ces revised reply letter for jurisdiction of us constitutional issues for review by the nys court of...

8/3/2019 CES REVISED Reply Letter for Jurisdiction of US Constitutional Issues for review by the NYS Court of Appeals

1/14

Christopher-Earl Strunk in esse593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 28 1Brooklyn, New York 11238Phone- 845-90 1-6767Email: chri@,stru*.wsRichard Dearing, Deputy Solicitor GeneralOffice of the State of New York Attorney General120 Broadway 25th FloorNew York, New York 10271

Reference: ~ t k n k. ~aterkon t al.Strunk v. NYS Board of Elections Et al.Strunk v. The State of New York (claim pending)Subject: Confirmation of the Two (2)day extension to file theCPLR $5601 b) 2)Jurisdictional Statement for reviewDear Deputy Dearing,A s had been5suggested s recourse for late filing, Ms. Susan Dautel of the State of NewYork Court of Appeals, 518-455-7701, suggested this method of time extension; and asfollow-up to our phone conversation today wherein having requested two additional daysfor which to file the subject reply and it having been granted - hank you.

I am the Respondent, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, self-represented withoutan attorney, hereby reply to the February 16,2012 response letter of Petitioner H.William Van Allen to the Clerk dated February 10 ,2012 in the application on Strunk v.Paterson et al. (Kings Cty. Index no: 2008-29642, 2nd Dept A.D. 2012-00766) requestingsubmission of a justifying jurisdictional statement for the Court's CPLR 8560 1(b)(2)review of the U.S. Constitutional matter in letter format by February 21, 2012.

Dated: Brooklyn New YorkF e b r u a r y . 2012

. Cc: H. William Van Allen in esse, -

Res ectfully submitted by,

LiiZkd9-Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esseSelf-represented w/o an attorney

The State of New York Court of AppealsAndrew W. Klein, Clerk of the CourtClerk's Office20 Eagle StreetAlbany, New York 12207-1095and Courtesy notice to 20 11-6500 Counsels:Joel. [email protected], [email protected],Thomas Kirby" ,[email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],


2/14

Christopher-Earl Strunk in esse593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 281Brooklyn, New York 11238Phone- 845-901-6767Email: [email protected]

The State of New York Court of AppealsAndrew W. Klein, Clerk of the Court

Clerks Office20 Eagle StreetAlbany, New York 12207-1095

Reference: Strunk v. Paterson Et al.Strunk v. NYS Board of Elections Et al.Strunk v. The State of New York (claim pending)

Subject: CPLR 5601(b)(2) Jurisdictional Statement for review

The Clerk of the Court,

I am the Respondent, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, self-represented without an

attorney, hereby revise my reply to the February 16, 2012 response letter of Petitioner H.William Van Allen to the Clerk dated February 10, 2012 in the application on Strunk v.Paterson et al. (Kings Cty. Index no: 2008-29642, 2nd Dept A.D. 2012-00766) requestingsubmission of a justifying jurisdictional statement for the Courts CPLR 5601(b)(2) reviewof the U.S. Constitutional matter in letter format by February 21, 2012.

That Respondent also seeks review of the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1paragraph 5 ( )1 eligibility natural-born Citizen clause as applies to the subject challengedongoing assertions by the New York State Board of Elections (NYS BOE) in its instructionsto person(s) Running for Office at its website as to Citizenship having chosen to use itsown phrase Born a Citizen instead of the term of art natural-born Citizen (NBC) throughapplication made herein separately and with an active Notice of Motion for Leave to Appealas of Right to the Court of Appeals from the New York State Supreme Court for the Countyof Kings I.A.S Part 27 Index no: 2011-6500 with a return date of February 24, 2012 now asof February 17, 2012 outrageously adjourned sua sponte until April 23, 2012 by JusticeArthur M. Schack in a move to force the primary elections challenge into mootness as done

with the transfer/ consolidation and other motions. That were this court to clarify the NBCholdings from the State of New York holding alone the case below would be resolved.

That I agree that the NBCidiom as selected by the Framers of the U.S. Constitutionis done to conform with the concerns of the People of New York who are intent to safeguardsovereignty to reflect history and practice of the Law of Nations ( )2 since the 26 July 1778ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the representatives assembled for the People of theState of New York ( )3 ; and that as defined by the Legislature by statute example in the Real

1 U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 paragraph 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of thisConstitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office whoshall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the UnitedStates.

