renohove provtded, take other and further measures not inconsistent herewith for the enforcement of this 1mbdivision".
APX - 291
91 STAT. 1626
50 USC app. 16.
50 USC app. 5.
International
Emergency
Economic Powert
Act.
50 usc 1701
note.
PUBUC LAW 95-223-DEC. 28, 1977
SEc. 103. (a) Section 16 of the Trading With the Enemy Act is
amended by striking out "$10,000" and inserting in lieu thereof
"$50 000".
(b~ Section 5(b) (3) of such Act is amended by striking out the
second sentence.
TITLE IT- INTERNATIONAL ElfERGENCY ECONOMIC
POWERS
snoRT TITLE
SEC. 201. This title may be cited as the "International Emergency

Economic Powers Act".
SITUATIONS IN WIDCH AUTHORITIES MAY BE EXERCISED
Unusual and
extraordinary
threat,
Presidential
declaration of
national
emergency.
50
usc 1701.
SEc. 202. (a) Any authority t;r:anted to the President by section

203 may be exercised to deal w1th nny unusual and extraordinary
threat which has its source in whole or substantial pa1t outside the
United States, to the national security, foreign ~>Olicy, or economy of
the United States, if the President declares a natlonal emergency with
reSJ?ect to such threat.
(b) The authorities granted to the President by section 203 may
only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extrn,ordinary threat
with respect to wpj.ch a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this title and may not be exercised for any other purpose.
Al1y exercise of such authorities to deal with any new threat shall be
based on a new declaration of national emergency which must be with
respect to such threat.
GRA~'T
50 usc 1702.
OF AUTHORlTIES
SEc. 203. (a) (1) At the times and to the extent specified in section
202, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe,
by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise-
(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit(i) nny transactions in foreign exchange,

(h) transfers of credit or payments between, by, throun-h,
or to any banking institution, to the extent that sucl1 I ra~'S
or payments involve any interest of nny foreign country or
a national thereof,
(iii) the importing or exporting of currency or securities;
and
(B) investigate1 regulate, direct and compel, nnllify, void,
prevent or prohib1t1 any acquisition, holding. withholding, use,
transfer, withdrawal, transpot,tation, impo1tation or expottation
of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privile~c with
respect to, or transactions involvmg, any property in which any
foreign country or a national thereof has any interest;
by any person, or with respect to n.ny property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Records.
(2) In exercising the authorities granted by paragraph {1), the
maintenance and Pres1dent may require any person to keep a full record of, and to
availability.
furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, complete
information relative to any act or transaction referred to in paragraph
(1) either before, during, or after the completion thereof, or relative
APX - 292
PUBLIC LAW 95-223-DEC. 28, 1977
91 STAT. 1627
to any interest in :foreign property, or rela.ti'""e to any property in

which any foreign country o~ any national thereof has or bas _h~d any
interest, or as may be otherw1se necessary to enforce the prOVlSlons o:f
such pnngraph. In any case in which a report by a person could be
required under this paragraph, the President may require t he production of any books of account, records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or othet papers, in the custody or control of such person.
(3) Complianre with any re~ation, in~ruction, or direction i~meo Uability.
undt>r this title sl1all to the erlt>nt thereoi be a full acquittance and
discharge for all purpOSE's of the obli~ation of the person making the
same. No person shall be held liable m any cou1t for or with. respect
to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection 'vith the
administrntion of, or prn'Suant to and in reliance on, this titlc, or any
regulation, instruction, or direction issued under this title.
(b) The authority trr-anled to the President by this section does not
include the nuthority to regulate or prohibit. directly or indirt>ctly(1) any 'Postal, telegraphic, telt>phonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of
value; or
(2) donations, by persons subject to tl1e jurisdiction of the
United States, of ar6cles, snch as food, clothin{!, and medicine,
intended to be used to relieve human suffering, except to the extent
that tho President determines that such donations (A) would
seriously impair his ability to deal with any national emergency
declared tmder section 202 of this title, (D) arc in responoo to
roercion against. the proposed redpient or donor, or ( 0) would
endanger Armed Forces of the United States which are cngag<'d
in hostilities or are in a situation where imminent involrement in
hostilitit's is clearly indicated by the circumstances.
CONSULTATIOX Allo""O flEl'ORTS
Sec. 20.1. (a) The President, in every pO!'.'lible instance, shaH consult 50 USC 1703.
with the Congress before exercisi~ any of tl1e authorities grant<'d by
this title nnd shall consult regularly with the Congress so long ns such
authoritiPs are exerci!1ed.
(b) Whenever the President exercises any of the authorities granted
by t~i s. title, he shall immediately transJrut to the Congress a report.
speclfyma(1) the circumstances which necessitate such exercise o! nuthorit.y;
(2) why the President believes thooo circumstances constitute
an Wlusual and extraordinary threa.t, which has its source in
whole or substanti11l part outside the United States, to the
national security, foreign policy, or economy o:f the United
States;
(3) the authorities to be exercised and the Rctions to bo takcn
in the exercise of those authorities to deal with those citcumstanccs;
. ( 4) why t_he President believes such actions arc neceRsaty to deal
w1th those cr rcumstances; and
(5) any foreign countries with respect to which such actions atc
to be taken and why such actions are to be taken with respect to
those countries.
(c) At least once during each succeeding six-month period after
transmitting a report pursuant to subsection (b) with respect to an
exercise of authonties under this title, the President shall report to the
APX - 293
91 STAT. 1628
50
usc 1641.
PUBLIC LAW 95-223-DEC. 28, 1977
Congress with respect to the actions takent since the last such report,
in tlie exercise of such authorities, and WJth respect, to any chan~:,res
which have occurrPd concerning any information previously furnished
pursuant to paragraphs ( 1) through ( 5) of subsection (b).
(d) The requirements of this section are supplemental to those contained in title IV of theN ational Emergencies Act.
AUTJIORITY TO ISSUE REGULATIONS
50 usc 1704.
SEC. 205. The Pwudent may issue surh regulations, including regulations prescribing definitions, as may be necessary for the exercise of
the authorities granted by this title.
PENALTIES
50
usc 1705.
SEC. 206. (a) A civil penalty of not to exceeo $10,000 may be

imposed on any person who violates any license, order, or regulation
issued tmder this title.
(b) "Whoever willfully violates any licl'nse, orde1. or regulation
issut>d nnder this title shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than
$i'iO,OOO, or, if a natUl'a1 person, may be imprisoned for not more tha.n
ten years, or both; and !tn:V officer, director, or agent of any corporation
who kno,vingly participates in such violation may he ptmished by a
like fine, imprisonment, or both.
S.\VIXGS PROVISTON
50
50
usc 1706.
usc 1601
note.
50 usc 1622.
50 usc 1601.
SEo. 207. (a) (1) Except as provided in subsection (b) 1 notwithstanding the termmation pursuant to the National Emergencies Act
of a national emergency declared for pnrpof'CS of this title, any
authorities granted by this title, which are exercised on the date of
such termination on the basis of such national emergency to prohibit
transactions involving property in which R foreign country or na.tionaJ
thereof has any interest, may continue to be so exE'rCi"E'd to prohibit
transactions in'olving that property if the Ptesident determines that
the continuation of such prohibition with respect to that property is
necessa~ on account of claims involving snrh country or its nationals.
(2) N otwithstnnding the termination of the authoriti<'s described
in section 101 (b) of this A ct, any Euch authorities, which arc exercised
with respect to a. countr-y on the date of surh termination to prohibit
transactions imrolnng any property in which surh country or any
national thereo-f has any interest, may continue t.o be exercised to prohibit transactions involving that property if the President determines
that the continuution of such prohibition with respect to (hat property
is necesc;ary on accotmt of claims involving such country or its
nationals.
(b) The authorities described in subsection (a) (1) may not continue to be exerci~ed under this section j t.he n!ltional emergency is
terminntecl by the Congress by concurrent rr!'olution pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act. and j the Congr-ess specifies
in such concurrent resolution that such authorities may not continue
to be exercised under this section.
(c) (1) The provisions of this S('ction nrc supplcmento.l to the savin~s
provts1ons of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 101(a) and of
paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of sectiOn 202(a.) of the NationaJ
Emergencies Act.
APX - 294
PUBLIC LAW 95-223-DEC. 28, 1977
91 STAT. 1629
(2) The provisions o-f this section supersede the termination pl'ovisioms of section 101 (a) and of tille II of the Nationnl .Emergencies
Act to the extent that the provisions of this se<'lion aro inconsistent. 50 usc 1601,
1621.
with these provisions.
(d) If the President uses the authority of this section to continue Report to
prohibitions on transactions involving foreign property interests, he Congress.
shall report to lhe Congress every six months on the use of such
authority.
SEc. 208. If any provision of this Act is held invalid, the remainder Severability.
50 usc 1701
of the Act shall not be affected thereby.
note.
TITLE ill- AMENDMENTS TO THE EXPORT
.ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1969
AOTllORJTY T() REOCJ.ATE EXTRATERRITORIAL EXPORTS
~EC. 301. (a) T he first S<'ntence of section 4(b) (1) of the Export
A.dministn1f ion Act of 1969 is amended to read RS follows : "To
effectuate the policies set forth in section 3 of this Act, the President
may prohibit or curtail the exportation, except under such rules and
re~lations as he shall prescribe, of any a1ticles, matPrials, or supplies, including technical data or any other information, subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States or e~orted by any person subject to the jw'isdiction of the United States.' .
(b) (1) Section 4(b) (2) (B) of such Act is umended(A) in the first sentence, by striking out ":from the United
States, its territories and possessions,"; and
(B) in the second sentence-(i) by striking out " from the United States"; and
(il) by strik:irig out "produced in the United States" and
insertin~ in lieu thereof uwhich w<>uld be subject to such
controls'
(2) Section 6(c)(2)(A) of such Act is amended by striking out
" from the United States, its territories or possessions,".
Approved December 28, 1977.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
HOUSE REPORT No. 95-459 (Cornm. on International Relations).
SENATE REPORT No. 95-466 (Comm. on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 123 (1977):
July 12, considered and passed House.
Oct. U, considered and passed Senate, amended.
Nov. 30, House concurred in certain Senate amendments, in others with
amendments.
Dec. 7, Senate concurred in House amendments.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENlS, Vol. 13, No. 53:
Dec. 28, Presidential statement.
APX - 295
50 USC app.
2403.
50 USC app.
2402.
50 USC app.
2405.
AMENDMENTS TO THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY

ACT LIMIT PRESIDENTIAL POWER TO REGULATE
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC TRANSACTIONS
Maryland Journal of International Law

Volume 3 !Issue 2
Article II
Amendments to the Trading With the Enemy Act
APX - 296
Follow this and additional works at: http :/ /digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu / mj il
& Part of the lnten1ational Law Commons, and the International Trade Commons
Recommended Citation
Amendments to the 'lhlding With tl1e Enemy Act, 3 .Md.J. l nt'l L.413 ( 1978).
Available at: http:/ / digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/ mjil/ vol3/ iss2/ll
This Notes & Comments is brought to you for free and Op<!n ~ccess by DigitalCommons@lUM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Maryland journal of International Law by :m authorized administrator ofDigit;~.!Commons@JUM Carey Law. For more information, please contact
sn~~.:CJ.rtr@llai'Will.l.ryland.edu .
The Trading with the Enemy Act 1 was passed by Congress in

1917 as a wartime measure to regulate economic transactions with
enemy countries and their allies. Section 5(b) of the Act grants the
President unlimited powers to regulate economic transactions
during any declared period of national emergency. Congress
recently amended Section 5(b) of the TWEA to restrict the
authorized presidential powers/
The purpose of the TWEA was to "define, regulate and punish
trading with the enemy."a Section 5(b) of the original act gave the
President power to regulate or prohibit transactions in foreign
exchange and currency, and transfers of credit or property with
any foreign country or the resident of any foreign country during
war. This section has been amended four times. 5
In 1933 Section 5(b) was amended to provide that its
authorities could be used in time of a national emergency declared
by the President; 6 previously, the grants of power could be used
only during wartime. President Roosevelt cited the emergency
authority of 5(b) to declare a bank holiday during the depression. 7
The national emergency declared by Roosevelt is still in effect
today.
1. Trading With the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C. app. 1-39, 41-44 (1970)
[hereinafter cited as TWEA].
2. Amendments to the Trading with the Enamy Act, Pub. L. No. 95-223, 91
Stat. 1625 (1977). For legislative history see H.R. 7738, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., 123
CoNG. REc. H6868 (daily ed. July 12, 1977) (House version); H.R. 7738, 95th Cong.,
1st Sess., 123 CoNG. REo. Sl6912 (daily ed. Oct. 11, 1977), (Senate version). The
House concurred in the Senate amendment& with ita own amendments on Nov. 30,
1977, 123 CoNo. REc. Hl2558 (daily ed. Nov. 30, 1977). The Senate concurred in the
House amendment& with amendmente on Dec. 7, 1977, 123 CoNo. REc. 819439
(daily ed. Dec. 7, 1977).
3. Memorandum for the Special Committee on the Termination of the
National Emergency, Department of Justice, May 21, 1973. 120 CoNG. REc. 834016
(1974).
4. Trading With the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C. app. 5(b) (1970).
5. 40 Stat. 966 (1918); 48 Stat. 1 (1933); 54 Stat. 179 (1940); 55 Stat. 839 (1941).
6. 48 Stat. 1 (1933).
7. Exec. Proc. No. 2039, 48 Stat. 1691 (1933). This Proclamation declared that
a national emergency existed because of heavy withdrawals from banking
institutions.
(413)
414
THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE
LAw
JOURNAL
APX - 297
Three other national emergencies declared pursuant to 5(b)

are still in effect at the present time. In 1950, President Truman
declared the existence of a national emergency to aid in
furthering the Korean War.8 President Nixon declared a national
emergency during the postal strike in 1970.9 Another national
emergency was declared in 1971 to deal with the balance of
payments crisis. 1o Other than President Truman's declaration, the
three declared national emergencies illustrate the President's
expansion of the original wartime powers of 5(b) to include
regulation of economic transactions during peacetime. In 1968,
President Johnson imposed foreign direct investment controls on
U.S. investors.11 He based these regulations on the national
emergency declared by President Truman in 1950. In 1971,
President Nixon imposed a 10% surcharge on imports, based on
the national emergency declared to ease the balance of payments
crisis. 12 When the Export Administration Act expired, section 5(b)
of the TWEA was used as authority for the Export Administration
Regulations. 13
Four sets of regulations pursuant to section 5(b) are still in
force, all based on the national emergency declared by Truman
during the Korean War. The Foreign Assets Control Regulations 14
place a complete embargo on trade with North Korea, Cambodia
and Viet Nam in the absence of a license from the Treasury
Department. 15 A second set of regulations, entitled Regulations
Prohibiting Transactions Involving the Shipment of Certain
Merchandise Between Foreign Countries, 16 limits trading with
Communist countries unless the goods are shipped via certain
western countries,17 The Cuban Assets Control Regulations 18
withhold Cuban assets located in the U.S. and limit transactions
with Cuba. The Foreign Funds Control Regulations's block assets
8. Exec. Proc. No. 2914, 3 C.F.R. 99 (1950).

9. Exec. Proc. No. 3972, 3 C.F.R. 473 (1970).
10. Exec. Proc. No. 4074, 36 Fed. Reg. 15724 (1971).
11. Exec. Order No. 11387, 33 C.F.R. 47 (1969).
12. Exec. Proc. No. 4074, 36 Fed. Reg. 15724 (1971).
13. Exec. Order No. 11677, 37 Fed. Reg. 15483 (1972).
14. 31 C.F.R. 500.101-.809 (1976).
15. ld. 500.201.
16. ld. 505.01-.60.
17. Id. 505.31.
18. ld. 515.01-.809.
19. ld. 520.01- .809.
THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT
415
of countries pending settlement of claims by U.S. citizens for

compensation of property confiscated by the Communist govern
mente after World War II.
The power of the President to control economic transactions
pursuant to 5(b) has been upheld by the courts. In U.S. v. Yoshida:
International Inc., 20 an importer challenged the validity of
President Nixon's 10% import surcharge issued pursuant to the
declared emergency of the balance of payments crisis. Judge
Markey of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals held that
section 5(b) of the TWEA clearly delegated power to the President
to regulate imports during declared national emergencies, and
that the President acted properly by issuing the 10% surcharge.21
To partially delimit the President's broad powers in the area,
in 1976 Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act22 which
terminated any emergency in effect two years frqm the date of
enactment. New procedures were established for declaring future
national emergencies. However, section 5(b) of the TWEA was
specifically exempted from the provisions of the National
Emergencies Act to allow Congress to study proposed revisions of
5(b) which would not disrupt policies currently in effect.23
Public Law, 95-223, the new act amending section 5(b), is a
result of this study.2 4 Both House and Senate Reports on the act
note that Presidents have extensively used the authorities of 5(b)
to regulate economic transactions unrelated to war or national
emergency, 25 and that 5(b) had thus become an almost unlimited
grant of power to the President. The purpose of the new act is to
redefine and codify the President's authority to regulate interna
tional economic transactions in future times of war or national
emergency.26 The legislation "would separate war and non-wat
20. 526 F.2d 582 (C.C.P.A 1975).
21. Id. at 583.
22. 50 U .S .C .A. 1601-1851 (1977). For legislative history and purpose of the
act, see [1976) U.S. CODE CONG. & Ao. NEWS.
23. H.R. REP. No. 459, 95th Cong., let Sese. (1977).
24. SuscoMMITrEE oN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND CoMMERCE, CoMMlTI'EE
O.N INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 94TH CONG. 2D S;;ss., TRADING WITH THE ENEMY,
LEGISLATIVE AND ExECUTIVE DOCUMENTS CONCERNING REGULATION OF
INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS IN TIME OF DECLARED NATIONAL EMERGENCY.
(Comm. Print 1976).

25. H.R. REP. No. 459, 95th Cong., let Sese. 4 (1977), and S. REP. No. 466, 95th
Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1977).
26. H.R. REP. No. 459, 95th Cong., let Seas. 1 (1977); S . REP. No. 466, 95th
Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1977).
416
THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE
LAw
JouRNAL
APX - 298
authorities and procedures, preserving existing presidential

powers in time of war declared by Congress, and providing
somewhat narrower powers subject to Congressional review in
times of national emergency." 27 The act itself is divided into three
sections.
Title I removes national emergency powers from section 5(b)
of the TWEA. However, the artime powers of 5(b) remain intact.
The title includes a grandfather clause tied to existing regulations
to prevent their termination by the amendment. The act states
that the powers exercised under 5(b) before July 1, 1977 may
continue only for a two-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of the National Emergencies Act. The President can
then extend the authorities for one-year periods if he believes it is
in the national interest. 2 a Finally, the criminal penalties for
violation of the TWEA are increased from $10,000 to $50,000. 29
The last section of Title I states that a Presidential decision to
extend or terminate existing uses under 5(b) would not be subject
to provisions of the National Emergencies Act. 30 This section is
necessary because the National Emergencies Act states that it
governs unless specifically superseded by subsequent legislation. 31
The act's major significance lies within Title II, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This section provides
for Presidential regulation of economic transactions in times of
national emergencies. A national emergency is defined as an
"unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security,
foreigD policy or economy of the U.S. which has its source wholly
or partly outside the U .8."32 Any exercise of authority to deal with
a new threat must be based on a new declaration of national
emergency .33
27. H.R. REP. No. 469, 95th Cong., let Sese. 1 (1977).
28. Amendments to the Trading with the Enemy Act, Pub. L. No. 95-223,
101(b), 91 Stat. 1625 (1977) [hereinafter cited as the Act].
29. The House Report says that this increase brings fines of the TWEA into
conformity with those for violation of national security and foreign policy
pro.v isions of the Export Administration Act.
lOl(c), 91 Stat. 1625 (1977).
31. National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C.A. 1601-1651 (1977), says "no law
enacted after September 14, 1976 shall supersede this subchapter unless it does so
in specific terms, referring to this subchapter and declaring that the new law
supersedes the provisions of this subchapter."
202, 91 Stat. 1625 (1977).
33. !d. 202(b).
THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AcT
417
The grant of authorities under the International Emergency

Economic Powers Act is similar to the grant under 5(b) of the
TWEA. Under the new section, the President may investigate,
regulate or prohibit transactions in foreign exchange, banking
transactions, importing and exporting of currency or securities
and regulate or freeze any property in which any foreign country
or national thereof has any interest. 34 This section of the act also
has a provision similar to that of 5(b) which allows the President
to require that records be kept of these transactions. 35
Title II does not include the powers to.l) ves foreign property;
2) regulate gold or silver coin or bullion; 3) seize records; or 4)
regulate domestic transactions which were included in the
President's national emergency powers in 5(b).36 The Interna
tiona! Emergency Economic Powers Act specifically limits the
President's power during a national emergency. The President
would be restricted from "regulating or prohibiting directly or
indirectly personal communications not involving transfers of
value." 37
The final version excludes Presidential authority over
"donations of articles, such as food, clothing and medicine
intended to be used to relieve human suffering." 38 The Act
prohibits monetary contributions because "the person making the
contributions has no control over the end use of his funds." 39
However, the Act provides that the President may regulate or
34. !d. 203(a)(l).

35. ld. 203(a)(2).
36. H.R. REP. No. 459, 95th Cong., 1st Seas. 15 (1977); S. Rep. No. 466, 95th
Cong., 1st Sese. 5 (1977).
203(b)(1), 91 Stat. 1625 (1977).
38. The House version of the bill would have only excluded from the
President's authority "uncompensated transfers of anything of value." H.R. 7738,
95th Cong., 1st Seas., 203(b)2,123 CoNG. REc. H6868 (daily ed. July 12, 1977). The
House concurred in the Senate version with its own amendments, 123 CONG. REc.
Hl2558 (daily ed. Nov. 30, 1977). The Senate version originally read, "donations of
articles, including food, clothing, and medicine intended to be used solely to relieve
human suffering." H.R. 7738, 95th Cong., let Seas., 203(b)2, 123 CoNo. REc.
816912 (daily ed. Oct. 11, 1977). The House amendments deleted "including",
substituted "such as" and deleted "solely." "Such as" was substituted so that the
listed items would only be illustrative of the donations covered by the exemption.
"Solely" was deleted since items of a humanitarian character would have some
economic benefit in addition to relieving human suffering. 123 CoNG. REc. H12558
(daily ed. Nov. 30, 1977).
39. S. REP. No. 466, .5th Cong., 1st Sese. 5 (1977).
418
419
APX - 299
THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW JOURNAL
THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AcT
prohibit these items if he determines that otherwise his authority

to deal with the emergency would be seriously impaired, if they
are in response to coercion, or if they would endanger U.S. armed
forces. 40
Title II also requires that the President consult with Congress
before exercising authority granted under the Act unless prompt
action is required in an emergency. 41 The Act calls for a report to
be submitted to Congress which specifies 1) the circumstances
which necessitate the authority, 2) why these circumstances
constitute an emergency, 3) the action to be taken, 4) why this
action is necessary, and 5) which foreign countries are involved.
The President must then report to Congress at six month intervals
any changes which have occurred and what action has been
taken. 42
Title II of the House bill had a provision for Congressional
veto of any regulation issued pursuant to the Act. 48 The Senate
Committee44 completely deleted this provision from their version.
The Committee felt that the provision would violate constitutional
principles of separation ofpowers. 45 The House version stated that
if Congress adopts a concurrent resolution disapproving a
regulation, then such regulation shall cease to be effective. 46 The
House Committee thought that this provision was necessary in
view of past instances where Presidents have used the authority
to expand the scope of 5(b). 47 The House finally agreed to the
Senate amendment because Congress already had authority under

the National Emergencies Act to overrule or veto the President's
declaration of emergency.
The Act has a savings provision similar to that of the
National Emergencies Act.9 It provides that the President may
continue to block any assets of a foreign country if he determines
that this is necessary because of U.S. claims against the country
involved. 50 This provision, however, cannot save the regulation if
Congress terminates the national emergency under the National
Emergencies Act. 51 The Act also contains a section stating that if
any provision of it is held invalid, the remainder shall not be
affected. 52
Title III of the Act contains amendments to the Export
Administration Act. The amendments confer authority to the act
to control non-U.S. origin exports by foreign subsidiaries of U.S.
concerns. Section 5(b) of the TWEA had previously been cited as
the authority for this act. Now, the non-wartime powers of this
Act have been removed from the authority of 5(b). The final
version of the Act was basically the Senate version with several
minor technical corrections.
The effect of the new legislation will be to take away the
broad Presidential power to regulate international economic
transactions during peacetime by using 5(b) of the TWEA. The
wartime provisions of the TWEA remain the same. The new Act
gives the President specific procedures and guidelines to follow in
exercising the act's powers when a national emergency is
declared. The President is subject to Congressional review.
203, 91 Stat. 1625 (1977).
41. Id. 204(a), states that Congress should be consulted "in every possible
instance." The House Committee Report says, "[n]othing in this section shall be
construed as requiring submission of a report as a precondition of taking action
where circumstances require prompt action prior to or simultaneouely with
submission of a report."
204(b), 91 Stat. 1625 (1977).
43. Id. 206.
44. The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs has control
over International banking.
45. Amending the Trading with the Enemy Act, H.R. 7738. Hearings before
the Senate Subcommittee on International Finance of the Committee on Banking,
Housing & Urban Affairs, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1977) (statement of C. Fred
Bergsten, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs).
206(b)(1), 91 Stat. 1625 (1977).
47. H. REP. No. 459, 95th Cong., 1st Seas. 16 (1977). The report cites as an
eample when President Roosevelt ordered the Federal Reserve Board to impose
consumer credit controls in 1941, the authority of 5(b) to regulate transactions

involving banking institutions was found to extend to a "vendor of consumer
durable goode."
48. 123 CoNo. REc. S12558 (daily ed. Nov. 30, 1977).
49. 50 U.S.C.A. 1601(a) (1977) of the National Energencies Act excludes from
termination 1) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or
determined on such date; 2) any action or proceeding based on any act committed
prior to such date; or 3) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were
incurred prior to such date.
50. Amendments to the Trading with the Enemy Act, Pub. L No. 95-223,
207, 91 Stat. 1625 (1977). The House Committee Report states that holding the
asset of a foreign country is generally the most effective means of achieving
settlement of U.S. claims.
51. 50 U.S.C.A. 1622(a)(1) (1977) of the National Emergencies Act provides
that the national emergency shall terminate if Congress terminates the emergency
by concurrent resolution.
52. This would save the whole bill from being declared invalid.
Order Code 98-505 GOV
420
THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAw JOURNAL
APX - 300
In 1976, the National Emergencies Act ended the national

emergencies still in effect with the exception of those declared
pursuant to 5(b). The International Emergency Economic Powers
Act will provide guidelines and authorities for future emergencies.
The Act has specific limitations to prevent abuses by the
President. It restricts the President's power to invoke foreign
economic controls for national emergency reasons.
It must be emphasized that because of the savings provision
in the Act, 53 existing regulations will be excluded from the control
of the Act. The Foreign Assets Control Regulations, Regulations
Prohibiting Transactions Involving the Shipment of Certain
Merchandise Between Foreign Countries, the Cuban Assets
Control Regulation and the Foreign Funds Control Regulations
will not be affected by this Act. These regulations have been
criticized because they control trade of many foreign countries by
regulating the U.S. multinational corporations within those
countries.s Many of the foreign host countries have policies
which permit trade with countries with which trade is prohibited
by U.S. regulations. Thus, the multinational subsidiary cannot
trade with the prohibited countries or they risk violating the U.S.
regulations. These regulations will only terminate if the President
fails to extend them each year.ss
The Act was approved by the President on December 28,
1977.56
Rita Mannheimer
CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web
National Emergency Powers
Updated September 18, 2001
Harold C. Relyea
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
207, 91 Stat. 1625 (1977).
54. Sawyier, Encourag ing Foreign Inuestments in the U.S. by Limiting the
President's Emergency Authority under the Trading with the Enemy Act, 27
MERCER L. REV. 68 (1976); Skol and Peterson, Export Control Laws and
Multinational Enterprises, 11 lNT'L LAw 29 (1977); The Trading with the Enemy
Act of 1917 and Foreign Based Subsidiaries of American Multinatwnal Corpora
tions: A Time to Abstain from Restraining. 11 SAN DIEGO L. REv. 206 (1973).
207, 91 Stat. 1625 (1977).
56. 123 CoNa. REc. 819439 (daily ed. Dec. 7, 1977); 123 CoNG. REc . H12558
(daily ed. Nov. 30, 1977).
Congressional Research Service :0 The Library of Congress

Contents
Summary
The President of the United States has available certain powers that may be
exercised in the event that the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency
circumstances (other than natural disasters, war, or ncar-war situations). Such
powers may be stated explicitly or implied by the Constitution, assumed by the Chief
Executive to be permissible constitutionally, or inferred from or specified by statute.
Through legislation, Congress has made a great many delegations of authority in this
regard over the past 200 years.
APX - 301
There are, however, limits and restraints upon the President in his exercise of
emergency powers. With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution
makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national
emergency. Disputes over the constitutionality or legality of the exercise of
emergency powers are judicially reviewable. Indeed, both the judiciary and Congress,
as co-equal branches, can restrain the executive regarding emergency powers. So can
public opinion. Furthermore, since 1976, the President has been subject to certain
procedural formalities in utilizing some statutorily delegated emergency authority.
The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) eliminated or modified some
statutory grants ofemergency authority, required the President to declare formally the
existence of a national emergency and to specify what statutory authority, activated
by the declaration, would be used, and provided Congress a means to countennand
the President's declaration and the activated authority being sought. The
development of this regulatory statute and subsequent declarations of national
emergency arc reviewed in this report, which is updated as events require.
Background and History . . . . . . . . . .

The Emergency Concept . . . . . . . . . .
Law and Practice ................
Congressional Concerns . . . . . . . . . . .
The National Emergencies Act . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . ... .......... .. ...
. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
National Emergency Powers: A Selected Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Books ........ ... ... . .. . ........ . ................. . . . . ...
Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
I
4
5
8
10
18
19
19
19
20
List of Tables
Table I. Declared National Emergencies, 1976-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
CRS-2
Emergency powers were first expressed prior to the actual fotmding of the
Republic. Between 177 5 and 1781, the Continental Congress passed a series of acts
and resolves which count as the first expressions of emergency authority. 2 These
instruments dealt almost exclusively with the prosecution of the Revolutionary War.
APX - 302
Federal law provides a variety of powers for the President to use in response to
crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances threatening the nation. Moreover, they
are not limited to milita.Iy or war situations. Some of these authorities, deriving fiom
the Constitution or statutory law, are continuously available to the President with little
or no qualification. Others--statutory delegations from Congress-exist on a standby basis and remain dormant until the President fonnally declares a national
emergency. These delegations or grants of power authorize the President to meet the
problems of governing effectively in times of crisis. Under the powers delegated by
such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of
production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law,
seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of
private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives ofUnited
States citizens. Furthennore, Congress may modify, rescind, or render donnant such
delegated emergency authority.
Until the crisis of World War l, Presidents utilized emergency powers at their
own discretion. Proclamations announced the exercise of exigency authority.
However, during World War I and thereafter, Chief Executives had available to them
a growing body of standby emergency authority which became operative upon the
issuance of a proclamation declaring a condition of national emergency. Sometimes
such proclamations confined the matter of crisis to a specific policy sphere, and
sometimes they placed no limitation whatsoever on the pronouncement. These
activations of stand-by emergency authority remained acceptable practice Wltil the era
of the Vietnam war. In 1976, Congress curtailed this practice with the passage of the
National Emergencies Act.
Background and History

The exercise of emergency powers had long been a concern of the classical
political theorists, including the eighteenth-century English philosopher John Locke,
who had a strong influence upon the Founding Fathers in the United States. A
preeminent exponent of a government of laws and not of men, Locke argued that
occasions may arise when the executive must exert a broad discretion in meeting
special exigencies or "emergencies" for which the legislative power provided no relief
or existing law granted no necessary remedy. He did not regard this prerogative as
limited to wartime, or even to situations of great urgency. It was sufficient if the
"public good" might be advanced by its exercise.'
Thomas I. Cook, ed., 1\vo Treatises of Government, by John Locke (New York: Hafner,
1947), pp. 203-207; Edward S. Corwin, The President: Office and Powe1~. 1787-1957,
fourth revised edition (New York: New York University Press, 1957), pp. 147-148.
At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, emergency powers, as such, failed to

attract much attention during the course of debate over the charter for the new
government. It may be argued, however, that the granting of emergency powers by
Congress is implicit in its Article l, section 8 authority to "provide for the common
Defense and general Welfare," the commerce clause, its war, anned forces, and militia
powers, and the "necessary and proper" clause empowering it to make such laws as
are required to fulfill the executions of "the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers
vested by this Constitution in the Govenunent of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof."
There is a tradition of constitutional interpretation that has resulted in so-called
implied powers, which may be invoked in order to respond to an emergency situation.
Locke seems to have anticipated this practice. Furthermore, Presidents have
occasionally taken an emergency action which they assumed to be constitutionally
pennissible. Thus, in the American governmental experience, the exercise of
emergency powers has been somewhat dependent upon the Chief Executive's view
of the presidential office.
Perhaps the President who most clearly articulated a view of his office in
confonnity with the Lockean position was Theodore Roosevelt. Describing what
came to be called the "stewardship" theory of the presidency, Roosevelt wrote of his
"insistence upon the theory that the executive power was limited only by specific
restrictions and prohibitions appearing in the Constitution or imposed by the Congress
Wlder its constitutional powers." lt was his view "that every executive officer, and
above all every executive officer in high position, was a steward of the people," and
he "declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively necessary for the Nation
could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization
to do it." Indeed, it was Roosevelt's belief that, for the President, "it was not only his
right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such
action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws."'
Opposed to this view of the presidency was Roosevelt's fonner Secretary of
War, personal choice for, and actual successor as Chief Executive, William Howard
Taft. He viewed the presidential office in more limited terms, writing "that the
President can exercise no power which cannot be fairly and reasonably traced to some
specific grant of power or justly implied and included within such express grant as
proper and necessary to its exercise." In his view, such a "specific grant must be
See J. Reuben Clark, Jr., comp., Emergency Legislation Passed Prior to December 1917
Dealing with the Control and Taking of Private Property for the Public Use, Benefit, or
Welfare, Presidential Proclamations and Executive Orders Thereunder, to and Including
January 31, 1918, 10 Which Is Added a Reprint of Analogous Legislation Since 1775
(Washington: GPO, 1918), pp. 201-228.
3
Theodore Roosevel~ An Autobiography (New York: Macmillan, 1913), pp. 388-389.
CRS-3
CRS-4
either in the Federal Constitution or in an act of Congress passed in pursuance

thereof. There is," Taft concluded, "no undefined residuum of power which he can
exercise because it seems to him to be in the public interest .... '
their activation and application were established a while ago by the National
Emergencies Act of 1976?
The Emergency Concept

Between these two views of the presidency lie various gradations of opinion,
resulting in perhaps as many conceptions of the office as there have been holders.
One authority has summed up the situation in the following words:
Emergency powers are not solely derived from legal sources. The extent of their
invocation and use is also contingent upon the personal conception which the
incumbent of the Presidential office has of the Presidency and the premises upon
which he interprets his legal powers. In the last analysis, the authority of a
President is largely detennined by the President himself-'
APX - 303
Finally, apart from the Constitution, but resulting from its prescribed procedures,
there are statutory grants of power for emergency conditions. The President is
authorized by Congress to take some special or extraordinary action, ostensibly to
meet the problems of governing effectively in times of exigency. Sometimes these
laws are only of temporary duration. The Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, for
example, allowed the President to impose certain wage and price controls for about
three years before it expired automatically in 1974. 6 The statute gave the President
emergency authority to address a crisis in the nation's economy.
Of course, many of these laws are continuously maintained or pennanently
available for the President's ready use in responding to an emergency. The Defense
Production Act, originally adopted in 1950 to prioritize and regulate the manufacture
of military material, is exemplary of this type of statute. 7
Lastly, there are various stand-by laws which convey special emergency powers
once the President fonnally declares a national emergency activating them. In 1973,
a Senate special committee studying emergency powers published a compilation
identifying some 470 provisions of federal law delegating to the executive
extraordinary authority in time of national emergency. The vast majority of them are
of the stand-by kind-donnant until activated by the President. However, formal
procedures for invoking these authorities, accounting for their use, and regulating
Relying upon constitutional authority or congressional delegations made at

various times over the past 200 years, the President ofthe United States may exercise
certain powers in the event that the continued existence of the nation is threatened by
crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances. What is a national emergency?
In the simplest understanding of the tenn, the dictionary defines an emergency
as "an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for
immediate action." 10 In the midst of the crisis of the Great Depression, a 1934
Supreme Court majority opinion characterized an emergency in tenns of urgency and
relative infrequency of occurrence as well as equivalence to a public calamity resulting
from fire, flood, or like disaster not reasonably subject to anticipation. 11 An eminent
constitutional scholar, the late EdwardS. Corwin, explained emergency conditions
as being those "which have not attained enough of stability or recurrency to admit of
their being dealt with according to rule. " 12 During congressional committee hearings
on emergency powers in 1973, a political scientist described an emergency in the
following tenus: "It denotes the existence of conditions of varying nature, intensity
and duration, which are perceived to threaten life or well-being beyond tolerable
Iimits."n Corwin also indicated it "connotes the existence of conditions suddenly
intensifying the degree of existing danger to life or well-being beyond that which is
accepted as nonnal." 14
There are perhaps at least four aspects of an emergency condition. The first is
its temporal character: an emergency is sudden, unforeseen, and ofunknown duration.
The second is its potential gravity: an emergency is dangerous and threatening to life
and well-being. The third, in tem1s of governmental role and authority, is the matter
of perception: who discerns this phenomenon? The Constitution may be guiding on
this question, but not always conclusive. Fourth, there is the element of response: by
definition, an emergency requires immediate action, but is, as well, unanticipated and,
therefore, as Corwin notes, cannot always be "dealt with according to rule." From
William Howard Taft, Our Chief Magistrate and His Powers (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1916), pp. 139-140; for a direct response to Theodore Roosevelt' s
expression of presidential power, see William Howard Taft, The Presidency (New York,
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1916), pp. 125-130.
' 90 Stat. 1255; 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651.

