Upload
chris-strunk
View
116
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Plaintiff Strunk response as ordered by Richard J. Leon USDJ on Friday April 12, 2012 (see Exhibit A).to respond to the remaining Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subdivision U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) counsel’s Renewed motion for summary judgment filed March 30, 2012 by no later than April 30, 2012 as to the travel records of Stanley Ann Dunham also with the married surnames Obama and or Soetoro of exit ingress around the period of August 4, 1961 of the purported birth date of the Usurper Muslim in Chief having been duly fired by Plaintiff January 23, 2009 (Usurper); however nevertheless the Usurper has direct control and authority over the executive branch departments and agencies including DHS and CBP and all records now withheld as the requested documents by Plaintiff.
Citation preview
PLAINTIFF STRUNK’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, declare, certify, verify, and state under penalty of
perjury with 28 USC 1746 that:
1. I am the Plaintiff herein with my place for service located at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281
Brooklyn New York 11238, Phone: 845-901-6767 and email: [email protected].
2. This is my response as ordered by Richard J. Leon USDJ on Friday April 12, 2012 (see
Exhibit A).to respond to the remaining Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) subdivision U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) counsel’s Renewed motion for
summary judgment filed March 30, 2012 by no later than April 30, 2012 as to the travel records
of Stanley Ann Dunham also with the married surnames Obama and or Soetoro of exit ingress
around the period of August 4, 1961 of the purported birth date of the Usurper Muslim in Chief
Strunk Response to Defendant’s Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 1 of 9
having been duly fired by Plaintiff January 23, 2009 (Usurper); however nevertheless the
Usurper has direct control and authority over the executive branch departments and agencies
including DHS and CBP and all records now withheld as the requested documents by Plaintiff.
3. That Plaintiff has reviewed the declaration of the Dorothy Pullo, the director of the FOIA
Division in Washington DC appointed by the Usurper on April 26, 2010; and object to her
declaration as incomplete in that she was not the director at the time I started this quest on
November 22, 2008.
4. Cutting to the chase Director Pullo cites the explanation for FOIA exemption asserted quote:
Strunk Response to Defendant’s Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 2 of 9
5. That this FOIA quest was started in conjunction with my case Strunk v Paterson et al. in
New York State Supreme Court for the County Kings with Index No.: 2008-29642 still active
before the Honorable David I. Schmidt J.S.C. with a consolidation motion in the related case
Strunk v NYS Board of Election et al. with Index No.: 2011- 6500 filed March 22, 2011 assigned
to Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. who denied such consolidation as of April 11, 2012 and ordered
Strunk to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous case and levied the
costs of defendants litigation therein, see the decision and order at
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2012/2012-ny-slip-op-50614-u.html .
Despite the miscarriage of justice by a Judge who also voted for the Usurper, Strunk contends
that the Usurper has unclean hands because he and his agents are involved in crimes of forgery,
falsification of government documents, spoliation and concealment with admissions against
interest that in a sane world would bar any perpetrator’s outrageous motion to dismiss as it is
against public policy. However, as a matter of judicial notice herein were this Court to regain
composure and recognize that the pied piper Usurper is a bad actor and should order the release
Strunk Response to Defendant’s Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 3 of 9
of the documents requested of CBP as a matter of public interest that such magnanimous act
would spare Strunk further injury and loss of liberty and assist the Maricopa County Arizona
Sheriff’s Department (MCSD) COLD CASE POSSE (CCP) as the first such authority of
competent jurisdiction criminal investigation of the Usurper and his henchmen as to forgery,
falsification of documents, spoliation and concealment among other things of a criminal nature.
6. That prior to the April 11, 2012, Strunk affirmed his motion (see Exhibit B) in provision of
Judicial Notice to Arthur M. Schack in the case Strunk v NYS BOE Et al. Index No.: 2011-6500
for presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint (see
Exhibit C) that by previous request for leave of that court had been denied at the October 25,
2011 hearing as to the right to file a first amended complaint by Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. on the
U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 “Natural Born Citizen” (NBC) eligibility Issue
controlling matters in Trial Court and pending claims at the Court of Claims as time is of the
essence with irreparable harm with a hearing scheduled on the Calendar for April 24, 2012.
7. That on April 24, 2012 Judge Schack adjourned the motion shown as Exhibit B along with
other motions for his recusal and leave to seek direct appeal to the New York State Court of
Appeals on a constitutional matter under CPLR 5601 (b)(2) until June 18, 2012 after the Order to
Show cause hearing pending May 7, 2012 where sanctions and punishment without trial or
minimal provision of substantive due process and or admission of substantial evidence of
suspicion of fraud will be decided.
8. That as shown in exhibit B sub-exhibit 1 the March 1, 2012 MCSD’s Press Release and
Press Conference established in the Preliminary Report by the Sheriff’s COLD CASE POSSE ,
as an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate fraud and crimes committed by
the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an affirmation in 2007, that the Usurper Obama
Strunk Response to Defendant’s Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 4 of 9
affirmed compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 requirement for
eligibility for “Natural-born citizen” shown as Exhibit 2 is the subject of perjury, and currently
the submission is pending before the Arizona primary now in 2012; and that the attached
Preliminary Report of the Sheriff’s COLD CASE POSSE shown as Exhibit B sub-exhibit 3
supports the suspicion with sufficient evidence that the Usurper Barack Obama now in control of
the requested documents was not even born in Hawaii between August 1 1961 through August 7,
1961 and that the Usurper and his agents of the Executive act to spoliate evidence of a crime and
have caused further direct injury to Strunk– Quote:
“Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.
During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable cause to
believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama’s life history including: President Obama’s Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document;
To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, records from the days surrounding Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 w[h]ere these immigration cards cannot be found. “
9. That the requested ingress - egress archive documents showing the travel of Stanley Ann
Dunham Obama are included among thousands of other private individual travel records for the
period August 1, 1961 through August 7, 1961 are essential for Strunk’s defense against
Strunk Response to Defendant’s Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 5 of 9
sanctions and punishment and germane to the law enforcement investigation being conducted by
the CCP and MCSD as a matter of compelling public interest.
10. That the Usurper Muslim in Chief OBAMA presently has complete control and authority
over the entire executive including Defendants and their records kept at the National Archives,
is the authority who spoliates and conceals evidence essential for the Court herein to finalize this
case; and as such the Defendant’s herein summary judgment must be rejected by the Court as
the Executive branch operates with unclean hands as long as the Usurper spoliates and conceals
evidence required as a paramount public interest.
11. Based upon the foregoing Exhibits and related records in this case the Usurper Obama
spoliates and concealed evidence crucial for this case to be finalized and Strunk to be
exonerated; and that according to the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary that defines
“spoliation” as, “the intentional destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence,
usu. a document” (1). Spoliation most commonly becomes an issue in product liability and
negligent installation/servicing claims, where the defective product or the item negligently
installed/serviced goes missing after the loss, thereby limiting and/or precluding plaintiff from
being able to prove its claim. This loss is usually due to negligence, but in some instances the
loss is occasioned by intentional and willful conduct.
Elements of Spoliation
Within the jurisdictions which have recognized a separate independent tort, there is
variation as to what acts are considered to be independently actionable spoliation and against
whom an action may lay. The variances usually arise out of two categories:
1) spoliation committed by a party which is or should have been in the underlying suit for
which the missing evidence was to be used (first party) versus committed by a third party whose
Strunk Response to Defendant’s Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 6 of 9
only connection to the underlying suit was the loss of the evidence; and
2) whether the spoliation was intentional or negligent. As the less culpable “negligent”
spoliation claim is usually not recognized as a stand alone tort, and is usually disposed off via
discovery sanctions (first party), this article will focus on the more affirmative and egregious
intentional spoliation, which – as noted above – first gave rise to spoliation as an affirmative
claim. Although each jurisdiction adds its own nuances to elements of an independent intentional
spoliation claim, the following form the foundation for the claim:
1) pending or probable litigation involving the spoliation plaintiff;
2) knowledge on the part of the spoliation defendant that said litigation exists or is probable;
3) willful [intentional] destruction of evidence by defendant designed to disrupt the spoliation
plaintiff’s underlying case;
4) disruption of spoliation plaintiff’s underlying case; and
5) damages proximately caused by spoliation defendant’s acts.
12. The concept of spoliation applies generally to the destruction of evidence and, like
perjury, goes to the heart of the judicial process. By statute and procedural rules, states and the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCVP) provide various sanctions for failing to comply with
discovery obligations to produce evidence which cover most problems and provide remedies
ranging from monetary compensation or penalties to entry of judgment. In addition or to
complete the coverage, states and the federal courts provide remedies by application of the
spoliation concept either as a procedural remedy within the case or as a separate tort. In federal
courts, the spoliation concept was recognized as early 1817 in The FORTUNA---Krause et al.
Claimants, infra, is based on the inherent power of courts to control abuses in litigation, and
often arises from a request for a jury instruction re adverse inference. Lewy v. Remington Arms
Strunk Response to Defendant’s Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 7 of 9
(8th Cir 1988), 836 F.2d 1104 , 1111. Wigington v. CB Richard Ellis (10/24/03 N.D.Ill) [p.7 slip
opinion. "A party has a duty to preserve evidence over which it had control and 'reasonably
knew or could reasonably foresee was material to a potential legal action.' ..."A party must
preserve evidence that is properly discoverable under Rule 26. Discoverable evidence includes
electronic data such as e-mail."..."A party does not have to go to extraordinary measures to
preserve all potential evidence...It does not have to preserve every single scrap of paper in its
business...But a party must preserve evidence that it has notice is reasonably likely to be the
subject of a discovery request even before a request is actually received.... Notice may be
received before a complaint is filed if a party knows that litigation is likely to begin, or a party
may be alerted by the complaint...."]
13. That Defendants as an extension of the Executive under the control 0f Barck Obama all
have Unclean Hands for withholding the very simple documents that would clearly satisfy this
and Strunk’s other cases where he is being punished without due process. The clean hands
doctrine is a rule of law that someone bringing a lawsuit or motion and asking the court for
equitable relief must be innocent of wrongdoing or unfair conduct relating to the subject matter
of his/her claim. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant may claim in effect that under 5
USC 552 for withholding requested documents of a long dead person when she was a private
citizen married to a foreign alien, that the British Foreign office has recently listed as a party in
interest among terrorists in the Mau Mau movement (see Exhibit D) between August 1, 1961
through August 10, 1961 and that somehow plaintiff has "unclean hands" for requesting such
records flies in the face of this court as a fraud upon this court too.
14. However, the Defendants’ defense may not be used to put in issue conduct of the plaintiff
unrelated to plaintiff's claim here and in related cases in state court. The defendant must show
Strunk Response to Defendant’s Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 8 of 9
that plaintiff has no compelling public interest in this matter or somehow misled the defendant or
has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration can not show that.
15. In this case for all of the above reasons of concealment, spoliation, participating in
forging of public documents, fraud, admission against interest inter alia bar this Court from
granting any relief requested by Defendants and the Usurper Obama's agents in the April 30,
2012 Motion to renew for summary judgment must be denied and an order for the microfilm
records released for the period of August 1, 196 1 through August 10, 196 1 at least and all
records as a matter of public interest.
16. That Defendants answer or otherwise respond to the MCSD's evidence of spoliation and
concealment as compelling evidence as a matter of compelling interest; and that Plaintiff be
granted a sur-reply and for different and other relief deemed necessary for justice herein.
I declare, certify, verify, and state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is tru-orrect.
Dated: April 'g, 2012 Brooklyn New York -- *G%
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Self-represented without an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 28 1 Brooklyn, New York 11238 Phone - 845-901-6767 Email: [email protected]
Attachments Exhibits A through D
Cc: Brigham J. Bowen (DC Bar No. 4 18925) Civil Division, U.S. Justice Department Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883,20 Massachusetts Avenue., N.W. Washington D.C. 20044
Maricopa County Sheriff's Department Cold Case Posse 100 West Washington, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Strunk Response to Defendant's Motion to Renew summary Judgment Page 9 of 9
Strunk v. US DOS and DHS USDC DC 08-cv-2234 (RJL) PLAINTIFF STRUNK’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Exhibit A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
) CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, 1
1 Plaintiff, )
) v.
- . . - . 1 ) . Civil Action No. 08-2234 (RJL) )
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 1 OF STATE, et ai., . j
) Defendants. 1
ORDER Sr-
April 1% ,2012
Defendants have filed a renewed motion for s'wnmary judgment with respect to plaintiffs
FOIA-request to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. ~ i c a u s e resolution of the motion could
potentially dispose of this case, the Court will advise the pro se plaintiff of his obligations under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the rules of this Court.
In Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453,456 @.C. Cir. 1992), the Court of Appeals stated that the
district court must inform pro se litigants that, on a motion for summary judgment, "any factual
assertion in the movant's affidavits will be accepted . . . as being true unless [the opposing party]
submits his own aflidavits or other documentary evidence contradicting the assertion." 963 F.2d
at -- 456 (quoting Lewis v. Faulkner&9 F.2& 100, 102 (7th Cir. 1982)): The court specified that
the "text of Rule 56(e) should be part of the notice" issued to thepro se litigant. Id. Rule 56(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails
to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the -court may: (1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact; (2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion; (3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials--including the facts considered undisputed--show that the movant is entitled to it; or (4) issue any other appropriate order.
Fed R Civ. P. 5qe). Rule 56(c) provides:
(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
(2) Objection That a Fact Is Not Supported by Admissible Evidence. A party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.
(3) Materials Not Cited. The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record.
(4) Affidavits or Declarations. An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Thus, a party, such as plaintiff, who is adverse t oa motion for summary
judgment must rebut the moving party's affidavits with other affidavits or documentary evidence;
simple allegations that the moving party's affidavits are inaccurate or incorrect are not sufficient. -- - - --
For these purposes, averified com~intmapserve as iin affidavit. See ~ & l , 963 F.2d at 457-58.
In addition, the plaintiffs attention is directed to Local Civil Rule 7(b), which states:
Within . . . such . . . time as the court may direct, an opposing party shall serve and file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motion. If such a memorandum is not filed within
the prescribed time, the court may treat the motion as conceded.
Local Civil Rule 7(b). Thus, failure to respond to the defendants' motion in this case carries with
! it the risk that judgment will be entered for the defendants.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file his opposition or other response to the
defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment no later than April 30,2012. If plaintiff does
not respond by that date, the Court may treat the motion as conceded and may enter judgment for
the defendants.
SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
Strunk v. US DOS and DHS USDC DC 08-cv-2234 (RJL) PLAINTIFF STRUNK’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Exhibit B
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - 11 COUNTY OF KINGS I.A.S. Part 27 Index No.: 6500-2011
I x (Hon. Arthur M. Schack J.S.C) 1 4
Christopher-Earl: . Strunk, in esse L,
Plaintiff,
NOTICE OF MOTION
.C -
-against-
*
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; Et al.." I <
Defendants.
X I PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Christopher-Earl: Strunk
in esse, affhmed April 10,20 12 with exhibits annexed and memorandum of law, . ' I maintiff will move with CPLR §3025(b) in support of the notice of motion for I presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint filed
March 22,20 1 1 that by request for leave of the court having previously denied at the
October 25, 201 1 hearing for the right to file a first amended complaint; with the 9
motion return date on 479
before the Justice Arthur M. Schack at 360 Adams Sheet Brooklyn New York 11201,
or at a time designated by the court or as soon thereafter as counsel cah be heard.
~ a t e d : April !Q, 2012 BrookIyn New York
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Plaintiff self-represented wlo attorney 1 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28k - I Brooklyn, New York 11238 Ph. 845-901-6767
[email protected] - I I 1
cc: see service list that follows: ,
I I
Erica Burke, Esq. of SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York. New York 10017-3954 Todd E. Phillips, Esq. of CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED One Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 HARRIS BEACH, PLLC By THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553 JAMES C. DUGAN Esq. of WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y. 10019-6099 MARSHAL BELL, Esq. of McGUIRWOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Americas, 7th Floor New York, New York 10105 WILEY REIN LLP - TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ. , 1776K Street, NW Washington D.C. 20006 RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, PC – Christopher J. Latell Esq. and Daniel S. Reich Esq. 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New York 10006-3791 ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of NYS by: JOEL GRABER, Esq. AAG Assistant Attorney General 120 BROADWAY – 24th Floor New York, New York 10271-0332 MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By: CHLARENS ORSLAND, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS IAS Part 27 Index No.: 6500-2011 ---------------------------------------------------------------------x Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse (Hon. Arthur M. Schack J.S.C) Plaintiff, -against- PLAINTIFF’S NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. AFFIDAVIT IN WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. SUPPORT OF THE PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; NOTICE OF MOTION ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMÍ COLÓN, in their Official and FOR PRESENTMENT individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; OF EVIDENCE PETER G. PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH OF FORGERY AND (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC SPOLIATION AS STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES SUPPLEMENT TO PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; RÓGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; THE COMPLAINT JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; BY REQUEST FOR THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF LEAVE OF THE COURT THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities. Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------x STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KINGS )
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say
under penalty of perjury:
Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 1 of 9
1. That Petitioner Christopher Earl Strunk (Plaintiff, Affirmant) submits this affidavit
under CPLR §3025(b), in support of the notice of motion for presentment of evidence of
forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint that by previous request for
leave of the court having been denied at the October 25, 2011 hearing the right to file
a first amended complaint by Arthur M. Schack J.S.C.
2. Petitioner is located for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -281 Brooklyn, New York
11238 (845) 901-6767 email: [email protected].; and is a duly registered voter in the
2008 and 2012 election cycle, and that Plaintiff has not sought this relief before.
3. That there are several motions pending a decision including the essential motion
for transfer and consolidation with the active case, Index No. 29642-2008 as yet
decided and the Motion for leave of direct appeal of constitutional issues to the Court
of Appeals involving the term “Born a Citizen” adjourned until Tuesday April 24, 2012.
EVIDENCE OF FORGERY, SPOLIATION AND CONCEALMENT
4. That subsequent to the October 25, 2011 hearing, that on March 1, 2012, the
Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff’s Press Release (see Exhibit 1) and Press Conference
established that there is the Preliminary Report by the Sheriff’s COLD CASE POSSE ,
as an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate fraud and crimes
committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an affirmation in 2008
that Respondent Obama affirmed compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 2
Section 1 Paragraph 5 requirement for eligibility for “Natural-born citizen” with a
picture of the Sheriff’s webpage appended (see Exhibit 2) and currently before the
Arizona primary now in 2012; and that the attached Preliminary Report of the Sheriff’s
COLD CASE POSSE (see Exhibit 3) supports the suspicion with sufficient evidence
that Respondent Barack Obama was not even born in Hawaii between August 1 1961
through August 10, 1961 and acts to spoliate evidence of a crime – Quote:
Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 2 of 9
“Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate. During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama’s life history including:. President Obama’s Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document; To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, records from the days surrounding Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 w[h]ere these immigration cards cannot be found. “ 5. Further, that according to the Preliminary Report of the COLD CASE POSSE
shown as Exhibit 3, the purported Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form (see
Exhibit 4) is a forged document as submitted to the entire nation by Respondent
Barack Obama and attorneys at his April 27, 2011 at the Washington DC Press
Conference according to the transcript (see Exhibit 5); and
6. The Forged document shown as Exhibit 4 also now joins the previously 2008
proffered CoLB short form document that is a forgery as well based upon the
admissions of the Respondent Obama and his attorneys there at the White House at
the April 27, 2011 press conference . In the transcript shown as Exhibit 5, that at the
April 27, 2011 press conference the White House attorney repeatedly said that
Respondent Obama had requested the short form CoLB in 2008 from the State of
Hawaii be released. However, examination by Petitioner of the supposed document
Hawaii supposedly released in 2008 is in fact is stamped June 6, 2007 (see Exhibit 6)
as shown by the FactCheck.org report on August 21, 2008; and the later as the
Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 3 of 9
November 21, 2008 report appended shows the so-called Factcheck.org investigators,
depended on by members of Congress and Media, were partisan amateurs according
to “Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do Forensics; NH SOS and Certificates;
British Policeman on Eligibility”, and thereby all the foregoing provides sufficient
suspicion of fraud and or statements made as admission against interest as a bar
under clean hands doctrine of irrefutable presumption of wrong doing by Respondent
Obama and his agents in 2008 and continuing currently.