2 Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758)

3 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratny.asp "That no Persons except natural born Citizens, or suchas were Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six, or such asheld Commissions under the United States during the War, and have at any time since the fourth day of July

Strunk Reply Letter in re: Jurisdiction Justification Page 1 of 3
mailto:[email protected]://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratny.asphttp://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratny.aspmailto:[email protected]


3/14

Property Law Article 2 Section 18 ( )4 ,and as relates to matters of inheritance that have sincebeen upheld by the venerable State of New York Court of Appeals in its own most stringentprecedents that also conform with precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States(SCOTUS) before and after the addition of the 14th amendment that did not amend the NBCidiom or warrant any other assertion by the NYS BOE than natural-born Citizen.

Respondent has ascertained that there is no New York state statutory provisionwarranting NYS BOE to use Born a Citizen per se rather than NBC, and that there is no

public record of deliberations for such invention; and therefore, is strictly a U.S.Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 NBC eligibility issue the NYS BOE mustconform to in compliance with the body of common law of this Court ( )5 , and in accordance

with SCOTUS precedents ( )6 are contrary to Born a Citizen idiom use.

one thousand seven hundred and seventy six become Citizens of one or other of the United States, and whoshall be Freeholders, shall be eligible to the Places of President, Vice President, or Members of eitherHouse of the Congress of the United States. " (emphasis added)

4 NYS RPL 18. Mines in Saint Lawrence county. The proprietors of any mines or veins of lead or copper in thecounty of Saint Lawrence, may demise, lease, or rent the same for a period not to exceed twenty-one yearsfrom the date of any such lease, to any foreign individual or company, and such lessee may take, hold,

work, use or convey the same during the said term, in the same manner and subject to the same liabilities as ifsuch lessee were a natural born citizen.

5 New York Miscellaneous ReportsPEOPLE v. QUIROGA-PUMA, 18 Misc.3d 731 (2007) No. LX6701631.MATTER OF BROWN, 132 Misc.2d 811 (1986) July 7, 1986 .AGOSTINI v. DE ANTUENO, 199 Misc. 191 (1950) February 20, 1950.PEOPLE EX REL. CHOOLOKIAN v. MISSION OF IMMAC. VIRGIN, 192 Misc. 454 (1947) December 30, 1947.

New York Appellate Division Reports

WILLIAMS v. VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER, 97 App. Div. 84 (1904) July, 1904

New York Court of Appeals ReportsMUNRO v. MERCHANT, 28 N.Y. 9 (1863) September Term, 1863LUDLAM v. LUDLAM, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) March Term, 1863.

WADSWORTH v. WADSWORTH, 12 N.Y. 376 (1855) March Term, 1855McCARTHY v. MARSH, 5 N.Y. 263 (1851) September Term, 1851HOYT v. THOMPSON, 5 N.Y. 320 (1851) September Term, 1851Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand.Ch. 583, 659-663 (N.Y. 1844)

6 Minor. v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 21 Wall. 162, and 22 L. Ed. 627

Cases citing Minor: Boyd. v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971); City of Mobilev. Bolden, 446 U.S 55 (1980); Baldwin v. Fish & Game Commm of Montana, 436 U.S 371 (1978) ; Breedlove v.Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937); US v. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935);Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911); Hague v. Committee For Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939);Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245 (1934); Harris v. Mcrae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980); Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S 47(1907); Kepner v. U.S., 195 U.S. 100 (1904); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969); Lynch v.Overholser, 369 U.S. 705 (1962); N.Y. Ex Rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63 (1928); Rodriguez v. PopularDemocratic Party, 457 U.S. 1 (1982); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 816 (1971); Schick v. U.S., 195 U.S. 65 (1904);

Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944); South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905); In Re Summers, 325 U.S.561 (1945); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)

Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894), that is essentially the holy grail of support for Minor v. Happersett,

as it states:In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court heldthat the word citizen is often used to convey theidea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of theUnited States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the

fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since and also the City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980)

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=0&k2dockey=21145255@COLL13http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=1&k2dockey=3448758@COLL13http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=2&k2dockey=3489283@COLL13http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=3&k2dockey=3491463@COLL13http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=4&k2dockey=14075085@COLL21http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=5&k2dockey=14120286@COLL41http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=6&k2dockey=14120214@COLL41http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=7&k2dockey=14119195@COLL41http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=8&k2dockey=14121340@COLL41http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=9&k2dockey=14121345@COLL41http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=154&invol=116http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=154&invol=116http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=9&k2dockey=14121345@COLL41http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=8&k2dockey=14121340@COLL41http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=7&k2dockey=14119195@COLL41http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=6&k2dockey=14120214@COLL41http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=5&k2dockey=14120286@COLL41http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=4&k2dockey=14075085@COLL21http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=3&k2dockey=3491463@COLL13http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=2&k2dockey=3489283@COLL13http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=1&k2dockey=3448758@COLL13http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=0&k2dockey=21145255@COLL13