10
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: G & C Merriam, 1974), p. 372.
11
Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 440 (1934).
12
EdwardS. CoiWin, The President: Office and Powers, 1787-1957, p. 3.
Albert L. Stunn, "Emergencies and the Presidency," Journal ofPolitics , vol. II , Feb. 1949,
pp. 125-126.
6
7
See 84 Stat. 799-800, 1468; 85 Stat. 13, 38, 743-755; and 87 Stat. 27-29.
See 64 Stat. 798; 50 U.S. C. App. 2061
et
seq. (1994).
U.S. Congress, Senate Special Cmmnittee on the Termination of the National Emergency,
Emergency Powers Stahttes, 93'' Cong., I" sess., S.Rept. 93-549 (Washington: GPO, 1973).
13
U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on the Tennination ofthe National Emergency,
National Emergency, hearings, 93"' Cong., I" sess., Apr. 11-12,1973 (Washington: GPO,
1973), p. 277.
14
Ibid., p. 279.
CRS-5
CRS-6
these simple factors arise the dynamics of national emergency powers." These
dynamics can be seen in the history of the exercise of emergency powers.
issued a proclamation establishing a blockade on the ports of the secessionist states, 19

"a measure hitherto regarded as contrary to both the Constitution and the law of
nations except when the govemment was embroiled in a declared, foreign war."20
Congress, of course, had not been given an opportunity to consider a declaration of
Law and Practice
war.
During the summer ofl792, residents ofwestern Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the
Carolinas began forcefully opposing the collection of a federal excise tax on whiskey.
Anticipating rebellious activity, Congress enacted legislation providing for the calling
forth of the militia to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. 16 Section 3 of this
statute required that a presidential proclamation be issued to warn insurgents to cease
their activity. 17 If hostilities persisted, the militia could be dispatched. On August 17,
1794, President Washington issued such a proclamation. The insurgency continued.
The President then took command ofthe forces organized to put down the rebellion. 18
APX - 304
Here was the beginning of a pattern of policy expression and implementation

regarding emergency powers. Congress legislated extraordinary or special authority
for discretionary use by the President in a time of emergency. In issuing a
proclamation, the Chief Executive notified Congress that he was making use of this
power and also apprised other affected parties of his emergency action.
Over the next I00 years, Congress enacted various pennanent and standby laws
for responding largely to military, economic, and labor emergencies. During this span
of years, however, the exercise of emergency powers by President Abraham Lincoln
brought the first great dispute over the authority and discretion of the ChiefExecutive
to engage in emergency actions.
By the time ofLincoln's inauguration (March 4, 1861), seven states of the lower
South had announced their secession from the Union; the Confederate provisional
govemment had been established (February 4, 1861); Jefferson Davis had been
elected (February 9, 1861) and installed as president of the confederacy (February 18,
1861); and an annywas being mobilized by the secessionists. Lincoln had a little over
two months to consider his course of action.
When the new President asswned office, Congress was not in session. For
reasons of his own, Lincoln delayed calling a special meeting of the legislature, but
soon ventured into its constitutionally designated policy sphere. On April 19, he
The next day, the President ordered the addition of 19 vessels to the navy "for
purposes of public defense."21 A short time later, the blockade was extended to the
ports of Virginia and North Carolina."
By a proclamation of May 3, Lincoln ordered that the regular anny be enlarged
by 22,714 men, that navy personnel be increased by 18,000, and that 42,032
volunteers be accommodated for three-year tenns of service. 23 Such a directive, of
course, antagonized many Representatives and Senators, because Congress is
specifically authorized by Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution "to raise and
support armies."
In his July message to the newly assembled Congress, Lincoln suggested that,
while his actions with regard to the expansion of the am1ed forces might be legally
suspect, "[t]hese measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under
what appeared to be a popular and a public necessity, trusting then, as now, that
Congress would readily ratifY them. It is believed," he wrote, "that nothing has been
done beyond the constitutional competency of Congress."24
Indeed, Congress subsequently did legislatively authorize, and thereby approve,
the President's actions regarding his increasing armed forces personnel, and would do
the same later conceming some other questionable emergency actions. In the case of
Lincoln, the opinion of scholars and experts is "that neither Congress nor the Supreme
Court exercised any effective restraint upon the President."" The emergency actions
of the Chief Executive were either unchallenged or approved by Congress, and were
either accepted or, because of almost no opportunity to render judgment, went largely
without notice by the Supreme Court. The President made a quick response to the
emergency at hand, a response which Congress or the courts might have rejected in
19
Ibid., vol. 7, pp. 3215-3216.
Clinton L. Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World,
1963), p. 225.
1
'
While some might argue that the concept of emergency powers can be extended to embrace
21
Ibid.
22
See James D. Richardson, comp., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the
authority exercised in response to circumstances of natural disaster, this dimension is not
within the scope of this report. Various federal response arrangements and programs for
dealing with natural disasters have been established and administered with no potential or
actual disruption of constitutional arrangements. With regard to Cotwin's characterization
of emergency conditions, these long-standing arrangements and programs &'Uggest that natural
disasters do "admit of their being dealt with according to rule."
16
1 Stat. 264-265.
17
This authority may presently be found at 10 U.S.C. 334.
18
See James D. Richardson, ed., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the
Presidents, vol.l (New York: Bureau ofNational Literature, 1897), pp. 149-154.
Presidents, vol. 7, p. 3216.

23
Ibid., pp. 3216-3217.
24
Ibid., p. 3225.
" James G. Randall, Constih1tional Problems Under Lincoln (Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois Press, 1951 ); also see Wilfred E. Binkley, President and Congress (New York: Alfred
A Knopf, 1947), pp. 124-127; Clinton L. Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship, pp. 233234; and Woodrow Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1907), p. 58.
CRS-7
CRS-8
law, but which, nonetheless, had been made in fact and with some degree of popular
approval. Similar controversy would arise concerning the emergency actions of
Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both men exercised
extensive emergency powers with regard to world hostilities, and Roosevelt also used
emergency authority to deal with the Great Depression. Their emergency actions,
however, were largely supported by statutory delegations and a high degree of
approval on the part of both Congress and the public.
proclamation was largely to apprise the American people of the worsening conflict in
Europe and growing tensions in Asia.
Furthermore, during the Wilson and Roosevelt presidencies, a major procedural

development occurred in the exercise of emergency powers- use of a proclamation
to declare a national emergency and thereby activate all stand-by statutory provisions
delegating authority to the President during a national emergency. The first such
national emergency proclamation was issued by President Wilson on February 5,
1917. 26 Promulgated on the authority of a statute establishing the United States
Shipping Board, the proclamation concerned water transportation policy." It was
statutorily terminated, along with a variety of other wartime measures, on March 3,
1921."
APX - 305
President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the next national emergency proclamation

some 48 hours after assuming office. 29 Proclaimed March 6, 1933, on the somewhat
questionable authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act ofl917 ,'0 the proclamation
declared a so-called "bank holiday" and halted a major class of financial transactions
by closing the banks. Congress subsequently gave specific statutory support for the
Chief Executive's action with the passage of the Emergency Banking Act on March
9. 31 Upon signing this legislation into Jaw, the President issued a second banking
proclamation, based upon the authority of the new law, continuing the bank holiday
until it was determined that banking institutions were capable of conducting business
in accordance with new banking policy3 2
Next, on September 8, 1939, President Roosevelt promulgated a proclamation
of"limited" national emergency, though the qualifYing term had no meaningful legal
significance." Ahnost two years later, on May 27, 1941, he issued a proclamation of
"unlimited" national emergency." This action, however, actually did not make any
important new powers available to the ChiefExecutive in addition to those activated
by the 1939 proclamation. The President's purpose in making the second
These two war-related proclamations of a general condition of national

emergency remained operative until 1947, when certain of the provisions oflaw they
had activated were statutorily rescinded.35 Then, in 1951, Congress terminated the
declaration of war against Germany. 36 In the spring of the following year, the Senate
ratified the treaty of peace with Japan. Because these actions marked the end of
World War II for the United States, legislation was required to keep certain
emergency provisions in effect. Initially, the Emergency Powers Interim Continuation
Act temporarily maintained this emergency authority. 37 It was subsequently
supplanted by the Emergency Powers Continuation Act, which kept selected
emergency delegations in force until August 1953.38 By proclamation in Aprill952,
President Harry S. Truman tenninated the 1939 and 1941 national emergency
declarations, leaving operative only those emergency authorities continued by
statutory specification. 39
President Truman's 1952 tem1ination, however, specifically exempted a
December 1950 proclamation of national emergency he had issued in response to
hostilities in Korea. 4 Furthermore, this condition of national emergency would
remain in force and unimpaired well into the era of the Vietnam war.
Two other proclamations of national emergency also would be promulgated

before Congress once again turned its attention to these matters. Faced with a postal
strike, President Richard M. Nixon declared a national emergency in March 1970, 41
thereby gaining permission to use units of the Ready Reserve to assist in moving the
mail." A second national emergency was proclaimed by President Nixon in August
1971 to control the balance of payments flow by terminating temporarily certain trade
agreement provisos and imposing supplemental duties on some imported goods. 43
Congressional Concerns
In the years following the conclusion ofU.S. anned forces involvement in active
military conflict in Korea, occasional expressions of concern were heard in Congress
regarding the continued existence of President Truman's 1950 national emergency
proclamation long after the conditions prompting its issuance had disappeared. There
26
39 Stat. 1814.
35
61 Stat. 449.
27
39 Stat. 728.
36
65 Stat. 451.
28
41 Stat. 1359.
37
66 Stat. 54; extended at 66 Stat. 96, 137, and 296.
29
48 Stat. 1689.
38
66 Stat. 330; extended at 67 Stat. 18 and 131.
30
40 Stat. 411.
39
66 Stat. c31.
31
48 Stat. l.
40
64 Stat. A454.
32
48 Stat. 1691.
41
84 Stat. 2222.
33
54 Stat. 2643.
42
See 10 U.S. C. 673 (1970).
34
55 Stat. 1647.
43
85 Stat. 926.
CRS-9
CRS-10
was some annoyance that the President was retaining extraordinary powers intended
only for a time of genuine emergency, and a feeling that the Chief Executive was
thwarting the legislative intent of Congress by continuously failing to tenninate the
declared national emergency. 44
The special conunittee produced various studies during its existence. 47 After
scrutinizing the United States Code and uncodified statutory emergency powers, the
panel identified 470 provisions of federal law which delegated extraordinary authority
to the executive in time of national emergency. No tall of them required a declaration
of national emergency to be operative, but they were, nevertheless, extraordinary
grants. The special committee also found that no process existed for automatically
terminating the four outstanding national emergency proclamations. Thus, the panel
began developing legislation containing a fonnula for regulating emergency
declarations in the future and otherwise adjusting the body of statutorily delegated
emergency powers by abolishing some provisions, relegating others to pennanent
status, and continuing others in a standby capacity. In addition, the panel also began
preparing a report offering its findings and recommendations regarding the state of
national emergency powers in the nation.
Growing public and congressional displeasure with the President's exercise of

his war powers and deepening U.S. involvement in hostilities in Vietnam prompted
interest in a variety of related matters. For Senator Charles Mathias, interest in the
question of emergency powers developed out ofU .S. involvement in Vietnam and the
incursion into Cambodia. Together with Senator Frank Church, he sought to establish
a Senate special committee to study the implications of tetminating the 1950
proclamation of national emergency that was being used to prosecute the Vietnam
war, "to consider problems which might arise as the result of the termination and to
consider what administrative or legislative actions might be necessary." Such a panel
was initially chartered by S.Res. 304 as the Special Committee on the Tennination of
the National Emergency in June of 1972, but did not begin operations before the end
of the year. 45
APX - 306
With the convening of the 93'' Congress in 1973, the special committee was
approved again with S.Res. 9. Upon exploring the subject matter of national
emergency powers, however, the mission of the special committee became more
burdensome. There was not just one proclamation of national emergency in effect,
but four such instruments, issued in 1933, 1950, 1970, and 1971. The United States
was ina condition of national emergency four times over, and with each proclamation,
the whole collection of statutorily delegated emergency powers was activated.
Consequently, in 1974, with S.Res. 242, the study panel was rechartered as the
Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers to
reflect its focus upon matters larger than the 1950 emergency proclamation. Its final
mandate was provided by S .Res. I 0 in the 94'' Congress, although its tennination date
was necessarily extended briefly in 1976 by S.Res. 370. Senator Church and Senator
Mathias co-chaired the panel. 46
The National Emergencies Act

The special committee, in July 1974, unanimously recommended legislation
establishing a procedure for the presidential declaration and congressional regulation
of a national emergency. The proposal also modified various statutorily delegated
emergency powers. In arriving at this reform measure, the panel consulted with
various executive branch agencies regarding the significance of existing emergency
statutes, recommendations for legislative action, and views as to the repeal of some
provisions of emergency law.
This recommended legislation was introduced by Senator Church for himselfand
others on August 22, 1974, and became S. 3957. It was reported from the Senate
Committee on Government Operations on September 30 without public hearings or
47
See U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated
Emergency Powers, A Brief History of Emergency Powers in the United States, cotmnittee
print, 93" Cong., 2"' sess. (Washington: GPO, 1974); U.S. Congress, Senate Special
Conunittee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, A Recommended
National Emergencies Act, 93''Cong. , 2"' sess., S.Rept. 93-1170 (Washington: GPO, 1974);
U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency
Powers, Executive Orders in Times of War and National Emergency, committee print, 93rd
44
The historical record suggests that, prior to 1973, when congressional research revealed
their existence, other outstanding proclaimed national emergencies were not apparent tot or
much discussed by, Members of Congress.

45
U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, National Emergencies Act, hearings,
94"' Cong., I" sess., Mar. 6, 13, 19, and Apr. 9, 1975 (Washington: GPO, 1975), p. 20.
46
Other members of the Special Conunittee included Senators Clifford P. Case, Clifford P.
Hansen, Philip A. Hart, James B. Pearson, Claiborne Pell, and Adlai E. Stevenson III.
Cong., 2"' sess. (Washington: GPO, 1974); U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on
National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, Executive Replies, 3 parts,
cotrunittee print, 93'' Cong., 2"' sess. (Washington: GPO, 1974); U.S. Congress, Senate
Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, National
Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, 94~ Cong., 2"' sess., S.Rept. 94-922
(Washington: GPO, 1976); U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on the Tennination of
the National Emergency, Emergency Powers Statutes, 93" Cong., I" sess., S.Rept. 93-549
(Washington: GPO, 1973); U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on the Tennination of
the National Emergency, National Emergency, 3 parts, hearings, 93"' Cong., 1" sess. , Apr.
11-12, July 24, and Nov. 28, 1973 (Washington: GPO, 1973).
CRS-1 1
CRS-12
amendment.
The bill was subsequently discussed on the Senate floor on October
7, when it was amended and passed. 49
Senate amendments," clearing the proposal for President Gerald Ford's signature on
September 14. 57
Although a version of the reform legislation had been introduced in the House
on September 16, becoming H.R. 16668, the Committee on the Judiciary, to which
the measure was referred, did not have an opportunity to consider either that bill or
the Senate adopted version due to the press of other business--chiefly the
impeachment of President Nixon and the nomination ofNelson A. Rockefeller to be
Vice President ofthe United States. Thus, the National Emergencies Act failed to be
considered on the House floor before the final adjournment of the 93'd Congress.
As enacted, the National Emergencies Act consisted of five titles. The first of
these generally retwned all standby statutory delegations of emergency power,
activated by an outstanding declaration of national emergency, to a donnant state two
years after the statute's approval. However, the act did not cancel the 1933, 1950,
1970, and 197 1 national emergency proclamations because these were issued by the
President pursuant to his Article IT constitutional authority. Nevertheless, it did
render them ineffective by returning to donnancy the statutory authorities they had
activated, thereby necessitating a new declaration to activate standby statutory
emergency authorities.
48
APX - 307
With the convening of the next Congress, the proposal was introduced in the
House on February 27, 1975, becoming H.R. 3884, and in the Senate on March 6,
becoming S. 977. House hearings occurred in March and April before the
Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the Committee
on the Judiciary." The bill was subsequently marked-up and, on April 15, was
reported in amended fonn to the full committee on a 4-0 vote. On May 21, the
Committee on the Judiciary, on a voice vote, reported the bill with technical
amendments." During the course of House debate on September 4, there was
agreement to both the committee amendments and a floor amendment providing that
national emergencies end automatically one year after their declaration unless the
President infonns Congress and the public of a continuation. The bill was then passed
on a 388-5 yea and nay vote and sent to the Senate, where it was referred to the
Committee on Government Operations."
The Senate Committee on Government Operations held a heating on H.R. 3884
on February 25, 1976,53 The bill was subsequently reported on August 26 with one
substantive and several technical amendments. 54 The following day, the amended bill
was passed and returned to the House. 55 On August 31, the House agreed to the
48
See U.S. Congress, Senate Conunittee on Government Operations, National Emergencies

Act, 93"' Cong., 2'd sess., S.Rept. 93- 1193 (Washington: GPO, 1974).
49
See Congressional Record, vol. 120, Oct. 7, 1974, pp. 34011-34022.
See U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, National Emergencies Act,
hearings, 94"' Cong., 1" sess., Mar. 6, 13, 19, and Apr. 9, 1975 (Washington: GPO, 1975).
'
Title II provided a procedure for future declarations of national emergency by

the President and prescribed arrangements for their congressional regulation. The
statute established an exclusive means for declaring a national emergency.
Furthermore, emergency declarations were to terminate automatically after one year
unless formally continued for another year by the President, but could be tenninated
earlier by either the President or Congress. Originally, the prescribed method for
congressional termination of a declared national emergency was a concunent
resolution adopted by both houses of Congress. This type of so-called "legislative
veto" was effectively invalidated by the Supreme Court in 1983.'" The National
Emergencies Act was amended in 1985 to substitute a joint resolution as the vehicle
for rescinding a national emergency declaration. 59
When declaring a national emergency, the President must indicate, according to
Title III, the powers and authorities being activated to respond to the exigency at
band. Certain presidential accountability and reporting requirements regarding
national emergency declarations were specified in Title IV, and the repeal and
continuation of various statutory provisions delegating emergency powers was
accomplished in Title V.
Since the 1976 enactment of the National Emergencies Act, various national
emergencies, identified in Table l, have been declared pursuant to its provisions.
Some were subsequently revoked, while others remain operative. All declarations
made pursuant to the National Emergencies Act are identified in Table I; their
cancellation is noted, where appropriate; and a Code of Federal Regulations or
Federal Register citation is provided to enable examination of their full text.
51
U.S. Congress, House Corrunittee on the Judiciary, National Emergencies, 941h Con g., I 51
sess., H.Rept. 94-238 (Washington: GPO, 1975).
"Congressional Record, vol. 121, Sept. 4, 1975, pp. 27631-27647; Ibid, Sept. 5, 1975, p.
27745.
53
See U.S. Congress, Senate Cmrunittee on Government Operations, National Emergencies

Act, hearing, 94"' Cong., 2"d sess., Feb. 25, 1976 (Washington: GPO, 1976).
"See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Government Operations, National Emergencies

Act, 94"' Cong., 2'' sess., S.Rept. 94-1168 (Washington: GPO, 1976).
55
See Congressional Record, vol. 122, Aug. 27, 1976, pp. 28224-28228.
56
Ibid., Aug. 31, l976,p. 28466.
57
90 Stat. 1255; 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651 (1988); see U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on
Government Operations and Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated
Emergency Powers, The National Emergencies Act (Public Law 94-412). Source Book:
Legislative History, Texts, and Other Documents, committee print, 94lli Cong., 2'd sess.
(Washington: GPO, 1976).
58
See Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
59
See 99 Stat. 405, 448.
CRS-13
CRS-14
Table 1. Declared National Emergencies, 1976-2001

Declaration
Date
Title
CFR Citation
E.O. 12170
11/14179
Blocking Iranian
Government Property
3 C.F.R. , 1979
Comp., pp. 457-458.
E.O. 12211
04117/80
Further Prohibitions on
Transactions with Iran
3 C.F.R., 1980
Comp., pp. 253-255.
APX - 308
E.O. 12444'
10/14/83
Continuation of Export
Control Regulations
3 C.F.R., 1983
Comp., pp. 214-2 15.
E.O. 12470b
03/30/84
Control Regulations
3 C.F.R., 1984
Comp., pp. 168-169.
E.O. 12513'
05/01/85
Prohibiting Trade and

Certain Other
Transactions Involving
Nicaragua
3 C.F.R., 1985
Comp. , p. 342.

Certain Other
South Africa
3 C.F.R. , 1985
Comp. , pp. 387-391.
E.O. 12532
09/09/85
E.O. 12543
Ol/07/86

Certain Transactions
Involving Libya
3 C.F.R., 1986
Comp., pp. 181-182.
E.O. 12635'
04/08/88
Prohibiting Certain
Transactions with
Respect to Panama
3 C.F.R., 1988
Comp. , pp. 563-564.
E.O. 12722
08/02/90
Blocking Iraqi
Government Property
and Prohibiting
Transactions with Iraq
3 C.F.R., 1990
Comp., pp. 294-295.
E.O. 12730'
09/30/90
Control Regulations
3 C.F.R., 1990
Comp., pp. 305-306.
E.O. 127358
11116/90
Chemical and Biological

Weapons Proliferation
3 C.F.R., 1990
Comp., pp. 313-316.
E.O. 12775'
10/04/91
Prohibiting Certain
Transactions with
Respect to Haiti
3 C.F.R., 1991
Comp., pp. 349-350.
Declaration
Date
Title
CFR Citation
E.O. 12808
05/30/92
Blocldng "Yugoslav
Government" Property
and Propelty of the
Governments of Serbia
and Montenegro
3 C.F.R., 1992
Comp., pp. 305-306.
E.O. 12865
09/26/93
Prohibiting Certain
UNITA
3 C.F.R. , 1993
Comp., pp. 636-638.
E.O. 12868;
09/30/93
Restricting the
Participation by United
States Persons in
Activities
3 C.F.R. , 1993
Comp., pp. 650-651.
E.O. 12923i
06/30/94
Control Regulations
3 C.F.R., 1994
Comp. , pp. 916-917.
E.O. 12924'
08/1 9/94
Control Regulations
3 C.F.R., 1994
Comp., pp. 917-919.
E.O. 129301
09/29/94
Measures to Restrict the

Participation by United
States Persons in
Activities
3 C.F.R., 1994
Comp., pp. 924-925
E.O. 12934
10/25/94
Blocking Property and

Additional Measures
With Respect to the
Bosnian Serb-Controlled
Areas of the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina
3 C.F.R., 1994
Comp., pp. 930-932.
E.O. 12938
11/14/94
Proliferation of
Weapons of Mass
Destruction
3 C.F.R., 1994
Comp., pp. 950-954.
E.O. 12947
01/23/95
Prohibiting Transactions
with Terrorists Who
Threaten to Disrupt the
Middle East Peace
Process
3 C.F.R., 1995
Comp., pp. 319-320.
E.O. 12957m
03/15/95
Prohibiting Certain
Transactions with
Respect to the
Development oflranian
Petroleum Resources
3 C.F.R., 1995
Comp., pp. 332-333.
CRS-16
CRS-15
Declaration
E.O. 12978
Date
10/21/95
Title
CFR Citation
Blocking Assets and

with Significant
Narcotics Traffickers
3 C.P.R., 1995
Comp., pp. 415-417.
APX - 309
Proc. 6867
03/01/96
Regulation of the
Anchorage and
Movement ofVesse1s
with Respect to Cuba
3 C.P.R., 1996
Comp., pp. 8-9.
E.O. 13047
05/22/97
Prohibiting New
Investment in Burma
3 C.P.R., 1997
Comp., pp. 202-204.
E.O. 13067
11/03/97
Blocking Sudanese
Government Property
and Prohibiting
Transactions with Sudan
3 C.P.R., 1997
Comp., pp. 230-231.
E.O. 13088
06/09/98
Blocking Property of the

Governments of the
Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro), the
Republic of Serbia, and
the Republic of
Montenegro, and
Prohibiting New
Investment in the
Republic of Serbia in
Response to the
Situation in Kosovo
3 C.P.R., 1998
Comp., pp. 191-193.
07/04/99
Blocking Property and

with the Taliban
3 C.P.R. 1999
Comp., pp. 200-203.
E.O. 13159
06/21/00
Blocking Property of the

Government of the
Russian Federation
Relating to the
Disposition of Highly
Enriched Uranium
Extracted from Nuclear
Weapons
3 C.P.R. 2000
Comp., pp. 277-278.
Prohibiting the
Importation of Rough
Diamonds from Sierra
Leone
66 Fed. Reg. 73897390.
01/18/01
Date
Title
CFR Citation
E.O. 13222
08/17/01
Control Regulations
66 Fed. Reg. 4402544026.
Proc. 7463
09/14/01
Declaration of National
Emergency by Reason
of Certain Terrorist
Attacks
66 Fed. Reg. 4819748199.
' Revoked by E.O. 12451 of Dec. 20, 1983.

Revoked by E.O. 12525 of July 12, 1985.
' Revoked by E.O. 12707 of Mar. 13, 1990.
d Revoked by E.O. 12769 of July 10, 1991.
' Revoked by E.O. 12710 of Apr. 5, 1990.
r Revoked by E.O. 12867 of Sept. 30,1993.
Revoked by E.O. 12938 ofNov. 11, 1994.
h Revoked by E.O. 12932 of Oct. 14, 1994.
1 Revoked by E.O. 12930 of Sept. 29, 1994.
1
Revoked by E.O. 12924 of Aug. 19, 1994.
k Revoked by E.O. 13206 of Apri14, 2001.
1 Revoked by E.O. 12938 ofNov. 14, 1994.
mRevoked in part by E.O. 12959 of May 6, 1995.
h
In its final report, issued in late May 197 6, the special committee concluded ''by
reemphasizing that emergency laws and procedures in the United States have been
neglected for too long, and that Congress must pass the National Emergencies Act
to end a potentially dangerous situation." 60 The panel's recommended legislation, of
course, was enacted into law before the end of the year.
E.O. 13129
E.O. 13194
Declaration
Other issues identified by the special committee as deserving attention in the

future, however, did not fare so well. The panel, for example, was hopeful that
standing committees of both houses of Congress would review statutory emergency
power provisions within their respective jurisdictions with a view to the continued
need for, and possible adjustment of, such authority. 61 Actions in this regard probably
were not as ambitious as the special committee expected. A title of the Federal Civil
Defense Act of 1950, granting the President or Congress power to declare a civil
defense emergency in the event an attack on the United States occurred or was
anticipated, expired in June 1974 after the House Committee on Rules failed to report
a measure continuing the statute. 62
60
U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated
Emergency Powers, National Emergencies and Delegated Emergenc.y Powers, p. 19.

61
lbid. , p. 10.
62
See 50 U.S.C. App. 2297 (1970); U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services,
Extending Civil Defense Emergency Authorities, 93"' Cong., 2ru1 sess., H.Rept. 93-1243
(Washington: GPO, 1974); Associated Press, "Rules Panel Halts Bill on War Powers,"
Washington Post, Sept. 19, 1974, p. A5.
CRS-18
CRS-17
A provision of emergency law was refined in May 1976. Legislation was enacted
granting the President the authority to order certain selected members of an am1ed
services reserve component to active duty without a declaration of war or national
emergency." Previously, such an activation of military reserve personnel had been
limited to a "time of national emergency declared by the President" or "when
otherwise authorized by law.'""
improving the accountability of executive decisiomnaking. 69

There is some public record indication that certain of these points, particularly
the first and the last, have been addressed in the past two decades by congressional
overseers. 70
Conclusion
APX - 310
Another refinement of emergency law occurred in 1977 when action was

completed on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).65 Reform
legislation containing this statute 66 modified a provision of the Trading with the
Enemy Act of 1917, authorizing the President to regulate the nation's international
and domestic finance during periods of declared war or national emergency."' The
enacted bill limited the President's Trading with the Enemy Act power to regulate the
country' s finances to times of declared war. In IEEPA, a provision conferred
authority on the Chief Executive to exercise controls over international economic
transactions in the future during a declared national emergency and established
procedures governing the use of this power, including close consultation with
Congress when declaring a national emergency to activate IEEPA. Such a declaration
would be subject to congressional regulation under the procedures of the National
Emergencies Act. 68
The development, exercise, and regulation of emergency powers, from the days
of the Continental Congress to the present, reflect at least one highly discernable
trend: those authorities available to the executive in time of national crisis or exigency
have, since the time of the Lincoln Administration, come to be increasingly rooted in
statutory law. The discretion available to a Civil War President in his exercise of
emergency power has been harnessed, to a considerable extent, in the contemporary
period. Furthermore, due to greater reliance upon statutory expression, the range of
this authority has come to be more circumscribed, and the options for its use have
come to be regulated procedurally through the National Emergencies Act. Since its
enactment, however, the National Emergencies Act has not been revisited by
congressional overseers. Nonetheless, as the final report of the Senate Special
Committee on National Emergencies suggests, the prospect remains that further
improvements and reforms in this policy area might be pursued and perfected.
Other matters identified in the :final report of the special committee for
congressional scmtiny included:
investigation of emergency preparedness efforts conducted by the executive
branch;
attention to congressional preparations for an emergency and continual review
of emergency law;
ending open-ended grants of authority to the executive;
investigation and institution of stricter controls over delegated powers; and
" 90 Stat. 517; 10 U.S.C. 12302

64
10 u.s.c. 673 (1970).
65
50
66
91 Stat. 1625.
67
68
u.s.c. 1701-1706.
12 U.S.C. 95a and 50 U.S.C. App. 5(b) (1976).

0f related interest to these statutory developments, President Ford, by a proclamation of
February 19, 1976, gave notice that E.O. 9066, providing for the internment of JapaneseAmericans in certain military areas during World War IJ, was canceled as of the issuance of
the proclamation fonnally establishing the cessation of World War II on December 31, 1946.
See 3 C.F.R., 1976 Comp., pp. 8-9. Certain statutory authority relevant to this executive
order, concerning the creation of military areas and zones, was canceled by the National
Emergencies Act. See 18 U.S.C . 1383 (1976).
69
See U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated
Emergency Powers, National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, pp. 11-1 8.
70
See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Operations,

Presidential Directives and Records Accountability Act, hearing, l OO'h Cong., 2'~ sess., Aug.
3, 1988 (Washington: GPO, 1989; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, Emergency Preparedness and the Licensing Process for Commercial Nuclear Power
Reactors, 2 parts, hearings , 98ili Cong., 1" sess., Apr. 18 and July 8, 1983 (Washington:
GPO, 1985).
CRS-19
CRS-20
National Emergency Powers:

A Selected Bibliography
Janeway, Eliot, The Economics of Crisis: War, Politics, and the Dollar. New York:
Weybright and Talley, 1968. 317 p.
Articles
Koenig, Louis W., The Presidency and the Crisis: Powers of the Office from the
Invasion of Poland to Pearl Harbor. New York: King's Crown Press, 1944.
166 p.
Bowman, Mary M. C., "Presidential Emergency Powers Related to International

Economic Transactions." Vanderbilt Journal of Transactional Law, vol. II,
Surruner 1978: 515-534.
Murphy, PaulL , The Constitution in Crisis Times 1918-/969. New York: Harper
and Row, 1972. 541 p.
Culp, Maurice S., "Executive Power in Emergencies. Michigan Law Review, vol. 31,
June 1933: 1066-1096.
Randall, James G., Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln. Urbana, IL: University
of Illinois Press, 1951. 596 p.
Fuller, Glenn E., "The National Emergency Dilemma: Balancing the Executive's
Crisis Powers with the Need for Accountability." Southern California Law
Review, vol. 52, July 1979: 1453-1511.
Rankin, Robert S. and Winfred Dallmayr, Freedom and Emergency Powers in the
Cold War. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1964. 277 p.
APX - 311
Genovese, Michael A., "Democratic Theory and the Emergency Powers of the
President." Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 9, Summer 1979: 283-289.
Klieman, Aaron S., "Preparing for the Hour of Need: Emergency Powers in the
United States." Review of Politics, vol. 41 , Aprill979: 235-255.
- - "Preparing for the Hour ofNeed: The National Emergencies Act." Presidential
Studies Quarterly, vol. 9, Winter 1979: 47-64.
Miller, Arthur S., "Constitutional Law: Crisis Government Becomes the Nonn."
Ohio State Law Journal, vol. 39, 1978:736-751.
Relyea, Harold C., "Stretch Points oftheConstitution: National Emergency Powers,"
in RalphS. Pollock, ed., Renewing the Dream: National Archives Bicentennial
'87 Lectures on Contemporary Constitutional Issues. Lanham, MD: University
Press of America, 1986, pp. 75-91.
Robinson, Donald L., "The Routinization of Crisis Government." Yale Review, vol.
63, Winter 1974: 161-174.
Roche, John P., "Executive Power and Domestic Emergency: The Quest for
Prerogative." Western Political Quarterly, vol. 5, December 1952: 592-618.
Rossiter, Clinton L., "Constitutional Dictatorship in the Atomic Age." Review of
Politics, vol. II, October 1949: 395-418.
Sturm, Albert L., "Emergencies and the Presidency." Journal of Politics , vol. 11,
February 1949: 121-144.
Books
Corwin, EdwardS ., Total War and the Constitution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1947. 162 p.
llich, Bennett Milton, The Presidents and Civil Disorder.

Brookings Institution, 1941. 235 p.
Washington: The
Rockoff, Hugh, Drastic Measures. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
285 p.
Rossiter, Clinton L. , Constitutional Dictatorship. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and
World, 1963. 322 p.
Smith, J. Malcolm, and Cornelius P. Cotter, Powers of the President During Crisis.
Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1960. 175 p.
Documents
U.S. Congress, House Committee on International Relations, Trading with the
Enemy: Legislative and Executive Documents Concerning Regulation of
International Transactions in Time of Declared National Emergency.
Committee print, 94'h Cong., 2'' sess. Washington: GPO, 1976. 684 p.
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Government Operations and Special Committee
on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, The National
Emergencies Act: (Public Law 94-4I 2). Source Book: Legislative History,
Texts, and Other Documents. Committee print, 94'h Cong. , 2'' sess.
Washington : GPO, 1976. 360p.
- - Senate Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency
Powers, A Brief History ofEmergency Powers in the United States, by Harold
C. Relyea. Committee print, 93'' Cong., 2'' sess . Washington: GPO, 1974. 140
p.
- - Executive Orders in Times of War and National Emergency. Committee print,
93"' Cong., 2'' sess. Washington: GPO, 1974. 283 p.
CRS-21
-
- National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers. S.Rcpt. 94-922,

94'h Cong., 2"" sess. Washington: GPO, 1976. 38 p.
- - Senate Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency,

Emergency Powers Statutes. S.Rept. 93-549, 93'dCon g., 1" sess. Washington:
GPO, 1973. 607 p.
- - National Emergency. Hearings, 93"' Cong., I" sess . Apr. 11, 12, July24, and
Nov. 28, 1973. Washington: GPO, 1973 . 917 p.
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Executive Authorities.
Washington: Sept. 30, 1992. 131 p.
APX - 312
Four Judge Panel of NYS Appellate Court admits it is unable to provide for civilian due process of law
when under statutory national emergency of 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b) proclamation 2040 of FDR and
continuing under POTUS Commander-in-chief BHO Executive ALL defacto Federal and State Courts.
APX - 313

APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT
Appeal Case No:
---------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse
-against-
Appellant,
NYS Sup. Ct. Kings County

Index 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 and
individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.;
Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.;
PETER G. PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI;
MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH
(a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II,
a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC
STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES
PARTY 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 THE
INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF
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.
Respondents.
NOTICE OF MOTION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed Amicus Curiae affidavit of ChristopherEarl: Strunk in esse private citizen of the United States of America, affirmed January 6,
2012 with exhibits annexed, for the Record with Notice of Private Citizenship Status
and Demand for Civilian Due Process of Law at the Courtroom in the Courthouse at
the State of New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Judicial Department
APX - 314
APX - 315
--------------------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse
Plaintiff / Appellant,
APPEAL CASE
-againstNEW 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 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 II,
a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC
STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES
PARTY 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 THE
INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF
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 / Respondents.
Amicus Curiae Affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse sui juris agent

of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK with name of war Strunk,
Christopher Earl and abbreviated derivatives, the transmitting utility
Debtor Trust owner of the Estate of christopher earl strunk, with all Rights
reserved without prejudice for the Record with Notice of Private Citizenship
Status and Demand for Civilian Due Process of Law
1 of 12
APX - 316
I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk, a Private Citizen of the United States of America in

esse and sui juris, solemnly affirm and declare under the penalties of perjury the
following:
1. That this is the Amicus Curiae Affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse
sui juris agent of CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK with name of war
Strunk, Christopher Earl and abbreviated derivatives, the transmitting
utility Debtor Trust owner of the Estate of christopher earl strunk, with all
Rights reserved without prejudice for The Record with Notice of Private
Citizenship Status and Demand for Civilian Due Process of Law in the
above captioned appeal(s) taken from orders and judgment of the trial court,
and am making a restricted, special, ministerial visitation as a friend of this
Court of Record (Amicus) under threat, duress and coercion of potential
loss of life, liberty and/or property due to a case of mistaken identity on the
part of New York State Supreme Court Justice (J.S.C.) ARTHUR M.
SCHACK and the moving party(ies) / Attorneys in the trial court at Part 27
of the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of Kings with
Index No. 6500/2011 evidenced on the record by the Orders, Judgments
taken on Appeal to this Court herein with Appeal Case #12-05515(see
Exhibit A) and #2013-06335 (see Exhibit B) and for which this Court has
issued orders (see Exhibit C) for the Appeal Cases to proceed and heard
2 of 12
APX - 317
simultaneously; and despite due judicial notice to trial Court as to Amicus

status on December 9, 2013 the Decision & Order entered 18 December
2013, and taken on appeal by notice from the trial Court (see Exhibit D).
2. That I am neither the Plaintiff nor the Appellant having been wrongly
accused by ARTHUR M. SCHACK, J.S.C. served with the March 29, 2013
Judgment in the referenced action taken on Appeal with Notice on May 23,
2013 (shown as Exhibit B), and whereas the Accused Plaintiff or
Accused Appellant in this action (the Accused), nor am I surety for the
Accused in this action, and further, that I am not making any kind of
appearance, be it generally or specially, nor am I making any motion of any
kind except under the express for provision of civilian due process as
guaranteed by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection
provisions of the New York State Constitution were this Appeal Case(s) to
proceed forward herein;
3. 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 jure citizenship
3 of 12
APX - 318
status has been broadened and made national by Section 1 of the

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
(See attached public document Affidavit of Status of Christopher-Earl:
Strunk; Private Citizen of the United States: American Freeman.);
4. That my constitutionally-protected, non-surety, de jure citizenship status has

not been altered by any federal or state contract, be it express or implied,
public or private; and therefore my constitutionally-protected, de jure,
private citizenship status has not been reduced to an inferior grade of surety
U.S. citizenship status by the state of my natural birth and/or by the state
in which is my private residence on the land at Common Law here in the
State of New York, not the statutory conquered territory under United States
jurisdiction of President of the United States (POTUS) as would a Caesar;
5. That as a constitutionally-protected, non-surety, Private Citizen of the

United States of America, I am not a Public U.S. citizen. For said Public
U.S. citizen (having once held original, de jure citizenship status conferred
at birth by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States of America on the day of his natural birth), has been reduced by the
state of his natural birth to an inferior grade by an implied
4 of 12
APX - 319
surety/commercial contract created through operation of law upon its filing

with a public third party record keeper in the city of New York sub-division
of the State of New York registration of his natural birth;

United States of America, I am not a person within the United States as
per the Emergency Banking Relief Act of March 9, 1933, it having
confirmed and approved Presidential Proclamation 2039 of March 6,
1933, and Presidential Proclamation 2040 of March 9, 1933 and currently by
the amended Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, CH. 106,
40 STAT. 411 [sections 1 to 6, 7 to 39, and 41 to 44); for the Congress at
that time was composed of only quasi-artificial persons being Public U.S.
citizens representing the once sovereign People (composed of the Private
Citizens of the United States of America), the Congressmen having also
been reduced to the inferior grade of persons being Public U.S. citizens,
the once sovereign People being represented as mere surety for their
persons, the Public U.S. citizens; rendering Congress as Parliament
along with all courts under the President of the United States (POTUS)
Executive Commander-in-Chief (Caesar) of Military forces occupying all
the territories under United States jurisdiction including each States
5 of 12
APX - 320
territory of the fifty occupied States territories by continuation of the

annually proclaimed National Emergency martial rule.