7. That Plaintiff in his November 22,2008 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request of the U.S. Department of State (US DOS) and related agency for the passport
and travel records of Respondent Obama’s mother Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama)
(Soetoro) for the period before and after August 4, 1961, received on July 29, 2010 a
transmittal of documents certified from the attorney for the U.S. DOS; and on the FS-
299 Application for renewal dated August 13, 1968 Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro
removed “Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah” from her subsequent Passport (see
Exhibit 7), therein proving that Respondent Obama had been renamed by his adoptive
father Lolo Soetoro, the Indonesian Army Lt. Colonel having married Stanley Ann
Dunham subsequent to her divorce from Barack Hussein Obama Sr. in 1963; and
8. Further, Plaintiff contends that the additional evidence of forgery of the
Selective Service record before the 2008 election along with the theft and tampering of
the US DOS Passport records by US DOS private contractor entity under the control of
John Brennan currently Respondent Obama’s White House Counter Terrorism advisor
having previously been assistant to Central Intelligence Director George Tenent, and
as such underlines the suspicion why the microfilm records from the National
Archives are missing now as well, as both agencies are under the direct authority and
control of Respondent Obama, the apparent usurper in the office of POTUS, and by his
Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 4 of 9
refusal to make such microfilm and the missing U.S. DOS records referenced in the
cover letter shown in Exhibit 6 provide the Court herein with substantial direct
available proof that Respondent Obama is now directly acting in a continuing pattern
to spoliate evidence.
9. As Further evidence, Plaintiff provides additional proof that Respondent Obama,
in a continuing pattern acted to spoliate evidence of his adoptive status as an
Indonesian citizen and the ramifications that would have on his law license in Illinois
and plans to seek the office of US Senator in 2005 and POTUS in 2008, perjured
himself on the application for entry to the Illinois bar affirmed he had no other name
(see Exhibit 8).
10. That Affirmant testified in a ballot access hearing in Atlanta Georgia on
January 26, 2012 before Judge Malihi in Atlanta Georgia with the entire proceeding
video of sworn testimony at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Uuxq1i_CX-w
11. That Plaintiff was present during the sworn testimony of Witness John
Sampson, retired INS False Document Special Investigator, at the January 26, 2012
hearing as an expert witness who when asked if he would have issued an arrest
warrant of Barack Obama as a person having filed falsified documents to the
government based upon what the witness has seen said “YES!”
12. That in light of the compelling evidence provided by the Maricopa County
Sheriff’s Office of forgery and spoliation associated with the Defendant Barack Obama
and his agents and as a precedent to date as the only authority of competent
jurisdiction to have an ongoing criminal investigation with press conferences releasing
additional evidence and continued findings every 30 days starting March 1, 2012 as
shown as Exhibit 1, an update released on March 31, 2012, related to the targeted
Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 5 of 9
spoliation of the U.S. National Archive microfilm spool of all travel records dating
August 1, 1961 through August 10, 1961 and the concealment of records of Defendant
Obama’s Selective Service record proven as a criminal forgery by Defendant Obama
and or his agents carrying a jail term of five years and $250,000.00 fine in submission
of a forged document to the Selective service and in addition the forgery of a U.S.
Postal Service date stamp.
13. That in light of the compelling evidence provided by the Maricopa County
Sheriff’s Office of forgery and spoliation associated with the Defendant Barack Obama
and his agents, Affirmant includes as germane in this supplement to the complaint
copies of letters U.S. Congressmen released to Affirmant by a journalist for publication
herein as demonstrative of statements by congressmen dating from November 11,
2008 through February 2009 that demonstrates Congressional confusion in what
constitutes eligibility with use of U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 for
office of POTUS in their conflation of the term “Born a Citizen” as a 14th amendment
with the term of art “natural-born Citizen”, see Exhibit 9 for the copy of the entire
content of each letter quoted below with excerpts as follows:
Senator Jim Bunning defers to INA, 14th Amend. and courts on November 11,
2008 wrote:
Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 6 of 9
Senator Sherrod Brown defers to BHO June 2008 CoLB on November 12, 2008 wrote:
Senator Jon Kyl defers to the internet on December 1, 2008 wrote:
Rep Ed Whitfield relies on News media & “proper authorities” on December 4, 2008
wrote:
Senator Sessions with disinterest relies on the courts on December 16, 2008 wrote:
Senator Sessions then relies on BHO June 2008 the CoLB on January 23, 2009
wrote:
Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 7 of 9
Senator Shelby relies on BHO June 2008 CoLB and Hawaii on January 29, 2009
wrote:
Rep. Steve King defers to the 14th Amendment on January 29, 2009 wrote:
Senator Feinstein deferring to the 14th Amendment on February 2, 2009 wrote:
Rep Sanford D. Bishop relies on Factcheck.org verification as shown at Exhibit 7 on
February 6, 2009 wrote:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff in support of the notice of motion for presentment of evidence
of forgery and spoliation as a supplement to the complaint wishes leave of the Court
and having previously been denied at the October 25, 2011 hearing the right to file a
first amended complaint, now as a matter of compelling state interest grant an order:
Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 8 of 9
That this affidavit be admitted as a supplement to the complaint filed ~ & c h 22, -
2011.
That the copy of the purported Certificate of Live Birth long form dated April
25, 20 1 1 released by Defdndant Barack Obama at his April 27, 20 1 1 Press
Conference included in Exhibit by Plaintiff in his response to Defendant
Obama's motion to dismiss be deemed evidence of Defendant's release of a
forgery rather than a documentation of Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii and
that at this point is not only in question but supports suspicion of his birth
overseas according to the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office.
That Defendants answer or otherwise respond to the supplement with
compelling evidence as a matter of compelling state interest; and
for different and other relief deemed necessary for justice herein.
That the foregoing matter involves irreparable harm as time is of the essence
without any alternative forum for relief that cbmpounds Plaintiffs injury along with
those similarly situated; hereby verifies the evidence submitted wherewith and that
the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be
alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The
grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as
follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.
Sworn to before me This /D day of April 20 12
HARRY HELFENBAUM Commissioner of Deeds
Commission Expires June 30,20
Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of Motion- . . . Page 9 of 9
Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 1
100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
Media Contact: [email protected]
1
SHERIFF ARPAIO RELEASES PRELIMINARY
FINDINGS ON
OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Arpaio suspects forgery
March 1, 2012
(Phoenix, AZ) Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a press conference today told
reporters, “A six month long investigation conducted by my cold case posse has lead
me to believe there is probable cause to believe that President Barack Obama’s long-
form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is a computer-
generated forgery. I do not believe that it is a scan of an original 1961 paper
document, as represented by the White House when the long-form birth certificate
was made public.”
This is the principle preliminary finding of a six-month on-going Sheriff’s Cold Case
Posse law enforcement investigation into the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate
and his eligibility to be president.
Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in
creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or
unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in
fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the
American public at large as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961
Hawaii long-form birth certificate.
During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable cause to
believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators
began examining other evidence of President Obama’s life history including:.
100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
Media Contact: [email protected]
2
President Obama’s Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery, revealed
by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document;
To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United
States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service
cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights
that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those
records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly,
records from the days surrounding Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7,
1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 were these immigration cards
cannot be found.
When and Why Sheriff’s investigators became involved
In August 2011, 250 members of the Surprise Arizona Tea Party, residents of
Maricopa County, presented a signed petition asking Sheriff Arpaio to undertake this
investigation.
The Tea Party members petitioned under the premise that if a forged birth certificate
was utilized to obtain a position for Barack Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential
ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised.
Sheriff Arpaio agreed to accept the investigation and assigned it to his “Cold Case
Posse” at no expense to the tax payers for a thorough examination. The Sheriff’s Cold
Case Posse, consisting of former law enforcement officers and lawyers with law
enforcement experienced, spoke to dozens of witness and examined hundreds of
documents, and took numerous sworn statements from witnesses around the world.
Additional findings by investigators
100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
Media Contact: [email protected]
3
Suspecting that the long form birth certificate is a computer generated forgery, they
now say they have identified persons of interest in the case.
Sheriff’s Investigator Mike Zullo says, “We have also determined during the course of
our investigation that the Hawaii Department of Health engaged in what we believe is
a systematic effort to hide any original 1961 birth records that they may have in their
possession.”
Sheriff Arpaio added, “A continuing investigation is needed to not only understand
more about the creation of the alleged birth certificate forgery, but also to determine
who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized it.”
The Matter of the Selective Service Registration Card
Sheriff’s Investigators were then led to investigate President’s Obama selective
service registration card allegedly filled out in Hawaii in 1980.
Investigators compared Obama’s card to others filled out in same year and to at least
two cards filled out in the same local.
The year stamp that is used on selective service registration cards should include all
four digits of the year, for example 1980, the year Obama may have registered with
selective service. However, investigators note that Obama’s registration card is highly
unusual having a year stamp including only two digits, “80” which appears to be an
inverted number. Additionally, those numbers are offset by a significant amount
suggesting that the stamp was somehow manually manipulated.
Investigators use video presentations to back up the evidence
The Cold Case Posse produced six technical videos to demonstrate why the Obama
long-form birth certificate is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery. The
videos were designed to display the testing used by the investigators to examine
100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
Media Contact: [email protected]
4
various claims made when the April 27 document was posted on the White House
website for public dissemination. The videos consisted of step-by-step computer
demonstrations using a control document.
They also illustrate point-by-point the investigators conclusion that the features and
anomalies observed on the Obama long-form birth certificate were inconsistent with
features produced when a paper document is scanned, even if the scan of the paper
document had been enhanced by Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and optimized.
Additionally, the videos demonstrated that the Hawaii Department of Health
Registrar’s name stamp and the Registrar’s date stamp were computer-generated
images imported from an unknown source into an electronic document, as opposed to
actual rubber stamp imprints inked by hand or machine onto a paper document.
“The fact that we were able to cast reasonable suspicion on the authenticity of the
Registrar stamps is especially disturbing, since these stamp imprints are designed to
provide government authentication to the document itself,” Zullo said.” If the
Registrar stamps are forgeries, then the document itself is a forgery.”
“As I said at the beginning of the investigation,” Arpaio said, “the President can easily
put all of this to rest. All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health
release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic
examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm, and computer birth records the Hawaii
Department of Health has.”
Arpaio further stressed the Hawaii Department of Health needs to provide, as part of
the full disclosure, evidence regarding the chain of custody of all Obama birth records,
including paper, microfilm, and electronic records, in order to eliminate the possibility
that a forger or forgers may have tampered with the birth records.
“Absent the authentic Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack
Obama, there is no other credible proof supporting the idea or belief that this President
was born in Hawaii, or in the United States for that matter, as he and the White House
have consistently asserted,” Arpaio said.
100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
Media Contact: [email protected]
5
Conclusive remarks
Sheriff Arpaio stresses that these are preliminary findings and concluded by
suggesting a Congressional investigation might be warranted. Arpaio asked that any
other law enforcement agency with information referencing this investigation be
forwarded to his office.
“I want to make this perfectly clear. I am not accusing the sitting President of the
United States of committing a crime. But there remain a lot of questions which beg for
answers and we intend to move forward with this investigation in pursuit of those
answers, hopefully with the cooperation of all parties involved,” Arpaio said.
Links to the Videos Used during the press conference are below.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ID_KfcmG9gs
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S40WKxKSlHc
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jzDWmXNBvto
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yQ0Wvp91JXg
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3S6O_AjIln8
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CHAM3hRI8_Y
Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 2
I 2001 1fE t 3 Pb! 3: 0 1
CANDIDATE NOMINATION PAPER (A.R.S. 5 16-/!42)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 9 You are hereby notified that I, %rack
am seeking nomination as a candidate for the offid of President of the United States from the Democratic Pbrty, at the Presidential Preference Election
to be held on the 5th day of February 2008.
I am a natural born citlzen of the United ~ts/tes, am at least thirty-five years of age, and
have been a resident within the United States for at least fourteen years.
5046 South Greenwood Avenue, ~hiod~o. IL 60615 CandMate's actual residence address or description of p+ of residence (city or town) (zip)
Obama for America, 233 North ~ i c h j ~ a n Avenue. 11th Floor, Chicag Candidate's Post Office Address
, I (city or town) (zip)
8666i9
I
Candidate's Arizona committee information: 1 Chairman's Name Don B ivens 1
602-298-4200 Telephone I I
2910 N o r t h central1 Avenue, Phoen ix AZ 85012 Address
(number and street) (city or town) (zip)
RECEIVED SECRETARY OF STATE
Q ~ a m 1
I am not )
a registered voter in the I stete in which I resi8@7 DEC 1 3 32 0 I
a member of the politiql party from which I am running as a
candidate for Re oRce (oi President of the United States.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that all the information in this Nomination Paper is true, that as to these and all other qualifications, 1 am qualifieq to hold the office that I seek, having fulfilled the United States constitutional requirements for holding said office. I further swear (or affirm) that I have fulfilled Arizona's statutory requirement for pldcing my name on its Election ballot.
i
I
Subscnied AND SWORN to (or affirmed) before me this lu0 \ IC~13~f? PJ 20 -
My Co+tmission Expires: "3 - 3 1 - 2 0 1 0
File with:
Arizona Secretary of State Election Services Division 1700 West Washington Street, Floor Phoenix, Atbna 85007
Dffice Revision 8/21/2007
Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 3
REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 1 of 10
Opening Statement:
I, Mara Zebest, am preparing this report at the request of Maricopa County Sheriff ’s Offi ce in support of the Cold Case Posse investigation.
The PDF birth certifi cate document released by the White House (shown in Figure 1) is a completely manufactured and fabricated computer generated image. The same source fi le was used to print a copy handed to the AP (shown in Figure 2), in which the AP scanned in the version handed to them. A third photograph version (Figure 3) was touted by Savannah Guthrie who claimed to have held and felt the seal on the document, but the original Internet posted images have been scrubbed.
The White House wants us to believe the PDF document started out in printed form on security paper retrieved from Hawaii—but this is not possible. All three versions manifest itself as a printed document only when the PRINT button is pressed from within the original manufactured document fi le. This would account for the transformation of a document containing diff erent color backgrounds, and the ability to print with or without safety paper pattern (by turning a layer on or off ).
There is no doubt in my mind that this computer generated image never started out as a paper source document and was never scanned in as described by the White House—it was digitally created and manufactured.
The bulk of this report will explain the evidence to support this, which will include the following points:
Inconsistencies within text characters: All anti-aliased text (in a color scan), or all bitmapped text (in a black & white scan)—not a mixture of both which is impossible in a legitimate document. Image noise should also be consistent throughout.
Chromatic aberration absent: A color scanned document would display chromatic aberration. This is physics and occurs in all color scans but is absent in Obama’s PDF document.
Layers: A normal scan is a fl at fi le and does not contain multiple layers. The Obama PDF contains 9 layers and grouped to a clipping mask layer.
Links: Indicate that components were pasted into the fi le, rotated, and resized.
Clipping Mask Path hides image information: Proof of manipulation.
Safety paper and white halo: Manufactured in fi nal steps.
Figure 2: A printout was given to AP which they scanned
Blue background color
and no safety paper
Figure 1: PDF fi le released from White House
Green safety paper
background
Figure 3: Savannah Guthrie photo claim to verify document
Safety paper background
with a gray/blue color
REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 2 of 10
Figure 5: Font Properties of Obama’s PDF fi le
Document Font Properties
of original PDF fi le
Document Font Properties
after OCR Text Recognition
Figure 6: Font Properties dialog after OCR Text Recognition
Figure 4: Search for text is not recognized—No OCR applied
Search word in Find box
No text found in fi le
The OCR Argument Not a Factor!
OCR—which stands for Optical Character Recognition—will scan a document for text and convert any images of text to live (editable) text.
After OCR is applied to a PDF in Adobe Acrobat Pro, the text responds as if it is in a Word document. The OCR text can be selected, changed, copied and pasted. The Obama PDF document as downloaded cannot be edited in the aforementioned manner. Note: Adobe Acrobat Pro has PDF editing functions, but Adobe Acrobat Reader does not.
Additionally, if the PDF had been scanned using OCR software; one would be able to search the document with keywords and if the text exists in the document, then those keywords would be found.
Figure 4 shows the keyword “Live” typed in the FIND box, and even though the word “Live” exists in the Certifi cate of Live Birth title, a dialog box responds that “no matches were found.”
When viewing the font properties dialog box in Figure 5, no fonts are listed. If OCR was used, the image area would be converted to recognized fonts in the document and the fonts would be listed. The dialog box is empty, indicating that Obama’s PDF fi le does not recognize any text. This dialog box can be viewed by going to the File menu > Properties, then click on the Font tab in the Document Properties dialog box.
Font-based text can be created after a fi le has been processed through the OCR Text Recognition feature in Adobe Acrobat. To run the OCR feature, go to the Document menu and select OCR
Text Recognition, and then click Recognize Text Using OCR. Acrobat will then perform a scan on the document and convert any text found in the image to editable text. Note that applying OCR Text Recognition will alter the appearance of the characters in the conversion from image to text.
Figure 6 shows that all the fonts recognized during the process are now listed in the Font Properties dialog box.
Figure 7 shows another search (after OCR is applied) on the keyword “Live” typed in the FIND box. The word “Live” is found and highlighted within the Certifi cate of Live Birth title.
Figure 7: Search for text is recognized after OCR is applied
Search word in Find box
Text found in OCR fi le
REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 3 of 10
Introduction to Basic Terms
Let’s briefl y examine three terms related to graphic programs: Noise, Anti-aliasing, and Bitmap
Noise v No Noise
Scanned images will have a consistent noise. Any inconsistencies in noise would be a strong telltale sign of tampering. When looking at an image at a normal zoom level (100%) colors may appear as one color of any particular area of an image. Zooming in closer to the area, consistent noise is easily apparent in the slight variations of color from neighboring pixels that make up each color (shown in Figure 8). This is the natural noise level for this image. Note that it is consistent throughout the image; variations can be seen for neighboring pixels of each color area in the original image.
In contrast, Figure 8 also shows an example of no noise as a result of digital manipulation. Two pixels were sampled to match colors within the image. Using a paint brush tool in Adobe Photoshop, a streak of each sampled color is drawn across the image area. Clearly the lack of noise in the digital brush strokes is inconsistent with natural noise of the image. Components added digitally to an image do not contain noise. All neighboring pixels for the sample paint strokes in Figure 8 are solid in color with no variation—not even the slightest of variations. In order to avoid detection when editing an image, an experienced professional will need to mimic the noise to match the document. One common method used is to access the Add Noise fi lter found on the Photoshop Filter menu. This was not done in the Obama PDF fi le. If this was a legitimate color scan, noise would be consistently displayed throughout the entire document.
Bitmap (or Aliasing) v Anti-aliasing
Figure 9 off ers a visual explanation of aliasing (or bitmap text) contrasted with anti-aliasing. Notice that aliasing is the visual stair-stepping of edges that occurs in an image which yields a jagged edge. Anti-aliasing is the smoothing of jagged edges in digital images by averaging the colors of the pixels at the boundary edges.
Also notice the transition of pixel colors that occur in Figure 8 where contrast colors bump up next to each other. This color transition (averaging of color pixels) makes the lines appear smooth when viewed at a normal viewing level. Without anti-aliasing to soften this line edge transition of colors, images will have a choppy jagged edge quality (aliasing or bitmapped quality). Anti-aliasing is either applied globally (to an entire image) during scanning—or not at all.
Figure 10 is a perfect example of an inconsistency that occurs with image manipulation. The numerical characters 064 seen in the Figure are all aliased or bitmapped, and the 1 is anti-aliased as well as containing noise.
A color scan would produce anti-aliased results universally. While it is possible to use a bitmap setting when scanning, the results would create a black and white image—no color present. A bitmap setting would turn every pixel to on or off —white or black. So if a bitmap setting was used in a scan, then there shouldn’t be a color background, along with varying colors in the text outside the grayscale range? All text color values have green tone values—not black or grayscale.
Figure 9: Aliasing (or bitmap) and anti-aliasing
Figure 8: Painted brush strokes in digital scan lack noise
Image noise
Paint strokes—no noise
Figure 10: Bitmap edges are jagged v smooth anti-aliased edge
Bitmap edges are jagged Anti-aliased edges are smooth
Noise
No noise
REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 4 of 10
Scanner Chromatic Aberration
What is chromatic aberration? This occurs when diff erent wavelengths of light are refracted diff erently as it goes through a lens or prism during the scanning process. Light is refracted diff erently as the scanner encounters one side of a contrasting color (particularly with text) compared to the opposite side of the contrasting color.