4/14

That Respondent contends that the actions of both NYS BOE Commissioners andChairmen are contrary to the law of the land notwithstanding whether or not Petitioner is -an Independence Party minor state party member, or that Plaintiff / Respondent is aRepublican. The entire party structure in this s tate is rotten to the core beyond the controlof the Major State Party members by design of law tha t is an asset of a special interestracketeering enterprise to be dealt with elsewhere, and that the cabal's arbitrary andcapricious actions to control the election process goes way beyond the pale of any bi-partisan aggrandizement in my direct experience since 1968; and that Respondent as wellas Petitioner suffer a particularized individual injury with ongoing irreparable harm as aperson singled out for treatment separate and apart from major party members whoseallegiance benefits a sizeable enterprise outside of New York.That Respondent also seeks a finding by the State of New York Court of Appealsstrictly on the U.S.Constitutional NBC eligibility Issue that has no state statutory provisionguidance, but is a matter of ultra vires .arbitrary and capricious discretion facilitated in a 'wide ranging conspiracy to use 'Born a Citizen" versus "natural born Citizen". Respondentas with Petitioner wishes a schedule for submission of briefs at the Court's earliestconvenienceas the ongoing injury with irreparable harm is of the utmost importance astime is of the essence with the 2012 election cycle and with Respondent's own intent to filewith the Court of Claims pending on a time deadline.

Dated: Brooklyn New YorkFebruary 19,2012

\

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esseself-represented w/o an attorneyAttached - Index No: 20 11-6500 motion calendarCc: H. ~ i l l i &Van Allen in esse,State of New York Solicitor General, and Courtesy notice to 201 1-6500 Counsels:[email protected], [email protected], Thomas Kirby" [email protected]&>,walbe~arrisbeach.com,[email protected],[email protected], [email protected],iwehne~apdale.com, co~be t~&risbeach .com,klate~bskl.com, reich~ii)~.bskl.com,tbromberg@deyrein. com, jbaran&vileyrein.com,gany@harrisbeach corn, ~hilli~~.cavdale.com

Iw l i s v. Suitots' Snua H&r, 28 U.S.9 9 ,3 Pet. 99 ,7 L.Ed. 617 (1830)therein C.J. John Marshal on howNew York law and British common law apply before and after 1776 Independence affects the right to take landin controversy by decent in New York:Ma r b um v. Madfmn,5 U.8.(1Cranchl 137'(1803)herein Justice Marshal stated "Noprovision of theConstitutionmay render any otherprovision meariingless."The V e n u ~ 2 U.S. 8 Cranch) 253,289 (1814)Stowr Et aL v. Brown. secmtawOf&ate af C aE l f o m k Et At. 415 U.8.724 (1974)

L

U.S.TermLimits. Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 1995) states have no authority to change, add, ordiminish the eligibility requirements for members of Congress)



5/14

February 10 ,201 2

Mr.H. William V an Allen35 1North RoadHurley, New York 12443

Re: Strunk v PatersonDear M r. Van Allen:

Th e Court has received your preliminary appeal statement and will exam ine itssubject matter jurisdiction with respect to w hether you hav e siinultaneously appealed tothe Appellate Division and the C ourt of Appeals from the S upreme Court order (seeParker v Rogerson, 35 NY2d 75 1, 753-754), the order appealed from finally determinesthe action within the meaning of the Con stitution, and any basis exists for a direct appealpursuant to C PLR 5 601(b)(2). This examination of jurisdiction shall not preclude theCourt from addressing any jurisdictional concerns in the future.

You should file within ten days after this letter's date your co mm ents in letterformat justifying the retention of su bject matter jurisdiction, By copy o f this letter, youradversary is likewise afforded the opportunity to co mm ent in letter format on the C ourt'ssubiect matter jurisdiction within the sam e ten-day period after this letter's date. Allletters shall be filed with pro of o f service of one copy o f the letter on each party.Th e times within which briefs on the m erits must be filed are held in abeyan ceduring the pendency of this jurisdictional inquiry. If this inquiry is terminated by theCourt, the Clerk will notify counsel in writing and s et a schedule for the perfecting of theappeal. This comm unication is without prejudice to any motion any party may wish tomake.