United States of America free from any citizenship contract filed after my
natural birth with the state of New York sub-division of the city of New
York within the County of New York, I have the constitutional right to a
civilian due process of law (as opposed to a martial due process of law)
secured on a federal level by the Fifth Amendment and secured on a state
level by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
of America;

United States of America free from any citizenship contract filed with the
state of my natural birth, I am neither the property of, nor a de facto
conquered person of the de facto military government of the United States
under POTUS Caesar. Therefore, I am neither a de facto enemy
belligerent nor a de facto ally of the enemy as a rebel publicly residing
according to statute within any State deemed a de facto conquered
territory by the de facto military government of the United States imposed
6 of 12
APX - 321
by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933, via Proclamation

2040 that was also approved and confirmed by Congress on that very
same day, March 9, 1933, with the Emergency Banking Relief Act and
related law;

United States of America, contrary to United States Code Title 50 Trading
with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, CH. 106, 40 STAT. 411 sections
1 to 6, 7 to 39, and 41 to 44, and as set-forth by Section 2 Definitions of
enemy and or ally of enemy subsection(s) c equal protection of the
civilian due process of law for a citizen of the United States ( 1 ), I have been
erroneously subjected to a martial due process of law (criminal and/or
civil) by New York State Supreme Court Justice (J.S.C.) ARTHUR M.
SCHACK in fealty to POTUS Caesar and the moving party(ies) attorneys in
its mistaken attempt to use that trial court and this Court to impose said
1
The words enemy and or ally of enemy, as used herein, shall be deemed to mean
(c) Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or
subjects of any nation (which is an ally of a nation) with which the United States is at war, other
than citizens of the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the
President, if he shall find the safety of the United States or the successful prosecution of the war
shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term (enemy and or ally of
enemy)
7 of 12
APX - 322
martial due process of law, evidenced by the display of military colors in the
courtroom (flags trimmed in gold fringe and/or draped with gold cords and
tassels) and also evidenced by the use of a military name of war (spelled
with all upper case letters with or without abbreviations e.g.
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK ) set forth in the action, in violation of
my constitutional right to a civilian due process of law;

United States of America erroneously subjected to a martial due process
of law while not a surety Public U.S. citizen or a member of the Armed
Forces of the United States, I am being mistakenly treated by ARTHUR M.
SCHACK, J.S.C. and the moving party(ies) as though I am a de facto
rebel and/or a de facto belligerent (i.e. Enemy and or publicly
residing in a state deemed a de facto conquered territory deemed to be
ruled by a de facto military government at the direction of the President of
the United States sitting in a temporary, extra-constitutional, emergency
war powers capacity as a de facto martial Conqueror and military
Commander in chief over every person within the United States (as per the
language of the Emergency Banking Relief Act and related law), both
civilian and military;
8 of 12
APX - 323

United States of America, I owe no temporary allegiance to the
temporarily established, de facto, Emergency War Powers military
government imposed on March 9, 1933, it having ousted and replaced the de
jure, constitutional government of the United States of America (in force
from March 4, 1789, to March 9, 1933) intended to be restored once the
temporary emergency has been terminated by the president, acting in the
capacity of Commander in chief, by repealing Proclamation 2040, and
thereby, on that glorious day, restoring non-surety, Private American
Citizenship status to all Americans.
Demand of Proof of Claim from the Trial Court and or Moving Party
THEREFORE, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk, as a friend of this Court hereby 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 as per the attached Affidavit of Status of Christopher-Earl:
Strunk; Private Citizen of the United States: American Freeman. (see Exhibit E)
9 of 12
APX - 324
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):
12. Prove its claim by sworn affidavit under the penalties of perjury that I,
Christopher-Earl: Strunk, am CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK as
named in the above-captioned action;
13. Prove its claim that I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk, am a statutorily-created,

surety U.S. citizen and not a constitutionally protected, non-surety, Private
Citizen of the United States of America as declared and proven in the
attached Affidavit of Status of Christopher-Earl: Strunk; Private Citizen of
the United States; American Freeman;
14. Prove its claim that I, Christopher Earl Strunk, am in contract, express or
implied, with the federal government and/or with any state government
which contract(s) has/have altered my constitutionally-protected, de jure,
Private American Citizenship status;
10 of 12
APX - 325
15. And therefore, prove its claim that I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk, may be
given a martial due process of law as opposed to a civilian due process of
law secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to Private American
Citizens of the United States of America.
In conclusion, if the Defendants/ Appellees /moving party cannot prove its claims,
the Court, being bound by its oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States
of America and related law, must abate this martial due process mistakenly
imposed on Christopher-Earl: Strunk due to a case of mistaken identity despite
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 law as a matter of constitutional right
secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United
States of America; and were such civilian process granted as relief herein that the
appeal cases referenced be so ordered to proceed accordingly 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.
11 of 12
APX - 326
APX - 327
22
contents
preliminaries
Idea and general Principles of the Law of Nations.
APX - 328
Sect. 1. What is meant by a nation or state,

page lv
2. It is a moral person,
lv
3. Denition of the law of nations,
lv
4. In what light nations or states are to be considered,
lvi
5. To what laws nations are subject,
lvi
6. In what the law of nations originally consists,
lvi
7. Denition of the necessary law of nations,
lviii
8. It is immutable,
lviii
9. Nations can make no change in it, nor dispense
with the obligations arising from it,
lviii
10. Society established by nature between all mankind,
lix
11. and between all nations,
lx
12. The object of this society of nations,
lxi
13. General obligation imposed by it,
lxi
14. Explanation of this observation,
lxi
15. The second general law is the liberty and
independence of nations,
lxii
16. Effect of that liberty,
lxii
17. Distinctions between internal and external, perfect
and imperfect obligations and rights,
lxii
18. Equality of nations,
lxiii
19. Effect of that equality,
lxiii
20. Each nation is mistress of her own actions, when
they do not affect the perfect rights of others,
lxiii
21. Foundation of the voluntary law of nations,
lxiii
22. Right of nations against the infractors of the law
of nations,
lxiv
1. The page numbers in the Contents are those of the 1797 edition.
21
original contents
Sect. 23. Measure of that right,
page lxiv
24. Conventional law of nations, or law of treaties,
lxv
25. Customary law of nations,
lxv
26. General rule respecting that law,
lxv
27. Positive law of nations,
lxvi
28. General maxim respecting the use of the necessary
and the voluntary law, <xxii>
lxvi
book i
Of Nations considered in themselves.
chapter i
Of Nations or Sovereign States.
1. Of the state, and of sovereignty,
2. Authority of the body politic over the members,
3. Of the several kinds of government,
4. What are sovereign states,
5. States bound by unequal alliance,
6. or by treaties of protection,
7. Tributary states,
8. Feudatory states,
9. Two states subject to the same prince,
10. States forming a federal republic,
11. A state that has passed under the dominion
of another,
12. Objects of this treatise,
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
chapter ii
General Principles of the Duties of
a Nation towards herself.
13. A nation ought to act agreeably to her nature,
14. Preservation and perfection of a nation,
15. End of civil society,
16. A nation is under an obligation to preserve herself,
17. and to preserve her members,
18. A nation has a right to every thing necessary for her
preservation,
19. She ought to avoid every thing that might occasion
her destruction,
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
original contents
23
Sect. 20. Her right to every thing that may promote

this end,
page 6
21. A nation ought to perfect herself and her condition,
6
22. and to avoid every thing contrary to her perfection,
7
23. The rights she derives from these obligations,
7
24. Examples,
7
25. A nation ought to know herself,
8
chapter iii
Of the Constitution of a State, and the Duties and
Rights of a Nation in that respect.
APX - 329
26. Of the public authority,

27. What is the constitution of a state, <xxiii>
28. The nation ought to choose the best constitution,
29. Political, fundamental, and civil laws,
30. Support of the constitution, and obedience to
the laws,
31. Rights of a nation with respect to her constitution
and government,
32. She may reform the government,
33. and may alter the constitution,
34. Of the legislative power, and whether it can alter
the constitution,
35. The nation ought not to attempt it without
great caution,
36. She is the judge of all disputes relative to
the government,
37. No foreign power has a right to interfere,
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
12
12
12
chapter iv
Of the Sovereign, his Obligations, and his Rights.
38. Of the sovereign,
39. He is solely established for the safety and advantage
of society,
40. His representative character,
41. He is intrusted with the obligations of the nation,
and invested with her rights,
42. His duty with respect to the preservation and
perfection of the nation,
43. His rights in that respect,
12
13
14
14
14
14
24
original contents
Sect. 44. He ought to know the nation,
page 15
45. Extent of his power:prerogatives of majesty,
15
46. The prince is bound to respect and support the
fundamental laws,
15
47. He may change the laws not fundamental,
16
48. He is bound to maintain and observe the
existing laws,
16
49. In what sense he is subject to the laws,
16
50. His person is sacred and inviolable,
17
51. But the nation may repress a tyrant, and renounce
her allegiance to him,
17
52. Arbitration between the king and his subjects,
20
53. Obedience which subjects owe to a sovereign,
21
54. In what cases they may resist him,
21
55. Ministers,
23
chapter v
Of States Elective, Successive or Hereditary,
and of those called Patrimonial.
56. Elective states,
57. Whether elective kings be real sovereigns,
58. Successive and hereditary states:origin of the
right of succession,
59. Other origin of that right, <xxiv>
60. Other sources, which still amount to the
same thing,
61. A nation may change the order of the succession,
62. Renunciations,
63. The order of succession ought commonly to
be observed,
64. Regents,
65. Indivisibility of sovereignties,
66. Who are to decide disputes respecting the
succession to a sovereignty,
67. The right of succession not to depend on the
judgment of a foreign power,
68. States called patrimonial,
69. Every true sovereignty is unalienable,
70. Duty of a prince who is empowered to nominate
his successor,
71. His nomination must be sanctioned by at least the
tacit ratication of the people,
23
24
24
24
24
24
25
26
27
27
27
29
30
31
32
32
original contents
25
chapter vi
Principal Objects of a good Government; and rst,
to provide for the Necessities of the Nation.
Sect. 72. The object of society points out the duties
of the sovereign:he is bound to procure
plenty,
page 33
73. to take care that there be a sufcient number
of workmen,
33
74. to prevent the emigration of those that are useful,
33
75. Emissaries who entice them away,
34
76. Labour and industry must be encouraged,
34
chapter vii
Of the Cultivation of the Soil.
APX - 330
77. Utility of Agriculture,

78. Regulations necessary in that respect:for the
distribution of land,
79. for the protection of husbandmen,
80. Husbandry ought to be placed in an
honourable light,
81. Cultivation of the soil a natural obligation,
82. Public granaries,
34
34
35
35
35
36
chapter viii
Of Commerce.
83. Domestic and foreign trade,
84. Utility of domestic trade,
85. Utility of foreign trade,
86. Obligation to cultivate domestic trade, <xxv>
87. Obligation to carry on foreign trade,
88. Foundation of the laws of commerce:right
of purchasing,
89. Right of selling,
90. Prohibition of foreign merchandises,
91. Nature of the right of purchasing,
92. Each nation to determine for herself how she will
carry on commerce,
93. How a nation acquires a perfect right to a
foreign trade,
94. Simple permission to carry on trade,
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
39
39
39
40
40
26
original contents
Sect. 95. Whether commercial rights be subject
to prescription,
page 40
96. Imprescriptibility of rights founded on treaty,
41
97. Monopolies, and trading companies with
exclusive privileges,
42
98. Balance of trade, and attention of government in
that respect,
43
99. Import duties,
43
chapter ix
Of the Care of the public Ways; and of Tolls.
100. Utility of highways, canals, &c.
101. Duty of government in that respect,
102. Its rights in that respect,
103. Foundation of the right to demand toll,
104. Abuse of that right,
43
43
44
44
44
chapter x
Of Money and Exchange.
105. Establishment of money,
106. Duty of the nation or prince with respect to
the coin,
107. Their rights in that respect,
108. How one nation may injure another in the article
of coin,
109. Exchange, and commercial laws,
45
45
46
47
47
chapter xi
Second Object of a good Government,to procure
the true Happiness of a Nation.
110. A nation is bound to labour after her
own happiness,
111. Instruction,
112. Education of youth,
113. Arts and sciences,
114. Freedom of philosophical discussion,
115. Love of virtue, and abhorrence of vice, to
be excited,
47
47
48
48
49
51
original contents
27
Sect. 116. The nation may hence discover the intention

of her rulers,
page 51
117. The nation, or public person, bound to perfect her
understanding and will, <xxvi>
52
118. and to direct the knowledge and virtues of the
citizens to the welfare of the society,
52
119. Love for their country,
53
120. in individuals,
53
121. in the nation or state itself, and in the sovereign,
53
122. Denition of the term, country,
53
123. How shameful and criminal to injure our country,
54
124. The glory of good citizens.Examples,
54
chapter xii
Of Piety and Religion.
APX - 331
125. Piety,
126. It ought to be attended with knowledge,
127. Religion, internal and external,
128. Rights of individuals:liberty of conscience,
129. Public establishment of religion:rights and
duties of the nation,
130. when there is as yet no established religion,
131. when there is an established religion,
132. Duties and rights of the sovereign with respect
to religion,
133. where there is an established religion,
134. Objects of his care, and the means he ought
to employ,
135. Toleration,
136. How the prince is to act when the nation is
resolved to change her religion,
137. Difference of religion does not deprive a prince of
his crown,
138. Duties and rights of the sovereign reconciled with
those of the subjects,
139. The sovereign ought to have the inspection of the
affairs of religion, and authority over those who
teach it,
140. He is bound to prevent the abuse of the
established religion,
141. His authority over the ministers of religion,
55
55
56
56
56
57
57
58
59
60
60
60
61
61
62
63
63
28
original contents
Sect. 142. Nature of that authority,
page 64
143. Rule to be observed with respect to ecclesiastics,
64
144. Recapitulation of the reasons which establish the
sovereigns rights in matters of religion, 64
Authorities and examples,
65
145. Pernicious consequences of the contrary opinion,
65
146. Abuses particularised.1. The power of the popes,
66
147. 2. Important employments conferred by a
foreign power,
68
148. 3. Powerful subjects dependent on a foreign court,
68
149. 4. Celibacy of the priests:Convents,
69
150. 5. Enormous pretensions of the clergy:
Pre-eminence,
70
151. 6. Independence, immunities,
71
152. 7. Immunity of church possessions,
72
153. 8. Excommunication of men in ofce,
73
154. 9. and of sovereigns themselves,
74
155. 10. The clergy drawing every thing to themselves,
and interrupting the course of justice, <xxvii>
75
156. 11. Money drawn to Rome,
76
157. 12. Laws and customs inimical to the welfare
of states,
76
chapter xiii
Of Justice and Polity.
158. A nation is bound to make justice ourish,
159. to establish good laws,
160. to enforce them,
161. Functions and duties of the prince in that respect,
162. How he is to dispense justice,
163. His duty to appoint upright and enlightened
judges,
164. The ordinary courts should determine causes
relating to the revenue,
165. Necessary to establish supreme courts, from whose
sentence there shall be no appeal,
166. The prince bound to observe the forms of justice,
167. to support the authority of the judges, and enforce
their decrees,
168. Distributive justice:distribution of
employments and rewards,
77
77
78
78
78
78
79
79
80
80
80
original contents
29
30
original contents
Sect. 169. Punishment of transgressors:foundation of the

right of punishing,
page 81
170. Criminal laws,
81
171. Degree of punishment,
82
172. Execution of the laws,
82
173. Right of pardoning,
83
174. Internal police,
83
175. Duel or single combat,
84
176. Means of putting a stop to that disorder,
84
Sect. 194. Several kinds of submission,

page 94
195. Right of the citizens when the nation submits
to a foreign power,
94
196. These compacts annulled by the failure
of protection,
95
197. or by the indelity of the party protected,
95
198. and by the encroachments of the protector,
95
199. How the right of the nation protected is lost by
her silence,
96
chapter xiv
Third Object of a good Government,
to fortify itself against external Attacks.
chapter xvii
How a Nation may separate herself from the State of
which she is a Member, and renounce her Allegiance
to her Sovereign when she is not protected.
APX - 332
177. A nation ought to fortify herself against external

attacks,
178. National strength,
179. Increase of population,
180. Valour,
181. Other military virtues,
182. Riches,
183. Public revenues and taxes,
184. The nation ought not to increase her power by
unlawful means,
185. Power is but relative, <xxviii>
87
87
87
88
89
89
90
90
90
chapter xv
Of the Glory of a Nation.
186. Advantages of glory,
187. Duty of the nation.How true glory is acquired,
188. Duty of the prince,
189. Duty of the citizens,
190. Example of the Swiss,
191. Attacking the glory of a nation is doing her an
injury,
91
91
91
92
92
93
chapter xvi
Protection sought by a Nation, and her voluntary
Submission to a Foreign Power.
192. Protection,
193. Voluntary submission of one nation to another,
200. Difference between the present case and those in

the preceding chapter,
201. Duty of the members of a state, or subjects of a
prince, who are in danger,
202. Their right when they are abandoned,
96
97
97
chapter xviii
Establishment of a Nation in a Country.
203. Possession of a country by a nation,
204. Her right over the part in her possession,
205. Acquisition of the sovereignty in a vacant country,
206. Another manner of acquiring the empire in a
free country,
207. How a nation acquires the property of a
desert country,
208. A question on this subject,
209. Whether it be lawful to take possession of
part of a country inhabited only by a few
wandering tribes,
210. Colonies, <xxix>
98
98
99
99
99
99
100
101
chapter xix
Of our Native Country, and various Matters
relating to it.
93
94
211. What is our country,

212. Citizens and natives,
101
101
original contents
31
APX - 333
Sect. 213. Inhabitants,

page 102
214. Naturalisation,
102
215. Citizens children born in a foreign country,
102
216. Children born at sea,
102
217. Children born in the armies of the state, or in the
house of its minister at a foreign court,
103
218. Settlement,
103
219. Vagrants,
103
220. Whether a person may quit his country,
103
221. How a person may absent himself for a time,
105
222. Variation of the political laws in that respect:
they must be obeyed,
105
223. Cases in which a citizen has a right to quit
his country,
105
224. Emigrants,
106
225. Sources of their right,
106
226. If the sovereign infringes their right, he
injures them,
107
227. Supplicants,
107
228. Exile and banishment,
107
229. The exile and the banished man have a right to
live somewhere,
108
230. Nature of that right,
108
231. Duty of nations towards them,
108
232. A nation cannot punish them for faults committed
out of her territories,
109
233. except such as affect the common safety
of mankind,
109
chapter xx
Public, Common, and Private Property.
234. What the Romans called res communes,
235. Aggregate wealth of a nation, and its divisions,
236. Two modes of acquiring public property,
237. The income of the public property is naturally at
the sovereigns disposal,
238. The nation may grant him the use and property of
her common possessions,
239. or allow him the domain, and reserve to herself
the use of them,
240. Taxes,
109
109
110
110
110
110
111
32
original contents
Sect. 241. The nation may reserve to herself the right
of imposing them,
page 111
242. Sovereign possessing that power,
111
243. Duties of the prince with respect to taxes,
112
244. Eminent domain annexed to the sovereignty,
<xxx>
112
245. Dominion over public property,
113
246. The sovereign may make laws respecting the use of
things possessed in common,
113
247. Alienation of the property of a corporation,
113
248. Use of common property,
114
249. How each member is to enjoy it,
114
250. Right of anticipation in the use of it,
114
251. The same right in another case,
114
252. Preservation and repairs of common possessions,
115
253. Duty and right of the sovereign in that respect,
115
254. Private property,
115
255. The sovereign may subject it to regulations
of police,
115
256. Inheritances,
116
chapter xxi
Of the Alienation of the public Property, or the
Domain, and that of a Part of the State.
257. The nation may alienate her public property,
258. Duties of the nation in that respect,
259. Duties of the prince,
260. He cannot alienate the public property,
261. The nation may give him a right to do it,
262. Rules on that subject with respect to treaties
between nation and nation,
263. Alienation of a part of the state,
264. Rights of the dismembered party,
265. Whether the prince has power to dismember
the state,
116
116
117
117
117
117
118
118
119
chapter xxii
Of Rivers, Streams, and Lakes.
266. A river that separates two territories,
267. Bed of a river which is dried up or takes
another course,
120
121
210
199. How the

right of the
nation protected is lost
by its silence.
book i: nations in themselves
deception. However, as some people maintain, that, <96> in this case,

the inferior nation has only the right of resistance and of imploring foreign aid,and particularly as the weak cannot take too many precautions against the powerful, who are skilful in colouring over their enterprises,the safest way is to insert in this kind of treaty a clause
declaring it null and void whenever the superior power shall arrogate to
itself any rights not expressly granted by the treaty.
But if the nation that is protected, or that has placed itself in subjection on certain conditions, does not resist the encroachments of that
power from which it has sought support,if it makes no opposition to
them,if it preserves a profound silence, when it might and ought to
speak,its patient acquiescence becomes in length of time a tacit consent that legitimates the rights of the usurper. There would be no stability in the affairs of men, and especially in those of nations, if long
possession, accompanied by the silence of the persons concerned, did
not produce a degree of right. But it must be observed, that silence, in
order to shew tacit consent, ought to be voluntary. If the inferior nation
proves that violence and fear prevented its giving testimonies of its opposition, nothing can be concluded from its silence, which therefore
gives no right to the usurper.
chapter xvii
How a Nation may separate itself from the State of
which it is a Member, or renounce its Allegiance to its
Sovereign when it is not protected.
200. Difference between
the present
case and
those in the
preceding
chapter.
We have said that an independent nation, which, without becoming a

member of another state, has voluntarily rendered itself dependent on
or subject to it in order to obtain protection, is released from its engagements as soon as that protection fails, even though the failure happen through the inability of the protector. But we are not to conclude
that it is precisely the same case with every nation that cannot obtain
speedy and effectual protection from its natural sovereign or the state of
which it is a member. The two cases are very different. In the former, a
APX - 334
chapter xvii
211
free nation becomes subject to another state,not to partake of all the

others advantages, and form with it an absolute union of interests (for
if the more powerful state were willing to confer so great a favour, the
weaker one would be incorporated, not subjected),but to obtain protection alone by the sacrifice of its liberty, without expecting any other
return. When therefore the sole and indispensable condition of its subjection is (from what cause soever) not complied with, it is free from its
engagements; and its duty towards itself obliges it to take fresh methods
to provide for its own security. But the several members of one individual
state, as they all equally participate in the advantages it procures, are
bound uniformly to sup-<97>port it: they have entered into mutual engagements to continue united with each other, and to have on all occasions but one common cause. If those who are menaced or attacked
might separate themselves from the others in order to avoid a present
danger, every state would soon be dismembered and destroyed. It is then
essentially necessary for the safety of society, and even for the welfare of
all its members, that each part should with all its might resist a common
enemy, rather than separate from the others; and this is consequently
one of the necessary conditions of the political association. The natural
subjects of a prince are bound to him without any other reserve than
the observation of the fundamental laws;it is their duty to remain
faithful to him, as it is his, on the other hand, to take care to govern them
well: both parties have but one common interest; the people and the
prince together constitute but one complete whole, one and the same
society. It is then an essential and necessary condition of the political
society, that the subjects remain united to their prince, as far as in their
power.
When, therefore, a city or a province is threatened or actually attacked, it must not, for the sake of escaping the danger, separate itself
from the state of which it is a member, or abandon its natural prince,
even when the state or the prince is unable to give it immediate and
effectual assistance. Its duty, its political engagements, oblige it to make
the greatest efforts, in order to maintain itself in its present state. If it is
overcome by force,necessity, that irresistible law, frees it from its former engagements, and gives it a right to treat with the conqueror, in order
to obtain the best terms possible. If it must either submit to him or
APX - 335
201. Duty of
the members
of a state, or
subjects of a
prince, who
are in danger.
212
202. Their
right when
they are
abandoned.
perish, who can doubt but that it may and even ought to prefer the former alternative? Modern usage is conformable to this decision:a city
submits to the enemy when it cannot expect safety from a vigorous resistance; it takes an oath of fidelity to him; and its sovereign lays the
blame on fortune alone.
The state is obliged to defend and preserve all its members (17); and
the prince owes the same assistance to his subjects. If, therefore, the state
or the prince refuses or neglects to succour a body of people who are
exposed to imminent danger, the latter, being thus abandoned, become
perfectly free to provide for their own safety and preservation in whatever
manner they find most convenient, without paying the least regard to
those who, by abandoning them, have been the first to fail in their duty.
The country of Zug, being attacked by the Swiss in 1352, sent for succour
to the duke of Austria its sovereign; but that prince, being engaged in
discourse concerning his hawks at the time when the deputies appeared
before him, would scarcely condescend to hear them. Thus abandoned,
the people of Zug entered into the Helvetic confederacy.* The city of
Zurich <98> had been in the same situation the year before. Being attacked by a band of rebellious citizens who were supported by the neighbouring nobility and the house of Austria, it made application to the
head of the empire: but Charles IV.73 who was then emperor, declared
to its deputies that he could not defend it;upon which, Zurich secured
its safety by an alliance with the Swiss. The same reason has authorised
the Swiss in general to separate themselves entirely from the empire,
which never protected them in any emergency: they had not owned its
authority for a long time before their independence was acknowledged
by the emperor and the whole Germanic body, at the treaty of Westphalia.
* See Etterlin, Simler, and de Watteville.

See the same historians, and Bullinger, Stumpf, Tschudi, and Stettler.
73. Bullinger discusses the events Vattel refers to at Zurich, including the role of
Charles IV (r. 135578), in his famous Chronicle of Zurich (Tigurinerchronik,pt. 1,
bk. 8, chap. 5). Never published, the Chronicle was available only in several manuscript copies (see Zentralbibliothek Zurich, Ms. Car 43 and 44; for the relevant passage see Car 43, p. 371r374v). Vattel may well have had access to the Chronicle,
although there is no evidence to support such a claim.
APX - 336
chapter xviii
213
chapter xviii
Of the Establishment of a Nation in a Country.
Hitherto we have considered the nation merely with respect to itself,
without any regard to the country it possesses. Let us now see it established in a country, which becomes its own property and habitation.
The earth belongs to mankind in general; destined by the creator to be
their common habitation, and to supply them with food, they all possess a natural right to inhabit it, and to derive from it whatever is necessary for their subsistence, and suitable to their wants. But when the
human race became extremely multiplied, the earth was no longer capable of furnishing spontaneously, and without culture, sufficient support for its inhabitants; neither could it have received proper cultivation from wandering tribes of men continuing to possess it in common.
It therefore became necessary that those tribes should fix themselves
somewhere, and appropriate to themselves portions of land, in order
that they might, without being disturbed in their labour, or disappointed of the fruits of their industry, apply themselves to render those
lands fertile, and thence derive their subsistence. Such must have been
the origin of the rights of property and dominion: and it was a sufficient
ground to justify their establishment. Since their introduction, the
right which was common to all mankind is individually restricted to
what each lawfully possesses. The country which a nation inhabits,
whether that nation has emigrated thither in a body, or that the different families of which it consists were previously scattered over the
country, and there uniting, formed themselves into a political society,that country, I say, is the settlement of the nation, and it has a
peculiar and exclusive right to it.
This right comprehends two things: 1. The domain, by virtue of
which the nation alone may use this country for the supply of its necessities, may dispose of it as it thinks proper, and <99> derive from it
every advantage it is capable of yielding.2. The empire, or the right
of sovereign command, by which the nation directs and regulates at its
pleasure every thing that passes in the country.
APX - 337
203. Possession of a
country by
a nation.
204. Its
right over the
parts in its
possession.
214
205. Acquisition of the
sovereignty
in a vacant
country.
206. Another
manner of
acquiring the
empire in a
free country.
207. How a
nation appropriates to itself
a desert country.
208. A question on this

subject.
When a nation takes possession of a country to which no prior owner

can lay claim, it is considered as acquiring the empire or sovereignty of
it, at the same time with the domain. For since the nation is free and
independent, it can have no intention, in settling in a country, to leave
to others the right of command, or any of those rights that constitute
sovereignty. The whole space over which a nation extends its government, becomes the seat of its jurisdiction, and is called its territory.
If a number of free families, scattered over an independent country,
come to unite for the purpose of forming a nation or state, they all together acquire the sovereignty over the whole country they inhabit; for
they were previously in possession of the domain,a proportional share
of it belonging to each individual family: and since they are willing to
form together a political society, and establish a public authority which
every member of the society shall be bound to obey, it is evidently their
intention to attribute to that public authority the right of command over
the whole country.
All mankind have an equal right to things that have not yet fallen into
the possession of any one; and those things belong to the person who
first takes possession of them. When therefore a nation finds a country
uninhabited and without an owner, it may lawfully take possession of
it: and after it has sufficiently made known its will in this respect, it
cannot be deprived of it by another nation. Thus navigators going on
voyages of discovery, furnished with a commission from their sovereign,
and meeting with islands or other lands in a desert state, have taken
possession of them in the name of their nation: and this title has been
usually respected, provided it was soon after followed by a real
possession.
But it is questioned whether a nation can, by the bare act of taking
possession, appropriate to itself countries which it does not really occupy, and thus engross a much greater extent of territory than it is able
to people or cultivate. It is not difficult to determine, that such a pretension would be an absolute infringement of the natural rights of men,
and repugnant to the views of nature, which, having destined the whole
earth to supply the wants of mankind in general, gives no nation a right
to appropriate to itself a country, except for the purpose of making use
APX - 338
chapter xviii
215
of it, and not of hindering others from deriving advantage from it. The
law of nations will therefore not acknowledge the property and sovereignty of a nation over any uninhabited countries, except those of which
it has really taken actual possession, in which it has formed settlements,
or of which it makes actual use. In effect, when navigators have met with
desert countries in which those of other nations had, in their transient
visits, erected <100> some monument to shew their having taken possession of them, they have paid as little regard to that empty ceremony,
as to the regulation of the popes, who divided a great part of the world
between the crowns of Castile and Portugal.*
* Those decrees being of a very singular nature, and hardly any where to be found
but in very scarce books, the reader will not be displeased with seeing here an extract
of them.
The bull of Alexander VI. by which he gives to Ferdinand and Isabella, king and
queen of Castile and Arragon, the New World, discovered by Christopher Columbus.
Motu proprio, (says the pope) non ad vestram, vel alterius pro vobis super hoc
nobis oblatae petitionis instantiam, sed de nostra mera liberalitate, & ex certa scientia,
ac de apostolicae potestatis plenitudine, omnes insulas & terras firmas, inventas, &
inveniendas, detectas & detegendas versus occidentem & meridiem, (drawing a line
from one pole to the other, at an hundred leagues to the west of the Azores) auctoritate omnipotentis Dei nobis in beato Petro concessa, ac vicariatus Jesu Christi,
qua fungimur in terris, cum omnibus illarum dominiis, civitatibus, &c. vobis, haeredibusque & successoribus vestris, Castellae & Legionis regibus, in perpetuum tenore praesentium donamus, concedimus, assignamus, vosque, & haeredes ac successores praefatos, illorum dominos, cum plena libera & omni moda potestate,
auctoritate & jurisdictione, facimus, constituimus, & deputamus. [[We, of our
own accord, not at your instance nor the request of anyone else in your regard, but
of our own sole largesse and certain knowledge and out of the fullness of our apostolic
power, by the authority of Almighty God conferred upon us in blessed Peter and of
the vicarship of Jesus Christ, which we hold on earth, do by tenor of these presents,
should any of said islands have been found by your envoys and captains, give, grant,
and assign to you and your heirs and successors, kings of Castile and Leon, forever,
together with all their dominions, cities, camps, places, and villages, and all rights,
jurisdictions, and appurtenances, all islands and mainlands found and to be found,
discovered and to be discovered towards the west and south. Alexander VI, In caetera, May 4, 1493.]] The pope excepts only what might be in the possession of some
other Christian prince before the year 1493,as if he had a greater right to give what
belonged to nobody, and especially what was possessed by the American nations.
He adds: Ac quibuscunque personis cujuscunque dignitatis, etiam imperialis & regalis, status, gradus, ordinis, vel conditionis, sub excommunicationis latae sententiae
poena, quam eo ipso, si contra fecerint, incurrant, districtius inhibemus ne ad insulas
APX - 339
216
209. Whether
it be lawful to
possess a part
of a country
inhabited only
by a few
wandering
tribes.
There is another celebrated question, to which the discovery of the

new world has principally given rise. It is asked whether a nation may
lawfully take possession of some part of a vast country, in which there
are none but erratic nations whose scanty population is incapable of
occupying the whole? We have already observed (81), in establishing
the obligation to cultivate the earth, that those nations cannot exclusively appropriate to themselves more land than they have occasion for,
or more than they are able to settle and cultivate. Their unsettled habitation in those immense regions cannot be accounted a true and legal
possession; and the people of Europe, too closely pent up at home, finding land of which the savages stood in no particular need, and of which
they made no actual and constant use, were lawfully entitled to take
possession of it, and settle it with colonies. The earth, as we have already
observed, belongs to mankind in general, and was designed to furnish
them with subsistence: if each nation had from the beginning resolved
to appropriate to itself a vast country, that the people might live only by
hunting, fishing, and wild fruits, our globe would not be sufficient to
maintain a tenth part of its present inhabitants. <101> We do not therefore deviate from the views of nature in confining the Indians within
narrower limits. However, we cannot help praising the moderation of
the English puritans who first settled in New England; who, notwith-
& terras firmas inventas & inveniendas, detectas & detegendas, versus occidentem
& meridiem . . . pro mercibus habendis, vel quavis alia de causa, accedere praesumant
absque vestra ac haeredum & successorum vestrorum praedictorum licentia speciali,
&c. Datum Romae apud S. Petrum anno 1493. IV. nonas Maji, Pontific. nostri anno
primo. [[Furthermore, under penalty of excommunication late sententie to be incurred ipso facto, should anyone thus contravene, we strictly forbid all persons of
whatsoever rank, even imperial and royal, or of whatsoever estate, degree, order, or
condition, to dare, without your special permit or that of your aforesaid heirs and
successors, to go for the purpose of trade or any other reason to the islands or mainlands, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered, towards the west and
south.]] Leibnitii Codex Juris Gent. Diplomat. Diplom. 203.
See ibid. (Diplom. 165.) the bull by which pope Nicholas V. gave to Alphonso,
king of Portugal, and to the Infant Henry, the sovereignty of Guinea, and the power
of subduing the barbarous nations of those countries, forbidding any other to visit
that country, without the permission of Portugal. This act is dated Rome on the 8th
of January, 1454.
APX - 340
chapter xix
217
standing their being furnished with a charter from their sovereign, purchased of the Indians the land of which they intended to take possession.* This laudable example was followed by William Penn74 and the
colony of quakers that he conducted to Pennsylvania.
When a nation takes possession of a distant country, and settles a
colony there, that country, though separated from the principal establishment, or mother-country, naturally becomes a part of the state,
equally with its ancient possessions. Whenever therefore the political
laws, or treaties, make no distinction between them, every thing said of
the territory of a nation, must also extend to its colonies.
210.
Colonies.
chapter xix
Of our Native Country, and several Things
that relate to it.
The whole of the countries possessed by a nation and subject to its laws,
forms, as we have already said, its territory, and is the common country
of all the individuals of the nation. We have been obliged to anticipate
the definition of the term, native country (122), because our subject led
us to treat of the love of our country,a virtue so excellent and so necessary in a state. Supposing then this definition already known, it remains that we should explain several things that have a relation to this
subject, and answer the questions that naturally arise from it.
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 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
* History of the English Colonies in North America. [[William Burke, An Account

of the European Settlements in the Americas.]]
74. William Penn, 16441718.
APX - 341
211. What is
our country.
212. Citizens
and natives.
218
213.
Inhabitants.
214.
Naturalisation.
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, reserves to his 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. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years
of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the
society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country,
it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if
he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and
not his country. <102>
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who
are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by
their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state, while they reside
in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection,
though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy
only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual
inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence.
These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the
society, without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow
the condition of their fathers; and as the state has given to these the right
of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner
the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political
society. This is called naturalisation. There are some states in which the
sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens,for example, that of holding public offices,and where, consequently, he has
the power of granting only an imperfect naturalisation. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In
other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalise a
single person, without the concurrence of the nation represented by its
deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the
single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children
of a foreigner.
APX - 342
chapter xix
219
It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country

are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries,
and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights
(212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has
given him; I say of itself, for civil or political laws may, for particular
reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely
quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode
in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least
as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that
are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the
open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and
those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not
the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born
in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its
territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains
its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly
received custom, this jurisdiction is <103> preserved over the vessels,
even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children
born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For
the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a
foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their
own nation: for the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and
the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on
that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband
have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country in the
armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are
reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his family
on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its
jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
APX - 343
215. Children of citizens, born