In simpler terms, Figure 11 is an example of Chromatic Aberration in which the scanner produced warm red-ish color values at the bottom and left edges of the text, and similarly the scanner produced cool blue-ish color values around the top and right edges of text transitions. Chromatic Aberration can be seen at a high zoom level in color scans such as the AP version of Obama’s BC—but this chromatic aberration is NOT present in Obama’s PDF released by the White House.
Because the AP version displays chromatic aberration, this is an indicator that the AP did receive a printed hard copy of the BC from the White House and scanned whatever was presented to them. AP did not do anything wrong. They simply scanned what was handed to them.
It’s important to note that the AP version does NOT have a security safety paper background pattern, but rather a baby blue colored background. This sudden diff erence in background color/pattern is another inconsistency that could NOT happen if the document was simply scanned with no further manipulation and released by the White House—but this inconsistency would only happen if the White House document is a manufactured fi le.
Applying the Terms Reviewed
A key problem with the document, as presented, is that it is riddled with inconsistencies. Scanning a document without manipulation produces an image with qualities that are consistent globally (throughout the entire image). Amateurish image manipulation will reveal local (specifi c areas) of inconsistencies or odd artifacts.
Another example of anti-aliased text containing noise for the letter “R” mixed with surrounding bitmap text in Figure 12. The white halo eff ect surrounding the text with no chromatic aberration is also a strong indicator that the document was manipulated (more on the white halo later).
Figure 13 displays text color inconsistencies in dates, along with a misspelling in the offi cial stamp text—”TXE” instead of “THE.” While it may be argued that the misspelling is merely a function of the stamp ink applied unevenly, the odds signifi cantly decrease that this would occur on both vertical bars that aff ect both sides of the “H” character. Both sides pull in substantially displaying an “X.” The stamp also sports suspicious markings in the “Alvin” signature that has been referred to as a “happy face.”
Figure 14 off ers a contrast image of Alvin Onaka’s stamp in which the words are spelled correctly and no “happy face” markings in the “Alvin” signature. The “Ph.” spacing between the “P” and “h” is diff erent in both signature images (the period spacing as well).
Also, the stamp version displayed in Figure 13 is a solid bitmap layer—no signs of texture (ink stamp on paper) can be detected. Some semblance of texture would be refl ected in an image scan (even with optimization applied), but this overall quality of texture—the ink stamp on paper as seen in Figure 14—is absent from the Obama PDF.
Figure 11: Scanned text and Chromatic Aberration
Cool blue color at the upper edges
Warm red color at the lower edges
Figure 14: http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
No spelling error
Alvin’s signature
without smiley face?
Figure 13: Examples of text inconsistencies
Color variation evidence of manipulation
Spelling error on stamp
Alvin’s signature suddenly
develops a smiley face
Green text color values
Figure 12: Obama PDF viewed in Acrobat at 1600% zoom level
Noise, anti-aliasing, bitmap inconsistency
in text—and no chromatic aberration
REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 5 of 10
Layers: Flat, Man-made, and Optimized
Attempts to suggest optimization explains the presence of layers in the Obama PDF is simply not true. While it is true that optimization can cause layers, it is not true that optimization explains the layers displayed in Obama’s PDF. The layers in Obama’s PDF clearly display a decision-making process that would be present with image manipulation.
A simple defi nition for optimization is a process that applies suitable compression settings to reduce fi le size.
As stated—optimization can cause layers—but in the case of optimization; the process of how the document is layered is completely computer-generated based on programming algorithms. Thus, there are certain predictable patterns.
Before examining the Figures, it might help to explain that there are two types of graphic programs: Raster-based and Vector-based. Raster-based is a fancy word for pixel-based which is the strength of a program like Adobe Photoshop. Whereas Adobe Illustrator is a vector-based program—meaning it relies on mathematical interpretations. Illustrator operates diff erently than Photoshop in that lines or shapes drawn in Illustrator are referred to as paths—the mathematical equations that defi ne the line, line segment, or shape. With this in mind, when a pixel-based image is opened in Illustrator, a path is generated to defi ne the outer boundary border of that object. This is why you will see sub-layers in the screen capture Figures with a Path title that corresponds to the visible blue (default color) rectangle-shaped border edges of an object (in the displayed image).
The AP fi le version of Obama’s PDF in Figure 15 will serve to represent a scanned document and when opened in Illustrator, there is only one link, and one layer; the layer breaks down to display the following sub-layers:
A boundary edge Path—the blue border surrounding the image
And the fl attened Image
Figure 16 shows a crucial diff erence in the number of layers displayed in Obama’s PDF fi le (compared to the AP fi le): Obama’s PDF has nine links and nine sub-layers (NOTE: The paths are actively displayed in the image). In addition to the nine sub-layer objects, a clipping path is at the top of the sub -layer list. The clipping path groups all the remaining sub-layers below. Note the location of the clipping path in the image, which will be explained further on the next page. It’s presence within the fi le and applied in a manner to hide portions of the image also refl ects image manipulation.
Another crucial diff erence in the number of layers occurs when optimization is applied to the AP scanned image in Figure 17. There is an unreasonable amount of layers generated. Note despite resizing the Links and Layers panels, there is still a scroll box which scrolls the length of the empty scrolling bar area (to off er a sense of how many layers extend beyond the current view).
Examine how the layers divide the image into pieces. It is analogous to taking a scissor and cutting the image into random rectangles.
Finally, notice that Figure 17 calls out the top layer as a bitmap layer (which means it contains one color value only), while all remaining layers are color layers (contains multiple color values). One bitmap layer and multiple color layers are typical optimization behavior; but the reverse is true in Obama’s PDF in which it contains multiple bitmap layers and only one color layer.
Figure 15: Normal one-layer scan document behavior
Layer 1 includes the following sub-layers:
Outside border edge boundary path
One Link
One fl at image layer
Outside border Path
One fl at image
Figure 16: Multiple layers and links in Obama’s PDF
Multiple links
Multiple sub-layers
Outside border path
Clipping Path
Clipping Path layer
Figure 17: AP layers and links after optimization is applied
Huge amount of links
Insane number of color sub-layers
No logic to layer
object decisions
Scroll box
Scroll box
One bitmap sub-layer at top
REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 6 of 10
The Clipping Mask Path
Let’s return to the previously mentioned Clipping Mask Path. The term mask refers to defi ning parts of an image to be hidden from view (rather than have to delete unwanted parts). Any vector shape can be used as a clipping path—in this case the rectangle path shape seen in Figure 18 defi nes an area that acts like a window: Anything within the shape border is visible, and anything that falls outside its boundary is not visible. A benefi t derived from using a clipping mask is it allows the mask to be reposition at any time to show or hide diff erent parts of the artwork. A clipping mask that hides image information from view only occurs in a manual process to manipulated a document. If a clipping mask is generated in an optimized fi le—it will never hide information.
Figure 18 displays the clipping mask as the only visible path when the Obama PDF is fi rst opened—all other path objects behave as a group attached to the clipping path. To move and see these objects separately—the clipping mask group needs to be released—or ungrouped.
Figure 19 shows an open Layers panel (to display the sub-layers). A right-click inside the clipping mask off ers a menu option to Release Clipping Mask. Notice that releasing this path not only exposes the other grouped path objects, but suddenly uncovers additional background pattern that spills outside (and beyond) the clipping mask path boundary—proof of image manipulation.
X-Ray Scanner Vision
Tom Harrison, a software designer, published a report that examines the top two sub-layer objects. Without a doubt, the implications of these two sub-layers are clear indications of image manipulation. This cannot happen in a normal document. At fi rst glance these layers appear to be empty—but this is not the case. These layers contain odd random white pixel information, while the pixels under the white dots show no disturbance of safety paper pattern (on the bottom layer). This is simply not possible in a normal scan and can only happen in image manipulation.
Tom Harrison off ers the following analogy in his report: Try to have someone take a picture of a person holding a football hidden behind their back, not visible to the camera. Will you ever be able to extract the person from the photograph and still see the football revealed? Of course not. However, if a picture is taken of a football, and a separate picture is taken of the person, layers can be used to “hide” the picture of the football behind the person (using a program like Photoshop). By placing the picture of a person on a layer “in front of”—or on top—of the layer containing the football in the document—the football would not be visible to the casual viewer unless the layer of the person is turned off .
Using the football analogy, look closely at Figure 20—a close-up view to reveal numerous white pixels in the top layer object. Additionally, these pixels are bitmapped rather than displaying a soft blending quality to transition into the background pattern—another indication that the white pixels are not a normal part of the background pattern.
Figure 21 shows the white dot layer turned off to expose the undisturbed safety pattern in the background (under the white pixel dots). To paraphrase Mr. Harrison, no scanner in the world has x-ray vision that can detect uninterrupted safety paper pattern under another object (such as the random white dots).
Figure 18: Obama PDF opened in Illustrator with clipping mask
Collapsed icon
Visibility icon
Clipping Path
Figure 19: Clipping Mask group released and sub-layers displayed
Expand icon
Release Clipping Mask Group
Clipping Path
Figure 20: Zoom view of top layer reveals white pixels
Top layer selected
First link actively selected
Layer object path
White pixels display
Layer visibility on
Figure 21: Layer turned off reveals uninterrupted pattern below
First link deselected
Layer object path turned off
White pixels disappear:
Pattern pixels uninterrupted
Layer visibility off
REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 7 of 10
Figure 22: Target layers and objects for date and certify stamps
Selected active layers
Selected active links
Date stamp Certifi cation stamp
Figure 23: Layers allow for moving the date and certify stamps
Date & certifi cation stamps moved
Figure 24: Background layer with white halos can also move
Background selected & moved
Stamp Layer Appearance
The main purpose and strength of layers is they allow parts of an image to be isolated to make it easy to repositioned, or adjust visibility (on or off ) independently of surrounding image layered parts—thus layers are a powerful image manipulation tool. It makes sense to have a date and a certifi cation stamp on separate layers—to move, rotate, or reposition for the purpose of manipulation and alteration. Figures 22–24 demonstrate how objects can be moved around independently. The Obama PDF has a clean separation of text isolated on each layer, unlike the AP optimization layer results for the same information in Figures 25–
26. The layer results seen in the Obama PDF cannot be duplicated through optimization, but can be easily duplicated (and explained) with an understanding of image manipulation.
The date stamp and certifi cation stamp are the selected layers in Figure 22. The Links and Layers panels verify the selection along with the active blue paths that display around the layered objects.
Figure 23 demonstrates that the objects can be moved independent of the background (or other text items). Note that in the Obama PDF, the text for the certifi cation stamp is completely and independently separated onto its own layer. The same is true of the date stamp. This is a clear and important indication of image manipulation in which each of these items can be manipulated independently of the surrounding background layer. This clean separation can only be accomplished through image manipulation of document elements.
Figure 24 shows the background layer can also be selected and moved independently from the stamp and date layer elements. The white halos are a part of the background layer since white is the typical color present when building a background layer. Thus, whenever the safety paper pattern is not present, the typical color displayed in the absence of pattern will be white.
Automation v Manual Manipulation
Figure 25 and Figure 26 shows the lack of predictability when an automation process chops up an image and generates layers during optimization. As previously mentioned, the AP fi le opens with the appearance of a normal scanned document containing only one layer. For this reason, the AP fi le was used to demonstrate what happens when optimization is applied. After the optimization process, the AP fi le displays a multitude of layers.
Most of the black text extracts onto one bitmap layer at the top of the layer list. This top text layer is turned off in Figure 25. Note that the text does not separate cleanly onto one layer. Remnants of text remain behind on a variety of the many multi-color layers in the list that still have their visibility turned on in Figure 25. Additionally, the top text layer contains a large portion of all document text and optimization fails to separate text according to usefulness. In other words, all the stamp text does not reside on its own layer—nor is there a diff erent layer for the date text—and again, no clean and complete separation.
Figure 26 has the top text layer visibility turned back on again, but instead, one of the bottom background layer’s visibility is turned off this time. The selected paths show how there’s no human quality to the logic in dividing information into layers—the machine is deciding based on an automated process.
Figure 25: Optimized lacks the human element in layering
Bottom layers selected—text layer off
Figure 26: Text layer turned on and one background layer off
Text layer on—one background layer off
REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 8 of 10
White Halo Creation
The white halo eff ect presents two common questions; why is there a white halo, and what caused it? Before answering the former question, let’s address the latter.
The white halo could simply be a function of a selection created around all the text—before fi lling the background layer with a green safety pattern.
The green safety pattern could have easily been applied to the background layer without any selection—thus a solid pattern would have covered the entire background layer—without a white halo. But for some reason, a white halo eff ect was generated—either through an active selection when creating the background, or through an enhancement process, or a combination of both. As might be expected, the creation of a background using a text selection is easily demonstrated with step-by-step Figures.
Figure 27 shows the demonstration fi le set-up. The stamp text from the Obama PDF fi le was copied (from Illustrator) and pasted into a new Photoshop fi le on a layer that is above a solid white background layer. Note the two layers in the Layers panel: Stamp Text layer and the Background layer (currently fi lled with white).
When working in a graphic program, if you want to apply any changes to an image, you have a choice to use a selection for the target area, or to make changes without a selection. If there is no selection, then any changes can be applied to the entire image without any restrictions. If a selection is created, the changes are limited to the selection area only. Analogous to selecting text in a Word program to apply a change, such as bold formatting; the text is fi rst selected, and the bold formatting is then applied to the selection only.
In this example, a selection will be created around the text as the next step shown in Figure 28. Any object separated on a layer can easily be used to create a selection of that object. Simply hold down the Ctrl key and click on the layer thumbnail—in this case click on the Stamp Text layer. A selection that resembles marching ants appears around the text. The next step is to expand the selection to include a little extra space surrounding the text. This can be accomplished from the Select menu, using Modify, and then choosing the Expand option (also seen in Figure 28).
The Expand Selection dialog box displays in Figure 29 which allows a user to specify how many pixels to expand the selection. Since, the idea is to surround the text by a small area, the amount entered in this example will be 2 pixels.
The expanded selection in Figure 30 currently surrounds the text. However, the current selection area needs to remain white since the ultimate goal is to apply a pattern fi ll to the surrounding background area—not the surrounding text area. Therefore, the selection needs to be reversed—also known as inverse—to ensure the pattern will fi ll everything on the background layer except the text area.
Go to the Select menu shown in Figure 30. The Inverse option is chosen. The selection is now ready to fi ll with a color, or a pattern, or even another scanned image (such as a scan of security safety paper). Everything but the text area is now selected. For purposes of this demonstration, the next step will defi ne a safety paper pattern and fi ll the background layer using the current active selection.
Figure 27: A two-layer stamp text fi le created to demonstrate
Bottom layer: White background
Top layer: Certifi cation stamp text
Figure 28: A text selection created and selection expanded
Text is selected
Ctrl+click on layer thumbnail
Figure 29: Expand Selection option—expanded 2 pixels
Expand Selection dialog box
Figure 30: Next the selection needs to be inversed
Text selection expanded by 2 pixels
Selection Inverse option
REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 9 of 10Safety Paper Creation
In a program such as Photoshop, a selection can be fi lled with a solid color of choice, an image, or a pattern can also be defi ned as a fi ll option. It should be noted that a full sheet of safety paper could have been scanned and used without going through steps to defi ne it as a pattern—but a pattern can be easily defi ned from an existing image as an alternative method. Most likely, there was access to a sample of safety paper when creating the Obama PDF. It’s not necessary to reinvent the wheel—the current Obama PDF fi le will be used as the source pattern for the purpose of this demonstration.
The Obama PDF is temporarily opened in Figure 31 and a square selection is made to isolate a portion of the pattern that will tile easily—which means that when the selected area is fi lled repeatedly next to each other, the pattern continues seamlessly—without any noticeable disruptions in the pattern. With the selection active, the Defi ne Pattern option is selected from the Edit menu. The Obama PDF fi le is closed and no longer needed.
Back to the demonstration fi le shown in Figure 32; with the Background selected as the active layer, the Fill option is chosen from the Edit menu.
In the Fill dialog box, the Pattern option from the Content list is chosen in Figure 33.
The safety paper pattern defi ned earlier in Figure 31 is also chosen in the Fill dialog box in Figure 34. Click OK to complete the eff ect.
The results in Figure 35 show a slight white halo outside the text.
In Figure 36—the Stamp Text layer’s visibility is turned off , and the marching ants are deselected (Ctrl+D). The white halo eff ect was easily manufactured in less than a minute, in less time than it took to read the explanation.
In summation, the security paper background layer was added as the last step to create the illusion of an image in which text was imprinted on security paper. However, the text had in fact been placed and arranged on a solid white background. This last application gives a created image the false appearance of being an offi cial document.
Figure 31: Selection used to defi ne a pattern
Selection of a sample pattern area
Defi ne the selection as a pattern
Figure 33: The Pattern option is used in the Fill dialog box
Pattern Fill option chosen
Figure 34: The defi ned pattern chosen from Custom Pattern list
Custom Pattern chosen
Figure 32: Use the Edit menu to launch the Fill dialog box
Selection inversed
Fill option chosen
Background
layer active
Figure 35: The pattern fi lls the selection area
Background
contains pattern fi ll
Figure 36: Turn off the text layer: White halo eff ect is displayed
Stamp Text visibility off
White halo eff ect
REPORT BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE Page 10 of 10
Some Final Thoughts
The previous exercise demonstrated how the white halo could be created, but there can be a multitude of ways to accomplish the same task in a program such as Photoshop. Whether or not the exercise presented is the defi nitive method is not the main point.
The exercise was presented as a possible solution to the question: How did the white halo get into the document? But actually, the only question that matters is: why is the white halo there at all? Any offi cial document obtained by legitimate procedures and scanned would not have the white halo.
As previously stated, every anomaly can be easily explained as a manufactured document. Not only does this document display attributes that it was completely manufactured digitally, but there is strong evidence that a master fi le exists as a source fi le. What is meant by a master fi le? A master fi le is a fi le in which all the objects still exist on separate layers (in other words, more layers and information than seen in the Obama PDF sub-layers).
For example, in the Obama PDF, the bottom layer contains the background pattern with some text elements merged onto that layer. In the master fi le version, the text still remains on a separate layer—NOT merged with the background layer. It is highly probable that this master fi le also contains the short form certifi cate layers (which would explain the problems seen in the AP version of the fi le).
Figure 37 and Figure 38 demonstrate that the AP version of the long form certifi cate contains a diff erent set of problems as follows:
A sudden shift to a diff erent background
Safety paper pattern in the shadow at the left edge—but not in the document background
Short form embedded into the printout—Figure 38 is an enhanced version which allows the details to be seen more easily
Once again, all of these additional problems displayed in the AP version would not occur if the source document presented to the AP had been a legitimate scanned document without manipulation. However, all three problems would easily be a result of a manufactured source fi le—in which layers from a master fi le were turned off or mistakenly left on.
Figure 37: Some extra remnants visible in the AP version
Background color
magically shifts to blue
Forgot to turn off safety-paper
layer in manufactured shadow
Forgot to turn off a
short form layer
Figure 38: Enhancement applied to easily see short form
Enhancement applied to
display short form elements
Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 4
Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 5
Get Email Updates Contact Us
Home • Briefing Room • Press Briefings Search WhiteHouse.gov
For Immediate Release April 27, 2011
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
8:48 A.M. EDT
MR. CARNEY: Good morning, everybody. You can read the paperwork we just handed out in a minute. Let me
just get started. Thank you for coming this morning. I have with me today Dan Pfeiffer, the President’s Director of
Communications, as well as Bob Bauer, the President’s White House Counsel, who will have a few things to say
about the documents we handed to you today. And then we'll take your questions. I remind you this is off camera
and only pen and pad, not for audio. And I give you Dan Pfeiffer.
MR. PFEIFFER: Thanks, Jay. What you have in front of you now is a packet of papers that includes the
President’s long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, the original birth certificate that the President
requested and we posted online in 2008, and then the correspondence between the President’s counsel and the
Hawaii State Department of Health that led to the release of those documents.
If you would just give me a minute to -- indulge me a second to walk through a little of the history here, since all
of you weren't around in 2008 when we originally released the President’s birth certificate, I will do that. And then
Bob Bauer will walk through the timeline of how we acquired these documents.