6/14

Strunk v Paterson-Page 2-February 10,2012

If you have any questions regarding this letter, you may contact either SusanDautel (5 18-455-7701) or James Costello (5 18-455-7702).Very truly yours,

cc: Christopher Earl StrunkHon. Eric T. Schneiderman


7/14

H. William Van Allen351North RoadHurley, New York 12443

The State of New York Court of AppealsAndrew W. Klein, Clerk of the CourtClerk's Office20 Eagle StreetAlbany, New York 12207- 1095

Reference: Strun k v. PatersonSubject: CPLR 5 560 1 b) 2)Jurisdictional Statem ent for review

The Clerk of the Court,I am th e Petitioner, H. William Van Allen in esse , self-represented without an

attorney, hereby respond to the letter of the Clerk dated February 10, 2012 requestingsubm ission of a justifying jurisdictional sta tem ent for the Court's CPLR 5560 1 b)(2 )review of the U.S. Constitutional matter in letter format by February 2 1, 2 0 12.

That Petitioner seeks review of th e U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1paragraph 5 (1)eligibility "natural-born Citizen" clause as applies to th e subjectchallenged ongoing asse rtions by th e New York State Board of Elections in itsinst ruct ions to person(s) "Running for Office" a t it s website having chosen t o use itsown phrase "Born a Citizen" ins tead of the term of ar t "natu ral-born Citizen" (NBC).

That NBC idiom as selected by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution is done toconform with the concerns of the People of New York who ar e intent to safeguardsovereignty to reflect history and practice of the "Law of Nations" (2) since the 26 Ju ly1778 ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the representatives assem bled for thePeople of the S ta te of New York (31; and tha t a s defined by th e Legislature by s tatut e' U.S. Co nstitut ion Article II Se ct io n 1 paragraph 5:"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time ofthe Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shallany Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty fiveYears, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Enier de Vattel, TheLaw of Nations, (London 1797) ( I t ed. Neuchatel 1758)http:/ /avalon.law.yale.edu/ 18th centurvlratny.asp "That no Persons except natural bornitizc-ns, or such a s were Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand sevenhundred and seventy six, or such as held Commissions under the United States during theWar, and have a t any time since the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred andseventy six become Citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be Freeholders,shall be eligible to the Places of President, Vice President, or Members of either House ofthe Congress of the United States. " (emphasisadded)

Petitioner Letter of Jurisdiction Justification Page 1 of 3


8/14

example in the Real Property Law Article 2 Section 18 (41,andas relates to matters ofinheritance that have since been upheld by the venerable S tate of New York Court ofAppeals in it s own most stringent precedents th at also conform with precedents of theSupreme Court of the United S tates (SCOTUS) before an d after the addition of the 1 4 t hamendment t ha t did not amend the NBC idiom or warrant any other assertion by theNYS BOE th an "natural-born Citizen".There is no sta te statu tory provision warranting NYS BOE to .use "Born aCitizen" per se ra ther than NBC; and therefore, is strictly a U.S. Constitutional Article2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 NBC eligibility issue that the NYS BOE must conform to, incompliance with the body of common law of this Court ( 5 ) , and in accordance withSCOTUS precedents (6) ha t a re contrary to "Born a Citizen" idiom use.