in a foreign
country.
216. Children born

at sea.
217. Children
born in the
armies of the
state, or in the
house of its
minister at a
foreign court.
220
218.
Settlement.
219.
Vagrants.
220. Whether
a person may
quit his
country.
Settlement is a fixed residence in any place with an intention of always

staying there. A man does not then establish his settlement in any place,
unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either
tacitly, or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not transfer his settlement elsewhere. In this sense, a person who stops at a place upon
business, even though he stay a long time, has only a simple habitation
there, but has no settlement. Thus the envoy of a foreign prince has not
his settlement at the court where he resides.
The natural or original settlement is that which we acquire by birth,
in the place where our father has his; and we are considered as retaining
it, till we have abandoned it, in order to chuse another. The acquired
settlement (adscititium) is that where we settle by our own choice.
Vagrants are people who have no settlement. Consequently those
born of vagrant parents have no country, since a mans country is the
place where, at the time of his birth, his parents had their settlement
(122), or it is the state of which his father was then a member;which
comes to the same point: for to settle for ever in a nation, is to become
a member of it, at least as a perpetual inhabitant, if not with all the
privileges of a citizen. We may, however, consider the country of a vagrant to be that of his child, while that vagrant is considered as not having absolutely renounced his natural or original settlement.
Many distinctions will be necessary in order to give a complete solution to the celebrated question, whether a man may quit his country
or the society of which he is a member. 1. The children are bound by
natural ties to the society in which they were born: they are under an
obligation to shew themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded
to their fathers, and are in a great measure indebted to it for their birth
and education. They ought therefore to love it, as we have already shewn
(122),to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as
possible by serving it in turn. We have observed above (212), that they
have a right to enter <104> into the society of which their fathers were
members. But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen, when
come to the years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient
for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he
APX - 344
chapter xix
221
does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it

on making it a compensation for what it has done in his favour,* and
preserving, as far as his new engagements will allow him, the sentiments
of love and gratitude he owes it. A mans obligations to his natural country may, however, change, lessen, or entirely vanish, according as he shall
have quitted it lawfully, and with good reason, in order to choose another, or has been banished from it deservedly or unjustly, in due form
of law, or by violence.
2. As soon as the son of a citizen attains the age of manhood, and
acts as a citizen, he tacitly assumes that character; his obligations, like
those of others who expressly and formally enter into engagements with
society, become stronger and more extensive: but the case is very different
with respect to him of whom we have been speaking. When a society
has not been formed for a determinate time, it is allowable to quit it,
when that separation can take place without detriment to the society. A
citizen may therefore quit the state of which he is a member, provided
it be not in such a conjuncture when he cannot abandon it without doing
it a visible injury. But we must here draw a distinction between what
may in strict justice be done, and what is honourable and conformable
to every duty,in a word, between the internal and the external obligation. Every man has a right to quit his country, in order to settle in
any other, when by that step he does not endanger the welfare of his
country. But a good citizen will never determine on such a step without
necessity, or without very strong reasons. It is taking a dishonourable
advantage of our liberty, to quit our associates upon slight pretences,
after having derived considerable advantages from them: and this is the
case of every citizen with respect to his country.
3. As to those who have the cowardice to abandon their country in a
time of danger, and seek to secure themselves instead of defending it,
they manifestly violate the social compact, by which all the contracting
parties engaged to defend themselves in an united body, and in concert:
* This is the foundation of the tax paid on quitting a country, called, in Latin,
census emigrationis.
APX - 345
222
221. How a
person may
absent himself
for a time.
222. Variation of the

political laws
in this respect.
These must be
obeyed.
they are infamous deserters whom the state has a right to punish severely.* <105>
In a time of peace and tranquillity, when the country has no actual
need of all her children, the very welfare of the state, and that of the
citizens, requires that every individual be at liberty to travel on business,
provided that he be always ready to return, whenever the public interest
recalls him. It is not presumed that any man has bound himself to the
society of which he is a member, by an engagement never to leave the
country when the interest of his affairs requires it, and when he can
absent himself without injury to his country.
The political laws of nations vary greatly in this respect. In some nations, it is at all times, except in case of actual war, allowed to every citizen
to absent himself, and even to quit the country altogether, whenever he
thinks proper, without alleging any reason for it. This liberty, contrary
in its own nature to the welfare and safety of society, can no where be
tolerated but in a country destitute of resources and incapable of supplying the wants of its inhabitants. In such a country there can only be
an imperfect society; for civil society ought to be capable of enabling all
its members to procure by their labour and industry all the necessaries
of life:unless it effects this, it has no right to require them to devote
themselves entirely to it. In some other states, every citizen is left at liberty to travel abroad on business, but not to quit his country altogether,
without the express permission of the sovereign. Finally, there are states
where the rigour of the government will not permit any one whatsoever
to go out of the country, without passports in form, which are even not
* Charles XII. [[of Sweden, r. 16971718]] condemned to death and executed general Patkul, a native of Livonia, whom he had made prisoner in an engagement with
the Saxons. But the sentence and execution were a violation of the laws of justice.
Patkul, it is true, had been born a subject of the king of Sweden: but he had quitted
his native country at the age of twelve years, and, having been promoted in the army
of Saxony, had, with the permission of his former sovereign, sold the property he
possessed in Livonia. He had therefore quitted his own country, to chuse another (as
every free citizen is at liberty to do, except, as we have observed above, at a critical
moment when the circumstances of his country require the aid of all her sons)and
the King of Sweden, by permitting him to sell his property, had consented to his
emigration. [[Note added in 1773/1797 editions.]]
APX - 346
chapter xix
223
granted without great difficulty. In all these cases it is necessary to conform to the laws, when they are made by a lawful authority. But in the
last-mentioned case, the sovereign abuses his power, and reduces his subjects to an insupportable slavery, if he refuses them permission to travel
for their own advantage, when he might grant it to them without inconvenience, and without danger to the state. Nay it will presently appear, that, on certain occasions, he cannot, under any pretext, detain
persons who wish to quit the country with the intention of abandoning
it for ever.
There are cases in which a citizen has an absolute right to renounce
his country, and abandon it entirely,a right, founded on reasons derived from the very nature of the social compact.1. If the citizen cannot procure subsistence in his own country, it is undoubtedly lawful for
him to seek it elsewhere. For political or civil society being entered into
only with a view of facilitating to each of its members the means of
supporting himself, and of living in happiness and safety, it would be
absurd to pretend that a member, whom it cannot furnish with such
things as are most necessary, has not a right to leave it.
2. If the body of the society, or he who represents it, absolutely fail
to discharge their obligations towards a citizen, the latter may withdraw
himself. For if one of the contracting parties does not observe his engagements, the other is no longer bound to fulfil his; for the contract is
reciprocal between the society and <106> its members. It is on the same
principle also that the society may expel a member who violates its laws.
3. If the major part of the nation, or the sovereign who represents it,
attempt to enact laws relative to matters in which the social compact
cannot oblige every citizen to submission, those who are averse to these
laws have a right to quit the society, and go settle elsewhere. For instance,
if the sovereign, or the greater part of the nation, will allow but one
religion in the state, those who believe and profess another religion have
a right to withdraw, and to take with them their families and effects. For
they cannot be supposed to have subjected themselves to the authority
of men, in affairs of conscience;* and if the society suffers and is weak* See, above, the chapter on religion.
APX - 347
223. Cases in
which a citizen
has a right
to quit his
country.
224
224.
Emigrants.
225. Sources
of their right.
ened by their departure, the blame must be imputed to the intolerant

party: for it is they who fail in their observance of the social compact,
it is they who violate it, and force the others to a separation. We have
elsewhere touched upon some other instances of this third case,that
of a popular state wishing to have a sovereign (33),and that of an
independent nation taking the resolution to submit to a foreign power
(195).
Those who quit their country for any lawful reason, with a design to
settle elsewhere, are called emigrants, and take their families and property
with them.
Their right to emigrate may arise from several sources. 1. In the cases
we have just mentioned (223), it is a natural right, which is certainly
reserved to each individual in the very compact itself by which civil society was formed.
2. The liberty of emigration may, in certain cases, be secured to the
citizens by a fundamental law of the state. The citizens of Neufchatel
and Valangin in Switzerland may quit the country and carry off their
effects at their own pleasure, without even paying any duties.
3. It may be voluntarily granted them by the sovereign.
4. Finally, this right may be derived from some treaty made with a
foreign power, by which a sovereign has promised to leave full liberty to
those of his subjects, who, for a certain reason, on account of religion
for instance, desire to transplant themselves into the territories of that
power. There are such treaties between the German princes, particularly
for cases in which religion is concerned. In Switzerland likewise, a citizen
of Bern who wishes to emigrate to Fribourg and there profess the religion
of the place, and reciprocally a citizen of Fribourg who, for a similar
reason, is desirous of removing to Bern, has a right to quit his native
country, and carry off with him all his property.
It appears from several passages in history, particularly the history of
Switzerland and the neighbouring countries, that the law of nations,
established there by custom some ages back, did not permit a state to
receive the subjects of another state into the number of its citizens. This
vicious custom had no other <107> foundation than the slavery to which
the people were then reduced. A prince, a lord, ranked his subjects under
APX - 348
chapter xix
225
the head of his private property: he calculated their number, as he did

that of his flocks; and, to the disgrace of human nature, this strange
abuse is not yet every where eradicated.
If the sovereign attempts to molest those who have a right to emigrate,
he does them an injury; and the injured individuals may lawfully implore
the protection of the power who is willing to receive them. Thus we
have seen Frederic William,75 king of Prussia, grant his protection to the
emigrant protestants of Saltzburgh.
The name of supplicants is given to all fugitives who implore the protection of a sovereign against the nation or prince they have quitted. We
cannot solidly establish what the law of nations determines with respect
to them, until we have treated of the duties of one nation towards others.
Finally, exile is another manner of leaving our country. An exile is a
man driven from the place of his settlement, or constrained to quit it,
but without a mark of infamy. Banishment is a similar expulsion, with
a mark of infamy annexed.* Both may be for a limited time, or for ever.
If an exile or banished man had his settlement in his own country, he is
exiled or banished from his country. It is however proper to observe that
common usage applies also the terms, exile and banishment, to the expulsion of a foreigner who is driven from a country where he had no
settlement, and to which he is, either for a limited time or for ever, prohibited to return.
As a man may be deprived of any right whatsoever by way of punishment,exile, which deprives him of the right of dwelling in a certain
place, may be inflicted as a punishment: banishment is always one; for
a mark of infamy cannot be set on any one, but with the view of punishing him for a fault, either real or pretended.
* The common acceptation of these two terms is not repugnant to our application
of them. The French academy says, Banishment is only applied to condemnations
in due course of law,Exile is only an absence caused by some disgrace at court.
The reason is plain;such a condemnation from the tribunal of justice entails infamy
on the emigrant; whereas a disgrace at court does not usually involve the same
consequence.
75. Frederic William I, r. 171340.
APX - 349
226. If the
sovereign
infringes their
right, he
injures them.
227.
Supplicants.
228. Exile
and banishment.
226
229. The
exile and
banished
man have a
right to live
somewhere.
230. Nature
of this right.
When the society has excluded one of its members by a perpetual

banishment, he is only banished from the lands of that society, and it
cannot hinder him from living wherever else he pleases; for, after having
driven him out, it can no longer claim any authority over him. The contrary, however, may take place by particular conventions between two
or more states. Thus every member of the Helvetic confederacy may
banish its own subjects out of the territories of Switzerland in general;
and in this case the banished person will not be allowed to live in any
of the cantons, or in the territories of their allies.
Exile is divided into voluntary and involuntary. It is voluntary, when
a man quits his settlement, to escape some punish-<108>ment, or to
avoid some calamity,and involuntary, when it is the effect of a superior
order.
Sometimes a particular place is appointed, where the exiled person is
to remain during his exile; or a certain space is particularised, which he
is forbid to enter. These various circumstances and modificationsdepend
on him who has the power of sending into exile.
A man, by being exiled or banished, does not forfeit the human character, nor consequently his right to dwell somewhere on earth. He derives
this right from nature, or rather from its author, who has destined the
earth for the habitation of mankind; and the introduction of property
cannot have impaired the right which every man has to the use of such
things as are absolutely necessary,a right which he brings with him
into the world at the moment of his birth.
But though this right is necessary and perfect in the general view of
it, we must not forget that it is but imperfect with respect to each particular country. For, on the other hand, every nation has a right to refuse
admitting a foreigner into her territory, when he cannot enter it without
exposing the nation to evident danger, or doing her a manifest injury.
What she owes to herself, the care of her own safety, gives her this right;
and in virtue of her natural liberty, it belongs to the nation to judge,
whether her circumstances will or will not justify the admission of that
foreigner (Prelim. 16). He cannot then settle by a full right, and as he
pleases, in the place he has chosen, but must ask permission of the chief
of the place; and if it is refused, it is his duty to submit.
APX - 350
chapter xix
227
However, as property could not be introduced to the prejudice of the

right acquired by every human creature, of not being absolutely deprived
of such things as are necessary,no nation can, without good reasons,
refuse even a perpetual residence to a man driven from his country. But
if particular and substantial reasons prevent her from affording him an
asylum, this man has no longer any right to demand it,because, in
such a case, the country inhabited by the nation cannot, at the same time,
serve for her own use, and that of this foreigner. Now, supposing even
that things are still in common, nobody can arrogate to himself the use
of a thing which actually serves to supply the wants of another. Thus a
nation, whose lands are scarcely sufficient to supply the wants of the
citizens, is not obliged to receive into its territories a company of fugitives or exiles. Thus it ought even absolutely to reject them, if they are
infected with a contagious disease. Thus also it has a right to send them
elsewhere, if it has just cause to fear that they will corrupt the manners
of the citizens, that they will create religious disturbances, or occasion
any other disorder, contrary to the public safety. In a word, it has a right,
and is even obliged, to follow, in this respect, the suggestions of prudence. But this prudence should be free from unnecessary suspicion and
jealousy;it should not be carried so far as to <109> refuse a retreat to
the unfortunate, for slight reasons, and on groundless and frivolous fears.
The means of tempering it will be never to lose sight of that charity and
commiseration which are due to the unhappy. We must not suppress
those feelings even for those who have fallen into misfortune through
their own fault. For we ought to hate the crime, but love the man, since
all mankind ought to love each other.
If an exile or banished man has been driven from his country for any
crime, it does not belong to the nation in which he has taken refuge, to
punish him for that fault committed in a foreign country. For nature
does not give to men or to nations any right to inflict punishment, except
for their own defence and safety (169); whence it follows, that we cannot
punish any but those by whom we have been injured.
But this very reason shews, that, although the justice of each nation
ought in general to be confined to the punishment of crimes committed
in its own territories, we ought to except from this rule those villains,
APX - 351
231. Duty
of nations
towards them.
232. A nation
cannot punish
them for faults
committed
out of its
territories,
233. except
such as affect the
common safety
of mankind.
228
who, by the nature and habitual frequency of their crimes, violate all
public security, and declare themselves the enemies of the human race.
Poisoners, assassins, and incendiaries by profession, may be exterminated wherever they are seized; for they attack and injure all nations, by
trampling under foot the foundations of their common safety. Thus pirates are sent to the gibbet by the first into whose hands they fall. If the
sovereign of the country where crimes of that nature have been committed, reclaims the perpetrators of them in order to bring them to punishment, they ought to be surrendered to him, as being the person who
is principally interested in punishing them in an exemplary manner. And
as it is proper to have criminals regularly convicted by a trial in due form
of law, this is a second reason for delivering up malefactors of that class
to the states where their crimes have been committed.
chapter xx
Of public, common, and private Property.
234. What
the Romans
called res
communes.
235. Aggregate wealth of

a nation, and
its divisions.
Let us now see what is the nature of the different things contained in
the country possessed by a nation, and endeavour to establish the general
principles of the law by which they are regulated. This subject is treated
by civilians under the title de rerum divisione. There are things which in
their own nature cannot be possessed; there are others, of which nobody
claims the property, and which remain common, as in their primitive
state, when a nation takes possession of a country: the Roman lawyers
called these things res communes, things common: such were, with them,
the air, the running water, the sea, the fish, and wild beasts.
Every thing susceptible of property is considered as belonging to the
nation that possesses the country, and as forming the aggre-<110>gate
mass of its wealth. But the nation does not possess all those things in
the same manner. Those not divided between particular communities,
or among the individuals of a nation, are called public property. Some
are reserved for the necessities of the state, and form the demesne of the
APX - 352
chapter xx
229
crown, or of the republic: others remain common to all the citizens, who
take advantage of them, each according to his necessities, or according
to the laws which regulate their use; and these are called common property.There are others that belong to some body or community, termed
joint property, res universitatis; and these are, with respect to this body in
particular, what the public property is with respect to the whole nation.
As the nation may be considered as a great community, we may indifferently give the name of common property to those things that belong
to it in common, in such a manner that all the citizens may make use
of them, and to those that are possessed in the same manner by a body
or community: the same rules hold good with respect to both.Finally,
the property possessed by individuals is termed private property, res
singulorum.
When a nation in a body takes possession of a country, every thing
that is not divided among its members remains common to the whole
nation, and is called public property. There is a second way whereby a
nation, and, in general, every community, may acquire possessions, viz.
by the will of whosoever thinks proper to convey to it, under any title
whatsoever, the domain or property of what he possesses.
As soon as the nation commits the reins of government to the hands
of a prince, it is considered as committing to him, at the same time,
the means of governing. Since therefore the income of the public property, of the domain of the state, is destined for the expenses of government, it is naturally at the princes disposal, and ought always to be
considered in this light, unless the nation has, in express terms, excepted it in conferring the supreme authority, and has provided in some
other manner for its disposal, and for the necessary expenses of the
state, and the support of the princes person and household. Whenever
therefore the prince is purely and simply invested with the sovereign
authority, it includes a full discretional power to dispose of the public
revenues. The duty of the sovereign indeed obliges him to apply those
revenues only to the necessities of the state; but he alone is to determine
the proper application of them, and is not accountable for them to any
person.
APX - 353
236. Two
ways of
acquiring
public
property.
237. The
revenues of
the public
property are
naturally at the
sovereigns
disposal.
230
238. The
nation may
grant him
the use and
property of
its common
possessions,
239. or allow
him the domain, and
reserve to
itself the use
of them.
240. Taxes.
241. The
nation may
reserve to itself
the right of
imposing
them.
The nation may invest the superior with the sole use of its common
possessions, and thus add them to the domain of the state. It may even
cede the property of them to him. But this cession of the use or property requires an express act of the proprietor, which is the nation. It is
difficult to found it on a tacit consent, because fear too often hinders
the subjects from protesting against the unjust encroachments of the
sovereign.
The people may even allow the superior the domain of the things
they possess in common, and reserve to themselves the <111> use of them
in the whole or in part. Thus the domain of a river, for instance, may
be ceded to the prince, while the people reserve to themselves the use of
it for navigation, fishing, the watering of cattle, &c. They may also allow
the prince the sole right of fishing, &c. in that river. In a word, the people
may cede to the superior whatever right they please over the common
possessions of the nation; but all those particular rights do not naturally
and of themselves flow from the sovereignty.
If the income of the public property, or of the domain, is not sufficient for the public wants, the state supplies the deficiency by taxes.
These ought to be regulated in such a manner, that all the citizens may
pay their quota in proportion to their abilities, and the advantages they
reap from the society. All the members of civil society being equally
obliged to contribute, according to their abilities, to its advantage and
safety,they cannot refuse to furnish the subsidies necessary to its preservation, when they are demanded by lawful authority.
Many nations have been unwilling to commit to the prince a trust of
so delicate a nature, or to grant him a power that he may so easily abuse.
In establishing a domain for the support of the sovereign and the ordinary expenses of the state, they have reserved to themselves the right
of providing, by themselves or by their representatives, for extraordinary
wants, in imposing taxes payable by all the inhabitants. In England, the
king lays the necessities of the state before the parliament; that body,
composed of the representatives of the nation, deliberates, and, with the
concurrence of the king, determines the sum to be raised, and the manner of raising it. And of the use the king makes of the money thus raised,
that same body oblige him to render them an account.
APX - 354
chapter xx
231
In other states where the sovereign possesses the full and absolute authority, it is he alone that imposes taxes, regulates the manner of raising
them, and makes use of them as he thinks proper, without giving an
account to any body. The French king at present enjoys this authority,
with the simple formality of causing his edicts to be registered by the
parliament; and that body has a right to make humble remonstrances,
if it sees any inconveniences attending the imposition ordered by the
prince:a wise establishment for causing truth and the cries of the people to reach the ears of the sovereign, and for setting some bounds to
his extravagance, or to the avidity of the ministers and persons concerned
in the revenue.* <112>
The prince who is invested with the power of taxing his people ought
by no means to consider the money thus raised as his own property. He
ought never to lose sight of the end for which this power was granted
* Too great attention cannot be used in watching the imposition of taxes, which,
once introduced, not only continue, but are so easily multiplied.Alphonso VIII.
king of Castile [[r. 11581214]], besieging a city belonging to the Moors (Concham
urbem in Celtiberis) [[the city of Concha (now Cuenca) in Celtiberia (central
Spain)]], and being in want of money, applied to the states of his kingdom for permission to impose on every free inhabitant a capitation-tax of five golden maravedis.
But Peter, count de Lara, vigorously opposed the measure, contractaque nobilium
manu, ex conventu discedit, armis tueri paratus partam armis et virtute a majoribus
immunitatem, neque passurum affirmans nobilitatis opprimendae atque novis vectigalibus vexandae ab eo aditu initium fieri; Mauros opprimere non esse tanti, ut
graviori servitute rempublicam implicari sinant. Rex, periculo permotus, ab ea cogitatione desistit. Pertrum nobiles, consilio communicato, quotannis convivioexcipere
decreverunt, ipsum et posteros,navatae operae mercedem, rei gestae bonae posteritati monumentum, documentumque ne quavis occasione jus libertatis imminui patiantur. [[And having gathered the group of noblemen, he leaves the assembly, ready
to defend with arms and bravery the immunity obtained by their predecessors, and
affirming that he was not going to tolerate through this opportunity the beginning
of the oppression of the nobility and its harassment with new taxes, and [affirming]
that oppressing the Moors was not so expensive for them to allow the commonwealth
to be entangled in a more degrading servitude. The king, moved by the danger, desisted from that intention. Once this decision had been communicated, the noblemen
decided to celebrate Peter every year in a banquet, him and his successors, as a reward
for a zealous act and a reminder and testimony of a good work, so that on no occasion
would they allow the right to freedom [ius libertatis] to be diminished (trans. Eds.).]]
MARIANA. [[ Juan de Mariana, De rege et regis institutione.]] [[Note added in 1773/
1797 editions.]]
APX - 355
242. Of the
sovereign who
has this power.
243. Duties
of the prince
with respect
to taxes.
232
244. Eminent domain

annexed to the
sovereignty.
him: the nation was willing to enable him to provide, as it should seem
best to his wisdom, for the necessities of the state. If he diverts this
money to other uses,if he consumes it in idle luxury, to gratify his
pleasures, to satiate the avarice of his mistresses and favourites,we hesitate not to declare to those sovereigns who are still capable of listening
to the voice of truth, that such a one is not less guilty, nay, that he is a
thousand times more so, than a private person who makes use of his
neighbours property to gratify his irregular passions. Injustice, though
screened from punishment, is not the less shameful.
Every thing in the political society ought to tend to the good of the
community; and since even the persons of the citizens are subject to this
rule, their property cannot be excepted. The state could not subsist, or
constantly administer the public affairs in the most advantageous manner, if it had not a power to dispose occasionally of all kinds of property
subject to its authority. It is even to be presumed, that, when the nation
takes possession of a country, the property of certain things is given up
to individuals only with this reserve. The right which belongs to the
society, or to the sovereign, of disposing, in case of necessity and for the
public safety, of all the wealth contained in the state, is called the eminent
domain. It is evident that this right is, in certain cases, necessary to him
who governs, and consequently is a part of the empire or sovereign
power, and ought to be placed in the number of the prerogatives of
majesty (45). When therefore the people confer the empire on any one,
they at the same time invest him with the eminent domain, unless it be
expressly reserved. Every prince who is truly sovereign is invested with
this right when the nation has not excepted it,however limited his
authority may be in other respects.
If the sovereign disposes of the public property in virtue of his eminent
domain, the alienation is valid, as having been made with sufficient
powers.
When, in a case of necessity, he disposes in like manner of the possessions of a community or an individual, the alienation will, for the
same reason, be valid. But justice requires that this community or this
individual be indemnified at the public charge: and if the treasury is not
able to bear the expense, all the citizens are obliged to contribute to it;
APX - 356
chapter xx
233
for the burthens of the state ought to be supported equally, or in a just

proportion. The same rules <113> are applicable to this case as to the loss
of merchandise thrown overboard to save the vessel.
Besides the eminent domain, the sovereignty gives a right of another
nature over all public, common, and private property,that is, the empire, or the right of command in all places of the country belonging to
the nation. The supreme power extends to every thing that passes in the
state, wherever it is transacted; and consequently the sovereign commands in all public places, on rivers, on highways, in deserts, &c. Every
thing that happens there is subject to his authority.
In virtue of the same authority, the sovereign may make laws to regulate the manner in which common property is to be used,as well the
property of the nation at large, as that of distinct bodies or corporations.
He cannot, indeed, take away their right from those who have a share
in that property: but the care he ought to take of the public repose, and
of the common advantage of the citizens, gives him doubtless a right to
establish laws tending to this end, and consequently to regulate the manner in which things possessed in common are to be enjoyed. This affair
might give room for abuses, and excite disturbances, which it is important to the state to prevent, and against which the prince is obliged to
take just measures. Thus the sovereign may establish wise laws with respect to hunting and fishing,forbid them in the seasons of propagation,prohibit the use of certain nets, and of every destructive method,
&c. But as it is only in the character of the common father, governor,
and guardian of his people, that the sovereign has a right to make those
laws, he ought never to lose sight of the ends which he is called upon to
accomplish by enacting them: and if, upon those subjects, he makes any
regulations with any other view than that of the public welfare, he abuses
his power.
A corporation, as well as every other proprietor, has a right to alienate
and mortgage its property: but the present members ought never to lose
sight of the destination of that joint property, nor dispose of it otherwise
than for the advantage of the body, or in cases of necessity. If they alienate it with any other view, they abuse their power, and transgress against
the duty they owe to their own corporation and their posterity; and the
APX - 357
245. Government of public

property.
246. The
superior may
make laws
with respect
to the use
of things
possessed in
common.
247. Alienation of the

property of a
corporation.
234
248. Use
of common
property.
249. How
each member
is to enjoy it.
prince, in quality of common father, has a right to oppose the measure.

Besides, the interest of the state requires that the property of corporations be not squandered away;which gives the prince, intrusted with
the care of watching over the public safety, a new right to prevent the
alienation of such property. It is then very proper to ordain in a state,
that the alienation of the property of corporations should be invalid,
without the consent of the superior powers. And indeed the civil law,
in this respect, gives to corporations the rights of minors. But this is
strictly no more than a civil law; and the opinion of those who make
the law of nature alone a sufficient authority to take from a corporation
the power of alienating their property without the <114> consent of the
sovereign, appears to me to be void of foundation, and contrary to the
notion of property. A corporation, it is true, may have received property
either from their predecessors, or from any other persons, with a clause
that disables them from alienating it: but in this case they have only the
perpetual use of it, not the entire and free property. If any of their property was solely given for the preservation of the body, it is evident that
the corporation has not a right to alienate it, except in a case of extreme
necessity:and whatever property they may have received from the sovereign, is presumed to be of that nature.
All the members of a corporation have an equal right to the use of
its common property. But, respecting the manner of enjoying it, the
body of the corporation may make such regulations as they think proper,
provided that those regulations be not inconsistent with that equality
which ought to be preserved in a communion of property. Thus a corporation may determine the use of a common forest or pasture, either
allowing it to all the members according to their wants, or allotting to
each an equal share; but they have not a right to exclude any one of the
number, or to make a distinction to his disadvantage by assigning him
a less share than that of the others.
All the members of a body having an equal right to its common property, each individual ought so to manage in taking advantage of it, as
not in any wise to injure the common use. According to this rule, an
individual is not permitted to construct upon any river that is public
property, any work capable of rendering it less convenient for the use of
APX - 358
chapter xx
235
every one else, as erecting mills, making a trench to turn the water upon
his own lands, &c. If he attempts it, he arrogates to himself a private
right, derogatory to the common right of the public.
The right of anticipation ( jus praeventionis ) ought to be faithfully
observed in the use of common things which cannot be used by several
persons at the same time. This name is given to the right which the firstcomer acquires, to the use of things of this nature. For instance, if I am
actually drawing water from a common or public well, another who
comes after me cannot drive me away to draw out of it himself: and he
ought to wait till I have done. For I make use of my right in drawing
that water, and nobody can disturb me: a second, who has an equal right,
cannot assert it to the prejudice of mine; to stop me by his arrival, would
be arrogating to himself a better right than he allows me, and thereby
violating the law of equality.
The same rule ought to be observed in regard to those common things
which are consumed in using them. They belong to the person who first
takes possession of them with the intention of applying them to his own
use; and a second, who comes after, has no right to take them from him.
I repair to a common forest, and begin to fell a tree: you come in afterwards, and would wish to have the same tree: you cannot take it from
me; for this would be arrogating to yourself a right superior to mine,
<115> whereas our rights are equal. The rule in this case is the same as
that which the law of nature prescribes in the use of the productions of
the earth, before the introduction of property.
The expenses necessary for the preservation or reparation of the
things that belong to the public, or to a community, ought to be equally
borne by all who have a share in them, whether the necessary sums be
drawn from the common coffer, or that each individual contributes his
quota. The nation, the corporation, and, in general, every collective
body, may also establish extraordinary taxes, imposts, or annual contributions, to defray those expenses,provided there be no oppressive exaction in the case, and that the money so levied be faithfully applied to
the use for which it was raised. To this end also, as we have before observed (103), toll-duties are lawfully established. High-ways, bridges,
and causeways, are things of a public nature, from which all who pass
APX - 359
250. Right of
anticipation in
the use of it.
251. The
same right in
another case.
252. Preservation and

repairs of
common
possessions.
236
253. Duty
and right of
the sovereign
in this respect.
254. Private
property.
255. The
sovereign may
subject it to
regulations
of police.
over them derive advantage: it is therefore just that all those passengers
should contribute to their support.
We shall see presently that the sovereign ought to provide for the preservation of the public property. He is no less obliged, as the conductor
of the whole nation, to watch over the preservation of the property of
a corporation. It is the interest of the state at large that a corporation
should not fall into indigence, by the ill conduct of its members for the
time being. And as every obligation generates the correspondent right
which is necessary to discharge it, the sovereign has here a right to oblige
the corporation to conform to their duty. If therefore he perceives, for
instance, that they suffer their necessary buildings to fall to ruin, or that
they destroy their forests, he has a right to prescribe what they ought to
do, and to put his orders in force.
We have but a few words to say with respect to private property: every
proprietor has a right to make what use he pleases of his own substance,
and to dispose of it as he pleases, when the rights of a third person are
not involved in the business. The sovereign, however, as the father of
his people, may and ought to set bounds to a prodigal, and to prevent
his running to ruin, especially if this prodigal be the father of a family.
But he must take care not to extend this right of inspection so far as to
lay a restraint on his subjects in the administration of their affairs;
which would be no less injurious to the true welfare of the state than to
the just liberty of the citizens. The particulars of this subject belong to
public law and politics.
It must also be observed, that individuals are not so perfectly free in
the economy or government of their affairs, as not to be subject to the
laws and regulations of police made by the sovereign. For instance, if
vineyards are multiplied to too great an extent in a country which is in
want of corn, the sovereign may forbid the planting of the vine in fields
proper for tillage; for here the public welfare and the safety of the state
are concerned. When a reason of such importance requires it, the sovereign or the magistrate may oblige an individual to sell all the provisions
<116> in his possession above what are necessary for the subsistence of
his family, and may fix the price he shall receive for them. The public
authority may and ought to hinder monopolies, and suppress all prac-
APX - 360
chapter xxi
237
tices tending to raise the price of provisions,to which practices the

Romans applied the expressions annonam incendere, comprimere, vexare. 76
Every man may naturally chuse the person to whom he would leave
his property after his death, as long as his right is not limited by some
indispensable obligation,as, for instance, that of providing for the
subsistence of his children. The children also have naturally a right to
inherit their fathers property in equal portions. But this is no reason
why particular laws may not be established in a state, with regard to
testaments and inheritances,a respect being however paid to the essential laws of nature. Thus, by a rule established in many places with
a view to support noble families, the eldest son is, of right, his fathers
principal heir. Lands, perpetually appropriated to the eldest male heir
of a family, belong to him by virtue of another right, which has its source
in the will of the person, who, being sole owner of those lands, has bequeathed them in that manner.
256.
Inheritances.
chapter xxi
Of the Alienation of the public Property, or the
Domain, and that of a Part of the State.
The nation being the sole mistress of the property in her possession, may
dispose of it as she thinks proper, and may lawfully alienate or mortgage
it. This right is a necessary consequence of the full and absolute domain:
the exercise of it is restrained by the law of nature, only with respect to
proprietors who have not the use of reason necessary for the management of their affairs; which is not the case with a nation. Those who
think otherwise cannot allege any solid reason for their opinion; and it
would follow from their principles, that no safe contract can be entered
into with any nation;a conclusion, which attacks the foundation of
all public treaties.
76. To increase, lower [compress], or alter the market rate [of the years harvest].
APX - 361
257. The
nation may
alienate its
public
property.
original contents
33
Sect. 268. Right of alluvion,

page 121
269. Whether alluvion produces any change in the right
to river,
121
270. Consequence of a river changing its bed,
122
271. Works tending to turn the current,
122
272. or generally prejudicial to the rights of others,
122
273. Rules relative to interfering rights,
122
274. Lakes,
123
275. Increase of a lake,
123
276. Land formed on the banks of a lake,
125
277. Bed of a lake dried up,
125
278. Jurisdiction over lakes and rivers,
125
chapter xxiii
Of the Sea.
APX - 362
279. The sea, and its use, <xxxi>