In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of
BLOG POSTS ON THI S I SSUE
March 11, 2012 8:04 PM EDT
Call with President Karzai Following theReport of Afghan Civilian Casualties
President Obama reached
out to President Karzai
Sunday following the
reported killing and
sounding of Afghan
civilians.
March 11, 2012 9:00 AM EDT
From the Archives: Tsunami in Japan
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...
1 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM
Hawaii. We received that document; we posted it on the website. That document was then inspected by
independent fact checkers, who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document -- independent
fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii.
To be clear, the document we presented on the President’s website in 2008 is his birth certificate. It is the piece
of paper that every Hawaiian receives when they contact the state to request a birth certificate. It is the birth
certificate they take to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get their driver’s license and that they take to the federal
government to get their passport. It is the legally recognized document.
That essentially -- for those of you who followed the campaign closely know that solved the issue. We didn’t
spend any time talking about this after that. There may have been some very fringe discussion out there, but as a
campaign issue it was settled and it was --
Q When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is?
MR. PFEIFFER: Yes.
Q Because it is not here and that's been an issue.
MR. PFEIFFER: We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by -- the fact checkers came
to headquarters and actually examined the document we had.
That settled the issue. In recent weeks, the issue has risen again as some folks have begun raising a question
about the original -- about the long-form birth certificate you now have in front of you. And Bob will explain why --
the extraordinary steps we had to take to receive that and the legal restraints that are in place there.
But it became an issue again. And it went to -- essentially the discussion transcended from the nether regions of
the Internet into mainstream political debate in this country. It became something that when both Republicans and
Democrats were talking to the media they were asked about. It was a constant discussion on mainstream news
organizations. And the President believed that it was becoming a distraction from the major issues we're having in
this country.
And he was particularly struck by the fact that right after the Republicans released their budget framework and
the President released his, we were prepared to have a very important, very vigorous debate in this country about
the future of the country, the direction we’re going to take, how we’re doing to deal with very important issues like
education, Medicare, how we’re going to deal with taxes in this country. And that should -- that’s the debate we
should be having yet.
Flickr
Google+
YouTube
Vimeo
iTunes
A look back at the U.S. response to the devastating
earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan in March of
2011.
March 10, 2012 6:30 AM EDT
Weekly Address: Investing in a CleanEnergy FutureSpeaking from a factory in Virginia, President
Obama talks about how companies are creating
more jobs in the United States, making better
products than ever before, and how many are
developing new technologies that are reducing our
dependence on foreign oil and saving families
money at the pump.
VIEW ALL RELATED BLOG POSTS
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...
2 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM
What was really dominating a lot of discussion was this fake controversy, essentially, a sideshow, that was
distracting from this real issue. And an example of that would be when major Democrats and Republicans went onto
mainstream news organizations to talk about their budget plans -- including the President -- they were asked about
this. They were asked about what they thought about the controversy. They were asked if they believed the
President was born in the United States. And it was really a distraction.
That really struck the President, led him to ask his counsel to look into whether we could ask the state of Hawaii
to release the long-form certificate, which is not something they generally do. And he did that despite the fact that it
probably was not in his long-term -- it would have been in his -- probably in his long-term political interests to allow
this birther debate to dominate discussion in the Republican Party for months to come. But he thought even though
it might have been good politics, he thought it was bad for the country. And so he asked counsel to look into this.
And now I’ll have Bob explain that, and then we’ll take your questions.
MR. CARNEY: I just want to -- sorry, I meant to mention at the top, as some of you may have seen, the
President will be coming to the briefing room at 9:45 a.m., making a brief statement about this -- not taking
questions, but just wanted to let you know.
MR. PFEIFFER: And he will use this as an opportunity to make a larger point about what this debate says about
our politics.
Go ahead, Bob.
MR. BAUER: Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the
longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate. And so we
undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to
make that request.
And by Thursday of last week, I spoke to private counsel to the President and asked her to contact the State
Department of Health and to have a conversation about any requirements, further requirements, that they thought
we had to satisfy to lodge that waiver request. She had that conversation with the state Department of Health on
Thursday -- counsel in question is Judy Corley at the law firm of Perkins Coie, and you have a copy of the letter she
subsequently sent to the department with the President’s written request.
The department outlined the requirements for the President to make this request. He signed a letter making that
request on Friday afternoon upon returning from the West Coast. And private counsel forwarded his written request
-- written, signed request -- along with a letter from counsel, to the state Department of Health on Friday.
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...
3 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM
The department, as I understood it, after reviewing the law and reviewing the grounds asserted in the request,
came to the conclusion that a waiver could be appropriately granted. We were advised that the long-form birth
certificate could be copied and made available to us as early as Monday, April 25th -- the day before yesterday. And
we made arrangements for counsel to travel to Honolulu to pick it up and it was returned to the White House
yesterday afternoon.
Let me emphasize again, there is a specific statute that governs access to and inspection of vital records in the
state of Hawaii. The birth certificate that we posted online is, in fact, and always has been, and remains, the legal
birth certificate of the President that would be used for all legal purposes that any resident of Hawaii would want to
use a birth certificate for.
However, there is legal authority in the department to make exceptions to the general policy on not releasing the
long-form birth certificate. The policy in question, by the way, on non-release has been in effect since the
mid-1980s, I understand. So while I cannot tell you what the entire history of exceptions has been, it is a limited
one. This is one of very few that I understand have been granted for the reasons set out in private counsel’s letter.
MR. PFEIFFER: We'll be happy to take some questions.
Q I guess I just want to make sure that we’re clear on this. Even though this one says “certificate of live birth”
on here, this is different than the other certificate of live birth that we’ve seen?
MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. The second page there is the one that was posted on the Internet.
Q Okay.
MR. PFEIFFER: And that is a copy of the one that has been kept at the Hawaii Department of Health.
Q Okay. And this is the one that would be referred to -- that people have been asking for that is the birth
certificate?
MR. PFEIFFER: They are both -- the second one is the birth certificate. The one on the top is what is referred
to as the long-form birth certificate. As you can see -- and Bob can walk you through it -- it contains some additional
information that is not on the second page, which was the birth certificate which was released during the campaign.
If you could just explain the difference.
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...
4 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM
MR. BAUER: There’s a difference between a certificate and a certification. The certification is simply a
verification of certain information that’s in the original birth certificate. The birth certificate, as you can see, has
signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, who essentially oversees the maintenance
of the records. It contains some additional information also -- that is to say, the original birth certificate -- it contains
some additional information like the ages of the parents, birthplaces, residence, street address, the name of the
hospital.
The core information that’s required for legal purposes and that is put into the actual certification that’s a
computer-generated document, which we posted in 2008, that information is abstracted, if you will, from the original
birth certificate, put into the computerized short-form certification, and made available to Hawaiian residents at their
request.
So the long form, which is a certificate, has more information, but the short form has the information that’s legally
sufficient for all the relevant purposes.
Q This first one has never been released publicly, correct?
MR. BAUER: That’s correct. It is in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii.
Q Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years? Was it Donald Trump that
prompted you to issue this?
MR. BAUER: I’ll let Dan --
MR. PFEIFFER: Sure.
Q I know you expected that question, right? (Laughter.)
MR. PFEIFFER: He even said you would be the one who would ask it. (Laughter.)
I don’t think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved -- for those of you who remember the
campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008. And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called
about it, reported on it until the last few weeks.
And as I said earlier, it probably would have been -- a lot of the pundits out there have talked about the fact that
this whole birther debate has been really bad for the Republican Party and would probably be good for the
President politically. But despite that, the President, as I said, was struck by how this was crowding out the debate,
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...
5 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM
particularly around the budget, on important issues, and was an example of the sort of sideshows that our politics
focuses on instead of the real challenges that we have to confront as a country.
And so that’s why he made this decision now, because it became an issue that transcended sort of this -- it
essentially was something that was talked about, as I said, from the nether regions of the Internet onto mainstream
network newscasts. In fact, Jay has been asked about this just yesterday in this room.
Q So I guess the implication is that you did get political advantage by having not released this until today, over
the course of the last four years?
MR. PFEIFFER: There has been -- no one that I can recall actually asked us to -- we were asked to release the
President’s birth certificate in 2008. We did that. And then no one -- it never -- up until a few weeks ago, there was
never an issue about that that wasn’t the birth certificate from any credible individual or media outlet. And it hasn’t
been until -- I mean, Jay was asked about this yesterday --
Q When you say that, you mean certification -- you released the certification?
MR. PFEIFFER: When any Hawaiian wants -- requests their birth certificate because they want to get a driver’s
license, they want to get a passport, they do exactly what the President did in 2008. And that’s what that is. And we
released that. And that’s what any Hawaiian would do to release their birth certificate. And that was good enough
for everyone until very recently this became a question again. And so the President made this decision. He’ll talk to
you more about his thinking on that.
Q And this is going to sound -- I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to -- remain
unconvinced. They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper, you could have typed anything
in there. Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any -- (laughter.)
Q Will the President be holding it?
MR. PFEIFFER: He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so. But it will -- the State Department of
Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a -- what they have on file. As Bob said, it’s in a book in Hawaii.
MR. BAUER: And you’ll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states that she oversaw
the copy and is attesting to --
Q But do you understand that this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...
6 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM
MR. PFEIFFER: There will always be some selection of people who will believe something, and that's not the
issue. The issue is that this is not a discussion that is just happening among conspiracy theorists. It’s happening
here in this room; it’s happening on all of the networks. And it’s something that, as I said, every major political figure
of both parties who’s actually out trying to talk about real issues is asked about this by the media. And so the
President decided to release this. And I'll leave it to others to decide whether there’s still -- there will be some who
still have a different -- have a conspiracy about this.
Q You’ve got two certified copies, according to this study. You have these physical --
MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. I showed you one. Just one.
Q You showed us a photocopy of one.
MR. PFEIFFER: No, I showed you --
Q Does that have a stamp?
MR. PFEIFFER: It has a seal on it.
Q Why does this rise to the level of a presidential statement?
MR. PFEIFFER: The President -- this in itself -- when you hear the President I think you’ll understand the point
he’s making. That will be in not too long.
Q Did the President change his own mind about this? In other words, was he advocating during the campaign
let’s just put it out there and get it over with, or was this an internal shift in thinking based -- in other words, was it
the President who steadfastly during the campaign said this is ridiculous, I don't want to give this any more ground,
and has now changed his mind? Or is this the --
MR. PFEIFFER: Let’s be very clear. You were there for the campaign. There was never a question about the
original birth certificate during the campaign. It was a settled issue. I was there for the original decision to release
the birth certificate. I was there when we posted it online. I'm not sure I even knew there was an original one that
was different than the one we posted online because it wasn’t an issue. So it wasn’t like -- let’s be very clear. We
were asked for the President’s birth certificate in 2008; we released the President’s birth certificate; and it was
done. That was it.
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...
7 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM
And so there hasn’t been a discussion about this other document for years. It’s only been in the last few weeks.
And so to your second question, the President decided to do this and he'll talk about this when he gets here --
decided to do it at the timeline that Bob laid out because it was a -- this was a sideshow that was distracting from
the real challenges that we're facing.
It’s not just a sideshow for him; it’s a sideshow for our entire politics that have become focused on this.
Q Not to give Donald Trump more publicity than he has, but is he the person who sort of -- sort of that bridge
between what you're calling a fringe and the mainstream? Do you think that he’s the reason why this tripped the
switch to a level where you now have to deal with something you thought was dealt with?
MR. PFEIFFER: It’s not for me to say why mainstream media organizations began to cover this debate. They’ll
have to answer that for themselves.
Q How concerned were you about running against Donald Trump in a general election?
MR. PFEIFFER: I'd refer any questions on the election to the campaign.
Q Can you address the reports of Petraeus to the CIA and DOD --
MR. PFEIFFER: You get points for that, Carol. (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: Yes. I don't have -- but you’ll be disappointed to learn that I don't have a personnel
announcement for you. The President will be addressing this -- questions about personnel tomorrow.
Q Dan, was there a debate about whether or not this deserved being discussed by the White House, whether
or not -- and I'm going back to the birth certificate. I lose points, I understand. But was there debate about whether
or not this was worthy of the White House?
MR. PFEIFFER: The point I'd make is that we weren't the ones who -- we're not the first ones to bring this up in
this room. Jay has been asked questions about this; the President has been asked about it in media interviews.
And so that wasn’t a decision that we made, and the President made the decision to do this and he made the
decision to -- and when he comes down here this morning he'll talk to you about why he thinks there’s an important
point to be made here.
Q Getting back to the personnel announcements, does the President understand that these announcements
have been made and sourced satisfactorily for most news organizations before he speaks up and he’s not letting his
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...
8 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM
White House corroborate?
MR. CARNEY: I don't have a comment on that for you, Bill. (Laughter.)
Q I mean, this is such BS. It’s all out there and you guys are -- okay, the President is going to talk about this
tomorrow so we can't say anything.
MR. CARNEY: Bill, you're free to make phone calls everywhere you can. I'm just saying that we don't have a
personnel announcement for you today.
Q And he'll tomorrow, he'll cover all the aforementioned switches?
MR. CARNEY: We'll have a personnel announcement tomorrow.
Q Jay, yesterday you talked about failsafe triggers as sort of a positive alternative to spending cuts. I'm
wondering if the White House has any openness to including that, because it’s a White House proposal, including
that in any legislation that would raise the debt ceiling limit.
MR. CARNEY: Well, what we've said very clearly, and I think Secretary Geithner said it eloquently yesterday, it
is a dangerous, risky idea to hold hostage any other -- hold hostage, rather, raising the debt ceiling, a vote on
raising the debt ceiling, to any other piece of legislation. The commitment this President has to moving aggressively
towards a comprehensive deficit reduction plan is clear. It will be clear again when the Vice President convenes a
meeting, bipartisan, bicameral meeting, next week. And he hopes that progress will be made on that very quickly.
In terms of negotiating what that would look like, I think the negotiators should do that, led by the Vice President,
Republicans and Democrats together. But again, explicitly linking or holding hostage the absolute necessity of
raising the debt ceiling to any other piece of legislation and declaring that we'll tank the U.S. economy and perhaps
the global economy if we don't get this specific thing that we want, I think is a dangerous and unprecedented thing to
do.
And we're confident, remain confident, that the leaders of both parties in Congress, as well as the President, will
agree with the President, as I have said many times, that we do not have an alternative to raising the debt ceiling
because, as many have said, outside observers, economists and businessmen and women, the impact of that would
be calamitous at best.
Q So even though it’s your own proposal that you guys endorsed you don't want to see it as part of the final
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...
9 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM
package?
MR. CARNEY: I'm not negotiating individual pieces of a package that we hope Republicans and Democrats can
come together around from this podium. But again, we believe it’s essential to -- the President believes -- that's one
of the reasons why we're doing this right now -- we believe that these are big debates that need to be had. They
can be contentious, argumentative, serious, comprehensive, detailed, because they’re important; they’re all about
America’s future. And they’re about visions of this country and where we're going that need to be debated. And this
debate was being crowded out in many ways by a sideshow.
And he looks forward to having a debate on the real issues that Americans want us to talk about -- long-term
economic plans, deficit reduction, investments in the kinds of things that will help this economy grow and create
jobs, dealing with our energy needs, a long-term energy plan. These are all issues that have been sidetracked at
least in the public debate by some of the issues that we're talking about this morning.
Q Is there a concern that more and more people were actually starting to believe its sideshow -- I mean,
people have been asking about --
MR. CARNEY: I will let the President speak for himself, but what Dan was saying and I think is important is that
the issue here is that the President feels that this was bad for the country; that it’s not healthy for our political
debate, when we have so many important issues that Americans care about, that affect their lives, to be drawn into
sideshows about fallacies that have been disproven with the full weight of a legal document for several years.
So, again, as Dan said, and a lot of political pundits have said, you could say that it would be good politics,
smart politics, for the President to let this play out. He cares more about what’s good for the country. He wants the
debate on the issues. He wants the focus on the issues that Americans care about.
Q Jay, the President yesterday said that he had been talking to oil exporters about increasing output. Who
specifically has he been talking --
MR. CARNEY: Well, I said -- I want to clarify. I said several times I believe from this podium when asked
questions about our overall handling of the issue of high gas prices that we've had conversations with oil-producing
states and allies and those conversations continue. I don't have specific “the President spoke with this leader or
other government officials spoke with others,” but those are ongoing conversations that, of course, we would be
having in a situation like this.
Q Do you guys have any comment on the NATO soldiers that were killed in Afghanistan and any confirmation
on whether there were Americans?
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...
10 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM
MR. CARNEY: I don't have anything for you on that this morning.
Q Just quickly, back on the birth certificate, yesterday you said this was a settled issue. So --
MR. CARNEY: Well, as Dan said, again, it has been a settled issue.
MR. PFEIFFER: From a factual point of view, it’s absolutely a settled issue. But the fact that it was a settled
issue did not keep it from becoming a major part of the political discussion in this town for the last several weeks
here. So there’s absolutely no question that what the President released in 2008 was his birth certificate and
answered that question, and many of your organizations have done excellent reporting which proved that to be the
case. But it continued; the President thought it was a sideshow and chose to take this step today for the reasons
Bob laid out.
Q Aside from the policy distractions that was presented, did you have some concern because it was sort of
reaching back into the mainstream news coverage that this could become a factor in the 2012 election with centrist
voters?
MR. PFEIFFER: No.
Q Just to clarify what this document is --
MR. PFEIFFER: This is the -- the letter first and the two certified copies -- this is one of those. This is the same
thing you have a copy of as the first page of your packet.
Q How did it get here?
MR. PFEIFFER: As Bob said, it arrived by plane -- the President’s personal counsel went to Hawaii and brought
it back and we got it last night.
Q Last night?
MR. PFEIFFER: Last night.
Q What time?
MR. PFEIFFER: Between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...
11 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM
Q When did you decide to do this gaggle?
MR. PFEIFFER: What’s that?
Q When was this gaggle put on -- when was this planned?
MR. PFEIFFER: Whatever time you received your guidance suggesting that it would be “this time tomorrow
morning.”
Q Are these letters supposed to demonstrate the legal steps that were involved in releasing it to the White
House counsel?
MR. BAUER: The letters that you have, the personal request from the President, along with the accompanying
letter from private counsel, is merely meant to document the legal path to getting the waiver of that policy so we
could get the long-form certificate.
Q The waiver of Hawaii state government policy?
MR. BAUER: Right. The non-release of the long-form certificate, which has been in effect since the 1980s -- a
natural question would have been, well, what did you do to obtain the waiver, and those letters represent the
request.
Q Well, isn’t it true that anybody who was born in Hawaii can write this letter? I mean, that's all there is to the
waiver process?
MR. BAUER: No. Let me just explain once again because I also noticed, by the way, in one report already the
wrong certificate was actually posted on the website. The certificate with the signatures at the bottom -- and that's a
key difference between the short form and the long form -- the long form has signatures at the bottom from the
attending physician, the local registrar, and the mother, is the original birth certificate, which sits in a bound volume
in the State Department of Health.
The short from is a computerized abstract, and that's the legal birth certificate we requested in 2008 and that
Hawaiians are entitled to. Since the mid-1980s, the State Department of Health, for administrative reasons, only
provides to people who request their birth certificate the short form. They do not provide the long form.
So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiver. We had to actually determine that there was
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...
12 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM
a legal basis for providing it, and then ask them to exercise their authority to provide us with the long form. The
steps required to accomplish that were a letter from the person with the direct and vital interest -- the President -- so
you have a letter from the President, and then there was an accompanying letter from counsel basically formalizing
the request. So the reason we included that is that those were legal steps we took to obtain the long form by way of
this waiver.
Q Do we have the letter from the President --
MR. BAUER: It’s in the packet.
Q And you went to Hawaii?
MR. BAUER: I did not go to Hawaii. The counsel, Judy Corley, who signed the -- the President’s personal
counsel at Perkins Coie, Judy Corley, whose letter -- signed letter of request is in your packet, traveled to Honolulu
and picked up the birth certificate.
Q A question on the situation regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. Yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder
rejected attacks on Paul Clement, who is taking up defense of the statute on behalf of the U.S. House. Paul
Clement has taken a lot of heat from the LGBT community for volunteering to take up defense of DOMA. Eric
Holder said, “Paul Clement is a great lawyer and has done a lot of really great things for this nation. In taking on the
representation -- representing Congress in connection with DOMA, I think he is doing that which lawyers do when
we’re at our best. That criticism I think was very misplaced.” And Holder went on to compare the criticism of
Clement to attacks on the Justice Department lawyers for their past for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Does the
President share Eric Holder’s views on this?