4 NYS RPL 5 18. Mines in Sa int Lawrence county. The proprietors of any mines or veins oflead or copper in the county of Sain t Lawrence, may demise, lease, or ren t the same for aperiod not to exceed twenty-one years from the date of any such lease, to any foreignindividual or company, and su ch lessee may take, hold, work, use or convey the same duringthe said term, in the same manner and subject to the same liabilities a s if suc h lessee were anatura l born citizen.5 New York Miscellaneous ReportsPEOPLE v. OUIROGA-PUMA, 18 Misc.3d 73 1 (2007) No. LX670 16 31.MATTER OF BROWN, 132 Misc.2d 8 11 (19861July 7, 1986 .AGOSTINI v. DE ANTUENO, 199 Misc. 19 1 ( 1950) February 20, 1950.PEOPLE EX REL. CHOOLOKIAN v. MISSION OF IMMAC. VIRGIN, 192 Misc. 454 (19471December 30, 1947.New York Appellate Division ReportsWILLIAMS v. VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER, 97 App. Div. 84 (l904_1 uly, 1904New York Court of Appeals ReportsMUNRO v. MERICHANT,28 N.Y. 9 (18631 September Term, 1863LUDLAM v. LUDLAM, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) March Term, 1863 ..........................................WADSWORTH v. WADSWORTH, 12 N.Y. 376 (1855) March Term, 1855McCARTHY v. MARSH, 5 N.Y. 263 (1851) September Term, 1851HOYT v. THOMPSON, 5 N.Y. 320 11851) September Term, 1851Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand.Ch. 583, 659-663 (N.Y. 1844)6 Minor. v. Happersett: 88U.S. 162 (1875), 1 Wall. 162, nd 22L.Ed. 627Cases citing Minor: Boyd. v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892);Rogers v. Bellei, 40 1 U.S. 8 15(1971); City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S 55 (19 80);Baldwin v. F ish & Game Comm7mofMontana, 436 U.S 37 1 (1978);Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937); US v. CLASSIC, 313U.S. 299 (1941); Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935); Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911);Hague v. Committee For Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939); Hamilton v. Regents,293 U.S. 245 (1934); Harris v. Mcrae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980); Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S 47(1907); Kepner v. U.S., 195 U.S. 100 (1904); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 62 1(1969); Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 70 5 (1962);N.Y. Ex Rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S.63 (1928);Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1 (1982);Rogers v. Bellei, 40 1 U.S.816 (1971);Schick v. U.S., 195 U.S. 65 (1904);Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944); Sou th

Petitioner Letter of Jurisdiction Justifica tion Page 2 of 3


9/14

That Petitioner a s an Independence Party minor st ate party member, unlikePlaintiff / Respondent a Republican, is not a member of the Major State Parties th athave arbitrarily a nd capriciously controlled the election process for bi-partisanaggrandizement for a s long a s I have memory, and as su ch Petitioner suffers aparticularized in jury with ongoing irreparable harm a s a person singled out fortreatment separate and apa rt from major party members who by their membershipwould benefit from the bi-partisan aggrandizement.

Tha t Petitioner merely seeks a finding by the State of New York Court ofAppeals strictly on the U.S. Constitutional NBC eligibility Issue th at h as no sta testatutory provision guidance, bu t is a matter of ultra vires arbitrary and capriciousdiscretion facilitated for bi-partisan aggrandizement with use of "Born a Citizen"versus "natural born Citizen". Petitioner wishes a schedule for submission of briefs atthe Court's earliest convenience as the ongoing injury with irreparable harrn is of theutmost importance a s time is of the essence with the 2012 election cycle and withPetitioner's own intent to file with the Court of Claims pending on a time deadline.

Respectfully subm itted by,

Dated: Hurley NeF e b r u a r y ~ ~ ~ l /fl. William Van Allen in essef Self-represented w/o an attorney351 North Road

Hurley, New York 12443Phone: [email protected]: Christopher Earl S tru nk in es se, State of New York Solicitor General

Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905); n Re Summer s, 325 U.S. 561 (1945);U.S. v. Wong KimArk,169 U.S. 649 (1898);Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)Ex Parte Lockwood, 154U.S. 116 (1894),ha t is essentially the holy grail of support forMinor v. Happersett, a s i t states: "In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, thi s court held that theword 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense,women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always beenconsidered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenthamendment of the constitution as since... (Emphasis added) an d also the City of Mobile v.Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980)Elk v. WiZkins, 1 1 2 U.S. 94 (1884)I n g l i s v. S a i lo r s ' S n u g H a r b o r , 28 U . S . 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830) herein C.J. Joh nMarshal on how New York law and British common law apply before an d after 1776Independence affects the right to t ake la nd in controversy by decent in New York:

Petitioner Letter of Jurisd iction Jus tifica tion Page 3 of 3


10/14

Subject: Case Name: STRUNK CHRISTOPHER-EARL vs. NYS BOARD OF ELECTIONS Index Number: 006500/201104/23/2012 Motion

From: Bill Van Allen ([email protected])To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

Cc :[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

Date: Friday, February 17, 2012 7:54 PM

WebCivil Supreme - Case Detail

Court: Kings Civil Supreme

Index Number: 006500/2011

Case Name: STRUNK CHRISTOPHER-EARL vs. NYS BOARD OF ELECTIONS

Case Type: Other Torts

Track: Standard

RJI Filed: 05/02/2011

Date NOI Due:

NOI Filed:

Disposition Date:

Calendar Number:

Jury Status:

Justice Name: ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)

Attorney/Firm For Plaintiff:

CHRISTOPHER-EARL - Prose Attorney Type: Pro se Atty. Status: Active

Attorney/Firm For Defendant:

CAPLIN & DRYSDALE,CHARTERED Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record Atty. Status: Active

ONE THOMAS CIRCLE, NW

WASHINGTON, DC 20005

202-862-5000

WebCivil Supreme - Appearance Detail


Index Number:006500/2011



Track: Standard

Appearance Information:

Appearance Time On For Appearance Justice / Comments Motion

http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=7ftp

2/17/201


11/14

Date Outcome Part Seq

04/23/2012 Motion ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)

MOTION TRIAL TERM 27

015

04/11/2012 Supreme Trial ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)

INTAKE PART

02/24/2012 Motion Adjourned ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)

SUBSEQUENT M OTION PART

015

01/11/2012 Supreme Trial Adjourned ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)

INTAKE PART

10/26/2011 Motion Motion Decided-Open Appearance ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)


PT. 27 JUDGE DECLINED TO SIGN OSC 014


INTAKE PART

08/22/2011 Motion Decision Reserved ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)


001



002



007



006



005



004

08/22/2011 Motion Decision Reserved ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)MOTION TRIAL TERM 27 003



011



010



008



012



009



013


INTAKE PART



005



012



003



004



001



007



006

08/01/2011 Motion Adjourned ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)MOTION TRIAL TERM 27

002



008



009



010



011

06/17/2011 Supreme Initial (first time on) Adjourned ARTHUR M. SCHACK (PT. 27)

INTAKE PART



005


2/17/201


12/14



007



004


MOTION PART

003


MOTION PART

001



006


MOTION PART

WebCivil Supreme - Motion Detail


Index Number: 006500/2011



Track: Standard

Motion Information:

MotionNumber

DateFiled

FiledBy Relief Sought

SubmitDate

AnswerDemanded Status Decision

OrderSigned Date

015 02/09/2012 PLAINT Stay Proceedings No Open:

Before Justice: SCHACK

014 10/26/2011 PLAINT Preliminary Injunction No Decided: 26-OCT-11

DECLINED TO SIGN APPLICATION


Memo

013 08/17/2011 DEF Dismissal Yes Open:




011 07/12/2011 DEF Dismissal No Open:










006 05/23/2011 PLAINT Consolidation No Open:








002 05/05/2011 DEF Other Reliefs No Open:





2/17/201


13/14

STATE FNE WYORKOFFICEOFTH E A ~ O R N E YENERAL

February 16,2012The Honorable Andrew W. KleinClerk of the CourtNew York Court of Appeals20 Eagle StreetAlbany, NY 12207-1095

Re: Strunk v. Paterson, A.D. No . 2012-00766Dear Mr. Klein:

I write in response to your let ter of February 10, 2012, inviting the par ties toaddress th e question of the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction. As I will explain, th eCourt lacks jurisdiction over th is improperly taken appeal.

As your letter suggested, M r. Van Allen is simultaneously pursuing appealsin this Court and the Appellate Division, Second Department, which deprives thisCourt of jurisdiction. See Parker v. Rogerson, 35 N.Y.2d 751,753-54 (1974). Mr. VanAllen noticed a n appeal to the Appellate Division on December 3, 2011. On January26, 2012, the Appellate Division notified the parties that it had opened a file andassigned a docket number to the appeal. Jus t two ways later , however, on Jan ua ry28, Mr. Van Allen noticed a n appeal to thi s Court, without wi thdrawing his appealto the Appellate Division. He served a n amended notice of appeal to th is Court onFebruary 14, 2012, th at did not correct this defect.

Further, there would be no basis for an appeal as of right. Under C.P.L.R5601@)(2), such a n appeal is available only from a n order of the trial court t ha t"finally determines an action" presenting the constitutionality of a statute. Theorder at issue here, however, denied Mr. Van Allen's motion to intervene i n anongoing litigation, a nd therefore did not finally determine the action, which remainspending in the tria l court.

120 BROADWAY, E W YORKN.Y. 10271-0332 PHON E (212)416-8020 FAX (212) 416 896 2 NOT FOR SERVICE F PAPERSllttp://ag.ny.go.o\-


14/14

Page 2

For these reasons, the motion for leave to appeal should be denied and theappeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Respectfully yours,

CLAUDE S. PLATTONAssistant Solicitor [email protected](212) 416-6511

Cc: H. William Van Allen351 North RoadHurley, NY 12443

ces revised reply letter for jurisdiction of us constitutional issues for review by the nys court of...

Documents