280. Whether the sea can be possessed, and its
dominion appropriated,
281. Nobody has a right to appropriate to himself the
use of the open sea,
282. A nation attempting to exclude another, does her
an injury,
283. She even does an injury to all nations,
284. She may acquire an exclusive right by treaties,
285. but not by prescription and long use,
286. unless by virtue of a tacit agreement,
287. The sea near the coasts may become property,
288. Another reason for appropriating the sea bordering
on the coasts,
289. How far that possession may extend,
290. Shores and ports,
291. Bays and straits,
292. Straits in particular,
293. Right to wrecks,
294. A sea inclosed within the territories of a nation,
295. The parts of the sea possessed by a sovereign are
within his jurisdiction,
125
125
125
126
126
126
127
127
127
128
128
129
129
130
130
130
131
34
original contents
book ii
Of a Nation considered in her
Relation to other States.
chapter i
Of the common Duties of a Nation towards other
States, or the Ofces of Humanity between Nations.
Sect. 1. Foundation of the common and mutual
duties of nations,
page 133
2. Ofces of humanity, and their foundation,
134
3. General principle of all the mutual duties
of nations,
135
4. Duties of a nation for the preservation of others,
135
5. She is bound to assist a nation aficted with famine
or any other calamity,
136
6. She is bound to contribute to the perfection of
other states,
136
7. but not by force,
137
8. The right to require the ofces of humanity,
138
9. The right of judging whether they are to
be granted,
138
10. A nation is not to compel another to perform those
ofces of which the refusal is no wrong,
138
11. Mutual love of nations,
138
12. Each nation is bound to cultivate the friendship
of others,
138
13. to perfect herself with a view to the advantage of
others, and to set them good examples,
139
14. to take care of their glory,
139
15. Difference of religion ought not to preclude the
ofces of humanity,
139
16. Rule and measure of the ofces of humanity,
<xxxii>
140
17. Particular limitation with respect to the prince,
141
18. No nation ought to injure others,
141
19. Offences,
142
20. Bad custom of the ancients,
143
original contents
35
chapter ii
Of the mutual Commerce between Nations.
APX - 363
Sect. 21. General obligation of nations to carry on

mutual commerce,
page 143
22. They are bound to favour trade,
144
23. Freedom of trade,
144
24. Right of trading, belonging to nations,
144
25. Each nation is sole judge of the propriety of
commerce on her own part,
144
26. Necessity of commercial treaties,
145
27. General rule concerning those treaties,
145
28. Duty of nations in making such treaties,
145
29. Perpetual or temporary treaties, or treaties revocable
at pleasure,
145
30. Nothing contrary to the tenor of a treaty can be
granted to a third party,
146
31. How far lawful to give up by treaty the liberty of
trading with other nations,
146
32. A nation may restrict her commerce in favour of
another nation,
146
33. A nation may appropriate to herself a particular
branch of trade,
147
34. Consuls,
147
chapter iii
Of the Dignity and Equality of Nations,
of Titles,and other Marks of Honour.
35. Dignity of nations or sovereign states,
36. Their equality,
37. Precedency,
38. The form of government is foreign to this question,
39. A state ought to retain her rank, notwithstanding
any changes in the form of her government,
40. Treaties and established customs are to be observed
in this respect,
41. Name and honours given by the nation to
her conductor,
42. Whether a sovereign may assume what title and
honours he pleases,
43. Right of other nations in that respect,
149
149
149
150
150
150
151
152
152
36
original contents
Sect. 44. Their duty,
45. How titles and honours may be secured,
46. We must conform to general custom, <xxxiii>
47. Mutual respect due by sovereigns to each other,
48. How a sovereign ought to maintain his dignity,
page 152
153
153
153
154
chapter iv
Of the Right to Security, and the Effects of the
Sovereignty and Independence of Nations.
49. Right to security,
50. It produces the right of resistance,
51. and that of obtaining reparation,
52. and the right of punishing,
53. Right of all nations against a mischievous people,
54. No nation has a right to interfere in the government
of another state,
55. One sovereign cannot make himself judge of the
conduct of another,
56. How far lawful to interfere in a quarrel between a
sovereign and his subjects,
57. Right of opposing the interference of foreign
powers in the affairs of government,
58. The same right with respect to religion,
59. No nation can be constrained in religious concerns,
60. Ofces of humanity in these matters:
missionaries,
61. Circumspection to be used,
62. What a sovereign may do in favour of those who
profess his religion in another state,
154
154
155
155
155
155
155
156
157
157
158
158
159
159
chapter v
Of the Observance of Justice between Nations.
63. Necessity of the observance of justice in
human society,
64. Obligation of all nations to cultivate and
observe justice,
65. Right of refusing to submit to injustice,
66. This right is a perfect one,
67. It producesthe right of self-defence,
68. the right of doing ourselves justice,
160
160
160
161
161
161
original contents
Sect. 69. The right of punishing injustice,
70. Right of all nations against one that openly
despises justice,
37
page 161
161
chapter vi
Of the Concern a Nation may have in
the Actions of her Citizens.
APX - 364
71. The sovereign is bound to avenge the wrongs of the

state, and to protect the citizens,
72. He must not suffer his subjects to offend other
nations or their citizens,
73. The acts of individuals not imputable to the nation,
<xxxiv>
74. unless she approve or ratify them,
75. Conduct to be pursued by the offended party,
76. Duty of the aggressors sovereign,
77. If he refuses justice, he becomes a party in the fault
and offence,
78. Another case in which the nation is guilty of the
crimes of the citizens,
161
162
162
162
162
163
163
164
chapter vii
Effects of the Domain, between Nations.
79. General effects of the domain,
80. What is comprehended in the domain of a nation,
81. The property of the citizens is the national property
with respect to foreign states,
82. A consequence of that principle,
83. Connection of the domain of the nation with the
sovereignty,
84. Jurisdiction,
85. Effects of the jurisdiction in foreign countries,
86. Desert and uncultivated places,
87. Duty of the nation in that respect,
88. Right of possessing things that have no owner,
89. Rights granted to another nation,
90. Not allowable to expel a nation from the country
she inhabits,
91. nor to extend by violence the bounds of empire,
164
165
165
165
165
166
166
167
168
168
168
168
169
38
original contents
Sect. 92. The limits of territories ought to be
carefully ascertained,
93. Violation of territory,
94. Prohibition to enter the territory,
95. A country possessed by several nations at the
same time,
96. A country possessed by a private person,
97. Independent families in a country,
98. Possession of certain places only, or of certain
rights, in a vacant country,
page 169
169
170
170
170
170
171
chapter viii
Rules respecting Foreigners.
99. General idea of the conduct a state ought to
observe towards foreigners,
100. Entering the territory,
101. Foreigners are subject to the laws,
102. and punishable according to the laws,
103. Who is the judge of their disputes,
104. Protection due to foreigners,
105. Their duties,
106. To what burthens they are subject,
107. Foreigners continue members of their own nation,
108. The state has no right over the person of a
foreigner, <xxxv>
109. nor over his property,
110. Who are the heirs of a foreigner,
111. Will of a foreigner,
112. Escheatage,
113. The right of traite foraine,
114. Immovable property possessed by an alien,
115. Marriages of aliens,
171
172
172
172
173
173
173
174
174
174
174
175
175
176
177
177
177
chapter ix
Of the Rights retained by all Nations after the
Introduction of Domain and Property.
116. What are the rights of which men cannot
be deprived,
117. Right still remaining from the primitive state
of communion,
178
178
original contents
Sect. 118. Right retained by each nation over the
property of others,
119. Right of necessity,
120. Right of procuring provisions by force,
121. Right of making use of things belonging
to others,
122. Right of carrying off women,
123. Right of passage,
124. and of procuring necessaries,
125. Right of dwelling in a foreign country,
126. Things, of which the use is inexhaustible,
127. Right of innocent use,
128. Nature of that right in general,
129. and in cases not doubtful,
130. Exercise of that right between nations,
39
page 178
178
179
179
179
180
180
180
181
181
182
182
182
APX - 365
chapter x
How a Nation is to use her Right of Domain, in
order to discharge her Duties towards other Nations,
with respect to the Innocent Use of Things.
131. General duty of the proprietor,
132. Innocent passage,
133. Securities may be required,
134. Passage of merchandise,
135. Residence in the country,
136. How we are to act towards foreigners who desire a
perpetual residence,
137. Right accruing from a general permission,
138. A right granted as a favour,
139. The nation ought to be courteous,
183
183
184
184
184
185
185
186
186
chapter xi
Of Usucaption and Prescription between Nations.
140. Denition of usucaption and prescription,
141. Usucaption and prescription derived from the law
of nature, <xxxvi>
142. What foundation is required for ordinary
prescription,
143. Immemorial prescription,
187
187
189
189
40
original contents
Sect. 144. Claimant alleging reasons for his silence,
page 190
145. Proprietor sufciently shewing that he
does not mean to abandon his right,
190
146. Prescription founded on the actions of
the proprietor,
190
147. Usucaption and prescription take place
between nations,
190
148. More difcult, between nations, to found them on
a presumptive desertion,
190
149. Other principles that enforce prescription,
191
150. Effects of the voluntary law of nations on
this subject,
191
151. Law of treaties, or custom, in this matter,
192
chapter xii
Of Treaties of Alliance, and other public Treaties.
152. Nature of treaties,
153. Compacts, agreements, or conventions,
154. By whom treaties are made,
155. Whether a state under protection may
make treaties,
156. Treaties concluded by proxies or plenipotentiaries,
157. Validity of treaties,
158. Injury does not render them void,
159. Duty of nations in that respect,
160. Nullity of treaties which are pernicious to
the state,
161. Nullity of treaties made for an unjust or
dishonest purpose,
162. Whether an alliance may be contracted with those
who do not profess the true religion,
163. Obligation to observe treaties,
164. The violation of a treaty is an act of injustice,
165. Treaties cannot be made, contrary to those
already existing,
166. How treaties may be concluded with several
nations with the same view,
167. The more ancient ally entitled to a preference,
168. We owe no assistance in an unjust war,
169. General division of treaties:those that relate to
things already due by the law of nature,
192
192
192
193
193
194
194
194
194
195
195
195
196
196
197
197
197
197
original contents
APX - 366
Sect. 170. Collision of those treaties with the duties

we owe to ourselves,
page 198
171. Treaties in which we barely promise to do
no injury,
198
172. Treaties concerning things that are not naturally
due:equal treaties,
198
173. Obligation to preserve equality in treaties,
199
174. Difference between equal treaties and
equal alliances,
200
175. Unequal treaties, and unequal alliances,
200
176. An alliance with diminution of sovereignty may
annul preceding treaties,
202
177. We ought, as much as possible, to avoid making
unequal alliances, <xxxvii>
203
178. Mutual duties of nations with respect to
unequal alliances,
203
179. in alliances where the inequality is on the side of
the more powerful party,
203
180. How inequality of treaties and alliances may be
conformable to the law of nature,
204
181. Inequality imposed by way of punishment,
205
182. Other kinds, of which we have spoken
elsewhere,
205
183. Personal and real treaties,
205
184. Naming the contracting parties in the treaty does
not render it personal,
205
185. An alliance made by a republic is real,
205
186. Treaties concluded by kings or other monarchs,
206
187. Perpetual treaties, and those for a certain time,
206
188. Treaties made for the king and his successors,
206
189. Treaties made for the good of the kingdom,
206
190. How presumption ought to be founded in
doubtful cases,
207
191. The obligations and rights resulting from a real
treaty pass to the successors,
208
192. Treaties accomplished once for all, and perfected,
208
193. Treaties already accomplished on the one part,
209
194. The personal alliance expires if one of the parties
ceases to reign,
211
195. Treaties in their own nature personal,
211
196. Alliance concluded for the defence of the king and
royal family,
211
41
42
original contents
Sect. 197. Obligation of a real alliance, when the
allied king is deposed,
page 212
chapter xiii
Of the Dissolution and Renewal of Treaties.
198. Expiration of alliances made for a limited time,
199. Renewal of treaties,
200. How a treaty is dissolved, when violated by
one of the contracting parties,
201. The violation of one treaty does not
cancel another,
202. The violation of one article in a treaty may cancel
the whole,
203. The treaty is void by the destruction of one of the
contracting powers,
204. Alliances of a state that has afterwards put herself
under the protection of another,
205. Treaties dissolved by mutual consent,
213
213
214
214
215
216
216
217
chapter xiv
Of other public Conventions,of those that are
made by Subordinate Powers,particularly
of the Agreement called in Latin Sponsio,
and of Conventions between the Sovereign
and Private Persons.
206. Conventions made by sovereigns, <xxxviii>
207. Those made by subordinate powers,
208. Treaties concluded by a public person,
without orders from the sovereign, or without
sufcient powers,
209. The agreement called sponsio,
210. The state is not bound by such an agreement,
211. To what the promiser is bound when it
is disavowed,
212. To what the sovereign is bound,
213. Private contracts of the sovereign,
214. Contracts made by him with private persons,
in the name of the state,
215. They are binding on the nation, and on
his successors,
218
218
219
219
220
220
223
226
226
227
original contents
Sect. 216. Debts of the sovereign and the state,
217. Donations of the sovereign,
43
page 227
228
chapter xv
Of the Faith of Treaties.
APX - 367
218. What is sacred among nations,

219. Treaties sacred between nations,
220. The faith of treaties is sacred,
221. He who violates his treaties, violates the law
of nations,
222. Right of nations against him who disregards the
faith of treaties,
223. The law of nations violated by the popes,
224. This abuse authorised by princes,
225. Use of an oath in treaties.It does not constitute
the obligation,
226. It does not change the nature of obligations,
227. It gives no pre-eminence to one treaty
above another,
228. It cannot give force to a treaty that is invalid,
229. Asseverations,
230. The faith of treaties does not depend on the
difference of religion,
231. Precaution to be taken in wording treaties,
232. Subterfuges in treaties,
233. An evidently false interpretation inconsistent
with the faith of treaties,
234. Faith tacitly pledged,
229
229
229
229
230
230
231
232
232
232
233
233
233
233
234
234
234
chapter xvi
Of Securities given for the Observance of Treaties.
235. Guaranty,
236. It gives the guarantee no right to interfere unasked
in the execution of a treaty,
237. Nature of the obligation it imposes,
238. The guaranty cannot impair the rights of a
third party,
239. Duration of the guaranty,
240. Treaties with surety,
241. Pawns, securities, and mortgages,
235
236
236
236
237
237
237
44
original contents
Sect. 242. A nations right over what she holds as a
pledge, <xxxix>
page 237
243. How she is obliged to restore it,
238
244. How she may appropriate it to herself,
238
245. Hostages,
238
246. What right we have over hostages,
239
247. Their liberty alone is pledged,
239
248. When they are to be sent back,
239
249. Whether they may be detained on any
other account,
239
250. They may be detained for their own actions,
240
251. Of the support of hostages,
240
252. A subject cannot refuse to be a hostage,
241
253. Rank of the hostages,
241
254. They ought not to make their escape,
241
255. Whether a hostage who dies is to be replaced,
242
256. Substitute for a hostage,
242
257. Hostage succeeding to the crown,
242
258. The liability of the hostage ends with the treaty,
242
259. The violation of the treaty is an injury done to
the hostages,
242
260. The fate of the hostage when he who has given
him fails in his engagements,
243
261. Right founded on custom,
243
chapter xvii
Of the Interpretation of Treaties.
262. Necessity of establishing rules of interpretation,
263. First general maximit is not allowable to
interpret what has no need of interpretation,
264. Second general maximif he who could and
ought to have explained himself, has not done it, it
is to his own detriment,
265. Third general maximneither of the contracting
parties has a right to interpret the treaty according
to his own fancy,
266. Fourth general maximwhat is sufciently
declared, is to be taken for true,
267. We ought to attend rather to the words of
the person promising, than to those of the
party stipulating,
244
244
245
245
245
245
original contents
APX - 368
Sect. 268. Fifth general maximthe interpretation

ought to be made according to certain rules,
page 246
269. The faith of treaties imposes an obligation to
follow those rules,
247
270. General rule of interpretation,
247
271. The terms are to be explained conformably to
common usage,
248
272. Interpretation of ancient treaties,
248
273. Quibbles on words,
249
274. A rule on that subject,
249
275. Mental reservations,
249
276. Interpretation of technical terms,
249
277. Terms whose signication admits of degrees,
250
278. Figurative expressions, <xl>
250
279. Equivocal expressions,
250
280. The rule for these two cases,
251
281. Not necessary to give a term the same sense
every-where in the same deed,
252
282. We ought to reject every interpretation which leads
to an absurdity,
252
283. or which renders the act null and void of effect,
253
284. Obscure expressions interpreted by others more
clear in the same author,
254
285. Interpretation founded on the connection of
the discourse,
254
286. Interpretation drawn from the connection and
relation of the things themselves,
255
287. Interpretation founded on the reason of
the deed,
256
288. Where many reasons have concurred to
determine the will,
256
289. What constitutes a sufcient reason for an act
of the will,
257
290. Extensive interpretation founded on the reason
of the act,
257
291. Frauds tending to elude laws or promises,
258
292. Restrictive interpretation,
259
293. Its use, in order to avoid falling into absurdities,
or into what is unlawful,
259
294. or what is too severe and burthensome,
260
295. How it ought to restrict the signication agreeably
to the subject,
260
45
46
original contents
Sect. 296. How a change happening in the state of
things may form an exception,
page 260
297. Interpretation of a deed in unforeseen cases,
262
298. Reasons arising from the possibility and not the
existence of a thing,
262
299. Expressions susceptible of an extensive and a
limited sense,
263
300. Things favourable, and things odious,
263
301. What tends to the common advantage, and to
equality, is favourable: the contrary is odious,
264
302. What is useful to human society, is favourable: the
contrary is odious,
265
303. Whatever contains a penalty, is odious,
265
304. Whatever renders a deed void, is odious,
265
305. Whatever tends to change the present state of
things, is odious: the contrary is favourable,
265
306. Things of a mixed nature,
266
307. Interpretation of favourable things,
266
308. Interpretation of odious things,
267
309. Examples,
268
310. How we ought to interpret deeds of pure liberality, 270
311. Collision of laws or treaties,
271
312. First rule in cases of collision,
271
313. Second rule,
271
314. Third rule,
271
315. Fourth rule,
272
316. Fifth rule,
272
317. Sixth rule,
273
318. Seventh rule,
273
319. Eighth rule, <xli>
274
320. Ninth rule,
274
321. Tenth rule,
274
322. General remark on the manner of observing all the
preceding rules,
274
chapter xviii
Of the Mode of terminating Disputes
between Nations.
323. General direction on this subject,
324. Every nation is bound to give satisfaction
respecting the just complaints of another,
274
275
original contents
APX - 369
Sect. 325. How nations may abandon their rights and

just complaints,
page 275
326. Means suggested by the law of nature, for
terminating their disputes:amicable
accommodation,
276
327. Compromise,
276
328. Mediation,
276
329. Arbitration,
277
330. Conferences and congresses,
278
331. Distinction to be made between evident and
doubtful cases,
278
332. Essential rights, and those of less importance,
279
333. How we acquire a right of recurring to force in a
doubtful case,
280
334. and even without attempting other measures,
280
335. Voluntary law of nations on that subject,
280
336. Equitable conditions to be offered,
281
337. Possessors right in doubtful cases,
282
338. How reparation of an injury is to be sought,
282
339. Retaliation,
282
340. Various modes of punishing, without having
recourse to arms,
283
341. Retortion,
283
342. Reprisals,
283
343. What is required to render them lawful,
284
344. Upon what effects reprisals are made,
284
345. The state is bound to compensate those who suffer
by reprisals,
285
346. The sovereign alone can order reprisals,
285
347. Reprisals against a nation for actions of her
subjects, and in favour of the injured subjects,
285
348. but not in favour of foreigners,
285
349. Those who have given cause for reprisals are
bound to indemnify those who suffer by them,
286
350. What may be deemed a refusal to do justice,
287
351. Subjects arrested by way of reprisals,
287
352. Our right against those who oppose reprisals,
288
353. Just reprisals do not afford a just cause for war,
288
354. How we ought to conne ourselves to reprisals, or
at length proceed to hostilities, <xlii>
288
47
48
original contents
book iii
Of War.
chapter i
Of War,its different Kinds,and the
Right of making War.
Sect. 1. Denition of war.
2. Public war,
3. Right of making war,
4. It belongs only to the sovereign power,
5. Defensive and offensive war,
page 291
291
291
292
293
chapter ii
Of the Instruments of war,the raising of Troops,
&c.their Commanders, or the Subordinate
Powers in War.
6. Instruments of war,
7. Right of levying troops,
8. Obligation of the citizens or subjects,
9. Enlisting or raising of troops,
10. Whether there be any exemptions from
carrying arms,
11. Soldiers pay and quarters,
12. Hospitals for invalids,
13. Mercenary soldiers,
14. Rule to be observed in their enlistment,
15. Enlisting in foreign countries,
16. Obligation of soldiers,
17. Military laws,
18. Military discipline,
19. Subordinate powers in war,
20. How their promises bind the sovereign,
21. In what cases their promises bind only themselves,
22. Their assumption of an authority which they do
not possess,
23. How they bind their inferiors,
293
294
294
294
294
296
296
297
298
298
299
299
299
299
300
300
300
301
original contents
chapter iii
Of the just Causes of War.
APX - 370
Sect. 24. War never to be undertaken without very

cogent reasons,
page 301
25. Justicatory reasons, and motives for making war,
301
26. What is in general a just cause of war,
302
27. What war is unjust,
302
28. The object of war,
302
29. Both justicatory reasons and proper motives
requisite in undertaking a war,
303
30. Proper motivesvicious motives, <xliii>
303
31. War undertaken upon just grounds, but from
vicious motives,
303
32. Pretexts,
304
33. War undertaken merely for advantage,
304
34. Nations who make war without reason or
apparent motives,
305
35. How defensive war is just or unjust,
305
36. How it may become just against an offensive war
which was originally just,
305
37. How an offensive war is just in an evident cause,
305
38. in a doubtful cause,
306
39. War cannot be just on both sides,
306
40. Sometimes reputed lawful,
306
41. War undertaken to punish a nation,
307
42. Whether the aggrandisement of a neighbouring
power can authorise a war against him,
307
43. Alone, and of itself, it cannot give a right to
attack him,
308
44. How the appearances of danger give that right,
309
45. Another case more evident,
310
46. Other allowable means of defence against a
formidable power,
311
47. Political equilibrium,
311
48. Ways of maintaining it,
312
49. How he that destroys the equilibrium, may be
restrained, or even weakened,
312
50. Behaviour allowable towards a neighbour preparing
for war,
313
49
50
original contents
chapter iv
Of the Declaration of War,and of
War in due Form.
Sect. 51. Declaration of war:necessity thereof,
page 315
52. What it is to contain,
315
53. It is simple or conditional,
316
54. The right to make war ceases on the offer of
equitable conditions,
316
55. Formalities of a declaration of war,
316
56. Other reasons for the necessity of its publication,
316
57. Defensive war requires no declaration,
317
58. When it may be omitted in an offensive war,
317
59. It is not to be omitted by way of retaliation,
317
60. Time of the declaration,
317
61. Duty of the inhabitants on a foreign armys
entering a country before a declaration of war,
317
62. Commencement of hostilities,
318
63. Conduct to be observed towards the enemys
subjects who are in the country at the time of the
declaration of war,
318
64. Publication of the war, and manifestoes,
318
65. Decorum and moderation to be observed in
the manifestoes,
319
66. What is a lawful war in due form,
319
67. It is to be distinguished from informal and
unlawful war,
320
68. Grounds of this distinction, <xliv>
320
chapter v
Of the Enemy, and of Things belonging
to the Enemy.
69. Who is an enemy,
70. All the subjects of the two states at war are enemies,
71. and continue to be enemies in all places,
72. Whether women and children are to be
accounted enemies,
73. Things belonging to the enemy,
74. continue such every-where,
75. Neutral things found with an enemy,
321
321
321
321
322
322
322
original contents
Sect. 76. Lands possessed by foreigners in an
enemys country,
77. Things due to the enemy by a third party,
51
page 322
322
chapter vi
Of the Enemys Allies,of warlike Associations,
of Auxiliaries and Subsidies.
APX - 371
78. Treaties relative to war,

79. Defensive and offensive alliances,
80. Difference between warlike alliances and
defensive treaties,
81. Auxiliary troops,
82. Subsidies,
83. When a nation is authorised to assist another,
84. and to make alliances for war,
85. Alliances made with a nation actually engaged
in war,
86. Tacit clause in every warlike alliance,
87. To refuse succours for an unjust war, is no breach
of alliance,
88. What the casus foederis is,
89. It never takes place in an unjust war,
90. How it exists in a defensive war,
91. and in a treaty of a guaranty,
92. The succour is not due under an inability to
furnish it, or when the public safety would
be exposed,
93. Other cases:two of the parties in an alliance
coming to a rupture,
94. Refusal of the succours due in virtue of
an alliance,
95. The enemys associates,
96. Those who make a common cause with the enemy
are his associates,
97. and those who assist him, without being obliged to
it by treaties,
98. or who are in an offensive alliance with him,
99. How a defensive alliance associates with
the enemy,
100. Another case,
323
323
324
324
324
324
324
325
325
326
326
326
326
326
326
327
327
328
328
328
329
329
329
52
original contents
Sect. 101. In what case it does not produce the same
effect, <xlv>
page 330
102. Whether it be necessary to declare war against the
enemys associates,
331
chapter vii
Of Neutrality,and the Passage of Troops through
a Neutral Country.
103. Neutral nations,
104. Conduct to be pursued by a neutral nation,
105. An ally may furnish the succour due from him,
and remain neuter,
106. Right of remaining neuter,
107. Treaties of neutrality,
108. Additional reason for making those treaties,
109. Foundation of the rules of neutrality,
110. How levies may be allowed, money lent, and every
kind of things sold, without a breach of neutrality,
111. Trade of neutral nations with those which are
at war,
112. Contraband goods,
113. Whether such goods may be conscated,
114. Searching neutral ships,
115. Enemys property on board a neutral ship,
116. Neutral property on board an enemys ship,
117. Trade with a besieged town,
118. Impartial ofces of neutrals,
119. Passage of troops through a neutral country,
120. Passage to be asked,
121. It may be refused for good reasons,
122. In what case it may be forced,
123. The fear of danger authorises a refusal,
124. or a demand of every reasonable security,
125. Whether always necessary to give every kind of
security required,
126. Equality to be observed towards both parties, as to
the passage,
127. No complaint lies against a neutral state for
granting a passage,
128. That state may refuse it from fear of the
resentment of the opposite party,
332
332
333
333
333
334
334
334
335
336
337
339
339
339
339
340
340
340
341
341
342
342
342
343
343
343
original contents
53
Sect. 129. and lest her country should become the

theatre of war,
page 343
130. What is included in the grant of passage,
344
131. Safety of the passage,
344
132. No hostility to be committed in a neutral country,
344
133. Neutral country not to afford a retreat to troops,
that they may again attack their enemies,
345
134. Conduct to be pursued by troops passing through
a neutral country,
345
135. A passage may be refused for a war evidently
unjust, <xlvi>
345
APX - 372
chapter viii
Of the Rights of Nations in War,and rst, of what
we have a Right to do, and what we are allowed to
do, to the Enemys Person in a just War.
136. General principle of the rights against an enemy in
a just war,
137. Difference between what we have a right to do,
and what is barely allowed to be done with
impunity between enemies,
138. The right to weaken an enemy by every
justiable method,
139. The right over the enemys person,
140. Limits of that right:an enemy not to be killed
after ceasing to resist;
141. A particular case, in which quarter may be refused,
142. Reprisals,
143. Whether a governor of a town can be punished
with death for an obstinate defence,
144. Fugitives and deserters,
145. Women, children, the aged, and sick,
146. Clergy, men of letters, &c.
147. Peasants, and, in general, all who do not
carry arms,
148. The right of making prisoners of war,
149. A prisoner of war not to be put to death,
150. How prisoners of war are to be treated,
151. Whether prisoners, who cannot be kept or fed,
may be put to death,
152. Whether prisoners of war may be made slaves,
346
346
347
347
347
348
348
349
351
351
352
352
353
354
354
355
356
54
original contents
Sect. 153. Exchange and ransom of prisoners,
page 357
154. The state is bound to procure their release,
357
155. Whether an enemy may lawfully be assassinated
or poisoned,
358
156. Whether poisoned weapons may be used in war,
361
157. Whether springs may be poisoned,
361
158. Disposition to be entertained towards an enemy,
362
159. Tenderness for the person of a king who is in arms
against us,
363
chapter ix
Of the Right of War, with respect to Things
belonging to the Enemy.
160. Principles of the right over things belonging to
the enemy,
161. The right of seizing them,
162. What is taken from the enemy by way of penalty,
163. What is with-held from him, in order to oblige
him to give just satisfaction,
164. Booty, <xlvii>
165. Contributions,
166. Waste and destruction,
167. Ravaging and burning,
168. What things are to be spared,
169. Bombarding towns,
170. Demolition of fortresses,
171. Safeguards,
172. General rule of moderation, respecting the evil
which may be done to an enemy,
173. Rule of the voluntary law of nations on the
same subject,
364
364
364
365
365
366
366
367
368
368
369
369
369
369
chapter x
Of Faith between Enemies,of Stratagems, Artices
in War, Spies, and some other Practices.
174. Faith to be sacred between enemies,
175. What treaties are to be observed between enemies,
176. On what occasions they may be broken,
177. Lies,
178. Stratagems and artices in war,
371
372
372
372
373
original contents
55
Sect. 179. Spies,

page 375
180. Clandestine seduction of the enemys people,
376
181. Whether the offers of a traitor may be accepted,
377
182. Deceitful intelligence,
377
chapter xi
Of the Sovereign who wages an unjust War.
183. An unjust war gives no right whatever,
184. Great guilt of the sovereign who undertakes it,
185. His obligations,
186. Difculty of repairing the injury he has done,
187. Whether the nation and the military are bound to
any thing,
378
378
379
379
380
APX - 373
chapter xii
Of the Voluntary Law of Nations, as it regards the
Effects of Regular Warfare, independently of the
Justice of the Cause.
188. Nations not rigidly to enforce the law of nature
against each other,
189. Why they are bound to admit the voluntary law
of nations,
190. Regular war, as to its effects, is to be accounted
just on both sides,
191. Whatever is permitted to one party, is so to
the other,
192. The voluntary law gives no more than impunity to
him who wages an unjust war, <xlviii>
381
381
382
382
383
chapter xiii
Of Acquisitions by War, and particularly
of Conquests.
193. War a mode of acquisition,
194. Measure of the right it gives,
195. Rules of the voluntary law of nations,
196. Acquisition of movable property,
197. Acquisition of immovables,or conquest,
198. How to transfer them validly,
384
384
385
385
386
387
56
original contents
Sect. 199. Conditions on which a conquered town
is acquired,
page 387
200. Lands of private persons,
388
201. Conquest of the whole state,
388
202. To whom the conquest belongs,
391
203. Whether we are to set at liberty a people whom the
enemy had unjustly conquered,
391
chapter xiv
Of the Right of Postliminium.
204. Denition of the right of postliminium,
205. Foundation of that right,
206. How it takes effect,
207. Whether it takes effect among the allies,
208. Of no validity in neutral nations,
209. What things are recoverable by that right,
210. Of those who cannot return by the right
of postliminium,
211. They enjoy that right when retaken,
212. Whether that right extends to their property
alienated by the enemy,
213. Whether a nation that has been entirely subdued
can enjoy the right of postliminium,
214. Right of postliminium for what is restored at
the peace,
215. and for things ceded to the enemy,
216. The right of postliminium does not exist after
a peace,
217. Why always in force for prisoners,
218. They are free even by escaping into a
neutral country,
219. How the rights and obligations of
prisoners subsist,
220. Testament of a prisoner of war,
221. Marriage,
222. Regulations established by treaty or custom,
respecting postliminium,
392
392
393
393
393
394
394
394
395
396
397
397
397
397
397
398
398
398
398
chapter xiii
593
This voluntary law of nations, thus established, is of very extensive

use, and is far from being a chimera, an arbitrary or groundless fiction.
It flows from the same source, and is founded on the same principles,
with the natural and necessary law. For what other reason does nature
prescribe such and such rules of conduct to men, except because those
rules are necessary to the safety and welfare of mankind? But the maxims
of the necessary law of nations are founded immediately on the nature
of things, and particularly on that of man, and of political society. The
voluntary law of nations supposes an additional principle,the nature
of the great society of nations, and of their mutual intercourse. The
necessary law enjoins to nations what is absolutely indispensable, and
what naturally tends to their perfection and common happiness. The
voluntary law tolerates what cannot be avoided without introducing
greater evils.
chapter xiii
Of Acquisitions by War, and
particularly of Conquests.
If it be lawful to carry off things belonging to an enemy, with a view of
weakening him (160), and sometimes of punishing him (162), it is no
less lawful in a just war to appropriate them to our own use, by way of
compensation, which the civilians term expletio juris (161). They are
retained as an equivalent for what is due by the enemy, for the expenses
and damages which he has occasioned, and even (when there is cause to
punish him) as a commutation for the punishment he has deserved. For
when I cannot obtain the individual thing which belongs or is due to
me, I have a right to an equivalent, which, by the rules of expletive justice,
and in moral estimation, is considered as the thing itself. Thus, according
to the law of nature, which constitutes the necessary law of nations, war
founded on justice is a lawful mode of acquisition.
But that sacred law does not authorise even the acquisitions made in
a just war, any farther than as they are approved by justice,that is to
say, no farther than is requisite to obtain complete satisfaction in the
APX - 374
193. How
war is a
method of
acquisition.
194. Measure
of the right
it gives.
594
195. Rules of
the voluntary
law of nations.
196. Acquisition of
movable
property.
book iii: of war
degree necessary for accomplishing the lawful ends we have just mentioned. An equitable conqueror, deaf to the suggestions of ambition and
avarice, will make a just estimate of what is due to him,that is to say,
of the thing which has been the subject of the war (if the thing itself is
no longer reco-<385>verable), and of the damages and expenses of the
war,and will retain no more of the enemys property than what is
precisely sufficient to furnish the equivalent. But if he has to do with a
perfidious, restless, and dangerous enemy, he will, by way of punishment, deprive him of some of his towns or provinces, and keep them
to serve as a barrier to his own dominions. Nothing is more allowable
than to weaken an enemy who has rendered himself suspected and formidable. The lawful end of punishment is future security. The conditions necessary for rendering an acquisition, made by arms, just and irreproachable before God and our own conscience, are thesejustice in
the cause, and equity in the measure of the satisfaction.
But nations cannot, in their dealings with each other, insist on this
rigid justice. By the rules of the voluntary law of nations, every regular
war is on both sides accounted just, as to its effects (190); and no one
has a right to judge a nation, respecting the unreasonableness of her
claims, or what she thinks necessary for her own safety (Prelim. 21).
Every acquisition, therefore, which has been made in regular warfare, is
valid according to the voluntary law of nations, independently of the
justice of the cause, and the reasons which may have induced the conqueror to assume the property of what he has taken. Accordingly, nations
have ever esteemed conquest a lawful title; and that title has seldom been
disputed, unless where it was derived from a war not only unjust in itself,
but even destitute of any plausible pretext.
The property of movable effects is vested in the enemy from the moment they come into his power; and if he sells them to neutral nations,
the former proprietor is not entitled to claim them. But such things must
be actually and truly in the enemys power, and carried to a place of
safety. Suppose a foreigner coming into our country buys a portion of
the booty which a party of enemies have just taken from us: our men
who are in pursuit of this party may very justly seize on the booty which
that foreigner was over precipitate in buying. On this head Grotius
APX - 375
chapter xiii
595
quotes from De Thou the instance of the town of Lierre in Brabant,

which having been captured and recaptured on the same day, the booty
taken from the inhabitants was restored to them because it had not been
twenty-four hours in the enemys hands.* This space of twenty-four
hours, together with the practice observed at sea, is an institution of
the law of nations established by agreement or custom, and is even a
civil law in some states. The natural reason of the conduct adopted towards the inhabitants of Lierre is, that the enemy being taken as it were
in the fact, and before they had carried off the booty, it was not looked
upon as having absolutely become their property, or been lost to the
inhabitants. Thus, at sea, a ship taken by <386> the enemy, may be retaken and delivered by other ships of her own party, as long as she has
not been carried into some port, or into the midst of a fleet: her fate is
not decided, nor is the owners property irrecoverably lost, until the ship
be in a place of safety with regard to the enemy who has taken her, and
entirely in his power. But the ordinances of every state may make different regulations on this head between the citizens, with a view either
to prevent disputes or to encourage armed vessels to retake merchant
ships that have fallen into the enemys hands.
The justice or injustice of the cause does not here become an object
of consideration. There would be no stability in the affairs of mankind,
no safety in trading with nations engaged in war, if we were allowed to
draw a distinction between a just and an unjust war, so as to attribute
lawful effects to the one, which we denied to the other. It would be opening a door to endless discussions and quarrels. This reason is of such
weight, that, on account of it, the effects of a public war, at least with
regard to movables, have been allowed to expeditions which deserved
no other name than that of predatory enterprises, though carried on by
regular armies. When, after the wars of the English in France, the grandes
compagnies ranged about Europe, sacking and pillaging wherever they
came, none of the sufferers was ever known to claim the booty which
* Grotius, de Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. iii. cap. 6, 3, n. 7.
See Grotius, ibid. and in the text.
Grotius, ibid.
APX - 376
596
197. Acquisition of immoveables,

or conquest.
198. How to
transfer them
validly.
book iii: of war
those plunderers had carried off and sold. At present it would be in vain
to claim a ship taken by the Barbary corsairs, and sold to a third party,
or retaken from the captors; though it is very improperly that the piracies
of those barbarians can be considered as acts of regular war. We here
speak of the external right: the internal right and the obligations of conscience undoubtedly require that we should restore to a third party the
property we recover from an enemy who had despoiled him of it in an
unjust war,provided he can recognise that property, and will defray
the expenses we have incurred in recovering it. Grotius quotes many
instances of sovereigns and commanders who have generously restored
such booty, even without requiring any thing for their trouble or expense.* But such conduct is pursued only in cases where the booty has
been recently taken. It would be an impracticable task, scrupulously to
seek out the proprietors of what has been captured a long time back:
and moreover they have, no doubt, relinquished all their right to things
which they had no longer any hope of recovering. Such is the usual mode
of thinking with respect to captures in war, which are soon given up as
irrecoverably lost.
Immovable possessions, lands, towns, provinces, &c. become the
property of the enemy who makes himself master of them: but it is only
by the treaty of peace, or the entire submission and extinction of the
state to which those towns and provinces belonged, that the acquisition
is completed, and the property becomes stable and perfect. <387>
Thus a third party cannot safely purchase a conquered town or province, till the sovereign from whom it was taken has renounced it by a
treaty of peace, or has been irretrievably subdued, and has lost his sovereignty: for, while the war continues,while the sovereign has still
hopes of recovering his possessions by arms,is a neutral prince to come
and deprive him of the opportunity by purchasing that town or province
from the conqueror? The original proprietor cannot forfeit his rights by
the act of a third person; and if the purchaser be determined to maintain
his purchase, he will find himself involved in the war. Thus the king of
Prussia became a party with the enemies of Sweden, by receiving Stettin
* Grotius, lib. iii. cap. 16 [[Law of War and Peace ]].
APX - 377
chapter xiii
597
from the hands of the king of Poland and the czar, under the title of
sequestration.* But when a sovereign has, by a definitive treaty of peace,
ceded a country to the conqueror, he has relinquished all the right he
had to it; and it were absurd that he should be allowed to demand the
restitution of that country by a subsequent conqueror who wrests it from
the former, or by any other prince, who has purchased it, or received it
in exchange, or acquired it by any title whatever.
The conqueror who takes a town or province from his enemy, cannot
justly acquire over it any other rights than such as belonged to the sovereign against whom he has taken up arms. War authorises him to possess
himself of what belongs to his enemy: if he deprives him of the sovereignty of that town or province, he acquires it such as it is, with all its
limitations and modifications. Accordingly, care is usually taken to stipulate, both in particular capitulations and in treaties of peace, that the
towns and countries ceded shall retain all their liberties, privileges, and
immunities. And why should they be deprived of them by the conqueror, on account of his quarrel with their sovereign? Nevertheless, if
the inhabitants have been personally guilty of any crime against him, he
may, by way of punishment, deprive them of their rights and privileges.
This he may also do if the inhabitants have taken up arms against him,
and have thus directly become his enemies. In that case, he owes them
no more than what is due from a humane and equitable conqueror to
his vanquished foes. Should he purely and simply incorporate them with
his former states, they will have no cause of complaint.
Hitherto I evidently speak of a city or a country which is not simply
an integrant part of a nation, or which does not fully belong to a sovereign, but over which that nation or that sovereign has certain rights.
If the conquered town or province fully and perfectly constituted a part
of the domain of a nation or sovereign, it passes on the same footing
into the power of the conqueror. Thenceforward united with the new
state to which it belongs,if it be a loser by the change, that is a misfortune which it must wholly impute to the chance of war. Thus, if a
town <388> which made part of a republic or a limited monarchy, and
* By the treaty of Schwedt, October 6, 1713.
APX - 378
199. Conditions on which

a conquered
town is
acquired.
598
200. Lands
of private
persons.
201.
Conquest of
the whole
state.
book iii: of war
enjoyed a right of sending deputies to the supreme council or the general

assembly of the states, be justly conquered by an absolute monarch, she
must never more think of such privileges: they are what the constitution
of the new state to which she is annexed does not permit.
In the conquests of ancient times, even individuals lost their lands.
Nor is it matter of surprise that in the first ages of Rome such a custom
should have prevailed. The wars of that aera were carried on between
popular republics and communities. The state possessed very little, and
the quarrel was in reality the common cause of all the citizens. But at
present war is less dreadful in its consequences to the subject: matters
are conducted with more humanity: one sovereign makes war against
another sovereign, and not against the unarmed citizens. The conqueror
seizes on the possessions of the state, the public property, while private
individuals are permitted to retain theirs. They suffer but indirectly by
the war; and the conquest only subjects them to a new master.
But if the entire state be conquered, if the nation be subdued, in what
manner can the victor treat it, without transgressing the bounds of justice? What are his rights over the conquered country? Some have dared
to advance this monstrous principle, that the conqueror is absolute master of his conquest,that he may dispose of it as his property,that he
may treat it as he pleases, according to the common expression of treating
a state as a conquered country; and hence they derive one of the sources
of despotic government. But, disregarding such writers, who reduce men
to the state of transferable goods, or beasts of burthen,who deliver
them up as the property or patrimony of another man,let us argue on
principles countenanced by reason, and conformable to humanity.
The whole right of the conqueror is derived from justifiable selfdefence (3, 26, 28), which comprehends the support and prosecution
of his rights. When, therefore, he has totally subdued a hostile nation,
he undoubtedly may, in the first place, do himself justice respecting the
object which had given rise to the war, and indemnify himself for the
expenses and damages he has sustained by it: he may, according to
the exigency of the case, subject the nation to punishment, by way of
example: he may even, if prudence so require, render her incapable
of doing mischief with the same ease in future. But, for the attainment
APX - 379
chapter xiii
599
of these different objects, he is to prefer the gentlest methods,still