MR. CARNEY: We do share Eric Holder’s views on this. We think -- as we said from the beginning when we
talked about -- when I did from this podium -- about the decision no longer from the administration to defend the
Defense of Marriage Act, that we would support efforts by Congress if they so chose to defend it. And so I have
nothing to add to the Attorney General’s comments.
Q Following Monday’s Af-Pak Situation Room meeting, what is the President’s assessment of the situation in
Afghanistan and Pakistan? And does he think that July drawdown is still on?
MR. CARNEY: The President’s policy, which included the beginning of a transition -- beginning of a drawdown
of American troops, is absolutely still on track. I don’t have anything additionally from the meeting yesterday beyond
what we’ve said. But the policy remains as it was.
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...
13 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM
MR. EARNEST: Jay, we should wrap it up here.
MR. CARNEY: Yes. Last one, yes.
Q Given the comments of the Pakistani official quoted in the Wall Street Journal, is Pakistan still a U.S. ally,
and to what extent?
MR. CARNEY: Pakistan is still a U.S. ally.
Thanks.
END 9:18 A.M. EDT
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011 | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carne...
14 of 15 3/11/2012 11:00 PM
Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 6
Born in the U.S.A.The truth about Obama's birth certificate.
Posted on August 21, 2008 , Updated on November 1, 2008; April 27, 2011
Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that
he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document’s
authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth
certificate the campaign has is "fake."
We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth
certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.
Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of
the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has
always said.
Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.
Analysis
Update Nov. 1: The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital
statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.
Fukino also was quoted by several other news organizations. The Honolulu Advertiser quoted Fukino as saying the
agency had been bombarded by requests, and that the registrar of statistics had even been called in at home in the
middle of the night.
Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 1 2008: "This has gotten ridiculous," state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday.
"There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy." . . . Will this be enough to quiet
the doubters? "I hope so," Fukino said. "We need to get some work done."
Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s
original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
Update, April 27, 2011: The White House released the long-form version of President Barack Obama’s birth
certificate, confirming (yet again) that he was born in the United States. The Hawaii Department of Health made an
exception in Obama’s case and issued copies of the "Certificate of Live Birth."
Since we first wrote about Obama’s birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace.
Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate to his Web page. That charge leaped from the blogosphere to
the mainstream media earlier this week when Jerome Corsi, author of a book attacking Obama, repeated the claim in
an Aug. 15 interview with Steve Doocy on Fox News.
Corsi: Well, what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate.
The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anybody supposed to really piece together
his life?
Doocy: What do you mean they have a "false birth certificate" on their Web site?
Corsi: The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it.
Home • Articles • Born in the U.S.A.
FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
1 of 5 3/13/2012 12:23 PM
Doocy: Well, couldn’t it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate?
Corsi: No, it’s a — there’s been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it’s been shown to have watermarks from
Photoshop. It’s a fake document that’s on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to
produce.
Corsi isn’t the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on
forums, blogs and e-mails are:
The birth certificate doesn’t have a raised seal.
It isn’t signed.
No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.
In the zoomed-in view, there’s a strange halo around the letters.
The certificate number is blacked out.
The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn’t released until 2008.
The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth."
Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the
fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers
that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka
(who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few
photographs.
The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller
Alvin T. Onaka’s signature stamp
FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
2 of 5 3/13/2012 12:23 PM
The raised seal
Blowup of text
You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven’t been edited in any way, except that some have been
rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes.
The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport:
"your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal
or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all
evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.
The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the
hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents’ hometowns. The short form is printed by
the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form
does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough
information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short
form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.
The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text
might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the
close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital
artifact from the scanning process.
We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is
stamped June 2007, because that’s when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document
and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn’t release
its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama’s citizenship. The campaign
then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna:
"[We] couldn’t get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information,
and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we’ve found out it’s pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The
document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 – 010641.
FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
3 of 5 3/13/2012 12:23 PM
Blowup of certificate number
Some of the conspiracy theories that have circulated about Obama are quite imaginative. One conservative blogger
suggested that the campaign might have obtained a valid Hawaii birth certificate, soaked it in solvent, then reprinted it
with Obama’s information. Of course, this anonymous blogger didn’t have access to the actual document and presents
this as just one possible "scenario" without any evidence that such a thing actually happened or is even feasible.
We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence
that the information on it is incorrect. Instead, some speculate that somehow, maybe, he was born in another country
and doesn’t meet the Constitution’s requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen."
We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is
possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people
and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming
evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."
In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to
dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on
Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:
Obama’s birth announcement
The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was
born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.
Of course, it’s distantly possible that Obama’s grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their
grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who
choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack
Obama was born in the U.S.A.
Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They
couldn’t tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is
Obama’s father’s race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are
supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it
FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
4 of 5 3/13/2012 12:23 PM
reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African." It’s certainly
not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.
When we asked about the security borders, which look different from some other examples of Hawaii certifications of
live birth, Kurt said "The borders are generated each time a certified copy is printed. A citation located on the bottom
left hand corner of the certificate indicates which date the form was revised." He also confirmed that the information
in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes."
– by Jess Henig, with Joe Miller
Sources
United States Department of State. "Application for a U.S. Passport." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.
State of Hawaii Department of Health. "Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.
Hollyfield, Amy. "Obama’s Birth Certificate: Final Chapter." Politifact.com. 27 Jun. 2008.
The Associated Press. "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine" 31 Oct 2008.
Nakaso, Dan. "Obama’s certificate of birth OK, state says; Health director issues voucher in response to ‘ridiculous’
barrage" Honolulu Advertiser 1 Nov 2008.
POSTED BY JESS HENIG ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2008 AT 2:44 PM FILED UNDER ARTICLES. TAGGED WITH BARACK OBAMA, BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
5 of 5 3/13/2012 12:23 PM
Qualifications
Who’s checking up on officeholder eligibility? Find out here
Home » Activism, Eligibility, New Hampshire, POTUS
Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do Forensics; NH SoS and Certificates; British Policeman on EligibilitySubmitted by Phil on Tue, Nov 24, 2009472 Comments
TheObamaFile reports on what readers here have seen me promulgate all along regarding the FactCheck.org blog’s credentials on making any sort of forensic document determination RE: Mr. Obama’s Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth — they don’t have the right background (update: see bios here):
FactCheck.org identifies their anal-ists as Jess Henig and Joe Miller. OK, that’s fine, but who and what are Jess Henig and Joe Miller? Are they qualified to perform an analysis of ANY document, or are they just a couple of guys hanging around FactCheck.org’s office, or are they political operators? What are their bona fides? FactCheck.org doesn’t say. Wonder why?
Well, I found out. The two FactCheck.org employees who were granted access to Obama’s bogus Certification of Live Birth (COLB) are NOT document examiners or experts. Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy — so he’s a political operative — while Jess Henig has an M.A. in English Literature — I’m not sure her dye-job is a political or esthetic statement.
They are a couple of partisan Obots — just what you’d expect — Jess took the photos presented on their webpage and did all of the writing, while Bob basically held the COLB open for Jess to photograph — suitable work for a Ph. D.
Page 2 of 58The Right Side of Life » Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do Forensics; NH So...
4/23/2010http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/11/24/eligibility-update-factcheck-org-doesnt-do-f...
Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination of any document, and FactCheck.org knows it — and so do Henig and Miller.
FactCheck does say their, “representatives got a chance to spend some time with the ‘birth certificate,’ and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.” In my mind, that clearly shows they were working with and for the Obama Campaign and that Obama and his people are involved in this lie.
Again, as I’ve said before, these individuals may be very well credentialed in their chosen fields, but it hardly seems fitting that individuals who are not trained in the science of document forensics — like four otherwise credentialed examiners have been — could possibly have a trained opinion of the document’s legitimacy.
Further, as certain opposition commenters have pointed out many times over, the page that allegedly speaks to the authenticity of the document can lead the casual observer to believe that quotes from the HI Department of Health are directly related to the certification allegedly on hand with FactCheck.org. This is very much of a conclusory lead, as the HI DoH has never made any direct connection between what they have on file versus what FactCheck.org claims to have on hand. There is no receipt of any such transaction ever having occurred back in 2007 and nobody but the above two individuals have come forward to actually physically handle the document (regardless of FactCheck.org’s supposed willingness to allow such an inspection).
Remember — this is the only direct evidence that has ever been claimed to be originally sourced to speak on anything regarding Mr. Obama’s background. And even this is hardly a direct source; it is a “short-form” version of a “long-form” birth certificate that could very well indicate a birth registration of an immigrant (see Sun Yat-sen for such an example).
Following up on a story concerning New Hampshire State Rep. Lawrence Rappaport inquiring with the Secretary of State regarding Mr. Obama’s legitimate candidacy on the ballot in the State, The Post & Email reports on some additional details:
In an email to supporters, Rappaport reports what transpired:
“Well, here’s the sad news. Representative Vita, her husband and I met with New Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney and his assistant yesterday
(Friday) at 10 am. We wanted an investigation for potential fraud on either Obama or the Democratic Partly based mostly on our contention that since Obama ran for President in New Hampshire when we believe he was not eligible, we believe fraud was committed on the citizens of New Hampshire.
We based our suspicions and allegations on:
Page 3 of 58The Right Side of Life » Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do Forensics; NH So...
4/23/2010http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/11/24/eligibility-update-factcheck-org-doesnt-do-f...
Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 7
United $tala, DsplubMnt d State
w- D.C.
h reply f&rto: CA/FPTIL&E - Case ConW Number: 21Q0807238
-her E. S t m k 593 Vmddilt Avenue, #28 1 Brooklyn, NY 11238
The follawing is in reapme to your q u e s t to the Departmat of State, datd Nwembenr 22,22008, mqucstkg the release ofmate&I under the pmvisions of thc F e r n of lnfbrmation Act (5 U.S.C. 8 552).
We have mmp1ete&a seareh fin rwds responsive to yaurrequ@ The semh m t h d in the retried of six doEwmnts that are responsive: to yQW wUWL A f h lWkW of dla~ d-% we ha\~e~de&JBlkd ht.d six do amen^ may be d e a d 4 full.
We did not locate a 1965 passp~rt application referenced in an appliclttion fa fordmat of passpat mat is ia~Iuded in the dead documats. Many passport rrpplicatiom and other non-vital m r d s fmm that period were dmtmyed during tb 1980s in acconhor= with guidange fmn the General Services Achhhmion.
Pwspoxt mads typidly consid of applicstj0118 fix United States -8 and of Udted SWCS CibLlm* p w f l
do IIQ~ ~ G I U & €W&XlmOf&&Vd such aS -S, *, residence @ts, ek, since this infomdm is atfmIl into the pawport book aRg issuance,
I SPOUSE W A S P A E V I O Y J L Y M A R R I E D T O
-
P A G E 2
AMEND T O INCLUDE I E X C L M D E l lWlFElIHUSBAWD)
P R E V 1 6 U I M A R R I A G E TERMINATED B Y
DIVORCE DEATH
N A M E
I AMEHD TO INCLUDE IEXCLUDE) C A t L D R E N I
RHENO TO A E k O I N HARRIED H A M E
H A U L I
B I R T H P L A C E BlRTHahTE
1 I CITIZENSHIP OP HUSBAND I I - A T E MARRrEU
tlOCUMEt4TARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO DEPAATMEHT B Y COHSU LAFI OFFICER
I U. I. C l T l Z E H a ALIEM-CtTNZEM O F
OTHER AMENDMEALTtSj ~ D E S C R ~ B E IN DETAlL ACTION REQUESTED1
S f A? EMEHT OF ACTIOM BY POST UPOU O E P A R T MEHT'S AUTHOR1 ZAT lOH (70 br erccuted only In eanrrccrlon with cure. r e f e d frr h p 1 . l
P L A C E M A R R I E D
!
rue a P ~ S S P O R T [7 RENEWCO TO OPTE
C A R D UP l O t N T l T Y WAS AMENOEI) h S A C O U E S T E D
0 C E R T I F I C A T E 0 EXTENPEB TO
MARRIET) T O
STAPLE: OW? PHOTO HERE 00 NOT MAR FACE
A U T H O R I T Y -
lConsul el ?he Uni ted Stmes o f Arnerlcd
Thc pisspon photos required must
X ( P h b nrqrrirtd/or irrrlununm J
be appmximately 2% by 2s inches in size:
OPlHlON O F CONSULAR OFFlCER
bc an thin un~larcc! papcr, show l u l l Ironr view of applicant with a plain, lipht buck- ground: and have b t rn taken ai thin 2 years ol &tc submirtd , When drpcndcnts are in-
cludrd they shou ld bc showninnpmup pho-
tograph. Thc c.onsul will not accept photos char are not a g m d likeness. Colnr phoio- firsphs are acrcptablt.
h mr sfqple semd pbora A~tach IcofcIy by mn clip.
x x (Consul o f fh. Unhsd Stmer of AmerIcol 1 FS-299
In ccrrsin cases spccilic auihorizarion by the ~ c p a r t m c n t wil l be rcquitctl. In rhesc c a s t s an extra copy e l the form should 7 - 64 bc prcpnrcrl. I'pm reccipr 8 l rhr Pepsnmcnt's rcpl y the fx t rn copy should be rr~nsmiitcd with s notarlnn 01 the s c r i m inken,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
REQUE5T BY U-HJT€D 5TA.ES WAfllQsafAt F a AND REPORT'W ERC€PTt.Obl TQ SECTIGR 53-1, TITLE 22 OF ME <WE OF FEDERAL REGULATIQNS
REQUEST 1 hr ,T bra rrthnnd that m y @ ~ r r - i s hoe galid and rhaf a d i d p a - 0 ~ is t m p t i d by law *D +nm the
I r set! Sn ces. 1 rn+~c% that la cxrrprimT be &mu crd m me, as pcoildrd i a !kcdon 13*21k)> Tide 22 af the Cad. rr C I.r$emI Ie~gu?a%~um 1 wkr&tand dm P -PEE g $ 2 5 is zeFBd upder &rtipn 33. ah) a d L iwriji rrpmh such h e r t ~ It* Pavsprt PRipc pep$-at of Em=, WA-~, D.
A - ~ P E iB =T. 9 D 3 & b m 3 WWW , 7437 %Q@i ,am%@& # ID aml* ' P
WSSFOW ND,, BATE A@ P U C E QF ESU'iC! L
F -
BlWrtlPWICE
t mww.I -S E
mt6fsreF f*# E~noluxta, I k W H DjakzPka, mm0W h
'#CIWT NUMBER OR VESSEL NME O f GAMIER A
c-
IHSTIIUCTlOarS: All rrqwrts b tnelw-a uFpcrwns mon k. t~ rar uIFrrM) bo- h a a Asrnt mi Xha Dlpmrtm*n* d %ah or a& of Co&. Photwa r, -t th. rqui-* ~ a . -xi+. 4 s R h * r ~ l l p mus+ &tt.d it -11 pr-s b bm in~1ud.d this O W ~ ~ W I T . If t#w had, w ~ V I M t w k i l kt, o mviaur , v ~ p w t , tt should bm *hlt++d i , ~ t m z d of athr dmwm#rta, ~ * e t ~ o i G e o m p f h .
WRY V >\leb BUO%ET BUREAU ~ g . 4?-RWg ,Passper+ O.ffrc* Us. O n l y )
IN C A W OF
IPLe*nr PRrHT N*HC 1 1 PULL) (Ffd -1 {Mlddib 4 tL- -l
i d t d Ww.
g IHCLUDZ MY MiLD(REH), & FOLLOWS: (Also cumpl.t* %&on H ZT &Ild{wfi) aeqGd ahweskip by ~ohzaHt3an . ad h0.w nu! h d a pn*vtMs par+.)
HAME JH FWL P L A M UF #tT(*n fclth #All! DF B t R f !4 STAPLE ONE PYOm HERE oo MOT MAC( FACE
MTE op ermn DATE ar YAIIRI-E DO NOT STAPLE SEaLIND PHOTO
ATTACH BY PAPER CLIP
'P, 5E WPtETE D BY. AW 4PFi.lCAHT W H F MFE W ~ S ' P ~ E V I ~ J MMlEI) BEFORE 3, I#!, W p W B 70 BE l b m 1 3 ~ E ~ P ,%#PP~ jlf &&d - the --TI sit Forth In o rn#-Wat -1 1
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE - PENCIL NOT ACCEPTABLE) ' ' - . I / For DepahleM Oec i t i .~ I I I
I DEPARTMENT OF Sf ATE I ,,;: ,,,,,,,, Jakar ta . Indonesia
POST A C f l O H
REGISTZATIPH A P P R W t
,a,, June 2 , 1 9 7 6 ,,,;,,, A ~ * p l t * g ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 9 8 1 C A j i D O F I D f h T I T Y AND RE<.
TO 8E COMPLETED 8Y AN APPLICANT WHO BECAME P, C l T l E H THROUGH HAlURALIZAnON 1 IMMtGRATEI) T O THE U.S. (MonVh, fern)
COMPLETE OHLY IF OTHERS ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN PASSPORT OR REGISTRATION AND S P M r t GROUP PHOTCGRAPH /WIFE'S) IhUSBAND'S) =ULL LEGAL MAME ENATIVE BQRN
NATURALIZED
I 1
I REStDED CDNTINUDUSLY IN THE U.S. Frcm (Year \ T a IYaar)
HATURALIZASION ~ E R T I P I C A ? € NO.
a seam a d ~ ~ ~ . n o g
LWIFFS) (MUSI3AH3'5) PLACE OF BIRTH (clly, stow or ~ w v i n c m , ~ o u n t t l l
- . - I - - - -,
NATURALIZATION CESTIF ICATE NO. U S~brn~ritrd haravirh 0 Scrn and rafurned a Pwviaur ly submorrmd
PLACE NA TUAAL ZED (City, rlormJ
3ATF Of BIRTH (Mo., DUY, Y - l r )
" -- - .- -
PLACE NATURAL12 ED (CTly, atete)
R E S I O ED IN U.S. (Frqm-To)
-
E
M A T U R A t l Z A T I O H C W R T
NATURALITATION COURT OATE NATURALIZFD
2 ~ ~ , 2 ~ ~ ' ~ 2 ~ HAME Ifd FULL OF C H I L ~ R E W INCLUDED
DATE H A f U R A L t Z f D
PLACE OF B I R T H (Clty, s * o ~ / p r w r m m , ~ s d n r w l
4 -
QTHER EvloENCE OF: U.S. OTlZENSHlP PRESENTED 15tatr diswsl t ion)
I
H M E S C CNCE LE r O3
OTHER DISP351TIOtd
PASSPOST NO. DATE OF ISSUE 3 A T E O r ZEG15TRA-
TlON OR a l R f H P E P O R T
LOCATION CF OFFICE
FORM FS-lX 9 4 4 # P-2
F ! ~ ~ ~ M R ' S HXWP: I PATHEWS P U C E O F BIRW @bI st@*, P+wlnc= C-I 1 MU.& C ~ Z W
YOfHER'S DATE F 61 RTH a MaFHF! DEC W E D W H E R REStPEO IH US.
A M* ' ~ B X W E R .suD~H~*T Ww 04 V&U I # I ( F r n F ~ R 7~ ~r $ ~ R ~ E * I 7 'a I WAS MEYEU MARRIED PIIESEa P U ~ LEGlll19b)lE QP M w 011 WlfL
sl WAS wsr v r ~ l m w ww MA 1~ I IS, J H C I L O ~ o ~ a c r , rn HPBBAHW~ 08 WIPE*$ PUCE 09 W M H wwI t r m j fiFtYS%*E18 OR WIFE 1s U.S. Cil7Z.W
1 MpE)&sr& mND OR WIFE IS NOT us ClIlZEN I
ron QF ON)$# Wm4 PATE DP meed
HAME DP w e OR Atrtwe h u e a: l976
?&A, A.(ul I
1~ br brcaedrd (mhw t)wn prrport -3. Whmn mon Cn wr p*r#n k#b.Inoludrd,.ptWPpm g n p h M I h r w n d m 8 B -
, W f e W I W r n L E m o OF I#cuslQ& HERE
OPTIONAL FO!W lm (WRMERLY FStTB).
wr-mtm n-r- PAGE . TO BE COMPLETED By AN APPLICANT WHO BECAME A ClTlZEFI TSIROCIOH NATURALIZATION
L (MMIGRATED T3 THE I RESlWED cONT INUOUSLY IN T Y E YATuFE ALtZATlON CERTl F lCATE NO. U.S. (Month, ycar) U.S. F r l m l Y To ( Ylar ) 0 Sub, ined herwlm
Seen and returned 0 Previouuly submitted
PLACE NATURALIZED (tify. state) N A ~ > S A C I Z A T ~ ~ N C O U R T DATE NATURALIZED
I/ TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL APPLICAMTS --
IO~CUPATION 1 V I S I BLE DISTINGUISHING MARKS
PROGRAM OFFICER. FORD FOUNDATION 1 -. -
W E N llrlffT OWPLETE W L L m N G IF CHILDREN OF k P R M O l R hMRRMGf ARE MLUDED OR 1F PR-V W R I E D BEWRE W W 3 1331
1 S WAS PREVIOLiSl-Y MARRIED ON ] T O (Flrlt legal nama) I IN~O *AS BORN AT IClry. State, Countw)
( FORMER HUSBAND WAS NOT US. C ~ Z E N ~ O N ID-) : ~ I F A F P U C A N T O R A N Y R R S M U ~ F I C U A ~ E I ~ ~ N ~ W ~ N B W S N O F B D R N I N T H E U N W S T A ~ M Q C W ~ I P ' R R O W ; H P A R ~
EnlTERElO T H E U.S. (nnanth) (Year ) I F FATHER NATURALIZED: IF *%OWN, FATHEFI'S RESiDENCE
Applicant P H Y S ~ C A L PRESENCE IN U.S.
Date Certrflcgta No. WFe
From (Year) To (Yaar)
a H M S M ~ 1
Before (Name of Court) Place KiW, Statel u ChJld
RESIDENCE/MNTSNUC3US PHVSlCAL IF MOT HER NATURALIZED: IF m. MOTHER'S A E S I M M E PRESENCE IN U.S. FmmlYmar) To (Yaar )
Carrifieam No. PHYSICALPRESENCE IN U S , C] Appliant
Dam Fmrn IYear) To IYear)
( ae70re (Name 0.f coum, I
Plws (Ciry, Stat%)
B 7 J I I I
r \ PROPOSED TRAVEL PWNS mot Mandatary) 1 I lNT END TO CONTINUE T O RESIDE ABROAD FOR THE FOLLOWING PE RlOD AND PURPOSE
Two years contract w i t h Ford Foundation from January December 1982.
INTEND TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES PERMANENTLY DATE OF DEPARTURE T RESIDE WIT HIM I f 6 YEARS MONTHS
I f 1 PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
f h*a ln fmat ion s~ l ic i lSd O n this f&m 1s autherrizftl by, Wr not limited to. mose statures codif iad In TRI- 8, 18, mnd 22, U n i m d S m CodO, md all prtdecc-ersor statures whether or not l+rrdifled, and ell regulations issued pursuant ro E X ~ C ~ T N B Order 7 1295 of August 5, 1966. The p r l r n m pumom for mI6citlng the informotion Is tv ssrabliph citit+nship, Identlq an4 enritlrmenr to issuance a i a Unlred Stat- P m o n ar rslatud fnclli*y, and to properly d m lnisrer n n d enfarce ma I m s perralning hereto.
The informmdon is mede mallable t6 a roudne up. 8f1 needtltnuw baris t~ pwsonnd of ihm Oapnmant Of Srsa and ethw gwwnrnmnt qnneim hwlna statutory or other lsnrfur BU thor~ty to rnainmin S U C ~ Inlormarion in the pedormance of their afficlsl dutfw: purarmt to a lubpwnl ar mum order: and, ar sat f orth In Part 6e, T i t l e 22, Code of Federal Regulmionr {See Federal Raginar Volume do. pages 45755, 45756,45419 and 47420).
I Failure to provide tho l r r f ~ m t i ~ ~ r m q u ~ t s d m this form may rarult 3n rho dsnlal erf a Unimd State* P s s p o q dsmd doeurnant or m w h to t h m individual seeking such passpon, document or Sarvl~a.
NOTE: The di~clasuru of your S a i a l Security Number or af tha -&ntity find lwttan of 8 p e w w be n0~ifi.d tn the Wmt nf dnth or -1-t 3* entirely voluntary. Woweutlr, feilwru m provide th is inforrnatlm may pnrvcnt the Depwonent of St- from p r m l d q you with tlmaly mslst-nc. or prowctlon in the event you should enmunrer an mergemy rimer: -I whlle o u ~ i d e the U~iOedStsrea
I 4 l f m y of the Muwmandomd aets or conditions have bemn pmrfnmed by or applv rn the apptieant, or m any 0d-m p w n to k lneluded In t h m passport, the parrim which appfies should be snuck out, and a supplementary ex planstory aaternent under oath Lor &firmmion) by tho parson to wham
I t he portion is @glicable should be stteched snd made a w r r of this application.)
1 hsva no t (snd no other permn intruded i n this sppllentign had, since acquiring United S m c*d2mnshlp. men n+turmtkd ma 3 cltlrm d a lwalpn m; taken an Dam or made an uffirmation o r other formal declerari~n of allegiance to a fnreign stew: enrered or mrvd in the -mad forcsl of a formign stetm; acmted or performed the dutiar af any Office, post, or srnploymenr under the oovernment of 8 forelm smte or political subdivl*ion thereclf: made m formd renunciation of natlenality either in the U n r l e d Statas or M o r a s diplomatic or consular aWker 0 1 tho Unit& S tams in s taraign ¶ t a u ; wsr mupht or cta~med the benefits of rhe nationality of any f waign state: or been convicted by s coun Dr eown m e d a l of cornpstenr Jurisdiction D f committing anv act of t r a m n aga;mr, or atrernprlng by forcc TO OveRhraw, or bearing arms egainn, lhe United Stares, or conrpir~ng to wenhrow, put down or to dmtroy by force, me Govarnmenr of the U n i t s d S r a t ~ . WARNrNG: False staremtnn made tnowinglv and willfwlly Fn p-orr epplice*lons er in ~ d a v i n or omer wpportinpl dmumma wbrnfmd themWith are puni~hable by fine and/or irn~risonrnent under the provisions ot 18 USC t 0 0 1 nnWw 18 VSC 1542. Almrat im or mutilalon Of r pgsron iaumd punuunt to t h i s application is pu ni*ahle by fine sndlor imprisonmeni u ndcr The pr~vis iona Of 18 USC t543. Tho ura of a pasport In violetion Of the restricrionr contained therein or of the pa%port regularions is punishable by fine andfor imprisonment under 18 USC 1544. Alr rtatsment3 and dmurnents submitted are rubiecr ta VerificasiLn.
(FOR USE OF OFFlCf
APFLlCANT'S I O E N T ~ F ~ ~ N G DBCUMENT(SI
Certificme mf NarurJ- lzation or Clrizenshig No.:
. l,J Pasgporr l m e Dm?:
0 Drivsfs Liceme place a+ lssue:
Vrher (S~~ .ac i fy k: I twed In Name of: - O US. Q o w n m n t RlnlIm C
APPLICATION)
IDENTIFYING DOCUMENT (S) OF WIFElHUSBAND f 0 BE INCLUDED IN PASSPORT
Certif icam of Natural- n iaarion ar CitMenshlp No.: Parwon Iuue Darn:
C] ?her [Spsclfv): rwed in ~ m m a of:
Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 8
LAWYER SEARCH: ATTORNEY'S REGISTRATION AND PUBLIC DISCIPLINARY RECORD
ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of March 4, 2010 at 1:15:21 PM:
Check carefully to be sure that you have selected the correct lawyer. At times, lawyers have similar names. The disciplinary results displayed above include information relating to any and all public discipline, court-ordered disability inactive status, reinstatement and restoration dispositions, and pending public proceedings. Investigations are confidential and information relating to the existence or status of any investigation is not available. For additional information regarding data on this website, please contact ARDC at (312) 565-2600 or, from within Illinois, at (800) 826-8625.
ARDC makes every effort to maintain the currency and accuracy of Lawyer Search. If you find any typographical errors in the Lawyer Search information, please email [email protected]. For changes to contact information, including address, telephone or employer information, we require that the attorney submit a change of address form. Please consult our Address Change Requests page for details. Name changes require the filing of a motion with the Supreme Court. Please consult our Name Change Requests
Full Licensed Name: Barack Hussein Obama
Full Former name(s): None
Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: December 17, 1991
Registered Business Address:
Not available online
Registered Business Phone: Not available online
Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law
Malpractice Insurance: (Current as of date of registration; consult attorney for further information)
No malpractice report required as attorney is retired.
Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings: None
Page 1 of 2ARDC | Lawyer Search: Attorney's Registration and Public Di...
3/5/2010https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=640861630
Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings County Index No.: 6500-201
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit 9
The following documents had prompted my request for the previous document. It is from the Office of Personnel Management (Federal Employees) webpage which discusses who must pass a background investigation. Ironically OPM requires
McCain also failed to answer some of his constituents in writing regarding the eligibility issue.
And I thought that Congress was supposed to vet the President elect? Senator Kyl seems to think that a married couple from California with no access to Obama’s records is capable of vetting Obama. The site does have a disclaimer that you cannot rely upon their non-legally binding opinions.
RICHARD SHELBY A-MA
Rnultr~ro m m - m ~ m BANKINO, Hcwma, & UAW APFRlRS
CoMumeP~-- b N m u G MwmeR-6uBOdMwmE IIPl COmBRCe,
JUmce,*eMcE.& RELXtI3I1AmiPlAQs S l r H w m r n A W ~ ~
710 k h T S N A E &UOlNG WASHIMWH, W 2NtWlCCI
(2021 224-6744
United Statp Senate WASHINGTON, ~d 20510-0103
Ms. Texri Storm ~ r e s ident/c~o Storm Consulting G r o u p 4524 Park Avenue Bessemer, Alabama 35023-4184
Dear Ma. Storm:
January 2 9 ; Z O O 9
ThaIF-yau -far takiw the time to[ Tantact -me awt- PreBdant - elect Barack Qbama1s citizenship status. I always appreciate hearing from my constituents.
Under the United States Constitution, Section 1 of Article I1 contains a clause that states:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be el igible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. l1
Many have contacted me regarding the numerous claims and lawsuits circulating an the i n t e rne t asserting that Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore ineligible to become United States President. However, Pxesident-elect Obama has presented his bi r th certificate, showing that he was b ~ m in Hawaii, and it has been verified and confirmed by Bawaiim officials . Additionally, the Supreme Court has declined to act on any of the cases contesting Obamars citizenship. Un January 8 , 2009, Me&rs of Cangress were given the opportunity to contest the iasue - - in a joint session of Congress, but no such objecFion was raised during txe-meeting. B y a l l accounFs, President-elect Barack 0bama meeta those requirements. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor the situation should further iesues arise.
Thank you again for contacting me. IE I may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Richard Shelby
JEFF SESSIONS m
Snited Stata Senate WASHINGTON, DC 20610-0104
January 23,2009
Mrs. Terri Stam 4524 Park Avenue Besserna, Alabama 3 5022
Dear Mrs. Stom:
Thank you for your recent le?der regarding President B m k Obama.
- - - As you are aware, stories have circulated that call into question President Qbama' s - --- citizenship. Additionally, various lawsuits have b&n filed alleging that Obama is not a natural born citizen ofthe United States, and therefore is constitutiodly ineligible for the office of president. However, in June 2008, President Obama released a digitally scanned image of his birth certscate, and Hawaii's Director of the State Department of Health, Chiyome Fukimo, has verified its authenticity.
As you may know, on January 8,2009, Congress certified and tallied the Electoral College results that verified President Obama's election as the next president of the United States.
The office of the presidency should be held in high regard and the president treated with respect, no matter who occupies the position As we move forward, Americans should expect Congress and the president to work together to find substantive solutions to the pressing issues that our nation faces today.
Thank you again for writing. Please do not hesitate to mntact me or a member of my staff if we may ever be of assistance to you.
-
sions - United States Senator
JS: cd
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 78-1 Filed 10/01/09 Page 1 of 2
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS IAS Part 27 Index No.: 6500-2011 ---------------------------------------------------------------------x Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse (Hon. Arthur M. Schack J.S.C) Plaintiff, -against- PLAINTIFF’S NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. MEMORANDUM WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. IN SUPPORT OF THE PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; NOTICE OF MOTION ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMÍ COLÓN, in their Official and FOR PRESENTMENT individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; OF EVIDENCE PETER G. PETERSEN, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH OF FORGERY AND (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC SPOLIATION AS STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES SUPPLEMENT TO PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; RÓGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; THE COMPLAINT JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; BY REQUEST FOR THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF LEAVE OF THE COURT THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities. Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------x Plaintiff, Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse self-represented without an attorney,
provides this Memorandum with his affidavit with nine (9) exhibits annexed affirmed
April 10, 2012 in support of his Notice of Motion for presentment of evidence of forgery
and spoliation as supplement to the complaint that by previous request for leave of the
court having been denied at the October 25, 2011 hearing the right to file a first
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 1 of 22
amended complaint by Arthur M. Schack J.S.C. on the U.S. Constitution Article 2
Section 1 paragraph 5 “Natural Born Citizen” (NBC) eligibility Issue controlling matters
in Trial Court and pending claims at the Court of Claims as time is of the essence with
irreparable harm with a hearing scheduled on the Calendar for April 24, 2012.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
U.S. Constitution
Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3………………………………………………………………………20
Article 2, Section 1 ………………………………………………………………………2,4,6,13,20
13th Amendment……………………………………………………………………………………..13
14th Amendment……………………………………………………………………………4,5,13-18
Federal Cases
Minor v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162 (1875)……………………………………………………18-20
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)………………………………………………..18-20
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)……………………………………………………….19
Elk v Wilkins 112 US 94 (1884)……………………………………………………………….18-20
Scott v Sanford, 19 Howard 393………………………………………………………………14,21
Slaughterhouse Cases 16 Wall 36, 83 US 73………………………………………….……….21
Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303, 100 US 306………………………………….………21
Respublica v DE LONGCHAMPS 1 US 111 (1784) 1 Dall. 111……………………….……..19
Strunk v US DOS and DHS DCD 08-cv-2234…………………………………………………….5
OTHER SOURCES
The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the law of nature by Emer de Vattel and Joseph Chitty at Section 212……………………………………………………………18-21 Congressional Globe of 1862 of the 37th Congress 2nd ses. p. 1639……………………...15 The 39th Congress 1st session Senate 62. On January 5, 1866 and reported out of Committee on January 11, 1866…………………………………………………..…….15 the debates in 1866 Congressional Globes at 2883………………………………………16-18 The Civil Rights Act of 1866 ………………………………………………………………13,14,18
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 2 of 22
New York State Citations Metlife Auto & Home v. Basil Chevrolet, 303 A.D.2d 30, 33-34 (Fourth Dept. 2002); See also Kirkland v. New York City Hous. Auth., 236 A.D.2d 170 (First Dept. 1997) Wetzler v. Sisters of Charity Hosp., 17 A.D.3d 1088 (Fourth Dept. 2005)………………10
Denoyelles v. Gallagher, 40 A.D.3d 1027 (Second Dept. 2007); See also Rogala v.
Syracuse Hous. Auth., 272 A.D.2d 888 (Fourth Dept. 2000)………………………………10
Cohen Bros. Realty v. Rosenberg Elect. Contrs., 265 A.D.2d 242 (First Dept. 1999)….10
Cutroneo v. Dryer, 12 A.D.3d 811 (Third Dept. 2005); Cummings v. Central Tractor
Farm & Country, 281 A.D.2d 792 (Third Dept. 2001)………………………………………..11
Yi Min Ren v. Professional Steam-Cleaning, 271 A.D.2d 602 (Second Dept. 2000); See
also Rogala v. Syracuse Hous. Auth., 272 A.D.2d 888 (Fourth Dept. 2000)…………….11
NYS CPLR
CPLR 3025(b)…………………………………………………………………………………………4,5
ISSUES RAISED:
Supplement and Amendment by leave of court ……………………………………...………..4 An Authority of Competent Jurisdiction Reports that The purported 2011 Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) is a forgery…………………….…….6 An Authority Of Competent Jurisdiction Reports that all The Microfilm from August 1, 1961 through August 10, 1961 is missing from the National Archives ….…7 That Respondent Obama 2007 CoLB is a forgery along with the 2011 CoLB forgery….7 That Respondent Obama Spoliates and Conceals Evidence…………………………………8 Elements of Spoliation………………………………………………………………………………..9 Spoliation as a Cause of Action does not exist alone in New York………………………..10 That Defendant Obama made Admissions against Interest………………………………...12
That Defendant Obama has Unclean Hands…………………………………………………..13
As for de facto “Born a Citizen” of the 14th Amendment versus de jure “Natural-Born Citizen” conflation contrary to the U.S. Constitution……………14 In Conclusion for Leave to Supplement the Complaint…………………………………..….21
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 3 of 22
Supplement and Amendment by leave of court Supplement and Amendment by leave of court with CPLR 3025(b) provides that:
“A party may amend his pleading, or supplement it by setting forth additional or subsequent transactions or occurrences, at any time by leave of court or by stipulation of all parties. Leave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just including the granting of costs and continuances.”
“Supplemental” is defined as adding something that has come about since the earlier
pleading was served. The supplemental transaction that significantly revises the legal theory
presented in the complaint filed March 22, 2011 was provided on March 1, 2012 for the first
time anywhere with the preliminary findings of an authority of competent jurisdiction, the
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office COLD CASE POSSE (CCP), while it conducting a criminal
investigation that there was a crime of forgery and fraud committed in the 2008 Ballot Access
of Barack Obama at the Arizona Primary and General Election of proposed candidate for
Office of President of the United States (POTUS). Previously Plaintiff had used as if prima
facie proof the purported Long Form Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) supposedly stamped
April 25, 2011 which was presented by Defendant Obama at a Press Conference in
Washington D.C. on April 27, 2011; and as such would show that Defendant Barack Obama
was at least born a citizen in Hawaii as defined by the 14th Amendment; and however
supported other evidence previously available that his father at his birth was a British
Subject on a foreign alien student visa while married to his U.S. Citizen mother proving he is
not a “natural-born Citizen” as required by US Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5
and all the pleadings in this aspect of the cause of action also involving fraud were
dependent upon such prima facia evidence.
The supplemental transaction on March 1. 2012 by the Release of the preliminary
findings by the CCP established substantial suspicion that the April 25, 2011 CoLB is a
forgery manufactured in a computer not at the Hawaii Department of Health and bolstered
the questionable Short Form CoLB supposedly stamped June 6, 2007 as also a forgery too.
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 4 of 22
The investigation continues in several countries according to the CCP press conference held
March 31, 2012 in Sun City Arizona and will be further reported as evidence is proven and
established that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii and is now a suspicion not even in
the USA rendering even the 14th Amendment argument of Born a citizen invalid also. In
addition to the suspicion of forgeries being presented by Defendant Obama the CCP
established further suspicion of spoliation and concealment as Plaintiff had suspected when
in the still active FOIA Case Strunk v US DOS and DHS DCD 08-cv-2234 presently before
Judge Richard J. Leon; that the travel records have been maliciously withheld from Plaintiff
by Border Control under the auspice of the Department of Homeland Security being
concealed to favor the usurpation of the office of POTUS is now established as so by the CCP.
That with the addition of sworn affidavits of both an Hawaii Elections registrar and a U.S.
Postal Carrier having met the foreign exchange student Barry Soetoro while delivering mail to
the residence of the father and mother of Defendant Obama confidant Bill Ayers the domestic
terrorist who brags about how easy it is to obtain false identification including social security
numbers for clandestine domestic terrorist purposes, as such all now leads Plaintiff to believe
that the mother was overseas at the time of the birth when ever that occurred as the exit
ingress travel records of customs would establish, but are now concealed by Defendant
Obama with direct control over the National Archives and the personnel doing concealment.
Plaintiff’s understanding is that CPLR 3025(b) amendment is discretionary with the
court, can be made any number of times, has no time limit and is freely granted if there is no
prejudice to the other side as there clearly hasn’t as Defendant Obama has unclean hands
and directly participates in spoliation and concealment of evidence as a continuation of a
crime and scheme to defraud Plaintiff along with those similarly situated.