bearing in mind, that the doing of harm to an enemy is no farther authorised by the law of nature, than in the precise degree which is necessary for justifiable self-defence, and reasonable security for the time to
come. Some princes have contented themselves with imposing a tribute
on the conquered nation,others, with depriving her of some of her
rights, taking from her a province, or erecting fortresses to keep her in
awe: others, <389> again, confining their quarrel to the sovereign alone,
have left the nation in the full enjoyment of all her rights,only setting
over her a new sovereign, of their own appointment.
But if the conqueror thinks proper to retain the sovereignty of the
conquered state, and has a right to retain it, the same principles must
also determine the manner in which he is to treat that state. If it is against
the sovereign alone that he has just cause of complaint, reason plainly
evinces that he acquires no other rights by his conquest than such as
belonged to the sovereign whom he has dispossessed: and, on the submission of the people, he is bound to govern them according to the laws
of the state. If the people do not voluntarily submit, the state of war
still subsists.
A conqueror who has taken up arms, not only against the sovereign,
but against the nation herself, and whose intention it was to subdue a
fierce and savage people, and once for all to reduce an obstinate enemy,
such a conqueror may with justice lay burthens on the conquered nation,
both as a compensation for the expenses of the war, and as a punishment.
He may, according to the degree of indocility apparent in their disposition, govern them with a tighter rein, so as to curb and subdue their
impetuous spirit: he may even, if necessary, keep them for some time
in a kind of slavery. But this forced condition ought to cease from the
moment the danger is over,the moment the conquered people are
become citizens: for then the right of conquest is at an end, so far as
relates to the pursuit of those rigorous measures, since the conqueror
no longer finds it necessary to use extraordinary precautions for his own
defence and safety. Then at length every thing is to be rendered conformable to the rules of a wise government, and the duties of a good
prince.
APX - 380
600
book iii: of war
When a sovereign, arrogating to himself the absolute disposal of a

people whom he has conquered, attempts to reduce them to slavery, he
perpetuates the state of warfare between that nation and himself. The
Scythians said to Alexander the Great, There is never any friendship
between the master and slave: in the midst of peace the rights of war
still subsist.* Should it be said, that in such a case there may be peace,
and a kind of compact by which the conqueror consents to spare the
lives of the vanquished, on condition that they acknowledge themselves
his slaves,he who makes such an assertion is ignorant that war gives
no right to take away the life of an enemy who has laid down his arms,
and submitted (140). But let us not dispute the point: let the man who
holds such principles of jurisprudence, keep them for his own use and
benefit: he well deserves to be subject to such a law. But men of spirit,
to whom life is nothing, less than nothing, unless sweetened with liberty,
will always conceive themselves at war with that oppressor, though
<390> actual hostilities are suspended on their part through want of
ability. We may therefore safely venture to add, that if the conquered
country is to be really subject to the conqueror as to its lawful sovereign,
he must rule it according to the ends for which civil government has
been established. It is generally the prince alone who occasions the war,
and consequently the conquest. Surely it is enough that an innocent people suffer the calamities of war: must even peace itself become fatal to
them? A generous conqueror will study to relieve his new subjects, and
mitigate their condition: he will think it his indispensable duty. Conquest (says an excellent man) ever leaves behind it an immense debt, the
discharge of which is absolutely necessary to acquit the conqueror, in
the eye of humanity.
It fortunately happens that, in this particular as in every thing else,
sound policy and humanity are in perfect accord. What fidelity, what
assistance, can you expect from an oppressed people? Do you wish that
your conquest may prove a real addition to your strength, and be well
* Inter dominum et servum, nulla amicitia est; etiam in pace, belli tamen jura
servantur. Q. Curt. lib. vii. cap. 8.
Montesquieu, in his Spirit of Laws. [[Book 10, chaps. 34.]]
APX - 381
chapter xiii
601
affected to you?treat it as a father, as a true sovereign. I am charmed

with the generous answer recorded of an embassador from Privernum.
Being introduced to the Roman senate, he was asked by the consul
If we shew you clemency, what dependence can we have on the peace
you are come to sue for? If (replied the embassador) you grant it on
reasonable conditions, it will be safe and permanent: otherwise, it will
not last long. Some took offence at the boldness of this speech; but the
more sensible part of the senate approved of the Privernians answer,
deeming it the proper language of a man, and a freeman. Can it be
imagined (said those wise senators) that any nation, or even any individual, will longer continue in an irksome and disagreeable condition,
than while compelled to submit to it? If those to whom you give peace
receive it voluntarily, it may be relied on: what fidelity can you expect
from those whom you wish to reduce to slavery?*The most secure
dominion, said Camillus,60 is that which is acceptable to those over
whom it is exercised.
Such are the rights which the law of nature gives to the conqueror,
and the duties which it imposes on him. The manner of exerting the
one, and fulfilling the other, varies according to circumstances. In general, he ought to consult the true interests <391> of his own state, and
by sound policy to reconcile them, as far as possible, with those of the
conquered country. He may, in imitation of the kings of France, unite
and incorporate it with his own dominions. Such was the practice of the
Romans: but they did this in different modes according to cases and
* Quid, si poenam (inquit consul) remittimus vobis, qualem nos pacem vobiscum
habituros speremus? Si bonam dederitis, inquit, et fidam et perpetuam; si malam,
haud diuturnam. Tum vero minari, nec id ambigue Privernatem, quidam, et illis vocibus ad rebellandum incitari pacatos populos. Pars melior senatus ad meliora responsa
trahere, et dicere viri et liberi vocem auditam: an credi posse ullum populum, aut
hominem denique, in ea conditione cujus eum poeniteat, diutius quam necesse sit,
mansurum? ibi pacem esse fidam, ubi voluntarii pacati sint; neque eo loco, ubi servitutem esse velint, fidem sperandam esse. Tit. Liv. lib. viii. cap. 21.
Certe id firmissimum longe imperium est, quo obedientes gaudent. Tit. Liv. lib.
viii. cap. 13.
60. Marius Furius Camillus, 446364 b.c., Roman soldier and statesman. He
served as censor, and on five occasions as dictator.
APX - 382
602
202. To
whom the
conquest
belongs.
book iii: of war
conjunctures. At a time when Rome stood in need of an increase of

population, she destroyed the town of Alba, which she feared to have as
a rival: but she received all its inhabitants within her walls, and thereby
gained so many new citizens. In after times the conquered cities were
left standing, and the freedom of Rome was given to the vanquished
inhabitants. Victory could not have proved so advantageous to those
people as their defeat.
The conqueror may likewise simply put himself in the place of the
sovereign whom he has dispossessed. Thus the Tartars have acted in
China: the empire was suffered to subsist in its former condition, except
that it fell under the dominion of a new race of sovereigns.
Lastly, the conqueror may rule his conquest as a separate state, and
permit it to retain its own form of government. But this method is dangerous: it produces no real union of strength; it weakens the conquered
country, without making any considerable addition to the power of the
victorious state.
It is asked to whom the conquest belongs,to the prince who has
made it, or to the state? This question ought never to have been heard
of. Can the prince, in his character of sovereign, act for any other end
than the good of the state? Whose are the forces which he employs in
his wars? Even if he made the conquest at his own expense, out of his
own revenue, or his private and patrimonial estates, does he not make
use of the personal exertions of his subjects in achieving it? does he not
shed their blood in the contest? But supposing even that he were to employ foreign or mercenary troops, does he not expose his nation to the
enemys resentment? does he not involve her in the war? And shall he
alone reap all the advantages of it? Is it not for the cause of the state,
and of the nation, that he takes up arms? The nation therefore has a just
claim to all the rights to which such war gives birth.
If the sovereign embarks in a war, of which his own personal interests
are the sole ground,as, for instance, to assert his right of succession
to a foreign sovereignty,the question then assumes a new face. In this
affair the state is wholly unconcerned: but then the nation should be at
liberty either to refuse engaging in it, or to assist her prince, at her own
option. If he is empowered to employ the national force in support of
APX - 383
chapter xiv
603
his personal rights, he should, in such case, make no distinction between

these rights and those of the state. The French law, which annexes to
the crown all acquisitions made by the king, should be the law of all
nations.
It has been observed (196) that we may be obliged, if not externally,
yet in conscience, and by the laws of equity, to re-<392>store to a third
party the booty we have recovered out of the hands of an enemy who
had taken it from him in an unjust war. The obligation is more certain
and more extensive, with regard to a people whom our enemy had unjustly oppressed. For a people thus spoiled of their liberty never renounce the hope of recovering it. If they have not voluntarily incorporated themselves with the state by which they have been subdued,
if they have not freely aided her in the war against us,we certainly
ought so to use our victory, as not merely to give them a new master, but
to break their chains. To deliver an oppressed people is a noble fruit of
victory: it is a valuable advantage gained, thus to acquire a faithful
friend. The canton of Schweitz having wrested the country of Glaris
from the house of Austria, restored the inhabitants to their former liberties; and Glaris, admitted into the Helvetic confederacy, formed the
sixth canton.*
203. Whether
we are to set
at liberty a
people whom
the enemy
had unjustly
conquered.
chapter xiv
Of the Right of Postliminium.
The right of postliminium is that, in virtue of which, persons and things
taken by the enemy are restored to their former state, now coming again
into the power of the nation to which they belonged.
The sovereign is bound to protect the persons and property of his
subjects, and to defend them against the enemy. When, therefore, a subject, or any part of his property, has fallen into the enemys possession,
should any fortunate event bring them again into the sovereigns power,
* Histoire de la Confederation Helvetique, par M. De Watteville. liv. iii. under
the year 1351.
APX - 384
204. Definition of the

right of postliminium.
205. Foundation of this
right.
604
206. How it
takes effect.
207. Whether
it takes effect
among the
allies.
book iii: of war
it is undoubtedly his duty to restore them to their former condition,

to re-establish the persons in all their rights and obligations, to give back
the effects to the owners,in a word, to replace every thing on the same
footing on which it stood previous to the enemys capture.
The justice or injustice of the war makes no difference in this case,
not only, because, according to the voluntary law of nations, the war, as
to its effects, is reputed just on both sides, but likewise because war,
whether just or not, is a national concern; and if the subjects who fight
or suffer in the national cause, shouldafter they have, either in their
persons or their property, fallen into the enemys powerbe, by some
fortunate incident, restored to the hands of their own people,there is
no reason why they should not be restored to their former condition. It
is the same as if they had never been taken. If the war be just on the part
of their nation, they were unjustly captured by the <393> enemy; and
thus nothing is more natural than to restore them as soon as it becomes
possible. If the war be unjust, they are under no greater obligation to
suffer in atonement for its injustice, than the rest of the nation. Fortune
brings down the evil on their heads, when they are taken: she delivers
them from it, when they escape. Here again it is the same as if they never
had been captured. Neither their own sovereign nor the enemy has any
particular right over them. The enemy has lost by one accident what he
had gained by another.
Persons return, and things are recovered, by the right of postliminium,
when, after having been taken by the enemy, they come again into the
power of their own nation (204). This right, therefore, takes effect as
soon as such persons or things captured by the enemy fall into the hands
of soldiers belonging to their own nation, or are brought back to the
army, the camp, the territories of their sovereign, or the places under his
command.
Those who unite with us to carry on a war, are joint parties with us:
we are engaged in a common cause; our right is one and the same; and
they are considered as making but one body with us. Therefore when
persons or things captured by the enemy are retaken by our allies or
auxiliaries, or in any other manner fall into their hands, this, so far as
relates to the effect of the right, is precisely the same thing as if they
APX - 385
chapter xiv
605
were come again into our own power; since, in the cause in which we
are jointly embarked, our power and that of our allies is but one and the
same. The right of postliminium therefore takes effect among those who
carry on the war in conjunction with us; and the persons and things
recovered by them from the enemy, are to be restored to their former
condition.
But does this right take place in the territories of our allies? Here a
distinction arises. If those allies make a common cause with us,if they
are associates in the war,we are necessarily entitled to the right of postliminium in their territories as well as in our own: for their state is united
with ours, and, together with it, constitutes but one party in the war we
carry on. But if, as in our times is frequently the practice, an ally only
gives us a stated succour stipulated by treaty, and does not himself come
to a rupture with our enemy, between whose state and his own, in their
immediate relations, peace continues to be observed,in this case, only
the auxiliaries whom he sends to our assistance are partakers and associates in the war; and his dominions remain in a state of neutrality.
Now the right of postliminium does not take effect in neutral countries: for when a nation chooses to remain neuter in a war, she is bound
to consider it as equally just on both sides, so far as relates to its effects,
and, consequently, to look upon every capture made by either party, as
a lawful acquisition. To allow one of the parties, in prejudice to the other,
to enjoy in her dominions the right of claiming things taken by the latter,
or the <394> right of postliminium, would be declaring in favour of the
former, and departing from the line of neutrality.
Naturally, every kind of property might be recovered by the right of
postliminium; and there is no intrinsic reason why moveables should be
excepted in this case, provided they can be certainly recognised and identified. Accordingly, the ancients, on recovering such things from the enemy, frequently restored them to their former owners.* But the difficulty
of recognising things of this nature, and the endless disputes which
would arise from the prosecution of the owners claims to them, have
been deemed motives of sufficient weight for the general establishment
* See several instances in Grotius, book iii. chap. 16, 2 [[Law of War and Peace ]].
APX - 386
208. Of
no validity
in neutral
nations.
209. What
things are
recoverable
by this right.
606
210. Of
those who
cannot return
by the right of
postliminium.
211. They
enjoy this right
when retaken.
book iii: of war
of a contrary practice. To these considerations we may add, that, from

the little hope entertained of recovering effects taken by the enemy and
once carried to a place of safety, a reasonable presumption arises, that
the former owners have relinquished their property. It is therefore with
reason, that moveables or booty are excepted from the right of postliminium, unless retaken from the enemy immediately after his capture
of them; in which case, the proprietor neither finds a difficulty in recognising his effects, nor is presumed to have relinquished them. And
as the custom has once been admitted, and is now well established, there
would be an injustice in violating it (Prelim. 26). Among the Romans,
indeed, slaves were not treated like other movable property; they, by the
right of postliminium, were restored to their masters, even when the rest
of the booty was detained. The reason of this is evident: for, as it was at
all times easy to recognise a slave, and ascertain to whom he belonged,
the owner, still entertaining hopes of recovering him, was not supposed
to have relinquished his right.
Prisoners of war, who have given their parole,territories and towns,
which have submitted to the enemy, and have sworn or promised allegiance to him,cannot of themselves return to their former condition
by the right of postliminium: for faith is to be kept even with enemies
(174).
But if the sovereign retakes those towns, countries, or prisoners, who
had surrendered to the enemy, he recovers all his former rights over them,
and is bound to re-establish them in their pristine condition (205). In
this case they enjoy the right of postliminium without any breach of
their word, any violation of their plighted faith. The enemy loses by the
chance of war a right which the chance of war had before given him.
But concerning prisoners of war, a distinction is to be made. If they
were entirely free on their parole, the single circumstance of their coming
again into the power of their own nation does not release them,since,
even if they had returned home, they would still have continued prisoners. The consent of the enemy who had captured them, or his total
subjugation, can alone dis-<395>charge them. But if they have only
promised not to effect their escape,a promise which prisoners frequently make in order to avoid the inconveniences of a jail,the only
obligation incumbent on them, is, that they shall not, of themselves,
APX - 387
chapter xiv
607
quit the enemys country, or the place assigned for their residence. And
if the troops of their party should gain possession of the place where
they reside, the consequence is, that, by the right of war, they recover
their liberty, are restored to their own nation, and reinstated in their
former condition.
When a town, reduced by the enemys arms, is retaken by those of
her own sovereign, she is, as we have above seen, restored to her former
condition, and reinstated in the possession of all her rights. It is asked
whether she thus recovers such part of her property as had been alienated
by the enemy while he kept her in subjection. In the first place we are
to make a distinction between movable property not recoverable by the
right of postliminium (202), and immovables. The former belongs to
the enemy who gets it into his hands, and he may irrecoverably alienate
it. As to immovables, let it be remembered that the acquisition of a town
taken in war is not fully consummated, till confirmed by a treaty of
peace, or by the entire submission or destruction of the state to which
it belonged (197). Till then, the sovereign of that town has hopes of
retaking it, or of recovering it by a peace. And from the moment it returns into his power, he restores it to all its rights (205), and consequently it recovers all its possessions, as far as in their nature they are
recoverable. It therefore resumes its immovable possessions from the
hands of those persons who have been so prematurely forward to purchase them. In buying them of one who had not an absolute right to
dispose of them, the purchasers made a hazardous bargain; and if they
prove losers by the transaction, it is a consequence to which they deliberately exposed themselves. But if that town had been ceded to the enemy by a treaty of peace, or was completely fallen into his power by the
submission of the whole state, she has no longer any claim to the right
of postliminium; and the alienation of any of her possessions by the
conqueror is valid and irreversible; nor can she lay claim to them, if, in
the sequel, some fortunate revolution should liberate her from the yoke
of the conqueror. When Alexander made a present to the Thessalians
of the sum due from them to the Thebans (see 77), he was so absolutely
master of the republic of Thebes, that he destroyed the city, and sold
the inhabitants.
The same decisions hold good with regard to the immovable property
APX - 388
212. Whether
this right extends to their
property alienated by the
enemy.
608
213. Whether
a nation that
has been entirely subdued
can enjoy the
right of postliminium.
book iii: of war
of individuals, prisoners or not, which has been alienated by the enemy

while he was master of the country. Grotius proposes the question with
respect to immovable property possessed in a neutral country by a prisoner of war.* But, according to the principles we have laid down, this
question is <396> groundless: for the sovereign who makes a prisoner
in war, has no other right over him than that of detaining his person
until the conclusion of the war, or until he be ransomed (148, &c.);
but he acquires no right to the prisoners property, unless he can seize
on it. It is impossible to produce any natural reason why the captor
should have a right to dispose of his prisoners property, unless the prisoner has it about him.
When a nation, a people, a state, has been entirely subdued, it is asked
whether a revolution can entitle them to the right of postliminium. In
order justly to answer this question, there must again be a distinction of
cases. If that conquered state has not yet acquiesced in her new subjection, has not voluntarily submitted, and has only ceased to resist from
inability,if her victor has not laid aside the sword of conquest and
taken up the sceptre of peace and equity,such a people are not really
subdued: they are only defeated and oppressed; and, on being delivered
by the arms of an ally, they doubtless return to their former situation
(207). Their ally cannot become their conqueror; he is their deliverer;
and all the obligation of the party delivered is to reward him. If the
subsequent conqueror, not being an ally to the state of which we speak,
intends to keep it under his own jurisdiction as the reward of his victory,
he puts himself in the place of the former conqueror, and becomes the
enemy of the state which the other had oppressed: that state may lawfully
resist him, and avail herself of a favourable opportunity to recover her
liberty. If she had been unjustly oppressed, he who rescues her from the
yoke of the oppressor ought generously to reinstate her in the possession
of all her rights (203).
The question changes with regard to a state which has voluntarily
submitted to the conqueror. If the people, no longer treated as enemies
but as actual subjects, have submitted to a lawful government, they are
* Lib. iii. cap. 9, 6 [[Law of War and Peace ]].
APX - 389
chapter xiv
609
thenceforward dependent on a new sovereign; or, being incorporated

with the victorious nation, they become a part of it, and share its fate.
Their former state is absolutely destroyed; all its relations, all its alliances,
are extinguished (Book II. 203). Whoever then the new conqueror may
be, that afterwards subdues the state to which these people are united,
they share the destiny of that state, as a part shares the fate of the whole.
This has been the practice of nations in all ages,I say, even of just and
equitable nations,especially with regard to an ancient conquest. The
most moderate conqueror confines his generosity in this particular to
the restoration of the liberties of a people who have been but recently
subdued, and whom he does not consider as perfectly incorporated, or
well cemented by inclination, with the state which he has conquered.
If the people in question shake off the yoke and recover their liberty
by their own exertions, they regain all their rights; they return to their
former situation; and foreign nations have no right to determine whether
they have shaken off the yoke of lawful authority, or burst the chains of
slavery. Thus, the <397> kingdom of Portugal,which had been seized
on by Philip II.61 king of Spain, under pretence of an hereditary right,
but in reality by force and the terror of his arms,re-established the
independency of her crown, and recovered her former rights, when she
drove out the Spaniards, and placed the duke of Braganza62 on the
throne.
Provinces, towns, and lands, which the enemy restores by the treaty
of peace, are certainly entitled to the right of postliminium: for the sovereign, in whatever manner he recovers them, is bound to restore them
to their former condition, as soon as he regains possession of them
(205). The enemy, in giving back a town at the peace, renounces the
right he had acquired by arms. It is just the same as if he had never taken
it; and the transaction furnishes no reason which can justify the sovereign
in refusing to reinstate such town in the possession of all her rights, and
restore her to her former condition.
61. In 1580.
62. John IV of Portugal, r. 164056.
APX - 390
214. Right of
postliminium
for what is
restored at
the peace;
610
215. and for
things ceded
to the enemy.
216. The
right of postliminium does
not exist after
a peace.
217. Why
always in force
for prisoners.
218. They
are free even
by escaping
into a neutral
country.
219. How
the rights and
obligations
of prisoners
subsist.
book iii: of war
But whatever is ceded to the enemy by a treaty of peace, is truly and

completely alienated. It has no longer any claim to the right of postliminium, unless the treaty of peace be broken and cancelled.
And as things not mentioned in the treaty of peace remain in the
condition in which they happen to be at the time when the treaty is
concluded, and are, on both sides, tacitly ceded to the present possessor,
it may be said in general, that the right of postliminium no longer exists
after the conclusion of the peace. That right entirely relates to the state
of war.
Nevertheless, and for this very reason, there is an exception to be made
here in favour of prisoners of war. Their sovereign is bound to release
them at the peace (154). But if he cannot accomplish this,if the fate
of war compels him to accept of hard and unjust conditions,the enemy, who ought to set the prisoners at liberty when the war is terminated
and he has no longer any thing to fear from them (150, 153), continues
the state of war with respect to them, if he still detains them in captivity,
and especially if he reduces them to slavery (152). They have therefore
a right to effect their escape from him if they have an opportunity, and
to return to their own country, equally as in war time; since, with regard
to them, the war still continues. And in that case, the sovereign, from
his obligation to protect them, is bound to restore them to their former
condition (205).
Further, those prisoners who are, without any lawful reason, detained
after the conclusion of peace, become immediately free, when, once escaped from captivity, they have even reached a neutral country: for enemies are not to be pursued and seized on neutral ground (132); and
whoever detains an innocent prisoner after the peace, continues to be
his enemy. This rule should and actually does obtain among nations who
do not admit and authorise the practice of enslaving prisoners of war.
<398>
It is sufficiently evident from the premisses, that prisoners are to be
considered as citizens who may one day return to their country: and,
when they do return, it is the duty of the sovereign to re-establish them
in their former condition. Hence it clearly follows, that the rights of
every one of those prisoners, together with his obligations (or the rights
APX - 391
chapter xiv
611
of others over him), still subsist undiminished,only the exertion of

them is, for the most part, suspended during the time of his captivity.
The prisoner of war therefore retains a right to dispose of his property,
particularly in case of death: and as there is nothing in the state of captivity which can in this latter respect deprive him of the exercise of his
right, the testament of a prisoner of war ought to be valid in his own
country, unless rendered void by some inherent defect.
With nations which have established the indissolubility of the marriage ties, or have ordained that they should continue for life unless dissolved by the judgment of a court, those ties still subsist, notwithstanding the captivity of one of the parties, who, on his return home, is, by
postliminium, again entitled to all his matrimonial rights.
We do not here enter into a detail of what the civil laws of particular
nations have ordained with respect to the right of postliminium: we content ourselves with observing that such local regulations are obligatory
on the subjects of the state alone, and do not affect foreigners. Neither
do we here examine what has been settled on that head by treaties: those
particular compacts establish merely a conventional right, which relates
only to the contracting parties. Customs confirmed by long and constant
use are obligatory on those nations who have given a tacit consent to
them; and they are to be respected, when not contrary to the law of
nature: but those which involve an infringement of that sacred law are
faulty and invalid; and, instead of conforming to such customs, every
nation is bound to use her endeavours to effect their abolition. Among
the Romans the right of postliminium was in force, even in times of
profound peace, with respect to nations with which Rome had neither
connections of friendship, rights of hospitality, nor alliance.* This was
because those nations were, as we have already observed, considered in
some measure as enemies. The prevalence of milder manners has almost
every-where abolished that remnant of barbarism. <399>
* [[ Justinians]] Digest. lib. xlix. de Capt. et Postlim. leg. v. 2.
APX - 392
220. Testament of a prisoner of war.
221.
Marriage.
222. Regulations respecting

postliminium,
established
by treaty or
custom.
612
book iii: of war
chapter xv
Of the Right of private Persons in War.
223. Subjects
cannot commit
hostilities
without the
sovereigns
order.
224. That
order may be
general or
particular.
225. Source
of the necessity of such an
order.
226. Why the

law of nations
should have
adopted this rule.
The right of making war, as we have shewn in the first chapter of this
book, solely belongs to the sovereign power, which not only decides
whether it be proper to undertake the war, and to declare it, but likewise
directs all its operations, as circumstances of the utmost importance to
the safety of the state. Subjects, therefore, cannot, of themselves, take
any steps in this affair; nor are they allowed to commit any act of hostility
without orders from their sovereign. Be it understood, however, that,
under the head of hostilities, we do not here mean to include selfdefence. A subject may repel the violence of a fellow-citizen when the
magistrates assistance is not at hand; and with much greater reason may
he defend himself against the unexpected attacks of foreigners.
The sovereigns order, which commands acts of hostility and gives a
right to commit them, is either general or particular. The declaration of
war, which enjoins the subjects at large to attack the enemys subjects,
implies a general order. The generals, officers, soldiers, privateersmen,
and partisans, being all commissioned by the sovereign, make war by
virtue of a particular order.
But, though an order from the sovereign be necessary to authorise the
subjects to make war, that necessity wholly results from the laws essential
to every political society, and not from any obligation relative to the
enemy. For, when one nation takes up arms against another, she from
that moment declares herself an enemy to all the individuals of the latter,
and authorises them to treat her as such. What right could she have in
that case to complain of any acts of hostility committed against her by
private persons without orders from their superiors? The rule, therefore,
of which we here speak, relates rather to public law in general, than to
the law of nations properly so called, or to the principles of the reciprocal
obligations of nations.
If we confine our view to the law of nations, considered in itself,
when once two nations are engaged in war, all the subjects of the one
may commit hostilities against those of the other, and do them all the
APX - 393
chapter xv
613
mischief authorised by the state of war. But should two nations thus
encounter each other with the collective weight of their whole force, the
war would become much more bloody and destructive, and could hardly
be terminated otherwise than by the utter extinction of one of the parties. The examples of ancient wars abundantly prove the truth of this
assertion to any man who will for a moment recall to mind the first wars
waged by Rome against the popular republics by which <400> she was
surrounded. It is therefore with good reason that the contrary practice
has grown into a custom with the nations of Europe,at least with those
that keep up regular standing armies or bodies of militia. The troops
alone carry on the war, while the rest of the nation remain in peace. And
the necessity of a special order to act is so thoroughly established, that,
even after a declaration of war between two nations, if the peasants of
themselves commit any hostilities, the enemy shews them no mercy, but
hangs them up as he would so many robbers or banditti. The crews of
private ships of war stand in the same predicament: a commission from
their sovereign or admiral can alone, in case they are captured, insure
them such treatment as is given to prisoners taken in regular warfare.
In declarations of war, however, the ancient form is still retained, by
which the subjects in general are ordered, not only to break off all intercourse with the enemy, but also to attack him. Custom interprets this
general order. It authorises, indeed, and even obliges every subject, of
whatever rank, to secure the persons and things belonging to the enemy,
when they fall into his hands; but it does not invite the subjects to undertake any offensive expedition without a commission or particular
order.
There are occasions, however, when the subjects may reasonably suppose the sovereigns will, and act in consequence of his tacit command.
Thus, although the operations of war are by custom generally confined
to the troops, if the inhabitants of a strong place, taken by the enemy,
have not promised or sworn submission to him, and should find a favourable opportunity of surprising the garrison and recovering the place
for their sovereign, they may confidently presume that the prince will
approve of this spirited enterprise. And where is the man that shall dare
to censure it? It is true, indeed, that, if the townsmen miscarry in the
APX - 394
227. Precise
meaning of
the order.
228. What
private persons
may undertake,
presuming on
the sovereigns
will.
614
229.
Privateers.
book iii: of war
attempt, they will experience very severe treatment from the enemy. But
this does not prove the enterprise to be unjust, or contrary to the laws
of war. The enemy makes use of his right, of the right of arms, which
authorises him to call in the aid of terror to a certain degree, in order
that the subjects of the sovereign with whom he is at war may not be
willing to venture on such bold undertakings, the success of which might
prove fatal to him. During the last war, the inhabitants of Genoa suddenly took up arms of their own accord, and drove the Austrians from
the city:63 and the republic celebrates an annual commemoration of that
event by which she recovered her liberty.
Persons fitting out private ships to cruise against the enemy acquire
the property of whatever captures they make, as a compensation for their
disbursements, and for the risques they run: but they acquire it by grant
from the sovereign, who issues out commissions to them. The sovereign
allows them either the <401> whole or a part of the capture: this entirely
depends on the nature of the contract he has made with them.
As the subjects are not under an obligation of scrupulously weighing
the justice of the war, which indeed they have not always an opportunity
of being thoroughly acquainted with, and respecting which, they are
bound, in case of doubt, to rely on the sovereigns judgment (187),
they unquestionably may with a safe conscience serve their country by
fitting out privateers, unless the war be evidently unjust. But, on the
other hand, it is an infamous proceeding on the part of foreigners, to
take out commissions from a prince, in order to commit piratical depredations on a nation which is perfectly innocent with respect to them.
The thirst of gold is their only inducement; nor can the commission
they have received efface the infamy of their conduct, though it screens
them from punishment. Those alone are excusable, who thus assist a
nation whose cause is undoubtedly just, and that has taken up arms with
no other view than that of defending herself from oppression. They
would even deserve praise for their exertions in such a cause, if the hatred
of oppression, and the love of justice, rather than the desire of riches,
63. December 511, 1767.
APX - 395
chapter xv
615
stimulated them to generous efforts, and induced them to expose their

lives or fortunes to the hazards of war.
The noble view of gaining instruction in the art of war, and thus
acquiring a greater degree of ability to render useful services to their
country, has introduced the custom of serving as volunteers even in foreign armies; and the practice is undoubtedly justified by the sublimity
of the motive. At present, volunteers, when taken by the enemy, are
treated as if they belonged to the army in which they fight. Nothing can
be more reasonable: they in fact join that army, and unite with it in
supporting the same cause; and it makes little difference in the case,
whether they do this in compliance with any obligation, or at the spontaneous impulse of their own free choice.
Soldiers can undertake nothing without the express or tacit command
of their officers. To obey and execute, is their province,not to act at
their own discretion: they are only instruments in the hands of their
commanders. Let it be remembered here, that, by a tacit order, I mean
one which is necessarily included in an express order, or in the functions
with which a person is intrusted by his superior. What is said of soldiers
must also in a proper degree be understood of officers, and of all who
have any subordinate command. Wherefore, with respect to things
which are not intrusted to their charge, they may both be considered as
private individuals, who are not to undertake any thing without orders.
The obligation of the military is even more strict, as the martial law
expressly forbids acting without orders; and this discipline is so necessary
that it scarcely leaves any room for presumption. In war, an enterprise
which wears a very advantageous appearance, and promises almost certain <402> success, may nevertheless be attended with fatal consequences. It would be dangerous, in such a case, to leave the decision to
the judgment of men in subordinate stations, who are not acquainted
with all the views of their general, and who do not possess an equal
degree of knowledge and experience: it is therefore not to be presumed
that he intends to let them act at their own discretion. Fighting without
orders is almost always considered, in a military man, as fighting contrary
to orders, or contrary to prohibition. There is, therefore, hardly any case
except that of self-defence, in which the soldiers and inferior officers may
APX - 396
230.
Volunteers.
231. What
soldiers and
subalterns
may do.
616
book iii: of war
act without orders. In that one case, the orders may safely be presumed;
or rather, the right of self-defence naturally belongs to every one, and
requires no permission. During the siege of Prague, in the last war,64 a
party of French grenadiers made a sally without orders and without officers,possessed themselves of a battery, spiked a part of the cannon,
and brought away the remainder into the city. The Roman severity
would have punished those men with death. The famous example of the
consul Manlius is well known, who, notwithstanding the victory gained
by his son, caused capital punishment to be inflicted on him for having
engaged the enemy without orders.* But the difference of times and
manners obliges a general to moderate such severity. The mareschal Bellisle65 publicly reprimanded those brave grenadiers, but secretly caused
money to be distributed among them, as a reward of their courage and
alacrity. At another famous siege in the same war, that of Coni,66 the
private men of some batallions that were stationed in the fosses, made,
of their own accord, during the absence of their officers, a vigorous sortie
which was attended with success. Baron Leutrum67 was obliged to pardon their transgression, lest he should damp an ardour on which the
safety of the place entirely depended. Such inordinate impetuosity
should nevertheless be checked as far as possible; since it may eventually
be productive of fatal consequences. Avidius Cassius inflicted capital
punishment on some officers of his army, who had, without orders,
marched forth at the head of a handful of men, to surprise a body of
three thousand enemies, and had succeeded in cutting them to pieces.
This rigour he justified by saying that there might have been an ambuscade,dicens evenire potuisse ut essent insidiae, &c.
* Tit. Liv. lib. viii. cap. 7.
Volcatius Gallicanus, quoted by Grotius [[in Law of War and Peace ]], book iii.
chap. 18, 1, note 6. [[It might, he said, have been an ambush, and the barbarians
awe for the Roman Empire might have been lost. Avidius Cassius, Historia
Augusta IV.6.]]
64. Siege of Prague, 1741, during the War of the Austrian Succession.
65. Charles-Louis-Auguste Fouguet, Duc de Belle-Isle, 16841774, French soldier
and diplomat.
66. Siege of Coni (Cuneo), 1744.
67. Karl Sigismond Friedrick Wilhelm Leutrum.
APX - 397
chapter xv
617
Is the state bound to indemnify individuals for the damages they have
sustained in war? We may learn from Grotius that authors are divided
on this question.* The damages under consideration are to be distinguished into two kinds,those done by the state itself or the sovereign,
and those done by the enemy. Of the first kind, some are done deliberately and by way of precaution, as when a field, a house, or a garden,
belonging to a private person, is taken for the purpose of erecting on the
spot a town rampart, <403> or any other piece of fortification,or
when his standing corn or his store-houses are destroyed, to prevent their
being of use to the enemy. Such damages are to be made good to the
individual, who should bear only his quota of the loss. But there are
other damages, caused by inevitable necessity, as, for instance, the destruction caused by the artillery in retaking a town from the enemy.
These are merely accidents,they are misfortunes which chance deals
out to the proprietors on whom they happen to fall. The sovereign, indeed, ought to shew an equitable regard for the sufferers, if the situation
of his affairs will admit of it: but no action lies against the state for
misfortunes of this nature,for losses which she has occasioned, not
wilfully, but through necessity and by mere accident, in the exertion of
her rights. The same may be said of damages caused by the enemy. All
the subjects are exposed to such damages: and woe to him on whom they
fall! The members of a society may well encounter such risk of property,
since they encounter a similar risk of life itself. Were the state strictly to
indemnify all those whose property is injured in this manner, the public
finances would soon be exhausted; and every individual in the state
would be obliged to contribute his share in due proportion,a thing
utterly impracticable. Besides, these indemnifications would be liable to
a thousand abuses, and there would be no end of the particulars. It is
therefore to be presumed that no such thing was ever intended by those
who united to form a society.
But it is perfectly consonant to the duties of the state and the sovereign, and, of course, perfectly equitable, and even strictly just, to relieve, as far as possible, those unhappy sufferers who have been ruined
* Lib. iii. cap. 20. 8 [[Law of War and Peace ]].
APX - 398
232. Whether
the state is
bound to indemnify the
subjects for
damages
sustained
in war.
618
book iii: of war
by the ravages of war, as likewise to take care of a family whose head