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 5 of 22
AN AUTHORITY OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION REPORTS THAT THE PURPORTED
2011 CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH (COLB) IS A FORGERY
That subsequent to the March 22, 2011 Complaint filing with various motions
pending a decision subsequent to the October 25, 2011 preliminary hearing, on March
1, 2012, the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff’s Press Release shown as Exhibit 1 and
Press Conference established in the Preliminary Report by the Sheriff’s COLD CASE
POSSE , as an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate fraud and
crimes committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an affirmation in
2007, that Respondent Obama affirmed compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article
2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 requirement for eligibility for “Natural-born citizen” shown as
Exhibit 2 is the subject of perjury, and currently the submission is pending before the
Arizona primary now in 2012; and that the attached Preliminary Report of the Sheriff’s
COLD CASE POSSE shown as Exhibit 3 supports the suspicion with sufficient
evidence that Respondent Barack Obama was not even born in Hawaii between
August 1 1961 through August 7, 1961 and acts to spoliate evidence of a crime –
Quote:
“Investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers committed two crimes: first, in creating a fraudulent document which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting that document to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.
During the six-month-long investigation and after having developed probable
cause to believe the long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama’s life history including: • President Obama’s Selective Service card is most likely also a forgery,
revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document; • To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United
States, we examined the Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 6 of 22
flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, records from the days surrounding Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 w[h]ere these immigration cards cannot be found. “
AN AUTHORITY OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION REPORTS THAT ALL THE
MICROFILM FROM AUGUST 1, 1961 THROUGH AUGUST 10, 1961 IS MISSING
FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
That in addition to the evidence of forgery of the Selective Service record before
the 2008 election along with the theft and tampering of the US DOS Passport records
by US DOS private contractor entity under the control of John Brennan currently
Respondent Obama’s White House Counter Terrorism advisor having previously been
assistant to Central Intelligence Director George Tenent, and as such underlines the
suspicion why the microfilm records from the National Archives are missing now as
well, as both agencies are under the direct authority and control of Respondent
Obama, the apparent usurper in the office of POTUS, and by his refusal to make such
microfilm and the missing U.S. DOS records referenced in the cover letter shown in
Exhibit 7 available provides the Court herein with substantial direct available proof
that Respondent Obama is now directly acting in a continuing pattern to spoliate
evidence and usurp the office of POTUS.
THAT RESPONDENT OBAMA 2007 COLB IS A FORGERY
ALONG WITH THE 2011 COLB FORGERY
That according to the Preliminary Report of the COLD CASE POSSE shown as
Exhibit 3, the purported Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form shown as Exhibit 4
is a forged document as submitted to the entire nation by Respondent Barack Obama
and attorneys at his April 27, 2011 at the Washington DC Press Conference according
to the transcript shown as Exhibit 5; and
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 7 of 22
The Forged document shown as Exhibit 4 also now joins the previously 2007
proffered CoLB short form document as if in 2008 that is a forgery as well based upon
the admissions of the Respondent Obama and his attorneys there at the White House
at the April 27, 2011 press conference . In the transcript shown as Exhibit 5, that at
the April 27, 2011 press conference the White House attorney repeatedly said that
Respondent Obama had requested the short form CoLB in 2008 from the State of
Hawaii be released when in fact the forged CoLB shows the 2007 stamp before the
alleged request was made to Hawaii. However, examination by Petitioner of the
supposed document Hawaii supposedly released in 2008 is stamped June 6, 2007
shown at Exhibit 6 as the FactCheck.org report on August 21, 2008; and the later as
the November 21, 2008 report appended shows the so-called Factcheck.org
investigators, depended on by members of Congress and Media, were partisan
amateurs according to “Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do Forensics; NH SOS
and Certificates; British Policeman on Eligibility”, and thereby all the foregoing provides
sufficient suspicion of fraud and or statements made as admission against interest as
a bar under clean hands doctrine of irrefutable presumption of wrong doing by
Respondent Obama and his agents in 2008 and continuing currently.
THAT RESPONDENT OBAMA SPOLIATES AND CONCEALS EVIDENCE
Based upon the foregoing Respondent Obama Spoliates and Concealed Evidence
according to the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary that defines “spoliation” as, “the
intentional destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence, usu. a
document” (1). Spoliation most commonly becomes an issue in product liability and
negligent installation/servicing claims, where the defective product or the item
negligently installed/serviced goes missing after the loss, thereby limiting and/or
precluding plaintiff from being able to prove its claim. This loss is usually due to
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 8 of 22
negligence, but in some instances the loss is occasioned by intentional and willful
conduct.
Elements of Spoliation
Within the jurisdictions which have recognized a separate independent tort, there
is variation as to what acts are considered to be independently actionable spoliation
and against whom an action may lay. The variances usually arise out of two
categories:
1) spoliation committed by a party which is or should have been in the underlying
suit for which the missing evidence was to be used (first party) versus committed by a
third party whose only connection to the underlying suit was the loss of the evidence;
and
2) whether the spoliation was intentional or negligent. As the less culpable
“negligent” spoliation claim is usually not recognized as a stand alone tort, and is
usually disposed off via discovery sanctions (first party), this article will focus on the
more affirmative and egregious intentional spoliation, which – as noted above – first
gave rise to spoliation as an affirmative claim. Although each jurisdiction adds its own
nuances to elements of an independent intentional spoliation claim, the following form
the foundation for the claim:
1) pending or probable litigation involving the spoliation plaintiff;
2) knowledge on the part of the spoliation defendant that said litigation exists or is
probable;
3) willful [intentional] destruction of evidence by defendant designed to disrupt the
spoliation plaintiff’s underlying case;
4) disruption of spoliation plaintiff’s underlying case; and
5) damages proximately caused by spoliation defendant’s acts.
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 9 of 22
SPOLIATION AS A CAUSE OF ACTION
DOES NOT EXIST ALONE IN NEW YORK
That although the State of New York does not recognize a separate cause of action
for spoliation the facts nevertheless support both the admissions against interest, and
unclean hands in the matter of a bar against Defendant Obama from using the
defenses that were referenced in the respective motion to dismiss as a matter of
defense claimed. That Spoliation has usually been defined as the "intentional
destruction, mutilation, alteration or concealment of evidence, [usually] a document,"
Metlife Auto & Home v. Basil Chevrolet, 303 A.D.2d 30, 33-34 (Fourth Dept. 2002); See
also Kirkland v. New York City Hous. Auth., 236 A.D.2d 170 (First Dept. 1997). That
CPLR 3126 sets forth the statutory basis for seeking sanctions against a party who
fails to preserve evidence, see also Wetzler v. Sisters of Charity Hosp., 17 A.D.3d 1088
(Fourth Dept. 2005). The common law doctrine of spoliation provides that "when a
party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, thereby depriving the
non-responsible party from being able to prove its claim or defense, the responsible
party may be sanctioned by the striking of its pleading, Denoyelles v. Gallagher, 40
A.D.3d 1027 (Second Dept. 2007); See also Rogala v. Syracuse Hous. Auth., 272
A.D.2d 888 (Fourth Dept. 2000). The obligation to preserve evidence first arises upon
notice that a potential claim may be made, Cohen Bros. Realty v. Rosenberg Elect.
Contrs., 265 A.D.2d 242 (First Dept. 1999). This duty arises even if the spoliator was
not yet a party, Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Federal Pac. Elec. Co., 14 A.D.3d 213 (First
Dept. 2004). The obligation also arises when a party is on notice that litigation has
been commenced and evidence of related incidents is destroyed, O'Brien v. Clark Equip.
Co., 25 A.D.3d 958 (Third Dept. 2006). The most severe sanction for willful destruction
of critical evidence is striking of the pleading, O'Brien v. Clark Equip. Co., 25 A.D.3d
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 10 of 22
958 (Third Dept. 2006); Di Domenico v. C&S Aeromatik Supplies, 252 A.D.2d 41
(Second Dept. 1998). This is particularly appropriate where what is lost is "the very
instrumentality giving rise to the plaintiff's injuries," Cutroneo v. Dryer, 12 A.D.3d 811
(Third Dept. 2005); Cummings v. Central Tractor Farm & Country, 281 A.D.2d 792
(Third Dept. 2001). Preclusion of evidence concerning that which was lost or destroyed
either intentionally or negligently is also an appropriate sanction, Yi Min Ren v.
Professional Steam-Cleaning, 271 A.D.2d 602 (Second Dept. 2000); See also Rogala v.
Syracuse Hous. Auth., 272 A.D.2d 888 (Fourth Dept. 2000). If the court refuses to
either strike the pleading or preclude certain evidence, then one can still request that
the court charge the jury with an adverse inference pursuant to New York Pattern
Jury Instructions (PJI) [section] 1.77.1.
However, as this case may be the OBAMA White House website has removed the
multilayer CoLB release as a forgery on or about April 27, 2011 and has not only
“flattened the” pdf image but concealed it. The concept of spoliation applies generally
to the destruction of evidence and, like perjury, goes to the heart of the judicial
process. By statute and procedural rules, states and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (FRCVP) provide various sanctions for failing to comply with discovery
obligations to produce evidence which cover most problems and provide remedies
ranging from monetary compensation or penalties to entry of judgment. In addition or
to complete the coverage, states and the federal courts provide remedies by application
of the spoliation concept either as a procedural remedy within the case or as a
separate tort.
That Defendant Obama made Admissions against Interest
That Defendant Obama’s mother in August 13, 1968 as shown on Exhibit 7 as
well as Respondent Obama personally committing perjury as shown on Exhibit 2 and
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 11 of 22
Exhibit 8 affirms having never used another name on his law license application, and
further that Respondent Obama agents as shown in the transcript Exhibit 5 in regards
to Exhibit 6 are all an admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule
which allows a person to testify to a statement of another that reveals something
incriminating, embarrassing, or otherwise damaging to the maker of the statement. It
is allowed into evidence on the theory that the lack of incentive to make a damaging
statement is an indication of the statement's reliability.
In criminal law, it is a statement by the defendant which acknowledges the
existence or truth of some fact necessary to be proven to establish the guilt of the
defendant or which tends to show guilt of the defendant or is evidence of some
material fact, but not amounting to a confession.
That Defendant Obama has Unclean Hands
The clean hands doctrine is a rule of law that someone bringing a lawsuit or
motion and asking the court for equitable relief must be innocent of wrongdoing or
unfair conduct relating to the subject matter of his/her claim. It is an affirmative
defense that the defendant may claim the plaintiff has "unclean hands". However, this
defense may not be used to put in issue conduct of the plaintiff unrelated to plaintiff's
claim. Therefore, plaintiff's unrelated corrupt actions and general immoral character
would be irrelevant. The defendant must show that plaintiff misled the defendant or
has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. The wrongful
conduct may be of a legal or moral nature, as long as it relates to the matter in issue.
For example, if a seller sues a customer for payments on a contract, defendant
may claim plaintiff has unclean hands because he fraudulently induced him to sign
the contract. A court of equity will not decide issues of fairness and justice if it is
shown that the person asking for such justice has acted wrongly in regard to the issue
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 12 of 22
at hand. In another example, when a brokerage firm claimed that its confidential client
information was being pilfered by the competition, the court held that the firm did not
come to court with “clean hands” since the court found that firm demonstrated a
similar lack of regard for the competitor's confidential client information when it
snared the same broker six years earlier.
The doctrine has often been applied in the context of family law issues,
specifically in cases of financial misconduct. Fraudulent conduct has been a factor in
awarding support and division of property, among other issues. In this case for all of
the above reasons of concealment, spoliation, participating in forging of public
documents, fraud, admission against interest inter alia bar this Court from granting
any relief requested by Respondent Obama and his agents in the May 2011 Motion to
Dismiss presently pending a decision before the court since August 22, 2011.
As for de facto “Born a Citizen” of the 14th Amendment versus de jure
“Natural-Born Citizen” conflation contrary to the U.S. Constitution
As the Plaintiff’s affirmation confirms as shown with Exhibit 9 in the various
letters of the members of Congress they have conflated the term “Born a Citizen”, as
relates use of the 14th Amendment , with the term of art “natural-born Citizen”. That
as such the truth about the 14th amendment has been out there for so long but no one
seems to care what the framers said, and the facts are 100% ignored WE do not need
the courts to figure out what natural-born Citizen (NBC) means or do we need
Congress to do an investigation because the truth is already available all we need to
do is look at the facts. For the record: the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery was
adopted on December 6, 1865; The Civil Rights Act of 1866 which granted former
slaves citizenship was enacted April 9 1866; and, the 14th amendment which made
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 13 of 22
the Civil Rights Act constitutional was proposed on June 13, 1866 and after much
debate, was adopted on July 9, 1868.
So the question then raised were all dealt with, during the same time frame,
with the same Congressman involved, in each bill. The 14th amendment represented
the overruling of the Dred Scott decision ruling that black people former slaves were
not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges
and immunities of citizenship.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons
born in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign
power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the
Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to
be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to
prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. Which means the
Civil Rights Act of 1866 still stands because the 14th amendment was never repealed.
The left/progressives and the Defendant Obama’s propagandists have totally
perverted the 14th Amendment with their Birthright Citizenship lie. Therefore, to truly
understand the 14th Amendment and what the framers original intent was when
writing it, you must go back to the framers writings and the congressional debates.
Obviously the logical people to research in regard to debates would be Senator
Lyman Trumbull who was the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Co-author of
the 14th Amendment’s “citizenship clause” and co-author of the 13th Amendment to
abolish slavery – was an Illinois Supreme Court Justice 1848-1853.
Senator Jacob Howard worked with Lincoln to draft the 13th amendment.
Served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted the 14th Amendment
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 14 of 22
to the United States Constitution, and was co-author of the 14th Amendment’s
“Citizenship Clause”.
The Honorable John Bingham was the principle Framer of the 14th Amendment,
Judge advocate in the Lincoln assassination trial and prosecutor on the impeachment
of Andrew Johnson. So getting to the facts, and the easiest way is established by the
chronological order of the legislative debate presentation starting with Representative
John Bingham in 1862 recorded in the Congressional Globe of the 37th Congress 2nd
session page 1639 stated:
“There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and the compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born Within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exceptions to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relation to Indians...”
The next would be the Civil Rights Act of 1866; the original bill was introduced
on January 5, 1866 according to the 39th Congress 1st session Senate 62, that was
reported out of Committee on January 11, 1866 “A BILL to protect all persons in the
United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication.” and it
read:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory “
A week later there was an amendment offered by Mr. Trumbull to wit:
“In section 1, line 3, after the word ‘That,’ insert, ‘that all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States with distinction of color; and,’ ”
On the question to agree to the amendment proposed by Mr. Trumbull, It was
determined in the affirmative, Yeas 31 Nays 10. The Bill as an Act went over to the
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 15 of 22
House of Representatives where it passed, along with Howard and Trumbull’s
amendment. John Bingham, speaks on the amendment to the bill saying
” I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory or what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen;”
The bill was then sent, to President Andrew Johnson and Johnson vetoed it. It was
sent back to Congress, where both houses, passed the bill, overriding the President’s
veto.
Next Chronologically on to the 14th Amendment, as the congressional debates
while they were debating the 14th Amendment as with that for the Civil Rights act will
reveal how the present use has been 100% perverted. The Bill as proposed for the 14th
amendment at first did not provide for a jurisdictional statement in Article 1 Section 1
quote:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities if citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
During the debates in 1866 Congressional Globes at 2883 Mr. Latham stated quote:
“Mr. Speaker, we seem to have fallen upon an age of theories. We are told from day to day with much seeming sincerity and an air of the most profound political sagacity that the Union when restored must be restored upon the basis which will make it as permanent as the everlasting hills and as invulnerable as the throne of the Eternal, and with such safeguards that even treason will no longer be possible within its jurisdiction.”
Then Senator Edgar Cowen gave a speech telling why the citizenship clause was need
and certainly was not to be used to make anyone born here a citizen, stated …
“Mr. Cowen. The honorable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have no doubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legal definition of “citizenship of the United States.” What does it mean? What is its length and breath? I would be glad if the honorable Senator in good earnest would favor us with some such definition. Is the child of the Chinese Immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 16 of 22
so, what rights have they? Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the United States? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same as it is to kill another man. You cannot commit an assault and battery on him, I apprehend. He has a right to the protections of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word.”
“It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. He is not entitled, by virtue of that, to be an elector. ..”
And he goes further to state:
“I have supposed, further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a broad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the country of California, and if another people of a different race, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have free right to locate there and settle among them, and if they have an opportunity of pouring in such an immigration as in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? I do not know that the contingency will ever happen, but it may be well to consider it while we are on this point.
“As I understand the right of the States under the Constitution at present, California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she chooses who is not a citizen of some one of the United States…
“I think the Honorable Senator from Michigan would not admit the right that the Indians of his neighborhood would have to come in upon Michigan and settle in the midst of that society and obtain the political power of the State, and wield it, perhaps, to his exclusion. I do not believe anybody would agree to that.”
Now who among the framers of the 14th Amendment had no clue or inclination
on the issue of illegal immigration and inclusion of anchor babies? Howard and
Trumbull argued for the inclusion of the term “and subject to the jurisdiction” would
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 17 of 22
be applied and agreed that there would not be a new definition of the term jurisdiction
to be interpreted and applied in the proposed amendment to be declaratory of the
current law, the Civil Rights Act, and that as such Mr. Howard said of the “citizenship
clause” quote
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and …”
What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the
14th Amendment? Mr. Lyman Trumbull in 1866, Chairman of the Judiciary
Committee and author of the 13th Amendment, in the Congressional Globe 2893 said
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ Now does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.?’ Not owing allegiance of anybody else. That is what it means.”
In response Senator Jacob Howard responds in concurrence:
“I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction. That question has long since been adjudicated, so far as the usage of the Government is concerned…”
The SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett states :
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 18 of 22
natural-born citizens. As distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their (p168) parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have not to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizen” (Emphasis added)
The SCOTUS Case Respublica v DE LONGCHAMPS 1 US 111 (1784) 1 Dall. 111 –
“M’Kean, Chief Justice. This is a case of the first impression in the United States. It must be determined on the principles of the laws of nations, which form a part of the municipal law of Pennsylvania; and , if the offenses charged in the indictment have been committed, there can be no doubt, that those laws have been violated.”
The Chief Justice goes on to say:
“Therefore, we conclude, that the Defendant cannot be imprisoned, until his most Christian Majesty shall declare, that the reparation is satisfactory ‘3. ‘The answer to the last question is rendered unnecessary by the above answer to the second question.’ The foregoing answers having been given, it only remains for the Court to pronounce sentence upon you. This sentence must be governed by a due consideration of the enormity and dangerous tendency of the offences you have committed, of the willfulness, deliberation, and malice, wherewith they were done, of the quality and degree of the offended and offender, the provocation given, and all other circumstances which may anyway aggravate or extenuate the guilt. The first crime in the indictment is an infraction of the law of Nations. This law, in its full extent, is part of the law of this State, and is to be collected from the practice of different Nations, and the authority of writers. “
Further search will verify that the term Law of Nations is mentioned at least a
dozen times on the page and the author Vattel is sighted along with each and no other
authorities related to law of nations is cited – only that of Vattel.
That in the SCOTUS case The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) Mr. Chief
Justice Marshal stated
“Vattel who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantage. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 19 of 22
otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. “
As is to be found in The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the law of nature by Emer de
Vattel Joseph Chitty at Section 212. reads;
“The citizen are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to it authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed as matter of course, that each citizen , on entering into society, reserve to children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”
That the question posed is why do the usurper’s propagandists use the decision
in regards to Wong Kim Ark where the law went astray? They are pulled towards
corruption in that nearly 100 years earlier then usurper Chester Arthur (1) appointed
Justice Gray to chief justice to succeed Oliver Wendell Holms, Jr. and Gray had
sabotaged his later ruling in Wong Kim Ark from that held in Minor v Happersett of
1874. That in Elk v Wilkins 112 US 94 (1884) Argued April 28, 1884 and Decided
November 3, 1884 it seems that Justice Horace Gray knew the law in 1884 but by the
time Wong Kim Ark came along 15 years later he had forgotten it! Quoting Justice
Gray from the SCOTUS Elk v. Wilkins:
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President.’
And “The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II Section 1; Article 1, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the
1 Chester Arthur was born in Fairfield Vermont in 1829, but looking at his father’s naturalization papers he didn’t become a citizen until August 31, 1843 meaning that Chester Arthur was not born to citizen parents therefore was not a natural-born Citizen. It seems that the people challenging Chester Arthur then were right all along.
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 20 of 22
question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v Sanford, 19 Howard 393) , and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white of black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases 16 Wall 36, 83 US 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303, 100 US 306.
In the matter of the immigrant taking the Oath to be a citizen of the United States of
America:
“I hereby declare, an oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentiate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United states of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same , that I will bears arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, that I perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United states when required by the law that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion so help me God.”
Immigrants becoming citizens must take an oath of sole allegiance to the USA.
Now why would that not be expected also of citizens born here? If you are born to two
citizens parents, your allegiance is passed down. If you are not born to two citizen
parents, you must take the oath, simple as that! Vattel’s authority as an institutional
writer extended to the USA where he was cited in court cases between 1789 and 1820
no less than 92 times on matters pertaining to the law of nations.
In Conclusion for Leave to Supplement the Complaint
That in light of the compelling evidence provided by the Maricopa County
Sheriff’s Office of forgery and spoliation associated with the Defendant Barack Obama
and his agents, Affirmant includes as germane in this supplement to the complaint
copies of letters U.S. Congressmen released to Affirmant by a journalist for publication
herein as demonstrative of statements by congressmen dating from November 11,
2008 through February 2009 that demonstrates Congressional confusion in what
constitutes eligibility with use of U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 for
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement … Page 21 of 22
office of POTUS in their conflation of the term "Born a Citizen" as a 14th amendment
with the term of art "natural-born Citizen"; Plaintiff in support of the notice of motion
for presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as a supplement to the complaint
wishes leave of the Court and having previously been denied at the October 25, 20 11
hearing the right to file a *st amended complaint, now as a matter of compelling state
interest grant an order:
That this affidavit be admitted as a supplement to the complaint fded March 22,
That the copy of the purported Certihcate of Live Birth long form dated April
25,20 1 1 released by Defendant Barack Obama at his April 27,201 1 Press
Conference included in Exhibit by Haintiff in his response to Defendant
Obama's motion to dismiss be deemed evidence of Defendant's release of a
forgery rather than a documentati&n of Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii and
that at this point is not only in questi6n but supports suspicion of his birth
overseas according to the Maricopa County, Sheriff's Office.
m a t Defendants answer or otherwise respond to the supplement with
compelling evidence as a matter of compelling state interest; and
for different and other relief deemed necessary for justice herein.
Dated: April m, 20 12 Brooklyn New York
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Self-represented without an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 28 1 Brooklyn, New York 1 1238 '
Phone - 845-90 1A6767 Email: [email protected]
Plaintif'f's MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Supplement .. . Page 22 of 22
SUPREME COURT OF THk STATE OF NEW YORK COr?rry OF KINGS Index No.: 6500-201 1
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse'; * Plaintiff,
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al.,
b Defendants. x
STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.
COUNTY OF KINGS 1
~&ordingly, I, Mwp wm(d@d<being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:
a. Am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. b. My place of business is located at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue Brooklyn NY 11238.. On April 12,2012, Christopher Strunk instructed me to serve a true conformed copy of the PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRESENTMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FORGERY AND SPOLIATION AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT WfTH SUPPORTING AFETDAVIT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAWAFFIRMED APRIL 10,2012 WITH NINE EXHIBITS ANNEXED AND WITH THE PROPOSED FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT for the case Strunk v NYS BOE et al. NYS County of Kings Supreme Court with index 6500-201 1, by USPS service upon Defendants' Counsels. c. On April 12,2012, I caused each copy with proper postage for senrice by regular mail of listed counsels and
where each envelope was deposited with the USPS for service upon:
Erica Burke, Esq. of SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLE'IT U P 425 Lexington Avenue New York. New Yofk 100 17-3954
RITA C. TOBIN, Esq. of CAPLIN 86 DRYSDALE, CHARTERED 375 Park Avenue 35th Floor New York. New York 10 152-3500
HARRIS BEACH, PLLC By THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553
JAMES C. .DUGAN Esq. of WILLKIE.F'ARR &i GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y. 10019-6099
MARSHAL BELL, Esq. of McGUIRE WOODS LLP 1345 Avenue of Americas, 7th Floor New York, New York 101 05
WILEY REIN LLP - TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ., JAN WITHOLD BARAN ESQ. and THOMAS W. WRBY ESQ. 1776K Street, NW Washington D.C. 20006
RABINOWTTZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, PC - Christopher J. Latell Esq. and Daniel S. Reich Esq. 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, New York 100063791
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN,Attorney General of NYS ' by: JOEL GRABER, Esq. AAG Assistant Attorney General Special Litigation Counsel Litigation Bureau 120 BROADWAY - 24th Floor New York, New York 10271-0332
MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of City of New York By: CHLARENS ORSIAND, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007 '
Sworn to before me CL/( L L I @ -Ww&/~87&
MAITHEWS HUGGINS Notary Public, State of New York - No. 01HU6103403
Qualified in Kings County Commission Expires Dec. 29,20
SUPREME' COURT OF THE S'PATE OF NEW YORK +. COUNTY OF KINGS I.A.S. Part 27 Index No.: 6500-2011
x @on. Arthur M. Schack J.S.C)
christkher- ark ~tknk, in esse NOTICE OF MOTION
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; Et al..
Notice of Motion for presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as supplement
to the compl&t , + , .- 2 ,
Plaintiff Amdavit in support of Notice of motion for presentment of evidence of I L .
forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint
Exhibit 1 Maricopa ~ o u n k AZ Sheriffs Ofice Press Release March 1,2012 Exhibit 2 AZ SOS Certified Affidavit by Barack Obama for AZ Ballot access 2007 Exhibit 3 Sheriff Arpaio's COLD CASE POSSE Preliminary Report March 1, 20 12 Exhibit 4 Forged Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long form dated April 25, 201 1 Exhibit 5 TRANSCRIPT of Barack Obama April 27, 201 1 Press Conference Exhibit 6 Forged CoLB Short form stamped June 6, 2007 with Factcheckorg analysis Exhibite7 July 29,2010 certified U.S. DOS FOIA release of Stanley Ann Dunham Exhibit 8 Barack Obama perjured application for-entry to the Illinois bar Exhibit 9 statements by congressmen from November 11,2008 thru February 2009
- Plaintiffs Memorandum support of Notice of motion for pr&entment of evidence . of forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint
~ffidadt-of Senrice
~ a t e d : April 10,2012 - Brooklyn New York
Plaintiff self-represented wlo attoniey , 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28 1
Brooklyn, New York 11238 Ph. 845-901-6767 Email: chri&strunk.ws
Strunk v. US DOS and DHS USDC DC 08-cv-2234 (RJL) PLAINTIFF STRUNK’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Exhibit C
- -.A. 5 I , . i . .
+t C
8- C~URT%OF THE. ~ A Y E . E F ~ O F W E ~ f r i o ~ ~ COUNTY OF KINGS IAS Part 27 Index No.: 6500-201 1
~~sbi;h&-Eii'l: ~tnihk, in &se (Hon. &ur M. Schack J.S.C)
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. , PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, RUTH NOEMf COmN, in their Official and individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSON, ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama 11, a.k.a. Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC FIRST SUPPLEMENT STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES - TO THE CO* .- r PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; $3 , r < , ,.,$
THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; 2 :zr?< ,- , .. .‘c JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; - .j? *.+ h? ;<:&=v, THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; - r. -:I. . THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE -c ---I: =-> , INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF $ -L
I '. .. t d 5 THE CO'NSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; o ~2 Qy
PENNY S. PRITZKER, GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR (D
AMERICA, OBAlMA WCTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY , - 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; John and Jane Does; . - and XYZ Entities.
Defeadants. . >.
That lai in tiff Christopher Earl Strunk (Plainw, Strunk) submits this Verified First
Supplement with CPLR §3025@) to the Verified Complaint filed March 22,20 1 1 with
transactions subsequent to the August 22,201 1 hearing before Justice Arthur M.
S ~ h a c k with various motions penditig-a decisidn, and as guch addihnally alleges of
Defendant SOEBARKAI-I (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama 11,
a.k.a. Steve Dunham) and Barack Obama's agents and associates of the caption along
with those John and Jane ~ o e s and XYZ Entities yet naked that:
mainW8 FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 1 of 7'
1. Plaintiff remains located for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue -281 Brooklyn, New
York 11238 (845) 901-6767 email: [email protected].; is self represented without an
attorney and is a duly registered voter in the 2008 and 2012 election cycle
2. that on March 1, 2012, the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff’s Press Release
and Press Conference established that there is the Preliminary Report by the Sheriff’s
COLD CASE POSSE , as an authority with competent jurisdiction formed to investigate
fraud and crimes committed by the campaign of Barack Obama in the filing of an
affirmation in 2008 that Respondent Obama affirmed compliance with the U.S.
Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 requirement for eligibility for “Natural-
born citizen” and currently before the Arizona primary now in 2012; and
3. That the Preliminary Report of the Sheriff’s COLD CASE POSSE supports the
suspicion with sufficient evidence that Defendant Barack Obama was not even born in
Hawaii between August 1, 1961 through August 10, 1961 and in fact appears born
outside of the USA, and Barack Obama and or his agents spoliate evidence of a crime.
As and for the First Supplemental Cause of Action
to the Complaint Sixth Cause of Action
(Scheme to defraud Plaintiff and those similarly situated as against all Defendants) Barack Obama and his agents maliciously conceal and spoliate evidence to further fraud against Plaintiff along with those similarly situated
4. That Plaintiff alleges that Barack Obama and his agents maliciously conceal
and spoliate evidence to further fraud against Plaintiff along with those similarly
situated as and for the First Supplement Cause of Action to the Complaint Sixth
Cause of Action repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction
paragraphs 1 through 3 with each allegation of the Sixth Cause of Action with the
same force and effect as though herein set forth at length.
5. That the agents of Defendant Barack Obama are the forgers who committed two
Plaintiff’s FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 2 of 7
crimes.
6. That the agents of Defendant Barack Obama created a fraudulent document
which the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially
produced governmental birth record; and
7. That Barack Obama and his the agents fraudulently present a forged document
to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large including
Plaintiff along with those similarly situated here in New York as “proof positive” of
President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.
8. That Barack Obama and his agents manufactured the long-form birth
certificate presented to the public on April 27, 2011 as a computer-generated forgery.
9. That Barack Obama and his agents forged the President Obama’s Selective
Service card by forging the U.S. postal date stamp on the purported selective service
document;
10. That Barack Obama was actually born outside the United States not in Hawaii.
11. That Barack Obama and his agents spoliate and conceal Records of
Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane
passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States
in the month of August 1961.
12. That Barack Obama and his agents spoliate and conceal those records of travel
referenced from August 1961 housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
13. That The National Archives in Washington DC and all their employees are
directly under the authority of Barack Obama and the executive.
14. That Barack Obama and his agents spoliate and conceal the records from the
days surrounding Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 that are missing.
For the only week in 1961 where these immigration cards cannot be found.
Plaintiff’s FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 3 of 7
15. That Barack Obama had met a US Postal Carrier while entering the residence of
the Ayers Family in Chicago and at which time he admitted he was a foreign exchange
student that the William Ayers family was assisting and that he was selected to
become a candidate for president.
As and for the Second Supplemental Cause of Action
to the Complaint Sixth Cause of Action
(Scheme to defraud Plaintiff and those similarly situated as against all Defendants) Barack Obama and his agents intentionally mislead and
misrepresented to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated
16. That Plaintiff alleges that Barack Obama and his agents maliciously conceal
and spoliate evidence to further fraud against Plaintiff along with those similarly
situated as and for the Second Supplement Cause of Action to the Complaint Sixth
Cause of Action repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction
paragraphs 1 through 15 with each allegation of the Sixth Cause of Action with the
same force and effect as though herein set forth at length.
17. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents at his April 27, 2011
Washington DC Press Conference purported the Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) long
form as if a government document knowing it was a forged document as submitted to
the entire nation.
18. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents at the April 27 2011 Press
Conference proffered the CoLB short form document as well based upon the
admissions of the Respondent Obama and his attorneys there at the White House at
the April 27, 2011 press conference .
19. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents at the April 27 2011 Press
Conference repeatedly said that Barack Obama had requested the supposed short
form CoLB in 2008 from the State of Hawaii be released.
Plaintiff’s FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 4 of 7
20. That the supposed short form CoLB alleged requested in 2008 from the State of
Hawaii be released in fact is stamped June 6, 2007.
21. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents coordinated defense of the
supposed short form CoLB with agents of the FactCheck.org who then report on
August 21, 2008 in favor of the authenticity.
22. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents knew that the Factcheck.org org
report would be depended on by members of Congress and Media.
23. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents knew that the so-called
Factcheck.org investigators were partisan amateurs
24. That Defendant Barack Hussein Obama was adopted by his Indonesian step
father Lolo Soetoro who named him Soebarkah and was also otherwise known as
Barry Soetoro, and Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah.
25. That the Hawaii Board of Elections registrar Tim Adams discovered that there
is no birth record for Barack Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health showing that
he had been born in Hawaii...
As and for the Third Supplemental Cause of Action
to the Complaint Sixth Cause of Action
(Scheme to defraud Plaintiff and those similarly situated as against all Defendants) Barack Obama and his agents forged a selective service and passport
records to mislead Plaintiff along with those similarly situated
26. That Plaintiff alleges that Barack Obama and his agents maliciously conceal
and spoliate evidence to further fraud against Plaintiff along with those similarly
situated as and for the Third Supplement Cause of Action to the Complaint Sixth
Cause of Action repeats each and every allegation contained in the Introduction
paragraphs 1 through 25 with each allegation of the Sixth Cause of Action with the
same force and effect as though herein set forth at length.
Plaintiff’s FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 5 of 7
27. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents forged the Selective Service
record misrepresenting Defendant Obama’s status before the 2008 election
28. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents act by theft and tampering of
the US DOS Passport records by US DOS private contractor entity under the control of
John Brennan currently Respondent Obama’s White House Counter Terrorism advisor
having previously been assistant to Central Intelligence Director George Tenent,
29. That Barack Obama and his agents knowingly acted to conceal his adoptive
status as an Indonesian citizen.
30. That Barack Obama and his agents intentionally lied to conceal his Indonesian
names and foreign student financial status when he applied for his law license in
Illinois.
31. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents filed False Documents with the
government and knowing such documents filed are falsified documents to the
government.
32. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents spoke with Congressmen and
the media to promote a “Born a Citizen” 14th Amendment status for Defendant Obama.
33. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents spoke with agents of the
Justia.org organization to spoliate prior decisions of the Supreme Court of the United
States to change the definition of “natural-born Citizen” to that of “Born a Citizen.”
Wherefore, Plaintiff wishes an order by the Court of all defendants:
• Answer or otherwise respond to the supplemental allegations;
• Defendant Obama and his agents release all concealed evidence under
penalty of sanctions or worse;
• for different and other relief deemed necessary for justice herein.
Plaintiff’s FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 6 of 7
STATE OF NEW YORK ) 1 8s.
COUNTY OF KINGS 1,
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say
under penalty of perjury:
That the foregoing matter of the First Supplement to the Complaint including
the allegations of the above introduction through paragraphs 33, and wherefore relief
involves irreparable harm as time is of the essence withgut any alternative forum for
relief that compounds Plaintiff's injury along with those similarly situated; and as
such Affirmant hereby verifies the three supplemental causes of action to the Sixth
Cause of Action to the Complaint filed March 22,20 1 1, and that the same is true to v
my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on
information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of
my belids as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd
parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.
ARNOLD I. TISHFIELD " Public State Of New York
N0.41-4611662 '-
, Qualified In Queens County Certified In Kings County
Commission Expires March 30, 20
Plaintiffs FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 7 of 7
Strunk v. US DOS and DHS USDC DC 08-cv-2234 (RJL) PLAINTIFF STRUNK’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Exhibit D
Main page content2:15pm, Wed 18 Apr 2012
- last updated Wed 18 Apr 2012
UKColonial files
Tweet
Colonial records published of Barack Obama's father was going to be a student in the US. Photo:National Archive/PA Wire
Thousands of 'lost' colonial era files believed to have been destroyed have finally been made public.
The documents which were secretly sent back to the UK when former colonies became independent, shednew light on how British officials ran overseas territories.
The archives even include some well-known names. Barack Obama's Kenya-born father, who had the samename as his son, features in the archives. The president's father came to America in 1959 to begin a degree.
2Recommend
'Lost' files detailing colonial crimes made public - ITV News http://www.itv.com/news/2012-04-18/lost-files-detailing-colonial-crime...
2 of 6 4/27/2012 2:46 PM
National Archives reveal record of Barack Obama's father Credit: Reuters/Jim Young
The National Archives released today more than 1,200 out of 8,800 of these records in Kew, west London, thefirst of six tranches in a process due to be completed by November 2013.
They record how colonial administrators planned to burn other classified papers- potentially revealing abusescommitted under the British rule in territories including Kenya, Cyprus, present-day Malaysia and theBahamas.
Wambugu Nyingi, Jane Muthoni, Paul Nzili and Ndiku Mutua accused the British government oftorture during the Mau Mau uprising Credit: Reuters/Suzanne Plunkett
The "migrated" archives came to light in January last year after four elderly Kenyans brought a High Courtcase against the UK Government over the alleged torture of Kenyan Mau Mau rebels in British camps in the1950s. Only a third of the Kenyan files were released today.
'Lost' files detailing colonial crimes made public - ITV News http://www.itv.com/news/2012-04-18/lost-files-detailing-colonial-crime...
3 of 6 4/27/2012 2:46 PM
The Kenyan ministry of defence files state that British officials were told to divide all documents into thecategories of "legacy" material, which could be left behind, and "watch" material, which could not. One memodated April 1961 noted:
"'Watch' material can only be seen by 'authorised' officers. An 'authorised' officer is defined in thedraft as a servant of the Kenya government who is a British subject of European descent, andwho has been security cleared to see classified documents."
To obviate a too laborious scrutiny of 'dead' files, emphasis is placed on destruction - a vastamount of paper in the Ministry of Defence secret registry and classified archives could be burntwithout loss, and I should be surprised if the same does not apply to the CS's (chief secretary's)Office."
– Memo from the colonial archives dated April 1961
Two Kenyan "Mau Mau" freedom fighters are pictured Credit: Reuters/Kenya National Archives
There are similar references to the destruction of classified material in the files relating to Malaya, whichbecame independent in 1957 and joined with three other states to form Malaysia in 1963.
Tony Badger, a Cambridge University history professor who has been appointed by the Foreign Office as anindependent reviewer of the archive's release, acknowledged that there was a "legacy of suspicion" about thedocuments among journalists and academics.
But he stressed that so far no files have been withheld from release at the National Archives, and significantlyless than 1% of the content has been redacted.
Advertisement
'Lost' files detailing colonial crimes made public - ITV News http://www.itv.com/news/2012-04-18/lost-files-detailing-colonial-crime...
4 of 6 4/27/2012 2:46 PM
CERTIFICATE O F SERVICE
Strunk v US DOS and DHS USDC DC 08-cv-2234 (RJL)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that oh this 27'h day April, 2012, I caused a true and correct.copy
of the foregoing Strunk Response To DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, to be served upon Defendant Counsel and the Cold Case
Posse of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department by first class United States mail
postage prepaioid marked for delivery to:
Brigham J. Bowen (DC Bar No. 41 8925) Civil Division, U.S. Justice Department Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883,20 Massachusetts Avenue., N.W. Washington D.C. 20044
Maricopa County Sheriffs Department Cold Case Posse 100 West Washington, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
I declare, certify, verify, and state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: April g 2 0 1 2 Brooklyn New York a@&-;
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse - urnsm p-1 Service"Delivery ~ ~ n f f n n a t i o # ~ ~ ~ i ~ t \ Self-represented without an attorney
A Postage and ~eRvery Oonfimmtion fees must be paid before mailing. P- A mat Sent Te (to be canpkbd by mailer)
593 ~aiderbi l t Avenue - 281 Brooklyn, New York 1 1238 Phone - 845-90 1-6767 Email: chris@,strunk.ws -