and support has lost his life in the service of the state. There are many
debts which are considered as sacred by the man who knows his duty,
although they do not afford any ground of action against him.* <404>
chapter xvi
Of various Conventions made during
the Course of the War.
233. Truce
and suspension
of arms.
War would become too cruel and destructive, were all intercourse between enemies absolutely broken off. According to the observation of
Grotius, there still subsists a friendly intercourse in war, as Virgil and
Tacitus have expressed it. The occurrences and events of war lay enemies
under the necessity of entering into various conventions. As we have
already treated in general of the observance of faith between enemies,
it is unnecessary for us in this place to prove the obligation of faithfully
acting up to those conventions made in war: it therefore only remains
* It is in general the indispensable duty of every sovereign to adopt the most efficacious measures for the protection of his subjects engaged in war, in order that they
may suffer by it as little as possible,instead of voluntarily exposing them to greater
evils. During the wars in the Netherlands, Philip the Second prohibited the release
or exchange of prisoners of war. He forbade the peasants, under pain of death, to
pay any contributions with a view to purchase an immunity from pillage and conflagration; and, under the same penalty, prohibited the use of safe-guards and protections. In opposition to this barbarous ordinance, the states-general adopted measures fraught with consummate wisdom. They published an edict, in which, after
having described the destructive consequences of the Spanish barbarity, they exhorted
the Flemings to attend to their own preservation, and threatened to retaliate on all
who should obey the cruel ordinance of Philip. By such conduct they put an end to
the dreadful proceedings to which it had given birth. [[Note added in 1773/1797
editions.]]
Lib iii. cap. xxi. 1 [[Law of War and Peace ]].
Belli commercia Turnus
Sustulit ista prior. Aen. x. 532.
[[Such trafficking in war Turnus first put away.]]
Ann. lib. xiv. cap. 33.
APX - 399
chapter xvi
619
to explain the nature of them. Sometimes it is agreed to suspend hostilities for a certain time; and if this convention be made but for a very
short period, or only regards some particular place, it is called a cessation
or suspension of arms. Such are those conventions made for the purpose
of burying the dead after an assault or a battle, and for a parley, or a
conference between the generals of the hostile armies. If the agreement
be for a more considerable length of time, and especially if general, it is
more particularly distinguished by the appellation of a truce. Many people use both expressions indiscriminately.
The truce or suspension of arms does not terminate the war; it only
suspends its operations.
A truce is either partial or general. By the former, hostilities are suspended only in certain places, as between a town and the army besieging
it. By the latter, they are to cease generally, and in all places, between the
belligerent powers. Partial truces may also admit of a distinction with
respect to acts of hostility, or to persons; that is to say, the parties may
agree to abstain from certain acts of hostility during a limited time, or
two armies may mutually conclude a truce or suspension of arms without regard to any particular place.
A general truce, made for many years, differs from a peace in little
else than in leaving the question which was the original ground of the
war, still undecided. When two nations are weary of hostilities, and yet
cannot agree on the point which constitutes the subject of their dispute,
they generally have recourse to this kind of agreement. Thus, instead of
peace, long truces only have usually been made between the Christians
and the Turks,sometimes from a false spirit of religion, at other <405>
times because neither party were willing to acknowledge the other as
lawful owners of their respective possessions.
It is necessary to the validity of an agreement, that it be made by one
who possesses competent powers. Every thing done in war is done by
the authority of the sovereign, who alone has the right both of undertaking the war, and directing its operations (4). But from the impossibility of executing every thing by himself, he must necessarily communicate part of his power to his ministers and officers. The question,
therefore, is, to determine what are the things of which the sovereign
reserves the management in his own hands, and what those are which
APX - 400
234. Does
not terminate
the war.
235. A truce
is either partial
or general.
236. General
truce for
many years.
237. By
whom these
agreements
may be
concluded.
original contents
57
chapter xv
Of the Right of private Persons in War.
APX - 401
Sect. 223. Subjects cannot commit hostilities without

the sovereigns order,
page 399
224. That order may be general or particular,
399
225. Source of the necessity of such an order,
399
226. Why the law of nations should have adopted this
rule, <xlix>
399
227. Precise meaning of the order,
400
228. What may be undertaken by private persons,
presuming on the sovereigns will,
400
229. Privateers,
400
230. Volunteers,
401
231. What soldiers and subalterns may do,
401
232. Whether the state is bound to indemnify the
subjects for damages sustained in war,
402
chapter xvi
Of various Conventions made during the
Course of the War.
233. Truce and suspension of arms,
234. does not terminate the war,
235. A truce is either partial or general,
236. General truce for many years,
237. By whom those agreements may be concluded,
238. The sovereigns faith engaged in them,
239. When the truce begins to be obligatory,
240. Publication of the truce,
241. Subjects contravening the truce,
242. Violation of the truce,
243. Stipulation of a penalty against the infractor,
244. Time of the truce,
245. Effects of a truce:what is allowed, or not,
during its continuance.First ruleEach party
may do at home what they have a right to do in
time of peace,
246. Second ruleNot to take advantage of the truce
in doing what hostilities would have prevented,
247. for instance, continuing the works of a siege, or
repairing breaches,
404
404
404
404
405
406
406
406
406
407
407
407
408
409
409
58
original contents
Sect. 248. or introducing succours,
page 409
249. Distinction of a particular case,
410
250. Retreat of an army during a suspension
of hostilities,
410
251. Third ruleNothing to be attempted in contested
places, but every thing to be left as it was,
411
252. Places quitted or neglected by the enemy,
411
253. Subjects inclined to revolt against their prince not
to be received during the truce,
411
254. much less to be solicited to treason,
411
255. Persons or effects of enemies not to be seized
during the truce,
411
256. Right of postliminium during the truce,
411
257. Intercourse allowed during a truce,
411
258. Persons detained by unsurmountable obstacles
after the expiration of the truce,
412
259. Particular conditions added to truces,
412
260. At the expiration of the truce, the war
recommences without any new declaration,
412
261. Capitulations; and by whom they may be
concluded, <l>
412
262. Clauses contained in them,
413
263. Observance of capitulations, and its utility,
414
264. Promises made to the enemy by individuals,
414
chapter xvii
Of Safe-conducts and Passports,with Questions on
the Ransom of Prisoners of War.
265. Nature of safe-conducts and passports,
266. From what authority they emanate,
267. Not transferable from one person to another,
268. Extent of the promised security,
269. How to judge of the right derived from a
safe-conduct,
270. Whether it includes baggage and domestics,
271. Safe-conduct granted to the father does not
include his family,
272. Safe-conduct given in general to any one and
his retinue,
273. Term of the safe-conduct,
274. A person unavoidably detained beyond the term,
416
416
416
416
417
417
417
417
418
418
original contents
59
APX - 402
Sect. 275. The safe-conduct does not expire at the

death of him who gave it,
page 418
276. How it may be revoked,
418
277. Safe-conduct, with the clause, for such time as
we shall think t,
418
278. Conventions relating to the ransom of prisoners,
419
279. The right of demanding a ransom may
be transferred,
419
280. What may annul the convention made for the rate
of the ransom,
419
281. A prisoner dying before payment of ransom,
419
282. Prisoner released on condition of procuring the
release of another,
420
283. Prisoner retaken before he has paid his
former ransom,
420
284. Prisoner rescued before he has received his liberty,
420
285. Whether the things which a prisoner has found
means to conceal, belong to him,
421
286. Hostage given for the release of a prisoner,
421
chapter xviii
Of Civil War.
287. Foundation of the sovereigns rights against
the rebels,
288. Who are rebels,
289. Popular commotion, insurrection, sedition,
290. How the sovereign is to suppress them,
291. He is bound to perform the promises he has made
to the rebels,
292. Civil war,
293. A civil war produces two independent parties,
294. They are to observe the common laws of war,
295. The effects of civil war distinguished according
to cases,
296. Conduct to be pursued by foreign nations, <li>
421
422
422
422
423
424
425
425
426
427
60
original contents
book iv
Of the Restoration of Peace;
and of Embassies.
chapter i
Of Peace, and the Obligation to cultivate it.
Sect. 1. What peace is,
2. Obligation of cultivating it,
3. The sovereigns obligation in that respect,
4. Extent of that duty,
5. Disturbers of the public peace,
6. How far war may be continued,
7. Peace the end of war,
8. General effects of peace,
page 429
430
430
430
431
431
432
432
chapter ii
Treaties of Peace.
9. Denition of a treaty of peace,
10. By whom it may be concluded,
11. Alienations made by a treaty of peace,
12. How the sovereign may, in a treaty, dispose of what
concerns individuals,
13. Whether a king who is a prisoner of war, can
make a peace,
14. Whether peace can be made with a usurper,
15. Allies included in the treaty of peace,
16. Associates to treat, each for himself,
17. Mediation,
18. On what footing peace may be concluded,
19. General effect of the treaty of peace,
20. Amnesty,
21. Things not mentioned in the treaty,
22. Things not included in the compromise or amnesty,
23. Former treaties, mentioned or conrmed in the
new, are a part of it,
432
432
433
435
435
436
436
437
437
437
438
439
439
439
440
original contents
61
chapter iii
Of the Execution of the Treaty of Peace.
APX - 403
Sect. 24. When the obligation of the

treaty commences,
page 440
25. Publication of the peace,
440
26. Time of the execution,
441
27. A lawful excuse to be admitted,
441
28. The promise is void when the party to whom it was
made has himself hindered the performance of it,
441
29. Cessation of contributions,
442
30. Products of the thing restored or ceded,
442
31. In what condition things are to be restored, <lii>
442
32. The interpretation of a treaty of peace is to be
against the superior party,
443
33. Names of ceded countries,
443
34. Restoration not to be understood of those who have
voluntarily given themselves up,
444
chapter iv
Of the Observance and Breach of the
Treaty of Peace.
35. The treaty of peace binds the nation and successors,
36. It is to be faithfully observed,
37. The plea of fear or force does not dispense with the
observance,
38. How many ways a treaty of peace may be broken,
39. by a conduct contrary to the nature of every treaty
of peace,
40. To take up arms for a fresh cause is no breach of the
treaty of peace,
41. A subsequent alliance with an enemy is likewise no
breach of the treaty,
42. Why a distinction is to be made between a new war
and a breach of the treaty,
43. Justiable self-defence is no breach of the treaty,
44. Causes of rupture on account of allies,
45. The treaty is broken by what is contrary to its
particular nature,
46. by the violation of any article,
444
444
445
446
446
446
447
447
448
449
449
449
62
original contents
Sect. 47. The violation of a single article breaks the
whole treaty,
page 449
48. Whether a distinction may here be made
between the more and the less important articles,
450
49. Penalty annexed to the violation of an article,
450
50. Studied delays,
450
51. Unsurmountable impediments,
450
52. Infractions of the treaty of peace by the subjects,
451
53. or by allies,
451
54. Right of the offended party against him who has
violated the treaty,
452
chapter v
Of the Right of Embassy, or the Right of sending
and receiving public Ministers.
55. It is necessary that nations be enabled to treat and
communicate together,
56. They do that by the agency of public ministers,
57. Every sovereign state has a right to send and receive
public ministers,
58. An unequal alliance, or a treaty of protection, does
not take away that right,
59. Right of the princes and states of the empire in
that respect,
60. Cities that have the right of banner,
61. Ministers of viceroys, <liii>
62. Ministers of the nation or of the regents during
an interregnum,
63. Sovereign molesting another in the exercise of the
right of embassy,
64. What is allowable in that respect in time of war,
65. The minister of a friendly power is to be received,
66. Resident ministers,
67. Admission of an enemys ministers,
68. Whether ministers may be received from or sent to
a usurper,
452
453
453
453
453
454
455
455
455
455
456
456
457
457
original contents
63
chapter vi
Of the several Orders of public Ministers,of
the Representative Character,and of the Honours
due to Ministers.
APX - 404
Sect. 69. Origin of the several orders of public

ministers,
70. Representative character,
71. Embassadors,
72. Envoys,
73. Residents,
74. Ministers,
75. Consuls, agents, deputies, commissioners, &c.
76. Credentials,
77. Instructions,
78. Right of sending embassadors,
79. Honours due to embassadors,
page 459
459
459
460
460
460
461
461
461
461
462
chapter vii
Of the Rights, Privileges, and Immunities of
Embassadors, and other public Ministers.
80. Respect due to public ministers,
81. Their persons sacred and inviolable,
82. Particular protection due to them,
83. When it commences,
84. What is due to them in the countries through
which they pass,
85. Embassadors going to an enemys country,
86. Embassies between enemies,
87. Heralds, trumpeters, and drummers,
88. Ministers, trumpeters, &c. to be respected even in
a civil war,
89. Sometimes they may be refused admittance,
90. Every thing which has the appearance of insult to
them, must be avoided,
91. By and to whom they may be sent,
92. Independence of foreign ministers,
93. How the foreign minister is to behave,
94. How he may be punished for ordinary
transgressions,
95. for faults committed against the prince,
464
464
465
466
466
467
467
468
468
469
469
470
470
472
475
475
64
original contents
Sect. 96. Right of ordering away an embassador who
is guilty, or justly suspected, <liv>
page 475
97. Right of repressing him by force, if he behaves
as an enemy,
476
98. Embassador forming dangerous plots
and conspiracies,
476
99. What may be done to him according to the
exigency of the case,
478
100. Embassador attempting against the sovereigns life, 479
101. Two remarkable instances respecting the
immunities of public ministers,
480
102. Whether reprisals may be made on an embassador,
481
103. Agreement of nations concerning the privileges
of embassadors,
482
104. Free exercise of religion,
483
105. Whether an embassador be exempted from
all imposts,
484
106. Obligation founded on use and custom,
485
107. A minister whose character is not public,
485
108. A sovereign in a foreign country,
486
109. Deputies to the states,
487
chapter viii
Of the Judge of Embassadors in Civil Cases.
110. The embassador is exempt from the civil
jurisdiction of the country where he resides,
111. How he may voluntarily subject himself to it,
112. A minister who is a subject of the state where he
is employed,
113. Immunity of the minister extends to his property,
114. The exemption cannot extend to effects belonging
to any trade the minister may carry on,
115. nor to immovable property which he possesses in
the country,
116. How justice may be obtained against an
embassador,
488
489
490
491
492
493
493
chapter ix
Of the Embassadors House and Domestics.
117. The embassadors house,
118. Right of asylum,
494
495
original contents
Sect. 119. Exemption of an embassadors carriages,
120. of his retinue,
121. of his wife and family,
122. of the secretary of the embassy,
123. of the embassadors couriers and dispatches,
124. The embassadors authority over his retinue,
125. When the rights of an embassador expire,
126. Cases when new credentials are necessary,
127. Conclusion, <lv>
65
page 496
497
497
497
498
498
500
500
500
APX - 405
......
WRITING OF THE DECLARATION
ru
THE WRITING OF THE DECLARATION OF

INDEPENDENCE
It)
B11 Thomas Jefferson
1"0
(X)
(1)
It)
...
(\')
(I)
APX - 406
1)
Cll
:>
'IV
(.!)
....Ill
'r.
u
Q..
.....
ru
..
(I)
0
(X)
ru
ru
Q..
Cll
Ill
jN
THIS illuminating letter lo

]ames Madison, D>ritlen from
Monticello during the administration and at the instance
of President ]ames Monroe,
Thomas Jefferson corrects "a
\ler)l careless and faultJJ statement" bJj fohn Adams of the
circumstances attending the drafting of the Declaration. In so
far as Jefferson D>rote the Declaration and /rept copious notes lo
refresh his memof!l, this undoubtedly is the correct and final D>ord
upon the &ubject.
A sensational charge of JJ>anl
of originality, D>hich ha& been
brought against the famous docu
ment, mall here be noticed. Jefferaon dec/area that D>hile draft
ing it he consulted "neither book
nor pamphlet," but that he did
not consider it his business to "invent neD> idea altogether."
Richard H enr"Y Lee, one of
the aigners of the Declaration,
Jho JJ>as most llociferous in
charging plagiarism, is rellealed
in Randall's authoritatille "Life
of Jefferson" as halling been re
sponsible hirmelf for the introduction of nearl'Y all the alleged
plagiurizations.
RECEIVED the en
closed letters from the
President, with a request,
that after perusal I would
forward them to you, for
perusal by yourself also,
and to be returned then to
him. You have doubtless
seen Timothy Pickering's
Fourth of July observa
tiona on the Declaration
of Independence. If his
principles and prejudices,
personal and political,
gave us no reason to
doubt whether he had
truly quoted the informa
tion he alleges to have received from Mr. Adams,
I should then say, that in
some of the particulars,
Mr. Adams' memory has
led him into unquestion
able error, At the age of
eighty-eight, and forty-seven years after the trans
actions of Independence, this is not wonderful. Nor
166
167
should I, at the age of eighty, on the small advantage

of that difference only, vent re to oppose my memory
to his, were it not suppor
by written notes, taken
by himself at the mome
nd on the spot.
He says, "the commi .e of five, to wit, Dr. Franklin, Sherman, Living n, and ourselves, met, discussed the subject, a then appointed him and myself to make the dra 1t; that we, as a sub-committee,
met, and after the gencies of each on the other, I
consented to undertake the task; that the draught
being made, we, the sub-committee, met, and conned
the paper over, and he does not. remember that he
made or suggested a single alteration." Now these
details are quite incorrect. The committee of five
met; no such thing as a sub-committee was proposed,
but they unanimously pressed on myself alone to undertake the draught. I consented; I drew it; but
before I reported it to the committee, I communicated
it separately to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams, requesting their corrections, because they were the two mem
bers of whose judgments and. amendments I wished
most to have the benefit, before presenting it to the
committee; and you have seen the original paper now
in my hands, with tpe corrections of Dr. Franklin and
Mr. Adams interlined in their own handwritings.
Their alterations were two or three only, and merely
verbal. I then wrote a fair copy, reported it to the
committee, and from them, unaltered, to Congress.
This personal communication and consultation
with Mr. Adams, h~ has misremembered into the act-
....
Q..
168
N
1/)
I'
0
(X)
m
1/)
...
('I)
tD
APX - 407
:n
OJ
>
L
IV
(!)
....Ill
L
.c
Q..
('I)
..
tD
0
(X)
0
N
N
Q..
Cll
(/)
WRITING OF TI-lE DECLARATION
ings of a sub-committee. Pickering's observations,

and Mr. Adams' in addition, "that it contained no new
id'eas, that it is a common-place compilation, its sentiments hackneyed in Congress for two years before,
and its essence contained in Otis' pamphlet," may all
be true. Of that I am not to be the judge. Richard
Henry Lee charged it as copied from Locke's treatise
on government. Otis' pamphlet I never saw, and
whether I had gathered my ideas from reacling or reflection I do not know. l.know only that I turned to
neither book nor pamphlet while writing it. I did not
consider it as any part of my charge to invent new
idcae altogether, and to offer no sentiment which had
ever been expressed before. Had Mr. Adams been so
restrained, Congress would have lost the benefit of his
bold and impressive advocation& of the rights of Revolution. For no man's confident and fervid addresses,
more than Mr. Adams', encouraged and supported us
through the difficulties surrounding us, which, like the
ceaseless action of gravity, weighed on us by night
and by day. Yet, on the same ground, we may ask
what of these elevated thoughts was new; or can be
affirmed never before to have entered the conceptions
of man~ Whether, also, the sentiments of Independence, and the reasons for declaring it, which make so
great a portion of the instrument, had been hackneyed
in Congress for two years before the 4th of July, '76,
or this dictum also of Mr. Adams be another slip of
memory, let history say.
169
This, however, I will say for Mr. Adams, that he

supported the Declaration with zeal and ability, fighting fearlessly for every word of it. As to myself, I
thought it a duty to be, on that occasion, a passive
auditor of the opinions of others, more impartial
judges than I could be, of its merits or demerits. During the
$ sitting by Doctor Franklin, and
I
that I was writhing a little under the acri~
monious criticisms on some of its parts; and it was on
that occasion, that by way of comfort, he told me the
story of John Thompson, the hatter, and his new sign.
Timothy thinks the instrument the better for having a
fourth of it expunged. He would have thought it still
better, had the other three-fourths gone out also, all
but the single sentiment (the only one he approved),
which recommends friendship to his dear England,
whenever she is willing to be at peace with us. His
insinuations are, that although "the high tone of the
instrument was in unison with the warm feelings of
the times, this sentiment of habitual friendship to
England should never be forgotten, and that the duties
it enjoins should especially be borne in mind on every
celebration of this anniversary." In other words, that
the Declaration. as being a libel on the government of
England, composed in times of passion, should now
be buried in utter oblivion, to spare the feelings of our
English friends ~nd Angloman fellow-citizens. But it
is not to wound them that we wish to keep it in mind;
but to cherish the principles of the instrument in the
bosoms of our own citizens: and it is a heavenly com~
fJ '
fe
1
I
1I
r
-.
Q..
170
(\J
1/)
r--
en
en
1/)
(Y)
(D
JEFFERSON'S ORIGINAL DRAFT OF THE

DECLARATION
APX - 408
fort to see that these principles are yet so strongly

felt, as to render a circumstance so trifling as this little
lapse of memory of Mr. Adams', worthy of being
solemnly announced and supported at an anniversary
assemblage of the nation on its birthday. In opposition, however, to Mr. Pickering, I pray God that these
principles may be eternal, and close the prayer with
my affectionate wishes for yourself of long life, health
and happiness.
or~!Jmal
copy of lhe
Declaration of lndependence, signed at Philadelphia, ;,
presCTlleJ at the Patent Office in
~ ashington. It iJ not divided
rnlo paragraphs, but dashes are
inserted. The arrangement of
paragraphs here followed is that
adopted b31 john Dunlap, who
printed the Declaration for the
Continental Congreu.
The same paragraphs arc also
made by Jefferson. in the original draft, presCTlled in the State
Department. The names of the
Colonies do not appear with tho!e
of the signers in the original.
The parts of the Declaration.
as originally written, that were
struck out by CongreS! are enclosed in brackets. and the
amendments are indicated at the
bottom of the page. It will be
noticed that Congress almost com
pletely reD>rote the two conclud
ing paragraphs, 'Dlhich are printed
in parallel columns.
HEN in the course

'
of human events,
it becomes necessary for
one people to dissolve the
..
pohtical bands wh1ch

have connected them
with another, and to assume among the powers
of the earth the separate
and equal station to
which the laws of nature
and of nature's God en
title them, a decent respect to the opinions of
mankind requires that
they should declare the
causes which impel them
to the separation .
We hold these truths to
be self-evident: that aU
men are created equal: that they are endowed by their
creator with [inherent and] 1 inalienable rights: that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness; that to secure these rights, governments
J')
Ql
:>
'-
IV
(!)
...
Ill
..c.'-
Q..
~
..
(\J
(D
0
CD
0
certain
171
(\J
(\J
Q..
Ill
IJl
:i
Il
II
I
....
r
172 ORIGINAL DRAFT OF THE DECLARATION
N
IS)
1"0
(X)
C7l
IS)
....
(I')
CD
APX - 409
,
Ill
:>
L
tQ
(!)
...
Ul
.c
u
g_
IS)
..
CD
0
ORIGINAL DRAFT OF THE DECLARATION 173
are instituted among men, deriving their just powers

from the consent of the governed; that whenever any
form of government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new government laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in
such fonn, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will
dictate that governments long established should not
be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are
more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than
to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which
they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses
and usurpations [begun at a distinguished period and]
pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design
to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty to throw off such government,
and to provide new guards for their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains
them to [expunge] 1 their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of [unremitting] 2 injuries and usurpations, [among which appears no solitary fact to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest, but all have] 8
in direct object the establishment of an absolute
tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be
submitted to a candid world [for the truth of which

we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood].
He has refused his~ to laws the most wholethe public good.
rbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended
in their operation till his assent should be obtained;
and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to
attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those
people would relinquish the right of representation
in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them, and
formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places
unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of
fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly
[and continually] for opposing with manly firmness
his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time after such dissolutions to cause others to be elected, whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise, the
State remaining, in the meantime, exposed to all the
dangers of invasion from without and convulsions
within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of
these States; for that purpose obstructing the laws
(X)
'alter
"repealed
all bni111
N
N
g_
Ill
(I)
~~
r
f
...
I.
ORIGINAL DRAIT OF THE DECLARATION 175
174 ORIGINAL DRAIT OF THE DECLARATION
IJ)
["
0
(X)
(1J
IJ)
.....
(I')
(0
APX - 410
.....
1)
Ql
>
'-
10
Cl
...
Ul
'-
.J:
Q.
(X)
..
(0
tended offences; for abolishing the free system of

English laws in a neighboring province, establishing
therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging ita
boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and
fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule
into these [States] 1 ; for taking away our charters,
abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments; for suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves
invested with power to legislate for us in all cases
whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here [withdrawing
his governors, and declaring us out of his allegiance
and protection] .2
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts,
burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances
of cruelty and perfidy [] 8 unworthy the head of a
civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow-citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and
brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has [] 4 endeavored to bring on the inhabitants
of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose
for naturalization of foreigners, refusing to pass

others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has [suffered] 1 the administration of justice
[totally to cease in some of these States] 2 refusing
his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made [our] judges dependent on his will
alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount
and payment of their salaries .
He has erected a multitude of new offices, [by a
self-assumed power] and sent hither swarms of new
officers to harass our people and eat out their sul,.
stance.
He has kept among us in times of peace standing
armies [and ships of war] without the consent of
our Legislatures.
He has affected to render the military independent
of, and superior to, the civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a
jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their
acts of pretended legislation for quartering large
bodies of armed troops among us; for protecting them
by a mock trial from punishment for any murders
which they should commit on the inhabitants of these
States; for cutting off our trade with all parts of the
world; for imposing taxes on us without our consent;
for depriving us [} a of the benefits of trial by jury;
for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pre-
'Colonia
'by dcclariog ua aul of hia proleclion, aod wqing war apiul 111,
acarcclJ paralleled ia lhe moel barbaldUS ees. and to~Ally
(X)
obolrucled
"by
escilecl domalic U.urre<tiOD IJilOIII ua, and hu
;........, c..
~I
i
11
I
t
~
l'
I
I
t~
Q.
Ql
(IJ
;'
_j
176 ORIGINAL DRAFT OF THE DECLARATION
N
IJ)
I'
0
(X)
(J)
IJ)
....
(I')
<D
APX - 411
J')
11.1
:>
L
I'G
(!)
...
Ill
.s:
(J)
..
<D
0
(X)
0
N
N
11.1
(1)
known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions [of existence] .
[He has incited treasonable insurrections of our
fellow-dtizens, with the allurements for forfeiture
and confiscation of our property.
He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty
in the persons of a distant people who never offended
him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their
transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the
opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the
Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep
open a market where men should be bought and sold,
he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every
legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this
execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of
horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is
now exciting those very people to rise in arms among
us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he
also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes
committed against the liberties of one people with
crimes which he urges them to commit against the
lives of another.]
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated
injuries.
'a
'(!
i.
-:5
~
..
.:;
~
...
.;
...~
""::
~I
-"'
g.5
..
.. ..e
---~
!'I
.z
..."'7.
t:
t3"'
~
z
g
!:!
t:
II
,1'1
I,
z
i
a.i"
....
Q..
N
1/)
r0
(X)
C1l
1/)
...
(Y)
(0
APX - 412
.,
Cll
:>
IV
(!)
...
Ill
.c
...
Q..
..
(Y)
(0
I
1.;
i;
ORIGINAL DRAFT OF THE DECLARATION 177
A Prince whose character is thus marked by every

act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler
of a [] 1 people [who mean to be free. Future ages
will scarcely believe that the hardiness of one man
adventured, within the short compass of twelve years
only, to lay a foundation so broad and so undisguised
for tyranny over a people fostered and fixed in principles of freedom.]
Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our
British brethren. We have warned them from time
to time of attempts by their legislature to extend
[a] 2 jurisdiction over [these our States).S We have
reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here, [no one of which could
warrant so strange a pretension: that these were
effected at the expense of our own blood and treasure,
unassisted by the wealth or the strength of Great Britain: that in constituting indeed our several forms of
government, we had adopted one common king,
thereby laying a foundation for perpetual league and
amity with them: but that submission to their parliament was no part of our Constitution, nor ever in
idea, if history may be credited: and,] we [] appealed to their native justice and magnanimity
[as well as to] G the ties of our common kindred to
disavow these usurpations which [were likely to] 8
interrupt our connection and correspondence. They
free
an unwarl'anlal:.le
(X)
' aacl we hal'e conjured them by
N
N
Q..
Qj
(/)
would incl'ilably
'Ill
"have
....
Q..
178 oBAL DRAFT OF THE DECLARATION
N
L/)
['
CD
en
L/)
....
(I')
APX - 413
CD
:n
11.1
>
L
Ill
l!l
...
U1
Q..
..
(I')
CD
0
CD
0
ORIGINAL DRAFT OF THE DECl.ARATION 179
too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity, [ and when occasions have been given
them, by the regular course of their laws, of removing
from their councils the disturbers of our harmony,
they have, by their free election, reestablished them
in power. At this very time too, they are permitting
their chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers
of our common blood, but Scotch and foreign mer~
cenaries to invade and destroy us. These facta have
given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly
spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling
brethren. We must endeavor to forget our former
love for them, and hold them as we hold the rest of
mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We might
have been a free and a great people together; but a
communication of grandeur and of freedom, it seems,
is below their dignity. Be it so, since they will have
it. The road to happiness and to glory is open to us
too. We will tread it apart from them, and] 1
acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our
[eternal] separation [] 2 1
by the authority of the

good people of these
Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that
these united Colonies are,
and of right ought to be,
free and independent
States; that they are a~
solved from all allegiance
to the British crown, and
that all political connection between them and
the state of Great Britain
is, and ought to be, totally
dissolved; and that as
free and independent
States, they have full
power to levy war, con~
elude peace, contract alli~
ances, establish com~
merce, and to do all other
acts and things which in~
dependent States may of
right do.
And for the support of
this declaration, with a
firm reliance on the pr~
tection of divine providence, we m u t u a 11 y
pledge to each other our
lives, our fortunes, and
our sacred honor .
We therefore the re~

We therefore the representatives of the United resentatives of the United
States of America in Gen- States of America in General Congress assembled, eral Congress assembled,
appealing to the supreme do in the name, and by
judge of the world for the the authority of the good
rectitude of our inten- people of these [States
tions, do in the name, and reject and renounce all
'We
1111111 d.erefore
...d hold them u we hold the rest of 'ID&IIkind, enemiot of war, ia peace
frinda.
Q..
11.1
"l
allegiance and subjection

to the kings of Great Britain and all others who
may hereafter claim by,
through, or under them;
we utterly dissolve all political connection which
may heretofore have subsisted between us and the
people or parliament of
Great Britain: and finally
we do assert and declare
these Colonies to be free
and independent States,]
and that as free and independent States, they have
full power to levy war,
conclude peace, contract
alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other
acts and things which in~
dependent States may of
right do.
And for the support of
this declaration, we mutually pledge to each
other our lives, our for
tunes, and our sacred
honor.
I
I
lt
Till AVIICII Plject I.Jilln dWtr: l..aM llll Custans dWfl a'IL.and (HIIJI' IV); Ocklber 18, 19U7
1/18f.!016
~
9
~
Yale Law School

LILLIAN GOLDMAN LAW LIBRARY
THE AVALON PROJECT DocummtsmL,1w,f-ilsrol)'t!lldD1plom,~<:v
m tmmm't' of Sol GoldtJIIW
~
AVII.mtmll Sd111EIID
AllU.
~--
.MIIIIl!lli.
.1ill.r..a. ,alb.10illiiiX.
liiiHI
llill-lll
1z!ll~ ,aliiJ.ildiiX.
llll-llll lml-llli
.uPJ.ildiiX. 1/IJJ.ildiiX. U'..Qd.a.

llm-llli
liKIlla
Dll.:.
Laws of War:
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); Oetober 18, 1907
The Convention
Annex to the Convention
ENTERED INTO FORCE: 26 Janu&JY 1910

[I"RANNIATDNJ
IV
CONVEN110N RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND
Seeing that, whle 11881Wlg mll&lls to ..-ve paaca and pnMtnt armed conllictll between nations, it islikawiae n - . y to bear in mind the
caae where the appeal to arms has Ileal brought about by events which their care- unable to IMirt;
Animated by the deah lo - . ewn In this extrema-. the lntareste at humanity and the ewr progllllllllve needs at clvlzallan;
Thinking it important, with this object, to relliae the general laws and cusfDms at war, either with a view to defining them wilh greater pracilian ar
to confining them wllhln auch lnllts as WIIUid mitigate their -rfty as far as poaalble;
HIMI deemed It n - . y to complete and 8lqllaln In certain particulars the work at the Firat Peaca Conference, which, folowlng on the llru88818
Confarenca of 1874, and lnephd by the Ideas dictated by a wlae end generous forethought, adopted prolllslonslntendad lo define and govern the
usages of war on land.
According to the views at the High Conlradlng Partlee, theee provlalons, the wording at which has bean Inspired by the deeh to dlmlnleh the evils
at war, as far as military requirements pennH, ~n Intended to 181V8 as a general rule at conduct for the belligerents In their mutuel relellane and In
their rela11ons with the Inhabitants.
It has not, hOW&IIBI', been found poeellle at preeent to concert regulations covering all the circumstances which erleeln pradlce;
On the olher hand, the High Conlradlng Partlee clearly do not Intend that unfo111888n C8888 ehould, In the abaence at a Willen undertaldng, be
left tD the arbitrary Judgment of mltaly commanden.
Until a more complete code or the laws ofwv hal been lsellld, the High Contracllng Per1188 deem It expedient 1o declare that, In caSM not
Included In the Regulations adopted by them, the Inhabitants and the belllgerentll remain under the protection and the rule or the pm~ of the law
of na11ons, as they reeul from the usages establalled among civilized peoples, from the IBW6 or humanity, and the dltates of the pubic conscience.
They declare that It lain this aenee especially tllat Articles 1 and 2 of the Regulation& adopted must be undaratood.
The High Contradlng Parlles, wlllhlng to conclude afresh ConYBntlon to this effect, hml appolntlld tha following as their Planlpotenllalles:
(Uat of Plenlpotenllalles)
Who, after having depolled Ill* lUI powers, found In good and due form, hml agreed upon lila following:
Artlcle1.
APX - 414
118
The Avaloo Prject- Laws of War : Laws a'ld Customs cl Wf!l' oo Land (HagJE~IV); October 18, 1907
1/1&'2016
The Contracting Powers shall issue instructions to their armed land forces which shall be in conformity with the Regulations respecting the laws
and customs of war on land, annexed to the present Convention.
Art. 2.
The provisions contained in the Regulations referred to in Article 1, as well as in the present Convention, do not apply except between
Contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.
Art. 3.
A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation It shall be
responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.
Art. 4.
The present Convention, duly ratified, shall as between the Contracting Powers, be substituted for the Convention of 29 July 1899, respecting the
laws and customs of war on land.
The Convention of 1899 remains in force as between the Powers which signed it, and which do not also ratify the present Convention.
Art.
s.
The present Convention shall be ratified as soon as possible. The ratifications shall be deposited at The Hague.
The first deposit of ratifications shall be recorded in a procAs-verbal signed by the Representatives of the Powers which take part therein and by
the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The subsequent deposits of ratifications shall be made by means of a written notification, addressed to the Netherlands Government and
accompanied by the instrument of ratification.
A duly certified copy of the procA:'s-verbal relative to the first deposit of ratifications, of the notifications mentioned in the preceding paragraph, as
well as of the instruments of ratification, shall be immediately sent by the Netherlands Government, through the diplomatic channel, to the Powers
invited to the Second Peace Conference, as well as to the other Powers which have adhered to the Convention. In the cases contemplated in the
preceding paragraph the said Government shall at the same time inform them of the date on which it received the notification.
Art. 6.
Non-Signatory Powers may adhere to the present Convention.
The Power which desires to adhere notifies in writing its intention to the Netherlands Government, forwarding to it the act of adhesion, which shall
be deposited in the archives of the said Government.
This Government shall at once transmit to all the other Powers a duly certified copy of the notification as well as of the act of adhesion,
mentioning the date on which it received the notification.
Art. 7.
The present Convention shall come into force, in the case of the Powers which were a party to the first deposit of ratifications, sixty days after the
date of the procA's-verbal of this deposit, and, in the case of the Powers which ratify subsequently or which adhere, sixty days after the notification of
their ratification or of their adhesion has been received by the Netherlands Government.
Art. 8.
In the event of one of the Contracting Powers wishing to denounce the present Convention, the denunciation shall be notified in writing to the
Netherlands Government, which shall at once communicate a duly certified copy of the notification to all the other Powers, informing them of the date
on which it was received.
The denunciation shall only have effect in regard to the notifying Power, and one year after the notification has reached the Netherlands
Government.
Art.9
. A register kept by the Netherlands Ministry for Foreign Affairs shall give the date of the deposit of ratifications made in virtue of Article 5,
paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the date on which the notifications of adhesion (Article 6, paragraph 2), or of denunciation (Article 8, paragraph 1)
were received.
Each Contracting Power is entitled to have access to this register and to be supplied with duly certified extracts.
In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have appended their signatures to the present Convention.
Done at The Hague 18 October 1907, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Netherlands Government, and duly
certified copies of which shall be sent, through the diplomatic channel to the Powers which have been invited to the Second Peace Conference.
(List of Signatories)
Annex to the Convention

REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS
OF WAR ON LAND
http://avaloo.laN .yale.ecki20th_century~.asp
APX - 415
218
1/1612016
The Avalon Prject- Laws of War: Laws md Customs dWa- on Land (Hag.JSIV); October 18, 1!107
SECTION I
ON BELLIGERENTS
CHAPTER I
The Qualifications of Belligerents
Article 1.
The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
To carry arms openly; and
To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."
Art. 2.
The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the
invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms
openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.
Art. 3.
The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In the case of capture by the enemy, both have a
right to be treated as prisoners of war.
CHAPTER II
Prisoners of War
Art. 4.
Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government, but not of the individuals or corps who capture them.
They must be humanely treated.
All their personal belongings, except arms, horses, and military papers, remain their property.
Art. 5.
Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress, camp, or other place, and bound not to go beyond certain fiXed limits, but they cannot be
confined except as in indispensable measure of safety and only while the circumstances which necessitate the measure continue to exist.
Art. 6.
The State may utilize the labour of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted. The tasks shall not be excessive and
shall have no connection with the operations of the war.
Prisoners may be authorized to work for the public service, for private persons, or on their own account.
Work done for the State is paid for at the rates in force for work of a similar kind done by soldiers of the national army, or, if there are none in
force, at a rate according to the work executed.
When the work is for other branches of the public service or for private persons the conditions are settled in agreement with the military
authorities.
The wages of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position, and the balance shall be paid them on their release, after deducting the
cost of their maintenance.
Art. 7.
The Government into whose hands prisoners of war have fallen is charged with their maintenance.
In the absence of a special agreement between the belligerents, prisoners of war shall be treated as regards board, lodging, and dothing on the
same footing as the troops of the Government who captured them.
Art. 8.
Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations, and orders in force in the army of the State in whose power they are. Any act of
insubordination justifies the adoption towards them of such measures of severity as may be considered necessary.
Escaped prisoners who are retaken before being able to rejoin their own army or before leaving the territory occupied by the army which
captured them are liable to disciplinary punishment.
hUp://avalon.lf!toN.yale.e<1J/20th_century/hagJe04.asp
APX - 416
318
1/1612016
Prisoners who, after succeeding in escaping, are again taken prisoners, are not liable to any punishment on account of the previous flight.
Art 9_
Every prisoner of war is bound to give, if he is questioned on the subject, his true name and rank, and if he infringes this rule, he is liable to have
the advantages given to prisoners of his class curtailed.
Art-10Prisoners of war may be set at liberty on parole if the laws of their country allow, and, in such cases, they are bound, on their personal honour,
scrupulously to fulfil, both towards their own Government and the Government by whom they were made prisoners, the engagements they have
contracted.
In such cases their own Government is bound neither to require of nor accept from them any service incompatible with the parole given.
Art_ 11_
A prisoner of war cannot be compelled to accept his liberty on parole; similarly the hostile Government is not obliged to accede to the request of
the prisoner to be set at liberty on parole.
Art-12Prisoners of war liberated on parole and recaptured bearing arms against the Government to whom they had pledged their honour, or against the
allies of that Government, forfeit their right to be treated as prisoners of war, and can be brought before the courts.
Art-13Individuals who follow an army without directly belonging to it, such as newspaper correspondents and reporters, sutlers and contractors, who fall
into the enemy's hands and whom the latter thinks expedient to detain, are entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, provided they are in possession
of a certificate from the military authorities of the army which they were accompanying.
Art-14An inquiry office for prisoners of war is instituted on the commencement of hostilities in each of the belligerent States, and, when necessary, in
neutral countries which have received belligerents in their territory. It is the function of this office to reply to all inquiries about the prisoners. It
receives from the various services concerned full information respecting internments and transfers. releases on parole, exchanges, escapes,
admissions into hospital, deaths, as well as other information necessary to enable it to make out and keep up to date an individual return for each
prisoner of war. The office must state in this return the regimental number, name and surname, age, place of origin, rank, unit, wounds, date and
place of capture, internment, wounding, and death, as well as any observations of a special character. The indMdual return shall be sent to the
Government of the other belligerent after the conclusion of peace.
It is likewise the function of the inquiry office to receive and collect all objects of personal use, valuables, letters, etc., found on the field of battle or
left by prisoners who have been released on parole, or exchanged, or who have escaped, or died in hospitals or ambulances, and to forward them to
those concerned.
Art-15Relief societies for prisoners of war, which are properly constituted in accordance with the laws of their country and with the object of serving as
the channel for charitable effort shall receive from the belligerents, for themselves and their duly accredited agents every facility for the efficient
performance of their humane task within the bounds imposed by military necessities and administrative regulations. Agents of these societies may be
admitted to the places of internment for the purpose of distributing relief, as also to the halting places of repatriated prisoners, if furnished with a
personal permit by the military authorities, and on giving an undertaking in writing to comply with all measures of order and police which the latter
may issue.
Art-16Inquiry offices enjoy the privilege of free postage. Letters, money orders, and valuables, as well as parcels by post, intended for prisoners of war,
or dispatched by them, shall be exempt from all postal duties in the countries of origin and destination, as well as in the countries they pass through.
Presents and relief in kind for prisoners of war shall be admitted free of all import or other duties, as well as of payments for carriage by the State
railways.
Art_17_
Officers taken prisoners shall receive the same rate of pay as of officers of corresponding rank in the country where they are detained, the
amount to be ultimately refunded by their own Government.
Art_18_
Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete liberty in the exercise of their religion, including attendance at the services of whatever church they may
belong to, on the sole condition that they comply with the measures of order and police issued by the military authorities.
Art_19_
The wills of prisoners of war are received or drawn up in the same way as for soldiers of the national army.
hUp://avalon.lf!toN.yale.e<1J/201h_century/hagJe04.asp
APX - 417
418
1/1612016
The same rules shall be observed regarding death certificates as well as for the burial of prisoners of war, due regard being paid to their grade
and rank.
Art- 20.
After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall be carried out as quickly as possible.
CHAPTER Ill
The Sick and Wounded
Art- 21.
The obligations of belligerents with regard to the sick and wounded are governed by the Geneva Convention.
SECTION II
HOSTILITIES
CHAPTER I
Means of Injuring the Enemy,
Siag. and bombardments
Art. 22.
The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.
Art. 23.
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging
to the hostile nation or army;
To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
To declare that no quarter will be given;
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated
to cause unnecessary suffering:
To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges
of the Geneva Convention:
To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war:
To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is
likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they
were in the belligerenfs service before the commencement of the war.
Art. 24.
Ruses of war and the employment of measures necessary for obtaining information about the enemy and the country are considered permissible.
Art. 25.
The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
Art. 26.
The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to wam
the authorities.
Art. 27.
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or
charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the
time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged
enemy beforehand.
to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the
Art. 28.
The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited.
CHAPTER II
Spies
hUp://avalon.ll!tN.yale.e<1J/20th_century/hagJe04.asp
APX - 418
518
1/1612016
The Avalon Prject Laws of War: Laws md Customs dWa- on Land (Hag.JSIV); October 18, 1!107
Art. 29.
A person can only be considered a spy when, acting clandestinely or on false pretences, he obtains or endeavours to obtain information in the
zone of operations of a belligerent, with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party.
Thus, soldiers not wearing a disguise who have penetrated into the zone of operations of the hostile army, for the purpose of obtaining
information, are not considered spies. Similarly, the following are not considered spies: Soldiers and civilians, carrying out their mission openly,
entrusted with the delivery of despatches intended either for their own army or for the enemy's army. To this class belong likewise persons sent in
balloons for the purpose of carrying despatches and, generally, of maintaining communications between the different parts of an army or a territory.
Art. 30.
A spy taken in the act shall not be punished without previous trial.
Art. 31.
A spy who, after rejoining the army to which he belongs, is subsequently captured by the enemy, is treated as a prisoner of war, and incurs no
responsibility for his previous acts of espionage.
CHAPTER Ill
Flags of Truce
Art. 32.
A person is regarded as a parlementaire who has been authorized by one of the belligerents to enter into communication with the other, and who
advances bearing a white flag. He has a right to inviolability, as well as the trumpeter, bugler or drummer, the flag-bearer and interpreter who may
accompany him.
Art. 33.
The commander to whom a parlementaire is sent is not in all cases obliged to receive him.
He may take all the necessary steps to prevent the parlementaire taking advantage of his mission to obtain information.
In case of abuse, he has the right to detain the parlementaire temporarily.
Art. 34.
The parlementaire loses his rights of inviolability if it is proved in a clear and incontestable manner that he has taken advantage of his prMieged
position to provoke or commit an act of treason.
CHAPTER IV
CapHulatlons
Art. 35.
Capitulations agreed upon between the Contracting Parties must take into account the rules of military honour.
Once settled, they must be scrupulously observed by both parties.
CHAPTERV
Armistices
Art. 36.
An armistice suspends military operations by mutual agreement between the belligerent parties. If its duration is not defined, the belligerent
parties may resume operations at any time, provided always that the enemy is warned within the time agreed upon, in accordance with the terms of
the armistice.
Art. 37.
An armistice may be general or local. The first suspends the military operations of the belligerent States everywhere; the second only between
certain fractions of the belligerent armies and within a fixed radius.
Art. 38.
An armistice must be notified officially and in good time
the notification, or on the date fiXecl.
to the competent authorities and to the troops. Hostilities are suspended immediately after
Art. 39.
It rests with the Contracting Parties to settle, in the terms of the armistice, what communications may be held in the theatre of war with the
inhabitants and between the inhabitants of one belligerent State and those of the other.
Art. 40.
hUp://avalon.lf!toN.yale.e<1J/20th_cenlury/hagJe04.asp
APX - 419
618
1/1612016
Any serious violation of the armistice by one of the parties gives the other party the right of denouncing it, and even, in cases of urgency, of
recommencing hostilities immediately.
Art_ 41A violation of the terms of the armistice by private persons acting on their own initiative only entitles the injured party to demand the punishment
of the offenders or, if necessary, compensation for the losses sustained.
SECTION Ill
MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY
OF THE HOSTILE STATE
Art_ 42Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Art_ 43_
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to
restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
Art_ 44_
A belligerent is forbidden to force the inhabitants of territory occupied by it to furnish information about the army of the other belligerent, or about
its means of defense.
Art_ 45It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power.
Art_ 46_
Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.
Art_ 47Pillage is formally forbidden.
Art_ 48_
If, in the territory occupied, the occupant collects the taxes, dues, and tolls imposed for the benefit of the State, he shall do so, as far as is
possible, in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence in force, and shall in consequence be bound to defray the expenses of the
administration of the occupied territory to the same extent as the legitimate Government was so bound.
Art_ 49_
If, in addition to the taxes mentioned in the above article, the occupant levies other money contributions in the occupied territory, this shall only be
for the needs of the army or of the administration of the territory in question.
Art_ 50_
No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be
regarded as jointly and severally responsible.
Aft_ 51No contribution shall be collected except under a written order, and on the responsibility of a commander-in-chief.
The collection of the said contribution shall only be effected as far as possible in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence of the
taxes in force.
For every contribution a receipt shall be given to the contributors.
Art_ 52Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They
shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military
operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
hUp://avalon.lf!toN.yale.e<1J/201h_century/hagJe04.asp
APX - 420
718
1/1&'2016
The Avaloo Prject- Laws of War : Laws a'ld Customs cl Wf!l' oo Land (HagJE~IV); October 18, 1907
Contributions in kind shall as far as possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made
as soon as possible.
Art. 53.
An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of
arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations.
All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, adapted for the transmission of news, or for the transport of persons or things, exclusive of
cases governed by naval law, depots of arms, and, generally, all kinds of munitions of war, may be seized, even if they belong to private individuals,
but must be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made.
Art. 54.
Submarine cables connecting an occupied territory with a neutral territory shall not be seized or destroyed except in the case of absolute
necessity. They must likewise be restored and compensation fiXBd when peace is made.
Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real
estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must
safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
Art. 56.
The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when state property,
shall be treated as private property.
All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and
should be made the subject of legal proceedings.
T....tl and Oth.-lntern.tlonal Agre.nant. of the United St.t.. of Amerlc:~~1776-1948
Complied under the dlrec:tlon of Charles I. Bevans LL.B.
Assilitant laglll Advisor Department of State
Voluma 1 Multll.twal177&-1917
Dllp.tment of State Publication 8407
Waahington, DC: Govammant Printing Office, 1968
2008 Lillian Goldman Law Library

127 Wall Street, New Haven, CT 06511.
http://avaloo.laN .yale.ecki20th_centurylhQJe04.asp
Avalon
Statamant ol
Purpo111
Contact Ua
Yalalaw
Ubrary
APX - 421
Unlveralty
Ubrary
Yalalaw
School
Search Morrla
Search Orbll
818
Articles of Impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama

RESOLVED, That Barack Hussein Obama, acting President of the United States, is impeached
for high crimes and misdemeanorsi, and that the following articles of impeachment to be
exhibited to the Senate:
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST BARACK HUSSEIN
OBAMA, THE ACTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN
MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.
ARTICLE 1 Usurpation of the Oval Office via criminal identity fraud
Compelling prima facie evidence exists which demonstrates that Barack Hussein Obama has
engaged in false personationii and aggravated identity theft and in conspiracy to commit false
personation and identity theft in the pursuit of high office and governmental power. No bona fide
records of evidence presented by Barack Hussein Obama establishes his true identity, and
voluminous evidence demonstrates that all of the documents presented by Barack Hussein
Obama as proof of identity and eligibility for high office are forgeries, created for the sole
purpose of deceiving the American people in his pursuit of political power. Additional prima
facie evidence demonstrates that Barack Hussein Obama is using an alias, and has a different
lawful identity, namely, Barack Hussein Obama, II, Barry Soetoro, or Barack Hussein Obama
Soebarkah. Evidence exists that demonstrates Barack Hussein Obama is using Social Security
numbers, none of which appear to have been issued in the state of Hawaii or that lawfully are
attached to his legal identity; and that Barack Hussein Obama has concealed all of his bona fide
birth, school, passport, residency, Selective Service and previous employment records in an
effort to conceal his true identity.
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in
violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,
has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:
1. On January 20, 2009, the person identifying himself as Barack Hussein Obama accepted
the presidential oath of office on false and fraudulent pretenses;
2. Before, during and since his election in 2008, has made false and misleading statements
under oath of perjury, to unlawfully accept the office of President of the United States;
3. He has withheld all determinative and material information concerning his true identity
and evidence thereof from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of
the United States, under obligation to assure the people of the United States that he is the
person he presents himself as, and is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of
President;
APX - 422
4. He has engaged in approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with
respect to the giving of false or misleading statements and documents to lawfully
authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States concerning his true
identity;
5. He has interfered or endeavored to interfere with the conduct of investigations concerning
his true identity by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Secret Service, The Democratic Party, the news media, and
Congressional Committees;
6. He has approved, condoned, and/or acquiesced in, the surreptitious payment of
substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the
testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such
unlawful activities;
7. He has endeavored to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United
States in the cover up of his identity fraud;
8. He has disseminated information received from officers of the Department of Justice of
the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized
investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and
assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;
9. He has made or caused to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose
of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete
investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of identity fraud and
misconduct;
10. He has endeavored to cause prospective witnesses to expect favored treatment and
consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for
their silence or false testimony;
In all of this, Barack Hussein Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and
subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and
removal from office.
ARTICLE 2 - Malfeasanceiii, misconduct and abuse of the Oval Office

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in
violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,
has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the
due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the
laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:
APX - 423
1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to
obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights
of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax records for purposes
not authorized by law, and to target Republican and conservative political action
organizations, withholding I.R.S. tax exempt status for opposition political
organizations, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax
audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a
discriminatory manner;
2. He has misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, the
National Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and other
executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of
citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or
continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to
national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his
office; he directed, authorized, or permitted the use of information obtained
thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or
any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of
certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic
surveillance;
3. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or
disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be
maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed
in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully
utilized the resources of the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland
Security, The National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency,
engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the
constitutional rights of accused citizens to a fair trial in both the civil and military
courts;
4. He has failed to take care that the laws are faithfully executed by failing to act
when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to
impede and frustrate lawful efforts to enforce and duly execute the laws of the
Unites States regarding illegal immigration, the lawful detention and deportation
of illegal aliens, his unlawful release from detention of illegal aliens accused of
violent crimes, as well as his efforts to manipulate the election systems for
political gain, failure to execute the laws of the Unites States equally without
regard to political affiliation;
5. He has abused the power of the Oval Office to circumvent and subvert the
constitutional rule of law which vests all law-making authority with congress
alone, by abusing Executive Powers in an overt effort to eliminate the
constitutional authority of the legislative and judicial branches of the Federal
government;
6. He is misusing military force without congressional authorization and oversight in
violation of the War Powers Activ and other constitutional provisions in multiple
military incursions into numerous sovereign nations with the clear intent to
unlawfully topple foreign governments and install governments favorable to a
personal agenda, directly at odds with the best interests of the United States;
APX - 424
7. He has issued and enforced military Rules of Engagement that have unnecessarily
placed members of our military in harms way without the ability to defend
themselves on the front lines, resulting in an unnecessary and unacceptable rise in
U.S. casualties;
8. He has unlawfully incarcerated members of the U.S. military for carrying out
orders on the battlefield, without congressional authority or oversight, creating
increasing morale issues within the ranks and raising doubts in the minds of
American soldiers asked to risk life and limb under his command;
9. He has been derelict in his command of national security agencies resulting in the
unnecessary death of American civilians in Benghazi and American soldiers on
Extortion 17 in Afghanistan, among others and has intentionally and with malice
of forethought engaged in overt misrepresentation to the families and the
American people concerning the facts and circumstances of these events;
10. He has directed and overseen the intentional false reporting of events surrounding
numerous national security failures, foreign policy failures, foreign intelligence
failures, the misreporting of the true nature of our involvements overseas and the
issuance of false information concerning the death of numerous military personnel
and military contractors in an effort to conceal the level of invasion into our own
national security forces and military command by foreign agents;
11. He has directed the single largest increase in national debt in U.S. history without
any congressional authority or oversight, without a single congressionally
authorized Federal budget since 2009;
12. He has unilaterally authorized the killing of American Citizens deemed by
political affiliation alone to be potential domestic terrorists, without due process
of law or a right to a defense in direct violation of constitutional rights;
13. He has engaged in massive campaign finance fraud involving illegal overseas
funding from known enemies of the United States and worked with the
Democratic Party to manipulate election results in multiple states and districts;
14. In refusing to produce papers and records, Barack Hussein Obama, substituting
his sole judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed
the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoena power of the House of
Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary
to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the
House of Representatives;
15. He has directed and overseen the intentional destruction of governmental records
necessary to the investigations of multiple agency scandals, with the unlawful
intent to conceal all evidence that would be damaging to his administration;
16. He has ordered the Department of Justice to provide unlawful special treatment
and protections for the unlawful acts of political friends, while unlawfully using
the Department of Justice to wrongfully investigate, threaten, intimidate, charge
and incarcerate political foes;
17. He has misused the authority of the Department of Justice to obstruct and impair
the investigation, prosecution and justice of known unlawful activities carried out
by administration appointees in numerous Federal agencies;
18. He has used unlawful methods to appoint cabinet members, subverting the rule of
law and authority of congress, as just confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court;
APX - 425
19. He has abused executive powers or caused appointed agency personnel to

unlawfully threaten, intimidate and cause removal from employment, numerous
members of the news media in an overt violation of First Amendment rights.
has acted to subvert the constitutional government of the United States, to the great prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and
ARTICLE 3 - Aiding and Abetting known enemies of the United States

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, contrary to
his oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has directly engaged in the
covert aiding and abetting of foreign entities via the funding, arming, training and intelligence
assistance to the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, the Palestinian
Authority, Hezbollah, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the Free Syrian Army and others. He
has directly or indirectly through the agencies under his direct command, used American tax
dollars and assets to aid and abet known enemies of the United States, including known terror
organizations and organizations identified on a Terrorist List established by the United States as
enemies to the United States, in Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Tunisia, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Kenya, Iran, Ukraine and North, Central and South America.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:
1. He has refused to faithfully execute the laws of the United States concerning organized
immigration and naturalization as prescribed by the 1986 Immigration Reform Actv;
2. He has unlawfully used taxpayer funds to aid and abet the illegal invasion of the United
States;vi
3. He has used unlawful and unreasonable threats and intimidation tactics to force wellintended Federal agents to stand down on enforcement in direct violation of the laws of
the United States;
4. He has unlawfully used national security agencies under his direct command to threaten
and intimidate American Citizens, in violation of their constitutional rights, and in
violation of Posse Comitatusvii, in an effort to silence their opposition to the ongoing
invasion of the United Stated by unlawful intruders;
5. Without any congressional authority or oversight and in direct violation of his duties as
Commander-in-Chief, he has directly engaged in the covert aiding and abetting of foreign
entities via the funding, arming, training and intelligence assistance to known enemies of
the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, the
Palestinian Authority, Hezbollah, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and others;
APX - 426
6. He has engaged or caused his subordinates to engage in weapons trafficking to known

enemies of the United States, specifically the Mexican Cartels at our southern border and
Islamic terror networks throughout the Middle East;
7. He has worked to undermine relationships with U.S. Citizens and numerous U.S. allies
around the world by engaging in unlawful surveillance unrelated to national security;
8. He has directly threatened internal national security, he and his subordinates have worked
to cause socio-economic upheaval and racial tensions in the United States, for the sole
purpose of political gain;
9. He has worked to hamstring U.S. service members and private contractors on foreign
battlefields via Rules of Engagement which have given our enemies an upper hand on the
front lines;
10. He is engaging in an unlawful overt effort to disarm legal American Citizens and remove
public access to ammunition in direct violation of the U.S. Second Amendment, aiming
to prevent a free people from providing for the personal protection of life, liberty and
property, protect against illegal invasion, or a government body which has become
abusive to the citizens in violation of constitutional protections;
11. He has knowingly appointed cabinet level personnel with known direct ties to
international terrorist organizations and has given them top security level clearances;
12. He has unlawfully used groups with known ties to terrorist organizations as Oval Office
policy advisors and altered numerous national security and law enforcement policies on
the basis of advice from known enemies of the United States;
13. He has circumvented congressional authority to unlawfully use taxpayer funds to finance
known terror organizations and isolate some of our closest allies now under direct
military attack;
14. He has unlawfully and purposefully dismantled the balance of power between the three
branches of the Federal government, operating as a unilateral unchecked dictatorship;
15. He has worked to unlawfully fund, protect and defend known anti-American
organizations in direct violation of 50 U.S. Code 843;
16. He has unilaterally defunded, demoralized, undermined and dismantled the U.S. Military
and Military Command, leaving our country increasingly vulnerable to attack and unable
to respond;
17. He has sought to remove qualified military leadership from command due solely to their
opposition to his destruction of the Military and military readiness, while advancing the
careers of those within the ranks who have openly agreed to fire on American Citizens
if so ordered;
18. He has worked with labor unions to threaten, intimidate and extort money from U.S.
employers and employees, and unlawfully used labor union funds to advance an antiAmerican agenda without the voluntary consent of union members;
19. He knew or should have known that he was placing Americans in harms way in
Benghazi, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan without adequate force protection, in direct
violation of his oath and duties as Commander-in-Chief;
subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice,
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
APX - 427
Wherefore, Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and
ii
U.S. Const., Article II, Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on
Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
APX - 428
ii
18 U.S. Code 911 - Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. 18 U.S. Code 912 - Whoever falsely
assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department,
agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper,
document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. 18 U.S.
Code 1002 - Whoever, knowingly and with intent to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof, possesses
any false, altered, forged, or counterfeited writing or document for the purpose of enabling another to obtain from
the United States, or from any agency, officer or agent thereof, any sum of money, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S. Code 1015 - (a) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement under oath, in any case, proceeding, or
matter relating to, or under, or by virtue of any law of the United States relating to naturalization, citizenship, or
registry of aliens; or (c) Whoever uses or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of intention,
certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other documentary evidence of naturalization or of
citizenship, or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have been procured by fraud or false evidence or
without required appearance or hearing of the applicant in court or otherwise unlawfully obtained; or (d) Whoever
knowingly makes any false certificate, acknowledgment or statement concerning the appearance before him or the
taking of an oath or affirmation or the signature, attestation or execution by any person with respect to any
application, declaration, petition, affidavit, deposition, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other
paper or writing required or authorized by the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, citizenship, or registry of
aliens; or (e) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, a citizen or
national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself, or any other person, any Federal or State
benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the United States; or (f) Whoever knowingly makes
any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any
Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum) Shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Subsection (f) does not apply to an alien if each natural parent of the
alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or
naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien
reasonably believed at the time of making the false statement or claim that he or she was a citizen of the United
States.
18 U.S. Code 1017 - Whoever fraudulently or wrongfully affixes or impresses the seal of any department or
agency of the United States, to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper or with
knowledge of its fraudulent character, with wrongful or fraudulent intent, uses, buys, procures, sells, or
transfers to another any such certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper, to which or upon
which said seal has been so fraudulently affixed or impressed, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than five years, or both.
18 U.S. Code 1018 - Whoever, being a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to
make or give a certificate or other writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a certificate or writing,
containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not elsewhere
expressly provided by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
18 U.S. Code 1028 - (a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section
(1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false
identification document;
(2) knowingly transfers an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document
knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority;
(3) knowingly possesses with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents
(other than those issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication features, or false identification
documents;
(4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor),
authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to
defraud the United States;
APX - 429
(5) knowingly produces, transfers, or possesses a document-making implement or authentication feature with the
intent such document-making implement or authentication feature will be used in the production of a false
identification document or another document-making implement or authentication feature which will be so used;
(6) knowingly possesses an identification document or authentication feature that is or appears to be an
identification document or authentication feature of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated
as a special event of national significance which is stolen or produced without lawful authority knowing that such
document or feature was stolen or produced without such authority;
(7) knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person
with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation
of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law; or
(8) knowingly traffics in false or actual authentication features for use in false identification documents, documentmaking implements, or means of identification; shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is
(1) except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 15
years, or both, if the offense is
(A) the production or transfer of an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification
document that is or appears to be
(i) an identification document or authentication feature issued by or under the authority of the United States; or
(ii) a birth certificate, or a drivers license or personal identification card;
(B) the production or transfer of more than five identification documents, authentication features, or false
identification documents;
(C) an offense under paragraph (5) of such subsection; or
(D) an offense under paragraph (7) of such subsection that involves the transfer, possession, or use of 1 or more
means of identification if, as a result of the offense, any individual committing the offense obtains anything of value
aggregating $1,000 or more during any 1-year period;
(2) except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or
both, if the offense is
(A) any other production, transfer, or use of a means of identification, an identification document,, [1] authentication
feature, or a false identification document; or
(B) an offense under paragraph (3) or (7) of such subsection;
(3) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the offense is committed
(A) to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929 (a)(2));
(B) in connection with a crime of violence (as defined in section 924 (c)(3)); or
(C) after a prior conviction under this section becomes final;
(4) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 30 years, or both, if the offense is committed to
facilitate an act of domestic terrorism (as defined under section 2331 (5) of this title) or an act of international
terrorism (as defined in section 2331 (1) of this title);
(5) in the case of any offense under subsection (a), forfeiture to the United States of any personal property used or
intended to be used to commit the offense; and
(6) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
(c) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that
(1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is or appears to be issued by
or under the authority of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national
significance or the document-making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document,
authentication feature, or false identification document;
(2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or
(3) either
(A) the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or foreign
commerce, including the transfer of a document by electronic means; or
(B) the means of identification, identification document, false identification document, or document-making
implement is transported in the mail in the course of the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this
section.
(d) In this section and section 1028A
(1) the term authentication feature means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence
of numbers or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the
APX - 430
issuing authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to

determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified;
(2) the term document-making implement means any implement, impression, template, computer file, computer
disc, electronic device, or computer hardware or software, that is specifically configured or primarily used for
making an identification document, a false identification document, or another document-making implement;
(3) the term identification document means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United
States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special
event of national significance, a foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international
governmental or an international quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with information
concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of
individuals;
(4) the term false identification document means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the
purposes of identification of individuals that
(A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a
governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and
(B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision
of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a
foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasigovernmental organization;
(5) the term false authentication feature means an authentication feature that
(A) is genuine in origin, but, without the authorization of the issuing authority, has been tampered with or altered for
purposes of deceit;
(B) is genuine, but has been distributed, or is intended for distribution, without the authorization of the issuing
authority and not in connection with a lawfully made identification document, document-making implement, or
means of identification to which such authentication feature is intended to be affixed or embedded by the respective
issuing authority; or
(C) appears to be genuine, but is not;
(6) the term issuing authority
(A) means any governmental entity or agency that is authorized to issue identification documents, means of
identification, or authentication features; and
(B) includes the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event
designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision
of a foreign government, or an international government or quasi-governmental organization;
(7) the term means of identification means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with
any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any
(A) name, social security number, date of birth, official State or government issued drivers license or identification
number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number;
(B) unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical
representation;
(C) unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code; or
(D) telecommunication identifying information or access device (as defined in section 1029 (e));
(8) the term personal identification card means an identification document issued by a State or local government
solely for the purpose of identification;
(9) the term produce includes alter, authenticate, or assemble;
(10) the term transfer includes selecting an identification document, false identification document, or documentmaking implement and placing or directing the placement of such identification document, false identification
document, or document-making implement on an online location where it is available to others;
(11) the term State includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, and any other commonwealth, possession, or territory of the United States; and
(12) the term traffic means
(A) to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value; or
(B) to make or obtain control of with intent to so transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of.
(e) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law
enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of
the United States, or any activity authorized under chapter 224 of this title.
APX - 431
(f) Attempt and Conspiracy. Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this section
shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of
the attempt or conspiracy.
(g) Forfeiture Procedures. The forfeiture of property under this section, including any seizure and disposition of
the property and any related judicial or administrative proceeding, shall be governed by the provisions of section
413 (other than subsection (d) of that section) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of
1970 (21 U.S.C. 853).
(h) Forfeiture; Disposition. In the circumstance in which any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (a),
the court shall order, in addition to the penalty prescribed, the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all
illicit authentication features, identification documents, document-making implements, or means of identification.
(i) Rule of Construction. For purpose of subsection (a)(7), a single identification document or false identification
document that contains 1 or more means of identification shall be construed to be 1 means of identification.
18 U.S. Code 1028A - (a) Offenses. (1) In general. Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation
enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of
identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term
of imprisonment of 2 years.
(2) Terrorism offense. Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in section 2332b
(g)(5)(B), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another
person or a false identification document shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced
to a term of imprisonment of 5 years.
(b) Consecutive Sentence. Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(1) a court shall not place on probation any person convicted of a violation of this section;
(2) except as provided in paragraph (4), no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this section shall run
concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person under any other provision of law,
including any term of imprisonment imposed for the felony during which the means of identification was
transferred, possessed, or used;
(3) in determining any term of imprisonment to be imposed for the felony during which the means of identification
was transferred, possessed, or used, a court shall not in any way reduce the term to be imposed for such crime so as
to compensate for, or otherwise take into account, any separate term of imprisonment imposed or to be imposed for
a violation of this section; and
(4) a term of imprisonment imposed on a person for a violation of this section may, in the discretion of the court, run
concurrently, in whole or in part, only with another term of imprisonment that is imposed by the court at the same
time on that person for an additional violation of this section, provided that such discretion shall be exercised in
accordance with any applicable guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to
section 994 of title 28.
(c) Definition. For purposes of this section, the term felony violation enumerated in subsection (c) means any
offense that is a felony violation of
(1) section 641 (relating to theft of public money, property, or rewards [1] ), section 656 (relating to theft,
embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee), or section 664 (relating to theft from employee
benefit plans);
(2) section 911 (relating to false personation of citizenship);
(3) section 922 (a)(6) (relating to false statements in connection with the acquisition of a firearm);
(4) any provision contained in this chapter (relating to fraud and false statements), other than this section or section
1028 (a)(7);
(5) any provision contained in chapter 63 (relating to mail, bank, and wire fraud);
(6) any provision contained in chapter 69 (relating to nationality and citizenship);
(7) any provision contained in chapter 75 (relating to passports and visas);
(8) section 523 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6823) (relating to obtaining customer information by
false pretenses);
(9) section 243 or 266 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253 and 1306) (relating to willfully failing
to leave the United States after deportation and creating a counterfeit alien registration card);
(10) any provision contained in chapter 8 of title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1321 et seq.)
(relating to various immigration offenses); or
(11) section 208, 811, 1107(b), 1128B(a), or 1632 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408, 1011, 1307 (b), 1320a
7b (a), and 1383a) (relating to false statements relating to programs under the Act).
APX - 432
18 U.S. Code 1031 - (a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the
intent
(1) to defraud the United States; or
(2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,
in any grant, contract, subcontract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance, including
through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, an economic stimulus, recovery or rescue plan provided by the
Government, or the Governments purchase of any troubled asset as defined in the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008, or in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States
or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value
of such grant, contract, subcontract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance, or any
constituent part thereof, is $1,000,000 or more shall, subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section, be
fined not more than $1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) The fine imposed for an offense under this section may exceed the maximum otherwise provided by law, if such
fine does not exceed $5,000,000 and
(1) the gross loss to the Government or the gross gain to a defendant is $500,000 or greater; or
(2) the offense involves a conscious or reckless risk of serious personal injury.
(c) The maximum fine imposed upon a defendant for a prosecution including a prosecution with multiple counts
under this section shall not exceed $10,000,000.
(d) Nothing in this section shall preclude a court from imposing any other sentences available under this title,
including without limitation a fine up to twice the amount of the gross loss or gross gain involved in the offense
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3571 (d).
(e) In determining the amount of the fine, the court shall consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. sections 3553 and
3572, and the factors set forth in the guidelines and policy statements of the United States Sentencing Commission,
including
(1) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, including the harm or loss to the victim and the gain to the
defendant;
(2) whether the defendant previously has been fined for a similar offense; and
(3) any other pertinent equitable considerations.
(f) A prosecution of an offense under this section may be commenced any time not later than 7 years after the
offense is committed, plus any additional time otherwise allowed by law.
(g)
(1) In special circumstances and in his or her sole discretion, the Attorney General is authorized to make payments
from funds appropriated to the Department of Justice to persons who furnish information relating to a possible
prosecution under this section. The amount of such payment shall not exceed $250,000. Upon application by the
Attorney General, the court may order that the Department shall be reimbursed for a payment from a criminal fine
imposed under this section.
(2) An individual is not eligible for such a payment if
(A) that individual is an officer or employee of a Government agency who furnishes information or renders service
in the performance of official duties;
(B) that individual failed to furnish the information to the individuals employer prior to furnishing it to law
enforcement authorities, unless the court determines the individual has justifiable reasons for that failure;
(C) the furnished information is based upon public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or
administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or GAO report, hearing, audit or investigation, or from the
news media unless the person is the original source of the information. For the purposes of this subsection, original
source means an individual who has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations
are based and has voluntarily provided the information to the Government; or
(D) that individual participated in the violation of this section with respect to which such payment would be made.
(3) The failure of the Attorney General to authorize a payment shall not be subject to judicial review.
(h) Any individual who
(1) is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the
terms and conditions of employment by an employer because of lawful acts done by the employee on behalf of the
employee or others in furtherance of a prosecution under this section (including investigation for, initiation of,
testimony for, or assistance in such prosecution), and
APX - 433
(2) was not a participant in the unlawful activity that is the subject of said prosecution, may, in a civil action, obtain
all relief necessary to make such individual whole. Such relief shall include reinstatement with the same seniority
status such individual would have had but for the discrimination, 2 times the amount of back pay, interest on the
back pay, and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation
costs and reasonable attorneys fees.
ii
Malfeasance Evil doing; ill conduct. The commission of some act which is positively unlawful; the doing of an
act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; the doing of an act which person ought not to do at all or the unjust
performance of some act which the party had no right or which he had contracted not to do. See also, Misfeasance
The improper performance of some act which a man may lawfully do; the omission of an act which a person ought
to do. See also, Nonfeasance Nonperformance of some act which ought to be performed, omission to perform a
required duty; the total omission or failure of an agent to enter upon the performance of some distinct duty or
undertaking which he has agreed with his principal to do. See also, Misprision An offense which does not
possess a specific name. U.S. v. Peristein, C.C.A.N.J. 126 F.2d 789, 798. A contempt against the sovereign, the
government, or the courts of justice, including forms of seditious or disloyal conduct and leze-majesty; or the
maladministration of public office; neglect or improper performance of official duty, including the peculation of
public funds; and finally, the failure in the duty of a citizen to endeavor to prevent the commission of a crime, or,
having knowledge of its commission, to fail to reveal it to the proper authorities.
ii
The War Powers Act of 1973 - 50 USC S.1541-1548, 1973.
ii
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99603, 100 Stat. 3445, enacted November 6, 1986,
also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act.
ii
U.S. Const., Article III, Section 3 - Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless
on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. Also see, 18 U.S. Code
2381 Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall
suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than
$10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Also see, 18 U.S. Code 2382 - Misprision of treason - Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and
having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be,
disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor
or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
Also see, 18 U.S. Code 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection - Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any
rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort
thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of
holding any office under the United States.
Also see, 18 U.S. Code 2384 - Seditious conspiracy - If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any
place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the
Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by
force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess
any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Also see, 18 U.S. Code 2389 - Recruiting for service against United States - Whoever recruits soldiers or sailors
within the United States, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to engage in armed hostility against the
same; or Whoever opens within the United States, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, a recruiting
station for the enlistment of such soldiers or sailors to serve in any manner in armed hostility against the United
States Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
ii
Posse Comitatus Act - 18 U.S.C. 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152, (June 18, 1878).
APX - 434

Motion Under FRAP 35 To Reconsider PETITION FOR WRIT W APPENDIX New York State BOE Website Born A Citizen Vs NBC USCA 16-0413

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion Under FRAP 35 To Reconsider PETITION FOR WRIT W APPENDIX New York State BOE Website Born A Citizen Vs NBC USCA 16-0413

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

16- 0413-OP

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

In re: Christopher Earl Strunk, Christopher Blaise Garvey,

JINDAL FOR PRESIDENT

Petition Relief Sought

Facts in Support of Motion for Reconsideration En Banc

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP)

NOTICE UNDER FRAP 35 TO RECONSIDER EN BANC FOR A MORE

(TWEA) by operation of Executive Orders: 2039

of 6 March 1933 and 2040

WE are according to the US Senate Report 93-549 as to the temporary military

; and related law, includes as notice

under the International Covenant of Civil And Political Rights (ICCPR)

10 U.S. Code 878 - Art. 78. Accessory after the fact

ICCPR PART II Article 2:

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

1714 - d. 28 December 1767) was published in 1758

, and we include the

Facts in Support of Motion for Reconsideration En Banc

That Strunk on 18 March 2016 traveled to Washington DC to file the

On Wednesday 23 March 2016, there was an expedited oral argument

sponte Order to Docket and dismiss shown as Exhibit 1;

NALC Lead Attorney: Documents Obtained From Canada on Ted Cruz

parties, books and records, and personal knowledge .

Christopher Earl Strunk in esse

STATE OF NEW YORK )

Subscribed and Affirmed before me on this

day of March, 2016

cc: Christopher Blaise Garvey

In re: Christopher Earl Strunk, Christopher Blaise Garvey,

United States Court of Appeals

USCA Dkt. No. 16-0413

/s/ William A. DeCicco

Petitioners (Pro Se)

In re: Christopher Earl Strunk, Christopher Blaise Garvey,

In re: Christopher Earl Strunk, Christopher Blaise Garvey,

NALC Lead Attorney: Documents Obtained From Canada on Ted Cruz

In re: Christopher Earl Strunk, Christopher Blaise Garvey,

In re: Christopher Earl Strunk, Christopher Blaise Garvey,

is submitted in the matter of the New York Republican Party

28 U.S. Code 1651 - Writs:

, WE are according to the US Senate Report 93-549 as to the temporary

military government under a continual national emergency occupation; stated:

commerce cited by Maryland Journal of International Law Vol. 3 Issue 2 Article

especially Section III Military Authority Over the

Code 907 - Art. 107. False official statements

, 10 U.S. Code 881 - Art. 81.

and related law, includes as notice under the

International Covenant of Civil And Political Rights (ICCPR) especially Articles 2

10 U.S. Code 907 - Art. 107. False official statements

10 U.S. Code 881 - Art. 81. Conspiracy

10 U.S. Code 878 - Art. 78. Accessory after the fact

10 U.S. Code 877 - Art. 77. Principals

America with the Article 1 Section 8 Clause 10

express terms for use of the

construction interpretation with the polar star and Four-corners Rules

definitions of The Law of Nations, by Emer de Vattel (b. 25 April 1714 - d. 28

, and we include the Original Table of

Petitioner Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris (Strunk), in propria

suretynomore@gmail.com, (hereinafter among the "Petitioners"); and

Strunk to no avail starting in October 2008 challenged the NYS BOE,

That unlike the other Petitioners, Strunk is a member of a political class of

"pre-1933" Private National Citizens of the United States of America protected by